i thought we could only have 6 plants?
Printable View
i thought we could only have 6 plants?
215 already passed 14 years ago. :rastasmoke: just kidding, bro.Quote:
Originally Posted by VapedG13
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:
It's VERY clear that 19 does NOT affect medical users and growers. Why do people continue to think it does?Quote:
Originally Posted by boaz
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?
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
[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.../11357-11362.9 (scroll down to 11362.5)
420: California Health and Safety Code 11362.7-11362.83
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
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by VapedG13
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by VapedG13
its all in the interpetation
Quote:
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, 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!******
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by VapedG13
Jeez, how some of you people read differently into that initiative simply baffles me.
:thumbsup: true. thank you for posting that. I am reading it now and will comment later. :stoned: hope I didn't seem rude earlier. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by VapedG13
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
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!
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
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?
well even if Cali does vote in legal....the battle has just begun:wtf:
Quote:
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
Let's get READY TO RUMBLLLLLLLLE!
It has to start somewhere. :rasta:
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
this is the problem
Quote:
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
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!
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.
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
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
No they can't. Only about one-half of one percent of Californians have a mmj card. 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by VapedG13
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?
Why should I or any other adult have to feed the mmj money machine to legally use cannabis? Why? Just answer the friggin question!Quote:
Originally Posted by VapedG13
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 seeQuote:
Originally Posted by StoneMeadow
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:
I note that you didn't bother to answer my questions. Instead you engaged in another round of misinformation and FUD.Quote:
Originally Posted by VapedG13
More FUD, but let's do the sums, shall we?Quote:
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:
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?
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by VapedG13
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.Quote:
your going to be paying the marijuana machine ....the government will become that:thumbsup: thats a fact.
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.Quote:
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
That's a topic for another thread on another forum... :)
Lol, dude that didn't make your case. You're not familiar with reading these kinds of things are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by VapedG13
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by leadmagnet
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.
thanks Vap, I appreciate the debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by VapedG13
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: