Ron Strider
Well-Known Member
David Tunno's recent mailer smacks of abuse. It abuses my patience! He calls himself and his coterie of cronies "Save Our County," which is suggestive — it implies the county will sink into ruin without a marijuana ban. He talks about the suppression of the people's voice — YES or NO, yeah or nay. The voters of this state already voted to decriminalize marijuana. They decriminalized it!
Tunno wants voters of the county to vote on banning its cultivation in the county. Does he want to ban hemp production, is that it? Or, high-minded, he wants to criminalize cannabis cultivation to save us from another "coffin-nail smoke," after voters got through decriminalizing it. Maybe he just prefers tobacco, and he wants laws to reflect his bias.
Tunno writes about Rebecca Turner, whom he calls "an elected official, not county staff," and complains, "(she was) represented by county attorney, David Sirius, a person of interest." What! A county attorney represented a noncounty elected official? Yep, the county attorney is definitely a person of interest.
Tunno writes as if a conspiracy cheated voters of a chance to re-criminalize production, when voters just decriminalized it. Now that the British peer-reviewed journal of science NATURE reported on the definitive work that C. sativa and C. indica are the same species, not separate; Tunno's ban on manufacture and production would make it illegal for ACE Hardware stories to stock hemp twine!
The county doesn't have the money to blow smoke rings around voter-approved state referenda, and then, fight "Dillon's rule" on appeal. But Tunno gleams proudly, "Ours would have been the first ordinance to ban marijuana in the state, possibly even the U.S." Correct me if I'm wrong — federal law classifies marijuana as a schedule 1 drug and bans it — even though it isn't addicting as schedule 1 drugs must be. Save Our County wants to ban cultivation, manufacturing, processing and delivery of marijuana for all purposes, but it doesn't ban use, voted legal by Californians. Use would not be prohibited by the ban. Or is there some slickery in the wording of the ban that I don't understand? The ban is beginning to sound like posh poop-ery!
Tunno's final triumph in his letter is this: he tells the supervisors of the county that they can "right a terrible wrong" by sending his "comprehensive ban" to the voters for a revote — in a county where the political will is decidedly split in the polls.
I say, "Let's scooddle this nonsense and ban beer." Beer is a schedule 1 drug — psychoactive if one drinks too many bottles and addicting as alcohol. It should have been named as a schedule 1 drug under federal law. Let's bring back a sleazy prohibition and ban it, lest hell's bells ring out joyously in their contempt.
News Moderator: Ron Strider 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Why proposed ban would end hemp twine sales in Calaveras | Opinions from Calaveras County | calaverasenterprise.com
Author: Bud Hoekstra
Contact: Contact | calaverasenterprise.com
Photo Credit: Cass Herrington
Website: calaverasenterprise.com | Calaveras County's Most Trusted News Source
Tunno wants voters of the county to vote on banning its cultivation in the county. Does he want to ban hemp production, is that it? Or, high-minded, he wants to criminalize cannabis cultivation to save us from another "coffin-nail smoke," after voters got through decriminalizing it. Maybe he just prefers tobacco, and he wants laws to reflect his bias.
Tunno writes about Rebecca Turner, whom he calls "an elected official, not county staff," and complains, "(she was) represented by county attorney, David Sirius, a person of interest." What! A county attorney represented a noncounty elected official? Yep, the county attorney is definitely a person of interest.
Tunno writes as if a conspiracy cheated voters of a chance to re-criminalize production, when voters just decriminalized it. Now that the British peer-reviewed journal of science NATURE reported on the definitive work that C. sativa and C. indica are the same species, not separate; Tunno's ban on manufacture and production would make it illegal for ACE Hardware stories to stock hemp twine!
The county doesn't have the money to blow smoke rings around voter-approved state referenda, and then, fight "Dillon's rule" on appeal. But Tunno gleams proudly, "Ours would have been the first ordinance to ban marijuana in the state, possibly even the U.S." Correct me if I'm wrong — federal law classifies marijuana as a schedule 1 drug and bans it — even though it isn't addicting as schedule 1 drugs must be. Save Our County wants to ban cultivation, manufacturing, processing and delivery of marijuana for all purposes, but it doesn't ban use, voted legal by Californians. Use would not be prohibited by the ban. Or is there some slickery in the wording of the ban that I don't understand? The ban is beginning to sound like posh poop-ery!
Tunno's final triumph in his letter is this: he tells the supervisors of the county that they can "right a terrible wrong" by sending his "comprehensive ban" to the voters for a revote — in a county where the political will is decidedly split in the polls.
I say, "Let's scooddle this nonsense and ban beer." Beer is a schedule 1 drug — psychoactive if one drinks too many bottles and addicting as alcohol. It should have been named as a schedule 1 drug under federal law. Let's bring back a sleazy prohibition and ban it, lest hell's bells ring out joyously in their contempt.
News Moderator: Ron Strider 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Why proposed ban would end hemp twine sales in Calaveras | Opinions from Calaveras County | calaverasenterprise.com
Author: Bud Hoekstra
Contact: Contact | calaverasenterprise.com
Photo Credit: Cass Herrington
Website: calaverasenterprise.com | Calaveras County's Most Trusted News Source
