Tax and Regulate Marijuana 2010 California Ballot?

[KevinReed]

Initiative opposed by pot proponents
Your recent article on the AG candidates' stances did not go far enough in discussing the pros and cons of this particular act. The act is supported by Richard Lee, a cannabis businessman interested in creating an opportunity for himself and others to make a lot of money with legal cannabis. However, the act is opposed by many of the leading cannabis proponents, including Dennis Peron (who introduced Prop 215) and cannabis guru Jack Herer.

The reasons for the opposition from within the movement stem from the fact that the wording still allows law enforcement to imprison and otherwise punish people for using cannabis. Specifically:
Consumption in public is prohibited. This is a more stringent standard than alcohol or tobacco and means no one can smoke at outdoor concerts, festivals, or other gatherings.
No consumption when "minors are present." This is, again, a more stringent standard than alcohol and tobacco and means that any adult with children cannot use cannabis in their own home if the children are home. No more relaxing evening consumption unless you are willing to break the law.

Possession of up to one ounce or six plants. Is this a setup for entrapment? If you harvest your six plants, you can only leave the house with one ounce or less at a time?

No providing cannabis to anyone under 21 years of age. Few people who use cannabis started after the age of 21. We can send kids to war at age 18 but we won't let them use cannabis? The penalty for providing someone 18-21 with cannabis is six months in the county jail and a $1,000 fine. Providing cannabis to someone under 18 is punishable by three, five, or seven years in the state prison.
Cannabis is a plant. As such, it should not be taxed.

The act provides for civil fines and other penalties for the possession of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to certain sections in the act. Will users have to carry around receipts to prove to police they got their cannabis lawfully?

There is no language in the act to suggest that those with a medical use card will be exempt from the draconian provisions listed above. Will cancer patients be able to use their medical cannabis in public? Will AIDS patients be able to consume their medicine at home if their kids are present? Will minors be able to use cannabis medicinally for ADHD or depression with a doctor's recommendation without risking jail time for their parents?

The devil is in the details. This is a creepy, lousy bill that will still send many people to jail.

Jonathan Steigman
Mountain View, California

http://ebar.com/openforum/letters/letter.php?sec=letters&id=250

[KevinReed]

Sunday, April 11, 2010

The "Legalize marijuana for adult use and tax it" raises more questions:

I admit I struggle with my feelings on this topic. However, if cannabis
was outright legalized for everybody 21 and over, I don't think society would like
the results. Right now, it's socially acceptable - only as a medicine, even
if only for minute personal reasons. Right now, a doctor stands between
that patient and his/her medication and can answer questions and monitor the
patient's well being over time. Take away "medical cannabis" and out goes
all of the education behind cannabis. Right now there are many cannabis
organizations out there who are funded by "people who want it legalized"- these
organizations are currently educating many people on this important
topic. However, once medical cannabis is legalized for general adult use, all of these
educational organizations and their funding will likely disappear. First the education
and information will disappear, followed by the quality of medicine, as more and more big
producers shut out the small cultivators. Have you been to Amsterdam? Presently, people
still, for the most part, smoke in the shadows and respect the fact that the current Dutch
policy towards cannabis regulation and control is a working social experiment. We don't
want to get it wrong when we still have so much further to go. Why aren't people screaming
to legalize hemp? That would make so much more sense.

The Green Cross supports decriminalization, and approves and defends
personal choice for all Californians. In addition, The Green Cross opposes
any legislation, rule or regulation that aims to limit or restrict, in any
way, an individual's right to grow cannabis. Nevertheless, The Green Cross has
been, and continues to be, adamant that cannabis is medicine, and should be
used under a doctor's supervision and with a doctor's recommendation.
Cannabis must be used responsibly, and some in the medical community are
concerned that the recent push for adult-use legalization could adversely
affect patients and demean medical use.

Medical Cannabis Dispensaries are taxed at the state and local level, through sales tax,
payroll or gross receipts tax, and income tax. Levying higher taxes, like those resulting
from the Oakland measure, will result in higher prices for patients. Collectives must be
run as non-profits, so any increase in their taxes requires cuts in patients' services and/or
increases in patients' prices. Proponents say these taxes are a way to help legitimize and
justify general adult use. However, such a sin tax only works to punish patients, the only
members of the California adult population who currently are allowed to purchase cannabis legally.

Punishing patients to gain social acceptance of a rushed unproven experiment involving general
adult use is irresponsible and unfair. The medical community has worked hard to fight for the
rights of patients and caretakers. I still stand by what I have said many times before: "this
frantic, 'we need money, legalize now' movement may totally derail what we have been tirelessly
working for during the last thirteen years. Proponents of legalization run the risk that people
may not like what they see, and if the legalization-for-all social experiment fails, it could bring
the medical cannabis movement down with it."

Kevin Reed, President

The Green Cross
Medical Cannabis Delivery
t. 415.648.4420 f.415.431.2420
Staff@TheGreenCross.org
TheGreenCross.org

[KevinReed]

Ammiano slows action on pot bill to await initiative campaign

May 12, 2010

Posted by Peter Hecht

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/we ... tting.html

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano is putting the brakes on his bill to legalize and
tax marijuana in California - at least until the campaign heats up for the
November pot legalization initiative.

In an interview, the San Francisco Democrat said his Assembly Public Safety
Committee will delay hearings on the bill until the fall.

Ultimately, Ammiano's proposed legislation, Assembly Bill 2254, may well
play a key part in debate over the ballot measure.

"We want to see how the legislation can get out in front of the initiative
and at the same time be complementary," Ammiano said.

The so-called Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis initiative would legalize
recreational marijuana use in California for all adults over 21 and allow
state residents to cultivate their own pot in household spaces of up to 25
square feet.

The initiative imposes no statewide tax. Instead it leaves it up to local
governments to make decisions on taxing and regulating local marijuana
establishments.

But Ammiano's bill would impose a $50 per once state levy on pot made
available for sale. It also would license private marijuana cultivators and
wholesalers and give the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
authority over a legal retail marijuana industry.

Ammiano said he is open to considering other ideas to generate state
revenues and reconcile his bill with the initiative.

"The initiative does call for more of a patchwork than a uniform state
policy," Ammiano said. "But there may be a way to try to blend those two."

Ammiano said he has been heartened by the legal marijuana push. He said he
thinks the initiative may well lead to action in the Legislature pegged to
its potential passage.

"The thing I would like to pitch to the Legislature is that it is looking
good for this initiative," Ammiano said. "There are things we can do before
it passes...because it seems to be resonating."

Wayne Johnson, political consultant for Public Safety First, the campaign
committee opposing the legalization initiative, argued that the measure has
"serious flaws in the drafting."

He said Ammiano's decision to wait until the fall for hearings on his bill
reflects a lack of resolve in the Legislature to act on marijuana.

"You have to understand that legislators are not the most courageous people
by nature," Johnson said. "Even though this is on the ballot, none of them
are going to say, 'I think we should weigh in on this.'"

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/we ... tting.html