-Quote from George Washington-

"When the government fears the people, we have liberty, but when the people fear the government, we have tyranny." - George Washington, American Revolutionary and first President of the USA
Showing posts with label CA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CA. Show all posts

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Some Tea Pariers support pot legalization - CA

A Different Kind of Tea: Some Tea Partiers May Support Pot Legalization

by Leo E. Laurence, J.D. Tuesday, Oct. 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM
leopowerhere@msn.com (619) 757-4909
Proposition 19, which would legalize and tax marijuana in California, may have some unexpected supporters in the conservative tea party movement, reports Leo E. Laurence, associate editor of Zenger’s magazine and a former deputy sheriff who's campaigning for the measure as a member of the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (L.E.A.P.).
A Different Kind of Tea

Some Libertarian “Tea Party“ Conservatives May Back Prop. 19

by LEO E. LAURENCE, J.D.

Copyright © 2010 by Leo E. Laurence • All rights reserved

Support for Proposition 19 on the November ballot to regulate, tax and control cannabis (marijuana) is coming from unexpected sources, including activists in the Tea Party.

Recent polls show support for the statewide initiative is growing, and it may pass with a bigger majority than expected.

The glossy, locally published NUG Magazine ran as its lead article in its October issue a story I wrote supporting Proposition 19 on behalf of the international organization, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. NUG is distributed within the cannabis community (and therefore widely read by young people). I’m a former deputy sheriff and once served in the San Diego D.A.’s office.

My article suggested that “the impact of the conservative Tea Party movement is unknown, and could threaten passage. Some [San Diego] City Councilmembers (Todd Gloria, Carl DeMaio) even refused to discuss it, ignoring the hundreds of millions of dollars that could come into our city treasury if Proposition 19 passes.”

“[The] impact of the fiery, neo-conservative Tea Party movement is unknown,” I wrote in NUG.

After that magazine hit the streets, I received a phone call from conservative El Cajon.

“Proposition 19 is not a partisan issue, especially in East County,” said Justin Price, 26, after reading my NUG article.

Price is a Tea Party supporter.

“Conservative support for Proposition 19 might be stronger than you think,” he added.

“There are lots of Republicans and Tea Party activists who are smoking a joint in their home while watching TV,” he believes.

Price works in a convenience store and reported that many of his customers, including conservative seniors, are talking about it and intend to vote for it.

Change in Law

Under current state law, the possession, cultivation or distribution of marijuana is illegal. In 1996, medical marijuana was approved by voters, but recent San Diego City Council restrictions on the location of medical marijuana dispensaries threatened to create a nearly de facto ban on it.

While possession of it heretofore was misdemeanor, the governor recently signed a state law that reduces it to an infraction, similar to a traffic ticket. Unlicensed sales remain a felony.

Under Proposition 19, everyone over 21 will be able to lawfully possess, share and transport up to an ounce of marijuana. Use will be restricted to a residence or any non-public place.

Cultivation of marijuana will be permitted in an area up to 25 square feet per residence or parcel, and possession of any items of equipment associated with those lawful activities will be permitted.

State and local law enforcement agencies will not be able to seize or destroy marijuana from persons in compliance with the state law.

Employers under Proposition 19 will retain exiting rights to address the consumption of marijuana that impairs an employee’s job performance.

Smoking in the presence of minors — anyone under 21 — will be unlawful, as will driving under the influence and possession on the grounds of an elementary, middle or high school.

Existing laws prohibiting penalties for furnishing marijuana to minors under 18 will remain.

Big money for local governments

Up to two billion dollars will flood into the treasuries of local and state governments with passage of Proposition 19. That figure is an estimate by the state’s taxing agency, the Board of Equalization.

That could make a big dent in the huge budget deficit that the City of San Diego is experiencing.

Another state agency, the independent, non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), says, “To the extent that a commercial marijuana industry develops in the state, we estimate that the state and local governments could eventually collect hundreds of millions of dollars annually in additional revenue.”

So why are local politicians (e.g., City Councilmembers DeMaio and Gloria) refusing to even discuss it with the media?

The initiative is carefully worded to insure that most of its money goes to local government, not the state in Sacramento.

Inaccurate Opposition

In a published statement that ran in our local newspaper, the San Diego Union-Tribune, our district attorney Bonnie Dumanis provided grossly inaccurate facts. Why? Here are some “facts” she wrote:

1. “The truth is, Proposition 19 does not regulate, does not control and does not tax marijuana as its name implies.” FALSE! Apparently she did not read the official state LAO report.

2. “It means zero revenue for the state of California.” FALSE!

3. “The proposition would prohibit an employer from firing an employee who is under the influ-ence.” FALSE!

When I was a deputy sheriff, I would sometimes question a suspect by asking questions, the answers to which I already knew. If they lied on some significant facts, I would question the credibility of all their facts. The same applies to the D.A.’s, inaccurate statements opposing Proposition 19. Why does the opposition have to lie?

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Because the prohibitions against marijuana have been based on lies ever since the first commissioner of the federal government’s Bureau of Narcotics, Harry J. Anslinger, lobbied Congress to enact them in the 1930’s.]

The Basics

Unlike cigarettes or alcohol, marijuana is not physically addictive. Its use does not lead to heavier drugs.

Legalization will lead to reduced consumption, according to studies made in countries (like the Netherlands) that already made that change.

Marijuana does not make consumers violent, as does alcohol.

Consuming cannabis does not have long-term toxic effects on the body, as does smoking tobacco.

Passing Proposition 19 will hit the Mexican drug cartels hard. An estimated 64 percent of the cartel’s revenues come from marijuana. Its cultivation soared by 36 percent, and is higher than at any time in nearly two decades, according to the U.S. State Department. That’s why former Mexican president Vicente Fox has called on his own government to legalize marijuana.

The U.S. has about 5 percent of the world’s population, yet it has 26 percent of its prisoners; some in prison for possession of a single joint and typically people of color.

More information is available at http://www.taxcannabis.org

Contact writer Leo E. Laurence, J.D. at (619) 757-4909 or leopowerhere@msn.com

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Victimless crime - Santa Cruz,CA

City Council, after allowing restricted public comment, asked a few questions of Homeless Services Center [HSC] Executive Director Monica Martinez. It then passed the ordinance as written in spite of objections by Peacecamp2010 founder Ed Frey and others. Frey pointed out (again) that waking sleeping homeless people when they've committed no crime (since the necessity defense given no shelter makes them innocent at trial) is a form of cruel and unusual punishment where there is no crime and no victim (except for the sleeper). I suggested amendments that would require the HSC to have anyone sign up on their waiting list and provide a written receipt at the time which could then be taken immediately to the City Attorney to have the ticket dismissed.
Martinez agreed the "receipt" idea could be done, and Councilmember Madrigal supported it. Whether it will be done or not, however, seems largely in the hands of the City Attorney, who was given the authority to set all the parameters.

What's needed, of course, is to dump the ban entirely as recommended a decade ago by the City's own Homeless Issues Task Force--see http://www.cabinc.org/Research/HTFFinalReport.htm and go to the Introduction. See also "Homeless Issues Task Force Recommends Repeal of Camping Ban in Santa Cruz"
at http://www.huffsantacruz.org/StreetSpiritSantaCruz/136.Homeless%20Issues%20Task%20Force%20Recommends%20Repeal%20of%20Camping%20Ban%20in%20S.C.=12-99.pdf.

Short of that, the City needs to require police not to issue camping tickets when presented with the receipt or--better--adopt the Frey proposal that requires the police to phone HSC before their ticketing expeditions on any night to determine if there is any shelter available. If not, don't wake up and ticket homeless people. Frey, Linda Lemaster, attorney Kate Wells, Councilmember Katherine Beiers, and I are supposed to be meeting on this issue. However since the meeting was scheduled in lieu of the HSC's agreeing to issue a general letter acknowledging their utter lack of walk-in-emergency shelter from April 15 to November 15, it seems more like an HSC dodge than a real search for solutions.

