Tag Archives: Susan Soares

Cannabis & Hemp Freedom Act of 2014, California – Rev 1.35

From: Susan Soares – December 2, 2012

And, that is the group of people that are most affected by arrest. They are just starting their adult lives, they are experimenting and smoking pot only to end up branded for life.

Susan Soares(phone#-removed) s..s@a2c2.us

On Dec 2, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Dave Hodges wrote:

— —

July 23, 2012 – Digest for s..s@a2c2.us – 15 Messages in 9 Topics

    "Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur" <s..s@a2c2.us> Jul 23 09:07PM -0700  

    please post to all lists. Horrible! Dege is a warrior . Bless her good works!
     
     
    Greetings –
     
    LA City Council will take up the matter of banning dispensaries tomorrow.
    The Council will convene at 10 a.m. in downtown at 200 North Spring Street
    in room 340. Public entrance to City Hall is on the Main Street side of
    the building.
     
    Medical marijuana dispensaries will be discussed on agenda items 5, 18 and
    30. Here is the link to the agenda:
    http://ens.lacity.org/clk/councilagendas/clkcouncilagenda(phone#-removed)2012.pdf
     
    The language for item 5 is fairly strong: 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…
     
    It appears item 18 is getting filed: NOTE and FILE Motion (Koretz –
    Wesson) relative to a request for a City Attorney report and a limited
    immunity ordinance approach to regulating medical marijuana businesses.
     
    Item 30 is Closed Session to: confer or discuss with, or receive advice
    from, its legal counsel regarding pending litigation…(The pending
    litigation includes more than 50 separate lawsuits and cross-complaints
    filed against the City by medical marijuana dispensaries, owners,
    operators, and patients. The lawsuits challenge the City's medical
    marijuana ordinance on a wide variety of legal grounds and seek to enjoin
    enforcement of the City's ordinance)
     
    Items 5 and 30 refer to the same motions, 11-1737 and 11-1737-S1. It can
    inferred by this agenda that the reason the City is banning dispensaries
    is due to the ongoing lawsuits. Here is the link to the motion:
    http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2011/11-1737-s1_mot_11-23-11a.pdf
     
    It is anticipated that the Council will NOT take public comment tomorrow
    during these agenda items. The argument will be that the Council has
    already held multiple public hearings on the matter and therefore by law
    do not have to take further input. However, you can still submit a
    speaker card for the agenda items 5 and 18 and check the box indicating
    you oppose the proposals. Your cards will get filed even if you do not
    speak.
     
    Those eager to speak can do so during general public comment at the top of
    the meeting. However, you cannot mention the three agenda items, nor
    dispensary bans or lawsuits. What you can do is tell your 2-minute story:
    your name, where you live in LA, what you do, how you became ill, how
    harsh other drugs and treatments are for you, how well medical cannabis
    helps you and the punchline – you do not want to go to the black market,
    you do not want to be considered a criminal.
     
    Anyone with questions can contact PAN directly. I hope to see you at City
    Hall tomorrow.
     
     
     
    Sincerely,
     
    Degé Coutee
    Executive & Program Director
    Patient Advocacy Network
     
    @PAN4Compassion
    www.CannabisSavesLives.org
    (323) 334-5282
     
    PAN is a charitable 501(c)(3) organization
     
     
     
     

    Shona Gochenaur
    Executive Director
    Axis of Love SF
    http://www.facebook.com/axisoflove
    http://www.twitter.com/axisoflove

     

    "Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur" <s..s@a2c2.us> Jul 23 08:55PM -0700  

    pls share widely. Everyone welcome to come and enjoy a curry dinner
    and the music of India . Celebrate thousands of years of practiced
    compassion & Understanding. Many thanks to our donors! And the
    warmhearted volunteers of Axis of Love SF that have helped create this
    event for us .

     

 

 

 

    GOCCA <s..s@a2c2.us> Jul 23 12:00PM -0700  

    Hello OC Collectives and Patients,
     
     
    The next Greater Orange County Collective Alliance meeting of 2012 will be
    this Wednesday, July 25 at 8 PM.
     
     
    *Meeting Location: *Marriott Suites
     
    Harbor Room
     
    12015 Harbor Blvd.
    Garden Grove, 92840
     
     
    *Meeting Coordinator: *Dee(phone#-removed)
     
     
     
    Please join us in protecting and educating our patients and community about
    medical cannabis!
     
     
     
     

    *Representative*
    Greater Orange County Collectives Alliance (GOCCA)
    2166 W. Broadway, #100
    Anaheim, CA 92804
    (phone#-removed)
    http://www.gocca.org
    http://www.facebook.com/gocca.org
    http://twitter.com/_gocca <http://twitter.com/#!/_gocca>

     

    Chris Kenoyer/OLP <s..s@a2c2.us> Jul 22 08:56PM -0700  

    Press Release 7-22-2012
    Sliding Fee Sale Needed For Maine's Low Income Patients At
    Maine's
    Medical Marijuana Dispensaries  
    Maine State 8 DHHS Licensed Medical Marijuana
    Dispensary's Should Have A Sliding
    Fee Scale Setup for "All Low Income Legal
    Maine Medical Marijuana Patients"
    Current Maine State 8 DHHS Licensed Medical
    Marijuana Dispensary's Should Have A Reasonable Sliding Fee Scale Setup for "All
    Low Income Legal Maine MMJ Patients"
     
    ALL Low Income Maine State Legal
    Medical Marijuana Patients, You Need To KEEP HOUNDING THEM Publicly Until They
    All Do! DEMAND! All NON Profit Maine Dispensary's To Help Their DHHS Area Low
    Income MMJ Patients!
     
    Well Becky…? And The Other Maine Dispensary
    Owners..? Sliding Fee Scale's For Maine's Truly Sick & Low Income Patients,
    It Is The Difference Between Compassionate Caregiving, & Just Legal Drug
    Dealing! By The Dispensary's For The Sake Of Rich Maine Patients ONLY!
     
    It
    Only Costs Roughly $35 Dollars Or $300 a Pound, "According To Wellness
    Connections Own DHHS Permit Application" For The Legal Maine Dispensaries Or
    Patients To Grow 1 Oz of Medical Marijuana For Their Patients. There is NO
    Reason Other Then Simple GREED! That The 8 Legal Maine State DHHS Controlled
    Medical Marijuana Dispensary's, Can't Set Up A Sliding Fee Scale For Maine's
    Sick Or Terminal Low Income Legal Medical Marijuana Patients.
     
    Simply Set
    It Up Where "Once Per Month" The Low Income Maine State Legal Medical Marijuana
    Patients, They Can Get "Say 1 OZ Of Medical Marijuana", From Their DHHS Area
    Dispensary For $100. The 8 Dispensaries Are ALL Still "Tripling Their Out Of
    Pocket Costs" To Grow That 1 OZ Of Medical Marijuana. "That The Low
    Income Maine State Patients Will Need To Have". And Pay Just $100 For That 1st
    OZ Of Their Medical Cannabis Per Month.
     
     
    If The Low Income Patients
    Need To Buy Any More Then That 1 OZ Per Month? They Then Would Have To Pay The
    Normal "Full Market Price" That Their Dispensary Charges Normally. That Gets The
    Low Income Patient Atlest 1 OZ Per Month Of Their Much Needed Medical Marijuana
    For Their Recognized Medical Illness's. And This Will Help Prevent Any Illegal
    Diversion To NON Medical Patients. Simple Because If They Do..? They Would Then
    Have To Pay Full Market Price! To Replace Their Medical Cannabis.
     
    VS The Current
    1000% Mark-up To Buy Their Medical Marijuana Via One Of The States 8 Legal Maine
    Medical Marijuana Dispensary’s. Cost For The Patients To “Legally Buy Their
    Medical Marijuana” from a Dispensary. The Current Rates Runs From $340 To $400+
    Per Oz + Sales Tax. A Low Income Maine SSI Check MMJ Patient Only Get a $698 Per
    Month SSI Check!
     
    How Is The Current 1000% Mark-up At Any Of The "8 Maine
    State DHHS Controlled" Medical Marijuana Dispensary’s For The Legal Sick Maine
    State Medical Marijuana Patients? “Considered Non-Profit..?"
     
    Personally
    Here At "Maine Patients Coalition" We Are NOT going to be backing off on ANY
    Dispensary Until They Do! Set Up A Low Income Maine Medical Marijuana Patients
    Sliding Fee Scale! & $20 Bucks OFF? Is Not A Sliding Fee Scale! It Is A Slap
    In The Face To All Maine's Low Income Sick Or Terminal Medical Marijuana
    Patients.
     
    Sincerely Chris Kenoyer
    Maine Patients
    Coalition
    (phone#-removed)
    http://www.mainepatientscoalition.org/
     
    http://www.mainepatientscoalition.org/F2/MainesSlidingFeeScale.htm Press Release
     
    Stay Well & Stay Safe Everyone
    Sincerely
    Chris Kenoyer
     
     
    Follow Us Now On Twitter @ MedicalMMJMan
    https://twitter.com/MedicalMMJMan  
     
    http://www.mainepatientscoalition.org/   
    http://www.onlinepot.org/
    http://www.reefermadnessteachingmuseum.org/  
     
    s..s@a2c2.us   
    s..s@a2c2.us      
    NEW 100% Encrypted Email Server
     
     
    God Made Medical Marijuana!
    & God Doesn't Make Mistakes!
     
     
    CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING! This electronic message contains information which may be privileged and/or confidential. This information is intended for the exclusive use of the individual(s), entity, or persons named or indicated above. Any unauthorized access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any parts of the contents of this message/information is strictly prohibited by federal law. Any attempts to intercept this message are in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. 2511(1) of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA).All violators are subject to fines, imprisonment, civil damages, or both.               

     

 

    mike boutin <s..s@a2c2.us> Jul 23 02:58AM  

    You totally lose me on this one Mickey. There may be some kernals of truth in there, but I grew up with guns will always own guns and will never apologize for it.
     
    I have had guns pulled on me and have never had to shoot anyone yet.
     
    As for the feds, I wonder why after sifting my shit for an hour on the side of the road the other day the Forset Service cop (Federal) who pulled a loaded .32 out of my left pocket and my permit out of my right didn't decide that it was illegal, especially considering that he gave me a ticket for possession of a controlled substance, ie marijuana and looked at all my paperwork.
     
    He said two things:
     
    1. I was the most legal MMJ guy he had ever pulled over.
     
    2. In the 3 months he has worked up here, he has in the course of making traffic stops encountered 16 concealed weapons and "I" (I wish I could capitalize that bigger) but I was the only "LEGAL" one.
     
    The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.
     
    And when he put it in my glovebox for me he demonstrated that he is more dangerous than I could ever be.
     
    When he took it from me it was loaded, hammer down, safety off. When I fished it out of my glove box it was safetied which I NEVER do but the hammer was back. He forgot to lower it.
     
    I don't need the safety on when the hammer is down, it is double action and needs a pretty good pull to fire, not likely to happen accidentally.
     
    The media likes to play up the massacres but they never play up the citizen who prevented a violent felony by being armed.
     
    When you speak the truth about marijuana you make enemies and become a target of both sides of the issue. When people think you are loaded with either weed or money you are a target.
     
    When people have targets that shoot back their aim ain't so good…
     
    That ain't macho, it ain't ego, it is what it is. City is what it is, Country is what it is, don't confuse em.
     
    On Jul 22, 2012, Mickey Martin <s..s@a2c2.us> wrote:
     
    Gun Crazed…Posted by Mickey Martin on July 22nd, 2012
     
    In the wake of another mass killing, this time at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado this week, I have had some of the most interesting conversations with people about guns.
     
    My point is simple. GUNS ARE STUPID.
     
    There is no shortage of macho men and women who see this tragedy as some sort of threat to their right to own a gun. I am amazed at the amount of bullshit rhetoric I have heard about “Don't let them take our guns because of this.” What the fuck are you talking about? Who has had any gun taken in America from them ever?
     
    Here is a cold hard fact for you…8 million guns are sold annually across the globe….4.5 million of those are sold here in the US. So, if there is some shortage of guns and people are scared of having their guns taken away, I just do not see it. We have 5% of the world's population but purchase 56% of the guns in the world every year. We have 90 guns for every 100 people in this country. In comparison, the next closest country is Yemen with 61 guns per 100 people. That is a staggering number. So at what point does the bullshit myth that somehow guns are being taken away in this Country cease to meet the reality of the situation?
     
    But do not get me wrong. I am not suggesting that nobody be allowed to own guns. I have many of my closest friends who are gun enthusiasts and many of them who I have this argument with all of the time. I understand the argument for guns by many who own them. I see the need for security, and the fear of other people who have bad intentions. I think it is perfectly okay for people to own firearms to protect themselves and their property. I respect hunting as a sport and the people who use guns for target sport and whatnot. I appreciate that many people are well-trained and responsible gun owners who simply own a firearm to protect themselves from a worst case scenario.
     
    What I do not get is the macho hero bullshit that so many gun enthusiasts spew. Many act as if their having guns makes them some sort of tough guy (or girl) who would have “never let that happen if I was at the movie theater.” All of these “I own a gun” instant heroes are seldom found at the moment of real tragedy. For all of the bullshit hyperbole spewed by these small penis, big gun vigilante heroes, I just do not ever see that actually play out in real life.
     
    What I do see play out in real life, more often than not, is that a gun is used for suicide, or accidental shooting by a kid, or is stolen and used in another crime or homicide. People with guns in their home are many times more likely to be killed by homicide or have someone in their home die from suicide. So while many people believe they are protecting themselves, the reality is that on most occasions they are bringing the danger into their home and giving themselves a false sense of security. But that is people's choice to make; and there are many good gun owners out there who are responsible in their use, storage, and handling of firearms. Generally, a responsible gun owner will never even let a person know they have guns and generally hope to never have to use them for defense. The wingnut “advocates” that run around acting as if the firearm is an extension of themselves and who believe guns make them tougher have serious fucking mental problems.
     
    Someone said, “Mickey, a gun is just a tool like any other tool.” Is that right? The how come people do not wander around bragging about how big and powerful their hammer is? We have come to romanticize guns in this country and that is dangerous. We have created a culture that thrives off of gun violence and is indifferent to the massive death they cause.
     
    Roughly 270 people get shot EVERY DAY in America and roughly 80 of those people die. Now I have heard all of the straw man arguments stating “Cars kill people every day. Should we ban cars?” Shut the fuck up….if you are seriously comparing MASS MURDER with car accidents, then there is a real fucking problem. Yes. People die in cars every day, but not because another human being set out to kill them. The number of deaths every day in America by gun violence is unacceptable period. Besides the tragedy of life lost, it is the mental anguish and terror that these situations create that does the most damage.
     
    But you do not need to look much further than the gun lobby to figure that out. One of the main arguments is that people need guns because if they do not have them “only the criminals will have guns.” So people must be able to stockpile assault weaponry to fend off the possible attack of the bad guys and their guns, which have obviously scared the shit out of enough people to make them only believe that being fully armed to the hilt will suffice in making them safe from this huge criminal element. I am just not seeing it though. RARELY does one of these folks ever actually use their gun to defend themselves. Most times their guns end up killing themselves or their family in a tragic event that was made easier by a gun being available to get their hands on. That is the reality. All of these super heroes never seem to materialize when the shit really goes down, and most are surprised when their depressed wife commits suicide with their weapon, or when their teenage kid steals their gun and accidentally shoots their buddy.
     
    So I am not buying this whole I need a gun to protect me from people with guns bullshit. It just does not happen very much, and compared with the overwhelming guns that are used in suicide, accidents, or are stolen and used in other crimes, it is just not worth it IMO. To each their own….but if 4 armed gunmen kick in my door, chances are having a firefight with them in my home while my kids sleep in the next room is not necessarily my best option. I have no need to risk my family's life in hopes I am a good enough shot to kill all 4 of them before they get the drop on me or my family. Most home invasions end with people taking the shit they came for and leaving….why would I want to turn my house into the OK Corral just to save some stuff? Why would I want to ensure gunshots are fired in my home to be some hero who saved his stuff…if you do not get killed in the ensuing gun battle. It just makes no sense…these contrived bullshit scenarios where people think they will have the time and the presence to pull off all of this hero gun shit amazes me….too many video games for some of these folks.
     
    But the reality is that the actual risk of being home invaded is very slim, and the probability of you being able to do shit about it in that moment, regardless of the amount of guns you own, is even slimmer…..so save me the Dirty Harry “I would've or am gonna” bullshit. You will not. The facts just do not back up the bravado of all of these “I have a gun” heroes….
     
    But I am not advocating for anyone's guns to be “taken away,” as seems to be the paranoia in these situations. Apparently no one else is trying to take any away either, as as stated before, Americans buy 56% of the 8 million guns sold annually. So lay off the paranoia weed for a minute and come back to reality. There are enough guns in America for everyone…literally.
     
    What I am advocating for is a return on the assault weapons ban. There is just no real use for this type of weaponry in our society other than to murder human beings at a fast and massively destructive rate. It makes no sense that we allow any dumbass to walk into a store and buy a weapon capable of shooting 71 people in a matter of seconds. The only thing an AK-47 or AR-15 is good for is killing A LOT of human beings very rapidly….I am cool if it is more difficult for my neighbor to be able to do that. When asking gun advocates what ever the purpose of these types of weapons are besides mass murder, some have the nerve to bring up hunting. If you need a fully automatic weapon to shoot a defenseless elk then you are a.) a horrible hunter; and b.) a pussy.
     
    But let's look at the Second Amendment, which for the record, most of the folks I have found arguing for their rights under it, have actually NEVER read. Here is what it says:
     
    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
     
    When can we begin to talk about the “well regulated” part of the amendment that gun owners cling to?
     
    Now the second amendment was written as a protection from government tyranny….but even the dudes who wrote it (wearing high heels and wigs and writing with a feather mind you), understood that this “militia” needs to be WELL REGULATED. Their muskets took 5 minutes to reload and they rode horses. So does the possibility of our citizens being armed really uphold the spirit of the second amendment as a check and balance for government tyranny in the modern age of F-15 fighters, nuclear weapons, or death strike drones? Which one of us is going to fire up the nuclear stocked F-15 to take on the government when this hypothetical overthrow of tyranny goes down?
     
    Which brings me to my next point…..WHY CAN I NOT OWN A ROCKET PROPELLED GRENADE (RPG)? I mean, if I have this right to bear arms, why can I not have my own nuclear weapon? It is arms, and the Constitution says…You see the issue? There are obviously limitations on what types of arms we can and cannot own for good reason. Yet the gun lobbies have sold this bag of shit to the American public that the second amendment should allow anyone and everyone to own any type of gun they want, regardless of it killing ability and likelihood of abuse. Super…so why stop there? Fuck you..I do not even want a gun, I want my rocket propelled grenade and it is my fucking right as an American. I do not want to shoot someone who is committing a crime…I want to blow their ass to smithereens, and so I should be allowed to have an RPG. It is unjust that I cannot.
     
    This is the logic behind the gun control argument…..it is senseless and dangerous. Sure, you should and do have the right to bear arms. You should not have the right to wander into a gun shop and buy a mass murder killing machine on a whim any time you have had a bad couple of months and life has got you feeling helpless. I mean, I have to take a fucking test to drive my fucking car because it is so fucking dangerous, yet this James Holmes kid can wander into any gun shop in CO and buy a killing machine and order thousands of rounds of ammunition on the internet without so much as asking him a question on how he intends to use said mass murder weapon device? HUH? I have to take a test to drive a car….no test, conversation, or question asked for mass murder weapon. Gotcha….
     
    Maybe I am missing something…
     
    But since this is a cannabis blog, I will also mention the fact that YOU HAVE NO SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS as a medical cannabis user and the NRA could give a shit…So before you go getting all gung-ho supportive of the Nation's gun lobby, just remember, if you smoke weed they do not want to know you. How is that for your Second Amendment protectors? Here is an article I did for West Coast Leaf that refreshes that situation for you:
     
    Feds say cannabis patients have no 2nd Amend rights
     
    By Mickey Martin
     
    The Second Amendment of the US states that Americans' “right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” but a US government policy handed down by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) states that this right does not apply to patients who find relief through using medical marijuana.
     
    Federal ATF Bureau Asst. Dir. Arthur Herbert sent out a letter Sept 21, 2011 that, “Any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is … prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.” The letter goes on to threaten to punish gun sellers for knowingly selling firearms to qualified medical cannabis patients.
     
    This would essentially force Americans to choose between their health and their guns. A federal bureaucrat, with a simple letter, has suspended the Second Amendment for people who use medical cannabis. This policy has concerned both medical cannabis patients and gun rights advocates.
     
    “It is egregious that people may be sentenced to years in a federal prison only because they possessed a firearm while using a state-approved medicine,” Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Assn said.
     
    The letter from the ATF noted that marijuana is a Schedule I substance under federal law, adding, “There are no exceptions in federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by state law.”
     
    Upon calling the National Rifle Association (NRA), the nation's largest and most powerful gun rights advocacy group, to inquire about their position on this policy I was told by the person answering the phone, identified only as “Kyle,” that the NRA policy was to follow the 1968 Gun Control Act, which made it illegal for those who use illegal drugs to possess firearms, stating that, “States do not have the right to make laws that conflict with federal law.”
     
    Since when does the NRA say that a federal gun control statute takes precedence over the US Constitution? At the time of passing the Act, the NRA was against any gun regulation and lobbied heavily through mass-mailings to undermine the new law. It single-handedly succeeded in wiping out large portions of the bill as put forth after Robert Kennedy's assassination.
     
    Upon finding out I was not a concerned NRA member, but a journalist, “Kyle” walked back his statement and referred me to the NRA public affairs office. The public affairs office was not available for immediate comment.
     
    Lawsuits have already begun to be filed challenging the ATF

     

    mike boutin <s..s@a2c2.us> Jul 23 02:59AM  

    You go Doc!
     
    On Jul 22, 2012, rose jeri <s..s@a2c2.us> wrote:
     
    Well if they want to come to my home to force me to be vaccinated or chipped, I would like to have an assault rifle to mow as many of them down before I died by their crazy hands. And as far as Cannabis being illegal, since that is so ultimately wrong why would anyone be surprised that the Feds say that a med cannabis user is not allowed to own guns? Just more offensive action against people who use cannabis. I rarely use a gun, I killed a rabid skunk once, but I love the gun because I long ago realized that as a woman I am weaker than 50% of the population and that bunch thinks they have rights to do with me as they please due to that muscular strength. I would gladly wear a gun on my hip if it were legal. It would beat having to walk with a pen in my hand ready to stab when I had to take the subway in NYC at the wee hours. O and because I was prepared, I never did have to stab anyone. So if more people were armed, one of them might have been in that theater. I think a prepared and armed society would stop these people who are aimed at us by the CIA when it trains them in whatever MK ultra experiment thay are currently running. And I think these incidents are planned and designed to get people to agree that guns are bad and to be banned. Somehow they got people believing Reefer Madness without it having any truth becaues it was aimed at the poor African and Mexican Americans. People who know guns are important to prevent what the 1% plan for us are more stubborn and have a greater political strength than those racial minorities.
     
    On Jul 22, 2012, Mickey Martin <s..s@a2c2.us> wrote:
     
    Gun Crazed…Posted by Mickey Martin on July 22nd, 2012
     
    In the wake of another mass killing, this time at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado this week, I have had some of the most interesting conversations with people about guns.
     
    My point is simple. GUNS ARE STUPID.
     
    There is no shortage of macho men and women who see this tragedy as some sort of threat to their right to own a gun. I am amazed at the amount of bullshit rhetoric I have heard about “Don't let them take our guns because of this.” What the fuck are you talking about? Who has had any gun taken in America from them ever?
     
    Here is a cold hard fact for you…8 million guns are sold annually across the globe….4.5 million of those are sold here in the US. So, if there is some shortage of guns and people are scared of having their guns taken away, I just do not see it. We have 5% of the world's population but purchase 56% of the guns in the world every year. We have 90 guns for every 100 people in this country. In comparison, the next closest country is Yemen with 61 guns per 100 people. That is a staggering number. So at what point does the bullshit myth that somehow guns are being taken away in this Country cease to meet the reality of the situation?
     
    But do not get me wrong. I am not suggesting that nobody be allowed to own guns. I have many of my closest friends who are gun enthusiasts and many of them who I have this argument with all of the time. I understand the argument for guns by many who own them. I see the need for security, and the fear of other people who have bad intentions. I think it is perfectly okay for people to own firearms to protect themselves and their property. I respect hunting as a sport and the people who use guns for target sport and whatnot. I appreciate that many people are well-trained and responsible gun owners who simply own a firearm to protect themselves from a worst case scenario.
     
    What I do not get is the macho hero bullshit that so many gun enthusiasts spew. Many act as if their having guns makes them some sort of tough guy (or girl) who would have “never let that happen if I was at the movie theater.” All of these “I own a gun” instant heroes are seldom found at the moment of real tragedy. For all of the bullshit hyperbole spewed by these small penis, big gun vigilante heroes, I just do not ever see that actually play out in real life.
     
    What I do see play out in real life, more often than not, is that a gun is used for suicide, or accidental shooting by a kid, or is stolen and used in another crime or homicide. People with guns in their home are many times more likely to be killed by homicide or have someone in their home die from suicide. So while many people believe they are protecting themselves, the reality is that on most occasions they are bringing the danger into their home and giving themselves a false sense of security. But that is people's choice to make; and there are many good gun owners out there who are responsible in their use, storage, and handling of firearms. Generally, a responsible gun owner will never even let a person know they have guns and generally hope to never have to use them for defense. The wingnut “advocates” that run around acting as if the firearm is an extension of themselves and who believe guns make them tougher have serious fucking mental problems.
     
    Someone said, “Mickey, a gun is just a tool like any other tool.” Is that right? The how come people do not wander around bragging about how big and powerful their hammer is? We have come to romanticize guns in this country and that is dangerous. We have created a culture that thrives off of gun violence and is indifferent to the massive death they cause.
     
    Roughly 270 people get shot EVERY DAY in America and roughly 80 of those people die. Now I have heard all of the straw man arguments stating “Cars kill people every day. Should we ban cars?” Shut the fuck up….if you are seriously comparing MASS MURDER with car accidents, then there is a real fucking problem. Yes. People die in cars every day, but not because another human being set out to kill them. The number of deaths every day in America by gun violence is unacceptable period. Besides the tragedy of life lost, it is the mental anguish and terror that these situations create that does the most damage.
     
    But you do not need to look much further than the gun lobby to figure that out. One of the main arguments is that people need guns because if they do not have them “only the criminals will have guns.” So people must be able to stockpile assault weaponry to fend off the possible attack of the bad guys and their guns, which have obviously scared the shit out of enough people to make them only believe that being fully armed to the hilt will suffice in making them safe from this huge criminal element. I am just not seeing it though. RARELY does one of these folks ever actually use their gun to defend themselves. Most times their guns end up killing themselves or their family in a tragic event that was made easier by a gun being available to get their hands on. That is the reality. All of these super heroes never seem to materialize when the shit really goes down, and most are surprised when their depressed wife commits suicide with their weapon, or when their teenage kid steals their gun and accidentally shoots their buddy.
     
    So I am not buying this whole I need a gun to protect me from people with guns bullshit. It just does not happen very much, and compared with the overwhelming guns that are used in suicide, accidents, or are stolen and used in other crimes, it is just not worth it IMO. To each their own….but if 4 armed gunmen kick in my door, chances are having a firefight with them in my home while my kids sleep in the next room is not necessarily my best option. I have no need to risk my family's life in hopes I am a good enough shot to kill all 4 of them before they get the drop on me or my family. Most home invasions end with people taking the shit they came for and leaving….why would I want to turn my house into the OK Corral just to save some stuff? Why would I want to ensure gunshots are fired in my home to be some hero who saved his stuff…if you do not get killed in the ensuing gun battle. It just makes no sense…these contrived bullshit scenarios where people think they will have the time and the presence to pull off all of this hero gun shit amazes me….too many video games for some of these folks.
     
    But the reality is that the actual risk of being home invaded is very slim, and the probability of you being able to do shit about it in that moment, regardless of the amount of guns you own, is even slimmer…..so save me the Dirty Harry “I would've or am gonna” bullshit. You will not. The facts just do not back up the bravado of all of these “I have a gun” heroes….
     
    But I am not advocating for anyone's guns to be “taken away,” as seems to be the paranoia in these situations. Apparently no one else is trying to take any away either, as as stated before, Americans buy 56% of the 8 million guns sold annually. So lay off the paranoia weed for a minute and come back to reality. There are enough guns in America for everyone…literally.
     
    What I am advocating for is a return on the assault weapons ban. There is just no real use for this type of weaponry in our society other than to murder human beings at a fast and massively destructive rate. It makes no sense that we allow any dumbass to walk into a store and buy a weapon capable of shooting 71 people in a matter of seconds. The only thing an AK-47 or AR-15 is good for is killing A LOT of human beings very rapidly….I am cool if it is more difficult for my neighbor to be able to do that. When asking gun advocates what ever the purpose of these types of weapons are besides mass murder, some have the nerve to bring up hunting. If you need a fully automatic weapon to shoot a defenseless elk then you are a.) a horrible hunter; and b.) a pussy.
     
    But let's look at the Second Amendment, which for the record, most of the folks I have found arguing for their rights under it, have actually NEVER read. Here is what it says:
     
    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
     
    When can we begin to talk about the “well regulated” part of the amendment that gun owners cling to?
     
    Now the second amendment was written as a protection from government tyranny….but even the dudes who wrote it (wearing high heels and wigs and writing with a feather mind you), understood that this “militia” needs to be WELL REGULATED. Their muskets took 5 minutes to reload and they rode horses. So does the possibility of our citizens being armed really uphold the spirit of the second amendment as a check and balance for government tyranny in the modern age of F-15 fighters, nuclear weapons, or death strike drones? Which one of us is going to fire up the nuclear stocked F-15 to take on the government when this hypothetical overthrow of tyranny goes down?
     
    Which brings me to my next point…..WHY CAN I NOT OWN A ROCKET PROPELLED GRENADE (RPG)? I mean, if I have this right to bear arms, why can I not have my own nuclear weapon? It is arms, and the Constitution says…You see the issue? There are obviously limitations on what types of arms we can and cannot own for good reason. Yet the gun lobbies have sold this bag of shit to the American public that the second amendment should allow anyone and everyone to own any type of gun they want, regardless of it killing ability and likelihood of abuse. Super…so why stop there? Fuck you..I do not even want a gun, I want my rocket propelled grenade and it is my fucking right as an American. I do not want to shoot someone who is committing a crime…I want to blow their ass to smithereens, and so I should be allowed to have an RPG. It is unjust that I cannot.
     
    This is the logic behind the gun control argument…..it is senseless and dangerous. Sure, you should and do have the right to bear arms. You should not have the right to wander into a gun shop and buy a mass murder killing machine on a whim any time you have had a bad couple of months and life has got you feeling helpless. I mean, I have to take a fucking test to drive my fucking car because it is so fucking dangerous, yet this James Holmes kid can wander into any gun shop in CO and buy a killing machine and order thousands of rounds of ammunition on the internet without so much as asking him a question on how he intends to use said mass murder weapon device? HUH? I have to take a test to drive a car….no test, conversation, or question asked for mass murder weapon. Gotcha….
     
    Maybe I am missing something…
     
    But since this is a cannabis blog, I will also mention the fact that YOU HAVE NO SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS as a medical cannabis user and the NRA could give a shit…So before you go getting all gung-ho supportive of the Nation's gun lobby, just remember, if you smoke weed they do not want to know you. How is that for your Second Amendment protectors? Here is an article I did for West Coast Leaf that refreshes that situation for you:
     
    Feds say cannabis patients have no 2nd Amend rights
     
    By Mickey Martin
     
    The Second Amendment of the US states that Americans' “right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” but a US government policy handed down by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) states that this right does not apply to patients who find relief through using medical marijuana.
     
    Federal ATF Bureau Asst. Dir. Arthur Herbert sent out a letter Sept 21, 2011 that, “Any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is … prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.” The letter goes on to threaten to punish gun sellers for knowingly selling firearms to qualified medical cannabis patients.
     
    This would essentially force Americans to choose between their health and their guns. A federal bureaucrat, with a simple letter, has suspended the Second Amendment for people who use medical cannabis. This policy has concerned both medical cannabis patients and gun rights advocates.
     
    “It is egregious that people may be sentenced to years in a federal prison only because they possessed a firearm while using a state-approved medicine,” Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Assn said.
     
    The letter from the ATF noted that marijuana is a Schedule I substance under federal law, adding, “There are no exceptions in federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by state law.”
     
    Upon calling the National Rifle Association (NRA), the nation's largest and most powerful gun rights advocacy group, to inquire about their position on this policy I was told by the person answering the phone, identified only as “Kyle,” that the NRA policy was to follow the 1968 Gun Control Act, which made it illegal for those who use illegal drugs to possess firearms, stating that, “States do not have the right to make laws that conflict with federal law.”
     
    Since when does the NRA say that a federal gun control statute takes precedence over the US Constitution? At the time of passing the Act, the NRA was against any gun regulation and lobbied heavily through mass-mailings to undermine the new law. It single-handedly succeeded in wiping out large portions of the bill as put forth after Robert Kennedy's assassination.
     
    Upon finding out I was not a concerned NRA member, but a journalist, “Kyle” walked back his statement and referred me to the NRA public affairs office. The public affairs office was not available for immediate comment.
     
    Lawsuits have already begun to be filed challenging the ATF policy. A Nevada woman identified in court documents as medical technician S. Wilson is suing the federal government to overturn the ban. She was denied the right to buy a .357 Magnum for self-protection by a firearms dealer who learned she was listed on the NV cannabis

     

 

 

July 22, 2012 – Digest for s..s@a2c2.us – 10 Messages in 6 Topics

    Mickey Martin <s..s@a2c2.us> Jul 22 10:19AM -0700  

    Gun Crazed…
    Posted by Mickey Martin on July 22nd, 2012
    In the wake of another mass killing, this time at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado this week, I have had some of the most interesting conversations with people about guns.
    My point is simple. GUNS ARE STUPID.
    There is no shortage of macho men and women who see this tragedy as some sort of threat to their right to own a gun. I am amazed at the amount of bullshit rhetoric I have heard about “Don’t let them take our guns because of this.” What the fuck are you talking about? Who has had any gun taken in America from them ever?
    Here is a cold hard fact for you…8 million guns are sold annually across the globe….4.5 million of those are sold here in the US. So, if there is some shortage of guns and people are scared of having their guns taken away, I just do not see it. We have 5% of the world’s population but purchase 56% of the guns in the world every year. We have 90 guns for every 100 people in this country. In comparison, the next closest country is Yemen with 61 guns per 100 people. That is a staggering number. So at what point does the bullshit myth that somehow guns are being taken away in this Country cease to meet the reality of the situation?
    But do not get me wrong. I am not suggesting that nobody be allowed to own guns. I have many of my closest friends who are gun enthusiasts and many of them who I have this argument with all of the time. I understand the argument for guns by many who own them. I see the need for security, and the fear of other people who have bad intentions. I think it is perfectly okay for people to own firearms to protect themselves and their property. I respect hunting as a sport and the people who use guns for target sport and whatnot. I appreciate that many people are well-trained and responsible gun owners who simply own a firearm to protect themselves from a worst case scenario.
    What I do not get is the macho hero bullshit that so many gun enthusiasts spew. Many act as if their having guns makes them some sort of tough guy (or girl) who would have “never let that happen if I was at the movie theater.” All of these “I own a gun” instant heroes are seldom found at the moment of real tragedy. For all of the bullshit hyperbole spewed by these small penis, big gun vigilante heroes, I just do not ever see that actually play out in real life.
    What I do see play out in real life, more often than not, is that a gun is used for suicide, or accidental shooting by a kid, or is stolen and used in another crime or homicide. People with guns in their home are many times more likely to be killed by homicide or have someone in their home die from suicide. So while many people believe they are protecting themselves, the reality is that on most occasions they are bringing the danger into their home and giving themselves a false sense of security. But that is people’s choice to make; and there are many good gun owners out there who are responsible in their use, storage, and handling of firearms. Generally, a responsible gun owner will never even let a person know they have guns and generally hope to never have to use them for defense. The wingnut “advocates” that run around acting as if the firearm is an extension of themselves and who believe guns make them tougher have serious fucking mental
    problems. 
    Someone said, “Mickey, a gun is just a tool like any other tool.” Is that right? The how come people do not wander around bragging about how big and powerful their hammer is? We have come to romanticize guns in this country and that is dangerous. We have created a culture that thrives off of gun violence and is indifferent to the massive death they cause.
    Roughly 270 people get shot EVERY DAY in America and roughly 80 of those people die. Now I have heard all of the straw man arguments stating “Cars kill people every day. Should we ban cars?” Shut the fuck up….if you are seriously comparing MASS MURDER with car accidents, then there is a real fucking problem. Yes. People die in cars every day, but not because another human being set out to kill them. The number of deaths every day in America by gun violence is unacceptable period. Besides the tragedy of life lost, it is the mental anguish and terror that these situations create that does the most damage. 
    But you do not need to look much further than the gun lobby to figure that out. One of the main arguments is that people need guns because if they do not have them “only the criminals will have guns.” So people must be able to stockpile assault weaponry to fend off the possible attack of the bad guys and their guns, which have obviously scared the shit out of enough people to make them only believe that being fully armed to the hilt will suffice in making them safe from this huge criminal element. I am just not seeing it though. RARELY does one of these folks ever actually use their gun to defend themselves. Most times their guns end up killing themselves or their family in a tragic event that was made easier by a gun being available to get their hands on. That is the reality. All of these super heroes never seem to materialize when the shit really goes down, and most are surprised when their depressed wife commits suicide with their weapon, or
    when their teenage kid steals their gun and accidentally shoots their buddy.
    So I am not buying this whole I need a gun to protect me from people with guns bullshit. It just does not happen very much, and compared with the overwhelming guns that are used in suicide, accidents, or are stolen and used in other crimes, it is just not worth it IMO. To each their own….but if 4 armed gunmen kick in my door, chances are having a firefight with them in my home while my kids sleep in the next room is not necessarily my best option. I have no need to risk my family’s life in hopes I am a good enough shot to kill all 4 of them before they get the drop on me or my family. Most home invasions end with people taking the shit they came for and leaving….why would I want to turn my house into the OK Corral just to save some stuff? Why would I want to ensure gunshots are fired in my home to be some hero who saved his stuff…if you do not get killed in the ensuing gun battle. It just makes no sense…these contrived bullshit scenarios where
    people think they will have the time and the presence to pull off all of this hero gun shit amazes me….too many video games for some of these folks.
    But the reality is that the actual risk of being home invaded is very slim, and the probability of you being able to do shit about it in that moment, regardless of the amount of guns you own, is even slimmer…..so save me the Dirty Harry “I would’ve or am gonna” bullshit. You will not. The facts just do not back up the bravado of all of these “I have a gun” heroes….
    But I am not advocating for anyone’s guns to be “taken away,” as seems to be the paranoia in these situations. Apparently no one else is trying to take any away either, as as stated before, Americans buy 56% of the 8 million guns sold annually. So lay off the paranoia weed for a minute and come back to reality. There are enough guns in America for everyone…literally. 
    What I am advocating for is a return on the assault weapons ban. There is just no real use for this type of weaponry in our society other than to murder human beings at a fast and massively destructive rate. It makes no sense that we allow any dumbass to walk into a store and buy a weapon capable of shooting 71 people in a matter of seconds. The only thing an AK-47 or AR-15 is good for is killing A LOT of human beings very rapidly….I am cool if it is more difficult for my neighbor to be able to do that. When asking gun advocates what ever the purpose of these types of weapons are besides mass murder, some have the nerve to bring up hunting. If you need a fully automatic weapon to shoot a defenseless elk then you are a.) a horrible hunter; and b.) a pussy. 
    But let’s look at the Second Amendment, which for the record, most of the folks I have found arguing for their rights under it, have actually NEVER read. Here is what it says:
    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    When can we begin to talk about the “well regulated” part of the amendment that gun owners cling to?
    Now the second amendment was written as a protection from government tyranny….but even the dudes who wrote it (wearing high heels and wigs and writing with a feather mind you), understood that this “militia” needs to be WELL REGULATED. Their muskets took 5 minutes to reload and they rode horses. So does the possibility of our citizens being armed really uphold the spirit of the second amendment as a check and balance for government tyranny in the modern age of F-15 fighters, nuclear weapons, or death strike drones? Which one of us is going to fire up the nuclear stocked F-15 to take on the government when this hypothetical overthrow of tyranny goes down?
    Which brings me to my next point…..WHY CAN I NOT OWN A ROCKET PROPELLED GRENADE (RPG)? I mean, if I have this right to bear arms, why can I not have my own nuclear weapon? It is arms, and the Constitution says…You see the issue? There are obviously limitations on what types of arms we can and cannot own for good reason. Yet the gun lobbies have sold this bag of shit to the American public that the second amendment should allow anyone and everyone to own any type of gun they want, regardless of it killing ability and likelihood of abuse. Super…so why stop there? Fuck you..I do not even want a gun, I want my rocket propelled grenade and it is my fucking right as an American. I do not want to shoot someone who is committing a crime…I want to blow their ass to smithereens, and so I should be allowed to have an RPG. It is unjust that I cannot.
    This is the logic behind the gun control argument…..it is senseless and dangerous. Sure, you should and do have the right to bear arms. You should not have the right to wander into a gun shop and buy a mass murder killing machine on a whim any time you have had a bad couple of months and life has got you feeling helpless. I mean, I have to take a fucking test to drive my fucking car because it is so fucking dangerous, yet this James Holmes kid can wander into any gun shop in CO and buy a killing machine and order thousands of rounds of ammunition on the internet without so much as asking him a question on how he intends to use said mass murder weapon device? HUH? I have to take a test to drive a car….no test, conversation, or question asked for mass murder weapon. Gotcha….
    Maybe I am missing something…
    But since this is a cannabis blog, I will also mention the fact that YOU HAVE NO SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS as a medical cannabis user and the NRA could give a shit…So before you go getting all gung-ho supportive of the Nation’s gun lobby, just remember, if you smoke weed they do not want to know you. How is that for your Second Amendment protectors? Here is an article I did for West Coast Leaf that refreshes that situation for you:
    Feds say cannabis patients have no 2nd Amend rights
    By Mickey Martin
    The Second Amendment of the US states that Americans’ “right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” but a US government policy handed down by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) states that this right does not apply to patients who find relief through using medical marijuana.
    Federal ATF  Bureau Asst. Dir. Arthur Herbert sent out a letter Sept 21, 2011 that, “Any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is … prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.” The letter goes on to threaten to punish gun sellers for knowingly selling firearms to qualified medical cannabis patients.
    This would essentially force Americans to choose between their health and their guns. A federal bureaucrat, with a simple letter, has suspended the Second Amendment for people who use medical cannabis. This policy has concerned both medical cannabis patients and gun rights advocates.
    “It is egregious that people may be sentenced to years in a federal prison only because they possessed a firearm while using a state-approved medicine,” Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Assn said.
    The letter from the ATF noted that marijuana is a Schedule I substance under federal law, adding, “There are no exceptions in federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by state law.”
    Upon calling the National Rifle Association (NRA), the nation’s largest and most powerful gun rights advocacy group, to inquire about their position on this policy I was told by the person answering the phone, identified only as “Kyle,” that the NRA policy was to follow the 1968 Gun Control Act, which made it illegal for those who use illegal drugs to possess firearms, stating that, “States do not have the right to make laws that conflict with federal law.”
    Since when does the NRA say that a federal gun control statute takes precedence over the US Constitution? At the time of passing the Act, the NRA was against any gun regulation and lobbied heavily through mass-mailings to undermine the new law. It single-handedly succeeded in wiping out large portions of the bill as put forth after Robert Kennedy’s assassination.
    Upon finding out I was not a concerned NRA member, but a journalist, “Kyle” walked back his statement and referred me to the NRA public affairs office. The public affairs office was not available for immediate comment.
    Lawsuits have already begun to be filed challenging the ATF policy. A Nevada woman identified in court documents as medical technician S. Wilson is suing the federal government to overturn the ban. She was denied the right to buy a .357 Magnum for self-protection by a firearms dealer who learned she was listed on the NV cannabis patient registry.
    Her filing states, “I sought to purchase a firearm for personal protection, but discovered, in my attempt to make the purchase, that my mere possession of a medical marijuana registry card prohibits any federal firearms licensee from selling me any firearm or ammunition.” It adds, “The defendants have prohibited a certain class of law-abiding, responsible citizens from exercising their right to keep and bear arms; the defendants have enacted policies, procedures and customs with the specific intent of denying the Second Amendment rights of persons who have registered to use medical marijuana pursuant to and in accordance with state law.”
    In Oregon, a lawsuit is being filed by four people from two counties who were denied concealed-handgun licenses because of their status as registered patients. The Oregon trial court, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court all reversed permit denials issued by sheriffs, who have now asked the US Supreme Court to take away gun rights.
    In Montana, several public officials, including Attorney General Steve Bullock (D), blasted the ATF policy. Bullock chided that, “A reasonable approach would be much better than the type of unilateral proclamation represented by the ATF letter, which was issued without any advance notice or discussion with the elected officials who represent more than one-fourth of this nation’s population and one-third of its states. In the meantime, I respectfully request that the Dept. of Justice not pursue any criminal prosecutions against law-abiding citizens in Montana who exercise their constitutional rights to possess guns and enjoy hunting, or the licensees who are implicitly threatened

     

    rose jeri <s..s@a2c2.us> Jul 23 12:52AM  

    Well if they want to come to my home to force me to be vaccinated or chipped, I would like to have an assault rifle to mow as many of them down before I died by their crazy hands. And as far as Cannabis being illegal, since that is so ultimately wrong why would anyone be surprised that the Feds say that a med cannabis user is not allowed to own guns? Just more offensive action against people who use cannabis. I rarely use a gun, I killed a rabid skunk once, but I love the gun because I long ago realized that as a woman I am weaker than 50% of the population and that bunch thinks they have rights to do with me as they please due to that muscular strength. I would gladly wear a gun on my hip if it were legal. It would beat having to walk with a pen in my hand ready to stab when I had to take the subway in NYC at the wee hours. O and because I was prepared, I never did have to stab anyone. So if more people were armed, one of them might have been in that theater. I think a prepared and armed society would stop these people who are aimed at us by the CIA when it trains them in whatever MK ultra experiment thay are currently running. And I think these incidents are planned and designed to get people to agree that guns are bad and to be banned. Somehow they got people believing Reefer Madness without it having any truth becaues it was aimed at the poor African and Mexican Americans. People who know guns are important to prevent what the 1% plan for us are more stubborn and have a greater political strength than those racial minorities.
     
    On Jul 22, 2012, Mickey Martin <s..s@a2c2.us> wrote:
     
    Gun Crazed…Posted by Mickey Martin on July 22nd, 2012
     
    In the wake of another mass killing, this time at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado this week, I have had some of the most interesting conversations with people about guns.
     
    My point is simple. GUNS ARE STUPID.
     
    There is no shortage of macho men and women who see this tragedy as some sort of threat to their right to own a gun. I am amazed at the amount of bullshit rhetoric I have heard about “Don't let them take our guns because of this.” What the fuck are you talking about? Who has had any gun taken in America from them ever?
     
    Here is a cold hard fact for you…8 million guns are sold annually across the globe….4.5 million of those are sold here in the US. So, if there is some shortage of guns and people are scared of having their guns taken away, I just do not see it. We have 5% of the world's population but purchase 56% of the guns in the world every year. We have 90 guns for every 100 people in this country. In comparison, the next closest country is Yemen with 61 guns per 100 people. That is a staggering number. So at what point does the bullshit myth that somehow guns are being taken away in this Country cease to meet the reality of the situation?
     
    But do not get me wrong. I am not suggesting that nobody be allowed to own guns. I have many of my closest friends who are gun enthusiasts and many of them who I have this argument with all of the time. I understand the argument for guns by many who own them. I see the need for security, and the fear of other people who have bad intentions. I think it is perfectly okay for people to own firearms to protect themselves and their property. I respect hunting as a sport and the people who use guns for target sport and whatnot. I appreciate that many people are well-trained and responsible gun owners who simply own a firearm to protect themselves from a worst case scenario.
     
    What I do not get is the macho hero bullshit that so many gun enthusiasts spew. Many act as if their having guns makes them some sort of tough guy (or girl) who would have “never let that happen if I was at the movie theater.” All of these “I own a gun” instant heroes are seldom found at the moment of real tragedy. For all of the bullshit hyperbole spewed by these small penis, big gun vigilante heroes, I just do not ever see that actually play out in real life.
     
    What I do see play out in real life, more often than not, is that a gun is used for suicide, or accidental shooting by a kid, or is stolen and used in another crime or homicide. People with guns in their home are many times more likely to be killed by homicide or have someone in their home die from suicide. So while many people believe they are protecting themselves, the reality is that on most occasions they are bringing the danger into their home and giving themselves a false sense of security. But that is people's choice to make; and there are many good gun owners out there who are responsible in their use, storage, and handling of firearms. Generally, a responsible gun owner will never even let a person know they have guns and generally hope to never have to use them for defense. The wingnut “advocates” that run around acting as if the firearm is an extension of themselves and who believe guns make them tougher have serious fucking mental problems.
     
    Someone said, “Mickey, a gun is just a tool like any other tool.” Is that right? The how come people do not wander around bragging about how big and powerful their hammer is? We have come to romanticize guns in this country and that is dangerous. We have created a culture that thrives off of gun violence and is indifferent to the massive death they cause.
     
    Roughly 270 people get shot EVERY DAY in America and roughly 80 of those people die. Now I have heard all of the straw man arguments stating “Cars kill people every day. Should we ban cars?” Shut the fuck up….if you are seriously comparing MASS MURDER with car accidents, then there is a real fucking problem. Yes. People die in cars every day, but not because another human being set out to kill them. The number of deaths every day in America by gun violence is unacceptable period. Besides the tragedy of life lost, it is the mental anguish and terror that these situations create that does the most damage.
     
    But you do not need to look much further than the gun lobby to figure that out. One of the main arguments is that people need guns because if they do not have them “only the criminals will have guns.” So people must be able to stockpile assault weaponry to fend off the possible attack of the bad guys and their guns, which have obviously scared the shit out of enough people to make them only believe that being fully armed to the hilt will suffice in making them safe from this huge criminal element. I am just not seeing it though. RARELY does one of these folks ever actually use their gun to defend themselves. Most times their guns end up killing themselves or their family in a tragic event that was made easier by a gun being available to get their hands on. That is the reality. All of these super heroes never seem to materialize when the shit really goes down, and most are surprised when their depressed wife commits suicide with their weapon, or when their teenage kid steals their gun and accidentally shoots their buddy.
     
    So I am not buying this whole I need a gun to protect me from people with guns bullshit. It just does not happen very much, and compared with the overwhelming guns that are used in suicide, accidents, or are stolen and used in other crimes, it is just not worth it IMO. To each their own….but if 4 armed gunmen kick in my door, chances are having a firefight with them in my home while my kids sleep in the next room is not necessarily my best option. I have no need to risk my family's life in hopes I am a good enough shot to kill all 4 of them before they get the drop on me or my family. Most home invasions end with people taking the shit they came for and leaving….why would I want to turn my house into the OK Corral just to save some stuff? Why would I want to ensure gunshots are fired in my home to be some hero who saved his stuff…if you do not get killed in the ensuing gun battle. It just makes no sense…these contrived bullshit scenarios where people think they will have the time and the presence to pull off all of this hero gun shit amazes me….too many video games for some of these folks.
     
    But the reality is that the actual risk of being home invaded is very slim, and the probability of you being able to do shit about it in that moment, regardless of the amount of guns you own, is even slimmer…..so save me the Dirty Harry “I would've or am gonna” bullshit. You will not. The facts just do not back up the bravado of all of these “I have a gun” heroes….
     
    But I am not advocating for anyone's guns to be “taken away,” as seems to be the paranoia in these situations. Apparently no one else is trying to take any away either, as as stated before, Americans buy 56% of the 8 million guns sold annually. So lay off the paranoia weed for a minute and come back to reality. There are enough guns in America for everyone…literally.
     
    What I am advocating for is a return on the assault weapons ban. There is just no real use for this type of weaponry in our society other than to murder human beings at a fast and massively destructive rate. It makes no sense that we allow any dumbass to walk into a store and buy a weapon capable of shooting 71 people in a matter of seconds. The only thing an AK-47 or AR-15 is good for is killing A LOT of human beings very rapidly….I am cool if it is more difficult for my neighbor to be able to do that. When asking gun advocates what ever the purpose of these types of weapons are besides mass murder, some have the nerve to bring up hunting. If you need a fully automatic weapon to shoot a defenseless elk then you are a.) a horrible hunter; and b.) a pussy.
     
    But let's look at the Second Amendment, which for the record, most of the folks I have found arguing for their rights under it, have actually NEVER read. Here is what it says:
     
    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
     
    When can we begin to talk about the “well regulated” part of the amendment that gun owners cling to?
     
    Now the second amendment was written as a protection from government tyranny….but even the dudes who wrote it (wearing high heels and wigs and writing with a feather mind you), understood that this “militia” needs to be WELL REGULATED. Their muskets took 5 minutes to reload and they rode horses. So does the possibility of our citizens being armed really uphold the spirit of the second amendment as a check and balance for government tyranny in the modern age of F-15 fighters, nuclear weapons, or death strike drones? Which one of us is going to fire up the nuclear stocked F-15 to take on the government when this hypothetical overthrow of tyranny goes down?
     
    Which brings me to my next point…..WHY CAN I NOT OWN A ROCKET PROPELLED GRENADE (RPG)? I mean, if I have this right to bear arms, why can I not have my own nuclear weapon? It is arms, and the Constitution says…You see the issue? There are obviously limitations on what types of arms we can and cannot own for good reason. Yet the gun lobbies have sold this bag of shit to the American public that the second amendment should allow anyone and everyone to own any type of gun they want, regardless of it killing ability and likelihood of abuse. Super…so why stop there? Fuck you..I do not even want a gun, I want my rocket propelled grenade and it is my fucking right as an American. I do not want to shoot someone who is committing a crime…I want to blow their ass to smithereens, and so I should be allowed to have an RPG. It is unjust that I cannot.
     
    This is the logic behind the gun control argument…..it is senseless and dangerous. Sure, you should and do have the right to bear arms. You should not have the right to wander into a gun shop and buy a mass murder killing machine on a whim any time you have had a bad couple of months and life has got you feeling helpless. I mean, I have to take a fucking test to drive my fucking car because it is so fucking dangerous, yet this James Holmes kid can wander into any gun shop in CO and buy a killing machine and order thousands of rounds of ammunition on the internet without so much as asking him a question on how he intends to use said mass murder weapon device? HUH? I have to take a test to drive a car….no test, conversation, or question asked for mass murder weapon. Gotcha….
     
    Maybe I am missing something…
     
    But since this is a cannabis blog, I will also mention the fact that YOU HAVE NO SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS as a medical cannabis user and the NRA could give a shit…So before you go getting all gung-ho supportive of the Nation's gun lobby, just remember, if you smoke weed they do not want to know you. How is that for your Second Amendment protectors? Here is an article I did for West Coast Leaf that refreshes that situation for you:
     
    Feds say cannabis patients have no 2nd Amend rights
     
    By Mickey Martin
     
    The Second Amendment of the US states that Americans' “right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” but a US government policy handed down by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) states that this right does not apply to patients who find relief through using medical marijuana.
     
    Federal ATF Bureau Asst. Dir. Arthur Herbert sent out a letter Sept 21, 2011 that, “Any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is … prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.” The letter goes on to threaten to punish gun sellers for knowingly selling firearms to qualified medical cannabis patients.
     
    This would essentially force Americans to choose between their health and their guns. A federal bureaucrat, with a simple letter, has suspended the Second Amendment for people who use medical cannabis. This policy has concerned both medical cannabis patients and gun rights advocates.
     
    “It is egregious that people may be sentenced to years in a federal prison only because they possessed a firearm while using a state-approved medicine,” Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Assn said.
     
    The letter from the ATF noted that marijuana is a Schedule I substance under federal law, adding, “There are no exceptions in federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by state law.”
     
    Upon calling the National Rifle Association (NRA), the nation's largest and most powerful gun rights advocacy group, to inquire about their position on this policy I was told by the person answering the phone, identified only as “Kyle,” that the NRA policy was to follow the 1968 Gun Control Act, which made it illegal for those who use illegal drugs to possess firearms, stating that, “States do not have the right to make laws that conflict with federal law.”
     
    Since when does the NRA say that a federal gun control statute takes precedence over the US Constitution? At the time of passing the Act, the NRA was against any gun regulation and lobbied heavily through mass-mailings to undermine the new law. It single-handedly succeeded in wiping out large portions of the bill as put forth after Robert Kennedy's assassination.
     
    Upon finding out I was not a concerned NRA member, but a journalist, “Kyle” walked back his statement and referred me to the NRA public affairs office. The public affairs office was not available for immediate comment.
     
    Lawsuits have already begun to be filed challenging the ATF policy. A Nevada woman identified in court documents as medical technician S. Wilson is suing the federal government to overturn the ban. She was denied the right to buy a .357 Magnum for self-protection by a firearms dealer who learned she was listed on the NV cannabis patient registry.
     
    Her filing states, “I sought to purchase a firearm for

     

 

 

    Susan Soares <s..s@a2c2.us> Jul 22 04:52PM -0700  

    I can't make the protest tomorrow but would love to be watching a live stream. Does anyone know if someone is going to be making that happen?
     
    Susan Soares
    (phone#-removed)
    s..s@a2c2.us

     

    LANNYSWERDLOW <s..s@a2c2.us> Jul 22 11:44AM -0700  

    Paul Krassner, an icon of the 60s, declared by People magazine to be the “father of the underground press,” labeled by the FBI as “a raving, unconfined nut,” editor of the groundbreaking status quo shattering Realist Magazine, gave the radical Yippie’s their name and revered by George Carlin as “Funnier than Danny Kaye, more powerful than Jerry Lewis, as important as acid.” has just released, ten years after publication of the first edition, a new enlarged edition of Pot Stories for the Soul.
     
    Pot Stories for the Soul is both a celebration of marijuana and a homage to the fundamental role it has played in the life of tens of millions of users and how it has transformed our culture for the better. The new book contains stories by many celebrated authors and activists on marijuana – from humor to pathos to legal to health, the breadth and depth of the stories illuminates the vast swath of marijuana’s influence on the nation’s psyche.
     
    Krassner will discuss Pot Stories for the Soul and provide insights that will raise your eyes and keep you laughing.
     
    Our 2nd guest is Ruthie Heavrin, a student at LaSierra Unitversity in Riverside. She is doing a school presentation on medical marijuana and is looking for patients to interview. This should be interesting as LaSierra University is a 7th Day Adventist School.
     
    News, interviews, commentary and humor are the watchwords for every segment of the award winning radio show Marijuana Compassion and Common Sense. Hear it this Monday, July 23 at 6 p.m. and every Monday at 6 p.m. on Inland Empire talk radio KCAA 1050AM and everywhere else on the Internet at kcaaradio.com. Past shows are podcast at the website and can be heard by clicking on Monday in the left hand column on the home page and then scrolling down to and clicking on Marijuana Compassion and Common Sense.

     

    Tim Perkins <s..s@a2c2.us> Jul 22 08:02AM -0700  

    Why is telling the truth regrettable?
    This is beyond my capacity to comprehend why you people recoil and
    marginalize anyone who happens to be telling the truth!
    Dave is spot on with the facts! Your "Opinions" are not legally valid.

     

 

    Dave Hodges <s..s@a2c2.us> Jul 22 09:33AM -0700  

    Mikki,
     
    This post:
    July 19, 2012 @ 7:58 PM From: Steve Deangelo
    (https://twitter.com/stevedeangelo/status(phone#-removed)128964): Amazing
    article by Rich Robinson. Thank you Rich!
    http://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/entries/7_19_12_attorney_melinda_haag_medical_marijuana_collectives_harborisde/

     
    along with the text quoted below is why I was forced to respond to the
    article called "U.S. Attorney out of Line about Marijuana".
     
    …..The city of San Jose currently has a list of bad operators, and
    these are the folks Haag should be targeting—not operators like
    Haborside. It would take her less than an hour to get the information
    from the city and less than a day to shut down these illicit
    operations. But if Haag insists on targeting dispensaries like
    Harborside, while allowing the scofflaws to operate, she exacerbates
    the problem she claims to be solving.
     
    If Haag is after headlines, one operator—Dave Hodges of the
    All-American Cannabis Club (A2C2)—welcomes being shut down. In
    September of 2011, he told Metro that his original plan was to be
    raided in two months after opening. Hodges refuses to pay taxes,
    openly flaunts the law, and enjoys the notoriety. But his brazen civil
    disobedience is disruptive within the legitimate medical marijuana
    community and he gives the industry a bad name.
     
    Hodges, as a ubiquitous if less than credible advocate for the
    scofflaws of medical cannabis, would be the perfect foil for Ms. Haag.
    But her focus on Harborside makes a mockery of the government’s
    enforcement efforts.
     
    It is the epitome of irony. Haag’s lack of judgment, in addition to
    her direct assault on her bosses’ stated policies, is the impetus to
    let her go. And if the administration is loath to fire her for
    political reasons, may we suggest a transfer? Nome, Alaska would be a
    good choice. That state welcomes rogue, overly-aggressive and
    intellectually challenged leaders.
    ….
     
    As you can see, I had no choice but to respond and help people
    understand the letter of the law (not someones wishful interpretation
    of it).
     
    What is truly sad is that you think it is "ok" for Steve, James and
    Rich to openly slander me in such a public forum and then attack me
    for presenting quotes of the law.
     
    In addition to Steve's acknowledgment of sales of marijuana that
    crosses state lines, based on what I have heard of the grand jury
    trial, it appears a for-profit connection between HMA/Cannbe and El
    Camino Wellness should be more then enough to question why anyone
    would claim “Harborside is a good actor, clearly permitted by the
    state and local governments, [or] a good model.”.
     
    Best Regards,
    Dave Hodges
     
     
     

     

    Dave Hodges <s..s@a2c2.us> Jul 22 09:39AM -0700  

    Mikki,
     
    This post:
    July 19, 2012 @ 7:58 PM From: Steve Deangelo
    (https://twitter.com/stevedeangelo/status(phone#-removed)128964): Amazing
    article by Rich Robinson. Thank you Rich!
    http://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/entries/7_19_12_attorney_melinda_haag_medical_marijuana_collectives_harborisde/

     
    along with the text quoted below is why I was forced to respond to the
    article called "U.S. Attorney out of Line about Marijuana".
     
    …..The city of San Jose currently has a list of bad operators, and
    these are the folks Haag should be targeting—not operators like
    Haborside. It would take her less than an hour to get the information
    from the city and less than a day to shut down these illicit
    operations. But if Haag insists on targeting dispensaries like
    Harborside, while allowing the scofflaws to operate, she exacerbates
    the problem she claims to be solving.
     
    If Haag is after headlines, one operator—Dave Hodges of the
    All-American Cannabis Club (A2C2)—welcomes being shut down. In
    September of 2011, he told Metro that his original plan was to be
    raided in two months after opening. Hodges refuses to pay taxes,
    openly flaunts the law, and enjoys the notoriety. But his brazen civil
    disobedience is disruptive within the legitimate medical marijuana
    community and he gives the industry a bad name.
     
    Hodges, as a ubiquitous if less than credible advocate for the
    scofflaws of medical cannabis, would be the perfect foil for Ms. Haag.
    But her focus on Harborside makes a mockery of the government’s
    enforcement efforts.
     
    It is the epitome of irony. Haag’s lack of judgment, in addition to
    her direct assault on her bosses’ stated policies, is the impetus to
    let her go. And if the administration is loath to fire her for
    political reasons, may we suggest a transfer? Nome, Alaska would be a
    good choice. That state welcomes rogue, overly-aggressive and
    intellectually challenged leaders.
    ….
     
    As you can see, I had no choice but to respond and help people
    understand the letter of the law (not someones wishful interpretation
    of it).
     
    What is truly sad is that you think it is "ok" for Steve, James and
    Rich to openly slander me in such a public forum and then attack me
    for presenting quotes of the law.
     
    In addition to Steve's acknowledgment of sales of marijuana that
    crosses state lines, it appears the for-profit connection between
    HMA/Cannbe and El Camino Wellness are more then enough to question
    why anyone would claim “Harborside is a good actor, clearly permitted
    by the state and local governments, [or] a good model.”.
     
    Best Regards,
    Dave Hodges
     
     

     

June 17, 2012 – Digest for s..s@a2c2.us – 25 Messages in 10 Topics

 

 

 

    Lynne Wilson <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 17 04:50PM -0400  

    I see this movement and our opposition fighting over taxing and/or making money on Cannabis….and I just keep asking myself this question…
     
    Why is it that any other commodity in this World, the folks who make and sell what ever their product is, can make a living at what they make and sell, but SOME believe those who make and sell Cannabis should not make any money on the craft they do? What makes Cannabis so different that these people shouldn't be able to make a living, too?
     
    I mean it cost money to grow, even outdoors! Should NO farmer who grows food make money to pay their bills just because people need food?
     
    I'd like someone to explain this to me, who grew up in a family's grocery store. As for taxing, some states don't tax food at the store but do if you eat in a restaurant and some states actually do tax food at the store level.
     
    I believe there should not be a problem with taxing Cannabis as long as it isn't the same as a Sin tax like alcohol and ciggs, but the same as the states sales tax in whatever state you live in.
     
    Here in Ohio its about 6.5-7% tax. If an ounce drops to say $50 an ounce and you buy 2, you get taxed on 100 bux. Average 7 bux! I don't get the problem.
     
    As for taxing meds? In most states, meds at the pharmacy aren't taxed, yet if you buy over the counter meds like aspirin, you DO get taxed.
     
    I also want to know what the difference is if a patient pays the doctor extra…over what the cost of an exam normally is as compared to a small tax on the sale? The doctors are the middle men/women who are getting fat rich off of patients! When you go to the doctor, you pay for the exam and any tests ran. You don't pay extra for the damn scripts (no matter how many they write) they give you but in MMJ cases, you pay extra for the Recommendation which is not 'technically' a script.
     
    And no matter what the anti-tax folks say…going to a dispensary (whether for profit or not) IS NOT the same as going to the pharmacy…when do you get to pick out what meds you want out of a display case when you buy from the pharmacist?
     
    I've never heard of any recommendation saying the patient can only buy a sativa or indica or only a certain amount. They are a general recommendation that says the patient can legally possess and/or buy and may say grow.
     
    I am a patient in Ohio and hold a Cali med rec from when I spent time in Cali with Jack. I did that for protection, only. But I shouldn't have to ask my Doc to give me permission to use something I've used since I'm 13…as a medicine and social use. I should be able to go to any store with a license for business (big or little) and buy my choice of meds or social use product just like aspirin or tylenol or white or red wine or shit beer or a good micro brew!
     
    I should also be able to go hang out at my friends house who grows and trade/barter or even buy from their small garden. Even a home brewer can sell their beer to friends as long as they don't sell over what the state allows without a license. I can also buy eggs from someone who has a few chickens in their backyard in the middle of the city and they don't have to have a food sellers license!
     
    As for the profits being made on Cannabis, as long as only Medical MJ is semi-legal and the Docs are getting rich, the prices will stay "high" and only come down when Cannabis is fully legal for anyone to buy. Then the price will be determined by the market and the quality. That's how business works.
     
    "By the grace of God All Mighty and the pressures of the Market Place, the Human Race has Civilized itself!" Roger Waters 'Its a Miracle'…Amused to Death album 1992.
     
    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
    www.weedradionetwork.com
    www.cincinnatimarijuanalaw.com
     
    HempRock Radio
    Mon 4-5p& Thurs 4-6p Est
    WVQC-LP 95.7 FM Cincy
    www.wvqc.org
    Radio Free Queen City
     
    HempRock TV can be seen on NKY Insite
    & Cincy's Time Warner Public Access&
    www.youtube.com/potsmoker840
    Chuck 'Burnman' Byrnes
    B. I. P. Burn In Peace
     
    Cincinnati/Northern KY Chapter
    Willie Nelson's TeaPot Party
    Gatewood Galbraith R. I. P.
    www.gatewood.com
     
    "Happy is he who dares courageously to defend what he loves."
    Roman Poet Publius Ovidius Naso (43 BC – 17 or 18 AD), AKA Ovid.
     
     
     
    On 6/16/2012 1:49 PM, LANNYSWERDLOW wrote:

     

 

 

    David Fiedler <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 16 12:56PM -0700  

    And yet, as a society we tend not to use the terms "n*gger", "colored",
    "f*ggot", "ch*nk", etc in polite company, because they are derogatory and
    drag us back down to the days when acceptance of the "norm" was mandatory.
    Many people feel that words such as "pot", "weed", and even "marijuana" are
    similarly derogatory, and using them just keeps up the connotation of it
    being something of no real import.
     

     

 

    "Dr. David Bearman" <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 17 11:13PM -0400  

    language is important.
    if you don't think so you miss the whole point of the prohibitionists.It should be just cannabis but in the hands of the misinformed and the powerful it is portrayed as a tool of the devil.
    David Bearman

     

    Susan Soares <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 17 06:46PM -0700  

    Hey drug policy leaders! I'm putting together a collaborative project called "Marijuana & Me" and I want your stories. It's an iBook and the hope is that it will help to build popular opinion of marijuana by telling 100 stories by 100 authors about how marijuana has enhanced their lives. It's a digital coffee table book. Nothing too heavy but multimedia intensive. The book will be available on iTunes. The 100 authors will collectively own the iBook. iTunes takes 30% of sales. VibeNation MultiMedia will be taking 10% of sales for producing the book. The rest of the profits will be equally split between the 100 authors. The deadline for submitting your stories is July 30, 2012. Let me know if you have any questions on the technical details. Toke of the town featured the project this week. http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/06/marijuana_book_will_feature_100_authors_-_maybe_in.php#more
     
     
    Susan Soares
    (phone#-removed)
    s..s@a2c2.us

     

    Dennis Hinze <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 16 05:34PM -0700  

    Cannabis People ~ Do not cut Mickey Martin out of the discussion. Here are some things to consider about SB 2312: ~ 1. By limiting dispensaries to "no less than one" for 50,000 people, what happens to us where there are not 50,000?. In the Susanville area, population about 22,000, there were 4 dispensaries operatiing before the county ban went into effect. What about Susanville, with a population of 17,500? Not one dispensary? Have to drive to Sacramento or Redding for the medicine, or use delivery service model. Communities should welcome this reborn commerce at all levels of business involvement. Let's make a presence and invite them to do so. ~ 2. Excessive regulatory power vested in a commission, the scope of which is not clearly defined in the letter of the proposed law, in addition to the "no less than one" language may well be used to cut small-time growers and providers out of the loop, destroying their livelihood. ~ 3. Although the
    "individuals and caregivers" language may be interpreted as exempting personal medical growers and their providers, it is not clear what, if anything, that means in its relation to the interpretation of Prop 215 that medical growers, growing for themselves and not for profit are allowed to pool their time, energy and resources in the production of their medicinal marijuana. ~ These things should be cleaned up before the Senate has a chance to vote on it. Also, it is so wordy and restrictive, something should be done to streamline it. This looks like typical California business-killing legislation, with the double-edged slasher of prohibitionist mindset which refuses to see anything good about Cannabis. ~ Not too late to clean up SB 2312, it is far from being a basket case. A few suggestions in the right place at the right time may get it to a more generally agreeable form.
       C'mon, if someone wants to cut themselves off the list–let 'em go, God bless 'em. But those of us who are wading through all this dialog and comment should be left here to enjoy Mickey, Dan, Chris, Don, Shona and (yes) Michael Kravitz and see if we can come up with something that will work for all the people, rich and poor, and keep working for our progeny and the planet.
      All the best,  Dennis Hinze  
     
    SWALLOW AIR TO INCREASE BUOYANCY
       visit: http://www.survivalworkshop.com/
     
     

     

 

    LANNYSWERDLOW <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 17 12:42PM -0700  

    I am extremely excited that former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson will be the featured guest on the Marijuana Compassion and Common Sense radio show this Monday, June 18. The two-term governor not only brought New Mexico into the medical marijuana community, his legacy was to leave New Mexico as one of the most progressive states on drug law reform.
     
    He is now the Libertarian candidate for the President of the United States. Although the Libertarians are dwarfed by the Democrats and Republicans, they are still the 3rd largest party in the U.S. whose positions affect the major parties to a very significant degree. Gov. Johnson will speak about his party’s position on medical marijuana, marijuana prohibition and the War on Drugs and outline what he feels should and can be done,
     
    They are serious about having an impact on the national election and have a program in place to get into the National Presidential Debates. Gov. Johnson will explain it all and more this Monday, June 18.
     
    Our other guest will be Wildomar resident Wayne Williams, who heads We The People and is currently organizing a petition drive to place a medical marijuana collective ordinance before Lake Elsinore voters. In addition to info on the ordinance, Wayne will be speaking about the June 28 “Town Hall Meeting for Common Sense” featuring such luminous speakers as Ed Rosenthal (Best Selling Author and Cannabis Bon Vivant), Major Neill Franklin (Executive Director Law Enforcement Against Prohibition), Gretchen Burns Bergman (Executive Director A New PATH – Parents for Addiction Treatment & Healing), David Bearman, M.D. (pioneering cannabis physician) and many others.
     
    Gov. Gary Johnson, luminous speakers, news, views and humor – you will hear it all this Monday, June 18 and every Monday at 6 p.m. on Marijuana Compassion and Common Sense, on Inland Empire talk radio KCAA 1050AM and everywhere else on the Internet at kcaaradio.com. Past shows are podcast at the website.

     

    lavonne victor <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 17 11:05AM -0700  

    Hello :
     
    I do not know if i got booted off this list or not.. but i will soon find out if i have …
     
    Everyone on this list has a right to comment, no matter if it is a heated discussion on this issue or not… and i am sick of all of these people whom are attacking each other personally due to this issue… we all want to utalize cannabis the safes way possible.. and for the medical purposes of not taking the rights away from so many whom utalize cannabis for thier personal medical reasons…
     
    But there are many whom need store front litimacy but that  is not a possiblity for there is too much greed that has already set in over the many years that has passed us by and the Compassionate Use Act of Prop 215 is not good enough for many of the high control activist organizations and even those groups that have only been for the CUA-Prop 215 has gone to the other side instead of keeping the fight going to protect those under the Compassionate Use Act…
     
    I am very appalled that many rather make a profit off of those whom are sick and those whom are fighting for their life to utalize something to help them live each day that comes their way.. and this change to put out AB 2312 will not do that at all… but who cares… right?
     
    I do not want anyone to be arrested for utalizing cannabis.. but patients are still being arrested.. not as much as they were 10 years ago… and things have gotten worse , far worse and now we have the Feds comming in as well…
     
    Our county afficials are trying to ban the rights of so many patients and the big activist organizations seems not to care about this.. now why is this?
    I just do not understand why you don't give a hoot about the many citizens in this cannabis network that are patients whom use it for medical purpose just to fill your personal pockets with tons of monies… but yet you say its for the good of the patients and the society for it will bring in more revenue…
     
    Has the Federal Law changed?… I think not… and it will never fly until Federal Law changes their laws… but no one wants to admitt to this.. and you really think that AB2312 will change this for everyone or will this change for those whom will benifit from it financially instead of the protection for all involved on this issue…
     
    There are many old timers in this movement , way before the Compassionate Use Act came about.. and there were many growers way before the laws were in statue.. and there were black markets selling cannabis out on the streets for many many years way before this statue of law came into the picture…
     
    Did you make it medical for a purpose , or was there really compassion toward those whom were benifiting from the plant medically?… Or was this intended for the furture to futher the legalization behind this issue.. what is really the truth behid this?
     
    I supported the cannabis movement for many years on end.. for the reason it was for medical use … and i do believe that our state and others supported the medical use of cananbis , for they have passed this law in California and other states on this issue of medical use.. but i really beleive that if they were told that they wanted to legalize cannabis.. these states citizens would not have voted in favor of this cannabis issue…
     
    But now .. everyone in the Cannabis Organization like ASA, CANORML, and other groups like MPP, and other smaller groups are pushing to change the laws in statue instead of working out the bugs within it…
     
    But those whom are fighting the fight to protect the Compassioante Use Act Prop 215…. i wish i could be along side of you , physcially showing up for this cause… its amazing that now.. we the patients have to push against these big organizations whom say they are for the protection of the patients that they are fighting against so many that are against this AB2312.. as usual we are torn apart instead of fighting in unity against the counties, cities, and all involved together as one and putting all the fundings that were received to fight the counties and sue them for not upholding the laws that gives us the rights to do what it states..
     
    Instead of putting out new things in order to change what we already have.. and use the excuse that it will help our state bring in more revenue.. well after all these years .. now your trying to help our state?.. naw… i think this is just an excuse to litimatize those whom make millions of dollars from those members whom come to your store and pay your prices… for profit.. instead of on a not for profit enity…. and that is the truth of the issue.. you do not support the welfare of our cannabis patients ,,, you only support yourself in your own being…
     
    There are many patients whom grow outdoor, and indoor.. and the counties have no rights what so ever to tell them that they do not and try to ban them out of existance… The counties need to stop trying to put rules out that they can not make.. and they need to allow those whom are really a not for profit enity to provide safe access to those in need .. for medical … and stop trying to put those whom do qualify as a not for profit enity and prove by their paperwork that they are not for profit enities..out of existance… and stop charging them outrageous prices in order to be there in the first place.. they do not do that with other not for profit enities.. why are they doing it with the cannabis not for profit enities that do provide safe and affordable cannabis to their members… and have it in a store front or a warehouse.. as long as it is a not for profit enity and they are not making a profit.. then they should be allow to stay open.. and the
    patients should be allow to grow what they are able to afford … like growing outdoors.. if they choose… or if they can afford the cost of growing indoor they should have that choice as well… and if they are joining other patients they also should ba allowed to be reinbursed for the expence that it takes to grow for them in a unity setting and it has been ruled that they do not have to participate in order to receive from a association garden or in a onsite croperative enity…
     
    But the big wig cannabis movement like ASA, whom say they support the patients.. need to stop and stand by their words instead of putting out mud .. and help those citizens fight the figh against the counties whom are stomping on the rights behind the Compassionate Use Act. Prop 215..
     
    If your reading my post.. thank you.. but if this never gets on this site.. then is only for those to be picked out to be heard from.. and this is discrimination to say the least… do i have to be an attorney in order to be accepted? or a doctor?.. well i was a business woman from 1980's until the 1990's.. and made 500 to 1500 a day.. dose that count??? I was activist  to many behind the drug abuse in the programs of AA, NA.. and have spoken against the use of drugs in boys homes and prisions, as well as other places.. and helped many of families that were torn apart and get help… but that was in my younger years. from 1974 to 1989 now i am just a plain old housewife in my early senior years… But my views were changed when i started to utalize cannabis for my medical issues… and supported it strong and stood by our leader for many years.. until i had to walk away and take care of more priorities..like keepiing our home and taking care of a
    senior home bound of 85. and  this was held against due to that ..
     
    i went against the Prop 19, due to my own views and what i have read on the DPFCA list and now this site on the AB2312 as well , which i do not support at all.. and due to that i am held against .. But still i have every right to put my views on this issue.. just like the rest of you…. … …
     
    Unity is peace within.. unity is acceptance and tolerance of others whom want the same thing.. safe access…not to make a profit off of the sick and dying citizens in order to profitize cannabis and use it as an excuse that it will bring in revenue.. maybe it will.. but not until the federal laws are changed.. get it.. got it.. good..
     
    Lavonne Victor….

     

    Mickey Martin <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 16 10:25AM -0700  

    $100…. And for the record, I hope you are right and I lose the bet.
     
    Your arguments are generally off base though, and fail to tell the complete story. So, I would expect this case to have similar characteristics and traits.
     
    Time will tell…..
     
     
     
     

     

 

    Sam Clauder <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 16 12:05PM -0700  

    215 was probably the worst written initiative in the history of this state!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
    Sent from my iPhone
     

     

 

    R Givens <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 17 09:26AM -0700  

    >215 was probably the worst written initiative in the history of this
    >state!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
    Propisition 215 has changed the discussion about medical marijuana
    nationwide. There are now 15 states with medical marijuana laws.
    That's quite an achievement.
     
    The fact that the authors made some mistakes is merely a warning to
    be more careful with future laws.
     
    A lot of the "problems" with 215 come from the fact that courts have
    ignored plain language in the law.
     
    If Peron et al had not gone forward with their best effort we would
    still have patients going to prison because of the reefer madness the
    government promotes.
     
    Proposition 215 has kept hundreds of people out of jail and that is
    very positive.
     
    Proposition 215 should educate us about the treachery of government
    agencies and the need to write them out of the picture in our next
    initiative.
     
    Opposition to legal marijuana can be reduced to a minimum with a well
    written initiative that specifically prevents State law enforcement
    from cooperating with the DEA et al.
     
    Please note that almost all of the dispensary closings are done using
    Federal authority. Since these raids are set up by local police,
    sheriffs and state lawmen, forbidding California law enforcement from
    Federal cooperation will end this tyranny.
     
     
    A clause like this is needed to prevent California police from using
    the DEA to get forfeiture money. Never think that they will somehow
    do the right thing unless the foot of law is firmly pressed down on
    their necks.
     
    excerpt from The Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act of 2012
     
    > departments to obtain any money, property, gain, or advantage by the
    > arrest, prosecution, conviction, or deprivation or seizure of
    > property of anyone acting within the age provisions of this Act.
     
     
    If Proposition 215 had a clause like this, the current dispensary
    closings would not be happening because the Feds require local police
    to set up 95% of their cases.
     
    Stopping Federal interference is key to winning the battle.
    R Givens

     

    David Malmo-Levine <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 16 10:27AM -0700  

    Bill Panzer disagrees with you on Prop 19. Mickey. Nobody from the "Pro
    Prop 19 side" has ever responded to his analysis – and I doubt they ever
    will … because he's right and nobody wants to admit it:
     
    *The most amazing factor of this whole debate to me is how Prop. 19 is
    being almost universally portrayed as “legalization” in the media and by
    many in our movement who, quite frankly, I suspect have never actually read
    the text of the initiative!*
     
    *What makes little sense to me is that this initiative, which doesn’t
    legalize cannabis, is being sold as legalization. It seems to me, it would
    make more sense to draft an initiative that does legalize cannabis and sell
    it as regulation.*
     
    *Nevertheless, because it is being touted as legalization, if it passed it
    would be perceived around the world as legalization. It would also give
    some modest protections to cannabis users. It essentially protects you from
    getting an infraction ticket in your own home so long as there are no
    children under the same roof.*
    https://mail.google.com/mail/?tab=wm#inbox/137f63e08c8ff073
     
     
     
     
     
     
    "If it goes totally legal, the mom-and-pop growers are going to be a
    thing of the past," – Dale Gieringer, co-author of Prop 215 and state
    coordinator of California NORML, *High Times*, Nov. 2010, p. 80
     
    Prop 19, otherwise known as the "Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of
    2010", was not the legalization we’ve been hearing about for the last 40
    years from pot activists. Despite claiming on it’s website that it will
    "Control cannabis like alcohol" [50] it more closely resembled the much
    more tightly controlled cannabis legalization suggested to us by
    governments and police. Pay close attention to the wording found in the
    purposes section – unique to any "legalization" proposition or model ever
    put before anyone else other than police and governments:
     
    "B. Purposes
    5. Put dangerous, underground street dealers out of business, so their
    influence in our communities will fade." [51]
     
    Keep in mind those "dangerous" underground street dealers once included –
    and most likely currently include people similar to – people like *High
    Times* founder Tom Forcade and med pot movement founder Dennis Peron, and
    their "influence" in the community include *High Times* magazine, Prop 215,
    and "legalization for all".
     
    Prop 19 limited the number of legal growers to 1) those over 21 who 2)
    lived on their own in their own house or who rented from a landlord who was
    willing to risk their property being seized and who 3) would allow
    themselves to be limited to 25 square feet of grow space – smaller than the
    average jail cell. [52) It’s hard to estimate what percentage of current
    growers this would have left "illegal", but I suspect the percentage is
    greater than 50%.
     
    The meaning of this section was debated constantly before the vote. Did the
    "25 square feet in your own house to be shared with the rest of the people
    living in the residence" rules also apply to med pot users who currently
    enjoyed no such restrictions? Suffice to say that attorney Bill Panzer –
    despite voting for Prop 19 for the message it would send regarding support
    for eventual "full" legalization – made the strongest argument (and yet to
    be answered in public by the yes side) as to why med pot cultivation rights
    could have been threatened by Prop 19:
     
    "If an appellate court were inclined to find that Prop 19 preserved all
    215/420 rights, there is language in 19 to support that. If, on the other
    hand, an appellate court was inclined to find that 19 allowed local
    municipalities to impinge on 215/420, there is language that could support
    that position too. The bottom line is that the body of the statute could
    have clearly stated that local municipalities are not authorized to pass
    any ordinance or regulation that infringes on 215/420 in any manner, but it
    doesn’t." [53]
     
    Another section of Prop 19 made sure only licensed dealers would be allowed
    to deal – all other dealers were going to be punished by civil fines or
    worse. [54] The trouble with only allowing licensed dealers to deal is that
    – in one third of California, places such as Los Angeles and Oakland –
    there are very few licenses handed out. Oakland has four licenses in a city
    of 400,000 people – one license for every 100,000 people. Los Angeles has
    41 licenses for 14.8 million people – or one license for every 360,000
    people. Author of Prop 19 Richard Lee could have chosen to insist on
    "Sufficient community outlets" to prevent illegal dealing (in other words,
    unlimited outlets) and affordable, competition-encouraging $1000 licenses
    for retailers (instead of the current $60,000 or more Oakland retailers
    must pay) as Jack Herer did in his initiative.
     
    But Lee chose not to remove the discriminatory licensing system in his
    initiative. This was a tactical error on his part, as the decision not to
    remove the discrimination spelled doom for any unlicensed grower or dealer
    (or any family member of any unlicensed grower or dealer) who lived in – or
    feared they would one day live in – a pro-monopoly jurisdiction such as Los
    Angeles or Oakland. There are literally hundreds of thousands of these
    people all over California and they very well may have tipped the scales in
    favor of the "no" side on Nov. 2nd.
     
    http://www.cannabisculture.com/node/25832
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

     

 

    Tim Perkins <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 16 10:20AM -0700  

    An excerpt from Rappoports' series on the FDA:
     
    Retired propaganda master, Ellis Medavoy, once said to me, "Find a truly
    explosive hidden fact and put it in front of a person's eyes, hold it
    there, and see what happens. The person will go blank. He'll go blank
    because on a barely conscious level, he's rapidly calculating how many
    deceptions he's swallowed about all sorts of related subjects. Then
    he'll blink and tell you what you just showed him is impossible…"
     
    I would add: after he says it's impossible, he'll actually make excuses
    for the perpetrator of the crime you've just exposed. He'll give you a
    dozens reasons to let the perpetrator off the hook. He'll really warm up
    to the perpetrator and say he's a wonderful human being. He'll spin
    gossamer and rainbows from here to the moon.
     
    It's quite something to behold.
     
    http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/another-smoking-gun-the-fda-versus-the-people/
     
    On 6/16/2012 10:06 AM, a speciale wrote:

     

    Sam Clauder <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 16 12:15PM -0700  

    Prop 19 in 2010 was the best option voters have had since Prop 19 in 1972. Go raise $1 mil to put an initiative on the ballot and then you can criticize. Until then, suck on your bong and grace the rest of us with silence!
     
    Sent from my iPhone
     

     

    Mendocino Medical Marijuana Advisory Board <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 16 03:25PM -0700  

    Major Tom to Mickey… AB2312 is our current problem, Prop 19 is
    history.
     
    AB2312 has big, big warts and you and I and Letitia and many others
    largely agree on what they are – there seems little point rehashing
    Prop 19 while in the midst of a REALLY serious battle.
     
    Best,
     
    Tom Davenport
    web admin – MMMAB
     
    On Jun 16, 2012, at 8:26 AM, Mickey Martin wrote:
     

     

June 2, 2012 – Digest for s..s@a2c2.us – 25 Messages in 9 Topics

 

 

    William West <s..s@a2c2.us> May 31 10:40PM -0700  

    So on the head of that nail, I always say look at who's supporting it and
    why, as with who wrote it and why? Who is defending it and why, not just a
    "Red Herring" but this one is stinking, are people really so unconcerned
    about their future or what they leave their children? They just follow the
    in-crowd I get pissed when some just have to have it all, when it was
    placed here for all. Maybe the Creator is on vacation, and it has been
    taken over.
     
    On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur <
     

    *
    *
    *
    *
    *William W. West*
    *William W. West Productions*
    *www.theweedlynews.com*
    *www.myspace.com/williamwwest*
    (phone#-removed)*

     

    "Jonathan Hughes" <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 01 09:01PM  

    Not sure what part of AB2312 you are asking about but hear is my two cents.
     
    I believe what they are saying, that if you are an individual patient who shares their medicine but does NOT sell/or reap back costs of the grow, then you are NOT a "medical marijuana facility" and therefore do not need to register w/the state. If you collect money as a reimburstment, you are a medical marijuana facility and would have to register w/the state. Not totally positive though.
     
    Jon
     
     

    Jonathan Hughes
    UFCW Local 5
    240 South Market St
    San Jose, CA
    Office
    1(phone#-removed) ex.5629
    Direct Line
    (phone#-removed)

     

    Bud <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 01 11:30AM -0700  

    >>AB2312 may be our best option. But then the CA Supreme Court could flip
    everything on its ear in the near future, so there is that too….
     
    To some extent, AB 2312 would render moot a California Supreme Court
    decision that, say, upheld Riverside's dispensary ban and skewered the
    notion of nuisance per se found in the Evergreen ruling from Lake Forest.
    Remember, the Supremes have to work with the law as it now exists. We don't
    have to wait for a negative ruling and/or one that is too narrow in scope
    to be useful (remember how we all waited breathlessly for Anaheim?) to
    identify weaknesses in SB 420 and craft new laws designed to fix those
    problems.
     
    AB 2312 "occupies the field" of cannabis regulation more completely than SB
    420 alone, an important legal concept when arguing state pre-emption. Local
    governments get to retain some control over zoning, but the state board
    takes a leadership role on zoning and many other complex issues that aren't
    easily understood or handled by the local yokels. SB 420 alone is a flimsy
    raft upon which to float a case of state pre-emption; AB 2312 gives us a
    captain (state board), paddles (dispensary regs) and personal flotation
    devices (cultivation). You might want to climb on board before the Supreme
    Court sinks our battleship.

     

    Mickey Martin <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 01 07:11AM -0700  

    BE AFRAID! Headbook…a Steve Kubby Joint.
    Posted by Mickey Martin on June 1st, 2012
    Domestic Terrorist, Steve Kubby
    So I thought it would be another year or two before I got a good chuckle out of Steve Kubby; bless his heart. But then he announced yesterday that he was starting a new social media site called HEADBOOK. That is right. Yes, you  are reading that right….Head-Book. Very original. Nothing like creating a site to buy and sell weed on and at the very least lacking creativity on it, and at worst violating Facebook’s trademark. 
    But that is not the funniest part by far. Check out this press release that Camp Kubby, and whoever else is in on that project, put out today. It is a classic, including a cameo appearance from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. The press release, for some odd reason, tries to promise that it will not be a “dat-mining” liability like the competition….”Facebook, Weedbay, and BudTrader.” Yup….Kubby’s press release actually includes FB in with Weedbay and BudTrader and goes on to show how a comparison between Headbook and Facebook (as if the sites were even slightly comparable. Hello? Earth to Steve. FB is not in the weed game.) shows that Headbook has superior security and not a “surveillance tool.”
    Oh…never mind. Read the press release yourself (complete with my smart-ass comments):
    For Immediate Release
    New Headbook Social Media Site Deploys Weapon Grade Encryption
    CW: Seriously. I coud not make this shit up……WEAPON GRADE ENCRYPTION? What the fuck is that? How is encryption a weapon at all? It is a fucking defense if anything. So right out of the gate, the title let’s you know that this is some SERIOUS bullshit. Damn, I love Kubby. 
    “Facebook is the most appalling spy machine ever invented…Everyone should understand that when they add their friends to Facebook, they are doing free work for United States intelligence agencies in building this database for them.”
    –Julian Assange
    CW: I love it when a press release starts with a quote. Okay. Actually, I have never seen anyone start a press release with a quote, much less a quote from Wikileak’s founder Julian Assange regarding Facebook’s security for a site that has ZERO comparability to Facebook in reality. This quote is meant to serve as a sort of “Shock and Awwwww Shit, Kubby is crazy” type of statement. What better way to lure in the stupid than convincing them that their worst fears are true about Facebook, and in the same breath try to convince people that their weed trading site is somehow even comparable….It is great. I could not make this shit up….
    Facebook, WeedBay, and BudTrader are all excellent websites, run by outstanding and dedicated people, but they are wide-open to surveillance and data mining by law enforcement agencies.  Wherever you go online, you are leaving digital footprints that hold infinite details about you, your friends, your political beliefs, your involvement with cannabis and even the likelihood that you are a domestic terrorist threat, based solely upon your online activities.
    CW: I love the “run by outstanding and dedicated people” bullshit. Like Kubby knows Zuckerburg, or any of the people who run these sites. Then he goes on to shitbag them by stating that they are “wide-open to surveillance and data-mining.” The press release attempts to scare the shit out of the reader by letting them know that the boogie man is watching their every move and that because they use these other sites could be a “domestic terrorist.” HOLY SHIT! I had no idea that because I write about weed on FB that I am a domestic terrorist now! SAVE ME, STEVE KUBBY! You are our only hope!
    If you have ever posted anything about cannabis online, you are probably already in a federal law enforcement database.  If you are crossing a border, your name may be scanned against databases that rely upon your online identity to profile you.  Or an agent may simply look you up on Facebook and see all those photos of you toking up at Hempfest last week.
    CW: But why stop at domestic terrorism. Really scare the shit out of them by letting them know…”You are already on the watch list, pal.” I love the assertion that because you have ever posted anything online about weed that you are “probably in a law enforcement database.” He goes on to spin long yarn about how your Facebook account could keep you out of Mexico. LOL. Damn, this shit is rich with bullshit…
    This is your wakeup call.  Now is the time to think about your digital footprint in cyberspace and take positive actions to protect your identity and security.
    CW: WAKE UP CALL! Now that we have scared the shit out of you, “take positive actions to protect your identity and security.” STFU. You have already told me I am on the watch list for domestic terrorism and cannot leave the country because I wrote about weed on Facebook. What ever will “headbook” do to make that better? Never fear. Super Kubby is here.
    HEADBOOK has just upgraded our entire site to full SSL encryption. From the moment you log on, you are operating in protected cyberspace that deploys weapon grade encryption and is aggressively defended. Your safety, privacy and security will be defended 24/7 by the best technology, attorneys and security experts available. Our extreme 1028 bit encryption “Vault” combined with our intensive verification process will provide our members with state-of-the-art cybersecurity, so that what happens at HEADBOOK, stays at HEADBOOK.
    CW: So there is the hook…..Headbook has “weapons grade encryption.” Oh, these guys kill me. Now if you are wondering WHAT HEADBOOK DOES….never mind those details in your press release. Why bother telling any actual information about the website and its functions when you can spend several paragraphs scaring the shit out of people with irrelevant facts and beat the shit out of them with your gigantic red herring? And why bother giving any evidence of your “weapons grade encryption” when you can just do a press release and promise people you are telling the truth. I have no idea what Headbook is or what it will do. From what I gather, it will be a site where growers and weedheads can link up and make deals online. Genius….I really love the Vegas ripoff line at the end…”What happens on HEADBOOK stays on HEADBOOK. LOL. These guys have the creativity of a 4-year -old and not a bright one either.
    Kubby and friends are always good for a chuckle. Thanks for the world’s most retarded press release this morning to get my day started. Everyone knows how I love press releases done on the big Friday news dump, as well. If Kubby’s history tells us anything, this site will likely be mediocre at best and fall by the wayside sooner than later. But who knows…with weapons grade encryption that makes Facebook look like child’s play, it could be a HUGE success. Psych.
    The site supposedly launches at 4:20 pm today. Idiots….
     
    Mickey Martin
    T-Comp Consulting Director
    Author of Medical Marijuana 101
    www.cannabiswarrior.com
    www.tcompconsulting.com
    s..s@a2c2.us
    (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.***

     

 

    Pebbles Trippet <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 01 04:48AM -0700  

    David
    You're taking on Joe Grumbine!
    Fantastic!
    pebbles
     

     

    Kyndra Miller <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 01 07:03AM -0700  

    David:
     
    Thank you for taking this case. You are AMAZING!
     
    Kyndra
     
     
    On Jun 1, 2012, at 4:48 AM, Pebbles Trippet wrote:
     
    David
    You're taking on Joe Grumbine!
    Fantastic!
    pebbles
     

     

 

 

 

    Susan Soares <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 01 02:22PM -0700  

    A friend of a friend was in traffic court in Pasadena on Wednesday. He said that a guy got stopped for some unknown reason by PD and agreed to be searched. He had under an ounce on him. He had his rec and he even had his State Health Dept. card. The judge told him that he could have it and use it but it couldn't ever be in his car. The judge fined him $750 for the weed. What?
     
    Susan Soares
    (phone#-removed)
    s..s@a2c2.us

     

    Susan Soares <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 01 02:10PM -0700  

    A friend of a friend was in traffic court in Pasadena on Wednesday. He said that a guy got stopped for some unknown reason by PD and agreed to be searched. He had under an ounce on him. He had his rec and he even had his State Health Dept. card. The judge told him that he could have it and use it but it couldn't ever be in his car. The judge fined him $750 for the weed. What?
     
    Susan Soares
    (phone#-removed)
    s..s@a2c2.us

     

    Pebbles Trippet <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 01 05:13PM -0700  

    The Judge was flat out wrong. Contest it, even without a lawyer. Take
    a copy of the ASA lawsuit the CHP agreed to.
    With an SB420 card the medicine cannot be confiscated up to 8 ounces.
    pebbles
     

     

    Michael Backes <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 01 04:05PM  

    Which is probably explains why ElSohly subsequently isolated the THCV metabolite that he now supplies as a reference standard to most forensic labs in the world. After Todd's 1999 victory in exclude the piss test evidence, ElSohly went back to the lab and developed a method that he published in 2001. It's been questioned in subsequent studies as recently as 2010. See "Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabivarin testing may not have the sensitivity to detect marijuana use among individuals ingesting dronabinol" .
     
    A well known cannabis lab in California actually got ElSohly to send them some THCV metabolites back in 2010.
     
    This is the same metabolite is included in all of the most recent Designer Drug mass spectra library updates from Germany (2011 and 2012) that Wiley sells to all the piss testers, Customs, and DEA.
     
    With the resources at ElSohly's disposal, you're not going to get many chances to throw him under the bus. You can laugh at his choice of what to patent, but the considerable IP portfolio that he's accumulated for his side company will be considerably less amusing to the cannabis community down the road.
     
    Michael Backes
     
    On May 28, 2012, at 7:01 PM, <s..s@a2c2.us>

     

    Chris Conrad <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 01 02:17PM -0700  

    All of which raises the issue of whether ElSohly is criminally liable on
    an anti-trust or public research issue for setting out to patent and
    profit from work he has been able to do working for the federal government
    (public sector violation) under a NIDA monopoly (anti-trust violation). He
    could not have done the research except for on the government's dime, so
    don't the American People own the patents?
     
    — Chris <s..s@a2c2.us>(phone#-removed)
    _______________
     
     

     

    David Malmo-Levine <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 01 11:52AM -0700  

    It remains to be seen if patents on cannabis medicine will stand up to a
    court challenge:
     
    "This power was used to raise money for the Crown, and was widely abused,
    as the Crown granted patents in respect of all sorts of common goods (salt,
    for example). Consequently, the Court began to limit the circumstances in
    which they could be granted. After public outcry, James I of
    England<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England> was
    forced to revoke all existing monopolies and declare that they were only to
    be used for "projects of new invention"."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law
     
     
    *"Prior art* (also known as *state of the
    art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art>
    *, which also has other meanings, or *background
    art*[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art#cite_note-0>),
    in most systems of patent <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent>
    law,[2]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art#cite_note-1>
    constitutes
    all information <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information> that has been
    made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be
    relevant to a patent's claims of originality. If an
    invention<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention> has
    been described in prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art
     
    Those who have challenged other sketchy bio-medicine patents have won:
     
    Neem court challenge data:
     
    * Patent No. 5,124,349 Is Obvious in Light of Prior Art:
     
    The issuance of a patent is prohibited if the patent would have been
    'obvious' in light of prior art. The standard for patentability requires
    that the differences between a patentable invention and its prior art must
    be great enough so that a person with ordinary skill in the art would not
    consider the invention to be obvious at the time of patenting. Patent No.
    5,124,349 does not meet this standard.
     
    W R Grace claims that Patent No. 5,124,349 is non-obvious in the light of
    prior art because in contrast to the traditional chemical extraction
    techniques, the company's processes obtain storage-stable azadirachtin
    formulations. There are several reasons why this argument lacks merit.
     
    First, several Indian scientists had developed stabilisation techniques
    prior to W R Grace's patent application. Stabilisation research occurred
    within India in the 1960s and 1970s. This pre-existing body of work alone
    should invalidate Patent No. 5,124,349.
     
    Second, in determining whether an invention is obvious, it is necessary to
    consider the possibilities and capabilities of pre-existing technologies.
    Inventions are unpatentable if the possibilities raised by prior
    technologies would make the patent obvious to a person with ordinary skill
    in the art. This standard disqualifies the validity of Patent No.
    5,124,349. Because Indian researchers had already developed the knowledge
    and technology necessary to make storage-stable azadirachtin formulations
    possible, this pre-existing knowledge subsumes Grace's patent claims.
    Patents may not be granted for trivial changes to known products and
    processes.
     
    http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/neem-ch.htm
     
    An Indian government challenge in the United States led to the revocation
    of a patent on another Indian plant, turmeric, whose medicinal qualities
    have been known for centuries. That challenge was accepted as a result of
    India showing that the knowledge had been found in the Indian pharmacopoeia.
     
    In the United States, prior existing knowledge to deny a patent is accepted
    in terms of publication in any journal, but not of knowledge known and
    available in oral or folk traditions.
     
    This narrow view of prior knowledge has been responsible for any number of
    patents for processes and products derived from biological material, or
    their synthesis into purer crystalline forms.
     
    In the United States, neem seeds and their potent insecticidal extract,
    azadirachtin, have been the subject of continuing biotech research and
    grant of patents.
     
    The US funds and grants have been made available also for tissue culture of
    the azadirchtin, to obviate the need for extracting it from the neem seeds,
    which are seasonal.
     
    An US Company, AgriDyne has received two US patents for bioprocessing of
    neem for bioinsecticidal products. The first patent is for a refining
    process that removes fungal contaminants found in extracts from the neem
    seed, and is used in the manufacture of technical-grade azadirachtin, and
    in the production of AgriDyne's neem-based bioinsecticides. The second
    patent is for a method of producing stable insecticide formulations
    containing high concentrations of azadirachtin.
     
    The US TNC, W.R. Grace has patents for neem-based biopesticides, including
    Neemix for use on food crops. Neemix suppresses insect feeding behaviour
    and growth in more than 200 species of insects.
     
    In New Delhi, the Indian Minister for Science and Technology, Dr.Murli
    Manohar Joshi welcomed the EPO decision and said that the revocation of
    patent had been on the issue of bio-piracy and this should lead to a better
    protection of India's heritage of traditional knowledge.
     
    A Third World Network expert group on Implementing TRIPS, recommended in
    1998 that developing countries to apply a broad concept of 'prior art' to
    ensure that patents are granted to actually 'new' inventions, and to stick
    to the need of novelty of the process itself as a condition of granting a
    patent. The developing countries were also advised to deny patents for new
    uses of a known product or process, including second use of a medicine or
    for incremental additions to get a new patent on a prior one.
     
    The expert group advised developing countries to define and interpret
    'novelty' according to generally accepted concepts, namely, any prior
    disclosure whether written or not destroys novelty. Knowledge like use of
    medicinal plants diffused within a local or indigenous community should
    also be deemed prior art and patent denied.
     
    And writing such a rule into their legislation would prevent patenting of
    knowledge or materials developed by and diffused within local or indigenous
    communities.
     
    http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/revoked.htm
     
    Abstract A recent United States patent covering an improvement to the
    naturally-occurring pesticide in neem tree seed oil might have been
    rejected as ''obvious'' if United States patent law recognized certain
    forms of prior inventive activity on a par with similar activity occurring
    within the United States'' borders. But the US only recognizes prior
    ''knowledge, use or invention'' as blocking a claim to a patent when those
    activities take place within US borders, or are evidenced by publications
    accessible in the US, or, more commonly, by foreign patents. Neither of
    these last forms of tangible ''prior art'' is likely to be available to
    block patents on biodiversity inventions – most notably because of the fact
    that most developing nations do not allow patents on pharmaceutical or
    agricultural inventions, categories subsuming most biodiversity-related
    advances. Although the United States patent only has direct force within
    the United States, it is nonetheless highly significant to this global
    dispute, since the United States and other developed nations stand to be
    the major markets for the end-products of neem. This paper argues that the
    border-drawing distinctions in US patent law are archaic, counter to stated
    policy directives and are disproportionately influencing the developing
    world''s stance towards GATT and its intellectual property rights
    provisions.
     
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/nx58468m7023r452/
     
    In its Request for Re­examination, the coalition states that there is
    enough evidence to the claim of 'prior art' outside the US (in India). It
    also claims prior art inside the US. In its request, the coalition sums up
    proof for 'prior art' in an attempt to get the patent revoked.
    Firstly, the coalition claims the patented process has already been used by
    Indian farmers for many centuries. However, when Grace states that their
    method differs substantially from the method used by Indian farmers, they
    may have a point. Traditionally, the farmers have used water as solvent for
    the extracted oil from the neem seeds. The protic solvent cannot stabilize
    the azadirachtin for a long time. This is not a problem because the product
    is used within a few days of production. Therefore there is no immediate
    need for a process of stabilizing the extract. The need for extract
    preservation only arises in case of mass production for broader and distant
    export markets.
    Secondly, the coalition claims the knowledge for the process patented was
    already available in India and elsewhere. The properties of the neem tree
    as pesticide and insecticide were discovered by Indian scientists decades
    ago. "The treatment of neem seeds with aprotic solvents has been used since
    the 1950's, and scientists had prepared neem seed extracts with the same
    solvents that W.R. Grace used in its patent, and solvents similar to those
    identified by W.R. Grace, years before the company's earliest efforts". The
    coalition points out that much of the research and experimentation has been
    conducted by small­scale organizations which have no interest in or
    capability of using foreign patents. This foreign knowledge as prior art is
    supported by several letters from foreign scientists.
    Thirdly, the coalition claims that the process patented was not new and
    novel from a domestic point of view. In their request, they presented many
    scientific publications to prove that the knowledge of the use of protic
    solvents in stabilizing organic material was publicly accessible. They also
    presented letters from US­based scientists who state that 'no new novel
    chemistry was discovered' and that the process patented makes 'only trivial
    changes to known products and processes'.
     
    http://www.biotech-monitor.nl/3004.htm
     
    You end of getting what you settle for … and the bad guys get away with
    what we let them get away with.
     
     
     
     

     

    Terry Colorado <s..s@a2c2.us> May 31 08:04PM -0700  

    Urgent: Call to Action: California Assembly Passes Medical Marijuana
    ENFORCEMENT board;
     
    The fight is not over: AB2312 passed in the Assembly; do not despair the
    battle has been joined! The rational debate will continue and the details
    of the bill will be better vetted out in State Senate; and opposition will
    be better prepared to stop passage.
     
    Despite the list of supporters; this is not a friendly bill; and its
    passage through assembly should not be viewed as legitimacy for AB2312 or
    its arguments. A supposed proponent of the bill is Kamala Harris who argued
    against us in People v Colvin; opponents with whom she aligned argued that
    all members of a collective must cultivate for the collective to be
    legitimate. Fortunately the courts continue to be mmj friendly …
    the appellate court disagreed with her and the rest of our opponents; the
    2nd District Appellate Court; 3rd division; rejected prosecutors claims
    and argument and thus UPHELD THE LEGITIMACY OF COLLECTIVES; WHICH IS WHAT
    AB2312 CLAIMS TO DO.
     
    Furthermore the State Supreme Court declined to review the matter which
    also means the State Supreme court upholds the legitimacy of collectives to
    organize; therefore my belief is the Supreme Court will decide against
    proponents arguments against the cities right to ban collectives or limit
    patient access via restrictive permitting as is truly preempted by Fed
    Law. WE DO NOT NEED AB2312; THE COURTS ARE ON OUR SIDE.
     
    I also have to question the following claim:
     
    Kris Hermes said:
     
    Responding to calls from local officials, the State Supreme Court, and
    > Attorney General Kamala Harris, the state legislature took a significant
    > step today toward clarifying the often-confusing terrain of medical
    > marijuana distribution in California.
     
     
     
    I don't believe the State Supreme Court is in the habit of involving itself
    in lobbying for state legislation. The claim that the assembly "responded
    to calls from the Supreme Court" should be explained and verified. I would
    be very interested in the calls to action by the Supreme Court.
     
    Support Prop 215; debunk Pro-reg; Pro-tax. Engage the opposition on the
    AB2312; Just keep asking the right questions, hold leadership accountable;
    force the discussion; debate will draw out the truth … good and bad.
     
    I hope I have become the catalyst to spark true debate for TRUE ACCESS in
    California; please follow my blog at marijuanahomepage.com; Thank you for
    helping stop restrictive regulation in California. Start contacting your
    senate representatives now; and ask them to vote "No" on AB2312.
     
    Thank you,
    Col0rado
     
    On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Kris Hermes <s..s@a2c2.us> wrote:
     

     

    Bud <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 01 10:32AM -0700  

    You can question it, but you need to be prepared for the answer. The courts
    are not inclined to fix our laws, but to explain how they work as currently
    constituted. As far back as 2005, and in several rulings since then, our
    state justices have noted serious shortcomings with the wording of
    Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act. In Urziceanu (2005), the court
    noted:
     
    "When the people of this state passed this act (215), they declined to
    decriminalize marijuana on a wholesale basis. As a result, the courts have
    consistently resisted attempts by advocates of medical marijuana to broaden
    the scope of these limited specific exceptions. *We have repeatedly
    directed the proponents of this approach back to the Legislature and the
    citizenry to address their perceived shortcomings with this law.*"
     
    The Medical Marijuana Program Act, SB 420, expanded the number of specified
    crimes against which qualified patients could mount a defense, established
    the voluntary ID card program, and expressly authorized collective
    cultivation projects. In doing so, legislators wisely relied on the court's
    collective advice as to what Prop. 215 did and didn't do. We now have years
    of equally useful advice from the courts about what SB 420 does and doesn't
    do, including case law about federal pre-emption that provides good
    guidance for AB 2312. The most recent appellate case out of Lake Forest,
    now under California Supreme Court review, concludes with yet another pearl
    of judicial wisdom:
     
    "We recognize our conclusions today may disappoint the parties in this case
    and the opposing sides in California's ongoing debate concerning medical
    marijuana: dispensaries, because they may wish to operate independently of
    cultivation sites, and some cities and other local governments, because
    they want to ban dispensaries altogether. *We emphasize that these are
    policy outcomes outside our power to reach or grant because we are
    constrained by the voters' and the Legislature's enactments. Although
    courts will continue to resolve disputes over the meaning of the CUA and
    MMPA, policy choices about the role of medical marijuana in this state,
    including any changes or adjustments that may be made, rest ultimately with
    the people and their representatives*."
     
    Do courts write laws? No, they don't, and they are loathe to step in where
    legislators fear to tread. Yet they are the ones charged with cleaning up
    our messes when we do pass laws, so when we ignore the sage advice of our
    courts, we do so at our own peril. Because our appellate courts have ruled
    that cities and counties may ignore key elements of SB 420, or ban
    dispensaries and/or outdoor cultivation through local ordinances, the only
    prudent course is to craft a legislative fix that takes cannabis regulation
    to the next level.
     
     

     

    David Malmo-Levine <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 01 12:12PM -0700  

    AB2312 is not the "next level" unless you're a monopolist who craves a
    corrupt bureaucracy and limited licenses.
     
    For cannabis activists over the last forty years, the "next level" was a
    level playing field and no monopoly for anyone – "legalization for all":
     
    http://www.cannabisculture.com/node/25832
     
    If you're not fighting for "legalization for all" you're not really in the
    same movement as the rest of us.
     
    The only two initiatives that will create "legalization for all" in
    California are the Herer and Wine Model initiatives. "Repeal" leaves it up
    to government to create a distribution model, and only the most naive
    activists believe there won't be any discriminatory licensing practices
    instituted such as the ones currently in place in L.A. and Oakland and
    Holland.
     
    Here is a quote from an article I recently wrote on the subject.
     
    One of these, the "Medical Marijuana Regulation and Control
    Act"<http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB2312>
    (MMRCA)
    is similar to Americans for Safe Access's "Medical Marijuana Regulation,
    Control and Taxation Act"<http://americansforsafeaccess.org/downloads/MMRCT.pdf>
    (MMRCTA).
     
    They both make the same fundamental errors: they both
     
    – require everyone in the med pot industry – including drivers – to
    register, thus making it easy and cost effective for the Feds to – with a
    single subpoena – find out who everyone is and charge everyone,
    – make it very easy to set a limit of one dispensary per 50,000 people,
    thus creating a monopoly or cartel. In comparison, there is a limit of one
    wine retail outlet per 1,250 residents in big cities and one wine retail
    outlet per 2,500 residents in smaller towns.
    – create a med pot bureaucracy that is open to corruption instead of
    setting up transparent standards that make it easy for everyone to comply
    without having to know or kiss up to anyone, making corruption nearly
    impossible.
    – allow the licensing board to drag it's heels for six months deciding
    whether or not to allow you to sell pot while you must pay rent on the
    location you've chosen to sell pot from – ensuring only the rich will be
    able to open up a retail outlet.
     
    http://www.cannabisculture.com/node/30181
     
    These are the facts … those who pretend that
    http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB2312AB2312
    is anything other than a cash grab that betrays the "legalization
    for all" ethic of the last forty years, that steals the income out of the
    hands of gardeners who are just trying to feed their families, that
    institutes a hierarchy in the last remaining non-hierarchical economy on
    planet earth, that perverts all the hype in the USA about "freedom" and
    "free markets" and "the land of opportunity" – that turns lady liberty into
    a stupid joke Americans have played on themselves … they should all "get
    over it", grow the fuck up and come to their senses … before they saddle
    the rest of the world with their monopolistic bullshit.
     
    Vote no on AB2312.
     
     
     
     
     
     

     

    William West <s..s@a2c2.us> May 31 10:14PM -0700  

    Here is the credit Terrie Best should be given, blocking media coverage
    using A.S.A. pamphlet. Safe Access for who? Marijuana media? Shows the
    respect she has. Doesn't it bother you she publicly announced she would
    stand up in court and applaud the conviction of Donna Lambert if
    she received a prison sentence? How can anyone stand to be around someone
    that wants to see a sick patient go to prison and be glad?<iframe
    width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5LVJ4jpkqQo"
    frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Donna Lambert is one of the most
    informative activist for patients these is. We all know AB2312 is all a set
    up for Teflon Don Duncan to secure his Pot Monopoly. These are the type of
    people he uses. Check forgery, meth for starters. Real trusting type.
    Knowing the same Ass. D.A. Chris Limberg allowed her to skate on those
    charges, never letting that out as she sat and watched until someone dig
    into her records. Operation Green Rx was also part of Chris Limberg's plan
    to bust and divert federal funds to fund medical marijuana eradication in
    San Diego.
     
     

    *
    *
    *
    *
    *William W. West*
    *William W. West Productions*
    *www.theweedlynews.com*
    *www.myspace.com/williamwwest*
    (phone#-removed)*

     

 

    Michael Levinsohn <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 01 09:55AM -0700  

    The problem is that to support ANY regulation is to say it is needed because cannabis is dangerous. It isn't, so it isn't.
     
    The voters spoke w/Prop.215, and in that requested what became SB 420–the legislature's response to Prop. 215's directive to "facilitate" safe distribution.
     
    SB 420 is NOT intended to be regulation. If anything, the purported prohibition of "profit" should be removed. Prop. 215 does not require it, and it is counterproductive.
     
    ANY regulation is too much, since none is needed.
     
     
     
    Sent from my iPhone