I have read your arguments against Prop 19 and I found some mistakes in the info you provided. Hopefully, you can review this information and consider adjusting your argument to reflect accurate information. Because we’re no better than prohibitionists when we spread misinformation as truth. Please check your facts and reconsider.
I’ve seen many personal attacks against you and your activism and integrity. I will do my best to avoid any such personal attacks and just stick to the facts as I know them to be true.
Because you’ve made so many statements that need to be addressed, I decided I would address many of them separately so that these posts can be easily read by the masses and people can decide which parts they want to read. Personally, I hate reading huge chunks of texts, and figure the masses need something easy to read and understand, since it’s getting so confusing with so much misinformation and opinions being passed off as truth.
The first thing I would like to point out is that your understanding of current medical cannabis policies and laws in California is inaccurate. On your blog post you make several very inaccurate statements about the current MEDICAL laws, rulings, and policies.
Let’s take a look at them here:
“take a look at the rights prop. 215 gives and compare them to the rights proposition 19 would create, and then tell me which is more legal:”
age restriction:
prop. 215: 18+
prop. 19: 21+
Prop 215 does not have ANY age restrictions on it, nor does SB420 nor the State Attorney General’s Guidelines restrict the age of a patient a doctor recommends cannabis to. In other words, a doctor decided to recommend medical cannabis to a baby, the doctor and that baby have full protection on the current laws and policies. I do know of several patients under the age of 18.
how much you can grow:
prop. 215: anywhere from 6 – 72 plants (although the supreme court in january declared even these limits unconstitutional, saying that medical marijuana patients ought to be able to grow an unlimited quantity) (!!!)
The January CA Supreme Court ruling does not allow a patient to grow an “unlimited quantity” of cannabis. It allows a patient to grow and possess an amount that is “medical necessary”. There is a difference--- I realize you may not be able to tell the difference between the two ---but they are not the same thing.
It's very hard for me to see you provide inaccurate information about Prop 215 and then believe that what you are saying about Prop 19 is correct (when I’ve already noticed some mistakes in your argument about both of them).
And I also believe you’re inaccurate about what prop 19 will do to prop 215 but I will discuss that in a different post, to keep it simple. I would hate to confuse even more people.
人不能像動物一樣活著，而應該追求知識和美德............................................................
ReplyDelete死亡是悲哀的，但活得不快樂更悲哀。. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ReplyDelete如此動感的blog!!!............................................................
ReplyDelete謝謝大大無私分享 感恩唷(>o<)............................................................
ReplyDelete一棵樹除非在春天開了花，否則難望在秋天結果。......................................... ........................
ReplyDelete祝福你人氣不減ˊˇˋ............................................................
ReplyDeletethanks for taking the time to respond to my blog, but it seems that your assessment is incorrect. more than that, you do know i list 19 reasons to vote against prop 19. you've addressed none of them. anyway, so you understand my analysis about prop. 19's potential impact on prop. 215, please read this, from the modesto bee newspaper blog, written by an attorney:
ReplyDeletehttp://thehive.modbee.com/node/20404
"Dragonfly Is Correct About Prop. 19's Impact on Patients"
Submitted by letitiapepper on Thu, 2010-08-19 16:52.
Dragonfly's analysis has been trashed on the Internet by pro-Prop. 19 bloggers. So I did my own analysis as to whether Prop. 19 would change the laws related to medical marijuana, and in my opinion she's absolutely correct.
I have been an attorney for almost 30 years. I went to Hastings College of the Law, one of California’s top schools, was on the Hastings Law Journal, and have more than 20 years of experience working as a judicial research attorney for the State of California and for the federal district court. I prepared draft opinions in which I presented, from a neutral rather than adversarial perspective, the applicable laws and facts, with conclusions about final results/consequences. (I even once worked (from 1984 to 1987) as a business and municipal law litigation associate at Best, Best & Krieger (yep, the same law firm that’s been advising lots of cities to ban medical marijuana (MM) collectives).)
So, I’m well-qualified to review Prop. 19. Plus, I had a reason to do so.
Two years ago, I became a medical marijuana patient after terrible problems with side effects from prescription medications and after doing research on cannabis. Since I am convinced that marijuana is the non-prescription answer for many diseases, including mine (multiple sclerosis), I want to be able to grow my own medication, and to be able to experiment with and make as many different variants of cannabis-based medications as possible.
Based on my expertise and review of prop. 19, I can now state, categorically, that if Proposition 19 passes, it WILL affect medical marijuana patients and collectives. It will limit patients to tiny grow areas -- one per parcel, not one per patient -- and allow cities to legally ban collectives (the current bans are, in my opinion, illegal). And it will probably cause the price of marijuana to go up, put the profits from marijuana into the hands of a few large businesses instead of a lot of small businesses, and, depending on the goodwill of politicians in Santa Cruz, put compassionate collective groups like the Wo/Man’s collective out of business. But let’s skip speculation about how decreased competition affects prices, and just stick to whether or not, as a matter of alw, Prop. 19 will change patients’ rights under the Compassionate Use Act, Health & Safety Code section 11362.5 (“the CUA”).
Inititatives like Prop. 19 are reviewed by courts using specific rules, generally known as rules of statutory interpretation. Under those rules, any arguments or statements by Chris Conrad or Russ Belville, or the flyers handed put by the pro-Prop. 19 people that claim medical marijuana patients won’t be affected, have no relevance. Instead, it’s the actual language of Prop. 19 that counts. (Get the complete text at http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Complete_text_of_The_Regulate,_Control_and_Tax_Cannabis_Act_of_2010_(California). Only if the text is ambiguous will a court look any further than the text – and then only at certain items, such as ballot summaries -- not at general commentary by people like Conrad and Belville.
To see for yourself how Prop. 19 changes medical marijuana patients’ and collectives’ rights, look at the language of Prop. 19 and the official ballot summary...."
read more: http://thehive.modbee.com/node/20404
It is worth noting that marijuana should be used medically, as it is proven to be of vital help to counteract the pain, and their side effects can act in a precise way on specific pain, and this is shown as vicodin medicine, percocet, hydrocodone, which are prescribed by doctors for its high effectiveness against chronic pain states findrxonline according to a study done on people who use these drugs in the United States.
ReplyDeleteI am the owner of http://thekashtray.blogspot.com and the creator and distributor of a new invention called the KashTray, which is a glass ashtray with a metal poker in the middle, making it easy to get the ash out of bowls and pipes with no mess. I have started building a list, and now have close to 100 subscribers. I would love to partner with you in any way and help promote each other. Please let me know if you are interested in joint venturing with me or doing any sort of business together. Thanks.
ReplyDelete