Letitia,
Maybe I'm being naive, but it seems unfair to disparage Dave's personal motives for backing another initiative without more evidence beyond just the fact that he's a major dispensary owner, and I think you may be attaching a bit too much importance to being an attorney (some non-attorneys are good at reading this stuff, and some attorneys not so good) -- but aside from those two points, very strong analysis here!
Although I'm not an attorney, I find what you've written convincing in terms of addressing the concerns Dave raised about CCHI. Unless he or others find something really significant wrong with the measure that hasn't been mentioned yet, or can spot any major holes in what you've written that I missed, I think an honest and careful reading of the exchange below (I fixed a couple minor typos and made the formatting a little clearer) should help folks in our community understand that CCHI 2014 is the measure we should get behind.
Dave,
I hope you and others who've invested energy in MCLR or any other measure that may be out there or planned will set aside any resentments you may have toward Letitia or others as a result of these online arguments, and show yourselves bigger than the petty stuff by coming together to support CCHI. If there are too many hard feelings you can't bring yourself to get wholeheartedly behind it, please at least don't oppose it.
From where I sit as an activist without any vested interest in either camp (I was very open to the MCLR measure and contributed on its draft language before I'd ever seen CCHI, as you may recall), this looks like a good, clean legalization measure that won't come back to bite us. It's simple, straightforward, and uncomplicated enough that I think voters will support it if we can get it on the ballot. Too long and confusing a text often raises too many questions, among likely supporters as well as among the general public.
Hope you and everyone are having a good new year, and that 2014 will be the year we finally re-legalize marijuana in California!
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Dave Hodges is not an attorney, and it shows every time he tries to sound like he knows better than other people what something means.
I have a LOT of better things to do than to try to respond to a non-attorney's interpretation of an initiative, especially when
the non-attorney is trying to circulate a COMPETING initiative, so that he has an incentive for interpreting things in a bad light.
Does anyone really believe that Dave Hodges actually attempted to work with Mike and Buddy to improve a "liberation" type initiative, when he was busy trying to come up with a tax, control and regulate initiative designed to benefit him personally as an existing dispensary owner? His idea of improvement was undoubtedly nothing that fit in with Jack Herer's world view!
So, let's look at Dave's "biggest issues" against CCHI2014. (Remember, one of MY biggest issues with MCLR, Dave's baby, is that it STILL requires patients to give up their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in order to obtain cannabis without paying sales taxes on it.
So here are Dave's bogus problems with CCHI2014. Dave says,
#1) If you grow over 12 pounds from the 99 plants, you will be subject to commercial production regulations and taxes.
He quotes CCHI2014 section (I) (f): "For the purpose of distinguishing personal from commercial production, 99 flowering female plants and 12 pounds of dried, cured cannabis hemp flowers, but not leaf, produced per adult, 21 years of age and older, per year shall be presumed as being for personal use. (Emphasis added by me.)
He also quotes section (I) (b)(1)(B)(7): "The term "commercial production" means the production of cannabis hemp products for sale or profit under the conditions of these provisions."
Well, the language about "presumed" was something I asked Mike and Buddy to add, and I did it for a good reason.
Dave concludes, based on these sections, that "If someone produces more then 12 lbs off 99 plants, it is commercial production... and subject to Tax and Regulations."
As I've already noted, Dave is not an attorney. He also want to make CCHI2104 look bad compared to MCLR, so he's leaving out a very relevant bit of language.
CCHI2014 ALSO says. at I(1)(b)(6), that "The term "personal use" means the consumption of cannabis hemp by people 21 years of age or older for any relaxant, meditative, religious, spiritual, recreational, or other purpose other than sale."
So, when you read the initiative's language as a whole and in context, what this means is this. First, personal use, which is decriminalized, means use of cannabis for any reason except for sales. If you grow it for your personal use and not for sales, it's for personal use.
CCHI2014 also lets the Legislature legalize commercial sales. So when people are growing cannabis for their personal use, they are going to be at risk of the police claiming that they are growing and preserving cannabis for illegal sales without complying with what ever laws the State adopts.
This is what's happened with medical cannabis -- patients get busted and then are forced to defend themselves by proving that they are really patients. And that's why I wanted that legal presumption, and here's how it works.
If the police bust someone growing and storing cannabis, anyone who's got 99 or less plants and 12 pounds of flowers or less has a very easy escape hatch: the legal presumption that those amounts are for personal use.
This presumption shifts the burden to the police and DA to find ACTUAL evidence of sales in order to prosecute and convict.
If someone has more than that amount of cannabis or flowers, the presumption doesn't apply. And that means that the citizen, if investigated or charged, simply must produce evidence that whatever amount they had over 99 plants or 12 pounds of flowers was for personal use and NOT for sales.
Contrary to Dave's assertion, having more than 99 plants or more than 12 pounds of flowers does NOT mean that one is now automatically engaged in taxable commercial production. Commercial, taxable activity REQUIRES a sale or sales to become commercial activity.
So, if I or anyone else want to grow a bunch of plants to make Rick Simpson oil to give to cancer patients for free, we can. It's not commercial activity to produce a lot of plants to make free medicine for people -- and isn't that wonderful?
So here's Dave's next big issue:
#2) The Regulations Commission will be created by the legislature and undefined "reasonable" standards.
Section III. Within 6 months of the passage of this Act, the legislature is required upon thorough investigation, to enact legislation using "reasonable" standards, which are compatible with the provisions of this Act to:
1. License concessionary establishments to distribute cannabis
2. Place an excise tax on commercial sale...
3. Determine ... standard of impairment...
4. Regulate the personal use of cannabis...
Well, what Dave ignores for this bogus "problem" is all the rest of the language in CCHI2014. Because that is where what is reasonable is defined to lie within certain parameters.
For example, CCHI2014 puts a cap on the taxes that can be charged: no more than 10 percent for an excise tax, and no more for a retail tax than on beer and wine. And the State can't set a license for cannabis businesses that's more than $1,000 a year.
Notice that at this point in his complaints, Dave has stopped quoting the actual language of CCHI2014, or even giving his readers the section and subdivision numbers so you can read for yourself what he claims is the problem. There's a reason for that -- because when you read CCHI2014 for yourselves, you can see very well that it doesn't allow the State to do anything in general that will defeat the intent of CCHI to give all citizens more and better cannabis-related rights.
So, let's look at Dave's claim that "Section III, item 3, could allow for a nanogram limit of THC that may end up being unacceptable to many cannabis users."
Here's Section III, (3):
"III. Within 6 months of the passage of this Act, the legislature is required upon thorough investigation, to enact legislation using reasonable standards, which are compatible with the provisions of this Act to: . . . 3. Determine an acceptable and uniform standard of impairment based on scientifically acceptable performance testing, to restrict persons impaired by cannabis hemp euphoric products from operating a motor vehicle or heavy machinery, or otherwise engaging in conduct that may affect public safety."
But Section III(3) this isn't the only section of CCHI2014 related to the issue of testing and impairment. And the language of an initiative must be read completely and in context -- which Dave would know if he was an attorney with the kind of training I've had.
So anyone interpreting what CCHI allows re impairment would also look at this section, too:
(I)(e)(2) No person shall be required to submit to testing for inactive and/or inert residual cannabis metabolites as a condition of any right or privilege including, employment or insurance, nor may the presence of such metabolites be considered in determining employment, other impairment, or intoxication. Testing for active (not metabolized) cannabis may be used and considered in determining employment, impairment, or intoxication."
What these sections mean is (1) that drivers cannot be tested for inactive metabolites of cannabis, and (2) the State must use a standard of actual impairment that is based on scientifically acceptable performance testing. So drivers are going to be judged not on a politically-selected level of THC (that the police could try to lobby to make very low), but on actual impairment based on performance, not on a drug test. Amazingly fair and reasonable, isn't it?
Here's Dave's final "problem" with CCHI2014:
#3) It does not adequately protect Parents that grow Cannabis. This has been a big issue for Medical Cannabis Patients in California.
Now, watch very closely what Dave does with this big issue: he never, ever says what's wrong with CCHI2014! Instead, he launches into how MCLR "addresses" the issue of protecting parents.
What CCHI2104 does to protect parents is to state that:
(I)(a) No person, business, or corporate entity shall be arrested or prosecuted, be denied any right or privilege, nor be subject to any criminal or civil penalties for the possession, cultivation, transportation, distribution, use, or consumption of cannabis hemp marijuana, as provided in this Act, including: (1) Cannabis hemp industrial products. (2) Cannabis hemp medicinal preparations. (3) Cannabis hemp nutritional products. (4) Cannabis hemp euphoric products.
The right to parent your child is a constitutional right. CCHI2014 forbids denying anyone any right because of their use of marijuana. Period.
CCHI2104 (I)(e)(2) also provides that "No person shall be required to submit to testing for inactive and/or inert residual cannabis metabolites as a condition of any right or privilege including, employment or insurance, nor may the presence of such metabolites be considered in determining employment, other impairment, or intoxication. Testing for active (not metabolized) cannabis may be used and considered in determining employment, impairment, or intoxication."
This means that no one can be compelled to submit to a test for inactive metabolites as a condition of any right, which includes the right of noncustodial parents to visit, or the right to get custody.
Does MCLR really help parents? No, not really! Here's what Dave says MCLR does:
This is how we address this issue in MCLR:
"§ 27310. Minors.
Unless the health or wellbeing of a minor is in danger as a result of the cultivation of marijuana in compliance with this division, the mere presence of one or more minors in a household shall not render such cultivation unlawful per se, nor shall such cultivation be used to diminish paternal rights or justify the removal of a child from the home."
This is a very poorly worded section. Does anyone know what "per se"? means? It means "as a matter of law, with no other fact." So what this means is that kids and cultivation combined are not, as a matter of law, automatically illegal.
But this language also means that the police and DA and/or Child Protective Services are free to argue that other facts make the presence of kids and cannabis cultivation together unlawful.
So, for example, if you have a child with asthma, CPS could argue that other facts exist that make it dangerous for your child to be in a house where he or she is are being exposed to the humidity level, or chemicals you're using, or mold or motes or whatever.
This section about minors actually basically INVITES CPS to look for a cannabis-related reason to take children! Look what it says: "Unless the health or wellbeing of a minor is in danger as a result of the cultivation of marijuana, . . . . " It basically suggests that the cultivation of cannabis could endanger children's health and well-being! CPS could say that cultivation could attract thieves, whose efforts to steadl would endanger your children!
Argh!!!!
I've offered to debate Dave on MCLR versus CCHI2014, but there's no point unless MCLR makes it onto the ballot. All I can say is I hope it never does, because it's full of similar flaws. Why? Because Dave's motivation was to create an initiative which would financially benefit him, and the thing has been worded accordingly.
In contrast, Jack Herer had no personal hidden agenda: he just wanted to reverse the effects of the 1937 Marihuana Stamp Tax Act and Nixon's war on the counterculture, and to let everyone use cannabis hemp as they wished.
Here's my bottom line:
As a medical marijuana patient with multiple sclerosis who worked against Prop. 19 because it impaired my rights, I can assure you I'd never, ever support CCHI2014 if it impaired Prop. 215 rights. But CCHI2014 is so good for patients AND for everyone else, that is why I'm doing all I can to get it passed!
Actually, CCHI2014 does a lot more for PATIENTS than does MCLR. For example, CCHI2104 forbids ALL cities and counties from banning dispensaries. But MCLR doesn't protect people in towns with under 10,000 residents -- those officials can ban dispensaries. Don't people in small towns get cancer, Dave?
And MCLR also lets cities put the issue of bans to a vote! So if a majority of people in big towns want to ban dispensaries -- they can! Why would anyone intentionally give such a right to any town, IF THEY ARE REALLY WORRIED ABOUT PATIENTS?
They wouldn't. But this provision works for Dave and other big dispensary owners, because they'll just pick up all the out-of-town business such a provision creates.
Please, please, help us get these last CCHI2014 signatures. We are getting so close! More and more people are asking for petition sections to circulate, but we are seeing that a lot of people who think they are registered when they sign the petition aren't! Voters are being purged from the voting rolls and don't know it!
If you collect sigantures, please try to get people to re-register. If they want, they can go online and check with their own county's registrar of voters and see if they are registered. We've found a shocking number of people are no longer registered!
Letitia