In the mid 1800's cannabis was in 30 different medications here in the U.S..
 
The medications stated "cannabis".
 
"Marihuana" was used to disguise the 'cannabis' tax, even the AMA representative did not know what "marihuana" was so he did not object to the taxation.
 
The following day the AMA was up in arms that they were deceived.
 
Its Cannabis.
 
I would like my previous email sent to this list to thoroughly explain my position.
 
Thanks ahead of time.
 
Jonathan Lustig
Social Crusader
 
 
 
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

We are caught between our grounding in American culture as knowers, in an
intimate and personal sense, of this plant, and our advocacy before the
public (actually perhaps mostly amongst ourselves, but OK), in which we
seek to use discourses that derive legitimacy from other sources, chiefly
science. How much each of us bases our advocacy vocabulary on each of these
sources is bound to vary, and code-switching is completely normal. Around
here we just puff some herb, or maybe take some tincture.
 
Some people probably think that words are just labels that we attach to
things in the world. I'm an anthropologist, though, and I know that
language makes our worlds in profound ways. Words and themes ("tropes")
link to others, presume others, take certain stances for granted. Watch
out! You'll get caught in a trap. (The care Rastas take with Iyaric can
provide neat clues to trying to take Babylon out of the language, and never
to put the speaking subject in a subordinate position, e.g., "overstand,"
the avoidance of the objective case pronoun "me" in favor of the active
subject "I," etc.)
 
I would never enter a conversation with a prohibitionist, at least in
anything approaching a formal setting, and allow a term like "pot," "dope,"
or "weed" to become a touchstone in the dialogue. It just gives too much
framing power away. People already think they know what it means.
 
On the other end, I think Mickey's overly strong reaction to this
discussion bears a relationship to criticism of the DeAngelos' and others'
attempts to "swap out" commonsense perceptions of pot for a whole new set
of understandings based on "wellness." To go too far in that direction is
to generate the sense that "we all know" that it's just X, but we're going
to call it Y. People tend to think that's puffery, not honest engagement.
 
 
 
 
—
Matthew Meyer
PhD Candidate
Anthropology Department
University of Virginia

John / Jacob, I'd like a cite on that AMA bit.
 
Here's what Charles Whitebread wrote on the tax act hearings:
 
 
> go home?"
> That's an exact quote. The next Congressman said, "Doctor, if you haven't
> got something better to say than that, we are sick of hearing you."
 
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/whiteb1.htm
 
So it would appear that the AMA knew what substance was under discussion.
 
(This is not to contest your claim that Anslinger purposely used
"marihuana," although I think it was more to evoke Mexican criminality than
to confuse the AMA.)
 
 
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:43 PM, Jacob Secret <s..[email protected]>wrote:
 
 
—
Matthew Meyer
PhD Candidate
Anthropology Department
University of Virginia

My understanding of the AMA's role in the Congressional hearings is that
they only showed up on the last day because they didn't know until then
that the "marihuana" being considered for a ban was in fact the safe and
effective medicine commonly known as "cannabis." So the AMA was very late
to the game in denouncing the ban and was unable to mount an effective
defense.
 
Can any historians out there confirm or clarify?
 
Regardless, I agree with Jonathan and Matthew. Terminology is important.
Among non-users — our critical target demographic — "cannabis" does not
have all the negative associations of "pot," "weed" and other terms
(including "drug"). As far as "marijuana" goes, I think that term once had
negative, possibly racist connotations but it seems pretty neutral now.
Nevertheless, all the common terms other than "cannabis" have been smeared
by a century of steady propaganda so I think it behooves us to adopt the
one that's still relatively fresh and clean.
 
Compare:
 
*Pot is a safe and effective tonic for the mind, body and spirit. Legal weed
threatens several multi-billion-dollar industries. Drug laws
disproportionately target blacks and Hispanics, and mainly the poor.*
 
*Cannabis is a safe and effective tonic for the mind, body and spirit.
Legal cannabis threatens several multi-billion-dollar industries. Anti-cannabis
laws disproportionately target blacks and Hispanics, and mainly the poor.*
 
Which version sounds more authoritative?
 
PeaceLove, Jonathan
 
 
——————————————-
*There is nothing more agreeable in life than to make peace with the
Establishment – and nothing more corrupting. *
*-A.J.P. Taylor, historian (1906-1990)*
 
 
 
 

Wow even after years of countless hours of research there is still much to learn.
 
Thanks for sharing.
 
Jonathan Lustig
Social Crusader
 
 
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

And so it is…
 
Los Angeles City Council Agenda
Friday, June 22, 2012
John Ferraro Council Chamber, Room 340, City Hall – 10 am
 
Items for Which Public Hearings Have Been Held – Items 1-6
 
ITEM NO. (2)
 
11-1737
11-1737-S1
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, PLANNING AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT and PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEES’ REPORT and ORDINANCE FIRST CONSIDERATION relative to amending
the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) in response to recent appellate
court decisions concerning medical marijuana.
 
Recommendations for Council action, as initiated by Motions (Huizar -
Englander) and (Parks – Perry), SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MAYOR:
 
1. FIND that this action is categorically exempt from California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under State CEQA Guidelines sections
15301, 15305, 15308, 15321, 15060(c)(2) and (3), and the corresponding
City CEQA Guidelines, because it will not result in a direct, or
reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, for the reasons
set forth in the CEQA Narrative prepared by the Planning Department.
(Exhibit Two of the City Attorney report dated May 25, 2012, attached to
the Council file). [ENV-2012-1273-CE]
 
2. ADOPT the May 24, 2012 FINDINGS of the Los Angeles City Planning
Commission (LACPC) as the Findings of the Council.
 
3. PRESENT and ADOPT the accompanying ORDINANCE, approved by the Director
of Planning on behalf of the LACPC, repealing and replacing Article 5.1 of
Chapter IV of the LAMC in response to recent appellate court decisions, by
prohibiting medical marijuana businesses, while preserving the limited
state law medical marijuana criminal immunities, until such time as the
California Supreme Court rules regarding what cities can and cannot
regulate and the City enacts new medical marijuana legislation consistent
with that judicial guidance, transmitted by the Office of the City
Attorney on May 25, 2012.
 
4. NOT PRESENT and ORDER FILED the Ordinances transmitted by the Office of
the City Attorney on January 6, 2012 and by the LACPC on May 15, 2012.
 
5. DIRECT the Department of City Planning to file a “Notice of Exemption”
with the County Clerk immediately after the proposed Ordinance is approved
and passed in final by the City Council.
 
Fiscal Impact Statement: None submitted by the City Attorney and the
Planning Department. Neither the City Administrative Officer nor the
Chief Legislative Analyst has completed a financial analysis of this
report.
 
Community Impact Statement: Yes
For proposal: Sunland Tujunga Neighborhood Council
East Hollywood Neighborhood Council
Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council
Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council
 
 
*********
 
Sincerely,
 
Degé Coutee
Executive & Program Director
Patient Advocacy Network
 
@PAN4Compassion
www.CannabisSavesLives.org
(323) 334-5282
 
PAN is a charitable 501(c)(3) organization

What was the outcome?
 
Change the world for the better!
 

It was a set up from the Police Department from the beginning with their distorted facts about guns, money, stealing electricity, and how the dots all connect to medical cannabis. The staff was well prepared and instilled fear in council members who considerered holding their vote waiting disposition of AB2312 or the Pack decision.
Council Member Jim Prola was passionate about cannabis patients access in San Leandro. He stood his ground to encourage a vote for his motion. We need to keep him in politics representing our rights. His wife, Diana, a member of the school board also spoke about the difficulties for patients safe access in San Leandro and recognizing children can get cannabis anywhere.
I wrote all council members a letter prior asking them to not fall victims to the refer madness mentality The Patch news reported they were relying on for their decision. It was another modern day refer madness scenario being played out in cities that try to place fear in their citizens over distribution. The only ones buying it are the officials and cops!
Denise
 
 
 
 
Sent from my iPhone
 
 

Lets all remember that they need a second reading to impliment the ban.
 
I've been down in LA all week and I will make an appearance at their next city council meeting.
 
I hope some of you are with me.
 
Jonathan Lustig
Social Crusader
 
 
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

This may not be especially legal, should any locals wish to consult an
attorney.
 
For starters, this wasn't listed as an action item on the agenda, rather a
recommendation for a council motion to direct staff to prepare a permanent
ban in the form of a city ordinance. Had they done that, the permanent ban
would have appeared on a later agenda as an action item, with a staff
report that included the text of the proposed permanent ban along with a
required environmental finding of no significant impact. The "action" part
of the action item would be to vote on the proposed ordinance and the
required Gov. Code 65858 findings.
 
What happened instead, apparently, is that the council voted to extend the
temporary ban another year. That's not kosher for two reasons: a) it wasn't
agendized properly as an ordinance passing a moratorium extension, nor did
the council vote pertain to a draft ordinance and required findings, and b)
you can't keep passing "temporary" bans forever. The city has already used
up its allotment of time permitted for so-called urgency ordinances: The
45-day kickoff, the 10-month, 15-day extension, and a one-year extension
after that.
 
As background, Gov. Code Sec. 65858 authorizes cities and counties to pass
urgency ordinances pertaining to new development threats, so it was used a
lot to enact instant dispensary bans, sometimes before anyone even had a
permit application in the pipeline. (The dreaded "Planning staff have
received inquiries pertaining to medical marijuana.") If cities jumped the
gun a lot, at least they were in the ballpark because dispensaries
generally constitute a new or uncategorized land use in a particular city's
zoning ordinance.
 
That's quite different from growing bans, which try to erase an existing
land use, i.e., personal cultivation on private property. Because personal
cultivation does not involve new development or zoning approvals, I would
argue that Gov. Code 65858 cannot be used to pass an urgency zoning
ordinance that bans all outdoor growing, for example, nor can such
permanent growing bans escape at least an initial environmental review
under CEQA. Not that my opinion counts, so look for urgency growing bans to
become the new rage.
 

Greetings,
 
The SF MCD The Green Cross has produced an FAQ sheet
about San Francisco's medical cannabis dispensaries.  It is written in
English, Spanish and Chinese.   I think this contains an excellent set
of talking points when people need to educate others on issues
concerning MCDs. The corrected link is below.
 
http://thegreencross.org/Factsheet.pdf
 
 
David Goldman
Core member:  SF ASA
www.sfsafeaccess.org
s..[email protected]
m: (phone#-removed)

YES . On respecting labor and workers and their inclusion to
regulation. However lets think this thru a minute here Dan there are
workers at every level who could be impacted if not downright
unemployed if ab2312 squashes our family run collectives and small to
mid size MDCs . Yes i agree planation like realitys exist but even the
huge brand name big box MDCs that are footing the bill for ab2312 ?
Are not union members? Why? They must have more than twenty employees
and if you include all their grows? Wow. Many more and thoose employee
probably could use a union break ! But the pay play scheme here in
ab2313 will leave only a few on the map and push most underground? How
does that truly benefit our workers if only a few huge commerical
shops exist? Small business and family business and farms must remain.
And I doubt they will with this bill as it stands and the price for
your averarge consumer goes up and the qaulity goes down without our
cottage growers . Ab2312 -simply will not protect from feds.

Here is one reason…
 
Unions do not organize, people do. I think you are asking the wrong person the question. The union can't answer the question because we are also asking that same question. Local 5, at this time, is not going force a union contract on any operator. It has been collabortive but we (the union) can't understand why all of you and your workers are not signing up with Local 5. Belonging to a union will allow the worker to participate in a fair and democratic process to collectively gain better wages, benefits and retirement. A negotiated and voter approved (by the workers) contract. Jon
 
Jonathan Hughes
UFCW Local 5
240 South Market St
San Jose, CA
Office
1(phone#-removed) ex.5629
Direct Line
(phone#-removed)
 
 
–
Jonathan Hughes
UFCW Local 5
240 South Market St
San Jose, CA
Office
1(phone#-removed) ex.5629
Direct Line
(phone#-removed)

pls post widely. No need for blind faith . Lets open our hearts and
minds and take a look and hopefuly re assemble this into a fair and
balanced law. support comunity based cooperatives and protections for
our growers . Last but not least accountablity from a board with
oversight.
 
 
 
 
 
—
Shona Gochenaur
Executive Director
Axis of Love SF
http://www.facebook.com/axisoflove
http://www.twitter.com/axisoflove

The LA police chief stated that there was no correlation between an increase in crime and dispensaries.
 
Our violent crime rate here in California increased until 1996 and since then it has plummeted to a 40 year low.
 
Los Angeles reported a 50 year low in 2010 while having the most dispensaries in the state.
 
In 2006 the attorney general reported that the government survey shows youth usage was at its lowest level since they begun giving out the anonymous test to 7th, 9th and 11th graders.
 
What is going on??!!
 
Jonathan Lustig
Social Crusader
 
 
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Shona,
 
I'm not getting any google results at all for the search terms "CA
State Senator Ayers" What's up with that? Nor for the search string
"CA State Senate business and economic development committee". That
being the case, I must say I can't regard the email address you
kindly sent as being reliably associated with CA state senate
hearings on AB2312.
 
I will research it myself and let you know the results.
 
Tom
 
On Jun 18, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur wrote: