Why I'm voting NO on prop. 19

[The Ruiner]

No Dan, it doesnt. If it did it would read bought, sold, and cultivated under Health and Safety yada yada yada... but it doesn't. Why? did they just forget to put it in there? I dont think so man. This is a deliberate exemption.

 

[The Ruiner]

A dispensary I was doing business with was getting fined $1000 dollars per day on a zoning violation. The complaint that lead to these fines was made by another dispensary owner.

La Malinche....

 

[Dan Kone]

No Dan, it doesnt. If it did it would read bought, sold, and cultivated under Health and Safety yada yada yada... but it doesn't. Why? did they just forget to put it in there? I dont think so man. This is a deliberate exemption.

They didn't forget to put it in there! It's there! It says cultivation! It reads " to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5"

That means cultivation, distribution, sales, and how much is being bought and sold can be regulated with an exemption for prop 215 patients.

Also a judge at the California supreme court has already issued a decision saying SB420 limits couldn't supersede a doctors recommendation. Why would a law that isn't even about medical cannabis be able to supersede it? That's clearly unconstitutional in California. The supreme court has already said so!

 

[The Ruiner]

Furthermore, they could have put the cultivation exemption under the personal regulations and controls section that specifically addresses cultivation. They could have added the "except under H&S..." there but they didnt. Why? How would that be neglected? Its a huge part of the issue, why not address it in the proper section?

 

[Dan Kone]

Furthermore, they could have put the cultivation exemption under the personal regulations and controls section that specifically addresses cultivation. They could have added the "except under H&S..." there but they didnt. Why? How would that be neglected? Its a huge part of the issue, why not address it in the proper section?

Why ignore the fact that even if what you were to claim would be true, it wouldn't matter? The California supreme court has already said that you can't impose a limit to prevent people from having their access to medicine under prop 215.

 

[The Ruiner]

Why would a law that isnt about medical cannabis have so much to do with it? Why not say outright that there will be no interference with existing state laws? Instead, it lends the medical question to a city by city ordeal. No outright protection and obvious exemptions? That's way too sketchy for me.

 

[The Ruiner]

Not everyone can get their case heard, or wants to even have to go down that route. That's way too late in my opinion, if you are at the CA supreme court then obviously the existing statutes are not working.

 

[Dan Kone]

Not everyone can get their case heard, or wants to even have to go down that route. That's way too late in my opinion, if you are at the CA supreme court then obviously the existing statutes are not working.

Precedence has already been set. They don't have to issue a new ruling for every case. That's not how the supreme court works. Once they've ruled on a particular matter, it's the law. DA's won't prosecute someone for something the supreme court has already said is legal. It'll get thrown out.

 

[The Ruiner]

Still, the potential life-ruining scenario looms.

 

[Dan Kone]

Still, the potential life-ruining scenario looms.

How so? Do you think it's likely that you're going to be arrested, tried, and convicted for something the California supreme court has said is legal? Sure, I guess it could happen, but that's no more likely than it is now.

 

[Penni Walli]

I dont want a corporate hijacking of my weed. Period. That's 19.

whos hi-jacking my weed ? as far as i know if 19 passes i will still be in control of what i smoke, what i grow and who i buy from. i'm still trying very hard to understand why MJ smokers would vote no on 19, all because you're paranoid about a corporate getting rich ?? like... are u serious ? Look around you and tell me whats not controlled by big multimillion businesses, gl on giving me an answer, so why would MJ be any diff ?? This is just the way life is and we have to adapt, but trust me this prop is deff. a step in the right direction, and if we don't take advantage of this prop we won't see another one for many years.

 

[BluffinCali]

Im a medical user, my only concerns with prop 19 are if it tries to limit my growing area to a 5x5 area, which Ive heard both that the bill wont effect medical grows or that it will restrict the area I can grow in. Does it also give the power to each and every city and county to charge a fee for growing, I heard someone mention $1000 fee for having a garden, if so then thats a problem for me, or what kind of restrictions a given county could implement against my own personal medical grow. I really wish there was a much clearer understanding of what exactly this prop 19 would really do if its voted in, it seems like everyone on both sides have different interpretations of what the wording in the bill actually means. I would like to see full legalization just as much as the next stoner but not at the expense of rights I already have, someone may call that greedy but Ive never grown for money except for the purpose to save me money not having to buy it, what other medicine can you grow for yourself and if you know what your doing grow specific strains for certain exact amounts of time to get the given affect needed. I havent made up my mind whether I will vote yes or no, I do find it hard to say I will vote no for a bill that will legalize marijuana but I do hear alot negative possibilities that could arise from it passing, so Im just not sure, until I do my own thorough research.

 

[BluffinCali]

One other thing I wanted to talk about was a friend of mine just got a job at a huge commercial grow down in Oakland, thousands of plants, I guess just to apply for the permit was $250,000 and its supposedly the first one of its kind, although there are others that are currently applying. Has anyone heard of these commercial grows?

 

[nathenking]

One other thing I wanted to talk about was a friend of mine just got a job at a huge commercial grow down in Oakland, thousands of plants, I guess just to apply for the permit was $250,000 and its supposedly the first one of its kind, although there are others that are currently applying. Has anyone heard of these commercial grows?

ive hear of them, but it makes no sense that they would already be runnin these warehouses... they arent legal yet...

 

[Dan Kone]

Does it also give the power to each and every city and county to charge a fee for growing, I heard someone mention $1000 fee for having a garden, if so then thats a problem for me, or what kind of restrictions a given county could implement against my own personal medical grow.

Cities/counties can and are already do that now without prop 19. They do not need prop 19 to do this. Prop 19 doesn't make that anymore legal than it already is now.

so Im just not sure, until I do my own thorough research.

very good idea. just remember, there is a lot of misinformation out there. Don't believe everything you read.

 

[Dan Kone]

One other thing I wanted to talk about was a friend of mine just got a job at a huge commercial grow down in Oakland, thousands of plants, I guess just to apply for the permit was $250,000 and its supposedly the first one of its kind, although there are others that are currently applying. Has anyone heard of these commercial grows?

yes. That's not the only place doing so. The city of Santa Cruz has also legalized warehouse grows. There was no permit fee at all. The only condition was they had to make it solar powered.

 

[jfa916]

vote yes on prop 19

 

[veggiegardener]

I'm saying prop 19 provides an exemption from the regulations of prop 19. It says the regulations of prop 215 and sb 420 will stay in place if prop 19 is passed.



no problem. from prop 19 text:



That is a clear exemption for medical patients.

Read the relevent state laws. THERE IS CURRENTLY NO LAW ON THE BOOKS REGULATING PLANT NUMBERS OR AREAS.

THIS LEAVES THE DOOR WIDE OPEN.

Prop 19, if passed by popular vote WILL override our current (lack of) regulation.

I'm beginning to believe you have a financial stake in the outcome.

Every one of your posts can be refuted with a bit of research.

Prop. 19 will be very bad law.

 

[nathenking]

Read the relevent state laws. THERE IS CURRENTLY NO LAW ON THE BOOKS REGULATING PLANT NUMBERS OR AREAS.

THIS LEAVES THE DOOR WIDE OPEN.

Prop 19, if passed by popular vote WILL override our current (lack of) regulation.

I'm beginning to believe you have a financial stake in the outcome.

Every one of your posts can be refuted with a bit of research.

Prop. 19 will be very bad law.

I agree... And there is alot of people out there that also agree... I think the swing voters will be MMJ patients, they will definatly show up at the polls to keep there rights...

 

[veggiegardener]

fail. Read the whole ballot measure. Not just what that dishonest blog tells you to read. The very next paragraph adds cultivation as an exemption. That blog is intentionally misleading.

from prop 19:



don't believe me, look at it for yourself. This quote comes from section b-8 http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Text_of_Proposition_19,_the_"Regulate,_Control_and_Tax_Cannabis_Act_of_2010"_(California)

You've been lied to by people with their own dishonest motivations.

Still missing point. See above. Prove there is language ANYWHERE that protects the status quo for the medicinal grower.

You are LYING unless you present that text.