Dennis Peron says NO ON PROP 64 / AUMA Destroys Prop 215, throws medical patients under the bus

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutube

From Dennis Peron, the man responsible for passing prop 215, California’s Medical Marijuana Compassionate Use Act: VOTE NO ON AUMA

Greetings to all my FB friends and family. With less than 30 days to our vote we need your support to share this message with as many people as possible on what AUMA REALLY represents. It takes education. It takes information. We are ALL warriors in our fight to protect our rights under Prop 215 and to prevent a corporate takeover of cannabis. So to all my warrior friends I would ask you, I would beg you, please get involved and share any of my original posts here on your FB page and to also drop them on your friends pages. It’s easy to do. Just go to the ‘share’ button and when asked to share make sure you drop the original post on your page and on a friends page where you ask them to share it too.

The Pro-AUMA side has lots of $$$ and they will be bombarding the airwaves with their message over the next few weeks. The only way we can even hope to compete with them is through informed voters who, with a NO ON PROP 64 VOTE can beat this thing back to the bowels of the bloated corporate belly from whence it came. So let’s share our message far and wide. Do it now, do it later, and do it often! With much love and respect I thank you all, from the bottom of my heart, for your continued support!

prop-215-dennis-peron

 

There are supporters of Prop 64 that will claim those of us who stand against it are prohibitionists. That we side with law enforcement or wish that more cannabis users be put in jail. These personal attacks are unjust and uncalled for. Just because we share opposition to AUMA does not mean we share the same reasons for doing so.

With less than a month before we vote, as a community we really need to be discussing and dissecting Prop 64 to see if it’s the right law for our state. None of us benefit from these attacks especially the undecided voter who hopes to learn something from these discussions and find themselves able to make an informed decision. So please refrain from attacking me or others on my page or I will remove you as a friend.

Now to those who continue to expound on how the passage of AUMA will release prisoners and reduce sentencing I would respectfully ask you to read the language in the bill. One of the more egregious examples of heavy handed enforcement may be found in the use of the word ‘shall’ as opposed to ‘may’ when handing out sentences that as you can also see there is prosecuterial discretion whereby the local City or District Attorney can seek 3 year prison sentences if the defendant is in violation of a cultivation or possession issue as defined by AUMA. To those of you who claim that no one will ever be charged to that extent I would respond why put the language in the bill if it’s not to be used? Words have meaning and that language is there for a reason.

SECTION 8. CRIMINAL OFFENSES, RECORDS AND RESENTENCING

11357 Possession

(c) (1) What are the fines if you’re on a school grounds (K-12) and get caught possessing over 28.5 grams of marijuana or 4 grams of concentrate? Well the fines go down to not more than a $250 fine for the first offense. Subsequent offenses would subject you to the normal not more than $500 fine and/or 6 months imprisonment. My question is how is this reduction of the fine on the first offense protecting our youth and why is there not a first offense reduction for everybody?

11358 Planting, harvesting or processing.
(c) Every person over 18 who plants, cultivates, harvests, dries, or processes more than 6 living plants shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail, a fine not more than $500 or by both.

(d) Here we have reference to where the defendant ‘may’ be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code which reads:

(h) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), a felony punishable
pursuant to this subdivision where the term is not specified in the
underlying offense shall be punishable by a term of imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or two or three years.

11359 Possession for Sale

(b) Every person 18 years of age or older who possesses marijuana for sale shall be punished by imprisonment of not more than 6 months in county jail and/or not more than a $500 fine. As with the previous section AUMA once again cites that the defendant may face harsher (up to 3 years) charges as defined within subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code.

11360 Unlawful transportation, importation, sale or gift

(a) Every person 18 years of age or older who transports, imports, sells, furnishes, administers or gives away marijuana or marijuana products shall be punished by imprisonment of not more than 6 months in county jail and/or not more than a $500 fine. As with the previous two sections AUMA once again cites that the defendant may face harsher (up to 3 years) charges as defined within subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code.

(d) This section does not preclude or limit prosecution for any aiding and abetting or conspiracy offenses. This section would be cited in any legal action that sought to enjoin the landlord of a property where the infraction was taking place.

11361.5 Destruction of arrest and conviction records: Procedures and Exceptions
Limits the time that the agencies can hold these records in their databases to 2 years from the date of conviction or if there was not a conviction the date of arrest.

11361.8 Requires those serving marijuana related sentences to petition for a recall or dismissal of sentence before the trial court that entered the judgement of conviction. These may not be routine dismissal petitions as the petitions can be opposed by an opposing party and the judge can deny them based on a determination that the petitioner would pose an ‘unreasonable risk of danger to public safety’

If you like this post please share it and #VoteNOonAUMA

To all you supporters of Prop 64 I would ask you to explain to us how not only can the authors of this bill not tell us what any of the license fees will be under AUMA since all the agencies haven’t weighed in with how much they need to take from the trough but those same authors are able to get very specific about where all the tax revenue will be going? Do you seriously want cultivators, dispensary owners, manufacturers, distributors and testing labs to vote for something that we don’t even know what the financial impact to us will be? What lawyer would have you sign a contract where the terms and values are not stated? None that I know of. If you have one that tells you to vote for 64 you need to find another lawyer.

auma-clown
34019 (a) (1- 7)
This section broadly describes how the tax money will be distributed to these agencies to recover ‘reasonable costs’:

The Department of Consumer Affairs
The Department of Food and Agriculture
The Department of Public Health
The Department of Fish and Wildlife
The State Water Resources Control Board
The Department of Pesticide Regulation
The State Controller
The State Auditor
The Department of Finance
The Legislative Analyst’s Office
The Bureau of Marijuana Control
The Division of Labor Standards
The Department of Industrial Relations
Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA)
Employment Development Department (EDD)

What is worth noting here is that many of these agencies will already be getting funds from the licensing of these new recreational marijuana businesses.

Now we see this section get more specific in terms of how the money will be spent:

(b) $10M to a public university or universities annually from 2018 thru 2023

(c) $3M annually to the California Highway Patrol (CHP) annually from 2018 thru 2023

(d) $10M Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development annually 2018 thru 2023 at which time it will be raised to $50M annually

(e) $2M UCSD for medicinal cannabis research

(f) (1) After paying the above recipients the remaining monies (60%) will be distributed to new sub-trust accounts administered by the Department of Health Care Services and the Department of Education which will provide grants to a wide variety of organizations that work to educate and treat substance abuse disorders.

(2) 20% of the remaining monies will go to the Environmental Restoration and Protection Account and disbursed to;
The Department of Parks and Recreation
The Department of Fish and Wildlife

(3) 20% of the remaining monies will go the State and Local Law Enforcement Account. With distribution as follows:

(A-B) California Highway Patrol to fund internal CHP programs that educate, provide grants and would buy equipment necessary to enforce detection and apprehension of those who would be driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, including marijuana. Beginning in 2022 the CHP will be given not less than $50M (see subparagraph D) annually from this fund.

(C) The Board of State and Community Corrections that would give grants to law enforcement, fire protection, or other local governments to be used in protecting public health and safety as a result of the implementation of AUMA. Local governments that have banned marijuana business of personal cultivation shall not be eligible for grant monies under this section.

34021 (a) The taxes imposed in this part shall be in addition to any other tax imposed by a local government tax.

34021.5 (a) (1) A county may impose a tax on the privilege of cultivating, manufacturing, producing, processing, preparing or selling marijuana or marijuana products by a licensee.

If you like this post please SHARE IT and #VoteNOonAUMA

There is alot of misinformation floating about out there as to exactly what Prop 64, The Control, Tax and Regulate the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) would bring to the California recreational cannabis market. Enough with the attacks! Enough with the theories and conjecture! If you have any interest in recreational weed, be it as a consumer, dispensary, cultivator or manufacturer you NEED to READ THE BILL!! The decision you’re going to make on November 8th has major implications to you, your fellow citizens and future generations. Do NOT take my word for how to vote. Do NOT take your bro’s word for it. Do NOT take some newspapers, cannamag’s or celebrity endorsement on how to vote. And above ALL do NOT take George Soros, Bayer/Monsanto, WeedMaps or Sean Parkers (all sponsors and major financial contributors to AUMA) proclamations that 64 is progressive marijuana reform. You need to decide that for yourself!

Words have meaning! Truth is Truth. Facts are Facts. Read the bill. Read the AUMA Analysis. Share it with your friends. Make them argue the facts. Then vote #VoteNOonAUMA

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutube

Leave a Reply