# Prop 19 Explained: Common Questions and Misperceptions



## tc1 (Sep 28, 2010)

*Prop 19 Explained: Common Questions and Misperceptions 


Prop 19 will override Prop 215 legislation*

This is false. Prop 215 is legislation for the medical use of marijuana. Prop 19 is legislation for the recreational use of marijuana. The courts have ruled that laws can not be implied to affect other pieces of legislation. Laws meant to supersede current laws MUST be expressed. Not only does Prop 19 not express the changing of ANY Prop 215 sections but it has exemptions for Prop 215 patients. If Prop 19 was meant to supersede Prop 215, there would be no need to add exemptions. 

*You can already grow and use marijuana legally*

People with ailments and able to get a doctors recommendation are allowed to use and cultivate legally under California law. Everyone else is still subject to prosecution.
Asking healthy people to lie and get a prop 215 recommendation only fuels the fire of people who claim "medical marijuana is just a scam for people who want to get high". Abuse of the medical marijuana program can have negative consequences to those who desperately need medicinal marijuana and is a slap in the face to many of them. The bottom line is no one should go to jail for marijuana, regardless if they have a medical condition or not. Marijuana wont be legalized until ALL of age adults can cultivate and use marijuana.

*You can only have a 5x5 grow area*

Prop 19 states that a grow area can be no bigger than 25 square feet. You're dimensions can be a combination of any number provided they stay within the 25sqft maximum. Prop 19 also allows local cities to increase the size of grow areas if they feel it appropriate to do so.

*You can only have 1 ounce of marijuana at any one time*

Prop 19 allows the possession of 1 ounce on your person. This means you will not be able to walk down the street with more than an ounce at a time. Marijuana in your home is measured by the 25 square footage rule and not by weight as written in Section 11304 part d(iv). Prop 19 also allows local cities to increase the amount of possession if they feel appropriate to do so.

*I can't smoke in the same house with a minor*

Prop 19 states "smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present." is unlawful.
While this can be debated to no end, the logical explanation is that you are not allowed to expose minors to second hand smoke. There are some who say that "space" is defined as "the same home". Prop 19 does no define "space" as "same home" and to draw to that conclusion is false. Jumping from "space" to "same home" is no different than jumping from "space" to "same planet". Sensible logic is needed to feel comfortable with this wording.
*
Prop 19 taxes the sale of marijuana * 

Prop 19 does not contain any specific commercial regulation and tax laws. It simply states cities have the right to commercially sell recreational marijuana and tax it. It is up to each and every city to decide whether they want to commercially sell marijuana and if so, how much (if any) taxes they wish to place on it. One of the biggest selling points on legalizing marijuana has always been the ability to tax it, so it should be no surprise that Prop 19 gives cities the option of doing so.

*Prop 19 will put people out of business and hurt the economy*

Prop 19 allows cities the option to commercially grow and sell marijuana. This allows people who currently grow and/or sell marijuana illegally the ability to legitimize their business and safely pursue a career without risking prosecution or imprisonment. It also allows opportunity for new marijuana businesses. Prop 19 also allows the full legalization of any marijuana related business, including "smoking clubs" or "bud bars". Prop 19 legalizes the mass production of industrial hemp as define in Section 11304 part d(i). Under Prop 19 marijuana users may not be discriminated against in the workplace providing there is no concern for impairment.
Given these facts, it is safe to say that Prop 19 has the potential to create more jobs and further employee rights.

*Prop 19 will cause more arrests and incarcerations*

There is no data to support this claim. Under Prop 19 responsible adults who are of the same age to drink alcohol will not go to jail for marijuana related offenses. Prop 19 prevents law enforcement from threatening or executing any arrests and/or seizures based on marijuana use. This prevents local law enforcement to work with or supply intelligence to federal agents providing no state law has been broken. Marijuana use/cultivation will no longer be enough for probable cause or reasonable suspicion under Prop 19. The penalties for exposing (sale, gift, etc) minors to marijuana are harsh. For minors 14 years of age or younger, 3-5 years in state prison. For underage people 18-20, a $1000 fine and up to 6 months in state prison.
Simple solution: Be a responsible adult and don't sell, give, or involve minors or underage people in marijuana. Provided adults act responsibly with regards to Prop 19, there is no reason to believe arrests will increase and logic would suggest the opposite.


----------



## mrFancyPlants (Sep 29, 2010)

But... but... I saw this youtube video! Rancho Cordova man! Then my friend, HE saw the youtube video too! That's like 2 people now... and I can't read well, but I read the bill.. and it says tax.. 

So fucking prove to me where it doesn't say that you won't not get taxed or we'll need to meet in person to show you what a pussy you are!

Seriously though.. fucking sad.. just talked to another friend and he's voting 'No' because a bunch of his friends are dealers. WTF... Pass 19! Pass the JH bill in 2 years if 19 passes.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 29, 2010)

Outgoing California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has until Thursday, September 30, to decide the fate of Senate Bill 1449 &#8212; which would reduce adult marijuana possession charges from a criminal misdemeanor
to a civil infraction. That gives reformers one final week to lobby for this sensible reform. If you have not yet contacted the Governor in support of this historic legislation, please do so today.
Senate Bill 1449 amends the California Health and Safety Code so that the adult possession of up to 28.5 grams of marijuana is classified as an infraction, punishable by no more than a $100 fine &#8212; no court appearance, no court costs, and no criminal record.
Passage of bill would save the state millions of dollars in court costs by keeping minor marijuana offenders out of court. The number of misdemeanor pot prosecutions has surged in recent years, reaching 61,388 in 2008. Adults who consume marijuana responsibly are not part of the crime problem, and the state should stop treating them like criminals.
Governor Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has vetoed several different marijuana law reform bills in the past. Therefore, if you live in California, it is vital that you please e-mail or call Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger&#8217;s office and urge him to sign SB 1449 into law. For your convenience, a pre-written letter will be e-mailed to the Governor when you visit NORML&#8217;s &#8216;Take Action&#8217; Center here.

Im for legalization but not how prop 19 says, there is a differnt way to do it and it wont take years.Sensible legislation is needed. Prop 19 is written for some make me millions, tax hike, give government control and money assholes who realy dont give a ratsass about the average joe.

Please e-mail the governor with the link provided and urge him to sign SB 1449 into law e-mail or call


----------



## mrFancyPlants (Sep 29, 2010)

This is just fucking sad... http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2010/09/27/Chaos-Erupts-Over-Prop-19-California-Cannabis-Expo


----------



## Rusko (Sep 29, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> blaw blaw blaw who gives a fuck? Im still voting No after reading this propagand bullshit. People dont like prop 19 because it a peace of crap prop.Its that simple prop 19 suck.
> 
> 
> "Oh but but its all we got right now so lets pass it."
> ...


yeppp.we got it good right now in cali.WHY CHANGE IT?!?! the government shouldnt b able to tell us patients how much medicine we can have or limit our grow spaces.PROP 19 IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT


----------



## mrFancyPlants (Sep 29, 2010)

If 19 passes I can sell my lights, grow outside and stop paying for electricity. Under 215 and my local restrictions, I can't grow outside unless I build a greenhouse.

Either way - weed's gonna be so cheap soon that I won't have to worry about it. Talked to another friend - local dispensaries have people coming in multiple times AN HOUR trying to sell dank. Sorry - shelves are full.

Saw the same thing last year - friends sitting on pounds of kush. I'm guessing it all flows east but I don't know nothing about that  Now we got east coast states passing med laws and the gold rush begins again out there - too bad for California dealers because you're out of a job either way we go.


----------



## Brokenneck (Sep 30, 2010)

IMO 
A step in the right direction is at least a step. 
Maybe if something got started it could then be molded into what the voters can all agree on. 

....if its taken US voters a very long time to get this going again would the bill failing to pass make it take as long to get it going again?

Yes, Sad indeed the recent San Fran Debate featured in Cculture. 
Having heart in what you believe in is admirable. 
I don't agree with everyone but damn it your views are as important as mine. 

As for 215 its not written that great either. 
We've got doctors giving write ups for everyone. Dispensaries are ripping people off, making profits, putting skanky chicks behind the counter to entice the buyers. 

I would love to be able to goto Barneys Breakfast Bar LA, grab a sack, get some GOOD seed, food and for the time being be forced into 25 square.


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 1, 2010)

Great post! I agree 100%. vote yes on 19, its common sense.


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 1, 2010)

this is a great post, and to you couple of people spounting random bullshit. yes it will be taxed, like every other cultivation/sale business. if you plan to do so for income and business be prepared for it to be treated like one. go read 19 5x times and then go to your 215 that you praise so much and find out how much more vague 215 is. link to it here http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/Prop215.html#215text.

215 does not give rights to its citizens, it is strictly for quote "seriously ill Californians" thats what it says on the bill. not anyone with 75$ who wants his papers. 19 however does give rights to citizens. and these rights CANNOT BE TAXED. only the section of commercial trade, transportation and licensed cultivation for profit are subject to taxes. it will be illegal to do otherwise

Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls - (cannot be taxed)

Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls - (can be taxed)

Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees - (read below to see how, notice no mention of 11300 being taxable)

(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.

(b) Any licensed premises shall be responsible for paying all federal, state and local taxes, fees, fines, penalties or other financial responsibility imposed on all or similarly situated businesses, facilities or premises, including without limitation income taxes, business taxes, license fees, and property taxes, without regard to or identification of the business or items or services sold.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 1, 2010)

Rusko said:


> yeppp.we got it good right now in cali.WHY CHANGE IT?!?! the government shouldnt b able to tell us patients how much medicine we can have or limit our grow spaces.PROP 19 IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT


Myth.... 

The bill specifically exempts that.


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 1, 2010)

link for 215 again understand just how much you can benefit from 19 compared to this wimpy lil thing

http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/Prop215.html#215text


----------



## Brokenneck (Oct 1, 2010)

I am really open for discussion on this matter. I think everyone should be able to say how they feel especially here. 
I see it like this
You want to build a house. Look we could all use a house right. 
either you can start or you can sit on your ass hoping that one will fall from the sky. 
You say the house has no windows and no doors.
Well you could build the house and then start fixing it the way you would be happy with it. At least you have a roof over your head. 
Or you could sit on your ass. 

I think that I would rather build a house that might not be perfect today but with your help we could make it comfortable for everyone. 

I'm not ever going to toss harsh words your way, even if I don't agree with not building a house. 
Yet still I will defend your right to your opinion as well as sharing your opinion on any open forum. 
I am old enough that I DID vote for prop 215, that house shit, she isn't ready yet but it is a roof.


----------



## Brokenneck (Oct 1, 2010)

oh and please do not think that I was stating that a single member of this forum may or not be sitting on their ass. 
Again I am not lashing out at any single individual.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 1, 2010)

The major issue with pointing to any sort of article, or interview, or whatever may be out there, other than the bill itself, is totally pointless...The ambiguity of the proposition (if passed) will be left to the CA governement to decipher. Saying that you have proof because you have an interpretation is different than saying "they didnt include the CUA/MMP in the exemptions section 2C(2)..." Because you can prove the latter beyond a doubt, the former, however, is totally irrelevant in relation to the actual structure of 19, and its implementation.


----------



## Brokenneck (Oct 1, 2010)

Ruiner, I agree...
"article,interview,blog" these are opinion, one sided. 

What are your personal problems with the prop? If you don't mind me asking. 
Enlighten me, Bro I'm down give me your best, make it simple enough for all to understand. 
I am not the only one reading here.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 1, 2010)

Some have called me greedy. I wish I had enough to sell. Everything I produce is eventually consumed, at no cost by myself and three others. All patients, 2 are family members and the other my oldest friend(43 years since we burned our first fatty, together).

Over the last decade, I've been able to meet our needs, using 300 square feet.

Now, they want to reduce my grow by 92%.

They want us to go buy their crap for $400/oz.

I'd rather kill them and take their pot.

If you can PROVE that Prop 19 won't effect my grow, I'll support it, whole heartedly.

Unfortunately none of those supporting prop 19 have been able to do so.

Instead they say, "Pot will be cheaper".

Bull shit.

Prove me wrong.


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 1, 2010)

section 2b
blah blah blah

8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

11362.5 is 215
11362.7 is sb 420

i believe this is the proof youre looking for. this basically says, in the county that chooses to enact the bill, everyone will be subjected to the rules regulations on growing and selling/buying, except for you medical patients. your permits are set by the doctors. id say thats pretty clear and has always been the case. before prop 19


----------



## tc1 (Oct 1, 2010)

mikhail chalecki said:


> section 2b
> blah blah blah
> 
> 8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
> ...


I've pointed out the exemptions for Prop 215 patients over and over again.
These people will simply ignore the facts for which you are providing just as they have mine.

You can't reason with unreasonable people.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 1, 2010)

mikhail chalecki said:


> section 2b
> blah blah blah
> 
> 8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
> ...


I guess you don't need to read my posts regarding how Propositions work.

Since Prop 215 and the H&S codes never mention grow _area_.

This leaves the 25 sq. ft limit as the limit for EVERYONE, unless there is SPECIFIC language exempting MMJ patients.

Not one person has shown me that language.

Read the Health and Safety codes.


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 1, 2010)

tc1 said:


> I've pointed out the exemptions for Prop 215 patients over and over again.
> These people will simply ignore the facts for which you are providing just as they have mine.
> 
> You can't reason with unreasonable people.


its a shame that our own people are doing this to themselves. all we can do is just keep putting the right info out there.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 1, 2010)

mikhail chalecki said:


> its a shame that our own people are doing this to themselves. all we can do is just keep putting the right info out there.


I guess "right' doesn't equal "correct" in this case.

Read the codes.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 1, 2010)

Where in Prop 19 does it say that grow areas change for Prop 215 patients?

It doesn't. And since it isn't expressed in Prop 19 ... it can't be implied. 
The courts have affirmed this ....


----------



## Brokenneck (Oct 1, 2010)

If with prop 19 I am allowed 25 square feet. 
I could lets say keep an indoor tent 4x4 and then have an additional 9 feet outdoor?
so I could have a 3x3 outdoor too?

is that right? I just want to understand this completely 

I happen to be a patient so I would still be limited to a total 6 flowering and 18 veg. 

If I was not a Patient...
If me and my immediate smoking circle (6 persons) all worked together (separate locations) we could have a combined square footage of 150ft. 

I see we still have a little time till we start hitting the polls. I do not watch much regular TV per say are there many political ads on this subject hitting mainstream?
what do we have left till voting day 35 days or so?


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 1, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> I guess you don't need to read my posts regarding how Propositions work.
> 
> Since Prop 215 and the H&S codes never mention grow _area_.
> 
> ...


yes i am aware of your lack of space req. "It stops arrests -- not just prosecution -- of card-holding individuals for possession, transportation, delivery or cultivation up to a very minimal level of 6 mature plants per patient and 8 oz of bud or conversion (that could arguably be hash or hash oil, or equivalent amounts of foods and tinctures, which have a lot of liquid weight) 11362.71(e)"

but prop 19 clearly says, in the specific language ur asking for, in my quote, ur exempt from those regulations and are allowed to do whatever is permitted by your doctor. furthermore. there is a clear separation between personal use and medical use patients stated between props 19 & 215/sb420. the quote i showed is the separation of the two systems. how do you not get that? did you not read my post at all? read the quote a few times for your stoner brain to process it. if your house has 3 doctors recs, theres no reason you cannot have 18 flowering plants unbound by space because, you arent following the laws of 19, your following sb420 and are exempt by 19, a right specifically given to you by 19


----------



## tc1 (Oct 1, 2010)

Brokenneck said:


> If with prop 19 I am allowed 25 square feet.
> I could lets say keep an indoor tent 4x4 and then have an additional 9 feet outdoor?
> so I could have a 3x3 outdoor too?
> 
> ...


I don't believe that's how it will work. You get 25 square feet to put all or your marijuana grow op. My guess would be ... if you had a tent indoor, and a plant outdoor ... they would have to be within 25 square feet of each other.

Can't say I'm 100% on that ... but the language in Prop 19 leaves me to believe that's the way it will be handled.

Otherwise they would most likely use wordage like "grow areas" "25 square feet in total". (or so forth)
25 square feet is plenty for recreational users IMHO. Medical patients will still go by 215 numbers. (Unless they feel they can grow more under Prop 19)


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 1, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> I guess "right' doesn't equal "correct" in this case.
> 
> Read the codes.


im afraid but they are the same


----------



## Brokenneck (Oct 1, 2010)

Thx tc1!
I still don't see it as too bad. 
gotta go water!


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 3, 2010)

Again...just looking for answers so I will post this here too...

The Ruiners' Hypothetical Questions to 19 Supporters 
Since there is so much debate over the 5x5 and cultivation in general, and the (possible) overlap between that part of the bill and the CUA/MMP, if 19 passes, will people still be able to get doctors rec's and, by what everyone is saying, cultivate however much they want, without restrictions in regards to growing space? Therefore, in order to be part of the action in commerce, ordinary people will simply need to get a doctors rec to grow, and distribute as much as they possibly can to dispensaries and other patients, and quite possibly to the "black market" ? What would be the point of passing all new legislation that can be so easily cast aside? What good does 19 do the state, if all it takes to avoid what will more than likely be thousands of dollars in taxes annually is a $35 doctors rec? Wouldn't that just be, as supporters of the bill have put it "more of the same"? Also, how could the commercial interests backing 19 benefit from making it legal for the entire 21 and over population of the state to possess cannabis if they cant possibly compete with a market that has way more advantages in regards to abundant supply and more relaxed regulations? On the flip side of this coin, what will be the motivation for the "casual smoker" to patronize the commercial establishments, with their elevated overhead and strict regulatory scrutiny which will more than likely spell higher prices, versus just getting the doctors rec and going medical? 

It just doesnt make sense to me that people with millions riding on the passage and eventual commercial sales of MJ to leave a less regulated and more than likely less expensive competitor. It doesnt make sense to make things harder on yourself, and to pay millions of dollars to do it. It just doesn't make sense for 19 to leave 215 intact if EVERYTHING that is being SAID about 215 being left intact is true.

I would really appreciate someone who fancies themselves as well-versed in 19 to respond.​


----------



## tc1 (Oct 3, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Again...just looking for answers so I will post this here too...
> 
> The Ruiners' Hypothetical Questions to 19 SupportersSince there is so much debate over the 5x5 and cultivation in general, and the (possible) overlap between that part of the bill and the CUA/MMP, if 19 passes, will people still be able to get doctors rec's and, by what everyone is saying, cultivate however much they want, without restrictions in regards to growing space? Therefore, in order to be part of the action in commerce, ordinary people will simply need to get a doctors rec to grow, and distribute as much as they possibly can to dispensaries and other patients, and quite possibly to the "black market" ? What would be the point of passing all new legislation that can be so easily cast aside? What good does 19 do the state, if all it takes to avoid what will more than likely be thousands of dollars in taxes annually is a $35 doctors rec? Wouldn't that just be, as supporters of the bill have put it "more of the same"? Also, how could the commercial interests backing 19 benefit from making it legal for the entire 21 and over population of the state to possess cannabis if they cant possibly compete with a market that has way more advantages in regards to abundant supply and more relaxed regulations? On the flip side of this coin, what will be the motivation for the "casual smoker" to patronize the commercial establishments, with their elevated overhead and strict regulatory scrutiny which will more than likely spell higher prices, versus just getting the doctors rec and going medical?
> 
> ...


Prop 19 is recreational

Prop 215 is medical

215 patients wont be affected at all by these new laws and in fact, will have some added benefits due to the limits it gives law enforcement against marijuana. What's so hard to understand about that?

Prop 19 would not NEED Prop 215 exemptions if it was meant to override Prop 215. Courts have ruled laws passed to supersede old laws must be specifically expressed in the new legislation. PERIOD. So if Prop 19 was to override 215, it would have to SPECIFICALLY STATE that it is doing so. This is the case with ALL laws.

What good would Prop 19? MORE of the SAME? What on earth are you talking about... Prop 19 allows 21+ year old adults to LEGALLY possess, transport, cultivate, and USE marijuana. It allows the cultivation and use of hemp. How in the heck is that more of the same?
We're talking end game here ... the LEGALIZATION of marijuana. You don't have to be sick, die'n, or lie'n in order to use and grow MARIJUANA.

Prop 19 passing effects other states much like Prop 215 did .... duh.

The motivation for casual smokers to buy off of patron businesses is the same motivation that casual beer drinkers still buy off of smaller, patron businesses(micro-breweries).

Why does everyone assume Richard Lee and Co have nothing but evil intentions? A bill they paid for has the possibility to pass and would legalize marijuana for all adults 21+ statewide. No more responsible adults going to jail over marijuana. All commercial sales and regulations are left up to each city. People like Richard Lee will benefit because they will have 1000x more opportunities for commercial ventures. Just look at places which have "legalized" marijuana. You see head shops, smoke shops, bake shops, and bud bars. No doubt Richard Lee will get his hands on an even larger marijuana market. But so can ANYONE with the will and money to start a marijuana business. 

The legalization of marijuana destroys the black market and allows all that money to flow into businesses ON the street and not IN the ally. (And you won't convince me that their isn't some "ally business" in the medical marijuana market either.)


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 3, 2010)

tc1 said:


> Prop 19 is recreational
> 
> Prop 215 is medical
> 
> ...


Thank for your response.

1. I don't see the law enforcement part of your post as an added benefit. In reality they shouldn't go after compliant MMJ patient-growers anyway. 

2. The omittance of the CUA/MMP from the pertinent section of exemptions and limitations in prop 19 lends absolutely no credibility to the notion that they are to left intact. As far as I can tell this is the most ambigous and contentious part of this debate. Simply put, I believe that had the writers of 19 intended to leave the CUA/MMP intact then they would have done so by writing this bill with much more clarity. But from what I can read into it, they have left the CUA/MMP to the wolves.

3. You are right, to a point. But this is why I was asking these questions in the form of a hypothetical scenario that you have seemingly totally ignored. There are no incentives for people to be bound to a crap ton of rules and regulations and taxes and fees if they simply dont have to be. In fact, it leaves no incentive for there to even be a prop 19, in my opinion. Basically, 19 opens up a pandora's box of market supply and demand via the legality of possession (which I wonder why so much control over HOW the MJ is obtained is such a HUGE focus with the pro-19'ers). So, if someone wants to cultivate or possess more all they have to do is get a script? And then they wont be subject to the regulations of 19? Do you get the conundrum here? By using the reasoning of your own words, 215 makes 19 completely unecessary in terms of its aim to (over) regulate the cannabis trade since it can be so easily avoided. Essentially, what i hear from pro-19 people is that 19 is an OPTIONAL law, meaning it can either be enforced or totally avoided. Thus, "more of the same" was an apt description.

4. Passing prop 19 will affect other states....and I hope that it doesnt because I dont feel that prop 19 sets a good model for the nation to follow..duh.

5. As far as consumers go, dont you think that they would just go where they could get the best bang for their buck? If that happened to be medical, because it is of high-quality and at a lower price, why would people continually over-pay at commercial joints when in the short-run they can save money, and gain WAY more protections if they just got scripts? And given that there will still be a MMJ community, what are the odds that the commercial enterprises would even be successful?

6. I feel that Dick Lee and Co have malicious intentions because of the low quality of the written bill, quoted apsirations of extreme wealth, and a general reluctance to address these issues in an acceptable format. They have made no effort to clarify anything. The reluctance to state actual figures for the taxes and regulation fees tells me that no, not ANYONE will be able to start a MJ business because I doubt that many will be able to afford it. 

7. The "legalization" cannot destroy the black market as it is now. That "black market" is the same market of people that Dicklee and Co. are looking to take over, and it is not just domintated by "mexican cartels", it has a major contingent of ma & pa small growers, which if they can provide a service for less, will ultimately win out in the end. Now I will be the first to call out abusers of the MMJ system, and I have. And this is a major fundamental beef that I have with many in the MJ community - the lack of quality decision making has ruined the image of medical cannabis...not to mention numerous smear campaigns based off of assumptions thrown around by those in support of 19. 19 NEEDS 215 to be dismantled in order to be successful.


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 3, 2010)

1. well they can and they do
2. we have quoted many times where 19 specifically says 215 and sb 420 are exempt from tax, regulations, and controls. also i believe you should reread how the taxing/regulating
3. yes. 19 will be an optional law basically, but it will be free as opposed to not. how is it a conumdrum? its an even bigger loophole with what we currently have with the parodimes being illegal - or permitted amounts. the change is simple restricted amounts - permitted ones.
4. its not the model of 19 that is what will change the nation but the success or failure of it. the fact that so many non stoners/smokers support it is the only reason we have this chance. the polls are hardly winning. and if the stoner ass jack herer initiative was up. i honestly believe it wouldn't get the general support
5. this just seems wrong. competition between the small home grows and the corps will most likely put the price much lower on both side. from a consumer point thats pure win. 
6. i disagree with ur saying "low quality bill" and for the governments making it so nobody can affort the licensing to grow would be entirely counterintuitive dont you think. if nobody can afford the licensing, where is the buisness that can be taxed? if anything they will make the licensing cheap to attract growers and tax transactions enough so you can get by. i can only see them benefitting from it and why wouldnt they with the states budget and ridiculously high unemployment rate? they will get money from the tax and people will get jobs from larger scale gro ops i hope, cuz people really need those jobs now. not 2 years from now.... is 12.4% unemployment not baffling? this is a very real opportunity for new jobs and i believe the govnt will not over tax because they can only get more from the income tax of the new jobs created by the bill.
7. "ma and pa" do not provide service for less and neither do dispensaries. and why would the medical market be dismantled? there will simply be a real market to compete against, and theres a good chance the use of the medi system will shrink down to those who really need it. forcing out all those abusing it. maybe real health restrictions

and do you understand the section on amending? the limits can only get less restrictive, the way they are now is to entice the people supporting restrictions to vote yes. also all counties can be forced to adhere to the bill if the decided. basically its asking you to vote for the jack herer bill in 2 years aswell as this

"(a) Amendments to the limitations in section 11300, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations.

(b) Statutes and authorize regulations to further the purposes of the Act to establish a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry that addresses some or all of the items referenced in Sections 11301 and 11302.

(c) Laws to authorize the production of hemp or non-active cannabis for horticultural and industrial purposes."


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 3, 2010)

mikhail chalecki said:


> 1. well they can and they do
> 2. we have quoted many times where 19 specifically says 215 and sb 420 are exempt from tax, regulations, and controls. also i believe you should reread how the taxing/regulating
> 3. yes. 19 will be an optional law basically, but it will be free as opposed to not. how is it a conumdrum? its an even bigger loophole with what we currently have with the parodimes being illegal - or permitted amounts. the change is simple restricted amounts - permitted ones.
> 4. its not the model of 19 that is what will change the nation but the success or failure of it. the fact that so many non stoners/smokers support it is the only reason we have this chance. the polls are hardly winning. and if the stoner ass jack herer initiative was up. i honestly believe it wouldn't get the general support
> ...


1. Then how does 19 change that? Because, if MMJ isnt a part of 19 when how can there be protections for it written into it? Logically, it makes no sense to say there are protections, when in reality they dont even apply.

2. I don't accept your "proof" because of the ambiguity of those sections, but I am willing to accept them for the purposes of the hypothetical question: "What good is 19 if it leaves 215 intact?" Nobody as of yet has come up with a fundamental proof as to how 19 keeps 215 intact, everything, absolutely EVERYTHING out there is based off of opinion whereas the fact of the matter is the blatant omission of mention of the CUA/MMP from the pertinent sections of 19. That cannot be debated.

3. This shows to me how poorly conceived the bill actually is then. If it is so easily skirted, then what makes people think that this is anything new or beneficial? Essentially, the major selling points of this bill (at least with the supporting, but not partaking demographic of CA) fall flat on their face with this...no revenue, a horrible cluster-fuck of conflicting laws, rampant cultivation and consumption, and no clear way of standard legal enforcement. It basically would just revoke a $100 fine for possesion and create stricter controls on actual consumption...It makes no sense!

4. But why wouldnt it gain support? This argument is hallow, there is no basis for it, no standard. Just nay-saying from nothing. The CCHHI can actually be modified BEFORE being submitted to a vote, not leaving the hundreds of thousands of MMJ patients in limbo because of shoddy draft composition, not addressing major issues - like that of determining impairment while driving and workplace standards. Those are dealt with in the CCHHI, not prop 19. Dont you think that it would be wise to present a much more comprehensive policy to the rest of the nation than the one being brought to the CA voters?

5. Well, the real difference is between overhead then, right? Since commercial ops will be forced to comply with the slew of taxes and fees, they CANT compete with the small growers and make money as a result of deficiency in profit and returns. No one will ever put in more than they take out when running a business. Then the ma & pa's win...

6. Because of the overwhelming evidence that employers give their employees less and less while demanding more and more I dont see this as any sort of incentive. Are these some really awesome jobs like working for yourself? I want to work for myself...I don't break any laws, and I can take as much as I want from my own business (hypothetically of course) Who do you think would work in the commercial biz? What kind of jobs does it create: laborers? store clerks? drivers? Not business owners, not people with steady income. Just people forced to rely on another for their daily bread that can be taken away just as soon as it was given to you. And, when you are talking about the MJ communities, the most desirable people to bring in would be the people with 15 years of experience in the field - the patient growers, budtenders, dispensary operators... all people that 19 wants to put out of a job in the first place. 

7. Sorry, but you have absolutely no basis for saying they cant provide it for less. Especially when you consider that you already admitted that 19 would be "optional" for the MMJ community...I think that it would be provided at MUCH lower rates than that of the commercial market. And as far as the dismantling goes, then why all the talk of 19 providing "safer access" for MMJ patients? They are talking about a CA where todays dispensaries dont exist! In J. Nick Davids' letter, redistributed by so many here, he says straight up "gone are the days of getting a doctors recommendation" ( I am recalling that from memory)....obviously the intention of 19 is to rid CA of the dispensaries and medical market in general...it is absolutely imperative for 19 to do this, otherwise there can be no possible way for commercial interests to make money if their competitors play on an uneven playing field in their (the competitions') favor.

Yes, I "understand" the section on amending... but I am concerned with the very end of the bill....SEVERABILITY... I really, really think this will be the trump-card for Dick & Co...Watch out for this if it passes because that little paragraph at the end of the bill can reshape it in very drastic ways.


----------



## SmokeyMc74 (Oct 3, 2010)

theres moree poeple in souther cali so they will ALL VOTE YES down there


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 3, 2010)

SmokeyMc74 said:


> theres moree poeple in souther cali so they will ALL VOTE YES down there


Not quite...I went to two different dispensaries yesterday that were both totally opposed to 19. And I live in Los Angeles.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 3, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Not quite...I went to two different dispensaries yesterday that were both totally opposed to 19. And I live in Los Angeles.


Well duh ... anyone making money off of prohibition is going to say no.
Legalized marijuana = competition and price drops.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 3, 2010)

tc1 said:


> Well duh ... anyone making money off of prohibition is going to say no.
> Legalized marijuana = competition and price drops.


= you have absolutely no support to make this claim...and in fact I presented (what I feel) is a very strong case against your baseless assertion.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 3, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> = you have absolutely no support to make this claim...and in fact I presented (what I feel) is a very strong case against your baseless assertion.



Sure I do ... It's called supply and demand.

If marijuana is legalized, there will be an abundant supply thus driving down prices.
Our whole economy is based on supply and demand ... marijuana is no different.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 3, 2010)

Okay, lets think about this....the whole premise of your "team's" arguement is that prohibition has failed....what makes you think that there will be a higher supply or demand in the state that cultivates and consumes far more weed than any other state? And again, you are ignoring the premise of my argument: 19 leaves 215 intact and leaves commercial outlets, with their higher overheads to match the prices of the medical. One side will be forced to ask a certain price while the other remains much more flexible...

I will say it again: It makes no sense for 19 to leave 215 in place.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 3, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Okay, lets think about this....the whole premise of your "team's" arguement is that prohibition has failed....what makes you think that there will be a higher supply or demand in the state that cultivates and consumes far more weed than any other state? And again, you are ignoring the premise of my argument: 19 leaves 215 intact and leaves commercial outlets, with their higher overheads to match the prices of the medical. One side will be forced to ask a certain price while the other remains much more flexible...
> 
> I will say it again: It makes no sense for 19 to leave 215 in place.


 
Higher overheads? Medical marijuana prices are the same as the drug dealer down the street. Marijuana is ridiculously overpriced BECAUSE it is illegal and people are willing to pay the price. Do you honestly believe the vast majority of marijuana smokers use the medical system to get their weed? If that were the case ... there wouldn't be pot dealers in Cali.

The end of prohibition = the end of price gouging. Anyone who denies this has zero credibility on issues regarding economics.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 3, 2010)

I mean ... if gasoline became illegal tomorrow guess what happens?

Yep, the price goes up. Why? because less people would be willing to take the risk of dealing in gas. If less people are willing to buy/resell it, the supply goes down. Hence ... $20+ dollars a gallon.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 3, 2010)

tc1 said:


> Higher overheads? Medical marijuana prices are the same as the drug dealer down the street. Marijuana is ridiculously overpriced BECAUSE it is illegal and people are willing to pay the price. Do you honestly believe the vast majority of marijuana smokers use the medical system to get their weed? If that were the case ... there wouldn't be pot dealers in Cali.
> 
> The end of prohibition = the end of price gouging. Anyone who denies this has zero credibility on issues regarding economics.


Do you think that those same people will pay more just because its "legally obtained?" Or would they still want to get the most for their money? You are ignoring the premise of the questions again. The two are concurrent, which system will be utilized and which will not? Commercial cannabis will have to start charging prices not only that match the actual current market, but make up for the higher taxes and regulatory fees, and somehow make a profit while competing with a better established, less regulated, better supplied, and more frequented competitior.

It makes no sense for 19 to leave 215 intact.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 3, 2010)

You're implying that the commercial marijuana businesses will have to pay higher tax rates and fees. That is a false assumption.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 3, 2010)

Not really when it is illegal to tax medicine.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 3, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Not really when it is illegal to tax medicine.


Medicine is taxed .... they increase the price 20,000-250,000 times the value it costs them to make a pill.
Medical marijuana prices are the same as black market prices ... because there is no lower cost alternative to compete with.

Once it's legal, there will be lower costs alternatives. Because frankly ... it doesn't cost all that much to create a massive sensi green house. Not much overhead at all in fact. So the only way to make your argument is to falsely project what the taxes and fees will be. That's nothing more than speculation ... especially given the fact that each city can set their own rates.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 3, 2010)

Sorry ... but speculating what the prices of fees and taxes might be is not a good reason to vote no on Prop 19.

Prop 19 still legalizes the possession, use, transport, and cultivation of marijuana for those 21+ and over.
If people don't want to pay the taxes and fees it will require to grow and sell commercially ... then don't. Less competition for those who will. Either way, supply is going to go up and prices will go down.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 3, 2010)

tc1 said:


> Medicine is taxed .... they increase the price 20,000-250,000 times the value it costs them to make a pill.
> Medical marijuana prices are the same as black market prices ... because there is no lower cost alternative.
> 
> Once it's legal, there will be lower costs alternatives. Because frankly ... it doesn't cost all that much to create a massive sensi green house. Not much overhead at all in fact. So the only way to make is your argument is to falsely project what the taxes and fees will be. That's nothing more than speculation ... especially given the fact that each city can set their own rates.


Again, you are avoiding the premise of concurrent systems, but... 

While the overhead to actually produce the good may be low, there is no guarentee that commercial producers will sell at lower rates, that is total wishful thinking. My argument works without any false projections, because I have made none...MMJ is not taxed, commercial MJ is, simple.

Speculation is asserting that commercial growers will charge less. That is total speculation. My arguement comes from the base reality of the tax/fee paradigm commercial cannabiz looks to thrust itself into. 

I feel that the only way to counter what could be price gouging by commercial cannabis is to have another competitor, another market-share, like MMJ.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 3, 2010)

Again ... growers don't decide prices.

The consumers do. If everyone stopped buying $60 1/8ths tomorrow ... prices would go down or else they wouldn't be selling any product, thus making no money.

Same way as gas. Less people buying gas, the cheaper gas gets.

Same way as corn. Less people buying corn, the cheaper corn gets.


Until you understand how economics work, I'd suggest steering away from the subject.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 3, 2010)

tc1 said:


> Sorry ... but speculating what the prices of fees and taxes might be is not a good reason to vote no on Prop 19.
> 
> Prop 19 still legalizes the possession, use, transport, and cultivation of marijuana for those 21+ and over.
> If people don't want to pay the taxes and fees it will require to grow and sell commercially ... then don't. Less competition for those who will. Either way, supply is going to go up and prices will go down.


I think that the reluctance to name prices is a great reason to vote know...and you will still have the competition either way right? Doesnt 19 leave 215 intact? Will MMJ will just disapear once 19 comes through? MMJ still has suppliers and buyers...

It makes no sense for 19 to leave 215 intact.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 3, 2010)

tc1 said:


> Until you understand how economics work, I'd suggest steering away from the subject.


Would you just stop with this? Dont be disrespectful.


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 3, 2010)

what you say doesnt make sense. weed is not cheap right now. supply is not abundant and new taxes mean more money for the state. lucky for me i have a job. but 12%+ unemployment is a fact. 1/10+ workers are unemployed. this provides legal jobs, get over yourself. theres no reason mmj business will fail. just decrease in popularity. the growers, bud tenders, and managers from the shops that go outa business (it might be tough on em for a lil bit but theyre part of the abuse problem you admit) they will simply have to either open non medical establishments and/or look for jobs at these legal establishments, its not like they are losing a skill, and having worked at a medical shop, that can go on their resume and probably get them a job easily workin a bud bar or grow farm/facility. as i said, for the govt to make it unreasonbly expensive to do so is counterintuitive because how can they make money off a business that wont work? why is the fact that people can use 215 as a loophole and it being written into 19 a bad thing? it is written into it, already quoted the part that says it. it should make this prop even better from your perspective. you claim to have read 19 and understand what it says, i say do it again

and when did dick lee stop being an activist and become a politician? once it passes that part on severability is outa his hands, sure he can start a new bill that might lessen the restrictions, which is a good thing, but i would think the severability of it is there for when or if the federal govt move in on the state wouldnt you? id gladly take a humble retread over a bloody war. 

with less than 30 days these discussions shouldnt be happening. read the prop, look up the codes and legal jibberish, understand what you can and cannot do, and be prepared for a shaky start. oh and ofcourse please vote and assure others to yes for a better overall worldview on pot as well as prosperity for the state of california. or not. this can all blow up in our faces when it fail or the fed move in lol. but vote yes anyway


----------



## tc1 (Oct 3, 2010)

I'm not being disrespectful.

You just clearly don't understand how our economy works. Economies are consumer driven ... not industrial driven. Based on supply and demand.

Why do you think everything is made in China these days? Because American consumers demanded cheaper products. If you think the legalization of marijuana will result in a lower supply ... I don't know what I can say to you that you'll actually ingest. That's a pretty silly argument to make.

Less risk = more competition. More competition = more supply.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 3, 2010)

Look no farther than Alcohol prohibition.

Alcohol was cheap ....
Prohibition hits ....
Alcohol prices spike ....
Prohibitions ends ....
Alcohol prices go back down ....


Supply and Demand


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 3, 2010)

mikhail chalecki said:


> what you say doesnt make sense. weed is not cheap right now. supply is not abundant and new taxes mean more money for the state. lucky for me i have a job. but 12%+ unemployment is a fact. 1/10+ workers are unemployed. this provides legal jobs, get over yourself. theres no reason mmj business will fail. just decrease in popularity. the growers, bud tenders, and managers from the shops that go outa business (it might be tough on em for a lil bit but theyre part of the abuse problem you admit) they will simply have to either open non medical establishments and/or look for jobs at these legal establishments, its not like they are losing a skill, and having worked at a medical shop, that can go on their resume and probably get them a job easily workin a bud bar or grow farm/facility. as i said, for the govt to make it unreasonbly expensive to do so is counterintuitive because how can they make money off a business that wont work? why is the fact that people can use 215 as a loophole and it being written into 19 a bad thing? it is written into it, already quoted the part that says it. it should make this prop even better from your perspective. you claim to have read 19 and understand what it says, i say do it again
> 
> and when did dick lee stop being an activist and become a politician? once it passes that part on severability is outa his hands, sure he can start a new bill that might lessen the restrictions, which is a good thing, but i would think the severability of it is there for when or if the federal govt move in on the state wouldnt you? id gladly take a humble retread over a bloody war.
> 
> with less than 30 days these discussions shouldnt be happening. read the prop, look up the codes and legal jibberish, understand what you can and cannot do, and be prepared for a shaky start. oh and ofcourse please vote yes and convince for a better worldview on pot as well as prosperity for the state of california.


When did I say that weed was cheap? And do you live in california? do you know how much dank is grown here? There is PLENTY of supply. This only means money for the state if it actually is used, meaning that people have to choose commercial MJ, which there is an obvious attractive competitor - MMJ. And, to say that this creates jobs is only taking into account one part of the equation - what about the jobs lost, if the courts determine through severability, that there are indeed no protections for MMJ and the whole system goes kaput? Then you will have tons of jobs lost, and I already live in a city where there have been thousands of jobs lost as a result of dispensary closures. And I would never assert the generality you lend to unscrupulous folks in the MMJ community to everyone in MMJ...I have met some really good people.

As far as counterintuition (which has been the entire underlying theme of my premise), I see it as shark-like, but smart, business practice to price your competitiors out of the arena by advocating for higher taxes and fees...and it makes the job easier on the state to allow them to do so: less oversight with higher returns. 

The loophole of 215 only exists IF 19 leaves 215 intact...which I have said it makes no sense for 19 to leave 215 intact! And I really dont need to re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-read the bill, I have copies in my car, at home, on my phone, literally everywhere. 

Severability....why in gods name did he even put the clause in there? It hands the keys to courts, not legislature or voters, to determine 19, which will determine 215. And if you dont know about Steve Cooley, then I suggest you learn...he is dangerous. And the severability clause just gives the courts the power to strike whatever they wish from the bill while retaining the rest (i.e, the "protections" lent towards 215 can easily be taken out because in reality 215 is not a part of 19 and could easily be found to be outside of the statutory construction of the bill, thus bye bye "protections" and hello "notwithstanding"). 

And these last days are the most important days to keep on keepin' on! I wont stop, and I definitely wont be voting yes.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 3, 2010)

tc1 said:


> I'm not being disrespectful.
> 
> You just clearly don't understand how our economy works. Economies are consumer driven ... not industrial driven. Based on supply and demand.
> 
> ...



Where did I say lower? Please show me...dont just make things up.

And I KNOW how this economy works... and I wont even get started on that infested meat-pit of degredation and filth.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 3, 2010)

So you think a higher supply will increase the price of marijuana or keep it the same?

Makes no sense.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 3, 2010)

I dont expect any shift really, its pretty damn easy to become a legal cultivator. I think that the people that would have been inclined to do such a thing would have already started....I don't think 19 will bring many more growers into the fold... 

And in reality, DickLee & Co. will magically turn their medical operations into commercial ones overnight...thus the increase doesnt exist...its coming from sources that already exist.


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 3, 2010)

sure i haphazardly judged the current supply, but that doesn't beat the fact that this will provide an even greater supply forcing prices down. the clubs you know got shut down because there were too many in the first place and had nothing to do with 19. if the current establishments are prepared they might survive the switch, but i believe in the interest of creating capital for the state it will be an easy business to get into anway so theres a good chance the will make the switch, just make a lil less profit or maybe not due to the initial supply being up, their merch cost them way less to obtain and the markdown wont happen immediately. so with low license fees and maybe low tax theres a big window for profit on both the state and personal level. and for the severity, indeed it is fishy and my reasoning is lame, but legislature apeals to the constituency aka us, and seeing how the majority of people are for the protection of mmj, i cant see it happening without backlash


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 3, 2010)

i doubt anyone under 70 has any real idea on how this economy really works anyway. not saying i do, but my diplomat grandfather might. its just both sides of the arguments are based on speculation. one is implying that everyone is a criminal and out to ruin someone else, the other trust humanity and economics to work together and ultimately flourish. we can read lots of info on economics but its the old guys with the experience who know what theyre doin when it comes down to it. and theyve done pretty well with the tobacco industry if you ask me, all the wile providing steady income walking hand in hand with the government regulations


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 3, 2010)

mikhail chalecki said:


> sure i haphazardly judged the current supply, but that doesn't beat the fact that this will provide an even greater supply forcing prices down. the clubs you know got shut down because there were too many in the first place and had nothing to do with 19. if the current establishments are prepared they might survive the switch, but i believe in the interest of creating capital for the state it will be an easy business to get into anway so theres a good chance the will make the switch, just make a lil less profit or maybe not due to the initial supply being up, their merch cost them way less to obtain and the markdown wont happen immediately. so with low license fees and maybe low tax theres a big window for profit on both the state and personal level. and for the severity, indeed it is fishy and my reasoning is lame, but legislature apeals to the constituency aka us, and seeing how the majority of people are for the protection of mmj, i cant see it happening without backlash


The clubs got shut down because the big boys in town bitched and moaned about it...meaning they were losing money - thats why I said elsewhere its like war out there...you can find examples of this happening on this forum too. And there are no current establishments that are prepared, not even dicklee's is prepared, they cant be - there are no detailed provisions with which to comply. 

And I do hope that it does the state good if it passes, but I dont think that they have set it up in a manner that it will - and thats an opinion shared by the actual voter information guide being sent to all californians. Its too easy to get around, and it gives way too many incentives to be gotten around while creating expenditures for the state in hopes of taking in revenue.

But the problem of severability is that once undertaken the legislature cant do anything about it...its entirely done by the courts, and thats where it ends. The only thing that could change it eventually is a voter initiative. When a court has to sever provisions it is basically an admission that the legislature hasnt done its job, and they dont get another chance... and thats why I think it a wise move to vote know and make your voice heard in 2012 with the CCHHI.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 3, 2010)

mikhail chalecki said:


> i doubt anyone under 70 has any real idea on how this economy really works anyway. not saying i do, but my diplomat grandfather might. its just both sides of the arguments are based on speculation. one is implying that everyone is a criminal and out to ruin someone else, the other trust humanity and economics to work together and ultimately flourish. we can read lots of info on economics but its the old guys with the experience who know what theyre doin when it comes down to it. and theyve done pretty well with the tobacco industry if you ask me, all the wile providing steady income walking hand in hand with the government regulations


The tobacco lobby is one of the biggest lobbies in DC...that's a horrible model to emulate in my opinion. And interestingly enough, are you aware of the restrictions on tobacco cultivation?


----------



## BluffinCali (Oct 3, 2010)

The severability clause really scares me, its flat out ridiculous, I decided long ago to vote NO but in the case that it does pass that particular clause could come back to bite everyone. Again Im all for legalization and have no problem waiting till 2012 to vote yes on the JH bill, but I will not just vote yes on prop19 because "its as good as we can do right now", Dick could have made things much clearer and understandable but I think purposely decided not to. I really dont think prop19 is going to pass anyways, besides the non-marijuana people that will vote no, its clearly not getting the majority of support from the established MMJ community and in my opinion for good reason. We shall see in a month and if it does pass I really hope all you pro-19 guys are 100% correct on your claims, I really do, but I think theres a better chance of realizing that government, money and greed will win the day...here's hoping for the best, peace to all!


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 3, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> The tobacco lobby is one of the biggest lobbies in DC...that's a horrible model to emulate in my opinion. And interestingly enough, are you aware of the restrictions on tobacco cultivation?


i know its a highly regulated business in every country in the world, i assume personal cultivation isnt a huge deal tho. despite hefty commercial regulation they make massive profits, pay significant taxes, are responsible for thousands of cancer deaths annually all while keeping prices somewhat low prices that change constantly. but other than that i dont know much. it is indeed a terrible model to emulate, but its merely an example of capitalism. as a stoner i think CCHHI is a great prop, i love it and wish it was on the ballot next month instead of this. but i am convinced it wont nearly gain the support this has thus we are missing out on an incredible opportunity by letting this and all the effort that went into go.


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 3, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> But the problem of severability is that once undertaken the legislature cant do anything about it...its entirely done by the courts, and thats where it ends


how sure about this are you? i didnt know individual courts had the ability to change and remove individual state health and safety codes clauses. as you know countys can opt out for 19, and that will be that, but they need to enact the prop to abuse it. the section in question indeed says "the provisions of this measure are severable." and whole section is worded strangely and rough to sort out, but were ignoring that the legal definition of the word here and just taking in its general context

the pure legal definition is "That which is capable of being separated from other things to which it is joined and maintaining nonetheless a complete and independent existence."

and lawyer summary of it
"Severability in legal terms refers to a clause in a contract that provides that any portion of the contract deemed to be unenforceable does not affect the validity of the rest of the contract. A severability clause may be included in a contract which is an agreement which is made up of several separate contracts between the same parties, such as series of sales, shipments or different pieces of equipment. Therefore, breach of one of the separate (severable) contracts is not a breach of the remainder of the overall contract and is not an excuse for the other party to refuse to honor any separate part of the contract which has not been breached." 

so the severed parts will not disapear in the slightest, but be separated to receive embellishment or punishment/removal if something illegal, but more specific unconstitutional, is happening. but that really doesnt seem to be the case, i mean how can a law that precedes something be considered infringing on a new creation? pretty sure lots of cases say that is illegal to do that or put something in that position and thus the entire prop needs to be removed, and then you win. furthermore persecution and restriction of cancer patients and generally ill people really doesnt look good in any situation, so why would people do something blatantly wrong? from my experience, the really sick demographics would indeed be effected by grow restrictions MAYBE, you can really do a lot in 25 sq ft. but the exemption of permitted patients is something i can say without a doubt is protected and as the prop stands, not an "IF" as you said. so using those moot points to vote no seems... off to me


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 4, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> While the overhead to actually produce the good may be low, there is no guarentee that commercial producers will sell at lower rates, that is total wishful thinking. My argument works without any false projections, because I have made none...MMJ is not taxed, commercial MJ is, simple.
> 
> 
> .


 Actually not, Oakland taxes medical mj sales.
The big difference that you keep asking for between selling mj under 215 vs 19 is profit. It is against 215 to profit from medical marijuana sales, where as sales of marijuana under 19 can be for profit. Collectives that want to continue to provide medical marijuana for patients can still do so as non profit ventures (as they should be doing now, but as we learned in LA recently were not...). When 19 passes for profit marijuana based businesses will be legal. 
As you have said yourself, we cannot speculate on what might happen to prices because we simply don't know. However we can look to history (as with alcohol prohibition) and the science of economics which both indicate that when an illegal substance is legalized supply and demand principles can be applied, meaning prices will follow to match demand.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 5, 2010)

mikhail chalecki said:


> how sure about this are you? i didnt know individual courts had the ability to change and remove individual state health and safety codes clauses. as you know countys can opt out for 19, and that will be that, but they need to enact the prop to abuse it. the section in question indeed says "the provisions of this measure are severable." and whole section is worded strangely and rough to sort out, but were ignoring that the legal definition of the word here and just taking in its general context
> 
> the pure legal definition is "That which is capable of being separated from other things to which it is joined and maintaining nonetheless a complete and independent existence."
> 
> ...


The courts cant change the bill, they can however strike the provisions that are found to be in conflict with the intention of the bill.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 5, 2010)

What the severability does is allow certain statutes to be stricken while retaining the over legislation. But, the legislature doesnt get another chance to change the bill.


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 6, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> The courts cant change the bill, they can however strike the provisions that are found to be in conflict with the intention of the bill.


well lucky for us, one of the intents of the bill is to protect medical patient rights while providing a reasonable market and restriction to adults who dont want to get permitted to do so. so that seems impossible


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 7, 2010)

mikhail chalecki said:


> well lucky for us, one of the intents of the bill is to protect medical patient rights while providing a reasonable market and restriction to adults who dont want to get permitted to do so. so that seems impossible


So, we're supposed to hope that the courts agree with your opinion?

Not if there's a buck to be made, ignoring the "intent".

I learned long ago that voting "No" on an initiative is safer than "hoping" for a desired result.

If it isn't in the text of the proposition, it doesn't exist.


----------



## 1gamma45 (Oct 7, 2010)

As well as this piece was put together. I can see by reading just the first few posts most morons still dont understand it and even when spelled out in black and white they still choose to burry thier heads in the sand.

If you voting no On prop 19 my only hope is you truely understand what your doing and not just hoping on the short bus to lick windows with the other retards that not only dont understand this prop. but dont bother to find out the facts either. I hope for Prop 19 sake and Cali there are far less morons then people that understand just what Prop. 19 will do.


I swear to god people Reading Is Fundamental.


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 7, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> So, we're supposed to hope that the courts agree with your opinion?
> 
> Not if there's a buck to be made, ignoring the "intent".
> 
> ...


its not an opinion, its specifically listed under the section intent. something the laws will have to follow


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 7, 2010)

mikhail chalecki said:


> its not an opinion, its specifically listed under the section intent. something the laws will have to follow


Show me specific language exempting MMJ caregivers.

You can't.

It isn't there.


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 7, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Show me specific language exempting MMJ caregivers.
> 
> You can't.
> 
> It isn't there.


ive posted this many times, but here we go again. 

section 2b
blah blah blah 1. 2. 3. etc....
"8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9."

11362.5 is 215
11362.7 is sb 420
notice cultivation is in the direct line of the prop. click the links in my signature maybe you might learn a few things. if your calling the actual legal document a lie... you shouldnt be a part of this discussion

read this quote ten times and look up what the terms mean. 215 permittees are exempt from all regulations and restrictions of 19. if a cop or someone trys to screw you, get your lawyer and sue em. make money bitch


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 7, 2010)

Good post OP. Very informative. It's really sad reading on THIS forum how many people are going to vote no because they think they are going to lose on making money from MMJ, or because their friends are drug dealers. Fucking pathetic.

That being said, it's a STEP in the right direction, it might not be perfect but you stupid sob's in California should be happy you have that much, try living in Georgia or Florida... Ungrateful bastards.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 7, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> Good post OP. Very informative. It's really sad reading on THIS forum how many people are going to vote no because they think they are going to lose on making money from MMJ, or because their friends are drug dealers. Fucking pathetic.
> 
> That being said, it's a STEP in the right direction, it might not be perfect but you stupid sob's in California should be happy you have that much, try living in Georgia or Florida... Ungrateful bastards.


You obviously have read nothing about my motives. Very simply, I would have to replace $40,000 worth of medicine I would be unable to grow under the 25 sq. ft limit.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 7, 2010)

mikhail chalecki said:


> ive posted this many times, but here we go again.
> 
> section 2b
> blah blah blah 1. 2. 3. etc....
> ...


Still can't produce the text specifically exempting medical cultivation?

You obviously don't understand what I mean.

Again

If square footage is mentioned in a Proposition, it overrides any other proposition that *doesn't* specify square feet.

Why haven't the authors of this bill clarified this?

Because they don't want to go on record as supporting larger medical grows.

Because such statements could be used as evidence of *intent* to exempt medical grows, which they definitely don't want to do.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 7, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> If square footage is mentioned in a Proposition, it overrides any other proposition that *doesn't* specify square feet.



Wrong .... no law can imply changes to an old law without expressing so. (for the millionth time)


----------



## Serapis (Oct 7, 2010)

Rusko said:


> yeppp.we got it good right now in cali.WHY CHANGE IT?!?! the government shouldnt b able to tell us patients how much medicine we can have or limit our grow spaces.PROP 19 IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT


I suggest you read the prop if you are going to vote no on it. You have no argument, no details, no valid reasons for voting no other than what someone else told you.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 7, 2010)

Serapis said:


> I suggest you read the prop if you are going to vote no on it. You have no argument, no details, no valid reasons for voting no other than what someone else told you.


All the arguments have been made. The Proposition has been read.

YOU can't provide any reassurance that medical grows won't be limited.

Without that, you are just a shill for corporate interests that will charge you a ton for their "recreational" Cannabis.


----------



## redivider (Oct 7, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> All the arguments have been made. The Proposition has been read.
> 
> YOU can't provide any reassurance that medical grows won't be limited.
> 
> Without that, you are just a shill for corporate interests that will charge you a ton for their "recreational" Cannabis.


you can't provide any assurance that medical grows WILL be limited either.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 7, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> You obviously have read nothing about my motives. Very simply, I would have to replace $40,000 worth of medicine I would be unable to grow under the 25 sq. ft limit.


So it sounds to me like you only care about yourself and not the future of this Country. That being said, marijuana doesn't need you. All you care about is the dollar.

Aside from that, show me an article in the prop 19 where it says it will effect prop 215, and medical marijuana growers will have to confine to prop 19's 25 sq ft limit.

Better check your facts buddy because you are hating on this bill for no reason. It doesn't effect MMJ growers.

In short, read the proposition instead of reading and believing what people post on forums. That's just about as bad as listening to the news and quoting them.

I know it can be boring reading bills and propositions but it will do you and every other person who is against prop 19 nothing but good.

Ignorance like this just goes to show how smart the average American is. Too busy wanting to eat McDonald's and watch American Idol to check the facts first.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 7, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> So it sounds to me like you only care about yourself and not the future of this Country. That being said, marijuana doesn't need you. All you care about is the dollar.


Yes, dollars that suddenly shift to large commercial operations that spring up and flood the market with cheap, questionably grown products that will most likely end up having long-term health concerns. Cannabis doesn't need Prop. 19 because Prop. 19 is only about dollars. The routing of as many dollars to people like Dick Lee who's made his fortune off medical patients. I will say this, proponents of the bill are so readily able to just cut people loose and leave them to their just deserved fates. I'd say that's the sort of attitude that cannabis doesn't need. Quite frankly, as much as you proponents try and vilify the opponents, the real deal is that we're looking out for all cannabis consumers. Not just the medical consumers. Because, if we're right, those without the coverage of medical will be in a very bad place. Even those with medical would face a new round of discrimination. This law is ambiguous. Ambiguity in law is never a good thing for citizens. 



mr2shim said:


> Aside from that, show me an article in the prop 19 where it says it will effect prop 215, and medical marijuana growers will have to confine to prop 19's 25 sq ft limit.
> 
> Better check your facts buddy because you are hating on this bill for no reason. It doesn't effect MMJ growers.


There have been numerous articles and opinions that express that concern. The wording of the bill isn't really encouraging either. Of course, you'd have to understand the particulars of the Kelly decision to understand how.



mr2shim said:


> In short, read the proposition instead of reading and believing what people post on forums. That's just about as bad as listening to the news and quoting them.
> 
> I know it can be boring reading bills and propositions but it will do you and every other person who is against prop 19 nothing but good.


Right after you ask for articles to support argumentation, you say that news isn't worth referencing. Contradictory much? In any case, the assumption that opponents "just haven't really read the bill" is a paltry argumentation device. Many of us have been reading the stupid thing since before it was submitted for the ballot and many times since then. 



mr2shim said:


> Ignorance like this just goes to show how smart the average American is. Too busy wanting to eat McDonald's and watch American Idol to check the facts first.


It's funny you should mention McDonald's in such a derogatory tone. Dick Lee's vision for Prop. 19 was in fact summarized by himself as wanting to create the McDonald's of pot.


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 8, 2010)

how can the mcdonalds of pot be bad? low quality but dirt cheap. ofcourse you can just go to a diner and get a real burger if you want but you will pay more.thats the fucking metaphor. 
you people who bag on richard lee dont seem to realize his spine is broken... the man cant walk and suffers nerve damage. hes advocated mmj for nearly 20 years and its a major part of his life. not to mention his very well performing MMJ assets that he has in oakland. already tax free and unrestricted. so from what you people are saying, he plans to ruin his already performing assets along with his well being? not bloody likely. with the motivation of capitalism, the one you dick lee haters advocate, it doesnt make a lick of sense to trash high productive assets and force himself into unreasonable regulation, something you all are fearing. where do you think he managed to get the money to run this whole thing?


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 8, 2010)

Tricky Dick Lee's broken back has no relevance to the argument. The wording of the law is quite clear and very simple to interpret. It's a cute attempt at the "No true Scotsman" argument, but it's still just as false. Especially in light of the fact that far too many of us HAVE met Dicky Lee and know exactly what kind of douche he is.


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 8, 2010)

sure. gloss over my points entirely. thats productive. ive read 19, 215, and sb 420 many times. and it is not simple to interpret. i had to compare every phrase to legal dictionaries just to complete make sense of everything. the only one thats straight forward is 215 but which only allowed for "seriously ill" and if sb 420 wasnt passed by our state senate, the very people you fear to take away your rights once 19 passes, i can guarantee the VAAAAAAAAAST majority wouldnt even be in the system we have today. these people you are saying will fuck the prop once it passes are the very same that gave you the system we have today. the system you are relying on. just continue to bite the hand that feeds and see where that gets you


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 8, 2010)

Again, you didn't make any points. Just bandied on about irrelevant things such as Dick Lee's health and made numerous fallacies of relevance and presumption. I'm sure you've read many things any number of times. Unfortunately, multiple readings do not necessarily increase one's ability to comprehend and competently analyze proposed legislation. Again, your opinions of existing legislation and the current medical cannabis system, while entertaining and good for a chuckle, aren't valid rational arguments.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 8, 2010)

how many of these threads are there? you all are out of control.


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 8, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Again, you didn't make any points. Just bandied on about irrelevant things such as Dick Lee's health and made numerous fallacies of relevance and presumption. I'm sure you've read many things any number of times. Unfortunately, multiple readings do not necessarily increase one's ability to comprehend and competently analyze proposed legislation. Again, your opinions of existing legislation and the current medical cannabis system, while entertaining and good for a chuckle, aren't valid rational arguments.


weather you think its relevant doesnt mean shit to me. i do. so give me a fucking answer. if im wrong about something then dont adress it. you seem to be glossing over the fact that he suffers from something you dont. 

yes reading things multitudes and understanding the actual legal terminology/usage indeed does increase my ability to comprehend legislation. its the only way to truely understand it. how else would anyone know what that stuff says? its all legal terms. they have completely different definitions than usual context


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 8, 2010)

mikhail chalecki said:


> weather you think its relevant doesnt mean shit to me. i do. so give me a fucking answer. if im wrong about something then dont adress it. you seem to be glossing over the fact that he suffers from something you dont.


Again, his health and physical condition are absolutely irrelevant with regards to the eventual repercussions of proposed legislation. The answers are staring you right in the face, I can't help it if you can't see them.



mikhail chalecki said:


> yes reading things multitudes and understanding the actual legal terminology/usage indeed does increase my ability to comprehend legislation. its the only way to truely understand it. how else would anyone know what that stuff says? its all legal terms. they have completely different definitions than usual context


So English words start meaning different things when legal people use them, eh? That's an interesting viewpoint. Utterly erroneous, but interesting nonetheless. Legal documents and legislative bills aren't difficult to read, understand and interpret. Anyone with a modicum of legal, paralegal, contract negotiation or any number of analytical experiences is quite able to do so.


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 8, 2010)

yes obviously words mean different things when used in legal. thats why theres legal dictionaries. phrases are very specific and you know that


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 8, 2010)

mikhail chalecki said:


> yes obviously words mean different things when used in legal. thats why theres legal dictionaries. phrases are very specific and you know that


Exactly. Legal dictionaries don't give alternate definitions of words, but rather rigidly define them as they apply in a legal or legislative context. There is a large difference between specific definition and alternative definition. I'm adequately educated and experience to know not only the various denotative and connotative meanings of words as well as know which denotations are applicable under legal auspices. Keep reading and maybe one day you'll be able to tell the difference.


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 8, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Exactly. Legal dictionaries don't give alternate definitions of words, but rather rigidly define them as they apply in a legal or legislative context. There is a large difference between specific definition and alternative definition. I'm adequately educated and experience to know not only the various denotative and connotative meanings of words as well as know which denotations are applicable under legal auspices. Keep reading and maybe one day you'll be able to tell the difference.


the context of which they are used was exactly my point, regular people dont know the difference


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 8, 2010)

There's only one context. A legal one. Again, words don't mean different things in a legal context such as legislation, they just mean specific things. Specific things which are already parts of the definitions of the words being used. Just because you find it difficult to understand, doesn't mean the rest of us do.


----------



## redivider (Oct 8, 2010)

people in this forum don't know how law works in this country.

there are two types of law: common law, and so called 'written law'. in the US, laws are based on precedents, like it was in the UK, it's called COMMON LAW. results of past court rulings have weight of law over future rulings, and in some cases, a retroactive effect. There's also the written law, which what prop 19 is. 

what you don't understand is that previous precedents on limitations on medical marijuana will still be in effect, because prop 19 does nothing to change prop 215, so basically, prop 215 is still in effect. 

the california supreme court already ruled that limitations on medicinal marijuana under 215 were unconstitutional. prop 215 will still be in effect and the ruling by the supreme court, the state's highest legal resource, stands.

any police officer trying to enfoce a limit on medical marijuana would be on the wrong side of the law.

it isn't too hard to understand....


----------



## mrFancyPlants (Oct 8, 2010)

redivider said:


> what you don't understand is that previous precedents on limitations on medical marijuana will still be in effect, because prop 19 does nothing to change prop 215, so basically, prop 215 is still in effect.
> 
> the california supreme court already ruled that limitations on medicinal marijuana under 215 were unconstitutional. prop 215 will still be in effect and the ruling by the supreme court, the state's highest legal resource, stands.


Look, I believe that 19 will not limit privileges granted under 215, but that's only because it is written that way. The CA supreme court ruled that the legislature, via SB420, could not impose restrictions on voter approved propositions, Prop 215 in that case, because the CA constitution specifically says so. Future voter propositions could, however, impose restrictions or repeal all or part of past propositions. So, theoretically, 19 could have limited or modified 215, but it does not.


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 8, 2010)

and the terrible maybes just dont seem likely due to the thing called media, it would be all over the news like prop 8 was. people would not be happy with persecution of cancer and aids sufferers, maybe not the most significant demographic, but still effected by supposed limitations and doesnt look good from any angle


----------



## Serapis (Oct 8, 2010)

Yes on 19, it's common sense.....


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 8, 2010)

got my ballot today. it's all over for me.


----------



## mrFancyPlants (Oct 8, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> got my ballot today. it's all over for me.


Yep! Gotta love mail-in voting.


----------



## budling357 (Oct 9, 2010)

Serapis said:


> Yes on 19, it's common sense.....


No kidding. 

Funk your personal gain or your medical card, marijuana should be available to any adult who chooses to consume it. Period. Prohibition needs to end! Double period.



fdd2blk said:


> got my ballot today. it's all over for me.


Same here. Its in the bag. Lol, speaking of bags....Time to put some in the air.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 9, 2010)

budling357 said:


> No kidding.
> 
> Funk your personal gain or your medical card, marijuana should be available to any adult who chooses to consume it. Period. Prohibition needs to end! Double period.
> 
> ...


Just think, you'll be able to grow a whole plant(if you know how) or can take your money down and pay $10 for a small joint, made of weed grown how? 

Maybe they'll use growth hormones like they do on grapes. Insecticides should bother you.

You obviously don't mind paying heavily for your smoke, and you will.

I really doubt this will pass. I've gotten some feedback from a few folks at the center of this thing. It appears close, but private polls indicate a few percentage points more, in favor of "No".

I figure most folks have made up their minds, and further wrangling is really pointless.


----------



## budling357 (Oct 9, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Just think, you'll be able to grow a whole plant(if you know how)


I can grow more than one plant in 25 square. 



veggiegardener said:


> or can take your money down and pay $10 for a small joint, made of weed grown how?


Pure ignorance. Increasing supply and availability will actually decrease prices. Might take awhile, but it will happen. 



veggiegardener said:


> Maybe they'll use growth hormones like they do on grapes. Insecticides should bother you.


Making it legal, wont deprive you of having a choice in were you purchase your product. Infact, there will probably be more organic marijuana available.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 9, 2010)

budling357 said:


> I can grow more than one plant in 25 square.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have a pretty good idea what is coming(if 19 passes). Right now, everybody who can, is growing all he can, because the six plant limit is gone.

There is going to be a huge glut, for about a year.

Enter the 25 square foot limit. Tiny home gardens and huge commercial grows will dominate.

How many parcels will be required to grow as much as I do? Fdd? JJ? Hodge? Tom Hill?.

Think about it.

Good gardeners don't just appear.

How many folks will be successful in their little space? With Draconian taxes and restrictions, how many will try?

If you intend to buy your weed, will the sellers be able to guarantee it's purity?

This law could be so much better with just a few changes.

Why wait ten years to hash those issues out(like 215)?

We can have a well written bill in two years that addresses all our concerns.

Using terms like "who'll know" as a defense of 19 is just silly.

Prop 19 is seriously flawed and should be defeated.

It's a lot easier to vote NO now, than to repeal it later.


----------



## budling357 (Oct 9, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> I have a pretty good idea what is coming(if 19 passes). Right now, everybody who can, is growing all he can, because the six plant limit is gone.
> 
> There is going to be a huge glut, for about a year.
> 
> ...


Ah!!! The repetitive 19 effects 215 argument. Selfishness.

I choose not to play the little game. Medical cards are a joke!


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 9, 2010)

budling357 said:


> Ah!!! The repetitive 19 effects 215 argument. Selfishness.
> 
> I choose not to play the little game. Medical cards are a joke!


In that case, fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

You are clueless.

Read back through a few hundred of my posts.

You might learn something if you want to learn.

Most people like you(selfish) can't read what they don't want to read.

My wife's recommendation has been her life line for well over a decade.

Her doctors agree that she would be dead without it.

Her needs are impossible to provide in 25 square feet.

Again,

Fuck You.


----------



## budling357 (Oct 9, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> I have a pretty good idea what is coming(if 19 passes). Right now, everybody who can, is growing all he can, because the six plant limit is gone.


Six plant limit remains. 19 has no effect on 215. 



veggiegardener said:


> Enter the 25 square foot limit. Tiny home gardens and huge commercial grows will dominate.


 Im sure anyone currently growing illegally, would be happy with 25 square. Besides, this limit will be left up to the city it pertains too.



veggiegardener said:


> How many parcels will be required to grow as much as I do? Fdd? JJ? Hodge? Tom Hill?.
> 
> Think about it.
> 
> ...


Im sorry, I havent heard anything from you that should be a concern when considering the legalization of marijuana. California has an opportunity to open the door for the rest of the country to end this infringement of american rights known as prohibition of hemp(marijuana).


----------



## budling357 (Oct 9, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> In that case, fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
> 
> You are clueless.
> 
> ...


Did I imply there is no medical benefit from marijuana? No!!! I simply said 215 is a joke. The fact of the matter is, I believe it is very beneficial medically, not to mention the many other uses for hemp. 

Still, this should have nothing to do with taking back our right to smoke a plant. 



veggiegardener said:


> Fuck You.


Back at ya loser.

If ya want to go internet toe to toe, we can do this. Right now im just sitting back, joint in hand, laptop on lap, watchin tv. You want to get butt hurt and start trying to hand out an education, we can do this.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 9, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> In that case, fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
> 
> You are clueless.
> 
> ...


I've read through most of your posts and it appears that all you care about is yourself, your family and how much money you make off marijuana. You are a selfish prick, so take that fuck you and look in the mirror you shitmop..

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Text_of_Proposition_19,_the_%22Regulate,_Control_and_Tax_Cannabis_Act_of_2010%22_%28California%29#B._Purposes

Better read up before you start spewing out more useless bullshit lies.

You know something I just though of, it's a 25 sq ft limit. not cubic feet so basically it can be as TALL as you wait it to and will still fit in the limit because square feet is length x width, whereas cubic feet is length x width x height.

I'm sure you can grow enough in a 5x5x12' space. 

but it's funny because if you are a licensed MMJ grower the limit would matter because prop 19 isn't written for MMJ users or growers.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 9, 2010)

mrFancyPlants said:


> If 19 passes I can sell my lights, grow outside and stop paying for electricity. Under 215 and my local restrictions, I can't grow outside unless I build a greenhouse.
> 
> Either way - weed's gonna be so cheap soon that I won't have to worry about it. Talked to another friend - local dispensaries have people coming in multiple times AN HOUR trying to sell dank. Sorry - shelves are full.
> 
> Saw the same thing last year - friends sitting on pounds of kush. I'm guessing it all flows east but I don't know nothing about that  Now we got east coast states passing med laws and the gold rush begins again out there - too bad for California dealers because you're out of a job either way we go.


Local jurisdictions will simply pass ordinances to maintain the greenhouse rule. Dream on.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 9, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> I've read through most of your posts and it appears that all you care about is yourself, your family and how much money you make off marijuana. You are a selfish prick, so take that fuck you and look in the mirror you shitmop..
> 
> http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Text_of_Proposition_19,_the_%22Regulate,_Control_and_Tax_Cannabis_Act_of_2010%22_%28California%29#B._Purposes
> 
> ...


I don't sell.

Saving the cost of buying Dispensary crap is different from selling, dickhead.

Kinda stupid and stuck on one thought, huh?


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 9, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> I've read through most of your posts and it appears that all you care about is yourself, your family and how much money you make off marijuana. You are a selfish prick, so take that fuck you and look in the mirror you shitmop..
> 
> http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Text_of_Proposition_19,_the_%22Regulate,_Control_and_Tax_Cannabis_Act_of_2010%22_%28California%29#B._Purposes
> 
> ...


You failed reading comprehension?

You choose to ignore my points and spew uninformed garbage.

You are irrelevant.

Go away.

Or move to Rancho Cordova, and feel the love, dickhead.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 10, 2010)

closed due to insults.


----------

