Harry Anslinger’s Voice – Part 4:
 
We’ve been able to obtain yet another example of Harry Anslinger’s voice
–– No doubt about it, he died a Drug Addict all-right; —one almost
feels sorry for him. Let me explain, sometime ago I wrote the following:
 
“—I almost jumped out of my chair when I heard Harry Anslinger’s
(America’s first drug czar) voice for the first time. Despite having
been recorded with less than ideal instruments ; despite all the
pop’s and hisses of having been copied (who knows) how many previous
times, still his charismatic voice came through – very loud and
clear. It was only after hearing his voice that I fully understood
how this one man could have done so much harm. Man, this guy wasn’t
just charismatic, let’s just say that voice wise, he was Adolph
Hitler’s twin-brother.—”
 
BUT THAT was the 1930’s Anslinger, what I heard next, also made my ears
pick-up, but in a different way. By the year 1951 (the next recording of
him we were able to locate), he already sounded like a dope addict
mumbling along.
 
And I’m afraid that this new find confirms that ugly truth. During his
latter days, there was something real wrong with him. Maybe drugs like
Morphine (Anslinger died a Morphine Addict) really do effect the brain.
 
NOTE – There is no copy-write on the recording, and I am trying to figure
out how to make copies of it. If anyone want’s I can try to figure out
how to do that and email you the recording.
 
 
Antique Andy
Museum Curator
s..[email protected]
www.AntiqueCannabisBook.com
www.ReeferMadnessMuseum.org
 
 
 
 
 
—————————————–
Sent via Catholic Online Webmail!
Use Catholic Online Webmail to proclaim your faith to the world.
http://webmail.catholic.org/

Greetings all and specifically the folks putting forth MMRCTA,
 
So I have had a chance to read over the Ammiano Bill, and understand that there are some differences between the Ammiano effort and the MMRCTA effort. Dale spoke to the patients rights afforded by the section that states medical cannabis users have the same rights as those using prescription drugs, and Ammiano calls for rescheduling at the State level, even though it does not set forth that provision. The state tax thing, is a local tax allowance. 
 
But overall, many of the good things that you are promoting from MMRCTA are included in it, some of it verbatim. The differences are not that great, and overall I think the make up of the Bureau in Ammianno's is easier to understand and straight forward, as well as a more traditional method of appointment. 
 
But none-the-less, union and other more specified and deliberate appointements aside, it creates a very similar Bureau with similar or identical duties.
 
So the question is, does the MMRCTA campaign think we should a.) Reject Ammiano's proposal?  b.) Support Ammiano but still spend somebody's hard earned cash for a public campaign?; or c.) Just support Ammiano's and put resources towards lobbying other legislators to pass it with amendments to reflect those in MMRCTA?
 
Will there be a public response to the Ammiano effort?
 
Mickey Martin
T-Comp Consulting Director
www.cannabiswarrior.com
www.tcompconsulting.com
s..[email protected]
(phone#-removed)
http://twitter.com/micKEYmarTIN
http://twitter.com/CANNABISconsult
 
 
***The views expressed in this communication are not necessarily the views of T-Comp Consulting, Tainted Compassion, Cannabis Warrior any other group I am affiliated with.***

I can't speak for either camp, but I'll give a quick recap of what I saw:
 
— The first distinction is critical but not visible. A voter-approved
initiative, like Prop. 215, may not be amended by later pronouncements of
the state Legislature, as we found out with the MMPA's
possession/cultivation limits in People v. Kelly. Two key concepts here:
 
1. Because federal law remains the big elephant in the room, a state's
rights challenge on Tenth Amendment grounds is inevitable. A voter-approved
state initiative may have more sticking power in federal courts than a
legislative bill that does the same thing.
 
2. Putting federal law aside for a moment, California ballot initiatives
have great staying power when faced with attacks from state and local
lawmakers. What the Legislature can do, the Legislature can undo in a
heartbeat, and likely will given further federal meddling. MMRCT's reforms
(which don't amend the Compassionate Use Act in any way) will have equal
legal status as the CUA. Unlike the CUA, MMRCT does allow for amendment "to
further the purposes of the Act" with a 2/3 vote of each house of the
Legislature. That's not easy, as our annual budget fiascos illustrate, so I
don't know if that's a deal-killer or not.
 
— Both versions amend H&S 11362.775 to remove that problematic "shall not
solely on the basis of that fact" language that has bedeviled attorneys
since 1993. What remains is that qualified patients, MMPA cardholders
"shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or sanctions under Section
11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, 11379.6, or 11570 on the basis
of that fact, unless those persons are not in compliance with the
registration requirements…"
 
— MMRCT is much stronger on state pre-emption, barring cities and
counties from "regulating, taxing and controlling medical marijuana." AB
2312 goes a little soft in 11362.83, allowing local governments to allow
zoning laws "consistent with" state laws, which is subject to
interpretation and frequent legal challenge, a la Pack, Riverside, Anaheim,
et al. Neither MMRCT nor AB 2312 goes the full monty by occupying the whole
field of medical cannabis regulation, which would give the greatest clarity
to the courts but no doubt raise opposition by cities and counties. AB 2312
clarifies that the law applies to both charter cities and general law
cities and removes any language that regulations be "reasonable," as called
for in MMRCT.
 
— "Mandatory registrant" is defined differently, meaning anyone who holds
a registration in MMRCT, and anyone who is required to hold a registration
in AB 2312.
 
— Personal grow sites "in accordance with local zoning and building codes"
need not register, in AB 2312. Which is great, but take a look at the
indoor/outdoor/both cultivation bans and onerous requirements sprouting up
around the state. This goes back to the full-monty argument: If we don't
occupy the full field of regulation at the state level, local govs are
going to do what they're going to do. They may have a harder time doing it,
but I doubt anyone will be particularly happy with the results.
 
— AB 2312 adds a penalty account to the Medical Marijuana Fund, which the
Legislature can allocate as it sees fit, and removes MMRCT's outlined
funding for medical cannabis research and emergency medical services. It
also shrinks the 21-person board to a more manageable (but more effective?)
9-person board.
 
— AB 2312 removes a clause in MMRCT that permits the Board of Medical
Marijuana Enforcement to transmit a confidential index of mandatory
registrants to the state tax board.
 
— AB 2312 strengthens protections against local cannabis taxes by
requiring a 2/3 voter approval and an earmark for the funds. It hasn't set
the maximum tax that may be passed. The full impact of AB 2312 and MMRCT on
the local taxes passed in Oakland, San Jose, Sacramento, etc., I can't
figure out on first reading.
 
— AB 2312 drops most of Section 6 from the MMRCT, which allows for
misdemeanor prosecution of violations of 11357, 11358, 11359 and 11360.
Ammiano's AB 2017, introduced last year, did the same thing for cultivation
only (11358) but the bill died earlier this
month<http://asmdc.org/members/a13/legislation/itemlist/category/288-2011-legislation>,
so it figures a broader application of the concept wouldn't help 2312's
chances for passage. Giving prosecutors flexibility to charge these
"wobbler" offenses as misdemeanors where appropriate is a good thing, of
course, and non-patients as well as patients with lapsed or shaky
documentation would benefit from the broader protections in MMRCT.
 
Some people wince at mandatory registrations, licenses, permits, ID cards
and any mechanism at all by which local governments and law enforcement can
identify the good folks from the bad folks. That goes double when the feds
eat their Wheaties and start making us question all the regulatory progress
we've made so far. Consider how the ID cards in SB 420 were made voluntary
instead of mandatory, making them of limited usefulness statewide despite
their added protections from arrest. And for all the saber-rattling,
nobody's (yet) made a run at the state database of ID cardholders; it's
just doing its thing, aiding law enforcement in the field and hopefully a
few patients along the way.
 
The point being: It's time to grow up. You need a license to drive a car, a
permit to open a business, a tax ID number to process retail transactions
at dispensaries. California is one of the most regulated places on the
planet; to oppose mandatory registrations, tamper-proof ID cards,
reasonable security precautions and other tools of the modern regulatory
trade is quite damaging to the larger cause. I hope to live to see a day
where none of those things will be required, but I know that day will never
arrive without taking reasonable, necessary steps now to assure our friends
in mainstream society and law enforcement that cannabis isn't as dangerous
as currently advertised.
 
 

Where does it end indeed?
 
I just got back from the Republican Party state convention in Burlingame (where we held an awesome rally for Ron Paul — see http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/25/hundreds-of-ron-paul-supporters-occupy-c for photos & video and a brief mention of yours truly!), where one of the GOP candidates for Senate told a Republican Liberty Caucus crowd his personal smoking-intolerance story.
 
The candidate, an old surfing rabbi with a foot-long beard (I swear I'm not making this up!), was apparently out on the beach in Malibu early one cold, drizzly morning having a smoke after catching some waves, with nobody anywhere nearby, when out of nowhere a sheriff's deputy comes jogging across the sand and tells him he has to put out his cigar. The rabbi said surely he must be kidding, and the deputy said no, put it out or I'll have to arrest you. The rabbi told us how much this incensed him, how American soldiers didn't die at Valley Forge and Iwo Jima "for some punk to tell me I can't smoke on the beach", and that he was "drawing a line in the sand".
 
I wish I could report that this man of the cloth was a big defender of personal choice, but while he did offer that he wouldn't arrest anybody for smoking pot, he also hypocritically opined a few minutes after telling his cigar story (in response to a question) that calls to end the drug war were a distraction from more important issues (i.e. education and the economy), at which point I had to give him a shout-out reminder that "tobacco is a drug too". Not sure whether that message sunk in or not, but the story does provide one more (as if more were needed) wryly amusing illustration of how out of control this health fascism has become, and how we can raise the issue as an argument for cannabis freedom.
 
My suggestion to the Rocklin homeowner would have been instead of going whining to the city council, simply buy a large, powerful outdoor fan, point it at your neighbors' yard, and turn it on whenever you smell smoke. Perhaps the neighbors would then complain about the constant breeze coming from next door, at which point the two parties could sit down and work out their dispute like adults. Expecting such a civilized yet assertive response from people used to turning to government to resolve all the minor annoyances in their lives might be a stretch, but you've gotta start somewhere.
 
At the risk of belaboring the point, all of this sort of thing is a direct consequence of this society's devaluation of property rights. Once we've bought into the idea that it's okay to tell other people what they can and can't do on their own property — and your first and most valuable piece of personal "property" is your own body — the potential for all manner of legal absurdities and petty tyranny knows no bounds.
 
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
 
 
On Feb 24, 2012, at 2:07 PM, David Jack wrote:
 

Coalinga's 2010 ordinance bans dispensaries, collectives, outdoor
cultivation and even the consumption of medical cannabis outside the
patient’s own home. And while all eyes are on dispensaries, God love 'em,
local cultivation bans are gaining momentum statewide, attacking not just
collectives but personal cultivation by individual patients and caregivers.
 
Don't get caught by surprise; assign someone to watch those agendas like a
hawk. Agendas for Tuesday council/supervisors meetings are usually posted
online by the Friday before. If you've got a Planning Commission, put them
on the watch list too. The cultivation bans are coming!
 

All…I think what Dale is referenceing and Its one of the points I
Had mentioned prior as a good public policy point to take out of the
ASA ballot that would ironicaly kill organizations like WAMM. For
business purpose any distrubtion would be commerical? There is a level
ofsharing that goverment shouldnt touch and doesnt with most other
plants n foods. So I am certianly NOT stating that ASA supports non
commerrical access …. The ASA ballot is business centered. But by
someone? Whomever you are pls do take credit. It does give civil
rights not just affirmative defense? Correct? legal folks and dale?
Thats key and community should ask Tom to re insert that element. Its
was the sweet spot in a ballot measure that otherwise is soar toward
patients rights and promotes a monopoly that would FINE and FEE
commpassionate care like WAMM out of existance and have dfisabled
patients give their entire check to the industry . Its Called poverty
pimping.
 
 
—
Shona Gochenaur
Executive Director
Axis of Love SF
http://www.facebook.com/axisoflove
http://www.twitter.com/axisoflove

completed my first reading? yes! this is worlds upon worlds better
than the ballot MTRA . My suggestion is that the ballot intative pulls
out and puts their support behind this bill or make immediate amends
if possible . My support depends or hinges on the defining of patient
advocate . If paid lobbyist is able to be seated as? No way! If ceo of
facilty or co op ? No way! If a paid employee? If a consultant for
coops? No way! A permit smoother or expidter? A govermental relations
or stragetic communications specialist? No way! It must be defined as
an indivual that advocates on behalf of patients soley and not
employed by a collective or cooperative. Or primarliy funded by. And
needless to state but certianly not a ceo of a drugpolicy org! But
lord have mecry once again I find myself agreeing . This board
configureation? Worlds better. Defitions include sliding scale and
depenandt on project? We dont loose organizations like WAMM. And last?
but not least! we dont establish AS?A MONOPOLY.
 
 
The bill is posted at
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB2312&search_keywords=
 
On Feb 25, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur wrote:
 
> Axis of Love SF
> http://www.facebook.com/axisoflove
> http://www.twitter.com/axisoflove
 
Dale Gieringer – s..[email protected]
California NORML www.canorml.org
(phone#-removed) / FAX(phone#-removed)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
—
Shona Gochenaur
Executive Director
Axis of Love SF
http://www.facebook.com/axisoflove
http://www.twitter.com/axisoflove

Hi Marquis … Et all can we please add this student group to our
list? These questions are great . I wish I had as great of answers for
our youth and students. This bill doesnt prevent closures. I think
there is a hope that if the state "controls" the industry maybe? The
feds will back off? This bill and the state ballot measure it mirrors
do nothing to promote disabled employment inside an industry that
promotes itself as serving sick n disabled . Who need to be consider
in our employement? a top priority. I know students especialy are
concerned about keeping their medicine affordable? And taxes raise the
cost of already expensive medicine. The rub there is that if we give
the state taxes? We legitize our commerical industry . But I see ?
Taxation without representation playing out currently at state level.
Thank you for you thoughtful questions . Your a great youth
representive ! Hopefuly we can widen our circle here and others can
give marquis and other students their insight .
 
 
—
Shona Gochenaur
Executive Director
Axis of Love SF
http://www.facebook.com/axisoflove
http://www.twitter.com/axisoflove

3 Major Legalization Initiatives Unite in California
 

<>
 
Rarely do competing camps come together, but in an effort to end
marijuana prohibition in California all three legalization efforts unite.

A little watered down for my taste, but progress none-the-less…..now if someone can define "support 100%" for me. LOL.
 
 
Statement of Unity
>Bill Panzer, Proponent, RCPA
>___________________________________________
>Buddy Duzy,Treasurer, CCHHI
 
Mickey Martin
T-Comp Consulting Director
www.cannabiswarrior.com
www.tcompconsulting.com
s..[email protected]
(phone#-removed)
http://twitter.com/micKEYmarTIN
http://twitter.com/CANNABISconsult
 
 
***The views expressed in this communication are not necessarily the views of T-Comp Consulting, Tainted Compassion, Cannabis Warrior any other group I am affiliated with.***
 
 
________________________________
From: Tim Perkins <s..[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 8:29 AM

A little void of context isn't it?
 
On 2/26/2012 8:10 AM, David Jack wrote:

Shona,
 
It's possible I'm misreading what you wrote below, but it sounds like you're saying ASA (Americans for Safe Access) has a top-down, authoritarian approach and are resistant towards others (other than who?) having leadership or a voice. If so, I'd like to say a few words in their defense.
 
For starters, they're the only drug reform group I know of that has regular activism/education-focused meetings here in San Francisco. I know that your group Axis of Love hosts free dinners and offers other charity help for patients (which being more into the activist side of things and not being in need I have not taken part in myself) and sometimes events (including at least one at which I spoke), but if AoL or other local anti-Drug War groups have anything similar to ASA's regular meetings where anyone can come and have a voice, I don't know about it.
 
Sure, I'd like ASA to be more bottom-up — virtually every organization has room for improvement. In fact I just recently had a conversation about this with David Goldman, one of their main local organizers. One of the things I brought up during that conversation was that I liked how at the group's previous meeting place, people had kind of gathered around in a loose circle, instead of everybody sitting and facing the leadership seated on a raised platform at one end of the room which I've usually seen at the current 847 Howard Street space. But at the very next meeting I attended (last Tuesday), the first thing I noticed when I walked in was that most of the group was seated in a circle. Perhaps this was a coincidence, but I like to think they listened to the concern I raised.
 
In general I have not gotten strong top-down/controlling type vibes from ASA. While I admittedly haven't tried to become a core organizer myself and haven't been paying super close attention, my impression is that their local leadership is composed of a number of people without there being any real hierarchy, and that people not infrequently come and go from this organizing core. I've always been allowed to say my piece along with everybody else, even when I've disagreed on issues such as the group's exclusive focus on medical use and refusal to advocate for *everyone's* freedom to put what they want into their own bodies, or when I've brought up matters not specifically related to cannabis. They recently hosted a sign-making party for people to make signs to protest at Obama's recent visit to SF, and although all the materials were supplied by someone with ASA, nobody tried to tell me what I could or could not put on the signs I worked on.
 
So while I tend to be strongly sympathetic to any push for more grassroots democracy, transparency, dispersal of power and leadership responsibilities, etc., within activist organizations, from where I sit ASA doesn't seem any worse than most other groups I've observed, and is definitely better than some. I would be interested in learning more about how these issues are handled at Axis of Love, and if I see that you guys have what looks to me like a more bottom-up organizational model, would likely join with you in encouraging ASA to adopt it. Who are the other core AoL members besides yourself, and how do you make decisions?
 
As for unions, I would agree that they can potentially be a powerful lobby for cannabis freedom, but, like dispensaries, only to the extent that they are willing to work for the whole cause, rather than just being narrowly focused on defending their own perceived economic interests. By this I mean we should watch out for attempts by established business and labor interests to throw business competitors, non-unionized workers, and/or cannabis consumers and patients under the bus, metaphorically speaking, or even worse, to actively lobby for such arrangements. Unions that already have close relationships with establishment politicians or government officials based on other (non-cannabis) interests should be treated with extreme wariness, as they may well consider maintaining those relationships more important than fighting for our rights.
 
Marginalized and undocumented members of the cannabis community (e.g. those operating without licenses or permits who are at greater risk of government persecution) are part of the community, and deserve to be defended along with the rest of our community, especially since they have less influence and standing with which to defend themselves. We should always let the Prohibitionists do their own dirty work, and not give them any moral sanction for it through complicity or deliberate ("strategic") silence.
 
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
 
 
On Feb 25, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur wrote:
 

Forward From Steve Kubby:
—————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Dear All,
 
This "Statement of Unity" is exactly what the funders, media, activists
and our friends want to see happen. It is NOT what the US Attorneys,
DEA, and local narcs want to see. Congratulations to all for your
leadership in reaching this historic agreement.
 
Let freedom grow,
Steve Kubby
 
 
Statement of Unity
 
Recognizing that to allow these oppressive prohibitionist laws to remain
in place any longer would be a travesty of justice, we have come
together in the spirit of unity to offer a challenge.
 
All three of the legalization initiatives trying to make it on to the
ballot in November recognize that time is short.
 
It will take an expensive signature gathering campaign for any of these
initiatives to qualify for the November ballot.
 
We invite any freedom loving American with some serious assets to take a
look at all three of our initiatives.
 
Choose the one that you are willing to finance.
 
The other two initiatives will support the one you choose 100% to ensure
a victory in 2012.
 
_____________________________________________
Steve Collett, Treasurer, RMLW
 
_____________________________________________
Bill Panzer, Proponent, RCPA
 
___________________________________________
Buddy Duzy,Treasurer, CCHHI