Mayor Coonerty ended up allowing HUFF (whose spokesperson at the meeting was Becky Johnson) 4 minutes. However, in an apparent punitive move he demanded to know who in the audience were HUFF members and how many of them would "give up" their time. This is a policy unique to Coonerty which again cuts back public comment time. Rotkin, the lame-duck Mayor whose term ends in November, was absent, and Coonerty's comment cutback may indicate how he intends to run things in the likely event that the Council selects him as Mayor in November.

The Sentinel did a small story on the Camping Ordinance amendments, which were voted through without modification--though there was some discussion. (Sentinel article at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_16078467 ("Citations waived for homeless on shelter list: Santa Cruz camping ban altered to cover more than winter refuge"

Sentinel writer J.M. Brown told me it was his impression that the City Attorney already dismissed citations in the summer if shelters were full. I found this unlikely since shelters are almost always full and I've not heard of a ticket being dismissed by the City Attorney in this manner. Instead the usual procedure was for the Homeless Services Center [HSC] to issue letters when someone comes to them with a ticket. That letter is then taken to the courts, who fairly routinely dismiss the citations.

Recently, as I mentioned above, the HSC apparently changed that policy--perhaps under pressure from the City Attorney--it's not clear. The more restrictive policy now requires a person seeking to have a ticket dismissed through getting a letter documenting full shelter on the night of the ticket needs to have been on their waiting list on the date of the ticket. The new ordinance, if voted again in two weeks, will go into effect a month later. It will require the same "waiting list" status on the date of the ticket. And will also require the homeless person to contact the City Attorney with proof s/he is on the waiting list.

It's possible this latest minor loosening-of-the-screws was done under pressure from the courts, who recognize the unnecessary court hearings, given the overweening ever-present reality of no shelter. However since it is a nightly reality, allowing police to issue tickets at all is abusive or, as was said in the Jones decision and settlement "cruel and unusual punishment." It may be that the City Attorney may also be nervous about a law suit against the City for the Sleeping Ban.

Frey made the further point that those who choose or need to sleep outdoors should not be punished for that choice if they sleep in places that don't cause anyone else a problem.

Councilmembers Krohn and Sugar proposed a similar measure years ago in December 1998. "Mo stops or tickets for blankets or sleeping without a health-and-safety concern"" was the phrasing.. It was voted down by Rotkin, Matthews, and Beiers among others. See " Activists fight Santa Cruz Sleeping Ban" at http://www.huffsantacruz.org/StreetSpiritSantaCruz/104.Activists%20Fight%20S.C.Sleeping%20Ban=1-99.pdf & http://www.huffsantacruz.org/StreetSpiritSantaCruz/105.S.C.Sleeping%20Ban%28cont.1%29=1-99.pdf .

I'll be playing audio today from the City Council hearing and from interviews afterward with Monica Martinez, Executive Director of the HSC at 6 PM today on 101.1 FM and http://www.freakradio.org. It will be archived at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb100916.mp3.

Also on the air will be Rocky Neptun of San Diego talking about the Spencer settlement. That settlement is supposed to stop police from issuing citations at night to homeless people on the streets. There and in Los Angeles, homeless people aren't required to prove they made diligent efforts to find a shelter bed, or to prove there was no shelter that night by letter or show they were on a waiting list. The fact that there is never enough shelter pn any night is general knowledge This was enough to get the settlement that supposedly requires police to lay off. "Supposedly" because, according to preliminary info from Neptun, they are NOT laying off--in violation of the settlement.

In Santa Cruz, the situation is the same, but the City Attorney and his compliant City Council continue to turn a blind eye to the reality. Why? They need "tools" to drive away homeless people, even the City's own homeless as the domestic depression deepens. And so the city continues to quietly consume itself under cover of darkness.

Meanwhile, Peacecamp2010 activists are the real heroes whose 100+ tickets have forced the situation into the limelilght. They still need blankets, legal support, and food and can be found nightly (and daily) in front of City Hall on Center St. Also check out their website at http://www.peacecamp2010.blogspot.com/ and this website for updates.