8 ISSUES PROP. 19 SUPPORTERS REFUSE TO ADDRESS

Since I published my “Why Pro-Pot Activists Oppose Prop. 19” article, there has been an explosion of controversy from both sides of the debate. Some rebuttals to my article flounder so wildly in anger and condescension that the authors spend most of their time blindly dismantling the “myths” about the initiative that I included in my article, while neglecting to actually address most of the “facts” I illuminate in response to those myths. Nonetheless, I find it worthwhile to respond, for the purpose of reiterating the flaws with Prop. 19 and the fallacies that continue to be brought up by those who support it.

First, let me point out that my blog, “Stoners Against Prop. 19,” has been mischaracterized by some as a very oxymoronic “Stoners Against Legalization.” Just because we oppose Prop. 19 does not mean we oppose legalization entirely. Obviously, we are pro-legalization. But, as I've said before, to be pro-legalization and pro-Prop. 19 are two different things entirely.

This is not a question of whether to legalize or not to legalize. Legalization is the goal and it is inevitable. The question is whether we want to rush in like an old maid desperate to get married and settle for the first d-bag that comes along—-in this case, an initiative that is so poorly-worded as to be ambiguous, so vague as to be open to vast interpretation from judges, and that creates more prohibitions than freedoms—-or be a little more selective and vote for an alternative.

Some marijuana activists think that we should recklessly vote for Prop. 19, in spite of the fact that it is filled with prohibitions and language we as stoners and activists disagree with. Don't be fooled when they say this is our only chance at legalization. PROP. 19 IS NOT OUR ONLY CHANCE; it is only our first chance. We will get another chance in 2012--one that will present us with our first opportunity to vote in an initiative that fully legalizes marijuana, offering far more freedoms and protections than Prop. 19 would allow. More on that later.

As for the false statements erroneously credited to me--such as that "smoking bongs in the park with teenagers is currently legal"--of course I never and would never make such a statement; or that "African Americans and Latinos are not targeted by police"--obviously, we are, and I never made any statement suggesting otherwise. False statements like that, made by people who are supposedly educated, are clearly smoke screens designed to keep you and other curious investigators away from the facts they know will convince anyone who cares about marijuana and freedom to vote against their initiative. I will not engage those false statements here, but I have posted a response to them here: voteknowtaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com.

For now, let us go straight to the initiative and the points supporters of Prop. 19 refuse to address when they engage my article in debate--the points that clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that Prop. 19 is bad for cannabis consumers, bad for the movement, and should be denounced.

Under Prop. 19:

1. IT WILL BE ILLEGAL TO POSSESS MARIJUANA THAT WAS PURCHASED ANYWHERE OTHER THAN A LICENSED DISPENSARY.

Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: (g):

PROHIBIT AND PUNISH through civil fines or other remedies THE POSSESSION, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation OF CANNABIS THAT WAS NOT OBTAINED LAWFULLY FROM A PERSON PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION OR SECTION 11300.

(The key words being, “[c]annabis that was not obtained lawfully…”)

That means that some cannabis will be lawful, and some cannabis will be unlawful--depending on who you "obtain" it from. According to the initiative itself, a person who can "lawfully" provide cannabis is "a person pursuant to this section or section 11300." And who is "a person pursuant to section 11300?" Read on:

Section 11300: (i) ...a person who is licensed or permitted to do so [sell marijuana] under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301.

--Thus, the initiative's exact words--"prohibit and punish... the possession... of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully... from a person who is licensed or permitted to do so"--mean exactly this: ***IT WILL BE ILLEGAL TO POSSESS MARIJUANA THAT WAS PURCHASED ANYWHERE OTHER THAN A LICENSED DISPENSARY.***

I asked Richard Lee, principle investor in this initiative, directly about this in an interview:

"Let's say I get pulled over by a cop and I'm carrying an ounce. How will I be able to prove that it was 'lawfully obtained?'" I asked.

Lee's response: "You'll have to keep your receipt."

Not only is this inconvenient, but it sets the industry up to be monopolized. This prohibition also means that even if you are in possession of marijuana that was gifted to you-—if it was purchased from anywhere other than a licensed dispensary, you will be illegally in possession of "unlawfully obtained" cannabis, and you will be subject to punishment under Prop. 19.

This is what "legalization" looks like?

And there are very few licensed dispensaries in California, by the way. In Oakland, there are four—-Richard Lee owns one of them—-and a cap has been placed in that city so that there can be no others. (Cha-ching!)


2. SMOKING CANNABIS IN PUBLIC (LEGAL UNDER PROP. 215) WILL BE PROHIBITED (with no exemption for medical marijuana patients).

Currently, it is perfectly legal under Prop. 215 for anyone to freely medicate wherever cigarette smoking is allowed. But Prop. 19 would eliminate that hard-won freedom.

In my prior article, I mention the common sight of cops walking right past young adults hitting bongs in Golden Gate Park on a sunny Sunday afternoon—-since in California medicating in public is perfectly legal. In an example of the so-called rebuttals to my article, which turns out to be another smoke-screen, the author attempts to dispute this fact by saying, “It is NOT currently legal to smoke bong hits in the park with 'teenagers.'" Yet my article does not say “teenagers,” it says “young adults.” Which we are. And thanks to Prop. 215, we ARE free to blaze one in public.

[The proof: Proposition 215 (Compassionate Use Act): Section 11362.79: Nothing in this article shall authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances: (a) In any place where smoking is prohibited by law. (That means, anyone with a 215 recommendation can smoke anywhere cigarette smoking is allowed.)]


3. SMOKING CANNABIS WHILE YOUR OWN CHILDREN ARE IN THE HOUSE (LEGAL UNDER PROP. 215) COULD BE PROHIBITED (with no exemption for patients who medicate at home).

Some supporters of Prop. 19--presumably those unaware of the freedoms cannabis consumers currently enjoy under Prop. 215--incorrectly assert that smoking around minors will have the same penalty as right now if Prop. 19 passes. However, this is simply not the case. Right now, there IS NO PENALTY for medicating with marijuana if your children are home. It has been legal since 1996 for medical marijuana patients to medicate freely in the privacy of their home, regardless of whether their kids are in the house. (See above citation of Prop. 215 for proof.) But Prop. 19 explicitly prohibits it, without providing any exemption for medical marijuana patients or for parents who might wish to relax with a nice Kush in the privacy of their own home even if their children are in the house. (An odd prohibition for an initiative that claims to treat marijuana like alcohol and tobacco.) Since it would be a "prohibition," it would carry a new penalty if the initiative becomes law.

Of course, no one is advocating for the freedom to smoke cannabis IN FRONT OF any child. (I personally think smoking cigarettes in the immediate presence of children should be illegal, too—-second-hand smoke causes cancer and kills.) But the California Supreme Court says medical cannabis is as legal as any prescription drug; it follows that medical marijuana patients should be allowed to medicate even if their children are home, just as patients are not banned from medicating with prescription drugs when there are children in the house. It also seems reasonable to allow a parent to unwind with a nice joint at the end of the day, with their child safely put to bed in another room, for instance. But thanks to the vagueness of the wording, Prop. 19 does not explicitly allow this, and it could, in fact, prohibit it. Here’s why:

4. THE WORDING OF THE PROHIBITION AGAINST SMOKING “IN ANY SPACE WHERE MINORS ARE PRESENT” IS SO VAGUE AS TO BE LEFT UP TO THE INTERPRETATION OF JUDGES.

Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls: (c) “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit: (iv) smoking cannabis "in any space while minors are present."

If any part of this initiative is so vague as to be left up to interpretation by judges, then we have a problem. What is meant by "space" and "present"? If you smoke in your den while your child sleeps in her bedroom, is that smoking in the same "space" (home) where minors are "present"? If you light up on the back patio and kids happen to be playing soccer next door, are you in the same "space" where minors are "present"? What if your high-grade homegrown wafts into the hallway of your apartment building while children are passing by? Are you smoking in a "space" where minors are "present"? Is "present" the same house? The same room? Wafting distance? Yes? No? Maybe? Depends? Not good enough.

It's perfectly logical to restrict smoking pot in the presence of kids. But I'm not sure how logical it would be to vote in an initiative that's unclear and ambiguous about precisely what that restriction is.

I'm only telling you what the initiative says, as you can see for yourself in black and white. You can choose to interpret it any way you want to. And therein lies the problem. An initiative that is so vague as to be open to vast interpretation is dangerous for cannabis consumers and dangerous for the movement. And until this wording is corrected, I will encourage voters to vote KNOW on Prop. 19, and YES IN 2012!


5. WWJD: WHAT WOULD JACK DO?

Some Prop. 19 supporters, upon seeing how Jack Herer's opposition to Prop. 19 is causing some stoners and activists to reconsider their support for it, have come right out and claimed to know how a dead man—-in this case, Jack Herer, father of the legalization movement and our eternal hero-—would vote on the initiative.

How would Mr. Herer vote? It would be the height of disrespect to claim to know. I would assume, though, that he would probably vote for the initiative he supported so much that he gave his legendary name to it: the California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative 2012, also known as the Jack Herer Initiative.

I recommend reading the Jack Herer Initiative in its entirety for yourself (http://www.jackherer.com/initiative.html), but some highlights of this alternative to Prop. 19 include:

--The freedom to grow up to 99 plants-—per adult, 21 years of age and older—-for personal use. (Prop. 19 allows only what you and your roommates can fit in a 5'x5' space--3-6 plants--because that grow allotment is per residence, not per person).

--Cannabis taxes shall not exceed $10.00 per ounce. (Richard Lee said the "recommended" tax for legalized cannabis will be $50, although other researchers estimate it could be more in the neighborhood of $70 per ounce.)

--The freedom to distribute cannabis among adults without a license. (Prop. 19 prohibits distributing cannabis except for those who manage to obtain a prohibitively expensive license.)

--The cost of a commercial license shall not exceed $1,000. (The cost for a commercial cannabis vending license in Oakland, epicenter of Prop. 19, just jumped from $30,000 to $60,000 per year. A commercial grow license is a whopping $211,000 per year.)

--Drug-testing for cannabis would not be required for employment or insurance.

--No cannabis tax revenue will be allowed to assist law enforcement. (Prop. 19 specifically allows for marijuana tax revenue to fund law enforcement. See #7 below.)

These are a few highlights from the California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative, also known as the Jack Herer Initiative, that seeks placement on the ballot in 2012. If you have any doubts about supporting Prop. 19 or the motives behind it, but thought it was our only option, now you know you have a choice. It's not "now or never," as some Prop. 19 backers would have you believe; it's "NO on 19 and YES to CCHHI in 2012!" Petitions will go out this November, so if you think the Jack Herer Initiative is a better alternative to Prop. 19, be sure to sign them! For more on CCHHI, go to:

http://youthfederation.com/cchhi2012.html


6. THE PRICE OF MARIJUANA WILL NOT NECESSARILY DROP.

In my blog, I write: “The *value* of marijuana might decrease if it becomes more commercially available and more people grow their own, but the price of a product depends less on its value and more on the degree of competition that exists with regard to selling it. Since your options for purchasing marijuana would be among only a handful of licensed dispensaries in the state, there is no guarantee of a decrease in price. Less competition means higher prices.”

Yet some argue the opposite, citing the Rand Corporation’s study, which “finds that most of today's pot costs are actually risks to growers, distributors, and sellers who face arrest and jail time.” They conclude that because the risk factor would be removed for corporate/commercial “legal” growers—such as AgraMed (and if you haven’t googled AgraMed yet, you ought to), there would be no need for inflated prices.

While it is true that these risks would no longer be a factor in pricing marijuana, it is also true that we live in a free market economy. Not having to pay for a middle-man and the associated risks of black market transactions simply translates to a higher-profit margin for corporate growers. To expect that licensed dispensary owners—-who already know that the public will pay $300+ for an ounce, and who, in the case of Oakland’s four licensed dispensaries combined, currently enjoy gross sales of $28 million per year—-will pass that “savings” on to you is unrealistic at best. Still, both sides of the price argument are nothing more than speculation—-until we consider AgraMed.

AgraMed (whose president, Jeff Wilcox, is a member of the steering committee of Prop. 19 and one of the driving forces behind the initiative), a commercial grow corporation that recently obtained permission from the Oakland City Council to become one of the four licensed commercial growers for the city, has already let the cat out of the bag with regard to just how much cannabis might cost under a legalization model.

By AgraMed’s own estimation, in order to make their projected $59 million a year off 58 pounds per day, they would have to charge roughly $2,800 per pound wholesale—-and that’s if they produced 58 pounds 365 days a year. If they managed to produce that output only 5 days a week, that price would leap to about $3900 per pound.

With shelf-prices at dispensaries often set at double the wholesale purchase price-—not to mention the compulsory tax added onto every ounce (which Richard Lee stated in an interview was "recommended" to be $50, but other researchers suggest could be much higher)—-the price of marijuana could potentially be higher than it is in our current market, in which the price of a pound has already fallen to $2,000, according to a recent National Public Radio report.

To recap, $2800 is the projected wholesale price of a pound of marijuana produced legally by city-ordained commercial growers even after they cut out the middle-man and the risk factors involved in black market pricing. This shows that the price of marijuana under Prop. 19 would be just as high, if not higher, than it is today.


7. THE INITIATIVE STATES THAT MARIJIUANA TAX REVENUE COULD GO TOWARD LAW ENFORCEMENT

Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees (a): Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes... in order to permit the local government to... recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with... enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, ***including enforcement against unauthorized activities.***

In this regard, not only does the initiative not end the drug war, it apparently taxes the drug to fund the drug war. Is this where you want your marijuana tax dollars to go?


8. PROP. 19 MANDATES HARSHER PENALTIES FOR SHARING CANNABIS WITH ADULTS AGE 18-20.

According to NORML’s Web site, the current penalty for sharing 1 oz. or less of marijuana with an adult age 18-20 is a $100 fine. However, if Prop. 19 becomes law, any adult 21 or over who passes a joint to another adult aged 18-20 would face six months in jail and a $1,000 fine:

Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors: (c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense.


A NOTE ON THE CURRENT STATE OF MARIJUANA IN CALIFORNIA

Finally, in the introduction to my article, "Why Pro-pot Activists Oppose Prop. 19," I write, “Ironically, marijuana appears to be more ‘legal’ now than if this initiative were to pass.” Some people have responded with the question, “How can something be ‘more legal when it's illegal?’” Their assumption is that marijuana is illegal in California. Their assumption is incorrect.

Marijuana has been legal in California since 1996. (And no, you don't have to be "sick"--you just have to legitimately benefit from marijuana. That's why if cannabis genuinely makes you feel better, then even having a "broken heart" could get you a doctor’s recommendation to legally possess, consume, and cultivate medical marijuana in California.) And in far more generous quantities than Proposition 19 offers (an unlimited amount, according to a January Supreme Court ruling).

Take a look at the rights Prop. 215 gives and compare them to the rights Prop. 19 would create, and then decide for yourself which is more ‘legal’:


How much you can legally possess:

Prop. 215: 8 oz. - 3 lbs.
Prop. 19: 1 oz.

How much you can grow:

Prop. 215: Anywhere from 6 - 72 plants (although the Supreme Court in January declared even these limits unconstitutional, saying that medical marijuana patients ought to be able to grow an unlimited quantity).

Prop. 19: Anywhere from 1 - 6 plants, depending on how many of your roommates also want to grow. (Whatever you guys can squeeze into a 5'x5' plot, as this limit is per *residence*, not per person.)

Age restriction:

Prop. 215: 18+
Prop. 19: 21+

The right to toke in public?

Prop. 215: Hemp yes!!!
Prop. 19: Hell no. (Not only would it not allow recreational smokers to indulge in public, but it also reverses that freedom for medical marijuana consumers!)

Furthermore, under Prop. 215, the legality of the pot you possess does not depend on who you buy it from. Under Prop. 19, on the other hand, if you buy it from your neighbor or at a party, your pot is illegal and so are you. If Prop. 19 passes, buying marijuana will only be legal if you buy it from Richard Lee and a handful of select—-and very rich-—others. (See #1 above for proof. Then vote NO!)

Don't be fooled by Prop. 19 supporters who say that we can fix whatever we don't like about Prop. 19 after we vote it in, or vote in a better initiative later. Although 2012 will offer us a brilliant alternative with the CCHHI/Jack Herer Initiative, the more likely scenario is that by that time, big cannabis corporations will have all the money, power, and influence they need to thwart any challenge to their monopoly. What do you suppose are the chances of voting in an initiative like CCHHI--that emphasizes personal freedom over corporations and seeks to fully legalize possession, cultivation, and distribution of marijuana--after the cannabis corporations just spent two years multiplying their millions legally under the monopoly Prop. 19 creates, keeping everyone else out of the market, and making it illegal for you to buy your weed from anyone but them? There IS no chance. For this reason, ***we cannot vote in Prop. 19 now and then vote in CCHHI in 2012 to replace it.*** Because if Prop. 19 gets voted in, then once it's in, big cannabis corporations will make sure it stays in, and that it continues to serve them and not the people.

This is not our only chance to vote yes to legalization, but it may be our only chance to vote no to the corporatization of cannabis.

VOTE NO on 19 and YES in 2012!