And our work continues…

Proposition 19 was huge.

Our work continues. It’s about educating and building a movement from the ground up so that the political leaders are forced to follow us, with a final goal of ending prohibition. Every new person we reach puts us that much closer. We know we can’t count on a Presidential decree or other deus ex machina intervention. It all depends on us.

But Proposition 19 was huge. Despite being a state initiative, it gave us an international stage to tell people about the costs of the drug war, to tell people about the violence of the drug war, to tell people about the racism of the drug war, and so much more. And oh, people listened.

No longer is the question one of whether marijuana will be legalized, but when.

Case in point:

There is a new campaign by Families in Action, called But What About The Children? Yes, of course, it’s the same old “what about the children” nonsense, but with a huge difference.

Check out what they’re saying…

Demand that policymakers who legalize marijuana guarantee the drug will not be marketed to children, like alcohol and tobacco are.

That’s right. Not if policymakers legalize marijuana, but when.

They continue:

Whether or not Californians approve Proposition 19 on November 2, it is the first of many on the horizon to legalize marijuana for recreational use and turn it into an unregulated commercial enterprise. If Prop 19 fails, proponents are planning similar ballot initiatives for 2012, not only in California but also in other Western states. Their strategy seems to be to legalize marijuana in enough states to force Congress to change federal law and legalize the drug nationwide. In fact, Rep. Barney Frank has introduced HR 2943, the first federal bill to legalize marijuana. (It is two sentences long.)

But What about the Children? Campaign
National Families in Action is launching But What About the Children? – a campaign to hold a legalized marijuana industry accountable for ensuring that children will not have access to the drug. The campaign holds that any marijuana legalization law should incorporate provisions to avoid what medical science has learned about alcohol and tobacco use in order to prevent marijuana use and addiction among children.

The entire campaign is about the assumption that marijuana will be legalized.

Of course, a lot of their claims and demands are nonsense, but what a change!

And who is on their advisory board? One of the worst prohibitionists out there — Robert DuPont — plus prohibition enabler extraordinaire Rosalie Pacula of Rand.

Change is in the works.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

95 Responses to And our work continues…

  1. jackl says:

    I’ve never discussed this with anyone who knows what growers up north think, and I’m not a Californian and really aren’t up on all of the “ins and outs” of the way Prop 19 would have worked, but my understanding of what Richard Lee and other proponents had in mind was this “bifircated” system where little guys with tiny home grows didn’t have to have licenses (i.e., like home beer brewers for personal consumption), but the other end would be a highly regulated mega industrial oligopoly, with the government handing out only a limited number of valuable franchises to a few highly capitalized applicants.

    As someone who worked in industrial development for many years, this “industrial” model is certainly commonplace, but it gives me great pause because my experience is that the license awarding process and regulatory process are easily corrupted by politics and money.

    If I were a grower in Mendicino, I’d probably be against Prop 19 for this reason…my investment would be lost and there’d be no future for me in this industry. It would be very difficult to compete pricewise with guys who wanted to sell bud at $100 less an ounce than you could keep profiting from until you were out of biz. And I don’t really like this big scale limited franchinging model. Who says you can’t regulate medium size grows or many grows? Why do you need to regulate them at all?

    And what’s better for the actual users? Are we going to follow a wine or canned beer model here? Innumerable, tourist-infested Vineyards on the model of Napa and Sonoma selling fine wine, or warehouses cranking out 45 day to flower Budweisers?

    What’s in it for the consumers? Do you really think you’re going to get $50/oz bud with $10 taxes if this passes? And will the bud be good quality over the long term, or just “good enough”? Like the health care thing for many people, lots of questions, few answers about how it will really work. And sometimes the devil you know is better…does ANYONE in Cali that doesn’t want great weed not have beaucoup access to it. Oh, it’s not $50 ounce yet and you have to pay a doctor $150 for a recommendation and now it’s decriminalized taboot. My heart bleeds for you guys. Call a whahmbullance.

    You need to ask Richard Lee why, because he’s responsible for that economic model proposed in Prop 19. It doesn’t look like a great market model from the standpoint of existing growers. And wasn’t Richard Lee one of the guys who wanted to have one of the four Oakland industrial grow franchises?

  2. ezrydn says:

    Some of you people don’t get it. It was a FIRST attempt. What other “first attempt” made it all the way to “touchdown?” Didn’t we have to hit 215 several times before “landing?” Get a grip!

    With little to no media PR to speak of, we got to within 5 percentage points of winning. You evidently don’t seem to see the high significence of that fact. Just over 500K votes! In a mid-term election with known low voter turnout. You don’t see something there? If not, you need to go back to school, or at least, take a statistical refresher course.

    Back to combat experience…several times, we “engaged” the enemy to draw out his strengths and weaknesses, then broke contact. Everyone was debriefed so MI could put the pieces together. That’s exactly what we have done with Prop 19, if you haven’t noticed.

    The final stats will give us a plethora of intel for our next major assault. Plus, it’ll be a Presidential year. How many new voters will be on the streets in 20 months? How many worried DeadHeads will be gone (myself included possibly)? This was nothing more than a fact-finding mission.

    As Pete noted, we’ve now passed from (in their eyes) “if” to “when.” It’s how we “play the game.” While it would have been nice to get a “first time,” how many who understand really expected it?

    Quit gripping! We achieved a very big goal! Intel!! We now know the size of the enemy, the rethoric that will be used, the complaints lodged, the need for air cover, lots of intel just fell into our laps. I think we knew 19 had internal problems. Were they put there as a “test?” I’m starting to believe so. We now know what was missing and what didn’t need to be there. Makes it easier to tighten up our next assault.

    Take a day or two off, relax, decompress. We all need it! Gawd knows, I sure do. Then, it’s back to the grind stone. I hope I can stick around to see the “landing.” Yet, I’ll work my ass of in any way I can, to assist in that endeavor. No complaints here. I’ve been roaming through stats since 5am and there’s SOOOO MUCH INFO there.

    To those in Cali, we’re coming back. To those in America, we have NOT given up and stuffed out tails between our legs. To our supporters across the globe, watch us and join us. We not only do it for US, we do it for YOU! Every reformer, no matter your address, is invited to become involved.

    We follow Jean-Luc’s command: MAKE IT SO!

  3. DdC says:

    Clay the joint I just burnt taste the same as it did yesterday. Still illegal in their eyes. Still none of their business in mine. Mexican brown shitweed? Shirley you’ve got to be joking. I’ll keep my Big Sur green, thank you. Humboldt was always over rated anyway. Still nothing in the states as good as what came back from Nam 40 years ago. Besides today is for the Giants. First World Series since they left New York in the 50’s. Won by a stoner pitching.

    The difference between drinking booze and driving and smoking pot is enormous. Drunks recklessly plow through stop signs with no regard for anyone while stoners sit patiently and wait for it to turn green…

  4. Pete says:


    The difference between drinking booze and driving and smoking pot is enormous. Drunks recklessly plow through stop signs with no regard for anyone while stoners sit patiently and wait for it to turn green…

    Anonymous? Really?

    Kind of funny actually, to see your own quote circulate around, and end up back on your own site, slightly modified and labelled “anonymous.”

  5. claygooding says:

    Mine tasted the same also,a little salty from the one tear
    I shed from mental depression,but still tasty.
    I ain’t going nowhere,just need to put on some fresh camo
    paint,rub the silver bullets in garlic and cut some wooden stakes so we can actually kill the prohibition when we get it down.

  6. claygooding says:

    On another note,it sure did not take some of the newscasters long to start throwing pot humor headlines out like before Prop 19.

  7. DdC says:

    Sorry Pete, I knew I read it somewhere.

    The drunk driver speeds through the stop sign without seeing it.
    The stoned driver stops and patiently waits for it to turn green.
    ~ Pete Guither

  8. darkcycle says:

    Those papers, with their headlines making a joke out of it? Where are they? and what the HELL are we waiting for?let’s go get ’em!

  9. Dave In Florida says:

    Kozmo, This is a good link to the results county by county

  10. kaptinemo says:

    OT: DEAWatch is kaput.

    For years, I’d been reading their racist, bigoted, misogynistic screeds with no small degree of amusement. I had always hoped that someday, some smart defense lawyer in a drug case the DEA had instigated against a cannabis grower or supplier would click on their link and point out to a mixed-race-and-gendered jury exactly what many of those ‘brave, selfless public servants’ think about them…the exact same thoughts that led Harry Anslinger to work for cannabis prohibition. To see such wanton bigotry openly displayed in public for all to see, well, you’d think you’d stumbled onto a virtual KKK meeting.

    In the spirit of Sun T’zu, I always seek to know what the opposition’s about. I figured that they’d be howling with glee over 19’s failure…and when I went there, was shocked to learn they’d folded due to monetary reasons.

    In a sick sense, I will miss them. They provided so much vindication about ‘why we fight’ with their p!$$ing and moaning about their ‘leadership’, their unselfconsciously displayed ignorance, their fascist blather and their unbelievable disdain of minorities and the ‘fairer sex’. It was like stepping through The Time Tunnel to the pre-Civil Rights era.

    Ah, well. Have to find my entertainment somewhere else…

  11. allan420 says:

    a quote worthy of note from the LA Times that just rolled thru my email:

    As The Times reported Wednesday, voters did not approve Proposition 19, the marijuana legalization measure on Tuesday’s ballot. Despite the defeat, this is still a watershed moment in the long struggle to end marijuana prohibition in this country. California’s historic ballot initiative has impacted the national debate for the long term, placing marijuana legalization squarely in the mainstream of American politics. It is likely to maintain that status for years to come as the national reform movement builds on this remarkable campaign and on the overwhelming support of younger voters.

  12. allan420 says:

    and my thoughts on this vote thing… metaphorically speaking we kicked them in the balls (and I say “metaphorically” because we all know they have no balls) and definitely got their attention. Now we go for the vital organs (skip the heart, they don’t have one of those either)(I think they may be all bowel and anus). It’s a tuff demon to kill but it’s weakened and vulnerable.

    Oh… and if anybody feels the urge I still think an occasional kick in the (metaphorical only) balls a worthy action.

  13. allan420 says:

    oh… one more thing… Diane Feinstein and any and all Dem opposition needs to hear that they’re in our sights and will indeed feel the wrath of the stoners. Almost 3 1/2 million voters is a fair bloc of votes to have ready to vote against these anti-cannabist politicians.

  14. DdC says:

    San Francisco Giants celebrate world title with victory parade …

    The scent of marijuana wafted in the air even though a ballot measure aimed at legalizing pot was defeated on Election Day. Wilson acknowledged the odor when he joked about having a heart attack. ‘”I’m not sure where it’s coming from, maybe from the electricity of the crowd or maybe from the smell of Prop. 19,”
    ~ Brian Wilson
    Giants closing pitcher
    ”Fear the Beard.”

    World Series Reporter’s ‘They’re Smoking Weed’ Clip Becomes Prop. 19 Ad

    Just before game two of the World Series between the San Francisco Giants and the Texas Rangers on Thursday, a reporter for a Dallas television station filed a story on the scene outside AT&T park for the local audience back home. But rather than the usual cliches about the picturesque view of San Francisco Bay, Newy Scruggs’ story dealt almost entirely about the illegal substance being used by fans a short distance away. Here’s the original version:

    The smell of victory? U2b

  15. anonymous says:

    i don’t understand how you guys can stay so energized and positive about it. wasn’t it 56%-44%? i thought not too long ago california was on the otherside of that percentage? how did it switch around like that? anyways, i admire you guys, but i don’t think it will ever happen. just like i don’t think the political process will not involve dirty, corporate donations in the elections again.

  16. Pete says:

    Actually, anonymous, this is the only vote on legalizing marijuana that has happened in California since 1972. And that one lost by well over 30 percentage points. It has never switched around.

    There can be a vast difference between percentage views on an abstract topic (marijuana legalization) and the percentages for actual voting on specific propositions.

    As far as the political process involving dirty, corporate donations, well that’s always been the case.

  17. darkcycle says:

    When you’ve been watching this abomination gobble lives and billions of dollars for thirty-five years or so (and that’s when I started smoking pot), this looks much bigger. It is not the defeat you newbies seem to be reeling from: look at the history, we gained ground, we lost ground, we lobbied and wrote letters and the laws and penalties only got harsher. We watched our friends and relatives go to jail, lose their homes, fight the courts and this absurd apparatus to their last pennies…
    Never in all the seventy-plus years this horrible policy has been in place, has it EVER BEEN SUBJECTED to a popular vote! Who would be surprised that after seventy plus years of demonizing the plant and brainwashing the public at large with lies, it failed to garner a majority? Not me, I expected as much (although for a brief minute when it cracked 50% I allowed myself to hope for a while..). The astonishing part is that despite this history, it got 46% of the vote, and only after tampering by the feds in the form of threats of major police action!!
    Myself? I’m thinking for the first time in my life “Holy fuck, I might live to see this!”
    Hang in there anonymous, it has been rougher than this, believe me…

  18. darkcycle says:

    Pete, there was another legalization vote?

  19. darkcycle says:

    Well, sh*t my pants. Oops, my bad.

  20. davidstvz says:

    History channel HD on cable (I live in Baton Rouge) is playing a marijuana documentary right now that is very favorable (i.e. it’s mostly evenhanded, so the prohibitionists naturally sound like idiots and all the amazing things in drug policy like the portugal decrim are in there). Good stuff… how much more convincing would it sounds to the average viewer if Prop 19 had passed. Too bad, but it’s a well made and interesting show so I’m sure they’ll play it several more times.

  21. Shap says:

    Yesterday I got a call from a friend who lives in California asking me about what would happen if all the local gov’s in California had different regs and the potential for “chaos” (basically the exact ridiculous argument made in that LA Times editorial). I’m really hoping the LA Times doesn’t exert enough influence for that argument to have swayed voters because my friend seemed really taken by it unfortunately (even though she ended up voting yes).

    • Pete says:

      Shap, yeah that always amazes me as well. I live in a twin cities that blend together so you can hardly tell where one ends and the next starts and one grocery store has one set of regulations regarding alcohol (must be a separate section of the store, certain hours that it can’t be sold, etc.) while another nearby grocery store of the same chain, nearby, but in the other town handles it completely differently (you can pay for alcohol purchases with the rest of your stuff, different hours, etc.), and nobody has any problems with it. The two towns have different recycling regulations, different leaf-raking regulations, different regulations regarding feeding birds, different snow removal parking regulations, and on and on. We survive.

  22. LTR says:

    For clarification, it lost 54-46, not 56-44 like anonymous said. 46% support is the highest that a ballot initiative on legalizing marijuana has ever received, and it did so under a conservative wave during a mid-term election. I would say there is a silver lining here.

    Also any marijuana users or mmj cultivators that voted against prop 19 should be completely ashamed that they set back a nationwide movement to stop an underground market. Purely selfish motives, not thoughts whatsoever about national or international ramifications, just about their profit margin under a semi black market.

    On another note, Pete, I wanted to bring this to your attention:

    Why try for 2011? If anything should be understood after prop 19, it’s not to bet on an off election cycle like a midterm.


    Young people are energized in exciting presidential races, not mid-terms or in betweens. Is there anyway to convince these well-intentioned activists to wait until 2012, where there will likely be a wave of western states attempting to legalize marijuana and more of the 18-29 voter demographic, whom happens to be incredibly supportive of legalizing and regulating marijuana, will be at the polls?

  23. darkcycle says:

    My University newspaper, front page today “Smoking out Marijuana Prohibition”

  24. Shap says:

    Yea I thought it was a BS argument and I explained to her the fact that there are such things as “dry” sunday counties as an example of different local governments having different alcohol regs. Was just frustrating to hear her give weight to it.

  25. claygooding says:

    It is too bad that the history channel show did not air last Sunday nite,it is that good.
    Next airing starts at midnite,central

  26. ezrydn says:

    LTR, Like I said, we were within 5 percentage points of winning (51%). That’s great for a true first attempt without a lot of backup. Now, we list the arguments of the opponents, disect the stats on voters and that’s the beginning of a “playbook.” Jeffery Miron had a good piece on today. Check it out. Very good down to earth reasoning.

    In 20 months, we will be “Eagle, you’re go for landing.”

    The other side has controlled everything, up to now. They think they won. Let them have their little parties. While we stuff the tunnel with explosives (A WWI movie I recently watched). There’s a big difference between a mid-term and a presidential. And this time, we’ve got to be extremely vocal, on MSM. If you’ll note the stats later, you’ll see that the non-internet folks are the ones that kept us down this time. We forgot our audience.

  27. Maria says:

    @ezryden, I agree with you. A lot. And I think that it’s important to realize. We’ve all sung and danced and spoken to the choir. A lot of the materials where geared towards the choir. But there’s a lot of people, men and women, mothers, parents, who are not part of that choir.

    I don’t think they where reached as well as they could have been and I don’t think their concerns where addressed as well as they could have been. I think it will be much easier to get to them, what with the large amount of discourse Prop 19 has caused. Like so many have said today, it’s squarely in the public eye now. No longer a fringe issue.

  28. anonymous says:

    pete, i say, “switch around”, because i remember california polling in favor for it at 56% at some point this year and i was just wondering how that number basically got switched around after the actual vote. i stand corrected at 54-46, but that doesn’t seem to make much difference to me. i am from california but live in nebrahoma now, and i lost my job working for
    DELL because they found out I was on my last few months of a deferred sentence i had had for drug charges in late jan. of 06′. i guess a different take of a “pending charge”. but regardless, i have kinda lost a little bit of hope because in the most tolerant of states towards this plant, we can’t even get it legalized in 2010. 1937-2010 is insane. i love all of you working on this though. and yes, i am relatively young, just about to turn 24. haha.

    • Pete says:

      Ah, I understand what you’re saying. While it’s not absolute, general political sense regarding propositions is that you have to have a significant lead weeks out because there will always be attrition as you get closer to the vote. Something about people ready to support it when asked and the vote is far away, but hesitant to actually agree when it gets down to it. (It’s not a drug policy initiative thing — it has to do with all initiatives.) There are a lot of factors.

  29. darkcycle says:

    Yeah, Anon. and stay with it, as an activist you get to hob-nob with the rich and famous (sorry, the crusty and infamous) and meet lots of celebrities (you even get to BE a celebrity, just have the weed at the party when nobody else does).
    Naw, just kidding, but you meet people who are dedicated, smart, tireless and loyal way beyond anything you could ever get from the ‘other side’. You can have an impact in your community, and make yourself the bane of every letters section editor within your reach (and that’s looooong with the internet…).
    So stick around. There’s plenty of fight left for everybody.

  30. Shap says:

    History channel is very impressive with its drug programming. They’re “Hooked” series, which coincidentally or not was on all day today is incredibly educational for any lay person who doesn’t know the sinister and unconstitutional origins of our drug laws.

  31. claygooding says:

    darkcycle.don’t forget to tell about the people that leave when we show up because we bent their ears too much the last time they saw us.

  32. LTR says:

    ezrydn, I can’t help but disagree with Miron on some of his points. The illicit drug trade in marijuana is real, and drug cartels are reaping in profits. Yes, California alone won’t hurt them that much, but no one has provided any other ideas. The initiative campaigns in the future need to emphasize that the idea is to serve as an example to other states so nationwide legalization becomes a reality, which in turn really will take a large chunk out of drug cartel profits. Remember the RAND study isn’t gospel necessarily, and they omitted cartel profit reaped from domestic marijuana cultivation under their control.

