Category: Uncategorized

HELP WITHDRAW SIGNATURES FROM THE AUMA!

SIMPLY PRINT OUT SEVERAL PAGES OF THE FOLLOWING TEXT, HAVE THOSE WHO WISH TO WITHDRAW THEIR NAMES FILL OUT THE REQUIRED INFORMATION AND DELIVER TO THE APPROPRIATE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS.

 

REQUEST TO WITHDRAW NAME FROM INITIATIVE PETITION No. 15-0103

To the Registrar of Voters of ___________________________County:
Pursuant to California Elections Code section 9602, as a person registered to vote in the
above-noted County, I wish to have my signature withdrawn from the initiative petition for “The Adult Use of Marijuana Act” (AUMA),” No. 15-0103–proponents Dr. Donald Lyman and Michael Sutton. I no longer support its path to the ballot.
Here is the information needed to support this request to withdraw my signature:

 

NAME (as registered to vote): _____________________________________
RESIDENCE: (no PO boxes): ______________________________________

 

SIGNATURE: _________________________________________________
Thank you for your time and assistance with this matter.

 

To obtain your County Registrar’s address, call toll-free (800) 345-(VOTE) 8683 or go online to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/county-elections-offices/

Activist ToolKit #BanTheBans!

Below are the promised tools and explanations to attempt a slow down of the current rolling medical marijuana cultivation and manufacturing bans.

Thank you to Super Awesome Attorney Charnel James for your time today helping our community to prepare these documents!  ❤ ❤ ❤

banthebans

This is a letter, prepared by Attorney Charnel James, informing authorities seeking to enact hasty bans that the March 1 date will not hold and that ALL LOCAL AGENCIES MUST SEE APPROVAL OF THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE BEFORE SEEKING TO BAN OR REGULATE A SEED, PLANT OR CROP:  Notice to Authorities Seeking Ban Without Approval of Secretary of Agriculture

This is Exhibit A, mentioned in Charnel’s letter above, that shows the letter from Assemblymember Wood stating that the March 1 deadline will be changed: Exhibit A Woods Letter

This is the analysis letter from Ellen Komp of Cali Norml explaining that the March 1 date will not stand in court even if it takes longer than March 1 to change the legislation: NORML Letter re woods letter

This is the verbiage of AB2470, which requires local agencies to seek approval of the secretary before banning a plant and AB243, which declares cannabis to be an agricultural product: APPROVAL FOR NEW ORDINANCES REGULATING PLANTS, SEEDS OR CROPS REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

This is the verbiage of Sec 52334 of the California Food and Agricultural Code: California Food and Agricultural Code

Thank you to all of the volunteers across our state who are about to deliver this information to local authorities in order to halt the immediate implementation of local bans resulting from passage of the MMRSA.  We will have further arguments and analysis shortly, but this is enough to get us started and hopefully ensure that no local agency will act before seeking legal analysis if this very important information.

 

 

 

DO YOU WANT TO STOP THE ROLLING BANS IN CALIFORNIA FOR THE MOMENT? THEN LISTEN UP!

fuck monsanto

DO YOU WANT TO STOP THE ROLLING BANS IN CALIFORNIA FOR THE MOMENT? THEN LISTEN UP!

(First, let me say that I did not discover this information on my own. My unnamed and quite beloved growing buddy in Butte discovered it and left it to a few of us to explain the intricacies to all of our family.)

I will write a more eloquent and witty story later, but right now the more important thing to do is get the raw information out.

Time’s awastein’!

So Monsanto got their panties in a wad a couple years ago when a couple California counties decided to ban GMO crops. What was their solution? Use the legislature to deny people of their right to the Initiative of course!

Basically they stuck a rider in an already shitty bill named AB 2470 that does not let a local agency apply regulations to a seed, plant or crop without first receiving the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture.

In essence, it’s intended to block a voter-backed initiative that bans GMO’s. #UnconstitutionalMuch?

Here’s the actual wording:

SEC. 4. Section 52334 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:

52334. Notwithstanding any other law, on and after January 1, 2015, a city, county, or district, including a charter city or county, shall not adopt or enforce an ordinance that regulates plants, crops, or seeds without the consent of the secretary. An ordinance enacted before January 1, 2015, shall be considered part of the comprehensive program of the department and shall be enforceable.”

Well, that kind of cinches it up then right? I mean, cannabis is a plant, crop and seed, so really, all the local municipalities have to go get permission from the Secretary of Agriculture before they can enact any ordinance regarding cannabis at all, let alone a ban.

Think they just hand out those approvals cheap and easy? Nope–they are going to have to show that their regulations are legally and biologically appropriate: https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/docs/4700-et-al-73014.pdf

If you smell a whole new flurry of lawsuits based on environmental law, etc, you are correct!!

Soo, long story short, take this document to the attorney in charge of your local ban (City Attorney, County Council, etc.) https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB2470 (Section 52334 in particular.)

Ask them if they have sought approval from the Secretary of Agriculture yet for this ordinance.

Let them know they need to do that first or they are flat-out breaking the law.

I would like to dedicate this message in gratitude to the greedy fuckhead corporate lawyers at Monsanto’s office in Hell.

AB 266 Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act — Licensing Structure

copyright

click image for a larger view

A FEW PRODUCERS ARE EXEMPT FROM THIS LICENSING STRUCTURE AS FOLLOWS:

(c) (1) In a jurisdiction that adopted a local ordinance, prior to July 1, 2015, allowing or requiring qualified businesses to cultivate, manufacture, and dispense medical cannabis or medical cannabis products, with all commercial cannabis activity being conducted by a single qualified business, upon licensure that business shall not be subject to subdivision (a) if it meets all of the following conditions:

(A) The business was cultivating, manufacturing, and dispensing medical cannabis or medical cannabis products on July 1, 2015, and has continuously done so since that date.

(B) The business has been in full compliance with all applicable local ordinances at all times prior to licensure.

(C) The business is registered with the State Board of Equalization.

(2) A business licensed pursuant to paragraph (1) is not required to conduct all cultivation or manufacturing within the bounds of a local jurisdiction, but all cultivation and manufacturing shall have commenced prior to July 1, 2015, and have been in full compliance with applicable local ordinances.