Re: I have Dragonfly’s back! KC Kimbers, 7/31/10
1) Prop 19 WILL legalize marijuana for use and cultivation by adults over age 21.
R) Marijuana is already legalized for the use by any Californian if they talk to a doctor. It抯 a easy as saying the truth. That you use Cannabis to help chill out at times, and to uplift your spirits at others.
Chris: No, I am correct. Marijuana is not legal in California (HS 11357, HS 11358) unless you get a limited immunity from the statute as a qualified patient (HS 11362.5) with a prior approval (People v Windus) from a licensed physician (Cal Medical Board). It would have been more clear had I first pointed out that Prop 19 legalizes NON-medical personal possession, sharing and cultivation it for all adults (Section 3: Lawful Activities). Some people say all use is medical, but the cops and courts don’t agree with that and quote Dennis Peron’s “all use is medical” to disparage seriously ill people and to say most users are pulling a hoax (California Narcotics Officers Associan, CPOA “White Paper,” etc.). Also, when I talk about Prop 19 it refers to non-medical marijuana. In my first draft, which you have used here, I did not always remember to qualify each and every statement because at some point you should grasp that Prop 19 concerns NON-MEDICAL cannabis. Dragonfly said it d!
oes not legalize marijuana, and she is wrong. After November, people will no longer need a doctor’s note for small personal or shared amounts but they will need a doctor’s note for larger amounts, but only if we Vote Yes on Prop 19.
2) Prop 19 does NOT create any new felonies or misdemeanors, it only adjusts the penalty for one misdemeanor to parallel the alcohol laws.
R) Prop 19 does make people subject to prosecution who wouldn抰 be currently.
Chris: That is not what I said, though, is it? And again I am correct: Dragonfly said there were new felonies created, and that is wrong. The two felonies in Prop 19 for furnishing non-medical marijuana to minors (HS �11361 [a] [b]) is a restatement of the law currently on the books (not new), and a misdemeanor non-medical furnishing to 18-21 year olds (HS 11360(b) will have a more serious penalty (Section 4: 11361(c). No one has ever denied that, I just say that’s not a good enough reason to do other than Vote Yes on Prop 19.
R) It also makes the public consumption of cannabis a crime whereas currently its not prohibted by state law. SB420 States on the issue, �11362.79. Nothing in this article shall authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances:
(a) In any place where smoking is prohibited by law.
(b) In or within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a school, recreation center, or youth center, unless the medical use occurs within a residence.
(c) On a schoolbus.
(d) While in a motor vehicle that is being operated.
(e) While operating a boat.�”�
R)Yup thats the current limits people!
Chris: That is not what I said, either, and the initiative does not make it a crime, it simply does not include smoking around minors as being protected personal adult use of marijuana. I reiterate that Prop 19 is for adult non-medical marijuana only still does not create any new felonies or misdemeanors. It does increase the misdemeanor penalty for furnishing to a minor (Section 4: 11361(c). It does not change any medical marijuana laws including 11362.79 (Purposes 7, 8, 9, 12 and ballot argument in support of Prop 19), so you just read what the law will be for people with medical approvals. California will change only the non-medical use laws if we all Vote Yes on Prop 19.
3) Prop 19 DOES eliminate three misdemeanors and at least one felony.
R) Prop 19 does NOT eliminate jack shit. Prop 19 actually says < C Intent 1) This act is intended to limit the application and enforcement of state and local laws�”””
Chris: I am correct in my statement above. Under Prop 19 ALL California adults over age 21 will be exempt from HS 11357(b), HS 11360(b), have qualified immunity from HS 11358 cultivation and HS 11360(a) as long as they stay within the parameters of the law, and have a brand new affirmative defense if they exceed those quantities (Prop 19 Section 11304 [iv][c]). This is non-medical; currently only patients with a prior physician’s approval have any of those protections. It also limits cops from harassing people in their application of the law, as you point out.
R) The Problem with Prop 19 is that is doesn’t remove any of the marijuana laws.
Chris: Neither did Prop 215 (HS11362.5), it created a limited qualified immunity for patients with a doctor’s prior approval (HS 11362.5(d), and left in all the other stuff, including all the felonies H&S �11361 [a] [b]) you are attacking Prop 19 for not changing. Why didn’t Dennis fix it then? Those offenses have been on the books this whole time, but Dragonfly untruthfully claimed that they are created by the initiative. Obviously, Dragonfly, Entwhistle and Peron are not telling the truth about that, so no excuses, KC, just admit that they are wrong, wrong, wrong.
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.
R) While the statement is partially true Prop 215 and SB420 do not directly address sales or cultivation limits. Because so the California Supreme Court has ALWAYS taken a literal view of 215 and the arguments made for it. Since prop 19 does directly address the issues of sales and cultivation prosecutors can use their frighteningly small limits against those who have more. Currently medicine isn’t supposed to be taxed as passed by the voters in 1996 with prop 215. It took years of people asking the state to take their tax money before they would accept it because the BOE knew it was illegal to collect money for cannabis. With prop 19 cities will fund their police departments out of the pockets of its sickest citizens who can’t get their medicine covered under their health insurance.
Chris: I am correct (Purposes 7, 8, 9, 12 and ballot argument in support of Prop 19). The Supreme Court can read, so I have confidence in it’s ability to do so in this situation. Furthermore, medical marijuana sales and the limits are in SB 420, not Prop 215, and the courts have held that they are constitutional within the framework of People v Wright and People v Kelly. The Court did not say there was ambiguity in Prop 215, it said that voters had approved “an amount that is reasonably related to the patient’s then-current medical need” (People v Mower, People v Wright, People v Kelly). So why would it be subject to reinterpretation by a statute that did not modify the code and says it does not propose to do so? It is not a likely interpretation of the initiative. SB 420 can be modified by the legislature, so it is not as secure as Prop 215. I remember that Mikki and I were at the State Legislature lobbying for it to amend the quantity to be upped to 6 pounds and 200 square!
feet of garden canopy per patient, but John and Dennis were not there that day and I never heard of them lobbying to increase the quantities in SB 420 before or after it was passed, although I did lobby to up the numbers. Also Prop 215 does not say medical marijuana is not to be taxed, it is silent on that point because Dennis left that out. By doing so it reverted to the Board of Equalization who said that since there is no “prescription” required, medical marijuana is an over-the-counter drug like aspirin and therefore it is taxable. So if you want to fix the blame, it goes to Dennis and John for not putting “no taxes” into Prop 215 — it’s not the fault of the tax board, and certainly no good reason to do anything but Vote Yes on Prop 19.
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.
R) Prop 215 already made it legal to have Cannabis. Without removing the penalties completely it isn’t legalization. It is a trap, a vehicle that law enforcement can use against us because the underlying criminal offenses are still there. Personally I find it offensive that anything claiming “legalization” would not outright remove all the criminal statues on the books for Cannabis.
Chris: I am correct that it is more legal to be legal than to be illegal, that’s just plain English. KC, you keep forgetting that Prop 19 is for non-medical use. That blind spot on your part makes discourse problematic. Of course Prop 215 (Ibid) made it legal to have limited amounts with a doctor’s prior approval, and Prop 19 does not change that, it leaves medical use intact (Ibid). Bear in mind, I may forget to write “non-medical” each and every time, but obviously that is what I mean: Non-medical. Also, I do not accept that having any limit on anything makes it illegal. Alcohol is legal, but not for people under 21. Say I’m a licensed driver and I’m driving down the freeway at 65 MPH in a 65 zone, that is legal. If I drive 80 MPH, it is illegal. Does that mean nobody can drive in California? Of course not. I never said that Prop 19 will create a free-for-all without any limits for non-medical use, I said it makes limited amounts lawful for non-medical use by adults age 2!
1 and above. That is what we get if we Vote Yes on Prop 19.
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.
Chris: I am correct. Nothing to reply to here. Did something get deleted? I’m still going to Vote Yes on Prop 19. It’s just common sense, it’s not bong hits in the park, it’s just common sense.
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.
R) Here is a James Anthony quote that says otherwise, “medical cannabis is no more relevant to the best interests of children than any prescription drug � the California Supreme Court said as much when it said that medical cannabis is as legal as any prescription drug.”
R) I’m taking his statement over Conrads opinion.
Chris: I am correct as regards non-medical marijuana and it does not change the medical marijuana laws (ibid). You keep ignoring the fact that medical use is exempt. James Anthony’s comment seems to relate to Child Protective Services and child endangerment charges, not second hand smoke. Prop 215 and SB 420 are silent about smoking around minors. Prop 19 does not change the medical laws (Ibid), and it does not penalize smoking around children, it simply does not make it lawful to smoke non-medical marijuana around minors (HS11357[b]). If it is already lawful as you claim, it would remain so. If it is not lawful, and it is not for non-medical users, then it simply remains with the status quo, so that’s a great reason to Vote Yes on Prop 19.
8) There is NO $50 an ounce tax in the initiative.
R) Yeah there isn’t. It’s actually way more disgusting. It allows all levels government to levy UNLIMITED amounts of taxes for anything related to Cannabis. UNLIMITED No Limits on Taxation? What the fuck was the author thinking? That sounds like something only the government could love. Lets get fucking real here. It’s irresponsible to give over unlimited control and taxation over to a government that has zero credibility when it comes to using the outrageous taxes we already pay.
Chris: I am correct and she is wrong, as you admit. Cursing at me does not make you right. But after you rightfully admit Dragonfly was wrong, you then changed your position to say you want a marijuana tax in there — because you are against taxes. Even 1972’s failed Prop 19, the gold standard of legalization, said nothing to stop cities and counties from taxing and regulating pot. Prop 215 doesn’t say it either, and MMJ is being taxed. Neither did the failed California Hemp Initiative that Jack Herer and I wrote, it only said they were to be non-prohibitive, which is subject to interpretation. The CCI initiative that didn’t make the ballot did add the $50 per ounce tax. Banning taxes on marijuana but nothing else would likely be unconstitutional and would definitely require a supermajority vote statewide: In other words it is utterly impossible, so stop kidding yourself. This is not an anti-tax crusade or a tax resistance initiative, it’s to legalize non-medical adult use !
of cannabis, and so I urge everyone to vote Yes on Prop 19.
If Dragonfly and Peron want an anti-tax initiative, they can join the tax resistance and put their own initiative on the ballot — it’s so easy, the tell us. But keep your hidden agenda away from the debate to reform the marijuana laws. Everybody else, please Vote Yes on Prop 19.
9) There are NO corporate favors over citizens, in fact the word corporation is not even in the initiative.
R) Please explain why Prop 19 is being funded by SK Seymore LLC? How much is Rebecca Kaplan receiving from them to pass a cultivation ordinance in Oakland which states “There are current industrial cultivators that may have some claim to legality by maintaining a list of qualified patients for whom the cultivation is intended, or in at least one case, by keeping the
cultivation divided into compartments, each belonging to a three-person collective. If these
operations remain in existence, it will be more difficult to foster industrial cultivation in a
licensed, regulated mode. The proposed ordinance clarifies that the City does not allow any
industrial-scale cultivation except on a permitted basis. This will clearly establish the
Cultivation, Manufacturing and Processing permit as the only legal model, and will greatly
simplify police enforcement.”
R) Wow sounds like you don’t want me growing for 4 patients anymore. Clearly the efforts of SK Seymore LLC and cohorts on the Oakland city council are determined to only allow a few huge players to integrate a vertical monopoly on the California marijuana market.
Chris: Again I am correct, there are no corporate favors in the initiative. The reason Prop 19 is being funded by SK Seymore LLC is that while thousands of people have made millions of dollars selling pot illegally, Richard Lee is a dedicated reform activist who has dedicated 20 years to the movement here and in Texas, who made money with lawful cannabis sales and has invested his hard-earned savings into changing the laws for the good of everyone, even people who don’t get it and go around spreading all sorts of slander about him, me and the initiative. I say, thank heavens for Richard Lee, and screw the dealers who want to keep pot illegal to keep their profits high. How about some of you dealers, growers, smokers and voters donating some of your money to the campaign? I’ve personally donated hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours, including responding to your comments, because I know Richard Lee is a great American of integrity, courage, political skill and the best of!
intentions. I cannot say the same for his critics.
Being wrong about that, I notice you shift to a “mega-grow” argument as a red herring.You can grow whatever you want, I could care less, but you already need to convince a cop, DA, judge and a jury not me. Mega-grows and corporations are NOT in Prop 19, so you should still Vote Yes on Prop 19, and donate to the campaign.
10) Prop 19 was NOT intended to “end the drug war,” it is intended to legalize adult cannabis.
R) And that is the problem, a group of renegrade rich boys most who aren’t even native to California are trying to hijack a long process in a carefully planned effort to end the drug war completely. Most longtime advocates feel that Cannabis legalization should provide the evidence to prove the war on drugs is wrong. Because it is wrong to prohibit the healing herb!
Chris: I am again correct. If that’s what she wants, Dragonfly should write her own “End the Drug War and Furnish Drugs to Minors” initiative and see how many pot dealer and commercial growers will chip in a few million to put it on the ballot and pass it. Jack Herer was never able to raise even $100,000 to get the California Hemp Initiative that he and I wrote onto the ballot. He was always asking them to chip in, and what happened? They basically said, fuck you legal marijuana. He never got it on the ballot. The people who oppose this initative by and large make their living off the invislble tax caused by marijuana prohibition, either directly by busting and prosecuting cannabis users or indirectly by selling a plant — an healing herb — at prices more than 1000 times the price it would be if we had the kind of legalization you are representing.
11) People DO get arrested for marijuana every day in California.
R) And most of them are under 21. So they will still get arrested at higher penalties than now. Sending a young person to prison is giving them a death sentence.
Chris: I am correct and was responding to Dragonfly’s claim that people are not getting arrested for marijuana anymore, and I am correct that people do get arrested. Why you are talking about death sentences and prison, which obviously are not in the initiative, in fact the only new misdemeanor penalty there is for people 21 and above and involves county jail and there is nothing to prevent a judge from suspending the sentence at all, so you are totally making crap up again. If this is all the better you can come up with, then definitely Vote Yes on Prop 19.
But wait, there’s more. Prop 19 could reduce probation violations, parole violations, probable cause searches based on odor, probable cause based on fertilizer and the hum of fans and lamps, and subsequent interactions with the police and could save tens of thousands of people from arrest and prison, which is a fabulous reason to Vote Yes on Prop 19.
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.
R) Wow hear that� Affirmative defesne. That means the cops can still kick in our doors, send us to jail, and go to court. If I got paid to testify in marijuana related court cases this would be my meal ticket.
Chris: I am correct that the initiative does not add any new felonies, and I am correct that there is a new affirmative DEFENSE for larger amounts. You seem to prefer the status quo, which is no such defense. This will keep lots of people out of jail. You seem jealous of my competence and career, and it makes you look petty and catty, KC. Meow, and Vote Yes on Prop 19.
13) Blacks and latinos ARE indeed targeted by police.
R) The race card! How lame. Seriously??? Federal Law already covers discrimination by race. So please take the race card and shove it.
Chris: I am correct that Blacks and Latinos are disproportionately affected by the drug war, and Dragonfly raised the race issue in her screed, not me, so you are saying she should take her argument and shove it. Your words, not mine, and not very good defense of her ‘back’. Have you not seen the new study by sociologist Harry Levine that looks at CA arrest rates entitled “Targeting Blacks for Marijuana.” That’s why the Cal NAACP supports the initiative. They want to stop the arrests of so many young African American men, and the accompanying criminal. records that ruin lives. If you live in Dragonfly Land and think racism does not exist, don’t even bother to vote; but if you live in California, you should unequivocally Vote Yes on Prop 19.
14) Personal cultivation, use and sharing of cannabis would NOT be taxed under Prop 19.
R) Well actually lets see what it says about that,
Poop 19) “11301g Prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possesion for sale, cultivation, processesing, or transportation of cannabis was not obtained lawfully from a person persuant to this section or section 11300”
R) Wow it looks like we have a law a policeman could only dream of! If it doesn’t have the right sticker on it, you still get busted. Does anyone remember how prohibition began? It was with the Marihuana Tax Stamp Act of 1937. I’m just saying history is starting to repeat itself.
Chris: I am correct again. Section 3: Lawful Activities, 11300 (a)(i, ii and iii). You are showing me the section about sales which is not what I said. You have to look at what I actually said, not what you hoped I would get wrong. Note that the section you pulled up allows civil, not criminal penalties and how the hell are they going to prove that the pot you have was not a gift? Does anyone know what happened to the Marihuana Tax Stamp Act of 1937? It was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme court in 1969 (Leary v USA) and if you had taken my class at Oaksterdam University you would have known that, and you would have the common sense to Vote Yes on 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.
R) The prohibitions on furnishing weed to minors could be construed as such for those who grow their own at home.
Chris: I am correct about the penalty (HS 11357(b). You are forced to speculate about what “could be construed” and I am talking about reality. The really smart thing to do is to Vote Yes on Prop 19.
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.
R) Once again this “Affirmative Defense” BULLSHIT! We shouldn’t have to get cuffed up, dragged to jail, strip searched, forced to cough and squat, and then eat the worst food known to man while we rot in a cement room waiting to use our “affirmative defense” in court. Infact thats precisely to problem prop 19 makes it hard for people to grow enough of their own cannabis to have hempindepenance.
Chris: I am correct about the language of the initiative (Prop 19 11360[a][ii]), and I am correct that it has been accurately represented by the campaign (http://www.taxcannabis2010.org/index.php/pages/initiative/), so what Dragonfly said is not true. You don’t like the affirmative defense and would prefer that non-medical growers have no legal defense in court, and I disagree. I’m troubled by the alternative you would accept is to have people go through all the misery that you just described and then NOT to have an affirmative defense. Are you saying it’s okay as long as it’s non-medical users and not patients? I find that to be contrary to all your claims of compassion and outrage at prohibition. Okay, you can say some nice political platitudes, but your election year strategy is … to vote for adult non-medical marijuana to be illegal. I think that is one of the worst political strategies ever proposed, and I urge everyone to Vote Yes on Prop 19.
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.
R) REALLY!!?!?!?!?! The why is the first word in the title “TAX”??? Hello!!! Do you really think people are that stupid? Atleast be honest about what it is, otherwise you destroy your own credibility.
Chris: I am correct that it takes a 2/3 vote to pass a tax (Prop 13) and Prop 19 only needs 50% + one vote. The reason is that it is not a tax, it allows cannabis to be taxed like other things are taxed instead of it being illegal for non-medical use. I hope you see the folly of your campaign to keep non-medical marijuana illegal for adults in California, and Vote Yes on Prop 19.
18) The price of marijuana WILL drop after Prop 19 passes, that’s why so many drug dealers don’t like it. The Rand Corporation says to $38 per ounce, but most people think that good bud will go for around $100 per ounce.
R) Actually if you read the Rand corporations report it really says they Don’t know what could happen. Some people like to point out a low figure that was pointed out as a “possibility”. In Russia they passed a tax on Vodka and it doubled the cost of it. Vodka is to Russia what Weed is to California. Furthermore restricted “legal sellable cannabis” will have a constrained supply that won’t dent the prices. Especially since in Oakland its all going to be grown in the places we used to take Ecstacy at, those places are going to eat up electricity.
Chris: Time will prove me correct, but since I’m talking about the future, there is no legal statute to cite. I don’t think it’s fair that I have to pay fees, licenses, and taxes but people who grow and sell marijuana should not; and since people will be able to grow and share their own untaxed supply of personal, non-medical adult marijuana, there’s going to be a higher proportion of free marijuana shared among friends who grow their own, and that will bring down the price. That’s a really good reason to Vote Yes on Prop 19.
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.
R) Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. You shouldn’t have went county to county to have prop 215 petitions disqualified because of the use of 13 point font instead of 12 point bold. This can be confirmed with Dennis and you know it. If you look at who signed the official ballot statements, They are mostly cops. Yeah looks like the Narcs are liking your prop 19. What is your issue with “dealers” any ways? The people who have provided cannabis to others during the dark ages of prohibition deserve to be praised for their risks, not chastised as bad people.
Chris: This personal attack and rant is simply not true. Marc Emery and most activists do support Prop 19. John or somebody in Dennis’ office had petitions printed in the wrong font size and they would have been disqualified by the Registrar’s office, so every signature gathered would have been invalid. That is a legal requirement, so we ended up having to typeset a new petition to qualify under California election law (somebody else can look up that part of the election code).
This was one of many in a long line of screw ups by John Entwhistle and Dennis. FIrst they told Jack to fuck off and the hemp activists not to help them. Then they told the funders that they already had enough money. Then they hijacked the initiative from their own steering committee and filed language that made it impossible for a doctor to give post-facto approval to patients in court by changing the phrase “by testimony” to “oral recommendation.” They also left out the word “provide” which would have made it legal to provide medicine to patients if it was in there. Then the entire advisory board resigned in protest, so there was no board anymore. Then they had the initiatives printed in a font that the Board of Elections will not accept. Then they allowed patients to form “signing circles” where they forged signatures on the petitions that were copied from the phone book. Then they did not get any signatures certified. Then we and other people raised the money from some b!
ig funders who refused to fund the campaign if John and Dennis remained in charge. Then they hired me and my wife to bring the activists back on board and oversee the volunteer signature campaign. Then John and Dennis refused to turn in the signatures for verification, and the funders pulled the money from the campaign until we were able to get other activists to collect enough signatures that they did not feel that John and Dennis could hurt the campaign anymore. Then they started their big fight with Scott Imler and he attacked the initiative in the media and said he would not turn in his signatures until we later convinced him to do so. Then Dennis let narcs into his dispensary where they made videos of people smoking around little kids, which they put all over the news media. By then we had a professional campaign up and working. After we won the election, Dennis lost his case at the Supreme Court and retired to his little pot farm but then John invited the narcs to hel!
p with the harvest, which the cops accepted and eradicated the!
garden. Then Dennis got busted in Utah in a hotel room and please ask him about that because I only know a few of the sordid details from second-hand sources. Then they opposed SB 420, which legalized collectives and created a safe harbor from arrest.
Mikki and I helped form the Hemp Industries Association, formed Human Rights and the Drug War to expose the abuses of the Drug War through the stories and photos non-violent drug offenders, came back from working in Europe, learned what had happened, rallied the troops, helped raise money, were hired as statewide Volunteer Petition Coordinators for Californians for Medical Rights — the group that paid for the majority of signatures and put Prop 215 on the ballot. We made sure the petitions were legally acceptable, organized an alternative flow of petitions so no one could not stop them from being filed, and once the initiative was on the ballot I wrote Hemp for Health. After 215 passed I started working in the courts and was the expert witness in many of the most important rulings that benefit patients, including Trippet, Mower, Urziceanu, and Kelly, just to name a few. Then we worked on SB 420 with ASA, Cal NORML and Vanconcellos office. So exactly what are John and Dennis!
blaming me for, cleaning up their mess and covering up for their incompetence? I must admit that I did do that and protected their reputations. This is the first time I’ve ever written anything about what happened there, but if John and Dennis want to spread false stories about me behind my back, I suppose I can speak the truth about what happened. If you look into it you will find that I am correct.
Attacking people for supporting reform is wrong and self-destructive. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, the former law enforcement officials who signed the ballot argument, are for legalization as much as you are, because they’ve seen both sides of the Drug War, and that is why they enthusiastically tell everyone to Vote Yes on Prop 19.
No one said the initiative could not be improved, but stop lying Dragonfly, whoever you are.
R) There were plenty of alternatives that could have been funded instead. But the one with a selfish greedy motive, that puts Growers, Dealers,and patients wallets at risk. The economy is already fucked up. It makes absolutely zero sense to start handing over money to a government that wastefully spends. It will take the bread off the tables that feed Northern California’s children.
R) Keith Charles Kimber II
Chris: I am correct that the initiative allows the legislature to fix up whatever few and minor flaws may exist in Prop 19, but they are not authorized to increase penalties or reduce access, only to reduce penalties and increase access.
Don’t blame Prop 19 for what you, Dennis and Dragonfly have not done. If it’s so easy to get money to pass an initiative, why couldn’t Jack Herer do it in 30 years of trying? If it’s so easy we can always pass a better initiative in 2012, like Jack Herer’s. I think it’s a really good idea for you and Dragonfly and Dennis Peron to raise $2 million from pot dealers to spearhead Jack Herer’s Hemp initiative for 2012. But in 2010 everyone should Vote Yes on Prop 19.
And just for the record, KC, I never conceded you won the radio show, I was correct about everything you brought up then and everything you have brought up since. Now I need to get back to working on my court work to help keep people out of prison (under the current laws), and get back to encouraging everyone to Vote Yes on Prop. 19.
Once again and for the record Dragonfly’s analysis is full of false claims that make it completely unusable to convince anyone of anything. She owes the movement nothing less than a full retraction, an apology, and an effort to undo the damage she has done.
