Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Prop 19 Failed to Pass
Tonight ended in great disappointment for the advocates of Prop 19, and those wishing to move forward in ending the prohibition of marijuana. Even though Prop 19 does not affect the provisions of Prop 215, many growers were still opposed to Prop 19 because they didn't want their profits taxed. You know during the prohibition of alcohol in the 20s, the mafia and bootleggers didn't want to legalize alcohol either. This bill which had majority support earlier, failed, thanks to the misinformation spread around by the growers, old people, dumbasses, and in general the opponents of Prop 19. So what could have helped set the precedent for legalization and marijuana reform laws in other states, will now have to wait thanks to a bunch of greedy fucks. California's next legalization bill will come in 2012 in the form of Prop 215. The fight is far from over.
Friday, September 3, 2010
What Conservatives thinks about California Proposition 19
This really comes as a surprise to see logic and reason coming from the far right in regards of legalization. Of course I wouldn't consider Ron Paul to be far right because he is a true Republican who believes in small government in every aspect(especially social issues) As he said: "It is not the government's job to protect the people from themselves". As soon as Prop 19 passes, it won't be long before the other states follow in droves. Of course though, the Bible Belt states will be the last to consider legalization.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
A Call to Arms
This probably won't work, but at least it will help get President Obama's attention about the growing concern of his constituents that we want to end the war on Marijuana. Below is a link to a petition going around http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/endthewaronmarijuana
Monday, August 30, 2010
Jack Herer's Family Supports Prop 19
From the Family of Jack Herer, author of The Emperor Wears No Clothes
Van Nuys, California, August, 2010
Dear Friends of Hemp and Cannabis,
Our father, Jack Herer, was a man of leadership, compassion and idealism. He worked relentlessly for decades to achieve his dream of legalizing Cannabis hemp in all its forms, personal, medical and industrial. He wanted Cannabis to be free and open, and to be given full respect for its enormous economic, environmental and cultural benefits.
As an idealist, Jack was adverse to half measures. He originally opposed Prop 215 because it stopped at medical use only. He initially opposed Senate Bill 420 because it set limited quantities as a safe harbor. Over time, however, he came to appreciate the freedoms they created, and took pride in the role he played in inspiring those changes. Jack’s great fear about Prop 215 and SB 420 was that people would accept those limits, become complacent and stop working for full legalization. He feared we would be stuck with medical use forever.
Likewise, Jack railed against Tax Cannabis 2010, now Proposition 19, and its plan for limited legalization and local authority to tax and regulate marijuana sales to adults 21 and above. It falls far short of what he wanted. Jack ‘wanted it all,’ and Prop 19 is just a part of that dream. Unfortunately, Jack passed away before Prop 19 made the 2010 ballot; so many people think he would still oppose it. We don’t believe that, and we ask that everyone stop saying he would cling to that position as we move toward the Nov. 2 vote.
As his family, we want the world to know that the last thing Jack Herer would want is for Californians to vote to keep Cannabis illegal. He was smart and had the political savvy to know that once a measure is on the ballot, the time for bickering has passed. That is why he campaigned for Prop 215 despite its shortcomings. That is why, were he able, he would now be telling voters to rally around and Vote Yes on Prop 19.
Does that mean he would want everyone to stop and be happy with the modest changes that Prop 19 affords? Absolutely not! What Jack would want us to do right now is to support Prop 19, and come Nov. 3 he would be right back again, telling you to renew your commitment to bring a comprehensive California Hemp and Health Initiative to the voters in 2012 or some future date. Jack Herer would ask – no, he would demand your yes vote on Prop 19, along with a pledge to continue fighting for the plant, the people and the planet.
It is true that Prop 19 does not fulfill our father’s dream; but it takes us much closer to achieving it than we are now, and for that reason we, his family, endorse Prop 19 today.
Please vote yes on Prop 19 Nov 2, but do it with the dedication to keep working toward complete legalization in Jack’s honor.
Sincerely, Dan Herer et al.
Van Nuys, California, August, 2010
Dear Friends of Hemp and Cannabis,
Our father, Jack Herer, was a man of leadership, compassion and idealism. He worked relentlessly for decades to achieve his dream of legalizing Cannabis hemp in all its forms, personal, medical and industrial. He wanted Cannabis to be free and open, and to be given full respect for its enormous economic, environmental and cultural benefits.
As an idealist, Jack was adverse to half measures. He originally opposed Prop 215 because it stopped at medical use only. He initially opposed Senate Bill 420 because it set limited quantities as a safe harbor. Over time, however, he came to appreciate the freedoms they created, and took pride in the role he played in inspiring those changes. Jack’s great fear about Prop 215 and SB 420 was that people would accept those limits, become complacent and stop working for full legalization. He feared we would be stuck with medical use forever.
Likewise, Jack railed against Tax Cannabis 2010, now Proposition 19, and its plan for limited legalization and local authority to tax and regulate marijuana sales to adults 21 and above. It falls far short of what he wanted. Jack ‘wanted it all,’ and Prop 19 is just a part of that dream. Unfortunately, Jack passed away before Prop 19 made the 2010 ballot; so many people think he would still oppose it. We don’t believe that, and we ask that everyone stop saying he would cling to that position as we move toward the Nov. 2 vote.
As his family, we want the world to know that the last thing Jack Herer would want is for Californians to vote to keep Cannabis illegal. He was smart and had the political savvy to know that once a measure is on the ballot, the time for bickering has passed. That is why he campaigned for Prop 215 despite its shortcomings. That is why, were he able, he would now be telling voters to rally around and Vote Yes on Prop 19.
Does that mean he would want everyone to stop and be happy with the modest changes that Prop 19 affords? Absolutely not! What Jack would want us to do right now is to support Prop 19, and come Nov. 3 he would be right back again, telling you to renew your commitment to bring a comprehensive California Hemp and Health Initiative to the voters in 2012 or some future date. Jack Herer would ask – no, he would demand your yes vote on Prop 19, along with a pledge to continue fighting for the plant, the people and the planet.
It is true that Prop 19 does not fulfill our father’s dream; but it takes us much closer to achieving it than we are now, and for that reason we, his family, endorse Prop 19 today.
Please vote yes on Prop 19 Nov 2, but do it with the dedication to keep working toward complete legalization in Jack’s honor.
Sincerely, Dan Herer et al.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Drug Czars team up against Prop 19
Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske has joined with the past four Drug Czars under Bush and Clinton administrations to fight against marijuana legalization under Prop 19 in California.
What do you get when you put six Drug Czars together? Same old bullshit, except more of it.
It was probably inevitable, but that doesn't make it any less deplorable. Obama Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske has joined forces with five past directors of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, including czars who served under Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush, against California's marijuana legalization voter initiative, Proposition 19.
You would think that six so-called "drug experts" working together could come up with better-reasoned arguments against Prop 19 that these tired old talking points by tired old bureaucrats.
Not that anybody's surprised that Kerlikowske, and by extension, the Obama Administration, opposes pot legalization. Gil's already helpfully let us know that legalization isn't in his vocabulary.
"No country in the world has legalized marijuana to the extent envisioned by Proposition 19, so it is impossible to predict precisely the consequences of wholesale legalization," write Kerlikowske, John Walters, Barry McCaffrey, Lee Brown, Bob Martinez and William Bennett in an August 25 Los Angeles Times op-ed piece.
Of course, "no country in the world" had tried representative democracy "to the extent envisioned" by our Founding Fathers, either, but we didn't let that stop us, did we?
Speaking of which, Gil and the other Czars neglected to mention that marijuana was legal in the United States for 161 years, from the founding of the republic in 1776 until the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
The assembled Drug Czars aren't even above peddling outright misinformation -- such as a bogus "stiatistic" that indicates cannabis use increased among Dutch teens due to their tolerance of "coffee shop" marijuana sales -- when in fact, rates of use for adolescents are lower in the decriminalized Netherlands than in the United States, which has marijuana prohibition.
Then, the Czars try to make marijuana seem a lot more dangerous to driving than it really is, citing a 2004 "meta-analysis" published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Review of "studies conducted in several localities" which showed that between 4 and 14 percent of drivers who sustained injuries or died in traffic accidents tested positive for THC, an active ingredient in marijuana.
What they failed to mention was that between 4 and 14 percent of drivers who were NOT in traffic accidents would ALSO prove positive for THC. At any given time, at least 4 to 14 percent of drivers are high on pot -- without causing accidents.
There is NO compelling evidence that marijuana contributes substantially to traffic accidents and fatalities. In driving studies, marijuana produces little or no car-handling impairment.
The assembled Drug Czars also try to make hay of the fact that lots of people will be home-growing marijuana if Prop 19 passes, in the 5x5 plots allowed under the legalization initiative.
"Why would people volunteer to pay high taxes on marijuana if it were legalized?" the Czars ask.
Well, first of all, lots of folks don't have the time or inclination to grow marijuana, and will happily pay dispensary prices, including taxes, to avoid that trouble.
And secondly, if lots of people grow their pot at home and bypass the commercial sector entirely, SO WHAT? Self-reliance is a good thing, and you'd think Drug Czars would be happy that lots of people would choose to cut the drug cartels out of the action.
Then, the tired old Drug Czars push the tired old argument that the healthcare and criminal justice costs associated with marijuana legalization would exceed any tax revenues collected, because that's the way it is with alcohol and tobacco.
Hey, Drug Czars! All six of you! How could you have spent your LIFETIMES studying drug policy -- you did do your homework, didn't you?? -- and managed NOT to learn that marijuana is NOT tobacco (not only does it NOT cause cancer, it helps to prevent it) and marijuana is NOT alcohol (how many incidents of violence, and how many vehicular accidents, do you personally know are attributable to marijuana?).
The only good point the Drug Czars make is that Prop 19 would "burden them with new and complicated enforcement duties" when it comes to "ingesting or smoking marijuana while minors are present."
"Would this apply in a private home?" the Drug Czars ask. "And is a minor 'present' if they are 15 feet away, or 20? Perhaps California law enforcement officers will be required to carry tape measures next to their handcuffs."
Good point, guys -- that's something that will need fixing if Prop 19 passes. Too bad that's the only valid argument you have!
What do you get when you put six Drug Czars together? Same old bullshit, except more of it.
It was probably inevitable, but that doesn't make it any less deplorable. Obama Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske has joined forces with five past directors of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, including czars who served under Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush, against California's marijuana legalization voter initiative, Proposition 19.
You would think that six so-called "drug experts" working together could come up with better-reasoned arguments against Prop 19 that these tired old talking points by tired old bureaucrats.
Not that anybody's surprised that Kerlikowske, and by extension, the Obama Administration, opposes pot legalization. Gil's already helpfully let us know that legalization isn't in his vocabulary.
"No country in the world has legalized marijuana to the extent envisioned by Proposition 19, so it is impossible to predict precisely the consequences of wholesale legalization," write Kerlikowske, John Walters, Barry McCaffrey, Lee Brown, Bob Martinez and William Bennett in an August 25 Los Angeles Times op-ed piece.
Of course, "no country in the world" had tried representative democracy "to the extent envisioned" by our Founding Fathers, either, but we didn't let that stop us, did we?
Speaking of which, Gil and the other Czars neglected to mention that marijuana was legal in the United States for 161 years, from the founding of the republic in 1776 until the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
The assembled Drug Czars aren't even above peddling outright misinformation -- such as a bogus "stiatistic" that indicates cannabis use increased among Dutch teens due to their tolerance of "coffee shop" marijuana sales -- when in fact, rates of use for adolescents are lower in the decriminalized Netherlands than in the United States, which has marijuana prohibition.
Then, the Czars try to make marijuana seem a lot more dangerous to driving than it really is, citing a 2004 "meta-analysis" published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Review of "studies conducted in several localities" which showed that between 4 and 14 percent of drivers who sustained injuries or died in traffic accidents tested positive for THC, an active ingredient in marijuana.
What they failed to mention was that between 4 and 14 percent of drivers who were NOT in traffic accidents would ALSO prove positive for THC. At any given time, at least 4 to 14 percent of drivers are high on pot -- without causing accidents.
There is NO compelling evidence that marijuana contributes substantially to traffic accidents and fatalities. In driving studies, marijuana produces little or no car-handling impairment.
The assembled Drug Czars also try to make hay of the fact that lots of people will be home-growing marijuana if Prop 19 passes, in the 5x5 plots allowed under the legalization initiative.
"Why would people volunteer to pay high taxes on marijuana if it were legalized?" the Czars ask.
Well, first of all, lots of folks don't have the time or inclination to grow marijuana, and will happily pay dispensary prices, including taxes, to avoid that trouble.
And secondly, if lots of people grow their pot at home and bypass the commercial sector entirely, SO WHAT? Self-reliance is a good thing, and you'd think Drug Czars would be happy that lots of people would choose to cut the drug cartels out of the action.
Then, the tired old Drug Czars push the tired old argument that the healthcare and criminal justice costs associated with marijuana legalization would exceed any tax revenues collected, because that's the way it is with alcohol and tobacco.
Hey, Drug Czars! All six of you! How could you have spent your LIFETIMES studying drug policy -- you did do your homework, didn't you?? -- and managed NOT to learn that marijuana is NOT tobacco (not only does it NOT cause cancer, it helps to prevent it) and marijuana is NOT alcohol (how many incidents of violence, and how many vehicular accidents, do you personally know are attributable to marijuana?).
The only good point the Drug Czars make is that Prop 19 would "burden them with new and complicated enforcement duties" when it comes to "ingesting or smoking marijuana while minors are present."
"Would this apply in a private home?" the Drug Czars ask. "And is a minor 'present' if they are 15 feet away, or 20? Perhaps California law enforcement officers will be required to carry tape measures next to their handcuffs."
Good point, guys -- that's something that will need fixing if Prop 19 passes. Too bad that's the only valid argument you have!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)