“I am an attorney and have been one since 1982. I did my work primarily for California Court of Appeal Justices as well as for a Federal District Court Judge, so my expertise was in neutral evaluations of complex legal and factual situations. I developed Multiple Sclerosis in 1993, but after disastrous side effects from multiple
“I am an attorney and have been one since 1982. I did my work primarily for California Court of Appeal Justices as well as for a Federal District Court Judge, so my expertise was in neutral evaluations of complex legal and factual situations.
I developed Multiple Sclerosis in 1993, but after disastrous side effects from multiple prescription drugs, I was advised to medicate using only herbal cannabis as a nutraceutical. Cannabis use has saved me and my health insurer about $100,000 per year on drug costs alone. The relief from side effects is priceless. Prop. 64 is written to end my ability to grow and use the cannabis I need to treat my MS, so of course I oppose it.
It took me 36 hours to read the complete text of Prop. 64 as well as the many other laws it incorporates by reference which affect what Prop. 64 actually means. The biggest lie that people have been told about Prop. 64 is that it has no impact on medical marijuana users; that is totally false. The people behind Prop. 64 MUST lie about its impacts on medical marijuana users, because most voters would not end medical use in order to let the corporations sell to recreational users and send sick people for whom prescription drugs had terrible side effects, back into the waiting arms of Big Pharma.
Here is my original written analysis of Prop. 64, written into the text of 64 so readers can follow along: http://marian0280.wix.com/4pepper.
Earlier this year I met Valerie Corral of Women’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM) in Santa Cruz at a pro-64 event attended by Conrad, Nortis and Valenzuela. I asked her if Chris Conrad had asked her to endorse Prop. 64, because he had been working on the 215 Warriors to endorse it. She said Sean Parker had called her in person and told her he put sections/provisions into Prop. 64 to protect her.
I told her that wasn’t true, and explained how Prop. 64 actually REPEALS Prop. 215 and does away with medical marijuana. After looking at the info and analysis I sent her, she concluded that “Prop. 64 sucks cronies.”
That’s also what the California Libertarian Party’s nine-member Executive Committee unanimously concluded after a yes presentation by Judge Jim Gray (who couldn’t answer any of their questions. He finally admitted that he had not READ Prop. 64 so the #NoOn64 presentation by me plus copies of the above-noted analysis steered the California Libertarian Party in the right direction.
“Your group provides marijuana as medicine. If you search a PDF file of Prop. 64, you will see it never uses the word “medicine” not even once. Instead it treats marijuana as a dangerous drug like alcohol and tobacco, and makes it illegal for anyone under 21 to have access to it. Prop. 64 will make it a crime for parents to give sick children herbal marijuana or marijuana extracts.
Prop. 64 also makes California law subservient to federal law. What that means is if the FDA/DEA reschedules CBD as a level II controlled substance, and if Prop. 64 passes, people will need a prescription for your CBD cream. But that’s not all.
If the federal government gives someone, like Bayer, a license to use its patent on cannabinoids to treat inflammation and nerve problems, you might find yourselves being sued by Bayer like Monsanto sues farmers caught accidentally growing GMO corn or cotton. Only by keeping Prop. 215 intact, which protects patients’ right to use herbal marijuana as an alternative medicine, will people using cannabis extracts in medicine be protected from this above scenario.
But what it also means, more to the point of the people funding Prop. 64, like George Soros and Monsanto and Bayer shareholders, is that the only form of hemp that will be legal to grow in California will be GMO hemp, because NO natural hemp plant can meet the federal definition of hemp as having less than .03 percent THC.
Right now, under Prop. 215, patients can grow what really is, from a botanical perspective, “hemp” even if under a Federal definition it is marijuana, i.e., cannabis sativa with less than about 2% THC and a ratio of THC to other cannabinoids that renders it not noticeably psychoactive.
If you think the passage of Prop. 64 is going to help you with your county’s bans, that is legally incorrect. The only defense we have against MMRSA is Prop. 215, which Prop. 64 repeals. MMRSA and 64 are designed to work ‘stronger together’. This is why we must not repeal Prop. 215.
I have been making videos explaining why Prop. 64 does not actually do what its supporters falsely claim, and how it ends Prop. 215. You can see some of them here (more are coming, including a debate between me and Lanny Swerdlow in Laguna Woods last week).
Prop. 64 is not going to release anyone from prison. It is going to send MORE people into the criminal “justice” system because it REcriminaluzes things Prop. 215 decriminalized.
Prop. 64 is going to end the Not-for-profit medical herbal alternative system based on cannabis, and it gives $2 million of our taxes every year, forever, to Big Pharma to turn herbal marijuana into patent-able “pharmacological agents” that allows this herb to be sold to the ill and dying for the outrageous prices charged for, e.g., Marinol, synthetic THC.
Did I mention that Prop. 64 will make it a crime to give sick Vets cannabis and cannabis extracts? It also makes all cannabis extracts illegal to make.
If you haven’t read Prop. 64 with a critical eye and gotten some input from an attorney trained in statutory interpretation rather than some burnt-out stoner sop or poser activist, I hope you’ll look at it again from a more informed viewpoint having read this thesis and followed the link to the text.
There are some attorneys who claim that Prop. 64 does not repeal Prop. 215 and you know who we speak of, but that is patently untrue. Most of these attorneys are actually being PAID by the yes on 64 campaign to render such opinions.
You cannot have two acts that occupy the same space -California- when one act –Prop. 64 — makes it a crime for anyone under 21 to use cannabis and treats it like a dangerous drug like tobacco and alcohol, and the other act — Prop. 215– treats it like herbal medicine so that anyone who needs it, regardless of age, may use.
Prop. 64 repeals Prop. 215. Is that really something the Sisters of CBD or any citizen wants to support?”
Letitia E. Pepper, esq.