User:Christopher Mann McKay/Notes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] San Diego Unified
Adams (K-5) (619) 284-1158 4672 35th St. (92116) Web Alcott (K-5) (858) 273-3415 4680 Hidalgo Ave. (92117) Angier (K-5) (858) 496-8295 8450 Hurlbut St. (92123) Audubon* (K-5) (619) 469-6139 8111 San Vicente St. (92114) Web Baker* (K-6) (619) 264-3139 4041 T St. (92113) Balboa* (K-6) (619) 263-8151 1844 South 40th St. (92113) Barnard (K-4) (619) 224-3306 2930 Barnard St. (92110) Bay Park (K-5) (619) 276-1471 2433 Denver St. (92110) Web Bayview Terrace (K-5) (858) 273-5244 2445 Fogg St. (92109) Benchley/Weinberger (K-5) (619) 463-9271 6269 Twin Lake Dr. (92119) Web Bethune* (K-5) (619) 267-2271 6835 Benjamin Holt Rd. (92114) Bird Rock (K-5) (858) 488-0537 5371 La Jolla Hermosa Ave. (92037) Web Birney* (K-5) (619) 497-3500 4345 Campus Ave. (92103) Boone* (K-6) (619) 479-3111 7330 Brookhaven Rd. (92114) Web Burbank* (K-3) (619) 525-7330 2146 Julian Ave. (92113) Cabrillo (K-4) (619) 223-7154 3120 Talbot St. (92106) Web Cadman (K-5) (858) 273-3003 4370 Kamloop Ave. (92117) Carson* (K-5) (858) 496-8060 6905 Kramer St. (92111) Web Carver* (K-5) (619) 583-7021 3251 Juanita St. (92105) Central* (K-5) (619) 281-6644 4063 Polk Ave. (92105) Web Chavez* (K-6) (619) 527-4098 1404 So. 40th St. (92113) Cherokee Point (K-5) (619) 641-3400 3735 38th St. (92105) Web Chesterton (K-5) (858) 496-8070 7335 Wheatley St. (92111) Web Chollas/Mead (K-6) (619) 264-3113 4525 Market St. (92102) Web Clay (K-5) (619) 583-0690 6506 Solita Ave. (92115) Web Crown Point (K-5) (858) 273-9830 4033 Ingraham St. (92109) Web Cubberley (K-5) (858) 496-8075 3201 Marathon Dr. (92123) Curie (K-5) (858) 453-4184 4080 Governor Dr. (92122) Web Dailard (K-5) (619) 286-1550 6425 Cibola Rd. (92120) Dewey* (K-4) (619) 223-8131 3251 Rosecrans St. (92110) Dingeman (K-6) (858) 549-4437 11840 Scripps Creek Dr. (92131) Web Doyle (K-5) (858) 455-6230 3950 Berino Ct. (92122) Web E.B. Scripps (K-5) (858) 693-8593 10380 Spring Canyon Rd. (92131) Web Edison* (K-5) (619) 283-5961 4077 35th St. (92104) Emerson/Bandini* (K-6) (619) 525-7418 3510 Newton Ave. (92113) Encanto (K-5) (619) 264-3191 822 65th St. (92114) Web Ericson* (K-5) (858) 271-0505 11174 Westonhill Dr. (92126) Euclid* (K-5) (619) 282-2192 4166 Euclid Ave. (92105) Field (K-6) (858) 273-3323 4375 Bannock Ave. (92117) Fletcher (K-5) (858) 496-8100 7666 Bobolink Way (92123) Web Florence (K-5) (619) 293-4440 3914 First Ave. (92103) Foster (K-5) (619) 582-2728 6550 51st St. (92120) Web Franklin (K-5) (619) 284-9279 4481 Copeland Ave. (92116) Freese (K-6) (619) 479-2727 8140 Greenlawn Dr. (92114) Web Fulton (K-5) (619) 262-0777 7055 Skyline Dr. (92114) Web Gage (K-5) (619) 463-0202 6811 Bisby Lake (92119) Web Garfield* (K-5) (619) 284-2076 4487 Oregon St. (92116) Golden Hill* (K-5) (619) 236-5600 1240 33rd St. (92102) Web Grant (K-5) (619) 293-4420 1425 Washington Place (92103) Web Green (K-5) (619) 460-5755 7030 Wandermere Place (92119) Web Hage (K-5) (858) 566-0273 9750 Galvin Ave. (92126) Web Hamilton* (K-5) (619) 262-2483 2807 Fairmount Ave. (92105) Hancock* (K-5) Hardy* (K-5) Hawthorne (K-6) Hearst (K-5) Hickman (K-5) Holmes (K-6) Horton* (K-6) Ibarra* (K-5) Jackson* (K-5) Jefferson (K-5) Jerabek* (K-5) Johnson* (K-6) Jones* (K-5) Juarez (K-5) Kimbrough* (K-5) Knox* (K-6) Kumeyaay (K-5) La Jolla (K-5) Lafayette (K-6) Lee (K-6) Linda Vista* (K-5) Linda Vista Annex Lindbergh Schweitzer (K-6) Logan* (K-5) Loma Portal (K-4) Marshall* (K-5) Marvin (K-5) Mason* (K-5) McKinley (K-5) Miller* (K-5) Miramar Ranch (K-6) Normal Heights (K-5) North Park* (K-5) Nye (K-5) Oak Park (K-5) Ocean Beach (K-4) Pacific Beach (K-5) Paradise Hills* (K-6) Penn* (K-6) Perkins* (K-5) Perry* (K-6) Porter* (K-5) Rolando Park (K-5) Rosa Parks* (K-5) Ross (K-5) Rowan (K-5) Sandburg (K-5) Sequoia* (K-6) Sessions (K-5) Sherman* (K-5) Silver Gate (K-4) Spreckels (K-5) Sunset View (K-4) Tierrasanta* (K-5) Torrey Pines (K-5) Valencia Park* (K-5) Vista Grande (K-5) Walker* Washington (K-5) Webster* (K-6) Wegeforth (K-5) Whitman (K-6) Zamorano* (K-6)
[edit] San Dieguito Union
| School | Neighborhood |
|---|---|
| Torrey Hills Elementary | Torrey Hills |
http://www.cvsd.com/schools.html
[edit] PROP 5
California Propoisition 5 is a that would have made smoking in enclosed public places, health and educational facilities, and places of employment with certain exceptions. The proposition would have required restaurants to have mandatory nonsmoking sections and requires signs to be posted where smoking is unlawful. http://www.healthvote.org/index.php/site/article/all_california_health_care_measures
 |
This California-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
Peter Hanauer Paul Loveday Californians for Clean Indoor Air to run the campaign
[edit] mj rewrite
[edit] History
Although illegal now, the United States has had a long history of producing and using cannabis.
The use of cannabis and other drugs came under increasing scrutiny after the formation of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in 1930, headed by a crusading prohibitionist named Harry J. Anslinger. As part of the government's broader push to outlaw all drugs including alcohol, the FBN encouraged efforts to "educate" the public about drugs and this produced a number of highly sensationalised propaganda films which sought to demonise cannabis (or at least to capitalise on fears about it).
The most famous of these films is Reefer Madness (1936). It was originally produced as an educational film by a church group and released under the title Tell Your Children. It might have been forgotten, but it was obtained and subjected to a radical re-edit by the notorious American 'exploitation' film-maker Dwain Esper, who intercut the existing footage with highly sensational inserts. The resulting hybrid depicted cannabis smoking as the cause of every form of sin, depravity and immorality, up to and including murder. Whether these films were effective at the time is debatable, and Reefer Madness and similar works largely disappeared from view after their initial screenings. It was not until 1971 that the pro-cannabis lobby group NORML, realising the unintended parodic quality of the work, began screening a restored print at pro-pot festivals. It became a major cult hit when distributed on American college campuses, and this is reported to have been a major early success for the New Line Cinema organization.
Until 1937, consumption and sale of cannabis was legal in most U.S. states. In some areas it could be openly purchased in bulk from grocers or in cigarette form at newsstands, though an increasing number of states had begun to outlaw it. In that year, federal law made possession or transfer of cannabis without the purchase of a tax stamp illegal throughout the United States by passing the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act. This was contrary to the advice of the American Medical Association at the time.[1] Legal opinions of the time held that the federal government could not outlaw it entirely.[citation needed] The tax was $100 per pound of hemp, even for clothes or rope.[citation needed] The expense, extremely high for the time, was such that people stopped openly buying and making marijuana.
In 1916, U.S. Department of Agriculture chief scientists Jason L. Merrill, Lyster H. Dewe, and Jason L. Merrill created paper made from hemp pulm, which they concluded was "favorable in comparison with those used with pulp wood."[2] Jack Herer, in the book "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" summarized the findings of Bulletion No. 404:[3]
- "In 1916, USDA Bulletin No. 404, reported that one acre of cannabis hemp, in annual rotation over a 20-year period, would produce as much pulp for paper as 4.1 acres of trees being cut down over the same 20-year period. This process would use only 1/4 to 1/7 as much polluting sulfur-based acid chemicals to break down the glue-like lignin that binds the fibers of the pulp, or even none at all using soda ash. The problem of dioxin contamination of rivers is avoided in the hemp paper making process, which does not need to use chlorine bleach (as the wood pulp paper making process requires) but instead safely substitutes hydrogen peroxide in the bleaching process. ... If the new (1916) hemp pulp paper process were legal today, it would soon replace about 70% of all wood pulp paper, including computer printout paper, corrugated boxes and paper bags."
The decision of the United States Congress to pass the Marihuana Tax Act was based in part on testimony derived from articles in newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst, who had significant financial interests in the timber industry, which manufactured his newsprint.[4] (see the DePont section for further information)
Critics of the American prohibition have pointed to the possibility that there was a racial underpinning to the criminalisation of marijuana in America, since it was known to be a popular and widely-used recreational drug in the African-American and Latino communities;.[citation needed] Harry J. Anslinger has been quoted numerous times on such subjects, implying that "musicians, not good ones, but the jazz type" smoked marijuana, or that marijuana would make white women want to have sex with black men.[citation needed] Nevertheless, the prohibition was strenuously resisted in some quarters, with New York Mayor Fiorello La Guardia becoming one of the new law's most prominent and outspoken critics.[citation needed] The LaGuardia Commission was the first in-depth study of marijuana in 1944, and it contradicted the earlier findings of addiction, madness, and overt sexuality.
[edit] Decriminalization
After 1969, a time characterized by widespread use of cannabis as a recreational drug, a wave of legislation in America sought to reduce the penalties for the simple possession of marijuana, making it punishable by confiscation and/or a fine rather than imprisonment. Decriminalization in the United States is a drug supply-side control strategy that discourages users, but largely removes them from the criminal justice system, while imposing stiff penalties on those who traffic and sell the drug on the black market. Some of the first examples of this adjustment in drug policy were found in Alabama, when state judges decided to no longer impose five year mandatory minimum sentences for small possession (one marijuana cigarette); Missouri, when their legislature reformed statutes that made second possession offences no longer punishable by life in prison; and in Georgia, when that state revised second sale offences to minors no longer punishable by death.
In 1972 President Richard Nixon commissioned the most comprehensive study to date from the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse. The Commission found that the constitutionality of marijuana prohibition was suspect, and that the executive and legislative branches had a responsibility to obey the Constitution, even in the absence of a court ruling to do so. The Richard Nixon administration did not implement the study's recommendations. However, the report has frequently been cited by individuals supporting cannabis rescheduling in the United States. (View Report)
Soon after these developments, an official decriminalization movement was started in 1973 with Oregon prompting other states, like Colorado, Alaska, Ohio, and California, to follow suit in 1975. By 1978, Mississippi, North Carolina, New York, and Nebraska also had some form of marijuana decriminalization. In 2001, Nevada reduced marijuana possession from a felony offence to a misdemeanor.
Regardless of these states' rights, decriminalization was never adopted as a national affair, principally because U.S. Congress disagrees with passing a version of legislation on the federal level. However, several petitions for cannabis rescheduling in the United States have been filed to remove marijuana from the "Schedule I" category of tightly-restricted drugs that have no medical use. The Controlled Substance Act allows the executive branch to decriminalize medical and recreational use of marijuana without any action by Congress; however, such an initiative would depend on the findings of the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services on certain scientific and medical issues specified by the Act.[5]
Issues regarding the unalienable Right to Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness expressed in the Declaration of Independence have at times been raised in the debate, arguing that those imprisoned for cannabis use are de facto political prisoners.[6]
[edit] DuPont
Some analysts theorize DuPont played a role in the criminalization of cannabis. [7] The company, suffering from declining post-war textile sales, wished to eliminate hemp fiber as competition. Many argue that this seems unlikely given DuPont's lack of concern with the legal status of cotton[8] , wool, and linen; although it should be noted that hemp's textile potential had not yet been largely exploited, while textile factories already had made large investments in equipment to handle cotton, wool, and linen.[citation needed] Others argue that DuPont wanted to eliminate cannabis because its high natural cellulose content made it a viable alternative to the company's developing innovation: modern plastic.[citation needed] Still others could argue that hemp could never truly compete with the high strength and elasticity of synthetics, such as nylon.[citation needed] Furthermore, hemp would have been an easy target due to the misconception of its equivalence to certain strains of cannabis having intoxicating effect, while no rational justification could have been made for outlawing cotton, wool, or linen.
[edit] Legal issues
There have been over eight million cannabis arrests in the United States since 1993, including 786,545 arrests in 2005. Cannabis users have been arrested at the rate of 1 every 40 seconds. About 88% of all marijuana arrests are for possession - not manufacture or distribution. (FBI Uniform Crimes Report) While some countries do not enforce or allow a small amount of personal use marijuana, this does not solve the problem of how a user will obtain the "legal amount" of marijuana, since buying or growing marijuana is still illegal. The US Office of National Drug Control Policy points out in Who's Really in Prison for Marijuana? that these convictions are in correlation with other crimes, including cultivation, and crimes not specifically dealing with marijuana.
[edit] unsourced or repetitive
Some claim that the U.S. laws may have been in response to lobbying by makers of synthetic fibers that competed with hemp. While hemp was not their main competitor, it was a much easier target than cotton or wool, for example.
At one time in the History of the United States, you could have your land taxed, cited, and eventually confiscated by federal laws that demanded that all farmers use Cannabis as a rotation crop[1]. One of these law's spoils went to the US Navy, and then the remainder to the other armed forces for the creation of sails, rope and other "canvas" based uses. Hemp fabric was combined with cotton and paper to create the unique stock used for US currency.
