So, I decided to attend the regularly scheduled Safer Arizona’s Nov. 20th meeting, which was basically to go over the draft and seek community input. I wasn’t sure of what kind of crowd to expect, I figured of the 300 ballot signature collectors and thousands of dedicated supporters claimed, it would be a large crowd. I was taken back that only a small room of about 20 people total attended including the board members, it seemed most of the attendees were for the initiative but a few were on the fence as well. I couldn’t help but question to myself, this being the first meeting after the defeat of prop 205 and an initiative going forward why more supporters didn’t attend?

 

I finally met Mr. Wisniewski and found him to be quite welcoming, as well as an articulate speaker. Az NORML Director Mikel Weisser was in attendance as well as Demitri Downing, board member (MITA) Marijuana industry trade association. The meeting that started at 3 went quite long, so much so my back and neck began to seize up on me so had to Jet with a few others departing the Scene. It was a productive meeting albeit argumentative at times but what I had to say raised great debate, seemed respected and in the end overall consensus was that the draft was not ready to fly yet and votes for amendments were made.

Due to some statements I heard regarding prop 205’s demise, I think the group is in a bit of a vacuum as to why prop 205 failed in many others minds and Mr. Wisnewski’s statement the voters “didn’t like what was in it” demonstrates that point. I think if Safer Arizona can acknowledge how many people are upset with them it should point to another point of view that those who were opposed were just confused by tactics they themselves now fear will be leveled against their proposition.

This conversation about confusion regarding prop 205 played out at the Hydro shop down the street I visited just before the meeting and it was there that I was informed for the 100th time it seemed, that the workers wished they heard my alternate point of view earlier before the vote as they advised people to vote NO 205 based upon the negative they heard. One thing I agree being leveled against MPP is they didn’t outreach to the community enough, I wish I could have done more in that regard but I’m disabled, so the pen is my best mode of travel. That same sentiment has played out over and over again from people I talk with, so who confused them so much about prop 205? I wonder how other MMJ folks are going to react when they hear Safer Arizona’s intent? That intent was apparently to make our MMJ program obsolete and a hollow shell all along.

 

So where are we at this point

just a day before Thanksgiving?

 

As of this writing David Wisniewski has stated he is not talking to MPP only to an undisclosed industry insider who was kicked out of MPP? I for one think that is a mistake. Mr. Wisniewski made paraphrased statements in a live fb video today that he wanted to file on Nov. 9th as he previously promised but will now hold off on filling to hear what the industry has to say in an upcoming meeting. He stated he fears that the industry could just be doing stalling tactics and he could possibly lose time collecting signatures. My gut is that everyone is being tight lipped about some sort of back door compromise and the meeting is legit. I shot an industry insider an email a couple days ago seeking comment on some of what im going to inform you about here in a bit and received no comment, so yeah, I think something is afoot.

My honest belief as I will outline here is the measure is not ready to file, as of yet anyway. My personal suggestion to Mr. Wisniewski online today was to just file because I do not want to see any blame to be placed upon the industry if the initiative should fail or come under attack for flaws of their own doing. Safer Arizona led MMJ voters such as myself to believe they had their golden goose ready to roll on Nov 9th .   How do we know this mystery man within the Industry who was supposedly kicked out by MMP isn’t just Jason Medar and the stall tactic is Safer Arizona’s to project blame upon the established industry should they decide they don’t have the support, technical drafting or money needed to move forward?

One of the mantras of Safer Az and Jason Medar was that prop 205 “could” cause the MMJ program to fail from fears of transferring authority over from the Department of Health to another agency right? Well we now hear Safer Arizona’s intent “Is” to make a hollow shell out of the MMJ program many of us love with exception of a couple holes, but I don’t recall them saying that before the vote.

Q&A from attendee to David Wisniewski Nov.20, 2016 drafting meeting; Q “Lets talk about what about patients, the ones that have already paid the and one that want to continue to pay the ones that have prescribed, what are the benefits” Mr. Wisniewski replied;

 

“Well effectively right now

this initiative makes the medical program

Obsolete”

 

“Unless you want your card for one reason or another, were looking at incentivising the patient saying that they don’t have to pay any taxes on cannabis if they are still a patient which is a way to incentivise the patient. But essentially what this is going to do is make the medical program an empty shell, so it could hurt certification centers and dispensaries will probably have to lower the prices a lot, because if they keep their prices up at the higher rate they are not going to be able to compete with the market. This is why Dimetri is here because he wanted to find a way we could keep the certification centers still going in a safe manner but were all sitting here saying why don’t you start selling weed.”

When Dimetri (MITA) was leaving the meeting right before I did, he revisited the tax incentives with Mr. Wisniewski pointing out that it was his idea to give a tax break to the MMJ community. Mr. Wisniewski confirmed that to be true, it was his Idea and props to Demitri for doing that. So without that suggestion it was Safer Arizona’s intent to do what they accused MPP of “potentially doing”, in my opinion of course.

 

I didn’t let bitterness of prop 205’s failure stand in the way of attending the meeting or making suggestions to advance the likelihood of passage of this or any common cause of Reform of Marijuana/Cannabis laws. I am not a journalist bound by non partisan ethics, I am a MMJ advocate writer, I’m not in it for the commercial aspects but from the aspect of wishing to have my ability to cultivate my meds again, breed specific MMJ strains for other patients and not worry about having my child taken from me in the process.

 

An elderly gentleman, I believe Mikel Weisser stated in my deaf ear that he wrote a book, was speaking at the meeting that he was seeing many of the dispensary grows with a product called eagle 20 on the shelf. He explained that it was a powerful bud enhancer and that the dispensaries are suppose to divulge everything they spray on the plants but don’t. I was happy to see the testing requirements in Safer Arizona’s initiative, however there is more to this story than meets the eye and more regarding this issue that need to be included in the proposition regarding home grows IMHO.

 

Many years ago I was bringing this topic to the forefront before we had dispensaries here in Arizona, I was writing about the ingredients daminozide and paclobuterol in products such as Eagle 20 and Flower Dragon commonly found in Hydro shops. At that time I was challenging some California growers on what use to be underground growers forums. If professional growers were and still are giving adulterated meds to cancer patients what makes us believe that many home growers producing many more plants than meets their needs will not as well?

Licensed home MMJ cultivators don’t have to use unethical bud enhancing or fungicide chemicals (licensed by the EPA for ornamental use only) to produce top notch high yield plants on a budget, but some will and should have legal consequences. Smoke it themselves, well to each his own, but give it or sell it to MMJ patients or anyone it should be illegal. This issue is also one in which I do not trust dispensaries or anyone cultivating my Meds and unfortunately I have suffered and gone without for a very long time now. Sad prop 205 failed because some self-riotous people couldn’t think of others.

They need to let the people know in prison as well that if the law passes in 2018 they still have to request a hearing to get out, so don’t plan on freedom until 2019.

I neither attempt being a hench pin nor Trojan horse.   Safer Arizona initiative isn’t an easy sell to me like what I see in the new Ballot Measure filed by Apache Junction’s Tim Cronin, of which will give those who live over a mile from a dispensary their cultivation rights back for a small number of plants as well as the other reasonable changes to our MMJ program that should not raise violent crime while at the same time lowering arrests. Safer Arizona was against Incremental change but here out of the gate we have signatures being collected by a group obviously on the ball.

What we have in Safer Arizona’s measure without serious work is big hurtles and many believe a big potential for failure. One goal Safer Arizona claims to advance on their Findings page is For the rights of individuals, to focus law enforcement on violent crime and personal property.

 The fundamental question of decriminalization and deregulation to the measure they are asking is;

 

are robberies, home invasions, Drug Cartel Grows & violent crime actually going to increase if their initiative is passed?

 

Remember they suggested that incarcerations would increase with prop 205 in areas of cultivation and plant overages. I do agree with the gun rights issue, we should have the same rights as any other person who engages in Recreational use of Alcohol for instance and those growing a lot of plants in an unsecured facility will certainly need it against the home invasions apparently. Another on the plus side is decriminalization and recreational use aspect would fix the problem with Child protective services, of which I wrote about in the Compassionate side of Prop 205.

But perhaps now Child services will see the error of their ways and recognize their job is going to get a whole lot more demanding and they better compromise and leave us MMJ folks alone. One of my next stops is going to be with the Department of Child Safety to get an official statement of where we stand today. If they come back and state responsible MMJ cardholders have nothing to fear, great. Give us some guidelines then I project a lot more MMJ voices who have been feeling left out of the recreational equation getting behind the Tim Cronin initiative.

I liked Safer Arizonans wording in the first draft that landlords could say no to home grows and believe it fell into line with Safer Arizona findings page regarding belief in individual rights. Well it’s stricken from the second draft now, unless I can’t see it where it use to be, so perhaps it was a topic of discussion after I left the meeting. If so mom and pop home owner who rent out a place to someone lose their rights to protect against large grows from damage?

Another Provision of Safer Arizona I like is that hemp is defined as less than .3% whereas in prop 205 it was defined as less than .o3%. Safer Az’s definition of Cannabis mirrors that of prop 205’s of Marijuana in many other places giving the impression it was simply modified.   I see where Safer Az is going with things but it is the same result in the end, however perhaps safer Arizona’s definition is easier to get ones head around. Essentially, like prop 205 it attempts to only allow plants in flower to be counted as a plant, however I wish to bring some potential problems to light and offer a solution.

But first I’d like to demonstrate what others missed with prop 205’s definition of hemp and Marijuana. Before the prop 205 vote I consulted with THC lab testing technicians regarding my interpretation of the definition of hemp being lower than .o3% and as such would exempt vegative clones (so long as not re-veg) and plants as qualifying as Marijuana under 205’s legal definition. Thus my theory was that only plants placed in flower would drive up the THC past the threshold, thus plants under .03% in vegative state or clone (so long as not re-veging) would legally be hemp (not Marijuana plants) and thus not subject to law, at least not until regulated as hemp. I swore them to secrecy but I’m sure there was some pollen drift lol.

Obviously .3% would have been much better as Safer Arizona has done and I questioned why prop 205’s was only .03% and surmise it was basically a typo. Safer Arizona is now doing the same thing, in a different manner by attempting to legally define flowering plants one way and vegetative plants in another so as to circumvent any number restrictions on vegetated plants, coincidence?

Safer Arizona’s stated position was to define what a Marijuana plant is and claims to be the first to do so.   Safer Arizona was critical of prop 205 being poorly written; So let me explain a potential problem that I didn’t have time to address at the meeting that I see that might be averted. As it still stands in this Second Draft, the definition of “efflorescence” of which has a plurality of legal possibilities, I fear could strip the cannabis plant definition from law if voters passed it.

The problem I see in the definition of a cannabis plant as currently written is that as example is shown when a plant is severed from it’s roots at the stalk with not even any branching, leaves or flowers, re generation can and does occur. The top severed harvested portion containing flowers, branches and leaves would no longer be considered a plant, but not for the term “efflorescence” but rather that the roots were totally severed at the stalk fulfilling the legal definition.

Lets assume the top portion began post harvest processing and the same day a plant was placed in flower from veg to replace the harvested plant. Lets say you had 45 plants in flower, harvested one and now one is placed into flower from veg to replace it.

But what if the lower rooted portion with the severed stalk is tested for salt buildup? Efflorescence in it’s Latin translation means one thing relating to blooming but scientific application means the movement of salts and will be present and increasing where severed in my opinion.

One might believe that the stomata are the driving mechanism of nutrient uptake of dissolved elemental salts in their organic or in organic forms of which is true of a whole plant but something else happens when a plant is chopped.   Osmotic effect drawing up solution through the root system and is a contributing factor to why we can re-generate plant growth even when leaves are not present.

In the photos I present here, you will see where I severed two chilly pepper plants where no vegetated or flowering growth remained; though the plants appear to be spliced they were not. I love bringing back plants from death, or apparent death

 

The top plant I called DOA, it was a soil culture plant and died outside from pests, I chopped it, dumped the rooted 1” tall stalk into the wheel barrel and left it for a day on top of the soil roots exposed. Then my Dr. Frankenstein side put it in Hydroponics medium, fed it some of my nutrients I use to make and brought it back to a beautiful plant. With the definition of efflorescence I would worry about an expert Botany witness on stand and the State shooting down the definition of efflorescence? Now seeing that my intention isn’t to wait until Safer Arizona files their initiative to then poke holes in it and attempt to ruin it, I’ll do more than just point, I’ll offer a solution.

 

 

 

So what to do? Well change definition to: “inflorescence” of which cannot be misinterpreted as a process of dissolved salt movement during nutrient uptake and get people fined for overages or thrown out of the initiative completely for being vague. Cannabis Inflorescence flowers have been defined that way in scientific research papers not “Bro Science” of which is rampant from Cannabis manuals ect. The way cannabis buds develop in clusters is characteristic of inflorescence.

 

 

 

Just sever the plant below the last set of branches and your good. Or you can just make it nice and easy not to make it difficult for anyone to understand by saying a cannabis/marijuana plant has stems, branches, with mature flowers on a un-severed stem which is producing roots or something to that effect not to difficult for all attorneys to understand, well then again? lol.

 

The Below archive sample Reference I provide is available for download and is highly cited in academic research such as example from Univ. of Mississippi and I only cite it for legal support and interpretation of law if someone so chooses to draft an initiative surrounding the definition. The pictures they provide aren’t really that impressive and I can assure you some of the large chamber high-pressure atomization work is impressive for those who are cultivators;

https://archive.org/details/AHPCannabisMonographPreview?q=AHP+cannabis+inflorescence

$45.00 for the PDF if you don’t want the overlay, it is available online at;

http://www.herbal-ahp.org/order_online.htm

University of Mississippi reference;

http://home.olemiss.edu/~suman/

 

 

What Brought Down Al Capone? Tax law

 

As I suggested at the meeting there should be a hobby provision, a stepping-stone of sorts to encourage those who are talented to venture into full-fledged business. Home hobbyist cultivators should be able to receive compensation or donations to cover expenses for lighting, nutrients, gas to deliver it to a disabled person ect. and advertising should be permitted as well through social media, why? If Safer Arizona’s intent is to keep people out of jail it must prevent citizens from being targeted as done in the past. Lets face it, if you are growing 45 plants in flower, your going to have a hard time convincing anyone it’s just for yourself. When I made the statement at the meeting regarding the first draft that if you were only making $50,000 and growing 99 plants you were the worst cultivator there was. They lowered the plant count to 45 but that still leaves the same analogy I tried to present in the first place, as it is tied to sales and people would get arrested for sales without a license, not for selling the cannabis of which would be a small fine. I referenced my warning people advertising on craigslist back in 2011-2013 of giving MMJ away for a set donation.

One of the Board members at the meeting replied there is nothing preventing someone from giving cannabis to another, if you want to give your cannabis to Aunt Mildred for free you can.

I informed of my Craigslist adds again back in 2011 for people using play on words to sell cannabis by stating it was for donation while in fact demanding a minimum donation which invited arrest in undercover stings. Or as one instance Mr. Weisser reminded me of which I failed to mention was a person selling pencils and giving meds for free, the court didn’t buy it. Either Safer Arizona is about keeping people out of jail or it was just fodder and without proper language to protect from that happening again history will repeat itself. There is more than one way to skin a cat and we better be prepared on the Tax and license issue card being dealt by law enforcement and unhappy city public officials. The board members might rightfully say there is no penalty for sales, but someone will be going to jail and potentially Prison for the Tax and licensing laws, the same way they took down the mafia, perhaps not a good analogy lol. In Arizona improper display of a business license or failure to procure a business license is a

 

class 2 misdemeanor, up to $750.00 fine and 4 months in Jail.

Class 1 misdemeanor is the worst, 6 months in jail,

up to $2500.00 fine.

 

Perhaps Mr. Dean can verify that? Why is a class 1 misdemeanor important? Well in Arizona for your second offense you can get bumped up to class 1 and guess what the judge is likely to do? If it were me, I’d place a $ amount pr gram that can be accepted to cover expenses of delivery, lighting, nutrients ect, for a hobby sale without a requirement for license and take away the word donation. Call it a handling charge or something to that effect and allow a tip over that minimum amount or something to that effect, could still be a donation I guess as tips are taxed. We all know hydroponics is more expensive than other cultures so perhaps a sliding scale as to what compensation can be received.

Isn’t that the American way? Someone who is really talented that has the ability to work from a hobby into a Business, starts with sales to just cover expenses then to Business profits. This would also benefit other emerging social media business like one I ran into at the SWCC called Buds List, it’s like craiglist without the bummer attitude towards the MMJ crowd. Safer Arizona’s Attorney Mr. Dean seemed to grasp where I was going with the hobbies clause I think.

This is getting pretty long so will close for now and start the next critique, Shwanx for reading.