October 5, 2016 debate in Sacramento about Prop. 64,

cbd-oil Here is yet more info on what is wrong with Prop. 64.  I knew that 64 locked MMRSA with all its illegalities into place, but it’s actually an end run around direct democracy, too.

      Here is a message from Ron Deziel, a serious student of MMRSA and 64:
     This is a test: where in Prop.64 is the melding of itself into MRRSA?
     Answer: in 2 places:
       In Administration, when Prop. 64 renames the MMRSA Director as the new Director of the Bureau of Marijuana Control.
      In Taxes, when Prop. 64 gives additional funding of $10 million to MMRSA. Prop. 64 thus become a REFERENDUM on all the legislation contained in unconstitutional-under-Prop. 215 MMRSA, as well as a REFERENDUM on the hemp research & development section of SB 566.

      That 215 traitor, Lanny Swerdlow, recently claimed in his  MAPP newsletter that Prop. 64 will help solve the problems with MMRSA.  Ah, but solve WHOSE problems?  Not patients, small entrepreneurs  and farmers!
     No, Prop. 64 was written to solve the Legislature and its cronies’ problem: that they cannot take corporate control of hemp or marijuana and all related products, and recriminalize medical herbal marijuana, while Prop. 215 stands in their wicked way.
     Prop. 215 is a REFERENDUM ON MMRSA & on SB 566, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act.  If you hate MMRSA and the hemp act — which puts biotech companies like Monsanto in charge of hemp — you MUST oppose Prop.64, too.
Letitia E. Pepper
PS Correction: The person who is supporting Prop. 64 is Lauren Vasquez, the Fired Up Attorney

Hello, I just learned that one of the Sisters of CBD is going to be in the YES side of this October 5, 2016 debate in Sacramento about Prop. 64, the fake “marijuana legalization” proposition.  I am going to be on the NO side.

    I am contacting you because I know that people in the yes campaign have been working on activists to get them to endorse Prop. 64 for some time now, and that to do so they are lying about Prop 64’s impact on medical marijuana users.
So perhaps the Sisters have been recipients of lies delivered by, e.g.  Chris Conrad, Mikki Norris,chris-conrad-mikki-norris lauren-vasquezLauren Vasquez,bill-panzer Bill Panzer, or even Sean Parker or Gavin Newsom.
This is why I am contacting you.
     I am an attorney and have been one since 1982. I did my work primarily for California Court of Appeal  justices as well as a federal district court judge, so my expertise was in neutral evaluations of complex legal and factual situations. letita-pepper
  I have had Multiple Sclerosis since 1993, and after side effects from multiple prescription drugs, switched to only herbal cannabis.  It 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 going 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 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 users, because most voters would not vote to end medical use in order to let  the corporations that want to sell to recreational users benefit instead, and to 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 Wo/men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM) in Santa Cruz at a pro-64 event attended by Conrad, Norris 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 and finally admitted he had not READ Prop. 64) and a no presentation by me plus copies of the above-noted analysis.
      Your group provides marijuana as medicine.  If you search a PDF file of Prop. 64, you will see it never uses the word “medicine” 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.  It 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 sued by Bayer.  Only by protecting Prop. 215 which protects patients’ right to use herbal marijuana as an alternative medicine will people using cannabis extracts in medicine be protected from this 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 legal definition it is marijuana, I.e., cannabis sativa with less than about 2% THC and a ratio of THC to other cannabinoids that makes 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 together.  Here is why we must not repeal Prop. 215:

Notice of Unconstitutionality.rtf

I have been making videos explaining why Prop. 64 does not actually do what its supporters claim, and why 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 RE criminalizes 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 kinds or outrageous prices charged for, e.g., Marino, synthetic THC.
     Did I mention that Prop. 64 will make it a crime to give sick children cannabis and cannabis extracts?  And that it makes it illegal to make cannabis extracts at all?
      If you haven’t read Prop. 64 with a critical eye and some input from an attorney trained in statutory interpretation, I hope you’ll look at it again and reconsider whether repealing Prop. 215 is a good idea or not.
     There are some attorneys who claim that Prop. 64 does not repeal Prop. 215, but that is patently untrue.  Some of these attorneys may actually be being PAID by the yes on 64 campaign to render such opinions, and under legal ethics they may do so and must even deny they are representing anyone if their client so demands when they make such claims.
     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 that anyone who needs it, regardless of age, may use.
     Prop. 64 repeals Prop. 215.  sisters-of-cbd Is that what the Sisters of CBD want to support?
Letitia E. Pepper

Leave a Reply