Vote NO on prop 19... (great read for anyone that will be voting in november in cali)

[skate4theherb]

HAS ANYONE SEEN THIS..THE BILL FQA
http://www.taxcannabis.org/page/content/faq
General FAQs

Q: What does Proposition 19 do?
A: Proposition 19 will control cannabis just like alcohol, so adults 21 and older will be allowed to possess up to one ounce of cannabis. Proposition 19 will also give the state and local governments the ability to tax the sale of cannabis to adults 21 and older.

Q: Why do you think Proposition 19 will pass?

A: According to several recent polls, a majority of Californians support legalizing, controlling, and taxing cannabis.

Q: How would Proposition 19 control and tax cannabis?

A: Proposition 19 will allow local governments to set up a system to oversee cultivation, distribution, and sales, and determine how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold within area limits. If a local government decides it does not want to control and tax the sale of cannabis, then buying and selling cannabis within area limits will remain illegal, but the possession and consumption of up to one ounce will be permitted.

Q: Is cannabis a dangerous drug?

A: Actually, cannabis has much fewer harmful effects than either alcohol or cigarettes, which are both legal for adult consumption, and taxed to support vital services. Cannabis is not physically addictive, does not have long term toxic effects on the body, has never led to an overdose death, and does not cause its consumers to become violent.

Q: Would controlling and taxing cannabis help our state and local governments financially?


A: Absolutely. Right now, there is an estimated $14 billion in cannabis transactions every year in California, but since cannabis remains illegal, our state sees none of the revenue that would come from controlling and taxing it. Controlling and taxing cannabis could bring in billions of dollars in revenue to help fund what matters most in California: jobs, healthcare, public safety, parks, roads, transportation, and more. California's tax collector, the Board of Equalization, estimates that controlling and taxing cannabis could generate $1.4 billion in revenue each year. http://www.boe.ca.gov/legdiv/pdf/ab0390-1dw.pdf


Q: If we legalize, control, and tax cannabis, won’t that just lead to a lot more people using it?


A: Actually no. According to The National Research Council’s recent study of the 11 U.S. states where cannabis is currently decriminalized, there is little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions and the rate of consumption.


Q: If we legalize, control, and tax cannabis, won’t that just lead to more crime?


A: No. The illegality of cannabis enables for the continuation of an out-of-control criminal market, which in turn spawns other illegal and often violent activities. Establishing legal, controlled sales outlets would put dangerous street dealers out of business, so their influence in our communities will fade. Also, when we stop arresting thousands of non-violent cannabis consumers, we will be freeing up police resources and saving hundreds of millions of dollars each year, which could be used for apprehending truly dangerous criminals and keeping them locked up.


Q: If we legalize, control, and tax cannabis, won’t that just lead to more kids using it?


A: No. First of all, Proposition 19 will control cannabis like alcohol, allowing only adults 21 and older to consume cannabis. In addition, by bringing cannabis out of the shadows, and implementing a legal regulatory framework to control it, we will be better able to police and prevent access to and consumption of cannabis by minors.


Q: What effect will Proposition 19 have on medical marijuana laws in California?


A: None. Proposition 19 explicitly upholds the rights of medical marijuana patients.


Q: But won't cannabis remain illegal under federal law?


A: Yes, but we can still pass our own state laws in California. The United States Constitution enables individual states to enact laws concerning health, morals, public welfare, and safety within the state. For instance, in 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, which legalized medical marijuana in the state. Also, 40 counties and cities in California have regulated medical cannabis without federal interference.


Q: How can I help?


A: This will be a major fight for cannabis reform in California, and we are going to need every supporter involved. Sign up to volunteer, contribute, and get your friends involved today on our website!

Download PDF



Medical Cannabis Patients

Q: Does Proposition 19 change medical cannabis laws in California?

A: No, it won’t change or affect current medical cannabis laws or protections offered to qualified patients. Patients will still be able to possess what is needed for medical use, and will retain all rights under Prop 215 and SB 420. In fact, Proposition 19 will clarify state law, to protect medical cannabis collectives and businesses operating responsibly under their local guidelines. Currently, the legality of medical cannabis sales is in dispute. Many cities and counties are struggling with the interpretation of SB 420, particularly around the allowance for cash transactions. As a result, these localities are unable to control and tax medical cannabis for distribution to qualified patients. Proposition 19 specifically grants cities and counties the ability to regulate sales for medical cannabis and commercial cultivation for safe, regulated medicine. Proposition 19 will also allow for research, safety testing, and potency monitoring.
Q: How will Proposition 19 affect patients who grow at home?

A: Patient gardens will remain legal, and protections will remain unchanged for patients who choose to grow their own medicine.

Q: How will Proposition 19 affect collective and cooperative cultivation?

A: Proposition 19 will allow for greater protection for collectives and cooperatives in storefront locations. City and county governments will now have the clearly established ability to regulate collective and/or commercial growing.

Q: If Proposition 19 passes, will non-medical patients have more rights than patients?

A: No, adults 21 and over will be able to possess up to one ounce of cannabis outside of the home. Adults may only grow in a 5’x5’ area, and will have an affirmative defense to possess what they grow for personal use in that area. Patients and/or collectives will still be able to possess the amount needed for their medical use.

Q: If Proposition 19 passes, will it still be beneficial to be a medical cannabis patient?

A: Yes, medical patients will receive the greatest protections. Qualified patients will be allowed to possess and grow more than adults (to cover their medical needs). We also hope to see exemptions or discounts on services, and taxes to subsidize the cost to patients needing medical cannabis.
Q: Will Proposition 19 make it more difficult to become a medical patient?

A: No, being a medical cannabis patient will still remain private between you and your doctor.

Q: Could Proposition 19 affect medical cannabis growers?

A: Yes, by providing legal permits to gardens, Proposition 19 will also make possible the first legal commercial growing, once cannabis cultivation is regulated and permitted by either local governments or the state.

Q: Will Proposition 19 attract big business and cut out the little guys, and the cottage industry they have worked so hard to create?

A: Proposition 19 will actually give local groups an equal opportunity to obtain licenses and/or permits for the sale and cultivation of medical cannabis, adult cannabis, and hemp. Local groups can work with local governments to help determine regulations and licensing for cultivation and sales. Proposition 19 is also significant in that it allows for personal cultivation by adults.
Download PDF



Fiscal Benefits

We are currently facing historic budget deficits in California. Passing Proposition 19 will put our fiscal priorities where they belong, saving California hundreds of millions of dollars each year, and provide California with billions in much needed revenue to fund what matters most.

Revenue

Controlling and Taxing Cannabis Could Generate $1.4 Billion in Revenue Per Year

According to California’s tax regulator, the Board of Equalization (BOE), controlling and taxing cannabis in California could generate $1.4 billion in much needed revenue each year. These funds could go towards jobs, public safety, healthcare, parks, roads, transportation, and more.

A $14 Billion Per Year Illegal Cannabis Market in California

The BOE estimates that there is a $14 billion per year illegal cannabis market in California. But since cannabis remains illegal, our state sees none of the revenue that could have been generated from controlling and taxing it. http://www.boe.ca.gov/legdiv/pdf/ab0390-1dw.pdf

Savings

Over $200 Million in Annual Savings for Public Safety

According to a study by the California chapter of NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), controlling and taxing cannabis would save the state over $200 million that would have been spent on arrests, prosecutions, and prison for non-violent cannabis consumers.

$12-18 Billion Generated Annually by Spin-Off Industries

According to the California NORML study, controlling and taxing cannabis could generate an additional $12-18 billion a year for California’s economy from spin-off industries like coffeehouses and tourism.

Thousands of New Jobs and Billions in Wages for Californians

According to the California NORML study, if a controlled and taxed cannabis market operated at the same level as the California wine industry, it would create between 60,000 and 110,000 new jobs, and $2.5 -3.5 billion in wages for workers each year.

http://canorml.org/background/CA_legalization2.html

Download PDF




Public Safety Benefits

California wastes hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of police hours per year arresting, prosecuting, and imprisoning non-violent cannabis consumers. Meanwhile, illegal cannabis sales in the U.S. generate the majority of revenue for violent drug cartels across the border. Proposition 19 will enable police to focus resources on violent criminals, and replace a dangerous street market with safe, regulated cannabis sales outlets, putting street dealers and drug cartels out of business.

Drive the Drug Cartels Out of Business

60 Percent of Mexican Drug Cartels’ Revenue Comes from Cannabis Sales in the U.S.
According to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, in 2006 more than 60 percent of the revenue generated by Mexican drug cartels came from cannabis sales in the U.S.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/06/AR2009100603847.html

Controlling and Taxing Cannabis will Weaken the Mexican Drug Cartels
Proposition 19 will weaken the power of the Mexican drug cartels. A former Mexican official recently told CNN that he supports legalizing cannabis in the United States and Mexico, in order to stop the cartel killings. In 2008 alone, 6,290 people were murdered by the cartels in Mexico, a number greater than the total amount of American troops killed in both Iraq and Afghanistan combined since 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/02/02/us.mexico.marijuana/index.html?section=cnn_latest
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-02-26-mexico-drug-violence_N.htm
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/

Put Police Priorities Where They Belong

Every Hour Spent On Cannabis is an Hour Lost on Violent Crime
Every police hour spent on non-violent cannabis consumers is an hour lost that could have been spent on violent criminals. According to a study by Florida State University economists Bruce Benson and David Rasmussen, violent crime increases when police are focused on drug enforcement, particularly cannabis prohibition. They found that every 1% increase in drug arrests leads to a 0.18% increase in violent crimes. (Benson et al. 2001, “The Impact of Drug Enforcement on Crime: An Investigation of the Opportunity Cost of Police Resources,” Journal of Drug Issues, 31: 989-1006)

Put Police Priorities Where They Belong: Save Millions, Keep the Violent Locked Up
The California Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), which provides nonpartisan fiscal and policy advice, states that Proposition 19 could save “several tens of millions of dollars annually” and permit the “redirection of court and law enforcement resources,” and that “jail beds no longer needed for marijuana offenders” could be “used for other criminals who are now being released early because of a lack of jail space.” http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2009/090512.aspx

California’s Legal System Has its Priorities Wrong
According to the FBI, in 2008, almost 60,000 violent crimes went unsolved in California. That same year, over 61,000 Californians were arrested for misdemeanor cannabis possession.

 

[potroast]

Yes, of course I'm voting Yes.

It's the first bill of it's kind in the lower 48, and it will cause many ripples, either good or bad.

If it passes, WE WIN, if it does not pass, THEY WIN.


figure it out.

 

[TokinPodPilot]

Yes, of course I'm voting Yes.

It's the first bill of it's kind in the lower 48, and it will cause many ripples, either good or bad.

If it passes, WE WIN, if it does not pass, THEY WIN.


figure it out.

And you would be wrong. There was another Prop 19 that was for legalization without most of the crap that's in this bill which was up for vote in 1972. Proponents of this bill like to pretend that nothing has been done on the legalization front, when in fact, 30 years of activism and rational lobbying has accomplished much in this state. I would think that someone from the San Diego region would have a more realistic view about the obvious negative repercussions of this bill on the cannabis community at large, but then again, we thought Dick Lee was a good guy at some point, too.

Although, if one really thinks about it, maybe you are right. To be honest, I haven't come across any other legislative initiatives that attempted to establish a commercial market with free reign on tax assignment being peddled as legalization when it actually enhances existing prohibition. Maybe it is the first of it's kind... but, as far as unique phenomena go, this one stinks.

 

[ford442]

an email to me yesterday morning from NORML -

"This just in from Public Policy Polling: As of today, 52% of voters support Proposition 19, while only 36% are against it. This puts us ahead by 16% among California voters!"

 

[TokinPodPilot]

Wow... this article and a few like it are causing a great big stir. You guys really need to look at the big picture and read the prop 19 instead of the translations of it. we are all smart enough to understand what is said!

Most of us against the bill have read it. Extensively. Repeatedly. Hell, I'm about ready to start citing the damn thing from memory. At this point, I only have to pull the initiative text when I get need to pull a direct quote. We all should be smart enough to understand what is said, and yet we get posts like this filled with misinformation and flat-out wrong information in support of a weak fear-mongering platform. Whether that's a result of just being misinformed or a straight up propaganda tactic, I could really care less. The easiest way to deal with baseless rhetoric and tangential emotive argumentation is with fact and reason. So, let's get to it, shall we...

First off I would like to point out that all of this line by line debate and doubt casting started after the bill was no longer amendable. By intent do you think? Some of what I read are good points but mostly it is bullshit, and is written more to undermine the entire concept than to provide a better bill. If the people casting these doubts wanted any form of regulation these points would have been brought up months ago while the bill was still amendable. People with illegal commercial grows don't want any form of legalization unless it allows them to do business as usual... selling product without taxes. That is what the opposition cares about.

I'll assume that your signature is an indicator that you are not a resident of California and therefore were not here for the initial months of action on not only Prop 19, but the 2 other initiatives as well. The doubt, debate and general disgust with the direction Prop 19 took happened well before the initiative was finalized. Many like Jack Herer and Dennis Peron walked away from supporting the bill, which left Dick Lee holding the bag on legislation no one but him wanted. So he hired a political consultant and financed the necessary signatures for his bill to be on the November ballot, while the other two initiatives were unable to gather enough signatures as they were volunteer-run efforts. Arguments against Prop 19 are not intended to come up with a better bill. There are already better legislative initiatives which could be built upon to make a rational legalization policy. There was a lot of ferocious debate and contention in the early phase of drafting this proposition, which resulted in key figures walking away from Dick's crazy bill and trying to work on better solutions. Unfortunately, Dick Lee has spent a long time building his political nest egg on the backs of patients and their medical needs, and now uses that money to draft some of the worst legalization legislation ever. You are right that those with illegal commercial grows may not want legalization, but you're very much in error in assuming that the opposition is comprised completely of nothing but illegal growers. Gross generalizations don't do anyone any good, and only serve to obfuscate an already muddy and complex issue. The opposition to Prop 19 is varied and diverse as are the reasons we oppose it.

I don't like the idea of big business commanding the MJ trade any more than the next guy, but there is nothing in the prop that says there is a $200,000 licenses fee. It says that local governments have the right to do what they will. Fuck Oakland if they want to make it corporate! Do you think Mendocino county wants that. Do think they are going to fuck their residents because Oakland did? Give me a break. Oakland can produce big quantities from 4 business moguls but the rest of the state can do as they will. Each local government can tweak their laws to fit in all areas except among age restrictions. Other than the kids here, I think we all agree that is OK and probably wise. The 18-20 bracket I don't think is really getting a fair shake on this deal as I personally would rather see hard working young adults and college age students smoke a joint than doing keg stands on a Wednesday night. But whatever, wait 2 more years kids and it will be all good! If a local government wants to license businesses with a 50 lb per year cap they can. If a local government wants to keep the big hitters out they can. If a local government wants to help their residents compete in the market they can. No where in the prop does the little guy get screwed. Though it does mean they have to run as a legal business, and pay income taxes like the rest of us.

OK, let's waltz past the guesswork on what cities will or won't do should Prop 19 pass. At this point, it's all an academic exercise. Proponents want to believe that municipalities will welcome commercial growing with open arms and will treat the cannabis community with equality and respect. I'm not sure which California they've been watching, but there are few communities that openly welcome the cannabis community and quite a few that are looking for any way they can to restrict us out of their towns as quickly as possible. Prop 19 doesn't gain anyone new rights or privileges, it adds new restrictions and more ways for smokers and cultivators to be arrested and incarcerated. Proponents of the bill seem so eager to cut and run on people it's almost shameful. You may not have an issue with the sudden exclusion of 18-20 year olds from protection under the law, but I do. These individuals have every right to consume cannabis as someone who is 21 or older. They have those rights today, and there is no rational reason to change it now.


I also have no problem with local government setting reasonable regulations and taxing structures. I do have a problem with not being able to have a say in the development of those regulations and taxes. No taxation without representation, as they used to say in the old days. Prop 19 gives municipalities the power to set those standards as they deem fit. Many medical collectives and dispensaries are fighting local municipalities for the right to exist as it is, and proponents want to hand them even more power to dictate policy without oversight.

Speaking of taxes, do people really oppose paying taxes on MJ? We pay taxes on it now! Since illegal commercial growers are living at least partially if not fully on their sales we are paying their income tax for them. That's right, government doesn't say "we are taxing everyone x%" and be done with it, they say " we need x million dollars and divide it by the number of tax payers", so since the people in the community who are profiting from mj sales are not paying taxes, we get the pleasure of paying their taxes for them. so that is tax #1. Tax #2 that we are already paying is sales tax. This we pay to criminal organizations and street dealers. Our taxes now fund not only general gang activity but also the sale and import of wonderful drugs like crack, meth, and heroine, and the illegal sales of pharmaceuticals that turn into heroine addictions. Tax #3 is a great one too, this is the tax we pay for conviction and rehabilitation. Because mj is illegal people who get caught are often offered a break if they seek treatment. This means state funded rehabilitation centers for "pot addicts", and/or people out of work and now on welfare, and court costs to mediate all this bullshit. That just adds to the cost of our income and property taxes, so it is a tax we now pay. Pot convictions can ruin lives, it can prevent smart and otherwise law abiding young adults from getting college loans, it can add drain to the welfare system through incarceration and job-site testing resulting in loss of employment because of a joint you smoked last weekend. We currently pay for all this bullshit. There are many other examples of how we are currently taxed for MJ... well all except the commercial growers, the criminal organizations they sell to, and the street dealers. We have tax now but no regulation, none that works anyways.

Your fundamental misunderstanding of the taxing system in this country is truly astounding. I don't know who you've been listening to, but you are getting hoodwinked. The “taxes” you are describing are an interesting fantasy of paranoia and nonsense. Tax #1... I have to admit, that's a new one. I can't say I've ever come across such a fundamentally wrong perception of the tax and budgetary processes in this country. Since anyone who has actually done their taxes in the past, say 20 years, can hopefully see the crazy, I won't bother. Tax #2 isn't a tax. It's a choice. Yes, it's hard to source cannabis as a recreational user without contacting illegal elements that will charge you some sort of overhead or surcharge for product. And yes, with illegal organizations there is a chance, a good one most likely, that the money you spent could be used to finance worse crimes. Prop 19 doesn't mitigate that. Hard drugs and illegal pharmaceuticals generate their own profit and there's no direct evidence to support the theory that commercializing cannabis will make a significant difference. Tax #3 is probably the the most backwards perception of all. Pot convictions can and do ruin lives. I feel bad for anyone that lives in states other than California that have not seen fit to adopt rational legislation and protect the recreational smoker/cultivator. It's sad that you see the diversion aspect of California's Penal Code as a drain on society, but your associating those programs with costing the tax payer money is flat out wrong. These programs save communities money by removing simple possession and cultivation for personal consumption cases from resulting in jail sentences and reduce court costs by removing the need for proceedings. The fact is, under current California law, possession of one ounce or less and/or cultivation for personal consumption is a misdemeanor with a $100 max fine. Three or more repeat offenses will probably necessitate attending an education/rehab program, but if you've been popped three or more times, I think you have larger concerns to consider, like why do you keep getting popped. All in all, these programs cost significantly less than incarcerating these same people. Plus, there is also the fact that because of programs like these, the charges that necessitated your participation in them, are immediately dropped from your record upon completion of the program. In fact, there is currently legislation on it's way to the State Assembly that will further reduce those possession/cultivation for personal consumption charges from a misdemeanor to a simple infraction. No more court appearance, just pay the fine.

The overall impact of prop 19 is huge for the entire country and for the legitimization of recreational mj use. This is a massive step for the entire country and maybe even the planet. If nothing else, this will force the federal government to finally acknowledge that MJ is not harmful and that people want it. there is language in the prop that will allow for testing. We can't even test MJ now. The feds are adamant on people not realizing that the reasons prohibition started 80 years ago were a bunch of bullshit!

Prop 19 doesn't legitimize cannabis anymore than it already is. It restricts the “personal consumption” statute and adds new standards by which law enforcement will be able to establish “intent to sell”. The rest of that paragraph is pure fantasy. The Federal government is only one part of the opposition to cannabis legalization. The bulk is made up of big business interests that do not want competition from the cannabis industry. The Feds are adamant that people believe their propaganda about cannabis being dangerous and the perception of cannabis as a drug. Prop 19 won't force anything to change in the Controlled Substances Act. Maybe if more states were to adopt medical and/or recreational cannabis policies, we could begin to force some action at a national level. The V.A.'s recognition of cannabis as medically valid is progress, Prop 19 would not be.

This bill will allow the simple consumer the option to legally grow their own, and for people to consume without fear of prosecution. I understand that some medical users go though ounces per week, but for the rest of us a 5x5 garden is more than sufficient. Now we can go buy clones or openly talk to our friends about our grow. Wouldn't it be nice to show off your girls to your friends when they come over instead of lighting a dozen candles? Rule #1 of growing, the one that says tell nobody, is abolished with this prop! Wouldn't you like to help your friends start a grow? Wouldn't you like to talk openly about the gooseberry skunk pheno you found in a 10 pack of $30 beans? wouldn't it be cool to casually talk about your grow with anyone in hopes of finally getting a clone of that real Indiana bubble gum that was lost and/or raped in Amsterdam years ago? This is legal growing folks! How many here say "I would grow but I don't want to get caught"? how many have kids that are in dare programs and don't grow for fear of their kids seeing it as the demon drug they are told it is?

Recreational users can cultivate their own now. As you proponents keep asserting, this should have nothing to do with medical users, so bringing them up and making baseless generalization about them isn't very honest. Your fantasy about the utopia of “legal growing” is optimistic, to say the least. Too bad it's not pragmatic. If you can't trust someone to know about your grow now, there's no reason you'll be more inclined to trust everyone and show it off after Prop 19. Even if it was fully legalized, cannabis still has value. If you can't grow because you're afraid your kids will narc you out because they're brainwashed by DARE, then you seriously have much LARGER problems and need to work on parenting better.

This bill puts into perspective of weight vs square footage vs # of plants. This is an important clarification. We don't want the authorities to say we have 50 plants when we have a small sog and a half dozen mothers do we? we don't want the authorities to say we have 10 lbs of MJ when all we have 6 wet ounces on a 4 foot plant in a 2 gallon pot full of dirt. This is good and much needed verbiage!!! also a pound of brownies isn't a pound of pot.

Yeah, not so much. Under current laws and in accordance with legal precedents, possession and cultivation for personal consumption are allowable without restrictions on garden size or number of plants. If this bill is meant to be progress, then there's no reason to set limits that don't exist now.

The bill says that a person using lawfully cannot be discriminated against and even goes on to say that an employer can't discriminate unless there is proof of impairment at the workplace. This bill clearly states that no local or state law enforcement shall impair or impede a legal grow so it puts the DEA out on their own and allows the local guys to say "sorry we can't let you use our resources because we are bound by state law" That is HUGE. DEA doesn't currently do too much without help from the locals.

Because law enforcement doesn't misinterpret ambiguous law to establish “illegality” now. In addition, the proposition makes allowances for municipalities to use money raised via taxes in any way they deem necessary to control and enforce regulations. There is nothing in the bill which prevents Federal and local cooperation and/or transfer of resources so long as local government deems it necessary.

Don't fall into the vote no hype, because it is all hype! This prop gives a lot of the control over to the city and county governments and will allow communities the choice of helping the corporations or the residents. This will provide income for the cites and state. This will offer protection on a state level to people who abide by it. This will allow, at least in some communities, the local farmer to do what he does best in a legal business format. This will set an example for the rest of the country and for the rest of the world.

Nice... lots of baseless hype to tell everyone to avoid the hype. This proposition isn't friendly to the cannabis community and undoes a lot of progress made over the last 20 years.

I appreciate all that Jack Herrer has done for the pot smoking community but his dream of treating pot like a tomato plant is a hippy pipe dream. I would love it and you would love it but it doesn't solve the problems that prohibition has created and offers -0- incentive for government or non-smokers to support this. If you are waiting for that, then don't hold your breath it just won't ever happen even though that is what we all want. We are being taxed already, and although I hate much of what the government does as much as the next guy, I would rather my taxes go to government then street gangs and cartels. I would rather see that people making 5x the money I do paying 5x the taxes and people making the same paying the same. I would rather the underground community be brought to sea level so that the criminals and their corrupt sidelines can better be dealt with. This is a great bill and anyone who is in favor of peace, order, and smoking pot should be voting yes. The no votes are a vote for prohibition and the criminal activities that follow it.

It is a lofty dream. One that is sadly beyond most people, I can understand that. It's not easy to change the way we've done business for almost 80 years, but that's not a reason to accept things as they are. Just because you've given up and/or haven't the fortitude for the fight ahead, that is no reason for everyone else to vote in bad legislation. We have more in the way of rights and protections now than we have ever before and we make more progress every year. I won't bother with the insulting insinuations that aren't really vote-related and just a cheap shot at opposing viewpoints.

 

[Dan Kone]

an email to me yesterday morning from NORML -

"This just in from Public Policy Polling: As of today, 52% of voters support Proposition 19, while only 36% are against it. This puts us ahead by 16% among California voters!"

That seems inaccurate to me. Is it possible that poll was commissioned by prop19 backers?

All the recent polling I've seen have the yes/no within the margin of error.

I'm a prop 19 supporter, but I'm an even bigger supporter of an honest discussion on the topic. (not saying you're being dishonest, but it seems like whoever conducted that poll is)

 

[sm0keyrich510]

That seems inaccurate to me. Is it possible that poll was commissioned by prop19 backers?

All the recent polling I've seen have the yes/no within the margin of error.

i agree. just earlier this month a poll came out stating it was 44% support to 48% against.

so i have a hard time believing that in less than 1 month it goes from the above figure to 52% support to 36% against...


i think we just have to keep in mind its random people being asked...so these polls are really inaccurate as you can (at random) get any number of supporters or those against it.

they can do a poll every week but if it only includes the opinions of 1,000 or so people then its not reliable info to get psyched on.

 

[brickedup417]

i dont know theres gonna be alott of nor-cal locals voteing no, and now theres alott of collectives pushing no.....so hopefully it wont pass

 

[10jed]

Most of us against the bill have read it. Extensively. Repeatedly. Hell, I'm about ready to start citing the damn thing from memory. At this point, I only have to pull the initiative text when I get need to pull a direct quote. We all should be smart enough to understand what is said, and yet we get posts like this filled with misinformation and flat-out wrong information in support of a weak fear-mongering platform. Whether that's a result of just being misinformed or a straight up propaganda tactic, I could really care less. The easiest way to deal with baseless rhetoric and tangential emotive argumentation is with fact and reason. So, let's get to it, shall we...

First off Tokin,
Thanks for reading and considering my entire post. Sometimes when I write a book-like post such as this I look after it is done and wonder if anyone will ever actually read it! I don't believe my words are based on misinformation and I can assure you that I am not trying to incite any fear. I also appreciate your peacable and classy dissagreement.

I'll assume that your signature is an indicator that you are not a resident of California and therefore were not here for the initial months of action on not only Prop 19, but the 2 other initiatives as well. The doubt, debate and general disgust with the direction Prop 19 took happened well before the initiative was finalized. Many like Jack Herer and Dennis Peron walked away from supporting the bill, which left Dick Lee holding the bag on legislation no one but him wanted. So he hired a political consultant and financed the necessary signatures for his bill to be on the November ballot, while the other two initiatives were unable to gather enough signatures as they were volunteer-run efforts. Arguments against Prop 19 are not intended to come up with a better bill. There are already better legislative initiatives which could be built upon to make a rational legalization policy. There was a lot of ferocious debate and contention in the early phase of drafting this proposition, which resulted in key figures walking away from Dick's crazy bill and trying to work on better solutions. Unfortunately, Dick Lee has spent a long time building his political nest egg on the backs of patients and their medical needs, and now uses that money to draft some of the worst legalization legislation ever. You are right that those with illegal commercial grows may not want legalization, but you're very much in error in assuming that the opposition is comprised completely of nothing but illegal growers. Gross generalizations don't do anyone any good, and only serve to obfuscate an already muddy and complex issue. The opposition to Prop 19 is varied and diverse as are the reasons we oppose it.

Certainly not all no voters are illegal commercial growers. I'm sorry that I stated it that way but I believe that the general movement is spawned by their opinions. The thing that a lot of the non-malicious "vote no" people are hinging on is that there will be another opportunity for this to all happen again soon with a prop they like better. There is no guarantee to that! In fact, if this is voted down it won't be publicized as the "true freedom fighters of cannabis not being satisfied with the wording" instead it will be publicized as "California apparently doesn't want marijuana legalized as much as we thought". All your championing efforts will be simply seen as a no vote. If you had the option of this or nothing would you be happy with nothing? I know some would prefer that, and those are the ones that I am calling out in my original post as being the ones who seem to be leading the fight for no. I'm not implying that you feel that way, I don't know. You seem like a sensible guy, and if we met we may very well agree on many other facets of life.

From government's standpoint the current mmj laws are flawed. The things that you are complaining about with Dicks prop are a direct result of that, and many cities closing or denying licensing to prospective dispensaries is further proof that what is in place now is not good for all involved. It is a situation of people getting rich off of MJ. It is a situation where the prop that got the votes did so because a guy who got rich off of MMJ funded it. That is how things get done though, that guy stepped up to the plate and made an investment in his own personal future. I don't like it, you don't like it, but that is how things work in this country. Feel lucky that he did that because the grass roots efforts didn't get it done like he did. He bought 1/4 of Oakland's MJ business but the rest of the state is up for grabs to people with business savvy who are in communities where the general populous or economic needs support it.

OK, let's waltz past the guesswork on what cities will or won't do should Prop 19 pass. At this point, it's all an academic exercise. Proponents want to believe that municipalities will welcome commercial growing with open arms and will treat the cannabis community with equality and respect. I'm not sure which California they've been watching, but there are few communities that openly welcome the cannabis community and quite a few that are looking for any way they can to restrict us out of their towns as quickly as possible. Prop 19 doesn't gain anyone new rights or privileges, it adds new restrictions and more ways for smokers and cultivators to be arrested and incarcerated. Proponents of the bill seem so eager to cut and run on people it's almost shameful. You may not have an issue with the sudden exclusion of 18-20 year olds from protection under the law, but I do. These individuals have every right to consume cannabis as someone who is 21 or older. They have those rights today, and there is no rational reason to change it now.

I agree that anything relating to how individual communities handle this issue at this point is only conjecture, but the fact remains that individual communities have the right to tweak this. I think it is safe to say that some will embrace it and some will want no part of it, just as some will side with their residents and some will side with larger corporate entities such as Oakland seems to be doing. But, would you rather gather up your 50 closest buddies and speak your peace in front of your state government or in front of your local government? I guaranty that you will have far more push in your local government to get things the way you want them. Divide and conquer my friend. You still get to fight the good fight but now you have a far less threatening opponent. If the people of your community are really for this, you will certainly have a say in how your community deals with these new laws, but if not, nothing will change that unless those peoples minds are changed. Voters have a far bigger voice in local government than they do in state or federal.

As for 18-20 or anyone in California for that matter, they most certainly do not have those rights. MJ is still illegal in California for non-medical users! Decrim means you get a misdemeanor instead of a felony! I don't have any misdemeanors, do you? I don't want any misdemeanors on my record. That is something they ask on job applications, and business loan or banking applications. That is something that will come up to bite you when you are fighting with your ex about child support issues, getting a license for bartending or real estate, or fighting an unrelated crime! Misdemeanors are not OK, they are not a felony or a free ticket to the pokey but you don't want misdemeanors on your record! And $100 is nothing compared to a felony arrest but in today's society $100 is a lot of money to a lot of people! Your decriminalization still is an open invite for a cop to search your car, or check your bag or otherwise hassle you. If it is legal it is legal but what you have now is not legalization. It is passive acceptance with a right to bust you if they want to.

Currently in CA a lot of the MMJ growers grow for themselves or their patients and sell what is left to the dispensaries. This bill changes that. OK, so now the only people who can sell weed or produce enough to sell legally are those who are specifically licensed to do so. How is that bad? Bad for the grower who wants to make a buck but not for anyone else. OK, maybe the guy who has cancer and lives with his wife who has cancer and their uncle who has chronic back pain can't get by on a 5x5 grow but for the most part it is possible under these restrictions to supply all but the most chronic smokers. Besides, the "compassion" of selling MMJ for street prices or more isn't really compassion is it? I know a lot of growers gift MMJ or sell at very low prices and there is no reason that people who truly are compassionate cant still help people with needs that are greater than what their gardens produce. That is compassionate. Under this prop you just can't sell without a license for commercial production. That's what the verbiage on this prop addresses and that is a big step in the crime thwarting efforts of this bill. MJ crimes are high in parts of CA! Granted you CA guys are the ones who got this whole ball rolling in the first place, and we all thank you for that, but many other states look first at the crime issues that exist in CA and the struggles in some cities to control it as a reason to deny or ignore new MMJ bills. To Dick that angle was probably more to fill his own wallet but to the rest of the State it is a way to control sales of MJ. How is that not reasonable? There is absolutely no need to ever have more than an ounce on you at any time or purchase more than in ounce at one time unless you are making a delivery. That is very reasonable verbiage and only negatively effects the criminal element short of maybe some inconvenience to people who have to travel to buy it.

The 18-20 bracket, as I said, I feel for on all of this because I personally feel that MJ is a safer alternative to alcohol, but the non-smoking community that will be voting on this isn't experienced with MJ like we are. I see that as throwing them a bone, and ultimately it will account for quite a few votes. Kids and pot is a big issue for most people in or out of the culture and unfortunately our society sees under 21 as a kid in many aspects of life. It was hard enough to get people to finally come to terms with the fact that MJ isn't the demon weed it was made out to be but to expect the populous to vote on a prop that gives pot rights to ages younger than what is deemed acceptable for alcohol sales is another pipe dream. Won't happen now... baby steps!

I also have no problem with local government setting reasonable regulations and taxing structures. I do have a problem with not being able to have a say in the development of those regulations and taxes. No taxation without representation, as they used to say in the old days. Prop 19 gives municipalities the power to set those standards as they deem fit. Many medical collectives and dispensaries are fighting local municipalities for the right to exist as it is, and proponents want to hand them even more power to dictate policy without oversight.

I answered some of this above, but you have the ability to control your local government with your votes far more easily than you do state or federal. Many collectives are not about compassionate care or helping the sick but more about making money. Maybe even most are in that bracket I don't know. The unregulated production, although nice for people who really need it, does nothing to stop criminal profits and that is why strict regulated production is necessary. You have a better chance of a local official reading your letter or looking over your petition, and you may even be able to call their office and have a friendly chat with them. Big business has less influence on local government because they are smaller fish so even the looming corporate giants loose some of their strength in your home town. Another line from the prop states that "appropriate" fees may be dictated. I'm no lawyer but to me $200K is far from appropriate and that may be something that could be argued in court, I don't know.

Your fundamental misunderstanding of the taxing system in this country is truly astounding. I don't know who you've been listening to, but you are getting hoodwinked. The “taxes” you are describing are an interesting fantasy of paranoia and nonsense. Tax #1... I have to admit, that's a new one. I can't say I've ever come across such a fundamentally wrong perception of the tax and budgetary processes in this country. Since anyone who has actually done their taxes in the past, say 20 years, can hopefully see the crazy, I won't bother. Tax #2 isn't a tax. It's a choice. Yes, it's hard to source cannabis as a recreational user without contacting illegal elements that will charge you some sort of overhead or surcharge for product. And yes, with illegal organizations there is a chance, a good one most likely, that the money you spent could be used to finance worse crimes. Prop 19 doesn't mitigate that. Hard drugs and illegal pharmaceuticals generate their own profit and there's no direct evidence to support the theory that commercializing cannabis will make a significant difference. Tax #3 is probably the the most backwards perception of all. Pot convictions can and do ruin lives. I feel bad for anyone that lives in states other than California that have not seen fit to adopt rational legislation and protect the recreational smoker/cultivator. It's sad that you see the diversion aspect of California's Penal Code as a drain on society, but your associating those programs with costing the tax payer money is flat out wrong. These programs save communities money by removing simple possession and cultivation for personal consumption cases from resulting in jail sentences and reduce court costs by removing the need for proceedings. The fact is, under current California law, possession of one ounce or less and/or cultivation for personal consumption is a misdemeanor with a $100 max fine. Three or more repeat offenses will probably necessitate attending an education/rehab program, but if you've been popped three or more times, I think you have larger concerns to consider, like why do you keep getting popped. All in all, these programs cost significantly less than incarcerating these same people. Plus, there is also the fact that because of programs like these, the charges that necessitated your participation in them, are immediately dropped from your record upon completion of the program. In fact, there is currently legislation on it's way to the State Assembly that will further reduce those possession/cultivation for personal consumption charges from a misdemeanor to a simple infraction. No more court appearance, just pay the fine.

Ahh I see you liked that part! Obviously those aren't actual taxes, but the truth is you pay overhead when you buy weed on the street and it doesn't go to the state. Prohibition, regardless of decriminalization, costs tax payers money in a myriad of ways. People loose jobs because of drug testing techniques that do not actually test for intoxication but for recent or even not so recent use. Much of that is gone with prop 19. Your "just a ticket" version of decrim is not yet law, right? Buying weed on the street may sometimes get you weed and sometimes you get "well, I don't have any weed but I have *insert other illegal substance*" It happens, not everyone has the awesome consistent hookup even in Cali. By having state regulated outlets you know you can get quality weed and you won't be offered any alternatives.

Prop 19 doesn't legitimize cannabis anymore than it already is. It restricts the “personal consumption” statute and adds new standards by which law enforcement will be able to establish “intent to sell”. The rest of that paragraph is pure fantasy. The Federal government is only one part of the opposition to cannabis legalization. The bulk is made up of big business interests that do not want competition from the cannabis industry. The Feds are adamant that people believe their propaganda about cannabis being dangerous and the perception of cannabis as a drug. Prop 19 won't force anything to change in the Controlled Substances Act. Maybe if more states were to adopt medical and/or recreational cannabis policies, we could begin to force some action at a national level. The V.A.'s recognition of cannabis as medically valid is progress, Prop 19 would not be.

I certainly agree that the culprits against federal legalization are and always have been corporate entities. They buy our governments with their campaign donations and spin tales with their lobbyists, but it is the government that has the face of the power. Decrim is still illegal, legal is legal. Just because your local fuzz is ok with things happening in front of their faces now doesn't mean that any of that will change. Up to an ounce is more than reasonable for anyone who isn't looking to sell it. They are making a long overdue clarification as to what is deemed as personal, clarifying how to measure amounts, and making a big step in reducing crime. Then, if communities want to extend those limits they can.

You don't think that this will clear the way for other states to do the same or maybe even make a large stride toward federal legalization? This passing will put the US in a bad spot with the INCB. The INCB is the international entity that controls the world's legal drug trade and they use the power of their treaties to dictate law to us and other countries. US MJ legalization, even in just 1 state could finally be a way for us to break free of some of that, so although this won't be that single straw most likely, it may spur a movement for revision of those treaties and be a major stepping stone toward global legalization of MJ, as well as recognition of the medical benefits. The INCB and the Pharmaceutical industry would both prefer that MJ be reduced to a pill that can't be created without lab coats and million dollar machines. Won't be too long and they will be able to synthesize more than thc... With the state verbiage to allow testing we can finally have documentable scientific proof, and statistical information that is based on a population that is free from any prosecution for use. Now statistics are based on backwards control groups that don't show segments of the population that are closet users and that is the bulk of the people using. "We polled 1000 people with colon cancer and found that 25% were frequent MJ users, so MJ causes colon cancer 25% of the time!" I'm sick of that kind of bullshit! All that would mean is that 25% of the people use MJ. Granted a lot of the above is global concern more so than CA, but I would think the smokers of CA would have some concern for the rest of the people in the world. In seems that the writers of prop 19 did.

Recreational users can cultivate their own now. As you proponents keep asserting, this should have nothing to do with medical users, so bringing them up and making baseless generalization about them isn't very honest. Your fantasy about the utopia of “legal growing” is optimistic, to say the least. Too bad it's not pragmatic. If you can't trust someone to know about your grow now, there's no reason you'll be more inclined to trust everyone and show it off after Prop 19. Even if it was fully legalized, cannabis still has value. If you can't grow because you're afraid your kids will narc you out because they're brainwashed by DARE, then you seriously have much LARGER problems and need to work on parenting better.

You keep saying that it is legal to grow and smoke and it isn't! This is from NORML's website:

Possession
28.5 g or less misdemeanor none $100
More than 28.5 g misdemeanor 6 months $500
28.5 g or less on school grounds while school open (over 18 yers old) misdemeanor 10 days $500
More than 28.5 g on school grounds while school open (over 18 yers old) misdemeanor 6 months $500

Cultivation
Any amount (exception for patients or caregivers) felony 16 - 36 months none

Sale
Gift of less than 28.5 g misdemeanor none $100
Any amount felony
2 - 4 years
none
28.5 g or less by a minor misdemeanor none $250
Any amount to a minor over 14 years old felony 3 - 5 years none
Any amount to a minor under 14 years old (includes offering, inducing, distributing, or employing) felony
3 - 7 years
none
Miscellaneous (paraphernalia, license suspensions, drug tax stamps, etc...)
Any conviction of minor under 21 causes driver's license suspension for 1 year.

Based on that, the only place where your rights are reduced is for the 18-20 year olds, and that is to make it more like alcohol regulations! This isn't reasonable? Advantages are no misdemeanors and you get fucked for selling without a commercial license, but get no misdemeanor or hassle from johnny law with under an ounce, and no persecution from your job unless you are intoxicated on site... According to what I see about CA law you don't have any right to cultivate now, but you do get a felony arrest and up to 3 years in jail for growing only 1 plant. MMJ laws certainly override that, but as we all know in many peoples eyes those laws are flawed so don't expect government support for a system that still allows the criminal aspect to get a piece of the action.

I'm a great parent and I don't let people know about my grow, especially my kid. I don't ever want my kid to feel she has to keep that important of a secret for me. When she is older sure, but right now it is too much to ask of her. As for others, it gives someone power over you if you end up on their shitlist! A friend of mine dumped his girlfriend and a few days later the police had a tip that he had an op. You can't tell people about your grow with prohibition. There are 4 people on this planet who know about my grow, and 3 live hours away!

Yeah, not so much. Under current laws and in accordance with legal precedents, possession and cultivation for personal consumption are allowable without restrictions on garden size or number of plants. If this bill is meant to be progress, then there's no reason to set limits that don't exist now.

Progress would be to control the illegal sale and distribution. For most, the garden size limitations is no more than a small inconvenience for anyone other than people looking to sell or with extremely high medical dose requirements. Communities that want to increase the numbers or make exceptions for medical users can. People can also always buy what they can't grow themselves and true compassion just might show up and pick up the slack for the people who are in need. I do that now as a recreational smoker with a 1.5 sq ft garden! If you have a MMJ card because of a hangnail, or problems falling asleep at night and go through more than a qp or even a hp in a year then you should probably look into some help. Certainly some people need large quantities but it is my understanding that the bulk of the MMJ cards out there aren't for those kind of illnesses.

Because law enforcement doesn't misinterpret ambiguous law to establish “illegality” now. In addition, the proposition makes allowances for municipalities to use money raised via taxes in any way they deem necessary to control and enforce regulations. There is nothing in the bill which prevents Federal and local cooperation and/or transfer of resources so long as local government deems it necessary.

What does this mean?
Section 11303: Seizure (a) Notwithstanding sections 11470 and 11479 of the Health and Safety Code or any other provision of law, no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact seize or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is lawfully cultivated, processed, transported, possessed, possessed for sale, sold or used in compliance with this Act or any local government ordinance, law or regulation adopted pursuant to this Act.

Sounds to me like if you follow the rules they can't touch you. This is what legality is.

Nice... lots of baseless hype to tell everyone to avoid the hype. This proposition isn't friendly to the cannabis community and undoes a lot of progress made over the last 20 years.

Certainly there has been some progress but people have taken advantage of the loopholes and this evens the playing field. It will be an eye opener for the rest of the world. This is far bigger than California and that is why myself and a billion other non CA residents are speaking out about it.

It is a lofty dream. One that is sadly beyond most people, I can understand that. It's not easy to change the way we've done business for almost 80 years, but that's not a reason to accept things as they are. Just because you've given up and/or haven't the fortitude for the fight ahead, that is no reason for everyone else to vote in bad legislation. We have more in the way of rights and protections now than we have ever before and we make more progress every year. I won't bother with the insulting insinuations that aren't really vote-related and just a cheap shot at opposing viewpoints.

So you just want to be able to grow a bigger garden and have more than an ounce on your person. Is that it? Prop 19 is a stepping stone, it isn't the final result of the fight. Nobody is giving up. I think most of us just want to be able to have pot treated like beer. Make your own if you want to, go to a store and buy from a selection of quality product, keep it out of the hands of kids, provide jobs, stimulate the economy, not be persecuted by our peers or employers or our government... prop 19 does all of that but just makes it really tough for an illegal commercial grower to sell his wares on the street. I don't know how it could be seen otherwise.

Jed

 

[fdd2blk]

and with that, i'm voting NO.

 

[brickedup417]

hell ya im glad to see another no vote.

 

[10jed]

Well, I'm not going to force-feed any more of my views in this thread. I have stated my opinion and my interpretations so hopefully somebody will find some insight that is usable. I'm not sure how a pot-loving, free thinking, big-business hating, government bashing person like myself gets compared to Palin, McCain, and Bush Jr. Though I do kinda get the cattle prod part .

I really, honestly, just don't get your viewpoint. I can't see how a no vote could be best for anyone but the criminals and the profiteers.

Jed

 

[lowryder666]

Looks like we're all selfish c***s at the end of the day

 

[TokinPodPilot]

Well, I'm not going to force-feed any more of my views in this thread. I have stated my opinion and my interpretations so hopefully somebody will find some insight that is usable. I'm not sure how a pot-loving, free thinking, big-business hating, government bashing person like myself gets compared to Palin, McCain, and Bush Jr. Though I do kinda get the cattle prod part .

I really, honestly, just don't get your viewpoint. I can't see how a no vote could be best for anyone but the criminals and the profiteers.

Jed

Your lack of imagination, baseless emotive rhetoric and fundamental misunderstanding of current California law is still no reason to vote in ridiculous legislation. I maintain my prior position. Get off your ass and fix your own state. You claim to be "a pot-loving, free thinking, big-business hating, government bashing person" and yet you're attitude is ride the coat tails of REAL activists and advocates and hope their efforts in some way influence the powers in authority over you and yours, so that maybe, just MAYBE they'll stop persecuting you. Take responsibility for your own part in the decriminalization process and do something in your own state. "Trickle down" doesn't work in economics or politics. I'm not sure how many decades people will need to exploited before they do something about taking back control of their own lives. Frankly, I'm beginning to think far too many like it or just don't have the fortitude to deserve freedom from persecution. Liberty is something you have to take, not something you are granted or that can be bought.

 

[GanjaAL]

funny how everyone is calling us selfish... I am votin NO because it will not release anyone from prison and will not stop the incarceration rates as it stands now.

The reason people are going to jail in record numbers in california in an alarming rate that keeps growing is for possesion of more than an oz... sorry but that will not change with the passing of prop19. If anything it may increase because people think TAXATIon is Legalization which it is not. Prop19 only serves the people who wrote it and the politicians who will fill there coffers so they can empty them again with fiscal irresponsibility!

If you want to grow and smoke... get a rec as it sure offers more freedom and protection than prop19!

 

[Dan Kone]

funny how everyone is calling us selfish... I am votin NO because it will not release anyone from prison and will not stop the incarceration rates as it stands now.

You are correct. No one will be released from jail if it passes. Prop 19 doesn't go far enough. But the end of prohibition isn't going to happen over night and it certainly won't happen with one law. Change often comes piece by piece. Just because we aren't getting all the change we need all at once, doesn't mean we shouldn't get the ball rolling by supporting prop19.

The reason people are going to jail in record numbers in california in an alarming rate that keeps growing is for possesion of more than an oz... sorry but that will not change with the passing of prop19.

That's not necessarily true. You will be able to possess more than an ounce in many places, just not everywhere.

From the text of prop19:

Amendments to the limitations in section 11300, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations.

That means everywhere in California you will be able to carry at the least an ounce. It's the minimum, not the maximum. There is no upper ceiling on the amounts cities/counties can approve. If your city/county decides you should be allowed to grow 500 square feet and possess 50 pounds, they are allowed to make it legal in any city or county in California.

Prop 19 is specifically designed to be an amendable work in progress. It will be our responsibility to write petitions, gather signatures, and then deliver them to our city counsels and county boards of supervisors all across California. If enough voters demand higher limits, for the most part cities and counties will be forced to listen.

But no one else will make that change for us. That is up to us.

Prop19 only serves the people who wrote it and the politicians who will fill there coffers so they can empty them again with fiscal irresponsibility!

Not true. Prop 19 will serve the people who work hard to make it into what they want it to be. If we all sit back and do nothing, yes, then it will only serve those who put the proper effort into it. But if you are active in your community and work to make prop19 serve the people, then it will.

If you want to grow and smoke... get a rec as it sure offers more freedom and protection than prop19!

Prop 19 has no effect on your 215 rec. With or without prop19 you'll be able to keep doing what you're doing. Prop19 just offers the cities and counties of California a potential higher level of freedom. The only catch is, if you want that higher level of freedom, you're going to have to go out and take it for yourself. No one is going to do it for you. Prop 19 just gives you the ability to do that.

 

[Dan Kone]

and with that, i'm voting NO.

Yeah, keep posting that over and over again. Real clever.

 

[fdd2blk]

Yeah, keep posting that over and over again. Real clever.

and you points aren't redundant?

once again, you're calling the kettle black.

 

[Dan Kone]

and you points aren't redundant?
.

Only when you continue to spread the same misinformation over and over again. But your posts are nothing more than blatant dishonest propaganda.

 

[TokinPodPilot]

hey Dan, IM VOTING NO AND YOUR A FOOL

Ive been working hard to do a small part in making sure this bill doesnt pass, informing every medical grower i know personally about the bill. all of them are against it. all of them are now in their own process of doing the same. i can confidently say ive gather hundreds of No votes. it doesnt take any propaganda,fear mongering..what ever. all you have to do is inform people and get them thinking about it. i have not met a single individual growing under prop 215 who is for prop19. the scary thing is how few growers\stoners even know about the bill, my fear is that come Nov, these people who arent educated in the details will vote yes simply because its there.

GanjaAL,tokinpod,bricked are the truth.

It's not just medical cannabis people we should be talking to, but the recreational smokers as well. Prop 19 is a danger for anyone younger than 21 and anyone with kids. If law enforcement and local government have demonstrated anything, it's their moral objection to our presence as a community and their abject willingness to misinterpret law and outright falsify evidence in their efforts to eradicate us. For anyone and everyone that smokes, you need to be aware of your real rights under the law.

Point everyone you know to this link: http://www.canorml.org/laws/calmjlaws.html
or print it out and hand it to folks. They should know how to protect themselves. We activists have fought hard for what we got and while it's not perfect, we HAVE reduced the number of people incarcerated for simple possession and/or cultivation for personal consumption. Those are facts. Local municipalities don't need Prop 19 to enable cannabis industry regulation and engage in fee collection. Oakland just proved that. Prop 19 is the iconic example of the ultimate scam job. They want to sell you the rights you already have, tax you for "now having them", and tell you exactly how you are allowed to exercise those rights. Capitalism hasn't worked so far and the capitalists keep wanting us to try it their way.