Advocates In California Urge Protection For Medical Cannabis Patients From Hyper-regulation, Over-taxation, & Corporate Takeover

The Bureau of Cannabis Control is slated to start issuing and processing applications on January 1, 2018.  Further regulations will be presented in November of this year, and the California Department of Consumer Affairs just seated the long-waited Cannabis Advisory Committee mandated by the state’s new cannabis rules.  

What is absent on this committee is any authentic patient voice or social justice advocates.  However, this has been the case in Sacramento during all medical cannabis policy discussions.  Patient advocates have had to demand to be heard or be ignored.  Now that the potential revenue from adult recreational cannabis sales and production is being projected, affordable access to medical cannabis for disabled and low-income patients is the furthest thing on the minds of the new Cannabis Bureaucracy.

Hopefully, the California Cannabis Bureaucracy realizes that we could find ourselves back in a federally hostile environment.  Who did they seat to tackle the possibility that our U.S. Attorney General and Department of Justice may decide to enforce the Controlled Substances Act, again?  Who will deal with the fallout and stand up for the political prisoners?

What is present on this committee is the Drug Policy Alliance.  Members of the Drug Policy Alliance are gaining seats on committees and commissions around the state.  Since DPA’s political action committee donated a significant amount of money to Prop. 64, this would seem to be a conflict.  However, this works out wonderfully for George Soros, who founded and funds DPA, and is heavily vested in Monsanto.   Monsanto stands to win the most from Prop. 64, by acquiring the largest permits and controlling the seeds for recreational, medical and hemp stains.  With Soros’ employees serving around the state the mega-corporate take over of California’s cannabis industry is moving right along.

Despite how the advisory or oversight bodies may be stacked, the regulations themselves equate impractical policy.  Many current businesses will find it burdensome and too expensive to comply.  This creates a monopoly for wealthy, elite players to saturate the marketplace.  True patients and their providers will be priced out and in jeopardy.  Some operations will go deep underground, adding to existing environmental concerns about unregulated cultivation.

Patients are urged to contact:

Department of Consumer Affairs – Bureau of Cannabis Control

Attn: Lori Ajax, Chief, Bureau of Cannabis Control;

Dean R. Grafilo, Director, California Department of Consumer Affairs;

And Members of the Cannabis Advisory Committee

bcc@dca.ca.gov

Or (800) 952-5210

Let them know that you are patient that relies on consistent and affordable access to medical cannabis, and you are concerned that over-regulation, permitting fees and taxes for medical cannabis are going to put your collective out of business or make it so you can no longer afford your medicine. 

Send your comments and concerns to your California state representatives as well:

Find Your California Representative

http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov

*****

Some related links:

Department of Consumer Affairs Announces Appointments to Cannabis Advisory Committee

http://cannabis.ca.gov/2017/10/04/department-of-consumer-affairs-announces-appointments-to-cannabis-advisory-committee/

L.A. City Council approves new Cannabis Department head

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-la-marijuana-commission-20170815-story.html

George Soros And Big Agriculture Move The Marijuana Movement

http://katehon.com/837-george-soros-and-big-agriculture-move-the-marijuana-movement.html

How Monsanto & Bayer Are Trying To Take Over The Cannabis Industry

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/08/31/how-monsanto-bayer-are-trying-to-take-over-the-cannabis-industry/

The Corporate Billionaires’ Hostile Attempt To Take Over The California Cannabis Industry in 2016

http://panorg.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-corporate-billionaires-hostile.html

Legalization, 4 Years Later: What Happened In Washington State?

http://herb.co/2016/11/17/legalization-washington-state/

#####

Patient Advocacy Network Urges NO Vote on Proposition 64

PAN’s directors are unanimous in encouraging a NO vote on Prop 64.  This is a just a very brief list of reasons to vote NO:

*  Jeopardizes Prop 215 – On the first page of Prop 64 it states it is the proposition’s intent to ‘streamline’ medical and non-medical into one regulatory scheme.  The taxes and permitting fees that pertain to adult use will apply to medical as well.  While patients may be eligible to get a tax break at the register, the base price will be much higher as a result of the all the fees and taxes that were paid before it reached the counter.  This violates the affordability clause in Prop 215.  Prop 64 also gets rid of the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation and  interferes with the patient-doctor relationship. (Links with attorney analysis below.)

*  Too many taxes and undisclosed fees – Prop 64 includes a 15% excise tax, encourages local taxes, gross receipts taxes, and taxes on the flowers and the leaves.  No other agricultural product is taxed this way.  While Prop 64 lays out all of the permits required, the fees will be decided by the legislature because Prop 64 gives power to the legislature to amend Prop 64… and we know what a great job they do.

*  Funds stay in Sacramento – Prop 64 clearly states that none of the taxes, fees or fines will be used by the general fund (as in Colorado).  All of the money generated stays in Sacramento to fund the 11 different agencies, offices and departments that will enforce Prop 64.  The portion proponents state is going toward education is for after-school drug classes and a research program at UC San Diego.  Prop 64 creates the largest slush fund of any Governor’s office in the country and Lt. Gov. (CA governor-hopeful) Gavin Newsom is literally banking on it.

*  Not real adult legalization – If you’re over 21 and not a patient, you can still go to jail if you are caught with more than an ounce, six plants or 4 grams of concentrates.  Possession of an ounce or less was decriminalized in California in 2010, S.B. 1449.  Prop 47 released all non-violent cannabis offenders.  (See news article below.) Minors caught with cannabis will still be treated as felons.  (See criminal penatlies chart below.)

*  Written and funded by special interests and not the cannabis community – Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom seated the Drug Policy Alliance to write Prop 64.  (In an article below DPA admits they don’t know how to regulate Cannabis.)  George Soros creates, funds and heavily influences DPA.  Soros also is a major partner in Monsanto-Bayer.  Do I need to continue?  Ok, fine.  Monsanto has been sued and/or tossed out of several countries and wants cannabis to be there next big venture, especially industrial hemp, GMO-you-can-only-buy-hemp-seed-from-Monsanto hemp.  They would also create the GMO seed for Bayer, GW Pharceutical, R.J. Reynolds, Philip Morris.  A brief research into the history of Monsanto and you will learn that they have put small family farms out of business all over the world.  How do you think their involvement is going to affect California’s cannabis growers?  What is Newsom’s motivation for getting bed with these corporations while he blocked authentic patient advocates and long-time cannabis industry players from the table?

* Racist.  Classist. – This is a long socio-economic discussion that Axis of Love SF explores deeply.  I have included those links below.

Some of those asking for your NO vote: Ed Rosenthal, Valerie Corral, Steve Kubby, Scott Imler, Dennis Peron, several growers’ associations, numerous attorneys, dozens of patient advocates and many others.

Prop 215  =  less than 250 words

Prop 64  =  62+ pages

The good news is that there are already good legalization initiatives drafted by a broad coalition of our cannabis community members with the input of good lawyers, and have received favorable analysis from the Office of the Attorney General.  These complimentary initiatives take into account the California single-subject rule, which stipulates that proposed legislation can only take on one issue.  By having complimentary initiatives we aim to legalize marijuana, ensure that medical marijuana patients are protected, end bans, have fair permitting and taxes for ALL types of cannabis businesses, release prisoners, expunge records, protect genetics, small farmers, civil rights and more. 

Your NO vote protects Prop 215, allows legal challenges to MMRSA/MCRSA to move forward and let’s us get a much better set of laws passed in 2018.   Please help protect California’s unique cannabis heritage; and don’t let mega corporations and their lobbyists destroy it.

Be Safe.

Get out and vote.

Sincerely,

Patient Advocacy Network

Some links:

Does Prop 64 Threaten, Diminish, or End Medical Cannabis?

(Answer: Yes, Yes, and Yes)

By Sasha Brodsky, Attorney at Law

http://www.sbrodskylaw.com/Blog/VoteNoOnProp64.html

Will Calif.’s Prop. 64 Really Free any Pot Prisoners?

"...one fact that can’t be ignored is that almost no one is in prison for cannabis in California... according to the the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, only 285 people are in prison for any cannabis-related offense."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/will-califs-prop-64-really-free-any-pot-prisoners_us_581d2767e4b0334571e09b91

California legalization: Prop. 215 author fights Prop. 64, here’s why

http://www.thecannabist.co/2016/10/12/california-legalization-prop-64-opposition/65113/

Why California Cannabis Growers Are Coming Out Against Prop 64

https://www.merryjane.com/news/growers-against-california-prop-64

Strange bedfellows unite to oppose California pot legalization

"...there’s a lot we don’t know about commercial cannabis regulation..." -- said Lynne Lyman, state director for the Drug Policy Alliance, authors of Prop 64.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Strange-bedfellows-unite-to-oppose-California-pot-10418478.php

Prop 64 Money Trail – from the Sac Bee

http://www.poppot.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Prop-64s-Money-Trail.jpg?111614

Penalties Chart from Tharp Consulting

https://cannabissite.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/correction-chart2.pdf

AUMA Analysis by Attorney Letitia Pepper - http://marian0280.wixsite.com/4pepper

AUMA Analysis by 151 Farmers - http://151farmers.org/2016/08/19/prop-64-aumaanalysis/

AUMA Analysis by The Weedly News - Prop 64 – AUMA Legalization for the 1% - http://theweedlynews.com/2016/08/01/prop-64-auma-makes-marijuana-legal-only-for-the-1/

AUMA Analysis by Cal Growers Assoc. - Cal Growers divided on Proposition 64 - http://www.calgrowersassociation.org/proposition_64_julyconcerns

GEORGE SOROS AND BIG AGRICULTURE MOVE THE MARIJUANA MOVEMENT - http://katehon.com/837-george-soros-and-big-agriculture-move-the-marijuana-movement.html

Monsanto, Bayer, and the Push for Corporate Cannabis - http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/08/monsanto-bayer-and-the-push-for-corporate-cannabis/

Part II - https://ellenbrown.com/2016/07/07/the-war-on-weed-part-ii-monsanto-bayer-and-the-push-for-corporate-cannabis/

Napster founder Sean Parker announces $250 million grant to fight cancer - http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/13/technology/sean-parker-donation-cancer-immunotherapy/

How Justin Hartfield could become the Philip Morris of weed - http://moneyweek.com/profile-of-justin-hartfield/

Three Biggest Reasons Tobacco Giants Eye Lucrative $50 Billion Marijuana Market –

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/04/tobacco-giants-eye-lucrative-50-billion-marijuana-market/

Marijuana Related Arrests Skyrocket In Colorado For Black And Latino Minors

http://www.vibe.com/2016/05/marijuana-arrests-colorado-skyrocket-black-latino/

‘Medical’ Marijuana Costs $500 More Per Pound In Washington State Than Recreational Weed. What’s The Difference?

http://tokesignals.com/medical-marijuana-costs-500-more-per-pound-in-washington-state-than-recreational-weed-whats-the-difference/

AUMA Full Text - https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-03%20(Marijuana)_1.pdf

Videos – Prop 64 San Francisco Patient Town Hall (Part 1 – 5)

https://www.youtube.com/user/axisoflovetv

Social Media Posts:

https://www.facebook.com/VoteNoAUMA/

On the radio:

Degé Coutee is the in-studio guest on KFI AM 640 with the Wayne Resnick Show; She will be explaining why she is Voting No On Prop 64.

http://kfiam640.iheart.com/media/play/27211403/

Even Asian Media has it figured out.

[Video] - California recreational pot: Can Sean Parker puff puff pass recreational buddha with AUMA!? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpM_bGrV1j0

#####

How The Grassroots & Independent Expenditures Can Defeat Proposition 64

Mainstream media is reporting in California that the opposition to Proposition 64 is coming from law enforcement and their campaign is poorly funded, compared to the millions already contributed by Sean Parker, George Soros and others in the billionaire boys’ club, people who have no empathy for the cannabis movement, but simply want to cash in and take over California’s cannabis industry.   What the mainstream is missing is that the primary opposition to Proposition 64, or the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), comes from within the cannabis industry itself and from patient advocates.  Spend any time on social or indy media and you will see dozens of efforts to get the word out to “Vote No on AUMA,” or “Stop Prop 64.”

The other thing the mainstream media is missing, and what seasoned activists already know, is that one does not have to form a political action committee or PAC to defeat Prop 64.  All hail the Independent Expenditure.

In California citizens are allowed to campaign and voice their support for or against a candidate or measure without forming a PAC as long as one individual spends less than $1,000.00 of his or her own funds.  This allows a citizen to run a small grassroots campaign without going through the effort of forming and filing reports for a PAC as required by law. 

A thousand dollars is generally not enough to purchase billboards or send out mailers or run a phone bank or run ads on radio or television, but it is plenty to print stickers, buttons, signs, posters and flyers or send emails or run a website.  The rest is volunteer time.  Here are some simple rules. 

1.) You are not allowed to take in funds for an independent expenditure campaign.  You can only spend your funds not to exceed $1,000.00.  Taking in funds makes your effort a recipient committee and requires you to file one once you accept $1,000.00 or more.

2.) If you distribute over a certain amount of materials, you are required to include a disclaimer with that message.  For example, distributing more that 200 door hangers, flyers, posters, and oversized campaign buttons (10” across or larger) and stickers (60 sq. in. or larger) requires a disclaimer in 14-point, bold, sans serif type in contrasting print color.  That disclaimer should read “Paid for by (your name).”

3.) For websites and emails the disclaimer statement must be in the same font size as the majority of the text and displayed conspicuously near the ad, on the site or in the message.

4.) Posting video or audio messages online requires a disclaimer.  Video messages require both written & spoken disclaimer at the beginning or end of the ad not less than 4 seconds and must be large enough to be legible to the average viewer.  Audio messages must be at least 3 seconds either at the beginning or end of the ad. 

5.) There is a difference between purely educational or conversational discussion about a candidate or measure and a political statement.  Once you venture into the territory of “Vote No on…” or “Vote For…” you are safest by following the disclaimer rules.  All of these rules can be found here:  http://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/NS-Documents/TAD/Campaign%20Manuals/Manual_4/Manual_4_Ch_9_Ad_Disclaimers.pdf

California is still getting caught up with the use of social media for political purposes.  If you have any questions about independent expenditures or disclaimers, contact the Fair Political Practices Commission at:  http://www.fppc.ca.gov.  Also, expenditures are cumulative, so if one works on multiple independent expenditure campaigns, it’s best to confirm your expenditures with the Fair Political Practices Commission to make sure you have not reached a point where you need to file a committee. 

So, don’t’ let anyone tell you a bad law can’t be defeated because you don’t have a lot of money or you didn’t form a PAC.  Our goal is to get everyone we know to Vote NO.  It worked in defeating Prop 19.  It can happen again… corrupt billionaires be damned. 

** This post is for educational purposes only and not intended to support or oppose any candidate, measure or committee.