Video for the New Marijuana Initiative in California: Regulate Marijuana Like Wine

Judge Jim Gray and Steve Kubby have been hard at work for a new initiative for 2012.

8 thoughts on “Video for the New Marijuana Initiative in California: Regulate Marijuana Like Wine

  1. Kevin Knedler

    I agree. Regulate it like the wine or tobacco industry. In times like this, Spin it as a money MAKER for citizens and government alike.
    No brainer except to those that want to control our private lives– guess that wipes out about 50% or more of the elected officials from the D’s and R’s.

    That is why each LP affiliate needs to get at least one or two people, at a minimum, elected to their state assemblies. They could be sponsors of such bills and also be the watchdog on ballot access laws.

  2. Wayne Root

    Excellent ad. Exactly the kind of ad needed to win elections, or initiatives. This ad points the way the entire LP should be going.

    Great job Steve and Judge Gray.

    Wayne
    Wayne Allyn Root

  3. Chadwick

    An initiative you may be interested in has been updated with an extensive regulatory apparatus tailored to the interests of individuals and growers using the grape wine industry as a model.

    This is the type of model that is called for within the Steve Kubby 2012 initiative. However, without establishing a licensing scheme in his initiative, California would need our legislature to come into action. Having an ineffective regulatory apparatus was one of the key reasons Prop 19 failed at the polls — let’s not make this same mistake again.

    Check out my latest draft at http://ca2012.com/home/?page_id=2

    Cannabem Liberemus,

    Chadwick

  4. Not an MJ User

    Chadwick,

    Your initiative will not pass if it makes the ballot.

    Here’s why:

    1. To impose a 6% tax requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature via Prop 26, and that requires your proposal to go through the legislature.
    2. Your proposal is way too long, conflicts with a half-dozen other laws on the books, is poorly researched, and will have trouble getting past the Attorney General Office review. It will also drive your petition printing costs through the roof.
    3. No GMO ban. Your proposal will immediately be exoricated as a tool of corporate agriculture to drive the current growers out of business, and that will draw opposition from them, which will doom the proposal.
    4. You bring in unnecessary and unneeded wording like “only the active amount of the cannabis in an edible cannabis product shall be included, provided that fifty edible or consumable cannabis products, confections, or drinks, shall not apply;”–you’re not keeping it simple. Prop 19 had those problems as well. Also makes enforcement expensive and tedious.
    5. You’re missing a bunch of code sections that need either renumbering or addressing as part of this proposal.
    6. No means for federal immunity while waiting forever for federal rescheduling.
    7. You never define hemp in a code section, which is necessary for legal purposes. Putting it in an “orders” section doesn’t cut it.

    You appear to have taken an older version of RMLWA2012 and tweaked it to do some other things, but it falls short of a lot of marks. That older version was discarded two months ago as unwieldy.

    In simple terms, RMLWA2012 is a superior proposal.

    BTW, Prop 19 did not fail because of an inferior regulatory apparatus. It failed because it wasn’t sold to the public properly and was not able to withstand the last-second negative advertising blitz against it.

  5. Not an MJ User

    Besides, CA does not need another”extensive regulatory apparatus”, when the current excessive regulatory apparatus that is the state of California suffices just fine.

    Unless, of course, one is inexplicably wedded to big government and wants the regulatory state…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.