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

INTRODUCTION:
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:https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/fbi-fingerprint-program.

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 2ndamendment 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.

Read more at https://patinthehat00.wordpress.com/2016/01/11/missouri-petition-analysis-2016/