Reefer Madness. Redux

2010-10-09T06:26:25Z

In 1936, "Tell the Children" was released in theaters. You may know it better as "Reefer Madness."
    In the film, a group of high school kids are lured into using "marihuana" by a couple of "pushers." Their experimentation immediately leads to disastrous results, including vehicular manslaughter, attempted rape, insanity, murder, suicide, and (gasp!) really, really fast piano playing.
    It ends, famously, with a high school principal pointing at the camera and suggesting that the events just portrayed are likely to happen again, except this time, to your children (won't somebody think of YOUR children!?!?!?).
 This was the first time that anti-pot activists played on parents’ fears with over-the-top, exaggerated claims about the effects of marijuana, but far from the last.
    In fact, this has been, to varying degrees, the modus operandi for the anti-pot crowd pretty much ever since.  But not anymore, right?
 I mean, our last three presidents have all admitted to smoking weed. They turned out OK – or at least turned into presidents.
    Medicinal marijuana has been legalized in 14 states, plus the District of Columbia. Eight more states have pending legislation or ballot measures to legalize it.
    Heck, right here in California we have a proposition, No. 19, that  would legalize marijuana and permit local government to regulate and tax commercial production, distribution and sale of the dastardly weed.  You would think that we could have a straightforward honest debate about the pros and cons of the proposition, without resorting to fearmongering, right?
 Not so fast, Kimosabe.
    I recently received my "Official Voter Information Guide" for the upcoming California general election. As someone who has never missed an opportunity to vote, I eagerly await Nov. 2.
  The first thing I do upon receiving the OVIG is open to the propositions section and read the arguments for and against each one. It's similar to a Cliffs Notes version of the proposition. I was especially eager to read the “Argument Against Proposition 19" section, on page 17.

Or, as I have dubbed it, "Reefer Madness, Redux."

  Now, this new version of fear peddling is much more subtle than it has been in years past. There'll be no jumping out of windows or attempted rapes – although there is implied vehicular manslaughter. (Old habits die hard).
  Inconspicuous though it may be, "Argument Against Prop. 19" follows the exact same template set those many years ago in the film by renowned exploitation film director Dwain Esper.

  Why should we vote against prop 19?

A: Because the authors made several huge mistakes in writing this initiative, which will have severe, unintended consequences.

*Scared yet? We'll let this slide. Let's even pretend that these severe and unintended consequences outweigh those severe and unintended consequences that are a direct result of creating a dangerous black market for a relatively harmless and potentially beneficial plant.

 B: Mothers Against Drunk Driving strongly opposes Prop. 19 because it because it will prevent bus and trucking companies from requiring that their drivers be drug-free. Companies won't be able to take action against a "stoned" driver until after he has a wreck, not before.

*They won't be able to take action before someone has a wreck? Even if all three of the precogs predict it, and there is no minority report? I kid, of course, but it will still be illegal to drive under the influence of marijuana, just as it is today. The only difference is you won't be able to fire the driver when he shows up on Monday because he decided to unwind on Friday night with a doobie instead of a scotch.

 C: School districts may currently require school bus drivers to be drug-free, but if Prop. 19 passes, their hands will be tied until after tragedy strikes. (won't somebody think of YOUR children?!?!?!?!?!?!) A school bus driver would be forbidden to smoke marijuana on school grounds or while actually behind the wheel, but could arrive for work with marijuana in his system.

*Same scare tactic as before, but this time . . . it’s happening to your kids! Notice, it says "could arrive to work with marijuana in his system". OMG, not in his system! anything but that! Won't somebody think of th. . . what. . .oh . . .really? I've just been informed that marijuana can stay in a persons system for as long as 40 days. Having it in one’s system by no means indicates inebriation. Of course, the driver would not be able to work while inebriated, as that’s still illegal.

 D: Public School Superintendent John Snavely warns that Prop. 19 could cost our schools as much as $9.4 billion in lost federal funding.

*Should President Barack Obama and Congress decide to cut off federal funding, which is possible, this could conceivably happen. But there has been no indication that this would be their response. In fact, Obama has taken a very laissez-faire approach to the states with regards to their marijuana laws (unlike, say, immigration). Very unlikely.

 E: Employers who permit employees to sell cosmetics or school candy bars to co-workers in the office may now also be required to allow any employee with a "license" to sell marijuana in the office.

*I actually laughed out loud when I read this. I hope it is true. "Sure, Bobby can sell his magazine subscriptions to save the rec center, but only if Moonbeam over here can slang dank and kind ganja gooballs in the lobby." Perfect.

 F: Under current law, if a worker shows up smelling of alcohol or marijuana, an employer may remove the employee from a dangerous or sensitive job, such as running medical lab tests in a hospital or operating heavy equipment. But if Prop. 19 passes, the worker with marijuana in his or her system may not be removed from the job until after an accident occurs.

*Do you see what they did here? It's the same "in his system" bait and  switch as in example C. If the proposition passes, they could still remove the employee for smelling of alcohol or marijuana if they had reason to believe he or she was under the influence. They just wouldn't be able to remove the worker for simply having it in his or her system (40 days).

 G: The California Police Chiefs Association opposes Prop. 19 because proponents "forgot" to include a standard for what constitutes "driving under the influence." Under Prop. 19, a driver may legally drive even if a blood test shows they have marijuana in their system.

*Noticing a trend yet? They didn't forget to include a standard for what constitutes driving under the influence. There is already one in place. One more time, say it with me: It is, and will continue to be, illegal to drive while under the influence of marijuana. Also, having marijuana "in your system" is not the same as being under its influence. Also, it seems to imply that those in law enforcement are against Prop. 19, which is absolutely not the case.

 H: Gubernatorial candidates Republican Meg Whitman and Democrat Jerry Brown have both studied Prop. 19 and are urging all Californians to vote no.

*This isn't really a scare tactic. I just think it's a clear argument in FAVOR of Prop 19.

 I: Don't be fooled. The proponents are hoping you will think Prop. 19 is about "medical" marijuana. It is not. Prop. 19 makes no changes either way in the medical marijuana laws.

*No. No they won't. At least not the ones that I've seen. For example, the  “Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 19”, on the same page 17 of the OVIG, does not mention medical marijuana once. Nor does the "Argument in Favor of Propositon 19" on the preceding page. Fascinating that the opponents of Prop. 19 would accuse the proponents of trying to mislead the voting public. Pot, meet kettle.

J: Prop. 19 is simply a jumbled legal nightmare that will make our  highways, our workplaces and our communities less safe. We strongly urge you to vote "No" on Prop. 19. 

*The high school principal is pointing at you through the camera. Tell The Children. Version 2.0.

Go ahead, vote "No" if you like. Or, vote "Yes". But don't vote scared.

Next week I am going to visit some of our local dispensaries to find out how they stand on Prop 19. You might be surprised by what I discover.

Image #1 from nocconservates.org
image #2 from godandscience.org
Image #3 from Iloveweed.net
Image #4 from 420times.com

Image #5 is the work of Brandon Darnell

Dispensary moratorium extended

2009-08-26T03:45:23Z

During Tuesday night's hearing, the Sacramento City Council voted unanimously to extend the citywide moratorium on medical cannabis dispensary openings and expansion for ten months and fifteen days, totaling a year of halted development.

The city is now 42 days into the moratorium's original 45. In that time, city government has been collecting information on cannabis clubs and invited existing dispensaries to register themselves within 30 days, a time window that closed on August 16. The registration has ceased; the research has not.

"We felt that 45 days was just too short," said City Special Projects Manager Michelle Heppner, who helped conduct the fact-finding mission. "Things moved very slowly. We would call the city, leave a message, get a call back in two days from the wrong person, it was hectic."

As outlined in the original moratorium, new cannabis clubs will be prevented from opening and existing clubs will be unable to physically expand their operations. There is no limitation on the number of patients a dispensary serves, however.

Cannabis club co-owner Lanette Davies spoke on behalf of the dispensary community and voiced her support for setting standards on practices.

American Association for Medical Cannabis state director and longtime medical cannabis activist Ryan Landers also spoke briefly, reminding the City Council of the seriousness of medical marijuana. "It saves people's lives, helps them keep medicine down, makes people eat. Cannabis is vital."

About 40 cannabis dispensaries registered with the city, a number that almost doubled the city's previous estimates. Those that did not register in the 30 day period will not be excluded from considerations, Heppner said. Registration consisted of providing basic information that proved the dispensary in question was open before June 15, but did not probe any further into the structure and practices of the businesses.

"We don't really know what [the clubs] do," Heppner said, "but that will be coming later when we consider regulations. That'll be the interesting part."

In the next few weeks and months, the research task force will communicate with dispensaries, compare regulatory options with other California cities and hold public meetings to invite comment. Current plans include an as-yet unscheduled meeting in late September and a law enforcement tour of Oakland dispensaries.

The moratorium will expire on July 13, 2010 unless it is further extended. Under city code, emergency ordinances can last up to two years.

Newest articles on The Sacramento Press tagged as "hash"

Reefer Madness. Redux

Dispensary moratorium extended