# California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative 2012



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 25, 2010)

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]I really just wanted to post this here for reference. Whether or not prop 19 passes I think that people should do something to help get this on the ballot in 2012. This would provide more freedoms and let falsely imprisoned people out of jail while clearing marijuana related charges from criminal records. If the people of California really want legalization, supporters should help collect signatures to assist in getting this up for vote. 
​
California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative 2012 ​ California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative 2012​ AN ACT TO AMEND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE OF CALIFORNIA:​I. Add Section 11362.6 to the Health and Safety Code of California, any laws or policies to the contrary notwithstanding:​1. No person, individual, or corporate entity shall be arrested or prosecuted, be denied any right or privilege, nor be subject to any criminal or civil penalties for the possession, cultivation, transportation, distribution, or consumption of cannabis hemp marijuana, including:​(a) Cannabis hemp industrial products.​ (b) Cannabis hemp medicinal preparations.​ (c) Cannabis hemp nutritional products.​ (c) Cannabis hemp religious and spiritual products.​ (d) Cannabis hemp recreational and euphoric use and products.​2. Definition of terms:​(a) The terms "cannabis hemp" and &#8220;cannabis hemp marijuana&#8221; mean the natural, non-genetically modified plant hemp, cannabis, marihuana, marijuana, cannabis sativa L, cannabis Americana, cannabis chinensis, cannabis indica, cannabis ruderalis, cannabis sativa, or any variety of cannabis, including any derivative, concentrate, extract, flower, leaf, particle, preparation, resin, root, salt, seed, stalk, stem, or any product thereof.​ (b) The term "cannabis hemp industrial products" means all products made from cannabis hemp that are not designed or intended for human consumption, including, but not limited to: clothing, building materials, paper, fiber, fuel, lubricants, plastics, paint, seed for cultivation, animal feed, veterinary medicine, oil, or any other product that is not designed for internal human consumption; as well as cannabis hemp plants used for crop rotation, erosion control, pest control, weed control, or any other horticultural or environmental purposes, for example, the reversal of the Greenhouse Effect and toxic soil reclamation.​ (c) The term "cannabis hemp medicinal preparations" means all products made from cannabis hemp that are designed, intended, or used for human consumption for the treatment of any human disease or condition, for pain relief, or for any healing purpose, including but not limited to the treatment or relief of: Alzheimer's and pre-Alzheimer's disease, stroke, arthritis, asthma, cramps, epilepsy, glaucoma, migraine, multiple sclerosis, nausea, premenstrual syndrome, side effects of cancer chemotherapy, fibromyalgia, sickle cell anemia, spasticity, spinal injury, stress, easement of post-traumatic stress disorder, Tourette syndrome, attention deficit disorder, immunodeficiency, wasting syndrome from AIDS or anorexia; use as an antibiotic, antibacterial, anti-viral, or anti-emetic; as a healing agent, or as an adjunct to any medical or herbal treatment. Mental conditions not limited to bipolar, depression, attention deficit disorder, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, shall be conditions considered for medical use.​ (d) The term "cannabis hemp nutritional products" means cannabis hemp for consumption by humans and animals as food, including but not limited to: seed, seed protein, seed oil, essential fatty acids, seed cake, dietary fiber, or any preparation or extract thereof.​ (e) The term "cannabis hemp euphoric products" means cannabis hemp intended for personal recreational or religious use, other than cannabis hemp industrial products, cannabis hemp medicinal preparations, or cannabis hemp nutritional products.​ (f) The term "personal use" means the internal consumption of cannabis hemp by people 21 years of age or older for any relaxational, meditative, religious, spiritual, recreational, or other purpose other than sale.​ (g) The term "commercial production" means the production of cannabis hemp products for sale or profit under the conditions of these provisions.​3. Industrial cannabis hemp farmers, manufacturers, processors, and distributors shall not be subject to any special zoning requirement, licensing fee, or tax that is excessive, discriminatory, or prohibitive.​ 4. Cannabis hemp medicinal preparations are hereby restored to the list of available medicines in California. Licensed physicians shall not be penalized for, nor restricted from, prescribing or recommending cannabis hemp for medical purposes to any patient, regardless of age. No tax shall be applied to prescribed cannabis hemp medicinal preparations. Medical research shall be encouraged. No recommending physician shall be subject to any professional licensing review or hearing as a result of recommending or approving medical use of cannabis hemp marijuana.​ 5. Personal use of cannabis hemp euphoric products.​(a) No permit, license, or tax shall be required for the non-commercial cultivation, transportation, distribution, or consumption of cannabis hemp.​ (b) Testing for inactive and/or inert residual cannabis metabolites shall not be required for employment or insurance, nor be considered in determining employment, other impairment, or intoxication.​ (c) When a person falls within the conditions of these exceptions, the offense laws do not apply and only the exception laws apply.​6. Use of cannabis hemp products for religious or spiritual purposes shall be considered an inalienable right; and shall be protected by the full force of the State and Federal Constitutions.​ 7. Commerce in cannabis hemp euphoric products shall be limited to adults, 21 years of age and older, and shall be regulated in a manner analogous to California's wine industry model. For the purpose of distinguishing personal from commercial production, 99 flowering female plants and 12 pounds of dried, cured cannabis hemp flowers, bud, not leaf, produced per adult, 21 years of age and older, per year shall be considered as being for personal use.​ 8. The manufacture, marketing, distribution, or sales between adults of equipment or accessories designed to assist in the planting, cultivation, harvesting, curing, processing, packaging, storage, analysis, consumption, or transportation of cannabis hemp plants, industrial cannabis hemp products, cannabis hemp medicinal preparations, cannabis hemp nutritional products, cannabis hemp euphoric products, or any cannabis hemp product shall not be prohibited.​ 9. No California law enforcement personnel or funds shall be used to assist or aid and abet in the enforcement of Federal cannabis hemp marijuana laws involving acts which are hereby no longer illegal in the State of California.​ 10. Any person who threatens the enjoyment of these provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor. The maximum penalties and fines of a misdemeanor may be imposed.​II. Repeal, delete, and expunge any and all existing statutory laws that conflict with the provisions of this initiative.​1. Enactment of this initiative shall include: amnesty, immediate release from prison, jail, parole, and probation, and clearing, expungement, and deletion of all criminal records for all persons currently charged with, or convicted of any non-violent cannabis hemp marijuana offenses included in this initiative which are hereby no longer illegal in the State of California. People who fall within this category that triggered an original sentence are included within this provision.​ 2. Within 60 days of the passage of this Act, the Attorney General shall develop and distribute a one-page application, providing for the destruction of all cannabis hemp marijuana criminal records in California for any such offense covered by this Act. Such forms shall be distributed to district and city attorneys and made available at all police departments in the State to persons hereby affected. Upon filing such form with any Superior Court and a payment of a fee of $10.00, the Court shall liberally construe these provisions to benefit the defendant in furtherance of the amnesty and dismissal provision of this section. Upon the Court's ruling under this provision the arrest record shall be set aside and be destroyed. Such persons may then truthfully state that they have never been arrested or convicted of any cannabis hemp marijuana related offense which is hereby no longer illegal in the State of California. This shall be deemed to be a finding of factual innocence under California Penal Code Section 851.8 et seq.​III. The legislature is authorized upon thorough investigation, to enact legislation using reasonable standards to:​1. License concessionary establishments to distribute cannabis hemp euphoric products in a manner analogous to California's wine industry model. Sufficient community outlets shall be licensed to provide reasonable commercial access to persons of legal age, so as to discourage and prevent the misuse of, and illicit traffic in, such products. Any license or permit fee required by the State for commercial production, distribution or use shall not exceed $1,000.00.​ 2. Place an excise tax on commercial sale of cannabis hemp euphoric products, analogous to California's wine industry model, so long as no excise tax or combination of excise taxes shall exceed $10.00 per ounce.​ 3. Determine an acceptable and uniform standard of impairment based on performance testing, to restrict persons impaired by cannabis hemp euphoric products from operating a motor vehicle or heavy machinery, or otherwise engaging in conduct that may affect public safety.​ 4. Regulate the personal use of cannabis hemp euphoric products in enclosed and/or restricted public places.​IV. Pursuant to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the people of California hereby repudiate and challenge Federal cannabis hemp marijuana prohibitions that conflict with this act.​ V. Severability: If any provision of this Act, or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid by any court, the remainder of this Act, to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of such provisions to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.​ VI. Construction: If any rival or conflicting initiative regulating any matter addressed by this act receives the higher affirmative vote, then all non-conflicting parts shall become operative.​ VII. Purpose of Act: This Act is an exercise of the police powers of the State for the protection of the safety, welfare, health, and peace of the people and the environment of the State, to protect the industrial and medicinal uses of cannabis hemp, to eliminate the unlicensed and unlawful cultivation, selling, and dispensing of cannabis hemp; and to encourage temperance in the consumption of cannabis hemp euphoric products. It is hereby declared that the subject matter of this Act involves, in the highest degree, the ecological, economic, social, and moral well-being and safety of the State and of all its people. All provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of these purposes: to respect human rights, to promote tolerance, and to end cannabis hemp prohibition.​ Eddy Lepp

George Clayton Johnson

Michael S. Jolson​[/FONT]


----------



## desert dude (Oct 25, 2010)

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"I really just wanted to post this here for reference. Whether or not prop 19 passes I think that people should do something to help get this on the ballot in 2012. This would provide more freedoms and let falsely imprisoned people out of jail while clearing marijuana related criminal records. If people in California really wants legalization, supporters should help collect signatures to assist in getting this up for vote."​





Where do I sign? Are you collecting signatures to get this on the ballot?

I do have some issues with this initiative:


1. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The terms "cannabis hemp" and cannabis hemp marijuana mean the natural, non-genetically modified". Why is genetic modification excluded? GM is how modern biological scientists work, so why should we intentionally lock hemp culture in the middle ages. Does this clause eliminate selective breeding, does it disallow one from crossing "White Widow" with "Bubble Gum", for example?[/FONT]

2. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The term "personal use" means the internal consumption of cannabis hemp by people 21 years of age or older..."[/FONT] Personally, I have no problem with this clause, but considering all the objections voiced by others here over Prop 19's identical clause, maybe this should be lowered to 18 years of age or older.

3. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Testing for inactive and/or inert residual cannabis metabolites shall not be required for employment or insurance, nor be considered in determining employment, other impairment, or intoxication."[/FONT] Personally, I like this clause in the proposition, but many here on RUI insist that, "doctors, nurses, firemen and teachers will all go to work stoned. How will we catch them if we can't test?"

4. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Use of cannabis hemp products for religious or spiritual purposes shall be considered an inalienable right; and shall be protected by the full force of the State and Federal Constitutions." I am not sure what purpose is meant by invoking the Federal Constitution here, this is meant to be a California state initiative, hence it has no effect on the Federal constitution.[/FONT]

5. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]II. Repeal, delete, and expunge any and all existing statutory laws that conflict with the provisions of this initiative." I like this provision a lot![/FONT] I think the limitation of $10 as the maximum fee might cause trouble in the campaign to get this passed because it will cost the state more than $10 to search the records, destroy the records of past offenders, etc. Just a thought on my part.

6. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Determine an acceptable and uniform standard of impairment based on performance testing, to restrict persons impaired by cannabis hemp euphoric products from operating a motor vehicle or heavy machinery, or otherwise engaging in conduct that may affect public safety. "[/FONT] Great idea, it puts the burden of proof on the accuser, where it should be!

7. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Pursuant to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the people of California hereby repudiate and challenge Federal cannabis hemp marijuana prohibitions that conflict with this act." I absolutely agree with the sentiment expressed in this sentence, however it is irrelevant because this whole initiative repudiates the Feds. Superfluous language in a law is never a good idea.

[/FONT]
I am willing to sign the petition to get this on the ballot, even without the changes recommended above, and I am willing to vote for it. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is not on the ballot in 2010, correct? What is on the ballot in 2010 is prop 19. Prop 19 is a good stop-gap measure until 2012 when this will be on the ballot, so I voted yes on prop19; you should too.

​[/FONT]


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 25, 2010)

desert dude said:


> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"I really just wanted to post this here for reference. Whether or not prop 19 passes I think that people should do something to help get this on the ballot in 2012. This would provide more freedoms and let falsely imprisoned people out of jail while clearing marijuana related criminal records. If people in California really wants legalization, supporters should help collect signatures to assist in getting this up for vote."​
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm willing to wait.

If 19 passes, all such bills become unlikely to make the 2012 ballot.

Agreed on the 21 YO age limit.

If they can fight and die in our military, they are adults.

A direct challenge to Congress regarding State's Rights is at the heart of this.

Based on the Constitution, all Federal Cannabis laws are unConstitutional.

I say, throw down the gauntlet. The Feds will either prove their case to the American people, or they will find out very quickly how "representative" our government is. They'll back down if the choice is to arrest all state officials.

In that case, I'd work toward secession. There would be a lot of Federal buildings to burn, and corrupt Federal employees to incarcerate, try, and hang, for crimes against the American people.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 25, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> I'm willing to wait.
> 
> If 19 passes, all such bills become unlikely to make the 2012 ballot.
> 
> ...


We mostly agree. I think prop 19 makes it more likely to get a bill like this approved by the voters in 2012, not less. 

I honestly think the "expunge the records and declare them factually innocent" clause will be a very hard sell to the voters, I can hear the campaign ads now, "prop xyz wants to put dangerous criminals in the house next to yours, blah, blah, blah..." Legalizing marijuana is hard enough to sell to the majority without this clause.


----------



## vradd (Oct 25, 2010)

is this how the actual ballot would read? ill vote for it if veggie votes yes for 19. you scratch my back and ill scratch yours. 

now heres where i have some issues,

1) why is the term 'marijuana' still being used? you do know thats not even the real term for it, its a govt slang term. thats like if you were to say we want the chronic legal. by you acknowleding the term marijuana you are still playing their games.

2) im all for the legal age of 21 but i would also vote for 18. if a 17yr old can join the military with mommy/daddy's signature to carry a gun and fight a war that was based on former president bush's propaganda, then by all means let them have the judgment to make THAT decision.

3) for the drug tests, i agree they should be null, BUT i also agree to leave it up to the business to establish some type of guidlines in reguards to it. i can see the paranoia that we dont want those who serve/protect us to be stoned, BUT i also have faith that those who hold those types of jobs have enough common sense when to and when not to take care of your business. 

4) i dont like how 'euphoric' keeps getting brought up. alcohol isnt labeled with that, neither is tobacco. that just seems like a word that would get twisted the wrong way. remember its going to be difficult to explain eurphoric to someone who's never smoked or experienced anything semi mind altering.

5) i dont think the whole burning of all pot files would work to well... that in itself will be a very expensive process. if pot does go fully legal, the next ballot would be where the taxes to make this happen come from.

6) i really dont see anything different from prop 19 and this other than the choice of words used.

i really dont think pot will ever be legal federally. eventually im sure each state will adopt some kind of article's to regulate it. even if you look in other countries that work with it, its only still legal in some parts of europe or some parts of canada. 

if you notice the DEA only busts HUGE operations. hopefully you guys also realize it costs LOTS of money to run these raids. in other words if the 'operation' is generating enough money to get noticed, its worth it to them to take it down. i think it will always be like this, and frankly im semi fine with it. but then you have those stories of what seem like normal people who get raided. to that i donno im sure theirs a lot more back story than what normal media discuss's.

if 19 doesnt pass then ill vote for this if it gets written better. for some reason as i read 19 and this, 19 just seems a LOT more realistic to happen vs what would be needed to establish this.

LASTLY, i see the biggest obstacle is going from labeling pot as 'medical' to being set as 'recreational'... that will be the biggest issue i see because what happens if it becomes legal, do all the current patients get labled as just that, patients? like how is that transition going to go?


----------



## beardo (Oct 25, 2010)

I'll Vote yes on this-let's get it on the ballot -no on 19 yes on this. legalize in 2012 no on 19


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 25, 2010)

vradd said:


> is this how the actual ballot would read? ill vote for it if veggie votes yes for 19. you scratch my back and ill scratch yours.
> 
> now heres where i have some issues,
> 
> ...


Sorry, I voted my conscience, as did my wife and son.

NO on P19.


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 25, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Where do I sign? Are you collecting signatures to get this on the ballot?


Signatures aren't being collected yet. Voter initiatives have one year before the election in which it will be voted on to collect votes (I think). I just think the more people who know about this the better. 



> I do have some issues with this initiative:
> 
> 
> 1. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The terms "cannabis hemp" and &#8220;cannabis hemp marijuana&#8221; mean the natural, non-genetically modified". Why is genetic modification excluded? GM is how modern biological scientists work, so why should we intentionally lock hemp culture in the middle ages. Does this clause eliminate selective breeding, does it disallow one from crossing "White Widow" with "Bubble Gum", for example?[/FONT]


The people who wrote this bill want to see marijuana kept pure. We saw what Monsanto did when they patented genetically modified soy beans and proceed to wage war on the rest of the soy bean industry. Breeding is not genetic modification.



> 2. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The term "personal use" means the internal consumption of cannabis hemp by people 21 years of age or older..."[/FONT] Personally, I have no problem with this clause, but considering all the objections voiced by others here over Prop 19's identical clause, maybe this should be lowered to 18 years of age or older.


Agreed but it's not something that's really a deal breaker.



> 3. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Testing for inactive and/or inert residual cannabis metabolites shall not be required for employment or insurance, nor be considered in determining employment, other impairment, or intoxication."[/FONT] Personally, I like this clause in the proposition, but many here on RUI insist that, "doctors, nurses, firemen and teachers will all go to work stoned. How will we catch them if we can't test?"


Really? Me and you both know testing for marijuana to get a job or for insurance wouldn't prove one way or another if someone was high on the job. This clause is to protect the people from being discriminated against plain and simple.



> 4. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Use of cannabis hemp products for religious or spiritual purposes shall be considered an inalienable right; and shall be protected by the full force of the State and Federal Constitutions." I am not sure what purpose is meant by invoking the Federal Constitution here, this is meant to be a California state initiative, hence it has no effect on the Federal constitution.[/FONT]


It's just pointing out that freedom of religion is protected on state and federal levels.



> 5. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]II. Repeal, delete, and expunge any and all existing statutory laws that conflict with the provisions of this initiative." I like this provision a lot![/FONT] I think the limitation of $10 as the maximum fee might cause trouble in the campaign to get this passed because it will cost the state more than $10 to search the records, destroy the records of past offenders, etc. Just a thought on my part.


It's a small cost for the state to pay for keeping non violent decent people in jail not to mention voter initiatives are allowed to come at the expense of the state.



> 6. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Determine an acceptable and uniform standard of impairment based on performance testing, to restrict persons impaired by cannabis hemp euphoric products from operating a motor vehicle or heavy machinery, or otherwise engaging in conduct that may affect public safety. "[/FONT] Great idea, it puts the burden of proof on the accuser, where it should be!


They just want it defined. Thc stays in the system for thirty days and they don't want any abuse of the law from disgruntled law enforcement.



> [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
> I am willing to sign the petition to get this on the ballot, even without the changes recommended above, and I am willing to vote for it. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is not on the ballot in 2010, correct? What is on the ballot in 2010 is prop 19. Prop 19 is a good stop-gap measure until 2012 when this will be on the ballot, so I voted yes on prop19; you should too.


While this bill says, all other legislation prior to this bill that this bill addresses will be abolished, I don't think it can legally change other voter initiatives without going through the proper channels and there are limitations and clauses I don't agree with in prop 19.


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 25, 2010)

vradd said:


> 6) i really dont see anything different from prop 19 and this other than the choice of words used.


Except this bill is directed at freedoms for everyone and doesn't set strict limitations on individuals while allowing more freedoms to marijuana companies. This bill protects everyone and that is the difference.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 25, 2010)

LOL!

There's no difference between Mao's Little Red Book and the Bible, except the words used!

That's FUNNY!

LOL


----------



## vradd (Oct 25, 2010)

you guys are forgetting that we live in a society based on capatilism. capatialism may not exist deep in the woods where yall live, but down here thats how it is. if you dont like it then move the fuck out of country. either you gotta just accept it or always be apart of 'that' crowd. let this be the first step into making it fully legal. you gotta crawl before you walk right? and apparently govt is still using the same old tactics right? and overall govt > you right? so why not just run with it and build the momentum. if CA pass's. then other states will try. they might not succeed right away, but thats the momentum you need. this isnt gonna be a overnite thing, this is gonna take YEARS. it'll take years to reverse all that was done. let it be a slow transition, dont just jump up and scream we want it now.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 25, 2010)

I'd really like to see a southern state do something like this.


----------



## vradd (Oct 25, 2010)

southern as in back south? why because of their traditional grass roots theme?

the thing i hate about CA is we are a materialistic state. we are expensive as fuck, and as long as you can cut it above the rest aka high class people you really dont care about action, as long as your getting yours. when katrina hit all of louisiana came together rich and poor they united. here we dont really do that. everyone can always buy their problems away, either permanently or temp. thats why politics work so well for rich people. media campaigns are overwelming to the lower class. big words and crazy terms. thats why i can see why some people flip out because of how its worded they think its a trap.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 25, 2010)

vradd said:


> southern as in back south? why because of their traditional grass roots theme?
> 
> the thing i hate about CA is we are a materialistic state. we are expensive as fuck, and as long as you can cut it above the rest aka high class people you really dont care about action, as long as your getting yours. when katrina hit all of louisiana came together rich and poor they united. here we dont really do that. everyone can always buy their problems away, either permanently or temp. thats why politics work so well for rich people. media campaigns are overwelming to the lower class. big words and crazy terms. thats why i can see why some people flip out because of how its worded they think its a trap.



Leave.

My family has been here since 1870. We intend to stay.


----------



## vradd (Oct 25, 2010)

why because you wont accept our country is based on capitalism?


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 26, 2010)

beardo said:


> I'll Vote yes on this-let's get it on the ballot -no on 19 yes on this. legalize in 2012 no on 19


It's not likely to even make the ballot in 2012. Even if it did, what makes you think it has a chance in hell of passing? 

The only reason prop 19 has the support it does is because of the recession and the potential tax dollars it will bring in. If you take those financial incentives out, who's going to vote for it? You? lol. Your vote and the vote of others who share your view are a tiny minority. They don't come anywhere close to making up for all the votes it will lose from those non-smokers out there who are voting for prop 19 because they think it'll help the state economically.

With prop 19 polling the way it is, it's an absolute joke that thinking an even more liberal law with less economic benefits will pass. You're living in a dream world. I wish what you were saying was realistic. If it was, I'd be agreeing with you. Yes, I'd rather have this be the law rather than prop 19. But it is in no way realistic.


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 26, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> It's not likely to even make the ballot in 2012. Even if it did, what makes you think it has a chance in hell of passing?
> 
> The only reason prop 19 has the support it does is because of the recession and the potential tax dollars it will bring in. If you take those financial incentives out, who's going to vote for it? You? lol. Your vote and the vote of others who share your view are a tiny minority. They don't come anywhere close to making up for all the votes it will lose from those non-smokers out there who are voting for prop 19 because they think it'll help the state economically.
> 
> With prop 19 polling the way it is, it's an absolute joke that thinking an even more liberal law with less economic benefits will pass. You're living in a dream world. I wish what you were saying was realistic. If it was, I'd be agreeing with you. Yes, I'd rather have this be the law rather than prop 19. But it is in no way realistic.


The CCHHI still allows the taxation of sales and it will make it to the ballot if people make an effort to get it there.

I'm just saying this is a bill I would vote for. I'm not going to vote for a bill that establishes legal "cartels" (a coalition of political or special-interest groups having a common cause, as to encourage the passage of a certain law.) with total protection while still criminalizing citizens for growing more than a 25 sq ft area.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 26, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> The CCHHI still allows the taxation of sales and it will make it to the ballot if people make an effort to get it there.
> 
> I'm just saying this is a bill I would vote for. I'm not going to vote for a bill that establishes legal "cartels" (a coalition of political or special-interest groups having a common cause, as to encourage the passage of a certain law.) with total protection while still criminalizing citizens for growing more than a 25 sq ft area.


lol @ legal cartels. Last time I checked Richard Lee wasn't decapitating people or kidnapping people's children to force them into indentured servatude. I'm pretty sure that has a lot more to do with why people don't like drug cartels.

I'll vote for the 2012 bill IF it makes the ballot. It might be a better bill, but it has no chance of passing. I'll still vote for it, but it's a pipe dream. I'll take what is real for now.


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 27, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> lol @ legal cartels. Last time I checked Richard Lee wasn't decapitating people or kidnapping people's children to force them into indentured servatude. I'm pretty sure that has a lot more to do with why people don't like drug cartels.


Not true, they are trying to control the market and pass laws that benefit themselves while keeping citizens in limbo. Just because they aren't killing people doesn't mean that they are all rainbows and butterflies. I say coming together to establish laws with personal benefits while not benefiting the people is just as bad. Citizens will still be going to jail and Lee will be fully protected by state law. All that he had to do was give the people more rights and more people would vote yes on this bill.


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 27, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> Not true, they are trying to control the market and pass laws that benefit themselves while keeping citizens in limbo. Just because they aren't killing people doesn't mean that they are all rainbows and butterflies. I say coming together to establish laws with personal benefits while not benefiting the people is just as bad. Citizens will still be going to jail and Lee will be fully protected by state law. All that he had to do was give the people more rights and more people would vote yes on this bill.


utter crap!
u obviously don't understand capitalism, sad because its the system we live in.
Anyone has the chance to make as much $ from the marijuana biz as Lee has, we have had always had this opportunity available. 
once again, if 19 was only about lee and big biz why does it allow for everyone of age to be able to grow their own bud for free at home?
Lee is an amazing person and we should all be thanking him for all of his hard work, contributions, and biz that has brought mj to the public eye and started the end of prohibition in the USA. He is the best thing that could have happened to every single pot smoker in this state!


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 27, 2010)

luvourmother said:


> utter crap!
> u obviously don't understand capitalism, sad because its the system we live in.
> Anyone has the chance to make as much $ from the marijuana biz as Lee has, we have had always had this opportunity available.
> once again, if 19 was only about lee and big biz why does it allow for everyone of age to be able to grow their own bud for free at home?
> Lee is an amazing person and we should all be thanking him for all of his hard work, contributions, and biz that has brought mj to the public eye and started the end of prohibition in the USA. He is the best thing that could have happened to every single pot smoker in this state!


