From: Dave Hodges – December 11, 2012

http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/blog/another-step-forwards-in-drug-debateAnother step forwards in drug debate

– By Richard Branson http://www.virgin.com/author/richard-branson – – Dec 10, 2012

– [image: Breaking The Taboo]

Incredibly pleased to see the UK Home Affairs Committee publish its first report on drugs in a decade.

The Committee has made key recommendations regarding treatment and drugs in prison, as well as calling for the establishment of a Royal Commission to consider the best ways of tackling drugs policy.

As a member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, I gave evidence to the inquiry and welcome this step forwards in the war on drugs.

Let us hope that the UK Government follows the lead of other countries and states already moving forwards with progressive methods of treating drugs as a health concern rather than a criminal issue.

The runaway success of new documentary Breaking The Taboo, produced by my son Sam’s indie Sundog, illustrates the appetite for change that exists around this topic. Over 750,000 people have watched the ey-opening videos on Breaking The Taboo’s YouTube channel in a matter of weeks.

In releasing the film for free for a month via YouTube, this new approach allows a far wider audience to learn about this vital issue. If it had been released via the traditional cinema route, only a fraction of this global audience would have seen the film. As well as tackling the failed war on drugs, I am proud to see Breaking The Taboo trailblazing in the way we view films in the future.

If you haven’t seen Breaking The Taboo yet then watch the full documentary above and let us know what you think using the #breakthetaboo hashtag on Twitter http://www.twitter.com/richardbranson.

*By Richard Branson http://www.virgin.com/author/richard-branson. Founder of Virgin Group*

– —

From: Dave Hodges – December 7, 2012

James,

The rationale behind both “the cartels” and “interstate trafficking” language is to combat the messaging/PR the anti-pot warriors will use. Such as “the cartels will take over” and “everyone will be shipping it out of state”. Regardless of what we do the feds wont like it… but this is an amendment to the California constitution, so we don’t care what the feds think… If you have any suggestions on a better way to do that or would like to add/change anything yourself, feel free to make them in this google document http://bit.ly/camj2014

Best Regards, Dave Hodges

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:12 PM, James Stacy [email protected]>wrote:

> ** > > > I think “Cartels” is not a legal discretion. Also the fed would think > everyone who worked with cannabis was an interstate trafficker. > On Dec 7, 2012 12:28 PM, “Dave Hodges” [email protected]> wrote: > >> ** >> >> >> Hi Everyone, >> >> Thank you for all your input and contributions. >> >> There have been some major changes including protections for workers, a >> major reformatting, and the change of the age limit to 19. >> >> Personally, I feel strongly an 18 year old should be able to smoke >> cannabis. After reading through the discussion on SaveCannabis and a couple >> heated debates, I asked myself “What would happen to an 18 year old if we >> changed it to 19?”. >> >> Here is the current language that would effect the 18 year old: >> >> *”The use, growth or sales of the cannabis plant, except for in the case >> of medical use, by persons under the age of 19 may be prohibited, but the >> punishment shall not exceed a civil infraction.” >> * >> … and >> >> *”The protections provided by this section of the constitution shall not >> apply to any person or group that engages in interstate drug trafficking, >> sells or supplies to anyone under the age of 19 without parental consent, >> the harboring of illegal immigrants, or in the aid of any criminal >> organizations such as “the cartels”.” >> * >> So could a 18 year old smoke pot? and what would happen to him? IMO, it >> would be based on “parental consent”, and in the worst case they would get >> the equivalent to a parking ticket… As long as it doesn’t destroy their >> life, I’m ok with it. What do you think? >> >> Best Regards, >> Dave Hodges >> >> ————– >> To add/contribute to the final version use this google document >> http://bit.ly/camj2014 >> >> *Cannabis & Hemp Freedom Act of 2014 >> *This Initiative will allow for the Freedom to use, grow, transport and >> sell cannabis or hemp in California. Sales will be taxed, with an exemption >> for medical use. >> >> *PROPOSITION TEXT: >> *This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with >> the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution. >> >> This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by >> adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added >> are printed in *italic type* to indicate that they are new. >> >> *SECTION 1. Title* >> This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “Cannabis & Hemp >> Freedom Act.” >> >> *SECTION 2. Section 42 is added to Article I of the California >> Constitution, to read:* >> *No California resident or person located within the State of California >> shall be charged with any crime, felony or misdemeanor related to their >> use, growth, transportation, land use, or sales of the cannabis or hemp >> plant, seeds, or pollen. The sales, use, growth or manufacturing of >> cannabis or hemp in any form including concentrated, the separated resin, >> whether obtained in crude or purified form, shall not be prohibited. The >> taxation of cannabis or hemp for medical use shall be prohibited. The use, >> growth or sales of the cannabis plant, except for in the case of medical >> use, by persons under the age of 19 may be prohibited, but the punishment >> shall not exceed a civil infraction. >> >> No California resident or person located in California shall be subject >> to discrimination of employment based on their usage of Cannabis or Hemp >> with the exception of school bus drivers, commercial airplane pilots, heavy >> equipment drivers, or any other profession for which human life may be >> endangered. The protections provided by this section of the constitution >> shall not apply to any person or group that engages in interstate drug >> trafficking, sells or supplies to anyone under the age of 19 without >> parental consent, the harboring of illegal immigrants, or in the aid of any >> criminal organizations such as “the cartels”. >> >> There shall be no punishment or restriction made upon any public or >> private group, or government official who enacts, or implements any >> Statewide or local cannabis or hemp regulations. A cannabis or hemp >> “collective” shall be defined as any group of people who organize together >> based on a shared contract or “membership agreement” in order to >> collectively use, grow, transport or sell the cannabis or hemp plant. >> >> Any California State employee, elected official, or contracted employee >> paid for with public resources that violates this section of the >> constitution shall be subject to an immediate termination of employment, as >> well as shall be held personally liable and denied all immunities. The use >> of any State of California resources to prohibit the use, growth, >> transportation or sale of the cannabis or hemp plant is expressly >> prohibited. The State of California, including the Department of Justice, >> is ordered to protect and defend all provisions of this Act from any and >> all challenges or litigation, whether by persons, officials, cities, >> counties, the state or federal governments. It is the intent of this >> section to assert the rights of the State of California to expressly >> prohibit the enforcement of Federal Cannabis and Hemp Prohibition within >> the State of California. Any law of the State of California that conflicts >> with this section shall be amended, revised or removed in order to comply >> with the intent of this section.* >> >> __._,_.___ > Reply via web post Reply > to sender > [email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20%5BOCNorml%5D%20Cannabis%20%26%20Hemp%20Freedom%20Act%20of%202014%2C%20California%20-%20Rev%201%2E55> Reply > to group > [email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20%5BOCNorml%5D%20Cannabis%20%26%20Hemp%20Freedom%20Act%20of%202014%2C%20California%20-%20Rev%201%2E55> Start > a New Topic Messages > in this topic(2) > Recent Activity: > > > Visit Your Group > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > Switch to: Text-Only[email protected]?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>, > Daily Digest[email protected]?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>• > Unsubscribe [email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms > of Use http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ • Send us Feedback > [email protected]?subject=Feedback+on+the+redesigned+individual+mail+v1> > . > > __,_._,___ >

– —

From: Dave Hodges – December 7, 2012

Bill,

I agree we all need to work together. This initiative is an attempt to do that. The stage it is currently in is the community input stage. The text of this document is hosted in an open google document for everyone to edit or change as they see fit. The goal at this stage is to vet this through the community before bringing in the legal experts (such as yourself) to translate it/clean it up.

Regarding sales to 10 year old’s. I disagree with your statement. I could be wrong, but I believe the “sales to kids” would still be a crime based on this provision “The protections provided by this section of the constitution shall not apply to any person or group that engages in interstate drug trafficking, sells or supplies to anyone under the age of 19 without parental consent, the harboring of illegal immigrants, or in the aid of any criminal organizations such as “the cartels”.

Dozens of people have already contributed to this document. If you have any suggestions to improve this language, we would love your help. The goal of this is to create an initiative that everyone contributes to and thus can work together to pass.

Best Regards, Dave Hodges

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Bill Panzer [email protected]> wrote:

I think it would be to all of our advantage to try and work together rather than any individual or group running an initiative on their own. That being said, under the below proposed constitutional amendment, it could not be a crime, or even a civil infraction for an adult to sell cannabis to a 10 year old. Does anyone think such an initiative would have any chance of success?

As I have previously stated, the actual wording of laws is a different language from standard English. The drafting of any proposed initiative should be a two-stage process.

First, the proponents need to decide exactly what they want the initiative to provide for.

Second, someone who is fluent in “legalese” needs to translate the proponents intentions into the proper language. For example, I don’t believe whoever drafted the below language intended for sales to 10 year old to be completely legal and unregulated, but that’s what the below provides. (It does, however, also provide that a 10 year old who sells, instead of buys, is subject to a civil infraction.)

Bill Panzer

– —

From: Dave Hodges – December 7, 2012

Hi Everyone,

Thank you for all your input and contributions.

There have been some major changes including protections for workers, a major reformatting, and the change of the age limit to 19.

Personally, I feel strongly an 18 year old should be able to smoke cannabis. After reading through the discussion on SaveCannabis and a couple heated debates, I asked myself “What would happen to an 18 year old if we changed it to 19?”.

Here is the current language that would effect the 18 year old:

*”The use, growth or sales of the cannabis plant, except for in the case of medical use, by persons under the age of 19 may be prohibited, but the punishment shall not exceed a civil infraction.” * … and

*”The protections provided by this section of the constitution shall not apply to any person or group that engages in interstate drug trafficking, sells or supplies to anyone under the age of 19 without parental consent, the harboring of illegal immigrants, or in the aid of any criminal organizations such as “the cartels”.” * So could a 18 year old smoke pot? and what would happen to him? IMO, it would be based on “parental consent”, and in the worst case they would get the equivalent to a parking ticket… As long as it doesn’t destroy their life, I’m ok with it. What do you think?

Best Regards, Dave Hodges

————– To add/contribute to the final version use this google document http://bit.ly/camj2014

*Cannabis & Hemp Freedom Act of 2014 *This Initiative will allow for the Freedom to use, grow, transport and sell cannabis or hemp in California. Sales will be taxed, with an exemption for medical use.

*PROPOSITION TEXT: *This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.

This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in *italic type* to indicate that they are new.

*SECTION 1. Title* This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “Cannabis & Hemp Freedom Act.”

*SECTION 2. Section 42 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:* *No California resident or person located within the State of California shall be charged with any crime, felony or misdemeanor related to their use, growth, transportation, land use, or sales of the cannabis or hemp plant, seeds, or pollen. The sales, use, growth or manufacturing of cannabis or hemp in any form including concentrated, the separated resin, whether obtained in crude or purified form, shall not be prohibited. The taxation of cannabis or hemp for medical use shall be prohibited. The use, growth or sales of the cannabis plant, except for in the case of medical use, by persons under the age of 19 may be prohibited, but the punishment shall not exceed a civil infraction.

No California resident or person located in California shall be subject to discrimination of employment based on their usage of Cannabis or Hemp with the exception of school bus drivers, commercial airplane pilots, heavy equipment drivers, or any other profession for which human life may be endangered. The protections provided by this section of the constitution shall not apply to any person or group that engages in interstate drug trafficking, sells or supplies to anyone under the age of 19 without parental consent, the harboring of illegal immigrants, or in the aid of any criminal organizations such as “the cartels”.

There shall be no punishment or restriction made upon any public or private group, or government official who enacts, or implements any Statewide or local cannabis or hemp regulations. A cannabis or hemp “collective” shall be defined as any group of people who organize together based on a shared contract or “membership agreement” in order to collectively use, grow, transport or sell the cannabis or hemp plant.

Any California State employee, elected official, or contracted employee paid for with public resources that violates this section of the constitution shall be subject to an immediate termination of employment, as well as shall be held personally liable and denied all immunities. The use of any State of California resources to prohibit the use, growth, transportation or sale of the cannabis or hemp plant is expressly prohibited. The State of California, including the Department of Justice, is ordered to protect and defend all provisions of this Act from any and all challenges or litigation, whether by persons, officials, cities, counties, the state or federal governments. It is the intent of this section to assert the rights of the State of California to expressly prohibit the enforcement of Federal Cannabis and Hemp Prohibition within the State of California. Any law of the State of California that conflicts with this section shall be amended, revised or removed in order to comply with the intent of this section.*

– —

From: Dave Hodges – December 3, 2012

Even I have to give Harborside some props on this. You can trap a landlord in a lease if you get them to include “marijuana dispensary” in the lease without including a section “giving [the landlord] a right to evict based on conduct that violated any law, including the federal controlled substance law regarding marijuana”.

Lesson to all landlords: Don’t lease to any MMJ Collectives unless you include the text above (or the way most of them will read the news, don’t lease to them at all)

-Dave

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/12/harborside_update_landlord_can.php

also

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oakland-tribune/ci_22116408/landlord-cant-evict-oaklands-largest-medical-marijuana-dispensary

Harborside Health Center: Landlord Can’t Evict Medical Marijuana Dispensary By Chris Roberts http://blogs.sfweekly.com/author.php?author_id=1724 Mon., Dec. 3 2012 at 7:40 AM http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/12/harborside_update_landlord_can.php#Comments

*California Court Upholds State Law; Federal Court Next on Dec. 20 * Oakland’s Harborside Health Center is in the business of selling medical marijuana. This is obvious to anyone — and in particular the dispensary’s landlord, who last week had her effort to evict the dispensary tossed by a judge.

The landlord, Ana Chretien, tried to evict her tenant in an effort to prevent the federal Justice Department from seizing 1840 Embarcadero, which has since 2006 housed the dispensary. U.S. Attorney for Northern California Melinda Haag filed a forfeiture proceeding in July, and Chretien filed an unlawful retainer lawsuit in August.

Chretien might have had success, had she not made one fatal error: including in the lease explicit permission for Harborside’s operators to run a medical marijuana dispensary. That’s protected under state law, ruled a judge, who added that federal law can’t be used to evict or otherwise shut down a state-legal operation.

This does not mean that Harborside’s fight is won. Far from it. A federal judge is scheduled to hear Haag outline the government’s case for taking Chretien’s property — a low-slung office building just a minute’s drive from Interstate 880 — on Dec. 20. The hearing has been postponed several times and may be postponed again.

But in the meantime, Judge Evelio Grillo’s ruling is a victory for California medical cannabis providers, provided they were diligent when they signed their leases.

Harborside’s operators, Stephen DeAngelo and a gentleman known as Dave Wedding Dress, signed with Chretien’s company a lease in January 2006. The five-year agreement, renewed in January 2011, “expressly authorizes Harborside to use the premises to operate a medical marijuana dispensary.”

All was fine until Harborside employees showed up to work after the July 4 holiday to see forfeiture notices from Haag’s office taped to the door. Chretien filed a lawsuit to evict Harborside on August 3, alleging that the dispensary violated its lease by conducting illegal activity that constituted a nuisance.

But a state court cannot deem a medical marijuana dispensary a “nuisance” — thus rule that it may be evicted or otherwise shut down — because state law protects dispensaries from such rulings, Grillo ruled. Further, a state court may not use federal law to declare a use or entity unlawful if that use has protection under state law. To do so “would be to improperly enforce federal criminal law,” the judge wrote.

Chretien may be able to find a judge willing to sign an eviction order, but only in federal court, Grillo wrote.

Likewise, landlords who signed leases with medical marijuana dispensaries may be able to evict their tenants in a state court, but not if the leases include language permitting medical marijuana dispensaries. Or, in Chretien’s case, “she could have included provisions giving her a right to evict based on conduct that violated any law, including the federal controlled substance law regarding marijuana,” the judge wrote. “But she does not, at least in this proceeding, claim that she did so.”

– —