SteVE Kubby's Initiative Is Another Trojan Horse Like Prop. 19

David Malmo Levine, Steve Kubby's Director of Activist Communications, "interviewed" Kubby for Culture Magazine on March 28, 2011 about the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine initiative to try to make it LOOK like it is not a Trojan Horse out of the same pharmaceutical stable as Prop. 19. Notably, in this puff-ball of an interview, David Malmo-Levine FAILS to identify himself as part of the Kubby team -- which explains why he didn't ask some very, very obvious questions.

    In an e-mail to the Yahoo discussion group GlobalMarijuanaRelegalization, Mr. Malmo-Levine, who's been trying to defend Kubby's initiative from significant criticism by the pro-REAL legalization members of such group, attempted to imply that Kubby and his team had sought significant community input into the language of the initiative before finalizing it. As proof of Kubby and Judge gray's desire for real community participation in the drafting of the initiative, he cited his March 28, 2011 interview for Culture Magazine, available at

     A review of this article shows that the only community "input" Kubby wanted was money. Here's how the community was invited to be involved:

    "Meanwhile there are two ways CC readers can get involved. If they send us a check for $100 or more they will be official founding donors of the campaign. If you are a business and would like to become an official sponsor of the initiative, we have a program [for bigger donations, no doubt] that will allow you to piggyback on our media coverage."

    Kubby's apparently relying on appearances, rather than on actual good language, to get people to vote for this new version of Prop. 19. Note how he and Malmo-Levine use name-dropping as though Jack Herer would give his blessing to a tax, regulate and control scheme by ANYONE:

     "The "Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act of 2012" initiative was written by Jack Herer's longtime attorney, Bill McPike, who also helped draft the "California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative," with Jack Herer and Eddy Lepp. I asked Bill to draft a new initiative that featured full repeal, safeguards against the feds and was as simple and easy to understand as possible. Judge James Gray and I teamed up to work with Bill and edit his draft into something that came at the war on cannabis from several different directions.

     "So there's a judge's view, a defense attorney's view and my own view as a patient and a successful defendant."

     Too bad that someone besides a member of Kubby's own team didn't do the interview and ask him a few hard questions. For example, Kubby implies that only his initiative can force changes at the federal level; he says that "Everything that we have included in the new initiative is intended to remove cannabis from the state and federal Schedule 1 classification. So far, the CCHHI ignores rescheduling and the "Repeal Prohibition of Cannabis Act of 2012" only addresses state classification. Our initiative orders the California Attorney General, Congress members and Senators to get cannabis rescheduled at the federal level as their highest priority."

     Hard-hitting journalism at its finest, it's not. Too bad DML didn't ask Kubby how merely rescheduling cannabis can change federal laws that make possession and cultivation of cannabis a crime regardless of marijuana's level of scheduling on the federal Controlled Substance Act.

      The rescheduling issue, however, will actually help the pharmaceutical companies with whom Kubby is working to develop a "non-toxic" cannabis lozenge (translation: little or no THC) to market commercially. This provision does NOTHING to help patients cultivate or possess cannabis legally under federal law, nor does it change any laws related to people going to jail or prison.

    This initiative is all about Kubby's personal agenda. Check the Internet, he's CEO of a corporation doing patenting and licensing work with pharmaceutical companies and working on a "non-toxic" (no THC) cannabis lozenge. And guess what? His initiative opens the door to mass cultivation of GMO, no-THC-producing cannabis that will, because of wind pollination, pollute California's legendary cannabis genetics

     The language in the initiative is as deceptive as the stuff in its late and unlamented predecessor, Prop. 19. Tricks, deception, implicit lies and more -- all from the people you'd like to think you could trust. Don't do it.

    Want your own copy of a legal analysis of the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine initiative as it read when Kubby et al. sent it to the Attorney General
for a summary and title preparation? (They have supposedly sent in an amended version since they did not like what I said about the initiative's "narc squad" provisions, but that might not be the truth.) Learn about the Kubby "Narc Squad," GMO cannabis potential, and more:

    E-mail me at CPRsocal@...
     Letitia Pepper, Director of legal and Legislative Analysis for Crusaders for Patients' Rights, the only 100 percent patient and collective lobbying group in Sacramento.
     Crusaders for Patients Rights -- devoted to defending Californians' GOOD medical marijuana rights under Prop. 215 from the coming onslaught of the pharmaceutical industry's Trojan Horses. The best way to win a horse race? Own every single horse that's running. All the "legalize marijuana" initiatives will be Trojan Horses. Vote to decriminalize -- and then only very, very carefully, because even they can include hidden traps.
      It is NOT legally possible to legalize by state law the recreational use of any federally-scheduled drug -- no matter WHAT the scheduling level -- 1, 3, or 20 -- is. Don't be fooled, these initiatives to "legalize" are ALL tricks, cons, shell games to take away your EXISTING rights.

Hi Letitia,

  I'm rather surprised by your message. Steve Kubby was in fact very proactive in soliciting input from members of this very list on the draft of the "Regulate Marijuana Like Wine" initiative. And the initiative specifically states that no existing protections for medical cannabis will be affected. It is much better than Prop. 19 in my opinion. I've known Steve for years, and he has been a longtime libertarian activist who has put himself at considerable personal risk for the cause -- I don't for a minute believe this is some "trick" on his part to further a pharmaceutical company agenda.

  Also, it seems to me that *any* legalization legislation open the door to mass cultivation of non-THC producing cannabis, for instance hemp? So criticizing Kubby and Jim Gray's measure on that basis seems strange to me. What would you *like* to see in the initiative that isn't there, or like to see taken out that is there? It also seems to me that the "Regulate Marijuana Like Wine" initiative does just about everything a state ballot measure could possibly do to seek to rein in the Feds -- criminalizing state law enforcement cooperation with them, requiring the state to lobby for an end to federal scheduling, allowing people an avenue to protect themselves against federal enforcement by becoming deputized, etc.

  However I admit that I don't know as much about all this as Steve, or quite probably yourself, and have insufficient knowledge to respond to many of your allegations. So I'm copying him on your message in order that he or someone with the initiative can hopefully respond directly.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

P.S. - I'm not familiar with Crusaders for Patient Rights -- aside from opposing Prop. 19, an action I can understand although I reluctantly voted for it, since it was a very poorly written initiative, what other public policy positions has your group taken? Do you have a record of standing up for increased freedom?

Hello, Starchild,
   Well, I ended up working with Crusaders for Patients' Rights in 2010 because, on my own, I was working against Prop.19. I had been going to work FOR Prop. 19 until I actually read it. Then I saw that it was actually NOT going to legalize recreational use, and instead would totally gut patients' & caregivers' rights – and in a very deceptively worded initiative that was designed to allow its proponents to lie and say it would NOT affect patients' rights.
   I used my own money to get a booth at LA Hempcon and to do more to alert people to this scam. I then read a Kush magazine and saw that CPR had taken out a big, full-page ad against Prop. 19, and called the number on the ad. That was how I met Lanette Davies, the founder, with her husband Brian, of CPR. They'd gotten involved after Stanford Medical Center gave their 13-.y.o. daughter a recommendation to use cannabis after she was diagnosed with a rare, genetic, very, very painful disease with no cure. They have a collective in the City of Sacramento, and have been very supportive of patients' rights – including patients' right to cultivate and engage in not-for-profit collective distribution of cannabis.
    Before becoming active in the cannabis/marijuana issue, I'd already worked on local government political issues, e.g., eminent domain and efforts to stifle community involvement in the local political process.
    My background lends itself to debunking these spurious claims about what an initiative can and cannot do – and with interpreting them in terms of how courts will interpret them after they've been enacted. I've been an attorney since 1982, and most of that time worked for state appellate court Justices as a "chambers attorney" – an attorney who works directly with the judge, rather than being on staff --and a federal district court judge, so I have a very good background in areas like statutory interpretation, which is a specialized area that depends on special rules of interpretation. I worked on some pretty complicated cases including ones involving in-depth analysis and interpretation of complicated statutes.
    I also worked for Best, Best & Krieger . a big law firm that now has offices all over the state, from 1984 to 1987 – 24 years ago, mind you. I point this out because-the "let's legalize the recreational use of marijuana" initiative tricksters of Prop. 19 always liked to claim I'm a plant from the DEA or ?? because of that connection! I got involved with cannabis/marijuana issues because I discovered it's helping my MS (diagnosed since 1993) with no side effects and a cost savings of some $300 per month compared to the cost of the co-pay on my drugs and doctors' visits.
    Everyone should be able to grow and use cannabis/marijuana like the medicinal herb it is and always has been! One way I can show my gratitude for being able to do so because of Prop. 215 is to work to defend EVERYONE'S current, existing good rights under Prop. 215 and its enabling legislation and related case law. These initiatives are all tricks to change those existing rights. This is something the average person – let alone the average attorney –can't tell from reading these darn, pesky initiatives, which will continue to swarm over California as long as Big Pharma and Big Government are poised to take control of cannabis as a "legal," still controlled and regulated, PRESCRIPTION MEDICATION! No, no, no! (You know the U.S. government now holds the patent on cannabinoids as anti-oxidants and neuro-protectants, right?)
    But back to Steve Kubby, . . . .Mr. Kubby and his team knew about me and were already concerned that I might bad-mouth their initiative – but they did not voluntarily send me a copy to review – it was leaked to me, accidentally, in an e-mail with which I shouldn't have been copied. Since late March, I've been looking at that original draft, and then they claimed to change it, and then they didn't send me or the GlobalMarijuanaRelegalization Yahoo discussion group a copy of the NEXT version. BTW, the Libertarian Party had already endorsed what must have been the First Version.
    The Second Version was also" leaked" to me – although I don't know if it was an accident or not, politics being what they are. It was this Second Version that Kubby et al. allegedly sent to the Attorney General for preparation of a summary and title.
    The Second Version added about 400 new words – and added a provision to create a "Narc Squad" of unpaid volunteers who would take some classes, get deputized, have state-wide authority and immunity from liability for doing anything wrong – and who would be able to go everywhere anyone was growing cannabis/marijuana and tell you were not in compliance with all the [unspecified-in-the-initiative – VERY DANGEROUS!!!] new laws and regulations – and then they could also then report you to ARMED law enforcement. Imagine, your retired neighbor who calls you "pothead" would be deputized to keep an eye on you and rag on you, too. What a fabulous idea – not!
    Now, does that sound like anything Libertarians would want to see happen?
    When I got the Second Version, I started posting comments about it, too. The Second Version was NOT posted on Kubby's official initiative website, either.
    So, then what? Remember, Kubby et al. sent the Second Version to the AG's Office to finalize. Once I started posting about the Narc Squad, David Malmo-Levine's "Director of Activist Communications," send me/Global Marijuana Relegalization another e-mail saying they were sending an amended version of the Second Version to the Attorney General's Office to take out the Narc Squad provisions.
   It was in connection with responding to my criticism about such a disorganized and weird way of changing the wording after getting endorsements that David Malmo-Levine claimed that they were really "all about" seeking community input -- apparently even after sending it into the AG as a "final version." And that's why I'm criticizing the Malmo-LEvine/Kubby interview in Culture, because Malmo-Levine cited to it as proof that the reason they changed it after getting the Libertarian endorsement was because of community input. Hey, what community would suggest a "Narc Squad"? Libertarians? I HOPE not!
    This is a VERY SUSPICIOUS way to handle an initiative's wording – getting support and endorsements, and then, at the last minute, quietly (not posted on the official website!) changing the language to add in, of all things, a Narc Squad!
    Based on everything I've seen so far, Kubby is just using the Libertarians as endorsers – for his own financial benefit. He's got a patent and licensing company that's working with pharmaceutical companies to develop a "non-toxic" cannabis lozenge – and "non-toxic" is code for "no THC." The Kubby initiative allows the cultivation of GMO cannabis – already developed by biotech/pharma companies – which has a knock-out gene so it doesn't produce THC. Fields and fields of GMO cannabis – which is a wind-pollinated crop – will ruin California's legendary cannabis genetics.
    IF this sounds unbelievable, all I can say is, that if you e-mail me at CPRSOCAL@... and ask for an analysis of Version 2, I'll send you a file with a lengthy analysis of the Narc Squad, GMO cannabis and other issues – and yes, there are other issues, including the legal fact that it is legally impossible for a state law to legalize the recreational use of a federally controlled substance – no matter what the scheduling level. I always ask people : do you think California could vote to legalize the recreational use of Codeine? No, we can't do that. People are so acclimatized to thinking of marijuana as a rec recreational drug "like wine," that they lose sight of the fact that legally, federally legally, marijuana is NOT like wine. And federal law related to federally-scheduled drugs trumps state law related to "recreational" use.
    The really evil thing about the "Regulate Wine Like Cannabis" initiative is that IF it passes, its provisions re recreational use will be struck down as pre-empted if and when anyone sues over it – and they will – and that will leave in place all the nasty changes to our state's MEDICAL marijuana laws. And those changes include a new definition of medical marijuana as containing less than 1 percent THC, and as being unavailable for anyone under 21. (Also explained in the file I can send you.)
   One of the worst things about Prop. 19 – and this initiative, too – is that it – and this one – limit cannabis use to over 21-y.o.s. And that was one reason Crusaders and I opposed Prop. 19 and this one, too – there are a lot of kids in pain and with nausea and ADHA and other problems that are best treated with cannabis. We just can't let these self-interested folks who pander to popular opinion in order to get what THEY want throw the kids under the bus in order to get laws that help them and hurt others. The 21 y.o. provision is clearly in the law to appeal to conservative voters who do not understand that cannabis is am important – even critical – medicinal herb that chronically ill children and adults must use to save their livers and kidneys from damage for pharmaceutical painkillers and other meds.

Hi, I posted to the website before I got this e-mail!

Hi Starchild, Hi Steve Kubby,

 David Malmo\-Levine has now greeted my criticism of his not\-very\-independent, soft\-ball interview with Steve Kubby

about Kubby's Trojan Horse initiative, "Regulate Marijuana Like Wine"
by claiming that he joined the Kubby team AFTER the March 28, 2011
Culture interview Kubby:

"From: David Malmo-Levine <>