Marijuana Legalization Pioneer Is Against Proposed Ballot Initiative to Regulate and Tax Pot Shops in California

Your neighbor.

Not part of this discussion is the tens of thousands of citizens that get arrested and lives ruined each year. How's that for a registry, Peron?

Haywood Jeblowme

Dennis was relevant once, but now he's being foolish (or perhaps merely senile.)

Improvement to this situation will only come in small steps, so regardless of one's misgivings, anything that emasculates the prohibition industry is good.

Oldsmoothiebot59

anything worth having is not easy to get. all movements or wars or alike, by their nature, create small changes that eventually add up to winning the war. all the medical marijuana folks dont give a damn about anyone but themselves. this is no longer, and has not been for a long time, a movement to help the people in need of medical marijuana. it is about money, plain and simple. why u think the medical people, growers, dispensaries and alike want to kill anything even remotely may hurt their businesses. they want to protect their own lil slice of the pie, and lock all other pro-legalization people out. they want their own lil universe, and exclude all sorts of people who want pot for the fun that it provides.they are the radical left, and dangerous. pot is many things to many people, and no one should say what your use of this herb is for, only u. greed is a very ugly thing. example:a dispensary owner in seattle said, not the exact quote, "that marijuana is medicine only, and to be used as such. he went on to say, that anyone caught with pot, should be arrested and prosecuted. so, no medical card, and u can basically get screwed. not only that, but this guy who said that, tried twice before, and failed to get full legalization of pot on the ballot. what a hypocrite. full legalization is the goal (for all of us), not for a little exclusive club. that dude is a hater. anyone who fights advancement of our liberties, is as bad as the DEA, or even worse. stop the posturing medical providers, we all know, as do the enforcement forces, that at least 50% of all your coveted customers, have no medical need at all. i can get a card easily, most anyone can, but i am for making this movement progress on a bigger level than personal gain. that is simply pathetic. we all want our freedoms, period. support all efforts to make it legal in the end, that is how things happen in america, check your history. think clearly, and find fairness and peace.

Janet in Santa Monica

Dennis is the one. But this is not about him, its about an initiative proposal. So instead of attacking Dennis why don't you try to contribute something constructive in the way of support or criticism of the initiative proposal. Dennis didn't attack the authors of the proposal, he just made a few points about the fact that the proposal itself is not a good law.

Jose

I disagree. It's the small steps that's prolonging the war.

Marijuana enforcement is dropping mainly because prosecutors fear that they will be unable to get a jury that will render a guilty veridict. This is how alcohol Prohibition ended.

Jury nullification works now and it only takes one juror to acquit. Education is the key here. Spread the word.

Jose

This smells like tactics that would be used by NORML to perpetuate the war on marijuana indefinitely.

The only way to legalize marijuana is through jury nullification.

In 1895 (Sparf v U.S. 156 U.S. 51, 1895), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that although juries have the right to ignore a judge’s instructions on the law, the jury should not be aware of it.

Donkey Hotay

**** Regulate Marijuana Like Oregano !! ****

concernedparentandtaxpayer

Jesus said to do unto others as we would have them to do unto us. None of us would want our child or grandchild thrown in jail with the sexual predators over marijuana. None of us would want to see an older family member’s home confiscated and sold by the police for growing a couple of marijuana plants for their aches and pains.If the people who want to use marijuana could grow a few plants in their own back yards, it would be about as valuable as home-grown tomatoes; it would put the drug gangs out of business and get them out of our neighborhoods.

ZZardozz

So, let me get this straight. We are passing this self restriction merely IN HOPES THAT the feds will see how well run our system is and will back off? If the feds made a rock solid statement that they would back off, I might consider it. But Colorado already has a stringent system, and the feds don't respect the wishes of the Colorado voters any more than they respect the wishes of the California voters. DON'T VOTE FOR THIS! It's designed to kill off what's left of our MMJ system, except for the ASA aligned collectives. Instead, I'll be voting for Regulate Marijuana Like Wine 2012.

Cliff Chesley

Or at least that's what the RX bag says on it!

Cliff Chesley

It's already being taxed!

Wayne

mÿ friêñd's êx-wifê mäkês $42 höûrlÿ öñ thê cömpûtêr. Shê häs bêêñ withöût wörk för 9 möñths bût läst möñth hêr päÿchêck wäs $2208 jûst wörkîñg öñ thê cömpûtêr för ä fêw höûrs. Rêäd mörê öñ this sitê.... LazyCash10.com

Donkey Hotay

"Government REGULATION and TAXATION" = RESTRICTION and DESTRUCTION !!

Don't repeat the Colorado debacle !!

AFH

I have to agree with Mr. Perron. This initiative narrows patient access without providing any security for the state or for the people, and it makes the federal law problem worse.

On the other hand: Regulate Marijuana Like Wine has the hard won endorsement of Dennis Peron. Why? Because it protects patients, it legalizes marijuana, it has a comprehensive system for keeping adult discretionary activity away from children, and it deals with federal law.

For about what it would cost to buy a small apartment building in Los Angeles, we could have full legalization this year, generate a BILLION dollars in new industry and jobs, collects hundreds of MILLIONS in new sales tax revenue, and we could end the war waging in our streets sending Mexican Cartels back home.

http://www.regulatemarijuanali...

Sciencefreak

We need full legalization because more people need to have increased access to marijuana because the most recent scientific studies reveal that using marijuana improves health by fighting cancers and Alzheimer's disease. Read the book "Marijuana Gateway to Health" to learn what the government doesn't want you to know about how it fights disease.

Martha Montelongo

I would guess he would want to avoid coming under the control of the same Public Sector inc fellows that have ransacked our State of CA and the other public sector union dominated states across the country. That's a dead end run. That would be surrendering to a pimp to do the bidding for civil liberties and rights,... in exchange for what? I'm sure it's not out of benevolence.

Maybe there is some logic to it--have the SEIU stand up to the Police and Prison Guard unions, but it's hardly a strategy to get excited about if one is grounded in core values of liberty and integrity.

millicent kafkah

Dennis - what are you talking about? You don't know anyone who sells pot, right?

I certainly don't. They only people I know are providers.

Musictomyfeet

huh?

millicent kafkah

The City of Los Angeles might go forward with closing down dispensaries based on the principle that they are not allowed under federal law. Really? The City of los Angeles will now ensure that its operations and practices are in compliance with federal law?

The City of L.A. never payed much attention to complying with federal law before, but I'm in favor of starting now.

Of course, the City will need to make changes in several departments violating the Constitution as a part of their regular practice since long before anyone heard the term "dispensary".

Duncan20903

The problem is that's a direct violation of the California State Constitution.----------CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SEC. 3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power: (a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;

(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;

(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.