Why I'm voting NO on prop. 19

underplay said:

Yea the big corp fear thing is ridiculous. Its easier to grow good weed then it is to brew good beer.

What they are afraid of, is everyone growing there own, and not buying it at ridiculous prices.

Click to expand...

Liar. I don't sell.

rotnaple said:

Hey mitteubhi fuck tard.
I come on here and give a rebuttal to your comment and you talk shit? Fuck you you smarmy piece of shit. I may not have a dog in this hunt but I have a voice you fuck nut. Illegal marijuana at any degree is one of many reasons for the violence in Mexico, and it's fuming ugly asshole. So fuck you I should stay out of the conversation! In fact it's people like you and your smarmy ass attitude that makes this world a little bit shittier. The fuck you would act like that in person. No decent human being would. If I were at all like you, though I am not, I would hope to fuck you get hit by a bus....and live, or the popular Diaf. I just hope you see the light one day, what ever it is that can transform a shit fuck like yourself into.....something better than you are now. So fuck you turd!



While I'm at it, fuck you fddtodck. Your a self important arrogant asshole yourself. With almost 50000 posts? Get a fucking life dude. Is that all you do is post? I bet you are a diagnosed Internet addict arnt you.

Fuck the fuccking dick head, ass hole, smarmy arrogant bastards all over this site!

Y'all can eat a heaping bowl of hot dick!

Fuck this site too! Ive been lurking this site for a few years. Always seeing what the global marijuana news has to say. A lot of dominos out there, who's gonna be first to fall? Califonia? New Mexico? Colorado? One of them goes and just watch what happens. I read a lot, but never post cause of dick head, shit fuck, assholes. I'm headed to a much different forum to check my marijuana news. There has got to be a higher level of discussion than what most of you shit fuck, asshole, cock suckers offer.

Fuck you , Fuck You FUCK YOU!!!

Peace to all the decent ones out there. I'm sure there a quite a few out there that I could pass a joint to around the campfires.

Ban me shit fucks, cause I ain't never comin back

Click to expand...

Irrelevant idiot.

The idiots must be sleeping it off....

I think we made a few mad.

No ones mad, just laughing. oh and yea im playing in my sand box loving it. its so much fun.
im building a sand castel.. wanna play, lol Its honestly funny as hell how un educated you in this
subject. Iv yet seen you put any relyable information on this thread. Your definitly basing your arguement
upon idiotic opinions. I know for a fact you have not read the bill. Mabey you should. Then you can focus your argument
towards the subject, less on the insults of other people. All you guys have said, was no, lairs, and calling everone an idiot.
More peole will vote yes, trust me. so go ahead and spread your bullshit, cause youll never back it up. and
all you will do is talk shit, so you win. Im gonna continue playin my sand box k.

thanx foe passing this around, my pops found this and told me to throw it out there
THIS IS THE TRUTH ON 19

vertise said:

http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&winname=addthis&pub=cjcoffey&source=tbx-250&lng=en-us&s=facebook&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhightimes.com%2Fblog%2Fevan%2F6681%3Futm_source%3Drss_home&title=HIGHTIMES.COM%20%3E%20About%20Prop%2019%20-%20To%20Medical%20Marijuana%20Patients&ate=AT-cjcoffey/-/pz-2/4c91a26794fa3878/1&sms_ss=1&CXNID=2000001.5215456080540439074NXC&pre=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CB0QFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fhightimes.com%252Fblog%252Fevan%252F6681%253Futm_source%253Drss_home%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Ddoes%2520prop%252019%2520limit%26ei%3DSKKRTMyFE8L68Aa6k8nABQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGwg5rVVdgLZTvtKzNIXQFUcPnSFA%26sig2%3D0kN1MPKh3L7qxzMSJ6tEBQ&tt=0http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&winname=addthis&pub=cjcoffey&source=tbx-250&lng=en-us&s=myspace&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhightimes.com%2Fblog%2Fevan%2F6681%3Futm_source%3Drss_home&title=HIGHTIMES.COM%20%3E%20About%20Prop%2019%20-%20To%20Medical%20Marijuana%20Patients&ate=AT-cjcoffey/-/pz-2/4c91a26794fa3878/2&sms_ss=1&CXNID=2000001.5215456080540439074NXC&pre=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CB0QFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fhightimes.com%252Fblog%252Fevan%252F6681%253Futm_source%253Drss_home%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Ddoes%2520prop%252019%2520limit%26ei%3DSKKRTMyFE8L68Aa6k8nABQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGwg5rVVdgLZTvtKzNIXQFUcPnSFA%26sig2%3D0kN1MPKh3L7qxzMSJ6tEBQ&tt=0http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&winname=addthis&pub=cjcoffey&source=tbx-250&lng=en-us&s=google&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhightimes.com%2Fblog%2Fevan%2F6681%3Futm_source%3Drss_home&title=HIGHTIMES.COM%20%3E%20About%20Prop%2019%20-%20To%20Medical%20Marijuana%20Patients&ate=AT-cjcoffey/-/pz-2/4c91a26794fa3878/3&sms_ss=1&CXNID=2000001.5215456080540439074NXC&pre=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CB0QFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fhightimes.com%252Fblog%252Fevan%252F6681%253Futm_source%253Drss_home%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Ddoes%2520prop%252019%2520limit%26ei%3DSKKRTMyFE8L68Aa6k8nABQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGwg5rVVdgLZTvtKzNIXQFUcPnSFA%26sig2%3D0kN1MPKh3L7qxzMSJ6tEBQ&tt=0Here is a Good read from




http://hightimes.com/blog/evan/6681?utm_source=rss_home

This may clear it up for some....It explains why prop 19 has no effect on prop 215 as in medicinal use obviously via a prominent marijuana lawyer.

Below is an open leter I received from a Prop 19 supporter. It's long but certainly worth the read:

For my support of Prop. 19, I have been subject to the scorn, approbation and the most demoralizing denunciations imaginable by a group of medical marijuana patients exhibiting what can only be termed “medical reefer madness.”

With the best of intentions based on a poorly researched legal analysis, these anti-19 folks have joined forces with the people whose indifference and outright hostility have resulted in, and continue to result in, the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of thousands of medical marijuana patients.

Their never-ending harangues that Prop. 215 will go into the trash can of history if Prop. 19 is passed is causing medical marijuana patients extreme anxiety and leading them to question their support of this historic and critical piece of reform legislation. Graphically describing the horrors that will descend like a plague of locusts on unsuspecting medical marijuana patients if Prop. 19 passes, the anti-19 cabal insinuates that we are being duped by unscrupulous and untrustworthy people like Chris Conrad, Judge Jim Gray, Dale Gerringer, Dr. Frank Lucido, State Senator Mark Leno, Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, Jeff Jones, Mark Emery and hundreds of others. To see a list of all their claimed enemies of medical marijuana patients, go to: www.taxcannabis2010.org/node/13

To reveal the fallacy of their arguments and to stop stressing patients, I asked my friend, and frankly the friend of every medical marijuana patient in the state of California, J. David Nick, to weigh in on the controversy.

For 18 years, David Nick has successfully litigated a cornucopia of issues regarding cannabis and the applicable laws in both trial and appellate courts. He has not confined his practice to marijuana law, but also litigates cases involving constitutional rights and criminal procedure.

David Nick has never lost a jury trial in a state marijuana case including many precedent setting trials involving some of the most revered figures in the medical marijuana movement such as Brownie Mary, Dennis Peron (Nick has been Peron’s sole attorney since 1994) and Steve Kubby.

One of Nick’s early defenses of Peron’s medical marijuana activism resulted in the first appellate court decision affirming that marijuana can be sold. Kubby’s case was the first large quantity (200 plants) case to be won on the argument that Kubby’s serious ailments necessitated his use of cannabis to keep him alive.

A recent case of interest to patients is the Strauss case, involving a farm in Mendocino County that cultivated marijuana exclusively for a collective in Los Angeles. Nick succeeded in getting a hung jury followed by outright dismissal of all charges involving 250 pounds of processed marijuana, 200 large marijuana plants and $1.5 million in several bank accounts - not exactly consistent with the idea of small collectives with everybody planting, harvesting, trimming and singing Kumbaya.

He is currently representing collectives in Palm Springs, Riverside and Los Angeles in preemptive lawsuits asserting the rights of collectives to provide medicine to their members without undue interference from local government officials.

Nick does not confine his practice to marijuana law, but is involved in significant federal criminal litigation.

His litigation has established the right not to be searched by sniffing dogs without probable cause. This is in contract to car searches where police can search you car for no reason at all.

His litigation has lead to policies requiring police to not draw weapons in a marijuana search unless they have information that the person being apprehended is dangerous.

He has successfully litigated jury trials utilizing a necessity for life defense in order to uphold the operation of needle exchange programs.

As far as I am concerned, these experiences qualify him to provide an opinion about Prop. 19 superior to those I have read from the “sky-is-falling” alarmists

Here is Mr. Nick’s analysis of the effects of Prop. 19 on medical marijuana patients. I will have a few more choice words for you to peruse at the conclusion of Mr. Nick’s thoughtful, rational, reasoned, and accurate analysis.

PROP. 19 IS THE BEST THING TO HAPPEN TO MMJ PATIENTS SINCE PROP. 215

Anyone who claims that Proposition 19 will restrict or eliminate rights under the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) or the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) is simply wrong. If anything, Proposition 19 will permit individuals to grow and possess much more than ever before with patients, coops and collectives still receiving the same protections they are entitled to under the CUA and MMP.

Here is why.

The legal arguments claiming the "sky will fall" if Prop. 19 passes are based on the fallacious conclusion that the Initiative invalidates the CUA and MMP. This baseless fear stems from a flawed legal analysis which focuses on just about every portion of Prop. 19 EXCEPT the relevant portions. This flawed legal analysis is driven by an incorrect understanding of the rules of statutory construction.

Although extrinsic materials (such as legislative committee memos or voter pamphlet arguments) may not be resorted to when the legislative language is clear, courts may never ignore the purpose of the legislation. Every interpretation a court gives a statute must be consistent with the purpose of the legislation. This is why statutes have long "preambles" which explicitly state the purposes of the legislation.

This rule is so controlling that a court is required to ignore the literal language of a legislative statute if it conflicts with the purpose of the legislation. By example I call attention to the appellate court case of Bell v. DMV. In this precedent setting case, the court ruled that a statute must be interpreted to apply to civil proceedings even though the statute they were interpreting stated it applied only to "criminal" proceedings. The court’s interpretation of the statute was consistent with the purposes of the legislation and the limitation to criminal cases in the statute itself was not.

PROP. 19 PROVIDES ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS TO PATIENTS FROM THE ACTIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

Section 2B presents the controlling and relevant purposes for understanding what Prop. 19 can and cannot do. This section EXPRESSLY excludes the reach of Prop. 19 from the CUA and MMP. Sections 2B (7 & specifically state that the purpose of this initiative is to give municipalities total and complete control over the commercial sales of marijuana "EXCEPT as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.”

Prop. 19 makes it perfectly clear that the Initiative does NOT give municipalities any control over how medical marijuana patients obtain their medicine or how much they can possess and cultivate as the purpose of the legislation was to exempt the CUA and the MMP from local government reach. Whatever control municipalities have over patients and collectives is limited by the CUA and the MMP, not by Prop. 19.

To further reduce everyone’s understandable anxiety over allowing municipalities to unduly control collectives, I direct everyone’s attention to the last statute of the MMP, 11362.83, which reads. “Nothing in this article shall prevent a city or other local governing body from adopting and enforcing laws CONSISTENT with this article.”

Since collectives are expressly allowed, local ordinances banning them are not consistent with the MMP. Health and Safety Code Section 11362.83, which limits municipalities ability to ban coops or overly restrict them, is unaffected by Prop. 19 as it expressly states in Sections 2B (7 & that the laws created by Prop. 19 must be followed "EXCEPT as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.”

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.

IT WILL KEEP POLICE FROM COOPERATING WITH THE FEDS

As you can see from the above paragraph, the statutory scheme Prop. 19 creates expressly forbids law enforcement from seizing lawfully cultivated cannabis.

Prop. 19 will create an insurmountable barrier for local law enforcement which is still bent on depriving you of your rights through the despicable device of using federal law enforcement officers.

Here’s why.

Federal drug enforcement is nearly 100 percent dependent on the ability to use local law enforcement. They do not have the manpower to operate without it. Prop. 19 in no uncertain terms tells local law enforcement that they cannot even “attempt to” seize cannabis. If Prop. 19 passes, California will actually have a law on the books that expressly forbids local police from cooperating with the feds in the seizure of any “lawfully cultivated” California cannabis.

PROP. 19 DOES NOT LIMIT PATIENTS RIGHTS UNDER THE CUA & MMP

The nail in the coffin for those arguing against Prop. 19 is found in Section 2C (1). This is the only section which discusses which other laws the acts is "intended to limit" and nowhere in this section is the CUA or the MMP listed. If the purpose of Prop. 19 was "to limit" the application and enforcement of the CUA and MMP, those laws would have been listed along with all the other laws that are listed in Section 2C (1). Since the CUA and MMP were not listed, then Prop. 19 does not "limit" the CUA and MMP.

It’s that simple.

PROP. 19 MAKES IT EASIER FOR PATIENTS TO OBTAIN THEIR MEDICINE

Section 2B (6) states that one of the purposes of Prop. 19 is to “Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.” This section is one of the many reasons Prop. 19 is very good for patients. If Prop. 19 passes, the days of having to go through the hassle of getting a doctor’s recommendation to treat simple medical conditions will be coming to an end in those communities which allow Prop. 19 “stores" to exist. When you need an aspirin you do not have to go to a doctor and then to the health department and then to Walgreens - YOU JUST GO TO WALGREENS (the founder of which, Mr. Walgreen, became rich during prohibition by selling "medical" alcohol to patients who had obtained a prescription for alcohol from their doctor).

In those communities which are stubborn and will not allow Prop 19 "stores," patients will still have the protections of the CUA and MMP and the statutory right to form coops and collectives. Prop. 19 specifically recognizes that these rights are not invalidated and does nothing to limit the ability of patients to cultivate or form collectives or coops.

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.

For patients this is not the case because Prop. 19 exempts them from the one ounce out of home restriction. As stated above, if you are a patient then you can take out of your house up to eight ounces, or whatever your doctor permits you to have or the needs of your collective.

Both medical patients and recreational users should note that Section 11300(a) (i) allows you to "share" up to an ounce which tells me that you can furnish as many one ounces to as many friends as you wish, thus if you have a party with 50 people you could give away 50 ounces.

UNDERSTANDING “NOTWITHSTANDING”

As for the argument that the various “Notwithstanding” clauses invalidate the CUA and MMP, I reiterate, that in section 2C (1) where Prop. 19 expressly states which statues are being altered, the CUA and MMP are not listed. Therefore, when you use the word “notwithstanding,” you cannot be referring to statues that have been expressly excluded.

Claiming there is some doubt as to what “notwithstanding” means or refers to requires at most that we reach back to the purpose of the legislation in order to give it proper meaning. Whatever interpretation you give it, “notwithstanding” cannot be in conflict with Sections 2 B (7 & which exempt patients covered under the CUA and MMP from any actions taken by municipalities to regulate the non-medical use of cannabis.

The word “notwithstanding” is used when reversing prior legislation and has traditionally been interpreted by prior case law to be a word employed for the purpose of allowing conduct that had previously been forbidden by other statutes. If the word “notwithstanding” was not used in Prop. 19, municipalities would be able to claim that there is still a prohibition on their participation in the licensing and regulating of this activity.

For example, a law making skipping in front of a school illegal would be overturned by a law which says “notwithstanding other laws, skipping is legal.” If the word “notwithstanding” was not there, then skipping in front of a school would still be illegal even though skipping itself would be legal at any other location.ddddd

The rationale behind this rule emanates or comes from another rule of statutory construction which is that existing laws cannot be repealed by inference and instead must be EXPRESSLY repealed. A court cannot find that a law, such as the CUA or MMP, was changed by "implication." In other words, it cannot repeal a law by ruling that another law implied that it should.

Although Sections 2B (7 & gives cities control over the non-medical distribution of cannabis, that in no way allows a court to repeal or even change the CUA and MMP by ruling that it was “implicit” in Prop. 19 that they do so. It is contrary to any rational understanding of statutory construction to infer that since Prop. 19 gives cities control over the distribution of non-medical marijuana, that it also gives cities the right to control the medical distribution of cannabis beyond what the CUA and MMP allows.

The word “notwithstanding” is simply a legal necessity to repeal the various statutes that prohibit the conduct that prop. 19 now permits.

So can everyone please VOTE YES ON 19.

Sincerely,

J. David Nick
Attorney-at-Law

There you have it in plain simple English – patients have everything to gain and nothing to lose with the passage of Prop. 19 You can believe who you want, but ask yourself, who would you want defending you in court? J. David Nick or your choice of any or all of the authors of the anti-19 screeds?

Get real people. Do you really think the Marijuana Policy Project, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Drug Policy Alliance, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition would stand idly by, let alone support, an initiative that will undo the millions of dollars and the thousands of hours of staff time they have invested in establishing, protecting and defending the medical marijuana laws that many of themt helped put on the books in the first place?

Americans for Safe Access has chosen to stay neutral on the issue because they see themselves as strictly a medical marijuana organization and Prop. 19 is about the recreational use of marijuana, not medical. Do you think ASA would take a neutral position on Prop. 19 if they thought it would undermine Prop. 215?

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.

Lanny Swerdlow, RN, LNC

Click to expand...

veggiegardener said:

Consider doing some reading.

Your thinking is shallower than steam on a window.

Click to expand...

Amazingly weird comment. Or should I say insult upon insult.
Underplay beat me to it because I read over the bill in entirety twice, via pdf.
It was only then that I returned to post.

Next time try and use insults that are at least relevant to the person your insulting.
It's not your fault though.
It's the status quo for emotional outburst from people after they lose an argument.
I just take it as a victory lap.

miteubhi? said:

I think we made a few mad.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately not mad enough to make them think(incapable?).

CultivationArt said:

thanx foe passing this around, my pops found this and told me to throw it out there
THIS IS THE TRUTH ON 19

Click to expand...

Unfortunately that lawyer didn't point out the discrepancy between Prop 215 and prop 19.

Something I haven't mentioned was my previous support of this bill, UNTIL I heard about the 25 sq. ft. limit, and did the reading to clarify it.

You don't seem to understand I WANTED to support 19.

I can't because it hurts the sick and dying, while young gangstas burn all they can afford.

Truly sick people can't afford Cannabis, now.

Sure Shot said:

Amazingly weird comment. Or should I say insult upon insult.
Underplay beat me to it because I read over the bill in entirety twice, via pdf.
It was only then that I returned to post.

Next time try and use insults that are at least relevant to the person your insulting.
It's not your fault though.
It's the status quo for emotional outburst from people after they lose an argument.
I just take it as a victory lap.

Click to expand...

Have you carefully read the Health and Safety codes? Did you compare them to Prop 19?

Do you see the loop holes?

If not, read more carefully.

If you won't you have nothing to add.

Big Alcohol Backs ‘No on Prop. 19′ Campaign
California campaign finance reports disclose that The California Beer & Beverage Distributors Association is one of the primary financial backers of Public Safety First, sponsors of the ‘No on Prop. 19′ campaign.

CultivationArt said:

No ones mad, just laughing. oh and yea im playing in my sand box loving it. its so much fun.
im building a sand castel.. wanna play, lol Its honestly funny as hell how un educated you in this
subject. Iv yet seen you put any relyable information on this thread. Your definitly basing your arguement
upon idiotic opinions. I know for a fact you have not read the bill. Mabey you should. Then you can focus your argument
towards the subject, less on the insults of other people. All you guys have said, was no, lairs, and calling everone an idiot.
More peole will vote yes, trust me. so go ahead and spread your bullshit, cause youll never back it up. and
all you will do is talk shit, so you win. Im gonna continue playin my sand box k.

Click to expand...

Why do you keep talking about what your dad said?

He's obviously as misguided as you are.

I'm not here to insult, I'm just here to back up what I believe in.

Try using a dictionary if you are going to attempt to insult someone based on intelligence.

CultivationArt said:

No ones mad, just laughing. oh and yea im playing in my sand box loving it. its so much fun.
im building a sand castel.. wanna play, lol Its honestly funny as hell how un educated you in this
subject. Iv yet seen you put any relyable information on this thread. Your definitly basing your arguement
upon idiotic opinions. I know for a fact you have not read the bill. Mabey you should. Then you can focus your argument
towards the subject, less on the insults of other people. All you guys have said, was no, lairs, and calling everone an idiot.
More peole will vote yes, trust me. so go ahead and spread your bullshit, cause youll never back it up. and
all you will do is talk shit, so you win. Im gonna continue playin my sand box k.

Click to expand...

spelling and grammar are your friends.

veggiegardener said:

Have you carefully read the Health and Safety codes? Did you compare them to Prop 19?

Do you see the loop holes?

If not, read more carefully.

If you won't you have nothing to add.

Click to expand...

There are loopholes in every piece of legislature.
Even ones that are 1000's of pages long.
I have plenty to add, thank you very much.

The text of 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.”

Until you read this, you don't know what you're talking about.

CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.5 : California Code - Section 11362.5

Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.5 : California Code - Section 11362.5

• Search by Keyword or Citation

(a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
(b) (1) 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 caregivers 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 caregiver" 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.



*******************************************


CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.7 : California Code - Section 11362.7

Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.7 : California Code - Section 11362.7

• Search by Keyword or Citation

For purposes of this article, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) "Attending physician" means an individual who possesses a license in good standing to practice medicine or osteopathy issued by the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California and who has taken responsibility for an aspect of the medical care, treatment, diagnosis, counseling, or referral of a patient and who has conducted a medical examination of that patient before recording in the patient's medical record the physician's assessment of whether the patient has a serious medical condition and whether the medical use of marijuana is appropriate.
(b) "Department" means the State Department of Health Services.
(c) "Person with an identification card" means an individual who is a qualified patient who has applied for and received a valid identification card pursuant to this article.
(d) "Primary caregiver" means the individual, designated by a qualified patient or by a person with an identification card, who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that patient or person, and may include any of the following:
(1) In any case in which a qualified patient or person with an identification card receives medical care or supportive services, or both, from a clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1200) of Division 2, a health care facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1250) of Division 2, a residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illness licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.01 (commencing with Section 1568.01) of Division 2, a residential care facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 (commencing with Section 1569) of Division 2, a hospice, or a home health agency licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 1725) of Division 2, the owner or operator, or no more than three employees who are designated by the owner or operator, of the clinic, facility, hospice, or home health agency, if designated as a primary caregiver by that qualified patient or person with an identification card.
(2) An individual who has been designated as a primary caregiver by more than one qualified patient or person with an identification card, if every qualified patient or person with an identification card who has designated that individual as a primary caregiver resides in the same city or county as the primary caregiver.
(3) An individual who has been designated as a primary caregiver by a qualified patient or person with an identification card who resides in a city or county other than that of the primary caregiver, if the individual has not been designated as a primary caregiver by any other qualified patient or person with an identification card.
(e) A primary caregiver shall be at least 18 years of age, unless the primary caregiver is the parent of a minor child who is a qualified patient or a person with an identification card or the primary caregiver is a person otherwise entitled to make medical decisions under state law pursuant to Sections 6922, 7002, 7050, or 7120 of the Family Code.
(f) "Qualified patient" means a person who is entitled to the protections of Section 11362.5, but who does not have an identification card issued pursuant to this article.
(g) "Identification card" means a document issued by the State Department of Health Services that document identifies a person authorized to engage in the medical use of marijuana and the person's designated primary caregiver, if any.
(h) "Serious medical condition" means all of the following medical conditions:
(1) Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).
(2) Anorexia.
(3) Arthritis.
(4) Cachexia.
(5) Cancer.
(6) Chronic pain.
(7) Glaucoma.
( Migraine.
(9) Persistent muscle spasms, including, but not limited to, spasms associated with multiple sclerosis.
(10) Seizures, including, but not limited to, seizures associated with epilepsy.
(11) Severe nausea.
(12) Any other chronic or persistent medical symptom that either:
(A) Substantially limits the ability of the person to conduct one or more major life activities as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336).
(B) If not alleviated, may cause serious harm to the patient's safety or physical or mental health.
(i) "Written documentation" means accurate reproductions of those portions of a patient's medical records that have been created by the attending physician, that contain the information required by paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 11362.715, and that the patient may submit to a county health department or the county's designee as part of an application for an identification card.



CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.71 : California Code - Section 11362.71

Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.71 : California Code - Section 11362.71

• Search by Keyword or Citation

(a) (1) The department shall establish and maintain a voluntary program for the issuance of identification cards to qualified patients who satisfy the requirements of this article and voluntarily apply to the identification card program.
(2) The department shall establish and maintain a 24-hour, toll-free telephone number that will enable state and local law enforcement officers to have immediate access to information necessary to verify the validity of an identification card issued by the department, until a cost-effective Internet Web-based system can be developed for this purpose.
(b) Every county health department, or the county's designee, shall do all of the following:
(1) Provide applications upon request to individuals seeking to join the identification card program.
(2) Receive and process completed applications in accordance with Section 11362.72.
(3) Maintain records of identification card programs.
(4) Utilize protocols developed by the department pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d).
(5) Issue identification cards developed by the department to approved applicants and designated primary caregivers.
(c) The county board of supervisors may designate another health-related governmental or nongovernmental entity or organization to perform the functions described in subdivision (b), except for an entity or organization that cultivates or distributes marijuana.
(d) The department shall develop all of the following:
(1) Protocols that shall be used by a county health department or the county's designee to implement the responsibilities described in subdivision (b), including, but not limited to, protocols to confirm the accuracy of information contained in an application and to protect the confidentiality of program records.
(2) Application forms that shall be issued to requesting applicants.
(3) An identification card that identifies a person authorized to engage in the medical use of marijuana and an identification card that identifies the person's designated primary caregiver, if any. The two identification cards developed pursuant to this paragraph shall be easily distinguishable from each other.
(e) No person or designated primary caregiver in possession of a valid identification card shall be subject to arrest for possession, transportation, delivery, or cultivation of medical marijuana in an amount established pursuant to this article, unless there is reasonable cause to believe that the information contained in the card is false or falsified, the card has been obtained by means of fraud, or the person is otherwise in violation of the provisions of this article.
(f) It shall not be necessary for a person to obtain an identification card in order to claim the protections of Section 11362.5.



CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.715 : California Code - Section 11362.715

Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.715 : California Code - Section 11362.715

• Search by Keyword or Citation

(a) A person who seeks an identification card shall pay the fee, as provided in Section 11362.755, and provide all of the following to the county health department or the county's designee on a form developed and provided by the department:
(1) The name of the person, and proof of his or her residency within the county.
(2) Written documentation by the attending physician in the person's medical records stating that the person has been diagnosed with a serious medical condition and that the medical use of marijuana is appropriate.
(3) The name, office address, office telephone number, and California medical license number of the person's attending physician.
(4) The name and the duties of the primary caregiver.
(5) A government-issued photo identification card of the person and of the designated primary caregiver, if any. If the applicant is a person under 18 years of age, a certified copy of a birth certificate shall be deemed sufficient proof of identity.
(b) If the person applying for an identification card lacks the capacity to make medical decisions, the application may be made by the person's legal representative, including, but not limited to, any of the following:
(1) A conservator with authority to make medical decisions.
(2) An attorney-in-fact under a durable power of attorney for health care or surrogate decisionmaker authorized under another advanced health care directive.
(3) Any other individual authorized by statutory or decisional law to make medical decisions for the person.
(c) The legal representative described in subdivision (b) may also designate in the application an individual, including himself or herself, to serve as a primary caregiver for the person, provided that the individual meets the definition of a primary caregiver.
(d) The person or legal representative submitting the written information and documentation described in subdivision (a) shall retain a copy thereof.



CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.72 : California Code - Section 11362.72

Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.72 : California Code - Section 11362.72

• Search by Keyword or Citation

(a) Within 30 days of receipt of an application for an identification card, a county health department or the county's designee shall do all of the following:
(1) For purposes of processing the application, verify that the information contained in the application is accurate. If the person is less than 18 years of age, the county health department or its designee shall also contact the parent with legal authority to make medical decisions, legal guardian, or other person or entity with legal authority to make medical decisions, to verify the information.
(2) Verify with the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California that the attending physician has a license in good standing to practice medicine or osteopathy in the state.
(3) Contact the attending physician by facsimile, telephone, or mail to confirm that the medical records submitted by the patient are a true and correct copy of those contained in the physician's office records. When contacted by a county health department or the county's designee, the attending physician shall confirm or deny that the contents of the medical records are accurate.
(4) Take a photograph or otherwise obtain an electronically transmissible image of the applicant and of the designated primary caregiver, if any.
(5) Approve or deny the application. If an applicant who meets the requirements of Section 11362.715 can establish that an identification card is needed on an emergency basis, the county or its designee shall issue a temporary identification card that shall be valid for 30 days from the date of issuance. The county, or its designee, may extend the temporary identification card for no more than 30 days at a time, so long as the applicant continues to meet the requirements of this paragraph.
(b) If the county health department or the county's designee approves the application, it shall, within 24 hours, or by the end of the next working day of approving the application, electronically transmit the following information to the department:
(1) A unique user identification number of the applicant.
(2) The date of expiration of the identification card.
(3) The name and telephone number of the county health department or the county's designee that has approved the application.
(c) The county health department or the county's designee shall issue an identification card to the applicant and to his or her designated primary caregiver, if any, within five working days of approving the application.
(d) In any case involving an incomplete application, the applicant shall assume responsibility for rectifying the deficiency. The county shall have 14 days from the receipt of information from the applicant pursuant to this subdivision to approve or deny the application.



CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.735 : California Code - Section 11362.735

Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.735 : California Code - Section 11362.735

• Search by Keyword or Citation

(a) An identification card issued by the county health department shall be serially numbered and shall contain all of the following:
(1) A unique user identification number of the cardholder.
(2) The date of expiration of the identification card.
(3) The name and telephone number of the county health department or the county's designee that has approved the application.
(4) A 24-hour, toll-free telephone number, to be maintained by the department, that will enable state and local law enforcement officers to have immediate access to information necessary to verify the validity of the card.
(5) Photo identification of the cardholder.
(b) A separate identification card shall be issued to the person's designated primary caregiver, if any, and shall include a photo identification of the caregiver.



CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.74 : California Code - Section 11362.74

Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.74 : California Code - Section 11362.74

• Search by Keyword or Citation

(a) The county health department or the county's designee may deny an application only for any of the following reasons:
(1) The applicant did not provide the information required by Section 11362.715, and upon notice of the deficiency pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 11362.72, did not provide the information within 30 days.
(2) The county health department or the county's designee determines that the information provided was false.
(3) The applicant does not meet the criteria set forth in this article.
(b) Any person whose application has been denied pursuant to subdivision (a) may not reapply for six months from the date of denial unless otherwise authorized by the county health department or the county's designee or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) Any person whose application has been denied pursuant to subdivision (a) may appeal that decision to the department. The county health department or the county's designee shall make available a telephone number or address to which the denied applicant can direct an appeal.



CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.745 : California Code - Section 11362.745

Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.745 : California Code - Section 11362.745

• Search by Keyword or Citation

(a) An identification card shall be valid for a period of one year.
(b) Upon annual renewal of an identification card, the county health department or its designee shall verify all new information and may verify any other information that has not changed.
(c) The county health department or the county's designee shall transmit its determination of approval or denial of a renewal to the department.



CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.755 : California Code - Section 11362.755

Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.755 : California Code - Section 11362.755

• Search by Keyword or Citation

(a) The department shall establish application and renewal fees for persons seeking to obtain or renew identification cards that are sufficient to cover the expenses incurred by the department, including the startup cost, the cost of reduced fees for Medi-Cal beneficiaries in accordance with subdivision (b), the cost of identifying and developing a cost-effective Internet Web-based system, and the cost of maintaining the 24-hour toll-free telephone number. Each county health department or the county's designee may charge an additional fee for all costs incurred by the county or the county's designee for administering the program pursuant to this article.
(b) Upon satisfactory proof of participation and eligibility in the Medi-Cal program, a Medi-Cal beneficiary shall receive a 50 percent reduction in the fees established pursuant to this section.

again has nothing to do with the inactive. lol thats great, and yes i bring my pops into it.
hes a doctor and berkly medical center, and knows the loop holes in 19. and there not what your saying.
iv backed up everything i have to say. as for yourself, no. nothing, just shit talking.
And you know it. so again youll reply with some ignerant ass remark, and ill be right ok.
i dont care that my spelling is not up to par. I care about this prop passing. with or without
your lies. Dont worry about my grammer buddy, worry about yourself, and your lies you have to spread.
cause i know the REAL truth on this prop. iv read the bill, i know my rights and i know the truth.
so spread your lies, cause no one cares. YOUR WRONG and you know it. lol im done with this. remember you won

More!

CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.76 : California Code - Section 11362.76

Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.76 : California Code - Section 11362.76

• Search by Keyword or Citation

(a) A person who possesses an identification card shall:
(1) Within seven days, notify the county health department or the county's designee of any change in the person's attending physician or designated primary caregiver, if any.
(2) Annually submit to the county health department or the county's designee the following:
(A) Updated written documentation of the person's serious medical condition.
(B) The name and duties of the person's designated primary caregiver, if any, for the forthcoming year.
(b) If a person who possesses an identification card fails to comply with this section, the card shall be deemed expired. If an identification card expires, the identification card of any designated primary caregiver of the person shall also expire.
(c) If the designated primary caregiver has been changed, the previous primary caregiver shall return his or her identification card to the department or to the county health department or the county's designee.
(d) If the owner or operator or an employee of the owner or operator of a provider has been designated as a primary caregiver pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 11362.7, of the qualified patient or person with an identification card, the owner or operator shall notify the county health department or the county's designee, pursuant to Section 11362.715, if a change in the designated primary caregiver has occurred.



CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.765 : California Code - Section 11362.765

Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.765 : California Code - Section 11362.765

• Search by Keyword or Citation

(a) Subject to the requirements of this article, the individuals specified in subdivision (b) shall not be subject, on that sole basis, to criminal liability under Section 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, or 11570. However, nothing in this section shall authorize the individual to smoke or otherwise consume marijuana unless otherwise authorized by this article, nor shall anything in this section authorize any individual or group to cultivate or distribute marijuana for profit.
(b) Subdivision (a) shall apply to all of the following:
(1) A qualified patient or a person with an identification card who transports or processes marijuana for his or her own personal medical use.
(2) A designated primary caregiver who transports, processes, administers, delivers, or gives away marijuana for medical purposes, in amounts not exceeding those established in subdivision (a) of Section 11362.77, only to the qualified patient of the primary caregiver, or to the person with an identification card who has designated the individual as a primary caregiver.
(3) Any individual who provides assistance to a qualified patient or a person with an identification card, or his or her designated primary caregiver, in administering medical marijuana to the qualified patient or person or acquiring the skills necessary to cultivate or administer marijuana for medical purposes to the qualified patient or person.
(c) A primary caregiver who receives compensation for actual expenses, including reasonable compensation incurred for services provided to an eligible qualified patient or person with an identification card to enable that person to use marijuana under this article, or for payment for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in providing those services, or both, shall not, on the sole basis of that fact, be subject to prosecution or punishment under Section 11359 or 11360.



CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.77 : California Code - Section 11362.77

Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.77 : California Code - Section 11362.77

• Search by Keyword or Citation

(a) A qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana per qualified patient. In addition, a qualified patient or primary caregiver may also maintain no more than six mature or 12 immature marijuana plants per qualified patient.
(b) If a qualified patient or primary caregiver has a doctor's recommendation that this quantity does not meet the qualified patient's medical needs, the qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess an amount of marijuana consistent with the patient's needs.
(c) Counties and cities may retain or enact medical marijuana guidelines allowing qualified patients or primary caregivers to exceed the state limits set forth in subdivision (a).
(d) Only the dried mature processed flowers of female cannabis plant or the plant conversion shall be considered when determining allowable quantities of marijuana under this section.
(e) The Attorney General may recommend modifications to the possession or cultivation limits set forth in this section. These recommendations, if any, shall be made to the Legislature no later than December 1, 2005, and may be made only after public comment and consultation with interested organizations, including, but not limited to, patients, health care professionals, researchers, law enforcement, and local governments. Any recommended modification shall be consistent with the intent of this article and shall be based on currently available scientific research.
(f) A qualified patient or a person holding a valid identification card, or the designated primary caregiver of that qualified patient or person, may possess amounts of marijuana consistent with this article.



CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.775 : California Code - Section 11362.775

Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.775 : California Code - Section 11362.775

• Search by Keyword or Citation

Qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards, who associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions under Section 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, or 11570.


CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.78 : California Code - Section 11362.78

Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.78 : California Code - Section 11362.78

• Search by Keyword or Citation

A state or local law enforcement agency or officer shall not refuse to accept an identification card issued by the department unless the state or local law enforcement agency or officer has reasonable cause to believe that the information contained in the card is false or fraudulent, or the card is being used fraudulently.


CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.785 : California Code - Section 11362.785

Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.785 : California Code - Section 11362.785

• Search by Keyword or Citation

(a) Nothing in this article shall require any accommodation of any medical use of marijuana on the property or premises of any place of employment or during the hours of employment or on the property or premises of any jail, correctional facility, or other type of penal institution in which prisoners reside or persons under arrest are detained.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a person shall not be prohibited or prevented from obtaining and submitting the written information and documentation necessary to apply for an identification card on the basis that the person is incarcerated in a jail, correctional facility, or other penal institution in which prisoners reside or persons under arrest are detained.
(c) Nothing in this article shall prohibit a jail, correctional facility, or other penal institution in which prisoners reside or persons under arrest are detained, from permitting a prisoner or a person under arrest who has an identification card, to use marijuana for medical purposes under circumstances that will not endanger the health or safety of other prisoners or the security of the facility.
(d) Nothing in this article shall require a governmental, private, or any other health insurance provider or health care service plan to be liable for any claim for reimbursement for the medical use of marijuana.



CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.79 : California Code - Section 11362.79

Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.79 : California Code - Section 11362.79

• Search by Keyword or Citation

Nothing in this article shall authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances:
(a) In any place where smoking is prohibited by law.
(b) In or within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a school, recreation center, or youth center, unless the medical use occurs within a residence.
(c) On a schoolbus.
(d) While in a motor vehicle that is being operated.
(e) While operating a boat.



CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.795 : California Code - Section 11362.795

Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.795 : California Code - Section 11362.795

• Search by Keyword or Citation

(a) (1) Any criminal defendant who is eligible to use marijuana pursuant to Section 11362.5 may request that the court confirm that he or she is allowed to use medical marijuana while he or she is on probation or released on bail.
(2) The court's decision and the reasons for the decision shall be stated on the record and an entry stating those reasons shall be made in the minutes of the court.
(3) During the period of probation or release on bail, if a physician recommends that the probationer or defendant use medical marijuana, the probationer or defendant may request a modification of the conditions of probation or bail to authorize the use of medical marijuana.
(4) The court's consideration of the modification request authorized by this subdivision shall comply with the requirements of this section.
(b) (1) Any person who is to be released on parole from a jail, state prison, school, road camp, or other state or local institution of confinement and who is eligible to use medical marijuana pursuant to Section 11362.5 may request that he or she be allowed to use medical marijuana during the period he or she is released on parole. A parolee's written conditions of parole shall reflect whether or not a request for a modification of the conditions of his or her parole to use medical marijuana was made, and whether the request was granted or denied.
(2) During the period of the parole, where a physician recommends that the parolee use medical marijuana, the parolee may request a modification of the conditions of the parole to authorize the use of medical marijuana.
(3) Any parolee whose request to use medical marijuana while on parole was denied may pursue an administrative appeal of the decision. Any decision on the appeal shall be in writing and shall reflect the reasons for the decision.
(4) The administrative consideration of the modification request authorized by this subdivision shall comply with the requirements of this section.



CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.8 : California Code - Section 11362.8

Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.8 : California Code - Section 11362.8

• Search by Keyword or Citation

No professional licensing board may impose a civil penalty or take other disciplinary action against a licensee based solely on the fact that the licensee has performed acts that are necessary or appropriate to carry out the licensee's role as a designated primary caregiver to a person who is a qualified patient or who possesses a lawful identification card issued pursuant to Section 11362.72. However, this section shall not apply to acts performed by a physician relating to the discussion or recommendation of the medical use of marijuana to a patient. These discussions or recommendations, or both, shall be governed by Section 11362.5.


CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.81 : California Code - Section 11362.81

Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.81 : California Code - Section 11362.81

• Search by Keyword or Citation

(a) A person specified in subdivision (b) shall be subject to the following penalties:
(1) For the first offense, imprisonment in the county jail for no more than six months or a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both.
(2) For a second or subsequent offense, imprisonment in the county jail for no more than one year, or a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both.
(b) Subdivision (a) applies to any of the following:
(1) A person who fraudulently represents a medical condition or fraudulently provides any material misinformation to a physician, county health department or the county's designee, or state or local law enforcement agency or officer, for the purpose of falsely obtaining an identification card.
(2) A person who steals or fraudulently uses any person's identification card in order to acquire, possess, cultivate, transport, use, produce, or distribute marijuana.
(3) A person who counterfeits, tampers with, or fraudulently produces an identification card.
(4) A person who breaches the confidentiality requirements of this article to information provided to, or contained in the records of, the department or of a county health department or the county's designee pertaining to an identification card program.
(c) In addition to the penalties prescribed in subdivision (a), any person described in subdivision (b) may be precluded from attempting to obtain, or obtaining or using, an identification card for a period of up to six months at the discretion of the court.
(d) In addition to the requirements of this article, the Attorney General shall develop and adopt appropriate guidelines to ensure the security and nondiversion of marijuana grown for medical use by patients qualified under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.



CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.82 : California Code - Section 11362.82

Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.82 : California Code - Section 11362.82

• Search by Keyword or Citation

If any section, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this article is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and that holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion thereof.


CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.83 : California Code - Section 11362.83

Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.83 : California Code - Section 11362.83

• Search by Keyword or Citation

Nothing in this article shall prevent a city or other local governing body from adopting and enforcing laws consistent with this article.


CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.9 : California Code - Section 11362.9

Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.9 : California Code - Section 11362.9

• Search by Keyword or Citation

(a)(1)It is the intent of the Legislature that the state commission objective scientific research by the premier research institute of the world, the University of California, regarding the efficacy and safety of administering marijuana as part of medical treatment. If the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, accept this responsibility, the University of California shall create a program, to be known as the California Marijuana Research Program.
(2)The program shall develop and conduct studies intended to ascertain the general medical safety and efficacy of marijuana and, if found valuable, shall develop medical guidelines for the appropriate administration and use of marijuana.
(b)The program may immediately solicit proposals for research projects to be included in the marijuana studies. Program requirements to be used when evaluating responses to its solicitation for proposals, shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
(1)Proposals shall demonstrate the use of key personnel, including clinicians or scientists and support personnel, who are prepared to develop a program of research regarding marijuana's general medical efficacy and safety.
(2)Proposals shall contain procedures for outreach to patients with various medical conditions who may be suitable participants in research on marijuana.
(3)Proposals shall contain provisions for a patient registry.
(4)Proposals shall contain provisions for an information system that is designed to record information about possible study participants, investigators, and clinicians, and deposit and analyze data that accrues as part of clinical trials.
(5)Proposals shall contain protocols suitable for research on marijuana, addressing patients diagnosed with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) or the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), cancer, glaucoma, or seizures or muscle spasms associated with a chronic, debilitating condition. The proposal may also include research on other serious illnesses, provided that resources are available and medical information justifies the research.
(6)Proposals shall demonstrate the use of a specimen laboratory capable of housing plasma, urine, and other specimens necessary to study the concentration of cannabinoids in various tissues, as well as housing specimens for studies of toxic effects of marijuana.
(7)Proposals shall demonstrate the use of a laboratory capable of analyzing marijuana, provided to the program under this section, for purity and cannabinoid content and the capacity to detect contaminants.
(c)In order to ensure objectivity in evaluating proposals, the program shall use a peer review process that is modeled on the process used by the National Institutes of Health, and that guards against funding research that is biased in favor of or against particular outcomes. Peer reviewers shall be selected for their expertise in the scientific substance and methods of the proposed research, and their lack of bias or conflict of interest regarding the applicants or the topic of an approach taken in the proposed research. Peer reviewers shall judge research proposals on several criteria, foremost among which shall be both of the following:
(1)The scientific merit of the research plan, including whether the research design and experimental procedures are potentially biased for or against a particular outcome.
(2)Researchers' expertise in the scientific substance and methods of the proposed research, and their lack of bias or conflict of interest regarding the topic of, and the approach taken in, the proposed research.
(d)If the program is administered by the Regents of the University of California, any grant research proposals approved by the program shall also require review and approval by the research advisory panel.
(e)It is the intent of the Legislature that the program be established as follows:
(1)The program shall be located at one or more University of California campuses that have a core of faculty experienced in organizing multidisciplinary scientific endeavors and, in particular, strong experience in clinical trials involving psychopharmacologic agents. The campuses at which research under the auspices of the program is to take place shall accommodate the administrative offices, including the director of the program, as well as a data management unit, and facilities for storage of specimens.
(2)When awarding grants under this section, the program shall utilize principles and parameters of the other well-tested statewide research programs administered by the University of California, modeled after programs administered by the National Institutes of Health, including peer review evaluation of the scientific merit of applications.
(3)The scientific and clinical operations of the program shall occur, partly at University of California campuses, and partly at other postsecondary institutions, that have clinicians or scientists with expertise to conduct the required studies. Criteria for selection of research locations shall include the elements listed in subdivision (b) and, additionally, shall give particular weight to the organizational plan, leadership qualities of the program director, and plans to involve investigators and patient populations from multiple sites.
(4)The funds received by the program shall be allocated to various research studies in accordance with a scientific plan developed by the Scientific Advisory Council. As the first wave of studies is completed, it is anticipated that the program will receive requests for funding of additional studies. These requests shall be reviewed by the Scientific Advisory Council.
(5)The size, scope, and number of studies funded shall be commensurate with the amount of appropriated and available program funding.
(f)All personnel involved in implementing approved proposals shall be authorized as required by Section 11604.
(g)Studies conducted pursuant to this section shall include the greatest amount of new scientific research possible on the medical uses of, and medical hazards associated with, marijuana. The program shall consult with the Research Advisory Panel analogous agencies in other states, and appropriate federal agencies in an attempt to avoid duplicative research and the wasting of research dollars.
(h)The program shall make every effort to recruit qualified patients and qualified physicians from throughout the state.
(i)The marijuana studies shall employ state-of-the-art research methodologies.
(j)The program shall ensure that all marijuana used in the studies is of the appropriate medical quality and shall be obtained from the National Institute on Drug Abuse or any other federal agency designated to supply marijuana for authorized research. If these federal agencies fail to provide a supply of adequate quality and quantity within six months of the effective date of this section, the Attorney General shall provide an adequate supply pursuant to Section 11478.
(k)The program may review, approve, or incorporate studies and research by independent groups presenting scientifically valid protocols for medical research, regardless of whether the areas of study are being researched by the committee.
(l)(1)To enhance understanding of the efficacy and adverse effects of marijuana as a pharmacological agent, the program shall conduct focused controlled clinical trials on the usefulness of marijuana in patients diagnosed with AIDS or HIV, cancer, glaucoma, or seizures or muscle spasms associated with a chronic, debilitating condition. The program may add research on other serious illnesses, provided that resources are available and medical information justifies the research. The studies shall focus on comparisons of both the efficacy and safety of methods of administering the drug to patients, including inhalational, tinctural, and oral, evaluate possible uses of marijuana as a primary or adjunctive treatment, and develop further information on optimal dosage, timing, mode of administration, and variations in the effects of different cannabinoids and varieties of marijuana.
(2)The program shall examine the safety of marijuana in patients with various medical disorders, including marijuana's interaction with other drugs, relative safety of inhalation versus oral forms, and the effects on mental function in medically ill persons.
(3)The program shall be limited to providing for objective scientific research to ascertain the efficacy and safety of marijuana as part of medical treatment, and should not be construed as encouraging or sanctioning the social or recreational use of marijuana.
(m)(1)Subject to paragraph (2), the program shall, prior to any approving proposals, seek to obtain research protocol guidelines from the National Institutes of Health and shall, if the National Institutes of Health issues research protocol guidelines, comply with those guidelines.
(2)If, after a reasonable period of time of not less than six months and not more than a year has elapsed from the date the program seeks to obtain guidelines pursuant to paragraph (1), no guidelines have been approved, the program may proceed using the research protocol guidelines it develops.
(n)In order to maximize the scope and size of the marijuana studies, the program may do any of the following:
(1)Solicit, apply for, and accept funds from foundations, private individuals, and all other funding sources that can be used to expand the scope or timeframe of the marijuana studies that are authorized under this section. The program shall not expend more than 5 percent of its General Fund allocation in efforts to obtain money from outside sources.
(2)Include within the scope of the marijuana studies other marijuana research projects that are independently funded and that meet the requirements set forth in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive. In no case shall the program accept any funds that are offered with any conditions other than that the funds be used to study the efficacy and safety of marijuana as part of medical treatment. Any donor shall be advised that funds given for purposes of this section will be used to study both the possible benefits and detriments of marijuana and that he or she will have no control over the use of these funds.
(o)(1)Within six months of the effective date of this section, the program shall report to the Legislature, the Governor, and the Attorney General on the progress of the marijuana studies.
(2)Thereafter, the program shall issue a report to the Legislature every six months detailing the progress of the studies. The interim reports required under this paragraph shall include, but not be limited to, data on all of the following:
(A)The names and number of diseases or conditions under study.
(B)The number of patients enrolled in each study by disease.
(C)Any scientifically valid preliminary findings.
(p)If the Regents of the University of California implement this section, the President of the University of California shall appoint a multidisciplinary Scientific Advisory Council, not to exceed 15 members, to provide policy guidance in the creation and implementation of the program. Members shall be chosen on the basis of scientific expertise. Members of the council shall serve on a voluntary basis, with reimbursement for expenses incurred in the course of their participation. The members shall be reimbursed for travel and other necessary expenses incurred in their performance of the duties of the council.
(q)No more than 10 percent of the total funds appropriated may be used for all aspects of the administration of this section.
(r)This section shall be implemented only to the extent that funding for its purposes is appropriated by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act.

CultivationArt said:

again has nothing to do with the inactive. lol thats great, and yes i bring my pops into it.
hes a doctor and berkly medical center, and knows the loop holes in 19. and there not what your saying.
iv backed up everything i have to say. as for yourself, no. nothing, just shit talking.
And you know it. so again youll reply with some ignerant ass remark, and ill be right ok.
i dont care that my spelling is not up to par. I care about this prop passing. with or without
your lies. Dont worry about my grammer buddy, worry about yourself, and your lies you have to spread.
cause i know the REAL truth on this prop. iv read the bill, i know my rights and i know the truth.
so spread your lies, cause no one cares. YOUR WRONG and you know it. lol im done with this. remember you won

Click to expand...

care to explain to me "the lies i'm telling".


perfect example of the "team" i chose not to play on. i'd rather be oppressed by the hand of the government then to be free to speak my mind. if this is the shit i have to listen to.

maybe your daddy can sit you down with some english lessons. or, you can just get your GED while you sit in jail for breaking one of the NUMEROUS new laws this prop will add.

just what we need, MORE pot laws,

Sure Shot said:

There are loopholes in every piece of legislature.
Even ones that are 1000's of pages long.
I have plenty to add, thank you very much.

Click to expand...

OK, smart guy, pick them apart. Show me where I'm protected from Prop 19.