Dana Rohrabacher medical marijuana
Ending Marijuana Prohibition

California’s Adult Use Of Marijuana Act (AUMA) Endorsed By Congressman Rohrabacher

Dana Rohrabacher medical marijuanaLongtime GOP congressman U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Costa Mesa) announced his support for the statewide ballot measure known as the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA).

He is the second California Congressman to endorse the measure in as many weeks.  Respected military veteran U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) announced his support last Monday.

Rohrabacher is a 13-term Congressman who is a powerful voice for libertarian values.  He is the co-author of the bipartisan Rohrabacher-Farr amendment which has been passed as part of the Federal Budget and prevents the federal government from prosecuting medical marijuana patients or distributors who are in compliance with the laws of their state.

“As a Republican who believes in individual freedom, limited government and states’ rights, I believe that it’s time for California to lead the nation and create a safe, legal system for the responsible adult use of marijuana,” said Rohrabacher.

“I endorse the Adult Use of Marijuana Act for the November 2016 ballot,” he continued.  “It is a necessary reform which will end the failed system of marijuana prohibition in our state, provide California law enforcement the resources it needs to redouble its focus on serious crimes while providing a policy blueprint for other states to follow.”

Rohrabacher joins a rapidly-growing and diverse coalition, including physicians, environmental leaders, business owners, small farmers, civil right groups and social justice advocates, in support of California’s consensus ballot measure to regulate adult use of marijuana.

His endorsement comes on the heels of a recent report by the respected Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) which outlined the importance of AUMA’s key provisions, drawing lessons from Washington and Colorado and including maximum regulatory flexibility, strong data collection, reporting and oversight, unprecedented safeguards for children and a restrictive regulatory structure.

The Adult Use of Marijuana Act is a consensus measure based on recognized best practices and recommendations from hundreds of engaged citizens and organizations.  It includes strong safeguards for children, businesses and local governments, strict anti-monopoly provisions and the toughest warning label and marketing-to-kids laws in the nation.

It also closely adheres to the Lieutenant Governor’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy and the new medical marijuana laws recently passed by a bipartisan majority of the Legislature and signed by Governor Brown (SB 643, AB 266 and AB 243).

AUMA has been endorsed by the California Council of Land Trusts, Drug Policy Alliance, Marijuana Policy Project, California Cannabis Industry Association, California Medical Association and California NAACP, and national NORML, among others.

Source: AUMA campaign press release

  • myconaut

    Oh my! Where’s Troallio dropping in to somehow spin an endorsement from a sitting US congressman — from the Republican party, no less — into a loss for the legalization side? Where is Troallio to tell us how this endorsement proves how hopeless it is for legalization in California? Even if the initiative were to win, Troallio would find a way to call it a loss!

  • Kathleen Chippi

    puke on bad language, his and theirs.

    • JohnB

      If you wait for perfect, Kathleen, you will wait forever.
      How about being a team player?

      • Kathleen Chippi

        lol….so being a “team player” means supporting to continue decades more time to (non-toxic) cannabis prohibition, when the whole war is ALL based on LIES, PREJUDICE and GREED and perpetrated by Big Government, Big Business and Mass Media? Yeah, no thanks. My idea of a team player is someone who is principled in their activism/beliefs and causes no harm. And I mean no harm. No fines for over an ounce/7plants included–because there is no, sane, humane or scientific reason for the limits (prohibitions) other than the lies, prejudice or greed the entire war is based on.

        • JohnB

          Right yes, we get it, and we ALL agree; prohibition is terrible, and it is based on lies.
          That you would prefer to repeal NO part of prohibition until you can repeal EVERY part of prohibition is ridiculous, however.
          Here in the really real world, law reform works in incremental ways, like it or not.
          Again, if you wait for perfect, you will wait forever.
          The Utopia you envision isn’t coming anywhere any time soon, especially not now that cannabis has been firmly established as a major economic force.
          Your disdain for pragmatism is duly noted, however.
          That you think arguing AGAINST cannabis law reform does “no harm,” is very sad and disconcerting.

          • Kathleen Chippi

            Before AND AFTER passage of A64 EVERYONE is at risk of LOSS of: employment, child custody, gun rights, occupational licenses, all assets, banking, housing, health insurance, all government aid, veterans benefits, student loans, drivers license, ‘privilege’ of organ transplant, freedom etc.

            So nothing has changed when it comes to the HARM caused by prohibition when A64 or any of the even more repressive language passed around the country …. CONVENIENCE for people like jontmas (who has admitted he has no friends who share pot) is the baby-step A64 ‘accomplished’ if you can call it that.

            The big change in Colorado is who some people get their pot from. Instead of getting pesticide free/RFID chip free cannabis from your friend, some people buy pesticide ridden pot with extortion level taxes and an RFID chip attached to it from a store where they and their purchases are recorded by the store and sent to the CBI and are stored in the state CRIMINAL DATABASE, connected to the NSA/NCIA CRIMINAL databases….

            CONVENIENCE for law enforcement data gathering- A dream when everyone turns themselves in (and gets poisoned in the process).

            IF it is “legal” (in the court of law the proper lingo would be “lawful”) or even DE-CRIMINALIZED–why is everything being stored in CRIMINAL databases? let alone stored at all? we were promised ‘legalization like alcohol’ when no one is tracking how or what alcohol or how often people buy?

          • JohnB

            I have no idea how to begin addressing your irrational paranoia.


          • JohnB: “I support continued criminal prohibition of unlicensed, untaxed commercial activity”

          • JohnB

            I’m glad that you are so impressed with that single comment that you feel the need to paste it over and over again.

            I mean, I already knew I was smart, but I didn’t know I am so smart that my comments need to be reiterated like some holy mantra.

            Go ahead, bow down if you wish, but it’s not really necessary.

          • Keep flailing, you lowlife prohibitionist piece of crap.

        • HotTuna

          The two Johns are obvious shills for the greedy dispensary cartels.

          • JohnB

            That’s a bold claim.
            What objective evidence can you offer in support of it?

      • Spoken like a true underachieving slacker.

        No one wants to be on Team Slacker, loser.

        • JohnB

          I don’t know what you hope to accomplish with name calling, but it’s not working if you want me to see things your way.
          In the meantime, Maine today showed the rest of the nation what happens when the various bickering self-interested factions put aside their petty squabbles and hopeless idealism and instead work toward job one, which is making ANY progress toward fully legal cannabis.

          • Selfish slacker-losers who are willing to Continue the Criminal Prohibition of Cannabis against others simply so they can obtain a few pathetic grams of overpriced, overtaxed, government controlled warehouse schwag from greedy big $$ dispensary cartels are the reason why marijuana will NEVER be LEGAL in the USA.

            Keep failing, chump, it’s what you do best.

          • JohnB

            Actually, it WILL be legal, fully legal, and probably in your lifetime, despite your attempts to thwart cannabis law reform.
            It will be imperfectly legal, then less imperfectly so, then finally the laws will reach a point where almost everyone but a few anarchists is satisfied, more or less.

          • “Actually, it WILL be legal, fully legal, and probably in your lifetime”

            It will NEVER be legal what slacker surrender-monkeys like you are willing to settle for 6 pathetic plants and a few grams, maintaining ALL other existing Felony and Misdemeanor criminal statutes against pot.

          • JohnB

            Just how much actual reform have YOU accomplished, with all of that negative bitching and moaning about how this or that proposal, that SOMEBODY ELSE actually did the work to get before the public isn’t good enough?

            What reform initiatives have you started, or helped?

            What reform organizations count you as a member?

            What GOOD, on behalf of cannabis, have you ever done, and where can I find the historical record of that?

            If all you have to offer is complaint, you are a hindrance, not a help, to the movement.

          • Look a the self-admitted prohibitionists whine and cry.

            jontomas “Marijuana reform was never about the growers and the sellers. ”

            jontomas: “At this point, I wish the state would just do all the growing and selling.”

            JohnB “But if you mean that it doesn’t eliminate felonies for illegally growing commercially, you are right. Why should it?”

          • JohnB

            Wow, that certainly is an impressive list of achievements you have presented for your body of work on cannabis law reform…

          • Prohibitionist scum says what ??

            JohnB “But if you mean that it doesn’t eliminate felonies for illegally growing commercially, you are right. Why should it?”

            JohnB: “I support continued criminal prohibition of unlicensed, untaxed commercial activity”

          • JohnB

            It is pathetic that all you can do is paste that same comment over and over again, but cannot list a single cannabis reform that you have ever helped in any way.

          • Prohibitionist pig says what?

            JohnB “But if you mean that it doesn’t eliminate felonies for illegally growing commercially, you are right. Why should it?”

            JohnB: “I support continued criminal prohibition of unlicensed, untaxed commercial activity”

            .

          • JohnB

            And, it’s still just as pathetic that you cannot name a single thing you have done to make things better.

            C’mon, try being an adult and contribute something constructive, instead of a bunch of playground name calling.

          • JohnB “But if you mean that it doesn’t eliminate felonies for illegally growing commercially, you are right. Why should it?”

            JohnB: “I support continued criminal prohibition of unlicensed, untaxed commercial activity”

          • Kathleen Chippi

            and what have you done JohnB?

          • JohnB

            I have been advocating to all who would listen, since 1974, for the reform of cannabis laws.

            I have spent countless hours in more recent years on the internet trying to be a voice of reason that opponents of cannabis could take seriously, which means not being strident (hint, hint) or engaging in hyperbole.

            I have contributed substantial money (for me) to organizations that work for cannabis reform.
            I have attended dozens of political events and marched in solidarity with fellow reform advocates.
            I have attended council, townhall and other civic meetings to voice an opinion about reforming cannabis law.
            I have gathered signatures for reform efforts.
            I have voted whenever possible in favor of cannabis law reform.
            I have telephoned, emailed and met in person with legislators, urging them to to support cannabis reform.

            But what I have NOT done, what I will NEVER do, is work against the larger goal of moving toward cannabis law reform, no matter how unsatisfactory any given proposal might be. If it moves the ball forward, it gets my support, but hey I’m just crazy positive that way, not a negative Nelly.

          • JohnB “But if you mean that it doesn’t eliminate felonies for illegally growing commercially, you are right. Why should it?”

            You = Fail

          • myconaut

            Don’t you have an overpriced dime bag that you need to sell on the black market? Or is being an internet troll against legalization now more lucrative, now that you’re losing a black market to exploit?

  • Another SCAM fake “legalization”.

    Let’s see if California is as stupid as Colorado.

  • I used to live in Costa Mesa. The act is probably not perfect (I haven’t looked). It is a step in the right direction.

    • Fungi Sclerotia 1427

      Much better than what the Midwest, S.E. U.S, Deep 5#1t South and parts of the East coast have…!
      (View any amount as “dangerous”, a serious “crime”!).

      CA’s AUMA is more bureaucratic than CO’s A64 implementation, though…
      (have read both…).

    • A step into a quagmire of quicksand.

      Not all “steps in the right direction” are the best steps.

      • JohnB

        “Not all “steps in the right direction” are the best steps.”
        You fail to see the distinction even in your own comment.
        That it is not “best” doesn’t negate it’s actually BEING “a step in the right direction.”
        Why anyone would forego a “step in the right direction” just because it isn’t perfect absolutely escapes me.
        It is completely irrational.
        A step in the right direction (YOUR term, or at least one to which you agreed) is ALWAYS a good thing, by definition.

        • jontomas

          This donkey is more troll than anything else. In any well-moderated forum, he would be banned.

          • HotTuna

            It isn’t surpassing that a prohibitionist like you would also call for banning people from open discussions.

          • Kathleen Chippi

            as would you.

          • Figures that a prohibitionist pig like you would support the banning of opposition in an open forum.

            Coward you are.

        • Nate

          Unless you’re stepping into a pile of dogshit.

        • saynotohypocrisy

          Conceivably a step in the right direction could be a problem if it makes further steps in the right direction harder. Conceivably AUMA could do that, by relieving the pressure that has built up against total prohibition.

          But I’m banking on the opposite effect.The experiment with legal recreational marijuana distribution is going very well, and showing that heavy regulation of cannabis is not necessary, as legal cannabis, just like illegal cannabis, is so much safer to use than alcohol that there is utterly no comparison. Creating a legal distribution system is crucial to showing that this country can live well with cannabis legalization, and AUMA will do that.
          AUMA will only be the end of the story if reformers let that happen.

          • JohnB

            Good point. You make a compelling argument.
            And I have also seen what you describe, that partial reform dulls the appetite for fuller reform.

            But it only does so, so far, temporarily, and in any case that is only an issue when making the initial choice between full reform and partial reform.

            In other words, something better isn’t, as you have noted, on the table; therefore, something better is only hypothetically hurt (something we can never know), not actually hurt.

    • saynotohypocrisy

      That’s very pragmatic of you, since your ideal is “no more regulated than tomatoes”. Glad to hear you’re in favor of this flawed initiative as being a step forward.

    • Bob Cratchet

      So how can you possibly have an informed opinion if you can’t be bothered to even read the POS before you comment and/or support it? C’mon; it’s only 64 pages.

  • jontomas

    All three of the greatest minds of marijuana reform strongly support AUMA. Iconic and courageous Canadian/American marijuana reformer Marc Emery, NORML’s astute Paul Armentano and marijuana reform’s rising star, Russ Belville, brilliant commentator of Cannabis Radio.

    The only “marijuana” people against AUMA are the usual suspects that are against EVERY legalization initiative that makes it to the ballot. They are the GGAL – the greedy growers against legalization. – They are terrified of losing their outrageous prices and quasi-monopolies. And they don’t care a bit that an AUMA victory will cause the collapse of the fraudulent federal prohibition, which would, in turn, free the world!

    • JohnB

      Right, John. Another article today on the Weed Blog shows just what happens when folks who ostensibly want the same thing – cannabis law reform – finally quit bickering and work TOGETHER to get reform done.
      The competing initiatives in Maine, that joined forces, are that example.

      • jontomas

        Right. That can happen to the degree that all parties involved really do have legalization as a goal. – The GGAL don’t have that goal. They are happy with things just the way they are.

        They probably wouldn’t mind legalization IF it didn’t disturb their quasi-monopolies and outrageously high prices. – That’s never going to happen, so they will always oppose every legalization initiative. – We just need to remember who they are so we can avoid doing business with them in the future legal market they fought so hard against.

        • Nate

          Most “greedy growers” are the ones who own warehouses and produce that corporate schwag that you seem so fond of.

          • jontomas

            lol – Trying to trivialize corporate products that are generally pretty good. – Otherwise, people wouldn’t be buying them and we’d live in a totally different world.

          • Nate

            LMFAO!!!
            You just proved you ARE a shill for these greedy dispensary cartels, who want to eliminate the artisan growers, because once a person has smoked GOOD HERB, they tend to stay far away from dispensary schwag, even if that means growing their own. But nooo, according to jontomas, doing your own work to have REAL medicine makes one “greedy”

          • Nate

            If what I say wasn’t true, I wouldn’t have patients in San Francisco asking an unkempt looking homeless(me) person to sell them some medicine, RIGHT UP THE STREET FROM THE CLUBS!!
            The greedy club owners don’t WANT people trying medicine that’s outdoor, organic, and grown with LOVE, not GREED.
            Unfortunately for most of them, I DON’T SELL, and they’re (patients) not smiling when they walk out of the club.

          • Nate

            Censorship on TWB

    • Kathleen Chippi

      “All three of the greatest minds of marijuana reform strongly support AUMA.. Marc Emery, Paul Armentano… and Russ Belville,…..” and now “AUMA victory will cause the collapse of federal prohibition and free the world?’

      LMFAO! Continuing to promote cannabis prohibition of any kind (over one ounce/7 plant fines/jail etc.) when we know the longest war in the history of the US is based on LIES,PREJUDICE and GREED is inhumane and utterly unscientific. Promoting the over-regulation and over taxation of a non-toxic healing plant and then claiming that passage of such nonsense “will cause the collapse of the fraudulent federal prohibition, which would, in turn, free the world!” is just more crap propaganda promoted by the perpetrators of 1937 Reefer Madness and they are: Big Business, Big Government and Mass Media.

      You, jontmas, claim Russ Belville one of the greatest minds of reform. Russ just wrote a (good) article in the Huffpost on why he won’t vote for Hil-LIAR-y…and for him it’s Bernie or bust. His belief is that “enough is enough” in politics and Clinton’s more of the ‘same’.

      The ‘same’ would be (quote Russ from the Huff Post article): “Strange how always picking evil has led to more evil, isn’t it?”

      and Hil-LIAR-y’s comments to: ‘consider schedule II-(big pharma research only-after 10,000 recorded years of human use (research))’ is simply more of the ‘same’–it’s the continuation of the 1937 REEFER MADNESS/PROHIBITION) that is based on LIES, PREJUDICE and GREED.

      Many of us who rarely agree with Russ were pleased to finally agree with Russ’s position on Bernie or bust, yet neither you nor Russ seem to see the correlation to “like tomatoes or bust”? How AUMA and all MPP/DPA/Soros/ASA/NCIA langusge is just is more unnecessary prohibition? Amazing.

      And if your goal is to kill off the “greedy growers” (who have successfully supplied the nation for the last 4 decades at threat of raid/asset seizure/prosecution and jail) — then regulating cannabis “like tomatoes” is the sure way to do so. When you limit the ‘industry’ (especially to a handful of special ‘licensed’ people) and you regulate a non-toxic plant more than toxic plutonium, you limit the competition who could stop the “greedy growers”, you speak of. When you truly open the ‘industry’ to anyone, only the talented greedy growers will survive…..just throwing that out there.

      • jontomas

        Comparing apples and oranges. – The road to a rational marijuana policy is MUCH different than a presidential election, of course. – Further, AUMA presents incredible progress, the same as achieved by the four Free States. – Hillary presents NO progress, but rather regressive policies that will turn the Democratic Party into a branch of the Republicans.

        None of your excuses for opposing AUMA fly. Your shameful greed and indifference to the suffering of millions of marijuana consumers is despicable.

        • Kathleen Chippi

          lol How is that when CA/prop 215 has the most compassionate language, no persoanl info stored in a criminal database, no RFID chips, no tracking and the most comprehensive ‘qualifying’ list worldwide….because it was written be AIDS/gay rights activists. You can qualify for medicinal with writers block.

          “Your shameful greed” ??? explain how my opinions qualify as greed?

          • jontomas

            Only greedy growers are concerned about AUMA because it will upset their bloody apple cart.

          • Why should marijuana growers face Felony criminal prosecution?

          • JohnB

            Hey, Fucktard, THEY WON’T.

            That’s the part you are, apparently, too damn stupid to understand.

            NO ONE will face felony or any other prosecution for growing, for selling, for anything, after AUMA passes, IF THEY JUST GET A LICENSE and pay their damn taxes.

            We’re not talking about some equivalent of growing a few tomato plants in your backyard here, so quit pretending that we are.

            Anyone who wants to do THAT after AUMA passes will be able to do so with utter freedom and impunity.

            The folks YOU are bitching about and defending are people who ARE MAKING MONEY from cannabis.

            They constitute an entirely different class of activity, and you ought to be mature and intelligent enough to understand that.

          • Scumbag Prohibitionst says what ??

            JohnB “But if you mean that it doesn’t eliminate felonies for illegally growing commercially, you are right. Why should it?”

            JohnB: “I support continued criminal prohibition of unlicensed, untaxed commercial activity”

          • JohnB

            T

          • JohnB

            Tell me this one thing; WHO will face felony charges after AUMA passes, and for what activities?

            Don’t give me some theoretical nonsense about one person selling another person a single joint.

            That’s crap, and no arrest will happen for that in reality, and you damn well know it.

            Besides, why are you so fucking greedy that you would sell someone a single joint?

            Only a complete asshole would do that. Why not just GIVE it?

          • Spoken like a typical scumbag prohibitionist who vows to Continue the Criminal Prohibition of Marijuana against Individual Users, Growers, Patients and Caregivers.

          • JohnB

            The “Prohibition of Marijuana against Individual Users” is EXACTLY what AUMA repeals, as you already admitted when you agreed that individuals who are caught in possession of cannabis without a “prescription” are TODAY cited for that possession.

            The Growers, should they wish to grow more than the six plants AUMA allows, will be engaging in commercial activity.

            The patients are unaffected; the medical system, with its lower taxes, etc, stays in place.

            The caregivers, since they are part of the medical system, are likewise unaffected.

            YOU GOT NOTHING.

          • “The Growers, should they wish to grow more than the six plants AUMA allows, will be engaging in commercial activity.”

            CRIMINAL acts created by AUMA, since under Prop 215 they can grow more than 6 pathetic plants.

          • JohnB

            Unlicensed, unregulated?

            And, by the way, six is the limit for mature plants under prop 215, for patients and caregivers.

          • You = prohibitionist scum who supports Criminal penalties for Individuals who grow 7+ plants.

          • JohnB

            That’s a mischaracterization.

            I do NOT support criminal penalties for the activity of agriculture.

            I support criminal penalties for folks who choose to engage in commercial activity in ways that put HONEST people at a disadvantage.

            I say grow as many damn plants as you want. But if your neighbor has to pay taxes on his twenty plants, and has to get a license to grow them, then SO DO YOU.

          • “That’s a mischaracterization.”

            JohnB “But if you mean that it doesn’t eliminate felonies for illegally growing commercially, you are right. Why should it?”

            JohnB: “I support continued criminal prohibition of unlicensed, untaxed commercial activity”

          • JohnB

            Thanks for proving my point.

          • JohnB

            It is “greedy,” or at least shamefully self-centered to deny SOME people the additional cannabis freedoms that AUMA would grant just because it doesn’t go, in your opinion, far enough.

            You can have what YOU want, so no one should get ANY benefit, right?

            THAT is greedy.

        • myconaut

          You’re debating sock puppets. It’s a noble and valiant effort, but it is nearly impossible to keep up with all of the spam they post — probably several different accounts connected to the same poster. Ever notice how Kathleen Chippi and Donkey Hotay always comment in tandem and upvote each other on any article they hijack? This article is especially egregious.

          • jontomas

            myconaut – Don’t worry. Unfortunately, I have much experience with these trollish, greedy growers. – They think they are slowing down marijuana reform. 8^)

      • JohnB

        No one is buying that “cannabis heroes” theory.
        The folks who have supplied the bulk of commercially grown cannabis – primarily OUTSIDE the US, by the way, until comparatively recently – since the Nixon administration didn’t do so to be freedom fighters, despite your fantasy to the contrary.
        They did so for profit, plain and simple.
        But hey, go ahead and try to convince me that some Columbian or Mexican in 1978 was worried about the plant’s freedom.
        I’ll listen.
        And then I’ll laugh.
        And then I will remind you that your dream of “regulating cannabis like tomatoes” is not ACTUALLY on the table, anywhere, and never will be.
        That you prefer such a fantasy to the reality of what ACTUALLY IS on the table is truly inexplicable.

      • JohnB

        No one is buying that “cannabis heroes” theory.

        The folks who have supplied the bulk of commercially grown cannabis – from primarily OUTSIDE the US, by the way, until comparatively recently – since the Nixon administration didn’t do so to be freedom fighters, despite your fantasy to the contrary.

        They did so for profit, plain and simple.

        But hey, go ahead and try to convince me that some Columbian or Mexican in 1978 was worried about the plant’s freedom.

        I’ll listen.

        And then I’ll laugh.

        And then I will remind you that your dream of “regulating cannabis like tomatoes” is not ACTUALLY on the table, anywhere, and never will be.

        That you prefer such a fantasy to the reality of what ACTUALLY IS on the table is truly inexplicable.

      • saynotohypocrisy

        “And if your goal is to kill off the “greedy growers” (who have successfully supplied the nation for the last 4 decades at threat of raid/asset seizure/prosecution and jail)”.

        This is a fair point, though it’s also true that if they can avoid getting raided, they should have been well rewarded for their work.
        I would protect their right to grow commercially in a heartbeat if I could.
        But where is the evidence that we have enough power to do that?
        What state has come the closest to having an initiative to your liking make the ballot? How close did they get?

        • Kathleen Chippi

          geezus–Mason Tvert and Lying Brian Vicente-the proponents of the A64 SCAMpaign promised voters in CO an “End to Prohibition”, “legalization” —THE VOTERS THOUGHT THEY WERE GETTING THE WHOLE ENCHILADA IF THEY VOTED YES. And very few people actually read the language all the way through and even less who comprehend what they read.

          • JohnB

            ONE MORE TIME; ask the people of Colorado if they would prefer to keep the imperfect system they have, or if they would like to go back to the way it was three years ago.

            Within that answer is everything you need to know, period.

    • saynotohypocrisy

      “an AUMA victory will cause the collapse of the fraudulent federal prohibition, which would, in turn, free the world!”

      I don’t completely share your confidence about this, but our anticipated victories in November would put the prohibs under much more pressure than they are now, and that is a good reason to vote for AUMA

  • Another FAKE “legalization” measure that will continue the Criminal Prohibitions against marijuana users and growers, sending them to prison just like before.

    This fake “legalization” does NOT remove the CA Felony marijuana statutes.
    This fake “legalization” does NOT remove the CA Criminal misdemeanor statutes against pot.

    Lets see if Californians are as stupid as the Colorado morons who naively voted for “legalization” only to see a continuation of Criminal Prohibition — with the Greedy Big $$ Dispensary Cartels lobbying for criminal enforcement against Individual Growers, Patients, and Caregivers.

    • JohnB

      Does AUMA make it legal for a regular person with no prescription to be legally in possession of cannabis?
      THAT is the acid test.
      THAT is job one.
      Activist loons who don’t understand that are a much bigger problem than even the governmental forces who seek to keep prohibition in place.

      • Zaccheus Abraham

        Loons they are.

      • Selfish slackers only care about their pathetic GRAMS of overpriced overtaxed government approved warehouse schwag they’re obligated to buy from Greedy Big $$ Dispensary Cartels … while other self-sufficient growers, patients and caregivers are still arrested and sent to prison for pot.

        YOU are part of the problem, for your wretched support of the Continuation of Criminal Prohibition of Cannabis.

    • MrPC

      BS – we used to go to jail for pot, and now we don’t, unless we are growing or selling in commercial quantities without a license. Just like liquor. I, for one, can live with that.

      • “BS – we used to go to jail for pot, and now we don’t, unless we are growing or selling in commercial quantities without a license”

        Utter nonsense. Colorado didn’t repeal a single Felony or Misdemeanor Statute against marijuana.

        100s of people still get arrested and prosecuted every year for pot.

        7 plants is illegal.
        More than 1 ounce is illegal.
        Selling ANY amount — even a single joint — to your adult friends or acquaintances is illegal — a FELONY

        Only an idiot would call that “legalization”.

        • JohnB

          I’m pretty sure that all you just did was to PROVE HIS POINT, which is that unlicensed commercial activity remains illegal.

          You clowns who demand that a commercial activity – of any kind – exist totally regulation and tax free must be from some other planet, where maybe such a thing is possible.

          Please list for us all the other commercial activities in this or any other country that are tax and regulation free.

          • “unlicensed commercial activity remains illegal.”

            Same is true today, in every state, you prohibitionist swine.

          • JohnB

            I’m still waiting on that extensive list of commercial activities throughout global history that have been regulation and tax free….

            Just because you can’t trade in it in total anarchy doesn’t mean that the substance itself is illegal.

          • Prohibitionist piece of crap says what ??

            JohnB “But if you mean that it doesn’t eliminate felonies for illegally growing commercially, you are right. Why should it?”

          • JohnB

            I notice you just keep posting that question, but never actually answer it.

            WHY SHOULD IT?

          • Why should your activities not be subject to Felony penalties?

          • JohnB

            What?
            MY activities?
            You mean Engineering?

            Well, in fact, if anyone were to engage in what I do without a license and without paying taxes, they WOULD be subject to felonies.

  • letitiapepper

    What this allegedly rapidly coalition of supporters doesn’t know is that AUMA is a Trojan Horse, designed to take away patients’ constitutionally-right, under Prop. 215, to grow this valuable herb for themselves, or that it will force them to pay a 77 percent tax on a plant that most of them don’t use in recreational quantities as an occasional joint.
    If you look at the supporters, you will find politicians who see a way to fund their retirements and health care plans (which are not the same as yours and mine) with more and more and more taxes from people at the lower levels of the economy, doctors who aren’t getting as many kick-backs from Big Pharma as they were before people began replacing prescription drugs with cannabis, billionaires like Sean Parker who’ll be able to afford the $500,000.00 annual cultivation licensed that Gavin Newsom intends to charge if he becomes governor.
    What you won’t find is groups who REALLY represent the chronically ill, the disabled, the veterans who use marijuana that they can grow for themselves. You won’t find the people who voted for Prop. 215 with the intention of making alternative health care available inexpensively. You won’t find attorneys like me who can read AUMA and see the level of deceit that went into its drafting.

    • JohnB

      In the meantime, FULLY legal cannabis means that the chronically ill who want to grow their own will operate in an environment where cannabis is no longer an issue, no matter what they do, whether within the letter of the law, or without.
      Full legalization takes cannabis off the police radar screen for the home (personal) grower.

    • jontomas

      Total nonsense and a cover for your greed. Shame on you. – Marijuana reform was never about the growers and the sellers. It’s about ending the punishment and discrimination against adult marijuana consumers – period. AUMA does that, just like in the four Free States – better in some ways.

      At this point, I wish the state would just do all the growing and selling. I’m really tired of you GGAL – greedy growers against legalization – fighting against the people’s freedom!

      • JohnB

        I often envision folks who prefer NO cannabis law reform to imperfect cannabis law reform as the same kind of people who stood around at those ridiculous “occupy” protests.
        No one knew or could articulate what they actually wanted, other than to voice their contempt for the successful, but boy did they ever feel cool protesting – just like grandma back in 1969!

        • jontomas

          You have a kinder view of them than I do. – They’re just greed-heads who don’t care anything about marijuana reform, individual liberty or justice. – They just want their river of blood money to keep rolling in. – They are no different from any other drug gang.

          • JohnB

            As someone who actually DID attend many, many cannabis protest rallies “back in the day” (starting in 1974, for me), I can tell you that we would have seen a proposal like AUMA, or even the one forwarded in Oho last year, as a Godsend, as progress beyond our wildest hopes and dreams for cannabis law reform.
            Maybe these so-called greedy growers need to experience some of the tear gas and skull cracking that we did in order to appreciate just how remarkable the thing they are being offered is.

          • jontomas

            Absolutely! – We come from very similar backgrounds. – I began consuming marijuana in 1970, but things seemed to be changing so rapidly, I didn’t see the urgency for protest. We thought Jimmy Carter would end the insane witch-hunt. – The biggest surprise I ever had was when Ronnie Ray-gun was elected, leading the tsunami of right-wing blow-back to marijuana reform and other social progress.

            We were effectively shoved underground until the arrival of the Internet and California’s Prop 215 in 1996. – That’s when the real marijuana reform movement was born. I was lucky to be able to march in the first Million Marijuana March in Atlanta with Gatewood Galbraith and Stephen Gaskin in 1999.

            AUMA is the real deal, just like the re-legalization in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska and D.C. – The fact that it IS the real deal is agitating these parasites who can only thrive in the twilight zone of medical excuse marijuana. – One of the many pleasures I will feel with the passage of AUMA is seeing this vermin crawl back into the woodwork.

          • Kathleen Chippi

            You two should hold hands and walk off into the sunset….you are perfect for each other, slugging for continuing prohibition when science, sanity and humanity require an end .. And John ‘thinks’ an ounce is more than enough for anyone–so god help us as he feels qualified in making decisions for all of us.

          • jontomas

            You know that one legal ounce changes everything.

          • Doesn’t prevent a single felony or misdemeanor arrest for marijuana.

            AUMA provides NO protection for the VAST MAJORITY of marijuana users, growers, patients and caregivers who are arrested annually, those who are for more than 6 plants or a few grams.

          • JohnB

            There’s your hyperbole again, “doesn’t prevent a single arrest….for marijuana.”

            All those folks who would be cited for possession of one ounce in the absence of AUMA would beg to differ.

            You owe each of them $100, since you claim that none of them had to pay it.

            Again, that “vast majority” you keep mentioning are folks who are engaging in COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY WITHOUT A LICENSE.

            The solution is pretty simple; GET A LICENSE

          • “cited” = summary offense, no arrest, no jail

            AUMA doesn’t repeal any Felony or Misdemeanor Statutes from California Criminal Code, all the Criminal Offenses for Marijuana remain in force, and scumbags like you support enforcing those criminal prohibitions against marijuana.

            JohnB “But if you mean that it doesn’t eliminate felonies for illegally growing commercially, you are right. Why should it?”

            JohnB: “I support continued criminal prohibition of unlicensed, untaxed commercial activity”

          • JohnB

            You can try to mischaracterize the legal possession of one ounce of cannabis as “continuing prohibition” all you want, but no reasonable or intelligent person is buying that tripe.

            How much beer can you buy at one time at your local Sam’s club?
            Think you can go in there and just waltz out with all of it, without a distributor’s license, and without paying distribution taxes?
            Pay attention: right now, you can legally possess ONLY so much beer. That is the LAW.

            And yet, we all reasonably conclude that beer is indeed legal.

            I’ll say this, though; I for one would enjoy watching you smoke, if one ounce at a time is not enough for you…
            That would be one impressive sight.

          • JohnB

            You can try to mischaracterize the legal possession of one ounce of cannabis as “continuing prohibition” all you want, but no reasonable or intelligent person is buying that tripe.

            How much beer can you buy at one time at your local Sam’s club?

            Think you can go in there and just waltz out with all of it, without a distributor’s license, and without paying distribution taxes?

            Pay attention: right now, you can legally possess ONLY so much beer. That is the LAW.

            And yet, we all reasonably conclude that beer is indeed legal.

            I’ll say this, though; I for one would enjoy watching you smoke, if one ounce at a time is not enough for you…

            That would be one impressive sight.

      • letitiapepper

        I am not a grower, I am a patient with MS and an attorney with more than 30 years experience reading and analyzing deceitful documents like AUMA. AUMA actually creates MORE crimes, and takes away the constitutional rights we have under Prop. 215. This isn’t nonsense, it’s the truth. Anyone who wants to read the analysis of AUMA with some legal help in the form of red interlineations can go here. http://marian0280.wix.com/4pepper
        Anyone who wants the state to totally control marijuana and prevent individuals from growing it for themselves is asking for trouble. Talk about taking away freedom, it’s people like you, Jontomas, who want to take away people’s rights, not me!

        • jontomas is a known shill for the Greedy Big $$ Dispensary Cartels who pathetically pretends to support legalization, yet has repeatedly disclosed his support for massive criminal restrictions on Individuals and the Continuation of Criminal Prohibition against anyone who doesn’t want to purchase overpriced, overtaxed, government controlled warehouse schwag for the dispensary cartels.

      • HotTuna

        AUMA doesn’t repeal the felonies from California law. They are kept in place to be used against individuals in favor of the greedy dispensary cartels, just like in Colorado.

        This isn’t legalization. It’s a fraud.

        • JohnB

          Which felonies do you mean?
          AUMA very specifically changes some current felonies into misdemeanors.
          But if you mean that it doesn’t eliminate felonies for illegally growing commercially, you are right.
          Why should it?

          • HotTuna

            Any measure that doesn’t repeal ALL felonies and criminal misdemeanors against cannabis isn’t legalization.

            It’s a fraud promoted by lying fraudsters.

          • JohnB

            Sure it’s legalization; it just isn’t your IDEAL of legalization.
            At some point, it’s time to quit dreaming and instead actually get something accomplished.

          • HotTuna

            The vast majority of the thousands of citizens arrested for marijuana have more than 6 plants and a few grams, and they will all remain criminals under this fake legalization.

          • JohnB

            If they have more than 6 plants and an ounce, AFTER AUMA passes, then they are almost certainly engaging in commercial activity, and doing so in a way that is unfair to those growers who actually get licenses and actually pay taxes.

            If anyone wants to grow more than six plants, all they have to do is get a commercial license.

          • HotTuna

            In a legalized state there are no criminal prohibitions.

            None.

          • MrPC

            Ok, I’ll start selling ounces of weed, sprayed with whatever cheap bug killers I can find, outside the nearest grade school. It’s legal, right?

          • HotTuna

            That merely illustrates your amoral depravity.
            Dealers have been selling clean kind bud since before you were born.

          • MrPC

            I take that back. I’ll just be selling ounces of really strong and very clean “kind bud” to 8-year-olds. Ok?

          • HotTuna

            Once again you illustrate your depraved morality. Why do you prey on young children?

          • MrPC

            Unfortunately, there are people who will take advantage of situations where no rules are in place, simply to enrich themselves, without regard to the health and well being of others. That’s why we have laws. If you want anarchy, move to North Africa. Otherwise, get a grip.

          • saynotohypocrisy

            Some certainly have been selling good weed, honestly grown. And some have really trashed backwoods environments. AUMA provides money to clean up their mess.

          • saynotohypocrisy

            So alcohol isn’t legal by your standards? That’s what you just said, isn’t it?

          • HotTuna

            What is the felony penalty for having too many cases of beer or bottles of wine in your house or car?

          • saynotohypocrisy

            But there are criminal prohibitions related to alcohol: manufacturing more than what’s allowed for personal use without a license, selling without a license, and selling to people under 21.
            You said ‘no criminal prohibitions. None’. So how is alcohol legal by your standards.?

          • HotTuna

            What’s the felony penalty for producing 7 gallons of beer?

          • saynotohypocrisy

            Criminal doesn’t just mean felony, you’re the one who said no criminal prohibitions.None.

          • HotTuna

            What’s the criminal penalty for making 7 gallons of beer?

          • JohnB

            That varies state by state, just as cannabis law does now and will in the future vary state by state, but your general implication that alcohol production distribution and sales operate outside of any regulatory system is simply ludicrous.

          • saynotohypocrisy

            Yes, AUMA is unfair, I vote for things that are unfair sometimes. You’re voting for the status quo, which iI think is worse.

          • HotTuna

            Myopic self-defeating fools like you are the reason why marijuana will always be illegal.

          • saynotohypocrisy

            You don’t know the difference between semi legal and illegal. And you don’t care that most cannabis consumers will be happy with the freedom they will have under AUMA.
            See you at the polls in November.

          • HotTuna

            You = prohibitionist scum

          • JohnB

            Why haven’t YOU gotten something better on the ballot?
            What are YOU doing to offer something better you your fellow citizens?

          • wowFAD

            John — for future reference, should someone claim that A64 wasn’t legalization because it didn’t overturn criminal convictions, tell them to pay more attention to the news. In March of 2014, a panel of judges for a Colorado appellate court overturned a 2011 conviction, which opened the doors wide open for anyone with a cannabis conviction in Colorado to appeal. Overturning convictions cannot happen in bulk, automatically — each one necessarily has to be evaluated, case by case, to ensure proper adjudication of each. Insisting that criminal records can be purged, en masse, in one fell swoop is unrealistic.

          • JohnB

            Why haven’t YOU gotten something better on the ballot?

            What’s the fucking hold up?

          • JohnB “But if you mean that it doesn’t eliminate felonies for illegally growing commercially, you are right. Why should it?”

            You’ve just exposed yourself as the Hypocritical Prohibitionist that you are, supporting the continued criminal prohibition and criminal enforcement against “other people”.

            May you rot in hell.

          • saynotohypocrisy

            May you turn your venom towards the real prohibitionists who so richly deserve it.

            Why can’t you get the kind of reform you (and many reformers) want on the ballot ANYWHERE,
            not even on local city/town ballots?
            Where have you come close to making the ballot?
            We’ll take half a loaf and keep fighting for more.

          • JohnB

            Hey, clown, I PAY my taxes.
            LOTS of them.
            Why should you, or any “other people,” not have to?
            Why should all the legal growers be at a disadvantage to growers who choose to operate outside the law?
            Now who’s the hypocrite?

          • LEGALIZE it and no one will be “outside the law”, moron.

          • JohnB

            Yeah, I’ll get right on that, Moron.

            Again, Why haven’t YOU gotten something better on the ballot?

            What’s the fucking hold up?

          • Shitsucking Prohibitionist says what?

            JohnB “But if you mean that it doesn’t eliminate felonies for illegally growing commercially, you are right. Why should it?”

            JohnB: “I support continued criminal prohibition of unlicensed, untaxed commercial activity”

        • JohnB

          What are you offering as an alternative, and when do the citizens of California get to vote on it?

          • HotTuna

            So you’ll surrender everything now just because there isn’t currently something else on the table?

            Hopefully the majority of voters are smarter than you and will reject this Trojan horse.

          • JohnB

            In other words, you have nothing better to offer.
            Got it.
            That’s protest for the sake of protest, just as I described below.

          • HotTuna

            Surrender early, surrender often, it’s the easy way to failure.

          • JohnB

            If you think my efforts on behalf of cannabis law reform since 1974 constitute early or frequent surrender, you are sadly mistaken, child.

          • HotTuna

            You and people like you are the reason why marijuana remains illegal in every state, and will forever remain so.

            You don’t even have the courage to ask for real legalization – full decriminalization – much less the ambition to obtain it.

            You are the problem.

          • MrPC

            Unfortunately, there will never be a ballot choice for removing cannabis from Schedule I, so no state election can address the problem.

          • HotTuna

            That has nothing to do with where the State promotes a ballot to remove and repeal all State felonies and misdemeanors against cannabis. Real and full decriminalization.

          • JohnB

            Hey, genius, get that on the ballot, and I guarantee you all the supporters of AUMA will vote for it.

            But the point is, it’s NOT on the ballot.

            Now, you can point fingers at others and ask, “why not?”

            That’s easy, right?

            And we can point fingers right back at you and ask the SAME question.

            Why haven’t YOU gotten such a proposal on the ballot?

            What’s the fucking hold up?

          • JohnB

            You don’t know what you are talking about.
            For the first twenty years after the CSA, advocates specifically went after 100% re-legalization.

            IT NEVER WORKED.

            That’s why tactics have changed. That’s why we now engage in the incrementalism of “medical marijuana” as a backdoor to fuller reform, as a way of proving to a LARGE public, one that resists the truth about cannabis, that cannabis is in fact not dangerous.

            You clearly don’t understand the nature nor the size of the forces against which you are arrayed, nor have any clue how to defeat them.

            If you think stamping your little feet and shouting “ALL or Nothing!” is going to accomplish anything, you are too stupid to be a viable part of the movement at all.

          • Kathleen Chippi

            wake up–full on prohibition was a failure because there is NO WAY to prevent everyone from growing, dispensing or consuming..and everyone properly ignored the prohibition. What makes any of you think licensing a handful of ‘elitists’ to grow and sell will be successful in preventing everyone else from continuing on? Are you for house by house searches every month to enforce? jontmas disappeared when I posted about the unwarranted house searches happening right now in my town of 1,400. Do you all agree in police state necessity?

          • saynotohypocrisy

            If the price of cannabis comes down to the level where it should be, and it is moving in that direction in states with legal distribution, unauthorized commercial growing won’t be worth the trouble involved anymore to anyone but hardcores.

            Unnecessarily restrictive to growers as AUMA is, there will still be a lot more than ‘a handful’ of commercial growers if AUMA is passed

          • Kathleen Chippi

            again: “wake up–full on prohibition was a failure because there is NO WAY to
            prevent everyone from growing, dispensing or consuming..and everyone
            properly ignored the prohibition. What makes any of you think licensing
            a handful of ‘elitists’ to grow and sell will be successful in
            preventing everyone else from continuing on? Are you for house by house
            searches every month to enforce? jontmas disappeared when I posted
            about the unwarranted house searches happening right now in my town of
            1,400. Do you all agree in police state necessity?”

          • saynotohypocrisy

            That’s a long time, and those efforts are much appreciated

          • JohnB “But if you mean that it doesn’t eliminate felonies for illegally growing commercially, you are right. Why should it?”

            JohnB: “I support continued criminal prohibition of unlicensed, untaxed commercial activity”

            We don’t need the efforts of Prohibitionist Scumbags who support the Continued Criminal Prosecution of cannabis … at ANY level.

      • jontomas “Marijuana reform was never about the growers and the sellers. ”

        jontomas: “At this point, I wish the state would just do all the growing and selling.”

        Noted and archived.

        • JohnB

          He is right; cannabis law reform should benefit, first and foremost, consumers, who should be able to possess a reasonable amount of cannabis without breaking the law.

          THAT is job one. Protecting your ass as a clandestine grower is much further down the list.

    • HotTuna

      jintomas is a known shill for the greedy dispensary cartels who want to control and profit from the entire market while denying the rights of individuals to produce their own tax free cannabis.

      • JohnB

        AUMA very specifically allows each home to grow six plants.

        • HotTuna

          Pathetic and unnecessarily prohibitive.

          Oregon patients are allowed 24 plants per person.

          • JohnB

            It’s six more than can be legally grown by anyone over 21 now, and that is what matters.
            All or nothing is the position of the immature.
            Cannabis is a real and significant economic entity, and that being the case unconditional surrender by regulatory bodies, whether government or industry, simply isn’t going to happen.

          • HotTuna

            People like you who so eagerly settle for failure will always be failures.

          • JohnB

            Your unwarranted personal attacks notwithstanding, you have yet to offer any compelling argument for choosing NOTHING over SOMETHING.

            Let’s ask the folks in Colorado, where the industry, according to you, is controlled by greedy cartel dispensaries (whatever the hell that means…) if they would go back to medically-legal only, or whether they see the imperfect progress they HAVE made as good.

          • HotTuna

            Once again you show your myopia by surrendering to any offer simply because it is the only offer currently made.

            This fake legalization will continue the criminal prohibition of cannabis for decades to come. And create a giant for profit dispensary cartel lobby that will guarantee that continued criminal prohibition against individuals.

          • JohnB

            What is the alternative?
            What alternative, specifically, are YOU offering?
            Do nothing?
            That’s what I hear.

          • saynotohypocrisy

            “This fake legalization will continue the criminal prohibition of cannabis for decades to come.”

            You don’t know what the restrictions on cannabis will be decades from now. Think of how much has changed in the last 20 years, because of the work of incrementalists.

          • Kathleen Chippi

            In CO, 2 ounces (not one) or less was a petty offense since 1975 with a maximum ticket of $100 and there were literally 0-2 grow busts a year and none of them had 6 or less plants. A64 stepped us backwards. 15 grow busts in Pueblo in 2 weeks last week….unheard of pre A64 passage.

          • JohnB

            Listen to what YOU just said; “In CO, 2 ounces (not one) or less was a petty offense since 1975 with a maximum ticket of $100…”

            What is the penalty for one ounce, now?

            It sure isn’t $100.

            WHY are you incapable of understanding that?

          • Wrong again.

            Prior to A64, possession of up to 2 (two) ounces was a summary non-jailable offense for ANYONE, of any age.

            A64 REDUCED the quantity to 1 (one) pathetic ounce.

            A64 also perversely EXCLUDED everyone under 21 years old from any protection, even though the under 21 age demographic was (and is) the group that suffered the most prosecutions for marijuana offenses.

          • Kathleen Chippi

            no one was getting arrested in CO since 1975….the promise to end 10,000 ‘arrests’ a year was BS. The state is NOW making more money off the public consumption tickets that can run $350-$1,000 dependent on where you get ‘busted’…The state now writes less tickets for possession and an increase of public consumption tickets by over 500%.

          • And the MOST OBSCENE part of A64 was the deliberate exclusion of everyone under 21 years old from any protection, instead of covering everyone.

            The under 21 demographic is the group that has statistically suffered the most prosecutions for marijuana offenses, and now will forever continue to be persecuted, as enshrined in the Colorado Constitution by that prohibitionist piece of crap A64.

          • wowFAD

            John — Donkey Hotay and Kathleen Chippi are not advocates that are worth your time. In fact, calling them advocates is stretching the truth. Kathleen Chippi actively opposed A64 in Colorado back in 2012 because her personally authored language (A70) was nixed by popular opinion in favor of A64. Why? Because her bill was far too lax and, essentially, would have maintained the black market (dismantling the black market was one of the largest reasons A64 was able to pass).

            In the months leading up to the A64 vote, both Kathleen Chippi and Donkey Hotay would stalk the comment threads of the Huffington Post’s cannabis stories constantly asserting that legalization isn’t legalization in an attempt to derail A64. Kathleen Chippi actually tried to file a lawsuit to have A64 taken off the ballot and furthermore tried to have the activists responsible for A64 *prosecuted*, claiming they “misrepresented” the measure. The DA recognized the complaint was frivolous and refused to pursue it. She tried to use the criminal justice system against other activists to sop her ego, which is why most activists who know of her dismiss her as a kook.

            It seems Kathleen and Donkey have gotten the band back together and they’ve both set their sights on AUMA. Why? Because they want attention. The issue has been settled in Colorado for so long that they’ve lost their original stage, so now they’ve stooped to making themselves nuisances for *other* states.

            Seriously — they are not worth the argument. Just let it go. You’re giving them exactly what they want: someone to listen to their howling.

          • JohnB “But if you mean that it doesn’t eliminate felonies for illegally growing commercially, you are right. Why should it?”

            JohnB: “I support continued criminal prohibition of unlicensed, untaxed commercial activity”

          • saynotohypocrisy

            thanks for the background

          • JohnB

            That sounds a lot like that whackjob Don E Wirtschafter in Ohio, who has actively tried to thwart any legalization initiative that wasn’t his own for decades now.

            It’s all just pure ego – the cause be damned.

          • Kathleen Chippi

            Before and AFTER passage of A64 people can still lose: employment, child custody, gun rights, occupational licenses, All assets, banking, housing, insurance, all government aid, drivers licenses, veterans benefits, be denied organ transplant FREEDOM etc… So nothings changed in the court of law.

          • JohnB

            You should know better than to make such sweeping generalizations.
            Under what circumstances do those things happen, and how would the previous system have been BETTER in that regard?
            Again, let’s ask the folks in Colorado whether they prefer their current imperfect system, or whether they would like to go back to the way it was three years ago.

          • Nate

            There’s probably a lot more who agree with you. Scroll up to top of comments to see what happens to comments of the wrong message, a little exchange between me and johnB

          • JohnB

            Yes, do so.
            Pay particular attention to the results of my test of Nate’s claim of censorship.

          • Nate

            Anybody paying attention now knows that TWB just erased our little debate, INCLUDING your sarcastic censorship test. Guess the REAL results of that test are in.

          • Nate

            Looks like THIS is their reply to your comment asking them to show my censored comments.

          • JohnB

            Uh…it’s ALL still there, goob.

          • Nate

            Maybe all YOUR comments regarding appeared. Not surprisingly you find that satisfactory

          • JohnB

            ALL of YOUR comments are still there too.

          • Nate

            If you don’t see one with the words GREED, and LOVE in the same comment, both words in all caps, then NO THEY’RE NOT..
            Being that it was made two days ago, I’m not retyping the comment, just saying that MAYBE the reason (s)

          • Nate

            Dammit… MAYBE the reason the commenting software is so touchy has something to do with censorship.

          • Nate

            Okay I was wrong about that one. Comment is there, after scrolling a mile or so down. My apologies to the mods

          • Kathleen Chippi

            At JohnB–Because you want me to ignore the fact that you have ignored my comment? “Before and AFTER passage of A64 people can still lose: employment, child custody, gun rights, occupational licenses, All assets, banking, housing, insurance, all government aid, drivers licenses, veterans benefits, be denied organ transplant FREEDOM etc… So nothings changed in the court of law.”

          • JohnB

            OK, ALL of those things being true still doesn’t change the fact that simple possession of one ounce of cannabis AFTER AUMA passes will be legal.

            Agree, or disagree?

          • Kathleen Chippi

            This is the base of your comprehension problems–the definition of “legal”….no matter you call it “legal” when the SAME HARMS that could come to a person pre AUMA will be the same harms after, IF it passes. Before and AFTER passage of A64 ‘legalization’ (and the same IF AUMA passes) people can STILL LOSE: employment, child custody, gun rights, occupational licenses, all assets, housing, banking, all insurance, all government aid, student loans, driving privileges, freedom etc. In the court of law, AUMA stops none of the HARMS of prohibition.

            So there is no difference in the ILLEGAL HARMS caused by a war based on lies, prejudice and greed or the ‘LEGAL’ HARMS.

            I’m seeing news from Cali already where landlords are trying to ban it’s use. So one ounce will still cause (possible) loss of housing and employment and occupational licenses and child custody etc. same as it will now.

          • JohnB

            You are confusing “legal” with “perfect,” still.

            Before AUMA: get stopped by a cop with a half ounce of weed in your pocket = citation and confiscation.

            After AUMA: get stopped by a cop with a half ounce of weed in your pocket = take your weed home with no ticket.

            It really is that simply, despite all the other things that AUMA does not do.

          • ” Cannabis is a real and significant economic entity, and that being the case unconditional surrender by regulatory bodies, whether government or industry, simply isn’t going to happen”

            Your position as a Big Government sycophant is noted.

          • BTW — Cannabis wouldn’t be worth any more than Tomatoes if it were truly legalized.

            The only reason it sells for such inflated prices is due to its illegality. Produced legally, by anyone, in any quantity, it would cost no more than Industrial Hemp,

          • JohnB

            I hate to break it to you, but, despite the fact that you can grow them in your backyard, tomatoes are also a real and significant economic entity.

            Or, have you never been to the produce aisle of your local grocery?

            Even were cannabis simply another commodity – which is where we will eventually be, someday – it would still constitute a big enough market that neither industry nor government is going to simply ignore it it.

            Just like tomatoes.

          • JohnB

            My position as a REALIST, you mean.
            I simply relay the facts – facts that neither I, nor you, nor all your bitching, can change.

            Now, you can be smart and figure out how to make that circumstance work for you as much as possible, or you can stand on the sidelines and whine about how unfair it is.

            Those are your choices.

          • MrPC

            It’s six plants in Colorado too. I don’t really feel that restricted, since I clearly remember going to jail for a long time for possessing a few grams.

          • So as long as YOU don’t go to jail for a few pathetic grams — which have been decriminalized for decades in Colorado and California — you’ll support the CONTINUED CRIMINAL PROHIBITION of marijuana against “other people”.

            How hypocritically special.

          • JohnB

            Pretending that AUMA will offer cannabis law reform to only a very small number of people is just laughable.

            “As long as YOU don’t go to jail” actually means, in reality – all your hyperbole aside – that millions of people will no longer be cited or arrested for simple possession.

            How pathetic it is that you have only contempt for that idea.

          • The VAST MAJORITY of people currently arrested in California are beyond the limits and coverage of AUMA — more than 6 measly plants, more than a few ounces, or selling their herb to friends and acquaintances.

            That paltry and weak coverage of AUMA does not change that, nor protect those marijuana users, growers, patients and caregivers. AUMA leaves them exposed to the same Felony criminal penalties as before.

            And Prohibitionist swine like you have stated your support for the Continued Criminal Prohibition of Marijuana.

          • JohnB

            NO KIDDING, Genius.

            As I already told you, in decriminalized states, the penalties for simple possession are minor, thus NO ONE is “getting arrested” for possession of small quantities of cannabis, and ALL of the people arrested are over the limits.

            But, what you keep describing, over and over again, is COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, not simple possession.

          • So you admit that AUMA doesn’t protect the vast majority of marijuana users and growers who are currently arrested and charged with Felonies in California.

            And being a prohibitionist piece of crap, you support maintaining felony prohibitions against pot.

            JohnB “But if you mean that it doesn’t eliminate felonies for illegally growing commercially, you are right. Why should it?”

            .

          • JohnB

            WOW, WHAT PART OF IT-IS-ILLEGAL-TO-ENGAGE-IN-COMMERCIAL-ACTIVITY-WITHOUT-PAYING-TAXES-OR-ADHERING-TO-REGULATIONS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

          • What’s the Felony penalty for engaging in commercial activity of growing tomatoes and peppers in one’s yard, growing 100s of plants, producing 100s of pounds, and selling them to friends and acquaintances, or even strangers?

            You no doubt support FELONY penalties against those people too, like the big government sycophant and prohibitionist swine that you have already admitted you are.

          • JohnB

            OK, I can agree that a misdemeanor, rather than felony, charge would be more appropriate, and if THAT is your point, you should be more plain.
            But I own a small business, and I pay taxes – lots of them – and I have no sympathy whatsoever for any competitors I might have who operate outside of the law and put me at an unfair economic disadvantage.

          • JohnB “OK, I can agree that a misdemeanor, rather than felony, charge would be more appropriate”

            Still proving that he supports the Continued Criminal Prohibition of Marijuana … especially against “other people”.

            You = Hypocritical Scum

          • JohnB

            I support continued criminal prohibition of unlicensed, untaxed commercial activity – activity that puts the HONEST folks who get the licenses and pay the taxes, at an unfair disadvantage.

          • JohnB “I support continued criminal prohibition of unlicensed, untaxed commercial activity “

            Your Big Government Prohibitionist rage is showing again.

            Perhaps you can get a job with the DEA or C.A.M.P. and run around busting and imprisoning those evil marijuana growers who dare cultivate more than 6 plants, or those who dare possess more than a few ounces, or those dangerous marijuana criminals who dare privately sell a single gram to and acquaintance or friend.

          • JohnB “I support continued criminal prohibition of unlicensed, untaxed commercial activity ”

            Your Big Government Prohibitionist rage is showing again.

          • JohnB

            So, it’s your position then that companies that pay their taxes and buy their licenses should have to compete with other companies that don’t?

          • JohnB

            Donkey Hotey says “I support a system where some people have to pay taxes and get licenses, but others do not.”

          • Typical Prohibitionist Scumbag, fabricates false quotes.

            Why don’t you run along and get a job with the DEA, you maggot.

          • saynotohypocrisy

            There’s another name for donkeys and you sure live up to it.

          • Keep lying, your credibility is now ZERO

          • So you support Criminal penalties against those hobby farmers who grow tomatoes, peppers and apples in their back yard, and dare sëll any of their production to friends or acquaintances at work, because poor old Whole Foods just can’t compete with them, eh?

            You’ve outed yourself as a Prohibitionist who supports the Continued Criminal Prosecution of marijuana growers, users and caregivers who would dare to continue to operate under Prop 215, or dare grow more than six plants, or dare sëll a single gram to a friend or acquaintance.

