From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: California | East Bay | Santa Cruz Indymedia | Drug War | Environment & Forest Defense | Government & Elections | Health, Housing, and Public Services | Police State and Prisons
Legalize It 2010 Prop 19
by Skidmark Bob
Thursday Sep 16th, 2010 4:59 PM
Coverage of prop 19 in California the legalization of Cannabis for adult use coming up for Nov 2010 vote featuring excerpts from The Cannabis Chronicles looking at the Tax and Regulate Cannabis initiative interview excerpts from Richard Lee (wrote and funded prop 19) also CaNORML director Dale Gieringer and medical activist Dr. Frank Lucindo. The 420 Drug War News, AlJazeera English news story on Mexico considering legalization Also music by Peter Tosh, Sucking Chest Wound, Refer Madness: The Musical, Malvina Reynolds, Margret Cho and Jon Lajoie.
Hosted and Produced by Skidmark Bob live on Free Radio Santa Cruz 101fm 9-14-10

Listen to The Cannabis Chronicles: From Black Market to Industry:

420 Drug War News

Al Jazeera English

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by Robert Norse
Saturday Sep 18th, 2010 3:34 AM
For a challenging attack on Proposition 19, see , a site describing itself as Stoners Against Proposition 19.

I've been interviewing Pebbles Trippet, long-time marijuana activist in Mendocino County, who critically supports Proposition 19.

The interview is archived at (download and go to the last 1/6 of the show).

Pebbles will be continuing her support of 19 and critique of Dragonfly de la Luz (Stoners Against 19)'s impressive arguments tomorrow 9-19 at (101.1 FM) at noon.

Listeners can call in at 831-469-3119.
by Leonard Krivitsky, MD
Monday Sep 20th, 2010 7:18 AM
Cannabis is less physically addictive than caffeine, while the so-called "gateway drug" theory is a complete fantasy, and it was just recently called "half-baked" as a result of a scientific study. CNN reported that Cocaine use has dropped sharply, by 30% since 2002. I worked in addiction medicine for years, and this is what I can advice on the matter: Any suppression of Cannabis use will be immediately followed by an increase in alcohol/hard drug/prescription drug abuse! You don't believe me, Mr. Kerlikowske? Then maybe you will believe the Big Alcohol lobby that is financing the Cannabis Legalization opponents for exactly this reason. Right now Cannabis is just simply perceived as a much safer alternative to alcohol/hard drugs, which is precisely how it should be perceived. To have a society in which there is NO psychoactive substance use is an illusion, and it will be good for our government to realize this. So then, it becomes a matter of "safer choices", just like with the sex education, especially after we realized that "abstinence" may not be one of the viable choices! And Cannabis is, without a shadow of a doubt, a much safer choice than alcohol, hard drugs or dangerous, physically addictive prescription drugs, such as opiate pain pills! Just very recently a research study in addiction medicine has determined that Cannabis may actually serve as an "exit" substance for recovering alcoholics/hard drug addicts. People have written to me many times, relating how Cannabis helps them to stay away from alcohol, cocaine, "meth" and benzodiazepines. For some reason, these four drugs are especially prominent when it comes to an "exit substance" function of Cannabis. Then, of course, there is a potential of Cannabis in chronic pain, where other drugs may be ineffective (or physically addictive), with very important potential consequences for our wounded veterans, many of whom have chronic pain. Mr. Kerlikowske, be very happy that the cocaine abuse rate is dropping. Do not interfere with these dynamics, and then we can possibly achieve what has already been achieved in the Netherlands where the drug overdose rate is 85%(!!) lower than in the US, and that is with much more liberal Cannabis possession laws than in this country! Please check these numbers for yourselves, by all means. Mr. Kerlikowske, it is time to give up "dogma" and to start listening to the experts, if we really want to lower the alcohol/hard drug use in this country, and the accompanying dependencies and overdoses!
by Robert Norse
Monday Sep 20th, 2010 3:00 PM
I think we are all agreed cannabis should not be illegal--no question. The question is whether Proposition 19 is something we should vote for. That's the issue I'm exploring on my show. The discussion will continue next Sunday at noon on and 101.1 FM
by absolutely
Monday Sep 20th, 2010 4:19 PM
Get the fuck out of here with this no on 19 bullshit.
by yes on 19
Monday Sep 20th, 2010 6:35 PM
This is ridiculous.

The "anti" stoner crowd is trying to say that "what we have in Prop 215 is better than prop 19".

To those who say that, please show us where Prop 215 allows for non-medical users to grown LEGALLY on a 5 by 5 plot. Until you can show, this your argument is hollow.

F off.
by yes on 19
Monday Sep 20th, 2010 6:38 PM
The other argument that is being used is that "the corporations will take it all over". This would be true if 19 didn't allow for small time home growers! Why buy from a corporation when you can grow your own?

by Pro 19
Tuesday Sep 21st, 2010 11:18 AM
The only thing I don't like about prop 19 is that you can't smoke in public or in the presence of a minor the dealers hate 19 because the price will go down even more than it has since 215 and the dealers will have to compete in a free market like everyone else. I think that will make obtaining pot much safer and people will have more of a choice and you can grow your own or know what exactly what you are buying (organic, non pesticide) that will bring Jobs, Jobs, Jobs to a struggling economy and less violence, gangs the black market brings also if 19 passes it will NOT affect prop 215 and medical use will not change.
So there is NO reason to be against prop 19.
by Joe Riley
Wednesday Sep 22nd, 2010 12:27 AM
Aye vote for me on this one. People who are opposed to this are ignorant and stupid and haven't analyzed the law enough. It baffles me to think of how these paranoid maniac no voters rationalize this in their mind. I don't fathom or understand the stupidity. Legalization is on the table, I am not waiting another 2 years. Push it through, we can vote to amend it and patch it up later. Slow go is better than NO GO. Do yourself a favor and take a close look. Both Props (215/19) do not cancel each other out. Meaning med patients are still exempt from the smoking in public/same space as minor stuff. I don't feel like waiting for lawmakers to crawl out of their tortoise shells on this issue. We have to push it ourselves.

Time to end the med mj fraud once and for all. Real medicine is standardized and inspected by FDA. Who knows what these sheisty rip off clinics are lacing their products with for profits, pestacides, fungicides, they also KEIF their shit, which really sucks. Let's get some CERTIFICATIONS and STANDARDS that require quality. If you can't match that then you have no business being in the marijuana business. Black market dealers? THey skimp a LOT. Fuck them. Stick it to those greedy bastards - even though in actuality they have nothing to lose - thy just have to owe up to certifications and better standards. Sorry, this is a win for the majority, and a slight hassle for cops, da's, landlords, etc. They are going to have to find another reason to harass/call the cops on people, MJ is no longer going to be a valid excuse for LEO encounters and evictions . I as a citizen HATE the medical marijuana system, its outdated and stupid - I have to pay a quack doctor $50-100 every year to use herb? I can still be arrested and sent to court, go through drama, and prove to a judge I'm a patient unless I pay for this $180+ card? DO you really think SICK PEOPLE with cancer and HIV that are paying for outrageously expensive drugs can afford this? GO through the hassle of riding their wheelie chairs to clinics, far away doctors, courts (when they get caught), etc? So thats a price of up to $250 or more a year? Fuck that. Let's just legalize it and get rid of this scam bs. I'm not saying marijuana isn't medicine, I'm saying the system they have set up is absolutely retarded and overpriced for today's economy. Anyone who votes no is bat shit crazy, a religious zealot, selfish, and/or has no compassion for the majority. You are a shame to the Medical Marijuana movement, which is backed by compassion as its pledge. Shame on you. SHAME ON YOU. I'd love to see herb go down in price and be a more available commodity. I'd love to grow in my back yard and not have to fork out $2000+ for lighting, scrubbers, fire permits, electricity expenses, SB420 cards, and all that stupid bullshit. LEGALIZE BITCHES. Fuck the DUMB.
by Robert Norse
Wednesday Sep 22nd, 2010 1:05 AM
I haven't made up my mind. And I'll be discussing this issue with Pebbles Trippet on Sunday again. But some of the arguments Dragonfly makes need to be considered not simply vilified.

For the record, I outline some of Dragonfly's arguments ("Myth/Fact" format) and my COMMENTS:

Myth #1: The initiative will end the War on Drugs and substantially reduce marijuana arrests, saving millions in prison costs.
Fact: .... Contrary to popular assumption, the drug war in California will not end, nor will it be impacted much by the initiative. This is because the initiative doesn’t call for full legalization; it proposes to legalize possession of only up to one ounce. And in California, there is no “drug war” being fought against possession of up to one ounce, because marijuana is already decriminalized.
The penalty for carrying an ounce is a mere citation and maximum $100 fine.[4] Moreover, possession of one ounce is on its way to being downgraded from a misdemeanor to an infraction, because the state Senate voted in June to reclassify its status. [5] No one goes to jail for having an ounce or less in California, and no one gets arrested, because it is not an arrestable offense.
One often-quoted statistic in the initiative debate is that misdemeanor marijuana possession arrests reached 61,388 in 2008.[6] ... This statistic refers only to possession of more than one ounce, possession by minors and possession on school grounds­—offenses which the initiative will not legalize. It does not refer to nor does it include marijuana arrests for possession of one ounce or less, because this is not an arrestable offense. Therefore, the initiative would have no impact on reducing these arrests rates.

COMMENT: Since currently any amount of marijuana or just the smell of marijuana becomes probable cause for searching, many searches may be prevented by making possession of 1 oz legal and removing the "probable cause" for searches by big-nosed cops. This is an argument for Proposition 19 which Dragonfly fails to credit.

Statistically, the demographic that accounts for nearly one-quarter of total arrests for marijuana possession in California happens to be those in the 18-20 age group. But because the initiative explicitly makes it illegal for even adults age 18-20 to possess marijuana, these arrests will not decrease, and the drug war against young adults will rage on.

COMMENT: This is a significant argument against Proposition 19, because it changes the status of those 18-20, who only face a misdemeanor citation for under an oz, and will under 19 face felony charges.

Furthermore, since the initiative would keep possession of amounts greater than one ounce illegal and likewise maintain the illegality of private sales of any amount, the overall impact that the initiative would have on ending the drug war, reducing arrest rates and saving on prison costs would be negligible, at best.

...The state does, however, incarcerate people for selling small amounts of marijuana. And since this initiative keeps private marijuana sales illegal, no matter the quantity, there will be no decrease in the number of African Americans—or anyone else—arrested for selling a joint.

COMMENT: Pebbles Trippet expresses critical support for Proposition 19 (i.e. she doesn't like all of it, but feels enough of it is good to vote for it). Trippet believes the climate of police enforcement will change once the measure is passed. This might mean a drop in arrests in spite of the fact that the laws doesn't explicitly exempt unlicensed sales.

Myth #3: You'll be able to light up freely in the privacy of your home.
Fact: That depends. Under the initiative, even adults consuming marijuana in the privacy of their homes could face arrest if there are minors present (not something one would expect from an initiative that claims to treat marijuana like alcohol and tobacco)[10]. Current marijuana law contains no such restrictions. Thanks to Prop. 215, which legalized marijuana for medicinal use, cannabis consumers have been legally free to smoke in the privacy of their homes since 1997. This initiative seeks to undermine that freedom, making it absolutely illegal to smoke marijuana if there are minors present. (The initiative is ambiguous with regard to whether “present” means being in the same room as the consumer, the same house, the same apartment building, or within wafting distance—apparently leaving this up to the interpretation of judges.) There is no exception for medical marijuana patients or for parents consuming in the presence of their own children.

COMMENT: Trippet feels police wouldn't waste their time on trying to go into homes to hassle adults for medicating in front of their children. Others suggest that anti-marijuana neighbors could still report seeing smoking in a house with children and get the police to arrest.

Myth #4: Under the initiative, anyone 21 or over will be allowed to grow marijuana in a 5’x5’ space.
Fact: Not quite. This allotment is per property, not per person. If you share a residence with other people, you’ll be sharing a 5’x5’ grow space, as well. Even if you own multiple acres that many people live on, if it is considered one parcel, the space restriction of 5’x5’ (3-6 plants) will still apply. [11] Plus, if you rent, you will be required to obtain permission from your landlord—which they may be unwilling to grant since doing so will subject them to forfeiture by the federal government.

COMMENT: An important question is whether this cuts down on the amount of space medical marijuana patients can grow. A blogger identifying themselves as a lawyer claims that Proposition 19 critically limits Proposition 215's protections. See .

Myth #5: Adults 21 and over will be able to possess up to one ounce of marijuana without penalty.
Fact: Perhaps the most ironic piece of the puzzle is that the initiative to legalize marijuana actually makes it illegal to possess marijuana if it was purchased anywhere other than the very few licensed dispensaries in the state.[12] So if this initiative passes, better not get caught carrying marijuana you bought off your neighbor, your current dealer, or at a party; you could get arrested. And if you do buy from a licensed dispensary, better keep your receipts, because the burden of proof will be on you. Not only is this inconvenient, but it sets the industry up to be monopolized.

COMMENT: The argument is relevant but overbroad. You can grow your own and possess it, as I understand it. But it's true that you can't buy from anyone other than a licensed dispensary, which may be few and far between.
Trippet believes cities and counties will jump in to authorize dispenssaires to benefit from the tax increment. However, there seems to be a nasty trend in the other direction banning or severely limiting medical marijuana dispensaries in city after city (including Santa Cruz).

Dragonfly on Myth #5 cont.
What’s more, if your city decides not to tax cannabis, then buying and selling marijuana in the city limits would remain illegal. You would be permitted to possess and consume marijuana, but you would be required to travel to another city that taxes cannabis to buy it.[13] This is a move towards decreased, not increased, access. And since the initiative is so ambiguous that cities are destined to be tied up in a legal quagmire over how to interpret it, many local governments might find it simpler just to opt-out and send its citizens elsewhere. Indeed, 129 cities did just that with medical marijuana, banning it outright, while still others have established moratoriums against dispensaries. In fact, of the entire state, only the city of Oakland has endorsed the initiative. A vote for the initiative will therefore not ensure local access to purchase marijuana legally.

COMMENT: Trippet believes the passage of Prop 219 will change the mood in cities and counties and move the whole social dialogue and climate substantially forward in a tide that will discourage anti-marijuana enforcement. So cops won't be interested in busting small dealers.

I'm still sorting through the arguments and trying to decide myself how it all balances out. I encourage people to listen in to the show Sunday and add your opinion. It's scheduled to start at 11:30 AM.

Other arguments can be found at Dragonfly's website: . I'd encourage supporters of Proposition 19 to address these concerns or expose them as unfounded. rather than simply denounce those raising them.
by vote for 19
Wednesday Sep 22nd, 2010 8:14 AM
Thanks, Robert for the analysis. Here is one hole in Dragonfly's argument that one can drive a truck through: "Thanks to Prop. 215, which legalized marijuana for medicinal use, cannabis consumers have been legally free to smoke in the privacy of their homes since 1997."

MEDICAL. It's obvious Dragonfly has a medical card, and probably sells medical as well. Therefore she knows that her profits will go away if 19 goes through. She doesn't give a shit about all the black brothers getting in trouble who can't afford a medical card or even the evaluation appointment. She's an Uncle Tom who only cares about herself.

by dragonfly de la luz
Thursday Sep 30th, 2010 10:20 PM
In anticipation of the initiative passing, the City of Rancho Cordova has proposed a tax on cannabis home-grown for personal use—be it recreational or medicinal. The city’s Personal Cannabis Cultivation Tax measure, which will join Prop. 19 on the Nov. 2 ballot, would impose an annual tax of $600 per square foot on indoor grows up to 25 square feet, and a $900-per-square-foot tax for anything larger. For the casual toker growing in the 5’x5’ space that Prop. 19 allows (3-6 plants), that calculates to $15,000 per year. A 10x10 space (6-12 plants), which you may need if your roommates want to grow, too, would cost $90,000 per year.

Since Prop. 19 allows cities to regulate and control even medical marijuana cultivation—which they’re not allowed to do under Prop. 215—then for countless patients, this tax would make growing their own medicine impossible. Don Duncan, California director of Americans for Safe Access, the foremost advocacy group for medical marijuana, believes this “will have the effect of essentially banning legal cultivation.” And since that city has already banned medical marijuana dispensaries, those who are ill would have the added inconvenience of traveling to a city that allows marijuana sales for their medicinal needs—and so would you for your recreational needs.

Rancho Cordova’s Mayor Ken Cooley says the city is just protecting its interests should Prop. 19 pass. Just as local cities have been copying each other on ordinances banning or calling moratoria on medical marijuana dispensaries (258 cities so far—almost half the cities in the state), no doubt they’ll copy this kind of ordinance, too. How will your city legislate personal cultivation? Even if Prop. 19 becomes law, will you be able to afford to exercise your right to grow in your 5’x5’ space?

Consider the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. It didn’t make marijuana illegal, but prohibited possession of marijuana without a special tax stamp—which the government never issued. So even though marijuana was legal, it was impossible to possess it legally. Prop. 19 would do the very same thing—make it “legal” for you to cultivate marijuana, yet allow cities to make it economically infeasible for anyone to actually be able to grow it. This isn’t legalization; this is back-door prohibition. Will you grow your own, even if you can’t afford to pay the taxes? Will you trade the felony of cultivation for the felony of tax evasion? Will you vote for Prop. 19 only to become a criminal?

Before you decide whether unlimited taxation is a good “baby step,” spark one and meditate on the words of Justice John Marshall in the Supreme Court case of McCulloch v. Maryland: “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.” If the trade-off for legalization must be taxation, then we must see to it that cannabis is not taxed beyond what is reasonable. Giving local governments the power to tax marijuana “without limitation” is no baby step in the right direction, it’s a giant leap down the path of prohibition.
by let there be light
Friday Oct 1st, 2010 2:50 PM
So it is safe to say that there are a handful of loud, obnoxious, and most importantly, misinformed “stoners” that want you to vote against your self interest and vote to keep cannabis illegal for adults. Who are these people and why should you (or should you not) listen to them. So here is a list of the opposition “leaders” and a brief explanation of why they are op[posed and why you should run from their rhetoric.
Saturday Oct 2nd, 2010 4:37 AM
just because you're a medical marijuana patient doesn't mean you have something to "gain" if prop. 19 fails. it means patients have something to KEEP: their hard-won cultivation rights, which prop. 19 would reverse. the "protections" for patients is limited to only POSSESSION and CONSUMPTION. they're right to CULTIVATE IS NOT PROTECTED under prop. 19, and that is the problem. i myself am not medical, but I'M VOTING NO ON 19 because i have a conscience, and i cannot justify even the RISK of voting away patients' rights--the people who need marijuana the most/the people we should most try to protect--just because some insensitive douche-bag is giving out "bullshitter" awards and trying to discourage us from thinking for ourselves on the subject.

Prop 19 protects patients’ personal and collective cultivations.

Further protecting patients from local law enforcement actions, Section 11303 states that “no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact SEIZE or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is LAWFULLY CULTIVATED.” If you are a patient, you may “lawfully cultivate” as much marijuana as medically necessary and Prop. 19 protects that right. If you are cultivating for a collective, you may “lawfully cultivate” as much marijuana as your collective allows you to and Prop. 19 protects that right. Unfortunately, many law enforcement officials refuse to recognize the rights provided under the MMP for collectives to “lawfully cultivate” and sell marijuana. Prop. 19 reinforces those rights and makes it even more difficult for law enforcement to bust a collective or collective grower.

Saturday Oct 2nd, 2010 1:55 PM
but prop. 19 redefines what is "lawfully cultivated"--when it gives cities UNLIMITED POWER to regulate cultivation:

*Section 11301 says: “Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following: (a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis*

if a city decides 5x5 is the allowed cultivation space, then prop. 19 only "protects" patients' right to follow their cities new rules. if prop. 215 was really excluded from this initiative, it would be listed in the INTENT section, where it lists laws prop. 19 is NOT supposed to affect, and laws it IS supposed to affect. it is no accident that prop. 215 is not mentioned in either list. it is also no accident that prop. 19 went through 14 drafts before it ever made any exemption for patients. (and that exemption, in the purposes section, pertains only to POSSESSION and CONSUMPTION. NOT CULTIVATION.)

besides, NORML'S BILL PANZER (high times freedom fighter of the month and the only attorney to co-author prop. 215, himself has said that prop. 19 is worded in such a way that judges most likely will interpret prop. 19 as superseding prop. 215. this is a risk we cannot afford to take.

if patients' rights were important to the authors of prop. 19, they would have taken the time necessary to draft an initiative that protects their rights. it would have required only a sentence!
by read it
Saturday Oct 2nd, 2010 5:38 PM
Does ASA support or oppose Proposition 19?

Neither. ASA's mission is to ensure safe and legal access to cannabis for therapeutic uses and research. We take no position on Proposition 19, because it lies outside the scope of our focus and area of expertise. Our neutral position should not be interpreted as support or opposition.

Does Proposition 19 hurt patients?

No. While it is possible there will be unanticipated consequences and legal controversy, nothing in the text of Proposition 19 is designed to deny any rights to medical cannabis patients.

by Sacred Plants of Europe
Thursday Oct 7th, 2010 3:12 AM

The idea that hiding behind medical should not be necessary (16th min) is worth underlining, because this is where the expectation stems from that legalisation should fit in with qualitative tax reform. Qualitative tax reform means replacing taxes on behaviours which do not need to be avoided with such ones on these that need to, and replacing a complex and bureaucratically intrusive fiscal system with the most simple one which can just employ the market to distribute the tax load among the participants. Practically, taxation of limited resources should be complemented with tax breaks for renewables.

If there still is a medical marjuana tax, the raised money should at least be specifically reserved for transparent medical marijuana research, rather than thrown into the bottomless pit of the federal budget, where it might get lost in some secret entity shadow budget. If the tax dollars emanating from your pipe were to prop up the surveillance regime and its spying, stalking and spamming, this would amount to a socialisation of some of the most sinister human rights violations in your history, the government-mandated mind abuse programs which for too long have made innocent souls exposed to them go unabomber. If it cannot (yet) be explicitely excluded, there must be at least be a transparent purpose obligation regarding the revenues. I am just saying, since in this corner of the planet we have made certain experiences which inevitably lead to the conclusion that your secret government entities do not have a right to exist.