Dear Letitia Pepper

  Dear Letitia Pepper:
    Can I possess all the marijuana my six plants produce, if Prop. 64 passes?
 
    Signed,
 
    Worried Patient with HIV
 
Dear Worried Patient:
    Bad news.  You may not even be allowed to grow six plants.  And if you are allowed to do so, you might not be able to keep more than an ounce of what you grew.
 
    Signed,
 
Letitia Pepper
 
 0000056 auma  I began this next email because I get questions like this, and I am very, very disturbed by all the people who are not attorneys, let alone experienced attorneys, who are out promoting Prop. 64 to worried people, all looking for answers,who are going to be in so much more danger if Prop. 64 passes than they are in now.
     “All those people who are not attorneys” include people like Aaron Brown, and Chris Conrad, who are pretending to be even more competent than am I to do the complicated legal analysis entailed in deciphering Prop. 64.  Because, of course, I am “whacko,” crazy,” have “no analysis,” and, or course, I lie.
     Fine if they want to fool themselves, but it’s not okay since they are trying to advise other people who will be in deep trouble if they take that advice and AUMA passes because they voted for it.  Conrad and Brown can be totally wrong, but they don’t care; they won’t be the ones getting arrested.
    There are also people like Patrick Rohde, who claims to be a consultant on water and chemicals, who is lying about his corporate affiliation, and telling people to turn themselves in to the state under MMRSA, even if they are even just growing a few plants at home hydroponically.  He is totally wrong, but he doesn’t care.  He won’t be the one being busted if Prop. 64 passes when, based on the information people gave to the Bureau of Marijuana Regulation under MMRSA, the Prop. 64 police, the ones created by the new Bureau of Marijuana Control, go to those people’s homes to confiscate whatever they have over the amount (an ounce) allowed under Prop. 64.
        Make no mistake: AUMA/Prop. 64 is totally fucked up, and will fuck up a lot of people’s if it passes.
    Here’s an example of just how fucked up Prop 64 is.  (And by the way, if you don’t vote for it, don’t worry, there are people in law enforcement who can’t WAIT to vote for it. The police are using Prop. 64 as a way to fundraise from people who hate marijuana, but that does NOT mean they are voting NO themselves!  Prop.64 is full employment for marijuana lawyers AND for law enforcement!)
                                     EXAMPLE OF HOW FUCKED UP PROP. 64 REALLY IS
   Remember the Worried Patient with HIV?  So, if you grow your own marijuana, how much can you possess, at home, that you grew, without being busted?  Bet you can’t tell by reading this POS!  Let’s take a look together.
     It is “sort of clear” that possession is limited to an ounce.  Section 11362.1, subdivision (a) says, “Subject to Sections 11362.2, 11362.3, 11362.4, and 11362.45, but notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall be lawful under state and local law, and shall not be a violation of state or local law, for persons 21 years of age or older to: (1) Possess, process, transport, purchase, obtain, or give away to persons 21 years of age or older without any compensation whatsoever, not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana not in the form of concentrated cannabis.
       This is only “sort of clear” because it says that the ounce is “subject to” other law as, which means that the right to have an ounce is also subject to those other code sections —Sections 11362.2, 11362.3, 11362.4, and 11362.45 — and also that the privilege to have an ounce without being arrested is also influenced by “but notwithstanding any other provision of law.”  We’ll get back to that scary little phrase, “notwithstanding any other provision of law” later. I’m saving the best of the bad news for last.
     So do those other code sections change the privilege to have an ounce?  Let’s just look at one, section 11262.2.  It says, at subsection (a), “11362.2.(a) Personal cultivation of marijuana under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 11362.1 is subject to the following restrictions:(1) A person shall plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process plants in accordance with local ordinances, if any, adopted in accordance with subdivision (b) of this section.”
.    So guess what?  Your city or county could adopt a local ordinance that simply prevents you from even growing that ounce, by, for example, requiring you to pay for a permit to grow at home, and to agree to warrantless searches as a condition of the permit.
    Look as long as you like, you will not find any clear statement that you can possess as much marijuana your plants produce, no matter how much it is. You will see that you can possess “the marijuana” from your plants, but it does not say you can possess all the marijuana. So some police officer will say, yes, you can possess an ounce of what you grew, but no more.
    I am not kidding, the people behind Prop. 64 are EVIL.  It would have been very easy to say “all the marijuana” from your own plants, but no, this POS proposition is supported by NORML for a reason: full employment for marijuana lawyers.
      Don’t forget, Prop. 64 clearly says, people can only possess an ounce.  It never clearly says, you can possess all the marijuana you grew yourself.
     And what if you do not grow your own?  How much can you possess at home without being busted?
     And if the amount you can have at home depends on you having grown it yourselves, then what if the police say, “you have too much and we do not believe you grew it yourself.  We think you bought it on the black market.”  What do you do then? Have to hire an attorney?  Prove you grew it yourself?  Prove you violated federal law in order to present a state court defense?
    See what I mean about fucked up?
    And now the best (or worse) for last:
    This section, section 11362.1, gives you the privilege to possess an ounce, subject to some other code sections, AND that “notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall be lawful under state and local law, and shall not be a violation of state or local law,” to possess that ounce.
    Drumroll, please.
    This POS Prop. 64 also says:
“SECTION 11. CONSTRUCTION AND INTEPRETATION.  The provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purposes and intent of the Control, Regulate and Tax the Adult Use of Marijuana Act; provided,however, no provision or provisions of this Act shall be interpreted or construed in a manner to create a positive conflict with federal law, including the federal Controlled Substances Act, such that the provision or provisions of this Act and federal law cannot consistently stand together.”
    Do I need to tell you what Chris Conrad and Aaron Brown are NOT going to tell you?  Possession of an ounce of marijuana is STILL totally illegal under federal law.  So why did the Prop. 64 people make our incoming state law (if Prop. 64 passes), subservient to FEDERAL LAW?  WHY?  Ask these “experts” that question.
 
   Meanwhile, these “experts” call me “crazy,”  “rife with conspiracy theories, anecdotes,” say I have “no references,” and “no data.”
 
    Seriously, who would you rather get a legal opinion from:
Choice A:an attorney with 34 years experience who was regularly hired, over and over again, by a top law firm and top judges of the state and federal courts, who NEEDS to be able to grow and use a lot of marijuana because of her MS, and who has consistently supported decriminalization, via the Jack Herer initiative, or
 
Choice B: an expert witness, whose specialty is not in law but in yield and canopy sizes, who has most recently been hired by the Drug Policy Alliance (or its PAC, the DPA), an organization that has never promoted decriminalization for all adults, and whose use of marijuana does not appear to be based on a physical ailment that requires access to a lot of marijuana, so who will be okay if AUMA passes, or
 
Choice C: someone with an unknown background or expertise, who “read” the bill, and, in his own, unbiased opinion, “gave everyone an executive summary that did a pretty good job of listing the relevant points, impartially”
 
                                         SHOW YOU CARE:
   SHARE THIS WITH FRIENDS & LOVED ONES GROWING AT HOME!
Sent from Yahoo Mail. Get the app
Show original message
On Monday, August 22, 2016 12:57 AM, Aaron Brown <baron.arown@gmail.com> wrote:
The only reason I support the bill I read it, and I gave everyone an executive summary that did a pretty good job of listing the relevant points, impartially. So I don’t know why you think I’d agree with you. I read every section, every page, and the good outweighed the bad. I’d have responded to you publicly, but you sounded so crazy, I didn’t feel the need to. Rife with conspiracy theories, anecdotes, no references, no data. You really have no idea how bad you sound. But I wanted to make sure you did, so that you know that intelligent people aren’t persuaded by your crap in the least. A public debate? I don’t have the time. I’m not making money growing weed like you. And trying to preserve your black market sales in order to keep yourself in business is really the crony capitalism you’re pretending to be against. Ironic.

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:40 AM, <letitiaepepper@yahoo.com> wrote:

Face it, if the Libertarians had endorsed this POS, you’d be praising those “nine insular” people and you and the liars behind AUMA would be bragging about it.
    I’ll have a great night, assured that fewer and fewer people will vote yes.  It’s just like Prop. 19; once people can be persuaded to read it, they hate it.   You guys’ best hope of this passing is that people don’t actually read it and think about it and discuss it.  So every time you guys engage any of us in this kind of public written debate, you bleed yes voters.
      So, want to do a live, oral debate?  Sleep tight!
Sent from Yahoo Mail. Get the app


On Monday, August 22, 2016 12:29 AM, Aaron Brown <baron.arown@gmail.com> wrote:



I was pointing that out to you. Have a good night.

On Aug 22, 2016 12:16 AM, <letitiaepepper@yahoo.com> wrote:

Give it up, kid.  Resorting to name calling, denying reality, and just plain silliness isn’t working.

Sent from Yahoo Mail. Get the app


On Monday, August 22, 2016 12:06 AM, Aaron Brown <baron.arown@gmail.com> wrote:





On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:39 PM, <letitiaepepper@yahoo.com> wrote:

         I read Aaron’s most recent objections, and he obviously doesn’t want to admit that Prop. 64 IS BAD.
 
        For example, he says, “It’s this specific phrase that has no basis in truth:“harm than good, damaging medical availability, and creating additional criminal offenses and regulations.” 
       No, that statement by the libertarian Executive Committee is totally true.  Here’s why.
   By limiting how much marijuana someone can grow or possess, and how it can be grown, Prop. 64 doesdamage medical availabilty.  Aaron sounds like someone who only smokes a little marijuana, not a patient. 

