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

Sure Shot

Sure Shot

Well-Known Member
Dan Kone said:
It doesn't over ride it. The ability to amend the limits set by prop 19 are written into the ballot measure, the 25 sq ft/1 ounce limits are MINIMUMS, not maximums. And there is no set penalty in prop 19 for exceeding those limits. If an assembly bill wants to set that penalty as a $100 fine, they can. There isn't a contradiction there.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying! :)
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
Dan Kone said:
It doesn't over ride it. The ability to amend the limits set by prop 19 are written into the ballot measure, the 25 sq ft/1 ounce limits are MINIMUMS, not maximums. And there is no set penalty in prop 19 for exceeding those limits. If an assembly bill wants to set that penalty as a $100 fine, they can. There isn't a contradiction there.
Click to expand...
Oh....but he needs the 2/3 "supermajority" to make that happen...whereas the first court case related to 19 could result in one judge determining if the provision of the statute in question stands in the "statutory construction" of the bill? So basically, we need to have 2/3 of the california legislature, or a DA with a hair up his ass and a sympathetic judge to make changes to 19 as it stands? Awesome.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
The Ruiner said:
Oh....but he needs the 2/3 "supermajority" to make that happen...whereas the first court case related to 19 could result in one judge determining if the provision of the statute in question stands in the "statutory construction" of the bill? So basically, we need to have 2/3 of the california legislature, or a DA with a hair up his ass and a sympathetic judge to make changes to 19 as it stands? Awesome.
Click to expand...
Dude, you are incoherent.
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
And I am pretty damn sure I am right about this considering I have found it at two different sources...one of them being from the secretary of state website...
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
Dan Kone said:
Right, which is why this is better.
Click to expand...
But what are the chances of the legislature approving it? That same 2/3 vote is what's needed for our damn budget, and we cant even get that. I don't see the assembly putting amendments to 19 a really high priority...especially if they grant more privileges. All in all Tom's move here is just a ploy with very little chance of success in order to try and gain the votes of the people this bill already has in the crosshairs. I tried to get behind 19...I just can't...It's too flawed and far too open to interpretation for the senate and assembly...and inevitably judges with the power to strike provisions as long as they have defendants and government prosecutors like DA's or worse "Attorney General Steve Cooley".... (I think he's one problem everyone agrees on "NOT COOLEY").
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
The Ruiner said:
But what are the chances of the legislature approving it? That same 2/3 vote is what's needed for our damn budget, and we cant even get that. I don't see the assembly putting amendments to 19 a really high priority...especially if they grant more privileges. All in all Tom's move here is just a ploy with very little chance of success in order to try and gain the votes of the people this bill already has in the crosshairs. I tried to get behind 19...I just can't...It's too flawed and far too open to interpretation for the senate and assembly...and inevitably judges with the power to strike provisions as long as they have defendants and government prosecutors like DA's or worse "Attorney General Steve Cooley".... (I think he's one problem everyone agrees on "NOT COOLEY").
Click to expand...
I agree with you about Cooley. I voted for the Democrat for AG. You are wrong about the 2/3 majority:

OVERVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
The process of government by which bills are considered and laws enacted is commonly referred to as the Legislative Process. The California State Legislature is made up of two houses: the Senate and the Assembly. There are 40 Senators and 80 Assembly Members representing the people of the State of California. The Legislature has a legislative calendar containing important dates of activities during its two-year session.

Bills passed by committees are read a second time on the floor in the house of origin and then assigned to third reading. Bill analyses are also prepared prior to third reading. When a bill is read the third time it is explained by the author, discussed by the Members and voted on by a roll call vote. Bills that require an appropriation or that take effect immediately, generally require 27 votes in the Senate and 54 votes in the Assembly to be passed. Other bills generally require 21 votes in the Senate and 41 votes in the Assembly. If a bill is defeated, the Member may seek reconsideration and another vote. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bil2lawx.html
 
Dan Kone

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
The Ruiner said:
But what are the chances of the legislature approving it? That same 2/3 vote is what's needed for our damn budget, and we cant even get that. I don't see the assembly putting amendments to 19 a really high priority...especially if they grant more privileges.
Click to expand...
It's pretty necessary. It's not necessarily meant to amend prop 19, it's meant as a mechanism to implement and better define prop 19.

Here's an example of what I mean;

(g) prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300;
Click to expand...
That is impossible to enforce because it lists no specific penalty. A senate bill to clarify is absolutely necessary.

There is no one better to write this than Ammiano. The assembly does have better things to do than deal with this, which is why they'll pass this and get it over with. They need to pass something to implement prop 19, they have other things they want to do. That's exactly why this will get through. They aren't going to want to waist time fighting over this.

All in all Tom's move here is just a ploy with very little chance of success in order to try and gain the votes of the people this bill already has in the crosshairs.
Click to expand...
Ammiano doesn't need to pull stunts to get votes. He's possibly the most popular politician in the city. He got 83% of the vote in his last election. He has his assembly seat locked up. He represents the Castro, Filmore, tenderloin, HP, and the haight. Unless a half black/half latino-transvestite-pot smoking-socialist-jazz musician is running against him, he's in pretty good shape.

"Attorney General Steve Cooley".... (I think he's one problem everyone agrees on "NOT COOLEY").
Click to expand...
I think voting against Cooley is WAY more important than prop 19.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
The Ruiner said:
But what are the chances of the legislature approving it? That same 2/3 vote is what's needed for our damn budget, and we cant even get that. I don't see the assembly putting amendments to 19 a really high priority...especially if they grant more privileges. All in all Tom's move here is just a ploy with very little chance of success in order to try and gain the votes of the people this bill already has in the crosshairs. I tried to get behind 19...I just can't...It's too flawed and far too open to interpretation for the senate and assembly...and inevitably judges with the power to strike provisions as long as they have defendants and government prosecutors like DA's or worse "Attorney General Steve Cooley".... (I think he's one problem everyone agrees on "NOT COOLEY").
Click to expand...
Read David Nick's analysis of prop 19 in high times: http://hightimes.com/blog/evan/6681. Nick is a practicing MJ lawyer with a stellar record. He thinks 19 is a good amendment and will protect MJ consumers and growers.

The only way I can see for a judge to strike all, or part of 19 is if it conflicts with the US constitution. Every analysis I have read on that matter is that there is no conflict so P19 is airtight in that regard.
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
Dan Kone said:
It's pretty necessary. It's not necessarily meant to amend prop 19, it's meant as a mechanism to implement and better define prop 19.

Here's an example of what I mean;



That is impossible to enforce because it lists no specific penalty. A senate bill to clarify is absolutely necessary.

There is no one better to write this than Ammiano. The assembly does have better things to do than deal with this, which is why they'll pass this and get it over with. They need to pass something to implement prop 19, they have other things they want to do. That's exactly why this will get through. They aren't going to want to waist time fighting over this.



Ammiano doesn't need to pull stunts to get votes. He's possibly the most popular politician in the city. He got 83% of the vote in his last election. He has his assembly seat locked up. He represents the Castro, Filmore, tenderloin, HP, and the haight. Unless a half black/half latino-transvestite-pot smoking-socialist-jazz musician is running against him, he's in pretty good shape.



I think voting against Cooley is WAY more important than prop 19.
Click to expand...
Dan...it is 2/3, youre not realizing that you are talking about bills passed by committee, not voter initiatives - which is requires the 2/3's vote. Specifically research the laws pertaining to voter initiatives, not material that suits your purposes.

Techinically the prop (if passed) goes immediately into effect...the amendments, like the one Ammiano proposes need the 2/3 vote. But the prop becomes law if passed...the re-structuring comes later (if ever, and more likely to be changed by a judge than a 2/3 senate vote or a new voter initiative). And I have a hard time believing that 2/3 of the senate will go for these changes.
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
Read David Nick's analysis of prop 19 in high times: http://hightimes.com/blog/evan/6681. Nick is a practicing MJ lawyer with a stellar record. He thinks 19 is a good amendment and will protect MJ consumers and growers.

The only way I can see for a judge to strike all, or part of 19 is if it conflicts with the US constitution. Every analysis I have read on that matter is that there is no conflict so P19 is airtight in that regard.
Click to expand...
I have read the letter, and it didnt do much to alleviate my concerns - in fact it only amplified them.

And the judge can strike provisions if found to be outside of the "statutory construction" of the bill, not just for being "unconstitutional"....
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
The Ruiner said:
Dan...it is 2/3, youre not realizing that you are talking about bills passed by committee, not voter initiatives - which is requires the 2/3's vote. Specifically research the laws pertaining to voter initiatives, not material that suits your purposes.

Techinically the prop (if passed) goes immediately into effect...the amendments, like the one Ammiano proposes need the 2/3 vote. But the prop becomes law if passed...the re-structuring comes later (if ever, and more likely to be changed by a judge than a 2/3 senate vote or a new voter initiative). And I have a hard time believing that 2/3 of the senate will go for these changes.
Click to expand...
I give you credit for being stubborn. Passing a bill in the CA legislature requires a simple majority. Read it for your self:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bil2lawx.html

There is such a persistent campaign of lies about P19 on here, it is simply amazing!
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
The Ruiner said:
I have read the letter, and it didnt do much to alleviate my concerns - in fact it only amplified them.

And the judge can strike provisions if found to be outside of the "statutory construction" of the bill, not just for being "unconstitutional"....
Click to expand...

Would you be willing to amplify on your concerns.

You obviously disagree with David Nick on his analysis of 19, and you are siding with the drug czars and Steve Cooley on P19. Would you care to explain why? Maybe you will convince me and others here that P19 ought to be rejected.
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
I give you credit for being stubborn. Passing a bill in the CA legislature requires a simple majority. Read it for your self:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bil2lawx.html

There is such a persistent campaign of lies about P19 on here, it is simply amazing!
Click to expand...
Dude...that simply majority does not apply to voter initiatives...yes they apply to SENATE BILLS but not VOTER INITIATIVES....thats a persistant campaign of lies right here and now...repeating the same disinfo about this again and again and again... It's two-thirds, people...learn your state laws!
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
Would you be willing to amplify on your concerns.

You obviously disagree with David Nick on his analysis of 19, and you are siding with the drug czars and Steve Cooley on P19. Would you care to explain why? Maybe you will convince me and others here that P19 ought to be rejected.
Click to expand...
Nice try.

I will say that I found his letter to be quite misleading when he discussed cultivation - considering he was touting all of the possession, consumption, bought and sold exemptions for MMJ-patients, then when talking about cultivation there were no such exemptions anymore....just limitations IMO, and he makes absolutely no clarifications otherwise.

His "analysis" is propaganda, and has no bearing on the states' interpretation of 19, therefore futher discussion is moot and pointless and makes no difference on the outcome and effects of 19 than this conversation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top