- GATEWOOD GALBRAITH HAS PASSED AWAY [1 Update]
- National Convention? [1 Update]
- BACKING THE BEST INITIATIVE [4 Updates]
- Amador Co. BOS Extends Outdoor Grow Ban for 10 months [1 Update]
- Why we must choose one initiative and all get behind it [1 Update]
- BIO or BACKGROUND OF MEMBER [1 Update]
- Lynne Wilson <s..email@example.com> Jan 04 01:15PM -0500
Thanx& have a Hempy Day!
Lynne Wilson, Dir.
Happy Hemptress, 513-GROW-BUD cell
HempRock Prods. www.hemprock.com
HempRock Hempline 513-68-4-HEMP
Mon 1-2p& Tues 1-3p Est
WVQC-LP 95.7 FM Cincy
Radio Free Queen City
HempRock TV can be seen on NKY Insite
& Cincy's Time Warner Public Access&
Cincinnati/Northern KY Chapter
Willie Nelson's TeaPot Party
Supporting Gatewood for KY Governor
"Happy is he who dares courageously to defend what he loves."
Roman Poet Publius Ovidius Naso (43 BC – 17 or 18 AD), AKA Ovid.
- "William G. Panzer" <s..firstname.lastname@example.org> Jan 04 08:30AM -0800
RCPA is, by far, the clearest and best written cannabis initiative, from
a legalistic view, of any that have come down the pike in at least the
past 30 years. This is because three of its five authors are all
criminal defense attorneys specializing in cannabis law. The problem
with many initiatives is that they are written by non-lawyers for
non-lawyers like yourself. You may read things like the purpose
language in RMLW and love what it says. However, the judges on the
appellate bench – the ones who will eventually interpret the law the
initiative creates – read it in a entirely different manner than the lay
person such as yourself. They notice things like the fact that RMLW,
for all the wonderful things it says it's supposed to do in the "Purpose
section", fails to actually provide new laws that accomplish those
purposes in the "Provisions section".
When we were drafting Prop 215, my original language was that the
recommendation or approval could be in writing or "by testimony".
Against my advice, "by testimony" was changed to "oral". I was told
"Dude, it's the same thing. When you are testifying you are talking
orally, Dude" . If it had been left as "by testimony" a defendant who
didn't have a recommendation at the time of arrest could have then gone
to a doctor, been examined, and had the doctor testify at a hearing that
the doctor approved the use. This would have been the interpretation
since there can be no "testimony" before the arrest. By changing the
word "testimony" to "oral" it created wiggle room for the courts to
interpret the then new law to require the recommendation or approval
BEFORE the arrest. The court that determined this stated that if the
drafters had intended to allow after arrest relief, the Prop would have
stated "recommend or ratify". Of course I believe if we had said
"ratify", that same court would have said we should have said "approve".
Prop 19 intended to allow local communities to opt out of state law and
authorize production and sales within their communities. Again, it was
well intended. But no experienced cannabis defense lawyers were allowed
to vet the draft. As a result, if it had passed, this provision would
likely have been declared null and void by the courts as the state
constitution in two different sections provides that local communities
are not allowed to opt out of general state law.
I certainly appreciate the concept of treating cannabis similarly to
alcohol, though I think RMLW would have a better chance if distribution
to children had been treated the same as with alcohol, rather than
making it the equivalent of a parking ticket. Certainly such a system
is far preferable to what we have now. The problem, as I see it, is
that RMLW is so poorly drafted (leaving the most important reforms
completely out of the "Provisions Section"), that if passed, it will
most certainly get bogged down in the courts, and may ultimately do
little for cannabis reform.
To understand "purpose" vs. "provision" language, take a look at People
v. Spark, 121 Cal.App.4th 259 (2004). In that case, the court noted
that the "purpose" language of Prop 215 limited it to "seriously ill"
Californians. However, as the court noted, that restriction did not
appear in the provisions section. Since the court only initially looks
to the provisions section, there was no requirement for the "seriously
ill" limitation. As the court noted in the Spark case, a court will
only look to the purpose section for guidance if AND ONLY IF there is an
ambiguity in the provisions section.
As for your response, if you can't figure out that
*Section 11054(d)(13), Section 11054(d)(20), … is hereby repealed.*
means that those sections no longer appear in the schedule list in
section 11054, thus removing "marijuana" and "tetrahydrocannabinols"
from the list of controlled substances under state law, perhaps you
should refrain from commenting altogether as your uninformed opinions,
issued from Canada, may create an unfortunate impediment to cannabis
reform here in California..
On 1/4/2012 3:11 AM, David Malmo-Levine wrote:
- "William G. Panzer" <s..email@example.com> Jan 04 12:22PM -0800
The description you identify as Mr. McPike's description of events, at
least in regards to my participation, is pure fiction. As for the 11359
charge, no limited immunity defense under the Compassionate Use Act is
necessary as a defense. 11359 is a "specific intent" crime which
requires the people to prove, as one of the elements, the the defendant
specifically intended to unlawfully sell cannabis. Thus a defense that
it was possessed for medical purposes rather than for selling purposes
is a standard defense to such a charge, rather than a special defense
created by Prop. 215. Even if someone has no medical recommendation and
therefore may not legally possess cannabis, a defense of "I was using it
illegally for myself and didn't intend to sell it" is a recognized
defense to the 11359 charge.
As for being vetted, I don't believe Keith has actually read it, nor, as
a non-practicing out-of-state lawyer, is he qualified to give a legal
opinion on California law. While Judge Gray has apparently ratified it,
I recently heard from someone who attended a function where Judge Gray
appeared in Southern California that Judge Gray stated that he had not
read the actual wording. I would be surprised to hear from Judge Gray
himself that he had read it and did not see the same problems I have
described. In fact, Id be surprised to hear that from any attorney who
regularly practices in this area, or regularly practices election law,
other than Mr. McPike.
As to your interpretation of RMLW, I submit the following:
> Section 1. Findings, Declarations, Purpose, Directives, and Orders
In that section it lists a bunch of stuff it would like to do, or claims
that the act does. However, the initiative then goes on to read:
> This provision shall be enforced hereafter by penalties to be set
> forth by the Legislature.
> (i) This Act shall become effective immediately upon passage.
If you notice, nowhere in this "Provisions" section does it ever repeal
cannabis laws or provide for other actions described under Section 1.
You may certainly argue that "Directives and Orders" in Section 1 really
means "Provisions" and should be incorporated by reference into the
section specifically identified as "Provisions". The problem is that,
due to the drafting, this argument will have to be made, and there is
certainly no guarantee that a court will agree with your
interpretation. A California court won't even consider European Law,
let alone follow it. If Oliver Wendall Holmes himself had drafted this
language, I would say that Oliver Wendall Holmes did a poor job in this
David Malmo-Levine wrote:
- "William G. Panzer" <s..firstname.lastname@example.org> Jan 04 02:21PM -0800
The link you provided is complete fantasy. Steve Kubby wasn't even
around when 215 was drafted or when it first hit the streets. When it
appeared the volunteer signature gathering would not be adequate, Steve
was instrumental in bringing in financial backers who paid for Bill
Zimmerman to manage the campaign and for professional signature
gatherers. The "history" contained in your link is complete nonsense
and isn't written by Dennis, as you claim. Given your absurd
accusations and your apparent lack of any semblance of integrity, I am
beginning to suspect you may be an agent provocateur. Just what is your
background? Who are you really working for?
David Malmo-Levine wrote:
- "William G. Panzer" <s..email@example.com> Jan 04 03:40PM -0800
Just to be clear, your information is erroneous. I did not submit an
alternative to Prop 215 with Scott or anyone else. Dennis has never
stated anything like that to me at any time. I am not surprised you
failed when you tried to play lawyer. Who is paying you to try and
screw up cannabis reform in California? Are you doing anything similar
to screw up cannabis reform in Canada?
David Malmo-Levine wrote:
- Weston Brent Mickey <s..firstname.lastname@example.org> Jan 04 12:27PM -0800
I would contact Bill McPike out of Fresno or Robert Raich out of Oakland.
These are two highly experienced attorneys that get results. You also have
the ability to host an initiative which would not be hard because the
signatures needed to qualify would require a low threshold.
Bill McPike, Attorney at Law 1-888-420-BUDS 
- R Givens <s..email@example.com> Jan 04 01:46AM -0800
In spite of their proclaimed opposition to "regulations"
conservatives approve "regulating" marijuana over legalizing it by a
substantial majority. They do not seem to realize that regulation
will bring everything they fear from legalization, just with a
We noticed the difference in acceptance of "legalization" vs
"regulation" when a hempster booth at the Arizona State Fair was
getting a totally negative reaction- UNTIL they changed gears and
began talking about REGULATION. From then on they got a very positive
- "Bill McPike" <s..firstname.lastname@example.org> Jan 03 10:00PM -0800
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 7:38 PM
Please refer to your initiative of choice by name as I would like to sign
and read. Enjoyed your bio very much. Ricki Ricki Ingersoll
Ricki, Thank you, as I'm a very private person. Our brain trust drafted –
REGULATE MARIJUANA LIKE WINE – 2012