Marijuana has kept me alive through crippling depression and my mother alive through the most horrendous chemotherapy treatment available. Make an ass out of yourself more, please.
      People who are really sick (remember the sick and dying, the people who helped get Prop. 215 passed, and made it possible for everyone, including Aaron, to use and grow marijuana with much less chance of being arrested and successfully prosecuted???) often need a lot more. If you have cancer and want to make Rick Simpson Oil, it can take pounds and pounds to make enough.  Ditto for many chronic illnesses, like HIV. For example, I just had a text from Alfred in northern California, who is disabled and would need to spend more than $5,000 per year based on current, un-highly-taxed prices, to meet his (non-cancer) needs if he could not grow.
Totally ridiculous. I read the numbers, he’s have to grow thousands of plants for that to be true. And he’s have to be selling them for commercial or medical use. You might actually want to read the law.
     If you have autoimmune diseases like I do, like Kristen Peskuski does, like other people do, and you need leafs to juice and a lot of them, and need to grow enough for the winter, too, you cannot possibly get enough from the one plant that you might only be allowed under those local jurisdiction rules.  And don’t think all patients can do this indoors!  Prop. 64 sets it up indoor growing may be the only lawful possibility,if growing is actually allowed.
It is. Not only that, it leaves most of the cultivation laws up to the county itself. The law itself allows for six plants, and the counties can decide more or less.
    Plus, guess what?  There was a program on the radio talking about the increasing temperatures and climate change and more use of electricity, and they were saying that people might need a prescription to be allowed to use air conditioning!  So how realistic is it to think the government is really going to let inividual patients grow marijuana indoors?
I don’t know? You sound more like a conspiracy theorist than like you’re making an actual point here.
  And those additional criminal offenses?  They really DO come with AUMA.  Currently, people of any age can avoid arrest and prosecution by obtaining a doctor’s recommendation or approval.  Parents giving children under 21 marijuana as medicine cannot be charged with a crime.   Patients can grow as many plans as they need, and it’s not a crime.  But if AUMA passes, grow more than the number of plants your local jurisdiction allows, don’t follow their rules, and it’s a fine-able offense, and, depending on how the city writis its municipal codes, can also be treated, at the city’s discretion, as a misdemeanor.
Uh, okay. So we live in a world where you’d be arrested as an adult for doing the same thing with alcohol or any other controlled substance, but marijuana is A-OK? Sounds like your head’s in the clouds here. Marijuana is not a panacea, it’s a drug.
    Aaron claims that “in reality, [AUMA] replaces current criminal offenses with fines, changes the medical marijuana to govern commercial and medical marijuana, and leaves the entire medical marijuana industry unchanged. Not true, not at all. If people can’t read my analysis and figure this out, I can’t make them see.  If AUMA provides for no criminal offenses, and only fines, why does AUMA incorporate penal provisions by reference?  Didn’t Aaron read what I said about 16 year olds going to jail for 16 months, to 2 yr, to 3 for cultivation?  And how that would be applied to adults when the Legislature changed the game rules under Section 10, Amendment?
The original legislation incorporates those penal provisions. AUMA does not remove them.
However, since commercial marijuana will be legal, the only people who need a prescription to get it are people under the age of 21. First, notice that those two thoughts don’t belong together.  How does legal commercial marijuana lead to “only people under 21 need a prescription”?!! There’s no connection between the two things. There is no such thing as a prescription for marijuana.  Second,”prescriptions” are specific, DEA-controlled forms that cannot be used for herbal marijuana!  Third, no one under 21 is allowed to use marijuana for any reason.  I dare Aaron to explain, with citations, what section of AUMA allows children to use marijuana for ANY reason.
I dare you to cite anything you’re saying first. That was the issue from the beginning, berating me for your mistake and blaming it on me doesn’t change it.
       It is a highly regulative bill, I won’t deny that, [you can’t, obviously] but the regulations are much more reasonable than current standards and lack of regulation, [not in my opinion! I have been able to grow marijuana as medicine with no stinking licenses, no taxes, no permits and  no conditions such as warrantless searches.  And I didn’t need any state-imposed standards to get fabulous results from marijuana that grew outside like a weed!] where there’s literally criminal gangs and thugs fighting drug wars in northern California.  [And they are fighting about turf, and profits, and AUMA will not end that!  Its higher prices will just give the black market more incentive to step into the marijuana market again.] 
Okay, and in my opinion it is. Good for you for having a different opinion.
      I don’t think that perfect should be the enemy of the good, [God, these people always use the same glib lines; it’s like a pick-up line in a barWhat if I said, I don’t think we should voluntarily vote for any bad law? 
Then you’ve made the argument something else entirely, because we never agreed it was bad law.
What if I said, no date at all is better than  BAD date?  What if Aaron said, that guy asking me out looks and acts like a serial killer, but he looks better than the guy who is a serial killer, so what the heck, I might as well go out with him, he’s the only date available?  Would THAT be a good idea?
Jesus, this strawman stuck out so bad the crows flew away. Completely irrelevant to anything we’ve discussed, and as an analogy, it just sucks.
  Is voting for a terrible initative a good idea, just because it’s the only one on the ballot? Unlike the presidentialelection, where we are going to end up with one of four candidates no matter what, in a vote on propositions, we do NOT HAVE TO end up with ANY proposition at all.  We can just stick with what we’ve got. And what we’ve got is the best-for-the-99-percent marijuana law in the land, which is why the global elite wangt to take Prop. 215 down.
Once again those conspiracy theories.
     as an asnwer to and this bill is a huge improvement on the status quo. [This is not a bill

Sorry, proposition. I did make that small mistake.
, and it is NOT any improvement at all on the status quo.!!!  It asks people to exchange a constitutionally protected right to grow, possess and use as much cannabis as they or their loved ones need for a mere revocable privilege to use, possess and grow a very limited amount of marijuana.  Just how is THAT a “huge improvement?]

Maybe not for you, just all the other people who are constantly being killed off in Northern California and Mexico because the drug cartels. I actually know those people, so I care about them more than someone who wants to grow lots of weed in their house.

    This bill also changes current law directly, something that can be done again in the future. Incremental steps are sometimes the way to success, not getting everything all at once.  [Aaron must think we are all idiots. 

Just you.
Look how much time and money it’s taken to get this POS on the ballot, and it still may well not pass — and if public opinion continues to erode — which it will — it won’t pass.  So the claim that this is something that can be done in the future is like saying, “Anyone can become president!”  Sure. Tell that to Bernie Sanders.
    Plus, incrementally BAD steps are the way to hell.  And AUMA is a BAD, BAD step for sure.
Good opinions, once again.
 
I honestly believe that the continued drug war is much more dangerous than this legislation for the lives of Central and South Americans who have their corruption fed by the black market currently in place.  [Earth to Aaron: did your mother try to get you to eat your dinner by telling you that children in India were starving?  And if so, didn’t you wonder how eating your casserole was going to feed starving kids in India?  Well, this argument about people in Central and South America benefiting from AUMA passing in California is equally specious.  Is passing AUMA in California going to end the black market in Central and South America?  Or are those higher prices for pot just going to fuel a black market here?  Think hard about this one; the answer seems pretty darn obvious to me!]
That’s because you’re an idiot that doesn’t even understand simple economics. Black markets only exist when things aren’t available or are prohibitively expensive. It’s people taking advantage of the market that exists that it too risky for most business ventures to invest in. When more business invests and is allow to create more plants, this increases supply, which lowers prices. And since the drug will be available and growable, your entire argument is specious. Think hard rather than telling others to do so, you could never catch up to me.


As for them telling us to vote, they give their positions with no explanations. [Wow,  I thought the reason the Executive Committee said it was aking a no position on Prop. 64 was pretty clear: more harm than benefit, damaging medical availability, and creating additional criminal offenses and regulations.  I thought they were also going to mention crony capitalism, because that was the first oral reason given at the meeting,]  

You have a weird sense of clarity if you use words so vague with no specific examples or explanations. It’s clear to you in your own head, but everyone else will interpret it differently because it’s entirely ambiguous and means nothing. Sorry for calling you out for being vague.
Neither informative nor helpful. [In your opinion, which appears to be the opinion of someone working really, really  hard to rehabilitate people’s views of this terrible proposition with platitudes and illogical arguments.]

Says the pot to the kettle? I haven’t even seen one logical statement so far, let alone a factual one. And your analogies are like comparing water to the moon. They make no sense.


 
Calling something a recommendation is a sly way of getting people to do things while avoiding telling someone “why”.[Calling the written statement of the Executive Committee a “recommendation” and a “sly way” to “get” people to do things is dishonest and misstates the Committee’s letter.  That letter says, “and one of the agenda items was to take positions on the November ballot propositions.”  I.e., for the Committee to take positions. 
Okay, call it whatever you want. But a position of a party is a recommendation to its party members. Denying that is really just a joke.
The letter contains no recommendation that anyone do anything — just tells people what nine members of the Libertarian Party’s Executive Committee think about the propositions.  The fact that nine people, people who normally support “marijuana legalization,” and have done so for the last 40 years,  thought that Prop. 64 sucks
Right, because nine insular people thinking the same thing never led anyone astray. Your hostility has proven that any descending opinion is yelled off, making your credibility about a 0.
was probably intended to prompt whoever read that fact to be curious and THINK about Prop. 64 and maybe do their own research.]
So you guys don’t have to do any research, you just go off of feelings, opinions, and conspiracy theories? How about you link your research next time so I don’t have to call you out on your bullshit.
   If they actually were recommendations, the “why” would be included, not just the binary choice they made.  [And they weren’t recommendations, so there you go.]
Ok, so your positions have no backing. I will wholly ignore your positions instead of your recommendations, if that makes you happier.


Just my two cents.  I’ll see you the two cents and raise you $50 bucks.  Your arguments about the Executive Committee’s position on Prop. 64 are unpersuasive to me, and, I’ll bet, to others as well.
True belief is hard to persuade a person out of, and since I really don’t care enough about you to enlighten you, it seems like a waste of my time. I provided my source and told everyone to make their own decisions. You’ve basically attacked me while being a total ass.
 
   Prop. 64 still sucks, and I am still voting no.
Cool. You haven’t addressed a single point I made, so you’ve proven to me that you’re dodging my arguments and trying to slyly replace them with your own, simply because you can’t make any arguments. You rely on anecdotes, bad analogies, and a whole lot of bullshit. Enjoy voting no, I’ll be voting yes.
 
Letitia E. Pepper 
Sent from Yahoo Mail. Get the app


On Sunday, August 21, 2016 9:11 PM, “Starchild sfdreamer@earthlink.net [SFBayCannabisCommunity]” <SFBayCannabisCommunity@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:



Hi Aaron,
I asked Letitia Pepper about the language you mention, since it was her wording. Her response below.
Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))
Begin forwarded message:


Date: August 21, 2016 8:08:54 PM PDT
To: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net>
Cc: Lanette Davies <cpr4mercy@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [bayareafaeries] Fwd: [SFBayCannabisCommunity] California Libertarian Party and Valerie Corral of WAMM Agree: “No on Prop. 64.”


I had rechecked that issue before you just asked.  The text itself never explicitly says marijuana is medicine nor that it has any medical value. It implies that by referring to “medical marijuana,” but that is not a positive statement that marijuana is medicine or has such value.  Donald Lyman, the proponent, takes the position that the evidence of marijuana’s medical value is still out; in other words, he’s a liar just like the DEA.

  And by specifically stating that its “privileges” of use, possession and cultivation only apply to people 21 and older, Prop. 64 obviously doesn’t treat marijuana as medicine!  It’s very clear64 that it’s a crime to give anyone under 21 marijuana, and if that doesn’t prove that marijuana is NOT treated as medicine by Prop. 64, I don’t know what does.
   The language about being dangerous and addictive actually was what I read in articles about the views of Dr. Donald Lyman, MD, who is the official proponent of 64.  Some of the articles are here:

‘Recreational’ marijuana proponents are pushing a false narrative

By Los Angeles Times
The weed warriors are back, peddling pot for the California ballot. And one old tale they’re spinning is pur…

Recreational pot ballot measure would help protect children

As the former division chief for preventive medicine at the California Department of Public Health, I know that,…
  In this article, Lyman says that “Debate continues about the health effects of marijuana, but the medical evidence is overwhelming that addiction is relatively low compared against alcohol and tobacco. Moderate use of marijuana does not pose a personal health risk for healthy adults.  (My emphasis.)
      “But, for public health experts, the science is just as compelling that marijuana can have negative effects on the developing brains and bodies of youths.”
     In other words, the risk of addiction for “healthy adults ” using marijuana is “moderately low” compared to other drugs, but implicitly exists for adults who are not healthy and for children and youths.
    When a proposition is ambiguous, the stated views of its proponent are relevant to what the ambiguous language meant.  Another rule of interpretation.
   My computer is really slow, otherwise I’d try to respond in more detail.
   Please share my response with whoever was giving you a bad time!
 
Letitia

On Aug 21, 2016, at 3:38 PM, Aaron Brown wrote:
Hi Starchild,

It’s this specific phrase that has no basis in truth:
“harm than good, damaging medical availability, and creating additional criminal offenses and regulations.”

It, in reality, replaces current criminal offenses with fines, changes the medical marijuana to govern commercial and medical marijuana, and leaves the entire medical marijuana industry unchanged. However, since commercial marijuana with be legal, the only people who need a prescription to get it are people under the age of 21. It is a highly regulative bill, I won’t deny that, but the regulations are much more reasonable than current standards and lack of regulation, where there’s literally criminal gangs and thugs fighting drug wars in northern California. I don’t think that perfect should be the enemy of the good, and this bill is a huge improvement on the status quo. This bill also changes current law directly, something that can be done again in the future. Incremental steps are sometimes the way to success, not getting everything all at once.

I honestly believe that the continued drug war is much more dangerous than this legislation for the lives of Central and South Americans who have their corruption fed by the black market currently in place.

As for them telling us to vote, they give their positions with no explanations. Nether informative nor helpful. Calling something a recommendation is a sly way of getting people to do things while avoiding telling someone “why”. If they actually were recommendations, the “why” would be included, not just the binary choice they made.

Just my two cents.
 
Best to you all, and vote you mind.

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
There’s a lot of measures on the November ballot in California – some very good, some very bad. You can read more about them at http://www.sos.ca.gov/ elections/ballot-measures/ qualified-ballot-measures/ , and check out the Libertarian Party’s recommendations below. If you’re not registered or need to reregister at a new address or under a different name, October 24th is the deadline to do so if you want to vote in the November 8 election.

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))


Begin forwarded message:


From: Libertarian Party of California <office@ca.lp.org>
Date: August 19, 2016 1:25:02 PM PDT
Subject: November ballot proposition positions & other news
Reply-To: Libertarian Party of California <office@ca.lp.org>


November ballot propositions & other news

<LPC header-beta.jpg>



Dear _ Starchild,
The State Executive Committee met on August 6, and one of the agenda items was to take positions on the November ballot propositions.
Proposition 51 – NO – School bonds
Proposition 52 – NO – State fees on hospitals
Proposition 53 – YES – Voting on revenue bonds
Proposition 54 – YES – Legislative transparency
Proposition 55 – NO – Income tax hike extension
Proposition 56 – NO – Cigarette tax increase
Proposition 57 – YES – Parole for non-violent felons
Proposition 58 – NO – Changes in bilingual education methods
Proposition 59 – No Position – Advisory vote on Citizens United repeal
Proposition 60 – NO – Condoms required for adult film actors
Proposition 61 – NO – State prescription drug purchases
Proposition 62 – YES – End the Death Penalty in California
Proposition 63 – NO – Extensive new gun control measures
Proposition 64 – NO – Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA)
(While the Libertarian Party has been a strong supporter of ending marijuana prohibition for over 40 years, this proposition does more harm than good, damaging medical availability, and creating additional criminal offenses and regulations.)
Proposition 65 – NO – Directs grocery bag money to wildlife fund
Proposition 66 – NO – Makes death penalty easier
Proposition 67 – NO – Grocery stores can’t provide plastic bags (referendum)
Aside from Proposition 63, the Legislature recently passed and Gov. Brown signed several new gun control laws that violate the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.  Libertarians are very supportive of the 2nd Amendment.  A group has filed six separate referenda to allow voters to overturn these laws.  They have a large volunteer signature-gathering effort, but have a September 29 deadline to collect the required number of signatures.
The petitions are now widely available at various gun stores, shooting ranges, and other businesses.  Please go to this site to find out where you can go and sign the petitions (and perhaps pick up some copies to circulate in your town):
NEWLY ELECTED LIBERTARIAN:  We have a newly elected Libertarian in California. Wallace Stewart filed as a candidate for the Vista Fire Protection District board in San Diego County. There are three open seats, and only three candidates filed. Thus, all three were declared elected and the actual election was cancelled.  Congratulations, Wallace!
If you aren’t currently a member of the Libertarian Party of California, now is the time to join or to renew your membership.  Please go to:
For liberty,
Ted Brown
Chair, Libertarian Party of California

Leave a Reply