From: David Malmo-Levine – December 8, 2012
If initiatives were exactly like auto mechanics then the all-lawyer drafted Prop 19 would have won. If the language of the next initiative will be decided by polling then – at the very least – we should all decide what polling questions are asked, as the answers one gets are determined by the questions one asks. Limiting the role of activists to fund-raisers only, allowing only lawyers to have input on the language of the initiative shows contempt for a process which is supposed to be mainly about CITIZENS and DEMOCRACY. Do we wish to learn the lessons from Prop 19 or not?
On 2012-12-08 12:54 PM, “William G. Panzer”
The methodology you are employing would be akin to a person with a Ferrari that isn’t running handing out wrenches to people on the street and inviting them all to help fix it together. If you want your Ferrari fixed right, you’d better take it to a Ferrari mechanic. If you want a law written correctly, you need to have someone trained in legalese to draft the actual wording. Trying to draft a law by letting untrained people randomly contribute to the language is as ineffective as letting the untrained people near the Ferrari.
Last night there was a meeting of activists, including the core of the RMLW and RCPA initiatives, that all pledged to work together on one legalization initiative. We are far from drafting any language yet. We need to see the Federal reaction to Washington and Colorado, and we need to do some polling. Without polling, none of us will be able to attract the necessary big funders to make this work. The best thing any of us can start doing right now is to raise funds for polling and a unified effort, so we don’t see several competing initiatives again, all splitting the effort and none making the ballot.
On 12/7/2012 7:36 PM, Dave Hodges wrote: > > Bill, > > I agree we all need to work together. This …
From: David Malmo-Levine – December 7, 2012
It IS a critical issue for many reasons.
If we treat cannabis like it is as toxic as alcohol and tobacco we leave open the possibility that it will be over-regulated and monopolized, and that teens will believe that alcohol and tobacco aren’t that dangerous.
We also run the risk of not being able to remove the red tape around industrial hemp and forever be unable to make any money on hemp other than seed oil for human consumption, as the current over-regulation of hemp in Canada has resulted in. It is essential this red tape is removed so that hemp ethanol can replace gasoline and we do not all die from oil wars, oil spills and climate change.
Finally, I believe that the movement will suffer if we sacrifice the truth for some sort of “pragmatic” appeal to the sensibilities of the ignorant or the powerful, we risk not having the conversations we absolutely NEED to have – such as the fact cannabis is safer than caffeine, the fact that prohibition for young adults works zero percent of the time and the fact that the black market is very likely to result in real harms. You may think these issues do not matter – many people know otherwise.
On 2012-12-07 6:52 PM,
Yes. Let’s keep it simple. ANY major argument, such as age/kids, is NOT A CRITICAL ISSUE AT ALL. Let’s get the best possible initiative, use age 21 and get WAY less negative votes.
Do we really want ANY “MOM” type group fighting us over 21 for “recreational” cannabis?? It is not remotely worth it. Again, IF under 21, do we want to remotely “promote” social use? I say no. If they are under 21 and are ill, the med mar world is wide open to them.
Also, picture this:
11 months from now, perhaps on a street in Seattle, there are two medical collectives and one adult distribution center. I am quite certain that there will be reporters visiting both types of stores, and the more they look exactly the same, the worse it is for medical.
So, medical collectives had better step up their act to be as medical as possible – i.e. dosed cannabis medications and the distribution centers should, for SURE in my opinion, be 21. Anything to help the public differentiate the two is good for all of us.
That said, personally, I find it pretty useless to really stick to the labels of social vs medical, but we must pass the publics “smell test”, and help all people at least perceive a difference.
Also, not to be insensitive, but do we really want to cater to the under 21 for recreational?? It is just not worth the outcry. Let’s do the 21 and then perhaps we can add some other “goodie” to add to the initiative that really matters.
Allan I Frankel, MD
Exactly, the Jack Herer Initiative will be circulating signatures as early as May 2013! We are not reinventing the wheel! We have most bases covered under CCHI 2014! Thanks!
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 7, 2012, at 10:29 AM,
Yes, but you can’t drink and parents and the public have VERY different feelings, rational or not, that cannabis is more of an issue than just be “legally” an adult.
The MOST important issue is getting it passed and it will be much easier to pass at 21. Please, let’s turn our attention to many more important issues.
Allan I Frankel, MD
>>> >>> ——– Original Message ——– >>> Subject: [Save Cannabis] Legal age to be an adult. >…
>>> — >>> — >>>
From: David Malmo-Levine – December 7, 2012
There is no prevention of excessive licence fees and discriminatory or exclusive licensing practices – nor is there a GMO ban. Do you want ma and pa grower’s support? Do you want ma & pa dealer’s vote? Or is this thing written for the corporations? Are you looking for some of Soros’s Monsanto money?
On 2012-12-07 11:50 AM, “Dave Hodges”
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: David Malmo-Levine – December 3, 2012
I would Google all this at the same time: “Steve Kubby” “moderates” and “radicals” to learn the lessons of Prop 215. Steve has a thank-you note from Dennis Peron for his help on 215 – do you? Read his article and keep in mind we end up getting stuck with what we settle for. If we act like pot is too dangerous for 18 year olds -everyone else will believe it too even though the science says otherwise.
On 2012-12-03 3:04 PM, “Waverider”
How many signatures had David gathered here in California for pot legaliZation- none! Not one signature, so how would David know what Californians would go for ?
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 2, 2012, at 10:11 PM, David Malmo-Levine
> What part of “215 had no age limit and passed no problem” do you not understand? >> >> On 2012-12-…