legalization in California! 3 threads merged! Get active!

Just checking in here, no new news to report, the previously mentioned initiative is still in circulation for siggies.

Just some food for thought,
around the same time the other initiative was circulating that failed to qualify, this one did qualify.

1274. (07-0041)

[align=left]Treatment of Farm Animals. Statute.
Summary Date: 10/01/07 Qualified: 04/09/08 Signatures Required: 433,971 [/align]

[align=left]Proponent: Joe Ramsey (916) 967-8102
Requires that an enclosure or tether confining specified farm animals allow the animals for the majority of every day to fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up, and turn around. Specified animals include calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs. Exceptions made for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes. Provides misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Probably minor local and state enforcement and prosecution costs, partly offset by increased fine revenue. (Initiative 07-0041.) (Full Text) [/align]

[align=left]Can anyone explain how Joe Ramsey got the required siggies for what I would say is kind of a obscure, wierd ass bill, but the "Great Celebrity Leaders of Cannabis Culture in CA" failed? I just offer this as food for thought with regard to our "Activist Leaders" here. What the fuck were they doing exactly? I am starting to really believe that they never intended to get the required siggies, and that it was all a stunt to get in the news some, and raise money off a donations from people for their non profits. Hard to imagine how exactly these people couldn't get the required siggies for their initiative, but this guy gets them for an initiative about fucking farm animals!!!!!!! Am I crazy or does anyone else here notice a problem?:mad: Is this what happens when your activist "leaders" are all still convinced it's 1967? Are they just taking advantage of uninformed cannabis users for the sake of making money. That's what it looks like to me, but maybe I am just crazy. Fuck all of them if that is the case fuck'em all. Until we change the face of cannabis advocacy, nothing will change, and people that have a vested intrest in making money advocating for cannabis will continue to take advantage of the ignorant and uninformed while claiming to be the "movements" leaders. What a fucking joke.[/align]

What we need is a huge protest. It's hard to get everyone to do it tho. Get on the media somehow, local news stations. let the world know what were tryin to do.

:wtf:I understand what you are saying, however I failed to notice the "huge protests" for the initiative that I mentioned in the previous post. Somehow, it managed to get the required siggies. Can someone explain that to me I am all ears...
What was it again, oh yeah, a bill for the treatment of farm animals, right. So they get their required siggies, and we don't. I think it goes a whole fuck load deeper than we just didn't protest and get out there. Like I said, I don't recall seeing the protesters and advocates groups dedicated to the treatment of farm animals, but somehow they did it.:wtf::mad: There is still hope though, 1 initiative still alive and gathering signatures.:jointsmile:

One important question though...

Where do we sign??? A lot of people want to know this. including me.

I wouldn't say "alot" of people want to know that, (since you are the only person that has even asked on this thread so far).
You need to sign the petition within your county of registration. Which means that you would have to find one of the circulators of the petition. Good luck. I don't know exactly how you will do that. There is a ton of info on the Secretary of State's website that may be helpful, but it won't tell you which Wal Mart parking lot or college campus to go to in your county, sorry. You do raise a great point, however again, I don't remember seeing the "Treatment of Farm Animals" petition circulators gathering siggies, but they got them. So I have a really hard time understanding how exactly how the other decrim failed already, and how the current one would not get enough. Surely there are more people more intrested and in support of cannabis use than there are for the "treatment of farm animals"?:wtf:

If I could find out where to sign, I would at least feel im making a difference. Whoever holds the petition, please let me know where you are! I would even volunteer and help, seriously.

the cops came in my home and took 3 small pot plants.they told me that I needed a license to grow.they said to grow it inside , but since I live on 2nd floor there is no need to keep it out of the reach of children. why cant i have a plant in plain sight ? where can I get a license ?

I dont know man, you might want to find another thread that can answer that better for you. good luck!

Info on signing the petition and where to turn in signatures.

I don't really understand all the confusion on where to sign...It was included in the first post. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fencewalker

Info on signing the petition and where to turn in signatures.

I don't really understand all the confusion on where to sign...It was included in the first post. :confused:

---

That must have been some good shit you are on tonight!;)
The link you posted is referencing an already failed attempt by the "pot gurus" here in California. They failed to collect the required number of signatures, nice to see that site still up though. I betcha my last bowl that if you tried to "DONATE" money thinking you were helping with this effort they would still take it though! What was most recently being discussed is the proposed Constitutional Amendment



1341. (08-0009)

Marijuana Legalization. Individual Rights. Constitutional Amendment.

Summary Date: 04/08/08 Circulation Deadline: 09/05/08 Signatures Required: 694,354

[align=left]Proponent: Christopher Springer[/align]

Amends constitution to legalize marijuana and hemp within California and to provide for broad individual constitutional rights, including rights to food, shelter, medical care, and to be free from â??unreasonableâ?� taxation. Allows marijuana to be sold in any store that sells alcohol. Establishes local boards with expansive powers, including powers to regulate and tax marijuana. Requires marijuana tax revenues support specified programs. Exempts marijuana sales profits from income tax. Forbids most testing for marijuana used outside the workplace. Prohibits most marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco advertisements. Immunizes marijuana growers and sellers from liability. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Potential savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments, which would no longer incur the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Potential costs of up to the tens of millions of dollars to state and local governments to fund the one-time start-up costs of the local boards. A potentially significant increase in state and local spending on substance abuse treatment services that could possibly be partially or fully offset by revenues from this measure. Potential increased revenues in the tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars annually from marijuana stamps and licenses to support specified programs and the local boards. Unknown but potentially significant increase in state and local revenues from collection of sales and use taxes on the sale of Marijuana. Unknown but potentially significant decrease in state and local revenues from taxes on tobacco and alcohol due to a prohibition of advertising for these goods that would likely result in a decline in sales. (Initiative 08-0009.) (Full Text)

For which apparently there is no fucking way to do anything with and is likely a prank I guess, who fucking knows. I know this, no one "The so called Cannabis Crusaders" that all endorsed and put their names on the piece you mentioned don't even acknowledge this proposed amendment. Why? Must be busy fucking around being "Pot Crusaders" jeesuz fuck. How do you NOT get the required number of siggies. And then you just don't mention or seem to promote or discuss anywhere the previously mentioned proposed amendment? Really Fuck you too then. And I don't want to hear the bull shit that people didn't get involved or informed. That's horse caca. I don't know for a fact, but between all the different groups that raised and apparently are still raising money for an expired initiative that is not even in circulation. I am betting they had better funding than the guy that got the required number of siggies for what. Joe Ramsey
Treatment of Farm Animals. Statute.
I fucking dare someone to come on this board and tell me they were better funded, had more publicity, more public intrest.
I think I know the answer to my question, "Explain to me how this failed" but I want to see if anyone else has a better idea or knows something that I don't. Seems to me these "Cannabis Crusaders" "Jack Herer, Charles E. Lepp, George Clayton Johnson, Phyllis Vonderscher, Ronnie Lee Smith, Michael S. Jolson and Seeva Marie Cherms" all really don't give a shit unless you are donating money to them as evident by the sight Fencewalker mentioned. Hope they raised lots of dough, I can't imagine that they had less publicity, support, resources, volunteers, ect... than Joe Ramsey whom was the sole proponent of...wait for it, you know the widely popular...

Treatment of Farm Animals. Statute.

Some initiatives that did get enough siggies are:



Propositions that are on the
November 4, 2008 General Election Ballot*

Bond Measure


Proposition 1

SB 1856 (Chapter 697, 2002). Costa.

Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century.**

Proposition 2

1274. Treatment of Farm Animals. Statute.

Proponent: Joe Ramsey (916) 967-8102

Requires that an enclosure or tether confining specified farm animals allow the animals for the majority of every day to fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up, and turn around. Specified animals include calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs. Exceptions made for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes. Provides misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Probably minor local and state enforcement and prosecution costs, partly offset by increased fine revenue. (Initiative 07-0041.) (Full Text)

!

Initiative Statute


Proposition 3

1271. Childrenâ??s Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Statute. [align=left]Proponent: Diana S. Dooley (916) 552-7111[/align]

(Full Text)

Initiative Constitutional Amendment


Proposition 4

1287. Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minorâ??s Pregnancy.

Constitutional Amendment. [align=left]Proponent: John Smith[/align]

(Full Text)

Initiative Statute
Proposition 5

1310. Nonviolent Offenders. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation. Statute. [align=left]Proponent: Daniel N. Abrahamson (510) 229-5211[/align]

(Initiative 07-0081.) (Full Text)

Initiative Statute
Proposition 6

1326. Criminal Penalties and Laws. Public Safety Funding. Statute. [align=left]Proponents: George C. Runner, Jr., Gary Ovitt and Mike Reynolds[/align]

(Full Text)

Initiative Statute
Proposition 7

1304. Renewable Energy. Statute. [align=left]Proponent: Jim Gonzalez c/o Randall W. Keen (310) 312-4000[/align]

(Full Text)

Initiative Constitutional Amendment
Proposition 8

1298. Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment. [align=left]Proponents: Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam, and Mark A. Jansson c/o Andrew Pugno (916) 608-3065[/align]

Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state. (Initiative 07-0068.) (Full Text)

Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute
Proposition 9

1325. Criminal Justice System. Victimsâ?? Rights. Parole. Constitutional Amendment and Statute. [align=left]Proponents: Henry Nicholas, Marcella Leach and LaWanda Hawkins c/o Ashlee N. Titus (916) 442-7757[/align]

(Full Text)

Initiative Statute
Proposition 10

1332. Bonds. Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. Statute. [align=left]Proponents: Allison Hart, Mitzi Dudley and Thomas Daly c/o Daniel K. Abramson (213) 624-6200[/align]

(Initiative 07-0101.) (Full Text)

Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute
Proposition 11

1307. Redistricting. Constitutional Amendment and Statute. [align=left]Proponents: Kathay Feng, Jeannine English and David Fleming[/align]

(Full Text)

*Titles Subject to Change.


So in closing again, if ANYONE KNOWS how to contact Chris Springer the sole proponent of our only CURRENTLY ACTIVE hope, please post it. I won't hold my breath though, but that other one person that is even aware of it might care.:thumbsup: