Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
DrugWarRant
Join us on Pete's couch.
couch

DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy, is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
facebooktwitterrss
December 2013
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Archives

Authors

When going after drugged drivers just isn’t enough anymore…

This just struck me as odd…

Coalition reminds everyone to ride, drive drug-free

The Coalition for a Drug Free Dale County of SpectraCare Health Systems is joining other national, state and local law enforcement and highway safety officials to remind everyone this holiday season to drive and ride drug-free.

When did this happen? And why?

Has there been an epidemic of stoned people falling out of the back seats of cars?

This new development really complicates things.

What if the police arrest someone for driving impaired? How are they supposed to get him to the police station if people are no longer allowed to “ride” impaired? Do they have to walk him to the station?

Telling people not to drive impaired seems quite responsible, but riding?

One shouldn’t have to take every trip drug-free.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

47 comments to When going after drugged drivers just isn’t enough anymore…

  • Servetus

    Drive and ride(?) drug free? Must be some kind of Alabama colloquialism, like “riding shotgun”.

    Maybe that’s what they’re saying. They want Alabamans to hold a shotgun to the head of the driver so she doesn’t take a hit off her vapor pen.

  • claygooding

    Just what we needed,,now they will want to do impairment tests on riders,,,so much for the designated driver deal I guess.

  • Tony Aroma

    A drug-free trip? Is that an oxymoron? How else are you supposed to take a trip without leaving the farm (as we used to say)?

  • Incunabulum

    Its possible they mean ‘ride’ as riding a motorcycle. Its just a rather clumsy way to put it when placed against previous anti-drunk driving work that includes riding with driving.

    • Duncan20903

      How about riding on a magic carpet? How about Calvina Fay or Dianne Feinstein riding on the proverbial broom?

  • Nunavut Tripper

    “Has there been an epidemic of stoned people falling out of the back seats of cars?”

    Good one Pete…I needed a little laugh.

  • when i lived in New Mexico in the early 80’s it was illegal to ride with someone who was drunk — you were charged with a dui as a passenger, even if you were completely sober

    these are the things that happen when emotion dictates law.

    • DdC

      In Lakeland Florida they had a drive through window in a liquor store that served mixed drinks in a glass.

      • allan

        got a ride once in TX from a good ol’ boy, Lone Star in one hand and the steering wheel in the other. “You like p’cans young feller?”

        “Can’t say as I’ve ever had peecans sir.”

        It’s pronounced p’cons. You piss in a pee can.

        Many of life’s best lessons come from cross-cultural encounters. Seems there oughta be a song in there somwhars… Lone Star and p’can pie.

        New Mexico is the only place I’ve ever been caught in a mud storm.

  • DdC

    We have Park n Ride encouraging tourists to take the bus. Most Drive. Or Ride would probably be don’t ride bicycles drunk. We have many provisions for cyclists and they still do dumb things, sober. Worse than real cycles being a target for idiot car operators. No matter who has the right of way it is not advisable for a 50 pound bike to argue with a 3000 pound car. They never win and it doesn’t matter who is right laid out all covered in road rash. Many of the “cyclists” are drunks without licenses. Kids choose the much safer skate boards. No skate board lanes yet but they did build them a skate park. Maybe they can build us an off road scenic route to drive stoned. We have a few bicycle cops patrolling the downtown tourist traps. One security company drives a Segway. The one “W” tripped over. I don’t think they chase down too many speeding drivers. Maybe intoxicated bicyclists.

    That new label is maybe due to the future license suspended x drivers, forced to ride bikes. Now they won’t be able to even do that? Next is walking while under the influence? We have trained our politicians pretty well on the pot issue. They still go ape shit over many things to keep it reminiscent of some kind of parole system. With little hall monitors checking for cigarette smokers within 20 feet of a doorway. I think they passed an ordinance on public sitting, must be 14 feet from a building. They removed the benches when they caught a couple homeless people “sleeping”, in board daylight. Where everyone could see, sleeping. Can you imagine what they might do it they went to sleep stoned? Snore? In public, snoring where all the tourists can hear them. I don’t know about this paradise stuff. They outlawed plastic bags in groceries. I’m ok with that but now they charge for a paper bag. I always being my large hemp sacs so its just weird how they fought against reducing plastic and then make money on the deal.

    The store I shop labels their packaged food NO GMO’s. So I guess Monsanto spent hundreds of millions defeating label laws to no avail. That’s a good thing. Corporate housing, especially for the elderly and poor establish their own Constitution that apparently over rides the one in DC. No growing pot under prop 215 because it is a controlled substance. No guns in the home, no NRA concern either. No BBQs or hanging flower pots. No smoking cigarettes or improper dress in public. Do they even realize where they are? Central CA has no dress code and many places clothing itself is optional. These silly politicians think they are doing a good job if they take liberty from people. Always in the name of protecting other people or most likely businesses. But we do have a nice delivery service with dozens of choices. I still buy from growers.

    So how does the FDA intend banning Vaporizers.

    Maybe if it’s safer they ban it. Would explain why cars are the most deadly way of transporting someone while airlines are the safest and have the most useless unnecessary security.

    Vapes are still available… Next is a ban on playing air guitars as a copyright infringement.

    Outlaw Vapes

  • ezrydn

    The idiocy, the lunacy, the stupidity sure seems like it’s ramping up, huh. Nothing factual, mind you. Just more of the same.

  • darkcycle

    While they certainly meant riders of motorcycles, they made themselves sound insane. That gets applause from me.

  • thelbert

    here’s why i started growing my own medicine in a nutshell. it may be why california legalizes next year. http://tinyurl.com/q7pe78t

    • DdC

      CA is legal. No state law can trump the commerce clause. The CUA is a citizens initiative no politician can tweak. CA can’t bust dispensaries because its a federal offense to sell it. CA Supremes said so. So it is legal, except for the feds that won’t be stopped by state laws. So a few profiteers can quasi legally do what they are doing as it is? Like I said Incremental Retardation. If you want to legally sell it. Then it has to be removed from the Controlled Substance Act. Save your money, this initiative is dead in the water as the last bogus attempt was.

      Only CA has no cop limits or politician conditions and to throw that away on cop laws is beyond reason. Duping people is what the drug worriers do. Obama has kept his word on not enforcing the lies of Nixon, but that can all change next election. States still bust mostly on possession. In states with limits or no laws stopping them like prop 215. As it is the feds have no army to bust all of the growers, why would states citizens trust cops to give that jurisdiction to states by adding limits or conditions? Those who push for these state traps are no better than sabet or kinkykreli. Same result, people in prisons. State prison is no better than federal prison.

      Note. Compassionate Use Act not the MMJ Act
      Follow CA or Bust’
      Catch 22²
      Thou Dost Protest Too Much, Methinks

  • Duncan20903

    .
    .

    Maybe they mean horseback riding? I’ve heard of people getting busted for DUI on a horse when the horse was 100% sober.

    How about bicycle riding? Do you have even a clue of how much havoc can be caused by a drunken bicyclist?

    Will DUI-stupid ever be codified as a crime?

    When do we get a report of the highway mayhem caused by people who have taken too much caffeine? Exactly what do people think precipitates the stupidity of “road rage” against a stranger who you’ve never seen before and aren’t likely to ever see again? Caffeine psychosis is a very real, documented condition.

  • Duncan20903

    .
    .

    Nothing relevent, I’m just venting some steam:

    Did everybody else just link HuffPo to their Facebook profile so they can put your “real” name on your posts? Now while it’s been years since I quit hiding my “real” identity I did choose to make it beyond the ken of the idiot prohibitionists to figure out. Also I don’t care to be forced into doing so years after signing up for a website. Especially since I’ve created a very real, identifiable name as Duncan20903. For purposes of posting comments under articles about cannabis law reform issues Duncan20903 IS my “real” name. I’m sure that there are at least thousands and thousands of people who know what’s coming when they see that a post was written by Duncan20903.

    I’ve still got a Facebook page with my “real” name listed as Harold Thedikhead. While it would serve those rat bastards running HuffPo right I still don’t want to establish another pseudonym.

    P.S. if you’re just going to tell me that I’m over thinking the issue you can keep it to yourself. I’ll happily stipulate that it’s true.

    • DdC

      I use my DdC moniker on facebook and don’t know enough or trust having two accounts using my family known name. So I probably miss out on family gossip. But I don’t like to put anyone in harms way of my sometimes passion for ending prohibition. Especially patients. Most of the employers are private families so that is not a problem with them. I did wonder if 20903 was a zip code, seems to be for Maryland, it might limit the search area for your real name. But as you said its pretty common. Cookies might cross reference info for facebook to match them and NSA spies could get it possibly. I know some might think its paranoid but you never know and we do know the weasels are not above anything when it comes to the dung war.

      • darkcycle

        Duncan, I’m a little confused by your post…I haven’t linked Huff Post to anything and I’m not sure how you’d do that….but I do use FB to post when it’s convenient. DdC, I’ll look fer you again…I haven’t been able to find you there…(BTW, my FB name is also a vestige of before I came out in my own name..Curtis Creek, any couch folk are invited to friend me.)

        • DdC

          Sorry bout that dc/cc, I used the initials on this post as an example of an alternative to my name, not thinking about what it is at fb. It always signs me in on auto. I tried those 3 initials a few years ago when I signed up. Originally I think it was too short or something. Now its address is facebook.com/222DdC.Then never used it or twiter much for a while. Still don’t use face place except as another of many storage dumps

          If I think about it I sometimes click the fb button of an article. But mostly if its savable I’ll twitter it. Or put it in the ecp cybrary. But its Tw/fb functions seem sporadic or just don’t work. Same with the functions friending, likes, profiles and all that I don’t keep up with. Or twitter. I follow sites for info and leave links. It’s probably going to cause the downfall of the human languages. lol bc lol is gd gd License plate #thismfer!

          fb seems a little too Mr Rogers or Priestly, preying on the desperate. Do you want to be my friend? lol sorry. To each their own and I’m sure real people pop up occasionally, but it is the internet. Anyone can be anything they want. So fb can make you seem pretty cool but sooner or later you have to do it for real. Some can’t cope and fb hallucinations become their real friends. But it is a fair ammo dump for quick posts, no c&p. No code for urls though. I want a TV google.

          Rider is sounding more like Harley’s than Schwinn. Do they even make them anymore?

          In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
          Revelation 22:2

  • kaptinemo

    Just another Freudian slip from the prohibitches. The real motivation is revealed inadvertently: total prohibition for total control. It’s the same kind of motivation that caused the founder of MADD to resign from her own organization.

    Nietzsche had such people perfectly described:

    “Inspired ones they resemble: but it is not the heart that inspireth them– but vengeance. And when they become subtle and cold, it is not spirit, but envy, that maketh them so…In all their lamentations soundeth vengeance, in all their eulogies is maleficence; and being judge seemeth to them bliss.

    But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!

    They are people of bad race and lineage; out of their countenances peer the hangman and the sleuth-hound.

    Distrust all those who talk much of their justice! Verily, in their souls not only honey is lacking.

    And when they call themselves “the good and just,” forget not, that for them to be Pharisees, nothing is lacking but–power!

    Kevvie and Co. mouths are full of sweet words like ‘treatment’, but it is still delivered at gunpoint. So as to still impose their views – and neuroses – on their fellow citizens, by force, as they could never hope to succeed with persuasion. Just the kind of person ol’ Friedrich was warning us about.

    Which got me to thinking about something Mencken said. Oh, yes, here it is:

    “In brief, Prohibition has not only failed to work the benefits that its proponents promised in 1917; it has brought in so many new evils that even the mob has turned against it.

    But do the Prohibitionists admit the fact frankly, and repudiate their original nonsense? They do not. On the contrary, they keep on demanding more and worse enforcement statutes — that is to say, more and worse devices for harassing and persecuting their opponents.

    The more obvious the failure becomes, the more shamelessly they exhibit their genuine motives. In plain words, what moves them is the psychological aberration called sadism. They lust to inflict inconvenience, discomfort, and, whenever possible, disgrace upon the persons they hate — which is to say, upon everyone who is free from their barbarous theological superstitions, and is having a better time in the world than they are. They cannot stop the use of alcohol, nor even appreciably diminish it, but they can badger and annoy everyone who seeks to use it decently, and they can fill the jails with men taken for purely artificial offences, and they can get satisfaction thereby for the Puritan yearning to browbeat and injure, to torture and terrorize, to punish and humiliate all who show any sign of being happy. And all this they can do with a safe line of policemen and judges in front of them; always they can do it without personal risk. (Emphasis mine – k.)

    And there you have it. Strip them of the shield of being behind the line of police and other ‘vessels of power’, and they’re reduced to the level of the whiney relative with the nasally voice who’s always providing unsolicited advice on how to run your life (when his own life is an absolute mess), or the mad street preacher predicting the end of the world at Happy Hour, today due to the Almighty frowning upon excess “FOR-NUH-CAY-SHIN”.

    (I once had the ‘pleasure’ of listening to one such person in DC last year, and the word seemed to have special meaning for him, as he said it so often. Perhaps he was signaling an unconscious admission he wasn’t getting any and was advertising his availability. Which leads me to think that perhaps some prohibitches are closet stoners. Very sick ones.)

    They’re the kind of people you would cross the street and walk several blocks to avoid…and, worse for them, they know it. And I think that’s partly why they hate us so much.

    • B. Snow

      A minor quibble Kap,

      Your – “due to the Almighty frowning upon excess “FOR-NUH-CAY-SHIN”.”

