TOXIC PROPOSALS: Why is NORML, Show Me Cannabis, and New Approach supporting prohibition?

   ANALYSIS OF MISSOURI PETITIONS (2016-134 and 2016-135)

By Pat and Lynn Kempen

you say it do you mean it

New Approach Missouri, NORML and Show Me Cannabis support these positively horrendous Constitutional Amendments, despite their disingenuous claims that they are fighting cannabis prohibition.

Bear in mind, the purpose of the Constitution is to establish limitations of government, and to protect the rights of we-the-people from oppressive government overreach.  These proposals (Missouri Petitions 2016-134 and 2016-135) are utterly antithetical to the very nature and intent of our Constitution.

The following analysis of these PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS (which are essentially identical except for where they are to be inserted in the Missouri Constitution), points out specific areas where these proposals would utterly fail the people of Missouri, and particularly those in need of cannabis as medicine.  These Constitutional proposals would grow Big Government in Missouri to outrageous and virtually limitless proportion with regard to the use and regulation of cannabis, and Constitutionally protect the State’s right to do so.

3.(1) Grows the Department of Health and Human Services (DHSS) into a government bureaucratic monstrosity.


3.(1) (b) This Constitutional provision grants DHSS authority to promulgate virtually limitless and absurd rules and “emergency rules” with regard to regulating and controlling the cultivation, manufacture, distribution and sale of cannabis for medicinal use; and limitless rules and emergency rules for enforcing such rules.


3.(2)  Authorizes DHSS to issue “ANY” (virtually limitless) rules or emergency rules to implement and enforce this Constitutional provision.


3.(2)(a) Authorizes DHSS to issue “ANY” (virtually limitless) rules with regard to enforcement of this the limitations and mandates of this Constitutional provision, including rules regarding  “grounds  for denying, suspending, fining, restricting, or revoking a state license” issued for medical cannabis.


3.(2)(c) Authorizes DHSS to issue rules  relating to “instructions or guidance for local authorities and law enforcement officers.”  So DHSS, a non-elected agency, with no particular proficiency with regard to cannabis, will be instructing local authorities and law enforcement with regard to the handling of cannabis.


3.(2) (d) Authorizes DHSS to issue virtually limitless requirements for inspections, investigations, searches, seizures and additional (LIMITLESS) enforcement activities regarding tracking cannabis “from seed to sale,” and to do so as often “as may become necessary from time to time.”  It might as well say “whenever we feel like it, you will have to jump this high as we tell you.”  This language is not worthy of our Constitution!

NORML is giving me a new reason to paranoid.
Image provided by NORML.

Am I the only one who see’s  a conflict here?

3.(2)(e) Authorizes DHSS to create a “range of administrative penalties” for DHSS to use with regard to cannabis.  DHSS will apparently be grown into a new arm of punitive law enforcement.

3.(2)(f)  Authorizes DHSS to make limitless rules relating to “Prohibition of misrepresentation and unfair practices.”
This verbiage is unspecific and completely subjective.
Does this verbiage really need to be added to our Constitution?
I contend this is already covered by common sense, and existing laws.


3.(2)(g) Authorizes DHSS to issue limitless rules regarding “Control of informational and product displays on licensed premises;”
DHSS will have total control over free speech regarding information regarding cannabis at “licensed premises.”  Check your First Amendment right with regard to cannabis at the boundaries of any property licensed for cannabis.


3.(2)(h) any employee, contractor or support staff of any “licensed” facility will have to have their fingerprints taken and, per FBI testimony, entered into the criminal (not civil) fingerprint data base.  (The government just keeps building their data bases.) source:

Image provided by NORML


3.(2)(i) Authorizes DHSS to make ANY rules regarding security requirements for any licensed premises, including “at minimum”, “lighting, physical security, video, alarm requirements, any other minimum procedures, reporting requirements of any change whatsoever to the licensed premises.   DHSS will have authority to make ANY rule, and rules for enforcement of their rules, and the rules are virtually limitless and could be made outright ridiculous.  Rules and requirements for licensed facilities may make it completely cost-prohibitive, and there is nothing to stop DHSS, because they will be Constitutionally authorized to make ANY rules with regard to requirements, as well as penalties.


3.(2)(j) Authorizes DHSS to make ANY rules regarding to storing and transportation of cannabis.  For example, armed vehicles could be required to transport it, or armed vehicles that fly, or maybe cannabis will only be able to be transported by submarine!  DHSS has Constitutionally protected authority to make ANY rule with regard to this.


3.(2)(k) Authorizes DHSS to make limitless sanitary requirements for cannabis infused products.  For example, DHSS could require anyone in a facility where cannabis infused products are made be vaccinated for whatever new-fangled vaccination DHSS wants to require.  They could require hazmat suits be worn throughout the facility.  The limitless requirements DHSS will be Constitutionally authorized to impose will undoubtedly astronomically increase the cost to the consumer, to have any “right” to this medicinal weed.


3.(2)(l) Authorizes DHSS to issue ANY rules regarding what will be acceptable forms of picture identification for verifying any sale of cannabis.  This could include bio-metric identification, RFID chip in that identification, and/or an international passport, or some entirely new photo identification just for this purpose, and DHSS could set any fee they want to charge for such identification.


3.(2)(o) Authorizes DHSS to issue ANY rules for State licensing procedures, and the payment of those licensing fees.  DHSS could mandate that all licenses be paid by money order (initial cost to become a licensed Dispensary facility, is minimally $23,000 just for licensing fees, not including any equipment, product, or surveillance equipment, which can be required without limit.)


3.(2)(r) Authorizes DHSS to make ANY rules with regard to “Such other matters as are necessary for the fair, impartial, STRINGENT, and comprehensive administration of this section.”
This provides DHSS limitless authority to issue virtually limitless rules with regard to access to cannabis and the ability to propagate it; and Constitutionally protects DHSS’s right to do so.


3.(4) Authorizes DHSS to maintain confidentiality of all the info they gather with regard to licensing (facilities, and patients), but “Any information released related to patients may be used only for purposes authorized by federal law.”  Federal and State law are readily amendable.
Furthermore, the Dept. of Justice, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms have already weighed in on the matter of States with medical marijuana laws:  Any person who uses marijuana, “regardless of whether his or her state has passed legislation authorizing marijuana for use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.”  Bye-bye 2nd amendment if you are an eligible patient under this proposed Constitutional Amendment; you will have no right to possess firearms or ammunition.  The ATF or other agencies can demand the list of eligible patients, which DHSS will have in a neatly compiled database, and issue felony weapon possession arrest warrants for any eligible patients with registered guns.   
The DEA can also demand the list of eligible patients, which DHSS will have in a neatly compiled database, for the purpose of issuing warrants for felony possession of “marijuana”.


3.(7) GROWING FACILITIES will be limited to 30,000 square feet of flowering canopy space, and outdoor licensed growing to 2,800 plants (heaven help you if 2803 pop up, cuz there is no limit set for the penalty of that!)  A cultivation license is $20,000 per year (in addition to a $3,000 non-refundable application fee, which can be required every 3 years.)
What purpose do these limitations serve?
* This jeopardizes growing facilities with limitless penalties and limitless enforcement of such penalties, if a violation is to occur.  DHSS could potentially declare the penalty for having one single plant too many in a growing facility is $8,000,000,000,000, and they’d be Constitutionally protected in doing so! 
* This limits the practical economies of scale that larger production offers, and it dramatically increases the cost of the end-product, solely for the purpose of the state’s gain, at the expense of patients.
This license will be renewable “except for good cause,” which is a nebulous legal term that can mean anything, and which attorneys will have a hay day with.
Any larger growing operation requires additional permits separate permit ($20,000/year plus the $3,000 non-refundable application fee.)
Do we really want this micromanagement of business in OUR CONSTITUTION?! 
The Constitution is intended to protect the rights of citizens, not micromanage business for purposes of State government profit!


3.(8) DISPENSARY FACILITIES will pay a $3,000 non-refundable application fee (every 3 years), PLUS a $10,000 annual licensing fee.  Again, this license is renewable “except for good cause” which is completely subjective and nebulous, and attorneys can have a hay day with.


3.(9) CANNABIS INFUSED PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES will pay a $3,000 non-refundable application fee (every 3 years), and a $10,000 annual fee.  Each facility requires a separate license, and since DHSS is Constitutionally being authorized to make ANY rule, they could require every individual product have a separate license and application, making cannabis infused products cost-prohibitive.
*Again, the license is renewable “except for good cause,” which is completely subjective and nebulous, and attorneys will love that.


3.(10) “Except for good cause,” gives qualifying patients the right to purchase an ID card from DHSS (for $100/year,) to cultivate up to 6 flowering plants (heaven help ya if a 7th plant flowers, cuz there is NO LIMIT to what the penalty, or means of enforcement of such penalty, will be), for the exclusive use of the patient.  This is in addition to the patient ID (another $25/year) that we haven’t gotten to yet.
*”Except for good cause” is entirely subjective, and patients may be denied and ID card for whatever rule DHSS dictates; the patient then has the right to litigate (more $$).
*Nothing would stop DHSS from imposing an application fee of ANY sum, to go along with this ID.
*Nothing would stop DHSS from creating rules that patient cultivators be required to have extensive, industrial, surveillance and alarm systems, making growing one’s own “up to 6” medicinal cannabis plants cost-prohibitive.


3.(11) Authorizes DHSS to limit quantity (though no less than 6 ounces of dried, unprocessed, or its equivalent) of cannabis purchases by a single patient (minimally 6 ounces dried, unprocessed, or its equivalent) for a 30 day period, unless at least 2 independent physicians have provided certification the qualifying patient needs a great amount than the limit.
* Every doctor visit is an additional expense for the patient (typically $100-$300).
* Penalty for being over said possession limit is unspecified, and thus could be set at exorbitant sums, by DHSS; and DHSS will be Constitutionally protected in doing so. 


3.(12) POSSESSION LIMITATIONS:  This section is complete micromanagement of patients in need of cannabis, as well as creating a costly burden of required medical documentation for seriously ill patients.  For example, a cancer patient, requiring significant quantities of cannabis (oils, juicing the raw leaf, and dried) to treat their disease, may be Constitutionally prohibited from continuing cannabis treatment by DHSS, stripped of their cannabis patient ID card for up to a year, as well as fined administrative penalties (which are LIMITLESS per the way this proposal is written,) for exceeding the arbitrary “legal limit” of cannabis imposed by this Act if they do not have at least TWO physicians certifying compelling reasons for their need to exceed the arbitrary medical possession limits imposed by this Act.
This is NOT what our Constitution is for!!!
NOTE:  This section deems that possessing more than the legal limit (which does not specify THC amount) dictated in this act is punishable with an “administrative penalty” (undefined and limitless) and loss of their patient ID for up to a year (keeping the patient in need from this natural medicinal non-toxic plant they so need.)
Furthermore, this section of the proposal dictates that “Possessing amounts in excess of twice the legal limit shall be punishable by IMPRISONMENT of up to 1 year and a fine of up to $2,000.”
So, potentially, the penalty for possessing over the limit but under twice the limit of cannabis, could be greater than that of possession of more than twice this arbitrary legal limit.
Is this what our Constitution is for?  Imprisoning patients for accessing a non-toxic, healthful, weed?
Jailed patients, btw, do not have any right to access medicinal cannabis, even if they require it to stop seizures, or to treat cancer (see Section 7(1)(a))
Why ANY “legalization” movement would intentionally put THIS verbiage into their Constitutional Amendment is noteworthy, and indicative of their allegiance, which is not to citizens or patients.
We need to ask ourselves, WHO does this Constitutional proposal benefit?  
I’d like to know who the victim is, if a patient has over DHSS’s arbitrary limits (it is not as though Dept. of Health and Senior Services is in any way expert on facts regarding cannabis, yet they will be authorized to regulate it entirely.)


3.(13) Limits Cultivation Facilities to 1 per 80,000 citizens if DHSS so desires.  Christian County would thus be entitled to only 1 cultivation license (barely, as CC population is just 80,899) if DHSS so declared, regardless of whether insufficient quantities of medicinal cannabis are available to patients in need.
This section goes on to have DHSS rank new applicants via highly subjective criteria (subject to fraud and political “favors”) while pushing the Dept. of Health and Senior Services into the field of Finance and Marketing, tasking it with determining “economic impact” and “maintaining competitiveness in the marijuana for medical use marketplace.”
Talk about giving license for BIG GOVERNMENT to get even bigger!


3.(14) limits licenses for medical cannabis infused product manufacturing facilities to 1 per 50,000 residents if DHSS so chooses.  What is more concerning than this random numerical restriction is, again, the completely subjective criteria (like “acceptance in the site community”) for ranking new applicants for such licensing.


3.(15) pertains to further subjective ranking of licensing Dispensary Facilities, but this section puts new entrepreneurs at a specific disadvantage to any entity that already has experience in the “health care” (aka Big Pharma) industry.   
Ranking Facilities by their “acceptance in the site community,” is entirely subjective.  Such subjectivity breeds corruption, and is being placed in the very Constitution.


3.(16)  This one is just stupid.  If DHSS fails to approve your Cultivation, Dispensary, or Infused Product Manufacturing application (which you paid a non-refundable $3,000 fee for) within 150 day of submitting it, you can “seek a court order compelling DHSS to approve or deny the application.”  So you’ll be out $3,000 PLUS you’ll be paying court costs to have DHSS provide you a denial notice.  How witty of members of the Bar Association to place this in our very CONSTITUTION!  Clearly this Amendment is drafted to enrich the Bar Association and its member attorneys and judges, further clogging up our judicial system, and raking in counsel fees and court fees.


3.(17) If DHSS unjustly fails to issue the $25/year ID card to an eligible patient for access to medicinal cannabis, then that patient only has the Constitutional right to access medicinal cannabis if they get “physician certification” every 30 days or less  (office visits  generally $100-300).   At least that is how I understand it, from how clumsily this is worded.  The patient has the right to appeal DHSS’s denial through the Administrative Hearing Commission, and if they are denied there, the patient has the “right” to take the matter to court, bearing in mind that possession of ANY cannabis remains federally prohibited by law. Additionally any judge (who is an elected official) can’t “interfere with DHSS, directly or indirectly” with regard to any of this, so the patient/citizen is Constitutionally prohibited from finding relief opposing DHSS through litigation (Clearly, this garbage of a proposed Constitutional Amendment was written by attorneys FOR attorneys.)


3.(18) Primary caregivers (of patients being treated with cannabis) will need be listed with DHSS and required to also buy a $25 annual ID card from DHSS.  Caregivers can’t be touchin’ this non-toxic, natural plant without proper identification that the State must collect money for!  Though DHSS reserves the right to deny anyone such permit, and they have Constitutional authority per this act, to create ALL the rules.  If a caregiver does not have proper ID, the penalties for any arbitrary rule infraction are limitless!


3.(21) acknowledges that any appeal of denial of licensing or ID cards will be “subject to judicial review as provided by law” (of which “law” includes and is still subject to the federal Controlled Substances Act, deeming “marijuana” to be a controlled substance of the worst degree with no accepted medicinal applications.  Cannabis possession remains a felony, so there is your “judicial review as provided by law.”)  As I said, the Bar Association will have a hay day with all this, while we-the-people will be trampled on, and pay, Pay, PAY, with every step we take.  But, 3.(22) in this measure states “no elected official” can “interfere” directly or indirectly with DHSS’s activities under this section (judges are elected officials), the eligible patient that is denied a patient ID or cultivator ID by has no legal recourse, as any right to challenge DHSS before a judge is rendered defunct, if this measure is adopted into the Missouri Constitution. 


3.(22) This is a rather strange addition to the Constitution.  “No elected official shall interfere directly or indirectly with DHSS’s obligations and activities under this section.”
*Some Health Department positions are publicly elected positions; so under this Constitutional measure, elected Health Department officials can’t interfere with non-elected Health Department officials.
*This measure also deems the US President, and the MO Governor, State legislators, Congress, and JUDGES, have absolutely no authority to touch whatever DHSS does under this Constitutional measure.  So all the “judicial review as provided by law” is essentially defunct.  So, DHSS is now essentially God, if this measure is adopted into the Missouri Constitution.



4.(1)  This Constitutionally mandates a 4% tax on medical marijuana (unlike other pharmaceuticals, which are tax exempt.)  Why should the State be granted the Constitutional right to tax medicinal cannabis, while unnatural pharmaceutical medications are tax exempt?  
*This section specifies that “after retaining no more than 5% of actual collection costs” of DHSS’s virtually limitless authority to regulate this plant, the rest of the funds raised by this tax will go to Veteran Services.  Understanding how bureaucracy breeds waste, and this Constitutional measure turns DHSS into a bureaucratic monstrosity, is this not reason for DHSS to maximize “collection costs”?  
* Having this proposal give part of the taxes collected to the VA is shameless pandering for Do-good Brownie points.  The real irony is that the VA does not prescribe cannabis for patients (as cannabis remains a Schedule 1 Controlled substance, federally prohibited, and the VA is a federal institution), it also has taken the position of refusing narcotic pain relief to veterans who test positive for cannabis.
* This proposal’s failure to address the Scheduling of Controlled Substances ultimately renders this Constitutional Amendment void.  


4.(2)(b)  This Constitutional proposal mandates “the Missouri Veterans Commission SHALL contract with other public agencies for delivery of services beyond its expertise.”  Why should cannabis re-legalization Constitutionally dictate Veteran Services?
Veterans I know would simply appreciate access to cannabis, without all the fees and regulation.
A portion of the 4% tax collected from medical cannabis sales MAY end up going to Veteran Services, depending on how expensive this new bureaucratic DHSS monstrosity is (DHSS can keep 5% of its “collection costs.”  Knowing how bureaucracy works, that is incentive to increase collection costs and corruption, and they intend to have it placed in our very Constitution.)


4.(3) mandates records of sale for medicinal use be kept for 5 years.
The federal government will have a database of all medical cannabis patients ready at their disposal to issue warrants for arrest for the possession of a federally prohibited substance, as well as felony weapons charges if any of them are registered gun owners.
WHY would an entity professing to promote legalization put THIS into a Constitutional measure?
The Constitution is intended to protect we-the-people FROM government infringement on our rights, not to impose government infringement ON our rights.


4.(4) This section Constitutionally authorizes state and local government to impose ANY general state and local sales and use taxes on retail medicinal cannabis sales, WITHOUT LIMIT, in addition to the 4% sin tax imposed by this measure.


4.(5) This section is essentially negated by 4.(4).
It is completely ineffectual and a waste of verbiage being thrown into our Constitution.


5.(1) Terribly worded; I’ll leave it at that. This is just BAD.


5.(4) “legal standards of professional conduct” is subjective, amendable, and limitless. BAD


5.(5) “legal standards of professional conduct” is subjective, amendable, and limitless. BAD


5.(6) This one is UNBELIEVABLE.  It states “A health care provider shall NOT be subject to mandatory reporting requirements” for medical cannabis use by minors “in a manner consistent with this section and with consent of a parent or guardian.”  Did you catch that?  I thought NewApproachMissouri, NORML, and ShowMeCannabis were on all bent on the importance of keeping cannabis out of the hands of minors, and here they specify IN THE CONSTITUTION that health care providers can not be required to report medical cannabis prescribed to minors!  Use by adults will have mandatory reporting requirements, but use by minors, and any effects (good or bad) cannot be required to be reported in a manner consistent with this section.


5.(7)  This section tries to alleviate primary caregivers from criminal or civil liability or sanctions under Missouri law, but it fails to address the fact that Cannabis remains on the federal list of Controlled Substances as a Schedule One substance; so caregivers (and everyone else) is still fully subject to federal penalties for possession of ANY of it.
This section also references “generally established legal standards of personal and professional conduct” which is entirely subjective, amendable and thereby limitless with regard to criminal penalties.


5.(8) This section is obviously written by attorneys to protect attorneys (this whole Act is; it will keep them in business for a long time.)
It states “is no longer subject to criminal penalties under state law pursuant to this section” but it offers no protection from federal law, which continues to consider “marijuana” a Schedule 1 Controlled Substance, making any possession of it a felony.


5.(9) Again, this section states “shall not be subject to criminal or civil liability or sanctions under Missouri law, except as provided by this section”, which does not address the fact “marijuana” remains a Schedule 1 Controlled Substance, with felonious implications, or that DHSS is granted authority to change the rules, and penalties, and means of enforcement of those penalties at any time per this Constitutional measure.  Additionally, the “except as provided by this section,” negates the entire premise of this point, as DHSS is authorized to make ANY rules (limitless), including penalties, and means of enforcing such penalties, per this Constitutional measure.


5.(10)  This section is completely unnecessary.  Impaired driving is already illegal (Missouri Revised Statues Chapter 302 and 577).


5.(11) This Act acknowledges the fact that “medical marijuana may be prohibited by federal law,” and puts that in the Missouri Constitution.  It does nothing to thwart federal enforcement of total cannabis prohibition.


6.Constitutionally prohibits the elected Missouri legislature from enacting laws that hinder this measure, but the entire measure provides the non-elected DHSS Constitutional authority to enact rules, penalties, and enforcement of those rules and penalties.


7.(1)(a) Constitutionally prohibits patients in jail from accessing medicinal “marijuana.”  An imprisoned cancer patient will be Constitutionally denied cannabis treatment, regardless of if they need it to stop seizures or to treat their cancer.


7.(1)(b) “Nothing in this section permits a person to undertake ANY task under the influence of cannabis when doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice.”
The fact is, “negligence and professional malpractice” is already covered in State law.  However, the Constitutional verbiage here is dangerously vague and subjective. “Under the influence of marijuana” is undefined. “Negligence,” and “professional malpractice” are also not defined.
Any patient having taken their medically prescribed cannabis within the last month can be charged with “negligence” for being “under the influence.”
Any “professional” who consumes their medically prescribed cannabis within the last month can be charged with “professional malpractice.”


7.(1)(c) Impaired driving is already covered in State law, so the concern that people will be driving while high is nothing but unwarranted alarm-ism.
This Constitutional measure does not permit any eligible patient to “operate, navigate, or be in actual physical control of any dangerous device or motor vehicle, aircraft or motorboat while under the influence of marijuana”.   Any psychotropic effects of cannabis wear off within a matter of hours, but it registers in blood and urine for up to 30 days.  Since this measure fails to define what “under the influence of marijuana” is, any eligible patient who has consumed their medical marijuana within the last month can be arrested if they attempt to drive at any time.  Furthermore, this measure also fails to define what a “dangerous device is.”  A lighter could be considered a dangerous device, as could a reclining chair, and a fire extinguisher!    


7.(1)(d) This part Constitutionally protects employers’ right to terminate any employee for having cannabis in their system. 
(Why would a supposed anti-prohibition organization propose to put this type measure in the Constitution?!)


7.(4) This section authorizes counties to require additional “site permits” (at unlimited expense) to Dispensary Facilities “utilizing generally applicable permitting standards” (a completely nebulous standard).  Dispensaries may be charged unlimited millions of dollars by counties to authorize a “site-permit.  All these fees will be passed on to the consumer, dramatically raising the price of medicinal cannabis.


7.(5) Again, “appropriate and proportional Department sanction” is entirely subjective terminology.


7.(6) Why is a Missouri Constitutional Article using the Hispanic, slang, term “marijuana,” and requiring that slang Hispanic term in the boldest of letters on labelling?
Use of the term “marijuana” in this country was driven by racism, from the 1930’s propaganda campaigns promoting cannabis prohibition.  Let’s call things by their proper terms, PARTICULARLY when we are putting this in our very CONSTITUTION!
This section refers to “administrative penalty” which is dangerously left completely subjective, limitless, and changeable.


7.(7) unnecessary regulation of care-giving, regarding use of a NON-TOXIC plant – placed in OUR CONSTITUTION.  BAD!  Large families with several medicinal cannabis patients, and group-home and assisted living situations where caregivers take shifts are not addressed, and will be a nightmare per this Constitutional amendment.


7.(8) Use of medicinal cannabis in public will be Constitutionally subject to “sanctions as provided by general law.” 
Well, federal law says ANY possession is a felony.
“General law” is also left dangerously subjective, limitless, and changeable. It is utterly ridiculous.  
Medical cannabis patients could potentially be legally restricted to being house bound, if lawmakers wish to make such a “general law.”

If this is what NORML wants, why are they backing things like this 2016-134 and 135?

7.(9) This section Constitutionally stops eligible patients from extracting the healing oils for themselves without a Medical Marijuana-Infused Product Manufacturing Facility license ($3,000 non-refundable application fee, plus $20,000 annual licensing fee, in addition to their $25 annual ID card, and whatever other fees DHSS imposes.)


7.(10) This section Constitutionally mandates that any patient that grows their “up to 6 plants” (after paying their additional $100 annual cultivation fee, and $25 patient ID card) is limited to growing their up to 6 plants in an “enclosed, locked facility equipped with security devices.”
The term “security devices” is not specified, left entirely to the discretion of DHSS rules.
DHSS will have Constitutional authority to dictate “security devices” to mean whatever type alarm surveillance system they want, making it completely cost-prohibitive for patients to grow their own 6 plants.  It potentially also puts patients into the position of being prisoners in their own home.
Large families with several patients would be further and unjustly penalized by this section proposed to the Missouri Constitution.
If cannabis helps, people should be permitted unrestricted access to it, it is non-toxic, literally safer than water!


7.(12) The beginning of this section is just stupid.  We can have a liquor store across from the elementary school here in Ozark, but a growing Facility could be prohibited.  It’s interesting that this Constitutional Amendment clarifies that “no local government” shall through the enactment of ordinances or regulation that make their operation unduly burdensome,” but it never limits DHSS from ma king “unduly burdensome” (a subjective term) rules and regulations. 
Perhaps the preface of this section was intended to bury the more pertinent part of this section, which proposes that “local governments may enact ordinances or “regulations enacted pursuant to this section governing the time, place, and manner of such facilities in the locality.”
This section has great propensity to increase litigation from prospective dispensaries against local governments, to the great pleasure of the Bar Association (fraternal order members of which drafted this very Constitutional Amendment.)


7.(13) This is one of the most egregious portions of this horrific Constitutional proposal. 
It begins with “unless superseded by federal law…” which wrongfully purports that federal law may  supersede the Missouri Constitution, negating the supposed purpose of the entire measure, as this Constitutional proposal does not address the Federal Controlled Substances Act.
It forces physicians to have at least 75% of their prescriptions be made for THEIR (Big Pharma’s pharmaceuticals, and not cannabis, even if cannabis was proven to be the best alternative for more than 25% of medical conditions!  
“In any year no physician shall issue more physician certifications than a number equivalent to 25% of their total number of for other drugs.”  
So, by CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, at least 75% of a physician’s prescriptions MUST be for pharmaceuticals OTHER than cannabis?!  
Are you understanding this?  
As NEW CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE that 75% of physician prescriptions must be for substances OTHER THAN marijuana/cannabis?!
That 25/75 figure is completely arbitrary figure!  
The only purpose that could serve is to protect Big Pharma, which is the element that has been thwarting re-legalization for well over 45 years.
Bear in mind, this isn’t just a “law,” this is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 


7.(15) This, section Constitutionally protects insurance companies from EVER having to cover cannabis as medicine. 
That is NOT the purpose of our Constitution!!!!
Frankly, cannabis shouldn’t be covered by insurance on the basis it is non-toxic, should be ubiquitous, and is literally safer than water!


7.(16) By mentioning asset forfeiture in this Constitutional Amendment, this is a backhanded way of ensuring that any violation of DHSS’s subjective rules herein will be subject to asset forfeiture, and such forfeiture will be Constitutionally protected.


8.This is the cherry on top.  “if any clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this measure or application thereof, is adjudged invalid by ANY court of competent jurisdiction, the other provisions shall” remain in effect.

  This is essentially stating that ANY court can WIPE OUT any or ALL of this proposal, negating whatever portions they care to, declaring it null and void.


PLEASE, Missourians, don’t be stupid in your desperation to end cannabis prohibition;

This Constitutional Amendment (Missouri Petitions 2016-134 and 2016-135) is unacceptable.
It would Constitutionally protect a large degree of cannabis prohibition.
Once something is put in the Constitution, it is extremely difficult to remove or modify it.
We can’t allow this horrendously worded Big Government proposition added to our Constitution.

The excessive application, licensing, taxation, permits and other fees that can be imposed at every level of government (state, county, local), virtually without limit, will ensure that “medical marijuana” will be cost-prohibitive to many, if not most, patients in need.  It guarantees that non-elected government officials will decide who can, and who con not, enter the new and lucrative cannabis industry when the current cannabis laws are inevitably relaxed or removed.  It will make the rich richer, and the poor poorer.

If this measure is enacted,
1.) eligible medical “marijuana” patients could be forbidden from ever driving a vehicle or boat or to be physically in control any “dangerous device”;
2.) Any eligible medical “marijuana” patient could be forbidden from owning firearms or ammunition.
3.) It would Constitutionally protect any employers’ right to fire, or not hire, all eligible “medical marijuana” patients.
4.) It does nothing to hinder the federal government from accessing the State data base to arrest eligible “medical marijuana” patients for felony possession of cannabis and/or firearms.
5.) It would make medical “marijuana” cost-prohibitive to many eligible patients, penalizing people in need of this non-
toxic, medicinal, and nutritious plant.
6.) Eligible patients would be prohibited from extracting healing oils for themselves, unless they purchase cost-prohibitive licensing ($3000 non-refundable application fee, plus $10,000 annual license fee, in addition to the cost of attaining their initial patient ID card.)
7.) It would keep the vast majority of people from being able to enter the new, lucrative, cannabis industry in Missouri.
8.) It would permit the wealthy to have exclusive rights to profits from this plant, at the expense of people with medical maladies
9.) It would Constitutionally protect Big Pharma! (not we-the-people.)
10.) It demands Big Government get MUCH bigger!
11.) It will keep the prison industrial complex in business.
12.) It will keep Attorneys, the Bar Association, and the courts very busy (profiting from this measure.)

This proposal isn’t about providing access to needed NATURAL, NON-TOXIC medicine to people in need;
it is about orchestrating a racket to extract money from the people who would benefit from access to this natural, God-given, miraculous, medicinal, useful and nutritious plant, and keep them from accessing it without paying a very steep price.

Ask New Approach Missouri, NORML, and Show Me Cannabis why they are trying to Constitutionally ensure cannabis prohibition, rather than supporting cannabis legalization?

Support the only Constitutional Amendment being proposed that would REMOVE cannabis from the State Controlled Substance Scheduling List, and completely return this NON-TOXIC, miraculous, medicinal, useful and nutritious plant back to we-the-people.
Support the MISSOURI CANNABIS RESTORATION AND PROTECTION ACT.  We are well on our way to getting this proposal on the ballot, but we need your help.



Or contact us at


51 thoughts on “TOXIC PROPOSALS: Why is NORML, Show Me Cannabis, and New Approach supporting prohibition?

  1. I have not checked in here for some time as I thought it was getting boring, but the last several posts are good quality so I guess I’ll add you back to my everyday bloglist. You deserve it my friend 🙂


    • This particular post is a detailed analysis of New Approach Missouri’s ballot initiative, and a decent reference for people who would like to know what is actually in the 13 pages of bs they want to pollute the Missouri Constitution with. It wasn’t composed for entertainment value, but is information people hopefully share, to warn other Missourians about what the proposed “medical marijuana” initiative is actually about……clearly, the devil is in its details.


  2. Now that the MCRPA is dead What are we supposed to do? Just wait till 2018? Screw that!!! The people in charge of MCRPA dropped the ball on this one.They let all Missourians down big time.


    • Certain people in the MCRPA essentially hijakced the petition, and yes, they utterly failed us.
      Regardless, New Approach Missouri’s “medical marijuana” ballot initiative need to be fought, from now through the November election, through every media outlet possible.

      Additionally, I hope to focus on the cannabis issue at the federal level with a Resolution, and by moving forward with charging elected officials and heads of agencies, past and present, with racketeering for their role in maintaining cannabis prohibition.


  3. Pingback: Concerns of Toxic “MEDICAL MARIJUANA” Ballot Initiative Petition (Short version) – POPS

  4. Pingback: How True Legalization™ Squanders Actual Legalization | The Russ Belville Show

  5. Pingback: The Federal Cannabis Racket Exposed | The Hempeneer – POPS

  6. Pingback: The Federal Cannabis Racket Exposed | The Hempeneer

  7. Pingback: Missouri Stoners Against Medical Marijuana | The Russ Belville Show

  8. Pingback: Viets NAM, new war. NORML Acts out. – POPS

  9. Awesome article!!!! Here in illinois we are facing the same bullshitt from norml. If u claim to be an organization that represents the average cannabis user but u support legislation that benefits everyone but the average consumer something has gone wrong.

    Illinois advocated for a medical marijuana program that excludes felons from participating , doesn’t allow homegrow, doesn’t allow small business participation. An extremely small group of extremely ppl are set up to reap all the profits.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Pingback: How True Legalization Squanders Actual Legalization | ThatsSoCannabis

  11. Pingback: How True Legalization Squanders Actual Legalization | WeedHeadLines

  12. Pingback: How True Legalization Squanders Actual Legalization | WeedLit

  13. Pingback: How True Legalization Squanders Actual Legalization | NY Leaf

  14. Pingback: How True Legalization Squanders Actual Legalization | PotNewsToday

  15. Pingback: How True Legalization Squanders Actual Legalization - The Badass Bowl Co.

  16. Pingback: How True Legalization™ Squanders Actual Legalization - The Badass Bowl Co.

  17. Pingback: How True Legalization™ Squanders Actual Legalization | WeedHeadLines

  18. Pingback: The Arc of Marijuana Reform is Long, But it Bends Towards Legalization (Or: Missouri Stoners Against Legalization) - The Internets Best Content

  19. Pingback: The Arc of Marijuana Reform is Long, But it Bends Towards Legalization (Or: Missouri Stoners … | Weed News Global

  20. Howdy Rust,

    I would invite you to visit the great state of Missouri and speak to the people in the streets about your concerns with our “grass roots” all volunteer, no fund raising movement to Pass the MCRPA 2016-013. Or would you rather pontificate from your lofty throne elsewhere as Always? You can keep parroting the words and beliefs of the Show-Me NO MO New Approach to legal Cannabis in 2016, that has only managed to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to “poll the people” over the last 3-4 years to simply get nothing accomplished other than kicking the Cannabis can down the road to now. But I’m sure you and all your NORML minions will sit on your asses somewhere else, while WE the real people of MO and all others states get the job done right. With MO being the first state to “get it right the first time” with NO Big money backers like you claim to speak on the behalf of every single day of your pathetic rantings that remind me of another “Fat Cat Missourian” named Rush Limbaugh!


  21. Pingback: The Arc of Marijuana Reform is Long, But it Bends Towards Legalization (Or: Missouri Stoners Against Legalization) - MARIJUANA POLITICS

  22. How entertaining! Here when I thought the strain of Stoners Against Legalization was limited to just the western states that currently have medical marijuana, we find a virulent outbreak in Missouri.

    There will never be a legalization or medical marijuana plan that will satisfy the Stoners Against Legalization. There will always be some doom-and-gloom scenario they’ll paint where creating some measure of protection for cannabis consumers in the future is worse than the kick-the-doors-in-and-shoot-the-dogs prohibition they suffer now.

    How can anyone take seriously an analysis that presumes “DHSS could potentially declare the penalty for having one single plant too many in a growing facility is $8,000,000,000,000”? Really?!? Eight trillion dollars? Why don’t they just declare that the penalty is 10 quadrillion dollars and bamboo shoots under the fingernails?

    The source of this infection is the deluded belief that marijuana should be treated like tomatoes. It’s that hippie-dippie, pie-in-the-sky, healing-of-the-nations belief that marijuana is perfect and all good and everybody else thinks of it that way. Instead of the cold, hard facts that even tax-and-regulate legalization doesn’t poll above 50% in Missouri, much less “treat it like tomatoes” legalization that would go down in flames from the minute the first attack ad airs proclaiming “New Approach Missouri wants to let your neighbor fill his back yard with stinky cannabis plants and pack his garage with drug dealer amounts of marijuana. Their proponents seriously think marijuana, a substance that impairs the development of children’s brains, is like the tomatoes you grow in your backyard!”

    And, of course, no infection of Stoners Against Legalization would be complete without the attendant NORML Supports Prohibition Delusion. Yeah, yeah, guys like Dan Viets, who have worked tirelessly over forty years for legalization for less money than most attorneys make, is secretly carving out a Goldman Sachs-like fortune by ending police harassment of medical marijuana patients and providing them safe access to medicine. That’s the ticket!

    You know, just like how Greenpeace supports whale killing, NAACP supports black voter suppression, and ASPCA supports animal cruelty, because if any of those things were ended, those organizations would lose a lot of money.

    What’s most pathetic about this is that finally, and ahead of most predictions, Missouri has organization, funding, and language that could actually bring medicine to sick patients, but the Stoners Against Legalization would work with the cops, courts, rehabs, drug testers, and prison guards to maintain the status quo of prohibition, without having anything else to offer to defeat prohibition, except empty promises of all-volunteer signature efforts for treat-it-like-tomatoes “true 100% non-prohibitionist” legalization that will never make the ballot and would go down in flames if it did.

    You people are the types who would have told your fellow slaves that the Emancipation Proclamation was bullshit, because it wasn’t “true 100% non-slavery” emancipation, since it didn’t guarantee voting rights, interracial marriage, and sitting anywhere on the bus (OK, stagecoach) immediately. That Abraham Lincoln is just a slavery-profiteer, you’d proclaim, and if he really supported black equality, he’d support True Emancipation that contains the Voting Rights Act, Loving v Virginia, and Rosa Parks all in 1862. You’d have mustered all the fellow slaves you could to fight for the Confederacy, promising that once the Civil War was over, you and your fellow slaves would convince all the plantation owners to sign your True Emancipation petition.


    • Oh, aren’t you cute? You even know how to use big words. Not sure how all those words have to do with the proposals? I just see someone trying to start a pissing match. You call us names and assume you know what we would and would not do as it has to do with historical documents, yet have no clue how things would be. If you wish to discuss the merits of any of the proposals or bills that are in legislative hands, I would be more than willing to do so. But you see. you have no interest in discussing the issues, as apparent from the above comment.

      By the way, not sure where you get the “Stoners Against Legalization”( must have taken you a while to think of that one) phrase, but if you knew the people supporting the MCRPA you would know better than to make that accusation. Heck, the only stoners I have seen of late are members,and friends of NORML throwing stones. HMMM, you seem to be throwing a few yourself. You stoner you.


      If you want to talk about the proposals referenced above, please do so. Otherwise your insults will not be published in the future.


    • This is horse shit your bill will not even make it on the ballot it is a little late in the game to still have 0 signatures you guys should quit asking for hand outs and maybe at least attempt to collect some signatures but you better hurry tic toc tic toc


    • Opponents of limited “medical only” continued-cannabis-prohibition proposals are hardly limited to western states. Ohio’s measure failed because voters opposed Big Government profiteering prohibitionists purporting feined “legalization,” just like New Approach Missouri’s will.

      I’m the author of the analysis entitled “Toxic Proposal” that ripped apart New Approach Missouri’s Big-Government/certain-medical-conditions-only/continued cannabis-prohibition proposal. Opposing terrible ballot initiatives that put prohibition INTO our Constitution, hardly constitutes “being AGAINST legalization.” Additionally, I don’t even consume cannabis; thus calling me “Stoners Against Legalization” exposes Russ Belville’s lack of credibility, twice, at the very beginning of his comment.

      Russ Belville could not refute the numerous valid concerns I pointed out in New Approach Missouri’s (NAM’s) proposed pro-Big-Government, Reformation of Prohibition, Constitutional Amendment, so he fabricated lies in a failed attempt to change the subject. Belville claims NAM’s proposal protects cannabis consumers, when it actually puts cannabis prohibition INTO our Constitution. Apparently Belville does not understand the purpose of our Constitution, or how difficult it is to modify something after it is placed into the Constitution; or perhaps he does understand, but simply lacks ethical integrity.

      Any tiny infraction of NAM’s limited-medical-only proposal, which widely opens the doors to limitless rules and regulations pertaining to medical cannabis, may be met with limitless penalties. NAM’s proposed new BIG Government bureaucracy will ensure only a select few will ever be able to cultivate, handle, or access this non-toxic, miraculous plant. This proposed new Big Government bureaucracy will be Constitutionally protected from any disagreement to their authority.

      A possible $8 trillion penalty was cited to make that point; limitless means without limit. NAM’s proposal puts LIMITLESS authority into the hands of DHSS. Belville asks, “why don’t they just declare that the penalty is $10 quadrillion and bamboo shoots under the fingernails?” That was essentially the point; I (or more importantly DHSS) could.

      NAM’s proposal gives the Dept. of Health and Senior Services UNLIMITED authority to decide the penalties for ANY infraction of their LIMITLESS authority to enact yet-to-be-established rules and regulations; and they want to put THAT into our Constitution! That’s crazy!

      For example, the penalty for having slightly over their arbitrary limits of cannabis could be set at $10,000, $100,000, or $10 quadrillion; that will be left entirely up to the unelected Department of Health and Senior Services, and their authority to do so will be protected by our Constitution if this cannabis prohibition proposal were to ever be enacted.

      Belville in his ignorance doesn’t understand that cannabis is a super food, containing all essential amino acids and all essential fatty acids the human body requires to survive. Cannabis is a neuroprotect (the US gov’t holds a patent on it for this), and it staves off cancer while protecting healthy cells. But even more importantly, Belville doesn’t understand that cannabis is nontoxic. Even the tomato plant (in the nightshade family) is more toxic than cannabis. Cannabis is literally safer than water. Why SHOULDN’T this non-toxic plant be treated and regulated like any other food? Why shouldn’t cannabis be treated like a tomato plant? Belville suggests that treating cannabis like a tomato plant is “Hippy-Dippy” and crazy, yet Belville offers no substantial facts to support his juvenile name-calling, and ignorant fears, while feigning, along with NAM, to be a proponent of legalization.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Why should only a select few be “permitted” to pay tens of thousands of dollars to the government for the possible privilege of being “allowed” to grow or profit from this non-toxic plant? Per NAM’s proposed initiative, subjective criteria may be used by Big Government to extend the “opportunity” to purchase costly permits to a select few to profit from this plant. That is elitism, and prohibition profiteering to the very core.

        I encourage you to actually read NAM’s awful Constitutional Amendment for yourselves (just google Missouri Secretary of State Petitions, and NAM’s proposal is 2016-134 and/or 2016-135)

        Calling liberal and conservative supporters of actual legalization measures “hippie-dippy,” is further indication NAM’s proposal will never get anywhere, unless they resort to fraud (a distinct possibility.) Russ Belville insults the liberal base, while not having any understanding of conservatives’ loathing of Big-Government.

        While Russ Belville accuses those who support ACTUAL legalization of “working with the cops, courts, rehabs, drug testers, and prison guards to maintain the status quo of prohibition,” it is fascinating that New Approach Missouri”has gotten financial support from those very groups in:
        * the alcohol industry($41,000 in 2015),
        * the pharmaceutical industry (political support),
        * substance abuse counselors ($49,000 in 2015),
        * and numerous members of the Bar Association,
        all of whom stand to profit from NAM’s proposed prohibition measure, which stands in opposition to ACTUAL legalization.

        Yet the Missouri Cannabis Restoration and Protection Act didn’t gather funding from ANY such entities. Belville’s accusations are classic of “the pot calling the kettle black.”

        Missouri was one of the largest producers of hemp through the 1950’s. NAM’s over-priced out-of-state polling survey is not as reflective of Missouri sentiment as you wish to purport. Missouri is a very unique state, and national political strategists are not privy to the passion many Missourians have, particularly on this subject. Rather than help educate the masses, NAM is promoting and funding their limited medical-only prohibitionist measure by using funds raised under the premise they would be used to FIGHT prohibition, NOT PUT PROHIBITION INTO OUR VERY CONSITUTION!

        Hiding behind the name “New Approach Missouri” is absolutely insulting to the MANY people who contributed to Missouri NORML and Show Me Cannabis for the purposes of fighting prohibition.

        Russ Belville professes cannabis “impairs the development of children’s brains,” yet scientific data overrides Belville’s claims. This is the Show Me State, Russ – please SHOW ME scientific proof of that, so we can examine the integrity of such a new study, as well as its funding sources.

        Cannabis has proven very effective in treating ADHD in both children and adults. Numerous studies show cannabis use in teens and young adults has no negative effect on IQ (Journal of Psycopharmacology for example) and the rare study that declared such was later revealed to have flawed methodology. Evidence shows that when other factors (socio-economic, family circumstance, etc.) are taken into account, cannabis can actually have a slightly positive effect on cognitive function.
        So please, Russ Belville, provide some basis for your sensational claims, to at least try to redeem some semblance of credibility for yourself.

        Despite decades of scientific studies commissioned to reveal how awful and injurious cannabis can be, every credible study has come up blank, and, if anything, revealed positive effects of cannabis consumption. Cannabis is non-toxic, nutritious, useful and medicinally miraculous. Why SHOULDN’T we be able to freely grow it in our backyards?! Moreover, why would you put PROHIBITION of the ability to cultivate cannabis in your backyard, and PROHIBITION of eligible patients to extract the healing oils from the plant themselves, INTO OUR VERY CONSTITUTION?!! The Constitution is intended to protect the rights of the people, and to limit government, not the other way around!!

        New Approach Missouri’s proposal won’t go down in flames; it is already dead in the water. Their plan to hire folks off Craig’s List to gather valid signatures is laughable; didn’t NORML learn ANYTHING from their previous campaign mistakes? Their hired guns insult the liberal base, calling them “Hippy-Dippy”, and yet they will never secure the essential conservative vote with New Approach Missouri’s Big Government,/protect-Big-Pharma/anti-gun/elitist prohibition-profiteering proposal daring to impose this kind of crap into our very Constitution. Missouri is not ready for THAT kind of liberal idiocy.

        Dan Viet’s claimed the people of Missouri are “too stupid to vote for” the full legalization ballot initiative (petition 2016-013) that he admitted at the 2015 Missouri Libertarian Convention was “better” than his. Dan Viets was wrong about Missouri voters, but right about the Missouri Cannabis Restoration and Protection Act.

        New Approach Missouri’s plan may bring SOME cannabis to a SELECT FEW patients, but AT WHAT COST? Their Big-Government proposal has open-ended room for limitless requirements and limitless penalties for rule infractions, yet to be established by their new GIANT bureaucracy, and protects such bureaucracy with limitless authority provided IN OUR VERY CONSTITUTION!

        THAT, Russ Belville, is absurd. New Approach Missouri’s proposal would regulate those who wish to utilize this non-toxic nutritious plant into prison cell blocks, the poor house, and/or the grave; and that, New Approach Missouri, is UNACCEPTABLE.

        Liked by 1 person

  23. Unfortunately, the evidence is also clear that “full legalization” will be rejected by the voters.
    Resources which could be supporting reforms with a realistic chance of passing are wasted if expended on measures with no realistic chance of passing. I wish it were otherwise, but
    it ain’t.


    • I keep hearing of this so called evidence that that makes it ” also clear that “full legalization” will be rejected by the voters.”, but have yet to see it, to be able to test it’s validity. Can you provide a link to where you get your information about the evidence you trust for what you state to be true.


      • Yes, the poll results are on the shownecannabis web site. They show about 47% support for taxing and regulating cannabis like alcohol. They show 64% to 80% for medical. No state has legalized adult use without first legalizing medical. MO is not likely to be the first. Ohio tried and went down in flames. Of course, they had other issues too.


        • Dan, you seem to be referring to the $26,000 opinion poll you and your affiliates paid to have done to support your prohibition measure. Your opinion polls, which is FAR from perfect or accurate, does not add up with the actual number of people ready to vote for full cannabis legalization (which is growing like wildfire, on a daily basis.)

          It’s truly shameful that you and your affiliates (New Approach Missouri/NORML/Show ME Cannabis) are spending SO MUCH money (given in good faith to you to promote legalization) to promote and ensure prohibition, rather than backing actual legalization efforts like the Missouri Cannabis Restoration and Protection Act


          • You seem to be unable to discuss this without engaging in personal attacks. You assume that because national polls show a majority nationally support reform, that must be true here in MO. It is not. Our state is a little behind the national polling. I have been working for 40 plus years to bring Missourians around to supporting legalization. You have no basis for accusing me or NORML or SMC or NAM of some kind of conspiracy to support prohibition. We have done more than anyone else to fight it. Our actions speak louder than your words.


        • Dan, Ohio’s measure “went down in flames” because prohibitionist profiteers like yourself tacked far too much regulation, and a ridiculous amount of fees, ensuring that only a select few would have access to cannabis, and the ability to utilize and enjoy the benefits of this non-toxic miraculous plant.


          • I guess you could call a doctor who treats cancer patients a “cancer profiteer”..
            If that doctor also tries to cure cancer, you might argue that he isn’t really trying
            because he hasn’t fully cured it immediately. If he says he can save some lives, but
            he can’t immediately save everyone with cancer, you could accuse him of half way measures.
            You are just out of touch with reality in so many ways there is little point in talking to you.
            It is you whose sincerity is suspect. Any rational person would pursue his own efforts but
            recognize that attacking others who wish to achieve the same goals is futile, stupid, and
            ultimately kind of crazy. Unless you are really
            trying to sabotage the effort to repeal prohibition.


    • No, Dan. The “evidence” is NOT AT ALL clear that “full legalization will be rejected by voters.” What is noteworthy is that your organization paying at least $25,900 for an “opinion study” based out of Los Angeles, California is NOT representative of what Missouri voters will or will not vote for.

      A majority of Missouri voters were already in favor of full legalization, but many more hearts and minds are changing in favor of full legalization on a daily basis.
      You and your crew seem to be doing all you can to limit that momentum to legalize this non-toxic plant.
      Why Dan?
      Why do you continue to fight so hard to hang onto prohibition?
      This nation is on the verge of having to reschedule/deschedule cannabis from the Controlled Substance Schedule, so WHY would you choose NOW to try to impose a Constitutional Amendment ensuring continued prohibition, and protecting Big Pharma?
      Why Dan?

      Liked by 1 person



    • Apparently you have 7 years over Dan Viets, Unbe..
      It’s not the # of years one fights for what is right, but the motive of their intent, and whether or not they have resolve to not cave to corporate/government profiteers.
      Dan, you have utterly failed.


  25. As with every law, every initiative, and every “rule” made by any agency, you must always ask “who benefits”. In this case, bureaucrats and attorneys will be the prime beneficiaries. It’s time for freedom and decency. Bulletproof legalization is only available in the MCRPA.

    Thanks, Pat, for this very lengthy dissection. It’s needed and appreciated!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Attorneys benefit now. There will be fewer cases for attorneys after the Mo Medical Marijuana Initiative passes. Who benefits is patients throughout the state of Missouri.
      Why waste your time attacking your fellow activists. Pass the CRAPA if you can.
      I sincerely wish it could pass, but that seems very unlikely. There is nothing to be gained
      by infighting. We are all on the same side.


    • No Dan; you are simply wrong.
      The world has survived thousands of years with unregulated cannabis, and not a single death was attributed to the consumption of it.

      While Colorado is raking in taxes and fees faster than even anticipated, many patients in Colorado are forced to go to the black market because all those taxes and fees have made their medicine cost-prohibitive (as would be the case with your proposition, which would keep attorneys like yourself as well as the prison industrial complex fat and happy.)

      We are on the verge of the federal government being forced to end their racket of cannabis being a Schedule 1 Controlled Substance. Now is not the time to be putting prohibitionist measures like this into our State Constitution, unless you are in fact a prohibitionist.


  26. Pat and Lynn,
    If you can write a better proposal, I hope you will do it and wish you luck.
    But many of your criticisms are baseless and your claims of bad faith are likewise.
    The worst thing for this movement and the thing that keeps prohibition in place is infighting among those who share a desire to end it.


    • First off, I would like to thank you for commenting and hope to be able to discuss this matter in detail.

      We have written a better proposal, and it passed in 2000 up in WI and took off like wildfire through the rest of the country, although it was for family law not cannabis. Notice I didn’t call it marijuana? I do that for a reason, ask me and I’ll explain why if you don’t know. And at this time there is no need to write a new one, because there is one already written. SOS MO Petition #2016-013.

      You state “But many of your criticisms are baseless and your claims of bad faith are likewise”. I ask you to show me what you perceive to be baseless or of bad faith..I bring forth paragraph numbered 7.(13). Are we wrong here or as you say, is this baseless, and or of bad faith? If so, maybe you can clear it up for the folks that don’t want such a write-up placed within the Constitution
      7.(13) This is one of the most egregious portions of this horrific Constitutional proposal.
      It begins with “unless superseded by federal law…” which wrongfully purports that federal law may supersede the Missouri Constitution, negating the supposed purpose of the entire measure, as this Constitutional proposal does not address the Federal Controlled Substances Act.
      It forces physicians to have at least 75% of their prescriptions be made for THEIR (Big Pharma’s pharmaceuticals, and not cannabis, even if cannabis was proven to be the best alternative for more than 25% of medical conditions!
      “In any year no physician shall issue more physician certifications than a number equivalent to 25% of their total number of for other drugs.”
      So, by CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, at least 75% of a physician’s prescriptions MUST be for pharmaceuticals OTHER than cannabis?!
      Are you understanding this?
      As NEW CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE that 75% of physician prescriptions must be for substances OTHER THAN marijuana/cannabis?!
      That 25/75 figure is completely arbitrary figure!
      The only purpose that could serve is to protect Big Pharma, which is the element that has been thwarting re-legalization for well over 45 years.
      Bear in mind, this isn’t just a “law,” this is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.”

      Then you go on to say “The worst thing for this movement and the thing that keeps prohibition in place is infighting among those who share a desire to end it.”
      I’m not sure what movement you are a part of but for the sake of conversation let’s say that you are against prohibition. I ask you then, why NORML and the other branches of NORML are not backing a true 100% non-prohibitionist initiative called Missouri Cannabis Restoration and Protection Act SOS# 2016-013?
      If you and or other attorneys would give the people a bill or initiative that would put the cannabis/hemp plant back as a right for the people, the people would be backing what you write. Instead, you seem to be taking orders from Big Pharma and other corporate powers that be, on how to control the prohibition to benefit big money and big government, instead of lifting prohibition of a plant. No matter how many times you and others tell us that you are fighting against prohibition, your actions seem to tell a different story.

      I look forward to your reply and would love to ask about many other parts of your proposal and to be able to get the understanding of someone that helped create it can give new understanding.


    • Writing something “better” than this wouldn’t take much, however there is no need to; Mark Pederson already did. You even acknowledged his proposal (the Missouri Cannabis Restoration and Protection Act) is better than your 2016-009 (which was as horrendous as 134/135) and that you thought Missouri voters just weren’t smart enough to figure that out.

      If you were truly anti-prohibition you would already be backing the MCRPA. So spare me the feigned cry for unity of those who want to end prohibition.

      Our criticisms of your proposal are far from baseless; if they were you would have refuted them, rather than touting how long you claim you have been fighting prohibition.

      Frankly, Dan, you and your big government corporate profiteering attorney friends who crafted this garbage should be ashamed. And to try to put this mess in our very Constitution is ignominious.


  27. And all these years we thought these groups were on our side, specially Normal. But then you also find out that Show Me Cannabis and New Approach are just in it to continue to ask for more and more money, just trying to get rich off We the People of America. I’m done with them no more of my money will ever go to the greedy.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s