Any Message from Steve Kubby Needs to Be Taken with a Cupful of Salt

 "Regulation" is just the flip side of "legalization\."  What we want is decriminalization\.  We don't regulate zucchini, we don't legalize grapevines, and it's not a crime to grow zucchini or a crime to grow your own grapes and make wine out of them\.  
 Don't be fooled: Kubby's Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Initiative \(RMLW\) is NOT a true "legalization" measure\.  And it won't let people grow and use medical cannabis like zucchini, or produce recreational marijuana like wine\.
 RMLW is worse than Prop\. 19, and there's a lot more deception involved\.  
 This spring, when Kubby brought Version 1 of RMLW to the Libertarians for endorsement, it did not contain what he, and Judge Gray and Bill McPike, would later call the "Harm Reduction Officers" section\.   
Version 1 is also what they shared with the GlobalMarijuanaRelegalization Yahoo discussion group \(GMR\) for our support\.  After long e\-mail discussions, I, and others in GMR, especially members who'd worked on Prop\. 215 and knew Kubby's past questionable conduct, were opposed to supporting RMLW\.  
  I'd never heard of Steve Kubby until recently\.  I only became interested in setting cannabis free \-\- liberating it, not legalizing it \-\- for general use \-\-as free as zucchini or grapes \-\- after using it to successfully treat my MS \(multiple sclerosis\)\.  And I became VERY opposed to RMLW because, when I applied the rules of statutory interpretation to the text, along with the legal fact;/reality that it is not possible to legalize  the recreational use of any federally\-scheduled drug \(whether it's marijuana at Schedule 1 or Lyrica at Schedule 5\), I discovered that RMLW will actually:
\(1\) redefine medical marijuana as having less than 1 percent THC;
\(2\) allow the production of GMO cannabis with a knock\-out gene to prevent the plants from producing THC; 
\(3\) still not legalize any non\-medical use of marijuana; and
\(4\) apply taxes, regulations and controls to medical marijuana, thus making even medical marijuana more expensive and less available\.
If you find this hard to believe, I did a lengthy analysis explaining how the wording of RMLW would actually do that, and I'll attach it to this e\-mail\.  \(I've been an attorney since 1982, and for most of that time did neutral analyses for appellate court justices\.\)
 Thereafter, the Kubby team sent in Version 2 of RMLW to the Attorney General for preparation of a title and summary so petitions to collect signatures could be prepared and circulated\.   The Kubby team did not share Version 2 with GMR or with the Libertarians, as far as I know, before sending it in as the final version of RMLW\.  I've attached an e\-mail with both versions to this e\-mail\.
 Version 2's "Harm Reduction Officers" section had nothing to do with "harm reduction\."  This section set up what I call a "narc squad" of anyone who wanted to volunteer to snoop on their neighbors\.  They could look for code violations and criminal violations and turn people over to the police \-\- and they were exempted from any liability for doing so\.  The narc squad, in my opinion, was going to be necessary to go around and collect samples of people's backyard cannabis plants, to see if:   
 \(1\) citizens' cannabis plants contained any genetic material from GMO cannabis \(so Monsanto or whoever could then sue for theft of patented material, like Monsanto did to that Canadian farmer over his rapeseed \("canola"\) crop\) \(Since cannabis is wind\-pollinated, after a few years, people's own plants could have been seeded with GMO pollen\), and
 \(2\) if the plants were producing 1 percent or more THC \-\- which would be illegal under RMLW\.
Luckily, some kind and unhappy soul with ties to the Kubby team leaked the letter to the AG with Version 2 attached to it to me\.  
Boy, was I mad\!  So I included the Narc Squad provision in a revised analysis of RMLW and began circulating it with a vengeance\. \(That's the analysis that's attached to this e\-mail\.\)
 What's most disturbing about the Narc Squad provisions is that the Kubby team had carefully tried to hide it from their supporters\. 
  The Kubby team knew that most people don't read these initiatives before voting on them, and just rely on word of mouth and ads, and the word of mouth would have been good from the Libertarian party who'd endorsed it\.  Plus, it was supposedly going to "legalize marijuana," which is all some people care about, so they'd vote for it no matter what\.  If those supporters found out about the Narc Squad provision, it could have been the kiss of death for RMLW \-\- and Kubby et al\. knew that\.
  So, after being caught red\-handed, Kubby et al\. then sent a NEW letter to the Attorney General with Version 3 \-\- which was just the old Version 1, the Narc Squad\-free version of RMLW\.
  Can the RMLW campaign committee get any trickier?  Yes\.  Here's what happened next\.
  David Malmo Levine \(DML for short\) had been designated, at least to the GlobalMarijuanaRelegalization Yahoo discussion group, as Kubby's "Director of Activist Communications\."  DML doesn't appear on the committee's letterhead, thus giving the committee credible deniability for what he says and does\.  
 So, on the Internet, DML had been busily arguing with me, and others, in different posts and discussion groups about Version 3 \(the old Version 1\), as though Version 1 was the deal on the table, when an alert discussion group member noticed that the Secretary of State's website \(the SOS is where the initiatives go once they are ready to circulate\) showed RMLW as being "withdrawn\."
 When I and others e\-mailed Kubby, Bill McPike, and Judge Gray and asked them what was going on, there was SILENCE\.  Repeated requests for info have gone unanswered\.  
 Instead, David Malmo Levine \(remember the credible deniability that his apparent unofficial position gives the Kubby team?\) told some people that Kubby et al\. were just resubmitting RMLW to get a new title\.  
 Huh?\!\!  Sure \-\- if you believe that, you might like to buy a bridge from me, too \-\- RMLW is a great title\.
  So, when I started looking around, sure enough, they HAD submitted a NEW initiative to the Attorney General for a summary \-\- but their cover letter did not ask for a NEW TITLE\.   
  The Kubby folks have significantly re\-written the text, and are apparently hoping that if they keep the old title, people will assume it's the same text\.  No, it's not\.  It's not the same at all \-\- but has Kubby come to the Libertarians to ask you to read his NEW version, and to ask for your support?  I'll bet not\.
   I'm not going to bother to go into all the details about Version 4 of this initiative; why should I?  If, based on all of the above, people can't figure out that they can't trust Kubby et al\., and shouldn't vote for RMLW, more info won't make a difference\.  
  What I will say about the most recent version, Version 4, is:
  \(1\) read it for yourselves \(go the the Attorney General's website and look under the old name for the new text\), and 
  \(2\) when you read it, please note that it provides for a $2,500\.00 fine for minors in possession of marijuana, to which, under the court system, significant assessment penalties will also be added\.  Someone told me that the penalties are 270 percent of the fine; if so, then a kid could be fined more than $9,000 for possession of pot\!  Which probably means that the kid's PARENTS would be forced to pay this\.  
These kinds of fine and penalties would be ruinous to average  families these days, and could destroy family relationships\.  That's bad enough, but here's another interesting question\.  Why would Steve Kubby, alleged friend of pot smokers everywhere, make the fine $2,500 for a kid with pot, when, or so  I've also been told, the fine for minors in 

possession of tobacco is only $75, and in possession of alcohol --
including wine! -- is only $250? Why 10 times as high a fine for a kid with pot as with booze? When pot is safer (doesn't even Judge Gray say that)?
So, what can people who want to liberate cannabis do?
At this point, the only initiative in the tubes that looks acceptable to me is one by Joe Rogoway, Bill Panzer, Omar Figueroa, Tom Davenport and Pebbles Tripplet, "Repeal Cannabis Prohibition 2012." It will decriminalize all things related to marijuana EXCEPT (1) driving under the influence, and (2) giving marijuana to other people's kids.
Under Repeal Cannabis Prohibition 2012, as currently written, it will still be illegal for anyone 19 or under to possess or use cannabis unless they have a medical recommendation. But there will be no taxes, regulations or controls -- just decriminalization -- which is what REAL "legalization" looks like -- freedom from government interventions.
I really WANT to promote Repeal Cannabis Prohibition 2012 NOW. But until it's finally final, and can't be changed like RMLW has been changed and re-changed, I'm just going to keep my eyes on it. It looks like RCP 2012 could be the dark horse in the race to make cannabis as available and "legal" as zucchini. RCP 2012 looks like a potential winner to me, as long as it doesn't get switched before the starting bell rings.

noon8window.pdf (36 Bytes)

noon8window.pdf (36 Bytes)

Hi Letitia,

Excellent analysis. However, I cannot resit commenting that nobody ever got high from eating zucchini, and if you sell the zucchini you grow, you will be slapped with 101 taxes and regulations.

That is not to say I am in favor of any "war on drugs", which is a waste of time and resources for everyone involved. I believe the general population really does not care if folks smoke, drink, inject, or whatever they wish to do for whatever reason -- as long as people high on whatever (legal prescription drugs included) keep out of their way in the highways, out of their way in the streets, and out of the public pocket. I predict that politicians and bureaucrats who immensely profit from wars on drugs will continue profiting until the "cannabis community" (is that like the St. John's Worth community?) switches from appealing to liberty and medical needs to finding ways to remove the general public's fears.

Sorry about your MS, and I am glad marijuana helps.


Hi Marcy,
I always appreciate comments -- thanks! I've learned a lot from other people and their comments; that's what makes these discussion groups so very useful -- but only as useful as the individual participants' willingness to share their thoughts!
Actually, no one I've heard of is getting high from using raw marijuana leaf and leaf juice (too much raw bud can make you high, however). (Heating cannabis over 300 degrees Fahrenheit knocks a molecule off the THC-acid which makes it psychoactive.) That's why making a distinction between the processed bud and the plant itself is so very important to those of us who are sick and can go into complete remission from autoimmune diseases like MS, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis and more (those are just the most well-known).
People are getting complete remissions just by juicing the leaves with a wheatgrass juicer and drinking it. To see an excellent presentation on this, order the $20.00 DVD from (or and watch the section with Dr. William Courtney and Kristen Peskuski.
As a kid, Kristen Peskuski had lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic sinus infections and interstitial cystitis, and she and her family had been told she would not live to be 25, was infertile and could never have kids. When I saw her speak in Laguna Woods this January, she was 30, pregnant, and already had one child. How? Drinking cannabis leaf juice for 30 months got her total remission (you have to keep drinking it to maintain the remission, because these illnesses seem to be cannabinoid deficiencies). She moved to California after doing research that showed why cannabis could help her, met Dr. William Courtney, and a wonderful, synergistic partnership began from which came information that is already benefiting a LOT of people.
As to taxation, sure, if you sell anything you have to pay income tax on your income -- although there's a growing number of people who believe that federal income taxes are illegal.
And the regulations related to zucchini growers, I'll warrant, are unrelated to the zucchini itself, but only to wages and working conditions for employees, and what kinds of chemicals you can't use. Cannabis should be treated like any other useful crop, not like a deadly mamba snake or virulent virus that must be contained!
And no one is telling me I can't grow zucchini in the backyard and give it away to friends and neighbors, or that I can't trade some zucchini for some tomatoes that another neighbor grew.
Right now, I can grow cannabis legally and give it away -- and I am. I'm making Rick Simpson oil and giving it away to my neighbor whose melanoma came back; she said she'd commit suicide before she went through chemo again, so she said, what the heck, let's try this instead. (If you don't know about Rick Simpson Oil (Rick called it "hemp oil"), type "run from the cure documentary" into a search engine and you'll find it.)
Furthermore, cannabis -- whole, herbal cannabis, with everything in it, not parsed into a prescription med, like Kubby wants to do -- is a preventative and cure for cancer.
To understand why it's the WHOLE plant that has this effect, and why the THC is a critical component of cannabis as a cancer cure, type "autophagy THC glioblastoma Spain study" into a search engine and find the 2010 study showing that THC, in entourage with all the other components of cannabis -- cannabinoids, flavenoids and terpenes and whatever else we haven't isolated -- is what makes cancer cells essentially commit suicide, or "autophagy" (Greek for "eats itself").

I agree that the "war on drugs" -- or as I like to say, "the War on PEOPLE Who Use Drugs that YOU [meaning the average voter) Don't Want to Use," is a waste
of time and resources for everyone involved -- except for the ones who profit from it in some way, as you so astutely noted!
The thing is that enough of the general
population does care about something when they are afraid that CHILDREN will start using. My experience with children is that the best way to create their disinterest is to insist that they use something instead of forbidding that they use it! )
I think a multi-lve approach will work best. I think we need to do all these things: appeal to liberty interests, to medical needs, to PERSONAL financial concerns (see below), and to intelligence by providing info.

Thanks for your kind words about my MS. I had horrible side effects from the prescription drugs, and thy are wickedly expensive. The cost of just one of my drugs was, for my co-pay with good insurance, $256 a month; I was paying a total of about $300 a month for the total drugs, some of which I had to take for the side effects of the $256 a month drug. So, because I can grow this stuff like weeds in my own yard, use the leaves for juice for me, and then have the flowers at the end (which I can use for glycerite in place of leaf juice in the winter, or, rarely, if I have neurologic pain (my nerve pain comes and goes --I'm lucky -- and isn't there all the time. This means I also have enough flowers to be able to give some to people who need them and can't otherwise afford them, plus I can also make Rick Simpson oil for people with cancer.
Hemp for victory should have a new meaning -- everyone in the U.S. should be growing non-GMO cannabis for victory over Big Pharma and over cancer and other diseases -- peopel shouldn't have to file for bankruptcy because of the cost of legal drugs!


Hi Letitia,

I enjoyed reading your informative post, and appreciate your taking the time to communicate the facts. I also appreciate your keeping an open mind towards people like me who do not use marijuana or other drugs (...well, does wine count?). My not having a health challenge at this time, is one good reason for my choice.

Although I understand your description of the subtle differences in forms of marijuana, I remain convinced that the public at large (voters!) is focused on the negative aspects of "illegal drugs," any illegal drug, in whatever form. To the average voter, the pusher at their kid's school needs to be kept in jail, the turf wars spewing bullets all over the place are not to be tolerated, and the addict robbing them at gunpoint needs to stay away from their neighborhood. Faced with such scenarios, the average Joe is in no mood to listen to distinctions.

Until those fears are taken seriously by drug users, I see little hope for the legalization/decriminalization of drugs, even marijuana -- no matter how much effort cannabis users put into educating the public on the good side of marijuana, or show that scarcity brought about by criminalization results in violence. The public, especially now, under siege by the changing economy, just wants the feds to keep the bad side of drugs away, even at the cost of harming those who may benefit from the good side. And, of course, the feds are happy to oblige -- there is big bucks in them thar fightin' drugs!


Hi Marcy,
It's easy for me to keep an open mind on this issue -- I myself prefer wine as a mild relaxant and intoxicant to marijuana, p[robably more because of experience and ebcause my vaporizer disappeared with my ex -- I prefer vapor to smoke; I'm in the process of replacing the vaporizer!
The more I know, the more I am reinforced in the belief that there are many variations in people and their genetic and physiological make-up. That's one reason some people start using marijuana as kids and keep using it; they may have ADHD or some other biological reason to use cannabis that makes them prefer it to other drugs. I, for example, can drink a lot of wine and feel alert and better, but half a glass of beer will make me noticeably tipsy. Obviously, alcohol alone is not the issue. When I've smoke cannabis for nerve pain, my short-term memory noticeably improved, contrary to marijuana lore. Obviously, the same drug affects people differently. Some people don't like cannabis because it makes them paranoid, while others feel just the opposite.
That's why I referred to the war on drugs as the "War on PEOPLE Who Use Drugs that YOU Don't Want to Use." It is the lack of full and correct information that's causing some of the problems we have; people need to be able to listen to each other and fully and honestly tell why they like to (and/or need to) use the drugs they choose to use. I think that ties in with your comments about the average Joe's fears. I'd like teh average Joe to know that if his kid is smoking marijuana, it might be because his kid has ADHD or mild and undiagnosed autism. marijuana really is a medicinal herb, and some kids really are using it to treat themselves without realizing it.

   If all drugs were legal and equally and affordably accessible, it would be interesting to see how people's choices would be made\.


  I prefer vaporizing to smoking too, although I think it's a bit of a luxury because it seems to use more herb that way. But it's a cleaner high, because the vapor has finer particles than smoke. Of course smoking through a water bong is also much cleaner than smoking through a pipe, which is cleaner than smoking through a joint (where you're inhaling the burned paper as well as the cannabis). At least that's my intuitive sense of it. Right on to you for helping your neighbor.

  It sure would be interesting to see what drugs people chose in a free society where everything was legally available. All drugs never will be equally affordable, however, any more than all food will ever be equally affordable.

  Banning genetically modified organisms is not really kosher libertarianism, but given the big picture it's tough for me to get very upset about such a ban either. We -- or at least I -- know too little about how introduced plants like that may effect unmodified plants in the wild or in cultivated areas to be entirely comfortable with such things.


  Certainly wine is a drug! Prozac and Ritalin are drugs. Aspirin is a drug (a pain-reliever with medical uses, like cannabis). Your question illustrates the pervasiveness of prohibitionist thinking.

  How would you suggest "taking the voters fears seriously"? I mean, I think *all* fears should be "taken seriously", whether they are immediate, gut safety fears (e.g. "that guy down the block acting crazy and headed this way is going to attack and rob me" or "that cop is going to arrest me and haul me off to jail for carrying a gun while smoking pot because I'm on probation"), or chronic fears (e.g. "the government's War on People who Use Drugs is making my neighborhood a violent place and putting me and my family at risk"), or fears we might consider more irrational (e.g. a fear of open spaces).

  In talking with the person who's afraid of open spaces, we wouldn't want to communicate with him or her in a way that suggests there is any actual valid reason people should be afraid of open spaces, and the same goes for a person who's afraid of freedom.

Love & Liberty,
                                     ((( starchild )))

Hi Starchild,

Ish! My question about wine was rhetorical, as was evident from the rest of my post!

More ish! You start addressing all fears by acknowledging they exist, and then tackling them honestly! As long as you keep talking about people "fearing liberty", you will continue to see fed raids. Were I interested in this subject, which I am not, I would focus on the profit motive shared by ALL those who are keeping drugs illegal, addiction high, and drug-related violence rampant.

Regarding your wondering what would be people's drug of choice in a "free society," I would like to submit that drug prohibition is a relatively new development. People were free to take whatever they liked prior to WWII and soon after, and the substances were much more varied. Given my advanced age, I can share my recollections with you regarding those who chose to take drugs: The genteel middle class preferred elixirs, paregoric, and tonics -- claimed to be "medicinal." Affluent eccentrics preferred heroin. Pot was pretty much limited to field hands where hemp was grown for making rope and other products. Interestingly, in the absence of the huge benefits accruing to government bureaucrats, dealers, cartels, nobody in those days gave any mind-altering substance a second thought.


Hi Marcy,
I love your e-mails. Pardon if this is dumb, but is Starchild you? I thought at first that "Starchild" was posting "Marcy's" e-mails for her but the writing style seems the same -- at which point I went - "duh!"
Actually, vaporizing is not more expensive. I've learned from someone who needs to use a lot of cannabsi, and who doesn't have much money (he ended up totally disabled from being in Afghanistan and Iraq) that vaporizing is actually more cost effective. It doesn't waste anything by burning it up. After you've vaporized the plant matter, you can take it out and use it in edibles just fine.
Actually, if we kept drugs in the most basic form -- not processed but just in plant form -- they'd be cheaper and safer. Like chewing coca leaves versus snorting coke, or making your own opium resin by scoring cuts in seed pods and then smoking just that plain resin. Or using spoonfuls of ground coffee instead of meth!
Re banning GMO crops: like the Wiccans say, Do as ye will but harm none. If you can grow a GMO crop without harming anyone else, go for it. But the problem with cannabis, at least, is that it's wind-pollinated, and Monsanto has already tipped its hand as to its intent and goal -- which is to obtain control over other people's crops and rights to use seeds, not the betterment of cannabis. Also, the overall effect of vast fields of monoculture is hazardous for us as a society -- crops are more susceptible to some single variant virus or pest with disastrous consequences. And it's turning out that the increasing use of Monsanto's Roundup is actually causing problems for everyone, according to info I got from Dr. Mercola's newsletter, because it is in such heavy use that its active ingredient is building up in the water and air, and is bad for animal health.

Well, Letitia, I think Starchild is going to hit you over the head with a paper clip for confusing me with him, if indeed you did. No, I am really Marcy, the one who has been ranting on this list AGAINST Libertarians' peculiar obsession with drugs for the last nine years! Starchild is really Starchild (his legal name), and he is the one I rant against the most! Starchild is the one talking about the vaporizers, bongs, pipes and other stuff I could not care less about!

I am also the one who has been, for the last nine years, trying to shift the focus of our concerns and discussions away from drugs, and toward political subject that are of interest to a majority of San Franciscans. I believe I have met with some success, but it is a constant effort!

Marcy (a real person)


  I'm not sure what you mean by "rhetorical" in this context. If someone asked me "Does Marcy realize wine is a drug?" I would have said I'm sure she does -- so I didn't mean to imply that you didn't know that. But this leaves open the question of what rhetorical purpose was served by asking whether drinking wine "counts".

  My guess is that even though intellectually you know alcohol is a drug, on some level you may still hold a view of yourself as "someone who doesn't use recreational drugs", and thus your perhaps tongue-in-cheek question.

  It seems to be a common perspective, both among people who intellectually know otherwise, and those who don't, to fail to recognize themselves as "drug users", when IN FACT THEY ARE. Prohibitionist propaganda has taught people to believe "illegal drugs are bad", and that "legal" recreational substances are totally different, aren't even drugs at all, and shouldn't be thought about in the same category.

  I believe this false distinction helps fuel irrational fears about "drug users" and use of "illegal drugs".

  Regarding people who fear freedom, how do we "acknowledge this fear exists", and "tackle it honestly", when you say that "as long as you keep talking about people 'fearing liberty', you will continue to see Fed raids"?

  It is worth remembering as you note that prior to the mid-20th century, people did have a lot of freedom of what drugs to choose in the United States. Yet if you look at the beliefs that were common back then -- cocaine for children's toothaches! marijuana causes blacks to rape white women! -- I can't help thinking that with increased public knowledge and awareness of drugs, peoples' choices could be significantly different today. Not to mention many new drugs have been invented and discovered or rediscovered.

Love & Liberty,
                                     ((( starchild )))

LOL! I think drugs, including wine, coffee drinks, and prescription drugs, ARE a subject of interest to the majority of San Franciscans. One of our core longtime members is a drug dealer. But I can affirm Marcy's statement that she definitely is not me, nor vice-versa! :slight_smile:

  Letitia, do you think edibles made from cannabis that's been vaporized will provide as strong a high as edibles made from non-vaporized cannabis? I tend to agree with your comments about GMO crops, Monsanto, monoculture farming, etc.

Love & Liberty,
                                      ((( starchild )))

Well, Marcy, Starchild should be pleased I confused you with him, because you make a lot of sense to me. But Starchild made sense to me, too!
This is one of those common ground issues -- we would have a LOT more time to deal with other political issues (I was working hard against eminent domain before my prescription drugs made me CRAZY and put me out of commission for years!) if we could get rid of the war on drugs, which is just a distraction from the more fundamental problems of how laws get made and who is controlling who and what.
that's why i want decriminalization, not taxation, regulation and control. For less government involvement, get rid of laws. We should have some initiative that requires politicians to get rid of a certain number of laws a year and limit the new ones that can be adopted. Make people conserve laws for use to deal with the very most important issues.

Hi Starchild,

Is this double speak which I see before me (to paraphrase Macbeth). I will take you out to dinner if the "cannabis community" succeeds in decriminalizing what are now illegal drugs at the federal level!


  The question about whether edibles made with previously vaporized cannabis reminds me of what happened when I talked to an arborist about the kind of tree I could plant\. I told him I didn't want one that would get too tall\.  
He looked at me like I was a looney and said, "You can plant any kind of tree you want \-\- you just keep them pruned\!"  Boy, I really had never considered that\!   So, it's not how high the vaporized cannabis will still get you; the switch from vaporized to ingested via the gut changes the dynamics enough it's hard to compare, I think\.  The main thing is, you are not throwing away perfectly good cannabinoids that will help keep you healthy regardless of the level of high they provide\.  That will probably depend more on how much of a particular edible you eat than anything else\.  
  My experience is that it is still very, very potent after being vaporized\!   A friend of mine who must use a LOT of heated marijuana for pain \(he's been a quad for 33 years\) says he can tell that he doesn't get all the useful contents out of cannabis unless he has his vaporizer up so high it's almost burning it, and other people say that they don't get as good an effect from a vaporizer as from actually burning the marijuana in a pipe\.  That indicates that there is lots of useful stuff left in merely vaporized marijuana\.
 So, you just take the vaporized cannabis, either grind it up into flour or cook it in butter or oil and strain it out, and then use it judiciously\.  It will definitely provide enough cannabinoids to make saving it and using it in edibles worthwhile\. You could also soak it in alcohol \(91 percent isopropyl to use topically, or 151 proof rum to use in food\.  It should soak in the alcohol about 24 hours minimum\.
  I recently gave two older ladies with rheumatoid arthritis marijuana leaves soaked in alcohol so they could use the alcohol for their stiff knees and hands\.  It worked within 20 minutes and they were both delighted with the results\.  The next day, the one lady told me that for weeks she'd been unable to sleep through the night because of leg cramps\. Quinine pills, calcium supplements and some other medication had not helped a bit\.  She rubbed to cannabis rubbing alcohol on her legs and had no cramps all night\.
 Which brings me to another point: the Government and Big Pharma WANT taxation, regulation and controls over cannabis, which they will use to keep it out of the masses' hands\.  This stuff can treat so many illnesses just in its natural form, without needing the intercession of pharmaceutical companies, that it must be making Bayer and Merck and Biogen Idec \(the folks that made the most recent MS drug that I took had bad side effects\) really worried\.  
     A truly free market would let people choose between growing this plant and using it as a plant or buying prescription drugs \-\- it wouldn't force people into the prescription drug model by making a PLANT subject to taxation, licenses and controls\!  \(Did you know, the California constitution protects growing crops from being taxed?  Prop\. 19 was going to amend the California Constitution so cities and counties could tax marijuana growing in people's own backyards\!\)
 Hi guys, I think I'd enjoy meeting you both\!  If I come to S\.F\., maybe we can all go out to dinner \-\- or if you come to the DPFCA conference in L\.A\., have dinner here\.
 About this bet \-\- what does "decriminalization" mean?  Does it mean decriminalization under both state and federal law or just under state law?
 Prop\. 215 decriminalized cannabis under state law for patients, and that alone has made a HUGE difference\.  Look at me\.  If cannabis had been illegal, I'd never have tried it, and if I hadn't tried it \-\- after hearing everyone else who'd tried it \-\- I wouldn't have been feverishly working for the past several years to both defend Prop\. 215 from attack \(Prop\. 19 was a disguised attack on Prop\. 215\) and to try to get an equivalent law passed for "non\-patients\."  Equivalent means decriminalization, not taxation, regulation and control\.
  This distinction between patients and non\-patients is sort of silly\.  Everyone is in the process of aging and dying\. Cannabis is not only good for people who are sick, but for people who are well but want to avoid getting sick; it's as much a supplement as a medicine\.
   If we can decriminalize cannabis across the board under "merely" state law in California, I believe that will be the beginning of the end of cannabis prohibition in the U\. S\.  This is exponential stuff\.  I think people who've been closet recreational users for years may not be fully aware of how many people, who were never recreational users, are using medical marijuana and now have very positive feelings about marijuana being "legal\."  These folks' friends and family members are also being converted by seeing how well this works for sick people\.  
   I'm now always trying to talk to people and give them info about how using marijuana "recreationally" is actually a preventative for cancer, and about how bodies can stop making cannabinoids, so cannabis can act as a supplement to keep people healthy BEFORE they get really sick\.
  I believe that decriminalizing cannabis requires a multi\-pronged\-approach: we need to educate a lot of people about some basic stuff\.  I've printed out a bunch of fliers in pink for Breast Cancer Awareness month and have been handing them out; I'll send you one after I revise it again a bit\.  People are SHOCKED to learn that the federal government took out a patent on cannabinoids in 2004 as anti\-oxidants and neuro\-protectants, and that the research shows that whole herbal cannabis is the cure for and preventative for cancer\.
  There's nothing as cheerful\-making as helping people realize that Big Government and Big Pharma, working hand in glove, have been lying to us about the cure for cancer\.  I point out that people could be growing this in their yards and using it regularly for really cheap, if the government wasn't trying to keep the lid on both information and control over a PLANT\. If that doesn't help legalize cannabis, I don't know what will\.  I wish more people would seek doctor's recommendations to use cannabis as a supplement, just to make this point\.

Looking forward to our dinner, Letitia. But, as I said, it is on me only if you guys succeed in decriminalizing drugs at the federal level. State level does not count, as evidenced by the fed raids. Good luck in the Midwest!



  Double speak? How so?

  Technically speaking, marijuana and other drugs are *already* legal at the federal level, since the federal government has no constitutional authority to outlaw them. So really what we have to do is get federal authorities to stop their criminal behavior.

Love & Liberty,
                                  ((( starchild )))

 But you didn't SAY only at the federal level in that challenge message I saw between you and Starchild \(Maybe that was in an earlier part of the thread\)\.
That's what I meant about  needing to define terms\.
I've done a lot of thinking about these issues for the past four years, and about related issues\.  I've worked for federal and state courts, and know a bit about both jurisdictions' laws and more about marijuana\-related laws\.  My personal goal is liberation, not "legalization," of cannabis\.  My view is that decentralization is needed now, not more "one world now\!"  We need more "power to the people," not more corproate takevoers and mergers\.
  In my opinion, the masses' efforts should be focused on increasing the number of states in which medical marijuana is legal\.  Why?  Because seeing is believing, the proof is in cures and remissions\.  The federal government has spent so much money \-\- as have churches and schools and the anti\-drug programs \-\- on brainwashing people about how bad marijuana is that the best way to fight back is through medical marijuana\.
 When people see how well this works as medicine \-\- and how cheap it can be \(and should be\) if people can legally grow it, then you get buy\-in\.  You get buy\-in and sometimes you get the born\-again proselytizers, like me, who are spending their own time and money to try to save people from Big Pharma hand\-in\-glove with the federal government and its twin minions, the DEA and FDA\.
 Then as more people see how well it works and how safely as medicine, they start to get a calmer, more positive feeling toward marijuana in general\.  Then they can be calm enough to do their own research and realize that this stuff is actually a dietary supplement that will help keep them healthy, not just for use once they are sick\.  
 And when a critical mass of people realize that we should all be able to grow this stuff like fruit trees in our own yards, the silliness of scheduling will just commit autophagy like cancer cells exposed to whole herbal cannabis\.
 Building a critical mass of people who have warm fuzzy feelings about cannabis as a useful medicinal herb is more important than trying to force rescheduling now\.  And EVERYONE can build this mass \-\- wear those solidarity ribbons put every day\.  Take educational fliers with you and hand them out to people waiting in long, boring lines \(I'll atatch oen about cancer to one of these e\-mails before long\)\.
 I try to do this EVERY day and it is making a difference\.  If one person \-\- Johnny Appleseed \-\- could spread useful apple trees \(also a plant with medicinal values\) across the United States in his lifetime, we can change this in another 15 years or so\.  
 Things are getting better exponentially\.  One person tells two, each of those people tell two, etc\.  The process is speeding up, which is why people like Richard Lee and Steve Kubby and their backers know they need to try to co\-opt people's good Prop\. 215 rights NOW \-\- before too many people realize that cannabis is something that everyone should have a right to grow like grapevines\.

I agree that the federal government has no constitutional authority to do this. This is where the "might makes right" dilemma faced by King Arthur comes in -- of course, it was a dilemma for him because he wanted to do right because it was right. The folks running the federal government have no such qualms. So that's why we need to keep passing state medical marijuana laws first. As people see how well this stuff works medically, and how harmless it really is, support grows exponentially.
And this is really where the battle lies: can we get enough people educated and on our side -- and their own side -- before Big Pharma nad Big Government can trick people into giving up their rights to grow this stuff like grapevines? Can we have a peaceful revolution -- peaceful only because we outnumber them and are firm in our convictions?
WWGD? (Ghandi). Instead of a peaceful revolution over salt, it will be one over cannabis.