Interesting Review on Prop 19 From A Respected Lawyer

note: i posted this in the legalization thread. but i feel this is important and should be seen to all in order to provide voters with an informed decision. mods, if you feel that this is not necessary then please remove this.

From J David Nick, this guy really knows his stuff. He is known for many landmark cases such as:

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.
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.

Click to expand...

Probably best to read it on his blog for best formatting but I think this is a very important read

http://jdavidnick.com/2010/09/yes-on-prop-19-an-open-letter-from-david-nick/

Here some of my favorite quotes for the lazy ones:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

FULL TEXT

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.
- Lanny Swerdlow, RN, LNC
Subject: AN OPEN LETTER ON PROPOSITION 19
From: J. David Nick. Attorney-at-Law

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.
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.

One of the main reasons prop 19 was written was for commercializing marijuana.....nowhere in prop 19 does it state for the legalization of marijuana

There were three other initiatives that sought to be placed on the ballot this year; all three would have legalized not only possession, but also private distribution among individual adults.

Some even called for the release of non-violent marijuana offenders. However, staffed exclusively by volunteers, all failed to gather the required number of signatures for the petitions.

(Richard Lee invested $1.3 million of his own money to hire a company to obtain the requisite signatures for the current proposed #19 initiative.) he stands to gain alot $$$$$$

colonuggs said:

(Richard Lee invested $1.3 million of his own money to hire a company to obtain the requisite signatures for the current proposed #19 initiative.) he stands to gain alot $$$$$$

Click to expand...

Please provide some solid evidence in how he is going to make alot of $$$$$$$$$$ in an evil way. Yes, he will make money and yes he has dumped 1.3 million of his OWN money to get prop 19 started. And guess what...it's working! The fact is, in American it takes money to get laws passed - and lots of it, the fact is Richard Lee is a disabled patient in a non-motorized wheel chair whose Oaksterdam University and dispensaries have provided more medical mj to the sick and disabled patients than anyone else. In fact, everything he has done has became the golden standard, and every dispensary strives to be what he has accomplished. We should applaud and be thanking Lee for what he is doing - he has dumped over a million dollars for the legalization of marijuana!

colonuggs said:

....nowhere in prop 19 does it state for the legalization of marijuana

Click to expand...

Section 3: Lawful Activities
Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, commencing with section 11300 is added to read:
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.

There were three other initiatives that sought to be placed on the ballot this year; all three would have legalized not only possession, but also private distribution among individual adults.

Click to expand...

Why do you think these didn't gain much attention? Because it wanted too much too quick. The whole point (in my view) of prop 19 is simple: to ask the public "do we want to legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana?" YES, the proposition is not perfect - but let's get the thing passed then fight to perfect it. If prop 19 doesn't pass, it will be just that much harder to introduce another bill after.

Some even called for the release of non-violent marijuana offenders. However, staffed exclusively by volunteers, all failed to gather the required number of signatures for the petitions.

Click to expand...

Though this would be just and fair, this is not how our legal system seems to work. Do you think those who were locked up back during alcohol prohibition were freed after the amendment was revoked? I dont think so.


The thing is, the problems you have with prop 19 really are not taking anything away from you right now. The fact is prop 19 will give the majority of Californians easier, better, and safer access to marijuana, and it will not effect medical users at all.

epicseeds said:

Please provide some solid evidence in how he is going to make alot of $$$$$$$$$$ in an evil way. Yes, he will make money and yes he has dumped 1.3 million of his OWN money to get prop 19 started. And guess what...it's working! The fact is, in American it takes money to get laws passed - and lots of it, the fact is Richard Lee is a disabled patient in a non-motorized wheel chair whose Oaksterdam University and dispensaries have provided more medical mj to the sick and disabled patients than anyone else. In fact, everything he has done has became the golden standard, and every dispensary strives to be what he has accomplished. We should applaud and be thanking Lee for what he is doing - he has dumped over a million dollars for the legalization of marijuana!

Click to expand...

....and the control of a market for a select few.

Why do you think these didn't gain much attention? Because it wanted too much too quick. The whole point (in my view) of prop 19 is simple: to ask the public "do we want to legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana?" YES, the proposition is not perfect - but let's get the thing passed then fight to perfect it. If prop 19 doesn't pass, it will be just that much harder to introduce another bill after.

Click to expand...

Bullshit! It's a voter initiative, signatures are all you need.

The thing is, the problems you have with prop 19 really are not taking anything away from you right now. The fact is prop 19 will give the majority of Californians easier, better, and safer access to marijuana, and it will not effect medical users at all.

Click to expand...

Thats exactly the problem. They're taking rights away before we even have them. People who don't want this bill passed still have a longing for freedom in this so called free country. They don't want to just give up their rights without a fight.

epicseeds said:

From J David Nick, this guy really knows his stuff.
So can everyone please VOTE YES ON 19.

Click to expand...

Wow, an attorney who represents marijuana businesses thinks this is a good bill. I wonder why?

Oh geez... is everyone who is on the forefront of getting things done when it comes to prop 19 all conspiring to make money in an evil and unfair way? Apparently so....

Besides....if it were legalized wouldn't it put him out of business since there will be fewer people going to court for marijuana related activities? Your statement makes absolutely no sense.

epicseeds said:

Oh geez... is everyone who is on the forefront of getting things done when it comes to prop 19 all conspiring to make money in an evil and unfair way? Apparently so....

Click to expand...

No, some are just clueless victims. These people are trying to control the market with this bill being a starting point.

Besides....if it were legalized wouldn't it put him out of business since there will be fewer people going to court for marijuana related activities? Your statement makes absolutely no sense.

Click to expand...

This guy works for companies that support the bill. If you think he's handling petty cases as a prime source of income you are crazy. The amount of money he will make from representing corporate marijuana will dwarf petty drug charges. You do understand this bill actually breaks federal law unlike prop 215 which doesn't completely go against legislation because of the medical status. These guys are in for some major legal action if this bill's passed. Now is not the time for complacency, this bill taxes personal grows to try and persuade you to by from the corporate suppliers rather than pay an outrageous tax for a 5x5 area. This bill is pathetic and if you are an average citizen and support this bill you obviously don't understand it and what it's trying to accomplish.

I appreciate your view points but I can't help to feel like the above is nothing short of conspiracy theories. When I look at the bill myself, look at the opinions of respected lawyers and organization who have committed their lives in furthering the advancement of marijuana laws and reform (NORML) I come to the conclusion that prop 19 is a step in the right direction more so than backwards.

You bring many good points, such as how some big players are situating themselves to gain $$$ but you and everyone else for that matter have failed to provide any sort of solid evidence for such an agenda. Show me a paper trail....something, anything and not tin foil hat esque theories.

If it passes, the feds are going to sue the state. I don't see that being too good for patients like me.

d.s.m. said:

If it passes, the feds are going to sue the state. I don't see that being too good for patients like me.

Click to expand...

This actually is very unlikely as many respectful lawyers have shown there is no way the feds would win. If you check out the podcast of "John doe Radio Show" from 2 weeks ago, Brian Cuban (Mark Cubans brother) explained why any lawyer would tell you it would be an easy win for the state, so easy that he doubts the Feds would even try. It has to do with something that there are no drug laws inherently in the constitution or something. Now, some people like to compare this to what happened in Arizona with the whole illegal alien thing, they were able to be sued because it violated the constitution whereas proposition 19 does not.

I will try to find an article, or atleast a download link for you guys. But, your fear is unmerited the feds will NOT sue California if prop 19 passes.

EDIT: here is a link to the podcast http://www.johndoeradio.com/shows/the-john-doe-radio-show-volume-9-show-11/

you guys should check this show out anyways it is an awesome stoner related podcast, but this specific episode is excellent in answering the question raised above.

EDIT 2:

Ok I re-listened and this is basically what he states. The Supreme Court has made it clear -- especially in the 1990s -- that "commandeering" state authorities to carry out federal laws is unconstitutional. See, e.g., Printz v. U.S. (guns). Arizona wanted to get more involved with the enforcement of laws against undocumented aliens.

On the other hand, if California were to pass Prop 19, they will NOT be getting more involved in the enforcement of any laws, they will be getting LESS involved. Proposition 19 is not obscuring any laws of the Feds, the Feds still have the same opportunity to go in and bust people up (but do they really have enough resources if the entire state is smoking?). California is not getting more involved, but less involved...thus is constitutionally admissible.

The feds can still go after illegal marijuana possession and commerce to the degree they are allowed under Art. I. The state doesn't have the power to override federal law but that isn't the point here. If California somehow interferes with the feds enforcement, fine, but the feds do not have the power to commandeer the state police force into their efforts.

epicseeds said:

This actually is very unlikely as many respectful lawyers have shown there is no way the feds would win. If you check out the podcast of "John doe Radio Show" from 2 weeks ago, Brian Cuban (Mark Cubans brother) explained why any lawyer would tell you it would be an easy win for the state, so easy that he doubts the Feds would even try. It has to do with something that there are no drug laws inherently in the constitution or something. Now, some people like to compare this to what happened in Arizona with the whole illegal alien thing, they were able to be sued because it violated the constitution whereas proposition 19 does not.

I will try to find an article, or atleast a download link for you guys. But, your fear is unmerited the feds will NOT sue California if prop 19 passes.

EDIT: here is a link to the podcast http://www.johndoeradio.com/shows/the-john-doe-radio-show-volume-9-show-11/

you guys should check this show out anyways it is an awesome stoner related podcast, but this specific episode is excellent in answering the question raised above.

EDIT 2:

Ok I re-listened and this is basically what he states. The Supreme Court has made it clear -- especially in the 1990s -- that "commandeering" state authorities to carry out federal laws is unconstitutional. See, e.g., Printz v. U.S. (guns). Arizona wanted to get more involved with the enforcement of laws against undocumented aliens.

On the other hand, if California were to pass Prop 19, they will NOT be getting more involved in the enforcement of any laws, they will be getting LESS involved. Proposition 19 is not obscuring any laws of the Feds, the Feds still have the same opportunity to go in and bust people up (but do they really have enough resources if the entire state is smoking?). California is not getting more involved, but less involved...thus is constitutionally admissible.

The feds can still go after illegal marijuana possession and commerce to the degree they are allowed under Art. I. The state doesn't have the power to override federal law but that isn't the point here. If California somehow interferes with the feds enforcement, fine, but the feds do not have the power to commandeer the state police force into their efforts.

Click to expand...

If the Feds want you... they will get you.... Just ask the 1000s in jail due to Federal Prosecution

If you think the Feds will sit ldly by and let California have mutlipul warehouses with 1000s of plants growing...think again

I never said that....I did say that it is unlikely that they will sue. The whole point is prop 19 will take away the authority of the police to put most smokers in jail. On top of that, their number one tool of "i smell marijuana" will be stricken away from them should prop 19 pass. I don't think anyone is arguing that the Feds wont....they always have.

Your point made me ponder something though. If Prop 19 were to pass, and Oakland were to open up the pot farms, and the Feds came in and raided them - do you think the state/county could sue the Feds? I don't think Lee would be too happy about getting raided and them shutting down his huge investment. You gotta know hes packing some serious lawyers...perhaps Lee will not only be the one who helps get Prop 19 passed, but also is the one who wins in court over the Feds.. ruling that they can't do shit, this would be huge.

epicseeds said:

I never said that....I did say that it is unlikely that they will sue. The whole point is prop 19 will take away the authority of the police to put most smokers in jail. On top of that, their number one tool of "i smell marijuana" will be stricken away from them should prop 19 pass. I don't think anyone is arguing that the Feds wont....they always have.

Your point made me ponder something though. If Prop 19 were to pass, and Oakland were to open up the pot farms, and the Feds came in and raided them - do you think the state/county could sue the Feds? I don't think Lee would be too happy about getting raided and them shutting down his huge investment. You gotta know hes packing some serious lawyers...perhaps Lee will not only be the one who helps get Prop 19 passed, but also is the one who wins in court over the Feds.. ruling that they can't do shit, this would be huge.

Click to expand...

Just joined this thread, but I agree with this point. We, as the pot community need to unify and make sure we are all on the same side when Prop 19 passes: the side of protecting our new rights, either legally, or just by being a good spokesperson for responsible pot users, medical or otherwise.

I have been involved in an ongoing debate via the comment system on a popular news website. If we do not band together people like this will win:

The facts are not getting out and dope smokers are falsifying the deleterious impact from Marijuana, both personally and sociologically.

Marijuana fools the endocrine system into producing less of a brain chemical necessary for proper functioning. Ergo, marijuana is addictive to maintain a fake chemical level in the brain. This insufficient chemical induces various degrees of hallucination, delusional thinking and abandonment of necessary inhibitions. The delusional thinking of marijuana users would have you believe no inhibitions are necessary. These same users suffer stagnant emotional growth. This stagnancy can be witnessed in their obsessions with egoistic thinking, delusions of grandeur (a form of paranoia) and self-assurance they have reached a pinnacle of understanding and wisdom, when in fact they've plateaued. Almost all criminals in jails and prisons for other reasons extol the benefits of marijuana use in their success in life. Pot use limits and impedes motor function. Pot users can not operate important machinery in their lives and will never be able to fly a plane, etc. because their depth perception and other visual acuity are adversely affected. It can take a full year for users to rid themselves of the bad effects of pot use. One can stop using and pot can still be discovered in their fluid samples a month later. No one in their right mind would want to fool their endocrine system and brain functions at such a core level. Most users become pushers because they need to validate their own weaknesses by getting others involved. The arrogance of users leads to other generalized problems in society... polarizations, shunning by family and friends, denial of impact, over-reactive judgments by the user against others. Many of the delusional concepts displayed by users are the same as those displayed by mental patients in hospitals. Remember... Marijuana permanently changes brain chemistry to your detriment... Vote NO on 19.

Dope promoters are directly influenced by a Communist conspiracy to introduce pot to disable and disadvantage our nation. Obama's mentor was a card carrying Communist Party member and influenced Obama and all of his friends... He was also a dope promoter. You've been victimized.

Click to expand...

epicseeds said:

I appreciate your view points but I can't help to feel like the above is nothing short of conspiracy theories. When I look at the bill myself, look at the opinions of respected lawyers and organization who have committed their lives in furthering the advancement of marijuana laws and reform (NORML) I come to the conclusion that prop 19 is a step in the right direction more so than backwards.

Click to expand...

This law taxes personal grows! Not for sales but personal grows for consumption. This is exactly the type of thing that benefits people like Dick Lee. Putting a ridiculous tax on personal cultivation will make people think twice about growing and make it more appealing to buy from these marijuana corporations that are trying to control the market. None of this is conspiracy, it's forethought with an understanding how business works.

You bring many good points, such as how some big players are situating themselves to gain $$$ but you and everyone else for that matter have failed to provide any sort of solid evidence for such an agenda. Show me a paper trail....something, anything and not tin foil hat esque theories.

Click to expand...

What do you mean? The people behind this bill are already in business in a big way with a team of lawyers working to make sure they benefit as much as possible. What agenda do you need besides money?

epicseeds said:

This actually is very unlikely as many respectful lawyers have shown there is no way the feds would win. If you check out the podcast of "John doe Radio Show" from 2 weeks ago, Brian Cuban (Mark Cubans brother) explained why any lawyer would tell you it would be an easy win for the state, so easy that he doubts the Feds would even try. It has to do with something that there are no drug laws inherently in the constitution or something. Now, some people like to compare this to what happened in Arizona with the whole illegal alien thing, they were able to be sued because it violated the constitution whereas proposition 19 does not.

Click to expand...

That's just laughable. Do you think the Fed's give a shit about the constitution? Their are federal drug laws as well as UN treaties that say marijuana is illegal. If you think for a second the federal government won't do anything you're delusional not to mention the first thing they'll do is yank any federal funding to the state which is already broke.

On the other hand, if California were to pass Prop 19, they will NOT be getting more involved in the enforcement of any laws, they will be getting LESS involved. Proposition 19 is not obscuring any laws of the Feds, the Feds still have the same opportunity to go in and bust people up (but do they really have enough resources if the entire state is smoking?). California is not getting more involved, but less involved...thus is constitutionally admissible.

The feds can still go after illegal marijuana possession and commerce to the degree they are allowed under Art. I. The state doesn't have the power to override federal law but that isn't the point here. If California somehow interferes with the feds enforcement, fine, but the feds do not have the power to commandeer the state police force into their efforts.

Click to expand...

The Feds will just start picking people off at will, they'll be sitting ducks. Do you really think they need any help? With all the limitations and restrictions of this bill there will still be a lot of people still considered criminals on a state and federal level in Cali. If they really wanted to make it hard for the feds to do anything about it they would be giving the people more rights. This bill ensures that they only a select few people will be protected fully on a state level i.e. the corporations. The Feds are going to be active in Cali until something happens federally no matter what bill or legislation is passed, this really isn't the problem.


Honestly if they didn't restrict personal cultivation so much in this bill I wouldn't mind the corporations benefiting but they are screwing the average person while making sure they are taken care of. WORTHLESS

Epicseeds wrote or quoted "The thing is, the problems you have with prop 19 really are not taking anything away from you right now. The fact is prop 19 will give the majority of Californians easier, better, and safer access to marijuana, and it will not effect medical users at all.[/QUOTE]"
Unfortunately it does take away my right to grow how many plants I need for my medicine. A right recently upheld by the CA Supreme Ct.
Do not let the general section regarding findings and intent confuse you. That is what it may be intended to do. Be a critical voter. The 3 stikes law was widely pushed under the guise that it would only apply to violent offenders. But when it became law, those "good intentions" which were not in the text, were lost. Remember that lawyers are paid to spin the truth, that is their profession but other lawyers who are not part of the organized group pushing this have said the opposite.
Read the section that will become the text of the Heath and Safety Code of our state. No where does it make any reference to medical use at all. In fact it gives local governments wide reaching power to tax & restrict your growing area to only 25 sq feet per residence and if you rent you need your landlord's permission. Plus it "prohibits and punishes" possession that is not lawfully obtained under the new law. So you may need a tax stamp to be legal. Here is a quote regarding that from a link I have further down the page:
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
A PANDORA'S BOX OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: WHY WE MUST VOTE NO ON PROP. 19
Prop. 19 claims to do two things for recreational cannabis consumers: allow possession of 1 oz. or less and cultivation in a 5’x5’ space. But read the initiative and you’ll see these rights are not guaranteed, and come with conditions that render Prop. 19 largely ineffective at achieving either of those aims. Still, supporters of Proposition 19 argue that it’s a baby step in the right direction. If the right direction is toward increased prohibition, unlimited taxation (even on cultivation for personal use), the demise of Prop. 215, the corporate cartelization of cannabis and an expanded black market, they’re right. We’ve come a long way from the days of speculation about what could happen under Prop. 19. Now we have our first examples of what will happen. In spite of what it claims to do, this initiative is a Pandora’s Box of unintended consequences whose effects will be extremely difficult to undo if we vote yes on Prop. 19.

Prop. 19’s main objective is to remove the criminal-record stigma of marijuana possession. But in October, California’s recreational pot smokers scored a huge victory. Gov. Schwarzenegger signed a bill that downgraded the status of possession of 1 oz or less from a “non-arrestable, non-jailable misdemeanor” that was punishable with a $100 fine to a mere “infraction”--like driving above the speed limit--which carries with it no criminal-record stigma. That means Californians may now possess up to one ounce without getting arrested, without going to jail, without getting a criminal record, and without being excluded from federal student aid and other government programs. So, of Prop. 19’s two objectives, California has already independently achieved one.

However, voting yes on Prop. 19 would actually create new prohibitions on possession, whereas the new infraction status does not. This is because Prop. 19 wouldn’t legalize possession outright. Instead it would make some cannabis “lawful” and other cannabis “unlawful,” depending on where you buy it. The new infraction status does not make such distinctions; it doesn’t matter where you buy it, if you have 1 oz. or less, it’s not a crime. So, by prohibiting possession of marijuana that was not “obtained lawfully,” Prop. 19 would actually be more restrictive than the infraction law would be.

Section 11301(g) states:

Prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300.

(The key words being, “[c]annabis that was not obtained lawfully…”)

According to the initiative, a person who can “lawfully” provide cannabis is “a person pursuant to this section or section 11300.” And who is “a person pursuant to section 11300?”

Section 11300 (i): ...a person who is licensed or permitted to do so [sell marijuana] under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301.


Thus, the initiative’s exact words—“prohibit and punish... the possession... of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully... from a person who is licensed or permitted to do so”—mean exactly this: It will be against the law to possess marijuana that was purchased anywhere other than a licensed dispensary—effectively making it illegal to buy from the black market, even though that is not against the law now. Believe it or not, it is not a crime to buy marijuana in California. Your dealer could get busted for selling it, but you couldn’t get busted for buying it. You can’t even get busted for having it as long as it’s one ounce or less. But if Prop. 19 passes, possessing marijuana you bought off your dealer would make you a criminal.

Given the small cultivation space allowed and the high taxes you’d be required to pay to have it (see Rancho Cordova below), coupled with the fact that countless cities would opt-out of legalization and not allow legal outlets for you to buy weed, it is highly likely that the vast majority of cannabis consumers would continue buying from the black market. By prohibiting the purchase of black-market marijuana, not only does Prop. 19 set the industry up to be monopolized, but it sets most of us up to run afoul of the law—even though currently there is no law on the books in California that prohibits buying cannabis. Will you vote to make yourself a criminal under legalization?
Here are a couple of links detailing the pitfalls. Do you really want to trust local governments to follow the so called intent of this law?
http://palmspringsbum.org/blog/2010/07/californias-proposition-19-will-supersede-or-amend-its-medical-marijuana-laws/

http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/