Correcting Cannabis Warrior’s Inaccuracies on RMLW and RCPA

Let Truth and Falsehood grapple. Who has ever known Truth to be put to the worse in a free and open encounter?
– John Milton, Areopagitica

In the ongoing debate between supporters of the Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012 (RCPA) and the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act of 2012 (RMLW, which I support), there are few people meaner and more vicious than Mickey M. He writes a blog called Cannabis Warrior in which he typically inserts more personal attacks and insults into one article than the rest of the cannabis movement puts in their blogs for the entire year. Because he can’t bare to be respectful, Mickey M. has altered my initials to be “DMV” (Department of Motor Vehicles) instead of DML. At the risk of becoming his favorite target forever, I have decided to try and correct him on some of his – and RCPA author Bill Panzer’s – inaccuracies in his latest article in support of RCPA.

The inaccuracies are in blockquotes, and my responses follow:

“Why they let DMV post up whatever he wants unchecked is beyond me after the crap he spread about Prop. 19 …”

The authority Mickey M. relies upon for his latest article – Bill Panzer, a “real California Attorney” – is the same authority who disputed Mickey M. and the rest of the Prop 19 supporters’ claims about it being “legalization” or about it protecting med pot cultivation rights. Here is Panzer’s quote from an article about Prop 19 on October 30, 2010:

First, Prop 19 is not “legalization” and I don’t believe those in the movement who are against Prop 19 are against legalization. To the contrary, I believe most movement opponents are against 19 because they are FOR legalization. … 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. … What makes little sense to me is that this initiative, which doesn’t legalize cannabis, is being sold as legalization. It seems to me, it would make more sense to draft an initiative that does legalize cannabis and sell it as regulation. Nevertheless, because it is being touted as legalization, if it passed it would be perceived around the world as legalization. It would also give some modest protections to cannabis users. It essentially protects you from getting an infraction ticket in your own home so long as there are no children under the same roof.

“It wasn’t written by an unbiased reporter…”

I’ve never pretended to be an “unbiased reporter”. There is no such thing as an “unbiased reporter” … or an “unbiased human”, for that matter. Every person has a bias. There are close to 88 thousand hits for “myth of objectivity” in a Google search, and over 250 thousand hits for “advocacy journalism”, in case anyone wants to learn more about this myth.

“Mr. Malmo-Levine has been asked, but never been able to explain how, under RCPA, prohibition could still exist with no laws outlawing cannabis on the books.”

I’m not a lawyer so please someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I did notice that not removing California Health and Safety Code Section 11999 leaves cannabis defined as a controlled substance. And Section 11366.8 (which RCPA does not remove from the California Health and Safety Code) says:

(a) Every person who possesses, uses, or controls a false compartment with the intent to store, conceal, smuggle, or transport a controlled substance within the false compartment shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a term of imprisonment not to exceed one year or in the state prison.
(b) Every person who designs, constructs, builds, alters, or fabricates a false compartment for, or installs or attaches a false compartment to, a vehicle with the intent to store, conceal, smuggle, or transport a controlled substance shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years. (c) The term “vehicle” means any of the following vehicles without regard to whether the vehicles are private or commercial, including, but not limited to, cars, trucks, buses, aircraft, boats, ships, yachts, and vessels. (d) The term “false compartment” means any box, container, space, or enclosure that is intended for use or designed for use to conceal, hide, or otherwise prevent discovery of any controlled substance within or attached to a vehicle, including, but not limited to, any of the following: (1) False, altered, or modified fuel tanks. (2) Original factory equipment of a vehicle that is modified, altered, or changed. (3) Compartment, space, or box that is added to, or fabricated, made, or created from, existing compartments, spaces, or boxes within a vehicle.

So if it’s true that RCPA keeps cannabis as a controlled substance, wouldn’t it follow that – even if RCPA passes – one can still be busted for smuggling a controlled substance with a false compartment under 11366.8? It appears to this layman that RCPA prevents people from lawfully hiding their stash to prevent theft, whereas RMLW allows people to hide their stash.

Furthermore, it’s hard to predict what the establishment will do if we give them a bit of wiggle room. The question is, why give the US Federal government any wiggle room at all? Do we really want to play the game of “I wonder what a room full of lawyers with an unlimited budget can come up with if we give them that much wiggle room”?

Maybe it makes it easier for the establishment to write new anti-pot laws. Maybe it makes it easier for them to continue to discriminate against our community in some unforeseen way. Maybe it would be wiser for our group not to give them the opportunity to have such a beach-head against us.

What was the reasoning behind not removing the definition of cannabis as a controlled substance? Was it an oversight? Is refusing to deal with that oversight just an ego thing?

When Prop 215 passed, it was written in such a way as to allow for arrests. It wasn’t supposed to, but because it had the word “exempted” (it should have said “enjoins arrest”) it allowed for arrests. It was a massive screw up. In the aftermath of the passing of Prop 215, then State attorney General Dan Lungren made sure that the new law would be interpreted narrowly. We can assume that law enforcement will still be looking for any excuse to continue to continue to persecute us, and this author is baffled at the RCPA’s cavalier attitude towards leaving one of the pot laws on the books. We think it’s impossible to imagine every scenario that the Federal government’s lawyers might come up with, and all that would be required to not have to worry about it at all is to include section §11999(b) in the list of sections removed.

“RCPA removes both cannabis and tetrahydrocannabinols from the schedules (RMLW likely leaves tetrahydrocannabinols in the schedule – admittedly it is unclear as RMLW doesn’t actually specify ‘terahydrocannabinols’. This would be left to the courts to sort out under RMLW).”

Unfortunately, Mr. Panzer does not mention which section of RCPA removes “tetrahydrocannabinols” from the schedules. RCPA does not mention the word “tetrahydrocannabinols” or “THC” or “CBD” in it’s text. RMLW does explicitly mention the major cannabinoids as removed from the schedules:

(3) Removes “marijuana,” “THC,” and “CBD,” explicitly or by inference as a controlled substance, from Health and Safety Code section 11054.

Furthermore, while we’re on the topic of things an initiative failed to remove from the schedule, it appears to this layman that RCPA failed to remove the anti-paraphernalia law: Section 11364.5.

So, if RCPA passes, it appears that you will still get busted for hiding your pot, and still get busted for having any of the following on you:

(12) Objects intended for use or designed for use in ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing marijuana, cocaine, hashish, or hashish oil into the human body, such as the following: (A) Metal, wooden, acrylic, glass, stone, plastic, or ceramic pipes with or without screens, permanent screens, hashish heads, or punctured metal bowls. (B) Water pipes. (C) Carburetion tubes and devices. (D) Smoking and carburetion masks. (E) Roach clips, meaning objects used to hold burning material, such as a marijuana cigarette that has become too small or too short to be held in the hand. (F) Miniature cocaine spoons, and cocaine vials. (G) Chamber pipes. (H) Carburetor pipes. (I) Electric pipes. (J) Air-driven pipes. (K) Chillums. (L) Bongs. (M) Ice pipes or chillers.

“Also left out is that RMLW doesn’t treat it like wine when it comes to minors. Under California law, selling wine to a minor is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail. Under RMLW, selling cannabis to a minor is only an infraction – the legal equivalent of a parking or traffic ticket. Under RCPA, selling to a minor can be charged a either a misdemeanor or an infraction. One wonders how the voting public will respond to: ‘Selling pot to your 10 year old is like an expensive parking ticket’ ?”

That’s one way of looking at it. Another way is “one wonders how the voting public will respond to their kids continuing to be jailed – and possibly beat up or raped in jail – for selling pot to other kids?” RMLW does not pretend to regulate marijuana EXACTLY like wine – the initials are not “RMELW”. The word “like” – when used as an adjective – means “similar”, not “exactly the same”. I for one am glad that nobody will go to jail any more for flower crimes once RMLW passes – if the marijuana laws are to differ slightly from the wine laws, let it be in the spirit of reason and compassion for all those currently considered cannabis criminals.

“Furthermore, by not including the ‘Except as authorized by law’ language, RMLW creates am ambiguity whereby a court could find that a person under 21 could not legally possess cannabis for medical purposes.”

So let’s assume that the Judge in question ignores the section of the RMLW act which says:

(4) This Act does not control, repeal, modify, or change statutes pertaining to: (C) Medical marijuana statutes as set forth in Proposition 215 (H&S11362.5) and its progeny,

what’s the worst that could happen? Unless that person under 21 was holding more than an ounce, the maximum penalty would be a $100 fine. This gives parents the rationale with which they can make sure that their children’s medicine remains in parental – or school nurse – control, and off the playground.

“RCPA specifically provides that state law preempts local regulation. It prevents local authorities not only from banning medical distribution, but also prevents them from banning recreational sales, cultivation etc.”

The concern I raised was that RCPA won’t “prohibit local jurisdictions from banning or taxing dispensaries or instituting discriminatory licensing practices.” By not mentioning “discriminatory licensing practices” in his answer, Mr. Panzer confirms the fact that there is nothing in RCPA that will prevent the type of monopolistic regulations that currently exist in Los Angeles, which has 41 legal dispensaries in a city of 14.8 million people (which works out to one dispensary for every 360,000 people) – or Oakland, which has eight legal dispensaries in a city of 400,000 (which works out to one dispensary for every 50,000 people). In contrast, the RMLW Act will allow for one retail outlet for every 1,250 people in Los Angeles, and one retail outlet for every 2500 people in Oakland.

“This (GMO) ban is present in the ‘Purpose’ section of RMLW, but does not appear anywhere in the ‘Provisions’ section. As a result, it is not part of the actual Act and would likely have no legal force. For example, the ‘Purpose’ section of Prop. 215 stated that it was intended to protect ‘Seriously ill Californians. The term ‘seriously ill’ did not, however, appear in the ‘Provision’ section of 215. As a result, the Court of Appeal has interpreted 215 to apply to all patients with a doctor’s recommendation or approval and found that there is no requirement of ‘serious illness'”.

Mr. Panzer should know that the reason there is no requirement of “serious illness” is not because “serious illness” was not in the “provisions” section, rather, it is because the phrase “or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief” also appears in the purposes section.

In other words, there is a qualifier to “serious illness” that allows for conditions other than “serious” to be treated legally by cannabis. There is no similar qualifier to the GMO ban within the RMLW Act, so the two examples are not comparable.

“RCPA doesn’t ban GMO cannabis but, frankly, I believe, (and I think the rest of the RCPA proponents would agree) the concept of GMO monopolization doesn’t present a real threat except to some conspiracy theorists.”

Mr. Panzer should tell that to Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian farmer who was successfully sued by Monsanto because their GMO “Roundup Ready Canola” pollen had drifted onto his field. Mr. Schmeiser said:

Now, at 70, I am involved with this fight with Monsanto. I stood up to them because a farmer should never give up the right to use his own seed. I felt very strongly about it because my grandparents came here from Europe in late 1890s and early 1900s to open this land, to be free, and to grow what they wanted to grow. Now we are going back to a feudal system that they left because they were not free—basically we are becoming serfs of the land.

Farmers should be concerned about this judgment as they now may lose their ability to continue with this practice. I believe that this ruling is an injustice and Parliament must act to ensure that farmers’ rights are protected. The playing field between farmer rights and the bio-tech companies rights has been tilted towards the companies with this decision.

I have always campaigned on the right of a farmer to save and re-use his own seed. This is what I have been doing for the last 50 years. I will continue to support any efforts to strengthen the rights of a farmer to save and re-use his own seed.

Is it a “conspiracy theory” to believe that the same thing could happen to California farmers who encounter Monsanto “Roundup Ready marijuana pollen” drifting onto their crops? For those who wish to learn more about the reality of GM cannabis dangers, here is an article I wrote about it for Celeb Stoner.

“I’m not aware of any definition of ‘genetically modified’ in law that would be controlling over RMLW. I could even see a conservative prohibitionist judge ruling that a common indica/sativa cross is ‘genetically modified.'”

Mr. Panzer could see this happening, but provides no examples of any Judge being confused about what GM means.

In case anyone wants the definition of GM, it’s easy to find on the internet. Every one I have come across stipulates explicitly that it does not involve “techniques used in traditional breeding and selection”.

“Again, this is a misleading statement. The poll Mr. Malmo-Levine refers to is not about RMLW.”

The poll I referred to is about regulating marijuana like alcohol, and wine is a type of alcohol, so it’s close enough.

“Nevertheless, I don’t believe it helps our movement to publish outright false claims like those of Mr. Malmo-Levine. These are the tactics that have been championed by Karl Rove and his cronies in recent years. Such tactics may be effective in getting votes, but these are tactics without honor. We should all strive be better than that.”

Honor is very, very important in this movement. As cannabis activists, we should all be held accountable for dishonorable actions. Two points about “honor” with respect to Mr. Panzer:

1) When a lawyer makes public accusations regarding a layperson making “false claims”, they should probably make sure that they are correct, or else they might be leaving themselves open to – at the very least – a tarnished reputation if proven wrong, and quite possibly a libel suit. Given the above analysis, a public apology from Mr. Panzer to me should suffice to make things all better between us.

2) When calling someone dishonorable, it’s best not to have a reputation for sitting on the fence regarding Prop 19 until the last second, or attempting to undermine Dennis Peron’s Prop 215 efforts by filing a watered-down version of the initiative that would have resulted, in Dennis’ words, in a situation where “Patients would only be allowed to use marijuana the last half hour of their life.”

“I think there is a certain worry to having a person who claims his medical cannabis lozenge can cure Bird Flu running a campaign for cannabis freedom….but that is just me.”

Mr. Kubby points out that “Bird Flu Virus Triggers Worse Inflammation In Human Lung Cells Than Human Flu Viruses”, which is why CBD rich lozenges are the perfect solution for down-regulating the pro-inflammatory response. CBD is well-known to be an anti-inflammatory agent.

Perhaps, given how many inaccuracies can be found in his blog, Mr. Mickey M. needs to find some CBD rich cannabis strains to help him reduce his inflammatory rhetoric.

David Malmo-Levine

Comments

27 Comments

  1. DML on

    “It doesn’t really matter if you like one or the other.”

    It matters if you believe that one or both would be a step in the wrong direction.

    I personally thought Prop 19 would have been more bad than good, so I would not have voted for it.

    I believe that RCPA will create problems in that it does nothing to prevent the monopoly of the industry with discriminatory licensing practices and GMO pollen drift – but those problems seem more easy to deal with than prohibition itself so I would probably vote for RCPA anyway.

    Still, people must decide which initiative to fund and volunteer to collect signatures for, and in that sense it matters quite a bit if you like one or the other.

  2. Brian Kerr on

    It doesn’t really matter if you like one or the other. If both are on the ballot you can vote for both of them. It is not a one or the other situation
    when there are ballot measures. It’s ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on every measure. So vote for both of them.

  3. DML on

    It’s easier to intimidate one politician than it is to intimidate an entire state.

    That’s why, when Jimmy Carter was elected, he didn’t do fuck all for the pot people, but when 215 passed it resulted in real change.

    So if the Feds defund a whole state, everyone in the state of California can engage in a class action lawsuit against the Feds to win the right to withhold their tax money until the Feds stop with the withholding of funds.

    If you focus all your energy on electoral politics, you’ll get the same result you got back when the peanut farmer was president – zilch.

  4. Interested Observer on

    Dave, most people can’t “refuse” to pay their taxes, only the rich can afford to “refuse” to pay. Wage-earners have their taxes deducted before they get their paychecks and have no way to “refuse”. Plus, taxes are collected from individuals and they will feel the full brunt of federal power if they try to “refuse”. Just ask Wesley Snipes what happens when you “refuse” to pay your taxes. I doubt any of the people rich enough to be able to “refuse” will do so, knowing the feds will confiscate all their wealth to punish them. It will only take a few high-profile forfeitures to bring the rest into line.

    Also, how many of those 27 other states you mention are deeply in debt? How many states can afford to have every federal department operating against them? It won’t just be the DEA. The drug warriors have declared they will use every means available to keep the war going. The IRS has already stated that no business involved with cannabis will be allowed deductions and they are passing-on any information about cannabis businesses to the DEA. This is just the start. The more the people of any state fight to change the system, the more federal departments will be enlisted to defeat them.

    It isn’t about drug usage, drug laws are just a means to power. The only way to win is to reduce the power of federal departments and the only way to do that is to elect people who will de-fund the bureaucracy. But until enough people understand what’s going on, what’s at stake and are willing to do something about it, nothing’s going to change. The feds have only tolerated medical cannabis as long as the status quo has been maintained. Now that the status quo is being challenged, they are increasing the pressure and they’ll keep increasing it until they once again feel secure in their dominance. Legalization is a threat to their power and they will react violently to maintain that power.

    Best of luck, you’re gonna need it.

  5. DML on

    “If the people of the state of California (which is $20 Billion in debt) decided to ratify cannabis legalization, the federal government would pull all federal funding to the state.”

    If the Feds pulled funding, the people of California would refuse to pay their taxes. It’s a two-way street.

    Furthermore, there are 27 US states who could implement a similar initiative – they would no doubt do so, and the Feds could not cut all of them off without the threat of 27 States all refusing to pay Federal taxes at the same time.

  6. Interested Observer on

    I don’t know what you people think is going to happen but, legalization sure isn’t.

    If the people of the state of California (which is $20 Billion in debt) decided to ratify cannabis legalization, the federal government would pull all federal funding to the state. Once their state services start to grind to a halt for lack of funding and state employees are being arrested by the feds on drug charges, how long before the voters decide legalization wasn’t such a good idea after all?

    My point is that the federal government fought a civil war in the 1860’s to establish federal dominance and they’ve been fighting a civil war since the 1970’s to maintain and expand that dominance. Note the flourishing of federal departmental para-militaries. Legalization is a direct threat to that dominance and the bureaucracy is not going to let any state diminish it. They will use any means at their disposal to nullify any outcome not in their favor.

    Unless you can convince enough American citizens that they are in the middle of a civil war and that federal government has become a force of tyranny, you won’t get anywhere. Until people start electing enough politicians in favor of ending the “drug war”, the bureaucracy will continue to persecute minorities in pursuit of empire-building.

    The only way to win the war is to cut the funding of most, if not all, of the federal departments, particularly those equipped with their own para-military units. Until the majority of American people decide they want a smaller federal government and start electing people accordingly, the US is stuck with what they’ve got.

    Good luck with your attempts to change the system. You’re going to need lots of it.

  7. DML on

    His “forum” consists of people agreeing with him. There are no dissenting opinions … just praise.

    When I tried to post a link to my response to his article, it was “awaiting moderation” for three days and then he decided it was too controversial for his warrior-self to allow the link to the rebuttal exist on his website.

    If he was confident in his argument, he would encourage debate and respond to the latest argument. Instead, we hear the “I don’t have time to respond to such a silly argument” argument.

    “Warrior” = “can’t deal with debate and can’t back up what I say”.

  8. MIckey Martin on

    People can decide if they want to get their information and interpretation of CA law from a real CA attorney and legend like Bill Panzer, or a hack wannabe second fiddle “activist” who does not play well with others and is generally laughed at outside of Canada if people even know who he is. The choice is yours. Those of us with real work to do in our communities to advance cannabis freedom do not have time or energy to constantly explain why DMV is full of shit. I think those who know him know the answer to that. The rest of us do not speak crazy. I have to get back to my “mean and vicious” writing and activism.

    And to the anonymous coward who takes my statement out of context without the courage to state his own name…you forgot the rest of the paragraph…Here that is.

    “…What I have not lost is my intellect, my spirit or my drive. I have not lost sight of my ultimate goal and have made a conscious decision to be forthcoming and open in my approach. Anything less is disingenuous to me. I call shit like I see it, and often that puts me in hot water with those of whom I am critical, and their often vast legion of mindless followers. Super. I’m their huckleberry.”

    Speaking of mindless followers, who else would read this blog anyway. LOL.

    Have a nice winter, DMV. I will see you at the finish line. Woosh….

  9. DML on

    “Since RCPA removes cannabis from the schedules, it would no longer be a “controlled substance” or a “drug” under the law.”

    This is what 11999.1 says:

    “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).”

    http://law.onecle.com/california/health/11999.1.html

    11999.1 is defining “drug”, not “controlled substance”.

    Nowhere does it say “‘controlled substances’ are limited to what is listed in Division 10.”

    Therefore, cannabis remains a “controlled substance” under 11999:

    “The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
    (a) The Legislature has established various drug- and
    alcohol-related programs which provide for education, prevention,
    intervention, treatment, or enforcement.
    (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.”

    http://law.onecle.com/california/health/11999.html

    “Unfortunately, Mr. Panzer does not mention which section of RCPA removes “tetrahydrocannabinols” from the schedules. RCPA does not mention the word “tetrahydrocannabinols” or “THC” or “CBD” in it’s text.”

    That’s not an “outright lie” – it’s the truth.

    “Of note is that RMLW, while it claims to remove marijuana from the schedules in the purpose section, has nothong in the provisions section that actually does so.”

    There is no “purpose” section … there is a “Findings, Declarations, Purpose, Directives, and Orders” section … the part that removes marijuana from the schedules is, no doubt, a “directive” or an “order”.

    “Mr. ML should read People v. Spark, 121 Cal.App.4th 259 (2004).”

    Spark was where I got my “any other illness” qualifies “seriously ill” argument in the first place:

    “Second, although the prefatory language of subdivision (b)(1)(A) of section 11362.5 contains a reference to “seriously ill Californians,” that subdivision also contains a list of specified illnesses or conditions for which the medical use of marijuana might be “deemed appropriate” and “recommended by a physician who has determined that the person’s health would benefit from the use of marijuana in … treatment.” (Ibid.) The list ends with a catchall phrase “or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.” (Ibid.)

    From the foregoing observations, and bearing in mind that we must construe and harmonize, so far as possible, all parts of a statute (People v. Moroney, supra, 24 Cal.2d at p. 642), we conclude that the voters of California did not intend to limit the compassionate use defense to those patients deemed by a jury to be “seriously ill.” As is evidenced by the entirety of the language of subdivision (b)(1)(A) and the language of subdivision (d) of section 11362.5, the question of whether the medical use of marijuana is appropriate for a patient’s illness is a determination to be made by a physician. A physician’s determination on this medical issue is not to be second-guessed by jurors who might not deem the patient’s condition to be sufficiently “serious.”

    http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/spark.htm

  10. Bill H on

    What a lame response to David’s well-research and well-written article. No wonder these guys don’t have anyone supporting them.

  11. Bill H on

    More personal attacks? Or sad attempts at making them, I should say. This guy Mickey M really is a loser.

  12. Anonymous on

    Quote from Cannabis Warrior…”Often people wonder if I have lost my fucking mind and the simple answer to that is “Yes.” But I never used it much anyways, so I am okay with that.”

    That pretty much says it all.

  13. MIckey Martin on

    Really, Dave? “there are few people meaner and more vicious than” little old me? Why thanks. I will take that as a compliment from one of the largest assholes on planet earth. Do not let it get you down. Your panties will come unbunched eventually. Do not let my “mean and vicious” nature get you down. If you cannot stand the heat….

  14. MIckey Martin on

    As presented by REAL ATTORNEY and long time cannabis activist Bill Panzer:

    DML is either not educated enough in the ways of interpreting statutes, or he’s just a Karl Rove disciple, as his allegations are essentially baseless. I’m not going to waste my time on him anymore as it is a lose/lose proposition. Just a few quick examples:

    As I previously explained, §11999 is to be read in tandem with §11999.1 which defines drug as

    ” Any controlled substance as defined in Division 10 (commencing
    with Section 11000). (§11999.1(a)(1).”

    Since RCPA removes cannabis from the schedules, it would no longer be a “controlled substance” or a “drug” under the law.

    His reference to §11366.8 regarding hidden compartments for controlled substances is also inaccurate as, under RCPA, cannabis is removed from the schedules and would no longer be defined as a “controlled substance”.

    DML writes:
    Unfortunately, Mr. Panzer does not mention which section of RCPA removes “tetrahydrocannabinols” from the schedules. RCPA does not mention the word “tetrahydrocannabinols” or “THC” or “CBD” in it’s text.
    §11421(a) of RCPA specifically repeals §11054(d)(20), which is “tetrahydrocannabinols”.

    Of note is that RMLW, while it claims to remove marijuana from the schedules in the purpose section, has nothong in the provisions section that actually does so.

    DML writes:

    Mr. Panzer should know that the reason there is no requirement of “serious illness” is not because “serious illness” was not in the “provisions” section, rather, it is because the phrase “or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief” also appears in the purposes section.

    Mr. ML should read People v. Spark, 121 Cal.App.4th 259 (2004).

    Bill

  15. MIckey Martin on

    From the desk of legendary cannabis activist and REAL ATTORNEY Bill Panzer:

    DML is either not educated enough in the ways of interpreting statutes, or he’s just a Karl Rove disciple, as his allegations are essentially baseless. I’m not going to waste my time on him anymore as it is a lose/lose proposition. Just a few quick examples:

    As I previously explained, §11999 is to be read in tandem with §11999.1 which defines drug as

    ” Any controlled substance as defined in Division 10 (commencing
    with Section 11000). (§11999.1(a)(1).”

    Since RCPA removes cannabis from the schedules, it would no longer be a “controlled substance” or a “drug” under the law.

    His reference to §11366.8 regarding hidden compartments for controlled substances is also inaccurate as, under RCPA, cannabis is removed from the schedules and would no longer be defined as a “controlled substance”.

    DML writes:
    Unfortunately, Mr. Panzer does not mention which section of RCPA removes “tetrahydrocannabinols” from the schedules. RCPA does not mention the word “tetrahydrocannabinols” or “THC” or “CBD” in it’s text.
    §11421(a) of RCPA specifically repeals §11054(d)(20), which is “tetrahydrocannabinols”.

    Of note is that RMLW, while it claims to remove marijuana from the schedules in the purpose section, has nothong in the provisions section that actually does so.

    DML writes:

    Mr. Panzer should know that the reason there is no requirement of “serious illness” is not because “serious illness” was not in the “provisions” section, rather, it is because the phrase “or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief” also appears in the purposes section.

    Mr. ML should read People v. Spark, 121 Cal.App.4th 259 (2004).

    Bill

    Oops….Back to the drawing board, DMV. You sure can write well, but your game is flawed by your insistence to twist the truth to meet your own ego’s needs.

  16. quebec cannabis liberator on

    k sorry but u have no basis for anything you say. your website is a joke. your a joke so please stop spouting your bullshit until you your self become a “reputable” writer because NEWS FLASH your not…. self righteous ignorant fool…. typical american

  17. DML on

    “You still are a promoter of falsehoods …”

    Falsehoods? Name one.

    “…and not qualified to practice law anywhere, much less CA.”

    I’m allowed to comment on upcoming legislation. We all are. You aren’t a lawyer either but that doesn’t stop you from deciding to endorse this initiative or attack that one.

    “Hell, you are not even allowed to be in CA, so it begs to wonder why you are a member of the RMLW campaign at all.”

    Because I’m good at telling the truth and exposing lies – and I can do that from up here in Canada just as easily as anywhere else.

    “You can lob half-truths and outright lies from Canada about CA law and what you think you and McPike know. Took you guys long enough to formulate a response.”

    “Outright lies”? Name one.

    By the way … it took one day to formulate a response, and 8 days to have it proofread and fact-checked and put online … that’s how long it takes to put things up on a busy website.

    “You were a liar during 19 and you are a liar now.”

    For example?

    “Your dangerous rhetoric has resulted in exactly what I said it would…a dismantling of your “all use is medical” system by lawmakers and public officials who think that stance is bullshit and that the entire medical movement is a “sham.””

    1) It’s not being dismantled – our courts and our Senate have supported it, and the Harper government has threatened to dismantle it but they don’t have public opinion on their side. At worst it’s a stalemate.

    2) All use is medical – it’s just that herbal medicine should not involve (and one day won’t involve) doctors. Doctors are temporary buffers against police oppression, but it’s always in the plan to have cannabis treated like other herbs (such as coffee beans) rather than let cannabis (and the other herbs) be treated as pills.

    3) Here is the proof that all use is medicinal use … recreational use is informal self-medicating against stress and depression – it’s preventive medicine self-administered by healthy people to keep themselves healthy: http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/24099

    “But this is what you advocated for. This is what you swore was so much better for us here in CA. As tens of thousands of patients lost their collectives as dozens of dispensaries were forced to close their doors, I can only wonder how in the world person would think that this is somehow better than Prop. 19.”

    Prop 19 would have sped that process up, as it did nothing to prevent the discriminatory licensing practices that gave Richard Lee and his Ilk a cannabis cartel. And because pot tax dollars were earmarked for attacking Lee’s black-market competition, it would have funded the war on the unlicensed growers and dealers forever.

    “As you screamed bloody murder because of 19’s age limit being 21, you now are on board with a 21 and over initiative. You are a model of consistency.”

    Where did I scream such things? Here’s my article on Prop 19 – quote me:

    http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/p/prop-19-ma-and-pa-are-out-of-work-and_26.html

    “Just remember, if RMLW by some miracle does make the ballot I will support it and I never once said I would not or demeaned its intentions. I think its leadership is incapable of pulling it off and I think the “like wine” narrative is weak.”

    We’ve got 10,000 signatures so far:

    http://regulatemarijuanalikewine.com/regulate-marijuana-like-wine-campaign-collects-over-10000-signatures-in-first-two-weeks/

    How many signatures does RCPA have?

    “But if it makes it I will vote for it because I support cannabis reform. And I live in CA so I actually CAN vote for it. So while you decide to shitcan other people’s efforts from abroad and promote prohibition in your rhetoric, just know that the rest of us are here doing the work and changing the world.”

    I refuse to endorse anything that would allow for a pot monopoly, because I’m in the movement to preserve ma and pa growing and dealing operations. It would be a betrayal to the history of the movement to settle for any type of “legalization” that would continue to criminalize or punish a majority of the growers and dealers:

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

    “Unlike yourself, I am not on any campaign. I just know who are more reputable people to put forth an initiative, and while you sang the praises of Panzer during 19, you now attempt to discredit him.”

    He was praiseworthy then. He deserves criticism now.

    “That is shameful, homie. Your lack of morals and ethics amazes me.”

    Considering you claimed I provided falsehoods in your article and I’ve proved you wrong and you continue to make such claims without examples, I think you’re having a hard time understanding the meaning of the words “morals” and “ethics”. When you actually come up with a falsehood I’ve written that you can prove is a falsehood, I’ll apologize. So far you’ve got nothing.

    “Considering neither likely will make the ballot anyway, I will sign off and go back to ignoring you and your blabber;…”

    Again, I direct you to the following article on that very subject:

    http://regulatemarijuanalikewine.com/regulate-marijuana-like-wine-campaign-collects-over-10000-signatures-in-first-two-weeks/

    … I have no doubt that Mr. Kubby can come up with the signatures … he did back when Prop 215 needed them:

    http://www.kubby.com/DennisPeronLetter.html

    “…but thanks for sending me the link to your story. God knows I would have never seen it otherwise. LOL.”

    Obviously. There’s much you don’t bother to research. It shows in your work.

