Deborah Tharp 
Member since Oct 9, 2014


Stats

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Prop. 64 Rolls Out New Ads, No on 64 Touts Unfavorable New Poll

Stop calling prop 64 legalization. It's criminalization, fees and fines

Posted by Deborah Tharp on 10/23/2016 at 4:14 PM

Re: “Stay Tuned: California Could Regulate Medical Pot in the Next 36 Hours

Yes, sign and pass a good ballot initiative now. That's the only way left to save the patients.
Really, in LA where they passed this over-restrictive crap, oil really is selling for $100 a gram. I have a friend, a CANCER patient who went into Buds n Roses and that's what they wanted to charge him. So much for compassionate care huh? And in areas where they don't have a Measure D type mess? Less than half that price and free for a cancer patient, but not any more if they are going to charge seed to sale.

On the other hand, I heard they dropped the $60 million dollars worth of excise tax. One can hope. I've seen some good changes.

We can hope, but why keep the bill in the dark?

Posted by Deborah Tharp on 09/10/2015 at 10:44 PM

Re: “Stay Tuned: California Could Regulate Medical Pot in the Next 36 Hours

Congrats Kevin! I'm sure you'll make TONs of cash selling cbd oil to kids with Dravet's syndrome for $100 a gram ;) Good job doing it for the patients!

Posted by Deborah Tharp on 09/10/2015 at 10:25 PM

Re: “Stay Tuned: California Could Regulate Medical Pot in the Next 36 Hours

Grow up and admit it legislators and lobbyists. You're trying to tax the shit out of it because you know you're missing out on all that income. Fine I say, just don't tax the medical or drive the price up so high that patients can't afford it. Don't set us up so that we are still open to criminal prosecution (even though you're gettin' yours with the taxes). Don't make it impossible to access even though it's supposedly "legal." Don't surround the industry with so much red tape that only the wealthy or your "special friends" can participate in it. And for the love of God, don't destroy Prop 215's protections. Is that too much to ask? Is it?

Posted by Deborah Tharp on 09/10/2015 at 6:48 PM

Re: “California Legalization Measure to Debut Soon

Gee Brian, What are you trying to hide with your 7 posts in a row of cheerleading? Oh, here it is, maybe this comment from Bud Green about special interests trying to run the show?

AB 266 is all stick and no carrots. The claim that a complex overlay of state regulations involving multiple agencies will encourage local governments to play ball is unconvincing. What we have seen, so far, is an emerging coziness between local politicians and dispensary operators in a relative handful of cities, spurred on by the likes of union organizer Dan Rush. The "local control" provisions of AB 266 will open the floodgates to more influence-peddling involving local officials.

The "haves" would like to cement their gains, of course, while lining up new companies and silent partnerships for state licensing plays. The "have-nots" ... well, they're screwed, but at least they're not lining up for the next Green Rush at the expense of other patients and would-be business owners. Financially, AB 266 is a multi-headed monster that doesn't pencil out, even assuming Emerald Triangle growers and L.A. dispensaries are willing to provide the lion's share of application fees and tax revenues.

Or maybe this post from Mara Felsen reminding us that Weedmaps is trying to run the show?

You stated, "In April, marijuana technology entrepreneur Justin Hartfield parked $1 million in a committee to support a middle-of-the-road effort. But other than that, the Secretary of State's website reports no other substantial donations to legalization committees."

What is the committee to support a middle-of-the-road effort to which you refer? That seems like an important detail to omit if Hartfield donated to it 5% of the amount needed to mount an effective legalization campaign.

Or perhaps this reminder from Jeff Clark that Sacramento legislators are about to commit a federal crime if they vote yes on these atrocities?

Janet Reno said in 2008 well allow this as long as there is no lower government intervention. Legislators swore an oath to the constitution of their state and the United States,therefore any voted in legislators are guilty of not upholding their state oath or their U.S. oath by 1. Accepting a state tax on a substance that is illegal federally ,therefore should be prosecuted.
2. Taxation without representation by allowing feds to arrest in this state people that are abiding by state law that was written by and voted in by the People.
vote for CCHI2016org filed 8 24 2015 in California.

And I'm shaking my head David. Just when I think you're coming around you go and lose a little credibility in my eyes when you fail to mention out the gate that the UFCW's Dan Rush was a main driving force behind "the most credible effort for the ballot."

Posted by Deborah Tharp on 08/26/2015 at 6:55 PM

Re: “Inside California's Historic Medical Marijuana Regulation Bill

tainted by Dan Rush and bullshit measure D exemptions, plain and simple

Crony Capitalism at its worst

Good write up David

Posted by Deborah Tharp on 08/19/2015 at 9:18 PM

Re: “Fifth California Legalization 2016 Measure Filed

Here is Compassionate and Sensible Access Act's information for your spreadsheet: Sponsors- Yuba County ASA, Orange County NORML, California Cannabis Coalition, Crusaders For Patients Rights, more coming; Personal Limits-none; MMJ collectives-allows for collectives with regulations no more stringent than any other plant sales; Bans-no bans; Tax-NA; Regulation Authority-N/A; Notes-this is a constitutional amendment meant to protect patient access and right to grow no matter which piece of legislation gets passed. This is meant to be voted for WITH a legalization initiative, or exclusively should none of the others qualify. It will also protect patients from the prohibitionist pieces of legislation making their way through the state legislature.

6 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Deborah Tharp on 05/06/2015 at 5:37 PM

All Comments »

Readers' Favorites

Most Popular Stories


© 2017 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation