Mpp Rears Its Ugly Snake Head In Arizona.

[t-pain]

 

http://sprout.news/state/canna-ask-vol-1-jason-medar-of-arizonans-for-mindful-regulation/

AH: I read in a Phoenix New Times article where it mentioned that you had been arrested for marijuana cultivation. Did that experience influence your decision to become an activist?

 

JM: No, I was already an activist. My arrest was in Arizona in 2012. By then I was already eight years deep into this. I was a medical patient and was authorized to grow plants in Arizona. For the first four years of our medical program being active, patients, legal patients, who possessed any form of marijuana concentrates, were still being arrested and prosecuted, charging them with a Class 4 felony for possessing narcotics. If anything it just showed me was that law enforcement is more than willing to circumvent our Medical Marijuana Act in order to keep the war on marijuana users alive. It demonstrated that law enforcement is not willing to give up. Marijuana crimes are very easy to convict; they’re a real money-maker.

 

AH: How did Arizonans for Mindful Regulation come to be?

 

JM: Our group, The Arizonans for Mindful Regulation or AZFMR was formed in 2014. We started working with The Marijuana Policy Project in Arizona to ensure that the 2016 initiative MPP was writing included the most important consumer protections. For example: decriminalization, real grow rights, protecting the medical program, opening up the business licenses, DUI protection, parental protection—the list goes on and on. When we saw MPP’s initiative, we had to sit and ask ourselves, “Do we just want to launch a VOTE NO campaign, or do we want to offer a solution?”

 

We tried to negotiate with the Marijuana Policy Project when they were writing their initiative, but, we also had a list of what we called “non-negotiable provisions.” Number one on that list was decriminalization. MPP’s initiative did not include decriminalization.

 

We have to compare MPP’s initiative to the current landscape on the ground and also to the current medical program. There are other states where you could enact straight legalization and law enforcement will respect the voters. In California and even Colorado, a lot of cities have enacted “lowest law enforcement priorities ordinances.” What that says is that marijuana is not a priority. If you happen to find somebody in violation, write them a ticket but do not arrest them— send them on their way. A lot of states are like this, but Arizona is not.

 

Arizonans for Mindful Regulation asked them when we were still trying to negotiate, “Well, why not? Why not have decriminalization?” And they said “Well, we don’t think voters will support that.” We told them that was bass-ackwards. We showed them polls from numerous different states, all showing that voters overwhelmingly support decriminalization. Not necessarily legalization, but they overwhelmingly support decriminalization. There are very few people that are the other way around. Where they’re like, “Nah man, they belong in prison if they possess 5.1 grams of marijuana concentrates instead of 5.”

 

Arizona will be the very first state to even try and legalize marijuana without first having it decriminalized. Arizona is the only state that is going to try and legalize marijuana, but still have felony criminal penalties in place if you break the law in any way.

 

We went back and forth with MPP. Essentially what convinced us to write this initiative and go forward and plead for our own campaign, was that we saw just how many people were standing behind us. It wasn’t one person—it was thousands of marijuana consumers who understand what MPP’s initiative does. Anybody with two eyes and a brain is going to realize that if you consume marijuana, MPP’s initiative isn’t in your best interest, and if the average marijuana consumer won’t support their initiative, it’s not likely to get passed. Consumers are who really support us. If we didn’t have 100,000 people to support our campaign, and we didn’t have more than two hundred volunteers on the ground collecting signatures, we wouldn’t be able to do this. We’re strictly a volunteer effort. All the people who are collecting signatures are working for free. I, myself, am working for free, our attorney is working for free, our treasurer is working for free—I mean you get the point, right?

 

Arizonans for Mindful Regulation think that the truth is on our side. We’re not being paid to write our initiative and have no financial interest. We’re pushing so that people who want licenses can get them. Our motivations are much different. Ultimately, what we found was that the Marijuana Policy Project, in our opinion, were [doing the work of] of the highest bidder.

 

AH: And who are you naming as the highest bidder?

 

JM: The highest bidder in Arizona was a group of 30 wealthy medical marijuana dispensary owners. They are funding MPP’s initiative and got to write the initiative because they were paying the bill. MPP used to be funded by Peter Lewis and George Soros. They, in their own bizarre way, worked as self-appointed filters. They would filter out initiatives that weren’t good for consumers. But MPP no longer receives their money from Lewis and Soros. So the marijuana industry is now working as the filter. They’re writing initiatives that serve their own financial interests . . . We have 90 dispensaries in Arizona. But, of those dispensaries, for example, one of the dispensary owners that is paying for the initiative owns five dispensaries. So a lot of these owners own multiple locations. They actually make up a larger percentage of the dispensaries than you might think. This will create an oligopoly on the marijuana market. Marijuana Policy Project wrote it in their initiative to say that once we legalize, only these existing 90 medical marijuana dispensaries will get any of the recreational business licenses.

 

AH: Do you think the Marijuana Policy Project would be able to go toe-to-toe with facts that would make advocates of legalization/decriminalization support their initiative as opposed to AZFMR’s?

 

JM: If you wanted to have Marijuana Policy Project do a debate against our Arizonans for Mindful Regulation group— I don’t think they’d ever do it.

 

MPP has tried to go with the argument that AZFMR is just a bunch of stoners that don’t know anything. But the problem with that argument, is that if you talk to anyone involved in the leadership of our campaign, you learn that we’re not stoners at all—we’re just regular people who are tired of being thrown in prison for using marijuana.

 

AH: If their initiative passes, do you think they could keep up with the consumer demands of medical and recreational legalization?

 

JM: No. It’s been predicted that there are going to be 500,000 people over 21 who will buy marijuana in Arizona. How are 90 dispensaries going to serve 500,000 people? It’s not going to happen. The black market will blow up overnight. In Arizona, the Department of Health keeps track of all the statistics for our medical program and it shows that only 30% of our 90,000 patients buy their marijuana from dispensaries. So where are the other 60,000 people getting their marijuana, and what does MPP’s initiative do to protect them?

 

AH: What is the verbiage in MPP’s Campaign to Legalize Marijuana Like Alcohol initiative that will legalize marijuana, but keep it a prosecutable offense?

 

JM: There is a statue in Arizona 13-3405 that makes marijuana illegal and states the penalties for possessing, cultivating, etc. MPP’s initiative leaves that in place. Essentially, they write legalization on page one and leave prohibition in place on page two. They didn’t include decriminalization in their initiative at all, and a lot of those marijuana crimes that are currently on the books have what they call “mandatory minimum prison sentences.” So essentially, the Judge has no discretion whatsoever to give you less than the mitigated sentence, even if they have mitigating factors.

 

MPP says that you can possess 1 ounce of marijuana, 5 grams of marijuana concentrates, and grow 6 plants. But, if you possess more than one ounce, more than 5 grams, or grow more than 6 plants–you’re getting a felony because it reverts back to the existing marijuana statutes. AZFMR’s initiative completely repeals the old 1334-05 marijuana statutes. We’ve removed it completely from the books and replaced it with an entirely new set of criminal penalties that are comprised mostly of misdemeanors. The worst penalty in our initiative is only a Class 5 felony, whereas, currently the worst penalty you can get for marijuana is a Class 2 felony, which comes with a presumptive prison sentence of about six and a half years. Another big difference is that we included post-conviction release. So if you have a marijuana felony prior to our initiative passing, you can actually apply for re-sentencing to have your felony reduced to a misdemeanor.

 

Also, in our initiative we didn’t include any mandatory prison sentences. The only reason we included felonies at all in our initiative is because we are understanding of the fact that the state still wants to be able to prosecute the cartel activity. This is Arizona, we have to consider that option as well.

 

AH: Do you think the taxation of marijuana would yield more profit than prosecuting individuals for marijuana violations?

 

JM: That’s a good question. Absolutely. Definitely. It’s another reason why we need to decriminalize. The idea is that we need to remove the financial incentives from law enforcement for them not to continue to prosecute marijuana offenders.

 

Under our initiative possessing marijuana for sale is a Class 2 misdemeanor which holds a maximum fine of $500. The cost to have the SWAT team come out to your home is about $2500.

 

AH: Earlier you mentioned that MPP used confusing language in their initiative. What sort of language might the average smoking Joe be confused by?

 

The Grow Rights provision is one of the big issues. In MPP’s initiative they say “you can grow these six plants.” Then they say that a city or county can ban marijuana growing if they consider it to be a nuisance, but leave nuisance specifically and purposefully undefined. The problem is that the people who will be making the decision of what will be considered a nuisance will not be a court of law, it’s going to be a city council. It’s going be a group of five or six people that make that decision for the city or county. And because the city council isn’t a court of law, there’s no burden of proof required for them to pass an ordinance. They don’t need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt or even by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a nuisance. The concern is that they’re going to lie and say, “We think it’s a nuisance and here’s our list of reasons why—so we’re passing this ordinance that says marijuana growing is banned from the City of Phoenix.” Medical grow operations would not be included in that. But about 98% of us, as medical patients, cannot grow because of the 25 Mile rule, which says that any of us that live within 25 miles of a dispensary are not allowed to grow. And the state put dispensaries everywhere— even in cities that have a couple thousand people for population. So, essentially, nobody can grow throughout the state.

 

 

 

AH: Why did AZFMR appropriate a percentage of money from the taxation of marijuana to alcohol and marijuana awareness?

 

JM: It was just something to appease voters. Offering the 20% to the Department of Health for education programs would combat any of MATforce’s arguments that we’re simply just trying to legalize, but not educate. Both of the initiatives are the exact same on that aspect, in that they both give 40% to all day Kindergarten- 40%- K12, 20% The Department of Health. [sic]

 

Unfortunately, and it really is unfortunate, this is not an Arizona-specific problem. MPP’s federal policy director, Dan Riffle recently quit MPP because he says that big marijuana is taking over the Marijuana Policy Project and the marijuana legalization movement, as a whole. All over the country we have what are called “investor-driven initiatives,” that are going up against the marijuana consumer industry. It’s big marijuana against marijuana consumers–and it’s a real war.

 

 

 

What it comes down to in the very in end is that there are two kind of people who support our campaign; the marijuana consumers, and the smoke shops. Our initiative protects them. The MPP’s initiative does nothing for them. If we didn’t have 100,000 people to support our campaign and have 200+ volunteers on the ground collecting signatures, we wouldn’t be able to do this. We’re strictly a volunteer effort. All the people who are collecting signatures are working for free. I, myself, am working for free—our attorney is working for free—our treasurer is working for free. You get the point, right?

 

The other group that supports us are smoke shops.

 

AH: How will both initiatives affect retail smoke shops?

 

JM: MPP’s initiative says that the new Department of Marijuana Licenses and Control can enact regulations for businesses that sell marijuana accessories. So the concern with smoke shops, is that under MPP’s initiative, the Marijuana Department could say that you need a retail dispensary license in order to sell marijuana accessories. Which would allow the medical marijuana dispensary owners to not only have the oligopoly on the marijuana market, but also on the marijuana accessories’ market.

 

Our initiative did the exact opposite. In fact, we stated in two separate portions of our initiative, explicitly, that you do not need any type of marijuana establishment license to sell marijuana accessories in Arizona.

 

AH: How do you go about educating smoke shops?

 

JM: We face-to-face with them and actually talk to them. We also have a letter prepared along with a legal opinion from marijuana attorney Tom Dean that outlines why MPP’s initiative will guarantee that only the existing dispensaries will get any of the marijuana business licenses.

 

Because that’s a smoke shop’s first question, “Well, can’t I just get a marijuana business license?” That’s when you have to explain that unfortunately no, at least not under MPP’s initiative you can’t.

 

AH: Will testing be required in both initiatives for any recreational retail sales?

 

JM: Yes, absolutely. But, in our initiative and only our initiative, we also say that the Marijuana Department is required to contract with a licensed testing facility to randomly test marijuana and marijuana plants to ensure that the marijuana being produced does not contain any harmful contaminants. We even take it a step further and say that if a licensed cultivator or a licensed retail dispensary is found to be guilty of growing or selling marijuana with harmful contaminants, the first offense is a $5,000 fine. The second, and any subsequent offenses, are $25,000 fines. We built in, what we hope, is a good enough financial incentive for growers and dispensers to grow and sell clean medicine, less they be punished financially. MPP’s initiative does none of this. Their initiative only requires that retail dispensaries get their marijuana tested. It doesn’t specifically outline how to do it. I assume the regulations would be what outline how that would be done. That would be decided if either initiative passed, by the Department of Marijuana. But in their initiative the Department of Marijuana is essentially going to be run, in part, by the medical marijuana dispensary owners. There will be seven people on that board in MPP’s initiative— three of the seven would be medical marijuana dispensary owners, so they would only need to get one additional vote to take any action.

 

AH: Do you feel that would be a conflict of interest to anyone other than the dispensary owners?

 

JM: It sure would, especially since they get the Medical Marijuana program. Our initiative leaves the Medical Marijuana Program with the Department of Health and leaves program-to-program 100% intact. MPP’s initiative takes the Medical Marijuana program from the Department of Health and gives it to the new Marijuana Department, which is run by the medical marijuana dispensary owners. So it’s a serious conflict of interest to let the people who make the money also make the rules. It’s bad for patients. When we talk about talking about having a recreational and medical program side by side, we can’t throw the patients to the wayside just to be able to use marijuana recreationally. That’d be irresponsible.

 

AH: Where can voters go to keep up to date with the latest information on Arizonans for Mindful Regulation and the Campaign to Legalize and Regulate Marijuana?

 

JM: Legalizemarijuanainarizona.org

 

The website shows all of our events. We’ve got the latest news, our initiative, a section for people to donate, and a map of all the different locations where people can go to sign the petition.

 

AH: Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us, and good luck on the campaign trail!

 

JM: You’re welcome! I don’t think this is the end. This is just the beginning of the big marijuana movement trying to take over. Please understand, if it’s happening four times in 2016, it’s liable to happen again in 2018 or 2020, in different states. This is not the first or last time you will hear about the “big marijuana against the marijuana consumer” war. You may see it in a state near you. We know they’re not going to end the war on marijuana users willingly. We have to end it for them.

i bet zap understands this article well. zap, what you think about mpp?

 

http://sprout.news/state/exclusive-mpps-mason-tvert-addresses-az-initiative-controversey/

 

The Marijuana Policy Project’s Mason Tvert responds.

 

Last week, we published an interview with Jason Medar of Arizonans for Mindful Regulation, the grassroots organization currently campaigning for an alternative ballot initiative to that of the MPP-sponsored Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol. Within the conversation, Medar pulled no punches in expressing his distaste for his rival’s initiative, nor was he reticent to give his opinions on the campaign’s primary sponsor, the Marijuana Policy Project. In an effort to maintain a sense of fairness in our reporting, we reached out to the MPP in hopes of getting the other half of the argument and were fortunate enough to speak directly with the organization’s communications director, Mason Tvert. Though Tvert described himself in our preliminary conversation as “just a lowly national advocate,” you most likely have seen him in his multiple appearances on network news broadcasts, the most memorable of them being with Nancy Grace at the outset of Colorado’s legalization roll-out. If you’ve yet to see that exchange, we’ve remedied that for you by embedding it at the bottom of this post. You’re welcome. Meanwhile, read on for Tvert’s response to the allegations leveled in last week’s interview with Medar.

 

(Editor’s Note: Tvert was very clear that though it is his job to speak on behalf of the MPP, he is not officially sanctioned to speak for the campaign his organization is sponsoring in Arizona. However, the majority of Medar’s complaints were leveled directly at the MPP and we therefore believed that they were best suited for a rebuttal. It should also be noted that this conversation was edited for length, as was our conversation with Medar. Enjoy.)

 

 

 

Lewis Hollow: The big issue coming from the AZFMR is decriminalization, the fact that you guys did not have that in your bill. This basically means that if you’re caught with an amount of cannabis that is over the limit set in within the bill, you’re still going to face all of the penalties, which in Arizona, are pretty harsh. Felony charges. Why are we still willing to let people go to jail over a plant?

 

 

 

Mason Tvert: Well, what would be better? The laws as they currently are or a system in which marijuana is legal for adults to possess, grow and purchase in stores . . . where it can be grown and sold commercially, where it’s a legal product? Yes, there will still be laws on the books with penalties for people who violate them . . . but answer that for me. What would be preferable? What the laws are currently or what I just described?

 

 

 

LH: Well, obviously, where it is at least legal to grow and sell.

 

 

 

MT: So if right now, marijuana was a legal product to grow and sell, but there were still same penalties for possession over the limits the initiative covers—nothing would increase; it would just be the same penalties as before—would that not be better?

 

 

 

LH: It would be better. Absolutely.

 

 

 

MT: So the next question would be, if you’re going to see those broader changes the other group wants, would it be easier for the legislature or the public to support them currently or in a situation where marijuana is already a legal product. . .? Under which circumstance would the public be more likely to support that?

 

 

 

LH: When you phrase it that way, I would say the latter.

 

 

 

MT: So that’s the whole point. They’re talking about putting stuff that’s not necessarily popularly supported into an initiative that is popularly supported. And keep in mind, Arizona only passed a medical marijuana law by a few thousand votes. So the notion that you’re going to say we want to not only have marijuana be legal for adults and have it for sale in stores and legal to grow at home, but we want to also remove the criminal penalties for all of these higher level offenses that people are going to be concerned about occurring, it’s just not realistic.

 

What are opponents’ concerns if this passes? You’ve got law enforcement and other people who are scared that adults will just possess tons of marijuana at their house, that they will be growing tons of plants or they will traffic marijuana out of the state or they’ll sell it illegally . . . those are the concerns. Those are the reasons people will vote ‘no’; fear of those types of activities. So, if you are going to remove the penalties for those types of activities in addition to changing the laws surrounding adult use and making marijuana legal . . . You’re very likely going to lose. Can I guarantee you’re going to lose? Of course not.

 

It would be one thing if we were going to add or create new penalties, but that’s not the case. We’re talking about moving from an illegal prohibition system to a legal system. Anyone who wants to see those penalties for other offenses removed or changed is going to be much closer to that if this law passes than if it doesn’t. So, it’s really irresponsible, quite frankly, to make it an initiative that will lose when it could otherwise win . . . and I think that’s obvious to most people.

 

 

 

LH: I’m going to pound on this point a little more but then I want to move on because there’s a lot to cover. If you’ve read the interview, you know they had a lot of things to say about you guys that I’d like you to address . . .

 

 

 

MT: Well, let me add that our organization has done more to decriminalize marijuana at all levels than these folks have. Our executive director spent months in jail. A lot of the people who are part of this organization are here because they faced legal issues surrounding marijuana. This notion that we don’t care . . . it’s not that. There is a reason why we’ve managed to move the law further in the last several years than others have in the last several decades and it’s because we’re doing it in a smart fashion.

 

 

 

In Colorado, we had this same type of criticism . . . It was basically the exact same situation where you had a smaller group of activists who felt like there should be fewer regulations and that it should just remove all penalties for all other things. Now, one thing I’ll tell you is that those people campaigned against us, but the day after the initiative was passed, they opened an online store selling t-shirts touting its passage.

 

 

 

LH: Well, let me ask you one more thing about the decrim issue. I understand why you don’t want to remove penalties for everything, but why still leave it as a felony and not create new statutes that make it a misdemeanor or even just a finable offense? Something where it’s like, “Oh, I had over the limit and now I just got a ticket for $500 bucks. Man, that really just messed up my weekend.” That would be a pretty decent deterrent that wouldn’t land people in prison over a plant that should never have been illegal in the first place.

 

 

 

MT: Part of it is a matter of showing the voters that all we’re doing is making it legal for adults to possess and grow limited amounts of marijuana and take it out the underground market and establish a legal system, but otherwise nothing is changing. Keep in mind, what we’re doing here is making sure voters are comfortable. And by definition, change makes voters uncomfortable . . .

 

 

 

LH: Yeah, especially in a state that’s willing to keep John McCain as their senator.

 

 

 

MT: Yeah . . . So, I’ll have to ask the attorneys, but there might be some specific legal issues in regard to what can and can’t be done in terms of a specific initiative. I would need to double check on those. But. . . in terms of changing limits or removing penalties, you have to have things in place that will deter marijuana going into the illegal market. We heard this in Colorado. “Why is the penalty not changing for possessing more than one ounce?” What we’ve seen, number one, is that all of those arrests dropped for those bigger offenses that were not made legal. So, that’s one thing. But we also pretty quickly saw the legislature start making changes. One of the issues in Colorado was people said the initiative didn’t change things for minors. It kept it the same crime, which is a petty offense in Colorado. But obviously, having something in the initiative that lowers the penalties for minors would be incredibly politically difficult. But, do you know what the legislature did immediately after the initiative passed? They changed it. They did it. Because now, we were talking about a legal product that was being sold in stores and is legal for adults and so forth, so now we need to start addressing those things. It’s the same when it comes to things like possession limits. Should an adult only be allowed to possess one ounce of marijuana? I mean, look at the fact that they can generally possess a copious amount of alcohol . . . five kegs of beer or a whole box of vodka . . . that’s because that product has been legal for 80 years and it is legal in every state surrounding Arizona. But we are talking about a product that has been illegal for the past 80 years and is illegal in most of the surrounding states. You can’t look at it in a vacuum. Look at it like this: we are trying to bring about the largest change in marijuana laws in the history of the State of Arizona on one ‘yes or no’ question. And they are upset that it doesn’t go further. They’re ignoring the fact that it brings them closer than ever before to what they want.

 

 

 

LH: Let’s discuss the suggestion that you guys are beholden to the highest bidder. That touches on a deeper issue within the marijuana movement. A lot of people see the corporate world coming in and usurping what otherwise is a very egalitarian plant, something that unravels monopolies. People see a lot of these bills, the Ohio one especially, we all know that one failed because there was a backlash within the movement saying that they were trying to preemptively create a monopoly or oligopoly to maintain their status at the top.

 

 

 

MT: We did not support that initiative and we’ve never proposed an initiative like that.

 

 

 

You’ve got to take into account what exists already. These guys are saying that this is the dispensaries taking over. Well, ok, these are existing marijuana businesses that are going to need to convert over so there’s an inherent need to have these people interested in making this work. If you were to do something that was completely shutting down previously existing businesses, you’d get criticized for screwing people over who were just hardworking people creating their own businesses. So, the other part of this is that we want to have these people on board because these people have already invested their time, their money, potentially their freedom . . . they’ve put themselves at great risk to start these businesses to provide medical marijuana to patients. So the notion that they should be involved in creating their future, to me, makes perfect sense. Now, then there is the question of what it is they want to do. So, this is where things were with us. There was a point in time when there were two separate groups here. There were the dispensary folks and then there was MPP. There were separate entities and potentially separate initiatives, which is very problematic because number one, it’s very difficult, if not possible to win if there are a few things on the ballot. Then, it’s going to also be very difficult or impossible to win if you don’t have enough resources or you’ve got these people with these resources in this position within that community against it. So, we needed to find a way to compromise. That is where you find that putting together an initiative that everyone is mostly happy with, but most would prefer to have one two things be different is the most effective way to make progress . . . Ultimately, we felt it was done in a way that would create a good law. People will have just as much of an ability to get into this industry as they would with any other industry. There are a limited number of liquor licenses. You are not by definition given the inalienable right to produce and sell liquor out of your basement. You know, granted, it’s made out of natural things and it’s something that people have done for centuries. We live in a society where products that are being sold for human consumption need to be regulated and controlled. Arizona has an existing system for alcohol which is the closest product that you could compare to marijuana in terms of how it’s viewed by the public and how it’s used, how it’s an intoxicating substance for adults. It needs to be produced in a controlled way. That’s how Arizona’s system was. They have a limited number of liquor licenses. So you try to create a system that is similar to what people are comfortable with and how that state has moved forward. There is a reason why the State of Arizona didn’t say, “You know what? let’s just let every person in the State start making vodka and selling it with no control.” There’s a reason for that. For that same reason is why we need to have these types of limitations and regulations in place to ensure that the voters want it. It’s very easy to say, “Well, this is what we think is the best,” but what you think is the best doesn’t matter. It’s what voters think is the best. If it’s not something that the voters want, you are not the man of the people, you are a man for yourself.

 

 

 

LH: Ok, but why only 10% of liquor stores?

 

 

 

MT: Personally, that is totally a point that could be argued in different ways. Again, you’ve got a situation where it’s a product that’s been illegal for a very long time and one of the concerns is that there will be a marijuana store on every corner. Now, I would say yeah, if we can have that many liquor stores, we should be able to have that many marijuana stores. Marijuana is a less harmful substance. I’ve co-authored a book based on making that point. But what it comes down to is that not everyone looks at marijuana as being as acceptable as alcohol yet. We live in a time where people are very concerned about the idea of having a marijuana store on every corner. There are also some people who say that it wasn’t done right with alcohol. I’m not necessarily saying that’s a good point or bad point, but it’s going to be a point that gets made. We’re going to see the opponents constantly saying, “This is going to result in stores all over the place.” Well, no. It’s going to be a set number. You can’t say it’s going to be everywhere. It’s going to be . . . one-tenth the number of liquor stores and if you’re ok with this many liquor stores, this many marijuana stores should be no problem.

 

 

 

LH: Obviously the people in this business who have the most money are going to donate to campaigns and organizations, whether it’s you, NORML, whoever. How as an organization do you maintain your integrity and continue to be for everyone and avoid becoming the face of ‘Big Marijuana’ when ‘Big Marijuana’ is the one that’s basically signing your paycheck? Convince the people.

 

 

 

MT: Well, that’s a fundamental error right there. Do you know what percentage of our organization’s budget came from people in the marijuana industry last year?

 

 

 

LH: Tell me.

 

 

 

MT: Ten. Ten percent. Out of 4.2 million dollars, $420,000 came from the marijuana industry . . . this organization, again, was started in 1995 by people who were truly committed to ending marijuana prohibition, none of whom are making any money off of this. I mean, I make my salary as a nonprofit employee, but I don’t have a business that stands to make any money. These are all people who are involved in this because it’s the right thing to do. So it’s incredibly insulting when people accuse us of this type of bunny muffin. It’s ridiculous . . . Someone has to support this stuff and right now, up until this point, we generally have not seen nearly as much support from the industry as we wanted. Now in Arizona, a lot of these businesses are really starting to step up. But it’s crazy how often I have to remind people that only ten percent of our budget comes from the marijuana industry.

 

 

 

LH: That definitely changes the perception. I didn’t just hear this from Mr. Medar; I’ve heard from a lot of people in the industry that have started to think that the MPP has gone a little corporate.

 

 

 

MT: Well, any type of business or organization that becomes successful and grows has become ‘corporate.’ It’s a fundamental error that people make. Don’t get me wrong; I’m a very progressive person. But obviously, I think that there is a point at which you can acknowledge that things can be successful and grow without it being bad. Let’s look at it the way people characterize the industry. They’re saying that they don’t like the fact that existing dispensaries will be able to continue? Well, why? These people are doing the same thing you’re saying people should be allowed to do, to start a business and try to make it. And if they’re successful, like any other business, they might grow. There was a time when Coors was a tiny little brewery in Colorado. And then people all over started hearing about it and they started shipping their products all over the place and it became bigger and bigger. Meanwhile, you had this whole contingency of people that started saying, “Well, that’s a big brewery and we don’t like that. We want something smaller.” Ok, then you had New Belgium. They showed up and they were a tiny little brewery. They started to become successful, started to grow, and now they’ve got a brewery that’s based in Ashville, North Carolina in addition to the one here in Fort Collins and they’re becoming a much larger company. Now we’ve got much smaller craft brew companies here in Colorado that if they were to start becoming more successful, they’d become the next New Belgium. It’s not a marijuana or alcohol thing. This is a society in which we live thing. If our organization is driven by what is considered ‘corporate,’ what is corporate about raising money and investing and passing a decriminalization law in Vermont? Or passing a decriminalization law in Rhode Island? To remove the threat of jail and the criminal penalties for possession and make it just a $100 fine or a $150 fine, depending on the state, what is corporate about that? And then they’ll just be like, “Well, it should just be legal.” Ok, great. If you can convince the same legislature that is unwilling to remove jail time for possession of up to an ounce of marijuana to instead make it legal, good luck. That’s an utterly immature and naive way of expecting results. It’s not how it works. But what we have seen is that MPP did spearhead the effort to decriminalize in Vermont. Now, look at what’s happening in the Vermont legislature. And MPP did spearhead the effort to pass a medical marijuana law in Illinois and now it’s moving toward decriminalization. . . In Maryland, medical and then decrim. In Arizona, medical . . . You just have certain segments of the population who are never going to be happy or are only going to be happy if it’s done their way, even if their way is not viable and it’s not going to supported. If that’s your way, you’ve got to find another way. That’s just what it comes down to.

 

 

 

 

LH: One of the things Jason said in the published interview was that the MPP wouldn’t even be willing to debate him on this subject. Would you guys be willing to debate him on it?

 

 

 

MT: We had something similar in Colorado where we had some folks who, from what is sounds like, basically had the same types of complaints—and remember these are the people who then tried to profit off of a law we passed after accusing us of being these corporate people, they tried to then make money off of the new law once it passed. They invited us to participate in a debate. They got the editor of Westword . . . to be the moderator and we agreed. In fact, there were plenty of people within our group who were against participating. I was the one who said we should do it, so I did it and gave them their chance. It was so ridiculous to the point where the moderator apologized to me for having anything to do with it. All they did was yell and scream and make wild claims that were unsubstantiated. One of them lit a joint and blew smoke in my face. We said, “You know what? This accomplishes nothing. You said you wanted to have a discussion. What we ended up having was you accusing us of things.” If they want to have a discussion, that’s one thing, but that’s not what they want because those discussions occurred. There were all sorts of various local meetings where different advocates talked about these proposals and so on. You know, they want a punching bag and we don’t have time to be a punching bag because we’re trying to end marijuana prohibition . . .

 

 

 

We are confident that the initiative that we propose is a good law, it will have the support of most voters and it will have the support of enough activists, donors and members of the public that we can actually run a successful campaign. They’re proposing something that doesn’t fit any of those things, other than the question of whether it would be a good law. I don’t know all the details of what they’re proposing, so I can’t say for sure, but assuming they didn’t include any really wild ridiculous stuff, in an ideal world, I’m sure it would be great. But we live in the real world.

 

 

 

LH: There are two initiatives vying to be on the ballot and most likely, both will make it, at least from what I’ve read. So, let’s go ahead and say there are two initiatives come November. It’s not an either/or, right?

 

 

 

MT: Oh, no. People could vote for both.

 

 

 

LH: Do you see any reason why any true believer in marijuana legalization shouldn’t vote for both?

 

 

 

MT: Honestly, I don’t know what their proposal entails entirely, but if both measures are on the ballot and they have a sound proposal, then sure. I would need to look at all the details. But regardless, the problem is that when there are two proposals on the ballot, it raises doubt and that is the number one thing that results in initiatives losing . . . it becomes less of a “is this the right decision?” and “should we keep it the same or change it?” and becomes, “Should we keep it the same, change it to one thing or change it to another thing?” And now, generally by default, people will vote ‘no’ just to maintain the status quo because that’s comfortable. It’s just general voter behavior. So, does that mean we would say that everyone needs to vote no on their initiative? No. We would be focused on encouraging people to vote for the initiative that we put on the ballot.

 

 

 

LH: Anything you’d like to add?

 

 

 

MT: Ultimately, we’re confident that this is going to be a law that most voters and most of the public supports. And while it may not go as far as some people would like, it goes further than ever before and brings people that much closer to the ultimate goal.

 

 

 

LH: Thanks for your time, Mason.

[t-pain]

heres mpp's ohio medical marijuana constitutional initiative.

http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/getattachment/5e9bb8eb-91dd-4d87-8fb9-dd87c82b88b5/Medical-Use-of-Marijuana-(Second-Submission).aspx

[+Malamute]

 In Arizona, the Department of Health keeps track of all the statistics for our medical program and it shows that only 30% of our 90,000 patients buy their marijuana from dispensaries. So where are the other 60,000 people getting their marijuana, and what does MPP’s initiative do to protect them?

 

 

[t-pain]

unfortunately i'm screwed because i agree with the arizona guy and with mason tyvert.

 

i want abrogate. i want full 100% real decrim removing all penalties.

but i live in reality where you need million bucks to get that on the ballot.

 

so yeah is mpp's bill better than what they have now? sure.

so i'll support it. just like i support milegalize.

 

a 90% reduction in arrests is better than nothing.

many many independent ballot initiatives have failed over the years. mpp really has gotten a lot of them into laws. but wow are they bad about it sometimes.

[+Malamute]

The Grow Rights provision is one of the big issues. In MPP’s initiative they say “you can grow these six plants.” Then they say that a city or county can ban marijuana growing if they consider it to be a nuisance, but leave nuisance specifically and purposefully undefined. The problem is that the people who will be making the decision of what will be considered a nuisance will not be a court of law, it’s going to be a city council. It’s going be a group of five or six people that make that decision for the city or county. And because the city council isn’t a court of law, there’s no burden of proof required for them to pass an ordinance. They don’t need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt or even by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a nuisance. The concern is that they’re going to lie and say, “We think it’s a nuisance and here’s our list of reasons why—so we’re passing this ordinance that says marijuana growing is banned from the City of Phoenix.” Medical grow operations would not be included in that. But about 98% of us, as medical patients, cannot grow because of the 25 Mile rule, which says that any of us that live within 25 miles of a dispensary are not allowed to grow. And the state put dispensaries everywhere— even in cities that have a couple thousand people for population. So, essentially, nobody can grow throughout the state.

 

[t-pain]

heres mpp's arizona legalization initiative

http://apps.azsos.gov/election/2016/general/ballotmeasuretext/I-08-2016.pdf

[+Malamute]

unfortunately i'm screwed because i agree with the arizona guy and with mason tyvert.

 

i want abrogate. i want full 100% real decrim removing all penalties.

but i live in reality where you need million bucks to get that on the ballot.

 

so yeah is mpp's bill better than what they have now? sure.

so i'll support it. just like i support milegalize.

 

a 90% reduction in arrests is better than nothing.

many many independent ballot initiatives have failed over the years. mpp really has gotten a lot of them into laws. but wow are they bad about it sometimes.

 

 

 Well, I have been following this issue the entire time in Arizona. 

 

MPP has been horrible.  They CAN make a better law.  There is no reason they cant.

[t-pain]

i'm not immediately seeing the local control of individual growing in mpp's initiative. its there somewhere?

[+Malamute]

MPP sold out in 2009.

 

I totally respect them for what they did, and totally despise them for what the have become.

 

 I have gone round and round with them as well. They don't particularly care for my input anymore. ;-)

[+Malamute]

There are certain points that MPP just doesn't get.

 

Example: Does ANYONE think that the MMMAct would not have passed if it said 4 oz instead 2.5oz? Anyone?

 

Is there anyone that thinks it is smart to let someone grow and only allow 1 ounce of usable?

 

Bleh....

 

They make excuses for stuff that will make zero difference on whether it passes or not.

[Norby]

"However, the AP asked a follow-up question that found a considerable amount of nuance in Americans' support marijuana legalization. Twenty-four percent of legalization supporters said marijuana should be made available "only with a medical prescription." Another 43 percent said there should be "restrictions on purchase amounts." And one-third of legalization supporters said there should be "no restrictions" on purchase amounts."

[cristinew]

 

Mexican pot 50 bucks an oz  just as good as good or better than the 400 an oz dispensary crap.

[Wild Bill]

The highest bidder in Arizona was a group of 30 wealthy medical marijuana dispensary owners.

 

Well, there's a surprise.

[+Malamute]

There needs to be more preface to the Arizona situation.

 

The dispensaries were going to run an even worse initiative before. MPP had a hissy fit they weren't involved. They got the dispensaries to finally meet and agree to allow MPP to take charge of it as long as the dispensaries basically got to write it.

 

 There was INSANE amounts of bad mouthing nonsense between the dispensaries and MPP.  MPP basically caved because the dispensaries agreed to fund.  I am sure you could go back a year and find the ridiculousness that occurred.

 

 

This group here that started this thread was actually a third group.

[imiubu]

There is room at the table for home growers, dispensaries and farmers markets.

 

Retail wants to cut out what they perceive as competition.

 

In the end it all comes down to   for those folks, and not about patients having 'safe' access.

 

I believe 100% in the "american dream".  I have no issue with a shop on every dang corner.

 

Not at the expense of patients and their right to grow their own medicine though.

[t-pain]

The dispensaries were going to run an even worse initiative before.

MPP had a hissy fit they weren't involved.

They got the dispensaries to finally meet and agree to allow MPP to take charge of it as long as the dispensaries basically got to write it.

MPP basically caved because the dispensaries agreed to fund.

so dispensaries wrote and funded it why is mpp even there at this point?

[+Malamute]

Jealousy.  Ego. 

 

 I am not even sure it can pass honestly. At best it will be very close.

[+Malamute]

The first link there has a full story. I only pasted some of it. This is all stuff from a year ago in Arizona. It has been a long extended drama. And all of that drama was prior to this issue with this group in Arizona in the first post.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/dispensaries-shake-up-chances-for-marijuana-legalization-in-arizona-in-2016-7287603

 

As we reported on March 27, the Marijuana Policy Project of Arizona was surprised by the sudden launch of a competing 2016 campaign by their chairperson, Dr. Gina Berman.

A leaked online survey shows that a coalition of Arizona medical-marijuana dispensaries are backing Berman's group.

 

See also: -New Marijuana-Legalization Ballot Campaign Launched in Arizona

 

Even if two campaigns could each pull in enough donor money to pay for the hundreds of thousands of signatures that would need to be gathered, the presence of two similar measures on the ballot would probably mean trouble for both. Polls show marijuana legalization support runs 50-50 in Arizona, at best. The 2010 medical-marijuana initiative put on the ballot by the MPP passed by a mere 4,341 votes out of nearly 1.7 million cast.

 

Confusingly, the new campaign fashioned its name -- Arizonans for Responsible Legalization -- after the name of the new anti-legalization group, Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy. Berman hasn't granted media interviews since last Friday's launch and news release, leaving the talking to hired spokesman Barrett Marson.

 

The dispute allegedly concerns whether an initiative should contain a cap on the number of marijuana retail outlets, and whether Arizonans should be allowed to grow a small amount of marijuana for their personal use. Neither side has yet released a draft initiative, though the MPP -- having launched its campaign officially in September -- is further along in the process and has a draft being reviewed current by the state's Legislative Council.

 

Rob Kampia, executive director of the MPP in Washington D.C., wrote to Berman that he was "shocked" at her departure from the Arizona MPP effort and that her stated reasons for the split were unfounded. He threatened to retaliate against the Valley dispensary where Berman works as medical director.

 

"I've come to conclude there's a sickness on your team, but I don't know where it's originating from," Kampia wrote in a March 29 email. "I'm already budgeting $10,000 (as of Friday) to pay people for 1,000 hours of time to distribute literature outside of your front door, and the literature will not portray you in a kind way."

 

"Distributing literature will be one of four or five tactics to disrupt your business; again, this will all be legal," he told her.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arizona Controversy

In March 2015, Rob Kampia threatened Gina Berman, an emergency room doctor and operator of The Giving Tree Wellness Center, a licensed medical marijuana dispensary in Phoenix. A leaked email stated that he would spend $10,000 to pay people for 1,000 hours of time to distribute literature outside of her front door that would not portray her favorably. This was triggered by philosophical differences regarding the 2016 legalization campaign between Kampia's organization and marijuana dispensary operators in Arizona. Berman issued a public response stating that if Kampia pursues the threat, "it is very likely that both MPP as an organization and you as an individual will be liable for tortuously interfering with business expectancies."

 

 

 

https://mjbizdaily.com/mpp-director-threatens-arizona-cannabis-dispensaries-legalization-rift/

 

MPP Director Threatens Arizona Cannabis Dispensaries Over Legalization Rift

 

The Marijuana Policy Project’s executive director is threatening to spend thousands of dollars to disrupt a pair of Arizona dispensaries, saying a key staffer of the businesses who also headed up MPP’s campaign to legalize recreational cannabis in the state will “pay a price” if she spearheads a competing measure.

 

The friction leaves the future of rec cannabis in Arizona up in the air, pitting a key cannabis lobbying organization against a dispensary executive and many of her peers in the state’s MMJ industry who have a different vision of legalization.

 

The dispute stems from disagreements between MPP and reportedly several dozen Arizona medical marijuana dispensaries over language in a proposed ballot measure for 2016 that would legalize recreational cannabis.

 

After negotiations between the two sides apparently fell apart last week, Gina Berman – who at the time served as chairwoman of MPP’s Arizona campaign and is the medical director of The Giving Tree Wellness Center dispensaries – filed paperwork with the Arizona Secretary of State’s office on Friday to create a new campaign committee called Arizonans for Responsible Legalization (ARL).

 

Berman is planning a separate measure that would essentially compete with the one MPP is crafting, and filing with the secretary of state was her first official act in that vein.

 

In retaliation, MPP head Rob Kampia (pictured) penned a furious email to Berman on Sunday.

 

“If you file a competing initiative with the Secretary of State anyway, we will specifically launch a series of actions to harm your business,” Kampia wrote in the email, which was obtained by Marijuana Business Daily.

 

“I’m already budgeting $10,000 (as of Friday) to pay people for 1,000 hours of time to distribute literature outside of your front door, and the literature will not portray you in a kind way. We will not target any other dispensaries; we will only target you,” Kampia wrote.

 

The email also indicated that MPP would replace Berman this week as head of its Arizona campaign, which Kampia confirmed was done on Tuesday.

There were at least two central differences that brought the situation to a head.

 

While MPP wants either a large or unlimited number of recreational shop licenses allowed in the ballot measure language, Berman and ARL supporters want a cap on the number of licenses. And while MPP wants a ballot measure that would allow for any resident to cultivate recreational marijuana at home, Berman contended in an email response to Kampia that such “dramatic deregulation” isn’t politically feasible.

 

On Tuesday, Kampia defended his position to Marijuana Business Daily, saying that Berman’s move to spearhead a competing measure threatens to undercut the chances that either camp will be able to succeed in legalizing marijuana in the state next year.

 

“She’s threatening the freedom of literally thousands of Arizonans. If I can take out one business as a way of keeping lots of people out of prison, then by God, I’m going to do that,” Kampia said. “I felt really quite shocked when the chair of our committee blindsided us with this nonsense on Friday. She’s going to pay a price for that.”

 

Kampia further asserted that Berman lied in an email disseminated to Arizona dispensary owners and employees when she claimed that MPP had refused to negotiate on the terms of the ballot measure.

 

“(MPP) has steadfastly refused to agree to reasonable compromises,” Berman wrote in that email. “All language put forth by the MPP would ultimately jeopardize the investments you’ve made to make Arizona a responsible cannabis state.”

 

That statement is patently false, Kampia said.

 

“We actually compromised on by far the two biggest issues, plus a couple dozen other issues, and we only had five left, and we were waiting to hear back from them,” Kampia said.

 

Kampia said he was “waiting by the phone, and the next thing I see is that Gina’s in the news filing her own campaign committee” on Friday.

 

Berman did not respond to repeated requests for comment, but a spokesman shared a letter she wrote to Kampia on Tuesday. In the response, Berman said that if Kampia makes good on his threat to interfere with The Giving Tree’s business, then she and ARL may file a civil lawsuit against both him and MPP under tort law.

 

“If you carry through on these threats, it is very likely that both MPP as an organization and you as an individual will be liable for tortuously [sic] interfering with business expectancies,” Berman wrote to Kampia.

 

Berman would be well within her rights to file such a claim, said Seattle cannabis attorney Ryan Agnew. And, he suggested, Kampia could be jeopardizing his job as executive director.

 

“I would assume (MPP) would have at least one attorney…that would say, ‘Don’t you dare think about doing any of these things,'” Agnew said. “What they’re proposing if they follow through sounds more like tortious interference with a business relationship, and that is illegal. I think that if Rob took one step in that direction, MPP’s board lets him go and then they wash their hands of it.”

 

Agnew suggested a court judgment against Kampia – and MPP – could be far more costly than the $10,000 he threatened to spend against Berman.

Berman also wrote to Kampia that MPP, as a 501©4, would be prohibited under federal law from using financial resources “to pursue a personal vendetta,” and said she would report such actions to the Internal Revenue Service.

 

MPP board member James Slatic said on Tuesday that it is “certainly not our policy” to threaten businesses.

“That would be behavior that wouldn’t be sanctioned or authorized by the board, which ultimately employs the executive director,” Slatic said. “Our next board meeting is in April, in a few weeks, in Washington DC… I’ll be bringing this call to their attention.”

 

Another Arizona industry insider who requested anonymity said Kampia’s actions have damaged MPP’s reputation.

 

“It’s out there that MPP is trying to control every state, and if they don’t get their way, they’re willing to destroy people personally,” the person said.

 

As things stand, both MPP and ARL are in the process of finalizing language for their own respective legalization ballot measures. And that, said Agnew, is the “worst-case scenario.”

 

“Either they both fail to qualify (for the 2016 ballot) or they consume so much resources that should have been dedicated to one initiative, and Arizona doesn’t get to join the list of states that are taking the next step,” Agnew said.

 

 

 

 

MPP’s Rob Kampia Threatens To “Harm” Arizona Medical Marijuana Dispensary

 

http://marijuanapolitics.com/mpps-rob-kampia-threatens-to-harm-arizona-medical-marijuana-dispensary/

[+Malamute]

And the drama was going on before this stuff happened as well.  This drama started after the original one 6 months earlier. This was the compromise bill. There was already  competition for dispensary only. After all that pisssing match and finally agreeing to compromise is when my previous post started. Heh. Which ensued into drama. And now the third group, the one the thread was started for, is out there.

 

 Needless to say, Arizona has been a true shhit show for quite awhile now.

[+Malamute]

Hmm, now that I read what I wrote, it even confused me.

 

Simpler:

 

Summer/Fall 2014: Dispensaries start planning to run a dispensary only bill in 2016

 

 Fall 2014: Rob Kampia finds out and decides MPP should be running it.

 

Late fall 2014- Feb 2015: Pissing match between Kampia and dispensary group.  Agree to see if they can work together. Board formed with MPP and dispensary group.

 

March/April 2015: Kampia finds jesus and remembers he is supposed to be looking out for the little guy(home growing), but realizes he created a monster when MPP did the no home growing within 25 miles of a dispensary law and it birthed an evil class of greedy dispensary twatz who have become spoiled and wealthy without any competition.  And now these dispensaries feel them, and only them, should be allowed to have the legal market.  Now, Kampia(MPP) , found jesus and goes way out on the limb<sarc> and begs for 1 oz and 6 measley plants.  Pffft.

 

Thanks Rob Kampia. ;-p

 

And all the drama for April 1 and on is on my previous post of links.