Pubdate: Tue, 28 Sep 2010
Source: Orange County Register, The (CA)
Webpage: http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/marijuana-268444-use-prop.html
Copyright: 2010 The Orange County Register
Contact: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: http://www.ocregister.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/321
Authors: Hanna Liebman Dershowitz and James P. Gray
Note: James P. Gray is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior
Court, the author of "A Voter's Handbook: Effective Solutions to
America's Problems" (The Forum Press, 2010), and can be reached
through his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com. Hanna Liebman Dershowitz
is an attorney in Culver City and a member of the Proposition 19
legal subcommittee.
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

Prop. 19: We Should Say Yes To Legal Marijuana

We've tried marijuana prohibition for three-quarters of a century,
and all-out war in the last four decades. These policies manifestly
don't work. What's next? Let's try something that heralds a new era
of pragmatic, reasoned policies Proposition 19. Here is what it will
do and what it will not do.

Prop. 19 treats marijuana more like alcohol, letting adults possess
or grow small amounts for personal use. And it authorizes local
governments only if they choose to regulate and tax production and
distribution. What Prop. 19 does not do: it doesn't authorize any
employee to use marijuana on the job, nor stand in the way of an
employer firing someone whose work is affected by marijuana.
Suggestions that Prop. 19 legalizes smoke-filled workplaces are
simply uninformed and silly. The initiative clearly states that
prohibitions on controlled substances in the workplace remain intact.
Applicable court decisions underscore that. And several sections in
the initiative explicitly preserve present laws against operating
vehicles, in an employment context and otherwise. These provisions
apply to consumption while driving or that renders the driver
impaired. Assertions that these provisions allow use "right before
climbing behind the wheel" are also silly.

Detractors appear to be worried about a narrowly crafted clause in
the proposition that requires there to be some impairment of job
performance for an employee to be disciplined or fired, protecting
off-the-job use that has no effect on the workplace. But the effect
of this clause is as it should be. You're allowed to own a dog or
drink alcohol off the job, but employers can regulate these
activities in the workplace same here.

Alarmist opponents raise the specter of a "protected class" of
marijuana users because of the protective clause. But the clause is
not scary. The protection extends only to activity authorized by the
Act, which does not include driving while impaired by marijuana, or
using marijuana in the workplace. To be absolutely clear, there will
be no change at all in terms of workplace controls on driving or
operating heavy machinery in workplaces the school buses will stay as
safe as they are today.

For years, prohibitionists have based marijuana laws on the
assumption that all use is abuse, but this is as untrue as it is with
alcohol. By identifying impairment as the condition that triggers
workplace sanctions, Prop. 19 challenges the notion that use and
abuse of marijuana are one and the same.

The other issue raised by opponents is road safety. Because driving
laws will not change at all, officers will face the same challenges
as today in determining whether drivers are competent. Sadly, no laws
will prevent some people from turning that ignition key even if they
are exhausted, angry or impaired by prescription drugs, illegal drugs
or alcohol.

While research has shown marijuana is not as dangerous a road factor
as alcohol, an added challenge with marijuana has been the lack of a
simple roadside test that can determine sobriety. Luckily, that
challenge is already being lessened by advances in technology. Oral
swab tests that indicate recent use of marijuana are being marketed
today, and may come into wider use in the future. Meanwhile, even the
widespread adoption of Breathalyzers has not replaced field sobriety
tests in evaluating impairment.

California has the highest number of trained drug recognition
experts, and recently announced it would spend more on checkpoints
than any state has ever spent. The only thing that will improve
roadway safety is changing attitudes and enforcing the laws. And
though technology will lessen concerns about marijuana road safety,
we didn't wait for Breathalyzers to end alcohol prohibition. These
are problems of today and tomorrow, irrespective of Prop 19.

Let's get back to work on things that matter in California. Let's get
back to work, period, with legitimate jobs and the promise of savings
and new revenues that can preserve California's crumbling
institutions. Today, marijuana is California's largest cash crop, yet
is unregulated and untaxed. Let's stop using a policy of prohibition
that just does not work. We deserve better, and we can choose a
better system on Nov. 2 by voting yes on Prop. 19.
_____________________________________________________

Pubdate: Tue, 28 Sep 2010
Source: Orange County Register, The (CA)
Webpage: http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/marijuana-268445-state-drug.html
Copyright: 2010 The Orange County Register
Contact: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: http://www.ocregister.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/321
Authors: Dick Ackerman and Sandy Hutchens
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

PROP. 19: WE SHOULD SAY NO TO LEGAL MARIJUANA

Proposition 19 is entitled "The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis
Act of 2010." In truth, it does none of these. Let us show you just
how flawed and misleading the ballot initiative is.

Among the unintended consequences of Prop. 19, employees will be able
to show up to work under the influence of marijuana while being
within their legal rights.

That's right, truck drivers, fork lift operators, school bus drivers,
doctors, nurses, teachers and essentially anyone else will be able to
smoke marijuana before coming to work and will not face any
disciplinary action by their employer.

Similarly, the rights of employers will be downsized as they will no
longer be able to conduct employee drug tests and even if they know
an employee is under the influence they can only take action if they
are able to prove impairment. This subjects employers to more
lawsuits as they will inevitably fail to provide a safe work environment.

It's also a costly problem for places of business. According to the
California Chamber of Commerce, not only will business owners have to
accommodate marijuana users by providing smoke breaks and designated
smoking areas strictly for marijuana use, but they will also have to
pay more in insurance fees to make up for the increased danger in the
workplace and will also be required to pay for marijuana-related accidents.

Moreover, the research shows that by failing to comply with the
Federal Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988, businesses across the
California will lose millions of dollars in federal funding, as well
as federal research grants for state colleges and universities.

Our law enforcement officers will also inherit an albatross if Prop.
19 passes. The way the initiative is written, local governments
throughout the state will have the responsibility of passing a
framework for taxing marijuana sales, meaning each of the 58 counties
and 478 cities in California very well could have a different set of
laws for people to follow creating a patchwork of ordinances and
confusion for those trying to enforce them.

Furthermore, while provisions in the ballot measure prohibit drivers
from smoking while driving, nothing prevents people from smoking just
before getting behind the wheel of a vehicle. There is also no
language that explains what constitutes being "under the influence"
of marijuana and unlike alcohol, there are no conclusive tests that
can be conducted to detect the level of marijuana in one's system.
Just like with workplace issues, law enforcement officers will be
responsible for proving a driver was impaired after an incident occurs.

Finally, regardless of the outcome in November, United States Federal
Law views marijuana as an illegal substance, therefore overruling any
state law in place.

The federal government has already made it clear that legalization of
any drug is not on its agenda. President Obama's 2010 National Drug
Strategy states that "We have many proven methods for reducing the
demand for drugs. Keeping drugs illegal reduces their availability
and lessens willingness to use them. That is why this Aadministration
firmly opposes the legalization of marijuana or any other illicit
drug. Legalizing drugs would increase accessibility and encourage
promotion and acceptance of use."

Our state cannot afford to face the tribulations surrounding
Proposition 19. The initiative has too many loopholes and takes
legalization too far. All facts aside, California would be the only
state to legalize marijuana, but if we simply look to other parts of
the world where marijuana was decriminalized, such as the
Netherlands, it's easy to see how public safety was damaged and
clearly this is not what we want for our state.

Voters should not risk the well-being of our state. Vote "no" on
Proposition 19.
_______________________________________

Pubdate: Tue, 28 Sep 2010
Source: Press Democrat, The (Santa Rosa, CA)
Copyright: 2010 The Press Democrat
Contact: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: http://www.pressdemocrat.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/348
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

NO ON 19

Pot Measure Is Poorly Worded and Potentially Dangerous

One of the traps that continues to ensnare California is the belief
that complex problems can be resolved with simple solutions at the ballot box.

The latest example is Proposition 19 on the Nov. 2 ballot. The bait
with this one is the idea that all would be better if voters would
simply legalize the recreational use of marijuana.

Proponents contend that the violent criminal market - which appears
to be making itself at home in the North Coast - would go away, the
high cost of policing marijuana sales would disappear, and California
would be able to pocket $1.4 billion in additional sales tax revenue.

Don't believe it.

Proposition 19 is so poorly worded and filled with loopholes that
it's likely to create more confusion than clarity. And, as with
Proposition 215, which legalized medicinal uses of marijuana, it
would still leave California law in conflict with federal law,
creating more regulatory and policy gridlock at all levels of government.

Of greatest concern is that Proposition 19 would create dangers where
they don't exist now. Chief among them is that the initiative does
not create a standard for "driving under the influence." Under
Proposition 19, drivers may legally be able to operate vehicles even
if they have marijuana in their systems.

Proposition 19 also would afford marijuana users protections that
would frustrate, if not prohibit, businesses from enforcing a
drug-free workplace. School districts, for example, could be
powerless to take action against a school bus driver who arrives at
work with marijuana in his or her system.

There's no guarantee that legalizing marijuana in California will
reduce the number of illicit pot farms on public and private
property. It may do just the opposite, making California an even more
attractive place to grow marijuana to sell in states where it still
will be illegal.

We recognize that there's probably a good argument to be made for
legalizing marijuana. But this is not it.

This flawed initiative is guaranteed only to bring more unintended
consequences, political gridlock and court battles. California has
enough problems to worry about.

This is why we join Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, all of the state
candidates for governor and the U.S. Senate, Mothers Against Drunk
Driving and numerous other California newspapers in recommending a no
vote on Proposition 19.
______________________________________________

Pubdate: Tue, 28 Sep 2010
Source: Los Angeles Daily News (CA)
Copyright: 2010 Los Angeles Newspaper Group
Contact: http://www.dailynews.com/writealetter
Website: http://www.dailynews.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/246
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

Regulatory Nightmare:

PROPOSITION 19 HAS TOO MANY FLAWS

TO truly consider the merits of Proposition 19, you must check your
morals at the door. Because the heart of the Nov. 2 ballot measure is
not about whether marijuana is no worse than alcohol or whether the
law should allow for small amounts of personal pot.

The real question of this initiative is whether California wants to
take on the federal government and allow any and every city in the
state to make up its own rules about selling, manufacturing and
transporting an illegal substance.

And the Daily News thinks the answer to the question is an emphatic "no."

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 is a poorly
crafted initiative that would set the scene for a regulatory
nightmare in California. Besides, permitting anyone over 21 to
possess, grow or transport up to an ounce of marijuana, it would also
allow local governments to regulate and tax production, distribution
and sale of marijuana in a way that suits their jurisdiction. This
patchwork approach to regulation is the most alarming aspect of the
measure. With every city and county in the state coming up with
different marijuana laws, the resulting confusion could make the
lawless and explosive growth of medical marijuana dispensaries in
recent years seem like the good old days.

Supporters of Proposition 19 are selling it in financial terms.
First, they say it's preposterous to have marijuana offenders take up
costly time and room in California courtrooms, jails and prisons when
more serious offenders are released early due to lack of space and
resources. As well, legalizing pot would take a major source of
income out of the hands of drug dealers.

Furthermore, they note, the legal sale of marijuana would bring in as
much as $1.4 billion a year in tax revenue to local governments
struggling with the costs of basic services and bring untold amounts
of money to the state from marijuana tourism.

But financial considerations are not a good basis for adopting bad law.

Notwithstanding its obvious conflicts with federal law, which still
considers marijuana an illegal substance, there are a number of other
reasons to reject Proposition 19.

Critics of the law bring up several worries, including the danger of
allowing the widespread use of a mind-altering drug - including on
the road and on the job. The act prohibits "(c)onsumption by the
operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated,
or that impairs the operator." But if four passengers are smoking
joints in a car, it's not a stretch to think the second-hand smoke is
going to impair the driver's reactions, endangering all of them and
their fellow motorists on the road.

Proposition 19 should also make employers nervous, as it appears to
give marijuana users a clear right to smoke on the job. It maintains
"any law prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace or
by specific persons whose jobs involve public safety," which is good.
But it precludes workplace drug testing by saying that employers can
address only "consumption that actually impairs job performance by an
employee." And what does impairment really mean, anyhow?

Proposition 19 isn't really about decriminalizing small amounts of
personal marijuana in California, which has essentially been the case
for decades. It's about setting the groundwork to change the nation's
perception of marijuana and its current drug laws. Opening up the
state to this particular can of worms is the wrong way to do that.
Vote no on Proposition 19.
_______________________________

Pubdate: Tue, 28 Sep 2010
Source: Visalia Times-Delta, The (CA)
Webpage: http://mapinc.org/url/bfq2ZbDG
Copyright: 2010 The Visalia Times-Delta
Contact: http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/customerservice/contactus.html
Website: http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2759
Author: Eric Woomer
Referenced: The Field Poll http://drugsense.org/url/I7MkxkYG
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

PUBLIC SUPPORT UP FOR LEGAL POT

The Tulare County seizure of more than $5 million worth of marijuana
last week has added context to the debate over Proposition 19, which
would legalize the drug for those 21 and older.

A recent Field Poll shows that support for the legalization of
marijuana is growing. About 49 percent support Proposition 19, which
will be voted on Nov. 2, while 42 percent oppose it.

Most likely to support legalization are Democrats, men and
nonpartisan voters, according to the poll.

The California Police Chiefs Association has come out strongly
against Proposition 19, which would limit growing to 25 square feet
per parcel of land. It also would allow local and county governments
to prohibit or control the sale of marijuana within a city or county.

"The proposition is a joke," said Carlos Mestas, the Valley
representative for the chiefs' association. "People think we'll be
able to tax it and stop the cartels. That's a fallacy."

Mestas believes stores would have to charge $50 to $100 an ounce to
make a profit, opening the door to a new type of cartel that would
underbid local marijuana shops and fly beneath the county or state tax.

The law would prohibit driving while smoking, but Mestas said he
fears fatalities would rise nonetheless.

In 2009 the California State Board of Equalization reported that the
state would collect $1.4 billion or more through marijuana
legalization. Local authorities disagree.

"People will find ways to break the law and sell with out a tax,"
said Sheriff's Lt. Mike Boudreaux. "If someone grows at home and
sells it, they're not going to be taxed. That's a problem."

Some disagree.

"Are more people going to smoke [marijuana]? Yes. But the stats show
that the state will gain money no matter which way you look at it,"
said Jeff Rodgers, 29, a Visalia man who says the state spends
millions trying to eradicate the drug.

In Visalia last year police confiscated 177 plants worth about
$467,000. This year the Tulare County Sheriff's Department has
confiscated more than 400,000 plants from private and public lands,
Sgt. Chris Douglass said.

She estimated the street value at more than $1.6 billion.

"We are not for this proposition passing at all," Visalia Police
Chief Colleen Mestas said.

More than 61,000 people were arrested for marijuana possession in
California in 2009, according to the FBI.

"Most of these people are not even doing time in jail. It's a waste
of money for our police to be stopping people and arresting them for
smoking," said Beth James, 20, a College of the Sequoias student.
"Make it legal. Everyone is doing it anyway."

Most college and even high school parties she has attended offer easy
access to marijuana, James said.

The States Legislative Analyst's office reported that the proposition
could offer a significant savings to state and local governments.
Savings would come from a reduction in individuals incarcerated, on
probation or on parole, the analyst's office reported.

The argument doesn't sway Carlos Mestas.

"We have enough drugs out there," he said, "and I don't want my kids
or grandkids out on the streets if it becomes legal."
______________________________________________

Pubdate: Tue, 28 Sep 2010
Source: San Gabriel Valley Tribune (CA)
Copyright: 2010 San Gabriel Valley Tribune
Contact: http://www.sgvtribune.com/writealetter
Website: http://www.sgvtribune.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3725
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

LEGAL POT A BAD IDEA

THE best way to look at Proposition 19, which would legalize the sale
and possession of marijuana for adults, is to paint a picture of the
state if the measure were to pass:

The guy in the cubicle next to you at work is stoned. There's an
increased likelihood the driver of the car in the next lane on the
freeway is under the influence of pot. Commercial entities openly
selling pot in storefronts near where you shop, or perhaps in your
child or grandchild's college dormitory.

California's tourism industry attracts families to its theme parks,
state parks and beaches. California's natural wonders and temperate
weather are a draw for millions of tourists each year from Kansas to
China and Germany to Australia. Now, that will change. Our state will
draw visitors from other states (every other one) where marijuana is
illegal, and from citizens of countries looking for a legal high. It
will be bigger than Amsterdam, where criminal operations have flocked
since the legal marijuana coffee houses have opened for business.
Increased crime is a problem authorities in the Netherlands are
desperately trying to rectify.

This is not our vision of a bright California future. Yet these
scenarios are just a conservative estimate of what will happen if
voters legalize the drug.

Will the measure, as proponents say, "put strict safety controls on
marijuana?" Hardly. While only adults over 21 legally could possess
and cultivate the narcotic, and commercial entities sell it, the
ballot sponsors "forgot" to prescribe an action level for driving
under the influence. This poorly written law would release chaos on
the CHP and other law enforcement agencies. How can they test a
driver when there's no standard? This loophole is partly why Kamala
Harris and Steve Cooley, district attorneys running against each
other for attorney general, agree that Prop. 19 is bad policy. Others
lining up on the "no" side include almost every single local law
enforcement group and organization. Bitter opponents for the
governor's seat, Democrat Jerry Brown and Republican Meg Whitman,
agree that Prop. 19 should be defeated. As does Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Last, there's an argument that making marijuana legal will allow
states, cities and counties to tax sales and that this revenue could
fill in state budget gaps. Remember how legalized gambling via the
state Lottery was going to fill in gaps in education funding? It
didn't happen. So, in the same way, don't vote for Prop. 19 for
fiscal reasons or you'll end up being disappointed. Like most ballot
measures, this one promises more than it can deliver.

There is no provision for a specific tax on legal marijuana. The
measure leaves that up to whatever governmental entity wants to do
so. But there is a provision that allows people to cultivate
marijuana in their yards and even on empty lots. And how is the state
going to tax cannabis plants? Knock on everyone's door and collect?
Use Google Earth? Call Homeland Security? Will this really take the
drug cartels out of the business?

Think again. They'll find a way to grow it or sell it on the black
market, avoiding taxation.

All a voter has to do is think through the consequences of legalizing
marijuana. It is not a pretty picture. On Nov. 2, vote "no" on Prop. 19.
______________________________________________

Pubdate: Tue, 28 Sep 2010
Source: Arcata Eye (CA)
Copyright: 2010 Arcata Eye
Contact: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: http://www.arcataeye.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1210
Source: Arcata Eye (CA)
Author: Jackie Wellbaum
Note: Arcata resident Jackie Wellbaum is a former pharmaceutical
industry professional now exploring cannabis branding.
Cited: California NORML http://www.canorml.org/news/prop19.html
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

REDEFINE CANNABIS REALITY

So you want to get into the pot business minus the arrests, jail time
and constant fear? Got some extra cash? Soon your elected officials
could begin to offer you help going legitimate. For those with years
of experience growing and selling illegal pot and for newcomers with
bank accounts and entrepreneurial spirit, Humboldt County could soon
become your best grow bro.

Whether or not California Proposition 19 (Tax and Control Cannabis)
is passed by voters on Nov. 2, the California pot industry is
undergoing structural changes with little or no centralized voice or
leadership. Used to rolling their own joints, as a group the local
pot industry may be less comfortable growing its own pot law.

As a highly lucrative but closeted industry, Humboldt County pot
professionals now have an historic opportunity to take a leading role
in writing and implementing future county pot law--the same laws they
may soon have to abide by. County ordinances applied here in Humboldt
are certain to be closely watched, cut and pasted throughout the
state and will be studied for impacts as-yet seen only in certain
European countries.

Should pot industry-friendly cannabis ordinances adopted by Humboldt
county spread throughout California, they are also likely to spread
throughout the country like other cultural and political trends.

We could soon live in a nation that praises the ganja and redirects
law enforcement officers to the unemployment lines. The vision of
lots of old ex-cops and corrections officers standing in welfare
lines warms my cold heart.

Vote. Party on. Repeat.

My dears, you've elected officials in Humboldt County who have been
aware of the pot industry but who have not yet fully outlined how
they might position the region to unlock the economic potential of a
legitimate pot industry.

Humboldt County pot professionals and their elected officials are in
a unique time and place in history to exert state-wide leadership on
regulatory issues surrounding cannabis job creation, environmental
stewardship and reasonable taxation.

Some county supervisors and other elected officials currently attend
pot industry public meetings such as this past summer's Bayside
Grange gathering sponsored by the Humboldt Medical Marijuana Advisory
Panel (HumMAP). Elected officials unafraid to sit at the table with
local cannabis industry voters include Bonny Neely and Mark Lovelace
at the county supervisor level and Susan Ornelas, vice mayor of Arcata.

Candidates running for Humboldt county supervisor including Eureka's
Mayor Virginia Bass were recently interviewed on KMUD radio. Ms. Bass
spoke inarticulately about the cannabis industry when asked about the
kind of leadership position she would take at the county level should
she be elected supervisor and should Proposition 19 pass on Nov. 2.

Despite having indicated that she grew up in the area, here's another
local politician who has no imagination.

Where are the "big-picture" visions for a legitimate, tremendously
influential cannabis industry? Where is the policy to back it up? Ms.
Bass did however speak of her belief that attracting new industries
into the county would reduce unemployment levels. Got wtf?

Why look only outside the county for new industries willing to
re-locate to Humboldt when we have an industry here that needs great
care and business incubation services?

A thriving legitimate pot industry would require the services of
highly professional ancillary businesses such as commercial grow
experts, safety professionals, scientists, pot processors, packagers
and large storage warehouses.

Finally, to get it all out of Humboldt you'd need distributors,
shipping companies and a huge, educated sales force that could travel
the state writing large orders for our emeralds.

Speaking of imagination-free zones,
gruff-white-Republican-male-sounding Mike Thompson, our democratic
liaison to Congress, recently bumbled right through the same KMUD
query regarding Federal-level acceptance of the California cannabis industry.

For this Mike Thompson should promptly be unplugged from the network
and reprogrammed to be a trans-gender trimmer-chick in order for him
to regain his long-lost humility. For those of you who don't know
about these things, this would be like Mike Thompson dying and coming
back as a cockroach with no employer-sponsored health insurance to
pay for transgender equestrian hormone pills.

Congressman Thompson's demonstration of disdain and feigned ignorance
of the massive amount of much-needed cash the California pot industry
generates in just his First Congressiona

l District (Humboldt, Mendocino, Napa, Sonoma, Del Norte and Lake
Counties) was embarrassing to hear.

Far worse is the complete inability of local politicians to speak of
the lonely and shameful transition their constituents are making from
dreaded, dirty, closeted pot-industrialists to legitimacy, sunlight
and respect.

It's your Karma trimmer-tranny. Don't make it ours, dude.

Ellen Komp is Deputy Director of the California branch of the
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). Ellen
recently released to the public an example of what a Humboldt County
Cannabis Ordinance might look like.

Ellen has been seeking public comment through HumMAP's website, where
the latest version of CA NORML's proposed county cannabis ordinance
can be found.

Please dog, take charge of your own pot laws. Go to HumMAP.org,
download the CA NORML draft ordinance, print it out and send it to
your local elected officials with your comments. And don't forget to
copy Ellen.

Without further delay, the local pot industry must exert its wants
and needs through homegrown local law. As you are deciding how you'd
like to be regulated and taxed, or even if you're voting no on 19,
let's encourage our elected officials and those running in 2010 races
to present us with an articulate plan which will support the local
cannabis industry in exerting statewide leadership on regulatory
issues and reasonable taxation.
_____________________________________

_______________________________________________
THS mailing list