Living in the present, looking at the available evidence about the present, looking at the past, anticipating the future.
All while living in dAgEnhaM and all the problems which this brings.
Living in the NOW!
How Taxing Marijuana Shits on the Grave of Jack Herer (Part 2)
War Breaks Out Within the Marijuana Legalization Movement (Part 5)
Jack Herer and Bruce Cain at the "Earth Community House" in Detroit, Michigan. Photo taken in the early 1990's..
======================================= Jack Herer died on April 15th, 2010 at the age of 70. In the first part I described my 21 year friendship with Jack and explained that he was vehemently opposed to the taxation and regulation of Marijuana. In this part I will compare the "Oaksterdam" Initiative ("The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010) with Jack Herer's "California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative" (CCHH). I will also make clear that organizations such as DPA, MPP and NORML do not meaningfully support what both Jack and I have been fighting for over the last 20 years: untaxed, unregulated, unlimited self cultivation by Adult Americans. =======================================
"There must be a better way than this We need to talk about it They won't even let us grow a weed It's time to shout about it"
If you had the time to read the previous 38 articles, that I have written on the subject of Marijuana Re-Legalization and the MERP Model, you would understand that some very powerful groups are pulling the strings of the Moneyed Drug Reform organizations (e.g., NORML, DPA and MPP etc.) in this country. When you have time both the articles and videos are available at the following link:
The first time I met Jack Herer was at the Ann Arbor "Hash Bash" in April, 1989. He was the featured speaker and had just delivered a blistering speech in support of the immediate Re-Legalization of Marijuana. His speech focused on the Agricultural, Industrial, Medicinal, Religious and Personal uses of Hemp (e.g., Marijuana or Cannabis) painstakingly detailed in his book "The Emperor Wears No Clothes." Since the first printing was distributed in 1986 over a half million copies have been printed in over 20 different languages. For the next 21 years Jack spent the better part of each year on the road spreading the word about "Hemp" to college campuses across the United States. In point of fact Jack reintroduced the term "Hemp" back into the public lexicon.
I ran into him later that day and we ended up having dinner with a cadre of supporters at the Heidelberg Restaurant in Ann Arbor. As we awaited the beginning of the "Marijuana Band Benefit" upstairs we talked for a few hours about about what it would take to Re-Legalize Marijuana throughout the United States. And it quickly became clear that we both wanted all adults to have the inalienable right to consume and cultivate all the Marijuana we wished, without the encumbrances of government taxation or control.
Minutes before he succumbed to a heart attack, he had just delivered a speech at Oregon Hemp Stalk festival in October 2009. He had two themes that he wanted to convey in this speech: (1) that the government should never get a dollar of taxes from the regulation and control of Marijuana, and (2) that he needed volunteers to launch an initiative in California to completely legalize Marijuana throughout the state. Unfortunately the heart attack proved fatal and he passed away on April 15th, 2010 after months of convalescing. So due to lack of funds and ill health the "California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative" (CCHH) is now gathering dust.
Meanwhile back in California, Richard Lee, the owner of the "Oaksterdam" dispensary and Marijuana University, was planning an initiative of his own: "The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 " Flush with millions of dollars, from monopolizing the Oakland dispensary scene Lee had successfully gathered the required signatures in the early part of 2010. But there was problem that the Mainstream Media seemed to want to ignore: it had been denounced by many elders of the Re-Legalization movement: including Jack Herer, Bruce Cain and Dennis Peron.
So in the remainder of this article I would like to accomplish the following objectives:
(1) Compare the "Oaksterdam" and CCHH initiatives and show that the "Oaksterdam" ballot proposal will set Re-Legalization back at least 20 years.
(2) Begin a campaign against passage of the "Oaksterdam" ballot proposal and insist that Richard Lee put a few million dollars up to place Jack Herer's CCHH initiative on the ballot in 2012
(3) Concurrently encourage activists to place the final nail in the coffin of Marijuana Prohibition by forcing President Obama to implement the MERP Model Nationwide through a Special Joint Session of Congress. Should this strategy succeed every Adult American will be able to grow all the Marijuana they wish without any form of taxation, regulation or limitation. Just as Jack would have like it.
The "Oaksterdam" Initiative is slated to appear on the November 2010 ballot. It was funded largely by Richard Lee of "Oaksterdam University." It is becoming increasingly apparent that Lee is a greedy little monopolist that has absolutely no real interest in Marijuana consumers from simply growing their own. In the fall of 2009 Jack Herer attempted to launch a competing initiative, CCHH, but lack of money and a heart attack in October 2009 derailed his plans. Jack Herer was vehemently opposed to the "Oaksterdam" Initiative and any "tax and regulate" initiative for that matter. Just consider what he said minutes before succumbing to a heart attack, during his speech on September 12th, 2009 at Oregon's HempStalk Festival.
"I don't want to f**king give the United States government one f**king dollar of taxes. I think that they should go to f**king jail for getting you and me and 20 million people getting arrested for pot. It is the safest thing you can do in the universe. And that is what we are going to do in California. Okay? Come over to my booth, over there, and I will see you next time."
In this video Jack Herer vehemently denounced the attempts by the Cannabusiness community to push for the government taxation and regulation of our Marijuana during his speech at the HempStalk Festival in Oregon (09/12/2009). Unfortunately he suffered a heart attack shortly after delivering what could become his most important speech.
Dennis Peron, one of the primary authors of the first Medical Marijuana Initiatives (California, Prop 215), has already come out against the Oaksterdam Initiative on September 15th, 2009. Richard Lee immediately fired Dennis, from Oaksterdam, upon hearing that Dennis was opposed to the "Oaksterdam" Initiative.
I think it is crystal clear, from these two videos that neither Jack Herer or Dennis Peron support Richard Lee's "Oaksterdam" Initiative. At the same time I don't want to leave the impression that all known activists are against Lee's initiative. In point of fact Jodie and Marc Emery do support the MERP Model but also support the "Oaksterdam" ballot proposal. I don't have a problem with that. I merely want the activist community to be informed about what is in both proposals so that they can make up their own minds.
If you took the time to watch the videos it is clear that Jack Herer and Dennis Peron are against "Oaksterdam" form many reasons. But ultimately each Californian activist will have to decide whether or not they will vote for it. To that end I have compiled a brief comparison between the two proposals below. [Note that I use initiative and "ballot proposal" interchangeably as and initiative becomes a proposal after the require signatures are collected and it is approved to be included in the next election ballot].
Comparing Richard Lee's "Oaksterdam" Proposal to Jack Herer's CCHH Proposal
"Oaksterdam"
Jack Herer's CCHH
Amnesty and immediate release from prison for all persons charged or convicted of non-violent Cannabis offences
No
Yes
Limitations on personal self-cultivation
Limited to a "5 by 5" space which most would find wholly inadequate.
Self cultivating adults can maintain no more than 99 flowering plants and may have no more than 12 pounds of Marijuana. (Section I)(7)
Commercial Sales
Favors large corporate Monopolies.
Favors a "Wine Model" where the maximum excise tax, for commercial sale, cannot exceed $10/ounce (Section III)(2)
Challenges Federal Prohibition laws conflicting with each respective initiative
No
Yes (Section 4)
Taxation, regulation and limitation on self-cultivation of Marijuana
Yes You cannot possess more than 1 ounce of Marijuana (11300)(a)(i) You also cannot smoke in any "space" while minors are present (11300)(c)(4)
Very Limited Self cultivating adults can maintain no more than 99 flowering plants and may have no more than 12 pounds of Marijuana. (Section I)(7)
Penalties for furnishing Marijuana to minors
Yes Incredibly draconian. For example if a 18 year old smokes with a 17 year old the penalty is 3 to 5 years in a State Prison. (Section 4)(b)
Minimal Users must be over 21 (Section 1)(2)(f) but medical use is allowed at any age (Section I)(4). Penalties may be similar to wine laws (Section I)(7) but this is not even clear due to the context of the quote in the bill.
Commercial Restrictions
Yes Appropriate controls for protection of public health and welfare (11300)(h). This is very vague and subject to local government abuse. It also sets the stage to institute large corporate monopolization by the "establishment of statewide regulatory system. (Section 5)(b)
Limited First of all you can self cultivate very large amounts if you wish: Self cultivating adults can maintain no more than 99 flowering plants and may have no more than 12 pounds of Marijuana. (Section I)(7) Secondly it is modeled on the Wine Industry model where the licence fee cannot exceed $1,000 (Section III)(1).
Testing impairment for those driving or operating heavy machinery.
Yes "shall not limit any statute that forbids impairment. (11304)(a). This could result in Marijuana users getting fired from their jobs as was just recently upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court.
Limited Relies on performance testing (e.g., walking a straight line etc.). This is wonderful because it disallows urine testing that would merely test for the existence of cannabinoids in the system which can linger up to 3 months after smoking, while the very mild impairment of smoking only lasts a few hours.
Can an employee be fired for having traces of THC in their system
Yes. "existing right of employer to address consumption that impairs job performance (11304)9c). Also, "shall not limit any statute that forbids impairment. (11304)(a). This could result in Marijuana users getting fired from their jobs as was just recently upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court.
No
Once you have assimilated the information on the table I would highly recommend that you read through both initiatives which have been included, in full, at the end of this article. But even from this cursory examination I think it is clear that the "Oaksterdam" initiative has some major flaws.
At any rate here are my personal concerns about the "Oaksterdam" ballot proposal.
Both Jack and I shared one simple goal: we both wanted self cultivation to be untaxed, unregulated and unlimited. As a hippie from the 60's we all believed in our inalienable right to "grow our own." I don't ever want to see that goal erased from our memories by the very powerful interests that are attempting to manufacture consent for a "tax and regulate" model. This is a model that I fear will also attempt to slowly prohibit all self cultivation as we are now seeing with MPP's AZ initiative: also slated to appear on the November 2010 ballot in Arizona.
I am very concerned that the "Oaksterdam" initiative will also slowly prohibit all self cultivation. For instance the "Oakstedam" initiative is wholly inadequate in only allowing a "5 by 5" grow space. Most growers that I know think that is tantamount to prohibiting self cultivation anyway. Can you really maintain mothers, clones, vegetative plants and flowering plants in a "5 by 5' space? And even if you could I don't understand why Richard Lee would have allowed such draconian restrictions. Many activists I know believe him to be part of the emerging "Marijuana Capitalists" that truly wish to monopolize all growing and distribution.
And this is how I could see "Oaksterdam" close the door on all non-commercial cultivation. First, it will be almost impossible to really grow in a "5 by 5" space which will lead to a cascade of busts on "home growers." And as the penalties for going over the limit are harsh many growers will be arrested, fined and will quite possibly see their properties forfeited for violating the letter of the "Oaksterdam" initiative. Is this really the "freedom" we have been fighting for over the last 45 years?
And it will be in the interests of both the commercial dispensaries and the government to do just that. And Richard Lee is already set up as one of the 4 Marijuana Monopolies in Oakland. The dispensaries will have an interest in eradicating self cultivation because, by limiting supply, they can assure themselves of a higher price. And the local, state and federal governments will have a similar interest. In both cases it is simple supply and demand: by prohibiting self cultivation -- through numerous busts or through future legislation -- they will be able insure that all Marijuana is taxed. This is just basic supply and demand reality. My cncern is that this will lead toward a "hard liquor" model where you can buy hard liquor but you cannot set up your own still. In the case of "Oaksterdam" it will lead to a future where you will be able to buy Marijuana but you won't be able to grow it.
Journalist Canada lists Peron's specific problems with the "Oaksterdam" Initiative in his article "Peron announces opposition to Oakland's marijuana initiative:"
Peron, co-author of Proposition 215, cites three "fatal flaws" in the Oaksterdamn U initiative . These can be described as limits, taxes, and penalties regarding minors.
Regarding the limits of one ounce and 25 square feet for personal cultivation:
"Imagine a law to “tax and regulate” alcohol that only allows for possession of up to one bottle of wine imprisoning those who exceed that amount, be it two bottles or a small collection of choice vintages. These limits guarantee confusion, harassment and black marketeering forevermore. We don’t control alcohol by imposing a 25 sq. foot limit on grape vines. But one extra gram or sq. foot of pot means jail and even worse; this initiative specifies that if accused of having too much cannabis the burden of proof is on you, not the state."
Regarding taxes:
"Singling out those who want to use marijuana for a huge excise tax is just plain unfair. It maintains cannabis as the most expensive, blatantly overpriced product on the market thus forcing most people to choose cheaper, more dangerous drugs with huge externalized costs to society as a whole."
Regarding minors:
"Sending teenagers to state prison for three years for pot is evil. This initiative mandates that 18, 19, and twenty year old minors serve three to seven year terms in California state prison for the crime of passing each other a joint or selling one another a small amount. Under this law if a 21 year old person passes a joint to a 20 year old he or she goes to county jail for six months. Likewise this measure has no exceptions for parents in their own homes from the “smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present” prohibition. We don’t lock up parents for having a glass of wine with dinner and we certainly don’t tell the kids to leave the house for the purpose of consuming any other substance so why start with cannabis?"
Peron vows that if the proponents "buy" enough signatures to get the initiative on the ballot he will campaign against it:
"This initiative is bad for parents, students and, ultimately, the effort to get the state to stop ruining lives enforcing these draconian pot laws. Initiatives create permanent statutes. This one with its petty restrictions for personal users, prohibitive unfair taxes, and mandatory state prison sentences for teen agers need be nipped in the bud. We will campaign and vote against it should its proponents succeed in purchasing the necessary number of signatures to put it on the 2010 ballot. The tax revenue it will supposedly generate is a mere smokescreen for the kids it will regulate into three, five and seven year state prison sentences."
I think it is clear that Jack's CCHH initiative is far superior in many ways. First of all you can self cultivate very large amounts if you wish: Self cultivating adults can maintain up to 99 flowering plants and may have as much as 12 pounds of Marijuana on hand at any time. Secondly it is modeled on the Wine Industry model where the license fee cannot exceed $1,000. This is much more likely to assure that moneyed interests cannot simply dominate the market. It also assures that Marijuana consumers cannot be fired for using Marijuana during non-work hours. This is very important because the Oregon Supreme Court just recently ruled that employers could fire Medical Marijuana patients that test positive for trace amounts of THC that can linger in your system for as much as 3 months.
The bottom line is that these two initiatives are light years apart. CCHH is essentially consistent with the MERP Model whereas "Oaksterdam" almost seems engineered to generate more arrests as well as eradicate any self cultivation.
I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to force Californians one way or the other. I just want them to make an informed vote in November 2010.
But for those activists that decide they don't like the "Oaksterdam" initiative here is what I encourage you to do. Begin a campaign against passage of the "Oaksterdam" ballot proposal and insist that Richard Lee put a few million dollars up to place Jack Herer's CCHH initiative on the ballot in 2012 In the next few days I will try to set up a Facebook page for those that want to pursue this strategy.
All I want to see is the passage of MERP so that a truly free market can be maintained. This is the only way that the poor and sick will ever have free access to this sacred plant. Not everyone can afford $300 to $500 per ounce for their "medicine" as is currently the case in California and other states that have already passed Medical Marijuana initiatives.
Regardless of what you decide about "Oaksterdam" all activists should pursue the passage of MERP. In the following videos I outline the MERP Strategy and discuss some of the flaws that I see inherent in any "tax and regulate" model that does not allow "untaxed, unregulated, unlimited" self cultivation.
Petition for the Immediate Re-Legalization of Marijuana
Bruce Cain and John Sinclair Speaking at the Hash Bash in Ann Arbor (April 3rd, 2010)
All I want to see is the passage of MERP so that a truly free market can be maintained. This is the only way that the poor and sick will ever have free access to this sacred plant. Not everyone can afford $300 to $500 per ounce for their "medicine" as is currently the case in California and other states that have already passed Medical Marijuana initiatives.
Not only is it in accord to Jack's vision of legalization: it is the only strategy that I am aware of that would put a final end to drug prohibition in the United States by essentially cutting the head off the beast. And what I mean by that is only by taking Marijuana COMPLETELY off of the Controlled Substances Act can we ever be free of future oppression from those that would like to prohibit or monopolize the taxation and distribution of this sacred plant.
To accomplish this all the tribes (activists and organizations) must come together to compel President Obama to call for a Special Joint Session of Congress so that Marijuana can be immediately Re-Legalized under the MERP Model. So far the MERP Petition has generated nearly a thousand signatures and has sent nearly 4,000 emails to Obama, Federal Senators and Federal House members. Please take a moment to add your signature to the petition if you live anywhere within the United States of America.
And after signing please send the link to as many friends as humanly possible. I think it will take a million signatures to force Obama into action.
And I also believe there are a number of entities that WOULD like to monopolize the taxation and distribution of this sacred plant:
(1) The moneyed dispensary owners that would like to monopolize the markets in order to maximize their profits.
(2) Local, City, State and Federal governments that want to make sure they collect taxes and license fees for every gram of Marijuana produced.
(3) The Tobacco Industry that would most probably want to wipe the dispensaries off the map: again to maximize their profits by eliminating competitors.
(4) The Pharmaceutical Industry that would want to restrict any form of Marijuana so that you would be force to access the THC, CBD, CBN though their growing array of cannabinoid "medicines" that have already been patented.
I think it is clear that Jack Herer would have rejected all of these potential outcomes. He knew that the only way for the Industrial and Agricultural applications of hemp (Marijuana, Cannabis) to be maximized required that all humans on this planet must be allowed to grow their own without any forms of taxation or regulation. He didn't see it as a civil right but rather an inalienable right. Obviously I feel the same way about it. Just allow all adults to grow their own and allow a truly free market to maximize the full potential of Hemps ability to save the planet.
AN ACT TO AMEND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE OF CALIFORNIA:
I. Add Section 11362.6 to the Health and Safety Code of California, any laws or policies to the contrary notwithstanding:
1. No person, individual, or corporate entity shall be arrested or prosecuted, be denied any right or privilege, nor be subject to any criminal or civil penalties for the possession, cultivation, transportation, distribution, or consumption of cannabis hemp marijuana, including:
(a) Cannabis hemp industrial products.
(b) Cannabis hemp medicinal preparations.
(c) Cannabis hemp nutritional products.
(d) Cannabis hemp religious and spiritual products.
(e) Cannabis hemp recreational and euphoric use and products.
2. Definition of terms:
(a) The terms "cannabis hemp" and “cannabis hemp marijuana” mean the natural, non-genetically modified plant hemp, cannabis, marihuana, marijuana, cannabis sativa L, cannabis Americana, cannabis chinensis, cannabis indica, cannabis ruderalis, cannabis sativa, or any variety of cannabis, including any derivative, concentrate, extract, flower, leaf, particle, preparation, resin, root, salt, seed, stalk, stem, or any product thereof.
(b) The term "cannabis hemp industrial products" means all products made from cannabis hemp that are not designed or intended for human consumption, including, but not limited to: clothing, building materials, paper, fiber, fuel, lubricants, plastics, paint, seed for cultivation, animal feed, veterinary medicine, oil, or any other product that is not designed for internal human consumption; as well as cannabis hemp plants used for crop rotation, erosion control, pest control, weed control, or any other horticultural or environmental purposes, for example, the reversal of the Greenhouse Effect and toxic soil reclamation.
(c) The term "cannabis hemp medicinal preparations" means all products made from cannabis hemp that are designed, intended, or used for human consumption for the treatment of any human disease or condition, for pain relief, or for any healing purpose, including but not limited to the treatment or relief of: Alzheimer's and pre-Alzheimer's disease, stroke, arthritis, asthma, cramps, epilepsy, glaucoma, migraine, multiple sclerosis, nausea, premenstrual syndrome, side effects of cancer chemotherapy, fibromyalgia, sickle cell anemia, spasticity, spinal injury, stress, easement of post-traumatic stress disorder, Tourette syndrome, attention deficit disorder, immunodeficiency, wasting syndrome from AIDS or anorexia; use as an antibiotic, antibacterial, anti-viral, or anti-emetic; as a healing agent, or as an adjunct to any medical or herbal treatment. Mental conditions not limited to bipolar, depression, attention deficit disorder, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, shall be conditions considered for medical use.
(d) The term "cannabis hemp nutritional products" means cannabis hemp for consumption by humans and animals as food, including but not limited to: seed, seed protein, seed oil, essential fatty acids, seed cake, dietary fiber, or any preparation or extract thereof.
(e) The term "cannabis hemp euphoric products" means cannabis hemp intended for personal recreational or religious use, other than cannabis hemp industrial products, cannabis hemp medicinal preparations, or cannabis hemp nutritional products.
(f) The term "personal use" means the internal consumption of cannabis hemp by people 21 years of age or older for any relaxational, meditative, religious, spiritual, recreational, or other purpose other than sale.
(g) The term "commercial production" means the production of cannabis hemp products for sale or profit under the conditions of these provisions.
3. Industrial cannabis hemp farmers, manufacturers, processors, and distributors shall not be subject to any special zoning requirement, licensing fee, or tax that is excessive, discriminatory, or prohibitive.
4. Cannabis hemp medicinal preparations are hereby restored to the list of available medicines in California. Licensed physicians shall not be penalized for, nor restricted from, prescribing or recommending cannabis hemp for medical purposes to any patient, regardless of age. No tax shall be applied to prescribed cannabis hemp medicinal preparations. Medical research shall be encouraged. No recommending physician shall be subject to any professional licensing review or hearing as a result of recommending or approving medical use of cannabis hemp marijuana.
5. Personal use of cannabis hemp euphoric products.
(a) No permit, license, or tax shall be required for the non-commercial cultivation, transportation, distribution, or consumption of cannabis hemp.
(b) Testing for inactive and/or inert residual cannabis metabolites shall not be required for employment or insurance, nor be considered in determining employment, other impairment, or intoxication.
(c) When a person falls within the conditions of these exceptions, the offense laws do not apply and only the exception laws apply.
6. Use of cannabis hemp products for religious or spiritual purposes shall be considered an inalienable right; and shall be protected by the full force of the State and Federal Constitutions.
7. Commerce in cannabis hemp euphoric products shall be limited to adults, 21 years of age and older, and shall be regulated in a manner analogous to California's wine industry model. For the purpose of distinguishing personal from commercial production, 99 flowering female plants and 12 pounds of dried, cured cannabis hemp flowers, bud, not leaf, produced per adult, 21 years of age and older, per year shall be considered as being for personal use.
8. The manufacture, marketing, distribution, or sales between adults of equipment or accessories designed to assist in the planting, cultivation, harvesting, curing, processing, packaging, storage, analysis, consumption, or transportation of cannabis hemp plants, industrial cannabis hemp products, cannabis hemp medicinal preparations, cannabis hemp nutritional products, cannabis hemp euphoric products, or any cannabis hemp product shall not be prohibited.
9. No California law enforcement personnel or funds shall be used to assist or aid and abet in the enforcement of Federal cannabis hemp marijuana laws involving acts which are hereby no longer illegal in the State of California.
10. Any person who threatens the enjoyment of these provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor. The maximum penalties and fines of a misdemeanor may be imposed.
II. Repeal, delete, and expunge any and all existing statutory laws that conflict with the provisions of this initiative.
1. Enactment of this initiative shall include: amnesty, immediate release from prison, jail, parole, and probation, and clearing, expungement, and deletion of all criminal records for all persons currently charged with, or convicted of any non-violent cannabis hemp marijuana offenses included in this initiative which are hereby no longer illegal in the State of California. People who fall within this category that triggered an original sentence are included within this provision.
2. Within 60 days of the passage of this Act, the Attorney General shall develop and distribute a one-page application, providing for the destruction of all cannabis hemp marijuana criminal records in California for any such offense covered by this Act. Such forms shall be distributed to district and city attorneys and made available at all police departments in the State to persons hereby affected. Upon filing such form with any Superior Court and a payment of a fee of $10.00, the Court shall liberally construe these provisions to benefit the defendant in furtherance of the amnesty and dismissal provision of this section. Upon the Court's ruling under this provision the arrest record shall be set aside and be destroyed. Such persons may then truthfully state that they have never been arrested or convicted of any cannabis hemp marijuana related offense which is hereby no longer illegal in the State of California. This shall be deemed to be a finding of factual innocence under California Penal Code Section 851.8 et seq.
III. The legislature is authorized upon thorough investigation, to enact legislation using reasonable standards to:
1. License concessionary establishments to distribute cannabis hemp euphoric products in a manner analogous to California's wine industry model. Sufficient community outlets shall be licensed to provide reasonable commercial access to persons of legal age, so as to discourage and prevent the misuse of, and illicit traffic in, such products. Any license or permit fee required by the State for commercial production, distribution or use shall not exceed $1,000.00.
2. Place an excise tax on commercial sale of cannabis hemp euphoric products, analogous to California's wine industry model, so long as no excise tax or combination of excise taxes shall exceed $10.00 per ounce.
3. Determine an acceptable and uniform standard of impairment based on performance testing, to restrict persons impaired by cannabis hemp euphoric products from operating a motor vehicle or heavy machinery, or otherwise engaging in conduct that may affect public safety.
4. Regulate the personal use of cannabis hemp euphoric products in enclosed and/or restricted public places.
IV. Pursuant to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the people of California hereby repudiate and challenge Federal cannabis hemp marijuana prohibitions that conflict with this Act.
V. Severability: If any provision of this Act, or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid by any court, the remainder of this Act, to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of such provisions to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.
VI. Construction: If any rival or conflicting initiative regulating any matter addressed by this act receives the higher affirmative vote, then all non-conflicting parts shall become operative.
VII. Purpose of Act: This Act is an exercise of the police powers of the State for the protection of the safety, welfare, health, and peace of the people and the environment of the State, to protect the industrial and medicinal uses of cannabis hemp, to eliminate the unlicensed and unlawful cultivation, selling, and dispensing of cannabis hemp; and to encourage temperance in the consumption of cannabis hemp euphoric products. It is hereby declared that the subject matter of this Act involves, in the highest degree, the ecological, economic, social, and moral well-being and safety of the State and of all its people. All provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of these purposes: to respect human rights, to promote tolerance, and to end cannabis hemp prohibition.
Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed. Initiative Statute.
Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products.
Section 1: Name This Act shall be known as the “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.”
Section 2: Findings, Intent and Purposes This Act, adopted by the People of the State of California, makes the following Findings and Statement of Intent and Purpose: A. Findings 1. California’s laws criminalizing cannabis (marijuana) have failed and need to be reformed. Despite spending decades arresting millions of non-violent cannabis consumers, we have failed to control cannabis or reduce its availability. 2. According to surveys, roughly 100 million Americans (around 1/3 of the country’s population) acknowledge that they have used cannabis, 15 million of those Americans having consumed cannabis in the last month. Cannabis consumption is simply a fact of life for a large percentage of Americans. 3. Despite having some of the strictest cannabis laws in the world, the United States has the largest number of cannabis consumers. The percentage of our citizens who consume cannabis is double that of the percentage of people who consume cannabis in the Netherlands, a country where the selling and adult possession of cannabis is allowed. 4. According to The National Research Council’s recent study of the 11 U.S. states where cannabis is currently decriminalized, there is little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions and the rate of consumption. 5. Cannabis has fewer harmful effects than either alcohol or cigarettes, which are both legal for adult consumption. Cannabis is not physically addictive, does not have long term toxic effects on the body, and does not cause its consumers to become violent. 6. There is an estimated $15 billion in illegal cannabis transactions in California each year. Taxing and regulating cannabis, like we do with alcohol and cigarettes, will generate billions of dollars in annual revenues for California to fund what matters most to Californians: jobs, health care, schools and libraries, roads, and more. 7. California wastes millions of dollars a year targeting, arresting, trying, convicting, and imprisoning non-violent citizens for cannabis related offenses. This money would be better used to combat violent crimes and gangs. 8. The illegality of cannabis enables for the continuation of an out-of-control criminal market, which in turn spawns other illegal and often violent activities. Establishing legal, regulated sales outlets would put dangerous street dealers out of business. B. Purposes 1. Reform California’s cannabis laws in a way that will benefit our state. 2. Regulate cannabis like we do alcohol: Allow adults to possess and consume small amounts of cannabis. 3. Implement a legal regulatory framework to give California more control over the cultivation, processing, transportation, distribution, and sales of cannabis. 4. Implement a legal regulatory framework to better police and prevent access to and consumption of cannabis by minors in California. 5. Put dangerous, underground street dealers out of business, so their influence in our communities will fade. 6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes. 7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9. 8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9. 9. Tax and regulate cannabis to generate billions of dollars for our state and local governments to fund what matters most: jobs, healthcare, schools and libraries, parks, roads, transportation, and more. 10. Stop arresting thousands of non-violent cannabis consumers, freeing up police resources and saving millions of dollars each year, which could be used for apprehending truly dangerous criminals and keeping them locked up, and for other essential state needs that lack funding. 11. Allow the Legislature to adopt a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry. 12. Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes. 13. Permit California to fulfill the state’s obligations under the United States Constitution to enact laws concerning health, morals, public welfare and safety within the State. 14. Permit the cultivation of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption. C. Intent 1. This Act is intended to limit the application and enforcement of state and local laws relating to possession, transportation, cultivation, consumption and sale of cannabis, including but not limited to the following, whether now existing or adopted in the future: Health and Safety Code sections 11014.5 and 11364.5 [relating to drug paraphernalia]; 11054 [relating to cannabis or tetrahydrocannabinols]; 11357 [relating to possession]; 11358 [relating to cultivation]; 11359 [possession for sale]; 11360 [relating to transportation and sales]; 11366 [relating to maintenance of places]; 11366.5 [relating to use of property]; 11370 [relating to punishment]; 11470 [relating to forfeiture]; 11479 [relating to seizure and destruction]; 11703 [relating to definitions regarding illegal substances]; 11705 [actions for use of illegal controlled substance]; Vehicle Code sections 23222 and 40000.15 [relating to possession]. 2. This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of the following state laws relating to public health and safety or protection of children and others: Health and Safety Code sections 11357 [relating to possession on school grounds]; 11361 [relating to minors as amended herein]; 11379.6 [relating to chemical production]; 11532 [relating to loitering to commit a crime or acts not authorized by law]; Vehicle Code section 23152 [relating to driving while under the influence]; Penal Code section 272 [relating to contributing to the delinquency of a minor]; nor any law prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve public safety.
Section 3: Lawful Activities Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, commencing with section 11300 is added to read: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to: (i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale. (ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands. (iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption. (iv) Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection. (b) “Personal consumption” shall include but is not limited to possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other non-public place, and shall include licensed premises open to the public authorized to permit on-premises consumption of cannabis by a local government pursuant to section 11301. (c) “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis: (i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301; (ii) consumption in public or in a public place; (iii) consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator; (iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.
Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following: (a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized; (b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale; (c) appropriate controls on cultivation, transportation, sales, and consumption of cannabis to strictly prohibit access to cannabis by persons under the age of 21; (d) age limits and controls to ensure that all persons present in, employed by, or in any way involved in the operation of, any such licensed premises are 21 or older; (e) consumption of cannabis within licensed premises; (f) safe and secure transportation of cannabis from a licensed premises for cultivation or processing, to a licensed premises for sale or on-premises consumption of cannabis; (g) prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300; (h) appropriate controls on licensed premises for sale, cultivation, processing, or sale and on-premises consumption, of cannabis, including limits on zoning and land use, locations, size, hours of operation, occupancy, protection of adjoining and nearby properties and persons from unwanted exposure, advertising, signs and displays, and other controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare; (i) appropriate environmental and public health controls to ensure that any licensed premises minimizes any harm to the environment, adjoining and nearby landowners, and persons passing by; (j) appropriate controls to restrict public displays, or public consumption of cannabis; (k) appropriate taxes or fees pursuant to section 11302; (l) such larger amounts as the local authority deems appropriate and proper under local circumstances, than those established under section 11300(a) for personal possession and cultivation, or under this section for commercial cultivation, processing, transportation and sale by persons authorized to do so under this section; (m) any other appropriate controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare.
Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees (a) Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities. (b) Any licensed premises shall be responsible for paying all federal, state and local taxes, fees, fines, penalties or other financial responsibility imposed on all or similarly situated businesses, facilities or premises, including without limitation income taxes, business taxes, license fees, and property taxes, without regard to or identification of the business or items or services sold.
Section 11303: Seizure (a) Notwithstanding sections 11470 and 11479 of the Health and Safety Code or any other provision of law, no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact seize or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is lawfully cultivated, processed, transported, possessed, possessed for sale, sold or used in compliance with this Act or any local government ordinance, law or regulation adopted pursuant to this Act.
Section 11304: Effect of Act and Definitions (a) This Act shall not be construed to affect, limit or amend any statute that forbids impairment while engaging in dangerous activities such as driving, or that penalizes bringing cannabis to a school enrolling pupils in any grade from kindergarten through 12, inclusive. (b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed or interpreted to permit interstate or international transportation of cannabis. This Act shall be construed to permit a person to transport cannabis in a safe and secure manner from a licensed premises in one city or county to a licensed premises in another city or county pursuant to any ordinances adopted in such cities or counties, notwithstanding any other state law or the lack of any such ordinance in the intervening cities or counties. (c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected. (d) Definitions For purposes of this Act: (i) “Marijuana” and “cannabis” are interchangeable terms that mean all parts of the plant Genus Cannabis, whether growing or not; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; concentrated cannabis; edible products containing same; and every active compound, manufacture, derivative, or preparation of the plant, or resin. (ii) “One ounce” means 28.5 grams. (iii) For purposes of section 11300(a)(ii) “cannabis plant” means all parts of a living Cannabis plant. (iv) In determining whether an amount of cannabis is or is not in excess of the amounts permitted by this Act, the following shall apply: (a) only the active amount of the cannabis in an edible cannabis product shall be included; (b) living and harvested cannabis plants shall be assessed by square footage, not by weight in determining the amounts set forth in section 11300(a); (c) in a criminal proceeding a person accused of violating a limitation in this Act shall have the right to an affirmative defense that the cannabis was reasonably related to his or her personal consumption. (v) “residence” means a dwelling or structure, whether permanent or temporary, on private or public property, intended for occupation by a person or persons for residential purposes, and includes that portion of any structure intended for both commercial and residential purposes. (vi) “local government” means a city, county, or city and county. (vii) “licensed premises” is any commercial business, facility, building, land or area that has a license, permit or is otherwise authorized to cultivate, process, transport, sell, or permit on-premises consumption, of cannabis pursuant to any ordinance or regulation adopted by a local government pursuant to section 11301, or any subsequently enacted state statute or regulation.
Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors Section 11361 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors (a) Every person 18 years of age or over who hires, employs, or uses a minor in transporting, carrying, selling, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling any marijuana, who unlawfully sells, or offers to sell, any marijuana to a minor, or who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give any marijuana to a minor under 14 years of age, or who induces a minor to use marijuana in violation of law shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years. (b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years. (c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense. (d) In addition to the penalties above, any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to perform any act pursuant to Section 11301, who while so licensed, permitted or authorized, negligently furnishes, administers, gives or sells, or offers to furnish, administer, give or sell, any marijuana to any person younger than 21 years of age shall not be permitted to own, operate, be employed by, assist or enter any licensed premises authorized under Section 11301 for a period of one year.
Section 5: Amendment Pursuant to Article 2, section 10(c) of the California Constitution, this Act may be amended either by a subsequent measure submitted to a vote of the People at a statewide election; or by statute validly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, but only to further the purposes of the Act. Such permitted amendments include but are not limited to: (a) Amendments to the limitations in section 11300, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations. (b) Statutes and authorize regulations to further the purposes of the Act to establish a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry that addresses some or all of the items referenced in Sections 11301 and 11302. (c) Laws to authorize the production of hemp or non-active cannabis for horticultural and industrial purposes.
Section 6: Severability If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.
Lisa "Dinga" Ling provides the typical corporate media propaganda. As with coverage by other national "reporters" (Lou Dobbs, Anderson Cooper etc.) this film refuses to address the fact that without prohibition we could all grow our Marijuana for free and the "greater good" would immediately be served. The only thing that makes an ounce of Marijuana worth $300 to $500 an ounce is the fact that is is still illegal. Once legal we can all grow it for free outside or for about $25 and ounce under lights indoors.
Leave it to NORML to hang themselves. This contains links to a plethora of "tax and regulate" media propaganda. I challenge you to find anything in any of these presentations that talks about adult Americans being able to "grow their own."
Please send the link to activists throughout the planet. The translation bar should allow this to be read in any language. The 5-Point Strategy for Marijuana Re-Legalization should be easy to implement in any country throughout the planet. I encourage all groups celebrating the Global Marijuana March to make the immediate implementation of the MERP Model a primary focus of the event.
Call President Obama and your Representatives and demand: (1) Immediate clemency for Marc Emery and (2) Immediate implementation of the MERP Model through an Emergency Session of Congress, similar to what was used to pass the TARP Bailout on October 3rd, 2008 President:
U.S. Senate switchboard: 202-224-3121 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 202-224-3121end_of_the_skype_highlighting U.S. House switchboard: (202) 225-3121 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (202) 225-3121end_of_the_skype_highlighting The President: Comments: 202-456-1111 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 202-456-1111end_of_the_skype_highlighting. Switchboard: 202-456-1414 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 202-456-1414end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Share your views on whether Lou Dobbs should support Marijuana Re-Legalization at our new discussion group
Anything purchased, through the links in this column, generate revenue for New Age Citizen and will help us achieve the policy goals discussed at this website. In addition to the book links is the "New Age Emporium" link below. This will take you to our comprehensive digital storefront where you can purchase anything from books, to DVD's, to computers. This allows you to purchase things you actually need, while helping New Age Citizen achieve needed social change. We appreciate your support.
PODCAST: # 324: Our Top 10 Shows of 2021
-
Luke and Matt count down their individual Top 10 shows of the year. Plus,
there's a BoxMaster of The Year and we look at the Top 10's of our site
contrib...
The "Oaksterdam" Initiative is slated to appear on the November 2010 ballot. It was funded largely by Richard Lee of "Oaksterdam University." It is becoming increasingly apparent that Lee is a greedy little monopolist that has absolutely no real interest in Marijuana consumers from simply growing their own. In the fall of 2009 Jack Herer attempted to launch a competing initiative, CCHH, but lack of money and a heart attack in October 2009 derailed his plans. Jack Herer was vehemently opposed to the "Oaksterdam" Initiative and any "tax and regulate" initiative for that matter. Just consider what he said minutes before succumbing to a heart attack, during his speech on September 12th, 2009 at Oregon's HempStalk Festival.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment