Tag Archives: New Stealth Initiative Filed for City of South Lake Tahoe

December 31, 2011 – Digest for s..s@a2c2.us – 14 Messages in 5 Topics


    "Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur" <s..s@a2c2.us> Dec 30 07:58PM -0800  

    sory i dont understand your reply? Are you frustrated becuase indoor
    meds are very expensive and your local co op has more indoor than
    outdoor? And i agree why do we think we can outwit mother nature? Can
    you explain your coment? I just want to understand .

    Shona Gochenaur
    Executive Director
    Axis of Love SF


    Elwood Troxel <s..s@a2c2.us> Dec 30 02:16PM -0800  

    im a patient whose fed up with the feds



    Mickey Martin <s..s@a2c2.us> Dec 30 10:11AM -0800  

    There are three viable initiatives for cannabis legalization that are bidding to make the ballot in California, and the honest truth is that we cannot afford to split the effort for legalization into three camps, all fighting for resources and energy. We must choose one effort to rally around and all put our best foot forward if we have any chance of making the ballot and actually passing a cannabis freedom initiative in 2012. Any of the initiatives are better than what we have now by a long shot.
    Yesterday I put up a poll to see what people thought and as of this minute here is where it stands:
    California Cannabis Hemp and Health Initiative 40.7%

    Regulate Marijuana Like Wine 14.8%

    Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012 42.6%
    None, because I suck and think people should be in prison for a safe, enjoyable and helpful plant. 1.9%
    Obviously this is a far from a scientific poll, and maybe "Like Wine" people just do not read my site because of my criticisms of their leadership, but it does show that there is a definite split out there. 
    I personally like Repeal Cannabis Prohibition's language, and I have always liked Jack's initiative (CCHH2012); so I would hope that it would be one of those two efforts that we could all come together and rally behind. But if our community decided "Like Wine" was the best opportunity, I could surely put my support there and help get it on the ballot. I am for any and all efforts that make cannabis freedom a reality for adult enjoyable use. I think someway, somehow, we must make a decision as a movement and make our move. We must all throw our money in one hat and begin the uphill battle to get something on the ballot for 2012.
    The alternative is grim. Should we continue to split our time, energy and resources among the three efforts there is no doubt in my mind that all will fail miserably and all will be for naught. Should this happen it will likely be at least 2016 before we have another real opportunity to pass a sensible initiative. I think Californians are ready in 2012 for real reform, and this election cycle is our best bet to make it happen for some time. In order to do that, we must choose one path and all focus on doing whatever it takes to get it on the ballot. As the New Year comes the clock will begin ticking pretty rapidly, and if we are really going to do this it is time to shit or get off the pot.
    I think the folks who claim to be leaders in this movement need to get all of the proponents for these efforts in one room and lead them to find the best effort to focus on. I do not care if you have to do rock, paper, scissors to figure it out; but it needs to be figured out and it needs to be figured out NOW. If the leaders of this movement cannot inspire these groups to come together and make a real effort towards reform, instead of three weak-ass efforts towards failure, then I think it is simply time for new leadership at all levels. This is our time to shine, and if those who are in the position to use their platform to organize and inspire do not, then they should simply be removed from the equation. 
    This is not the time for the egotistical bullshit "my way or the highway" efforts that have paralyzed this movement for decades. It is time to do what is right and work hard to make the world a better place for cannabis users period. If we cannot do that then we are ultimately destined for failure. I will simply not put forth my time and energy to watch three different monkeys try to fuck the same football. 
    So I am looking at each and every one of these proponents and begging them to come together for the good of our movement, and for the good of our friends and neighbors. We are so close to pushing this thing over the edge and we must seize the moment. Anything less is simple failure and will be a huge disappointment. Do what is right and do it now. There is no more time to waste if there is any chance of success in 2012. That is just the facts. 
    One initiative. One effort. One movement for real change in how our society deals with cannabis. Let us do this….
    Mickey Martin
    T-Comp Consulting Director
    ***The views expressed in this communication are not necessarily the views of T-Comp Consulting, Tainted Compassion, West Coast Cannabis, Cannabis Warrior any other group I am affiliated with.***



    Frank Lucido MD <s..s@a2c2.us> Dec 30 01:23PM -0800  

    On Dec 30, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Mickey Martin wrote:
    > None, because I suck and think people should be in prison for a safe, enjoyable and helpful plant. 1.9%
    > Obviously this is a far from a scientific poll, and maybe "Like Wine" people just do not read my site because of my criticisms of their leadership, but it does show that there is a definite split out there.
    > I personally like Repeal Cannabis Prohibition's language, and I have always liked Jack's initiative (CCHH2012); so I would hope that it would be one of those two efforts that we could all come together and rally behind.
    I agree Mickey,
    All 3 initiatives are better than what we have now.
    In fact I would vote for any of the 3 initiatives that makes the ballot, and encourage others to do so.
    However, they are unlikely to all make the ballot.
    My personal order of preference:
    1. RCPA Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012
    2. CCHHI California Cannabis and Hemp Heath Initiative 2012
    3. RMLW Regulate Marijuana Like Wine
    My position is:
    1st choice:
    RCPA2012 is true Repeal, with no frills added that will take away 1% here, and 2% there, etc.
    RMLW asks for "half the world", and will severely limits it electability, so is my 3rd choice. Also much of it will be pre-empted federally.
    My 2nd choice is CCHHI because if you're going to ask for the world, ask for EVERYTHING that we should want in the world.
    Don't ask for half.
    RCPA just wants the world off our backs.
    Simple, no frillls.
    2 pages, less than 900 words.
    Nothing the feds can pre-empt.
    The letter below from Bill Panzer Esq. will be going out to all of our lists in the next week, and we hope you will come on board.
    Our signature and fundraising drive is about to begin.
    We will begin gathering signatures in January with both paid signature gatherers and a motivated volunteer force.
    Stay tuned.
    PS: Long live Jack!
    and thanks for carrying the torch Mikey J !
    Frank H. Lucido MD
    Family Practice since 1979
    Medical Cannabis Consultation
    Expert Witness
    2300 Durant Avenue
    Berkeley Ca 94704
    (phone#-removed) (by appointment only)
    Michigan office:(phone#-removed)
    (24 hr message line)
    Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012
    Full text at:
    December 30, 2011
    Dear Cannabis Reform Advocate,
    We invite you to join us on our historic journey to end cannabis prohibition and embark on a new world where cannabis use is no longer a crime. 2011 marked the 100-year prohibition of cannabis, and the Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012 (RCPA 2012) will ensure that it is the last. It will take an enormous effort by cannabis reform advocates like yourself, and/or your organization, to make cannabis freedom a reality in California, and eventually the nation. Your support and generous donation ensure that we have the resources to end cannabis prohibition once and for all.
    RCPA 2012ʼs goal is to raise at least $1000 from 100 major supporters and organizations to get the campaign started on the right foot. Can you help us to reach this goal? By donating to this effort you will be using your resources to end the disastrous policy of cannabis prohibition, and those resources will be used to put the best initiative on the ballot to accomplish this monumental task. We owe it to our communities, to our friends and families, and to ourselves to put our best foot forward and ensure cannabis prohibition is finally repealed in 2012.
    What RCPA does for Californians:
    * Repeals harmful and unfair criminal penalties for cannabis for adults 19-years or older.
    * Ensures strict controls are in place to avoid distribution to minors and discourage impaired driving.
    * Allows for the California Cannabis Commission to develop policies for distribution and taxation.
    * Promotes a more genuine and professional medical distribution system, maintaining all rights for qualified patients.
    Your donation will go a long way towards ensuring another person is never imprisoned for a safe, enjoyable and helpful plant. Millions of Californians are depending on us. We will begin gathering signatures in January with both paid signature gatherers and a motivated volunteer force. We will have until April 12th to complete the task of gathering at least 800,000 signatures of registered California voters, so it is important that we start strong and continue to build momentum. We need your help.
    Please donate $1000 or more now, and become a major supporter of the RCPA 2012 campaign kick off. We look forward to your partnership in this historic effort. Please help us end cannabis prohibition today.
    Included in this packet you will find the RCPA 2012 fact sheet and biographies of the proponents and co-chairs. We have assembled a team of legal minds, dedicated activists, and cannabis industry professionals to oversee and direct the campaign efforts, and we are happy to answer any questions you may have about the Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012. Thanks you so much for your time and your support. Together we will make history and end the failed policies of cannabis prohibition.
    Please contact our co-chairs, Debby Goldsberry at(phone#-removed) and Susan Soares at(phone#-removed) for information on donating, gathering signatures, organizing fundraisers, or with any questions you may have about RCPA 2012. We appreciate your time and consideration on this important matter.
    William G. Panzer, Esq. Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act 2012, Co-proponent
    On Dec 30, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Mickey Martin wrote:


    "William G. Panzer" <s..s@a2c2.us> Dec 30 02:45PM -0800  

    I would welcome the opportunity to sit down with all proponents of the
    three proposed initiatives and discuss pooling resources. At a
    minimum, we should explore sharing signature gathers, "sign one, sign
    'em all". I do have a question about the electability of RMLW in that
    it doesn't regulate distribution to children the same as wine but,
    instead, reduces distribution to a child to an infraction – the
    equivalent of a parking ticket. I fear that our opposition can make
    huge points with the electorate on this issue.
    Bill Panzer
    Frank Lucido MD wrote:


    Lee Berger <s..s@a2c2.us> Dec 30 04:10PM -0800  

    If you have ballot titles for all three initiatives, I encourage you to
    fundraise for polling and unite behind whichever one looks most likely
    to win.
    Lee Berger, Portland, OR
    On 12/30/2011 2:45 PM, William G. Panzer wrote:



    "Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur" <s..s@a2c2.us> Dec 30 04:56PM -0800  

    i read mickeys site and it helped me not be afraid of people attacking
    my leadership and comparing me to outrageous cult leaders such as
    david koresh .what doesnt kill ya makes ya stronger.. And your
    requests to defund my charity dinner? Worked in reverse now more
    people contribute and more people who are hungry get fed . Its a
    running joke now that i have seven wifes plus my bfriend but certianly
    not for the thin skinned it could of realy hurt a tender soul . Sad
    that your poll has closed becuase we all at the comunity center were
    going to vote for the repeal probhibiton . We think its the best vote
    for low income patients and has less damage and restrictions to our
    safe access.

    Shona Gochenaur
    Executive Director
    Axis of Love SF


    Steve Kubby <s..s@a2c2.us> Dec 30 02:29AM -0800  

    Opinion: Time to control marijuana odor in South Tahoe
    A citywide voter initiative to control marijuana odor and rewrite the rules for cultivation was filed Dec. 29 with the city clerk. The city attorney has 15 days to issue a Title and Summary so the signature gathering process can begin.
    Since cities already have the power to regulate odors in residential areas, we are giving up nothing and getting back privacy and protection for patients and caregivers in return.
    I just wish you could have seen the "deer caught in the headlights" look on the city clerk and city attorney when I laid the completed initiative and corresponding paperwork on them — all prepared perfectly, thanks to help from Weston Mickey. When I mentioned that we might go for 15% of the total, about 1200 sigs, in order to force a special election, I swear I could hear them gulp. Seriously, there is nothing like filing a citywide voter initiative to generate the friendliest response by the city that I have ever seen. Oh, I should also mention that the city attorney seemed genuinely shocked that there was, in his words, "only one sentence about regulating the cultivation of marijuana."
    Given that cities up and down the state are seeking severe limitation on home cultivation, a citywide voter initiative is the fastest, least expensive alternative path to restoring our rights and protecting our privacy.



    Dave Hodges <s..s@a2c2.us> Dec 30 11:58AM -0800  

    In addition to proving "for-profit", the prosecution was able to convince
    Juror's Cannabis Collectives can not make "sales", they are only able to
    "make a reimbursement to the collective itself".
    *"the most damning piece of evidence was the defendants' meticulous
    bookkeeping." *- A Juror from the case*
    *Juror: Prosecution Proved Profit; Dispensary Bookkeeping "Buried" Byron &
    *by Greggory Moore | Staff Reports | 12.29.11
    Source: Long Beach Post, http://www.lbpost.com/news/greggorymoore/12997
    *2:40pm *| A juror in the just-completed trial of Joe Grumbine and Joe
    Byron says that the pair's own meticulous paperwork showed their three
    medicinal-marijuana collectives to be turning a profit, while failing to
    show that profit being put back into the collectives.
    The juror, who calls himself "a proponent" of medicinal cannabis and says
    he has several acquaintances with doctor recommendations to use cannabis,
    spoke with the Long Beach Post on the condition of anonymity. We'll call
    him 'Juro.'
    "I'm sympathetic to the cause," Juro says. "I was a '70s kid. That should
    tell you a lot about my background towards the idea of using marijuana. […]
    At first I was looking at it [i.e., the charges] that this was a big shell
    game that the City was throwing on. […] They had to literally prove to me
    that these guys messed up. And unfortunately, they proved to me that these
    guys messed up. […] I'm a proponent for this. I felt really bad having to
    put down a guilty verdict on this. But because of what they showed me and
    what I was told to follow, that was the only verdict I could give them."
    According to Juro, the most damning piece of evidence was the defendants'
    meticulous bookkeeping.
    "Unfortunately, they kept really good records. Their records are what sunk
    them for us," Juro says. "All [their] paperwork was just immaculate, and
    they were showing at the end-of-the-day's sales report, the very last line
    there was, 'Profit Percentage.' Every day they were writing 48 to 50
    percent profit. That's a lot of money per day. Their paperwork was pretty
    much showing us that, yes, they were making a profit. Now, they weren't
    showing what they were doing with any of this money. They said they were
    doing things with it, but they had nothing — no paperwork, nothing —
    saying that they were putting money into this, putting money over here into
    this, putting money towards some cancer project, or anything like that.
    They didn't put any of that down. […] When they showed the one deal on the
    profit margin, that right there is pretty much what sealed their fate on
    any kind of legal sales. […] If the paperwork wasn't so good, they might
    have been able to get away with it,"
    During the trial, the prosecution seemingly ran together the question of
    whether all storefront sales are illegal (an interpretation of the law that
    then-State Attorney General Jerry Brown contradicts in his 2008 guidelines
    — about which Juro confirms the jury never got hear) and whether
    for-profit sales are illegal (which is undisputed). As a result, Juro came
    away from the legal arguments believing that storefront dispensaries are
    disallowed by state medpot law, but that some sales are legal, even if as
    such they are not called "sales."
    "In a way, [storefront dispensaries] are illegal, according to the laws
    that they have set out," Juro says. "You really shouldn't have any
    storefront deal if you're collective. […] [T]hey can make a sale to one of
    their collective members, [although] the sale wouldn't be considered an
    actual sale […] it would be more like a reimbursement to the collective
    itself,. But for the fact that the prosecution was able to prove profit…If
    they couldn't have proved that to me, in my eyes [Grumbine and Byron] would
    have been not guilty [of the charges related to sales]."
    Juro also says the prosecution demonstrated that the pair's three
    collectives — Fourth & Elm Natural Health Collective, 2200 Health
    Collective, and Unit D — did not function as properly organized nonprofit
    "They were able to prove that […] they weren't running as an actual
    cooperative, [where] every member has a say and owns that cooperative," he
    says. "[During the trial] they asked a lot of people that were members
    there, and all they could say was that they were members, [but that,] 'They
