California’s ‘Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act’ Offers New Ways To Fight Federal Dis

California’s ‘Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act’ Offers New Ways To Fight Federal Discrimination


[h=3]An urgent message for all dispensaries regarding hostile audits by the IRS[/h] Bill McPike, Chief Counsel for Regulate Marijuana Like Wine(RMLW), deliberately included language in RMLW to protect dispensaries from IRS attacks. Bill has won over 150 medical marijuana cases and was Jack Herer’s personal attorney. McPike pioneered new defenses for patients and is Bar Certified to teach other attorneys how to defend medical marijuana cases. Bill was also featured in a cover story in the National Law Review. When McPike crafted the tactical aspects of RMLW, he carefully inserted language that provides ample tools for driving the IRS away.
As you know, the IRS audits are based upon the argument that cannabis is a controlled substance. Remove cannabis from the schedule and the IRS can no longer claim that dispensaries are selling a controlled substance. RMLW enacts five key measures that give real teeth to opposing the IRS:
1. Removes cannabis from the California schedule of controlled substances and treats it like wine. Thus, you can argue in federal court that since cannabis is no longer a controlled substance in your home state, the court must conclude that there is reasonable doubt regarding the accuracy of the listing cannabis on the federal schedule.
2. Orders the state to notify the Feds that the People of California want cannabis removed from the Federal schedule. Under the Constitution, the People of California have supremacy over a federal agency, on issues of health and safety, even if it is the DEA.
3. The State of California is ordered by our initiative to defend all attacks on RMLW at the local, state and federal level. That means that defense attorneys will have an unlimited legal budget to fight for your rights, while they sit safely on the sidelines, providing the courts with amacus briefs, to ensure you win.
4. RMLW forbids anyone working for the State of California from accepting any funds or cooperating in any way with federal authorities, when someone or their business is in compliance with RMLW.
5. RMLW recognizes new civil rights to possess, use, cultivate and sell cannabis, instead of mere defenses in court. Although the IRS may claim they can ignore state laws, they CANNOT ignore newly recognized civil rights, because that is an issue that still has serious traction in federal courts.
The day RMLW passes, dispensaries will be armed with new laws and new allies to turn the tide and overcome this unjust and illegal attack by the Feds. Clearly, it is in your best interests to support RMLW now, while we still have time to qualify this initiative and create a future of cannabis freedom and prosperity.
VIP Endorsements:
Gov. Gary Johnson
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher
Kenny Loggins
Judge James P. Gray (ret.)
LAPD Deputy Chief S. Downing (ret.)
Assemblymember Chris Norby
Lt. Diane Goldstein (ret.)
Ed Rosenthal
NORML Founder Keith Stroup
Thomas Chong
Rick Steves
Vivian McPeak Seattle Hempfest
Lynnette Shaw Marin Alliance
Alice Huffman President California NAACP
Rob Kampia, MPP
Norm Stamper, former Seattle Police Chief
California Cannabis Coalition
Craig Beresh
CLICK HERE TO DONATE
Check out this independent Facebook Poll of California Cannabis initiatives. It shows RMLW leading nearly 5 to 1 over our nearest competing initiative. See here to view the poll and to vote: http://www.facebook.com/questions/335899416422141

I understand RMLW is not perfect. I know also that what it offers "the common people" is enough for us to push on for better.

Sounds good to me. Get it done people in CA

11420(g) states: "The State of California is ordered to protect and defend all provisions of this Act from any and all challenges or litigation, whether by persons, officials, cities, counties, the state or federal governments."

While I appreciate the optimism that you have regarding the mandate that the state protect all challenges, there is unfortunately no penalty for them not to do so. To the extent feasible, this would at least protect business and personal interests from a state or municipal court ruling in favor of a prohibitionist argument; however, this does not imply that the state has responsibility to front the bill for legal defenses. Even if it were somehow mandated for the state to front the bill, let's be honest... the state is broke.

The provision is necessary, and will likely benefit cannabis consumers and producers. But, don't hold your breath that the state will defend every case. Although if there were any accusation by the Feds on any state agency, they'll absolutely have the legal authority, and responsibility, to defend the provisions of this act.

Let's get this initiative funded -- it's a much better solution to reforming CA's marijuana laws than the status quo.

GreenDevil420 said:

11420(g) states: "The State of California is ordered to protect and defend all provisions of this Act from any and all challenges or litigation, whether by persons, officials, cities, counties, the state or federal governments."

While I appreciate the optimism that you have regarding the mandate that the state protect all challenges, there is unfortunately no penalty for them not to do so. To the extent feasible, this would at least protect business and personal interests from a state or municipal court ruling in favor of a prohibitionist argument; however, this does not imply that the state has responsibility to front the bill for legal defenses. Even if it were somehow mandated for the state to front the bill, let's be honest... the state is broke.

The provision is necessary, and will likely benefit cannabis consumers and producers. But, don't hold your breath that the state will defend every case. Although if there were any accusation by the Feds on any state agency, they'll absolutely have the legal authority, and responsibility, to defend the provisions of this act.

Let's get this initiative funded -- it's a much better solution to reforming CA's marijuana laws than the status quo.

Click to expand...

I agree. Get it on the ballot. Let's vote on it.

One thing you can absolutely count on, though, is the undying opposition from the NorCal growers, and from weak-minded smokers. This, or any legalization bill, will have to be passed over the opposition of the current cartel. You can expect the tin-foil hat crowd to chant in unison, "Monsanto will take over the means of production, and WalMart will own distribution, the small growers will be forced at the point of a bayonet to eat dirt and live in shanties, Dupont will insert mind control genes in to the Cannabis genome and afterward our every action will be controlled from the board room".