Californiaâ??s Prop 19: A Word-for-Word Analysis

[WillyNilly]

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

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

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

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

Vote YES on 19!

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

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

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

I already mailed in my yes vote.

[boaz]

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 â??that the city's citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted underâ?� , 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 â??possess and consumeâ?� under 215 and SB 420, it protects the right to â??buy and sellâ?�.

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

...

thanks Vap, I appreciate the debate.

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

Then it states "except as permitted underâ?� 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: