Dale Francisco: Proposition 19 Would Be a Legal Nightmare for California

» Nitz on 10.24.10 @ 09:24 AM

“When California adopted the ballot initiative system in 1911, it was seen as a seldom-to-be-used tool allowing the people to correct gross legislative errors.”

This is why I will be voting YES on Prop. 19.  The politicians will NEVER address the irrational laws that permit adult users of marijuana to be jailed for engaging in an activity that is basically harmless.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» LookingWest on 10.24.10 @ 04:34 PM

It’s true that Prop 218 affects only fees related to property and probably would not affect whatever fees local municipalities might impose on marijuana. See this overview of 218 for more info on that measure: http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/proposition218_handout.html

However, I voted against 19, after initially favoring it because it remains the firm law of the land that marijuana is illegal under federal law. Federal law trumps state law in this instance and for one state to legalize a drug invites federal intervention. In fact, AG Holder recently said that they intend to uphold federal law if 19 should pass. Like so many initiatives, there would be years of expensive court battles.

I did also vote No on T because I think legislating should be done by the Council and not by a council-placed ballot measure. Seems to me that medical marijuana should be available and three dispensaries/collectives in Santa Barbara is a sufficient number.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» 14noscams on 10.24.10 @ 07:54 PM

LookingWest I didn’t have to read beyond the double-talk and obfuscation to realize you would vote against Prop 19 and for Measure T - this is thinking that’s a prerequisite for opposition to any legislation that recognizes the fact that cannabis use is mainstream and has negligible negative effects on society relative to legal pharmaceuticals as well as recreational drugs, as well as numerous medical uses not replicated by licensed pharmaceuticals.
I don’t post anything without referencing government websites - your assumption that I didn’t is an additional indication that you oppose any legal measure recognizing behavior of the majority of the population. Opponents of Prop 19 and local residents who support Measure T make statements that are close to unanimously false, lack references, quote lies made by local elected officials, misrepresent statistics, quote research with no statistical significance,and use slanderous and libelous stereotypes.
Proposition 218 says that new property taxes need a vote of the electorate. It also says that the local electorate can vote to appeal local taxes. Local taxes provide local income - in the case of Prop 19, this income will only be available for use related to Prop 19, including substance abuse treatment. Francisco’s statement is false. Prop 218 doesn’t speak to imposition of a tax on marijuana sales.
The city council voted on a medical marijuana dispensary ordinance realizing that Francisco had lied about the history of Prop 215 - the intent of the authors of the initiative, the text of the law that voters passed, the population the authors intended to access cannabis for medical purposes, and the case law establishing dispensaries and retail sales as legal. The reasoning, as reported in the Independent and personally by council members, was to avoid a conservative backlash (my words) in the next city council election, by kind of “throwing a bone” to the right wing at the expense of sick people.
I’m pretty sure most people in Santa Barbara who are planning to vote for Measure T believe that they’re voting against the legal right of medical marijuana patients to obtain medicine, rather than in favor of having unregulated residential coops cultivating 1000 square feet of marijuana near their homes (maximum 10 members), or having cannabis delivery vehicles driving through their neighborhoods.
Eric Holder announced on October 19 that medical marijuana activities complying with state law aren’t a priority, and his statements regarding prop 19 are considered political posturing.
This isn’t really a marijuana issue. It’s an issue that addresses long-term expense that requires the sacrifice of education and health care, etc, and HAS NO EFFECT - DRUG LAWS DON’T WORK, REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS WE WASTE AND HOW MANY LIVES WE DESTROY. Government statistics demonstrate this.
Francisco mentions “the repeal of alcohol prohibition returned to the status quo ante of centuries of accumulated law and custom concerning alcohol” - cannabis has been used for around 5000 years and has been illegal since 1937 - his argument makes a great case for repealing cannabis prohibition.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» 14noscams on 10.24.10 @ 08:11 PM

Socaljay Vague accusations are really cheap. If there are any reports or quotes in my post, why don’t you mention them.
It’s an ethical difference. Lying doesn’t work for me.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» nvr013 on 10.24.10 @ 09:16 PM

As we reach November 2, 2010 a lot of media sources are now coming out of woodwork with articles and polls showing little support for proposition 19 when in fact most average people you talk to are all for it. People need to look at the real facts and become informed properly. People saying this legislation is flawed had plenty of time to come up with a better version.

Here are some interesting facts….

How marijuana became illegal.William Robert Hearst and the Dupont company needed hemp to be illegal or it would ruin their paper and plastics industry.Andrew Mellon became Hoover’s Secretary of the Treasury and Dupont’s primary investor. He appointed his future nephew-in-law, Harry J. Anslinger, to head the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.

Marijuana is considered a schedule 1 drug. The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision

How can it be of no medical value when 14 states have made it an acceptable medically prescribed substance? There is tons of research that marijuana is in fact the best medical substance for numerous ailments but do you think the pharmaceutical companies want you getting something you can grow or buying something from them?

There is just far too much information to even list as to the reason why proposition 19 needs to pass. Become informed people.

and in the words of the great Abraham Lincoln…. “A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.”

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» LookingWest on 10.25.10 @ 10:58 AM

uhhh, 14noscams, whatever research you did, as you claim, you didn’t read mine even slightly carefully: I wrote that I voted No on T. No obfuscation there. Or anywhere in mine, unlike the Measure 19 or, for that matter, yours. (Btw, I was agreeing that Prop. 218 was only related to property taxes - and provided the url for others.)

If 19 provided for state taxation (rather than local control) I’d be more interested. However, marijuana would remain illegal under federal law no matter how many voters in California would favor legalizing it. Similarly, should California voters vote to legalize (and tax) heroin, it would continue to be illegal under federal law. That’s my issue with Prop. 19, the mess of a proposition that it is. And that’s why, after being initially interested, I voted NO on 19.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Nevada Hopeful on 10.25.10 @ 02:03 PM

“it would continue to be illegal under federal law. That’s my issue with Prop. 19, the mess of a proposition that it is. And that’s why, after being initially interested, I voted NO on 19.” .What better reason to not try…

One thing is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN, We The People have been waiting for 3/4 of a century for the Federal Gov. to take a fair and honest approach toward the use of cannabis. To this day it is still improperly listed as a schedule 1 drug. No matter how many MDs tell us that it is OK to use, those who pretend to know better, for our own good I’m sure…......

*as a side note, for those who would choose Marinol. Get ready to step up to the tune of $20.00 plus PER capsule without insurance to pay (they don’t like to aparently )

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» socaljay on 10.25.10 @ 05:15 PM

So, what I’m hearing is that most people in California are all in favor of one more way to legally escape reality?  I don’t think so. 

A recent poll shows that most people (51% to 39%) are against legalization of marijuana.  I for one join the majority in this.  For those who say it’s harmless, I say hogwash to you. 

I am very familiar with it’s impact on families and lives, and challenge the rhetoric that accompanies this campaign to legalize it’s use.  As if we didn’t have enough problems to deal with already without adding more.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» sbnative on 10.25.10 @ 11:32 PM

Marijuana makes it hard to do basic math. And if you can’t do simple math you can’t do most jobs… I have nothing against people taking an after-work toke… or cocktail or hike. That’s their business. I know MJ’s anti-nausea effects work for cancer patients… I’ve seen it. BUT… being high in school or on the job is a disaster waiting to happen. Condoning MJ use without clarification sends the wrong message to impressionable kids. Whose brains are still forming, we hope.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» 14noscams on 10.27.10 @ 01:40 PM

LookingWest
“Prop 218 affects only fees related to property and probably would not affect whatever fees local municipalities might impose on marijuana”
Prop 218 has nothing to do with tax on marijuana.
No probably.
There have been court decisions defending the 10th amendment in the last year. Imposition of a local tax seems like a much clearer 10th amendment issue than seen in previous court cases in which federal control of interstate commerce was used as a basis for federal jurisdiction.
I care much more about honesty in discussing these issues than agreement, and tend to overreact to blatant attempts to fool people, which you haven’t done at all, but DF has. Prop 19 is a lousy law, and is already in affect,in any case. I don’t think it would affect the number of cannabis users, but if passed, it might decrease the “reefer madness” paranoia that does nothing but distract people from important issues.
Good October 19 CNN Money article on decreased law enforcement costs under Prop 19.
Francisco once again shows contempt for SB voters by misstating the law.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» 14noscams on 10.28.10 @ 09:44 PM

Daniel Petry:
Than you for validating your statement that the loons always trip themselves up. GlaxoSmithKline, the pharmaceutical company who sells Advair, an asthma medication, gives out $50 coupons to patients with a prescription. Advair costs around $150 - $200/month. This isn’t charity, it’s advertising, identical to that of many dentists, dental implant clinics and MD’s, including plastic surgeons, chiropractors, cosmetic surgeons, surgeons specializing in joint replacement,infertility clinics, and those treating male impotence. This purpose of this type of advertising is to increase sales and name recognition, and offers such as “available only to the first X number of respondents” are fairly common.
Every attorney, MD, dentist, etc., who advertises in the yellow pages with their photo is trying to sell us something unrelated to the service they provide, and advertising jingles, cutesies like Taco Bell’s chihuahua and the ubiquitous gecko, are aimed at programming a company’s name in the brains of the public to increase income.
If medical marijuana providers use culturally accepted advertising gimics they’re no different from hundreds of thousands of AMA or ADA licensed providers who compete for patients. I haven’t noticed that the general population has determined that anyone with MD or DDS after their name is discredited by these ads.
There’s a major semantics issue that opponents of medical marijuana exploit as a means of invalidating the use of cannabis for medical purposes. The law - Prop 215 and SB420 use the term “serious” to describe qualifying medical conditions. Conditions such as severe arthritis that can make it impossible to turn a doorknob, write legibly, or hold a fork, are examples of medical conditions that prevent a person from performing normal tasks involved in daily life. Migraine headaches are another. These aren’t life-threatening illnesses and they don’t progress to cause death, but they sure keep people from living normally, and if you have one that’s improved more by the use of cannabis than by licensed pharmaceuticals, you’d have to be a loon not to use it if you’re goal is to be a functioning person in society. If you have chronic migraines, you might ride a skateboard to get this medicine while you were free of symptoms.
If medical marijuana is bull****, as you say, why are dispensary owners (who must be drug dealers, by your definition)willing to make their identity public, willing to pay enormous amounts of money to rent storefront property, pay for insurance, permit fees, security guards, safes, video monitors, taxes, etc., etc., deal with police who confiscate their legal property in spite of the law, deal with dishonest,ignorant bigots and character assassination by all factions whose income is dependent on arrests for crimes involving cannabis? If these people are drug dealers, they’re good at it, or they would have a criminal record preventing them from operating a dispensary.
So, Daniel Petry, (not a loon?), give us the word - we’re waiting.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.