Hi PatnLisa,
Thanks for your reply -- some further thoughts below...
FREE THE WEED FOR THE PEOPLE.
Starchild, no lengthy dissertation here, just a few salient points. 1) You can't judge a book by looking at it's cover, or reading a review. 2) America, like all 'civilizations', empires, was founded on occupation, genocide, racism, exploitation.
A lot of truth to that...
“To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”
– Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
3) While the primary purpose of outlawing marijuana/hemp was to promote the oil and timber industries - yet another backroom boondoggle - it was largely 'sold' to the public by utilizing racist propaganda.
I suspect the primary purpose was to find a new "mission" for the government agencies and employees threatened with loss of employment by the end of alcohol Prohibition. But unquestionably there were multiple causes/factors involved.
Alexander begins with a brief history of legally sanctioned racial discrimination, but uses Regan's War On Drugs as her starting point. and her assertion that this was primarily in order to re-institute 'white' privilege and power and roll back gains made during the civil rights era, this had the desired effect and resulted in the further disenfranchise of successive generations of 'black and brown' people. Clinton and the neo-liberals continued and expanded these policies during his presidency, and subsequent leaders of the 'free' world have done likewise.
These policies of control disenfranchise everyone, but yeah they tend to fall most heavily on those who are already poor, marginalized, etc. I prefer to call the advocates of control statists (or part of the two-party establishment cartel in the U.S.), rather than confusing their authoritarian policies with liberalism.
To understand and appreciate her scholarship and conclusions you have to actually read the book. You may disagree with her conclusions but the evidence she presents is pretty damning. This new 'Marijuana Industry' repeats the pattern. Look around the room at any gathering of industry leaders, activists and 'the public', how many of 'them' do you see. All these 'reform' proposals to control, regulate, tax and punish basically perpetuate prohibition and place control in the hands of the 'Masters'. I put not my faith in Princes or Politicians, and while he may not be perfect, I believe that Bernie Sanders is the pick of the litter and the only contender who may finally provide us with at least some hope and change we can believe in. Just my 2c.
I'm committed to supporting the most pro-freedom candidates, and right now for U.S. president I think that is Darryl Perry (see e.g. http://anarchast.com/front/2015/5/7/anarchast-ep-213-darryl-perry-an-anarchist-running-for-presi.html), but I hope that Bernie Sanders gets the Democratic Party nomination rather than Hilary Clinton or another more establishment-oriented figure. If he does, let's just hope that Democrats demand more of him and hold him more accountable than they have done with Obama.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
--------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [SFBayCannabisCommunity] Re: [Save Cannabis] Prison guards should fund prisoner transition expenses
To: SFBayCannabisCommunity@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "savecannabis@..." <savecannabis@...>, "LPSF Discussion List" <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>, "California Liberty" <ca-liberty@...m>, "mmjnews-owner@yahoogroups.com" <mmjnews-owner@yahoogroups.com>, "CALibs@yahoogroups.com" <CALibs@yahoogroups.com>, "LPC Candidates List" <calpcandidates@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 25, 2015, 5:51 AMWhile there are definitely
parallels to be drawn between the Jim Crow segregation era
and modern-day mass incarceration and the ongoing
Prohibition and criminalization of poverty, I don't
think that the book reviewer's assertion that there is a
consensus that "being a criminal = being black" is
accurate. Moreover, the suggestion that such a
"consensus" exists, actually serves to legitimize
such racist thinking, by spreading the idea that it is
normal. I don't think that's the case at
all.
The very idea of what it
means to be a "criminal" begs further examination.
Really there are at least two different, distinct concepts
at play:
1) A person
who breaks the law2) A person who behaves in an
immoral manner
And of course, the concept
of "the law" isn't simple either! There are
some laws, like speed limits, or coming to a full and
complete stop at stopsigns, which are more often broken than
obeyed. Other laws, like those against killing people, are
taken more seriously. Then there is the matter of which law
we're talking about:
1) Constitutional law2)
Statutory lawFrequently they are at odds
with each other, as in the case of Prohibition, which is
treated as "the law", but which is actually an
illegal and criminal violation of the
Constitution.
So, one might
simultaneously be a "criminal" in the sense of
breaking one law, and a "law-abiding person" in
the sense of obeying a higher legal or moral
law.
There is also what laws say
on the books, versus how they are actually enforced. Many
times the law itself may be relatively fairly written --
from what I understand, people in places like the former
Soviet Union, or China today, often had or have pretty
decent rights, on paper. But the paper is kind of
just there for show, as "everybody knows" they
don't really apply in practice. Kind of like certain
provisions of the U.S. Constitution are treated, when you
think about it, which is kind of scary.
Laws can be written in a
racist manner, or enforced/applied in a racist manner, or
both, or neither, but a law is not inherently racist simply
because it happened to be written by a person of a
particular ethnic background, or is on the books in a
society of a particular ethnic makeup. Nor is a law
inherently non-racist simply because it was written by a
person, or was on the books in a society, of a different
ethnic makeup.
The phrase "white
men's laws" reminds me of a supposed Indian
(indigenous American) joke about Daylight Savings Time, that
it is "The white man cutting a strip off the top of his
blanket and sewing it onto the bottom in order to make the
blanket longer." I always found that pretty funny, but
the implication that certain types of laws are inherently
"white" or "black" or "red" or
whatever, I think is nonsense. Justice is justice, and
oppression is oppression, and they come in all different
colors. If the European wave of exploration had never
happened, and development had continued in the Americas
unaffected by conquest and colonization and so on, I think
it perfectly possible that rapid forms of transportation
like planes, trains, and automobiles and communication like
telephones and telegraph would have eventually developed
anyway, leading to a desire to standardize time, and tinker
with it via innovations like Daylight Savings
Time.
I'm skeptical, to put
it mildly, of claims that cast pre-Columbian life in the
Americas in utopian terms, or describe any unpleasantness
that happened as just the men's fault, as if the women
were all pure and noble creatures who never hurt each other!
The statement that native people "lived on the land
without owning it", for example, is misleading. They
didn't have the convention of land titles, but there
were certainly places where various people were supposed to
be, and where they were not supposed to be, dependent on
their tribal affiliation, social status, gender, etc.
I'm not sure whether they ever built "fences",
but some of them certainly built walls -- you can still see
them in the ruins of Mesa Verde and other places. I can well
imagine that, when they began using horses, they might have
built fenced enclosures to keep the horses from running
away. As far as "planning for seven generations",
that sounds nice, but what does it actually mean?
Anthropologists have found that in many cases, areas were
abandoned by native peoples because they had been
overhunted. Compared to us they didn't have a lot of
stuff, and being in many cases nomadic, having lots of stuff
may not have been seen as an advantage. But of the stuff
they had, things viewed as important weren't necessarily
evenly distributed. A chief might have a fancy headdress
with lots of feathers, for example, while a lower status
tribal member might have a plainer garment. They had more of
a gift economy in which ritual sharing was seen as a way to
gain status (kind of like someone today might show or gain
status or demonstrate wealth by paying for a round of drinks
for everyone at the bar, only more ingrained in tribal
society on a larger scale).
Anyway, didn't intend
to write this much on all this tangential stuff here.
Congratulations if you made it this far!
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild
)))Hey, Patrick, people can describe War and Peace in a
paragraph.
Isn't distinguishing
white men's laws from non-white men's laws sort of
like this:Before
the white man came, native people lived on the land without
owning it. They didn't fence things in or out. They
planned for seven generations, and held a lot of stuff
communally. They shared and didn't hoard. They solved
problems cooperatively instead of in competition with each
other. They didn't patent things. They did, of course,
being men, albeit not white men themselves, kill other
people, steal their stuff, and rape women when they
weren't bossing them around -- unless the women
were their mother-in-laws.I think the bottom line is that any
initiative which retains, or creates any new, drug-related
crimes or fine-able public offenses is going to be part of
the "War on Drugs" which Alexander argues has been
used as the "New Jim Crow" laws to result in both
the mass incarceration of young black men as well as their
disenfranchisement from societies' goodies, like voting
rights, employment rights, entrepreneurship rights.
So, for example, if you are going to need
a state license to grow or participate in the "cannabis
industry" (I keep seeing belching smokestacks when
this agricultural endeavor is spoken of as an
"industry"), and the state won't give someone
with a felony conviction in the last ten years a license,
that could be seen as an example of "white men's
laws."
So, here's an excerpt
from a study guide for Michelle Alexander's book,
"The New Jim Crow." You can buy this study
guide at The New Jim Crow SummaryThe New Jim Crow Summary
This detailed study guide includes
chapter summaries and analysis, important themes,
significant quotes, and more...
View on www.bookrags.com
Preview by YahooWhich says to me that this book is now required
reading at colleges across the country."Alexander draws parallels between
mass incarceration today and past systems of racialized
social control like Jim Crow. Both systems
legally discriminated against citizens and were formed by
the racist views of those in power. The book ends with a
simple question: how best should the public respond to a
social crisis of this magnitude? Alexander is skeptical of
legal-driven, trickle down theories of social change.
Such approaches reform aspects of the system, but don't
address the root of the problem. She suggests that in
addition to bringing an end to the War on Drugs and the
system that has developed around it (which will be
no simple feat), the public consensus that "being a
criminal equals being black" must to be challenged and
changed. In addition, "colorblindness" and its
indifference to the specific problems faced by racial
groups needs to be exposed. Talking about race must once
again become honest and transparent. Ending mass
incarceration will require a grassroots movement of people,
white and black, criminal and non-criminal, demanding
peace and prosperity for all."
I
highlighted this last bit, because so many of the
initiatives are designed to let a few people make profits
from a large group of consumers by "legalizing"
commerce in cannabis, instead of insisting on full adult
decriminalization.From: "patnlisa@...
[SFBayCannabisCommunity]"
<SFBayCannabisCommunity@yahoogroups.com>
To: SFBayCannabisCommunity@yahoogroups.com;
"savecannabis@..."
<savecannabis@...>
Cc: LPSF
Discussion List <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>;
California Liberty <ca-liberty@yahoogroups.com>;
"mmjnews-owner@yahoogroups.com"
<mmjnews-owner@yahoogroups.com>;
"CALibs@yahoogroups.com"
<CALibs@yahoogroups.com>; LPC Candidates List
<calpcandidates@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: [SFBayCannabisCommunity] Re:
[Save Cannabis] Prison guards should fund prisoner
transition expensesLetitia, I'll try, but there's so much
scholarship and research, let me think about it, right now
my little brain is stuffed with Turkey 'n trimmings.
--------------------------------------------Subject: Re:
[SFBayCannabisCommunity] Re: [Save Cannabis] Prison guards
should fund prisoner transition expenses
To:
"SFBayCannabisCommunity@yahoogroups.com"
<SFBayCannabisCommunity@yahoogroups.com>, "savecannabis@..."
<savecannabis@...>
Cc: "LPSF
Discussion List" <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>,
"California Liberty"
<ca-liberty@yahoogroups.com>,
"mmjnews-owner@yahoogroups.com"
<mmjnews-owner@yahoogroups.com>, "CALibs@yahoogroups.com"
<CALibs@yahoogroups.com>, "LPC Candidates
List" <calpcandidates@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015, 2:58 AMPatrick, why don't you
explain how some of these initiatives
perpetuate "white
man's laws"
and what that actually means. I
haven't read that book, but I've got a
pretty good
idea what you have in mind.From:
"patnlisa@...
[SFBayCannabisCommunity]"
<SFBayCannabisCommunity@yahoogroups.com>
To:
savecannabis@...;
SFBayCannabisCommunity@yahoogroups.comCc: SFBay Cannabis
Community
List
<SFBayCannabisCommunity@yahoogroups.com>;
LPSF
Discussion List
<lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>;
California Liberty
<ca-liberty@yahoogroups.com>;
mmjnews-owner@yahoogroups.com;
CALibs@yahoogroups.com; LPC
Candidates List
<calpcandidates@yahoogroups.com>
Sent:
Monday, November
23, 2015 10:04 PM
Subject: Re:
[SFBayCannabisCommunity] Re: [Save Cannabis]
Prison guards
should fund prisoner
transition expensesI just
hope that all of you who are promoting more
'white
man's laws' have read
Michelle Alexander's book
'The New
Jim Crow', and really appreciate exactly
what it is that you are perpetuating.--------------------------------------------
Subject: [SFBayCannabisCommunity] Re: [Save
Cannabis] Prison
guards should fund prisoner
transition expensesTo:
savecannabis@...Cc:
"SFBay Cannabis Community List"
<SFBayCannabisCommunity@yahoogroups.com>,
"LPSF
Discussion List"
<lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>,
"California Liberty"
<ca-liberty@yahoogroups.com>,
mmjnews-owner@yahoogroups.com,
CALibs@yahoogroups.com,
"LPC Candidates
List"
<calpcandidates@yahoogroups.com>Date: Monday, November 23,
2015, 4:52 PMRon,
Fully agree with your point
about the criminal
"justice" system'smisguided focus on punishment rather than
redemption.And I'm
heartened to hear you express support for
theconcept of
sheriff's deputy pensions being used to
payfor inmate
rehabilitation even though you think they
makeminimum
wage, because this suggests that when you learn
howmuch they
actually make, you will have evenmore reason to support their bearing the costs
of
helpingthe people whose wrongful incarceration
provided the
reasonfor their jobs in the first place recover from
thisinjustice!
Sheriff's deputies may
have made minimum wage once
upon a time, but if that isstill true anywhere in the United States (which
from myreading I rather
doubt), it certainly is not true here
inthe Bay Area.
According to a 2011 Contra
Costa Times story,
sheriff's deputies in that countywere paid the least among their counterparts
in the 9-county region. And
how much was that? $81,504per year after 5 years on the job! That's
base paywhich "does
not include shiftdifferential or other special pay such as
uniform
allowancesor extra
cash for additional training or other
assignments."
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_18232327
It's a pretty safe
bet that the salary number
quoted above has if anything
onlyincreased during the past four
years (unlike in thevoluntary sector, budget cuts -- actual cuts,
notjust reductions in the
rate of increase! -- are rare ingovernment, and when they do happen, they
rarely lead toemployee pay
cuts).Now contrast that
$80K+ peryear being paid
to the people whose most basic jobresponsibility is making sure that prisoners,
including
ofcourse the many incarcerated people who never
harmed
anyoneand should never have been jailed, do not
escape to
freedom,with the money those inmates earn from working
whileincarcerated.
For instance, this 2014
story reports that around
4,000 California inmates werebeing paid $2 per day for the dangerous work
offighting wildfires:
I'll bet the prospect
of having money taking out of
their pensions to pay forprisoners to transition back to society would
make
prisonguards less eager to see more people
incarcerated.
Love
& Liberty,
(((
starchild )))On Nov 21,
2015, at 10:12 AM,Ronald
Hennig <ronloma@...>wrote:
Sheriff’s
deputies man the jails. They
are the ones that
interactwith the inmates and are the
only ones giving or taking
lifefor these people. These
deputies are usually
undereducatedand minimum wage and exemplify
their positions. Thesefolks are usually pressured into dealing with
inmates ascriminals and
not innocent humans. We do incarceration
inamerica in
punitive terms here as opposed to redemptive.Punishing is what is done in
this country and these
peopleare the ones that do it and
some do it with relish.Punishing is what we do in american jails and
it aloneshows our total
ignorance of human understanding. The
useof them
show just how much we have progressed. But as
forjail
guards paying for inmate rehabilitation, YES !r Ron
I'm sure
everybodyknows this, so in
my rush to be redundant, consider
this.a Sheriff deputy who worked
out at the gym that I do
askedif I could provide some MJ for
for the inmates. Icouldn't of course but did point the way to
grant
hiswish. He to me some of these guys are
dangerous andunpredictable
and MJ sooths their restless souls making
themless
aggressive. Sounds like this would be a good
thingfor all
prisons.Cheers,
bill
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 11/20/15,
Starchild
<sfdreamer@...>wrote:
Subject: Re: [Save
Cannabis] Polling on cannabis
reform in CaliforniaDate:
Friday, November20, 2015,
4:20 AMMike,
Thank you
for yourkind words. I
wasadmittedly being
provocative in what I said
about the prisonguards
paying separationcompensation to Drug War prisoners,
and was not seriously
suggesting this as ballot
language.Nevertheless, I
thinkthere would be
justice in it, and Iwould
personally love tosee it
happen. As you say, theprison guards'
unions regularly lobby in support of the
Drug War, maintaining
harsh sentences, etc., and
they tendto be pretty well
paid,at public expense. I
also think,although
I'm notentirely sure
on this, that virtuallyall
the guards areunionized.
While
itwouldn't be
perfectly fair-- I'm
sure theremust be at least
a few decent guardswho try
to treatprisoners well,
and do not supportProhibition or other
cruel and rights-abusive policies, and
in general I dislike any
kind of "group
punishment" that
lumps the innocent together
with theguilty for
similartreatment, consider
the likelyalternatives:
(1) Thetaxpayers foot
the bill (I don'tthink
you'd disputethat the
average taxpayer has lessto feel guilty for than
the average prison guard), or (2)
The prisoners are let go
with nothing, after having
hadmonths, years, or
decades of their lives taken
from them,and being forced
to livein miserable
conditions, despitehaving
committed noactual
crime.Of those three
options, the one I
suggested seems to me by
far the fairest. On the broader and
more philosophical
issue, I'm uncomfortable
with theassertion that
"some humans belong in a
cage". Itseems to me
a"necessary
evil" (a phrase someconsider an oxymoron) at
best. But your mileage may vary.
I don't know
that
William
Wallace had theright
qualities to run a ballotmeasure campaign, but I
certainly agree in spirit! Ants
don't seem quite as
worthy of being held up as
rolemodels though. They
tendto behave like
automatons, blindlyserving
the interests ofqueen and
colony. Maybe they wouldbe
more chill if peoplegot
them stoned. What happens if youblow a bunch of
marijuana smoke into an anthill?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild
)))On Nov 16,
2015, at 6:44PM, Mike
Boutinwrote:
Starchild, I
always like a lot of
what you say. Never met you but you
have a good mind. I was
following along in your
lastparagraph until you
gotto this part "and
acompensation payment
taken out of the prison
guards'pension funds
to helpease their
transition back intosociety"
While I believe that a
transition back into
society may be in order, I would never
make the guards pay for
it. Despite the fact that
theirunions lobby for
marijuana laws to remain
unchanged, theguards
themselves shouldpay
why?Do we
have evidence it is
their fault? Do we have
evidence thatthey abuse or
allow theabuse of
marijuana prisoners?Do we
ignore and punish them when the veryreal fact exists that
some humans belong in a cage and these
people are caged along
with them to protect us from
thosewho would do us
harm?I am glad there
are prisons and I am
glad that there are people who
staffthem. I am not glad
thatnon violent marijuana
crimes arethe basis for
somepeoples prison
experience.I wonder what
would happen if in just onestate that doesn't
have marijuana freedom at all, a
person like William
Wallace brought the villagers
together,brought their
resourcesthat get
frittered away together andpaid for a
"clean" reform effort.
How cool would that be? You
would think inthe age of
the internet,someone would
have theorganizational
andtechnological skills to
make that happen.Ever
observe the ant?The many
do much for all.With
respect.From: "Starchild"
<sfdreamer@...>To: "Dale Gieringer"
<dale@...>Cc: "savecannabis@...
Cannabis"
<savecannabis@...>,"Bob Bowerman"
<bob@...>,
"Dale Sky
Jones" <daleskyjones@...>,
"Axis of Love SF,
Shona Gochenaur"
<axisoflovesf@...>,"Brendan
Hallinan"
<brendan@hallinan-law.com>,"Heather
Burke" <hburkelegal@...>,
"Amanda
Reiman"
<areiman@...>,"Bob Bowerman"
<bob@...>,
"Omar
Figueroa" <omarfigueroa@...>,
"Troy Dayton"
<tdayton@...>,
"Steele Smith"
"Michael
Jolson"
<michaeljolson111@...>,"Lanette
Davies" <cpr4mercy@...>,
"Debbie Tharp"
<votedebbietharp@...>,
"Rob Kampia"
<rkampia@...>,
"Debby
Goldsberry"
<dgoldsberry420@...>,"SFBay Cannabis
Community List"
<SFBayCannabisCommunity@yahoogroups.com>,"California
Liberty"
<ca-liberty@yahoogroups.com>,"Northern
California Libertarians"
<norcalLibertarians@yahoogroups.com>,"Golden Gate
Liberty r3VOLution"
<RonPaul-36@Meetup.com>Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 6:20:07
PM
Subject: Re: [Save Cannabis] Polling
on cannabis reform in
California
Dale,
Thank you
for your reply, and forreporting some of the
polling data to which you referred
last Thursday at the
Brownie Mary club meeting.
Theperspective you
articulate here on Prop. 19 is
one I share-- I definitely
wouldnot have supported
putting it forwardin the
form that ittook, and am
glad it failed, but am alsokind of glad that it
didn't fail too badly, since even
if widespread rejection
had occurred for all the
rightreasons, I think
thatcould have been
misinterpreted by themedia
and observers inother
places, and hurt the largercause.
On
the
polling issuethough, I
have serious questions. You saythat in the Celinda Lake
poll, "only 24% of respondents
rated the state's
current medical marijuana
system as'excellent' or
'good', while 57% rated it
'just fair or
poor.'" Yet the data
you'vepresented leave
it farfrom clear what
those results mean.Consider a few of the
many legitimate reasons why poll
respondents might have
rated current regulations on
medicalcannabis as
"fair" or
"poor":• They don't
allow for recreational
or spiritual use
• They allow
municipalities to impose excessive
restrictions on cannabis
sales
• Many
communities have few or
no dispensaries as a result of legal
restrictions
• The state government
has not forcefully stood
up to federal officials
continuedharassment of
medicalcannabis growers
and providers• Patients
are required to regularlyshell out money to
doctors for recommendations in order to
legally buy from
dispensaries
•
Smoking in public is
still banned even for
government-approved
medical cannabis users
It also seems
somewhat
unfair/misleading to say that the lack of a
legallyregulated
distributionsystem has
"precipitat(ed) legaluncertainty, raids, and
prohibitory local ordinances".
One could with just as
much accuracy say these things
havebeen precipitated by
thelack of a strong law
protecting thepublic's
rights togrow, sell, and
use cannabis, and thefailure of spineless
state and local politicians to stand up
to federal bullying!
You
further report that of Lakepoll respondents,
"49% said they were more likely
(including 38%
'strongly likely')
to support ameasure that
generateshundreds of
millions in additionalrevenues for the state,
versus only 16% less likely."
This brings me back to
my previous comments about how
thewording of poll
questions can lead to certain
results.For example,
if the poll had asked
voters whether they more likely to
support a measure that
generates hundreds of millions
inadditional wages and
lower costs of living for
Californians,I suspect
that aplurality would have
responded favorably tothat
as well.Unfortunately
I'm almost positive thatthey weren't asked
that question, and that the wording
of the question they
were asked did not inform them
that ameasure
generatinghundreds of
millions in new taxes wouldbe taking that money out
of the pockets of cannabis industry
workers and cannabis
consumers, resulting in fewer
jobs,lower wages, and a
larger black market with less
safe accessthan would be
the casewith a cleaner
measure.What is your
response to the
California Field poll result mentioned by
Letitia Pepper, that
"in 2011, an independent
FieldPoll showed that
56percent of Californians
would have votedfor
CCH!2012:
http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2455.pdf"?Isn't this good
evidence that we CAN pass a
stronglegalization
measurethat protects
people's rightswithout
tilting theplaying field
toward monied interests,creating new penalties,
or adding a bunch of other baggage?
The link above appears
to contain the complete
wording,methodology, and
fullresults of the Field
poll. I hope youwill post
similardetails for the
Celinda Lake polling youmention, so that we can
engage in more informed analysis.
Finally,
yourefer to
"appropriate provisions
to regulate"adult use
-- Dale,please let's
not confuse"popular" with
"appropriate"! Even if a
regulation criminalizing
cannabis use by adults riding
aspassengers in cars,
forinstance, is popular --
which it mayor may not be,
dependingon the wording
and the context --no way
does that make itappropriate! A lot of us would say
that, on the contrary,
FREEDOM is appropriate; a
"novictim, no
crime"approach is
appropriate; immediatelyfreeing every single
incarcerated Drug War prisoner with a
full pardon and a
compensation payment taken out
of theprison
guards'pension funds
to help ease theirtransition back into
society is appropriate!
Love &
Liberty,
((( starchild
)))P.S. - At the
Brownie Mary club
meeting, you also said that
representatives of the
"ReformCA" and
"Parker"
initiatives were talking, with the goal
of revising wording and
coming up with a single
ballotmeasure. But when
Iasked how people could
have input intodrafting
final language,you said it
was "toolate"
and that"that train
left the station"months ago. Please tell
me that ordinary members of the
cannabis community will
not be shut out of the
finaldrafting process,
andthat representatives of
CCHI and othercannabis
reformers whowant a
strong, clean measure on theballot will be included
in these talks?
Hi Starchild
-For the record, I
opposed the Prop 19 petition drive from
the outset and
repeatedly urged Richard Lee
to holdback. However,
onceit qualified for the
ballot(despite my
non-signature), I reluctantly
supported it onthe grounds
that a poorshowing for a
legalization measurewould
set the movementback.
That was also inaccord
with the policyof
NORML's national office, whichis generally to support
legalization measures that have
reached the ballot.
At
no point did I ever
expect Prop 19 to pass. A
carefulanalysis of the
pollingdata convinced me
that it hadinadequate
support towin an off-year
election. I'mglad
that it didn'tpass,
since it had serious flaws.I'm also glad that
it did well (better than Meg
Whitman!), since that
helped set the stage for
thesuccessful CO
initiativein 2012.
As for why a simple
initiative like Prop 215
is no longer possible, it's
because the lack of a
legally regulated distribution
systemhas become a
significantproblem over
the years,precipitating
legaluncertainty, raids,
and prohibitorylocal
ordinances aroundthe
state. In a poll of Californiavoters conducted for
CCPR by Celinda Lake Research, only 24%
of respondents rated the
state's current medical
marijuana system as
"excellent" or
"good", while
57% rated it "just fair
orpoor." Asked
inparticular about the
state's regulation
of medical marijuana, only
18%rated the current
systemas excellent/good,
versus 60% fairor poor.
(This wasback in April,
before the passage of AB266/MMRSA). This
being the case, it would be
folly to expect the
voters to look favorably on legalized
adult use without
appropriate provisions to
regulate it,as have been
included inevery other
successful statelegalization initiative.
Also, the poll showed that tax
revenues are a strong
inducement to support
legalization:fully 49%
said they weremore likely
(including 38%"strongly
likely") to support a measure that
generates hundreds of
millions in additional
revenues forthe state,
versus only16% less
likely. Thevoters in
question werethose who are
most on the fenceabout
whether to supportin the
first place - that is, thecritical undecideds
whose support we need in order to get
above 50%. Without
regulation and taxation,
legalization has little
appeal to the 80% of
Californiavoters who are
notcurrent users of
marijuana.
- Dale
GieringOn
Nov 15, 2015, at 11:34
PM, Starchild
<sfdreamer@earthlink.net>wrote:
I
don't
know whereDale Gieringer
stands on Prop. 19.I popped by
the Brownie Mary
Democratic Club the other night where he
was talking to members
about the
"ReformCA"measure. There were
maybe a dozen or so folks present. Most
didn't weigh in, but
all of those who did
soundedskeptical about
it.Wayne Justmann was
particularlycritical, in
fact quiteangry -- he
slammed his fist on thetable so hard that I
wondered whether he injured
anything.
In my question to Dale,
I said I thought Prop. 19 was a bad
measure, and that I
believe that contributed to
its defeatit (just like
the cartelmeasure in Ohio
was defeated),because the
base (thecannabis
community) was only lukewarmabout it. In responding,
Dale didn't say anything good
about Prop. 19, and
didn't say anything bad
about iteither (that I
heard),although there was
a clear openingfor him to
either agreeor
disagree.He did say
that the reason weshouldn't (in his
view) have a clean, short measure like
Prop. 215 that
doesn't do the
prohibitionists' dirtywork of excessive
taxation/regulation/restriction for them
(i.e. that we now need a
measure 8 pages long instead
ofpart of a page, etc.)
because "the situation
haschanged" and
because their polling
allegedly shows thata
clean measurewouldn't
pass.I
responded that a lot of howpeople respond to polls
depends on how they are worded, and
that I'd like to see
the polls, and also that while
ifgiven a choice in a
pollbetween a measure that
includeslots of taxes,
regulations, protections for
kids, etc., andone that
doesn't,the average
voter might choose theformer, but that
doesn't necessarily mean they
wouldn't vote for
the latter if that was the
legalization measure on
the ballot. After all,
Californiansvoted for
Prop. 215, ata time when
there was much lesssupport
for legalizationthan there
is now.Proposition
215 didn't impose a
bunch of controls, it just granted
people certain legal
rights and prevented
government fromdoing
certain things toviolate
our rights, and left thedetails about
dispensaries, taxes, etc., to be filled in
later. Dale, et. al.,
please show us the polling
evidenceallegedly proving
that ameasure which
similarly allows thegovernment to impose
various taxes, regulations, and so on
(up to some limited
cap), but doesn't require
them toimpose these
controls,can't
pass.Love &
Liberty,((( starchild
)))
P.S. - I also
wrote to Dale Sky Jones acouple days ago asking
to meet with her, if she didn't
want to meet with Shona
Gochenaur due to past
interactionsor whatever
(Shonamentioned in a
previous message that DSJwouldn't meet with
her) -- that I don't have a horse
in the fight as far as
financial interest in the
movement orpersonal issues
withmovement players, I
just want to seeCalifornia
pass a good,strong, clean
legalization measure.Hopefully she'll
respond.
On Nov 12, 2015, at
10:09 AM, 'Letitia
Pepper' via Save Cannabis
wrote:
Bob, I sure hope that the
payto play folks DO have
abig job in front of them;
may youhave the same luck
asthose guys in Ohio . . .
.(1) "
BothDales’ (Sky &
Gieringer)are incredible
peopledoing the best they
can." Yes,for years
they'veboth been
trying to undo the benefitsof decriminalization
brought by Prop. 215.
(2)
"Dale Gis one of
the smartestpolitical
cannabis activist I evermet." Smart
doesn't translate to honest or
actually helping really
end prohibition.
Legalizationwithout
decriminalization is just
"prohibition-lite,"
with lots of roomto make
the99 percent miserable
andtake their money as
profits forothers."
Back in2009, at the
Anaheim Hemp Con, Iheard
Dale whisper toDavid
Herrick that he hoped Prop. 19DIDN'T pass.
Dale's a paid politician; he's a
Judas Goat who'll
lead the masses who think
NORML can dono wrong to
theslaughter. But those
masses are declining,because peoiple know how
to read and think for themselves
once they get a clue
that something is rotten in
NORML.(3) "Nobody
here is trying to hurt
the cannabis industry,
patients orrec
users."Obviously you
can only speak for yourselfon that one, but I
notice that "the cannabis
industry" was first
on your list, with human
beingsadded afterwards.
OFCOURSE these folks
don't want to"hurt" their
potential customers; they just want
to make sure they
can't become competition.
Andthey'll use
thepower of the police and
government, andregualtions
and lawas,to make sure
theycan't actuallygrow
successfully orshare what
they do grow without riskingarrest, fines of other
negative consequences.
From: Bob Bowerman <bob@...>
To: Dale Sky Jones
<daleskyjones@...>;"Axis of Love SF,
Shona Gochenaur"
<axisoflovesf@...>Cc: Brendan
Hallinan <brendan@...>;Heather Burke
<hburkelegal@...>;Amanda Reiman
<areiman@...>;Letitia Pepper
<letitiapepper@...>;Bob Bowerman <bob@...g>;
Omar Figueroa
<omarfigueroa@...>;Dale Gieringer <dale@canorml.org>;
Troy Dayton
<tdayton@...>;Steele Smith <steele@...>;
Michael Jolson
<michaeljolson111@...>;Lanette Davies <cpr4mercy@...>;
Debbie Tharp
<votedebbietharp@...>;Rob Kampia <rkampia@...>;
Debby Goldsberry
<dgoldsberry420@...>Sent:
Thursday, November 12, 2015 9:57AM
Subject:
RE: ReformCA says."You spoke, we
listened, I say your tone deaf, no jail
for pot, no special
interest"
We have a big
job in front of us. BothDales’ (Sky &
Gieringer) are incredible people doing
the best they can.
Dale G is one of
the smartest political
cannabis activist I ever
met. Idon’t agree
witheither of them 100% of
the time.Actually I
don’t agreeor know
anyone that does agree withanyone 100% of the time.
Nobody here is trying to hurt the
cannabis industry,
patients or rec users. I
respect eachof you. Some
more thanothers. S.A.M
has tolove this past few
daysconversation. They
know theydon’t really
have todo anything,
we’ll defeatourselves.
Come onpeople, grow up.
It’s okto disagree, it
reallyis. It is not ok
to publiclydisrespect.
Namecalling, really?
LOL, ok kids,behave.
I support the efforts of
alltrying to end the
cannabis war, even if I
disagree with howthey want
to do that.Besides, it
doesn’t matter untilyou
get on the ballots.As far as
Sean Parker, DPA, MPP
and the others putting up the money,
thank you for stepping
up when the Grass Roots
didn’t.You don’t
like what their initiativesays. Me either. Ask
to work with them to change it.
After all, it’s theirs
and their money. It’s all
aboutenrolling not
demandwhen you got nothing
but hot air andeven common
sensecan’t get through
that. So please,leaders, step up get
humble, ask to work with the money
folks who are paying for
this. Only then can we have
achance at decent
cannabis laws. The people of
Californiaare counting on
you todo the right thing
for everyone.Bob
Bob Adman Bowerman
Founder-Director-Retired
I support
Sacramento NORML, but
being retired, I do not represent
them.
All statements I make are
strictly my own.
From: Dale Sky Jones
[mailto:daleskyjones@…]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015
7:07 AM
To: Axis of Love SF, Shona
Gochenaur
Cc:
Brendan Hallinan; HeatherBurke; Amanda Reiman;
Letitia Pepper; Bob Bowerman; Omar
Figueroa; Dale
Gieringer; Troy Dayton; Steele
Smith; MichaelJolson;
Lanette Davies;Debbie
Tharp; Rob Kampia; DebbyGoldsberry
Subject: Re: ReformCA says.
"You spoke, we
listened, I say your tone deaf, no jail
for pot, no special
interest"
I am in
conversation via Steele withMCLR and we have moved
closer to many provisions in
there...
Brownie Mary Dem Club:
as far as a "fair
vote", Iheard we were
struckdown by Sean
Donahoe's objection atthe last meeting's
attempt to endorse, however I was not
there so that is just
the rumor. I do not control
BMDC, Ionly
"supportit"...and celebrate it (Oaksterdam
just recognized a true
hard worker, Denise
Martellacci inour
newsletter becauseSHE does
a lot of that work alongwith many others not
named...)
Point
is, I
have not(unfortunately)
been avail to attend thus far(hard w 2 young kids to
tuck in at night) so I have had ZERO
impact on their
procedures.
Not sure what special interests you are
referring to (thought
you were referring to me
profitingfrom
selling/growingcannabis,
apparently that is not whatyou were referring to)
other than those we heard from at all
those meetings and the
NAACP, environmental groups
andsuch....we did try
toaddress many points of
view. You mayrecall that
no meetinghad (or
required) everyone to agreeon these policy points.
Nor will we have a draft where
everyone agrees on all
points. We got close to
consensusfor most, but it
is notperfect for anyone.
Everyone hasmade
concessions...well,nearly
everyone.Our focus is
providing a path for
SMALL BUSINESSES...I can not
figure outwhich special
interestyou are accusing
meof...shouldn't
thatbe obvious if I was
bought &sold? We
simply wantveterans,
people of color and womento have a shot at a
licence too, not just big guys.
As far as meeting,
I have never refused
anyone. Schedules permitting, I have
not only made myself
available, I personally took
on thecost and time to
drag myfamily all over the
state to listento any and
all of youwho had
something to say in 15 + freeopen public meetings, so
I am not sure what else you expect
from one person. As I
have yet to uncover any
assumptionof innocence
with regardto any effort
(we are all "onthe
take"apparently
though I have yet to get what I amsupposed to be getting!
Wish I knew who I "worked
for" too. No
proof, just wild accusations.
I havenot been paid to
dothis, in fact it has
done nothing butcost me.
Cost me time,money,
energy, time with my kids,husband, friends and
also opened myself up to blatant,
horrific attacks on my
character, intentions and
effort.So I will ask
again, as it seems
Parker initiative is now
"imminent" why
are you focused on little old me?
You want to talk power
and intentions? Remember I
did notget a paycheck
rebuilding after a devastating
federalraid. I do not
haveinvestors. No one
took care of meother than
my husband(who has been
fighting longer thanmost
for patients allthe way to
the Supreme Court for theright to assist medical
patients). I don't have the
big money you keep
talking about because we are
doing thiswith normal
Californians, by Californians
$5 at a time. IfTHIS is
not proof, notsure what
will ever be.Nonetheless, we intend
to work to improve the current
version and can only do
so when we stick together on
themost important
points.
I would be
VERY interested to hear fromthis list on what we
should be asking the Parker initiative
for. Yes, we have some
restrictions in order for the
restof the voters of CA
tofind it acceptable. I
can notstress enough
thatwinning is NOT
inevitable and CA has avery low threshold in
polling for this. It is not a slam
dunk, and so we can have
reasonable limits while the
community realized the
sky is not falling, these can
berevisited. 18 year
olds are seniors in high
school with 15year olds.
If an 18(or 17,16, 15 or
3 year old needs"remedy" they
should become a patient. We can not
legalize for all ages
and expect it to pass,
folks!)Additionally,
10x10 isjust for adults
(can get a permit forgrowing over 100 sq ft),
patients can still grow what then
need. Not sure how only
6 plants is better (are you
anindoor or outdoor
grower?).
Notice we do
not allow discrimination foryour choice in medicine?
Medical cannabis patients allowed
similar protections as
Rx and CPS can NOT TAKE YOUR
CHILDRENfor a plant. We
needyou to fight for this
as hard as weare! Everyone
hasrights, including
owners. We mustbalance
them all. Thiswould be a
good start for many, andcertainly better than
NOW.
We knew we would not get
everything righton the
first draft, sowe asked
for open edits and comments,then made changes.
Leticia personally pointed out a
grievous unintended
consequence that we
immediately deletednicknamed the
"snitch clause" (THANK YOU BTW!
GOOD CATCH) Originally
the recommendation from
draftingattorneys was to
limitit to
"only" 10% so peopledid not profit from just
suing businesses however it became
obvious that it was
instead viewed as "10%!
pure profitfor
snitching!"WOW
WHOOPS NOT INTENDED! DELETE!DONE! However, even when
I do EXACTLY what is asked for,
Leticia jumps on list
and hates me for it
regardless... sofor
personal meetingsetc, I am
happy to go off list withShona or Starchild, but
I am not going to engage in blatant
character assassination
ala Leticia. Let's stop
with theaccusations and
focus onthe subject
matter. I am just anadvocate, woman, mother,
wife, employer, concerned citizen
working towards avoiding
the next Jim Crow with our
regulatory practices in
CA. Can we assume good
intentionshere? I do.
Ibelieve you Shona and
Starchild, you wantto do
the right thing.Can I
get similar respect withoutautomatic assumption
that I am of the devil? Maybe we just
disagree on what is
possible "right now"
in avoter initiative, but
Ido not think we are so
far away fromwhat we
ultimately hopefor! Let
us move in the samedirection in the
meantime!
Please do not forget that the
effort ofRichard and Prop
19,that Leticia hated so
much, did MORE toreduce
youthcriminalization and
incarceration than ANYSUCCESSFUL LEGALIZATION
MEASURE TO DATE. Credit where
credit is due...or you
lose
integrity...
http://www.cjcj.org/tags/news/marijuana?PageSize=25&PageIndex=2
Sometimes
it is the effect, more
than the intent. Failure
andsuccess are just
aboutyour perspective
sometimes. I ammore
proud of what wasin that
report than anything we haveever done... Those are
lives and families and futures
spared. Prop 19
pressured that change (Gov had
vetoed thatbill four
times...onlypassed it to
shut down 19)I am now trying to
do the same with CPS and
patient protections. Please
joinme on the things we
agree on, rather than focusing
only onthe differences
orneither of us get
anywhere tearingdown.
Can we
agree
on CPS and patientprotections?
Dale Sky
JonesOaksterdam University
Executive
ChancellorCoalition for Cannabis Policy
ReformChairwoman
”Never doubt
that a small group of
thoughtful, committed citizens
canchange the world.
Indeed, it is the only thing
that everhas.” -
MargaretMead
On Tue, Nov
10,2015 at 8:24 AM, Axis
ofLove SF, Shona Gochenaur
<axisoflovesf@...>wrote:
Dale
Sky, good then lets sitdown, I am not into
Parker either , although it has a few
better ish elements.
What I am asking
for is to strike a
section of what you signed
onto, becauseits unethical
to purposethat if you cant
pay, purchasejustice you
should looseyour personal
freedom, especiallywhen
its about a nontoxic
sacred herb.I didn't ask if you
sell POT, and it would be fine
withme if you did.
I asked whose bidding as
the lead lobbyist on
this your doing. Because it
reads likea patchwork of
specialinterest.
I am
concerned about the vote
at brownie mary democratic club in
SF, they only have your
proposal up for a vote, I
findfraudulent,
voter'sshould have the
info on allinitiative and
eachshould have a fair
chance to present,and with
what 15?- now ,rank choice
voting . I am askingfor
you to move to notapprove
agenda item for a vote , askthat it be tabled until
a fair democratic process is in
place for the voters.
Happy to sit
down, and start over,
why don't you support
MCLR? I amnot joking,
and it isstill open
source, and in thegovernment public
comments period.
Everyone
should pusheach team to
get their best, balancedhorse in the race, if
nobody is going grow enough to
actually work together,
I want the best fight.
Hows your Monday look? I will
headover....
In solidarity,
Shona
415-240-5247
On Nov 10, 2015 6:30 AM, "Dale Sky
Jones"
<daleskyjones@...>wrote:
Shona,
I went to SF and tried to meet up with
you three times over the
past year... You had
personalreasons for not
beingavailable. Please
do not say Irefused to
meet withyou... I am in
Oaksterdam most days,we
can go both ways, andI am
still happy to meet withyou.
I work for
no one. I do not sell
pot. I do not profit from selling
pot. Go read the
Parker initiative and tell me
how that isbetter, and I
willsup
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)