Radical Russ Defies Stoner Logic to Make Sense of 19

CW: RADICAL RUSS BELLVILLE slay them in this newest blog on the anti-19 haters-club. I laughed so hard I shot coffee out of my nose….Thanks, Russ. Make sure you click through to the video…

Tossed SALAD: Stoners Against Legalization Article of the Day

I have been blogging recently about dispensaries in California that are hostile to Prop 19– – California’s marijuana legalization initiative. What I suspect aresock puppet fronts for these businesses have also sprung up, the so-called “Stoners Against Legalization” blogs. I’ve decided to feature these in a semi-regular post I’m calling “Tossed SALAD — Stoners Against Legalization Article of the Day”, because I can’t resist a catchy acronym.*

It’s a perfect storm of sorts for me. I’m a die hard cannabis activist, so I’m excited about the possibility of the world’s eighth largest economy legalizing marijuana. I’m a talk radio host and blogger for the cannabis community, so I’m constantly researching and discussing marijuana on the web. Most of all, though, I’m a huge fan of irony, so ranting against fellow blogging tokers over their opposition to legalization is like an irony sundae with nuts on top. Like the nuts who write for Stop19.com.

I already covered, in far too many words, the breadth of their website in a previous post. Their home page at the time displayed modified Camel and Marlboro ads warning of the “600 addictive and poisonous additives in your cannabis as we put in your tobacco!” This, of course, being the result after Big Tobacco takes over cannabis in California and mass produces toxic schwaggy joints. Except that Richard Lee and a “politically connected” “cannabis cartel” are taking over cannabis in California with industrial mega grows. Or maybe Big Tobacco actually hires Richard Lee. Something like that.

The latest screed from Stop19.com warns us all that if cannabis is legalized and all adults can grow a 5’x5′ personal garden, that might not apply to renters:

FACT: Prop 19 puts you at the mercy of your landlord by forcing you to seek permission to grow cannabis. (Currently, no statewide law specifically mandates that Prop 215 patients ask permission to grow their medicine.)

While growing your own supply is fun as hell, it can also be messy, dangerous, and can easily cause damage if done improperly. (Not to mention homeowners insurance is likely to rise and homes containing cannabis could face seizure by the federal government.) Considering this, do you really think many landlords will allow it? Ask yours and find out for yourself. Then vote NO on Prop 19.

I’ve been a renter all my life and my parents were renters before me. I’m still trying to recall even a single rental application’s fine print that read “If you want to grow a 5’x5′ garden of marijuana, that’s fine with us.”

I’m still trying to wrap my head around the Möbius strip of logic that makes this objection a reason to vote no. If my landlord catches me right now with a marijuana plant in the closet and an ounce of marijuana, I will be evicted and arrested. If Prop 19 passes, but my landlord denies me permission to grow marijuana on his property, at least I can have my ounce of weed without his permission or any intercession by the police. So I should vote… no?

At least when Stop19.com is arguing that we should vote no on legalization because it infringes on the joy of toking up with teenagers and puffing in front of pre-schoolers, I can understand the motivation. If you’re an adult over the age of 21 and you’re fond of smoking joints with high school kids, you would have to vote in your best interest, I suppose. (We’re looking at you, David Wooderson.) Here they seem to be arguing that since your landlord might not (but might) let you grow cannabis, you should vote to keep that activity a felony for everyone, even people who own their own property.

To read the rest of Russ’s funny ass blog on HuffPo go HERE:

SSDP, LEAP, and Firedoglake.com team up on "Just Say Now" Campaign

Just say yes — to marijuana legalization

From NBC’s Ellie Hall
An unlikely coalition that includes student activists, police officers, and a former Reagan associate deputy attorney general has launched a national campaign to mobilize 2010 and 2012 voters in support of marijuana legalization.

The “Just Say Now” campaign — a joint effort between the Students for Sensible Drug Policy, the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and the progressive blog Firedoglake — aims to end what they describe as the federal government’s failed war on marijuana.

“It’s a moral issue,” Jane Hamsher, founder of Firedoglake, said in a conference call yesterday. “It’s been a policy failure at every level.”

The “Just Say Now” organization plans to circulate a petition online and across college campuses asking President Obama to end the federal ban on marijuana. They will then use this petition to target and mobilize supporters in the five states with marijuana initiatives on the ballot this year– Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon, and South Dakota.

“California is going to turn into a turnout election,” Hamsher said, noting that the ballot initiative has tremendous support among young voters.

Aaron Houston, executive director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, mentioned that the campaign had received support from Tea Party activists, as well as liberal and libertarian groups. “On the right and left, it’s a very popular issue, and it remains to be seen who will be smart enough to grab it… It’s a win-win-win situation and probably the biggest sleeper issue out there right now.”

He cited nationwide surveys conducted by his grassroots organization and said that if “Just Say Now” can mobilize more young and first-time voters before November, the initiatives could pass in their respective states.

Former Reagan associate deputy general Bruce Fein said that marijuana legalization is another “major initiative to bring our government back in line with the Constitution,” and that states — not the federal government — should have the power to choose how to address this particular issue. Fein stated that the federal government should tax marijuana, but leave the regulation to the states.

“Prohibition isn’t going to end in November,” Hamsher said, adding that they aim to make marijuana legalization an issue in 2012 battleground states. “Young people polled said they’d show up if legalization was on the ballot.”

Houston, who testified last summer before the House Appropriations Committee in support of clearer guidelines on the Department of Justice’s medical marijuana policy, emphasized the importance of educating people about where candidates stand on the issue. “We’re going to send a corps of students out [to follow campaigns] with Flip cameras,” he added, in order to capture footage of congressional and presidential candidates speaking about legalization.

Per NBC’s Pete Williams, state legalization of marijuana would create legal tension with the federal government, as marijuana is a Class-I controlled substance.

This is a really good piece to share with those of faith.


Why Marijuana Decriminalization Should Be a Christian Issue

James Clark

James Clark

Community organizer; graduate, Candler School of Theology

Last week, the Economist published an article illustrating a widespread failure of American Christianity. Entitled “Rough Justice” with the subheading “America locks up too many people, some for acts that should not even be criminal,” the article detailed the practice of mass incarceration and revealed some startling facts: 1 in 100 American adults is living behind bars. When we narrow the field to young black men, it’s 1 in 9. Put another way, we have incarcerated 1 percent of our neighbors.

Our war on drugs is one of the leading contributors. Those who insist that the United States is a “Christian nation” would be hard-pressed to find evidence for it in our nation’s drug policy, which condemns millions of our neighbors to be warehoused behind bars for nonviolent offenses. The Economist article brings to light a systemic denial of Christian love and compassion, particularly toward those struggling with addiction.

But on the same day the Economist published “Rough Justice,” something else happened that few would immediately associate with the biblical command to love our neighbor: the California Affiliates of the ACLU endorsed Proposition 19, the ballot initiative to legalize recreational use of marijuana. Christian communities looking for a smarter, more compassionate, and more successful way forward in fighting drug addiction would do well to consider the merits of marijuana decriminalization.

The ACLU has long recognized that prosecution of marijuana crimes is among the most successful vehicles of mass incarceration that unfairly targets minorities. According to a statement from the ACLU of Southern California, California made 60,000 marijuana arrests in 2008, the majority of them young men of color. In Los Angeles County the marijuana possession arrest rate of African Americans is more than 300 percent higher than the same arrest rate of whites, although blacks made up less than 10 percent of the county’s population, according to a new report from the Drug Policy Alliance. The same report also reveals that more white youth use marijuana than black youth, despite the dramatically skewed arrest rates.

Communities of faith have historically offered a different response to drugs, leading the charge when it comes to meaningful treatment for addiction. At the core of the Christian tradition is the belief that redemption is available to all, which is precisely why the two greatest commandments are so alike: loving God with all your heart is like loving your neighbor as yourself because God’s love is equally available to you and your neighbor, no matter who you are or what you have done. Many Christian communities bring this conviction to action when it comes to drug addiction, opening their doors to clinics and 12-step programs and providing direct services like addiction treatment and counseling — programs rooted in the value of compassion.

Yet that value of compassion, the belief in redemption, and the love of our neighbors as ourselves are all conspicuously absent from the practice of mass incarceration, the criminal justice system’s answer to the problem of drug addiction. While treatment programs work towards healing, reconciliation, and empowering people with the tools to build a healthy life, incarceration only puts those goals farther out of reach.

California’s marijuana policy is no different. Even a misdemeanor marijuana possession arrest can prevent someone from obtaining a job, a home, and even educational loans. By making employment and education even more difficult, this punitive approach to drug abuse all but eliminates the basic tools for pulling oneself out of the pit of addiction and into a sustainable healthy lifestyle. Often this leads to further drug use, crime, and ultimately incarceration.

A profoundly different response to sin is modeled by the Incarnation. In becoming human, Christ entered a broken world and took the burden of sin upon himself. He embraced sinners with open arms, using fellowship and love to offer a way out of sin and a path toward healing. Ultimately, the purpose of the Incarnation is to offer redemption and salvation to any and all sinners who accept the offer. This is the lynchpin that holds the two greatest commandments together. If we truly love God with all our hearts, minds, and souls, we inevitably turn to our neighbors and reflect God’s Incarnational acceptance by loving them as we love ourselves.

California’s Proposition 19 provides one unlikely opportunity to live out this Incarnational model. Far from signaling a Christian approval of using marijuana, Christian advocacy for decriminalization signals disapproval of the retributive response to drug abuse. Incarceration must be reserved for those who present real threats to the public safety of our communities, not for individuals struggling with addiction and marijuana abuse. As Christians, we already know the compassionate response to addiction is far more successful as a road to healing than the retributive one. Yet each year the prohibition of marijuana sends tens of thousands of youth — disproportionately black youth — into a cycle of incarceration and addiction with no light at the end of the tunnel.

Locking our up neighbors without a way to work towards healthy lives is a fundamental denial of compassion and love. Decriminalizing marijuana closes one pipeline into that cycle and makes it possible for more people to receive meaningful drug treatment. Prop 19 is about more than freeing up jail beds and raising tax revenue; it’s about firmly standing by the value of compassion and refusing to address social problems by locking our neighbors behind bars. Throwing away the lives of young people as a response to smoking marijuana only engenders a far greater sin than drug abuse.

“Love your neighbor as yourself” should not be seen as a personal virtue to be checked at the door of the county courthouse. Christian communities already provide perhaps the nation’s largest network of drug-addiction programs rooted in compassion and love. It’s time they advocated for public policies that align with those same values.

Smoking Pot with Teens….Is this really a problem?

The biggest argument against Prop 19 and the sensationalist rhetoric that is fueling it is the it “creates new crimes” or “increases penalties.” The one these people always refer to is the penalty for furnishing cannabis to a minor. The question I ask..”Is this really an issue?” Below is the big legal boogie man that “oppositionists” point to as their reasoning that adult use should remain illegal and Prop. 19 should be rejected. It is pretty flimsy to say the least…

Prop 19: Adds Health and Safety Code 11361: (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 jailfor a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense.
(d) In addition to the penalties above, any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to perform any act pursuant to Section 11301, who while so licensed, permitted or authorized, negligently furnishes, administers, gives or sells, or offers to furnish, administer, give or sell, any marijuana to any person younger than 21 years of age shall not be permitted to own, operate, be employed by, assist or enter any licensed premises authorized under Section 11301 for a period of one year.

And below is the statutes on the books for furnishing booze to a minor (which if it was my kid I would kick your ass)….

California State Business and Professions Code regarding alcohol diversion:

BP 25658.  (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (c), every
person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished,
or given away, any alcoholic beverage to any person under the age of
21 years is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(b) Any person under the age of 21 years who purchases any
alcoholic beverage, or any person under the age of 21 years who
consumes any alcoholic beverage in any on-sale premises, is guilty of
a misdemeanor.

(c) Any person who violates subdivision (a) by purchasing any
alcoholic beverage for, or furnishing, giving, or giving away any
alcoholic beverage to, a person under the age of 21 years, and the
person under the age of 21 years thereafter consumes the alcohol and
thereby proximately causes great bodily injury or death to himself,
herself, or any other person, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(d) Any on-sale licensee who knowingly permits a person under the
age of 21 years to consume any alcoholic beverage in the on-sale
premises, whether or not the licensee has knowledge that the person
is under the age of 21 years, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(e) (1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2) or (3), any
person who violates this section shall be punished by a fine of two
hundred fifty dollars ($250), no part of which shall be suspended, or
the person shall be required to perform not less than 24 hours or
more than 32 hours of community service during hours when the person
is not employed and is not attending school, or a combination of a
fine and community service as determined by the court. A second or
subsequent violation of subdivision (b) shall be punished by a fine
of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or the person shall be
required to perform not less than 36 hours or more than 48 hours of
community service during hours when the person is not employed and is
not attending school, or a combination of a fine and community
service as determined by the court. It is the intent of the
Legislature that the community service requirements prescribed in
this section require service at an alcohol or drug treatment program
or facility or at a county coroner’s office, if available, in the
area where the violation occurred or where the person resides.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), any person who violates
subdivision (a) by furnishing an alcoholic beverage, or causing an
alcoholic beverage to be furnished, to a minor shall be punished by a
fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000), no part of which shall be
suspended, and the person shall be required to perform not less than
24 hours of community service during hours when the person is not
employed and is not attending school.

(3) Any person who violates subdivision (c) shall be punished by
imprisonment in a county jail for a minimum term of six months not to
exceed one year, by a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by
both imprisonment and fine.

… and look at this part, which Prop 19 did NOT parody, so count your blessings :

BP 25658.    (f) Persons under the age of 21 years may be used by peace
officers in the enforcement of this section to apprehend licensees,
or employees or agents of licensees, or other persons who sell or
furnish alcoholic beverages to minors. Notwithstanding subdivision
(b), any person under the age of 21 years who purchases or attempts
to purchase any alcoholic beverage while under the direction of a
peace officer is immune from prosecution for that purchase or attempt
to purchase an alcoholic beverage. Guidelines with respect to the
use of persons under the age of 21 years as decoys shall be adopted
and published by the department in accordance with the rulemaking
portion of the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing
with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government
Code). Law enforcement-initiated minor decoy programs in
operation prior to the effective date of regulatory guidelines
adopted by the department shall be authorized as long as the minor
decoy displays to the seller of alcoholic beverages the appearance of
a person under the age of 21 years. This subdivision shall not be
construed to prevent the department from taking disciplinary action
against a licensee who sells alcoholic beverages to a minor decoy
prior to the department’s final adoption of regulatory guidelines.
After the completion of every minor decoy program performed under
this subdivision, the law enforcement agency using the decoy shall
notify licensees within 72 hours of the results of the program. When
the use of a minor decoy results in the issuance of a citation, the
notification required shall be given to licensees and the department
within 72 hours of the issuance of the citation. A law enforcement
agency may comply with this requirement by leaving a written notice
at the licensed premises addressed to the licensee, or by mailing a
notice addressed to the licensee.

(g) The penalties imposed by this section do not preclude
prosecution or the imposition of penalties under any other provision
of law, including, but not limited to, Section 272 of the Penal
Code and Section 13202.5 of the Vehicle

This argument is SO weak that it boggles my mind. Who are these people that worry their passing a joint to a kid and possibly getting jail time for it is a reason not to vote FOR legalization. It is an amazing show of ignorance in my opinion and quite frankly it is creepy. Chris Conrad did a good job of laying out the ignorance of this argument…

Conrad to oppositionist MV:

So basically you prefer that all non-medical adult marijuana smokers face misdemeanor charges for pot and damage to their reputations, that all adults cannabis consumers live under the onus of criminality, and that thousands of adults get sent to prison for felony small personal cultivation — just so that adults who smoke pot with minors that are not qualified patients will get off with only a misdemeanor ticket and no jail time. You should poll your neighbors to see how they feel about that idea. Your argument then jumps to false logic, because adults still have free speech to say, “hey kid have a pipe load and chill!” but it already is a misdemeanor if you actually sell or give pot to teenagers who are not qualified patients. You don’t lose your First Amendment rights by voting to change California law, you should know that.

I have to say you did not sway me at all with that one. I say free the adult personal growers, then lobby for the legislature to reduce the penalties as they will be authorized to do if the initiative passes. Vote Yes on Prop 19.

So there we have it. Vote no because you want to hand a bowl to a teenager or vote yes so that adults over 21 can be a normal part of society if they choose to use cannabis. Of course it would be great if the age were 18, but the fact is that some High School kids are 18 and it is hard to pass a law that allows HS Seniors to easily bring cannabis into the school stream. Hopefully we can get the votes needed and avoid the fear mongering that would come with the HIGH school arguments.

I think if the oppositionists took a long hard look in the mirror and did some soul searching as to why they were basing their opposition on such BS issues they would probably realize that voting yes on Prop 19 was the right thing to do.

Why Is Jeff Wicox such a prick? God Bless You Oakland.


The LA Times printed a piece by John Hoeffel that details some of the major issues with oakland’s plan to license the 4 big grow corporations. It is a shame that there is such arrogance from Jeff Wilcox, the man proposing the continued criminal enterprise, AgraMed. He has thrown his weight and his money around to sell wolf tickets to the Oakland City Council, but I do not think he understands that a victory with the Council is NO VICTORY IN THE MOVEMENT. His statements, like the ones following, just show that Mr. Wilcox has a lot of work to do to be the success he is betting on. Here are the highlights….

LA Times wrote:

And that’s just one part of his proposal. Wilcox, a retired builder, owns a campus of aging, idled industrial plants. On a wall in an unused conference room, a sketch of the property shows how he could fill most of the 172,000 square feet with growers raising high-end pot and entrepreneurs turning out brownies, drinks, tinctures and other products.

“My idea was a business park of cannabis,” he said.

I call bullshit. Wilcox NEVER mentioned this landlord theory in his big plan. Also, how does he see several small tenants, such as in an office park, being housed under one business that is somehow a collective that sells to other collectives? Hello. This is Mickey. I am calling from earth. Get fucking real.

LA Times wrote:

No other city has provided such red-carpet treatment. Oakland is essentially trying to set up legal sanctuaries for pot businesses, although the move may prove too brazen for federal narcotics agents who recently called city officials to request a copy of the ordinance.

Duh. Of course the feds requested a copy. Did you forget federal law HAS NOT CHANGED and that the polict from the USDOJ say “clear and unambiguous compliance with State law.” I would say Agramed is hardly clear and unambiguous. If I were dude, and the city, I would be truly worried. But what the fuck do I know? I am just finishing a federal sentence for providing medical brownies. Get a grip Mr. 170,000 square feet.

Wilcox is one of those mainstream figures. He says he started smoking pot when he was 15 and now uses it medicinally for back pain, but the 50-year-old single father with three teenagers is strait-laced. He sold his construction firm five years ago and retired. But he was bored. He didn’t see marijuana as a business opportunity until DeAngelo approached him about growing in his buildings, which are next to Harborside.

“I don’t look like a pothead, obviously,” he said, “and I struggled with the moral issues for a while, security issues, everything else; and then I decided I wanted to do something with my life.”

Now he is Oakland’s equivalent of a Sand Hill Road venture capitalist and a tilt-up office developer rolled into one. He has money, connections and 7.4 acres off Interstate 880.

Wilcox, who knows his way around City Hall after two decades as a major contractor, approached the idea shrewdly. He set up a company called AgraMed and spent $16,000 to study its economic potential. The 68-page report concluded that he could sell marijuana worth $59 million a year. With a 5% pot tax that the City Council decided last week to put on the November ballot, Wilcox’s operation could pay Oakland $3.4 million a year in taxes. “We did this to move the legislation,” he said.

He also sought help from Dan Rush, a local labor leader with City Hall clout, and promised to hire hundreds of union workers. He reached out to Lee, who is well-regarded at City Hall. He donated $20,000 to the legalization initiative that Lee is backing in November. He hired a lobbyist. He made a few modest political donations.

And he made it known that he was willing to spend $20 million to convert his buildings into an incubator for marijuana businesses. “It’s just such a mind-boggling thing. It makes you speechless,” said Arturo Sanchez, who oversees the city’s medical marijuana programs.

Even buckets of money cannot make your product desirable. you can buy off whomever you like. I will pass. No. I do not have 20 million to cover the costs, but I also believe in a thing called integrity. No amount of money could buy you that, my friend. I see your project being rejected just on principle, as this industry is better than that and better than you. Your ignorance on what it takes to provide high quality and desirable medicine is embarrassing. You can be as connected as you want in the City Chambers, but the patients and cannabis users that make up this industry will reject your immoral venture for what it is- BULLSHIT!

LA TIMES wrote:

Wilcox won over City Council members despite intense opposition from some marijuana activists and growers who supply the Oakland market. Wilcox, who cheerfully acknowledges he enjoys a good brawl, boasts that he won the turf war.

“There was a transfer of power,” he said. “In essence, you could say big business is here.”

Mr. Wilcox, word of advice, get your cart from in front of your horse, pal. This arrogant statement alone has convinced me that you should be resoundingly rejected by this community. Big business is here? Where? You haven’t sold a thing yet, so do not be so quick to pat yourself on the back. You are a piece of work.

God Bless You, Oakland if this is what your future beholds…


I a recent article in the Sacramento Bee US Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske was quoted saying that local jurisdictions are “doing a good job regulating.” What the fuck, Gil? Then can those of us on the federal ankle monitor that helped lay the groundwork and those who sit away from their families behind prison walls get a fucking pardon or commutation for our “good jobs” too? Can you make a phone call to the US Pardon Attorney and see what you can do for those of us that dis a good job for many many years before you guys ever even showed up out here. Free Brian Epis! Free Eddy Lepp! Free Dustin Costa! Free the countless political prisoners that you hold for their choice to use and provide cannabis. Call off the dogs! Stop the raids! Call Leonhart or better yet make sure her confirmation is denied. We can do this right, Gil if you just back up off of us and let us get it do for real.

From the Bee:

Kerlikowske was in Fresno, Calif., to announce the results of an ongoing crackdown on marijuana-growing operations known as Operation Trident. It is focused on pot farms on public lands in the foothills and mountain areas of Tulare, Fresno and Madera counties in California.

What is unclear is what the administration would do if California voters approve the initiative.

Kerlikowske, however, pointed to how state and local jurisdictions have dealt with the state’s legalization of medical marijuana, saying they are “doing a really good job of licensing, land use, those kind of regulations.”

C’mon, Gil. you seem reasonable. Can you quit fucking with my heart by saying one thing and doing another. End the war on cannabis. Be an American hero. America wants its cannabis, Gil. Plain and simple. Give us weed or we revolt!

Conrad Demands Retraction from Dragonfly De La Cruz (S v. LM)

CW: Chris Conrad clarifies the argument. You might say the simplified edition….

Dragonfllies first 18 lies :: Demand a public retraction from Stoners vs legal marijuana

After I sent that I found a few typos that are fixed below.


Many people have been concerned and upset to read an analysis of Prop 19 that is purportedly authored by a person with no record of activism within the cannabis movement. Dragonfly is good at writing convincing fiction, but her analysis is basically a series of lies that she rotates and builds one upon the other. Once you see that almost nothing she says is true, you realize that her fancy fiction is designed to keep prohibition in place for decades to come.

I am hoping someone will forward this to Dragonfly-liar to find out where is she getting her false information and get her to publish a full retraction and apology to the campaign.

Please forward and post everywhere that you find reference to her made-up claims.

We demand that Dragonfly publicly retract her lies, apologize to the campaign and all the people she has misled, and try to undo the damage she has done.

I went through her attack and picked out 18 random lies, not to point them all but just to make the point that there are more than 18 lies in her 18 arguments, however, there are many, many more imbedded into her terrorist attack on the legalization movement.

These are the facts:

1) Prop 19 WILL legalize marijuana for use and cultivation by adults over age 21.

2) Prop 19 does NOT create any new felonies or misdemeanors, it only adjusts the penalty for one misdemeanor to parallel the alcohol laws.

3) Prop 19 DOES eliminate three misdemeanors and at least one felony.

4) Prop 19 DOES preserve Prop 215 and SB 420 intact and states it several times in the purposes and reinforces that fact in the ballot argument.

(This is the 3rd pic listed if you Google Prop. 215 under images. Chris Conrad and the lovely Mikki Norris. Believe Chris would never sign on to something that would destroy his work thus far.)

5) Marijuana is not more legal when it is decriminalized than when it is legal. That’s just plain stupid. Anything is more legal when it is legal, and that is what Prop 19 does is make it LAWFUL to have cannabis in accordance with its rules.

6) It is NOT currently legal to smoke bong hits in the park with teenagers and Prop 19 does not make it legal to do so, it leaves the current law intact.

7) It is NOT currently legal to smoke around minors and Prop 19 does not make it illegal to do so, it leaves the current law intact.

8) There is NO $50 an ounce in the initiative.

9) There are NO corporate favors over citizens, in fact the word corporation is not even in the initiative.

10) Prop 19 was NOT intended to “end the drug war,” it is intended to legalize adult cannabis.

11) People DO get arrested for marijuana every day in California.

12) The initiative DOES NOT make it a felony to grow or possess larger amounts; it’s already a misdemeanor to possess larger amounts than an ounce and a felony to cultivate for non-medical purposes. Prop 19 creates an affirmative defense for possession and cultivation that does not exist under the current law.

13) Blacks and latinos ARE indeed targeted by police.

14) Personal cultivation, use and sharing of cannabis would NOT be taxed under Prop 19.

15) Parents smoking around their children will NOT be an arrestable offense under the initiative, it would remain a misdemeanor possession charge with a $100 fine — the same as now.

16) No one ever said the initiative allows 25 square feet of garden per person, the initiative is per residence or parcel and allows both the affirmative defense for larger mounts, medical marijuana is not limited by it, and there is an affirmative DEFENSE for larger gardens.

17)  This is not a tax initiative that can be directed to health care or police or anything else, that would require a 2/3 vote to pass it. This is an initiative that legalizes small amounts for adult possession and cultivation and allows local COMMUNITIES to tax and regulate marijuana the way they do other legal commodities.

18) The price of marijuana WILL drop after Prop 19 passes, that’s why so many drug dealers don’t like it. The Rand Corporationsays to $30 per ounce, but most people think that good bud will go for around $100 per ounce.

Furthermore, it’s not stoners who oppose this, it’s dealers and narcs and confused people. Most stoners support Prop 19, only a small percentage have been misled by her lies. Marc Emery supports the initiative, as do I and most of the credible activists in the movement. Jack Herer is not against the campaign, he died before it got fully under way. No one knows what he would be saying now, so it would be to stop speaking in his name. Dennis Peron is its main opponent within the movement and as Jack Herer always used to say, “Dennis doesn’t want marijuana legalized.” Dennis opposed Jack Herer’s initiatives. He opposed SB 420 that legalized collectives and dispensaries. Many of Dragonfly’s lies are drawn directly from Peron’s mistakes and distortions.

No one said the initiative could not be improved, but stop lying Dragonfly, whoever you are.

— Chris Conrad, court-qualified cannabis expert and consultant

A Harsh Reality. Conrad on Whittman/Cooley and the demise of cannabis in CA.

Chris Conrad once again makes a lot of sense in this plea for folks to get it together and get the vote out on Prop. 19. I do not mean to focus on Chris, but sometimes when you can’t say it better yourself, then why bother….


We have powerful enemies in the November election: Meg Whitman and Steve Cooley. Whitman is an avowed enemy of medical marijuana and would have veto power over all our legislation for the next multiple years. Cooley is such an incompetent attorney that he can’t even read law correctly but he thinks SB 420 does not protect patients, he thinks it mandates prison for anyone with more than a few ounces. These people are a threat to everything we have built up as a movement. And yet “reformers” are wasting energy opposing Prop 19?

Let’s get real. SB 420 — which allows collectives, ID cards, immunity from arrest and safe harbor — is not from an initiative. It was legislated so it can be modified or upended at any time, with or without Prop 19. The safe harbor quantities that People v Kelly provides could be dropped to a few grams, and gardens reduced to a couple plants and 10 square feet. Read the People v Urziceanu decision’s evaluation of Prop 215 v SB 420 to get an idea of what losing SB420 means. It’s not pretty.
At this point, a no vote on Prop 19 combined with a Whitman/Cooley victory is a no vote on SB 420, a no vote on safe harbors, a no vote on collectives, and the prohibitionists will litigate like it is a no vote on Prop 215 and a yes vote to send adults to jail for small personal amounts of marijuana. Every bit of energy we spend “debating the merits” of Prop 19 is energy that we give to the drug warriors because none of it matters at all if we lose Prop 19. We must pass it.

Here’s why: If Prop 19 passes, it guarantees that localities can license sales to patients because it allows licensed sales to anyone over age 21 (I know, it sucks for people below age 21, but let’s stay on point here). If Prop 19 passes, it guarantees that patients will be able to have at least an ounce just by virtue of being adults. It specifically lists Prop 215/ HS11362.5 and SB 420 statutes in two places in the purposes, by general reference in the purpose “6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.” and “12.   Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes” and by statutes as in “except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.” That would not even have been necessary because it also protects them by _not naming those statutes as being changed anywhere in the newly created statutes. (Remember the Galambos appeals court held that it was illegal to transport medical marijuana because Prop 215 did _not name HS11360 transportation_ as being changed; luckily the legislature passed SB420 to protect it.) It says in the ballot argument that themedical marijuana laws are “preserved.” That alone could be used in court to defend collectives and safe harbor if the legislature turns sour and try to change SB 420.

Without Prop 19, patients and collectives are at greater risk than with it, and if it loses it sends exactly the wrong message to the legislature, namely that Californians don’t want legal marijuana. That will be cited as a pendulum change, and that could bode disaster. Remember, we have in our midst paid agitators and provocateurs who are determined to undermine us and stop Prop 19 from being passed. They prey on your fear. They claim to be our allies, and to be helping, but they are our opponents determined to keep cannabis consumers criminals. Unfortunately, we can’t tell them from the zealots because some people with good intentions are freaked out, running in circles and screaming that the sky is falling, the sky is falling. Well, the sky might well be falling if Prop 19 loses.

Get over it, pull yourselves together and go out to register every voter you can get your hands on and drag them to the polls to vote Yes on Prop 19 and No to Whitman and Cooley on Nov 2, or better yet to vote absentee Yes on Prop 19 and No to Whitman and Cooley.

— Chris Conrad, court-qualified cannabis expert and consultant