OF AGGRAVATION, WORK I SUFFERED THROUGH TO PLACE ALL THIS INFORMATION HERE IN ONE
SPOT WHERE EVERYONE COULD FIND IT, EXAMINE IT AND COMPARE IT.
THE FOLLOWING ARE MY VIEWS, WRITTEN RESPONSES. AS WELL AS, THE VIEWS AND
RESPONSES OF OTHERS, INCLUDING EXPERTS AND PROFESSIONALS. THEIR EXPLANATIONS
AND SOME OF THE DOCUMENTATION ABOUT WHY PROP. 19 AND WHY THE “LEGALIZE = LEGAL
LIES PROPAGANDA” IT IS BASED UPON, MAKES IT BAD LEGISLATION. END PROHIBITION [ . ]
“IF I AM WRONG. THEN WHY ALL THE CENSORSHIP ? ANOTHER RESPONSE/COMMENT/POST
DELETED”
by Diverse Sanctuary on Saturday, August 21, 2010 at 2:31pm
A RESPONSE I POSTED TO THIS ARTICLE
“The 8 Most Absurd Excuses for Trying to Defeat Legal Pot | | AlterNet”I’ve collect…
http://www.alternet.
org/story/147891/the_8_most_absurd_excuses_for_trying_to_defeat_legal_pot/comments/#disqus
_thread
DELETED
WHY ?
WHAT WAS THE RESPONSE I POSTED ?
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE CONTAINS WITH-IN IT THE PRIMARY REASON CALI. SHOULD VOTE
NO ON PROP. 19
IN RESPONSE TO M.P.P. AND RAND PAUL’S WISHY WARSHY POLITICS
by Diverse Sanctuary on Wednesday, August 18, 2010 at 3:54pm
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/rand-paul-now-opposed-to-medical-marijuana {WHO ALSO
DELETED THIS RESPONSE}
YES, I SAID “WISHY WARSHY” POLITICS FOR A REASON. THIS IS ALL ABOUT “WAR” THEY THE
POLITICIANS = CORPORATE BOUGHT GOVERNMENT DO “WISH” TO CONTINUE.
SO I AM TO BE SURPRISED THAT RAND PAUL IS YET ONE MORE OF HIS KIND ?
YOU KNOW THE TYPE OF POLITICIAN THAT CHANGES HIS MIND ACCORDING TO THE LOBBY
OR THE POLLS AND SPEAKS WITH A FORKED TONGUE.
DID YOU KNOW THE WORD POLITICS COMES FROM THE LATIN “POLI” = “MANY” AND “TICS” =
“BLOODSUCKING PARASITES”
WHICH IN MY OPINION EXPLAINS THE ENTIRE MESS
WHILE EXPLAINING WHY MOST AMERICANS DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY READ
THOUGH I MUST SAY. I AM RATHER DISAPPOINTED IN RAND PAUL FOR HAVING NO REAL
TRUTH, KNOWLEDGE, BACKBONE OR BALLS.
JUST AS DISAPPOINTED AS I AM IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, AS WELL AS VOTER REFORM
{OR THE LACK OF REPAIR TO THE MACHINES OR THE SYSTEM}
I ASK YOU ?
HOW IS IT THAT NOT EVERY POLITICIAN AND EDUCATED AMERICAN ISN’T COMING FORWARD
AND DEMANDING THE TRUTH TO BE RELEASED AND TOLD IN SUPPORT OF THE
CANNABIS/MARIJUANA/HEMP PLANT, IT’S FREEDOM, IT’S PROTECTION, IT’S USE, IT’S SCIENCE
AND IT’S EMERGENCY UTILIZATION AT THIS POINT IN OUR HISTORY ?
GOD FEARING OR NOT ?
FACTS ARE FACTS AND TRUTH IS TRUTH.
I MEAN BESIDES THE FACT THAT “THIS IS 2010.”
SOME MORE IMPORTANT FACTS IN MAKING THIS CASE ARE…
* NEARLY HALF OF ALL AMERICAN’S ARE UN-EMPLOYED, HOMELESS, OR UNABLE TO PAY
TAXES.
* THE HUNGER RATE IS AT AN ALL TIME HIGH IN THE U.S.A.
* NEARLY 80 % OF AMERICAN’S ARE IN NEED OF MEDICAL TREATMENT OR DOCTORS CARE;
NEARLY 1/3 ARE CONSIDERED DISABLED; AND MILLIONS WHO ARE STILL UNABLE TO AFFORD
HEALTH CARE GO UNTREATED.
*ENVIRONMENTAL TOXINS AND DISASTERS ARE AT AN ALL TIME HIGH. WITH AT LEAST TWO
“HISTORICAL SPILLS” AFFECTING THE U.S. IN THE LAST YEAR.
*WHEN CLEAN ENERGY IS SO DESPERATELY NEEDED ON A GLOBAL SCALE.
*WHEN ALL THESE ISSUES ABOVE ARE GLOBAL ISSUES.
*WHILE PEOPLE, PATIENTS, FAMILIES, HOMES AND FARMS ARE DESTROYED, LOST,
IMPRISONED AND DIE.
*WHILE THE EARTHS NATURAL RESOURCES ARE BEING DEPLETED AND WARS ARE BEING
FOUGHT OVER THEM.
IN SO MANY SO-CALLED WARS INVENTED AND CREATED BY CORPORATIONS AND
GOVERNMENT FOR PROFIT.
LIKE THIS FAILED SO-CALLED WAR ON DRUGS.
ALL BASED IN LIES CREATED AND REPEATED BY MEN.
FROM THE CORPORATION, TO THE POLITICIAN, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THEIR CORPORATE
AND FEDERALLY FUNDED OFFICES, SCHOOLS, CHURCHES AND EVEN THE “LEGALIZATION”
GROUPS AND ORGS. WHO REPEAT THEIR “LEGALIZE” – “LEGAL LIES” PROPAGANDA. WHILE
THEY SELL THEIR LIES, MEMBERSHIPS, COLLECT INFO AND LYE IN WAIT TO PROFIT EVEN
MORE THROUGH GMO PATENT, OWNERSHIP, COMMERCIALIZATION, BIG PHARMA, BIG CHEMA
AND TOTAL CONTROL OVER THE PLANT.
THE EGOIST, THE LAZY AND/OR THE GREEDY FEED ON THE UN-INFORMED, UNDER-
EDUCATED, DESPERATE, NEEDY OR WELL MEANING.
“THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS” {OF SOME AND THE EVIL
MANIPULATIONS OF OTHERS.}
WHILE LEADING THE WAY TO GIVING BIG BROTHER = BIG GOV EVEN MORE POWER TO PASS
AND ISSUE ALL SORTS OF NEW AND IMPROVED RESTRICTIONS. I MEAN REGULATIONS AND
CONTROL OVER THE PLANT AND IT’S MANY USES.
AS THEY CONTINUE TO FILL THEIR INDUSTRIAL PRISON COMPLEX.
THEY INVENTED, AT THE SAME TIME IN HISTORY THAT THEY CAME UP WITH U.S. CITIZENSHIP,
S.S., AND THE I.R.S. SHORTLY AFTER THE “CIVIL WAR” IN ORDER TO DECLARE YOU DEAD =
“YOUR NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS”. IN ORDER TO BUY AND SELL THE “SOVEREIGNTY OF THE
INDIVIDUAL”= STATE CITIZENS OR COMMON MAN, INCLUDING THE RECENTLY FREED SLAVE
THROUGH THE STOCK MARKET TO THE WORLD BANKS AND CORPORATIONS IN ORDER
REPLACE OUR GOLD AND REPAY OUR WAR DEBT. THROUGH EVEN MORE SLAVERY.
WHY YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS WHEN YOU ANSWER TO THE COURTS OR THE JUDGES BENCH.
BENCH IN LATIN = BANK. THIS IS WHY THE JUDGE WEARS BLACK.
I MEAN AFTER ALL, WE DO HAVE MORE PEOPLE IN PRISON FOR THE “ILLEGAL USE OF LEGAL
DRUGS” {PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, ALCOHOL, OVER THE COUNTER…} THAN WE DO FOR THE
“ILLEGAL USE OF PROHIBITED DRUGS”.
LET US NOT FORGET THIS IS THE VERY SAME GOVERNMENT THAT HOLDS A “LEGAL U.S.
PATENT” FOR THE MEDICAL USE OF CANNABIS, WHICH NOTES IT CAN BE USED TO CURE
CANCER. “US Patent # 6630507 titled “Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants” which
is assigned to The United States of America, as represented by the Department of Health and
Human Services.” WHILE THEY DE-NIGH ANY PROOF OR EVIDENCE EXIST THAT IT IS A
MEDICINE. “
WHILE THEY CONTINUE TO DENIGH KNOWING ANY CURE EXIST FOR CANCER,… AS THEY
CONTINUE TO ALLOW THESE PATIENTS TO DIE AND BE IMPRISONED.
WHO CLAIMS IT AND IT’S USE IS AGAINST FEDERAL LAW
DESPITE THESE FACTS…
*THEY CONTINUE TO “USE” IT… AS THEY GROW AND PROVIDE IT TO 6 REMAINING FEDERAL
PATIENTS.
*THEY RECOGNIZED IT AS LEGAL THROUGH TAXATION IN THE 1937 MARIJUANA TAX ACT.
WHICH WAS REPEALED {1969 Leary v. United States} AND YET, THEY CURRENTLY “USE” IT TO
EXCEPT TAXES ON THE PROFITS MADE BY MEDICAL CANNABIS GROWERS, TAX STAMPS, …
*THEY WHO MADE THE HISTORIC FILM “HEMP FOR VICTORY” LOBBYING THE AMERICAN
FARMER TO GROW HEMP FOR THEIR “USE” AFTER PASSING THE 1937 MARIJUANA TAX ACT.
*WHO THEN REGULATED IT THROUGH DEA AND THE 1970 CSA “CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
ACT” AND THEN “USED” IT TO DECLARE A WAR ON DRUGS.
*WHO’S USDA HAS ALREADY RECOGNIZED IT’S “USE” IN FACTS THAT THEY DOCUMENTED OF
IT’S ABILITIES TO CLEAN AND RESTORE TOXIC GROUND WATER, SOIL AND AIR IN THEIR
REPORT
http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/management/files/sq_utn_3.pdf
*THOUGH THEY REFUSE TO “USE” IT FOR THIS GOOD PURPOSE AND CONTINUE TO ATTEMPT
TO ERADICATE IT FROM THE WILD. DESPITE THEIR OFFICE OF THE E.P.A., THEIR ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL BIOLOGY OF THE “WEB OF LIFE” SCIENCE, AND THEIR OWN E.S.A. “ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT” THAT THEY CREATED TO KEEP ANY SPECIES FROM BEING ERADICATED.
ALLOWING A DOMINO AFFECT THAT ENDANGERS MANY SPECIES AND ALL LIFE.
*WHO “On December 10th 2009 the United States House of Representatives passed the Omnibus
Spending Appropriations Bill of 2010. The bill contains language that authorizes Washington D.C. to
implement it’s medical marijuana program Initiative 59. Thus congress legislated accepted medical
use for cannabis. The United States Senate passed the same bill on December 13th 2009. With the
stroke of a pen on December 16th President Barack Obama signed into United States Law
accepted “use” for medical cannabis.”
http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-hiv-aids-religion-belief-reproductive-freedom/president-signs-
omnibus-bill-including
WHO’S VA {A FEDERAL OFFICE} THEN APPROVED IT’S MEDICAL “USE” FOR OUR VETERAN’S
{BUT ONLY TO THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD TO LIVE IN STATES WITH CURRENT LAWS ?}
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2010/July/25/medical-marijuana-for-vets.aspx
*AS THEY ALL CONTINUE TO TALK OUT BOTH SIDES OF THEIR A$$E$
*WHILE THEY PLOT TO DESTROY AND “USE” IT ONCE AGAIN FOR THEIR PROFIT ! A HOLY
SACRED PLANT THAT WAS TO BE GIVEN AND RECEIVED FREELY
GEN. 1: 11-12 ~ “HERB YIELDING SEED”,”WHO’S SEED WAS IN ITSELF”
GEN. 1: 29 ~ “TO YOU IT SHALL BE FOR MEAT”
PS. 104: 14 ~ “FOR THE SERVICE OF MAN”
EXODUS 30: 22-30 ~ “fragrant cane” FROM THE HEBREW TORAH = “KANEH BOSEM” = CANNABIS
~ “FOR THE ANOINTING OF PRIEST AND HEALING”
HIGHLY REGARDED AND REVERED AS THE “TREE OF LIFE”
REV. 22:2 ~ “FOR THE HEALING OF THE NATIONS”
REV. 1-8 ~ “I AM THE APHA AND OMEGA”
A PLANT WHO’S SEED IS PROVEN TO CONTAINS THE HIGHEST PROTEIN AND ALL OF THE
ALPHA AND OMEGAS.
THAT FROM THE BEGINNING WAS GIVEN AS MEAT. AS WELL AS FOR THE HEALING AND
SERVICE OF MAN. THAT IF IT WAS FARMED COULD EASILY FEED THE WORLD BOTH BREAD
AND MILK.
WONDER IF IT HAD NOT BEEN REMOVED FROM OUR GARDENS AND OUR TABLES. IF SO MANY
WOULD BE IN NEED IT’S MEDICINE TODAY ? PROVEN TO HEAL, RESTORE CELLS AND FIGHT
DISEASE.
CONSIDERING THAT THE MAJORITY OF DISEASE AND ILLNESSES ARE CAUSED BY
MALNUTRITION, POOR NUTRITION AND/OR A LACK OF CLEAN GROUND WATER = DRINKING
WATER.
A PLANT THAT IS PROVEN SAFER THAN ASPIRIN AND OUR DRINKING WATER. WHICH IS ALSO
PROVEN TO HEAL ADDICTION.
WHICH IS PROVEN AND KNOWN TO RESTORE OUR TOXIC SOIL, GROUND WATER AND AIR AS
IT GROWS. RESTORING THE EARTH NATURALLY.
PROVEN TO PROVIDE A CLEAN ENERGY ALTERNATIVE TO OIL, COAL, GASOLINE, FUEL…
CREATING A CLOSED CARBON CYCLE WHILE IT BURNS. RESTORING OUR OZONE.
A PLANT THAT ALSO PROVIDES CLOTHING, SHELTER, INK, PLASTIC, RUBBER, CEMENT,…
AS WELL AS PROVIDING SPIRITUAL HEALING AND GOD’S ANOINTING.
THERE WILL COME A TIME WHEN AMERICA AS A COUNTRY AND ENTIRE OUR GLOBE WILL
HAVE TO FIND A NEW WAY TO EMPLOY AND SUSTAIN IT’S SELF. OTHER THAN THROUGH WAR,
CAPITALISM = ADDICTION = CONSUMERISM, SLAVERY, DEATH, AND THE CONSUMPTION OF
OUR CHILDREN AND THE EARTH’S RESOURCES.
JUST SAY NO !
TO GMO HEMP
JUST SAY NO !
TO PROP 19 IT IS A LIE.
IN THE END, IT WILL NOT KEEP YOU FROM BEING FINED, FROM ENDING UP IN COURT OR
GOING TO JAIL. IT DOES NOT PROMISE THOSE WHO NEED THE MEDICINE WILL RECEIVE IT OR
WILL BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT. IT ONLY GIVES THEM MORE CONTROL.
IF YOU MUST PASS A BILL AND JUST SAY NOW…
SUPPORT BRUCE CAIN AND M.E.R.P. NOW ! TODAY !
http://www.newagecitizen.com/MERP.htm
JUST SAY NO !
TO BIG GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY & U.S. CITIZENSHIP. IT’S A LIE. {LIKE OUR FEDERAL
RESERVE} ASK HOW MANY ON IT ARE SOCIALLY SECURE IN THEIR PRESENT NEEDS. IT ONLY
STEALS YOUR LIFE & SOVEREIGNTY = NATURAL BORN FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS. MAKING YOU
A PRODUCT OF THE STOCK MARKET OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT & WORLD BANK. A SLAVE
TO REPAY OUR NATIONAL DEBTS.
SEE THE EVIDENCE HERE
http://www.designingyourworld.com/Redemption
CALL OUT FOR COMPLETE GOVERNMENT REFORM NOW !
JUST SAY NO !
TO THE U.N. WHICH AT THIS POINT IS THE N.W.O. WHICH = OLD WORLD ORDER {LOOK AT THE
OLD TESTAMENT AND THE STORY OF ISRAEL}
SINCERELY,
MUCH PEACE & LOVE…
REV. MARY
I SHOULD HAVE ADDED IF CALI WANTS PERSONAL USE THEY SHOULD SUPPORT AND HONOR
JACK HERER’S WISHES & INITIATIVE
http://www.jackherer.com/initiative.html
BUT IT TOO WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN DELETED.
AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF. WHY I AM CONTINUOUSLY CENSORED BY ALL
THOSE MAJOR ORGANIZATIONS, GROUPS, FORUMS, RAGS,… WHO CLAIM TO BE IN THIS SO-
CALLED TRUTH ABOUT CANNABIS MOVEMENT. INCLUDING MAIN STREAM NEWS,…???
DOES DELETING OR BLOCKING THE TRUTH REALLY CHANGE IT OR MAKE IT GO AWAY ?
THERE ARE OTHERS WHO SEE PAST THE SMOKE SCREEN
A NOTE FROM BRUCE CAIN THE AUTHOR OF M.E.R.P.
I am forming a group that is out to oppose Prop19 and push forward with MERP and CCHH. The
story done on ASA was just great as it exposes the sort of crap that has been going on for decades
now. This group already has at least two very smart attorneys and possible one ex-Judge. Send me
your email so I can send you an invitation to join this group.
Bruce Cain
www.newagecitizen.com/NoOnProp19.htm
A COMMENT BY GATEWOOD GALBRAITH CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR IN KY. OPPOSING PROP. 19
Gatewood said…
I am an out-of-state observer who may have a hand in writing the future marijuana laws of Kentucky.
I immediately felt great hope when I first heard about the “legalization” forthcoming in Nov. in
California but when I heard that my good friends Jack Herer and Dennis Peron opposed its
passage, I was greatly intrigued. Now I thoroughly understand their positions. Thanks for your
exhaustive effort. I can sympathize with having such a burden lifted. Gatewood Galbraith
July 15, 2010 7:06 AM
IN RESPONSE TO, “WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE PROP. 19: 19 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW”
http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html
WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE PROP. 19: 19 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW
“People think it’s legalization, it’s being sold as legalization—even though it’s the opposite of
legalization.” – Dennis Peron, author of Prop. 215 that legalized medical marijuana in California
Dragonfly De La Luz
When most marijuana activists, growers and consumers first heard about an initiative that would
legalize cannabis in California, they thought it was a pipe dream come true. To many, legalization
implied that it would no longer be a crime to possess, consume or distribute marijuana. Cannabis
consumers rejoiced at the idea of being able to buy from their neighbors or at parties—just as they
already do—with no legal retribution. Small-time growers envisioned being free to sell their product
to those who sought them out, with no legal repercussions. Marijuana activists thought it meant that
people would stop getting arrested for pot, and that the drug war would finally be over. But now that
the initiative is headed to ballot, many pro-legalization supporters are coming out against it. Why?
Simply put, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative does not reflect most people’s ideas of
what legalization would be. The media often incorrectly reports that this initiative calls for “full
legalization” of marijuana. It does not. In fact, it reverses many of the freedoms marijuana
consumers currently enjoy, pushes growers out of the commercial market, paves the way for the
corporatization of cannabis, and creates new prohibitions where there are none now. Apparently, to
be pro-legalization and pro-initiative are two different things entirely.
The late-Jack Herer, legendary marijuana activist known as the father of the legalization movement,
vehemently opposed the initiative. In the last words of his impassioned final speech, moments
before the heart attack that would eventually claim his life, he urged people not to support it.[1]
Proposition 215 author, Dennis Peron, likewise denounced the initiative, saying it is not legalization,
but “thinly-veiled prohibition.”[2]
Compared to the present status of cannabis in California, many marijuana activists see this initiative
as a giant leap backward. Ironically, it appears that marijuana is more “legal” in California today than
it would be if this initiative were to pass.
The initiative itself is a hazy maze of regulations and controls, some of which are ambiguous and
confusing even for those well-versed in marijuana law. Understandably, many who have entered the
discussion seem to have bypassed the initiative altogether and gone straight to their own
assumptions of what an initiative that claims to legalize marijuana might entail, injecting the debate
with as many misconceptions as facts. But for an issue that would have such a direct and
unprecedented impact on our daily lives, it’s crucial to decide your vote based on knowledge, rather
than assumption.
To clarify a few of the most glaring myths about the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative, I
have compiled this guide to help you VOTE KNOW!
Myth #1: The initiative will end the War on Drugs and substantially reduce marijuana arrests, saving
millions in prison costs.
Fact: Hardly. The federal drug war will continue to drone on, of course, and growing or possessing
any amount of marijuana would still be illegal under federal law. Anyone growing or possessing
cannabis without a doctor’s recommendation would still be subject to arrest and seizure by the
federal police—although on the bright side, the Obama administration recently announced it will no
longer raid individuals who are operating in compliance with medical marijuana law.[3]
Contrary to popular assumption, the drug war in California will not end, nor will it be impacted much
by the initiative. This is because the initiative doesn’t call for full legalization; it proposes to legalize
possession of only up to one ounce. And in California, there is no “drug war” being fought against
possession of up to one ounce, because marijuana is already decriminalized.
The penalty for carrying an ounce is a mere citation and maximum $100 fine.[4] Moreover,
possession of one ounce is on its way to being downgraded from a misdemeanor to an infraction,
because the state Senate voted in June to reclassify its status. [5] No one goes to jail for having an
ounce or less in California, and no one gets arrested, because it is not an arrestable offense.
One often-quoted statistic in the initiative debate is that misdemeanor marijuana possession
arrests reached 61,388 in 2008.[6] However, it is important to note that this statistic does not refer to
any arrest demographic that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative would affect. This
statistic refers only to possession of more than one ounce, possession by minors and possession
on school grounds—offenses which the initiative will not legalize. It does not refer to nor does it
include marijuana arrests for possession of one ounce or less, because this is not an arrestable
offense. Therefore, the initiative would have no impact on reducing these arrests rates.
Statistically, the demographic that accounts for nearly one-quarter of total arrests for marijuana
possession in California happens to be those in the 18-20 age group. But because the initiative
explicitly makes it illegal for even adults age 18-20 to possess marijuana, these arrests will not
decrease, and the drug war against young adults will rage on.
Furthermore, since the initiative would keep possession of amounts greater than one ounce illegal
and likewise maintain the illegality of private sales of any amount, the overall impact that the initiative
would have on ending the drug war, reducing arrest rates and saving on prison costs would be
negligible, at best.
As an example of how highly misunderstood this initiative and its potential impact on the drug war is,
the California NAACP recently pledged their support for the initiative based on the belief that it will put
an end to the disproportionately high number of African-American youth going to jail “over a joint.” [7]
But in reality, the initiative will have no impact on this phenomenon whatsoever. As it is now, the
State of California does not jail people for having a joint; it is not an arrestable offense. And, as
mentioned above, possession of up to one ounce is on its way to being reclassified from a
misdemeanor to an infraction—which carries no criminal-record stigma. The state does, however,
incarcerate people for selling small amounts of marijuana. And since this initiative keeps private
marijuana sales illegal, no matter the quantity, there will be no decrease in the number of African
Americans—or anyone else—arrested for selling a joint.
Not only does the initiative do little or nothing to end the drug war, but ironically, it could in fact
expand the drug war, because it imposes new prohibitions against marijuana that do not exist
currently.
Contrary to the belief that it will keep people out of jail for marijuana, this initiative actually creates
new demographics of people to incarcerate. (See Fact #2 and Fact #3) It is difficult to see how the
government would save on court and imprisonment costs if the initiative merely shifts arrests from
one demographic to another.
Myth #2: The initiative will keep young adults out of jail for using marijuana.
Fact: This initiative would put more young people in jail for pot. If it becomes law, any adult 21 or over
who passes a joint to another adult aged 18-20 would face six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. [8]
(NORML’s Web site reports that the current penalty for a gift of marijuana of 1 oz. or less is a $100
fine.[9])
Myth #3: You’ll be able to light up freely in the privacy of your home.
Fact: That depends. Under the initiative, even adults consuming marijuana in the privacy of their
homes could face arrest if there are minors present (not something one would expect from an
initiative that claims to treat marijuana like alcohol and tobacco)[10]. Current marijuana law contains
no such restrictions. Thanks to Prop. 215, which legalized marijuana for medicinal use, cannabis
consumers have been legally free to smoke in the privacy of their homes since 1997. This initiative
seeks to undermine that freedom, making it absolutely illegal to smoke marijuana if there are
minors present. (The initiative is ambiguous with regard to whether “present” means being in the
same room as the consumer, the same house, the same apartment building, or within wafting
distance—apparently leaving this up to the interpretation of judges.) There is no exception for
medical marijuana patients or for parents consuming in the presence of their own children.
Myth #4: Under the initiative, anyone 21 or over will be allowed to grow marijuana in a 5’x5’ space.
Fact: Not quite. This allotment is per property, not per person. If you share a residence with other
people, you’ll be sharing a 5’x5’ grow space, as well. Even if you own multiple acres that many
people live on, if it is considered one parcel, the space restriction of 5’x5’ (3-6 plants) will still apply.
[11] Plus, if you rent, you will be required to obtain permission from your landlord—which they may
be unwilling to grant since doing so will subject them to forfeiture by the federal government.
Myth #5: Adults 21 and over will be able to possess up to one ounce of marijuana without penalty.
Fact: Perhaps the most ironic piece of the puzzle is that the initiative to legalize marijuana actually
makes it illegal to possess marijuana if it was purchased anywhere other than the very few licensed
dispensaries in the state.[12] So if this initiative passes, better not get caught carrying marijuana you
bought off your neighbor, your current dealer, or at a party; you could get arrested. And if you do buy
from a licensed dispensary, better keep your receipts, because the burden of proof will be on you.
Not only is this inconvenient, but it sets the industry up to be monopolized.
What’s more, if your city decides not to tax cannabis, then buying and selling marijuana in the city
limits would remain illegal. You would be permitted to possess and consume marijuana, but you
would be required to travel to another city that taxes cannabis to buy it.[13] This is a move towards
decreased, not increased, access. And since the initiative is so ambiguous that cities are destined
to be tied up in a legal quagmire over how to interpret it, many local governments might find it
simpler just to opt-out and send its citizens elsewhere. Indeed, 129 cities did just that with medical
marijuana, banning it outright, while still others have established moratoriums against
dispensaries. In fact, of the entire state, only the city of Oakland has endorsed the initiative. A vote for
the initiative will therefore not ensure local access to purchase marijuana legally.
Myth #6: The initiative will free up cops to focus on bigger crimes.
Fact: Decriminalization has already achieved this. The California Police Chiefs Association publicly
admits that they do not waste their time on cases involving an ounce or less.[14] Moreover, many
cities have already passed measures that require law enforcement to make marijuana possession
their lowest priority.
What the initiative would do is create new prohibitions where there were none before, obligating
police officers to spend valuable time enforcing them. The cases cops presently de-prioritize are
minor offenses, like simple possession. But the initiative takes minor offenses and reclassifies
them as more serious crimes (e.g., passing a joint to an adult 18-20). Law enforcement’s time is
freed up by the elimination of prohibition, not by exchanging old prohibitions for new ones.
Myth #7: Marijuana tax revenue will go toward education and health care.
Fact: As it is now, state budget cuts have resulted in the closing of state parks, and health care for
impoverished children has been revoked, not to mention thousands of government lay-offs. But
marijuana taxes will not be earmarked for health care, public education, the re-opening of state
parks, or rehiring of laid-off government employees. Instead, the initiative specifically states that any
marijuana tax revenue can be used toward enforcing the new prohibitions that the initiative enacts.
[15] In this regard, not only does the initiative not end the drug war, it apparently taxes the drug to
fund the drug war.
Myth #8: Marijuana growers will be able to sell cannabis legally.
Fact: Currently, marijuana growers in California who have a medical recommendation can and do
grow and provide marijuana legally. Entire economies in Northern California exist on this industry.
However, the initiative would make it illegal for anyone to sell marijuana, unless they own a licensed
dispensary.[16] (See Fact #9)
Many have suggested that growers could open marijuana-tasting venues, similar to wine-tasting at
vineyards. A grower might have a chance of opening such a place, but only if he gave his product
away for free, because selling it would be illegal unless he successfully navigated the notoriously
difficult and prohibitively expensive process of obtaining licensure.
Myth #9: Anyone can obtain a license to legally sell cannabis and compete in the market.
Fact: Few people will be able to compete in the multibillion-dollar marijuana market if the initiative
passes. This is because the licensing process, engineered in Oakland, is exceptionally restrictive.
Of the more than a thousand dispensaries operating in California until a recent L.A. crackdown, only
a handful were licensed. (Conveniently, Richard Lee, the millionaire behind the initiative, owns one
of them). In Oakland, the city that’s setting the precedent in the tax cannabis push, a license costs
$30,000. Per year. Not to mention the rigorous application process, in which even well-established,
law-abiding dispensaries have been denied.
Furthermore, Oakland has started a trend of capping the number of licensed dispensaries allowed
to operate (in Oakland, that number is four). This all but guarantees that the average, small-time
marijuana grower will be shut out of this multibillion-dollar industry, concentrating the profits of the
potential economic boon in the hands of a small minority of wealthy entrepreneurs who are already
making moves to monopolize the industry. Under this initiative, the marijuana industry will not be a
free market in which everyone has a chance to compete. Instead, the initiative could mark the
beginning of the corporatization of marijuana. (See also Fact #15)
Myth #10: Medical marijuana patients would be exempt from the initiative.
Fact: This is not exactly true. While amendments were made ostensibly to prevent the initiative from
affecting current medical marijuana law, a careful reading of the initiative reveals that this is not, in
fact, the case. Certain medical marijuana laws are exempt from the prohibitions the initiative would
enact, while others are glaringly absent.
Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.[17] In spite of the fact that the tax cannabis
Web site says otherwise, the only medical marijuana exemptions that the Regulate, Control and Tax
Cannabis Initiative actually makes are with regard to possession, consumption and purchase limits,
which only ensure that patients would still be allowed to buy medicine at dispensaries. The word
“cultivate” is conspicuously absent. Whereas today a person with a doctor’s recommendation has
the right to grow up to an unlimited number of plants, the initiative would drastically reduce that
number to whatever can fit in a 5’x5’ footprint (around 3-6 plants—per property, not per person). This
will force many patients to resort to buying instead of growing their own medicine, because of the
inconvenience caused by producing multiple grows a year rather than growing a year’s supply of
medicine at one time, as many patients currently do outdoors. And growing indoors—which typically
requires special grow lights, an increase in hydro use, and a lot of time and attention—is a
comparatively expensive endeavor.
The initiative would further impact medical marijuana patients by banning medicating in the privacy
of their own homes if there are minors present, as well as in public (currently perfectly legal[18])—an
invaluable liberty to those with painful diseases who would otherwise have to suffer until they got
home to relieve their pain.
Finally, the medical marijuana laws that are exempted from this initiative apparently only apply to
cities. For medical marijuana patients who live in an area that has county or local government
jurisdiction, according to a strict reading of the initiative, medical marijuana laws are not exempt.[19]
Myth #11: Marijuana smokers will be free to smoke cannabis wherever cigarette smoking is allowed.
Fact: Actually, that’s the way it is now in California. There is no law prohibiting medical marijuana
from being smoked wherever cigarette smoking is permitted.[20] Young adults taking bong hits in
Golden Gate Park on a Sunday afternoon is just part of the San Francisco scenery. However, if this
initiative passes, that freedom would disappear and we could see cops policing smoking areas to
enforce this law.[21]
Myth #12: Currently imprisoned non-violent marijuana offenders would be released.
Fact: The initiative makes no call to release prisoners who are behind bars for any marijuana
offense, no matter how minor. In fact, because it introduces new prohibitions where none exist now,
the initiative could potentially be responsible for locking even more people up for marijuana.
Myth #13: Counties in which marijuana cultivation currently thrives will experience increased
economic growth.
Fact: Entire economies could collapse in counties that currently rely on cultivating marijuana. Right
now, the multibillion-dollar marijuana industry is legally subsidizing thousands of incomes in areas
where unemployment is skyrocketing. For example, Mendocino County, the biggest pot-producing
county in the U.S., reports that a full two-thirds of its economy is dependent on marijuana.[22] Much
of this is due to current state medical marijuana laws, which allow people to legally cultivate plants
and provide them to marijuana pharmacies. But this economy supports more than just farmers.
Many local store owners report that without marijuana farmers patronizing their businesses with
cash, they would go out of business. Moreover, legitimate medical marijuana growers employ tens
of thousands of seasonal workers, mostly young adults, who have managed to eke out a living in a
region where none other exists, and who otherwise would have few local options to support
themselves. The more humble among them are able to make a living that sustains them modestly
throughout much of the year. Thousands more are able to subsidize low-paying jobs, make up for
shortages in their college funding, and start creative projects such as fashion design, music
production, or art. But because the initiative would limit the number of plants one could grow from up
to an unlimited amount to about six, thousands of small-time medical marijuana farmers and the
young adults they employ would face economic displacement and hardship, or join the ranks of the
unemployed. (For more on this, see Fact #15.)
Myth #14: The initiative will create an employment boon similar to California’s wine industry.
Fact: Comparisons with the wine industry are no true basis for determining the potential revenue
recreational marijuana could create, because the wine industry does not operate under the same
restrictions the marijuana industry would face. Namely, there’s no cap on how many wineries can
operate in California, or how many grapes each vineyard can grow. There are currently almost 3,000
vineyards in the state, whereas since the April crackdown in L.A., there are fewer than 300
dispensaries (of which only a few are licensed). Moreover, if cities continue to follow the trend set by
Oakland and cap the number of licensed dispensaries allowed to operate, then the thousands of
people currently legally employed by dispensaries would dwindle drastically.
Myth #15: The initiative will limit the viability of Mexican drug cartels.
Fact: Mexican drug cartels are already being undermined tremendously thanks to the legions of
small-time farmers growing in California. The Washington Post reported on October 7, 2009:
“Almost all of the marijuana consumed in the multibillion-dollar U.S. market once came from Mexico
or Colombia. Now as much as half is produced domestically, often by small-scale operators who
painstakingly tend greenhouses and indoor gardens to produce the more potent… product that
consumers now demand, according to authorities and marijuana dealers on both sides of the
border. … Stiff competition from thousands of mom-and-pop marijuana farmers in the United States
threatens the bottom line for powerful Mexican drug organizations in a way that decades of arrests
and seizures have not, according to law enforcement officials and pot growers in the United States
and Mexico.”[23]
These mom-and-pop growers don’t fit the stereotype of the gang-war era drug pusher or Mexican
drug cartel growing marijuana irresponsibly and setting forests on fire. Many of them are law-abiding
citizens, legally growing medical marijuana under Prop. 215. They’re the people you see at your
local organic health food store, or shopping in the community, putting much-needed cash directly
into the local economy while the national economy flounders in recession. These small-time
marijuana farmers use the money they earn from providing medicine to finance their kids’ education,
help out their laid-off parents and put themselves through school. In some cases, entire
communities depend on them.
However, if this initiative passes, these growers that are single-handedly undercutting the Mexican
drug cartels would no longer be able to legally operate and the face of the marijuana industry could
change from the local one we recognize to an impersonal corporate entity, leaving a spate of
displaced marijuana farmers in its wake.
One corporation that is poised to take the place of the mom-and-pop growers is AgraMed. While
Oakland’s city council prepares to consider a proposal in July to license four commercial indoor
marijuana farms in the city, 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.”[24]
The language that backers of the initiative use itself is cause for concern among pro-marijuana
supporters. Instead of speaking out against the injustice of jailing people over a plant that is widely
known not only to be harmless, but beneficial, these multimillionaire supporters of the initiative
speak only of their intentions to corporatize marijuana. The owner of one leading marijuana
dispensary—that already earns well over $20 million a year—was quoted in the New York Times as
having aspirations to become the “McDonald’s of marijuana.”[25] The proprietors of Oakland’s new i-
Grow hydroponics store want it to be known as the “Wal-Mart” of grow stores.[26] Meanwhile,
Marijuana, Inc., a multimillion-dollar corporation, has plans to build cannabis resorts in the Northern
California counties that currently survive off the medical marijuana industry.[27] They intend to create
golf resorts with acres of marijuana gardens featuring hundreds of strains. (Apparently, under this
initiative, corporations would be permitted to grow quite large quantities of cannabis, while
cultivation would be restricted to 5’ x 5’ plots for everyone else.)
The accusations that medical marijuana growers oppose the initiative out of greed are clearly
grossly unfounded. It is obvious who has intentions of increasing their bottom line. Small-time
marijuana farmers simply want to continue making a humble living off the land. They are the ones
who built the marijuana industry, but this initiative seeks to allow corporations to take their hard work
and turn it into profits for themselves, locking farmers out of the industry entirely.
We have seen this trend before in the United States. Our history is replete with small farmers being
taken over by huge corporations. Hundreds of thousands of mom-and-pop businesses have been
forced out of business by conglomerates like Wal-Mart, Starbucks, and Monsanto, which those who
benefit from such takeovers have justified by calling it “progress.” But is it? And is this the sort of
“progress” we want to see take over the marijuana industry? Is this the world Peter Tosh had in
mind when he implored us to “legalize it?”
Marijuana may well be the final bastion of farmer-owned, worker-owned, business autonomy in this
country. Will we allow it, too, to go the way of nearly every other homegrown industry in the history of
the United States? We all hope for legalization. But must we have such a drastic, Faustian trade-off
for this freedom? And is it really freedom if we must lose our autonomy to gain it?
One farmer’s response to the news of Marijuana Inc.’s resort aspirations poignantly sums up the
pending reality should the initiative pass:
“Marijuana, Inc., has big plans to invade the Emerald Triangle and surrounding counties to really
capitalize on marijuana tourism. Maybe that sounds like fun to people that aren’t from around here,
but it is really going to take away a lot of opportunity from the locals who make this place what it is. I
feel that the people here who created this industry are going to be left in the dust for the most part…
There is just too much money at stake and that is what these guys are all about. This is the
equivalent of the giant hotels popping up on the Hawaiian Islands and the locals being told, ‘You
can still work at the resort. We’ll need maids and groundskeepers who’ll work for minimum wage…’”
[28]
What is currently a small-time, largely organic industry—on which entire economies survive, and
without which entire economies would collapse—could soon become dominated by corporations if
this initiative passes. The days of “knowing your dealer” and what goes into your pot could soon be
over, and marijuana, a sacrament to many, could become corporatized. Are corporations inherently
evil? No. But if we have the option to keep millions of dollars in our own communities, spread out
over hundreds of thousands of people, it hardly seems sensible to outsource this employment to
corporations and into the hands of a few.
Is it possible to have marijuana legalization without legalizing corporate takeover of the industry?
Absolutely. Will those who are passionate about marijuana live to regret voting in an initiative that
treats marijuana as a publicly-traded commodity and turns it into something as abhorrent as Wal-
Mart and McDonald’s? Absolutely. Do we have to settle for this? Absolutely not.
Myth #16: The price of marijuana will drop.
Fact: The value of marijuana might decrease if it becomes more commercially available and more
people grow their own, but the price of a product depends less on its value and more on the degree
of competition that exists with regard to selling it. Since your options for purchasing marijuana would
be among only a handful of licensed dispensaries in the state, there is no guarantee of a decrease
in price. Less competition means higher prices.
Indeed, by AgraMed’s own estimation, in order to make $59 million a year off 58 pounds per day,
they would have to charge $175 per ounce wholesale (roughly $2,800 per pound)—and that’s if they
produced 58 pounds 365 days a year. If they managed to produce that output only 5 days a week,
that price would leap to $245 an ounce (about $3900 per pound). With shelf-prices at dispensaries
often set at double the wholesale purchase price—not to mention the compulsory tax added onto
every ounce (which Richard Lee stated in an interview was “recommended” to be $50)—the price of
marijuana could potentially be higher than it is in our current market, in which the price of a pound
has already fallen to $2,000, according to a recent National Public Radio report; a direct result of
healthy competition, not its opposite.[29]
Myth #17: We can vote in the initiative and fix the tangles as they come up.
Fact: Initiatives create permanent statutes. Once an initiative is voted into law, it cannot be reversed.
It remains law forever. It is worth noting that this initiative makes some unusual provisions with
regard to amendments. For starters, it allows the legislature (traditionally hostile toward marijuana
legislation) to amend the initiative without voter approval. Furthermore, it allows amendments, but
“only to further the purposes of the Act.”[30] Under a monopolized, corporate-controlled distribution
process, the “purposes” might become more narrowly defined.
Many of the issues that pro-legalization supporters have with the initiative could be easily rectifiable
with a few sentences and an amendment-submission to the Attorney General’s office. It would have
required very little on the part of the initiative authors to remove the vagueness from the wording that
bans smoking cannabis in any “space” where minors are “present,” for example, or to add an
exemption for medical marijuana patients and parents consuming in the presence of their own
children. It would have required very little to write into the initiative a line that would exempt medical
marijuana patients from the public smoking ban and protect their right to grow medicine in amounts
sufficient for their individual needs. After all, these are items which should not be considered
luxuries under legalized marijuana; they should be rights. And we should settle for nothing less.
Unfortunately, the deadline to make changes to the initiative before the November elections has
already passed, and to achieve these changes via subsequent voter referendums would be a
complicated and drawn-out process that could take years. Making the initiative acceptable before
voting it into law is therefore essential.
Myth #18: This is our only chance to take a step in the direction of legalization.
Fact: This is only our first chance—and it is NOT our only choice. This November, volunteers for the
California Hemp and Health Initiative (CCHHI)—the initiative Jack Herer supported so much he lent
his legendary name to it—will be collecting signatures to be placed on the CCHHI on the ballot in
2012. Some highlights of this alternative to Prop. 19 include:
–The freedom to grow up to 99 plants—per adult, 21 years of age and older (not per residence as
under Prop. 19)—for personal use.
–Cannabis taxes shall not exceed $10.00 per ounce.
–The freedom to distribute cannabis among adults without a license. (Prop. 19 forbids distributing
cannabis except for those who manage to obtain a prohibitively expensive license.)
–The cost of a commercial license shall not exceed $1,000. (The cost for a commercial cannabis
vending license in Oakland is $60,000 per year. A commercial grow license is a whopping $211,000
per year.)
–No cannabis tax revenue will be allowed to assist law enforcement. (Prop. 19 specifically allows for
marijuana tax revenue to fund law enforcement.)
For those who have doubts about supporting Prop. 19 or the motives behind it, CCHHI is a viable
alternative. (For more on CCHHI, visit http://www.jackherer.com/initiative and http://youthfederation.
com/cchhi2012.html).
Myth #19: We can vote in Prop. 19, then vote in a better initiative later.
Likelihood: Although 2012 will offer us a brilliant alternative with the CCHHI/Jack Herer Initiative, the
more likely scenario is that by that time, big cannabis corporations will have all the money, power,
and influence they need to thwart any challenge to their monopoly. What do you suppose are the
chances of voting in an initiative like CCHHI–that emphasizes personal freedom over corporations
and seeks to fully legalize possession, cultivation, and distribution of marijuana–after the cannabis
corporations just spent two years multiplying their millions legally under the monopoly Prop. 19
creates, keeping everyone else out of the market, and making it illegal for you to buy your weed from
anyone but them? There IS no chance. For this reason, WE CANNOT VOTE FOR PROP. 19 NOW
AND THEN VOTE FOR CCHHI IN 2012 TO REPLACE IT. Because if Prop. 19 gets voted in, then
once it’s in, big cannabis corporations will make sure it stays in, and that it continues to serve them
and not the people.
This is not our only chance to vote yes to legalization, but it may be our only chance to vote no to the
corporatization of cannabis.
What now?
The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative is not the only path to legalization. We have come
so far, and are now so close—it is imperative that we let the next step be the right one. Legalized
marijuana is within reach, yet the movement could be set back with such a problematic initiative at
the helm. Instead of rushing to pass a measure that prohibits marijuana under the guise of
legalization, we can choose an initiative that calls for true legalization and that has the full support of
marijuana law reform organizations and leaders of the movement.
The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative is rife with ambiguity, expands the War on Drugs,
undermines the medical marijuana movement, arrests more people for marijuana, offers no
protection for small farmers and insufficient protection for medical marijuana users, has a high
potential for monopolization, provides no regulations to prevent corporate takeover of the industry,
cartelizes the economy, and divides our community into poor, unlicensed, mom-and-pop gardener
versus rich, licensed, corporate farmer. And since the one thing that’s clear about the initiative is that
it’s vague, it could very easily prove to be a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences. Beyond its
vagueness, which itself is problematic, these side effects are inherently socially dangerous. The
impact that such a failed legalization initiative could have on the movement nation-wide could be
disastrous.
This is not a question of whether to legalize or not to legalize. Legalization is the goal and it is
inevitable. The question is whether we want to rush in and settle for an initiative that is so poorly-
worded as to be ambiguous, and so vague as to be open to vast interpretation from judges—or
choose a better option, like the Jack Herer Initiative, in 2012. If we hold out for a perfect initiative we
will wait forever. But if we at least hold out for an initiative that is direct, unambiguous, well-defined
and clearly written, we will have an unprecedented opportunity to inspire the world to join the
movement to legalize marijuana.
Many pro-legalization activists are rallying behind the idea of taking the time to choose an initiative
that will be a clear step up from the current cannabis situation of in California and will result in
increased access—not its opposite. Both NORML and the MPP, the foremost cannabis law reform
organizations in the country, have suggested we wait and make another attempt at legalization
during the 2012 elections. Dale Gieringer, Director of California’s NORML, said, “I do think it’s going
to take a few more years for us to develop a proposal that voters will be comfortable with.”[32]
Likewise, Bruce Mirken, MPP’s Director of Communications, was quoted as saying, “In our opinion,
we should wait and build our forces and aim at 2012.”[33]
Ultimately, the decision is not up to any organization; it’s up to YOU. How will you vote? Read the
initiative for yourself and just VOTE KNOW!
“I hope people find the hope and inspiration to broadcast this, understand (the initiative), read it, and
know that it’s a step backwards. And we can do better. We will do better.” – Dennis Peron
Sidebar: What it Actually Says
About possessing marijuana bought somewhere other than a licensed outlet:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: (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; [Section 11300: (i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except
by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted
pursuant to section 11301.]
About the punishment for giving marijuana to adults age 18-20:
Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors: (c) Every person 21 years of age or over
who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any
marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished
by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each
offense.
About smoking in the presence of minors:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls: (c) “Personal
consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit: (iv) smoking cannabis in any
space while minors are present.
About using marijuana tax revenue to fund law enforcement against pot prohibition:
Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees (a) Any ordinance, regulation or other
act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or
excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized
pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup
any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing
scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or
permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under
section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.
About medical marijuana exemptions:
B: Purposes, 7: Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying
and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the
right to possess and consume small amounts except as permitted under Health and Safety
Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9. (Note: The word “cultivate” is conspicuously absent
here as well as in the exempted Health and Safety Sections that pertain to medical marijuana laws.)
About leaving medical marijuana cultivation law in the hands of local government:
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: (a)
cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for
sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized. (Note: This section
provides no exemptions for medical marijuana law.)
About the right to cultivate:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls: (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.
____________
[1] Bruce Cain. “War Breaks out Within the Marijuana Legalization Movement (Part 1),” Examiner.
Sept. 26, 2009
[2] J. Craig Canada. “Proposition 215 author announces boycott of Blue Sky medical marijuana
dispensary,” Examiner. Oct. 15, 2009
[3] Carrie Johnson. “U.S. Eases Stance on Medical Marijuana,” Washington Post. Oct. 20, 2009
[4] National Organization for the Reformation of Marijuana Laws.
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4525
[5] Matt Coker. “State Bill Would Knock Possession of Less Than an Ounce of Marijuana to an
Infraction,“ Orange County Weekly. Jun. 4, 2010
[6] Mike Males, PhD and Daniel Macallair, MPA. “Marijuana Arrests and California’s Drug War: A
Report to the California Legislature,” Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. 2009. Note: This
study also reports the often-quoted statistic of misdemeanor marijuana possession arrests
reaching 61,388 in 2008. However, it is important to note that this statistic does not refer to any
arrest demographic that the Regulate, Control and Tax Initiative would affect. This statistic refers only
to possession of more than one ounce, possession by minors, and possession on school
grounds–offenses which the initiative will not legalize. It does not refer to nor does it include
marijuana arrests for possession of one ounce or less, because possession of one ounce or less
is not an arrestable offense. Therefore, the initiative would have no impact on reducing these arrests
rates.
[7] Brian Braiker. “California: Odd Bedfellows in the Pro-Pot Ballot Initiative,” ABC News. Apr. 5, 2010
[8] Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors: (c) Every person 21 years of age or over
who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any
marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished
by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each
offense.
[9] National Organization for the Reformation of Marijuana Laws. http://norml.org/index.cfm?
Group_ID=4525
[10] Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls: (c) “Personal
consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit: (iv) smoking cannabis in any
space while minors are present.
[11] Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls: (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.
[12] Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: (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; [Section 11300: (i) possession for sale regardless of
amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance
adopted pursuant to section 11301]
[13] B: Purposes, 7: Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that
buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have
the right to possess and consume small amounts. (Note: The word “cultivate” is conspicuously
absent.)
[14] Brian Braiker. “California: Odd Bedfellows in the Pro-Pot Ballot Initiative,” ABC News. Apr. 5, 2010
[15] Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees (a) Any ordinance, regulation or
other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special
or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized
pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup
any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing
scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or
permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under
section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.
[16] Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: (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; [(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]
[17] Medical marijuana exemptions: B: Purposes, 7: Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and
regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal,
but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts except as
permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9. (Note: The word
“cultivate” is conspicuously absent.)
Although this refers to cities that decide not to tax marijuana, even in cities that do choose to tax, the
initiative explicitly supersedes medical marijuana law and gives local government control over how
much patients can cultivate, as seen in 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: (a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure
transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts
lawfully authorized. (This section provides no exemptions for medical marijuana law.)
[18] Proposition 215 (Compassionate Use Act): Section 11362.79: Nothing in this article shall
authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of
medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances: (a) In any place where smoking is
prohibited by law.
[19] Medical marijuana exemptions: B: Purposes, 7: Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and
regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal,
but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts except as
permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
[20] Proposition 215 (Compassionate Use Act): Section 11362.79: Nothing in this article shall
authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of
medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances: (a) In any place where smoking is
prohibited by law.
[21] Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls (c) “Personal consumption” shall not include,
and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis: (ii) consumption in public or in a public place
[22] Trish Regan. “California’s Emerald Triangle: Small Towns, Big Money,” CNBC Marijuana and
Money Special Report. Apr. 20, 2010
[23] Steve Fainaru and William Booth. “Cartels Face an Economic Battle,” Washington Post. Oct. 7,
2009
[24] Kate McLean. “Pot: Semi-legal, Sold Everywhere,” The Bay Citizen. Jun. 5, 2010
[25] Jesse McKinley. “Don’t Call It ‘Pot’ in This Circle; It’s a Profession,” New York Times. Apr. 23,
2010
[26] Matthai Kuruvila. “IGrow: Walmart of Weed Opens in Oakland,” San Francisco Chronicle. Jan.
28, 2010
[27] Staff. “Marijuana, Inc Formerly Preachers Coffee Announces Name Change and 420 Friendly
Resorts Division,” Marketwire. May 26, 2010
[28] http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s…,1318609.shtml
[29] Michael Montgomery. “Plummeting Marijuana Prices Create a Panic in California,” National
Public Radio. May 15, 2010
[30] Section 5: Amendment: Pursuant to Article 2, section 10(c) of the California Constitution, this Act
may be amended either by a subsequent measure submitted to a vote of the People at a statewide
election; or by statute validly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, but only to
further the purposes of the Act.
[31] John Hoeffel. “Measure to Legalize Marijuana Will be on California’s November Ballot,” Los
Angeles Times. Mar. 25, 2010
[32] Stu Woo. “Legal-Pot Backers Split on Timing,” Wall Street Journal. Oct. 3, 2009.
[33] “California Marijuana Legalization Initiative Effort Underway, Aimed at 2010 Ballot,” Drug War
Chronicle. Jun. 19, 2009
Read the initiative at: taxcannabis.org/index.php/pages/initiative
Posted by dragonfly at 12:01 PM
Rev. Mary T. Spears, Diverse Sanctuary ... 
Leave a comment