This Election Will Determine Whether Vermont Decriminalizes Marijuana

This Election Will Determine Whether Vermont Decriminalizes Marijuana: "

In this year’s gubernatorial race in Vermont, one candidate delayed passage of a medical marijuana bill in the state Senate in 2002, and another candidate’s last name is “Dubie.” Which candidate do you think is in favor of decriminalizing marijuana?

You probably guessed wrong.

Peter Shumlin (D), the president pro tempore of the Vermont Senate, is one of only two major-party gubernatorial candidates in the nation to advocate publicly for the decriminalization of marijuana. (The other candidate is Dan Malloy, the Democratic nominee for governor in Connecticut.)

On August 10, just two weeks before Vermont’s primary election, Shumlin said on television, “We simply are penny wise and pound foolish to be using law enforcement dollars to be locking up criminals when they’re dealing with small amounts of marijuana.” He was consistent all the way through the campaign.

By making marijuana decriminalization — the removal of all criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana — a major campaign issue, Shumlin was able to overcome the odds by prevailing in a five-way Democratic primary.

His opponent in the Nov. 2 general election, Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie (R), is ultra-hostile to decriminalization efforts.

Supporters of sensible marijuana policies must do everything we can to help Shumlin get elected on November 2. If we succeed, Vermont has a good chance of decriminalizing the possession of marijuana, as well as allowing a handful of medical marijuana dispensaries to provide patients with improved access to their medicine in 2011.

When I met Shumlin in a Springfield cafe in 2002, he impressed me with his candor, especially since he was telling me the opposite of what I wanted to hear.

Howard Dean (D) was governor and about to run for president, and Shumlin was helping him steer clear of controversy by bottling up our medical marijuana bill in the state Senate. I suggested to Shumlin that he was single-handedly preventing medical marijuana from becoming legal. “Don’t kid yourself,” he responded. “Governor Dean would veto the bill anyway, so I’m just saving everyone the trouble.” He went on to say that he’d help pass medical marijuana during the 2003-2004 cycle.

He kept his word. With his help and the leadership of state Rep. David Zuckerman (Progressive), our medical marijuana bill was enacted into law in May 2004.

The story of our 2004 victory points to how we plan on being successful again in Vermont, if we can get Shumlin elected.

Vermont’s original medical marijuana bill, which sought to allow patients and their caregivers to grow their own marijuana for a variety of medical conditions, passed the Democrat-controlled Senate in 2003. But the bill temporarily stalled in the Republican-controlled House health committee, where we were shy of a majority vote.

One legislator on that committee, Rep. Bill Keogh (D), publicly said he’d support our bill if a majority of his constituents voted for the local medical marijuana initiative that would soon be on the citywide ballot in Burlington, the state’s largest city. The initiative then received 83% of the vote, Keogh changed his vote, and we therefore reached majority support on the committee.

But we had a governor problem. Jim Douglas (R), who replaced Howard Dean in January 2003, had publicly stated he was opposed to the bill. So we ran a heavy rotation of three TV ads in Vermont — separately featuring an AIDS patient, a cancer patient, and an MS patient — to pressure the governor and the legislature.

In the meantime, we were gathering postcards to the governor from concerned citizens all across Vermont. A reporter who was writing a story about our lobbying juggernaut was flipping through the postcards and noticed a name of particular importance — Kenneth Angell, the Catholic bishop of Vermont.

After the bishop released a public statement in support of our bill, the governor and the House health committee chair cut a deal: They’d let the bill pass out of committee, provided it would protect medical marijuana use for only three medical conditions; coincidentally, they chose AIDS, cancer, and MS.

The bill passed out of committee and also on the House floor, and Gov. Douglas let the bill become law without his signature.

Because there were no abuses of the new law, we were able to expand it in 2006 by increasing the number of medical conditions and the number of ounces/plants that patients could have. This expansion became law without controversy.

Flash forward to this year: On March 2, the voters of Montpelier, the state capital, passed a local marijuana-decriminalization initiative with an overwhelming 72% of the vote. And a bill to expand the state’s existing medical marijuana law to allow for the sale of medical marijuana through nonprofit dispensaries, which was cosponsored by Shumlin, passed three different Senate committees in March.

Vermont is poised to pass both a decriminalization bill and a dispensary bill next year, if Shumlin gets elected this November 2. In Vermont, successful gubernatorial races cost only $2,000,000 or so for the winning candidate; the Marijuana Policy Project has already raised/donated $14,000, and we continue to ramp up. Please help us make it happen.

(Note: This article also appeared on the Huffington Post.)

"

Hair Wraps - Travivi

travivi (tra·viv·i ← viv·i)

to live through, to survive, to experience

I still have about 5 more wraps to do on the bottom back of my head,  They do store a lot of energy, and it has been an experience,

Mi bezonas kvin plu bandeleroj,  tiam mi haro estas fino. kvankam tioj bandeleroj holdas energio, kaj estas bona kaj malbona travivi. 

La koloroj en mia haro estas, verda, rugxa kaj flava.

What's Wrong With Prop. 19 - The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

What's Wrong With Prop. 19 - The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010: "

Notes on TRCATCA OF 2010

by Richard M. Davis

Founder & Curator

USA Hemp Museum

The above act is an initiative by the people of California to regulate, control and tax Cannabis. I wonder if the people of California really understand what they are getting by this act. But these are the sentiments of a 40 year smoker and grower of the plant. I’m a court stipulated marijuana and hemp expert. I’m not a lawyer, but I think a lot about the law and my rights in relation to hemp.
I want legalization as pre-1937. I want freedom and due process. I want equal rights. I want hemp. I want this proposed Cannabis Act to be no more than an educational experience for California. I do not want to be at the mercy of a really bad bill dealing with marijuana again. I want, as Arlin Trout put it: unconditional surrender. Prop. 19 is not legalization. To find out what it really means has been a long road that leads to the conclusion that I should VOTE NO ON PROP. 19, based on the many reasons below.
As background for my reasons to oppose Prop. 19, I spent two and one half years in court protesting S.B. 420, the State’s Medical Marijuana Program, as unconstitutional. I didn’t win, but I didn’t lose either. I was not allowed standing in court because I was not harmed by this voluntary law. Recently the California Supreme Court partially backed up my pleading by declaring plant limits void because they amended the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. But guidelines, clarification, changes, etc., are also amendments and will be exposed. Someday a case is going to change the ballgame and the ‘whole rotting edifice’ will come down and we will be left with the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
So you know what I’m talking about, the legislature passed S.B. 420 using (citing) the power of the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to do so. Then they assumed because their power came from the Federal Constitution they did not have to follow the California Constitution and send S.B. 420 back to the voters as the CA Constitution requires of all amendments to Proposition 215.
Another greatly disturbing point is that in passing Proposition 215, the people assumed the power over medical marijuana (sort of out of thin air as the Federal Constitution has no enumerated power over medical marijuana, and the State government couldn’t get a bill past Pete Wilson). In other words the people had already claimed title to medical marijuana through Amendments Nine and Ten which clearly reads “the states or the people.” In California this means something as the people hold all the power. No contest.
And this initiative Proposition 19 is much more serious than I ever imagined. Prop. 19, as was pointed out by lawyer Letitia Pepper, effectively shreds the CA Constitution and all the personal rights contained therein. I had an old copy of the CA Constitution that did not contain this article. “Article 18: Amending and Revising the Constitution by Initiative. Section 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by Initiative.” Prop. 19 is a proposed initiative law that can and will amend the Constitution to gain legality. Listen to the following broad and vague statements from Prop. 19. “Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,” and Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls. Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law…” These two statements wipeout all Constitutional checks on legislation. They also wipe out and are capable of wiping out both the state (S.B. 420 Medical Marijuana Program) and initiative law on medical marijuana (The Compassion Use Act of 1996 or Prop. 215). All of our rights are written into law, including all our inalienable rights, and all appear to be in danger of being negated by “notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law” and turned over to “local control.”
The dictionary definition of notwithstanding is: “in spite of; without being opposed or prevented by.” In spite of is defined as: “in disregard or defiance of.” This could easily be interpreted as “In disregard or defiance of any other provision of state or local law.” And I don’t want to be a stickler, but don’t forget CA Const., Article I, Section 22, Constitution Mandatory and Prohibitory: The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.” Could these words express that mandatory and prohibitory are declared to be otherwise. Correct me if I am wrong. I am not a lawyer, but I want to know why I might be giving up all my rights for the City of Oakland and Oaksterdam.
I suspect that Prop. 19 is a blatant putdown of my rights, and the rights of all citizens of CA, under the CA Constitution Declaration of Rights. Control, Regulate and Tax is certainly not legalization and the text of the law doesn’t mention legalization. Let’s be honest about the initiative, it was written for the Oakland City relationship with Oaksterdam. This relationship is why the local control is written into law instead of equal rights for all citizens of California as called for by the CA Constitution, Article 1, Section 3 (b)(4): “Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any provision of this Constitution, including the guarantees that a
person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided in Section 7.”
There is repeated one especially troublesome and unconstitutional part of both S.B. 420 and Proposition 19, that I think I can explain. The legislature after assuming a mythical power to subvert the California Constitution, gave up the people’s state law (Prop. 215) of a general nature (we all have the right to obtain and use medical marijuana, for any ailment for which it provides relief) to 538 local governments in violation of the “California Constitution, Article 4, SEC. 16. (a) All laws of a general nature have uniform operation. (b) A local or special statute is invalid in any case if a general statute can be made applicable.
There can be no uniform operation from 538 local governments. We have seen this in the 15 years of operation of Prop. 215 and six years of operation of S.B. 420. This same lack of uniform operation is to be found in Proposition 19. This time it is the people themselves through their initiative power that will violate this Constitutional mandate. And this mandate can’t be ignored unless Prop. 19 wipes out the Constitution. Once again we will have 538 local governments with 538 different regulate, control and tax laws. What’s good for Oakland is good for San Diego, and what’s good for Alameda County is good for Orange County, because California citizens live in those 538 different locales. No uniform operation. Anything less is unconstitutional. We don’t need more bad law. There are 538 cities and counties in California. There is no possibility of uniform operation of this law with 538 possible different local laws, including many bans. This is lawmaking at its worst. The Regulate, Control & Tax Cannabis Act contains this same “local government” violation of the Constitution. Prop. 19, “Section 3: (d) Definitions, (vi) ‘local government’ means a city, county, or city and county.” Again, this is mandatory.
According to Prop. 19 there will be 538 new regulate, control and tax laws or bans across CA creating an impossible patchwork of laws. Not counting old criminal codes, just the medical marijuana program, Prop. 215, and the proposed law, we’re up to 1614 different laws or codes in California to control, regulate, and tax marijuana. Follow me on the math if you can. First, S.B. 420 allowed 480 cities and 58 counties to control medical marijuana, which equals 538 different medical marijuana laws (or not). But then S.B. 420 is voluntary and if you did not volunteer for it, it doesn’t apply to you. Another 538 laws to cover those who didn’t apply for the government’s scheme under S.B. 420.
Regulation, control, and taxation are the opposite of freedom, the opposite of legalization. Fifteen years have gone by since the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 put the crack in the prohibition dam by taking the legislative power away from the state, creating new rights and freedoms and making marijuana legal for every California citizen under certain circumstances. Proposition 19 gives the power back to the state to draw up new laws and regulations the people will have no power over. Sure you think you can change the law after the fact, but look at the medical marijuana fiasco that came out of the state’s 538 medical marijuana programs.
The title of Prop. 19 itself is deceiving. This is a marijuana act not a Cannabis act. Any good Cannabis act would have given to the people the whole plant, and certainly Cannabis hemp for farmers. The omission of hemp killed the initiative for me. Someone has a completely different priority than me. If you don’t legalize Cannabis for the farmer, it’s not legal. I am a farmer. Some of us want equal rights. Farmers need to control the means of production, and when the government controls the means of production it is called communism.
The age limit of 21 years or older in Prop. 19 also violates the “CA Constitution, Privileges and Immunities, Article I, Section 7 (b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.”
But then maybe the focus groups that gave us this false legalization have never read the Constitution. The adults 18 – 21 years have the same inalienable rights I have in California and are adult citizens. Because 18 – 21 year olds are citizens, they cannot be excluded from the law. It was the Federal Government that gave us, under threat of highway funds being withheld, the 21 year old age limit for alcohol. The federal government is not now in control. The California Constitution and the people are in charge. Prop. 19 does not follow the law. But again maybe the focus groups didn’t know this was a constitutional violation. My question is did anyone take this into consideration? Is there some hidden agenda to bypass the CA Constitution and plead federal law again? If every 21 years in Prop. 19 has to be changed to 18 years, the initiative is doomed. All those people including the AG in his summary who thought 21 meant 21 were deceived.
“California Constitution, Article I, Section 23, Rights Reserved: This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.” The people have retained the right to use and obtain medical marijuana in Prop. 215. Not only am I given no right to my ounce in Prop. 19, but I can’t sell what I produce on my property, in privacy, exercising my liberty and recognizing that of others. Forty years of fighting for liberty around Cannabis and I get an ounce and no industrial hemp. According to Chris Conrad there are 50,000 viable uses for Cannabis, in Prop. 19 we get one use, one measly ounce that we already have a real right to in medical marijuana if we choose. Ask your doctor.
This is not a cool Cannabis Act. Unworkable, unconstitutional, unequal, unfair and so on, we can use the opportunity to educate ourselves and the rest of the world about what freedom is and is not. I don’t feel bad about depriving people of their ounce, because I’m not. They have the right and I can respect that. What I don’t like is being allowed an ounce and a 5 foot X 5 foot garden being called legalization by the government written summary and proponents. What this Prop. 19 is could be called a form of restrictionism – a policy by a legislative body (in this case local control by cities and counties, enabled by the people) to enact restrictions on marijuana.
CA Constitution, Article I, Section 26, states in full: “The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.” In Prop. 19, the phrases “Notwithstanding any other provision of law…,” and “Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law…,” are express words meant to obviate and eliminate any part of the Constitution including the before mentioned age limit and uniform operation. It is a question I can’t answer at this time as to whether these express words also curtail our individual liberties written into state law, such as privacy. It does give me great concern; if Prop.19 can obviate the Constitution, it can certainly wipe out a prior initiative like Prop. 215 and a statute like S.B. 420. VOTE NO ON GIVING UP OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS; VOTE NO ON PROP. 19.
Prop 19 neglects to legalize the most important and lucrative part of the Cannabis plant – HEMP. Yes, I am bummed that nobody asked my opinion on this Cannabis act. I had written an initiative I called the Cannabis sativa Act. I had experience on Jack’s 1994 initiative effort and wanted to see if I could improve on his effort. I did lower the age limit to l8 years, because of the CA Constitution, but in it we would get the 50,000 uses, people would be let out of jail, records would be wiped clean of non-violent pot crimes, etc. I believe that the Prop. 19 focus groups never got a glimpse of Jack’s initiative. NO HEMP; NO ON PROP.19.
We get no Cannabis hemp. This initiative is not about Cannabis, it is about marijuana. TRCATCA OF 2010 should have been about hemp as the legislature has passed two hemp bills that were vetoed. Hemp is what is best for California, not restrictionism that will certainly make a hemp farmer think twice about going beyond a 5 x 5 foot square. This Cannabis plant like every other plant needs to be controlled by the people through our inalienable individual rights. I like the tomato model, not the wine model. Let the farmer grow; unconditional surrender. Vote NO ON RESTRICTIONISM.
What does this mean and does it violate the one-subject rule? Prop. 19,Section 2, B, 13. “Permit California to fulfill the state’s obligations under the United States Constitution to enact laws concerning health, morals, public welfare and safety within the State.” This is certainly not covered by the title. It is broad and vague and carries no explanation about why it is included in this marijuana bill. Does the state now have a problem enacting laws that the people now have to permit them to do so, or is this another attempt to allow the state to bypass the California Constitution and do something devious? Sounds rather ominous in a Regulate, Control, and Tax initiative. VOTE NO ON BROAD AND VAGUE LAW; VOTE NO ON PROP. 19. Can anyone explain the why this purpose is included in Prop. 19? And why is it not unconstitutional under CA Constitution, Article 4 Legislative, Section 9: “A statute shall embrace but one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. If a statute embraces a subject not expressed in its title, only the part not expressed is void.”
I saw a couple of people in Orange County lighting up tobacco cigarettes outside a Pep Boy’s store and it reminded me that according to the Attorney General’s opinion after Prop. 215 was passed, I could smoke my medicine anywhere you could smoke cigarettes in public. Why should I give up my right to be equal with other smokers? Why was this unequal and unfair section even put in the law? I now suspect it is to drive people into the marijuana shops of Oaksterdam. VOTE NO ON INEQUALITY OF LAW.
Short list of possible Constitutional problems:
1. CA Constitution, Article 13 TAXATION: Section 3, “The following are exempt from property taxation; (h) Growing crops.”
2. CA Constitution, Article 13 TAXATION: Section 20, “The Legislature may provide maximum property tax rates and bonding limits for local governments.”
3. Prop. 19 is not about legalization and as Dennis Peron stated, “It is thinly veiled prohibition.” Look at the wording in Prop. 19: Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls, “Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may…(g) prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300.”
4. CA Constitution, Article 4 Legislative, Section 9: “A statute shall embrace but one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. If a statute embraces a subject not expressed in its title, only the part not expressed is void.”
5. CA Constitution, Article I, Section 26, states in full: “The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.”
6. “California Constitution, Article I, Section 23, Rights Reserved: This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.”
7. The age limit of 21 years or older in Prop. 19 also violates the “CA Constitution, Privileges and Immunities, Article I, Section 7 (b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.”
8. “California Constitution, Article 4, SEC. 16. (a) All laws of a general nature have uniform operation. (b) A local or special statute is invalid in any case if a general statute can be made applicable.”
*******
One of the many questions from those who heard our NO ON PROP. 19 talks was, “What else is there to vote on.?” Other more comprehensive initiatives have been written, such as Jack Herer’s California Cannabis Hemp and Health Initiative. I am including an initiative I wrote years ago. This was written as an exercise in initiative writing.

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS
TO THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA:
We, the undersigned, registered, qualified voters of California, residents of the fore-described County (or City and County), hereby propose changes to the Health and Safety Code Sections 11357- 11362 relating to the Cannabis sativa plant by whatever name, and petition the Secretary of State to submit the same to the voters of California for their adoption or rejection at the next succeeding primary or general election or at any special statewide election held prior to that primary or general election or otherwise provided by law.
The proposed statutory initiative reads as follows.
THE CANNABIS SATIVA ACT OF 2012 A.D.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT
AS FOLLOWS:
HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 11357- 11362.

SECTION 1.
TITLE
This initiative shall be known as the Cannabis sativa Act of 2012 A.D.
SECTION 2.
FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS.
A. The People of the State of California find and declare their rights under the U.S. Constitution, Articles IX and X. Article IX states: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” And Article X states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.”
B. The United States Federal Government is forbidden by law to control farm production as it has with the plant Cannabis sativa in California (see U.S. v. Butler, 297, U.S. I, 1936), has interfered with medical use of the plant Cannabis sativa under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, in violation of the spirit and intent of the U.N. Single Convention Treaty, and has continually (from the U.S. Marijuana Tax Stamp Act of 1937, to the present) subjected us to silence on the benefits of Cannabis hemp and the safety of medical Cannabis, while mounting the most pernicious campaign against the inalienable rights and privileges of California citizens as expressed in the California Constitution, Article 1, Declaration of Rights, Section 1: “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”
C. The People of the State of California find and declare that physicians, caregivers, producers and patients are continually being sanctioned, harassed, arrested and prosecuted for the recommendation, transportation, distribution and use of cannabis for medical purposes.
D. The People of the State of California find and declare that the development and use of Cannabis sativa (hemp) as a basic natural renewable resource is in the best interest of the state economy and that the development of Cannabis sativa for the production of hemp and hemp products can be of tremendous medical, environmental and social advantage.
E. The People of the State of California find and declare that the safety of Cannabis sativa (no overdose deaths in recorded history, no toxicity), warrants removal of the plant from the Schedules of the Controlled Substances Act, thereby re-establishing Cannabis sativa as a free market agricultural resource.
F. The People of the State of California find and declare that due to the safety
and lack of toxicity and many medical applications of Cannabis sativa, the government is not warranted to invade the privacy of the family unit on adolescent use of Cannabis, unless due process is used. Control of Cannabis sativa use in the home is in the proper purview of parents or guardians of underage Californians.
SECTION 3. PURPOSE & INTENT
A. Therefore, be it resolved that the People of California do hereby declare that the purpose and intent of the Cannabis sativa Act of 2012 A.D. is to re-establish as an inalienable right of liberty of the people of California to use, grow, farm, sell and develop economically the plant Cannabis sativa free of interference by the United States Federal Government, pursuant to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
B. Therefore, be it resolved that the People of the State of California do hereby recognize the medical value of cannabis, and do hereby propose this Cannabis sativa Act of 2012 A.D. with the intent to authorize physicians to prescribe, pharmacists to dispense, producers to supply, and patients to use with or without a prescription Cannabis sativa for medical purposes, with the full protection of the law of the land given an inalienable right.
SECTION 4. DEFINITION OF MEDICAL USE
Medical use shall be defined as the personal consumption in any manner of any form of Cannabis sativa for any medical purpose as determined by an adult citizen of California or determined by the parent or guardian of underage Californians. This is an inalienable right of liberty for Californians.
SECTION 5. EXCLUSION OF PRIOR ACTS
The Cannabis sativa Act of 2012 A.D. shall be construed to repeal, delete, expunge, deny or abridge any California Statute or Code, criminal or civil, relating to the Cannabis sativa plant.
SECTION 6.
PRESCRIPTION BY A LICENSED PHYSICIAN
Any prescription issued by a licensed physician in the State of California for medical Cannabis shall conform to the standard format of a prescription and
recommendations of medical Cannabis sativa for any medical purpose may be made as deemed appropriate by the physician or the patient, recognizing the inalienable right of the patient to the plant.
SECTION 7. DISPENSING BY A PHARMACIST
Any pharmacist licensed in the State of California may purchase, transport, store, dispense, and sell Cannabis sativa for the purpose of filling a prescription issued by a physician. All Cannabis sativa sold by licensed pharmacists must be organically produced in accordance with the California Organic Food Act of 1990. No special form or procedure shall be required of a pharmacist filling a prescription for Cannabis sativa.
SECTION 8. ZONING RESTRICTIONS
Zoning restrictions regarding the cultivation of Cannabis sativa for industrial purposes may be set forth by the proper authorities in the same manner as with any other food, agricultural or industrial enterprise, recognizing the inalienable right of the citizen to the plant.
SECTION 9. FREEDOM FROM HARASSMENT
(A) People engaged in the activities described in this Act shall be free from sanction, harassment, arrest and prosecution by any and all authorities.
(B) "Harassment" shall be further defined as any act departing from the norm observed in the course of inspecting or supervising a commercial agricultural enterprise, including, but not limited to, aerial surveillance of a kind not customary to a commercial agricultural enterprise.
SECTION 10. CEASING PROSECUTION, VACATING
SENTENCES, RELEASING FROM PRISON, EXPUNGING OF RECORDS
(A) Enactment of this initiative shall include: release from prison, jail, parole and
probation, and clearing, expungement and deletion of all criminal records for all
persons currently charged with, or convicted of any Cannabis sativa offenses included in this initiative which are hereby no longer illegal.
(B) Evidence of criminal proceedings involving the plant Cannabis sativa which under this initiative are no longer illegal shall be expunged from a defendant’s record within 30 days of the passage of this Act.
SECTION 11. LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION
This Act is an exercise of the public power of the state for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the State of California, and shall be liberally construed to effectuate these purposes, remembering the citizen’s inalienable right to Cannabis sativa.
SECTION 12. SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this Act are severable. If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.
SECTION 13. CONFLICTING MEASURES
If this measure is approved by the voters but superseded by any other conflicting ballot measure approved by more voters at the same election, and the conflicting ballot measure is later held invalid, it is the intent of the voters that this Act shall be self-executing and given full force of the law.
SECTION 14. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Act shall become effective immediately upon its approval by the voters.
SECTION 15. SELF-EXECUTION
This Act shall be self-executing.
SECTION 16. AMENDMENT
This Act shall not be altered or amended except by a vote of the people.
*****
Dennis’ List
Dennis Peron: TRCATCA OF 2010 is not legalization it is thinly veiled prohibition. Money spent at Bluesky is being used against you by keeping the reins of Prohibition on Cannabis with:
1. The plant police (5x5 restricted grow space & one ounce limit (this is supposed to be legalization)
2. The tax ensures police and new plant police will be paid to weigh our medicine equals high priced medicine.
3. Age limits (21) send the wrong message. Cannabis is safer than alcohol why equate it with it. [Alaska – age 19][French Commission on legalization of Marijuana recommended age 14].
4. Making public consumption illegal (currently there is no state law against it)
5. Creating new felonies where there were none.
6. Can’t smoke around your own kids (Cops can take them away)
7. No one gets out of prison, the status quo is preserved.
8. What is legal in one county or city will be illegal in others.
9. Creates a monopoly by limiting competition (excessive regulations prevent ordinary people from entering business)
******

"

Esperanto estas valoro mia tempon.

Esperanto estas valoro mia tempon.
Esperanto is worth my time.

kial? Why?
Sed Esperanton sentas bona dum oni uzas gxin.
Because Esperanto feels good while one uses it.

Eble, mia esperanto estas ne malbona tio mia pensis ke estis.
Perhaps my esperanto is not as bad as I thought that it was.

 mi bezonas al pensos pri unua nova topico al parli sur mia blogon.
I need to think about one new topic to talk about on my blog.

Kiel estas Dio?
How about God.

Fwd: KuLula Airline

Subject: From the cockpit on KULULA.COM- South Africa's Budget Airline WHAT A PITY KULULA DOESN'T FLY INTERNATIONALLY - WE SHOULD SUPPORT THEM IF ONLY FOR THEIR HUMOUR - SO TYPICALLY SOUTH AFRICAN. Kulula is an Airline with head office situated in Johannesburg . Kulula airline attendants make an effort to make the in-flight "safety lecture" and announcements a bit more entertaining. Here are some real examples that have been heard or reported: -------------------------------------------------------------------- On a Kulula flight, (there is no assigned seating, you just sit where you want) passengers were apparently having a hard time choosing, when a flight attendant announced, "People, people we're not picking out furniture here, find a seat and get in it!"                   ---o0o--- On another flight with a very "senior" flight attendant crew, the pilot said, "Ladies and gentlemen, we've reached cruising altitude and will be turning down the cabin lights. This is for your comfort and to enhance the appearance of your flight attendants."                  ----o0o--- On landing, the stewardess said, "Please be sure to take all of your belongings.. If you're going to leave anything, please make sure it's something we'd like to have."                  ----o0o--- "There may be 50 ways to leave your lover, but there are only 4 ways out of this airplane."                   ---o0o--- "Thank you for flying Kulula. We hope you enjoyed giving us the business as much as we enjoyed taking you for a ride."                   ---o0o--- As the plane landed and was coming to a stop at Durban Airport , a lone voice came over the loudspeaker: "Whoa, big fella. WHOA!"                   ---o0o--- After a particularly rough landing during thunderstorms in the Karoo , a flight attendant on a flight announced, "Please take care when opening the overhead compartments because, after a landing like that, sure as hell everything has shifted."                  ---o0o--- From a Kulula employee: " Welcome aboard Kulula 271 to Port Elizabeth . To operate your seat belt, insert the metal tab into the buckle, and pull tight. It works just like every other seat belt; and, if you don't know how to operate one, you probably shouldn't be out in public unsupervised."                  ---o0o--- "In the event of a sudden loss of cabin pressure, masks will descend from the ceiling. Stop screaming, grab the mask, and pull it over your face. If you have a small child travelling with you, secure your mask before assisting with theirs. If you are travelling with more than one small child, pick your favourite."                  ---o0o--- Weather at our destination is 50 degrees with some broken clouds, but we'll try to have them fixed before we arrive. Thank you, and remember, nobody loves you, or your money, more than Kulula Airlines."                  ----o0o--- "Your seats cushions can be used for flotation; and in the event of an emergency water landing, please paddle to shore and take them with our compliments."                   ---o0o--- "As you exit the plane, make sure to gather all of your belongings. Anything left behind will be distributed evenly among the flight attendants. Please do not leave children or spouses.."                  ---o0o--- And from the pilot during his welcome message: "Kulula Airlines is pleased to announce that we have some of the best flight attendants in the industry. Unfortunately, none of them are on this flight!"                  ---o0o--- Heard on Kulula 255 just after a very hard landing in Cape Town : The flight attendant came on the intercom and said, "That was quite a bump and I know what y'all are thinking. I'm here to tell you it wasn't the airline's fault, it wasn't the pilot's fault, it wasn't the flight attendant's fault, it was the asphalt."                   ---o0o--- Overheard on a Kulula flight into Cape Town , on a particularly windy and bumpy day: During the final approach, the Captain really had to fight it. After an extremely hard landing, the Flight Attendant said, "Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to The Mother City. Please remain in your seats with your seat belts fastened while the Captain taxis what's left of our airplane to the gate!"                  ---o0o--- Another flight attendant's comment on a less than perfect landing: "We ask you to please remain seated as Captain Kangaroo bounces us to the terminal."                   ---o0o--- An airline pilot wrote that on this particular flight he had hammered his ship into the runway really hard. The airline had a policy which required the first officer to stand at the door while the passengers exited, smile, and give them a "Thanks for flying our airline. He said that, in light of his bad landing, he had a hard time looking the passengers in the eye, thinking that someone would have a smart comment.  Finally everyone had gotten off except for a little old lady walking with a cane. She said, "Sir, do you mind if I ask you a question?" "Why, no Ma'am," said the pilot. "What is it?" The little old lady said, "Did we land, or were we shot down?"                   ---o0o--- After a real crusher of a landing in Johannesburg , the attendant came on with, "Ladies and Gentlemen, please remain in your seats until Captain Crash and the Crew have brought the aircraft to a screeching halt against the gate. And, once the tire smoke has cleared and the warning bells are silenced, we will open the door and you can pick your way through the wreckage to the terminal.."                   ---o0o--- Part of a flight attendant's arrival announcement: "We'd like to thank you folks for flying with us today.. And, the next time you get the insane urge to go blasting through the skies in a pressurized metal tube, we hope you'll think of Kulula Airways."                  ---o0o--- Heard on a Kulula flight. "Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to smoke, the smoking section on this airplane is on the wing.. If you can light 'em, you can smoke 'em."                  ---o0o--- A plane was taking off from Durban Airport . After it reached a comfortable cruising altitude, the captain made an announcement over the intercom, "Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. Welcome to Flight Number 293, non-stop from Durban to Cape Town , The weather ahead is good and, therefore, we should have a smooth and uneventful flight.. Now sit back and relax... OH, MY GOODNESS!" Silence followed, and after a few minutes, the captain came back on the intercom and said, "Ladies and Gentlemen, I am so sorry if I scared you earlier.  While I was talking to you, the flight attendant accidentally spilled a cup of hot coffee in my lap. You should see the front of my pants!" A passenger then yelled, "That's nothing. You should see the back of mine!"

Is Esperanto Worth my time?

Mi pensis ke tio mi bezonas plu laboro kun mi Esperanto, kvankam cxu estas esperanto vere valero mia tempon?

I think that I require more work on my esperanto, Although is esperanto really worth my time?

Jes/Yes
1. Learn How to learn a new language
2. New internet friends


Ne/no
1. Spend off and on a year and a half and still want to be better.
2. Hardly anyone in to talk to face to face (at least my age in US)
3. Funny comments from cops

Should I cut my losses and start learning Spanish?

Big Alcohol Backs ‘No on Prop. 19′ Campaign

Big Alcohol Backs ‘No on Prop. 19′ Campaign: "

California campaign finance reports disclose that The California Beer & Beverage Distributors Association is one of the primary financial backers of Public Safety First, sponsors of the ‘No on Prop. 19′ campaign.

Booze Lobby Funding the No on 19 Campaign

via The East Bay Express

The California Beer & Beverage Distributors disclosed it donated $10,000 to defeat Prop 19 — which would regulate and tax marijuana like alcohol. The alcohol lobbyist’s funds will help spread the lie that employers must tolerate stoned employees, and the talking point that ‘California doesn’t need another legal, mind-altering substance.’ Alcohol causes an estimated $38 billion in costs in California each year from emergency room visits, arrests, etc, according to the Marin Institute. There are roughly 3,500 deaths annually from alcohol-related illness and more than 109,000 alcohol-related injuries in California. Conversely, pot caused 181 emergency room visits in 2008, according to a study by the non-partisan RAND Corporation, despite being used by more than four million Californians monthly.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition spokesperson and retired Orange County, CA. judge James Gray said the booze lobby’s decision was probably financial. The move echoes the tobacco and alcohol industry’s help creating leading drug war group Partnership For a Drug-Free America.

“It was a really wise thing to do from a merchandising standpoint to reaffirm the distinction between a legal and an illegal drug,” he said. “They are protecting their own economic self interest.”

The alcohol lobby’s $10,000 donation to the ‘No on Prop. 19′ campaign is one of the largest monetary donations received by Public Safety First, third only to the $30,000 donated by the California Police Chief’s Association and the $20,500 donated by the California Narcotics Officers Association. (Want to ask PSF campaign manager Tim Rosales why an organization called Public Safety First accepts funding from the pushers of a product that is responsible for immeasurable public safety costs? You can do so by going here.) Last month, the East Bay Express reported total financial contributions to the Prop. 19 campaign were well ahead of those reported for Public Safety First, which at that time had only raised $61,000, with just one citizen donor.

Of course, this isn’t the first time that the The California Beer & Beverage Distributors have targeted their alcohol profits to oppose drug law reform in the Golden State. In 2008, the booze lobby donated a much larger amount — $100,000 in fact — to defeat Prop. 5, The Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act, which among other things would have reduced criminal marijuana possession penalties from a misdemeanor to a non-criminal infraction. (The measure failed 40 percent to 60 percent.) Could it be that the alcohol lobby is fearful of the day when they will have to legally compete with a natural product that is remarkably safe, non-toxic, and won’t leave you with a hangover? Do we even have to ask?

I’ll give the final word to DrugWarRant blogger extraordinaire Pete Guither who says it best, “If you’re opposed to Prop 19, you’re on the side of the narcs, the cartels, the sheriffs, and the booze industry.”

"

Reducing Penalties for Crack and Peyote… But When Marijuana?

Reducing Penalties for Crack and Peyote… But When Marijuana?: "

As California voters prepare to vote on Proposition 19, which would bring a much-needed end to nearly 100 years of failed marijuana prohibition in that state, it’s important to pay attention to the arguments that proponents use to persuade the electorate to vote in favor of taxing and regulating marijuana like alcohol (T&R). How an issue is framed can make or break it, as seen by efforts to reduce penalties for crack cocaine and peyote.

On August 3, President Obama signed a bill into law that reduced the federal sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine from 100:1 to 18:1. This was done by reducing the penalty for crack cocaine, not by increasing the penalty for powder cocaine.

Years in the making, this law was signed with barely a whimper from the usual prohibitionists. How can it be that Congress and the president reduced the penalty for crack in 2010, but it’s inconceivable that they’d do the same for marijuana in 2010? The answer is that the lobbying campaign to reduce the crack disparity appealed to politicians’ core values.

The crack penalty wasn’t reduced by analogizing important arguments in the marijuana policy debate, such as “crack is safer than alcohol” or “crack has medicinal value.” Rather, because people who have been sentenced to five-year, mandatory-minimum prison sentences for crack are overwhelmingly black, the debate was framed as one of racial justice. Then, once that ball got rolling, others joined in by saying that reducing the crack penalty was about fundamental fairness, e.g., let the punishment fit the crime (which meant reducing the crack-cocaine penalty rather than increasing the powder-cocaine penalty).

Regarding peyote — a drug that can cause hallucinations far exceeding those of the best marijuana in the world — Congress and President Clinton enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993, which included an amendment that allowed people who have at least 25% Native-American blood to use peyote legally. The peyote amendment passed with a non-controversial, unanimous voice vote on the floor of the U.S. House, and by a vote of 97-3 on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

The peyote vote wasn’t won by arguing that “peyote is safer than alcohol” or “peyote has medicinal value” either. Rather, the argument was framed as being about religious freedom, as protected by the First Amendment.

And with medical marijuana, we have won and will continue to win our ballot-initiative campaigns not by running TV ads featuring a budding marijuana plant, but rather by featuring patients and family members of patients. This is because the debate isn’t about a plant, but about compassion — compassion for cancer patients, AIDS patients, MS patients, and chronic-pain patients who are being forced to choose between suffering without marijuana or breaking the law with marijuana.

Because no one has succeeded in enacting a T&R law in the history of the world (including in Holland, where wholesale cultivation of marijuana is still illegal), we don’t yet know what “frame” we should be using to win the T&R debate.

Because a disproportionate number of the more than 800,000 people who are arrested for marijuana offenses each year are young men of color, it could be that the T&R issue should be framed as one of racial justice. In June, the Drug Policy Alliance released a report showing that in California’s 25 largest counties, blacks are arrested for marijuana possession at double, triple, or even quadruple the rate of whites.

Or, looking at the success of MPP’s marijuana-decriminalization initiative in Massachusetts — which passed with a stunning 65% of the vote in November 2008 — it could be that the T&R issue should be framed as being about public safety (letting police focus on violent crimes) or fairness (we shouldn’t be saddling young people with lifelong criminal records just for marijuana). Both of these arguments resonated with Massachusetts voters, as exemplified by these two TV ads we ran.

There are also people in our movement who believe we’ll win the T&R debate by emphasizing that marijuana is safer than alcohol (which it is), and therefore, adults should be able to choose the safer substance.

And while the financial argument has been gaining a lot of traction since the U.S. began its “Great Recession” two years ago, we won’t win the T&R debate solely by framing the issue around saving money on enforcement costs and generating new tax dollars. I got a sense of this when I debated Asa Hutchinson, the former head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, on national TV on March 20, 2009.

In that debate, Hutchinson made an admission that I had never heard before from a leading prohibitionist. He said, “If your motivation is to bring revenue to the government, legalize, regulate it. But if your motivation is to reduce the usage, to save teenage lives, to reduce dependence, to strengthen our culture, then the cost is worth it and the revenue should not be a motivation.” In other words, he said that when you’re fighting a holy war, the financial cost of the war is irrelevant.

In the months and years ahead, those of us in the marijuana policy reform movement should aim to win the T&R debate by using some combination of the aforementioned five arguments — racial justice, public safety, fairness, marijuana’s relative safety, and the potential to generate tax revenues while reducing costs for law enforcement. As to which of these arguments will prove to be the most salient, perhaps the November 2 election in California will provide guidance.

This op-ed originally appeared on The Huffington Post.

"

Public Saftey First - You Don't know how it feels.

The Primary reason on why California does want's to vote No on Prop 19 - is because

California will lose billions of federal dollars, dollars that will go to states who follow federal "drug free" requirements. ->Here

 When I get to the point of killing myself -(because of not having my medicine)  I'll shoot myself on your front porch.

I am in great pain without it and you just want to keep the "status quo"  I really hope California starts a Legalization Domino affect - Primarily because of the whole way politicians only care about the money they recieve by keeping prohibition.

Did you know that you could get a medical recommend for Alcohol during the Alchohol Prohibition.   But this time - Mary Jane really is a miracle drug

I feel like this kid - Pot for a 12 year old

Udemy.com Vs Edufire.com VS Lernu.net

Udemy.com meets Edufire.com on Jul 10-2010 in Traffic

Lernu.net is the main hangout for learning Esperanto, Udemy and Edufire are websites that allow teachers to post classes (only Edufire can you set a cost for the class and get %12 back)  Udemy.com will Dominate the field and leave Edufire in the dust,   Mostly because Edufire.com has atrocious Google advertising all over it.  and uses Adobe Conference. 

However Udemy.com needs to change a few things before they are ready to become a real success - Mostly social networking basics.

  Udemy

Hey come check out my new course on Udemy.
-Klanestro Talisman Brian Carpenter

Esperanto Lingvo Esperanto is the Most Useful Language to Learn. The idea that everybody speaks English is erroneous. Most people can't speak more than "Hello","Good bye"; and "thank you". If you travel, the only places where you can really converse in English are in hotels and tourist places.

Follow the link below to reach Klanestro Talisman Brian Carpenter's profile
http://www.udemy.com/u/klanestrotalismanbriancarpenter/

Udemy is a website that enables anyone to create an online course. Our goal is to provide our teachers with everything they could possibly need to create a great learning experience over the internet

We respect your privacy. Udemy is located at 2015 Edgewood Dr Palo Alto CA

@ 2010, Udemy Corporation

Richard Dawkins VS Who Created the Creator + The Big Bang + Nemelka

I have read Richard Dawkins God Delusion
and i agree with most of Dawkins theories of why god does not exist, except for the argument against Hoyles Fallacy and the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit

"probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747."

Dawkins Statement

1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. In the case of a man-made artefact such as a watch, the designer really was an intelligent engineer. It is tempting to apply the same logic to an eye or a wing, a spider or a person.
3. The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a "crane" not a "skyhook," for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity.
4. The most ingenious and powerful crane so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that – an illusion.
5. We don't yet have an equivalent crane for physics. Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology. This kind of explanation is superficially less satisfying than the biological version of Darwinism, because it makes heavier demands on luck. But the anthropic principle entitles us to postulate far more luck than our limited human intuition is comfortable with.
6. We should not give up hope of a better crane arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. But even in the absence of a strongly satisfying crane to match the biological one, the relatively weak cranes we have at present are, when abetted by the anthropic principle, self-evidently better than the self-defeating skyhook hypothesis of an intelligent designer.

Number 2 is the focus of this post.  Most if not all believers base a heavy percentage of their beliefs on this principle -- Everything is just to complex for the hole thing to be a major accident.  Atheist say technically it could be an accident and that it's fallacy to say it can't be an accident.  Richard Dawkins and other athiest point out that if it was created who created the creator?

Who Created the Creator? 
I want to point out that “Elohim אֱלהִים ” translated to its most original form, literally means “Gods,” not one, but a plural number. It is the plural version of the Hebrew word “Eloah,” which means “one God." It is a major point in judeo-christian beliefs to be "One with God"  Or Like I like to think of it "
One purpose with God"  Then Christians are pointed to Jesus Christ for an example of How to be one with God.  

Just because the question who created the creator, brings more complexity to the question of Design vs Evolution does not mean that "God" was not Created.  Christopher Marc Nemlka brings light to this by asking What came first the chicken or the egg?  He claims that there have always been chickens and there have always been eggs.

Ok Richard Dawkins here is a thought experiment for you, what happened before the "Big Bang" (assuming that you are like most humans and accept the Big Bang Theory) according to the big bang theory absolutely nothing happens before the big bang - not even time.

God's Time VS Human Time, Quantum Physics and Relativity can do some really funny things with the concept of time.  AND it is PROVEN that time works differently depending on your speed and gravitational forces.  

How come God the son, describes himself as the Alpha and the Omega,  Instead of God the Father?   Because in all the time that Humans have it is Jesus's purpose to be humanities representative to the father,  It is Jesus that understands our time maybe even better than that of the father. 
  
Christopher Marc Nemelka's book Human Reality   Explains that God the son or Jesus is a "clone" of the father, hence was created after God in chronology. But was his spirit cloned before the Big Bang? (Remember God's first day was separating the "heavens" and the earth.)  

deification [ˌdiːɪfɪˈkeɪʃən ˌdeɪ-]

n

1. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) the act or process of exalting to the position of a god

2. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) the state or condition of being deified

 At least the Greek Orthodox (Oldest form of Christianity) and Other groups(Mormons) believe that you can become "like" God.  Not that you will ever be Jesus Christ or God(the father), But become like God and have all that he has - thus becoming part of the Elohim, or in simply plain English,Individual Humans can become a god.

My main point is Don't throw God out with the bathwater because you think that Gods can't be created

Easily Weaponized Superstitious Hokum

Is One Really Superior…?: "
Islam and Christianity are both frightening at times, full of false hope, and capable of even more destruction than they’ve already caused.

Mr. Fish draws the truth:




It’s incredible to hear some Christians talk about how superior their theology is to that of any other faith… maybe because they sing songs in massive churches and talk about their prophet like he’s their bestest friend, it shelters them from the fact that their beliefs have no more credibility than Muslims, Scientologists, Hindus, and Unicorns.

(via Godless Blogger)

"

Nemelka's Defense

I was reading this thread about Christopher Marc Nemelka and his works, It was an anti- Nemelka Thread

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/36264-christopher-nemelkas-excellent-adventure/page__st__20

That anyone would even wade through his "sealed portion" is beyond me. From what I understand, he's trying to get people to read and pray about it, but any Latter-day Saint who understands the chain of command knows that God's not going to bypass his established order and use some flake to pull an end-run, especially to produce such trite drival.

So if this was Nemelka's religious beliefs, sure, I'd cut the guy some slack, but a "Joseph Smith" he's not. But he does show that if Joseph Smith were a fraud, he was far more brilliant than Nemelka could ever hope to be. The way some people have dismissed the Book of Mormon, one would think its production was no big deal. But then when one reads "The Sealed Portion," it becomes clear that writing a Book of Mormon is far more complicated. After all, Nemelka has NO WITNESSES. No one saw him with a resurrected being, no one but a friend saw him write it, and it was something he worked on for a long timeâ??and unlike Joseph Smith, he had all the time he needed to work on it. No meetings, no traveling, no organizing. Yet he couldn't produce anything even remotely close to the Book of Mormon. In fact, if Joseph Smith had produced such hackneyed material, Mormonism would be a mere footnote in the religious movements of the early 1800s.

In short, Nemelka illustrates wonderfully that Joseph Smith was ordained of God, and that the Book of Mormon was of God. Nemelka made enough mistakes in his first three pages to discredit him, and it only got worse after that.

 1. Chain of Command -If you are saying that the sealed portion must come from a general authority,  Really?  Where in the Book of Mormon Or the Doctrine and Covenents that G*d specifies that it will come through "The Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."

In my Opinion you are EXACTLY like the Protestants and the Baptists that claim the Book of Mormon is NOT true --  When has there EVER been an Endless Succession of Prophets .  Did Joseph smith EVER say that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints will have exclusive rights to God's newest works from now on?

2.  No witnesses.  How do you know there are no witnesses? Can you mind read?

3. Joseph smith Vs Christopher Marc Nemelka --  Try comparing yourself to a Baptist priest from the 1830's  and just see how logical you both sound. -- To me they are Both con men Or Both true(BoM + SP)

 He still can be a con man --  But please try to give me more than opinions, Also try to read the book you are condemning --- If you care anything about truth and what actually happens.

Jehovah’s Witnesses Mad That Atheists Won’t Keep Their Views to Themselves - PZ Myers - Alter Net

Jehovah’s Witnesses Mad That Atheists Won’t Keep Their Views to Themselves - PZ Myers - Alter Net: "
Thanks to at3p for the link.


You can now download the latest issue of Awake, the Jehovah’s Witness’s strange little magazine. The theme of this issue is those marching militant atheists, so it’s a little bit personal.


Unfortunately, I was only able to read as far as the second sentence before I was blinded by the irony.

A new group of atheists has arisen in society. Called the new atheists, they are not content to keep their views to themselves.

That’s right. The door-knockin’, rabidly proselytizing cult is rebuking atheists for not keeping their views to themselves.



I guess that’s fair. Twice now I’ve watched in anticipation as the local JWs do their thing, working their way up the street, only to see them look at my house, check a piece of paper they carried with them, and turn around to leave. There was also a third time when a couple actually knocked on my door, started their little spiel, and I interrupted them to tell them I was an atheist, would they like to come in and talk about freedom from religion? And they ran away.



So it’s true, I suppose, that they do have limits on the expression of their views.



go to comments on Pharyngula
"