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:
Printable View
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:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormin94
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.Quote:
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.
TRUE DAT :thumbsup:Quote:
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),
Sad but this is how big-gov works. Wish there was a better system or I'd still be living in the U.S.Quote:
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.
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:
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.
"You're Gonna Burn In Hell!!!" :D
:joint1:
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?!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by stormin94
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?
:thumbsup:^ WELL put
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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by leadmagnet
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by stormin94
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:
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:
you avatar pic is cool where was that at did you take it yourself..
^ 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:
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).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by VapedG13
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.
^ 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:
I've written up my take on this for the Huffington Post.
Heather Donahue: The New Marijuana Middle Class
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!
^ 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:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesteve
If you have always been able to acquire herb illegally I just don't understand how 19 will limit access for anyone?
vaya con dios, amigo. :D pack lots of ammo. :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesteve
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 disagree 100%... Yes on 19... Its simple logic...Quote:
Originally Posted by VapedG13
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by boaz
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stormin94
Why is it that the US Government has a patent on Marijuana:wtf:
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.Quote:
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 ??The FDA noted ??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.? 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.
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by VapedG13
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
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 they??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.
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.
Wooord. I wish more people had your outlook... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by leadmagnet
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by leadmagnet
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. ??
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.
treat it just like alcohol ...vote yes:thumbsup:
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.
^ 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:
It is probably safe to assume you were drunk and stoned when you wrote that so I won't take you seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by elduderin0
Simply stated this isn't a battle we can win with violence. Besides, that would make us just like the prohibitionists we oppose.
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:
okay, here is the current law in California. Here is some highlights below.Quote:
Originally Posted by boaz
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) ??Personal consumption? 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: