I'm not sure how important it is what we on this list think think. Prop 19 with all it's faults did quite well amongst the general public. We have a winning issue. While I would agree that it takes a lot less money to put this over the top in Colorado, we can still pass an initiative in California if we don't let the quest for the perfect reform defeat an initiative that is good reform. The voters are willing to back reform that makes sence to them. We need to mobilize the students and the soccer moms. That is doable if we are committed and work cooperatively and don't get in each others way.
peace

Dan,
 
I could not imagine in good conscious, spending $3 million dollars to EXPAND PROHIBITION on a poorly written effort that got murdered by the Legislative Analyst Office. But if the community decides to go in that direction and it makes the ballot I will bight my tongue and support it. It would break my heart and I think it will be a losing effort to convince people that all use is medical and that all of the people who currently use cannabis in CA are really sick, but I will do what needs to be done if for some reason people actually believe this is a good idea. I just do not see it….
 
As for your snarky comments about "consultants making money running local initiatives" I can only imagine you are speaking directly to me, and I can assure you my efforts to pass the Patients Access to Regulated Medical Cannabis Act of 2012 in Sac County and return medical cannabis to those who had an awful zoning ordinance passed there outlawing cultivation of any kind, as well as dispensaries, will continue regardless. CSPARC will not be dropping any sword any time soon. Even if by some miracle MMRCT passed, the Sac County initiative would be necessary to implement it there. So either way it works hand in hand, and WILL be on the ballot either next to MMRCT or not.
 
As for you "not trying to put consultants out of business," I speak for myself, but I assure you I have no shortage of business and do not worry that a poor and rushed effort by folks who are serving the interest of the few would by any means put me out of business. It definitely would not. I do not even answer the phones any more, unless it is someone I know already or was recommended to me. A lot of people are looking for help these days from people who they can trust will tell them the truth. 
 
And speaking of the truth….when you state "nobody will be turned away," that is just not accurate. MMRCT would make it so that a Bureau would set barriers to entry, and any person who cultivated medical cannabis without registering by July 1, 2013 would be subject to a $25,000 fine. I am not sure if you know the same group of growers as I do, but many simply will not register in fear of prosecution like we have seen in the Mendo program. So, in essence, if you are honest with yourself, you would see MANY will be turned away. Considering I have a Federal felony because I had the balls to provide medicine in a time of intolerance, I would bet when the Bureau lays out their rules, like we have seen in all other states, felons will also be turned away.
 
But that would be if the thing passed, which I firmly believe it will not. It will get killed because it is simply more of the same blind to reality efforts that has backed our movement into this corner where only the sick can smoke cannabis and where we are called liars and bullshitters for our inability to define who is and who is not sick enough to smoke cannabis. What the MMRCT effort does is double down on this failure of our community to stand up and be accountable. It will be a referendum on every failure of this movement to date and will be seen as another mockery of the term medical. 
 
I am still waiting to see that polling and the big press release…..Last time I checked you guys had 60 days left to pull it off or not. I am hoping for not, but you guys obviously give a shit what I think. I am okay with that. But the clock is ticking and it is a mystery as to why there has been such little outreach. I heard Don Duncan said he could not have written the Title and Summary better himself at this weekend's LA ASA meeting. Really? Is that right? Are we reading the same ballot title and summary?
 
Here are my criticisms, from a conversation with a person in your camp:
 
My thoughts are is that Ms. Kamala Harris wrote this for you guys to fail. That is easy to see. When I heard Don said the other day that he got the LAO report back and he couldn't have written it better himself, I knew something was up and all was not good, because that report was horrible and almost scolded the effort, and this sort of does the same thing in a more brief manner. But let us check it out:
 
The Title, as one person pointed out, seems to be confusing, and they think it will "fool" people into thinking the reduced penalties are for medical. YAY! Not….If that gets you the signatures, then super…but what does that say about the state of your guys campaign if you are hoping to base acceptance off of trickery and deception?
 
But move past the title, and see where Kamala set you up….The FIRST sentence is "Establishes a new government agency…" Those words are POISON to a voter in this day and age. Nobody wants a new government agency for anything and Kamala knows this too. 
 
The next sentence begins with "Imposes," not necessarily a word used to encourage support and followed by a tax rate and fee demand. She could have used the word "Creates" or "Sets forth" or anything but "Imposes." 
 
It goes on to tell how it "allocates new revenues" (not creates or increases) to "agency administration" and says out of the gate that any remaining money would go to "primarily to medical marijuana research." So you lost your carrot on the stick basically. Your voter says, "Well this raises money, but just for more marijuana. Not my roads. Not my kid's school. Not to decrease the budget gap, but to fund marijuana projects." Good luck with that.
 
"Preempts local regulation" is next. Here is where you NIMBY voters will have a field day. You are taking away local governance, cutting revenues for cities and counties with higher tax rates and removes their tax to the state. You will get killed here.
 
To be followed by…."REQUIRES one dispensary per 50,000 residents unless…local initiative." Required? People do not like to be required to do shit. You know that. You mean to tell me that you think voters in conservative districts are going to be forced to have dispensaries? GTFOOH…..
 
"Bars state and local enforcement…" will likely be the least problematic for Joe Voter, but also the tone it is written in is very negative. You might here a "barring our cops from doing their job" once or twice for sure.
 
"Reduces criminal penalties" is always a Willie Horton ad away from getting your ass kicked. This is where the campaign's fatal error and rushed drafting will come back to haunt them in October should you guys make the ballot. It is great people think the title is confusing enough to get people to not notice, but this will be all over the news any day now for sure, so good luck explaining to people who think that growing and selling pot are out of control already that all growing and selling for "non-medical" is now just a misdemeanor. It is not that they do not agree it should be…but they will see it as another effort by this industry to get over on the voter….
 
The financial report says, "Savings potentially up to several tens of millions" (for people to be able to grow and sell as much weed as they want for a misdemeanor)….followed by.. "Additional state tax revenues from new tax used for….purposes generally related to medical marijuana." So, the fact is that this money will do nothing besides advance cannabis further is what she is saying. And then she ends it with "Increased costs to regulate…offset by fees and taxes." 
 
I think the T&S is horrible, and shows that Kamala harris is against the effort and working to undermine it directly. There are better ways to write things and she knows it. For Don to continue to act as if this summary and analyst report are "good" is troubling and makes me think you all are full of shit over there. There is no reality with that camp.
 
But you knock yourself out over there. I think you too must have a screw loose if you still think this is a good idea after reading this and the LAO report.
 
You want to read a Title and Summary from Sac County on the Initiative I wrote there? Here is what a solid initiative written Title and Summary sounds like written by the Sac County Counsel….
 
Initiative Measure to be Submitted Directly to the Voters
 
 
The county counsel has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:
 
 
COUNTY CODE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE FOR THE REGISTRATION, OPERATION, TAXATION AND REGULATION OF MEDICAL CANNABIS DISPENSARIES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY
 
 
The chief purpose of this initiative measure (“Measure”), identified as the “The Patients Access to Regulated Medical Cannabis Act of 2012,” is to establish a procedure for the registration, operation, taxation and regulation of medical cannabis dispensaries within the unincorporated area of Sacramento County.
 
 
To achieve this purpose, the Measure, if adopted, would add a new Chapter 4.70 to the Sacramento County Code to establish an administrative process for the mandatory registration of a minimum of one medical cannabis dispensary per 25,000 residents within the unincorporated area of Sacramento County.  This minimum number of authorized dispensaries would be allocated equally between the unincorporated area population within the five supervisorial districts in Sacramento County.  To the extent that the number of applications for registration exceeds the number of authorized locations, the Measure provides for the County Tax and License Collector to exercise his/her discretion to determine which applicants would best promote the public interest.  In making this determination, the Measure would require the County Tax and License Collector to consider such factors as the economics of medical cannabis dispensaries; the benefits, if any, of competition; the
socio-economic composition of the population served; the geographic population distribution; the medical cannabis dispensary service capacity possessed by the applicants; and the capital investment required to provide medical cannabis dispensary services.
 
 
Registered dispensaries would be limited to locations within a commercial or industrial zone and would be prohibited within 1000 feet of a school, a park containing a playground or any youth-oriented facility.  Applicants for registration would be limited to residents of Sacramento County.  The measure also includes a variety of other regulatory criteria that an applicant for a dispensary registration would be required to satisfy.  Registered dispensaries would be required to pay to the County a supplemental sales and use tax at a maximum rate of 4% of its gross receipts.
 
 
This measure provides for the dispensary registration procedures to be administered by the County Tax and License Collector and enforced by the County Department of Environmental Management.  The County is authorized to establish a registration application fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the County for its cost of administering and enforcing the medical cannabis dispensary law established by proposed Chapter 4.70.  Violations of proposed Chapter 4.70 would constitute a public nuisance that would be subject to abatement through a civil action brought by the County Counsel.  Violations would also be subject to civil penalties of not less than $250 or more than $25,000 for each day of violation.  
 
Mickey Martin
T-Comp Consulting Director
www.cannabiswarrior.com
www.tcompconsulting.com
s..[email protected]
(phone#-removed)
http://twitter.com/micKEYmarTIN
http://twitter.com/CANNABISconsult
 
 
***The views expressed in this communication are not necessarily the views of T-Comp Consulting, Tainted Compassion, Cannabis Warrior any other group I am affiliated with.***
 
 
________________________________
From: Dan Rush <s..[email protected]>
Cc: Mickey Martin <s..[email protected]>; DPFCA <s..[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 11:18 AM

 
If we ALL pull together on the MMJRCT we won't need $3mil just for signatures.  We can do this if WE ALL PULL TOGETHER. If consultants are making money running local initiatives and referendums, please, think about dropping your local swords and joining us on the MMJRCT STATEWIDE Initiative.  We are not trying to put consultants out of business, we are creating an industry that you and everyone can thrive in.
 
We NEED to unify and pool our resources, all together *UNIFIED in one overall goal.  Good consultants will not be turned away in our effort. Nobody will be turned away. We need EVERYONE to do this and we get EVERYONE-WE CAN DO IT…
 
 
________________________________
From: Dr. David Bearman <s..[email protected]>
Cc: Mickey Martin <s..[email protected]>; DPFCA <s..[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 10:34 PM

 
I'm not sure how important it is what we on this list think  think. Prop 19 with all it's faults did quite well amongst the general public. We have a winning issue. While I would agree that it takes a lot less money to put this over the top in Colorado, we can still pass an initiative in California if we don't let the quest for the perfect reform defeat an initiative that is good reform. The voters are willing to back reform that makes sence to them. We need to mobilize the students and the soccer moms. That is doable if we are committed and work cooperatively and don't get in each others way.
peace
> How much was spent on Prop. 215?
 
> I may be naive in my views. I am okay with that. I heard the
"children will be better protected by legalization than prohibition" argument ALL through the 19 campaign. It was center to their messaging, and fell on deaf ears, so forgive me if I am skeptical of that, or the taxes raised, or the money saved, or the justification that it is safer than alcohol, as working arguments. I just have not seen it. 
> However, it is highly unlikey the money will ever come through the movement because of all the problems caused by greed, competition, jealousy, unprofessionalism, and inexperience.
> Instead, to raise and spend these amounts will require a group of mainstream political professionals to achieve, and they will have to begin by branding themselves with a new image which gives them maximum distance from the pro-cannabis "movement." 
 
> The effective issues are not personal — passion and compassion for justice, liberty,
and equality will not raise money nor win a campaign.
>  
> ————————–
> Sam
H. Clauder II
> >http://cannabiswarrior.com/2012/02/18/if-i-had-an-extra-3-million-bucks-to-make-weed-legal/
 
> >Wouldn't that be a nice problem to have? But there are definitely some wealthy cats out there who DO have an extra $3 million sitting around who also want to see weed legalized, so this is an opinion piece on what I would do if I were them. Are you listening, Mr. Wealthy Person who has the ability to change history with one lousy check?
> >If I had the money I would not hesitate to sponsor a legalization cannabis freedom initiative in the State of California. Why? Because California is ground zero for cannabis, and also has almost 12% of the Nation's population. Cannabis is part of the California mainstream, and there are very few in CA who do not know someone who uses cannabis, or are familiar
with the cannabis culture here. In a Presidential election year, in a very blue state, where it looks like the Republican and generally more conservative ticket will seriously be lacking enthusiasm, I believe it is VERY POSSIBLE to get 50% + 1 person to vote for cannabis freedom. I think there will be a lot of support at the

This is old news:
 
"…. Act to trump state law with federal law……. Meanwhile NORML, DPA and MPP continue to lend support for more "tax, regulate and control" measures while completely ignoring the need for the people."
 
