Battle of the Marijuana Bills: Why ‘Regulate’ is Better Than ‘Repeal’

There are two legalization of cannabis initiatives that look like they may get on the ballot this year – neither of which resemble or have anything to do with Prop 19. Those who brought you Prop 19 in 2010 have dropped out of the race.

The Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act of 2012 (RMLW) and The Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012 (RPC) both enjoy broad-based support, and both appear to be able to get the funding to be on the ballot in 2012.

Read the text of RMLW

Read the text of RCP

Here are 5 reasons why the RMLW Act is far superior to the RCP Act:

1) There are no colossal screw-ups in RMLW. There is a glaring omission in RCP that would leave everyone vulnerable to arrest.

RMLW would repeal Section 11999 of California’s Health and Safety Code that defines marijuana as a controlled substance. RCP would not. By including the repeal of Section 11999, RMLW ensures that marijuana prohibition really will be repealed and not left standing due to an incomplete listing of the controlling statutes. Don’t take my word for it, read this excerpt from the California Health and Safety Code and decide for yourself:

SECTION 11999. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(b) The Legislature has classified certain substances as controlled substances and has defined the lawful and unlawful use of controlled substances which are commonly referred to as, but not limited to, anabolic steroids, marijuana, and cocaine.

As you can see, this statute, if left standing, could still be used to uphold marijuana prohibition. Thanks to the Chief Counsel of RMLW Bill McPike, all the controlling statutes – including 11999 – were properly included in the list of laws to be repealed by RMLW. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of RCP.

2) RMLW would repeal felony convictions for minors and replace felonies with fines instead. RCP would not.

RMLW states:

(5) For persons under 21 years of age it is an infraction punishable by a fine up to $2,500.00, for any one of the following:
(A) Possession of over one ounce of marijuana.
(B) Cultivation of marijuana.
(C) Gifting, sharing, distributing, sales, storage, transporting over one ounce of marijuana.
(D) Possession of one ounce or less of marijuana, in this class shall be an infraction with a $100 fine.

RCP applies to adults only. There are no reduced penalties of any kind for those under 21 years old in RCP. Jail is much more dangerous to those under 21 than cannabis ever could be. If you want young people to stop going to jail for cannabis offences then support and vote for RMLW.

3) Only RMLW would prohibit local jurisdictions from banning or taxing dispensaries or instituting discriminatory licensing practices. RCP would not.

From RMLW:

(7) No later than February 1, 2013, the state Alcohol Beverage Control Board shall adopt regulations and procedures, provide and accept forms for the implementation of commercial activity under this Act. Such regulations shall not prohibit marijuana farming, the operation of marijuana establishments or point of sale outlets, either expressly or through regulations that make their operation different than wine or beer regulations and fees, or unreasonably impracticable. … Localities may not adopt higher or extra fees, limits, site plans, zoning, regulations or procedures for commercial activity which are different than those which regulate grape farms, wineries, distribution and sales of wine and beer.

Part of the reluctance of the California public to fully support Prop 19 was a fear that the discriminatory licensing practices – practices that only allowed four med pot dispensaries in Oakland or 41 med pot dispensaries in Los Angeles – would have continued under Prop 19. With RMLW, the authors have ensured that everyone who wants to be a part of the economy will be able to get a job cultivating or retailing, just like the wine industry (there are approximately 11,000 places to buy alcohol in Los Angeles and 160 places to buy alcohol in Oakland, and no “caps” on the number of commercial growers of wine grapes).

Most medical cannabis dispensaries don’t realize it yet, but the recent Tentative Opinion issued recently by the 4th District Court of Appeals in the case of City of Riverside vs. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center could spell the end of dispensaries located in unfriendly jurisdictions. That is because the court has tentatively concluded that under existing state laws, cities and counties can ban collectives under their zoning ordinances. Once this opinion becomes final, we could be looking at a mass extinction of medical cannabis dispensaries. Only RMLW can override this decision and keep dispensaries open.

4) Only RMLW would explicitly prohibit the monopolization of the cannabis industry with a prohibition on Genetically Modified cannabis. RCP would not.

RMLW states:

(10) Experimentation, development, research, testing, cultivation, sales, or possession of genetically-modified (GMO) marijuana, hemp, and its seeds, shall be banned throughout the state of California.

The Monsanto Corporation has used their genetically modified plants to justify unfair monopolies and destroy the livelihood (and steal the strains of) farmers.

RMLW would stop that from happening with cannabis in California. RCP would not.

5) Only the model represented by RMLW enjoys over 62% support in California polls.

The Economist magazine, on February 5-8, 2011, conducted a poll (PDF) of a thousand Americans. One question asked:

30. Some people say marijuana should be treated like alcohol and tobacco. They say it should be regulated and taxed and made illegal for minors. Do you agree?

Strongly agree . . 34%
Agree . . 24%
Neither agree, nor disagree . . 19%
Disagree . .. 7%
Strongly disagree . . 16%

When The Economist was contacted and paid to break down the results by region, the “Western USA” region (which includes California) showed over 62% support for regulating marijuana like alcohol. It appears that replacing cannabis prohibition with a familiar regulatory structure enjoys significantly more support than any simple repeal initiative, as “legalization” without regulation has only been able to muster 55% support.

It is clear that, with the last effort for cannabis law reform failing by such a small margin – with 53.5% of California voters voting “No” and 46.5% voting “Yes” in 2010 – every little bit of support will count, and the 7% difference between support for “regulation like wine” over “simple legalization” may mean the difference between success and failure.

Finally, this author would like to add that the rumors about Steve Kubby removing RMLW from the initiative process are false.

Mr. Kubby’s statements regarding RMLW being “backup” to RCP should be taken in the spirit of his cooperative, work-with-everyone ethic rather than an admission of inferiority or a reluctance on his part to do everything within his power to put RMLW on the ballot. Mr. Kubby feels that RMLW is the superior of the two initiatives, and encourages everyone to read both initiatives and judge for themselves which one will result in the kind of legalization cannabis activists have been fighting to create for at least 46 years.

Read Steve Kubby’s latest article on The Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act of 2012 for more information on polling in California.

