PDA

View Full Version : California??s Prop 19: A Word-for-Word Analysis



boaz
08-09-2010, 02:04 AM
California??s Prop 19: A Word-for-Word Analysis

July 19th, 2010 By: Russ Belville,
NORML Outreach Coordinator

Share this Article


I??ve spent the weekend reading various blogs that have sprouted up in opposition to Proposition 19, California??s effort to legalize marijuana this November. These ??Stoners Against Legalization? blogs confound me; they remind me of Sam Kinison??s line comparing ??Rock Against Drugs? to ??Christians Against Christ?.

Some of these blogs are based on the notion that legalization would be worse than ??what we have now?. The assumption there is that if you smoke marijuana in California, you must already have your Prop 215 recommendation from a doctor, and you??d be losing your rights under Prop 19.

Most marijuana smokers, believe it or not, are healthy and aren??t comfortable spending money for a doctor to give them permission to use cannabis. Currently we face a ticket, fine, and misdemeanor drug conviction record for possession an ounce or less of cannabis. That record prevents us from getting student aid and can cost us our jobs, child custody, and housing, or if we??re on probation, our freedom. (Even if California succeeds at downgrading possession to an infraction from a misdemeanor, a $100 ticket is a lot of money to some people!) We face a felony charge if we grow even one plant at home. For us, Prop 19 is much better than ??what we have now?.

Another thing that appears in some of these blogs is outright misinformation, such as talk of a $50/ounce state tax (it??s not in the initiative; that was Ammiano??s bill) or that it would supersede Prop 215 (it wouldn??t, and Prop 19 even references Prop 215 in its language, so it couldn??t). Others play up the ??millionaires?, ??big corporations?, and ??monopolies? that would be created and the earnest Emerald Triangle family growers who??d be put out of business (which amuses me: Prop 19 allows localities to regulate sales, so why wouldn??t Humboldt, Trinity, and Mendocino county residents whose economy depends on pot sales lobby really hard to get legalized pot sales OK??d in those counties and cities within, and regulated in a way that protects the small grower?)

Two notable sticking points have to do with minors below 21: Prop 19 creates a new crime in being an adult over 21 who gives marijuana to adults aged 18-20 and Prop 19 forbids adults over 21 from smoking where minors are present. Prop 19??s penalties in the first situation mirror the penalties for giving alcohol to 18-20-year-olds; but, yes, it is disturbing to create a new statute that calls for jail time over marijuana. It??s also questionable whether an adult should be punished for smoking pot if their child can see them ?? we don??t even require that of alcohol and tobacco.

But are these reason enough to continue ruining the lives of people 21 and older? Besides, if you??re over 21 smoking with some 18-year-olds or in front of some minors, and you??re doing it inside your home, who is to know? And if you??re 18-20, wouldn??t you love being legal in 1 to 3 years?

Because the biggest thing Prop 19 does, the forest that these blogs are missing for the trees, is LEGALIZE ADULT MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND POSSESSION.

Even under Prop 215, the adult cannabis consumer is guilty of being a criminal unless proven innocent as a patient. When Prop 19 passes, the adult cannabis consumer is considered innocent until proven guilty. It is a complete game changer for law enforcement, because:

?the smell of marijuana on your person is no longer probable cause to search you;

?that joint in your pocket means nothing;

?the seizure of stems, leaves, and seeds from your trash is irrelevant;

?a couple of baggies with weed residue in them are just garbage;

?the sight of that bong on your table visible through the kitchen window isn??t a ??welcome? mat for a police search;

?your utility bills raising a bit for water and lights don??t matter;

?your neighbors smelling skunky plants is just a nuisance, not the source for an ??anonymous tip?;

?receipts for lights, soil, fertilizer, ballasts, trimmers, and stuff are meaningless;

?infrared signatures of your home aren??t evidence of anything;

?marijuana sniffing K-9 units are out of a job; and

?pre-employment drug testing programs become harder for businesses to maintain for cannabis.

Basically, one of the simplest tools law enforcement has for harassing cannabis consumers ?? the sight and smell of cannabis and paraphernalia ?? is no longer in the tool belt. As long as you??re an adult, keep your grow in a 5′x5′ area, don??t smoke in front of kids, and don??t leave the house with over an ounce, you are free from police harassment.

And even if you don??t follow the law perfectly, who??s to know? :rastasmoke: If you??re pulled over and there??s an ounce and a half in your backpack, how does that cop know? Does it ??smell heavy? in your car? So long as you refuse a search, how will he know? The smell of pot isn??t cause for a search; you??re allowed to have an ounce of it.

If you have a 10′x10′ garden, who??s to know? Is the electric bill that much higher? Does the garden smell more (probably not at all if you build a good grow room)? Plus don??t forget that you??re allowed to have more than one ounce, namely, any amount that you grow within your 5′x5′ garden, at the location of the garden. I think by the time law enforcement came back with a warrant to investigate how big my garden is, three-fourths of it would be cut down and I would suddenly have my 5′x5′ garden and my hanging plants from the last 5′x5′ area I harvested.

Suppose there is four pounds of marijuana at my house. Why, officer, that??s the results from my last legal 5′x5′ personal garden harvest. What, you don??t see any 5′x5′ growing space? Well, I used to grow, but I took down my garden and sold my equipment after my last harvest. Why, yes, they were some pretty big plants. No, I didn??t take any pictures, because what I was doing was perfectly legal. (Prop 19 also has a nice affirmative defense to claim the marijuana in your home was for your personal use. These blogs never seem to notice that.)

So on The NORML Stash Blog I??ve decided to write a word-for-word analysis of Prop 19, mainly because it seems like many of the people against it have never read it. Standard disclaimer: I am no lawyer? hell, I??m not even a college graduate. Click here to read my Word-for-Word Analysis of Prop 19.

California??s Prop 19: A Word-for-Word Analysis | NORML Blog, Marijuana Law Reform (http://blog.norml.org/2010/07/19/californias-prop-19-a-word-for-word-analysis/)

boaz
08-10-2010, 01:42 AM
another point is any firearm you may have at your LEGAL grow site is nothing more than your constitutionally guaranteed right to protect yourself and can no longer become additional felony charges that will add years to your sentence. :thumbsup: that would be a bonus, too.

Claude9
09-03-2010, 12:00 PM
I've seen this other places, its a good read...

bluesteve
09-03-2010, 07:08 PM
If you're not a lawyer and not a college grad, you have no business making any kind of word for word analysis of Prop 19. Only someone truly versed in the law is qualified to do so. Your position at NORML doesn't impress me, and I find you to be a fool!

Claude9
09-03-2010, 08:50 PM
Calm down now... I generally don't deal with negativity like that. I'm always down for a conversation but that tones looking for an argument. I'm good on that....

Keep it Ez....

boaz
09-04-2010, 01:54 AM
Calm down now... ....

:D no shit.

Claude9
09-07-2010, 06:16 AM
Wooord. ^^^

You would think people would be chill on a weed board... guess its time to re-up... lol...

J/K...

WillyNilly
09-27-2010, 09:55 PM
It seems obvious that greedy corporations, rich growers, etc., would try to take advantage of a legalized market. What can you do?

Who's taking advantage of the current illegal market? Drug cartels? Gray-area medical growers? Plain old folks just trying to make a buck?

The prop won't be perfect, and will have to be considered by local communities, but a fair process will result in at least a few cities that recognize the benefits of legalization, and work to make it profitable.

Another aspect is tourism. $80-something billion last year in Cali. It was 90-something billion a year before. How many college students would rather go to spring break where they don't have to worry about getting busted for weed any more than getting busted for alcohol? People vacation in Amsterdam just so they can toke up without worrying. How many more will come here?

Think about N. Cal wine-and-weed tours! The skiers, surfers, and visitors to Disneyland who can chill at the end of the day with a few tokes and not worry about getting busted and all those hassles.

Yes, there will no doubt be giant, greedy corporations trying all kinds of tricks to control the new market. We can regulate that. There will be more laws coming down the road. This is just the first step.

mikeyman
09-27-2010, 10:48 PM
i know it is difficult to VISULIZE THIS BUT TRY TO THINK OF BOOZE AND HOW IT IS REGULATED AND sold.This will be the same type of drug.And you can't drive stoned just like you can't drive drunk.You can't give pot to a minor and minors can't buy it.You can't stand on the street and smoke pot just like its against the law to drink on the street:hippy:
There will be big and small size growers and there will so much pot it's gunna be fun

boaz
09-27-2010, 11:46 PM
...There will be big and small size growers and there will so much pot it's gunna be fun

:D yeah, I agree with mikey and willy you have to free yourself from your own pre-prop 19 mind set and visualize what could be. :smokin:

i am one of said touristo's who will, without a doubt, be road tripping in a few weeks to join my brothers and sisters in California for the victory fiestas. :rasta: weed tourism could be f'n huge in Oaksterdam if this prop passes and the new Governor doesn't f with them and Barry stays cool.

boaz
09-28-2010, 12:05 AM
California??s Prop 19: A Word-for-Word Analysis

July 19th, 2010 By: Russ Belville,
...
Two notable sticking points have to do with minors below 21: Prop 19 creates a new crime in being an adult over 21 who gives marijuana to adults aged 18-20 and Prop 19 forbids adults over 21 from smoking where minors are present. Prop 19??s penalties in the first situation mirror the penalties for giving alcohol to 18-20-year-olds; but, yes, it is disturbing to create a new statute that calls for jail time over marijuana. It??s also questionable whether an adult should be punished for smoking pot if their child can see them ?? we don??t even require that of alcohol and tobacco.
...

point of info, I think that section about "Prop 19 forbids adults over 21 from smoking where minors are present." is not correct. Prop 19 says that any law that ALREADY EXISTS on the books right now about smoking in front of a minor would not be nullified by Prop 19. I checked the current codes and I didn't find any current State laws about smoking in front of a minor. It may be a reference to local county and city statutes, but nothing new just saying whatever exists now will still be there Nov. 3rd regarding that. So, I think that part amounts to nothing.

I would challenge anyone to prove me wrong in the actual law. I have it all posted on here somewhere.

The only actual new law prop 19 creates is it would become illegal to give herb to anyone under 21, just like alcohol laws are now. (unless for its for medical reasons under a doctor's rec which I believe has no pre defined age limits)

boaz
09-28-2010, 12:32 AM
^ actually, if you think about it, it is already illegal to give herb to anyone under 21 because its already illegal to give herb to ANYONE right now. So that is not a new law either. NO NEW LAWS AT ALL. just saying current laws about minors will not be nullified by a Yes vote, thats all. How could anyone vote no on this???

boaz
09-28-2010, 12:52 AM
It seems obvious that greedy corporations, rich growers, etc., would try to take advantage of a legalized market. What can you do?

Who's taking advantage of the current illegal market? Drug cartels? Gray-area medical growers? Plain old folks just trying to make a buck?

The prop won't be perfect, and will have to be considered by local communities, but a fair process will result in at least a few cities that recognize the benefits of legalization, and work to make it profitable.

Another aspect is tourism. $80-something billion last year in Cali. It was 90-something billion a year before. How many college students would rather go to spring break where they don't have to worry about getting busted for weed any more than getting busted for alcohol? People vacation in Amsterdam just so they can toke up without worrying. How many more will come here?

Think about N. Cal wine-and-weed tours! The skiers, surfers, and visitors to Disneyland who can chill at the end of the day with a few tokes and not worry about getting busted and all those hassles.

Yes, there will no doubt be giant, greedy corporations trying all kinds of tricks to control the new market. We can regulate that. There will be more laws coming down the road. This is just the first step.

:greenthumb: true. we will continue to regulate greedy corps the same way we do now. a tuff slog, no doubt, but that will continue long after prop 19's vote either way it turns out. :twocents:

vote yes for herb tourism and prepare to the flood of tourist. $$$ :rastasmoke:

Theym420
09-28-2010, 12:58 AM
This could be good :jointsmile:

WillieD
09-28-2010, 01:15 AM
I hear that it is close. Like 49% pro and 51% con.

I hope to god some of these lethargic stoners get out and vote this time around.

boaz
09-28-2010, 12:58 PM
^ here is the latest intrade chart. looking better all the time, about 50/50 right now. some polls are still showing 10% undecided. they will decide the vote.

Yes.on.19.Nov (http://data.intrade.com/graphing/jsp/closingPricesForm.jsp?tradeURL=https://www.intrade.com&contractId=702407)

The voters of California did 14 years ago I am confident they can do it again. :)

mikeyman
09-28-2010, 06:27 PM
well i here that the tables have turned and we are ahead in the polls now...watch the news:stoned:
as far as tax money helping the state of califonia..lol...they never will have enough money

Blazed Deafy
09-28-2010, 11:21 PM
I hear that it is close. Like 49% pro and 51% con.

I hope to god some of these lethargic stoners get out and vote this time around.

they will vote and perhaps i predict the election could be significant turnout dont sweat on hoping

ZeroWingX
09-30-2010, 01:41 AM
If you're not a lawyer and not a college grad, you have no business making any kind of word for word analysis of Prop 19. Only someone truly versed in the law is qualified to do so. Your position at NORML doesn't impress me, and I find you to be a fool!
Agreed What this guy seems not to realize is you also WONT be able to smaoke outside your home, this to me is more offending than anything else. Your not upset about that? Its like the state LOVES making money off you but is ashamed you do it, so shhhh only do it inside. Thats bs treat this for what it truely is. Medication, there is no such thing as a "recreational" smoker. Even if you think you don't have anything medically wrong with you.Well do you smoke because it helps with stress? You still smoke medically, for Mental Stress. So according to prop 19 , shouldn't people only be able to pop asprin in their homes? Can't take Cough syrup in public, ull get thrown in jail! Thats how they are treating Marijuana , but guess you didnt think of that right? If you dont want to pay $45-$50 dollars to smoke legaly , maybe you shouldn't do it. I'd rather not be confined to smoking only in my house, I like blazing and going surfing, it helps me calm down. And guess what I'm not ashamed nor do I get fines or jailed. I have even been cuffed, 10 min later after checking my script,he stood me up appologized and said "Nice surf today huh?, be safe, have a good one". Try that with Prop 19 passed. Your gonna be in for a totaly different time. I just believe maybe we should wait till a better Prop is written up.
One Love
:rastasmoke:

leadmagnet
09-30-2010, 05:33 AM
Every day we wait more people get busted.

Hell, I've been treated like a whore for so long it doesn't even particularly bother me anymoe.

ZeroWingX
09-30-2010, 06:09 PM
There are many other issues with this prop and I'm noticing that its going to be a very close Ballot either way it goes. So I guess if you all want more issues because you feel this prop is going to make it "legal" and free for all 21+ adault's to access go ahead. Its not going to be what you all think and you will regret it, to bad it will be to late by then... Re- read the prop, actually read it instead of looking at these posts and you will start to see its not all sunshine and giggles...
One Love
:rastasmoke:

leadmagnet
09-30-2010, 09:23 PM
Zero, you sign off your post "one love".

How about voting "yes" and signing off "a thousand loves" indicative of the lives that won't get screwed over by continuing this "drug war" upon the passing of 19; at least as it relates to cannabis users!!!

boaz
10-01-2010, 03:27 AM
Agreed What this guy seems not to realize is you also WONT be able to smaoke outside your home, this to me is more offending than anything else. Your not upset about that? ...

Prop 19 says that any laws that EXIST NOW about smoking in front of minors will NOT BECOME NULLIFIED by Prop 19. NO NEW LAWS. existing laws, if there are any in your town, would not be nullified. no offense but its really not that complicated. do people not understand that?

all this stuff about "new laws" for smoking outside etc., is just plain and simple bullshit. either peoples misunderstanding of the written word or their outright lies trying to mislead voters.

middieman440
10-01-2010, 02:35 PM
i dont know about you guys here,but this prop 19 thing is startring to get rediculous,the profit growers are in fear ad say vote no,people say jack didnt want prop 19,me persoanlly i dont care if he did/didnt want it he/us want it 100% free but that will never ever ever ever happen, if something makes money and the people want it the goverment always gets something out of it,.i dont think prop 215 was perfect when if first happend but the people worked together to make it better.....and with prop 19 you/we vote yes get it in action then move towards and correct the things that are wrong...

if you people are so against voting yes i recomend you find another source of income like a job.....

one month away so we will see what happens,california has millions of people compared to the very few people here....


VOTE YES

boaz
10-01-2010, 04:49 PM
i dont know about you guys here,but this prop 19 thing is startring to get rediculous,the profit growers are in fear ad say vote no,people say jack didnt want prop 19,me persoanlly i dont care if he did/didnt want it he/us want it 100% free but that will never ever ever ever happen, if something makes money and the people want it the goverment always gets something out of it,.i dont think prop 215 was perfect when if first happend but the people worked together to make it better.....and with prop 19 you/we vote yes get it in action then move towards and correct the things that are wrong...

if you people are so against voting yes i recomend you find another source of income like a job.....

one month away so we will see what happens,california has millions of people compared to the very few people here....


VOTE YES

:greenthumb: I could not agree more. Case in point, California's Senate Bill 420 :stoned: :D was how the people of California were able to make appropriate changes to Prop 215, such as allowing "not for profit" ;) coops, etc.

And when the local communities tried to force artificial limits on medical gardens the California Supreme Court acted swiftly to correct them and nullified all those laws. They will do it again if needed. They understand that medical use is a voter given right, it can not be taken away by local gov't. and will not be affected in any way by Prop 19. Its fairly straigtforward if you know how to read legal code.

Everyone should read the California Constitution. I love reading it, it is so simple so direct and so powerful. people complain about it being out of control but look what the voters of that State were able to do for medical users in 1996. :greenthumb: I'm sure it has been a tuff slog and will continue to be but the voters of California have all the tools they need to keep pruning and perfecting their own State laws.

But the first step is voting Yes on Prop 19 and germinating the peoples' mandate. Read california's current cannabis laws and visualize nearly all of them being nullified. striked out of existance. that is what Cali Voters can do in few weeks. :smokin:

ZeroWingX
10-02-2010, 04:15 PM
:greenthumb: I could not agree more. Case in point, California's Senate Bill 420 :stoned: :D was how the people of California were able to make appropriate changes to Prop 215, such as allowing "not for profit" ;) coops, etc.

And when the local communities tried to force artificial limits on medical gardens the California Supreme Court acted swiftly to correct them and nullified all those laws. They will do it again if needed. They understand that medical use is a voter given right, it can not be taken away by local gov't. and will not be affected in any way by Prop 19. Its fairly straigtforward if you know how to read legal code.

Everyone should read the California Constitution. I love reading it, it is so simple so direct and so powerful. people complain about it being out of control but look what the voters of that State were able to do for medical users in 1996. :greenthumb: I'm sure it has been a tuff slog and will continue to be but the voters of California have all the tools they need to keep pruning and perfecting their own State laws.

But the first step is voting Yes on Prop 19 and germinating the peoples' mandate. Read california's current cannabis laws and visualize nearly all of them being nullified. striked out of existance. that is what Cali Voters can do in few weeks. :smokin:

Cali Voters can severely mess things up for all medical users and current medical providers. Go read my new post and actually read it. It will address all your so called "yes" counter arguments and hopefully you will start to realize that this isn't just as simple as its legal and no more harassment. There will be EVEN MORE. Now anyone doing grow op can potentially go to jail every time they have a plant outside a 5X5 area, Every time they smoke outside, every time there is a person under 21 present, every time they happen to have a little even 0.1 over an ounce on them, every time they give any medicine to anyone over the age of 21 and is caught (as this is a direct violation and is considered a "sale" that was not taxed and subject to fines to persons involved), Anytime a person under the age of 21 is in possession of marijuana, whether or not you gave it to them (a kid now could blame his dad and get him jailed for not buying him that videogame last week. Yea, that could and probably will happen. Now your 20 year old ex can say you supplied her and guess who the cops are going to believe? Think people...)... To me this isn't freedom, this isn't fair Taxing medication? what is that? And the sad thing is all you are happy as hell about it. Blind leading more blind to the slaughter. Go read and educate yourself and after if you still want yes, I feel so very sorry for your ignorance.
One Love...
:rastasmoke:

boaz
10-03-2010, 02:02 AM
Cali Voters can severely mess things up for all medical users and current medical providers. Go read my new post and actually read it. It will address all your so called "yes" counter arguments and hopefully you will start to realize that this isn't just as simple as its legal and no more harassment. There will be EVEN MORE. Now anyone doing grow op can potentially go to jail every time they have a plant outside a 5X5 area, Every time they smoke outside, every time there is a person under 21 present, every time they happen to have a little even 0.1 over an ounce on them, every time they give any medicine to anyone over the age of 21 and is caught (as this is a direct violation and is considered a "sale" that was not taxed and subject to fines to persons involved), Anytime a person under the age of 21 is in possession of marijuana, whether or not you gave it to them (a kid now could blame his dad and get him jailed for not buying him that videogame last week. Yea, that could and probably will happen. Now your 20 year old ex can say you supplied her and guess who the cops are going to believe? Think people...)... To me this isn't freedom, this isn't fair Taxing medication? what is that? And the sad thing is all you are happy as hell about it. Blind leading more blind to the slaughter. Go read and educate yourself and after if you still want yes, I feel so very sorry for your ignorance.
One Love...
:rastasmoke:

:wtf: do you really think you are "honoring" Jack and Dennis by attaching their names to your lies and mistatements? Do you think the readers of this forum are so stupid that they will believe your lies if you keep telling them over and over and over and try to imply that you are honoring these good men? good luck with this strategy. :jointsmile:

I hate to burst your bubble, sunshine, but you've miscalculated.

I did go re-read this wonderful magical fact filled text that you are referring to and guess what ... its the same old bullshit you've posted before. I was going to give you positive rep anyways for your spirit but then you call me ignorant?? :wtf:

I am not going to debate with you anymore about this issue. continue if you want and try to convice yourself its working. :rastasmoke:

Ub3rB0ng
10-03-2010, 02:12 AM
Cali Voters can severely mess things up for all medical users and current medical providers. Go read my new post and actually read it. It will address all your so called "yes" counter arguments and hopefully you will start to realize that this isn't just as simple as its legal and no more harassment. There will be EVEN MORE. Now anyone doing grow op can potentially go to jail every time they have a plant outside a 5X5 area, Every time they smoke outside, every time there is a person under 21 present, every time they happen to have a little even 0.1 over an ounce on them, every time they give any medicine to anyone over the age of 21 and is caught (as this is a direct violation and is considered a "sale" that was not taxed and subject to fines to persons involved), Anytime a person under the age of 21 is in possession of marijuana, whether or not you gave it to them (a kid now could blame his dad and get him jailed for not buying him that videogame last week. Yea, that could and probably will happen. Now your 20 year old ex can say you supplied her and guess who the cops are going to believe? Think people...)... To me this isn't freedom, this isn't fair Taxing medication? what is that? And the sad thing is all you are happy as hell about it. Blind leading more blind to the slaughter. Go read and educate yourself and after if you still want yes, I feel so very sorry for your ignorance.
One Love...
:rastasmoke:
lmao, all medications have taxes doofus,pull your head out of your ass and start at least trying to show the world you have some logic,also prop.19 has nothin to do with if your a med license holder or not.215 is totally seperate.wanna talk about blind you should actually try having facts you can prove ;) No wonder the world hates ganja,morons like you are the only types folks see.

boaz
10-03-2010, 02:31 AM
... Go read and educate yourself and after if you still want yes, I feel so very sorry for your ignorance.
...

ZeroWing, I thought you were still talking to me in that post but I guess you were just referring to anyone who would vote yes. I did not read that correctly the first time, my mistake. sorry about that. carry on.

but, still we have pointed out many flaws in that text. I won't say that the author is purposely lieing but it is riddled with mistakes and mistatements. a lot of people have pointed that out before.

but I don't even live in California so you guys do what want. :jointsmile: and I guess I can't give you any more positive rep anyway until I spead some around. :)

ZeroWingX
10-04-2010, 12:07 AM
lmao, all medications have taxes doofus,pull your head out of your ass and start at least trying to show the world you have some logic,also prop.19 has nothin to do with if your a med license holder or not.215 is totally seperate.wanna talk about blind you should actually try having facts you can prove ;) No wonder the world hates ganja,morons like you are the only types folks see.

Oh it does? Because it Cancel's out many of Prop 215's Laws, thus why people like Dennis Peron OPPOSE it to begin with. But good try on sounding smart you almost achieved your goal. Almost.
Go vote yes and screw everything that Activist Fought to obtain all these years, thats a wonderful idea. Let the Government control yet another Aspect of our life, because thats a great idea!
:thumbsup: Goodjob buddy gooood Job

Ub3rB0ng
10-04-2010, 12:21 AM
Oh it does? Because it Cancel's out many of Prop 215's Laws, thus why people like Dennis Peron OPPOSE it to begin with. But good try on sounding smart you almost achieved your goal. Almost.
Go vote yes and screw everything that Activist Fought to obtain all these years, thats a wonderful idea. Let the Government control yet another Aspect of our life, because thats a great idea!
:thumbsup: Goodjob buddy gooood Job

its cool, im not the one with small weiner syndrome :D

ZeroWingX
10-04-2010, 12:28 AM
its cool, im not the one with small weiner syndrome :D

hahaha oh wow now who's being childish...
Ok if you want to go School yard tactics your a poopy face.
lol
Come on man least keep this 18+ no need for the dumb shit if you can't defend your Debate stance don't start it.
You have your Opinion, I have mine hopefully you make the right decision. You're Yes and I'm No, so we instantly cancel eachother out. There are others on the Boards who are in the exact same positions. This is going to be close I only hope my patients Can still afford this ridiculas Tax they are implementing. Of course you wouldnt care about that, cuz hey its legal for you right?
Oh btw name one place in the prop where the word "Legal" is used? =)
I'm going to go smoke a bit out in the sun while I still can...excuse me
One love...
:rastasmoke:

Ub3rB0ng
10-04-2010, 12:31 AM
lmao dude,cant you see people are just messin with you because you continue to reply ;)

honeygurl
10-04-2010, 12:54 AM
ok, so how does the bill Ahnold signed yesterday change anything for prop 19?

Ub3rB0ng
10-04-2010, 12:55 AM
it doesnt,mainly because you still gotta pay the fine.its not law till Jan. so means nothing right now anyhow.his last grasp(or first)on trying to be useful,to bad the other 2 folks running for his office are complete morons too.

ZeroWingX
10-04-2010, 01:11 AM
it doesnt,mainly because you still gotta pay the fine.its not law till Jan. so means nothing right now anyhow.his last grasp(or first)on trying to be useful,to bad the other 2 folks running for his office are complete morons too.

First thing we agree on lol
Wait im starting to wonder if u miss-understood my reply for this post...

Ub3rB0ng
10-04-2010, 01:12 AM
lol:jointsmile::jointsmile:

ZeroWingX
10-04-2010, 01:17 AM
Its all good though, I guess I'm going to have to start thinking of a way to still opperate on a 5X5 square, man I wish this law didnt over ride my current No space limitation. But since 215 doesnt have a space restriction they will force even medical providers like me into a 5X5...*sigh* The one freedom I finally get to enjoy and now they want to take it... figures....

leadmagnet
10-13-2010, 05:33 AM
Zero, prop 19 cancels NOTHING about 215. And as it stands now, you can't grow in a ONE INCH by ONE INCH area let alone five foot by five foot area if you're non-medical! You don't know what the heck you're talking about.

VapedG13
10-13-2010, 05:43 AM
Its all good though, I guess I'm going to have to start thinking of a way to still opperate on a 5X5 square, man I wish this law didnt over ride my current No space limitation. But since 215 doesnt have a space restriction they will force even medical providers like me into a 5X5...*sigh* The one freedom I finally get to enjoy and now they want to take it... figures....



Zero, prop 19 cancels NOTHING about 215. And as it stands now, you can't grow in a ONE INCH by ONE INCH area let alone five foot by five foot area if you're non-medical! You don't know what the heck you're talking about.

Zero knows what their saying bro....they are current medical marijuana card holder...they dont have any size limits as proposed by 215

Current card holder will be down sized in space LEGALLY...that doesnt mean all will comply

My current legal space of 12x18 goes down to 5x5.... if 215 passes

Medical Marijuana patients should not have to ater to the same marijuana laws as recreational users....patients need...others want

Just as I belive thast medical should get better prices than recreational users

mikeyman
10-13-2010, 06:20 AM
i thought we could only have 6 plants?

boaz
10-13-2010, 02:18 PM
Zero knows what their saying bro....they are current medical marijuana card holder...they dont have any size limits as proposed by 215

Current card holder will be down sized in space LEGALLY...that doesnt mean all will comply

My current legal space of 12x18 goes down to 5x5.... if 215 passes

Medical Marijuana patients should not have to ater to the same marijuana laws as recreational users....patients need...others want

Just as I belive thast medical should get better prices than recreational users

215 already passed 14 years ago. :rastasmoke: just kidding, bro.

12x18 is a floor for medical gardens, that means your county can up that limit and the Cali supremes have ruled that you medical need trumps all limits, so your only real limit for medical use is your medical need.

Prop 19 changes none of that. but, i think you guys really know that already. :twocents:

WillyNilly
10-13-2010, 03:03 PM
Prop 19 changes none of that. but, i think you guys really know that already. :twocents:It's VERY clear that 19 does NOT affect medical users and growers. Why do people continue to think it does?

Here is the exact wording of the prop:

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 city??s limits remain illegal, but that the city??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.

------------
Even if your community decides to NOT allow commercial sales, ALL the rules that exist now under 215 and 420 remain in place, and all the growers, co-ops, etc., will do business as usual.

You'll also be able to grow a 5x5 patch for personal consumption that you can share with (but not sell to) any other adult. No more busts for having a joint, or passing one around at your next party, or having a bong in your car.

How is that not a major improvement over the laws we have now?

VapedG13
10-13-2010, 06:29 PM
Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.

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 ??cultivate? is conspicuously absent. Whereas today a person with a doctor??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 5??x5?? footprint (around 3-6 plants??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 year??s supply of medicine at one time, as many patients currently do outdoors. And growing indoors??which typically requires special grow lights, an increase in hydro use, and a lot of time and attention??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])??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


Medical Marijuana patients should have different laws that apply to the medical patients

Recreational users should have their own set of laws governing their use

Medical Marijuana patients have a need for weed

Recreational users have a want for weed

All I see is a bunch of recreatioanl users using medical people as a steping stone.....make it legal at all cost.....insted of a stepping stone... you all wanna step all over us

WillyNilly
10-13-2010, 07:25 PM
[facepalm] The bold sections in my above post ARE 215 and 420, and they WON'T CHANGE AT ALL! Get it? Medical users can still grow and use and share as much as they and their doctors decide. They are not limited by prop 19. What part of "except as permitted under" do you not understand?

All the "no" propaganda seems to ignore this.

215: http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/code/hsc/11001-12000/11357-11362.9 (scroll down to 11362.5)

420: California Health and Safety Code 11362.7-11362.83 (http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/code/getcode.html?file=./hsc/11001-12000/11362.7-11362.83)

VapedG13
10-13-2010, 07:47 PM
So your saying medical patients dont have to go by #19 and can grow as they see fit ...this 5x5 grow room restriction will not apply to medical patients:wtf:

The main thing that 19 does is give the recreational user the right to grow and pocess small amounts of weed......We medical patients already have this right:hippy:

The main reason for #19 is the commercialization of marijuana

WillyNilly
10-13-2010, 09:29 PM
Correct on all counts, Vaped G13. Sorry if I got a little snippy, but medical growers and users are exempted from the 5x5 rule. Medical growers and caregivers won't have to do anything different than they do now.

The commercialization of cannabis has always gone on. People pay big bucks for illegally-grown weed. Allowing recreational users to grow a small amount (and cities can allow bigger gardens, if they like) or sell it commercially as licensed vendors will be able to do so, depending on what rules their city comes up with.

For a vision of what it could look like, think of our wine industry. We have big "Gallo"-style wineries, and smaller ones, some of which make world-class fine wines that sell for big bucks. The state (IMHO) has done a good job of making sure there were lots of good wineries, and it makes us billions in taxes and related industries.

If 19 passes, the next step would be to get to know your city councilmembers and tell them you want to make sure there's room for the little guy. I don't want to buy weed at POTCO, myself. Keep the licensing and taxes fair to the "boutique" growers, who will grow the awesome stuff in smaller batches at higher quality. California already has good "certified organic" rules in place- Gimme pure, organic weed, please! It's certified!

Now, we could also do some favors for medical users, too. Growers could get tax credits or something for charitable contributions of their product to medical users who may not be able to afford it. Mention that to the mayor. See what can be done.

Just tossing out an idea, but if recreational users want to help out our fellow Californians who really need it for medicine, we'd need to create mechanisms for doing that, and make sure the world knows we care about more than just making bank. Since every municipality will have to set up their own rules, they'll be looking for the best ways to make it good for everyone, not just a few rich corporations. That is, if we get on them and stay on them.

Anybody else have some ideas about what we can do? If it passes, there will be opportunities to do real good things.

Think I'll start a thread! :rastasmoke:

boaz
10-14-2010, 03:40 AM
Medical Marijuana patients should have different laws that apply to the medical patients.

Recreational users should have their own set of laws governing their use

...

They do. just as Willy cited above, Prop 215 laws are codified into California Health and Safety Code Number 11362.5. Anyone who has ever purchased from a coop in Cali will recognize that code, its stamped on all the products sold there.

If Prop 19 passes, it will be codified into Cali Health and Safety Code Number (insert next available code number here) and large sections of the current non medical code will be striked out, removed from the books. (e.g., the section about doing felony jail time in state prison for growing even one plant.)

The courts understand all that even if not all the consumers do.

boaz
10-14-2010, 04:08 AM
Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.
...
The word ??cultivate? is conspicuously absent. ...

medical cultivation is part of the current Health and Safety codes that are explicitly exempted in the language. Do you guy really not understand that? I'm not trying to be a smart *ss seriously are you seeing something else that I'm not cause what I'm reading seems really straightforward to me. Please cite sections, that would help.

VapedG13
10-14-2010, 04:58 AM
its all in the interpetation




DECONSTRUCTING PROP 19 - HOW YOU LOSE YOUR RIGHTS

The question posed is this:

Does Proposition 19 have an effect on the California Compassionate Use Act, also known as 215, and other laws which protect the rights of medical Cannabis patients? If so, what kind of effect does it have?

After reading this paper you will understand exactly how prop 19 takes away your right to CULTIVATE under 215 and People V. Kelly, WHICH by the way is UNLIMITED. This is because, under 215, you have the right to grow ANY AMOUNT OF CANNABIS you need to meet your health needs. Prop 19 replaces this right with a 5 x 5 square foot garden which can be taxed ??WITHOUT LIMITATION?.

In order to understand how prop 19 does this, we must deconstruct the text itself?

In Section 2B, Paragraph 1 of the Act, it states its purpose is to ??Reform California's cannabis laws?. What are California??s Cannabis laws? Does the Controlled Substance Act qualify as a ??California Cannabis law?? Yes. Does 215 qualify as a ??California Cannabis law?? Yes. This is evidence that the ??purpose? of prop 19 was to reform, among other laws, 215.

In Section 2B, Paragraph 3 of the Act, it states its purpose is to ??Implement a legal regulatory framework to give California more control over the cultivation?of cannabis?. Does ??implementing more control?? over the ??cultivation?? of Cannabis effect 215? Yes. Why? Because cultivation is central to the rights that are protected for medical Cannabis patients under 215. It is a right that is currently unlimited by any state controls. Your health needs are the only limitation in this regard and has the ability to satisfy all cultivation rights you would need.

For example If your growing for Cannabis oil to heal your cancer, or perhaps for Cannabis seed as a nutritious food source, it could take HUNDREDS of plants and THOUSANDS of SQAURE FOOTAGE to meet your health needs.

Section 2B, Paragraph 7 & 8 of prop 19 directly mentions 215, but in what regard?

Paragraph 7 states that if a city decides to not tax and regulate Cannabis, then it shall remain illegal to buy and sell Cannabis within the cities limits, BUT it says ??that the city's citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under?, and then it cites 215 and SB 420. Does this protect medical Cannabis patients right to possess and consume under 215? Yes. Does it protect their right to cultivate? No, the right to cultivate is not mentioned or protected in that paragraph.

Paragraph 8 is very similar to Paragraph 7, though instead of protecting the right to ??possess and consume? under 215 and SB 420, it protects the right to ??buy and sell?. Does this protect the right to cultivate under 215? No, again cultivation is not mentioned.

Section C, Paragraph 1 lists many of the laws which are intended to be limited by Prop 19 and states ??This Act is intended to limit the application and enforcement of state and local laws relating to?cultivation?of cannabis, including but not limited to the following?, the act then fails to list 215. Does this mean that prop 19 was NOT intended to ??limit the application? of 215? No. The Paragraph clearly states that the laws which are intended to be limited are NOT ??limited to the following??, meaning that the list is NOT exhaustive and COULD include 215.

Section C, Paragraph 2 lists the laws which are NOT intended to be limited by prop 19 and states ??This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of the following state laws relating to public health??, this paragraph then fails to list 215.

This means that prop 19 does NOT specifically protect 215 from being limited. If prop 19 was NOT intended to limit 215, why wasn??t 215 listed in Paragraph 2 of Section C? Does 215 relate to public health? Yes. Is this list intended to be exhaustive? Yes, because unlike in Paragraph 1 of the same Section, Paragraph 2 does not include the phrase ??not limited to the following?, which means that out of all the laws that were NOT intended to be limited by prop 19, 215 is NOT ONE OF THEM.

Prop 19 then makes its intent unequivocally clear:

Under Section 3 of proposition 19, at Commercial Regulations and Controls it states:

??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:
cultivation?of cannabis??

As defined at Online English Dictionary from dictionary.net (http://www.dictionary.net), the word ??notwithstanding? is literally defined as follows:

In spite of (despite anything to the contrary).

So in other words, Proposition 19 states the following:

??In spite of any other provision of state or local law to the contrary, 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:
cultivation?of cannabis??

Does the Controlled Substances Act qualify as ??any other provision of state or local law?? Yes. Does 215 qualify as ??any other provision of state or local law?? Yes.

Do the Commercial Regulations and Controls over Cannabis cultivation imposed by prop 19 OVERRIDE the cultivation rights under 215? Yes, because those controls are active despite any other provision of law, which includes not only the Controlled Substances Act, but 215 as well.

In the implementation of Cannabis taxes, regulations, and controls, prop 19 does NOT distinguish between PERSONAL and MEDICAL cultivation.

This means that your UNLIMITED right to cultivate for your health needs which is protected under 215 and People V. Kelly, is being replaced by the ??Commercial Regulations and Controls? and ??Personal Regulations and Controls? imposed in Section 3 of prop 19.

This means that local governments have absolute control over all Cannabis cultivation, limited only to a 5 x 5 space, AND Pursuant to Section 3 of Proposition 19, under ??Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees? local governments have an unlimited authority to TAX all Cannabis cultivation, despite the medical cultivation rights that are protected under 215.

Cities such as Long Beach and Rancho Cordova are already implementing the imposition of outrageous Cannabis cultivation taxes by the square foot if Proposition 19 passes. These taxes also do NOT distinguish between medical and personal cultivation.

So in conclusion, Prop 19 LIMITS your cultivation rights under 215 to a 5 x 5 square foot garden which can be taxed ??without limitation??.

And because Section 3 authorizes ??a local government? to ??adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize?cultivation of cannabis??, and because Section 3 allows local governments to impose taxes ??without limitation?, their ability to impose taxes on personal cultivation is UNLIMITED and can be imposed WITHOUT A LOCAL VOTE.

********Currently under the California Constitution, ??growing crops?? are exempt from ??taxation??, AND in order for a local government to impose a ??general tax?? it must be approved by the electorate with a majority vote. Prop 19 effectively overrides these precedents of the California constitution in regards to Cannabis by giving local governments the authority to tax a ??growing crop?? WITHOUT LIMITATION AND WITHOUT A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE LOCAL PEOPLE!******

WillyNilly
10-14-2010, 06:28 AM
Well, Vaped, you're certainly consistent.

As a resident of Long Beach, I can tell you that you don't have the facts regarding Measure B, which will tax commercial growers, and not touch medical marijuana, as it would violate the state rules under 19, which CLEARLY says that current medical cannabis laws are inviolate, statewide.

Read the article, and you'll see that things are already in flux. I predict that in the first year, lawyers will win the most money, followed by sellers of growing equipment, then commercial sellers.

The losers will be the medical mafia, and all the money they'll lose because recreational smokers won't need a card or a doctor visit to smoke or grow their own.

Measure B would tax marijuana if voters approve Proposition 19 - Press-Telegram (http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_16306914)

leadmagnet
10-14-2010, 06:38 AM
Zero knows what their saying bro....they are current medical marijuana card holder...they dont have any size limits as proposed by 215

Current card holder will be down sized in space LEGALLY...that doesnt mean all will comply


Dude, I've been a kali med card holder for years now. I also run a collective. 19 will NOT impact how many plants a cardholder (individual with a medical recommendation) can grow.

Jeez, how some of you people read differently into that initiative simply baffles me.

boaz
10-14-2010, 03:25 PM
its all in the interpetation

:thumbsup: true. thank you for posting that. I am reading it now and will comment later. :stoned: hope I didn't seem rude earlier. :)

WillyNilly
10-14-2010, 05:58 PM
The California supreme court has already ruled that there is no limit to what medical users and caregivers can grow.

California Supreme Court Bolsters Protection For Marijuana Users : Shots - Health News Blog : NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/01/california_supreme_court_bolst.html)

Prop 19 has no effect on 215, 420, or that court ruling. Medical growers can grow as much as they want to. It's already the law.

Medical marijuana profiteers are unhappy that anyone who wants to could grow their own, now, and they wouldn't need a medical card or have to buy from a dispensary.

Anyone 21 or older could possess weed, pipes, etc., and not worry about getting arrested. Bars, coffehouses, or any other businesses could legally sell weed to adults.

This will hurt sales of medical weed because many (if not most) cardholders are recreational users, and don't need marijuana for health reasons.

That's why they're crying. Their little monopoly is about to get smaller if 19 passes.

Want to grow more than a 5x5 plot? Keep your medical card current. Voila! Problem solved!

VapedG13
10-14-2010, 07:44 PM
Paragraph 7 states that if a city decides to not tax and regulate Cannabis, then it shall remain illegal to buy and sell Cannabis within the cities limits, BUT it says ??that the city's citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under?, and then it cites 215 and SB 420.

Does this protect medical Cannabis patients right to possess and consume under 215? Yes.

Does it protect their right to cultivate? No, the right to cultivate is not mentioned or protected in that paragraph.


Paragraph 8 is very similar to Paragraph 7, though instead of protecting the right to ??possess and consume? under 215 and SB 420, it protects the right to ??buy and sell?.

Does this protect the right to cultivate under 215? No, again cultivation is not mentioned.


Section C, Paragraph 1 lists many of the laws which are intended to be limited by Prop 19 and states ??This Act is intended to limit the application and enforcement of state and local laws relating to?cultivation?of cannabis, including but not limited to the following?, the act then fails to list 215.

Does this mean that prop 19 was NOT intended to ??limit the application? of 215? No.

The Paragraph clearly states that the laws which are intended to be limited are NOT ??limited to the following??, meaning that the list is NOT exhaustive and COULD include 215

This means that prop 19 does NOT specifically protect 215 from being limited. If prop 19 was NOT intended to limit 215, why wasn??t 215 listed in Paragraph 2 of Section C? Does 215 relate to public health? Yes. Is this list intended to be exhaustive? Yes, because unlike in Paragraph 1 of the same Section, Paragraph 2 does not include the phrase ??not limited to the following?, which means that out of all the laws that were NOT intended to be limited by prop 19, 215 is NOT ONE OF THEM

greenghost
10-14-2010, 11:10 PM
i think prop 19 would be a great influence to making money in the state....not to mention it would give other states something to look into.


Can Pot Solve California's Budget? (http://cannabiszone.com/can-pot-solve-california%E2%80%99s-budget/)

VapedG13
10-15-2010, 05:38 PM
well even if Cali does vote in legal....the battle has just begun:wtf:



Feds oppose Calif. Prop 19 to legalize marijuana

(10-15) 10:14 PDT San Francisco (AP) --

Attorney General Eric Holder says the federal government will enforce its marijuana laws in California even if voters next month make the state the first in the nation to legalize the drug.

The Justice Department strongly opposes California's Proposition 19 and remains firmly committed to enforcing the federal Controlled Substances Act in all states, Holder wrote in a letter to former chiefs of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter, dated Wednesday.

"We will vigorously enforce the CSA against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law," Holder wrote.

The attorney general also said that legalizing recreational marijuana in California would be a "significant impediment" to the government's joint efforts with state and local law enforcement to target drug traffickers, who often distribute marijuana alongside cocaine and other drugs.

He said the ballot measure's passage would "significantly undermine" efforts to keep California communities safe.

If Proposition 19 passes in November, California would become the first state to legalize and regulate recreational pot use. Adults could possess up to one ounce of the drug and grow small gardens on private property. Local governments would decide whether to allow and tax sales of the drug.

The state has clashed with federal authorities over marijuana since 1996, when voters approved a first-of-its-kind ballot measure that allowed people to grow and use pot for medical purposes. Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana.

Under federal law, marijuana is still strictly illegal. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has the right to enforce its ban regardless of state law.

During the Bush administration, retail pot dispensaries across the state faced regular raids from federal anti-drug agents. Their owners were sometimes sentenced to decades in prison for drug trafficking.

Yet the medical marijuana industry still grew, and has expanded even more since Holder said last year that federal law enforcement would defer to state laws on using it for medicinal purposes.

Some legal scholars and policy analysts have questioned how much the Justice Department could really do on the ground to halt a state-sanctioned recreational pot trade.

Nearly all arrests for marijuana crimes are made at the state level. Of more than 847,000 marijuana-related arrests in 2008, for example, just over 6,300 suspects were booked by federal law enforcement, or fewer than 1 percent.

___

By MARCUS WOHLSEN and PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
Friday, October 15, 2010

WillyNilly
10-15-2010, 06:01 PM
Let's get READY TO RUMBLLLLLLLLE!

It has to start somewhere. :rasta:

gypski
10-15-2010, 06:07 PM
There is a greater rush by the spin doctors and other naysayers in the media and present government over a plant and giving adults the freedom of choice of intoxicating substances then there is over going after and putting behind bars the mortgage, financial, and military/industrial complex bandits who put us in this hole in the first place.

It really makes me believe that stoners have a far better grasp on reality then these fucking morons and spin meisters. :D

Legalized Marijuana in California: Polls Now Show a Close Call (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/14/legalized-marijuana-in-california-now-a-close-call/)

VapedG13
10-15-2010, 06:42 PM
this is the problem


Prop. 19 forces voters to choose between the rights of patients and the rights of recreational users (although we have seen that it will not provide any rights that we either don??t already have, as in the case of possession, or that we can afford to exercise, as in the case of cultivation)??a choice that will inevitably divide the movement. Will you vote yes on Prop. 19 even if it extinguishes the rights of patients??the group of marijuana consumers we should most protect?

Prop. 19 aims to eliminate the black market for marijuana. But it could have the unintended consequence of expanding the black market, because by encouraging exorbitant licensing fees, it would push currently legitimate growers underground.

Currently, anyone with a Prop. 215 recommendation can legally provide marijuana. Under Prop. 19, however, only licensed vendors may distribute marijuana. Although specific licensing arrangements are left up to local governments, Oakland, birthplace of the initiative, has already set the precedent for what other cities will likely follow. Oakland??s licensing process for commercial vending is prohibitively expensive for ordinary citizens. A license costs $60,000 per year??not to mention the application process itself, which is so rigorous that even well-established, law-abiding dispensaries have been denied. Furthermore, Oakland has started a trend that every other city preparing for the possibility of Prop. 19 has adopted??capping the number of licensed dispensaries allowed to operate (in Oakland, that number is four. Conveniently, Richard Lee, the millionaire businessman behind the initiative, owns one of them). A commercial cultivation license is even more prohibitive. The application fee alone is $5,000, a license costs an astronomical $211,000 annually, and only six are allotted. This all but guarantees that average, small-time, legal growers will be shut out of this multibillion-dollar industry and forced underground, expanding the black market that has been consistently dwindling since the passage of Prop. 215 created a legitimate marijuana industry.

These growers, who have invested tens of thousands of dollars creating these presently legal, home-based businesses, are not likely to tear down their grow rooms and apply for a job working the cash register at a dispensary. If they can??t afford the expensive licensing fees that would enable them to participate legally in the green market, it is much more likely that they will take their business to the black market underground, creating the opposite effect of what Prop. 19 intends to do.

Another explicit purpose of Prop. 19 is to limit the viability of Mexican drug cartels. But the reality is that these cartels are already being undermined tremendously, thanks to the legions of small-time farmers growing in California legally since 1996. The Washington Post reports:

??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 potent? product that consumers now demand, according to authorities and marijuana dealers on both sides of the border. ? 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.?

These mom-and-pop growers don??t fit the stereotype of the gang-war era drug pusher or cartel growing irresponsibly and setting forests on fire. ??They are real people, decent people with families to support,? said Steve D??Angelo, owner of Harborside Health Center, the largest and most profitable marijuana dispensary in the world, which buys cannabis from more than 400 small-time farmers. They??re the people you see shopping at your local organic health food store, putting much-needed cash directly into the local economy while the national economy flounders in recession They use the money they earn from providing medicine to finance their kids?? 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 we might end up exchanging one cartel for another??a corporate cartel that would leave a spate of displaced marijuana farmers in its wake. 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. ??Why does this whole new system have to be created?? D??Angelo asked at a City Council meeting. ??Let??s bring these citizen farmers out of the shadows and into the light and give them a role in this new industry.?

But under Prop. 19, the marijuana industry will not be a free market in which everyone has a chance to compete. Instead, it would mark the beginning of the corporatization of cannabis

traincyclura
10-15-2010, 07:24 PM
Someone would actually vote no? Makes me sick! These same people that have their med cards are content, the growers making big bucks are content. Do you know who isn't content? ME, THATS WHO! From what I understand med patiants won't be regulated by 19, so whats the deal? Boaz, youre like refeer madness all over again, spreading BS propaganda! You have yours, now let us have ours. Do you really think that all the med cards are being used by people that actually need them, that whole system is being abused in itself. You say one love, do you mean it? Rome wasn't built in a day. Baby steps man, baby steps. If you say one love, than live one love. Californians can make history in a few weeks for the rest of the country, don't mess it up. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!

WillyNilly
10-15-2010, 07:33 PM
VapedG13 is using the arguments of our current medical mafia, who enjoy making the big bucks with their monopoly.

His arguments have been debunked, but he keeps talking like they weren't. There's no reason to vote against 19.

VapedG13
10-15-2010, 08:03 PM
As medical card holders... there is no reason for us to vote for 19:thumbsup: Almost Anyone in Cali can get a card

This issue is dividing US not uniting US.....Thats why it wont pass:hippy:

Stoners Against the Prop. 19 Tax Cannabis Initiative Stoners Against the Prop. 19 Tax Cannabis Initiative (http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/)

VapedG13
10-15-2010, 08:16 PM
Once you have your card (for a small fee)... you dont have to go to the stores....now you can legally grow your own.

I havent bought any weed for over 15 yrs....get your card grow your own legally.....who said anything about buying from stores...we know they are a rip off:hippy:

Almost anyone can use the system now in place to grow their own weed legally.

Why not just amend 215 for recreational users:thumbsup::D

StoneMeadow
10-15-2010, 09:06 PM
Almost Anyone in Cali can get a card.
No they can't. Only about one-half of one percent of Californians have a mmj card (http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001199). Even if those numbers expanded by ten times, 95% of the population would still be locked out of the system, and exposed to potential State prison time for growing a few plants.

Do you hate your fellow Californians so much that you rather send them to prison rather than let them smoke legal recreational cannabis?

Or are you so caught up in the profits you make from mmj that you'd screw your fellow citizens rather than sharing the benefits?


Once you have your card (for a small fee)... you dont have to go to the stores....now you can legally grow your own.
Why should I or any other adult have to feed the mmj money machine to legally use cannabis? Why? Just answer the friggin question!

I sent my ballot in yesterday...checked the yes box on 19, even though I easily qualify for a card.

VapedG13
10-15-2010, 09:49 PM
Why should I or any other adult have to feed the mmj money machine to legally use cannabis? Why? Just answer the friggin question!

I sent my ballot in yesterday...checked the yes box on 19, even though I easily qualify for a card.

Good for you bro....your going to pay the government for your 5x5 they will tax it watch and see

Under 215 they cant tax crops without a vote.... under 19 they have unlimted power to levy taxes without any voting..so now it could be nothing in 6 months they could charge $1000

Give the government total control:thumbsup:

StoneMeadow
10-15-2010, 10:06 PM
Good for you bro....your going to pay the government for your 5x5 they will tax it watch and see
I note that you didn't bother to answer my questions. Instead you engaged in another round of misinformation and FUD.


Under 215 they cant tax crops without a vote.... under 19 they have unlimted power to levy taxes without any voting

Give the government total control:thumbsup:
More FUD, but let's do the sums, shall we?

What's your worst case...that Ammiano's $50/oz tax becomes reality? That's a dollar-eighty a gram. According to ads and links on this website, right now mmj typically sells for $10-$13 a gram. And since these growers are legal, there's no way it costs anywhere near that much to grown and sell. I have a garden, fruit trees and a small vineyard, so I know how much it costs to grow stuff.

Now, how about answering my questions?

VapedG13
10-15-2010, 10:31 PM
nowadays everyone has to pay to play.....curently its a card

your going to be paying the marijuana machine ....the government will become that:thumbsup: thats a fact.

Why do you think the commercialization of marijuana is even becoming an option the money ...you have a poor state that needs money....the government needs money

StoneMeadow
10-15-2010, 10:57 PM
nowadays everyone has to pay to play.....curently its a card
No, it's not just the card. Which-oh-by-the-way is a $60 to $100+ a year "tax" that was never voted on. It's also the ongoing artificially high prices patients and everyone else has to pay every time they buy.


your going to be paying the marijuana machine ....the government will become that:thumbsup: thats a fact.
No...it is NOT a fact. Read the actual verbiage of the Proposition: "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." See that part of allowing the regulation and taxation of COMMERCIAL production and sale of marijuana? That is NOT a license to regulate the private production and use of mj by adults.


Why do you think the commercialization of marijuana is even becoming an option the money ...you have a poor state that needs money....the government needs money
Prop 19 was not a government initiative. In fact the State Gov't opposes it and will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into it by the voters. The commercialization clause was put in there because the backers of the bill want to do commercial grow ops without the local po-po getting their knickers in a knot. They're prepared to pay taxes as the quid-pro-quo, but nobody thinks taxes from commercial pot are going to make any significant difference to our fiscal woes.

That's a topic for another thread on another forum... :)

leadmagnet
10-16-2010, 12:33 AM
Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.

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 ??cultivate? is conspicuously absent. Whereas today a person with a doctor??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 5??x5?? footprint (around 3-6 plants??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 year??s supply of medicine at one time, as many patients currently do outdoors. And growing indoors??which typically requires special grow lights, an increase in hydro use, and a lot of time and attention??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])??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


Medical Marijuana patients should have different laws that apply to the medical patients

Recreational users should have their own set of laws governing their use

Medical Marijuana patients have a need for weed

Recreational users have a want for weed

All I see is a bunch of recreatioanl users using medical people as a steping stone.....make it legal at all cost.....insted of a stepping stone... you all wanna step all over us

Lol, dude that didn't make your case. You're not familiar with reading these kinds of things are you?

I'm not going to repeat what numerous people have been telling you already braham.

You've worn out my patience. Vote your conscience.

You want to keep waging this war against our people you just keep on doing so. Eventually WE WILL have our justice.

Vote YES on 19!

WillyNilly
10-16-2010, 12:52 AM
Lol, dude that didn't make your case. You're not familiar with reading these kinds of things are you?

I'm not going to repeat what numerous people have been telling you already braham.

You've worn out my patience. Vote your conscience.

You want to keep waging this war against our people you just keep on doing so. Eventually WE WILL have our justice.

Vote YES on 19!

Some of these growers are like a broken record. There's no reasoning with them. You can grow 25 sq. ft. for personal use, period. NO tax. Nada.

Your city might change the rules to let you grow more, but not less. Medical growers don't have to change a thing. They're just pissed because they'll lose all their customers who are recreational users and only have a card to stay out of trouble. They won't have to lie anymore.

You can grow a considerable supply in a 5x5 square, too. That's going to hurt any commercial sellers, medical or not. The thing is, most people don't want to grow it. They'd just like to buy a few grams once in a while and know they won't go to jail for it. That's a wonderful and necessary improvement.

I already mailed in my yes vote.

boaz
10-16-2010, 03:38 AM
Paragraph 7 states that if a city decides to not tax and regulate Cannabis, then it shall remain illegal to buy and sell Cannabis within the cities limits, BUT it says ??that the city's citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under? , and then it cites 215 and SB 420.

Does this protect medical Cannabis patients right to possess and consume under 215? Yes.

Does it protect their right to cultivate? No, the right to cultivate is not mentioned or protected in that paragraph.


Paragraph 8 is very similar to Paragraph 7, though instead of protecting the right to ??possess and consume? under 215 and SB 420, it protects the right to ??buy and sell?.

Does this protect the right to cultivate under 215? No, again cultivation is not mentioned.

...

thanks Vap, I appreciate the debate.

Guess I'll just go thru your points one at a time. The sections you referenced above are discussing retail sales. There is another section in the prop that talks about cultivation. These two paragraphs are saying that your local gov't can legalize non medical over the counter sales or it choose not to legalize non medical over the counter sales, but either way all Californian's will be granted the right same rights to consume and possess.

Then it states "except as permitted under? 215, which to me is saying everything under 215 is exempt from all these new laws.

I can understand what your saying that some clever attorney could try to read more into than really is there, and I agree with the previous poster that the real winners will be the cali weed attorneys. :rastasmoke:

I guess it comes down to if you trust the sponsors or not. I hear a lot of bad comments about Lee but what about the other sponsor, Jeff Jones? Jeff Jones gave me my medical card and steered me to my first coop, so he is my hero. I would vote yes just out of respect and honor for all the work he has done for cause. :smokin: