Monthly Archives: October 2013

Amendments to the 2014 California Marijuana Control, Legalization & Revenue Act (MCLR).

From: dave – January 1, 1970

Hi All We have submitted updated language to MCLR 2014. Attached is the current language and a red line version for reference. Below is the press release explaining more. Best regards Dave Hodges Amendments Filed To The California Marijuana Control Legalization and Revenue Act of 2014. Group Seeks Opportunity To Work With Newsom and Others. SACRAMENTO CA – 103013 – Americans for Policy Reform (AFPR) the group behind the 2014 California Marijuana Legalization Initiative the Marijuana Control Legalization and Revenue Act (MCLR) have filed amendments to the proposed law. The changes were based on both community input and response from the Legislative Analysts Office. Changes include strengthening some penalties and clarifying medical marijuana patient identification card requirements. Filing the amendments restarts the clock as to when signature gathering can begin. The new estimated approval date by the Attorney General is December 23 2013 at which time the proponents have the 150 days allowed to collect signatures for the initiative. Although it would mean restarting the clock once more AFPR is open to more input and hopes to work with Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom the ACLU and others on a unified 2014 effort. Working together is the only way we can avoid splitting efforts states proponent Bob Bowerman. We want leaders like Rob Kampia of Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) and Dale Sky Jones of Coalition For Cannabis Policy Reform (CCPR) to unite with us to make 2014 a reality. By filing todays amendments we maintain our commitment to include recent community input says proponent John Lee. We call on all reform supporters to work together toward legalization in 2014. AFPR wants to unify any other potential 2014 marijuana reform efforts to avoid the failures of the 2012 legalization initiatives. Theres no reason to wait the voters are ready for sensible marijuana laws states proponent Deg Coutee. Recent polls results say its time to pass and implement these laws now. AFPR recently surveyed likely 2014 California voters regarding legalization; the executive summary and results will be released early next week. AFPR encourages all marijuana reform supporters to contact John Lee at johnafpr.us. — You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. To post to this group send email to savecannabisa2c2.us To Unsubscribe from this group send email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org — You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usgroupsoptout. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. Compare-MCLR-Version-1-to-Version-2.pdf MCLR-Version-2-filed-10-29-13.pdf

Next Up: Debate on the Relative Merits of the “Jack Herer” Initiative and the “Save Cannabis” Initiative

From: n.theodore.matavka.files – January 1, 1970

And just one more thing: nothing these days is unregulated and untaxed not to mention marihuana. You even pay taxes on pots and pans before you buy them and these pots and pans still go through a quality-control certification process before they hit shop shelves. On 27 October 2013 17:28 Glenn Macbeth wrote: > I have advocated the complete unregulated and untaxed legalization of > marijuana ever since I started smoking the stuff in 1967. And perhaps a > Canadian can explain how Prop 19 would have somehow been worse for us > Californians than the system that they put in place in their country > > > On Fri Oct 25 2013 at 1:10 AM Nick Matavka < > n.theodore.matavka.filesgmail.com> wrote: > >> Mesdames et messieurs: >> >> It is my humble and considered opinion that a debate would be productive >> in this regard for reasons that shall be elaborated upon later but this >> point must be held in mind by both Mr Hodges and Mrs Pepper: no negative >> criticism towards the other proposition should be made in a form which is >> possible to record in writing. By this is meant the idea that no quotable >> “sound bites” should exist which may be used by the anti-cannabis lobby to >> torpedo both campaigns at once because this would be counter-productive. >> Therefore the positive and unique aspects of each proposition ought to be >> emphasised at the great expense of the negative aspects of the other; this >> way prospective voters may form their own opinions. >> >> The primary and cardinal reason for encouraging a debate is that the >> propositions like it or not are vastly different and fall on two opposite >> sides of the political spectrum. The Jack Herer law would be described by >> its supporters in England as “Liberal”; this is not an insult but merely a >> statement of factthe American political party voted for by a supporter of >> Herer would be the Democrats that’s all the word “Liberal” means. In an >> ideal world as envisaged by the great thinkers of the Left in the 1960’s >> the Jack Herer law would be reasonable and sufficient; for these more >> idealistic thinkers the Save Cannabis initiative would be unreasonably >> restrictive. >> >> On the other hand a Conservative voter such as myself would argue that >> regulations must be established as with every other agricultural not to >> mention medical product. Furthermore it is crucial to establish >> protections for any new categories of industry that may conceivably arise >> so that industry does in fact arise. Finally it is necessary for the >> State to establish licencing for the sole purpose of consumer protection >> although the taxation thereby made possible may be an incentive for some >> voters who otherwise may be against cannabis to support the initiative as >> well. >> >> A final word: there is a substantial segment of the electorate who are >> Randians or Objectivists. What this translates to in practical terms >> other than being a devotee of a particular Russian-American authoress is >> that this person may vote for the Republican Party owing to their strong >> economic and foreign policy agenda but will privately be against any form >> of State interference into private affairs. Such a person is also known >> as a Thatcherite Conservative or a Reaganite Republican. This person will >> be a strong supporter of legalisation but will absolutely refuse to simply >> allow it onto the open market much as one would furniture or pots and pans. >> >> Two referenda are in fact advantageous as there is something for >> everybody no matter their position on the political spectrum. Similarly >> this debate would be a boon as it would allow people to find out the side >> of the spectrum on which they stand. For instance a liberal such as Wm >> Clinton would probably find the Herer law to his taste whereas Mayor Boris >> (who has informally pledged his support for this) or Mitt Romney would more >> likely go for Save Cannabis instead. Of course a hardline conservative >> like say Rick Santorum would most probably refuse to vote for either but >> this is the point of democracy. >> >> Cordially >> >> N. E. Matavka >> >> ——————————————- >> >> tl;dr – Yes please have the debate because one referendum is more >> conservative than the other and we need to attract everyone. Please don’t >> use negative statements; accentuate the positives instead. >> >> >> On 21 October 2013 14:25 David Malmo-Levine wrote: >> >>> I can’t believe how many authoritarian opportunists have found their way >>> into the movement. I would rather people vote based upon awareness than >>> obedience – with awareness comes the ability to convince the skeptical – of >>> which there are many. Even Panzer noted (at the last second) Prop 19 would >>> have threatened med pot growing rights – if you support the devious Prop >>> 19 ignorance and obedience what does that say about you What are you >>> afraid of people discovering through discussion and debate Or are you just >>> used to getting your way without question and you assume that’s the way the >>> whole world works too >>> On 2013-10-21 7:21 AM “Glenn Macbeth” wrote: >>> >>>> Great answer Bob. We remember that Ms Pepper opposed Prop 19 and >>>> appears to promote conflict. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue Oct 15 2013 at 9:32 PM Starchild wrote: >>>> >>>>> Michael & Bob >>>>> >>>>> If a debate helps raise the profile of both campaigns then it >>>>> wouldn’t be a waste of time in your view would it If there is concern >>>>> about hurting each other with negativity perhaps the format could consist >>>>> of a proponent for each initiative discussing what’s good about the >>>>> initiative they support rather than what’s bad about the other initiative. >>>>> That way people could compare the two by reading between the lines without >>>>> supplying a lot of negative factsquotes that could be quoted by the media >>>>> or used by opponents. It seems to me that debates like this can be useful >>>>> for helping focus the community’s attention and getting people up to speed >>>>> on what’s being circulated. >>>>> >>>>> Love & Liberty >>>>> ((( starchild ))) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 15 2013 at 7:56 PM wave rider wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > We want to simply mobilize people for CCHI 2014 and not interested >>>>> in debating ONLY LIBERATING >>>>> > A debate is distracting energy from actually organizing volunteers >>>>> We expect 1000 plus volunteers on the streets by Oct 31 2013 >>>>> > A debate is 100 useless because both campaigns are going so it’s >>>>> PISSING IN THE WIND >>>>> > We don’t have time to piss in the wind >>>>> > We need to mobilize volunteers and can’t waste time in a pissing >>>>> contest >>>>> > Thanks >>>>> > Michael jolson >>>>> > CCHI 2014 >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad >>>>> > >>>>> > From: Bob Bowerman ; >>>>> > To: savecannabisa2c2.us ; davea2c2.us < >>>>> davea2c2.us>; Michael Jolson ; Bert Duzy < >>>>> bduzyprodigy.net>; Lanny Swerdlow ; >>>>> GlobalMarijuanaReLegalizationyahoogroups.com < >>>>> GlobalMarijuanaReLegalizationyahoogroups.com>; >>>>> sfbaycannabiscommunityyahoogroups.com < >>>>> sfbaycannabiscommunityyahoogroups.com>; >>>>> > Subject: RE: Save Cannabis Next Up: Debate on the Relative Merits >>>>> of the “Jack Herer” Initiative and the “Save Cannabis” Initiative >>>>> > Sent: Tue Oct 15 2013 4:21:10 PM >>>>> > >>>>> > Not up for debate >>>>> > >>>>> > Support both or join the opposition against cannabis >>>>> > >>>>> > If all you want to do is fight fine someone else >>>>> > >>>>> > We are all busy trying to get cannabis legalized and dont have time >>>>> for more in-cannabis-fighting >>>>> > >>>>> > Why is it so hard for you to understand that >>>>> > >>>>> > Bob >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > From: Letitia Pepper mailto:letitiapepperyahoo.com >>>>> > Sent: Sunday October 13 2013 9:00 PM >>>>> > To: savecannabisa2c2.us; davea2c2.us; Michael Jolson; Bert Duzy; >>>>> Lanny Swerdlow; GlobalMarijuanaReLegalizationyahoogroups.com; >>>>> sfbaycannabiscommunityyahoogroups.com >>>>> > Subject: Save Cannabis Next Up: Debate on the Relative Merits of >>>>> the “Jack Herer” Initiative and the “Save Cannabis” Initiative >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Hi everyone: >>>>> > >>>>> > I heard that the “Save Cannabis” initiative was filed this last >>>>> Friday. >>>>> > >>>>> > The “Jack Herer” Initiative was filed at the very end of August. >>>>> > >>>>> > At the Rally Against Reefer Madness in Rancho Cucamonga on >>>>> September 23 2013 Dave Hodges agreed that he would debate me on the >>>>> relative merits of these two initiatives. >>>>> > >>>>> > Lanny Swerdlow activist extraordinaire and host of the radio >>>>> and TV shows “Compassion and Common Sense” has agreed to help find a >>>>> location for such a debate and to help put it on. >>>>> > >>>>> > Now that both initiatives have been filed let’s try to get >>>>> something scheduled as soon as possible >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Letitia Pepper Director of Legal and Legislative Analysis for >>>>> > >>>>> > Crusaders for Patients’ Rights >>>>> > >>>>> > — >>>>> > You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis >>>>> group. >>>>> > >>>>> > To post to this group send email to >>>>> > savecannabisa2c2.us >>>>> > >>>>> > To Unsubscribe from this group send email to >>>>> > savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us >>>>> > >>>>> > View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org >>>>> > — >>>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups “Save Cannabis” group. >>>>> > For more options visit >>>>> https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usgroupsoptout. >>>>> > >>>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it >>>>> send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > — >>>>> > You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis >>>>> group. >>>>> > >>>>> > To post to this group send email to >>>>> > savecannabisa2c2.us >>>>> > >>>>> > To Unsubscribe from this group send email to >>>>> > savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us >>>>> > >>>>> > View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org >>>>> > — >>>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups “Save Cannabis” group. >>>>> > For more options visit >>>>> https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usgroupsoptout. >>>>> > >>>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it >>>>> send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. >>>>> >>>>> — >>>>> You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis >>>>> group. >>>>> >>>>> To post to this group send email to >>>>> savecannabisa2c2.us >>>>> >>>>> To Unsubscribe from this group send email to >>>>> savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us >>>>> >>>>> View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org >>>>> — >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups “Save Cannabis” group. >>>>> For more options visit >>>>> https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usgroupsoptout. >>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send >>>>> an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. >>>>> >>>> >>>> — >>>> You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis >>>> group. >>>> >>>> To post to this group send email to >>>> savecannabisa2c2.us >>>> >>>> To Unsubscribe from this group send email to >>>> savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us >>>> >>>> View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org >>>> — >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups “Save Cannabis” group. >>>> For more options visit >>>> https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usgroupsoptout. >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send >>>> an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. >>>> >>> — >>> You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. >>> >>> To post to this group send email to >>> savecannabisa2c2.us >>> >>> To Unsubscribe from this group send email to >>> savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us >>> >>> View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org >>> — >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups “Save Cannabis” group. >>> For more options visit >>> https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usgroupsoptout. >>> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send >>> an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. >>> >> >> >> >> — >> >> —- >> —‘—- >> L >> ( — >> >> —- >> >> >> o o >> – >> ( )) o o —‘ >> – >> >> >> >> >> >> — >> You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. >> >> To post to this group send email to >> savecannabisa2c2.us >> >> To Unsubscribe from this group send email to >> savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us >> >> View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org >> — >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> “Save Cannabis” group. >> For more options visit >> https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usgroupsoptout. >> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an >> email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. >> > > — > You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. > > To post to this group send email to > savecannabisa2c2.us > > To Unsubscribe from this group send email to > savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us > > View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org > — > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > “Save Cannabis” group. > For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usgroupsoptout > . > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an > email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. > — —- —‘—- L ( — —- o o – ( )) o o —‘ – — You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. To post to this group send email to savecannabisa2c2.us To Unsubscribe from this group send email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org — You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usgroupsoptout. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us.

Next Up: Debate on the Relative Merits of the “Jack Herer” Initiative and the “Save Cannabis” Initiative

From: n.theodore.matavka.files – January 1, 1970

Mr Macbeth: I never mentioned a single thing about Proposition 19. I am undecided on Proposition 19. I actually LIKE the system that is in place in Canada (beats Englandno legalised marihuana there) except for the fact that it’s medical-only. In fact the Save Cannabis initiative is based on the Canadian law so much do I respect that lawit has privatised marihuana growing for the first time Regards N. E. Matavka On 27 October 2013 17:28 Glenn Macbeth wrote: > I have advocated the complete unregulated and untaxed legalization of > marijuana ever since I started smoking the stuff in 1967. And perhaps a > Canadian can explain how Prop 19 would have somehow been worse for us > Californians than the system that they put in place in their country > > > On Fri Oct 25 2013 at 1:10 AM Nick Matavka < > n.theodore.matavka.filesgmail.com> wrote: > >> Mesdames et messieurs: >> >> It is my humble and considered opinion that a debate would be productive >> in this regard for reasons that shall be elaborated upon later but this >> point must be held in mind by both Mr Hodges and Mrs Pepper: no negative >> criticism towards the other proposition should be made in a form which is >> possible to record in writing. By this is meant the idea that no quotable >> “sound bites” should exist which may be used by the anti-cannabis lobby to >> torpedo both campaigns at once because this would be counter-productive. >> Therefore the positive and unique aspects of each proposition ought to be >> emphasised at the great expense of the negative aspects of the other; this >> way prospective voters may form their own opinions. >> >> The primary and cardinal reason for encouraging a debate is that the >> propositions like it or not are vastly different and fall on two opposite >> sides of the political spectrum. The Jack Herer law would be described by >> its supporters in England as “Liberal”; this is not an insult but merely a >> statement of factthe American political party voted for by a supporter of >> Herer would be the Democrats that’s all the word “Liberal” means. In an >> ideal world as envisaged by the great thinkers of the Left in the 1960’s >> the Jack Herer law would be reasonable and sufficient; for these more >> idealistic thinkers the Save Cannabis initiative would be unreasonably >> restrictive. >> >> On the other hand a Conservative voter such as myself would argue that >> regulations must be established as with every other agricultural not to >> mention medical product. Furthermore it is crucial to establish >> protections for any new categories of industry that may conceivably arise >> so that industry does in fact arise. Finally it is necessary for the >> State to establish licencing for the sole purpose of consumer protection >> although the taxation thereby made possible may be an incentive for some >> voters who otherwise may be against cannabis to support the initiative as >> well. >> >> A final word: there is a substantial segment of the electorate who are >> Randians or Objectivists. What this translates to in practical terms >> other than being a devotee of a particular Russian-American authoress is >> that this person may vote for the Republican Party owing to their strong >> economic and foreign policy agenda but will privately be against any form >> of State interference into private affairs. Such a person is also known >> as a Thatcherite Conservative or a Reaganite Republican. This person will >> be a strong supporter of legalisation but will absolutely refuse to simply >> allow it onto the open market much as one would furniture or pots and pans. >> >> Two referenda are in fact advantageous as there is something for >> everybody no matter their position on the political spectrum. Similarly >> this debate would be a boon as it would allow people to find out the side >> of the spectrum on which they stand. For instance a liberal such as Wm >> Clinton would probably find the Herer law to his taste whereas Mayor Boris >> (who has informally pledged his support for this) or Mitt Romney would more >> likely go for Save Cannabis instead. Of course a hardline conservative >> like say Rick Santorum would most probably refuse to vote for either but >> this is the point of democracy. >> >> Cordially >> >> N. E. Matavka >> >> ——————————————- >> >> tl;dr – Yes please have the debate because one referendum is more >> conservative than the other and we need to attract everyone. Please don’t >> use negative statements; accentuate the positives instead. >> >> >> On 21 October 2013 14:25 David Malmo-Levine wrote: >> >>> I can’t believe how many authoritarian opportunists have found their way >>> into the movement. I would rather people vote based upon awareness than >>> obedience – with awareness comes the ability to convince the skeptical – of >>> which there are many. Even Panzer noted (at the last second) Prop 19 would >>> have threatened med pot growing rights – if you support the devious Prop >>> 19 ignorance and obedience what does that say about you What are you >>> afraid of people discovering through discussion and debate Or are you just >>> used to getting your way without question and you assume that’s the way the >>> whole world works too >>> On 2013-10-21 7:21 AM “Glenn Macbeth” wrote: >>> >>>> Great answer Bob. We remember that Ms Pepper opposed Prop 19 and >>>> appears to promote conflict. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue Oct 15 2013 at 9:32 PM Starchild wrote: >>>> >>>>> Michael & Bob >>>>> >>>>> If a debate helps raise the profile of both campaigns then it >>>>> wouldn’t be a waste of time in your view would it If there is concern >>>>> about hurting each other with negativity perhaps the format could consist >>>>> of a proponent for each initiative discussing what’s good about the >>>>> initiative they support rather than what’s bad about the other initiative. >>>>> That way people could compare the two by reading between the lines without >>>>> supplying a lot of negative factsquotes that could be quoted by the media >>>>> or used by opponents. It seems to me that debates like this can be useful >>>>> for helping focus the community’s attention and getting people up to speed >>>>> on what’s being circulated. >>>>> >>>>> Love & Liberty >>>>> ((( starchild ))) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 15 2013 at 7:56 PM wave rider wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > We want to simply mobilize people for CCHI 2014 and not interested >>>>> in debating ONLY LIBERATING >>>>> > A debate is distracting energy from actually organizing volunteers >>>>> We expect 1000 plus volunteers on the streets by Oct 31 2013 >>>>> > A debate is 100 useless because both campaigns are going so it’s >>>>> PISSING IN THE WIND >>>>> > We don’t have time to piss in the wind >>>>> > We need to mobilize volunteers and can’t waste time in a pissing >>>>> contest >>>>> > Thanks >>>>> > Michael jolson >>>>> > CCHI 2014 >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad >>>>> > >>>>> > From: Bob Bowerman ; >>>>> > To: savecannabisa2c2.us ; davea2c2.us < >>>>> davea2c2.us>; Michael Jolson ; Bert Duzy < >>>>> bduzyprodigy.net>; Lanny Swerdlow ; >>>>> GlobalMarijuanaReLegalizationyahoogroups.com < >>>>> GlobalMarijuanaReLegalizationyahoogroups.com>; >>>>> sfbaycannabiscommunityyahoogroups.com < >>>>> sfbaycannabiscommunityyahoogroups.com>; >>>>> > Subject: RE: Save Cannabis Next Up: Debate on the Relative Merits >>>>> of the “Jack Herer” Initiative and the “Save Cannabis” Initiative >>>>> > Sent: Tue Oct 15 2013 4:21:10 PM >>>>> > >>>>> > Not up for debate >>>>> > >>>>> > Support both or join the opposition against cannabis >>>>> > >>>>> > If all you want to do is fight fine someone else >>>>> > >>>>> > We are all busy trying to get cannabis legalized and dont have time >>>>> for more in-cannabis-fighting >>>>> > >>>>> > Why is it so hard for you to understand that >>>>> > >>>>> > Bob >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > From: Letitia Pepper mailto:letitiapepperyahoo.com >>>>> > Sent: Sunday October 13 2013 9:00 PM >>>>> > To: savecannabisa2c2.us; davea2c2.us; Michael Jolson; Bert Duzy; >>>>> Lanny Swerdlow; GlobalMarijuanaReLegalizationyahoogroups.com; >>>>> sfbaycannabiscommunityyahoogroups.com >>>>> > Subject: Save Cannabis Next Up: Debate on the Relative Merits of >>>>> the “Jack Herer” Initiative and the “Save Cannabis” Initiative >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Hi everyone: >>>>> > >>>>> > I heard that the “Save Cannabis” initiative was filed this last >>>>> Friday. >>>>> > >>>>> > The “Jack Herer” Initiative was filed at the very end of August. >>>>> > >>>>> > At the Rally Against Reefer Madness in Rancho Cucamonga on >>>>> September 23 2013 Dave Hodges agreed that he would debate me on the >>>>> relative merits of these two initiatives. >>>>> > >>>>> > Lanny Swerdlow activist extraordinaire and host of the radio >>>>> and TV shows “Compassion and Common Sense” has agreed to help find a >>>>> location for such a debate and to help put it on. >>>>> > >>>>> > Now that both initiatives have been filed let’s try to get >>>>> something scheduled as soon as possible >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Letitia Pepper Director of Legal and Legislative Analysis for >>>>> > >>>>> > Crusaders for Patients’ Rights >>>>> > >>>>> > — >>>>> > You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis >>>>> group. >>>>> > >>>>> > To post to this group send email to >>>>> > savecannabisa2c2.us >>>>> > >>>>> > To Unsubscribe from this group send email to >>>>> > savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us >>>>> > >>>>> > View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org >>>>> > — >>>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups “Save Cannabis” group. >>>>> > For more options visit >>>>> https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usgroupsoptout. >>>>> > >>>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it >>>>> send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > — >>>>> > You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis >>>>> group. >>>>> > >>>>> > To post to this group send email to >>>>> > savecannabisa2c2.us >>>>> > >>>>> > To Unsubscribe from this group send email to >>>>> > savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us >>>>> > >>>>> > View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org >>>>> > — >>>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups “Save Cannabis” group. >>>>> > For more options visit >>>>> https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usgroupsoptout. >>>>> > >>>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it >>>>> send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. >>>>> >>>>> — >>>>> You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis >>>>> group. >>>>> >>>>> To post to this group send email to >>>>> savecannabisa2c2.us >>>>> >>>>> To Unsubscribe from this group send email to >>>>> savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us >>>>> >>>>> View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org >>>>> — >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups “Save Cannabis” group. >>>>> For more options visit >>>>> https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usgroupsoptout. >>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send >>>>> an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. >>>>> >>>> >>>> — >>>> You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis >>>> group. >>>> >>>> To post to this group send email to >>>> savecannabisa2c2.us >>>> >>>> To Unsubscribe from this group send email to >>>> savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us >>>> >>>> View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org >>>> — >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups “Save Cannabis” group. >>>> For more options visit >>>> https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usgroupsoptout. >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send >>>> an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. >>>> >>> — >>> You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. >>> >>> To post to this group send email to >>> savecannabisa2c2.us >>> >>> To Unsubscribe from this group send email to >>> savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us >>> >>> View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org >>> — >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups “Save Cannabis” group. >>> For more options visit >>> https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usgroupsoptout. >>> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send >>> an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. >>> >> >> >> >> — >> >> —- >> —‘—- >> L >> ( — >> >> —- >> >> >> o o >> – >> ( )) o o —‘ >> – >> >> >> >> >> >> — >> You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. >> >> To post to this group send email to >> savecannabisa2c2.us >> >> To Unsubscribe from this group send email to >> savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us >> >> View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org >> — >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> “Save Cannabis” group. >> For more options visit >> https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usgroupsoptout. >> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an >> email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. >> > > — > You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. > > To post to this group send email to > savecannabisa2c2.us > > To Unsubscribe from this group send email to > savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us > > View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org > — > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > “Save Cannabis” group. > For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usgroupsoptout > . > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an > email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. > — —- —‘—- L ( — —- o o – ( )) o o —‘ – — You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. To post to this group send email to savecannabisa2c2.us To Unsubscribe from this group send email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org — You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usgroupsoptout. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us.

Chris Conrad on Hemp & Hemp Museum plus Report from International Drug Policy Forum on Radio Show

From: elmoby59 – January 1, 1970

Hey Lanny Last night we had a surprise guest at Blue Monday. Karmel Roe came by to greet us. She is running for Mayor of San Bernardino. She told everyone in the room that she is for legalization When Imentioned you and your Radio Show Shetold meshe has been trying to be a guest. I told her that I’d see what I can do. If you’d like to interview her she can be reached at http:www.yourmayor4prayer.com I don’t know if you’ve ever had a Mayoral Candidate eager to be on your show before. Maybe this could set a precedent. Have Fun in Palm Springs Rory Yes that IS her real website. On Monday October 28 2013 9:29 AM LANNYSWERDLOW wrote: Chris Conrad will definitely be our featured guest on the 6 p.m. Monday Oct. 28 broadcast and simulcast of Marijuana Compassion and Common Sense. Chris will be discussing Californias newest hemp law saving the Hemp Museum and the re-emergence of the West Coast Leaf. Our second guest will be Chris Cauhape Victor Michel and myself reporting on what transpired at the Drug Policy Alliances International Drug Policy Conference held last week in Denver Colorado. The networking and seminars were incredible hear all about them from three who were there. This is truly an international conference and info on drug policy reform and marijuana law reform from around the world was presented and will be discussed. Tune in this Monday Oct. 28 at 6 p.m. and every Monday at 6 p.m. for news views entertainment and humor on Marijuana Compassion and Common Sense broadcast on IE Talk Radio KCAA 1050AM and simulcast at kcaaradio.com (click on LISTEN LIVE or USTREAM to hear and watch us in the KCAA studios. Past shows are archived as podcasts at the kcaardio.com scroll down on the home page to Marijuana Compassion and Common Sense and click on PODCAST. — You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. To post to this group send email to savecannabisa2c2.us To Unsubscribe from this group send email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us View Archives at http:savecannabis.org — You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usgroupsoptout. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. — You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. To post to this group send email to savecannabisa2c2.us To Unsubscribe from this group send email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org — You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usgroupsoptout. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us.

sf city hall mmj grp monday,noon, rm278

From: axisoflovesf – January 1, 1970

Happy gloomy Sunday Everyone who cares about preventing restriction on zoning in Sf is invited to partake in a consensus building policy conversation at san Francisco’s city hall. Monday Oct.28th rm.278 margret muiguire conference room. Many thanks to board president David Chiu and his staff for providing this space for us to unify around our shared concerns. I’ve had a couple of discussions regards to goals focus of our agenda. The common theme seems to be how do we educate our full board that this negitively impacts more than avalos district. How do we effectively do this educate with less than a week before its voted upon Nov.5 Supervisor Avalos also amend 500ft to 1000ft that amend I believe stayed in comittee which means we can comment Land use meets Monday’s at 130 Our next Sf city hall meetup will be Nov.11 Board president Chiu will be in attendance Looking forward Shona(phone#-removed) P.s. could someone pls forward to Matt kumin as his clients are directly impacted — Shona Gochenaur Executive Director Axis of Love SF http:www.facebook.comaxisoflove http:www.twitter.comaxisoflove — You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. To post to this group send email to savecannabisa2c2.us To Unsubscribe from this group send email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org — You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usgroupsoptout. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us.