      Uhm, That’s almost as funny as the “Drive & Ride Sober” grammar/mix-up…

      I think you meant “Excessive”, I say that because – I’m thinking “Excess” would be more like ‘Extra’ or ‘Spare’, maybe even ‘Throwback’ = in a certain context…

      And even that is iffy because the street preacher would have a likely have a problem with ANY Fornication.
      But, IF the couple were married they’d probably just be ‘Excessively’ – “fruitful & multiplying” – so to speak.

      In which case – IF they were still upset it would really be more likely an example of said person – ‘whining due to them not getting any’ – just saying.

      (Sorry this just struck me as both funny – and ironic – So, I felt I should share the thought with the rest of the couch.)

    • Servetus

      Precisely. If peasants are kept miserable, they’re made dependent on the Puritan ideal, as ad hoc feudal lord, regarding everything worthwhile in their miniscule lives.

      Who needs the misery? Why kowtow to some Puritan bastard when life is otherwise good? And that’s exactly the point. Without human misery, there’s no justification for Puritanism, thus the need by Puritans, et al., to create and maintain a miserable life for themselves and everyone else.

      With respect to fornication, Puritan society was somewhat ribald from a male world view. In the same sense, Puritanism was also completely misogynist, with women reduced to chattel property, such that rape hardly mattered legally to anyone but the chattel property owner. Then there were the female victims of the Salem witch hunts….

      The Puritan ideal was as vicious a bit of circular human hysteria as has ever existed. And as William Faulkner noted, “The past isn’t dead. It isn’t even past.”

  • Duncan20903

    .
    .

    OK folks, I think you’re going to truly enjoy this one. It’s from the “I never knew that a man in his dotage could have huevos that big” category:

    ‘Tell that old man to stop lying’: Uruguay’s president chides UN official over marijuana law
    December 14, 2013

    Uruguay’s president has accused the head of the UN’s International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) of lying and double standards, after the official claimed the country did not consult the anti-drug body before legalizing marijuana.

    Earlier this week, Uruguay became the first country in the world to legalize both the sale and production of marijuana.

    INCB chief Raymond Yans has slammed the “surprising” move, accusing the South American state of legalizing the drug without first discussing it with the UN organization.

    Uruguay’s president, Jose Mujica, rejected the criticism on Friday, saying that he’s ready to discuss the law with anyone.

    “Tell that old man to stop lying,” Mujica said in an interview with Uruguay’s Canal 4.

    “Let him come to Uruguay and meet me whenever he wishes… Anybody can meet and talk to me, and whoever says he couldn’t meet with me tells lies, blatant lies.

    “Because he sits in a comfortable international platform, he believes he can say whatever nonsense,” he added.
    /snip/

    Why the heck couldn’t I have been born Uruguayan?

    • B. Snow

      Wait, you left out the best part!

      “President Mujica and his supporters argue that regulating marijuana consumption and production will remove profits from criminals and allow less money to be spent on soldiers and police, who are ultimately unable to prevent Uruguayan citizens from using the drug.

  • Malc

    Just in: 65% of Dutch adults wish to follow Uruguay’s example by fully legalizing all aspects of the marijuana industry.

    http://www.camilleri.nl/2013/12/nederlanders-willen-marihuana-gelegaliseerd-hebben/

    • Freeman

      Ironically, that’s about the percentage of Uruguayans reported as being opposed to their new mj legalization. There’s even a threat to attempt to reverse the decision via ” a referendum that would allow residents to vote directly on the fate of the law”.

      The world is watching, so I’m a bit apprehensive that the first national government to make the move seems to be doing so in opposition to the will of the majority of it’s constituents. If it fails due to popular opposition, all we’ll hear from the prohibitches is that national legalization has been tried and it failed. On the other hand, if allowed to proceed, well implemented, and results are seen as successful, the constituents will come around and the arguments in favor of legalization elsewhere will be even stronger.

      • Malc

        Fortunately, the percentage of Uruguayans in opposition to legalized regulation is falling fast.

        “According to a recent opinion poll by Equipos Consultores, 58 percent of Uruguayans oppose legalizing pot, although that is down from 68 percent in a previous survey in June.”

        58% opposed

      • claygooding

        I think what we are hearing is the illegal growers and dealers hollering and not the majority of the people but A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE BEING ASKED!
        I can see even more resistance to legalization in Mexico because of the thousands of families illegal marijuana feeds. The estimated 60 billion dollar Mexican illegal marijuana market feeds a lot of people in every phse of it’s production and distribution.
        I use the estimate made by the FBI and ONDCP and not the Rand super shrink estimate for the marijuana market.

        • kaptinemo

          Yep…just like what happened with the opposition to Prop19.

          Those who had the most to lose from re-legalized weed did their (literal, IMHO) damnedest to prevent it, and it wasn’t so much the cops and all the other prohib parasites who did the most damage, but those who wanted to maintain the artificially high price of cannabis to preserve their own life-styles.

          They made common cause with said parasites…and were ‘thanked’ afterward by their ‘allies’ with the flurry of destructive raids courtesy of President Choom’s ‘Justice’ department. They should have known by now that no deal made with the Devil is ever honored.

          And now? It should be obvious that those who worked against the freedom of their fellow citizens in California should have NO say in crafting the reform laws being proposed that will emancipate them.

          What comes around, goes around…for our side as well as the opposition’s.

        • DdC

          kaptinemo
          December 15, 2013 at 12:19 pm
          Yep…just like what happened with the opposition to Prop19.

          The profiteers and police were the only ones to gain from 19, or this newest bait and switch Kap. Prop 215 already does what can be done without removing cannabis as a scheduled narcotic. Comparing a sovereign nation to a state is just silly. The Uruguayan’s against legalizing are being told by DEA and UN narko’s and what they have seen done by the cartels. Those same elements are trying to gut prop 215 to push these new laws. To give the state rights in busting people they haven’t got under 215. Totally opposite. Adjust your blinders. What you actually invested in prop 19 and lost money? Should have ask me first. There is NO state law that will over ride the feds and state law enforcement can’t bust dispensaries because its federal. All these profiteer laws do is add limits so state cops can bust citizens. Less and less a surprise why it has lasted 75 years. Now if you or any of the other “legalizers” can counter that statement, please do. Just not in your own words. Bring the text in question and show me where it trumps obama. I’ll wait. Or rather I’ll be around.

          Those who had the most to lose from re-legalized weed did their (literal, IMHO)

          Again your ho is dead wrong. Those who have the most to gain from using cannabis have protection from prop 215 unless they add limits or conditions like the other incrementalists. Only those already selling it want it written in the law and are willing to appease the prisons to get it. Then it still won’t make a damn bit of difference to the IRS and DEA. So again if you can counter what I wrote please do, otherwise you are doing exactly what you accuse those opposing the profiteers are doing.

          damnedest to prevent it, and it wasn’t so much the cops and all the other prohib parasites who did the most damage, but those who wanted to maintain the artificially high price of cannabis to preserve their own life-styles.

          Are you a troll? What did you do with the Kap’t? The prices have lowered since 215 and its free to any individual growing their own. These profit laws you love only force people to buy it and the dispensaries are more costly than the streets. It was the cops writing the damn initiative 19 and this latest one. Or signing off on it. That is why they sell the farm for a few bars of gold for themselves. As it is citizens can grow their own and buy it in dispensaries. For any reason. Without limits or conditions. Adding what is still illegal and removing what we have is what I call duping the poor and those needing it most. You are only aiding the profiteers. It is opposite of Uruguay where the drug worriers and cartels are fear mongering the people. Same drug worriers and cartels wanting limits to force those growing their own to have to buy it. If that is not abundantly clear I don’t know what the hell is. Profiteers that don’t even smoke pot and one old head shop owner seeing dollar bill signs against millions of citizens sustaining their own without buying it. Your statement was only true in 1995 when we gathered signatures for 215.

          They made common cause with said parasites…and were ‘thanked’ afterward by their ‘allies’ with the flurry of destructive raids courtesy of President Choom’s ‘Justice’ department. They should have known by now that no deal made with the Devil is ever honored.

          Now we resort to flat out lies? Obama has never lost the jurisdiction to bust anyone. You are the gullible thinking what he said had any weight in law. He prioritized his enforcement, that is it. He never removed it as a scheduled narcotic. He never gave states rights that he has no authority to do. The Supreme Court decided Raich v Gonzales and made all exchanges federal offenses. So Obama said he wouldn’t make it a high priority, especially in states following their own laws. Guess what common parasite? No state has authority to over ride the Supreme Court. So NO state can follow the law if the law is bogus. Obama could have busted anyone and decided to prioritize it only on the larger profiteers. The law has not changed and Obama has no inclination if he even has authority to bust individuals growing their own without intent, and hasn’t. So get your facts and then form your opinions please, not in reverse.

          And now? It should be obvious that those who worked against the freedom of their fellow citizens in California should have NO say in crafting the reform laws being proposed that will emancipate them.

          Emancipate them like the slaves and you say bring back Jim Crow so the rednecks don’t get all flustered? Those working for purely profits are the ones working against everyones freedom to grow their own and without limits to give the states a law to fill cages with. Like most Lipertopians you care less about the peoples health and only about corporate profits spewing pollution. You think states can not oppress the people and we have to fear the feds when they are the same. Cops verses stoners. You punish the sick by forcing them to buy their meds. WAMM gives it away and this law would force them to buy it having limits. Only citizens initiatives can stop politicians tweaking the law. This citizens initiative written by the profiteers and cops is no different. You have the cart before the horse. The Compassionate Use Act has allowed individuals to obtain cannabis in quantities they require for over 17 years. Now outsiders think they can spew the same horse shit the profiteers and politicops spew, and insult the sick and poor growing their own. We can already buy it in expensive dispensaries. Or have it delivered and no new state law will change that or over ride the feds if they deem it worthy of busting. That is what makes it retarded Kap’t. They are selling it in dispensaries as it is. This new state law won’t change a thing in DC as far as obama is concerned or the next one after him. All based on Nixon lies and you cover up for with these state bogus traps of incremental retardation. Bring it on! Moneysluts are UnAmerican! Like shooting fish in a barrel… next!

          PS: Oh btw Kap, feel free to address my actual post on the subject and face me when you spew your ad hominem. Not just hurling rocks in the dark. Oh and did you hear Obama busted Colorado dispensaries last week in spite of their incrementalism. WA too. Because he can. Until it is removed as a scheduled narcotic the feds rule all selling and all commercial grows. That is the bottom line.

        • kaptinemo

          DdC, I’ll respond by first stating I will not reply to your insults in like manner.

          Secondly, with regards to the prices ‘dropping’, they are still predicated upon the artificially inflated value of cannabis, courtesy of prohibition. For example, the average cost of bud in a dispensary is approximately 13-14 dollars a gram. Multiply by 28, and it winds up costing per ounce what you would pay on the street.

          I shouldn’t have to point out that such prices are hardly low. Very profitable, indeed. And with possessing a de facto monopoly on (quasi)legally-accessible cannabis, there was enough incentive for dispensaries to tell their patients to work against Prop19, for weed prices will drop like stones once a legal, regulated market is in place. That very same ‘Invisible Hand’ of Adam Smith, once unfettered by artificial price strictures (prohibition) will see to that, as no one will want to pay anywhere near the present cost, and will force the price down to a more realistic level.

          Thirdly, WRT the ‘stakeholders’ who have cards in the game, there is simply no avoiding the kind of bureaucracy involved in implementing legal cannabis. As much as I may personally dislike it, the fact remains that few organizations that have economic clout can ever be counted on to properly regulate themselves; the recent economic meltdown stands as the worst kind of proof of that. Hence, government involvement – and all the trappings that go with it – is inevitable.

          Fourth, as to the limitations on personal growing, amount possession, etc., what makes you think they will be written in stone, unchangeable unto eternity? The gross stupidity of such limitations will become apparent soon enough, and an electorate that votes for legal weed will adjust the law later to remove such odious strictures.

          In short, the economic and historical trends involved in ‘mainstreaming’ (as if cannabis weren’t already) any product have always involved moving from an amorphous laisseze faire environment to a more structured and regulated one. Railing against the inevitability is tantamount to impotent fist-shaking and foot-stomping. In this case, those who have benefited enormously from the former environment had every reason to work against the latter (and did) as it would prove economically devastating to them…while at the same time benefiting their fellow citizens who would no longer require a doctor’s certification to enjoy what they now do covertly, and at (I repeat) high cost.

          As far as the Feds are concerned, they know their time is almost at an end. The raids that are taking place now are in essence the last attempt at the institutionalized ‘smash-and-grab’ that has been happening all along. They’re ‘getting their licks in’ while they can. The next round of elections, with referenda in some States explicitly calling for re-legalization, will place greater pressure on the Feds, as it becomes even clearer that those who pay the tax bills don’t want to pay for prohibition.

        • darkcycle

          Don’t be an asshole, DdC.

        • Windy

          kap, I agree with you that historical and current economic policies will tend to push this into the Keynesian policy, where government regulates too much and doesn’t allow prices to seek a level, thereby forcing prices higher than they should be (but, hopefully, lower than bm prices, even with the government’s taxes added on). But I truly wish for an Austrian model (laissez-faire) market to take hold in America for every economic situation, not just for the cannabis market, we’d all be so much better off. However, for now, it seems that Keynesians have the upper hand, thanks to lack of real basic study in economics in public schools.

          And I agree with dc, DdC, don’t be an ass.

        • DdC

          DdC, I’ll respond by first stating I will not reply to your insults in like manner.

          They were your insults Kap, I just used them.

          and it wasn’t so much the cops and all the other prohib parasites who did the most damage, but those who wanted to maintain the artificially high price of cannabis to preserve their own life-styles.

          Not one tiny bit of evidence to back that lame statement up. 19 and this trash bill is for the money and not for the people you call parasites for opposing the money. I see that is where the Libertarians live. Not a surprise you side with the commercial buyers clubs against the people growing their own by adding limits. Giving the state a free reign to bust citizens they haven’t got under 215. Making shit up and getting your fans to agree doesn’t make it truth, or even logical.

          Secondly, with regards to the prices ‘dropping’, they are still predicated upon the artificially inflated value of cannabis, courtesy of prohibition.

          Exactly, based on risk and that won’t change until the CSA removes cannabis. This law just gives states the power to do what the feds have no funding to do. Bust individuals they can’t bust as it is because its a federal offense. Feds man mins don’t kick in until over 100 plants. States are busting most of the people and adding limits to what they can grow is stupid and only serves the big bucks commercializing it.

          For example, the average cost of bud in a dispensary is approximately 13-14 dollars a gram. Multiply by 28, and it winds up costing per ounce what you would pay on the street.

          Your theory is just wrong I live here and buy the shit and it has dropped in price on the streets avg $300 an oz and less with greater quantity. Dispensaries are expensive and most like myself choose to go to the growers. But you are confused if you think I am against dispensaries as I’ve said. Its just they are under federal jurisdiction that states can not touch until you grant them permission with these bogus limit laws. 215 is the law of the land and the only state initiative politicians can’t change. You for the love of money would sell out the citizens for a few rich moneysluts. Doesn’t matter of your intentions or theories. Prop 215 is as I posted it. Not medicinal, compassion. Anyone for any reason. Why would someone appease the prisons to change it to add limits? Profits keeping citizens from growing more than 4 plants a year? Forcing them to buy it from the moneysluts. Is that really over your head?

          I shouldn’t have to point out that such prices are hardly low.

          Or is it true.

          Very profitable, indeed. And with possessing a de facto monopoly on (quasi)legally-accessible cannabis, there was enough incentive for dispensaries to tell their patients to work against Prop19, for weed prices will drop like stones once a legal, regulated market is in place.

          Yes but only in Libertarian Utopia. Your bedtime story doesn’t even sound plausible let alone true. Again, NO FUCKING STATE LAW can trump the commerce clause jurisdiction covering all sales. Adding limits to another state law with no fed teeth only limits citizens it doesn’t stop the feds. 215 doesn’t either, but it does keep the state cops at bay and this is what you want to toss out. protection from the state. Only removing it from the CSA will permit states to sell it. Don’t shoot the messenger.

          That very same ‘Invisible Hand’ of Adam Smith, once unfettered by artificial price strictures (prohibition) will see to that, as no one will want to pay anywhere near the present cost, and will force the price down to a more realistic level.

          In dreamland, NOT until the CSA removes cannabis. Until then dispensaries are a convenience and its really gullible to put faith in a politicians word they won’t bust something. That is not making it legal. So its a lesser evil with states and limiting the states only gives them power to incarcerate citizens regardless of the feds. So you are arguing for the moneysluts and price will not change as long as the feds controi prohibition. Until that is settled… Incremental Retardation. States other than CA adding conditions and limits retain prohibition at a state level. CA doesn’t, except for zoninng where they are no state cop can bust a dispensary. Only feds. Prices have lowered because of that and only that reason. Less risk since states busting dispensaries were over ruled by the CA supreme court.

          Thirdly, WRT the ‘stakeholders’ who have cards in the game, there is simply no avoiding the kind of bureaucracy involved in implementing legal cannabis.

          I’m not anti-capitalism. Its just reality you seem to have a problem with thinking the feds aren’t involved. These heavyweights the so called reformers. Have investments to protect but a bogus state law won’t stop the feds. So all they are doing is limiting amounts to force the poor to buy it or risk state busts growing for themselves. 4 plants when now we have 99 until the feds get active. Just lame and only serving the money not the people. Oh and you know what they say about good intentions.

          As much as I may personally dislike it, the fact remains that few organizations that have economic clout can ever be counted on to properly regulate themselves; the recent economic meltdown stands as the worst kind of proof of that.

          Confusing and a diversion. The money organizations are fascists but that is no surprise in the USA. I’m not even concerned about it. I dream of a day I can pay reasonable prices and have lots of choices and hope the owners make a bundle. But this is not how when they act as denialists and set aside the reality of the feds and commerce. They believe or tell us, like you try. That we are too stupid to understand. That projections and polls matter and yet they dismiss the reality of the feds controlling cannabis commerce and think they can make more by limiting home grown. Everyone sees that, I don’t see why you have trouble. Only those with vested ignorance perpetuate the prohibition and it seems the same for those wanting to sell it more than serving the people their needs. Selfish is too mild. Greed is too common. I need a word that defines one who cares less about people suffering and more about making profits.

          Hence, government involvement – and all the trappings that go with it – is inevitable.

          How many years of school did that take you to figure out? NO shit sherlock. Again a diversion from the topic you can’t seem to grip. If there were no ONDCP governing commerce I might tend to agree with most of what you said. Until it is removed then you are only serving the money and prison interests. NO state law will trump the feds and tweaking state laws all day won’t remove it from the feds. Only give the states more ammo to cage citizens that they don’t have with 215. So again I say your blinders are painting a picture that is running down the canvas. If you want to get rich selling pot, then petition Obama to remove it as a controlled substance. Not wishing for it or by begging cops;

          Fourth, as to the limitations on personal growing, amount possession, etc., what makes you think they will be written in stone, unchangeable unto eternity?

          Because they can. Are you that naive to think if we give them this tool to bust people they haven’t got as it stands. They will all of a sudden feel sorry for us? Or change the limits? laugh out loud. Come on Kap you know better. It is written in stone once it passes. Limits only persecute citizens and force them to buy it and that is still illegal according to the feds. Its not the 10th amendment Lbertarians cry for, its the commerce clause. Plus you do a disservice to the other 30 states without laws but plenty of people wanting to use it. Only by removing it as a controlled substance will that happen. So again i reject your typical advertisement for the moneysluts and suggest you check out the CUA and tell us how it does anything different concerning dispensaries except it has no limits so it won’t do harm to the people. Its all feds regardless of these incrementally ill moneysluts state wishes. State can’t bust you for more than the law says because the present law 215 has no limits. 19 did, and this bogus crap does. That isn’t difficult. You only show your side with appeasement’s like this.

          Plus your fan club has no imagination. Boring ad hominem. No argument, just denial. No it isn’t, I agree with him. Do they even know why they agree? Come on Kap, give em a ball cap or something to motivate them out of being plain lemmings.

          The gross stupidity of such limitations will become apparent soon enough, and an electorate that votes for legal weed will adjust the law later to remove such odious strictures.

          Still won’t stop the feds and you are dreaming if you think it will change after it passes. i can’t believe you even said that. Why add limits to begin with except to be lapdogs to the cops and politicians that have no say in 215. Reform groups should educate the backward towns to enforce 215 and not try to add limits, bread ties or conditions. Nixon lied and that is what the policy you suggest supports. Nixon’s lies. Weak kap, I’m losing much respect for you I’ve garnered over the years. Ya sold out.

          In short, the economic and historical trends involved in ‘mainstreaming’ (as if cannabis weren’t already) any product have always involved moving from an amorphous laisseze faire environment to a more structured and regulated one.

          Kap there has never been an infrastructure for growing pot. To make that claim you would have to see into the future because there is no past. Price has always been determined by risk. Supply and demand. Even now that it is getting more convenient for the unconnected it is still determined by risk. Until the feds are out of it, risk will remain and price will remain. Or at least it has since 1996. Then prices started dropping, again less risk. The streets compete and adjust accordingly. But you will never get beer prices as long as the feds are covering commerce and none of the state laws can trump the feds. Only give states power to persecute. Why would anyone do that outside of a drug worrier parasite?

          Railing against the inevitability is tantamount to impotent fist-shaking and foot-stomping. In this case, those who have benefited enormously from the former environment had every reason to work against the latter (and did) as it would prove economically devastating to them…while at the same time benefiting their fellow citizens who would no longer require a doctor’s certification to enjoy what they now do covertly, and at (I repeat) high cost.

          That is just not true and it sounds like a memo from The Reformers, not stoners. Limits are what the people are pissed about and what has killed this bill and the other two floating around. We don’t need more state laws we need less federal. That is it. All of your theories are worthless until you adopt to that bit of reality.

          As far as the Feds are concerned, they know their time is almost at an end.

          Proof? Or speculation? They said that when leary overturned the MTA. Kerli doesn’t seem to think so. Sabet isn’t surrendering. Calvina is still spare changing. Now they see it as what it is, a lie they have to maintain. They are not fooled by doing the right thing or democracy or sympathy for sick people. profits on prohibition is why cannabis is scheduled the same as crack. It keeps wall st corporations from having to deal with competition. Same as rockefeller did with booze and again with the MTA. Always protecting international corporations over the will of the people and why Libertarians never get more than 3% of the vote. Not until they sever their umbilical cord from wall st.

          Al Capone and Watergate

          The raids that are taking place now are in essence the last attempt at the institutionalized ‘smash-and-grab’ that has been happening all along.

          …and will continue in 30 states and 19 with limits. There 8 points is a catch 22 in that no state can trump raich v gonzales and they know it. So selling it is prohibited under fed law and just because obama has a lower priority in busting. Doesn’t change the fact they can if they want to and no state can legally stop them. Next election might be even worse. But that isn’t state laws. 215 is the only state law without limits or conditions and state cops can’t bust dispensaries due to them being a federal offense. Feds budgets isn’t enough to bust all dispensaries and they don’t have to. Its on their time. But in no way will llimits on state laws change the feds so its all a moot point except it will limit individuals and force them to go to dispensaries. No other reason. You support a few chains for profits over the weak, sick and elderly growing their own. Guess you have to live with it.

          They’re ‘getting their licks in’ while they can.

          No Kap, they’re getting their licks in because they can. That won’t change with weasel laws like 19.

          The next round of elections, with referenda in some States explicitly calling for re-legalization, will place greater pressure on the Feds, as it becomes even clearer that those who pay the tax bills don’t want to pay for prohibition.

          Like I said if wishes were fishes no one would starve. Don’t hold your breath kap. Until the feds is out of the picture by removing Nixon’s lies the states will play whack a mole with the feds onto the heads of the people popping up with alternatives to their fossl fools status quo. Pretty simple so I assume you have an agenda for this denialism? As it stands prop 215 is the best of the state laws and nothing will over ride the feds so handcuffing the people won’t do a thing. Try to force people to buy it in clubs but they won’t. Why sign your name to something that the feds can come back anytime to harass you> like the guy needing a liver transplant signed a card and was denied and he died. First thing the cops go for in a raid is the computer records of the clients. So unless you have some evidence I’ll stick with my conclusions. If these state weasel laws pop up we will be here to smack them back down. Until the feds are forced to remove cannabis. Its gonna stay a drug war.

  • DdC

    Illogical
    by Grey Dread (not verified), December 09, 2013, 01:21pm

    1 ounce? Four plants? I get more than an once per plant, dried. I’m ‘allowed’ by our slave masters to grow 6 plants and possess AT LEAST 8 ounces (technically, we’re ‘permitted’ to have as much as we need, although we’d likely run into trouble with the jackboots if we were to exceed 8 ounces) for medicinal use. An ounce? Congratulations for a boneheaded move. It’s guaranteed to fail.

  • DdC

    Too many restrictions!
    by Chadwick (not verified), December 09, 2013, 10:37am

    Among the grotesque restrictions:
    1. One ounce of marijuana per adult 21+ limit [H&S §11362.2(a)(1)]
    2. 4 plant personal cultivation / home grow PER Residence/parcel, with none of the plants being publicly visible. [H&S §11362.2(a)(2)]
    3. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law,” public smoking of marijuana shall be treated as a $100 fine. This INCLUDES medical marijuana. [H&S §11362.2(d)]
    4. Automatically imposes a 25% retail tax for adult sales. [RTC §34020]

    You’re taking us backward with MMJ rights, and are trying to put a purely commercialized version of MJ legalization on the ballot for California to once again reject.

    Please fix this initiative!

  • DdC

    DdC’s picture
    If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!
    by DdC, December 16, 2013, 02:59am

    215 prevents the state from busting people without limits or conditions. NO state initiative can over ride the Feds who have been determined grand rulers of all cannabis commerce. So this statewide Incremental Retardation makes no sense especially since you all know cannabis prohibition started on Nixon rejecting science. Predicting what the voters may or may not do, to back only winners for less than we have now, is illogical. The CUA doesn’t require proof of medical conditions and reformers should be educating these backward towns instead of waiting for tinkle-down from the “heavyweights”. ID cards are voluntary and only used for dispensaries, who have nothing to do with 215. That are ruled under the jurisdiction of the IRS. That no state can stop with state initiatives. CA 215 is by the citizens and all of these tweaky politician mini laws are invalid. Except zoning laws and again, nothing to stop the Feds. Only a bogus citizens initiative can remove 215 and that is what this will do. The Compassionate Use Act is not a Medical Marijuana Act. Except for silly semantics it is a recreational alternative or alocohol substitute. Outside of selling it. Prioritizing something lower on the bust list is not legal. But giving states power to bust people the Feds have no interest in is insanity. Stop tweaking 215 and these silly incrementally ill non real law/paychecks for lawyers and reformers. The only logical and sane avenue is to remove cannabis as a controlled substance.

    Note. Compassionate Use Act not the MMJ Act

    There are no heavyweights over the weight of the people. Apathy comes from empty promises and reform in this country has taken us from over turning the MTA, that never banned medicinal or hemp. To Nixon rejecting his own GOP Commission’s findings. While the sheople grazed on hype of a two bit hotel burglary. Shafer was re-evaluating previous Commission findings still available, same as the IOM. Resulting in similar conclusions that cannabis is not by the laws of physics, capable of being a schedule#1 narcotic. It does not fit the criteria. Hemp is a trillion dollar joke, but that money has nothing to do with it? Private prisons need laws like this and typical of thinking busting citizens for limits not included in prop 215. Putting them in state prisons are more Constitutional and moral. more than Federal prisons. Cage is a cage and being caged for Ganja is just wrong. Stop this Gerry Browne nosing the prison industry as he did rejecting the release of non violent drug offenders and suggested a tax to build more prisons. Reform the reformers and I hear Ganja does wonders for Obesity for those heavyweights.

  • DdC

    The Offer to End Prohibition in California Is Already Being Made
    by Letitia Pepper (not verified), December 09, 2013, 10:09am

    The “Jack Herer” initiative, California Cannabis Hemp 2014, is already in circulation for signature, and the voters like it; they are happy to sign the petition sections! Anyone who wants a petition section to sign can e-mail me at letitiapepper@yahoo.com.

  • DdC

    Pandering to Prohibitionists
    by Robert Chase (not verified), December 08, 2013, 07:10pm

    The initiative is an improvement over Proposition 19; at least it would not consign young adults to prison for handing a joint to a seventeen-year-old. That said, what was the DPA thinking in writing a legalization initiative that would make it illegal to consume cannabis, even on private property, if anyone could observe the process from a public place? There is not a large body of voters who favor legalization only if a pretense is made that they will not ever have to see anyone using cannabis, so no useful purpose is served by putting in such reactionary provisions. Even the incompetent Denver City Council just reversed itself on the subject of making consumption on private property a crime, but Ethan apparently drew the wrong conclusion. Among the several provisions in the proposal seeking to curry favor among prohibitionists who will not vote for it anyway, there is a reference to driving under the influence of cannabis, which stands out because it defers to whatever statute the Legislature may pass — our successful defeat of per se limits for THC in drivers’ blood in Colorado apparently did make an impression on the drafters. Finally, the plethora of purposes and findings in the initiative have no legal effect; in Colorado, the State hierarchy took full advantage of that fact and completely ignored the declaration of the People in our Constitution that cannabis should be taxed and regulated like alcohol — to the contrary, we are taxing cannabis many times the rate at which alcohol is taxed, despite the fact that it is much safer; worse, the General Assembly and Governor Hack just reinstituted the galaxy of felony statutes against cannabis we had against cannabis before passage of Amendment 64, and people transacting cannabis outside the overtaxed dispensary-system (i.e. largely the poor and people of color) are and will still be subject to being arrested and convicted for those felonies. Instead of larding the initiative with all that extra-legal verbiage which appeals to no one, succinctly offer the People of California the opportunity to dismantle Prohibition, and I believe that they will take it.

  • DdC

    DdC’s picture
    If wishes were fishes, no one would starve
    by DdC, December 06, 2013, 10:13pm

    So this wish law is not going to change any previous mmj laws they claim, but prop 215 is a compassionate use law separating it from the other states bogus mmj laws. It has already allowed us to grow our own or for patients as long as we don’t sell it. It doesn’t require any paper work. Only the dispensaries on their own decided to force ID cards. Leaving many buying as they always have. I believe dispensaries are a community or public service. Just convince the Feds.

    Obama can remove cannabis and solve the problem nationwide. He has no authority to permit anyone selling it unless he does. Letting it slide is not a legal term. What happens after he is replaced? Until the controlled substance act is dissolved as a tool to profit on prohibition and remove competition from the market. This incremental retardation will exist and continue persecuting citizens and caging growers and arresting individuals. This law would be good in a regular commerce circumstance. As it stands there is no way for the law to be enforced, since there are no stipulations under prop 215 as it is.

    The suspicious part of this to me is knowing it has no federal effect. Knowing only citizens can change existing law that is 215. Also knowing after numerous attempts by local and state politicians to tweak the law of the land 215. To fit their appeasement’s to the drug worriers is the only logical reason. So all politicians can do is dupe the citizens into giving up what they already have. For limits to put people in state cages over federal? For a few to quasi legally sell it and tax it beyond prices on the streets. Same get rich scheme as before. No thought to the majority of people.

    Remove it as a scheduled narcotic and sell as much as you want, or grow what you need. Including hemp to boost local economies. No more cop initiatives. Browne has already taken his stand by siding with the prison industrial complex over releasing non violent prisoners. Big Pharma, Big Ag and the Prison Industrial Complex are not in the least bit concerned about smoking cannabis safely.

    This is how bad it is. States refusing to let kids live. Forcing their parents to move to another state knowing it treats seizures for the kids. How do you even try to make sense of it? Enough of these me me me initiatives and remove cannabis as a controlled substance. Let each state treat the kids or allow the adults to make a smarter choice over the legal booze and pharmaceuticals. Enough of this Shell Game. Many are selling it in dispensaries that have better QA than governments. Let it be or remove it federally. No more bad fixes to what ain’t broke or can’t be fixed outside of DC. The predicted outcome of state incrementalism…

  • DdC

    Feds Control All Commerce. Remove Cannabis From the CSA!
    Raich v Gonzales granted the Federal government Commerce rights over selling or giving away more than reasonable amounts. States have authority over individuals growing reasonable amounts. Reasonable amounts have been established by the Feds IND program as 300 joints every 25 days or 100 plants per year. The 10th amendment was over ridden due to the Commerce clause. Its the IRS busting buyers clubs, not DEA. CA compassionate use act is the only state law permitting reasonable amounts for anyone for any reason. MMJ states, including CO and WA have limited themselves to a catch 22 impossible situation quantifying amounts that are impossible to grow individually. Forcing sales that are illegal under Fed jurisdiction. No one can grow an ounce or less. The UN follows the US concerning the drug war and its lies. Over 30 countries are growing Hemp as the US maintains its ugly prohibition of it. Anslinger set up the UN treaty for this very reason. In case future politicians bow down to the will of the people. Enough! Remove cannabis as a schedule#1 narcotic. Including Hemp that should have never been put there in the first place. Stop incrementalizing. Cannabis is safe, end of story.

    Note. Compassionate Use Act not the MMJ Act

    Follow CA or Bust’
    Methinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much

    Why Police Officers Lie Under Oath

    What happens when cops write initiatives.
    Drug Czar is Required by Law to Lie
    Ending D.E.A.th & Pillage Incrementally

    Note. Compassionate Use Act not the MMJ Act

    HS 11362.5. (a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

    * has been recommended by a physician

    * person’s health would benefit

    * or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.

    * no physician in this state shall be punished,

    * Illegal possession and cultivation of marijuana,
    shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient’s primary caregiver

    * upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician

    * The department shall establish and maintain a voluntary program for the issuance of identification cards to qualified patients who satisfy the requirements of this article and voluntarily apply to the identification card program.

    * “Qualified patient” means a person who is entitled to the protections of Section 11362.5, but who does not have an identification card issued pursuant to this article.

    * It shall not be necessary for a person to obtain an identification card in order to claim the protections of Section 11362.5.

    * A qualified patient or a person with an identification card

    * Any individual who provides assistance

    * A designated primary caregiver who transports, processes, administers, delivers, or gives away marijuana for medical purposes

    * (a) Subject to the requirements of this article, the individuals specified in subdivision (b) shall not be subject, on that sole basis, to criminal liability.

  • DdC

    Peter Lewis Is DEAD, and So Is This for 2014
    by Letitia Pepper (not verified), December 07, 2013, 01:34am

    Does anyone else notice that this article says NOTHING about the “status” of this alleged initiative? It doesn’t says it’s in a final draft form, it doesn’t say that it’s been filed with the Attorney General’s Office for a summary and title, it doesn’t say that it’s been reviewed by the Legislative Analyst’s Office for a summary of its impacts — it doesn’t say anything much concrete at all. If you know anything about the initiative process, you can pretty much tell that this thing is dead for 2014.

    That is why the “Jack Herer” initiative, the California Cannabis Hemp 2014 Initiative, is the only realistic hope we have for relief, by 2014, from Prohibition. That initiative has been up and circulating for signatures since October 1, 2013, and its signatures must all be turned in by February 28, 2014. Another initiative, Marijuana Legalization, Control and Revenue, “MCLR,” has claimed it will be ready for 2014, that that is extremely unlikely. It’s been withdrawn and refiled, and then was reported to different cannabis groups that it had been told by the Legislative Analysts’s Office that, as worded, would be subject to court challenge, so it was planning to refile yet again today, December 6, 2013, which starts the clock all over again for it to make it out of the State’s vetting process. According to the State’s Initiative Coordinator, if MCLR refiled today, it wouldn’t be released for circulation until about February 6– assuming it didn’t have any further problems — which would give it only from February 6 to April 18 to collect all the signatures it would need.

    What’s currently happening is that the organizations, like the DPA. that want to “tax, control and regulate” PEOPLE who use cannabis — remember, plants don’t pay taxes, plants don’t go to prison for breaking laws, and plants don’t have assets that can be seized — want PEOPLE to wait until 2016 so they can be advertised into voting against their own self interests and voting to tax, control and regulate each other. Big Government and Big Business will benefit from taxation, control and regulation. PEOPLE, on the other hand, will benefit from DECRIMINALIZATION and the kind of legalization that creates a playing field on which small businesses, too, benefit from legalized cannabis. To read the text of the Jack Herer initiative, see http://www.CCHI2014.org. It’s the only initiative that’s good for average people, too.

  • DdC

    Why would the DPA support
    by Nicky (not verified), December 07, 2013, 02:02am

    Why would the DPA support this and not the CCHI. Maybe because part of DPA’s funding comes from club owners who want to see little to no competition.

    § 27380. Zoning; Voter Referendum.

    (b) The governing body of a city, county, or city and county of more than 25,000 residents may limit the number of storefront cannabis businesses to one for each 25,000 residents. The governing body of a city or county with 10,000 to 25,000 residents may limit the number of storefront cannabis businesses to one. The governing body of a city with fewer than 10,000 residents may ban storefront cannabis businesses.

    So in a suburban neighborhood of 50,000 people the residences can only have two shops to purchase from?

    Sounds like legislation of a monopoly setup. Business men disguised as club managers hate competition.

    Are we legalizing pot so club owners can have extreme profits or are we legalizing this so people can grow and use cannabis without fear of the police arresting them?

    $50 fine per square for growing over the limit of 100 square foot. This is insane. You should throw in regulations how big of an area I can grow my tomatoes or cucumbers. Also add regulation to make sure my other plants are under lock and key and not visible. Anybody who has something to hide is probably ashamed of what they are doing and shouldn’t be doing it. There is no reason why people should be hiding that they are growing cannabis or should it be under lock and key. This law reads that cannabis growth should be hidden.

    Anybody who read this law and supports legalization knows this bill is not it.

    I’m giving money to the cchi2014.org.

    This regulation bill is not for California

  • DdC

    CCHI polls at 56% No to limitations No to discrimination!
    by Nicky (not verified), December 12, 2013, 09:35pm

    Good News borden! A current Field Poll says CCHI has a 56% approval rating. You may think CCHI won’t pass but people polled recently say differently. http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2442.pdf

    If CRTM passes (which is very if’y) it will placate people. I don’t know if you are on the streets talking to people, but many people not knowledgeable to the laws think marijuana is legal in California because of The Compassionate Use Act of 1996. They think it is legal in Colorado and Washington. The truth is marijuana is not legal in any of these states. There will still be criminal penalties for possession over an ounce in California if CRTM passes. This would not change any of the 21,000 arrest that happened in California in 2012 for marijuana crimes. All this bill will do is stop the infraction tickets and allow and few plants for each person to be grown.

    Most people on the street are either for or against marijuana legalization. The good news is that the swing vote for marijuana is with people that are for legalization of marijuana. I talk to people everyday who are for legalization and didn’t vote for prop 19 because of it limitations and penalties. People that are against legalization are not going to vote for something just because it allows only one ounce. They are not going to vote for any form of legalization.

    I know many atheists that despise churches in their neighborhoods, bigots that despise people of other races and sexual orientations, tee tootlers that don’t like liquor stores in their neighborhoods. We don’t live in a society that tolerates discrimination. We shouldn’t stand or support anything that limits people ability to purchase marijuana, especially if you are in support of marijuana legalization. Putting a limit on something is like saying that it is wrong. We don’t limit how many cigarette or bottles of wine or sugar product people can have, we allow adults to make that decision for themselves. Why should there be a limit to how much marijuana somebody can have. There should not be!

  • […] When going after drugged drivers just isn't enough anymore… Vapes are still available… Next is a ban on playing air guitars as a copyright infringement. Outlaw Vapes. Well-liked Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0. ezrydn. December 14, 2013 at 7:48 am. The idiocy, the lunacy, the stupidity sure seems like it's ramping up … Read more on Drug WarRant […]