Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
California
Santa Cruz Indymedia
Drug War
Environment & Forest Defense
Government & Elections
Health, Housing & Public Services
Police State & Prisons
VALERIE CORRAL will VOTE YES on Prop. 19 despite its flaws!!!
YAY! I knew that this wonderful voice for cannabis freedom would come around. Now if we can only talk Dennis into reluctantly getting on board…..Such powerful voices in this movement. THANK YOU, VALERIE. You are one of the true heroes and a person that knows what is BEST for cannabis users EVERYWHERE! I am honored to be standing next to you in the battle for cannabis freedom! And for the record I agree with many of your concerns and agree that despite its flaws voting NO is NOT AN OPTION. We must move forward, as complacency is a KILLER! Mad love and respect to WAMM, Val, and the rest of the people who are are big enough people to see the writing on the wall and VOTE YES even though the initiative is not ideal…THANKS!
A few days ago I did an interview with the AP. I hoped to make a distinction between what I see as the negative aspects of the corporatization of marijuana and the dilatory unraveling of prohibition…. Unfortunately AP just wanted to see pretty pictures of pot. Perhaps in the presence of such majesty one looses sight of the magnitude of what is important, of how impossible it really is to look at this plant and see only the flowers for the leaves. I simply can’t separate all its parts from the whole. That wouldn’t make me a very attractive candidate for work in the pharmaceutical industry.
Yet, no matter how I roll my profound disappointment in the direction that P.19 leads and all the small-minded name-calling and disappointing infighting that has ensued and is splitting our movement, I just can’t bring myself to vote against it. Why? Because I can’t support prohibition. My pals are right… a vote against the corporations still doesn’t outweigh the direct harm caused by a lifetime of prohibition. Far too many people suffer.
I do know we could have made a better law. If you are in possession of a medical marijuana recommendation, if you have a clandestine garden, if you own a dispensary, grow for some patients, or if you made millions off medical and can afford to fund the corporatization movement, you have the grassroots to thank and Dennis Peron (the Grandfather of medical marijuana) and Dr. Lester Grinspoon for his courage to reintroduce marihuana into the medical profession.. We could have written a better law, a proposition who’s intention was to benefit… benefit human beings, the planet, the plant itself.
Still, while poverty runs through the gutters of our nation, of Mexico, of the Americas, the far and middle East and of every country that we share this planet with, as it pushes our children from school yards to the bastilles, I have to ask… how has the corporation helped? Some of them assisted in creating prohibition of marijuana in the first place, they have made people into a commodity to fill jails and prisons, they are poverty’s benefactors. They have not understood the disparity between profit and benefit. There is no marijuana subsidy written into P.19, but there are mandatory minimums….. Diminish the cartels, end prohibition… these are intricate issues far too Daedalean to brand with sweeping statements. It’s convoluted. It’s complex…. But it is also the beginning of the end of the prohibition of this miraculous and exquisite plant. Rest assured, even if it isn’t immediate… as it happens in California, so goes the nation.
It is in great protest of the corporation that I say, go ahead, vote Yes on P.19… because it is bigger than your personal garden and your personal freedom… it is our freedom. It is the first step in extricating marijuana from a lifetime of prejudice and deception. Hey, and maybe unlike that of the corporate good ol’ gang, it may free your mind.”
Valerie Corral
Santa Cruz, California
October 13, 2010
Yet, no matter how I roll my profound disappointment in the direction that P.19 leads and all the small-minded name-calling and disappointing infighting that has ensued and is splitting our movement, I just can’t bring myself to vote against it. Why? Because I can’t support prohibition. My pals are right… a vote against the corporations still doesn’t outweigh the direct harm caused by a lifetime of prohibition. Far too many people suffer.
I do know we could have made a better law. If you are in possession of a medical marijuana recommendation, if you have a clandestine garden, if you own a dispensary, grow for some patients, or if you made millions off medical and can afford to fund the corporatization movement, you have the grassroots to thank and Dennis Peron (the Grandfather of medical marijuana) and Dr. Lester Grinspoon for his courage to reintroduce marihuana into the medical profession.. We could have written a better law, a proposition who’s intention was to benefit… benefit human beings, the planet, the plant itself.
Still, while poverty runs through the gutters of our nation, of Mexico, of the Americas, the far and middle East and of every country that we share this planet with, as it pushes our children from school yards to the bastilles, I have to ask… how has the corporation helped? Some of them assisted in creating prohibition of marijuana in the first place, they have made people into a commodity to fill jails and prisons, they are poverty’s benefactors. They have not understood the disparity between profit and benefit. There is no marijuana subsidy written into P.19, but there are mandatory minimums….. Diminish the cartels, end prohibition… these are intricate issues far too Daedalean to brand with sweeping statements. It’s convoluted. It’s complex…. But it is also the beginning of the end of the prohibition of this miraculous and exquisite plant. Rest assured, even if it isn’t immediate… as it happens in California, so goes the nation.
It is in great protest of the corporation that I say, go ahead, vote Yes on P.19… because it is bigger than your personal garden and your personal freedom… it is our freedom. It is the first step in extricating marijuana from a lifetime of prejudice and deception. Hey, and maybe unlike that of the corporate good ol’ gang, it may free your mind.”
Valerie Corral
Santa Cruz, California
October 13, 2010
For more information:
http://cannabiswarrior.com/2010/10/14/vale...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Local activist Theodora Kerry has also switched to supporting Prop 19. Thank you wonderful women for coming to your senses!
Bottom line: 5 by 5 legal grow space for non-medical users. It's worth it.
Bottom line: 5 by 5 legal grow space for non-medical users. It's worth it.
Pebbles Trippett, of the Mendicino Medical Marijuana Advisory Board, will continue (part 5) discussing concerns about Proposition 19 and why she believes it should still be supported.
Prior shows discussed the arguments against it and are archived at:
at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb100912.mp3, http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb100919.mp3, http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb101003.mp3, and http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb101007.mp3 In each case fast forward to the last 1/5 of the audio file.
The 10-17 show will be archived at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb101017.mp3 in a few days (last 1/5th of the audio file.
The articles being discussed are Theodora Kerry's previously critical "No on 19" article in The Connection (available as a free weekly around Santa Cruz, but not on line as far as I know) and Dragonfly de la Luz and other critics at http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/p/pandoras-box-of-unintended-consequences.html .
The show airs at 11:45 a.m. today and runs for an hour and 15 minutes at 101.1 FM and http://www.freakradio.org. Call-in numbers are 831-469-3119 and 831-427-3772.
Prior shows discussed the arguments against it and are archived at:
at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb100912.mp3, http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb100919.mp3, http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb101003.mp3, and http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb101007.mp3 In each case fast forward to the last 1/5 of the audio file.
The 10-17 show will be archived at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb101017.mp3 in a few days (last 1/5th of the audio file.
The articles being discussed are Theodora Kerry's previously critical "No on 19" article in The Connection (available as a free weekly around Santa Cruz, but not on line as far as I know) and Dragonfly de la Luz and other critics at http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/p/pandoras-box-of-unintended-consequences.html .
The show airs at 11:45 a.m. today and runs for an hour and 15 minutes at 101.1 FM and http://www.freakradio.org. Call-in numbers are 831-469-3119 and 831-427-3772.
If "yes on 19" and anyone else would like to find out why someone like myself, who devoted 10 years of my life to frontline activism to free the sacred herb, would be opposed to 19, please read my article in the current Oct. edition of The Connection Magazine (pg. 15) which is available in most places that have free papers. Or go to J. Craig Canada's link-filled blog: http://palmspringsbum.org/blog/2010/09/what-marijuana-lawyers-have-to-say-about-californias-proposition-19/.
According to lawyers, who are trained in knowing how legal language is interpreted, Prop.19 will be used to undue Prop.215 and the many gains patients have made to safely grow their needed supplies of cannabis. Prop.19 exempts patients from the 1 oz. possession/consumption amounts but makes no mention of exempting them from the cultivation limits of 25 sq.ft. per parcel, not person. This can and will be interpreted to mean that patients will also be held to the 25 sq.ft. limit, hardly enuf space for most medical patients, and collective grows will be greatly limited as well. Since no limits have been given for revenue hungry local gov'ts when they decide on the inevitable fees for permits, licenses, and taxes, not to mention the restrictive zoning regulations they'll be allowed to put in place, it becomes clear that this initiative was designed to end the free range growing now allowed under 215, and bring the growing and selling under the control of a few who can afford to pay to play in the new marijuana economy. Just look at what Richard Lee, the author of 19, has accomplished in Oakland: only 4 dispensaries allowed in that huge city, one of which is his, and he has actively supported the city's creation of 4 huge growing facilities (each license goes for over $200,000). These are all efforts to centralize control. The controllers make the money and the mom and pop growers are out of luck. The last thing I want to see is marijuana in the hands of big corporations, especially when we've made so much progress under 215. Remember, 19 only allows for possession for up to 1oz, which currently is an infraction (no jail, no record) with a fine of $100.
According to lawyers, who are trained in knowing how legal language is interpreted, Prop.19 will be used to undue Prop.215 and the many gains patients have made to safely grow their needed supplies of cannabis. Prop.19 exempts patients from the 1 oz. possession/consumption amounts but makes no mention of exempting them from the cultivation limits of 25 sq.ft. per parcel, not person. This can and will be interpreted to mean that patients will also be held to the 25 sq.ft. limit, hardly enuf space for most medical patients, and collective grows will be greatly limited as well. Since no limits have been given for revenue hungry local gov'ts when they decide on the inevitable fees for permits, licenses, and taxes, not to mention the restrictive zoning regulations they'll be allowed to put in place, it becomes clear that this initiative was designed to end the free range growing now allowed under 215, and bring the growing and selling under the control of a few who can afford to pay to play in the new marijuana economy. Just look at what Richard Lee, the author of 19, has accomplished in Oakland: only 4 dispensaries allowed in that huge city, one of which is his, and he has actively supported the city's creation of 4 huge growing facilities (each license goes for over $200,000). These are all efforts to centralize control. The controllers make the money and the mom and pop growers are out of luck. The last thing I want to see is marijuana in the hands of big corporations, especially when we've made so much progress under 215. Remember, 19 only allows for possession for up to 1oz, which currently is an infraction (no jail, no record) with a fine of $100.
Under Prop 215, what is the current penalty for NON-medical users who wish to grow in a 5 x 5 space?
Under prop 19, what will be the penalty for NON-medical users who wish to grow in a 5 x 5 space?
It's as simple as that. Answer the question.
Under prop 19, what will be the penalty for NON-medical users who wish to grow in a 5 x 5 space?
It's as simple as that. Answer the question.
There are good arguments (and bad ones) on both sides of this issue.
I've been batting this issue back and forth (still undecided) for four weeks on my radio show with Pebbles Trippet (who supports it). Those shows are archived, as discussed in my previous post above.
Pro: It makes the pretext for searching folks for grass signficantly harder since there's less probable cause to do so. Although some bigot or informant can always say they saw you with a greater quantity than an oz. giving the police "cause". It cuts down on the number of arrests (but not as much as some proponents claim, since many arrests will continue for quantities larger than an oz.). It may have a "domino" effect and cause liberalization in other states. It's the only game in town at the moment, on the ballot, and can be liberalized in 2012 (or even earlier because the legislature can change it). It won't affect the medical marijuana situation because of the "Intents and Purposes" section.
Con: It increases the penalties for folks 18-20, whose numbers account for a significant number of arrests. It may do just what Theodora says--i.e. be interpreted to limit medical grows to 5 X 5 and make them taxable. It bans public smoking (made difficult but not impossible under Proposition 215 and SB 420). It has an ambiguous terminology which may make adults liable if they medicate or recreate in the same building or nearby area as minors, if busybodies or narks want to so charge them. It supercedes Prop 215 and so can be used to overrule and gut it--even by legislative amendment (which it allows, unlike Prop 215). If it passes, the "deep pockets" that put it on the ballot this year, will be satisfied with a corporate marijuana boost in the selling field (however prohibitively expensive this is to mom-n-pop growers) and won't back a second Initiative in 2012. The actual language of the law that will be put onto the lawbooks does not protect medical marijuana growers and consumers, inviting local bans that are currently prohibited under Proposition 215.
There's more, of course, but those are some of the concerns. On a lot of these issues, honest and well-intended people can disagree.
It's not simple. It's important. Keep talking about it and then vote.
Since all sides on this issue who are debating things in this context want to see marijuana legal, it's important we try to get to the bottom of these disagreements and different interpretations.
I've been batting this issue back and forth (still undecided) for four weeks on my radio show with Pebbles Trippet (who supports it). Those shows are archived, as discussed in my previous post above.
Pro: It makes the pretext for searching folks for grass signficantly harder since there's less probable cause to do so. Although some bigot or informant can always say they saw you with a greater quantity than an oz. giving the police "cause". It cuts down on the number of arrests (but not as much as some proponents claim, since many arrests will continue for quantities larger than an oz.). It may have a "domino" effect and cause liberalization in other states. It's the only game in town at the moment, on the ballot, and can be liberalized in 2012 (or even earlier because the legislature can change it). It won't affect the medical marijuana situation because of the "Intents and Purposes" section.
Con: It increases the penalties for folks 18-20, whose numbers account for a significant number of arrests. It may do just what Theodora says--i.e. be interpreted to limit medical grows to 5 X 5 and make them taxable. It bans public smoking (made difficult but not impossible under Proposition 215 and SB 420). It has an ambiguous terminology which may make adults liable if they medicate or recreate in the same building or nearby area as minors, if busybodies or narks want to so charge them. It supercedes Prop 215 and so can be used to overrule and gut it--even by legislative amendment (which it allows, unlike Prop 215). If it passes, the "deep pockets" that put it on the ballot this year, will be satisfied with a corporate marijuana boost in the selling field (however prohibitively expensive this is to mom-n-pop growers) and won't back a second Initiative in 2012. The actual language of the law that will be put onto the lawbooks does not protect medical marijuana growers and consumers, inviting local bans that are currently prohibited under Proposition 215.
There's more, of course, but those are some of the concerns. On a lot of these issues, honest and well-intended people can disagree.
It's not simple. It's important. Keep talking about it and then vote.
Since all sides on this issue who are debating things in this context want to see marijuana legal, it's important we try to get to the bottom of these disagreements and different interpretations.
Con: blah blah hot air blah blah what if blah blah Nancy Reagan
Pro: Marijuana is Legalized.
Pro: Marijuana is Legalized.
For more information:
http://yeson19.com
"Under Prop 215, what is the current penalty for NON-medical users who wish to grow in a 5 x 5 space?
Under prop 19, what will be the penalty for NON-medical users who wish to grow in a 5 x 5 space?
It's as simple as that. Answer the question. "
It's not that hard, is it? Doesn't take multiple paragraphs, Bob.
Under prop 19, what will be the penalty for NON-medical users who wish to grow in a 5 x 5 space?
It's as simple as that. Answer the question. "
It's not that hard, is it? Doesn't take multiple paragraphs, Bob.
The answer is not simple. As Dennis Peron has pointed out, Proposition 215 has largely legalized marijuana (if you can afford a recommendation). If 19 shrinks the growing area and removes protections for medical patients, then it may be a bad deal, particularly for medical users, but also for others. Notice I said "may". Still thinking of voting yes, in spite of the shrill tones of some pro-19 folks, who don't want to address the other concerns.
Under 19 you can grow a small amount as a non-medical patient. But you also have to consider the other arguments. How many people grow what they smoke? How many would have to buy it from the licensed vendors? And, when questioned, provide proof of the purchase?
It would really be helpful for pro-19 people to address all the arguments--or, we must assume, they don't have answers at all, other than repeating "you can have an oz. and a 5' X 5' growing space'. Yes, that's good. Does this one virtue outweigh the other concerns? That's the question. The answer is not simple, at least, not for me.
Under 19 you can grow a small amount as a non-medical patient. But you also have to consider the other arguments. How many people grow what they smoke? How many would have to buy it from the licensed vendors? And, when questioned, provide proof of the purchase?
It would really be helpful for pro-19 people to address all the arguments--or, we must assume, they don't have answers at all, other than repeating "you can have an oz. and a 5' X 5' growing space'. Yes, that's good. Does this one virtue outweigh the other concerns? That's the question. The answer is not simple, at least, not for me.
Please "yes", calm down your rhetoric! I'm happy to respond, but given I have a life beyond this forum, it may not be as quickly as you'd like. I'll respond directly to you as I'm not sure there are really any other posters on this site other than Robert. First, I wonder that you would choose anonymity when you seem to care so passionately about your cause. When I (literally) founded the Santa Cruz branch of the publically visible marijuana reform movement back in 1990, thanks to the inspiration of Jack Herer and The Emperor Wears No Clothes; back when identifying oneself publically w/ marijuana had much more serious consequences, I always used my name openly. Now, in the relatively safe environment of post-215, post-Measure K Santa Cruz, you still choose to hide your identity. Why is that? And why would you spread rumors about my being pro-19 after I'd put time and effort into writing an informed critique of 19 in the current Oct. issue of The Connection Magazine?
As for your original question about current penalties for growing small amounts vs. penalties under 19, let me invoke our most recently impeached president, Bill Clinton, by answering that "it all depends on the meaning of "penalties". Currently, the State "penalty" for growing a 25 sq.ft. recreational garden depends on your county. Here in S.C., it's minimal (w/ no sign of sales), and in the city, thanks to Measure K, the risk is minimal too. If you are a patient, (Does using marijuana make some or all parts of your body/mind function/feel better? If so, get your card!), there is no penalty for a garden this small, though you may have to go to court to defend larger grows. Of course, there's the annual cost of physician's certification which runs about $100, the same as just one ticket for recreational possession of 1 oz. or less of marijuana.
But "penalties" can be civil as well as criminal. Since 19 has given unlimited power to our local gov'ts to "regulate" our new "freedom" to use/grow marijuana, we can expect that both friendly and unfriendly gov'ts will seek as much revenue as possible from this newly "freed" commodity. There will be higher than normal sales taxes, which, due to wording in 19, may not require a vote of the citizens. There will be higher than normal business licenses to sell this adult product, and there will likely be grow permits required, even for home gardeners. The city of Rancho Cordova already has an ordinance in the works that would require you to pay $600/sq.ft for growing marijuana. Let's also not forget the power of gov't to regulate via zoning requirements. Yes, you can grow your 25 sq.ft., but only if you have a 10 ft. fence, are 25 ft away from your nearest neighbor, have your landlord's permission, no one can smell it, no children live nearby, blah, blah, blah....(to quote you or one of your alteregos). And if you don't get your permit, and don't abide by the regulations, you WILL have "penalties", and they will probably be higher than the current $100 ticket for less than an oz.
The sum total of exercising your rights to use and grow under 19 are likely to be far higher than currently under 215. And these costs are likely to be so high that only those who've already made their fortunes in marijuana will be able to pay to play. I'm tired of centralized control of anything let alone a plant. I do not want citizens to be forced to get permits or pay taxes on what they grow in their gardens. I do not want to see the State involved when people trade their harvest w/ friends. I do not want to see the rich get richer!! I also do not want to see increased activity by the Feds here in CA as they will be indiscriminate and target the more visible medical market as well.
If you just want to see marijuana use legal, even if it means handing it over to the corporations and centralizing control (think tobacco), then be a "yes" wo/man for 19. If you want to see the 215 experiment continue, with its proliferation of mom & pop operations supplying the needs of patient/clients, providing a neverending variety of new strains, discovering the benefits of various cannabinoids beyond THC, even paying sales taxes and providing lots of jobs in a failing economy, then think twice, do your research, and "DARE TO VOTE NO on 19".
As for your original question about current penalties for growing small amounts vs. penalties under 19, let me invoke our most recently impeached president, Bill Clinton, by answering that "it all depends on the meaning of "penalties". Currently, the State "penalty" for growing a 25 sq.ft. recreational garden depends on your county. Here in S.C., it's minimal (w/ no sign of sales), and in the city, thanks to Measure K, the risk is minimal too. If you are a patient, (Does using marijuana make some or all parts of your body/mind function/feel better? If so, get your card!), there is no penalty for a garden this small, though you may have to go to court to defend larger grows. Of course, there's the annual cost of physician's certification which runs about $100, the same as just one ticket for recreational possession of 1 oz. or less of marijuana.
But "penalties" can be civil as well as criminal. Since 19 has given unlimited power to our local gov'ts to "regulate" our new "freedom" to use/grow marijuana, we can expect that both friendly and unfriendly gov'ts will seek as much revenue as possible from this newly "freed" commodity. There will be higher than normal sales taxes, which, due to wording in 19, may not require a vote of the citizens. There will be higher than normal business licenses to sell this adult product, and there will likely be grow permits required, even for home gardeners. The city of Rancho Cordova already has an ordinance in the works that would require you to pay $600/sq.ft for growing marijuana. Let's also not forget the power of gov't to regulate via zoning requirements. Yes, you can grow your 25 sq.ft., but only if you have a 10 ft. fence, are 25 ft away from your nearest neighbor, have your landlord's permission, no one can smell it, no children live nearby, blah, blah, blah....(to quote you or one of your alteregos). And if you don't get your permit, and don't abide by the regulations, you WILL have "penalties", and they will probably be higher than the current $100 ticket for less than an oz.
The sum total of exercising your rights to use and grow under 19 are likely to be far higher than currently under 215. And these costs are likely to be so high that only those who've already made their fortunes in marijuana will be able to pay to play. I'm tired of centralized control of anything let alone a plant. I do not want citizens to be forced to get permits or pay taxes on what they grow in their gardens. I do not want to see the State involved when people trade their harvest w/ friends. I do not want to see the rich get richer!! I also do not want to see increased activity by the Feds here in CA as they will be indiscriminate and target the more visible medical market as well.
If you just want to see marijuana use legal, even if it means handing it over to the corporations and centralizing control (think tobacco), then be a "yes" wo/man for 19. If you want to see the 215 experiment continue, with its proliferation of mom & pop operations supplying the needs of patient/clients, providing a neverending variety of new strains, discovering the benefits of various cannabinoids beyond THC, even paying sales taxes and providing lots of jobs in a failing economy, then think twice, do your research, and "DARE TO VOTE NO on 19".
If prop 19 passes there will still be be a need for civil disobedience. Change will still need to occur. Prop 19 is not just a change in the laws in California. It’s a change in the thinking of the society as a whole. And THAT is what the most important aspect of Prop 19 is, not how big your grow area is, not how much weed you can carry on you, not how much it can or should be taxed. It’s the message it sends to the world. The headline will be “CALIFORNIA LEGALIZES MARIJUANA” or it will be “CALIFORNIA REJECTS MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION”. Which ever one of those headlines gets printed will have a HUGE impact on this country. The media is NOT going to dissect the reasons why it will take the simple headline and run.
Theodora Kerry:
"If you just want to see marijuana use legal,"
Yes, that is just exactly what I want to see. As well personal cultivation and the legalization of hemp when rational people vote yes on prop 19.
"If you want to see the 215 experiment continue, with its proliferation of mom & pop operations supplying the needs of patient/clients, providing a neverending variety of new strains, discovering the benefits of various cannabinoids beyond THC, even paying sales taxes and providing lots of jobs in a failing economy, then think twice, do your research, and "DARE TO VOTE NO on 19"."
Did you say proliferation? Seriously, you are absolutely delusional and utopian to think there is a proliferation to access currently taking place under prop 215 and SB420. Stop reading your DragonLIES and take a good hard look which side you are on right now. I understand that change is scary, but it's necessary to end the prohibition of cannabis here in California and throughout the U.S. and world.
-
The Writing on the Wall: Article shows community intolerance brewing
CW: Here is an article with all of the makings of a real backlash. The proponents of the “all use is medical” mantra should be put on notice. Your rhetoric is dangerous and when spelled out in the press makes our movement look silly. It is imperative we pass prop. 19 to begin to end this charade and put legal adult use cannabis on the map. What is happening is that it is becoming more and more difficult to convince people that the current situation truly is medical. It is unclear how long we can keep up this situation, as it is obvious some opponents feel that the current situation leaves too much gray area and there are constant calls to bring an end to the chaos on both sides.
Patients feel like they are backed into a situation that waters down their true medical need, as the current situation requires many to push the envelope of medical need in order to remain legal. There is nothing wrong with fudging ones need to a doctor if it means staying out of a cold jail cell for your choice to use cannabis. The following article makes it too clear that the controversy continues to brew. Generally these controversies are eventually cleared up, as public officials and law makers are sure to find a way to clamp down on the perceived abuses. The problem is that a tightening of the situation may make for an uncomfortable playing field for most. Generally a call for stricter regulation and control ends in officials overstepping their bounds and the development of an unworkable situation as a result of regulation that does not reflect reality, yet is put in place to quell the outrage rather than serve the patients in need.
Believing that the “all use is medical” situation will last forever is simply naive.
-
“Pretty much,” Peron said, “marijuana is legal already.”
CW: C’mon Dennis. That is a fallacy, at best. As long as ANYONE has to worry about having their personal space rifled through by law enforcement because of the way we smell CANNABIS IS NOT REALLY LEGAL. Sorry. You should know that though. You know prop 215 made nothing lawful, yet exempted medical users from prosecution. Just because you say “cannabis is legal” does not make it so. And it is that assertion that has many up in arms…
http://cannabiswarrior.com/2010/10/17/the-writing-on-the-wall-article-shows-community-intolerance-brewing/
-
REAL TALK: Why “they” don’t want prop. 19. by John Troll
If you are one of the anti-19 crusaders who have talked SO MUCH SHIT that you have backed yourself into a corner publicly with your crazy opposition campaign, know you can still vote YES in the privacy of the voting booth on November 2nd. We won’t be mad at you.
http://cannabiswarrior.com/2010/10/18/real-talk-why-they-dont-want-prop-19-by-john-troll/
-
OC Register Editorial takes on common fallacies about 19
DEBUNKING FALSE FEARS ABOUT PROP. 19
Given that it was written partially in response to opinion polls, rather than as an exercise in pure theory, Proposition 19, which would legalize the possession and use of up an ounce of marijuana (cannabis) for adult Californians, contains provisions that an advocate of pure devotion to liberty might not have included. Some of these provisions have raised questions, some justified and some exaggerated out of any relation to reality. We thought it appropriate to deal with some of these issues, chiefly the reasons for having a “local option” for sales and cultivation...
http://cannabiswarrior.com/2010/10/19/oc-register-takes-on-common-fallacies-about-19/
-
Global Ganja Grower Interviews Chris Conrad. Debunks Stoners Against Legalization..
In an exclusive interview with Global Ganja Report, leading California cannabis crusader Chris Conrad and his longtime activist wife Mikki Norris respond to the charges made by Dennis Peron and “Stoners Against Legalization” that Proposition 19 would create new felonies and overturn gains established by the state’s medical marijuana statutes, Proposition 215 and SB 420.
http://cannabiswarrior.com/2010/10/21/global-ganja-grower-interviews-chris-conrad-debunks-stoners-against-legalization/
Theodora Kerry:
"If you just want to see marijuana use legal,"
Yes, that is just exactly what I want to see. As well personal cultivation and the legalization of hemp when rational people vote yes on prop 19.
"If you want to see the 215 experiment continue, with its proliferation of mom & pop operations supplying the needs of patient/clients, providing a neverending variety of new strains, discovering the benefits of various cannabinoids beyond THC, even paying sales taxes and providing lots of jobs in a failing economy, then think twice, do your research, and "DARE TO VOTE NO on 19"."
Did you say proliferation? Seriously, you are absolutely delusional and utopian to think there is a proliferation to access currently taking place under prop 215 and SB420. Stop reading your DragonLIES and take a good hard look which side you are on right now. I understand that change is scary, but it's necessary to end the prohibition of cannabis here in California and throughout the U.S. and world.
-
The Writing on the Wall: Article shows community intolerance brewing
CW: Here is an article with all of the makings of a real backlash. The proponents of the “all use is medical” mantra should be put on notice. Your rhetoric is dangerous and when spelled out in the press makes our movement look silly. It is imperative we pass prop. 19 to begin to end this charade and put legal adult use cannabis on the map. What is happening is that it is becoming more and more difficult to convince people that the current situation truly is medical. It is unclear how long we can keep up this situation, as it is obvious some opponents feel that the current situation leaves too much gray area and there are constant calls to bring an end to the chaos on both sides.
Patients feel like they are backed into a situation that waters down their true medical need, as the current situation requires many to push the envelope of medical need in order to remain legal. There is nothing wrong with fudging ones need to a doctor if it means staying out of a cold jail cell for your choice to use cannabis. The following article makes it too clear that the controversy continues to brew. Generally these controversies are eventually cleared up, as public officials and law makers are sure to find a way to clamp down on the perceived abuses. The problem is that a tightening of the situation may make for an uncomfortable playing field for most. Generally a call for stricter regulation and control ends in officials overstepping their bounds and the development of an unworkable situation as a result of regulation that does not reflect reality, yet is put in place to quell the outrage rather than serve the patients in need.
Believing that the “all use is medical” situation will last forever is simply naive.
-
“Pretty much,” Peron said, “marijuana is legal already.”
