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. — —

Response & Update: Cannabis & Hemp Freedom Act of 2014, California – Rev 1.88

David, That would require a change to the current DUI law. The current law 23152 states “(a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.” Currently, if the cop that pulls you over wants, they could use this law against any cannabis user regardless of the amount found in the blood. Personally as someone who smokes equivalent to an ounce a day, I care a lot about this. I’m not sure if .5 milligrams per liter is the correct number, but without a “limit” like the alcohol laws, the opposition will have a much easier time using the “drugged driving” messaging. Best Regards, Dave Hodges On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 7:24 PM, David Malmo-Levine <m..e@gmail.com> wrote: > > If cognitive impairment is proven it doesnt matter WHY you are impaired. The penalty should be the same. The investigation should end there. The only reason to determine the type of impairment is to provide our rulers an opportunity to persecute us – why provide them with such an opportunity? Why focus on anything other than actual impairment? — —

Response & Update: Cannabis & Hemp Freedom Act of 2014, California – Rev 1.88

Brenda, Thank you! Looks like we’ve completely overlooked this, but it might have an easy fix. “No California resident or person located within the State of California *shall be subject to any discrimination in any courts including but not limited to civil and family court*, nor be charged with any crime, felony or misdemeanor related to their use, growth, possession, transportation, land use, or sales of the cannabis or hemp plant, seeds, or pollen.” Best Regards, Dave Hodges On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Brenda Sherman <s..s@earthlink.net>wrote: > > I HAVE READ A LOT OF INFORMATION ON THESE LIST & MY OPINION MAY MEAN > NOTHING BUT IN REGARD TO SEC.# 4 …ANYONE AS MYSELF THAT HAS A FAMILY > COURT CASE KNOWS. > THE SECTION THAT STATES ( THE PARENTS SHALL ABSTAIN FROM ALL PSYCHOACTIVE > DRUGS NOT MEDICALLY PRESCRIBED….FOLLOWED BY THE PARENTS SHALL SUBMIT TO A > PRESUMPTIVE DRUG > SCREEN AND/OR A HAIR FOLLICLE TEST TO DETECT THE USAGE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS > &/OR ABUSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS SO UNLESS CANNABIS IS NOW LEGAL REGARDLESS > OF DR. REC/CARD > WE ARE ALL STILL DAMNED IF WE DO….BECAUSE BY LAW AT THE RISK OF OUR KIDS > WE CAN’T…..& THAT’S JUST 1 EXAMPLE….. > > —–Original Message—– > From: Dave Hodges ** > Sent: Feb 18, 2013 7:10 PM > To: “s..s@a2c2.us” **, ocnorml ** > Subject: [Save Cannabis] Response & Update: Cannabis & Hemp Freedom Act of > 2014, California – Rev 1.88 > > Hi All, > > Thank you for all the valuable responses. Looks like we’ve made some more > changes. > > I’d like to address some of the concerns in order to help us move forward. > > 1a) DUI: > “Sections 23152 and 23153 of the vehicle code shall not apply to > anyone using cannabis unless the individual is committing an act forbidden > by law, or neglecting a duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, > concurrently has a THC content of more than .5 milligrams per liter of > blood, and cognitive impairment or loss of functional capacity can be > proven.” > The rationale for the line above is to protect cannabis users from the > current DUI Laws. Which leads into: > > 1b) Nanograms Limit: > Under current DUI laws, if you have ANY THC in your blood you can be > considered a DUI. The 5 nanogram without a unit for the blood was a type-o. > Why have any limit? To make everyone happy, but the key is “, and cognitive > impairment or loss of functional capacity can be proven.”. > > In the latest version it has been set to .5 milligrams per liter, but > regardless of the amount used “cognitive impairment or loss of functional > capacity” must be proven. The goal is to address the DUI issue in a way > that protects users regardless of their blood content, yet still provides a > way to enforce any “act forbidden by law” > > 2) The Age limit > The age limit of 19 is a flexible number. It has now been changed to > 21… but if we find a funder who can bank roll the whole thing, and they > which to use the age of 18-20, it may change again. We will not file > anything until we have secured the funding to make this happen. > > 3) Cartels > “The protections provided by this section of the California > Constitution shall not apply to any person or group that … engages in the > harboring of undocumented migrants used in connection with the protections > of this section, or deliberately aids any criminal organizations primarily > operating in a foreign jurisdiction, such as “the cartels”.” > This is one of the lines many attorneys don’t like at first. This is used > to take ammunition out of the oppositions hands… Example: “According to > the respected Mexican Competitiveness Institute’s study on legalizing > marijuana released this week, the drug cartels would move into operating in > those states to protect their $6 billion a year industry from U.S growers > who could make the drug at cheaper prices and higher quality than Mexican > marijuana smuggled across the international border.” Read more: > http://www.voxxi.com/legalizing-marijuana-mexican-cartels > > By including the language such as “the cartels”, we can combat the > propaganda of “it will all go to the cartels”. > > 4) Mickey Martin – Criminal Penalties v Civil Penalties? > > I’m not sure what civil penalties you are referring to. To my > knowledge, the only penalties regarding marijuana are criminal. > > 5) Mickey Martin – “Takes on way too many red hot topics”? > > …of all people… This is one of the most absurd reasons, but must > be addressed. There is no such thing as “too many red hot topics”. In CHFA > we have attempted to address only one topic, the cannabis plant. If same > sex marriage can be made illegal with one line “Sec. 7.5. Only marriage > between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”, we should > be able to fix the cannabis issue with a few paragraphs. > > 6) Mickey Martin “It says nothing about how marijuana is accessed, > possessed, handled, transported” > > Why does it need to address any of that? It protects anyone who provides > access, transports it, handles it, sells it, etc… What else do you need? > Mickey, please explain why cannabis should be treated any different then > any other herb or plant? I hate to say it, but it sounds like you’re > feeding into the drug war propaganda. Cannabis is not any more dangerous > then Rhubarb, Jasmine, Mistletoe or any of the common poisonous plants: > http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/earthkind/landscape/poisonous-plants-resources/common-poisonous-plants-and-plant-parts/ > > 7) “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.” > This section was removed. I’m not sure it was necessary, but the goal was > to provide protection for people who wished to provide additional > regulations. > > 8) Grammar > Starchild made some great edits related to grammar. One of our main goals > is to make this something everyone can understand. Many laws have run-on > sentences, poor punctuation, and excess verbiage. While grammar is > important, we have to understand, the law doesn’t care much about it. > Regardless, the people reading it and talking about it do. In the end, > before filing, the legal experts will have the final word. > > 9) Philosophy / The law should be written by Attorneys > I’ve heard many people (mostly attorneys) stating thing such as > “Initiatives should only be written by Attorneys”. To this I say, the law > is “made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people”. > Just because someone passed the bar exam does not make them a better > person. To make a statement that only attorneys can do this, degrades our > own intelligence, and IMHO the founding fathers intent. Laws should be > written by the people they effect, and then reviewed by people who > specialize in the law/voter initiatives (esquire title or not). > > What we are attempting to do is write a simple initiative, using the > people effected by this war, that everyone including the courts can > understand. With that said, you have my word, before filing anything it > will be thoroughly reviewed by the best attorneys around. > > I welcome any and all response. > > Best Regards, > Dave Hodges > Founder > A2C2 – the All American Cannabis Club > > > Here is the latest version: 1.88 > http://bit.ly/camj2014 > > Section 42 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read: > * > No California resident or person located within the State of California > shall be charged with any crime, felony or misdemeanor related to their > use, growth, possession, transportation, land use, or sales of the cannabis > or hemp plant, seeds, or pollen. The sales, use, growth or manufacturing of > cannabis or hemp in any form including any concentrated form of the > separated resins, whether obtained in crude or purified form, shall not be > prohibited. The taxation of cannabis or hemp for medical use shall be > prohibited. The use, growth or sales of the cannabis plant, except for in > the case of medical use, by persons under the age of 21 may be prohibited, > but the punishment shall not exceed a civil infraction. > > No California resident or person located in California shall be subject to > employment discrimination based on their usage of cannabis or hemp except > when performing a task where temporary physical impairment due to cannabis > use has been scientifically proven to endanger human life (e.g. driving a > school bus, piloting a commercial aircraft, or operating heavy equipment). > > Sections 23152 and 23153 of the vehicle code shall not apply to anyone > using cannabis unless the individual is committing an act forbidden by law, > or neglecting a duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, concurrently > has a THC content of more than .5 milligrams per liter of blood, and > cognitive impairment or loss of functional capacity can be proven. The > protections provided by this section of the California Constitution shall > not apply to any person or group that sells or supplies cannabis to anyone > under the age of 21 without the consent of his or her parents or guardians, > engages in the harboring of undocumented migrants used in connection with > the protections of this section, or deliberately aids any criminal > organizations primarily operating in a foreign jurisdiction, such as “the > cartels”. > > Any total bans or prohibitions of storefront collectives, cooperatives, > dispensers or providers of cannabis or hemp shall be prohibited. Providers > of electricity, water or other public utility services shall not charge > higher rates to any individual, business or group, nor otherwise > discriminate against individuals or businesses based on the presence, use, > or handling of cannabis or hemp. > > The use of any State of California resources to prohibit, or to enforce > the prohibition of, 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, or the state or federal government. Any law, > statute, regulation or policy of the State of California that conflicts > with this section shall be amended or revised within one year of the > adoption of this language in order to comply with the intent of this > section. Any such law, statute, regulation or policy not amended or revised > within that time period shall be considered void and without legal effect. > 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 regulation. > > 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.* > > — > — >

Response & Update: Cannabis & Hemp Freedom Act of 2014, California – Rev 1.88

Mickey, Both can KILL your kids… but they have no laws stopping HomeDepot form selling them. I agree 21 is not the age to stop cannabis use, but to get people on board, we have to. Best Regards, Dave Hodges On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Weed Activist <w..t@gmail.com>wrote: > If we are talking rhubarb and jasmine, I am pretty sure this debate is > over for me. 21 year old jasmine? C’mon, yo. Really? > On Feb 18, 2013 7:10 PM, “Dave Hodges” <d..e@a2c2.us> wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Thank you for all the valuable responses. Looks like we’ve made some more >> changes. >> >> I’d like to address some of the concerns in order to help us move forward. >> >> 1a) DUI: >> “Sections 23152 and 23153 of the vehicle code shall not apply to >> anyone using cannabis unless the individual is committing an act forbidden >> by law, or neglecting a duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, >> concurrently has a THC content of more than .5 milligrams per liter of >> blood, and cognitive impairment or loss of functional capacity can be >> proven.” >> The rationale for the line above is to protect cannabis users from the >> current DUI Laws. Which leads into: >> >> 1b) Nanograms Limit: >> Under current DUI laws, if you have ANY THC in your blood you can be >> considered a DUI. The 5 nanogram without a unit for the blood was a type-o. >> Why have any limit? To make everyone happy, but the key is “, and cognitive >> impairment or loss of functional capacity can be proven.”. >> >> In the latest version it has been set to .5 milligrams per liter, but >> regardless of the amount used “cognitive impairment or loss of functional >> capacity” must be proven. The goal is to address the DUI issue in a way >> that protects users regardless of their blood content, yet still provides a >> way to enforce any “act forbidden by law” >> >> 2) The Age limit >> The age limit of 19 is a flexible number. It has now been changed to >> 21… but if we find a funder who can bank roll the whole thing, and they >> which to use the age of 18-20, it may change again. We will not file >> anything until we have secured the funding to make this happen. >> >> 3) Cartels >> “The protections provided by this section of the California >> Constitution shall not apply to any person or group that … engages in the >> harboring of undocumented migrants used in connection with the protections >> of this section, or deliberately aids any criminal organizations primarily >> operating in a foreign jurisdiction, such as “the cartels”.” >> This is one of the lines many attorneys don’t like at first. This is used >> to take ammunition out of the oppositions hands… Example: “According to >> the respected Mexican Competitiveness Institute’s study on legalizing >> marijuana released this week, the drug cartels would move into operating in >> those states to protect their $6 billion a year industry from U.S growers >> who could make the drug at cheaper prices and higher quality than Mexican >> marijuana smuggled across the international border.” Read more: >> http://www.voxxi.com/legalizing-marijuana-mexican-cartels >> >> By including the language such as “the cartels”, we can combat the >> propaganda of “it will all go to the cartels”. >> >> 4) Mickey Martin – Criminal Penalties v Civil Penalties? >> >> I’m not sure what civil penalties you are referring to. To my >> knowledge, the only penalties regarding marijuana are criminal. >> >> 5) Mickey Martin – “Takes on way too many red hot topics”? >> >> …of all people… This is one of the most absurd reasons, but must >> be addressed. There is no such thing as “too many red hot topics”. In CHFA >> we have attempted to address only one topic, the cannabis plant. If same >> sex marriage can be made illegal with one line “Sec. 7.5. Only marriage >> between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”, we should >> be able to fix the cannabis issue with a few paragraphs. >> >> 6) Mickey Martin “It says nothing about how marijuana is accessed, >> possessed, handled, transported” >> >> Why does it need to address any of that? It protects anyone who provides >> access, transports it, handles it, sells it, etc… What else do you need? >> Mickey, please explain why cannabis should be treated any different then >> any other herb or plant? I hate to say it, but it sounds like you’re >> feeding into the drug war propaganda. Cannabis is not any more dangerous >> then Rhubarb, Jasmine, Mistletoe or any of the common poisonous plants: >> http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/earthkind/landscape/poisonous-plants-resources/common-poisonous-plants-and-plant-parts/ >> >> 7) “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.” >> This section was removed. I’m not sure it was necessary, but the goal was >> to provide protection for people who wished to provide additional >> regulations. >> >> 8) Grammar >> Starchild made some great edits related to grammar. One of our main goals >> is to make this something everyone can understand. Many laws have run-on >> sentences, poor punctuation, and excess verbiage. While grammar is >> important, we have to understand, the law doesn’t care much about it. >> Regardless, the people reading it and talking about it do. In the end, >> before filing, the legal experts will have the final word. >> >> 9) Philosophy / The law should be written by Attorneys >> I’ve heard many people (mostly attorneys) stating thing such as >> “Initiatives should only be written by Attorneys”. To this I say, the law >> is “made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people”. >> Just because someone passed the bar exam does not make them a better >> person. To make a statement that only attorneys can do this, degrades our >> own intelligence, and IMHO the founding fathers intent. Laws should be >> written by the people they effect, and then reviewed by people who >> specialize in the law/voter initiatives (esquire title or not). >> >> What we are attempting to do is write a simple initiative, using the >> people effected by this war, that everyone including the courts can >> understand. With that said, you have my word, before filing anything it >> will be thoroughly reviewed by the best attorneys around. >> >> I welcome any and all response. >> >> Best Regards, >> Dave Hodges >> Founder >> A2C2 – the All American Cannabis Club >> >> >> Here is the latest version: 1.88 >> http://bit.ly/camj2014 >> >> Section 42 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read: >> * >> No California resident or person located within the State of California >> shall be charged with any crime, felony or misdemeanor related to their >> use, growth, possession, transportation, land use, or sales of the cannabis >> or hemp plant, seeds, or pollen. The sales, use, growth or manufacturing of >> cannabis or hemp in any form including any concentrated form of the >> separated resins, whether obtained in crude or purified form, shall not be >> prohibited. The taxation of cannabis or hemp for medical use shall be >> prohibited. The use, growth or sales of the cannabis plant, except for in >> the case of medical use, by persons under the age of 21 may be prohibited, >> but the punishment shall not exceed a civil infraction. >> >> No California resident or person located in California shall be subject >> to employment discrimination based on their usage of cannabis or hemp >> except when performing a task where temporary physical impairment due to >> cannabis use has been scientifically proven to endanger human life (e.g. >> driving a school bus, piloting a commercial aircraft, or operating heavy >> equipment). >> >> Sections 23152 and 23153 of the vehicle code shall not apply to anyone >> using cannabis unless the individual is committing an act forbidden by law, >> or neglecting a duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, concurrently >> has a THC content of more than .5 milligrams per liter of blood, and >> cognitive impairment or loss of functional capacity can be proven. The >> protections provided by this section of the California Constitution shall >> not apply to any person or group that sells or supplies cannabis to anyone >> under the age of 21 without the consent of his or her parents or guardians, >> engages in the harboring of undocumented migrants used in connection with >> the protections of this section, or deliberately aids any criminal >> organizations primarily operating in a foreign jurisdiction, such as “the >> cartels”. >> >> Any total bans or prohibitions of storefront collectives, cooperatives, >> dispensers or providers of cannabis or hemp shall be prohibited. Providers >> of electricity, water or other public utility services shall not charge >> higher rates to any individual, business or group, nor otherwise >> discriminate against individuals or businesses based on the presence, use, >> or handling of cannabis or hemp. >> >> The use of any State of California resources to prohibit, or to enforce >> the prohibition of, 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, or the state or federal government. Any law, >> statute, regulation or policy of the State of California that conflicts >> with this section shall be amended or revised within one year of the >> adoption of this language in order to comply with the intent of this >> section. Any such law, statute, regulation or policy not amended or revised >> within that time period shall be considered void and without legal effect. >> 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 regulation. >> >> 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.* >> >> — >> — >>

Response & Update: Cannabis & Hemp Freedom Act of 2014, California – Rev 1.88

Off the.cuffs response On the emotional level I agree with you on several tones, law should be polished by our lawyer s , not soley drawn up by them, but I was on SF Taskforce legal comittee for three yrs And working withlawyer has the benefits.of sparing with someone who has daily court room experience , and has the knowledge of how it can play out in courts , needed, creating this coalition to make 2014 real is going to take balanced approach. My main point legally and for the vote, is your addressing issue that already in law and it’s not simple enough, regarding how it would work, Mickey concern,.we don’t have to do much more than sb420 compliant, and codify AG guidelines. On Monday, February 18, 2013, Dave Hodges <d..e@a2c2.us> wrote: > Hi All, > > Thank you for all the valuable responses. Looks like we’ve made some more changes. > > I’d like to address some of the concerns in order to help us move forward. > > 1a) DUI: > “Sections 23152 and 23153 of the vehicle code shall not apply to anyone using cannabis unless the individual is committing an act forbidden by law, or neglecting a duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, concurrently has a THC content of more than .5 milligrams per liter of blood, and cognitive impairment or loss of functional capacity can be proven.” > The rationale for the line above is to protect cannabis users from the current DUI Laws. Which leads into: > > 1b) Nanograms Limit: > Under current DUI laws, if you have ANY THC in your blood you can be considered a DUI. The 5 nanogram without a unit for the blood was a type-o. Why have any limit? To make everyone happy, but the key is “, and cognitive impairment or loss of functional capacity can be proven.”. > > In the latest version it has been set to .5 milligrams per liter, but regardless of the amount used “cognitive impairment or loss of functional capacity” must be proven. The goal is to address the DUI issue in a way that protects users regardless of their blood content, yet still provides a way to enforce any “act forbidden by law” > > 2) The Age limit > The age limit of 19 is a flexible number. It has now been changed to 21… but if we find a funder who can bank roll the whole thing, and they which to use the age of 18-20, it may change again. We will not file anything until we have secured the funding to make this happen. > > 3) Cartels > “The protections provided by this section of the California Constitution shall not apply to any person or group that … engages in the harboring of undocumented migrants used in connection with the protections of this section, or deliberately aids any criminal organizations primarily operating in a foreign jurisdiction, such as “the cartels”.” > This is one of the lines many attorneys don’t like at first. This is used to take ammunition out of the oppositions hands… Example: “According to the respected Mexican Competitiveness Institute’s study on legalizing marijuana released this week, the drug cartels would move into operating in those states to protect their $6 billion a year industry from U.S growers who could make the drug at cheaper prices and higher quality than Mexican marijuana smuggled across the international border.” Read more: http://www.voxxi.com/legalizing-marijuana-mexican-cartels > > By including the language such as “the cartels”, we can combat the propaganda of “it will all go to the cartels”. > > 4) Mickey Martin – Criminal Penalties v Civil Penalties? > > I’m not sure what civil penalties you are referring to. To my knowledge, the only penalties regarding marijuana are criminal. > > 5) Mickey Martin – “Takes on way too many red hot topics”? > > …of all people… This is one of the most absurd reasons, but must be addressed. There is no such thing as “too many red hot topics”. In CHFA we have attempted to address only one topic, the cannabis plant. If same sex marriage can be made illegal with one line “Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”, we should be able to fix the cannabis issue with a few paragraphs. > > 6) Mickey Martin “It says nothing about how marijuana is accessed, possessed, handled, transported” > > Why does it need to address any of that? It protects anyone who provides access, transports it, handles it, sells it, etc… What else do you need? Mickey, please explain why cannabis should be treated any different then any other herb or plant? I hate to say it, but it sounds like you’re feeding into the drug war propaganda. Cannabis is not any more dangerous then Rhubarb, Jasmine, Mistletoe or any of the common poisonous plants: http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/earthkind/landscape/poisonous-plants-resources/common-poisonous-plants-and-plant-parts/ > > 7) “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.” > This section was removed. I’m not sure it was necessary, but the goal was to provide protection for people who wished to provide additional regulations. > > 8) Grammar > Starchild made some great edits related to grammar. One of our main goals is to make this something everyone can understand. Many laws have run-on sentences, poor punctuation, and excess verbiage. While grammar is important, we have to understand, the law doesn’t care much about it. Regardless, the people reading it and talking about it do. In the end, before filing, the legal experts will have the final word. > > 9) Philosophy / The law should be written by Attorneys > I’ve heard many people (mostly attorneys) stating thing such as “Initiatives should only be written by Attorneys”. To this I say, the law is “made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people”. Just because someone passed the bar exam does not make them a better person. To make a statement that only attorneys can do this, degrades our own intelligence, and IMHO the founding fathers intent. Laws should be written by the people they effect, and then reviewed by people who specialize in the law/voter initiatives (esquire title or not). > > What we are attempting to do is write a simple initiative, using the people effected by this war, that everyone including the courts can understand. With that said, you have my word, before filing anything it will be thoroughly reviewed by the best attorneys around. > > I welcome any and all response. > > Best Regards, > Dave Hodges > Founder > A2C2 – the All American Cannabis Club > > > Here is the latest version: 1.88 > http://bit.ly/camj2014 > > Section 42 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read: > > No California resident or person located within the State of California shall be charged with any crime, felony or misdemeanor related to their use, growth, possession, transportation, land use, or sales of the cannabis or hemp plant, seeds, or pollen. The sales, use, growth or manufacturing of cannabis or hemp in any form including any concentrated form of the separated resins, whether obtained in crude or purified form, shall not be prohibited. The taxation of cannabis or hemp for medical use shall be prohibited. The use, growth or sales of the cannabis plant, except for in the case of medical use, by persons under the age of 21 may be prohibited, but the punishment shall not exceed a civil infraction. > > No California resident or person located in California shall be subject to employment discrimination based on their usage of cannabis or hemp except when performing a task where temporary physical impairment due to cannabis use has been scientifically proven to endanger human life (e.g. driving a school bus, piloting a commercial aircraft, or operating heavy equipment). > > Sections 23152 and 23153 of the vehicle code shall not apply to anyone using cannabis unless the individual is committing an act forbidden by law, or neglecting a duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, concurrently has a THC content of more than .5 milligrams per liter of blood, and cognitive impairment or loss of functional capacity can be proven. The protections provided by this section of the California Constitution shall not apply to any person or group that sells or supplies cannabis to anyone under the age of 21 without the consent of his or her parents or guardians, engages in the harboring of undocumented migrants used in connection with the protections of this section, or deliberately aids any criminal organizations primarily operating in a foreign jurisdiction, such as “the cartels”. > > Any total bans or prohibitions of storefront collectives, cooperatives, dispensers or providers of cannabis or hemp shall be prohibited. Providers of electricity, water or other public utility services shall not charge higher rates to any individual, business or group, nor otherwise discriminate against individuals or businesses based on the presence, use, or handling of cannabis or hemp. > > The use of any State of California resources to prohibit, or to enforce the prohibition of, 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, or the state or federal government. Any law, statute, regulation or policy of the State of California that conflicts with this section shall be amended or revised within one year of the adoption of this language in order to comply with the intent of this section. Any such law, statute, regulation or policy not amended or revised within that time period shall be considered void and without legal effect. 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 regulation. > > 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. > > — > — >