10 reasons to vote NO on prop #19

[bigtopsfinn]

Take a closer look bro

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

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

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

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

[VapedG13]

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

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

well you can add on to it

Myth #17: We can vote in the initiative and fix the tangles as they come up.

Fact: Initiatives create permanent statutes. Once an initiative is voted into law, it cannot be reversed. It remains law forever. It is worth noting that this initiative makes some unusual provisions with regard to amendments. For starters, it allows the legislature (traditionally hostile toward marijuana legislation) to amend the initiative without voter approval. Furthermore, it allows amendments, but â??only to further the purposes of the Act.â?�[30] Under a monopolized, corporate-controlled distribution process, the â??purposesâ?� might become more narrowly defined.

Many of the issues that pro-legalization supporters have with the initiative could be easily rectifiable with a few sentences and an amendment-submission to the Attorney Generalâ??s office. It would have required very little on the part of the initiative authors to remove the vagueness from the wording that bans smoking cannabis in any â??spaceâ?� where minors are â??present,â?� for example, or to add an exemption for medical marijuana patients and parents consuming in the presence of their own children. It would have required very little to write into the initiative a line that would exempt medical marijuana patients from the public smoking ban and protect their right to grow medicine in amounts sufficient for their individual needs. After all, these are items which should not be considered luxuries under legalized marijuana; they should be rights. And we should settle for nothing less.

Unfortunately, the deadline to make changes to the initiative before the November elections has already passed, and to achieve these changes via subsequent voter referendums would be a complicated and drawn-out process that could take years. Making the initiative acceptable before voting it into law is therefore essential.

[gypski]

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

[boaz]

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

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

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

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

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

[boaz]

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

no doubt.

[VapedG13]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

The Sunday edition of The Denver Post reported:

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

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

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

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

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

How ironic.

Jack

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

[boaz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is an interesting write up that talks about the mechanism of federalism that drives our republic. Here is part of it below.



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

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

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

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

[boaz]

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

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

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

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

[boaz]

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

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

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

[VapedG13]

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

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

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

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

About medical marijuana exemptions:
B: Purposes, 7: Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that cityâ??s limits remain illegal, but that the cityâ??s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

(Note: The word â??cultivateâ?� is conspicuously absent here as well as in the exempted Health and Safety Sections that pertain to medical marijuana laws.)