heres an email I got yesterday from Letetia Pepper. The bill would have passed, except a large part of the medical community was alienated and turned off from the bill.
If there are still any medical marijuana patients who are thinking of voting yes on 19, you might consider this.
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Letitia Pepper <letitiapepper@yahoo.com>
To: russ@norml.org; Mikki Norris <mikki@hr95.org>; Mike Gray <hmichaelgray@sbcglobal.net>; Sunil Aggarwal <sunila@u.washington.edu>
Cc: Brenda Kershenbaum <edna2422000@yahoo.com>; David Herrick <dherrick@earthlink.net>; David Nick <jdavidnick@lawyer.com>; Theodora Kerry <thekerry@comcast.net>; Mickey Martin <freetainted@yahoo.com>; Paul Armentano <paul@norml.org>; Don E Wirtshafter <wirtshafter@gmail.com>; Omar Figueroa <omarfigueroa@mac.com>; Chris Conrad <chris@chrisconrad.com>; GlobalMarijuanaReLegalization@yahoogroups.com; DC Williams <gear2000@lightspeed.net>; Ellen Douglas <douglasbiomedical@comcast.net>; dpfca <dpfca@drugsense.org>; staff <staff@taxcannabis.org>; Michael Cutler <cutlermj@aol.com>; Jackie Wilson <JGWilsonW@aol.com>; "casper@time4hemp.com" <casper@time4hemp.com>; Deborah Small <deborah@breakchains.org>; Ed Rosenthal <AskEdR@aol.com>; Lynette Shaw <lynnette_shaw@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sat, October 30, 2010 11:55:01 AM
Subject: Re: DPFCA: Respected leaders who support Prop. 19 vs. Letitia Pepper's delusions and absurdities
Each word, as well as words that are missing, can be very important in terms of meaning. So, for example, look at this sentence from one of the pro-19 people:
"We all know marijuana can't really be legalized, because the feds say so. But the people don't, and we're succeeding in fooling most of them, except the really smart ones, like you, Dragonfly, Lanette, and J."
First, "marijuana" CAN BE, and HAS BEEN, legalized as medicine in California. And we can grow and use it ourselves, with no pharmaceutical intereference/profit-taking, as herbal medicine, since, unlike the law in Germany, we can grow and use it ourselves instead of having to buy it from Bayer in the expensive, pharmaceutical form of Sativex.
Second, the RECREATIONAL use of marijuana cannot be legalized by one state's adoption of a law like Prop. 19. But fooling young and enthusiastic voters into thinking they can "legalize pot" for recreational use was a great way to get them to vote yes for a law that totally benefits the guy(s) who paid to put it on the ballot, Lee and Jones.
And who will they benefit from, if Prop. 19 passes? From the only people who can use marijuana legally: medical marijuana patients.
I stand by my legal analysis: if Richard Lee and friends did NOT intend to affect medical marijuana patients' rights, why didn't the Intent section specifically state that "the Act," i.e., Prop. 19, was NOT intended to affect H & S section 11362.5, or any of the laws and court decisions implementing Prop. 215 and interpreting it, the code sections put in place by S.B. 420, and the A.G. Guidelines?
Instead, Prop. 19 was carefully worded to create "plausible deniability" by making references to H & S section 31162.5 in two separate sections under "Purpose" -- which thereby limited the effect of such references to the subject matter in each separate section in which it was mentioned. This kind of drafting was no accident -- especially given the oft-repeated claim that Prop. 19 is the final product after 14 separate drafts.
And why didn't Prop. 19 provide that people under 21, who have doctors' recommendations to use marijuana as medicine. are not subject to criminal prosecution? Or exempt the parents and/or guardians of sick children from the criminal penalties that apply to adults who furnish, etc., marijuana to people under 21?
Prop. 19 DOES affect rights udner 215. Prop. 215 made it legal for ANYONE to use marijuana with a doctor's recommendation -- and Prop. 19, if it passes, changes that and makes it illegal for ANYONE under 21 to use marijuana, even as medicine.
In order to try to get as many people to vote yes on his scheme to increase his pot proceeds, Richard Lee, using focus group results, was willing to make the use of marijuana illegal for ANYONE under 21, even sick children who are truly benefited by cannabis.
And since Prop. 19 defines cannabis as marijuana, and then provides for the state to adopt laws allowing the cultivation of hemp or "non-active cannabis," Prop. 19 is clearly designed to let SOMEONE grow "non-active cannabis." Monsanto? Bayer? Some third party who will be in business with them? Who knows? Let's hope we don't find out any time soon.
And you Prop. 19 "yes" people call people like Dennis Peron and Dave Herrick traitors? And call me, an attorney who's spent most of her career providing neutral analyses of laws more complex than Prop, 19. crazy?