PROP 19: YOU DECIDE...

[gypski]

Don't be fooled,...how long do you think it will take before tobacco company's lobby & force in laws to prohibit growing & selling are own weed.!?!? just like tabacco, we have a good thing going now with quality & price competition. passing the law will actually make pot less free?!taking it from the peoples hands & giving the power & control to the government & tobacco company's. don't be fooled!!!!!vote no! don't be tricked under the guise of freedom:wtf:

Any citizen can produce up to 250 gallons of beer or wine per year tax free. Distilled alcohol is prohibited. Knowing that cannabis is less harmful then any of these, a citizen should be allowed to grow up to 250 lbs before paying a production tax. If part of the production id wholesaled, then a nominal fee should apply. Growers over 250 lbs pay for a license pro rated according to the number of plants produced. And the bullshit of the tobacco companies taking over, is just that. Bullshit. They pay individual farmers to grow specific tobacco strains for their tobacco blends and a lot is imported. Cannabis will be local just like politics, with some nation wide attempts that fail for quality control reasons. Bad eggs, bad buds.

[boaz]

Don't be fooled,...how long do you think it will take before tobacco company's lobby & force in laws to prohibit growing & selling are own weed.!?!? just like tabacco, we have a good thing going now with quality & price competition. passing the law will actually make pot less free?!taking it from the peoples hands & giving the power & control to the government & tobacco company's. don't be fooled!!!!!vote no! don't be tricked under the guise of freedom:wtf:

:wtf: I'm not really sure I'm following the logic here but let me try. so you have State laws right now that prohibit the growing and selling of cannabis. In a few month you will have the extremely rare and historic chance to go to the ballot box and end those laws. But, your saying that one should vote no because of the extremely slight chance that somewhere down the line the big tobacco co's just might be able to somehow re-instate the prohibition and selling of cannabis. do I understand that part?

no offense to anyone, but I'm just not buying any of these prohib arguements I've heard on this forum so far. some people are just afraid of change and afraid they might not be able to support themselves by selling herb. all this other stuff is just bs and not even really very good bs. :twocents:

vote yes, and watch in amazement as the sky does not fall.

the gov't does not take over. its simply not in the prop. read it. the only thing that will become law the day after this is passed is that ALL adult californian's will be granted the free and legal right to grow their own cannabis in a 25sf garden without the need for a doctors rec. if you have a doctors rec the only limit on the size of your garden is your medical need.

the end. nothing else. read it for yourself if you don't believe me and tell me one single thing besides what I just mentioned above that will become law the day after this is passed. anyone? :rastasmoke:

[boaz]

Any citizen can produce up to 250 gallons of beer or wine per year tax free. Distilled alcohol is prohibited. Knowing that cannabis is less harmful then any of these, a citizen should be allowed to grow up to 250 lbs before paying a production tax. If part of the production id wholesaled, then a nominal fee should apply. Growers over 250 lbs pay for a license pro rated according to the number of plants produced. ...

:greenthumb: that sound reasonable to me.

[gypski]

:greenthumb: that sound reasonable to me.

and if they don't like 250 lbs, make it 250 plants tax or license free. imp:

[bluesteve]

You'll have to read further to see how Prop 19 stops you from growing, and it's not just the politicians who are messing this up. I actually posted the following in a different thread, too, regarding someone wanting to find out how to grow for the dispensaries:

Something you guys need to think about. The IRS IS NOT allowing any tax deductions for expenses incurred in the production of Medical Cannabis, but they do expect to be paid tax on your income from doing so, which means, that if it cost you $10,000.00 to produce a commercial crop, & then you sold it for $20,000.00, you would have to pay income tax on all $20,000.00 that you took in, where in any other business, you'd only be taxed on $10,000.00 of the $20,000.00 you took in. In other words, you're going to be taxed on everything, not just your actual profit! This can make making money on this venture VERY difficult until things change in DC, & with the IRS. And it will be a far different reaction from DC, I believe, if Ca passes their Prop 19 to legalize for recreational use. Don't get too excited just yet!

In California, I can sell to my local dispensary, but by CA law, I'm only allowed to charge as much as it cost me to produce the crop. No profit is allowed--by law. But we all know that they're not able to build the $20,000,000.00 grow facility in Oakland CA, that the Oakland city council has approved, & for which property has been acquired, because they weren't making a profit all these years. That $20,000,000.00 didn't magically appear out of no where!

I don't know how they hide it, but they do. Don't know what other states are allowing as to growing for dispensaries, but in CA, the guys who started all this seem to be the only ones who can really operate at any level they wish to. In a recent conversation with someone who runs a dispensary in CA, regarding the prop 19 legalization measure on the ballot out here, he told me that they (the guys in Oakland & their politician friends in Sacramento) already have decided who will be allowed to run coffee shops, stores to sell over the counter, & who will be allowed to grow commercially for the new recreational industry, and this guy is in a position to know. So, if you live in CA, don't get your hopes up, as they will probably be dashed. I have 108 acres and would like to be in this business, but I'm running into problems already! Big money is already in control of our Cannabis industry. Expect to see prices rise to as much as $800.00 @ ounce, or more, for the best quality, once the taxes and regulatory fees kick in. We may finally be getting what we've been wishing for since the 60s, but not in the way we always thought we would. Personally, I always thought that if it ever became legal it would finally be reasonably priced, believing that the only reason it wasn't was because of the huge risk all those who made it available to you, took. Guess I was dreaming, eh?

But, I'm not giving up on this, and if it turns out that I'm not allowed to grow commercially in CA, if the new law passes, then I may well challenge that new law in court on the basis of restraint of trade. Cannabis is a plant, and I've been a commercial farmer for 27 years. As such, I should be able to grow any crop that is legal.

And lastly, this new law says that you'll be able to grow in an area 5 feet square. It also says that you're only allowed to posses one ounce of dried processed cannabis. How many of you have ever grown a plant that produced only a single ounce?! Not that it's impossible for this to happen, but it is usually by a mistake, and as soon as you were to harvest your plant from that 5 x 5 area, you'd be in violation of the legal limit for possession! And the one ounce limit means no more buying quarter pounds to save money. They want you to have to come to them for that ounce and pay them that big ounce price! Please, let's not race into this just because we've been waiting so long for legalization. We can do better!

[boaz]

^ thank you, Steve. I think you make some great points I appriciate the insight. it is all very interesting to me.

I'm no expert, hell I don't even live California anymore but I was born out there, but just a couple of points.

- the price - According to RAND's estimate the price for retail over the counter cannabis if this prop passes would be aprox. $91 an ounce, of which about 2/3 would be tax and 1/3 revenue to the coffee shops. who knows, maybe they just pulled these numbers out of their ... but those RAND dudes are pretty smart most times.

as far as the oz limit, I think that is only what you can travel with, I think you can have as much at your grow site as you can grow in your dinky little :jointsmile: 25sf garden space. but I'm not an attorney so here is the actual language below.

yeson19.com

Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:

(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individualâ??s personal consumption, and not for sale.

(ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.

(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.

(iv) Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection.


It does seem a bit unclear but I think NORML analysed it concluded that you could have pounds and pounds at your site, depending on how many harvests you have collected over the seasons, but can only travel with on oz. at a time. but, the real game changer is that since 1 oz. is legal to travel with the cops can no longer hassle you over any weed. as long as you don't consent to a search they will never know if you have just an oz. or more.

as far as the feds, there is an excellent write up by an L.A. attorney that I've posted somewhere on here that talks about how States can drop prohibition laws legally within our system of federalism. Her example, was alcohol prohibition was dropped by NY State 10 years before national prohibition was repealed. California was one year ahead of the feds with repealing alcohol prohibition. so she concuded, not only can States legalize but they SHOULD legalize. this puts the burden of proof solely in their court. it is how policy is made in the US. So, yes the IRS and the banks are f'n with medical providers right now, but that shouldn't stop Californians from correcting their own local laws.

Finally, I do agree we can do better I think you were on the right track about challenging parts of it in court. I would challenge the 25sf limit, too. that seems too low to me too. Maybe the courts would correct that to an acceptable amount, as they did with medical users.

But I hope Californians can still vote yes on this and then start working hard to challange anything they may disagree with in court and/or starting their own voter sponsored iniatives that would enhance this prop. don't throw the baby out with the bath water. put this into law and then you can say in 2012, look we went this far and the sky did not fall lets go even further now.

from what i've heard and from what you seemed to be saying, too, is that there will only be a handful of these coffee shops or whatever they end up calling them. probably just in Oaksterdam. If that is true, it seems to me that really this will have almost no effect on about 99% of Californians. A few that live in Oaksterdam (or a few sneaky tourist :rastasmoke will take advantage of a free zone to legally purchase bud, whereas the rest of Californians will carry on just as they are now, growing their own or getting it from a buddy who knows someone or whatever. and the medical dispensory will continue to be provided by the "not for profit" :jointsmile: growers that supply them now.

it is a baby step, yes, but it sounds like any think much more radical would never have chance of getting passed.

[MMJmedia]

PROP 19, YOU DECIDE: STEREOTYPICAL STONER NONSENSE?
Potheads perpetuate problems pertaining to Proposition 19, the California ballot initiative to legalize marijuana for adults over the age of 21 years old.

I have been hearing a lot of stereotypical stoner statements that simply make no sense when it comes to prop 19. Below I will examine some of the strangest arguments I have heard cannabis-consumers make against this ballot initiative and explain why these arguments fall short against critical analysis and facts.

This is a very tongue-in-cheek article that does not mean to offend those who identify as stoners or potheads or those who use cannabis. I do not mean to imply that those who consume cannabis on a regular basis (whether for medical or recreational reasons) are inherently stupid, lazy, illogical, inactive or in any way fitting of the archetypal stoner stereotype.

I am simply making fun of the arguments that make no sense to me.
I consume cannabis recurrently to comfort my chronic pain. And I do not believe my consumption of cannabis interferes with my ability to think critically or damage my intellect in any way. In fact, UCLA tested my IQ and found that I have superior intelligence while I was â??under the influenceâ?� of this herb.

I encourage all citizens (cannabis consumers and non-consumers) to just think critically about prop19 and the arguments made for and against it. And then vote on (or before) November 2, 1020. And have a little fun at the sake of the stoner stereotypes.

Prop 19 is TOO Prohibiting
NOTHING is more prohibiting than PROHIBITION, duh!

Anyone who argues against prop 19 because it is too prohibitive does not fully understand that anything is less prohibitive than full PROHIBITION.

The word prohibitive is derived from the same root word as prohibition which is a decree that prohibits something like cannabis. Right now, under California state law, we have a decree (or law) that prohibits cannabis in almost all circumstances that are not related to medical (and even some medical uses are still prohibited).

If prop 19 is passed, we will have a decree/law that lifts a lot of prohibitions from cannabis for not only medical use but also adult-responsible use. How is that too prohibitive?

I do not understand why a cannabis consumer would choose to keep a more prohibitive law in place when they could replace it with a less prohibitive law. Some think Prop 19 does not go far enough so they would rather keep current prohibitive laws. Where is the logic in that?

Please, someone explain to me this stoner logic.

Prop 19 hurts patients
The other argument I keep hearing is prop 19 will strip medical cannabis patients of their current rights.

Iâ??ve read many arguments stating this but none of them make much sense after looking at the language of prop 19.

â??Medicalâ?� is mentioned at least twice in the purposes and proposition also mentions current H&S Codes (twice) which gives medical cannabis patients their rights.

Prop 19 specifically states:
Purpose #6: "6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes."

How on earth is a judge going to believe taking away medical cannabis patients rights is going to fulfill the purpose of this law to â??provide easier, safer accessâ?� to medical cannabis?

and

Purpose #12: "Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes"

Wouldnâ??t any reduction in availability of cannabis for medical purposes go against the purpose of the proposition?

In addition to the text mention â??medicalâ?� it also mention the specific Health & Safety code of the current medical cannabis laws, at the end of Purpose #7 states: "...except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9."

Purpose #8 says the same thing.

Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9 EQUALS the current medical cannabis laws (prop 215, SB410, etc).

And

Do not forget that Prop 215 itself has a protection written into. One of its purposes is:
"(C) To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana."


I do NOT see how a judge could conclude a vote for Prop19 is a vote against Prop 215.

Prop 19 authors are greedy and want to hurt patients
The above argument is often associated with the implied argument that the authors of Prop 19 want to hurt patients for money.

This argument goes against everything Iâ??ve come to know about the people involved with the initiative.

I do not really know Richard Lee and I've only met him once at a recent prop 19 meeting in LA. But I do know Jeff Jones and his new wife Dale Clare. Both of whom are very involved in Prop19.

Both of Jeff and Dale are patients themselves. I know them for the better part of 3 years. I met them because our MEDICAL cannabis activism had us cross paths here in LA.

Both of them were very helpful and supportive of me and my efforts to help Charles C. Lynch. They offered advice, hands-on help, and meeting space at the LA Patient ID Center. They came to rallies, posted information on the internet, showed up to court support and made announce during OU classes about Charlie and his case.

They also often played videos about Charlie during their breaks at OU, so students could learn more about him and his federal case. I've interacted with Jeff and Dale hundreds of times on other advocacy projects, meetings, and efforts.

NOTHING in my entire experience with Jeff or Dale makes me think that they are greedy or out to hurt patients.

In fact, Jeff Jones told me himself that Prop19 was designed to my MEDICAL cannabis patients the VIPs. It was designed to get the cops off our aching backs and to hopefully create more compassionate solutions for those of us living with life-altering medical conditions.

I don't buy the arguments against the authors of prop 19 because they do not make sense to me when compared to my own personal experience.

An Ounce is NOT enough
Really? Iâ??ve been a cannabis patient for over 3 years now. I consume cannabis on a daily basis. Thus far, I have never had to carry around more than an ounce of cannabis with me anywhere. I do not understand why anyone would need to carry around more than an ounce of cannabis (outside their home) for personal recreational use.

I also hear medical cannabis patients worry that they will not be able to carry around as much as they medical need if prop 19 passes. Again, I am not buying the argument that prop 19 supersedes prop 215, so this should be a non-issue.

I assume many people who are worried about an ounce not being enough arenâ??t worried about their own personal use of cannabis but the sales of cannabis for personal gain from the sales of this controlled substance.
This is the underground mentality of prohibition. Itâ??s going to take some people a long time to shake the restrictive chains of prohibition off their minds. People are so used to dealing with cannabis in the unregulated market, itâ??s shocking for them to consider dealing with it in the above-ground market Prop 19 aims to create.

Local governments will decide
Anyone who is afraid of "local" governments regulating cannabis doesn't understand that our governments are supposed to be "for the people by the people". Nor do they seem to take their civic duties and responsibilities seriously.

I, for one, look forward to local governments deciding how cannabis will be sold, taxed, controlled, and regulated.

Why?

Because I am a civically engaged citizen who has gone to city council meetings, county board of supervisor meetings, met with all three of my federal legislators and my state Assemblyman over the issue of MEDICAL cannabis.

I look forward to being a part of the process which will determine how my city and county will handle the sales of cannabis. And so should EVERY citizens.

The beauty of Prop19 is it allows YOU TO DECIDE what happens in your community when it comes to cannabis.

NO LONGER do the drug dealers, cartels or underground market get to decide.

We the people get to establish safe and affordable distribution of cannabis for the benefit of your community and her people.

I can understand why some would be worried of local governments, they must not vote regularly, participate in local governmental affairs, or take an active role in the important issues that face our communities regarding cannabis.

Of course it will turn out badly if we all stay home and do nothing. The answer is to DO SOMETHING! Get involved. Be heard.

Take the control out of the hands of drug dealers and put it back in the hands of our communities.

What about the 18-20 year olds?
Technically, Californians become adults when they turn 18 years old. They have most of the rights of other adults, except they cannot legally drink alcohol until they are at least 21 years old. And if Prop 19 passes, healthy people under the age of 21 would not be allow to legally consume cannabis.
That is the exact same way it is now.

The major difference is when prop 19 passes adults over the age of 21 years old will have additional freedoms they do not current have now. The authors of prop 19 wanted to include 18 year olds but were warned that such a bill was less likely to pass, so they made a compromise.

I hear some people worry about patients under the age of 21 years old but again, as far as I can tell, patientsâ?? rights remain the same under prop 19. So a patient of ANY age who has a doctorâ??s recommendation is protected by â??medicalâ?� cannabis laws.

If there happens to be a minor under 21 years old using cannabis as medicine but who does not have a doctorâ??s recommendation, that is an issue for the medical cannabis community to address. Obviously that young does not have â??safe and affordableâ?� access to medical cannabis that we have all be working so hard to provide. Do not blame that shortcoming on prop 19 but our own medical efforts.

I see NO reason why an age limit of 21 years old should stop anyone from voting to legalize cannabis in California. If it turns out to be such a problem, we can always go back and draft a ballot initiative to include 18-20 year olds in the future if we get enough public support after prop 19 passes.

Jack Herer was against Prop 19
Again this Jack-was-against-it argument is something that can never be proven with any certainty. The only things that can be stated on this topic are opinions. It seems a little silly to argue about what a deceased advocate would or would not say or do.

Jack's family came out in support of Prop19 and said they believe Jack would have also. So have some of Jackâ??s friends. However, some of Jackâ??s friends also said they believe he would not support prop 19 even after what other friends and his family has said.

I think each person making these claims about what Jack would or would not say or do are really just expressing their opinion about how they feel (and not so much on what Jack would do or say if he actually still was with us).

These are some of the silly arguments I have seen and heard people make against prop 19. Are they valid? You decide.

[gypski]

Californians need to vote yes on this. Washington State would have allowed 18 year olds, but that can be fixed in California after you get the main bill passed. If you're smart, you don't get busted carrying or using regardless of age.

[boaz]

... In fact, UCLA tested my IQ and found that I have superior intelligence while I was â??under the influenceâ?� of this herb.
...

i think i took that same test. :jointsmile: Regarding the late Jack Herer, may he rest in peace, people should also keep in mind that he had his own herb inititative that they have been trying to get on the ballots for years, including this past year I believe. That may have been why he was originally against this initiative, they were competing. I think there were several herb inititatives this past year, but only one got on the ballot, Prop 19.

If you've never read Jack's inititative go to his web site and read it. :greenthumb: it is an awesome work of art that will leave you feeling all warm and fuzzy inside. but ... its not on the ballot.

There are dozens of herb initiatives every election season but this is the first one to actually get eneough signatures and get on the ballot. these guys are pros. they held open meetings with the communities to draft the language and had weekly events all over California getting signatures for it. The language about leaving the authority to the counties is based on the model of alcohol. it is a proven mechanism that seperates this prop from all other initiatives before it and makes it have a chance of actually winning.

vote yes, you might not get another chance like this for a long time. :twocents:

[MMJmedia]

Here is the latest article I wrote in a series called Prop 19: You Decide. This post was inspired by a question on of my KPCC Facebook co-hosts asked me.

Prop19, You Decide: Are Cops Lyng about Medical Marijuana Gangs?

My fellow KPCC Facebook Co-Host, Tony Peyser (our resident poet) asked me the below question via email on facebook.

Tony Peyser September 5 at 6:46am Report Do you buy that all the houses growing pot in the San Gabriel area are doing this to provide marijuana to medical dispensaries? Without anything but a gut reaction, I'm thinking no. Thanks, Tony.

Hereâ??s the article Tony refers to i his question.

I asked Tony if I could answer his question via a KPCC Freeway post because my answer is multifaceted which includes my perspective, experience, and knowledge. And besides, others may be wondering the same thing tony is. He agreed. And hereâ??s my answer.

ALWAYS QUESTION AUTHORITY
First and foremost, I would strongly recommend you question authority when it comes to marijuana because they are allowed to lie and are financially motivated to lie in order to keep current...

See More
http://apps.facebook.com/kpccfreeway...gs.html?ref=mf