Issues With Prop 19 Solved! Now we can all Support it.

[Dan Kone]

Oh yeah...thought you would read the law before you enter into a legal debate

Dude. I thought he was talking about bud then he explained it was hash. Case closed. No need for a legal debate.

 

[beardo]

Prop 19 doesn't affect prop 215. Anyone who says it does is lying. What about the 1oz limit? That sounds better than a 0oz limit. What about 25sq ft? That sounds better than 0sq ft. As far as jobs go, If it is industrialized, which I'm sure it will be. That will create more jobs, unless robots are going to be growing, trimming, packaging, driving the trucks. What are the current laws with minors? From what I read in another thread prop 36 carries the same penalties for minors under 21. So what's the difference? There isn't a current bill or prop that is going to lessen the laws on minors. I'm not sure how legalizing marijuana on a state level is going to decrease jobs. I'd love to hear you go in depth with that one. What about potential loss of federal funding? Did prop 215 cause a loss in federal funding? If the answer is no, what is to say prop 19 will? Any facts or just more propaganda?

nathenking, at least a 1/4lb are you fucking serious? Try this, pretend you don't smoke marijuana, grow marijuana or sell marijuana. Pretend you're just some schmuck that knows nothing about it and thinks it's dangerous, would you be ok with your neighbor having a 1/4lb of pot living next to you and you family? Wouldn't 1oz sound a lot better? If you're answer is no, you're a fucking liar.

News flash dipshit, most of America doesn't smoke marijuana and they know next to nothing factual about it. Americans are a bunch of lazy, fat, stupid, adult like babies. They have to be spoon fed everything and if you think they are going to be ok with joe schmo having 80 plants and 1/4lb+ of marijuana in his house next to you and your perfect little family, something is seriously wrong with you.

I think i'm done...their are lots of facts you just seem eager to ignore them. as far as not affecting prop 215...I didn't realize you were a C.A. supreame court judge. A voter initiative changes the law when it passes prop 19 will affect 19 we have been through this it is only exsempt from certian sections and those exsemptions are only mentioned in the stricable purposes section. Eric Holder has said they will crack down on california passes and that they will not allow a rougue state. no i'm not uncomfortable if my neighbor has a 1/4lb i'm more worried if someone with a gun that our tax dollars paid for wants to know how much of something people have. As far as the economy I dont think taxing and regulating the states number one crop is a good idea...do you know how many americans could lose their livelyhoods??? Do you want to work in a marijuana warehouse that will pay a handful of people minimum wadge to work and take 50,000 living wadge jobs from growers and condence them into 500 minimum wadge jobs-THESE NUMBERS ARE HYPOTHETICAL- and don't you think they can produce marijuana cheaper in mexico or china??? By by U.S. jobs...what about resturants where growers eat? what about the homes they buy? what about cars and trucks they buy? what about property values in nor cal? more forclousers if 19 passes and mom and pop growers go under. what about all the towns that rely on tax revenue from these growers? how about the finacial impact if these major players pass 19 then offshore the entire industry

 

[Dan Kone]

it would be the same for those under 18 the change would be for those smoking with or giving pot to 18 19 and 20 year olds..even a 18 year old who smokes a joint with a 20 year old could face a 3-5 year prison sentence

You are talking about something that is already in the law books! That is not a new addition to the law! Look! It's right here!

http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=11001-12000&file=11357-11362.9

Since you have problems connecting to the senate website, here's another link to it.

http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/hsc/11357-11362.9.html

That's from the 2009 health code. It says word for word the passage you keep claiming prop 19 adds to the law. Look at the 2009 health and safety code section 11361 sections a and b. There it is. This is not something new that prop 19 adds to the law. It's existing law.

Please quit claiming prop 19 adds a law that will send 18 year olds to prison for passing a joint to their friends. It just isn't true. The section you are misinterpretation to scare people into thinking that is already law in California. How many more times am I going to have to say that to get you to stop deceiving people?

 

[Dan Kone]

increaces penalties it also recriminilizes marijuana for 18-20 year olds.

That's another lie. It adds no specific penalties for people under 21. If I'm wrong, prove it.

 

[beardo]

You are talking about something that is already in the law books! That is not a new addition to the law! Look! It's right here!

http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=11001-12000&file=11357-11362.9

Since you have problems connecting to the senate website, here's another link to it.

http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/hsc/11357-11362.9.html

That's from the 2009 health code. It says word for word the passage you keep claiming prop 19 adds to the law. Look at the 2009 health and safety code section 11361 sections a and b. There it is. This is not something new that prop 19 adds to the law. It's existing law.

Please quit claiming prop 19 adds a law that will send 18 year olds to prison for passing a joint to their friends. It just isn't true. The section you are misinterpretation to scare people into thinking that is already law in California. How many more times am I going to have to say that to get you to stop deceiving people?

Prop 19 isn't a law that is allready on the books. Prop 19 changes the definition of a minor in regards to marijuana...changing the implications of the H.S. code you posted link to. Under prop 19 the definition of age 14 and up would be up to 21...so a 20 year old is included in the 14 and up.

 

[Dan Kone]

I'm confused as to the status of Tom Ammiano's bill, is it already attached to 19? Does it require a separate vote?

Edit: Ok it will need another vote but chances of it passing seem rather high.

Correct. At the very least, Ammiano seems to think he has the votes to pass it.

 

[beardo]

Dude. I thought he was talking about bud then he explained it was hash. Case closed. No need for a legal debate.

I was under the impression that you were reading and understanding the thread...he had allready stated a gram of hash...and this thread is about legal debate...

 

[Dan Kone]

Prop 19 isn't a law that is allready on the books. Prop 19 changes the definition of a minor in regards to marijuana...changing the implications of the H.S. code you posted link to. Under prop 19 the definition of age 14 and up would be up to 21...so a 20 year old is included in the 14 and up.

Read the links to the existing state law! Section 11361. What you are complaining about is existing state law! It is not a new addition to the law created by prop 19. Two people have proven that in this thread and you're refusing to look at the proof. At this point you are outright lying.

Here is the link to the proof again

http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/hsc/11357-11362.9.html

 

[beardo]

That's another lie. It adds no specific penalties for people under 21. If I'm wrong, prove it.

I Allready have remember the whole 3-5 year thing...try reading the thread if you dont understand what is being discussed ask for help or try a dictionary or encyclopedia...you could even check out the law books at the library...

 

[Dan Kone]

I was under the impression that you were reading and understanding the thread...he had allready stated a gram of hash...and this thread is about legal debate...

Then I misread the first time. I was wrong, he was right. Happy?

 

[beardo]

Read the links to the existing state law! Section 11361. What you are complaining about is existing state law! It is not a new addition to the law created by prop 19. Two people have proven that in this thread and you're refusing to look at the proof. At this point you are outright lying.

Here is the link to the proof again

http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/hsc/11357-11362.9.html

we are not debating the H.S. code we are debating 19 wich is not yet a law and increases marijuana penelties my spelling is bad but your reading comprehension and abstract thinking skills are terrible.......PROP 19 WILL CHANGE WHAT THE H.S. CODE MEENS...MINORS NO LONGER 17 AND UNDER THEY WILL BE 20 AND UNDER

 

[Dan Kone]

I Allready have remember the whole 3-5 year thing...try reading the thread if you dont understand what is being discussed ask for help or try a dictionary or encyclopedia...you could even check out the law books at the library...

You are misrepresenting the truth. Why are you really against prop 19? It's definitely not the reasons you claim since they have been proven to not be true. So tell us, what's the real reason? If you're just afraid you'll lose profits, then just say it. It's a legit concern for a lot of people and there is nothing wrong with coming out and saying it. It's hard to have an honest discussion with people who aren't being truthful about their motivations.

If prop 19 is so bad, then why do you need to lie to oppose it?

 

[Dan Kone]

we are not debating the H.S. code we are debating 19 wich is not yet a law and increases marijuana penelties my spelling is bad but your reading comprehension and abstract thinking skills are terrible.......PROP 19 WILL CHANGE WHAT THE H.S. CODE MEENS...MINORS NO LONGER !& AND UNDER THEY WILL BE 20 AND UNDER

Ok. Well if you are going to continue lying after you've been proven wrong I guess there is nothing I can say to stop that. good luck

 

[beardo]

I'm confused as to the status of Tom Ammiano's bill, is it already attached to 19? Does it require a separate vote?

Edit: Ok it will need another vote but chances of it passing seem rather high.

it is not part of 19 and would require another vote to pass and that would have to be a 2/3rds majority vote to modify a voter inititave

 

[beardo]

You are misrepresenting the truth. Why are you really against prop 19? It's definitely not the reasons you claim since they have been proven to not be true. So tell us, what's the real reason? If you're just afraid you'll lose profits, then just say it. It's a legit concern for a lot of people and there is nothing wrong with coming out and saying it. It's hard to have an honest discussion with people who aren't being truthful about their motivations.

If prop 19 is so bad, then why do you need to lie to oppose it?

REALLY???????? who's misrepresenting the prop?? look at the title of the thread. .. Is that true or is it a misrepresentation???

 

[beardo]

Ok. Well if you are going to continue lying after you've been proven wrong I guess there is nothing I can say to stop that. good luck

who has been repeatdly proven wrong and who is making false statements...? I invite anyone to reread the thread.

 

[Dan Kone]

who has been repeatdly proven wrong and who is making false statements...? I invite anyone to reread the thread.

You are. You're claiming prop 19 adds something to the law that has been on the books since 2009. You claim that we are going to have to build new prisons to hold all the 18 year olds who are going to be locked up for this. You know these things aren't true, but you keep saying them anyways.

You are making stuff up because you don't want to come out and say why you are really against prop 19. Instead you'd rather scare people into voting no based on something that isn't true.

If prop 19 was really a bad thing, you wouldn't need to lie to oppose it.

 

[beardo]

You are. You're claiming prop 19 adds something to the law that has been on the books since 2009. You claim that we are going to have to build new prisons to hold all the 18 year olds who are going to be locked up for this. You know these things aren't true, but you keep saying them anyways.

You are making stuff up because you don't want to come out and say why you are really against prop 19. Instead you'd rather scare people into voting no based on something that isn't true.

If prop 19 was really a bad thing, you wouldn't need to lie to oppose it.

who has been repeatdly proven wrong and who is making false statements...? I invite anyone to reread the thread.

If you have read the thread you know why i oppose 19 I have no reason to misrepresent my reasons for oposition. I am not lying in my posts I am stating facts I am commenting on what prop 19 does and does not say. And if prop 19 were good you wouldn't have to resort to lies or rely on ignoring points or changing subjects and attacking my motives or character to convince me how great 19 is. If 19 were good I would vote for it instead of debating with close minded individuals about its lack of merit

 

[beardo]

a lot of The same people who are so pro 19 either don't live in Cali or don't even use marijuana and most of the pro 19 people either cant understand the bill or haven't bothered to read it or dont care what it says and will make things up to mislead people into voteing yes.-I am guessing a lot of the pro 19 stand to make money off the tax and controll prop if it passes

 

[mr2shim]

we are not debating the H.S. code we are debating 19 wich is not yet a law and increases marijuana penelties my spelling is bad but your reading comprehension and abstract thinking skills are terrible.......PROP 19 WILL CHANGE WHAT THE H.S. CODE MEENS...MINORS NO LONGER 17 AND UNDER THEY WILL BE 20 AND UNDER

Who cares, it's just a ploy to make it more acceptable among the masses. It's not that hard to understand, and you go on about someones reading comprehension, it seems like your logic is skewed. Just like the ounce limit. It's to get marijuana to be acceptable among the masses. You, me or anyone else on here that is prop marijuana isn't among the masses. Would you be ok with a 12 year old driving a car? Do you think the masses would be ok with an 18-20 year old drinking? No? Why, because A: It's against the law and B: It's more appealing to the,... masses.

When something is written, it's not written in favor of the minority. It's written to favor and be accepted among as many people as possible, where in this case it would be the people who know little to nothing about marijuana.

It's really not hard to understand. You guys are being illogical and downright ignorant.

I like the idea that anyone under 21 could face jail time for smoking marijuana, it just gives the people who are against it all together more initiative to accept it.