Great! I would be happy to set up a lunch. For my friends and allies
who dont know what Barry does with the rest of his time and what work
I have great reverance for ? He houses women n their family who need
shelter from abusers. Many in cannabis comunity support such worthy
causes off the top of my head as far as folks who and support safe
spaces ?raymond gambly and charles pappas of closed by feds coop
divinty tree .dege coutee of pan . Mike from closed by feds coop
sancturary . Lynette from marin allinace closed by feds . Mickey
martin jailed by feds for making candies all these folks on target?
Who i can personaly state support greater social justice issues and
vision we all share lets support eachother by forcing the debate with
pelosi .thank you Barry for running for office . Much love n respect
.
 
 
—
Shona Gochenaur
Executive Director
Axis of Love SF
http://www.facebook.com/axisoflove
http://www.twitter.com/axisoflove

So this article is what I envision the Medical Marijuana Regulation, Control, and Taxation Act campaign to look like in a nutshell. These will be the soundbites you are up against…I would still like to hear a response from anyone involved with that campaign as to what a counter-attack may look like, and why they think they would be credible:
 
* Sometimes it’s a robbery or break-in at a so-called “dispensary,” or we see a story about the federal crackdown on these marijuana stores. Perhaps a lawyer for marijuana dealers is filing a lawsuit in an effort to keep their doors open. 
 
* daily lives are impacted by their operations. 
 
* Parents, who are worried about how the open, public sale of marijuana
shapes their children’s view, 
 
* A study published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence indicated that adult marijuana abuse and dependence are nearly twice as high in states where medical marijuana use is allowed. And more teenagers use marijuana in states with medical marijuana laws, according to another study, published in last September’s Annals of Epidemiology. 
 
* Between 2007 and 2009, more students in all grades reported smoking marijuana. Fewer students believed that smoking marijuana is harmful. 
 
* The presence of marijuana outlets not only makes marijuana seem acceptable, but it directly increased access to marijuana by teens. 
 
* (Teens) who reporting using marijuana in the month prior to the survey. Between 2007 and 2009, that number increased by more than 76 percent in San Diego city schools. 
 
* Everyone, even marijuana retailers, agree that Proposition 215 was not meant to give teenagers easier access to marijuana for recreational use. Yet it’s obvious that’s what has happened. 
 
* Youth impacts aside, marijuana retail outlets have an extremely negative impact on public safety, attracting criminals to neighborhoods and business districts. 
 
* People just don’t feel as safe when there’s a marijuana storefront around the corner from their home, or near their child’s school, or in the same building as their business. 
 
* However, loopholes in the law allow recreational users who aren’t sick to easily obtain doctor’s recommendations for marijuana. 
 
* The compassionate voters who supported Proposition 215 were promised that sales of marijuana would remain illegal in California. 
 
* They’ve created an industry, complete with advertising campaigns to attract new marijuana users. They have formed business coalitions that lobby against common-sense regulation. 
 
* Retail marijuana stores aren’t good for our kids or our neighborhoods. That’s why parents, residents and businesses are applauding….(may as well fill in "the failure of the Medical Marijuana Regulation, Control and Taxation Act).
 
So there is what the major talking points against this effort will be. On a statewide campaign this is the conversation we will be having in the National news. Add in a much larger statewide sampling of abuses, graphic visuals of abuses, ongoing rhetoric about "saving the kids," an onslaught of press regarding why the medical system is not medical at all, and law enforcement lobbies releasing op-ed after op-ed, and press release after press release about why medical marijuana is a "sham." Roll Weed Wars footage of eating edibles in cars and at softball games, dirty grow sites, and every other "expose" done on the industry (like the undercover doctor stings). Is this the conversation we want to have in the fall? In an effort to appease the Feds? Do we actually think that is possible? If so, why?
 
Why would we spend our own resources to limit our outreach and "control" the industry in an effort to stop the bleeding? What does the industry look like the day after the election if we lose? I have yet to hear that. Do we think if this thing loses that law enforcement will consider it a mandate against all dispensaries and medical cannabis providers? I think they will….I would be interested to hear why the proponents do not…
 
The fact is that the only way to really protect patients is to advance the ball down the field. Nobody has ever won a game by punting repeatedly….
 
About half of the people think weed is evil. Groovy. ALL of the people do not like being bullshitted, which is what MMRCT will end up being portrayed as, a referendum on why the industry is bullshitting people and a platform for our opposition to tell the entire nation how. They will expose the weaknesses in the language as a gift for the "potheads," and articles like this one will be front and center in every paper across the nation. I think it is a losing battle, and nobody can tell me why it will not be…
 
When we lost Prop 19, the loss was about what could have been. Losing MMRCT will be a direct loss on what IS, and if CA voters reject dispensaries at the ballot, believe that they will work to close every dispensary in CA down. Believe that. Some may think my tin foil hat is on too tight and that I am being paranoid. Super…Just explain to me how we plan on combating the onslaught of negative press this effort will bring and I will go back to researching chem trails….
 
Until then I am cool on this effort, so do not bother calling me to try and get me to come around.
 
Thanks….Mickey 
 
 
Empowering cities to regulate marijuana retailers
 
By Armando Cantaño
& Monica Green
 
Thursday, February 2, 2012
 
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/feb/02/empowering-cities-to-regulate-marijuana-retailers/
 
Hardly a day goes by without a story in the news about marijuana shops in
San Diego.
 
Sometimes it’s a robbery or break-in at a so-called “dispensary,” or we see
a story about the federal crackdown on these marijuana stores. Perhaps a
lawyer for marijuana dealers is filing a lawsuit in an effort to keep their
doors open.
 
As of Jan. 1, a new state law went into effect that alters the course of
current events related to marijuana retailers. AB 1300 (Blumenfield)
empowers cities to adopt and enforce local ordinances that regulate the
location, operation and establishment of medical marijuana storefronts,
while affirming the power of local governments to pursue the civil or
criminal enforcement of those local laws.
 
The new law is welcome news to
San Diegans who live and work near marijuana
retailers, and whose daily lives are impacted by their operations.
 
Parents, who are worried about how the open, public sale of marijuana
shapes their children’s view, also regard the passage of AB 1300 as cause
for celebration.
 
Here’s why:
 
A study published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence indicated that
adult marijuana abuse and dependence are nearly twice as high in states
where medical marijuana use is allowed. And more teenagers use marijuana in
states with medical marijuana laws, according to another study, published
in last September’s Annals of Epidemiology.
 
Closer to home, there are worrisome trends in marijuana use.
 
In the San Diego Unified School District, seventh-, ninth- and 11th-graders
participate in the biannual California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS). Between
2007 and 2009, more students in all grades reported smoking
marijuana.
Fewer students believed that smoking marijuana is harmful.
 
The presence of marijuana outlets not only makes marijuana seem acceptable,
but it directly increased access to marijuana by teens. The number of high
school juniors who thought pot was “easy” or “very easy” to get more than
doubled between 2007 and ’09, according the CHKS survey.
 
The most startling statistic from the CHKS survey is the percentage of
11th-graders who reporting using marijuana in the month prior to the
survey. Between 2007 and 2009, that number increased by more than 76
percent in San Diego city schools.
 
Everyone, even marijuana retailers, agree that Proposition 215 was not
meant to give teenagers easier access to marijuana for recreational use.
Yet it’s obvious that’s what has happened. For example, last April, seven
students at a middle school in Serra Mesa were hospitalized after eating
a
commercially prepared marijuana “edible” sold at a local marijuana
storefront.
 
Youth impacts aside, marijuana retail outlets have an extremely negative
impact on public safety, attracting criminals to neighborhoods and business
districts.
 
The criminal activity goes beyond an occasional break-in. San Diego Police
investigated 40 marijuana stores in 2011, and found that armed robbers had
targeted one out of every five such businesses.
 
People just don’t feel as safe when there’s a marijuana storefront around
the corner from their home, or near their child’s school, or in the same
building as their business.
 
Back in 1996, a slim majority of Californians approved Proposition 215.
That measure gave limited legal protection to sick people who use marijuana
with a doctor’s recommendation. However, loopholes in the law allow
recreational users who aren’t sick to easily obtain
doctor’s
recommendations for marijuana.
 
The compassionate voters who supported Proposition 215 were promised that
sales of marijuana would remain illegal in California.
 
Fast-forward to present-day San Diego, when U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy and
San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith launched a crackdown on illegal
marijuana retailers. At the start of their joint-agency operation,
approximately 180 marijuana shops were open for business. Some of these
businesses are run by organizations from outside of our county; none of
them have obtained a business permit from the city. They’ve created an
industry, complete with advertising campaigns to attract new marijuana
users. They have formed business coalitions that lobby against common-sense
regulation.
 
Retail marijuana stores aren’t good for our kids or our neighborhoods.
That’s why parents, residents and businesses are applauding the passage of
AB
1300. By shining a green light on local control of marijuana retailers,
AB 1300 empowers municipalities to adopt and enforce the laws that define
our collective quality of life.
 
And that’s a New Year’s resolution worth celebrating.
 
–
Cantaño is a parent, community volunteer and teacher at Monroe Clark Middle
School in City Heights; Green has resided in Pacific Beach since 1980.
 
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/feb/02/empowering-cities-to-regulate-marijuana-retailers/
 
—
Have the latest marijuana news delivered to your inbox, join and support
"MMJNEWS2 from Brett" with a minimum one time donation of $50.00 or more
with a credit card or bank account via Paypal (https://www.paypal.com/) to
the email address s..[email protected]
 
Before you criticize someone, you should first walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you do criticize them, you'll be a mile away and you'll have
their shoes!
 
Sent from my Rotary-Dial Desk Phone®
 
—————————————————————————
 
Attachment: http://drugsense.org/temp/BrhwKwpTN614412.html

One argument in response to fears about youth access to marijuana, whether in relation to this or any other measure, is that once adults are no longer being criminalized or threatened with criminalization, we in the cannabis community will be able to become full partners in stressing the importance of keeping marijuana away from children. As long as people are still being fined and arrested for responsible adult use and dispensaries are subject to a double standard in which they are not allowed to locate close to schools but schools are allowed to locate close to them, I'll be damned if I'm going to help put out any negative messaging about cannabis that could fuel such prohibitionary efforts, and I imagine many others who support cannabis freedom feel much the same way.
 
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
 
 
On Feb 3, 2012, at 8:36 AM, Mickey Martin wrote:
 

I can't speak for the campaign, or against every argument, but here goes:
 
> counter-attack may look like, and why they think they would be credible:
 
> – Parents, who are worried about how the open, public sale of marijuanashapes their children’s view,
 
> We are concerned, as well, and that only makes sense because let's not
forget that many/most patients are parents too. We support a well-regulated
system of medical cannabis dispensaries that's smaller in number and
visibility (signage), more tightly controlled (safety testing, taxes,
enforcement) on a uniform, statewide basis, and more patient-focused. We
support appropriate zoning measures to avoid "clustering" of dispensaries
and to stop the proliferation of subpar operations that our current lack of
regulations promoted.
 
We encourage appropriate changes to our health and drug education to
explain what medical marijuana is, and why kids should not smoke any type
of marijuana without understanding the health and legal issues involved. We
are not just modeling appropriate regulation of MMJ, but also the
appropriate and unequivocal upholding of voter intent as they declared in
the Compassionate Use Act.
 
– A study published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence indicated
that adult marijuana abuse and dependence are nearly twice as high in
states where medical marijuana use is allowed. And more teenagers use
marijuana in states with medical marijuana laws, according to another
study, published in last September’s Annals of Epidemiology.
 
And yet, medical marijuana is a) legal, and b) declared by law to be
beneficial for the larger number of patients who don't develop dependence
or addiction, when such use is under a doctor's recommendation. This is a
tough argument, which law enforcement likes to use a lot, and it also
resonates with non-users and soccer moms. And the only answer is this,
"Fine, let's stop with the raids and the cultivation bans and get to work
writing regulations that will control MMJ more closely. Let us Regulate,
Control and Tax medical marijuana so we can reduce its high community
profile while also protecting those patients who are fully compliant with
state law.
 
– Between 2007 and 2009, more students in all grades reported smoking
marijuana. Fewer students believed that smoking marijuana is harmful.
 
The snarky answer to that is "And your point?" The more nuanced response is
that students' changing attitudes are largely reflective of their parents'
changing attitudes and those of society as a whole. More appropriate health
and drug education should be developed to help children (and, shall we say,
their uptight parents and local politicians) to discern between medical and
non-medical cannabis use. Put another way, if society doesn't think smoking
marijuana is harmful (and, btw, it really isn't that harmful), then we
should not be alarmed that more students think so as well.
 
– The presence of marijuana outlets not only makes marijuana seem
acceptable, but it directly increased access to marijuana by teens.
 
This argument can't be rejected wholesale. In urban areas with large
numbers of dispensaries, it does appear that some diversion to youth became
an issue as sales of all types of cannabis shifted from dealers to
dispensaries. In rural areas where dispensaries never took hold, youth
access remains a purely black-market affair, and yet the same argument is
used, that somehow dispensaries will increase access. So while it's largely
semantics to argue whether dispensaries "increased" access for teens, it's
a valid concern when the *type* of access they have shifts from street
dealers to dispensaries. Just as kids are going to get beer indirectly from
liquor stores, they're going to get it indirectly from dispensaries, and
this type of diversion is something the MMRCT enforcers will need to
address in future years. A little candor might go a long way here, like
"yeah, we know we need to get these things under control. Your vote will
help."
 
– (Teens) who reporting using marijuana in the month prior to the survey.
Between 2007 and 2009, that number increased by more than 76 percent in
San Diego city schools.
 
Youth drug surveys are often worded vaguely and/or applied unevenly. Don't
accept that as gospel, but don't reject it either. Again, we want to help.
We want to help by making medical marijuana MORE available to patients than
it is now and LESS available to children and social users who think the
rules somehow don't apply to them.
 
– Everyone, even marijuana retailers, agree that Proposition 215
was not meant
to give teenagers easier access to marijuana for recreational use. Yet
it’s obvious that’s what has happened.
 
That's not obvious at all, not even when the same scary drug surveys come
out. Just like the localized impact of dispensaries has changed the TYPE of
access in urban areas, Prop. 215 has changed the TYPE of access, with many
teens and many, many more parents availing themselves of legal protection
as qualified patients. Prop. 215 dramatically increased the amount of
marijuana labeled as "medical," for both legal and health reasons, but it
can't be argued that pot is any more available now than it was back in the
'60s or '70s. 'Tain't true.
 
– Youth impacts aside, marijuana retail outlets have an extremely
negative impact on public safety, attracting criminals to neighborhoods
and business districts.
 
This is another common law-enforcement strategy, but their own statistics
can and should be used against them. Liquor stores, pool halls, massage
parlors, tattoo shops and any other number of unsavory business can and do
attract crime, but you just zone appropriately, maybe require a
conditional-use permit and some security measures, and hope for the best.
For every dispensary robbery, you can find a couple dozen at other retail
sites, so don't be afraid to slap them with their own stats.
 
– People just don’t feel as safe when there’s a marijuana storefront
around the corner from their home, or near their child’s school, or in
the same building as their business.
 
MMRCT makes dispensary regulation a matter of statewide concern, just like
the state handles liquor licenses. Expect to see a shift to commercial and
industrial zones, if only to get away from the feds' 1,000-foot "sensitive
uses" enforcement strategy. There will be fewer dispensaries, and none at
all in cities that wish to maintain bans, but they can only do so by
showing there's nearby access for patients. (It seems light-years ago since
poor planning officials first started pointing dispensaries toward zones
for medical offices and pharmacies.) In any event, MMRCT breaks up the
high-profile clusters and gets them away from schools and sensitive uses.
 
– However, loopholes in the law allow recreational users who aren’t sick
to easily obtain doctor’s recommendations for marijuana.
 
This one is hard, because it's so prevalent, but we can tell folks what
they've been telling us for years about federal law: If you don't like it,
change it. Prop. 215 was never intended to limit the use of cannabis to
people on their deathbeds, and we in California are very fortunate that the
CUA defined illness as broadly as it did. How sick do you have to be to buy
aspirin, Rogaine, Botox or Viagra?
 
One of the most striking things I've noticed over the past couple of years
is this stubborn insistence that people who "don't look sick" should not be
allowed to use medical marijuana, or claim their use is medical, or be
given any sort of credit for medical use when those who "don't look sick"
are "clearly just getting high." This puts patients on the defensive
constantly, which is sort of fitting because they also have to defend
themselves in courtrooms constantly.
 
The "loophole" in Prop. 215 is not a loophole, never was and never shall
be, thanks to the mighty power of a voter-approved initiative in
California. If you really want to talk about loopholes, let's talk about SB
420, because cities and counties are exploiting its "loopholes" to the nth
degree. MMRCT picks up where SB 420 left off, occupying the whole field of
marijuana regulation, including civil/criminal penalties and land-use
regulation. If the local City Council doesn't think you look sick enough,
screw 'em. It's no longer up to them to decide.
 
– The compassionate voters who supported Proposition 215 were promised
that sales of marijuana would remain illegal in California.
 
No they weren't. They were promised the state would develop a system of
"safe and affordable distribution," a promise the state has failed to meet,
a broken promise that has brought federal doom and gloom upon us. MMRCT
enacts the system the Legislature wouldn't. Also, we now have the MMPA,
which authorized collective cultivation and reasonable compensation for
expenses incurred, and these provisions are fully consistent with the CUA.
The voters approve.
 
– They’ve created an industry, complete with advertising campaigns to
attract new marijuana users. They have formed business coalitions that
lobby against common-sense regulation.
 
It came as a shock to me, so no doubt it's a shock to the powers that be
that an "industry" would arise from the ashes of total cannabis
prohibition. Was it the recession, the Ogden memo, Obama's vague MMJ
pronouncement? All of the above? Regardless, here we are, with hundreds of
dispensaries, new testing labs, new clients for attorneys and accountants,
naughty-nurses advertising, taxes, crappy landlords and every other part of
the daily routine that's involved with running any type of business. As for
the scary "business coalitions" … that's a positive, not a negative, in
that they can help cities develop common-sense regulations. (Except in San
Diego. ;o))
 
For political mass consumption, we're not building an industry. We're
building new businesses that support the safe and affordable distribution
of medical cannabis to qualified patients. We're building best business
practices and the regulations that will enforce their adoption statewide.
We're saving the best of our pioneering dispensaries and telling subpar
operators to take a hike. We're creating sustainable jobs, paying taxes and
supporting related industries like grow shop and testing labs. We're
growing medicine, caring for ourselves and other patients, and creating
green jobs in the process.
>>What does the industry look like the day after the election if we lose? I
have yet to hear that. Do we think if this thing loses that law enforcement
will consider it a mandate against all dispensaries and medical cannabis
providers? I think they will….I would be interested to hear why the
proponents do not…
 
Make no mistake: Law enforcement already has a mandate; nothing that
happens in November will change that, unless the law itself changes. It's
"game on" for the feds, who have stirred things up so completely that they
must be pretty pleased with themselves. They will do their very best to
take down what's left of the dispensaries before election day, meaning
dispensaries lose nothing if MMRCT loses too. Having dispensed with the
dispensaries, cities and counties will begin limiting and banning personal
cultivation, as they already have in Fresno, and the way SB 420 is written
there's nothing we can do to stop it.
 
>>The fact is that the only way to really protect patients is to advance
the ball down the field. Nobody has ever won a game by punting
repeatedly….
 
I agree with you fully, and I appreciate you bringing up some of the more
common talking points we'll hear.
— Dispensaries contribute to crime (arguable, but regulation will help. Go
ban some liquor stores.)
— Dispensaries send the wrong message to kids (so does demonizing
patients/parents who comply with state law)
— Dispensaries should be like Walgreens or Rite-Aid (don't blame us, blame
the feds)
— Dispensaries are not legal under federal law (yeah, we've heard that,
but let's focus on the state law now, shall we?)
— Dispensaries are not legal under our current state MMJ laws. (Arguably
true; MMRCT regulates them statewide.)
— Dispensaries are bad neighbors, scary, etc. (Tell you what: Let's try
moving them and regulating them, OK?)
— Dispensaries increase youth access/usage (BS in a global sense;
regulation addresses local diversion problems)
— Dispensaries should not be located near neighborhoods or sensitive uses.
(We need a state commission with power to set reasonable land-use and
licensing standards, just like we do with liquor stores. Total bans deprive
patients of safe access and encourage illegal activities in or near
neighborhoods and sensitive uses.)

i just read that armed robbers wearing carnival masks with loaded
weapons robbed a santa cruz collective . They got away in a silver car
they grabbed six thousand dollars worth of the patients medicine .
However they did not harm anyone. Very sad? the ages reported were
fifteen and twenty ? They were both male
 
—
Shona Gochenaur
Executive Director
Axis of Love SF
http://www.facebook.com/axisoflove
http://www.twitter.com/axisoflove

do you have any other details? like the time it happened and what collective?
 
Best Regards,
Dave Hodges
 
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur

Marijuana <http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/marijuana/>
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/02/regulate_marijuana_like_wine.php
<http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/marijuana/>
 
 
Marijuana Legalization Measure Courts Billionaires for Vital Campaign Cash
 
By Chris Roberts </author.php?author_id=1724> Thu., Feb. 2 2012 at 3:30 PM
Comments (2)
<http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/02/regulate_marijuana_like_wine.php#Comments>
 
Categories: Marijuana <http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/marijuana/>
Share
<http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.sfweekly.com%2Fthesnitch%2F2012%2F02%2Fregulate_marijuana_like_wine.php&t=Marijuana%20Legalization%20Measure%20Courts%20Billionaires%20for%20Vital%20Campaign%20Cash%20-%20San%20Francisco%20News%20-%20The%20Snitch&src=sp>
 
0diggsdigg
poll_5_pie.png <http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/poll_5_pie.png>
Close. But close enough?
 
Regulate Marijuana Like Wine
<http://regulatemarijuanalikewine.com/regulate-marijuana-like-wine-act-2012/>,
a marijuana legalization measure vying to get onto the November ballot,
has only $80,000 in cash on hand, according to finance records.
<http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Misc/filerSearch.aspx?SEARCH=marijuana> But
in apoll released this week,
<http://regulatemarijuanalikewine.com/poll-reveals-62-of-california-voters-want-marijuana-regulated-like-wine/>
it had potential support from 62 percent of likely voters — and that,
ballot proponents say, is quite literally money in the bank.
 
"That shows funders we can win," said Steve Kubby, a South Lake Tahoe
marijuana activist and member of the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine's
campaign committee. "Anytime you're polling over 60 percent, you command
anyone's attention."
 
And history just might be on RMLW's side: Those poll numbers are also
close to where Proposition 215 was 16 years ago, before the nation's
first medical marijuana laws were approved by a million vote margin in
November 1996, Kubby noted. Those are also rosier numbers than 2010's
Proposition 19 — which earned more votes than former Republican
Gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman — enjoyed before its historic defeat.
 
It's still going to be an uphill climb: Organizers have 30,000
signatures thus far, a fraction of the 504,760 validated signatures
<http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/how-to-qualify-an-initiative.htm>
from registered California voters needed to qualify Regulate Marijuana
Like Wine for the ballot (closer to 750,000 or more are in reality
needed, allowing for invalidated scribbles and other snafus).
Nonetheless, the poll means several billionaires are at this moment
crunching numbers and deciding whether to bankroll the initiatives,
Kubby told /SF Weekly /Thursday.
 
Regulate Marijuana Like Wine is one of several ballot measures
concerning marijuana in the signature-gathering process. If passed, it
would remove from the California law books all criminal statutes related
to marijuana for adults 21 or older. Another ballot initiative, Repeal
Cannabis Prohibition, would also undo criminal penalties pertaining to
marijuana. A third, the California Cannabis and Hemp Initiative of 2012,
would go even further, but has yet to commission the poll necessary to
attract heaps of cash.
 
Another ballot initiative, called the Medical Marijuana Regulation,
Control and Taxation Act, is sponsored by labor union UFCW and Americans
for Safe Access. It seems to have a good shot at gathering the necessary
money and signatures, but creates an updated regulatory framework for
medical marijuana, and does not address adult legalization.
 
About $1.5 million is needed to grab the required 504,760 valid
signatures — if done a month before the April 20 deadline. If the
signature gathering is done in the final, crazy month — when everyone
vying for the ballot is employing any paid signature gatherers they can
find — signature-gathering firms' prices quadruple, meaning it could
cost as much as $5 million, Kubby noted.
 
"Right now, three different billionaires have our numbers, and are
reviewing them," said Kubby, who declined to name them — though very
moneyed men, among them liberal make-it-rainer George Soros, Progressive
Auto Insurance chairman Peter Lewis, Napster cofounder Sean Parker, and
Facebook cofounder Dustin Moskovitz, were tapped in 2010 for Prop 19.
Are they willing to throw money after Regulate Marijuana Like Wine, too?
 
Maybe.
 
Lewis recently wrote an e-mail to cannabis activist Mickey Martin who
had asked Lewis for $1.5 million to fund a legalization ballot measure.
 
Lewis replied thusly: <http://cannabiswarrior.com/?s=%22peter+lewis%22>
 
"I have done considerable research which leads me to conclude that
the time has not yet come for legalization. I believe that if the
issue you want to pass isn't polling well above 60% in favor before
the election, there is no chance to pass it. California is not there
yet."
 
 
Is 62 percent enough for Lewis? Time will tell. In the meantime, the
campaign is celebrating its poll numbers.
 
"Everyone, including the polling company, was shocked," Kubby said. "We
owe a debt of gratitude to the United States attorneys, who pushed the
voters this way with their ridiculous scare tactics. I can't think of
anything better for our campaign."
 
/Follow us on Twitter at @SFWeekly <http://twitter.com/sfweekly> and
@TheSnitchSF <http://twitter.com/thesnitchsf>/
 
 
 
cannabis
<http://www.sfweekly.com/search/index?collection=blogs&keywords=cannabis>,
legalization
<http://www.sfweekly.com/search/index?collection=blogs&keywords=legalization>,
marijuana
<http://www.sfweekly.com/search/index?collection=blogs&keywords=marijuana>,
marijuana legalization
<http://www.sfweekly.com/search/index?collection=blogs&keywords=marijuana%20legalization>,
regulate marijuana like wine
<http://www.sfweekly.com/search/index?collection=blogs&keywords=regulate%20marijuana%20like%20wine>,
steve kubby
<http://www.sfweekly.com/search/index?collection=blogs&keywords=steve%20kubby>

 
http://www.theveteransforweed.com
 
Veterans for Weed United is a group dedicated to the veterans who have
been prosecuted, punished, or hurt by the simple fact that they smoke
weed. Weed is not an enemy, and the constant aggression towards this
"illicit" drug is mind boggling. Please support the cause to legalize
marijuana and assist veterans who have been wrongfully punished for
using it.

*On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Donna Lambert <s..[email protected]>wrote:
*
*Please make it a priority to have streaming video if you want the full
force of the movement behind the intended goal. *
 
YES. I second that.
 
I strongly urge you to follow Donna's advice. Sunlight is the best
disinfectant and only through total transparency can this movement spread
to the larger population.
 
Chris Conrad: Thank you for your considered response. I have been a fan and
follower of your work ever since I picked up a copy of The Emperor Has No
Clothes back in 1991, while hanging out with the Venice Beach legalize
folks. I recognize I may be completely wrong in my assessment of the
situation. I freely acknowledge my intellectual stance, bred over decades,
is nonetheless that of a relative dilettante. You obviously have more
real-world experience with these issues, and you have forged a path through
the political system.
 
However, I believe the political process has become so fundamentally
corrupted that sane public policy is impossible through normal channels.
I believe in making end runs around our rotted system. I am aligned
intellectually, philosophically and spiritually with the #Occupy movement.
I believe nothing short of a revolution can save us, and that has to start
with the truth. The American people are ready to hear the truth. More of
them than we think already *know* the truth.
 
Tom O'Connell: Thank you for your clear headed, cut-through-the-bullshit
discussion. I am happy to see you on this list as well. I remember you from
my days writing letters to editors as a foot soldier with the Media
Awareness Project, circa 1996. I am very happy to have an experienced
cannabis doctor on this list.
 
Although I don't know which if any of the initiatives I will support, I am
quite clear on my personal requirements:
 
The bill must remove any and all civil and criminal penalty surrounding the
consumption, possession, growing or sale of cannabis. Anything less is
unacceptable to me. If contains any provisions by which innocent American
citizens can be arrested, imprisoned, harassed or fined for anything
related to cannabis, I will oppose it.
 
The War on Cannabis is a crime against humanity. Period. It ensnares
innocent Americans and destroys their lives and the lives of their
families. It enriches a growing police & prison industrial complex,
corrupts our medical establishment and attacks our human and civil rights.
This foundational premise is non-negotiable, for me. To support a bill
containing criminal or civil penalties for a wonderful and healing plant is
to accept someone else frame, to legitimize a point of view that is false
and toxic.
 
I do not believe we should ever compromise with this obviously true and
scientifically valid stance. I do not believe we should Focus Group our
opinions. To do so yields compromised, abhorrent policy like what comes out
of the "liberal Democrat" in the White House. (Due-process-free indefinite
detention and assassination, anybody?)
 
Free speech isn't free if you're afraid to use it. We should not be less
truthful than Ron Paul on this issue. Americans are ready to grow up. The
percentages are on our side. Young people understand and we will win by
attrition, if nothing else. We do not need to push compromised "give a
little, take a little" policies. We are winning. We will win.
 
This I believe.
 
PeaceLove,
 
Jonathan Steigman
 
 
******************************************
Twitter: @magicpeacelove <http://twitter.com/MagicPeaceLove>
———————————————————-
 
*There is nothing more agreeable in life than to make peace with the
Establishment – and nothing more corrupting. *
*-A.J.P. Taylor, historian (1906-1990)*
*
*
 

I like the quote at end by taylor . Was that from a conversation or an
article? I agree with the no fines or arresting or penalties. I was
abit taken back by the LAO annalslyis of tax n regulate and i keep
going over no projects bigger than personal use ? But most
workingclass patients cant grow in residence? and try n find places to
grow together. Wont the high cost of registery prevent collectives of
patients from growing for eachother? Or am I missing how this enables
patients to grow for eachother?
 
 
—
Shona Gochenaur
Executive Director
Axis of Love SF
http://www.facebook.com/axisoflove
http://www.twitter.com/axisoflove

pls share all welcome to attend your input is important .
 
s..[email protected], s..[email protected],
s..[email protected], s..[email protected],
s..[email protected], s..[email protected],
s..[email protected], s..[email protected], s..[email protected],
s..[email protected]
Cc: "Carol Lei, MCTF" <s..[email protected]>, s..[email protected]
 
Here is the final agenda. Big Thanks to Sarah, Shona, and Stephanie.
 
See you all Monday,
 
Stewart
 
 
 
—
Shona Gochenaur
Executive Director
Axis of Love SF
http://www.facebook.com/axisoflove
http://www.twitter.com/axisoflove

is there a defition of commerical distrubtion?
 
 
—
Shona Gochenaur
Executive Director
Axis of Love SF
http://www.facebook.com/axisoflove
http://www.twitter.com/axisoflove

Hi, Jonathan. Welcome to the list and thanks for your enthusiasm.
 
I am old to this list and have volunteered for, donated to and worked on
many, many California cannabis initiative efforts in 38 years, only two of
which have made the ballot. Each raised more than a million dollars from a
single person to do so. I was repeatedly told during the Prop 19 campaign
that reformers need not support the language then on the ballot because it
is so "easy" to write a measure that "everyone will support" and if the
right language were written, "the money will surely follow." Activists
without any money have written and vetted numerous initiatives but can't
agree on one. It is clear that there won't be enough "free" signatures to
get any of them on the ballot by the April 20 deadline. Now it's time for
"the money to follow," as you said.
 
I'm glad you believe that will happen, but I see no evidence that it will.
George Soros put up most of the money for Prop 215. Richard Lee put up most
of the money for Prop 19. If no one will ante up with $20k at the CannaDome
or find a million-dollar donor for their campaign of choice, here's what we
have: Several opposing activist camps attacking each other with no effective
strategy to implement change. Bemoaning that money should not matter does
not solve the problem.
 
Our movement has limited money, limited energy and limited time so we should
not waste it. If this list wants to "Save Cannabis" and if we can't fund an
initiative, we have to try another strategy that doesn't require raising
money. That was my point.
 
— Chris <s..[email protected]>(phone#-removed)
_______________
 
 
 
 

I agree with most of what Chris says, except I think a healthy debate to
define direction, whether for 2012 or beyond, will be a positive. If a
miracle happens great, bit let is explore direction. And these 4 efforts
provide a great opportunity to do so. And this CAN be done without the
attacks. Let is all have a grown up conversation….
 
Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless
 
—–Original message—–
Sent: Thu, Feb 2, 2012 01:34:46 GMT+00:00
 
Hi, Jonathan. Welcome to the list and thanks for your enthusiasm.
 
I am old to this list and have volunteered for, donated to and worked on
many, many California cannabis initiative efforts in 38 years, only two of
which have made the ballot. Each raised more than a million dollars from a
single person to do so. I was repeatedly told during the Prop 19 campaign
that reformers need not support the language then on the ballot because it
is so "easy" to write a measure that "everyone will support" and if the
right language were written, "the money will surely follow." Activists
without any money have written and vetted numerous initiatives but can't
agree on one. It is clear that there won't be enough "free" signatures to
get any of them on the ballot by the April 20 deadline. Now it's time for
"the money to follow," as you said.
 
I'm glad you believe that will happen, but I see no evidence that it will.
George Soros put up most of the money for Prop 215. Richard Lee put up most
of the money for Prop 19. If no one will ante up with $20k at the CannaDome
or find a million-dollar donor for their campaign of choice, here's what we
have: Several opposing activist camps attacking each other with no effective
strategy to implement change. Bemoaning that money should not matter does
not solve the problem.
 
Our movement has limited money, limited energy and limited time so we should
not waste it. If this list wants to "Save Cannabis" and if we can't fund an
initiative, we have to try another strate

If it is true that there is no money out there that is sad,because we have a winning issue. Just a prediction but I predict a legalize marijuana initiative in Colorado will win by 4-6%. Just curious,where did the money for the first Prop 19 come from pr were activists just more active then?
Peace
Dave

You may also want to consider a place that is accessible by public education.
 
Mikki
 
Sent from my iPhone
 

Victor Licata Innocents Project:
 
Is anyone out there a trained psychologists (the kind with the fancy
collage degrees) etc.
 
We need a few such people to look over some psychological factors dealing
with Victor Licata.
 
Antique Andy
 
PS – After looking over one physical piece of evidence after another, I’m
now 100 percent convinced that that kid didn’t kill anyone.
 
 
 
—————————————–
Sent via Catholic Online Webmail!
Use Catholic Online Webmail to proclaim your faith to the world.
http://webmail.catholic.org/

I’ve been patiiently reading the stuff posted to this list every day for weeks until I simply couldn’t stand it without saying something I think needs to be said. Of course the DEA and the other sycophants being fed by a failing US drug policy are not going to commit financial suicide in a depression. They won’t jump under the bus for “justice.” That includes cops, Congress, the judicial system, growers, pot club (pardon me, “dispensary”) retailers, and yes, high volume pot docs selling their signatures at progressively cheaper rates. Not to mention a craven 4th estate that's strangely blind to (obvious) "nuances."
 
 
 
 
That oddly assorted crowd may be intellectually dishonest as hell, but they aren’t stupid enough to forget that what butters their bread is illegal weed and pushing for its "legalization" could backfire. My informal straw poll of pot applicants makes it clear that votes agains t prop19 by heads are probably what defeated it
 
 
 
 
When will it dawn on the contributors to this list that drug prohibition has been a LEGAL, as opposed to a MEDICAL, policy ever since the Supremes first used the Harrison Act of 1914 as a means to allow cops and lawyers to practice Medicine? It’s a privilege that was jealously protected from 1930 on by a wannabe cop bullshitter named Harry Anslinger whose rich uncle (in-law) created the Federal Burea of Narcotics for him in 1930. His job was to protect the policy of drug prohibition (now officially "drug control policy") and he did it well; something that was relatively easy because US (and world) drug markets remained relatively small throughout the Depression and WW2. I'm sure Anslinger was as surprised as anyone by the burst of juvenile pot enthusiasm in the Sixties after he quit; provided he wasn't too senile to notice…
 
 
 
 
When Anslinger finally mustered some courage, he pushed through the Marihjana Tax Act (a clumsy imitation of Harrison) in 1937. Nobody complained until the late Sixties when baby boomers began trying weed like crazy and the (clueless) Supremes canceled the MTA in 1969; not because it was medically unjustified, but beacuse they (somehow) decided it violated the Fith Amendment! The reason for juvenile discovery of weed? "Beat" authors who had tried it, became heads themselves and began writing about their drug experiences . Their readers were heavily concentrated in the Baby Boom demographic then just coming of age, a phenomenon that created a split between them and their "greatest generation" parents. If you ever see film clips of Chicago police beating the shit out of hippies in Grant Park across from of the hotel hosting the Dem national Convention in '68, just remember that most older Americans supported the cops. That's why Nixon was elected in November '68 by a slim margin over Hube the Cube.
 
 
 
 
Nixon’s quick fix for loss of the MTA in '69 was John Mitchell’s CSA, a costruction that gave TOTAl CONTROL of drug policy to the US ATTORNEY GENERAL (he’s the only one who can list a drug as illegal). Do you think the feds will ever willingly give up that power? Especially if it means admitting a 40 year mistake, one that that has made our prison system the biggest in the world? Not likely. Every illegal drug market in the world began growing like gangbusters right after the CSA was passed. The free advertising began with the French Connection and hasn't stopped yet. LSD, Peyote and mescaline were put on the list because hippies liked them.
 
 
 
 
Soon, the "meth" market was created by squeezing the pharmaceutical companies (mainly Smith-Klein & French @ 1962 to stop them from exporting diet pills to Mexico (they were being reimported for quite a while from the late 50s on). The next step was when biker gangs in the San Diego area learned how to cook illegal meth and transport it in their crank cases ("crank." "ice" etc.) Next came the empathogens (E) and the more recent psychedelics. As soon as a new psychotropic drug would become popular, it would be targeted by the sanctimonious do-gooder blue meanies. Most are not addictive, certainly not when compared to either cigarettes (which are tried by millions of kids) or heroin (which is only tried by the really desperate who have tried everything else first. The gov't conveniently forgets its own failure with alcohol Prohibition, a Constitutional Amendment that failed so badly it required another Amendment t repeal it in just 13years and left a legacy of organized crime that soon learned to corrupt everything in sight. Would that have append without
 
 
 
 
The bottom line is that growth of every illegal drug market (including crack) has been helped by the CSA. My study of pot applicants shows that chronic use predictably diminishes interest in all other drugs once their use of cannabis becomes chronic. That's because it treats anxiety better and more safely than its competition. The usual result is improved behavior and less use of other drugs, to say oohing of enhanced pain relief, and treatment of migraine, glaucoma, MS and IBS; probably also diabetes and hypertension. I can't think offhand of anything pot makes worse, other than one's arrest record…
 
 
 
 
The feds' remaining claim to legitimacy under schedule 1 is the weakest of all: that cannabis and other “drugs of abuse” have no “recognized medical utility” in US Medical Practice. How likely is it that US physicians who have been lobbied for years by Big Pharma and depend on the feds as their paymasters ( through control medicade and Medicare) are going to bite the hand that feeds them? If organized Medicine would just oppose pot prohibition aggressively, it could be a game changer, but I don't see that happening until demand for change becomes a band wagon.
 
 
 
 
Their response of government to Prop 215 and the other medical marijuana laws passed since ‘96 show that initiatives have lmited ability to muster public opinion in the face of implacable resistance from the federal bureaucracy. The bottom line is that the drug war is a policy the feds don't really understand themselves because they either believe their own bullshit or are incredibly cynical (probably a lot of both). Beyond that, they wouldn't have the courage to admit a forty year failure that big. Seen in the proper perspective, with an inkling of what it does to the most vulnerable children, the US drug war qualifies as a humanitarian disaster, not something to be proud of or to accept as inevitable.
 
 
 
 
My suggestions for effecting real change:
 
1) Put aside petty squabbling over tactics in favor of concerted action (like Republicans or the NRA)
 
2) Learn the real medical benefits of pot, not just the ones you approve of. It's incredibly versatile stuff that varies with mode of ingestion and could certainly be improved by an honest pharmaceutical industry able to work with it in a setting of legality.
 
3) Get behind Obama’s re election. He would be a lot better bet for conversion to sanity than either GOP candidate.
 
4) Push him hard on the issue of medical marijuana, starting with his visit on Feb 16. Be respectful; don't alienate him like NORML did with Carter. My profile of the typical user paints a big target n his back. I also think he’s smart enough to “get it.” He may have even been a closet head in Chicago for a while
 
5) Remember that if he’s re-elected, he will be the only American with the power to issue an Executive Order shutting down DEA pot arrests and he'll have that power for 4 years. Concentrating on him won't prevent lobbying for initiatives; I just think it would be a lot easier and more efficient.
 
 
 
 
Tom O'Connell
 
www.doctortom.org
 
.

Just got Kansas & Cannabis up on the web.
 
—It contains sections showing old pre-1937 Medical Cannabis
prescriptions (from Kansas).
 
—A short (Kansas) Industrial Hemp section
 
—And Kansas during the Reefer Madness era.
 
To look it over, just go to the main web-page www.AntiqueCannabisBook.com
 
and go gown towards the bottom and clip on the Kansas Flag.
 
 
 
Antique Andy
Museum Curator
s..[email protected]
www.AntiqueCannabisBook.com
www.ReeferMadnessMuseum.org
 
 
To add-remove yourself from the museums mailing list – go to:
http://drugsense.org/lists/listform.htm?antiquecannabismuseum–
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
—————————————–
Sent via Catholic Online Webmail!
Use Catholic Online Webmail to proclaim your faith to the world.
http://webmail.catholic.org/