This is the first time since 1972 that marijuana legalization has been on the ballot in California. In California, convicted felons retain their right to vote except when incarcerated. You should register to vote, register your friends to vote, vote absentee or drag them to the polls on Nov. 2, 2010 to legalize marijuana in California for adults 21 and above once and for all.

VOTE YES ON PROP 19, California's Tax Cannabis 2010 Initiative

Cannabis Expert Chris Conrad explains why cannabis reformers should all vote Yes on Nov. 2, 2010

Watch his explanation on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFHYkL2NkJ4

Chris Conrad is an internationally known cannabis expert recognized by the California Supreme and Appellate Court, author of Cannabis Yields and Dosage, Hemp: Lifeline to the Future, and Hemp for Health, co-author with Jack Heres of the California Hemp Initiative, and grass roots coordinator for the Proposition 215 Compassionate Use Initiative petition drive. Heconsulted on SB 420 and in drafting Proposition 19. He is curator of the Hash, Marihuana and Hemp Museum (Amsterdam, NL) and an instructor at Oaksterdam University. He has maintained an ongoing dialogue with cannabis reformers who are working against the initiative in an effort to clear up misunderstandings, some legitimate and others

Stop the 'Stoners Against Legalization' attacks on the initiative;
Copy and pass out these PDF flyers Flyer # 1 • Flyer # 2

Don't fall for the phony 'Stoner' claims about Prop 19. Read the initiative, check the facts, compare to other laws, see for yourself and you will Vote Yes on Prop 19.

Dragonfly de la Luz is completely wrong about Prop 19. We prove it below. We prove it again. We prove it again.

Chris Conrad debates Dragonfly de la Luz on why people should Vote Yes on Prop 19 (MP3 file).

Letitia Pepper is completely wrong about Prop 19. We prove it below.

Chris Conrad and KC Kimber set the record straight: Dennis Peron was Wrong About Prop 19: Please Vote Yes

There has been a rash of misunderstandings, arguments and false claims about the Tax Cannabis 2010 Initiative among the people who stand tobenefit most from legalization. Most of these are generated from two sources, the narcotics police who make their living busting cannabis consumers and providers, and drug dealers who benefit from keeping marijuana illegal by inflating the prices to consumers. Don't be fooled. Please vote yes on Prop 19.

The problem is that they are influencing people who should know better, hence the discussion below. Please consider the following and VOTE YES ON NOV. 2!

The Great Dragonfly Hoax Exposed

Colleagues, DPFCA DPFCA <dpfca@drugsense.org>

Legal adult marijuana is going to be one of the greatest things to ever happen to California, if it passes. It could well pass unless the reformers founder rather than sail to victory by organizing and voting Yes on Prop 19.

I don't know who Dragonfly is and so I apologize in advance if I hurt her feelings, but she is hurting our movement and aiding and abetting the Drug Warriors, so my tone may seem curt. Your notion that it will be easy to make reforms if the initiative loses but hard if it passes is just ridiculous, dangerous and misleading.

-- Chris Conrad, court-qualified cannabis expert and consultant
www.chrisconrad.com / www.safeaccessnow.net
______________________________

Here's the deal: Read over California's marijuana laws: http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/calmjlaws.html

Then read Prop 19: Prop 19 Fact Check and Rumor Control

When you compare the two, you will see the light and Vote Yes on Prop 19.

NOTE: Dragonfly periodically changes her blog; this is the original version I responded to. The latest version was printed in LA Jemm magazine and is rebutted above.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html

Stoners Against the Prop. 19 Tax Cannabis Initiative
this blog takes an intelligent approach to
evaluating the 2010 tax cannabis initiative
proposed for california's november ballot.
STONER BEWARE: this initiative is NOT what you
think it is. if you are passionate about
marijuana and legalization, read this blog and
see what the initiative really says. then just
vote KNOW.

If you vote ignorant, you will vote no.
If you vote KNOW, you will Vote YES on Prop 19.

Saturday, July 10, 2010
WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE THE 2010 TAX
CANNABIS INITIATIVE: 18 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW
"People think it's legalization, it's being sold
as legalization-even though it's the opposite of
legalization." - Dennis Peron, author of Prop.
215 that legalized medical marijuana in
California

Dennis Peron is completely wrong about this and almost everything I have ever heard him say about Prop 19. You cannot believe what he says about it, read the initiative for yourself. For example Prop 19: "11300 (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to: (i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale." Then it goes on to allow communities to regulate sales. That is legalized marijuana. BTW, let's be honest here: Dennis was ONE OF the authors of Prop 215, but Soros, Lewis and other financial backers put up the money that got Prop 215 on the ballot that legalized MMJ in CA, so you should be thanking lots of other people as much as Peron.

First argument: False

Dragonfly De La Luz

Who is Dragonfly de la Luz? Just curious. She didn't work on Prop 215, she didn't work on SB 420, and was never heard of in activist circles until the summer of her discontent. She is a trimmer who writes bud reviews.

When most marijuana activists, growers and
consumers first heard about an initiative that
would legalize cannabis in California, they
thought it was a pipe dream come true. To many,
legalization implied that it would no longer be
a crime to possess, consume or distribute
marijuana. Cannabis consumers rejoiced at the
idea of being able to buy from their neighbors
or at parties-just as they already do-with no
legal retribution. Small-time growers envisioned
being free to sell their product to those who
sought them out, with no legal repercussions.
Marijuana activists thought it meant that people
would stop getting arrested for pot, and that
the drug war would finally be over.

Some people had a pipe dream, but some of us have worked very hard through the political process for more than 20 years, and we can tell you that it is not magic, it is a long term, step by step, incremental process of compromises, advances, defeats, tactical retreats, advances and shifting strategies. Richard Lee has sponsored a terrific initiative package, so please Vote Yes on Prop 19.

But now that the initiative is headed to ballot, many
pro-legalization supporters are coming out
against it. Why?

Wrong: The vast majority strongly support Prop 19. A small but noisy band of insurgents fall into three camps: 1) People filled with idealism and good intentions who don't understand the initiative but are afraid of the change; 2) People who are misled by Dennis Peron's misinformation campaign, and; 3) Some growers, dealers, and storefront dispensaries (eg., CannaCare) who want to keep pot illegal for their financial self interest but come up with a lot of fake claims to hide their real motives. There is also a category of lukewarm supporters who don't like certain details of Prop 19 and will "hold their nose and vote for it," but they don't oppose it, they are unenthusiastic. A steady majority of voters think it's a good approach and indicate they are likely to vote Yes. Most of the activists and general public I talk to are enthusiastic supporters who can't believe all the whining from the fringes, and they are proud and excited to Vote Yes on Prop 19.

Simply put, the Regulate, Control and Tax
Cannabis Initiative does not reflect most
people's ideas of what legalization would be.
The media often incorrectly reports that this
initiative calls for "full legalization" of
marijuana. It does not. In fact, it reverses
many of the freedoms marijuana consumers
currently enjoy, pushes growers out of the
commercial market, paves the way for the
corporatization of cannabis, and creates new
prohibitions and felonies where there are none
now. Apparently, to be pro-legalization and
pro-initiative are two different things entirely.

Wrong again, Prop 19 is exactly what most Californians want legalization to be: Regulated, legal adult access for adults 21 and above, something along the line of beer or wine, where adults can make some for themselves or to share, but if you're going to distribute it you need to follow the law and pay your taxes.

It is absolutely false to say that it creates new felonies despite Peron's misrepresentations. Show me the new felonies. You can't do it because there are none, that is sheer fabrication, aka a lie.

The only felonies in the initiative have been on the books for decades -- so what have Dragonfly or Peron done to get rid of them in all these years? Absolutely nothing. How does voting against the initiative affect them? It doesn't help at all to vote no, so you might as well do something that will help California, and go down in history as one of the greatest votes ever cast to end prohibition. Vote Yes on Prop 19.

The late-Jack Herer, legendary marijuana
activist known as the father of the legalization
movement, vehemently opposed the initiative. In
the last words of his impassioned final speech,
moments before the heart attack that would
eventually claim his life, he urged people not
to support it.[1]

Wrong again, Jack Herer's last words onstage before his heart attack were "I'll see you next time." He also vehemently opposed Prop 215 until just before it made the ballot. Jack said that Dennis Peron doesn't really want marijuana legalized, and warned everyone that we would be stuck forever with nothing but medical marijuana if we passed Prop 215 because once they got theirs, patients and activists would stop working for legalization. Jack's family has expressed support for Prop 19. He had taxes in the initiative he co-authored and promoted. Listen to Bruce Cain debate Jodi Emery on Time for Hemp with Casper Leitch, then vote yes on Prop 19.

Proposition 215 author, Dennis
Peron, likewise denounced the initiative, saying
it is not legalization, but "thinly-veiled
prohibition."[2]

Dennis is wrong; he thinks marijuana is already legal and if you say to a cop "hey, man, all use is medical" he has to let you go. Maybe that's true in Dragonfly Land, but not in California. Listen to Peron debate Lynette Shaw on Time for Hemp, then vote yes on Prop 19.

Compared to the present status of cannabis in
California, many marijuana activists see this
initiative as a giant leap backward. Ironically,
it appears that marijuana is more "legal" in
California today than it would be if this
initiative were to pass.

It's more legal to be illegal than to be legal? That's the kind of false logic that gives "stoners" a bad reputation, but smart stoners will vote Yes on Prop 19.

The initiative itself is a hazy maze of
regulations and controls, some of which are
ambiguous and confusing even for those
well-versed in marijuana law.

Dragonfly is not a lawyer. Peron is not. Nor am I, Chris Conrad, but I do know how to read law and was involved in writing SB 420 and have been quoted by the California Supreme and Appeals courts, having testified in more than 215 criminal marijuana cases. Click here to learn more about me. The initiative is clear, detailed law and well written with the help of activists, attorneys, political consultants, constitutional lawyers and reviewed by election lawyers. It is very good law and will stand up to the challenges that it will likely face.

Understandably,
many who have entered the discussion seem to
have bypassed the initiative altogether and gone
straight to their own assumptions of what an
initiative that claims to legalize marijuana
might entail, injecting the debate with as many
misconceptions as facts. But for an issue that
would have such a direct and unprecedented
impact on our daily lives, it's crucial to
decide your vote based on knowledge, rather than
assumption.

So don't listen to Dragonfly, Peron, Davies or any of the other people putting out this kind of deception.

To clarify a few of the most glaring myths about
the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis
Initiative, I have compiled this guide to help
you VOTE KNOW!

It doesn't clarify an issue by throwing BS on it. Vote Yes on Prop 19.

Myth #1: The initiative will end the War on
Drugs and substantially reduce marijuana
arrests, saving millions in prison costs.
Fact: Hardly. The federal drug war will continue
to drone on, of course, and growing or
possessing any amount of marijuana would still
be illegal under federal law. Anyone growing or
possessing cannabis without a doctor's
recommendation would still be subject to arrest
and seizure by the federal police-although on
the bright side, the Obama administration
recently announced it will no longer raid
individuals who are operating in compliance with
medical marijuana law.[3]

Dragonfly is not stating facts, she is giving "myths" then debating false assertions as a reason to oppose legalizing marijuana. Prop 215 didn't change federal law, and the US Supreme Court's Gonzalez v Raich decision held that national drug laws do not have to conform with California law and vice versa. Maybe marijuana arrests have ended in Dragonfly Land, but here in California about 70,000 people get arrested every year for marijuana, the vast majority for amounts that will be legal after Prop 19 passes, and untold thousands of people who go to prison for parole violations might well be spared, as well. Obama's policy affects medical only with or without Prop 19, but it doesn't stop federal arrests and, again according to the Raich decision, federallythere is no such thing as medical marijuana, it's all just as illegal. So the inference should be that our state's non-medical marijuana laws are just as valid as our medical use laws. Vote Yes on Prop 19.

Contrary to popular assumption, the drug war in
California will not end, nor will it be impacted
much by the initiative. This is because the
initiative doesn't call for full legalization;
it proposes to legalize possession of only up to
one ounce. And in California, there is no "drug
war" being fought against possession of up to
one ounce, because marijuana is already
decriminalized.

The penalty for carrying an ounce is a mere
citation and maximum $100 fine.[4] Moreover,
possession of one ounce is on its way to being
downgraded from a misdemeanor to an infraction,
because the state Senate voted in June to
reclassify its status. [5] No one goes to jail
for having an ounce or less in California, and
no one gets arrested, because it is not an
arrestable offense.

Prop 19 was not written to end the entire drug war but to legalize personal adult cultivation, sharing and use with a nominal limit of one ounce. Most people only have less than that at any given time. Patients who need more will still get a Prop 215 doctor's note to take advantage of the 8 ounce immunity in SB420 (HS11362.77a).

Dragonfly may not mind people being labeled as outlaws and subject to tickets and fines for non-medical marijuana including felony prosecution for small personal cultivation, but I see the human suffering and damage done by these laws do every day in court. Richard Lee, myself and a majority of Californians want to put an end to this travesty, so we plan to Vote Yes on Prop 19.

One often-quoted statistic in the initiative
debate is that misdemeanor marijuana possession
arrests reached 61,388 in 2008.[6] However, it
is important to note that this statistic does
not refer to any arrest demographic that the
Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative
would affect. This statistic refers only to
possession of more than one ounce, possession by
minors and possession on school grounds
-offenses which the initiative will not
legalize. It does not refer to nor does it
include marijuana arrests for possession of one
ounce or less, because this is not an arrestable
offense. Therefore, the initiative would have no
impact on reducing these arrests rates.

Here is a stated purpose of Prop 19: Prop 19: "10. Stop arresting thousands of non-violent cannabis consumers, freeing up police resources and saving millions of dollars each year, which could be used for apprehending truly dangerous criminals and keeping them locked up, and for other essential state needs that lack funding."

Right now, the mere odor of marijuana is probable cause for a search, being around marijuana and marijuana users can be a probation or parole violation, and cops use pot as an excuse to pull people off the street because they don't like the way they dress, harrassing them, searching them, finding a joint and arresting who doesn't have proper identification. Things like that happen about 200 times every day in California leading to an arrest plus uncounted hundreds of times that the cop doesn't find pot, so they merely harass people. We can stop police harassment of pot smokers. Vote Yes on Prop 19.

Statistically, the demographic that accounts for
nearly one-quarter of total arrests for
marijuana possession in California happens to be
those in the 18-20 age group. But because the
initiative explicitly makes it illegal for even
adults age 18-20 to possess marijuana, these
arrests will not decrease, and the drug war
against young adults will rage on.

Yes, Prop 19 is for people 21 and above. And if we don't pass Prop 19 it is still not legal for 18-20 year olds, but it also won't be legal for people 21 and above. So we can keep it illegal for adults and not help teenagers either! That's a great idea, Dragonfly, that way everybody is screwed instead of just some people; or we can Vote Yes on Prop 19.

Furthermore, since the initiative would keep
possession of amounts greater than one ounce
illegal and likewise maintain the illegality of
private sales of any amount, the overall impact
that the initiative would have on ending the
drug war, reducing arrest rates and saving on
prison costs would be negligible, at best.

Wrong again, Dragonfly. "11304 (c) in a criminal proceeding a person accused of violating a limitation in this Act shall have the right to an affirmative defense that the cannabis was reasonably related to his or her personal consumption." The savings are uncertain, but they certainly are not negligible. And think about the people's lives that will be saved from the prison industrial complex when Californians Vote Yes on Prop 19.

As an example of how highly misunderstood this
initiative and its potential impact on the drug
war is, the California NAACP recently pledged
their support for the initiative based on the
belief that it will put an end to the
disproportionately high number of
African-American youth going to jail "over a
joint." [7] But in reality, the initiative will
have no impact on this phenomenon whatsoever. As
it is now, the State of California does not jail
people for having a joint; it is not an
arrestable offense.

We tried that in the 1970s, and what happened? The 1980s drug war. Just a little illegal is not good enough: Legal marijuana for all adults is what we get once we all Vote Yes on Prop 19.

And, as mentioned above,
possession of up to one ounce is on its way to
being reclassified from a misdemeanor to an
infraction-which carries no criminal-record
stigma. The state does, however, incarcerate
people for selling small amounts of marijuana.
And since this initiative keeps private
marijuana sales illegal, no matter the quantity,
there will be no decrease in the number of
African Americans-or anyone else-arrested for
selling a joint.

This is not a dealers' initiative, it is to legalize personal use and lay the framework for a regulated non-medical adult market. I don't know of anybody being arrested for selling a joint, but I know a lot of people who are busted for not having a current doctor's note or for having less than an ounce of cannabis broken into multiple bags by strain because the cop said it was intended for sale. We can end this if we all Vote Yes on Prop 19.

Not only does the initiative do little or
nothing to end the drug war, but ironically, it
could in fact expand the drug war, because it
imposes new felonies and prohibitions against
marijuana that do not exist currently.

This is patently false, Prop 19 removes three misdemeanors, and one felony to the code and it does not add even a single misdemeanor; it merely increases the maximum penalty for the misdemeanor of knowingly furnishing non-medical cannabis to someone aged 18-20. Moreover, it empowers the legislature to reduce those penalties, so I suggest that Dragonfly should embark on a political campaign to reduce that penalty after we all Vote Yes on Prop 19.

Contrary to the belief that it will keep people
out of jail for marijuana, this initiative
actually creates new demographics of people to
incarcerate. (See Fact #2 and Fact #3) It is
difficult to see how the government would save
on court and imprisonment costs if the
initiative merely shifts arrests from one
demographic to another.

See my refutation of her False Claim #2 and False Claim #3, and vote Yes on Prop 19. Remember that the onus and stigma against cannabis will be less after it is legal than it is now that it is a criminal pastime. The unstated purpose of the initiative is to integrate cannabis demographics into mainstream society.

Myth #2: The initiative will keep young adults
out of jail for using marijuana.
Fact: This initiative would put more young
people in jail for pot. If it becomes law, any
adult 21 or over who passes a joint to another
adult aged 18-20 would face six months in jail
and a $1,000 fine. [8] (NORML's Web site reports
that the current penalty for a gift of marijuana
of 1 oz. or less is a $100 fine.[9])

It's currently a misdemeanor offense with a potential arrest, fine and criminal record to pass a non-medical joint to anyone of any age. If the initiative passes you can lawfully share with other adults but it will be a more serious misdemeanor to share with minors. In either case, adults who share with an underage person you can also be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, reckless endangerment, intent to sell, depending on the circumstances how bad a mood the police officer feels, and although parents who smoke marijuana do not face such a risk, parents who smoke with their children could face loss of custody, with or without Prop 19.

Polls of voters find almost no support for legalizing at age 18, when people are still in high school. Californians by and large want people to get into trouble for selling or even giving pot to teens, and this initiative compromises on that point by not creating a new offense but by adjusting the penalty up from an 11360(b) misdemeanor and a $100 fine to being a misdemeanor with a penalty that is analogous to furnishing alcohol to a minor and ranges up to $1000 fine and 6 months in county jail.

Myth #3: You'll be able to light up freely in the privacy of your home.
Fact: That depends. Under the initiative, even
adults consuming marijuana in the privacy of
their homes could face arrest if there are
minors present (not something one would expect
from an initiative that claims to treat
marijuana like alcohol and tobacco)[10] .
Current marijuana law contains no such
restrictions. Thanks to Prop. 215, which
legalized marijuana for medicinal use, cannabis
consumers have been legally free to smoke in the
privacy of their homes since 1997. This
initiative seeks to undermine that freedom,
making it absolutely illegal to smoke marijuana
if there are minors present. (The initiative is
ambiguous with regard to whether "present" means
being in the same room as the consumer, the same
house, the same apartment building, or within
wafting distance-apparently leaving this up to
the interpretation of judges.) There is no
exception for medical marijuana patients or for
parents consuming in the presence of their own
children.

Adults certainly will be able to smoke in their homes but they would be advised not to smoke around kids. Smoking around minors will remain at the same penalties as now, nothing different. Prop 215 is preserved and will have the same force and effect with or without Prop 19. If you want to change this, you should support Assemblyman Tom Ammiano's bill in the state legislature implementing initiative Section 5 and excepting patients and parents or guardians -- but on Nov 2, Vote for Prop 19.

Myth #4: Under the initiative, anyone 21 or over
will be allowed to grow marijuana in a 5'x5' space.
Fact: Not quite. This allotment is per property,
not per person. If you share a residence with
other people, you'll be sharing a 5'x5' grow
space, as well. Even if you own multiple acres
that many people live on, if it is considered
one parcel, the space restriction of 5'x5' (3-6
plants) will still apply. [11] Plus, if you
rent, you will be required to obtain permission
from your landlord-which they may be unwilling
to grant since doing so will subject them to
forfeiture by the federal government.

Yes, without a doctor's note adults will be able to grow 25 square feet at their residence, which is not legal now. "Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property," like they can tell you now whether or not you can have a pet or add a hot tub. You could also get a doctor's note and grow your 6 plants, your local guideline amount or a reasonable medical or personal quatity. Right now, no doctor's note, you're busted for a felony. Period. You can fight it under PC 1000 to get a deferred entry of judgement, but if you follow the rules of Prop 19 after it passes, you don't have do go through that, you would be completely legal. Right now if you're a patient and the cop doesn't accept your vote, you're busted. Sure, you might win in court, but if Prop 19 passes and you stay within its rules, you won't even face arrest. That's an improvement. Vote Yes on Prop 19.

Myth #5: Adults 21 and over will be able to
possess up to one ounce of marijuana without
penalty.
Fact: Perhaps the most ironic piece of the
puzzle is that the initiative to legalize
marijuana actually makes it illegal to possess
marijuana if it was purchased anywhere other
than the very few licensed dispensaries in the
state.[12] So if this initiative passes, better
not get caught carrying marijuana you bought off
your neighbor, your current dealer, or at a
party; you could get arrested. And if you do buy
from a licensed dispensary, better keep your
receipts, because the burden of proof will be on
you. Not only is this inconvenient, but it sets
the industry up to be monopolized.

That's nor ironic, it is false and misleading. I pasted the initiative text below but just want to point out that people without a doctor's note will be able to grow and share their own garden product, keep the harvest and defend reasonable amounts in court by an affirmative defense if that becomes necessary.

Prop 19: "Section 3: Lawful Activities: Health and Safety Code, Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.
(ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption." ...

"11304 (c) in a criminal proceeding a person accused of violating a limitation in this Act shall have the right to an affirmative defense that the cannabis was reasonably related to his or her personal consumption."

What's more, if your city decides not to tax
cannabis, then buying and selling marijuana in
the city limits would remain illegal. You would
be permitted to possess and consume marijuana,
but you would be required to travel to another
city that taxes cannabis to buy it.[13] This is
a move towards decreased, not increased, access.
And since the initiative is so ambiguous that
cities are destined to be tied up in a legal
quagmire over how to interpret it, many local
governments might find it simpler just to
opt-out and send its citizens elsewhere. Indeed,
129 cities did just that with medical marijuana,
banning it outright, while still others have
established moratoriums against dispensaries. In
fact, of the entire state, only the city of
Oakland has endorsed the initiative. A vote for
the initiative will therefore not ensure local
access to purchase marijuana legally.

Time Warp: Now Dragonfly is blaming Prop 19 for stuff that's happening before it has even passed. Or people can grow it or get it from friends or buy off the black market same as now. Currently no city can regulate non-medical sales under state law but after Prop 19 passes that will be allowed. That alone resolves the question once for all about the legality of cannabis dispensaries, which GOP candidate for Attorney General (Vote against him) Steve Cooley says all illegal under SB 420. If Cooley wins and voters reject the initiative you can count on him going after the collectives full force. So everyone who loves the dispensaries should Vote Yes on Prop 19.

Myth #6: The initiative will free up cops to focus on bigger crimes.
Fact: Decriminalization has already achieved
this. The California Police Chiefs Association
publicly admits that they do not waste their
time on cases involving an ounce or less.[14]
Moreover, many cities have already passed
measures that require law enforcement to make
marijuana possession their lowest priority.

What the initiative would do is create new
prohibitions and felonies where there were none
before, obligating police officers to spend
valuable time enforcing them. The cases cops
presently de-prioritize are minor offenses, like
simple possession. But the initiative takes
minor offenses and reclassifies them as more
serious crimes (e.g., passing a joint to an
adult 18-20). Law enforcement's time is freed up
by the elimination of prohibition, not by
exchanging old prohibitions for new ones.

Currently non-medical marijuana cultivation by anyone of any age of any amount is a felony. Possession of less than an ounce is now a misdemeanor and drops to an infraction on Jan 1. Giving away less than an ounce is a misdemeanor. Transporting less than an ounce is a misdemeanor. That is the current law. Prop 19 would make all those activities legal for adults over age 21. Passing a joint to a minor will be a slightly more serious misdemeanor. That's the trade off. It is well worth making that trade.

Her argument seems to be that we should keep pot illegal so cops can keep ingoring the law rather than legalize it so the cops have no say. It is still completely wrong for her to infer any new felonies, when the fact is that the initiative does not create any new felonies. Even in Dragonfly Land, it does not make a false statement true simply to say it a few times, when a statement is false, it's still false.

Myth #7: Marijuana tax revenue will go toward education and health care.
Fact: As it is now, state budget cuts have
resulted in the closing of state parks, and
health care for impoverished children has been
revoked, not to mention thousands of government
lay-offs. But marijuana taxes will not be
earmarked for health care, public education, the
re-opening of state parks, or rehiring of
laid-off government employees. Instead, the
initiative specifically states that any
marijuana tax revenue can be used toward
enforcing the new prohibitions that the
initiative enacts.[15] In this regard, not only
does the initiative not end the drug war, it
apparently taxes the drug to fund the drug war.

In Dragonfly Land legalizers can direct tax money wherever the want, but in California it is complicated and takes a supermajority of voters to pass a directed tax. What you are talking about is the part of Prop 19 that allows a city to collect permit and licensing fees that cover the cost of regulating adult sales. That's not prohibition. It's more like charging big trucks road taxes to pay for road repairs. The increased tax revenue comes from those licenses and permits, sales taxes, increased spending and income taxes of people who own or work at legal cannabis businesses. It is the ability to get those permit and licensing fees and any voter approved excise taxes that provides the incentive for localities to regulate sales. That's what will end the stigma and generate the money and the constituencies for long term local change, so Vote Yes for Prop 19.

Myth #8: Marijuana growers will be able to sell cannabis legally.
Fact: Currently, marijuana growers in California
who have a medical recommendation can and do
grow and provide marijuana legally. Entire
economies in Northern California exist on this
industry. However, the initiative would make it
illegal for anyone to sell marijuana, unless
they own a licensed dispensary.[ 16] (See Fact
#9)

Many have suggested that growers could open
marijuana-tasting venues, similar to
wine-tasting at vineyards. A grower might have a
chance of opening such a place, but only if he
gave his product away for free, because selling
it would be illegal unless he successfully
navigated the notoriously difficult and
prohibitively expensive process of obtaining
licensure.

Prop 19 purposes 7 and 8 refer to ", except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9." That means that Prop 215 and SB 420 are exempt from the restraints of Prop 19 which affects non medical adult use only and not medical marijuana, so Vote Yes for 19.

Myth #9: Anyone can obtain a license to legally
sell cannabis and compete in the market.
Fact: Few people will be able to compete in the
multibillion- dollar marijuana market if the
initiative passes. This is because the licensing
process, engineered in Oakland, is exceptionally
restrictive. Of the more than a thousand
dispensaries operating in California until a
recent L.A. crackdown, only a handful were
licensed. (Conveniently, Richard Lee, the
millionaire behind the initiative, owns one of
them). In Oakland, the city that's setting the
precedent in the tax cannabis push, a license
costs $30,000. Per year. Not to mention the
rigorous application process, in which even
well-established, law-abiding dispensaries have
been denied.

Furthermore, Oakland has started a trend of
capping the number of licensed dispensaries
allowed to operate (in Oakland, that number is
four). This all but guarantees that the average,
small-time marijuana grower will be shut out of
this multibillion- dollar industry,
concentrating the profits of the potential
economic boon in the hands of a small minority
of wealthy entrepreneurs who are already making
moves to monopolize the industry. Under this
initiative, the marijuana industry will not be a
free market in which everyone has a chance to
compete. Instead, the initiative could mark the
beginning of the corporatization of marijuana.
(See also Fact #15)

In Dragonfly Land there will be pipe dream legalization with no glitches and smooth sailing forever without a ripple of blowback, but here in California It will be easier to get the licensing process moving once sales are legal. This is a long term social and political game with enormous cultural and economic stakes, and we have to develop the infrastructure, the economic clout and the serious political constituency to keep moving forward. Dragonfly's game plan of one day it magically changes just is not realistic. All this other stuff is sour grapes. If you want to sell pot legally, Dragonfly, you're going to do the legwork. Don't gripe about Richard Lee, who did the hard work and proved it can be done. He has my utmost respect and I do not sanction such attacks on him. Let's talk about the intiative, not your personal prejudices. I agree that we need to protect the small and medium growers, and the mom-and-pop economics as well, but we can work that out as we go if you Vote Yes on Prop 19.

Myth #10: Medical marijuana patients would be exempt from the initiative.
Fact: This is not exactly true. While amendments
were made ostensibly to prevent the initiative
from affecting current medical marijuana law, a
careful reading of the initiative reveals that
this is not, in fact, the case. Certain medical
marijuana laws are exempt from the prohibitions
the initiative would enact, while others are
glaringly absent.

Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably
non-exempt.[ 17] In spite of the fact that the
tax cannabis Web site says otherwise, the only
medical marijuana exemptions that the Regulate,
Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative actually
makes are with regard to possession, consumption
and purchase limits, which only ensure that
patients would still be allowed to buy medicine
at dispensaries. The word "cultivate" is
conspicuously absent. Whereas today a person
with a doctor's recommendation has the right to
grow up to an unlimited number of plants, the
initiative would drastically reduce that number
to whatever can fit in a 5'x5' footprint (around
3-6 plants-per property, not per person). This
will force many patients to resort to buying
instead of growing their own medicine, because
of the inconvenience caused by producing
multiple grows a year rather than growing a
year's supply of medicine at one time, as many
patients currently do outdoors. And growing
indoors-which typically requires special grow
lights, an increase in hydro use, and a lot of
time and attention-is a comparatively expensive
endeavor.

The initiative would further impact medical
marijuana patients by banning medicating in the
privacy of their own homes if there are minors
present, as well as in public (currently
perfectly legal[18])-an invaluable liberty to
those with painful diseases who would otherwise
have to suffer until they got home to relieve
their pain.

Finally, the medical marijuana laws that are
exempted from this initiative apparently only
apply to cities. For medical marijuana patients
who live in an area that has county or local
government jurisdiction, according to a strict
reading of the initiative, medical marijuana
laws are not exempt.[19]

Prop 19 purpose "7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9."
"8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9."

Cultivation is mentioned in the very next purpose # 8, which Dragonfly conveniently left out. Also HS 11362.5 and HS11362.765, 11362.77 ad 11332.775 all include cultivation so it is included by virtue of the statutes cited. Smoking around minors is not criminalized, it's left in its presently decriminalized status as I mentioned before. The People v Kelly decision already has determined that a qualified patient is entitled to a reasonable quantity, so medical marijuana is one way to get around the 5x5 limitation, and if you don't want to do that you have an affirmative defense under the initiative that does not exist in the current state laws. I do notice an error in the writing of the statute, however, because it is not illegal to buy marijuana in California and this does not create any statute making purchases illegal, so a court might rule that the words "buying and" should be stricken from the initiative, but it doesn't change anything. You have to know what current California law is to understand these nuances, so unless you know all the current marijuana laws by number and like them better than the initiative, you should Vote Yes on Prop 19.

Myth #11: Marijuana smokers will be free to
smoke cannabis wherever cigarette smoking is
allowed.
Fact: Actually, that's the way it is now in
California. There is no law prohibiting medical
marijuana from being smoked wherever cigarette
smoking is permitted.[20] Young adults taking
bong hits in Golden Gate Park on a Sunday
afternoon is just part of the San Francisco
scenery. However, if this initiative passes,
that freedom would disappear and we could see
cops policing smoking areas to enforce this
law.[21]

Dragonfly is correct that the initiative does not legalize smoking bong hits in the park with minors. What it does is to leaves smoking around minors or smoking in public in the same legal status as it is now, a decrim misdemeanor, which Dragonfly was just saying is no big deal and now it seems to be the end or the world. In other words the initiative does not change those laws, so you might as well Vote Yes on Prop 19.

Myth #12: Currently imprisoned non-violent
marijuana offenders would be released.
Fact: The initiative makes no call to release
prisoners who are behind bars for any marijuana
offense, no matter how minor. In fact, because
it introduces new prohibitions where none exist
now, the initiative could potentially be
responsible for locking even more people up for
marijuana.

That doesn't have to be in the initiative, we already have that right. California already allows a prisoner or a person charged with an offense to have the benefits of a change in the law. That was cited in the People v Trippet case. Once Prop 19 is passed, you can help people fill out their paperwork to get out, but if it doesn't pass you can kiss their asses goodbye again. A few lines back you were saying that we don't need to legalize marijuana because cops don't arrest people while it's illegal but now you're convinced that once it's legal, the police are going to change track and start rounding people up? Maybe it's time to stop taking bong hits with teenagers in the park anyway, Dragonfly, because you're starting to sound paranoid. If you know the current laws, you would be paranoid and you would for sure want to Vote Yes on Prop 19.

Myth #13: Counties in which marijuana
cultivation currently thrives will experience
increased economic growth.
Fact: Entire economies could collapse in
counties that currently rely on cultivating
marijuana. Right now, the multibillion- dollar
marijuana industry is legally subsidizing
thousands of incomes in areas where unemployment
is skyrocketing. For example, Mendocino County,
the biggest pot-producing county in the U.S.,
reports that a full two-thirds of its economy is
dependent on marijuana.[22] Much of this is due
to current state medical marijuana laws, which
allow people to legally cultivate plants and
provide them to marijuana pharmacies. But this
economy supports more than just farmers.

Many local store owners report that without
marijuana farmers patronizing their businesses
with cash, they would go out of business.
Moreover, legitimate medical marijuana growers
employ tens of thousands of seasonal workers,
mostly young adults, who have managed to eke out
a living in a region where none other exists,
and who otherwise would have few local options
to support themselves. The more humble among
them are able to make a living that sustains
them modestly throughout much of the year.
Thousands more are able to subsidize low-paying
jobs, make up for shortages in their college
funding, and start creative projects such as
fashion design, music production, or art. But
because the initiative would limit the number of
plants one could grow from up to an unlimited
amount to about six, thousands of small-time
medical marijuana farmers and the young adults
they employ would face economic displacement and
hardship, or join the ranks of the unemployed.
(For more on this, see Fact #15.)

Mendocino County has been imploding on itself and taking down patient grows all over the place. There's no problems in Dragonfly Land, but the black market aspects of marijuana are not just medical collective gardens, it involves international drug cartels, large scale grows in national forests, diesel spills from generators and all sorts of non-medical issues that need to be addressed legally and above board. The medical marijuana aspect is only a fraction of the issue.

Here's the deal: Prop 215, SB420 and the patient growers have changed the economics of marijuana by changing the supply. Prices are moving downward but the number of busts has not gone down. Prop 19 preserves the medical marijuana laws and brings in the element of non-medical use. Whatever the economics of medical marijuana, that is a separate issue. With or without Prop 19 it will be the people who see the change and make it work for them. That's how we've gotten to the point where we are as a movement. The initiative offers a common sense approach that will create a normal business environment down the road where the customers are not being arrested. Vote Yes on Prop 19.

Myth #14: The initiative will create an
employment boon similar to California's wine
industry.
Fact: Comparisons with the wine industry are no
true basis for determining the potential revenue
recreational marijuana could create, because the
wine industry does not operate under the same
restrictions the marijuana industry would face.
Namely, there's no cap on how many wineries can
operate in California, or how many grapes each
vineyard can grow. There are currently almost
3,000 vineyards in the state, whereas since the
April crackdown in L.A., there are fewer than
300 dispensaries (of which only a few are
licensed). Moreover, if cities continue to
follow the trend set by Oakland and cap the
number of licensed dispensaries allowed to
operate, then the thousands of people currently
legally employed by dispensaries would dwindle
drastically.

Prop 19 does not put a cap on the number of cannabis growers or vendors in the state, that would be determined by the open market and local regulations. The fact that LA shut down the collectives is not an argument against the initiative, it is another very good reason to Vote Yes on Prop 19.

Myth #15: The initiative will limit the viability of Mexican drug cartels.
Fact: Mexican drug cartels are already being
undermined tremendously thanks to the legions of
small-time farmers growing in California. The
Washington Post reported on October 7, 2009:

"Almost all of the marijuana consumed in the
multibillion- dollar U.S. market once came from
Mexico or Colombia. Now as much as half is
produced domestically, often by small-scale
operators who painstakingly tend greenhouses and
indoor gardens to produce the more potent…
product that consumers now demand, according to
authorities and marijuana dealers on both sides
of the border. … Stiff competition from
thousands of mom-and-pop marijuana farmers in
the United States threatens the bottom line for
powerful Mexican drug organizations in a way
that decades of arrests and seizures have not,
according to law enforcement officials and pot
growers in the United States and Mexico."[23]

These mom-and-pop growers don't fit the
stereotype of the gang-war era drug pusher or
Mexican drug cartel growing marijuana
irresponsibly and setting forests on fire. Many
of them are law-abiding citizens, legally
growing medical marijuana under Prop. 215.
They're the people you see at your local organic
health food store, or shopping in the community,
putting much-needed cash directly into the local
economy while the national economy flounders in
recession. These small-time marijuana farmers
use the money they earn from providing medicine
to finance their kids' education, help out their
laid-off parents and put themselves through
school. In some cases, entire communities depend
on them.

However, if this initiative passes, these
growers that are single-handedly undercutting
the Mexican drug cartels would no longer be able
to legally operate and the face of the marijuana
industry could change from the local one we
recognize to an impersonal corporate entity,
leaving a spate of displaced marijuana farmers
in its wake.

Yes they would, Dragonfly, and I wish you would read the statutes that are preserved, namely the medical marijuana laws, before you make these ridiculous claims. They will be able to keep growing and so would non-medical adult growers and so would licensed businesses. This is like saying, "if we end Alcohol Prohibition in 1933, all the bootleggers will be put out of business and then Al Capone will control the world." History shows that is a load of nonsense: If you want to get an alcoholic beverage you don't have to go to a speakeasy, a bootlegger, or Al Capone. You can drink a corporate Bud beer, brew your own or go to a microbrewery.

One corporation that is poised to take the place
of the mom-and-pop growers is AgraMed. While
Oakland's city council prepares to consider a
proposal in July to license four commercial
indoor marijuana farms in the city, AgraMed has
plans to build a 100,000-sq.- ft. marijuana
mega-farm near Oakland International Airport
that, "according to projections, could generate
58 pounds of pot a day and $59 million a year in
revenue." The company's president, Jeff Wilcox-a
member of the steering committee of the
Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis
Initiative-reportedly hopes to "bring a degree
of corporate structure to the marijuana
industry."[24]

The language that backers of the initiative use
itself is cause for concern among pro-marijuana
supporters. Instead of speaking out against the
injustice of jailing people over a plant that is
widely known not only to be harmless, but
beneficial, these multimillionaire supporters of
the initiative speak only of their intentions to
corporatize marijuana. The owner of one leading
marijuana dispensary-that already earns well
over $20 million a year-was quoted in the New
York Times as having aspirations to become the
"McDonald's of marijuana."[25] The proprietors
of Oakland's new i-Grow hydroponics store want
it to be known as the "Wal-Mart" of grow
stores.[26] Meanwhile, Marijuana, Inc., a
multimillion- dollar corporation, has plans to
build cannabis resorts in the Northern
California counties that currently survive off
the medical marijuana industry.[27] They intend
to create golf resorts with acres of marijuana
gardens featuring hundreds of strains.
(Apparently, under this initiative, corporations
would be permitted to grow quite large
quantities of cannabis, while cultivation would
be restricted to 5' x 5' plots for everyone
else.)

The initiative doesn't do anything of the sort, it creates legal immunity for individuals to grow a 5x5 garden or defend a larger garden in court, the word corporation does not even appear in it and this is just another paranoid delusion.What has this got to do with anything? Businesspeople tend to boast about their projects? Is that something new? I'm not saying that things can't go off track, I'm saying this is just crazy speculation. Like what if we legalize pot and the space aliens attack! Arggh, better vote no! Or you could stay on track, keep your head, do what's right and Vote Yes on Prop 19.

The accusations that medical marijuana growers
oppose the initiative out of greed are clearly
grossly unfounded. It is obvious who has
intentions of increasing their bottom line.
Small-time marijuana farmers simply want to
continue making a humble living off the land.
They are the ones who built the marijuana
industry, but this initiative seeks to allow
corporations to take their hard work and turn it
into profits for themselves, locking farmers out
of the industry entirely.

We have seen this trend before in the United
States. Our history is replete with small
farmers being taken over by huge corporations.
Hundreds of thousands of mom-and-pop businesses
have been forced out of business by
conglomerates like Wal-Mart, Starbucks, and
Monsanto, which those who benefit from such
takeovers have justified by calling it
"progress." But is it? And is this the sort of
"progress" we want to see take over the
marijuana industry? Is this the world Peter Tosh
had in mind when he implored us to "legalize it?"

Peter Tosh would definitely back this initiative and so would Bob Marley.

At this point the discussion has gone totally off point and Dragonfly has gone off on an anti-corporate tirade. Let me just point this out: I need groceries, I don't go to an underground farm and pay a few hundred dollars per ounce of produce I buy, I go to a grocery store. I might go to a farmer's market. My neighbor might give me some tomatoes out of their garden; but most of the time I go to some corporate grocery store. I don't know where you get your groceries, but is it really only from the farmer? Same with my computer I'm typing on, it came from a big corporation. Big businesses build our roadways, maintain our phone and electrical lines, provide our commercial goods and do things that screw up the environment. Some are even corrupt.

That issue is completely different from what we are discussing here, should adults in California be allowed to cultivate, possess and share small amounts of marijuana and should communities be allowed to license, regulate and control distribution. That is the question, and the answer is yes, Vote Yes on Prop 19.

Marijuana may well be the final bastion of
farmer-owned, worker-owned, business autonomy in
this country. Will we allow it, too, to go the
way of nearly every other homegrown industry in
the history of the United States? We all hope
for legalization. But must we have such a
drastic, Faustian trade-off for this freedom?
And is it really freedom if we must lose our
autonomy to gain it?

One farmer's response to the news of Marijuana
Inc.'s resort aspirations poignantly sums up the
pending reality should the initiative pass:

"Marijuana, Inc., has big plans to invade the
Emerald Triangle and surrounding counties to
really capitalize on marijuana tourism. Maybe
that sounds like fun to people that aren't from
around here, but it is really going to take away
a lot of opportunity from the locals who make
this place what it is. I feel that the people
here who created this industry are going to be
left in the dust for the most part… There is
just too much money at stake and that is what
these guys are all about. This is the equivalent
of the giant hotels popping up on the Hawaiian
Islands and the locals being told, 'You can
still work at the resort. We'll need maids and
groundskeepers who'll work for minimum
wage...'"[28]

Another farmer's response was, "you mean I can grow my own pot and give it to my friends without getting busted and sent to state prison? That's awesome, I'm going to Vote Yes on Prop 19."

What is currently a small-time, largely organic
industry-on which entire economies survive, and
without which entire economies would
collapse-could soon become dominated by
corporations if this initiative passes. The days
of "knowing your dealer" and what goes into your
pot could soon be over, and marijuana, a
sacrament to many, could become corporatized.
Are corporations inherently evil? No. But if we
have the option to keep millions of dollars in
our own communities, spread out over hundreds of
thousands of people, it hardly seems sensible to
outsource this employment to corporations and
into the hands of a few.

Is it possible to have marijuana legalization
without legalizing corporate takeover of the
industry? Absolutely. Will those who are
passionate about marijuana live to regret voting
in an initiative that treats marijuana as a
publicly-traded commodity and turns it into
something as abhorrent as Wal-Mart and
McDonald's? Absolutely. Do we have to settle for
this? Absolutely not.

This passage is so all over the map I refuse to waste time on all its permutations. If we legalize personal cultivation, possession and sharing of marijuana, it will take a big chunk of money away from the foreign cartels. The fact that medical marijuana grows are already having this effect proves that point, Dragonfly. You proved that you were wrong during your own argument.

If localities tax and regulate its sales they will be able to limit the size of the operations and still make money through fees and so forth. That's where local activists come in. As for the rants against corporations and so forth, that is not in the initiative, that is her personal vendetta about something or other. We can do better, sure, but that's no reason to oppose the initiative. This section jumps into paranoid delusion. It has nothing to do with the initiative, so once it's legal and regulated we can protect the Mom and Pops, but as long as it's illegal they are being sent to prison for felony charges. I guess that's okay with Dragonfly, however because Dragonfly Land is utopian, no taxes, no economic disparities, no police busting anybody. However, if you live in the real world of California, you should register and Vote Yes on Prop 19.

Myth #16: The price of marijuana will drop.
Fact: The value of marijuana might decrease if
it becomes more commercially available and more
people grow their own, but the price of a
product depends less on its value and more on
the degree of competition that exists with
regard to selling it. Since your options for
purchasing marijuana would be among only a
handful of licensed dispensaries in the state,
there is no guarantee of a decrease in price.
Less competition means higher prices.

Indeed, by AgraMed's own estimation, in order to
make $59 million a year off 58 pounds per day,
they would have to charge $175 per ounce
wholesale (roughly $2,800 per pound)-and that's
if they produced 58 pounds 365 days a year. If
they managed to produce that output only 5 days
a week, that price would leap to $245 an ounce
(about $3900 per pound). With shelf-prices at
dispensaries often set at double the wholesale
purchase price-not to mention the compulsory tax
added onto every ounce (which Richard Lee stated
in an interview was "recommended" to be $50)-the
price of marijuana could potentially be higher
than it is in our current market, in which the
price of a pound has already fallen to $2,000,
according to a recent National Public Radio
report; a direct result of healthy competition,
not its opposite.[29]

The price of marijuana has already dropped in California under Prop 19 and it's going to go down again. Even the Rand Corporation admitted that it could drop below $50 per ounce. Even with a $50 per ounce tax, which is not in the initiative, by the way, it would mean $100 instead of $250 per ounce. Plus people can share marijuana with each other for free. Let's see, free pot from my friends or $350 an ounce under prohibition? I think I'll Vote Yes on Prop 19.

Myth #17: We can vote in the initiative and fix the tangles as they come up.
Fact: Initiatives create permanent statutes.
Once an initiative is voted into law, it cannot
be reversed. It remains law forever. It is worth
noting that this initiative makes some unusual
provisions with regard to amendments. For
starters, it allows the legislature
(traditionally hostile toward marijuana
legislation) to amend the initiative without
voter approval. Furthermore, it allows
amendments, but "only to further the purposes of
the Act."[30] Under a monopolized,
corporate-controlle d distribution process, the
"purposes" might become more narrowly defined.

Many of the issues that pro-legalization
supporters have with the initiative could be
easily rectifiable with a few sentences and an
amendment-submissio n to the Attorney General's
office. It would have required very little on
the part of the initiative authors to remove the
vagueness from the wording that bans smoking
cannabis in any "space" where minors are
"present," for example, or to add an exemption
for medical marijuana patients and parents
consuming in the presence of their own children.
It would have required very little to write into
the initiative a line that would exempt medical
marijuana patients from the public smoking ban
and protect their right to grow medicine in
amounts sufficient for their individual needs.
After all, these are items which should not be
considered luxuries under legalized marijuana;
they should be rights. And we should settle for
nothing less.

Unfortunately, the deadline to make changes to
the initiative before the November elections has
already passed, and to achieve these changes via
subsequent voter referendums would be a
complicated and drawn-out process that could
take years. Making the initiative acceptable
before voting it into law is therefore essential.

Okay, the purposes are to legalize marijuana and stop arrests, the legislature is allowed to restore industrial hemp, reduce penalties and increase access. This whole monopoly thing is made up, and there is no reason to make any changes with Prop 19. It will certainly be easier to make changes if it passes than if it loses.

Prop 215 did not say patients can smoke around kids and Prop 19 does not set any penalty, it just says it's not protected usage. The law will be the same after November whether or not the initiative passes: smoking around kids might get you that $100 ticket that she said earlier didn't mean anything. Also using her logic we should all have voted no on Prop 215 because it did not say parents can smoke around their children or let people out of prison, because it would have been very easy for Dennis to include it. So here's a question for Dragonfly? Did you vote for Prop 215 and did you work with the legislature to make SB 420 include smoking around kids? Because if you voted FOR Prop 215 and did not work to fix those things when SB 420 was being written, you have no room to complain about any of this. I ddn't see you at any of the meetings. I don't remember anyone in the legislature mentioning to me that you did this, so I begin to suspect you were lulling in Dragonfly Land when the rest of us were doing the hard work.

In other words, voting against Prop 19 will not fix any of these complaints but it will make life better for millions of Californians and open the door to future improvements, so Vote Yes on Prop 19.

Myth #18: This is our only chance to take a step
in the direction of legalization.
Fact: This is only our first chance-it will
certainly not be the last. There were three
other initiatives that sought to be placed on
the ballot this year; all three would have
legalized not only possession, but also private
distribution among individual adults. Some even
called for the release of non-violent marijuana
offenders. However, staffed exclusively by
volunteers, all failed to gather the required
number of signatures for the petitions. (Richard
Lee invested $1.3 million of his own money to
hire a company to obtain the requisite
signatures for the current proposed initiative.[
31])

We're back in Dragonfly Land, where it's oh so simple to change the laws. Meanwhile in California, Jack Herer and I co-authored the California Hemp Initiative in 1990 and stumped the state together four times, in 1989 (gilbert initiative), 1990, 1991, 1993 and 1994 collecting signatures and never got it on the ballot. Prop 215 got on the ballot only after major funders kicked in a $million. Jack continued stumping for the CHI year after year and never got it onto the ballot. All the other state ballot measures were passed with lots of money from major donors. Jack and I went to Alaska in 2000 and 2002 to try to pass a variation of the CHI there and lost both times. We tried from 1997 to 2003 to get the legislature to pass implementing legislation for Prop 215 and it took us 7 years, I think there were four bills vetoed and it was only when Gray Davis was being recalled that he finally signed SB 420. Since then the governor has vetoed every other reform, including patients having a right to employment. Richard Lee finally came through as the backer for this initiative, and that's how it got on the ballot. Yeah, let's get a bunch of volunteers together and put on a show together! That will legalize pot, right?

No, the way to legalize pot is to take an incremental approach and Vote Yes on Prop 19. There is implementing legislation already being drafted if it passes, communities are making licensing plans, we can be active in the legislature and local government, but if this one loses, who knows how long it will take

What now?

Vote Yes on Prop 19, that's what. If you are so foolish as to pass up on this opportunity, you can spend the next 20 years digging yourselves out of the hole you created by spreading lies, rumors, false claims about the initiative and dissipating the momentum for reform.

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis
Initiative is not the only path to legalization.
We have come so far, and are now so close-it is
imperative that we let the next step be the
right one. Legalized marijuana is within reach,
yet the movement could be set back with such a
problematic initiative at the helm. Instead of
rushing to pass a measure that prohibits
marijuana under the guise of legalization, we
can draft an initiative that calls for true
legalization and that has the full support of
marijuana law reform organizations and leaders
of the movement.

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis
Initiative is rife with ambiguity, expands the
War on Drugs, undermines the medical marijuana
movement, arrests more people for marijuana,
offers no protection for small farmers and
insufficient protection for medical marijuana
users, has a high potential for monopolization,
provides no regulations to prevent corporate
takeover of the industry, cartelizes the
economy, and divides our community into poor,
unlicensed, mom-and-pop gardener versus rich,
licensed, corporate farmer. And since the one
thing that's clear about the initiative is that
it's vague, it could very easily prove to be a
Pandora's box of unintended consequences. Beyond
its vagueness, which itself is problematic,
these side effects are inherently socially
dangerous. The impact that such a failed
legalization initiative could have on the
movement nation-wide could be disastrous.

This is not a question of whether to legalize or
not to legalize.

You are wrong, that is exactly the question. Have you even read the ballot title and summary?

Legalization is the goal and it
is inevitable.

That's what we said in 1979, and then Reagan got elected and the Drug War was worse then ever and we still have not reversed the losses we sustained when we abandoned Jimmy Carter who supported decrim. That is a great example: You have something ready to go and the right people in place to do it, then you gaze at your navel, drop the ball and spend the next 30 years trying to get back to where you were. That's the Dragonfly strategy, and it's never worked before, but what the heck? Here's what: Vote Yes on Prop 19, you will not get another chance.

The question is whether we want
to rush in and settle for an initiative that is
so poorly-worded as to be ambiguous, and so
vague as to be open to vast interpretation from
judges-or wait for the wording and other
inconsistencies to be corrected for 2012. If we
hold out for a perfect initiative we will wait
forever. But if we at least hold out for an
initiative that is direct, unambiguous,
well-defined and clearly written, we will have
an unprecedented opportunity to inspire the
world to join the movement to legalize marijuana.

Many pro-legalization activists are rallying
behind the idea of taking the time to craft an
initiative that will be a clear step up from the
current cannabis situation of in California and
will result in increased access-not its
opposite. Both NORML and the MPP, the foremost
cannabis law reform organizations in the
country, have suggested we wait and make another
attempt at legalization during the 2012
elections. Dale Gieringer, Director of
California's NORML, said, "I do think it's going
to take a few more years for us to develop a
proposal that voters will be comfortable
with."[32] Likewise, Bruce Mirken, MPP's
Director of Communications, was quoted as
saying, "In our opinion, we should wait and
build our forces and aim at 2012."[33]

Ultimately, the decision is not up to any
organization; it's up to YOU. How will you vote?
Read the initiative for yourself and just VOTE
KNOW!

So we can either dream, doubt and philosophize, or we can seize the moment and make momentous, historic change if we all stop wasting each other's time with nonsense, falsehoods, fears and delusions and get to work to pass this initiative. Dragonfly Land is a beautiful place, and some day I hope to visit there, but in the meantime we have an opportunity to change California law, national policy, the international debate and ultimately get hemp back to save the world from the ravages of petro-criminal corporations. There is only one way to do it that is here, now, ready to go and looking for us to make it happen. Vote Yes on Prop 19.

"I hope people find the hope and inspiration to
broadcast this, understand (the initiative),
read it, and know that it's a step backwards.
And we can do better. We will do better." -
Dennis Peron

I hope Dennis Peron comes back to his senses and stops backing the Drug War.

Sidebar: What it Actually Says

About possessing marijuana bought somewhere other than a licensed outlet:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11301:
Commercial Regulations and Controls: (g) prohibit
and punish through civil fines or other remedies
the possession, sale, possession for sale,
cultivation, processing, or transportation of
cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a
person pursuant to this section or section
11300; [Section 11300: (i) possession for sale
regardless of amount, except by a person who is
licensed or permitted to do so under the terms
of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section
11301.]

This is a dishonest interpretation of that particular section. Notice how Dragonfly conveniently skipped section A, that makes it lawful to:

(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.
(ii) Cultivate, etc.

So that is a major distortion, and let's compare it with the status quo:

Currently: HS 11358. Every person who plants, cultivates, harvests, dries, or processes any marijuana or any part thereof, except as otherwise provided by law, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison.

HS 11360. (a) Except as otherwise provided by this section or as authorized by law, every person who transports, imports into this state, sells, furnishes, administers, or gives away, or offers to transport, import into this state, sell, furnish, administer, or give away, or attempts to import into this state or transport any marijuana shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of two, three or four years.

So the current law is that Dragonfly could get a felony for cultivation and with one to five years in prison for sales, and Prop 19 makes cultivation, possession and sharing legal and might make sales intot a civil offense with fines instead of prison. Vote Yes on Prop 19.

About the punishment for giving marijuana to adults age 18-20:
Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana
to Minors: (c) Every person 21 years of age or
over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or
gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give,
any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or
older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall
be punished by imprisonment in the county jail
for a period of up to six months and be fined up
to $1,000 for each offense.

In other words, it creates parity with the alcohol laws . Vote Yes on Prop 19.

About smoking in the presence of minors:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300:
Personal Regulation and Controls: (c) "Personal
consumption" shall not include, and nothing in
this Act shall permit: (iv) smoking cannabis in
any space while minors are present.

All this does is NOT CHANGE the current law. In other words consumption around a minor, it would still be exactly what it is: misdemeanor possession pursuant to HS11357(b). Voting against the initiative does not change this, so what's the point: Vote Yes on Prop 19.

About using marijuana tax revenue to fund law
enforcement against pot prohibition:
Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of
Taxes and Fees (a) Any ordinance, regulation or
other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may
include imposition of appropriate general,
special or excise, transfer or transaction
taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any
activity authorized pursuant to such enactment,
in order to permit the local government to raise
revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect
costs associated with the authorized activity,
or the permitting or licensing scheme, including
without limitation: administration; applications
and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection
of licensed premises and other enforcement of
ordinances adopted under section 11301,
including enforcement against unauthorized
activities.

That is normal business law, so if you have a marijuana business the local governments can regulate it, charge fees and use those fees to pay for enforcing the city code. The difference is that under current laws there is no way for a local community to make sales to adults legal, and after the initiative passes they will be able to. Just another good reason to Vote Yes on Prop 19.

About medical marijuana exemptions:
B: Purposes, 7: Ensure that if a city decides
not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis,
that buying and selling cannabis within that
city's limits remain illegal, but that the
city's citizens still have the right to possess
and consume small amounts except as permitted
under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and
11362.7 through 11362.9. (Note: The word
"cultivate" is conspicuously absent here as well
as in the exempted Health and Safety Sections
that pertain to medical marijuana laws.)

This is more dishonest discussion achieved by editing out the parts Dragonfly does not want you to know. It's amazing what you can do just by leaving out the context , like the very next paragraph:

"8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9."

Read the initiative, damn it, don't just cherry pick a few words here and there to deceive people.

About leaving medical marijuana cultivation law
in the hands of local government:
Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and
Controls: Notwithstanding any other provision of
state or local law, a local government may adopt
ordinances, regulations, or other acts having
the force of law to control, license, regulate,
permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions,
the following: (a) cultivation, processing,
distribution, the safe and secure
transportation, sale and possession for sale of
cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts
lawfully authorized. (Note: This section
provides no exemptions for medical marijuana
law.)

Did you happen to notice that HS 11362.5 (Prop 215) and HS 11362.765, 11362.77 and 11362.775 already do authorize lawful cultivation and amounts? So when it says "only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized" that includes the medical use laws. That IS the exemption, first you quote it then you deny that it exists. Unbelievable spin, Dragonfly. You're good at deception, and I intend to Vote Yes on Prop 19.

About the right to cultivate:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300:
Personal Regulation and Controls: (ii)
Cultivate, on private property by the owner,
lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or
guest of the private property owner or lawful
occupant, cannabis plants for personal
consumption only, in an area of not more than
twenty-five square feet per private residence
or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel.

Curent law: HS 11358. Every person who plants, cultivates, harvests, dries, or processes any marijuana or any part thereof, except as otherwise provided by law,* shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison.

(* Prop 215, SB 420 and if passed, Prop 19.)

Also, Prop 19: "11304 (c) in a criminal proceeding a person accused of violating a limitation in this Act shall have the right to an affirmative defense that the cannabis was reasonably related to his or her personal consumption."

Wow, that's great! 25 square feet guaranteed per residence and an affirmative defense for more! That alone is a fabulous reason to vote Yes on Prop 19.

So that's it folks, you can shoot yourselves in the foot, misread the initiative, misunderstand current law and fly off to Dragonfly Land where everyone has their own little fantasy world to live in, or you can get serious, stop gaming around with half-assed arguments and snide comments and paranoid predictions, In other words you can do the intellingent, helpful and mutually beneficial thing to set the drug war back, challenge prohibition, stop arresting adult pot smokers and put cannabis into a regulatory system that is comparable to the way society treats other things.

In other words, unless you are nuts, you will either hold your nose like some, or face the ballot with wide-eyed wonder and happiness with no illusions or paranoias, and make history Nov 2 when you Vote Yes on Prop 19.

Please stop quibbling and start acting like adults who want to change the world.

If you do otherwise, you will be personally responsible for the arrests of 60,000 people a year, scores of people going to prison and a major setback for the reform movement. Then we can all sit in our jail cells and thank Dragonfly, Dennis and their minions for not taking the best chance we've had to legalize adult use of cannabis in almost 100 years on the off chance that some miracle will descend from Dragonfly Land and rescue us with a perfect utopian society.

I decided to use Dragonfly's analysis technique to see what she was really saying about Jack Herer's position on Prop 19, and according to Dragonfly it turns out that:

The late-Jack Herer, legendary marijuana
activist known as the father of the legalization
movement, urged people to support it.[1]

You just couldn't tell that's what she said until I took out the parts that didn't say that, same as her rearranging the initiative to suit her own putrid purposes. It's a pretty good illusion, Dragonfly, and all I did was delete a few words that I didn't like, I didn't have to lie about it or rearrange it at all. I didn't resort to make up fake claims like you did to attack Prop 19. That makes your rephrased analysis of Jack's position more accurate than your analysis of the initiative, which inserted fake information into the debate. You have to read the current laws, read the initiative and understand the historical context, you can't grab out a few words and rearrange them to fake people out, or in the case of Dragonfly that's exactly what she did.

Enough of the BS, enough of the quibbling, enough of the Peronista's sabotage. Register friends and family to vote, even people with felony criminal records, and get out the vote on Nov. 2 as long as it's Yes on Prop 19, No on Steve Cooley and No on Meg Whitman. Now, can we get back to work legalizing adult cannabis?

____________

I admit I slammed Dragonfly pretty hard for her false claims about Prop 19, but it did get her to correct the single worst of her misrepresentations, that the initiative would create new felonies. But then she also had to go doctor her page to attack me. She edited her original posted statements to make it look like I misquoted her, but here is the actual record, and you will find these statements:

Her original post: Prop 19 "creates new prohibitions and felonies where there are none now. "

My response: "It is absolutely false to say that it creates new felonies. There are no new felonies. That is a fabrication; a lie."

Her current post of the same article reads, "introduces new prohibitions where none exist now...". In other words, Dragonfly changed her blog and then said I for misrepresented her, but that is the actual text of her blog posted above, and you can see for yourself.

Her "rebuttal" to me included, "Chris Conrad ... falsely attributing ridiculous claims to my name."

So even when she knows she's wrong, she tries to cover up her mistakes instead of correcting the record.

-- Chris Conrad

She then goes on to make a bunch of new false claims whch were published in LA Jemm magazine, so to see them rebutted see the analysis above.