"There are three viable initiatives for cannabis legalization that are bidding to make the ballot in California, and the honest truth is that we cannot afford to split the effort for legalization into three camps, all fighting for resources and energy. We must choose one effort to rally around and all put our best foot forward if we have any chance of making the ballot and actually passing a cannabis freedom initiative in 2012. Any of the initiatives are better than what we have now by a long shot." - Mickey Martin, Dec. 30, 2011

http://cannabiswarrior.com/2011/12/30/why-we-must-choose-one-initiative-...

For once I find myself agreeing with Mickey Martin. We shouldn't be fighting amongst each other for funding and volunteers, we should just pick the best initiative and go with it.

I should disclose at this point I also serve as “Director of Activist Communications” for the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act (RMLW) team. I’ve already chosen which initiative is the best one. But I will still try and do a good job of accurately pointing out the relevant information that would allow an undecided person to decide which initiative it would be in their own interest to support. The comment section will be open – as always – for others to add information they find relevant and correct me on any mistakes they feel I may have made in this analysis.

There is talk on the Drug Policy Forum of California email list of a "Cannadome" - a "four initiatives enter and one leaves" debate event. However, don't hold your breath for RMLW to participate in such an event, as others involved in it enjoy misspeaking about our team and then when we successfully refute their confused statements they refuse to print retractions, ever. For example, Mickey Martin misrepresented RMLW Chief Officer Steve Kubby’s statement of support for all the initiatives as a statement saying he was pulling his initiative from the running - and never printed a retraction:

http://cannabiswarrior.com/2011/09/17/kubby-folds-endorses-rcpa2012-over...

Even when it was pointed out to him that he was mistaken:

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2011/09/29/Battle-Marijuana-Bi...

Bill Panzer called me a liar, and then failed to apologize when I proved myself to be correct (see the article and the comment section, DML, Wed, 11/16/2011 - 12:24):

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/28992

We expect more of the same from these people.

The RMLW team is all for the public comparing our initiatives and for our community to rally behind the best one, but I feel such a comparison could take place in an article like this far more easily than in an event.

Currently in the running there are four marijuana-related initiatives that could be on the California ballot in 2012. Three involve legalization and one involves the regulation of medicinal marijuana. Let's look at the medicinal marijuana regulation initiative first.

It's called the "California Medical Marijuana Regulation, Control and Taxation Act".

It has a website: http://www.regulatemedicalmarijuana.org/

You can read the actual initiative here: americansforsafeaccess.org/downloads/MMRCT.pdf

I read the initiative and then sent it's author and chief proponent, California Cannabis Association organizer and attorney George Mull some questions - his answers are in block quotes:

1) It says in your press release of Jan. 19th, 2012, that:

"Mandate state registration after July 1, 2013 for every person in California engaged in cultivating, processing, manufacturing, transporting, distributing, selling medical marijuana for use by others."

Would federal prosecutors have access to this information?

The initiative mandates that "No funds shall be spent by state or local officials to assist federal authorities in enforcing marijuana prohibition on activities carried out by persons in compliance with the provisions of this article. Section 11362.97(b). This mandates that state and local officials not actively assist federal authorities, but nothing passed as state law, whether by the legislature or by initiative, would be able to stop a federal warrant.

If the answer is yes, does this not put everyone at risk of federal prosecution?

There is always a risk of federal prosecution and would continue to be with registration. The hope is that with a well regulated system in place, there is actually less likelihood of federal prosecution of registrants as long as they are acting in conformance with the regulations.

If the answer is no, what provisions within the Act will prevent federal prosecutors having access to this information?

As stated earlier, a proper subpoena could get at specific information.

2) It says on the FAQ page:

"While the Act imposes a sales tax of 2.5% on medical marijuana, patients can expect an overall decrease in the cost of their medication due to the lower operating expenses from a safe, well-regulated environment."

What operating expenses would you expect to be lowered from this Act?

The better way to view this, in my opinion, is that registration, and the concomitant benefit of knowing that the business is legal and authorized under state and local rules, will allow more certainty as to return on investment. This will allow providers to feel secure in recovering their investment over a longer period, without feeling they need to recover their investment in a short time out of fear they will be closed before making their money back.

3) Does Article 2.8 of the Act permit a minimum of one dispensary per 50,000 residents of a city? Is there a maximum number of dispensaries allowed per 50,000 residents?

Yes, there will be a minimum of one dispensary per 50,000 residents in any city with a population of greater than 50,000 persons. The maximum in excess of that could be set by the county or city. Any city or county wanting LESS than one per 50,000 would only be able to accomplish that by putting a measure on the ballot and having the people approve that smaller number or ban.

His answers reveal to me three things:

1) He is unconcerned that this initiative solves the US Federal Government's only obstacle of rounding up of all those involved in dispensaries at once - how to get all the information about everyone involved. The Feds lack the resources to do this ... this initiative does this.

2) Any concerns addressed by med pot clubs being "more legal" under state law will be outweighed by the "making it easier for the Feds to get everyone" element, and therefore there will be no savings to "operational expenses".

3) His initiative makes total prohibitions difficult but monopolies easy. In contrast, RMLW makes both total prohibitions AND monopolies impossible.

For these reasons, the "California Medical Marijuana Regulation, Control and Taxation Act" is worse than no change at all, and I will be advising people not to support it or vote for it.

Now let's look at the remaining three initiatives:

The "California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative 2012" is by far the best of the three initiatives from the cannabis community's perspective. It has large personal grow allowances - 99 plants - minimal licensing requirements and minimal taxation. It is also known as the "Jack Herer" initiative and has been trying to get on the ballot for years. It was written by Chris Conrad and edited by Jack's lawyer - Bill McPike. Mr. McPike was also the main author of RMLW.

The reason it probably won't make the ballot this year is the reason it hasn't ever made the ballot - it has yet to attract the millions of dollars required to collect signatures. My intuition tells me that it won't get this money until there are thousands of "like-wine" pot cafes willing to pool their resources, as the billionaires who fund initiatives are careful only to give money to initiatives that poll over 60%, and the "minimal regulation" model that CCHHI represents barely polls over 50%.

If you happen to be one of those billionaires who is willing to put a million or two on a longshot, this is the website to go to:

http://www.cchhi2012.org/

The last remaining initiatives are the "repeal" initiative and the "wine model" initiative. Both stand a chance of attracting major funding.

Let's examine these last two initiatives with these questions in mind.

How does the wording of the initiative poll among potential voters?

How much money has the initiative already raised?

How many signatures has the initiative gathered so far?

How many endorsements has the initiative managed to gather?

Let's look at the numbers and see which one is in the lead.

Polling

"A recent article by Phil Smith of StoptheDrugWar.org reports, "Marijuana Legalization Trails in New California Poll". According to Smith, "The Public Policy Institute of California poll had 51% opposing pot legalization, with 46% in favor." However, we should point out that there is a world of difference between "legalization" and "regulation".

Take the following poll by the Economist on regulation:

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

In this independent poll of cannabis activists on Facebook, RMLW has beaten it's next closest competitor by 3 to 1 (221 votes to 72 votes and 37 votes):

http://www.facebook.com/questions/335899416422141/

Amount of money and number of signatures

"But the news wasn't all bad--apparently, the fourth quarter of last year  saw a major boost for the so-called Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Initiative, which is slated for this November's ballot and if passed, would effectively legalize marijuana for recreational use by adults. Specifically, according to the campaign's organizers, they raised $100,000 and collected 20,000 signatures last fall."- OC Weekly, Jan 3, 2012

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2012/01/regulate_marijuana_like_wine_i.php

No other initiative even comes close to those numbers ... or looks like they will, for that matter.

Number of endorsements

RMLW:

Gov. Gary Johnson

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher

Kenny Loggins

Judge James P. Gray (ret.)

LAPD Deputy Chief S. Downing (ret.)

Assemblymember Chris Norby

Lt. Diane Goldstein (ret.)

Ed Rosenthal

NORML Founder Keith Stroup

Tommy Chong

Rick Steves

Vivian McPeak, Seattle Hempfest

Lynnette Shaw Marin Alliance

Alice Huffman, President California NAACP

Rob Kampia, MPP

Norm Stamper, former Seattle Police Chief

Craig Beresh California Cannabis Coalition

A New PATH (Parents for Addiction Treatment & Healing)

LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition)

The Libertarian Party

Marc Emery

Dr. Lester Grinspoon

RCPA:

Grace Slick

Dr. Lester Grinspoon

http://repealcannabisprohibition.org/index.php?page=display&id=87

We can spend all day and all night arguing about which initiative has the better wording ... and the fact of the matter is, we already have done so:

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2011/09/29/Battle-Marijuana-Bills-Why-Regulate-Better-Repeal

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/28992

http://regulatemarijuanalikewine.com/compare-california-marijuana-initiatives/

But the truth of the matter is that one team has gotten organized first and submitted it's language first, is way ahead in public AND activist polling AND fundraising AND endorsements. It’s the wine model by a long shot.

The RMLW team has paid for a professional private polling firm to see how our initiative does with 800 potential California voters. We expect the results back in late January. We expect to get at least 55% support for our initiative. We expect to attract big money donations if our initiative does well in this poll. If other initiatives can’t even raise the money to do such polling and we poll at or over 55%, we strongly recommend those organizing the other initiatives to read the writing on the wall, quit beating their heads against the wall and join our initiative early enough to take positions of responsibility and influence. Being on the winning team is the best way to ensure one will actually earn the bragging rights that is inevitably tied to such a victory.

Many people predict an increase in cannabis crackdowns in the USA. As one writer put it:

"Logic and culture will not be relevant in the coming marijuana madness; all that shall matter is that even more money and resources will accrue to the benefit of the most powerful in society." -http://publiccitizen.sonomaportal.com/2012/01/19/marijuana-madness/

The madness will not end by educational activities alone. It will not end by appealing to reason, or lobbying politicians, or through the courts. Only the initiative process has a hope of success, because it's the only process that has yielded results.

Perhaps, if the wine model doesn't pass in 2012, we can all band together and try the repeal model next time. Perhaps, if the wine model does pass in 2012, we can band together and push the Jack Herer initiative through next time. That's the type of unity that the movement should be displaying during these difficult times.

Given the fact that times are tough, money raising is not easy, the raids are happening left and right ... it's time to get honest with ourselves. If we're going to be honest with ourselves and each other, the initiative we should get behind is Regulate Marijuana Like Wine.

So let's stop wasting time and energy and let's all legalize cannabis. For everyone. Together.

"Several people, spearheaded by Hunter Thompson, attacked the current strategy of decriminalized pot as "another trick."
– High Times, March 1977

"The Single Convention Treaty could easily be nullified. There is no reason to stand for this. Every country that has signed that has broken the rule, and it’s legal tradition that when treaties are broken, people can resign the treaty. The Single Convention is not the end-all argument for decriminalization. Decriminalization has shortcomings in every way. It doesn't address the basic issues."
– Gatewood Galbraith, "1977 NORML Formal – Does Decrim Really Work?", Blacklisted News, pp. 278-279

Recently, 77% of Liberals attending their national convention voted in favor of LEGALIZING marijuana:

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2012/01/16/Federal-Liberals-En...

This could mean anything from the coffee bean model (everyone can grow, deal and smoke cannabis) to the wine model (any adult can grow, deal and smoke cannabis) to a Prop 19-esque model (any adult can smoke cannabis or - if they own their own home - grow about one big plant but you have to be very, very lucky or connected to make money growing and dealing cannabis - all the unlucky ones still get busted).

Here is the wording of the resolution that was passed:

http://cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2012/01/11/Proposed-Liberal-Party-...

It really doesn't say what model is going to be proposed. I suppose the details will be flushed out IF they put it on their platform and IF they get elected and IF they keep their promise to legalize ... admittedly those are three very big IFs.

I hope for the coffee bean model, I can live with the wine model, and I will continue to fight against the Prop 19-type models as "fake legalization" that will sell out most of our growing and dealing community (the community that made the activist community possible all these years) for the sake of monopoly and greed.

But the fight over what kind of legalization we settle for may just be moot. The fact is - unfortunately - that just because 77% of the Liberal membership wants LEGALIZATION, it does not mean the leadership will put it on the platform:

"The resolution approved at the convention is non-binding. So there is no guarantee the issue will be in the 2015 Liberal election platform. In fact Canadian political parties have a history of ignoring policy resolutions from conventions, so the chances of this one being taken up are pretty low."

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/18/hugh-macintyre-the-econom...

DECRIMINALIZATION is being floated by the Liberal leadership types and the major media as an acceptable "first step":

"Martin Cauchon, the justice minister who introduced decriminalization, said Sunday he believes legalization is inevitable but that Canadians would be more comfortable with decriminalizing pot as a first step."

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2012/01/16/Federal-Liberals-En...

"But the Liberals set off down this road in government twice, and never even made it to decriminalization. This is a non-binding resolution by a third party to do something somewhat more ambitious than it declined to do when it was the first party."

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/17/chris-selley-its-a-perilo...

"More than a dozen states have already decriminalized the drug. Last year, Connecticut became the 13th state to do so. The Hartford Courant newspaper reported the state could save $885,000 every year in court costs and attorney salaries, and make as much as $1.4 million in fines and fees."

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2012/01/17/Dont-Fear-Reefer-Gr...

"“It says to Canadians that we know what’s going on in the country and we want to deal with it openly,” said Francis, adding that polls frequently indicate a majority of Canadians want marijuana decriminalized."
http://www.vernonmorningstar.com/news/137525918.html

"Released on Tuesday, the poll suggests 66% of Canadians are in favour of the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana, with just 20% supporting leaving the laws as they are now."

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/17/majority-of-canadians-support-le...

This "contemplating decriminalization" is also happening in the UK:
http://www.theweedblog.com/uk-politicians-considering-marijuana-regulati...

Decrim, on the surface, sounds good. "No criminal record" is what sounds like will happen. "Reform" and all that. If one digs a little deeper, most versions of "decrim" - including every version ever proposed in Canada (and there have been over a dozen) - mean that your criminal record will be replaced with a "non-criminal record" that does everything a criminal record does: prevent you from getting a good job, getting bonded, crossing the border, etc. In these forms of decrim, the fines ($200 the first time, $500 the second time and $1000 the third, fourth, fifth etc etc time) virtually guarantee that more people will go to jail for unpaid fines than were going to jail before "decrim" was passed. Almost all of the versions of decrim that I examined - Singapore, Australia, Portugal, New York - made the situation worse for cannabis users, growers and dealers, not better.

Look at the myths and facts for yourself:

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/descriminalization-decrim-myth...

And then join with me in demanding that the Liberal party go all the way with the coffee bean or wine models of legalization and avoid the sham reform of decrim.

"On the question of organization, or any other question, opportunism knows only one principle: the absence of principle. Opportunism chooses its means of action with the aim of suiting the given circumstances at hand, provided these means appear to lead toward the ends in view. … Historically, the errors committed by a truly revolutionary movement are infinitely more fruitful than the infallibility of the cleverest Central Committee."
– Rosa Luxemburg, Organizational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy

"Up there is like, um, where the college hipsters that live in Brooklyn go and try and rule the park from. Down here is more of the poor people's encampment…"
– A person from Occupy Wall St. being interviewed in Zuccotti Park by Samantha Bee of the Daily Show, Nov 16, 2011

Let me stress that after all I've experienced, I still believe in the Occupy Movement. I still believe in Occupy Vancouver. I still believe in consensus decision-making. I still believe in the power of the General Assembly. The following is not a condemnation of what is but should not be, rather it's guidance on how to improve something that should exist.

The fact of the matter: there are people within Occupy Vancouver who are spoiling it for everyone else. I'm not talking about the poor homeless kids overdosing and/or dying from hard drugs. I'm actually talking about the "leadership" elements who moderate the discussion forums, control the website, and run the media committee.

These people are well-educated and familiar with some economic, societal and environmental issues. But their knowledge of harm-reduction and drug policy – and their faith in the democratic process – is somewhat lacking. I have observed that from late October to early November, they continually thwarted the will of the General Assembly.

I was asked to speak by organizers of Occupy Vancouver on the first big day of protest, October 15. My speech about creating a world without rulers and with drug peace was well-received by the crowd. I began to participate in the general assembly committee that day, and by the end of the week I had formed a "come up with a rough draft of the demands" working group, with permission from the general assembly to post our rough draft on the website – as long as it was labeled as such.

The proof of this permission can be found on the page where the General Assembly decisions are kept:

"18) A rough draft list of Occupy Vancouver's demands should be compiled and uploaded onto the website."

The main reason to put it up on the website was not to publicize it, but rather to get input on it. Some people were against involving the rest of the 99% in creating it, but I was OK with that too. I really didn't care if the input was from the occupiers, supporters, detractors or the public at large – we're all 99%ers, right? And a good idea is a good idea, regardless of where it comes from. As long as it says "rough draft" on it, it would educate people on how a democratic organization comes up with ideas for demands and then ratifies them at a General Assembly – Occupy Vancouver was using the 90% "supermajority" system.

The first time the demands were posted, the list was removed shortly afterwards from the website – not by a vote from the General Assembly but by a member of the website committee – because what was ratified by the General Assembly did not make it into the "official" minutes.

Originally those minutes were posted here, but have since been taken down.

It took a whole week, but finally the original minutes were found and it was verified that the General Assembly had agreed to post the rough draft of the demands on the website. The original minutes still haven't made it into the online minutes.

The second time the demands were posted, they were taken down (again by the website committee) was just a few days later.  It was argued that it wasn't really taken off the website, it was just taken off the home page. You could still find it if you knew where to look, but you had to know that it was hidden away in the forums and find the tiny link to "forums" and then figure out which forum was hiding the list of demands, as there was no "demands forum".

The third time it was taken down (taken down completely from where it was already hidden from the general public) was when one of the moderators in the discussion forum complained that I was "flooding" the forum with harm-reduction and pro-drug peace information. What I was really doing was reacting to the "flood" of anti-drug peace activist sentiment, and the wave upon wave of ignorance that came from these "moderators".

Let me provide you with a sample from just one thread (I will stick to the main thread about demands and spare you the comments from other threads such as the "movement hijacked by marijuana pushers" thread) so you know what I'm talking about. I will focus on the "anti-cannabis" and "anti-heroin prescription" comments – there were supportive comments about these things too, but I think understanding the reasoning and the mentality of those who are against vocally supporting drug policy reform and harm reduction is instructive.

"i admit to having a rather big problem with distributing botanical drugs like coffee beans. decriminalize, sure, but legalizing is a whole other issue." emily cummings  Post subject: Re: WORKING DRAFT - LIST OF DEMANDS Posted: October 27th, 2011, 12:45 am

"…i have a background in pharmaceutical sciences" emily cummings (a moderator who joined the discussion forum the day it was formed) Post subject: Re: WORKING DRAFT - LIST OF DEMANDS Posted: October 27th, 2011, 8:22 pm
"I think we should soften #17. FOR NOW! Suggesting to much of the 99% that heroin and cocaine should be given out by pharmacists will alienate them."  Skipatrol  Post subject: Re: WORKING DRAFT - LIST OF DEMANDS Posted: October 31st, 2011, 11:43 am

"Not a big fan of decriminalizing hard drugs." emily cummings  Post subject: Re: WORKING DRAFT - LIST OF DEMANDS Posted: November 1st, 2011, 9:11 pm?"19. Repeal the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. All synthetic drugs and hard drugs (including cocaine and heroin) should be distributed by prescription through a pharmacist." - Although I agree with this in theory, I think it should be removed from the list. Presenting it as a demand is going to get nothing but bad publicity and negative feedback from a public brainwashed by decades of anti-drug propaganda" Hrichards  Post subject: Re: WORKING DRAFT - LIST OF DEMANDS Posted: November 1st, 2011, 10:14 pm

"i am very worried though that comments re: #19 and #20 are falling on deaf ears as David Malmo-Levine is a cannabis activist and is by own admission, using OVan movement to advance his personal agenda. since he himself doesn't seem to have any problem with that, i would like to see comments from other people involved with the movement qualifying this behavior as unacceptable. it is admirable what he's done so far but the time has come to put greater interest before his own if he really wants to help this movement." emily cummings  Post subject: Re: WORKING DRAFT - LIST OF DEMANDS Posted: November 2nd, 2011, 1:04 am

"you did put in a lot of work, that i can see and i appreciate that. however your work remains biased and you seem to not know that wikipedia is not an acceptable reference (wiki is just a search engine which takes you to real references) and neither are some obscure cannabis blogs which are heavily biased as they are pushing to promote personal agenda too. at the same time, you completely dismissed my source (american academy of pediatricians) as pill-pushers. at this point i will agree to strongly disagree. you show a ton of zest and energy but very little prudence and science and i cannot align myself with your demands." emily cummings  Post subject: Re: WORKING DRAFT - LIST OF DEMANDS Posted: November 2nd, 2011, 8:48 am

"I agree with Emily regarding David's list. The emphasis on drugs is an attempt to hijack the occupy movement." just_me  Post subject: Re: WORKING DRAFT - LIST OF DEMANDS Posted: November 2nd, 2011, 9:45 am

"David -- I agree with a lot of what you're saying, and actually have done some of the same research. I'm just saying that the inclusion of these type of specific, highly radical proposals dilutes the power of the overall document." Stewart  Post subject: Re: WORKING DRAFT - LIST OF DEMANDS Posted: November 2nd, 2011, 12:32 pm

"I think maybe of the people who can relate to the movement will be turned away if its morphs into a drug & hemp campaign rather than sticking to its roots as an economic struggle, and yes I realize the potential effect of drug legalization/hemp production on the economy. But it definitely isn't a major issue and shouldn't be made into one. If you want to promote this kind of thing then I'm sure you'll get the chance at the 4/20 assembly and the annual protests in May. Bringing drugs into this is just going to get rid of supporters, simple as that." Hrichards  Post subject: Re: WORKING DRAFT - LIST OF DEMANDS Posted: November 2nd, 2011, 5:22 pm

Nov. 3nd was the day of the first overdose – this one non-fatal. Instead of thinking for a moment about the only real solution to most overdoses – heroin prescription – the focus was instead on the controversy, and how to avoid it. Contempt was shown for the public, who were seen as unable to understand the facts, so the facts became less important than the "optics" (or what the "leadership" thought would be the optics):

"any "legalize drugs" demand is going to look just wonderful(e-sarcasm) after this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/11/03/bc-occupy-vancouver-drug-overdose.html" Hrichards  Post subject: Re: WORKING DRAFT - LIST OF DEMANDS Posted: November 3rd, 2011, 7:20 pm

"David, for the sake of discussion quality in this thread which seems to have severely deteriorated since cannabis issue became a source of disagreement, I will move all your posts to General Assembly subforum where you can discuss the cannabis agenda in more detail while leaving room for other demands to be discussed here. Pls don't bring the cannabis discussion back to this part of the forum unless you get an OK from Tom A. (he is the main forum admin)." Administrator Post subject: Re: WORKING DRAFT - LIST OF DEMANDS Posted: November 3rd, 2011, 11:51 pm

On November 5th, 2011, some time around 4pm, a 23 year old woman named Ashlie Gough died at Occupy Vancouver.

A subsequent coroners report revealed the death to be caused by an overdose of heroin and cocaine.
 
According to an Occupy Vancouver member named ""MichAel MadloVe" who posted on Facebook, the camp had received "an official bad smack notice 4 hrs later from city health".

The fact of the matter is that cannabis helps people get off hard drugs, and heroin prescription prevents "bad smack" from killing people. The relevancy of these drug-policy related demands to Occupy Vancouver is not simply on a 'corporations make loads of money selling cannabis substitutes' level or a 'corporations make loads of money selling the chemicals required to create cocaine and heroin' level or a 'governments prevent independent movements or nations from cutting corporations out of markets by waging secret wars financed by CIA drug deals or overt wars justified by fighting narco-terrorism' level, but also on a 'these drug laws are to blame for the deaths of innocent people including our own protesters' level.

Had we had a list of demands that included heroin prescription and legal cannabis, we could have pointed to these demands when refusing to be vacated from the Art Gallery, and Vancouver's vast network of drug peace activists would no doubt have joined the battle to resist removal.

Instead, this became the headline:

List of Occupy Vancouver demands 'not official'
ctvbc.ca
Date: Saturday Nov. 5, 2011 8:27 PM PT
 
A draft list of "demands" has emerged on the Occupy Vancouver website, with 60 items ranging from the closure of tax loopholes for the wealthy to the release of non-violent prisoners.

The authors of the list, which was posted Friday on the website's message board, are not named, but it is said to have been compiled over the course of several days by members of the Occupy general assembly.

Occupy Vancouver press liaison Sarah Beuhler told ctvbc.ca that the list is "definitely not official," and was formed by a group of about six individuals.

"Certain people found it very important that a list of demands be generated, though others disagreed," Beuhler said.

"I have personally heard a lot of discontentment with this particular list, in that it's not particularly well-crafted and it seemed to have some people's pet issues on it."

Beuhler confirmed that the list was written by members of the general assembly, but said that body includes anyone who chooses to protest at the site. She estimated between 200 and 300 people show up on a daily basis.

I was even called an "agent provocateur" on You Tube by the famous environmental rights activist Betty Krawczyk for attempting to provide people with a rough draft of the list of demands and for daring to suggest that prescription heroin was a good demand!

Had Ms. Krawczyk and OV press liaison Sarah Beuhler bothered to look into it, they would have discovered the evidence for heroin prescription resulting in positive health outcomes (including but not limited to a reduction in overdose deaths) is overwhelming:

The data, which was collected from 251 participants at sites in Vancouver and Montreal, demonstrate that a combination of optimized methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) and heroin assisted treatment (HAT) can attract and retain the most difficult-to-reach and the hardest-to-treat individuals who have not been well served by the existing treatment system. Key findings at the 12-month point of the treatment-phase of the study showed that HAT and MMT achieved high retention rates: 88 per cent and 54 per cent respectively. Illicit heroin use fell by almost 70 per cent. The proportion of participants involved in illegal activity fell by almost half from just over 70 per cent to approximately 36 per cent. Similarly, the number of days of illegal activity and the amount spent on drugs both decreased by almost half. In fact, participants once spending on average $1,500 per month on drugs reported spending between $300-$500 per month by the end of the treatment phase. Marked improvements were also seen in participants' medical status with scores improving by 27 per cent.

When the Swiss government decided to issue heroin prescriptions on a trial basis throughout the country in 1994, the social advantages of keeping people on heroin were amply demonstrated. The results were as follows: a 60% reduction in criminal offences; a 60% drop in revenue from illegal or semi-legal activities; a spectacular reduction in heroin and cocaine use; a 14% to 32% increase in the number of participants holding down a steady job; a considerable increase in their physical health and, in most cases, a noticeable drop in links maintained with the drug world; no deaths attributable to overdoses and no prescription drug sold on the black market; a net economic benefit of $30 per patient, per day, largely because of the reduction in costs related to health care and the administration of the criminal justice system.

More evidence:

Heroin prescription 'cuts costs'
There are strong reasons to support the practice of prescribing heroin to drug misusers, researchers claim.
A University of Amsterdam team says the treatment is cost-effective, even though it is expensive. The British Medical Journal study found the cost to health services was offset by savings linked to crime reduction.

and

Prescription heroin helps addicts off street drugs
(Reuters Health) - Prescribing heroin to addicts who can't kick their habit helps them stay off street drugs, British researchers said Friday.

So far, doctors have had little hope of treating the 10 percent or more of heroin users who don't respond to methadone, the standard anti-addiction medication. Fueled by drug cravings, those users often spiral downward into crime and diseases spread by dirty needles and unhealthy living.

Short of actually getting addicts off the drug, "heroin clinics" can at least get them off the streets.

"What we are dealing with here is a very severe group of heroin addicts, where all of the treatments have been tried and have failed," said Dr. John Strang, an addiction expert at King's College London, who led the new study.

"They are like oil tankers heading for disaster," he added. "The question we were asking was, 'Can we change the trajectory of these tankers?' And the answer was, 'Yes we can.'"

To test how prescription heroin would work for this group, Strang and his colleagues invited 127 addicts into supervised injecting clinics. The researchers then randomly chose who would get heroin, injected methadone or typical swallowed methadone.

After six months, 101 addicts had stuck with their treatment. More than two-thirds of those on heroin had no sign of street heroin in their urine at least half the time they were tested; before the study, they had been using the street drug almost every day.

and

Prescription heroin might dent the illegal drug trade

While Insite, Vancouver's supervised injection site, continues to serve an important and necessary function, the evidence is mounting that what we really need is to provide prescription opiate and stimulant substitutes to heroin and cocaine/amphetamine addicts.

and here:

In our two trials supervised medical coprescription of heroin to treatment resistant heroin addicts was more effective than and probably just as safe as methadone alone. We saw considerable improvements in physical and mental condition and social functioning and few serious adverse events. The observed positive effects were not dependent on the route of administration of the coprescribed heroin. Our results also indicate that medical coprescription of heroin should be long lasting to obtain stable positive outcomes.

here:

Less than a month after a Canadian team found that prescribing heroin to addicts works where other treatments have failed, scientists in the UK reported the same thing. That stacks more evidence in favour of heroin prescription on top of existing good reports from Switzerland, Spain and Germany.

The point of my little rant is that there's an opportunity to create something here that could grow to replace the death culture that 99% of us want replaced.

"What's new with this movement is that it's not just protesting, but creating a small replica of what we want society to be," said one protester from Occupy Wall St.

This "replica" is only worth replicating if it can avoid the major faults of the society we are attempting to replace, the hierarchical society where the few make decisions for the many and fool the many into believing they have the power.

If the movement is based upon a series of demands, the demands become the ultimate defining authority of the movement and its public face. If there are no demands, the ultimate defining authority becomes the media committee and the website committee, the defacto public face in lieu of demands. By preventing demands from being issued, the media and website committees have created an invisible throne to replace the other invisible throne (which has recently become slightly more visible) – corporations.

There is a reason demands were issued in all the Arab Spring revolts and in every major occupation, sit-in, and sit-down strike of the last 100 years. It unifies the movement and prevents opportunists from re-shaping the group into their own narrowly perceived interests. I will leave you with some quotes by some important people about why it is important to have demands:

"I believe the Occupy movement could be absolutely historic but we won't know for years from now. I believe what it is is a demand for open dialog. … We demand social justice, especially for the first peoples of this nation." – David Suzuki, at the Vancouver Occupation, Oct. 23, 2011

"We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." – MLK Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail

"Give to us clear vision that we may know where to stand and what to stand for – because unless we stand for something, we shall fall for anything." – Peter Marshall (1902–67) Senate chaplain, prayer offered at the opening of the session, April 18, 1947 Prayers Offered by the Chaplain, the Rev. Peter Marshall … 1947–1948, p. 20 (1949). Senate Doc. 80–170.

"We ought to have Parliament this very day. We are quite fit for it. We shall, therefore, get it on demand. It rests with us to define "this very day"." - Mahatma Gandhi, Speech At Gujarati Political Conference I, Nov. 3rd, 1917

"Don't ask for rights. Take them. And don't let any one give them to you. A right that is handed to you for nothing has something the matter with it. It's more than likely, it is only a wrong turned inside out." – Jail Note Book of Shahid Bhagat Singh, quoting Finley Peter Dunne's Mr. Dooley

"As a Maxan Lake Bear Clan family, we are elders advisors to Occupy Vancouver. We stand as indigenous peoples defending our lands and rights. We know that every occupation has a list of demands. That's purpose of occupations – to get answers for demands." – Frank & Helen Martin, Bear Clan, Maxan Lake

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." – Frederick Douglass

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.

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.

There once was a very brave attorney named Letitia Pepper, who stood up to an entire pot movement hell-bent on ramming through a monopolistic California marijuana legalization initiative called "Prop 19".

She provided the only clear analysis of the parts of Prop 19 that would have threatened to eliminate medical marijuana growing rights. She was later vindicated by attorney Bill Panzer on the eve of the election. To make a long story short, a ballot initiative that I thought had some serious problems failed to get a majority in 2010. Thanks, in no small part, to Letitia Pepper’s efforts, California did not remove a half-decent medical marijuana model and replace it with an indecent monopolistic marijuana model. At that time, Letitia Pepper was my hero.

I don’t know what happened since then, but that rational, reasonable, careful Letitia Pepper went away somewhere, and was replaced by a very confused Letitia Pepper.

Marijuana for medicinal use IS legal; marijuana for recreational use CANNOT be legalized while marijuana is a Schedule I drug. End of debate, end of efforts in California to legalize recreational use. [Letitia Pepper, Mar 29, 2011]

It is clear to anyone paying attention to current events regarding medical marijuana in the United States that it is under attack.

It is dangerous to ignore this fact and limit one's drug-peace armor to a fifteen-year-old medical marijuana model that has clearly failed to protect anyone. Not that 215 was a waste of time – obviously, Prop 215 unleashed a genie out of a bottle - but the genie wasn’t big enough to avoid capture and avoid being stuffed inside that bottle again. Clearly, the movement needs a bigger (and more powerful) genie. And clearly, Ms. Pepper needs to drop her personal agenda and support the initiative most likely to provide that genie.

Ms. Pepper refers to "Schedule 1" as the thing that prevents marijuana from being legalized recreationally. To be a Schedule 1 drug, the substance is defined as having "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States".

So by being in Schedule 1, marijuana cannot be "medical". This runs contrary to Ms. Pepper’s assertion that "Marijuana for medicinal use IS legal; marijuana for recreational use CANNOT be legalized while marijuana is a Schedule I drug." The fact is that marijuana for recreational OR medicinal use cannot be legalized FEDERALLY while marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug. I’ve pointed this out to Ms. Pepper repeatedly and she has failed to respond to this point.

It appears that she maintains this fiction so that she can then draw a distinction between "legalization" – which she claims is impossible – and "decriminalization" – which she claims is the only desirable option:

Why "legalize" (tax, control and regulate) when you can de-criminalize instead? [Letitia Pepper, Apr 2, 2011]

But a careful examination of the terminology of "repeal" and "decriminalization" reveals the two things are not identical – or even similar. "Repeal" denotes a removal of all punishment entirely. "Decriminalization" indicates only that there will be no criminal punishments associated with the activity that is decriminalized. Under decrim, there may be “non-criminal” punishments every bit as horrific as the criminal punishments. In fact, if you inspect closely every version of decrim, you will find that most versions involve "net-widening" and an increase in the amount of punishment being handed out.

Ms. Pepper has ignored this fact and continues to this day to use the term "decriminalization" to describe repeal efforts. She has also ignored the glaring problems of the repeal initiative that she has publicly endorsed, the Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act (RCP), while at the same time ignoring the clear advantages of the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act (RMLW), namely, that

1) There is a glaring omission in RCP that would leave everyone vulnerable to arrest, that
2) RMLW would repeal felony convictions for minors and replace felonies with fines instead. RCP would not, that
3) Only RMLW would prohibit local jurisdictions from banning or taxing dispensaries or instituting discriminatory licensing practices. RCP would not, that
4) Only RMLW would explicitly prohibit the monopolization of the cannabis industry with a prohibition on Genetically Modified cannabis. RCP would not, and that
5) Only the model represented by RMLW enjoys over 62% support in California polls

Ms. Pepper says she is against getting "caught up in the trap of careless use of language" (Apr 2, 2011 at 2:40 PM). She should immediately stop confusing repeal with decriminalization.

And you don't even have to falsely claim that "marijuana is like alcohol!" in order to do so! [Letitia Pepper, Apr 2, 2011]

Clearly, marijuana is not like alcohol in it's toxicity, it's overdose-death potential, it's withdrawal symptoms, it's connection to violence, or vehicular mayhem or hangovers.

But marijuana is like alcohol in that both have long-standing sacramental and medicinal histories, both are massive sections of the California economy, both have had movements behind them to re-legalize them as a result of prohibition, both can impair bodily functions and judgment (especially among novice users) and both can put the fear into anxious parents who, for the most part, insist on their children abstaining from use – at the very least until their mid teens, and often until they become 21.

It is this last set of similarities that has no doubt resulted in polling for "regulation" to be at 62% and "legalization" at 46%:

Regulation offers anxious parents the controls they wish to see, and it's the anxious parent demographic that looks like it may make the difference between success and failure at the polls. Again, I have put these facts to Ms. Pepper and receive nothing in return.

Though she has agreed in the past to debate me on the subject, she now says she will only debate me in person and not online. Of course, she knows I am not allowed into the United States due to my arrest record for herb crimes and democracy-related offenses and revealed as much in this statement:

Re David Malmo Levine's offer: "Should you wish to debate me in public, I will make myself available." It's easy to offer to debate in public when you can't cross the Canadian border into the US. [Letitia Pepper, May 22, 2011]

There are many examples of great online debates, including four about Prop 19 from the online radio show Time 4 Hemp. The offer still stands.

If we did debate, I would ask her why she has claimed the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act:

1) "Won't let people grow and use medical cannabis like zucchini or produce recreational marijuana like wine" [Letitia Pepper, Oct 10, 2011] - when it doesn't alter medical marijuana rights at all and clearly will allow people to produce marijuana like wine.

2) "is intentionally written in a way to open the door to cultivation of GMO cannabis." [Letitia Pepper, Oct. 8, 2011] – when it contains clear, direct language that bans all "experimentation, development, research, testing, cultivation, sales or possession of genetically-modified (GMO) marijuana, hemp and it’s seeds".

3) will "redefine medical marijuana as having less than 1 percent THC" [Letitia Pepper, Oct 10, 2011] – despite being unable to point to the language in the initiative where this is done.

4) will "still not legalize any non-medical use of marijuana [Letitia Pepper, Oct 10, 2011] – despite language all over the initiative that will do exactly this.

5) will make it possible that "a kid could be fined more than $9,000 for possession of pot!" [Letitia Pepper, Oct 10, 2011] - here she confuses a "Minor In Possession" of tobacco infraction, which can be compounded by 270%, with a "Minor In Possession" of marijuana civil fine which cannot be compounded.

I guess if Ms. Pepper continues to refuse online debate, readers will just have to attempt to figure out what she is trying to say about the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act and then compare it with the language of the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act and see which language is clearer and more compelling.

And if Ms. Pepper changes her mind and wants a debate, I will be happy to oblige her. Any time, anywhere on the internet.

Read more about the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act.

If anyone has any questions about the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act, I would be happy to answer them. My email address is: malmolevine@gmail.com

The text of my speech at the Vancouver Art Gallery for the anniversary of September 11th, 2011.

Hello fellow truthers!

My name is David Malmo-Levine and I've been asked to speak to you today because of my reputation for having a low-bullshit threshold.

I am a cannabis activist – I help organize the cannabis farmer's markets we have here at the Art Gallery twice a year. I defended myself on pot-dealing charges at the Supreme Court of Canada. I don't believe the government's lies about marijuana smoke causing cancer because the government has been unable to produce one person who has gotten cancer from smoking only cannabis. I don't believe the government's lies about pot smoke having no medicinal value because I have 100-year-old copies of the advertisements in the British Medical Journals for Grimaults cigarettes of Cannabis Indica. I don't believe in punishing people for their intelligent preferences for cannabis over alcohol, tobacco, pills, caffeine and similar harder substances. Given how often the government has lied about marijuana, I've grown quite skeptical about the drug war in general. I don't believe that police and jails are the best way to solve any medical problems. My skepticism regarding the government's drug war rhetoric has caused me to be a skeptic when it comes to the government's other global, infinite war – the terror war or the oil war or whatever you want to call it. So not only am I a pot activist, I'm a truther, too.

Some in the media use the term "truther" as if it was some sort of insult. I don't see it as an insult – given that it appears that the alternative to being a truther is being a liar, a coward or a dupe. At least the truthers stand for something. If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything.

You know who is a truther? Michael Moore is a truther. Moore told reporters, "I've had a number of firefighters tell me over the years and since Fahrenheit 9/11 that they heard these explosions – that they believe there's MUCH more to the story than we've been told. I don't think the official investigations have told us the complete truth – they haven't even told us half the truth."

Hunter S. Thompson was another truther. He said in an interview that "... the disastrous crashes – I'm still not sure who did that – I think there's allot more to it than we've been allowed to know ... I'm very disturbed about the civil rights implications of this – I think everyone should be."
 
Everyone on planet Earth has a duty to seek the truth, and everyone on planet Earth should be very wary of what governments say is the truth – more often than not governments lie. I also don't mind being called a "conspiracy theorist", given the alternative to being a conspiracy theorist is being a "coincidence theorist".

You know what the coincidence theorists believe? I'll tell ya what they believe: It's just a coincidence that three steel framed skyscrapers melted into mostly dust as a result of kerosene and burning office equipment only on 9/11 and no other day. It's just a coincidence that all the steel from all three collapsed buildings was removed and shipped to Asia before any examination of it could take place! It's just a coincidence that thermite – a substance used to cut steel – was found in the dust. It's just a coincidence that the most guarded airspace on planet earth was – on that day and that day alone – left defenseless while six military exercises distracted and confused the Air Force. It's just a coincidence that FEMA was in NYC practicing how to respond to just such a terrorist attack on 9/11 – the day such attacks happened – and that similar anti-terrorist exercises occurred on the 7/7 bombings in London. It's just a coincidence that Karen Silkwood crashed her car the night she was on her way to expose the dirty dealings of the nuclear industry. It's just a coincidence that a magic bullet exited out Kennedy's throat, changed trajectory several times and then accounted for Governor Connally's wounds, going through bone and still coming out of two men's bodies nearly pristine. It's just a coincidence that the sinking of the USS Maine was blamed on a Spanish mine – and allowed the US to declare war on Spain in 1898 – when actually the explosion occurred on the inside of the ship.

There are so many coincidences that just happen to be convenient occurrences for those in power that you really have to be as stupid as a sack of hammers, as timid as a mouse, or as honest as a politician, to believe in those coincidences any longer.

So I ask you to join me in coming out of the closet as a truther – there are more and more of us coming out every day! There are now about 1,500 out of the closet Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. These brave professionals have put out a new film: 9/11 Explosive Evidence. It will soon be online. Everyone should watch this film and post it on your Facebook walls and send it to your parent's email addresses. It is the strongest argument yet that 9/11 was an inside job.
 
Sophocles said that the truth is always the strongest argument, and nobody dares debate the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. Nobody even attempts to argue that you can get symmetrical skyscraper collapse from asymmetrical skyscraper damage. The Popular Mechanics people don't mention the symmetrical nature of the collapse in their "Debunking 9/11 Myths" book. They don't mention missing jet engine holes, or the missing jet engines, in the Pentagon either.
 
The history of war is a history of deception. It has been said many times that "the first casualty in war is the truth". Most wars begin with false-flag operations – where a country pretends to be attacked so they can claim to be defending themselves – or a "let it happen" operation – where a country knows that it is about to be attacked and they let it happen so they can then whip up public opinion into a war frenzy.
 
For example, in WW1 the Germans attempted to warn the US public with 50 newspaper advertisements that the British Cruise Liner Lusitania – which had hundreds of US passengers – was a legitimate military target, but the US State Department prevented all but one of the ads to run. Churchill called the ship "45,000 tons of live bait." It's sinking by Germany is seen by many as the major factor which led to the US entering WW1.
 
Or take WW2 for another example. After the NAZI's got rid of their political opponents with a false-flag Reichstag fire, they then performed another false-flag operation to justify the invasion of Poland. They dressed up some prisoners in Polish uniforms, shot them and then claimed these dead pretend Polish soldiers were attacking a German radio station. Google "Operation Himmler" or "Operation Canned Goods" to learn more about that false flag operation.
 
Gore Vidal wrote about Pearl Harbor in his book The Last Empire, how the USA had broken all the Naval codes and had goaded Japan into striking first. If you don't believe that Pearl Harbor was planned, ask yourself why none of the air-craft carriers – the weapons that won the battle of the Pacific – were in Pearl Harbor during the Japanese attack. Another lucky coincidence?
 
Or take the Vietnam War. The US attempts to paint the Vietnamese as the aggressor in the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The truth of the matter is that the US had been bombing South Vietnam – the area it claimed to be defending – since 1962. Google "Project Farm Gate" or look at the photos of fighter-bombers in the New York Times soft cover version of the Pentagon Papers or Google "bombing of South Vietnam" and "Chomsky" and learn how that – by 1961, the US puppet government in South Vietnam had already killed 80,000 people, who was really the aggressor in Vietnam?
 
Or Google "Operation Ajax" and learn about the coup in Iran in 1953. Google the video "A History of Oil" by Robert Newman or read "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin and learn how often oil is the main reason for many wars. Google "Operation North Woods" and learn about the planned false-flag operation to justify a US invasion of Cuba. Google the video "The Panama Deception" and learn how Bush 1 and Cheney used lies to justify their mass murder of 3000 Panamanians. Read the book "Killing Hope" by William Blum to fully understand how often the CIA organizes massacres that benefit corporate America. Check out the new Wikileak about Ambassador April Glaspie – no doubt acting on orders from Bush 1 and Cheney – giving Saddam Hussein the "Green Light" to invade Kuwait.
 
And even though Gaddafi is a murderous thug – up until he decided to stop accepting US dollars and instead insist on being paid in gold for his oil, he was America's thug. The US Government hasn't dropped 50,000 bombs on Libya because it cares for the Libyan people.
 
The US Government wants the oil and the gold to hand over to the oil companies and banks that finance the election campaigns of both the Democrats and the Republicans. If you already know all this, it's your duty to inform other people about it. And if you don't know all this stuff, you have a lot of Googling to do.
 
You all have a duty to fully educate yourselves, your families and your community about false-flags – not just to avoid being complicit in horrific war crimes, but also to be ready the next time some nuclear bomb is detonated or some bio-weapon is released and blamed on someone from an oil-rich nation. Unless we as citizens of planet Earth familiarize ourselves with false flags, the next one could be the one that removes our remaining rights away completely and results in us all being put into FEMA camps, like some say that fourth hijacked airplane – Flight 93 – was designed to do.
 
Some of you are deciding right now whether or not you should add the struggle for 9/11 truth to the rest of your daily struggles. When promoting this event on the Cannabis Culture .com website, CC editor Jeremiah Vandermeer and myself were attacked for attempting to deal with more than one issue at a time. "You gotta pick one infinite war and stick with it" our critics, in effect, argued. I expect that similar attacks will be levelled at anyone who attempts to circulate evidence of government war crimes and government false-flag operations. So I leave you with these words from Martin Luther King Jr., when he decided to speak out against the Vietnam War, from his speech "Beyond Vietnam":
 
"The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war.

Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on. And some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us."

…and the age-old contest between cooperation and competition – or why this pothead is a libertarian socialist instead of just a socialist-hating libertarian or a libertarian-hating socialist.

“Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.” – Bakunin

So … has everyone out there heard that society is about to be totally transformed in the next month or two by a total collapse of our economic system precipitated by peak oil?

I didn’t either … until very recently. Then I saw the film “Collapse” (available free online) (1).

Disclose.tv - Collapse (part 1) Video

Disclose.tv - Collapse (part 2) Video

The long and the short of it is that Mike Ruppert and some filmmakers have given our oil-based economy a very short time to go. There’s a limited amount of oil left in the world and while it won’t run out for a few years it’s about to become very expensive in the near future. Very expensive. Imagine paying triple what you’re paying now. That’s going to start to really cut into the grocery money of a majority of people in Canada and the US. The evidence for this scenario seems to be piling up. (2)

In this tight economy, already high fuel prices that triple in price could kill many businesses that use diesel and gas – which is most of them. This would mean that our petroleum-based food creation and food distribution systems are also at risk of collapse. Our banks are currently at risk of insolvency and runs – a collapse of the fuel and food systems would result in a collapse of the economic system. The environment is nearly saturated with toxins and C02 and plastic and oil spills and – in combat zones – depleted uranium.

There is talk of the ocean’s “pump” circulation system collapsing too – it’s been acting quite irregularly for the last ten years or so. (3) Food prices are climbing – “nearly 29 per cent” in international markets in the last 11 months. (4)

The middle class is about to become poor and the poor are about to become destitute. The type of desperation and suffering that poverty brings – the kind that could cause someone to set themselves on fire in protest in Tunisia … is coming to the Western Nations.

How likely? Mike Ruppert says it’s a certainty in the next few months. He was right about the CIA dealing drugs and he was right about Cheney being the “Maestro” of 9/11 (see his book “Crossing the Rubicon” for all the evidence of that) so I think there’s a good chance of him being right about this too.

He’s wrong about one thing: bio ethanol. He judges it on how well corn ethanol performs while ignoring the fact that hemp ethanol performs much better (5) – and he follows Dr. Permintal who has since been discredited (6) – but apart from his understanding of ethanol as a mitigating force, he understands “collapse” pretty well.

Ruppert warns us to stay in our own areas and maximize our friendships we have taken time to cultivate – only by intense cooperation will we at all hope to survive this transition period between the global corporate rule of the last 100 years and whatever it is we decide to replace it with.

Ruppert says that the most valuable things post collapse will be seeds. I think he’s right. They’re portable and contain the keys to our future survival. And the most valuable seeds of all will be marijuana seeds and hemp seeds – they’re the number one medicinal and industrial resource on planet earth. Everyone who has a little place to grow should start a garden right away, and farmers who have lots of room to grow should think about planting a crop of nutritional hemp … it’s the best food in the world in terms of digestible protein and essential fatty acids – which are essential for human nutrition.

Do I think that collapse will happen in the next few months? Ruppert thinks so. He could be right. He could be wrong but he could be right. And if there’s even a remote possibility that he’s right we should start to prepare for collapse before the day it hits us. If we prepare before then it might not be too late. If we prepare when it hits it might be too late.

If you have to choose between spending money on food and spending money on ammo, I suggest food. Here’s why: The contest between cooperation and competition is about to be decided … and winner takes all. The human race is about to evolve to angels through intense cooperation or descend into hell through intense competition. Everyone knows it’s about to happen. Nobody knows what exactly the human race is turning into but – given the options - there’s never been a better time to evolve angelically and signs of change are everywhere.

There are examples of what other nations do to survive collapse already in existence – take Argentina for example. In the recent film “The Take”, Argentina’s economic collapse has been met with radical reforms in the economic system – basically the workers have found that they are far more efficient without any bosses. Meetings among equal workers have replaced the wasteful system of separate “managers” and “owners” – who turned out to simply be a drag on productivity. Here’s a trailer for the film: (7)

This mirrors the experience of the Mondragon federation of workers collectives in Spain (8) and of the anarchist pot-dealing squat “Christiania” in Copenhagen, Denmark (9) – both of which seem to operate much more efficiently without any forms of hierarchy. This also mirrors the experience of the short-lived but educational anarchist revolution in Spain in the 1930’s, where;

“Despite the critics clamoring for "maximum efficiency" rather than revolutionary methods, anarchist collectives often produced more than before the collectivization. In Aragon, for instance, the productivity increased by 20%.” (10)

I must say I feel very good about Dana Larsen running for leader of the BC NDP – he’s the smartest and most ethical person I’ve ever met, and the NDP could do a lot worse for leaders … they could put yet another boring quiet person in. Dana is not only exciting with regards to the direction and speed of change he desires, but he’s also a voice for both freedom and compassion in all areas of life – political and economic and spiritual. That’s the kind of voice we need during collapse – locally and globally.

Imagine the message it would send to these new upcoming democracies in the Middle East and to revolting unions in the mid-west USA if we have a new democratic resurgence in British Columbia. Imagine the effect on the rest of the world if BC were to suddenly have free transit everywhere, legalized prostitution, higher taxes on the lucky rich people who live here (and who, given the mild climate and quality cannabis, are unlikely to move), a $10 minimum wage, children who eat nutritious meals, hemp ethanol manufacturing and legal cannabis (or a de-funded narc squad and a reoriented police force). I can imagine a scenario of pot cafes on every street corner (each one with a different theme). A vote for Dana Larsen is a vote for survival AND prosperity. Check out his platform (11)

There’s a strategy I remember from the Y2K scare: “look after ten people” – it goes like this. Some people are help-ers and some are help-ees – not everyone is talented enough to provide for others and some - perhaps one in every ten of us - are super-talented at it. The “look after ten people” ethic is this – in times of emergency do your best to contribute to the welfare of ten people – this shouldn’t break you and it will be like being the organized person on a sinking ship - making sure as many people get life-rafts as possible.

It’s sort of in our culture already – often one person brings the weed and nine others help out how they can – someone else has a lighter that works in the wind … someone else brought some chocolate. We potheads are used to sharing – we stand in a circle, “pass the dutchie to the left-hand side” … and even invite strangers to toke with us.

Potheads are already free – they know that freedom means the right to be yourself as long as you’re not hurting others – but they’re socialist too … they hardly ever bogart the joint. Potheads are mostly libertarian and mostly socialist.

I feel sad for my libertarian friends and my socialist friends who think that freedom (liberty) and love (socialism) are incompatible. You can have both and you can have them both in your personal, political and economic relationships. We are human and our imaginations are slightly more powerful than our limitations.

If you don’t equate socialism as “love within the economic realm”, I have another definition: socialism is “freedom from exploitation”. I like that one too, as it seems more reasonable and compelling than the freedom that libertarians maintain is more important: the “freedom to exploit”. We all must decide which is the real freedom and which is simply privilege … and we must decide soon.

The high-performing people know who they are. They will come through because it’s the only way for us to evolve and grow out of the capitalist-ruler nightmare we’ve been living ever since the communist nightmare died in the east back in 1989. Like Jello Biafra said – one evil empire down and one to go. Or since Tunisia and Egypt, perhaps it’s more like 2 evil empires down and 180 to go.

1) http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/50078/Collapse__part_1_/
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/50113/Collapse__part_2_/
2) http://www.alternet.org/environment/149876/are_we_headed_for_massive_oil...
3) http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=54347
4) http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/city-news/2011/02/09/soaring-food-prices-fu...
5) http://hemp-ethanol.blogspot.com/2008/01/economics-history-and-politics-...
6) http://tyler.blogware.com/2006/1/10/
http://makower.typepad.com/joel_makower/2006/01/general_motors_.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biomass.html
http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/id18.html
http://www.iogen.ca/company/faq/index.html#Q21b
7) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcostesK0Ik
8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
9) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8887317701829510625
10) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution
11) http://votedana.ca/platform

Everyone should write a letter for Marc Emery right away! The deadline to get them into his lawyer is February 1st. It's best if people email Kirk the letters: kirktousaw@gmail.com.

For information on how to write a letter for Marc Emery check out:

http://freemarc.ca/group/freemarcca/urgent-what-write-help-marc

This is my letter:

To Paula A. Wolff, Chief
International Prisoner Transfer Program
U.S. Department of Justice

Dear Ms. Wolff,

I am a drugpeace activist and herb museum curator living in Vancouver. I operate the website herbmuseum.ca. I sell artwork and write about the history of herbs and drug policy. I have been a drugpeace activist since 1993. I have known Marc Emery since 1995, when I moved from Edmonton to Vancouver to work on cannabis activism.

I realize that the type of civil disobedience that Marc Emery was engaged in – non-violent, non-destructive attempts to preserve the genetic heritage of medicinal cannabis seed strains by organizing breeders and growers into an economic team and using the money generated to engage in time-honored political and intellectual processes of destigmatizing and relegitimizing the cannabis community – is not seen as such by the powers-that-be … but that’s exactly what it was.

Attempts at contextualizing Marc Emery’s actions as “criminal” may apply in some technical way, but morally speaking, the lack of a single victim of Mr. Emery’s actions qualifies him as a political prisoner rather than the harmful person the establishment makes him out to be. The complete lack of cannabis cancer wards, cannabis madhouses, cannabis-related vehicular mayhem and cannabis drunk-tanks only reinforces this truth.

Every generation has it’s own form of scapegoating to out-grow, be it the witch-hunts of the 14 to 1700’s, the anti-communism of the 1950’s or the periodic hatred of Jewish people. Drug users and drug dealers – like other scapegoats of yester-year – may have a few harmful members but are not themselves inherently harmful. In this age of information, the evidence to this effect continues to pile up.

The sooner modern-day society calls off its drug-war witch-hunt the sooner we can all evolve into a more harmonious and medically autonomous species. Marc Emery’s ongoing work in the realm of drug awareness and drug policy can only speed this process along, and his continued incarceration in a U.S. prison (and all the injustices that go with that) can only hinder our overall evolution.

Marc Emery is the type of drugpeace activist that mirrors the establishment in every way save his disobedient actions. He speaks, dresses, and lives his life like a businessman. His spirit is that of a character in an Ayn Rand novel. Any success in his life would reflect well upon America as a bastion of the values that have made it a great nation – self-reliance and reverence for freedom and personal responsibility. Keeping him in prison makes a mockery of those values and tells the rest of the world that America hates freedoms and those who practice them, inside the USA and beyond it’s borders.

Marc Emery has done enough time for his supposed “crime” and has agreed to not engage in civil disobedience anymore in pursuit of his goals – admittedly a win for the enemies of human autonomy. One can only hope that this is enough of a win to satisfy all of those types of people and that they need not further waste a full five years of this man’s life to satisfy their obscene desire for punishment and obedience.

I hope you are not one of those people but rather an agent for freedom and goodness working within the system. I hope that you understand what kind of a person Marc Emery is and how history looks well upon the merciful and poorly upon the tyrants of the world, wherever they reside.

I understand that you are under no obligation to transfer Marc Emery to Canada … save perhaps for a moral obligation, if you believe Mr. Emery to be deserving of a transfer. I beg you to look at Mr. Emery’s entire career as a lover of – and voice for - freedom and peace and decency, and come to the same conclusion as much of the rest of the world – he is a good person, a national treasure to Canada, a friend of human autonomy, a force for good in the world, an asset to those who value peace and the maturation of the human soul and well deserving of such a transfer.

Sincerely,

David Malmo-Levine

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.

The key thing here is we need to consult all the stakeholders, which is something that didn't happen this time around," Whitney said. "Whether it's the growers in Humboldt, the dispensary owners or the marijuana activists -- they need to be involved in the very conception of an initiative.

-"Up in smoke: A closer look at how Humboldt voters shot down Proposition 19 Thadeus Greenson", The Times-Standard, 12/09/2010 [1]

Moreover the riches of the earth are for all ...

-Ecclesiastes 5:9, the Peshitta (Aramaic Bible), circa 2nd century BCE

Part 1: The "inclusive model" of legalization originated in the activist community

(Author's note: If you wish to debate me about this please go to this link here:

http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Num...

The comments section sometimes denies me the opportunity to provide my responses. Stupid over-active spam filter!)

Not Traitors – Tactical Error Makers

Nothing in this article should be used by anyone as a way to add people to a list of traitors – this article is written in order to remove everyone from such a list and to ensure no more such lists get written.

In arguments about Proposition 19, I more than likely called people traitors too – on Facebook and in the discussion forums. I now regret doing so. If I called you a traitor, I’m sorry. Truth be told, there are no traitors, just different strategies. If anyone in the movement makes a tactical error in supporting this or that flawed strategy – which every one of our imperfect selves tend to do at least once in our lives - then the truth will help them change their ways faster than all the threats, intimidation and shame in the world.

We need everyone’s help to vote in legalization; we need those who will vote for any kind of legalization and we need those who will only vote for a certain kind of legalization. If we continue to fight each other no kind of legalization will ever get passed. Despite all the harsh words, we now have to pull together as a team.

Three additional lessons

This article was originally going to be limited to a simple response to Russ Belville’s "10 Lessons Learned from Marijuana Election Defeats". [2]

I agreed with most of what Russ had to say. My response originally consisted of three short points:

1) I don't believe that there's such a thing as "stoners against legalization". I think Bill Panzer said it best:

"...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." [3]

2) Belville’s section three should mention "dealers" too - and the next initiative must remove any "caps" on the number of producers and retail outlets - or at least make it the same number as caffeine or alcohol (no caps on either of those - or if they do exist they are "capped" at tens of thousands per city).

3) His section 8 should have included - instead of "breathalizer" - an impairment test ... the same impairment test meant to catch people who are suffering from a lack of sleep or prescription meds or sickness or old age or other non-drug forms of impairment ... walk a straight line, look up close eyes touch nose and count backwards from 100 ... stuff like that.

But then I got to thinking. Panzer wrote his analysis right before the vote and people are STILL using the term "stoners against legalization" – what will it take to get people to drop that idea so that the movement can heal? And what exactly do we all mean by "legalization"?

An in-depth look at lesson 1 and 2

Many activists on both the "Yes on 19" side and the "No on 19" side of the movement have claimed at some point that they and they alone support true legalization. Maybe it’s not enough to say that Prop 19 failed because the movement was divided on what the term "legalization" meant. Maybe it is more important – at this juncture - to look at the history of the context surrounding the word "legalization". Maybe it’s now vital for all of us to see what it once meant and to see when exactly it began to mean two things instead of one – and from where this second meaning came.

So I began to do some reading … mostly High Times magazines. My personal collection is taller than my knee. And while I don’t claim to have more than 30 or 40 percent of all High Times ever published, I still think I’ve taken a large enough sample to make some accurate generalizations. I hope that - if I happen to be mistaken - someone will publicly disprove what I am saying – I hope that the comment section for this article remains open.

The following is every quote I could find about what "legalization" has meant to the cannabis community in terms of either being inclusive (allowing everyone to compete) or being exclusive (allowing only a limited number of licenses). If there’s one issue that means the most to me personally – and also, I suspect, means the most to the vast majority of the 31 percent of those who voted against Prop 19 but who considered themselves for "legalization" of a different kind [4] it is the issue of who gets to grow and deal in the post-legalization world. It is my conclusion, based upon the evidence that I am about to present, that the issue of "who gets to grow and deal" was the most common of all the "details of legalization" issues. It follows, logically, that it is also the #1 issue for the "pro-legalization, anti-prop 19" voters.

It’s not a trivial matter. In a world where having enough money can be the difference between life and death (such as in heath-care or legal representation even food and shelter), deciding what model legalization will take is about more than just the right to an awesome job – the job of cannabis retailer – the first job I ever had where I didn’t have to kiss anyone’s ass - a job I would one day like to have again. It’s also about the fate of all the growers and dealers who currently raise a family – or just get by – on the money from growing and/or dealing cannabis. It’s also about one of the only solutions to poverty left in the world. It’s also about one of the only solutions to democracy-perverting concentrations of wealth left in the world. It’s also about infusing justice into the economic realm.

The modern cannabis community began as inclusive

There have been ongoing discussions – nearly every generation [5] - on who gets to deal and who doesn’t … ever since Moses invented the first cannabis monopoly back in Exodus 30:33 [6], but for the modern period, I suspect that detailed visions of legalization began to manifest themselves into print in the late 1960’s.

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]

When cannabis activists manifest actual free markets, it tends to follow the 1970’s "coffee shop model" of Holland or the "farmers market model" of 1970’s San Francisco and Christiania and of the last 15 years of Vancouver’s "smoke-easy" and "free market rally" scene. But the "alcohol model" is the model most referred to in advocacy work and ballot propositions.

To me, the "alcohol model" infers cannabis will be available at restaurants, bars, taverns, lounges, pubs, night-clubs, Legions, specialty stores and – in the case of the United States and Quebec – grocery stores. The alcohol model DOES imply licensing but DOES NOT imply a small and/or limited number of licenses.

In the lead-up to the Grasstown Police Riot of 1971, the organizers of the August 7th Grasstown Smoke-In outlined their objectives in the local young-people’s newspaper – The Georgia Straight. They called for "total solidarity" with the "more than 100" dealers busted in Operation Dustpan. Operation Dustpan was a mass arrest of all the cannabis users and dealers by the Vancouver Police department. The organizers also called for "Legalization of Marijuana" and an end to the drug war being used as a weapon of class war. [9]

In a 1971 issue of The Marijuana Review, a more detailed vision of legalization emerged out of San Francisco, one with a strong inclusivity sentiment:

"Opposing government monopoly of sale because it "presupposes that the traffic is evil and therefore not to be left in private industry," and government licensing of only a few vendors because "any system of licensing that is more selective or restrictive than our present system of alcoholic beverages control is fruitful for bribery and corruption," the Committee simply urges: "The sale of Marijuana to adults can be regulated by laws on the general order of those regulating alcoholic beverages." [10]

Here we have a clear line drawn between the alcohol model on the one hand and the "government licensing of only a few vendors" on the other. Not surprisingly – given the "bribery and corruption" that comes with the concentrated economic power that limited licenses create - these activists chose the alcohol model.

There was a 1972 version of Prop 19. It was far more progressive than the 2010 version of Prop 19 in that it refused to throw anyone under the bus. A "yes" vote on the 1972 Proposition 19 would have revised California's laws about to marijuana to "provide that no person in the State of California 18 years of age or older shall be punished in any way for growing, processing, transporting, or possessing marijuana for personal use, or for using it. [11]

The next example I came across of a vision of a post legalization world was in an early issue of High Times magazine – the 1975 "Alaska Goes Legal" issue. The High Times editors stated:

"The only reasonable solution seems to be to bring the present underground distribution system aboveground – legally. Each dealer would have his small store, like a tobacco shop. … Competition would keep quality high." [12]

It seems that – for marijuana smuggler and High Times publisher Tom Forcade – "each dealer" was to be included in the post-legalization economy. This would be good for the consumer too, as many dealers would compete by increasing quality (and no doubt lowering price as well). A similar anti-monopoly statement was made the next year in reference to the paraphernalia industry in another High Times editorial. [13]

Dr. Mikuriya used the pages of High Times to come out in favor of "complete legalization": a monopoly-busting 100 plant limit on home cultivation. As well, Dr. Mikuriya provided a very interesting insight into just how liberal the repeal of alcohol prohibition in the United States actually was – a 250 gallon limit per person! [14]

At this time NORML – a cannabis consumer advocacy group – was beginning to feel the pressure from the rank and file to expand their advocacy to include "full legalization" – one which will protect "the Third World growers and the neighbourhood dealers". [15]

NORML 1970’s – no legalization for fear of corporate cannabis monopoly

"NORML chief Keith Stroup, a decrim supporter, opposed legalization 'for three years or so,' in favor of a current push toward decriminalization until a consumer-based distribution system could be arranged. Stroup argued that corporate giants would devour and destroy the dope market." [16]

NORML opposed legalization in the 1970’s because it feared corporate cannabis monopoly. They thought it was better for growers and dealers to be arrested then to be put out of business permanently by the corporations. Admittedly, this was before Marinol, before Sativex, before Dutch dealers and Californian med pot caregivers had allowed a "limited license" reaction from the establishment. Nobody in the 1970’s imagined how easy it would be for the government and big pharma to set themselves up with a limited pot monopoly and get away with it.

The next year Keith Richard of the Rolling Stones threw his two cents into the debate:

"If they can figure out a way of taking it over and making bread out of it, it’ll be legal. The only reason methadone’s such a big deal in America is because a lot of people are making millions on it. … I think they realize that even if they sell 20 filtered Acapulco golds, real grass heads will still be buying their stash from the man who comes over the border with it under the floorboards of his truck. If you want good tobacco, you don’t buy Newports or Marlboros. You go to some little tobacco stall and choose your tobacco." [17]

Clearly – by comparing the quality from the cottage tobacco industry with the corporate tobacco industry – Richard favored inclusiveness, and seemed to be saying that the non-corporate growers and dealers would dominate the connoisseur market (which, in a fully informed world, would be most or all of the market) if both corporate and non-corporate were allowed to operate legally.

In 1979, due to pressure from the rank and file, NORML changed it’s position of strict "decriminalization" and began publicly calling for both decrim and legalization at the same time:

"It's only taken us nine years to say we wanted legal dope," said NORML founder Keith Stroup in a moment of clarity. "… nine years of being hypocrites to ourselves and the smugglers who bring in the dope we smoke." [18]

But the 1979 NORML - with new leader Larry Schott at the helm - would continue to explain its lack of action regarding full legalization initiatives using the fear of corporate monopoly:

"I’m not so sure I would want to jump into legalization tomorrow. I want to know how it’s going to work. I want to keep large commercial interests from taking it over." [19]

1979 also contained another similar statement regarding fear of a monopoly that would squeeze out black-market dealers – this time found within an interview with High Times publisher Tom Forcade:

"Decriminalization would make my business better than ever. But legalization, I don’t know." [20]

Famous authors Albert Goldman (famous for his attack on John Lennon in his book "The Lives of John Lennon") and horror novelist Stephen King both shared their inclusive "cottage industry" vision of legalization at around this time. [21]

The second wave

The Nancy Regan era was no doubt a lull in pro-cannabis legalization activism. But by the end of the 1980’s cannabis activists again began to agitate in ever greater numbers. NORML - again under new leadership – painted a more inclusive picture than ever before, explicitly promising "American farmers" a seat at the legalization table. [22]

Quietly and without much fanfare, while Nancy Regan had paraded the kids around in their "Just Say No" t-shirts, the local marijuana grower had replaced the international cannabis smuggler as the main source of supply, and cannabis activists everywhere were responding by appealing to the interests of these farmers. Down in Kentucky, Gatewood Galbraith became the voice for the Kentucky pot grower:

"I would seek to implement this plan whereby we allot our farmers a certain poundage to grow each year. The farmer cannot sell to anyone else. He can only sell it to the state. The state would be the middleman. The state has a legitimate interest in taxing and controlling this substance. The state would then package it, grade it for potency, and turn around and sell it wholesale to licensed retail dealers around the state – the people who are dealing now for a living. The object is to spread the wealth as much as possible. We don’t want the oil, tobacco, and liquor companies, or the pharmaceutical industry gaining control of this market. It’s extremely important that it be kept in the hands of the people who have put it together over these last twenty years." [23]

According to Galbraith, licensing and taxing growers and dealers did not necessarily have to involve 1) corporate monopolies, 2) caps on the number of outlets or 3) excluding those currently growing and dealing cannabis from the legal market. Other NORML representatives also provided inclusive statements during this "second wave" of cannabis activism. California Norml spokesperson Dale Gieringer wrote;

"The most practical policy is thus likely to be the one most consistent with principles of personal freedom and civil liberties, namely to let Americans grow their own cannabis at home, just as they might grow tomatoes, apples or grapes." [24]

The 1990s brought with it pro-legalization groups other than NORML, and they too spoke of inclusive models for the post-legalization economy. For example, the hemp movement brought with it quotes such as this one from Prop 19 supporter Chris Conrad, answering the question "who benefits from relegalization?":

"For current cannabis consumers and suppliers, it removes the risks and problems of operating in a black market economy and the fear and stigma of prosecution. It allows them to be honest about their life styles and pastimes with their friends, families, employers, doctors, elected officials, etc." [25]

From Prop 19 opponent Jack Herer’s The Emperor Wears No Clothes (edited by Chris Conrad) we have a similar sentiment (in both the 1994 edition and the 2000 edition):

"This decentralized green economy will enable everyone to participate and share in the wealth of a truly free market democracy. For there can be no true democracy unless every citizen has the opportunity to share in the wealth of the nation." [26]

Also new to the scene was "Mass Cann" – the Massachusetts chapter of NORML:

"Epstein says there are basically two wings in the group, with one pressing for legalization that would eliminate marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act and Controlled Substance Tax Act, and the other favoring making marijuana exempt from criminal prosecution as long as an excise tax is paid on it." [27]

The vision of inclusiveness also continued with "second wave" Canadian activists, such as BC Compassion Club Society founder Hilary Black:

"We have to fight the monopolizing, corporate reality that is poised to take over this new industry. Government seems more interested in pharmacizing the plant, if you will, rather than addressing the patients – who they are, what they need and what is most beneficial to them." [28]

November of 2002 brought with it the first US "full legalization" initiative – Nevada Question 9 - and it was an inclusive one, promising the same license fees and taxes "as those for cigarettes and tobacco related products". [29]

Unfortunately the Nevada legalization initiative of 2002 did not succeed and the world was denied an opportunity to see what the "tobacco model" would have looked like. Meanwhile, Canadian medical marijuana activists such as Philippe Lucas, Hilary Black and Rielle Capler continued to be united in their opposition to an exclusive market – echoing High Time’s "quality" argument as one of the benefits of an inclusive market:

"Community based cultivation would take advantage of the extensive genetic pool and knowledge residing within those currently engaged in the grey-market production and distribution of therapeutic cannabis. This would significantly improve the quality, expand the selection and lower the cost of the supply." [30]

Phil Smith – a US writer living in Canada who had spent almost three years in jail for a half-pound of pot – also argued for respecting and rewarding the contribution of black-market suppliers, perhaps even including current growers and dealers in the legal market. [31] US academics such as economist Jeffrey Miron also saw the economic benefits to legalization for all. [32] According to Miron, legalization would entail the elimination of arrests for trafficking. Canadian academics echoed the inclusivity of US academics. [33]

And the pro-inclusivity statements from long-time activists kept piling up over the last couple of years – even among supporters of Prop 19. [34]

Contemporary examples of anti-monopolistic legalization initiatives

Unlike the 2010 version of Prop 19, which mentioned licenses as a method of determining who was a legal dealer and legal commercial grower but did nothing to remove the discriminatory licensing process adopted by large cities such as Los Angeles and Oakland (Oakland has one licensed retail outlet for every 100,000 people, and Los Angeles has one licensed retail outlet for every 360,000 people), Jack Herer’s 2010 and 2012 California initiatives expand the concept of "personal production" to the maximum while attempting to remove the discriminatory licensing process:

I. Add Section 11362.6 to the Health and Safety Code of California, any laws or policies to the contrary notwithstanding:…7. Commerce in cannabis hemp euphoric products shall be limited to adults, 21 years of age and older, and shall be regulated in a manner analogous to California's wine industry model. For the purpose of distinguishing personal from commercial production, 99 flowering female plants and 12 pounds of dried, cured cannabis hemp flowers, bud, not leaf, produced per adult, 21 years of age and older, per year shall be considered as being for personal use.
…
III. The legislature is authorized upon thorough investigation, to enact legislation using reasonable standards to:
1. License concessionary establishments to distribute cannabis hemp euphoric products in a manner analogous to California's wine industry model. Sufficient community outlets shall be licensed to provide reasonable commercial access to persons of legal age, so as to discourage and prevent the misuse of, and illicit traffic in, such products. Any license or permit fee required by the State for commercial production, distribution or use shall not exceed $1,000.00. [35]

The freedom contained in the Jack Herer initiative – anyone who wants to can grow and deal commercially - is so attractive to the cannabis community that it has spread to Colorado in 2012. [36] If it can ever find the money required to get on the ballot I have no doubt whatsoever it will be voted in.

The California Cannabis Initiative - another different legalization initiative to Prop 19 that didn’t make it on the ballot in 2010 - did not explicitly protect everyone’s right to retail cannabis, but at least one author who I spoke to was open to the idea of including explicit protection of "economic freedom" in the 2012 version. [37]

The Washington State Initiative 1068, which failed to make it on the ballot in 2010, was an inclusivity bill, protecting all growers and dealers over the age of 18 from punishment. [38] Washington activists have argued that the simple way – repeal – is also the most effective way to remove a prohibition, and that it worked well for alcohol prohibition. [39]

Massachusetts has an initiative ready for 2012, one that uses the alcohol model. [40]

Since the failure of Prop 19, High Times has once again led the way in voicing the anti-monopoly ethic, this time publishing an editorial by "growitinthesun.org", a group of "Humboldt County and Bay Area residents";

"By limiting the size of cannabis farms, we could ensure that the pot market stays horizontally integrated, supporting as large a number of small growers as possible, rather than industrial-scale "weed factories" that will extract maximum profits at any cost. Farmers should pay licensing fees scaled to the size of their business … Local communities should also encourage systems of distribution that keep growers and end users in close contact such as farmer’s markets and community-supported agriculture." [41]

The above 30 or so quotes indicates to me that the "inclusive" legalization model is the dominant model – going back to the late 1960’s, spanning the entire 1970’s, 1980’s, 1990’s and 2000’s, and it looks like it will be around for the foreseeable future. Even more interestingly, I could not find any evidence for the "exclusive" model until 1979.

Part 2: The British Government’s invention of "caps"

"Revoke the Harrison Act! It is a Barbaric act – It will cause desperate criminals and gunmen to arise from our midst, for evidential reasons – Ope nope – It’s like Prohibition, it wont, work, - If the people want alcohol and dope let em have alcohol and dope …" – Jack Kerouac, "My Views On Religion", circa 1955, Poems All Sizes, published 1992, p. 101

"A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. In principle, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation." - George Orwell, 1984

The origin of limited licenses

The first evidence of a monopolistic cannabis legalization model I came across was published in a late 1970’s document entitled "Cannabis – Options For Control" by a study group within the British Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence, chaired by Thomas Bewley, a member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The study group included "a senior police officer, criminologist, sociologist, economist and lawyer".

The Canadian cannabis magazine Harvest contained a review of the report, stating that;

"the group seemed to favor a regulatory licensing system along the lines of present poison controls. The buyer would purchase from an authorized seller, possibly a pharmacist … Suitable firms, probably from the tobacco, alcohol or pharmaceutical industries would be licensed to produce, manufacture, and market cannabis … Commenting on the regulatory licensing system suggestion, the British "Legalize Cannabis Campaign (LCC)" said in a pre-publication press release: … "this kind of ‘big daddy’ approach would not be appreciated and that people would be less than happy with handing over the dealing business, lock, stock, and barrel, to any of the industries mentioned above." [42]

Just to drive that point home, the first suggestion of an exclusive legalization model – a limited number of licenses - was invented by a government and opposed by cannabis activists.

As was the second model. The second example of the exclusive legalization model, strangely enough, comes from the Dutch government. The Dutch government is still seen as very progressive by the global cannabis community, but has gone through a series of changes over the years and has slowly adapted to their defacto-legal cannabis marketplace with a refusal to grant protection for most of the commercial cultivation community and the gradual shrinking of the retail community. It began in 1995, with a Dutch government report:

"Most larger municipalities have already decided drastically to reduce the number of coffee shops, in many cases to less than half the present number. The government supports this. No coffee shops at all will now be allowed near schools." [43]

Using the age-old "parental hysteria" scapegoating technique – pretend that a pot café near a school will automatically result in misuse of cannabis from children - Dutch government shrunk the number of cafes from at least a couple thousand in the mid 1990’s down to just over 700 a decade later. [44] When Dutch "caps" on the number of outlets were introduced, they were described as "draconian" in High Times. [45] The Dutch themselves considered the changes "regressive". [46]

The Dutch Government’s policy of shrinking the number of cafes and limiting who qualifies as a customer continues to this day – this time blaming the remaining black market harms … from a black market they refuse to legalize fully. The jobs of smuggling in hash, growing cannabis and supplying pot cafes – sometimes performed by people involved in other illegal drugs or extortion – remain illegal in Holland. The justifications for further reductions in the number of Dutch pot cafes were described this way in a recent report in the Huffington Post:

"The Netherlands' justice minister and five southern Dutch cities say they will implement new restrictions on marijuana cafes after a wave of drug-related gangland violence. They said Friday the measures include shutting down many cafes, using tax and accounting laws to seize criminal assets, and introducing a "members only" pass system for remaining cafes." [47]

While not possessing the same amount of drama as the burning of a witch, an anti-Jewish pogrom or the Nazi’s Kristallnacht, the caps create a less extreme and more gentle route to the scapegoater’s overall goal – it reduces the size of the scapegoated community and decreases the amount of dignity previously afforded the scapegoats.

The next example of "caps" that I could find came (for the first time) from a cannabis activist – Norm Stamper of LEAP:

"How would it work? If I were the new (and literal) Drug Czar, I would have private companies compete for licenses to cultivate, harvest, manufacture, package, and peddle drugs." [48]

Stamper is most well known for his role in the Seattle's response to the protests of the WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999, which eventually led to his resignation. [49] It is disappointing but not surprising that Mr. Stamper does not possess the insight necessary to welcome all the current black-market growers and dealers into the future legal cannabis economy. Having seen these people as "organized criminals" all his professional life, having witnessed only the down-side of the industry, having never hung out with the family of a pot grower or seen how many small time pot dealers struggle to survive, evidently Stamper lacks the necessary compassion required to beat drugwar swords into drugpeace plowshares for all.

One thing is fairly certain, Stamper has never had to stare dozens of different growers and dealers in the eye (while sitting in their homes and spending time with their families) and promise them all repeatedly that the corporations will not steal all the pot jobs once legalization is in place … as I have had to do over the course of my long career as a cannabis dealer/activist. One of the main reasons for my becoming a pot activist was to pull society back from the brink of starvation and police oppression, and the inclusive legalization model is the key to that happening.

Prop 19 – 2010 version

"If it goes totally legal, the mom-and-pop growers are going to be a
thing of the past," – Dale Gieringer, co-author of Prop 215 and state
coordinator of California NORML, High Times, Nov. 2010, p. 80

Prop 19, otherwise known as the "Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010", was not the legalization we’ve been hearing about for the last 40 years from pot activists. Despite claiming on it’s website that it will "Control cannabis like alcohol" [50] it more closely resembled the much more tightly controlled cannabis legalization suggested to us by governments and police. Pay close attention to the wording found in the purposes section – unique to any "legalization" proposition or model ever put before anyone else other than police and governments:

"B. Purposes
5. Put dangerous, underground street dealers out of business, so their influence in our communities will fade." [51]

Keep in mind those "dangerous" underground street dealers once included - and most likely currently include people similar to - people like High Times founder Tom Forcade and med pot movement founder Dennis Peron, and their "influence" in the community include High Times magazine, Prop 215, and "legalization for all".

Prop 19 limited the number of legal growers to 1) those over 21 who 2) lived on their own in their own house or who rented from a landlord who was willing to risk their property being seized and who 3) would allow themselves to be limited to 25 square feet of grow space – smaller than the average jail cell. [52) It’s hard to estimate what percentage of current growers this would have left "illegal", but I suspect the percentage is greater than 50%.

The meaning of this section was debated constantly before the vote. Did the "25 square feet in your own house to be shared with the rest of the people living in the residence" rules also apply to med pot users who currently enjoyed no such restrictions? 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.

But Lee chose not to remove the discriminatory licensing system in his initiative. This was a tactical error on his part, as the decision not to remove the discrimination spelled doom for any unlicensed grower or dealer (or any family member of any unlicensed grower or dealer) who lived in – or feared they would one day live in – a pro-monopoly jurisdiction such as Los Angeles or Oakland. There are literally hundreds of thousands of these people all over California and they very well may have tipped the scales in favor of the "no" side on Nov. 2nd.

From where did the Oakland and Los Angeles license limits originate?

In the movie Super High Me, one could see how the number of medical marijuana dispensaries grew at an exponential rate – from eleven dispensaries in August of 2005 to 325 dispensaries in March of 2007. [55] Positive signals such as the Oct. 2003 SB420 med pot retail clarification bill [56] and a court ruling in Nov. 2006 [57] encouraged entrepreneurs to become pot dealers – or, more likely, to legitimize their underground pot businesses. After over 800 dispensaries opened up people sort of lost count. It’s quite possible that over 1000 dispensaries could have been operating out of Los Angeles in 2009.

On January 19th, 2010, the city of Los Angeles found a way to limit – and drastically reduce - the number of pot dispensaries. In a story entitled "L.A. City Council gives preliminary approval to pot ordinance requiring 1,000-foot buffer zones" from the January 19, 2010 of the L.A. times, we find that;

"The Los Angeles City Council settled the remaining controversial issue and voted today to adopt a medical marijuana ordinance requiring dispensaries to be at least 1,000 feet from places where children congregate, such as schools, parks and libraries." [58]

They used the old tried and true "parental hysteria" scapegoating method. The exact same parental hysteria scapegoating method the Dutch Government used in 1995 when they closed all the cafes that were "near" schools. [59]
At least one California lawyer publicly jumped to the defense of dispensaries using refreshing defenses of the free market:

"The free market will regulate dispensaries. The City Council does not have to. We don't need to give law enforcement more excuses to execute search warrants on dispensaries and make more felons out of people with no criminal intent." [60]

The government of California ignored such sentiments and instead borrowed a page from Los Angeles’s parental hysteria scapegoating book when the state Assembly passed AB2650 in early June, banning medical marijuana dispensaries that were 600 feet from a grade school. [61]

While there is no evidence that med pot dispensaries are an actual threat to children or are in any way associated with harm-to-others types of behavior, there IS evidence that associates med pot dispensaries with a reduction in crime. As med pot dispensary advocate Don Duncan pointed out;

"In Oakland, where collectives have been licensed since 2004, City Administrator Barbara Killey, notes that "The areas around the dispensaries may be some of the safest areas of Oakland now because of the level of security, surveillance, etc…since the ordinance passed." In the City of Los Angeles, Police Chief Charlie Beck told reporters and the City Council that the claim that patients’ associations attract crime "doesn’t really bear out." In fact, the overall crime rate in Los Angeles dropped during the proliferation of collectives and cooperatives in that city. Given that effective local regulations address public safety concerns, there is no public safety rationale for a statewide policy keeping collectives and cooperatives away from sensitive uses." [62]

The city of Los Angeles then reduced the 70 legal med pot dispensaries down to just 41 in late August of 2010. [63]

The discriminatory nature of the licensing system in Los Angeles and Oakland was lamented publicly by the most powerful supporters – even the author - of Prop 19:

"While the Oaksterdam Empire hopes to secure one of those lucrative cultivation licenses for it’s own use, Lee nonetheless favors a plan that would allow more and smaller growers to make a living. … the "head honcho" fears that communities already hesitant to regulate marijuana may prefer to deal with a handful of large, established entities rather than trying to sensibly oversee what exists now: an unaffiliated, unregulated hodgepodge of many smaller, difficult to quantify growers. ‘I hate that trend’ Lee says with obvious sincerity. "That’s what we’re seeing in Oakland, and while I don’t mind there being a big facility, it’s the idea of having only two or three big ones that I don’t like." [64]

Stephen DeAngelo, Owner of Harborside Health Center - the largest medical marijuana dispensary in the world, stated;

"Why does this whole new system have to be created?… Let’s bring these citizen farmers out of the shadows and into the light and give them a role in this new industry." [65]

Unfortunately, these discriminatory licensing systems were not lamented enough to be removed through the wording of Prop 19, as could have easily been done … as was done in the Herer initiative.

Do we really need corporate pathology in the pot economy?

In the debate over Prop 19, one of the people on the steering committee of Prop 19 – Jeff Wilcox – made a public statement regarding his corporate goals:

"AgraMed has plans to build a 100,000-sq.-ft. marijuana mega-farm near Oakland International Airport that, "according to projections, could generate 58 pounds of pot a day and $59 million a year in revenue." The company’s president, Jeff Wilcox—a member of the steering committee of the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative—reportedly hopes to "bring a degree of corporate structure to the marijuana industry."" [66]

There were many supporters of Prop 19 who voiced the opposite opinion to this pro-corporate idea. Valerie Corral, executive director of the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana, stated that;

"This plant should not follow in the path of Coca Cola, Marlboro or Merck." [67]

Stephen DeAngelo argued that;

"Society has a chance to get it right this time," he said. "We didn't get it right with tobacco. We didn't get it right with alcohol. We put those potentially dangerous substances in the hands of corporations who had no interest other than making as much money as possible. Do we want those kinds of companies getting their hands on cannabis?" [68]

Growing advice columnist Ed Rosenthal, suggested the "tomato model":

"The debate moves from whether cannabis is going to be legal to how cannabis is going to be legal," he said. Rosenthal sees a day when cannabis will be grown like another popular and ubiquitous crop. "I like the tomato model," he said, rattling off a possible hierarchy of breeders and growers: giant industrial companies; regional companies; farmers; individuals raising marijuana for cash from their own big back yards, then home growers. "There's room for everybody in that model," he said. "But with all the commercial ways tomatoes are grown, home growers still grow the most tomatoes in the U.S." [69]

Opponents of Prop 19 also voiced opposition to corporate control of the cannabis economy. Legendary lawyer J. Tony Serra put it this way:

"Once it is legalized the greedy corporations will get their hands in it and it creates this corporate moral disability. Some large dispensaries already practice acts of corporate moral disability. I want it to stay with the mammas and the pappas. The small and unique places. I want the government out of my closet. It should be free, man." [70]

Omar Figueroa, co-author of a different legalization initiative, was also critical of the monopolistic elements of Prop 19:

"I’ve for it, but it’s not legalization. … I’m not excited about it. … It takes away people’s economic liberty. … I would withdraw my support for it if there were efforts being made for a decent alternative in 2012." [71]

For those who wish to understand more fully what happens to any industry – cannabis or otherwise – that adopts the pathological corporate model (ie: profit before all other concerns], I suggest you watch the film "The Corporation". [72]

Despite such comments from Figueroa and Serra being echoed over and over by the no side (not to mention the comments from DeAngelo, Corral, Lee and others from the yes side that proved they completely understood the no side’s concerns regarding monopoly and wealth concentration), the major media repeatedly ignored these legitimate concerns over monopoly.

The media refused to quote the "pro legalization anti-19" directly on that issue, dismissed all concerns over the corporatization of the cannabis economy by pointing out that major alcohol and tobacco corporations were not interested in investing so long as cannabis remained illegal federally (ignoring the potential for corporations within the cannabis community itself to take such risks on) and instead lied and made it look like all forms of regulation were unacceptable to the "pro-legalization anti-19"ers. Here are a few typical examples taken from reporting by the East Bay Express and Mother Jones:

"But Lee's centrist plan did not please famed older radicals like Dennis Peron and the late "Hemperor" Jack Herer, who wanted maximum legalization with minimum government involvement. At their most extreme, radical reformers want to throw open the jails and prisons, and grant pardons to all marijuana drug offenders. They want no restriction on giving marijuana to kids and few limits on possession, cultivation, and sales." [73]

"Stoner Against Legalization writer Dragonfly De la Luz teamed up with ex-crackhead and self-appointed Sacramento bishop Ron Allen (watch him on Fox here) to spread their misunderstandings of Prop 19, like the idea that it would have any effect on medical marijuana but to make it cheaper." [74]

""There’s a large movement up here of people who realize that their self interest lies in keeping marijuana illegal," says Hank Sims, the editor of the North Coast Journal, based in the Humboldt town of Eureka." [75]

The major media, - and much of the activist community including NORML - in effect, took the "British/Dutch government cap model" and supported it, and pretended the other model didn’t exist at all. They ignored the long history of concerns within the movement over monopoly, and pretended that Prop 19’s critics were against all forms of legalization.

The support of Prop 19 by NORML does beg the question (given NORML’s 1970’s fears of corporate-controlled markets) as to why NORML could tolerate decrim in the 1970’s to avoid corporatization but found Prop 215 so horrible they were ready to embrace self-described corporations and discriminatory licensing over 1/3 of California’s population - 2/3rds if you count the "dry counties" - with Prop 19?

Maybe they just gave up on that particular ideal. Maybe they are in denial as to just how corporate-friendly Prop 19 was. Maybe they question how a license that gives them control of one quarter of Oakland’s cannabis market could turn one person into a billionaire. Maybe they believe that billionaires would never spend their money to keep cartelization in place. Maybe they are unconcerned about the "bribery and corruption" that concerned the pot activists of the early 1970’s. Maybe they didn’t read about Prop 19 author Jeff Wilcox bragging about corporatizing the pot economy.

It’s the kind of tactical error the movement cannot afford to keep making over and over again, as it will either result in the possible entrenchment of a permanent cannabis ruling class of lucky license holders, or else repeated failures at the polls – neither of which are acceptable to the future of our community.

Part 3: Possible future caps and a word about "traitors"

"Political and economic monopolization of medicine meant control over it's institutional organizations, it's theory and practice, it's power and prestige. And the stakes are even higher today, when total control of medicine means potential power to determine who will live and will die, who is fertile and who is sterile, who is 'mad' and who is sane." -Witches, Midwives and Nurses, Ehrenreich and English, 1993, p. 4

"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." - Paulo Freire

Unfortunately, the extremist nature of the debates over Prop 19 prevented a true dialog over some of the concerns brought up by the "yes to legalization no to 19" side of the movement. This lack of dialog has resulted in some of the fatal flaws of Prop 19 being repeated in future legalization projects in California and in other states for 2012.

Activist K. C. Kimber suggested in the Huffington Post that "After a four year period a cap on the number of licenses shall be establishe­d. (a) The cap shall be the sum of current number of licenses plus fifty percent. The cap shall be adjusted upward annually at a rate of at least 5% not to exceed 20%." [76]

Of course, there is no "cap" on the number of herbal medicine stores, coffee shops and the number of licensed alcohol retailers in Los Angeles is in the 10,000 range for Los Angeles judging from a couple of simple Google Maps searches. [77]

Why cannabis activists should settle for cannabis to be held to a different standard remains beyond my comprehension. Arguments about the industry being uncontrollable in a non-capped economies can’t explain how the caffeine, herbal medicine and alcohol economies manage to survive, and the "yes on 19" side failed to supply any evidence that voters were against the "everyone’s allowed to be a dealer" cannabis distribution model.

Kimber also repeats Belville’s mistake regarding testing for "under the influence" instead of testing for "impairment" – fortunately NORML has been getting this right for the last little while and with any luck will influence activists to drop the "under the influence" problematic language from any future initiative.

States other than California

Even now there is talk in the activist community of the emergence of medical marijuana monopolies in different states – states that have passed more exclusive and conservative medical marijuana laws. Maine is one state where activists notice an attempt to cartelize the economy. [78] The pot community in New Jersey is already suffering under a "6 outlet cap limit". [79]

Washington State had a negative experience with the 1998 "Drug Medicalization Bill" – according to at least one activist it was a good thing it didn’t pass. The following exchange between High Times and attorney Jeffrey Steinborn makes for interesting reading regarding the advantage of favoring principles over symbolism. I have reproduced it in full because I think it’s important for all those who are constructing initiatives to read it and gain the wisdom found within Steinborn’s experience:

High Times: You just had an initiative, 685, the Drug Medicalization Bill, fail in Washington. Why was that?

Jeffrey Steinborn: The initiative was drafted without any input from people who work in the criminal-justice system, and therefore, for all its good intentions, was flawed in its content.

HT: Wasn't the initiative modeled almost word for word after Proposition 200, the Arizona drug medicalization initiative that passed in 1996?

JS: Yes.

HT: What was wrong with utilizing the wording from a proposition that passed by a two-thirds margin in Arizona for the Washington Initiative?

JS: How many people have gotten out of jail in Arizona as a result of that proposition? None. That law is so badly flawed that it's been put on hold in Arizona. It isn't having any impact at all. And aside from being flawed, the proposition was distasteful to me as a criminal lawyer because it was a tradeoff. It attempted to pander to the tough-on-crime fears in this state by giving the illusion of getting tougher on certain crimes, which it would not have done, in an attempt to attach the good parts sort of stealthily to the parts we think the fearful public will vote for. Well, in my mind, attempting to fool the public for their own good is what the Nazis did, what our government does, and when we sign on to that way of doing politics, not only do we lose our moral compass, but we invite a lot of problems such as the one we had: The initiative was poorly drafted and it failed. If it passed, it would have been hell to implement. [80]

After reviewing the evidence, what have we learned?

We have learned that the "caps" that exist in Los Angeles and Oakland are opposed by most but not all of the cannabis community. We have learned that the evidence points to "caps" being an invention of the British and Dutch governments and – until 2009, were only suggested as desirable from the police side of the anti-prohibition movement. We have learned that the "caps" have not gone away and are threatening to spread to the rest of the cannabis community. And we have learned that there are clear advantages to avoiding fatal compromises and clear disadvantages to accepting them.

Staying true to one’s ideals is not traitorous

While I was being called a "traitor" or a "turncoat" by both Canadian and US pot activists, I took the time to research what the words actually mean. The two most accurate definitions I could find were:

"A turncoat is a member of a movement or cause that leaves and joins with the other side." [81]

"(A traitor is) a person who says one thing and does another." [82]

I was against Prop 19 for many reasons [83] but I don’t consider myself to be "against legalization". I am not a traitor. I neither "left and joined the other side", nor did I "say one thing and did another". My own record of being outspoken against cannabis monopolies of all types is solid. [84] As most pot activists have done, I have given my allegiance not to a country, or an institution, or a person, but rather to an ideal … and I have not betrayed that ideal. I do oppose the British Government’s version of legalization, but most of us are opposed to that … we consider it draconian … and a few of us are not afraid to point it out.

Final thoughts

Activists who argue in the pages of High Times magazine that Americans are not yet ready for "full legalization" are themselves creating a self-fulfilling prophesy – all they are really saying is that they themselves are not ready. Every time someone says that a bill didn’t pass because it went "too far" instead of using the above facts in carefully considering the possibility that it didn’t go far enough, it makes it that much harder to achieve anything worthwhile.

Anyone who forces the community to choose between two immoral choices (prohibition or monopoly entrenchment) is making a serious tactical error. Cannabis activists are – by their very nature – autonomous, disobedient, not afraid of police or intimidated by the court system – there’s no way to bully them into accepting any more "seriously flawed" propositions. And because many of the people who voted in 2010 were the same people who voted in 1996, it’s quite likely that Prop 19 erred on the side of being too conservative rather than erring on the side of being to radical.

In my opinion, pot activists should not limit themselves to being concerned with just the oppression found in a pair of handcuffs or a jail cell – we should also care about the oppression found in poverty. It is very important to avoid the entrenchment of monopolies and fight to identify, challenge and remove them as the pot economy shifts from "illegal" to "legal" … lest we all risk injustice simply replaced by more injustice. Even partial monopolies. Even potential monopolies.

Any student of the history of revolutions will tell you that there is a 99% probability that one will be stuck with a new injustice to replace the old injustice … a new boss to replace the old boss. If our revolution is going to be different than all these failed revolutions of yesteryear, we cannot ignore the chorus of voices that have spoke out for an inclusive model for the legalization of cultivation and distribution of cannabis these last forty years.

NOTES

[1] http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_16814912

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-belville/10-lessons-learned-from-m_b_...

http://blog.norml.org/2010/11/08/10-lessons-learned-from-marijuana-elect...

[3] http://palmspringsbum.org/blog/2010/10/the-real-debate-over-californias-...

[4]"Among voters who opposed Prop. 19, 31% said they believe marijuana should be legalized or penalties reduced, but they objected to the some specifics of the initiative."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/11/despite-rejecting-proposit...

[5] http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/19176

[6] http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1090.html

[7] "If, by insisting that our experts are heard and by conducting a nation-wide campaign, we can convince Congress that marijuana sale and distribution can and should be controlled as alcohol is controlled, we can win the LEMAR fight and get decent marijuana laws in the United States." – "High Court Frees High Priest, Opens Way For New Marijuana Laws", Michael R. Aldrich, The Marijuana Review, Vol. 1, #3, Jun-Aug 1969, p.5

[8] "A University of Toronto graduate student yesterday claimed to have 3,300 student signatures on a petition asking the Government to legalize and control the sale of marijuana. Ian Mason, a philosophy graduate, presented the petition in a brief to the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs at a noon meeting in Hart House. … A brief presented later in the day at St. Lawrence hall asked that marijuana be made available in much the same manner as alcohol."
3,000 students sign pro-marijuana petition -- by the Globe and Mail, October 18, 1969

http://beatles.ncf.ca/ledain_petition.html

[9] "Legalization of Marijuana. We want marijuana legalized so that the drug laws can no longer be used as a weapon to drive poor hip people out of Gastown, or even send us to jail, while more affluent people who may also smoke marijuana are made welcome in the area’s emporiums of plastic."
. . .And the Pigs went MAD!
By David Malmo Levine, with Dana Larsen - Tuesday, April 30 1996
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/1102.html

[10] – "San Francisco Crime Committee Recommends Repeal Of Prohibition", The Marijuana Review, Vol. 1, #8, Oct-Dec. 1971, p. 11

[11] The official ballot summary was, "Removes state penalties for personal use. Proposes a statute which would provide that no person eighteen years or older shall be punished criminally or denied any right or privilege because of his planting, cultivating, harvesting, drying, processing, otherwise preparing, transporting, possessing or using marijuana. Does not repeal existing, or limit future, legislation prohibiting persons under the influence of marijuana from engaging in conduct that endangers others."

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Marijuana_Legalizat...

[12] After Legalization, What Happens to Dealers? Editorial, High Times #5. August/Sept. 1975, p. 6

[13] "Unlike so many other industries that we seem to have little control over, the paraphernalia game is one that we, the dopers of the world, have fashioned to our needs. There is still time to influence events in such a way that it is neither crushed by the rush of big business into the marijuana market, nor transformed into a system of gross monopolies." – Editorial, High Times #9, May 1976, p. 8

[14] "Dr. Mikuriya … favors complete legalization of marijuana with a one-hundred-plant limit on home cultivation. A founder and organizer of the 1972 California Marijuana Initiative (a statewide referendum for legalization), he believes such a limit would counterbalance exploitation of pot by the government and commercial interests. "If we had that same provision allowed after Prohibition was repealed – where you allow a 250-gallon limit on wine and home brew – why the hell can’t we allow that kind of thing for grass?" – "Ex-Top U.S. Pot Researcher Runs for California State Senate", High Times #12, August, 1976, p. 71

[15] "Be it resolved that NORML adopt a policy for full legalization of marijuana. One that clearly opposes government manipulation of grass legislation, will protect the trade, the Third World growers and the neighbourhood dealers who’ve risked an awful lot of freedom providing us with marijuana." – Margaret Sarber, 1977 NORML Formal, Blacklisted News, Yippie Book Collective, p. 277

[16] High Times, March 1977, p. 31

[17] Keith Richard, High Times, January 1978, p.27

[18] Stone-Age, Spring 1979, p. 13

[19] Larry Schott, National Director of NORML, HiLife magazine, Vol. 1 #12, 1979 p. 94

[20] Tom Forcade, HiLife magazine, Vol. 2, #1, 1979, p. 46

[21] "We should be free to cultivate and sell and buy this harmless euphoriant." – Albert Goldman, Grass Roots – Marijuana in America Today, 1979, p. 323

"I think marijuana should not only be legal, I think it should be a cottage industry. There’s some pretty good homegrown dope. " – Stephen King, High Times, January 1981, reprinted in High Times Greatest Hits, 1994, p. 76

[22] "Ann Arbor Hash Bash crowd: "MARIJUANA!" NORML director Jon Gettman: "Now you know the answer. I got the question. What’s the crop that’s going to save American farmers?" - High Times, July 1989, p. 46

[23] Gatewood Galbraith, High Times, March 1990, p. 14

[24] Economics of Cannabis Legalization (1994) Detailed Analysis of the Benefits of Ending Cannabis Prohibition, June 1994, Dale Gieringer, Ph.D.
Coordinator, California NORML
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4424

[25] Chris Conrad, Hemp, Lifeline to the Future, 1994, p. 298

[26] Jack Herer, The Emperor Wears No Clothes, 1994 edition, p. 49, 2000 edition, p. 59

[27] Freedom Fighter of the Month – "Mass Cann: It’s a group thing", High Times, February, 1997, p.34

[28] Hilary Black, founder of the BC Compassion Club Society, High Times, May 2002, p.48

[29] The proposal also requires establishment of a system of regulation for the cultivation, taxation, sale and distribution of marijuana, including the distribution of marijuana at low cost to those medically authorized to use it. Under this system, all advertising of marijuana is prohibited. The purchase of marijuana from licensed establishments is authorized under this proposal. The transportation of marijuana in or out of state is prohibited unless federal law permits such transport. The license fees and taxes at wholesale are proposed to be the same as those for cigarettes and tobacco related products, respectively. The retail sales tax for marijuana is proposed to be the same as those of other products generally.

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Nevada_Question_9_%282002%29

[30] Philippe Lucas, Hilary Black and Rielle Capler, "A Roadmap to Compassion", 02/18/04, http://safeaccess.ca/library/index.htm

[31] "Internationally, regulated legalization will require a transition from underground organizations to globally recognized economic actors. Existing drug trafficking and producing organizations will have to be either bought out or integrated into the global marketplace." – Imagining a Post-Prohibition World, Phil Smith, Under the Influence – The Disinformation Guide to Drugs, 2004, p. 16

[32] "First, legalization eliminates arrests for trafficking in addition to eliminating arrests for possession." – The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition, June 2005, Jeffrey A. Miron
http://prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport.html

[33] "We recognize that the current model of prohibition has provided and/or supplemented incomes for individuals and families who grow, import, wholesale and retail currently illegal drugs. As with the end of alcohol prohibition, there needs to be a process by which these criminalized individuals and groups can participate in the new legal distribution process and thereby facilitate their integration into non-criminalized activities and employment." Susan Boyd, Mark Haden, "Principles of Post-Prohibition Drug Control", Creative Resistance against Drug Prohibition, circa 2006

[34] "We believe in natural, open markets and level playing fields." – Steve Kubby, High Times, Oct. 2008, p. 76

"Seventy years later, what we know for certain is that nobody should have a monopoly on the emerging herbal health-care economy, including medical marijuana …" – Dr. Lester Grinspoon and David Malmo-Levine, Patented Pot VS. The Herbal Gold Standard, High Times, 35th Anniversary Issue, Nov. 2009, p. 98

Our core position is that the regulation of cultivation, ownership, and distribution of cannabis among adults is best undertaken outside the courts, via taxation, and the force of social and cultural opinion
http://www.masscann.org/about-mass-cann

[35] http://youthfederation.com/cchhi2012.html

[36] http://www.legalize2012.com/

[37] http://californiacannabisinitiative.org/index.php/our-initiative.html omarfigueroa@mac.com

[38] This measure would remove state civil and criminal penalties for persons eighteen years or older who cultivate, possess, transport, sell, or use marijuana. Marijuana would no longer be defined as a "controlled substance." Civil and criminal penalties relating to drug paraphernalia and provisions authorizing seizure or forfeiture of property would not apply to marijuana related offenses committed by persons eighteen years or older. The measure would retain current restrictions and penalties applicable to persons under eighteen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Initiative_1068_%282010%29

[39] "History shows that the best way to end prohibition is to simply repeal prohibition language. In 1932 Washington was one of the states that repealed prohibition on alcohol through a statewide initiative. The initiative removed all state laws criminalizing alcohol, leaving the Legislature the task of creating regulations, which it did. Their initiative language gave nothing for the Federal Government to attack since it simply removed state prohibition laws and nothing new was being added that would conflict with Federal law."
http://sensiblewashington.org/blog/about/

[40] "Walker's analysis led him to conclude that a small majority of the individuals who turned out to vote this year in Massachusetts supported legalizing and regulating cannabis in the same way the state does alcohol."

Analysis: Massachusetts Ready To Legalize Marijuana In 2012
By Steve Elliott, Friday, Nov. 5 2010
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2010/11/analysis_massachusetts_ready_to_leg...

[41] "Our Highest Priority", High Times Medical Marijuana, Winter 2011, p. 16

[42] Harvest, Issue #2, 1979, p. 6

[43] Drugs Policy in the Netherlands – Continuity and Change, Oct. 1995, Dutch Ministry of Heath, Welfare and Sport, P. 68

[44] "If, as expected, the Dutch parliament agrees the latest proposals, half the country's 4000 cannabis-selling coffee shops will close and the amount that can be sold to an individual will be cut to 5 g."

THE LANCET
Volume 346, Number 8985, November 11 1995
http://www.cfdp.ca/lancet.htm

[45] "Most draconian of all, non new (Dutch) coffeeshop permits will be issued and ownership will be non-transferable after two years." High Times, May 1997, p. 97

[46] "Some member states of the European Union (especially France), are putting pressure on Holland to conform to their repressive drug laws. This has resulted in the introduction of new drug policies that, while still more liberal than elsewhere, reflect a regressive trend in the thinking of the Dutch authorities." - Get Lost! The cool guide to Amsterdam, Joe Pauker, 1997, p. 51

[47] Marijuana Cafes Crackdown To Start In Netherlands
Huffington Post, Dec. 3, 2010

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/03/marijuana-cafes-crackdown_n_791...

[48] Norm Stamper, "War on Crime, not on Drugs", 2005
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/22227/?page=3

[49] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_Stamper

[50] http://yeson19.com/index.php/pages/initiative

[51] http://yeson19.com/node/6

[52] Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
…
(ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.
http://yeson19.com/node/6

[53] http://palmspringsbum.org/blog/2010/10/the-real-debate-over-californias-...

[54] Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls
Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:
(b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale;
(g) prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300;
http://yeson19.com/node/6

[55]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7oCiUY6lZk&feature=player_embedded#! - starting at 8:20

[56] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Senate_Bill_420

[57] http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/californias-medical-marijuana-laws-g...

[58]
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/los-angeles-city-council-a...

[59] Arguably, the exact same parental hysteria scapegoating method that has been used against the Jews for well over 2000 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

[60] L.A. Pot Ordinance: Dispensaries Lose Allison Margolin Wednesday, 20 January 2010

http://www.celebstoner.com/201001213615/blogs/allison-margolin/la-pot-or...

[61] "This bill would provide that no medical marijuana cooperative, collective, dispensary, operator, establishment, or provider authorized by law to possess, cultivate, or distribute medical marijuana and that has a storefront or mobile retail outlet which ordinarily requires a local business license shall be located within a 1,000-foot 600-foot radius of a school any public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive , as specified."
BILL NUMBER: AB 2650
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 8, 2010

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2601-2650/ab_2650_bill_2010...

[62] Oppose AB 2650 – Protect patients’ access statewide!
April 10th, 2010, Don Duncan
http://safeaccessnow.org/blog/?p=697

"Americans for Safe Access (ASA] needs your help to stop a bill that would make it harder to open medical cannabis collectives statewide. AB 2650 would require that new collectives be located at least 1,000 feet from schools in every city and county in California. We dont need another unnecessary hurdle to safe access in California. Call your Assembly Representative on the Appropriations Committee and ask him or her to vote no on AB 2650.

AB 2650 is sponsored by law enforcement lobbyists who oppose medical cannabis. This bill is an effort to roll back safe access to medicine under the guise of public safety. Research conducted by ASA shows that well regulated collectives reduce crime and complaints. In fact, collectives can help improve neighborhoods. There is no need to adopt a statewide rule that treats collectives like nuisances. We should let cities and counties decide what is best for their communities."
May 18, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihnmV9WE0y4

[63] "Los Angeles has declared that just 41 out of 169 medipot-shops in the city are eligible to remain in business. This will likely mean more law suits (30 have already been filed) in the wake of the Jan. 26 ordinance banning most of L.A.'s dispensaries. Businesses that registered before Nov. 13, 2007 were allowed to apply for eligibility. In order to qualify, management and ownership must have stayed the same since then and have no criminal records, and the stores couldn't have moved (unless they were booted by landlords who were warned by the DEA)."
L.A. Dispensaries: And Then There Were 41 Thursday, 26 August 2010
http://www.celebstoner.com/201008264739/news/marijuana-news/la-dispensar...

"Los Angeles city officials announced Wednesday that only 41 medical marijuana dispensaries are eligible to stay in business under the city’s restrictive ordinance, a number so low that the city will suspend the winnowing process and ask a judge to rule that it is legal."
"Only 41 medical marijuana dispensaries eligible to stay in business, Los Angeles officials say"
August 25, 2010 | 8:30 pm
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/only-41-medical-marijuana-...

[64] Richard Lee, High Times, Nov. 2010, p. 80

[65] http://dwiattorneysloane.blogspot.com/2010/07/small-marijuana-growers-op...

[66] - Kate McLean. "Pot: Semi-legal, Sold Everywhere", The Bay Citizen. Jun. 5, 2010
http://www.baycitizen.org/marijuana/story/legal-largely-unregulated-worl...

[67] Valerie Corral, High Times Medical Marijuana News and Reviews #3, Nov. 2010, p. 68

[68] Stephen DeAngelo, Owner of Harborside Health Center - the largest medical marijuana dispensary in the world http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2010/08/07/Medical-pot-at-center-of-Calif...

[69] "Boutique buds: What underground mom-and-pop growers did while we debated legalization"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/22/AR201010...

[70] J. Tony Serra, lawyer of Huey Newton, Dennis Peron, The White Panthers, and Earth First! http://www.freetainted.com/weblog/2009/08/10/j.tony-serra...legal-legend...

[71] Omar Figueroa, personal communication - californiacannabisinitiative.com - omarfigueroa@mac.com

[72] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y

[73] http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/stoners-against-legalization/Content?o...

[74]http://www.eastbayexpress.com/LegalizationNation/archives/2010/09/28/daily-roundup-stoners-against-legalization-team-up-with-ex-crackhead-priest

[75] http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/11/stoners-against-legalization-3-most-...

[76] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Kc_Kimber/10-lessons-learned-from-m...

[77] http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Los+Angeles%22+Restaurant...

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Los+Angeles%22+Bars&um=1&...

[78] Wednesday, November 24, 2010
This Saturday, THC Show Covers Maine's Monopoly Medical Marijuana Dispensary Racket

http://www.mikecann.net/2010/11/this-saturday-thc-show-covers-maines.htm...

[79] "The New Jersey Compassionate Medical Use Act mandates the Health Department to establish regulations for the operation of up to six state-licensed "alternative treatment centers" (ATCs). These not-for-profit facilities will be the sole entities legally allowed to produce and dispense medical marijuana to authorized patients. As of this writing, the application process and fees for those wishing to operate an ATC have not been determined." – High Times Medical Marijuana News and Reviews #2, 2010, p. 48

[80] Jeffrey Steinborn, Legal Eagle, High Times March 1998, p. 69. See also:

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Marijuana_Decriminaliza...

[81] Kirk Tousaw, Facebook post, November 5, 2010, at 7:45pm

[82] Second choice for "traitor" at audioenglish.net. http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/traitor.htm

[83] http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/p/prop-19-ma-and-pa-are-out-of-w...

[84] http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/19879

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/19176

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOxhX4v_Nx4

http://www.potshot.ca/pm/index.php?n=Main.Potshot19

http://hemp-ethanol.blogspot.com/2008/01/economics-history-and-politics-...

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

http://store.innertraditions.com/Product.jmdx?action=displayDetail&id=37...