In any industry, all "law abiding" companies know the, "Act to trump state law with federal law." That's why we have this war, as they call it.
 
We must take a stand and support the court cases against the Federal Government to take marijuana off the schedule 1 list. Then you will see the changes we are all looking for to start applying to the State level.
 
 
 
Sent from my iPhone
 

I need some help.
 
I just finished putting together two webpages one dealing with George
Washington and the other with Thomas Jefferson. Both are documented –
that means that I show pictures of the actual reference letters etc.,
being referenced etc.
 
However, I am having trouble with the Thomas Jefferson section — DOES
anyone have solid proof that he smuggled Hemp seeds out of China into
America? I have seen a lot of websites that say he did, but none seem to
provide proof.
 
If anyone want's I can email you an advanced of the website — but more
important, if anyone has any actual proof of Jefferson as a Hemp smuggler
please do contact me.
 
 
Antique Andy
www.AntiqueCannabisBook.com
 
ps – The websection on the State of Virginia should be up in a couple of
weeks — Lots of cool stuff, lot's of documentation of the history of
hemp.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
—————————————–
Sent via Catholic Online Webmail!
Use Catholic Online Webmail to proclaim your faith to the world.
http://webmail.catholic.org/

Hi
I'd like to see what you have. In my book "Demons,Discrimination and Dollars: A Brief History of The Origins of American Drug Policy" I've got a couple of the most common Washington and Jefferson quotes.
I'm curious as to why Jefferson would need to import or smuggle hemp seed from China. The hemp growing agricultural business was well established in the colonies by the British since the 1600s. One of the reasons that the British encouraged settlement of the Americas was for the hemp that could be produced here to make canvas and rigging for the British navy and maritime fleet. The War of 1812 was fought over Britain's efforts to buy Russian hemp. Their retting process made the canvas and rigging made from their hemp more resistant to salt water and it lasted longer than these materials made from hemp from elsewhere. What was the supposed advantage of the Chinese hemp?
peace
David Bearman,M.D.

What better way to celebrate Washington's Birthday and honor all our Presidents this Monday than to tune into our radio show Marijuana Compassion and Common Sense. The show this Monday features Cheri Sicard, author of the just released The Gourmet Cannabis Cookbook and Joe Grumbine, whose tortured trial took an unexpected twist when the judge removed himself from the trial at the very end.
 
Cheri's book contains a wide variety of recipes from simple to sophisticated and teaches readers how to cook with marijuana including proper dosing, making infused butter and oil, cooking with kief and hash, and even how to adapt favorite recipes for cannabis cooking. I was honored to have written the forward for the book, so tune in and learn about Cheri and how this marvelous book came to be.
 
For those of you who made it to the High Times Cannabis Cup and witnessed all the events in the medical marijuana area, it is so bizarre that Joe Grumbine and Joe Byron ever got caught up in the criminal justice system, but I guess nothing is to bizarre when it comes to the absurdity of marijuana prohibition.
 
The Joe's trial was characterized by a biased judge so opposed to medicinal marijuana and so enamored of the prosecution that he sent a letter to the prosecutors praising them for getting the jury to convict Grumbine and Byron of all charges. This letter led the judge to recluse himself from the sentencing portion of the trial which will be conducted by another judge. Joe will explain why it happened and what is expected to happen now.
 
Listen in this Monday, Feb. 20 at 6 pm and every Monday at 6 pm for Marijuana Compassion and Common Sense broadcast on IE Talk Radio KCAA 1050AM and simulcast on the Internet at www.kcaaradio.com. You are invited to call into the show with questions and comments by calling the listener call-in line at(phone#-removed).

Please join me at Los Angeles Patients and Caregivers Group (LAPCG) in West
Hollywood on *Monday, February 20, at 8:00 PM*. I will be discussing what is
on the local and federal horizon 2012, including the immediate threats to
safe access in Los Angeles. Most importantly, we will be talking about how
you can be a part of the solution!
 

 
*What: * Reception with ASA Executive Director Steph Sherer
 

 
*When: * 8:00 PM * Monday, February 20
 

 
*Where:* LAPCG, 7213 Santa Monica Blvd., West Hollywood, CA 90046
 

 
See you on Monday!
 

 
Steph Sherer
 
Executive Director
 

 
P.S. – Learn more about the Medical Marijuana Regulation, Control, and
Taxation Act of 2012 [ http://www.regulatemedicalmarijuana.org/ ], a voter
initiative to protect patients' rights and safe access to medicine in
California!
 

 
—
 

 
Don Duncan, California Director
 
Americans for Safe Access (ASA)
 
http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org/
 

 
Americans for Safe Access is the nation's largest organization of patients,
medical professionals, scientists and concerned citizens promoting safe and
legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research.
 
Support the Medical Marijuana Regulation, Control, & Taxation Act of 2012!
 
http://www.RegulateMedicalMarijuana.org

Judging by Prop 215, which had about 250,000 signatures, many invalid,
5 weeks before final turn-in day in 1996,
Soros et al kicked in the bucks to get it on the ballot and made it,
despite having only 5 weeks to get over 1/2 million sigs.
We can do the same with funding in the remaining 8 weeks (ending
4/20/12) for the Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Initiative.
 
Any marijuana petition will generally go first on a stack of different
petition issues, because it's so easy
to get massive numbers of people to sign simply by asking, "Can you
help us get marijuana on the ballot?"
If we can get on the ballot, the money for the campaign will flow much
easier, allowing the initiative in question to build the
infra-structure capable of winning.
 
In my considered opinion, the single most important part of the
campaign process is the ballot arguments and rebuttals
in the voter handbook. The press quotes from those official statements
time & time again.
The voters read them voraciously, especially anything on this subject.
 
Friends & family voting absentee, because they are the most serious
voters, sit around their kitchen table & read them together.
 
Honing our official statements in the voter handbook is more important
than anything else we do and is not very expensive.
 
We can run a streamlined campaign & with the proper campaign managers,
media presentation & focus on the south,
pull it off with much much less than the highest estimates of $10-20
million. Mikki's $5 is closer to the truth; even that can be shaved.
 
My experience is local, running initiative campaigns in San Francisco
for 5 years, winning 6 out of 8 we fielded from scratch (Nuclear
Free Zone, Apartheid Consumer Boycott, etc.) — writing the text,
raising the funds, the works.
Being so grassroots, we were underestimated, which helped us stay
under the radar,
getting the signatures for ballot status and signatures in lieu for
ballot arguments.
It was the plain language of the text and the ballot arguments
explaining the issues, every time, that won the day.
 
Voters pay a lot more attention than given credit for.
We can trust them, by and large, to do the right thing on propositions
(very much different than politicians).
 
If we miss 2012, "fiddling while Rome burns", unable to raise the $1
1/2 million for sigs, we will regret
the amateurish nature of our divided house for failing to take
advantage of the cannabis-friendly Obama ballot.
The next presidential ballot, 2016, seems like a lifetime away. With
258 municipalities having banned dispensaries,
it will only get more oppressive as the Feds build on their phenomenal
momentum of the past year.
 
The time has come today.
 
pebbles trippet
 

IT is not about the CXatholic Church. They aren't forced to spend a dime.I can't believe someone is defending the insurance companies. Insurance companies are not religious institutions. Like it or not contraception is preventive medicine. We should have a system that covers all citizens for both preventive and curative medicine. We don't and that makes us unique amongst indutrialized nations.
It is not about contraception but about universal health coverage. . If we don't correctly identify the issue it is impossible to have a coherent discussion.
David Beaqrman,M.D.

Jonathan raises an excellent point: The health care system that exists in the United States today is nothing like a free market. Government policies have created a situation where most health care is paid for indirectly via insurance or entitlement programs in which consumers have neither the incentive nor often even the ability to shop around and compare prices, and so as a result there is little competition and choice in health care. And government control begets more government control. As we are seeing, the fact that people have little choice has become a rationale for requiring health care providers to accept even more government rules and mandates! I agree with JG Wilson that the best solution would be for Catholic hospitals and others to simply reject government subsidies, because the history of government funding is that sooner or later it tends to lead to government control and loss of independence. The cannabis community would be wise to keep this in mind when local governments propose to issue medical cannabis cards or other programs or policies that superficially appear to benefit us.
 
It is darkly ironic to hear people arguing for more regulation, or even for healthcare policy and process in the U.S. to be controlled by an even smaller number of institutions — essentially by one institution, the federal government — on the basis of access. Health care in America was much more accessible and affordable back in the days before big government health care programs, when people paid most hospital bills directly and doctors made house calls. Without being required to do so by law, private health care providers typically offered care on a sliding scale (see e.g. http://www.nolanchart.com/article6708-american-health-care-and-the-intrusion-of-insurance.html ). Costs really started getting out of control not long after the introduction of Medicare in 1965 (see e.g. the graph at http://mises.org/daily/4434 ). The more control and regulation that government has imposed, the more expensive care has become.
 
It is even more ironic to hear such control advanced under the label of "universal health care". No country in the world has a system of universal health coverage. So-called "universal" care is in fact offered only to people living in the wealthy, gated communities commonly known as welfare states. The governments that run these countries exclude those most in need of help in obtaining medical care — the impoverished masses living in the developing world. Sick and impoverished people from the "wrong side of the tracks" are shut out by means of border controls maintained by these same governments. They are discriminated against for their nationality and often for being poor as well (wealthy individuals are often able to gain legal residence or citizenship where those who lack resources cannot). This reality exposes the fact that the so-called "universal" health care programs are not compassionate, and cannot be justified on the basis of compassion. What they really are, are pork-barrel entitlement programs that politicians use to win votes and garner donations from the special interests that benefit from the programs. If you're living in the Third World, can't vote in the jurisdiction where the "free" health care is being offered, and aren't wealthy or part of a powerful interest group, you get shut out.
 
But Dr. Bearman is correct that "requiring people to buy health insurance from a for profit insurance company that will invest their revenue in financial markets" (as Obamacare does) is not socialism. The more accurate term for such a policy is *statism*. Statism — the philosophy that governments, rather than each individual, should decide how we live our lives, use our bodies, spend our money, etc., takes many forms, only some of which can legitimately be called socialist. The people who run the world's governments — even those that call themselves socialist — are in most cases much less interested in the redistribution of wealth than they are in wielding power and enriching themselves. The fact that such people, including those in the U.S. government, are sometimes attacked as "socialists" is mainly an example of sloppy thinking by conservatives — or a means for those on the political right to avoid examining their own statist tendencies by pretending that statism is only a left-wing phenomenon.
 
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
 
 
On Feb 18, 2012, at 11:22 AM, PeaceLove wrote:
 
> It seems to me if we had a healthy, functioning free market healthcare system in this country we could be more "libertarian" in the sense of allowing private organizations to decide what healthcare they do and don't offer as part of their insurance. Since we have instead a situation where a small number of companies essentially control healthcare policy and process, and the whole process is pretty thoroughly corrupted by money, normal people don't have much choice in their insurance. Most people don't have any realistic option to choose a different health insurance plan — like one that covers contraception, or abortion, or medical cannabis.
 
> PeaceLove, Jonathan
 
 
On Feb 18, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Dr. David Bearman wrote:
 
> You are correct Shona , Starchild is framing this as about birth control and reproductive health. It is about health care reform and preventive medicine. Furthermore there are many reasons for prescribing birth control pills beyond allowing protected non marital sex. One needs to look at the big picture and the real issues. The US is the only industrialised nation that does not have a system of universal health coverage. Is that right for what our politicians often refer to as the greatest country in the world? The idea that requiring people to buy health insurance from a for profit insurance company that will invest their revenue in financial markets is socialism is not only absurd but stands the definitions of socialism and capitalism on their respective heads.
> Sincerely
> David Bearman,M.D.
 
 
On Feb 19, 2012, at 4:53 PM, s..[email protected] wrote:
 
> Personally, I'm offended that Catholic hospitals don't provide the options of birth control and abortion services to their hapless patients, and yet they continue to operate as government-supported institutions.
> Peace,
> –J
 
 
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur <s..[email protected]> wrote:
 
> planning ? Is at stake here and women not having access due to
> employer and not being at a table where our fates ? And basic human
> rights are whats being discuss and decided is sexism .
 
 
On 2/17/12, Starchild <s..[email protected]> wrote: