[SFBayCannabisCommunity] Re: [Save Cannabis] Prison guards should fund prisoner transition expenses

Starchild · November 27, 2015, 10:40pm

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. Disenthrall / Anarchast – Bringing sight to the blind, clarity to the mud, shining the light of day on the invisible violence of government. Creating Rebellious Philosophy, Risky Freedom, and Dangerous Thinking.), 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 AM

While 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 law

Frequently 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 Summary

The 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 Yahoo

Which 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 expenses

Letitia, 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 AM

Patrick, 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.com

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>
Sent:
Monday, November
23, 2015 10:04 PM
Subject: Re:
[SFBayCannabisCommunity] Re: [Save Cannabis]
Prison guards
should fund prisoner
transition expenses

I 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 expenses

To:
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 PM

Ron,

Fully agree with your point

about the criminal
"justice" system's

misguided focus on punishment rather than
redemption.

And I'm
heartened to hear you express support for
the

concept of
sheriff's deputy pensions being used to
pay

for inmate
rehabilitation even though you think they
make

minimum
wage, because this suggests that when you learn
how

much they
actually make, you will have even

more reason to support their bearing the costs
of
helping

the people whose wrongful incarceration
provided the
reason

for their jobs in the first place recover from
this

injustice!

Sheriff's deputies may

have made minimum wage once
upon a time, but if that is

still true anywhere in the United States (which
from my

reading I rather
doubt), it certainly is not true here
in

the Bay Area.

According to a 2011 Contra

Costa Times story,
sheriff's deputies in that county

were paid the least among their counterparts

in the 9-county region. And
how much was that? $81,504

per year after 5 years on the job! That's
base pay

which "does
not include shift

differential or other special pay such as
uniform
allowances

or 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
only

increased during the past four
years (unlike in the

voluntary sector, budget cuts -- actual cuts,
not

just reductions in the
rate of increase! -- are rare in

government, and when they do happen, they
rarely lead to

employee pay
cuts).

Now contrast that
$80K+ per

year being paid
to the people whose most basic job

responsibility is making sure that prisoners,
including
of

course the many incarcerated people who never
harmed
anyone

and should never have been jailed, do not
escape to
freedom,

with the money those inmates earn from working
while

incarcerated.

For instance, this 2014

story reports that around
4,000 California inmates were

being paid $2 per day for the dangerous work
of

fighting wildfires:

Unusual News - California Inmates Paid $2 a Day to Fight Wildfires - AllGov - News

I'll bet the prospect

of having money taking out of
their pensions to pay for

prisoners to transition back to society would
make
prison

guards 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
interact

with the inmates and are the
only ones giving or taking
life

for these people. These
deputies are usually
undereducated

and minimum wage and exemplify
their positions. These

folks are usually pressured into dealing with
inmates as

criminals and
not innocent humans. We do incarceration
in

america in
punitive terms here as opposed to redemptive.

Punishing is what is done in
this country and these
people

are the ones that do it and
some do it with relish.

Punishing is what we do in american jails and
it alone

shows our total
ignorance of human understanding. The
use

of them
show just how much we have progressed. But as
for

jail
guards paying for inmate rehabilitation, YES !

r Ron

I'm sure
everybody

knows this, so in
my rush to be redundant, consider
this.

a Sheriff deputy who worked
out at the gym that I do
asked

if I could provide some MJ for
for the inmates. I

couldn't of course but did point the way to
grant
his

wish. He to me some of these guys are
dangerous and

unpredictable
and MJ sooths their restless souls making
them

less
aggressive. Sounds like this would be a good
thing

for all
prisons.

Cheers,

bill

--------------------------------------------

On Fri, 11/20/15,

Starchild
<sfdreamer@...>

wrote:

Subject: Re: [Save

Cannabis] Polling on cannabis
reform in California

To:
savecannabis@a2c2.us

Date:
Friday, November

20, 2015,
4:20 AM

Mike,

  Thank you
for your

kind words. I
was

admittedly being

provocative in what I said
about the prison

guards
paying separation

compensation to Drug War prisoners,

and was not seriously

suggesting this as ballot
language.

Nevertheless, I
think

there would be
justice in it, and I

would
personally love to

see it
happen. As you say, the

prison guards'

unions regularly lobby in support of the

Drug War, maintaining

harsh sentences, etc., and
they tend

to be pretty well
paid,

at public expense. I
also think,

although
I'm not

entirely sure
on this, that virtually

all
the guards are

unionized.

  While
it

wouldn't be
perfectly fair

-- I'm
sure there

must be at least
a few decent guards

who try
to treat

prisoners well,
and do not support

Prohibition or other

cruel and rights-abusive policies, and

in general I dislike any

kind of "group

punishment" that

lumps the innocent together
with the

guilty for
similar

treatment, consider
the likely

alternatives:
(1) The

taxpayers foot
the bill (I don't

think
you'd dispute

that the
average taxpayer has less

to feel guilty for than

the average prison guard), or (2)

The prisoners are let go

with nothing, after having
had

months, years, or

decades of their lives taken
from them,

and being forced
to live

in miserable
conditions, despite

having
committed no

actual
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 the

assertion that

"some humans belong in a
cage". It

seems to me
a

"necessary
evil" (a phrase some

consider an oxymoron) at

best. But your mileage may vary.

  I don't know

that

William
Wallace had the

right
qualities to run a ballot

measure campaign, but I

certainly agree in spirit! Ants

don't seem quite as

worthy of being held up as
role

models though. They
tend

to behave like
automatons, blindly

serving
the interests of

queen and
colony. Maybe they would

be
more chill if people

got
them stoned. What happens if you

blow a bunch of

marijuana smoke into an anthill?

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild
)))

On Nov 16,
2015, at 6:44

PM, Mike
Boutin

wrote:

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
last

paragraph until you
got

to this part "and
a

compensation payment

taken out of the prison
guards'

pension funds
to help

ease their
transition back into

society"

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
their

unions lobby for

marijuana laws to remain
unchanged, the

guards
themselves should

pay
why?

Do we

have evidence it is

their fault? Do we have
evidence that

they abuse or
allow the

abuse of
marijuana prisoners?

Do we
ignore and punish them when the very

real fact exists that

some humans belong in a cage and these

people are caged along

with them to protect us from
those

who would do us
harm?

I am glad there

are prisons and I am

glad that there are people who
staff

them. I am not glad
that

non violent marijuana
crimes are

the basis for
some

peoples prison
experience.

I wonder what
would happen if in just one

state that doesn't

have marijuana freedom at all, a

person like William

Wallace brought the villagers
together,

brought their
resources

that get
frittered away together and

paid for a

"clean" reform effort.

How cool would that be? You
would think in

the age of
the internet,

someone would
have the

organizational
and

technological 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"

<steele@idrasilrx.com>,

"Michael

Jolson"
<michaeljolson111@...>,

"Lanette

Davies" <cpr4mercy@...>,

"Debbie Tharp"

<votedebbietharp@...>,

"Rob Kampia"

<rkampia@...>,

"Debby

Goldsberry"
<dgoldsberry420@...>,

"SFBay Cannabis

Community List"
<SFBayCannabisCommunity@yahoogroups.com>,

CALibs@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 for

reporting some of the

polling data to which you referred

last Thursday at the

Brownie Mary club meeting.
The

perspective you

articulate here on Prop. 19 is
one I share

-- I definitely
would

not have supported
putting it forward

in the
form that it

took, and am
glad it failed, but am also

kind of glad that it

didn't fail too badly, since even

if widespread rejection

had occurred for all the
right

reasons, I think
that

could have been
misinterpreted by the

media
and observers in

other
places, and hurt the larger

cause.

  On

the
polling issue

though, I
have serious questions. You say

that 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've

presented leave
it far

from clear what
those results mean.

Consider a few of the

many legitimate reasons why poll

respondents might have

rated current regulations on
medical

cannabis 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
continued

harassment of
medical

cannabis growers
and providers

• Patients
are required to regularly

shell 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
legally

regulated
distribution

system has
"precipitat(ed) legal

uncertainty, raids, and

prohibitory local ordinances".

One could with just as

much accuracy say these things
have

been precipitated by
the

lack of a strong law
protecting the

public's
rights to

grow, sell, and
use cannabis, and the

failure of spineless

state and local politicians to stand up

to federal bullying!

  You
further report that of Lake

poll respondents,

"49% said they were more likely

(including 38%

'strongly likely')
to support a

measure that
generates

hundreds of
millions in additional

revenues for the state,

versus only 16% less likely."

This brings me back to

my previous comments about how
the

wording 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
in

additional wages and

lower costs of living for
Californians,

I suspect
that a

plurality would have
responded favorably to

that
as well.

Unfortunately
I'm almost positive that

they weren't asked

that question, and that the wording

of the question they

were asked did not inform them
that a

measure
generating

hundreds of
millions in new taxes would

be 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 access

than would be
the case

with a cleaner
measure.

  What is your

response to the

California Field poll result mentioned by

Letitia Pepper, that

"in 2011, an independent
Field

Poll showed that
56

percent of Californians
would have voted

for
CCH!2012:
http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2455.pdf"?

Isn't this good

evidence that we CAN pass a
strong

legalization
measure

that protects
people's rights

without
tilting the

playing 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
full

results of the Field
poll. I hope you

will post
similar

details for the
Celinda Lake polling you

mention, so that we can

engage in more informed analysis.

  Finally,
you

refer 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
as

passengers in cars,
for

instance, is popular --
which it may

or may not be,
depending

on the wording
and the context --

no way
does that make it

appropriate! A lot of us would say

that, on the contrary,

FREEDOM is appropriate; a
"no

victim, no
crime"

approach is
appropriate; immediately

freeing every single

incarcerated Drug War prisoner with a

full pardon and a

compensation payment taken out
of the

prison
guards'

pension funds
to help ease their

transition 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
ballot

measure. But when
I

asked how people could
have input into

drafting
final language,

you said it
was "too

late"
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
final

drafting process,
and

that representatives of
CCHI and other

cannabis
reformers who

want a
strong, clean measure on the

ballot 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 hold

back. However,
once

it qualified for the
ballot

(despite my

non-signature), I reluctantly
supported it on

the grounds
that a poor

showing for a
legalization measure

would
set the movement

back.
That was also in

accord
with the policy

of
NORML's national office, which

is generally to support

legalization measures that have

reached the ballot.

At

no point did I ever

expect Prop 19 to pass. A
careful

analysis of the
polling

data convinced me
that it had

inadequate
support to

win an off-year
election. I'm

glad
that it didn't

pass,
since it had serious flaws.

I'm also glad that

it did well (better than Meg

Whitman!), since that

helped set the stage for
the

successful CO
initiative

in 2012.

As for why a simple

initiative like Prop 215

is no longer possible, it's

because the lack of a

legally regulated distribution
system

has become a
significant

problem over
the years,

precipitating
legal

uncertainty, raids,
and prohibitory

local
ordinances around

the
state. In a poll of California

voters 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
or

poor." Asked
in

particular about the

state's regulation

of medical marijuana, only
18%

rated the current
system

as excellent/good,
versus 60% fair

or poor.
(This was

back in April,
before the passage of AB

266/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 in

every other
successful state

legalization initiative.

   Also, the poll showed that tax

revenues are a strong

inducement to support
legalization:

fully 49%
said they were

more likely
(including 38%

"strongly

likely") to support a measure that

generates hundreds of

millions in additional
revenues for

the state,
versus only

16% less
likely. The

voters in
question were

those who are
most on the fence

about
whether to support

in the
first place - that is, the

critical undecideds

whose support we need in order to get

above 50%. Without

regulation and taxation,

legalization has little

appeal to the 80% of
California

voters who are
not

current users of

marijuana.

  - Dale
Giering

On

Nov 15, 2015, at 11:34

PM, Starchild
<sfdreamer@earthlink.net>

wrote:

  I

don't
know where

Dale 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
sounded

skeptical about
it.

Wayne Justmann was
particularly

critical, in
fact quite

angry -- he
slammed his fist on the

table 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 defeat

it (just like
the cartel

measure in Ohio
was defeated),

because the
base (the

cannabis
community) was only lukewarm

about it. In responding,

Dale didn't say anything good

about Prop. 19, and

didn't say anything bad
about it

either (that I
heard),

although there was
a clear opening

for him to
either agree

or
disagree.

  He did say
that the reason we

shouldn't (in his

view) have a clean, short measure like

Prop. 215 that

doesn't do the
prohibitionists' dirty

work of excessive

taxation/regulation/restriction for them

(i.e. that we now need a

measure 8 pages long instead
of

part of a page, etc.)

because "the situation
has

changed" and

because their polling
allegedly shows that

a
clean measure

wouldn't
pass.

  I
responded that a lot of how

people respond to polls

depends on how they are worded, and

that I'd like to see

the polls, and also that while
if

given a choice in a
poll

between a measure that
includes

lots of taxes,

regulations, protections for
kids, etc., and

one that
doesn't,

the average
voter might choose the

former, but that

doesn't necessarily mean they

wouldn't vote for

the latter if that was the

legalization measure on

the ballot. After all,
Californians

voted for
Prop. 215, at

a time when
there was much less

support
for legalization

than there
is now.

  Proposition

215 didn't impose a

bunch of controls, it just granted

people certain legal

rights and prevented
government from

doing
certain things to

violate
our rights, and left the

details about

dispensaries, taxes, etc., to be filled in

later. Dale, et. al.,

please show us the polling
evidence

allegedly proving
that a

measure which
similarly allows the

government to impose

various taxes, regulations, and so on

(up to some limited

cap), but doesn't require
them to

impose these
controls,

can't
pass.

Love &
Liberty,

   ((( starchild

)))

P.S. - I also
wrote to Dale Sky Jones a

couple days ago asking

to meet with her, if she didn't

want to meet with Shona

Gochenaur due to past
interactions

or whatever
(Shona

mentioned in a
previous message that DSJ

wouldn't meet with

her) -- that I don't have a horse

in the fight as far as

financial interest in the
movement or

personal issues
with

movement players, I
just want to see

California
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
pay

to play folks DO have
a

big job in front of them;
may you

have the same luck
as

those guys in Ohio . . .
.

(1) "
Both

Dales’ (Sky &
Gieringer)

are incredible
people

doing the best they
can." Yes,

for years
they've

both been
trying to undo the benefits

of decriminalization

brought by Prop. 215.

(2)
"Dale G

is one of
the smartest

political
cannabis activist I ever

met." Smart

doesn't translate to honest or

actually helping really

end prohibition.
Legalization

without

decriminalization is just

"prohibition-lite,"
with lots of room

to make
the

99 percent miserable
and

take their money as
profits for

others."
Back in

2009, at the
Anaheim Hemp Con, I

heard
Dale whisper to

David
Herrick that he hoped Prop. 19

DIDN'T pass.

Dale's a paid politician; he's a

Judas Goat who'll

lead the masses who think
NORML can do

no wrong to
the

slaughter. 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 or

rec
users."

Obviously you
can only speak for yourself

on that one, but I

notice that "the cannabis

industry" was first

on your list, with human
beings

added afterwards.
OF

COURSE these folks
don't want to

"hurt" their

potential customers; they just want

to make sure they

can't become competition.
And

they'll use
the

power of the police and
government, and

regualtions
and lawas,

to make sure
theycan't actually

grow
successfully or

share what
they do grow without risking

arrest, 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 9:57

AM

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. Both

Dales’ (Sky &

Gieringer) are incredible people doing

the best they can.

Dale G is one of

the smartest political

cannabis activist I ever
met. I

don’t agree
with

either of them 100% of
the time.

Actually I
don’t agree

or know
anyone that does agree with

anyone 100% of the time.

Nobody here is trying to hurt the

cannabis industry,

patients or rec users. I
respect each

of you. Some
more than

others. S.A.M
has to

love this past few
days

conversation. They
know they

don’t really
have to

do anything,
we’ll defeat

ourselves.
  Come on

people, grow up.
It’s ok

to disagree, it
really

is. It is not ok
to publicly

disrespect.
Name

calling, really?
LOL, ok kids,

behave.

I support the efforts of
all

trying to end the

cannabis war, even if I
disagree with how

they want
to do that.

Besides, it
doesn’t matter until

you
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 initiative

says. Me either. Ask

to work with them to change it.

After all, it’s theirs

and their money. It’s all
about

enrolling not
demand

when you got nothing
but hot air and

even common
sense

can’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
a

chance at decent

cannabis laws. The people of
California

are counting on
you to

do 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; Heather

Burke; Amanda Reiman;

Letitia Pepper; Bob Bowerman; Omar

Figueroa; Dale

Gieringer; Troy Dayton; Steele
Smith; Michael

Jolson;
Lanette Davies;

Debbie
Tharp; Rob Kampia; Debby

Goldsberry

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 with

MCLR and we have moved

closer to many provisions in

there...

Brownie Mary Dem Club:

as far as a "fair
vote", I

heard we were
struck

down by Sean
Donahoe's objection at

the last meeting's

attempt to endorse, however I was not

there so that is just

the rumor. I do not control
BMDC, I

only
"support

it"...and celebrate it (Oaksterdam

just recognized a true

hard worker, Denise
Martellacci in

our
newsletter because

SHE does
a lot of that work along

with 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
profiting

from
selling/growing

cannabis,
apparently that is not what

you were referring to)

other than those we heard from at all

those meetings and the

NAACP, environmental groups
and

such....we did try
to

address many points of
view. You may

recall that
no meeting

had (or
required) everyone to agree

on these policy points.

Nor will we have a draft where

everyone agrees on all

points. We got close to
consensus

for most, but it
is not

perfect for anyone.
Everyone has

made
concessions...well,

nearly
everyone.

Our focus is

providing a path for

SMALL BUSINESSES...I can not
figure out

which special
interest

you are accusing
me

of...shouldn't
that

be obvious if I was
bought &

sold? We
simply want

veterans,
people of color and women

to 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 the

cost and time to
drag my

family all over the
state to listen

to any and
all of you

who had
something to say in 15 + free

open public meetings, so

I am not sure what else you expect

from one person. As I

have yet to uncover any
assumption

of innocence
with regard

to any effort
(we are all "on

the
take"

apparently
though I have yet to get what I am

supposed to be getting!

Wish I knew who I "worked

for" too. No

proof, just wild accusations.
I have

not been paid to
do

this, in fact it has
done nothing but

cost 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 not

get a paycheck

rebuilding after a devastating
federal

raid. I do not
have

investors. No one
took care of me

other than
my husband

(who has been
fighting longer than

most
for patients all

the way to
the Supreme Court for the

right to assist medical

patients). I don't have the

big money you keep

talking about because we are
doing this

with normal

Californians, by Californians
$5 at a time. If

THIS is
not proof, not

sure what
will ever be.

Nonetheless, we intend

to work to improve the current

version and can only do

so when we stick together on
the

most important

points.

I would be
VERY interested to hear from

this list on what we

should be asking the Parker initiative

for. Yes, we have some

restrictions in order for the
rest

of the voters of CA
to

find it acceptable. I
can not

stress enough
that

winning is NOT
inevitable and CA has a

very 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
be

revisited. 18 year

olds are seniors in high
school with 15

year 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 is

just for adults
(can get a permit for

growing over 100 sq ft),

patients can still grow what then

need. Not sure how only

6 plants is better (are you
an

indoor or outdoor

grower?).

Notice we do
not allow discrimination for

your choice in medicine?

Medical cannabis patients allowed

similar protections as

Rx and CPS can NOT TAKE YOUR
CHILDREN

for a plant. We
need

you to fight for this
as hard as we

are! Everyone
has

rights, including
owners. We must

balance
them all. This

would be a
good start for many, and

certainly better than

NOW.

We knew we would not get
everything right

on the
first draft, so

we asked
for open edits and comments,

then made changes.

Leticia personally pointed out a

grievous unintended

consequence that we
immediately deleted

nicknamed the

"snitch clause" (THANK YOU BTW!

GOOD CATCH) Originally

the recommendation from
drafting

attorneys was to
limit

it to
"only" 10% so people

did not profit from just

suing businesses however it became

obvious that it was

instead viewed as "10%!
pure profit

for
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... so

for
personal meetings

etc, I am
happy to go off list with

Shona or Starchild, but

I am not going to engage in blatant

character assassination

ala Leticia. Let's stop
with the

accusations and
focus on

the subject
matter. I am just an

advocate, woman, mother,

wife, employer, concerned citizen

working towards avoiding

the next Jim Crow with our

regulatory practices in

CA. Can we assume good
intentions

here? I do.
I

believe you Shona and
Starchild, you want

to do
the right thing.

Can I
get similar respect without

automatic assumption

that I am of the devil? Maybe we just

disagree on what is

possible "right now"
in a

voter initiative, but
I

do not think we are so
far away from

what we
ultimately hope

for! Let
us move in the same

direction in the

meantime!

Please do not forget that the
effort of

Richard and Prop
19,

that Leticia hated so
much, did MORE to

reduce
youth

criminalization and
incarceration than ANY

SUCCESSFUL LEGALIZATION

MEASURE TO DATE. Credit where

credit is due...or you

lose

integrity...

Reform cuts marijuana possession arrests 86% in 2011, upends California drug policing | Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice

http://www.cjcj.org/tags/news/marijuana?PageSize=25&PageIndex=2

Sometimes

it is the effect, more

than the intent. Failure
and

success are just
about

your perspective
sometimes. I am

more
proud of what was

in that
report than anything we have

ever done... Those are

lives and families and futures

spared. Prop 19

pressured that change (Gov had
vetoed that

bill four
times...only

passed it to
shut down 19)

I am now trying to

do the same with CPS and

patient protections. Please
join

me on the things we

agree on, rather than focusing
only on

the differences
or

neither of us get
anywhere tearing

down.

Can we

agree
on CPS and patient

protections?

Dale Sky
Jones

Oaksterdam University

Executive
Chancellor

Coalition for Cannabis Policy
Reform

Chairwoman

”Never doubt

that a small group of

thoughtful, committed citizens
can

change the world.

Indeed, it is the only thing
that ever

has.” -
Margaret

Mead

On Tue, Nov
10,

2015 at 8:24 AM, Axis
of

Love SF, Shona Gochenaur
<axisoflovesf@...>

wrote:

Dale
Sky, good then lets sit

down, 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, because

its unethical
to purpose

that if you cant
pay, purchase

justice you
should loose

your personal
freedom, especially

when
its about a non

toxic
sacred herb.

I didn't ask if you

sell POT, and it would be fine
with

me if you did.

I asked whose bidding as

the lead lobbyist on

this your doing. Because it
reads like

a patchwork of
special

interest.

I am

concerned about the vote

at brownie mary democratic club in

SF, they only have your

proposal up for a vote, I
find

fraudulent,
voter's

should have the
info on all

initiative and
each

should have a fair
chance to present,

and with
what 15?- now ,

rank choice
voting . I am asking

for
you to move to not

approve
agenda item for a vote , ask

that 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 am

not joking,
and it is

still open
source, and in the

government public

comments period.

Everyone
should push

each team to
get their best, balanced

horse in the race, if

nobody is going grow enough to

actually work together,

I want the best fight.

Hows your Monday look? I will
head

over....

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
personal

reasons for not
being

available. Please
do not say I

refused to
meet with

you... I am in
Oaksterdam most days,

we
can go both ways, and

I am
still happy to meet with

you.

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 is

better, and I
will

sup

(Message over 64 KB, truncated)