Guest speakers: Ellen Brown, Letitia Pepper, & Lorenzo
PROGRAM NOTES:
Today’s podcast features insights from Ellen Brown and Latitia Pepper in regards to California’s upcoming ballot measure Proposition 64. As you will hear, this measure will eliminate the current medical marijuana laws in the state. And while anyone over the age of 21 will be allowed to possess up to one ounce of marijuana, the days of medical patients going to a local dispensary will be over. Also, medical patients will need to obtain a new recommendation by January 1, 2018, and that can ONLY come from your personal physician . . . PLUS you will need to purchase a $100 permit to be a medical patient, but you will have no rights that anyone over 21 also has. This is a terrible proposition that basically puts Monsanto in charge of the marijuana business in California. Vote NO on Prop 64.
NOTE: The original version of this podcast also included comments by a person whom I call “your typical uninformed voter.” This apparently has caused him some discomfort, and so I have removed all of his comments from the podcast. Sorry about that.]
Download
MP3
PCs – Right click, select option
Macs – Ctrl-Click, select option
Annotated Copy of AMUA, Prop 64
Breeders, hold on to the medicine that really helps(high cbd Harlequin, cancer helping specific OGs, nausea preventing cancer helping Bubbas and ptsd effecting varieties.)The public is blissful in ignorance and many couldn’t care less in what this does to existing rights. Breeders, show the public who really makes their desires and keep our finest, rarest and most sought after, in the black market. Breeders, we have to destroy our libraries and dedicate to an extremely small pool, provided this bogus proposal passes. Breeders, get your medical caregivers license for a total of limited patients and show no mercy for the public who will vote away our already existing rights. Breeders, do what you can to stay afloat and we should start talking to big pharma and or get organized. ( we need to start looking to dedicate and truly stabilize our best and come together and own our genetics; we want genetic patents.) The people seemed poised to screw themselves and us, blissfully; let big business create what they want and let’s keep our work in the caregiver, membership sector. Breeders, the public will need to spend a lot for a license and hope to become a member of a limited medical grower’s collective. Breeders, the public has no problem screwing use just to do it and they have no problem seeing what they want in proposal 64, just to be contrary. Breeders if the public needs our true medical works, make them pay for it dearly; they couldn’t care less about us nor the obvious truth of proportion 64.
Lorenzo,
I’m such a huge fan of yours and the salon and have so much gratitude for all you do for this community. However, I strongly disagree with your position on this one. I have read and read AUMA including the annotated version. The claims about it’s impact on CA Medical use are overstated and in some cases unsubstantiated. AUMA’s impact on the current system does nothing above and beyond what MMRSA will do to the current system regardless of the passage of AUMA.
Unfortunately, on this one, you’ve positioned an unreliable, untrustworthy and widely debunked attorney as an expert on a very important issue.
I encourage everyone to investigate her claims, use your own intelligence and make an informed decision in November. I’ll certainly be voting YES!
Respectfully,
Wes
“NOTE: The original version of this podcast also included comments by a person whom I call “your typical uninformed voter.” This apparently has caused him some discomfort, and so I have removed all of his comments from the podcast. Sorry about that.]”
actually, it didn’t cause me any discomfort
[OK then I’ll restore the original file and we can let your words speak for themselves.]
attributing erroneous motivations to me… pissed me off
what i objected to was his characterization of my motives and lack of knowledge
i stand by everything i said and would love an opportunity to talk openly with lorenzo about prop 64 or any subject actually
i like what he’s doing
it’s just that in this case he chose to try to make me look like an idiot to further his agenda and i don’t appreciate it
[COMMENT by Lorenzo: Here is the link to the full podcast from which I lifted Heron’s comments: 154. Accidental Gardener [July 15, 2016]. Listen for yourself and make your own decision. Perhaps my use of his comments did not cause him discomfort. Nonetheless, he requested that I remove them from my podcast, which I have done.
And here are links to their two following podcasts in which they explain why they will no longer be listening to podcasts from the Psychedelic Salon and dis Lorenzo: 154.5 False Flag Feedback [July 22, 2016] and 155. Technical Word Jive [August 5, 2016]
My country (Brazil) doesn’t have cannabis regulating laws. Here, pretty much everything related to the herb is illegal.
Recently CBD was taken out of ANVISA list of illegal substances and now doctors can prescribe it but the production of CBD oil is still prohibited. Importing from US seem to be the only available way to acquire the medicine and this way is full bureaucracy and extremely time consuming but some moms are importing it to treat forms of drug resistant epilepsy on their childs.
Now THC is also legal to prescribe (some people claim that only extracts containing little THC and CBD are able to effectively control seizures) and a poll is currently going on on STF (the highest branch of the Brazilian legislative system) about the possibility of legalizing cannabis since the penalties for users seem to be more harmful than the use of the herb itself.
In this context it’s specially interesting to see how places with cannabis laws already in place are trying to change the legislation since it provides a direct example for us down here. Of the 11 judges that compose the STF, 3 voted for legalizing cannabis(the only ones who already voted) and the trial is on hold for a year now. I heard something about US taking cannabis out from schedule 1 and this would, in my opinion, make things much easier for us and other countries trying to implement more humane cannabis and drug laws since the example comes directly from the country who started the drug war and exported it to the world. Since this is a state level prop it probably isn’t related to the schedule change but I thought it was worth mentioning.
Lorenzo, I started to listen to this podcast last week but now I can’t download or play it. Could you please check this issue?
Thanks.
[COMMENT by Lorenzo: To begin with, on behalf of all sane U.S. citizens, I sincerely apologize for the World War on Drugs (actually it is a war on PEOPLE who use them. The drugs themselves don’t seem to be fighting. 🙂 As to the availability of the podcast, the person whom I called “your typical uninformed voter” was livid that I didn’t allow him to edit my podcast before I posted it. So to please him I have removed all of his comments from the program. Apparently I screwed up when attempting to replace the file, and so nothing was there for a while. I’m re-uploading the new file now. Hopefully it will be available soon. . . . And THANK YOU for your enlightening comment. I wish all of our fellow saloners in Brazil good luck in teaching your politicians the truth about cannabis. It isn’t easy, as we all know. Press On!]
According to this website, Prop 64 passed by a 59% to 41% margin on Nov 1 this year!
https://www.privacyrights.org/ar/Prop64.htm
[COMMENT by Lorenzo: While I do happen to believe that Prop 64 will pass, you may not have noticed, but November 1 hasn’t yet happened this year :-). The one you have linked to is from 2004.]
Thanks for this podcast, Lorenzo…I have suspected that the AUMA had the potential to turn out to be a case of “careful what you ask for, you might get it”, for some time now…
The Devil in the Details, as they say…
The more I read it, the less I like it…you have better protection under the law, with the current medical use paradigm, in California. This pod is an excellent primer, for why you might want to be skeptical about AUMA.
I know sharing this opinion was likely to be controversial, Lorenzo, but I am glad you did it.
Thanks again.
I’m not so sure about the Monsanto/Bayer conspiracy angle (assuming Bayer eventually acquires Monsanto), but the same can get us close to Godwin’s Law territory…
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/economics/igfarben.html
Bayer’s history is quite a tale. Suggested reading includes “The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben” detailing their involvement with inexpensive labor in the Reich during WW2, etc. Though the company invented aspirin, the “Bayer” trademark was seized after WW1 and sold to Sterling drug which manufactured acetylsalicylic acid under that brand until Bayer repurchased the rights (by buying Sterling) 20 years ago for $1B. They keep coming up with new bs the stuff will cure you of, 81mg every day to ward of heart attacks, etc. Whatever. Truth of the matter is the stuff is grandfathered in and likely could not pass FDA approval if application was made today as a new drug being brought to market.
And then there’s Sativex, the cannabis extract developed by GWPharma of which Bayer has obtained exclusive marketing rights in the UK/EU. Limit of my knowledge is the wikipedia page on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabiximols
After listening to this whole podcast, reading the annotated law and giving the issue careful consideration I’m now even more strongly in favor of the passage of this bill. There is enough for everyone. This is the new paradigm, get used to it. The previous legislative initiative started out with strong majority support which was eroded by election time significantly by the opposition of norcal growers seeking to maintain their favored economic position. There can pretty much never be a perfect measure in this regard, but the issue is so egregious and overdue that action must be taken.
Niles
Indeed. We are a minority and those who insist on perfection or nothing, will continue to get nothing. Once the public at large sees the sky has not fallen, improvement can be made. They may even notice more chilled cannabis consumers and fewer drunken assholes, which should be appreciated.
Found one more I needed to share with you Lorenzo, and then I’ll leave it alone. As a former attorney yourself, perhaps you’re just inclined to believe your colleague Ms. Pepper. I’ll just have to hope other regular listeners to your podcast, like me, will vote yes.
“Hemp4theFuture
May 23, 2016
@Letitia Pepper can’t handle the truth that Sanders has endorsed the Adult Use of Marijuana Act. Her arguments against AUMA include misquoting the law, discounting the California Supreme Court rulings, leaving words out of her “quotes” and pointing her readers to the wrong legislation, along with just out and out lies. Lacking facts, she makes up fake numbers, resorts to deception and personal attacks to justify her support for the Drug War. I have replied to her false allegations repeatedly, here is one such link so people can see for themselves.”
http://equalrights4all.org/uploads/PepperBulletErrors.pdf
[COMMENT by Lorenzo: You need not worry. My guess is that AUMA is going to pass by a large margin. It’s just not my cup of tea, however.]
Did you also read that Letitia Pepper is a prohibitionist who works for the wine industry? I would take anything she says with a grain of salt. Also, one of the authors you scoff at, helped write your Prop 215.
I’ll still be voting yes. Here are some alternative viewpoints you should also consider. Cannabis patients can be selfish as well, concerned with their own self-interest but for those already imprisoned or yet to be, not so much.
http://theleafonline.com/c/politics/2016/05/op-ed-support-auma/
[COMMENT by Lorenzo: The author says, “AUMA will be the beginning of a new era. It is written to be flexible and improved upon, while protecting patients and Prop. 215.” That is FALSE. AUMA eliminates Prop 215. She is in for a sad surprise.]
http://freedomleaf.com/10-reasons-support-auma/
[COMMENT by Lorenzo: I only got to point number 1: “It Protects and Expands Current Medical Marijuana Laws” . . . that is completely false. These authors obviously have no understanding of AUMA.]