10 reasons to vote NO on prop #19 [Archive] - Green Grass Forums

View Full Version : 10 reasons to vote NO on prop #19

VapedG13

08-08-2010, 01:31 AM

middieman440

08-08-2010, 03:51 PM

bigtopsfinn

08-08-2010, 04:22 PM

Ten Reasons to Vote No
1. Proposition 19 isnâ??t really legalization. It only allows possession of up to one ounce of cannabis. Under current California law, an ounce or less of pot isnâ??t an arrestable offense. And soon this amount will be a simple civil infraction. Prop 19 doesnâ??t make any improvements to decriminalization or prop 215.

This is for possession away from the grow area. The prop clearly states that you are allowed to possess as much cannabis at the grow site that can actually be produced by the grow.

2. Prop 19 creates several new cannabis related crimes with extremely severe penalties. Donâ??t pass a joint to a 17 year old, you will be looking at a max of 7 years in state prison, seriously.

Shouldn't be doing that anyways.

3. Prop 19 is solely designed to allow large scale cannabis production by politically connected corporations. Oakland has already granted a license to the Prop 19 Cartel.

What about the 5x5 grow area for personal?

4. Most legal experts agree that Prop 19 is poorly written and will leave police and judges to enforce it at their discretion. For example, consuming cannabis would be illegal in the same "space" as a minor. Police and judges are free to interpret the word "space" to mean the same room, house, or entire apartment complex.

Whatever happened to a trial by jury? Apartment complex? C'mon now...

5. There is no need to rush into a law that will be difficult to change. There are better full legalization laws, including one set to be on the ballot in 2012.

Yup, no hurry. Only been waiting for nearly a century, what's a couple more years and a couple thousand more people in jail?

6. Prop 19 will lead to the walmartization of the cannabis industry. And unfortunately, this will result in lower quality and fixed prices. Limited competition and government control will allow large scale growers to determine prices and dictate quality standards (or lack thereof).

Well that's capitalism for you. Anyone who thinks that legalization can come without bigger players taking their piece of the pie is a fool and doesn't understand the U.S. economy.

Currently the prices are determined by the fear of prosecution. Quality standards are determined by the greedy cash-croppers.

7. Local governments will control the taxation, production, and distribution of cannabis. This is a touchy political issue; most local politicians wonâ??t risk a backlash by allowing dispensaries in their city. This means many people will have to travel long distances or break the law to purchase cannabis.

Instead of buying it, just grow your own.

8. Prop 19 will likely supersede prop 215, adversely affecting medical cannabis users by dictating grow size, possession amount, patient to patient sales, and location of use.

"Likely"? Which genius lawyer came up with this? The prop explicitly states that it cannot affect prop 215.

9. Unbiased cannabis activists do NOT support Prop 19. This includes the late Jack Herer and the co-author of prop 215, Dennis Peron.

Dennis was all about medical. Jack (R.I.P) didn't want the government to have any hand in cannabis regulation. This is impossible.

10. The federal government has decided to not prosecute medical cannabis users. This will not be the case if Prop 19 passes. Many people believe that the passage of Prop 19 will bring an aggressive response from the feds, perhaps putting medical users at risk of losing access to medicine

The feds want to start a war over states' rights? That would bring a huge conflict going beyond medical and recreational smokers. It would be total chaos.

The fed government and police forces are against Prop 19. Voting no means you are siding with them. What the Californians fail to realize is that this has huge implications for the U.S. and the rest of the world, since most of the pressure to make cannabis illegal worldwide (through IMF loans, political and economic pressure) is and has been coming from the U.S.

It may not be perfect, but it's the best thing out there now. The more you wait, the more people end up in jail and have to continue living in fear of the law.

If you don't like the law, just break it! Isn't that what you are doing now anyways?

middieman440

08-08-2010, 09:01 PM

couldnt say it any better^^^^

Totah Sam

08-08-2010, 11:01 PM

This keeps popping up in ever cannabis forum ad nauseam. It keeps getting shot down over and over again but it persists. I'd like to add to the O.P.'s second point.

2. Prop 19 creates several new cannabis related crimes with extremely severe penalties. Donâ??t pass a joint to a 17 year old, you will be looking at a max of 7 years in state prison, seriously.

Prop 19 only employs the laws already in place and mirror the state's alcohol laws. What you're parroting is a load of bull hockey. :p

Totah Sam

08-08-2010, 11:06 PM

boaz

08-09-2010, 01:45 AM

... 8. Prop 19 will likely supersede prop 215, adversely affecting medical cannabis users by dictating grow size, possession amount, patient to patient sales, and location of use.
...

really? Prop 19 will trump the California Constitution?? :wtf: I'm sorry but I'm calling bs on that.

VapedG13

08-09-2010, 08:21 AM

lets take a closer look at 19

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

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

VapedG13

08-09-2010, 05:09 PM

vote yes and move forward and stop beeing greedy,once its in theres always time to make changes,just like everything else out there it takes time....and the part about passing a joint to a 17 yr old i thought we use this stuff for medical reasons not social gatherings??????

Good point...ok rephraze it.....

your over 21.... you pass the joint to anther ADULT 18-20 (your old enough to die for your country at 18) if caught thats punishable 6 months & $1000

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

VapedG13

08-09-2010, 05:14 PM

This is for possession away from the grow area. The prop clearly states that you are allowed to possess as much cannabis at the grow site that can actually be produced by the grow.

What about the 5x5 grow area for personal?

Take a closer look bro

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.

.

bigtopsfinn

08-09-2010, 06:30 PM

Take a closer look bro

This is talking about purchased product. Do you think that cops are going to require receipts for carrying the weed that you grow yourself? Are they going to ask you to take them to the growroom to prove that you grew it?

There are a lot of generalizations and statements in that second article with no proof or reference to the actual bill, just well written conjecture.

I'm not familiar with legislative procedures in California, but if Prop 19 passes, does that mean it's all over and done with? No chance to change or repeal the prop? No way to improve it in the future?

It's not perfect, but it's a damn good start. Getting a bill passed that all smokers/growers can agree on is impossible because most of the voters don't smoke or grow! These people live totally different lives and don't want to be inconvenienced for our freedom. Some kind of structure and restrictions are needed for it to even have a chance.

VapedG13

08-09-2010, 06:41 PM

I'm not familiar with legislative procedures in California, but if Prop 19 passes, does that mean it's all over and done with? No chance to change or repeal the prop? No way to improve it in the future?

It's not perfect, but it's a damn good start. Getting a bill passed that all smokers/growers can agree on is impossible because most of the voters don't smoke or grow! These people live totally different lives and don't want to be inconvenienced for our freedom. Some kind of structure and restrictions are needed for it to even have a chance.

well you can add on to it

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.

gypski

08-09-2010, 09:25 PM

Just pass the god-damned thing and argue about the pros and cons afterward. Its time to free the plant and the people who use it. :thumbsup:

boaz

08-10-2010, 01:14 AM

...It may not be perfect, but it's the best thing out there now. The more you wait, the more people end up in jail and have to continue living in fear of the law.

If you don't like the law, just break it! Isn't that what you are doing now anyways?

:greenthumb: exactly. California voters have a chance to make history, just as we did a few decades back. it is the next logical step forward and it is time.

Who will be the last Californian to have their lives turned upside down for having a little cannabis. This can all end in Nov. in California.

and, as was said, the rest of States, as well of the rest of the world, will follow suite. It will be the begining of the end of Cannabis Prohibition as we have known it. :smokin:

boaz

08-10-2010, 01:58 AM

Just pass the god-damned thing and argue about the pros and cons afterward. Its time to free the plant and the people who use it. :thumbsup:

:D no doubt.

VapedG13

08-10-2010, 02:23 PM

No no... the feds wont fuck with us at all:thumbsup:

Banks are closing dispensary business accounts currently and have been sending letters to almost all owners.... stating we have till Oct4 to close our accounts.... cause of the Treasury Dept is saying they will be procecuted

Wellsfargo sent us a letter:mad: Looks like its a cash only business:D Good luck to the pot farms

Turning around seventy years of failed drug policy in America is like making an aircraft carrier do a U-Turn. It takes a while, even after the steering wheel is moved.

So even though the Department of Justice has stated that it could care less about medical marijuana, the Treasury Department has been telling banks they could be prosecuted for serving dispensaries.

Bloomberg is reporting on a letter sent from Congress to Treasury, wherein fifteen members of Congress ask Treasury to stop telling banks that. Turns out, Bank of America and San Francisco-centered Wells Fargo have been routinely denying banking services to dispensaries, ostensibly to protect themselves against federal prosecution.

Democratic Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts instructed Treasury to issue guidelines to Americaâ??s banks saying that the federal government wonâ??t go after them for servicing medical marijuana enterprises in states where it is legal. â??If states want to make it legal or not, it should be a state matter,â? Frank said in a telephone interview. â??Itâ??s wrong for the banks to be told by Treasury they canâ??t service them the way they would service any other business.â?

Even if Congress gets Treasury in line, the DEA's budget and mission hasn't changed, let alone the vestigal policies at the DOC, DOT, NIDA, ... you get the point. The fight goes

Wells Fargo says goodbye to medical marijuana dispensaries in Colorado and California

Thumbs Up--all aboard to nowhere!
August 9, 2010
By: Jack Pot
updated 10:48 a.m.
All Rights Reserved
Findmypot.com had heard several weeks ago that Wells Fargo would no longer accept medical marijuana dispensaries in Colorado. We wanted to know if this decision was Colorado specific or was Wells Fargo taking action in California as well.

Therefore, findmypot.com called the public relations department of Wells Fargo Bank in California to learn medical marijuana dispensaries in California will be closed also. The Wells Fargo spokesperson added that in no uncertain terms, if youâ??re a medical marijuana dispensary business, you will be notified to close your account.

The Sunday edition of The Denver Post reported:

Dispensary owners say there are virtually no banks willing to take their business. Wells Fargo & Co., which stopped accepting new dispensary accounts months ago but continued to have a number of pre-existing dispensary accounts, last week began sending out letters to those dispensary owners telling them they have until Oct. 4 to close their accounts.

This should not be a surprise to anyone at the Colorado Division of Banking. Findmypot.com had notified The Banking Commissioner, Mr. Steven Skunk on May 7, 2010 of the storm that was brewing after TCF Bank decided to cancel medical marijuana bank accounts (TCF Bank Will Be Closing All Dispensary Bank Accounts).

Findmypot.com believes this could become a major hurdle for the medical marijuana industry. Therefore, we called the Colorado Banking Commissioner, Mr. Steven Strunk who will research this issue and let us know what alternatives might be available. Apparently, Mr. Strunk has been on the job for just 4 weeks and was unaware of the issues facing the medical marijuana industry.

Unfortunately, findmypot.com never heard back from Mr. Strunk as to the results of his research.

Dispensary owners want to be compliant in all aspects of their business. However, the banking crisis might force some owners to not disclose their type of business out of pure desperation. After submitting extensive documentation and being subjected to background checks by the medical marijuana division for their state license, this is yet another hurdle that the industry must tackle.

How ironic.

Jack

PS: If you know of a bank that will accept mmj business, please post it here or on the forums

boaz

08-11-2010, 12:55 AM

No no... the feds wont fuck with us at all:thumbsup:

Banks are closing dispensary business accounts currently and have been sending letters to almost all owners.... stating we have till Oct4 to close our accounts.... cause of the Treasury Dept is saying they will be procecuted

Wellsfargo sent us a letter:mad: Looks like its a cash only business:D Good luck to the pot farms

:jointsmile: think Barry and Timmy are hedging their bet? this all very interesting.

I wonder who else besides Barney Frank went to bat for us in the congress? We do have a few friends in that branch, sometimes. :twocents:

interesting discussion thank you for all the info here and some great info on your linked site, too. :thumbsup:

So . . . what is everyone opionion on how Barry would react to a yes vote on Prop 19??

Here (http://boards.cannabis.com/activism/188143-federal-state-law-inconsistency-shouldn-t-stop-californians-legalizing-mj.html) is an interesting write up that talks about the mechanism of federalism that drives our republic. Here is part of it below.

...
The federal-state dynamic concerning marijuana is not complicated. Under our system of federalism, both the states and the feds may prohibit commerce in marijuana, but neither is required to do so. Similarly, during alcohol prohibition (1920-33), commerce in alcoholic beverages was prohibited not only by federal law (the Volstead Act) but by the laws of most states. In 1923, New York repealed its state prohibition laws, leaving enforcement, for the remaining 10 years, entirely to the feds. California voters overwhelmingly did the same thing in 1932, one year before national prohibition was repealed.

Let's think this through. If Proposition 19 passes, two important balls roll into the feds' court. The first is that the sole responsibility and expense of enforcing marijuana prohibition will be shifted to them. After Nov. 2, marijuana "offenders" could be arrested only by federal agents, prosecuted only under federal law, and sentenced only to federal detention.

If the feds undertook this, cases involving simple possession cases and small-time marijuana businesspeople, usually relegated to state courts, would flood federal courthouses. But even with a drastic increase in funding for federal enforcement, such activity would barely put a dent in California's marijuana trade, and would fail to stifle California's policy change, as the federal government has failed to do since the first medical marijuana laws were passed 14 years ago. Moreover, justifying the invasion into a state's province to undermine the will of the voters at such great expense to taxpayers would be highly questionable, especially in the current economic climate, not to mention a political climate that is at best lukewarm on prohibitionist policies.

The second ball is even more significant. Voter approval of Proposition 19 would shift to the feds the responsibility and burden of justifying marijuana prohibition in the first place. Now, the Washingtonians who have never questioned decades of anti-pot propaganda can explain to the people of California why we cannot be trusted to determine our state's marijuana policies. Let them endorse the prohibition laws' usefulness as a tool of oppressing minorities. Let them celebrate how minor marijuana violations cost people their jobs, their housing, custody of their kids, and entrap them permanently in vast criminal justice databases. Let them justify the utter hypocrisy of the legal treatment of alcohol and tobacco, as compared with the illegal treatment of marijuana. Let them tell us how many more people will have to be prosecuted and punished before marijuana is eradicated, how much that will cost, and where the money will come from.
...

boaz

08-11-2010, 01:31 AM

...I'm not familiar with legislative procedures in California, but if Prop 19 passes, does that mean it's all over and done with? No chance to change or repeal the prop? No way to improve it in the future?
...

I'm no attorney but the way I understand it is if a Prop is approved by the voters, then it becomes law as is the next day. But, the Cali legislature can act to "amend" it, if they want to at any time and, of course, the voters can sponsor another initiative that could change it.

One example would be Cali Senate Bill SB420 :stoned: that was enacted some years after Prop 215 was voted into law and amended it in some ways. I think they may have allowed the coops but I'm not really sure.

It is interesting, there is actually a paragraph in Prop 19 that talks about acceptable ammendments to it that are consistant with the spirit of it or something. :jointsmile: in other words, they can make it better like changing the 25sf to 200sf or something. :smokin: prolly not likely but ....

boaz

08-11-2010, 01:48 AM

VapedG13

08-11-2010, 02:19 AM

okay just one more point and I'm out here :rastasmoke:

The California Supreme Court ruled that nothing can limit the size of a medical garden except the patients medical need. All those laws passed at the county level that put limits were all thrown out, made null and void.

I'm just not seeing how Prop 19 could possibly affect medical users. Maybe someone could explain that. Prop 215 is very well established law and will remain so irrespective of Prop 19's outcome. right?

More along the lines of you now have a 5x5 area per household...how many you guuna fit in a 5x5? ...that what #19 states.... I think this includes all people med and rec ...it doesnt specify a difference

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.)

intj123

08-11-2010, 06:14 AM

bigtopsfinn

08-11-2010, 07:03 AM

More along the lines of you now have a 5x5 area per household...how many you guuna fit in a 5x5? ...that what #19 states.... I think this includes all people med and rec ...it doesnt specify a difference

I'm not a large producer by any means. I had 2 plants in a 3.5 sq. ft. space, had some problems and still got about 110 grams with a low yielding strain in less than 4 months seed to harvest. More than enough personal smoke for me. With 25 sq. ft. I'd be approaching 800 grams every cycle, that's over 5 pounds a year! In street prices ($50 per 1/8) that's over $32,000. And this is a very moderate example, better growers/strains can produce much more.

But I do understand that the space limitations makes it a pain in the ass for having separate chambers (mothers, clones, veg, bloom) and growing many different strains at once. If this bill does pass I think a similar thing might happen in California as in the Netherlands. People would offer their homes as a place to grow in exchange for growing supplies and a cut of the harvest.

Glad we can keep this civil over here. :jointsmile:

Sorry to hear about your bank troubles Vaped, hope you guys get things figured out :thumbsup:

natrensland

08-11-2010, 09:47 PM

Totah Sam

08-12-2010, 12:33 AM

I'm not a large producer by any means. I had 2 plants in a 3.5 sq. ft. space, had some problems and still got about 110 grams with a low yielding strain in less than 4 months seed to harvest. More than enough personal smoke for me. With 25 sq. ft. I'd be approaching 800 grams every cycle, that's over 5 pounds a year! In street prices ($50 per 1/8) that's over $32,000. And this is a very moderate example, better growers/strains can produce much more.

But I do understand that the space limitations makes it a pain in the ass for having separate chambers (mothers, clones, veg, bloom) and growing many different strains at once. If this bill does pass I think a similar thing might happen in California as in the Netherlands. People would offer their homes as a place to grow in exchange for growing supplies and a cut of the harvest.

Glad we can keep this civil over here. :jointsmile:

Sorry to hear about your bank troubles Vaped, hope you guys get things figured out :thumbsup:

You're forgetting one important point. That's just one grow. You can get 4-6 grows per year depending on the strain. 5 lbs x 4-6 grows = lots of medicine. :p

Totah Sam

08-12-2010, 12:40 AM

Great another excuse for me not to vote and just do what I do as usual, I'm just gonna keep on keepin on and I hope the rest of you do to, and do it without fear because we all know we have clean consciences, the way I see it, in reality, people govern themselves there are no real restraints and if you choose to do so of your own free will you can break any written law that exists, when people want to do something they just will, and if history repeats itself, then like alcohol prohibition, cannabis will also be lifted, just a matter of time, a big issue for me is all these gutless people who live in fear of being tainted by the law and other's judgements, hiding all the time(I dont smoke in public but I'll admit to being a smoker in public that's a plus for having a license), basically they are afraid to even get their license, if everyone came out of their shells there wouldn't be anything that could stop us. I'll be renewing in november so I guess I'll have a chat with the doc about the news, good luck with the debate, but remember that we are all united by cannabis, don't let this silly law shit start dividing you guys, do not be divided and conquered that's those dirty pig's goal, we should unite as one force, the real goal is total freeedom!

Don't let the propaganda from cartels and illegal growers keep you from the ballots. Don't fall for their greed laden blitzkrieg of misinformation and outright lies. Every vote counts and every vote helps. Think of all the people that are looking with hope towards California. Remember that millions of people have lost their freedom because of this stupid prohibition. Tens of thousands have died. Many many more cannot get student loans or jobs because of convictions. This anti-marijuana policy is destroying lives. It's time to put a stop to it and California is leading the pack. We need you California. Help the rest of us.

VapedG13

08-12-2010, 01:10 AM

about the 5x5 ft grow area... I guess its ok if you live alone but what if you have room mates like 3 -4 of them....everyone has to share the space.

I grow big plants too...mine are usually 6-8 oz plants but in a 5x5 i would be lucky to get 2 in a 5x5:D whats the other 3 people going to grow:hippy:

bananablunt

08-12-2010, 10:44 AM

i just wanna grow! Fuck, i live in southern Tx out in a rural area but im to scarred of getting caught. im just 19! No hope for me ever if something dosent happen.

boaz

08-12-2010, 08:20 PM

You're forgetting one important point. That's just one grow. You can get 4-6 grows per year depending on the strain. 5 lbs x 4-6 grows = lots of medicine. :p

:cool: no doubt. some folks on here need to think outside the box here. :jointsmile: and as one member on here pointed out one time . . . 25sf is only two dimensions. where does it say anything about max height?? :rastasmoke: :stoned: somebody had a really cool graphic for this, sort of a grow box to heaven. :D

ages0ne

08-12-2010, 08:30 PM

WHY THE FUCK IS OUR GOVERMENT SO DAM STUPID???????????????????? PLEASE ANYONE????????? SERIOUSLY GANJA IS THE SOLUTION TO MANY PROBLEMS IT VERRY WELL COULD BE THE KEY TO FIXING OUR NATIONAL DEBT. GOD I JUST WANNA SLAP STUPID PEOPLE AND YELL MESQUITO!!!

too funny! I'm reminded of this quote below...

â??it's better to get something worthwhile done using deception than to fail to get something worthwhile done using truth.â?

and where in the hell can I find a copy of this damned prop19? I feel everyone here is making good points. I for 0ne don't want to see the government take control of the Cannabis 'industry'. I need to read this thing for myself before deciding...

I just moved here (Ca) in April, from Colorado, where at best... the Cannabis movement is now starting to get rolling. A few years back, Coloradans were given the opportunity to make Cannabis 'legal' (possess up to an ounce) state wide, but I think it was shot down, sumthing like 46% yea, 54% nae...

There is nothing more I want to see in my lifetime than the COMPLETE legalization of this Medicine... Wonder Plant... what have you. Cannabis is truly a gift from God, and I would not want to vote in more crimes attached to 0ur beloved Medicine of choice.

--sober

p.s. God Bless Us ALL!

boaz

08-12-2010, 08:50 PM

Proposition 19: 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.

boaz

08-12-2010, 09:17 PM

Proposition 19: The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010
Title and Summary:

...

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.

point of info - California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 is the law that was put in place under Prop 215, California's Medical Cannabis Prop from 14 years ago. 11362.7 is the SB 420 that the Cali Congress passed a few years later that amended it, assumingly "to further the purposes of the Act"

that seems pretty explicit to me, nothing in this act will affect med users. :twocents:

boaz

08-12-2010, 09:30 PM

"nothing in this act will affect med users. "

damn 10 minute limit :mad: what I mean is there is nothing that will adversly affect the rights that med user enjoy now. If anything, this will be MUCH better for them because they could purchase their med's over the counter without the need for doctors rec's and being on any lists or databases or anything. everyone wins. :)

ages0ne

08-12-2010, 11:32 PM

Well... to be honest, I have never been a Medicinal User, per say... I've just always enjoyed (as most do) the effects a puff or two can bring. Due to my recent medical problems, did I become interested in trying to become 'recommended' so to become 'legal' and avoid the label of 'criminal'.

IMO, prop 19 does appear beneficial to the state and those currently abiding by state law... however, I don't like the idea of regulatory control once the 'industry' gets going.

I don't know about You all, but my first 'pot' experiences, came with "shwag" or "dirt weed" and was rumored to come from Mexico and just about every bag/sack was littered with seeds. Little did I know at the time, there was a much better quality of herb available and for the most part, us 'kids' were smoking hemp (strain ideally used for industrial purposes)

What I'm getting at is, not long after moving here did I get to try a strain called something like 'Hary/Fire' and this (for me) was by far, the best bud I have ever had the pleasure of smoking. I would hate to see this type of quality vanish, due to the regulations proposed by prop. 19.

I see a bright future ahead for the Cannabis plant and Her users. I believe that with enough Faith and Determination, We will eventually eradicate the prohibition of Cannabis.

Thanks for posting that info boaz. Take Care & God Bless You ALL,

--informed

boaz

08-13-2010, 02:00 AM

... We will eventually eradicate the prohibition of Cannabis.
...

:jointsmile: well said. welcome.

yeah, I can see everyones point that it would suck if it all become one giant mass produced product and quality slides. I believe there will always be a market for the real quality product, even if people have to pay much more for it. sometimes you feel like steak and lobster and other times mc'd's will work. its just a matter of choice and convenience.

I was a card carrying med user for a while and was in a coop once during the delivery!! :eek: :stoned: :stoned: :stoned: this dude came in with the huge plastic bag like mail bag sized full of bud and starts dumping it in the bin on the counter. I gotta believe most of the bud from the big coops are already massively produced in some wherehouse already. I was always happy with their quality but, yeah, the best bud I ever got in Cali was always from a private vendor, so yeah, I say the market should decide all this. may the best bud win. :jointsmile:

Ub3rB0ng

08-13-2010, 04:51 PM

ages0ne

08-13-2010, 06:02 PM

i understand that... I myself have asked friends to 'fire it up', but I wrote that, because that is what was written on the prescription bottle... if I remember correctly, my 'pharmacist' at the time said it was called 'harry faru' er something, but the bottle clearly says 'hary fire'. but yeah, I think one time back in Co, did I receive a sack that was close to the quality I found out here (i.e. plenty of crystals / resin, not too forget the aroma and taste the buds offered). I have always come across buds with the nice crystals and red hairs, but this strain had almost a violet-blue kinda hair found within the buds.

I hope i can gran a recommendation this weekend, and pick up another 1/8 of 'harry fire' if not something as good or better... wish me luck, Peoples :D

--sober 'n goin' outta his mind

Gelco1990

08-14-2010, 08:28 PM

Anyone who believes:

6. Prop 19 will lead to the walmartization of the cannabis industry. And unfortunately, this will result in lower quality and fixed prices. Limited competition and government control will allow large scale growers to determine prices and dictate quality standards (or lack thereof).

Needs to read an economics book. That is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard.

"Walmart" doesnt determine the prices...the comsumers do. The market is simply in equilibrium now so it appears the prices are static, when in reality that is not the case.

Free markets also satisfy the demands of the market place...so if there is an overwhelming demand for high quality product that is what will be produced.

You sir, are INCREDIBLY ignorant when it comes to Economics. I mean you no offense....but dont post this kind of bullshit without atleast taking an intro-business course first.

budlover13

08-14-2010, 09:06 PM

:bigsmoke:It is my personal and humble opinion that all 4:20 friendly folk should vote no on prop 19. I know that the tobacco companies have already bought prime farmland in anticipation of cannabis being legalized. I'm a cig smoker and I wish I could quit. Those unsavory characters will ruin the quality, and add chems like they do to cigs. Pot is not addictive from my experience. I have quit several times for long periods of time(over 1 year) but I can't kick the cigs.

skinzoil

08-14-2010, 09:39 PM

You guys are so ready to give up the last thing the people actually control and i am sure you guys have normal jobs so you don't give a shit, for our destiny to be left in the hands of you obvious total fuckin dipshits (bigtopsfinn, middleman440, gypski, gelco1990) makes me beyond angry.
You guys just wanna sit there and suck your thumbs while the parasites rape you of our last, extremely important, people controlled comodity.
I will deffinetly be seeing you retards in hell!

leadmagnet

08-14-2010, 09:43 PM

Prop 19 won't supersede Prop 215 or SB 420. Prop 19 will compliment them.

Are those who would see us in prison due to their bigotries and hatred of our herb still going to try to do so by misinterpreting the law and attempting to bastardize these kinds of initiatives when they're passed? Well, yeah of course- they've been trying their best to screw us for decades. They are waging a decades long war on our people. Why should these ignorant prohibitionists stop now?

I'm a retired police officer currently working in another position within the field of "criminal justice" and I encourage all to vote yes on prop 19.

Yeah, it'll be a bit of a cluster fu@k while they work out the vague points and discrepancies in the law after it passes- but look at it this way; where would we be now if we were as pesimistic about 215 for cryin out loud?

And yes, it is hard to anticipate what kind of impact the passing of prop 19 will have on those of use who grow and/or participate as medical users. But remember, we're not in this for profit... well, most of us anyway. We do it because we appreciate the herb and all that is positive about it including the relief it provides medically for many within our community.

More importantly though, we can't stand by while our family, friends, neighbors, and associates, are continually criminalized and harassed in the name of this ridiculous "war on drugs" that emphasizes the persecution of cannabis users despite it's widespread use and acceptance.

This "war on drugs" is ridiculous bullsh!t that harms us all; users and non-users alike.

Free the herb. Free OURSELVES! Help keep drugs out of the hands of children.

Vote Yes on Proposition 19.

And yeah, do it for the children.

Lead

bigtopsfinn

08-15-2010, 04:47 AM

Yup, I'm going to hell because I don't care about some gun-totting high school dropouts running around in National Parks and making me pay $100 for 7 grams of herbs/medicine :jointsmile:

stormin94

08-15-2010, 07:43 AM

So, would someone care to explain how massive government intrusion into "our" industry would make things better for us all?

The policies controlling numbers of plants and amount of processed are already some of the most lax in the nation/world. Up here in NorCal, this is a way of life. Everyone does it (probably 50% or more grow and even more smoke it).

An example of just how lax the policies are: the local sheriff/DA have stated they will not even prosecute people in possession of up to five pounds. That's without a permit, recommendation, etc. They've also been quoted stating that they will not pursue prosecution on people with less than 250 plants. That's 10 times what the maximum for one recommendation in Mendocino County. I've talked to many people who have grown around 500 plants, and have been flown many times, or even questioned, but ultimately all got to keep their plants.

This being said, Prop 19 does not affect the worst aspect of cannabis; illegal Mexican drug cartels. These illegal growers open fire on aircraft(civilian, law enforcement, or otherwise), ruin our public lands, and place all of us in danger.

All of this taken into consideration, or set aside, how will "the Man" make our industry any better for us(as californians, not just med patients, rec users, growers, etc)?

I also found it odd that the prop gives no specific amount for which cannabis would be taxed(at least not to my knowledge). Also what keeps the govt from excessively raising the tax on it? How will making cannabis more expensive through taxation improve access for medical patients?

Yet another thing I found potentially troubling is the fact that smaller collectives, and others have to produce the very finest quality goods( buds, edibles, clones, etc) to remain competitive in an already very competitive market. Contrary to popular belief, at the higher end of the cannabis market(medicinal grade), the prices seem to be driven more by quality than quantity. This is the segment of the market which is mostly unaffected by illegal drug cartels and their inferior quality. The law, from my understanding as it is written does not affect the illegal cartels in relation to the effect it would have on the local dispensiaries. I think that simple fact debunks one of prop 19's main potential benefits.

Anyone who thinks that more govt regulation will somehow help med patients, or others, definitely should read up on their history. Can you imagine med patients standing in long lines similar to the DMV waiting for their medicine because prop 19 would make it too difficult to legally grow their own, or if they are unable to grow it themselves dues to physical disability, location, or otherwise?

Also what guarantees that the potential income generated from taxing cannabis would be spent 100% on the causes promissed in the bill?

I'm not going to tell people what they should vote on as we are all united on this site as cannabis lovers(be it medical, or rec, or spiritual), and everyone will have their own opinions about this proposition, I just think that it is almost completely wrong for California's current or future situations. I believe this because it goes extends too far in some areas(which really don't need govt "help") and not far enough in others(IE, illegal cartels, and seemingly forgets about people already imprisoned or on probation for cannabis related "offenses").

In conclusion, let's not forget about the real reason this bill was thought up, MONEY. The same govt that prosecutes/persecutes us has recognized that our industry( and I say our because we made it) can be exploited (at our expense) for their financial gain. If it were a private citizen/company doing this to a private person, it would be called extortion. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see cannabis legalized, without restraint for whatever purpose(except for children/teens), but this bill is really not written, nor intended for our benefit. Anything positive that potentially comes with prop 19 is there for the explicit purpose of winning votes for taxation/ further regulations.

bigtopsfinn

08-15-2010, 08:17 AM

An example of just how lax the policies are: the local sheriff/DA have stated they will not even prosecute people in possession of up to five pounds. That's without a permit, recommendation, etc. They've also been quoted stating that they will not pursue prosecution on people with less than 250 plants. That's 10 times what the maximum for one recommendation in Mendocino County. I've talked to many people who have grown around 500 plants, and have been flown many times, or even questioned, but ultimately all got to keep their plants.

That may be in one county, but not others. All it takes is one dickhead Sheriff who got teased a little too much in school, an over-zealous prosecutor and federal grants to change that.

This being said, Prop 19 does not affect the worst aspect of cannabis; illegal Mexican drug cartels. These illegal growers open fire on aircraft(civilian, law enforcement, or otherwise), ruin our public lands, and place all of us in danger.

I think this issue is a little bigger than what any pro-cannabis prop can deal with. Their major $$$ comes from cocaine, heroine and methamphetamine.

I'm not going to tell people what they should vote on as we are all united on this site as cannabis lovers(be it medical, or rec, or spiritual),

TRUE DAT :thumbsup:

In conclusion, let's not forget about the real reason this bill was thought up, MONEY. The same govt that prosecutes/persecutes us has recognized that our industry( and I say our because we made it) can be exploited (at our expense) for their financial gain.

Sad but this is how big-gov works. Wish there was a better system or I'd still be living in the U.S.

Very good points though, and I agree that as Californians you should do what's best for you. Not living in Cali makes me look at the bigger picture and all the possibilities. People and governments around the world will not be so focused on the details as much as "It's legal in California to grow and possess."

I still don't think this will affect 215, although I could be wrong since I'm not a lawyer. I hope it doesn't, cause it's a good thing you have going on there.

But I have little respect for the amateur cash-croppers. Everyone thinks they have the best and few have any education in plant biology or agriculture. I think when the big businesses take over they will hire professionals who know how to grow the best weed outdoors. Those that try to use chemicals and additives will be out of the game quick.

It's hard to make something completely legal after it's been illegal for so long. I think this is a positive step, though not perfect. Waiting for better props is OK, but no guarantee that they'll get passed either.

Will be interesting to see what happens. :jointsmile:

boaz

08-15-2010, 03:29 PM

i think the flaw in the logic of some people on this is that the current laws in California are largely ignored right now but somehow if those laws are made better then they will all have to be followed to the letter. that makes no sense to me. :wtf:

My guess is that even if this prop passes and is not amended or challeged in court and is actually put into production that it will have no effect on 99% of californians. you may get some non medical sales in the bay area and the really smart people will take advantage of their new right to grow their own legally but most people will see no change.

boaz

08-15-2010, 03:47 PM

"You're Gonna Burn In Hell!!!" :D

:joint1:

leadmagnet

08-16-2010, 12:33 AM

Gelco1990

08-16-2010, 02:28 AM

:thumbsup:^ WELL put

middieman440

08-16-2010, 02:52 AM

people im gonna burn in hell,hahahah wow nice choice of words....whoever else that person mentioned see you there i will be waiting with a nice joint of devil's fire haha..

ok people lets vote no and wait another "high number of years" for something like his to come around......

if you vote and it goes through there is always room for changes always

and if your worried about people putting chemicals in it and what not,. grow your own "chemical" free..

and if big tobacco companies do get involved im pretty dam sure we the people can get together and make another vote that the weed stays chemical free.....that may be a challenge though!

there are always ways around everything..

matter of fact not to be an ahole but maybe everyone who voted yes on medical pot should of voted no,because some of these "medical stores" are selling not so good medicine....grown poorly....whatever the reason may be...if that happend woah boy sh!t woulda been hittin the fan...

and so what if they tax 50 bucks on it,it will be legal....key work LEGAL..not everybody can have their way......

like i said in another thread it doesnt matter what vote goes through..you me and everyone else will still be doing what we have been doing before the whole medical pot came to light...

so yeah come november i hope to be smoking some very legal yummy ganja and say to myself its finally happening.....

what i just wrote may sound stupid but i dont care!

stormin94

08-16-2010, 06:01 AM

If I'm reading you correctly you're saying you got yours up in yer little county up north where you apparently have an agreeable county sheriff and district attorney- so screw the rest of us in the rest of this state?!!!

You know, good county sheriff's and DA's come and go. Probably better we do sumtin about the law rather than rely on the kindness of the local constabulary don't ya think?

I don't live in Mendocino County. The district attorney also sponsored a measure to limit medical patients to 6 plants. This was "Measure B" and was on the June ballot in 2008. Measure B passed by the way with a 54-46% voter approval. It was later repealed in the courts.

No one can deny the fact that the primary reason for prop 19 is to create a new tax on our industry.

bigtopsfinn

08-16-2010, 06:07 AM

No one can deny the fact that the primary reason for prop 19 is to create a new tax on our industry.

Or maybe it's the primary reason that it actually has a chance to pass... Gotta give a little to take a little. Your county wants to take too much? Vote out the parasites! :jointsmile:

boaz

08-16-2010, 12:17 PM

the only actual tax in the prop is in the title. :jointsmile: i think some people might be confusing this with the cali congress' version which was all about the taxes and would have been mandatory state wide, but this is just in the title to get some people to vote for it. any actual tax could only be put it place by the counties but ONLY on non medical retail sales, if they legalize that in that county. sounds like a decent compromise to me. it gives all the power to the local communities to decide. :twocents:

and of course, the people can always go to their local city council meetings and demand non medical sales with no taxes. it is still a gov't of the people for the most part at the local level.

but, as was said earlier, I also appreciate all the discussion here on both sides. we still have a few months to decide so its great to get all the facts on the table here. :greenthumb:

boaz

08-16-2010, 12:58 PM

alright one more comment and then I'm off to work. :jointsmile:

I'm not really seeing the benefit of voting no on the promise that something better could be coming in a few years. its really not an either or decision. you can vote yes on this, see it put into production and then still work hard on the next voter sponsored initiative that might improve this one. Its not like you only get one chance at this.

plus, having this as law and showing everyone look we went this far and the sky did not fall, why not go even further next time. it could only help your case. :twocents:

okay, time to go to work. :( :jointsmile:

middieman440

08-17-2010, 06:12 PM

you avatar pic is cool where was that at did you take it yourself..

boaz

08-18-2010, 12:46 AM

^ thanks man, no I didn't take it myself I snagged it off the internet somewhere. my apologies to ever I borrowed it from. :) I really liked it too, it looks like he's looking over some trees or something saying wassssup?? :jointsmile:

stormin94

08-23-2010, 04:56 AM

Another thing I've found flawed with "legalizing" weed under prop 19 is that it doesn't make seeds legal( if it does say that, I haven't found it yet and stand corrected).