CW: C’mon Dennis. That is a fallacy, at best. As long as ANYONE has to worry about having their personal space rifled through by law enforcement because of the way we smell CANNABIS IS NOT REALLY LEGAL. Sorry. You should know that though. You know prop 215 made nothing lawful, yet exempted medical users from prosecution. Just because you say “cannabis is legal” does not make it so. And it is that assertion that has many up in arms…
http://cannabiswarrior.com/2010/10/17/the-writing-on-the-wall-article-shows-community-intolerance-brewing/
-
REAL TALK: Why “they” don’t want prop. 19. by John Troll
If you are one of the anti-19 crusaders who have talked SO MUCH SHIT that you have backed yourself into a corner publicly with your crazy opposition campaign, know you can still vote YES in the privacy of the voting booth on November 2nd. We won’t be mad at you.
http://cannabiswarrior.com/2010/10/18/real-talk-why-they-dont-want-prop-19-by-john-troll/
-
OC Register Editorial takes on common fallacies about 19
DEBUNKING FALSE FEARS ABOUT PROP. 19
Given that it was written partially in response to opinion polls, rather than as an exercise in pure theory, Proposition 19, which would legalize the possession and use of up an ounce of marijuana (cannabis) for adult Californians, contains provisions that an advocate of pure devotion to liberty might not have included. Some of these provisions have raised questions, some justified and some exaggerated out of any relation to reality. We thought it appropriate to deal with some of these issues, chiefly the reasons for having a “local option” for sales and cultivation...
http://cannabiswarrior.com/2010/10/19/oc-register-takes-on-common-fallacies-about-19/
-
Global Ganja Grower Interviews Chris Conrad. Debunks Stoners Against Legalization..
In an exclusive interview with Global Ganja Report, leading California cannabis crusader Chris Conrad and his longtime activist wife Mikki Norris respond to the charges made by Dennis Peron and “Stoners Against Legalization” that Proposition 19 would create new felonies and overturn gains established by the state’s medical marijuana statutes, Proposition 215 and SB 420.
http://cannabiswarrior.com/2010/10/21/global-ganja-grower-interviews-chris-conrad-debunks-stoners-against-legalization/
1. No, I didn't "fake your switch", no idea where that came from.
2. I have every right to post ANONYMOUSLY on an ANONYMOUS message board, as does anyone else who posts here. It does not violate any Indybay policy, so STFU.
3. Neither one of you has bothered to answer these two simple questions, you just say "well, it's complicated". I will address those "complications" AFTER one or both of you answers these two simple questions.
"Under Prop 215, what is the current penalty for NON-medical users who wish to grow in a 5 x 5 space?
Under prop 19, what will be the penalty for NON-medical users who wish to grow in a 5 x 5 space?"
Contrary to Peron and Kerry, "pot is not practically legal now". For those who smoke RECREATIONALLY, there is no "legal" unless you LIE to get a medical card.
And the polls for 19 are dropping, so it looks like you "Stoners against 19" have succeeeded. Note: SIX former heads of the DEA have come out AGAINST 19 so those are your allies.
2. I have every right to post ANONYMOUSLY on an ANONYMOUS message board, as does anyone else who posts here. It does not violate any Indybay policy, so STFU.
3. Neither one of you has bothered to answer these two simple questions, you just say "well, it's complicated". I will address those "complications" AFTER one or both of you answers these two simple questions.
"Under Prop 215, what is the current penalty for NON-medical users who wish to grow in a 5 x 5 space?
Under prop 19, what will be the penalty for NON-medical users who wish to grow in a 5 x 5 space?"
Contrary to Peron and Kerry, "pot is not practically legal now". For those who smoke RECREATIONALLY, there is no "legal" unless you LIE to get a medical card.
And the polls for 19 are dropping, so it looks like you "Stoners against 19" have succeeeded. Note: SIX former heads of the DEA have come out AGAINST 19 so those are your allies.
You insist I answer your question, yet you ignore mine! Of course you have the right to post anonymously, but that wasn't the question. I simply asked why you choose to remain anonymous when advocating a position you care passionately about. I suspect it's because you'd rather indulge your aggressive angry side, with your STFU's, than engage in civil dialogue. I'm also curious as to what you've done in this community to actually make it safer, legally, to use and grow mariuana. Have you done anything beyond mouthing off on internet forums about how everyone has to vote yes on 19? I doubt it since to be a successful organizer requires a willingness to talk respectfully with others who disagree, and requires an ability to positively encourage others to see your side, not threaten that they better see it or else.
Thank you for the links. I've read the Global Ganja article and still found important leaps of faith in Chris' answers. I'd like to see a word-for-word refutation of what lawyers like Letitia Pepper are saying about how the actual wording of 19 will be interpreted. If 19 weren't meant to alter 215, Richard Lee, and his band of Merry-Juana Men could have simply stated that in their list of Intentions. They didn't. See J. Craig Canada's excellent overview of what some lawyers are saying about how 19 will affect 215, complete w/ links to their full opinions:
http://palmspringsbum.org/blog/2010/09/what-marijuana-lawyers-have-to-say-about-californias-proposition-19/
I will check out the Orange County Register's article. Now for some other considerations:
Not sure why you need to attack me as "delusional" because my perspective/opinions are different from yours. Perhaps it's an "age" thing. You sound young and impatient. I'm 63 and worked on the frontlines of this movement for over 10 years though I'm more of an observor these days. One reason is that my sense of urgency that we had to change the laws RIGHT NOW or ........(fill in the blank) wore me out in the face of how political reality really works (very slowly). But changes we began here in 1990 have resulted in alot more folks growing/using marijuana safely, alot more folks willing to talk openly about marijuana, and alot more folks willingly to publically identify themselves as supporting an end to prohibition. So, I will ask you too: Why do you post anonymously on this forum? Openly using our names in our posts results in more civil dialogue. What's wrong with that?
http://palmspringsbum.org/blog/2010/09/what-marijuana-lawyers-have-to-say-about-californias-proposition-19/
I will check out the Orange County Register's article. Now for some other considerations:
Not sure why you need to attack me as "delusional" because my perspective/opinions are different from yours. Perhaps it's an "age" thing. You sound young and impatient. I'm 63 and worked on the frontlines of this movement for over 10 years though I'm more of an observor these days. One reason is that my sense of urgency that we had to change the laws RIGHT NOW or ........(fill in the blank) wore me out in the face of how political reality really works (very slowly). But changes we began here in 1990 have resulted in alot more folks growing/using marijuana safely, alot more folks willing to talk openly about marijuana, and alot more folks willingly to publically identify themselves as supporting an end to prohibition. So, I will ask you too: Why do you post anonymously on this forum? Openly using our names in our posts results in more civil dialogue. What's wrong with that?
J. Craig Canada aka Palm Springs Bum
A man who does nothing but complain and belittle others for their efforts, J. Craig is the movement's grumpiest old man. He uses his forum to make wild accusations and loose facts to make invalid and untrue statements. His site at palmspringsbum.com tells his tragic tale and in all honesty Craig has been through a lot and has weathered the storm. I have a lot of respect for Craig for his courage and we hold a dear common friend who is no longer with us. But his rhetoric and misinformation campaign against Prop 19 is a bit over the top and his skepticism seems to cloud his judgement. While J. Craig has seen a lot of BS from his experiences as a gay man, medical patient, and person prosecuted for his belief in cannabis as a medicine, he is not a reputable source for information and often cherry picks and distorts information to make his points. Definitely not someone I would trust with my cannabis freedoms.
Letitia Pepper
Letitia Pepper is an "attorney" from Riverside who has claimed that Prop. 19 is a conspiracy to take all of the jobs and cultivation to Mexico in order to charge patients more for their medicine and she believes Richard Lee is intentionally trying to sabotage the movement to give control to big business in order to outsource the industry. She is a failed candidate for Mayor and City Council in Riverside and was fined $25,000 for her inability to follow simple campaign rules regarding financing and sign placement. She has also threatened me with libel. LOL. She totes her experience as an attorney as a reason to listen to her, but most attorneys agree she is one card short of a full deck in her assertions. She is an MS patient and is not afraid to fall back on that and claim that people are demeaning her efforts when she gets called on her lies and deceptive analysis. While she claims to be an attorney, she herself reported that she was a "marketing/sales executive" as recently as 2007, which leads one to wonder why a "successful" attorney would leave the field of law to do sales and marketing. Anyway, she is marching around spreading wild conspiracies about all of our goals to have Mexican slave labor grow all of the cannabis so that we can rape and pillage needy patients for higher process. Her theories. to put it kindly, do not hold water. Even Lanette Davies had to clarify that she did not share Letitia's beliefs that Richard Lee was working to destroy the movement intentionally. When a batshit crazy person tells you that you are batshit crazy, that is something to worry about.
http://stash.norml.org/prop-19-is-the-best-thing-to-happen-to-medical-marijuana-patients-since-prop-215
A man who does nothing but complain and belittle others for their efforts, J. Craig is the movement's grumpiest old man. He uses his forum to make wild accusations and loose facts to make invalid and untrue statements. His site at palmspringsbum.com tells his tragic tale and in all honesty Craig has been through a lot and has weathered the storm. I have a lot of respect for Craig for his courage and we hold a dear common friend who is no longer with us. But his rhetoric and misinformation campaign against Prop 19 is a bit over the top and his skepticism seems to cloud his judgement. While J. Craig has seen a lot of BS from his experiences as a gay man, medical patient, and person prosecuted for his belief in cannabis as a medicine, he is not a reputable source for information and often cherry picks and distorts information to make his points. Definitely not someone I would trust with my cannabis freedoms.
Letitia Pepper
Letitia Pepper is an "attorney" from Riverside who has claimed that Prop. 19 is a conspiracy to take all of the jobs and cultivation to Mexico in order to charge patients more for their medicine and she believes Richard Lee is intentionally trying to sabotage the movement to give control to big business in order to outsource the industry. She is a failed candidate for Mayor and City Council in Riverside and was fined $25,000 for her inability to follow simple campaign rules regarding financing and sign placement. She has also threatened me with libel. LOL. She totes her experience as an attorney as a reason to listen to her, but most attorneys agree she is one card short of a full deck in her assertions. She is an MS patient and is not afraid to fall back on that and claim that people are demeaning her efforts when she gets called on her lies and deceptive analysis. While she claims to be an attorney, she herself reported that she was a "marketing/sales executive" as recently as 2007, which leads one to wonder why a "successful" attorney would leave the field of law to do sales and marketing. Anyway, she is marching around spreading wild conspiracies about all of our goals to have Mexican slave labor grow all of the cannabis so that we can rape and pillage needy patients for higher process. Her theories. to put it kindly, do not hold water. Even Lanette Davies had to clarify that she did not share Letitia's beliefs that Richard Lee was working to destroy the movement intentionally. When a batshit crazy person tells you that you are batshit crazy, that is something to worry about.
http://stash.norml.org/prop-19-is-the-best-thing-to-happen-to-medical-marijuana-patients-since-prop-215
If Letitia Pepper is wrong in her word-for-word analysis of why 19 will deeply affect 215, please give that critique, word-for-word as she has done. That's all I and other 19 critics are asking. I learned long ago that even people who seem to be nutty in their personal lives (don't know if that really includes Letitia Pepper) can still offer legitimate views of issues. Also, Craig's blog article that I linked contains none of the excess that you speak of. It provides a good overview of what lawyers are saying w/ links to their own full opinions if you don't want to believe Craig. Is there no one on this forum besides myself and Robert who are actually dialoguing without name-calling? Or actually responding logically to our very real concerns and critiques of 19.
Proposition 19 FAQ
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=6127
Does Proposition 19 overrule the medical marijuana laws of California?
No. Proposition 19 is designed to, among other things, "[p]rovide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes." Although a statement of purpose is not necessarily controlling, courts generally look to it in interpreting the statute's language. The purpose of Proposition 19 is not to overturn Proposition 215 or any other state or local medical cannabis law.
Prop 19's Battle Lines -- Who's For? Who's Against?
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=6136
On November 3, regardless of the intricacies of the arguments over Prop 19, the rest of the world is going to wake up to a headline from California. Is it going to be "California Legalizes Marijuana" or is it going to be "California Rejects Marijuana Legalization?"
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=6127
Does Proposition 19 overrule the medical marijuana laws of California?
No. Proposition 19 is designed to, among other things, "[p]rovide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes." Although a statement of purpose is not necessarily controlling, courts generally look to it in interpreting the statute's language. The purpose of Proposition 19 is not to overturn Proposition 215 or any other state or local medical cannabis law.
Prop 19's Battle Lines -- Who's For? Who's Against?
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=6136
On November 3, regardless of the intricacies of the arguments over Prop 19, the rest of the world is going to wake up to a headline from California. Is it going to be "California Legalizes Marijuana" or is it going to be "California Rejects Marijuana Legalization?"
Two things this thread is not about:
1. Indybay's anonymity policy.
2. Theodora Kerry
No one on the anti-19 side will answer these two simple questions for me. I consider that evasive, as are your attempts to turn this into a debate on ageism, Indybay's anonymity policies, or the qualifications of various lawyers or non-lawyers. Personally, I can apologize for being harsh earlier. Sorry, Theodora, now, let's move on.
Please answer these two questions:
"Under Prop 215, what is the current penalty for NON-medical users who wish to grow in a 5 x 5 space?
Under prop 19, what will be the penalty for NON-medical users who wish to grow in a 5 x 5 space?"
1. Indybay's anonymity policy.
2. Theodora Kerry
No one on the anti-19 side will answer these two simple questions for me. I consider that evasive, as are your attempts to turn this into a debate on ageism, Indybay's anonymity policies, or the qualifications of various lawyers or non-lawyers. Personally, I can apologize for being harsh earlier. Sorry, Theodora, now, let's move on.
Please answer these two questions:
"Under Prop 215, what is the current penalty for NON-medical users who wish to grow in a 5 x 5 space?
Under prop 19, what will be the penalty for NON-medical users who wish to grow in a 5 x 5 space?"
You make good points. Prop 19 allows for 25 sq ft. It does not specify a 5 x 5, which is good. For example, you may be better off spacing out your plants in a row 25 feet long and 1 foot wide. Vote Yes on 19! Grow cannabis and share it away.
For more information:
http://yeson19.com
“This week I saw someone post that they were going to vote against Prop 19 because it was of no benefit to them. To the people who believe this, and the people who sympathize with this argument, I ask you to think of more than yourself. Because I strongly feel that Prop 19 could change the world. Consider that it is the only legalization bill with any funding in California. Please vote to LEGALIZE, even if the law is not perfect. Prop 19 affects so much more than you.
How lucky you are to be able to even discuss the ability to legalize freely among your peers, rather than be forced to hide your hobby from your colleagues due to possible reprimands. How privileged you are because you live in a place where you can get a card and walk into a store and purchase the finest strains of marijuana, instead of crawling like an animal in back alleys, outside of view, like a common criminal. How fortunate you are that illegal possession of cannabis is decriminalized, so you need not worry that your possession of a flower is not considered a state felony, or that your small baggie might land you in jail.
Perhaps, right now, you might consider that throughout almost the entire planet, people just like you worry about these things every day. Thousands are arrested, incarcerated, and convicted for what you are lucky enough to be able to enjoy every day.
In addition, we cannot find friends to smoke with. We cannot tell our parents about it, because of the stigma against cannabis. We are stereotyped, marginalized, and underrepresented. And on the first Tuesday this November, you can end this.
Were California to legalize, perceptions would slowly change. Even if California makes little in tax revenue and saves little on its police budget, people would see that California was unchanged. It did not descend into a hell of stoners. People would see that the complete legalization of cannabis doesn’t harm society.
At first it might be slow. But maybe Germany, seeing the success of California, would finally pass a medical marijuana law. Maybe a few states would decriminalize. Maybe Washington would also legalize. But it will begin to spread — full legalization in several states. At that point the Federal Government would have no choice but to legalize — perceptions will have shifted and a majority of Americans will favor legalization.
And when America legalizes, other countries will follow. Perhaps we will establish trade routes for cannabis. Maybe designer buds will start showing up, with as many strains as there are different alcoholic beverages, and maybe we’ll have cannabis stores around as often as we see liquor stores. Maybe we’ll have cannabis bars and pizza pubs that also serve cannabis. Maybe we’ll finally have our say in congress.
The world is looking to California. You, the privileged ones: be the beacon of hope for the world.”
-rlbond86
How lucky you are to be able to even discuss the ability to legalize freely among your peers, rather than be forced to hide your hobby from your colleagues due to possible reprimands. How privileged you are because you live in a place where you can get a card and walk into a store and purchase the finest strains of marijuana, instead of crawling like an animal in back alleys, outside of view, like a common criminal. How fortunate you are that illegal possession of cannabis is decriminalized, so you need not worry that your possession of a flower is not considered a state felony, or that your small baggie might land you in jail.
Perhaps, right now, you might consider that throughout almost the entire planet, people just like you worry about these things every day. Thousands are arrested, incarcerated, and convicted for what you are lucky enough to be able to enjoy every day.
In addition, we cannot find friends to smoke with. We cannot tell our parents about it, because of the stigma against cannabis. We are stereotyped, marginalized, and underrepresented. And on the first Tuesday this November, you can end this.
Were California to legalize, perceptions would slowly change. Even if California makes little in tax revenue and saves little on its police budget, people would see that California was unchanged. It did not descend into a hell of stoners. People would see that the complete legalization of cannabis doesn’t harm society.
At first it might be slow. But maybe Germany, seeing the success of California, would finally pass a medical marijuana law. Maybe a few states would decriminalize. Maybe Washington would also legalize. But it will begin to spread — full legalization in several states. At that point the Federal Government would have no choice but to legalize — perceptions will have shifted and a majority of Americans will favor legalization.
And when America legalizes, other countries will follow. Perhaps we will establish trade routes for cannabis. Maybe designer buds will start showing up, with as many strains as there are different alcoholic beverages, and maybe we’ll have cannabis stores around as often as we see liquor stores. Maybe we’ll have cannabis bars and pizza pubs that also serve cannabis. Maybe we’ll finally have our say in congress.
The world is looking to California. You, the privileged ones: be the beacon of hope for the world.”
-rlbond86
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$55.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network