Monthly Archives: January 2012

January 20, 2012 – Digest for – 11 Messages in 7 Topics

    Jeannie Herer <> Jan 17 10:13PM -0800  

    "With that in mind, what are the actual symptoms of withdrawal from
    cannabis? Some of its terrible symptoms include anxiety, insomnia, lack
    of appetite and weight loss.
    With people reportedly having slept for only four hours in three
    days, what makes the symptoms of cannabis withdrawal hard is that it
    takes up to a month to pass. Imagine not having to sleep or eat well for
    that long a period.
    But with the study on Sativex on its way, Professor Copeland said to ABC News that
    she believes it will help people manage withdrawals better and will set
    cannabis users on the path to long-term abstinence."


  Jan 19 04:58PM -0500  

    Marinol is also used to treat cannabis dependence….


    "Dr. David Bearman" <> Jan 19 06:51PM -0500  

    I'm not sure where this information on so called cannabis withdrawal comes from. It's true that there is such a thing BUT such so-called withdrawal symptoms are mild and not experienced by most cannabis consummers who stop using cannabis.
    The best study on this issue was done by Dr. Reese Jones an avid opponent of both social and medicinal use of cannabis. He recruited several heavy marijuabna smokers for his study. They agreed to stay in Sab francisco General Hospital for a month > While there they received 200 mg of Marinol(THC) per day . at the end of 30 days the Marinol was abruptly stopped. The study subjects did indeed report some anxiety and sleep problems but these lasted more like two or three days rather than the month that has been cited.
    Since these were self selected heavy marijuana users it is quite possible that most ,if not all, were self medicating for such conditions as anxiety, depression and insomnia and that when their medication(ie THC) was removed that their pre-treatment symptoms returned. The withdrawal. symptoms of cannabis are not even experienced by a lot of cannabis consumers and are widely described as being less severe than withdrawal from coffee.
    David Bearman


    "Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur" <> Jan 19 12:17AM -0800  

    sf chroncile just posted story also longbeach telegram. In which city
    attny estimates fourteen mos to get a decision. So am I understanding
    correctly that now becuase of re hearing citys will not able to ban?
    And permit process will be able to un freeze or does dethawing start
    about a year from now

    Shona Gochenaur
    Executive Director
    Axis of Love SF


    Hal Muskat <> Jan 19 11:15AM -0800  

    RIVERSIDE: California Supreme Court to review city's pot dispensary ban
    A lower court's ruling upholding Riverside's ban has been used as
    precedent for other cities to control medical marijuana
    The California Supreme Court will review Riverside's ban on marijuana
    The California Supreme Court will review a city of Riverside medical
    marijuana case in which a lower court ruled that cities and counties
    have the right to ban dispensaries.
    Local governments throughout the state have used that decision, issued
    in November by the Fourth District Court of Appeal, to shut down medical
    marijuana clinics within their boundaries.
    That court ruled that nothing in the state's1996 Compassionate Use Act
    (Prop. 215) or the state Legislature's Medical Marijuana Program, which
    outlines usage, pre-empts cities from banning the facilities.
    The Riverside ruling was one of four medical marijuana cases the State
    Supreme Court voted to accept Wednesday. In hearing the cases, the court
    will try to tackle federal and state issues regarding medical marijuana
    and the dispensaries that sell it, and also address more fundamental
    questions of local control.
    The court voted 7-0 to hear the Riverside case.
    The justices also will hear an unpublished ruling on Upland's dispensary
    ban, which closely followed the language of the Riverside ruling; a Long
    Beach case that addresses the illegality of marijuana under federal law
    and whether that preempts local officials from regulating dispensaries;
    and a Dana Point case that looks into who has standing to challenge
    local ordinances regulating dispensaries.
    "It was only a matter of time before the California Supreme Court would
    take on the issue, and the time is now," said Jeffrey V. Dunn, an
    Irvine-based attorney with Best Best & Krieger who represents Riverside
    in the case. "Federal pre-emption, state law pre-emption and standing
    — in one day the Supreme Court has decided to review this law in a
    comprehensive fashion."
    Riverside City Attorney Greg Priamos said he believed the court
    recognized the importance of the cases and wants to clarify the law.
    "We remain cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court will uphold the
    city and county land use authority; that cities and boards of
    supervisors have the right to establish land-use policies, and the
    city's right is not preempted by state law," Priamos said.
    J. David Nick, the attorney representing dispensary owners in Riverside,
    said a unanimous vote to hear a case is rare. He also noted that the
    court took the case even though there are no conflicting appellate
    decisions on the issue regarding the Riverside case.
    "That is an indication the court has a deep concern over decisions made
    by the appellate court," Nick said. "You could change the object to
    bananas, and we would still be arguing the same ideals. It is a very
    clear rule that the California Supreme Court has established: Local
    governments cannot ban through any device what state law makes legal."
    But Dunn said that also goes the other way.
    "The state cannot pre-empt local government authority," he said.
    Attorney Roger Jon Diamond, who represented dispensary owner G3 Holistic
    in the Upland case, said he believes the lower court overreached in
    allowing cities and counties to enact an outright ban on clinics.
    Diamond says local governments have the right to regulate location,
    hours and facades of the dispensaries through zoning laws, "but it seems
    like the whole Inland Empire is up in arms over medical marijuana. I
    believe a total ban has taken the place of zoning," Diamond said in a
    telephone interview from his Santa Monica offices.
    The Long Beach case does not involve a ban. That city agreed to allow
    medical marijuana dispensaries under a permitting process.
    A dispensary claimed the permit rules were too stringent. But an
    appellate court overturned the Long Beach plan. It cited marijuana's
    illegality under federal law, and said that pre-empted city officials
    from making any rules about its sale.
    The Dana Point case looks at who has standing to challenge local medical
    marijuana regulations — does it have to be an owner, or can it be a
    dispensary user?
    The court in its decision to take the cases did not set a briefing
    schedule for attorneys; that will be the next step in the case.


    "Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur" <> Jan 18 11:33PM -0800  

    In an email exchange today with sf planning dept regarding frozen
    permit process and supreme court his last email to me was that he had
    just been alerted that the supreme court has decided to reveiw the
    pack case. Has anyone heard anything else? How will this impact bans
    and frozen permit process ? Whats the timeline?


    "Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur" <> Jan 18 04:24PM -0800  

    CArol pls incld for taskforce . others pls get word out
    The federal assault on medical marijuana is escalating with raids
    in Costa Mesa and San Diego. Lawsuits against property owners have
    been filed in several districts of the state. Mendocino County's
    outdoor licensed garden program has also been shut down by federal
    threats. The Obama administration has now closed more dispensaries
    than all its predecessors put together. Complaints should be lodged
    to the White House Hotline at(phone#-removed) and the Dept of Justice at
    – D. Gieringer, Cal NORML
    > was operating earlier in the day.
    > ,_._,___

    Shona Gochenaur
    Executive Director
    Axis of Love SF


    "Don Duncan" <> Jan 18 11:11AM -0800  

    Some members of the Los Angeles City Council are trying to ban medical
    cannabis patients' cooperatives and collectives. Americans for Safe Access
    (ASA) needs your help right now to stop them! There are five things you can
    do to help stop the ban and protect safe access for patients:

    1. Send an email [ ]to
    the members of the Los Angeles City Council right now telling them not to
    ban medical cannabis cooperatives and collectives in the city. We have
    already generated over 20,000 emails. Keep them coming!

    2. Attend the LA-ASA meeting on Saturday to get the latest news and work
    with others to stop the ban. We will also be discussing the Medical
    Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Taxation Act [ ], a voter initiative that will
    protect safe access statewide. The LA-ASA meeting is on Saturday, January
    21, at 1:00 PM. The meeting will be in the Community Room (#152) at the West
    Hollywood Gateway Mall located at 7100 Santa Monica Blvd., West Hollywood,
    CA 90046. There is a paid parking lot at the mall. Enter through the double
    glass doors between Jersey Mike's and Rockin' Sushi.

    3. Make plans to attend the City Planning Commission meeting in Van Nuys
    on Thursday, January 26. The Commission must discuss the proposed ban before
    the full City Council votes. The meeting starts at 8:30 AM, but I will send
    you a time for our item closer to the meeting. The City Planning Commission
    meets in the Van Nuys City Council Chamber (2nd Floor) at 14410 Sylvan
    Street, Van Nuys, CA 91401.

    4. Call and/or visit your representative on the City Council before the
    end of the month. Calls and visits from constituents matter the most, so
    look up your representative using the "Neighborhood Resources [ ]" search box on the city's web site. Call your
    representative and/or pay a visit to his or her office downtown or in the
    field. Use ASA's Online Training Center [ ] for tips on talking
    with elected officials. Attend LA-ASA's meeting on Saturday for detailed
    instructions on citizen advocacy.

    5. Join ASA or make a special donation today [ ]. We need your support to have
    the resources we need to fight battles like this. Your generous contribution
    right now means we can pay for administrative support, media work, printing,
    and more. Please help at this strategic moment.

    Please share this email with your friends and loved ones who support medical
    cannabis. I look forward to seeing you on Saturday!

    Thank you,

    Don Duncan
    California Director



    Don Duncan, California Director
    Americans for Safe Access (ASA)


    Americans for Safe Access is the nation's largest organization of patients,
    medical professionals, scientists and concerned citizens promoting safe and
    legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research.
    Follow me on Twitter…


January 18, 2012 – Digest for – 6 Messages in 4 Topics


    Andrew Merkel <> Jan 17 01:19PM -0800  

    Has anyone heard about the raids today in costa messa?
    Sent from my iPhone



    "Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur" <> Jan 16 08:33PM -0800  

    pls pass along to anyone who might be confused at the moment…. Also
    pls send to steve d. Of harborside if you dont mind. I dont know him .


    Shona Gochenaur
    Executive Director
    Axis of Love SF


    Dave Hodges <> Jan 17 11:49AM -0800  

    This is exactly why the cannabis movement must use our votes wisely.
    If we make a mistake we could open the door wide open for Mitt… if
    we thought bush was bad…
    Romney: "If you elect me president, you are not going to see medical
    marijuana. I will fight it tooth and nail."
    I like Ron Paul, but not enough to risk deluding the 'Democratic'
    votes for Obama and handing the country over to Mitt Romney.
    Best Regards,
    On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur


    "Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur" <> Jan 16 09:02PM -0800  

    CArol pls incld in handout for taskforce. Sf folks our legal comittee
    has tasked a sub comittee starting exploration of how to advise our
    santurary city to react to protect safe access however the ryan p case
    and LA move. We are hoping to gain support for two mtgs in feb to best
    prepared to tackle and have everyones concerns and expertise involved
    . Please join this friday at our city hall at 930 for room 400 for our
    monthly meeting . Also our citys Black nBrown just cannabis policy org
    got coverage of their day of service event for MLK on our local news
    stations ! Hats off to organizers Greg Leddbetter and Marqu


January 17, 2012 – Digest for – 7 Messages in 3 Topics

    Bud <> Jan 16 03:28PM -0800  

    The only problem with this argument is that we have years of experience
    with local regulation, most of it disastrous, whether for a Fresno jackass
    like me or people who live in other less progressive areas of the state.
    ASA's latest update of California ordinances shows 60 regulatory ordinances
    vs. 273 moratorium/bans, and between the Pack ruling and the feds many if
    not most of the current regulatory ordinances are at risk, including
    Mendocino County's pioneering cultivation program. There is no consistency
    between city and county laws or enforcement priorities, so Northstone
    Organics can get popped in Sonoma County even though they're considered
    squeaky-clean north of the county line.
    We also have a new threat to deal with in the growing trend toward severe
    limits or bans on personal cultivation. With dispensaries seemingly
    offline, cities and counties are now turning to so-called nuisance gardens
    and flexing their land-use muscles. While the feds and Pack steal all the
    headlines, your ability to grow your own is being wiped out one local
    jurisdiction at a time.
    Is there risk in advancing a statewide initiative? Of course — but also a
    huge opportunity to focus voter anger over the federal crackdown. Do
    patients or growers like the idea of bureaucracy and regulation? No more
    than the Average Joe, but they're not crazy about unregulated profiteers,
    either. We can argue all day long — and probably will — about the proper
    regulatory framework for medical cannabis. But if the thrust of your
    argument is that local regulation is somehow superior to statewide
    regulation, that question has been asked and answered. Relying on local
    regulation alone requires a conscious choice to ignore the fate of patients
    in most geographical areas of the state.



    "andrew garret" <> Jan 16 05:26PM -0800  

    Reefer Madness — Oklahoma website now up and running
    We just got the Oklahoma Reefer Madness era website up and running.
    Like the one for North Carolina before it, it's been subdivided into
    different sections.
    The main section deals with Anslinger’s Gore file cases within Oklahoma as
    well as the Reefer Madness Campaign. NOTE, Oklahoma played a large role
    in it.
    Another section deals with pre-1937 Medical uses and shows numerous
    pre-1937 medical prescriptions for Cannabis. Etc.
    You can go to it via the main website – and
    simply go down toward the bottom – look for the little Oklahoma flag (you
    can miss it) and click.
    Antique Andy
    Museum Curator
    Sent via Catholic Online Webmail!
    Use Catholic Online Webmail to proclaim your faith to the world.



    "Don Duncan" <> Jan 16 12:47PM -0800  

    The Long Beach City Council will consider a ban on medical cannabis
    patients' associations in the city at tomorrow's meeting. Americans for Safe
    Access (ASA) is calling on patients and advocates to oppose this ban. It
    failed to get enough votes last month. let's be sure it loses again this

    Take a minute right now to email members of the Long Beach City Council [
    6 ] and tell them to vote no on a ban. Instead, City Council Members should
    work with stakeholders to find a better solution. ASA's online action center
    makes it easy to email the City Council Members right now.

    You can attend the Long Beach City Council Meeting to talk to the City
    Council Members in person on Tuesday, January 17, at 5:00 PM. The meeting is
    in Council Chambers, 333 W. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90802. Arrive early
    to complete a public speaker's card for agenda item #25 under "Unfinished
    Business" on Tuesday's agenda.

    Legal patients rely on patients' cooperatives and collectives for safe
    access to the medicine they need to treat the symptoms of cancer, HIV/AIDS,
    Multiple Sclerosis, chronic pain, and other serious conditions. Closing
    cooperatives and collectives will harm patients, but research [ ]conducted by ASA
    shows that sensible regulations reduce crime and complaints while preserving
    patients' access. The Long Beach City Council should work with patients and
    other community members to improve the existing medical cannabis ordinance,
    instead of banning patients' associations outright.

    Thank you for helping to defend safe access in Long Beach,

    Don Duncan
    California Director

    P.S. – Please support ASA [ ],
    so we can keep fighting for safe access in California!


    Don Duncan, California Director
    Americans for Safe Access (ASA)


    Americans for Safe Access is the nation's largest organization of patients,
    medical professionals, scientists and concerned citizens promoting safe and
    legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research.
    Follow me on Twitter…


    Andrew Merkel <> Jan 16 04:43PM -0800  

    If any people need help on a referendum in long beach feel fee to call or email me.
    Butte county PAC's beat them down both times they tried to pass a restrictive ordinances. My information comes at No Cost.
    This is just political and if you want to put a stop to this BS hit them where it hurts, their elected positions.
    Don't threaten them just act stealthily they will never know it's coming.
    Recalls are just as easy. You get a 180 days for them to think about what's going to come next. Don't even have to follow through.
    It works, just watch…
    Andrew Merkel
    Sent from my iPhone


January 16, 2012 – Digest for – 2 Messages in 2 Topics

    LANNYSWERDLOW <> Jan 15 03:37PM -0800  

    Mark Anderson, the co-author of a literally earth-shaking study showing a 9% reduction in alcohol related traffic fatalities in states that have passed medical marijuana laws, will be the featured guest on the 6 pm, Monday, January 16 broadcast and simulcast of the award winning radio show, Marijuana Compassion and Common Sense.
    This remarkable study concluded that the reduction in alcohol related traffic fatalities was directly related to a significant increase in cannabis consumption and a significant decrease in alcohol consumption by 18-34 year olds. This study, which should have received serious public attention but has been all but ignored by the media, portends serious policy issues which need to be re-examined in the light of these really not-so-startling conclusions.
    Tune in to learn how the study was done, what the ramifications of the study portend and what further studies are being conducted to compare differences between states that have passed mmj laws and those that have not.
    Marijuana Compassion and Common Sense is broadcast every Monday at 6 pm on IE Talk Radio Station KCAA 1050AM and simulcast on the Internet at where you can listen by clicking on LISTEN LIVE and see host Lanny Swerdlow with Uncle Ronnie and Kali Smith in the studio by clicking on KCAATV on the home page.


    Mickey Martin <> Jan 15 08:52AM -0800 
    There will be no shortage of my criticisms for the statewide effort in CA to put the Medical Marijuana Regulation Control and Taxation Act on the ballot, and the lame attempt to run a statewide campaign that will become a national news nightmare. I think it is a net negative for cannabis users period; and if our industry is gonna fork over a cool $1.5 million to put an initiative on the ballot it should be one that expands cannabis freedom, rather than limits it. I think at the state level the medical issue will be a losing effort, simply because A LOT has happened in the great state of CA over the last 15 years, and not all of it is good. There were a lot of poor choices made and bad behaviors that we will have to answer for from one end of the state to the other…and like I said, it will become NATIONAL fodder. It is the worst strategy ever seemingly based in fear and knee-jerk reactionary bullshit, and I think it is a HORRIBLE IDEA to do
    a statewide initiative to regulate, control, and tax dispensaries. I fear it will fail miserably, and nobody is answering that very big WHAT IF?
    But do not get confused and think I am against voter initiatives to regulate dispensaries. I am all for it. I just think it is an effort to be made at the local level, whether that be county by county, or city by city. On a local level you can control that message. The message has nothing to do with what this person did in LA or this other person did in Bakersfield. It is about that community, and that community's choice to allow for their citizens to have safe and convenient access to cannabis. Why should some jackass in Fresno be allowed to decide if dispensaries should, or should not more likely, be allowed in Sacramento or Sonoma counties, where the population is much different and has different needs? Why do we want to allow our opposition to lump the entire issue across the State, from the Venice Beach Weed Doctors to the guy caught shipping weed all over the Country, as ammunition against everyone? Why not fight small, more manageable,
    fights in local areas with the most need? It is cheaper, simpler, and more effective…and as I stated, easier to control the message.
    There are definite issues with access and regulation, no doubt. But why are we paying to gather signatures for 8% of the population in San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Sonoma County and everywhere else that has good regulations in place and have little issues? Why are we allowing this statewide effort to establish a "Bureaucracy" that is appointed mostly by the Lieutenant Governor (and IMO is set up to represent pointed interests) to decide policy for places with programs that are generally working? It is just not a wise use of cannabis lovers' resources to put our entire movement on trial on the national stage in hopes of staving off the Feds, like some believe a Colorado type of regulatory scheme will do. We saw this week that CO is also not immune; and that even if we did attempt to appease the Feds with a strict state initiative, and even if we did not get our asses handed to us in the National debate for the perceived abuses in the system, they
    would just simply move the goal post. The medical fight is not the one we want to have on the National stage right now.
    Locally initiatives can be tailored to meet the needs of the local population. They can be written to integrate with current systems in place in a particular municipality. A local initiative gives the opportunity for a more neighborly discussion about how things will work "around here." It is easier to get buy in from people who you can reach with a message of local neighborly need, and properly crafted rules to meet the needs of the local community. In areas where there have been some very public local debates about dispensaries and cultivation, it is wise to move forward with local initiatives and form local committees that can stay on top of the daily messaging and the debate that will happen. At a State level who is going to answer the questions of your localnewspaper columnist, blogger, or Patch editor? Who is setting the statewide message, and can anyone be sure that they are prepared to defend the honor of every community, and the
    individual issues they face? Absolutely not.
    The statewide effort being pushed by the Union UFCW and that was signed on to by ASA (which by the way I did not see mentioned on their list of 2011 accomplishments) is a bad idea. It is a desperate grasp at a straw that could very well do much more harm than good. I am working with  group to draft language for a Sacramento County voter initiative because the very public and ugly fight there in the capital county is a big deal. It is a local message that can focus on the enormous need, the lack of effort by County officials, and the process that broke down at the Executive level there. It is a very winnable message. The people of Sacramento County have been watching the debate unfold for the last 18 months n the local press, and it is a fight that can be won based on this ongoing dialogue. At the State level it takes the power of the local community to express their own needs and leaves the message to UFCW and ASA for the most part. It is
    much better to have this conversation in the context of what a community hs experienced vs. the scary fear-mongering that will be done by well-funded opposition groups at the State level.
    I suggest that you also look at doing a local voter initiative in your area. It is not terribly complicated to do. If you want to make the November Ballot it is likely you need to get moving. I am happy to help point you in the right direction where I can. But I think we must act locally on this effort or face severe backlash from a much larger conversation than most of our communities really need to have.
    Mickey Martin
    T-Comp Consulting Director
    ***The views expressed in this communication are not necessarily the views of T-Comp Consulting, Tainted Compassion, West Coast Cannabis, Cannabis Warrior any other group I am affiliated with.***


January 15, 2012 – Digest for – 2 Messages in 2 Topics

    Weston Brent Mickey <> Jan 13 02:29PM -0800  

    ———- Forwarded message ———-

    This article was published on
    Weston Mickey, a local medical-cannabis advocate, has led several
    successful petition campaigns in Butte County. He can often be found
    outside Safeway stores.
    Marijuana proponents switch gears
    *Local medical-marijuana* activists declared victory Tuesday (Dec. 10) when
    the Butte County Board of Supervisors decided to scrap an ordinance banning
    dispensaries. The ordinance, passed in October, was blocked by a petition
    circulated by the Citizens for Safe Access group that called for either
    repeal or a public vote.
    “There’s been some confusion over the necessity to outlaw dispensaries,”
    County Counsel Bruce Alpert told the board by way of introduction. “It was
    not necessary to have that ordinance on the books because our zoning code
    does not provide for dispensaries. It’s easier to repeal at this point.”
    The board and almost everyone who came to speak on the matter agreed. In
    fact, it seemed as though some of the speakers had to modify their talking
    points because Alpert had already made them.
    “This ordinance was deeply troubling,” explained medical-cannabis activist
    Dan Levine. “It didn’t respect patients’ rights.”
    Rick Tognoli, who ran the dispensary Scripts Only Service until late 2010,
    told the board, “I think you’re afraid of the vote,” but didn’t disagree
    with a decision to repeal.
    “It seems to me that if the federal government is in flux on this issue,
    it’s a waste of $50,000 [to put it to a vote],” said Supervisor Bill
    Connelly. To place the item on the June ballot would cost about that much,
    the county’s elections office estimated.
    Levine mentioned Assembly Bill 1300, which clarifies existing
    medical-marijuana laws and specifically gives cities and counties authority
    to create ordinances that regulate the location, operation or establishment
    of cooperatives and collectives. Supervisor Maureen Kirk said she wanted to
    wait and see what happens with AB 1300 and the federal government’s stance
    on California’s laws before crafting a new ordinance. The board voted
    unanimously to repeal the dispensary ban.
    *Outside board chambers,* medical-cannabis activists gathered for
    handshakes and pats on the back. Their hard work had paid off. But they
    assured each other the job was far from over, and just a few hours after
    the supervisors’ meeting in Oroville Levine and fellow Citizens for Safe
    Access member Weston Mickey were outside the Safeway on Mangrove Avenue in
    Chico with yet another petition in hand, this one supporting a statewide
    initiative to “regulate marijuana like wine.”
    The measure would basically legalize marijuana for recreational use by
    adults and would treat it similarly to alcohol. In fact, it would hand
    regulation of the drug over to the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control,
    establish a minimum age for consumption of 21 and allow taxation and sales
    of the substance. Additionally, it “bans development of genetically
    modified marijuana” and “directs state and local officials to not cooperate
    with federal enforcement of marijuana laws.”
    Mickey and Levine spoke animatedly about the measure during an interview
    Tuesday afternoon. Because it’s a statewide initiative, explained Mickey,
    who has described himself as a “professional signature gatherer,” each
    individual county must qualify in order to get it on the statewide ballot
    in November, which is the goal. The petition drive started last November
    and, by law, can last no longer than 180 days.
    “They already have 20,000 signatures and have raised $100,000,” Mickey said
    of the committee overseeing the initiative. As a “field coordinator,”
    Mickey said it’s his mission to gather enough signatures in Butte County to
    qualify the measure here. Once he finishes, they’ll be shipped off to the
    secretary of state, who will then send them back to the county elections
    office to count them.
    “People didn’t like Proposition 19 because it was badly written,” Levine
    said. “There seems to be a much better response to this initiative.” He
    explained that the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Committee had conducted
    surveys that found when Californians were asked about “legalizing
    marijuana” they were still about 50-50 on the matter, but when asked if
    “marijuana should be regulated like wine or beer,” they were about 62
    percent in favor.
    The initiative, brought forth by a retired Orange County judge, does not
    change anything regarding medicinal use of marijuana, Levine added. Also,
    it allows for anyone to grow up to six plants outdoors tax-free (as long as
    you’re not selling it). The biggest thing, though, according to Mickey, is
    that it would go a step further than SB 420, which merely offers a defense
    in court if a person is prosecuted for a marijuana-related crime.
    “It’s not a defense, but an actual right,” he said.