Find out more at RegulateMarijuanaLikeWine.com

Comments

296 Comments

  1. Pingback: pc games free download full version for windows xp

  2. Pingback: free pc games download full version for windows 8

  3. Pingback: G-Spot Massager

  4. Pingback: life insurance loans

  5. Pingback: VU+ Solo2

  6. Pingback: black magic specialist

  7. Pingback: Best love spell caster

  8. Pingback: Jeep

  9. Pingback: pc games free download full version for windows 8

  10. Pingback: heart png

  11. Pingback: free pc games download full version for windows xp

  12. Pingback: website here

  13. Pingback: barrie movers.ca

  14. Pingback: Dentist Kings cross

  15. Pingback: בגדי הריון

  16. Pingback: 福井歯医者

  17. Pingback: 福井歯医者

  18. Pingback: 福井歯医者

  19. Pingback: 福井歯医者

  20. Pingback: pc games free download full version for windows 7

  21. Pingback: full download for windows 10

  22. Pingback: pc games free download full version for mac

  23. Pingback: full download for pc

  24. Pingback: pdr training

  25. Pingback: best work from home jobs

  26. Pingback: how to make money from home

  27. Pingback: android themes free download

  28. Pingback: pokemon ruby download

  29. Pingback: mdansby software

  30. Pingback: jd25g

  31. Pingback: Scopri la verità

  32. Pingback: nighty

  33. Pingback: Silicone G-Spot Vibrator

  34. Pingback: Anal Stimulation

  35. Pingback: science news

  36. Pingback: pink eye herpes symptoms

  37. Pingback: kala jadu

  38. Pingback: adult Party Essentials

  39. Pingback: need for speed download

  40. Pingback: vibrating dildo

  41. Pingback: games for android

  42. Pingback: android games download

  43. Pingback: make money

  44. Pingback: Vibrating Dildo

  45. Pingback: Trenda - Pop Culture, News, Entertainment

  46. Pingback: the best herbal treatment for herpes

  47. Pingback: Donate a remaining balance gift card

  48. Pingback: Drug

  49. Pingback: pc games free download full version for windows 10

  50. Pingback: visit

  51. Pingback: electronics digital

  52. Pingback: bidding websites

  53. Pingback: pc games free download full version for windows 7

  54. Pingback: KODI

  55. Pingback: Hob Reducer For Small Coffee Pot Bialetti Moka Makers Gas Ring

  56. Pingback: surveys for money

  57. Pingback: Web Design Company Aberdeen

  58. Pingback: buy nipple clamps

  59. Pingback: silicone vibrators

  60. Pingback: Thrusting Sex Toy

  61. Pingback: Brain

  62. Pingback: Online personality test

  63. Pingback: Humans

  64. Pingback: Free Download For Windows 7

  65. Pingback: happiness

  66. Pingback: free download for android

  67. Pingback: male sex toys

  68. Pingback: Celebrity Sex Toys

  69. Pingback: mesothelioma lawer

  70. Pingback: Marriott Hotels

  71. Pingback: azdox s960

  72. Pingback: love quotes for him

  73. Pingback: Hotel Tonight

  74. Pingback: Pet Friendly Hotels

  75. Pingback: インフルエンザ

  76. Pingback: сталик ханкишиев

  77. Pingback: huge discounts

  78. Pingback: Drug rehabilitation center

  79. Pingback: dedicated server

  80. Pingback: Commercial Gutter Cleaning

  81. Pingback: Traveling agencies

  82. Pingback: legit email processing jobs

  83. Pingback: Toned In Ten Review

  84. Pingback: 10 Minute Fat Loss Review

  85. Pingback: free software download for pc

  86. Pingback: manage dedicated server

  87. Pingback: Las Vegas PRP Hair

  88. Pingback: free software download for windows 8

  89. Pingback: TAXI DUBROVNIK

  90. Pingback: Venta de Camiones

  91. Pingback: tamil sex story

  92. Pingback: хирург

  93. Pingback: malay sex stories

  94. Pingback: free software download for windows 8

  95. Pingback: nyt best sellers

  96. Pingback: best selling books

  97. Pingback: Online FREE Personality Test

  98. Pingback: what is my personality

  99. Pingback: witchtalismans

  100. Pingback: fetish sex

  101. Pingback: cut resistant gloves

  102. Pingback: Flat Belly Fast DVD Review

  103. Pingback: Diy Home Energy System Review

  104. Pingback: Happiness

  105. Pingback: Be Happy

  106. Pingback: Human Rights

  107. Pingback: Riding vibrator

  108. Pingback: anal toys

  109. Pingback: anal plug

  110. Pingback: prostate vibrator

  111. Pingback: online sex toy

  112. Pingback: Iphone st Augustine

  113. Pingback: anal sex toys

  114. Pingback: ran zituni fraud

  115. Pingback: Managed Services Provider

  116. Pingback: T-shirts Factory

  117. Pingback: cats

  118. Pingback: porn

  119. Pingback: car interior cleaning

  120. Pingback: casas de apuestas españolas

  121. Pingback: sahara;

  122. Pingback: recycling equipment me

  123. Pingback: 40ft flat pack container houses manufacturers

  124. Pingback: 1000 Thread count sheets queen Egyptian cotton

  125. Pingback: Drei Shop Innsbruck Hall

  126. Pingback: lanka hot news

  127. Pingback: square shot glasses

  128. Pingback: Brains

  129. Pingback: how the brain works

  130. Pingback: Electrician

  131. Pingback: worldwide chat rooms

  132. Pingback: インフルエンザ

  133. Pingback: インフルエンザ

  134. Pingback: インフルエンザ

  135. Pingback: juegos de apuestas deportivas gratis

  136. Pingback: PlayStation 4

  137. Pingback: プラセンタ

  138. Pingback: プラセンタ

  139. Pingback: プラセンタ

  140. Pingback: プラセンタ

  141. Pingback: adenosine

  142. Pingback: sodick

  143. Pingback: ombc

  144. Pingback: image

  145. Pingback: online istikhara

  146. Pingback: health benefits of cinnamon

  147. Pingback: apuestas liga bbva

  148. Pingback: kala jadu

  149. Pingback: recipes

  150. Pingback: Check valve manufacturer

  151. Pingback: Onderwys verander lewens en verander ekonomieë.

  152. Pingback: casino

  153. Pingback: novomatic book of ra

  154. Pingback: Best Family Law Attorney

  155. Pingback: senior transportation Richmond va

  156. Pingback: Turen

  157. Pingback: Turen

  158. Pingback: free legitimate work at home jobs

  159. Pingback: Custody Mediation

  160. Pingback: 受注管理システム

  161. Pingback: Cash for cars

  162. Pingback: Denver office space news

  163. Pingback: Wood fired oven Pizza Party

  164. Pingback: cork coasters

  165. Pingback: JUAL Pompa Air Tenaga Surya paket lengkap LORENTZ

  166. Pingback: wedding fans

  167. Pingback: Poloshirts Druck

  168. Pingback: Youtube Channel

  169. Pingback: como fazer retrospectiva infantil

  170. Pingback: Pinganillos

  171. Pingback: Click here

  172. Pingback: About- AtlantaPiano

  173. Pingback: lava rock Veneers

  174. Pingback: will lawyer

  175. Pingback: how to fix a garage door

  176. Pingback: mypsychicadvice.com

  177. Pingback: satta matka

  178. Pingback: Divorce Law Firm for Men

  179. Pingback: click to read

  180. Pingback: PC Games Download

  181. Pingback: Free Games downloads

  182. Pingback: SEO services in Lahore

  183. Pingback: how to make an app

  184. Pingback: more information

  185. Pingback: More information

  186. Pingback: SEO training in Lahore

  187. Pingback: mentor

  188. Pingback: smart repair

  189. Pingback: military boots for desert deployments

  190. Pingback: https://autoprotectionoptions.com/autoprotection-homepage

  191. Pingback: Free Games online

  192. Pingback: Play free games

  193. Pingback: CPA Medicaid Experience

  194. Pingback: useful reference

  195. Pingback: SATTA MATKA

  196. Pingback: satta matka

  197. Pingback: london

  198. Pingback: home improvement ideas

  199. Pingback: Cheap spider feet displays

  200. Pingback: kala jadoo

  201. Pingback: 注管理システム

  202. Pingback: black magic

  203. Pingback: vigra

  204. Pingback: www.mypsychicadvice.com

  205. Pingback: Destination

  206. Pingback: plovdiv

  207. Pingback: how to make money on the internet

  208. Pingback: ski resorts

  209. Pingback: VIIAINTERNATIONAL.COM

  210. Pingback: Fenster

  211. Pingback: yenchua.com

  212. Pingback: Cheap Sleeveless Shirts Online

  213. Pingback: Sex with a Beaver

  214. Pingback: earn money online from home

  215. Pingback: details

  216. Pingback: more info

  217. Pingback: http://www.hamefanim.co.il/

  218. Pingback: poweful taweez for love

  219. Pingback: internet

  220. Pingback: Home Automation

  221. Pingback: Home Security

  222. Pingback: funny videos

  223. Pingback: make an app

  224. Pingback: Home Surveillance Florida

  225. Pingback: custom paint

  226. Pingback: buy coffee beans

  227. Pingback: gourmet hawaiian coffee

  228. Pingback: gourmet hawaiian coffee

  229. Pingback: gourmet hawaiian coffee

  230. Pingback: gourmet hawaiian coffee

  231. Pingback: gourmet hawaiian coffee

  232. Pingback: Google

  233. Anonymous on

    Check out http://www.lynnicewedewer.com 32 year cancer cannabis study participant speaks out on cannabis curing cancer currently curing her cancer the 8th time.. 7 of her cancer journeys in part or whole was cured by cannabis.

  234. ElPatricio on

    Ernst could not be more wrong about the likelihood of RMLW receiving less support in California than last year’s Proposition 19.

    Last year was a midterm election, when only older and more serious voters turn out at the polls. Last year, more voters were over 65 than under 30. As Ernst should know, bias against cannabis is far more common among those born before the Baby Boom.

    Next year, voter demographics will be more favorable. For instance, in the 2008 election with Barack Obama on the ballot, voters under 25 outnumbered those over 65. A complete reversal of last year’s midterm electorate.

    We can expect a similar turnout of younger voters for the presidential vote next year.

    Add to that the inevitable effect of mortality on voter demographics. Every day, a thousand World War II-era veterans die, and are replaced by newly adult and more pro-cannabis voters.

    With Gallup finding a first-time majority of Americans supporting legalization, the RMLW initiative has a good chance of success. And as law enforcement proves by its zealous pursuit of “intent to sell” arrests, retail sales are the most important activity to legalize to assure access for all.

  235. Paul Pot on

    I deeply appreciate that the people behind this bill have the foresight to prohibit genetically engineered cannabis (I hope that includes the hemp as well as the ganga).
    That stuff really is dangerous and you don’t even have to smoke or eat it for it to be dangerous. Drifting clouds of GM hemp pollen could cause illness to whole communities.
    And once the RMLW has been successful, I hope that this law can be applied to all GMO’s.

  236. Ozlanthos on

    It is a tough pill to swallow, but facts are facts. Without a regulated framework people will abuse their customers. It happens right now due to the lack of a regulated legal market. One guy will charge you $40 for 3.5 grams of leaves, twigs, and nuts, and another guy will charge you $30 for 4.0 grams of the kind! No regulation means, no real standard of measurement of quality, quantity, safety, purity, and efficacy. Are ALL subjective values in an unregulated marektplace.

    What if a legal market meant that you could buy and grow seeds from anywhere on the planet in your backyard, basement or spare bedroom? Could you live with a regulated market if it meant that you could go to 7-11 and pick up a “fresh” eighth of whateveryouwant for about $10, and KNOW that it was 4.0 grams of mite, mold, and adulterant-free green goodness? What if it also meant that people would no longer be arrested or imprisoned for cultivation, distribution, possession, sale(unless of course they were doing it commercially without a permit or license), or using of Cannabis? I know I could!

    -Oz

  237. Ozlanthos on

    There is such a thing. Who What Where Why and When and all that. It is easy to forget in this time of sensationalism. Not being familiar with your ballot procedures, is there some reason that this is an either/or decision to be made by the voters? And if your initiative fails, would you vote for the other bill?

    -Oz

  238. Ozlanthos on

    You have to talk numbers or you will not get anywhere. People want to know things like “Will it produce more income than costs associated with enforcing it’s regulations”? “How will the new tax revenue be allocated”? In truth it doesn’t really help us do more than get a framework because Cannabis has been illegal for so long. However, the regulation of the associated commerce has always been the name of the game. You have to. You do not have a choice. It is inevitable. Making assertions within the text of the bill ensures that you will not be dictated someone else’s terms! I mean really, what would you rather have? A bill that legalizes Cannabis for private and commercial production and sale….with a stated 15% Cannabinoid sales tax, or a decriminalization bill with no such language? In the later, the county and city governments will tax the industry to death, and be just as happy doing it as they are with throwing us in jail today!

    -Oz

  239. William G. Panzer on

    The author’s contention that §11999 would allow enfocement of cannabis laws is just plain wrong.

    If you read DIvision 10.7 of the Health & Safety Code, (of which §11999 is merely the first of several statutes), you’ll find §11999.1 reads as follows:

    > For the purpose of this division, the following
    > definitions apply:
    > (a) “Drug” means all of the following:
    > (1) Any controlled substance as defined in Division 10 (commencing
    > with Section 11000).

    §11000, the which this section refers, is the beginning of “DIVISION 10. UNIFORM CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT”

    Currently, marijuana is included in DIVISION 10 in §11054(d) (13). Tetrahydrocannabinols are included in §11054(d)(20).

    §11421(a) of RCPA specifically repeals these sections. As a result, marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinols would no longer be controlled substances or “drugs” as defined in 11999.1. As Such, 11999 et seq. would be inapplicable to cannabis. The language in §11999(b) is merely prefatory and is not considered by the courts unless there is an ambiguity in the rest of the statutory scheme. Here there is none. To the extent that the word “marijuana” would remain in §11999(b), it would become superfluous and effectively rendered meaningless by the removal of §11054(d)(13)&(20).

    Or, to put it another way, just what offense do you believe someone could be charged with based only upon the inclusion of the word “marijuana” in §11999(b)?

  240. Anonymous on

    Conveniently receive premium B.C. Bud quickly, safely, and discreetly. Visit expressbud.biz for more info.

  241. Ernst on

    @ Cannabis Culture.

    You guys can’t be serious at the business of realistic cannabis journalism if the comment section dwindles towards a text box that accepts a single character as a reply.

    Seriously.. You guys have been playing with stoned children too long and making money at it.

    Respects …. Ernst

  242. Ernst on

    FYI Mr. Kubby is doing the damage not me.

    But I will let you have the last word your next post.

  243. DML on

    … there seems to be no deadline for sarcastic remarks, however.

    There’s a difference between arguing that “only my opinions are the truth”, which I never said, and “you were mistaken”, which I did say … because you were mistaken.

    If you don’t want to be dependent on people such as me to win your freedom for you, file your own initiative. But you’ll have to wait until the 2014 election, because the deadline for the 2012 election has already passed.

    You could try and help promote the RMLW initiative – helping the initiative may get you better results than simply providing sarcasm. Those wishing to learn the latest information about the initiative should check out http://regulatemarijuanalikewine.com/

  244. Ernst on

    Congratulations. You are a winner!

    After long and arduous suffering your position in this confrontation is victorious!

    You may no lead us to freedom!

    We shall depend on you to make it so!

    We depend on you alone to free us..

    Please keep us posted as to our fate because you and you alone know everything!

    You and you alone are the only one of us who can lead us to freedom.

    Please tell us when we are free!

    I’ll be waiting. So will the other readers since your opinions and only your opinions are the truth , the light and the only reality that matters.

    So please post daily as to what we can expect and how it goes because only you matter in this need to be cannabis free!

    I am such a fool thinking I mattered in the realm of cannabis legalization so I bow to my superior and await your leadership.

    Be well who ever you are…

  245. DML on

    “After launching the RMLW earlier this year it was retracted, modified and now is resubmitted and rescheduled for November 1st through Mid February.”

    There you go … you answered your own question. The status is “resubmitted and rescheduled”.

    “While I do not think Commerce language has a chance …”

    Despite polling suggesting over 62% support for “regulation” and despite zero evidence – or even a cogent argument – to the contrary:

    http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2011/09/29/Polls-Show-World-Difference-Between-Marijuana-Legalization-and-Regulation-Califor

  246. Ernst on

    After launching the RMLW earlier this year it was retracted, modified and now is resubmitted and rescheduled for November 1st through Mid February.

    The very least anyone can do is donate on their web page.

    There is a web site as well to access once you sign up for the news from them like I have twice.

    While I do not think Commerce language has a chance I do read and believe it contains what I want for personal freedom in RMLW so I am not against it passing like I was with prop 19 the second.

    Please take time to get active. Please donate your time and money as I have done.

    This RMLW is one Tommy Chong endorses where prop 19 wasn’t.

  247. Ernst on

    I hoped you would know what the status is of the RMLW initiative is.

    Looks like you don’t.

  248. DML on

    “With the Federal Government seizing property already under way I think it will take you some time to get a grip on the scope of the new cannabis reality.”

    The Federal Government has been seizing property every year since the war on drugs began, including every year since Prop 215 became law in 1996. I think you’re the one who needs to get a grip – property seizure is nothing new.

    “…which is having trouble gathering signatures the last I knew.”

    Gathering signatures hasn’t even begun yet:

    Petition Signature Launch – NOV 1, 2011
    http://regulatemarijuanalikewine.com/

    “Did they retract the first attempt?”
    There has been no “first attempt” because signature gathering doesn’t start until November.

    “We can all agree it contains freedom for the people in it as well as Commerce Language.”

    Any marijuana freedom that does not include marijuana commerce is FAKE marijuana freedom. To have such “commerce-less” freedom would be to legalize Judaism but keep Jewish Temples against the law, or to legalize homosexuality but keep homosexual pornography against the law.

  249. Ernst on

    As I said.

    With the Federal Government seizing property already under way I think it will take you some time to get a grip on the scope of the new cannabis reality.

    I was promoting this for the people before prop 19 the second and here I am promoting this pre-RMLW which is having trouble gathering signatures the last I knew.

    Why not update us DML. How goes the signature gathering process? Did they retract the first attempt? I have been busy with work so I am missing the latest news.

    We do know the prop 19 folks are out of the running and so soon!

    Please DML tell us how it goes for RMLW. We can all agree it contains freedom for the people in it as well as Commerce Language.

  250. DML on

    “You are inventing the conversation between us.”

    Nonsense. I’m quoting you directly and responding to each quote. Re-read my posts – each one has that format.

    “As to what I have not explained, I have already posted that I am sympathetic to all aspects of legalization.”

    When you are asking people to delay implementation of protection against growers and dealers having their lives destroyed (despite 62% support for such protection), that’s not “sympathy” … it’s “indifference”.

    “You may be selectively comprehending but I wouldn’t know exactly.”

    Show me the definition of “sympathetic” that involves not lifting a finger to prevent genocide … I think it’s you who is suffering the comprehension deficit.

    “One of the aspects we all want to see happen is rights for each of us to grow, use and trade as normal citizens.”

    Sigh. One of the problems of you not responding to what I say is that you ignore my answer to this statement repeatedly. I will say it one more time. 215 ALREADY GIVES YOU THOSE RIGHTS – you just need a doctor’s note. Here … read:

    Proposition 215 added Section 11362.5 to the California Health and Safety Code, which:

    * Exempts patients and defined caregivers who possess or cultivate marijuana recommended by a physician from criminal laws which otherwise prohibit possession or cultivation of marijuana.

    * Provides physicians who recommend use of marijuana for medical treatment shall not be punished or denied any right or privilege.

    * Declares that the measure is not to be construed to supersede prohibitions of conduct endangering others or to condone diversion of marijuana.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_215_%281996%29

    What part of “YOU ALREADY HAVE THOSE RIGHTS” do you not understand?

    “As I wrote before California doesn’t support Cannabis Commerce in not only store front and public sales (prop 19 2010) but also in counter culture lifestyles ( prop 19 1976 )”

    Prop 19 2010 was not rejected by Californians because of the commerce – otherwise how did the economist get 62% support for the alcohol model? Prop 19 was rejected because the likelihood of monopoly was a betrayal against a movement that had been against monopoly from the beginning:

    http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/25832

    Prop 19 – 1972 (not 1976) was a result of reefer madness (lifestyles were not mentioned in the “arguments against” section) that no longer applies due to the medical model that can be used as a reference point:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19_%281972%29#Main_Arguments

    “Are we unable to adapt to changing conditions?”

    You might be. We’re going to turn the RMLW Act into law in Nov. of 2012 and you will see your error was to favor your own ill-informed biases and prejudices rather than trust the movement and the Economist poll. And there’s nothing you can do about it, so you might as well sit back and practice being “sympathetic” your sympathy skills look a bit rusty and could probably use some practice.

    “This Federal push to evict dispensaries by seizing property will also place hardship on the individual medical person. Now anyone renting may find that once tolerant landlords to those growing their own medicine in the rental situation now will face eviction because of the Federal Government’s new level of threats.”

    The Wine model is the solution to this problem. Taking too tiny a baby step and refusing to demand your full dignity simply perpetuates this problem.

  251. Ernst on

    You are inventing the conversation between us.

    I am following the recent events in California.

    1.) The Federal Government is closing all Dispensaries within 45 days or making the effort to.
    2.) The Tax rules are not allowing dispensaries to deduct normal business deductions such as cost of labor, cost of the building and so on.

    As to what I have not explained, I have already posted that I am sympathetic to all aspects of legalization. You may be selectively comprehending but I wouldn’t know exactly.

    One of the aspects we all want to see happen is rights for each of us to grow, use and trade as normal citizens.
    This is an honorable goal and one I support. What is hard for some to accept is that we may have to de-couple the issues of private use, horticulture and non-commercial trade from the aspirations to fight the Federal Government on issues of Cannabis Commerce.

    The small but firm step is to do for the people and to skip the business parts.
    As I wrote before California doesn’t support Cannabis Commerce in not only store front and public sales (prop 19 2010) but also in counter culture lifestyles ( prop 19 1976 )

    So DML we must ask ourselves if our positions are the problems. Are we unable to adapt to changing conditions? That includes you.

    To everyone:

    This Federal push to evict dispensaries by seizing property will also place hardship on the individual medical person. Now anyone renting may find that once tolerant landlords to those growing their own medicine in the rental situation now will face eviction because of the Federal Government’s new level of threats.

    I believe it is important to take a small step forward to protect all people who use, grow and trade in non-commercial ways.
    Business is not going to happen until we shore up rights for people.

  252. DML on

    You wrote: 1) “I think the Dispensary and all hopes of legal Cannabis businesses is over for California with the final tax rules and Harborside Health Center of Oakland getting no legal status as a real business.”

    And then you wrote 2) “So why not go with the thing we know can stand up? Lets organize rights for all like medical people do with prop 215.”

    You realize that 1 and 2 contradict each other. Harborside is suffering from unfair discrimination. Obviously the real solution is to attack the discrimination with the same weapon that Prop 215 was created with – a citizen’s initiative. Your solution – which is to fight for more of the same – is obviously insufficient, as 215 did not provide enough equality and dignity to protect Harborside.

    You still haven’t provided a rational argument why harmless growers and dealers should be abandoned by our movement for another decade or two (or three? or four?). Your arguments so far have been that there isn’t enough support – which isn’t true – and that pot money is somehow tainted whereas Starbucks coffee money or Hershey’s chocolate money is somehow OK … totally irrational. You bought into the stigma – thank goodness few in the movement have bought into the stigma like you have.

    “We have to accept that Cannabis Commerce is not recognized by the United States as a legal business and it wouldn’t be even if California makes a law “legalizing” cannabis business.”

    Medical Marijuana is not recognized by the Federal government, and wasn’t recognized by any US state until people decided it should be voted on – the same is true for the wine model.

    “So back to making the Green of the plant legal for all and skip the drug money green for now.”

    What do you do for a living? How would you like it if whatever you did for a living was made illegal? Would it be easy to switch to another profession? How dare you insist other people wait a few decades for the freedom and dignity they deserve today?

    You seem to keep missing the point – perhaps ignoring it on purpose (you never seem to address it in any way) that it’s not “money” that gets thrown in jail for growing or dealing – it’s human beings. And money is not something you can just do without – it’s essential to a good life – or any kind of life. People who deny other people life by stigmatizing what they do are – in my book – no better than racists who refuse to serve people (or give them jobs or rent them houses) due to the color of their skin or their religious beliefs.

  253. Ernst on

    I think the Dispensary and all hopes of legal Cannabis businesses is over for California with the final tax rules and Harborside Health Center of Oakland getting no legal status as a real business.

    How are we going to change those rules?

    So why not go with the thing we know can stand up? Lets organize rights for all like medical people do with prop 215.

    While we are at it let us be generous and up the legal amounts medical people can have in plant counts on a State level.

    It’s time for us to do for the people and in turn become the first State to opt out of the Cannabis prohibition.

    It will be tough but once we opt out, like medical cannabis, other States will too.

    Once enough have opted out then Federal law can change including the Tax law.

    We have to accept that Cannabis Commerce is not recognized by the United States as a legal business and it wouldn’t be even if California makes a law “legalizing” cannabis business.

    So back to making the Green of the plant legal for all and skip the drug money green for now.

  254. DML on

    “But why are a majority of Jurisdictions still fighting dispensaries today?

    I am being humorous.”

    Lame joke. They are being resisted because there’s a double standard – it’s OK to make money but it’s bad to make money growing or selling pot because that kind of commerce is bad.

    It’s not the commerce that they oppose – it’s the marijuana. So why should our community bend to the stigma of the oppressor?

    “Seriously, I assume from reading the previous reply that we need rights for the individual that covers growing, use and non-commercial trade such as plants seeds and produce.”

    Californians already have ALL of those rights – it’s called Prop 215 and it’s been the law of the land since 1996:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_215_%281996%29

    It’s 15 years later … it’s time to protect the rest of the cannabis community – the growers, the dealers, and those without doctor’s notes.

    “Maybe we need to take a small but solid step forward in 2012?”

    Your ignorance simply demonstrates you don’t know what you’re talking about. We have 62% support for moving forward with full legalization and regulation – your “step forward” is actually just “standing still”.

    Can’t you grow a little compassion for the remaining targets of the war on pot that are not protected by Prop 215? How many decades must these harmless people wait for dignity and equality until you decide they’re ready?

  255. Ernst on

    From reading the previous reply I have the impression that the average No voter was mad because it wasn’t fair play for Cannabis Commerce.

    But why are a majority of Jurisdictions still fighting dispensaries today?

    I am being humorous.

    Seriously, I assume from reading the previous reply that we need rights for the individual that covers growing, use and non-commercial trade such as plants seeds and produce.

    I think we all can agree that we want people to have the rights of use, growing and trade in non-commercial ways.

    Maybe we need to take a small but solid step forward in 2012?

  256. DML on

    “I take it then you are saying that prop 19 failed because it was about commerce.”

    No.

    Commerce is about trading – it has nothing to do with exclusivity (exclusivity is a key part of monopoly):

    com·merce (kmrs)
    n.
    1. The buying and selling of goods, especially on a large scale, as between cities or nations.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/commerce

    If you study Prop 19 closely, it was about a system that refused to remove the discriminatory licensing practices that created artificial limits – “caps” – on the number of dispensaries:

    “Suffice to say that attorney Bill Panzer – despite voting for Prop 19 for the message it would send regarding support for eventual “full” legalization – made the strongest argument (and yet to be answered in public by the yes side) as to why med pot cultivation rights could have been threatened by Prop 19:

    “If an appellate court were inclined to find that Prop 19 preserved all 215/420 rights, there is language in 19 to support that. If, on the other hand, an appellate court was inclined to find that 19 allowed local municipalities to impinge on 215/420, there is language that could support that position too. The bottom line is that the body of the statute could have clearly stated that local municipalities are not authorized to pass any ordinance or regulation that infringes on 215/420 in any manner, but it doesn’t.” [53]

    Another section of Prop 19 made sure only licensed dealers would be allowed to deal – all other dealers were going to be punished by civil fines or worse. [54] The trouble with only allowing licensed dealers to deal is that – in one third of California, places such as Los Angeles and Oakland – there are very few licenses handed out. Oakland has four licenses in a city of 400,000 people – one license for every 100,000 people. Los Angeles has 41 licenses for 14.8 million people – or one license for every 360,000 people. Author of Prop 19 Richard Lee could have chosen to insist on “Sufficient community outlets” to prevent illegal dealing (in other words, unlimited outlets) and affordable, competition-encouraging $1000 licenses for retailers (instead of the current $60,000 or more Oakland retailers must pay) as Jack Herer did in his initiative.”

    http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/25832

    “Furthermore, Prop. 19 attempted to create a business model that clearly favored some over others and was perceived by many growers as an all out economic war that would leave the pioneers in ashes and feed the greedy bottom line of a few major corporations.”

    http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2011/03/28/Regulate-Marijuana-Alcohol-California-Interview-Steve-Kubby

    The Regulate Marijuana Like Wine initiative won’t have any exclusivity … there will be no elimination of med pot growing rights, there will be no limit on the number of commercial growers, and the caps on the number of retailers will be so high as to make a cartel arrangement impossible:

    Upon careful examination of the many documents available at the website of the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control is one entitled “2005 Moratorium Counties/Cities”. In it, we learn that:

    “On January 1, 1998, Section 23817.5 was amended to permanently establish a moratorium on the issuance of off-sale beer and wine licenses (Type 20) in cities and counties where the ratio of Type 20 licenses exceeds one for each 2,500 inhabitants. In the city and county of San Francisco, the ratio has been established as one for each 1,250 inhabitants. The San Francisco computation combines off-sale beer and wine license with off-sale general licenses for the purpose of establishing the ratio.” (164)

    In other words, there are “caps” on the number of retail outlets, but they are in the thousands – even tens of thousands – for big cities, and in the hundreds for smaller jurisdictions. For example, if Los Angeles, with a population of 14.8 million, is allowed to have as many places to buy off-sale Cannabis as off-sale beer and wine (one retailer for every 1,250) then Los Angeles will have 11,840 Cannabis retail outlets. At the same rate, San Francisco will permit 5,936 cafes, and Oakland, at the “town rate” of one retailer per 2,500 residents, will permit 160 pot cafes.

    http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2011/07/07/Crystal-Clear-Glasses-and-Unbleached-Rollies

    Prop 19 failed because it was about exclusivity and monopoly, and Regulate Marijuana Like Wine will succeed because it is about inclusivity and commerce.

  257. Ernst on

    reply to ” Oct 04 Prop 19 failed because it was monopolistic”

    wikipedia.org / wiki / Monopolistic_competition

    quote from Wikipedia “Monopolistic competition is a form of imperfect competition where many competing producers sell products that are differentiated from one another (that is, the products are substitutes but, because of differences such as branding, not exactly alike)”

    I take it then you are saying that prop 19 failed because it was about commerce.

    I agree with you if that is what you are saying.

  258. DML on

    GMO research is dangerous and has nothing to offer the cannabis farmer but misery. There is no reason to risk destroying the species by crossing it with fish or dogs other than to patent it and make a killing.

    Once you eliminate the massive amount of greed needed to create a monopoly and/or intellectual property rights from your heart, you can also eliminate the need to risk destruction of the cannabis species through experiment with such things.

    It just takes one tiny mistake – one release of a pollen spec into the wind – to destroy the cannabis plant’s genetic integrity forever.

  259. CMH on

    Correction to the above post w/ regards to GMO. I question how banning the science/research on GMO would benefit CA on the long-term, as opposed to solely prohibiting commercial and personal activity w/ regards to GMO.

  260. CMH on

    DML, Thank you for the response back!

    I understand that’s the current view of GMO by the industry; however, I question how banning the science/research ONLY (as opposed to banning research/possession/sale/cultivation of GMO) would be a benefit to CA in the long-term. Either way, do the GMO prohibitions inherently apply to medical marijuana as well, or is that clause added with Section 11362.5 notwithstanding?

    CMH:”I like that RCP distinguishes the fact that “adults” are 18…”
    DML: “Where does it do this?”

    I stand corrected, there is no mention of age within the RCP initiative. However, by using the term “adult” vs the phrase “persons 21 years of age or older”, RCP inherently includes 18-21. I glossed over it on first read as well, but there is not a single mention of 21+ only in the RCP language. With respect to alcohol, “any person under the age of 21 years” is the phrase used (vs. “minor”). CA’s definition of “adult” is quite clear: http://law.onecle.com/california/family/6501.html

    I’d vote for RMLW over RCP for one reason alone: taxation limits. DML, I’m surprised you didn’t mention this in your article (maybe you have somewhere else though), but this is a big reason for cannabis consumers to vote for RMLW vs. RCP. As RCP does not mention taxation, adoption of the RCP alone would permit “taxation without limitation” by the legislature. That’s highly problematic in this unstable economy, as the state government could attempt to get as much tax as possible.

  261. DML on

    “There are no dry counties in CA, but every city and county has the right to “opt-out” or make harsher penalties for violation, etc.”

    You mean here?:

    http://law.onecle.com/california/business/25612.5.html

    Where does it say you can “opt out”? My understanding was that you can opt out in Texas but there are no opt outs in California anywhere. Please let me know of any dry cities in California.

    “What purpose would there be in adding this new prohibition to a legalized society?”

    GMO is dangerous and exists only to justify a monopoly and intellectual property rights. The risks outweigh the benefits 1000000 to 1 … if there are any benefits at all.

    Here … educate yourself about the dangers of GMO:

    In the 1980 case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the Supreme Court upheld a patent on a bacterium that had been genetically modified to consume petroleum, reasoning that U.S. law permits patents on “anything under the sun that is made by man.”

    wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercialization_of_traditional_medicines

    Please check out these sources:

    saynotogmos.org/

    Genetic engineering is the manipulation of genes to create new organisms that can’t be created by nature. Unlike genetic engineering, natural breeding techniques create new varieties of plants by selecting traits from the multitude that already exist within a species. In nature, genetic diversity contains certain limits. Corn can be crossed with another variety of corn, but not with a field mouse.
    greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/ge/Learn-about/

    greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/ge/

    naturalnews.com/027243_GMO_soy_food.html

    wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism#Controversy

    If you have any further questions, please let me know.

    “I like that RCP distinguishes the fact that “adults” are 18…”

    Where does it do this?

    “RMLW offers no possession limits, but provides SB420-style cultivation limits which are arguably over-restrictive, especially compared with RCP’s 100-square-foot limit.”

    You can get more pounds out of 6 Humboldt sized plants than you can out of 100 square feet.

  262. CMH on

    If we’re going to take the “Regulate Marijuana Like Wine” approach, then shouldn’t local cities and counties be permitted to prohibit cannabis sales much like BPC Section 25612.5 permits that for alcohol sales? There are no dry counties in CA, but every city and county has the right to “opt-out” or make harsher penalties for violation, etc. Why, if we’re going to regulate this like wine/alcohol, would we create this obvious disconnect between the two regulatory systems?

    Also, what about banning scientific research of GMO (RMLW 11420(b)(1)) accomplishes anything? I feel slightly at a loss on the reasoning behind this one one, as banning/severely limiting cannabinoid research by the federal government has been a major setback in the legalization of cannabis. What purpose would there be in adding this new prohibition to a legalized society?

    I like that RCP distinguishes the fact that “adults” are 18 vs. RMLW’s 21 year old age, but dislike the fact that there is any regulatory apparatus involved with that initiative. RMLW offers no possession limits, but provides SB420-style cultivation limits which are arguably over-restrictive, especially compared with RCP’s 100-square-foot limit.

    I’m pretty sure RCP would be dead-on-arrival in 2012 (but not 2016), but RMLW stands a chance in 2012. Either way, each are a step in the right direction.

  263. DML on

    Prop 19 failed because it was monopolistic, not because it was commercial.

    People in California are not against making money, they’re against a few people making ALL the money.

    If you bother to look into the history of the movement, it has always been about preserving the economy for those who have kept it alive during prohibition. It has never been about handing the economy over to big pharma (the consequence of your proposal would be that Bayer/GW pharmaceutical would be the only legal manufacturers/distributors in the US.

    Here … read up on the history of the movement and then try and make a logical argument that any part of the movement (or any part of the voting public) is against commerce:

    Legalization For All
    by David Malmo-Levine – Friday, January 7 2011

    Stoners AGAINST British and Dutch government-style “severely limited number of licenses” legalization and FOR legalization “for all” – the kind of legalization imagined by the vast majority of the cannabis community since at least 1969.

    http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/25832

    And if you don’t like my research, do your own. It’s going to take facts, not just your opinion, to counter all the evidence presented in the above article.

  264. Ernst on

    Addendum :

    LOL, Perhaps “point” is too abstract and may cause several responses on how it doesn’t work so allow me :)

    I wrote “there is a point” as in if one is trying to score points.

    I did not intend I have no point to make.

    Thanks.

  265. Ernst on

    Perhaps I am not quoting the results of 1000 people polled recently correctly but I believe we can both agree that prop 215 has passed and both prop 19’s have failed.

    As I see this recent poll, if it is being used as a carrot to lead us the horse, is just a object to focus on as we the voter is expected to pull a load.. A load that is still trying to pass commerce language even-though it fails each and every time.

    So perhaps there is a point in how I may critique the latest poll but not how I discuss the overview of where we are at and where we are going.

  266. Ernst on

    Well friends what I am pointing out is that California never votes for Cannabis Commerce.

    It doesn’t matter which Cannabis Commerce initiative we end up supporting.

    We are starting at 46% support for Cannabis Commerce and can expect to lose some of that by November 2012 as is traditional.
    We are already losing and are in denial already.

    California did vote for rights for our Citizens to have Cannabis with prop 215 but California voted twice not to have sales and California is fighting Cannabis business in most parts of the State everyday.

    So, this bell ringing is all I can do here.
    No one who has dreams of legal drug dealing ( as most Californians see this issue ) wants to sober up and support a simple step forward that will pass in my opinion.

    Take a moment to honestly review what a simpler first step actually is. Consider what by California voting history, including all the local wrangling of zoning and related efforts, is and that is a majority effort on the State level to stop Cannabis Commerce.

    Is it not better that we take a small step forward rather than fail again?

    The base of equal rights for each of us can be simple growing, use and private non-commercial exchange of plants, seeds and produce. This can apply to us all equally. It would be similar to Prop 215 where businesses which conflict with the Federal Law are not defined nor allowed.

    Business on the other hand isn’t something each one of us will do. Sure it is something each one of us could do if it was legal but there we go again most of California votes no on that.

    Unless there is a miracle in the polls such as 70% support going into November 2012 it’s another wasted Election cycle for legalization..

    Again a small step forward is better than no step forward.

    Sometimes a compromise is something both sides doesn’t like.

  267. DonDig on

    I have started a We The People petition asking the government to reveal what it knows about cannabis that is beneficial. Until the petition receives 150 votes, you can only view and sign the petition here: http://wh.gov/4y0 (four y zero)

    Cannabis kills cancer cells. The US government has had a patent on cannabinoids as a neuroprotectant since 2003 and yet claims there is no ‘accepted’ medical use? Quoting the patent, “This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and HIV dementia.” Surely they speak the truth about this. Have a look at the patent, #6630507. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6630507.PN.&OS=PN/6630507&RS=PN/6630507Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO

    Cannabis has been proven to kill cancer cells in lab tests without harming the healthy cells present. http://www.gsalternative.com/2010/05/cannabinoids-kill-cancer/

    Dave Triplett (and others) have found cannabis oil to cure melanoma as he shows in his short movie about his own experience. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tghUh4ubbg

    Dennis Hill was diagnosed with prostate cancer and used cannabis oil to cure himself. Hid blog about his experiences is quite detailed. http://web.me.com/dbhill/cure/Home.html

    Many people have seen similar results personally, including a number of stage 4 cancer sufferers given ‘hemp oil’ by Rick Simpson in Canada, who were cured by ingesting it. (Rick said there was about a 70% recovery rate in those stage 4 folks; the rest died as their prognosis forecast.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0psJhQHk_GI

    Thank you for your time.

  268. DML on

    “Don’t exaggerate either. Each indoor plant only produces approximately 1.5 – 2 ounces (dried) at the most per season.”

    I shall repost the photo I posted for the other guy:

    http://mendonews.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/humboldt-indoor1.jpg

    Notice the ceiling and the walls? Those are indoor plants. Judging from the size and number of colas, those are considerably bigger than two ounce plants. When RMLW passes and becomes law, growing plants like these will become much more common as it will be in people’s interests to go big.

    Nothing you have written is a good reason why we should not have access to many pot cafes with lots of different products. If we had as many pot cafes and dispensaries as we do places to buy wine the variety of strains and products would be massive and the price would drop. Furthermore, RMLW allows for personal growing – there’s no downside … at least none that you’ve identified.

  269. Anonymous on

    Don’t exaggerate either. Each indoor plant only produces approximately 1.5 – 2 ounces (dried) at the most per season. It is an expensive process that cannot be compared to making homemade beer. You are not going to grow your own hops or barley right? If you tried, the beer would be far too expensive to produce and you would be better off buying at the store. Unless you wanted to control the quality of your drink then, you would have to weigh out the cost of production to ensure quality of your product. Especially if you are using to treat serious medical conditions, you want to ensure your product has no pesticides etc. You also gravely error when speaking of consumption quantity. You assume all are smoking. Some are unable to due to deteriorating health or just personal choice. Concentration is required at times. Concentrating is an expensive time consuming process that reduces the quantity of product. For every pound of dry product you end up with less than half ounce of concentrate product. This product holds great medicinal value but is consumed rather rapidly. The need to reach out to a collective is required unless we can grow more for ourselves. Some cannot afford to grow for themselves. Some rely on collectives for 100% of their medicine. Some are too afraid to grow. Why not share collectively? If you produce wine to do your really give it away? Do you just drink one wine or do you taste different varieties? Let’s be fair here.

  270. DML on

    “What war are you fighting?”

    I’m fighting for “Legalization For All”:

    Legalization For All
    by David Malmo-Levine – Friday, January 7 2011
    http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/25832

    … which is exactly what the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act is.

    It will allow ALL adults to grow enough for their personal, or participate in the economy. There are no “dry counties” in California for alcohol, so there won’t be any for cannabis either. Pot retail outlets will be everywhere, and anyone will be able to open one up.

    Furthermore, this is what the movement has been fighting for from the beginning. I quote from the article I linked to above:

    “The earliest example of a description of how inclusive legalization would be that I could find comes from a 1969 issue of The Marijuana Review – what I believe was the first marijuana-activist oriented magazine – regarding the opinion of it’s association of editors, consultants and journalists: LEMAR (“LEgalize MARijuana”) – what I believe was the first pro-legalization of marijuana organization. LEMAR consisted of such notables as Allen Ginsberg, John Sinclair, Dr. Tod Mikuriya, Peter Stafford and Michael Aldrich – some of the great pioneers of cannabis activism. Michael Aldrich argued that cannabis “should be controlled as alcohol is controlled”. [7]

    Also in 1969 a similar “alcohol model” sentiment was being stated up in Canada – this time as a response to the hearings held by the LeDain commission. (8]”

    So I fight for what the movement has been fighting for for at least 40 years … what are YOU fighting for? Something you decided – by yourself – should be the goals … over the last few days.

  271. Ernst on

    What war are you fighting?

    Are we trying to legalize for the people or are we fighting the Federal Law?

    The way I understand things is that there has to be a Majority of States that have re-legalized Cannabis in order for there to be a change in Federal Law.

    Since we are two strikes against Cannabis Commerce, as of this writing, and, the only new Cannabis laws that pass in California are ones outlawing commercial “stores” don’t you see how deluded leading us to vote on Cannabis commerce again is?

    Don’t you see it?

    Now it has been said that there are people who make money and they deserve to be allowed to do that. You know what? I agree and would love to be one myself yet, here in lies the problem; we cannot make that happen until after it’s legal for everyone.

    So what common rights do we fight for? It has to be equal for all Californians no matter what county they live in or it’s not a State right.

    The way I see this push for “commerce” and the way it has read to me is there are efforts to provide privilege for some while sacrificing the freedom for the majority. Such as Wet and Dry counties and local zoning acts.

    Take prop 19 for example. Under that jurisdictions could keep cannabis illegal so only those jurisdictions where it was allowed would have freedom… You see I and many others didn’t go for that and I and many others will not do that either in 2012.

    So, unless it grants freedom equally many of us for legalizing and most all of the No voters will send any “privilege based” Cannabis imitative to the curb and it will fail once again.
    Oh some day the portion of the current Yes voters will be a majority but that is 10 or 20 years away as the current conservative generations pass away. That is if the Hispanic folks stay liberal on the issue but then again they tended to vote no on prop 19 if I have my facts right so since they are growing in percentage we can expect the conservative no voters will maintain their control over the next 20 years.

    So until it is freedom for all equally we have to find the basic change we all can support.. A compromise you see. A compromise which starts with the individual and not an industry wanting to expand it’s market base.

    Here is what I think will fly: Rights to use without punishment such as legal and on the job for simple use ( not to include protection for drug abuse ), The right to grow your own as a right for each individual Legal citizen and the right to share cannabis in it’s many forms such as plants, seeds and produce in a non-commercial way. This doesn’t mean we cannot exchange for cash just that it must be in line with existing definitions of non-commercial sales.

    So this is really a no-brainer. I mean if we cannot do this simple “freedom for all” kind of thing we can’t pass laws that take on the Federal Government’s power. Trying to fight that fight is why we are at 46% support at the start of the 2012 season and falling.

    It’s the commerce aspect that is killing the legalization movement in California.

    Now for the State to gain revenue I would suggest a permit system for gardens. I’d say allow three plants per person without but require a permit for 4 or more. That should by law include those who want to grow many plants for horticulture purposes.

    This way we could go to the DMV or such a thing and plunk down our $50 bucks and our Law Enforcement folks will get money and help in locating illegal grows while defending the rest of us who are legal and law abiding California Cannabis people.

    By normalizing cannabis in California we will lay the foundation for commerce but commerce and limited rights in some places and not others as the foundation is seriously rejected by a majority of Californians.

    We need to learn from the past and move forward in a way that will work.

    Think not that I am against you. Ask yourself if you are against me.

  272. DML on

    … forget the harmless growers and dealers going to jail. That’s what you really mean when you say “forget the drug money” – because that’s the result of abandoning the fight for dignity for these people. They will keep going to jail until the jails are full.

    Furthermore, you need money to live. You need money to pay the bills, get shelter and food and clothing, get an education, pay for dental, go on vacations … when you say “forget the drug money” you really mean “forget the right to a good life”.

    And on top of that, you are also saying “abandon the market to big pharma”. Let Bayer – the biggest war profiteer the world has ever known – make all the med pot money. Who cares if smoked medicine is safer, cheaper and more effective than pharmatincture? Let them have the market.

    And what do you want us to limit our fight to? The right of users to smoke in peace? They already can. They just have to go to a doctor and say “I’m stressed” or “I’m depressed” and they can get a doctor’s note and smoke in peace. It’s not worth wasting a few million dollars and a million hours of signature gathering to fight for a right we already have.

    I don’t think you’ve bothered to address this argument. I don’t think you’ve even stopped and thought it through.

    “Now if I am wrong and there is overwhelming support for legalizing cannabis commerce such as opening weed stores on every block then I stand corrected. We all know that is not true..”

    http://www.economist.com/node/18118857?story_id=18118857

    You haven’t bothered to look, have you?

    Here is the poll under question 30:

    30. Some people say marijuana should be treated like alcohol and tobacco. They say it should be regulated and taxed and made illegal for minors. Do you agree?

    Strongly agree . . 34%
    Agree . . 24%
    Neither agree, nor disagree . . 19%
    Disagree . . 7%
    Strongly disagree . . 16%

    As you can see, Strongly Agree + Agree = 34% + 24% or 58% support. However, this was a nationwide poll of 1,000 respondents. When data just for the West was teased out of the results by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates, the polling climbs to 62%.

    http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2011/09/29/Polls-Show-World-Difference-Between-Marijuana-Legalization-and-Regulation-Califor

  273. Ernst on

    Commercial aspects are holding us back at the polls and with our voters. We are going into this cycle with a slim 46% and remember that when it gets to the vote expect as much as 6% drop or so, I understand, in support.

    We need to be in the 60%+ range at this point and it’s Cannabis Commerce that is turning people off..

    Thing smart and think fast.. Gaining a little ground is better than losing once again.

    Now if I am wrong and there is overwhelming support for legalizing cannabis commerce such as opening weed stores on every block then I stand corrected. We all know that is not true.. Only by the Governor’s recent veto do some dispensaries still stay open..

    It’s truly ignorant to keep a fantasy going that it will be so easy to make big bucks with weed legally in today’s California when the Federal Government and Federal Dollars for many jurisdictions are predominate.

    What is actually true is we will be lucky to get rights like prop 215 for everyone and getting a law that makes opening a cannabis store legal is right out of the question.

    We all need to be satisfied with being legal to grow, share and use as private parties first.

    Forget fighting the No voters and the Federal Government on Cannabis Commerce in 2012..

    No Commerce is the focal point we all should be able to agree on.

    One step at a time and forget the Drug Money for now..

  274. DML on

    “Would not a California where any Adult can grow a plant and smoke it with out California punishment?”

    We already have that. It’s called Prop 215. Now we’re going to take the next step and get rid of the doctor’s notes and all the arrests of commercial growers and retailers.

    “Get real.. Free the people first!”

    Growers and dealers are people too. Have some fucking compassion for these harmless, helpful people.

  275. Ernst on

    Alright have we had enough of the local domain versions of what kind of “Cannabis Economy” that should exists and are we ready to go with a Freedom for the people and skip the read tape of Cannabis Commerce?

    Isn’t a small step forward better than tripping ourselves up all the time?

    Would not a California where any Adult can grow a plant and smoke it with out California punishment?

    So we can’t get to public sales and that is truly the domain of when the Federal Government says so ( or when pigs fly )

    Spo hey what happened to the Cheech and Chong brotherhood?
    The group of Stoners that see the wisdom in a simple plan..

    Why not all of us join together to grant rights to the people for private use, horticulture and private non-commercial trade?

    If we do that how far behind can actual commerce be?

    So what about Freedom for the people as a first step?

    Why we can advertise it as an alternate to imported weed and an deterrent to Mexican cartels.

    So why in the heck are all these initiatives so willing to use the rights for people to fight the federal government on commerce issues.. It just will not work to keep the people as a human shield for legal drug dealing.

    Get real.. Free the people first!

  276. DML on

    I would vote repeal if it was the only one on the ballot … but please explain to me how the points in the article would not lead a sane person to favor one bill over the other when it comes to funding, supporting and assisting the signature drive.

  277. DML on

    Please explain how the points in this article (there are five of them) are all irrelevant.

  278. Anonymous on

    “My bill is better than your bill.” <_< It all sounds like so much nonesense. And childish to boot! You can vote for both bills! And why not? No one knows which referendum measure will pass before the election results come in, so why not vote for both, and have both succeed? :love-weed: My advice is “Vote for the bill that takes away the most penalties for cannabis possession and distribution,” and “Vote for BOTH measures.” Both will make more better than just one. LET’S GET THE COMPETITION OUT OF THE CANNABIS MOVEMENT AND KEEP THE COOPERATION IN IT! Read both bills carefully.

  279. tensity1 on

    On a related note, here’s a petition at We the People I’m trying to help promote:

    Eliminate or Reform Departments whose Officers are Required by Law to Lie to the American People.

    http://wh.gov/gKN

    This one isn’t yet publicly visible or searchable at the site because it hasn’t passed the 150 signature threshold. Only 14 more–it’s almost there. Help out if you find it worthy of signing, and please spread the word. Once it reaches 150, it can fly free like a little birdie.

    This petition looks to pressure President Obama from another angle than “legalize marijuana.” This one looks to inform people about the undue power the ONDCP has in trying to stymie any legalization efforts of a Schedule I substance (as I’m sure you’re all aware), regardless of what science shows. That’s just wrong.

    Hopefully this petition will appeal to people who may not specifically support MJ legalization but are fed up with corrupt and arrogant government. The MJ legalization petitions are going heroic–this one aims to be their sidekick.

    There are many other petitions there on varying subjects worthy of consideration (such as the pardon Marc Emery petition). Please check them out even if you don’t believe in this one, and be sure to visit the site every day–it takes only 5-10 minutes to catch up on new petitions. Some may be related to petitions you’ve already signed and need support.

    Thanks for your time.

  280. Christopher Goodwin on

    “Regulate implies the state will pass a law permitting me to use cannabis. That’s not what will happen. The law will be repealed just like the Volstead Act and the Temperance Act was repealed. People who use the word legalize and regulate have accepted that the state is their ruler. The state has no more right to regulate what substance a free man uses than the state has right to tell a free man what ideas he may put in his head.” Chris Buors

  281. DML on

    “While in that capacity, DML did an earlier interview with Kubby that was printed in this online ‘zine, but that did not reveal the close connection between interviewer and interviewee.”

    I’ve told you time and time again I was brought on the team shortly after my interview. Despite having never proved otherwise, you ignore that and keep parroting your version of events, just as you ignore reality in every other thing you do to campaign against this initiative.

    And even if I wasn’t … who cares? Everyone knows I’m an activist. I don’t pretend to be a disinterested journalist. I don’t believe in the myth of objective journalism and neither does the readership of Cannabis Culture online. Only you have brought it up as an issue because you need something to bitch about and you can’t bother to read the initiative.

  282. DML on

    Mr. Kubby is acting against his own economic interests and should be thanked.

    “he founded cannex therapeutics–to develop cannabis pharmaceuticals, then was the president and ceo of cannabis science (they fired him for financial impropriety)…”

    Lies. This is why there’s no link that backs up what you say.

    “… and now he heads Kubby Patents and Licenses–a corporation aimed at PATENTING CANNABIS!!! sounds like he has ulterior motives, to me! he wrote this initiative to get himself some more investors!!!”

    How, exactly, will opening the market up to MASSIVE competition attract more investors?

    “… he had pharmaceutical plans before he wrote this initiative, and they remain! i don’t trust this guy! NO BIG PHARMA IN POT LEGALIZATION!!!”

    If you bother to read the initiative, it will allow for as many pot retail outlets as wine retail outlets. For example, the number of places to legally buy pot in Los Angeles will increase from 41 to over 11,000. How with this help Big Pharma in any way, shape or form?

  283. Anonymous on

    he founded cannex therapeutics–to develop cannabis pharmaceuticals, then was the president and ceo of cannabis science (they fired him for financial impropriety) and now he heads Kubby Patents and Licenses–a corporation aimed at PATENTING CANNABIS!!! sounds like he has ulterior motives, to me! he wrote this initiative to get himself some more investors!!! he had pharmaceutical plans before he wrote this initiative, and they remain! i don’t trust this guy! NO BIG PHARMA IN POT LEGALIZATION!!!

  284. Letitia Pepper on

    Some nice person just sent me an e-mail expressing a little confusion about whether RMLW is still even viable, complete with the information shared below.
    It seems from the Secretary of State’s Website that Kubby et al. may have withdrawn the initiative on September 26, 2011. I think the definitive answer needs to come from Steve Kubby: What’s going on? Has this initiative been withdrawn? And what does that mean? Are you going to try to recirculate it in another year? Why have we been debating all these issues if it’s been withdrawn?
    http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/failed-to-qualify.htm )
    Initiatives and Referenda Failed to Qualify

    Initiatives that have not gathered the required number of signatures during the 150-day circulating period fail to qualify for the ballot. This page contains a list of initiatives that have failed to qualify for the ballot during the last 60 days.

    1490. (11-0011, Amdt. #1S)

    Marijuana Legalization. Initiative Statute.

    Summary Date: 07/22/11 | Withdrawn: 09/26/11

    Proponents: James P. Gray, Steve Kubby, and William McPike (415) 830-6070

    Decriminalizes marijuana sales, distribution, possession, use, cultivation, processing, and transportation by persons 21 or older. Dismisses pending court actions inconsistent with its provisions. Prohibits advertising, except medical marijuana. Prohibits zoning restrictions on marijuana cultivation and processing. Applies existing agricultural taxes and regulations to marijuana; exempts noncommercial production up to 25 flowering plants or 12 pounds processed marijuana annually. Authorizes retail sales of marijuana with one percent THC or more to persons 21 or older; if less, no age limit. Directs state and local officials to not cooperate with enforcement of federal laws inconsistent with its provisions. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: The fiscal effects of this measure could vary substantially depending on: (1) the extent to which the federal government continues to enforce federal marijuana laws and (2) the specific taxes and regulations applied to marijuana. Savings of potentially several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in net additional tax revenues related to the production and sale of marijuana products. (11-0011.) (Full Text)

  285. Letitia Pepper on

    David Malmo Levine (DML), the author of this piece, was billed as part of Steve Kubby’s RMLW team, specifically as the team’s Director of Activist Communications.
    While in that capacity, DML did an earlier interview with Kubby that was printed in this online ‘zine, but that did not reveal the close connection between interviewer and interviewee.
    There’s never been any announcement that DML is no longer Kubby’s Director of Activist Communications for the RMLW initiative, and in fact he’s been busily debating some of the initiative’s opponents online.
    Allowing DML to publish this apparently “neutral” evaluation of two competing initiatives without revealing his connections to RMLW is journalism at its worst. It’s unethical and misleading. But necessary to try to persuade people to vote for RMLW, which is the next Trojan Horse out of the Tax, Regulate and Control, government-managed stable.
    Don’t be fooled: fewer laws mean more individual freedom. For fewer laws and more individual freedom, vote for the Panzer et al. sponsored initiative to decriminalize almost all marijuana-related crimes (driving under the influence and giving pot to kids who aren’t patients will remain crimes).

  286. samson on

    Pharmaceutical companies are the ONLY ones that should not be allowed to grow cannabis. Becoming self-suffient should remain a core guideline for pot consumers….lemme grow my own & leave me alone.

  287. DML on

    It’s not money we’re trying to keep out of jail.

    Rather, we’re trying to keep out of jail all the people who make their living, feed their kids, pay for their houses and consumer goods with the cannabis they grow and sell.

    We are also trying to protect all those who can’t bring themselves to get a doctor’s note, and all those growers and dealers who attempt and fail to get Prop 215 to protect them.

    Why should we let the pharmaceutical companies like Bayer and GW be the only ones growing and selling cannabis commercially?

  288. Ernst on

    I, for one, believe any Commerce language in any cannabis legalization dooms it to Failure in California.

    However, what is seriously obvious is that we Cannabis people do not share a core agreement.

    What are our core needs..

    Private horticulture, use and private non-commercial trade?

    Sounds good to me…

    Leave Commerce for another year because we already have sales and California isn’t ready to expand cannabis commerce .

  289. DML on

    These are massive 10 pound Humboldt outdoor plants:

    http://forum.grasscity.com/photopost/data/503/jorge_big_1.jpg

    These are massive 10 pound Humboldt indoor plants:

    http://mendonews.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/humboldt-indoor1.jpg

    Now read the initiative one more time – pay attention to plant limits:

    (2) Adults 21 years and older may produce up to 6 mature outdoor flowering plants, or up to 12 mature indoor flowering plants per person; or a total number of plants cultivated per household not to exceed 12 mature flowering plants outdoors or 24 plants indoors.

    http://regulatemarijuanalikewine.com/regulate-marijuana-like-wine-act-2012/

    So, under this initiative, you can grow 60 pounds worth of outdoor or 120 pounds worth of indoor if you live alone. Double that if you live with another adult.

    So … how much pot can you smoke in a year? By my calculations, 60 pounds of pot equals 26,880 grams. Divide that by 365 days and that’s … 73.6 grams per day. Something tells me you’ll be able to keep you and all your friends high.

    And can you really get through a pound of cannabis more easily than a gallon of wine? Somehow I doubt it. I think that’s “similar” at the very least … if not “more generous”.

  290. Roland on

    I can make up to 100 gallons of wine (and of beer) at home every year, twice that if there are 2 or more adults in my household. And I can give it away. But I can’t sell it. I should be able to produce a similar quantity of cannabis at home as well, if this RMLW proposal is really “like wine.” But this article make it clear that isn’t the case. That’s fraudulent. But you’re right about RCP, it’s also flawed.