  18. MIckey Martin on

    Let me know when you have enough courage to put your real name on your homework. Until you can do that you are just more cowardice fools who blindly follow the lies of the DMV because, well, he is smarter than you and that makes you think he is telling the truth. He is not. Good luck with that leadership. Has he pissed of the entire Occupy Vancouver movement yet? LOL.

  19. MIckey Martin on

    PS…Don’t you have a picture of yourself from the last 20 years to use as your avatar for CC…? WTF?

  20. Mickey Martin on

    DMV,

    You are a funny guy. I can respect that. You still are a promoter of falsehoods and not qualified to practice law anywhere, much less CA. Hell, you are not even allowed to be in CA, so it begs to wonder why you are a member of the RMLW campaign at all. But that is your prerogative. You can lob half-truths and outright lies from Canada about CA law and what you think you and McPike know. Took you guys long enough to formulate a response.

    You keep on keeping on. Maybe one day someone will give a crap about you and your struggle as much as you care about Californians and ours. You were a liar during 19 and you are a liar now. Your dangerous rhetoric has resulted in exactly what I said it would…a dismantling of your “all use is medical” system by lawmakers and public officials who think that stance is bullshit and that the entire medical movement is a “sham.” But this is what you advocated for. This is what you swore was so much better for us here in CA. As tens of thousands of patients lost their collectives as dozens of dispensaries were forced to close their doors, I can only wonder how in the world person would think that this is somehow better than Prop. 19. As you screamed bloody murder because of 19’s age limit being 21, you now are on board with a 21 and over initiative. You are a model of consistency.

    Just remember, if RMLW by some miracle does make the ballot I will support it and I never once said I would not or demeaned its intentions. I think its leadership is incapable of pulling it off and I think the “like wine” narrative is weak. But if it makes it I will vote for it because I support cannabis reform. And I live in CA so I actually CAN vote for it. So while you decide to shitcan other people’s efforts from abroad and promote prohibition in your rhetoric, just know that the rest of us are here doing the work and changing the world. Unlike yourself, I am not on any campaign. I just know who are more reputable people to put forth an initiative, and while you sang the praises of Panzer during 19, you now attempt to discredit him. That is shameful, homie. Your lack of morals and ethics amazes me.

    Considering neither likely will make the ballot anyway, I will sign off and go back to ignoring you and your blabber; but thanks for sending me the link to your story. God knows I would have never seen it otherwise. LOL.

    Good luck in your Canadian quest for cannabis freedom.

    Regards,

    Mickey Martin

  21. Peter Sanderson on

    Well written, well researched and every point well addressed. Nice job.

  22. Anonymous on

    Please, if someone takes up the flag for legalization, they need to be a righteous person. Mickey M & Bill Panzer, like so many others, are not the people that need to be leading a movement. There needs to be a leader that doesn’t smoke weed, but yet understands the medical benefits. People are such better advocates when they are not users. I believe they should also be against all the people in No. CA that are just ruining it for patients. It is just plain greed. They could have had it so good, but just had to have more.

    As far as what Cannabis Warrior and Bill Panzer are smoking, I thought weed made you laid back and calm….must be something else.

  23. Bill H on

    I’ve read both RCPA and RMLW and I have to say that you are completely right David.

    I didn’t agree with you on Prop 19, but I have to agree with you on this one!

    And what are Cannabis Warrior and Bill Panzer smoking? Couldn’t be pot … they are both using personal insults and being aggressive. Sad, really. A couple of jerks if you ask me.

    Bill H

  24. Anonymous on

    I visit Cannabis Warrior and it cracks me up that “Cannabis Warrior is a blog by cannabis activist, Mickey M. It looks to create a forum for discussing the raw and unedited, and sometimes messy, world of fighting for cannabis freedoms.”

    He perhaps need to look up the definition of forum and perhaps discussion:

    fo·rum
    noun \?fo?r-?m\
    plural forums also fo·ra
    Definition of FORUM
    1
    a : the marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business b : a public meeting place for open discussion c : a medium (as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas
    2
    : a judicial body or assembly : court
    3
    a : a public meeting or lecture involving audience discussion b : a program (as on radio or television) involving discussion of a problem usually by several authorities

    I see no “forum” on Mr. M’s website….it’s just his 4-lettered rantings. It would be different if there was some discussion going on. The way he carries on about all of his wonderful qualities as a part of the movement are on the verge of being narcissistic.

  25. Cannabian on

    Good work man ~ Crystal clear arguments. I wasn’t paying attention to this but now that I have read it you make some very accurate points.

  26. Anonymous on

    Gee, I wonder what you could do with Mickey M’s name.