Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012

Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012 has a few things going for it that make it appealing vs. RMLW:
-- Age limit (19 years old)
-- No Anti-GMO
-- No prohibition on commercial advertising
-- Attempts to ensure that 3 lbs. of marijuana isn't considered commercial amounts (although it's debated whether the amount would matter with RMLW).


However, there are a few items that make RMLW more appealing, in my opinion:
-- Taxation limits: sets a fee and tax cap on marijuana to no more than wine.
-- Regulates Commercial Activity Like Wine (Currently, it's a $100 fee to get a Winegrowers license), as opposed to a high-fee, over-regulated industry.
-- No definition of impairment. RCP's definition of impairment is arguably broad. Currently, a DUI conviction for drugs requires a 12-point test be conducted, and is relatively hard to convict someone for such violation (in comparison to alcohol). RMLW would not change the effect of current provisions, or court rulings.
-- No mandate for the creation of a new state agency/commission, which would cost money (meaning a justification for higher taxes). All regulations would, at first, be handled by the ABC.
-- RCP increases the penalties for underage possession to a potential misdemeanor (with up to a year in jail), while RMLW makes everything civil violations. We do not need to spend money incarcerating underage users, and the current wording leaves room for interpretation by local governments.
-- RMLW explicitly differentiates between industrial hemp and commercial marijuana.


Notwithstanding the aforementioned positive impacts of RCP, RMLW would protect both consumers and producers in a way that positively benefits the state.

Originally Posted by GreenDevil420

Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012 has a few things going for it that make it appealing vs. RMLW:
-- Age limit (19 years old)
-- No Anti-GMO
-- No prohibition on commercial advertising
-- Attempts to ensure that 3 lbs. of marijuana isn't considered commercial amounts (although it's debated whether the amount would matter with RMLW).


However, there are a few items that make RMLW more appealing, in my opinion:
-- Taxation limits: sets a fee and tax cap on marijuana to no more than wine.
-- Regulates Commercial Activity Like Wine (Currently, it's a $100 fee to get a Winegrowers license), as opposed to a high-fee, over-regulated industry.
-- No definition of impairment. RCP's definition of impairment is arguably broad. Currently, a DUI conviction for drugs requires a 12-point test be conducted, and is relatively hard to convict someone for such violation (in comparison to alcohol). RMLW would not change the effect of current provisions, or court rulings.
-- No mandate for the creation of a new state agency/commission, which would cost money (meaning a justification for higher taxes). All regulations would, at first, be handled by the ABC.
-- RCP increases the penalties for underage possession to a potential misdemeanor (with up to a year in jail), while RMLW makes everything civil violations. We do not need to spend money incarcerating underage users, and the current wording leaves room for interpretation by local governments.
-- RMLW explicitly differentiates between industrial hemp and commercial marijuana.


Notwithstanding the aforementioned positive impacts of RCP, RMLW would protect both consumers and producers in a way that positively benefits the state.

good points. I plan to vote yes on both of them. With RMLW, we can remove the anti-GMO clause with a subsequent proposition. I think the anti-GMO clause is in the proposition to appease the tin-foil hat crowd, and we need every vote we can get.