"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)