What is the "legalization" we all agree on?

[Ernst]

I thought to open it up and yes I have my own agenda so I'm biased but let us toss this beach ball around.

What is the base or bottom line kinds of "legalization" we all will support?

On the term Legalization I am not differentiating Legalization from Regulation for the purpose of conversation.

What is the minimum set of rights and responsibilities we will all agree on?

 

[Ernst]

My agenda is the "private Horticulture, Protected use and private non-commercial trade."

Private Horticulture : In that The ability to grow breed and improve cannabis as a private citizen.
Protected Use : To not be fired or discriminated against legally for simple use of cannabis.
Non-Commercial Trade : To share seeds, to share produce including but not limited to derived things such as foods , oils and hash, to simply trade or gift with others in a non-commercial way.

The way I see things is our Medical people are walking on air. They have no foundation to build a commercial foundation on.

We may well allow Dispensaries but we are not doing this all over the State so we are no where near uniform in freedoms we are supposed to have already. By All of us joining together we can draft an Initiative that will have the most support.

That's my pitch on a base set.

What is yours?

 

[MrBosco]

I'm of two minds on this. I personally favour complete legalisation of private growing and use, and the regulation and taxation of commercial production and sale. I believe that regulating cannabis in the same manner as alcohol and tobacco is the only credible way to take cannabis off the black market and take all proceeds out of the hands of criminals. Taxation of locally-produced cannabis would have several positive economic effects, particularly in my own jurisdiction where most cannabis is imported illegally from North Africa and the Middle East.

Complete legalisation would also break the link between cannabis and other illegal drugs. If you no longer have to seek out drug dealers to buy cannabis then you're less likely to come into contact with those who sell more harmful drugs. That cannabis is widely thought of as a 'gateway drug' is to my mind purely due to the shady contacts a person (or group of people) has to make in order to buy cannabis. If cannabis were as easy to obtain as alcohol then I believe today's teenagers would be less likely to be using cocaine and heroin in 10-20 years time, and the experience of the Netherlands seems to bear this out.

On the other hand, if you ask for too much you won't get anything, and so I see the drive for medicinal cannabis usage as a useful stepping-stone to wider acceptance, and ultimately to complete legalisation. Anything that moves toward a credible cannabis policy is a good thing.

 

[Ernst]

Ah but you offer 4 points of position from what I read.
1.) Legalize private
2.) Regulate industry
3.) Pro-"legalization" but,
4.) Default Medical improvement,

Did I read that well?

If that is fair then I feel your position is one of protect what gains we have made and if that is correct then I agree that is a very very valid option to consider.

A safe solid small step forward is still a step forward.

----------------------------------

Our California reality is there is and has been a friction of those counties that voted no on prop 215 and those that did. It may be called a fracture in the political foundation.

I would agree with the goal of solidifying the Medical rights. I'd love to see protections against employment discrimination. I mean if one can be openly Gay in the military now when will the Stoner get the right to hang out in the open?

Nice post.

 

[MrBosco]

Correct. I want to see cannabis legalised and taxed in a manner similar to alcohol, but I don't believe the general population of most western countries would accept complete legalisation at this time. There is too much paranoia surrounding 'drugs' and so long as those who are not familiar with cannabis see it in the same light as other illegal substances it will be impossible to gain broad political support for complete legalisation. That said, immediate de-criminalisation for medicinal use is achievable, difficult to argue against, and once implemented it allows medicinal users to speak freely about their experience with cannabis without the fear of prosecution. Such freedom helps to dispel irrational belief that cannabis is used only by 'hippies and weirdos' and that it leads to harder drugs. Wider understanding brings wider acceptance, and paves the way for further de-criminalisation along the lines of current arrangements in the Netherlands.

The end-game in my view though must be complete legalisation/regulation and taxation. In the Netherlands there is still a significant black market surrounding cannabis as the law there simply doesn't go far enough to bring cannabis out of the dark. Where it may be difficult or impossible to gain political support for complete legalisation at this time, it is inevitable once irrational fear and paranoia are removed from the argument. Every small step in the right direction is valuable, and in time will lead to a political climate where legalisation is widely seen for what it is - plain common sense.

 

[ford442]

i believe in regulation basically exactly like alcohol.

that is what i consider 'legalization' to mean - i don't think that anyone would vote for children having free, unrestricted access and that is where we draw the line, no?

in california i can brew 100 gallons of beer by myself and since there are 2 or more adults in the household - we can make 200 gallons per calendar year. that sound to me like i should be able to grow enough to last me until the next year which should be quite a few plants per person. maybe we can agree not to do more than say 50 per person and never sell it - just like alcohol.

 

[hazorazo]

To keep it simple, I believe in weed like wine. You can make wine yourself, at home, totally legal. To sell wine, you have to go through the proper channels.

The main thing different from wine that I think every state should do is require dispensaries where marijuana is sold, not to be sold in supermarkets, convenience stores (maybe weak joints)........if we require dispensaries to be licensed by each state, they can be regulated accordingly, and have to comply with state laws. By having private ownership (or even a non profit model) of competing dispensaries, we will see more jobs created this way.....instead of giving the right to sell marijuana to pre-existing stores like liquor stores or supermarkets.....that's just my opinion......

They might create more growing jobs by limiting plants for grow ops to 100 plants......so if demand increases, another great grow job is created.....and keeps the threat of huge out of control operations making so much money that they control the industry.....like walmart.

 

[cannabineer]

I would be chary of not including commercial trade. Commerce is money, and money, power. Through commerce the cannabis community develops a voice that cannot be ignored. Jmo. cn

 

[ford442]

well - at first the supply of regulated, inspected, taxed marijuana would be pretty slim - not enough for every gas station and market to sell prepackaged bud.. but, when things ramped up i don't see why they cannot get a license to sell. we will simply not buy monsanto weed or any pot that has been touched by the hand of genetic alteration or radiation. there will be plenty of jobs created in the growing and processing of the stuff to worry about shopkeepers - there will also always be coffee shops like in amsterdam - no reason that specialty shops can't co-exist.

but, i hope this can all happen soon! did the feds just push us back five steps with the crackdown? my county is now considering things like a complete ban on growing or limiting to 6 plants behind a 6 foot fence.....

 

[Ernst]

I had thought about a permit system for growing.

Say that I wish to have a garden. If I have say 4 plants or less and am a legal adult then no permit is required.
If I wish to grow more say grow out 20 or so for breeding purposes then I would need a permit.

I thought this would be the regulation we could benefit from.

I thought that 1. paying for a permit generates revenue for the State and 2. permits help law enforcement deal with policing illegal gardens. 3. The desire to stay legal keeps us more honest in how we deal with Cannabis.

Taxes on Home Grown will be hard to collect. Sales Tax is the domain of commerce and if there was Permit, Medical and Sales Tax That would cover it I'd think.

I don't know how a permit system will work with the Feds but anything we do is in the face of the Feds and it has to be if we want change.

What do you all think of the permit suggestion?

 

[Ernst]

Did the feds just push us back five steps with the crackdown? my county is now considering things like a complete ban on growing or limiting to 6 plants behind a 6 foot fence.....

Something is afoot!

So far I read that many have letters. I assume this emboldens those who are still fighting any sort of dispensary in some counties.
The U.S. Attorneys for California have announced a crackdown on purportedly "big canna-business" One bust near here connected two "dispensaries" with a warehouse grow op so that is possibly an example of commercial production and supply.

It's time for us all to look at this issue clearly.

Is it possible that many have inched their way well over the line of members growing and sharing their cannabis? I would believe that it is possible.

 

[SisterMaryElephant]

Part of the "crackdown" problem is due to members of our own community that abuse the medical exemption and everyone in California knows how easy it is to get a rec. Even real patients are suspected of having a "hangnail" *wink*wink* excuse. I know a LOT of patients that have to explain, "No, really, I'm a legitimate patient." That abuse, increased demand and high profit margin still make it tempting to run large operations. Unfortuantely, dispensary prices are often higher than street prices. That's very tempting for growers that can produce commecial quantities.

Permits will never work for the same reasons that current laws don't stop people from growing now. Commercial sales could be regulated, taxed and controlled to some degree.

One concession that I'd be willing to accept is an increase in the penalty for sales to minors, in exchange for decriminizing recreational use for adults. Make it so bad that nobody is going to risk selling to minors so that will stop the "psst, hey mister" sales. When they become adults they can make their own choices.

YMMV...

 

[maineyankee]

I like the permit aspect ... Like you said, it would regulate the amount grown locally and add income to the coffers. The only drawback is that all records of a municipal are then public records. So everyone in the area would know what Joe Smith is doing at 234 Main Street. I don't know how you could get that off "the books" where it would be open to the public.

The MaineYankee

 

[Ernst]

Medical are on the books.

It seems to be okay. I haven't read of it being a problem for Medical people. Is that public record?

Maybe it isn't such a big threat.

I agree that to move forward we have to be brave and take risks. I post under my real name on all my efforts now and have for a couple of years.

The permit system seems to be something we can consider for the future.

 

[wayno30]

legal for everyone around the world........thats what i want.......

 

[ford442]

i guess if you want to be a commercial grower - it is going to be about as discreet as having a vineyard - you'll want to have good security, but then you won't worry about keeping that discreet.

 

[Girdweed]

I enjoy the Alaska method, though I would like to see the possession limits more liberalized. Current rules: no more than 25 plants, possess no more than 4 ozs useable product @ 1 time, all must be on your private property.

I would prefer to up the possession limit substantially. The 4 oz limit makes growing and harvesting a perpetual cycle. It would also be nice to transport without worry of a $50 citation.

 

[desert dude]

I would be quite content to see marijuana treated exactly as alcohol is treated. Let the government dip their beak and collect some taxes. Let stores sell MJ with the same regulations as alcohol. Let manufacturers produce and compete in the market just like brewers do today. let citizens grow their own in the same way that citizens can brew their own beer.

 

[Dan Kone]

I had thought about a permit system for growing.

Say that I wish to have a garden. If I have say 4 plants or less and am a legal adult then no permit is required.
If I wish to grow more say grow out 20 or so for breeding purposes then I would need a permit.

So you'd need to tell the police where you are growing in order to grow 5 or more plants?

Why not just separate commercial and personal growing? I totally agree with having a permit process for commercial growing, but 5 plants isn't a commercial grow.

I thought this would be the regulation we could benefit from.

What's the benefit?

I thought that 1. paying for a permit generates revenue for the State and 2. permits help law enforcement deal with policing illegal gardens. 3. The desire to stay legal keeps us more honest in how we deal with Cannabis.

It also tells law enforcement exactly where every grow is. The FEDs could efficiently bust as many people as they wanted without having to spend the resources to find out where the grows are. Personally, I don't trust the police with information like that. Too much potential for abuse.

Taxes on Home Grown will be hard to collect. Sales Tax is the domain of commerce and if there was Permit, Medical and Sales Tax That would cover it I'd think.

But aren't you advocating non-commercial sales only? There would be no taxes if that's the case.

I don't know how a permit system will work with the Feds but anything we do is in the face of the Feds and it has to be if we want change.

In mendo, people who've cooperated with the sheriff's zip tie registration system have now become easy targets for the feds. They are exploiting people's willingness to be legal and using that to throw them in prison. The feds don't care if we want to do things the right way, they just want to bust as many people as possible. A permit system on personal grows would make all the fed's dreams come true.

 

[Dan Kone]

Part of the "crackdown" problem is due to members of our own community that abuse the medical exemption

The real problem is that it's cannabis and police like to bust people. It doesn't matter what people do, cops will still want to make their busts. Some of the clubs being busted are clubs with extremely good reputations in the community that have the full support of local government.

This isn't about people misbehaving. This is about medical cannabis cutting into pharmaceutical corporate profits. There are no circumstances where medical cannabis is acceptable to the FEDS. If you recall, the FEDS were busting aids patients for medical cannabis not to long ago.