    never asked me if I could do anything for the collective, and I never asked
    them if I could do something for the collective.'"
    Juro also said that numerous persons who work in the three collectives
    testified that Grumbine and Byron "were running the show," which is not in
    keeping with Juro's understanding of what a collective is. "What I found is
    that a collective is owned by everybody who is a member," he says."
    Since Juro did not feel that terms such as collective, cooperative, and
    dispensary were adequately defined within the courtroom, contrary to Judge
    Sheldon's instructions, Juro consulted the Internet.
    "I had to look this stuff up," he said, "I really did, even though the
    judge said we weren't supposed to. I was really iffy on some stuff, so I
    had to look up what a collective was, I had to look up what a co-op was.
    And then I started looking at some of the California rules and regulations
    of it. And when it was proven to me that they were not an actual collective
    […] that's when my vote got changed. […] I felt compelled to do [outside
    research] because I wanted to make sure I was right on my convictions. And
    when I found out what the definitions of these things were…Because, you
    see, they never really defined those in the court. But myself, I needed to
    know. And I don't think it was that bad of a thing, because it didn't
    really sway my judgment any which way. It did let me know a few things,
    like a dispensary is a profit-driven entity, not one you can just break
    even with. […] It even states: 'A dispensary is a profit entity.'"
    Regarding Sheldon, Juro feels far less sure than some courtroom observers
    that the judge was biased against the defense.
    "He was running that court with a firm hand," Juro says. "It looked like he
    knew that he was going to have a big problem with this [trial], and he
    didn't want to make it a pony show. He did object to a lot of stuff that
    the defense threw out there — objections and stuff like that; he
    over[ruled] a lot of them. But then when the defense got up there and
    started doing their thing, he was trying to be as fair as he could. […] He
    definitely [overruled] a lot of objections that they [i.e., the
    prosecution] were throwing out. [But] he could have been biased. He looked
    like he was a person that really didn't put up with this medical thing, and
    he probably feels that it's gotten out of hand — which it really sorta
    Juro was unaware of Sheldon's limitation on the number of witnesses the
    defense was allowed to call, and so chalked up the disparity in number
    between prosecution and defense witnesses as a mistake by defense attorneys
    Christopher Glew and Allison Margolin.
    "Where the defense messed up is they didn't bring a ton of people out,"
    Juro says. "They only brought out a couple of people."
    Another example of Sheldon's bias alleged by many observers is a trial day
    when Sheldon had a partition erected to keep the jury from seeing the
    pro-defendant gallery. But Juro says this is a misrepresentation of what
    actually took place.
    "To make it easier for us to see the screen, it was moved to the opposite
    side," Juro explains. "It was not a partition between the jury and the
    audience. […] It had nothing to do with blocking out the little protesters
    that were sitting out there in the audience."
    Juro reports that on several occasions supporters of Grumbine and Byron
    would attempt to approach jurors in the hallway, but that other supporters
    would typically intercede — although on at least one occasion a protester
    did speak with a juror, a circumstance that was reported to Sheldon.
    "That's what I called them: the protesters," Juro says. "They were quite
    In his final analysis, Juro says that, aside from the tax and power-theft
    charges against Byron (which Juro says were definitively proved), his
    guilty verdict came down to the question of profit — a question Byron and
    Grumbine indirectly answered in the affirmative.
    "I myself feel [the trial] was a total waste of taxpayers' money," Juro
    says. "If [the prosecution] had looked at my questionnaire form, they
    probably would not have picked me. […] But when I walked in there, the
    judge asked me if I could be fair. And I will be fair. […] And there was
    proof of a profit, and they're not supposed to be making a profit. […] That
    paperwork is what buried them. […] With all that thrown out at us, all we
    could say was that they're guilty."