            YOU, and scum like you, are the reason why marijuana will NEVER BE legal anywhere in the USA.

          • JohnB

            Of course not, but that is not what we are talking about here, despite your attempts to mischaracterize it as such.

            A better analogy would be to allow a craft brewery to exist without having the appropriate licenses, and without paying taxes.

            And, I agree that in a perfect world we could all grow and share all the cannabis we each want, without license, without taxes.

            THAT IS NOT ON THE TABLE, and never has been, anywhere.

            In the meantime, AUMA, while it doesn’t create such a Utopia, does make it legal for folks to be in possession of an ounce of cannabis, and to grow six plants – with no specific time frame given to those six plants – and to be in possession, at home, of all that they grow, which, being undefined, could be pounds and pounds.

            In other words, the current proposal – the only currently viable option, unless you have some secret up your sleeve – changes the environment in which cannabis and cannabis culture exists, once passed.

            Why would you prefer to keep things as they are?

          • Nate

            Honest folks like… Monsanto

          • Nate

            “But I own a small business, and I pay taxes – lots of them – and I have no sympathy whatsoever for any competitors I might have who operate outside of the law and put me at an unfair economic disadvantage.”
            So that IS his problem…he IS a shill for these govt.-paid cartels- his own at least

          • Vile prohibitionist scum

            JohnB “But if you mean that it doesn’t eliminate felonies for illegally growing commercially, you are right. Why should it?”

            JohnB: “I support continued criminal prohibition of unlicensed, untaxed commercial activity”

          • Yep, the hypocritical prohibitionist scumsack wants to maintain CRIMINAL penalties for marijuana against “other people” who dare grow more than 6 pathetic plants, or possess more than a few ounces, or dare sêll a single joint to their adult friends or acquaintances.

          • Bob

            Drugs and social media will be the downfall of this once great country .

          • More directly attributed to uneducated imbeciles like you.

          • JohnB

            Nate, MY business has nothing to do with cannabis, and I live in a place where fully legal cannabis is not even in the offing.

            Donkey, Are you saying then that it is fair for SOME people, honest people, to own businesses and pay taxes and get the applicable licenses, while others simply ignore all that and operate tax and regulation free?

            If the “other people” you are talking about are doing things ILLEGALLY that others are doing legally, and that the “other people” could just as easily do legally, if they would bother to get the appropriate licenses, then what you are advocating is an unfair system.

            Why do you want an unfair system?

          • JohnB: “I live in a place where fully legal cannabis is not even in the offing”

            JohnB: “I support continued criminal prohibition of unlicensed, untaxed commercial activity”

          • JohnB

            Donkey says, “I support the elimination of all taxes and regulations.”

            “I don’t want safe bridges, or even functional roads.”

            “So what if people die because people who don’t have medical licenses perform surgery.”

            “I think people should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, without any regulations whatsoever.”

            “Further, if some people, in the name of a better society, decide to adhere to a system that benefits many and that sets standards for professional activity, well, too damn bad for them; they SHOULD have to operate at a disadvantage to folks who reject such systems.”

          • Keep lying, you shitsucking prohibitionist pig.

            You’ve exposed yourself for everyone to see.

          • JohnB

            Dear reader, please note that the Donkey has command over one and only one rhetorical device.

          • You naively figure many readers of The Weed Blog support what a self-confessed scumsucking prohibitionist pig like you has to say?

            You’ve outed yourself — repeatedly — in your support for Continued Felony CRIMINAL penalties against Marijuana.

            Keep digging yourself deeper into your hypocritical cesspool of prohibition, scumbag.

          • JohnB

            No, I astutely conclude that most readers (ALL of the reasonable and rational ones), see my comments for what they say, not what you mischaracterize them to say.

            it is clear that the INTENT of that remark that you keep posting over and over again, is that if there is a legal system for doing something, and people still choose to do it illegally, then there should indeed be penalties for that.

            That becomes even more true as more and more people operate within the newly legal system.

            Not paying your taxes is a felony. It doesn’t matter what activity you engaged in to owe those taxes.

            That you seem to think there should be no criminal penalty for folks not paying their fair share says a lot about your character.

          • Keep flailing, you prohibitionist piece of crap.

            Your credibility = Zero

          • JohnB

            And yet, you have yet to present, even once, a single cogent reply.

            The flailing is all being done by you.

          • Look, a puerile “I know you are but what am I?” response from the cornered Prohibitionist Pig.

          • Your false fabricated quotes prove you to be a LIAR with ZERO credibility.

          • Bob

            So Donkey should all the illegals that murdered American citizens be dropped to misdemeanors too ?

          • Seek mental health treatment … immediately.

          • saynotohypocrisy

            You’re a real jerk

          • JohnB

            “So you admit that AUMA doesn’t protect the vast majority of marijuana users and growers who are currently arrested”

            Right, because those people are engaging in COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY.

            Wanna sell pot? GET A FUCKING LICENSE!

          • JohnB

            You seem to have serious reading comprehension issue.

            Do you see that key word “ILLEGAL” in my statement?

            AUMA makes it possible for commercial growers to produce HUGE quantities of cannabis, LEGALLY.

            So, yeah, anyone who operates outside of that legal system should be punished, just as with any law that is flouted purely for the purposes of GREED.

            Want to grow more than six plants?

            GET A LICENSE.

            It’s really that simple, even if you can’t understand it.

          • AUMA = another FAKE “legalization” scampaign being promoted by Greedy Big $$ Dispensary Cartels

            LEGALIZE it and it won’t be “ILLEGAL” for anyone, numbnuts.

            But then again, you’ve already outed yourself as a scumbag who supports the CRIMINAL Prohibition of Marijuana.

            JohnB: “I support continued criminal prohibition of unlicensed, untaxed commercial activity”

          • JohnB

            “LEGALIZE it and it won’t be “ILLEGAL” for anyone, numbnuts.”

            What a childish view of the world you have.

            Alcohol is “legal,” right?

            Now, go open a distillery without a license and without paying any taxes.

            Numbnuts.

          • What’s the FELONY penalty for brewing more than 6 gallons of beer at home?

          • JohnB

            Open a distillery without a license, and see what happens.

            And yet, alcohol is perfectly legal.

            Numbnuts.

          • You seem to have a rather perverse definition of “perfectly legal”.

            Typical for a Prohibitionist Pig and Big Government Sycophant like you.

            JohnB “But if you mean that it doesn’t eliminate felonies for illegally growing commercially, you are right. Why should it?”

            JohnB: “I support continued criminal prohibition of unlicensed, untaxed commercial activity”

          • JohnB

            Weak

            You are boring me now.

            Enjoy the rest of your Saturday, out there in La La land.

          • Run along to your volunteer D.E.A. informant meeting, you vile big-government nanny-state freedom-hating prohibitionist piece of crap.

        • Bob Cratchet

          Not outside. And indoors only subject to “reasonable regulations” (undefined).

      • Nate

        Agreed. His catch phrase makes it ridiculously obvious.

        • JohnB

          Can either of you NAME a few of these “greedy dispensary cartels,” please?

          • Nate

            SPARC, Apothecarium, Seventy-second street (real fucking bad, probably jontys favorite), Grateful Meds (Hawaii, owned by narc helicopter company)
            Shall I continue?

          • JohnB

            No, that’s enough.
            Thanks.
            Now, what exactly makes them a cartel, rather than just regular businesses?

          • Nate

            http://bigbudsmag.com/hawaii-drug-warrior-wants-profit-from-marijuana-sales/

            To answer your cartel question,
            THIS attitude of ” we lobby the government for laws that allow us to grow it and sell it to you, and more laws to prevent truly talented growers from operating, under threat of incarceration.
            If nobody can remember what good weed is supposed to be, then these CARTELS have a pretty good racket.
            What difference does it make if I use the word “cartel” or just say ” greedy, unscrupulous business”?

          • Nate

            To answer your cartel question,
            THIS attitude of ” we lobby the government for laws that allow us to grow it and sell it to you, and more laws to prevent truly talented growers from operating, under threat of incarceration.
            If nobody can remember what good weed is supposed to be, then these CARTELS have a pretty good racket.
            What difference does it make if I use the word “cartel” or just say ” greedy, unscrupulous business”?

          • JohnB

            It makes a tremendous difference, Nate.
            A cartel is a very definite and illegal thing.
            A corporation that simply seeks to maximize profit is not illegal.

            It tells me and every other adult rational person out here all we need to know that you don’t know the difference.

          • Nate

            Censored with or without the link

          • JohnB

            Oh, so “TheWeedBlog” is in on it, too?

          • Nate

            Censorship is censorship.
            And the weed blog is WELL KNOWN for picking sides long before a THIS particular discussion.

          • JohnB

            Is that a yes, or a no?

            Hey Johnny Green, are you censoring Nate?

          • Nate


            Avatar
            Nate JohnB
            4 minutes ago
            Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by The Weed Blog

          • Nate

            Got a little brown on your nose, there…

          • JohnB

            My posts are put on hold all the time.
            It’s part of the comment software, which keys on certain words or patterns.

            But, let’s try a little test:
            The Weed Blog and Johnny Green are part of a vast international cannabis cartel; they control prices and hope for world domination.

          • JohnB

            Hmmm…lookee there, no censorship.

            By the way, the way I usually get rid of that seemingly endless “on hold” is to copy my comments, then refresh the page.

            Then I scroll down to the comment to which I was responding, hit reply, and then paste my original copied text.

            In almost every case, except when there is some hyperlink, it goes through the second time without a hitch.

          • Nate

            Of course they won’t censor comments kissing their ass.
            My comments are on topic, no spam or profanity, I even removed the link to make sure.
            And I never connected them to the secret societies who do the very things mentioned in your comment. Very telling.

          • JohnB

            C’mon Nate, you’re a clever boy; you ought to be able to figure out a way to tell the tale that can skirt the illimunatii that run this website.

            Or is the real truth simply that you see ALL corporations as “cartels?”

          • Nate

            These illuminati claims are yours and not mine.
            Your sarcasm isn’t a test of anything except how low you will go in a game of semantics.
            It’s simple, actually. Two commenter in a debate, both on topic and spam free. One of those commenters gets censored for simply making a good point, the other doesn’t, but look whose political views line up…hmmmm….

          • Nate

            Surprised this one didn’t get the mod- hold, too

          • Nate

            And if you truly believed what you’re saying, and believed in intellectual debate, YOU would be calling for TWB to show the censored comments. But exposing truth just isn’t your way, is it, beyotch?

          • JohnB

            Hey, Weed Blog, PLEASE show Nate’s censored comments.

          • Nate

            Thank you. Very respectable comment.

          • JohnB

            In the meantime, you have yet to offer any compelling argument as to why the companies you mentioned are cartels.

            Whaddaya got?

          • Nate

            Controlling prices through the suppression of competition
            is the very definition of “cartel”

          • JohnB

            Yes, that indeed is typically considered cartel or monopolistic activity.
            Can you give an example of how one of the mentioned companies has done this?

          • JohnB

            Uh-Oh…Nate seems to have disappeared.
            The Illuminati probably broke down his door and carried him off for “re-education.”

            In case you come back, Nate, I’ll give you a little help; You say that the cannabis shop “Seventy-second street” is “real fucking bad.”

            Why, exactly?

          • Nate

            Anyone who likes bein’ high
            Don’t have to ask why

          • JohnB

            That’s a non-answer.

          • JohnB

            How exactly is a comment that accuses someone of conspiracy and illegal activity “kissing their ass?”

            You make no sense, boy.

          • laughatbabyboomers

            What is there to censor?

            You are one of the few lying fascists here.

          • The Stanley Snitchley Brothers dispensaries in Colorado Springs.

          • laughatbabyboomers

            CIA; FBI; DEA

          • Bob Cratchet

            NORML, ASA

  • letitiapepper

    Any law that takes away individuals’ right to grow a plant, and subjects them to fines and prisons for doing so is NOT legalization. It’s still prohibition. AUMA is 62 pages long, took me, an attorney with 30-plus years’ experience, 36 hours to read and analyze, and is a Trojan Horse designed to put the billionaires in charge of all California Cannabis.

    That is why Sean Parker is spending $5 and now reportedly even more to get the signatures to put this POS on the ballot. Parker is not doing this to help anyone but himself — to help himself to profits and Newsom to a slush fund of taxes and fines. See the bullet points of AUMA’s BIG problems here:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/me9oijd2x32w9y7/Re-Revised%20Bullet%20Points%20About%20AUMA%20as%20Marijuana%20Legalization.docx?dl=0

    • JohnB

      Yes, it is long, and it is full of contradictions, and it is, like all cannabis reform law so far, imperfect.

      But it’s interesting that after 36 hours of reading and analysis, you still don’t offer even ONE example of exactly HOW it is a trojan horse.

      Instead, you just throw that out there as if it were gospel truth.

      So, how about instead of telling us it’s a trap, show us specifically how it’s a trap?

      As “an attorney with 30-plus years’ experience,” you ought to be able to make a more compelling argument than the one you just presented.

      • Bob Cratchet

        Hey, dipstick, did you actually follow her link and READ her analysis before you posted???

  • myconaut

    Funny how trolls against legalization ™ can just hijack a comment thread on TWB, while my comment is still awaiting moderation. In fact, some of these posters are probably the same individual using two different sock puppet accounts (I’m talking about you Kathleen Chippi/Donkey Hotay). They always post in tandem on every comment thread they hijack.

    • Funny how the shills for the Greedy Big $$ Dispensary Cartels will support the CONTINUED CRIMINAL PROHIBITION of marijuana applied against “other people” who might want to possess more than a few grams, or grow more than 6 pathetic plants, or be allowed the liberty and freedom to sell a single joint to their adult friends or acquaintances.

      Crawl back under your prohibitionist rock with the Cops and the DEA.

    • Funny how the shills for the Greedy Big $$ Dispensary Cartels will support the Continued Criminal Prohibition of marijuana applied against “other people”.

      Crawl back under your prohibitionist rock with the Cops and the DEA.

      • myconaut

        Get back to your day job of slinging light 8ths of pretendica out of your apartment.

        • laughatbabyboomers

          move to texas

    • Kathleen Chippi

      lmfao! How funny the people who support continued prohibition based on lies, prejudice and greed from 1937 and who deny science and 10,000 recorded years of human use (research) call people who want cannabis removed from the CSA, legal for all people, for all uses, no limits and ‘regulation like tomaotes or herbs’ “trolls against legalization”… a

      and the admin of this page can see that my IP is not the same as Donky Hotay. I have never posted anything not attached to my name. I stand behind everything I say.

      And I love how anyone who doesn’t step in line with supporting shitty language is accused of hijacking a thread….do you support Trump?

    • laughatbabyboomers

      crazy baby boomer

    • laughatbabyboomers

      you sound like a hillary supporter

  • Dingus Mcgee

    California Council of Land Trusts, Drug Policy Alliance, Marijuana
    Policy Project, California Cannabis Industry Association, California
    Medical Association and California NAACP, and national NORML.

    all i see is prohibitionist organizations in this list.

    • jontomas

      Make an appointment with the optometrist.

      • Dingus Mcgee

        as long as people keep going to jail for cannabis, the law is not adequate or just.

        • JohnB

          So, it’s imperfect and we should therefore reject it entirely?

          That’s like a starving man throwing away a hamburger because it’s not a steak…

          • Dingus Mcgee

            i would rather start by letting cannabis offenders out of jail and work from there.

          • JohnB

            There’s much that “I would rather,” but we have to work with – accept or reject – that which is actually in the offing.

            The smart thing to do then, is to pass this, and then start working right away on something even better, like getting everyone in jail on a cannabis conviction released.

          • Kathleen Chippi

            the language does not remove cannabis from the criminal code…

          • JohnB has clearly stated that he supports the Continued Criminal Prohibition of Cannabis … against other people.

            JohnB “But if you mean that it doesn’t eliminate felonies for illegally growing commercially, you are right. Why should it?”

          • JohnB

            No shit, Sherlock.
            The question STILL isn’t whether this particular piece of legislation is ideal; the question is whether it moves the ball in any way toward the goal of full legalization.

            It undeniably does, and your opposition to that is just so much adolescent foot stomping.

          • laughatbabyboomers

            why don’t you just leave california?

            you actually think the youth are falling for this shit? LOL !

          • laughatbabyboomers

            you can get your card at 18; we all know how it works. only you old people do not.
            save some time; stop worrying – AUMA won’t pass :)

          • laughatbabyboomers

            Not even close. You are HORRIBLE at arguing.

    • saynotohypocrisy

      So you’re going to ally yourself with the all out prohibs when it’s time to vote on AUMA.
      How many years do you think we will have to wait before there is a initiative acceptable to you?
      Same question to your allies on this thread.

      • JohnB

        Right, all of the detractors have plenty to say about why this one is inadequate, but nothing to offer in the way of a concrete alternative, other than to keep cannabis illegal for all but patients.
        Nice.

        • saynotohypocrisy

          Yeah, reminds me of Ohio last year, when OTEP was offered as an alternative to the controversial RO initiative. But it’s 2016, a Presidential election year, by far the best time to have a legalization initiative on the ballot, and OTEP is still dead in the water. The perfectionists have no money, no timetable, no strategy. How can anyone rely on them to get the job done?

          • JohnB

            Yes, I was right in the thick of that fight with you.
            I urged people over and over again to read the actual amendment, and THEN decide.

            Instead, opponents typically relied on social media commentary and sensationalistic news headlines as their only source of information, and then used that often wrong information to put forward all kinds of ridiculous arguments against the proposal.

            Seems an awful lot like what is happening with AUMA, and frankly, happening again in Ohio as the “activist loons” (is that your trademarked phrase? If so, I stole it!) now claim that ANY cap on the number of large-scale growers constitutes another “monopoly.” That such a cap actually PROTECTS the little guy (for whom there are UNLIMITED licenses) is utterly lost on them. But, I digress…

          • myconaut

            To them, “getting the job done” means sinking any and all legalization initiatives that actually make the ballot. And they have been quite successful at getting that job done.

          • khh

            The more I hear from them, the more I like AUMA.

          • laughatbabyboomers

            said the cop

          • khh

            So you think cops will be supporting AUMA? LOL!

          • laughatbabyboomers

            You think the hippies are? LOL!

          • laughatbabyboomers

            damn straight

          • laughatbabyboomers

            speaking of presidents; who are you voting for buddy :) ?

          • saynotohypocrisy

            Your ‘fascist’ buddy. Right.
            I voted for Bernie in the primary, partly because of his views on weed.. If Hillary needed my vote against La Donald she would get it. I live in MD so she doesn’t need my vote. If she doesn’t improve her position on cannabis before the election, I’ll vote either Green or Libertarian. No one represents my views too well, including Bernie.
            And you?

        • Kathleen Chippi

          Quit twisting what people say you lying prohibitionists–no one has said anything like this: “….other than to keep cannabis illegal for all but patients.” We have all said cannabis should be lawful for all people, for all uses, with no limits because science, sanity and humanity require it and that ALL non-violent ‘offenders’ should be released from prison and everyone’s records CLEARED. And, for your information, science has proven that all cannabis consumption is therapeutic because cannabinoids are in our DNA. Cannabis is a required ‘lubricant’ in everyone. .

          • saynotohypocrisy

            You have no money, no strategy, no timetable, no powerful allies, and no POWER, that’s why people who agree with you on what should be are supporting AUMA instead of waiting for the pie in the sky that you’re offering them.

          • laughatbabyboomers

            AUMA is shit; get it yet?

          • saynotohypocrisy

            If you feel that way, don’t vote for it.
            This isn’t like Ohio last year where we needed a united reform community for the initiative to win.
            At least I don’t think it is.
            I’m not interested in discussing this with someone who calls me a fascist, sayonara.

          • JohnB

            Hey Kathleen, if AUMA doesn’t pass, cannabis will still be “illegal for all but patients” in California.

            YOU don’t want AUMA to pass.

            Try to keep up.

          • JohnB will eat any turd placed on the table, instead of waiting for real food.

          • laughatbabyboomers

            who cares; anybody can get a card. abuse the system.

          • laughatbabyboomers

            Are you a pig or a FED or something?

          • saynotohypocrisy

            “We have all said cannabis should be lawful for all people, for all uses, with no limits because science, sanity and humanity require it and that ALL non-violent ‘offenders’ should be released from prison and everyone’s records CLEARED.”

            And if you can’t get all of that at once, you prefer the status quo.

          • Kathleen Chippi

            Since passage of AUMA would not change the status quo and stop threat of loss of: employment, child custody, gun rights, occupational licenses, all assets, banking, housing, insurance, drivers license, student loans, freedom etc…you support for AUMA does nothing other than confuse people and help set them up for harm.

          • saynotohypocrisy

            AUMA would make any of those threats than are enforced by California (as opposed to enforced by the feds) go away for consumers and personal use growers. That seems like a good start to me. I’m not satisfied with AUMA’s provision for small commercial growers, the entry fee is too high, but I have to weight the good and the bad, and which result will push reform forward. AUMA’s defeat would bring joy to prohibs, and I’m not looking to do that.

          • laughatbabyboomers

            lol; we already DEALT with the feds silly; NOW we deal with shitheads like sean parker. Understand?

          • laughatbabyboomers

            It is not the job of California to make FAKE progress so other states can PRETEND to care.

            What a SICK joke.

            prop 19 did not pass; and now there are even MORE aware people

            AUMA will NEVER pass :)

      • Dingus Mcgee

        i’m sure the cannabis offenders stuck in prison think an acceptable piece of cannabis legislation is long overdue. AUMA ensures the continued criminalization of cannabis, i see nothing good in that.

        • JohnB

          It allows the personal possession of one ounce of cannabis, and the growing of six plants.

          THAT is not good?

          How is that bad?

          • Dingus Mcgee

            sure, i can see how its good for you.

          • saynotohypocrisy

            And good for the overwhelming majority of cannabis consumers.

          • laughatbabyboomers

            fascist supporter

          • laughatbabyboomers

            Do you understand what “legal ” means; or not?

          • laughatbabyboomers

            you are a baby boomer; huh?

            hahahahaha!

        • saynotohypocrisy

          How best to help cannabis political prisoners is certainly an issue worthy of discussion, and I really see more potential for AUMA to help them than hurt them. It would be interesting to know their views on AUMA and the other initiatives this year.

          You didn’t have an answer for my question. So I’ll just rant on. I’m intent on securing my own and other’s basic freedom to possess and grow personal amounts of cannabis. You can call it selfish, but I’m not holding that need hostage to other issues like larger personal grows than 6 plants, more equal access to commercial growing, and continuing criminalizing of unauthorized grows. I’m been in the back of the bus too long, and the claim to a right to possess and grow a personal amount of cannabis is far stronger than the claim to a right to grow cannabis commercially.

          Also, it seems to me the quickest way to achieve a more liberal right to grow commercially, and to make cannabis political prisoners seem archaic, is to prove to the still skeptical that basic legalization is a big success. 4 states are doing that now. We have a chance to make it 10 this year, and to get patients in Ohio, Missouri and Arkansas the relief many of them desperately need. If you’re really a drug war reformer, support some campaign somewhere.

          That’s my rant. What’s yours?

          • Nate

            THAT’S what’s important. Personal cultivation.
            As far as I’m concerned THAT’S the definition of “LEGALIZED”
            Yep, I consider Oregon and Colorado to be legal states, but Washington NOT. People just don’t seem to get how this issue relates to the much larger issue of our right to grow our own food.

          • laughatbabyboomers

            You haven’t studied AUMA much; have you?

      • laughatbabyboomers

        until the corrupt swine die :)

      • laughatbabyboomers

        AUMA is SHIT.

        Are you voting for hillary or something?

      • Bob Cratchet

        There’s actually good initiatives right now. That douche Parker simply bankrolled the one that will force us all into his storefronts.

        • saynotohypocrisy

          I KNOW there are better initiatives than AUMA. There have been better initiatives than AUMA in California for a long time. Is there any timetable for when one of them is expected to make the ballot? Laughatbabyboomers doesn’t care how long it takes. Same with you?

  • JohnB

    Unless a cannabis law reform actually makes things worse, there is no reason ever to reject it entirely.

    If the detractors on this page who are so vitriolic against AUMA have any evidence or compelling argument to show that AUMA makes things WORSE, I’d like to see it.

    No change will ever be perfect, or go far enough to suit everyone, and it’s silly and irrational to reject something that is, however incrementally, BETTER.

    So what do you naysayers have, besides a lot of bitching; what argument can you present that shows AUMA makes things worse, and should therefore be rejected?

    • Prohibitionist swine says what ??

      JohnB “But if you mean that it doesn’t eliminate felonies for illegally growing commercially, you are right. Why should it?”

      JohnB: “I support continued criminal prohibition of unlicensed, untaxed commercial activity”

    • Nate

      FYI if CA starts using AUMA as an excuse to enforce the felonies for cultivation STILL ON THE BOOKS, against patients, THAT’S making things worse.

    • laughatbabyboomers

      AUMA is trash; what is hard to understand?

  • JohnB

    On July 4th, 1974, we stood on the national mall, at the edge of the reflecting pool, and waited for the next speaker to take the stage.
    We were defiant, but terrified.
    All around the edge of the mall, masses of cops with their batons out seemed ready to pounce, and send an otherwise peaceful gathering into chaos.
    The drive from Kentucky had been nerve-wracking.
    We had a car full of weed, long hair, and every reason to expect that, had we been stopped anywhere along the way, we would all be in jail for a very, very long time.
    We would all have been charged with felonies, for simple possession.
    But we were committed to exercising our right to free speech, and to participating in the political process, to try to get a terrible set of laws changed.
    Things frankly looked pretty bleak.
    Nixon’s policies were still new, and they were being implemented with vengeance.
    The people, our families, hated us, and the cause for which we advocated.

    Had anyone taken the stage on that day, or any of the next half-dozen July 4ths, and told me that one day Californians, in defiance of Nixon and Federal law, would be able to vote to legalize the possession of one ounce of cannabis, and the growing of six cannabis plants, we would have shouted, in a great chorus of approbation, “Glory to God in the Highest!”

    The sadness I feel at seeing all this infighting about whether or not AUMA is inadequate, or imperfect, or whatever, has to be not unlike the sadness that many older civil rights reformers feel when they see young black folks using the N-word.

    I’ll be leaving this world sooner than later, and frankly, given the ungrateful spoiled and plainly irrational self-defeating behavior of those who have come behind us in cannabis reform, I’m glad I won’t be around to see just how big a mess they might make of it.

    • nixnoutz

      Attending D.C. protests were taking your well being at risk during the early 1970s. Watching cops on their horses and roving cop squads made me want to stay away. I’m glad you and yours were not seriously harmed.

  • khh

    To quote Shakespeare, ‘”Will no one rid me of these meddlesome internet trolls?”

  • Nate

    BigBudsMag.com for many years has been reporting that home marijuana growers, sometimes known as black market marijuana growers, feel there are plusses and minuses of marijuana “legalization.”

    We all want the police, courts, and governments to let us grow and sell marijuana in an open market.

    But what we’ve seen in marijuana legalization states, especially Colorado, Washington, and California, is that so-called legalization favors large-scale, government-licensed corporate marijuana growers and sellers.

    In most cases, marijuana legalization hurts black market marijuana growers, taking market share away from those of us who for years have been providing the majority of the nation’s cannabis.

    In Northern California, a home marijuana growers and marketers collective called Flow Kana is mounting a campaign against corporate marijuana that resembles the farm-to-market and locally-sourced food movements.

    Flow Kana offers outdoor, organic home marijuana growers the opportunity to connect directly with consumers who want connoisseur marijuana.

    It’s affiliated with retail sellers, including delivery services.

    Flow Kana correctly states that corporate marijuana and marijuana dispensaries aren’t always providing the best marijuana.

    BigBudsMag.com agrees with Flow Kana. It’s good to reward those long-time growers of premium Nor Cal Emerald Triangle Bud.

    The cannabis industry is seen as an investment opportunity by those who don’t share our love of growing, or have our expertise.

    In Hawaii, for example, the owner of a helicopter company who for decades assisted the war on Hawaiian cannabis now wants to cash in on highly-profitable marijuana growing and selling licenses that the state government intends to issue.

    The Flow Kana approach shows that love of cannabis can be combined with successfully competing as producers and providers in the burgeoning cannabis industry.

    Flow Kana portrays itself as a collective of “craft farmers” who grow “small-batch sustainable marijuana” primarily in California’s famous Emerald Triangle.

    • saynotohypocrisy

      Under AUMA, would Flow Kana be able to get a license to grow commercially that members of the collective could then use?

      • Nate

        Hmmm….could be.
        Maybe there’s a lawyer on here who knows if AUMA allows for licensing of collectives?

    • JohnB

      To quote my pals at AB: “sometimes it time for a good ‘ol MACRO brew…”
      So, you can keep your peach pumpkin ale.

  • Nate

    Surprise, surprise, censored again
    Anyone who loves cannabis should check out “Flow kana”

    • Nate

      In Northern California, a home marijuana growers and marketers collective called Flow Kana is mounting a campaign against corporate marijuana that resembles the farm-to-market and locally-sourced food movements.

      Flow Kana offers outdoor, organic home marijuana growers the opportunity to connect directly with consumers who want connoisseur marijuana.

      It’s affiliated with retail sellers, including delivery services.

      Flow Kana correctly states that corporate marijuana and marijuana dispensaries aren’t always providing the best marijuana.

      • JohnB

        No we finally get down to the heart of the matter; you hate corporations.

        You have some immature little grudge against any company bigger than mom and pop.

        Nevermind that EVERY SINGLE technological and even logistical advantage you enjoy living in a first-world country comes from GIANT corporations.

        Do you go to a grocery ever? Giant corporation.

        Do you own a car” Giant corporation.

        Do you ride a bus or train? Giant corporation.

        Do you have a computer or smartphone? Giant corporation.

        Get over it, “occupier,” every single advantage you enjoy over starving folks living in the dirt in some third-world country somewhere comes from a giant corporation.

        Hell, your parents probably work for giant corporations, and everything they have ever provided you comes directly from the fact that such a corporation exists and pays them.

        People WITHIN corporations can be evil, but the mere structure of a given business is not inherently so, despite your philosophy to the contrary.

        • Nate

          I post a comment informing peeps about Flow kaname and this guy talks shit including judging my parents (teachers both of them, thank Jah)

          • Nate

            Flow Kana. Computers were so much cooler before CORPORATIONS started programming them with spell checkers for idiots. Idiots who would call a person ” occupier” without knowing I stayed FAR away from those clowns and did my gardening( and supporting prop 19 ) while that circus was going on.
            Speaking of clowns, I think one on here just outed himself as the demagogue he is with his own words.

    • myconaut

      I wish TWB would simply bring down the ban hammer on all of you trolls for spam. But it wouldn’t matter, because you’d just create another sock puppet account and troll under a different name. You people are worse than spammers.

      • JohnB

        No, be glad they are out here, showing time and again just how “out there” they and their ideas are.

        They are SO far out in left field, in fact, that they probably don’t even vote anyway, and all their comments do is make the people who actually do vote even more determined to do THE OPPOSITE of anything these loony tunes might advocate.

        • myconaut

          Good point. I just get tired of seeing them completely take over any comment thread about an upcoming legalization initiative. To get any useful insights about these initiatives any more, you have to sort through sometimes hundreds of comments like this before you can get to any factual information. They ruin a perfectly good discussion by overwhelming the comment thread with their incessant blather and lies.

      • Nate

        Spam DOES have a definition, you freedom hater.
        I WAS with YOUR side for Prop 19
        6 more years of commenters like YOU showed me that when logic doesn’t work, you just make shit up, JUST LIKE THE PROHIBITIONISTS

        • Nate

          Nope 1 person, 1 account. Lying ass comments like YOURS
          Are helping create more NO votes than anything I could say.

          • Nate

            That’s for myconut and JohnB

        • laughatbabyboomers

          you think AUMA is ” for the people” ?

          bahahahaha!

        • laughatbabyboomers

          We don’t want regulation; we want legalization.

          What year do you think it is brother?

  • Kathleen Chippi

    Funny how the people who want cannabis lawful for everyone, for any use, regulation like tomatoes and the release of all non-violent offenders and all records cleared because science, sanity and humanity require it (since we know the longest war in the history of the US is based on lies, prejudice and greed) are called prohibitionists by commenters in this thread who want to continue 1937 reefer madness by continuing criminalization of fellow humans via more regulation and taxation than plutonium. AUMA sucks. And support of it speaks volumes.

    • saynotohypocrisy

      You have no signatures, no money, no strategy, no timetable, no powerful allies, and no POWER. 9 or 10 states are likely to have basic legalization by the end of this year, enough to possibly force the feds hands. If reformers had held out for legalization acceptable to you, there wouldn’t be any. How would that be an an improvement for anyone but unauthorized growers?

      What state is most likely to approve the kind of reform you want? Why don’t you folks focus your energy on that state because you have a long hard road ahead of you to get the kind of reform you want approved anywhere. Especially when other reformers feel you’ve trying to sabotage their step by step efforts that they feel are progressing well, considering the ferocity and demagoguery of the cannabis haters.

      • Kathleen Chippi

        again: wake up–full on prohibition was a failure because there is NO WAY to prevent everyone from growing, dispensing or consuming..and everyone properly ignored the prohibition. What makes any of you think licensing a handful of ‘elitists’ to grow and sell will be successful in preventing everyone else from continuing on? Are you for house by house searches every month to enforce? jontmas disappeared when I posted about the unwarranted house searches happening right now in my town of 1,400 in CO where you all like to say people are free!!! and legal!!! . Do you all agree in police state necessity?

        • saynotohypocrisy

          Under AUMA, would Flow Kana and other collectives be able to get a license to grow commercially that members of the collective could then use?
          I asked this question a little way down the thread, but no one who knows the answer has replied yet.

          If collectives aren’t eligible for a license, then the high application fees and other requirements effectively bar many growers from growing legally. Under those circumstances, it doesn’t bother me that SMALL growers continue growing illegally (unless their grow is harming the environment, which is certainly known to happen).
          So the “what makes any of you think…” question doesn’t apply to me. I don’t think AUMA will stop all unauthorized growers, and that doesn’t bother me, because the initiative is not fair to small growers. It will dry up the market for large illegal grows, and that’s a very good thing.

          • laughatbabyboomers

            AUMA is trash; what exactly are you having trouble understanding?

            We will not pass it; ok ? :)

      • laughatbabyboomers

        Speak not on that which you have no idea :)

  • laughatbabyboomers

    Vote NO to their fascist lies :)

  • Bob Cratchet

    Funny how if you post anything mildly critical of the AUMA on the national NORML boards, it gets deleted, and they send you nasty email. They used to be pretty cool, and able to do great debates, provide info, etc. I have to agree now that they have morphed into corporate shills who dont give a rat’s butt about the common pot smoker who just wants to grow a few plants.

    I will definitely vote against the AUMA – we need to “get it right”, and that’s sure as hell not the way to go.