# Proposition 19 CA



## Dr.Darkheart (Jul 25, 2010)

A whole lot of people dont relize what will happen if Cannabis became legal. The first thing I have to say to readers of this post is please vote no.

All of the strains that are so good will be lost. A company such as Marlboro would try to buy everything out. This proposition is bad for every medical patient, and every pot smoker in California. Pesticide would be used and theres so much more..So for the yes voters, research this proposition more! Thank you for reading!


----------



## T.H.Cammo (Jul 25, 2010)

Why do you think that would happen? The huge corporations already produce much more of everything than all the little guys put together! But I, and you, and everybody else still have the right to make whatever we want (within reason). All those good strains you talk about are already "out there", we have them, why do you think Philip Morris could take them away? It doesn't make any sense - it's just paranoia!

Read this link: http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/co...bis-Initiative . This is what Marc Emory has to say about California's Prop 19. If anybody understands the Cannibis Culture it's Mark Emory! The only good reason to vote against Prop 19 is to keep the _Status Quo_, that is to keep the money and power where it is now.

You're the one that needs to open your eyes and do some real research!


----------



## Keenly2 (Jul 25, 2010)

im getting kind of tired of signing on every day and seeing thread after thread after thread of people TELLING me how to vote

ill make my own decision while voting thanks


----------



## Sure Shot (Jul 25, 2010)

*




*

&#8220;I Gots Mine&#8221;: Dispensary Owners Against Marijuana Legalization
Wed, 14 Jul 2010 22:56:36 By: Russ Belville, NORML Outreach Coordinator



Yesterday on our daily webcast for NORML we interviewed Dale Sky Clare, a spokesperson for Proposition 19, the initiative that will ask Californians to vote on a very limited form of marijuana legalization. We discussed the latest polling on the initiative from SurveyUSA, showing a 50%-to-40% lead for the measure.
We dug through the demographics to find that older and more conservative people are the only groups more likely to oppose the measure (no, really?), support is greatest among the young and in the Bay Area (who knew?), and support among comedians named &#8220;Cheech&#8221; or &#8220;Chong&#8221; is approaching 100% (OK, I made the last one up.)
But there is one growing demographic group that no poll has begun to track: medical marijuana dispensary owners.
Since the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Initiative was mercifully truncated to a headline-friendly &#8220;Prop 19&#8243; by virtue of making it on the California ballot, I have been tracking on our NORML Stash Blog the stories of dispensary owners who are publicly opposing the legalization of the product they sell, even shelling out money they&#8217;ve made from selling marijuana to oppose its legalization!
Paul Jury just posted _Legalize It? Ask a Guy Who Runs a Medicinal __marijuana Dispensary_ in which he speaks to Craig, a dispensary owner in Venice Beach, who is also opposed to Prop 19:&#8220;I&#8217;ll give you two reasons,&#8221; Craig said. &#8220;One is big tobacco. Did you know that Phillip Morris just bought 400 acres of land up in Northern California? The minute marijuana becomes legal, they&#8217;ll mass produce and flood the market. And of course, they&#8217;ll add the same toxins they put in regular cigarettes to get you addicted, and very little THC, so you&#8217;ll have to buy more&#8230; In short, they&#8217;re going to ruin weed.&#8221; He gestured around his beloved shop, with every flavor of every strain, in its purist form, selling for at-cost prices. &#8220;I like the way things are now.&#8221;​




Gee, there seems to be a whole lot of different "strains" of beer, even in Los Angeles!

Remember how alcohol prohibition ended in the 1930&#8217;s (probably not, but indulge me) and Anheuser, Busch, Coors, and Miller flooded the market with 3.2 beer and ruined alcohol? Wouldn&#8217;t it be nice if we could go to shops with every flavor of every micro-brew, in its purest form&#8230; oh, wait, I live in Portland, Oregon, the micro-brew capital of America and that&#8217;s what we have right now under alcohol legalization!
We have every flavor and potency of beer you can imagine plus people can go buy a kit and brew their own beer if they like. And there is wine, too, with a huge tourist industry that depends on people checking out vineyards and tasting endless varieties of vino. And there is whiskey, rum, tequila, vodka, brandy, and even super-potent Everclear in some states, all in their purest form, which is to say that used responsibly they won&#8217;t make you blind like a tub of Prohibition moonshine might.
The &#8220;Philip Morris / RJ Reynolds Toxic Addictive High-less marijuana Market Flood&#8221; scare has been floating around the cannabis community like a stale hit of schwag for decades now. It&#8217;s a form of conspiracy theory thinking embraced by the kind of people who think you could plant 40,000 lbs. of explosives surreptitiously in a busy World Trade Center or convince all the world&#8217;s scientists and a very large soundstage crew to keep quiet about that faked moon landing for four decades. Here&#8217;s why it&#8217;s stupid:


Prop 19 allows you to grow your own. If Philip Morris&#8217; weed sucks, you&#8217;ll smoke your own or your friend&#8217;s.
Prop 19 allows cities to consider sales. Bad toxic Philip Morris weed is the kind of competition a purveyor of hand-trimmed, non-keifed*, organic high-potency bud would want, wouldn&#8217;t she?
Prop 19 allows cities to regulate production. They can dictate exactly what is or isn&#8217;t added to cannabis, how much is produced, by whom, and where.
In order for Philip Morris to sell their weed, somebody has to want to smoke it. Nothing about Prop 19 makes Prop 215 or the dispensaries go away. In fact, it gives the existing dispensaries the potential to serve even more customers. So who&#8217;s buying this toxic addictive high-less marijuana?
 Actually, it worked quite well if your goal is to build large profitable murderous criminal enterprises...

No, if you want to really understand what is going on here, look back to that alcohol prohibition and ask yourself how excited Al Capone was reading the headlines trumpeting its imminent repeal. It&#8217;s not a perfect analogy, as Capone was a murderous criminal thug and these dispensary owners are law-abiding businesspeople. And yes, dispensary owners, like Craig, often help destitute cancer patients for free, though one could counter that Capone and his gangs gave out free turkeys on Thanksgiving. My main point is that both are businesspeople dealing in a prohibited product.
Or just look back to the article on Craig:He gestured around his beloved shop, with every flavor of every strain, in its purist form, selling for at-cost prices. &#8220;I like the way things are now.&#8221;
&#8220;Last month,&#8221; Craig explained proudly, &#8220;there were 24 operating marijuana collectives in Venice. A month from now, there will only be two. And we&#8217;ll be one of them.&#8221; With that, he opened the door to the inner sanctum. The &#8220;product&#8221; room.​Discount Relief Collective at this year's "Spring Gathering" in San Bernardino, advertising "Nothing over $45 / eighth. $15 for all grams."

Now, if you ran a business where you could sell your product for $5-$15 per GRAM or $200 to $800 per OUNCE, and you only had to compete with one other business in your local area, would you be excited about the prospect of many more competitors and prices dropping as much as 80%? Most of your customers already got their Prop 215 recommendation, so it isn&#8217;t as if legalization is going to bring you enough additional customers to offset the change in business margins.
Prop 19 means that marijuana retailers become more like other retail businesses, instead of the loosely-regulated turnkey goldmines they have been. That&#8217;s what Craig doesn&#8217;t like. Well, that and kids smoking pot:&#8220;Two, legalization will mean more fifteen-year-old kids smoking pot. &#8230; If they legalize marijuana, there&#8217;s no chance that fewer 15-year-olds will smoke. And there&#8217;s a good chance that more will. Anything that will probably make more 15-year-olds put substances in their bodies, in my opinion, is a bad thing.&#8221;​Really, the &#8220;What About the Children?!?&#8221; argument? Right now, under prohibition, 85% of high school seniors and 69% of sophomores (a.k.a. fifteen-year-olds) find it easy to get weed. Right now, under prohibition, kids say it is easier to buy marijuana than alcohol. So it appears to me that locking up healthy adults for their marijuana use hasn&#8217;t really done much to stop teens from getting and using pot. How about we try letting adults smoke a joint, and when they go to buy it, they buy it from a regulated shop where only adults are let in and all IDs are rigorously checked, you know, like that alcohol kids find harder to buy.
More 15-year-olds smoke pot than tobacco... because we've really succeeded in preventing tobacco use among teens... and we didn't lock up a single adult to achieve this!

Besides, there is no reason to believe that youth use will increase. Since California passed Prop 215 in 1996, the regime Craig likes now, teen use of marijuana has decreased. Prop 19 makes the penalty for supplying weed to those under 21 as stringent as supplying alcohol to those under 21. And we&#8217;ve seen teen use of tobacco, a legal substance far cheaper and more addictive than marijuana, plummet in the past ten years through education, advertising restriction, social disapproval (no indoor smoking, for example) and strict ID requirements.
Craig and the other dispensary owners who oppose Prop 19 are the &#8220;I Gots Mine&#8221; element of the anti-legalization campaign. They&#8217;ve got the corner on a retail market worth billions, one that is only worth billions if you arrest 850,000 mostly-black-and-brown adults a year for participating in it. They&#8217;ve got their doctors happy to take a Benjamin or two to give you permission to use a drug safer than the aspirin you need no permission for. I wouldn&#8217;t want people to vote to change that, either&#8230;
&#8230;except that I think it&#8217;s just immoral to arrest people for smoking weed if we&#8217;re going to leave them alone when drinking alcohol. I don&#8217;t care if it is profitable to the state or detrimental to the dispensary industry &#8211; arrests for marijuana are wrong, period.
_*&#8221;Kiefed&#8221; means to shake loose the crystals of THC from the product before packaging for sale. The crystals, or &#8220;kief&#8221; are collected and smoked or vaporized, and, being THC crystals, are very effective. Philip Morris will certainly need to use huge machines to process weed, which will certainly shake loose a lot of kief. One grower friend of mine says he will advertise for his prized buds with the slogan &#8220;Don&#8217;t let &#8216;em thief the kief!&#8221;_​


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 25, 2010)

Dr.Darkheart said:


> A whole lot of people dont relize what will happen if Cannabis became legal. The first thing I have to say to readers of this post is please vote no.
> 
> All of the strains that are so good will be lost. A company such as Marlboro would try to buy everything out. This proposition is bad for every medical patient, and every pot smoker in California. Pesticide would be used and theres so much more..So for the yes voters, research this proposition more! Thank you for reading!


Please refer to Post #4...read it...in fact get a buddy to help you understand it in case it becomes a bit challenging. Then we can continue this discussion.


----------



## brickedup417 (Jul 25, 2010)

&#8220;I&#8217;ll give you two reasons,&#8221; Craig said. &#8220;One is big tobacco. Did you know that Phillip Morris just bought 400 acres of land up in Northern California?

i just said this a couple days ago and everyone said i was a liar.....just wanted to clear my name yay
and im voting no, but everyone has a right to vote whatever they think is right so happy growing.


----------



## Keenly2 (Jul 25, 2010)

seriously the OP is just trying to fear monger


it doesnt even make sense either, all good strains will just be wiped off the face of the earth huh?


----------



## brickedup417 (Jul 25, 2010)

haha this is great news im going to smoke a bowl of some blackberry kush with my monsters hahaha...everyone is so quick to respond negatively when they cant find the proof and poof right when ya need it, sureshot thank you, damn i might hafta add this to my signature this is just to good.


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 25, 2010)

brickedup417 said:


> &#8220;I&#8217;ll give you two reasons,&#8221; Craig said. &#8220;One is big tobacco. Did you know that Phillip Morris just bought 400 acres of land up in Northern California?
> 
> i just said this a couple days ago and everyone said i was a liar.....just wanted to clear my name yay
> and im voting no, but everyone has a right to vote whatever they think is right so happy growing.


Just another sheep in the crowd scarfing down the propaganda of greedy individuals. BTW Brickd, I'm still waiting for a link or something to a credible source of information regarding Phillip Morris. I think its time to lay that to rest.


----------



## brickedup417 (Jul 25, 2010)

a webcast from norml is about as credible as its gonna get dont you think? oh you wer one of the ones that called me names for it , facts are faacts and norml is just that. and prop 19 aside im not mad i just wanted to say yay im glad someone that is creadible backed this up.


----------



## SouthernGanja (Jul 25, 2010)

We needed another prop 19 thread. sure


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 25, 2010)

brickedup417 said:


> a webcast from norml is about as credible as its gonna get dont you think? oh you wer one of the ones that called me names for it , facts are faacts and norml is just that


Which webcast are you referring to specifically? Date? Speaker?


----------



## brickedup417 (Jul 25, 2010)

Yesterday on our daily webcast for NORML we interviewed Dale Sky Clare, a spokesperson for Proposition 19, the initiative that will ask Californians to vote on a very limited form of marijuana legalization. We discussed the latest polling on the initiative from SurveyUSA, showing a 50%-to-40% lead for the measure.
We dug through the demographics to find that older and more conservative people are the only groups more likely to oppose the measure (no, really?), support is greatest among the young and in the Bay Area (who knew?), and support among comedians named &#8220;Cheech&#8221; or &#8220;Chong&#8221; is approaching 100% (OK, I made the last one up.)
But there is one growing demographic group that no poll has begun to track: medical marijuana dispensary owners.
Since the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Initiative was mercifully truncated to a headline-friendly &#8220;Prop 19&#8243; by virtue of making it on the California ballot, I have been tracking on our NORML Stash Blog the stories of dispensary owners who are publicly opposing the legalization of the product they sell, even shelling out money they&#8217;ve made from selling marijuana to oppose its legalization!
Paul Jury just posted _Legalize It? Ask a Guy Who Runs a Medicinal __marijuana Dispensary_ in which he speaks to Craig, a dispensary owner in Venice Beach, who is also opposed to Prop 19: 
&#8220;I&#8217;ll give you two reasons,&#8221; Craig said. &#8220;One is big tobacco. Did you know that Phillip Morris just bought 400 acres of land up in Northern California? The minute marijuana becomes legal, they&#8217;ll mass produce and flood the market. And of course, they&#8217;ll add the same toxins they put in regular cigarettes to get you addicted, and very little THC, so you&#8217;ll have to buy more&#8230; In short, they&#8217;re going to ruin weed.&#8221; He gestured around his beloved shop, with every flavor of every strain, in its purist form, selling for at-cost prices. &#8220;I like the way things are now.&#8221; originally posted by sureshot



and yes im 24 and i can vote.​


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 25, 2010)

brickedup417 said:


> Yesterday on our daily webcast for NORML we interviewed Dale Sky Clare, a spokesperson for Proposition 19, the initiative that will ask Californians to vote on a very limited form of marijuana legalization. We discussed the latest polling on the initiative from SurveyUSA, showing a 50%-to-40% lead for the measure.
> We dug through the demographics to find that older and more conservative people are the only groups more likely to oppose the measure (no, really?), support is greatest among the young and in the Bay Area (who knew?), and support among comedians named &#8220;Cheech&#8221; or &#8220;Chong&#8221; is approaching 100% (OK, I made the last one up.)
> But there is one growing demographic group that no poll has begun to track: medical marijuana dispensary owners.
> Since the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Initiative was mercifully truncated to a headline-friendly &#8220;Prop 19&#8243; by virtue of making it on the California ballot, I have been tracking on our NORML Stash Blog the stories of dispensary owners who are publicly opposing the legalization of the product they sell, even shelling out money they&#8217;ve made from selling marijuana to oppose its legalization!
> ...


What you have just presented is a quote made by this grower "Craig". Not a claim or confirmation by NORML. Are you even old enough to vote???


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 25, 2010)

How would the passing of Proposition 19 DIRECTLY affect you? Hurt you financially? Please explain.


----------



## ford442 (Jul 25, 2010)

so this thread is not about prop 19, but about pro-marijuana anti-legalization? i don't see any real big downsides to legalization in general.. prop 19 may have some big compromises, but i believe in full legalization and regulation.. my main points have already been made - thanks Sure Shot.. even if Monsanto starts making pesticide ridden mutant weed - it occurs to me that most stoners will not stand for it... we will simply not buy it and raise a stink until weed is left poison free..


----------



## raverguy (Jul 25, 2010)

Keenly2 said:


> seriously the OP is just trying to fear monger
> 
> 
> it doesnt even make sense either, all good strains will just be wiped off the face of the earth huh?


lol cuz big tobacco is gonna come to ur house and rape u as they steal those seeds u have. lol


----------



## ford442 (Jul 25, 2010)

How do you think they got all the good strains in Holland? They raped eastern europe until they had them all..


----------



## raverguy (Jul 25, 2010)

yeah but they did not take them away, they simply "borrowed" and "tuned" them for everyone else to use.... for a nominal fee


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 25, 2010)

OK... how about we don't need Prop 19.

Prop 19 is far from our only chance:

http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/alert/?alertid=15196711

We don't need centralized distribution channels, we don't need an irrational vice tax and we certainly don't need or want those same taxes to be used to fund new regulatory actions which is exactly where the taxes collected by Prop 19 go. Not to the California economy, but to fund regulatory efforts. Meanwhile, the average small or medium grower has been putting money back into local economies through products and services bought, paying taxes and rent, through the same everyday activities that anyone else does. We're also the ones that go to jail for cannabis. Not you. As it stands now in California law, for the same ounce that everyone is going on and on about, you would be charged with the only misdemeanor in the state that doesn't incur jail time. You have to go to court, pay a fine and you have to take a class to keep your record clear. Inconveniences all that disappear with SB 1449, except the fine. Prop 19 is the real fear-mongering platform. Selling the people a package of new taxes and restrictions for rights that they already have and could stand to lose given the propensity of law enforcement and conservative government official to abusively misinterpret ambiguous law, speaks for itself as to the true intent of the man behind this initiative and those who'd so willingly hand him the reins. Those who want to make a real difference, please contact your State Assembly-person and tell them how important it is that they move forward on SB 1449.


----------



## Tagh (Jul 25, 2010)

I don't care for the idea of legal marijuana, nor do I care for it being medicinally legal. Makes it seem like an oxicodone, perks, or lorazepams. To me anyways.
Its a multi billion dollar industry as it is and for those who have a head on their shoulders, they know how to keep their nose clean.
The goverment is already getting their cut anyways, why let them take more?


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 25, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> OK... how about we don't need Prop 19.
> 
> Prop 19 is far from our only chance:
> 
> ...


We shouldn't have to pay anything for possessing less than an ounce. So while I applaud the efforts of SB 1449 in further paving the way to a somewhat "rational" way to handle these "offenses", it still does not legalize small amounts the way that Prop 19 does.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 26, 2010)

drherbalist said:


> We shouldn't have to pay anything for possessing less than an ounce. So while I applaud the efforts of SB 1449 in further paving the way to a somewhat "rational" way to handle these "offenses", it still does not legalize small amounts the way that Prop 19 does.


That's fantastically logically inconsistent. Thank you. You don't want to pay for possessing less than an ounce, but you're suggesting that Prop 19, the *TAX* and Regulate Cannabis Act, is a better idea over diversion, which you only need and have to pay for AFTER the fact that you've been busted and charged. Prop 19 doesn't give any more freedoms or legalize pot anymore than it is already. The only thing it does is right in the title... add taxes and regulation to an existing network of localized and regionalized industries that is already providing jobs for hundreds of thousands of full and part-time workers and feeding money back into the communities where they reside.


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 26, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> That's fantastically logically inconsistent. Thank you. You don't want to pay for possessing less than an ounce, but you're suggesting that Prop 19, the *TAX* and Regulate Cannabis Act, is a better idea over diversion, which you only need and have to pay for AFTER the fact that you've been busted and charged. Prop 19 doesn't give any more freedoms or legalize pot anymore than it is already. The only thing it does is right in the title... add taxes and regulation to an existing network of localized and regionalized industries that is already providing jobs for hundreds of thousands of full and part-time workers and feeding money back into the communities where they reside.


How is that inconsistent? My statement was that we should not have to pay for the possession....as in if busted by cops and they were to find less than an ounce on a person, that would even be a fine. That is the part I was referring to.

What freedoms are you talking about pot already? It is still illegal in California unless you're a medical patient. So all those that are not medical patients can still be arrested and prosecuted under the current state law.

Finally, why should the "existing network of localized and regionalized industries" be able to get away with tax evasion when it comes to the income they generate selling their marijuana? Isn't that what is happening right now?


----------



## brickedup417 (Jul 26, 2010)

more and more people are realizeing that this is b/s in cali, im starting to see hydro stores and alott of people with vote no signs. The collective i go to every few days is pushing vote no hard. There are to many famillys in nor cal that depend on mmj to survive with our horrible economy. I wouldnt be supprised if it gets voted against, i mean every grower i know i pushing the vote no.


----------



## brickedup417 (Jul 26, 2010)

and drherbalist youve been on my case about credibility for days were are your garden shotts since your so involved in the mmj scene?


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 26, 2010)

brickedup417 said:


> more and more people are realizeing that this is b/s in cali, im starting to see hydro stores and alott of people with vote no signs. The collective i go to every few days is pushing vote no hard. There are to many famillys in nor cal that depend on mmj to survive with our horrible economy. I wouldnt be supprised if it gets voted against, i mean every grower i know i pushing the vote no.


How will Prop 19 threaten those families?


----------



## brickedup417 (Jul 26, 2010)

it resticts every house to a 5x5 grow area not per script or person, one 5x5 area per house. I dont know if you live in cali or not but our economy and employment is crap, mmj is the only income most of those familys have, people here take pride in theyre growing and dont want to have to compete with companys like marlboro who will just ruin marijuana, call it unfair or whatever you want but with our employment rate you take away mmj income and most people are fkd.....this bill will probaly not pass


and what about this credibilty stuff, i wanna see some of your gaeden photos you have so much knowledge you must know alott about mmj.


----------



## boofin (Jul 26, 2010)

Im sorry if I seem ignorant here but I have to weigh in

The current system in place in Cali allows "patients" to be in possession. Prop 19 allows any adult to be in posession and grow ( a little). So the small farmers are worried because they are going to loose $

Im am in now way a fan of big business. I dislike big business in every way I can describe but the end is still the end. there are people who are abusing the Medical system. This is a factor in preventing those Patients in other states from gaining the legal ability to purchase or cultivate medicine.

So financially speaking, the small growers are going to suffer. From a Civil Liberty standpoint, the PEOPLE would be free to have their plants

Just reads ( note I say reads ) a little hypocritical to me...


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 26, 2010)

And lets not forget the suffering of those behind bars due to laws against this plant, those that have been there for years...and those that will continue to be put in prisons if we don't take the first step forward. The world is watching and counting on us to Vote Yes on Prop 19 in hopes that it gets the ball rolling for the rest of the world. I think the growers should be thinking ahead and figuring out ways that they can join the industry instead of putting so much effort into opposing it.


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 26, 2010)

brickedup417 said:


> it resticts every house to a 5x5 grow area not per script or person, one 5x5 area per house. I dont know if you live in cali or not but our economy and employment is crap, mmj is the only income most of those familys have, people here take pride in theyre growing and dont want to have to compete with companys like marlboro who will just ruin marijuana, call it unfair or whatever you want but with our employment rate you take away mmj income and most people are fkd.....this bill will probaly not pass
> and what about this credibilty stuff, i wanna see some of your gaeden photos you have so much knowledge you must know alott about mmj.


If you have a script then Prop 19 does NOTHING to change your growing situation. Please show me in the Prop where it states that the grow space for medical marijuana patients will be 5x5. It is not there because it isn't talking about medical marijuana.


----------



## brickedup417 (Jul 26, 2010)

ill tell you whos suffering, the one plant i might be able to putt in a 5x5


----------



## brickedup417 (Jul 26, 2010)

all this show me, show me lets see your grow man, i wanna see some reefer pics


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 26, 2010)

brickedup417 said:


> all this show me, show me lets see your grow man, i wanna see some reefer pics


Haven't you seen enough reefer pics in your life man? lol Back to the topic Prop 19....not my grow. Or are you stalling for an answer? Google it..... lol


----------



## brickedup417 (Jul 26, 2010)

stalling you keep going on about credibility dude im sick of arguing with you , ive already gott infractions for this thread, im voteing no. peace out goin to enjoy my prop215 medication. unsubscribed


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 26, 2010)

drherbalist said:


> How is that inconsistent? My statement was that we should not have to pay for the possession....as in if busted by cops and they were to find less than an ounce on a person, that would even be a fine. That is the part I was referring to.


The inconsistency lies in your willingness to vote in legislation that taxes possession while claiming to believe that we shouldn't have to pay for possession at all. The only time you pay the fee now is IF you are busted. Prop 19 taxes every sale thereby you are paying for possession.



drherbalist said:


> What freedoms are you talking about pot already? It is still illegal in California unless you're a medical patient. So all those that are not medical patients can still be arrested and prosecuted under the current state law.


See... you don't even know what you have. If it's for personal use, you can cultivate and possess as much as you want under current California law. No one gets arrested for possession or even for personal cultivation. What they get arrested for is "intent to sell". If you can reasonably prove that you aren't selling or have intention to sell, then you are eligible for diversion under Penal Code 1000. It's that simple. Even medical cultivators and patients can be caught up with the "intent to sell" if the law enforcement official/agency involved wants to be douche-y enough about it.

Facts are, for amounts up to one ounce, it is currently a minor misdemeanor for possession with no allowable jail time under current State law. Cultivation under current law and under Prop 19 will still require the accused to disprove "intent to sell". And that is a very important thing to remember... once you are in court, the burden is upon you to disprove intent to sell. The law enforcement official/agency involved has already provided enough probable cause to get a warrant issued for "intent to sell", that's why you're in court. The question is, do you want to go back to growing for yourself with no space or plant limitations or would you rather be confined to 5'x5'?



drherbalist said:


> Finally, why should the "existing network of localized and regionalized industries" be able to get away with tax evasion when it comes to the income they generate selling their marijuana? Isn't that what is happening right now?


What tax evasion? We already pay taxes... lots of them. Even Dick Lee pays his taxes. One of the quickest ways to get busted by the Feds is not to pay your taxes. How does farmers contributing to local economies turn into tax evasion? We pay taxes, we buy products, pay for services, pay rent and everything else that any other industry does to contribute to the community. Only we have to do it from the underground. Consider that irony... many of us have to FIND ways to pay our taxes to the Feds and the State, meaning we have to think up ways to declare the income we want to be taxed and legitimized while not letting on where it comes from.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 26, 2010)

drherbalist said:


> And lets not forget the suffering of those behind bars due to laws against this plant, those that have been there for years...and those that will continue to be put in prisons if we don't take the first step forward. The world is watching and counting on us to Vote Yes on Prop 19 in hopes that it gets the ball rolling for the rest of the world. I think the growers should be thinking ahead and figuring out ways that they can join the industry instead of putting so much effort into opposing it.


Prop 19 does nothing for those that are already incarcerated, doesn't really do anything to reduce the potential for being incarcerated, and does less than nothing to reduce the amount of persecution that cannabis users/cultivators face. If Prop 19 did any of that, we'd be right behind it. Cultivators don't need to figure out how to join the industry, they are a major component of the industry already. Cultivators oppose corporatization of the industry through discriminatory taxing and regulatory practice. Our industry runs just fine without big business.


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 26, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Prop 19 does nothing for those that are already incarcerated, doesn't really do anything to reduce the potential for being incarcerated, and does less than nothing to reduce the amount of persecution that cannabis users/cultivators face. If Prop 19 did any of that, we'd be right behind it. Cultivators don't need to figure out how to join the industry, they are a major component of the industry already. Cultivators oppose corporatization of the industry through discriminatory taxing and regulatory practice. Our industry runs just fine without big business.


I never said that Prop 19 was going to do anything for those ALREADY in prison. Man, you opponents sure infer a lot. Quit putting words in my mouth and into the mouths of others as an argument. 

Oh, and with the pricing for mmj being at where its at at collectives, black market prices...you know someone is making some ching. It does not cost that much. The growers don't pay taxes on the herb they've sold. So the bulk of their income becomes TAX FREE. Sure they pay a sales tax like every other individual when purchasing equipment and business supplies...but then so do homeless people. Where are the taxes on the actual sale of the herb?


----------



## boofin (Jul 26, 2010)

"once you are in court, the burden is upon you to disprove intent to sell"

The burden of proof is on the prosecution... Always has been, always will be...


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 26, 2010)

boofin said:


> "once you are in court, the burden is upon you to disprove intent to sell"
> 
> The burden of proof is on the prosecution... Always has been, always will be...


Sorry, lad... but once you're arrested and in court, the burden of proof shifts to you.


----------



## Keenly2 (Jul 26, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Sorry, lad... but once you're arrested and in court, the burden of proof shifts to you.



are you not familiar with the united states constitution?


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 26, 2010)

drherbalist said:


> I never said that Prop 19 was going to do anything for those ALREADY in prison. Man, you opponents sure infer a lot. Quit putting words in my mouth and into the mouths of others as an argument.


OK, fine... from the top of this very page even...



drherbalist said:


> And lets not forget the suffering of those behind bars due to laws against this plant, those that have been there for years...and those that will continue to be put in prisons if we don't take the first step forward. The world is watching and counting on us to Vote Yes on Prop 19 in hopes that it gets the ball rolling for the rest of the world. I think the growers should be thinking ahead and figuring out ways that they can join the industry instead of putting so much effort into opposing it.


Once again, Prop 19 doesn't reduce the laws and restrictions under current California law, it increases restrictions. But then, you'd have had to do some research to know that. Since you can't even read a response to one of your own posts correctly, I'll assume that these activities are beyond your capabilities.



drherbalist said:


> Oh, and with the pricing for mmj being at where its at at collectives, black market prices...you know someone is making some ching. It does not cost that much. The growers don't pay taxes on the herb they've sold. So the bulk of their income becomes TAX FREE. Sure they pay a sales tax like every other individual when purchasing equipment and business supplies...but then so do homeless people. Where are the taxes on the actual sale of the herb?


There is so much erroneous information and baseless supposition in this paragraph that I'm not even going to bother with replying. Especially since I've already made this argument and it apparently flew in one ear and out the other... assuming it was able to penetrate something so thick to begin with.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 26, 2010)

Keenly2 said:


> are you not familiar with the united states constitution?


Very. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the fact that once a warrant has been issued for a search or arrest, then the police and DA have collected enough evidence to make your arrest worthwhile. They've already built a case against you and collected evidence. You will have to argue and dispute each allegation against you and disprove their evidence. They've already built up their proof of your guilt, now you have to prove them wrong. Thus, the burden of proof is upon you once you're in court.


----------



## Tarkfu (Jul 26, 2010)

It's quite amazing how the entire point of this Prop is flying over the people who oppose it's collective head. It's about freedom, about not being persecuted for smoking weed. Sorry, that growers have to lose money, but the fact that you CAN go to jail for possessing marijuana in so many places in america, not just california, is a true injustice. One that needs to be fixed. That is the point. This is an attempt to right a wrong that has been going on for nearly a century now. Everyone in the rest of the world is watching cali on this issue. I'm sorry but it is bigger than you. If this gets voted down it will be another notch on the bedpost of the DEA and all the other organizations that continue to persecute pot smokers across the country and the world. The fact of the matter is weed needs to be legal. Everything that is legal is TAXED and REGULATED. Growers losing out on their black market profits and spreading the word to vote no is just so selfish that it's hard for me to understand. I'll post this link to an article written by Marc Emery that has been posted many times in this forum and others. Be my guest to dispute his article and to show that you are not one of the 3 types of people he's talking about in it.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2010/06/05/Why-You-Should-Vote-YES-California-Control-Tax-Cannabis-Initiative


My favorite quote from his article: "Well, I say screw any greedy growers whose love of money is greater than their love of marijuana"


----------



## boofin (Jul 26, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Very. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the fact that once a warrant has been issued for a search or arrest, then the police and DA have collected enough evidence to make your arrest worthwhile. They've already built a case against you and collected evidence. You will have to argue and dispute each allegation against you and disprove their evidence. They've already built up their proof of your guilt, now you have to prove them wrong. Thus, the burden of proof is upon you once you're in court.


And if it has gone that far you have more going on than a personal grow operation... If you want to go bigger, prop 19 makes it legit


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 26, 2010)

Tarkfu said:


> It's quite amazing how the entire point of this Prop is flying over the people who oppose it's collective head. It's about freedom, about not being persecuted for smoking weed. Sorry, that growers have to lose money, but the fact that you CAN go to jail for possessing marijuana in so many places in america, not just california, is a true injustice. One that needs to be fixed. That is the point. This is an attempt to right a wrong that has been going on for nearly a century now. Everyone in the rest of the world is watching cali on this issue. I'm sorry but it is bigger than you. If this gets voted down it will be another notch on the bedpost of the DEA and all the other organizations that continue to persecute pot smokers across the country and the world. The fact of the matter is weed needs to be legal. Everything that is legal is TAXED and REGULATED. Growers losing out on their black market profits and spreading the word to vote no is just so selfish that it's hard for me to understand. I'll post this link to an article written by Marc Emery that has been posted many times in this forum and others. Be my guest to dispute his article and to show that you are not one of the 3 types of people he's talking about in it.
> 
> http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2010/06/05/Why-You-Should-Vote-YES-California-Control-Tax-Cannabis-Initiative


This is a particularly cute delusion and oft-repeated by proponents of the bill. As a medical grower, I don't lose any money. In fact, this will probably present me with opportunities to make a fair amount of money. Quite frankly, I don't have to prove that I am or am not any sort of person. In fact, I think you need to take a good look at who you are. If you really feel a need to dehumanize and slander the growers who've kept this industry alive throughout Prohibition and brought California law to where it is today. Possession of an ounce or less does not get you put in jail in California. For possession of larger amounts and cultivation of any number of plants, there are precedents that allow for diversion instead of jail time for first and second time non-violent offenders. I'm sorry that you're region sucks when it comes to cannabis legislation, but maybe you should work on your own problems.

Ah yes... Mr. self-proclaimed "Prince of Pot". The man was stupid enough to directly challenge the federal government from a country with ridiculous extradition history and now sits in prison for his efforts. Gee, I can't imagine why someone who makes money off cannabis seeds would be in favor of a proposition which opens commercial sales of cannabis. Good try, but he's about as trustworthy as Dick Lee.


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 26, 2010)

boofin said:


> "once you are in court, the burden is upon you to disprove intent to sell"
> 
> The burden of proof is on the prosecution... Always has been, always will be...


Today's Lesson in Latin: Maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit


----------



## Tarkfu (Jul 26, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> This is a particularly cute delusion and oft-repeated by proponents of the bill. As a medical grower, I don't lose any money. In fact, this will probably present me with opportunities to make a fair amount of money. Quite frankly, I don't have to prove that I am or am not any sort of person. In fact, I think you need to take a good look at who you are. If you really feel a need to dehumanize and slander the growers who've kept this industry alive throughout Prohibition and brought California law to where it is today. Possession of an ounce or less does not get you put in jail in California. For possession of larger amounts and cultivation of any number of plants, there are precedents that allow for diversion instead of jail time for first and second time non-violent offenders. I'm sorry that you're region sucks when it comes to cannabis legislation, but maybe you should work on your own problems.
> 
> Ah yes... Mr. self-proclaimed "Prince of Pot". The man was stupid enough to directly challenge the federal government from a country with ridiculous extradition history and now sits in prison for his efforts. Gee, I can't imagine why someone who makes money off cannabis seeds would be in favor of a proposition which opens commercial sales of cannabis. Good try, but he's about as trustworthy as Dick Lee.




You didn't actually disclaim any of his arguments in that article with that response. You tried to disclaim him, but as far as I (and many people are) am concerned he is more of a martyr than anything else. He paid taxes to the Canadian govt on all of his profits, which he then donated straight to the legalization effort. In fact Canada has broken it's own laws by taking his taxes because they "benefited from illegal activity" which they refused to charge him for. Again, be my guest to dispute anything from his article.


----------



## sm0keyrich510 (Jul 26, 2010)

Tagh said:


> I don't care for the idea of legal marijuana, nor do I care for it being medicinally legal. Makes it seem like an oxicodone, perks, or lorazepams. To me anyways.
> Its a multi billion dollar industry as it is and for those who have a head on their shoulders, they know how to keep their nose clean.
> *The goverment is already getting their cut anyways, why let them take more?*


amen. with all the taxes and fees there are now (that the state/gov is getting their hands on) they are making out just fine...so lets legalize it so they can take even more...like they know what to do with it anyway.



drherbalist said:


> How is that inconsistent? *My statement was that we should not have to pay for the possession....as in if busted by cops and they were to find less than an ounce on a person, that would even be a fine. That is the part I was referring to.*
> 
> What freedoms are you talking about pot already? It is still illegal in California unless you're a medical patient. So all those that are not medical patients can still be arrested and prosecuted under the current state law.
> 
> *Finally, why should the "existing network of localized and regionalized industries" be able to get away with tax evasion when it comes to the income they generate selling their marijuana? Isn't that what is happening right now*?


you're right you wouldnt pay any fines for having less than an oz if you were 21 or older...those 18-20 would face a $1000 fine and/or 6 months in jail. 

so you're saying you'd rather just leglize it because the DEA and the DA are too lazy to go after the ones breaking the rules? we shouldn't change rules because the state/gov and police agencies can't do their jobs correctly? they should go after those breaking the rules instead of saying, "we're too lazy to enforce this...lets just vote yes" (which isn't the reason they want you to vote yes)...the REAL reason they want you to vote yes is so big business and the state/gov can make more money...thats what its all about...why do you think the biggest supporters of this bill are commercial growers or are closely connected to corporate type marijuana industries? because they stand to gain the most from this passing...

not the average joe. 




brickedup417 said:


> more and more people are realizeing that this is b/s in cali, im starting to see hydro stores and alott of people with vote no signs. The collective i go to every few days is pushing vote no hard. There are to many famillys in nor cal that depend on mmj to survive with our horrible economy. I wouldnt be supprised if it gets voted against, i mean every grower i know i pushing the vote no.


me too. in the beginning of all the prop 19 discussions i felt like i was the only one i knew in real life and one of a handful online that were against it..now some of the more intelligent people of california are catching on to the trick...this is just smoke and mirrors...they are "legalizing" it but they are trying to control it excessively...limiting how much you can grow, buy, and sell (however you can grow buy and sell as many tomatoes as you want) actually it doesn't allow you to sell any marijuana and it further controls you buy dictating where your marijuana may come from...either you 5x5 garden or the big business marijuana company...

its practically going to be a monopoly...the biggest and strongest of the new corporate marijuana businesses would eventually beat out their competition and you'd have a small group of companies dictating what the price will be to buy marijuana. 

its a ploy. and for those who say, "just grow your own"...well you only have a 5x5 space to grow...PER HOUSE (so if you got 5-6-7 ppl at your house its gonna be difficult). ALso you are only allowed 1 oz (out of your 5x5 garden) in your possession. 

you must also take into account that not everyone has the money, knowledge, time, living situation to grow...so some (more like majority) of the smokers will be stuck getting it from these big businesses...at least now under 215 if you dont like someone's quality or price of the marijuana you can VERY EASILY get it from VARIOUS sources (dispesaries, craigslist, ie...other 215 card olders)...

with prop 19 you are very restricted. this is the government/state/big business screwing over the average person.

im glad posters like you know whats goin on here.



brickedup417 said:


> it resticts every house to a 5x5 grow area not per script or person, one 5x5 area per house. I dont know if you live in cali or not but our economy and employment is crap, *mmj is the only income most of those familys have, people here take pride in theyre growing and dont want to have to compete with companys like marlboro who will just ruin marijuana, call it unfair or whatever you want but with our employment rate you take away mmj income and most people are fkd.....this bill will probaly not pass*
> 
> 
> and what about this credibilty stuff, i wanna see some of your gaeden photos you have so much knowledge you must know alott about mmj.


very true but the reaction i've gotten from that arguement is they don't care what happens to the people that have helped make this industry in california what it is...they have told me they need to "get real jobs" however i think the QUALITY of the marijuana of someone who RELIES ON IT FOR INCOME is better than those growing 10+ lbs at a time just for the quick buck...those living off of it really put care into their grows...more so than say a drug cartel who will let males flower with the females because they are too lazy to pull them...

that never happens with one solid grower on this forum...i've seen lots of grows...95% put great care into their plants..big business could care less. they care bout profits and thats about it...



boofin said:


> Im sorry if I seem ignorant here but I have to weigh in
> 
> The current system in place in Cali allows "patients" to be in possession. Prop 19 allows any adult to be in posession and grow ( a little). So the small farmers are worried because they are going to loose $
> 
> ...


then the DA/DEA needs to go after those abusing the system...not just legalize it for everyone so they don't have to do their jobs to the fullest extent...

if we were talking about legalizing other types of drugs (meth, coke/crack, x, you name it) we wouldn't even be having this discussion...but for a few knocks we'll really pretend this is the answer....when its clearly not..

for legalization to work it has to be on a federal/nationwide level...not this one legal state at a time business...thats just going to promote illegal activites...encourage trafficking the marijuana to states in which it is illegal for a higher profit...


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 26, 2010)

sm0keyrich510 said:


> amen. with all the taxes and fees there are now (that the state/gov is getting their hands on) they are making out just fine...so lets legalize it so they can take even more...like they know what to do with it anyway.


I would say taxing it is just a more REALISTIC approach if this is to PASS anytime soon. I think if you were to take that element out of the Proposition then it would lose a large number of votes. Good strategy for those who would prefer to see it fail. 




sm0keyrich510 said:


> you're right you wouldnt pay any fines for having less than an oz if you were 21 or older...those 18-20 would face a $1000 fine and/or 6 months in jail.


What is the current punishment for 18-20 year olds caught with less than an oz?



sm0keyrich510 said:


> so you're saying you'd rather just leglize it because the DEA and the DA are too lazy to go after the ones breaking the rules?


Who said the DEA and DA are lazy and that is why we are legalizing it?



sm0keyrich510 said:


> we shouldn't change rules because the state/gov and police agencies can't do their jobs correctly? they should go after those breaking the rules instead of saying, "we're too lazy to enforce this...lets just vote yes"


You're right...we shouldn't change rules because the state/gov and police agencies can't do their jobs correctly. We should change the rules if that is the will of the people.


----------



## Tarkfu (Jul 26, 2010)

If there were a legalization bill on a federal level I would be all for that too. I am for legalization in whatever form it is to take. It to me is about the injustice that is occurring. It's not about the money to me, it's a matter of freedom. That fact of the matter is that it will not happen on a federal level anytime soon, marijuana wasn't illegalized first on a federal level. It was a state by state happening that made it illegal and it will be reversed in the same way. Again, if this passes it will be the most liberal marijuana policy in the WORLD. California > Amsterdam. Let that sink in for a minute, to play towards the way things do get done ($), imagine the tourism money that will come with that. Imagine the stoners who will MOVE to california just because of this.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 26, 2010)

Tarkfu said:


> You didn't actually disclaim any of his arguments in that article with that response. You tried to disclaim him, but as far as I (and many people are) am concerned he is more of a martyr than anything else. He paid taxes to the Canadian govt on all of his profits, which he then donated straight to the legalization effort. In fact Canada has broken it's own laws by taking his taxes because they "benefited from illegal activity" which they refused to charge him for. Again, be my guest to dispute anything from his article.


So, you have a raging hard-on for someone who likes to profit off of medical and recreational users alike, got busted for trafficking contraband materials into the United States opening himself up for Federal prosecution from a country known to be weak in it's dealings with the United States when it comes to things like criminal prosecution and extradition. I don't have to disclaim your little hero... his actions speak for him. In any case, your hero-worship of Marky-boy doesn't really make him any more amiable or competent. Nor does it make his article any more valid or worth responding to. He's one man amongst millions of prisoners being held for the same or lesser charges, some of those are friends and family. So, you'll have to excuse me for not really giving a rat's ass about Moron Emery who's been making millions off of everyone and now wants us to feel sorry for him.


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 26, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> If you really feel a need to dehumanize and slander the growers who've kept this industry alive throughout Prohibition and brought California law to where it is today.


What's dehumanizing is a mmj patient with no medical insurance, because they don't have access or can't afford it, paying $60 for a decent 8th when we all in here know that it did not cost that much to produce. All while growers are turning a nice profit. That's dehumanizing.


----------



## Tarkfu (Jul 26, 2010)

Yet again I heard no counter-arguments. But go ahead and continue to slander a man who is doing time and being victimized as a prisoner of a foreign government for crimes (a term I'm using very loosely) that his own country refused to charge him for.


Also, to my understanding of Prop 19, that $1000 fine and 6 month jail time is what a person gets who gives/sells to someone underage, not the penalty for the underage person who is caught possessing. That is the exact same penalty for selling alcohol to a minor and was put into this for that very reason, to parallel marijuana with alcohol as best as possible. I'm not sure what the proposed penalty willbe for the minor who is caught possessing it, I would guess it would also be the same as a minor caught in possession of alcohol (again to go with the parallel reasoning) or it still be the current punishment (fine). Also, if it were the penalty for the underage person caught with the bud, I would honestly be OK with that as well. I have no remorse for those caught drinking underage. You do your time as a youth until you are old enough to follow a just law. I am OK with appropriate age limits. I would prefer the age limit be 18 (I would prefer that be the age for alcohol as well), but compromise is one thing I have a great ability to comprehend.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 26, 2010)

drherbalist said:


> What's dehumanizing is a mmj patient with no medical insurance, because they don't have access or can't afford it, paying $60 for a decent 8th when we all in here know that it did not cost that much to produce. All while growers are turning a nice profit. That's dehumanizing.


I see... you can't find a provider that won't rip you off. So that must mean that all growers/providers are out to rip people off and take advantage of patients. No wonder you like this Prop 19 drivel. Grossly inaccurate generalizations are a common tool of propogandists, and this campaign has had no shortage of them. I'm sorry you can't find a provider who doesn't want to rip you off, but quite frankly with the attitude you have towards growers, I can understand why.


----------



## joedubs (Jul 26, 2010)

Please read this myth and fact sheet then make up your minds, I hope you'll understand why most intelligent people who value freedom and want to pass on good laws to our generations to come will be voting NO on prop 19.

When most marijuana activists, growers and consumers first heard about an initiative that would legalize cannabis in California, they thought it was a pipe dream come true. To many, legalization implied that it would no longer be a crime to possess, consume or distribute marijuana. Cannabis consumers rejoiced at the idea of being able to buy from their neighbors or at partiesjust as they already dowith no legal retribution. Small-time growers envisioned being free to sell their product to those who sought them out, with no legal repercussions. Marijuana activists thought it meant that people would stop getting arrested for pot, and that the drug war would finally be over. But now that the initiative is headed to ballot, many pro-legalization supporters are coming out against it. Why?

Simply put, the _Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative_ does not reflect most peoples ideas of what legalization would be. The media often incorrectly reports that this initiative calls for full legalization of marijuana. It does not. In fact, it reverses many of the freedoms marijuana consumers currently enjoy, pushes growers out of the commercial market, paves the way for the corporatization of cannabis, and creates new prohibitions and felonies where there are none now. Apparently, to be pro-legalization and pro-initiative are two different things entirely.

The late-Jack Herer, legendary marijuana activist known as the father of the legalization movement, vehemently opposed the initiative. In the last words of his impassioned final speech, moments before the heart attack that would eventually claim his life, he urged people not to support it.[1] Proposition 215 author, Dennis Peron, likewise denounced the initiative, saying it is not legalization, but thinly-veiled prohibition.[2]

Compared to the present status of cannabis in California, many marijuana activists see this initiative as a giant leap backward. Ironically, it appears that marijuana is more legal in California today than it would be if this initiative were to pass.

The initiative itself is a hazy maze of regulations and controls, some of which are ambiguous and confusing even for those well-versed in marijuana law. Understandably, many who have entered the discussion seem to have bypassed the initiative altogether and gone straight to their own assumptions of what an initiative that claims to legalize marijuana might entail, injecting the debate with as many misconceptions as facts. But for an issue that would have such a direct and unprecedented impact on our daily lives, its crucial to decide your vote based on knowledge, rather than assumption.

To clarify a few of the most glaring myths about the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative, I have compiled this guide to help you VOTE KNOW!


*Myth #1: The initiative will end the War on Drugs and substantially reduce marijuana arrests, saving millions in prison costs.*
_Fact: Hardly. _The federal drug war will continue to drone on, of course, and growing or possessing any amount of marijuana would still be illegal under federal law. Anyone growing or possessing cannabis without a doctors recommendation would still be subject to arrest and seizure by the federal policealthough on the bright side, the Obama administration recently announced it will no longer raid individuals who are operating in compliance with medical marijuana law.[3]

Contrary to popular assumption, the drug war in California will not end, nor will it be impacted much by the initiative. This is because the initiative doesnt call for full legalization; it proposes to legalize possession of only up to one ounce. And in California, there is no drug war being fought against possession of up to one ounce, because marijuana is already decriminalized.

The penalty for carrying an ounce is a mere citation and maximum $100 fine.[4] Moreover, possession of one ounce is on its way to being downgraded from a misdemeanor to an infraction, because the state Senate voted in June to reclassify its status. [5] No one goes to jail for having an ounce or less in California, and no one gets arrested, because it is not an arrestable offense.

One often-quoted statistic in the initiative debate is that misdemeanor marijuana possession arrests reached 61,388 in 2008.[6] However, it is important to note that this statistic does not refer to any arrest demographic that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative would affect. This statistic refers only to possession of more than one ounce, possession by minors and possession on school grounds*offenses which the initiative will not legalize. It does not refer to nor does it include marijuana arrests for possession of one ounce or less, because this is not an arrestable offense. Therefore, the initiative would have no impact on reducing these arrests rates.

Statistically, the demographic that accounts for nearly one-quarter of total arrests for marijuana possession in California happens to be those in the 18-20 age group. But because the initiative explicitly makes it illegal for even adults age 18-20 to possess marijuana, these arrests will not decrease, and the drug war against young adults will rage on.

Furthermore, since the initiative would keep possession of amounts greater than one ounce illegal and likewise maintain the illegality of private sales of any amount, the overall impact that the initiative would have on ending the drug war, reducing arrest rates and saving on prison costs would be negligible, at best.

As an example of how highly misunderstood this initiative and its potential impact on the drug war is, the California NAACP recently pledged their support for the initiative based on the belief that it will put an end to the disproportionately high number of African-American youth going to jail over a joint. [7] But in reality, the initiative will have no impact on this phenomenon whatsoever. As it is now, the State of California does not jail people for having a joint; it is not an arrestable offense. And, as mentioned above, possession of up to one ounce is on its way to being reclassified from a misdemeanor to an infractionwhich carries no criminal-record stigma. The state does, however, incarcerate people for selling small amounts of marijuana. And since this initiative keeps private marijuana sales illegal, no matter the quantity, there will be no decrease in the number of African Americansor anyone elsearrested for selling a joint.

Not only does the initiative do little or nothing to end the drug war, but ironically, it could in fact expand the drug war, because it imposes new felonies and prohibitions against marijuana that do not exist currently.

Contrary to the belief that it will keep people out of jail for marijuana, this initiative actually creates new demographics of people to incarcerate. (See Fact #2 and Fact #3) It is difficult to see how the government would save on court and imprisonment costs if the initiative merely shifts arrests from one demographic to another.

*Myth #2: The initiative will keep young adults out of jail for using marijuana.*
_Fact: This initiative would put more young people in jail for pot._ If it becomes law, any adult 21 or over who passes a joint to another adult aged 18-20 would face six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. [8] (NORML's Web site reports that the current penalty for a gift of marijuana of 1 oz. or less is a $100 fine.[9])

*Myth #3: You'll be able to light up freely in the privacy of your home.*
_Fact: That depends._ _Under the initiative, even adults consuming marijuana in the privacy of their homes could face arrest if there are minors present _(not something one would expect from an initiative that claims to treat marijuana like alcohol and tobacco)[10]. Current marijuana law contains no such restrictions. Thanks to Prop. 215, which legalized marijuana for medicinal use, cannabis consumers have been legally free to smoke in the privacy of their homes since 1997. This initiative seeks to undermine that freedom, making it absolutely illegal to smoke marijuana if there are minors present. (The initiative is ambiguous with regard to whether present means being in the same room as the consumer, the same house, the same apartment building, or within wafting distanceapparently leaving this up to the interpretation of judges.) There is no exception for medical marijuana patients or for parents consuming in the presence of their own children.

*Myth #4: Under the initiative, anyone 21 or over will be allowed to grow marijuana in a 5x5 space.*
_Fact: Not quite. This allotment is per property, not per person._ If you share a residence with other people, youll be sharing a 5x5 grow space, as well. Even if you own multiple acres that many people live on, if it is considered one parcel, the space restriction of 5x5 (3-6 plants) will still apply. [11] Plus, if you rent, you will be required to obtain permission from your landlordwhich they may be unwilling to grant since doing so will subject them to forfeiture by the federal government.

*Myth #5: Adults 21 and over will be able to possess up to one ounce of marijuana without penalty.*
_Fact: Perhaps the most ironic piece of the puzzle is that the initiative to legalize marijuana actually makes it illegal to possess marijuana if it was purchased anywhere other than the very few licensed dispensaries in _the state_._[12] So if this initiative passes, better not get caught carrying marijuana you bought off your neighbor, your current dealer, or at a party; you could get arrested. And if you do buy from a licensed dispensary, better keep your receipts, because the burden of proof will be on you. Not only is this inconvenient, but it sets the industry up to be monopolized.

Whats more, if your city decides not to tax cannabis, then buying and selling marijuana in the city limits would remain illegal. You would be permitted to possess and consume marijuana, but you would be required to travel to another city that taxes cannabis to buy it.[13] This is a move towards decreased, not increased, access. And since the initiative is so ambiguous that cities are destined to be tied up in a legal quagmire over how to interpret it, many local governments might find it simpler just to opt-out and send its citizens elsewhere. Indeed, 129 cities did just that with medical marijuana, banning it outright, while still others have established moratoriums against dispensaries. In fact, of the entire state, only the city of Oakland has endorsed the initiative. A vote for the initiative will therefore not ensure local access to purchase marijuana legally.

*Myth #6: The initiative will free up cops to focus on bigger crimes.*
_Fact: Decriminalization has already achieved this._ The California Police Chiefs Association publicly admits that they do not waste their time on cases involving an ounce or less.[14] Moreover, many cities have already passed measures that require law enforcement to make marijuana possession their lowest priority.

What the initiative would do is create new prohibitions and felonies where there were none before, obligating police officers to spend valuable time enforcing them. The cases cops presently de-prioritize are minor offenses, like simple possession. But the initiative takes minor offenses and reclassifies them as more serious crimes (e.g., passing a joint to an adult 18-20). Law enforcements time is freed up by the elimination of prohibition, not by exchanging old prohibitions for new ones.

*Myth #7: Marijuana tax revenue will go toward education and health care.*
_Fact:_ As it is now, state budget cuts have resulted in the closing of state parks, and health care for impoverished children has been revoked, not to mention thousands of government lay-offs. But _marijuana taxes will not be earmarked for health care, public education, the re-opening of state parks, or rehiring of laid-off government employees. _Instead, the initiative specifically states that any marijuana tax revenue can be used toward enforcing the new prohibitions that the initiative enacts.[15] In this regard, not only does the initiative not end the drug war, it apparently taxes the drug to fund the drug war.

*Myth #8: Marijuana growers will be able to sell cannabis legally.*
_Fact: Currently, marijuana growers in California who have a medical recommendation can and do grow and provide marijuana legally. _Entire economies in Northern California exist on this industry. However, the initiative would make it illegal for anyone to sell marijuana, unless they own a licensed dispensary.[16] (See Fact #9)

Many have suggested that growers could open marijuana-tasting venues, similar to wine-tasting at vineyards. A grower might have a chance of opening such a place, but only if he gave his product away for free, because selling it would be illegal unless he successfully navigated the notoriously difficult and prohibitively expensive process of obtaining licensure.

*Myth #9: Anyone can obtain a license to legally sell cannabis and compete in the market.*
_Fact: Few people will be able to compete in the multibillion-dollar marijuana market if the initiative passes._ This is because the licensing process, engineered in Oakland, is exceptionally restrictive. Of the more than a thousand dispensaries operating in California until a recent L.A. crackdown, only a handful were licensed. (Conveniently, Richard Lee, the millionaire behind the initiative, owns one of them). In Oakland, the city thats setting the precedent in the tax cannabis push, a license costs $30,000. Per year. Not to mention the rigorous application process, in which even well-established, law-abiding dispensaries have been denied.

Furthermore, Oakland has started a trend of capping the number of licensed dispensaries allowed to operate (in Oakland, that number is four). This all but guarantees that the average, small-time marijuana grower will be shut out of this multibillion-dollar industry, concentrating the profits of the potential economic boon in the hands of a small minority of wealthy entrepreneurs who are already making moves to monopolize the industry. Under this initiative, the marijuana industry will not be a free market in which everyone has a chance to compete. Instead, the initiative could mark the beginning of the corporatization of marijuana. (See also Fact #15)

*Myth #10: Medical marijuana patients would be exempt from the initiative.*
_Fact: This is not exactly true. While amendments were made ostensibly to prevent the initiative from affecting current medical marijuana law, a careful reading of the initiative reveals that this is not, in fact, the case._ Certain medical marijuana laws are exempt from the prohibitions the initiative would enact, while others are glaringly absent.

Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.[17] In spite of the fact that the tax cannabis Web site says otherwise, the only medical marijuana exemptions that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative actually makes are with regard to possession, consumption and purchase limits, which only ensure that patients would still be allowed to buy medicine at dispensaries. The word cultivate is conspicuously absent. Whereas today a person with a doctors recommendation has the right to grow up to an unlimited number of plants, the initiative would drastically reduce that number to whatever can fit in a 5x5 footprint (around 3-6 plantsper property, not per person). This will force many patients to resort to buying instead of growing their own medicine, because of the inconvenience caused by producing multiple grows a year rather than growing a years supply of medicine at one time, as many patients currently do outdoors. And growing indoorswhich typically requires special grow lights, an increase in hydro use, and a lot of time and attentionis a comparatively expensive endeavor.

The initiative would further impact medical marijuana patients by banning medicating in the privacy of their own homes if there are minors present, as well as in public (currently perfectly legal[18])an invaluable liberty to those with painful diseases who would otherwise have to suffer until they got home to relieve their pain.

Finally, the medical marijuana laws that are exempted from this initiative apparently only apply to cities. For medical marijuana patients who live in an area that has county or local government jurisdiction, according to a strict reading of the initiative, medical marijuana laws are not exempt.[19]

*Myth #11: Marijuana smokers will be free to smoke cannabis wherever cigarette smoking is allowed.*
_Fact: Actually, that's the way it is now in California. There is no law prohibiting medical marijuana from being smoked wherever cigarette smoking is permitted._[20] Young adults taking bong hits in Golden Gate Park on a Sunday afternoon is just part of the San Francisco scenery. However, if this initiative passes, that freedom would disappear and we could see cops policing smoking areas to enforce this law.[21]

*Myth #12: Currently imprisoned non-violent marijuana offenders would be released.*
_Fact: The initiative makes no call to release prisoners who are behind bars for any marijuana offense, no matter how minor._ In fact, because it introduces new prohibitions where none exist now, the initiative could potentially be responsible for locking even more people up for marijuana.

*Myth #13: Counties in which marijuana cultivation currently thrives will experience increased economic growth.*
_Fact: Entire economies could collapse in counties that currently rely on cultivating marijuana. _Right now, the multibillion-dollar marijuana industry is legally subsidizing thousands of incomes in areas where unemployment is skyrocketing. For example, Mendocino County, the biggest pot-producing county in the U.S., reports that a full two-thirds of its economy is dependent on marijuana.[22] Much of this is due to current state medical marijuana laws, which allow people to legally cultivate plants and provide them to marijuana pharmacies. But this economy supports more than just farmers.

Many local store owners report that without marijuana farmers patronizing their businesses with cash, they would go out of business. Moreover, legitimate medical marijuana growers employ tens of thousands of seasonal workers, mostly young adults, who have managed to eke out a living in a region where none other exists, and who otherwise would have few local options to support themselves. The more humble among them are able to make a living that sustains them modestly throughout much of the year. Thousands more are able to subsidize low-paying jobs, make up for shortages in their college funding, and start creative projects such as fashion design, music production, or art. But because the initiative would limit the number of plants one could grow from up to an unlimited amount to about six, thousands of small-time medical marijuana farmers and the young adults they employ would face economic displacement and hardship, or join the ranks of the unemployed. (For more on this, see Fact #15.)

*Myth #14: The initiative will create an employment boon similar to Californias wine industry.*
_Fact: Comparisons with the wine industry are no true basis for determining the potential revenue recreational marijuana could create, because the wine industry does not operate under the same restrictions the marijuana industry would face._ Namely, theres no cap on how many wineries can operate in California, or how many grapes each vineyard can grow. There are currently almost 3,000 vineyards in the state, whereas since the April crackdown in L.A., there are fewer than 300 dispensaries (of which only a few are licensed). Moreover, if cities continue to follow the trend set by Oakland and cap the number of licensed dispensaries allowed to operate, then the thousands of people currently legally employed by dispensaries would dwindle drastically.

*Myth #15: The initiative will limit the viability of Mexican drug cartels.*
_Fact: Mexican drug cartels are already being undermined tremendously thanks to the legions of small-time farmers growing in California._ The Washington Post reported on October 7, 2009:

Almost all of the marijuana consumed in the multibillion-dollar U.S. market once came from Mexico or Colombia. Now as much as half is produced domestically, often by small-scale operators who painstakingly tend greenhouses and indoor gardens to produce the more potent product that consumers now demand, according to authorities and marijuana dealers on both sides of the border.  Stiff competition from thousands of mom-and-pop marijuana farmers in the United States threatens the bottom line for powerful Mexican drug organizations in a way that decades of arrests and seizures have not, according to law enforcement officials and pot growers in the United States and Mexico.[23]

These mom-and-pop growers dont fit the stereotype of the gang-war era drug pusher or Mexican drug cartel growing marijuana irresponsibly and setting forests on fire. Many of them are law-abiding citizens, legally growing medical marijuana under Prop. 215. Theyre the people you see at your local organic health food store, or shopping in the community, putting much-needed cash directly into the local economy while the national economy flounders in recession. These small-time marijuana farmers use the money they earn from providing medicine to finance their kids education, help out their laid-off parents and put themselves through school. In some cases, entire communities depend on them.

However, if this initiative passes, these growers that are single-handedly undercutting the Mexican drug cartels would no longer be able to legally operate and the face of the marijuana industry could change from the local one we recognize to an impersonal corporate entity, leaving a spate of displaced marijuana farmers in its wake.

One corporation that is poised to take the place of the mom-and-pop growers is AgraMed. While Oaklands city council prepares to consider a proposal in July to license four commercial indoor marijuana farms in the city, AgraMed has plans to build a 100,000-sq.-ft. marijuana mega-farm near Oakland International Airport that, according to projections, could generate 58 pounds of pot a day and $59 million a year in revenue. The companys president, Jeff Wilcoxa member of the steering committee of the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiativereportedly hopes to bring a degree of corporate structure to the marijuana industry.[24]

The language that backers of the initiative use itself is cause for concern among pro-marijuana supporters. Instead of speaking out against the injustice of jailing people over a plant that is widely known not only to be harmless, but beneficial, these multimillionaire supporters of the initiative speak only of their intentions to corporatize marijuana. The owner of one leading marijuana dispensarythat already earns well over $20 million a yearwas quoted in the New York Times as having aspirations to become the McDonalds of marijuana.[25] The proprietors of Oaklands new i-Grow hydroponics store want it to be known as the Wal-Mart of grow stores.[26] Meanwhile, Marijuana, Inc., a multimillion-dollar corporation, has plans to build cannabis resorts in the Northern California counties that currently survive off the medical marijuana industry.[27] They intend to create golf resorts with acres of marijuana gardens featuring hundreds of strains. (Apparently, under this initiative, corporations would be permitted to grow quite large quantities of cannabis, while cultivation would be restricted to 5 x 5 plots for everyone else.)

The accusations that medical marijuana growers oppose the initiative out of greed are clearly grossly unfounded. It is obvious who has intentions of increasing their bottom line. Small-time marijuana farmers simply want to continue making a humble living off the land. They are the ones who built the marijuana industry, but this initiative seeks to allow corporations to take their hard work and turn it into profits for themselves, locking farmers out of the industry entirely.

We have seen this trend before in the United States. Our history is replete with small farmers being taken over by huge corporations. Hundreds of thousands of mom-and-pop businesses have been forced out of business by conglomerates like Wal-Mart, Starbucks, and Monsanto, which those who benefit from such takeovers have justified by calling it progress. But is it? And is this the sort of progress we want to see take over the marijuana industry? Is this the world Peter Tosh had in mind when he implored us to legalize it?

Marijuana may well be the final bastion of farmer-owned, worker-owned, business autonomy in this country. Will we allow it, too, to go the way of nearly every other homegrown industry in the history of the United States? We all hope for legalization. But must we have such a drastic, Faustian trade-off for this freedom? And is it really freedom if we must lose our autonomy to gain it?

One farmers response to the news of Marijuana Inc.s resort aspirations poignantly sums up the pending reality should the initiative pass:

Marijuana, Inc., has big plans to invade the Emerald Triangle and surrounding counties to really capitalize on marijuana tourism. Maybe that sounds like fun to people that arent from around here, but it is really going to take away a lot of opportunity from the locals who make this place what it is. I feel that the people here who created this industry are going to be left in the dust for the most part There is just too much money at stake and that is what these guys are all about. This is the equivalent of the giant hotels popping up on the Hawaiian Islands and the locals being told, You can still work at the resort. Well need maids and groundskeepers wholl work for minimum wage...[28]

What is currently a small-time, largely organic industryon which entire economies survive, and without which entire economies would collapsecould soon become dominated by corporations if this initiative passes. The days of knowing your dealer and what goes into your pot could soon be over, and marijuana, a sacrament to many, could become corporatized. Are corporations inherently evil? No. But if we have the option to keep millions of dollars in our own communities, spread out over hundreds of thousands of people, it hardly seems sensible to outsource this employment to corporations and into the hands of a few.

Is it possible to have marijuana legalization without legalizing corporate takeover of the industry? Absolutely. Will those who are passionate about marijuana live to regret voting in an initiative that treats marijuana as a publicly-traded commodity and turns it into something as abhorrent as Wal-Mart and McDonalds? Absolutely. Do we have to settle for this? Absolutely not.

*Myth #16: The price of marijuana will drop.*
_Fact: The value of marijuana might decrease if it becomes more commercially available and more people grow their own, but the price of a product depends less on its value and more on the degree of competition that exists with regard to selling it. _Since your options for purchasing marijuana would be among only a handful of licensed dispensaries in the state, there is no guarantee of a decrease in price. Less competition means higher prices.

Indeed, by AgraMeds own estimation, in order to make $59 million a year off 58 pounds per day, they would have to charge $175 per ounce wholesale (roughly $2,800 per pound)and thats if they produced 58 pounds 365 days a year. If they managed to produce that output only 5 days a week, that price would leap to $245 an ounce (about $3900 per pound). With shelf-prices at dispensaries often set at double the wholesale purchase pricenot to mention the compulsory tax added onto every ounce (which Richard Lee stated in an interview was "recommended" to be $50)the price of marijuana could potentially be higher than it is in our current market, in which the price of a pound has already fallen to $2,000, according to a recent National Public Radio report; a direct result of healthy competition, not its opposite.[29]

*Myth #17: We can vote in the initiative and fix the tangles as they come up.*
_Fact: Initiatives create permanent statutes. Once an initiative is voted into law, it cannot be reversed. _It remains law forever. It is worth noting that this initiative makes some unusual provisions with regard to amendments. For starters, it allows the legislature (traditionally hostile toward marijuana legislation) to amend the initiative without voter approval. Furthermore, it allows amendments, but only to further the purposes of the Act.[30] Under a monopolized, corporate-controlled distribution process, the purposes might become more narrowly defined.

Many of the issues that pro-legalization supporters have with the initiative could be easily rectifiable with a few sentences and an amendment-submission to the Attorney Generals office. It would have required very little on the part of the initiative authors to remove the vagueness from the wording that bans smoking cannabis in any space where minors are present, for example, or to add an exemption for medical marijuana patients and parents consuming in the presence of their own children. It would have required very little to write into the initiative a line that would exempt medical marijuana patients from the public smoking ban and protect their right to grow medicine in amounts sufficient for their individual needs. After all, these are items which should not be considered luxuries under legalized marijuana; they should be rights. And we should settle for nothing less.

Unfortunately, the deadline to make changes to the initiative before the November elections has already passed, and to achieve these changes via subsequent voter referendums would be a complicated and drawn-out process that could take years. Making the initiative acceptable before voting it into law is therefore essential.

*Myth #18: This is our only chance to take a step in the direction of legalization.*
_Fact: This is only our first chanceit will certainly not be the last._ 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 initiative.[31])

What now?

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative is not the only path to legalization. We have come so far, and are now so closeit is imperative that we let the next step be the right one. Legalized marijuana is within reach, yet the movement could be set back with such a problematic initiative at the helm. Instead of rushing to pass a measure that prohibits marijuana under the guise of legalization, we can draft an initiative that calls for true legalization and that has the full support of marijuana law reform organizations and leaders of the movement.

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative is rife with ambiguity, expands the War on Drugs, undermines the medical marijuana movement, arrests more people for marijuana, offers no protection for small farmers and insufficient protection for medical marijuana users, has a high potential for monopolization, provides no regulations to prevent corporate takeover of the industry, cartelizes the economy, and divides our community into poor, unlicensed, mom-and-pop gardener versus rich, licensed, corporate farmer. And since the one thing thats clear about the initiative is that its vague, it could very easily prove to be a Pandoras box of unintended consequences. Beyond its vagueness, which itself is problematic, these side effects are inherently socially dangerous. The impact that such a failed legalization initiative could have on the movement nation-wide could be disastrous.

This is not a question of whether to legalize or not to legalize. Legalization is the goal and it is inevitable. The question is whether we want to rush in and settle for an initiative that is so poorly-worded as to be ambiguous, and so vague as to be open to vast interpretation from judgesor wait for the wording and other inconsistencies to be corrected for 2012. If we hold out for a perfect initiative we will wait forever. But if we at least hold out for an initiative that is direct, unambiguous, well-defined and clearly written, we will have an unprecedented opportunity to inspire the world to join the movement to legalize marijuana.

Many pro-legalization activists are rallying behind the idea of taking the time to craft an initiative that will be a clear step up from the current cannabis situation of in California and will result in increased accessnot its opposite. Both NORML and the MPP, the foremost cannabis law reform organizations in the country, have suggested we wait and make another attempt at legalization during the 2012 elections. Dale Gieringer, Director of Californias NORML, said, I do think its going to take a few more years for us to develop a proposal that voters will be comfortable with.[32] Likewise, Bruce Mirken, MPPs Director of Communications, was quoted as saying, In our opinion, we should wait and build our forces and aim at 2012.[33]

Ultimately, the decision is not up to any organization; its up to YOU. How will you vote? Read the initiative for yourself and just VOTE KNOW!


_I hope people find the hope and inspiration to broadcast this, understand (the initiative), read it, and know that it's a step backwards. And we can do better. We will do better. - Dennis Peron_


*Sidebar: What it Actually Says*

_About possessing marijuana bought somewhere other than a licensed outlet:_
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: (g) 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; [Section 11300: (i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301.]

_About the punishment for giving marijuana to adults age 18-20:_
Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors: (c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense.

_About smoking in the presence of minors:_
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls: (c) Personal consumption shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit: (iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.

_About using marijuana tax revenue to fund law enforcement against pot prohibition:_
Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees (a) Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.

_About medical marijuana exemptions:_
B: Purposes, 7: Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that citys limits remain illegal, but that the citys citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9. (Note: The word cultivate is conspicuously absent here as well as in the exempted Health and Safety Sections that pertain to medical marijuana laws.)

_About leaving medical marijuana cultivation law in the hands of local government:_
Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following: (a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized. (Note: This section provides no exemptions for medical marijuana law.)

_About the right to cultivate:_
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls: (ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel.


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 26, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> I see... you can't find a provider that won't rip you off. So that must mean that all growers/providers are out to rip people off and take advantage of patients. No wonder you like this Prop 19 drivel. Grossly inaccurate generalizations are a common tool of propogandists, and this campaign has had no shortage of them. I'm sorry you can't find a provider who doesn't want to rip you off, but quite frankly with the attitude you have towards growers, I can understand why.


I am my own provider, so at least I know I won't be fucking myself  I never said all growers/providers are out to rip people off. Once again, putting words in my mouth. What is it with you guys in the opposition putting words in people's mouths. If this prop doesn't pass, then anyone with a little garden who gets caught goes to jail (unless of course they are mmj patient). If this prop doesn't pass, then the growers will continue making tax free revenue on the sales of their crops and not contributing to the State like any other business is supposed to. I have no attitude towards growers, because I happen to be one and have been for a while now. I have an attitude towards GREED, THIEVERY and LIARS.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 26, 2010)

Tarkfu said:


> Yet again I heard no counter-arguments. But go ahead and continue to slander a man who is doing time and being victimized as a prisoner of a foreign government for crimes (a term I'm using very loosely) that his own country refused to charge him for.


Counter-arguments to what? Mark shook his fanny in the Feds' faces and said "Ima send lots of pot seeds to your country for people to cultivate." and they came down on him like a ton of bricks, much as they do anyone else who openly admits to thwarting Federal import regulations. At least the bean companies in Europe are smart enough to use the "souvenir" defense. And yes, he's doing time. Like the millions of others that are wrongly imprisoned for lesser crimes and are serving the same sentencing that Mark is currently trying to plea bargain his way out of. Your willingness to impose regulation and penalties speaks volumes for your stance on this issue.


----------



## Tarkfu (Jul 26, 2010)

Counter arguments to his actual article and what it actually says about the propositon, you know the purpose of this entire thread. I'm sorry to say, but the world runs via taxation and regulation. Again, every legal enterprise is taxed and regulated. It is naive to imagine a world of legal marijuana that is not taxed and regulated. That would be a wonderful dream, but not very realistic I'm afraid.

Also, my point about Marc Emery is that he is a political prisoner, as said by leaders in the DEA. 

The day of Emery's arrest, American DEA Administrator Karen Tandy released the following statement:
Today's DEA arrest of Marc Scott Emery, publisher of Cannabis Culture Magazine, and the founder of a marijuana legalization group -- is a significant blow not only to the marijuana trafficking trade in the U.S. and Canada, but also to the marijuana legalization movement.​His marijuana trade and propagandist marijuana magazine have generated nearly $5 million a year in profits that bolstered his trafficking efforts, but those have gone up in smoke today.​Emery and his organization had been designated as one of the Attorney General's most wanted international drug trafficking organizational targets -- one of only 46 in the world and the only one from Canada.​Hundreds of thousands of dollars of Emery's illicit profits are known to have been channeled to marijuana legalization groups active in the United States and Canada. Drug legalization lobbyists now have one less pot of money to rely on.
​


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 26, 2010)

drherbalist said:


> I am my own provider, so at least I know I won't be fucking myself  I never said all growers/providers are out to rip people off. Once again, putting words in my mouth. What is it with you guys in the opposition putting words in people's mouths. If this prop doesn't pass, then anyone with a little garden who gets caught goes to jail (unless of course they are mmj patient). If this prop doesn't pass, then the growers will continue making tax free revenue on the sales of their crops and not contributing to the State like any other business is supposed to. I have no attitude towards growers, because I happen to be one and have been for a while now. I have an attitude towards GREED, THIEVERY and LIARS.


Which only belies your ignorance regarding current California law. No one goes to jail for simple possession or personal cultivation in California. Possession of amounts in excess of one ounce and/or large cultivation endeavors are also resolvable via diversion if you can prove personal consumption. So that would make you the liar, at the moment. The fact is, if you are arrested, it'll have the ubiquitous "with intent to sell" attached to the charges and it's that part that you will have to disprove in court. If and when you do so, you take a simple court-appointed program (much akin to traffic school, really) and then the charges are dropped. And the awesome lie of tax-free income. We pay income and sales taxes. Those who open dispensaries get business licenses and pay all the applicable fees for doing business, employ people to work and pay all the appropriate taxes and fees associated. There are those that don't and quite frankly they will continue to exist and law enforcement and government will continue to try and eradicate those types. The lies are all in the proposition in selling you a tax and regulation package for rights you already have, the greed is with the bean sellers and mass producers that gain from commercialization, and the thievery is in taking a developed industry from the network of small and medium growers, cooperatives, local breeders and the communities they support and handing it to corporate and private interests to industrialize.


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 26, 2010)

Sitting around for a few years waiting until a Proposition comes along that will make everyone happy while people continue to go to jail/prison sounds very selfish and self-serving. The time is now to STOP the bleeding. Over the next few years we can fine tune the laws and elect true REPRESENTATIVES of the PEOPLE. But we have to start somewhere and the time is now!


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 26, 2010)

Tarkfu said:


> Counter arguments to his actual article and what it actually says about the propositon, you know the purpose of this entire thread. I'm sorry to say, but the world runs via taxation and regulation. Again, every legal enterprise is taxed and regulated. It is naive to imagine a world of legal marijuana that is not taxed and regulated. That would be a wonderful dream, but not very realistic I'm afraid.


We already pay appropriate taxes with regards to conducting business in the State of California. We can even see our way to paying a reasonable industry tax. What we can't really see, is giving governmental bodies the right to levy taxes and regulations as they see fit without having some say in the matter. No taxation without representation, as they used to say. Prop 19 was drafted by one man who also bought it's way onto the ballot in November.



Tarkfu said:


> Also, my point about Marc Emery is that he is a political prisoner, as said by leaders in the DEA.
> 
> The day of Emery's arrest, American DEA Administrator Karen Tandy released the following statement:
> Today's DEA arrest of Marc Scott Emery, publisher of Cannabis Culture Magazine, and the founder of a marijuana legalization group -- is a significant blow not only to the marijuana trafficking trade in the U.S. and Canada, but also to the marijuana legalization movement.​His marijuana trade and propagandist marijuana magazine have generated nearly $5 million a year in profits that bolstered his trafficking efforts, but those have gone up in smoke today.​Emery and his organization had been designated as one of the Attorney General's most wanted international drug trafficking organizational targets -- one of only 46 in the world and the only one from Canada.​Hundreds of thousands of dollars of Emery's illicit profits are known to have been channeled to marijuana legalization groups active in the United States and Canada. Drug legalization lobbyists now have one less pot of money to rely on.
> ​


And my point is that he's no more important that the thousands of other prisoners serving multi-decade sentences for lesser charges. $5M a year in bean and media sales says which side Mark is on, and it's not with the common man.


----------



## brickedup417 (Jul 26, 2010)

man i went to the collective tday and they told me that the collectives across nor-cal have been makeing more people aware of the b/s behind this so called "legalization", said that most of cali familys survive on mmj and most prop215 patients grow with family and other patients. She told me that theres alott more people voting no than what people are expecting, im just glad theyre working together to spread the word........and another thing if passed theyre will be a huge tax on your property for being allowed to grow it, on top of your normal property taxes. Why pass something thats gonna give patients less grow area and have to pay more taxes.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 26, 2010)

drherbalist said:


> Sitting around for a few years waiting until a Proposition comes along that will make everyone happy while people continue to go to jail/prison sounds very selfish and self-serving. The time is now to STOP the bleeding. Over the next few years we can fine tune the laws and elect true REPRESENTATIVES of the PEOPLE. But we have to start somewhere and the time is now!


YAY! More fear-mongering. I was afraid we'd have to go a whole page without any real good fear-mongering. No one goes to jail for simple possession or cultivation for personal consumption. Voting bad legislation in with the intent of fixing it later is never a good idea unless you happen to be one that profits from such manipulation. We activists and providers and others in the existing underground industry you are so casually dismissing have already made progress towards legalization. We growers are the ones who go to jail, along with anyone who is labeled a "dealer", not the recreational smokers. We're also the ones fighting in court for rights, setting precedents for legalization and advocating for government agencies to come straight and make effective legislation. If anything needs to happen now, it's that people need to see Prop 19 for what it really is... new regulatory processes which will only serve to increase arrests and a tax regimen to finance it.


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 26, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Which only belies your ignorance regarding current California law. No one goes to jail for simple possession or personal cultivation in California. Possession of amounts in excess of one ounce and/or large cultivation endeavors are also resolvable via diversion if you can prove personal consumption. So that would make you the liar, at the moment.


Here's the California Health & Safety Code as it currently stands: 
11358. Every person who plants, cultivates, harvests, dries, or
processes any marijuana or any part thereof, except as otherwise
provided by law, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state
prison.

Where is my ignorance there? Perhaps when I stated simple possession, but otherwise I think that the above states that if you're growing (NON MMJ Patient/Caregiver) and you are busted, you shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison. That is the law, and it is the law that dictates you going to prison in this case or being free if you were legally allowed to cultivate.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 26, 2010)

drherbalist said:


> Here's the California Health & Safety Code as it currently stands:
> 11358. Every person who plants, cultivates, harvests, dries, or
> processes any marijuana or any part thereof, except as otherwise
> provided by law, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state
> ...


http://www.canorml.org/laws/pc1000.html



> *§1000. Applicability of chapter*
> (a) *This chapter shall apply whenever a case is before any court upon an accusatory pleading for a violation of* Section 11350: 11357, 11364, 11365, 11377 or 11550 of the Health and Safety Code. *or Section 11358 of the Health and Safety Code if the marijuana planted cultivated, harvested, dried, or processed is for personal use,* or Section 11368 of the Health and Safety Code if the narcotic drug was secured by a fictitious prescription and is for the personal use of the defendant and was not sold or furnished to another, or subdivision (d) of Section 653f if the solicitation was for acts directed to personal use only, or Section 381 or subdivision (13 of Section 647 of the Penal Code, if for being under the influence of a Controlled substance, or Section 4230 of the Business and Professions Code, and it appears to the prosecuting attorney that except as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 11357 of the Health and Safety Code, all of the following apply to the defendant:
> (1) The defendant has no conviction for any offense involving controlled substances prior to the alleged commission of the charged offense.
> (2) The offense charged did not involve a crime of violence or threatened violence.
> ...





So long as you can prove that you are growing strictly for personal consumption with no "intent to sell", then you are eligible for diversion which results in having to endure a lame "rehab" program, but no jail time and charges are dismissed upon completion of the program. Thanks to your friendly neighborhood activists who lobbied for changes to the Penal Code and worked hard to bring Prop 36 to fruition.


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 27, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> http://www.canorml.org/laws/pc1000.html
> 
> [/FONT]
> 
> ...


Why should our tax dollars go to such waste processing those cases. Pass Prop 19 and you eliminate that. Our courts are backlogged enough.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 27, 2010)

So, you're concerned about using taxes to process possession and personal consumption cultivators out of the court and prison system, but alright with leveraging taxes on cannabis sales to be used to enforce new regulations which adds new restrictions to personal consumption and cultivation? I'm sure all the 18-20 year old smokers and cultivators who will be newly arrestable under Prop 19 will do much to reduce the burden on our court systems.

Are you even trying? Seriously.


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 27, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> So, you're concerned about using taxes to process possession and personal consumption cultivators out of the court and prison system, but alright with leveraging taxes on cannabis sales to be used to enforce new regulations which adds new restrictions to personal consumption and cultivation? I'm sure all the 18-20 year old smokers and cultivators who will be newly arrestable under Prop 19 will do much to reduce the burden on our court systems.
> 
> Are you even trying? Seriously.


I have many concerns, that just happens to be one. Listen, if you're against any taxes on commercial marijuana then I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Because we will never see eye to eye on that one no matter what reasoning either one of us chooses to present.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 27, 2010)

I'm not against taxes that are reasonable, and that we have a say in. Prop 19 doesn't do that. Personally, I don't really care if you don't see eye to eye with me. Your logical inconsistencies make it obvious that any discourse with you will be nothing but an exercise in futility. I'm correcting your blatant explusion of misinformation. The fear-mongering and lies coming from proponents are amusing, but not very responsible.


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 27, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> I'm not against taxes that are reasonable, and that we have a say in. Prop 19 doesn't do that. Personally, I don't really care if you don't see eye to eye with me. Your logical inconsistencies make it obvious that any discourse with you will be nothing but an exercise in futility. I'm correcting your blatant explusion of misinformation. The fear-mongering and lies coming from proponents are amusing, but not very responsible.


There you go....attack them personally if you can't address their points in a coherent fashion to sway them your way. Bravo.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 27, 2010)

I'm not attacking you. I'm expressing my indifference for you and your inconsistent logic. You downplay using taxes to keep smokers and cultivators out of jail, but endorse taxing cannabis to fund a new ambiguous regulatory process which has great potential to imprison smokers and cultivators. That is logically inconsistent. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but that's something you'll have to work on. Not my area of responsibility. As I said, I'm just correcting your misinformation and informing people. Way to play the victim, though.... try a big wooden cross next time, you might even be slightly convincing.


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 27, 2010)

One thing this proposition is bringing out is the GREEDY...from both camps.


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 27, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> I'm not attacking you. I'm expressing my indifference for you and your inconsistent logic. You downplay using taxes to keep smokers and cultivators out of jail, but endorse taxing cannabis to fund a new ambiguous regulatory process which has great potential to imprison smokers and cultivators. That is logically inconsistent. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but that's something you'll have to work on. Not my area of responsibility. As I said, I'm just correcting your misinformation and informing people. Way to play the victim, though.... try a big wooden cross next time, you might even be slightly convincing.


I didn't downplay it. You made an unfounded statement on the taxes as the distribution of those taxes is still not set in stone or even on paper (in detail). So to say that the money would go towards funding a regulatory process would be an assumption on your part. True or not. It is merely your assumption and therefore not fact. 

You're not as smart as you believe others think you are.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 27, 2010)

drherbalist said:


> I didn't downplay it. You made an unfounded statement on the taxes as the distribution of those taxes is still not set in stone or even on paper (in detail). So to say that the money would go towards funding a regulatory process would be an assumption on your part. True or not. It is merely your assumption and therefore not fact.
> 
> You're not as smart as you believe others think you are.


You just can't help yourself with this misinformation, can you? Is the initiative too hard to read for you or something? 

From the Initiative text:



> Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees
> (a) Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.


Local government can determine what taxes to levy and collect, impose as many as they want and all that money is specified for program administration and enforcement of new regulations only. I won't bother with returning your insult, but would point out the hypocrisy of insulting someone to strengthen a weak argument right after alleging the same from them.


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 27, 2010)

But since these would be NEW taxes would they not require a 2/3 majority vote to pass?


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 27, 2010)

Prop 19 gives local government agencies the power to set taxes and regulations as they deem necessary with no oversight as to how regulations are enacted or written. The licensing fiasco in Oakland would become the norm should Prop 19 pass.


----------



## Dr.Darkheart (Jul 27, 2010)

I must first apoligize for my late response. And wow thanks for all of the responses to everyone. In my own opinion with the proposition, I know and can support my opinion on the fact that most strands will be lost. Us Med. patients and casual smokers are the only reason we have such good strains. No thanks to the government which have destroyed strains that we will never see again.. Most people who are old school smokers talk about strains that the younger generations have never even heard of. Us smokers and medical patientssaved some like skunk, but now the government only is doing something because of the money they will gain. They can care a less about how long it took to develop Casie Jones, they just want money. 

Im sorry to say, but I'm witnessing this first hand. To be totally honest with all of the readers, i will make more money if it is legal. Thats on top of the 6 million that I already gross per year. Well either way you vote just research this more. And yea, if you do vote yes, it doesn't mean we may never toke in the same room. 

tty-all later


----------



## Dr.Darkheart (Jul 27, 2010)

I also do believe, weather it passes or not, it really should be de-criminalized for all of us...I just dont see why anyone would let Uncle Sam take more money and at the same time making there sack smaller..lol ttyl


----------



## Dr.Darkheart (Jul 27, 2010)

oh I just posted some pix of my outdoor grow...if you guys want to check it out.....my casie jones is 7ft. tall right now..


----------



## brickedup417 (Jul 27, 2010)

hell ya i wanna check out some outdoor pics were they at?


----------



## Dr.Darkheart (Jul 27, 2010)

Wow these are some good reply's. Its almost turning into a political conversation though...ALMOST

Oh and by the way, yes all taxes are paid with me.. Its funny how people dont think its not already taxed... Trust me, It is!!!! I usually bring home way less than 100,000 a year. Its very hard work and i push a whole lot back in my community...


----------



## Dr.Darkheart (Jul 27, 2010)

Right on these are sweet..I have to finish downloading....just a sec


----------



## drherbalist (Jul 27, 2010)

Dr.Darkheart said:


> I must first apoligize for my late response. And wow thanks for all of the responses to everyone. In my own opinion with the proposition, I know and can support my opinion on the fact that most strands will be lost. Us Med. patients and casual smokers are the only reason we have such good strains. No thanks to the government which have destroyed strains that we will never see again.. Most people who are old school smokers talk about strains that the younger generations have never even heard of. Us smokers and medical patientssaved some like skunk, but now the government only is doing something because of the money they will gain. They can care a less about how long it took to develop Casie Jones, they just want money.
> 
> Im sorry to say, but I'm witnessing this first hand. To be totally honest with all of the readers, i will make more money if it is legal. Thats on top of the 6 million that I already gross per year. Well either way you vote just research this more. And yea, if you do vote yes, it doesn't mean we may never toke in the same room.
> 
> tty-all later


Why would strains be lost by the government if you still have a bunch of growers growing it and spreading that love? Most if not all strains can be picked up in Europe and other places outside the U.S. So how would the U.S. government have any say in the foreign goods asides from perhaps trying to prevent them from coming in. I honestly don't buy into that argument at all. 

On another note, if you vote NO...then as Darkheart said....it doesn't mean we may never toke in the same room. This wonderful herb is supposed to bring us together, not drive a wedge between us.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 27, 2010)

Dr.Darkheart said:


> oh I just posted some pix of my outdoor grow...if you guys want to check it out.....my casie jones is 7ft. tall right now..


Ever grown KC outdoor before? It's pretty insane. You won't be disappointed. It'll be a MONSTER TREE by the time it's done. I've currently got a kush bush that is over 7 feet wide right now. Can't wait to see how that turns out.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 27, 2010)

Dr.Darkheart said:


> I must first apoligize for my late response. And wow thanks for all of the responses to everyone. In my own opinion with the proposition, I know and can support my opinion on the fact that most strands will be lost. Us Med. patients and casual smokers are the only reason we have such good strains. No thanks to the government which have destroyed strains that we will never see again.. Most people who are old school smokers talk about strains that the younger generations have never even heard of. Us smokers and medical patientssaved some like skunk, but now the government only is doing something because of the money they will gain. They can care a less about how long it took to develop Casie Jones, they just want money.


I have several rare high quality strains. I'm not just going to hand them over because it becomes legal. Why would I? Why would anyone?


----------



## sm0keyrich510 (Jul 27, 2010)

drherbalist said:


> But since these would be NEW taxes would they not require a 2/3 majority vote to pass?


you do realize what can't be passed in taxes just gets added on as a "fee" (fees can be added without 2/3 majority vote)...



Dr.Darkheart said:


> I must first apoligize for my late response. And wow thanks for all of the responses to everyone. In my own opinion with the proposition, I know and can support my opinion on the fact that most strands will be lost. Us Med. patients and casual smokers are the only reason we have such good strains. No thanks to the government which have destroyed strains that we will never see again.. Most people who are old school smokers talk about strains that the younger generations have never even heard of. Us smokers and medical patientssaved some like skunk, but now the government only is doing something because of the money they will gain. They can care a less about how long it took to develop Casie Jones, they just want money.
> 
> Im sorry to say, but I'm witnessing this first hand. To be totally honest with all of the readers, i will make more money if it is legal. Thats on top of the 6 million that I already gross per year. Well either way you vote just research this more. And yea, if you do vote yes, it doesn't mean we may never toke in the same room.
> 
> tty-all later


im with you on the government shouldn't profit. all they've ever done is throw people in jail...destroy marijuana...bust growers...etc. they should be the last to profit from this. thats the only reason its up for legalization...is because they stand to make the most money from it...(along with big business)...so big growers like lee are backing this also...im really glad people see the scam they are pulling...

they are imposing strict rules on grow space and amounts for possession so the people CANNOT pose a threat to the big business (who will charge a high price for marijuana.) 

i hope no one really thinks that the big businesses will stimulate the state's economy...its just going to go to their bank accounts...

this is trying to be passed just for the profit...


----------



## gangagrower (Aug 26, 2010)

dont give a fuck if its legal or illegal...ill keep growing like i have and smoke all i can....prop 19 wont change anything


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 3, 2010)

It took me a loooong time to get law enforcement to leave me alone.

This would just return us to the stone ages.

A voter for Prop 19 is a vote against weed.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 3, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> It took me a loooong time to get law enforcement to leave me alone.
> 
> This would just return us to the stone ages.
> 
> A voter for Prop 19 is a vote against weed.


So ending prohibition would send us back to the stone ages and voting against prohibition is a vote against weed? Interesting view point.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

5x5 would be great per person but not per household like prop 19 suggest.
i live with 4 othere people that smoke that 5 people so we each get 1x1 area.
we only get to legalize bud onces so lets make sure it right. the legislation is fluded it all about a bunch of rich people that got rich over years of selling bud illegaly trying to get even richer "walmartization of marijuana" aka big marijuana.there just taking advanyage of our broke ass state saying "tax revanue" wich means money for polititions aka big gverment


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

california needs to take a duth approach at it.

*The regulations*

The Dutch have divided drugs into two groups, depending on their influence on human health &#8211; *soft drugs* and *hard drugs*. Hard drugs as cocaine, LSD, morphine, heroin are forbidden in the Netherlands as in any other country. 
Soft drugs as *cannabis* in all its forms (marijuana, hashish, hash oil) and hallucinogenic mushrooms (so called magic mushrooms or paddos &#8211; from Dutch: paddestoel - mushroom) are legal under condition of so called &#8220;*personal use*&#8221;. As a result smoking of cannabis even in public, is not prosecuted as well as selling it although technically illegal under still valid Opium Act (dating from 1919, cannabis added as drug in 1950), is widely *tolerated* provided that it happens in a limited, controlled way (in a coffee shop, small portions, 5 grams maximum transaction, not many portions on stock, sale only to adults, no minors on the premises, no advertisement of drugs, the local municipality did not give the order to close the coffee shop).


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

lear the truth watch this!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/v/nJhBWaNPV3w&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGWSdrU31B0


----------

