Feds reply to Cali Prop 19

[mark bammer]

This is such bs prop 19 is gonna ruin alot more than people see just think your drive down the road with a buddy smoking a cig next thing you know blurp blurp its the cops they say they saw you passing a blunt you say no its a cig boom right thier the police will have the right to stop you and bother you more than ever.right now in cali if you 21 or older you can buy a medical card cheap with way more protection and privages than prop 19.I could go on and on abou how if will even effect our kids but hey cali wants it legal but at what cost! thanks great thread everyone i respect everyones views im jus stating facts and possibities.(i cant spell for shit lol)

 

[Herborizer]

This is such bs prop 19 is gonna ruin alot more than people see just think your drive down the road with a buddy smoking a cig next thing you know blurp blurp its the cops they say they saw you passing a blunt you say no its a cig boom right thier the police will have the right to stop you and bother you more than ever.right now in cali if you 21 or older you can buy a medical card cheap with way more protection and privages than prop 19.I could go on and on abou how if will even effect our kids but hey cali wants it legal but at what cost! thanks great thread everyone i respect everyones views im jus stating facts and possibities.(i cant spell for shit lol)

Do you think we will ever be at a point in this country where if a cops suspects you are smoking weed and driving, that they won't pull you over???

Never ever will that exist.

So you don't want prop 19 to pass because of this? Amazing!

 

[Frozenguy]

This goes back to what the voters will go for. Don't forget that MOST voters have never smoked cannabis. 19 can go either way...if 19 didn't have the limits and regulation...it would be tanking hard. That is reality. We need something we can build off of and 19 allows for that while at the same time it gives us the most liberal cannabis law in 100 years.

Vote YES

Well like I said, 16 years ago we voted for legal cannabis use for those 18 years and over. We did this knowing there were essentially no upper limits. Why do you think voters have changed? If anything, we have almost two decades of a new generation of voters that have grown up without the stigma of weed, but in an emerging cannabis culture.

I really think majority of opposition comes from the actual wording of prop19. The voters who, as you said, dont smoke, dont even care or probably pay attention to the growing limits. They look at age limits, and money, and that you can smoke and buy cannabis legally. Thats what they see. We read this stuff and debate it, so we are focused on a lot of the wording but I dont know much about any other prop. I dont have the time. So it's easy to realize what most voters who are not smokers, and dont live this stuff everyday, are paying attention to.

I can almost guarantee you that the vast majority of non smoking voters would not care IF they ever found out, that there were no limits on growing. The age thing MIGHT be an issue, I could see 18 being a little iffy with some people.

My issues with the cruel prison terms for non violent drug "criminals" may also be slightly difficult for some to swallow. (Primarily those who aren't willing to accept more responsibility for their own children.)

But I know for a fact that my issue with direct voter approval as to the prohibiting of sales within a county would be a welcomed addition to the prop. We all know why Richard Lee left this out. I dont know one person who doesn't want a direct vote to the legality of sales in their town.

Etc...

This is such bs prop 19 is gonna ruin alot more than people see just think your drive down the road with a buddy smoking a cig next thing you know blurp blurp its the cops they say they saw you passing a blunt you say no its a cig boom right thier the police will have the right to stop you and bother you more than ever.right now in cali if you 21 or older you can buy a medical card cheap with way more protection and privages than prop 19.I could go on and on abou how if will even effect our kids but hey cali wants it legal but at what cost! thanks great thread everyone i respect everyones views im jus stating facts and possibities.(i cant spell for shit lol)

Do you think we will ever be at a point in this country where if a cops suspects you are smoking weed and driving, that they won't pull you over???

Never ever will that exist.

So you don't want prop 19 to pass because of this? Amazing!

Have you ever been pulled over for drinking a non alcoholic beverage? Officers cannot assume you are breaking the law to pull you over. They have to observe you breaking the law to pull you over. And smoking something is not illegal. So maybe they would need to observe some degree of reckless driving or a traffic violation. I've looked at a cop at a red light before with a joint in my mouth. He did nothing.. If it was a long, thick, brown blunt who knows what he would of tried lol, but you can be sure I would of confirmed he did not just pull me over for smoking a funny looking, allegedly not tobacco, cigar; making it an unlawful stop.

 

[zen_trikester]

Again more personal attack haha. I didn't intentionally leave anything out to better my argument, I apologize for not taking even more time to quote more facts for the people requesting them. I don't see the need to get judgmental/angry =/. Also I am not a prohibitionist. Nowhere did I say that in fact I said the opposite. Also your quote affirms what I said. It relates to your personal consumption and you would have to give an affirmative defense for said personal consumption for anything over an oz. Good luck with that defense, I doubt you will have much luck convincing anyone that any kind of substantial weight could qualify as personal consumption.
Edit: Also, pursuant to that section means whatever you can get out of a 25 sqft grow (note that this is per parcel not per resident so its one 25sq ft [not cubic foot] grow per property) which can't be that substantial...certainly not the 200lbs as stated earlier.

Edit: I just have to point out, and I'm truly sorry SCF as I hold no hostile feelings towards you despite it seeming you guys don't like me haha, that you keep using there instead of their. Grammar police I know it's just a personal pet peeve haha. In regards to my handle...I always use tightirl but that was taken for some reason and statusquo was the result of my friend spouting the first thing that came to his mind while we were both high at the computer in junior year of highschool...so be careful about the judgements you make before knowing any of the facts. I am not a republican or a conservative. I am a libertarian.

Obviously I have to give this too you in plain English... 1 ounce is what you can leave your home with at a time, and the amount you can possess and consume at home is only limited to what you can legally grow. The bolded line from my previous text says that and the previous line only says that you can "personally possess' which means "have on your person". I'm sorry if you truly don't understand that, but it seems very simple to me and based on your selective quote of the prop 19 text it seems as you are trying to manipulate the text into a negative when in fact it is a positive, even for medical patients. You don't need to prove anything to anyonw about your personal consumption limits. Just don't get caught outside your homw with more than an ounce and whatever you have in jars in the cupboard is OK

Right, but consider if prop19 ONLY offered possession of small amounts, like an ounce or something. No growing blah blah..

That would be "nothing but positive" right? It's "better" then today, because today we have nothing.. Well I look at it as, we have worked for decades on this movement, AND THIS is what people expect us to vote on? WTF lol.. People worked this hard to get something this low on the ballot? Majority of people voted cannabis in with essentially no upper limits in 1996. You think 14 years later we need up the age and drop huge regulation on it all of a sudden? Just seems like a couple steps back.. California loves weed. If the prop was written better, there wouldn't be so much opposition.

I'm not following your logic here... it doesn't say no growing? This prop is about the recreational user. own it, smoke it, grow it, buy it... all legal. What is with the backwards "what if"? I doubt anyone would be for this if it didn't allow for growing personal stash.

This is such bs prop 19 is gonna ruin alot more than people see just think your drive down the road with a buddy smoking a cig next thing you know blurp blurp its the cops they say they saw you passing a blunt you say no its a cig boom right thier the police will have the right to stop you and bother you more than ever.right now in cali if you 21 or older you can buy a medical card cheap with way more protection and privages than prop 19.I could go on and on abou how if will even effect our kids but hey cali wants it legal but at what cost! thanks great thread everyone i respect everyones views im jus stating facts and possibities.(i cant spell for shit lol)

because you can smoke while driving now right? Big mean old prop 19 is going to take that away from you? Prop 19 only maintains the law of no drugged driving. That is nothing new as as was said, I wouldn't plan on ever seeing that OK'd with a law.

I agree with most that smoking while driving is NBD for a seasoned user, but I remember when I was first starting out and being very nervous behind the wheel. I can see how a person who has used only a few times would think it is extremely dangerous, and for a new user it probably is. as we all know if you already have a few cocktails in you, pot can multiply that effect and it isn't a very good combination. Fighting for the right to drive while stoned is not the fight we need to be throwing down on LOL.

Well like I said, 16 years ago we voted for legal cannabis use for those 18 years and over. We did this knowing there were essentially no upper limits. Why do you think voters have changed? If anything, we have almost two decades of a new generation of voters that have grown up without the stigma of weed, but in an emerging cannabis culture.

I really think majority of opposition comes from the actual wording of prop19. The voters who, as you said, dont smoke, dont even care or probably pay attention to the growing limits. They look at age limits, and money, and that you can smoke and buy cannabis legally. Thats what they see. We read this stuff and debate it, so we are focused on a lot of the wording but I dont know much about any other prop. I dont have the time. So it's easy to realize what most voters who are not smokers, and dont live this stuff everyday, are paying attention to.

I can almost guarantee you that the vast majority of non smoking voters would not care IF they ever found out, that there were no limits on growing. The age thing MIGHT be an issue, I could see 18 being a little iffy with some people.

My issues with the cruel prison terms for non violent drug "criminals" may also be slightly difficult for some to swallow. (Primarily those who aren't willing to accept more responsibility for their own children.)

But I know for a fact that my issue with direct voter approval as to the prohibiting of sales within a county would be a welcomed addition to the prop. We all know why Richard Lee left this out. I dont know one person who doesn't want a direct vote to the legality of sales in their town.

Etc...











Have you ever been pulled over for drinking a non alcoholic beverage? Officers cannot assume you are breaking the law to pull you over. They have to observe you breaking the law to pull you over. And smoking something is not illegal. So maybe they would need to observe some degree of reckless driving or a traffic violation. I've looked at a cop at a red light before with a joint in my mouth. He did nothing.. If it was a long, thick, brown blunt who knows what he would of tried lol, but you can be sure I would of confirmed he did not just pull me over for smoking a funny looking, allegedly not tobacco, cigar; making it an unlawful stop.

I agree that the non-smoking public probably doesn't know the nuances of this prop like those of us discussing here do.

I think non-users are very aware of the money that is being made by patients supplying to clubs, and are also aware that weed on the street is grown in state, so yeah I think they are very concerned with garden size limits. Not that they would really know what 25 sq ft translates too, but they do know what unlimited means and they know that to get pot off the street it needs to be regulated commercially like alcohol. as much as we hate the comparison of pot to alcohol that makes the most sense to the rest of the world and is the best method to integrate pot fully into society.

If everyone in your town wants direct sales then you have a pretty easy fight on your hands. Especially after this is on the books for a bit and they are given some time to warm up to the idea. In the mean time it is heaven for the personal consumer/grower and legitimizes MJ use. It is going to take the commercial end of this a while to surface and in the mean while it is business as usual for the Cali growers.

Jed

 

[zenoonez]

So a med patient can only have an oz on them if they are traveling? How is anyone going to vend to clubs legally? How about deliver medication to collective members? Or does the oz not apply to med patients?

 

[Neo 420]

So a med patient can only have an oz on them if they are traveling? How is anyone going to vend to clubs legally? How about deliver medication to collective members? Or does the oz not apply to med patients?

The 1 oz limit only applies to non MJ users if prop 19 passes. Has no bearing on prop 215 folks.



WOW. Some of the anti prop19 people just straight make up shit. Some of the stuff they spouted in this thread is just ridiculous. I got one word for yaw...HATERS...

 

[Grass Lands]

Have you ever been pulled over for drinking a non alcoholic beverage?

Uh...yeah I have..when I was 17 a sheriff pulled me over when he seen me take a drink of a nesbit grape soda...he asked me "What are ya drinking there son" my response was "Well for one I'm not your son and second I'm drinking a grape soda...would you like a drink?" Talk about a pissed off sheriff...hahaha

Oh, by the way this happened over 29 years ago.

 

[statusquo]

Yes zenstrike I am manipulating...I have said what i wanted to say in regards to 19 and offered the appropriate quotes. Just because I didn't pick quotes you liked that supported w.e stance you are adopting doesn't mean I am manipulating. I find your interpretation erroneous so I'll leave it up to others to make up their mind. I don't know what you and others' beef is; we are just trying to have a discussion and not all no on 19 people just make up shit...

Have fun guys and I hope you can keep it civil and keep it to the facts and rational arguments but somehow I doubt that. Good luck

Edit: Plus I have no incentive to lie/manipulate. I am merely offering my reasoning behind my position - I am not on a crusade to change people's mind to vote yes on 19. As I said earlier if it passes I don't really care that much seeing as I am prop 215 and it won't affect me. The main reason that I am against this is because I don't want Richard Lee manipulating CA government and citizens to establish a monopoly or close to it to make millions and possibly billions. I am NOT a prohibitionist, for the third time.

 

[vta]

What The Feds Can Do About Prop 19

What The Feds Can Do About Prop 19

What The Feds Can Do About Prop 19

Source: Newsweek

cannabis California -- Assume for a moment that California voters approve Proposition 19 on Nov. 2. The state will have just enacted a process for legalizing, regulating, and taxing marijuana use that no one else in the world has ever attempted. But Attorney General Eric Holder, President Obama’s top law-enforcement officer, has said the administration will “vigorously enforce” federal drug laws in the country’s most populous state regardless of the vote. For all the trails that approving Prop 19 would blaze, much of its impact would depend on the extent to which Holder follows through on that threat.

The attorney general has shown some willingness to scale back on marijuana enforcement; his Justice Department ended Bush-era crackdowns on medical pot dispensaries in California. Of course, the post–Prop 19 world would be different. California cities could license businesses that grow and sell marijuana on a large scale. Drug dealers in other states would surely head to California’s “coffee shops” (as weed retailers are called in Amsterdam), buy some California-grown product, and illegally transport it back home. It’s arguable that pot smokers and presumably some dealers can do that today, but they at least need a doctor’s permission and a state-issued ID card, which provides cover for authorities, however easily those cards may be obtainable. With that cover removed, Holder, whose department includes the Drug Enforcement Agency, could hardly ignore such a blatant violation of federal drug law.

Or could he? If one takes Holder at his word, the administration plans to do battle with marijuana retailers in California. That would not surprise advocates of decriminalized marijuana—this and other administrations have always opposed their cause. But if, after election night, Holder and Obama still believe in that course of action, they will have reasons to reconsider. For one, the administration’s cheapest course of action, a challenge to Prop 19 in the courts, looks doomed. Constitutional-law experts say California has no obligation to have the same criminal laws as the federal government, so Holder’s Justice Department can forget any lawsuit compelling the state to make marijuana use a crime. “Arguably a state could decriminalize murder” and the federal government could not force it to do otherwise, says Ruthann Robinson, a constitutional-law professor at the City University of New York. On the legalization question, then, Holder’s hands are tied.

But there may be other options in the courts. UCLA’s Mark Kleiman, a drug-policy expert, suggests Justice could try to preempt cities from passing laws that license marijuana sales by arguing that those licenses would help marijuana dealers commit a federal crime. That strategy, if successful, would torpedo the entire tax-and-regulation structure of Prop 19. But some legal experts are skeptical of that approach.

The Justice Department is currently arguing that federal regulations trump state law in trying to block Arizona’s immigration law, but federal drug policy differs from immigration policy in that the latter is an attempt to comprehensively regulate an issue without the help of the states, says Alex Kreit, a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law. By contrast, when Congress outlawed marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act, it said the act did not preclude state laws regulating marijuana unless “the two [laws] cannot consistently stand together.” Since it would be possible for a Californian to follow both federal law and the laws Prop 19 would allow (easy: just don’t buy, sell, or consume pot), the courts could not prevent, say, Oakland, from licensing marijuana, Kreit says.

However, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law, thinks Justice may have a case if it can argue that a local law that licenses marijuana “impedes the achievement of the federal objective,” namely preventing the sale of illegal drugs.

But if Justice were going to sue the state or local municipalities, wouldn’t Holder have said so? In a recent letter to former DEA agents regarding Prop 19, Holder made his promise to “vigorously enforce” federal drug laws, but he did not threaten a lawsuit, even though many of those agents favor one and a suit would require far fewer resources than raiding marijuana retailers and making arrests.

Legal issues aside, the DEA can still enforce federal drug laws in California. And though it would be more effort than a legal challenge, enforcement wouldn’t require much investigation. Even a DEA rookie could walk into, say, Oakland City Hall and ask to see records of the licensed businesses, then go arrest people at the addresses on the list. On this point, Holder could learn from his predecessors: when voters in California and Arizona approved medical marijuana in 1996, the Clinton administration argued that doctors who recommended it could face criminal penalties. When that failed to pass legal muster, the Justice Department changed tactics and brought criminal cases against marijuana retailers, state licenses notwithstanding.

During the Bush years, the DEA boosted its enforcement of marijuana laws in California, to little or no real effect—DEA agents made 594 marijuana arrests in 2006 in the state, compared with 359 in 2001, the San Francisco Chronicle reported in 2007. The Chronicle also noted that the number of marijuana plants seized annually during that period grew more than threefold, to about 3 million in 2006. In 2008 DEA agents seized a record 5.2 million plants. And the arrests continued up until the Obama administration stopped cracking down on dispensaries in March 2009. Yet despite the crackdown, dispensaries grew in number: in 2007, the Chronicle estimated that ID-card-holding marijuana buyers could find the product in 300 stores across the state, up from 100 in 2001.

(Other publications have put the number of dispensaries lower: London’s Guardian reported there were 150 in 2008, and The Christian Science Monitor found that there were 183 in 2007.) Now that the Obama administration has stopped busting dispensaries, various estimates put the number at between 500 and 1,000. If Prop 19 decriminalizes recreational marijuana use for everyone over age 21, the number of retailers would almost certainly skyrocket, and it’s unlikely that the DEA would have the resources to arrest them all.

History suggests that enforcement likely would not stop Californians from selling and consuming legal marijuana. But it still would be difficult for the attorney general to stand by as the state legalizes pot. The reason: other states might not care about thousands of Californians consuming legal marijuana, but they would fume at a Justice Department that allows drug dealers to carry California-grown cannabis across state lines.

Precisely how much of this legally bought, illegally transported “gray market” marijuana would flood the market is unclear and would presumably depend on price. A recent study by the nonprofit RAND Corporation estimates that taxed, California-produced marijuana would cost $91 per ounce for the end consumer at retail shops. That’s far cheaper than black-market prices, which can be as much as $400 per ounce. But the researchers acknowledged considerable uncertainty about the headway that gray-market California marijuana might make across the country.

Smuggling costs are difficult to estimate, for example (what’s the going rate for driving a truck full of California pot to Wisconsin? Or Texas?), and tax levels in California are hard to predict. And if cheaper California marijuana were to flood the market, how far would sources of black-market pot, such as Mexican cartels or traffickers based in Canada and rural America, lower their prices to maintain their share of the business?

In another study, the RAND researchers made their best guesses at these variables and tried to compare the price of legal marijuana from California with cannabis exported by Mexico’s murderous cartels. They found that California pot would be far cheaper even with estimated taxes included, likely taking over the entire California market unless the cartels drastically cut their prices. When it came to prices in other states, the researchers concluded that marijuana from California would “undercut” prices of illegal cannabis across the country only “if the federal government reacted to Prop 19 in a fairly passive way.” In a post–Prop 19 world, in other words, the more federal regulators crack down on the flow of California marijuana across the country, the more expensive that pot would become in other states, making it less of a threat to the cartels’ business.

Prop 19 is, by many accounts, a flawed initiative. “I would rather be talking about the merits of legalization than the demerits of this cockamamie kluge of a bill,” says Kleiman, the UCLA drug-policy expert, expressing his frustration with the slew of media calls he’s received on the subject. “If a law is properly drafted, you know when it’s valid and you know what will happen if it passes. It seems to me neither is the case.”

Indeed, no one knows for sure whether California weed would replace Mexican dope, or if the feds would sue California, or how often DEA agents would be busting down doors in Oakland pot shops. But if voters approve Prop 19, the attorney general will have to figure out the answers to those questions, and quickly.

Source: Newsweek (US)
Author: Ryan Tracy

 

[bigbrokush]

In Humboldt County, deputies' jobs can get hazy

In Humboldt County, deputies' jobs can get hazy

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pot-deputy-20101026,0,5131274.story


In Humboldt County, deputies' jobs can get hazy
The region is a paradise for pot growers and an exasperating limbo for almost everyone else. 'I wish they would totally ban it … or just make it totally legal,' says one rural deputy.
Reporting from Shelter Cove, Calif. — Fantasy often mixes with reality in the work life of Deputy Sheriff Robert Hamilton of Humboldt County, the center of California's marijuana outback.

It happened again a few months ago in the isolated coastal resort of Shelter Cove, where Hamilton lives and patrols. The deputy came upon nine young men tending a marijuana plantation.

They said they'd come from Maryland, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Washington and Ohio. They'd rented a few apartments, then bought a half-acre of hillside. They clear-cut the land, put in "No Trespassing" signs and a couple of greenhouses, and terraced the rest of the property for farming.

They were raising 200 marijuana plants, each of which could produce 2 to 4 pounds of weed.

One of the young men, Jake Berlingeri, said the pot was for their own medicinal use. He recited the ailments afflicting these strapping men in their 20s.

"Well, Matt, he's got insomnia. I got shoulder problems, a torn rotator cuff," Berlingeri said. "Those two, they're not patients. But my boy Trav, he's got …."

Behind sunglasses, Hamilton smiled wryly and looked at the plants, labeled for their varieties: Headband, Mr. Nice, L.A. Confidential, Blue Dream, Amnesia, Purple Diesel, Ice Queen, Grapefruit, Blueberry and Sour Diesel.