    Miron goes on to state that a problem with the initiative was that it would be illegal under Federal law. So what? So are the medical marijuana shops. I thought he would understand the DEA doesn’t have the resources to shut them all down. So he’s wrong here in that these shops would function and marijuana would be taxed to a large degree, especially if other states followed. He goes on to state that advocates should focus more on Federal law, but he should well know that support in Congress for ending Federal marijuana prohibition is a small sliver of Congressmen. The only way to convince them is for states to do it on their own, to lead by example and serve as laboratories. Saying there is no constitutional justification for prohibition is a completely empty statement as any law scholar will cite numerous court cases that give Congress the authority to ban substances since they affect interstate commerce. This is well established and was reaffirmed with medical marijuana in the Raich case.

    I do agree that the movement needs to reach out to conservative some more, but I think the DPA and others have been doing just that to the best of their ability for the past 8 years or so with only limited success. Most “conservatives” supporting legalization are really libertarians. Conservatives seem to want the government controlling social appetites and enforcing their personal tastes and morality on the population. It’s pretty hard to convince them to back off here. So I’m not sure if this is a wise use of energy, as conservatives I have tried to convince just seem bitter on the subject and don’t wish to have rational discourse.

    IMO, the reason prop 19 failed was because it was the poor youth voter turn out, mid-term motivated conservative old voters, underfunded campaign to respond to paranoid media/govt, and ballot language that may have overreached or at least confused voters all combined. I personally found the ballot language powerful and well done after my initial skepticism, but others never got over the approach. Hopefully everyone in the movement realizes that mid-term elections are a bad idea for the future, especially when a conservative wave is about to hit the nation!

    Any activists reading this and thinking about a 2011 run in Washington or any other states, please reconsider for 2012. Look at voter turn out statistics and understand you need the 18-29 year olds to make this happen.

  33. DdC says:

    Marijuana Legalization: Not If, But When
    California’s marijuana legalization initiative, Proposition 19, didn’t win a majority of votes yesterday but it already represents an extraordinary victory for the broader movement to legalize marijuana.

    SF Giants Win One for the Freaks
    San Francisco Giants’ star pitcher Tim Lincecum, who was busted for pot possession during the off season, led his team to victory in the opening game of the World Series. But was there more than sportsmanship contributing to the Giants’ team spirit?

    Let Timmy and Percy Smoke!
    Denying marijuana to sports stars may be affecting their performance and heath.

    It’s obvious…what has happened to impair his pitching brilliance. His decline occurred after his marijuana conviction in Oregon [actually, Washington]. He obviously has not ‘medicated’ since then. Baseball pitchers, like trial lawyers, have a ‘high stress’ vocation. Marijuana ably moderates stress. Lincecum suffers from ‘cannabis deprivation’.

    Let Tim Smoke! Tee Shirts

  34. denmark says:

    Just frakking End Prohibiton, that really is the bottom line. We can rationalize all day long about what was and what should have been, in the end the answer is simple (it always is), End Prohibition, NOW, as in right
    But the Powers that be don’t seem to reognize that simple soution. I’m still waiting for one stinking politician, just one, to come forward admiraldbly and boldly to expose all the lies surrounding cannabis. And should there be a politician that does so, other than Ron Paul, he/she would get my vote.
    Come on, isn’t there one “elected” official that has the balls to tell the truth? Oops, guess not, you bunch of arse holes. What a frakking joke you are.
    Good gawd, you politicians expect the truth out of us, the “ordinary” citizen.

    Got news for you “elected officials”, we are watching you, don’t care what state you represent because cannabis reformers across tha nation and the world are watching you, YOU, you, you.
    We are paying attention.

    Bunch of whoosies, pansies, dumb arses, can’t even tell the truth.
    Get a mother frakking grip elected officals and end Prohisition.

    There, like I told them, like they’d pay attention.


  35. Pete says:

    I was not impressed with Miron’s article at all. I think he’s an outstanding economic analyst, and his libertarian views on drug policy are unimpeachable, but I think he’s a bit politically tone-deaf.

    He came out and said that a whole lot of things that legalization proponents used were wrong, but didn’t have any recommendation other than:

    First and foremost, advocates must emphasize that in a free society, the burden of proof should be on prohibitionists to justify the interference with liberty that results from outlawing marijuana

    Well, that’s fine, and it’s true, but it’s political nonsense. If I have a proposition to legalize and demand that the opposition justify criminalization, all they have to do is…. nothing. It’s not a debate, it’s a political campaign. They can ignore my demand for an answer (they always do), and simply change the subject to some fake fear.

    And I agree with LTR, that the State/Federal thing in his piece was also ridiculous. Sure, legalizing at the federal level is an option (and then you’d have to legalize it at the state level), but it’s not currently a political option (although it may be closer to reality now that California has done this).

    I was really disappointed with Miron in this one, not only because of political tone-deafness, but also because he essentially came out and blamed legalization proponents for the defeat of Prop 19 on the day after a tough loss, showing some real insensitivity.

  36. ezrydn says:

    On one point above, Pete, I have to disagree with you. Your last few words. Are we, as a movement, worried about our “sensitivities?” If you’re a true Reformer, you should be battle-hardened by now with thick skin. I’m sorry, “poor legalizers didn’t get their way so let’s be easy on them” just doesn’t fit into my frame of reality. I believe we all knew that if 19 failed, there’s be a lot of negative press. If that bothers someone, they should step out of the movement for a while. This is “down and dirty” stuff. We have to clean the 80 year old shitter, handle the arguments, produce logical responses and many other things. And, at times, all at the same time. If that’s too much for some, then they need to change from involvement to support. Ain’t got time to coddle.

  37. David Marsh says:

    We have two years.


    ***Keep It Simple Stupid***

    Three prongs

    (1) Legal – every state with a medical law – Immediately file a petition with the entity responsible for maintainable of the state CSA to remove Cannabis from Schedule I – Then make them hold hearings to decide witch schedule it belongs in. “Medical use in the United States” is a weakness in EVERY state CSA that adopted uniform language so this can be don in non-medical states too! Once the states move it out of Schedule I next step is States file a petition to remove from Federal Schedule I. First things first, states with medical laws, remove cannabis from Schedule I. If you cant do it, find someone who can.

    (2) Political – We don’t need politicians we need people. This is a 50/50 world,(46/54) now we know we can’t count on those cannabists who depend on prohibition for their livelihood. So we have to make friends with our enemies. We all have to suck up, kiss ass, play nice, promise the world, and show them they do not have to be afraid of us. Join rotary and go to church, cut your hair and buy a suit. Then when they know you are NOT going to stab them in the heart,…. “I understand how you feel, I’ve felt the same way, but I think…….. It’s politics someone has to get dirty. If you can’t do it find someone who can.

    (3) Economic – Be prepared. YOU might not like numbers but money is numbers. Tell em what you are going to tell em….. Tell em…. then tell em what you told em…. There is only two thins you can do to dig yourself out of a hole, increase income and/or decrease expenditures. Show them how legal cannabis can get them both. Sell Sell Sell…. have an answer for each objection. You know their objections…. sell your answer. Remember that suit, play nice and you don’t have to sell everyone. One out of ten is acceptable, two out of ten is good, three out of ten is a career. “You only have one chance to make a good first impression” leave em with that good impression and even the ones you didn’t sell then might come around later. If you can’t do it find someone who can.

    Well….there are three ideas…..

    If you do not like these ideas post your own, I’m up for suggestions. This is a great place for Ideas, now it’s time to go to work.

    (Legal – In Iowa, Carl Olsen was successful getting the Iowa Board of Pharmacy to address “Accepted medical use in the United States”. Copies of his work are posted on )

    Two years is not much time so I gotta go dust off my suit, buy a new tie, and shine my shoes.

    Say…. Isn’t it great about that 19 thing out in California they almost made it legal, can you believe that, Legal…..Hay….. you want to get a cup of coffee….

  38. Maria says:

    I’ve been seriously thinking about what demographics where either ignored or not efficiently targeted with Prop 19. I’m not done mulling over everything but I do feel that women and specifically mothers and conservative women where either ignored or at times not considered reachable enough to address directly. The limited resources of these campaigns is an issue. This group might be of interest to you. I hadn’t known about them till today (flew under my radar) and NORML has the Women’s Alliance (which has some good resources to start using but I’m not too impressed with their approach so far).

  39. Duncan20903 says:

    Well I’ve been having flashbacks to the tours of duty I had when I was enlisted in the Hippies. Specifically 1992 in New Hampshire for the presidential primary. That’s where I met Governor Moonbeam who was having POTUS fantasies that year. He was 100% behind cannabis re-legalization and replacing DARE classes with mandatory Alice B Toklas brownie breaks in the elementary schools. No need for medical cannabis laws since you’d be able to buy as much as you liked at the corner store. Damn, I thought the man was listening to us. I was so naive back then. There is absolutely no substance to Governor Brown’s being.

    I officially resigned from the Libertarian Party at the balloting on Tuesday, and much to my stunned astonishment walked out of the polling place registered as a member of the Green Party. There’s no way that could have been predicted before it happened.

    I stumbled upon this video: “Gloom, Despair and Agony on Me” I’m not 100% sure but I believe it’s 4 cannabis enthusiasts singing about the Prop 19 vote totals and drowning their sorrows with bootleg whiskey.

  40. Duncan20903 says:

    Here’s a rhetorical question that runs through my mind from time to time, and lately has popped up a lot because of Prop 19. The question is are there any other criminalized activities that almost 50% of the voters favor not being crimes? Repealing the income tax doesn’t even make the cut. In 2008 the voters of Massachusetts voted to keep their state income tax with only 30% supporting repeal. On the same Ballot they voted 65-35 to decriminalize cannabis to a $100 civil fine.
    I once went to the ONDCP web site and they had a link to ‘proof’ that driving high on cannabis was dangerous and a risk to life and limb. They described an incident in PA which resulted in fatality because one driver was stoned on pot evidenced by the fact that they found a pipe and bag of cannabis on the floor board of his car. I managed to find the story in a local paper in Google’s cache. The facts that the ONDCP weren’t important enough to mention? The man that was smoking cannabis was patiently waiting for the stop sign to turn green, and was rear ended by a drunk with a significantly over the pee se floor of .08 for drunken driving, and the drunk was the fatality. (yes, waiting for the stop sign to turn green really does happen)

    The only way I would buy weed out of California right now is if they press it in bricks and say it is from Mexico.

    Geezuz clay, that’s cold. Not that I don’t agree with you, but that is ice cold.

    “Saying there is no constitutional justification for prohibition is a completely empty statement as any law scholar will cite numerous court cases that give Congress the authority to ban substances since they affect interstate commerce. This is well established and was reaffirmed with medical marijuana in the Raich case.”

    Do nine men interpret? Nine men I nod.*

    As crazy as it is for anyone who’s first language is English but it is how the SCOTUS has ruled. It really isn’t relevant that they have to engage in fiction to read the Constitution that way. Their tossing out oral sex laws several years ago gives us hope, since they were reversing the former interpretation of those laws as Constitutional without any change in the laws.

    Good gosh how can anyone be against oral sex?

    *(that’s a palindrome son)

  41. Pingback: Commentary |

  42. DdC says:

    Cannabis Bomb’ Set off at Police Station in New Zealand
    Wellington police will decide later today whether to lay charges against legalise cannabis protesters who pushed a shopping trolley full of burning marijuana into the central police station foyer. …continued

Comments are closed.