NorCalShooter

08-24-2010, 02:27 PM

10. The federal government has decided to not prosecute medical cannabis users. This will not be the case if Prop 19 passes. Many people believe that the passage of Prop 19 will bring an aggressive response from the feds, perhaps putting medical users at risk of losing access to medicine

ive spoken in LENGTH with the props author and medical patients are 100% EXEMPT in every respect. i even got it ON TAPE for the record.

the main 100% #1 reason most growers DONT want prop 19 to pass is nothing more than their profit margins will fall thru the floor. whos gona want to buy marijuana for $2500 a lb when they can grow it for PENNIES on the dollar?

thats the only reason.

by the by, you no-prop 19 guys can pretty much forget it. its going to pass, period. how do i know? well, almost every single county in california sofar has had meetings on how they are going to spend their "marijuana tax money", with alot of them already drawing up plans, and setting plots aside in the cities and counties to grow. california polls right now still show almost 60% of caloifornians are FOR legalization, so the antis can screm, shout, stamp their feet and cry boohoo because its gonna pass. some counties like shasta are already overlooking non-medical users as they are that sure its going to pass and they dont want to waste time and resources on charges that will most likely be thrown out anyway.

boaz

08-24-2010, 10:50 PM

^ full discloser, I totally support prop 19 but Vap does make a legit point, will the Obama admin reverse their stand on med use if Cali legalizes non medical sales? Will they dust off and send out the herb gestapo again??

My guess is no, it seems he's cool with herb but more comfortable with letting the States take the action while he continues stay out of it but I do agree it is kind of a grey area still. Congress really needs to put this into law. A simple bill that reaffirms the right of States to decide these matter that trumps the CSA is what is needed right now.

This Prop is very explicit about not having any negative effect on med use but those are State laws, the federal response is really kind of an unknown I would guess. But, I don't live out there anymore so other may know more. I really can't see them reversing their stand on med use but they may go after non med sales. time will tell I guess.

I say go for it. :jointsmile: Obama needs California, he is not going to go against the will of the voters, unlike shrub, who never had a prayer of winning there. Clinton did but he seemed to be in bed with the prohibs. :wtf:

feathernorth

08-30-2010, 09:23 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)

There are options to the "Walmartization" of weed. There needs to be more conversation about this in mainstream forums. Have a read and tell me what you think!

boaz

08-30-2010, 11:47 PM

^ just courious, does anyone think there will actually be any retail over the counter sales outside of Oakland? it seems like they have the local politics on their side that might allow it but are they the only ones? $100/oz bud is going take huge volume to pull off, like industrial warehouse size production. Is that going to happen anywhere else but Oakland? I really don't know just courious what the local out there think.

If Oakland is the only one able to pull it off it seems to me that the price won't really affect the rest of California unless people drive from all over the State to buy their bud. Most people probably wouldn't see much of a change in pricing in their area.

But just putting the sales part into the law seems like a good idea to me, especially if you end up with a hostile governor and/or AG. They would have a hard time cracking down on retail sales if the people had just recently reaffirmed their right to do so, as Prop 19 does. :twocents:

mohjong

08-31-2010, 06:41 AM

Actually there's a sad way. What if someone import Mexican dirt brick weed (might be at an even cheaper price if prop19 passed) and then spay them with Bonsai Fertilizer (JWH-018). People whom smok'em probably won't know the difference, soon they would develop cancer and the people who were against marijuana would get their victory round.

bluesteve

08-31-2010, 07:57 AM

energyefficient

08-31-2010, 02:25 PM

Someone actually goes to the trouble to get the facts, clearly & intelligently present them to you, and you still want Prop 19. I give up! Fact is, I'm 63, & I've never been without weed since I was 22, and the fact that it was illegal didn't really bother me all that much, either, and I did get busted for selling in the 80's! And no matter what the govt & the money men do, I'll still have it, and I won't be getting it from them. The worst they can do is keep me from being a commercial grower, so I guess I'll just retire, move to my house in Mexico & keep on tokin'! You guys can live with the results of your actions, and you ain't gonna like 'em!

so if 19 passes what changes for you? why do you think it should not be approved? I don't really see a reason in your paragraph.

If you have always been able to acquire herb illegally I just don't understand how 19 will limit access for anyone?

boaz

08-31-2010, 07:29 PM

Someone actually goes to the trouble to get the facts, clearly & intelligently present them to you, and you still want Prop 19. I give up! Fact is, I'm 63, & I've never been without weed since I was 22, and the fact that it was illegal didn't really bother me all that much, either, and I did get busted for selling in the 80's! And no matter what the govt & the money men do, I'll still have it, and I won't be getting it from them. The worst they can do is keep me from being a commercial grower, so I guess I'll just retire, move to my house in Mexico & keep on tokin'! You guys can live with the results of your actions, and you ain't gonna like 'em!

vaya con dios, amigo. :D pack lots of ammo. :thumbsup:

just kidding, seriously I have not heard one single arguement yet for voting no that holds any water. All I've heard is peoples opinions, speculation and general confusion about the issue. where are the facts that you are refering to?

Claude9

09-03-2010, 11:58 AM

stormin94

09-03-2010, 09:57 PM

vaya con dios, amigo. :D pack lots of ammo. :thumbsup:

just kidding, seriously I have not heard one single arguement yet for voting no that holds any water. All I've heard is peoples opinions, speculation and general confusion about the issue. where are the facts that you are refering to?

I could say exactly the same thing for voting yes on 19. All I hear is speculation about how only wonderful things would happen... all without acknowledgement of potential problems, which really need to be intelligently discussed prior to blindly supporting either side.

I don't support it because I feel it victimizes medical patients by making them have to compete with the general smoking public. I also don't like the fact that the govt would massively exploit our industry with regulations for the small time growers, but fails to mention regulations on the "walmart" weed suppliers or how those would be enforced. No, I don't trust the government's word that 19 will not interfere with medical access.

A simple decriminalization would be the first step in the right direction. If that was the ultimate goal of 19, it wouldn't have any of this tax and regulate nonsense. Smaller steps could make legalization a reality. If you get the big issue out of the way, you don't need a "one size fits all poorly" bill. If one step is taken, we can all examine it's effects and decide what happens next. Placing that in the hands of the govt is not a good idea. Don't confuse regulation and legalization. The govt cares about money and votes. If 19 were the right thing for medical and recreational users and all other groups alike, it wouldn't be set up for the government to make money off of at our expenses.

The government wants money, and it's found something to exploit. It doesn't want to help us, it wants to use us for financial gain.

middieman440

09-06-2010, 12:56 AM

after some long reading,im still for the yes vote.But the only thing is federal law wont change,although the state says it's legal,it's still illeagal under federal law,same as with mmj,still illeagal under federal law,so it really isnt going to make a diffrence on the federal part wich is what we want to change....

so if it does go through with the yes vote i will be happy,but then the president is going to have to change federal law......wich will not happen.

i may be wrong may be right,but only a few months away and we will see.

stormin94

09-06-2010, 01:21 AM

VapedG13

09-06-2010, 08:06 AM

There's a loophole for ya. The goverment can decide one what to do for medical marijuana on the state level, and for the most part, if you adhere to the state laws the federal government won't have much of a say.

For "legaliziation" in general, it's a different ballpark. Marijuana is still classified with cocaine and heroin as far as the federal government is concerned. Prop 19 could very well dictate a change in regulations for medical users, but the federal govt could remove parts of prop 19 (such as the general decriminalization part) and keep the rest of it. This would mean that medical users would have to deal with the burden of more restrictions and pay a non specified amount of tax for their medicine, which would possibly become more difficult to grow themselves legally due to further regulations. All while the people who voted on the bill are stuck with nothing becuase most of them are not medical patients, and marijuana for personal use would still be illegal.

That scenario is a real possibility given the federal governments track record.

Why is it that the US Government has a patent on Marijuana:wtf:

Are they confused in Washington, D.C., or just deceptive? That is the burning question. You be the judge. According to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency â??The FDA noted â??that no sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use.â? This statement was released to the general public after the Feds filed a patent on pot, to corner the market on many of its medicinal uses.

On the one hand, United States federal government officials have consistently denied that marijuana has any medical benefits. On the other, the government actually holds patents for the medical use of the plant.

Just check out US Patent 6630507 titled "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants" which is assigned to The United States of America, as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services

I say there are hidden agendas involed with legalization we know very little about

gypski

09-06-2010, 03:11 PM

I say there are hidden agendas involved with legalization we know very little about

Of course there is. How many chemical additives etc, can be replaced by a natural substance like hemp oil???? Its all about money and greed, not one thing to benefit humanity as a whole. But to line an individuals pockets. Notice corporate growers wanting to pop up. Keep cannabis free so no one can profit from it only. It only has the value placed on it arbitrarily. Supply and demand, simple economics. If any and all can grow, grow grow, where is the corporate value? :D

leadmagnet

09-06-2010, 06:50 PM

I'm not a lawyer but I do have extensive law enforcement experience.

Prop 19 will not supersede prop 215 and SB 420. We will continue to get our recommendations and we will continue to grow as we are now.

What I don't like about prop 19 is that while it won't supersede 215 and 420 it does potentially criminalizes medical patients who medicate in their homes if they have children living with them who are under the age of 18.

The writers of the proposition bent over so far to please the prohibitionists that theyâ??re helping to create a whole new class of criminals.

Maybe I should explain further...

In the State of California peace officer and private citizen powers to arrest are basically the same for misdemeanors. For felonies however; while a felony must have actually been committed for a private person's arrest, peace officers are granted far more leeway if it turns out a crime was not committed. Smoking in the presence of an individual under 18 will be a felony per prop 19.

So while it will take a while for the courts to clearly define the parameters as it relates to the law on the presence of juveniles in the company of medical marijuana patients, a lot of patients are going to be left open to arrest by law enforcement officers for ingesting their cannabis meds in the presence of said juveniles.

leadmagnet

09-06-2010, 06:53 PM

By the way, I do support a yes vote on Proposition 19. In important ways it is a big step forward. However, there will be some issues with the initiative we're going to have to address right away.

Edit: It should also be noted that as a grower I'll potentially have to distribute much more medicine in order to meet my overhead as the result of the subsequent drop in donations due to the drop in value susequent to 19 passing; which sorta sucks.

But hey, small price to pay to help end this "drug" war on our people.

Claude9

09-07-2010, 06:15 AM

boaz

09-08-2010, 02:41 AM

...In the State of California peace officer and private citizen powers to arrest are basically the same for misdemeanors. For felonies however; while a felony must have actually been committed for a private person's arrest, peace officers are granted far more leeway if it turns out a crime was not committed. Smoking in the presence of an individual under 18 will be a felony per prop 19.

So while it will take a while for the courts to clearly define the parameters as it relates to the law on the presence of juveniles in the company of medical marijuana patients, a lot of patients are going to be left open to arrest by law enforcement officers for ingesting their cannabis meds in the presence of said juveniles.

Lead, I would trust your judgement over a lawyers, I mean its one thing to write laws and put them in a book, but being out in the field enforcing them is a whole other kettle fish. :twocents:

but I gotta ask, is it not a felony now to smoke weed in front of a minor? If so are med user exempt from this now. If they are they would still be exempt. I can't imagine that they are actually making the laws any more severe, they are just stating in the prop that this prop will not make those laws null and void. That is the way I read it but I'm not a lawyer either.

One of these nights I'll get a wild hair and look up the actual law as its written now and compare it with the prop, but my read is no new laws just reaffirming that the old laws about minors will not be thrown out if this new prop passes. Is that the way anyone else reads it, or maybe somebody knows the current laws. ??

leadmagnet

09-09-2010, 12:32 AM

Thanks for the kind words boaz.

As far as I'm aware, under California law being in a place where marijuana is being smoked is no longer a crime in California and it hasn't been for years; regardless of the age of the individuals present. Under prop 19 that may change, for the worse.

mikeyman

09-09-2010, 05:00 AM

treat it just like alcohol ...vote yes:thumbsup:

elduderin0

09-10-2010, 03:35 AM

Anyone who votes to keep arresting people for cannabis is a frigging piece of shiz, and should be shot in the street. It wouldn't matter if the limit were 2 grams, only sold 1 mile from any living thing. The point is that it's a beginning. LEGAL. Say that again LEGAL. It is open season on anyone who votes to keep killing Mexicans and pour money into the black market. It will not effect prop 215, that's RIGHT THERE in the text. To side with the prohibitionists makes you no better than a DEA agent, and we all know what should happen to those dog-murdering, life-ruining, cousin-f%cking maggots.

Inciting violence over a vote? You're goddamn right I am.

boaz

09-10-2010, 05:28 AM

^ fuck dude, kinda harsh, hu? there is no need to get rude, this is a forum to discuss this kind of stuff, both sides. i can understand why some people would vote no. do what your conscience tells you but know all the true facts.

but that said, vote yes damnit!! :rastasmoke:

leadmagnet

09-10-2010, 06:13 AM

gypski

09-10-2010, 06:45 PM

boaz

09-11-2010, 03:54 AM

... is it not a felony now to smoke weed in front of a minor? If so are med user exempt from this now. If they are they would still be exempt. I can't imagine that they are actually making the laws any more severe, they are just stating in the prop that this prop will not make those laws null and void. That is the way I read it but I'm not a lawyer either.
...

okay, here (http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/hsc/11357-11362.9.html) is the current law in California. Here is some highlights below.

California Health and Safety Code - Section 11357-11362.9 :: Article 2. Marijuana

11357. (a) Except as authorized by law, every person who possesses
any concentrated cannabis shall be punished by imprisonment in the
county jail for a period of not more than one year or by a fine of
not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by both such fine and
imprisonment, or shall be punished by imprisonment in the state
prison.
(b) Except as authorized by law, every person who possesses not
more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis,
is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not
more than one hundred dollars ($100). Notwithstanding other
provisions of law, if such person has been previously convicted three
or more times of an offense described in this subdivision during the
two-year period immediately preceding the date of commission of the
violation to be charged, the previous convictions shall also be
charged in the accusatory pleading and, if found to be true by the
jury upon a jury trial or by the court upon a court trial or if
admitted by the person, the provisions of Sections 1000.1 and 1000.2
of the Penal Code shall be applicable to him, and the court shall
divert and refer him for education, treatment, or rehabilitation,
without a court hearing or determination or the concurrence of the
district attorney, to an appropriate community program which will
accept him. ...
(c) Except as authorized by law, every person who possesses more
than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis, shall
be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not
more than six months or by a fine of not more than five hundred
dollars ($500), or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(d) Except as authorized by law, every person 18 years of age or
over who possesses not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than
concentrated cannabis, upon the grounds of, or within, any school
providing instruction in kindergarten or any of grades 1 through 12
during hours the school is open for classes or school-related
programs is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine
of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by imprisonment in
the county jail for a period of not more than 10 days, or both.
...
11358. Every person who plants, cultivates, harvests, dries, or
processes any marijuana or any part thereof, except as otherwise
provided by law, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state
prison.

11359. Every person who possesses for sale any marijuana, except as
otherwise provided by law, shall be punished by imprisonment in the
state prison.

11360. (a) Except as otherwise provided by this section or as
authorized by law, every person who transports, imports into this
state, sells, furnishes, administers, or gives away, or offers to
transport, import into this state, sell, furnish, administer, or give
away, or attempts to import into this state or transport any
marijuana shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a
period of two, three or four years.
...
11361. (a) Every person 18 years of age or over who hires, employs,
or uses a minor in unlawfully 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.
...
11362. As used in this article "felony offense," and offense
"punishable as a felony" refer to an offense for which the law
prescribes imprisonment in the state prison as either an alternative
or the sole penalty, regardless of the sentence the particular
defendant received.
...

all of this ^ would be nullified by Prop 19 except for the sections about smoking with minors. There are NO new laws about smoking in front of a minor. The Prop simply states that the current laws would remain in effect. (see below)

(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.

No new law there just saying the old laws are not made null and void by Prop 19.

The only new law that I see is this.

(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.

That ^ as far as I can tell would be a new law. I could understand some not wanting this part but look at all the other laws you get to throw out. seems like a good compromise to me. just don't smoke out with minors, I never have and never plan on it so it would have zero effect on me. Its similar to laws around alcohol, you could do time for giving a beer to someone under 21 but in reality, these laws are never enforced. I personally have no problem with it at all. :twocents:

VapedG13

09-11-2010, 05:19 PM

Vote no so the cartels can stay in business, police can invade people's houses, you're subject to the smell test, you have to piss in a cup to get a job, and the list goes on.

So if that's not reason enough why to vote yes, then you have no reason to bitch and moan when your next on the hit list. :twocents:

There will always be jobs that require you to piss...shit there are people who are legal right now... that have lost there jobs because they smoke medical marijuana and were pissed on the job...its the compaines right... people have tried to sue and lost... as long as its illegal on a federal level..the state will have to watch its back

Cartel???? more people are now growing their own or get it from stores...who wants the cartel's shit ass schwag weed.:D

The poilice... who can say what they are really going to do...they do what serves the blue team the best:wtf:

Anyone who votes to keep arresting people for cannabis is a frigging piece of shiz, and should be shot in the street. It wouldn't matter if the limit were 2 grams, only sold 1 mile from any living thing. The point is that it's a beginning. LEGAL. Say that again LEGAL. It is open season on anyone who votes to keep killing Mexicans and pour money into the black market. It will not effect prop 215, that's RIGHT THERE in the text. To side with the prohibitionists makes you no better than a DEA agent, and we all know what should happen to those dog-murdering, life-ruining, cousin-f%cking maggots.

Inciting violence over a vote? You're goddamn right I am.

hahaha dud you need to mellow out ..mabey hit that bowl again

Gatekeeper777

09-11-2010, 06:21 PM

Voting NO keeps MJ Illegal.
Keeps drug dealers on the street.
Continues to feed the machine that victimizes innocent people.
Finances organized crime and keeps paying for black government op's
.Keeps the government in your personal lives.
VOTE YES on PROP 19.

:rastasmoke:

leadmagnet

09-11-2010, 06:41 PM

(Thany you boaz, shows what a lazy azzhole I am not to have posted the statutes).

As you can see from the California laws as posted by boaz, being in a place- with children or otherwise- is not currently a violation of California state law.

The old misdemeanor of "Being in a place where marijuana is being consumed" was dumped years ago from the statutes. Prop 19 will resurrect the violation and put it on steroids apparently making it a felony to consume cannabis in the presence of children who do not have a medical recommendation.

boaz

09-11-2010, 07:01 PM

(Thank you boaz, shows what a lazy azzhole I am not to have posted the statutes).

As you can see from the California laws as posted by boaz, being in a place- with children or otherwise- is not currently a violation of California state law.

The old misdemeanor of "Being in a place where marijuana is being consumed" was dumped years ago from the statutes. Prop 19 will resurrect the violation and put it on steroids apparently making it a felony to consume cannabis in the presence of children who do not have a medical recommendation.

ahh, it was nothing. thank dogpile.com. :D

Lead, that is just it, tho, I'm not seeing anything in the prop or in the current laws about that. the prop mentions that any laws in place now will not be voided but does not enact any new law regarding smoking around minors. right?

the yeson19 folks have just a few more weeks to clear all this up for good. that 10% undecided group will decide this vote. they need to make sure all the facts on this are crystal clear, there seems to be a lot of confusion about it. i would hope they can start running some really good tv ads to explain all the true facts. i would hate for this to go down because people are misreading the facts. good luck, California.

either way this comes out, still save me a few acres in the country out there for my retirement farm. :jointsmile:

leadmagnet

09-11-2010, 07:02 PM

Cartel???? more people are now growing their own or get it from stores...who wants the cartel's shit ass schwag weed.:D

Even though as much as 50 percent of the cannabis currently present in the US is grown here within this country the feds as well as other actually reliable sources maintain that the Mexican cartels currently receive a minimum 60 percent of their income through illicit cannabis distribution.

With full legalization we would pull the rug from beneath these criminal predators. Without cannabis prohibition many of these thugs would be back on the street corners with their organ grinders and monkeys scratchin for quarters!

leadmagnet

09-11-2010, 07:07 PM

Lead, that is just it, tho, I'm not seeing anything in the prop or in the current laws about that. the prop mentions that any laws in place now will not be voided but does not enact any new law regarding smoking around minors. right?

Maybe I misread something on 19. Let me get back to you on that one!

If I did misspeak on that point I'll be kickin myself in the ass for that one!!!

boaz

09-11-2010, 07:11 PM

Maybe I misread something on 19. Let me get back to you on that one!

If I did misspeak on that point I'll be kickin myself in the ass for that one!!!

no need for that, bro. :jointsmile: this sh*t is totally confusing. damn lawyers. :rastasmoke:

VapedG13

09-11-2010, 07:20 PM

alot more going on in the background than people know:wtf:

Dutch Pimp

09-11-2010, 07:32 PM

if it passes?...it will have a tsunami effect across the country...:thumbsup:..and hit the Feds in the ass sideways..:jointsmile:

VapedG13

09-11-2010, 07:37 PM

if it passes?...it will have a tsunami effect across the country...:thumbsup:..and hit the Feds in the ass sideways..:jointsmile:

hahaha I hear ya bro...but i think it will be the other way round....Feds are guuna hit Cali in the ass:(

Gatekeeper777

09-11-2010, 07:39 PM

VapedG13 what mag is that article out of? Can you scan i t and get a better copy of the issue?
thanks

Dutch Pimp

09-11-2010, 07:44 PM

hahaha I hear ya bro...but i think it will be the other way round....Feds are guuna hit Cali in the ass:(

yes...it is war with the Federals...very harsh.

boaz

09-11-2010, 09:09 PM

i think i'd be more worried about meg than barry. :twocents:

go for it Cali!! make it happen. If I was still living there I would vote for it. :)

VapedG13

09-12-2010, 12:23 AM

VapedG13 what mag is that article out of? Can you scan i t and get a better copy of the issue?
thanks

You should be able to double click on the picture attachment and it blows up quit large...Post 420 magazine out of Colorado

gypski

09-16-2010, 01:56 AM

VapedG13

09-16-2010, 03:42 AM

California Politics Go To Pot.By Tom Fudge

September 14, 2010

SAN DIEGO â?? The San Diego Board of Supervisors took a stand this week on legalizing marijuana in California. The supervisors voted against it. Unanimously. But drive a few hundred miles north and visit the Oakland City Council. They voted in favor of legalization. Unanimously.

.
The subject comes up because weâ??ll be voting this November on the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, a.k.a. Proposition 19. Up until now, marijuana has been legal in California for medicinal uses only. But Prop. 19 would allow the cultivation, sale and use of pot for any reason you desire.

Supporters of legalizing marijuana say passing Prop. 19 could solve a host of social and economic problems.

It would remedy our state budget disaster by generating a huge amount of sales tax revenue. It would free up cops and D.A.â??s to arrest and jail dangerous criminals because they wouldnâ??t waste their time prosecuting people who sell marijuana. So, legalizing the stuff would make us our state richer and safer, not to mention more happy and blissful.

The march toward legalizing marijuana in California began 14 years ago with the passage of Prop. 215, which allowed for medical use. Unfortunately Prop. 215 has been nothing but trouble. It put state law in direct conflict with federal law, which does not allow any sale or use of marijuana. The proposition was also badly written. Itâ??s short and vague, and itâ??s required years of legislative work to try to clarify it for practical use.

Hereâ??s my take on medical marijuana: If cannabis has medicinal value, and some studies show that it has, we already have a tested institution for selling prescription medicine. Itâ??s called a pharmacy. In the ideal world we'd throw out Prop. 215, make sure marijuana clears all of the legal hurdles to get approved for medical use, let doctors prescribe it to worthy patients and let patients pick it up at their local drug store.

If, on the other hand, California voters decide to legalize marijuana for medical and recreational use by passing Prop. 19, itâ??s a whole new ballgame and (I assume) a whole new fight between the state and the feds.

Last year, Obamaâ??s justice department said theyâ??d look the other way if marijuana use was allowed under state laws, and they would not enforce federal prohibitions. But that policy was made with the understanding that any legal marijuana use was medicinal. If people are selling and smoking pot just to get stoned the feds may get over their case of couch lock and start enforcing their laws.

Also, I wonderâ?¦ If California unilaterally legalizes marijuana use and cultivation, would that reduce the influence of illegal drug cartels -- as Prop. 19 supporters suppose -- or would it create a profitable and protected market for them in California?

Itâ??s possible that smoking pot will be no different from taking a shot of whiskey fifty years from now. There may be no good reason to use recreational drugs, but humans always have and they always will. Some people say getting drunk or high is fundamentally no different from kids, on a playground, spinning around until they get dizzy. Changing consciousness is a fundamental human desire, and drugs are a risky but convenient way to do that.

boaz

09-16-2010, 01:59 PM

Greed and unfounded self-interest that the market will go badly for established growers. Quit being so fucking self-centered and read this. :thumbsup:

It's Time for Unity in the Marijuana Reform Movement | Drugs | AlterNet (http://www.alternet.org/drugs/148189/it's_time_for_unity_in_the_marijuana_reform_moveme nt_)

:greenthumb: xlent read, gypski.

The worst obstructionist arguments come from people who are doing just fine under prohibition. They come from the growers and dealers, who stand to lose a little bit of the tremendous amount of money they make in the illegal market. They come from the guys that think marijuana is only "cool" if it is unregulated, and don't want to lose their status. They come from the young adults who simply do not care if it is legal or not, because they are going to do it anyway.

Never mind that their lifestyles come at the expense of others' freedom! In all seriousness, if you want to be a cool, wealthy outlaw, here is some advice: develop a personality, and buy a motorcycle. :D

VapedG13

09-18-2010, 01:38 AM

here ya go bros :thumbsup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJhBWaNPV3w

boaz

09-18-2010, 03:14 AM

5 x 5 . . . x 5 :wtf: :stoned: too many mistakes (or just out right lies) to even list. Read the California Constitution and the recent California Supreme Court ruling. local gov't can pass all the laws trying to restrict medical users they want but those laws will all be thrown out (again). some cities never learn. :stoned:

some legit concerns, but I don't buy her conclusion. protection to all relevent health and safety section are explicitly written into the prop, which is posted on here somewhere :twocents:

AGBeer

09-21-2010, 02:13 AM

But in the big picture prop 19 isnt just for the benefit of Cali.
It will help the case in other states and possibly even worldwide.

lbezphil2005

09-26-2010, 04:42 PM

This is for possession away from the grow area. The prop clearly states that you are allowed to possess as much cannabis at the grow site that can actually be produced by the grow.

Shouldn't be doing that anyways.

What about the 5x5 grow area for personal?

Whatever happened to a trial by jury? Apartment complex? C'mon now...

Yup, no hurry. Only been waiting for nearly a century, what's a couple more years and a couple thousand more people in jail?

Well that's capitalism for you. Anyone who thinks that legalization can come without bigger players taking their piece of the pie is a fool and doesn't understand the U.S. economy.

Currently the prices are determined by the fear of prosecution. Quality standards are determined by the greedy cash-croppers.

Instead of buying it, just grow your own.

"Likely"? Which genius lawyer came up with this? The prop explicitly states that it cannot affect prop 215.

Dennis was all about medical. Jack (R.I.P) didn't want the government to have any hand in cannabis regulation. This is impossible.

The feds want to start a war over states' rights? That would bring a huge conflict going beyond medical and recreational smokers. It would be total chaos.

The fed government and police forces are against Prop 19. Voting no means you are siding with them. What the Californians fail to realize is that this has huge implications for the U.S. and the rest of the world, since most of the pressure to make cannabis illegal worldwide (through IMF loans, political and economic pressure) is and has been coming from the U.S.

It may not be perfect, but it's the best thing out there now. The more you wait, the more people end up in jail and have to continue living in fear of the law.

If you don't like the law, just break it! Isn't that what you are doing now anyways?

Awesome, bro!!@ Couldn't have said it any better. Makes it great for those of us who would just like to get high without fear of prosecution, thats it.

Kev123

10-01-2010, 07:59 PM

For all of you who are thinking of voting yes, please read this before you do.

WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE PROP. 19: 19 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW
â??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??and it is NOT our only choice. This November, volunteers for the California Hemp and Health Initiative (CCHHI)â??the initiative Jack Herer supported so much he lent his legendary name to itâ??will be collecting signatures to be placed on the CCHHI on the ballot in 2012. Some highlights of this alternative to Prop. 19 include:

--The freedom to grow up to 99 plantsâ??per adult, 21 years of age and older (not per residence as under Prop. 19)â??for personal use.

--Cannabis taxes shall not exceed $10.00 per ounce.

--The freedom to distribute cannabis among adults without a license. (Prop. 19 forbids distributing cannabis except for those who manage to obtain a prohibitively expensive license.)

--The cost of a commercial license shall not exceed $1,000. (The cost for a commercial cannabis vending license in Oakland is $60,000 per year. A commercial grow license is a whopping $211,000 per year.)

--No cannabis tax revenue will be allowed to assist law enforcement. (Prop. 19 specifically allows for marijuana tax revenue to fund law enforcement.)

For those who have doubts about supporting Prop. 19 or the motives behind it, CCHHI is a viable alternative. (For more on CCHHI, visit http://www.jackherer.com/initiative and youthfederation.com // legalize hemp for the environment, the economy (http://youthfederation.com/cchhi2012.html)).

Myth #19: We can vote in Prop. 19, then vote in a better initiative later.
Likelihood: Although 2012 will offer us a brilliant alternative with the CCHHI/Jack Herer Initiative, the more likely scenario is that by that time, big cannabis corporations will have all the money, power, and influence they need to thwart any challenge to their monopoly. What do you suppose are the chances of voting in an initiative like CCHHI--that emphasizes personal freedom over corporations and seeks to fully legalize possession, cultivation, and distribution of marijuana--after the cannabis corporations just spent two years multiplying their millions legally under the monopoly Prop. 19 creates, keeping everyone else out of the market, and making it illegal for you to buy your weed from anyone but them? There IS no chance. For this reason, WE CANNOT VOTE FOR PROP. 19 NOW AND THEN VOTE FOR CCHHI IN 2012 TO REPLACE IT. Because if Prop. 19 gets voted in, then once it's in, big cannabis corporations will make sure it stays in, and that it continues to serve them and not the people.

This is not our only chance to vote yes to legalization, but it may be our only chance to vote no to the corporatization of cannabis.

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 choose 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 choose a better option, like the Jack Herer Initiative, in 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 choose 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.

____________

[1] Bruce Cain. â??War Breaks out Within the Marijuana Legalization Movement (Part 1),â? Examiner. Sept. 26, 2009

[2] J. Craig Canada. â??Proposition 215 author announces boycott of Blue Sky medical marijuana dispensary,â? Examiner. Oct. 15, 2009

[3] Carrie Johnson. â??U.S. Eases Stance on Medical Marijuana,â? Washington Post. Oct. 20, 2009

[4] National Organization for the Reformation of Marijuana Laws.
California Marijuana Penalties - NORML (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4525)

[5] Matt Coker. â??State Bill Would Knock Possession of Less Than an Ounce of Marijuana to an Infraction,â?? Orange County Weekly. Jun. 4, 2010

[6] Mike Males, PhD and Daniel Macallair, MPA. â??Marijuana Arrests and Californiaâ??s Drug War: A Report to the California Legislature,â? Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. 2009. Note: This study also reports the often-quoted statistic of misdemeanor marijuana possession arrests reaching 61,388 in 2008. However, it is important to note that this statistic does not refer to any arrest demographic that the Regulate, Control and Tax Initiative would affect. This statistic refers only to possession of more than one ounce, possession by minors, and possession on school grounds--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 possession of one ounce or less is not an arrestable offense. Therefore, the initiative would have no impact on reducing these arrests rates.

[7] Brian Braiker. â??California: Odd Bedfellows in the Pro-Pot Ballot Initiative,â? ABC News. Apr. 5, 2010

[8] 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.

[9] National Organization for the Reformation of Marijuana Laws. California Marijuana Penalties - NORML (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4525)

[10] 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.

[11] 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.

[12] 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]

[13] 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. (Note: The word â??cultivateâ? is conspicuously absent.)

[14] Brian Braiker. â??California: Odd Bedfellows in the Pro-Pot Ballot Initiative,â? ABC News. Apr. 5, 2010

[15] 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.

[16] 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; [(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]

[17] 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.)

Although this refers to cities that decide not to tax marijuana, even in cities that do choose to tax, the initiative explicitly supersedes medical marijuana law and gives local government control over how much patients can cultivate, as seen in 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. (This section provides no exemptions for medical marijuana law.)

[18] Proposition 215 (Compassionate Use Act): Section 11362.79: Nothing in this article shall authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances: (a) In any place where smoking is prohibited by law.

[19] 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.

[20] Proposition 215 (Compassionate Use Act): Section 11362.79: Nothing in this article shall authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances: (a) In any place where smoking is prohibited by law.

[21] Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls (c) â??Personal consumptionâ? shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis: (ii) consumption in public or in a public place

[22] Trish Regan. â??California's Emerald Triangle: Small Towns, Big Money,â? CNBC Marijuana and Money Special Report. Apr. 20, 2010

[23] Steve Fainaru and William Booth. â??Cartels Face an Economic Battle,â? Washington Post. Oct. 7, 2009

[24] Kate McLean. â??Pot: Semi-legal, Sold Everywhere,â? The Bay Citizen. Jun. 5, 2010

[25] Jesse McKinley. â??Donâ??t Call It â??Potâ?? in This Circle; Itâ??s a Profession,â? New York Times. Apr. 23, 2010

[26] Matthai Kuruvila. â??IGrow: Walmart of Weed Opens in Oakland,â? San Francisco Chronicle. Jan. 28, 2010

[27] Staff. â??Marijuana, Inc Formerly Preachers Coffee Announces Name Change and 420 Friendly Resorts Division,â? Marketwire. May 26, 2010

[28] Marijuana, Inc Formerly Preachers Coffee Announces Name Change and 420 Friendly Resorts Division (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...,1318609.shtml)

[29] Michael Montgomery. â??Plummeting Marijuana Prices Create a Panic in California,â? National Public Radio. May 15, 2010

[30] 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.

[31] John Hoeffel. â??Measure to Legalize Marijuana Will be on California's November Ballot,â? Los Angeles Times. Mar. 25, 2010

[32] Stu Woo. â??Legal-Pot Backers Split on Timing,â? Wall Street Journal. Oct. 3, 2009.

[33] â??California Marijuana Legalization Initiative Effort Underway, Aimed at 2010 Ballot,â? Drug War Chronicle. Jun. 19, 2009

Read the initiative at: taxcannabis.org/index.php/pages/initiative

ZeroWingX

10-02-2010, 04:28 AM

This is a huge mistake. People who believe Illigal growers and so called "Greedy" Farmers are the only ones who want to keep the plant Medical only, are the same sheep the state depends on. You really think The large corp's and corrupt people who run this state and country really wrote this for us? This is a ploy to "legalize" it while they control the system. And all of you line up for slaughter and don't even realize your doing it! To list any more reason why we should vote no would be wasted breath, it would fall on deaf ears. They say its going to be "legal" (only state, Federal is going to come down harder now that more people will grow) its to bad you don't even see what they are doing. The great people who try to educate you and steer you to the right path , you ignore. RIP Jack Herer(opposed 19), and thank you Denis Peron the grandfather of 215 the ONLY reason we can smoke now without fear!(also opposed 19). Its only to bad all your wise words, and time you spent locked up for all of us were in vain. In Vain to a bunch of fools who say "its time to legalize, just let it pass we will deal with the fact we screwed up later". I hope you realize there will be no going back once we open the flood gates and it will happen just like this, it will be great for about... A month then once they make you all feel like its all good, the plans will set in,California will actually never see this "revenue" just like any other forms of money the state gets. They say its for the people and they are going to use it for this and that, yet you see the condition the states in. Wake up people they tell you lies you believe it, now they re doing it again and because you are sheep follow blindly right into the butcher shop. [Partly because thats all you know how to do.] The few of us who are awake are treated as if we are the ones who are wrong. But by time you all see for yourself who the puppetmasters are leading you it will be to late.
I'm a California Native, Born and raised I love my State and I love my Plants. I would love for it to truely be free, No bullshit 5X5, give me at least 15X15! No DEA Busts for starting a Hemp Farm that grows to make quality Hemp products, no jailtime for blazing in public(as is will if prop 19 passes), Competitions and Events staring our famed lady Marijane. But Sadly this isn't going to happen and this loop-holed BS they are feeding you all isnt the Freedom we all want. This is a Side salad dressed as a main entre'...Don't be fooled, wait for somthing better the Rules and Regulations we have now as Medical are better than the "legal" they are talking about.
One love
:rastasmoke:

mikeyman

10-13-2010, 06:49 AM

myself i don' t have much confidence in this medical maryjane program.Do all cops and Sheriffs in all counties honor that law?The feds are still raiding stores.That would stop with 19:rastasmoke:i'd feel safer growing undr 19 even if its less plants ill buy the rest if i need it and ill be legal for sure

WillyNilly

10-13-2010, 07:57 AM

All you anti-19 people generally admit that you're medical growers, and throw up the same debunked arguments about how 19 will open the door to commercial schwag, and let Monsanto patent every possible medical strain out there, and call it their own.

Wake up. Transnational corporations involved in Big Ag have been screwing the locals (to the point of suicide) for decades.

Of course they want to steal all legitimate strains for every purpose imagineable. Look at what they've done to poor farmers all over the world. It's purely criminal, and they must be stopped.

If you're not aware of it, I feel sorry for you. You're spending way too much time smoking, and not enough time fighting.

I'm voting YES, and I welcome all the legal battles that will inevitably follow.

We've got to break their hold somehow. We can, if we have the first clue, and keep it local. people everywhere have the right to grow whatever they like. Big Ag says no, and they make the rules. Get informed, and save not only the right to grow cannabis, but whatever else any person wants to grow themselves.

Vote yes, then pay attention.

Theym420

10-13-2010, 08:43 AM

mikeyman

10-14-2010, 06:35 PM

one thing i think will happen under 19 is some regulation on pestisides used .
This is a concern for me.I want to know what i'm smoking is clean and not harmful to my lungs.Now we don't know what they are doing to the pot.:rasta:

VapedG13

10-14-2010, 07:39 PM

greenghost

10-15-2010, 11:21 PM

while i do understand what you're saying why you would vote no, but that is not enough to vote no. we need a yes because we need people to realize that this drug is ok to be legalized fully and that includes federally....if california does it then other states such as colorado will follow, etc....and look the cops don't even want to enforce it if it does get passed so we need it pass and start putting these officials to the test, especially since they don't care about our rights.

Loca Sheriffs in LA will still force Federal laws (http://cannabiszone.com/local-sheriffs-in-la-will-still-force-federal-laws-if-prop-19-passes/)

leadmagnet

10-16-2010, 12:08 AM

hahaha right the Feds will stop raiding .....Cali wants super marijuana warehouses....Feds will be on it like stink on shit

Well, we'll see. And you think that is a good enough reason to vote no? You don't want to take the chance of pissing off poor little Mr. Holder? Surely you jest!