.
Bill Maher’s final New Rule this weekend was especially appropriate and timely to today’s story (starting at 2:10)
High points, my emphases:
“Finally, new rule – Pot is the new gay marriage. And by that, I mean it’s the next civil rights issue that needs to fall…
“In 1988 only 10% approved of gay marriage, today it’s up to almost 60%. So what happened? What made gay marriage so normal so quickly? Sure, part of it was Dancing With the Stars. But mostly it was because gays simply demanded it. They didn’t care that gay marriage wasn’t popular, they put it on the agenda and they made it popular…
“Now the Democrats, believe it or not, have that kind of power too. They just don’t use it, because Democrats operate from a place of fear. Unwilling to appear soft on crime, soft on terror, or, in Anthony Weiner’s case, soft on camera…
“Say what you will about Republicans, they don’t chase poll numbers. They MOVE them. Like gays. If Republicans were smart, they would steal marijuana from the Democrats as a freedom issue. Of course, they’re not smart, so they won’t. Because they’re squares living in a Reefer Madness cartoon. A cartoon where millions of Americans are still trapped in a no-man’s land…
“…This isn’t about me. It’s about the three-quarters of a million people who are arrested for simple possession every year. And the fact that blacks are arrested at seven times the rate of whites. Which is a subtle way to suppress the black vote, because 48 states limit voting rights for convicted felons. Only two states do not, Maine and Vermont. And Maine’s black population consists of a bear.
“Look. We all put something in our mouth that we’re not always proud of, but that makes us happy. Gay barriers fell when Americans realized gays are their neighbors, their friends, their family members, their co-workers. Certainly, that must also be true of pot-heads. We all know at least one. In fact, I bet there’s one pot-head whom you all know…
“…At the Correspondents’ Dinner this year [the President] joked, “I remember when Buzzfeed was something I did in college around 2 AM.” Which killed in the room, but perhaps not so funny to all the young lives ruined for doing the exact same thing HE did back in Honolulu. A simple pot conviction can foreclose on opportunities to vote, get a job, go to college, or qualify for housing. How can our first black president, AND our first pot-head president, be aware of that and just look the other way?” …
Tom Ammiano’s Assembly Bill 473
This bill was no radical piece of legislation; it was not a bill to legalize recreational pot use for example. It would have established a Division of Medical Cannabis Regulation and Enforcement under the umbrella of the California Dept of Alcohol and Beverage Control, to monitor the supply and sales of medical cannabis, in fulfillment of us Californians’ overwhelming passage of the Compassionate Use Act in 1996.
It would have “monitored the entire supply chain, so that vulnerable medical patients are not exposed to toxic substances used by some unauthorized growers, and work to eliminate criminal involvement in the industry. With rigorous enforcement and clear guidelines, the plan would have reassured local jurisdictions that have witnessed a confusing series of court decisions. It would have also reduced federal actions against dispensaries.”
It would not, repeat NOT, have interfered with the recent state Supreme Court decision allowing municipalities to ban dispensaries within their borders; hence OC cities with stick-up-the-ass councils like Anaheim and Garden Grove would still be allowed to force their cancer patients to travel many miles to another town to get their prescribed medicine under this bill.
And the bill only needed a majority to pass, not the notorious 2/3. Shoulda been a piece of cake, right, given the fact that Democrats hold a 2/3 majority, and Democrats stand for freedom, right? I mean, the state and county party have routinely spoken out for legalization, have they not? I mean, what Democrats would imply that we Californian voters were WAY TOO LIBERAL back in 1996 when we overwhelmingly approved medical pot?
But sadly, the bill just barely failed in the Assembly and can only come back next year. Even sadder, the two Democrats representing Orange County in the Assembly, Tom Daly and Sharon Quirk-Silva, were instrumental in helping to kill it. There was a technical glitch as well, but Ammiano’s office confirmed to me that Tom’s and Sharon’s support COULD have made all the difference.
Freedom Dems vs. Police-state Dems
We generally expect the worst of Republican lawmakers, so on the rare occasion they do something good – something that helps the 99% of us, or the environment, or pushes forward any kind of FREEDOM (apart from the freedom of corporations and the rich to stomp on the rest of us) we tend to heap praise on them, as we would with a retarded child who comes up with an unexpectedly observant comment. But we grownups who elect Democrats expect a lot MORE from THEM.
There’s this convenient self-serving myth that the Democrats who get elected in the sections of Orange County that elect Democrats HAVE NO CHOICE but to be as “conservative” or “moderate” as possible, just because – well, damn it, they’re in Orange County, aren’t they? This “moderateness,” with former Asm. Jose Solorio and Senator Lou Correa, has generally taken the form of
- resisting any reforms onerous to the big health insurance and pharmaceutical interests, or indeed most reforms that would cost big businesses any money to implement,
- and pursuing policies to strengthen California’s prison-industrial complex, especially when it comes to fighting the “War on Drugs.”
Lou at least seems to be a true believer in Reefer Madness mythology, but in any case these politicians’ dependable “moderation” has kept them rolling in campaign cash from big insurance and police and prison guard unions. Whether or not this “moderation” was necessary for them to stay in office is highly doubtful and has been questioned by myself, Chris Prevatt and many others, and disproved by Lou’s very progressive and successful predecessor Joe Dunn. (Great Prevatt piece, by the way…)
We did expect more of the same from Solorio’s hand-picked successor Tom Daly, especially given the millions poured into his campaign by powerful interests who usually back Republicans. (Although we always love to be pleasantly surprised, and wrong!) With some effort, I got an answer today from his legislative assistant as to why Tom voted no on AB 473, but not an answer that withstands scrutiny:
- The bill is “PREMATURE,” because of the “tangled legal environment” given the recent state Supreme Court decision and the Feds’ depredations. Hello? The bill, as mentioned above, was amended to take the former into account, and was specifically designed to address the latter.
- The bill “MIGHT turn out to be COSTLY,” with its creation of a “Division of Medical Cannabis Regulation and Enforcement,” even though that would be paid for with fees by the businesses – Daly fears those fees might not be enough.
Call me cynical, but with all due respect those are weasel reasons, the reasons a lobbyist against a bill will hand a legislator. Fees on an industry are a tried, trusted, and fair way to pay for the industry’s regulation. But Mr. Daly, with votes like this, will continue to be super-funded by law enforcement, prison guards, and big Pharma.
And just think, Santa Ana, you could have had Julio Perez – a charter member of the Hemp and Cannabis Caucus – if you’d just gotten your asses out to vote last June! 🙁
*
We’re more disappointed that our good friend Sharon Quirk-Silva opposed the bill. Many of us were impressed by her performance as Fullerton Councilwoman during the aftermath of the Kelly Thomas murder, when alone with Bruce Whitaker she pushed for reform and accountability, avoiding the Recall fate of their three cop-apologist colleagues. She seemed principled and bold, like someone who might turn out to be a Freedom Democrat rather than a Police-State Democrat.
But now, since her great surprise victory last November which got the Democrats their elusive 2/3 majority, she seems to live in fear of losing her hard-fought seat to angry Republican backlash next November. More honest than Daly’s peeps, she describes a vote for medical marijuana as a “dangerous vote.” She named off a couple of “dangerous votes” she’s already made recently (which I got the impression she’d rather I didn’t mention) and figures that she can only afford a certain number of “dangerous votes” before she risks her re-election and the Dems’ supermajority.
What does she (and her hyper-cautious advisers) mean by “dangerous votes?” Apparently, votes that might anger or frighten some imaginary Republican voter in her North County district, or possibly be used in an attack mailer against her next year. And also, somehow, she’s worried about what I might write about her here.
But this throws me into confusion – if she’s afraid of being tarred as too “liberal,” then maybe it would HELP her for this notorious liberal blogger to excoriate her for uncourageous votes. Should I start trashing her as a Soloriesque DINO? Maybe that would help build up her “moderate” cred! But on the other hand, maybe it would depress the hopeful young and minority voters who poured out for her last year. It’s all too confusing. As usual all I can do is say what I think, and that is this:
I KNOW what scared Republicans about Sharon’s victory, and the Dems’ achievement of 2/3 in the leg. And it was NOT that Sharon and her party would now clear the way for the regulation and institutionalization of medical marijuana. And it was NOT that Sharon and her party would vote to give driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants, or further the equality of gays. What every terrified Republican I knew was shrieking last November was “NOW THEY’RE GONNA RAISE OUR TAXES THROUGH THE ROOF!” So my advice to Sharon if she wants to keep her seat, and our supermajority, is just don’t vote to raise taxes. And I’ll be the loudest blogger next year to remind everybody “SHARON QUIRK-SILVA DID NOT VOTE TO RAISE OUR TAXES!”
The reason Sharon won last November, besides the hard work of her and her team, was the growing population of young and minority voters in her district, and that trend is not reversing. Also not reversing is the trend of greater public acceptance of marijuana, and the public’s weariness of the War on Drugs. I don’t think she should get on the wrong side of history there, and I do think that the folks who poured out for her want to see her being a proud progressive who votes the way she believes.
But I could be totally wrong. How about this? If you’re in Sharon’s district give her a call at (714) 526-7272 and let her know if you approve or disapprove of her vote against AB 473. How do you think she should vote when a similar bill comes back next year? Would you be more or less likely to vote for her next year if she continues to support the War on Drugs?
And Sharon and Tom should listen to Bill Maher.
I met Quirk-Silva at the Dem office in Fullerton last year…I was not impressed with her. I am not surprised she voted that way…typical politician…it’s all about her!
Well, it’s about getting and staying elected. For some people, that’s simply sought for self-serving reasons. But there are other reasons for someone to want to get elected, such as to do good things and to keep out of office people who will do bad things.
I think it’s clear that she thinks that this vote is too liberal for her district (which is not nearly as liberal as AD-69). It up to those in and around her district to convince her otherwise.
I bet Norby would have voted for that bill.
Hmm… good question… how many times did he part with his fellow Republicans? I still have fingers left on this one hand….
I bet you would have paid Norby oodles to vote for that Tony
Wouldn’t have to.
I concede the point. Notby, like Rohrabacher and a few other Republicans, is good on this issue.
Bruce Whitaker probably would vote for it too, which means that if he is in the runoff against Sharon next year she’ll lose some single-issue voters on this issue. However — and without any inside information here — perhaps she’s more concerned about running against Young Kim, Royce’s “anointed one,” who would surely have voted “no.”
Nice Article Vern. Im so disappointed in Sharon and Tom.
We’ll see how they do next year. Maybe they didn’t realize how important this was to us.
From what I read was nothing specific in the bill to alleviate the problem of stoner pot shops close to neighborhoods. Maybe that is why it failed.
Cities themselves are fully able to take care of nusiances like that. And they do.
IMO requiring a pot shop to be no closer than 600 ft. from a residential neighborhood is not too much ask.
Try to stay on target, skally. Ammiano bill. Vern has links for you.
Skally, there may be no such locations.
What do you mean that there “may” not be such locations? Those locations exist and are opposed by neighborhoods.
It might be too much to ask. It’s possible there are few locations that are 600 feet from the myriad prohibited neighbors. How many shopping centers or commercial multi tenant buildings are 600 feet from residential? Maybe not many.
Even in Vernon, where there is no residential there are 25 or 30 residents, if you needed a location 600 feet from any of them there might be very few legal places.
I think that law should be rewritten and put forth again. It’s possible that this did not pass is actually a good thing.
Maybe complete deregulation would be more to the liking of the voters. And to Greg.
Hey Skally
how many smoker shops tobacco stores do you have near homes? How many liquor stores that sell alcohol and tobacco and all the things you need to smoke cannabis? This whole prejudice against cannabis smokers is so lame.
You don’t like people who smoke cannabis? Geez how do you feel about people who get all drunk and disorderly on a daily basis and leave empty beer bottles and or have the cops at their houses for noise complaints? How many folks have gotten the ass beat cause they were drunk and acting like a jerk? How many people got beat up by drunk assholes on a good one?
How many millions of dollars do we as US Citizens fork out every year to treat indigent cancer patients dying from lung cancer caused by smoking tobacco?
You don’t like Stores that sell cannabis? Seriously? How the heck do you call yourself an American dude?
To be fair, Vern, you’re pretty libertarian and you travel in and talk to a libertarian crowd. So yes, you may here no fears about Sharon other than her raising taxes. That doesn’t mean that the voters in AD-65 have the same perspective as those around you. Despite the presence of Tony, Bruce, and others, looking at the results of initiatives over the years suggest that it’s a fairly socially conservative and anti-libertarian district. I’m not convinced that that’s true, but I can believe that Sharon believes it.
Like others here, I’m disappointed on the merits. I think that it’s probably a political mistake for her — but that will depend largely on her opponent next year. It would be worth her while to work towards a compromise that would allow her to support the bill.
As for Daly — is he worried about someone beating him in AD-69? If not, what’s his excuse? If so … good to know!
Skally, it failed for the same reason that they all fail–none of these jackwagons are actually representing the will of the people anymore.
I think it’s time for direct democracy to take the issue on.
agreed! And don’t try to get signatures to put anything “pot” related on the ballot or you might end up in the “pokey”
What is the staus of your Santa Ana MMJ initiative? The CA Sup. Crt. made that a bit more difficult for you.
Pretty sure THAT taunt is wrong. The decision of the Court certainly does not place city council votes over the will of the people.
I don’t mean legislatively by council Vern – I mean that voters are now more aware of the MMJ issue and that many cities don’t want loosely regulated stoner pot shops near their neighborhoods and may not vote to support her initiative.
The City of Santa Ana does not want to lose control of their city to a cartel of pot shops – they will (or should) fight her initiative tooth and nail.
You really think that such an initiative couldn’t be written so that it serves actual MMJ needs without becoming de facto local legalization?
I’d bet that you, me, Vern, and Lucas could do it, if we decided to. (But you don’t want to, do you?)
Actualy Skally, the supreme court did the best thing for that initiative. Because now its a vote of the people to tell the city council that they will permit the clubs. That’s how its going to be in each and every city now, until a state wide initiative blanket covers the whole state and Muni code
It’s been that time Debbie. And we’ve had those votes — and it has failed.
I think it’s time for a truly professional political campaign, hired to support an initiative with provisions on which all stakeholders have agreed, to take it on. THAT hasn’t happened yet.
Heres an idea, why don’t we get NORML, And ASA, and any other lie minded groups to stage a protest at various locations in OC that are located within 600 feet of a school or other sensitive use area that one can buy Alcohol and or tobacco and just make a shit load of noise and ruckus.
oh yeah …. that would work GREAT Lucas – do it!! And bring your stoners with you.
How about we get every one of them on the same page for the wording of a Washington/Colorado style initiative, get some people to run it who can organize direct voter contacts and turnout operations instead of just street protests, and get this thing done?
The dysfunction of the pro-cannabis forces in this state is just stunning. Someone needs to put together street level activists, prominent libertarians like Judge Jim Gray, entrepreneurs, and people with campaign savvy — and try running an actual campaign for once.
Greg Diamond – “You really think that such an initiative couldn’t be written so that it serves actual MMJ needs without becoming de facto local legalization? I’d bet that you, me, Vern, and Lucas could do it, if we decided to. (But you don’t want to, do you?)”
I would be willing to work on it with you – but I doubt if we would come to agreement – not enough to workwith – CA MMJ law is nearly useless.
So does that mean that “requiring a pot shop to be no closer than 600 ft. from a residential neighborhood” is not your only ask? What else do you have?
I’d be happy to have them operated by public employees, paid for by the county through money generated by the sales and assigned to (rather than chosen by) the owners of the shop, who would stand to lose their jobs if anyone they should have known was ineligible did purchase pot. Does that handle the rest of your objections?
Existing eligibility requirements are way too loose. Start with – if you have cancer you get whatever you want.
OK, let’s start with cancer. How do we make safe and affordable cannabis available to those suffering from cancer?
The question should be “how do we get MMJ to those who suffer from cancer – and at the same time deter stoners from abusing the system?”
Why should that be the primary question? You said that “if you have cancer you get whatever you want”?
Why should that standard apply to cannabis differently than the alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs, etc.?
But, let’s presume for now that it is the question: Is there some reason that the procedures that we use for these other substances would not be suitable for cannabis?
Okay – that standard may also apply to alcohol, cigarettes and prescription drugs. See how easy I am.
And yet it doesn’t and it won’t. So why should cannabis be any different?
There are so many reasons to legalize it and regulate it. First of all, it should be legal to grow it as a fiber for clothes and building products. It should be legal as a food for its omega3 and protein and other nutritional value (the leaves are especially healthy when juiced). It should be legal for its health benefits much like a glass of wine a day provides. It should be legal for treatment of migraine headaches, nausea, muscle cramps, glaucoma, and a whole bunch of other proven medical uses. It should be legal just for how much fun it is.
If someone abuses it, they are the ones that suffer. There is no reason to waste tax dollars to put people in prison for making their lives better with cannabis. In fact, if it’s taxed, it will help out society even more.
This is what you get when you have a State of California MMJ law that does not work:
Marijuana Dispensaries issued notices to cease operations or face continued enforcement action
SANTA ANA, CA (June 11, 2013) – The unanimous California Supreme Court decision on May 6, 2013, in the City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient’s Health and Wellness Center validated a city’s authority to ban medical marijuana dispensaries. The City Attorney’s office reviewed the City’s current ordinance, compared it to that of the city of Riverside, and found it to be substantially similar.
Thus, the city of Santa Ana has closed a majority (42) of the dispensaries through cease operations orders. Both the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the City will be sending additional letters to the 17 dispensaries known to be still in operation. These letters will be followed by inspections and further enforcement action. Dispensaries refusing to cease operations and that continue to ignore the City’s ban and enforcement orders will be issued criminal citations. Additionally, the City Attorney’s Office will continue its work on the most problematic locations with the intent of filing civil action. The Santa Ana Police Department with the assistance from the Drug Enforcement Administration will continue their collaborative efforts to rid the city of these illegal businesses.
The City of Santa Ana is committed to continued proactive and comprehensive enforcement. To date, the City has successfully closed 109 illegal dispensaries over the last two and a half years.
I didn’t read the whole bill, but there’s plenty about fees and regulation in there. Not sure I want the government to increase regulation that much, and charging fees.
The system seems to be functioning ok where it is allowed, but some cities are pestering those that try to operate what would be a law abiding activity.
Researchers are arguing that marijuana, magical mushrooms, and many other psychedelic substances are being censored from science. These drugs may hold the key to unlocking vital needs in the medical field.
Studying elements such as consciousness have set back research in this particular field by decades, is what they wrote in the journal Nature Reviews Neuroscience.
“The decision to outlaw these drugs was based on their perceived dangers, but in many cases the harms have been overstated,” said David Nutt, a professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London.
In a statement about the article, written in the journal, Nutt had more to clarify on his stance with censorship in the scientific community. “The laws have never been updated despite scientific advances and growing evidence that many of these drugs are relatively safe. And there appears to be no way for the international community to make such changes,” he said and then added, “This hindering of research and therapy is motivated by politics, not science.”
One incident was with one of Nutt’s discoveries with psilocybin, the psychedelic ingredient in magic mushrooms. He found, by using volunteers, that this drug had the possibility of curing severe depression, if other options were unsuccessful.
However, when he wanted to bring this to the clinical trial stage in April, the process went to a standstill, as there are harsh rules about illegal drugs in research.
Voice of Russia, Reuters
Read more: http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_06_12/Scientists-see-medical-potential-in-illegal-drugs-6003/
Daly is a wimp. He will never make a good decision just look at his record at the county recorder’s office. What a joke.
Since the state supreme court acted, nearly all the store fronts have been closed. Those who have a real need and have had the ability to get meds from them, now have to either get them delivered if they can (also seemingly illegal per some city sources) grow it themselves (an art that takes months at best) or seek the underground market.
How this makes society safer I will never understand. You close storefronts that are relatively safe, clean, pay taxes and provide a service that the market obviously supports (proof of that is the money they spend) and did all of this while attempting to work within the legal system.
Now those, who did vote with their money, will simply revert back to the illegal sources that supported the same user base prior. They don’t play within the rules. They work out of their homes, garages or business, in a manner that isn’t regulated in any way. Right around the corner from schools without any type of recommendations from doctors or anyone else.
It’s being pushed back right into the middle of the areas of concern without ANY oversight by any legal authority. Purity, source and the flow of money, public safety and taxes all suffer. Any disputes between buyers and sellers or distributors are settled outside of the legal system, sometimes by violent means.
Look for an increase in public shootings as a result of turf wars once again this summer as sales districts are reestablished by those who are happy to increase prices and violence to satisfy this already established market. Look for more money being funneled to the drug cartels and outside the tax system. Look for police actions against them, broken homes and families, lawyers and more burden in the courts and jails.
Can someone explain to me how this makes society better? Anyone, anyone….Ferris
Stoners are to blame for taking advantage of the system which was poorly designed to help those with a real medical need.
Stoners are to blame for pot being illegal ? Don’t be a dope.
It’s old news, but, the California Beer and Beverage Distributors is just but one of many big corporate interests fighting to keep marijuana illegal.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/this-buds-not-for-you-bee_n_732901.html
Not to mention police unions, private prison corporations and the prison guard unions, and big pharma ( the competition would be bad for Advil and Vicodin).
The monied interests have way more power than the stoners…. so what are you smokin.’