He spent 13 years as a cop in Fresno, where mere possession of marijuana could lead to a felony arrest. But on this day, he made no arrests. Instead, he accepted a root beer from the growers and told them to display their medical marijuana prescriptions where he could see them. That way they'd have no problems with him.

"I'm a realist," Hamilton said as he drove away. "I know how this is working. It does no good to rip all these plants out or nitpick on fine details when nothing's going to happen."

In a region where marijuana is not merely tolerated but is a pillar of the economy, there isn't much a deputy can do but play along with the fantasies that surround semi-legal weed: that unemployed 20-somethings who buy $50,000 trucks earned the money legally; that supply shops for marijuana farmers are innocent home-and-garden centers; that growers who flash medical marijuana cards are not producing for sale but solely for their own medical needs.

"Cheech and Chong cannot smoke that much dope," Hamilton said.

To work in law enforcement in California pot country is to come face to face every day with the state's conflicted attitudes toward cannabis.

Humboldt County Dist. Atty. Paul Gallegos supports legalization of pot, and law enforcement officials say the office rarely prosecutes small-scale growers, who form a large and active political base here.

Nor can Hamilton or his fellow deputies do much about the thousands of unpermitted structures, essential to hiding indoor marijuana plants, that dot Humboldt County like buckshot.

A proposition on the Nov. 2 ballot would make it legal for people 21 and older to grow and use small amounts of marijuana, and it would allow California cities and counties to regulate and tax commercial cultivation. The boundary between legal and illegal weed would depend to a large degree on policies set by local governments.

A promise by U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder to enforce federal laws against recreational marijuana, even if the proposition passes, further complicates the picture.

So most likely Hamilton, 48, will continue to work in a gray zone.

A year into his assignment as Shelter Cove's live-in deputy, he is fed up with the ambiguity: "I wish they would totally ban it — zero tolerance — or just make it totally legal."

The resort was established in 1964 as a place for vacationers and retirees to build second homes on breathtaking coastline accessible by a single, winding two-lane road.

Over the years, marijuana farming came to Humboldt, first as a countercultural statement, then as a business. Shelter Cove was isolated, with minimal police presence, which made it attractive to growers. By the time Hamilton arrived in the fall of 2009, the place had become a concentrate of California's weird weed world.

Pot growers occupied about half of the nearly 600 houses. Young growers hung Scarface posters, drew the blinds and raised marijuana beneath 1,000-watt lights. Others put in greenhouses on denuded patches of hillside. Some installed sensors and hidden cameras to detect intruders.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get breaking news alerts delivered to your mobile phone. Text BREAKING to 52669.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


When they raided large indoor operations, deputies often found photographs of the growers vacationing in places like Costa Rica and Bali.

"There's this outlaw mentality," Hamilton said. "They think they're these drug lords and they're going to take over southern Humboldt. You see them driving $40,000, $50,000 vehicles and they have no jobs."

For many years, development at Shelter Cove was limited by lack of electricity. Homeowners depended on generators. In 1983, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. ran an electrical line along the 21-mile road that connects the cove to Highway 101.

The line's limited capacity was more than adequate for a community where the average household use was a modest 500 to 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per month.

Then growers moved their crops indoors and installed high-intensity lights.

"We maxed out our system very quickly when this started," said Richard Culp, the resort's general manager. "We're seeing 5,000, 6,000, 8,000, 9,000 kilowatt-hours of use a month."

Hoping to halt the trend, the resort's utility nearly tripled the hourly rate for usage above 2,000 kilowatt-hours a month. When that made no difference, the rate for heavy usage was raised to five times the normal charge. Growers simply added more plants and lights to generate income to pay the extra cost.

The cove's backup generator had to be replaced, at a cost of $500,000. Last year, PG&E informed Shelter Cove that it would have to kick in $300,000 to expand the capacity of the electrical line.

In all, the resort estimates that indoor pot-growing has cost its residents more than $1 million since 2005.

Residents say indoor growing also brought a lawless feel to the cove: nighttime gunfire; planes landing and taking off in darkness from the resort's airstrip; late-night parties; trashed rental housing; truck races along Upper and Lower Pacific Drives.

"It was the wild, wild West," said Roger Boedecker, a member of the Shelter Cove Resort Improvement District board of directors. "The D.A.'s office is reputed not to be inclined to prosecute small growers. You can grow with impunity."

The indoor marijuana boom split Shelter Cove between younger growers, most of them renters, and older retirees, some of whom desperately hope for pot's legalization, believing it will drain the profits from illegal cultivation.

This was the situation Hamilton found when he arrived. He began by ticketing people for dilapidated trailers, for growing pot on land where they didn't live, which is against state law, or for living on land without a septic system. But Hamilton said the county's building department objected, saying he was doing its job, one he wasn't trained for.

He asked for guidance from the sheriff's department on what to do about full-grown plants capable of producing more pot than a medical marijuana user could possibly need. "Some of them are 8 feet tall, for God's sake," he wrote in an e-mail.

He was given a formula for calculating whether a grower was exceeding the county-permitted plant canopy of 100 square feet per medical patient.

"The current climate is to [go after] big commercial growers, ignore small grows," said Humboldt County Sheriff Gary Philp. "But you see more and more grow houses. If they're not going to be prosecuted, at a certain point they affect the community. We've had home invasions, shootings, homicides."

Gallegos, who is seeking a third term as district attorney, bridles at the idea that his office has been soft on illegal marijuana farming. He said he cracks down on illegal grow houses when he has the evidence, but also tries to protect patients' access to pot for legitimate medical needs.

"If someone has a [medical marijuana] recommendation, and they're within the ordinances, it's presumed they're lawful," Gallegos said. He faulted the county supervisors for enacting weak regulations on medical marijuana that, he said, invite abuse by commercial growers.

Far from these debates, Hamilton navigates the roads, armed with skepticism and a smile. Deputies in other counties may have broad citizen support. In marijuana country, he finds, it depends.

In May, Hamilton saved the life of a distraught woman who had slit her own throat with a butcher knife. Comments posted on blogs popular among growers were effusive in their praise of the deputy.

But the grower community also serves as an early-warning system. The sight of a sheriff's car activates a phone tree that Hamilton has found can extend to growers who live outside the county but own property there.

Once, when Hamilton was chasing a grower, word apparently spread and numerous slow-moving trucks appeared on the highway, hindering his progress. The suspect got away, he said.

"There's no community that we can sneak up on," Hamilton said.

Some Shelter Cove growers have objected to his mere presence.

A service organization known as the Shelter Cove Pioneers met in April to consider whether to renew its $200 monthly subsidy of Hamilton's rent, which makes it possible for him to live in the community. A few days earlier, several growers had joined the Pioneers, Hamilton said, and they had the votes to end the rent subsidy.

Their attitude seemed to be: "I'm growing marijuana, and I don't want this guy around," said Jim Blewett, Pioneer board president.

A group of residents later pooled their money to continue subsidizing Hamilton's rent. (At a Pioneers meeting this month, with many of the new members absent, the organization voted to resume the subsidy.)

"I knew it was a matter of time before those in the dope-growing community were going to start putting up a fuss. They don't like the prying eyes," Hamilton said. "You've got half the community that doesn't want it, and the other half that does."

Enforcement issues

Over the summer, Hamilton received tips that the young men he'd found raising marijuana on a hillside, supposedly for medical purposes, had been firing warning shots to scare off people who came near their plot, including two tourists interested in a nearby property for sale.

So he made a return visit in September. Hamilton said the caretaker, Joseph Florence, 20, was armed with a .22-caliber rifle and was wearing a military-style camouflage suit. It turned out he was wanted in Maryland for alleged methamphetamine distribution.

Hamilton saw that the marijuana plants had grown a lot since July. He measured them. The square-footage was three times what county regulations allow for the number of medical-marijuana cards the men had posted. A sheriff's eradication team uprooted the plants.

Florence was taken into custody, to be returned to Maryland. Hamilton has turned over his case file on the other men to the district attorney's office. But there are many bigger growers in Humboldt, and county government is spread thin.

"I don't believe anything will come of it," Hamilton said.

In Humboldt, the loss of the pot is often the punishment.

 

[215forLife]

How Prop 19 if passed can force UN to reschedule...

How Prop 19 if passed can force UN to reschedule...

Ok this thread will probably get closed because its anothe rprop 19 thread, but before you do consider that once again this is something different and specific that hasn't been argued over back and forth blah blah blah... and considering that many feel prop 19 isn't good enough, well growers ya need to consider this...

Without giving a lengthy history on prohibition, basically are current set of drug laws stem from The United Nations. Specifically a set of treaties. You can read them all here http://treaties.un.org/pages/CTCTreaties.aspx?id=6&subid=A&lang=en

Many people have wondered why Cannabis is still schedule I when 21 USC 812 The Controlled Substances act says that schedule I placement requires no known medical value, which we all know cannabis has plenty of. When you read the federal law there is a little exemption which defers to the United Nations.

(b) Placement on schedules; findings required Except where control is required by United States obligations under an international treaty, convention, or protocol, in effect on October 27, 1970, and except in the case of an immediate precursor, a drug or other substance may not be placed in any schedule unless the findings required for such schedule are made with respect to such drug or other substance. The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows:
(1) Schedule I.— (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

So exactly what do the treaties specifically say? Well they say a lot of interesting things that could actually be used as loopholes for our community!

Lets start with the important definitions from The UN Single Convention On Narcotics.

from 1961
"1. Except where otherwise expressly indicated or where the context otherwise requires, the following definitions shall apply throughout the Convention:
(а) "Board" means th...e International Narcotics Control Board.
(б) "Cannabis" means the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops) from which the resin has not been
extracted, by whatever name they may be designated.
(c) "Cannabis plant" means any plant of the genus cannabis.
(d) "Cannabis resin" means the separated resin, whether crude purified, obtained from the cannabis plant.
(j) "Drug" means any of the substances in
Schedules I and II, whether natural or synthetic.

(i) "Illicit traffic" means cultivation or trafficking
in drugs contrary to the provisions of
...this Convention.

(m) "Import" and "export" mean in their
respective connotations the physical transfer
of drugs from one State to another State, or
from one territory to another territory of the
same State.

"Manufacture" means all processes,
other than production, by which drugs may be
obtained and includes refining as well as the
transformation of drugs into other drugs.
(o) "Medicinal opium" means opium
which has undergone the processes necessary
to adapt it for medicinal use.

(s) "Preparation" means a mixture, solid
or liquid, containing a drug.

(t) "Production" means the separation of
opium, coca leaves, cannabis and cannabis
resin from the plants from which they are obtained.
(u) "Schedule I", "Schedule II", "Schedule
III" and "Schedule IV" mean the correspondingly
numbered list of drugs or preparations
annexed to this Convention, as amended
from time to time in accordance with article 3.

(w) "Special stocks" means the amounts of
drugs held in a country or territory by the government
of such country or territory for special
Government purposes and to meet exceptional
circumstances; and the expression "special
purposes" shall be construed accordingly.
(x) "Stocks" means the amounts of drugs
held in a country or territory and intended for:
(i) Consumption in the country or territory
for medical and scientific purposes,
(ii) Utilization in the country or territory
for the manufacture of drugs and other substances,
or
(iii) Export;
but does not include the amounts of drugs held
in the country or territory
(iv) By retail pharmacists or other authorized
retail distributors and by institutions
or qualified persons in the duly authorized
exercise of therapeutic or scientific functions,
or
(v) As "special stocks".

"Territory" means any part of a State
which is treated as a separate entity for the application
of the system of import certificates
and export authorizations provided for in article
31. This definition shall not apply to the
term "territory" as used in articles 42 and 46.
2. For the purposes of this Convention a
drug shall be regarded as "consumed" when
it has been supplied to any person or enterprise
for retail distribution, medical use or scientific
research; and "consumption" shall be construed
accordingly."

Notice seed does NOT count.

"ARTICLE 2
Substances under control
1. Except as to measures of control which
are limited to specified drugs, the drugs in
Schedule I are subject to all measures of control
...applicable to drugs under this Convention
and in particular to those prescribed in articles
4 (c), 19,20,21, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 37.
2. The drugs in Schedule II are subject to
82
the same measures of control as drugs in Schedule
I with the exception of the measures prescribed
in article 30, paragraphs 2 and 5, in
respect of the retail trade.
3. Preparations other than those in Schedule
III are subject to the same measures of control
as the drugs which they contain, but estimates
(article 19) and statistics (article 20)
distinct from those dealing with these drugs
shall not be required in the case of such preparations,
and article 29, paragraph 2 (c) and
article 30, paragraph 1 (6) (ii) need not apply.
4. Preparations in Schedule III are subject
to the same measures of control as preparations
containing drugs in Schedule II except that
article 31, paragraphs 1 (6) and 4 to 15 need
not apply, and that for the purpose of estimates
(article 19) and statistics (article 20) the information
required shall be restricted to the
quantities of drugs used in the manufacture
of such preparations.
5. The drugs in Schedule IV shall also be
included in Schedule I and subject to all measures
of control applicable to drugs in the latter
schedule, and in addition thereto:
(a) A Party shall adopt any special measures
of control which in its opinion are necessary
having regard to the particularly dangerous
properties of a drug so included; and
(b) A Party shall, if in its opinion the prevailing
conditions in its country render it the
most appropriate means of protecting the public
health and welfare, prohibit the production,
manufacture, export and import of, trade in,
possession or use of any such drug except for
amounts which may be necessary for medical
and scientific research only, including clinical
trials therewith to be conducted under or subject
to the direct supervision and control of
the Party.
6. In addition to the measures of control
applicable to all drugs in Schedule I, opium is
subject to the provisions of articles 23 and 24,
the coca leaf to those of articles 26 and 27 and
cannabis to those of article 28.
7. The opium poppy, the coca bush, the cannabis
plant, poppy straw and cannabis leaves
are subject to the control measures prescribed
in articles 22 to 24 ; 22,26 and 27 ; 22 and 28 ;
25 ; and 28, respectively.
8. The Parties shall use their best endeavours
to apply to substances which do not fall
under this Convention, but which may be used
in the illicit manufacture of drugs, such measures
of supervision as may be practicable.
9. Parties are not required to apply the provisions
of this Convention to drugs which are
commonly used in industry for other than medical
or scientific purposes, provided that:
(а) They ensure by appropriate methods of
denaturing or by other means that the drugs so
used are not liable to be abused or have ill effects
(article 3, paragraph 3) and that the
harmful substances cannot in practice be recovered;
and
(б) They include in the statistical information
(article 20) furnished by them the amount
of each drug so used.

Ok now here are the GOODS... notice that Article 28 1 states that a party (a UN country that agrees to this treaty aka USA) can permit cannabis cultivation. And allow the production of it. Secondly under the treaty we can still have industrial hemp. So next post is going to be about article 23 since according to UN Treaty Cannabis and Opium are the same now...

"ARTICLE 28
Control of cannabis
1. If a Party permits the cultivation of the cannabis plant for the production of cannabis or cannabis resin, it shall apply thereto the system of controls as provided in article 23 respecting
the control of the opium poppy.
2. This Convention shall not apply to the cultivation of the cannabis plant exclusively for industrial purposes (fibre and seed) or horticultural purposes.
3. The Parties shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to prevent the misuse of, and illicit traffic in, the leaves of the cannabis plant."

Now in this next section substitute Opium for Cannabis...

Article 23
National opium agencies
1. A Party that permits the cultivation of the opium poppy for the production of opium shall establish, if it has not already done so, and maintain, one or more government agencies (hereafter in this article referred to as the Agency) to carry out the functions required under this article.
2. Each such Party shall apply the following provisions to the cultivation of the opium poppy for the production of opium and to opium :
(a) The Agency shall designate the areas in which, and the plots of land on which, cultivation of the opium poppy for the purpose of producing opium shall be permitted.
(b) Only cultivators licensed by the Agency shall be authorized to engage in such cultivation.
(c) Each licence shall specify the extent of the land on which the cultivation is permitted.
(d) All cultivators of the opium poppy shall be required to deliver their total crops of opium to the Agency. The Agency shall purchase and take physical possession of such crops as soon as possible, but not later than four months after the end of the harvest.
(e) The Agency shall, in respect of opium, have the exclusive right of importing, exporting, wholesale trading and maintaining stocks other than those held by manufacturers of opium alkaloids, medicinal opium or opium preparations. Parties need not extend this exclusive right to medicinal opium and opium preparations.
3. The governmental functions referred to in paragraph 2 shall be discharged by a single government agency if the constitution of the Party concerned permits it."

What is interesting about the treaty is that it has language that REQUIRES changes to scheduling if new information is found...

"Article 3
1. Where a Party or the World Health Organization has information which in its opinion may require an amendment to any of the Schedules, it shall notify the Secretary-General and furnish him with the information in support of the notification.
2. The Secretary-General shall transmit
such notification, and any information which
he considers relevant, to the Parties, to the
Commission, and, where the notification is
made by a Party, to the World Health Organization.

3. Where a notification relates to a substance
not already in Schedule I or in Schedule"

DO YOU SEE THAT?!?!?!?!!!!! It is clear we have plenty of information showing that Cannabis should be amended from Schedule I to atleast II, III, or IV... read the rest of Article III

"(i) The Parties shall examine in the light
of the available information the possibility of
the provisional application to the substance of
all measures of control applicable to drugs in
Schedule I;
(ii) Pending its decision as provided in
sub-paragraph (iii) of this paragraph, the
Commission may decide that the Parties apply
provisionally to that substance all measures of
control applicable to drugs in Schedule I. The
Parties shall apply such measures provisionally
to the substance in question;
(iii) If the World Health Organization
finds that the substance is liable to similar abuse
and productive of similar ill effects as the drugs
in Schedule I or Schedule II or is convertible
into a drug, it shall communicate that finding
to the Commission which may, in accordance
with the recommendation of the World Health
Organization, decide that the substance shall be
added to Schedule I or Schedule II.
4. If the World Health Organization finds
that a preparation because of the substances
which it contains is not liable to abuse and cannot
produce ill effects (paragraph 3) and that
the drug therein is not readily recoverable, the
Commission may, in accordance with the recommendation
of the World Health Organization,
add that preparation to Schedule III.
5. If the World Health Organization finds
that a drug in Schedule I is particularly liable
to abuse and to produce ill effects (paragraph
3) and that such liability is not offset by
substantial therapeutic advantages not possessed
by substances other than drugs in Schedule
IV, the Commission may, in accordance
with the recommendation of the World Health
Organization, place that drug in Schedule IV.
6. Where a notification relates to a drug
already in Schedule I or Schedule II or to a
preparation in Schedule III, the Commission,
apart from the measure provided for in paragraph
5, may, in accordance with the recommendation
of the World Health Organization,
amend any of the Schedules by:
(а) Transferring a drug from Schedule I to
Schedule II or from Schedule II to Schedule I ;
or
(fr) Deleting a drug or a preparation as the
case may be, from a Schedule.
7. Any decision of the Commission taken
pursuant to this article shall be communicated
by the Secretary-General to all States Members
of the United Nations, to non-member States
Parties to this Convention, to the World Health
Organization and to the Board. Such decision
shall become effective with respect to each
Party on the date of its receipt of such communication,
and the Parties shall thereupon
take such action as may be required under this
Convention.
8. (a) The decisions of the Commission
amending any of the schedules shall be subject
to review by the Council upon the request of
any Party filed within ninety days from receipt
of notification of the decision. The request for
review shall be sent to the Secretary-General
together with all relevant information upon
which the request for review is based ;
(б) The Secretary-General shall transmit
copies of the request for review and relevant
information to the Commission, the World
Health Organization and to all the Parties inviting
them to submit comments within ninety
days. All comments received shall be submitted
to the Council for consideration ;
(c) The Council may confirm, alter or reverse
the decision of the Commission, and the
decision of the Council shall be final. Notification
of the Council's decision shall be transmitted
to all States Members of the United
Nations, to non-member States Parties to this
84
Convention, to the Commission, to the World
Health Organization, and to the Board.
(d) During pendency of the review the
original decision of the Commission shall remain
in effect,
9. Decisions of the Commission taken in accordance
with this article shall not be subject
to the review procedure provided for in article
7."

So now lets examine the Convention on Psychotropic substances in 1971... because if the law is followed cannabis should be ATLEAST rescheduled to II, III, or IV...'

"Article 8
Licenses
1. The Parties shall require that the manufacture of, trade (including export and import trade) in, and distribution of substances listed in Schedules II, III and IV be under license or other similar control measure.
2. The Parties shall:
(a) control all duly authorized persons and enterprises carrying on or
engaged in the manufacture of, trade (including export and import
trade) in, or distribution of substances referred to in
paragraph 1;
(b) control under license or other similar control measure the
establishments and premises in which such manufacture, trade or
distribution may "take place; and
(c) provide that security measures "be taken with regard to such
establishments and premises in order to prevent theft or other
diversion of stocks.
3. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article relating to licensing or
other similar control measures need not apply to persons duly authorized to perform
and while performing therapeutic or scientific functions.
4. The Parties shall require that all persons who obtain licenses in accordance with this Convention or who are otherwise authorized pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article or sub-paragraph (b) of article 7 shall be adequately qualified for the effective and faithful execution of the provisions of such laws and regulations as are enacted in pursuance of this Convention."

"ARTICLE 10
Warnings on packages and advertising
1. Each Party shall require, taking into account any relevant regulations or recommendations of the World Health Organization, such directions for use, including cautions and ...warnings, to be indicated on the labels where practicable and in any case on the accompanying leaflet of retail packages of psychotropic substances, as in its opinion are necessary for the safety of the user.
2. Each Party shall, with due regard to its constitutional provisions, prohibit the advertisement of such substances to the general public"

Oh damn about advertising... But now I understand the part of prop 19 to prohibits public displays of cannabis, because it conforms with INTERNATIONAL LAW that ALLOWS for the sales of Schedule I drugs...

Now hewhere international law dictates penal provisions, the bad stuff guys is ... the part of the treaty that authorizes member nations to imprison their citizens...

"ARTICLE 22
Penal Provisions
1. (a) Subject to its constitutional limitations, each Party shall treat as a punishable offense, when committed intentionally, any action contrary to a law or regulation adopted in pursuance of its obligations under this Convention, and shall ensure that serious offenses shall be liable to adequate punishment, particularly by imprisonment or other penalty of deprivation of liberty.
(b) Notwithstanding the preceding sub-paragraph, when abusers of psychotropic substances have committed such offenses, the Parties may provide, either an alternative to conviction or punishment or in addition to punishment, that suchbabusers undergo measures of treatment, education, after—care, rehabilitation and social reintegration in conformity with paragraph 1 of article 20.
2. Subject to the constitutional limitations of a Party, its legal system and domestic law,
(a) (i) if a series of related actions constituting offenses under
paragraph 1 has been committed in different countries, each of
them shall be treated as a distinct offense;
(ii) intentional participation in, conspiracy to commit and attempts
to commit, any of such offenses, and preparatory acts and
financial operations in connection with the offenses referred to
in this article, shall be punishable offenses as provided in
paragraph 1;
(iii) foreign convictions for such offenses shall be taken into account
for the purpose of establishing recidivism; and
(iv) serious offenses heretofore referred to committed either "by
nationals or by foreigners shall be prosecuted by the Party
in whose territory the offense was committed, or by the
Party in whose territory the offender is found if extradition
is not acceptable in conformity with the law of the Party to
which application is made, and if such offender has not
already been prosecuted and judgment given.
(b) It is desirable that the offenses referred to in paragraph 1 and
paragraph 2 (a) (ii) be included as extradition crimes in any extradition treaty which has been or may hereafter be concluded "between any of the Parties, and, as between any of the Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty or on reciprocity, be recognized as extradition crimes; provided that extradition
shall be granted in conformity with the law of the Party to which application is made, and that the Party shall have the right to refuse to effect the arrest or grant the extradition in cases where the competent authorities consider that the offense is not
sufficiently serious.
3. Any psychotropic substance or other substance, as well as any equipment, used in or intended for the commission of any of the offenses referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be liable to seizure and confiscation.
4. The provisions of this article shall be subject to the provisions of the domestic law of the Party concerned on questions of jurisdiction.
5. Nothing contained in this article shall affect the principle that the offenses to which it refers shall be defined, prosecuted and punished in conformity with the domestic law of a Party."

So now lets look what they did in 1972... which basically was to ammend the previous conventions..

"Article 1
Amendments to article 2, paragraphs 4t 6 and 7 of the Single Convention Article 2, paragraphs 4» 6 and 7» of the Single Convention s...hall be amended to read as follows:
"4* Preparations in Schedule III are subject to the same measures of
control as preparations containing drugs in Schedule II except that article 31, paragraphs 1 (b) and ¿ to 15 and« as regards their acquisition and retail distribution, article 34, paragraph (b), need not apply, and that for the purpose of estimates (article 19) and statistics (article 20) the information required shall be restricted to the quantities of drugs used in the manufacture of such preparations*
6. In addition to the measures of control applicable to all drugs in
Schedule I, opium is subject to the provisions of article 19« paragraph !• sub-paragraph (f), and of articles 21 bis, 23 and 24» the coca leaf to those of articles 26 and 27 and cannabis to those of article 28*
7* The opium poppy, the coca bush, the cannabis plant, poppy straw and cannabis leaves are subject to the control measures prescribed in article 19 paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (e), article 20, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (g),article 21 bis and in articles 22 to 24; 22, 26 and 27í 22 and 28; 25; and 28, respectively."

So since they apply article 22 from the previous treaty to cannabis... lets see what it says...

"ARTICLE 22
Special provision applicable to cultivation
Whenever the prevailing conditions in the country or a territory of a Party render the prohibition of the cultivation of the opium poppy, the coca bush or the cannabis plant the most suitable measure, in its opinion, for protecting the public health and welfare and preventing the diversion of drugs into the illicit traffic, the Party concerned shall prohibit cultivation."

Ok so by International Law cultivation of Cannabis must be prohibited if its found to be the most suitable measure based upon prevailing conditions of a territory (which California could be considered of the USA)... Prop 19 would be definitive proof that prohibition is NOT the most suitable measure as it would be decided upon by a majority vote in a constitutional democratic election in a republic that is a territory of a party to the United Nations drug treaties.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

good post, but nobody listens to the UN anyways... lol

 

[SCF]

Arizona senators speak out against medical marijuana proposition

Arizona senators speak out against medical marijuana proposition

Click here for link


Arizona senators speak out against medical marijuana proposition

U.S. Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl led a group of Republican officials Wednesday denouncing a ballot measure that would allow medical marijuana.

“Marijuana for medical treatment is the foot in the door for legalization,” Kyl said at a news conference opposing Proposition 203.

McCain, who is running for a fifth term, pointed out that the medical community has declined to back medical marijuana.

“We obviously have great sympathy for those who struggle in pain or discomfort from debilitating diseases and medical conditions,” McCain said, “but this proposition is not the solution.”

Proposition 203 would allow those with qualifying medical conditions to receive 2.5 ounces of marijuana every two weeks from licensed dispensaries. Those living too far from a dispensary could grow up to 12 plants.

Arizona voters approved medical marijuana in 1996, but the measure never took effect because it required a doctor’s prescription, which is illegal under federal law.

Rick Romley, the interim Maricopa Country attorney, said that Proposition 203 is a stepping stone toward legalization without serious discussion of the issue.

“It’s a fair question of whether we should legalize it or not,” Romley said. “I welcome that debate. But they don’t want that debate.”

Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk said that the inclusion of chronic pain as a qualifying condition would lead to abuse. In states with similar laws, roughly 95 percent of users claim to have pain in order to get the drug, she said.

“This is not a tightly regulated scheme to dispense marijuana as medicine to the seriously ill; the opposite is true,” Polk said.

Standing by outside the news conference was Andrew Myers, campaign manager for the Arizona Medical Marijuana Policy Project, the lead group supporting Proposition 203. He said leaders often want to appear tough on marijuana use because they don’t want to seem soft on crime.

“Unfortunately, I think this policy is more supported by the people of Arizona than the leaders of Arizona,” Myers said.

Provisions of Proposition 203
• Would allow 2.5 ounces of marijuana every two weeks for those with qualifying medical conditions.
• Patients would need a doctor’s recommendation.
• Patients or caregivers could grow up to 12 plants if they live too far from a dispensary.
• Arizona Department of Health Services would issue licenses to dispensaries and identification cards to patients.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

WELL FUCK JOHN MCCAIN. patriot my ass! anyone supporting the drug war in america in NOT a patriot, they are a brainwashed sheep, that has never actually read the constitution. he can go jump in fucking the Grand Canyon, with the rest of shitty corrupt senate.

 

[rick shaw]

I am never surprised about the depths this pos McCain will go to.www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/drugs/print.html

 

[Dkgrower]

good post, but nobody listens to the UN anyways... lol

I depends on where in the world you are.

The USA dosent lissen to the UN they use it to channel money into the fight against cannabis cultivation in the Himalyas where they are funding programes in pakistan and india training personal and dogs

Also the Appel program in Marokko is funded by the UN, growing appels in the rif

But i agree with you that it is a good post

The prop 19 has so huge rammifications on the legalisation off cannabis that i hope it will pass.

 

[One Love 731]

We will have our smoke, regardless of what our leaders say. I say fvck'em. Karma, One Love

 

[Preacher]

“Unfortunately, I think this policy is more supported by the people of Arizona than the leaders of Arizona,” Myers said.

Seems to me that this statement is true about cannabis law in almost every case where you can substitute the word Arizona for any sizable geographical area.

One excellent example is on the national level here in Amer'ca: polls regarding medicinal weed consistently come out around 3:1 in favor, while votes in the House are more around 2:1 against. Nice democracy we got going.

And bullshit Romley wants a real debate! Prohibitionists get trounced in those and they know it damn well.

 

[vta]

Why They Fight

Author
Norm Stamper
Source
Huffington Post
http://yeson19.com/node/294


The nation's drug war warriors (led by current and past DEA chiefs and drug czars) along with sideline apologists (timid politicians, blinkered editorialists), are resorting to a last-minute campaign of hair-afire hysterics in the effort to dissuade California's voters from voting Yes on Proposition 19. The initiative would, finally, sensibly, regulate, control and tax cannabis.

What's all the screeching about? The usual: marijuana is a gateway drug...law enforcement will not be able to detect or arrest people driving under its influence... employers will not be able to discipline or fire under-the-influence employees. Lies and red herrings, all. Also, they know Proposition 19 will pass if young, educated voters turn out.

But, what's the subtext? Why are anti-19 forces battling so frantically to defeat the smartest piece of drug reform legislation to come along since the repeal of alcohol prohibition?

Two words: money and identity.

The drug war, particularly the part that focuses, advertently or inadvertently, on adult possession of small quantities of cannabis, is spectacularly expensive. Billions of taxpayer dollars are "invested" annually as federal, state, and local police, courts, and corrections agencies target, investigate, arrest, charge, prosecute, and, in many jurisdictions, incarcerate Americans for possessing even a wee quantity of the weed. Add to this the ancillary costs, such as laboratory testing (necessary to charge even a petty pot case), probation and parole agent involvement, and the like, and you get a pretty good idea of just how financially dependent our criminal justice system really is on the preservation of marijuana prohibition.

(The most odious and ominous aspect to all of this is the effect of the rapidly expanding privatization of our prisons: corporations rake in profits with each and every prisoner. A parole violator re-imprisoned for possession of a joint is worth every nickel as much as a rapist.)

Then there's the identity piece, which doesn't get nearly as much play as it should. If I grow up in the criminal justice system, subjected to the steady drumbeat of drug war propaganda, there's a good chance I'll come to self-identify as a drug warrior. In other words, drug enforcement is not just what I do: It is who I am. Not to get too woo-woo here, but the prospect of ending the war against cannabis is for some drug warriors tantamount to excising a chunk of their egos. Which just might help explain why all those anti-19 superegos are in moralizing overdrive in these waning moments of the California campaign.

An evidence-based argument may be a weak match against something as knotty as one's core identity, but imagine California's criminal justice practitioners putting the public's money, plus their own time, imagination and egos behind a drive to end domestic violence, child abuse, drunk and drugged driving, and predatory street crimes. This is precisely the reasoning of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, whose thousands of members enthusiastically support Proposition 19.

It will happen. Marijuana will be legalized in California. This week will tell when it will happen. In the interests of public health and safety, human rights, personal liberties, and sound fiscal policy it makes far more sense that it happen next Tuesday, not the next election.

 

[SCF]

Prop. 19: Feds will stop playing nice

Prop. 19: Feds will stop playing nice

Attorney General Eric Holder played nice cop last year when he indicated the feds would go easy on medical marijuana use. But he's turning tough now: If California voters pass Proposition 19, which largely legalizes pot, Washington will come down hard.

His stance should clear away any misconceptions about the legal status of marijuana. It remains an illegal drug under federal law, whether state voters feel otherwise. Growing, smoking, or selling the stuff is against the law, he indicated.

President Obama's top law enforcement officer said the administration will "vigorously enforce" federal drug laws. Holder signaled a legal kitchen-sink approach was in the works if Prop. 19 wins. He would go after sellers and organizations that distribute the weed. The attorney general would also go to court to stop the measure from taking effect.

So much for cities across the state and their pipe-dream plans to house marijuana-growing operations and impose taxes on the trade. Oakland, take note.

The ballot measure effectively unbalances a delicate truce in the marijuana wars. Since voters passed a medical marijuana initiative in 1996, there was uncertainty about how change would be handled. It wasn't clear how far Washington would go in tolerating change at the state level.

The Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations cracked down on pot-selling collectives and went after back-country growers.

Then under the Obama administration this approach slowed. Law enforcement continued to hunt down growers, but storefront dispensaries flourished to the point where San Francisco, Los Angeles and other cities struggled to control the surge in such outlets, which sold pot to customers with doctor-obtained recommendations.

Holder doesn't believe the drug deserves exemption from a federal ban. The California initiative invites trouble in combatting illegal drug use and interferes with efforts to "target drug traffickers who frequently distribute marijuana alongside cocaine and other controlled substances."

Consider the words carefully. The feds remain more interested in major dealers, not individual users. Rejecting Prop. 19 will likely mean a return to the present-day balancing act where clinics cater to the medically needy. That was what voters favored nearly 15 years ago, and it still makes sense.

Serious flaws with Proposition 19 include:

-- Workplace: One clause in the measure prevents employers from disciplining workers who smoke pot unless it can be shown work performance was impaired. Pre-employment testing would be prohibited - a direct conflict with federal rules that require drug screening for operators of planes, trains, trucks and buses.

-- Neighborhoods: Any property owner would have the right to grow pot on a 5-by-5 plot - even in counties that did not allow the sale of marijuana.

-- Tax and regulation: No state controls over quality or purity, or revenue for the state, are included. Counties that allowed the sale of marijuana could collect taxes.

-- Highway safety: Drivers can't smoke pot but passengers could, according to the crafters of the initiative.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/26/EDJ91G286A.DTL#ixzz13ikrhZma