Arnold signs new law

[hurleypotseed]

I am a 31 y.o. male who's been growing for 10 years I wanted to become a firefighter so I am now a medic but I developed a condition which ruined my hopes of firefighting. My next hope was to grow at a medical marijuana farm an anyone direct me to a place.

[mikeyman]

the last 4 posts were outstanding.Thanks guys.Like i said they will have to make it fair so the growers can still make money.But i think it is time for the growers to pay some taxes on their income like the rest of us.If they tax it to much for the buyer,the business will go underground and the don't want that.imp:

[boaz]

there really is no need for calling anyone a "troll" or any of that other stuff. ZeroWing is just stating what he believes. He pointed out something about Prop 19 that I had not noticed before. The summary section, which ZW is referencing, does not match the actual language in the text.

I could tell everyone what it is but thats no fun :rastasmoke:

Can anyone spot the difference??

One Love :rasta:

[boaz]

okay, times up. :jointsmile:

this is the summary:

"Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old."

this is the actual text:

Nothing in this article shall authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances:
(a) In any place where smoking is prohibited by law.
(b) In or within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a school, recreation center, or
youth center, unless the medical use occurs within a residence.
(c) On a school bus.
(d) While in a motor vehicle that is being operated.
(e) While operating a boat.

the summary "prohibits" while the text says "Nothing .. shall authorize".

which one counts? I honestly don't know. I don't recall seeing this discussed anywhere but I don't ever check out other herb forums or anything. I think its interesting. they say two entirely different things. My guess is the text counts not the summary but I'm no California Herb Attorney. ... yet.

[khyberkitsune]

okay, times up. :jointsmile:

this is the summary:

"Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old."

this is the actual text:

Nothing in this article shall authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances:
(a) In any place where smoking is prohibited by law.
(b) In or within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a school, recreation center, or
youth center, unless the medical use occurs within a residence.
(c) On a school bus.
(d) While in a motor vehicle that is being operated.
(e) While operating a boat.

the summary "prohibits" while the text says "Nothing .. shall authorize".

which one counts? I honestly don't know. I don't recall seeing this discussed anywhere but I don't ever check out other herb forums or anything. I think its interesting. they say two entirely different things. My guess is the text counts not the summary but I'm no California Herb Attorney. ... yet.

And all of those are actually referencing and reinforcing prior-stated regulations and H&S codes that were long-ago passed. There is NOTHING NEW in those words.

It's basically a reaffirmation of already-existing rules and regs on the books regarding the consumption of intoxicating substances, and stating that this law does NOT circumvent those pre-existing rules.

[boaz]

And all of those are actually referencing and reinforcing prior-stated regulations and H&S codes that were long-ago passed. There is NOTHING NEW in those words.

It's basically a reaffirmation of already-existing rules and regs on the books regarding the consumption of intoxicating substances, and stating that this law does NOT circumvent those pre-existing rules.

yes, don't get me wrong I support voting yes, even tho I don't live there :rastasmoke:, and I have been saying the exact same thing that you just said and it is true but the summary does seem different that the actual text. I think that is what is causing so much confusion.

Maybe its just standard legal double talk but the summary say this prop will prohibit this that an the other thing whereas the text just says it will not authorize them. to me that is different. like I said, the summary probably is not even used for the actual law but it seems like false advertising to me. :twocents:

its kinda like having a prop where the summary says everyone will get a tax increase if they vote yes, and then in the text saying that nothing in this prop will prevent anyone from getting a tax increase. subtle but I could see why its causing confusion out there.

but anyways, I would still vote Yes, the text most likely trumps the summary, but I just thought it was interesting and prolly is whats causing all the confusion over this prop.

oh yeah, more details :stoned: if you look at the current State laws I don't believe there are any currently in the books about smoking in front of a minor. So, the text version would amount to literally nothing, whereas the summary seems to imply something different. no big deal I'm sure just kinda interesting.

[greenghost]

im so glad arnold signed this bill into law, but prop 19 is whats really needed.



Is Oakland Sprouting out?

[mikeyman]

yea every little bit helps.

[Theym420]

okay, times up. :jointsmile:

this is the summary:

"Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old."

this is the actual text:

Nothing in this article shall authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances:
(a) In any place where smoking is prohibited by law.
(b) In or within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a school, recreation center, or
youth center, unless the medical use occurs within a residence.
(c) On a school bus.
(d) While in a motor vehicle that is being operated.
(e) While operating a boat.

the summary "prohibits" while the text says "Nothing .. shall authorize".

which one counts? I honestly don't know. I don't recall seeing this discussed anywhere but I don't ever check out other herb forums or anything. I think its interesting. they say two entirely different things. My guess is the text counts not the summary but I'm no California Herb Attorney. ... yet.

And has no one noticed that the text does not say public, while the summary does, that's falsely misleading :jointsmile: it also says nothing of minors, in the text provided here at least :wtf:
Edit: just thought I'd add that I find the difference between autos and boats amazing, you can smoke in a boat while it's being operated, as long as your not the one operating it, but only in a car that's not being operated, why the difference? do the makers of said law smoke on a boat with friends and a designated driver? lol food for thought
MeDiCaTeD:jointsmile:

[mikeyman]

a car can be a closed enviorment ,the driver could get a contact high:rastasmoke: