Monthly Archives: February 2013

Cannabis & Hemp Freedom Act of 2014, California – Rev 1.81

Mickey, Thanks as always for the honest input. You have helped us tremendously by generating a whole slew of opportunity to explain our intent. The conversation should get real progressive now. A reminder of our commitment: We began promoting a coordinated 2014 Cannabis and Hemp Prohibition Repeal effort 6 months ago on this forum in an effort to combine the diversified advocacy efforts that were unable to get an Initiative on the 2012 ballot. We held an open Conference in San Jose last October with announcements of our intent to promote a 2014 Initiative. We provided an open invitation for input and the opportunity to coordinate with ALL other groups working on Initiatives. Even while after all our reaching out there was still some disturbing exclusionary advocacy meetings occurring, we held true as we do now to complete openness and willingness to combine efforts. This has not and will not change. For over 6 months we have attended ASA meetings, NORML meetings and events, Oaksterdam events, Supreme Court cases and Cannabis Cups in several parts of the state. We have written to and been interviewed by several publications and radio shows and posted to several other forums. In each case, our message has been clear – We have been and continue to be open to any input and ideas on how to achieve Cannabis and Hemp Prohibition Repeal in California in 2014. Once again, we are open to all comments and suggestions for the California Hemp and Freedom Act of 2014. It has been posted with total access to all Californians on the Help.SaveCannabis.org website since last November. For the first time, everyone in the state can view the progress of this effort and have a true feeling of being a part of the process. That alone I think is hugely important to a lot of people. More explanations of how the verbiage got to where it is now will be forthcoming and hopefully explain how what you may perceive as terribly written was either done with significant input and purpose, or was put in to generate the necessary discussion to get us to the final intent. There is still time for us to make this happen for 2014. This is progress. There is no question in my mind that we can get this document right in 6 months, not 3 1/2 more years. As we have noted before, with this and an already identified campaign team, funding remains the only challenge. Prop 19 proved we are close. Discounting the momentum gained from Co and Wash lacks understanding of where we need to garner additional votes. We can still take full advantage of it. Also, the stance of being better off waiting until a Presidential election year can be argued as being a false premise. It is in fact very likely that pro-Cannabis democrats will be working even harder in off year elections to gain legislative controls. My continuing challenge to myself, you and everyone else is simple…are each of us doing everything we can to stop this madness sooner rather than later? Is it possible that even you have become numb to the constant barrage of agonizing statistics of all those in jail and all those lives being ruined? Have we lost our sense of immediacy? As long as there is time for us for the 2014 ballot, I cannot give up and will continue to do whatever I can and, with no shame, will continue to ask for any help I can to make it happen. I am not ready to give in to 2016 or possibly and horrifyingly later. John Greeting Dave, John, and all….. I have spoken off list with John a few times regarding this effort, and am impressed with the passion and energy behind it. The main reason I have not jumped on board, or commented much on it is simple….I think it is a terribly written proposal. It is difficult to know where to begin on why I believe that, and because of a busy schedule these days, I have wrestled with taking the time to critique it in detail. I am not going to do a line by line mark up, as the entire document would likely be red strikethroughs. But I will make some major points on why I think it is poorly written, and in its current form, a waste of time and energy. For the record, I like Dave and John a lot and think they have some great ideas as far as structure and organization go, and I was surprised that their talents were not utilized by the effor being put on with the “Coalition” folks. But I think this draft is flawed in many areas. Here are the main points of contention I see: I just do not see 19 years old working unless you have $20 million on a public education campaign. It removes criminal penalties (though worded oddly), yet leaves civil penalties as an option? It takes on way too many red hot topics, trying to solve too many problems. Especially for the first couple of paragraphs. (Employment, taxes, local authority, medical use, civil infractions for under 19, etc.) The driving part is puzzling. As mentioned, not sure why 5 ng is even in the picture at all, and why you want to climb this mountain at this time. “Cartels and migrants.” Now you have lost me completely…..seriously? Maybe we shoulld list the 8 or 9 major mexican drug cartels for good measure too… (sarcasm). It says nothing about how marijuana is accessed, possessed, handled, transported, or produced. So we are going with the tomato model? Super….(eyes roll) Now I am likely one of the biggest optimists in this movement, and certainly believe we do not need to cater to the whims of our opposition, but we do need to consider the public perception issue, and write our initiative to be easily defended and supported in the court of public opinion. IMO, this thing would probably end up with less votes that Prop 19 did after our well-funded opposition hammered it to death for its vague and unclear wording and premise. While I love the effort, IMO this is an exercise in futility and nothing more in its current form. I would be interested to hear J. David Nick’s theory on why he thinks this is good law, and more importantly, a winnable initiaitve. I may sit down and write an initiaitve soon, so you guys can maybe have a good time tearing up my ideas in the near future; but this is the process by which we all grow and learn, and I thank Dave and John for having the nuts to put this out there for my dumb ass to criticize…. Mickey Martin T-Comp Consulting Director Author of Medical Marijuana 101 www.cannabiswarrior.com www.tcompconsulting.com m..y@tcompconsulting.com 510-377-1990 http://twitter.com/micKEYmarTIN http://twitter.com/CANNABISconsult ***The views expressed in this communication are not necessarily the views of T-Comp Consulting, Tainted Compassion, Cannabis Warrior any other group I am affiliated with.*** Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:41 PM Hi All, We’ve had a few major revisions. Some of the big ones are: – Removed “Collective” definition – Improved protections for Cannabis & Hemp based businesses – Tightened all language with advice from J David Nick – Added: “Any total bans or prohibitions of storefront collectives, cooperatives, dispensers or providers of cannabis or hemp shall be prohibited.” – Added: “Should any provision of this section, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this chapter or the application of this chapter to any other person or circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable.” – Added: “Section 23152 and 23153 of the vehicle code shall not apply to anyone using cannabis, unless the individual has a blood content of more than 5 nanograms of THC and cognitive impairment or loss of functional capacity can be proven and is concurrently doing any act forbidden by law, or neglecting any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle.” The editable version of this document is available here: http://bit.ly/camj2014 Cannabis & Hemp Freedom Act of 2014 (Version 1.81 – 2/15/2013) This Initiative will allow for the Freedom to use, grow, transport and sell cannabis or hemp in California. Sales will be taxed, with an exemption for medical use. PROPOSITION TEXT: This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution. This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new. SECTION 1. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “Cannabis & Hemp Freedom Act.” SECTION 2. Section 42 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read: No California resident or person located in California shall be subject to discrimination of employment based on their usage of Cannabis or Hemp with the exception of school bus drivers, commercial airplane pilots, heavy equipment drivers, or any other profession for which the employer can prove the use of cannabis will endanger human life. Section 23152 and 23153 of the vehicle code shall not apply to anyone using cannabis, unless the individual has a blood content of more than 5 nanograms of THC and cognitive impairment or loss of functional capacity can be proven and is concurrently doing any act forbidden by law, or neglecting any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle. The protections provided by this section of the constitution shall not apply to any person or group that sells or supplies to anyone under the age of 19 without parental consent, the harboring of illegal immigrants used in connection with the protections of this section, or in the aid of any criminal organizations primarily operating in a foreign jurisdiction, such as “the cartels”. There shall be no punishment or restriction made upon any public or private group, or government official who enacts, or implements any Statewide or local cannabis or hemp regulations. Any total bans or prohibitions of storefront collectives, cooperatives, dispensers or providers of cannabis or hemp shall be prohibited. Providers of electricity, banking, or any other private or governmental service shall not discriminate against or charge higher rates for any private individual or business based on the use or handling of the cannabis or hemp plant. The use of any State of California resources to prohibit the use, growth, transportation or sale of the cannabis or hemp plant is expressly prohibited. The State of California, including the Department of Justice, shall protect and defend all provisions of this Act from any and all challenges or litigation, whether by persons, officials, cities, counties, the state or federal governments. Any law of the State of California that conflicts with this section shall be amended, revised or removed in order to comply with the intent of this section. Should any provision of this section, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this chapter or the application of this chapter to any other person or circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable. — — You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. To post to this group, send email to s..s@a2c2.us To unsubscribe from this group, send email to savecannabis+u..e@a2c2.us — You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/a2c2.us/groups/opt_out. — — You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. To post to this group, send email to s..s@a2c2.us To unsubscribe from this group, send email to savecannabis+u..e@a2c2.us — You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/a2c2.us/groups/opt_out. —–Original Message—– Sent: Mon, Feb 18, 2013 5:01 pm Greeting Dave, John, and all….. I have spoken off list with John a few times regarding this effort, and am impressed with the passion and energy behind it. The main reason I have not jumped on board, or commented much on it is simple….I think it is a terribly written proposal. It is difficult to know where to begin on why I believe that, and because of a busy schedule these days, I have wrestled with taking the time to critique it in detail. I am not going to do a line by line mark up, as the entire document would likely be red strikethroughs. But I will make some major points on why I think it is poorly written, and in its current form, a waste of time and energy. For the record, I like Dave and John a lot and think they have some great ideas as far as structure and organization go, and I was surprised that their talents were not utilized by the effor being put on with the “Coalition” folks. But I think this draft is flawed in many areas. Here are the main points of contention I see: I just do not see 19 years old working unless you have $20 million on a public education campaign. It removes criminal penalties (though worded oddly), yet leaves civil penalties as an option? It takes on way too many red hot topics, trying to solve too many problems. Especially for the first couple of paragraphs. (Employment, taxes, local authority, medical use, civil infractions for under 19, etc.) The driving part is puzzling. As mentioned, not sure why 5 ng is even in the picture at all, and why you want to climb this mountain at this time. “Cartels and migrants.” Now you have lost me completely…..seriously? Maybe we shoulld list the 8 or 9 major mexican drug cartels for good measure too… (sarcasm). It says nothing about how marijuana is accessed, possessed, handled, transported, or produced. So we are going with the tomato model? Super….(eyes roll) Now I am likely one of the biggest optimists in this movement, and certainly believe we do not need to cater to the whims of our opposition, but we do need to consider the public perception issue, and write our initiative to be easily defended and supported in the court of public opinion. IMO, this thing would probably end up with less votes that Prop 19 did after our well-funded opposition hammered it to death for its vague and unclear wording and premise. While I love the effort, IMO this is an exercise in futility and nothing more in its current form. I would be interested to hear J. David Nick’s theory on why he thinks this is good law, and more importantly, a winnable initiaitve. I may sit down and write an initiaitve soon, so you guys can maybe have a good time tearing up my ideas in the near future; but this is the process by which we all grow and learn, and I thank Dave and John for having the nuts to put this out there for my dumb ass to criticize…. Mickey Martin T-Comp Consulting Director Author of Medical Marijuana 101 www.cannabiswarrior.com www.tcompconsulting.com m..y@tcompconsulting.com 510-377-1990 http://twitter.com/micKEYmarTIN http://twitter.com/CANNABISconsult ***The views expressed in this communication are not necessarily the views of T-Comp Consulting, Tainted Compassion, Cannabis Warrior any other group I am affiliated with.*** Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:41 PM Hi All, We’ve had a few major revisions. Some of the big ones are: – Removed “Collective” definition – Improved protections for Cannabis & Hemp based businesses – Tightened all language with advice from J David Nick – Added: “Any total bans or prohibitions of storefront collectives, cooperatives, dispensers or providers of cannabis or hemp shall be prohibited.” – Added: “Should any provision of this section, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this chapter or the application of this chapter to any other person or circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable.” – Added: “Section 23152 and 23153 of the vehicle code shall not apply to anyone using cannabis, unless the individual has a blood content of more than 5 nanograms of THC and cognitive impairment or loss of functional capacity can be proven and is concurrently doing any act forbidden by law, or neglecting any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle.” The editable version of this document is available here: http://bit.ly/camj2014 Cannabis & Hemp Freedom Act of 2014 (Version 1.81 – 2/15/2013) This Initiative will allow for the Freedom to use, grow, transport and sell cannabis or hemp in California. Sales will be taxed, with an exemption for medical use. PROPOSITION TEXT: This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution. This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new. SECTION 1. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “Cannabis & Hemp Freedom Act.” SECTION 2. Section 42 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read: No California resident or person located in California shall be subject to discrimination of employment based on their usage of Cannabis or Hemp with the exception of school bus drivers, commercial airplane pilots, heavy equipment drivers, or any other profession for which the employer can prove the use of cannabis will endanger human life. Section 23152 and 23153 of the vehicle code shall not apply to anyone using cannabis, unless the individual has a blood content of more than 5 nanograms of THC and cognitive impairment or loss of functional capacity can be proven and is concurrently doing any act forbidden by law, or neglecting any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle. The protections provided by this section of the constitution shall not apply to any person or group that sells or supplies to anyone under the age of 19 without parental consent, the harboring of illegal immigrants used in connection with the protections of this section, or in the aid of any criminal organizations primarily operating in a foreign jurisdiction, such as “the cartels”. There shall be no punishment or restriction made upon any public or private group, or government official who enacts, or implements any Statewide or local cannabis or hemp regulations. Any total bans or prohibitions of storefront collectives, cooperatives, dispensers or providers of cannabis or hemp shall be prohibited. Providers of electricity, banking, or any other private or governmental service shall not discriminate against or charge higher rates for any private individual or business based on the use or handling of the cannabis or hemp plant. The use of any State of California resources to prohibit the use, growth, transportation or sale of the cannabis or hemp plant is expressly prohibited. The State of California, including the Department of Justice, shall protect and defend all provisions of this Act from any and all challenges or litigation, whether by persons, officials, cities, counties, the state or federal governments. Any law of the State of California that conflicts with this section shall be amended, revised or removed in order to comply with the intent of this section. Should any provision of this section, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this chapter or the application of this chapter to any other person or circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable. — — You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. To post to this group, send email to s..s@a2c2.us To unsubscribe from this group, send email to savecannabis+u..e@a2c2.us — You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/a2c2.us/groups/opt_out. — — You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. To post to this group, send email to s..s@a2c2.us To unsubscribe from this group, send email to savecannabis+u..e@a2c2.us — You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/a2c2.us/groups/opt_out. —–Original Message—– Sent: Mon, Feb 18, 2013 5:01 pm Greeting Dave, John, and all….. I have spoken off list with John a few times regarding this effort, and am impressed with the passion and energy behind it. The main reason I have not jumped on board, or commented much on it is simple….I think it is a terribly written proposal. It is difficult to know where to begin on why I believe that, and because of a busy schedule these days, I have wrestled with taking the time to critique it in detail. I am not going to do a line by line mark up, as the entire document would likely be red strikethroughs. But I will make some major points on why I think it is poorly written, and in its current form, a waste of time and energy. For the record, I like Dave and John a lot and think they have some great ideas as far as structure and organization go, and I was surprised that their talents were not utilized by the effor being put on with the “Coalition” folks. But I think this draft is flawed in many areas. Here are the main points of contention I see: I just do not see 19 years old working unless you have $20 million on a public education campaign. It removes criminal penalties (though worded oddly), yet leaves civil penalties as an option? It takes on way too many red hot topics, trying to solve too many problems. Especially for the first couple of paragraphs. (Employment, taxes, local authority, medical use, civil infractions for under 19, etc.) The driving part is puzzling. As mentioned, not sure why 5 ng is even in the picture at all, and why you want to climb this mountain at this time. “Cartels and migrants.” Now you have lost me completely…..seriously? Maybe we shoulld list the 8 or 9 major mexican drug cartels for good measure too… (sarcasm). It says nothing about how marijuana is accessed, possessed, handled, transported, or produced. So we are going with the tomato model? Super….(eyes roll) Now I am likely one of the biggest optimists in this movement, and certainly believe we do not need to cater to the whims of our opposition, but we do need to consider the public perception issue, and write our initiative to be easily defended and supported in the court of public opinion. IMO, this thing would probably end up with less votes that Prop 19 did after our well-funded opposition hammered it to death for its vague and unclear wording and premise. While I love the effort, IMO this is an exercise in futility and nothing more in its current form. I would be interested to hear J. David Nick’s theory on why he thinks this is good law, and more importantly, a winnable initiaitve. I may sit down and write an initiaitve soon, so you guys can maybe have a good time tearing up my ideas in the near future; but this is the process by which we all grow and learn, and I thank Dave and John for having the nuts to put this out there for my dumb ass to criticize…. Mickey Martin T-Comp Consulting Director Author of Medical Marijuana 101 www.cannabiswarrior.com www.tcompconsulting.com m..y@tcompconsulting.com 510-377-1990 http://twitter.com/micKEYmarTIN http://twitter.com/CANNABISconsult ***The views expressed in this communication are not necessarily the views of T-Comp Consulting, Tainted Compassion, Cannabis Warrior any other group I am affiliated with.*** From: Dave Hodges <d..e@a2c2.us> To: “s..s@a2c2.us” <S..s@a2c2.us>; ocnorml <o..l@yahoogroups.com>; ARO “aro“ <a..o@drugsense.org > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:41 PM Subject: [Save Cannabis] Update: Cannabis & Hemp Freedom Act of 2014, California – Rev 1.81 Hi All, We’ve had a few major revisions. Some of the big ones are: – Removed “Collective” definition – Improved protections for Cannabis & Hemp based businesses – Tightened all language with advice from J David Nick – Added: “Any total bans or prohibitions of storefront collectives, cooperatives, dispensers or providers of cannabis or hemp shall be prohibited.” – Added: “Should any provision of this section, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this chapter or the application of this chapter to any other person or circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable.” – Added: “Section 23152 and 23153 of the vehicle code shall not apply to anyone using cannabis, unless the individual has a blood content of more than 5 nanograms of THC and cognitive impairment or loss of functional capacity can be proven and is concurrently doing any act forbidden by law, or neglecting any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle.” The editable version of this document is available here: http://bit.ly/camj2014 Cannabis& Hemp Freedom Act of 2014 (Version1.81 – 2/15/2013) ThisInitiative will allow for the Freedom to use, grow, transport andsell cannabis or hemp in California. Saleswill be taxed, with an exemption for medical use. PROPOSITIONTEXT: Thisinitiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with theprovisions of Article II, Section 8, of the CaliforniaConstitution. Thisinitiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution byadding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to beadded are printed in italic type to indicate that they arenew. SECTION1. Title Thismeasure shall be known and may be cited as the “Cannabis & HempFreedom Act.” SECTION2. Section 42 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,to read: NoCalifornia resident or person located in California shall be subjectto discrimination of employment based on their usage of Cannabis orHemp with the exception of school bus drivers, commercial airplanepilots, heavy equipment drivers, or any other profession for whichthe employer can prove the use of cannabis will endanger human life.Section 23152 and 23153 of the vehicle code shall not apply to anyoneusing cannabis, unless the individual has a blood content of morethan 5 nanograms of THC and cognitive impairment or loss offunctional capacity can be proven and is concurrently doing any actforbidden by law, or neglecting any duty imposed by law in drivingthe vehicle. The protections provided by this section of theconstitution shall not apply to any person or group that sells orsupplies to anyone under the age of 19 without parental consent, theharboring of illegal immigrants used in connection with theprotections of this section, or in the aid of any criminalorganizations primarily operating in a foreign jurisdiction, such as“the cartels”. Thereshall be no punishment or restriction made upon any public or privategroup, or government official who enacts, or implements any Statewideor local cannabis or hemp regulations. Any total bans or prohibitionsof storefront collectives, cooperatives, dispensers or providers ofcannabis or hemp shall be prohibited. Providers of electricity,banking, or any other private or governmental service shall notdiscriminate against or charge higher rates for any privateindividual or business based on the use or handling of the cannabisor hemp plant. Theuse of any State of California resources to prohibit the use, growth,transportation or sale of the cannabis or hemp plant is expresslyprohibited. The State of California, including the Department ofJustice, shall protect and defend all provisions of this Act from anyand all challenges or litigation, whether by persons, officials,cities, counties, the state or federal governments. Any law of theState of California that conflicts with this section shall beamended, revised or removed in order to comply with the intent ofthis section. Shouldany provision of this section, or its application to any person orcircumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction tobe unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determinationshall have no effect on any other provision of this chapter or theapplication of this chapter to any other person or circumstance and,to that end, the provisions hereof are severable. — —