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

desert dude

Well-Known Member
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!
OK, we can agree to disagree on legislative rules. Any interested reader can follow the link I provided (maybe "The Ruiner" can provide a link to support his argument) and decide for himself whether a simple majority can pass a bill in the CA legislature.

Ruiner, would you care to explain how taking the same position on P19 as the drug czars and Steve Cooley (vote no or I will crack your heads) increases your credibility with the readers here?
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
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.
Here is David Nick on cultivation, source http://hightimes.com/blog/evan/6681:
"PROP. 19 PROTECTS PATIENTS PERSONAL AND COLLECTIVE CULTIVATIONS

Further protecting patients from local law enforcement actions, Section 11303 states that ”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.” If you are a patient, you may “lawfully cultivate” as much marijuana as medically necessary and Prop. 19 protects that right. If you are cultivating for a collective, you may “lawfully cultivate” as much marijuana as your collective allows you to and Prop. 19 protects that right. Unfortunately, many law enforcement officials refuse to recognize the rights provided under the MMP for collectives to “lawfully cultivate” and sell marijuana. Prop. 19 reinforces those rights and makes it even more difficult for law enforcement to bust a collective or collective grower."


Here is David Nick on P19's effect on how much MJ you can have in your home under P19:

"PROP. 19 ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE A LOT OF MARIJUANA

As an attorney called upon to defend patients and non-patients in marijuana cases, I cannot tell you how beneficial and how much freedom Section 11300 subdivision A (3) of Prop.19 will be to cannabis users. Read it!

Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls

(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.
(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.

Section (i) limits possession to one ounce OUT OF YOUR HOUSE. Section (iii) permits people 21 and over to have within their residence or single parcel ALL the cannabis which one grew in their 25 sq. foot parcel, including what you grew this year, what you grew last year and EVERY SINGLE 25 SQ. FT. HARVEST YOU EVER HAD ON THAT SINGLE PARCEL. This covers as many cycles of indoor and/or outdoor grown cannabis as a person can produce as long as each grow was no more than 25 square feet and done in succession.

Clearly section 11300(a) (i) limits personal possession and consumption to one ounce OUT OF YOUR HOME while section11300(a) (iii) is what you are allowed to have AT YOUR RESIDENCE if that is where your 25 sq. ft. garden is located. That this is the case is established by another rule of statutory construction, i.e. the specific controls the general. Here (iii) is the specific statute with respect to what you can have AT YOUR RESIDENCE ONLY or in the words of subdivision (iii) "on the premises where grown".

The one ounce limitation only applies when you leave your house, not wherever it is you grow your 25 foot plot. I can picture being able to easily defend a person with 200 pounds who is not even medical.

Under Prop. 19 you can only travel with one ounce, but if you are a patient you can still enjoy the protections of the CUA and MMP and can safely travel with eight ounces, or whatever your doctor permits you to have or the needs of your collective, as allowed by the CUA and the MMP. YOUR SUPPLY PROBLEMS CAUSED BY PARANOID CULTIVATION LAWS AND POLICIES THAT AT TIMES LIMIT YOUR PERSONAL CULTIVATION PROJECTS ARE SOLVED BY PROP. 19.

Prop. 19 creates a marijuana sanctuary IN YOUR HOME ONLY. Prop. 19 allows you to have AT YOUR HOME ONLY ALL OF THE PROCEEDS of every successive 25 sq. foot plot. However, Prop 19 only allows you TO REMOVE IT FROM YOUR HOME one ounce at a time if you are a recreational user."

Who should we believe on this issue, some guy aptly named "The Ruiner" with a bunch of nebulous "concerns", or an accomplished MJ lawyer and High Times magazine?
 

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
OK, we can agree to disagree on legislative rules. Any interested reader can follow the link I provided (maybe "The Ruiner" can provide a link to support his argument) and decide for himself whether a simple majority can pass a bill in the CA legislature.

Ruiner, would you care to explain how taking the same position on P19 as the drug czars and Steve Cooley (vote no or I will crack your heads) increases your credibility with the readers here?
Damn you like to make assumptions...your link is in reference to SENATE BILLS not voter initiatives, but hey who cares about the accuracy of the arguments made here by 19 supporters? They can claim to have all the "facts" when they are really just propaganda by definition. Yes, a majority vote can pass a SENATE BILL but not VOTER INITIATIVES. As far as a link...there are several- here is one http://www.californiachoices.org/node/146 where they discuss the 2/3's needed to change voter initiatives.

And techically, as far as I am concerned YOU take the same position on 19 as Steve Cooley by saying that 19 will not affect MMJ in CA...so maybe that's something for you and your other hired-help to consider taking off of the arsenal walls.
 

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
Who should we believe on this issue, some guy aptly named "The Ruiner" with a bunch of nebulous "concerns", or an accomplished MJ lawyer and High Times magazine?
Right... a hired propagandist - probably like most of the more vocal pro-19 people. And how do you even know why I took this name? You are just the king of assumptions. Your technique of making this a character debate is bar none.
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
Damn you like to make assumptions...your link is in reference to SENATE BILLS not voter initiatives, but hey who cares about the accuracy of the arguments made here by 19 supporters? They can claim to have all the "facts" when they are really just propaganda by definition. Yes, a majority vote can pass a SENATE BILL but not VOTER INITIATIVES. As far as a link...there are several- here is one http://www.californiachoices.org/node/146 where they discuss the 2/3's needed to change voter initiatives.

And techically, as far as I am concerned YOU take the same position on 19 as Steve Cooley by saying that 19 will not affect MMJ in CA...so maybe that's something for you and your other hired-help to consider taking off of the arsenal walls.
Your link explains how the state legislature puts a ballot initiative on the general ballot for the CA voters to vote on; they have the authority to do that if they get a 2/3 vote that approves it. The other way a ballot initiative can be put to a general vote is by getting enough registered CA voters signature petitioning for it. That is how P19 got on the ballot, the legislature had NOTHING to do with it. If it had been up to our legislature we would not be having this discussion because P19 would not be on the ballot.

Your link has nothing to do with simple legislative bills, such as the bill proposed by Ammiano, it is all about the process used by the legislature to put a ballot initiative before the voters in a general election. Ammiano's bill is an assembly bill that implements and expands on P19, it is NOT a ballot initiative. Either you don't understand the contents of the page you linked to, or you are counting on other readers here to misunderstand, which is actually pretty clever of you.

When did Cooley say P19 would have no effect on MMJ? He certainly is against P19, and has said that he will ignore it if he becomes CA attorney general.

Why would Dave Nick propagandize about P19? He is a successful attorney who specializes in CA MJ law, and says 19 will make his job of defending MJ growers, including MMJ growers, MUCH easier.

Why would NORML and High Times and all of the long-time MJ legalization groups support 19 if it was so flawed?

Why would Steve Cooley and the drug czars and the US attorney general and all the other usual suspects oppose 19 if it was so flawed; they should be chomping at the bit to get it passed so they could snicker and continue business as usual.

Why are you, and several others here so comfortably aligned with Steve Cooley and Lee Baca and the rest of the drug warriors? Could it be because you are happy with the status quo? You're making dough while 80,000 or so citizens of CA are pulled through a legal knot hole every year, but because it puts a few dollars in your pocket you don't give a shit.
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
Right... a hired propagandist - probably like most of the more vocal pro-19 people. And how do you even know why I took this name? You are just the king of assumptions. Your technique of making this a character debate is bar none.

As Evan Nison of High Times observes: "The only people who will profit from the undermining of Prop. 19 are narco-cops, bail bondsmen, prison guards, Mexican drug cartels, greedy growers, profit-making collectives and old dogs that can’t learn a new trick." Which one out of the list are you, Ruiner?
 

mr2shim

Well-Known Member
As Evan Nison of High Times observes: "The only people who will profit from the undermining of Prop. 19 are narco-cops, bail bondsmen, prison guards, Mexican drug cartels, greedy growers, profit-making collectives and old dogs that can’t learn a new trick." Which one out of the list are you, Ruiner?
http://hightimes.com/blog/evan/6681


The only people who will profit from the undermining of Prop. 19 are narco-cops, bail bondsmen, prison guards, Mexican drug cartels, greedy growers, profit-making collectives and old dogs that can’t learn a new trick.

Those medical marijuana advocates who have chosen to dedicate their existence to defeating Prop. 19, could actually do something of benefit for the medical marijuana community if they would expend their negative energy defeating Steve Cooley, the Republican candidate for California Attorney General.

Unlike Prop. 19, this man is a real threat to medical marijuana patients. As the District Attorney for Los Angeles, he has claimed collectives have no right to sell marijuana and that collectives must be small groups where everybody gets their hands in the soil. He has spent literally millions of taxpayer dollars pursuing medical marijuana patients and providers and if elected Attorney General will probably rescind AG Jerry Brown’s guidelines thereby making every collective in California that operates a storefront or delivery service illegal.

Unfortunately, the money is on him to win the AG race and if he is elected, you better hope Prop. 19 passes so he will be so busy trying to undo 19 that he won’t have time to screw patients.

Don’t just vote YES on 19, work with us to pass this historic initiative that will help, not hurt patients, bring compassion and common sense to marijuana law and deliver a decisive, maybe fatal blow to the war on drugs.
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
Good points Mr2Shim, if prop 19 fails and Cooley becomes CA AG, you MMJ types are fucked, plain and simple. I would hate to see that happen, but after reading some of the incredible bullshit on this thread from some of the guys who are obviously invested in the status quo, I have to think they are getting what they deserve. It is sad for the ethical guys like Dan, I sure hope he is not caught up in the mess that will probably follow.

I did my part, I voted yes on 19 and I voted the Democrat for AG. Voting for a democrat not something I do lightly, every other candidate that got my vote was a Libertarian.
 

mr2shim

Well-Known Member
Good points Mr2Shim, if prop 19 fails and Cooley becomes CA AG, you MMJ types are fucked, plain and simple. I would hate to see that happen, but after reading some of the incredible bullshit on this thread from some of the guys who are obviously invested in the status quo, I have to think they are getting what they deserve. It is sad for the ethical guys like Dan, I sure hope he is not caught up in the mess that will probably follow.

I did my part, I voted yes on 19 and I voted the Democrat for AG. Voting for a democrat not something I do lightly, every other candidate that got my vote was a Libertarian.
Yea, the bullshit in these threads is appalling. I'm glad you did your part and voted yes. If I lived in Cali I would vote yes right along with you.
 

beardo

Well-Known Member
LOL!

Is Richard Lee going to hold off paying you, if 19 fails?

I sense desperation among the 19 staff.
yeah at least one of these 19 guys who debated through this thread doesn't live in Cali, says he hasn't smoked in months and has argued then claimed not to have said things that he has said when he realizes he is losing the debate then when quoted goes back and edits his posts in an attempt to appear correct. Vote no on taxation and regulation
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
LOL!

Is Richard Lee going to hold off paying you, if 19 fails?

I sense desperation among the 19 staff.

I don't know who that was directed at, I assume everybody here who is defending P19. Talk about desperate, you have no facts to back up your arguments, you are in the same camp as the drug czars, Steve Cooley and Lee Baca and you have the gall to imply that WE are tools. Enjoy your time in the cell if Cooley wins.
 

Sure Shot

Well-Known Member
California’s marijuana legalization ballot initiative, Proposition 19, is trailing badly, according to a new Los Angeles Times/USC poll, which found likely voters opposing it 51% to 39%.

Read about it here.
 

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
I just had a huge reply lost due to a computer error... I dont have the time to do it again...19 is bad. That's about all I got right now...
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
I just had a huge reply lost due to a computer error... I dont have the time to do it again...19 is bad. That's about all I got right now...
I have had the same thing happen to me. I don't blame you for not wanting to retype it. Let's face it though, "... 19 is bad...", that's about all you got, period.
 
Top