dragonflydelaluz 
Member since Aug 28, 2010


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: “Daily Roundup: Pot Contests, 2011 Law Changes, Kooky 2012 Iniatives

"But not for the 14,000 or so vendors who get arrested each year and face jail time."

--yeah, well, if prop. 19 had passed, those vendors would still go to jail. so no loss, really.

Posted by dragonflydelaluz on 01/25/2011 at 3:54 AM

Re: “What Proposition 19 Does

prop. 19 is not so cut-and-dried, and there is absolutely no attorney in the state of california who would ever call the initiative "well thought out."

david didn't mention any part of the initiative that is contributing to such hot debate. like this one:

IT WILL BE ILLEGAL TO POSSESS MARIJUANA THAT WAS PURCHASED ANYWHERE OTHER THAN A LICENSED DISPENSARY.

Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: (g):

PROHIBIT AND PUNISH through civil fines or other remedies THE POSSESSION, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation OF CANNABIS THAT WAS NOT OBTAINED LAWFULLY FROM A PERSON PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION OR SECTION 11300.

(The key words being, “[c]annabis that was not obtained lawfully…”)

That means that some cannabis will be lawful, and some cannabis will be unlawful--depending on who you "obtain" it from. According to the initiative itself, a person who can "lawfully" provide cannabis is "a person pursuant to this section or section 11300." And who is "a person pursuant to section 11300?" Read on:

Section 11300: (i) ...a person who is licensed or permitted to do so [sell marijuana] under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301.

--Thus, the initiative's exact words--"prohibit and punish... the possession... of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully... from a person who is licensed or permitted to do so"--mean exactly this: ***IT WILL BE ILLEGAL TO POSSESS MARIJUANA THAT WAS PURCHASED ANYWHERE OTHER THAN A LICENSED DISPENSARY.***

not only is this inconvenient, but it sets the industry up to be monopolized.

voters who know VOTE NO on 19.

read more little-known facts about prop. 19 here:

votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by dragonflydelaluz on 08/28/2010 at 3:14 AM

Re: “What Proposition 19 Does

prop. 19 would not affect medical marijuana law?

david downs is not an attorney.

attorneys disagree, and believe that prop. 19 WILL impact medical marijuana law.

http://thehive.modbee.com/node/20404

http://www.rhdefense.com/blog/marijuana-la…

personally, i'm more inclined to heed the words of seasoned and qualified attorneys over someone with dubious journalistic credibility.

get informed and then decide:

votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com

Posted by dragonflydelaluz on 08/28/2010 at 3:08 AM

Re: “Stoners Against Legalization

go to votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com

and get the FACTS about prop. 19 (david downs does not discuss them here).

in addition to the fact that david downs misquotes me throughout this article, misrepresents my ideas, and falsely attributes the title of my "stoners against legalization" blog to norml, he even admitted to not having actually read my "why pro-pot activists oppose prop. 19" article (which is the most exhaustive anti-19 piece that's been written so far) before spewing this missive against it.

furthermore, in spite of what he says here, i told him that my biggest concern about prop. 19 is that its wording could override prop. 215, and take away patients' rights. he doesn't address this most contentious point of the debate, but qualified attorneys do. read their opinions here and see what the real debate over prop. 19 is about:

http://thehive.modbee.com/node/20404
http://www.rhdefense.com/blog/marijuana-la…

finally--and obviously--i was clearly joking when i told him the "Universe gave me my name." i told him unequivocally in an email that dragonfly de la luz is indeed my given name. obviously downs's motive here was not to incite debate and discussion about the issues, and his journalistic credibility is severely jeopardized by this trivial, lop-sided, and distorted article.

i won't waste my time correcting point-by-point all of the erroneous things david downs says here. instead, i will simply direct you to my article, "why pro-pot activists oppose prop. 19."

votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com

please feel welcome to join in the lively debate happening there with spirited people who are openly and genuinely engaging in constructive discussion.

peace be with you all!



Posted by dragonflydelaluz on 08/28/2010 at 2:58 AM

Most Popular Stories


© 2018 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation