Can we defeat Prop 19? will it pass? Is it as bogus as it seems?

[UncleBuck]

absolutely right, mastermind.

i got my card for 'chronic pain'. not only do i not have chronic pain, but chronic does not even cure my pain when i have it.

i just want to get high legally.

 

[The Ruiner]

prop 19 makes explicit reference to medical.

7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.


8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.


http://yeson19.com/node/6


go ahead and google 11362.5, 11362.7, and 11362.9

ruiner, your argument is ruined. kinda ironic, eh?

you are not funny. and your "evidence" doesnt even refer to cultivation. you know that. the word "cultivation" is not included in those "exemptions." 11362.5, 11362.7, and 11362.9 are not listed in section 2C (2) of prop 19...the actual list of laws NOT TO BE AFFECTED by 19, so you're wrong. if you actually believe what you just put up, then god help you.

 

[The Ruiner]

You're a loony. The actual, objective words of the law go out to say the following here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19_(2010)#Effects_of_the_bill

Patients make up such a small number of smokers. Many documentaries I have watched regarding marijuana advocation has in somewhere referred to medical marijuana being a loophole for individuals wanting to be able to smoke marijuana. I've gone through forums and read stories and watched videos on individuals going up to their doctors, jokingly jabbing them in the ribs, and saying, "I'm sick." This is pathetic in terms of how our healthcare system is being abused and used as a loophole.

The guarantees of the law are within its text. If you understood the exact objectivity of law, you would understand how far words, sentences, and phrasing go.

Individuals such as yourself are in some way or another paranoid. Anything passed onto you is someway stupid and going to suppress your liberties and lead to a huge governmental overhaul where you'll end up with chips in your brains and have to take some kind of shot everyday so you stay a simple minded servant to the radical government. Grow up. You've all been going at it since the 60s, and none of this has happened.

And you call me a bunch of names and have nothing to prove otherwise...you make no address to the issue or the points I make... just attacks and BS. Just more shit you make up and act as if I said it. You are just deflecting away from 19, and trying to make this a character issue. debate the issue, not the person.

 

[The Ruiner]

I think the reality is that you just dont like what I have to say because it hits way too close to home.

 

[mccumcumber]

I don't understand why growers who are making money, like ruinner I assume, think that prop 19 is going to hurt them. STOP SAYING THAT 19 OVERRIDES 215, IT DOESN'T. If you're a small time grower, now you can make your own dispensary. Already have one? Now your amount of customers has increased ten fold. If you are making a good deal of money from bud, then renting a decent sized office space and paying for advertisement should not be a problem. In fact, you can very likely make much more money because your product will no longer be considered illegal. Everyone can buy it and when prop 19 first passes, and a few months later, anyone who smokes over the age of 21 will go to a store as soon as they can and buy some bud to express their legal right.
The only people who will really be hurt by prop 19 are the shitty doctors that most people (including myself) get their medical cards from by giving some bullshit reason. I said I had insomnia, I had no doctor's referral, nor did I have any proof whatsoever that I had insomnia, I just wanted to smoke and grow weed and my doctor wanted his $100 cash.

 

[UncleBuck]

you are not funny. and your "evidence" doesnt even refer to cultivation. you know that. the word "cultivation" is not included in those "exemptions." 11362.5, 11362.7, and 11362.9 are not listed in section 2C (2) of prop 19...the actual list of laws NOT TO BE AFFECTED by 19, so you're wrong. if you actually believe what you just put up, then god help you.

your distinction is irrelevant.

section 2C (2) as you call it, is the 'intent' section. this is what it states: This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of the following state laws relating to public health and safety or protection of children and others.

ie, it is a negative statement of intent, not a positive statement of purpose.

what i quoted was out of section 2B (7) & (8 ), the 'purposes' section. that is far and beyond what you bring up. the purpose of the bill carries far more weight than the intent.

you asked for someone to point it out to you in the text of prop 19 itself, i did.

should i draw you a picture next?

 

[The Ruiner]

You're a loony. The actual, objective words of the law go out to say the following here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19_(2010)#Effects_of_the_bill

Patients make up such a small number of smokers. Many documentaries I have watched regarding marijuana advocation has in somewhere referred to medical marijuana being a loophole for individuals wanting to be able to smoke marijuana. I've gone through forums and read stories and watched videos on individuals going up to their doctors, jokingly jabbing them in the ribs, and saying, "I'm sick." This is pathetic in terms of how our healthcare system is being abused and used as a loophole.

The guarantees of the law are within its text. If you understood the exact objectivity of law, you would understand how far words, sentences, and phrasing go.

Individuals such as yourself are in some way or another paranoid. Anything passed onto you is someway stupid and going to suppress your liberties and lead to a huge governmental overhaul where you'll end up with chips in your brains and have to take some kind of shot everyday so you stay a simple minded servant to the radical government. Grow up. You've all been going at it since the 60s, and none of this has happened.

I didnt fake shit, I have had insomnia since I was 12 (finding your uncle dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound might do that).And the argument that because I dont agree with 19 must mean I dont understand it is just absurd, I am educated, I can read, and more importantly I can think critically. Calling me paranoid because I am accurate actually just shows that you are scrambling for something to say.

 

[The Ruiner]

your distinction is irrelevant.

section 2C (2) as you call it, is the 'intent' section. this is what it states: This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of the following state laws relating to public health and safety or protection of children and others.

ie, it is a negative statement of intent, not a positive statement of purpose.

what i quoted was out of section 2B (7) & (8 ), the 'purposes' section. that is far and beyond what you bring up. the purpose of the bill carries far more weight than the intent.

you asked for someone to point it out to you in the text of prop 19 itself, i did.

should i draw you a picture next?

No, you should just accurately depict the prop.... without trying to distort what it says...

 

[The Ruiner]

I don't understand why growers who are making money, like ruinner I assume, think that prop 19 is going to hurt them. STOP SAYING THAT 19 OVERRIDES 215, IT DOESN'T. If you're a small time grower, now you can make your own dispensary. Already have one? Now your amount of customers has increased ten fold. If you are making a good deal of money from bud, then renting a decent sized office space and paying for advertisement should not be a problem. In fact, you can very likely make much more money because your product will no longer be considered illegal. Everyone can buy it and when prop 19 first passes, and a few months later, anyone who smokes over the age of 21 will go to a store as soon as they can and buy some bud to express their legal right.
The only people who will really be hurt by prop 19 are the shitty doctors that most people (including myself) get their medical cards from by giving some bullshit reason. I said I had insomnia, I had no doctor's referral, nor did I have any proof whatsoever that I had insomnia, I just wanted to smoke and grow weed and my doctor wanted his $100 cash.

I dont make any money...you are just basing this off of propaganda that has formed your opinions for you.

 

[The Ruiner]

I ask all of you 19 supporters to read my response to J. David Nicks' letter and, because all of what I see is just supporters hiding behind the arguements he has made, and to which I have responded. link in my signature...

 

[UncleBuck]

No, you should just accurately depict the prop.... without trying to distort what it says...

what am i trying to distort?

here are the words once again, straight from the 'purposes' section.

7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.


8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

in other words, if the city chooses not to tax cannabis, cannabis is still illegal except for the possession and consumption of small amounts and medical users still retain their rights. if the city chooses to tax, we set up a regulatory system and the city can decide on amounts but not for medical users who still retain their rights.

oh, hell....i really think the picture will help...

 

[mccumcumber]

I dont make any money...you are just basing this off of propaganda that has formed your opinions for you.

I'm not brainwashed by propaganda, sorry that you feel that way.

I only assumed that you were making money off of bud because you said the prop would hurt you. The prop does not take away medical rights because it never states that it takes away those rights. I do admit that the prop gets confusing around section 11300 when it says:

"(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.
(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. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.
(iv) Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection."

I see how this could interpreted as "too bad 215 patients, now you only get an ounce and a 25 sqft grow spot." The notwithstanding bit through me off at first too, cause I thought it was saying "despite the fact that you have a card it doesn't mean shit, here's the new law." However, all it's saying (or what I interpret it as saying) is that it is legal for anyone over 21 to have that much bud,grow that much bud, and smoke that much bud, regardless of any laws against mj.

 

[The Ruiner]

what am i trying to distort?

here are the words once again, straight from the 'purposes' section.

in other words, if the city chooses not to tax cannabis, cannabis is still illegal except for the possession and consumption of small amounts and medical users. if the city chooses to tax, we set up a regulatory system and the city can decide on amounts but not for medical users.

oh, hell....i really think the picture will help...



View attachment 1187072

again, "possess and consume" and "bought and sold" are not "CULTIVATION"

 

[Sr. Verde]

I'm too ripped to read through the whole discussion.

I just want to know what the DEA/federal government will do if/when prop 19 passes. I mean they are already stepping over states by bringing down legal MMJ operations & dispensaries.

It will be interesting to say the least.

 

[The Ruiner]

I'm not brainwashed by propaganda, sorry that you feel that way.

I only assumed that you were making money off of bud because you said the prop would hurt you. The prop does not take away medical rights because it never states that it takes away those rights. I do admit that the prop gets confusing around section 11300 when it says:

"(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.
(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. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.
(iv) Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection."

I see how this could interpreted as "too bad 215 patients, now you only get an ounce and a 25 sqft grow spot." The notwithstanding bit through me off at first too, cause I thought it was saying "despite the fact that you have a card it doesn't mean shit, here's the new law." However, all it's saying (or what I interpret it as saying) is that it is legal for anyone over 21 to have that much bud,grow that much bud, and smoke that much bud, regardless of any laws against mj.

Well, that is exactly what the bill does. and it does not list the CUA/MMP under the section 2C (2), which, if they were to be left intact, they would APPEAR THERE AS THE OTHER STATE LAWS LISTED. but, instead we get a bill that says "notwithstanding any other law" on top of neglecting to put the CUA/MMP under section 2C(2). If they had been listed under that section, then yes it would be correct to say MMJ patients wont be affected...but thats not the case. 19 brings restrictions to cultivation of MMJ, with no protections or exemptions.

 

[UncleBuck]

again, "possess and consume" and "bought and sold" are not "CULTIVATION"

i am convinced that you are purposely not getting this because you are too firmly set in your stance, which is based on false assertions and poor, poor, "so retarted i have sympathy for whoever thinks that" interpretations of the law.

you made this statement earlier...

No one can point to any part of the bill and say "look, there's the 215 exemption for cultivation" BECAUSE THERE ISNT ANY.

then i showed you this...

7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.


8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

now, let's take a look at what 11362.5 says about 'cultivation'.

Health & Safety Code 11362.5 — Proposition 215

§11362.5. Use of marijuana for medical purposes.
(a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
(b)(l) The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 are as follows:
(A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.
(B) To ensure that patients and their primary care-givers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.
(C), To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for nonmedical purposes.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law: no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes.
(d) Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.
(e) For the purposes of this section, "primary care-giver" means the individual designated by the person exempted under this section who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person. (Added by 1996 initiative Measure Prop 215 §1, eff.: 11/6/96.)

shall i go on and talk about 11362.7 and 11362.9?

or would another picture be more helpful?

 

[The Ruiner]

Simply put, if the writers of 19 had intended to keep CUA/MMP intact they would have SPECIFICALLY mentioned them in the appropiate sections, with the appropiate wording. But they dont. They just have their propagandists out there telling people that MMJ wont be affected. Make no mistakes, 19 will knowingly make most patient growers' operations illegal.

 

[The Ruiner]

i am convinced that you are purposely not getting this because you are too firmly set in your stance, which is based on false

you made this statement earlier...



then i showed you this...

[/COLOR][/B]

now, let's take a look at what 11362.5 says about 'cultivation'.




shall i go on and talk about 11362.7 and 11362.9?

Deflecting to another piece of legislation is retarded. We are not debating that. You are cornered and trying like hell to get out.

 

[UncleBuck]

Deflecting to another piece of legislation is retarded. We are not debating that. You are cornered and trying like hell to get out.

i am not cornered, that is you.

prop 19 explicitly lists in the purposes section that prop 19 is law except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

11362.5, that other piece of legislation that you claim i am deflecting to, specifically talks about the cultivation that you so wished for me to show you. i showed it to you. i will show it to you again.

Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.

so, what have we learned?

we have learned that if it passes, prop 19 is law...

except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9....

and 11362.5 says...

Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.

how is that corner? you comfy there? can i draw you another picture?

 

[mccumcumber]

He's not deflecting to another piece of legislation. You have repetitively asked for proof that you will not be effected and he's giving it to you very clearly. You now are just refusing to acknowledge it. If you really do still think that 215 users will be effected then that's cool... I guess. But he did just slap the evidence right in front of you that you won't, so if you're actually concerned about being effected, read what uncle buck posts, and you will find that 19 is good.