Prop 19: MA AND PA ARE OUT OF WORK AND YOU'RE STILL EASY TO BUST

Prop 19: Ma and Pa are out of work and you’re still easy to bust – it’s corporatization, not legalization.

… or Malmo-Levine on Prop 19: Why I believe things will be worse for most taxpayers & cannabis users/growers/dealers under Prop 19 than current California pot laws: Prop 215 and California-style decrim.

By David Malmo-Levine

Part 1: Quotes you need to read to fully understand Prop 19

“I struggled against tyranny. I didn’t do that to replace one tyranny with another.” – Bishop Desmond Tutu

“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.” – Dragonfly De La Luz

“The pro-Prop. 19 people are counting on the average voter not knowing anything about statutory interpretation rules. Under those rules, if Prop. 19 had specifically stated in Section 2, “Intent,” that it was NOT intended to affect H & S 11362.5, then the courts would interpret it as not affecting 11362.5. But because the intent section is silent, the courts will look at the language of the proposition to figure out the intent. And as noted above, the Purposes section at paragraphs 6 and 7 already provides evidence that the Proposition is intended to affect MM (Medical Marijuana) and MM patients.
Why would the Prop. 19 people set things up like this? This is no accident; a lot of attorney work and money went into drafting this thing to accomplish the desired results – results presumably desired by Richard Lee and friends. Why would they want to be sure that patients’ current rights to grow and distribute are SEVERLY limited, while running around telling everyone they are not affected?
Well, in addition to being potential voting support for Prop. 15, MM patients also reflect a LARGE and VALUABLE potential market share for the “commercial cannabis industry” this proposition is intended to create. It is going to be contrary to the commercial interests of whoever wants to create a “commercial cannabis industry” to let such a large group of potential cannabis consumers continue to cultivate and share with each other, via the collective system, cannabis – instead of being FORCED TO BUY IT FROM THE “COMMERCIAL CANNABIS INDUSTRY.”
Prop. 19 is clearly aimed at reducing competition by restricting who can cultivate and distribute. Prop. 19, if passed, will be interpreted as affecting patients and collectives because the Prop. 19 folks intentionally chose not to specify that it was NOT intended to affect patients in Section 2, “Intent.”
So why are the pro-Prop.19 lying about what it will do? Something sneaky’s going on.” - Letitia Pepper, Chief analyst for California Supreme Court, Dragonfly Is Correct About Prop. 19's Impact on Patients 2010-08-19 (1)

“AgraMed has plans to build a 100,000-sq.-ft. marijuana mega-farm near Oakland International Airport that, “according to projections, could generate 58 pounds of pot a day and $59 million a year in revenue.” The company’s president, Jeff Wilcox—a member of the steering committee of the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative—reportedly hopes to “bring a degree of corporate structure to the marijuana industry.”” - Kate McLean. “Pot: Semi-legal, Sold Everywhere”, The Bay Citizen. Jun. 5, 2010 (2)

“This plant should not follow in the path of Coca Cola, Marlboro or Merck.” – Valerie Corral, executive director of the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (3)

"Society has a chance to get it right this time," he said. "We didn't get it right with tobacco. We didn't get it right with alcohol. We put those potentially dangerous substances in the hands of corporations who had no interest other than making as much money as possible. Do we want those kinds of companies getting their hands on cannabis?" - Stephen DeAngelo, Owner of Harborside Health Center - the largest medical marijuana dispensary in the world (4)

“One would-be applicant is planning a 7.4-acre complex that could produce over 21,000 pounds of marijuana a year. Based on current prices, such a factory would generate about $60 million in annual revenue, more than twice the gross receipts for Oakland’s four medical marijuana dispensaries last year. … The ordinance … would also require the factories to pay a $211,000 “regulatory fee.” - Small Marijuana growers oppose corporate Hydroponic farms. Saturday, July 24, 2010 (5)

“The estimated value of California's pot crop is $13.8 billion, according to an analysis for California NORML, a nonprofit organization devoted to marijuana reform. About 3 million people in the state use marijuana, medical and recreational, and consume an estimated 1 million pounds a year. Oakland's marijuana dispensaries do their share, supplying patients with 6,000 pounds of pot worth $28 million last year.… Perhaps the most convincing argument arrived in a report commissioned by Jeff Wilcox, a retired contractor who first approached city leaders about the commercial grow idea. His proposal for a 100,000-square-foot AgraMed cultivation facility would produce 21,000 pounds of pot with a wholesale value of $60 million. That translates into $3 million in new tax revenue for the city and 300 to 400 jobs for Bay Area residents — from just one business.” - Oakland's pot dreams could burst By Cecily Burt, Oakland Tribune Posted: 08/01/2010 (6)

“Growing marijuana can be lucrative, but the city’s proposed new rules would eliminate small-timers. It would cost $5,000 just to apply for a cultivation permit, and a regulatory fee of $211,000 for the lucky winners. If one has the cash, it’s a small price to pay for the right to produce a crop with an estimated retail value of $7 million. The fee pays for regulating cultivation in Oakland, which will include enforcement against the guys with grow lights in their garages and backyard sheds.”
- Oakland City Council Considers New Cannabis Rules By Alex Gronke, OakBook on July 5, 2010 (7)

“Once it is legalized the greedy corporations will get their hands in it and it creates this corporate moral disability. Some large dispensaries already practice acts of corporate moral disability. I want it to stay with the mammas and the pappas. The small and unique places. I want the government out of my closet. It should be free, man.” – J. Tony Serra, lawyer of Huey Newton, Dennis Peron, The White Panthers, and Earth First! (8)

“We’re coming across city ordinances that are saying – especially because of Proposition 19 – that ‘yes you can grow as much as you need as long as you’re growing in a 5 by 5 area.’ That is really a limiting proposition that’s coming across. We have cities in Rancho Cordova and we also have cities in Eureka that as of September 3rd, our patients – right now – have to grow in a five by five area. But this is part of the regulations that can be set only by local governments. Right now we can actually file and say ‘that is unconstitutional – it’s against Proposition 215 and we’re going to challenge that.’ However you can’t challenge it if Proposition 19 goes through because it’s the will of the people to give each local government the ability to tax, regulate and control.” - Lanette Davies, spokesperson for Crusaders for Patient Rights, Prop 19 debate at HempCon, Los Angeles, Sept. 2010 (9)

“Prop19 would be to Med patients, what the Treaty of 1868 was to the Sioux. A shell game and an appeasement at the same time.” - Mike Boutin - Grace Collective

“I’ve for it, but it’s not legalization. … I’m not excited about it. … It takes away people’s economic liberty. … I would withdraw my support for it if there were efforts being made for a decent alternative in 2012.” - Omar Figueroa, personal communication (10) californiacannabisinitiative.com - omarfigueroa@mac.com

“… I am holding out for a law that is not going to stagnate the progress this industry has made and can make in the near future and is not written so loosely that it can be interpreted so drastically against recreational users. I’m also holding out for a law that doesn’t punish someone 7 times higher for selling a minor cannabis than alcohol. I’m holding out for a law that doesn’t totally suck.” - Jennifer Soares, California Attorney, comment section of Cannabis Culture online (11)

“Dispensary owners like Kevin Reed of San Francisco's Green Cross wonder whether the nearly 700,000 people who signed petitions qualifying the ballot measure knew exactly what they were signing, and questions whether the push to tax and regulate will do more harm than good to the medical cannabis movement.” (12)

“The tax, which makes no distinction between medical and recreational cultivation, would cost a resident $15,000 a year if he or she cultivates pot in a 5-foot-by-5-foot growing space indoors. The measure would allow the city to lower the tax. The tax proposal is drawing the ire of Don Duncan, California director of Americans for Safe Access, an advocacy group for medical marijuana. "I think that will have the effect of essentially banning legal cultivation," Duncan said. "I don't know anyone who is prepared to pay $600 a square foot." Rancho Cordova Mayor Ken Cooley said the city is protecting its interests should California voters approve Proposition 19. The state initiative, also on the Nov. 2 ballot, would legalize recreational marijuana use for adults over 21, allow small residential cultivation and permit cities to tax retail pot sales.” - Rancho Cordova asking voters to OK tax on homegrown pot for personal use, Peter Hecht, Sunday, Aug. 29, 2010, The Sacramento Bee (13)

“We meant those OTHER drugs … those UNTAXED drugs … those are the ones that are bad for ya.” – Bill Hicks (14)

“Isn't the affirmative defense un-American (guilty until proven innocent, Napoleonic law, etc.)? Also if the whole thing is based on the affirmative defense (which it specifies it is) then it is really not legalization at all, it is just a defense in court. The race issue comes up. Considering that the vast majority of cannabis arrests involve people under 21 years of age, and this law specifies (among other things) that a 18 year old person caught passing a joint to a 17 year old person must be sentenced to a three year sentence in the state prison (not county jail) I have to wonder about how that will work out racially in California. Will black kids get convicted at the same rate as white kids. I presume the plea bargaining step will be available to all but the details of that process are not reassuring. This law is also unfair and stupid on its face. At San Francisco State University we have a bar on campus (in the basement of the student union building) where anyone over 21 can get drunk in front of everyone and we have designated smoking areas where anyone over 18 can smoke cigarettes in public on campus. But we are being asked to pass a law that prohibits public consumption or possession on a campus of cannabis and prohibits its use by anyone under 21? So the idea is that cigarettes are safer than pot and so is alcohol? That is stupid and untrue! Likewise, you don't have to send your kids away from the house to drink a glass of wine with dinner, but parents are forbidden under this initiative to have any pot at all in the same house as their children. So we are going to legalize pot for people over 21 who are not parents? Think about this just a little bit. But wait a minute Jerry Brown gave it the title, "Legalize marijuana". Isn't that interesting considering the fact that he is not supporting the initiative and says he is against the legalization of marijuana. Hmmm. Beyond this the details that seek to essentially prevent any meaningful ability to grow ones own medicine are really mean spirited and tremendously arbitrary. Does Richard Lee and Jeff Jones ever explain why growing 30 square feet of pot is such a bad thing (or 40 or 200). Once again, if more than 25 square feet of pot is such a bad thing, why would we legalize it in the first place? Why should we grow any at all if it is so bad? The same question applies to the one ounce limit. If possessing two ounces is so bad that you should go to jail (or at least have to hire a lawyer and fight it in court) why is one O.K.? This initiative is extremely self contradictory. It is a good thing that I don't believe a guy would ever try to further his own business interests (in this case selling small bags of pot for large amounts of money) through the initiative process or I would be very suspicious of this particular proposition.” - John Entwistle, Jr. - Coauthor of Prop. 215, personal communication

“We’ve been able to work with the OPD (Oakland Police Department) to regulate the dispensaries and protect them, guard them, and so we’ve had a very good working relationship with the OPD. When, back in the mid 90’s, when this issue first came up, the OPD actually had training sessions where advocates would go and try to educate the police about the new laws and about how medical marijuana works and how they can distinguish really legit patients from non-legit ones.” – Richard Lee, right before nodding his head “yes” to the question of whether his “taxation structure” “grew” out of “that law enforcement relationship”. (15)

"As it turned out, the Compassionate Use Act actually specified a limit to how much marijuana could be grown and possessed. The limit was the amount reasonably needed by the patient. So when the MMPA tried to limit that to a specific amount, that was an illegal modification of the Compassionate Use Act. Proposition 19 specifically undoes that. Proposition 19 is an initiative. It therefore may legally modify the Compassionate Use Act. It does this by permitting local governments, “notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law,” to pass their own laws regulating and controlling marijuana. You can read it this way: “No matter what any other provision of state law, such as the Compassionate Use Act, might say, local governments can do what section 11301 allows them to do.” That is, local governments can “control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions,” the activities necessary to obtain, grow, or consume marijuana. Remember, Kelly did not stop the legislative attempt to limit quantities of marijuana that medical marijuana users could grow, possess, or transport because the limitations were contrary to the intent of the Compassionate Use Act. Kelly stopped the legislature because of the wording of the law itself, which had already provided a limit on quantity. The concern I am raising about Proposition 19 is not that it has bad intentions. It doesn’t. It has good intentions. But the proposed law was apparently written by someone who fails to completely grasp the ways in which those who do not approve of marijuana might try to legally thwart that intent. By allowing local governments to control and regulate cultivation, transportation, sale, and consumption of marijuana “notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law,” including the provisions of the state laws known as the Compassionate Use Act, Proposition 19 potentially allows anti-marijuana local governments to place limitations on everyone who uses marijuana, including medical marijuana users. And the mere fact that my argument — even if you don’t like it — makes sense shows that this is a danger. When — not if — some local government tries to pass an ordinance that effectively makes it difficult, or impossible, to grow or obtain medical marijuana, some court could very well look at this the same way I just did. I hope they don’t, but there’s nothing in Proposition 19 that prevents it." - Rick Horowitz, California Attorney (16)

“I find Rick Horowitz' analysis to be thoughtful and, unfortunately, accurate. Dale (Gieringer) is correct (17) about the history of the numerical limits that were the subject of Kelly. As for David Nick's analysis (18), I have to disagree and would refer you to People v. Spark wherein the court explains the use of the purpose language of Prop 215 and its limited relevancy.” - Bill Panzer, the only member Californians for Compassionate Use (the committee formed to formulate the language of Prop 215) who was also a lawyer, personal communication

“First, the only reference to "seriously ill" is in the prefatory, or purpose statement of the act. It is omitted from the heart of the act …” - The passage in People v. Spark that points out that the language at the heart of the act over-rules the language in the purpose part (19)

“If we settle for nothing now we’ll settle for nothing later.” – Rage Against The Machine

“People think it’s legalization, it’s being sold as legalization—even though it’s the opposite of legalization.” - Dennis Peron, co-author of Prop. 215 that legalized medical marijuana in California (20)

“It’s better to be right than popular.” – Emma Goldman, anarchist theorist

Part 2: Prop 19 – who wins, who loses

A tip of my hat goes out to Dragonfly De La Luz, who did much of the initial research on Prop 19 and bravely self-published this research (21) when no cannabis media outlet would take it. The most common counter-argument I hear from pro-Prop 19 people who have read Dragonfly’s article is that it is only an assumption – not a fact - that the police will narrowly interpret the new rules and bust people as often as possible, and that the movement will not be able to mount an effective challenge of the over-regulation. This is a safe assumption, given what happened with the examples we can learn from: the police reaction to Prop 215, the hemp movement’s refusal to challenge the over-regulation of industrial hemp in Canada, and the lack of effective anti-monopoly efforts in US history.

In the afterword to the book “Reefer Madness”, Michael Simmons notes that, as soon as Prop 215 was passed, “…Lungren issued guidelines for police chiefs, sheriffs, and county prosecutors. He advised that cops and prosecutors interpret the law’s language narrowly …”(22). Feel free to ask any operator of a California medical dispensary that was open during the late 1990’s if Lungren’s associates ever made good on his guidelines.

As for legal industrial hemp in Canada, by all accounts it is under “tight controls”. (23) A minimum of 10 acres must be grown. The hemp must test below 0.3% in THC. The strain must be “approved”. Hundreds of potentially profitable industrial strains are denied to farmers. The US won't approve importing Canadian hemp products if they contain even trace amounts of THC. Hemp seed must be rendered non-viable and tested for viability. Those with criminal records for cannabis farming are not allowed to grow hemp. Breeders licenses – permitting access to the most economically rewarding element of industrial hemp farming - are difficult to obtain. One needs a science degree and 10 years experience working under an accredited breeder. Seeds cannot be self-supplied, they must be obtained from the same source every year. Canadian hemp farmers spent somewhere between $1,250, 000 to $3,375,000.00 on seeds in 2006.

Or take the history of efforts to challenge monopolies and cartels in the United States. There are two very famous cases – the 1911 Standard Oil of New Jersey v. United States case (24), and the 1999 United States v. Microsoft case. (25)
In the case of Stardard Oil, the New Jersey managers retained control of the broken up company when they decided to “send out some office boys to head these companies” (26) Years later the largest of these old Standard Oil companies (about 75% of the original company) would merge back together in the form of Exxon-Mobil. (27) This merger, creating the largest corporation on Earth, is commonly known as “Rockefeller’s revenge”. In the case of Microsoft, Andrew Chin, an antitrust law professor at the University of North Carolina, wrote that the settlement gave Microsoft "a special antitrust immunity to license Windows and other 'platform software' under contractual terms that destroy freedom of competition." (28)

Given the fact that the authorities vigorously enforce whatever “remaining laws” are left after reforms are attempted, given the fact that over-regulation is very seldom effectively challenged once in place, and given the fact that monopolies are notoriously difficult if not impossible to destroy once created, it’s a safe bet to take a worst-case scenario seriously. That’s why I use the word “probably” whenever there is any doubt as to how bad things could get under Prop 19. Supporters of Prop 19 are free to attempt to find examples of oppressors providing “best case scenarios” in favor of the oppressed during times of incremental reform, but examples are few and far between.

My sources for the following analysis of the initiative come from Dragonfly’s article – it even uses her numbering scheme should anyone wish to see the particular sources she uses for each point (29) – feel free to try and disprove any of it. I have - I’ve gone over Dragonfly’s argument with a fine toothed comb and I only found one small error – the part about “new” felonies … a more accurate term would be “newly expanded felony”. But Dragonfly is right to draw attention to the “newly expanded felony” and also the new category of “arrestable and jailable people” she speaks about in section 2 of her analysis.

1. Prop 19 will only legalize up to one ounce – currently, nobody in California gets jailed or even arrested for one ounce. People get arrested for being on school property or having a pipe on them, but Prop 19 won’t protect people who smoke on school property. Private sales from non-licensed dealers will remain illegal. Cops propped up by Prop 19 pot-tax dollars will be checking to see if you have your receipt (or, perhaps, pictures of you and your 5 by 5 grow op). Seriously. According to Dragonfly De La Luz:

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

[...of which there are very few. in Oakland, there are 4--Richard Lee owns one of them--and a cap has been placed in that city so that there can be no others. (cha-ching!) see Myth #9 for more on licensing.]

i asked Richard Lee directly about this in an interview in february:

"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 'legally obtained?'" i asked. Lee's response: "you'll have to keep your receipt." (30)

Why would Lee - the author of the initiative - lie about where the burden of proof lies? Better keep your receipts, and stop buying pot from Ma and Pa dealer who don’t have any receipts. Prop 19 will not be likely to decrease the number of arrests of small time users and small time dealers - arrests may increase due to the tax revenues from cannabis going directly to the pot war.

When asked what percentage of California growers and retailers it may render illegal, Attorney J. Tony Serra answered “85% - that’s just guesswork. A vast majority would not be invited in.” (31) This means less selection and less competition which means higher prices – all this is bad for users.

So … Prop 19 is bad for users and most small-time and/or unlicensed dealers.

2. Prop 19 re-defines what a “minor” is in order to increase the penalties from four years to seven years for selling to an 18, 19 or 20 year old. Prop 19 will also take a very common and very public non-arrestable, non-jailable offense - sharing a joint among young people aged over 21 and under 21 - and turn it into an arrestable, jailable offense. The average age of the commencement of “regular use” in San Francisco is 18.81 years. (32) According to this 2009 report (33), as age increases, chance of arrest decreases:

Examine the arrest statistics for California for 2008:

up to 18 years old: 14,313
18-20: 16,039
21-24: 11,505
25-29: 7,699
30-39: 6,367
40-49: 3,744
50-59: 1,449
60+: 272

It’s almost as if the authors of Prop 19 gave the police enough scapegoats to keep the drug war going but not so many that they would be outvoted by those who they can appear to be protecting. Given how often young people smoke, how often they smoke pot in public, and how they’re the most vulnerable targets, Prop 19 will probably INCREASE arrests dramatically.

California Attorney Jennifer Soares writes:

"There is a lot of confusion about Prop 19 and what it is doing to the current laws regarding minors. Technically, the felonies regarding minors are already on the books. What is more important, however, is that the laws are regarding minors currently defined a minor as a person under 18 and Prop 19 will likely change that definition to a person under 21. Thus, although Prop 19 is not actually changing the wording of Health and Safety Code Section 11361(a), it will likely change the meaning of “minor” in that section. Under the new definition, anyone 18 and over that sells to someone 18-20 will likely face 7 years in prison. Those who have said, however, that anyone that passes a joint to another 18-20 year old will face 7 years in prison are incorrect. It will be a misdemeanor with a punishment of $1,000 and 6 months in jail maximum, which will be an increase of the current penalty of $100 and no jail time." (34)

Prop 19 is bad for young people.

3. Adults - even medical marijuana users - who smoke in the same “space” as their kids will be vulnerable to any new legislation that would allow them to be arrested under Prop 19 – and it’s being left up to police and judges to determine what the word “space” means. That is currently not the case with smoking marijuana in the same space as your kids under Prop 215.

California attorney Jennifer Soares writes:

“There are laws against parents smoking in front of minors, but the situations are limited to one: in a car.” (35)

Supporters of Prop 19 point out it’s currently not illegal to smoke in front of minors and Prop 19 only says “it does not permit smoking in front of a minor”, but does not actually provide for any penalties for doing so. However, unlike Prop 215, Prop 19 provides an opportunity for anti-drug politicians who would like to use the stigma of second hand tobacco smoke and reefer madness to ignore all the evidence of healthfulness and the dearth of evidence of harmfulness and write discriminatory laws against cannabis smoking parents and provide such penalties – Prop 19 would allow them to do what 215 never empowered them to. All they need to do is cite some official document such as the California Legislative Analyst's Office, which states:

“This measure sets forth some limits on marijuana possession and cultivation for personal use. For example, the smoking of marijuana in the presence of minors is not permitted.” (36)

… and then say “Prop 19 has no teeth … and our children are being harmed by all this second hand smoke” and then BAM there’s a new law. If you aren’t allowed to smoke in your apartment that has kids, and you’re not allowed to smoke in public, where will you smoke?

Prop 19 is bad for parents and their children.

4. Growers are currently legally allowed to grow as much cannabis as their doctors think they need (37) to supply to themselves, other people they are care-givers for or even dispensaries they are members of (38) under SB420. This will no longer be the case. A license will be required to supply to others. There is no mention of a requirement of a license for dispensing under 215 (39) or SB420 (40). If a license – for whatever reason – cannot be obtained, only one 5 by 5 garden will be allowed PER PROPERTY. Nearly all the currently legal med pot gardens will have to shrink – some by 1000% or more. Med pot users who used to grow outside and do their whole year’s worth on a much larger gardening space will be out of luck.

According to California Attorney Letitia Pepper:

“It does totally effect medical marijuana patients – current ones and anyone who might become a patient in the future – you are going to be screwed if Prop 19 passes, and here’s why: They wrote it in a way that they kept the rights that we have to possess and consume more than the meager one ounce that they’ve decriminalized, OK? We - cause we are sick - we can possess and consume a lot more. We can do that. Why did they let us do that? Because we’re gonna make a great market for the people who are going to create a commercial cannabis industry – that’s what Prop 19 is designed to do. It says that it’s purpose is to do two things: 1) to create a commercial cannabis industry, and 2) it’s to give cities unlimited power to control, tax and regulate. You will never find in here that it’s purpose is to legalize marijuana. It never says that. The words “legalization” and “legalize” do not appear in Prop 19, because that isn’t what it does. And what they did while they gave us sick people the right to keep using as much marijuana as we want to – you should remember that it will be as much marijuana as we can afford to buy from the commercial cannabis industry because they took away our current and existing right to grow as much marijuana as we need to for our own health reasons – we have that right now – and instead we get the same right they gave everybody else – the little five by five square foot area in which you can grow marijuana – ONE plant does not stay inside there. And they gave the cities the right to make it a public nuisance if your plant sticks outside that area – it’s a public nuisance and you can be fined up to a thousand dollars a day. And guess what? You can say “I’m not gonna pay it” but they put it onto your property tax and you’ll end up paying it because it’s the power of the state. … not only the police but code enforcement in every city will be looking for you because the cities are going to be making money from you by doing this.” (41)

People will probably be forced to buy cannabis that didn't have to buy it before. And most renters are now probably screwed – a landlord’s permission is now required. How many landlords will give their tenants permission to grow and risk losing their houses to the Feds?

There is also the probability that Prop 19 will be used to shut down collectives! According to California attorney Letitia Pepper, “… under the current law, collectives have a constitutional right to exist. If you have a constitutional right to use marijuana for medical reasons – which you do, in California now – you also have a constitutional right to have access to your medicine. And access is provided by places like dispensaries and collectives and so they can’t ban them. They can regulate them, but they can’t ban them.” (42)

According to many sources (43) Prop 19 will replace Prop 215 and allow communities to regulate as they see fit – even ban dispensaries that formerly had – under Prop 215 and SB 420 - a constitutional argument to back them up.

One jurisdiction - the City of Rancho Cordova – is planning to put a $600 per square foot tax on personal grows – even for those with doctor’s notes – if Prop 19 passes. This amounts to a tax of $15 thousand dollars per year on a 5 by 5 garden. (44)

Other restrictions regarding distance from fences make it very difficult to grow outside and limitations on the number of watts and banning the use of CO2 make it nearly impossible to grow a good crop. (45)

Prop 19 is therefore bad for a) users and dealers, b) young people, c) parents and their children, and d) small time and/or unlicensed growers.

5. Prop 19 will probably result in punishment for users with fines (and god knows what else) if they happen to get caught with a small amount of cannabis that wasn’t obtained from their tiny plots or a licensed dealer. Given the tiny size of the “gotta-get-the-landlord’s permission, one-per residence” 5 by 5 gardens (and the likely price increases from the corporatization and cartelization of the economy) there is a strong probability that a vast majority of the users will still be buying and possessing black market cannabis and will still be afoul of the law.

Dragonfly De La Luz notes:

“AgraMed has already let the cat out of the bag with regard to just how much cannabis might cost. By their 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 $3,900 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—the price of marijuana could potentially be higher than it is in our current market, in which a pound has already fallen to $2,000, according to a recent National Public Radio report.” (46)

Prop 19 sucks for a) most users and dealers, b) young people, c) parents and their children, d) small time growers, and e) (again) most users.

6. Prop 19 won’t stop any arrests – it will probably increase arrests – therefore, Prop 19 won’t free up any police time so it will not be helpful in any way to tax payers – it will probably cost the taxpayers more in court time and prison time.

Jennifer Soares writes:

“23.7% of all marijuana arrests in 2007 were of adults ages 18-20, a group that is not protected from arrest under Prop 19. The DOJ has not released this statistic for 2008 yet. There are 4 misdemeanor marijuana offenses for which a person can be arrested: possession of over an ounce, possession on school grounds, DUI drugs, and possession of concentrated cannabis. 3 of these offenses will remain illegal under Prop 19. The DOJ has not released the number of arrests for each offense, just the offenses as a whole. So we cannot know how many of these arrests will continue. But even if we guess it will be entirely even across each crime, that means 3 of 4 arrests will continue under Prop 19. … Prop 19 may even increase arrests, since it is changing the punishment of one misdemeanor (furnishing to someone 18-20) from a non-arrestable offense into an arrestable offense. And Prop 19 might increase the duration some offenders are in prison. If “minor” under H&S Code Section 11361 is interpreted to mean under 21, those that sell to people 18-20 would be in prison for up to 3 years MORE than under the current rules.” (47)

Prop 19 sucks for a) small time users and dealers, b) young people, c) parents and their children, d) small time growers, e) most users and f) pot smoking and non-pot smoking tax payers.

7. Prop 19 will allow the police to take as much of the pot taxes as they want to enforce the rest of the pot war. This basically entrenches pot prohibition, making it impossible to remove with “we have no money” arguments. This means that Prop 19 sucks for all users, growers and dealers who continue to step outside the law – which is most of them. This is the worst thing about Prop 19 – it makes sure the pot war will require another initiative to get rid of by entrenching the flow of money within a citizen’s initiative.

Prop 19 proponents argue that cannabis can be taxed now and that Prop 19 doesn’t change anything. According to attorney Letitia Pepper, “your marijuana is CURENTLY PROTECTED from taxation by Article 13, Section 3, subdivision (h) of the California Constitution, which provides that: "The following are exempt from property taxation; ...(h) Growing crops." (48) As well, as Dennis Peron pointed out, “in California and the other states, medicine is not taxed.” (49) Prop 19 will change all that, and will set up a dangerous precedent for other herbal medicine crops.

Prop 19 is bad for those who don’t wanna be taxed up the wazoo, and those who don’t want the cops to be swimming in pot revenues.

8. Prop 19 will make sure only those with licenses can make money selling pot. It will reduce the number of legal growers and retailers in California from hundreds of thousands to a few hundred. The number of former growers and retailers finding shitty jobs in the service industry – or getting welfare checks or sleeping on the street – will probably be in the hundreds of thousands.

California attorney Omar Figuroa put it this way: “This system that helps the powerful, the wealthy and the well connected. … It creates a commercial entities … a privledged class of dealers.” (50)

According to Letitia Pepper:

“ … one of the yes people said “Oh and you know if you only pass Prop 19 it will be wonderful because Mexico has said if 19 passes they will legalize marijuana in Mexico too!” Well of course they will. If you can’t grow marijuana here, guess where the big commercial growers are gonna go and grow it? In Mexico. And they’re gonna pay people some tiny minimal wage that won’t do them any good, and they’re gonna bring it back and sell it to you.” (51)

9. Prop 19 will codify a discriminatory licensing process – processes that favors the well-connected and rich and one that puts arbitrary “caps” on the maximum number of cannabis retailers that are allowed. The cannabis community wants inclusivity and equal rights with the coffee bean community - not the entrenchment of discrimination.

Jennifer Soares writes:

“You are correct that it is unlikely most growers/retailers will be unable to obtain licenses for recreational cultivation/retail sales. Over 129 cities have currently banned medical marijuana dispensaries/collectives. “Collectives” often include commercial growers, since these cities often define a collective as a group of X or more patients cultivating and distributing. These cities are similarly unlikely to allow recreational cultivation and distribution.

However, these cultivators and retailers should, if legally operating now, be able to maintain their business so long as they can maintain their patient base. Cultivators and retailers can continue operating under the medical marijuana laws. The catch is that they might lose some, or all, of their patients, thus putting them out of business. Many patients that live near Oakland or other cities that enact recreational permits will simply drive to get their cannabis as opposed to paying a doctor upwards of $200 a year to keep a medical recommendation.

Also, dispensaries will be in danger of increased penalties for providing medication to a large portion of their patients – the 18-20 year olds, which could help put them out of business. Currently, prosecutors across the state are arguing (successfully in many cases) that Prop 215 does not allow for the sales of cannabis. But selling to an 18-20 year old is currently punishable by a maximum of 4 years in prison. Under Prop 19 it is likely that the punishment will increase to 7 years maximum. *It should be noted that the crime of selling heroin to an 18 year old only carries a punishment of a maximum of 5 years, 2 years less than selling cannabis to an 18 year old under Prop 19.” (52)

10. Med users who used to grow an entire years worth of medicine outdoors will be forced to grow in a five by five plot outdoors – not enough medicine for a full year – or will be forced to move their operation indoors and buy some lights and will be forced to garden year round indoors … or will be forced to break the law and grow in a bigger-than 5 by 5 plot … or be forced to buy off of the few lucky retailers with licenses.

The controversy around this is focused on what Section B: Purposes, 7-8 of Prop 19 says. As Dragonfly emphatically explains:

“7. Ensure that ***if a city decides not to tax and regulate*** the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to ***possess and consume*** small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

--this section specifically refers only to ***possession and consumption*** (not cultivation). so, even if a city opts out of legalization, people with their prop 215 medical recommendation will still be able to ***possess and consume*** amounts specified under prop 215--but not cultivate.” (53)

Many attorneys are arguing that Dragonfly’s dire warnings are correct. (54)

As Jennifer Soares points out:

"I am, however, an attorney that, unlike the proponents of this bill, see[s] poorly written law interpreted against the cannabis users every day in court. I am someone that can read this bill and see it for what it will be one day in front of a judge: vague, poorly written, and open to vast interpretation by judges who are anti-cannabis... Vagueness will destroy (any gains proponents argue are created by) this initiative. " (55)

Attorney Rick Horowitz writes about his encounter with Richard Lee, asking him about this very question:

“The problem here, though, is not — or at least not so much — that I felt I was given a rather rude brush-off. The problem, as I said, is that the FAQ provides no more information than was shouted over their shoulders as Mr. Lee’s group hustled down the street. Mr. Lee appeared to be angrily muttering about “these questions.” He’s obviously grown tired of them. “These questions,” however, are important. The way Proposition 19 reads, “these questions” are not addressed. In fact, Proposition 19 appears to be capable of undoing all the work those promoting medical marijuana have done to enable patients to receive their medication without suffering consequences under California’s criminal laws. I think it’s quite likely that Proposition 19 will trump California’s medical marijuana laws and allow local municipalities to apply restrictions that, thus far, they have been blocked from implementing by the combination of the Compassionate Use Act and the California Supreme Court.” (56)

11. Public consumption for under-twenty one year old med users – legal under 215 – will be made illegal under Prop 19.

12. Those who sit and rot away in jail for marijuana crimes will get no amnesty under Prop 19. High Times writer and counter-culture guru Paul Krassner recently pointed out that “If it’s wrong to bust people for pot then it’s wrong retroactively.” (57)

13. The five-by-five plot requirements and subsequent legal garden shrinking will probably result in a devastated economy for the hundreds of thousands of growers in California and all the businesses in growing areas that depend on the small time growers for support.

14. The caps on the number of dispensaries - a cap codified by Prop 19 - will probably result in an increase in the number of unemployed, and therefore it will be an unnecessary drain on community and taxpayer resources. This “cap discrimination” – not found in the coffee bean industry - must be addressed within the wording of any cannabis initiative because once an unfair practice is voted in the much of the money now going to the lucky license-holding retailers and growers will be spent on keeping that unfair practice in place. Richard Lee will have guaranteed millions and can then afford to spend one or two of those millions to make sure those millions keep flowing his way.

15. The California cannabis market is worth billions. Billions spread out amongst hundreds of thousands of farmers and gardeners will be spent everywhere in the economy. If billions of dollars go to a small handful of corporate farmers, much of the money will be saved or spent on luxury items and fail to be enjoyed by the entire cash-strapped California economy. It’s better for everyone if as many people as possible get a good living but not a killing rather than a few making all of it and choosing whether or not to let any of it “trickle down”.

California attorney Omar Figueroa calls Prop 19 the “Make Richard Lee a billionare initiative.” In a phone interview he stated; “Maybe the Feds are going to come get him – he makes a juicy target… Lee can get any regulation passed within short order. He’ll either become a marijuana mogul or marijuana martyr.” (58)

Jennifer Soares writes:

“Because this bill allows the individual municipalities to determine the commercial aspects of recreational use, it is highly likely that cultivation and distribution commercially will be banned in most cities and counties in California. Politicians must only take the path of least resistance – do nothing – and the commercial aspect of recreational cannabis will be banned in their municipality. There are currently over 120 cities in California that are banning medical marijuana distribution. How likely is it that these cities will be convinced to allow recreational distribution? Los Angeles took five years to pass a medical marijuana ordinance. Many cities still have not finalized a medical marijuana ordinance." (59)

Los Angeles has 14.8 million people and 41 legal dispensaries (60) – one dealer for every 360,000 people or so. Oakland has 400,000 people and 4 legal dispensaries and 4 growers licenses (61) – one dealer and grower for every 100,000 people. If you take in surrounding areas that don’t have any distribution sites at all, that number could increase dramatically. Currently, 141 cities and counties in California do not allow any medical marijuana distribution. (62)

Could you imagine a single coffee shop that sold coffee to nearly a half million people – with the police hunting down anyone who dare provide for those who don’t like lineups? That’s the future of scoring a fat bag under Prop 19. Neither big alcohol companies nor big tobacco nor Starbucks nor Al Capone ever enjoyed such consolidation of their markets.

16. Prices will almost certainly increase with less growers, less dealers and less competition. Prices are currently dropping under 215 – doing what Prop 19 advocates irrationally argue their competition-destroying initiative will do. According to the NPR, “the drop in pot prices is in part the result of more growers and a more tolerant legal landscape”. (63) If it’s true what NPR says – that more growers mean a decrease in prices - it means that less growers will mean an increase in price. It’s easier to price fix in an exclusive market.

Regarding the myth that prices are going to plummet post-Prop 19, Jennifer Soares writes:

“Richard Lee himself disagrees with this statement, and has said so. Oakland is going to charge $275,000 for a cultivation license. They will likely charge this or more for a distributor’s license. The costs of commercial growing and distribution and the taxes will be high enough to stop any drop in price from happening. Not to mention, supply will (at least initially) go down, since many current growers will not be able to immediately get and pay for a cultivator’s license. And if we’re talking about southern California, the cost of your cannabis is going to be all of that plus the gas to get to Oakland, since that is the one of the only cities that is going to immediately put in an ordinance allowing commercial cultivation and distribution. Not to mention, according to Richard Lee himself, the market has already shown that people are willing to pay the current prices for cannabis, so why would he lower them?” (64)

17. As far as I understand it, any problems that come with this Proposition will take another proposition to fix. It’s better to wait for a good one to come along rather than risking making permanent something that is worse for us.

Jennifer Soares writes:

“Getting a proposition on the ballot is extremely expensive. This is one of the biggest problems with Prop 19. Dale Sky Jones told an audience at Dr. Greenthumb’s Spring Gathering, that Prop 19 could always be changed in the future to make it better. But what she failed to mention that day was that it would cost someone millions of dollars to do so, making it extremely unlikely to happen.
If Prop 19 goes the way of Prop 215, there will be a small number of cities in California that will allow it. If this happens, the people that do receive licenses will make a fortune. And few others would be able to make any money at all. If this is the case, another proposition will only get on the ballot if a very independently wealthy cannabis activist can fund the proposition. And even if there is such a person, the extremely wealthy license holders will campaign with all their wealth and might against it.” (65)

18. If we vote no on Prop 19 and wait until 2012 we can learn from the mistakes found in Prop 19 and be sure not to include them in a future initiative. Imagine an initiative that actually prevents a cap or prevents a license more expensive than a coffee bean seller’s license! The Jack Herer initiative corrects all the problems that Prop 19 creates. The Herer initiative is the natural “end run” that the “first down” of Prop 215 has provided for us. If all the people adversely effected by Prop 19 stick together we can vote down this atrocity and then wait two more years before we achieve a “legalization” worth the name.

Check out

http://www.jackherer.com/initiative

and

http://youthfederation.com/cchhi2012.html

to see what I’m talking about.

19. This concern is similar to #17. If we vote Prop 19 in now and try to make changes later, we might not be able to compete with the special license holders who want things to remain the same.

So, just to recap, Prop 19 will quite likely suck for a) small time users and dealers, b) young people, c) parents and their children, d) small time growers, e) most users, f) pot smoking and non-pot smoking tax payers, g) people who don’t want to see the police have a permanent pot-war budget, h) people who don’t want to see unemployment increase, i) people who don’t think cannabis retailers should be treated differently than coffee bean retailers, j) outdoor med pot growers who put a year’s worth of personal into one harvest, k) the 20-and-under crowd who like smoking outside (and/or have no safe place to smoke it inside), l) those currently in jail for pot, m) the local economies that flourish in a non-monopolistic economy, n) a nation that benefits from money being in circulation, o) those who want to see prices drop and quality increase as a result of robust competition, and p) those who don’t want to see all the above concerns become “locked in”. How could one initiative throw so many people under the bus? That’s gotta be a record.

It’s only the the police, the lucky few marijuana dispensary and grower license holders, the jailers, those who own hemp-substitute companies (oil and gas products, pharma, tree products etc etc), the indoor grow equipment people and a bunch of Richard Lee’s pals – lawyers hired to keep his monopoly going - who benefit from Prop 19. It’s clearly against the interests of the rest of us. It benefits a handful of people and it victimizes tens of millions. This isn’t legalization – it’s a near-certain nightmare scenario of poverty, increased arrests, unlimited increased fines and taxes, privilege, and corruption. It provides no benefits that cannot be currently gained by $150 bucks per year and a visit to the doctor. Instead of $150 bucks per year to a doc, it’s $50 bucks per ounce for the cops. It’s just not worth risking losing Prop 215 over.

Part 3: My attempt to convince Marc Emery to change his mind about calling Prop 19 opponents “traitors” and about his decision to postpone his battle for free markets and against discriminatory licensing practices & monopolies.

“I don’t believe in government and I don’t believe in hierarchies. I don’t believe in religious, scientific or medical establishments. That includes anything that is top-down directed. I am opposed to any system or belief where someone at the top dictates down to those below. … Being an anarchist, I have to use all my resources to address these issues.” – Marc Emery, High Times Magazine, July 1992, p.15

“Marc is an anarchist-libertarian type with conservative views on work and family responsibilities.” – Marc Emery, Marijuana & Hemp Newsletter #1, June 1994, p. 2

“…because I had read that there were more cannabis growers and smokers per capita in British Columbia than any other place in the world. … Let's agree to make lots of money in 1995, grow lots of pot, …Revolution through economic clout!” - Marc Emery - Thursday, December 15 1994 (66)

“We have over a million potential beneficiaries, you and I are at the front of the line to cash in on that rich bounty of freedom.” – Marc Emery, Cannabis Canada #2, Summer 1995, p. 10 (67)

"What matters is that the government should not be permitted to hand over production or distribution of hemp to monopolies once it's legalized. AS LONG AS WE ARE ALL ABLE TO COMPETE, THAT'S THE MAIN CONCERN." - Marc Emery, High Times, April 1996, p.29 (my emphasis)

“I want to present a bold and radical program of initiatives that will solve our local problems,” said Emery … Among his proposals, to be announced this morning, is a plan to get people off welfare by allowing them to grow marijuana in their homes and earn “$40,000 a year”. - Oct. 11, 1996 Vancouver Province, Potshot #13, p.39

“Whereas a business that has gained a natural monopoly must continue to satisfy customers sufficiently to maintain its monopoly in a financially rewarding way, a business that is granted a monopoly by government need not satisfy anyone to maintain its monopoly. Accordingly, the Freedom Party of Canada will repeal federal laws that give any business a monopoly on the provision of goods or services.” – Freedom Party of Canada platform. The FPC grew out of the Freedom Party of Ontario, co-founded by Marc Emery in 1984 (68)

“The BCMP also believes that government has a responsibility to the people, and must be accountable, because without accountability democracy becomes a tyranny run by the privileged minority, corporations, lobbyists, and big party machines.” – BCMP – founded by Marc Emery - party platform (69)

“Who are your heroes in the marijuana movement?
The number one person has got to be Dennis Peron. He's an amazing man who I think has done more for marijuana in America than anyone else. His victory on Proposition 215 was astounding, and even though the clubs there are having a tough time right now, Dennis knows how to reinvent himself and to just keep on going….When I list some of the great ones, the only one I wouldn't criticize is Dennis Peron. I have nothing critical to say of Dennis … What I believe is going to happen first is that people are going to have private limits. They'll be allowed to have up to fifty plants in their homes, and fifty plants worth of dry bud weight.”
1999 FLASHBACK - Marc Emery: The Prince of Pot speaks out
By Dana Larsen - Friday, January 1 1999 (70)

"I have seen the debates, the transcripts, the comments by Dennis Peron, Bruce Cain, David Malmo-Levine, and they are all sad, pathetic defenses of the very inadequate status quo. They are, in fact, treasonous and disingenuous, in their attempt to derail the greatest opportunity ever put before the cannabis culture. These so-called activists should be given no credibility nor debated further. It is a waste of time. David Malmo-Levine is a gleeful hater of the initiative, let history record his perfidy and judge him. If the initiative fails, people who opposed Proposition 19 should be completely ostracized from the legitimate movement and recognized as the prohibition profiteers they truly are." – Marc Emery, communication to his Facebook page from jail, circa August 2010 (71)

“NO regulatory controls on who may cultivate and distribute cannabis: marijuana, hashish, hemp and all their by-products. No government controls on the economic aspect of our culture is to be permitted. (No provincial marijuana control boards, or quotas in cultivation, no discriminatory licensing requirements for vending, etc.).” -Marc Emery, condition #2, the “Five conditions for peace”, Cannabis Canada #1, April 14, 1995 (72)

“David Malmo-Levine brings up my 5 conditions for peace constantly, yet those are utopian long term goals. Any movement towards those goals is acceptable in the short or medium term, any student of democratic change ought to realize that. But Malmo is so obstructive." -Marc Scott Emery, written from prison, circa August 2010 (73)

Red and Black

I address this segment of my argument to Marc personally, for if anyone can persuade the yes people to do the right thing, it’s Marc.

I must admit that the two quotes above from August 2010 from you, Marc, calling me “obstructive”, a “so-called activist” and “treasonous and disingenuous” hurt me like nothing has ever hurt me before. I don’t have any kids … I just have this movement. It’s all I got. For you to suggest I should be “completely ostracized” is basically a threat to destroy everything I’ve worked for my entire life. Why? Because I listened to a bunch of lawyers that were making sense to me instead of following orders that made no sense to me? Because I didn’t abandon all the things you have stood for (during the entire 15 years we have worked together) when instructed to?

I love you Marc, like the rebellious older brother I never had but wished I had. You are everything I want all businessmen to be – focused on an anti-monopoly crusade for farmer’s rights and basic freedoms. You fight for freedom of expression and for the right to do harmless activities and choose harmless occupations. I strongly believe you were – and still are – humanity’s best hope of ending poverty, wage slavery, hierarchy and the assault on human autonomy on planet Earth – your actions up to this point have done nothing but bring power to the farmers and the peaceful people. Your actions have enhanced the economies of self-medication, folk medicine and the information industry like nobody else’s actions have.

Because of you, Marc Emery,: a) Canadians are able to buy a bong, pipe or vaporizer in their hometown. b) Canadians are able to buy books and magazines about growing and using marijuana. c) There are marijuana seeds for sale at dozens of outlets across Canada. d) Activists across Canada and the USA were funded from 1994-2005 resulting in the education and liberation of millions of people in the medical, recreational and cultivation communities. Marc, you have already done more for the movement than any other Canadian activist and if you retired tomorrow – which I am absolutely sure you will not – your record of commitment to freedom and to the welfare of others in the cannabis community (and other freedom-loving communities) will remain unsurpassed for ages to come.

There’s an old quote from 1872 – right after the fall of the Paris Commune - from the German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck: “…woe to any government should red and black again be united for no force on earth shall stand before them.” I saw you as the black – the freedom-loving anarchist-libertarian – and me as the red – the bleeding-heart libertarian socialist. Your actions were focused on preventing limitations on basic human freedom, and my actions were focused on the enhancing the less well-known freedoms: the freedom from exploitation and freedom from problems that came with the existence of privilege. We united both types of freedom-loving communities in one common goal. No force on earth could stand before us.

We worked well together, you and I. I followed your examples and advice the best I could. I learned the art of promotion and how to make money from you. I fed off your Jedi-like confidence and your majestic dignity. I provided you with materials for your media, arguments for our court cases, larger and more colorful and more disobedient rallies every year, put the most beautiful herb museum on the pot block with your help, and I defended you from attacks from the left-wing of the Vancouver community. Whenever they accused you of being a typical monopolistic capitalist I proceeded to quote from your many statements found above and assured them all that you were here to bring an end to monopoly – not to set one up. You promised us that, so I promised them that. I gave them my word. You were the exception that was to destroy our rulers. You were the one true anarchist capitalist activist in Canada – one of a very short list globally that also included Tom Forcade, Dennis Peron and Ben Dronkers.

When the media started calling you the “prince of pot” and the “king of cannabis” in 1995 (74), I decided to become your royal jester. Every prince needed a fool, and I had studied to be a clown in my youth. I always could crack you up with my Sean Connery accent.

Historically, the fool played an important role in court: “they served not simply to amuse but to criticize their master or mistress and their guests. Queen Elizabeth (reigned 1558-1603) is said to have rebuked one of her fools for being insufficiently severe with her.” (75)

I figured I should save up my royal jester criticisms only for when it mattered most. And while I questioned you in private once or twice in the 15 years we worked together, I have never questioned you in public until now. Your public attack on me and the looming vote on Prop 19 in November requires me to respond in public, much as it pains me to do so. If I didn’t I would be throwing my life’s work down the drain.
I know this next part of my article is going to be difficult for you to hear. I read your jail blog posts and know that they are torturing you with arbitrary rules and shitty food and solitary confinement. They are taking the most free and helpful soul in Canada and subjecting him to the most confined, helpless of conditions in the US. I don’t blame you for misunderstanding what Prop 19 represents – it’s supporters are all around you and those who criticize it are hard for a free person like me to reach – it must be impossible for you to hear their voices. But I know you’ll be reading this article so I hope you read it carefully, knowing that I was not motivated by greed or jealousy but a genuine desire to create a free market and bring prices down, that I fully researched this issue and interviewed the best legal minds before making my research public, and that I did everything in my power to make this an attack on Prop 19 and avoid it being an attack on you personally.

Marc’s Prop 19 article

You wrote in the introduction to your article on Prop 19 (76) that the activists who are against Prop 19 are against it because of a) jealousy that they didn’t have anything to do with drafting it, and b) greed from wanting to perpetuate black-market prices. If these things are true, why do all of them – without exception – support the Jack Herer initiative? (77)

Jack’s initiative would truly legalize cannabis with minimal regulations and would allow massive amounts of competition. It’s Jack’s initiative, not Richard Lee’s, that would create a free market and bring prices down.

You state in your article; “But that law still forbids any healthy person from cultivating, possessing or distributing non-medical cannabis – a group of adults 21 and over that numbers over 31 million in the Golden State.” From talking with the lawyers in California I can assure you that anyone – sick or healthy – can get a doctor’s note for medical marijuana. As I have outlined in my history of cannabis for stress and depression (78), healthy people use cannabis as a medicine too – to stay healthy.

If you read the text of Prop 215 (79), the heart of the legislation indicates that it is designed to protect users who suffer “any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.” Stress and depression are “universal illnesses” and Prop 215 was designed to protect everyone. I challenge you or anyone else to find one person in California who was unable to find a doctor willing to give them a note for stress and depression. This is not an argument that Prop 215 is the end goal of cannabis activists – personally I don’t see the need to get a doctor’s note for coffee or chocolate either – but rather this is an argument that Prop 215 currently provides more protection for users than Prop 19 will. Would you rather pay $150 bucks to the doctors every year or $50 bucks to the cops every ounce? Because Prop 19 - unlike Prop 215 or the Jack Herer initiative - has earmarked pot taxes to go to the cops:
“Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees (a) Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.” (80)
You wrote in your article that “The Dutch cannot grow 25 square feet of pot …” According to Wikipedia, “A maximum of five Cannabis sativa plants may be grown without prosecution …” in Holland. (81) You don’t need permission from your landlord, either. (82)

You and I both know how big 5 cannabis plants can be. For those who don’t, I have provided a link to a video of a Dutch back porch garden in the Canna Embassy in Den Haag – it looks like at least a five feet by twenty feet garden, and it’s outdoors and visible to the neighbors. (83)

In Holland you and/or your landlord don’t have to worry about the Dutch Federal government seizing your house for growing. But your point about Holland’s rules being not good enough for our cannabis community to settle for is well taken. And while there are discriminatory licensing practices in Holland that create unfair limits on how many cannabis cafes there can be, how much pot they can have on them and where they can be located, I am confident that if the global movement unites against such discrimination those practices can be challenged and eliminated – in Holland, California and wherever else they may appear. But we must stand united against the discrimination – even when it appears we can make gains by giving in to discrimination. Especially then.

The Jack Herer initiative is written to eliminate such discrimination:
1. License concessionary establishments to distribute cannabis hemp euphoric products in a manner analogous to California's wine industry model. Sufficient community outlets shall be licensed to provide reasonable commercial access to persons of legal age, so as to discourage and prevent the misuse of, and illicit traffic in, such products. Any license or permit fee required by the State for commercial production, distribution or use shall not exceed $1,000.00. (84)

As far as I can tell there are no “caps” on the number of growers of grapes or distributors of wine products in California. Ask Jodie to type “Liquor Stores near Los Angeles, CA, United States” into Google Maps and then compare the resulting number of red dots she can see with “Medical Cannabis Dispensaries Locations, Los Angeles, CA, United States”. In the liquor store search you will see thousands of little red dots. That’s what we should settle for, not the current proposed limit of forty-one licenses for dispensaries in Los Angeles (one for every 360,000 people) that Prop 19 does nothing to eliminate and a lot to entrench.

You wrote in your article that Prop 19 “allows each adult, 21 and older, to grow 25 square feet of pot.” That’s not the entire truth – the devil is in the details. Prop 19 allows each adult who lives alone in their own house to grow 25 square feet of pot. People who live with other people will have to share that 25 square feet, and people who don’t get their landlord’s permission will be out of luck and getting in the long lineups at Richard Lee’s or some other lucky license holder. The Feds still can and still do threaten landlords with seizing their property unless dispensaries vacate the premises – Prop 19 does nothing to stop that. Jack’s initiative, on the other hand, will make fucking with people’s rights a misdemeanor:

10. Any person who threatens the enjoyment of these provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor. The maximum penalties and fines of a misdemeanor may be imposed. (85)

In your article you used the term “unlicensed exploiter commercial growers” – surely you don’t mean anyone who grows and sells cannabis in the black market is an “exploiter” – for you were an unlicensed seed dealer and you weren’t an “exploiter” – I think such a word should only be reserved for people like Richard Lee and companies like Bayer who support exclusive distribution rights.

People such as the growers who were your seed customers between the years 1995 and 2005 weren’t exploiting anyone, they were factoring in the risk to themselves into the cost of their product just as you were factoring the risk to yourself into the cost of your seeds. I’m sure almost all of them supported initiatives like Jack Herer’s that would have fully legalized cannabis and required them to compete with each other in the free market and remove the “risk to self” black-market prices at once there was no more risk.

You wrote in your article that “The vast majority of cannabis consumers are 21 and over…” This may or may not be true – I’ve not seen the stats. But the statistic we should be looking at is arrest records, not use records, and we have the stats on that.
According to this Oct. 2009 report (86), there were 30,352 arrests for the under-21 group and 31,036 for those over-21. This is hardly a “vast” majority – it’s more like a “slim” majority. And because younger users are more likely to be using outdoors in raves and parks and because the two largest groups of arrestees is the under 18 group and the 18 to 20 group, it’s fair to say that the most vulnerable-to-arrest half of the police targets have been thrown under the drug-war bus by Prop 19.

You wrote in your article that “Minors need only be in another room while cannabis is being consumed.” I hope that any new laws that prevent smoking near minors specifies “room”, because Prop 19 allows for new laws to be created that prevent cannabis from being smoked in the same “space” – and there are lots of ways to define space that would deny people the right to smoke cannabis anywhere but, say, Richard Lee’s place or one of the other lucky license holder’s place.

You wrote “It is illegal to smoke cigarettes in an enclosed space with minors.” According to California attorney Jennifer Soares this is only true in one place – your car. You wrote “Is the ‘right’ to smoke with minors present SO important that we must deny 30 million Californians the genuine right to possess and smoke in safety in their own homes?” There are two answers to this question:

1) It’s important to protect the rights of single parents to not have to rent a separate “space” to smoke their cannabis away from their children. Prop 19’s use of the word “space” is very problematic to those who only have their house to smoke in and live alone with their children.

2) If you mean to say that the right of Californian adults to go get a doctor’s note and exercise their right to smoke pot legally isn’t a “genuine” right, again I will refer you to my article on cannabis’s use for stress and depression. It’s quite through, with over 70 scientific citations for each category (87). That, plus the wording in Prop 215 that guarantees protection for anyone who uses cannabis for “any condition for which it provides relief” is genuine enough for me. Can you name one person in California who has tried and failed to find a doctor who will write them a note?

You wrote “If your neighbour sells cannabis after this initiative, it's still trafficking, as it is today. So there's no change there.” But there IS a change, and it’s a big one. Under Prop 19 – according to Richard Lee – the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the cannabis you are caught with is legal cannabis – “keep your receipt” he said. (88) So there will be a huge number of people who buy off Richard Lee or some other license holder – not because they have the best cannabis - but rather because they won’t have that cannabis taken away by the police. And let’s not forget the fact that the police will now have a HUGE amount of money available to them to enforce Prop 19’s “attack the unlicensed dealers” rules and will want to keep that money coming to them so they’ll probably use every cannabis tax dollar they can in the war against unlicensed dealers – why wouldn’t they? The number of arrests is likely to increase because the funding for arrests is likely to increase. Prop 215 doesn’t earmark money for narcs and the Jack Herer initiative specifically forbids it.
9. No California law enforcement personnel or funds shall be used to assist or aid and abet in the enforcement of Federal cannabis hemp marijuana laws involving acts which are hereby no longer illegal in the State of California. (89)

You wrote that “All businesses in modern society are licensed, regulated, taxed and audited.” As California attorney Letitia Pepper pointed out, crops are currently not taxed in California:

“your marijuana is CURENTLY PROTECTED from taxation by Article 13, Section 3, subdivision (h) of the California Constitution, which provides that: "The following are exempt from property taxation; ...(h) Growing crops." (90)

…and as Dennis Peron pointed out, “in California and the other states, medicine is not taxed.” (91) Prop 19 will change all that, and will set up a dangerous precedent for other herbal medicine crops.

You wrote “The only ones worse off will be gun-toting street gangs and cartels, the police and prison industry, and any exploitative commercial growers who are not honest or skilled enough to legally produce for the licensed market.” You should add “any of the med pot users under 21, any single parents who smoke and only own one “space”, anyone who rents instead of owns their property, any small-time growers who share their living space with another user, anyone who didn’t want to see pot taxes go to the pot war, anyone who didn’t want to see taxes introduced to crops and medicine, any tax payer who expected arrests to decrease and any of my former seed customers or wanna-be retailers who possess lots of skill and honesty but who don’t have a friend at the City Hall commercial cannabis licensing department” to that list of those people who will be worse off.

You wrote: “As California goes, so does the rest of America.” Here we agree. If the corporatization of cannabis occurs in California then those who wish to set up exclusive markets for themselves will be able to argue that the only winning proposition is the Californian one. Whatever happens in California will be the model for the rest of the US and indeed the world, so it makes sense to take the time to do it correctly. If it takes anther ten years to set up a non-monopoly system for cannabis distribution, then it will be worth the wait. Only those who have suffered the body and soul destroying injustice of poverty understands how monopoly can be just as oppressive as jail. You’ve been to jail Marc, but – due to your business genius – you’ve never been poor, so you don’t understand that part of the argument from experience.

When deciding to reshape humanity, remember the things you have stood for your entire life. In order to set up a truly just cannabis distribution model for the rest of the world to follow, our model should be based upon “libertarianism” (92) and “free markets” (93) not the corporate model of exclusivity and privilege. (94)

Isn’t this a bit ironic? It’s the socialist begging the capitalist to not abandon the demand for free markets! I find it ironic.

The “invisible hand” of the market place will only arise if there are no caps on the number of distributors and no discriminatory licensing fees. For this reason it is essential that we do not abandon demand #2 of your five demands for peace right at the moment it becomes most relevant. You now argue that the demands of “NO regulatory controls on who may cultivate and distribute cannabis: marijuana, hashish, hemp and all their by-products. … No provincial marijuana control boards, or quotas in cultivation, no discriminatory licensing requirements for vending, etc. …” are now “utopian long term goals”. My question to you, Marc, is “how long term”? Is it as long as, say, the “utopian long term goal” of the state “withering away” like the communists promise their followers? Because that promise was made back in 1884 by Engels (95) and it still hasn’t been met. I would seriously like to hear the timeline for how long we all suffer under corporate cannabis monopolies before we move to the “free market” we were all promised. We need an actual timeline so that it’s not just another carrot on a stick.

You didn’t describe the demand for non-discriminatory licensing practices as a “utopian long term goal” when you started your career as our prince, (96) nor did you call it utopian when you got raided and needed the support of the growers to fight on their behalf. (97) These demands were put before us as if they were promises to our community that you would not settle for anything less – they have inspired more than one group to support you and see you as a legitimate leader of our community. (98) You called it your “manifesto” (99) and your “credo”. (100)

The definition of “credo” is “any system of principles or beliefs”. (101) The definition of “manifesto” is “A public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions, especially of a political nature.” (102) The source goes on to say that “in recent decades the status of electoral manifestos has diminished somewhat due to a significant tendency for winning parties to, ignore, indefinitely delay, or even outright reject manifesto policies which were popular with the public upon taking office.”

I refuse to believe that your manifesto – your principles – are just a vehicle for you to gain power and influence. I know that you understand that these principles define you – they are your legacy – they are the only things of you that can possibly live on after you die, and you have been misled into thinking they can be set aside for the time being and then picked up later on, dusted off and utilized as if none of their integrity was compromised by their abandonment at the moment of their relevancy.
I defended you when you recently abandoned the tactic of civil disobedience. It’s just a tactic, and you have plenty of other tactics available to you. But your “manifesto” – your “credo” – is not a tactic, it represents everything good about the freedom and free-market principles you’ve stood for your entire life. It’s a promise to those you lead and speak on behalf of, and I’m going to hold you accountable on this one promise. Given how often I have challenged monopoly in the past – in the pages of your magazine, on PTV, on CC online (in both the forums and online articles) and in other publications (103) – this should not have surprised you.

Let’s look back at one of your early quotes demonstrating your concerns regarding monopoly:

"What matters is that the government should not be permitted to hand over production or distribution of hemp to monopolies once it's legalized. AS LONG AS WE ARE ALL ABLE TO COMPETE, THAT'S THE MAIN CONCERN." - Marc Emery, High Times, April 1996, p.29 (my emphasis)

Why did you point out that it was the main concern? Why is that no longer the main concern? And what happened to the Canadian hemp movement after “discriminatory licensing practices” set in? Was the “low-THC” and “seed monopoly” compromises just stepping-stones so we could get some kind of legal hemp in the ground and then challenge it later on? Or is it more accurate to say that there is now no desire on the part of most established cannabis activists to challenge industrial hemp discriminatory practices?

Hemp lessons

Lucky for us we have an example within the cannabis movement of how fatal compromises can be locked in and then forgotten – and lucky for us that a few of us were around and still remember what happened. You and I were both there for it. It started back in 1996 with the “low-THC” debate in High Times:

"As far as I can see, all these people that are championing low-THC are not championing it for the planet, they're just championing it for an excuse to get some sort of hemp back into world agriculture. Nobody's saying it's a better plant or a stronger fiber, they're just doing it. If I didn't speak my word against low-THC, I'd be agreeing to kill my great-great-grandchildren." - Jack Herer, High Times, May 1996, p. 27.

That doesn’t sound like someone who would just sign his name onto anything with the word “legalization” (or in the case of Prop 19, “lawful”) attached to it. Obviously, Jack didn’t judge Propositions by their names, but rather he thought that the details were so important that compromises could be fatal to future generations. If he wouldn’t sign on to any old hemp legalization bill, what makes anyone think he would sign onto any old marijuana legalization bill? I would love to hear what his family has to say about the above quote in light of their assurance that he would be for Prop 19.

In 1997, David Watson (GW Pharmaceutical’s go to guy for genetics) made sure (in my opinion) that the industrial hemp industry would stagnate under monopoly and over-regulation. There was a hemp expo in Vancouver that year, and Mr. Watson made sure that all the hemp farmers and hemp activists did not discuss the over-regulation of the industry while they were all gathered in one place. I’m not sure you were in the audience that day – but your magazine certainly covered it (104) - the moment that the hemp movement was compromised and destroyed.

Our conversation essentially went like this:

DML: “… do you feel that it is cowardly and maybe even immoral that people in the hemp industry don’t speak up against these unnecessary restrictions?”

David Watson: “Well do you think it is the proper thing to do to put a millstone around the hemp industry by forcing them to legalize marijuana for you?”

DML: “… Instead of growing our own seeds and having our own seed crops and having self-sufficiency we have to kowtow to these, to these obviously irrational and maybe genocidal interests …”

David Watson: “My personal opinions don’t really matter in this issue but I think that there are two separate issues that we are talking about here. One is industrial hemp and one is recreational and medicinal Cannabis, and really, I don’t believe the two issues belong together.”(105)

In other words, we shall not discuss over-regulation at very occasion it needs most to be discussed. This “let’s not discuss this now” sounds a bit like your “These so-called activists should be given no credibility nor debated further” statement, in that it is designed to shut down debate at precisely the moment debate is necessary.
It’s now 2010. Farmers are over-charged for seeds that they could have supplied themselves (106) If we hemp activists had focused on making the initial model rational and fair, we could have challenged those unfair licensing practices at the time they were being put in place. Perhaps, had we done this, the price of hemp would not now be jacked up so high by the seed monopoly that only those making food and cosmetics products can still make money. I expanded on this over-regulation in my article on hemp ethanol – an article that I had the greatest difficulty finding a publisher for. Currently nobody is fighting against the over-regulation of industrial hemp … and nobody but the petty attacktivists at Treating Yourself magazine were willing to publish anything substantial about hemp ethanol.

In the article I expanded on the benefits of hemp ethanol – how it’s six times cheaper at the pump, how there’s no oil wars or climate change or pollution - a ethanol spill evaporates – it doesn’t even need to be cleaned up! (107)

Now as the Gulf of Mexico is just a black sandy lifeless hole and the mess is about to be spread around the rest of the seas, where are all the hemp activists? Why not use the BP tragedy as an opportunity to learn and evolve … to go, literally, “Beyond Petroleum” and right to hemp? Oh right, we didn’t stand up together against irrational over-regulation because we were all so focused on getting “some sort of hemp back into world agriculture”. That’s why we’re still suffering from oil wars, oil spills and climate change – we bought into a fatal compromise.

If California votes in Prop 19 and we find out later that the cartelization and corporatization of cannabis has been locked in, we can’t pretend we didn’t see it coming. We will “settle for” it just like we “settled for” the over-regulation of industrial hemp. We will get exactly what whatever “industrial regs” or "medical" standards or “recreational standards” that we settle for. At the Seattle Hemp Fest, Jack Herer said “Hemp will be the future of mankind or there won’t be a future.” Perhaps he would have also agreed that NOT challenging over-regulation of recreational and medicinal cannabis at this moment it would also destroy our chances of getting rid of the over-regulation of hemp in the future. It seems likely, given how Jack felt about Richard Lee:

“Jack Herer and I went to Richard Lee and asked him for the money to collect signatures for the 2007 initiative, and he shot Jack down like he was crazy for trying to pass such a law. The very next time around he has his own initiative which just happens to make him even richer than he is and keeps the regular guy down i.e. 5x5 space, When we got back in the van Jack said he will never say Richard Lees name again without spitting the taste back out of his mouth, and by God every time I ever heard that mans name come out of Jacks mouth or anyone elses, he would spit a friggin loogie!” - Roland A. Duby aka Ronnie Smith (108)

Decrim lessons

And while we’re on the subject of “fatal compromises” and “nice sounding legislation that actually is worse for the community”, let’s talk about decrim. I think I proved (109) beyond a shadow of a doubt that decrim is – more often than not (and the two exceptions are Boston and California) – worse than regular prohibition, with “net widening” and the appearance but not the reality of tolerance. Back in the 1970’s, Keith Stroup was favoring decrim over legalization because – get this – he was afraid of a corporate monopoly!

"NORML chief Keith Stroup, a decrim supporter, opposed legalization 'for three years or so,' in favor of a current push toward decriminalization until a consumer-based distribution system could be arranged. Stroup argued that corporate giants would devour and destroy the dope market.”
– High Times, March 1977, p. 31

“I’m not so sure I would want to jump into legalization tomorrow. I want to know how it’s going to work. I want to keep large commercial interests from taking it over.”
– Larry Schott, National Director of NORML, HiLife magazine, Vol. 1 #12, 1979 p. 94

Where did NORML’s concerns over “large commercial interests” and “corporate giants” go? Why did they only have these concerns when legalization was NOT up for being voted on, and suddenly disappeared the moment legalization looked possible? And why did Keith Stroup haul Ed Rosenthal off the stage and have a NORML cameraman put Ed in a headlock when Ed tried to get support for Jack’s Alaskan Initiative at the NORML conference back in 2000? (110) It’s almost as if the main people standing in the way of true legalization are the ones calling for either decrim or corporatization – attacking anyone who favors a true free market. “Unrealistic” I can hear them cry. It’s bad enough that I want to begin calling NORML the “National Organization for the Renaming of Marijuana Laws” because no matter what nice-sounding reform they push for, the pot war rages on.

The lesson from history

When you stop and think about it, the history of cannabis has been mostly prohibition and monopoly, with a bit of free market thrown in to remind us how awesome the world could be if we learned to share the wealth and power. (111).

We humans all began with a free market – a “garden of Eden – where in all probability cannabis use and civilization evolved together. Then in Exodus 30:31-33 Moses created the first pot monopoly: prophets, priests and kings only! Then around 621 BCE, King Josiah created the first outright pot prohibition, using the pretext that the female priests – the competition to his male priests – “burn incense to other gods…". In 325 CE the newly formed Catholic church took Israel’s tiny medicinal/sacramental pot prohibition and spread it all over Europe. Ignatius of Antioch – the man responsible for giving the Catholic (universal) church it’s name – was quoted as saying "Thus no devil's weed will be found among you."

Thus began the “dark ages”, an anti-intellectual pot prohibition period that – for the cannabis-using community – lasted until the end of the witch-hunts. Pope Innocent VIII issued a papal fiat in 1484 condemning the use of cannabis in the "satanic mass". In 1615, Italian physician and "Demonologist" Giovanni De Ninault listed hemp as the main ingredient in the ointments used by the "Devil's followers".

It wasn’t until Napoleon’s soldiers came back to France with huge bricks of hash that the benefits of a free market in cannabis was re-discovered. This lasted until the early 1900’s, when big oil and big pharma (often the same people) used their power and influence to outlaw the natural and monopolize the synthetic. When the relegalization movement finally awakened in the 1960’s, they offered us Marinol. When the children of this movement grew up and themselves became active, they offered us Sativex and PPS mine-shwag.

History teaches us that rulers don’t care if we are under a cannabis monopoly or a cannabis prohibition. They don’t care if we’re high, just so long as we’re poor. It is the duty of every pot activist to familiarize themselves with their history and to see it does not advance our interests to replace a prohibition with another monopoly.
I just read Jodie’s latest blog about how they have taken away your commissary for two months for Jodie breaking yet another unwritten rule. (112)

I feel terrible publishing this diatribe against monopoly and your defense of Prop 19 while they torture and starve you in a US prison. I know that you are strong and will survive. You’re Marc Emery! You’re royalty! It will take more than a bad diet and stern words from your loyal (to your principles) fool to kill you. I encourage anyone who can afford to help you with your legal fees. I would do it myself but I’m still paying people back for the cannabis I borrowed that was lost in the raid on the Herb School two years ago. Hopefully, my new projects I’m planning will increase my flow and I can take a turn at supporting you financially for a change.

And when you get out again – if pot isn’t already fully legalized and all your 5 conditions for peace have yet to be met – we’re going to have to work together to meet them. I’m not asking for you to endorse the no vote on Prop 19 – that may be unrealistic considering how enthusiastically endorsed it – but I am begging for you to re-think your call to banish me and Dennis and the other “vote no” people from the movement. Refusing to do so – given the huge pile of credible evidence that Prop 19 will hurt our community - will split the movement in half and make your long-term goals of pot-monopoly elimination difficult if not impossible. Let’s keep red and black together, OK Captain?

As for me “spoiling” the vote, fear not! I think I have a solution that will make both sides of the debate happy! Which brings me to the final section of this article:

Part 4: A solution that should please everyone

"Moreover the riches of the earth are for all ..."
-Ecclesiastes 5:9, the Peshitta (Aramaic Bible), circa 2nd century BCE

"That we may work in righteousness, and lay the Foundation of making the Earth a Common Treasury for All, both Rich and Poor, …” -Gerrard Winstanley; April 20, 1649

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" –Upton Sinclair

“…it does not matter if the war is not real, or when it is, that victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous. The essential act of modern warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labor. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. In principle, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects. And its object is not victory over Eurasia or Eastasia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.” -George Orwell, 1984

“The Church, Michelet remarks, ‘declares, in the fourteenth century, that if a woman dares cure without having studied, she is a witch and must die.’ Of course, ‘studying’ here refers to studying the Scriptures and qualifying, in effect, as a priest. In the same way, in the twentieth century, Medicine declares that if a man, woman, or child dares to dispense drugs without having a medical license – and dispenses a ‘dangerous drug’ without being specially registered with the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs – then he or she must be a ‘pusher’ and must be severely punished …” –Thomas Szasz, Ceremonial Chemistry, 1974, p. 67

"Political and economic monopolization of medicine meant control over it's institutional organizations, it's theory and practice, it's power and prestige. And the stakes are even higher today, when total control of medicine means potential power to determine who will live and will die, who is fertile and who is sterile, who is 'mad' and who is sane." -Witches, Midwives and Nurses, Ehrenreich and English, 1993, p. 4

“…the so-called ‘drug war,’ which has very little to do with controlling drugs and a lot to do with controlling people …” –Noam Chomsky, Keeping the Rabble in Line, 1994, p. 22

“Many developing countries are attempting to use their natural resource endowments -- notably oil, natural gas, and minerals such as gold -- as the basis for economic growth and development. Recent history, however, indicates that countries that depend heavily on resource extraction do more poorly on a variety of economic indicators, including growth rates, education levels, and income inequality. This is due in significant part to the way in which wealth derived from resource extraction is concentrated in the hands of a small elite, which often misuses these revenues through corruption, poorly planned investments, and other means. This contrasts with other kinds of economic activity, such as agriculture, in which benefits are distributed more widely.” - Keith Slack, Sharing the Riches of the Earth: Democratizing Natural Resource-Led Development , Ethics & International Affairs, Volume 18.1, Winter 2004 (113)

“If it goes totally legal, the mom-and-pop growers are going to be a thing of the past,” – Dale Gieringer, co-author of Prop 215 and state coordinator of California NORML, High Times, Nov. 2010, p. 80

“Why does this whole new system have to be created?… Let’s bring these citizen farmers out of the shadows and into the light and give them a role in this new industry.” – Stephen DeAngelo, Owner of Harborside Health Center - the largest medical marijuana dispensary in the world (114)

“While the Oaksterdam Empire hopes to secure one of those lucrative cultivation licenses for it’s own use, Lee nonetheless favors a plan that would allow more and smaller growers to make a living. … the “head honcho” fears that communities already hesitant to regulate marijuana may prefer to deal with a handful of large, established entities rather than trying to sensibly oversee what exists now: an unaffiliated, unregulated hodgepodge of many smaller, difficult to quantify growers. ‘I hate that trend’ Lee says with obvious sincerity. “That’s what we’re seeing in Oakland, and while I don’t mind there being a big facility, it’s the idea of having only two or three big ones that I don’t like.” – Richard Lee, High Times, Nov. 2010, p. 80

This last section is directed at all the lucky holders of dealers licenses, but especially Stephen DeAngelo and Richard Lee – two of the most successful and outspoken dealers in California.

You guys have both come out against monopolies – sort of – in the above two quotes. So taken at face value, you both see Prop 19 as a necessary evil, possibly giving you guys a monopoly as a result of there being nothing in Prop 19 that challenges the unfair caps on the number of dispensaries or the exorbitant licensing fees that keep the ma and pa growers and dealers out of the legitimacy category. I’m going to assume for the sake of unity that you’re just trying to find the type of legalization that won’t threaten the powers that be – a form that looks like it will be easy to manage and control and tax and keep away from 11 year olds – because any other kind of legalization will be difficult to get the votes for.

Fair enough. But by doing this you have thrown the under 21 year olds, the parents, the renters, the “need more than a five by five garden”ers, the “I used to have constitutional rights” med pot people, the “lets not give the cops any more pot war dollars” people and the unlucky unlicensed ma and pa growers and dealers under the bus. There’s so many people under that fucking bus we’ve called in extra busses to make sure everyone gets run over.

I would love to be able to endorse Prop 19, watch it pass and then see the words “Pot Legal In California” in the next day’s paper but the “imperfections” in Prop 19 make the bill look to me and all these other people like it will probably be much worse than if we just waited it out and started collecting money for Jack’s initiative in 2012.

And as we approach the last month before the vote, every vote is going to count. The yes vote cannot afford to abandon these large segments of our community. So – assuming that the Jack Herer “no monopoly possible” initiative is attractive to everyone and it’s just a matter of disagreeing on what is the best road to get there – here is what I suggest we all do.

I will promise to endorse Prop 19 – and so will many of the other “no activists” I’ve talked to – if you both put your names on a legal document agreeing to fund the Jack Herer initiative to the tune of a minimum of one million dollars per election until it passes. The document would have to be approved by a reputable lawyer who could assure the “no” side that you couldn’t jam out on it later. This way you stop looking like monopolists to your customers and the people you sold clones to and taught to grow cannabis in your universities (who may be feeling sort of betrayed by you), and you still get your Prop passed now. I figure with all the people going to your shops to buy pot between Nov. 2010 and Nov. 2012, five hundred grand each will be a drop in your buckets. I don’t really care if you pay for it yourself, or get a collection of license holders to pay for it, or convince George Soros to kick down, if you don’t come up with the cash for true legalization you won’t get the votes of all the people who – after hearing the opinion of Bill Panzer, Letitia Pepper, Jennifer Soares, Rick Horowitz, Tony Serra, Omar Figueroa, Dennis Peron and all the other activists and lawyers who have explained the dangers of this bill – see it as a step backwards rather than an “imperfect” form of legalization.

If you don’t show all the med pot people and the ma and pa growers and the renters and the under 21ers (and their parents) and the taxpayers that you care about their concerns, I’m fairly certain Prop 19 will fail, and your stores will be boycotted by those of us who don’t want to see another Rockefeller buy up democracy and rule as a merchant king. I bet that’s a sizable percentage of Californians … and members of the global cannabis community, for that matter.

And while I have your attention Mr. Lee, there’s one more thing that really, really bothers me about you: Contrary to your assertions, there is no such thing as “non-medicinal” use of cannabis. There is no such thing as a “non-legit” user of cannabis. Everyone uses medicine – even healthy people. There is a mountain of evidence to suggest that cannabis is the best relaxant and anti-depressant on planet earth (115). Recreation is defined as “to restore to health” in the Webster Online dictionary. One of the “R”s in “R&R” is “recreation”. When a sick person hands a joint to a healthy person it doesn’t become “non-medicine” in mid air - it remains medicine the entire time. As the judge in my last court case explained to me “it keeps healthy people healthy”.

Pay careful attention to the following quote by you and see if you notice yourself playing the role of the “oberkapo” (116) in the big concentration camp of California – helping our oppressors at least keep SOME of their scapegoats:

“We’ve been able to work with the OPD (Oakland Police Department) to regulate the dispensaries and protect them, guard them, and so we’ve had a very good working relationship with the OPD. When, back in the mid 90’s, when this issue first came up, the OPD actually had training sessions where advocates would go and try to educate the police about the new laws and about how medical marijuana works and how they can distinguish really legit patients from non-legit ones.” – Richard Lee, right before nodding his head “yes” to the question of whether his “taxation structure” “grew” out of “that law enforcement relationship”. (117)

Your job is to save all the harmless people with an intelligent preference for cannabis over other more toxic stimulants relaxants and euphorics from oppression, not to delineate between the ones that are to be saved and the ones that are not. So spare us the Imler-esque distinctions between “legit” med users and “non-legit” med users in the future. Such distinctions remind me of the distinctions made by the Jewish leadership in WW2, outlined in Hanna Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem:

"Needless to say, the Nazis themselves never took these distinctions seriously, for them a Jew was a Jew, but the categories played a certain role up to the very end, since they helped put to the rest a certain uneasiness among the German population: only Polish Jews were deported, only people who had shirked military service, and so on. For those who did not want to close their eyes it must have been clear from the beginning that it "was a general practice to allow certain exceptions in order to be able to maintain the general rule all the more easily" (in the words of Louis de Jong in an illuminated article on "Jews and Non-Jews in Nazi-Occupied Holland")."
- Eichmann in Jerusalem, A Report on the Banality of Evil, p. 132

We’re all in this together. Please use your power and influence to get everyone safely out of the woods into the equality and dignity (equal to that of the coffee industry and the chocolate industry and the other soft-drugs and herbs industries) that we all very much deserve. Despite you not getting along with Jack Herer, Mr. Lee, please fund the Jack Herer initiative anyway, and fix the “imperfections” – some argue “fatal compromises” – that Prop 19 creates. It will save your reputation – and our community – from destruction.

Just in case you haven’t read it, here’s the Jack Herer initiative for California in 2012 – it’s totally worth the million dollars:

http://youthfederation.com/cchhi2012.html

And here’s the Jack Herer initiative website for Colorado in 2012:

http://www.legalize2012.com/

Wouldn’t it be sweet if we all got together and passed each other’s initiatives and made sure that “the riches of the earth are for all ..." as it says in Ecclesiastes 5:9? You may say I’m a dreamer … but there are enough of us to make or break any initiative.

PS: URGENT: Everyone who patiently read through this entire article, PLEASE call California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and ask him to sign Senate Bill 1449 making an oz or less of marijuana a $100.00 ticket, with no criminal record, no court appearance, no court costs, Phone: 916-445-2841. Fax: 916-445-4633 ... PLEASE CALL TODAY EVEN IF YOU DO NOT LIVE IN CALIFORNIA. YOUR PHONE CALL COUNTS. THEY LOG THE NUMBER OF CALLS.

(1) http://thehive.modbee.com/node/20404
(2) http://www.baycitizen.org/marijuana/story/legal-largely-unregulated-world-pot-pot/
(3) High Times Medical Marijuana News and Reviews #3, Nov. 2010, p. 68
(4) http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2010/08/07/Medical-pot-at-center-of-California-battle/UPI-62461281215616/
(5) http://dwiattorneysloane.blogspot.com/2010/07/small-marijuana-growers-oppose.html
(6) http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_15645236?nclick_check=1
(7) http://www.baycitizen.org/marijuana/story/oakland-city-council-considers-new-rules/
(8) http://www.freetainted.com/weblog/2009/08/10/j.tony-serra...legal-legend-cannabis-consumer-and-patient
(9) http://vodpod.com/watch/4466312-prop-19-debate-at-hempcon-1-of-4
(10) californiacannabisinitiative.com - omarfigueroa@mac.com
(11) http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2010/06/05/Why-You-Should-Vote-YES-California-Control-Tax-Cannabis-Initiative
(12) http://www.sfweekly.com/2010-05-19/news/bad-medicine-why-marijuana-advocates-oppose-an-initiative-legalizing-pot/
(13) http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/29/2990210/rancho-cordova-asking-voters-to.html#ixzz10MrLfDpX
(14) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8KrSaHS_hE&feature=player_embedded#!
(15) 41.00 to 41.57 of http://fora.tv/2009/07/30/Marijuana_Economics#fullprogram
(16) http://www.rhdefense.com/blog/marijuana-law/toke-it-easy-man-more-on-proposition-19/
(17) http://www.rhdefense.com/blog/marijuana-law/toke-it-easy-man-more-on-proposition-19/
(18)
http://cannabiswarrior.com/2010/09/08/stop-the-medical-reefer-madness-an-open-letter-from-j-david-nick/
(19) http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/spark.htm
(20) http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html
(21) Ibid
(22) Reefer Madness, Larry Sloman, St. Martin’s Griffin, 1998, p. 415
(23) http://hemp-ethanol.blogspot.com/2008/01/economics-history-and-politics-of-hemp.html - citations 18 through 27
(24) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller#Monopoly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey_v._United_States
(25) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
(26) "The Prize - The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power," Daniel Yergin, 1992, p. 110
(27) http://www.mega.nu/ampp/exxonmobil.html
(28) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7651/is_200807/ai_n32282877/pg_3/
(29) http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html
(30) Ibid.
(31) J. Tony Serra, personal communication
(32) "The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco". American Journal of Public Health. 2004. http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/94/5/836.pdf.
(33) Marijuana Arrests and California’s Drug War: A Report to the California Legislature by Daniel Macallair, MPA Executive Director, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice Mike Males, PhD Senior Research Fellow, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Oct. 2009
http://www.cjcj.org/files/Marijuana_Arrests_and_Californias_Drug_War.pdf
(34) Jennifer Soares, personal communication
(35) Ibid
(36) http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2010/19_11_2010.aspx
(37) California Health and Safety Code, §11362.77
(38) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Senate_Bill_420
(39) http://vote96.sos.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/215text.htm
(40) http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/sen/sb_0401-0450/sb_420_bill_20031012_chaptered.html
(41) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJhBWaNPV3w
(42) Ibid
(43) http://thehive.modbee.com/node/20404
http://www.rhdefense.com/blog/marijuana-law/toke-it-easy-man-more-on-proposition-19/
http://www.examiner.com/santa-cruz-county-drug-policy-in-san-francisco/california-s-proposition-19-will-supersede-or-amend-its-medical-marijuana-laws
Bill Panzer, the only member Californians for Compassionate Use – the committee that formulated the language of Prop 215 - who is also a lawyer, personal communication
(44) http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/29/2990210/rancho-cordova-asking-voters-to.html#storylink=fblike
(45) Letitia Pepper, interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJhBWaNPV3w
(46) http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/p/response-to-chris-conrads-missive.html
(47) Jennifer Soares, personal communication
(48) http://palmspringsbuzz.com/articles/politics/letitia_pepper_prop_19.html
(49) http://www.examiner.com/santa-cruz-county-drug-policy-in-san-francisco/the-tax-heard-round-the-world
(50) Omar Figuroa, personal communication
(51) Letitia Pepper, interview, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJhBWaNPV3w
(52) Jennifer Soares, personal communication
(53) http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html
(54) http://thehive.modbee.com/node/20404
http://www.rhdefense.com/blog/marijuana-law/toke-it-easy-man-more-on-proposition-19/
http://www.examiner.com/santa-cruz-county-drug-policy-in-san-francisco/california-s-proposition-19-will-supersede-or-amend-its-medical-marijuana-laws
Bill Panzer, the only member Californians for Compassionate Use – the committee that formulated the language of Prop 215 - who is also a lawyer, personal communication
http://www.rhdefense.com/blog/marijuana-law/blowing-smoke-proposition-19-medical-marijuana/
(55) Jennifer Soares, personal communication
(56) http://www.rhdefense.com/blog/marijuana-law/blowing-smoke-proposition-19-medical-marijuana/
(57) http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Time-4-Hemp-32k-092110.mp3
(58) Omar Figueroa, personal communication
(59) Jennifer Soares, personal communication
(60) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/26/los-angeles-medical-marij_n_695586.html
(61) http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100718/D9H1MFFG3.html
(62) http://crusadersforpatientsrights.org/uploads/prop_19_bullet_points.JPG
(63) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126806429
(64) Jennifer Soares, personal communication
(65) Ibid
(66) http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/hempbc-story
(67) http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/990.html
(68) http://www.freedomparty.ca/htm/en/policies.htm#government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Party_of_Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Party_of_Ontario
(69) http://bcmarijuanaparty.com/platform
(70) http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/1423.html
(71) http://www.facebook.com/pages/Marc-Emery/108058412549288?v=stream
(72) http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/951.html
(73) http://www.facebook.com/marc.emery
(74) Vancouver Province, Dec. 11 1995, Potshot #12 pp. 16, 17
(75) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jester
(76) http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2010/06/05/Why-You-Should-Vote-YES-California-Control-Tax-Cannabis-Initiative
(77) http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/p/prop-19-vs-herers-cannabis-hemp-health.html
(78) http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/24099
(79) http://vote96.sos.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/215text.htm
(80) http://yeson19.com/node/6
(81) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands
(82) http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/drugs/softdrugs
(83) http://s192.photobucket.com/albums/z297/GreenAmbassador/Green%20Ambassador%20Weed/?action=view¤t=050907plantsCannaEmbassy.mp4
(84) http://youthfederation.com/cchhi2012.html
(85) Ibid
(86) Marijuana Arrests and California’s Drug War: A Report to the California Legislature by Daniel Macallair, MPA Executive Director, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice Mike Males, PhD Senior Research Fellow, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Oct. 2009
http://www.cjcj.org/files/Marijuana_Arrests_and_Californias_Drug_War.pdf
(87) http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/24099
(88) http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html
(89) http://youthfederation.com/cchhi2012.html
(90) http://palmspringsbuzz.com/articles/politics/letitia_pepper_prop_19.html
(91) http://www.examiner.com/santa-cruz-county-drug-policy-in-san-francisco/the-tax-heard-round-the-world
(92) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
(93) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market
(94) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_monopoly_capitalism
(95) “The state is not abolished, it withers away”
Friedrich Engels, “Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” (1884)
(96) http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/951.html
(97) http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4598.html
(98) http://ro-ro.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gid=2580435152
http://tucmh.org/toke/cancul.html
(99) http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1568.html
(100) http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4598.html
(101) wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
(102) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto
(103) http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/1193.html
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2780.html
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/3263.html
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/19176
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/19879
http://www.potshot.ca/pm/index.php?n=Main.Potshot19
http://hemp-ethanol.blogspot.com/2008/01/economics-history-and-politics-of-hemp.html
http://store.innertraditions.com/Product.jmdx?action=displayDetail&id=3785&searchString=978-1-59477-368-6&textTypeIdDisplay=693&displayHandleGroup=PRODUCT_HANDLE,_ONIX_PRODUCT_&selectedTextTypeKeynames=04
(104) http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/1201.html
(105) The Commercial and Industrial Hemp Symposium, Vancouver Trade and Convention Center, February 18th -19th-1997, Verbatim Transcript, Wiseman Noble, p. 181
(106) http://hemp-ethanol.blogspot.com/2008/01/economics-history-and-politics-of-hemp.html
(107) http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/23650
(108) http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000760069800#!/roland.a.duby
(109) http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/descriminalization-decrim-myths-decrim-facts
(110) http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/3448.html
(111) http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/19176
(112) http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/24917
(113) http://www.cceia.org/resources/journal/18_1/articles/4376.html
(114) http://dwiattorneysloane.blogspot.com/2010/07/small-marijuana-growers-oppose.html
(115) http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/24099
(116) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapo_%28concentration_camp%29
(117) 41.00 to 41.57 of http://fora.tv/2009/07/30/Marijuana_Economics#fullprogram