First, let's look at the introduction:
"Cannabis consumers rejoiced at the idea of being able to buy from their neighbors or at parties—just as they already do—with no legal retribution."
Where is she living? It's not the same California as I am. Unless your neighbor happens to be a legal dispensary (they're getting harder to find, especially around L.A. County), and you have a doctor's recommendation (admittedly, easy to get), there is most certainly legal retribution. And it has never, to my knowledge, been legal to sell or distribute freely at parties. Make no mistake, cannabis is still illegal in California. Even a doctor's recommendation does not protect you; there is great debate over Proposition 215 and SB 420 and exactly what they legally allow and what they don't. Over 400 dispensaries were recently closed in L.A. County alone, and it's well known that Cooley and Trutanich would be just as happy to see the rest closed down too.
"The initiative itself is a hazy maze of regulations and controls, some of which are ambiguous and confusing even for those well-versed in marijuana law."
It's true that some portions could use some clarification. What people need to realize is that this initiative is a foundation, not a panacea. I know that it's disappointing for some, but Prop 19 is not meant to cure the effects of 80 years of cannabis prohibition overnight. It's a only the first step.
"...for an issue that would have such a direct and unprecedented impact on our daily lives, it’s crucial to decide your vote based on knowledge, rather than assumption."
I agree completely. So let's look at these alleged "myths"...
"Unless your neighbor happens to be a legal dispensary (they're getting harder to find, especially around L.A. County" What about the hundreds of delivery services that come straight to your door?
ReplyDeleteWhat about the corporations backing the bill that want to monopolize the weed industry like everything else?
What about Jack Herer, does his opinion mean nothing to you?
"I know that it's disappointing for some, but Prop 19 is not meant to cure the effects of 80 years of cannabis prohibition overnight. It's a only the first step."
The first step down the wrong path. We as the people hold the power and we should NOT settle for a bill with only greed in mind.
"What about Jack Herer, does his opinion mean nothing to you?"
ReplyDeleteHerer's family has come forward saying that Jack would have supported the bill once it's on the ballot. There is no evidence that CCHH in 2012 will even make it to the ballot - it's simply too liberal, nobody is going to vote for full legalization with less restrictions than alcohol, society views Marijuana as more dangerous... however unfounded that might be.
thank you Erica Snow. The opponents suggest greed is Richard Lee's motivation, and I don't know the man. Granted, he's in business, but the message I read is that the opponents are more likely motivated by greed and maintaining the status quo. Vote Yes, and don't believe the lies that any law, much less a proposition, is engraved in stone for perpetuity. Whatever wrinkles may exist in this Prop's language can be ironed out in due time. First things first, get the current opportunity that includes the words LEGALIZE POSSESSION passed. Vote Yes.
ReplyDelete"Cannabis consumers rejoiced at the idea of being able to buy from their neighbors or at parties—just as they already do—with no legal retribution."
ReplyDeleteI interpreted this sentence differently than you did. I understood it to mean "as they already do, BUT with no legal retribution". It's not entirely clear as it's written, but I think that's what she meant.
I appreciate the debate though - I'm still not sure where I stand on this one.
"Cannabis consumers rejoiced at the idea of being able to buy from their neighbors or at parties—just as they already do—with no legal retribution."
ReplyDeletei agree that ms. snow totally misinterpreted this sentence. the fact that the dashes are there means that the sentence says, "Cannabis consumers rejoiced at the idea of being able to buy from their neighbors or at parties... with no legal retribution." it is clear. i know dragonfly de la luz reportedly studied english in university, but i don't fault her for not "dumbing down" her writing to accommodate those who don't know the simple rules of sentence structure.
if this is how far off your interpretation is of this very simple sentence, ms. snow, how can you be trusted to interpret anything you read at all? i'd say you are HARDLY qualified to spout your interpretation of anything written at all--not the stoners against prop. 19 blog, and certainly not the initiative itself.