You're delusional:

- Not everyone has the chance to be in the biz. As you can see from Oakland where they are limiting the amount of permits.
- It allows people to grow at home but with a very limited area and makes sure that everyday people are criminalized if they try to cut into his profits.
- Your right Lee is awesome, thats why some of the biggest marijuana activists are against this bill.


----------



## vradd (Oct 27, 2010)

lol dude u need to realize not everyone wants to be in the business to grow, i bet you the number of those who are just being allowed to smoke and grow something PERIOD, far outnumber those who want to grow to gain capital.

oakland is limiting the number of permits probably because everyone wants to grow it. big deal move to the city next door. if you didnt prepare for this great movement months maybe years ago then thats YOUR bad. richard lee is smart. he knew to stick with it so that if it should ever become legal hes already got him self established and ready for it. 

the only people who are going to get criminalized are those who are pushing huge amounts and not being held accountable for it. got you people who argue these raids are ignorant. they will only raid those whose bust is great than or EQUAL to the cost to run the operational raid. they will not waste tax dollars and possibly the lives of LEO's for a small backyard grow... they only want you country farmers who have acres of unregistered land and making a fortune off it.

the only pot activists against the bill are those who stand to lose money from it. its simple math. money = power. 

plain and simple. why do you think politicians are ALL rich. they can afford to sway the vote via money, because money has that power.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 27, 2010)

luvourmother said:


> utter crap!
> u obviously don't understand capitalism, sad because its the system we live in.
> Anyone has the chance to make as much $ from the marijuana biz as Lee has, we have had always had this opportunity available.
> once again, if 19 was only about lee and big biz why does it allow for everyone of age to be able to grow their own bud for free at home?
> Lee is an amazing person and we should all be thanking him for all of his hard work, contributions, and biz that has brought mj to the public eye and started the end of prohibition in the USA. He is the best thing that could have happened to every single pot smoker in this state!


Had he left out the area limits and local ordinances, P19 would be passable.

No, on 19.


----------



## vradd (Oct 27, 2010)

veggie why cant you get over your wallet and just be happy we all have the chance to smoke pot, not just 215 people anymore. dont you want everyone to have the same rights as you? dont you want the same rights as everyone else?

so long as you live in this country bro you will have to pay taxes on something. you WILL be regulated on something. its just how it is. if you want to be robin hood and protect whats yours then you need to use a better agenda and not something that only helps you.


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 27, 2010)

vradd said:


> veggie why cant you get over your wallet and just be happy we all have the chance to smoke pot, not just 215 people anymore. dont you want everyone to have the same rights as you? dont you want the same rights as everyone else?
> 
> so long as you live in this country bro you will have to pay taxes on something. you WILL be regulated on something. its just how it is. if you want to be robin hood and protect whats yours then you need to use a better agenda and not something that only helps you.


Everyone does have the same rights as him. Go get a recommendation.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 27, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> Everyone does have the same rights as him. Go get a recommendation.


Exactly.

Everyone that likes Cannabis, _needs_ Cannabis according to well known MD, Thomas O'Connell. Most pot docs agree with him.

Nearly all of them will accept insomnia as sufficient reason to write a recommendation.

Yes, this system isn't perfect, but is far better for everyone than the results of P19.

There are thousands of co-ops around California that provide low cost, or free meds to their members. This doesn't happen in 25 square feet.


----------



## vradd (Oct 27, 2010)

unfortunetly society has labled is the wrong colors so i can assume the masss who dont want a 215 card dont want to be labled as such. by partially regulating it and leaving it up to the state it then removes the 'sin' feeling of doing something that by the books is wrong when we all know its not.

your forgetting that what is written will im sure be amended some how after it gets legalized. im sure their will be a cause and effect waiting to happen. 

and again sir please do NOT preach about dispensaries unless your going to provide proof. i dont believe in these 'mystical' dispensaries that only exist by word of mouth, that is NOT being compassionate to the pot community. thats just as good as saying "hey go find a grower and be friends with him so u get free buds" most growers WONT do that because they have your mentality about money.

as for low cost ive seen very rarely will top shelfs ever go below $50. and if its a word of mouth place only then thats even better. proof! that if you have good stuff you will get a following and a decent income regaurdless.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 27, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> Everyone does have the same rights as him. Go get a recommendation.


Fuck a recommendation. Make it legal.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 27, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> Not true, they are trying to control the market and pass laws that benefit themselves while keeping citizens in limbo.


I heard that if you're wearing a tin foil hat you'll be safe from that stuff.




> Just because they aren't killing people doesn't mean that they are all rainbows and butterflies.


Ok, but they still aren't killing people. lol. You're comparing them to the drug cartels. The drug cartels do kill people. 



> I say coming together to establish laws with personal benefits while not benefiting the people is just as bad.


If that were the case here I'd agree with you, but it's not. This does benefit people. You're just so deep in some conspiracy theory you can't see it.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 27, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> You're delusional:
> 
> - Not everyone has the chance to be in the biz. As you can see from Oakland where they are limiting the amount of permits.


I'm going to go ahead and assume that everyone who is in a financial position to open a dispensary can afford some type of car as well. If that is the case they can drive to Berkley, Alameda, Danville, San Leandro, San Lorenzo, San Francisco, etc, etc, etc. It's not like people who live in Oakland aren't allowed to drive to another city/town. I know, it's crazy to suggest someone spends 5 minutes in a car, but it can be done. There is no wall around Oakland preventing people from leaving. So yeah, they all have a chance to be in the business. 



> - It allows people to grow at home but with a very limited area and makes sure that everyday people are criminalized if they try to cut into his profits.


25sq ft is enough room to get a considerable amount of bud. And this brings the limit UP from zero sq ft. We can all agree that the number 25 is more than zero right? 



> - Your right Lee is awesome, thats why some of the biggest marijuana activists are against this bill.


"Some". Yeah, and MOST are in favor of it.


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 28, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> I'm going to go ahead and assume that everyone who is in a financial position to open a dispensary can afford some type of car as well. If that is the case they can drive to Berkley, Alameda, Danville, San Leandro, San Lorenzo, San Francisco, etc, etc, etc. It's not like people who live in Oakland aren't allowed to drive to another city/town. I know, it's crazy to suggest someone spends 5 minutes in a car, but it can be done. There is no wall around Oakland preventing people from leaving. So yeah, they all have a chance to be in the business.


Oakland is a pretty progressive city when it comes to pot, what makes you think a lot of California won't be more restrictive? If this bill would have allowed a more free market I probably wouldn't be against it. Go tell the Napa Valley they can only have 4 vineyards and see what happens.



> 25sq ft is enough room to get a considerable amount of bud. And this brings the limit UP from zero sq ft. We can all agree that the number 25 is more than zero right?


Everyone has the right to get a recommendation which will restrict you less than prop 19.



> "Some".


Some of the biggest. I understand that any reform is a step forward I just don't think this bill is a good starting point because it does not represent the people it represents special interests.


----------



## vradd (Oct 28, 2010)

ill tell you what from a realistic side, prop 19 sounds a whole lot of a smoother transition, than crossing THAT bridge and expecting everyone to change their views that were instilled in them over the last what 20-30years over nite. just like that 2012 measure seems to portray and expect

remember guys) just as quick as you negative 19'ers are quick to say that our govt is running a conspiracy to screw everyone over if this passes, they CAN just as swifty enact something that would NOT let 19 happen to its full extent. 

REMEMBER GUYS) its your tax dollars already paying the thousands upon thousands of these political figure's salaries, just so they can come up with the dumbest reasons to keep the oppression on us.

bottom line, just as quick as they can give it to us, THEY CAN take it from us. lets vote yes and see what THEIR move will be next!


----------



## vradd (Oct 28, 2010)

the real question is WHAT are they gonna do next. come nov 3rd, if its voted upon, we the people can smoke. BUT we must stay vigilant because come nov 3rd i GARUANTEE you they WILL already have something to rebuttle with. THIS is when the political battle begins to keep the law as it is. in order for the DEA to enforce us will take lots of tax money. that money WILL come from other states. do you think other states that are in the 215 club will let that happen? 

if prop 19 passes we WILL see how the rest of our states work because this will be like the revolutionary war all over. feds= europe and the queen. states= colonies. i know its kinda a bit off but in many ways this issue is already looking a lot like it.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 28, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> Oakland is a pretty progressive city when it comes to pot, what makes you think a lot of California won't be more restrictive? If this bill would have allowed a more free market I probably wouldn't be against it. Go tell the Napa Valley they can only have 4 vineyards and see what happens.
> 
> Everyone has the right to get a recommendation which will restrict you less than prop 19.
> 
> Some of the biggest. I understand that any reform is a step forward I just don't think this bill is a good starting point because it does not represent the people it represents special interests.


What special interests, Richard Lee?


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 28, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> Oakland is a pretty progressive city when it comes to pot, what makes you think a lot of California won't be more restrictive? If this bill would have allowed a more free market I probably wouldn't be against it. Go tell the Napa Valley they can only have 4 vineyards and see what happens.


Speculation. I could easily claim the opposite and be just as right. Truth is some counties will pass good laws, others will pass bad ones. But if people stay active on the local level over time, these laws will get better. 



> Everyone has the right to get a recommendation which will restrict you less than prop 19.


Which is great. And you have that option with or without prop 19.



> Some of the biggest. I understand that any reform is a step forward I just don't think this bill is a good starting point because it does not represent the people it represents special interests.


Legalization is doomed without commercial cannabis production. You don't have to like it, but you have to understand that money is what makes things happen here. It's pretty easy for politicians/law enforcement to bust average citizens. It becomes much more difficult when busting those people results in lower income for the local government. 

Local government is much more willing to stand by growers/sellers if they are financially benefiting from the process and getting to approve what businesses are allowed. 

I understand that it is a fact that some local governments are going to abuse that process, but other local governments will understand that is it much more better for them to allow a lot of smaller grows/dispensaries than a couple big ones. 

When you invest your money in the stock market you don't put all your money in a couple of stocks. You diversify, spreading your money out so you can protect yourself in the case of one of those stocks doing badly. This really isn't any different and it will be made very clear once prop 19 passes. 

It's a bad plan for cities like Oakland to allow 4 big businesses and shut everyone else out. Those big businesses are going to attract heat from the FED's and have big legal battles that stop production, lowering the amount of tax revenue the city gets. 

By allowing more smaller operations rather than a few big ones, cities/counties ultimately get more tax revenue in the long run, and are not impacted as much if one of the businesses shuts down. 

Local governments aren't just evil for the sake of being evil. They will see that allowing a lot of small businesses is rather than a couple big ones is in their best interests long term.


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 28, 2010)

All of these things should have been taken care of in the bill. They had 10 years to see how the state was effected by prop 215 and should have been able to see what needed to be addressed in prop 19 but they didn't.



Dan Kone said:


> Speculation. I could easily claim the opposite and be just as right. Truth is some counties will pass good laws, others will pass bad ones. But if people stay active on the local level over time, these laws will get better.


Which is why this is a great country, we are allowed to have different opinions. I just see how counties are treating medical marijuana and I don't think they'll be more lenient on recreational use, almost all government officials are against this bill. 



> Legalization is doomed without commercial cannabis production. You don't have to like it, but you have to understand that money is what makes things happen here. It's pretty easy for politicians/law enforcement to bust average citizens. It becomes much more difficult when busting those people results in lower income for the local government.


I never believed commercial cannabis wouldn't exist. I just believe prop 19 was designed to create control in the marijuana industry. It's not a coincidence that Lee was behind this bill and he has one of the 4 permits in Oakland. If you think he didn't create this bill to benefit himself you're crazy. This bill was directly written to take out competition in the market place.



> I understand that it is a fact that some local governments are going to abuse that process, but other local governments will understand that is it much more better for them to allow a lot of smaller grows/dispensaries than a couple big ones.


Here's where you went wrong with that one. You're thinking as if the people in government especially in the lower levels are competent rational people.



> {It's a bad plan for cities like Oakland to allow 4 big businesses and shut everyone else out. Those big businesses are going to attract heat from the FED's and have big legal battles that stop production, lowering the amount of tax revenue the city gets.


Just one example of how brilliant local governments are. 



> By allowing more smaller operations rather than a few big ones, cities/counties ultimately get more tax revenue in the long run, and are not impacted as much if one of the businesses shuts down.


Again, your thinking like a rational person. If you keep doing that you'll never understand how the government works.



> Local governments aren't just evil for the sake of being evil.


Not evil, just stupid and incompetent.


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 28, 2010)

I don't see why people don't think growers could just sell to the big companies as well. I imagine the new "bud bars" as something similar to a dispensary, but anyone can go on in these. I don't really see how people are coming to the conclusion that dick's 4 big ass warehouses will run them out of business, come November 3rd those babies are gone. I think 19 will do for all what 215 did for some. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 28, 2010)

vradd said:


> remember guys) just as quick as you negative 19'ers are quick to say that our govt is running a conspiracy to screw everyone over if this passes, they CAN just as swifty enact something that would NOT let 19 happen to its full extent.


That's absolutely incorrect.

The legislature CANNOT modify laws passed by referendum. This was proven by the appeals to some aspects of AB420.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 28, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> That's absolutely incorrect.
> 
> The legislature CANNOT modify laws passed by referendum. This was proven by the appeals to some aspects of AB420.


True. The only mods to Prop 19 by the legislature that are allowed are mods to liberalize it, i.e. to allow more than 25sf grow space, etc. Those mods are only allowed because the language of 19 specifically authorizes them.


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 28, 2010)

desert dude said:


> True. The only mods to Prop 19 by the legislature that are allowed are mods to liberalize it, i.e. to allow more than 25sf grow space, etc. Those mods are only allowed because the language of 19 specifically authorizes them.


Last time I checked SB 420 was being enforced. SB 420 directly modifies prop 215 in a restrictive manner. Even though we have the Kelly decision MMP rules are still being enforced.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 28, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> Last time I checked SB 420 was being enforced. SB 420 directly modifies prop 215 in a restrictive manner. Even though we have the Kelly decision MMP rules are still being enforced.


Can you point out whatever is being enforced that isn't in agreement with 215?

As I understand it, the only issues 420 might affect are those that went completely unaddressed in 215. Basically new law, without affecting 215, other than indirectly.


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 29, 2010)

People vs Kelly 

*"Health and Safety Code section 11362.77,1 which is part of the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) (§ 11362.7 et seq.), prescribes a specific amount of marijuana that a &#8220;qualified patient&#8221; may possess or cultivate. We granted review to determine whether this aspect of section 11362.77 is invalid under California Constitution, article II, section 10, subdivision (c), insofar as it amends, without approval of the electorate, the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) (§ 11362.5), an initiative measure adopted by the voters as Proposition 215 in 1996. We conclude, consistently with the decision of the Court of Appeal below (and with the position of both parties in the present litigation), that insofar as section 11362.77 burdens a defense under the CUA to a criminal charge of possessing or cultivating marijuana, it impermissibly amends the CUA and in that respect is invalid under article II, section 10, subdivision (c). We also conclude, consistently with the views of both parties in the present litigation, that the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that section 11362.77 must be severed from the MMP and hence voided."*

Prop 215 doesn't address limits and sb 420 sets minimums. While sb 420 also states "If a qualified patient or primary caregiver has a doctor's recommendation that this quantity does not meet the qualified patient' s medical needs, the qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess an amount of marijuana consistent with the patient's needs." it gives power to the counties to set limits given that they are not under the minimum allowed under this bill. These county limits are what are being enforced so even if you have a recommendation for more you are still restricted by the limits for each county and can still be arrested. Just for the fact that sb 420 sets limits shows that one bill can effect another in a restrictive fashion. To think that the area limits set forth in prop 19 could effect medical patients because they were not addressed in prop 215 or sb 420 is not a reach.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 29, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> True
> 
> Prop 215 doesn't address limits and sb 420 sets minimums. While sb 420 also states "If a qualified patient or primary caregiver has a doctor's recommendation that this quantity does not meet the qualified patient' s medical needs, the qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess an amount of marijuana consistent with the patient's needs." it gives power to the counties to set limits given that they are not under the minimum allowed under this bill. These county limits are what are being enforced so even if you have a recommendation for more you are still restricted by the limits for each county and can still be arrested. Just for the fact that sb 420 sets limits shows that one initiative can effect another in a restrictive fashion. To think that the area limits set forth in prop 19 could effect medical patients because they were not addressed in prop 215 or sb 420 is not a reach.


Except, SB 420 is not an initiative, it is a Senate bill.


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 29, 2010)

A senate bill which was found unconstitutional in affect to the CUA yet is still enforced. Whether it's a SB or a VI they can still restrictively effect another bill, apparently even with a supreme court decision.


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 29, 2010)

That's what I'm saying. If we pass anymore legislation it needs to be clear or else we will continue to have problems with law enforcement. We don't need more unclear legislature to keep people in the dark as to what is legal while leaving the law up to interpretation by law enforcement.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 29, 2010)

Agreed, 420 set limits, but IMO, didn't effect 215 BECAUSE no mention of limits were made.

Had 215 said, "In no case may state local government inflict limits on the cultivation or possession of Cannabis for patients." 420 would be in conflict.

My wife fought possession limits locally, and won, several years before Kelly, but didn't need to go to court.

Basically, local authorities didn't want to open that can of worms.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 29, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> That's what I'm saying. If we pass anymore legislation it needs to be clear or else we will continue to have problems with law enforcement. We don't need more unclear legislature to keep people in the dark as to what is legal while leaving the law up to interpretation by law enforcement.


Your protection against your reasonable fear is that P19 SPECIFICALLY says that it has no effect on P215.

Will the cops follow the law? Lee Baca has already said, "if prop 19 passes, it still doesn't pass". I imagine a lot of fascist cops are thinking along the same lines. The feds have already threatened to put their boot up the ass of California citizens for exercising their voting rights. We need to call their bluff. If this country is a nation of laws, then ultimately the fascists must lose. If our nation is not a country of laws then we have much bigger problems than MJ legalization and the sooner we bring those problems to a head, the better.

Vote yes on 19.


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 29, 2010)

Nowhere in the actual legislation being voted on contained in prop 19 protects prop 215. The intent mentions it but it fails to do so in the actual body of law.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 29, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> Nowhere in the actual legislation being voted on contained in prop 19 protects prop 215. The intent mentions it but it fails to do so in the actual body of law.


Exactly my point, since I joined this discussion a month ago.

Reassurances abound, but no language in the text.

LEOs love that shit.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 29, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> Nowhere in the actual legislation being voted on contained in prop 19 protects prop 215. The intent mentions it but it fails to do so in the actual body of law.


Bullshit!

"PROP. 19 PROVIDES ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS TO PATIENTS FROM THE ACTIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

Section 2B presents the controlling and relevant purposes for understanding what Prop. 19 can and cannot do. This section EXPRESSLY excludes the reach of Prop. 19 from the CUA and MMP. Sections 2B (7 &  specifically state that the purpose of this initiative is to give municipalities total and complete control over the commercial sales of marijuana "EXCEPT as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

Prop. 19 makes it perfectly clear that the Initiative does NOT give municipalities any control over how medical marijuana patients obtain their medicine or how much they can possess and cultivate as the purpose of the legislation was to exempt the CUA and the MMP from local government reach. Whatever control municipalities have over patients and collectives is limited by the CUA and the MMP, not by Prop. 19.

To further reduce everyones understandable anxiety over allowing municipalities to unduly control collectives, I direct everyones attention to the last statute of the MMP, 11362.83, which reads. Nothing in this article shall prevent a city or other local governing body from adopting and enforcing laws CONSISTENT with this article.

Since collectives are expressly allowed, local ordinances banning them are not consistent with the MMP. Health and Safety Code Section 11362.83, which limits municipalities ability to ban coops or overly restrict them, is unaffected by Prop. 19 as it expressly states in Sections 2B (7 &  that the laws created by Prop. 19 must be followed "EXCEPT as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.


----------



## Moldy (Oct 29, 2010)

Well, I've read enough here to understand that many in the cannabis community in Cali really don't give a shit about your fellow stoners. You don't give a shit who gets arrested as long as you got your little economy going. I would say that there is no longer a cannabis community but just a cannabis economy. It's been good reading a lot of interesting posts and good grow tips but I can't put up with stupidity! You've let pot corperate (dispenaries and growers) convince you to vote against your own interests and you want to continue the policy to arrest and hassle healthy users. Many of us have been waiting legalization for years. Just 45 years since my last bust in case you're young and never served time. Fucking Eddy Lepp is in prison but fuck that we're still free. Right? Wait till 2012? Tell that to the guys still in jail.


For those voted or voting against Prop 19...Fuck you all very much! Moldy over and outa here.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 29, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Exactly my point, since I joined this discussion a month ago.
> 
> Reassurances abound, but no language in the text.
> 
> LEOs love that shit.


You write clearly, so I assume you can read: 

"This section EXPRESSLY excludes the reach of Prop. 19 from the CUA and MMP. Sections 2B (7 &  specifically state that the purpose of this initiative is to give municipalities total and complete control over the commercial sales of marijuana "EXCEPT as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.&#8221; 

The safety sections mentioned (11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9) are the implementation of prop 215. So, prop 19 explicitly exempts prop 215. These aren't reassurances, they are explicit language.

Vote your pocket book and reject P19, but don't try to scare others with a bunch of bullshit!


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 29, 2010)

Moldy said:


> Well, I've read enough here to understand that many in the cannabis community in Cali really don't give a shit about your fellow stoners. You don't give a shit who gets arrested as long as you got your little economy going. I would say that there is no longer a cannabis community but just a cannabis economy. It's been good reading a lot of interesting posts and good grow tips but I can't put up with stupidity! You've let pot corperate (dispenaries and growers) convince you to vote against your own interests and you want to continue the policy to arrest and hassle healthy users. Many of us have been waiting legalization for years. Just 45 years since my last bust in case you're young and never served time. Fucking Eddy Lepp is in prison but fuck that we're still free. Right? Wait till 2012? Tell that to the guys still in jail.


In case you didn't know, prop 19 doesn't set people free that are already in jail for marijuana crimes. As for corporate marijuana, that is exactly who this bill benefits not the people. 




desert dude said:


> You write clearly, so I assume you can read:
> 
> "This section EXPRESSLY excludes the reach of Prop. 19 from the CUA and MMP. Sections 2B (7 &  specifically state that the purpose of this initiative is to give municipalities total and complete control over the commercial sales of marijuana "EXCEPT as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.&#8221;
> 
> ...


Section 2B is "purpose" and is an outline of *why* the bill was written and is not constituted as actual law being voted on. Section 3 is the actual law part of the bill, which doesn't mention prop 215 at all, and describes *how* the concerns in the "purpose" section should addressed. Section 3 refers to almost everything talked about in section 2B except medical marijuana.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 29, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> In case you didn't know, prop 19 doesn't set people free that are already in jail for marijuana crimes. As for corporate marijuana, that is exactly who this bill benefits not the people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You must have slept at Holiday Inn last night. Read an actual Cannabis defense lawyer's analysis of prop 19: http://hightimes.com/blog/evan/6681


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 29, 2010)

There are lawyers arguing both ways. I'm not saying if you have a good attorney you couldn't beat a charge. I'm saying this bill isn't comprehensive enough to stop something before it happens. Also, this is not my biggest concern with this bill. This bill was directly written to gain control of a market and in doing so limiting the average person's rights for personal cultivation. I'm not going to vote for a bill that says commercial operations are ok but what I grow in my own house is limited and regulated. I personally like growing out sizable populations from seed in order to do some selection. A 25 sq ft area would limit me to about 10 seeds at a time and any selection process would take forever. Again I would have compromised and and supported the bill if it allowed more individual rights.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 29, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> In case you didn't know, prop 19 doesn't set people free that are already in jail for marijuana crimes. As for corporate marijuana, that is exactly who this bill benefits not the people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That "oversight" is precisely why I've spent so much time arguing against this mistake, aka P19.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 29, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> ... This bill was directly written to gain control of a market and in doing so limiting the average person's rights for personal cultivation. I'm not going to vote for a bill that says commercial operations are ok but what I grow in my own house is limited and regulated.


This bill does not say commercial grows are OK. It leaves that to local government to decide. Some local governments might try to game that and drive out the little growers, others might go the other way to drive out the big growers. 

This bill gives the average guy 25sf to grow his own. I would have liked a bigger grow area, say 100sf, but the authors of 19 had to make a judgment about what could win in the eyes of CA's voters; they obviously concluded that 25sf was all they could get. A bill like Herer's, which some think might be on the 2012 ballot (I don't think it will be), would almost certainly be rejected by CA voters in 2010. If 19 passes, I think Herer's bill has a much better chance of passing in 2012, assuming it makes it to the ballot.



> I personally like growing out sizable populations from seed in order to do some selection. A 25 sq ft area would limit me to about 10 seeds at a time and any selection process would take forever. Again I would have compromised and and supported the bill if it allowed more individual rights.


You are breaking the law right now, so if you insist on more than 25sf then continue to break the law after 19 passes. What is the difference? If you are a 215 grower, then P19 exempts you.


----------



## Dannabis Ruderalis (Jan 26, 2011)

Hello everyone, 

I am helping to organize the SoCal CCHHI campaign and wanted to say thanks for posting this thread. I am including some relavent links.

We are just starting to get organized and planning events so look forward to seeing CCHHI awareness booths popping up at events everywhere until November. Then the booths become signature gathering tables and the race is on. 1,000,000 signatures in a little over 5 months. The more support we have from the community the less money we will need to collect signatures.

But we need both. So now is the time to start talking about CCHHI again, let Jacks memory be celebrated with a victory that WILL be felt around the world!

http://www.youthfederation.com/ for information, links and to donate.

http://www.meetup.com/CCHHISD2012/ stay connected with other SoCal CCHHI volunteers and keep up (get reminded) with events in the area.

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=138861682809132 You can also join our group on facebook. 

So if you have time and energy (or heck, even money!), before or after November, then make sure we have you name, email, and phone number to add to our volunteer list. 

Immediate needs are for printing costs of the initiative and event flyers. We will be posting electronic copies to make distribution easier. 

Together we can do this!

Dannabis Ruderalis
CCHHI SD 2012
Vice Coordinator


----------

