Click to read the statement courtesy of John Entwistle
In a statement dated 22 Sep 09, Dennis Peron announced his opposition to The Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, describing it as "fatally flawed".
The official proponents of this initiative are Richard Lee and Jeff Jones. It is backed by Oaksterdamn U and the four medical marijuana dispensaries operating in the city of Oakland who have announced they intend to spend at least $1 million to gather signatures.
These are the same people that brought Oakland Measure F, which raised the tax rate patients pay for medical marijuana in Oakland to be equal to that for alcohol; from $1.2 per $1,000 to $18 per $1,000, a total increase of about $350,000.
Of the three initiatives that concern legalizing cannabis in the state of California, this one is the one most likely to obtain the signatures required to be placed on the ballot for the November 2010 election because it has the most solid financial backing. It is listed on the website of the California Secretary of State as 1377 (09-0024. Amdt. #1S) - "Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed" (dubbed ROT 2010 in previous articles).
The other two initiatives currently in the signature gathering phase are: 1374 (09-0022) - "Changes California Law to Legalize, Regulate, and Tax Marijuana" (dubbed THC 2010 in previous articles), and 1378 (09-0025) - "Changes California Law to Legalize, Regulate, and Tax Marijuana".
Notice the official title for two of the initiatives is exactly the same and the title for the third differs only in that it contains the word "allow" and in the placement (and tense) of the words "regulate" and "tax". Voters will find it difficult, if not impossible, to know for which initiative they are signing.
Peron, co-author of Proposition 215, cites three "fatal flaws" in the Oaksterdamn U initiative . These can be described as limits, taxes, and penalties regarding minors.
Regarding the limits of one ounce and 25 square feet for personal cultivation:
Imagine a law to “tax and regulate” alcohol that only allows for possession of up to one bottle of wine imprisoning those who exceed that amount, be it two bottles or a small collection of choice vintages. These limits guarantee confusion, harassment and black marketeering forevermore. We don’t control alcohol by imposing a 25 sq. foot limit on grape vines. But one extra gram or sq. foot of pot means jail and even worse; this initiative specifies that if accused of having too much cannabis the burden of proof is on you, not the state.
Regarding taxes:
Singling out those who want to use marijuana for a huge excise tax is just plain unfair. It maintains cannabis as the most expensive, blatantly overpriced product on the market thus forcing most people to choose cheaper, more dangerous drugs with huge externalized costs to society as a whole.
Regarding minors:
Sending teenagers to state prison for three years for pot is evil. This initiative mandates that 18, 19, and twenty year old minors serve three to seven year terms in California state prison for the crime of passing each other a joint or selling one another a small amount. Under this law if a 21 year old person passes a joint to a 20 year old he or she goes to county jail for six months. Likewise this measure has no exceptions for parents in their own homes from the “smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present” prohibition. We don’t lock up parents for having a glass of wine with dinner and we certainly don’t tell the kids to leave the house for the purpose of consuming any other substance so why start with cannabis?
Peron vows that if the proponents "buy" enough signatures to get the initiative on the ballot he will campaign against it:
This initiative is bad for parents, students and, ultimately, the effort to get the state to stop ruining lives enforcing these draconian pot laws. Initiatives create permanent statutes. This one with its petty restrictions for personal users, prohibitive unfair taxes, and mandatory state prison sentences for teen agers need be nipped in the bud. We will campaign and vote against it should its proponents succeed in purchasing the necessary number of signatures to put it on the 2010 ballot. The tax revenue it will supposedly generate is a mere smokescreen for the kids it will regulate into three, five and seven year state prison sentences.
Perpetuating and increasing the hundred million plus tax dollars per year the state already spends policing this harmless plant is wrong yet that is exactly what this proposition does.
For the full text of the statement, click the image above.
Ballot Measure Update - California Secretary of State
War breaks out within the marijuana legalization movement - Examiner.com | 26 Sep 09
Dennis Peron sacked by Oaksterdamn U for opposing marijuana tax - Examiner.com | 16 Sep 09
The tax heard round the world - Examiner.com | 30 Aug 09
Oakland's marijuana legalization initiative still a Trojan Horse - Examiner.com | 16 Aug 09
Selling out the medical marijuana movement - Examiner.com | 24 Jul 09
Comments
That's all that's wrong with that initiative?
To anyone that's smart enough to answer this -- are all of those issues that Dennis Peron brought up amendable if AB390 is sent through the legislature after passage of the Oaksterdam initiative? (Citing Purposes #10 and #11 as a way of "furthering the purposes of this act" as noted in the amendment section.)
What are the chances that a regulatory system actually be established after passage of this initiative (assuming that this passes)? Would the legislature finally "cave in"?
Thank you for your articles sir, they are extremely informative!
Wait a minute!?! The same legislature that we need to bypass through the initiative process is going to clean up Richard Lee's mess after the election? Hmmm. After how many kids go to jail? Dennis is right, the only way you could support this initiative is if you don't read it. I'm not signing it and if it gets on the ballot I will smoke two joints and vote against it! Shame on Richard Lee and Jeff Jones! Grow up boys, have children, try parenting, then see if you want to send your babies to state prison for three to five years for smoking a little pot. Neither of these men have kids but they would send mine to state prison. Thank you Dennis Peron for taking an honest stance on this difficult issue.
Legalize it, don't criticise it. No on this dumb control freak proposition. Richard Lee & Jeff Jones are rich playboys, they can keep writing until they get it right. In they meantime, No on all their flawed drafts! NO! NO! NO! The more you know, the more you vote NO!
@ Ruth in SF: I think there's a difference between before the people have spoken on the issue, and after the people have spoken on the issue. Politicians don't touch the issue because they don't want to look "pro drugs". But after we have confirmed that we want it, then I'm sure the tax-hungry politicians would be quick to implement a way to collect a billion dollars in new tax revenues.
That's just my take though. You could easily be right too.
Rick,
The people of California spoke in 1996. The legislature spoke in 2002. None of this has stopped the arrest, prosecution, robbery, and incarceration of medical marijuana patients and their providers. They have too much, or they're distributing to too many people, or they're making a profit - LEO has no end of excuses to steal everything the sick and dying have and throw them in jail.
The only difference between Oakland's initiative and the current medical marijuana laws is that instead of needing a recommendation and a county ID card to be 'legal' each city and county will decide - it will be "legal" in counties that pass a tax and illegal in those that don't. And even in those counties where it's legal you can be arrested for having more than an ounce or more than 25 square feet under cultivation.
Just like SB 420, the Oakland initiative gives LEO an infinite number of reasons to arrest and rob and prosecute and incarcerate marijuana users.
Have you actually read
Following comment should be addressed to "Green Devil".
Read Section 4 of the ROT 2010 initiative. 18-20 year olds will not see any new penalties for passing joints to each other, only the already existing penalties for giving pot to those under 18 (which are admittedly rather draconian). The new thing added is that people over 21 would get up to 6 months in jail and up to $1000 fine for giving pot to any one between 18 and 20. That sentence is the maximum, not the minimum.
Personally, I think the age limit should be 18 instead of 21, the same way I feel about alcohol. While there are some things I don't like about the initiative, I would still vote yes if I lived in California. The cartels must be defeated!
There are Flaws no Doubt but the Law Sucks the way it is now.The Age limit is The Problem I have with it.That still leves the Black Market Making Big Money from the 18 to 21 year olds.The Man that said the bottom line is the Cartels must be defeated is Right.They are a Big Supplier of South of the Border Crap and the Product they grow here.The Tax and Regulate Act will allow for Harm Reduction and that is what we want.I Feel as long as the Simple People are Not Banned it will work.The 501C3s are not just for the Rich.We will try and Prove that..HarmReductionNow.blogspot.com
I'm sorry, but it makes no sense to oppose this proposition. If you think it doesn't go far enough, I understand. We'll fix that in another proposition later. Limited legalization is the first step.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!