Keenly2
Active Member
are you not familiar with the united states constitution?
Proposition 19 CA
- Thread starter Dr.Darkheart
- Start date
are you not familiar with the united states constitution?
TokinPodPilot
Well-Known Member
OK, fine... from the top of this very page even...
Once again, Prop 19 doesn't reduce the laws and restrictions under current California law, it increases restrictions. But then, you'd have had to do some research to know that. Since you can't even read a response to one of your own posts correctly, I'll assume that these activities are beyond your capabilities.
There is so much erroneous information and baseless supposition in this paragraph that I'm not even going to bother with replying. Especially since I've already made this argument and it apparently flew in one ear and out the other... assuming it was able to penetrate something so thick to begin with.
TokinPodPilot
Well-Known Member
Very. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the fact that once a warrant has been issued for a search or arrest, then the police and DA have collected enough evidence to make your arrest worthwhile. They've already built a case against you and collected evidence. You will have to argue and dispute each allegation against you and disprove their evidence. They've already built up their proof of your guilt, now you have to prove them wrong. Thus, the burden of proof is upon you once you're in court.
It's quite amazing how the entire point of this Prop is flying over the people who oppose it's collective head. It's about freedom, about not being persecuted for smoking weed. Sorry, that growers have to lose money, but the fact that you CAN go to jail for possessing marijuana in so many places in america, not just california, is a true injustice. One that needs to be fixed. That is the point. This is an attempt to right a wrong that has been going on for nearly a century now. Everyone in the rest of the world is watching cali on this issue. I'm sorry but it is bigger than you. If this gets voted down it will be another notch on the bedpost of the DEA and all the other organizations that continue to persecute pot smokers across the country and the world. The fact of the matter is weed needs to be legal. Everything that is legal is TAXED and REGULATED. Growers losing out on their black market profits and spreading the word to vote no is just so selfish that it's hard for me to understand. I'll post this link to an article written by Marc Emery that has been posted many times in this forum and others. Be my guest to dispute his article and to show that you are not one of the 3 types of people he's talking about in it.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2010/06/05/Why-You-Should-Vote-YES-California-Control-Tax-Cannabis-Initiative
My favorite quote from his article: "Well, I say screw any greedy growers whose love of money is greater than their love of marijuana"
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2010/06/05/Why-You-Should-Vote-YES-California-Control-Tax-Cannabis-Initiative
My favorite quote from his article: "Well, I say screw any greedy growers whose love of money is greater than their love of marijuana"
And if it has gone that far you have more going on than a personal grow operation... If you want to go bigger, prop 19 makes it legit
TokinPodPilot
Well-Known Member
This is a particularly cute delusion and oft-repeated by proponents of the bill. As a medical grower, I don't lose any money. In fact, this will probably present me with opportunities to make a fair amount of money. Quite frankly, I don't have to prove that I am or am not any sort of person. In fact, I think you need to take a good look at who you are. If you really feel a need to dehumanize and slander the growers who've kept this industry alive throughout Prohibition and brought California law to where it is today. Possession of an ounce or less does not get you put in jail in California. For possession of larger amounts and cultivation of any number of plants, there are precedents that allow for diversion instead of jail time for first and second time non-violent offenders. I'm sorry that you're region sucks when it comes to cannabis legislation, but maybe you should work on your own problems.
Ah yes... Mr. self-proclaimed "Prince of Pot". The man was stupid enough to directly challenge the federal government from a country with ridiculous extradition history and now sits in prison for his efforts. Gee, I can't imagine why someone who makes money off cannabis seeds would be in favor of a proposition which opens commercial sales of cannabis. Good try, but he's about as trustworthy as Dick Lee.
drherbalist
Member
Today's Lesson in Latin: Maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit
You didn't actually disclaim any of his arguments in that article with that response. You tried to disclaim him, but as far as I (and many people are) am concerned he is more of a martyr than anything else. He paid taxes to the Canadian govt on all of his profits, which he then donated straight to the legalization effort. In fact Canada has broken it's own laws by taking his taxes because they "benefited from illegal activity" which they refused to charge him for. Again, be my guest to dispute anything from his article.
sm0keyrich510
Active Member
amen. with all the taxes and fees there are now (that the state/gov is getting their hands on) they are making out just fine...so lets legalize it so they can take even more...like they know what to do with it anyway.
you're right you wouldnt pay any fines for having less than an oz if you were 21 or older...those 18-20 would face a $1000 fine and/or 6 months in jail.
so you're saying you'd rather just leglize it because the DEA and the DA are too lazy to go after the ones breaking the rules? we shouldn't change rules because the state/gov and police agencies can't do their jobs correctly? they should go after those breaking the rules instead of saying, "we're too lazy to enforce this...lets just vote yes" (which isn't the reason they want you to vote yes)...the REAL reason they want you to vote yes is so big business and the state/gov can make more money...thats what its all about...why do you think the biggest supporters of this bill are commercial growers or are closely connected to corporate type marijuana industries? because they stand to gain the most from this passing...
not the average joe.
me too. in the beginning of all the prop 19 discussions i felt like i was the only one i knew in real life and one of a handful online that were against it..now some of the more intelligent people of california are catching on to the trick...this is just smoke and mirrors...they are "legalizing" it but they are trying to control it excessively...limiting how much you can grow, buy, and sell (however you can grow buy and sell as many tomatoes as you want) actually it doesn't allow you to sell any marijuana and it further controls you buy dictating where your marijuana may come from...either you 5x5 garden or the big business marijuana company...
its practically going to be a monopoly...the biggest and strongest of the new corporate marijuana businesses would eventually beat out their competition and you'd have a small group of companies dictating what the price will be to buy marijuana.
its a ploy. and for those who say, "just grow your own"...well you only have a 5x5 space to grow...PER HOUSE (so if you got 5-6-7 ppl at your house its gonna be difficult). ALso you are only allowed 1 oz (out of your 5x5 garden) in your possession.
you must also take into account that not everyone has the money, knowledge, time, living situation to grow...so some (more like majority) of the smokers will be stuck getting it from these big businesses...at least now under 215 if you dont like someone's quality or price of the marijuana you can VERY EASILY get it from VARIOUS sources (dispesaries, craigslist, ie...other 215 card olders)...
with prop 19 you are very restricted. this is the government/state/big business screwing over the average person.
im glad posters like you know whats goin on here.
very true but the reaction i've gotten from that arguement is they don't care what happens to the people that have helped make this industry in california what it is...they have told me they need to "get real jobs" however i think the QUALITY of the marijuana of someone who RELIES ON IT FOR INCOME is better than those growing 10+ lbs at a time just for the quick buck...those living off of it really put care into their grows...more so than say a drug cartel who will let males flower with the females because they are too lazy to pull them...
that never happens with one solid grower on this forum...i've seen lots of grows...95% put great care into their plants..big business could care less. they care bout profits and thats about it...
then the DA/DEA needs to go after those abusing the system...not just legalize it for everyone so they don't have to do their jobs to the fullest extent...
if we were talking about legalizing other types of drugs (meth, coke/crack, x, you name it) we wouldn't even be having this discussion...but for a few knocks we'll really pretend this is the answer....when its clearly not..
for legalization to work it has to be on a federal/nationwide level...not this one legal state at a time business...thats just going to promote illegal activites...encourage trafficking the marijuana to states in which it is illegal for a higher profit...
drherbalist
Member
I would say taxing it is just a more REALISTIC approach if this is to PASS anytime soon. I think if you were to take that element out of the Proposition then it would lose a large number of votes. Good strategy for those who would prefer to see it fail.
What is the current punishment for 18-20 year olds caught with less than an oz?
Who said the DEA and DA are lazy and that is why we are legalizing it?
You're right...we shouldn't change rules because the state/gov and police agencies can't do their jobs correctly. We should change the rules if that is the will of the people.
If there were a legalization bill on a federal level I would be all for that too. I am for legalization in whatever form it is to take. It to me is about the injustice that is occurring. It's not about the money to me, it's a matter of freedom. That fact of the matter is that it will not happen on a federal level anytime soon, marijuana wasn't illegalized first on a federal level. It was a state by state happening that made it illegal and it will be reversed in the same way. Again, if this passes it will be the most liberal marijuana policy in the WORLD. California > Amsterdam. Let that sink in for a minute, to play towards the way things do get done ($), imagine the tourism money that will come with that. Imagine the stoners who will MOVE to california just because of this.
TokinPodPilot
Well-Known Member
So, you have a raging hard-on for someone who likes to profit off of medical and recreational users alike, got busted for trafficking contraband materials into the United States opening himself up for Federal prosecution from a country known to be weak in it's dealings with the United States when it comes to things like criminal prosecution and extradition. I don't have to disclaim your little hero... his actions speak for him. In any case, your hero-worship of Marky-boy doesn't really make him any more amiable or competent. Nor does it make his article any more valid or worth responding to. He's one man amongst millions of prisoners being held for the same or lesser charges, some of those are friends and family. So, you'll have to excuse me for not really giving a rat's ass about Moron Emery who's been making millions off of everyone and now wants us to feel sorry for him.
drherbalist
Member
What's dehumanizing is a mmj patient with no medical insurance, because they don't have access or can't afford it, paying $60 for a decent 8th when we all in here know that it did not cost that much to produce. All while growers are turning a nice profit. That's dehumanizing.
Yet again I heard no counter-arguments. But go ahead and continue to slander a man who is doing time and being victimized as a prisoner of a foreign government for crimes (a term I'm using very loosely) that his own country refused to charge him for.
Also, to my understanding of Prop 19, that $1000 fine and 6 month jail time is what a person gets who gives/sells to someone underage, not the penalty for the underage person who is caught possessing. That is the exact same penalty for selling alcohol to a minor and was put into this for that very reason, to parallel marijuana with alcohol as best as possible. I'm not sure what the proposed penalty willbe for the minor who is caught possessing it, I would guess it would also be the same as a minor caught in possession of alcohol (again to go with the parallel reasoning) or it still be the current punishment (fine). Also, if it were the penalty for the underage person caught with the bud, I would honestly be OK with that as well. I have no remorse for those caught drinking underage. You do your time as a youth until you are old enough to follow a just law. I am OK with appropriate age limits. I would prefer the age limit be 18 (I would prefer that be the age for alcohol as well), but compromise is one thing I have a great ability to comprehend.
Also, to my understanding of Prop 19, that $1000 fine and 6 month jail time is what a person gets who gives/sells to someone underage, not the penalty for the underage person who is caught possessing. That is the exact same penalty for selling alcohol to a minor and was put into this for that very reason, to parallel marijuana with alcohol as best as possible. I'm not sure what the proposed penalty willbe for the minor who is caught possessing it, I would guess it would also be the same as a minor caught in possession of alcohol (again to go with the parallel reasoning) or it still be the current punishment (fine). Also, if it were the penalty for the underage person caught with the bud, I would honestly be OK with that as well. I have no remorse for those caught drinking underage. You do your time as a youth until you are old enough to follow a just law. I am OK with appropriate age limits. I would prefer the age limit be 18 (I would prefer that be the age for alcohol as well), but compromise is one thing I have a great ability to comprehend.
TokinPodPilot
Well-Known Member
I see... you can't find a provider that won't rip you off. So that must mean that all growers/providers are out to rip people off and take advantage of patients. No wonder you like this Prop 19 drivel. Grossly inaccurate generalizations are a common tool of propogandists, and this campaign has had no shortage of them. I'm sorry you can't find a provider who doesn't want to rip you off, but quite frankly with the attitude you have towards growers, I can understand why.
Please read this myth and fact sheet then make up your minds, I hope you'll understand why most intelligent people who value freedom and want to pass on good laws to our generations to come will be voting NO on prop 19.
When most marijuana activists, growers and consumers first heard about an initiative that would legalize cannabis in California, they thought it was a pipe dream come true. To many, legalization implied that it would no longer be a crime to possess, consume or distribute marijuana. Cannabis consumers rejoiced at the idea of being able to buy from their neighbors or at partiesjust as they already dowith no legal retribution. Small-time growers envisioned being free to sell their product to those who sought them out, with no legal repercussions. Marijuana activists thought it meant that people would stop getting arrested for pot, and that the drug war would finally be over. But now that the initiative is headed to ballot, many pro-legalization supporters are coming out against it. Why?
Simply put, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative does not reflect most peoples ideas of what legalization would be. The media often incorrectly reports that this initiative calls for full legalization of marijuana. It does not. In fact, it reverses many of the freedoms marijuana consumers currently enjoy, pushes growers out of the commercial market, paves the way for the corporatization of cannabis, and creates new prohibitions and felonies where there are none now. Apparently, to be pro-legalization and pro-initiative are two different things entirely.
The late-Jack Herer, legendary marijuana activist known as the father of the legalization movement, vehemently opposed the initiative. In the last words of his impassioned final speech, moments before the heart attack that would eventually claim his life, he urged people not to support it.[1] Proposition 215 author, Dennis Peron, likewise denounced the initiative, saying it is not legalization, but thinly-veiled prohibition.[2]
Compared to the present status of cannabis in California, many marijuana activists see this initiative as a giant leap backward. Ironically, it appears that marijuana is more legal in California today than it would be if this initiative were to pass.
The initiative itself is a hazy maze of regulations and controls, some of which are ambiguous and confusing even for those well-versed in marijuana law. Understandably, many who have entered the discussion seem to have bypassed the initiative altogether and gone straight to their own assumptions of what an initiative that claims to legalize marijuana might entail, injecting the debate with as many misconceptions as facts. But for an issue that would have such a direct and unprecedented impact on our daily lives, its crucial to decide your vote based on knowledge, rather than assumption.
To clarify a few of the most glaring myths about the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative, I have compiled this guide to help you VOTE KNOW!
Myth #1: The initiative will end the War on Drugs and substantially reduce marijuana arrests, saving millions in prison costs.
Fact: Hardly. The federal drug war will continue to drone on, of course, and growing or possessing any amount of marijuana would still be illegal under federal law. Anyone growing or possessing cannabis without a doctors recommendation would still be subject to arrest and seizure by the federal policealthough on the bright side, the Obama administration recently announced it will no longer raid individuals who are operating in compliance with medical marijuana law.[3]
Contrary to popular assumption, the drug war in California will not end, nor will it be impacted much by the initiative. This is because the initiative doesnt call for full legalization; it proposes to legalize possession of only up to one ounce. And in California, there is no drug war being fought against possession of up to one ounce, because marijuana is already decriminalized.
The penalty for carrying an ounce is a mere citation and maximum $100 fine.[4] Moreover, possession of one ounce is on its way to being downgraded from a misdemeanor to an infraction, because the state Senate voted in June to reclassify its status. [5] No one goes to jail for having an ounce or less in California, and no one gets arrested, because it is not an arrestable offense.
One often-quoted statistic in the initiative debate is that misdemeanor marijuana possession arrests reached 61,388 in 2008.[6] However, it is important to note that this statistic does not refer to any arrest demographic that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative would affect. This statistic refers only to possession of more than one ounce, possession by minors and possession on school grounds*offenses which the initiative will not legalize. It does not refer to nor does it include marijuana arrests for possession of one ounce or less, because this is not an arrestable offense. Therefore, the initiative would have no impact on reducing these arrests rates.
Statistically, the demographic that accounts for nearly one-quarter of total arrests for marijuana possession in California happens to be those in the 18-20 age group. But because the initiative explicitly makes it illegal for even adults age 18-20 to possess marijuana, these arrests will not decrease, and the drug war against young adults will rage on.
Furthermore, since the initiative would keep possession of amounts greater than one ounce illegal and likewise maintain the illegality of private sales of any amount, the overall impact that the initiative would have on ending the drug war, reducing arrest rates and saving on prison costs would be negligible, at best.
As an example of how highly misunderstood this initiative and its potential impact on the drug war is, the California NAACP recently pledged their support for the initiative based on the belief that it will put an end to the disproportionately high number of African-American youth going to jail over a joint. [7] But in reality, the initiative will have no impact on this phenomenon whatsoever. As it is now, the State of California does not jail people for having a joint; it is not an arrestable offense. And, as mentioned above, possession of up to one ounce is on its way to being reclassified from a misdemeanor to an infractionwhich carries no criminal-record stigma. The state does, however, incarcerate people for selling small amounts of marijuana. And since this initiative keeps private marijuana sales illegal, no matter the quantity, there will be no decrease in the number of African Americansor anyone elsearrested for selling a joint.
Not only does the initiative do little or nothing to end the drug war, but ironically, it could in fact expand the drug war, because it imposes new felonies and prohibitions against marijuana that do not exist currently.
Contrary to the belief that it will keep people out of jail for marijuana, this initiative actually creates new demographics of people to incarcerate. (See Fact #2 and Fact #3) It is difficult to see how the government would save on court and imprisonment costs if the initiative merely shifts arrests from one demographic to another.
Myth #2: The initiative will keep young adults out of jail for using marijuana.
Fact: This initiative would put more young people in jail for pot. If it becomes law, any adult 21 or over who passes a joint to another adult aged 18-20 would face six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. [8] (NORML's Web site reports that the current penalty for a gift of marijuana of 1 oz. or less is a $100 fine.[9])
Myth #3: You'll be able to light up freely in the privacy of your home.
Fact: That depends. Under the initiative, even adults consuming marijuana in the privacy of their homes could face arrest if there are minors present (not something one would expect from an initiative that claims to treat marijuana like alcohol and tobacco)[10]. Current marijuana law contains no such restrictions. Thanks to Prop. 215, which legalized marijuana for medicinal use, cannabis consumers have been legally free to smoke in the privacy of their homes since 1997. This initiative seeks to undermine that freedom, making it absolutely illegal to smoke marijuana if there are minors present. (The initiative is ambiguous with regard to whether present means being in the same room as the consumer, the same house, the same apartment building, or within wafting distanceapparently leaving this up to the interpretation of judges.) There is no exception for medical marijuana patients or for parents consuming in the presence of their own children.
Myth #4: Under the initiative, anyone 21 or over will be allowed to grow marijuana in a 5x5 space.
Fact: Not quite. This allotment is per property, not per person. If you share a residence with other people, youll be sharing a 5x5 grow space, as well. Even if you own multiple acres that many people live on, if it is considered one parcel, the space restriction of 5x5 (3-6 plants) will still apply. [11] Plus, if you rent, you will be required to obtain permission from your landlordwhich they may be unwilling to grant since doing so will subject them to forfeiture by the federal government.
Myth #5: Adults 21 and over will be able to possess up to one ounce of marijuana without penalty.
Fact: Perhaps the most ironic piece of the puzzle is that the initiative to legalize marijuana actually makes it illegal to possess marijuana if it was purchased anywhere other than the very few licensed dispensaries in the state.[12] So if this initiative passes, better not get caught carrying marijuana you bought off your neighbor, your current dealer, or at a party; you could get arrested. And if you do buy from a licensed dispensary, better keep your receipts, because the burden of proof will be on you. Not only is this inconvenient, but it sets the industry up to be monopolized.
Whats more, if your city decides not to tax cannabis, then buying and selling marijuana in the city limits would remain illegal. You would be permitted to possess and consume marijuana, but you would be required to travel to another city that taxes cannabis to buy it.[13] This is a move towards decreased, not increased, access. And since the initiative is so ambiguous that cities are destined to be tied up in a legal quagmire over how to interpret it, many local governments might find it simpler just to opt-out and send its citizens elsewhere. Indeed, 129 cities did just that with medical marijuana, banning it outright, while still others have established moratoriums against dispensaries. In fact, of the entire state, only the city of Oakland has endorsed the initiative. A vote for the initiative will therefore not ensure local access to purchase marijuana legally.
Myth #6: The initiative will free up cops to focus on bigger crimes.
Fact: Decriminalization has already achieved this. The California Police Chiefs Association publicly admits that they do not waste their time on cases involving an ounce or less.[14] Moreover, many cities have already passed measures that require law enforcement to make marijuana possession their lowest priority.
What the initiative would do is create new prohibitions and felonies where there were none before, obligating police officers to spend valuable time enforcing them. The cases cops presently de-prioritize are minor offenses, like simple possession. But the initiative takes minor offenses and reclassifies them as more serious crimes (e.g., passing a joint to an adult 18-20). Law enforcements time is freed up by the elimination of prohibition, not by exchanging old prohibitions for new ones.
Myth #7: Marijuana tax revenue will go toward education and health care.
Fact: As it is now, state budget cuts have resulted in the closing of state parks, and health care for impoverished children has been revoked, not to mention thousands of government lay-offs. But marijuana taxes will not be earmarked for health care, public education, the re-opening of state parks, or rehiring of laid-off government employees. Instead, the initiative specifically states that any marijuana tax revenue can be used toward enforcing the new prohibitions that the initiative enacts.[15] In this regard, not only does the initiative not end the drug war, it apparently taxes the drug to fund the drug war.
Myth #8: Marijuana growers will be able to sell cannabis legally.
Fact: Currently, marijuana growers in California who have a medical recommendation can and do grow and provide marijuana legally. Entire economies in Northern California exist on this industry. However, the initiative would make it illegal for anyone to sell marijuana, unless they own a licensed dispensary.[16] (See Fact #9)
Many have suggested that growers could open marijuana-tasting venues, similar to wine-tasting at vineyards. A grower might have a chance of opening such a place, but only if he gave his product away for free, because selling it would be illegal unless he successfully navigated the notoriously difficult and prohibitively expensive process of obtaining licensure.
Myth #9: Anyone can obtain a license to legally sell cannabis and compete in the market.
Fact: Few people will be able to compete in the multibillion-dollar marijuana market if the initiative passes. This is because the licensing process, engineered in Oakland, is exceptionally restrictive. Of the more than a thousand dispensaries operating in California until a recent L.A. crackdown, only a handful were licensed. (Conveniently, Richard Lee, the millionaire behind the initiative, owns one of them). In Oakland, the city thats setting the precedent in the tax cannabis push, a license costs $30,000. Per year. Not to mention the rigorous application process, in which even well-established, law-abiding dispensaries have been denied.
Furthermore, Oakland has started a trend of capping the number of licensed dispensaries allowed to operate (in Oakland, that number is four). This all but guarantees that the average, small-time marijuana grower will be shut out of this multibillion-dollar industry, concentrating the profits of the potential economic boon in the hands of a small minority of wealthy entrepreneurs who are already making moves to monopolize the industry. Under this initiative, the marijuana industry will not be a free market in which everyone has a chance to compete. Instead, the initiative could mark the beginning of the corporatization of marijuana. (See also Fact #15)
Myth #10: Medical marijuana patients would be exempt from the initiative.
Fact: This is not exactly true. 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 doctors 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 5x5 footprint (around 3-6 plantsper 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 years supply of medicine at one time, as many patients currently do outdoors. And growing indoorswhich typically requires special grow lights, an increase in hydro use, and a lot of time and attentionis 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]
Myth #11: Marijuana smokers will be free to smoke cannabis wherever cigarette smoking is allowed.
Fact: Actually, that's the way it is now in California. There is no law prohibiting medical marijuana from being smoked wherever cigarette smoking is permitted.[20] Young adults taking bong hits in Golden Gate Park on a Sunday afternoon is just part of the San Francisco scenery. However, if this initiative passes, that freedom would disappear and we could see cops policing smoking areas to enforce this law.[21]
Myth #12: Currently imprisoned non-violent marijuana offenders would be released.
Fact: The initiative makes no call to release prisoners who are behind bars for any marijuana offense, no matter how minor. In fact, because it introduces new prohibitions where none exist now, the initiative could potentially be responsible for locking even more people up for marijuana.
Myth #13: Counties in which marijuana cultivation currently thrives will experience increased economic growth.
Fact: Entire economies could collapse in counties that currently rely on cultivating marijuana. Right now, the multibillion-dollar marijuana industry is legally subsidizing thousands of incomes in areas where unemployment is skyrocketing. For example, Mendocino County, the biggest pot-producing county in the U.S., reports that a full two-thirds of its economy is dependent on marijuana.[22] Much of this is due to current state medical marijuana laws, which allow people to legally cultivate plants and provide them to marijuana pharmacies. But this economy supports more than just farmers.
Many local store owners report that without marijuana farmers patronizing their businesses with cash, they would go out of business. Moreover, legitimate medical marijuana growers employ tens of thousands of seasonal workers, mostly young adults, who have managed to eke out a living in a region where none other exists, and who otherwise would have few local options to support themselves. The more humble among them are able to make a living that sustains them modestly throughout much of the year. Thousands more are able to subsidize low-paying jobs, make up for shortages in their college funding, and start creative projects such as fashion design, music production, or art. But because the initiative would limit the number of plants one could grow from up to an unlimited amount to about six, thousands of small-time medical marijuana farmers and the young adults they employ would face economic displacement and hardship, or join the ranks of the unemployed. (For more on this, see Fact #15.)
Myth #14: The initiative will create an employment boon similar to Californias wine industry.
Fact: Comparisons with the wine industry are no true basis for determining the potential revenue recreational marijuana could create, because the wine industry does not operate under the same restrictions the marijuana industry would face. Namely, theres no cap on how many wineries can operate in California, or how many grapes each vineyard can grow. There are currently almost 3,000 vineyards in the state, whereas since the April crackdown in L.A., there are fewer than 300 dispensaries (of which only a few are licensed). Moreover, if cities continue to follow the trend set by Oakland and cap the number of licensed dispensaries allowed to operate, then the thousands of people currently legally employed by dispensaries would dwindle drastically.
Myth #15: The initiative will limit the viability of Mexican drug cartels.
Fact: Mexican drug cartels are already being undermined tremendously thanks to the legions of small-time farmers growing in California. The Washington Post reported on October 7, 2009:
Almost all of the marijuana consumed in the multibillion-dollar U.S. market once came from Mexico or Colombia. Now as much as half is produced domestically, often by small-scale operators who painstakingly tend greenhouses and indoor gardens to produce the more potent product that consumers now demand, according to authorities and marijuana dealers on both sides of the border. Stiff competition from thousands of mom-and-pop marijuana farmers in the United States threatens the bottom line for powerful Mexican drug organizations in a way that decades of arrests and seizures have not, according to law enforcement officials and pot growers in the United States and Mexico.[23]
These mom-and-pop growers dont fit the stereotype of the gang-war era drug pusher or Mexican drug cartel growing marijuana irresponsibly and setting forests on fire. Many of them are law-abiding citizens, legally growing medical marijuana under Prop. 215. Theyre the people you see at your local organic health food store, or shopping in the community, putting much-needed cash directly into the local economy while the national economy flounders in recession. These small-time marijuana farmers use the money they earn from providing medicine to finance their kids education, help out their laid-off parents and put themselves through school. In some cases, entire communities depend on them.
However, if this initiative passes, these growers that are single-handedly undercutting the Mexican drug cartels would no longer be able to legally operate and the face of the marijuana industry could change from the local one we recognize to an impersonal corporate entity, leaving a spate of displaced marijuana farmers in its wake.
One corporation that is poised to take the place of the mom-and-pop growers is AgraMed. While Oaklands city council prepares to consider a proposal in July to license four commercial indoor marijuana farms in the city, AgraMed has plans to build a 100,000-sq.-ft. marijuana mega-farm near Oakland International Airport that, according to projections, could generate 58 pounds of pot a day and $59 million a year in revenue. The companys president, Jeff Wilcoxa member of the steering committee of the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiativereportedly hopes to bring a degree of corporate structure to the marijuana industry.[24]
The language that backers of the initiative use itself is cause for concern among pro-marijuana supporters. Instead of speaking out against the injustice of jailing people over a plant that is widely known not only to be harmless, but beneficial, these multimillionaire supporters of the initiative speak only of their intentions to corporatize marijuana. The owner of one leading marijuana dispensarythat already earns well over $20 million a yearwas quoted in the New York Times as having aspirations to become the McDonalds of marijuana.[25] The proprietors of Oaklands new i-Grow hydroponics store want it to be known as the Wal-Mart of grow stores.[26] Meanwhile, Marijuana, Inc., a multimillion-dollar corporation, has plans to build cannabis resorts in the Northern California counties that currently survive off the medical marijuana industry.[27] They intend to create golf resorts with acres of marijuana gardens featuring hundreds of strains. (Apparently, under this initiative, corporations would be permitted to grow quite large quantities of cannabis, while cultivation would be restricted to 5 x 5 plots for everyone else.)
The accusations that medical marijuana growers oppose the initiative out of greed are clearly grossly unfounded. It is obvious who has intentions of increasing their bottom line. Small-time marijuana farmers simply want to continue making a humble living off the land. They are the ones who built the marijuana industry, but this initiative seeks to allow corporations to take their hard work and turn it into profits for themselves, locking farmers out of the industry entirely.
We have seen this trend before in the United States. Our history is replete with small farmers being taken over by huge corporations. Hundreds of thousands of mom-and-pop businesses have been forced out of business by conglomerates like Wal-Mart, Starbucks, and Monsanto, which those who benefit from such takeovers have justified by calling it progress. But is it? And is this the sort of progress we want to see take over the marijuana industry? Is this the world Peter Tosh had in mind when he implored us to legalize it?
Marijuana may well be the final bastion of farmer-owned, worker-owned, business autonomy in this country. Will we allow it, too, to go the way of nearly every other homegrown industry in the history of the United States? We all hope for legalization. But must we have such a drastic, Faustian trade-off for this freedom? And is it really freedom if we must lose our autonomy to gain it?
One farmers response to the news of Marijuana Inc.s resort aspirations poignantly sums up the pending reality should the initiative pass:
Marijuana, Inc., has big plans to invade the Emerald Triangle and surrounding counties to really capitalize on marijuana tourism. Maybe that sounds like fun to people that arent from around here, but it is really going to take away a lot of opportunity from the locals who make this place what it is. I feel that the people here who created this industry are going to be left in the dust for the most part There is just too much money at stake and that is what these guys are all about. This is the equivalent of the giant hotels popping up on the Hawaiian Islands and the locals being told, You can still work at the resort. Well need maids and groundskeepers wholl work for minimum wage...[28]
What is currently a small-time, largely organic industryon which entire economies survive, and without which entire economies would collapsecould soon become dominated by corporations if this initiative passes. The days of knowing your dealer and what goes into your pot could soon be over, and marijuana, a sacrament to many, could become corporatized. Are corporations inherently evil? No. But if we have the option to keep millions of dollars in our own communities, spread out over hundreds of thousands of people, it hardly seems sensible to outsource this employment to corporations and into the hands of a few.
Is it possible to have marijuana legalization without legalizing corporate takeover of the industry? Absolutely. Will those who are passionate about marijuana live to regret voting in an initiative that treats marijuana as a publicly-traded commodity and turns it into something as abhorrent as Wal-Mart and McDonalds? Absolutely. Do we have to settle for this? Absolutely not.
Myth #16: The price of marijuana will drop.
Fact: The value of marijuana might decrease if it becomes more commercially available and more people grow their own, but the price of a product depends less on its value and more on the degree of competition that exists with regard to selling it. Since your options for purchasing marijuana would be among only a handful of licensed dispensaries in the state, there is no guarantee of a decrease in price. Less competition means higher prices.
Indeed, by AgraMeds own estimation, in order to make $59 million a year off 58 pounds per day, they would have to charge $175 per ounce wholesale (roughly $2,800 per pound)and thats if they produced 58 pounds 365 days a year. If they managed to produce that output only 5 days a week, that price would leap to $245 an ounce (about $3900 per pound). With shelf-prices at dispensaries often set at double the wholesale purchase pricenot to mention the compulsory tax added onto every ounce (which Richard Lee stated in an interview was "recommended" to be $50)the price of marijuana could potentially be higher than it is in our current market, in which the price of a pound has already fallen to $2,000, according to a recent National Public Radio report; a direct result of healthy competition, not its opposite.[29]
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 only to further the purposes of the Act.[30] Under a monopolized, corporate-controlled distribution process, the purposes 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 Generals 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 space where minors are present, 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.
Myth #18: This is our only chance to take a step in the direction of legalization.
Fact: This is only our first chanceit will certainly not be the last. There were three other initiatives that sought to be placed on the ballot this year; all three would have legalized not only possession, but also private distribution among individual adults. Some even called for the release of non-violent marijuana offenders. However, staffed exclusively by volunteers, all failed to gather the required number of signatures for the petitions. (Richard Lee invested $1.3 million of his own money to hire a company to obtain the requisite signatures for the current proposed initiative.[31])
What now?
The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative is not the only path to legalization. We have come so far, and are now so closeit is imperative that we let the next step be the right one. Legalized marijuana is within reach, yet the movement could be set back with such a problematic initiative at the helm. Instead of rushing to pass a measure that prohibits marijuana under the guise of legalization, we can draft an initiative that calls for true legalization and that has the full support of marijuana law reform organizations and leaders of the movement.
The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative is rife with ambiguity, expands the War on Drugs, undermines the medical marijuana movement, arrests more people for marijuana, offers no protection for small farmers and insufficient protection for medical marijuana users, has a high potential for monopolization, provides no regulations to prevent corporate takeover of the industry, cartelizes the economy, and divides our community into poor, unlicensed, mom-and-pop gardener versus rich, licensed, corporate farmer. And since the one thing thats clear about the initiative is that its vague, it could very easily prove to be a Pandoras box of unintended consequences. Beyond its vagueness, which itself is problematic, these side effects are inherently socially dangerous. The impact that such a failed legalization initiative could have on the movement nation-wide could be disastrous.
This is not a question of whether to legalize or not to legalize. Legalization is the goal and it is inevitable. The question is whether we want to rush in and settle for an initiative that is so poorly-worded as to be ambiguous, and so vague as to be open to vast interpretation from judgesor wait for the wording and other inconsistencies to be corrected for 2012. If we hold out for a perfect initiative we will wait forever. But if we at least hold out for an initiative that is direct, unambiguous, well-defined and clearly written, we will have an unprecedented opportunity to inspire the world to join the movement to legalize marijuana.
Many pro-legalization activists are rallying behind the idea of taking the time to craft an initiative that will be a clear step up from the current cannabis situation of in California and will result in increased accessnot its opposite. Both NORML and the MPP, the foremost cannabis law reform organizations in the country, have suggested we wait and make another attempt at legalization during the 2012 elections. Dale Gieringer, Director of Californias NORML, said, I do think its going to take a few more years for us to develop a proposal that voters will be comfortable with.[32] Likewise, Bruce Mirken, MPPs Director of Communications, was quoted as saying, In our opinion, we should wait and build our forces and aim at 2012.[33]
Ultimately, the decision is not up to any organization; its up to YOU. How will you vote? Read the initiative for yourself and just VOTE KNOW!
I hope people find the hope and inspiration to broadcast this, understand (the initiative), read it, and know that it's a step backwards. And we can do better. We will do better. - Dennis Peron
Sidebar: What it Actually Says
About possessing marijuana bought somewhere other than a licensed outlet:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: (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; [Section 11300: (i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301.]
About the punishment for giving marijuana to adults age 18-20:
Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors: (c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense.
About smoking in the presence of minors:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls: (c) Personal consumption shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit: (iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.
About using marijuana tax revenue to fund law enforcement against pot prohibition:
Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees (a) Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.
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 citys limits remain illegal, but that the citys 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 cultivate is conspicuously absent here as well as in the exempted Health and Safety Sections that pertain to medical marijuana laws.)
About leaving medical marijuana cultivation law in the hands of local government:
Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following: (a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized. (Note: This section provides no exemptions for medical marijuana law.)
About the right to cultivate:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls: (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.
When most marijuana activists, growers and consumers first heard about an initiative that would legalize cannabis in California, they thought it was a pipe dream come true. To many, legalization implied that it would no longer be a crime to possess, consume or distribute marijuana. Cannabis consumers rejoiced at the idea of being able to buy from their neighbors or at partiesjust as they already dowith no legal retribution. Small-time growers envisioned being free to sell their product to those who sought them out, with no legal repercussions. Marijuana activists thought it meant that people would stop getting arrested for pot, and that the drug war would finally be over. But now that the initiative is headed to ballot, many pro-legalization supporters are coming out against it. Why?
Simply put, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative does not reflect most peoples ideas of what legalization would be. The media often incorrectly reports that this initiative calls for full legalization of marijuana. It does not. In fact, it reverses many of the freedoms marijuana consumers currently enjoy, pushes growers out of the commercial market, paves the way for the corporatization of cannabis, and creates new prohibitions and felonies where there are none now. Apparently, to be pro-legalization and pro-initiative are two different things entirely.
The late-Jack Herer, legendary marijuana activist known as the father of the legalization movement, vehemently opposed the initiative. In the last words of his impassioned final speech, moments before the heart attack that would eventually claim his life, he urged people not to support it.[1] Proposition 215 author, Dennis Peron, likewise denounced the initiative, saying it is not legalization, but thinly-veiled prohibition.[2]
Compared to the present status of cannabis in California, many marijuana activists see this initiative as a giant leap backward. Ironically, it appears that marijuana is more legal in California today than it would be if this initiative were to pass.
The initiative itself is a hazy maze of regulations and controls, some of which are ambiguous and confusing even for those well-versed in marijuana law. Understandably, many who have entered the discussion seem to have bypassed the initiative altogether and gone straight to their own assumptions of what an initiative that claims to legalize marijuana might entail, injecting the debate with as many misconceptions as facts. But for an issue that would have such a direct and unprecedented impact on our daily lives, its crucial to decide your vote based on knowledge, rather than assumption.
To clarify a few of the most glaring myths about the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative, I have compiled this guide to help you VOTE KNOW!
Myth #1: The initiative will end the War on Drugs and substantially reduce marijuana arrests, saving millions in prison costs.
Fact: Hardly. The federal drug war will continue to drone on, of course, and growing or possessing any amount of marijuana would still be illegal under federal law. Anyone growing or possessing cannabis without a doctors recommendation would still be subject to arrest and seizure by the federal policealthough on the bright side, the Obama administration recently announced it will no longer raid individuals who are operating in compliance with medical marijuana law.[3]
Contrary to popular assumption, the drug war in California will not end, nor will it be impacted much by the initiative. This is because the initiative doesnt call for full legalization; it proposes to legalize possession of only up to one ounce. And in California, there is no drug war being fought against possession of up to one ounce, because marijuana is already decriminalized.
The penalty for carrying an ounce is a mere citation and maximum $100 fine.[4] Moreover, possession of one ounce is on its way to being downgraded from a misdemeanor to an infraction, because the state Senate voted in June to reclassify its status. [5] No one goes to jail for having an ounce or less in California, and no one gets arrested, because it is not an arrestable offense.
One often-quoted statistic in the initiative debate is that misdemeanor marijuana possession arrests reached 61,388 in 2008.[6] However, it is important to note that this statistic does not refer to any arrest demographic that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative would affect. This statistic refers only to possession of more than one ounce, possession by minors and possession on school grounds*offenses which the initiative will not legalize. It does not refer to nor does it include marijuana arrests for possession of one ounce or less, because this is not an arrestable offense. Therefore, the initiative would have no impact on reducing these arrests rates.
Statistically, the demographic that accounts for nearly one-quarter of total arrests for marijuana possession in California happens to be those in the 18-20 age group. But because the initiative explicitly makes it illegal for even adults age 18-20 to possess marijuana, these arrests will not decrease, and the drug war against young adults will rage on.
Furthermore, since the initiative would keep possession of amounts greater than one ounce illegal and likewise maintain the illegality of private sales of any amount, the overall impact that the initiative would have on ending the drug war, reducing arrest rates and saving on prison costs would be negligible, at best.
As an example of how highly misunderstood this initiative and its potential impact on the drug war is, the California NAACP recently pledged their support for the initiative based on the belief that it will put an end to the disproportionately high number of African-American youth going to jail over a joint. [7] But in reality, the initiative will have no impact on this phenomenon whatsoever. As it is now, the State of California does not jail people for having a joint; it is not an arrestable offense. And, as mentioned above, possession of up to one ounce is on its way to being reclassified from a misdemeanor to an infractionwhich carries no criminal-record stigma. The state does, however, incarcerate people for selling small amounts of marijuana. And since this initiative keeps private marijuana sales illegal, no matter the quantity, there will be no decrease in the number of African Americansor anyone elsearrested for selling a joint.
Not only does the initiative do little or nothing to end the drug war, but ironically, it could in fact expand the drug war, because it imposes new felonies and prohibitions against marijuana that do not exist currently.
Contrary to the belief that it will keep people out of jail for marijuana, this initiative actually creates new demographics of people to incarcerate. (See Fact #2 and Fact #3) It is difficult to see how the government would save on court and imprisonment costs if the initiative merely shifts arrests from one demographic to another.
Myth #2: The initiative will keep young adults out of jail for using marijuana.
Fact: This initiative would put more young people in jail for pot. If it becomes law, any adult 21 or over who passes a joint to another adult aged 18-20 would face six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. [8] (NORML's Web site reports that the current penalty for a gift of marijuana of 1 oz. or less is a $100 fine.[9])
Myth #3: You'll be able to light up freely in the privacy of your home.
Fact: That depends. Under the initiative, even adults consuming marijuana in the privacy of their homes could face arrest if there are minors present (not something one would expect from an initiative that claims to treat marijuana like alcohol and tobacco)[10]. Current marijuana law contains no such restrictions. Thanks to Prop. 215, which legalized marijuana for medicinal use, cannabis consumers have been legally free to smoke in the privacy of their homes since 1997. This initiative seeks to undermine that freedom, making it absolutely illegal to smoke marijuana if there are minors present. (The initiative is ambiguous with regard to whether present means being in the same room as the consumer, the same house, the same apartment building, or within wafting distanceapparently leaving this up to the interpretation of judges.) There is no exception for medical marijuana patients or for parents consuming in the presence of their own children.
Myth #4: Under the initiative, anyone 21 or over will be allowed to grow marijuana in a 5x5 space.
Fact: Not quite. This allotment is per property, not per person. If you share a residence with other people, youll be sharing a 5x5 grow space, as well. Even if you own multiple acres that many people live on, if it is considered one parcel, the space restriction of 5x5 (3-6 plants) will still apply. [11] Plus, if you rent, you will be required to obtain permission from your landlordwhich they may be unwilling to grant since doing so will subject them to forfeiture by the federal government.
Myth #5: Adults 21 and over will be able to possess up to one ounce of marijuana without penalty.
Fact: Perhaps the most ironic piece of the puzzle is that the initiative to legalize marijuana actually makes it illegal to possess marijuana if it was purchased anywhere other than the very few licensed dispensaries in the state.[12] So if this initiative passes, better not get caught carrying marijuana you bought off your neighbor, your current dealer, or at a party; you could get arrested. And if you do buy from a licensed dispensary, better keep your receipts, because the burden of proof will be on you. Not only is this inconvenient, but it sets the industry up to be monopolized.
Whats more, if your city decides not to tax cannabis, then buying and selling marijuana in the city limits would remain illegal. You would be permitted to possess and consume marijuana, but you would be required to travel to another city that taxes cannabis to buy it.[13] This is a move towards decreased, not increased, access. And since the initiative is so ambiguous that cities are destined to be tied up in a legal quagmire over how to interpret it, many local governments might find it simpler just to opt-out and send its citizens elsewhere. Indeed, 129 cities did just that with medical marijuana, banning it outright, while still others have established moratoriums against dispensaries. In fact, of the entire state, only the city of Oakland has endorsed the initiative. A vote for the initiative will therefore not ensure local access to purchase marijuana legally.
Myth #6: The initiative will free up cops to focus on bigger crimes.
Fact: Decriminalization has already achieved this. The California Police Chiefs Association publicly admits that they do not waste their time on cases involving an ounce or less.[14] Moreover, many cities have already passed measures that require law enforcement to make marijuana possession their lowest priority.
What the initiative would do is create new prohibitions and felonies where there were none before, obligating police officers to spend valuable time enforcing them. The cases cops presently de-prioritize are minor offenses, like simple possession. But the initiative takes minor offenses and reclassifies them as more serious crimes (e.g., passing a joint to an adult 18-20). Law enforcements time is freed up by the elimination of prohibition, not by exchanging old prohibitions for new ones.
Myth #7: Marijuana tax revenue will go toward education and health care.
Fact: As it is now, state budget cuts have resulted in the closing of state parks, and health care for impoverished children has been revoked, not to mention thousands of government lay-offs. But marijuana taxes will not be earmarked for health care, public education, the re-opening of state parks, or rehiring of laid-off government employees. Instead, the initiative specifically states that any marijuana tax revenue can be used toward enforcing the new prohibitions that the initiative enacts.[15] In this regard, not only does the initiative not end the drug war, it apparently taxes the drug to fund the drug war.
Myth #8: Marijuana growers will be able to sell cannabis legally.
Fact: Currently, marijuana growers in California who have a medical recommendation can and do grow and provide marijuana legally. Entire economies in Northern California exist on this industry. However, the initiative would make it illegal for anyone to sell marijuana, unless they own a licensed dispensary.[16] (See Fact #9)
Many have suggested that growers could open marijuana-tasting venues, similar to wine-tasting at vineyards. A grower might have a chance of opening such a place, but only if he gave his product away for free, because selling it would be illegal unless he successfully navigated the notoriously difficult and prohibitively expensive process of obtaining licensure.
Myth #9: Anyone can obtain a license to legally sell cannabis and compete in the market.
Fact: Few people will be able to compete in the multibillion-dollar marijuana market if the initiative passes. This is because the licensing process, engineered in Oakland, is exceptionally restrictive. Of the more than a thousand dispensaries operating in California until a recent L.A. crackdown, only a handful were licensed. (Conveniently, Richard Lee, the millionaire behind the initiative, owns one of them). In Oakland, the city thats setting the precedent in the tax cannabis push, a license costs $30,000. Per year. Not to mention the rigorous application process, in which even well-established, law-abiding dispensaries have been denied.
Furthermore, Oakland has started a trend of capping the number of licensed dispensaries allowed to operate (in Oakland, that number is four). This all but guarantees that the average, small-time marijuana grower will be shut out of this multibillion-dollar industry, concentrating the profits of the potential economic boon in the hands of a small minority of wealthy entrepreneurs who are already making moves to monopolize the industry. Under this initiative, the marijuana industry will not be a free market in which everyone has a chance to compete. Instead, the initiative could mark the beginning of the corporatization of marijuana. (See also Fact #15)
Myth #10: Medical marijuana patients would be exempt from the initiative.
Fact: This is not exactly true. 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 doctors 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 5x5 footprint (around 3-6 plantsper 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 years supply of medicine at one time, as many patients currently do outdoors. And growing indoorswhich typically requires special grow lights, an increase in hydro use, and a lot of time and attentionis 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]
Myth #11: Marijuana smokers will be free to smoke cannabis wherever cigarette smoking is allowed.
Fact: Actually, that's the way it is now in California. There is no law prohibiting medical marijuana from being smoked wherever cigarette smoking is permitted.[20] Young adults taking bong hits in Golden Gate Park on a Sunday afternoon is just part of the San Francisco scenery. However, if this initiative passes, that freedom would disappear and we could see cops policing smoking areas to enforce this law.[21]
Myth #12: Currently imprisoned non-violent marijuana offenders would be released.
Fact: The initiative makes no call to release prisoners who are behind bars for any marijuana offense, no matter how minor. In fact, because it introduces new prohibitions where none exist now, the initiative could potentially be responsible for locking even more people up for marijuana.
Myth #13: Counties in which marijuana cultivation currently thrives will experience increased economic growth.
Fact: Entire economies could collapse in counties that currently rely on cultivating marijuana. Right now, the multibillion-dollar marijuana industry is legally subsidizing thousands of incomes in areas where unemployment is skyrocketing. For example, Mendocino County, the biggest pot-producing county in the U.S., reports that a full two-thirds of its economy is dependent on marijuana.[22] Much of this is due to current state medical marijuana laws, which allow people to legally cultivate plants and provide them to marijuana pharmacies. But this economy supports more than just farmers.
Many local store owners report that without marijuana farmers patronizing their businesses with cash, they would go out of business. Moreover, legitimate medical marijuana growers employ tens of thousands of seasonal workers, mostly young adults, who have managed to eke out a living in a region where none other exists, and who otherwise would have few local options to support themselves. The more humble among them are able to make a living that sustains them modestly throughout much of the year. Thousands more are able to subsidize low-paying jobs, make up for shortages in their college funding, and start creative projects such as fashion design, music production, or art. But because the initiative would limit the number of plants one could grow from up to an unlimited amount to about six, thousands of small-time medical marijuana farmers and the young adults they employ would face economic displacement and hardship, or join the ranks of the unemployed. (For more on this, see Fact #15.)
Myth #14: The initiative will create an employment boon similar to Californias wine industry.
Fact: Comparisons with the wine industry are no true basis for determining the potential revenue recreational marijuana could create, because the wine industry does not operate under the same restrictions the marijuana industry would face. Namely, theres no cap on how many wineries can operate in California, or how many grapes each vineyard can grow. There are currently almost 3,000 vineyards in the state, whereas since the April crackdown in L.A., there are fewer than 300 dispensaries (of which only a few are licensed). Moreover, if cities continue to follow the trend set by Oakland and cap the number of licensed dispensaries allowed to operate, then the thousands of people currently legally employed by dispensaries would dwindle drastically.
Myth #15: The initiative will limit the viability of Mexican drug cartels.
Fact: Mexican drug cartels are already being undermined tremendously thanks to the legions of small-time farmers growing in California. The Washington Post reported on October 7, 2009:
Almost all of the marijuana consumed in the multibillion-dollar U.S. market once came from Mexico or Colombia. Now as much as half is produced domestically, often by small-scale operators who painstakingly tend greenhouses and indoor gardens to produce the more potent product that consumers now demand, according to authorities and marijuana dealers on both sides of the border. Stiff competition from thousands of mom-and-pop marijuana farmers in the United States threatens the bottom line for powerful Mexican drug organizations in a way that decades of arrests and seizures have not, according to law enforcement officials and pot growers in the United States and Mexico.[23]
These mom-and-pop growers dont fit the stereotype of the gang-war era drug pusher or Mexican drug cartel growing marijuana irresponsibly and setting forests on fire. Many of them are law-abiding citizens, legally growing medical marijuana under Prop. 215. Theyre the people you see at your local organic health food store, or shopping in the community, putting much-needed cash directly into the local economy while the national economy flounders in recession. These small-time marijuana farmers use the money they earn from providing medicine to finance their kids education, help out their laid-off parents and put themselves through school. In some cases, entire communities depend on them.
However, if this initiative passes, these growers that are single-handedly undercutting the Mexican drug cartels would no longer be able to legally operate and the face of the marijuana industry could change from the local one we recognize to an impersonal corporate entity, leaving a spate of displaced marijuana farmers in its wake.
One corporation that is poised to take the place of the mom-and-pop growers is AgraMed. While Oaklands city council prepares to consider a proposal in July to license four commercial indoor marijuana farms in the city, AgraMed has plans to build a 100,000-sq.-ft. marijuana mega-farm near Oakland International Airport that, according to projections, could generate 58 pounds of pot a day and $59 million a year in revenue. The companys president, Jeff Wilcoxa member of the steering committee of the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiativereportedly hopes to bring a degree of corporate structure to the marijuana industry.[24]
The language that backers of the initiative use itself is cause for concern among pro-marijuana supporters. Instead of speaking out against the injustice of jailing people over a plant that is widely known not only to be harmless, but beneficial, these multimillionaire supporters of the initiative speak only of their intentions to corporatize marijuana. The owner of one leading marijuana dispensarythat already earns well over $20 million a yearwas quoted in the New York Times as having aspirations to become the McDonalds of marijuana.[25] The proprietors of Oaklands new i-Grow hydroponics store want it to be known as the Wal-Mart of grow stores.[26] Meanwhile, Marijuana, Inc., a multimillion-dollar corporation, has plans to build cannabis resorts in the Northern California counties that currently survive off the medical marijuana industry.[27] They intend to create golf resorts with acres of marijuana gardens featuring hundreds of strains. (Apparently, under this initiative, corporations would be permitted to grow quite large quantities of cannabis, while cultivation would be restricted to 5 x 5 plots for everyone else.)
The accusations that medical marijuana growers oppose the initiative out of greed are clearly grossly unfounded. It is obvious who has intentions of increasing their bottom line. Small-time marijuana farmers simply want to continue making a humble living off the land. They are the ones who built the marijuana industry, but this initiative seeks to allow corporations to take their hard work and turn it into profits for themselves, locking farmers out of the industry entirely.
We have seen this trend before in the United States. Our history is replete with small farmers being taken over by huge corporations. Hundreds of thousands of mom-and-pop businesses have been forced out of business by conglomerates like Wal-Mart, Starbucks, and Monsanto, which those who benefit from such takeovers have justified by calling it progress. But is it? And is this the sort of progress we want to see take over the marijuana industry? Is this the world Peter Tosh had in mind when he implored us to legalize it?
Marijuana may well be the final bastion of farmer-owned, worker-owned, business autonomy in this country. Will we allow it, too, to go the way of nearly every other homegrown industry in the history of the United States? We all hope for legalization. But must we have such a drastic, Faustian trade-off for this freedom? And is it really freedom if we must lose our autonomy to gain it?
One farmers response to the news of Marijuana Inc.s resort aspirations poignantly sums up the pending reality should the initiative pass:
Marijuana, Inc., has big plans to invade the Emerald Triangle and surrounding counties to really capitalize on marijuana tourism. Maybe that sounds like fun to people that arent from around here, but it is really going to take away a lot of opportunity from the locals who make this place what it is. I feel that the people here who created this industry are going to be left in the dust for the most part There is just too much money at stake and that is what these guys are all about. This is the equivalent of the giant hotels popping up on the Hawaiian Islands and the locals being told, You can still work at the resort. Well need maids and groundskeepers wholl work for minimum wage...[28]
What is currently a small-time, largely organic industryon which entire economies survive, and without which entire economies would collapsecould soon become dominated by corporations if this initiative passes. The days of knowing your dealer and what goes into your pot could soon be over, and marijuana, a sacrament to many, could become corporatized. Are corporations inherently evil? No. But if we have the option to keep millions of dollars in our own communities, spread out over hundreds of thousands of people, it hardly seems sensible to outsource this employment to corporations and into the hands of a few.
Is it possible to have marijuana legalization without legalizing corporate takeover of the industry? Absolutely. Will those who are passionate about marijuana live to regret voting in an initiative that treats marijuana as a publicly-traded commodity and turns it into something as abhorrent as Wal-Mart and McDonalds? Absolutely. Do we have to settle for this? Absolutely not.
Myth #16: The price of marijuana will drop.
Fact: The value of marijuana might decrease if it becomes more commercially available and more people grow their own, but the price of a product depends less on its value and more on the degree of competition that exists with regard to selling it. Since your options for purchasing marijuana would be among only a handful of licensed dispensaries in the state, there is no guarantee of a decrease in price. Less competition means higher prices.
Indeed, by AgraMeds own estimation, in order to make $59 million a year off 58 pounds per day, they would have to charge $175 per ounce wholesale (roughly $2,800 per pound)and thats if they produced 58 pounds 365 days a year. If they managed to produce that output only 5 days a week, that price would leap to $245 an ounce (about $3900 per pound). With shelf-prices at dispensaries often set at double the wholesale purchase pricenot to mention the compulsory tax added onto every ounce (which Richard Lee stated in an interview was "recommended" to be $50)the price of marijuana could potentially be higher than it is in our current market, in which the price of a pound has already fallen to $2,000, according to a recent National Public Radio report; a direct result of healthy competition, not its opposite.[29]
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 only to further the purposes of the Act.[30] Under a monopolized, corporate-controlled distribution process, the purposes 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 Generals 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 space where minors are present, 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.
Myth #18: This is our only chance to take a step in the direction of legalization.
Fact: This is only our first chanceit will certainly not be the last. There were three other initiatives that sought to be placed on the ballot this year; all three would have legalized not only possession, but also private distribution among individual adults. Some even called for the release of non-violent marijuana offenders. However, staffed exclusively by volunteers, all failed to gather the required number of signatures for the petitions. (Richard Lee invested $1.3 million of his own money to hire a company to obtain the requisite signatures for the current proposed initiative.[31])
What now?
The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative is not the only path to legalization. We have come so far, and are now so closeit is imperative that we let the next step be the right one. Legalized marijuana is within reach, yet the movement could be set back with such a problematic initiative at the helm. Instead of rushing to pass a measure that prohibits marijuana under the guise of legalization, we can draft an initiative that calls for true legalization and that has the full support of marijuana law reform organizations and leaders of the movement.
The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative is rife with ambiguity, expands the War on Drugs, undermines the medical marijuana movement, arrests more people for marijuana, offers no protection for small farmers and insufficient protection for medical marijuana users, has a high potential for monopolization, provides no regulations to prevent corporate takeover of the industry, cartelizes the economy, and divides our community into poor, unlicensed, mom-and-pop gardener versus rich, licensed, corporate farmer. And since the one thing thats clear about the initiative is that its vague, it could very easily prove to be a Pandoras box of unintended consequences. Beyond its vagueness, which itself is problematic, these side effects are inherently socially dangerous. The impact that such a failed legalization initiative could have on the movement nation-wide could be disastrous.
This is not a question of whether to legalize or not to legalize. Legalization is the goal and it is inevitable. The question is whether we want to rush in and settle for an initiative that is so poorly-worded as to be ambiguous, and so vague as to be open to vast interpretation from judgesor wait for the wording and other inconsistencies to be corrected for 2012. If we hold out for a perfect initiative we will wait forever. But if we at least hold out for an initiative that is direct, unambiguous, well-defined and clearly written, we will have an unprecedented opportunity to inspire the world to join the movement to legalize marijuana.
Many pro-legalization activists are rallying behind the idea of taking the time to craft an initiative that will be a clear step up from the current cannabis situation of in California and will result in increased accessnot its opposite. Both NORML and the MPP, the foremost cannabis law reform organizations in the country, have suggested we wait and make another attempt at legalization during the 2012 elections. Dale Gieringer, Director of Californias NORML, said, I do think its going to take a few more years for us to develop a proposal that voters will be comfortable with.[32] Likewise, Bruce Mirken, MPPs Director of Communications, was quoted as saying, In our opinion, we should wait and build our forces and aim at 2012.[33]
Ultimately, the decision is not up to any organization; its up to YOU. How will you vote? Read the initiative for yourself and just VOTE KNOW!
I hope people find the hope and inspiration to broadcast this, understand (the initiative), read it, and know that it's a step backwards. And we can do better. We will do better. - Dennis Peron
Sidebar: What it Actually Says
About possessing marijuana bought somewhere other than a licensed outlet:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: (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; [Section 11300: (i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301.]
About the punishment for giving marijuana to adults age 18-20:
Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors: (c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense.
About smoking in the presence of minors:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls: (c) Personal consumption shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit: (iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.
About using marijuana tax revenue to fund law enforcement against pot prohibition:
Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees (a) Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.
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 citys limits remain illegal, but that the citys 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 cultivate is conspicuously absent here as well as in the exempted Health and Safety Sections that pertain to medical marijuana laws.)
About leaving medical marijuana cultivation law in the hands of local government:
Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following: (a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized. (Note: This section provides no exemptions for medical marijuana law.)
About the right to cultivate:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls: (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.
drherbalist
Member
I am my own provider, so at least I know I won't be fucking myself
I never said all growers/providers are out to rip people off. Once again, putting words in my mouth. What is it with you guys in the opposition putting words in people's mouths. If this prop doesn't pass, then anyone with a little garden who gets caught goes to jail (unless of course they are mmj patient). If this prop doesn't pass, then the growers will continue making tax free revenue on the sales of their crops and not contributing to the State like any other business is supposed to. I have no attitude towards growers, because I happen to be one and have been for a while now. I have an attitude towards GREED, THIEVERY and LIARS.
TokinPodPilot
Well-Known Member
Counter-arguments to what? Mark shook his fanny in the Feds' faces and said "Ima send lots of pot seeds to your country for people to cultivate." and they came down on him like a ton of bricks, much as they do anyone else who openly admits to thwarting Federal import regulations. At least the bean companies in Europe are smart enough to use the "souvenir" defense. And yes, he's doing time. Like the millions of others that are wrongly imprisoned for lesser crimes and are serving the same sentencing that Mark is currently trying to plea bargain his way out of. Your willingness to impose regulation and penalties speaks volumes for your stance on this issue.
Counter arguments to his actual article and what it actually says about the propositon, you know the purpose of this entire thread. I'm sorry to say, but the world runs via taxation and regulation. Again, every legal enterprise is taxed and regulated. It is naive to imagine a world of legal marijuana that is not taxed and regulated. That would be a wonderful dream, but not very realistic I'm afraid.
Also, my point about Marc Emery is that he is a political prisoner, as said by leaders in the DEA.
The day of Emery's arrest, American DEA Administrator Karen Tandy released the following statement:
Also, my point about Marc Emery is that he is a political prisoner, as said by leaders in the DEA.
The day of Emery's arrest, American DEA Administrator Karen Tandy released the following statement:
Today's DEA arrest of Marc Scott Emery, publisher of Cannabis Culture Magazine, and the founder of a marijuana legalization group -- is a significant blow not only to the marijuana trafficking trade in the U.S. and Canada, but also to the marijuana legalization movement.
His marijuana trade and propagandist marijuana magazine have generated nearly $5 million a year in profits that bolstered his trafficking efforts, but those have gone up in smoke today.
Emery and his organization had been designated as one of the Attorney General's most wanted international drug trafficking organizational targets -- one of only 46 in the world and the only one from Canada.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars of Emery's illicit profits are known to have been channeled to marijuana legalization groups active in the United States and Canada. Drug legalization lobbyists now have one less pot of money to rely on.
TokinPodPilot
Well-Known Member
Which only belies your ignorance regarding current California law. No one goes to jail for simple possession or personal cultivation in California. Possession of amounts in excess of one ounce and/or large cultivation endeavors are also resolvable via diversion if you can prove personal consumption. So that would make you the liar, at the moment. The fact is, if you are arrested, it'll have the ubiquitous "with intent to sell" attached to the charges and it's that part that you will have to disprove in court. If and when you do so, you take a simple court-appointed program (much akin to traffic school, really) and then the charges are dropped. And the awesome lie of tax-free income. We pay income and sales taxes. Those who open dispensaries get business licenses and pay all the applicable fees for doing business, employ people to work and pay all the appropriate taxes and fees associated. There are those that don't and quite frankly they will continue to exist and law enforcement and government will continue to try and eradicate those types. The lies are all in the proposition in selling you a tax and regulation package for rights you already have, the greed is with the bean sellers and mass producers that gain from commercialization, and the thievery is in taking a developed industry from the network of small and medium growers, cooperatives, local breeders and the communities they support and handing it to corporate and private interests to industrialize.I am my own provider, so at least I know I won't be fucking myself