MJtheIndicator
Member
A LETTER TO A LAWYER
Dear Bruce,
I understand the de facto stance of NORML regarding AB 34, but I am concerned that the legislative body is rushing to regulate as result of fear trickling down from the fed memo. These regulations are going to rape small business, even the seemingly miniature efforts of AB 34 are decidedly centralized and bureaucratic so I want to express the wish/wash I feel is occurring within NORML's conditional approval of AB 34. If AB 34 (simmering for 7 months now) is being used as a fulcrum for AB 266 and it is, the results will be compared to other benchmarks of tax revenue via cannabis, but Californians will reject this corporate MO because the precursor is governance, profit by governance? Seriously CA already tried that with the goofy marijuana fan-club cards i.e., pot data-mining... The state of California will suffer the great tax drought of 2017, headlines will read cannabis reform tanks and the state will be to blame nationwide for subsequent attempts failing since CA is the gold standard, cannabis reform will languish nationwide forevermore. Should the state with clear conscious sculpt this blame for itself?
Its uncanny the same centralized efforts are evident in Canada and now the suffocating ghost of regulation arises in California. The timing and North American political carry-over is no coincidence, Canada is informed by Israel's federal cannabis structure (partners for that matter), why should California adopt a borrowed model thrice removed? I suspect the regulation of patient/caregiver limits and cultivation conditions aims to subject said parties to an under-thumbing of law enforcement, but how is the current standard for limits and collective operations flawed? 20 years and in a mad rush towards potential legalization in 2016 the vehicle is somehow faulty? AB 34 has a veneer to work within current state standards, but its profiteer core aims to withdraw dues and payment via enforcement of arbitrary limits and alleged best practice.
Bruce, I've long had the deepest love and fondness for you, but what's going on right now is the ramping of an industrial complex. I can smell a swift wind just as well as anyone and this all blows hard. If the capitalist spirit in America in this context is corrupted from the bottom up, future generations of entrepreneurs will never try, never dream and cease to harness a fundamental American spirit knowing these fields of opportunity are barren. The state of California is guilty of an entitlement disorder more than any in the country, but when laws begin to reflect these patterns there is risk enabling dysfunctional society..
My point is this regards wellness and liberties, not the cost of living and how a state seeks to appropriate funds once it admits to a plant having medicinal properties. My faith is in your eloquence and I know there is much in your hands, do not fail for California is golden inherently. The rapacity in these laws is a malicious insult to the legislative process, greed by regulatory proxy is still desire nonetheless.
I beg to remain, Sir, your most humble and obedient servant,
MJ
Dear Bruce,
I understand the de facto stance of NORML regarding AB 34, but I am concerned that the legislative body is rushing to regulate as result of fear trickling down from the fed memo. These regulations are going to rape small business, even the seemingly miniature efforts of AB 34 are decidedly centralized and bureaucratic so I want to express the wish/wash I feel is occurring within NORML's conditional approval of AB 34. If AB 34 (simmering for 7 months now) is being used as a fulcrum for AB 266 and it is, the results will be compared to other benchmarks of tax revenue via cannabis, but Californians will reject this corporate MO because the precursor is governance, profit by governance? Seriously CA already tried that with the goofy marijuana fan-club cards i.e., pot data-mining... The state of California will suffer the great tax drought of 2017, headlines will read cannabis reform tanks and the state will be to blame nationwide for subsequent attempts failing since CA is the gold standard, cannabis reform will languish nationwide forevermore. Should the state with clear conscious sculpt this blame for itself?
Its uncanny the same centralized efforts are evident in Canada and now the suffocating ghost of regulation arises in California. The timing and North American political carry-over is no coincidence, Canada is informed by Israel's federal cannabis structure (partners for that matter), why should California adopt a borrowed model thrice removed? I suspect the regulation of patient/caregiver limits and cultivation conditions aims to subject said parties to an under-thumbing of law enforcement, but how is the current standard for limits and collective operations flawed? 20 years and in a mad rush towards potential legalization in 2016 the vehicle is somehow faulty? AB 34 has a veneer to work within current state standards, but its profiteer core aims to withdraw dues and payment via enforcement of arbitrary limits and alleged best practice.
Bruce, I've long had the deepest love and fondness for you, but what's going on right now is the ramping of an industrial complex. I can smell a swift wind just as well as anyone and this all blows hard. If the capitalist spirit in America in this context is corrupted from the bottom up, future generations of entrepreneurs will never try, never dream and cease to harness a fundamental American spirit knowing these fields of opportunity are barren. The state of California is guilty of an entitlement disorder more than any in the country, but when laws begin to reflect these patterns there is risk enabling dysfunctional society..
My point is this regards wellness and liberties, not the cost of living and how a state seeks to appropriate funds once it admits to a plant having medicinal properties. My faith is in your eloquence and I know there is much in your hands, do not fail for California is golden inherently. The rapacity in these laws is a malicious insult to the legislative process, greed by regulatory proxy is still desire nonetheless.
I beg to remain, Sir, your most humble and obedient servant,
MJ
