Vote NO !! and here is why!!
- Thread starter bterz
- Start date
Luger187
Well-Known Member
TokinPodPilot
Well-Known Member
GanjaAL
Active Member
Sorry but people need to read this bill like everyone tells us people who are voting NO.
MMJ patients will be loosing our rights if this passes.
Proponents of California's Regulate Control and Tax Cannabis 2010 Initiative (Prop. 19) claim it will have no effect on California's medical marijuana laws, that it "explicitly upholds the rights of medical marijuana patients".
The language of the initiative says otherwise.
Yesterday, Russ Belville stated in a comment to his blog in The Huffington Post that "Prop 19 does nothing to change Prop 215 or your access to your current dispensary." Belville is NORML's Outreach Coordinator and Host of NORML Show Live.
Meanwhile, in an article that is causing quite a stir among proponents of ending marijuana prohibition, Dragonfly De La Luz lists 18 reasons "Pro-Pot Activists" oppose Prop. 19.
Regarding whether or not Prop. 19 will amend or supersede California's medical marijuana laws she had this to say:
While amendments were made ostensibly to prevent the initiative from affecting current medical marijuana law, a careful reading of the initiative reveals that this is not, in fact, the case. Certain medical marijuana laws are exempt from the prohibitions the initiative would enact, while others are glaringly absent.
Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.[17] In spite of the fact that the tax cannabis Web site says otherwise, the only medical marijuana exemptions that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative actually makes are with regard to possession, consumption and purchase limits, which only ensure that patients would still be allowed to buy medicine at dispensaries. The word “cultivate” is conspicuously absent. Whereas today a person with a doctor’s recommendation has the right to grow up to an unlimited number of plants, the initiative would drastically reduce that number to whatever can fit in a 5’x5’ footprint (around 3-6 plants—per property, not per person). This will force many patients to resort to buying instead of growing their own medicine, because of the inconvenience caused by producing multiple grows a year rather than growing a year’s supply of medicine at one time, as many patients currently do outdoors. And growing indoors—which typically requires special grow lights, an increase in hydro use, and a lot of time and attention—is a comparatively expensive endeavor.
The initiative would further impact medical marijuana patients by banning medicating in the privacy of their own homes if there are minors present, as well as in public (currently perfectly legal[18])—an invaluable liberty to those with painful diseases who would otherwise have to suffer until they got home to relieve their pain.
Finally, the medical marijuana laws that are exempted from this initiative apparently only apply to cities. For medical marijuana patients who live in an area that has county or local government jurisdiction, according to a strict reading of the initiative, medical marijuana laws are not exempt.[19]
The amendments she refers to were made after Comparing California cannabis/marijuana legalization initiatives was published 31 Jul 09 in Examiner.com. This article noted that the proponents of Proposition 19 had manged to get through 14 drafts without exempting medical marijuana patients from any of its provisions: not the unlimited taxes & licensing fees, not the possession & cultivation limits, not the prohibition on smoking in public or in sight of anyone under 18.
The amendments consisted of adding the phrase "except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9" to the end of Items 7 & 8 under Purposes.
The initiative mentions medical marijuana three times and omits mentioning it once.
The Mentions
The three mentions are Items 6, 7, and 8 in Section 2, B. Purposes.
6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.
The courts will determine that this means Prop. 19 is intended to amend and supersede California's medical marijuana laws; Proposition 215 (H&S 11362.5) and SB 420 (H&S 11362.7-H&S 11362.9).
7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’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.
8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
The first thing to note about these sections is that they are specific to cities. Nowhere does the word "county" appear.
In Item 7, "city" is specified 3 times, every way they know how: "if a city", "that city's limits", "the city's citizens". The rule of thumb is if you say something three times you mean exactly what you said.
This item exempts medical marijuana patients only in cities, and only with regard to how much they may possess and consume. It makes it legal to ban medical marijuana dispensaries, collectives, and delivery services. Unless the city enacts a sin tax, any buying and selling will be illegal.
The Omission
Section C, Intents, has two items.
Item 1 is a list of the laws Prop. 19 is "intended to limit the application and enforcement of". The inclusion of the phrase "including but not limited to the following, whether now existing or adopted in the future" opens the door for the argument to be made that Prop. 19 may (and most likely will) be interpreted to "limit" the "application and enforcement" of the now existing medical marijuana laws.
This interpretation is reinforced by Item 2 under this section, a list of state laws Prop. 19 "is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of".
Note that Item 2 is not open-ended. There is no "including but not limited to" modifier for this Item.
Conspicuously absent from either list are California's medical marijuana laws: Health & Safety Code Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7-11362.9.
These mentions and omissions occur in the 'preamble' of the initiative, titled Findings, Intent and Purposes. Concerns have been expressed regarding how legally binding these sections are and that nowhere in the sections to be added to California's legal code is there any mention of medical marijuana or any exemption for medical marijuana patients and providers.
Exploiting pain and suffering
Nowhere does the initiative exempt medical marijuana cultivators or distributors from the tax.
Proponents of Prop. 19 often argue that everything is taxed. This is not true. Illinois is the only state that taxes prescription pharmaceuticals, and that tax is 1%.
Proponents of Prop. 19 claim they want to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol. It costs $450 to license a pharmacy in California and between $340-$580 to license a retail alcohol establishment. Long Beach claims 85 medical marijuana dispensaries and charges $14,742 for a license. Oakland has a limit of 4 dispensaries and charges them $30,000 for a license.
Proponents of Prop. 19 argue that it is illegal to consume alcohol in sight of anyone under 21 or in public. California is littered with sidewalk cafes and pizza parlors that serve beer, wine, and mixed drinks in public and in the sight of children.
To date the cities of Oakland (the home or Proposition 19), Sacramento (The State Capital), Long Beach, and Berkeley have announced proposals to tax medical marijuana in order to keep their medical marijuana dispensaries from being shut down should Proposition 19 pass.
The most liberal of these is Berkeley, where medical marijuana patients will pay 7.5% less tax than recreational users, and it will only cost them 2.5% more than the 9.75% in sales tax they're already paying.
Sacramento is proposing a sin tax of between 5% and 10% for recreational users and 2% to 4% for the sick and dying. "We're trying to get ahead of the process," said councilmember Sandy Sheedy, who proposed the ordinance.
Medical marijuana patients use considerably more than recreational users. Irv Rosenfeld receives 11 ounces per month from the federal government. Maine recently determined that it's medical marijuana patients would use 5 ounces per month, on average. The tax on medicine, besides being ethically inconsistent, falls most heavily on the sickest, who tend to be the poorest.
At $400 per ounce, a medical marijuana patient who needs 3 ounces a month will pay $138.60 tax per month in Oakland.
Meanwhile, no city or county in California has reversed itself on a ban or moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries since Oakland (home of Prop. 19) passed Measure F, the first medical marijuana tax.
Meanwhile, several cases are working through the courts challenging medical marijuana bans, moratoriums, and regulations which are de facto bans, as discriminatory and in violation of California's medical marijuana laws. Passage of Prop 19 will remove any legal basis for these cases.
Taking the 'medical' out of 'marijuana'
Prop. 19 adds five sections to California's Health & Safety Code, §§ 11300-11304.
§11300 is titled Personal Regulation and Controls. Item a) begins with the phrase "Notwithstanding any other provision of law".
This section makes possession of more than an ounce or by anyone under 21 illegal. It also limits non-licensed cultivation to 25 square feet per residence or parcel, not per person.
If the authors of Prop. 19 wanted to protect medical marijuana patients, why did they say "notwithstanding any other provision of law"?
§11301 is titled Commercial Regulations and Controls. It begins with the phrase "Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law". It prohibits sales to anyone under 21. Nowhere in this section is there any exemption for medical marijuana patients, cultivators, or distributors.
In addition to allowing cities and counties to ban commercial cultivation and sales (including medical marijuana collectives and dispensaries) it states the following:
(g) prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300;
This means that the taxes and fees paid by the licensed commercial cultivators and distributors will be used to eliminate the competition. For example, Oakland (the home of Prop. 19) is in the process of licensing four cultivators to supply the approximately 6,000 pounds per year sold by the four licensed dispensaries. Bay Citizen put it this way:
Growing marijuana can be lucrative, but the city’s proposed new rules would eliminate small-timers. It would cost $5,000 just to apply for a cultivation permit, and a regulatory fee of $211,000 for the lucky winners. If one has the cash, it’s a small price to pay for the right to produce a crop with an estimated retail value of $7 million. The fee pays for regulating cultivation in Oakland, which will include enforcement against the guys with grow lights in their garages and backyard sheds.
The New York times reports that the leading contender for one of these cultivation permits is Jeff Wilcox, a member of the Proposition 19 steering committee. "Mr. Wilcox estimated that AgraMed would cost $20 million to develop."
Reasonable Accommodation
Current California medical marijuana law does not prohibit smoking in public. It is not currently illegal for medical marijuana patients to smoke in public or in sight of anyone under 18:
11362.79. 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 schoolbus.
(d) While in a motor vehicle that is being operated.
(e) While operating a boat.
While debating Keith Kimber on Time4Hemp Chris Conrad stated Prop. 19 would have to win by a wider margin than Prop. 215 in order to supersede it. He reiterated this in an email that was passed around Facebook.
Even if it did conflict with or amend the medical marijuana laws, which it repeatedly does not do, Prop 19 would still have to pass by more than 56% to have any effect on Prop 215, which is highly unlikely.
Conrad is in error. The California Initiative Guide states the following:
If the provisions of two or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail (Cal. Const., art. II, Section 10(b)).
This is not a case of two or more measures in the same election.
MMJ patients will be loosing our rights if this passes.
Proponents of California's Regulate Control and Tax Cannabis 2010 Initiative (Prop. 19) claim it will have no effect on California's medical marijuana laws, that it "explicitly upholds the rights of medical marijuana patients".
The language of the initiative says otherwise.
Yesterday, Russ Belville stated in a comment to his blog in The Huffington Post that "Prop 19 does nothing to change Prop 215 or your access to your current dispensary." Belville is NORML's Outreach Coordinator and Host of NORML Show Live.
Meanwhile, in an article that is causing quite a stir among proponents of ending marijuana prohibition, Dragonfly De La Luz lists 18 reasons "Pro-Pot Activists" oppose Prop. 19.
Regarding whether or not Prop. 19 will amend or supersede California's medical marijuana laws she had this to say:
While amendments were made ostensibly to prevent the initiative from affecting current medical marijuana law, a careful reading of the initiative reveals that this is not, in fact, the case. Certain medical marijuana laws are exempt from the prohibitions the initiative would enact, while others are glaringly absent.
Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.[17] In spite of the fact that the tax cannabis Web site says otherwise, the only medical marijuana exemptions that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative actually makes are with regard to possession, consumption and purchase limits, which only ensure that patients would still be allowed to buy medicine at dispensaries. The word “cultivate” is conspicuously absent. Whereas today a person with a doctor’s recommendation has the right to grow up to an unlimited number of plants, the initiative would drastically reduce that number to whatever can fit in a 5’x5’ footprint (around 3-6 plants—per property, not per person). This will force many patients to resort to buying instead of growing their own medicine, because of the inconvenience caused by producing multiple grows a year rather than growing a year’s supply of medicine at one time, as many patients currently do outdoors. And growing indoors—which typically requires special grow lights, an increase in hydro use, and a lot of time and attention—is a comparatively expensive endeavor.
The initiative would further impact medical marijuana patients by banning medicating in the privacy of their own homes if there are minors present, as well as in public (currently perfectly legal[18])—an invaluable liberty to those with painful diseases who would otherwise have to suffer until they got home to relieve their pain.
Finally, the medical marijuana laws that are exempted from this initiative apparently only apply to cities. For medical marijuana patients who live in an area that has county or local government jurisdiction, according to a strict reading of the initiative, medical marijuana laws are not exempt.[19]
The amendments she refers to were made after Comparing California cannabis/marijuana legalization initiatives was published 31 Jul 09 in Examiner.com. This article noted that the proponents of Proposition 19 had manged to get through 14 drafts without exempting medical marijuana patients from any of its provisions: not the unlimited taxes & licensing fees, not the possession & cultivation limits, not the prohibition on smoking in public or in sight of anyone under 18.
The amendments consisted of adding the phrase "except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9" to the end of Items 7 & 8 under Purposes.
The initiative mentions medical marijuana three times and omits mentioning it once.
The Mentions
The three mentions are Items 6, 7, and 8 in Section 2, B. Purposes.
6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.
The courts will determine that this means Prop. 19 is intended to amend and supersede California's medical marijuana laws; Proposition 215 (H&S 11362.5) and SB 420 (H&S 11362.7-H&S 11362.9).
7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’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.
8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
The first thing to note about these sections is that they are specific to cities. Nowhere does the word "county" appear.
In Item 7, "city" is specified 3 times, every way they know how: "if a city", "that city's limits", "the city's citizens". The rule of thumb is if you say something three times you mean exactly what you said.
This item exempts medical marijuana patients only in cities, and only with regard to how much they may possess and consume. It makes it legal to ban medical marijuana dispensaries, collectives, and delivery services. Unless the city enacts a sin tax, any buying and selling will be illegal.
The Omission
Section C, Intents, has two items.
Item 1 is a list of the laws Prop. 19 is "intended to limit the application and enforcement of". The inclusion of the phrase "including but not limited to the following, whether now existing or adopted in the future" opens the door for the argument to be made that Prop. 19 may (and most likely will) be interpreted to "limit" the "application and enforcement" of the now existing medical marijuana laws.
This interpretation is reinforced by Item 2 under this section, a list of state laws Prop. 19 "is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of".
Note that Item 2 is not open-ended. There is no "including but not limited to" modifier for this Item.
Conspicuously absent from either list are California's medical marijuana laws: Health & Safety Code Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7-11362.9.
These mentions and omissions occur in the 'preamble' of the initiative, titled Findings, Intent and Purposes. Concerns have been expressed regarding how legally binding these sections are and that nowhere in the sections to be added to California's legal code is there any mention of medical marijuana or any exemption for medical marijuana patients and providers.
Exploiting pain and suffering
Nowhere does the initiative exempt medical marijuana cultivators or distributors from the tax.
Proponents of Prop. 19 often argue that everything is taxed. This is not true. Illinois is the only state that taxes prescription pharmaceuticals, and that tax is 1%.
Proponents of Prop. 19 claim they want to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol. It costs $450 to license a pharmacy in California and between $340-$580 to license a retail alcohol establishment. Long Beach claims 85 medical marijuana dispensaries and charges $14,742 for a license. Oakland has a limit of 4 dispensaries and charges them $30,000 for a license.
Proponents of Prop. 19 argue that it is illegal to consume alcohol in sight of anyone under 21 or in public. California is littered with sidewalk cafes and pizza parlors that serve beer, wine, and mixed drinks in public and in the sight of children.
To date the cities of Oakland (the home or Proposition 19), Sacramento (The State Capital), Long Beach, and Berkeley have announced proposals to tax medical marijuana in order to keep their medical marijuana dispensaries from being shut down should Proposition 19 pass.
The most liberal of these is Berkeley, where medical marijuana patients will pay 7.5% less tax than recreational users, and it will only cost them 2.5% more than the 9.75% in sales tax they're already paying.
Sacramento is proposing a sin tax of between 5% and 10% for recreational users and 2% to 4% for the sick and dying. "We're trying to get ahead of the process," said councilmember Sandy Sheedy, who proposed the ordinance.
Medical marijuana patients use considerably more than recreational users. Irv Rosenfeld receives 11 ounces per month from the federal government. Maine recently determined that it's medical marijuana patients would use 5 ounces per month, on average. The tax on medicine, besides being ethically inconsistent, falls most heavily on the sickest, who tend to be the poorest.
At $400 per ounce, a medical marijuana patient who needs 3 ounces a month will pay $138.60 tax per month in Oakland.
Meanwhile, no city or county in California has reversed itself on a ban or moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries since Oakland (home of Prop. 19) passed Measure F, the first medical marijuana tax.
Meanwhile, several cases are working through the courts challenging medical marijuana bans, moratoriums, and regulations which are de facto bans, as discriminatory and in violation of California's medical marijuana laws. Passage of Prop 19 will remove any legal basis for these cases.
Taking the 'medical' out of 'marijuana'
Prop. 19 adds five sections to California's Health & Safety Code, §§ 11300-11304.
§11300 is titled Personal Regulation and Controls. Item a) begins with the phrase "Notwithstanding any other provision of law".
This section makes possession of more than an ounce or by anyone under 21 illegal. It also limits non-licensed cultivation to 25 square feet per residence or parcel, not per person.
If the authors of Prop. 19 wanted to protect medical marijuana patients, why did they say "notwithstanding any other provision of law"?
§11301 is titled Commercial Regulations and Controls. It begins with the phrase "Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law". It prohibits sales to anyone under 21. Nowhere in this section is there any exemption for medical marijuana patients, cultivators, or distributors.
In addition to allowing cities and counties to ban commercial cultivation and sales (including medical marijuana collectives and dispensaries) it states the following:
(g) prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300;
This means that the taxes and fees paid by the licensed commercial cultivators and distributors will be used to eliminate the competition. For example, Oakland (the home of Prop. 19) is in the process of licensing four cultivators to supply the approximately 6,000 pounds per year sold by the four licensed dispensaries. Bay Citizen put it this way:
Growing marijuana can be lucrative, but the city’s proposed new rules would eliminate small-timers. It would cost $5,000 just to apply for a cultivation permit, and a regulatory fee of $211,000 for the lucky winners. If one has the cash, it’s a small price to pay for the right to produce a crop with an estimated retail value of $7 million. The fee pays for regulating cultivation in Oakland, which will include enforcement against the guys with grow lights in their garages and backyard sheds.
The New York times reports that the leading contender for one of these cultivation permits is Jeff Wilcox, a member of the Proposition 19 steering committee. "Mr. Wilcox estimated that AgraMed would cost $20 million to develop."
Reasonable Accommodation
Current California medical marijuana law does not prohibit smoking in public. It is not currently illegal for medical marijuana patients to smoke in public or in sight of anyone under 18:
11362.79. 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 schoolbus.
(d) While in a motor vehicle that is being operated.
(e) While operating a boat.
While debating Keith Kimber on Time4Hemp Chris Conrad stated Prop. 19 would have to win by a wider margin than Prop. 215 in order to supersede it. He reiterated this in an email that was passed around Facebook.
Even if it did conflict with or amend the medical marijuana laws, which it repeatedly does not do, Prop 19 would still have to pass by more than 56% to have any effect on Prop 215, which is highly unlikely.
Conrad is in error. The California Initiative Guide states the following:
If the provisions of two or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail (Cal. Const., art. II, Section 10(b)).
This is not a case of two or more measures in the same election.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
I can copy and paste too.
Medical Cannabis Patients
Q: Does Proposition 19 change medical cannabis laws in California?
A: No, it wont change or affect current medical cannabis laws or protections offered to qualified patients. Patients will still be able to possess what is needed for medical use, and will retain all rights under Prop 215 and SB 420. In fact, Proposition 19 will clarify state law, to protect medical cannabis collectives and businesses operating responsibly under their local guidelines. Currently, the legality of medical cannabis sales is in dispute. Many cities and counties are struggling with the interpretation of SB 420, particularly around the allowance for cash transactions. As a result, these localities are unable to control and tax medical cannabis for distribution to qualified patients. Proposition 19 specifically grants cities and counties the ability to regulate sales for medical cannabis and commercial cultivation for safe, regulated medicine. Proposition 19 will also allow for research, safety testing, and potency monitoring.
Q: How will Proposition 19 affect patients who grow at home?
A: Patient gardens will remain legal, and protections will remain unchanged for patients who choose to grow their own medicine.
Q: How will Proposition 19 affect collective and cooperative cultivation?
A: Proposition 19 will allow for greater protection for collectives and cooperatives in storefront locations. City and county governments will now have the clearly established ability to regulate collective and/or commercial growing.
Q: If Proposition 19 passes, will non-medical patients have more rights than patients?
A: No, adults 21 and over will be able to possess up to one ounce of cannabis outside of the home. Adults may only grow in a 5x5 area, and will have an affirmative defense to possess what they grow for personal use in that area. Patients and/or collectives will still be able to possess the amount needed for their medical use.
Q: If Proposition 19 passes, will it still be beneficial to be a medical cannabis patient?
A: Yes, medical patients will receive the greatest protections. Qualified patients will be allowed to possess and grow more than adults (to cover their medical needs). We also hope to see exemptions or discounts on services, and taxes to subsidize the cost to patients needing medical cannabis.
Q: Will Proposition 19 make it more difficult to become a medical patient?
A: No, being a medical cannabis patient will still remain private between you and your doctor.
Q: Could Proposition 19 affect medical cannabis growers?
A: Yes, by providing legal permits to gardens, Proposition 19 will also make possible the first legal commercial growing, once cannabis cultivation is regulated and permitted by either local governments or the state.
Q: Will Proposition 19 attract big business and cut out the little guys, and the cottage industry they have worked so hard to create?
A: Proposition 19 will actually give local groups an equal opportunity to obtain licenses and/or permits for the sale and cultivation of medical cannabis, adult cannabis, and hemp. Local groups can work with local governments to help determine regulations and licensing for cultivation and sales. Proposition 19 is also significant in that it allows for personal cultivation by adults.
Medical Cannabis Patients
Q: Does Proposition 19 change medical cannabis laws in California?
A: No, it wont change or affect current medical cannabis laws or protections offered to qualified patients. Patients will still be able to possess what is needed for medical use, and will retain all rights under Prop 215 and SB 420. In fact, Proposition 19 will clarify state law, to protect medical cannabis collectives and businesses operating responsibly under their local guidelines. Currently, the legality of medical cannabis sales is in dispute. Many cities and counties are struggling with the interpretation of SB 420, particularly around the allowance for cash transactions. As a result, these localities are unable to control and tax medical cannabis for distribution to qualified patients. Proposition 19 specifically grants cities and counties the ability to regulate sales for medical cannabis and commercial cultivation for safe, regulated medicine. Proposition 19 will also allow for research, safety testing, and potency monitoring.
Q: How will Proposition 19 affect patients who grow at home?
A: Patient gardens will remain legal, and protections will remain unchanged for patients who choose to grow their own medicine.
Q: How will Proposition 19 affect collective and cooperative cultivation?
A: Proposition 19 will allow for greater protection for collectives and cooperatives in storefront locations. City and county governments will now have the clearly established ability to regulate collective and/or commercial growing.
Q: If Proposition 19 passes, will non-medical patients have more rights than patients?
A: No, adults 21 and over will be able to possess up to one ounce of cannabis outside of the home. Adults may only grow in a 5x5 area, and will have an affirmative defense to possess what they grow for personal use in that area. Patients and/or collectives will still be able to possess the amount needed for their medical use.
Q: If Proposition 19 passes, will it still be beneficial to be a medical cannabis patient?
A: Yes, medical patients will receive the greatest protections. Qualified patients will be allowed to possess and grow more than adults (to cover their medical needs). We also hope to see exemptions or discounts on services, and taxes to subsidize the cost to patients needing medical cannabis.
Q: Will Proposition 19 make it more difficult to become a medical patient?
A: No, being a medical cannabis patient will still remain private between you and your doctor.
Q: Could Proposition 19 affect medical cannabis growers?
A: Yes, by providing legal permits to gardens, Proposition 19 will also make possible the first legal commercial growing, once cannabis cultivation is regulated and permitted by either local governments or the state.
Q: Will Proposition 19 attract big business and cut out the little guys, and the cottage industry they have worked so hard to create?
A: Proposition 19 will actually give local groups an equal opportunity to obtain licenses and/or permits for the sale and cultivation of medical cannabis, adult cannabis, and hemp. Local groups can work with local governments to help determine regulations and licensing for cultivation and sales. Proposition 19 is also significant in that it allows for personal cultivation by adults.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
done that. try again.
'notwithstanding any other provision of law' is exactly the phrase that allows medical to continue. medical patients will retain full rights as before, especially since you still have affirmative defense.
and even supposing such a ridiculous scenario as you falsely assert, i feel real sorry for you if you cannot produce huge quantities of bud in a 5x5 space.
why don't you tell me in your own words (based on the verbiage of the bill) how this will in any way restrict the rights of medical patients. i do not want a braindead copy and paste. i want you to show me the language. a perfunctory scan of the bill makes it glaringly apparent that medical is uneffected by passage of this prop.
just another scare tactic. show me the language, prove me wrong.
Luger187
Well-Known Member
if a city makes sales of it illegal, how is a dispensary going to open? and what about if im over 21 and i give a joint to a friend who is 20, but has a medical rec, couldnt i still get in trouble? wheres the exemptions for med patients?
and its not that we cant produce enough in a 5x5 area, its just kinda rediculous to me. what if i want to do some outdoor as well as indoor? ive gotta keep trimming the outdoors so that it stay under a 3x3 area? that way i have a 2x2 space for my indoor?
they should just do a plant limit, along with smaller restrictions like u cant have a HUGE 15ft plant full of buds that ur neighbors can smell in their house. idk maybe a height limit?
TokinPodPilot
Well-Known Member
http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html
Although, since it's not Wikipedia, you may decide that nothing in this article can be true.
medicineman
New Member
Uh, 3X3=9 sq. ft. 2X2=4 sq. ft. That still leaves 12 sq. ft, or 3X4, the largest area of the three. Bonus, eh? In a 2X2 closet, I grew a white widow, about 6 ft tall, got over 14 OZs. Took about 9 weeks, thats roughly 1-1/2 OZs a week. Most pot addicts could live with that, especially with the potency of something like WW. Your Bonus site, 3X4 should be able to grow twice that easily, 3 more OZs a week plus what you are already getting from your 13 sq feet.. Thats should give you at least 6 OZs a week, almost an OZ a day. Could you survive on that? Let's say you were to take up selling weed. Smoke an OZ a week, sell 5. Take a lowball price for your weed, 250.00 per OZ. That's 1250.00 per week, tax free. One would have to be pretty educated and connected to fare that well in the working world. Raise the price to 500.00 an OZ and you are in the 130,000.00 a year, tax free zone, yippee. A couple of Farraris or Lambos, a multi million dollar house on the hill? Oh yeah, poor little you. I think you get the picture. If I could get a connect I could trust, I'd grow an OZ a week and sell it, supplement my retirement, maybe even 2 OZs a week. Raising my grandkids pretty much precludes going bigger. When the WW was ready to harvest, even with my venting into the attic system, when you opened the door to my grow room, (Closet in the room) It would knock you down, the smell. I loved it, but my wife was paranoid and thought the cops would drive by and smell it. I used to sit in this room, my Office and breath the fumes, wonderful. Pot growing is super fun, even though I don't smoke. I always thought the plants were beautiful. I had been growing for years before I met my wife, she never smoked and didn't like the stuff. When We moved in together, I stopped growing untill a couple a years ago, but I quit to keep peace, that and I didn't want to go to the streets to find customers.
Luger187
Well-Known Member
boy i fucked up on that math lol
yeah maybe if u have a few thousand watters, and a space that tall.
i just dont think the government should have a say in what i do in my house. if i wana grow a field of pot, so be it. its my life, ill live it how i want
GanjaAL
Active Member
You may grow a qp but you are only allowed to have no more than an ounce on you at a time. Sorry but your limits and such go out the window. Again sir read the law. You will not be able to grow your own unless you have a plant that only cranks out an oz or less.let's see what, if any, of this BULLSHIT is actually in the prop 19...this will all be based on the text of the prop 19, which can be found here http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_19,_the_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative_(2010)#Basic_information
i don't see this bold part ANYWHERE in the text of the bill. please show me where i missed it.
also, this only applies if you are using in a purely recreational way. anyone who wants to circumvent these limits can, as so many prohibitionists here seem to advocate, go out and get a med card for almost any reason imaginable.
plus, an ounce of pot should last you a week or two at least. are you telling me you can't pull a lollipop plant out of a 5x5 space once every week or two? you suck at growing. get over to newbie central. or just go to a dispensary and get some to hold you over. or store the entire dried/cured plant in one piece somewhere in that 5x5 space, and take a branch off as you smoke through your ounce of stash (check the text of the bill, that is allowed).
i don't see how you could possibly make the argument that allowing recreational use and cultivation for EVERYONE in addition to maintaining current medical laws is anything but a huge step forward for stoner mankind.
cannabis is the most expensive and blatantly overpriced product on the market?
BULLSHIT!
i can grow the QP per month i need for myself quite comfortably on about $60-75 a month in electricity and supplies.
and anyone who is going to use 'cheaper, more dangerous drugs' (not sure which ones those are, by the way) are going to do it anyway. legalizing cannabis is not going to force people into popping oxycontin. i'm sure that shit is cheap though
BULLSHIT
this bill says NOTHING about what would happen to someone 18-20 sharing/selling to someone else 18-20. look it up. try to prove me wrong. YOU CLEARLY HAVE NOT READ THE BILL
true, actually. but you have to do so KNOWINGLY. that is so easy to get out of it is a joke. unless you want to argue that you have to know beyond a reasonable doubt that the person you are toking with is 21, not 20.
the penalty for possession in arizona are severe and include jailtime as well. yet after getting caught a few times, they only ever made me dump it. you really think a cop is going to put you in jail for 6 months for that? or carrying 31 grams instead of 28?
the law in az called for 10 days in jail for a dui when i last lived there, but you only get 1 day if you take a plea and do AA classes. it is how the law works.
this bill says NOTHING about this!
more BULLSHIT straight of this author's ASS which clearly demonstrates you have not actually read the bill.
please, show me where this is in the bill.....please? http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_19,_the_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative_(2010)#Basic_information
is that why the american federation of teachers, aclu, libertarians, green party, law enforcement against prohibition, and others all support this? by the way, much lolz at calling legalization 'draconian'....in fact....LOLZ!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19#Support
the only way you can get a 3/5/7 year sentence is by selling to someone 14 years old or younger. if you are that dumb, you deserve it.
perhaps i should consider typing everything in size 72 font. maybe people would believe everything i say without checking the actual facts found within the bill itself.
conclusion: you have not actually read this thing, this article is full of lies and FAIL, and please stop posting a festering pile of bullshit lies and calling it the truth.
thank you in advance.
unless, of course, you find this imaginary text within the bill.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_19,_the_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative_(2010)#Basic_information
Vote no and read the bill.
ManyClouds
Well-Known Member
Dude face the fact that unclebuck pwned you!!!
ManyClouds
Well-Known Member
Fuck the gov dude, grow your own shit, keep to yourself, just like non med users do today, unfortunate for med users I know; but if the gov said to kill your first born due to over population would you??? FUCK the gov dude, shit will never be perfect and you know this! Thanks for the info and I hope shit works out!
gloomysmokes707
Active Member
CALIFORNIA, Legalize it.
TokinPodPilot
Well-Known Member
It's already legalized. This bill puts more laws on the books, increases restrictions and will result in an increase in arrests. Just for those reasons alone, anyone who votes for this is the real selfish dick. You want your personal ounce and are willing to cut and run on those who've already been incarcerated and to sacrifice more to come to get it.
NeOgRa
Well-Known Member
Mindmelted
Well-Known Member
Makes sense.....