Attorney Bill Panzer "Respectfully Disagrees" with Letitia Pepper

I have to respectfully disagree with Ms. Pepper’s analysis on this point. First of all, under federal law, there is no such thing as “medical use” and the cases that have found no preemption don’t rely on the medical/recreational distinction. It is clear that medical cannabis remains illegal under federal law. Rather, there is no federal preemption because the laws do not conflict. A conflict of laws only occurs when one cannot follow one law without necessarily violating the other. For example, if California passed a law making it mandatory to possess cannabis there would be a conflict. If a person followed state law and possessed, they would be in violation of fed law. If a person followed fed law and refrained from possession, they would be in violation of California’s mandatory possession law. Under such circumstances, the feds could sue the state and invalifdate the state mandatory possession law. But Prop 19 does not require anyone to possess cannabis. As such there is no conflict with fed law. Of course, possession still would remain illegal under federal law and Prop 19 would not provide a defense in federal court.

Bill Panzer

In response to Letitia Pepper’s latest tin-foil hat conspiracy that somehow medical use can be legalized and adult use somehow cannot because she has a WHOLE DIFFERENT copy of the Constitution than everyone else….

Pepper Wrote:

“One of the huge problems with Prop. 19 on which I didn’t concentrate — I was mainly trying to figure out what its actual terms did to patients’ rights — is that it purports to legalize recreational use.  But while medical use can be legalized under state law and also federal law, recreational use remains totally illegal under federal law, which cannot be so easily trumped by a state law legalizing recreational use.”

1 thought on “Attorney Bill Panzer "Respectfully Disagrees" with Letitia Pepper”

  1. How did Mrs. Pepper even pass the bar?

    Seriously I read a bunch of bullshit she stated (which is in quotes) that can easily be refuted. The more I listen to these no on 19 people the more I am convinced they are purposely lying to hurt our community.

    Anyways here is some more proof that Mrs. Pepper should be disbarred.

    “””First, it offers full legality, not technical illegality , for possession.””
    So why does she want to keep it illegal? Even she admits prop 19 legalizes…

    …” It offers full STATE legality for possession of an ounce or less (not for marijuana in general) — so that’s better than an infraction.”

    Yes it is way better because that means NOBODY gets fucked with by the cops. I thought this is something we wanted for years.

    “Per my earlier e-mail, recreational possession of an ounce is still illegal federally — but it seems unlikely the feds would bust people for an ounce or less. Unless, of course, you are smoking a joint or possessing a joint on federal lands and a BLM employee arrests you. And even this possession for recreational use could be struck down as prohibited and pre-empted by federal law! Even if that were not so, the cost to medical patients for this minor legalization is massive.”

    What a bunch of BULLSHIT! Here is why, The feds didn’t force California to take Prop 215 off the books, so they hardly will do the same with prop 19 when it passes. Really though I want to know what costs to medical patients she is claiming… oh thats right the only thing it will cost them is their ability to resell the weed they buy from dispensaries.

    “Unless Prop. 19’s recreational provisions are struck down, see above. Then anyone without a medical recommendation in hand is subject to searches.”
    Yet more BULLSHIT! because by allowing everyone over the age of 21 to posses, cultivate, and consume cannabis the cops won’t have any probable cause to search based on the fact that it would be LEGAL.

    “Sorry, but this is not true. Gosh, Prop. 19 is so badly written it MUST be on purpose. Prop. 19 forbids employers from discriminating against employees for engaging in “lawful activities.” Go read the section on what activities are lawful (remember, an activity is a verb.) The lawful activites are possession and cultivation — but CONSUMPTION is not listed as a laawful activity!!!! Personal consumption is listed as a definition — but not as a lawful activity!!!”

    Yet again she really is stupid. California is an at will employment state. Basically it means you can be fired for anything if your employer wants to fire you for it with the exceptions for firing because of Age, Gender, Race, Sexual Orientation, and Religion. She probably hasn’t actually worked a day in her life or actually owned/managed a business because she would know this. Furthermore consumption is listed as an allowed lawful activity hence the part that says you can consumer in your residence or the place where you purchased your weed.

    “””Third, it lets everyone grow 5 x 5 gardens.”

    Not really. Because cities can apply unlimited taxation, control and regulations — or think they can — this is at best going to lead to years and years of expensive litigation. And currently patients can grow as much as they need — not limited by plot size.””

    Patients plot sizes won’t be affected by prop 19. Because medical patients are specific narrowly defined class we have rights that cannot be taken away because a broad class of people gets similar protections. It was clearly explained during the oral arguments for people v kelly. Im surprised mrs. hotshit mmj lawyer didn’t know this. And cities still cannot apply unlimited taxation w/o first getting a 2/3rds vote of voters approving the tax per the California State constitution. Furthermore any taxes such as Rancho Cordova’s bullshit are easily trumped by California State Constitution prohibitions on taxing property used for growing crops.

    “Since recreational use IS covered by the CSA, with no state law protection, you’d have to be stupid to go out and use in a cafe without a medical recommendation in your pocket. And the feds could enjoin recreational use in general, not just in cafes, see discussion of how CSA doesn’t cover medical use but does cover recreational use.”

    I could have swore that 21 USC 812 says that Cannabis has no known ACCEPTED Medical use. Pretty sure that the CSA clearly says no medical use too. Yet again a bullshit hot air made of nothing argument put out to make her sound smarter than she really is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *