http://dragonflydelaluz.blogspot.com/
prop. 19 was a tragically flawed initiative that ultimately defeated itself by being so poorly written as to be a pandora's box of unintended consequences. still, we can learn from its mistakes to draft a better initiative for 2012. we are already working to get the California Cannabis Hemp and Health Initiative (also known as the Jack Herer Initiative) on the ballot. support it here: http://www.youthfederation.com/cchhi2012.html
let us not forget that WE ARE ALL FOR LEGALIZATION! our differences in opinion about the best route to achieve legalization must not get in the way of our working in unity to develop a new plan--one that favors people over corporations.
we are grateful that SB 1449 has made possession of 1 oz--the same amount prop. 19 would have allowed--a civil infraction, with the same non-criminal status as speeding. that means no one in california will go to jail for possession of 1 oz or less--including young adults age 18-21 (who made up 49% of marijuana possession arrests in 2008). we are also grateful that we have not ignited the ire of the federal government, which threatened to impinge upon our rights if prop. 19 had passed. now we are free to come together united to achieve FULL LEGALIZATION IN 2012.
thank you to all who saw prop. 19 for what it was and stood up against it, even in the face of ostracism from some members of the cannabis movement. i look forward to working with all cannabis activists and enthusiasts to bring TRUE LEGALIZATION IN 2012!
KEEP POT FOR THE PEOPLE ~ and ~ CORPORATIONS OUT OF CANNABIS
puff, puff, pass,
dragonfly
http://dragonflydelaluz.blogspot.com/
this blog takes an intelligent approach to evaluating the 2010 tax cannabis initiative proposed for california's november ballot. STONER BEWARE: this initiative is NOT what you think it is. if you are passionate about marijuana and legalization, read this blog and see what the initiative really says. then just vote KNOW.
- WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE PROP. 19
- MARIJUANA MARTYR EDDY LEPP OPPOSES PROP. 19
- THE MONSANTO CONNECTION: GEORGE SOROS DONATES $1M TO PROP. 19 CAMPAIGN: WHY GEORGE SOROS WANTS MARIJUANA LEGALIZED
- LEGALIZE IT, DON’T CORPORATIZE IT!
- STUDENTS AND PROP. 19: JAIL TIME AND LOSS OF FINANCIAL AID
- ATTORNEY SAYS Dragonfly Is Correct About Prop. 19’s Impact on Patients
- An Alternative to Prop 19: CCHHI (A Comparison)
- READ THIS BEFORE YOU VOTE: PROP. 19, A PANDORA’S BOX OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
Showing posts with label prop. 19 election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label prop. 19 election. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
IT'S OFFICIAL: PROP. 19 *COULD* SUPERSEDE PROP. 215 (ACCORDING TO WORLD-RENOWNED MARIJUANA ATTORNEY BILL PANZER)
election day has arrived. if you're still undecided about how to vote on prop. 19, and even if you think you've made up your mind, PLEASE READ THIS NEW INFORMATION from marijuana attorney BILL PANZER, who clears up once and for all what could happen to prop. 215 if prop. 19 becomes law:::
(panzer is considered the world's foremost marijuana attorney, and is the only attorney who helped author prop. 215. he's currently a board member for california NORML, and is a former high times freedom fighter of the month):
"The most common fear is that 19 could potentially impinge on medical cannabis rights. Proponents have pointed to the purpose language as evidence that it would not effect 215/420. In reality, the court's do not look at the purpose language, only resorting to it if an ambiguity is found in the body of the statute. As for the body of Prop 19, I am less than thrilled with the drafting. There are inconsistencies and the language is loose enough to support several different interpretations.
"If an appellate court were inclined to find that Prop 19 preserved all 215/420 rights, there is language in 19 to support that. If, on the other hand, an appellate court was inclined to find that 19 allowed local municipalities to impinge on 215/420, there is language that could support that position too. The bottom line is that the body of the statute could have clearly stated that local municipalities are not authorized to pass any ordinance or regulation that infringes on 215/420 in any manner, but it doesn't..."
"The most amazing factor of this whole debate to me is how Prop. 19 is being almost universally portrayed as "legalization" in the media and by many in our movement who, quire frankly, I suspect have never actually read the text of the initiative! What makes little sense to me is that this initiative, which doesn't legalize cannabis, is being sold as legalization. ***It seem to me, it would make more sense to draft an initiative that does legalize cannabis and sell it as regulation.***"
WILL YOU VOTE FOR PROP. 19 EVEN THOUGH IT CLEARLY COULD MAKE MATTERS WORSE FOR THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENTS WHO NEED CANNABIS THE MOST?
!!!VOTE NO ON 19 TUES. NOV. 2!!!
PLEASE also read the following notes, featuring a dozen more reasons why prop. 19 is the wrong choice for legalization! thank you for reading this!
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=456126452205
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/note.php?note_id=447425397205&comments
(panzer is considered the world's foremost marijuana attorney, and is the only attorney who helped author prop. 215. he's currently a board member for california NORML, and is a former high times freedom fighter of the month):
"The most common fear is that 19 could potentially impinge on medical cannabis rights. Proponents have pointed to the purpose language as evidence that it would not effect 215/420. In reality, the court's do not look at the purpose language, only resorting to it if an ambiguity is found in the body of the statute. As for the body of Prop 19, I am less than thrilled with the drafting. There are inconsistencies and the language is loose enough to support several different interpretations.
"If an appellate court were inclined to find that Prop 19 preserved all 215/420 rights, there is language in 19 to support that. If, on the other hand, an appellate court was inclined to find that 19 allowed local municipalities to impinge on 215/420, there is language that could support that position too. The bottom line is that the body of the statute could have clearly stated that local municipalities are not authorized to pass any ordinance or regulation that infringes on 215/420 in any manner, but it doesn't..."
"The most amazing factor of this whole debate to me is how Prop. 19 is being almost universally portrayed as "legalization" in the media and by many in our movement who, quire frankly, I suspect have never actually read the text of the initiative! What makes little sense to me is that this initiative, which doesn't legalize cannabis, is being sold as legalization. ***It seem to me, it would make more sense to draft an initiative that does legalize cannabis and sell it as regulation.***"
WILL YOU VOTE FOR PROP. 19 EVEN THOUGH IT CLEARLY COULD MAKE MATTERS WORSE FOR THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENTS WHO NEED CANNABIS THE MOST?
!!!VOTE NO ON 19 TUES. NOV. 2!!!
PLEASE also read the following notes, featuring a dozen more reasons why prop. 19 is the wrong choice for legalization! thank you for reading this!
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=456126452205
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/note.php?note_id=447425397205&comments
Labels:
bill panzer,
california legalize,
cannabis,
headline news,
marijuana election,
MPP,
no on 19,
NORML,
nov. 2 prop. 19,
poll nov. 2,
prop. 19 election,
prop. 215,
vote prop. 19,
yes on 19
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)