Monthly Archives: November 2013

CCHI / MCLR in response to Letitia

From: dave – January 1, 1970

Hi Debbie I will attempt to address all of your issues. 1) “over-regulation is leading to invasion of privacy in every aspect of our lives.” This is the danger with letting the legislature have full control of creating the regulatory body such as is done in CCHI: From CCHI “Within 6 months of the passage of this Act the legislature is required upon thorough investigation to enact legislation using reasonable standards” Issue A) You can not require the “legislature” to vote yes on anything… Issue B) The commission will be created by the lobbyists campaign contributors we all fear. This will be people like the CNOA CalChiefs the League of Cities etc. Issue C) “reasonable” is not a defined term. What is “reasonable” to you or I is different to the legislature. 2) “For the purpose of distinguishing personal from commercial production 99 flowering female plants and 12 pounds of dried cured cannabis hemp flowers but not leaf produced per adult 21 years of age and older per year shall be presumed as being for personal use.” I agree 99 plants is a good number but indoor that could only produce 1 lb every 3 months. 99 plants vs 100 sqft is a tuff one. MCLR choose the 100 sqft model based on not wanting to limit the plant count and the fact 99 plants sounds like more then 100 sqft to the non-cannabis users. The other factor has to do with urban residential areas where 99 plants in a backyard would cause a public nuisance. 3) “People aren’t prevented from producing more it just get’s classified as a commercial operation and a tax becomes necessary.” This could be a HUGE problem for anyone who accidentally produces more then the 12 lbs limit. So if you filled your backyard with 20 plants and got 20 lbs you now have to pay taxes on it That sound like a nightmare to me. 4) “Place an excise tax on commercial sale of cannabis hemp euphoric products analogous to Californias wine industry model so long as no excise tax or combination of excise taxes shall exceed 10 of the retail price of the products. ” The reason I addressed this issue was Letitia stated CCHI has no “regulation or taxation”. It does and this tax and regulations could affect any home grower who accidentally produces more then 12 lbs with their 99 plants. 5) “In addition you say this CCHI will have a lot of legal challenges. Actually WE are bringing the legal challenges to THEM.” You highlighted the “immediate release from prison” and you are correct this will be challenged. In fact based on the legal advice MCLR received this section exceeds the “single subject rule” for initiatives. There are more legal issues with CCHI but that is the biggest one. 6) Regarding my communication with Letitia Pepper I have requested her input for months. The last time was November 12th and she responded with making false claims about MCLR and accusations. I have asked for Letitia’s cooperation in uniting the community so many times I’ve given up. Now I’m calling her out on her bs. Best regards Dave Hodges On Sat Nov 30 2013 at 12:39 PM Debbie Tharp wrote: > And an additional point regarding point number 8 — over-regulation is > leading to invasion of privacy in every aspect of our lives. The best way > to address that is to keep the federal government out of our personal > health decisions completely. You’re right CCHI does propose a tax. It > should be as minimally invasive a tax as that which is paid when buying a > six pack of beer. > > Leticia was right in the point that > > (1) No permit license or tax shall be required for the non-commercial cultivation transportation distribution or consumption of cannabis hemp. > > > > As far as commercial goes > > “For the purpose of distinguishing personal from commercial production 99 flowering female plants and 12 pounds of dried cured cannabis hemp flowers but not leaf produced per adult 21 years of age and older per year shall be presumed as being for personal use.” > > > > There’s your answer to number 8 > > > > People aren’t prevented from producing more it just get’s classified as a commercial operation and a tax becomes necessary. > > In addition it’s not a 10 tax it’s just not to exceed ten percent: > > > 2. Place an excise tax on commercial sale of cannabis hemp euphoric products analogous to Californias wine industry model so long as no excise tax or combination of excise taxes shall exceed 10 of the retail price of the products. Fifty percent of the excise tax revenues collected shall be made available for the research development and promotion of industrial nutritional and medicinal hemp industries in California. > > > > In addition you say this CCHI will have a lot of legal challenges. Actually WE are bringing the legal challenges to THEM. > > > 1. Enactment of this initiative shall include: the case by case review for the purpose of sentence modification amnesty immediate release from prison jail parole and probation andor clearing expunging and deletion of all cannabis hemp marijuana criminal records for all persons currently charged with or convicted of any non-violent cannabis hemp marijuana offenses included in or modified by this initiative which are hereby no longer illegal andor applicable in the State of California. People who fall within this category that triggered an original sentence are included within this provision. > 2(a) Within 60 days of the passage of this Act the Attorney General shall develop and distribute a one-page application providing for the destruction of all cannabis hemp marijuana criminal records in California for any such offense invalidated by this Act. Such forms shall be distributed to district and city attorneys made available at all police departments in the State and made available electronically at http:www.courts.govforms.html to persons hereby affected. Upon filing such form with any Superior Court and a payment of a fee of 10.00 the Court shall liberally construe these provisions to benefit the defendant in furtherance of the amnesty and dismissal provision of this section. Upon the Courts ruling under this provision the arrest record shall be set aside and be destroyed. Such persons may then truthfully state that they have never been arrested or convicted of any cannabis hemp marijuana related offense that is hereby no longer illegal in the State of California. This shall be deemed to be a finding of factual innocence under California Penal Code Section 851.8 et seq. > > > > Of course there’s going to be conflict. Whoever does this we are fighting federal authorities and basically fighting against one of the largest police states in the world. > > > > > > > > > On Sat Nov 30 2013 at 12:15 PM Debbie Tharp wrote: > >> correction the previous message was typed on my phone. What I meant to >> say was “You just told this woman that she seems only interested in >> spreading lies and misinformation and then said you hope to work with her. >> How are any of us to take such a condescending and duplicitous MESSAGE with >> more than a grain of salt. You disappoint me Dave. I don’t know how you >> expect us to take you seriously with such a glaring lack of diplomacy. >> unbelievable” >> >> >> On Sat Nov 30 2013 at 12:08 PM Debbie Tharp > > wrote: >> >>> You just told this woman that she seems only interested in spreading >>> lies and misinformation and then said you hope to work with her. How are >>> any of us to take such a condescending and duplicitous with more than a >>> grain of salt. You disappoint me Dave. I don’t know how you expect us to >>> take you seriously with such a glaring lack of diplomacy. unbelievable >>> On Nov 30 2013 11:49 AM “Dave Hodges” wrote: >>> >>>> Letitia >>>> >>>> I had hoped you would provide a detailed list of issues with MCLR as I >>>> have done with CCHI back in June: http:bit.lyWhatsWrongWithCCHI >>>> >>>> I really wish you could be a positive force to change the law >>>> surrounding the cannabis plant but it appears you wish only to spread lies >>>> and misinformation. >>>> >>>> I’ll attempt to address all the misinformation you have presented in >>>> your last 10 emails. >>>> >>>> >>>> 1) You claim of a “secretive nature and potential for cronyism this >>>> initiative” >>>> There is nothing “secretive” about what we are doing. We have presented >>>> the language of MCLR in an open public forum and requested input from >>>> everyone (including you). I’m not sure where you get the “cronyism” from. >>>> The Commission you complain about was designed to be an independent >>>> bipartisan group setup similar to the California Fair Political Practices >>>> Commission. This was the most fair independent structure we could find. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2) You claim that you “read the whole thing and took notes” and “saw >>>> just how bad it really is.” >>>> Can you please provide these notes We plan to re-file next week. So if >>>> it is really that bad and you provide the details there is still time for >>>> changes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 3) You claimed I was at a 1127 meeting in Sacramento and that I >>>> stated “that the initiative as written would be subject to legal >>>> challenge.” >>>> I was driving back from LA 1127 and was not in Sacramento. The >>>> statement that “the initiative as written would be subject to legal >>>> challenge.” is not true for MCLR but it is true for CCHI… If passed CCHI >>>> will have MANY legal challenges. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 4) You claim that MCLR was “kicked back by the Legislative Analyst’s >>>> Office (LAO) for reasons Dave Hodges has refused to reveal” >>>> The LAO does not “kick back” an initiative. They ask questions of the >>>> authors to see if the LAO interpretation of the language is what the >>>> proponents intended. >>>> >>>> I have stated the reasons we plan to re-file but for clarity I will >>>> restate the issues that caused the 1st re-filing. >>>> >>>> >>>> LAO Issue 1) in section 27710 (a) stated “Adults may cultivate no >>>> more than 100 square feet of cannabis plant canopy outdoor per acre per >>>> individual…” >>>> the language should have been: >>>> >>>> “(a) Adults may cultivate no more than 100 square feet of cannabis >>>> plant canopy outdoor per individual with a maximum of 100 square feet per >>>> acre per individual and 100 square feet of cannabis plant canopy indoor >>>> per individual on his or her property. No more than ten (10) adults may >>>> aggregate together for the purpose of forming a non-medical >>>> non-commercial unregulated cannabis garden.” >>>> >>>> >>>> LAO Issue 2) in section 27105. Zoning; Voter Referendum (c) stated >>>> “Except as set forth in subsections (d)…” >>>> the language should have been: >>>> >>>> “(c) Except as set forth in subsections (b) and (d)…” >>>> >>>> The rest of the changes in Version 2 were input taken from the >>>> community response. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 5) You claim that “MCLR is based on taxing and regulating people’s >>>> interactions with the plant instead of protecting individual adults’ and >>>> patients’ rights to grow and use a plant for personal use without being >>>> taxed licensed and regulated out of doing so and being forced to become >>>> mere consumers for dispensary owners” >>>> This is the farthest from the truth. MCLR creates rights adults do not >>>> currently have such as the non-medical grow. It also protects the rights >>>> provided by Prop 215 & SB 420 and creates a new “regulated” industry for >>>> people who cannot produce their own. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 6) You claim that MCLR “limits personal cultivation to only 100 square >>>> feet of canopy per parcel no matter how many people depend on that parcel >>>> for medicine and no matter how large the parcel is” and that “This >>>> initiative definitely impairs the right to grow cannabis for one’s self and >>>> one’s family.” >>>> Under MCLR each adult 21 and over may have a 100 sqft grow space indoor >>>> and outdoor. Up to 10 people can grow on the same property. This creates a >>>> maximum 1000 sqft indoor & 1000 sqft outdoor of NON-MEDICAL >>>> NON-COMMERCIAL UNREGULATED cannabis garden. This DOES NOT AFFECT ANY >>>> MEDICAL CANNABIS GARDENS. >>>> >>>> Hopefully a small change in 27200. Medical Cannabis Protections will >>>> clarify this for you. The new language is: >>>> >>>> This Act shall not LIMIT OR adversely affect the individual and group >>>> CULTIVATION RIGHTS medical rights and protections afforded by Health and >>>> Safety Code Sections 11362.5 through 11362.83 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 7) You claim that “CCHI is with no regulation or taxation” >>>> CCHI clearly states: “Place an excise tax on commercial sale of >>>> cannabis hemp euphoric products analogous to Californias wine industry >>>> model so long as no excise tax or combination of excise taxes shall exceed >>>> 10 of the retail price of the products.” >>>> >>>> That sounds like a Tax to me… >>>> >>>> and no “regulation”… I’m not sure how anyone could consider that a >>>> good thing. Just look at what is happening in Washington. Without >>>> regulations you create chaos and hurt everyone who cannot grow their own. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 8) Your concern that we protect the growers and operators information >>>> from the California Public Records Act. >>>> This is based on the fear of law enforcement & the federal government >>>> abusing the public information. If they want the information they need a >>>> warrant. If you have a better suggestion on how to protect that >>>> information please provide it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 9) Your statement that “the latest revision has still not even been >>>> filed let alone released to be printed and circulated. And they have only >>>> until April 18 to turn in all signatures. That’s less than 150 days.” >>>> When we file the final version December 6th we may have less than 90 >>>> days to collect signatures. >>>> >>>> CCHI’s circulation deadline is 022414. MCLR may not be cleared for >>>> circulation until mid January and will have until April 28th to collect >>>> signatures. >>>> >>>> We know this can be done based on Prop 9 aka Marsy’s Law which Passed >>>> in the 2008 Election: >>>> >>>> Final version filed: 1272007 >>>> Length as filed: 44 pages >>>> UpdatesVersions filed: 3 >>>> Signatures required: 694354 >>>> >>>> This historical information shows it has been done before and can be >>>> done again. Notice Marsy’s law required 190k more signatures than MCLR or >>>> CCHI will require. >>>> >>>> >>>> 10) Regarding the fact that many see you as a “traitor to the >>>> Movement” And that you are “loyal to your own self-interest: I want the >>>> freedom to grow and use cannabis without being forced to buy it from the >>>> state or from a corporation or an illicit source.” >>>> >>>> I am not sure I would call you a “traitor” more someone that jumps to >>>> conclusions without being open to trying to understand the other side. Ego >>>> is a human flaw and it seems you let yours get in the way a lot. >>>> >>>> In our brief discussion at the Rancho Cucamonga event I attempted to >>>> tell you how the collective I founded DOES NOT PAY ANY TAXES and that the >>>> way we operate fits into your understanding of Prop 215 and SB 420. Yet you >>>> still lump me in with the “tax & regulate” crowd. >>>> >>>> I too want the “freedom to grow and use cannabis without being forced >>>> to buy it from the state or from a corporation” and MCLR is designed to >>>> support just that. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The facts: >>>> >>>> – >>>> >>>> MCLR protects Prop. 215 SB 420 & codifies the 2008 Attorney >>>> General Guidelines >>>> – >>>> >>>> MCLR does not infringe on any growing or other medical rights >>>> provided by Prop. 215 and SB 420. >>>> – >>>> >>>> MCLR creates a way for adults 21 & over to grow up to 1000 sqft >>>> indoor & outdoor on any one property for non-medical use unregulated & >>>> untaxed. >>>> – >>>> >>>> MCLR is compliant with the latest U.S. Department of Justice >>>> guidelines (the Cole Memo) >>>> – >>>> >>>> MCLR provides regulations for those who want them >>>> – >>>> >>>> MCLR enacts the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act (aka SB 566) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Letitia I hope we can all work together to make 2014 a success. >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> Dave Hodges >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri Nov 29 2013 at 12:53 PM Bill McPike >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Letitia >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > No youre not wrong about April 18 for the others. If they file like >>>> on Dec. 1 or Jan 1stor later they have a drop >>>> > >>>> > dead of April 18th. Thats the drop dead date for everybody unless >>>> like this petition there is an earlier date. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > So the 150 days can end up being less by filing later. That final >>>> deadline date is always 131 days before printing ballots so will >>>> > >>>> > Be a different day every year. But the sigs need to be examined and >>>> ones will then be listed so they need the 131 days >>>> > >>>> > After 418 – To do this. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > I guess roughly to have your full 150 days you would have to be >>>> approved around Nov 18th That gives one >>>> > >>>> > Month to 1218 month 2 till 118 month 3 till 218 month 4 till >>>> 318 and finally month 5 about 150 days to 418. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > So any day(s) filed after around 1118 subtracts from your 150 day >>>> circulation time. If you got approved 118 youd >>>> > >>>> > Only have about 90 days till 418. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > So as to that part you are 100 correct. And I wasnt trying to >>>> claim you were wrong I wanted to be sure nobody >>>> > >>>> > Was misled into thinking why not wait till April to collect sigs. >>>> Your correction is enough for me. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > As for Dave Hodges Im not familiar with his calculations or claims >>>> about deadlines. If he believes he has 150 days from >>>> > >>>> > No matter when there is approval then yes he is wrong. Your >>>> calculated dates & days appear about correct but Im >>>> > >>>> > Not getting out my calendar to count his remaining days. As I >>>> understand it hes not approved. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > The above explains how this is all calculated. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Bill McPike >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > From: Letitia Pepper mailto:letitiapepperyahoo.com >>>> > Sent: Friday November 29 2013 12:13 PM >>>> > To: Bill McPike; ‘David C Williams’ >>>> > Cc: Bert Duzy; Michael Jolson; Dave Hodges >>>> > Subject: Re: April 18th vs Feb15 deadline >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Okay Bill & DC I’ve admitted that I — not Buddy Duzy or Mike >>>> Jolson — made a mistake about the dates and I corrected it in an e-mail >>>> this morning. >>>> > I’m trying to do too many things at once. But am I wrong about >>>> how much time the Save Cannabis initiative would have to collect >>>> signatures Do they actually have 150 days >>>> > According to the SOS website their initiative should be >>>> released on December 23. That gives them 8 days until January 1 and >>>> another 108 days from January 1 until April 18 for a total of 116 days. >>>> > So in addition to complaining that I was wrong how about >>>> complaining that Dave Hodges too is wrong >>>> > Because the proponents of CCHI2014 are not the ones who were wrong >>>> on the dates it was me. >>>> > But Hodges is a proponent of his own initiative so presumably >>>> he should have been upon on all this and correct in his press release. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Friday November 29 2013 11:59 AM Bill McPike >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > David >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > The time for collecting signatures is 150 days ONLY. Elections Code >>>> 9014. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > This starts DAY 1 on the day the Secretary of State Official Site >>>> says it was approved and filed >>>> > >>>> > ready to go. They also have the deadline of 224 end of circulating >>>> petitions. >>>> > >>>> > On Jacks site for this project they have a turn in date of 214 & >>>> this is certainly necessary >>>> > >>>> > And is an arbitrary date. But one should have a short deadline before >>>> the state deadline >>>> > >>>> > Otherwise nothing will get collected or turned in. Claiming that >>>> deadline is in April is outrageous. >>>> > >>>> > The law is the law. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > I saw this starting date on her site as Sept. 25 2013 & 224 is >>>> circulation deadline. NO SIGS >>>> > >>>> > Can be collected after 224. Notice the site has the 2 dates to give >>>> time to get the sig turned in. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > SO ONCE AGAIN UNLESS EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE MISLED THE DEADLINE IS >>>> 224. Now if they >>>> > >>>> > Allow another 60 days to turn the papers in Id like to see that >>>> statute. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > April 18th date does not apply to this project. Period. Thats a >>>> totally different deadline as if >>>> > >>>> > Circulators dont get approved till like Jan they wont have 150 >>>> days the deadline is due to >>>> > >>>> > Being able to print ballots etc. its called the 131 days prior to >>>> printing ballots rule. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Bill McPike >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > From: David C Williams mailto:gear2000lightspeed.net >>>> > Sent: Friday November 29 2013 10:33 AM >>>> > To: ‘Letitia Pepper’ >>>> > Cc: ‘Bill McPike’ >>>> > Subject: RE: April 18th vs Feb15 deadline RE: >>>> SFBayCannabisCommunity Jack Herer’s CCHHI2014 (cannabis-hemp freedom act) >>>> California ballot initiative vs MCLR 2014 (tax and regulate) – the >>>> California Marijuana Control Legalization & Revenue Act >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Hi Letitia >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Yes Thanks >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > From what you say it might be good to add those details in a caveat >>>> in future emails so amateur signature gatherers dont delay too long in >>>> submitting their petitions. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Do you have any idea how many have been gathered in total yet and how >>>> many left to gather >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Bill McPike cc above is the attorney who smoothed out the CCHI >>>> wording at Jack Herers request adding the amnesty and expunge parts too >>>> and is of course hoping CCHI2014 succeeds. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > I am working with Brandon at UCSB for a January 17th event in Santa >>>> Barbara to which we will be inviting Dr. David Bearman to participate as he >>>> did with Jack and some locally influential folks in 2008 to promote CCHHI >>>> that year where videos of our panel discussion are on my wifes youtube >>>> channel at http:www.youtube.comusercarolynne108featurewatch >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Many Thanks and Much Love >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > David>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > David Crockett Williams >>>> > >>>> > Global Emergency Alert Response >>>> > >>>> > http:angelfire.comonGEAR2000intro.html >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > From: Letitia Pepper mailto:letitiapepperyahoo.com >>>> > Sent: Friday November 29 2013 9:49 AM >>>> > To: David C Williams >>>> > Subject: Re: Feb15 deadline RE: SFBayCannabisCommunity Jack Herer’s >>>> CCHHI2014 (cannabis-hemp freedom act) California ballot initiative vs MCLR >>>> 2014 (tax and regulate) – the California Marijuana Control Legalization & >>>> Revenue Act >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > That directive is for the volunteer circulators only. I assume >>>> that it is because volunteers are less likely to return things on time >>>> (having taught school I know how this works) and they’ll be coming in >>>> for weeks. >>>> > The professional circulators don’t have to return things that >>>> early (and I’m planning to continue collecting signatures to almost the >>>> end). >>>> > They need the petitions sections returned early because other >>>> volunteers with experience will be going through them to make sure the >>>> signatures are good and all the info is filled out correctly. So if for >>>> example a volunteer forgot to sign a section (that’s already happened to >>>> some that have been returned to me) there’s time to get such issues >>>> corrected. >>>> > So April 18 is still the drop-dead date for turning in all >>>> petition sections to the counties’ Registrars of Voters. >>>> > >>>> > Make sense now >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Friday November 29 2013 9:02 AM David C Williams < >>>> gear2000lightspeed.net> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > The CCHI site says the petitions need to be in to the office by >>>> Feb.15 and turned in to counties by Feb.28 way before April 18th right >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > From: SFBayCannabisCommunityyahoogroups.com mailto: >>>> SFBayCannabisCommunityyahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Letitia Pepper >>>> > Sent: Thursday November 28 2013 2:06 PM >>>> > To: SFBayCannabisCommunityyahoogroups.com >>>> > Subject: Re: SFBayCannabisCommunity Jack Herer’s CCHHI2014 >>>> (cannabis-hemp freedom act) California ballot initiative vs MCLR 2014 (tax >>>> and regulate) – the California Marijuana Control Legalization & Revenue Act >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Tax control and regulate is not a needed “next step” on the way >>>> to something better. It is the end that many people who plan to make money >>>> want. >>>> > The question is not only whether CCHI can get onto the ballot >>>> and be adopted but whether anything else can pass now that patients are >>>> more educated and unwilling to vote against their self-interests. >>>> > More after Thanksgiving. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Thursday November 28 2013 11:23 AM David C Williams < >>>> gear2000lightspeed.net> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Is there enough public and movement support to get CCHHI on the >>>> ballot and passed into law this time signature gathering now for 2014 >>>> ballot >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Cannabis hemp liberation or taxation to regulate >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > The question seems to be whether the California public is ready to >>>> accept the full cannabis freedom offered by passage of CCHHI2014 or >>>> whether they would only vote for a control tax and regulate scheme (such as >>>> MCLR) which seems to be more palatable for the medical marijuana industry >>>> and its campaign financing potential. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Many of those who support the tax and regulate idea claim that is >>>> because it is a needed next step towards full re-legalization but what a >>>> giant future obstacle to overcome if any taxregulate law passes which >>>> would create a tremendous economic inertia likely impossible to overcome >>>> for later full relegalization. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > When Jack Herer was persuaded in February 1996 to fully back Prop215 >>>> at the expense of his full relegalization CCHHI type proposition of 1996 >>>> in respect of medical patients being in the greatest need for cannabis as >>>> medicine and given the reality of the political climate then he told me >>>> clearly then that Prop215 passing into law would mean such big business and >>>> money influence growing in the medical marijuana industry that it may in >>>> future hamper full re-legalization efforts. http:jackherer.com >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Has Jacks prediction then come true now >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Is there a business plan that the medical cannabis industry has in >>>> place for the time when full cannabis hemp freedom is made into law Who >>>> are those people that CCHHI proponents seeking funding to get it on the >>>> ballot should ask for help now Is this what we need to get the financing >>>> to get CCHHI2014 on the ballot and passed into law donations as >>>> investments from those who will most benefit andor profit from full >>>> cannabis hemp marijuana freedom who are those people >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > In his talk at Jack Herers funeral Chris Conrad tried to convince >>>> people that Jack would have supported the Prop19 tax and regulate >>>> proposition in spite of Jacks last speech that he died after delivering >>>> in Oregon which railed vigorously against any taxation of cannabis hemp. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > I believe Jack would say that we should pass his updated CCHHI >>>> cannabis hemp freedom proposition in 2014 to let the rest of the nation >>>> know this should be a main issue in the presidential elections of 2016. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > I hope that Chris and others who have successfully guided the >>>> movement and its nationally emulated progress in California that they >>>> speak out soon in support CCHHI 2014 as much as they can to help it get on >>>> the ballot and passed into law. I hope that those whose feelings were hurt >>>> over arguments over Prop19 will agree it is better that it did not pass >>>> into law and they will help CCHHI succeed. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > We need to start painting the picture verbally of what it will be >>>> like in California after CCHHI2014 passes and full cannabis hemp freedom >>>> hits California like a tsunami wave of healing going east across the nation >>>> to liberate the plant medicines in 2016 nationally. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Couldnt we easily bring Jesse Ventura into the ring on this one soon >>>> as he is running for president on an independent campaign with Howard Stern >>>> as VP >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > In 2008 we arranged for the wife of then presidential candidate >>>> Dennis Kucinich to meet with Jack but too late in the campaign only weeks >>>> before Kucinich had to drop out but Dennis and Elizabeth were supportive >>>> So much so that she brought out a medical cannabis patient with severe >>>> muscular dystrophy to meet Jack Herer Eddy Lepp and friends who enabled >>>> him to feel better and gain weight for the first time Clayton Holton >>>> http:nhcompassion.orgclaytonholton >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Claytons story is an example of the inequities of the medical >>>> marijuana situation now where prices are prohibitively high for many >>>> people supply and demand etc but it is costing him his life. >>>> http:www.nashuatelegraph.comnews1011383-469cannabis-care-fierce-medical-marijuana-advocate-says.html >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Perhaps it is time to go on the offensive with facts that support >>>> Jacks thesis that it is actually good for you to use cannabis hemp to >>>> smoke marijuana because of studies showing greater longevity and other >>>> medical benefits that are now more widely known and accepted. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Perhaps popularizing the story about Bruce DePalmas first experience >>>> smoking pot might be a good one to share. During the years DePalma taught >>>> physics and photographic science at MIT he and some of his students would >>>> attend parties on weekends at a house in the country but he refused to >>>> smoke pot with them for a long time. Then one night after the usual >>>> several alcoholic drinks and waiting long enough to drive the long straight >>>> road home he smoked pot for the first time. He said he did not notice any >>>> significant effect except that the regularly spaced telephone poles along >>>> the side of the road were passing by his car more slowly at the speed limit >>>> he always drove on that road. This opened his mind as a scientist after >>>> this experience which he called experiencing time dilation. This somehow >>>> inspired him to take a closer look at how the gyroscope works. This >>>> ultimately led him to do his experiments that led up to the n-Machine one >>>> of the so called free energy technologies that taps into the energy field >>>> in space itself that DePalma discovered and documented in his earlier >>>> experiments. http:brucedepalma.com http:depalma.pair.com >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > It is pretty well established that some famous scientists like Carl >>>> Sagan smoked pot for pleasure and inspiration not medicinal use as we know >>>> it but more like so-called recreational use which might better labeled as >>>> inspirational use because of its effect on so many artists and musicians >>>> and scientists like Sagan and DePalma. At one event with Jack where I met >>>> Bill McPike one speaker was a musician who had played with lots of famous >>>> people and who from the stage rattled off the names of soo many famous >>>> actors and musicians who smoked pot perhaps another angle to publicize. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > DePalmas story does not mean that smoking pot makes you smarter >>>> only that when smart people get stoned they tend to get inspired towards >>>> finding out the truth of how things work which is the most dangerous >>>> proposition for those in power. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Cant we make its medical applications just another part of a greater >>>> cannabis hemp industry starting in California using CCHHI2014 as a benefit >>>> of its being freed so the cost is lowered and affordable by those like >>>> Clayton Holton who are literally dying because they cannot afford to buy >>>> medical marijuana at the kinds of pricing we see today which is about the >>>> same as street prices >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > And a more pragmatic question does CCHHI have until April 18th or >>>> some earlier date because signature gathering has already started >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > What would be the economic benefit to the State of California and its >>>> taxpayers if CCHHI passes and that releases from prison the nonviolent pot >>>> offenders how much money would that save annually >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Many Thanks and Much Love >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > David>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > David Crockett Williams >>>> > >>>> > Global Emergency Alert Response >>>> > >>>> > http:angelfire.comonGEAR2000intro.html >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > From: SFBayCannabisCommunityyahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Letitia >>>> Pepper >>>> > Sent: Wednesday November 27 2013 7:06 PM >>>> > To: SFBayCannabisCommunityyahoogroups.com; ocnorml; >>>> savecannabisa2c2.us >>>> > Cc: denise Cullen; Jacob Eldred; Hector farias; Garrett Gyssler; >>>> Benjamin maestas; Shawn Mahoney; Joshua Marer; Roman Nunez; Brenda Riggs; >>>> James Romesburg; Brandon Sanchez >>>> > Subject: Re: SFBayCannabisCommunity Dave Hodges on Talk Marijuana >>>> Re: MCLR 2014 – the California Marijuana Control Legalization & Revenue Act >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > FYI Talk Marijuana did not invite either Buddy Duzy or Michael >>>> Jolson the two proponents of the “Jack Herer” initiative California >>>> Cannabis Hemp 2014 to participate in or to send a representative to >>>> participate in this program. >>>> > Why Is this responsible journalism Or is it an effort to push >>>> the “tax control and regulate” agenda >>>> > The Herer initiative petition is being circulated even now and >>>> the Green Party has endorsed it and in some areas is apparently combining >>>> voter registration drives with circulating the petition. >>>> > In contrast the MCLR has been filed then withdrawn then >>>> re-filed and then kicked back by the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) >>>> for reasons Dave Hodges has refused to reveal at least to this discussion >>>> group. (At a meeting in Sacramento last night when Dave Hodges was asked >>>> why the MCLR initiative was kicked back by the LAO he said that the reason >>>> they were given was that the initiative as written (after several attempts >>>> to fix it too) would be subject to legal challenge.) >>>> > I have now posted several questions directed to Dave Hodges >>>> about MCLR to the SFBayCannabis Community group after Dave Hodges posted >>>> press releases about it. He’s never answered a single one. >>>> > Dave Hodges’ press releases have also been filled with >>>> mis-information. In the most recent press release he stated that the MCLR >>>> would have 150 days to collect the necessary signatures to get on the >>>> ballot. Wrong. >>>> > To qualify for the 2014 election all signatures must be turned >>>> in to the Counties’ Registrars of Voters by April 18. In the period >>>> between January 1 to April 18 there are only 108 days. If the MCLR is >>>> released for circulation on December 23 the date the Secretary of State >>>> has stated as the approximate release date (see >>>> http:www.sos.ca.govelectionsballot-measuresattorney-general-information.htm) >>>> that will give them only 115 days to collect enough signatures. >>>> > If you want more freedom for everyone if you want to restore >>>> cannabis to the position it occupied before it was criminalized act now. >>>> > Go to www.CCHI2014.org and donate 100 to pay some professional >>>> signature gatherers to help our volunteers. I have no compunction at all >>>> about asking people to donate to this really good initiative because I’ve >>>> been donating time and money and will be donating even more as April 18 >>>> gets closer. >>>> > I have read and analyzed every single cannabis-related >>>> initiative since Prop. 19 and this is the only one that is good for >>>> everyone. It serves no special interests just the interests of the State >>>> of California and of all its citizens. >>>> > Don’t merely “legalize” cannabis — liberate it. Legalize AND >>>> decriminalize — that’s what Jack Herer wanted and what we need to do. >>>> And when we do California will lead the country with the best cannabis >>>> hemp laws in the land. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> — >>>> 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 > . > — 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.

CCHI / MCLR in response to Letitia

From: dave – January 1, 1970

Letitia You are the one who has been constantly attacking me and MCLR. The 5th Amendment issues you claim was not a 5th Amendment issue. We did change the language for a registered medical cannabis storefront to be able to verify both the state card and a doctors recommendation. As an operator of a current storefront collective I know 1st hand the issues with proving the legitimacy of a “doctors recommendation” and would love the clarity of the state card. Your claim was that somehow that was a 5th Amendment issue and it would prevent people from getting medical cannabis. The fact is we purposely did not touch SB 420 or the Collective or Cooperative models it creates. This will ensure the current system could exist along side of the new system regardless of the requirements for the new cannabis businesses. Regarding the commission do you have a better model then the California Fair Political Practices Commission I would forward all the communication with the LAO but the most detailed conversations have been on the phone. Below is all the email communication we have had with the LAO you can confirm this with a simple Freedom of Information Request. If you don’t have time to read MCLR you should not spend your time attacking something you have not read. Best regards Dave Hodges ———- Forwarded message ———- From: Edwards Aaron Date: Wed Oct 16 2013 at 9:21 AM Subject: LAO Analysis of The Marijuana Control Legalization and Revenue Act of 2014 To: john Mr. Lee Im working on an analysis of the The Marijuana Control Legalization and Revenue Act of 2014 for the California Legislative Analysts Office. Id like to schedule a phone call to discuss the measure. Specifically Id like to hear your summary of (1) what you intend the measure to do and (2) what you think the major fiscal impacts will be. It should not take more than 30-45 minutes. I’m out of the office today but I’ll be free on Thursday or Friday this week. If that doesn’t work I’ll be out for most of the next two weeks but will be available on the afternoon of Friday (111) or sometime early in the week of 114. Thanks Aaron ———- Forwarded message ———- From: Edwards Aaron Date: Thu Nov 7 2013 at 4:36 PM Subject: Questions regarding your initiative To: john Hi John I have a couple questions Im hoping you can help me with. First Im having a tough time interpreting the language which limits the amount of marijuana that can be cultivated for non-commercial use. My plain reading of Section 27710(a) is that an individual can cultivate up to 100 square feet of outdoor cannabis plant canopy per acre. Thus if an individual owns 50 acres they could grow 100 square feet of cannabis canopy per acre for a total of 5000 square feet (50 acres X 100 sq. ft. per acre). Is that your intent Also its unclear to me what the limitation is if 10 individuals are aggregating together. Would it still be 100 sq. ft. per acre or would it be 1000 sq. ft. (10 individuals X 100 sq. ft. per individual) Second Section 27400 states that medical and dietary marijuana shall not be subject to any sales or use taxes imposed by this division. Im guessing your intent is to prohibit the imposition of sales and use tax on medical and dietary marijuana but Im not sure this would do that because of the qualifier by this division since the sales and use tax that currently applies to medical marijuana is imposed by the Revenue and Taxation Code. Would you agree with that interpretation or am I missing something Thanks Aaron ———- Forwarded message ———- From: Dave Hodges Date: Wed Nov 13 2013 at 11:07 AM Subject: Re: Questions regarding your initiative To: Aaron Cc: John Hi Aaron Both 27710(a) & 27400 have unintended language. The new language for 27710(a) is: “(a) Adults may cultivate no more than 100 square feet of cannabis plant canopy outdoor per individual with a maximum of 100 square feet per acre per individual and 100 square feet of cannabis plant canopy indoor per individual on his or her property…” and 27400 is: “Cannabis that is sold for dietary or medical purposes shall not be subject to any sales or use taxes…” Do you have any other questions regarding the current language We are going to re-file one more version and want to make sure it’s perfect this time. Our current goal is to have version 3 filed by 1122. Best regards Dave Hodges ———- Forwarded message ———- From: Edwards Aaron Date: Wed Nov 13 2013 at 11:22 AM Subject: RE: Questions regarding your initiative To: Dave Hodges Cc: John Lee Hi Dave Thanks for your reply. I did identify one other issue I wanted to ask about. Section 27420 states that all revenues derived from taxes imposed pursuant to this divisionshall be deposited in the Public Benefit Fund and Section 27410 states that cannabis sold for adult social consumption shall be subject to all state and local sales taxes applicable to the jurisdiction in which it is sold. It seems clear that the funds derived from the state share of sales and use taxes would be deposited into the fund established by Section 27420 because Section 27410 explicitly imposes such taxes. (I think the taxes would apply in any case since the existing sales and use tax in the Revenue and Taxation Code applies broadly to most goods sold in California but without Section 27410 the funds would otherwise go to the General Fund like any other sales and use tax revenue.) What is unclear is whether revenues derived from local supplemental sales taxes would also be placed into the Public Benefit Fund. Im unsure as to whether it is even legal for the state to take the local supplemental sales tax revenue so Im going to be consulting with Legislative Counsel on this issue. In any case it would be helpful to know what your intent is. Thanks Aaron ———- Forwarded message ———- From: Dave Hodges Sent: Wednesday November 13 2013 12:50 PM To: Edwards Aaron Subject: Re: Questions regarding your initiative Aaron Only the states portion of the salesuse tax revenue will be deposited into the Public Benefit Fund. We did not intend to change the usual statelocal split of those revenues. Does that make sense -Dave ———- Forwarded message ———- From: Edwards Aaron Date: Wed Nov 13 2013 at 1:30 PM Subject: RE: Questions regarding your initiative To: Dave Hodges Cc: “Uhler Brian” Hi Dave Yes I understand your intent. However based on my reading the current language is a little less than clear on that issue. Also even some of the states share of the current sales and use tax revenue is constitutionally allocated for specific purposes. As I said we are going to be consulting Legislative Counsel to get their opinion on to what extent an initiative can reallocate these funds. Just FYI to give you a sense of the complexity involved here is a breakdown of the current allocation of the sales and use tax: http:www.boe.ca.govnewssp111500att.htm Thanks Aaron ———- Forwarded message ———- From: Edwards Aaron Date: Tue Nov 19 2013 at 3:42 PM Subject: Marijuana Initiative Questions To: john Cc: dave Hi John I am having some trouble determining how medical marijuana would be regulated under your measure. Specifically I have the following questions. 1. Are cooperatives and collectives considered medical cannabis retailers under the measure Section 27600(e) defines medical cannabis retailers as including collectives and cooperatives. However Section 27110 defines Cannabis Business to include medical cannabis retailers but not cooperatives or collectives which seems to conflict with 27600(e). 2. Are collectives and cooperatives subject to regulation by the commission Section 27100 clearly indicates that the measure intends to regulate medical marijuana. However there is no specific mention of collectives or cooperatives under Section 27519 (commission powers) nor is there any mention of medical cannabis retailers. There is a general statement that the commission shall regulate commercial cannabis cultivation but Im not sure if not-for-profit cooperatives are considered commercial activity. 3. Finally what regulations are existing collectives and cooperative subject to under the measure Section 27600(e) states Collectives and cooperatives that exist as storefront dispensaries collectives or cooperatives as of the date this section is enactedmay be without any fee or regulations imposed by this division. Is that language intended to exempt these existing collectives and cooperatives from any regulation imposed by the commission Feel free to give me a ring if its easier to discuss this with a quick call. Thanks Aaron Aaron T. Edwards M.P.P. Senior Fiscal & Policy Analyst Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) ———- Forwarded message ———- From: Edwards Aaron Date: Wed Nov 20 2013 at 1:53 PM Subject: RE: Marijuana Initiative Questions To: johnsavecannabis.org Cc: davea2c2.us Hi John One other issue just came up. Section 27420 creates a new special fund from sales tax revenues derived from recreational marijuana sales but Section 27360(b) prohibits the state from requiring marijuana businesses to identify the nature of their business when applying for a tax registration certificate. Im trying to figure out how the state could determine how much revenue to put into the special fund without knowing whether businesses are paying taxes for marijuana sales. I was just talking to someone at the Board of Equalization about this and they were concerned that they might not be able to develop an accurate estimate of how much revenue is derived from sales tax on marijuana. I was just wondering if you have any thoughts on this issue that you would like to share. Thanks Aaron ———- Forwarded message ———- From: John L Date: Wed Nov 20 2013 at 9:00 PM Subject: Re: Marijuana Initiative Questions To: “Edwards Aaron” Cc: Dave Hodges Aaron We would like to respond by phone. Let us know if some time between 1 and 3pm tomorrow would work for you. Thanks John ———- Forwarded message ———- From: John L Sent: Wed 11202013 9:00 PM To: Edwards Aaron Cc: Dave Hodges Subject: Re: Marijuana Initiative Questions Aaron We would like to respond by phone. Let us know if some time between 1 and 3pm tomorrow would work for you. Thanks John ———- Forwarded message ———- On Wed Nov 20 2013 at 9:57 PM Edwards Aaron wrote: Great 1:30 works for me. You can reach me at(phone#-removed) or if you’d prefer I call you just let me know the best number. ———- Forwarded message ———- On Thu Nov 21 2013 at 8:27 AM John L wrote: Thanks Aaron. Dave is in LA so I will call you with him on the line at 1:30 Thanks John On Sat Nov 30 2013 at 12:39 PM Letitia Pepper wrote: > > > Here’s one of the problems I have with how this is being done. I > make comments based on the existing language and then you change it and > we’re still talking about my comments criticizing the things you’ve > changed And you take a few comments out of context and run with it. > For example why did I say that this initiative was an invitation to > cronyism and secretive (I don’t remember using the term “secretive > nature” but it definitely is designed to keep thr public from having > access to relevant info.) Why Because the Commission that makes > licensing and de-licensing decisions will consist of only FIVE members ALL > of whom are appointed by a single person the Governor. Talk about > politicizing an industry Adn the records that form a basis for the > Commission’s licensing and de-licensing decisions are EXEMPT from the > Public Records Act I said that this set-up was an invitation to graft > and corruption and would be campaign contribution heaven for the party in > power and I’ll stand by that assessment and debate you any day you like. > I’ve been dealing with your multiple versions of what would become > MCLR for years now and I’d told you a long time ago that I wasn’t > willing to keep reading and re-reading initiatives that would be changed > over and over and over again I did all that work on Steve Kubby and Judge > Gray’s mutating Trojan Horse and all they did was to keep changing and > refiling it just like you guys are doing now the very same thing. > My tiem to get things done is limited and I don’t want to waste it > on a moving target. Especially with someone who is so ungrateful and > rude. You had a HUGE mistake in there — the Fifth Amendment issue — but > did you thank me or Terry Colorado for pointing it out No you just > slammed both of us. > Anyone reading the GlobalMarijuanaRelegalization e-mails during Prop. > 19 and then Regulate Marijuana Like Wine knows how HARD I was working and > all for free. This is hard work reading these long initiatives and > reading the code sections to which they refer too to see how everything > will work together. And not only was it all free but also all neutral — > I don’t own a dispensary I’m not a commercial grower I’m just a grateful > patient who believes that more personal freedom less government and less > Nanny State-ism is better than the alternative. > And that — and your failure to answer direct questions directly — is > why I still prefer CCHI2014. > So much for trying to work with you — all you do is attack me > apparently on the theory that this — crafting initiatives — is like > football and the best defense is a good offense. That’s not the way to > accomplish anything. You must make John crazy. > > > On Saturday November 30 2013 12:18 PM Letitia Pepper < > letitiapepperyahoo.com> wrote: > Okay Dave. I have only read the first few paragraphs of your most > recent e-mail and for you to say you hoped I’d be a positive force while > calling me a liar is not the way to start. > As the SFBayCannabisCommunity and Global groups have known from a > while ago (I wasn’t copying OCNORML in the beginning) I’ve asked you to > answer specific questions about MCLR — which you’ve refused to do. > A little while ago after getting an e-mail from Charles Dawson > who’s trying to see what we might be able to do together I sent you and > several other people — not these groups — another e-mail again asking > for some written answers. And this is the response I get. You call me a > liar and do so in another forum instead of working with the small group > of individuals who might be able to do something concrete in a short amount > of time. > As far as I know I’ve made one analytical mistake — I thought the > April 18 drop-dead date for signatures applied to CCHI2104 and it doesn’t; > the February 28 date applies. And I’ve promptly admitted my mistake after > Bill McPike explained it to me. > But you’ve never admitted that your press release that you would have > 150 days to qualify MCLR was wrong. And it was and is wrong. And you’ve > never given us a copy of the Legislative Analyst’s Office letter kicking > back the most recent version of MCLR so people could see what the problems > were. At teh recent meeting in Sacramento John Lee orally stated when > asked that the LAO said as written it would be subject to legal challenges. > So now I’m copying this new chain of e-mails to Charles Dawson and > the other individuals who were part of a conversation in which I tried to > include you and John Lee and Buddy Duzy and Michael Jolson and Lanette > Davies to see what common grounds we have and what could be done with it. > And instead of calling me a liar in this new group e-mail to OCNORML > et al. how about answering my questions in that last e-mail with Charles > Dawson and the others Answering them so that group can hear your > answers And while you’re at it copy OCNORML SFBAY etc. and Global > etc. too > > > > On Saturday November 30 2013 11:49 AM Dave Hodges > wrote: > > Letitia > > I had hoped you would provide a detailed list of issues with MCLR as I > have done with CCHI back in June: http:bit.lyWhatsWrongWithCCHI > > I really wish you could be a positive force to change the law surrounding > the cannabis plant but it appears you wish only to spread lies and > misinformation. > > I’ll attempt to address all the misinformation you have presented in your > last 10 emails. > > > 1) You claim of a “secretive nature and potential for cronyism this > initiative” > There is nothing “secretive” about what we are doing. We have presented > the language of MCLR in an open public forum and requested input from > everyone (including you). I’m not sure where you get the “cronyism” from. > The Commission you complain about was designed to be an independent > bipartisan group setup similar to the California Fair Political Practices > Commission. This was the most fair independent structure we could find. > > > > 2) You claim that you “read the whole thing and took notes” and “saw just > how bad it really is.” > Can you please provide these notes We plan to re-file next week. So if it > is really that bad and you provide the details there is still time for > changes. > > > > 3) You claimed I was at a 1127 meeting in Sacramento and that I stated > “that the initiative as written would be subject to legal challenge.” > I was driving back from LA 1127 and was not in Sacramento. The statement > that “the initiative as written would be subject to legal challenge.” is > not true for MCLR but it is true for CCHI… If passed CCHI will have MANY > legal challenges. > > > > 4) You claim that MCLR was “kicked back by the Legislative Analyst’s > Office (LAO) for reasons Dave Hodges has refused to reveal” > The LAO does not “kick back” an initiative. They ask questions of the > authors to see if the LAO interpretation of the language is what the > proponents intended. > > I have stated the reasons we plan to re-file but for clarity I will > restate the issues that caused the 1st re-filing. > > > LAO Issue 1) in section 27710 (a) stated “Adults may cultivate no more > than 100 square feet of cannabis plant canopy outdoor per acre per > individual…” > the language should have been: > > “(a) Adults may cultivate no more than 100 square feet of cannabis plant > canopy outdoor per individual with a maximum of 100 square feet per acre > per individual and 100 square feet of cannabis plant canopy indoor per > individual on his or her property. No more than ten (10) adults may > aggregate together for the purpose of forming a non-medical > non-commercial unregulated cannabis garden.” > > > LAO Issue 2) in section 27105. Zoning; Voter Referendum (c) stated > “Except as set forth in subsections (d)…” > the language should have been: > > “(c) Except as set forth in subsections (b) and (d)…” > > The rest of the changes in Version 2 were input taken from the community > response. > > > > 5) You claim that “MCLR is based on taxing and regulating people’s > interactions with the plant instead of protecting individual adults’ and > patients’ rights to grow and use a plant for personal use without being > taxed licensed and regulated out of doing so and being forced to become > mere consumers for dispensary owners” > This is the farthest from the truth. MCLR creates rights adults do not > currently have such as the non-medical grow. It also protects the rights > provided by Prop 215 & SB 420 and creates a new “regulated” industry for > people who cannot produce their own. > > > > 6) You claim that MCLR “limits personal cultivation to only 100 square > feet of canopy per parcel no matter how many people depend on that parcel > for medicine and no matter how large the parcel is” and that “This > initiative definitely impairs the right to grow cannabis for one’s self and > one’s family.” > Under MCLR each adult 21 and over may have a 100 sqft grow space indoor > and outdoor. Up to 10 people can grow on the same property. This creates a > maximum 1000 sqft indoor & 1000 sqft outdoor of NON-MEDICAL > NON-COMMERCIAL UNREGULATED cannabis garden. This DOES NOT AFFECT ANY > MEDICAL CANNABIS GARDENS. > > Hopefully a small change in 27200. Medical Cannabis Protections will > clarify this for you. The new language is: > > This Act shall not LIMIT OR adversely affect the individual and group > CULTIVATION RIGHTS medical rights and protections afforded by Health and > Safety Code Sections 11362.5 through 11362.83 > > > > 7) You claim that “CCHI is with no regulation or taxation” > CCHI clearly states: “Place an excise tax on commercial sale of cannabis > hemp euphoric products analogous to Californias wine industry model so > long as no excise tax or combination of excise taxes shall exceed 10 of > the retail price of the products.” > > That sounds like a Tax to me… > > and no “regulation”… I’m not sure how anyone could consider that a good > thing. Just look at what is happening in Washington. Without regulations > you create chaos and hurt everyone who cannot grow their own. > > > > 8) Your concern that we protect the growers and operators information > from the California Public Records Act. > This is based on the fear of law enforcement & the federal government > abusing the public information. If they want the information they need a > warrant. If you have a better suggestion on how to protect that > information please provide it. > > > > 9) Your statement that “the latest revision has still not even been > filed let alone released to be printed and circulated. And they have only > until April 18 to turn in all signatures. That’s less than 150 days.” > When we file the final version December 6th we may have less than 90 days > to collect signatures. > > CCHI’s circulation deadline is 022414. MCLR may not be cleared for > circulation until mid January and will have until April 28th to collect > signatures. > > We know this can be done based on Prop 9 aka Marsy’s Law which Passed in > the 2008 Election: > > Final version filed: 1272007 > Length as filed: 44 pages > UpdatesVersions filed: 3 > Signatures required: 694354 > > This historical information shows it has been done before and can be done > again. Notice Marsy’s law required 190k more signatures than MCLR or CCHI > will require. > > > 10) Regarding the fact that many see you as a “traitor to the Movement” > And that you are “loyal to your own self-interest: I want the freedom to > grow and use cannabis without being forced to buy it from the state or from > a corporation or an illicit source.” > > I am not sure I would call you a “traitor” more someone that jumps to > conclusions without being open to trying to understand the other side. Ego > is a human flaw and it seems you let yours get in the way a lot. > > In our brief discussion at the Rancho Cucamonga event I attempted to tell > you how the collective I founded DOES NOT PAY ANY TAXES and that the way > we operate fits into your understanding of Prop 215 and SB 420. Yet you > still lump me in with the “tax & regulate” crowd. > > I too want the “freedom to grow and use cannabis without being forced to > buy it from the state or from a corporation” and MCLR is designed to > support just that. > > > > The facts: > > – MCLR protects Prop. 215 SB 420 & codifies the 2008 Attorney General > Guidelines > – MCLR does not infringe on any growing or other medical rights > provided by Prop. 215 and SB 420. > – MCLR creates a way for adults 21 & over to grow up to 1000 sqft > indoor & outdoor on any one property for non-medical use unregulated & > untaxed. > – MCLR is compliant with the latest U.S. Department of Justice > guidelines (the Cole Memo) > – MCLR provides regulations for those who want them > – MCLR enacts the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act (aka SB 566) > > > > Letitia I hope we can all work together to make 2014 a success. > > Best regards > Dave Hodges > > > On Fri Nov 29 2013 at 12:53 PM Bill McPike wrote: > > > > Letitia > > > > > > > > No youre not wrong about April 18 for the others. If they file like on > Dec. 1 or Jan 1stor later they have a drop > > > > dead of April 18th. Thats the drop dead date for everybody unless > like this petition there is an earlier date. > > > > > > > > So the 150 days can end up being less by filing later. That final > deadline date is always 131 days before printing ballots so will > > > > Be a different day every year. But the sigs need to be examined and > ones will then be listed so they need the 131 days > > > > After 418 – To do this. > > > > > > > > I guess roughly to have your full 150 days you would have to be > approved around Nov 18th That gives one > > > > Month to 1218 month 2 till 118 month 3 till 218 month 4 till 318 > and finally month 5 about 150 days to 418. > > > > > > > > So any day(s) filed after around 1118 subtracts from your 150 day > circulation time. If you got approved 118 youd > > > > Only have about 90 days till 418. > > > > > > > > So as to that part you are 100 correct. And I wasnt trying to claim > you were wrong I wanted to be sure nobody > > > > Was misled into thinking why not wait till April to collect sigs. Your > correction is enough for me. > > > > > > > > As for Dave Hodges Im not familiar with his calculations or claims > about deadlines. If he believes he has 150 days from > > > > No matter when there is approval then yes he is wrong. Your calculated > dates & days appear about correct but Im > > > > Not getting out my calendar to count his remaining days. As I understand > it hes not approved. > > > > > > > > The above explains how this is all calculated. > > > > > > > > Bill McPike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Letitia Pepper mailto:letitiapepperyahoo.com > > Sent: Friday November 29 2013 12:13 PM > > To: Bill McPike; ‘David C Williams’ > > Cc: Bert Duzy; Michael Jolson; Dave Hodges > > Subject: Re: April 18th vs Feb15 deadline > > > > > > > > Okay Bill & DC I’ve admitted that I — not Buddy Duzy or Mike > Jolson — made a mistake about the dates and I corrected it in an e-mail > this morning. > > I’m trying to do too many things at once. But am I wrong about how > much time the Save Cannabis initiative would have to collect signatures > Do they actually have 150 days > > According to the SOS website their initiative should be released > on December 23. That gives them 8 days until January 1 and another 108 > days from January 1 until April 18 for a total of 116 days. > > So in addition to complaining that I was wrong how about > complaining that Dave Hodges too is wrong > > Because the proponents of CCHI2014 are not the ones who were wrong on > the dates it was me. > > But Hodges is a proponent of his own initiative so presumably he > should have been upon on all this and correct in his press release. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday November 29 2013 11:59 AM Bill McPike > wrote: > > > > David > > > > > > > > The time for collecting signatures is 150 days ONLY. Elections Code 9014. > > > > > > > > This starts DAY 1 on the day the Secretary of State Official Site says > it was approved and filed > > > > ready to go. They also have the deadline of 224 end of circulating > petitions. > > > > On Jacks site for this project they have a turn in date of 214 & this > is certainly necessary > > > > And is an arbitrary date. But one should have a short deadline before > the state deadline > > > > Otherwise nothing will get collected or turned in. Claiming that > deadline is in April is outrageous. > > > > The law is the law. > > > > > > > > I saw this starting date on her site as Sept. 25 2013 & 224 is > circulation deadline. NO SIGS > > > > Can be collected after 224. Notice the site has the 2 dates to give > time to get the sig turned in. > > > > > > > > SO ONCE AGAIN UNLESS EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE MISLED THE DEADLINE IS 224. > Now if they > > > > Allow another 60 days to turn the papers in Id like to see that > statute. > > > > > > > > April 18th date does not apply to this project. Period. Thats a > totally different deadline as if > > > > Circulators dont get approved till like Jan they wont have 150 days > the deadline is due to > > > > Being able to print ballots etc. its called the 131 days prior to > printing ballots rule. > > > > > > > > Bill McPike > > > > > > > > From: David C Williams mailto:gear2000lightspeed.net > > Sent: Friday November 29 2013 10:33 AM > > To: ‘Letitia Pepper’ > > Cc: ‘Bill McPike’ > > Subject: RE: April 18th vs Feb15 deadline RE: SFBayCannabisCommunity > Jack Herer’s CCHHI2014 (cannabis-hemp freedom act) California ballot > initiative vs MCLR 2014 (tax and regulate) – the California Marijuana > Control Legalization & Revenue Act > > > > > > > > Hi Letitia > > > > > > > > Yes Thanks > > > > > > > > From what you say it might be good to add those details in a caveat in > future emails so amateur signature gatherers dont delay too long in > submitting their petitions. > > > > > > > > Do you have any idea how many have been gathered in total yet and how > many left to gather > > > > > > > > Bill McPike cc above is the attorney who smoothed out the CCHI wording > at Jack Herers request adding the amnesty and expunge parts too and is > of course hoping CCHI2014 succeeds. > > > > > > > > I am working with Brandon at UCSB for a January 17th event in Santa > Barbara to which we will be inviting Dr. David Bearman to participate as he > did with Jack and some locally influential folks in 2008 to promote CCHHI > that year where videos of our panel discussion are on my wifes youtube > channel at http:www.youtube.comusercarolynne108featurewatch > > > > > > > > Many Thanks and Much Love > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > David Crockett Williams > > > > Global Emergency Alert Response > > > > http:angelfire.comonGEAR2000intro.html > > > > > > > > From: Letitia Pepper mailto:letitiapepperyahoo.com > > Sent: Friday November 29 2013 9:49 AM > > To: David C Williams > > Subject: Re: Feb15 deadline RE: SFBayCannabisCommunity Jack Herer’s > CCHHI2014 (cannabis-hemp freedom act) California ballot initiative vs MCLR > 2014 (tax and regulate) – the California Marijuana Control Legalization & > Revenue Act > > > > > > > > That directive is for the volunteer circulators only. I assume > that it is because volunteers are less likely to return things on time > (having taught school I know how this works) and they’ll be coming in > for weeks. > > The professional circulators don’t have to return things that > early (and I’m planning to continue collecting signatures to almost the > end). > > They need the petitions sections returned early because other > volunteers with experience will be going through them to make sure the > signatures are good and all the info is filled out correctly. So if for > example a volunteer forgot to sign a section (that’s already happened to > some that have been returned to me) there’s time to get such issues > corrected. > > So April 18 is still the drop-dead date for turning in all petition > sections to the counties’ Registrars of Voters. > > > > Make sense now > > > > > > > > On Friday November 29 2013 9:02 AM David C Williams < > gear2000lightspeed.net> wrote: > > > > The CCHI site says the petitions need to be in to the office by Feb.15 > and turned in to counties by Feb.28 way before April 18th right > > > > > > > > From: SFBayCannabisCommunityyahoogroups.com mailto: > SFBayCannabisCommunityyahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Letitia Pepper > > Sent: Thursday November 28 2013 2:06 PM > > To: SFBayCannabisCommunityyahoogroups.com > > Subject: Re: SFBayCannabisCommunity Jack Herer’s CCHHI2014 > (cannabis-hemp freedom act) California ballot initiative vs MCLR 2014 (tax > and regulate) – the California Marijuana Control Legalization & Revenue Act > > > > > > > > > > > > Tax control and regulate is not a needed “next step” on the way to > something better. It is the end that many people who plan to make money > want. > > The question is not only whether CCHI can get onto the ballot and > be adopted but whether anything else can pass now that patients are more > educated and unwilling to vote against their self-interests. > > More after Thanksgiving. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday November 28 2013 11:23 AM David C Williams < > gear2000lightspeed.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > Is there enough public and movement support to get CCHHI on the ballot > and passed into law this time signature gathering now for 2014 ballot > > > > > > > > Cannabis hemp liberation or taxation to regulate > > > > > > > > The question seems to be whether the California public is ready to > accept the full cannabis freedom offered by passage of CCHHI2014 or > whether they would only vote for a control tax and regulate scheme (such as > MCLR) which seems to be more palatable for the medical marijuana industry > and its campaign financing potential. > > > > > > > > Many of those who support the tax and regulate idea claim that is > because it is a needed next step towards full re-legalization but what a > giant future obstacle to overcome if any taxregulate law passes which > would create a tremendous economic inertia likely impossible to overcome > for later full relegalization. > > > > > > > > When Jack Herer was persuaded in February 1996 to fully back Prop215 at > the expense of his full relegalization CCHHI type proposition of 1996 in > respect of medical patients being in the greatest need for cannabis as > medicine and given the reality of the political climate then he told me > clearly then that Prop215 passing into law would mean such big business and > money influence growing in the medical marijuana industry that it may in > future hamper full re-legalization efforts. http:jackherer.com > > > > > > > > Has Jacks prediction then come true now > > > > > > > > Is there a business plan that the medical cannabis industry has in place > for the time when full cannabis hemp freedom is made into law Who are > those people that CCHHI proponents seeking funding to get it on the ballot > should ask for help now Is this what we need to get the financing to get > CCHHI2014 on the ballot and passed into law donations as investments from > those who will most benefit andor profit from full cannabis hemp marijuana > freedom who are those people > > > > > > > > In his talk at Jack Herers funeral Chris Conrad tried to convince > people that Jack would have supported the Prop19 tax and regulate > proposition in spite of Jacks last speech that he died after delivering > in Oregon which railed vigorously against any taxation of cannabis hemp. > > > > > > > > I believe Jack would say that we should pass his updated CCHHI cannabis > hemp freedom proposition in 2014 to let the rest of the nation know this > should be a main issue in the presidential elections of 2016. > > > > > > > > I hope that Chris and others who have successfully guided the movement > and its nationally emulated progress in California that they speak out > soon in support CCHHI 2014 as much as they can to help it get on the ballot > and passed into law. I hope that those whose feelings were hurt over > arguments over Prop19 will agree it is better that it did not pass into > law and they will help CCHHI succeed. > > > > > > > > We need to start painting the picture verbally of what it will be like > in California after CCHHI2014 passes and full cannabis hemp freedom hits > California like a tsunami wave of healing going east across the nation to > liberate the plant medicines in 2016 nationally. > > > > > > > > Couldnt we easily bring Jesse Ventura into the ring on this one soon as > he is running for president on an independent campaign with Howard Stern as > VP > > > > > > > > In 2008 we arranged for the wife of then presidential candidate Dennis > Kucinich to meet with Jack but too late in the campaign only weeks before > Kucinich had to drop out but Dennis and Elizabeth were supportive So > much so that she brought out a medical cannabis patient with severe > muscular dystrophy to meet Jack Herer Eddy Lepp and friends who enabled > him to feel better and gain weight for the first time Clayton Holton > http:nhcompassion.orgclaytonholton > > > > > > > > Claytons story is an example of the inequities of the medical marijuana > situation now where prices are prohibitively high for many people supply > and demand etc but it is costing him his life. > http:www.nashuatelegraph.comnews1011383-469cannabis-care-fierce-medical-marijuana-advocate-says.html > > > > > > > > Perhaps it is time to go on the offensive with facts that support Jacks > thesis that it is actually good for you to use cannabis hemp to smoke > marijuana because of studies showing greater longevity and other medical > benefits that are now more widely known and accepted. > > > > > > > > Perhaps popularizing the story about Bruce DePalmas first experience > smoking pot might be a good one to share. During the years DePalma taught > physics and photographic science at MIT he and some of his students would > attend parties on weekends at a house in the country but he refused to > smoke pot with them for a long time. Then one night after the usual > several alcoholic drinks and waiting long enough to drive the long straight > road home he smoked pot for the first time. He said he did not notice any > significant effect except that the regularly spaced telephone poles along > the side of the road were passing by his car more slowly at the speed limit > he always drove on that road. This opened his mind as a scientist after > this experience which he called experiencing time dilation. This somehow > inspired him to take a closer look at how the gyroscope works. This > ultimately led him to do his experiments that led up to the n-Machine one > of the so called free energy technologies that taps into the energy field > in space itself that DePalma discovered and documented in his earlier > experiments. http:brucedepalma.com http:depalma.pair.com > > > > > > > > It is pretty well established that some famous scientists like Carl > Sagan smoked pot for pleasure and inspiration not medicinal use as we know > it but more like so-called recreational use which might better labeled as > inspirational use because of its effect on so many artists and musicians > and scientists like Sagan and DePalma. At one event with Jack where I met > Bill McPike one speaker was a musician who had played with lots of famous > people and who from the stage rattled off the names of soo many famous > actors and musicians who smoked pot perhaps another angle to publicize. > > > > > > > > DePalmas story does not mean that smoking pot makes you smarter only > that when smart people get stoned they tend to get inspired towards finding > out the truth of how things work which is the most dangerous proposition > for those in power. > > > > > > > > Cant we make its medical applications just another part of a greater > cannabis hemp industry starting in California using CCHHI2014 as a benefit > of its being freed so the cost is lowered and affordable by those like > Clayton Holton who are literally dying because they cannot afford to buy > medical marijuana at the kinds of pricing we see today which is about the > same as street prices > > > > > > > > And a more pragmatic question does CCHHI have until April 18th or some > earlier date because signature gathering has already started > > > > > > > > What would be the economic benefit to the State of California and its > taxpayers if CCHHI passes and that releases from prison the nonviolent pot > offenders how much money would that save annually > > > > > > > > Many Thanks and Much Love > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > David Crockett Williams > > > > Global Emergency Alert Response > > > > http:angelfire.comonGEAR2000intro.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: SFBayCannabisCommunityyahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Letitia Pepper > > Sent: Wednesday November 27 2013 7:06 PM > > To: SFBayCannabisCommunityyahoogroups.com; ocnorml; > savecannabisa2c2.us > > Cc: denise Cullen; Jacob Eldred; Hector farias; Garrett Gyssler; > Benjamin maestas; Shawn Mahoney; Joshua Marer; Roman Nunez; Brenda Riggs; > James Romesburg; Brandon Sanchez > > Subject: Re: SFBayCannabisCommunity Dave Hodges on Talk Marijuana Re: > MCLR 2014 – the California Marijuana Control Legalization & Revenue Act > > > > > > > > > > > > FYI Talk Marijuana did not invite either Buddy Duzy or Michael > Jolson the two proponents of the “Jack Herer” initiative California > Cannabis Hemp 2014 to participate in or to send a representative to > participate in this program. > > Why Is this responsible journalism Or is it an effort to push > the “tax control and regulate” agenda > > The Herer initiative petition is being circulated even now and the > Green Party has endorsed it and in some areas is apparently combining voter > registration drives with circulating the petition. > > In contrast the MCLR has been filed then withdrawn then > re-filed and then kicked back by the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) > for reasons Dave Hodges has refused to reveal at least to this discussion > group. (At a meeting in Sacramento last night when Dave Hodges was asked > why the MCLR initiative was kicked back by the LAO he said that the reason > they were given was that the initiative as written (after several attempts > to fix it too) would be subject to legal challenge.) > > I have now posted several questions directed to Dave Hodges about > MCLR to the SFBayCannabis Community group after Dave Hodges posted press > releases about it. He’s never answered a single one. > > Dave Hodges’ press releases have also been filled with > mis-information. In the most recent press release he stated that the MCLR > would have 150 days to collect the necessary signatures to get on the > ballot. Wrong. > > To qualify for the 2014 election all signatures must be turned in > to the Counties’ Registrars of Voters by April 18. In the period between > January 1 to April 18 there are only 108 days. If the MCLR is released > for circulation on December 23 the date the Secretary of State has stated > as the approximate release date (see > http:www.sos.ca.govelectionsballot-

CCHI / MCLR in response to Letitia

From: votedebbietharp – January 1, 1970

And an additional point regarding point number 8 — over-regulation is leading to invasion of privacy in every aspect of our lives. The best way to address that is to keep the federal government out of our personal health decisions completely. You’re right CCHI does propose a tax. It should be as minimally invasive a tax as that which is paid when buying a six pack of beer. Leticia was right in the point that (1) No permit license or tax shall be required for the non-commercial cultivation transportation distribution or consumption of cannabis hemp. As far as commercial goes “For the purpose of distinguishing personal from commercial production 99 flowering female plants and 12 pounds of dried cured cannabis hemp flowers but not leaf produced per adult 21 years of age and older per year shall be presumed as being for personal use.” There’s your answer to number 8 People aren’t prevented from producing more it just get’s classified as a commercial operation and a tax becomes necessary. In addition it’s not a 10 tax it’s just not to exceed ten percent: 2. Place an excise tax on commercial sale of cannabis hemp euphoric products analogous to Californias wine industry model so long as no excise tax or combination of excise taxes shall exceed 10 of the retail price of the products. Fifty percent of the excise tax revenues collected shall be made available for the research development and promotion of industrial nutritional and medicinal hemp industries in California. In addition you say this CCHI will have a lot of legal challenges. Actually WE are bringing the legal challenges to THEM. 1. Enactment of this initiative shall include: the case by case review for the purpose of sentence modification amnesty immediate release from prison jail parole and probation andor clearing expunging and deletion of all cannabis hemp marijuana criminal records for all persons currently charged with or convicted of any non-violent cannabis hemp marijuana offenses included in or modified by this initiative which are hereby no longer illegal andor applicable in the State of California. People who fall within this category that triggered an original sentence are included within this provision. 2(a) Within 60 days of the passage of this Act the Attorney General shall develop and distribute a one-page application providing for the destruction of all cannabis hemp marijuana criminal records in California for any such offense invalidated by this Act. Such forms shall be distributed to district and city attorneys made available at all police departments in the State and made available electronically at http:www.courts.govforms.html to persons hereby affected. Upon filing such form with any Superior Court and a payment of a fee of 10.00 the Court shall liberally construe these provisions to benefit the defendant in furtherance of the amnesty and dismissal provision of this section. Upon the Courts ruling under this provision the arrest record shall be set aside and be destroyed. Such persons may then truthfully state that they have never been arrested or convicted of any cannabis hemp marijuana related offense that is hereby no longer illegal in the State of California. This shall be deemed to be a finding of factual innocence under California Penal Code Section 851.8 et seq. Of course there’s going to be conflict. Whoever does this we are fighting federal authorities and basically fighting against one of the largest police states in the world. On Sat Nov 30 2013 at 12:15 PM Debbie Tharp wrote: > correction the previous message was typed on my phone. What I meant to > say was “You just told this woman that she seems only interested in > spreading lies and misinformation and then said you hope to work with her. > How are any of us to take such a condescending and duplicitous MESSAGE with > more than a grain of salt. You disappoint me Dave. I don’t know how you > expect us to take you seriously with such a glaring lack of diplomacy. > unbelievable” > > > On Sat Nov 30 2013 at 12:08 PM Debbie Tharp wrote: > >> You just told this woman that she seems only interested in spreading lies >> and misinformation and then said you hope to work with her. How are any of >> us to take such a condescending and duplicitous with more than a grain of >> salt. You disappoint me Dave. I don’t know how you expect us to take you >> seriously with such a glaring lack of diplomacy. unbelievable >> On Nov 30 2013 11:49 AM “Dave Hodges” wrote: >> >>> Letitia >>> >>> I had hoped you would provide a detailed list of issues with MCLR as I >>> have done with CCHI back in June: http:bit.lyWhatsWrongWithCCHI >>> >>> I really wish you could be a positive force to change the law >>> surrounding the cannabis plant but it appears you wish only to spread lies >>> and misinformation. >>> >>> I’ll attempt to address all the misinformation you have presented in >>> your last 10 emails. >>> >>> >>> 1) You claim of a “secretive nature and potential for cronyism this >>> initiative” >>> There is nothing “secretive” about what we are doing. We have presented >>> the language of MCLR in an open public forum and requested input from >>> everyone (including you). I’m not sure where you get the “cronyism” from. >>> The Commission you complain about was designed to be an independent >>> bipartisan group setup similar to the California Fair Political Practices >>> Commission. This was the most fair independent structure we could find. >>> >>> >>> >>> 2) You claim that you “read the whole thing and took notes” and “saw >>> just how bad it really is.” >>> Can you please provide these notes We plan to re-file next week. So if >>> it is really that bad and you provide the details there is still time for >>> changes. >>> >>> >>> >>> 3) You claimed I was at a 1127 meeting in Sacramento and that I >>> stated “that the initiative as written would be subject to legal >>> challenge.” >>> I was driving back from LA 1127 and was not in Sacramento. The >>> statement that “the initiative as written would be subject to legal >>> challenge.” is not true for MCLR but it is true for CCHI… If passed CCHI >>> will have MANY legal challenges. >>> >>> >>> >>> 4) You claim that MCLR was “kicked back by the Legislative Analyst’s >>> Office (LAO) for reasons Dave Hodges has refused to reveal” >>> The LAO does not “kick back” an initiative. They ask questions of the >>> authors to see if the LAO interpretation of the language is what the >>> proponents intended. >>> >>> I have stated the reasons we plan to re-file but for clarity I will >>> restate the issues that caused the 1st re-filing. >>> >>> >>> LAO Issue 1) in section 27710 (a) stated “Adults may cultivate no more >>> than 100 square feet of cannabis plant canopy outdoor per acre per >>> individual…” >>> the language should have been: >>> >>> “(a) Adults may cultivate no more than 100 square feet of cannabis plant >>> canopy outdoor per individual with a maximum of 100 square feet per acre >>> per individual and 100 square feet of cannabis plant canopy indoor per >>> individual on his or her property. No more than ten (10) adults may >>> aggregate together for the purpose of forming a non-medical >>> non-commercial unregulated cannabis garden.” >>> >>> >>> LAO Issue 2) in section 27105. Zoning; Voter Referendum (c) stated >>> “Except as set forth in subsections (d)…” >>> the language should have been: >>> >>> “(c) Except as set forth in subsections (b) and (d)…” >>> >>> The rest of the changes in Version 2 were input taken from the community >>> response. >>> >>> >>> >>> 5) You claim that “MCLR is based on taxing and regulating people’s >>> interactions with the plant instead of protecting individual adults’ and >>> patients’ rights to grow and use a plant for personal use without being >>> taxed licensed and regulated out of doing so and being forced to become >>> mere consumers for dispensary owners” >>> This is the farthest from the truth. MCLR creates rights adults do not >>> currently have such as the non-medical grow. It also protects the rights >>> provided by Prop 215 & SB 420 and creates a new “regulated” industry for >>> people who cannot produce their own. >>> >>> >>> >>> 6) You claim that MCLR “limits personal cultivation to only 100 square >>> feet of canopy per parcel no matter how many people depend on that parcel >>> for medicine and no matter how large the parcel is” and that “This >>> initiative definitely impairs the right to grow cannabis for one’s self and >>> one’s family.” >>> Under MCLR each adult 21 and over may have a 100 sqft grow space indoor >>> and outdoor. Up to 10 people can grow on the same property. This creates a >>> maximum 1000 sqft indoor & 1000 sqft outdoor of NON-MEDICAL >>> NON-COMMERCIAL UNREGULATED cannabis garden. This DOES NOT AFFECT ANY >>> MEDICAL CANNABIS GARDENS. >>> >>> Hopefully a small change in 27200. Medical Cannabis Protections will >>> clarify this for you. The new language is: >>> >>> This Act shall not LIMIT OR adversely affect the individual and group >>> CULTIVATION RIGHTS medical rights and protections afforded by Health and >>> Safety Code Sections 11362.5 through 11362.83 >>> >>> >>> >>> 7) You claim that “CCHI is with no regulation or taxation” >>> CCHI clearly states: “Place an excise tax on commercial sale of cannabis >>> hemp euphoric products analogous to Californias wine industry model so >>> long as no excise tax or combination of excise taxes shall exceed 10 of >>> the retail price of the products.” >>> >>> That sounds like a Tax to me… >>> >>> and no “regulation”… I’m not sure how anyone could consider that a >>> good thing. Just look at what is happening in Washington. Without >>> regulations you create chaos and hurt everyone who cannot grow their own. >>> >>> >>> >>> 8) Your concern that we protect the growers and operators information >>> from the California Public Records Act. >>> This is based on the fear of law enforcement & the federal government >>> abusing the public information. If they want the information they need a >>> warrant. If you have a better suggestion on how to protect that >>> information please provide it. >>> >>> >>> >>> 9) Your statement that “the latest revision has still not even been >>> filed let alone released to be printed and circulated. And they have only >>> until April 18 to turn in all signatures. That’s less than 150 days.” >>> When we file the final version December 6th we may have less than 90 >>> days to collect signatures. >>> >>> CCHI’s circulation deadline is 022414. MCLR may not be cleared for >>> circulation until mid January and will have until April 28th to collect >>> signatures. >>> >>> We know this can be done based on Prop 9 aka Marsy’s Law which Passed in >>> the 2008 Election: >>> >>> Final version filed: 1272007 >>> Length as filed: 44 pages >>> UpdatesVersions filed: 3 >>> Signatures required: 694354 >>> >>> This historical information shows it has been done before and can be >>> done again. Notice Marsy’s law required 190k more signatures than MCLR or >>> CCHI will require. >>> >>> >>> 10) Regarding the fact that many see you as a “traitor to the Movement” >>> And that you are “loyal to your own self-interest: I want the freedom to >>> grow and use cannabis without being forced to buy it from the state or from >>> a corporation or an illicit source.” >>> >>> I am not sure I would call you a “traitor” more someone that jumps to >>> conclusions without being open to trying to understand the other side. Ego >>> is a human flaw and it seems you let yours get in the way a lot. >>> >>> In our brief discussion at the Rancho Cucamonga event I attempted to >>> tell you how the collective I founded DOES NOT PAY ANY TAXES and that the >>> way we operate fits into your understanding of Prop 215 and SB 420. Yet you >>> still lump me in with the “tax & regulate” crowd. >>> >>> I too want the “freedom to grow and use cannabis without being forced to >>> buy it from the state or from a corporation” and MCLR is designed to >>> support just that. >>> >>> >>> >>> The facts: >>> >>> – >>> >>> MCLR protects Prop. 215 SB 420 & codifies the 2008 Attorney General >>> Guidelines >>> – >>> >>> MCLR does not infringe on any growing or other medical rights >>> provided by Prop. 215 and SB 420. >>> – >>> >>> MCLR creates a way for adults 21 & over to grow up to 1000 sqft >>> indoor & outdoor on any one property for non-medical use unregulated & >>> untaxed. >>> – >>> >>> MCLR is compliant with the latest U.S. Department of Justice >>> guidelines (the Cole Memo) >>> – >>> >>> MCLR provides regulations for those who want them >>> – >>> >>> MCLR enacts the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act (aka SB 566) >>> >>> >>> >>> Letitia I hope we can all work together to make 2014 a success. >>> >>> Best regards >>> Dave Hodges >>> >>> >>> On Fri Nov 29 2013 at 12:53 PM Bill McPike wrote: >>> > >>> > Letitia >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > No youre not wrong about April 18 for the others. If they file like >>> on Dec. 1 or Jan 1stor later they have a drop >>> > >>> > dead of April 18th. Thats the drop dead date for everybody unless >>> like this petition there is an earlier date. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > So the 150 days can end up being less by filing later. That final >>> deadline date is always 131 days before printing ballots so will >>> > >>> > Be a different day every year. But the sigs need to be examined and >>> ones will then be listed so they need the 131 days >>> > >>> > After 418 – To do this. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > I guess roughly to have your full 150 days you would have to be >>> approved around Nov 18th That gives one >>> > >>> > Month to 1218 month 2 till 118 month 3 till 218 month 4 till >>> 318 and finally month 5 about 150 days to 418. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > So any day(s) filed after around 1118 subtracts from your 150 day >>> circulation time. If you got approved 118 youd >>> > >>> > Only have about 90 days till 418. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > So as to that part you are 100 correct. And I wasnt trying to claim >>> you were wrong I wanted to be sure nobody >>> > >>> > Was misled into thinking why not wait till April to collect sigs. Your >>> correction is enough for me. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > As for Dave Hodges Im not familiar with his calculations or claims >>> about deadlines. If he believes he has 150 days from >>> > >>> > No matter when there is approval then yes he is wrong. Your >>> calculated dates & days appear about correct but Im >>> > >>> > Not getting out my calendar to count his remaining days. As I >>> understand it hes not approved. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > The above explains how this is all calculated. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Bill McPike >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > From: Letitia Pepper mailto:letitiapepperyahoo.com >>> > Sent: Friday November 29 2013 12:13 PM >>> > To: Bill McPike; ‘David C Williams’ >>> > Cc: Bert Duzy; Michael Jolson; Dave Hodges >>> > Subject: Re: April 18th vs Feb15 deadline >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Okay Bill & DC I’ve admitted that I — not Buddy Duzy or Mike >>> Jolson — made a mistake about the dates and I corrected it in an e-mail >>> this morning. >>> > I’m trying to do too many things at once. But am I wrong about how >>> much time the Save Cannabis initiative would have to collect signatures >>> Do they actually have 150 days >>> > According to the SOS website their initiative should be released >>> on December 23. That gives them 8 days until January 1 and another 108 >>> days from January 1 until April 18 for a total of 116 days. >>> > So in addition to complaining that I was wrong how about >>> complaining that Dave Hodges too is wrong >>> > Because the proponents of CCHI2014 are not the ones who were wrong >>> on the dates it was me. >>> > But Hodges is a proponent of his own initiative so presumably he >>> should have been upon on all this and correct in his press release. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Friday November 29 2013 11:59 AM Bill McPike >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > David >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > The time for collecting signatures is 150 days ONLY. Elections Code >>> 9014. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > This starts DAY 1 on the day the Secretary of State Official Site >>> says it was approved and filed >>> > >>> > ready to go. They also have the deadline of 224 end of circulating >>> petitions. >>> > >>> > On Jacks site for this project they have a turn in date of 214 & >>> this is certainly necessary >>> > >>> > And is an arbitrary date. But one should have a short deadline before >>> the state deadline >>> > >>> > Otherwise nothing will get collected or turned in. Claiming that >>> deadline is in April is outrageous. >>> > >>> > The law is the law. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > I saw this starting date on her site as Sept. 25 2013 & 224 is >>> circulation deadline. NO SIGS >>> > >>> > Can be collected after 224. Notice the site has the 2 dates to give >>> time to get the sig turned in. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > SO ONCE AGAIN UNLESS EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE MISLED THE DEADLINE IS >>> 224. Now if they >>> > >>> > Allow another 60 days to turn the papers in Id like to see that >>> statute. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > April 18th date does not apply to this project. Period. Thats a >>> totally different deadline as if >>> > >>> > Circulators dont get approved till like Jan they wont have 150 >>> days the deadline is due to >>> > >>> > Being able to print ballots etc. its called the 131 days prior to >>> printing ballots rule. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Bill McPike >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > From: David C Williams mailto:gear2000lightspeed.net >>> > Sent: Friday November 29 2013 10:33 AM >>> > To: ‘Letitia Pepper’ >>> > Cc: ‘Bill McPike’ >>> > Subject: RE: April 18th vs Feb15 deadline RE: SFBayCannabisCommunity >>> Jack Herer’s CCHHI2014 (cannabis-hemp freedom act) California ballot >>> initiative vs MCLR 2014 (tax and regulate) – the California Marijuana >>> Control Legalization & Revenue Act >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Hi Letitia >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Yes Thanks >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > From what you say it might be good to add those details in a caveat in >>> future emails so amateur signature gatherers dont delay too long in >>> submitting their petitions. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Do you have any idea how many have been gathered in total yet and how >>> many left to gather >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Bill McPike cc above is the attorney who smoothed out the CCHI >>> wording at Jack Herers request adding the amnesty and expunge parts too >>> and is of course hoping CCHI2014 succeeds. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > I am working with Brandon at UCSB for a January 17th event in Santa >>> Barbara to which we will be inviting Dr. David Bearman to participate as he >>> did with Jack and some locally influential folks in 2008 to promote CCHHI >>> that year where videos of our panel discussion are on my wifes youtube >>> channel at http:www.youtube.comusercarolynne108featurewatch >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Many Thanks and Much Love >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > David>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > David Crockett Williams >>> > >>> > Global Emergency Alert Response >>> > >>> > http:angelfire.comonGEAR2000intro.html >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > From: Letitia Pepper mailto:letitiapepperyahoo.com >>> > Sent: Friday November 29 2013 9:49 AM >>> > To: David C Williams >>> > Subject: Re: Feb15 deadline RE: SFBayCannabisCommunity Jack Herer’s >>> CCHHI2014 (cannabis-hemp freedom act) California ballot initiative vs MCLR >>> 2014 (tax and regulate) – the California Marijuana Control Legalization & >>> Revenue Act >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > That directive is for the volunteer circulators only. I assume >>> that it is because volunteers are less likely to return things on time >>> (having taught school I know how this works) and they’ll be coming in >>> for weeks. >>> > The professional circulators don’t have to return things that >>> early (and I’m planning to continue collecting signatures to almost the >>> end). >>> > They need the petitions sections returned early because other >>> volunteers with experience will be going through them to make sure the >>> signatures are good and all the info is filled out correctly. So if for >>> example a volunteer forgot to sign a section (that’s already happened to >>> some that have been returned to me) there’s time to get such issues >>> corrected. >>> > So April 18 is still the drop-dead date for turning in all >>> petition sections to the counties’ Registrars of Voters. >>> > >>> > Make sense now >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Friday November 29 2013 9:02 AM David C Williams < >>> gear2000lightspeed.net> wrote: >>> > >>> > The CCHI site says the petitions need to be in to the office by Feb.15 >>> and turned in to counties by Feb.28 way before April 18th right >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > From: SFBayCannabisCommunityyahoogroups.com mailto: >>> SFBayCannabisCommunityyahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Letitia Pepper >>> > Sent: Thursday November 28 2013 2:06 PM >>> > To: SFBayCannabisCommunityyahoogroups.com >>> > Subject: Re: SFBayCannabisCommunity Jack Herer’s CCHHI2014 >>> (cannabis-hemp freedom act) California ballot initiative vs MCLR 2014 (tax >>> and regulate) – the California Marijuana Control Legalization & Revenue Act >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Tax control and regulate is not a needed “next step” on the way >>> to something better. It is the end that many people who plan to make money >>> want. >>> > The question is not only whether CCHI can get onto the ballot >>> and be adopted but whether anything else can pass now that patients are >>> more educated and unwilling to vote against their self-interests. >>> > More after Thanksgiving. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thursday November 28 2013 11:23 AM David C Williams < >>> gear2000lightspeed.net> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Is there enough public and movement support to get CCHHI on the ballot >>> and passed into law this time signature gathering now for 2014 ballot >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Cannabis hemp liberation or taxation to regulate >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > The question seems to be whether the California public is ready to >>> accept the full cannabis freedom offered by passage of CCHHI2014 or >>> whether they would only vote for a control tax and regulate scheme (such as >>> MCLR) which seems to be more palatable for the medical marijuana industry >>> and its campaign financing potential. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Many of those who support the tax and regulate idea claim that is >>> because it is a needed next step towards full re-legalization but what a >>> giant future obstacle to overcome if any taxregulate law passes which >>> would create a tremendous economic inertia likely impossible to overcome >>> for later full relegalization. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > When Jack Herer was persuaded in February 1996 to fully back Prop215 >>> at the expense of his full relegalization CCHHI type proposition of 1996 >>> in respect of medical patients being in the greatest need for cannabis as >>> medicine and given the reality of the political climate then he told me >>> clearly then that Prop215 passing into law would mean such big business and >>> money influence growing in the medical marijuana industry that it may in >>> future hamper full re-legalization efforts. http:jackherer.com >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Has Jacks prediction then come true now >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Is there a business plan that the medical cannabis industry has in >>> place for the time when full cannabis hemp freedom is made into law Who >>> are those people that CCHHI proponents seeking funding to get it on the >>> ballot should ask for help now Is this what we need to get the financing >>> to get CCHHI2014 on the ballot and passed into law donations as >>> investments from those who will most benefit andor profit from full >>> cannabis hemp marijuana freedom who are those people >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > In his talk at Jack Herers funeral Chris Conrad tried to convince >>> people that Jack would have supported the Prop19 tax and regulate >>> proposition in spite of Jacks last speech that he died after delivering >>> in Oregon which railed vigorously against any taxation of cannabis hemp. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > I believe Jack would say that we should pass his updated CCHHI >>> cannabis hemp freedom proposition in 2014 to let the rest of the nation >>> know this should be a main issue in the presidential elections of 2016. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > I hope that Chris and others who have successfully guided the movement >>> and its nationally emulated progress in California that they speak out >>> soon in support CCHHI 2014 as much as they can to help it get on the ballot >>> and passed into law. I hope that those whose feelings were hurt over >>> arguments over Prop19 will agree it is better that it did not pass into >>> law and they will help CCHHI succeed. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > We need to start painting the picture verbally of what it will be like >>> in California after CCHHI2014 passes and full cannabis hemp freedom hits >>> California like a tsunami wave of healing going east across the nation to >>> liberate the plant medicines in 2016 nationally. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Couldnt we easily bring Jesse Ventura into the ring on this one soon >>> as he is running for president on an independent campaign with Howard Stern >>> as VP >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > In 2008 we arranged for the wife of then presidential candidate Dennis >>> Kucinich to meet with Jack but too late in the campaign only weeks before >>> Kucinich had to drop out but Dennis and Elizabeth were supportive So >>> much so that she brought out a medical cannabis patient with severe >>> muscular dystrophy to meet Jack Herer Eddy Lepp and friends who enabled >>> him to feel better and gain weight for the first time Clayton Holton >>> http:nhcompassion.orgclaytonholton >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Claytons story is an example of the inequities of the medical >>> marijuana situation now where prices are prohibitively high for many >>> people supply and demand etc but it is costing him his life. >>> http:www.nashuatelegraph.comnews1011383-469cannabis-care-fierce-medical-marijuana-advocate-says.html >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Perhaps it is time to go on the offensive with facts that support >>> Jacks thesis that it is actually good for you to use cannabis hemp to >>> smoke marijuana because of studies showing greater longevity and other >>> medical benefits that are now more widely known and accepted. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Perhaps popularizing the story about Bruce DePalmas first experience >>> smoking pot might be a good one to share. During the years DePalma taught >>> physics and photographic science at MIT he and some of his students would >>> attend parties on weekends at a house in the country but he refused to >>> smoke pot with them for a long time. Then one night after the usual >>> several alcoholic drinks and waiting long enough to drive the long straight >>> road home he smoked pot for the first time. He said he did not notice any >>> significant effect except that the regularly spaced telephone poles along >>> the side of the road were passing by his car more slowly at the speed limit >>> he always drove on that road. This opened his mind as a scientist after >>> this experience which he called experiencing time dilation. This somehow >>> inspired him to take a closer look at how the gyroscope works. This >>> ultimately led him to do his experiments that led up to the n-Machine one >>> of the so called free energy technologies that taps into the energy field >>> in space itself that DePalma discovered and documented in his earlier >>> experiments. http:brucedepalma.com http:depalma.pair.com >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > It is pretty well established that some famous scientists like Carl >>> Sagan smoked pot for pleasure and inspiration not medicinal use as we know >>> it but more like so-called recreational use which might better labeled as >>> inspirational use because of its effect on so many artists and musicians >>> and scientists like Sagan and DePalma. At one event with Jack where I met >>> Bill McPike one speaker was a musician who had played with lots of famous >>> people and who from the stage rattled off the names of soo many famous >>> actors and musicians who smoked pot perhaps another angle to publicize. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > DePalmas story does not mean that smoking pot makes you smarter only >>> that when smart people get stoned they tend to get inspired towards finding >>> out the truth of how things work which is the most dangerous proposition >>> for those in power. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Cant we make its medical applications just another part of a greater >>> cannabis hemp industry starting in California using CCHHI2014 as a benefit >>> of its being freed so the cost is lowered and affordable by those like >>> Clayton Holton who are literally dying because they cannot afford to buy >>> medical marijuana at the kinds of pricing we see today which is about the >>> same as street prices >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > And a more pragmatic question does CCHHI have until April 18th or >>> some earlier date because signature gathering has already started >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > What would be the economic benefit to the State of California and its >>> taxpayers if CCHHI passes and that releases from prison the nonviolent pot >>> offenders how much money would that save annually >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Many Thanks and Much Love >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > David>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > David Crockett Williams >>> > >>> > Global Emergency Alert Response >>> > >>> > http:angelfire.comonGEAR2000intro.html >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > From: SFBayCannabisCommunityyahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Letitia >>> Pepper >>> > Sent: Wednesday November 27 2013 7:06 PM >>> > To: SFBayCannabisCommunityyahoogroups.com; ocnorml; >>> savecannabisa2c2.us >>> > Cc: denise Cullen; Jacob Eldred; Hector farias; Garrett Gyssler; >>> Benjamin maestas; Shawn Mahoney; Joshua Marer; Roman Nunez; Brenda Riggs; >>> James Romesburg; Brandon Sanchez >>> > Subject: Re: SFBayCannabisCommunity Dave Hodges on Talk Marijuana >>> Re: MCLR 2014 – the California Marijuana Control Legalization & Revenue Act >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > FYI Talk Marijuana did not invite either Buddy Duzy or Michael >>> Jolson the two proponents of the “Jack Herer” initiative California >>> Cannabis Hemp 2014 to participate in or to send a representative to >>> participate in this program. >>> > Why Is this responsible journalism Or is it an effort to push >>> the “tax control and regulate” agenda >>> > The Herer initiative petition is being circulated even now and >>> the Green Party has endorsed it and in some areas is apparently combining >>> voter registration drives with circulating the petition. >>> > In contrast the MCLR has been filed then withdrawn then >>> re-filed and then kicked back by the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) >>> for reasons Dave Hodges has refused to reveal at least to this discussion >>> group. (At a meeting in Sacramento last night when Dave Hodges was asked >>> why the MCLR initiative was kicked back by the LAO he said that the reason >>> they were given was that the initiative as written (after several attempts >>> to fix it too) would be subject to legal challenge.) >>> > I have now posted several questions directed to Dave Hodges >>> about MCLR to the SFBayCannabis Community group after Dave Hodges posted >>> press releases about it. He’s never answered a single one. >>> > Dave Hodges’ press releases have also been filled with >>> mis-information. In the most recent press release he stated that the MCLR >>> would have 150 days to collect the necessary signatures to get on the >>> ballot. Wrong. >>> > To qualify for the 2014 election all signatures must be turned in >>> to the Counties’ Registrars of Voters by April 18. In the period between >>> January 1 to April 18 there are only 108 days. If the MCLR is released >>> for circulation on December 23 the date the Secretary of State has stated >>> as the approximate release date (see >>> http:www.sos.ca.govelectionsballot-measuresattorney-general-information.htm) >>> that will give them only 115 days to collect enough signatures. >>> > If you want more freedom for everyone if you want to restore >>> cannabis to the position it occupied before it was criminalized act now. >>> > Go to www.CCHI2014.org and donate 100 to pay some professional >>> signature gatherers to help our volunteers. I have no compunction at all >>> about asking people to donate to this really good initiative because I’ve >>> been donating time and money and will be donating even more as April 18 >>> gets closer. >>> > I have read and analyzed every single cannabis-related initiative >>> since Prop. 19 and this is the only one that is good for everyone. It >>> serves no special interests just the interests of the State of California >>> and of all its citizens. >>> > Don’t merely “legalize” cannabis — liberate it. Legalize AND >>> decriminalize — that’s what Jack Herer wanted and what we need to do. >>> And when we do California will lead the country with the best cannabis >>> hemp laws in the land. >>> > >>> > >>> >>> — >>> 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.

Santa Rosa MCLR Outreach Meeting

From: john – January 1, 1970

California MCLR Community Outreach Meeting Where: OrganiCann – Santa Rosa 301 East Todd Rd Santa Rosa CA 95407 When: Monday Dec 2 2013 7:00PM Final amendments to Californias Marijuana Control Legalization and Revenue Act of 2014 (MCLR) will be filed with the Secretary of State the first week of December. The initiatives supporters are coordinating meet-and-greet events throughout California to gather ideas and support before the last date to file for the 2014 California General Election. Everyone is encouraged to attend one of the final opportunities to learn more and provide direct input to the Initiative to be presented to the voters in November 2014. You will have the chance to speak directly to members of the MCLR campaign team ask questions and present your own ideas and suggestions. There is no on-site consumption at this event Please visit www.MCLR.us to view the full text — 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.

Dave Hodges on Talk Marijuana Re: MCLR 2014 – the California Marijuana Control, Legalization & Revenue Act

From: dave – January 1, 1970

Thank you Talk Marijuana for the great questions regarding MCLR and 2014. On the show: Barry Kramer Yami Bolandos Sam Humeid Don Duncan Dave Hodges (me) http:bit.lytmvmclr — 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.