If 420 is legalized 100% in november... [Archive] - Green Grass Forums

View Full Version : If 420 is legalized 100% in november...

death2sukas

03-26-2010, 07:48 PM

in your opinion...what will happen?

will everyone really grow 25sq ft of pot? will the state steal the profit from the growers? will growers exist?

if it does become law to posses an ounce of weed...grow 25 sq ft of pot and you must be 21 to do it...what do you think will happen

ShastaCoMan

03-27-2010, 01:19 PM

i think it will pass with a majority vote clean and simple. also, IMHO, it WILLput illegal growers out to dry. why would anyone want to pay $300 an ounce when they could either grow it themselves or get it from someone they know, or even buy it at the liquor or pot store? ive read online where the illegal growers are already pissin and moanin about legalization, and how much they are going to loose profit wise if its legalized. WHAH! WHAH!...tough tit i say, and thats one of the reasons WHY its gonna happen in november. the state knows people are gonna do it illegal or not, and if made legal, its gonna knock out illegal profits and growers, mexican importers and others that profit from the illegal cultivation and sale, which is gonna free up millions in law enforcement funds to put them where they NEED to be. furthermore, the cities and counties are going to be able to legally grow, sell the product and use the money locally ( i firmly believe that that specific clause in the laws the reason that these dispensaries have been hammered so damn hard by the cities. it has nothing to do with the fact that they dont want them there, it has to do with the fact that when legalization passes, they dont want the competition! it only makes sense. when the law to legalize was on the board awhile back, soon as word got around, in comes these city counsels,ect putting "moratoriums" up. HMMMMM....the dr's say legalization to their patients, but believe me, there sweating it as much as the illegal growers. if you can buy an ounce of weed for ,say 100 bucks, and smoke it legally, why would you pay a dr $180 bucks, and then $150 for a renewal?

EciRonTog

03-27-2010, 08:26 PM

I'm a bit worried actually. Having a medical card I already feel that it's legal "enough", nevermind the fact that even if it becomes legal in the state that still isn't going to do anything for federal laws.

Main reason I'm worried is because for a lot of people they will see the whole thing as nothing but a cookie jar to keep reaching in and taking more money. I'm afraid it will be like cigarettes in New York. I think they pay nearly $5 just in tax per pack. It's an easy sell to pass additional taxes on something the majority of people don't use. Everyone loves passing taxes that other people have to pay and unless we get to the point where the majority of the people in this state smoke I think we are going to slip into a black hole of increasing taxes.

And of course that won't just have the effect of driving up prices but the quality will also go down. The government might step in and regulate just how much THC can be in stuff sold in stores, etc. We might end up paying $20 for a 2 or 3-pack of schwag joints. Whereas right now I can get an 8th of schwag for $10-15.

ShastaCoMan

03-27-2010, 08:59 PM

so let them. the act allows for users to cultivate their OWN shit without buying it from someone else..heres the summery :

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

Title and Summary:

Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed. Initiative Statute.

Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products.

Section 1: Name
This Act shall be known as the â??Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.â?

Section 2: Findings, Intent and Purposes
This Act, adopted by the People of the State of California, makes the following Findings and Statement of Intent and Purpose:
A. Findings
1. Californiaâ??s laws criminalizing cannabis (marijuana) have failed and need to be reformed. Despite spending decades arresting millions of non-violent cannabis consumers, we have failed to control cannabis or reduce its availability.
2. According to surveys, roughly 100 million Americans (around 1/3 of the countryâ??s population) acknowledge that they have used cannabis, 15 million of those Americans having consumed cannabis in the last month. Cannabis consumption is simply a fact of life for a large percentage of Americans.
3. Despite having some of the strictest cannabis laws in the world, the United States has the largest number of cannabis consumers. The percentage of our citizens who consume cannabis is double that of the percentage of people who consume cannabis in the Netherlands, a country where the selling and adult possession of cannabis is allowed.
4. According to The National Research Councilâ??s recent study of the 11 U.S. states where cannabis is currently decriminalized, there is little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions and the rate of consumption.
5. Cannabis has fewer harmful effects than either alcohol or cigarettes, which are both legal for adult consumption. Cannabis is not physically addictive, does not have long term toxic effects on the body, and does not cause its consumers to become violent.
6. There is an estimated $15 billion in illegal cannabis transactions in California each year. Taxing and regulating cannabis, like we do with alcohol and cigarettes, will generate billions of dollars in annual revenues for California to fund what matters most to Californians: jobs, health care, schools and libraries, roads, and more.
7. California wastes millions of dollars a year targeting, arresting, trying, convicting, and imprisoning non-violent citizens for cannabis related offenses. This money would be better used to combat violent crimes and gangs.
8. The illegality of cannabis enables for the continuation of an out-of-control criminal market, which in turn spawns other illegal and often violent activities. Establishing legal, regulated sales outlets would put dangerous street dealers out of business.
B. Purposes
1. Reform Californiaâ??s cannabis laws in a way that will benefit our state.
2. Regulate cannabis like we do alcohol: Allow adults to possess and consume small amounts of cannabis.
3. Implement a legal regulatory framework to give California more control over the cultivation, processing, transportation, distribution, and sales of cannabis.
4. Implement a legal regulatory framework to better police and prevent access to and consumption of cannabis by minors in California.
5. Put dangerous, underground street dealers out of business, so their influence in our communities will fade.
6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.
7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that cityâ??s limits remain illegal, but that the cityâ??s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
9. Tax and regulate cannabis to generate billions of dollars for our state and local governments to fund what matters most: jobs, healthcare, schools and libraries, parks, roads, transportation, and more.
10. Stop arresting thousands of non-violent cannabis consumers, freeing up police resources and saving millions of dollars each year, which could be used for apprehending truly dangerous criminals and keeping them locked up, and for other essential state needs that lack funding.
11. Allow the Legislature to adopt a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry.
12. Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes.
13. Permit California to fulfill the stateâ??s obligations under the United States Constitution to enact laws concerning health, morals, public welfare and safety within the State.
14. Permit the cultivation of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption.
C. Intent
1. This Act is intended to limit the application and enforcement of state and local laws relating to possession, transportation, cultivation, consumption and sale of cannabis, including but not limited to the following, whether now existing or adopted in the future: Health and Safety Code sections 11014.5 and 11364.5 [relating to drug paraphernalia]; 11054 [relating to cannabis or tetrahydrocannabinols]; 11357 [relating to possession]; 11358 [relating to cultivation]; 11359 [possession for sale]; 11360 [relating to transportation and sales]; 11366 [relating to maintenance of places]; 11366.5 [relating to use of property]; 11370 [relating to punishment]; 11470 [relating to forfeiture]; 11479 [relating to seizure and destruction]; 11703 [relating to definitions regarding illegal substances]; 11705 [actions for use of illegal controlled substance]; Vehicle Code sections 23222 and 40000.15 [relating to possession].
2. This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of the following state laws relating to public health and safety or protection of children and others: Health and Safety Code sections 11357 [relating to possession on school grounds]; 11361 [relating to minors as amended herein]; 11379.6 [relating to chemical production]; 11532 [relating to loitering to commit a crime or acts not authorized by law]; Vehicle Code section 23152 [relating to driving while under the influence]; Penal Code section 272 [relating to contributing to the delinquency of a minor]; nor any law prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve public safety.

Section 3: Lawful Activities
Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, commencing with section 11300 is added to read:
Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individualâ??s personal consumption, and not for sale.
(ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.
(iv) Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection.
(b) â??Personal consumptionâ? shall include but is not limited to possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other non-public place, and shall include licensed premises open to the public authorized to permit on-premises consumption of cannabis by a local government pursuant to section 11301.
(c) â??Personal consumptionâ? shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis:
(i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301;
(ii) consumption in public or in a public place;
(iii) consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator;
(iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.

Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls
Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:
(a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized;
(b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale;
(c) appropriate controls on cultivation, transportation, sales, and consumption of cannabis to strictly prohibit access to cannabis by persons under the age of 21;
(d) age limits and controls to ensure that all persons present in, employed by, or in any way involved in the operation of, any such licensed premises are 21 or older;
(e) consumption of cannabis within licensed premises;
(f) safe and secure transportation of cannabis from a licensed premises for cultivation or processing, to a licensed premises for sale or on-premises consumption of cannabis;
(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;
(h) appropriate controls on licensed premises for sale, cultivation, processing, or sale and on-premises consumption, of cannabis, including limits on zoning and land use, locations, size, hours of operation, occupancy, protection of adjoining and nearby properties and persons from unwanted exposure, advertising, signs and displays, and other controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare;
(i) appropriate environmental and public health controls to ensure that any licensed premises minimizes any harm to the environment, adjoining and nearby landowners, and persons passing by;
(j) appropriate controls to restrict public displays, or public consumption of cannabis;
(k) appropriate taxes or fees pursuant to section 11302;
(l) such larger amounts as the local authority deems appropriate and proper under local circumstances, than those established under section 11300(a) for personal possession and cultivation, or under this section for commercial cultivation, processing, transportation and sale by persons authorized to do so under this section;
(m) any other appropriate controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare.

Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees
(a) Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.
(b) Any licensed premises shall be responsible for paying all federal, state and local taxes, fees, fines, penalties or other financial responsibility imposed on all or similarly situated businesses, facilities or premises, including without limitation income taxes, business taxes, license fees, and property taxes, without regard to or identification of the business or items or services sold.

Section 11303: Seizure
(a) Notwithstanding sections 11470 and 11479 of the Health and Safety Code or any other provision of law, no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact seize or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is lawfully cultivated, processed, transported, possessed, possessed for sale, sold or used in compliance with this Act or any local government ordinance, law or regulation adopted pursuant to this Act.

Section 11304: Effect of Act and Definitions
(a) This Act shall not be construed to affect, limit or amend any statute that forbids impairment while engaging in dangerous activities such as driving, or that penalizes bringing cannabis to a school enrolling pupils in any grade from kindergarten through 12, inclusive.
(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed or interpreted to permit interstate or international transportation of cannabis. This Act shall be construed to permit a person to transport cannabis in a safe and secure manner from a licensed premises in one city or county to a licensed premises in another city or county pursuant to any ordinances adopted in such cities or counties, notwithstanding any other state law or the lack of any such ordinance in the intervening cities or counties.
(c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.
(d) Definitions
For purposes of this Act:
(i) â??Marijuanaâ? and â??cannabisâ? are interchangeable terms that mean all parts of the plant Genus Cannabis, whether growing or not; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; concentrated cannabis; edible products containing same; and every active compound, manufacture, derivative, or preparation of the plant, or resin.
(ii) â??One ounceâ? means 28.5 grams.
(iii) For purposes of section 11300(a)(ii) â??cannabis plantâ? means all parts of a living Cannabis plant.
(iv) In determining whether an amount of cannabis is or is not in excess of the amounts permitted by this Act, the following shall apply:
(a) only the active amount of the cannabis in an edible cannabis product shall be included;
(b) living and harvested cannabis plants shall be assessed by square footage, not by weight in determining the amounts set forth in section 11300(a);
(c) in a criminal proceeding a person accused of violating a limitation in this Act shall have the right to an affirmative defense that the cannabis was reasonably related to his or her personal consumption.
(v) â??residenceâ? means a dwelling or structure, whether permanent or temporary, on private or public property, intended for occupation by a person or persons for residential purposes, and includes that portion of any structure intended for both commercial and residential purposes.
(vi) â??local governmentâ? means a city, county, or city and county.
(vii) â??licensed premisesâ? is any commercial business, facility, building, land or area that has a license, permit or is otherwise authorized to cultivate, process, transport, sell, or permit on-premises consumption, of cannabis pursuant to any ordinance or regulation adopted by a local government pursuant to section 11301, or any subsequently enacted state statute or regulation.

Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors
Section 11361 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors
(a) Every person 18 years of age or over who hires, employs, or uses a minor in transporting, carrying, selling, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling any marijuana, who unlawfully sells, or offers to sell, any marijuana to a minor, or who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give any marijuana to a minor under 14 years of age, or who induces a minor to use marijuana in violation of law shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years.
(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.
(c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense.
(d) In addition to the penalties above, any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to perform any act pursuant to Section 11301, who while so licensed, permitted or authorized, negligently furnishes, administers, gives or sells, or offers to furnish, administer, give or sell, any marijuana to any person younger than 21 years of age shall not be permitted to own, operate, be employed by, assist or enter any licensed premises authorized under Section 11301 for a period of one year.

Section 5: Amendment
Pursuant to Article 2, section 10(c) of the California Constitution, this Act may be amended either by a subsequent measure submitted to a vote of the People at a statewide election; or by statute validly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, but only to further the purposes of the Act. Such permitted amendments include but are not limited to:
(a) Amendments to the limitations in section 11300, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations.
(b) Statutes and authorize regulations to further the purposes of the Act to establish a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry that addresses some or all of the items referenced in Sections 11301 and 11302.
(c) Laws to authorize the production of hemp or non-active cannabis for horticultural and industrial purposes.

Section 6: Severability
If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.

ShastaCoMan

03-27-2010, 09:16 PM

the way i see it it will do several things

it will:

redirect law enforcement and monies used for the arrest,harrassment and conviction of so-called "illegal marijuana users/cultivators" into areas where we need them the most, violent crime ect on the streets. millions are wasted each year in california to bust and convict marijuana users and cultivators. this money should be being used to chase down real crime and do some good.

provide the cities and/or counties monies they need to survive in this recession. it will allow cities and counties not only to tax marijuana sales, but also cultivate and distribute themselves,pocketing the money and using it where needed.

run illegal cultivators and distributors out of business.millions are spent each year just for helicopters to fly around the golden state and look for pot being illegally grown on public and private lands. how many MILLIONS do organizations like C.A.M.P spend each and every year just on helicopter trips and fuel, not to mention paying the salaries of those on board?

the bill makes ALOT of good points. i truly believe 100% that come this november, it will pass. i also believe that this is exactly why the counties and cities in california are screwing with the dispensaries. if you remeber, back a couple months ago there was an initiative to legalize come up. it was all over the news,ect. if i remeber correctly ( which i may not,but who knows) that bills content and context were virtually identical to the upcomming bills text and content. at that time, there was also talk of counties being able to regulate, grow,distribute and tax marijuana. that left the dispensaries and co-ops their oposition, so why not blow them out, or at least make it as hard on them as possible?...if legalized, the cities and counties can take their places ( so they think...LOL)...id also bet ( after talking with my local pharmacist when i picked up my pills this month) that once legalized within the state, youd be able to get a REAL script from your dr, and get it directly from the local rite-aid or walgreens.....wouldnt that be cool....

anyway, legalization will happen in california this november.

if urge everyone for legalization to donate to the cause

stra8outtaWeed

03-27-2010, 10:40 PM

(c) Laws to authorize the production of hemp or non-active cannabis for horticultural and industrial purposes.

this will allow California farmers to grow and benefit from industrial hemp..the USA is the largest consumer of hemp products in the world and none is legally grown here..everything is imported from Asia and European nations sending jobs and dollars overseas...lets strengthen our economy and put California's farm land to good use....this alone could change the national scene from setting an example just by the economic impact to our state! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: :thumbsup:

:smokin:

ShastaCoMan

03-28-2010, 02:55 AM

this will allow California farmers to grow and benefit from industrial hemp..the USA is the largest consumer of hemp products in the world and none is legally grown here..everything is imported from Asia and European nations sending jobs and dollars overseas...lets strengthen our economy and put California's farm land to good use....this alone could change the national scene from setting an example just by the economic impact to our state! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: :thumbsup:

:smokin:

here here!

hemp was grown along the sacramento river way before are time. if you drive around down off the side roads along the sloughs with your head outts the window when the sun starts going down, youll find it to. ive seen hemp plants along the river sloughs down there years ago that would astound you.

LOC NAR on probation

03-28-2010, 11:42 AM

I got one thing to say.

STONER'S DON'T GROW WEED.

COMERCIAL GROWER'S DON'T KNOW HOW.

Why do cops like to chase stoners ? They don't run and they don't have a gun.

Cali leagle. Watch out they got a couple million peeps headed thier way.

Remember all the gold in California was not found in the mines. Most found it in the pockets of miners. Much easier to dig for.

Oh, I get it if everyone runs off to Cali leagle then I will be in high demand here in Bumfuck. LOL.

boaz

03-28-2010, 02:07 PM

great thread. :cool:

Thank you, Shasta for posting the prop. I didn't know that this also allows the counties to have commercial grows for their retail sales. I guess that makes sense, though. You have to have a supply to meet, what I would imagine, would be a hellava demand. At least at first.

But I gotta believe there will always be a demand for the best, you know that one secret Nor Cal strain or bubba's big ass tree he grew out here in Baumfauk. :rastasmoke:

and as Weed mentioned, this also allows hemp farming to return to Cali. :greenthumb: that alone would get my vote. :thumbsup:

The prohibs will no doubt hit hard and heavy this summer. I look for an October suprise of some sorts. :stoned: good luck.

Below is the section the prohibs are already attacking. I completely agree with this section, but I think they are planning on organizing resistance to the prop using this section.

(c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.

ShastaCoMan

03-29-2010, 08:49 PM

what i find hilarious is stories like these:

a quote fron a story on indybat.com

"Another segment of the marijuana industry that is strongly against the legalization initiative is the thousands of marijuana growers and distributes that earn a living off the huge price markup on marijuanaâ??s illegal status. With consumers able to grow their own marijuana and the impending gold rush of commercial businesses that will be looking to capitalize on the new market, prices are surely to drop as supply will overtake demand, forcing many industry outlaws out of business.

Fear of legalization is strong enough in Humboldt County, a self-proclaimed marijuana mecca of California, that civic leaders, activists and growers all came together for a town-hall style meeting to brainstorm ideas to stay relevant (and keep bringing in county revenue) in a legalized market. Itâ??s not only the pot farmers of Humboldt that fear legalization, the entire county which has been the focus of several documentaries, rely on marijuana to drive itâ??s entire economy. One of the ideas made at the meeting was to make Humboldt a â??Napa Valley of weedâ?, turning the vast marijuana fields into a destination for marijuana aficionados, with tours, tastings and events. Itâ??s too early to tell if any of the ideas might save Humboldtâ??s economy but most in the county would prefer to just keep marijuana illegal. Stickers with the saying â??Save Humboldt County â?? keep pot illegalâ? have been appearing across local businesses in the area."

all ive got to say is TOUGH SHIT. fact is, maybe they should have based their counties economy on something other than growing ILLEGALLY.......now when its legalized, and they start to snivel, the governments going to say tough shit.

boaz

03-30-2010, 12:14 AM

I really like the idea of making humbolt like the napa valley for bud tourists. :pimp: Can you imagine visting each herb shop and trying a small sample and picking up a bud or two of the ones you really like. :stoned: I'd be on the first flight.

stra8outtaWeed

03-30-2010, 12:49 AM

they fear change...you can't save the dinosaurs....as world changes we all need to change with it and GROW with it...not fight it....they will figure out how to survive economically and i believe it will be for the better:jointsmile:

martyrprojekt

03-30-2010, 12:56 AM

martyrprojekt

03-30-2010, 01:01 AM

Micsog

03-30-2010, 01:48 AM

ShastaCoMan

03-30-2010, 03:06 AM

thing you need to remeber is no matter whats said and what the laws are, the states pretty much do WTF they want, and 99% of the time, the federal gvernment doesnt say shit...

example:
in the state of california, there are quite a few firearms that are deemed as and listed as "assault weapons" and are illegal here, even though they are FULLY legal on the federal level.

full auto firearms are illegal within several states, including calfornia, but are 100% LEGAL at the federal level, and easily transferable.

the US supreme court has ruled in favor of the second amendment on several occasions ( most recent being heller vs district of columbia),but yet the STATES pretty much decide what THEY are going to permit to be legal and what their NOT going to permit to be legal. there shouldnt be any legal federally but not at state level, and vise verse. another example, several states now have as much as told the federal government to go get screwed in asmuch as they have deemed that if i firearms manufactured in that specific state and isnt going to be removed from the state, it shouldnt have to be registered or declared to the federal government because it was purchased within the state by a state resident ,and manufactured within the state, leaving the federal government completely out of the equation. i thi nk what will happen is as always, california will pass it and legalize it, and we will be sort of the guinea pig state as always. once its worked here for awhile, other states ( especially the pro-MMJ states) will also pass similar laws, and when that happens, the feds will have to eventually consider legalization....do you realize that there are a bunch of states that can legally WITHDRAWL from the united states at anytime they wish? check it out. several states had withdrawl clauses added when they joined the union ( such as texas,montana,ect).

personally, i think that if somethings legal o n the state level and not legal on the federal level ( or vise verse) it sould be considered discrimination. hell, its like 75 miles from me they can own and do all sorts of stuff legally that i cant, just because i live in this shithole of a state. somehow that just isnt right.

i cant WAIT until the people vote it in. you know humbolt county is already sniveling and crying because their economies going to collapse if its made legal for everyone in the state because humbolt counties main source of ncome is illegal pot growers....BOO HOO!

ShastaCoMan

03-30-2010, 03:07 AM

This also need to be said...WHEN CALIFORNIA PASSES THIS BILL, the Federal government is going to fuck with ALL GROWERS...even the ones who are growing for medical purposes. It is going to bring all the fire and brimstone that Washington D.C. can throw at us.

And, like others have said...it does nothing to change the federal laws. People will still be too afraid to grow hemp commercially...and it will all still be very underground (if not more so than now).

i dont think so bro. i think that while it may ruffle their feathers, i dont think they will slam like that. they would have to move the fucking army into the state and arrest millions! that aint gonna happen

stra8outtaWeed

03-30-2010, 03:16 AM

ShastaCoMan

03-30-2010, 03:22 AM

plus the feds do recognize that California w/o the rest of the 49 states is the 6th largest economy in the world on its own so we pay our fair share of taxes which is all the feds really want and if they are garnering tax money from MJ sales through legal stores then it is game over...no one is gonna fuck with the money train!:thumbsup:

my thoughts exactly.

PLUS, its not only the actual profits ganed by TAXING, but also the literally HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people that will literally pack teir shit and move TO california literally overnight. theres money there, more income for the state.

although that could be a double edged sword. we would have to put them to work growing weed cause there wont be any JOBS for them!

martyrprojekt

03-30-2010, 03:32 AM

i think that if cali passes an i hope to have my vote count it will force change in the federal level how are you going to police the 31 million people in the state with a laws that are legal in the state the dea doesn't have the man power to do so nor the fbi then we should expect the domino effect to take place with the rest of the states any court case brought up in them will have the sentence

"but it's legal in california how can you hold me accountable by law when the federal gov. allows it to be legal in cali by what right oes this state have to pass judgment on me"

Miscog...

The Federal Government will never back down. The Demo-rats could barely pass health care without sweetheart deals cut in the back room for the blue dogs. Obama has increased funding for the war on drugs...with the lionshare of those appropriations being spent on Schedule 1 "DRUGS"...which marijuana is still Federally classified as (schedule 1). The Republi-cant's simply won't change anything...and would prefer to put us all in prison...or in Guantanamo Bay!

They may not have the manpower to combat 35 million potential users...but, they have virtually unlimited funds to raid and preosecute the shit out of people like you and me, without increasing their current budgets levels. They will take everything we own to make an example of us through the media and our court system. These kinds of Law Enforcement tactics have worked for hundreds of years in eliminating the opposition. Gestepo...CIA...KGB...California Highway Patrol...etc.etc. Would you risk using (even though legal) for recreational purposes, if the DEA could slam down your front door, and throw you in jail?

This law has the potential of fucking us all, and killing an industry before it gets off the ground...whether its commercial hemp farming, or dispensaries for medical and recreational use...there is way too much to take into consideration.

For example: How are they supposed to enforce DWI laws. There is no breathalizer for marijuana DWI cases. They have to rely on a blood or urine specimen collected at their processing centers. Those tests will of course test positive for people like me. Even though I only smoke at night.

We are not ready for this law yet. Not at all.

Shasta----you said something previously about the cost of bud going down when its available everywhere. In the legal language of this bill, your locality can outlaw dispensaries and distribution. The counties also can open their own COUNTY-RUN dispensaries (controlling the pricing and the market). Thus, creating a micro-market. This will keep prices sky high. Not to mention...government will never let a private citizen make money on something they can make money with. They hate competition, and will use their local law enforcement goons to keep you in check.

Not to mention the fact that California's products will continue to be shipped, and distributed, around the country...where smart individuals can get up to $500-600 per ounce of AAA quality buds, when they only paid a grower $200 per ounce.

If the law passes...there will be a huge increase in demand...and every illegal and legal grower will make a fucking fortune. The issue at hand is not the growers losing money...it is about the over-stretching hand of Government being put into place to regulate, distribute, and collect taxes from all of us. That is the issue at hand.

Look at how well they have handled Medicare, Social Security, Department of Education, Homeland Security, DEA, FBI, local law enforcement, prisons...etc.etc.etc. This is why our country (and states) are broke...too much regulation and taxation, with the governments hand in every cookie jar.

A yes vote for this bill will kill what we have all worked so hard for. We need to keep our eye on the prize. We need to reschedule marijuana federally as a Class 2, or Class 3, drug. Then we can focus on decriminalization. Put the pressure on your Representatives in Congress, The Senate...and the President to do the right thing. This whole bill is backwards dealings by the dispensaries.

martyrprojekt

03-30-2010, 03:34 AM

i dont think so bro. i think that while it may ruffle their feathers, i dont think they will slam like that. they would have to move the fucking army into the state and arrest millions! that aint gonna happen

You fail to realize that it is not about arresting and prosecuting millions. Thousands is easier...and that will keep people away. Hell, all 4 governor candidates here in California claim to have never smoked Marijuana...out of the fear tactics and propaganda machine that started with Anslinger's Pot Stamp.

martyrprojekt

03-30-2010, 03:38 AM

[QUOTE=example:
in the state of california, there are quite a few firearms that are deemed as and listed as "assault weapons" and are illegal here, even though they are FULLY legal on the federal level.[/QUOTE]

Bad example. California Gun laws do not prohibit selling assault weapons. I can get one here in 30 minutes. It is the sale of NEW Assault rifles. Even though the majority of assault rifles bought and sold in the US market were made by Norinco, Soviet, or Czech. Fuck an AK-47 stock is removed and a synthetic one is put in place...now they call it a MAK-90 which is completely legal...although, fully automatic out of the crate.

martyrprojekt

03-30-2010, 04:13 AM

For fucks sake look at what New Jersey is doing...Then government is growing, distributing, and taxing their product. The patient and caregiver can't grow.

Check this link to the article! (http://boards.cannabis.com/medical-marijuana-news/183031-new-jerseys-first-legally-grown-marijuana-will-harvested-fall.html#post2083802)

When has Government regulation and oversight ever fixed, or solved, anything?

ShastaCoMan

03-30-2010, 01:55 PM

Bad example. California Gun laws do not prohibit selling assault weapons. I can get one here in 30 minutes. It is the sale of NEW Assault rifles. Even though the majority of assault rifles bought and sold in the US market were made by Norinco, Soviet, or Czech. Fuck an AK-47 stock is removed and a synthetic one is put in place...now they call it a MAK-90 which is completely legal...although, fully automatic out of the crate.

actually bro, your WRONG. to buy and/or sell any listed assault weapon in california is a felony. its also a felony to attempt to buy, and a felony to attempt to sell a listed assault weapon. i was a firearms dealer for 20 years and had a storefront shop, and believe it or not, im "the guy" that the california DOJ firearms division (not to mention butte county sheriffs deputies,oroville PD,gridley PD,chico PD and others) and their field agents called to clarify the laws. why?...because i spent literally YEARS studying the laws, just to keep my OWN ass out of the fire (plus i sold alot of guns to law enforcement) there are only very VERY limted circumstances an assault type weapon can be sold in california.

lets take the AR-15 as an example. as im sure you are aware, californias had an assault weapons law in place for quite some time making buttloads of "assault "style weapons illegal, including the AR-15,AK and several of their variants.a few years ago, the california supreme court ruled that under certain circumstances assault style weapons NOT listed specifically by make and model/manufactuer are indeed legal in california (under specific circumstances, and if they are not listed specifically on the ban list), but NOT any of the receivers/weapons listed on the california assault weapons list,and only under the following circumstances:

featured build/fixed magazine

under a featured build, you can have all of the "EVIL" features you like on a semi-automatic weapon,BUT it must have a non-removable magazine that can hold no more than 10 rounds. the magazine must be fixed and only removable by either disassembling the gun OR with the use of a tool. a bullet is considered a tool nder the law

featureless build

a featureless build would be any NON LISTED weapon/receiver build with NO evil features and a REMOVABLE magazine. this means you can build any "assault" style semi-automatic , as long as it has NO evil features , and as long as the specific receiver its built on isnt listed by name and make/manufacture on the assault weapos list.

MAK90 is a complete and udder NO-NO as it is listed by make and manufacture on the list and is COMPLETELY illegal under california law.any gun marked MAK90 is illegal. there are non-listed AK variants , such as the saiga that are legal, and also some pump style variants.

and YES, in california, the law DOES PROHIBIT selling any assault style weapon named on the california ban list. to sell an assault style/type weapon on the list within california is A CLASS A FELONY. while you can legally use and own high cap mags that would come with most assault weapons ( if you legally owned them BEFORE the high cap magazine ban went into effect) , but its illegal to give away,sell or distribute a high cap magazine in california.its even illegal (felony) to sell or attempt to sell a listed assault weapon, even if it REGISTERED with california DOJ. you can only dispose of it to either law enforcement or out of state. its even illegal to buy an assault style weapon out of state if you live within california.

you might check out Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net), theres tons of info on the laws within california on guns and assault weapons. also, they have the actual list of illegal assault style weapons listed there.

my point was (and maybe i should have clarified myself if you want to split hairs) california has banned several assault style/type weapons. these same exact guns can be purchased not 75 miles from me by their states residents ( nevada and oregon) and owned legally, but yet here in california we cant buy,sell,transfer or give away ANY listed assault style weapons. why is it OK for them to be able to own them, but not us? that should be considered discrimination.

before buying an assault type weapon bro, best make sure you kknow the laws real good as if you dont, youd be looking at prison time.

ShastaCoMan

03-30-2010, 02:08 PM

You fail to realize that it is not about arresting and prosecuting millions. Thousands is easier...and that will keep people away. Hell, all 4 governor candidates here in California claim to have never smoked Marijuana...out of the fear tactics and propaganda machine that started with Anslinger's Pot Stamp.

honestly?....i dont believe they "never smoked pot"....HAHA!...statistics show that the majority of the population has at least TRIED marijuana at one time or another.

also, recent polls in california show that the MAJORITY of adults HAVE smoked pot, and over 50% of adult who have smoked marijuana smoked within the last month ( i got that from CNN, i dont know how reliiable that is, ut at least CNN is on our side, they have been talking about it in the PRO context now since the bill came up)...were commin out!....guns blazin!

i think whats going to happen is californias going to pass the bill ( id literally bet money on it) and someone will try to repeal it, but that isnt ging to work. afterwards, i thi nk the government will turn a blind eye to it like they do alot of state level shit, and i also think that these anti-marijuana politicians will modify the penalties to much more severe levels and appy them to people who break the law in regards to the new law (I.E., do something stupid like give someone 10 years in prison for having 26ft square foot of canopy instead of 25 like thats listed in the bill)

HONESTLY, i dont think the law will affect us guys who are medical when it is legalized ,or even if it isnt.

ShastaCoMan

03-30-2010, 02:15 PM

the is the specific california assault weapons list of banned weapons. if you look under norinco, youll see the MAK90 is specifically listed:

California Department of Justice
AK Series Weapons
American Arms
AK-Y 39
AK-F 39
AK-C 47
AK-F 47
Arsenal
SLR (all)
SLG (all)
B-West
AK-47 (all)
Hesse Arms
Model 47 (all)
Wieger STG 940 Rifle
Inter Ordnance - Monroe, NC
RPK
M-97
AK-47 (all)
Kalashnikov USA
Hunter Rifle / Saiga
MAADI CO
* AK 47
* ARM
MISR (all)
MISTR (all)
Made in China
* 84S
* AKM
* 86S
* AKS
* 56
* AK
* 56S
* AK47
MARS
Pistol
Mitchell Arms, Inc.
M-90
AK-47 (all)
AK-47 Cal .308 (all)
M-76
RPK
Monday, October 02, 2000
Page 1 of 3
* Specifically named in the Robert-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989
and required to be registered by March 31, 1992
Norinco
* 86 S
86 (all)
* 84 S
81 S (all)
* 56
RPK Rifle
NHM 90, 90-2, 91 Sport
AK-47 (all)
MAK 90 <------------------------------------MAK90 SPECIFICALLY LISTED
* 56 S
Hunter Rifle
Ohio Ordnance Works (o.o.w.)
ROMAK 991
AK-74
Poly technologies
* AKS
* AK47
Valmet
Hunter Rifle
76 S
WUM
WUM (all)
AR-15 Series Weapons
American Spirit
USA Model
Armalite
AR 10 (all)
M15 (all)
Golden Eagle
Bushmaster
XM15 (all)
Colt
Law Enforcement (6920)
Match Target (all)
* AR-15 (all)
Sporter (all)
Dalphon
B.F.D.
DPMS
Panther (all)
Eagle Arms
M15 (all)
EA-15 A2 H-BAR
EA-15 E1
Monday, October 02, 2000
Page 2 of 3
* Specifically named in the Robert-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989
and required to be registered by March 31, 1992
Frankford Arsenal
AR-15 (all)
Hesse Arms
HAR 15A2 (all)
Knights
SR-15 (all)
SR-25 (all)
RAS (all)
Les Baer
Ultimate AR (all)
Olympic Arms
AR-15
Car-97
PCR (all)
Ordnance, Inc.
AR-15
Palmetto
SGA (all)
Professional Ordnance, Inc.
Carbon 15 Rifle
Carbon 15 Pistol
PWA
All Models
Rock River Arms, Inc.
Standard A-2
Car A2
Standard A-4 Flattop
Car A4 Flattop
NM A2 - DCM Legal
LE Tactical Carbine
Wilson Combat
AR-15
Total Records: 84
Monday, October 02, 2000
Page

ANY FIREARMS SPECIFICALLY LISTED ON THIS LIST IS ILLEGAL TO OWN, UNLESS YOU HAD IT REGISTERED WITH DOJ. IF YOU OWN ONE OF THESE LISTED GUNS IT IS A FELONY TO BUY,SELL,TRANSFER,GIVE AWAY OR DISPOSE OF WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.I CAN POST THE DIRECT NUMBER TO CALIFORNIA DOJ FIREARMS DIVISION IF YOU LIKE , IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM ON THE SUBJECT

martyrprojekt

03-30-2010, 08:22 PM

The point is...obviously they keep changing the names to get around the rules. I can get one...and so can you. From Federally liscensed dealers on Shotgun news. The large clips are the hardest to get. Especially since the AK has been in production since 1947.

The point is that they will continue to change their names to be able to sell the product. I could care less how many years of experience you have. I can get an AK style weapon here in 30 minutes...if I wanted one. even if it was against federal law.

But, if california started allowing the sales and distribution of RPG's...you better beleive the ATF and FBI would have a joint task force bring down as many distributors as possible. They cant find them all...but that has never been the point...the point is to get their cash, get their guns, and get into jail(where the prison union gets its money).

Everywhere you go is big business with its hands in the cookie jar. Especially in Shasta County.

ShastaCoMan

04-01-2010, 03:14 AM

sure you can get one (a MAK90) anytime, ILLEGALLY..I CAN TOO!...hell, i could BUILD one if i had the parts in aout an hour. then, you chance it being a cop you buy it from, or the guy youve known for 15 years that you swear wouldnt say shit if he had a mouthful gets busted for something stupid and they start offering to let him walk if he gives them some info, and all o the sudden you have the feds, DOJ and BATFE knocking on your doors. i was referencing legality. if you can buy AK47s in the back of shotgun news, and they will ship them to a licensed dealer and the dealer will transfer them to you legally, more power to ya. id LOVE to have the name of that dealer, id order 3 cases of them. now, if they are shipping them directly to ya, be prepared to spend several years as cellies with that dealer in the penitentiary.

of course a person can buy those things illegally all day long on the street if you know where to get them, ut who is stupid enough to even screw around like that and face felony charges?....not me my friend.

my whole original point was that the feds see what they want to see, and things that will benefit them. all guns should be legal everywere. if "joe" in oregon can own a specific gun, and "ted" in nevada can own the same gun, and "bob" in washington can own it too, all legally purchased thru their gunshops, WE should be ale to own the same damn gun without issues!...

yea, your right on the big business end too....they all got their fingers in the batter!

aceofbase

04-11-2010, 11:59 PM

The topic is legalizing cannabis not guns.

Besides anyone who smokes is usually non-violent cant imagine anyone smoking a blunt and shooting someone. More like raiding the fridge and hogging the remote.

ACE

leadmagnet

04-12-2010, 12:33 AM

This ain't politically correct and I would certainly never admit this in public but it's fun to shoot bottles and cans while a little stoned and after sipping a little moonshine or some such.

And yes I'm non-violent.

aceofbase

04-12-2010, 01:51 AM

leadmagnet

04-12-2010, 03:39 AM

Bottles dont shoot back

Yes, bottles are inanimate objects which don't shoot back. Your point?

4harley

04-21-2010, 09:32 PM

back to legal cannabis before the thred got hijacked on a tangent.
all i know is i will grow and sell at the current price for the area i live in.i will use the allowed space what ever the state says i can use to its fullest,probably chronic strain.
and screw all this speculation going on in this thred.

DistantToker

04-26-2010, 05:06 PM

if it does become legal, I will definitely start growing and would love to have a cannabis job :)

Wheezer

06-04-2010, 09:00 PM

BigSur

06-06-2010, 01:01 AM

Didnâ??t gay marriage use to be legal in California? Yesâ?¦ until the religious right came out with their purse string wide open, and their political hack ads blazing.

If you think we arenâ??t going to get a last minute smear campaign by the same groups that brought down gay marriage, youâ??ve smoked to muchâ?¦ put down the bong!

In the meantime stay legal, get your MMJ card, and follow the rules of S.B. 420.
:smokin: (http://www.marijuanamedicine.com)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A8LD5NhCls

Lanietheberner

06-08-2010, 06:16 AM

The discussion of guns or gun laws does not belong here.

cybmas

06-17-2010, 11:09 AM

So. If the legalization passes muster, there will be a good deal of restrictions on it's distribution and sales and that seems to be concern to growers?

I don't read anything in it that will change in any way manner or form medical marijuana. Currently CA breathes a sigh of relief from Obama's mandate to justice, but no grower is totally free of paranoia concerning the feds. Furthermore, I highly doubt many people with the capability and wherewithal to successfully grow MJ are being held back by the current environment of medical marijuana card accessibility. I see a large increase in demand.

What's of more concern from my perspective of a small grower is the overall national move towards acceptance of MJ. Am honest economic analysis of the situation would have to admit that some percentage of product produced in CA makes it's way to other states. As other states implement programs and laws that increase local populations abilities to grow supply will increase.

Until such time as the federal governments complete decriminalization there will always be a hefty enough risk involved to somewhat deter the casual potential grower.

C420online

06-17-2010, 11:59 PM

Miscog...

For example: How are they supposed to enforce DWI laws. There is no breathalizer for marijuana DWI cases. They have to rely on a blood or urine specimen collected at their processing centerswhose tests will of course test positive for people like me. Even though I only smoke at night.

Wouldn't it be great once pot is legalized in November, the government uses some of those newly acquired tax dollars to develop an accurate test for drivers who are under the influence of bud.

OhNoYaDont

06-19-2010, 04:41 PM

Wouldn't it be great once pot is legalized in November, the government uses some of those newly acquired tax dollars to develop an accurate test for drivers who are under the influence of bud.

What? Are you suggesting that the GOVERNMENT use tax money for a useful and constructive purpose? ARE YOU HIGH?

:rasta:

ThunderKidUrkle

06-21-2010, 07:29 PM

what a joke. Lets call "legalization" what it really is..."control and regulation of Medical Marijuana."

If this bill passes it is going to make a mockery of what we have been doing for over 15 years in California. It is not about recreational use, its about helping those who need it.

The people pushing this bill are the ones who will profit from it initially...the big dispensaries. So read the bill completely...and think about who this really benefits. It even clearly states that localities that do not want distribution centers...will not have it...thus, driving business to Oakland...RICHARD LEE...and the big dispensaries.

Follow the dollar people. Follow the dollar.:jointsmile:

I'm a medical marijuana patient and grow in a 3x3 space and I am NOT FOR LEGALIZATION!!!! VOTE NO!!!! FUCK RICHARD LEE!!! Seriously folks I have friends that are big in the med game and that's all this bill is about!!!! Richard Lee and his cohorts want to have EVERYBODY buy off them!!! Sure you'll have a 5x5 area but for how long??? Hope you don't live by a school! The thing that rang out the loudest for me was when I heard JACK HERER say "THIS BILL IS NOT FOR THE PEOPLE" and he said to vote NO on this bill and he fought for legalization his whole life. This bill is just going to take "Medical Marijuana" away from the people and give it to BIG BUSINESS and say FUCK YOU to all the counties that have supplied our smoke all these years and lost loved ones over and you expect us all to just say "Yea take our business and way of life away from us it's ok" FUCK THAT!!!!! VOTE NO! VOTE NO! VOTE NO! I know that NONE of my friends are voting yes and I have a lot of friends that smoke and grow for themselves I suggest you all do the same!!!! ITS LEGAL ALREADY IN CALI!!!!!!! The dispensaries are being taxed already the state has been getting millions in taxes over the last year so really people who is this going to benefit??? It's the rich and that's all!!!! Things will look all fine and dandy until new bills get put into play putting regulations on licenses and renewal fee's for commercial grows. Counties will say you have to make "X Amount" each year to qualify easily tossing tons of people out of picture from growers to customers. They hate seeing the common man able to make a decent living supplying the clubs and that's what this is about and the way the economy is that's ALL some of us have for a income.... :rastasmoke:

Ub3rB0ng

06-21-2010, 08:06 PM

I'm a medical marijuana patient and grow in a 3x3 space and I am NOT FOR LEGALIZATION!!!! VOTE NO!!!! FUCK RICHARD LEE!!! Seriously folks I have friends that are big in the med game and that's all this bill is about!!!! Richard Lee and his cohorts want to have EVERYBODY buy off them!!! Sure you'll have a 5x5 area but for how long??? Hope you don't live by a school! The thing that rang out the loudest for me was when I heard JACK HERER say "THIS BILL IS NOT FOR THE PEOPLE" and he said to vote NO on this bill and he fought for legalization his whole life. This bill is just going to take "Medical Marijuana" away from the people and give it to BIG BUSINESS and say FUCK YOU to all the counties that have supplied our smoke all these years and lost loved ones over and you expect us all to just say "Yea take our business and way of life away from us it's ok" FUCK THAT!!!!! VOTE NO! VOTE NO! VOTE NO! I know that NONE of my friends are voting yes and I have a lot of friends that smoke and grow for themselves I suggest you all do the same!!!! ITS LEGAL ALREADY IN CALI!!!!!!! The dispensaries are being taxed already the state has been getting millions in taxes over the last year so really people who is this going to benefit??? It's the rich and that's all!!!! Things will look all fine and dandy until new bills get put into play putting regulations on licenses and renewal fee's for commercial grows. Counties will say you have to make "X Amount" each year to qualify easily tossing tons of people out of picture from growers to customers. They hate seeing the common man able to make a decent living supplying the clubs and that's what this is about and the way the economy is that's ALL some of us have for a income.... :rastasmoke:

Heh you probably arent even old enough to vote so shutup :D:jointsmile:

middieman440

06-21-2010, 10:17 PM

i said it many times wether its legal or not im still gonna keep doing what im doing,growing n smoking,soooooo yummmmmy and fun.but yeah the whole med pot stuff is already ruined and alot of people are becoming med patients just to make money by selling but being somewhat protected,

all a bunch of bs to me.

so ima roll one up and take about 10 puff's

boaz

06-22-2010, 12:06 AM

this bill will have no effect on Prop 215 . . . right? it leaves the power to the counties to move above and beyond 215 and make it legal for all adults without the need for medical documentation if they want to. or not. each county can do nothing, if this passes, but this still would leave 215 as it is now in that county. right? I don't see the problem.

Is that true that Jack Herer was against it?? I would love to hear more, even tho I complete support the bill. i am a former card carrying Cali med user but want to be able to be just a legal adult non documented med user when I move back out there. :cool: the whole concept of "patients lists" needs to be vaporized. :twocents:

:rastasmoke: (http://www.taxcannabis.org)

boaz

06-22-2010, 02:14 AM

^ btw, when I said "non documented" I meant without a current doctors rec and/or cards and not being on any current lists or databases, etc. I was not actually referring to citizenship or anything. I was born in Cali. just to clarify. :stoned:

420amsdude

06-30-2010, 03:30 PM

Lanietheberner

07-21-2010, 07:21 AM

Ok, here what I see....

Lots of people starting to grow, and they will go and buy a big bag off seeds. Then some bozo @1 mile away from you has a male (which is inevetable) which manages to screw up your crop.... I really enjoy the exploding seeds, reminds me of the late 1960's (lol!!).

Try to sell some seeded product, and people will laugh at you!

Growing good quality product is not that easy, and the more that the state get's involved the more screwed up it will be.

I don't want this to pass as there are way tooooo many unknowns.

Joshish

07-21-2010, 03:25 PM

Yeah, that figures Nobody wants MJ legalized, The status quo where the cops make money off of innocent non-violent citizens is way better than tax and regulation, Pull your heads out our of your ass and vote yes, Of course there will be chaos for the first 5 years or so but the industry will inevitably work itself out, Anyone who does not want cannabis legalized should just roll over and do everything else our government tells us is right, Anyone who does not want cannabis legal obviously has no other marketable skill which they can fall back on, legalize it and only the strong will survive, Learn to swim! As for the 80% price drop, that's pure speculation meant to scare growers into voting no, A yes vote is more symbolic than a no vote, Keep supporting those cartels you morons!

OhNoYaDont

07-21-2010, 11:44 PM

I personally hope it doesn't pass.

Why would it be a good thing to have the gov't tax and control even more than they do now? What ever happened to free enterprize, captialism, free market ... hell FREEDOM in general?

25 square feet ... how big is that? five by five ... a closet. One ounce? Hell, most people can't grow an ounce a month in 5x5 spot ... that is a government monopoly, and if you get caught growing enough for you and spouse ... and it takes more than a closet to do that, you can go to jail? Why? Because you are getting into the govenments purse.

It's not legalization. It's control.

Vote no.

Joshish

07-22-2010, 12:40 AM

Of course it's gonna be taxed you idiots, what isn't taxed$ You pay taxes on your property, on your beer, on your clothes and everything else you buy, why should cannabis be any different$ The point is, it's a start, and if you vote no you're giving another one to the government fascists anyways, GEEZ! The law can be ammended later anyways also, does anybody have a real reason why cannabis should be ILLEGAL or is it all personal profit\gain motives$ Just wondering<

boaz

07-22-2010, 01:34 AM

... As for the 80% price drop, that's pure speculation meant to scare growers into voting no...

you may be right and it looks like it may have worked for a while (see intrade chart below). I'm not sure when the RAND report came out exactly but I would bet :rastasmoke: it was right about the time the stock price dove on huge volume. I'm kicking myself for not buying at $25. I was going to hold out for $10. :stoned:

middieman440

07-22-2010, 05:00 PM

most of the people say no legalize because then they cant make money anymore..im with legalizing it 100%,i dont use the plant for money because i dont like spending money to get it.....and with all the people saying 5x5 isnt enough room,please if you do things right you can get pounds off a plant outdoors in a 5x5 area if you grow the plant correctly,indoors 5x5 would be plenty as well.if you do a rotating harvest,its all crock to me how people say that its unfair to only allow 6 mature plants and all that stuff,stop being GREEDY and make money the real way,not everyone does it to make money but most do...and i know nobody needs more than an ounce of smoke a week,thats even alot to have,people need to stop being greedy,because all they have to do is,is just take it away completely medical and all,then be back to square 1...STOP BEING GREEDY people and you might see that it works out better......

buy who am i to say anything im not smart im just dumb,and think to much before i act....but oh well im not greedy i take what i can get and go on my way stress free...

OhNoYaDont

07-22-2010, 10:08 PM

Not just growers either. We should all be scared. Vote no to MORE government control.

And, it has nothing to do with greed. It has to do with FREEDOM and CAPITALISM. You wanna work for free - go right ahead. You have every right to live like a monk and give away your hard work.

And I should have the right to CHARGE whatever the markeplace with bear for MY hard work. That is not greed my friend. That is what BUILT THIS COUNTRY.

Profit is not a dirty word - not yet.

Viva la capitalism. Live long AND PROSPER.

disoBAYish

07-23-2010, 12:35 AM

I like it the way it is. For medical use only. I fear that coorperate product will be inferior, and Marijuana usage will loose its rebellious edge.

OhNoYaDont

07-24-2010, 09:56 PM

I like it the way it is. For medical use only. I fear that coorperate product will be inferior, and Marijuana usage will loose its rebellious edge.

Sure it will. Right now is JUST like when prohibition ended a hundred or so years ago - and liquor became legal. Same thing. Things will change - they always do.

BUT, that being said, there will still be mom n pop growers, just like there are small wineries all up and down the Napa Valley. There will always be people who are willing and able to pay for quality. Sure, you can buy a gallon of Dago Red for $3.00 - or you can spend $100 on a fifth of 1992 Pinot from Beauliu Vineyards. Yum. A crisp cold Liebfrau Milch, with all the apple scents on a warm afternoon. Makes my mouth water.

Unless, of course, this new law passes and is enforced just exactly the way it is written. In that case, the most anyone can grow will be 25 sq ft and the gov't will have a monopoly. Imagine if only the feds could make Jack Daniels. Ugh.

It's a brave new world.
Is anyone here old enough to remember when the US was a free country?

blowin

08-04-2010, 03:16 AM

If legalization does happen.... Will it affect the patients who follow prop 415 an d sb420. And yea everyone will grow crap

boaz

08-04-2010, 11:19 AM

If legalization does happen.... Will it affect the patients who follow prop 215 and sb420. ...

xlent question. No, Prop 215 is the law of the land and will remain that way irrespective of Prop 19. It is important to point out that the right to have a 25 sf garden space that will be given to all adult Californian's if Prop 19 passes has NO effect on the size of your garden you are allowed to grow for medical reason. As the California Supreme Court recently ruled, THE ONLY thing that can limit the size of a medical garden is the patient's medical need.

But that said, I have a suggestion for the Cal Legislature if Prop 19 does pass . . . immediately amend it to read about 200 sf or more. This would much better reflect the true spirit and goals of this peoples prop. :twocents:

OhNoYaDont

08-04-2010, 07:17 PM

I went to a City Council meeting yesterday in Redding, CA. They discussed this initiative at length.

One of the things that struck me was the Chief of Police, Chief Hansen, making the statement that "This is a very poorly written law. Just like the medical use law, it will take a decade of arrests and lawsuits until it is clearly defined. Who here wants to be the first to test this law? Who here has $50,000 for their defense? I have no problem complying with the law, but your interpretation (pointing to the pot activists in the audience) and HIS interpretation (pointing to the city attorney) may be quite different - and we (the city and the citizen) are going to spend a lot of money to get a judge to say what is what. After this law passes, someone here plant a 5 by 5 garden without a doctors recommendation and we will give it a go. Who's first?"

He went on to explain that, yes, no matter what this law does, it does NOT affect the medical use laws. It is in ADDITION to them.

BTW: in Chief Hansens favor, I will say that he is a very honorable person. He treats dispensories and their operators, and the patients with the greatest of respect. His is helpful in assisting them, and growers, to comply with the law. Anyone can call his office with a question and they will give their assistance to help with compliance. Chief Hansen is not interested in busting anyones chops, he is just trying to do his job.

Also, as a post script ... WHY WASN'T THERE TWO THOUSAND PEOPLE at the council meeting? WTF is UP with you bunch of babbling pot heads? You want your RIGHTS, but you are too stoned to get up off the couch and go to a public hearing about it? Shame on you. Everyone in Shasta County that reads these words should be ashamed of themselves.

Twist another one up and bitch about how the gov't is treading on you. They do it because YOU LET THEM. And, you deserve it.

VapedG13

08-04-2010, 07:57 PM

makes you wonder bros....:wtf: Its all about the $$$$

Oakland's pot dreams could burst
By Cecily Burt
Oakland Tribune
Posted: 08/01/2010 12:01:00 AM PDT
Updated: 08/02/2010 10:44:55 AM PDT

OAKLAND â?? Oakland rushed last week to raise medical cannabis business taxes and to be the first city in the nation to legitimize industrial-sized pot production. The cash-starved city is hoping to reap millions of dollars in tax revenues from medical cannabis businesses while positioning itself to capitalize on the explosion of recreational pot sales should state voters go that way in November.

But is it just a pipe dream? No one really knows whether Oakland will find that pot of gold in the cannabis industry. Growers and dispensaries are making money, to be sure, and the city wants its share. But competition, legal risks and the unknown economic effects from potential legalization make the sure bet anything but.

California voters in 1996 overwhelmingly passed Proposition 215, the so-called Compassionate Use Act, which decriminalized medicinal use of marijuana. Dispensaries popped up almost overnight, supplied by a cottage industry of growers selling pounds of pot for $2,500 to $3,500, tax-free. Retail prices are double that, but not enough to stop the flood of patients willing to spend more than $300 an ounce for high-grade marijuana.

The estimated value of California's pot crop is $13.8 billion, according to an analysis for California NORML, a nonprofit organization devoted to marijuana reform. About 3 million people in the state use marijuana, medical and recreational, and consume an estimated 1 million pounds a year.

Oakland's

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
four medical marijuana dispensaries do their share, supplying patients with 6,000 pounds of pot worth $28 million last year. The city is asking voters to raise business taxes on medical marijuana sales to 5 percent, a rate that dispensaries, patients and small growers warn will drive them out of Oakland and into neighboring communities with lower tax rates or no taxes at all.

The four new industrial-sized farms the city plans to license in January should do well, given the growing demand for medical marijuana across the state. But the ventures are not without risk. State law allows medical marijuana cultivation by collectives of patients and caregivers, with no profiteering.

Although the Obama administration has pledged a hands-off approach to honor states' laws, several experts warn that the federal government may not be able to ignore commercial-sized growing and manufacturing plants, which are not allowed under current state law.

That is a concern expressed by Oakland Councilmember Nancy Nadel, who sees pros and cons in the plan and worries about excluding small growers. "I was willing to go along with some large growers, but is this an invitation to federal attention? It puts a lot of product in one space, so if there is a fire, or theft, or mold, you could impact the availability of product to the patients," Nadel said.

New tax revenue

Still, it's easy to see why the City Council majority backs the concept of large indoor farms. Regulating medical marijuana production in modern facilities located in industrial areas should ensure a reliable, consistent supply of high-grade marijuana. It conceivably should cut down on the hundreds of dangerous, illegal grow houses spread around Oakland, especially if the huge growers can offer lower wholesale prices. It also makes it easier for the city to track the money.

Perhaps the most convincing argument arrived in a report commissioned by Jeff Wilcox, a retired contractor who first approached city leaders about the commercial grow idea. His proposal for a 100,000-square-foot AgraMed cultivation facility would produce 21,000 pounds of pot with a wholesale value of $60 million. That translates into $3 million in new tax revenue for the city and 300 to 400 jobs for Bay Area residents â?? from just one business.

That's on top of the revenue the city will get from its four dispensaries. If sales remain static, the city stands to gain another $1.4 million.

Dale Gieringer, director of California NORML, says Oakland is smart to get ahead of the curve, and it could gain millions in new tax revenue if the city's sales and production estimates pan out. But setting too high of a tax rate could backfire initially, and he thinks that establishing the large-scale production facilities will be neither quick nor problem-free.

"I think there is a risk here on jumping ahead on this tax on medical marijuana," Gieringer said. "San Francisco doesn't have a tax. At 5 percent, this gives other places an advantage. Oakland could be in danger of killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Patients will not go to Oakland if they can go to San Francisco and get it cheaper."

Oakland might have been the first to realize the revenue benefits of taxing medical marijuana businesses, but several other economically strapped municipalities are following its lead. San Jose, Richmond and others are scrambling to place similar tax measures on the November ballot. Berkeley is asking voters to raise cannabis tax rates as well as allow up to six commercial cultivation facilities.

Oakland's four proposed cultivation permits are intended for medicinal production only â?? for now. The proposal also lays the framework should Proposition 19 pass in November, legalizing recreational use of pot for adults 21 and older. The city is asking voters in November to set the business tax rate for recreational sales at a whopping 10 percent.

But will it be a bonanza or bust?

Legalized pot

According to a RAND Corp. study released this month, legalization could boost the number of pot smokers and drive down the pretax price of an ounce of pot by as much as 80 percent. The authors warn that it potentially could fuel problems with smuggling as dealers from other states rush to buy low-cost cannabis in California.

"Legalization would drive the price so low that even if taxes are high, marijuana coming from California would still be cheaper than a lot of places in the country," said Beau Kilmer, lead author of the study and co-director of the Drug Policy Research Center. "If dealers come here to buy several pounds, pay the taxes and then smuggle it out, they would still make money."

Even with hefty state or local taxes added on, consumers likely would pay hundreds of dollars less than they do now. That's good news for patients who rely on the herb to ease their pain, control their nausea or boost their appetite, but it could put a huge dent in the amount of tax revenue the city collects from its medical marijuana dispensaries.

If the wholesale price of medical marijuana drops to $800 a pound, a scenario Wilcox said could happen, the city's cut would drop to $1.35 million.

"Right now there's an 85 percent profit margin (enjoyed by the growers and dispensaries), and that's too high, in my opinion," Wilcox said. "If you can grow for $400 and sell it $800 wholesale, people will be doing just hunky-dory."

Oakland Councilmember Desley Brooks said she's not pinning all her expectations on legalization, especially when there is plenty of revenue to be had from the medical cannabis industry.

"There's a lot of money in that industry and not a lot of regulation," she said.

Kilmer said his work focused on what might happen if marijuana were legalized in California. The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act 2010 ballot initiative would allow people 21 and older to possess, grow or transport small amounts of pot for personal use. Cities and counties could choose whether to regulate and tax the commercial cultivation and sales of marijuana or to keep such activities illegal.

"The impacts of legalization on medical marijuana is unknown," Kilmer said. "But it will be interesting to see what happens in Oakland because it's unclear what the feds will do" about the commercial growers.

Mark Kleiman, a UCLA professor of public policy who has written extensively on the topic, believes cities such as Oakland that are hoping to cash in on medical marijuana, and legalization if it happens, should try to see through the dollar signs to the possible pitfalls.

"Yes, (Oakland is) in for a big letdown," he said. "Competition among growers and among jurisdictions would drive legal prices through the floor, leaving California with a large (illegal) export trade to the rest of the country and not much revenue. The feds wouldn't hold still for it and would crack down."

BALLOT INITIATIVES
Oakland: 5 percent tax on medical cannabis dispensaries and cultivation facilities, 10 percent for recreational production and sales.
Berkeley: 2.5 percent for medical marijuana,
10 percent recreational.
Sacramento: 4 percent medical marijuana, 10 percent recreational.
Richmond: 5 percent medical marijuana,
5 percent recreational.
San Jose: 10 percent medical marijuana.*
Long beach: 5 percent medical marijuana, 10 percent recreational.
Stockton: 2.5 percent medical marijuana, 10 percent recreational
* Proposed

OhNoYaDont

08-04-2010, 11:50 PM

OF COURSE it's about the money! It has ALWAYS been about the money. I'm surprized that you are surprized.

There is a HUGE industry built around the "war on drugs". There has been BILLIONS spent on that "war". Think about who makes money from that war: cops, pilots, jailers, lawyers, judges, balliffs, court reporters. The company that maintains the helicopters, fuels the helicopters, the cooks that cook for the crews that do raids, on and on and on. The guy that mops the floors in the jails, on and on and on. BILLION$.

Now, that money is looking for another home. That home is in the production and supply side. Viva la capitalism. If the heli pilot can't fly cops around, he will fly product out for the legal producers. If the guard doesn't have people to guard who got caught with an oz - he will guard the 25,000 plant grow that RJ Reynolds just started up in the mountains.

Is that wrong? Should EVERYONE be sucking on the government tit? Or is it ok if I work hard and make lots of money and pay my taxes so that OTHERS can suck on the government tit?

And, we have a Politbreau Councilwoman from the Peoples Republic of Berkeley who thinks that there is "too much profit" in the business. Who gives a shit what she thinks. I think that SHE makes too much - so what? So, the gov't will see to it that private business isn't TOO profitable. Because we all know that PROFIT IS EVIL, right Comrade Councilwoman?

Someone much smarter than me once said: "A people gets the government they deserve." We deserve what we are about to get. When things really go to hell and the Berkeley Gestapo is kicking in your door because you don't have a quarter million dollar permit to grow, remember - you let it happen. You deserve it.

VapedG13

08-05-2010, 03:23 AM

whos suprized:wtf:

People think itâ??s legalization, itâ??s being sold as legalizationâ??even though itâ??s the opposite of legalization.â? - Dennis Peron, author of Prop. 215 that legalized medical marijuana in California

Dragonfly De La Luz

When most marijuana activists, growers and consumers first heard about an initiative that would legalize cannabis in California, they thought it was a pipe dream come true. To many, legalization implied that it would no longer be a crime to possess, consume or distribute marijuana. Cannabis consumers rejoiced at the idea of being able to buy from their neighbors or at partiesâ??just as they already doâ??with no legal retribution. Small-time growers envisioned being free to sell their product to those who sought them out, with no legal repercussions. Marijuana activists thought it meant that people would stop getting arrested for pot, and that the drug war would finally be over. But now that the initiative is headed to ballot, many pro-legalization supporters are coming out against it. Why?

Simply put, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative does not reflect most peopleâ??s ideas of what legalization would be. The media often incorrectly reports that this initiative calls for â??full legalizationâ? of marijuana. It does not. In fact, it reverses many of the freedoms marijuana consumers currently enjoy, pushes growers out of the commercial market, paves the way for the corporatization of cannabis, and creates new prohibitions where there are none now. Apparently, to be pro-legalization and pro-initiative are two different things entirely.

The late-Jack Herer, legendary marijuana activist known as the father of the legalization movement, vehemently opposed the initiative. In the last words of his impassioned final speech, moments before the heart attack that would eventually claim his life, he urged people not to support it.[1] Proposition 215 author, Dennis Peron, likewise denounced the initiative, saying it is not legalization, but â??thinly-veiled prohibition.â?[2]

Compared to the present status of cannabis in California, many marijuana activists see this initiative as a giant leap backward. Ironically, it appears that marijuana is more â??legalâ? in California today than it would be if this initiative were to pass.

The initiative itself is a hazy maze of regulations and controls, some of which are ambiguous and confusing even for those well-versed in marijuana law. Understandably, many who have entered the discussion seem to have bypassed the initiative altogether and gone straight to their own assumptions of what an initiative that claims to legalize marijuana might entail, injecting the debate with as many misconceptions as facts. But for an issue that would have such a direct and unprecedented impact on our daily lives, itâ??s crucial to decide your vote based on knowledge, rather than assumption.

To clarify a few of the most glaring myths about the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative, I have compiled this guide to help you VOTE KNOW!

Myth #1: The initiative will end the War on Drugs and substantially reduce marijuana arrests, saving millions in prison costs.
Fact: Hardly. The federal drug war will continue to drone on, of course, and growing or possessing any amount of marijuana would still be illegal under federal law. Anyone growing or possessing cannabis without a doctorâ??s recommendation would still be subject to arrest and seizure by the federal policeâ??although on the bright side, the Obama administration recently announced it will no longer raid individuals who are operating in compliance with medical marijuana law.[3]

Contrary to popular assumption, the drug war in California will not end, nor will it be impacted much by the initiative. This is because the initiative doesnâ??t call for full legalization; it proposes to legalize possession of only up to one ounce. And in California, there is no â??drug warâ? being fought against possession of up to one ounce, because marijuana is already decriminalized.

The penalty for carrying an ounce is a mere citation and maximum $100 fine.[4] Moreover, possession of one ounce is on its way to being downgraded from a misdemeanor to an infraction, because the state Senate voted in June to reclassify its status. [5] No one goes to jail for having an ounce or less in California, and no one gets arrested, because it is not an arrestable offense.

One often-quoted statistic in the initiative debate is that misdemeanor marijuana possession arrests reached 61,388 in 2008.[6] However, it is important to note that this statistic does not refer to any arrest demographic that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative would affect. This statistic refers only to possession of more than one ounce, possession by minors and possession on school groundsâ??offenses which the initiative will not legalize. It does not refer to nor does it include marijuana arrests for possession of one ounce or less, because this is not an arrestable offense. Therefore, the initiative would have no impact on reducing these arrests rates.

Statistically, the demographic that accounts for nearly one-quarter of total arrests for marijuana possession in California happens to be those in the 18-20 age group. But because the initiative explicitly makes it illegal for even adults age 18-20 to possess marijuana, these arrests will not decrease, and the drug war against young adults will rage on.

Furthermore, since the initiative would keep possession of amounts greater than one ounce illegal and likewise maintain the illegality of private sales of any amount, the overall impact that the initiative would have on ending the drug war, reducing arrest rates and saving on prison costs would be negligible, at best.

As an example of how highly misunderstood this initiative and its potential impact on the drug war is, the California NAACP recently pledged their support for the initiative based on the belief that it will put an end to the disproportionately high number of African-American youth going to jail â??over a joint.â? [7] But in reality, the initiative will have no impact on this phenomenon whatsoever. As it is now, the State of California does not jail people for having a joint; it is not an arrestable offense. And, as mentioned above, possession of up to one ounce is on its way to being reclassified from a misdemeanor to an infractionâ??which carries no criminal-record stigma. The state does, however, incarcerate people for selling small amounts of marijuana. And since this initiative keeps private marijuana sales illegal, no matter the quantity, there will be no decrease in the number of African Americansâ??or anyone elseâ??arrested for selling a joint.

Not only does the initiative do little or nothing to end the drug war, but ironically, it could in fact expand the drug war, because it imposes new prohibitions against marijuana that do not exist currently.

Contrary to the belief that it will keep people out of jail for marijuana, this initiative actually creates new demographics of people to incarcerate. (See Fact #2 and Fact #3) It is difficult to see how the government would save on court and imprisonment costs if the initiative merely shifts arrests from one demographic to another.

Myth #2: The initiative will keep young adults out of jail for using marijuana.
Fact: This initiative would put more young people in jail for pot. If it becomes law, any adult 21 or over who passes a joint to another adult aged 18-20 would face six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. [8] (NORML's Web site reports that the current penalty for a gift of marijuana of 1 oz. or less is a $100 fine.[9])

Myth #3: You'll be able to light up freely in the privacy of your home.
Fact: That depends. Under the initiative, even adults consuming marijuana in the privacy of their homes could face arrest if there are minors present (not something one would expect from an initiative that claims to treat marijuana like alcohol and tobacco)[10]. Current marijuana law contains no such restrictions. Thanks to Prop. 215, which legalized marijuana for medicinal use, cannabis consumers have been legally free to smoke in the privacy of their homes since 1997. This initiative seeks to undermine that freedom, making it absolutely illegal to smoke marijuana if there are minors present. (The initiative is ambiguous with regard to whether â??presentâ? means being in the same room as the consumer, the same house, the same apartment building, or within wafting distanceâ??apparently leaving this up to the interpretation of judges.) There is no exception for medical marijuana patients or for parents consuming in the presence of their own children.

Myth #4: Under the initiative, anyone 21 or over will be allowed to grow marijuana in a 5â??x5â?? space.
Fact: Not quite. This allotment is per property, not per person. If you share a residence with other people, youâ??ll be sharing a 5â??x5â?? grow space, as well. Even if you own multiple acres that many people live on, if it is considered one parcel, the space restriction of 5â??x5â?? (3-6 plants) will still apply. [11] Plus, if you rent, you will be required to obtain permission from your landlordâ??which they may be unwilling to grant since doing so will subject them to forfeiture by the federal government.

Myth #5: Adults 21 and over will be able to possess up to one ounce of marijuana without penalty.
Fact: Perhaps the most ironic piece of the puzzle is that the initiative to legalize marijuana actually makes it illegal to possess marijuana if it was purchased anywhere other than the very few licensed dispensaries in the state.[12] So if this initiative passes, better not get caught carrying marijuana you bought off your neighbor, your current dealer, or at a party; you could get arrested. And if you do buy from a licensed dispensary, better keep your receipts, because the burden of proof will be on you. Not only is this inconvenient, but it sets the industry up to be monopolized.

Whatâ??s more, if your city decides not to tax cannabis, then buying and selling marijuana in the city limits would remain illegal. You would be permitted to possess and consume marijuana, but you would be required to travel to another city that taxes cannabis to buy it.[13] This is a move towards decreased, not increased, access. And since the initiative is so ambiguous that cities are destined to be tied up in a legal quagmire over how to interpret it, many local governments might find it simpler just to opt-out and send its citizens elsewhere. Indeed, 129 cities did just that with medical marijuana, banning it outright, while still others have established moratoriums against dispensaries. In fact, of the entire state, only the city of Oakland has endorsed the initiative. A vote for the initiative will therefore not ensure local access to purchase marijuana legally.

Myth #6: The initiative will free up cops to focus on bigger crimes.
Fact: Decriminalization has already achieved this. The California Police Chiefs Association publicly admits that they do not waste their time on cases involving an ounce or less.[14] Moreover, many cities have already passed measures that require law enforcement to make marijuana possession their lowest priority.

What the initiative would do is create new prohibitions where there were none before, obligating police officers to spend valuable time enforcing them. The cases cops presently de-prioritize are minor offenses, like simple possession. But the initiative takes minor offenses and reclassifies them as more serious crimes (e.g., passing a joint to an adult 18-20). Law enforcementâ??s time is freed up by the elimination of prohibition, not by exchanging old prohibitions for new ones.

Myth #7: Marijuana tax revenue will go toward education and health care.
Fact: As it is now, state budget cuts have resulted in the closing of state parks, and health care for impoverished children has been revoked, not to mention thousands of government lay-offs. But marijuana taxes will not be earmarked for health care, public education, the re-opening of state parks, or rehiring of laid-off government employees. Instead, the initiative specifically states that any marijuana tax revenue can be used toward enforcing the new prohibitions that the initiative enacts.[15] In this regard, not only does the initiative not end the drug war, it apparently taxes the drug to fund the drug war.

Myth #8: Marijuana growers will be able to sell cannabis legally.
Fact: Currently, marijuana growers in California who have a medical recommendation can and do grow and provide marijuana legally. Entire economies in Northern California exist on this industry. However, the initiative would make it illegal for anyone to sell marijuana, unless they own a licensed dispensary.[16] (See Fact #9)

Many have suggested that growers could open marijuana-tasting venues, similar to wine-tasting at vineyards. A grower might have a chance of opening such a place, but only if he gave his product away for free, because selling it would be illegal unless he successfully navigated the notoriously difficult and prohibitively expensive process of obtaining licensure.

Myth #9: Anyone can obtain a license to legally sell cannabis and compete in the market.
Fact: Few people will be able to compete in the multibillion-dollar marijuana market if the initiative passes. This is because the licensing process, engineered in Oakland, is exceptionally restrictive. Of the more than a thousand dispensaries operating in California until a recent L.A. crackdown, only a handful were licensed. (Conveniently, Richard Lee, the millionaire behind the initiative, owns one of them). In Oakland, the city thatâ??s setting the precedent in the tax cannabis push, a license costs $30,000. Per year. Not to mention the rigorous application process, in which even well-established, law-abiding dispensaries have been denied.

Furthermore, Oakland has started a trend of capping the number of licensed dispensaries allowed to operate (in Oakland, that number is four). This all but guarantees that the average, small-time marijuana grower will be shut out of this multibillion-dollar industry, concentrating the profits of the potential economic boon in the hands of a small minority of wealthy entrepreneurs who are already making moves to monopolize the industry. Under this initiative, the marijuana industry will not be a free market in which everyone has a chance to compete. Instead, the initiative could mark the beginning of the corporatization of marijuana. (See also Fact #15)

Myth #10: Medical marijuana patients would be exempt from the initiative.
Fact: This is not exactly true. While amendments were made ostensibly to prevent the initiative from affecting current medical marijuana law, a careful reading of the initiative reveals that this is not, in fact, the case. Certain medical marijuana laws are exempt from the prohibitions the initiative would enact, while others are glaringly absent.

Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.[17] In spite of the fact that the tax cannabis Web site says otherwise, the only medical marijuana exemptions that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative actually makes are with regard to possession, consumption and purchase limits, which only ensure that patients would still be allowed to buy medicine at dispensaries. The word â??cultivateâ? is conspicuously absent. Whereas today a person with a doctorâ??s recommendation has the right to grow up to an unlimited number of plants, the initiative would drastically reduce that number to whatever can fit in a 5â??x5â?? footprint (around 3-6 plantsâ??per property, not per person). This will force many patients to resort to buying instead of growing their own medicine, because of the inconvenience caused by producing multiple grows a year rather than growing a yearâ??s supply of medicine at one time, as many patients currently do outdoors. And growing indoorsâ??which typically requires special grow lights, an increase in hydro use, and a lot of time and attentionâ??is a comparatively expensive endeavor.

The initiative would further impact medical marijuana patients by banning medicating in the privacy of their own homes if there are minors present, as well as in public (currently perfectly legal[18])â??an invaluable liberty to those with painful diseases who would otherwise have to suffer until they got home to relieve their pain.

Finally, the medical marijuana laws that are exempted from this initiative apparently only apply to cities. For medical marijuana patients who live in an area that has county or local government jurisdiction, according to a strict reading of the initiative, medical marijuana laws are not exempt.[19]

Myth #11: Marijuana smokers will be free to smoke cannabis wherever cigarette smoking is allowed.
Fact: Actually, that's the way it is now in California. There is no law prohibiting medical marijuana from being smoked wherever cigarette smoking is permitted.[20] Young adults taking bong hits in Golden Gate Park on a Sunday afternoon is just part of the San Francisco scenery. However, if this initiative passes, that freedom would disappear and we could see cops policing smoking areas to enforce this law.[21]

Myth #12: Currently imprisoned non-violent marijuana offenders would be released.
Fact: The initiative makes no call to release prisoners who are behind bars for any marijuana offense, no matter how minor. In fact, because it introduces new prohibitions where none exist now, the initiative could potentially be responsible for locking even more people up for marijuana.

Myth #13: Counties in which marijuana cultivation currently thrives will experience increased economic growth.
Fact: Entire economies could collapse in counties that currently rely on cultivating marijuana. Right now, the multibillion-dollar marijuana industry is legally subsidizing thousands of incomes in areas where unemployment is skyrocketing. For example, Mendocino County, the biggest pot-producing county in the U.S., reports that a full two-thirds of its economy is dependent on marijuana.[22] Much of this is due to current state medical marijuana laws, which allow people to legally cultivate plants and provide them to marijuana pharmacies. But this economy supports more than just farmers.

Many local store owners report that without marijuana farmers patronizing their businesses with cash, they would go out of business. Moreover, legitimate medical marijuana growers employ tens of thousands of seasonal workers, mostly young adults, who have managed to eke out a living in a region where none other exists, and who otherwise would have few local options to support themselves. The more humble among them are able to make a living that sustains them modestly throughout much of the year. Thousands more are able to subsidize low-paying jobs, make up for shortages in their college funding, and start creative projects such as fashion design, music production, or art. But because the initiative would limit the number of plants one could grow from up to an unlimited amount to about six, thousands of small-time medical marijuana farmers and the young adults they employ would face economic displacement and hardship, or join the ranks of the unemployed. (For more on this, see Fact #15.)

Myth #14: The initiative will create an employment boon similar to Californiaâ??s wine industry.
Fact: Comparisons with the wine industry are no true basis for determining the potential revenue recreational marijuana could create, because the wine industry does not operate under the same restrictions the marijuana industry would face. Namely, thereâ??s no cap on how many wineries can operate in California, or how many grapes each vineyard can grow. There are currently almost 3,000 vineyards in the state, whereas since the April crackdown in L.A., there are fewer than 300 dispensaries (of which only a few are licensed). Moreover, if cities continue to follow the trend set by Oakland and cap the number of licensed dispensaries allowed to operate, then the thousands of people currently legally employed by dispensaries would dwindle drastically.

Myth #15: The initiative will limit the viability of Mexican drug cartels.
Fact: Mexican drug cartels are already being undermined tremendously thanks to the legions of small-time farmers growing in California. The Washington Post reported on October 7, 2009:

â??Almost all of the marijuana consumed in the multibillion-dollar U.S. market once came from Mexico or Colombia. Now as much as half is produced domestically, often by small-scale operators who painstakingly tend greenhouses and indoor gardens to produce the more potentâ?¦ product that consumers now demand, according to authorities and marijuana dealers on both sides of the border. â?¦ Stiff competition from thousands of mom-and-pop marijuana farmers in the United States threatens the bottom line for powerful Mexican drug organizations in a way that decades of arrests and seizures have not, according to law enforcement officials and pot growers in the United States and Mexico.â?[23]

These mom-and-pop growers donâ??t fit the stereotype of the gang-war era drug pusher or Mexican drug cartel growing marijuana irresponsibly and setting forests on fire. Many of them are law-abiding citizens, legally growing medical marijuana under Prop. 215. Theyâ??re the people you see at your local organic health food store, or shopping in the community, putting much-needed cash directly into the local economy while the national economy flounders in recession. These small-time marijuana farmers use the money they earn from providing medicine to finance their kidsâ?? education, help out their laid-off parents and put themselves through school. In some cases, entire communities depend on them.

However, if this initiative passes, these growers that are single-handedly undercutting the Mexican drug cartels would no longer be able to legally operate and the face of the marijuana industry could change from the local one we recognize to an impersonal corporate entity, leaving a spate of displaced marijuana farmers in its wake.

One corporation that is poised to take the place of the mom-and-pop growers is AgraMed. While Oaklandâ??s city council prepares to consider a proposal in July to license four commercial indoor marijuana farms in the city, AgraMed has plans to build a 100,000-sq.-ft. marijuana mega-farm near Oakland International Airport that, â??according to projections, could generate 58 pounds of pot a day and $59 million a year in revenue.â? The companyâ??s president, Jeff Wilcoxâ??a member of the steering committee of the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiativeâ??reportedly hopes to â??bring a degree of corporate structure to the marijuana industry.â?[24]

The language that backers of the initiative use itself is cause for concern among pro-marijuana supporters. Instead of speaking out against the injustice of jailing people over a plant that is widely known not only to be harmless, but beneficial, these multimillionaire supporters of the initiative speak only of their intentions to corporatize marijuana. The owner of one leading marijuana dispensaryâ??that already earns well over $20 million a yearâ??was quoted in the New York Times as having aspirations to become the â??McDonaldâ??s of marijuana.â?[25] The proprietors of Oaklandâ??s new i-Grow hydroponics store want it to be known as the â??Wal-Martâ? of grow stores.[26] Meanwhile, Marijuana, Inc., a multimillion-dollar corporation, has plans to build cannabis resorts in the Northern California counties that currently survive off the medical marijuana industry.[27] They intend to create golf resorts with acres of marijuana gardens featuring hundreds of strains. (Apparently, under this initiative, corporations would be permitted to grow quite large quantities of cannabis, while cultivation would be restricted to 5â?? x 5â?? plots for everyone else.)

The accusations that medical marijuana growers oppose the initiative out of greed are clearly grossly unfounded. It is obvious who has intentions of increasing their bottom line. Small-time marijuana farmers simply want to continue making a humble living off the land. They are the ones who built the marijuana industry, but this initiative seeks to allow corporations to take their hard work and turn it into profits for themselves, locking farmers out of the industry entirely.

We have seen this trend before in the United States. Our history is replete with small farmers being taken over by huge corporations. Hundreds of thousands of mom-and-pop businesses have been forced out of business by conglomerates like Wal-Mart, Starbucks, and Monsanto, which those who benefit from such takeovers have justified by calling it â??progress.â? But is it? And is this the sort of â??progressâ? we want to see take over the marijuana industry? Is this the world Peter Tosh had in mind when he implored us to â??legalize it?â?

Marijuana may well be the final bastion of farmer-owned, worker-owned, business autonomy in this country. Will we allow it, too, to go the way of nearly every other homegrown industry in the history of the United States? We all hope for legalization. But must we have such a drastic, Faustian trade-off for this freedom? And is it really freedom if we must lose our autonomy to gain it?

One farmerâ??s response to the news of Marijuana Inc.â??s resort aspirations poignantly sums up the pending reality should the initiative pass:

â??Marijuana, Inc., has big plans to invade the Emerald Triangle and surrounding counties to really capitalize on marijuana tourism. Maybe that sounds like fun to people that arenâ??t from around here, but it is really going to take away a lot of opportunity from the locals who make this place what it is. I feel that the people here who created this industry are going to be left in the dust for the most partâ?¦ There is just too much money at stake and that is what these guys are all about. This is the equivalent of the giant hotels popping up on the Hawaiian Islands and the locals being told, â??You can still work at the resort. Weâ??ll need maids and groundskeepers whoâ??ll work for minimum wage...â??â?[28]

What is currently a small-time, largely organic industryâ??on which entire economies survive, and without which entire economies would collapseâ??could soon become dominated by corporations if this initiative passes. The days of â??knowing your dealerâ? and what goes into your pot could soon be over, and marijuana, a sacrament to many, could become corporatized. Are corporations inherently evil? No. But if we have the option to keep millions of dollars in our own communities, spread out over hundreds of thousands of people, it hardly seems sensible to outsource this employment to corporations and into the hands of a few.

Is it possible to have marijuana legalization without legalizing corporate takeover of the industry? Absolutely. Will those who are passionate about marijuana live to regret voting in an initiative that treats marijuana as a publicly-traded commodity and turns it into something as abhorrent as Wal-Mart and McDonaldâ??s? Absolutely. Do we have to settle for this? Absolutely not.

Myth #16: The price of marijuana will drop.
Fact: The value of marijuana might decrease if it becomes more commercially available and more people grow their own, but the price of a product depends less on its value and more on the degree of competition that exists with regard to selling it. Since your options for purchasing marijuana would be among only a handful of licensed dispensaries in the state, there is no guarantee of a decrease in price. Less competition means higher prices.

Indeed, by AgraMedâ??s own estimation, in order to make $59 million a year off 58 pounds per day, they would have to charge $175 per ounce wholesale (roughly $2,800 per pound)â??and thatâ??s if they produced 58 pounds 365 days a year. If they managed to produce that output only 5 days a week, that price would leap to $245 an ounce (about $3900 per pound). With shelf-prices at dispensaries often set at double the wholesale purchase priceâ??not to mention the compulsory tax added onto every ounce (which Richard Lee stated in an interview was "recommended" to be $50)â??the price of marijuana could potentially be higher than it is in our current market, in which the price of a pound has already fallen to $2,000, according to a recent National Public Radio report; a direct result of healthy competition, not its opposite.[29]

Myth #17: We can vote in the initiative and fix the tangles as they come up.
Fact: Initiatives create permanent statutes. Once an initiative is voted into law, it cannot be reversed. It remains law forever. It is worth noting that this initiative makes some unusual provisions with regard to amendments. For starters, it allows the legislature (traditionally hostile toward marijuana legislation) to amend the initiative without voter approval. Furthermore, it allows amendments, but â??only to further the purposes of the Act.â?[30] Under a monopolized, corporate-controlled distribution process, the â??purposesâ? might become more narrowly defined.

Many of the issues that pro-legalization supporters have with the initiative could be easily rectifiable with a few sentences and an amendment-submission to the Attorney Generalâ??s office. It would have required very little on the part of the initiative authors to remove the vagueness from the wording that bans smoking cannabis in any â??spaceâ? where minors are â??present,â? for example, or to add an exemption for medical marijuana patients and parents consuming in the presence of their own children. It would have required very little to write into the initiative a line that would exempt medical marijuana patients from the public smoking ban and protect their right to grow medicine in amounts sufficient for their individual needs. After all, these are items which should not be considered luxuries under legalized marijuana; they should be rights. And we should settle for nothing less.

Unfortunately, the deadline to make changes to the initiative before the November elections has already passed, and to achieve these changes via subsequent voter referendums would be a complicated and drawn-out process that could take years. Making the initiative acceptable before voting it into law is therefore essential.

Myth #18: This is our only chance to take a step in the direction of legalization.
Fact: This is only our first chanceâ??it will certainly not be the last. There were three other initiatives that sought to be placed on the ballot this year; all three would have legalized not only possession, but also private distribution among individual adults. Some even called for the release of non-violent marijuana offenders. However, staffed exclusively by volunteers, all failed to gather the required number of signatures for the petitions. (Richard Lee invested $1.3 million of his own money to hire a company to obtain the requisite signatures for the current proposed initiative.[31])

What now?

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative is not the only path to legalization. We have come so far, and are now so closeâ??it is imperative that we let the next step be the right one. Legalized marijuana is within reach, yet the movement could be set back with such a problematic initiative at the helm. Instead of rushing to pass a measure that prohibits marijuana under the guise of legalization, we can draft an initiative that calls for true legalization and that has the full support of marijuana law reform organizations and leaders of the movement.

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative is rife with ambiguity, expands the War on Drugs, undermines the medical marijuana movement, arrests more people for marijuana, offers no protection for small farmers and insufficient protection for medical marijuana users, has a high potential for monopolization, provides no regulations to prevent corporate takeover of the industry, cartelizes the economy, and divides our community into poor, unlicensed, mom-and-pop gardener versus rich, licensed, corporate farmer. And since the one thing thatâ??s clear about the initiative is that itâ??s vague, it could very easily prove to be a Pandoraâ??s box of unintended consequences. Beyond its vagueness, which itself is problematic, these side effects are inherently socially dangerous. The impact that such a failed legalization initiative could have on the movement nation-wide could be disastrous.

This is not a question of whether to legalize or not to legalize. Legalization is the goal and it is inevitable. The question is whether we want to rush in and settle for an initiative that is so poorly-worded as to be ambiguous, and so vague as to be open to vast interpretation from judgesâ??or wait for the wording and other inconsistencies to be corrected for 2012. If we hold out for a perfect initiative we will wait forever. But if we at least hold out for an initiative that is direct, unambiguous, well-defined and clearly written, we will have an unprecedented opportunity to inspire the world to join the movement to legalize marijuana.

Many pro-legalization activists are rallying behind the idea of taking the time to craft an initiative that will be a clear step up from the current cannabis situation of in California and will result in increased accessâ??not its opposite. Both NORML and the MPP, the foremost cannabis law reform organizations in the country, have suggested we wait and make another attempt at legalization during the 2012 elections. Dale Gieringer, Director of Californiaâ??s NORML, said, â??I do think itâ??s going to take a few more years for us to develop a proposal that voters will be comfortable with.â?[32] Likewise, Bruce Mirken, MPPâ??s Director of Communications, was quoted as saying, â??In our opinion, we should wait and build our forces and aim at 2012.â?[33]

Ultimately, the decision is not up to any organization; itâ??s up to YOU. How will you vote? Read the initiative for yourself and just VOTE KNOW!

â??I hope people find the hope and inspiration to broadcast this, understand (the initiative), read it, and know that it's a step backwards. And we can do better. We will do better.â? - Dennis Peron

Sidebar: What it Actually Says

About possessing marijuana bought somewhere other than a licensed outlet:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: (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; [Section 11300: (i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301.]

About the punishment for giving marijuana to adults age 18-20:
Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors: (c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense.

About smoking in the presence of minors:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls: (c) â??Personal consumptionâ? shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit: (iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.

About using marijuana tax revenue to fund law enforcement against pot prohibition:
Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees (a) Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.

About medical marijuana exemptions:
B: Purposes, 7: Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that cityâ??s limits remain illegal, but that the cityâ??s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9. (Note: The word â??cultivateâ? is conspicuously absent here as well as in the exempted Health and Safety Sections that pertain to medical marijuana laws.)

About leaving medical marijuana cultivation law in the hands of local government:
Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following: (a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized. (Note: This section provides no exemptions for medical marijuana law.)

About the right to cultivate:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls: (ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel

420goodfu

08-05-2010, 11:13 PM

whos suprized:wtf:

I am not surprised, its all about control and taxing. There are many restrictions with this initiate. The growers are far out numbered by the MJ voting patients and also the millions who think this initiate is 100% legalization.

The strict limitations this prop will impose on growers will fall on almost deaf ears and most likely will pass putting small time growers out of business.

OhNoYaDont

08-06-2010, 05:28 PM

most likely will pass putting small time growers out of business.

I dunno about that ... I am a small time grower/provider. I was talking with a couple of aquaintances at a local garden supply store the other day, and they seem to believe that it will just drive the industry underground (indoors) again.

They seem to think that it will restrict supply, and assuming that demand stays constant that means that it will increase price.

And if cities like Oakland think that the Feds are going to ignore a warehouse grow of tens of thousands, they are wrong. The USA has made war on it's own citizens before, and they'll do it again.

feathernorth

08-30-2010, 09:26 PM

OhNoYaDont

08-31-2010, 09:49 PM

I've written up my take on this for the Huffington Post:

Heather Donahue: The New Marijuana Middle Class (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heather-donahue/the-new-marijuana-middle-_b_697459.html)

Nobody should be going to jail for weed, but what about the growers, geneshifters, and dispensary owners that have been eroding cartel power and feeding the california economy? Should they just be put out of business without a thought?

Interesting article Heather ... thanks. And, thank you for your concern, but, really, it's not needed. Us "growers, geneshifters, and dispensary owners" are a hearty lot, have been surviving for a long time, and will be here long after this law passes.

I am a small grower (mom n pop). I have about 100 plants, they've been flowering for a couple of weeks now. Harvest in five weeks, then a long vacation.

I really don't think that the law passing (unfortunately, I think it will) will affect LONG TERM wholesale prices all that much. Yes, it will cause a lot of people to grow their own (which is ok with me). I have the option of changing the oil in my own car, putting a new roof on my own house, or pulling my grandkids wisdom teeth (ok, the last one is a bit too much on the DIY scale, but you get my drift.)

There are some things that I CHOOSE not to do myself. Some things that a pro can do more efficiently, safer, better - than I. And I gladly pay them for that.

I can buy a bottle of red wine for two bucks. Or I can spend $10. Or I can spend $100. Is there going to be a difference? Hell yea. Do they have the same amount of alcohol in them? Probably. But, I am willing to spend $10 and get a good bottle of wine. That is my choice. And thank God that I live in a FREE COUNTRY where I can MAKE that CHOICE. (Yes, my tounge was in my cheek.)

Is there going to be people out there who want to spend $500 on a pound of lawn trimmings? Sure. But they are not MY customers. There will always be people who can afford, and want, and will buy ... quality. These are my people.

Go to a Lexus dealership and tell them you want a new car for under $10,000. Go to MacDonalds and tell them you want a steak and lobster dinner.

Personally, I don't worry about competition. I am willing to put my product up against anyone elses and let the consumer decide. I have NO problem with capitalism and free market.

Open the doors, let the bidding begin.

4harley

09-01-2010, 12:48 PM

so many things i want to sat 2 you.you dont seem to get.

OhNoYaDont

09-01-2010, 11:58 PM

so many things i want to sat 2 you.you dont seem to get.

put down the pipe for a minute and sat em.

SmokeNRun

09-02-2010, 12:22 AM

Wouldn't it be great once pot is legalized in November, the government uses some of those newly acquired tax dollars to develop an accurate test for drivers who are under the influence of bud.

Don't know if it was said in this thread yet or not. But I have a buddy that just moved from Cali. and he said they in fact do have a breath test for MJ. It might be a mouth swab test though IDK know the details I just know that is what he told me.

SmokeNRun

09-02-2010, 12:26 AM

I'm a medical marijuana patient and grow in a 3x3 space and I am NOT FOR LEGALIZATION!!!! VOTE NO!!!! FUCK RICHARD LEE!!! Seriously folks I have friends that are big in the med game and that's all this bill is about!!!! Richard Lee and his cohorts want to have EVERYBODY buy off them!!! Sure you'll have a 5x5 area but for how long??? Hope you don't live by a school! The thing that rang out the loudest for me was when I heard JACK HERER say "THIS BILL IS NOT FOR THE PEOPLE" and he said to vote NO on this bill and he fought for legalization his whole life. This bill is just going to take "Medical Marijuana" away from the people and give it to BIG BUSINESS and say FUCK YOU to all the counties that have supplied our smoke all these years and lost loved ones over and you expect us all to just say "Yea take our business and way of life away from us it's ok" FUCK THAT!!!!! VOTE NO! VOTE NO! VOTE NO! I know that NONE of my friends are voting yes and I have a lot of friends that smoke and grow for themselves I suggest you all do the same!!!! ITS LEGAL ALREADY IN CALI!!!!!!! The dispensaries are being taxed already the state has been getting millions in taxes over the last year so really people who is this going to benefit??? It's the rich and that's all!!!! Things will look all fine and dandy until new bills get put into play putting regulations on licenses and renewal fee's for commercial grows. Counties will say you have to make "X Amount" each year to qualify easily tossing tons of people out of picture from growers to customers. They hate seeing the common man able to make a decent living supplying the clubs and that's what this is about and the way the economy is that's ALL some of us have for a income.... :rastasmoke:
cry me a river. I don't live in Cali. nor do I nor the absolute specifics of this bill. But I believe that if they bill is passed it will open the eyes of other states to start looking MJ legalization as well.

SmokeNRun

09-02-2010, 12:56 AM

I guess all I'm saying is at least its a start. We can always mess with it after the fact, but at least it will start to change peoples minds about MJ.

budlover13

09-02-2010, 04:41 AM

I think that the medical issue and research have opened peoples eyes to some of the benefits of cannabis. I think that the tobacco companies will come in and screw it all up for everyone. I'm voting no and advising my friends and family to do the same.:jointsmile:

middieman440

09-02-2010, 08:29 PM

budlover13

09-02-2010, 11:45 PM

its funny how everyone is saying tobacco comapanies are going to screw stuff up...one thing they are tobacco companies not marijuana companies..im going to laught if it doesnt go through and then laugh when people try to push another bill to go through and the people just laugh..

I REALLY REALLY HOPE THEY TAKE MEDICAL MARIJAUNA AWAY FROM EVERY STATE. and then see what happins...

you vote no means ur in it for making money plain and simple....

your retarted for voting no.because there may not be another chance to do so....get a job and make money the real way...

VOTE YES.AND AFTER IT GOES THROUGH THERE IS ALWAYS TIME TO MAKE CHANGES...

NA YOU KNOW WHAT VOTE NO SO THE GOVERMENT AND STATE SEES THAT LEGALIZING IT ISNT WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT!!
Just because you vote no doesn't mean you don't want legalization. Prop. 19 is a poorly written proposition and that's why I'm voting no. Why doesn't the state let us citizens have a hand in writing the legislation.:jointsmile:

SmokeNRun

09-03-2010, 12:20 AM

its funny how everyone is saying tobacco comapanies are going to screw stuff up...one thing they are tobacco companies not marijuana companies..im going to laught if it doesnt go through and then laugh when people try to push another bill to go through and the people just laugh..

I REALLY REALLY HOPE THEY TAKE MEDICAL MARIJAUNA AWAY FROM EVERY STATE. and then see what happins...

you vote no means ur in it for making money plain and simple....

your retarted for voting no.because there may not be another chance to do so....get a job and make money the real way...

VOTE YES.AND AFTER IT GOES THROUGH THERE IS ALWAYS TIME TO MAKE CHANGES...

NA YOU KNOW WHAT VOTE NO SO THE GOVERMENT AND STATE SEES THAT LEGALIZING IT ISNT WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT!!

Just because you vote no doesn't mean you don't want legalization. Prop. 19 is a poorly written proposition and that's why I'm voting no. Why doesn't the state let us citizens have a hand in writing the legislation.:jointsmile:
Yeah But your missing the point of his post and many others. Here I'll make it big and green for you to see.

SmokeNRun

09-03-2010, 12:21 AM

OhNoYaDont

09-03-2010, 09:07 PM

A poorly written law is NOT the best way to START. There are already too many badly written laws on California's books.

Prop 13 is a good example. It's a tax law that's been around for over 30 years. It was a bad reaction to governments bad practices. Now, we have businesses and big, big corporations that never get reassesed values because they never sell (such as Chevron, for example). It's an unintended consequence that the guy next door to me pays twice as much property taxes for the SAME HOUSE as I do. But hey, someone somewhere was probably saying "Hey, its a good start, we can tune it up later."

Never happened.

I don't need protectionism to insure my income stream. I don't mind competition. You wanna grow your own - go for it. You can't, or don't wanna - my stuff is going to be the best bang for the buck.

You wanna make your own whiskey, go ahead. It's legal. You wanna buy - I recommend Gentleman Jack. Your choice.

I just don't want the gov't to have more control than they already have - and believe me, this law is NOT going to be good for the cause. In ten years, some mealy mouthed politician will be able to say, "See? We tried. It doesn't work. We need to go back to making it illegal."

Unfortunately, I think it will get passed. Potheads are generally a stupid and slow witted lot - and I think it'll get passed. But, I will vote against it.

mountaingems

09-03-2010, 10:04 PM

boaz

09-04-2010, 01:47 AM

did anyone read section 4 there will be harder punnishmetts then before. just for smoking with say your younger sibling you can get 3 to 7 years in a state prision these new sets of laws are bull shit. keep it medical

what is the law right now in California for smoking marijuana with a minor? I'm just asking. anyone know? my bet is 3 to 7 years, or more.

SmokeNRun

09-04-2010, 03:12 PM

what is the law right now in California for smoking marijuana with a minor? I'm just asking. anyone know? my bet is 3 to 7 years, or more.

right? Who cares? Of course the law will get harsher. Adults will have access to MJ alot more frequently, so why wouldn't they increase the punishment? Seeing as how it may happen more often. Why would you want to smoke with minors anyways?

LucidDreamer85

09-04-2010, 08:05 PM

Gatekeeper777

09-04-2010, 08:28 PM

I think I may talk about this on my show.
Sounds like a model plan for the rest of the states.

OhNoYaDont

09-04-2010, 08:34 PM

and then everyone will be happy and sit around and hold hands and sing "Kume bay ya" and peace and harmony will rule Mother Gaia during the Age of Aquarius.

Yes, it IS a wonderful dream.

Now, lets get back to the real world.

The government is not a teet from which all goodness flows. Government is a necessary evil at best - and pure evil at it's worst. Government needs to get the hell out of my bedroom, out of my garden, out of my personal finances.

The gov't is not THEM. And we are US. We are all the same. In the United States, The People IS the government. We are one. The problem is that We The People have given up that right. The guy in the White House right now is a Muslim Socialist; which is exactly the opposite of the Christian Capitalists that have been in that job since the beginning of our country over 200 years ago. He was elected by a majority of the sheeple out there to micromanage our lives. We asked for that - now we got it. Get it?

We deserve what we get. We asked for the gov't to take over our lives. We flat GAVE AWAY our freedoms and rights. Traded them for the gov't teet.

And THAT is why this new California Marijuana law will get voted in. The sheeple just keep on giving more and more power to the gov't in hopes that the gov't will "be forced to put out a good product eventually because people won't go buying shwag joints from a shop." The price is YOUR FREEDOM. Fair enough? The gov't should not be in the 'business' of putting out ANY PRODUCT. The gov'ts job is to protect our borders, patrol the open seas keeping trade lines open, keep interstate highways open, etc. The govt's job is not to grow your damn weed for you so the price and quality is what you expect, comrade. Jeeze. Here's a radical idea for ya: Get offa yer ass and grow your own. You know - WORK.

Hell, I want the gov't to supply a bottle of Gentleman Jack every week. They should be FORCED to make whiskey - that shwag booze that I'm forced to buy should be outlawed. I want the good stuff, and I want the gov't to make it and give it to me. Free.

God help us but we deserve what is happening, and what is going to happen to us.

boaz

09-04-2010, 11:28 PM

and then everyone will be happy and sit around and hold hands and sing "Kume bay ya" and peace and harmony will rule Mother Gaia during the Age of Aquarius. ...

:D :hippy: :pimp:

i'm still waiting for the magical unicorns that were susposed to show up if Obama won. I mean, I voted for McCain, but Obama won. where's my damn unicorn, damn it.

prohibition is the ultimate gov't take over of our personal rights. anyone who defends prohibition is being disingenious at best.

my prediction. IF this prop wins, the really really smart Californian's will take advantage of their new right to grow without being on "a list". the rest of the 99.99% of Californians will not and, thus, would see no effect at all in their normal shopping habits. :twocents:

energyefficient

09-23-2010, 02:27 AM

Isn't everyone around the country just going to continue smoking as much as they do ???

Growers wont' stop growing....

Smokers won't stop smoking....

The government will be forced to put out a good product eventually because people won't go buying shwag joints from a shop........

So they won't make their money and try to act like it's our fault......

If the Gov ever admits it's faults on any issue in this country, then our country automatically becomes that much greater....

Why can't gov work WITH the people, instead of controlling us ?

We don't try to control them....we try to coexist with gov.....why can't they do the same.

Why can't they just BE

what are you on about? since when does the government produce anything? (outside of budget and trade deficits?)

Voting for 19 is voting for civil liberty. I hate feeling like I have to hide the fact i have a MMJ card...Illegal growers be damned. They don't pay taxes like their hard working customers, fuck em!

(I'll just grow my own anyways)
:rastasmoke:

leadmagnet

09-23-2010, 05:52 AM

:D :hippy: :pimp:
I mean, I voted for McCain, but Obama won. where's my damn unicorn, damn it.

I'm guessing you cast a pity vote because you felt sorry for McCain's junkie wife!

Sensimilla420

09-23-2010, 05:55 PM

OhNoYaDont

Dude Thats What Ive Been Saying All Along .:rasta::rasta::rasta:

Iceberg420

09-23-2010, 06:28 PM

OhNoYaDont

09-24-2010, 02:48 AM

Im sorry but Humboldt Co. can suck a d, thats like a city that illegally grew tomatoes and doesnt want anyone else to have tomatoes and they try and make them legal and they throw a big fit lol free the weed! :hippy::hippy:

Go back to Jamaca man. THIS country was founded on freedom from government. (Alcohol, guns, big V8 engines, bigger American hooters).

:rambo:

Quit smoking that chit for a day and learn to think.

:bigsmoke:

jetta17

09-24-2010, 07:50 PM

what are you on about? since when does the government produce anything? (outside of budget and trade deficits?)

Voting for 19 is voting for civil liberty. I hate feeling like I have to hide the fact i have a MMJ card...Illegal growers be damned. They don't pay taxes like their hard working customers, fuck em!

(I'll just grow my own anyways)
:rastasmoke:

I know prop 19 shines through like a gift from god, but please start doing some research into what complications it could create down the road. GMO Cannabis plants are right around the corner from hitting the commercial market. Prop 19 is a gateway for this to happen. I would not trust such a proposition from the government, when the top advocates for prop 19 are petroleum companies and even worse, MONSANTO. Here is a link that I found very recently for this theory. If prop 19 passes, it could create a seed and cannabis genome monopoly that would prosecute any medicinal grower not using the approved GMO seeds from Monsanto. Cannabis could end up like corn or soybeans in America. VOTE NO on 19!!! I would rather see the industry be kept underground than in the hands of corrupt politicians.

Here is the link:

PROPOSITION 19, MONSANTO, AND GMO TERMINATOR CANNABIS | community.kpfz.org (http://community.kpfz.org/node/17)

boaz

09-25-2010, 04:33 PM

jetta17

09-25-2010, 07:10 PM

^ no offense, but I'm not really buying the NWO arguement for voting no, either. Sorro's has helped germinate more than a few med States. do you really think its all a vast conspiracy. even if it is, and it could be, do you really think voting yes or no on Prop 19 would alter the master plan. my guess is they have contingency plans for both paths.

vote yes but keep an eye on them. :stoned:

No offense taken at all. Everyone thinks differently about the topic, but since you asked, I do think that this is a huge conspiracy, its just what the government does. I'm not questioning your intelligence, but if you have ever done some hard research on Monsanto and the Agricultural division of the United States, you will find that this sector has extreme levels of power. Monsanto has ruined the lives of farmers in America, India and Canada with GMO seeds. This just isn't about med states anymore, this is about the integrity of the cannabis plant that we know today. Who cares who is a med state or not; the Federal government obiviously doesn't care either because there are still busts on caregivers throughout these med states.

In the end, I still think that Monsanto will change the face of Cannabis as we know it whether Prop 19 is voted yes or no, but voting no will at least give us and the Cannabis plant time to prepare. The recreational smoker will be gone with the wind in fear of the prosecution of growing seeds that did not come from Monsanto. The genomes have been mapped, the genes that produce THC have been found, plants have been produced to never clone, plants with no THC are being produced as we speak. This stuff is very real, whether you want to believe it or not. If I lived in California, I would definately vote no on the matter just to try and give the industry more time to collect seeds and be ready to go under ground again. Cannabis will never be legal in the US, California seems like a pawn in pushing a new agenda. Believe me or not, in the it is up to all you who can vote. I'll just be here collecting all the landrace and pure stains I can get ahold of, the future will need them.

leadmagnet

09-25-2010, 07:33 PM

... but voting no will at least give us and the Cannabis plant time to prepare.

I think I'd much rather spend my time "preparing" for monsanto et al by sitting cross leg in my living room smokin a doober rather than sittin in some jail cell tokin on some guy's joint; if ya get what I'm sayin.

Yes on 19.

You're just playing into the hands of the prohibitionists. They don't care why you vote no, just that you do vote no.

.

OhNoYaDont

09-26-2010, 01:25 AM

And there you have it.

People who THINK, versus people who "toke on a doober".

Stoners can't grow. Stoners can't work. Stoners can't think. They want "the gummermit to put down those owful profit seekers so I can git my smoke cheap - and the good stuff too! Oh yea, and sum food stamps so I can get ma munchies ... "

It wasn't that long ago that there were more of us than of them. We are now outnumbered.

I shouldn't care. Hell, I'm almost 60 so it'll be ok for the rest of MY life. But, I feel bad for America. It used to be such a great place. The Socialists have taken over. We lost. It took 200 plus years - but, it's over.

boaz

09-26-2010, 11:59 AM

No offense taken at all. Everyone thinks differently about the topic, but since you asked, I do think that this is a huge conspiracy, its just what the government does. I'm not questioning your intelligence, but if you have ever done some hard research on Monsanto and the Agricultural division of the United States, you will find that this sector has extreme levels of power. Monsanto has ruined the lives of farmers in America, India and Canada with GMO seeds. This just isn't about med states anymore, this is about the integrity of the cannabis plant that we know today. Who cares who is a med state or not; the Federal government obiviously doesn't care either because there are still busts on caregivers throughout these med states.

In the end, I still think that Monsanto will change the face of Cannabis as we know it whether Prop 19 is voted yes or no, but voting no will at least give us and the Cannabis plant time to prepare. The recreational smoker will be gone with the wind in fear of the prosecution of growing seeds that did not come from Monsanto. The genomes have been mapped, the genes that produce THC have been found, plants have been produced to never clone, plants with no THC are being produced as we speak. This stuff is very real, whether you want to believe it or not. If I lived in California, I would definately vote no on the matter just to try and give the industry more time to collect seeds and be ready to go under ground again. Cannabis will never be legal in the US, California seems like a pawn in pushing a new agenda. Believe me or not, in the it is up to all you who can vote. I'll just be here collecting all the landrace and pure stains I can get ahold of, the future will need them.

thank you, jetta. you may be right, you do make a good case. :)

now ... that said, think I'll just toke on another doober and ponder it a bit. :rastasmoke: :D

i have constingency plans for either way, too. :smokin:

boaz

09-26-2010, 12:06 PM

... Stoners can't grow. ...

they can't now but cause its illegal. vote yes on prop 19 and they can. :jointsmile:

greenghost

10-01-2010, 06:45 PM

jetta17

10-01-2010, 07:54 PM

as i see it people will get what they've wanted for years. it will help raise money for the state. law enforcement can now fight real crimes instead of easy non-violent crimes which shouldn't be in the first place on citizens. i say vote yes and end this fight because other states will follow. prohibition is a failure and always will be.

Prohibition is a Failure (http://infohemp.com/read/prohibition-is-a-failure/)

I'll tap in my two cents again. I seriously don't think that this prop is here to resolve issues of prohibition, the larger goal is to dominate cannabis through the pharmacutical industry. The whole goal of prop 19 is to allow for Commercialized Cannabis and to allow Monsanto to put his University of Mississippi Schwag onto the market. California will soon put many regulations on the culivation of cannabis. There is an issue larger than prohibition looming in prop 19.

Sorry to seem like a downer on every one's parade here, but once Monsanto gets mentioned anywhere near a species of flora, you know the business is about to go very sour. (In the case of prop 19, some of the top sponsors have very interesting ties with Monsanto Corp.)

nugssgalore

10-01-2010, 08:32 PM

nugssgalore

10-01-2010, 08:34 PM

PS. even if Monsanto comes up with their patented genetically modified seeds, that doesn't mean that everyone has to use them!!!! I grow all my own vegetables and have never used a Monsanto seed.

Get Real. This is about civil liberties and you wanting to protect some kind of income that you have now.

jetta17

10-01-2010, 09:37 PM

Jetta, votiing for the right to smoke and grow will not necessarily condone genetically modified seeds and Big cartel laws that go along with it. In Europe they have outlawed gentically modified seeds of any kind and prosecute Monsanto and the like if people are caught using them.

Your argument doesn't stand up if you look at what has happened in Europe.

I am quite aware that they have banned GM seeds in Europe. The thing with letting GM seeds through the door so easily is that you are also going to let in gene polution. Although this polution may never affect our generation, its the future generations that will have to deal with this crap. Even though you don't use GM seeds now, future generations may not have the same luxury if GM seeds are allowed to break into the markets. Cannabis is almost guaranteed to be GM. Dutch breeders are in on the market too, why do you think that everyone is pushing feminized seeds?! Gene pollution can ruin all wild genetics if allowed to spread. I'm all for human rights and all, but I am also trying to think about the future of this plant. Also, don't worry about me, I can't even vote on 19. I am just trying to bring up some points that many people are looking past.

mikeyman

10-02-2010, 01:29 AM

the party is over for people making big money on pot.:rastasmoke:

Ub3rB0ng

10-03-2010, 02:27 AM

mikeyman

10-03-2010, 07:12 AM

i'm not buying any pot from tobacco companies thats for sure....after all the peoples lives they ruined .They can take a dive for all i care :wtf:

ZeroWingX

10-03-2010, 09:03 PM

the party is over for people making big money on pot.:rastasmoke:

So you'd rather see me in the Unemployment line and The puppet masters of California (Big money Corps) controlling the Market than freelance growers like me who grow for the people, and not profit. You'd Rather have tax than no tax. You'd rather have them tell you how many plants and in what space you can grow? As of now there is a 18 plant limit per Patient with NO GROW SPACE LIMIT!, you want a 5X5 with 3-6 plants? You want to be punished for smoking outside instead of being able to walk down the street with a joint in hand?(AS of now if youâ??re a Medical Marijuana patient there is no law stating you cannot medicate in Public) So let me get this straight because I'm trying to understand this... You want a $50 an ounce tax EVERYTIME you buy, plus the other two Taxes (oh yes there are 3 DIFFERENT TAXES you pay for EVERY purchase) instead of $45-$60 a year for a Script with NO TAX, You want a limit of 5X5 area that you can only put 3-6 plants in and its an instant FELONY if plants are outside of that area, and you want to be confined to indoors only instead of being able to freely smoke where ever and whenever you want?
All because they say its "legal"? and that allows anyone 21+ to have access... ummm anyone 21+ Can Already have access and itâ??s called a script. ANY CALIFORNIA RESIDENT CAN GET IT! All you need is $45-60 bucks and a ID! Think people! Go read the ENTIRE PROP instead of bandwagon jumping....
If its Legal why can DEA bust in my home @ 2am because they say I have plants outside my 5X5 area and jail me? If its "Legal" should the Feds still be able to Harass me?... Thatâ??s "Legal" to you people? Thatâ??s fair? To Tax medication and let the State & Government control yet another aspect of our Lives, if you want to preach cant we just BE then you need to stop and think , quit being freaking sheep because they are leading you strait to slaughter and you are the ones thinking youâ??re getting over on them?! wow...
Example:
You think just because Iâ??m half African American I voted for Obama because he's "Black"? No I liked some of Mc Cains attributes and some of Obama's I RESEARCHED BOTH SIDES, I didnâ??t just jump on the Bandwagon like a lot of you and voted because he was a Democrat or because he was Black. You can try to say thatâ??s not what you did. But come on a good 90% of you know, one of those if not both are the Exact reason you did. I voted because Obama had more Positive than McCain. I READ the proposals of both sides before coming to a decision. Itâ??s really that simple just read people, stop following and start being some leaders. All Chiefs and no Indiansâ?¦
Don't vote Yes because your friend said itâ??s a good idea or because you believe what they tell you. GO READ THE PROP! Itâ??s plain as day bullsh!t yet all you â??YES ON 19!â? Voters just ignore ALL THE BAD for what you think is a positive. Thatâ??s not Logical thatâ??s just being bullheaded and stubborn. A lot of good that has done us so far. Iâ??m not against Marijuana being Legal I WANT THIS, but I want it truly Legal, No grow restrictions that destroy small time growers like me. Hey if 19 said 25X25 I would reconsider, No tax â??You donâ??t tax medicineâ?- Dennis Peron (Father of Prop 215), Keeping the legal right to medicate in public, No stiff Felony laws for smoking such as in front of minors or possessing more than a Ounce on you at a time, and Most of all, no longer making it a â??Drugâ? under Federal Law s it still will be even with 19 passed. Thatâ??s Freedom, not this half a$$ed Prop thatâ??s completely designed for The people with the Most money and the Government to control the Market.
You think just because the Government and state control it the prices will be lower? Hmmm?
You think that 250-400 Ounce you pay now is going to be somehow cheaper? No its not its still going to be 300 ounce now with a lovely 150 MORE tax! WHOOOO thank you sir may I have another!....
Donâ??t be blind, donâ??t be stubborn the world has enough ignorance, educateâ?¦.
One loveâ?¦
:rastasmoke:

mikeyman

10-03-2010, 10:29 PM

So you'd rather see me in the Unemployment line and The puppet masters of California (Big money Corps) controlling the Market than freelance growers like me who grow for the people, and not profit. You'd Rather have tax than no tax. You'd rather have them tell you how many plants and in what space you can grow? As of now there is a 18 plant limit per Patient with NO GROW SPACE LIMIT!, you want a 5X5 with 3-6 plants? You want to be punished for smoking outside instead of being able to walk down the street with a joint in hand?(AS of now if youâ??re a Medical Marijuana patient there is no law stating you cannot medicate in Public) So let me get this straight because I'm trying to understand this... You want a $50 an ounce tax EVERYTIME you buy, plus the other two Taxes (oh yes there are 3 DIFFERENT TAXES you pay for EVERY purchase) instead of $45-$60 a year for a Script with NO TAX, You want a limit of 5X5 area that you can only put 3-6 plants in and its an instant FELONY if plants are outside of that area, and you want to be confined to indoors only instead of being able to freely smoke where ever and whenever you want?
All because they say its "legal"? and that allows anyone 21+ to have access... ummm anyone 21+ Can Already have access and itâ??s called a script. ANY CALIFORNIA RESIDENT CAN GET IT! All you need is $45-60 bucks and a ID! Think people! Go read the ENTIRE PROP instead of bandwagon jumping....
If its Legal why can DEA bust in my home @ 2am because they say I have plants outside my 5X5 area and jail me? If its "Legal" should the Feds still be able to Harass me?... Thatâ??s "Legal" to you people? Thatâ??s fair? To Tax medication and let the State & Government control yet another aspect of our Lives, if you want to preach cant we just BE then you need to stop and think , quit being freaking sheep because they are leading you strait to slaughter and you are the ones thinking youâ??re getting over on them?! wow...
Example:
You think just because Iâ??m half African American I voted for Obama because he's "Black"? No I liked some of Mc Cains attributes and some of Obama's I RESEARCHED BOTH SIDES, I didnâ??t just jump on the Bandwagon like a lot of you and voted because he was a Democrat or because he was Black. You can try to say thatâ??s not what you did. But come on a good 90% of you know, one of those if not both are the Exact reason you did. I voted because Obama had more Positive than McCain. I READ the proposals of both sides before coming to a decision. Itâ??s really that simple just read people, stop following and start being some leaders. All Chiefs and no Indiansâ?¦
Don't vote Yes because your friend said itâ??s a good idea or because you believe what they tell you. GO READ THE PROP! Itâ??s plain as day bullsh!t yet all you â??YES ON 19!â? Voters just ignore ALL THE BAD for what you think is a positive. Thatâ??s not Logical thatâ??s just being bullheaded and stubborn. A lot of good that has done us so far. Iâ??m not against Marijuana being Legal I WANT THIS, but I want it truly Legal, No grow restrictions that destroy small time growers like me. Hey if 19 said 25X25 I would reconsider, No tax â??You donâ??t tax medicineâ?- Dennis Peron (Father of Prop 215), Keeping the legal right to medicate in public, No stiff Felony laws for smoking such as in front of minors or possessing more than a Ounce on you at a time, and Most of all, no longer making it a â??Drugâ? under Federal Law s it still will be even with 19 passed. Thatâ??s Freedom, not this half a$$ed Prop thatâ??s completely designed for The people with the Most money and the Government to control the Market.
You think just because the Government and state control it the prices will be lower? Hmmm?
You think that 250-400 Ounce you pay now is going to be somehow cheaper? No its not its still going to be 300 ounce now with a lovely 150 MORE tax! WHOOOO thank you sir may I have another!....
Donâ??t be blind, donâ??t be stubborn the world has enough ignorance, educateâ?¦.
One loveâ?¦
:rastasmoke:

not really ;;;i have just stated in other post that i plan to buy my meds from small growers and that i will not be buying it from any tobacco companies thats for sure.I don't like the current setup that we have to see a doctor
and it is very wish-washy the way the feds are raiding places and the city says no ,,,the state says yes and no???We need this change.You will be okay if you can market your crop and have a good product.I still disagree.I think the price will come down as more pot is on the market.If the price is still to high ill grow my own.I don't want to see you unemployed brother.It's
just that this change is coming and your in the middle of it.Not my fault your a grower.Perhaps there will be a job in the new industry for you.The big growers up north have been making out real good lately.So good the won't even vote yes for 19

mikeyman

10-03-2010, 10:33 PM

as far as President Obama.I think he is great.I am proud that he is black.
I'm glad we have a younger person as president.

ZeroWingX

10-03-2010, 10:37 PM

as far as President Obama.I think he is great.I am proud that he is black.
I'm glad we have a younger person as president.

Yea Me to, least he's actually working on what he says, but please tell me thats not the only thing you got from me post :wtf:

mikeyman

10-09-2010, 08:57 PM

hi Zero where does it say you have to stay in a 5x5 space?
I don't want to walk down the street and smoke pot.I don't want to see people smoking on the street.I don't want to smoke and drive a car.I don't want the fed breaking into these pot shops and arresting people that work there.I don't want the police constantly harassing pot shops.I don't want my taxes going to the police to do this kind of thing.I don't want to have to get permission from a doctor to get high.That medical maryjane thing was done just to get our foot in the door.When i have a good week at work alot of overtime the government gets almost half of my pay check.How much did the big growers up north kick in to the tax man last year?
As far as 50$ an ounce tax .No one will buy if the price is to high and that means no taxes collected.
It i illegal to drink beer on the street.Pot should have the same laws as booze.Only one or 2 pot shops in a small city and not near schools.

mikeyman

10-09-2010, 09:33 PM

i think we have to right President to push this thing over the top.Soon other states will follow.We have a President that knows what going on.

danknugs420

10-31-2011, 04:43 PM

Whoâ??s to blame for the medical marijuana crackdowns in California?
Who (http://nugs.com/article/whos-to-blame-for-the-medical-marijuana-crackdowns-in-california.html)