# Why I'm voting NO on prop. 19



## veggiegardener (Sep 3, 2010)

I've been reading about this bill. Do you use more than 25 square feet for growing? I do. I need that space to provide for myself and two family members.

PLEASE read Prop 19. It is designed to FUCK the medicinal grower.

It will give local governments and law enforcement the power to ban our hobby, and incarcerate those who now grow legally under Prop 215 and AB 420.

I'll be posting various articles discussing this issue. I hope others will too.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 3, 2010)

An interesting article:

Stoners Against Legalization
Just who intends to puff, puff, pass on Proposition 19?

*Jennifer Soares came out of the closet on April 17, 2010, but not in
a gay way. She's a drug lawyer against legalization.*

Sitting on a legal panel at the International Cannabis & Hemp Expo at
the Cow Palace, Soares was asked by an audience member her thoughts
about Proposition 19, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of
2010, which will appear on the ballot November 2. With the pungent
smell of pot wafting through the endless rows of booths advertising
everything from hemp clothing to THC lollipops, Soares nervously
spoke into the microphone.

*"All I can say is, you guys should read the proposition and make your
own decision," she told the crowd of hippies, burners, and industry
ilk. "Don't listen to what everybody else has to say. You should read
it yourself."*

Soares expected her comment to be followed by boos. But it wasn't.
Then fellow panelist and noted reformer Bill Panzer added that he
wasn't especially fond of Prop 19, either. "That made me feel a
little bit more comfortable so I said a couple more things," Soares
recalled. "I was very hesitant at first to come out openly against
Prop 19, because it's sort of this thing like, 'How can you be
pro-legalization but anti-Prop 19? It doesn't make sense?'"

However, the boos started online shortly thereafter. According to
Soares, "it just skyrocketed immediately after that."

The lawyer began getting scathing calls at her office. In the wired
world of drug law reform, she's become a bit infamous, and the next
time she spoke out publicly - at Dr. Greenthumb & Tommy Chong's
Spring Gathering in San Bernardino on May 8 - the boos in the crowd
were audible.

Though Soares says she does not smoke weed herself, she's part of a
group of fringe cannabis activists, growers, dispensary owners, and
casual stoners who have aligned with cops, big business, and anti-gay
marriage conservatives to denounce the most sweeping attempt at
legalizing marijuana in California in thirty years. On the radical
left, personal unhappiness with Prop 19 recently boiled over into
fiery rhetoric containing lies traditionally told by law enforcement.
The debate has crossed the line into physical threats against these
so-called "Stoners Against Legalization." And their "no" vote could
send the close race down in defeat.

From its inception, Proposition 19, the Regulate, Control and Tax
Cannabis Act of 2010, was contentious among reformers. If passed, it
would treat cannabis similar to how society treats alcohol. That
means it would be regulated and taxed. It would also end California's
Wild West days of growing pot. Under Prop 19, only adults over 21
could possess and grow a limited amount of cannabis for personal use.
They could not give it to those under 21. Smoking marijuana in public
or around kids would be forbidden. Furthermore, counties in the state
would be able to opt in or opt out of allowing the commercial
cultivation and sale of cannabis.

Started by hemp-activist-turned-Oakland-educator Richard Lee, Prop 19
began with a split from more hard-line reformers in the Bay Area. The
proposition was the subject of focus groups and tested in polls to
attract a majority vote in California, said Lee, sitting in the
third-floor lobby of his Oaksterdam University in downtown Oakland.
That meant it had to appeal to swing voters like soccer moms who are
concerned with keeping drugs away from their kids. Those moms are
unhappy that pot is easier to get than alcohol, and would vote for
controlling it.

But Lee's centrist plan did not please famed older radicals like
Dennis Peron and the late "Hemperor" Jack Herer, who wanted maximum
legalization with minimum government involvement. At their most
extreme, radical reformers want to throw open the jails and prisons,
and grant pardons to all marijuana drug offenders. They want no
restriction on giving marijuana to kids and few limits on possession,
cultivation, and sales.

Meanwhile, what might be called the mainstream drug law reform
community, groups like NORML and the Drug Policy Alliance, has had
its own problems with Tax Cannabis 2010. Still smarting from an
expensive defeat in 2008 over the Proposition 5 "rehab not jail"
initiative, they told Lee not to press forward in 2010. Midterm
voters tend to be more conservative, they said. Lee should wait until
2012, when the Obama re-election vote could drive turnout on a
legalization initiative.

But Lee liked his odds in 2010. The recession makes California's
expensive drug policy less tenable by the day. The Great Depression
helped ended alcohol prohibition, he said, and the Great Recession
could help end pot prohibition. So Lee pulled $1.4 million out of his
Oakland businesses to get enough signatures to place Prop 19 on the
ballot. Since then, the entire world has been watching the race, and
while mainstream drug law reformers have kept their money out,
they're vocally supporting him.

The fringe, however, has different ideas.

Soares represents medical marijuana dispensary owners in Southern
California, where she often faces a very hostile environment from
local cities and counties. While medical marijuana has flourished in
Northern California, places like Anaheim, San Diego, and Irvine have
banned dispensaries and continue to fight them in court. It's this
heated environment that has turned Soares against Prop 19. Because
Prop 19 allows cities and counties to opt in or opt out of commercial
sales, she says people in "dry" counties like Orange have no reason
to vote for it, because they have nothing to gain. She wants the
state to mandate commercial sales of pot in such conservative hotbeds.

"In Southern California, the mindset is 'Prop 19 is not going to
happen for us,'" Soares said. "The mindset of the dispensary owner
down here is, 'We'll just stay medical, because we're not going to be
able to do recreational anyway.'"

Lee says he had to allow counties to opt in or out in order to skirt
federal drug laws. But he might've failed to fully grasp the Southern
California mindset.

Dispensary owners down south are like beaten dogs, loathe to provoke
their master, according to Soares. The prospect of recreational use
makes Southern California clubs fearful of renewed crackdowns on
medical usage and more vigorous DEA raids.

"It's not just Southern California that's having issues with medical
marijuana," she said. "Recreational is not going to be any better."
Lee says places like San Diego should change policy at the ballot box
through local voter initiatives of their own. "Just because the local
county supervisor is an asshole doesn't mean they don't have the
votes," he said. "If they can collect signatures, it's easy. So local
activists have to get busy and do it."

But Soares speaks to an even bigger psychic divide that's more
ancient: the ongoing rivalry between Northern and Southern
California. She speculates that the north's lax policies will create
a climate where Los Angeles is beholden to Oakland for its pot needs.
Since Lee is from there, he will profit off the restrictive climate
down south.

"For me, it's great Oakland is going to have a measure for them, but
they are pushing it on the rest of the state," said Soares. "I just
don't think that this proposition is written good enough for the rest
of the state to help Oakland out."

There have even been news reports that growers in Northern California
are worried about the consequences Prop 19 might have on their
economy. But Berkeley Patient's Care Collective manager Erik Miller,
who deals with growers all the time, says he thinks most of them are
in favor of the proposition. "I've noticed that the news likes to put
people on from Humboldt that claim they're against it because the
region could lose money, but I think that's a minority of people that
are selfish," he said. "Obviously I haven't conducted a poll, but
maybe 90 percent are in favor of it. Having some protections so
people aren't being carted off is worth it, even if the price drops a
little bit. Our medicine should be cheaper anyway, shouldn't it?"

The Humboldt Medical Marijuana Advisory Panel, which represents some
local growers, distributors, and other cannabis services, is also
supporting Prop 19. HUMMAP Secretary Charley Custer said he's not
seeing critical growers hitting the streets or handing out
literature. Most are for change, even if it's incremental. "We're all
going to be voting for it, with various reservations, some more than
others," he said. "The strongest criticism I've seen happened at our
forum. The youngsters are furious this thing embalms sanctions
against a 22-year-old giving a joint to a 19-year-old in the State of
California's constitution. But that provision is almost impossible to
enforce or indeed to prevent."

*For Soares, Prop 19 amounts to not enough change. But some of her
peers want much, much more.*

Dragonfly de la Luz, a San Francisco-based cannabis and travel writer
for Skunk Magazine, says "the universe" gave her her name a couple
years back. But the Internet made Dragonfly a name thanks to her blog
titled "Stoners Against the Prop 19 Tax Cannabis Initiative."

First posted in July alongside photos of the dreadlocked woman
hitting a three foot-long joint, her screed has been widely
circulated and reposted since then. She has 78 comments on her site,
and plenty of haters across the 'net. On the political spectrum of
left to right, Dragonfly represents the point where the radical
legalization left falls off the edge of the map and into political
oblivion.

Chasing an endless summer around the globe while smoking weed,
Dragonfly says when she first heard of Prop 19 last year, she was
stoked. But then she read it.

"I'm like, 'Is this what legalization looks like?' I just don't think
this was what Peter Tosh had in mind when he implored us to legalize
it."

*Her thousand-word criticism of Prop 19 boils down to two main issues:
It doesn't go far enough, and Prop 19 represents "the
corporatization" of cannabis.*

She notes that even though about 61,000 Californians are arrested for
marijuana crimes each year, that number will not drop to zero on
November 3. Those under 21 without a medical marijuana card can still
be arrested, and adults who give weed to those under 21 can also get
in trouble with the law. So can unlicensed dealers.

"We should be able to buy our cannabis wherever we want," said
Dragonfly. "We're not forced to only buy our alcohol from Safeway."
Lee says regulation of sales is the whole point, as opposed to the
"anything goes" environment currently on the streets.

But Dragonfly's biggest problem seems to be Lee himself and what he
represents to her and other radical reformers. "This proposition
wasn't written by activists; it was written by businessmen," she
said. "Its aim is the corporatization of cannabis. This might be our
last chance to stop it."

Actually, Lee used to be a stage-lighting tech for Aerosmith and
started out as an activist with a hemp store in Texas. He's taught
more than 10,000 people how to grow cannabis and open dispensaries
through his Oaksterdam University. He was instrumental in passing
several drug law reform measures in Oakland.

*Dragonfly erroneously says growers who want to legally cultivate will
have to pay $211,000 a year to do so. "Obviously there's no space for
the mom-and-pop small-time farmer who have been living off marijuana
legally since 1996."*

But only Oakland has considered charging $211,000 for a large-scale
cultivation permit, and the city would still allow rather large
personal grows (32 square-feet, or no more than 72 plants, and 3
pounds of dried processed medical cannabis) without a permit. Prop 19
also allows for individuals to grow for personal use. Furthermore, an
independent RAND Corporation study concluded that cities that erect
stiff barriers to entry for commercial growers and cultivators could
be undercut by cities that don't, creating a competitive growing
climate statewide.

Dragonfly says she's aligned with Prop 215 activist Dennis Peron, who
also has come out against Prop 19. Peron has said publicly that he
should be allowed to give pot to kids without fear of legal
repercussion. Dragonfly and Peron support a different ballot
initiative that failed to get enough signatures in 2009 called the
Herer Initiative, named after Herer, who died this year. Its 2012
prospects are also politically dead in the water.

The so-called Herer Initiative calls for throwing open the jail and
prison gates and pardoning all drug offenders. It would allow people
to possess twelve pounds of pot, and limits taxation to $10 per ounce
rather that Prop 19's suggested $50. It caps the cost of a commercial
license at $1,000 and states no tax revenue could go to law
enforcement.

Even Soares believes there is no way the Herer Initiative would pass.
And the family of Jack Herer has also asked people like Dragonfly to
stop using his name.

"Jack 'wanted it all' and Prop 19 is just part of that dream," wrote
son Dan Herer in a letter to members of the cannabis community.
"Unfortunately Jack passed away before Prop 19 made the 2010 ballot;
so many people think he would still oppose it. We don't believe that,
and we ask that everyone stop saying he would cling to that position
as we move toward the Nov. 2 vote. He was smart and had the political
savvy to know that once a measure is on the ballot, the time for
bickering has passed. That is why he campaigned for Prop 215 despite
its shortcomings. That is why, were he able, he would now be telling
voters to rally around and Vote Yes on Prop 19."

Dragonfly wants to end prohibition without mainstream regimes like
taxation, regulation, and business, but at least she tries to back up
her point of view. Some of her peers are proving just as capable of
outright lies as Prop 19's standard enemies on the right.

Sitting in the audience at Soares' coming-out panel was a shadowy
group of around ten medical cannabis users who have launched an
anonymous attack web site called Stop19.com. The site clearly
indicates a need to put down the bong.

The site says "the Prop 19 Cartel" has large-scale growing permits in
Oakland. The only problem is, Oakland has not issued large-scale
cultivation permits to anyone.

The site also erroneously claims, "large tobacco companies have
purchased land and strain trademarks in anticipation of Prop 19
passing. Nothing will stop tobacco companies from supplying
low-quality cannabis laced with additives at any price they choose."

Actually, federal interstate commerce laws prevent tobacco companies
from entering the market, according to Lee and NORML. "Getting
involved in California marijuana would poison them," said Dale
Gieringer, spokesperson for California NORML.

"It's all urban myth," Lee added. "None of it is true. They call me a
crazy, insane millionaire, but I spent it. Politics is an expensive
habit. Lee says he drives a '97 Pontiac Bonneville and has lived in a
one-bedroom apartment near Lake Merritt for ten years.

Stop19.com uses a domain-by-proxy company to hide the identity of its
owners, and has a disclaimer on its site saying none of the contents
can be considered true. Reached via e-mail, Stop19 said "Our
anonymity has no bearing on the facts." And "Just about every web
site on the Internet has a standard 'we don't make warranties on the
accuracy' disclaimer."

A recent Sacramento Bee/Field Poll indicated that the race for Prop
19 is close. While 47 percent of respondents want to regulate pot
like alcohol, 4 percent want to "legalize marijuana so it can be
purchased and used by anyone." Could that 4 percent be the swing vote
that sends Prop 19 down in defeat?

Soares says widespread support from all mainstream reformers like
NORML and even groups like the NAACP and various California unions
may neutralize the far lefts. "That has to help," she said.

Dragonfly de la Luz hopes Prop 19 loses, and says the mainstream drug
law reformers are locked in groupthink and gripped by fear. "They
feel that now that the momentum is building we can't go against it
now because it would hurt the movement in some way or fragment the
movement," she said. "I'm hopeful that it doesn't win and it's not
that I'm anti-legalization. Obviously I'm pro-legalization, but
apparently being pro-legalization and being pro-Prop 19 are two
different things entirely."

NORML's Gieringer - the group that coined the phrase "Stoners Against
Legalization" [Note: I never used that term, perhaps someone else at
NORML did - D. Gieringer] - said there's always been a fringe
community of stoners who vote against reform measures. "Every vote
counts, but we're talking about a minority of a minority," he said.
"People currently using marijuana are voting 85 percent for Prop 19."

The fringe won't matter as much in the Prop 19 race as Republican
gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman's massive, multimillion-dollar
get-out-the-vote campaign this fall, says Gieringer.

Whether or not Prop 19 wins or loses, Lee has said his main goal was
to get the discussion going on legalization. It's clear that quite a
bit of discussion - crazy and sane - is taking place. From that
perspective, Soares says Lee has already won.

"Oh absolutely," she said. "I think the best part of Prop 19 and one
of the benefits I see is that it's getting national coverage. Glenn
Beck is talking about it. If you can get him to say crazy stuff about
anything you've done well."

By David Downs - East Bay Express
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/stoners-against-legalization/Content?oid=2018142


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 3, 2010)

This is a link to the full text of Prop. 19.

Read the first few pages, and ask yourself if this law will help YOU?

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i821_initiative_09-0024_amdt_1-s.pdf


----------



## om3gawave (Sep 5, 2010)

I think those who are against this proposition are few and far between.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 5, 2010)

Anybody who grows their own should be telling EVERYONE they know what is really up.

The space limitation is ridiculous.

Any user of Cannabis who votes for this is exposing himself to very expensive smoke, unless he grows his own. I hope they all have green thumbs.

Oh! Wait until your local jurisdiction prohibits the cultivation and use to 1000 feet from schools, even in your own home(which they can, and I believe will do). Now everybody can go to jail.

Many of these battles were fought in the City of Arcata, over the last few years. The city attempted to impose severe indoor limits. The outcry was sufficient to change the rules to far more generous limits.

Do you think Sacramento or San Joaquin countys are going to be easier that Humboldt?

I hope people wake up before they vote us into the stone ages.

We've fought too long for reasonable and humane laws.

Why jump at a bill that is a blatant money grab by big business?(Have you looked at the permit cost for a commercial grow?)


----------



## dralion (Sep 6, 2010)

Hm..... read the link to Prop 19. Hard decision.... I understand your prospective on growing limitations.... and I agree this might put things into the wrong hands. There are many benifits to the decriminalization aspect of the prop.... hard decision. I'll have to read more and think on it.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 6, 2010)

> I've been reading about this bill. Do you use more than 25 square feet for growing? I do. I need that space to provide for myself and two family members.
> 
> PLEASE read Prop 19. It is designed to FUCK the medicinal grower.


ummm. no. Prop 19 is about general cannabis usage, not medical cannabis usage. The California supreme court already ruled the limits imposed by SB420 unconstitutional, there is no way they would let prop 19 prohibit medicinal use. There is already a set legal precedence at the highest court level in California. It's the law. You can't supersede a doctors orders for a medical cannabis grow in California. 

This isn't going to effect your medical grow


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 6, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Any user of Cannabis who votes for this is exposing himself to very expensive smoke, unless he grows his own. I hope they all have green thumbs.


What makes you think that?



> Oh! Wait until your local jurisdiction prohibits the cultivation and use to 1000 feet from schools, even in your own home(which they can, and I believe will do).


Counties/cities can do that now if they wanted to. Prop 19 has no effect on that.



> Why jump at a bill that is a blatant money grab by big business?(Have you looked at the permit cost for a commercial grow?)


 Prop 19 doesn't set a price on a commercial grow permit. Prop 19 doesn't even add a tax on to cannabis. It adds no additional cost to do anything. If you disagree, then show me where in prop 19 mentions any monetary cost to the price of buds or mentions any fee for any type of permit.

If you can do that, I'll apologize and stfu right now. 

here is a link to prop 19. Show me where the permit fees and taxes are. http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Complete_text_of_The_Regulate,_Control_and_Tax_Cannabis_Act_of_2010_(California)


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 6, 2010)

Originally Posted by *veggiegardener*  
Any user of Cannabis who votes for this is exposing himself to very expensive smoke, unless he grows his own. I hope they all have green thumbs.




What makes you think that?

A)Retailers aren't known for their generosity.

Oh! Wait until your local jurisdiction prohibits the cultivation and use to 1000 feet from schools, even in your own home(which they can, and I believe will do). Counties/cities can do that now if they wanted to.

Prop 19 has no effect on that.

A)Cause and effect. At this point, all legal grows are medical. Most people are hesitant to make sick people's lives more difficult. That will change. This Prop gives a LOT of power to local jurisdictions. My city is 40% Mormon. Think about it.

Why jump at a bill that is a blatant money grab by big business?(Have you looked at the permit cost for a commercial grow?) Prop 19 doesn't set a price on a commercial grow permit. Prop 19 doesn't even add a tax on to cannabis. It adds no additional cost to do anything. If you disagree, then show me where in prop 19 mentions any monetary cost to the price of buds or mentions any fee for any type of permit.

If you can do that, I'll apologize and stfu right now. 

here is a link to prop 19. Show me where the permit fees and taxes are. http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...0_(California)

A)I've linked the Prop 19 text, above.

The city of Oakland is going to charge $180,000 for a commercial growing permit. If they're successful, it won't be the smoker who benefits.

Again, the latitude offered local governments makes this a crap shoot.

Do you REALLY trust our local governments to do what is best for US?

I don't. I'm 60 years old, and have seen some things.

This thing is badly written.

I've been hoping for a bill that stops rampant law enforcement from abusing us.

This ain't it.

Remember, this is a PROPOSITION and if passed in November WILL have the power to override Prop 215 where it left things unspecified(like grow limits).

I don't want to tell you to STFU. I want you to think about consequences and how the LEOs and small jurisdictions will react.

Only a fool would expect an honest, compassionate response.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 6, 2010)

> A)Cause and effect. At this point, all legal grows are medical. Most people are hesitant to make sick people's lives more difficult. That will change. This Prop gives a LOT of power to local jurisdictions. My city is 40% Mormon. Think about it.


If they wanted to screw with you they don't need prop 19 to do so. 



> A)I've linked the Prop 19 text, above.
> 
> The city of Oakland is going to charge $180,000 for a commercial growing permit. If they're successful, it won't be the smoker who benefits.
> 
> Again, the latitude offered local governments makes this a crap shoot.


You are right when you say that sort of thing benefits no one. It's terribly corrupt. That is one city out of hundreds in California. I know for a fact that my county will not be imposing cost prohibitive fees. Many won't. The Oakland clubs have the most effective lobby in the state. They literally have bought and paid for members of the city counsel. That will not be the case everywhere.

I've already spoken with my county board of supervisors about this. Their plan is to have the permit cost between $1000-$2500 dollars per year. They plan on only issuing permits to local residents, not big out of town corporations. 

Sure, some local governments will do bad things, but many won't too.



> Remember, this is a PROPOSITION and if passed in November WILL have the power to override Prop 215 where it left things unspecified(like grow limits).


Prop 215 is about medical cannabis. Prop 215 is about non-medical use. They aren't about the same thing at all. There is no reason to assume that the limits for non-medical usage will apply to medical patients. 

Like I said, there is a California supreme court precedence set now. The Kelly decision insures that new laws can't arbitrarily prohibit a medical patients access to medicine.



> I don't want to tell you to STFU. I want you to think about consequences and how the LEOs and small jurisdictions will react.
> 
> Only a fool would expect an honest, compassionate response.


Personally, I could never let fear of law enforcement reaction effect my decision to want an end to prohibition.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 6, 2010)

OK. I'm in Sacramento County.



Dan Kone said:


> If they wanted to screw with you they don't need prop 19 to do so.
> 
> I've BEEN screwed with. Several times. We finally developed the clout to keep ourselves safe. I know how corrupt our law enforcement is. They've seen my garden. If they believe the 25 square foot limit applies, they'll be back.
> 
> ...


You aren't ending prohibition. You're just changing who benefits from it.

Do you own a dispensary?


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 6, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> OK. I'm in Sacramento County.


Sacto has one of the best emerging medical cannabis markets in California. On a county level, you should be just fine.



> You aren't ending prohibition. You're just changing who benefits from it.


Allowing EVERYONE in California to grow and posses cannabis is a great step towards ending prohibition no matter how you look at it. I've got to disagree with you on that. 

If prop 19 goes well it is likely to be repeated in other states which is likely to lead to a national end to prohibition. 

So no, prop 19 in itself doesn't end prohibition, but it's the biggest step we've taken towards that goal since prop 215. 

And I'm all for changing who profits from it. The people who currently profit from it are ripping everyone off. What legal product has a markup of over 1000%? Allowing legal growing state wide will lower prices. Illegal = risk = higher markup. 



> Do you own a dispensary?


Most dispensary owners that I know oppose prop 19. They've already got a captive market, why would they want more competition?


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 6, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Sacto has one of the best emerging medical cannabis markets in California. On a county level, you should be just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In all honesty, I just can't be that trusting.

Dispensaries are already in place and will have a huge head start in the market.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 6, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> In all honesty, I just can't be that trusting.
> 
> Dispensaries are already in place and will have a huge head start in the market.


But I don't see how more competition and legal growing is going to raise prices. That should dramatically lower them.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 6, 2010)

Its all in the details.

Maybe things will be better for some, or much worse for many.

JMHO


----------



## ford442 (Sep 6, 2010)

i for one am not going to vote yes just because it helps me - in fact it has little effect on my particular situation - i will vote yes because i think that it will help the vast majority of people who are not me - beyond california we will be paving the way for other much more restrictive states to follow suit.. because that is where the tragedy of prohibition is more dramatic - countless lives ruined - and now tens of thousands of lives violently cut short in mexico.. i feel that it has more to do with treating people fairly and humanely than about the going price of an oz... weed is a less harmful substance than alcohol and should be treated as such..


----------



## wowzerz (Sep 7, 2010)

Hi Veg Gardener, Hope you don't mind if I ad to your thread as it is relivent to your conversation.
This is something that I posted in another thread, and I am going to copy and paste it here,

http://budtrader.com/rancho-cordova-weed-tax/
and
http://blogs.sacbee.com/weed-wars/20...ltivators.html

Another city jumping on the "tax and regulate" bandwagon.
Rancho Cordova will be a "Personal Cultivation Tax" of..............Wait.......Get this............ 

$600 PER SQUARE FOOT! Up to 25 square foot.
.
So an average Joe, who wants to grow some green at home can set up his cute little 5x5 garden, and pay ONLY $15k per year (this is NOT a one time fee, this is an annual tax)
.
Tell me again how most city's will not be charging fees like Oakland? City's and county's all over CA are hard up for money right now.
It doesn't matter to these law makers that the PEOPLE of CA are hard up for money right now as well.
This is a Bill created by and for big business, and says "fuck you" to all the PEOPLE


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 7, 2010)

wowzerz said:


> Hi Veg Gardener, Hope you don't mind if I ad to your thread as it is relivent to your conversation.
> This is something that I posted in another thread, and I am going to copy and paste it here,
> 
> http://budtrader.com/rancho-cordova-weed-tax/
> ...


This is proof that prop 19 is irrelevant when it comes to taxing cannabis. It can be taxed without prop 19 as proven here.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 7, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> This is proof that prop 19 is irrelevant when it comes to taxing cannabis. It can be taxed without prop 19 as proven here.



I think you may be missing the point.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 7, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> I think you may be missing the point.


If the point is prop 19 contains the language "tax cannabis", no I'm not missing that at all. It just isn't true that prop 19 actually does do this. Prop 19 does *nothing* to tax cannabis. They can tax cannabis legally now without prop 19. That is a proven fact. 

The idea that we should vote against prop 19 because it will tax cannabis is completely flawed logic. That simply isn't true that prop 19 adds a tax or enables taxation. Why should I vote against prop 19 for reasons that are not true?


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 8, 2010)

Cause and effect. Prop 19 gives local jurisdictions the ability to tax Cannabis cultivation out of (legal) existence. 

Never trust a politician. Your desires aren't necessarily his.

These taxes can't exist if prop 19 doesn't pass.


----------



## 420God (Sep 8, 2010)

Neither can the legal sale of recreational marijuana and that's what the bill is all about.


----------



## SmokeMedprop215 (Sep 8, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Cause and effect. Prop 19 gives local jurisdictions the ability to tax Cannabis cultivation out of (legal) existence.
> 
> Never trust a politician. Your desires aren't necessarily his.
> 
> These taxes can't exist if prop 19 doesn't pass.


Similar to the federal marijuana tax stamp that allows you to have possession of marijuana "anywhere" but the stamps were never made or issued to even have


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 8, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Cause and effect. Prop 19 gives local jurisdictions the ability to tax Cannabis cultivation out of (legal) existence.
> 
> Never trust a politician. Your desires aren't necessarily his.
> 
> These taxes can't exist if prop 19 doesn't pass.


Yes, those taxes can exist without prop 19. Did you read that article in full? 

It says:



> But the city's proposed "Personal Cannabis Cultivation Tax" also makes no distinction between medical and recreational cultivation. So the tax would kick in for anyone currently cultivating for personal medical use -- whether Prop 19 passes or not.
> 
> Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/weed-wars/2010/08/rancho-cordova-readies-measure-to-tax-marijuana-cultivators.html#ixzz0yyTdSS4x


If that isn't proof enough the city of San Jose is voting on taxing cannabis too. It makes no distinction between medical and non medical cannabis. It goes into effect regardless of if prop 19 passes or not. 

*If prop 19 does pass they have said they will actually lower taxes on medical cannabis.* That's exactly the opposite of the effect you are worried about. 

A quote from that article:



> If Prop. 19 passes, the City Council agreed it would review the tax structure and likely lower the tax rate for medicinal marijuana.


So yes, cannabis taxes can and will exist regardless of if prop 19 passes or not. Cities/counties do not need prop 19 to tax cannabis. Prop 19 does not give cities/counties any ability to tax cannabis that they don't already have. 

Prop 19 doesn't even add any taxes to cannabis at all! Read prop 19. You won't find a single tax added to cannabis anywhere in it! It's just marketed as "tax and regulate" so people will vote for it.

I continue to challenge anyone on here to find me any tax that prop 19 adds to cannabis.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 8, 2010)

SmokeMedprop215 said:


> Similar to the federal marijuana tax stamp that allows you to have possession of marijuana "anywhere" but the stamps were never made or issued to even have


Show me where prop 19 contains a tax added to cannabis.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 9, 2010)

Bottom line. 

Medical grows have AB 420 and Prop 215 to protect them, _without Prop 19._ Prop 19 may override 215 and WILL override 420.

You're basing everything you've mentioned on the word of politicians.

Show me something in writing that someone has signed.

In about 40 years as a voter, I've rarely been proven pessimistic with regards to political promises. In nearly every case, they've taken the low road.

If this passes, I'll be here to tell you, "I told you so."

I'll be interested to hear if you pay your local fees.


----------



## potroast (Sep 9, 2010)

Ask the over 60,000 California citizens who were arrested for simple possession in 2009, or the over 60,000 California citizens who were arrested for simple possession in 2008, etc.

Just ask them.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2010/sep/07/despite_decrim_california_mariju


Or the many legal medical users who were busted in those years. I'm one of them, and I'm voting, too.


----------



## 1gamma45 (Sep 9, 2010)

I cant say this enough. We live in the U.S. we are run by big buisness. Untill that chages you need pull your heads out of your asses and stop a pointless fight you will not win.

This is what the Governement is willing to give you. I would suggest you stop pissing on it and take it. Once its in place work on changing details to get closer to the disiered law.

I hate to say it but I am going to laugh balls off when it doesnt pass and Cali say hey that was your chance you didnt take F you all.


Stop tring to cut your own throat. Is it the best plan no is it what Jack was looking for no. But for the love of Bud wake up and understand its the best your going to get as long as big buisness has the power it does in the U.S. Governement.

Sorry and thanks.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 9, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Bottom line.
> 
> Medical grows have AB 420 and Prop 215 to protect them, _without Prop 19._ Prop 19 may override 215 and WILL override 420.


No it won't. It's written right into the bill specifically stating that it won't over ride either. If you'd like me to prove that for you just ask and I will. 



> You're basing everything you've mentioned on the word of politicians.


Actually I'm not. I'm basing it off of what prop 19 will make law.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 10, 2010)

Okay, prove it. But be sure to highlight where it says it won't effect medicinal grows. That is my biggest issue.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 10, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> If the point is prop 19 contains the language "tax cannabis", no I'm not missing that at all. It just isn't true that prop 19 actually does do this. Prop 19 does *nothing* to tax cannabis. They can tax cannabis legally now without prop 19. That is a proven fact.
> 
> The idea that we should vote against prop 19 because it will tax cannabis is completely flawed logic. That simply isn't true that prop 19 adds a tax or enables taxation. Why should I vote against prop 19 for reasons that are not true?


how can you say, ...

"prop 19 will lead to other states relaxing there laws"



then deny, ..

"prop 19 will lead to more taxes"?



both are speculation.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 10, 2010)

420God said:


> Neither can the legal sale of recreational marijuana and that's what the bill is all about.


the bill is about TAXING and REGULATING. 

it's even called that. 




free pot for EVERYONE!!!!!!!


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 10, 2010)

1gamma45 said:


> I cant say this enough. We live in the U.S. we are run by big buisness. Untill that chages you need pull your heads out of your asses and stop a pointless fight you will not win.
> 
> *This is what the Governement is willing to give you.* I would suggest you stop pissing on it and take it. Once its in place work on changing details to get closer to the disiered law.
> 
> ...


this is NOT an offer from the government. 

and who is "cali"?


----------



## 420God (Sep 10, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> the bill is about TAXING and REGULATING.
> 
> it's even called that.
> 
> ...


I could give a shit how much they tax it as long as they make it legal.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 10, 2010)

420God said:


> I could give a shit how much they tax it as long as they make it legal.


That's the spirit! Just what the people behind 19 want you to think.


----------



## miteubhi? (Sep 10, 2010)

420God said:


> I could give a shit how much they tax it as long as they make it legal.


You are one of the many fools starstruck by the fact it will be legal. Have fun buying that new house for some fat greedy politician.

Do you really have a problem getting herb anyways? Regardless of its legal state, I would assume you grow your own by the fact you are 

posting on a mj site, would it change anything for you? Prices won't get lower on soil, and would you stop growing if it were easier to 

go down the street and buy it? If so, bummer for you, I have too much fun to ever stop growing with Mary. Plus, my herb will DESTROY what I

can find at any dispensary near me. Hope you wise up. Peace.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Okay, prove it. But be sure to highlight where it says it won't effect medicinal grows. That is my biggest issue.


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 = prop 215 there is a clear exemption there.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 10, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> how can you say, ...
> 
> "prop 19 will lead to other states relaxing there laws"
> 
> ...


Because I didn't actually say that?


----------



## 420God (Sep 10, 2010)

miteubhi? said:


> You are one of the many fools starstruck by the fact it will be legal. Have fun buying that new house for some fat greedy politician.
> 
> Do you really have a problem getting herb anyways? Regardless of its legal state, I would assume you grow your own by the fact you are
> 
> ...


Umm, I own a business that makes organic compost. I'm not to worried about the price of anything. I just don't want to worry if I get pulled over and I have a bag on me. You'd have to be a fucking idiot to turn it down. We've been screaming to have it legalized for over 30 years and now you want to say no, just plain stupid, take what you can get. The only people that are going to lose are the ones that grow for money and if that's the case, good, get a real fucking job and let those that need it take it up as a hobby as I do. I'd rather have big business put the shit on the streets rather than someone that thinks they know what they're doing, at least then it will get regulated and done properly.


----------



## miteubhi? (Sep 10, 2010)

What like the FDA. Please. Enjoy slavery. 

Plus, if you are a mmj user like myself, you can have as much herb on you as your doctor allows. I can have 2lbs and the 5-0 can't do a thing.

Next?


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 10, 2010)

miteubhi? said:


> What like the FDA. Please. Enjoy slavery.
> 
> Plus, if you are a mmj user like myself, you can have as much herb on you as your doctor allows. I can have 2lbs and the 5-0 can't do a thing.
> 
> Next?


Exactly. Trying to meet my wife's personal need in 25 square feet is impossible. I've been ignoring bad laws for forty years. I'm not going to support more bad laws.

AND PROP 19 WILL BE BAD LAW IF PASSED.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 10, 2010)

420God said:


> Umm, I own a business that makes organic compost. I'm not to worried about the price of anything. I just don't want to worry if I get pulled over and I have a bag on me. You'd have to be a fucking idiot to turn it down. We've been screaming to have it legalized for over 30 years and now you want to say no, just plain stupid, take what you can get. The only people that are going to lose are the ones that grow for money and if that's the case, good, get a real fucking job and let those that need it take it up as a hobby as I do. I'd rather have big business put the shit on the streets rather than someone that thinks they know what they're doing, at least then it will get regulated and done properly.


You have no guarantees. And to say that people that are against it are incapable of producing high quality meds or only want money is quite insulting...I have nothing to lose from 19, I just hate what it stands for: THE CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF WEED. I think that given your latitude, your opinion of californias' weed-mafia efforts to corner the market are out of place and out of touch with the MJ community at large in California. 19 is a slap in the face. 19 will be an open invitation for phillip morris/RJ renoylds to come here and force people out of business. There is enough money behind 19, and the "legalization" effort in general to grease all the right palms, and that's exactly whats happened already. Bret Bogue is out there braggin about his 13 billion dollars to legalize nationally, and they intend to use california laws as a model (meaning small growers will be fucked). If its legal, then why such a push to make so exclusive? From the start of the so-called legalization, competition will be shut out, there will be no open market outside of the corporate one that has decided what you will smoke, where you will buy and smoke, how much you will pay...Furthermore, you saying its okay for insiders of the industry to write the laws by endorsing the "regulated" arguement, look at what that has done for the environment by the energy sector. So we should just trust this will be different? I think thats a really bad idea...


----------



## 420God (Sep 10, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> You have no guarantees. And to say that people that are against it are incapable of producing high quality meds or only want money is quite insulting...I have nothing to lose from 19, I just hate what it stands for: THE CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF WEED. I think that given your latitude, your opinion of californias' weed-mafia efforts to corner the market are out of place and out of touch with the MJ community at large in California. 19 is a slap in the face. 19 will be an open invitation for phillip morris/RJ renoylds to come here and force people out of business. There is enough money behind 19, and the "legalization" effort in general to grease all the right palms, and that's exactly whats happened already. Bret Bogue is out there braggin about his 13 billion dollars to legalize nationally, and they intend to use california laws as a model (meaning small growers will be fucked). If its legal, then why such a push to make so exclusive? From the start of the so-called legalization, competition will be shut out, there will be no open market outside of the corporate one that has decided what you will smoke, where you will buy and smoke, how much you will pay...Furthermore, you saying its okay for insiders of the industry to write the laws by endorsing the "regulated" arguement, look at what that has done for the environment by the energy sector. So we should just trust this will be different? I think thats a really bad idea...


Yes, mass produced MJ. So it might not knock you out in one hit but I bet it'll be a lot fucking better then Mexican brick and a whole hell of a lot more worth it. So I throw a couple extra dollars in uncle sams pocket, at least it's staying in this country and possibly towards some good. Better than paying a drug dealers rent.


----------



## skefaman (Sep 10, 2010)

why would any non-commercial grower not vote for this bah if u cant grow in 25sq ft and make it work u suck... plain and simple.... look up ways to improve your yield.... theres a whole section for ya


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 10, 2010)

skefaman said:


> why would any non-commercial grower not vote for this bah if u cant grow in 25sq ft and make it work u suck... plain and simple.... look up ways to improve your yield.... theres a whole section for ya


-

Kinda stupid and arrogant aren't you?

Go to my thread, linked at the bottom of this post. If you can get what I need in 25 sq. ft., tell me how.

I helped fight the square foot battle in Humboldt County a few years ago. I KNOW what some of the best growers in the World can do, indoors and out.

They convinced the local government that FIFTY sq. ft. was inadequate.

I don't want to go indoors for a bunch of reasons, and I KNOW I can beat any yields YOU might get, indoors or out.

Remember, this stupid law says 25 SQUARE FEET PER PROPERTY. I provide for myself and 3 others, on MY property.

If this passes, you'll live to regret it.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> -
> 
> Kinda stupid and arrogant aren't you?
> 
> ...


Well all three of you have your 215 rec right? So this limit doesn't even effect you. So what's the problem?


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 10, 2010)

420God said:


> Umm, I own a business that makes organic compost. I'm not to worried about the price of anything. I just don't want to worry if I get pulled over and I have a bag on me. You'd have to be a fucking idiot to turn it down. We've been screaming to have it legalized for over 30 years and now you want to say no, just plain stupid, take what you can get. The only people that are going to lose are the ones that grow for money and if that's the case, good, get a real fucking job and let those that need it take it up as a hobby as I do. I'd rather have big business put the shit on the streets rather than someone that thinks they know what they're doing, at least then it will get regulated and done properly.


it won't hurt anyone that gets arrested with all the NEW LAWS it ADDS? 

well that's cool.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 10, 2010)

420God said:


> Yes, mass produced MJ. So it might not knock you out in one hit but I bet it'll be a lot fucking better then Mexican brick and a whole hell of a lot more worth it. So I throw a couple extra dollars in uncle sams pocket, at least it's staying in this country and possibly towards some good. Better than paying a drug dealers rent.


there is no such thing as "mexican brick" in california. everybody here already smokes the bomb.


----------



## Penni Walli (Sep 10, 2010)

you guys know, not everyone is able to obtain a med card right ? maybe they don't have any illness about them or they are on probation or a 4th waiver like my self. you med people need to stop being greedy and only thinking about your self. MJ needs to be legalized for recreation and not only for just medicinal use.


----------



## miteubhi? (Sep 10, 2010)

Penni Walli said:


> you guys know, not everyone is able to obtain a med card right ? maybe they don't have any illness about them or they are on probation or a 4th waiver like my self. you med people need to stop being greedy and only thinking about your self. MJ needs to be legalized for recreation and not only for just medicinal use.


Wow, read a thread before you respond. Veggie, Ruiner and myself are not saying cannabis should be illegal.

We are all saying that if this is made into law, it's going to fuck A LOT of people.

The only ones benefiting will be the ones who are funding the campaign. 

All of you you want to get high just for fun, great. Think about someone other than yourself

and understand what PROP 19 is really about. Money and power.


----------



## Penni Walli (Sep 11, 2010)

miteubhi? said:


> Wow, read a thread before you respond. Veggie, Ruiner and myself are not saying cannabis should be illegal.
> 
> We are all saying that if this is made into law, it's going to fuck A LOT of people.
> 
> ...


 for your information i have been reading this thread and all i hear is complaints about '' omg i won't be able to grow a lot of plants anymore '' '' omg corporations are going to take over ''
For medical people nothing is going to change, you still will be able to grow as many plants as your doctor says is ok. And for the people crying about corporations taking over, you really think big companies will produce crip weed in bulk ?? True smokers won't buy that mid grade bulk crap trust me. Yes they are going to make a lot of money selling this crap to casual smokers, and the hardcore smokers who have a taste for delicacies will do business with locals who grow from the heart. Nothing is going to change really, except the fact that our tax paying dollars won't be wasted on MJ arrests any more, prop 19 is going to provide thousands with jobs and create a huge revenue to our country.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 11, 2010)

Penni Walli said:


> '' omg corporations are going to take over ''
> For medical people nothing is going to change, you still will be able to grow as many plants as your doctor says is ok. And for the people crying about corporations taking over, you really think big companies will produce crip weed in bulk ??


Of course not. There will always be a market for locally grown top shelf buds. And of course they can always grow their own. What "omg corporations are going to take over" really means for most people who say it is "omg Now that there is more competition I'm going to have to sell my shit for a reasonable price."

As for the people, I can't figure out why they'd support a system that makes price gouging a standard practice. 215 has made that system better, no doubt, but still there are $60 8ths for sale across most of California.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

Yay...Dan Kone to the rescue... More people that think people against 19 have everything to lose...Yay...More people that make really assinine assumptions like we are all price gougers...Yay

To clear some things up....

1. Some of us have done EVERYTHING by the book and we still do not like 19 (what was that about not filing the paper work, Dan?)
2. A lot of us do not DONATE (cause I don't sell weed, and I don't know any MMJ growers that do) at higher than market prices. If you are talking like that, then you are already part of the problem.
3. Your tax dollars will be going to enforce that people are smoking "lawfully obtained" MJ, so there will still be arrests/citations (which an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of MJ related "arrests" were mere misdemeanors) for possessing MJ, 19 makes it so that you have to have the right kind, or a receipt.
4. There is another piece of legislation in 2012 that is much more in tune with the MJ community, that prevents a lot of the crap thats in 19 from happening. So I would suggest that the prideful or just plain lazy Californians for this measure either get a script, or not smoke for two years. Because you are willing to break laws for your pride, but not use one for your protection, gives one an impression of irrationality and impulsive behavior. Fucking viagra is considered medical, why the hell wont you think of cannabis in the same way?


----------



## 420God (Sep 11, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Fucking viagra is considered medical, why the hell wont you think of cannabis in the same way?


You just said it, after the FDA gets to throw their warning labels on it insurance companies will pick up the tab for prescribed MJ. The inssurance companies money is a hell of a lot more reliable than yours. Look at the bigger picture, you're trying to make the same arguement small businesses did when Walmart took over, you will lose.

And for those of you think that Mexican brick comes from Mexico than you need to be a little more aware of the world around you. Do you really think they can move that much product across the border, no, they grow it here then send the money back.

Read this- http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20100820/GPG1009/308200140/Was-huge-pot-bust-linked-to-drug-cartels-


So yes I would rather have big business take over.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

Mexican brick comes from mexico...I know this as a fact. There is a lot of outdoor in cali, but you can tell the difference between mexi and cali outdoor, if you cant tell that the bomb ass pure haze you got in your hand isnt from mexico then i guess ignorance is bliss. 

They can't perscribe it if they cant patent it... and the FDA is federal, they can't get involved anyway. and furthermore, what insurance company would cover a med that the FDA doesnt approve?


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 11, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Mexican brick comes from mexico...I know this as a fact. There is a lot of outdoor in cali, but you can tell the difference between mexi and cali outdoor, if you cant tell that the bomb ass pure haze you got in your hand isnt from mexico then i guess ignorance is bliss.
> 
> They can't perscribe it if they cant patent it... and the FDA is federal, they can't get involved anyway. and furthermore, what insurance company would cover a med that the FDA doesnt approve?


medical covers 250 dollars a month if you send in your receipts.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

for MMJ? really?


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 11, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> for MMJ? really?


yeah, kinda crazy. they have been doing it for years. last i heard anyways.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

I cant find anything that mentions this specifically...


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

Infact, that's a good point. Insurance companies need the state law to be changed so that they can offer coverage for it, I am reading... Everything works out so conveniently for large corporations...


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5402124-503544.html 

if anyone cares...


----------



## 420God (Sep 11, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Mexican brick comes from mexico...I know this as a fact. There is a lot of outdoor in cali, but you can tell the difference between mexi and cali outdoor, if you cant tell that the bomb ass pure haze you got in your hand isnt from mexico then i guess ignorance is bliss.
> 
> They can't perscribe it if they cant patent it... and the FDA is federal, they can't get involved anyway. and furthermore, what insurance company would cover a med that the FDA doesnt approve?



Are you blind, read the link. Don't state facts you have no proof of and that I very clearly just did.


----------



## 420God (Sep 11, 2010)

Marijuana is the new cash crop to save America.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 11, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> 2. A lot of us do not DONATE (cause I don't sell weed, and I don't know any MMJ growers that do) at higher than market prices.


I wasn't talking about individuals price gouging, I was talking about the entire system. I was talking about the market prices. From growing it to the time it hits the shelf of a dispensary there is like a 1000% markup. That's not any individual growers fault. That's a symptom of it being illegal. 



> 3. Your tax dollars will be going to enforce that people are smoking "lawfully obtained" MJ, so there will still be arrests/citations (which an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of MJ related "arrests" were mere misdemeanors) for possessing MJ, 19 makes it so that you have to have the right kind, or a receipt.


That's a bunch of crap. No one is going to have to prove they bought it legally. And who are these people who walk around everywhere they go with more than an ounce for personal consumption? Really? Do you bring a QP with you everywhere you go for personal consumption? No, as I said, that's all a bunch of crap.



> 4. There is another piece of legislation in 2012 that is much more in tune with the MJ community, that prevents a lot of the crap thats in 19 from happening.


No there isn't. There is a ballot measure written, but it doesn't have the signatures required. It costs millions of dollars to do that. Who's going to pay for it?

Anyone can write a ballot measure, it's completely worthless if it doesn't get the required signatures. 



> Fucking viagra is considered medical, why the hell wont you think of cannabis in the same way?


I think cannabis can be medical, but not always. As other posters have pointed out, not everyone has a medical card.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 11, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Mexican brick comes from mexico...I know this as a fact. There is a lot of outdoor in cali, but you can tell the difference between mexi and cali outdoor, if you cant tell that the bomb ass pure haze you got in your hand isnt from mexico then i guess ignorance is bliss.


 So the drug cartels don't grow in Cali? Really?


----------



## BluffinCali (Sep 11, 2010)

Im all for legalization like most of the people, but if prop 19 would limit the growing space that I can already grow in as of now, then Im not for it, makes no sense for me to vote yes even though I would love to see full legalization. Now I have to admit I havent read the bill at all, Im going off what others have said about the 5x5 area which I couldnt even have one of my outdoor plants in that small of an area.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 11, 2010)

BluffinCali said:


> Im all for legalization like most of the people, but if prop 19 would limit the growing space that I can already grow in as of now, then Im not for it, makes no sense for me to vote yes even though I would love to see full legalization. Now I have to admit I havent read the bill at all, Im going off what others have said about the 5x5 area which I couldnt even have one of my outdoor plants in that small of an area.


Prop 19 doesn't prohibit the rights of medical patients. That's just misinformation that is being spread. It's written into the prop that medical patients are exempt from that. I'll show you.

From prop 19:



> Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city's limits remain illegal, but that the city's citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, *except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.*
> 
> 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.*


health and safety section 11362.5 = prop 215. 

It specifically states in prop 19 that it won't interfere with your rights as a medical patient.


----------



## BluffinCali (Sep 11, 2010)

If thats the case then I have no problem voting for it, my only concern was that of a restricted growing area, if I can still grow just what I do now, which is outdoor that will basically last me for a year, then Im all for it. I just want my 6 mature, 12 immature plants and Im all good, its never been about the money for me, besides the money I can save by growing my own and controlling what is used in the process.


----------



## stingmenot (Sep 11, 2010)

after reading through this thread i hear the greed of small business railing against the greed of big business. In my opinion a yes vote is a vote for marijuana.


----------



## chusett (Sep 11, 2010)

im confused.. is this news to anyone?? Of course &#8220; Medecinal&#8221; growers dont want full or remotely full legalization..
sad stuff.


----------



## chusett (Sep 11, 2010)

stingmenot said:


> after reading through this thread i hear the greed of small business railing against the greed of big business. In my opinion a yes vote is a vote for marijuana.


lol some one with 1 post.. yet still wise. I couldnt agree more.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

420God said:


> Are you blind, read the link. Don't state facts you have no proof of and that I very clearly just did.


Dude... your story is about wis-fucking-consin, not cali. And, the defendents "are believed to be illegal immigrants." Your "facts" aren't quite facts, or relevant.

I am talking about brick-shitty mexi-weed that has fuck tons of mold, stems, and seeds and god know what else - I know that shit comes from mexico, because I have family members who fucking grew it, and some that transported it at one time. I'm not fucking blind, I just hate it when people that don't even live in this state weigh in on shit they don't know about. 

Instead of a piece of legislation that could seriously undermine the crappy mexi-cartels and the domestic weed-mafia, we have a piece that will only affect the mexican traffic and will legitimize the domestic. There will be no chance for small business/small grower entrepeneurial enterprise, unless you already have fuck-tons of money. The whole bill is set up for CA to follow Oakland, and then later for the nation to follow CA. If you can't see that this is monopoly, and intends to crush competition (which right now is MMJ small business/small growers) then I would say that you are blind.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 11, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Prop 19 doesn't prohibit the rights of medical patients. That's just misinformation that is being spread. It's written into the prop that medical patients are exempt from that. I'll show you.
> 
> From prop 19:
> 
> ...


Are you saying that there is language that protects the SIZE of medical grows?

Show me.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

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

Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.[17] In spite of the fact that the tax cannabis Web site says otherwise, the only medical marijuana exemptions that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative actually makes are with regard to possession, consumption and purchase limits, which only ensure that patients would still be allowed to buy medicine at dispensaries. The word &#8220;cultivate&#8221; is conspicuously absent. Whereas today a person with a doctor&#8217;s recommendation has the right to grow up to an unlimited number of plants, the initiative would drastically reduce that number to whatever can fit in a 5&#8217;x5&#8217; footprint (around 3-6 plants&#8212;per property, not per person)"_

This was taken from the blog in my signature....


----------



## 420God (Sep 11, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Dude... your story is about wis-fucking-consin, not cali. And, the defendents "are believed to be illegal immigrants." Your "facts" aren't quite facts, or relevant.
> 
> I am talking about brick-shitty mexi-weed that has fuck tons of mold, stems, and seeds and god know what else - I know that shit comes from mexico, because I have family members who fucking grew it, and some that transported it at one time. I'm not fucking blind, I just hate it when people that don't even live in this state weigh in on shit they don't know about.
> 
> Instead of a piece of legislation that could seriously undermine the crappy mexi-cartels and the domestic weed-mafia, we have a piece that will only affect the mexican traffic and will legitimize the domestic. There will be no chance for small business/small grower entrepeneurial enterprise, unless you already have fuck-tons of money. The whole bill is set up for CA to follow Oakland, and then later for the nation to follow CA. If you can't see that this is monopoly, and intends to crush competition (which right now is MMJ small business/small growers) then I would say that you are blind.


And big business is going to win, deal with it.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

chusett said:


> im confused.. is this news to anyone?? Of course  Medecinal growers dont want full or remotely full legalization..
> sad stuff.


I dont want a corporate hijacking of my weed. Period. That's 19.


----------



## stingmenot (Sep 11, 2010)

One concern i have is that if prop 19 fails, the anti-marijuana fighters you growers are siding with here will be encouraged. Will they be encouraged enough to go after medicinal marijuana next?


----------



## 420God (Sep 11, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> I dont want a corporate hijacking of my weed. Period. That's 19.


 Arguing a want is like arguing an opinion. Don't get frustrated over something you have no control over. Adapt or be left behind.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

There's nothing to adapt to...and I am not arguing with anyone about how I feel...I am not confused, or even high for that matter.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

stingmenot said:


> One concern i have is that if prop 19 fails, the anti-marijuana fighters you growers are siding with here will be encouraged. Will they be encouraged enough to go after medicinal marijuana next?


They already have....which I believe has been at the behest of domestic weed mafia, to make the passage of 19 seem that much more urgent. I say this because I have read numerous articles interviewing large dispensary owners that were basically pleading with the city to shut down the other collectives/dispensaries, and susequent investigations into dispensaries suppliers done by local authorities.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

There were a lot of slap-dick piece of shit people on both ends. You have people, like Dan Kone, who totally exploited 215, made shit tons of money, and now want to protect their standing by endorsing the restrictive posturing of 19 under the banner of "legalization..." In reality, it's making sure that small growers can't compete and the big guys at the top stay there.


----------



## 420God (Sep 11, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> There were a lot of slap-dick piece of shit people on both ends. You have people, like Dan Kone, who totally exploited 215, made shit tons of money, and now want to protect their standing by endorsing the restrictive posturing of 19 under the banner of "legalization..." In reality, it's making sure that small growers can't compete and the big guys at the top stay there.


Once it goes legal do you really think they will give a shit who's growing it? You just won't be able to make money off it.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 11, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Are you saying that there is language that protects the SIZE of medical grows?


I'm saying prop 19 provides an exemption from the regulations of prop 19. It says the regulations of prop 215 and sb 420 will stay in place if prop 19 is passed.



> Show me.


no problem. from prop 19 text:



> 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.


That is a clear exemption for medical patients.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 11, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> _*"Myth #10: Medical marijuana patients would be exempt from the initiative.*
> Fact: This is not exactly true. While amendments were made ostensibly to prevent the initiative from affecting current medical marijuana law, a careful reading of the initiative reveals that this is not, in fact, the case. Certain medical marijuana laws are exempt from the prohibitions the initiative would enact, while others are glaringly absent.
> 
> Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.[17] In spite of the fact that the tax cannabis Web site says otherwise, the only medical marijuana exemptions that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative actually makes are with regard to possession, consumption and purchase limits, which only ensure that patients would still be allowed to buy medicine at dispensaries. The word &#8220;cultivate&#8221; is conspicuously absent. Whereas today a person with a doctor&#8217;s recommendation has the right to grow up to an unlimited number of plants, the initiative would drastically reduce that number to whatever can fit in a 5&#8217;x5&#8217; footprint (around 3-6 plants&#8212;per property, not per person)"_
> ...


And tell me, why should people believe some random blog over the actual text of prop 19? This blog says the word cultivate is absent. But that is a lie. I've quoted exactly where prop 19 has a cultivation exemption. 

Anyone who wants to can see it's a lie in the text of prop 19. What I don't understand is why you would want to continue spreading this lie after I've already proven it to be a lie.

If prop 19 is so bad why do you have to lie to oppose it?


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> no problem. from prop 19 text:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a clear exemption for medical patients.


ACtually, thats not quite right, because it clearly exempts CULTIVATION from the EXEMPTIONS. It only says "bought and sold" not cultivated. Nice try though.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> And tell me, why should people believe some random blog over the actual text of prop 19? This blog says the word cultivate is absent. But that is a lie. I've quoted exactly where prop 19 has a cultivation exemption.
> 
> Anyone who wants to can see it's a lie in the text of prop 19. What I don't understand is why you would want to continue spreading this lie after I've already proven it to be a lie.
> 
> If prop 19 is so bad why do you have to lie to oppose it?


See the footnote? You went to college right?


----------



## chusett (Sep 11, 2010)

IMO if u grow for personal use.. then with a smaller OP, it doesnt really &#8220;hijack&#8221; anything from u.. and if ur an avtual commercial growery.. the big fish.. then u'd have proper licensing. As mentioned, i cant fully disagree that this is a target on the smaller growers ..
some times in life we all wanna hv our cake and eat one too! Many small growers who do grow just a few plants in their den to deal with aches and pains are going to lose bcuz small/mediium growers want to side with anti activists? 
Yall talk alot bout competition and monopoly.. sorry pal but thats American capitalism.. it dont just apply to weed..
Bottom line, dont get twisted.. im a smoker n grower... but i understand change isnt overnite. Of course the govt wants to regulate.. do they EVER not regulate anythin involvin money? B ut at least if im being objective.. then 19 is still a victory for all MJ users, maybe not so much for entrepeneurs..


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

_Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city's limits remain illegal, but that the city's citizens still have the right to* possess* and *consume* small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9._ 

Where exactly is the word cultivate grouped with those two?


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 11, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> They already have....which I believe has been at the behest of domestic weed mafia, to make the passage of 19 seem that much more urgent. I say this because I have read numerous articles interviewing large dispensary owners that were basically pleading with the city to shut down the other collectives/dispensaries, and susequent investigations into dispensaries suppliers done by local authorities.


This is true. It happens all the time. It's shady as fuck. Dispensary owners call the city on other dispensaries for even minor zoning infractions in an attempt to get them shut down on a regular basis. 

Also the majority of bans on new dispensaries in cities/counties come from the lobbying of people who already own dispensaries. I've seen it happen. I've been to city counsel meetings where the city counsel bans new dispensaries based on the "studies" and recommendation of dispensary owner lawyers. It's not even some shady back room deal. This shit happens right out in the open where anyone who cares can see it happen.


----------



## chusett (Sep 11, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> See the footnote? You went to college right?


i hv to admit a Blog is not fact..footnote or not

And lastly i wanted to mention.. sure maybe 25 ft is a bit tight but from my experience in life.. with NO regulation on space at all just results in a lot of unprofessional small time operation with folks tryin to &#8220; gold rush&#8221; the commodity


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

chusett said:


> IMO if u grow for personal use.. then with a smaller OP, it doesnt really &#8220;hijack&#8221; anything from u.. and if ur an avtual commercial growery.. the big fish.. then u'd have proper licensing. As mentioned, i cant fully disagree that this is a target on the smaller growers ..
> some times in life we all wanna hv our cake and eat one too! Many small growers who do grow just a few plants in their den to deal with aches and pains are going to lose bcuz small/mediium growers want to side with anti activists?
> Yall talk alot bout competition and monopoly.. sorry pal but thats American capitalism.. it dont just apply to weed..
> Bottom line, dont get twisted.. im a smoker n grower... but i understand change isnt overnite. Of course the govt wants to regulate.. do they EVER not regulate anythin involvin money? B ut at least if im being objective.. then 19 is still a victory for all MJ users, maybe not so much for entrepeneurs..


I can't stand behind an initiative that is so restrictive to start with. And if you need pot for ailments, get a card - its not hard, and doesnt cost much (mine was $50/year) Even thinking about how much further they could take regulations after 19 makes me VERY worried about my right to cultivate as a patient at all. I don't grow for money, I grow because I am an avid gardener of all things, but am stuck in LA. I love MJ, so I got my script and have done my business legitimately. I have nothing to lose with 19, nothing. I even do my grow in basically a 5x5 anyway, but I don't want to be restricted from expanding because ill-informed voters decided to strip me of my right to do so.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 11, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> ACtually, thats not quite right, because it clearly exempts CULTIVATION from the EXEMPTIONS. It only says "bought and sold" not cultivated. Nice try though.


fail. Read the whole ballot measure. Not just what that dishonest blog tells you to read. The very next paragraph adds cultivation as an exemption. That blog is intentionally misleading. 

from prop 19:



> 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.


don't believe me, look at it for yourself. This quote comes from section b-8 http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Text_of_Proposition_19,_the_%22Regulate,_Control_and_Tax_Cannabis_Act_of_2010%22_(California)

You've been lied to by people with their own dishonest motivations.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> This is true. It happens all the time. It's shady as fuck. Dispensary owners call the city on other dispensaries for even minor zoning infractions in an attempt to get them shut down on a regular basis.
> 
> Also the majority of bans on new dispensaries in cities/counties come from the lobbying of people who already own dispensaries. I've seen it happen. I've been to city counsel meetings where the city counsel bans new dispensaries based on the "studies" and recommendation of dispensary owner lawyers. It's not even some shady back room deal. This shit happens right out in the open where anyone who cares can see it happen.


I know, this is how the dispensary I did exclusive business with for a year went out of business. They werent really making that much money, the dudes were just trying to make a modest living doing honest business.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> fail. Read the whole ballot measure. Not just what that dishonest blog tells you to read. The very next paragraph adds cultivation as an exemption. That blog is intentionally misleading.
> 
> from prop 1
> 
> ...


 
thats the same point dude, BOUGHT AND SOLD.... it does not lend CULTIVATION that exemption....notice in both cases it is absent.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 11, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> See the footnote? You went to college right?


The footnote outright lies and I can prove it! And yes I did.

the footnote says:



> cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized. (This section provides no exemptions for medical marijuana law.)


but prop 19 actually says:



> 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.


Do you see how it replaces the words "except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections..." with the words "(This section provides no exemptions for medical marijuana law.)"?

That isn't just misleading or an accidental oversight. That is an outright lie. It claims prop 19 says exactly the opposite of what it actually says.

Why are you continuing to quote a blog that is outright lying? It takes 10 seconds to verify this information for yourself. Maybe next time you should try that before you pass on a lie.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

In both paragraphs it exempts "bought and sold" and "possessed and consume" 

Not cultivation.....


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

Because its not lying...read the two paragraphs, it leaves cultivation absent in both instances! I am looking at it right now, that is not a lie. That is what it says....


Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city's limits remain illegal, but that the city's citizens still have the right to *possess and consume* small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
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.


----------



## stingmenot (Sep 11, 2010)

The success of 19 shows the state and the nation that the majority here prefers marijuana be legalized. The failure of 19 is sure encourage efforts to truly restrict medicinal access to weed.
Local politics is another matter.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 11, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> thats the same point dude, BOUGHT AND SOLD.... it does not lend CULTIVATION that exemption....notice in both cases it is absent.


oh come on. that's bs and you know it. 

It says *,AND* bought and sold. bought and sold is part of a list of things that local cities and counties can control expect in medical cases. Also on that list is cultivation. Read it closely. 



> 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.


 Cultivation and "except as permitted under health and safety sections".... are all part of the same sentence. This clearly means that cultivation is part of the exemption.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 11, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> I know, this is how the dispensary I did exclusive business with for a year went out of business. They werent really making that much money, the dudes were just trying to make a modest living doing honest business.


A dispensary I was doing business with was getting fined $1000 dollars per day on a zoning violation. The complaint that lead to these fines was made by another dispensary owner.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

No Dan, it doesnt. If it did it would read *bought, sold, and cultivated* under Health and Safety yada yada yada... but it doesn't. Why? did they just forget to put it in there? I dont think so man. This is a deliberate exemption.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> A dispensary I was doing business with was getting fined $1000 dollars per day on a zoning violation. The complaint that lead to these fines was made by another dispensary owner.


La Malinche....


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 11, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> No Dan, it doesnt. If it did it would read *bought, sold, and cultivated* under Health and Safety yada yada yada... but it doesn't. Why? did they just forget to put it in there? I dont think so man. This is a deliberate exemption.


They didn't forget to put it in there! It's there! It says cultivation! It reads " 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"

That means cultivation, distribution, sales, and how much is being bought and sold can be regulated with an exemption for prop 215 patients. 

Also a judge at the California supreme court has already issued a decision saying SB420 limits couldn't supersede a doctors recommendation. Why would a law that isn't even about medical cannabis be able to supersede it? That's clearly unconstitutional in California. The supreme court has already said so!


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

Furthermore, they could have put the cultivation exemption under the personal regulations and controls section that specifically addresses cultivation. They could have added the "except under H&S..." there but they didnt. Why? How would that be neglected? Its a huge part of the issue, why not address it in the proper section?


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 11, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Furthermore, they could have put the cultivation exemption under the personal regulations and controls section that specifically addresses cultivation. They could have added the "except under H&S..." there but they didnt. Why? How would that be neglected? Its a huge part of the issue, why not address it in the proper section?


Why ignore the fact that even if what you were to claim would be true, it wouldn't matter? The California supreme court has already said that you can't impose a limit to prevent people from having their access to medicine under prop 215.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

Why would a law that isnt about medical cannabis have so much to do with it? Why not say outright that there will be no interference with existing state laws? Instead, it lends the medical question to a city by city ordeal. No outright protection and obvious exemptions? That's way too sketchy for me.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

Not everyone can get their case heard, or wants to even have to go down that route. That's way too late in my opinion, if you are at the CA supreme court then obviously the existing statutes are not working.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 11, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Not everyone can get their case heard, or wants to even have to go down that route. That's way too late in my opinion, if you are at the CA supreme court then obviously the existing statutes are not working.


Precedence has already been set. They don't have to issue a new ruling for every case. That's not how the supreme court works. Once they've ruled on a particular matter, it's the law. DA's won't prosecute someone for something the supreme court has already said is legal. It'll get thrown out.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 11, 2010)

Still, the potential life-ruining scenario looms.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 11, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Still, the potential life-ruining scenario looms.


How so? Do you think it's likely that you're going to be arrested, tried, and convicted for something the California supreme court has said is legal? Sure, I guess it could happen, but that's no more likely than it is now.


----------



## Penni Walli (Sep 11, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> I dont want a corporate hijacking of my weed. Period. That's 19.


whos hi-jacking my weed ? as far as i know if 19 passes i will still be in control of what i smoke, what i grow and who i buy from. i'm still trying very hard to understand why MJ smokers would vote no on 19, all because you're paranoid about a corporate getting rich ?? like... are u serious ? Look around you and tell me whats not controlled by big multimillion businesses, gl on giving me an answer, so why would MJ be any diff ?? This is just the way life is and we have to adapt, but trust me this prop is deff. a step in the right direction, and if we don't take advantage of this prop we won't see another one for many years.


----------



## BluffinCali (Sep 11, 2010)

Im a medical user, my only concerns with prop 19 are if it tries to limit my growing area to a 5x5 area, which Ive heard both that the bill wont effect medical grows or that it will restrict the area I can grow in. Does it also give the power to each and every city and county to charge a fee for growing, I heard someone mention $1000 fee for having a garden, if so then thats a problem for me, or what kind of restrictions a given county could implement against my own personal medical grow. I really wish there was a much clearer understanding of what exactly this prop 19 would really do if its voted in, it seems like everyone on both sides have different interpretations of what the wording in the bill actually means. I would like to see full legalization just as much as the next stoner but not at the expense of rights I already have, someone may call that greedy but Ive never grown for money except for the purpose to save me money not having to buy it, what other medicine can you grow for yourself and if you know what your doing grow specific strains for certain exact amounts of time to get the given affect needed. I havent made up my mind whether I will vote yes or no, I do find it hard to say I will vote no for a bill that will legalize marijuana but I do hear alot negative possibilities that could arise from it passing, so Im just not sure, until I do my own thorough research.


----------



## BluffinCali (Sep 11, 2010)

One other thing I wanted to talk about was a friend of mine just got a job at a huge commercial grow down in Oakland, thousands of plants, I guess just to apply for the permit was $250,000 and its supposedly the first one of its kind, although there are others that are currently applying. Has anyone heard of these commercial grows?


----------



## nathenking (Sep 12, 2010)

BluffinCali said:


> One other thing I wanted to talk about was a friend of mine just got a job at a huge commercial grow down in Oakland, thousands of plants, I guess just to apply for the permit was $250,000 and its supposedly the first one of its kind, although there are others that are currently applying. Has anyone heard of these commercial grows?


ive hear of them, but it makes no sense that they would already be runnin these warehouses... they arent legal yet...


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 12, 2010)

BluffinCali said:


> Does it also give the power to each and every city and county to charge a fee for growing, I heard someone mention $1000 fee for having a garden, if so then thats a problem for me, or what kind of restrictions a given county could implement against my own personal medical grow.


Cities/counties can and are already do that now without prop 19. They do not need prop 19 to do this. Prop 19 doesn't make that anymore legal than it already is now.



> so Im just not sure, until I do my own thorough research.


very good idea. just remember, there is a lot of misinformation out there. Don't believe everything you read.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 12, 2010)

BluffinCali said:


> One other thing I wanted to talk about was a friend of mine just got a job at a huge commercial grow down in Oakland, thousands of plants, I guess just to apply for the permit was $250,000 and its supposedly the first one of its kind, although there are others that are currently applying. Has anyone heard of these commercial grows?


yes. That's not the only place doing so. The city of Santa Cruz has also legalized warehouse grows. There was no permit fee at all. The only condition was they had to make it solar powered.


----------



## jfa916 (Sep 12, 2010)

vote yes on prop 19


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 12, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> I'm saying prop 19 provides an exemption from the regulations of prop 19. It says the regulations of prop 215 and sb 420 will stay in place if prop 19 is passed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Read the relevent state laws. THERE IS CURRENTLY NO LAW ON THE BOOKS REGULATING PLANT NUMBERS OR AREAS.

THIS LEAVES THE DOOR WIDE OPEN.

Prop 19, if passed by popular vote WILL override our current (lack of) regulation.

I'm beginning to believe you have a financial stake in the outcome.

Every one of your posts can be refuted with a bit of research.

Prop. 19 will be very bad law.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 12, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Read the relevent state laws. THERE IS CURRENTLY NO LAW ON THE BOOKS REGULATING PLANT NUMBERS OR AREAS.
> 
> THIS LEAVES THE DOOR WIDE OPEN.
> 
> ...


I agree... And there is alot of people out there that also agree... I think the swing voters will be MMJ patients, they will definatly show up at the polls to keep there rights...


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 12, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> fail. Read the whole ballot measure. Not just what that dishonest blog tells you to read. The very next paragraph adds cultivation as an exemption. That blog is intentionally misleading.
> 
> from prop 19:
> 
> ...


Still missing point. See above. Prove there is language ANYWHERE that protects the status quo for the medicinal grower.

You are LYING unless you present that text.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 12, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> oh come on. that's bs and you know it.
> 
> It says *,AND* bought and sold. bought and sold is part of a list of things that local cities and counties can control expect in medical cases. Also on that list is cultivation. Read it closely.
> 
> ...


Without language specifying a MMJ exemption in the H & S code, you are wrong, or lying.


----------



## miteubhi? (Sep 12, 2010)

Penni Walli said:


> whos hi-jacking my weed ? as far as i know if 19 passes i will still be in control of what i smoke, what i grow and who i buy from. i'm still trying very hard to understand why MJ smokers would vote no on 19, all because you're paranoid about a corporate getting rich ?? like... are u serious ? Look around you and tell me whats not controlled by big multimillion businesses, gl on giving me an answer, so why would MJ be any diff ?? This is just the way life is and we have to adapt, but trust me this prop is deff. a step in the right direction, and if we don't take advantage of this prop we won't see another one for many years.


I guess you have given up hope that people can make a difference. Enjoy flocking with the heard. Sheep.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 12, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> How so? Do you think it's likely that you're going to be arrested, tried, and convicted for something the California supreme court has said is legal? Sure, I guess it could happen, but that's no more likely than it is now.


So it is OK with you if we gamble that YOU are right? Supposition seems to be your M O. Stop it. Provide PROOF.

You are a shill for the powers behind this deeply flawed proposition. I hope you are well paid.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 12, 2010)

miteubhi? said:


> I guess you have given up hope that people can make a difference. Enjoy flocking with the heard. Sheep.


I call em "Sheople" Have a mind of your own "sheople", dont just be like "We are gonna legalize man, Yeah" News FLASH: It wont be legal, it will be light proabition...


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 12, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> How so? Do you think it's likely that you're going to be arrested, tried, and convicted for something the California supreme court has said is legal? Sure, I guess it could happen, but that's no more likely than it is now.


Another lie.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 12, 2010)

Penni Walli said:


> whos hi-jacking my weed ? as far as i know if 19 passes i will still be in control of what i smoke, what i grow and who i buy from. i'm still trying very hard to understand why MJ smokers would vote no on 19, all because you're paranoid about a corporate getting rich ?? like... are u serious ? Look around you and tell me whats not controlled by big multimillion businesses, gl on giving me an answer, so why would MJ be any diff ?? This is just the way life is and we have to adapt, but trust me this prop is deff. a step in the right direction, and if we don't take advantage of this prop we won't see another one for many years.




Wimp. I will never obey unjust law. This will be unjust. Wanna grow up to be a cop? They think that way.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 12, 2010)

nathenking said:


> ive hear of them, but it makes no sense that they would already be runnin these warehouses... they arent legal yet...


The city of Oakland has stuff on the books I believe. This is a local issue, issue unrelated to Prop. 19.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 12, 2010)

jfa916 said:


> vote yes on prop 19


NO!

No!

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## sonar (Sep 12, 2010)

It would be wonderful to live in a fairy tale world of rainbows and sunshine where greed and money don't exist, but we don't. With trillion dollar bail outs, a myriad of cradle to grave social welfare programs, and armies of government bureaucrats, don't you guys think somone has to pay for all this? Vices have always been a source of easy income for the government. The ONLY way cannabis will ever be legalized is if it is heavily taxed and regulated. They are going to need a whole new government department to employ the thousands of cops, judges, lawyers, sherriffs, probation officers, etc who would all potentially be out of work without the steady supply of income and human "merchandise" being provided through the "war on drugs."

You guys who think true legalization is actually a possibility need to put the bong down once in awhile and come back to reality. It will NEVER happen, period. There is too much money to be made on it. There are two possibilities: 1) the current system that throws people in jail and keeps their families perpetually impoverished or 2) a system of strict regulation and taxation that provides the government (and potentially big business) with plenty of money.


----------



## Penni Walli (Sep 12, 2010)

sonar said:


> It would be wonderful to live in a fairy tale world of rainbows and sunshine where greed and money don't exist, but we don't. With trillion dollar bail outs, a myriad of cradle to grave social welfare programs, and armies of government bureaucrats, don't you guys think somone has to pay for all this? Vices have always been a source of easy income for the government. The ONLY way cannabis will ever be legalized is if it is heavily taxed and regulated. They are going to need a whole new government department to employ the thousands of cops, judges, lawyers, sherriffs, probation officers, etc who would all potentially be out of work without the steady supply of income and human "merchandise" being provided through the "war on drugs."
> 
> You guys who think true legalization is actually a possibility need to put the bong down once in awhile and come back to reality. It will NEVER happen, period. There is too much money to be made on it. There are two possibilities: 1) the current system that throws people in jail and keeps their families perpetually impoverished or 2) a system of strict regulation and taxation that provides the government (and potentially big business) with plenty of money.


you are completely right, all these guys have a hippie dream and living in some fantasy world that will never ever come true, finally some one that sees the truth and reality and works with it.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 12, 2010)

Reality: Hemp Oil Cures Some Skin Cancer... I dont see that being introduced any where in the states... WHY??? MONEY???? So why let those same type of people that keep shit like that away from cancer patients and control MJ??? Seriously, gov't and corporations are the DEVIL... You dont want them in any of this MJ lifestyle... just a rant...lol


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 12, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Reality: Hemp Oil Cures Some Skin Cancer... I dont see that being introduced any where in the states... WHY??? MONEY???? So why let those same type of people that keep shit like that away from cancer patients and control MJ??? Seriously, gov't and corporations are the DEVIL... You dont want them in any of this MJ lifestyle... just a rant...lol


Man, when I said something like that I had some fatalistic people telling me that I "just need to adapt" or some other BS... My view on 19 is something deeper than just weed, it's captures the essence of todays biggest problems: Do we let large corporations decide what happens in this country or do we make a stand and show them we are tired of them fucking our country over? 

I am sure that a bunch of wannabe pro-19 sean hannity's will chime in and point out the "flaws" in my statement, but I really, really could give no less of a shit than I already do.


----------



## CultivationArt (Sep 12, 2010)

my step father is a doctor at berkly medical center, hes not a lawer but know all laws, and legel right,
to both 215 & 19, and them together, belive it or not, this link best supports it .http://hightimes.com/blog/evan/6681?utm_source=rss_home
he says read it, DO NOT VOTE NO, this is simply the best thing for medical marijuana patients.
Here is my proof, and dan you know im well backed up with all my info, read this link on mmj patients and prop 19
your mind should revert quickly... thank you.. VOTE YES ON 19


----------



## Weedscaper (Sep 12, 2010)

Wow VG
Thanks for the eye opener. You have really got me thinking and I appreciate that. This is all so crazy. I just love to garden and enjoy MJ and the experience of growing it. It IS just a plant. I hate to think MJ will turn into a Budweiser/William Morris type industry, but it sure looks headed that way...


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 12, 2010)

Here's the text of that pro Prop. 19 blog.

Guess what, I found NOTHING that clearly states that MMJ patients are exempt from the 25 square foot rule.

Our doctors don't and shouldn't specify the area needed to grow an adequate amount of medicine.

The vague language will make trial lawyers a lot of money if passed.

Every knowledgeable person weighing in on this seems to have a blind spot regarding area of cultivation.

I don't want some cop telling my HOW to grow my weed(at the very least).

Propositions like this are usually given a lot of thought concerning consequences. I believe the 25 sq. ft. rule is intended to aid the big boys to the detriment of MMJ patients.

The text.

*************************************************************************************

Blog
*About Prop 19 - To Medical Marijuana Patients*

by Evan Nison [contact] 
Fri, Sep 10, 2010 12:28 am
more: medical marijuana, proposition 19, blog

Share | http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&winname=addthis&pub=cjcoffey&source=tbx-250&lng=en-US&s=facebook&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhightimes.com%2Fblog%2Fevan%2F6681%3Futm_source%3Drss_home&title=HIGHTIMES.COM%20%3E%20About%20Prop%2019%20-%20To%20Medical%20Marijuana%20Patients&ate=AT-cjcoffey/-/pz-3/4c8d564a4d73a4df/1&sms_ss=1&CXNID=2000001.5215456080540439074NXC⪯=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rollitup.org%2Flegalization-marijuana%2F363762-why-im-voting-no-prop-14.html&tt=0 http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&winname=addthis&pub=cjcoffey&source=tbx-250&lng=en-US&s=myspace&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhightimes.com%2Fblog%2Fevan%2F6681%3Futm_source%3Drss_home&title=HIGHTIMES.COM%20%3E%20About%20Prop%2019%20-%20To%20Medical%20Marijuana%20Patients&ate=AT-cjcoffey/-/pz-3/4c8d564a4d73a4df/2&sms_ss=1&CXNID=2000001.5215456080540439074NXC⪯=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rollitup.org%2Flegalization-marijuana%2F363762-why-im-voting-no-prop-14.html&tt=0 http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&winname=addthis&pub=cjcoffey&source=tbx-250&lng=en-US&s=google&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhightimes.com%2Fblog%2Fevan%2F6681%3Futm_source%3Drss_home&title=HIGHTIMES.COM%20%3E%20About%20Prop%2019%20-%20To%20Medical%20Marijuana%20Patients&ate=AT-cjcoffey/-/pz-3/4c8d564a4d73a4df/3&sms_ss=1&CXNID=2000001.5215456080540439074NXC⪯=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rollitup.org%2Flegalization-marijuana%2F363762-why-im-voting-no-prop-14.html&tt=0 



Below is an open leter I received from a Prop 19 supporter. It's long but certainly worth the read:

For my support of Prop. 19, I have been subject to the scorn, approbation and the most demoralizing denunciations imaginable by a group of medical marijuana patients exhibiting what can only be termed &#8220;medical reefer madness.&#8221;

With the best of intentions based on a poorly researched legal analysis, these anti-19 folks have joined forces with the people whose indifference and outright hostility have resulted in, and continue to result in, the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of thousands of medical marijuana patients.

Their never-ending harangues that Prop. 215 will go into the trash can of history if Prop. 19 is passed is causing medical marijuana patients extreme anxiety and leading them to question their support of this historic and critical piece of reform legislation. Graphically describing the horrors that will descend like a plague of locusts on unsuspecting medical marijuana patients if Prop. 19 passes, the anti-19 cabal insinuates that we are being duped by unscrupulous and untrustworthy people like Chris Conrad, Judge Jim Gray, Dale Gerringer, Dr. Frank Lucido, State Senator Mark Leno, Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, Jeff Jones, Mark Emery and hundreds of others. To see a list of all their claimed enemies of medical marijuana patients, go to: www.taxcannabis2010.org/node/13

To reveal the fallacy of their arguments and to stop stressing patients, I asked my friend, and frankly the friend of every medical marijuana patient in the state of California, J. David Nick, to weigh in on the controversy.

For 18 years, David Nick has successfully litigated a cornucopia of issues regarding cannabis and the applicable laws in both trial and appellate courts. He has not confined his practice to marijuana law, but also litigates cases involving constitutional rights and criminal procedure.

David Nick has never lost a jury trial in a state marijuana case including many precedent setting trials involving some of the most revered figures in the medical marijuana movement such as Brownie Mary, Dennis Peron (Nick has been Peron&#8217;s sole attorney since 1994) and Steve Kubby.

One of Nick&#8217;s early defenses of Peron&#8217;s medical marijuana activism resulted in the first appellate court decision affirming that marijuana can be sold. Kubby&#8217;s case was the first large quantity (200 plants) case to be won on the argument that Kubby&#8217;s serious ailments necessitated his use of cannabis to keep him alive.

A recent case of interest to patients is the Strauss case, involving a farm in Mendocino County that cultivated marijuana exclusively for a collective in Los Angeles. Nick succeeded in getting a hung jury followed by outright dismissal of all charges involving 250 pounds of processed marijuana, 200 large marijuana plants and $1.5 million in several bank accounts - not exactly consistent with the idea of small collectives with everybody planting, harvesting, trimming and singing Kumbaya.

He is currently representing collectives in Palm Springs, Riverside and Los Angeles in preemptive lawsuits asserting the rights of collectives to provide medicine to their members without undue interference from local government officials.

Nick does not confine his practice to marijuana law, but is involved in significant federal criminal litigation.

His litigation has established the right not to be searched by sniffing dogs without probable cause. This is in contract to car searches where police can search you car for no reason at all.

His litigation has lead to policies requiring police to not draw weapons in a marijuana search unless they have information that the person being apprehended is dangerous.

He has successfully litigated jury trials utilizing a necessity for life defense in order to uphold the operation of needle exchange programs.

As far as I am concerned, these experiences qualify him to provide an opinion about Prop. 19 superior to those I have read from the &#8220;sky-is-falling&#8221; alarmists

Here is Mr. Nick&#8217;s analysis of the effects of Prop. 19 on medical marijuana patients. I will have a few more choice words for you to peruse at the conclusion of Mr. Nick&#8217;s thoughtful, rational, reasoned, and accurate analysis.

PROP. 19 IS THE BEST THING TO HAPPEN TO MMJ PATIENTS SINCE PROP. 215

Anyone who claims that Proposition 19 will restrict or eliminate rights under the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) or the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) is simply wrong. If anything, Proposition 19 will permit individuals to grow and possess much more than ever before with patients, coops and collectives still receiving the same protections they are entitled to under the CUA and MMP.

Here is why.

The legal arguments claiming the "sky will fall" if Prop. 19 passes are based on the fallacious conclusion that the Initiative invalidates the CUA and MMP. This baseless fear stems from a flawed legal analysis which focuses on just about every portion of Prop. 19 EXCEPT the relevant portions. This flawed legal analysis is driven by an incorrect understanding of the rules of statutory construction.

Although extrinsic materials (such as legislative committee memos or voter pamphlet arguments) may not be resorted to when the legislative language is clear, courts may never ignore the purpose of the legislation. Every interpretation a court gives a statute must be consistent with the purpose of the legislation. This is why statutes have long "preambles" which explicitly state the purposes of the legislation.

This rule is so controlling that a court is required to ignore the literal language of a legislative statute if it conflicts with the purpose of the legislation. By example I call attention to the appellate court case of Bell v. DMV. In this precedent setting case, the court ruled that a statute must be interpreted to apply to civil proceedings even though the statute they were interpreting stated it applied only to "criminal" proceedings. The court&#8217;s interpretation of the statute was consistent with the purposes of the legislation and the limitation to criminal cases in the statute itself was not.

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.&#8221;

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&#8217;s understandable anxiety over allowing municipalities to unduly control collectives, I direct everyone&#8217;s attention to the last statute of the MMP, 11362.83, which reads. &#8220;Nothing in this article shall prevent a city or other local governing body from adopting and enforcing laws CONSISTENT with this article.&#8221;

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.&#8221;

PROP. 19 PROTECTS PATIENTS PERSONAL AND COLLECTIVE CULTIVATIONS

Further protecting patients from local law enforcement actions, Section 11303 states that &#8221;no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact SEIZE or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is LAWFULLY CULTIVATED.&#8221; If you are a patient, you may &#8220;lawfully cultivate&#8221; as much marijuana as medically necessary and Prop. 19 protects that right. If you are cultivating for a collective, you may &#8220;lawfully cultivate&#8221; as much marijuana as your collective allows you to and Prop. 19 protects that right. Unfortunately, many law enforcement officials refuse to recognize the rights provided under the MMP for collectives to &#8220;lawfully cultivate&#8221; and sell marijuana. Prop. 19 reinforces those rights and makes it even more difficult for law enforcement to bust a collective or collective grower.

IT WILL KEEP POLICE FROM COOPERATING WITH THE FEDS

As you can see from the above paragraph, the statutory scheme Prop. 19 creates expressly forbids law enforcement from seizing lawfully cultivated cannabis.

Prop. 19 will create an insurmountable barrier for local law enforcement which is still bent on depriving you of your rights through the despicable device of using federal law enforcement officers.

Here&#8217;s why.

Federal drug enforcement is nearly 100 percent dependent on the ability to use local law enforcement. They do not have the manpower to operate without it. Prop. 19 in no uncertain terms tells local law enforcement that they cannot even &#8220;attempt to&#8221; seize cannabis. If Prop. 19 passes, California will actually have a law on the books that expressly forbids local police from cooperating with the feds in the seizure of any &#8220;lawfully cultivated&#8221; California cannabis.

PROP. 19 DOES NOT LIMIT PATIENTS RIGHTS UNDER THE CUA & MMP

The nail in the coffin for those arguing against Prop. 19 is found in Section 2C (1). This is the only section which discusses which other laws the acts is "intended to limit" and nowhere in this section is the CUA or the MMP listed. If the purpose of Prop. 19 was "to limit" the application and enforcement of the CUA and MMP, those laws would have been listed along with all the other laws that are listed in Section 2C (1). Since the CUA and MMP were not listed, then Prop. 19 does not "limit" the CUA and MMP.

It&#8217;s that simple.

PROP. 19 MAKES IT EASIER FOR PATIENTS TO OBTAIN THEIR MEDICINE

Section 2B (6) states that one of the purposes of Prop. 19 is to &#8220;Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.&#8221; This section is one of the many reasons Prop. 19 is very good for patients. If Prop. 19 passes, the days of having to go through the hassle of getting a doctor&#8217;s recommendation to treat simple medical conditions will be coming to an end in those communities which allow Prop. 19 &#8220;stores" to exist. When you need an aspirin you do not have to go to a doctor and then to the health department and then to Walgreens - YOU JUST GO TO WALGREENS (the founder of which, Mr. Walgreen, became rich during prohibition by selling "medical" alcohol to patients who had obtained a prescription for alcohol from their doctor).

In those communities which are stubborn and will not allow Prop 19 "stores," patients will still have the protections of the CUA and MMP and the statutory right to form coops and collectives. Prop. 19 specifically recognizes that these rights are not invalidated and does nothing to limit the ability of patients to cultivate or form collectives or coops.

PROP. 19 ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE A LOT OF MARIJUANA

As an attorney called upon to defend patients and non-patients in marijuana cases, I cannot tell you how beneficial and how much freedom Section 11300 subdivision A (3) of Prop.19 will be to cannabis users. Read it!

Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual&#8217;s personal consumption, and not for sale.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of ANY harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.

Section (i) limits possession to one ounce OUT OF YOUR HOUSE. Section (iii) permits people 21 and over to have within their residence or single parcel ALL the cannabis which one grew in their 25 sq. foot parcel, including what you grew this year, what you grew last year and EVERY SINGLE 25 SQ. FT. HARVEST YOU EVER HAD ON THAT SINGLE PARCEL. This covers as many cycles of indoor and/or outdoor grown cannabis as a person can produce as long as each grow was no more than 25 square feet and done in succession.

Clearly section 11300(a) (i) limits personal possession and consumption to one ounce OUT OF YOUR HOME while section11300(a) (iii) is what you are allowed to have AT YOUR RESIDENCE if that is where your 25 sq. ft. garden is located. That this is the case is established by another rule of statutory construction, i.e. the specific controls the general. Here (iii) is the specific statute with respect to what you can have AT YOUR RESIDENCE ONLY or in the words of subdivision (iii) "on the premises where grown".

The one ounce limitation only applies when you leave your house, not wherever it is you grow your 25 foot plot. I can picture being able to easily defend a person with 200 pounds who is not even medical.

Under Prop. 19 you can only travel with one ounce, but if you are a patient you can still enjoy the protections of the CUA and MMP and can safely travel with eight ounces, or whatever your doctor permits you to have or the needs of your collective, as allowed by the CUA and the MMP. YOUR SUPPLY PROBLEMS CAUSED BY PARANOID CULTIVATION LAWS AND POLICIES THAT AT TIMES LIMIT YOUR PERSONAL CULTIVATION PROJECTS ARE SOLVED BY PROP. 19.

Prop. 19 creates a marijuana sanctuary IN YOUR HOME ONLY. Prop. 19 allows you to have AT YOUR HOME ONLY ALL OF THE PROCEEDS of every successive 25 sq. foot plot. However, Prop 19 only allows you TO REMOVE IT FROM YOUR HOME one ounce at a time if you are a recreational user.

For patients this is not the case because Prop. 19 exempts them from the one ounce out of home restriction. As stated above, if you are a patient then you can take out of your house up to eight ounces, or whatever your doctor permits you to have or the needs of your collective.

Both medical patients and recreational users should note that Section 11300(a) (i) allows you to "share" up to an ounce which tells me that you can furnish as many one ounces to as many friends as you wish, thus if you have a party with 50 people you could give away 50 ounces.

UNDERSTANDING &#8220;NOTWITHSTANDING&#8221;

As for the argument that the various &#8220;Notwithstanding&#8221; clauses invalidate the CUA and MMP, I reiterate, that in section 2C (1) where Prop. 19 expressly states which statues are being altered, the CUA and MMP are not listed. Therefore, when you use the word &#8220;notwithstanding,&#8221; you cannot be referring to statues that have been expressly excluded.

Claiming there is some doubt as to what &#8220;notwithstanding&#8221; means or refers to requires at most that we reach back to the purpose of the legislation in order to give it proper meaning. Whatever interpretation you give it, &#8220;notwithstanding&#8221; cannot be in conflict with Sections 2 B (7 &  which exempt patients covered under the CUA and MMP from any actions taken by municipalities to regulate the non-medical use of cannabis.

The word &#8220;notwithstanding&#8221; is used when reversing prior legislation and has traditionally been interpreted by prior case law to be a word employed for the purpose of allowing conduct that had previously been forbidden by other statutes. If the word &#8220;notwithstanding&#8221; was not used in Prop. 19, municipalities would be able to claim that there is still a prohibition on their participation in the licensing and regulating of this activity.

For example, a law making skipping in front of a school illegal would be overturned by a law which says &#8220;notwithstanding other laws, skipping is legal.&#8221; If the word &#8220;notwithstanding&#8221; was not there, then skipping in front of a school would still be illegal even though skipping itself would be legal at any other location.ddddd

The rationale behind this rule emanates or comes from another rule of statutory construction which is that existing laws cannot be repealed by inference and instead must be EXPRESSLY repealed. A court cannot find that a law, such as the CUA or MMP, was changed by "implication." In other words, it cannot repeal a law by ruling that another law implied that it should.

Although Sections 2B (7 &  gives cities control over the non-medical distribution of cannabis, that in no way allows a court to repeal or even change the CUA and MMP by ruling that it was &#8220;implicit&#8221; in Prop. 19 that they do so. It is contrary to any rational understanding of statutory construction to infer that since Prop. 19 gives cities control over the distribution of non-medical marijuana, that it also gives cities the right to control the medical distribution of cannabis beyond what the CUA and MMP allows.

The word &#8220;notwithstanding&#8221; is simply a legal necessity to repeal the various statutes that prohibit the conduct that prop. 19 now permits.

So can everyone please VOTE YES ON 19.

Sincerely,

J. David Nick
Attorney-at-Law

There you have it in plain simple English &#8211; patients have everything to gain and nothing to lose with the passage of Prop. 19 You can believe who you want, but ask yourself, who would you want defending you in court? J. David Nick or your choice of any or all of the authors of the anti-19 screeds?

Get real people. Do you really think the Marijuana Policy Project, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Drug Policy Alliance, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition would stand idly by, let alone support, an initiative that will undo the millions of dollars and the thousands of hours of staff time they have invested in establishing, protecting and defending the medical marijuana laws that many of themt helped put on the books in the first place?

Americans for Safe Access has chosen to stay neutral on the issue because they see themselves as strictly a medical marijuana organization and Prop. 19 is about the recreational use of marijuana, not medical. Do you think ASA would take a neutral position on Prop. 19 if they thought it would undermine Prop. 215?

The only people who will profit from the undermining of Prop. 19 are narco-cops, bail bondsmen, prison guards, Mexican drug cartels, greedy growers, profit-making collectives and old dogs that can&#8217;t learn a new trick.

Those medical marijuana advocates who have chosen to dedicate their existence to defeating Prop. 19, could actually do something of benefit for the medical marijuana community if they would expend their negative energy defeating Steve Cooley, the Republican candidate for California Attorney General.

Unlike Prop. 19, this man is a real threat to medical marijuana patients. As the District Attorney for Los Angeles, he has claimed collectives have no right to sell marijuana and that collectives must be small groups where everybody gets their hands in the soil. He has spent literally millions of taxpayer dollars pursuing medical marijuana patients and providers and if elected Attorney General will probably rescind AG Jerry Brown&#8217;s guidelines thereby making every collective in California that operates a storefront or delivery service illegal.

Unfortunately, the money is on him to win the AG race and if he is elected, you better hope Prop. 19 passes so he will be so busy trying to undo 19 that he won&#8217;t have time to screw patients.

Don&#8217;t just vote YES on 19, work with us to pass this historic initiative that will help, not hurt patients, bring compassion and common sense to marijuana law and deliver a decisive, maybe fatal blow to the war on drugs.

Lanny Swerdlow, RN, LNC


----------



## windytodai (Sep 12, 2010)

What are they thinking of proposing a poorly written, obviously a hurtful proposition to Californians? Why can't it be as simple as anyone over 18 can smoke it? I mean no one really starts smoking MJ until their college days anyways, right?


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 12, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Read the relevent state laws. THERE IS CURRENTLY NO LAW ON THE BOOKS REGULATING PLANT NUMBERS OR AREAS.
> 
> THIS LEAVES THE DOOR WIDE OPEN.


Actually there is, but it's been struck down because the California supreme court said it's on constitutional to limit access to medical patients based on a vote.



> Prop 19, if passed by popular vote WILL override our current (lack of) regulation.


Why would prop 19 supersede not only medical law, but also a California state supreme court decision? I'd like you to show me of any example of that happening ever. The closest thing to that happening I've ever seen is prop 8. How's prop 8 working out?

The state supreme court has already ruled on this. Prop 19 doesn't limit medical grows, but even if it did, it wouldn't be legal. It's a non-issue.



> I'm beginning to believe you have a financial stake in the outcome.


I have a business plan for it prop 19 passes or fails. Either way I'm good. Prop 19 will potentially allow me to make more or less money. I'm still not sure. But yes, I've planned financially for prop 19 to pass. Does planning ahead make me a bad person?



> Every one of your posts can be refuted with a bit of research.


ok. Then you should easily be able to show me why prop 215, the AG's guidelines, a doctors recommendation, and a state supreme court decision will all be overturned based on a bill that is about recreational cannabis use. Please, be my guest.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 12, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Actually there is, but it's been struck down because the California supreme court said it's on constitutional to limit access to medical patients based on a vote.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


TOO MUCH WIGGLE ROOM! How many med patients had to defend themselves in court, even though they were completely in line with state law? LEOs and DAs need work! They'll destroy people to generate it.

You believe politicians are honest? Cops? Lawyers?

Until you post language that spells out consequences and fills the loop holes I mention, you're just a mercenary that doesn't give a damn about home growers.

I'm betting you either own, or intend to start a dispensary/pot store after November. 

You are the enemy of the MMJ patient.

Patients are paying $400/oz now.

I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't soon go up, because many small growers are in jeopardy.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 12, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> TOO MUCH WIGGLE ROOM!


Too much wiggle room? The California supreme court has already made the ruling. It's the law. The only thing that could be done is an appeal to the US supreme court. Since that wasn't done, it's not likely.



> How many med patients had to defend themselves in court, even though they were completely in line with state law?


Quite a lot. But in this particular matter, the decision has already been made. It's a done deal.



> LEOs and DAs need work! They'll destroy people to generate it.


And that is true with or without prop 19. We should continue with prohibition out of fear that if we end prohibition law enforcement might get mad and try to abuse the law? Not a strong argument.



> You believe politicians are honest? Cops? Lawyers?


No, but the law is the law. A supreme court case ruling is the law. That doesn't require honesty out of any politician, cop, or lawyer. It just is what it is. 



> Until you post language that spells out consequences and fills the loop holes I mention,


That's because there is no loophole. A supreme court decision is the law period. What they say goes. You're looking for something that doesn't exist. Do you see doctors getting arrested for giving abortions? No. Why is that? Because the supreme court said it was legal.



> you're just a mercenary that doesn't give a damn about home growers.


Excuse me? Mercenary? WTF are you talking about? I am a home grower. If prop 19 is so bad then why are you attacking me personally instead of keeping the conversation about prop 19? 

But if you want to go there, fine. I think you're an ignorant paranoid nut who is absolutely clueless to what prop 19 actually says or how the law works.



> I'm betting you either own, or intend to start a dispensary/pot store after November.


Correct. I'm in no way trying to hide that. Does that make me a bad person? Is every small business owner in America a bad person? Does providing jobs and medicine make me evil? Grow the fuck up man.



> You are the enemy of the MMJ patient.


I apologize for providing affordable medicine to my community. I apologize for employing people. I apologizing for supporting California growers by buying their products.

The real enemy is ignorant fucks like you. What the fuck are you doing that is so noble that you feel you have the right to talk down to me?



> Patients are paying $400/oz now.


I've never sold a $400 oz in my life. I've never sold a $60 8th in my life. I've never sold a $20 gram (except to drunk fratboys while I was in college).


----------



## stingmenot (Sep 13, 2010)

If 19 passes growing and smoking marijuana becomes legal for adults in california. All the paranoid conspiracy talk, all the legal nit-picking is a mask for profit fear. I don't care about your anger.


----------



## CultivationArt (Sep 13, 2010)

Veggy boi, next time read a bit furthar down k, all 19 will do for medical marijuana patients is allow 1 extra oz, and grow like 3-5 extra 
plants. All this propisition is doing is benifiting us patients. So before starting a huge argument, talk to your doctor or laywer.
Fortunantlly my step father is a doctor, and knows every right to the bone.
so vote no if you like, but its gonna pass, and its gonna be a good thing. bad for dealers, but i was never a dealer so its all good.
the only con to 19 is there gonna try to regulate it like alcohol. Hash will still be illegel just like moonshine lol
but thats not a fer sure. Thats just what my pops was saying. opinun 





PROP. 19 IS THE BEST THING TO HAPPEN TO MMJ PATIENTS SINCE PROP. 215

Anyone who claims that Proposition 19 will restrict or eliminate rights under the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) or the Medical marijuana Program (MMP) is simply wrong. If anything, Proposition 19 will permit individuals to grow and possess much more than ever before with patients, coops and collectives still receiving the same protections they are entitled to under the CUA and MMP.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 13, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Too much wiggle room? The California supreme court has already made the ruling. It's the law. The only thing that could be done is an appeal to the US supreme court. Since that wasn't done, it's not likely.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If your top prices are under $200/oz I apologize. BUT you are likely another jerk who pays growers $1500/lb and sell for $375. What IS your top price?

We now know where you are coming from. 19 is about $$$, for you.

I'm glad you finally admitted compassion isn't your motive.

Ignorant I'm not. Experience is what I have a lot of.

In a dispensary like yours, it would cost me roughly $60k a year to provide for my family's needs. My wife's needs are enormous. She had cancer three times before she started using Cannabis at saturation levels, nearly twenty years ago. She's remained in remission, ever since.

Why not post your price list? Let's SEE how "compassionate" you are, asshole. I have several friends who own dispensaries. I understand WHY prices are high. I've also been associated with a dispensary(no money involved) that IS compassionate. Their top price is $200/oz. They grow all their meds, in house. They are non profit. Employees receive meager salaries but are true believers and would never leave. They provide free meds to indigent patients, and even some in home care, if needed. They also employ RNs for screening and health care services.

Do you do any of that?

Yeah, you're a bad guy.

I have a piece of paper over my desk. It starts, "We the People".

Why don't you read it? And then compare what it says with what happens in our government and legal system daily?

You might notice a disparity, any time the justice system, or corporate heavy hitters stand to profit.

Suggesting that vague law carries any weight is naive at best.

And you still haven't provided text proving that personal MMJ growers won't be impacted negatively by this law.

I'm calling you mercenary because you refuse to admit the truth.

Vote NO on Prop. 19.


----------



## CultivationArt (Sep 13, 2010)

boom diggity bam. dont tell us were wrong, your messing with the wrong politics. 
im sure dan has a sourse as well as i do, that basiclly knows everything to happen before it really does.
cause were backing our facts up,, simply your not, at all. let us see something that backs up your argument.
please


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 13, 2010)

stingmenot said:


> If 19 passes growing and smoking marijuana becomes legal for adults in california. All the paranoid conspiracy talk, all the legal nit-picking is a mask for profit fear. I don't care about your anger.


Read the above posts to find out WHY I feel as I do, YFI.


----------



## stingmenot (Sep 13, 2010)

I have read them.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 13, 2010)

stingmenot said:


> I have read them.


So explain your accusation of greed. If I was greedy, I'd have taken some of the offers I've had from dispensaries to grow or manage for them.

I retired a couple years ago because I'm tired. I want to garden, and I DON'T want some town clowns rattling my cage.

(To all) Are YOU willing to provide(free of course) my short fall in meds if I'm right? I doubt it.

Will you grow organically, as I do?

Will you take care to keep the plants clean to minimize dust, bugs and bird poop?

I spent about 300 hours, over ten weeks, to trim and store our meds, last fall.

This is a labor of love, and allowing you greed bags to ruin it with bad law is anathema to me.


----------



## stingmenot (Sep 13, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> So explain your accusation of greed. If I was greedy, I'd have taken some of the offers I've had from dispensaries to grow or manage for them.
> 
> I retired a couple years ago because I'm tired. I want to garden, and I DON'T want some town clowns rattling my cage.
> 
> ...


I said profit fear not greed was my take on your arguments. 
How about this to get a bit more froth on your mouth, i believe marijuana is over priced.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 13, 2010)

[youtube]EQ97CCPpXQI[/youtube]


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 13, 2010)

[youtube]2A2UYqgEKgc[/youtube]


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 13, 2010)

[youtube]KntIxThyj6U[/youtube]


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 13, 2010)

[video=youtube;JOA3d6sMWiU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOA3d6sMWiU&feature=related[/video]


----------



## whietiger88101 (Sep 13, 2010)

I just dont understand why america would make cannabis illegal in the first place ? who let the jews into office and ruin america !


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 13, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> If your top prices are under $200/oz I apologize. BUT you are likely another jerk who pays growers $1500/lb and sell for $375. What IS your top price?


Why all the attacks on me? What'd I do to you? none of the above is true and I don't feel compelled to play alone with this mock trial of my character.



> We now know where you are coming from. 19 is about $$$, for you.
> 
> I'm glad you finally admitted compassion isn't your motive.


Why is making money evil? Do you think all medical vendors are doing it out of compassion and not to make money? Do you really think all the large NorCal outdoor grows are done out of compassion? 

Why is it so bad to start a legitimate business? Do you think your local bakery is evil for making a profit? 



> Why not post your price list? Let's SEE how "compassionate" you are, asshole.


You're putting me on trial and talking down to me at the same time. Do you really expect me to be cooperative with you?


----------



## cannabis420420 (Sep 13, 2010)

its legal enough in cali


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 13, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> [video=youtube;JOA3d6sMWiU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOA3d6sMWiU&feature=related[/video]


  That is the most contradictory position and most hypocritical video I have ever seen.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 13, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Why all the attacks on me? What'd I do to you? none of the above is true and I don't feel compelled to play alone with this mock trial of my character.



it's a little tight, but that shoe fits.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 13, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> That is the most contradictory position and most hypocritical video I have ever seen.


but it's true.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 13, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> but it's true.


The first 4 statements in that video are in fact opinions, not facts. None of which can be proved or disproved.

The only new issue that video even touches upon, is that marijuana could be sold in grocery stores.
Maybe they can shorten the liquor isle or move the cigarettes.
I'm sure they will find room.

Anything else mentioned in the video are things that will derive direct benifit from this proposal.

This is nothing but politics as usual. Otherwise known as fear mongering!


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 13, 2010)

sounds familiar, for some reason.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 13, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> sounds familiar, for some reason.


 But, it's true!


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 13, 2010)

none of it's true until the gavel hits the sounding block.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 13, 2010)

That's right! The winners write history.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 13, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> That's right! The winners write history.




i love you.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 13, 2010)

Aww, shucks.
I love you, too.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 13, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> it's a little tight, but that shoe fits.


Right, because I'm sure you've never made a profit off of cannabis.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 13, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Right, because I'm sure you've never made a profit off of cannabis.



please be a little more clear on your spin-offs.

i don't get it.

i was referring to the fact that you yourself have been making just as many attacks. as you are attempting to do now.


----------



## stingmenot (Sep 13, 2010)

After you watch those two videos which seems the most powerful to you? The one that says the revenues from marijuana sales will be good for california without trying to defend marijuana itself or the one with the scary soundtrack? Medical marijuana dispensaries are already being curtailed in california. Do you really think that a defeat of prop 19 will do anything but encourage the anti-marijuana side. Prepare yourself for a new reality. Consider what a conservative majority legislature could do.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 13, 2010)

stingmenot said:


> I said profit fear not greed was my take on your arguments.
> How about this to get a bit more froth on your mouth, i believe marijuana is over priced.



Me too. The only dispensary I support is in Arcata. $200/oz since 1999.


----------



## stingmenot (Sep 13, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Me too. The only dispensary I support is in Arcata. $200/oz since 1999.


 I like that.
Arcata is one of my favorite places. We'll be visiting there and Trinidad in october. My nearest dispensary charges 330 for top shelf, 235 for organic. But on my most recent visit i see they have installed a computer system that prints a receipt that shows your name, what and how much you bought. Preparing for the increasing scrutiny of regulators or just good business? The only other place i have visited hand writes a receipt.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 13, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Me too. The only dispensary I support is in Arcata. $200/oz since 1999.


Which one? I center?


----------



## CultivationArt (Sep 14, 2010)

Kush Mart lol Hollywood CA 
but thats my step dads spot, i only go there cause hell give me
extra cash, lol but IE THC, thats who i support. They cap at 50/8th
300/oz. I got a quarter of some plantum OG there. 95/ 4th 
some super bomb. Thats not all though. so many more reasons.
Oh there staff is all women, ages 23-30. SUPER FINE!!
no dudes. well the security gaurd was a dude, but he was g. lol
Kush Mart has a good lower cap shelf though. They also sell trim
as well as 25-30-35/ and 8th. Its good bud also. but id rather donanate
my money to thc. Iv been there more, the staff recanizes me, and for 50/8th
you can basiclly get whatever


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 14, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Which one? I center?


No. As I recall, two years ago(last time I was up there), the I Center was in trouble.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 14, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> No. As I recall, two years ago(last time I was up there), the I Center was in trouble.


It's worse now. Change in ownership. Last time I went in their they didn't even have any products for sale. Yet they are one of the top grossing clubs in California. Seems like a front to me. Probably a place for some of the outdoor growers up there to clean their money.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 14, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> It's worse now. Change in ownership. Last time I went in their they didn't even have any products for sale. Yet they are one of the top grossing clubs in California. Seems like a front to me. Probably a place for some of the outdoor growers up there to clean their money.


Probably.

I only remember vaguely meeting the previous guy.(I was introduced to all the owners when I was up there, last. He was described later as a real sleeze. They're almost certainly moving a lot of product South.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 14, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Probably.
> 
> I only remember vaguely meeting the previous guy.(I was introduced to all the owners when I was up there, last. He was described later as a real sleeze.


Yeah. I know exactly who you're talking about. That's one shady dude.


----------



## mr2shim (Sep 14, 2010)

Prop NEEDS to pass to get this backwards country moving forward. Who cares if it's only 25sq ft right now. That's better than no sq ft.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 14, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> Prop NEEDS to pass to get this backwards country moving forward. Who cares if it's only 25sq ft right now. That's better than no sq ft.


Wrong AGAIN, Kemosabe!


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 14, 2010)

I'm getting a security warning, every time I try to go into the grow area.

Anyone else?


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 14, 2010)

me too.......


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 14, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Wrong AGAIN, Kemosabe!


Aside from a very vocal and completely hysterical minority, you're not going to convince many people that being allowed to grow some bud is worse than not being able to grow any bud.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

look lets get one thing strait first and formost im not trying to disresrect anyone. this is my point of view. i want just as bad to have legal bud in the state i just dont think that prop 19 is the right way to do it. also im not talking about growers and there profits im talking about small companies that depend on todays maket wich will be destroyed buy big marijuana corporations. i know full well that there is larg scale marijuana ops exist in cali but they dont go down to to local head shop to buy a quart of nutrient or 12 plastic pot or a hydro set up. they buy bulk from big manufactering companies.also why is there such harsh restritions on how much people can grow at there own homes, because "they"(big marijuana) dont want competition.it says that a person can grow at a private residents in a 25 squared foot area. theres no specification on how many people at the resedent can grow,in othere words i live with 4 othere people all over the age of 21 and this prop does not garantee all of use individual 25 square foot plots. insted it sugguest that each household use a 25 foot plot regardless of the number of people in the house hold that use marijuana. this again is to prevent compitition with corporations what will try and monopolize the industy.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

ever wounder why it illegal to grow tabacco in almost every state,ever heard of "BIG tabacco" they made it that way.
how long before "BIG [URL="https://www.rollitup.org/"]marijuana[/URL]" lobbies for the samething. remember that they will sell it for a profit so if you grow your own they make no mony.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 15, 2010)

It is not illegal to grow tobacco. In fact, the practice of growing tobacco inside homes and gardens is widely accepted in most nations.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

well that only true if you grow a very small amount but do you realy want marijuana ending up like tabacco.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

look i got a friend of mine that owns a head shop , he gave me a job. all bullshit aside if prop 19 passes we'll go out of business. maybe not right away but it will happen. california needs to take a duth approach at it.

*The regulations*

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


----------



## N!pples (Sep 15, 2010)

This is crazy! How long have you all been waiting for this to happen? If you've wanted this to happen as long as I have you'd be crazy to vote no.. 5 Sq ft is better than No square feet by far... This Prop has no effect on medical permits! Get your SB 420 and vote YES! More people will grow weed than "Big Tobacco", (cuz tobacco sux) so if you like what you grow better than "big marijuana" than grow it.. 5 square feet is plenty for personal smoke you greeds!!! 5x5 or Medicinal, who cares?! Vote yes for "bout time" sake.... The Prop could use some working but hell, you are 21 right? You are crazy or greedy if you smoke and vote no! IMO

N!pples


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

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


----------



## N!pples (Sep 15, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> look i got a friend of mine that owns a head shop , he gave me a job. all bullshit aside if prop 19 passes we'll go out of business. maybe not right away but it will happen. california needs to take a duth approach at it.
> 
> *The regulations*
> 
> ...


I agree 100% but we need to take what we can get when we can get it... VOTE YES! Its only the beginning!


----------



## N!pples (Sep 15, 2010)

Needofweed said:


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


 
Get your SB420 and go for it.... 99 plants and only one person in the house needs it.. Then who is going to question? Why would they come for you and your 5 roommates first? They will have more to worry about than your 1x1 spot..... Its a step in the right direction! If you don&#8217;t vote yes you suck!( Not just you Need, Everyone who votes no) VOTE YES!!!!!!


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

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


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


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 15, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> lear the truth watch this!!!!!
> http://www.youtube.com/v/nJhBWaNPV3w&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGWSdrU31B0


PLEASE WATCH THIS!

This lady attorney backs up everything I've said.

She KNOWS how our system works!

Prop 19 will be a disaster.

$1000/oz, anyone?


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 15, 2010)

Links to a variety of sites opposing Prop 19.

http://www.noonproposition19.com/

An article from my favorite newspaper...

http://www.arcataeye.com/2010/07/mariellen-jurkovich-read-flawed-prop-19-for-yourself-and-decide-– july-21-2010/

More later.

Remember, PROP 19 is a SCAM.

VOTE NO!


----------



## CultivationArt (Sep 15, 2010)

those are all lies and you know it. why do you argue when so many of us have thrown you to the dirt, we backed up everything we said. And really, your gonna sit there and still pull out your crap. Who ever said 1000 an oz is a FUCKIN IDIOT. To the fullest.
Cannabis prices are gonna drop dramatically. Not rise. 19 does not override any mmj laws, specificlly sb 420.
Nothing will change. And if this does not pass, better belive that the federal goverment is gonna attack
us in full form. If it does pass the feds cant fuck with us no more!!. State police cant raid due to propable cause.
And your voting no. theres a name for people like you.....


veggiegardener said:


> PLEASE WATCH THIS!
> 
> This lady attorney backs up everything I've said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

Voters in Rancho Cordova will decide in November whether to tax residents who grow their own pot.
The city measure, put on the Nov. 2 ballot by the City Council this week, would impose taxes on all local residential cultivation if California voters approve Proposition 19 to legalize recreational use.
But the city&#8217;s proposed &#8220;Personal Cannabis Cultivation Tax&#8221; also makes no distinction between medical and recreational cultivation, Peter Hecht writes in &#8220;Weed Wars.&#8221; So the tax would kick in for anyone currently cultivating for personal medical use &#8212; whether Prop. 19 passes or not
If passed by local voters, the taxation measure in the Sacramento County city would make at-home cultivation a much more expensive endeavor.

The Rancho Cordova measure would impose a $600 annual tax per square foot of indoor cultivation of 25 square feet of marijuana or less and a $900 per square foot tax if the indoor growing area is more than 25 square feet.

The city tax would cost a local indoor grower $6,000 a year on 10 square feet of pot plants and $15,000 for 25 square feet. Outdoor growers, who would be billed at a lower rate, would pay a $1,200 residential tax for 25 square feet of marijuana plants.
If Proposition 19 passes, it would allow California adults over 21 to cultivate in a 25-square foot residential space. Medical growers often exceed those limits by cultivating with other pot patients

http://calpotnews.com/government/ballot-initiatives/two-barreled-pot-growing-tax-goes-on-rancho-cordova-ballot/


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

this is the type of bs prop19 starts


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

CultivationArt said:


> those are all lies and you know it. why do you argue when so many of us have thrown you to the dirt, we backed up everything we said. And really, your gonna sit there and still pull out your crap. Who ever said 1000 an oz is a FUCKIN IDIOT. To the fullest.
> Cannabis prices are gonna drop dramatically. Not rise. 19 does not override any mmj laws, specificlly sb 420.
> Nothing will change. And if this does not pass, better belive that the federal goverment is gonna attack
> us in full form. If it does pass the feds cant fuck with us no more!!. State police cant raid due to propable cause.
> And your voting no. theres a name for people like you.....


Actually there not gonna drop dramaticly, why would anybody who wants to make a business profitable drop there prices really low... It makes no sense.... People have shown to pay a certain price and that wont change by alot... How can you have a warehouse, with employees, tax, insurance, monthly rent, money for supplies, electricity and still make good money... MJ will have to stay at 200 to 250 dollars a ounce... But that is what the distributor will get it at... so your looking at 250-350 when it gets to you... WOW that is such a huge price drop.... Shit is a scam and a way of people controlling you like they have since you have been born... The only reason they can do this is because you let them to... Congratulations, YOUR a CLONE....

BY the way, feds will still raid no matter what... That is what they do and that is there job description... They will raid warehouses and take the property and sell it...


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

Voters in Rancho Cordova will decide in November whether to tax residents who grow their own pot.
The city measure, put on the Nov. 2 ballot by the City Council this week, would impose taxes on all local residential cultivation if California voters approve Proposition 19 to legalize recreational use.
But the city&#8217;s proposed &#8220;Personal Cannabis Cultivation Tax&#8221; also makes no distinction between medical and recreational cultivation, Peter Hecht writes in &#8220;Weed Wars.&#8221; So the tax would kick in for anyone currently cultivating for personal medical use &#8212; whether Prop. 19 passes or not
If passed by local voters, the taxation measure in the Sacramento County city would make at-home cultivation a much more expensive endeavor.

The Rancho Cordova measure would impose a $600 annual tax per square foot of indoor cultivation of 25 square feet of [URL="https://www.rollitup.org/"]marijuana[/URL] or less and a $900 per square foot tax if the indoor growing area is more than 25 square feet.

The city tax would cost a local indoor grower $6,000 a year on 10 square feet of pot plants and $15,000 for 25 square feet. Outdoor growers, who would be billed at a lower rate, would pay a $1,200 residential tax for 25 square feet of [URL="https://www.rollitup.org/"]marijuana[/URL] plants.
If Proposition 19 passes, it would allow California adults over 21 to cultivate in a 25-square foot residential space. Medical growers often exceed those limits by cultivating with other pot patients

http://calpotnews.com/government/bal...ordova-ballot/ wtf do you call this
this is the type of crap prop 19 starts and it not even law yet.
hight taxes coming to a city near you.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

you going to let someone decied how much you pay to grow weed insted of decieding for yourself


----------



## CultivationArt (Sep 15, 2010)

The final clause of this section specifically exempts Prop 215 (which is Health and Safety Section 11362.5). So the purpose is to ensure that if a city does not tax/regulate sales then (a) buying/selling is illegal; (b) citizens can still possess and consume small amounts; and (c) anything legal under Prop 215 remains legal.


----------



## CultivationArt (Sep 15, 2010)

*Lies About Prop. 19*

By: Jonathan Perri Friday August 27, 2010 12:31 pm 
Tweet Share16 
   


When it comes to California&#8217;s Prop. 19, I&#8217;ve found there are roughly 3 types of people opposed to the initiative.

Some politicians or law enforcement types who think it is in their best interest to oppose cannabis reform.
People who have not read the initiative and have been relying only on hearsay and urban legends (or who misunderstand the language in the initiative).
Those with investments in the medical marijuana industry who are more concerned about losing money if the price of cannabis goes down or if CA residents no longer have to pay MediCann $200 to get a doctor&#8217;s note saying it&#8217;s ok for them to use medical marijuana.
Below are parts of a post from Opposing Views that includes a debate going on between Chris Conrad, NORML and Dragonfly de la Luz. Dragonfly is the author of a blog called "Stoners Against Prop 19" in which she states mountains of misinformation and lies that were quickly and easily refuted by Chris Conrad and Russ Belville at NORML.
*Dragonfly*: Nowhere in my article do I claim that marijuana is more legal when it&#8217;s decriminalized. I said it is more legal now because it IS legal now. Marijuana has been legal in California since 1996.
​*NORML*: Really, I&#8217;ll have to mention that to the 78,514 Californians arrested in 2008 for marijuana offenses. In fact, marijuana IS NOT legal in California and since 1996 a handful of Californians have only been exempted from criminal prosecution under Prop 215 (except, of course, Eugene Davidovich, Donna Lambert, James Stacy, Jovan Jackson, Felix Kha, and a whole bunch of other people who thought they were legal under Prop 215 yet still ended up in a courtroom and behind bars for a time). . . . 
Specifically in Prop 215:
&#8230;patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.
​Which means that criminal prosecutions and sanctions for marijuana still exist. Shorter: it ain&#8217;t legal.
You really have to read the whole thing to believe this nonsense. She even goes so far as to speak on behalf of Jack Herer, a man who died months ago. We&#8217;re assuming she hasn&#8217;t seen the statement that the Herer family released calling on people like Dragonfly to stop using Jack Herer&#8217;s name to spread lies about Prop 19.
Unfortunately, Jack passed away before Prop 19 made the 2010 ballot; so many people think he would still oppose it. We don&#8217;t believe that, and we ask that everyone stop saying he would cling to that position as we move toward the Nov. 2 vote.
As his family, we want the world to know that *the last thing Jack Herer would want is for Californians to vote to keep Cannabis illegal.* He was smart and had the political savvy to know that once a measure is on the ballot, the time for bickering has passed. That is why he campaigned for Prop 215 despite its shortcomings. *That is why, were he able, he would now be telling voters to rally around and Vote Yes on Prop 19.*
​Dragonfly calls herself a marijuana activist because she "travel(s) the world, find(s) the best ganja, smoke(s) it, and write(s) about it for pot magazines."
I&#8217;m sorry Dragonfly, that&#8217;s not called activism, that&#8217;s called partying. And while you&#8217;re busy partying, nearly 900,000 people are being arrested for marijuana charges every in this country and about 10% of those arrests are coming from California.
Step aside and let the real activists do our work. http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/67766


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 15, 2010)

who is johnathan perri and what makes him right?


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

Shes not a activist, but you are...lol even on your best day you couldnt put together a piece like that man... you know it... quit fronting...


----------



## CultivationArt (Sep 15, 2010)

Theres nothing you can possibly say to make me belive that prop 19 is bad, and as for you nathenking i never said it would acually
drop, veggie said it was gonna be 1000 an oz, and i said if anything it would drop a gain.
ill keep all these posts coming to back up everything i have to say. Ill tell you as most on here know already, my step dad is a doctor,
and its only a phone call away or visit to get a couple tags (real tags) to prove my arguements correct.
theres no down fall to this prop. Its the greatest thing to happen since 1996 on prop 215.
and yes i know the feds can raid ALWAYS, but it would really make it that much harder for them to do it.
And stop bringing medical marijuana into this. this prop does nothing at all to prop 215, but make us obtain a tiny more
and grow a bit more. so stop


----------



## klmmicro (Sep 15, 2010)

Right there, I will not have to pay my toll to some physician. I will be able to enjoy a joint without having to carry a permit. Legal is legal, and I could give a rip about business becoming involved. I will continue my self sustenance without having to involve others any longer.

We will get NOTHING passed if we cannot get the support someone making money off of cannabis. Big business owns the news outlets. Activism means nothing if the word never makes it to the masses. All they have to do is keep the status quo and it will remain illegal indefinitely. I should not have to pay anyone a yearly "fee" for a med rec. That is an industry in and of itself...one scared to death of disappearing. I have heard the arguments against Prop 19, but still cannot find basis in the fearful predictions.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 15, 2010)

klmmicro said:


> Right there, I will not have to pay my toll to some physician. I will be able to enjoy a joint without having to carry a permit. Legal is legal, and I could give a rip about business becoming involved. I will continue my self sustenance without having to involve others any longer.
> 
> We will get NOTHING passed if we cannot get the support someone making money off of cannabis. Big business owns the news outlets. Activism means nothing if the word never makes it to the masses. All they have to do is keep the status quo and it will remain illegal indefinitely. I should not have to pay anyone a yearly "fee" for a med rec. That is an industry in and of itself...one scared to death of disappearing. I have heard the arguments against Prop 19, but still cannot find basis in the fearful predictions.


you won't pay a DR a 100 dollars to smoke all the pot you want, but you'll gladly pay the *tax* to only be able to buy an ounce?

GO GOVERNMERNT


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

No doubt... Sometimes I wonder what people are thinking... Get your med card, smoke and grow as much as you want legally... How can you beat that??? Oh yeah, make it legal for everyone to have a ounce and bring in the Govt'... it makes no sense...


----------



## miteubhi? (Sep 15, 2010)

CultivationArt said:


> Theres nothing you can possibly say to make me belive that prop 19 is bad, and as for you nathenking i never said it would acually
> drop, veggie said it was gonna be 1000 an oz, and i said if anything it would drop a gain.
> ill keep all these posts coming to back up everything i have to say. Ill tell you as most on here know already, my step dad is a doctor,
> and its only a phone call away or visit to get a couple tags (real tags) to prove my arguements correct.
> ...


The bottom line is MONEY! You fail to understand that if this law passes, you just helped some asshole capitalist buy a new vacation home.

I keep hearing people say it won't happen unless we let big business in. That's bullshit! Take a note from Ghandi; 

"If the people lead, the leaders will follow."

Wake the fuck up and start making your own decisions.

Now go play in your sandbox at your stepdad's house.

And change that retarded avatar, you embody the negative perception of the world about cannabis users.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

miteubhi? said:


> The bottom line is MONEY! You fail to understand that if this law passes, you just helped some asshole capitalist buy a new vacation home.
> 
> I keep hearing people say it won't happen unless we let big business in. That's bullshit! Take a note from Ghandi;
> 
> ...


Well said brudda.... These people never made it happen, so when some capitalist comes along and makes it happen for them they get on board... Except that they are hurting alot of people and pigeon holing the whole movement... Be your self, have a mind of your own and if you want a better law.. Make it happen instead of having some shitty law handed to all of us...


----------



## miteubhi? (Sep 15, 2010)

Sorry if I sound like a dick, but I kinda' am. I just hate the perception that we are stuck with what we're given. If people would just do what they want, the changes would happen.

Fuck anyone who tells me what to do. I make decisions based on my knowledge, experience and my heart. If it's wrong, I WILL NOT SUPPORT IT.

Who cares if you have to pay to get a doctors rec. I paid $200 dollars initially to have the ability to possess 2 lbs and up to 99 plants.

I have no problem with that and I have no worries that anyone is coming to knock on my door and bust me.

This old school of thought that says government is the ruler needs to be abolished. We need a revolution!


----------



## rotnaple (Sep 15, 2010)

The bottom line is MONEY! You fail to understand that if this law passes, you just helped some asshole capitalist buy a new vacation home. 

That's so much worse than helping some asshole cartel boss buy new weapons, right? And please define capitalist. Like asshole capitalists who make pipes to smoke weed from and sell them for a profit? Hmm....


----------



## miteubhi? (Sep 15, 2010)

What? You are thinking small. I'm saying politicians, corporate CEO's and things of that nature. 

And do you mean to tell me that you think the government doesn't fund cartels? You need to do some research. 

The guys making pipes would actually be more like small business owners. 

Next?


----------



## rotnaple (Sep 15, 2010)

I live in El Paso Tx. I see people die every day at the hands of the cartels as a direct result of marijuana prohibition. It's claimed that as much as 60 percent of their money comes from weed. The murders have had a direct effect on me, and not because of higher weed prices. I'm just glad that the majority of marijuana users/activists are getting their info on prop19 from honest sources such as norml, leap and mpp. Honestly, if a guy can smoke a joint with out a hassle because of prop19 it's better than what californians have now. Most people are not growers and don't want to grow, and dont really care about the financial politics of it, other than getting relatively inexpensive weed. Will prop 19 allow the averege Joe to smoke a joint on the weekend, or after work without repercussion? Yea, I think it will, and these are the people who will be voting yes on prop 19.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

rotnaple said:


> I live in El Paso Tx. I see people die every day at the hands of the cartels as a direct result of marijuana prohibition. It's claimed that as much as 60 percent of their money comes from weed. The murders have had a direct effect on me, and not because of higher weed prices. I'm just glad that the majority of marijuana users/activists are getting their info on prop19 from honest sources such as norml, leap and mpp. Honestly, if a guy can smoke a joint with out a hassle because of prop19 it's better than what californians have now. Most people are not growers and don't want to grow, and dont really care about the financial politics of it, other than getting relatively inexpensive weed. Will prop 19 allow the averege Joe to smoke a joint on the weekend, or after work without repercussion? Yea, I think it will, and these are the people who will be voting yes on prop 19.


Just because prop 19 is passed doesnt mean the violence stops man... All that mexi schwag goes to alot of places other than Cali, everybody smokes the bomb in cali, so techniqly it wont change a thing in the whole of USA and especially for texas... Those Mexicartels still run humans, heroin, cocaine, guns and methamp... Shit will not change because of prop 19 bro... all of a sudden after nov 2 the violence stops??? Yeah right, they will just focus more on coc, heroin meth and guns... Still the same people fighting over the same territory... nothing changes, except you dont get a ticket when you get caught with a ounce of Ganja...


----------



## rotnaple (Sep 15, 2010)

I don't know, you may be right. But I dont think the market for other drugs is even close to the marijuana market, and as far as guns those all head south into Mexico. I still cannot help but believe that prop19 just might stop some of the violence in Mexico. 60% of profit for the cartels , poof, gone. I so wish news agencies outside of the border area would cover the stories that go on fifteen min away from my house. Faces sewn to soccer balls, 3 yar old girl shot in the head right in front of her dad at a burrito stand. It's so fucking sad here. I have to believe that prop19 would effect the violence here. O well, off to work.


----------



## miteubhi? (Sep 15, 2010)

You need to read rotnapl this post https://www.rollitup.org/legalization-marijuana/350002-vote-no-prop-19-great.html

You will realize how mistaken you are about some of the things you call "facts"

Plus, you don't even live in California, so in my honest opinion you should remain silent.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

rotnaple said:


> I don't know, you may be right. But I dont think the market for other drugs is even close to the marijuana market, and as far as guns those all head south into Mexico. I still cannot help but believe that prop19 just might stop some of the violence in Mexico. 60% of profit for the cartels , poof, gone. I so wish news agencies outside of the border area would cover the stories that go on fifteen min away from my house. Faces sewn to soccer balls, 3 yar old girl shot in the head right in front of her dad at a burrito stand. It's so fucking sad here. I have to believe that prop19 would effect the violence here. O well, off to work.


There weed will still be sold in america... so 60 percent might turn into 30 percent... not 0... they can grow and sell MJ for so cheap that they wont stop... plus, they dont have area restrictions, plant number restrictions and all that BS


----------



## N!pples (Sep 15, 2010)

I'm still voting yes!!!! I want to smoke a joint in a bar without worries! We horribly need the tax money in cali and who gives a poop if some lobbyist or CEO gets a new town house.. Anyone over 21 will be able to smoke and grow marijuana in California... This sounds like a step in the right direction to me no matter who is losing or gaining a few dollars. Big business?! PFFFT, everything is big business! Get used to it! To all that vote no I say shame on you!!!! I grow herb also and believe me I thought hard about this.. I was seriously considering voting no but then I snapped out of that insanity and decided I have to vote yes just for the principal.. It will be considered LEGAL! 

YES ON 19!


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 15, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Links to a variety of sites opposing Prop 19.
> 
> http://www.noonproposition19.com/
> 
> ...


Here is a list of your fellow opposer's of prop 19 taken directly and unedited from the site that you're recommending people to read. You sure you want to side with these people? Some interesting friends you're making there.... You sure you're on the right team?

ORGANIZATIONS:

Anaheim Police Association

California Association of Code Enforcement Officers

California Association of Highway Patrolmen

California Correctional Supervisors Organization

California District Attorneys Association

California District Attorney Investigators Association

California Narcotic Officers&#8217; Association

California Peace Officers&#8217; Association &#8212; John Standish, President

California Police Chiefs Association

California State Sheriffs&#8217; Association

CIA Investigation Academy

Crime Victims United of California

Fight Crime: Invest in Kids

Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association

Los Angeles Police Protective League

National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP)

National Organization of Black Law Enforcement (NOBLE)

Orange County Coalition of Police and Sheriffs (OC Cops)

Peace Officers Association of Los Angeles County

Peace Officers Research Association of California

Placer County Sheriffs&#8217; Association


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 15, 2010)

N!pples said:


> Big business?! PFFFT, everything is big business! Get used to it! To all that vote no I say shame on you!!!! I grow herb also and believe me I thought hard about this.




The funny part is that people are forgetting that there are big businesses in Cannabis now and there always has been. It's basically a difference between the guy who is getting rich off of cannabis now VS the people who would get rich if prohibition ends.

My argument against that is pretty simple... Who gives a shit if this leads to an end to prohibition? Why should I or anyone else really care which group of people are getting rich? Why should I protect one group of rich people from another group of rich people? Are the group of people getting rich off of cannabis now so worthy of defending that we are willing to give up a potential end to prohibition? 

This is insane. People are turning themselves into pawns in a game of competing groups of rich people. The current group of people getting rich off of cannabis have all these people convinced that siding with law enforcement to continue prohibition is in their best interest. lol.


----------



## N!pples (Sep 15, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> This is insane. People are turning themselves into pawns in a game of competing groups of rich people. The current group of people getting rich off of cannabis have all these people convinced that siding with law enforcement to continue prohibition is in their best interest. lol.


Seriously! lol


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 15, 2010)




----------



## miteubhi? (Sep 15, 2010)

N!pples said:


> I'm still voting yes!!!! I want to smoke a joint in a bar without worries! We horribly need the tax money in cali and who gives a poop if some lobbyist or CEO gets a new town house.. Anyone over 21 will be able to smoke and grow marijuana in California... This sounds like a step in the right direction to me no matter who is losing or gaining a few dollars. Big business?! PFFFT, everything is big business! Get used to it! To all that vote no I say shame on you!!!! I grow herb also and believe me I thought hard about this.. I was seriously considering voting no but then I snapped out of that insanity and decided I have to vote yes just for the principal.. It will be considered LEGAL!
> 
> YES ON 19!


You really showed your ass here nipples. You can't smoke a cigarette in a bar why would you be able to smoke a joint?

You can get use to big business but I feel the world needs to revert to community not conformity.

Shame on you for being an ignorant fool who goes along with the bullshit you're being fed.

Did you read the link I posted earlier, didn't think so.


----------



## N!pples (Sep 15, 2010)

miteubhi? said:


> You really showed your ass here nipples. You can't smoke a cigarette in a bar why would you be able to smoke a joint?
> 
> You can get use to big business but I feel the world needs to revert to community not conformity.
> 
> ...


lol, You are an arsehole! You are crazy if you think Smoke bars like Hooka bars are not going to open up everywhere.. I'm not arguing, but stating my opinion! You sound like the ignorant dick and wouldn&#8217;t want to buy your pot or even smoke with you for thaqt matter! 

Lol, "Showed my ass" You'd like that I'm sure! Vote YES! lol

Funny stuff!


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

N!pples said:


> lol, You are an arsehole! You are crazy if you think Smoke bars like Hooka bars are not going to open up everywhere.. I'm not arguing, but stating my opinion! You sound like the ignorant dick and wouldn&#8217;t want to buy your pot or even smoke with you for thaqt matter!
> 
> Lol, "Showed my ass" You'd like that I'm sure! Vote YES! lol
> 
> Funny stuff!


come on man... it did sound really ignorant... like you were gonna be chillin in a local bar having a beer, watching the game and puffin a J... Im sure thats what you meant, and are now covering your trail brudda...


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

The Rancho Cordova measure would impose a $600 annual tax per square foot of indoor cultivation of 25 square feet of marijuana or less and a $900 per square foot tax if the indoor growing area is more than 25 square feet.The city tax would cost a local indoor grower $6,000 a year on 10 square feet of pot plants and $15,000 for 25 square feet. Outdoor growers, who would be billed at a lower rate, would pay a $1,200 residential tax for 25 square feet of marijuana plants.If Proposition 19 passes, it would allow California adults over 21 to cultivate in a 25-square foot residential space. Medical growers often exceed those limits by cultivating with other potpatients. http://calpotnews.com/government/bal...ordovaballot/ these taxes brought to you buy prop19 and this is for everyone even prop215 people.this is why prop19 sucks there no limitations on the goverment capabilicies of every resteriction on the average joe.who the fuck want to get taxed to grow mj even if your not selling it. its bswe the people of ca. can only legalize mj once, then thats it.and prop 19 is the wores peace of legislative cap ive ever seen in my life.are people that desperate to smoke mj with government opproval.give me a fucking brake and get a life and build some fucking standers for fucks sake.</p>


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 15, 2010)

N!pples said:


> I'm still voting yes!!!! I want to smoke a joint in a bar without worries! We horribly need the tax money in cali and who gives a poop if some lobbyist or CEO gets a new town house.. Anyone over 21 will be able to smoke and grow marijuana in California... This sounds like a step in the right direction to me no matter who is losing or gaining a few dollars. Big business?! PFFFT, everything is big business! Get used to it! To all that vote no I say shame on you!!!! I grow herb also and believe me I thought hard about this.. I was seriously considering voting no but then I snapped out of that insanity and decided I have to vote yes just for the principal.. It will be considered LEGAL!
> 
> YES ON 19!


It's obvious you haven't done any reading. The local jurisdiction thing will likely make nearly every aspect of Cannabis consumption ILLEGAL!

You want to smoke in public? Legally?

You're dreaming if you think this will happen, anywhere. They'll force you indoors to smoke your $20 joint, and you damn well better not have a kid in the house.

Educate yourself, or be a fool.


----------



## miteubhi? (Sep 15, 2010)

Fuck yeah, what he said. 

Plus mothafuckin' rep needofweed! Sorry in advance to anyone I come off a bit strongly to.

I feel VERY strongly about prop19 and just hate the way it's being sold as legalization.

IT IS NOT LEGALIZATION. IT IS TAXATION AND REGULATION.

I don't even want to think of all the bad things it means to the world.

It sickens me when good ideas get turned into marketing strategies.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 15, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Here is a list of your fellow opposer's of prop 19 taken directly and unedited from the site that you're recommending people to read. You sure you want to side with these people? Some interesting friends you're making there.... You sure you're on the right team?
> 
> ORGANIZATIONS:
> 
> ...


I read that list before posting it. Strange bedfellows?

Maybe, but remember those folks haven't read any farther than you have.

Did you watch the video of the Lady lawyer? Letitia is her first name, and she's done the in depth research, as I have. I spent a big part of today talking to friends who have shown up on lists, supporting 19.

I believe I managed to get some to change their minds, and others promised to read this thread, and the links that have been posted. These are intelligent business people who understand the system.

All of them understand how laws can be misrepresented, as you are doing(hopefully because you haven't done the reading, yet).


----------



## miteubhi? (Sep 15, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> I read that list before posting it. Strange bedfellows?
> 
> Maybe, but remember those folks haven't read any farther than you have.
> 
> ...


You're my hero VG. You keep fighting the good fight brother.


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

Ok, some of you people really piss me off. Prop 19 makes a cannabis user innocent until proven guilty. Allows an ounce of possession. Allows anyone over 21 to grow. 

And your voting NO? Thats just....pathetic.

I mean, do us intelligent people really have to spell it out for you dumbasses about how the world works?

miteubhi?, not sure how smart you are. But legalization IS TAXATION and regulation.

Are you being forced to go to the store to buy it? No, you can grow your own if you would like. When you do go buy, prices will drop and quality will rise, no more dry dealers, or being ripped off.

As for the growing space, when this passes, which it WILL. Most all the stoners in cali will be growing, except for the dumb ones. So, do you really think the feds or police can regulate the entire state and make sure they all grow in the designated growing area? HELL NO.

You people are saying that this will hurt the medical users, HOW? This will make it cheaper for them and not require anyone to get a medical card. 

It will create more Jobs

More revenue for the state

More products, can you say, hemp clothes, hemp paper??

Not sure how smart you people are who are voting no, i bet the ones voting no are the ones making a profit and want to have a selfish monopoly, which is why it was made illegal in the first place, so your siding with the DEA, go fuck yourself.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 15, 2010)

N!pples said:


> lol, You are an arsehole! You are crazy if you think Smoke bars like Hooka bars are not going to open up everywhere.. I'm not arguing, but stating my opinion! You sound like the ignorant dick and wouldn&#8217;t want to buy your pot or even smoke with you for thaqt matter!
> 
> Lol, "Showed my ass" You'd like that I'm sure! Vote YES! lol
> 
> Funny stuff!



You haven't even read 19 yet, otherwise(if you have any intelligence) you'd note that ALL the local ordinances are subject to local jurisdiction's prejudices.

Don't smoke where there are children, or you'll go to jail. If this passes, you'll be wishing you'd voted no, very soon.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

Your attitude is not appreciated here brother... Maybe try again but from a humble point of view...


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 15, 2010)

underplay said:


> Ok, some of you people really piss me off. Prop 19 makes a cannabis user innocent until proven guilty. Allows an ounce of possession. Allows anyone over 21 to grow.
> 
> And your voting NO? Thats just....pathetic.
> 
> ...


It's obvious that no one took the time to teach you critical thinking. I'm a medical grower for myself and three others. One is my oldest friend(we've been friends for nearly 50 years). 25 square feet, even indoors, growing non stop would not cover my needs. If I had to purchase our meds at local clubs, I would pay about $75,000 annually.

You expect us just to accept the limit and pay for it?

Or ignore THE LAW, and risk getting busted?

FUCK YOU!

Do some reading. You might learn something.


----------



## miteubhi? (Sep 15, 2010)

underplay said:


> Ok, some of you people really piss me off. Prop 19 makes a cannabis user innocent until proven guilty. Allows an ounce of possession. Allows anyone over 21 to grow.
> 
> And your voting NO? Thats just....pathetic.
> 
> ...


Did you just join this forum to post that? Talk about pathetic.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 15, 2010)

miteubhi? said:


> You're my hero VG. You keep fighting the good fight brother.


Your support and participation is greatly appreciated.

This is a battle I've been fighting, on and off since the '76 campaign to legalize. Had it passed then, the dust would have long been settled.

It would have saved us a ton of grief.(There have been about 2.5 million Marijuana arrests in California, alone, since then.)

Thanks again!


----------



## N!pples (Sep 15, 2010)

underplay said:


> Ok, some of you people really piss me off. Prop 19 makes a cannabis user innocent until proven guilty. Allows an ounce of possession. Allows anyone over 21 to grow.
> 
> And your voting NO? Thats just....pathetic.
> 
> ...


HAHA, Even the stranger had to chirp in because this post was so ridiculous... Guaranteed the naysayers area making profit and could care less about the average smoker! Its Greed my friend! The small smoker will prevail and I'll be smoking my joints in a weed bar soon enough!!! I dont need to smoke in public but I would like to be able to enjoy a joint just like I do a beer and that is 100% possible with prop 19! 
Taxation and regulation! Hell YA! Get this state some money!! 
Vote no If you like I'll still vote yes....


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

2.5mill damn that is alot... No wonder why the DEA and Cops dont want it to go "Controlled and Taxed"... they stand to lose there jobs...


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 15, 2010)

N!pples said:


> HAHA, Even the stranger had to chirp in because this post was so ridiculous... Guaranteed the naysayers area making profit and could care less about the average smoker! Its Greed my friend! The small smoker will prevail and I'll be smoking my joints in a weed bar soon enough!!! I dont need to smoke in public but I would like to be able to enjoy a joint just like I do a beer and that is 100% possible with prop 19!
> Taxation and regulation! Hell YA! Get this state some money!!
> Vote no If you like I'll still vote yes....


If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale. Nice location, good revenues... Nice view of it from the Coit Tower.


----------



## N!pples (Sep 15, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> You haven't even read 19 yet, otherwise(if you have any intelligence) you'd note that ALL the local ordinances are subject to local jurisdiction's prejudices.
> 
> Don't smoke where there are children, or you'll go to jail. If this passes, you'll be wishing you'd voted no, very soon.


It does not sound THAT bad to me... I don&#8217;t have children nor do I feel the need to smoke near or in front of them... I can wait till the children are away! That should change my mind? I don&#8217;t need to smoke it in the streets or public either! I just want to be able to smoke in peace with 21 and over friends and this will be possible if you can refrain from doing so in front of children, in the car or on the streets... Arguing this on a Marijuana growing site is so funny to me.. All these hidden agendas! People are crazy! Yes this means YOU! 

N!ps


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

veggiegardener, you have failed to prove many of your points previously in this thread. What you are voting no against is the freedom of your fellow country-men. Thats pathetic, and in my opinion, you don't deserve to grow medically or not, if your for the restriction of freedom.

My belief is that you have something to personally gain, I just read over the bill, its not perfect, but absolutely awesome. prices are going to drop, quality will rise. Medical patients will benefit enormously, well, the ones who are not for profit, those who like to rip other people off, are fucked.


----------



## miteubhi? (Sep 15, 2010)

N!pples said:


> It does not sound THAT bad to me... I don&#8217;t have children nor do I feel the need to smoke near or in front of them... I can wait till the children are away! That should change my mind? I don&#8217;t need to smoke it in the streets or public either! I just want to be able to smoke in peace with 21 and over friends and this will be possible if you can refrain from doing so in front of children, in the car or on the streets... Arguing this on a Marijuana growing site is so funny to me.. All these hidden agendas! People are crazy! Yes this means YOU!
> 
> N!ps


Like I said earlier, I CAN smoke anywhere smoking is permitted. Why can't you or your friends.

You lost me when you started typing.


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

N!pples I completely agree with you, people like veggigardener want to prevent our access for there own benefit, thats just pathetic, it makes my blood boil.

Nobody should be smoking around minors or kids by the way in my opinion, that part of the law doesnt effect me. You wanna get high in public? COOL! EAT SOME BROWNIES! 

You wanna sell to someone under 18? Well, your going to prison. Sounds like the local dealers are completely fucked.


----------



## miteubhi? (Sep 15, 2010)

underplay said:


> N!pples I completely agree with you, people like veggigardener want to prevent our access for there own benefit, thats just pathetic, it makes my blood boil.
> 
> Nobody should be smoking around minors or kids by the way in my opinion, that part of the law doesnt effect me. You wanna get high in public? COOL! EAT SOME BROWNIES!
> 
> You wanna sell to someone under 18? Well, your going to prison. Sounds like the local dealers are completely fucked.



Why don't nipples and underplay go and start another thread. it can be on why to vote yes instead of telling ones who obviously believe otherwise differently?

Waste of time much?


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

miteubhi? said:


> Why don't nipples and underplay go and start another thread. it can be on why to vote yes instead of telling ones who obviously believe otherwise differently?
> 
> Waste of time much?


He asked for opinions, so i gave him mine.

I will give another one, he should change the thread title to "Why I'm a douche bag and you should go to jail"


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 15, 2010)




----------



## miteubhi? (Sep 15, 2010)

underplay said:


> He asked for opinions, so i gave him mine.
> 
> I will give another one, he should change the thread title to "Why I'm a douche bag and you should go to jail"


Why would I go to jail? I cultivate medical cannabis legally for 5 people.


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

Sure, you wont go to jail, but teh average joe who wants to smoke, they will go to jail, and you only give a shit about yourself, so, go fuck yourself.

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.

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.

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.

Boom, you guys who are claiming that medical mj is under attack from prop 19, are completely wrong and are spreading shit around thats suppressing everything the mj movement has worked for the past 100 years.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

no one goes to jail for smoking or posessing under a ounce there fella... I like how you use the word movement, with out knowing anything about it... be gone homie...


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

besides the name, were els in the props literature dose it say legal or legalization.It doesnt..all it take about is taxes and regulations.Becuase thats all it does. This bill was not made to leaglize mj the only reason it in the title is to get people exited.this bill is designed to sipmly charge people outrageous taxes to smoke and grow weed. WHY DO WE NEED GOVERNMET APPROVAL


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 15, 2010)

underplay said:


> veggiegardener, you have failed to prove many of your points previously in this thread. What you are voting no against is the freedom of your fellow country-men. Thats pathetic, and in my opinion, you don't deserve to grow medically or not, if your for the restriction of freedom.
> 
> My belief is that you have something to personally gain, I just read over the bill, its not perfect, but absolutely awesome. prices are going to drop, quality will rise. Medical patients will benefit enormously, well, the ones who are not for profit, those who like to rip other people off, are fucked.


You are wrong. Nothing I say will change a closed mind. I've made the points if only you have the courage to maintain an inquiring mind and do your research.

All I ask is that you do the reading to truly understand the situation.

I think nearly all the pro voters are very young, and haven't seen how governments and justice systems can twist a law until it is unrecognizable.(Think Marihuana Tax Act).


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

I've already done the reading, and its blatantly obvious medical users will gain tremendously and so will non-medical users.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 15, 2010)

underplay said:


> He asked for opinions, so i gave him mine.
> 
> I will give another one, he should change the thread title to "Why I'm a douche bag and you should go to jail"


Still don't want to do the reading?

Won't you don't know can't hurt you?

I'm here to tell you, that isn't true.

I'd rather wait a bit longer, rather than give government more opportunities to fuck us all.

I really hope you all get to go through what I've been through.

It would serve you right.

Ignorance is rewarded.


----------



## mr.swishas&herb (Sep 15, 2010)

man what the fuck i would do to be able to have a 25 by 25 square foot area...that is bigger than my room! plus i heard this is a big push for minorities who often cannot afford to become a mmj patient...and they are the higher proportion of citizens being arrested for marijuana related crimes (pretty sure its around 80%)

i am also from a state where it is still completely illegal so i have to go completely under the radar


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Still don't want to do the reading?
> 
> Won't you don't know can't hurt you?
> 
> ...


Ok, go ahead, start quoting the bill word for word and prove your point, you have nothing to back up your claims, nothing.


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

mr.swishas&herb said:


> man what the fuck i would do to be able to have a 25 by 25 square foot area...that is bigger than my room! plus i heard this is a big push for minorities who often cannot afford to become a mmj patient...and they are the higher proportion of citizens being arrested for marijuana related crimes (pretty sure its around 80%)
> 
> i am also from a state where it is still completely illegal so i have to go completely under the radar


Yea man, i completely agree, its awesome. Not to mention there are plenty of loop-holes in the bill to grow more, and it never says how much each plant has to contain, you can have 2 lb plants 20 feet high as long as its in the sized area.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 15, 2010)

underplay said:


> I've already done the reading, and its blatantly obvious medical users will gain tremendously and so will non-medical users.


You are 100% wrong. Medical users will get the shaft. Especially those belonging to small co-ops. Their growers will be replaced by Corporate producers.

DO THE READING!

Read all the laws pertaining Prop 215 and AB 420.

What you'll eventually find is that Medical co-ops will be eliminated in favor of pot stores.

You'll pay $100/eighth or higher in two years.

OR

You'll be back on the street, looking for a cheaper better product.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 15, 2010)

underplay said:


> Yea man, i completely agree, its awesome. Not to mention there are plenty of loop-holes in the bill to grow more, and it never says how much each plant has to contain, you can have 2 lb plants 20 feet high as long as its in the sized area.



Make the walls solid on your 25 sq. ft. space. One leaf out of place will get you a fine and/or jail time.

That 25 sq. ft. limit is ALL this law is about.


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> You are 100% wrong. Medical users will get the shaft. Especially those belonging to small co-ops. Their growers will be replaced by Corporate producers.
> 
> DO THE READING!
> 
> ...



You are a complete liar, prop 19 does not prevent any rights that prop 215 gives. Your spreading dis-information.

Why dont you give this article a read and educate yourself instead of spreading bullshit for your own personal gain.

http://hightimes.com/blog/evan/6681?utm_source=rss_home


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

Medical users can still grow according to prop 215, prop 19 does not effect you if your a medical card holder, well ok, it does. It gives you more rights.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 15, 2010)

mr.swishas&herb said:


> man what the fuck i would do to be able to have a 25 by 25 square foot area...that is bigger than my room! plus i heard this is a big push for minorities who often cannot afford to become a mmj patient...and they are the higher proportion of citizens being arrested for marijuana related crimes (pretty sure its around 80%)
> 
> i am also from a state where it is still completely illegal so i have to go completely under the radar


Don't read well?

I think you're probably going to be surprised when you read that bill and realize it is 25 square feet. Not 625 sq. ft.(Twice the space I currently use).


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

Oh, by the way, the local police have absolutely no right to even enter your home to make sure you are following the growing area requirements, they will need a warrant to enter your premises. Probable cause will no longer work.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 15, 2010)

What's wrong with co-ops becoming obsolete?


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 15, 2010)

underplay said:


> Medical users can still grow according to prop 215, prop 19 does not effect you if your a medical card holder, well ok, it does. It gives you more rights.


READ THE PROPOSITION!!!

Cultivation is purposely excluded from the protections.

I really think a literacy test should be required for voters...


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

First of all, co-ops will not become obsolete.


----------



## mr.swishas&herb (Sep 15, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Don't read well?
> 
> I think you're probably going to be surprised when you read that bill and realize it is 25 square feet. Not 625 sq. ft.(Twice the space I currently use).


you should be happy you already have it better than most of the country...I am not a resident of California therefore my opinion on the topic is irrelevant, I was simply expressing the fact that a 25 square foot area would be the greatest thing I could imagine in my life so I feel that you should be greatful for the ability to smoke weed legally period They still make our medically ill citizens get hooked on oxy and opiates that are addictive.


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> READ THE PROPOSITION!!!
> 
> Cultivation is purposely excluded from the protections.
> 
> I really think a literacy test should be required for voters...


I really cant believe you...have you even read the bill? 

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under
California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:

(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for
that individual&#8217;s personal consumption, and not for sale.

*(ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of
the private property owner or lawful occupant*, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area
of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the
parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the
property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of
cannabis on any public lands.

* Obviously you have not read the proposition, so I highlighted it for you*


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 15, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> What's wrong with co-ops becoming obsolete?


Cost to the patient.

Co-ops charge little or nothing to its members.

I'm not talking about "dispensaries".

A co-op is a group of patients who grow for each other or as in my case, benefit from the efforts of a member who grows.

The only thing we don't consume is some of the trim, which I trade to an edibles enterprise in exchange for brownies, etc.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 15, 2010)

underplay said:


> I really cant believe you...have you even read the bill?
> 
> (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under
> California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
> ...


I see nothing relevant to my comment.


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

Hey veggiegardener, find a new job, once this passes, everyone will have cheap access to this beautiful plant, and the option to grow there own for free, instead of going through high priced dealers who take advantage of medicals users.


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> READ THE PROPOSITION!!!
> 
> Cultivation is purposely excluded from the protections.
> 
> I really think a literacy test should be required for voters...





underplay said:


> I really cant believe you...have you even read the bill?
> 
> (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under
> California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
> ...






veggiegardener said:


> I see nothing relevant to my comment.



Can you even read?


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

Does everyone here see where im getting at? Its CLEARLY obvious veggiegardener is spreading dis-information and blatantly LYING. 

He is not quoting any law from the bill or making any factual statements, I really hope the people reading this don't believe this guy.

You know, for you lying to everyone and spreading this dis-info, i wouldnt mind seeing you suffer without your medicine.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 15, 2010)

underplay said:


> You are a complete liar, prop 19 does not prevent any rights that prop 215 gives. Your spreading dis-information.
> 
> Why dont you give this article a read and educate yourself instead of spreading bullshit for your own personal gain.
> 
> http://hightimes.com/blog/evan/6681?utm_source=rss_home


You haven't done the reading. You are ill equipped to argue a bill yoiu may have read, but refuse to understand.

The ONLY way to prove me wrong is to show me language that SPECIFICALLY protects the status quo of the medical grower.

You can't and saying you can is lying.

Who do you work for? Which dispensary? In Oakland?


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 15, 2010)

underplay said:


> Does everyone here see where im getting at? Its CLEARLY obvious veggiegardener is spreading dis-information and blatantly LYING.
> 
> He is not quoting any law from the bill or making any factual statements, I really hope the people reading this don't believe this guy.
> 
> You know, for you lying to everyone and spreading this dis-info, i wouldnt mind seeing you suffer without your medicine.


You obviously haven't even read the whole thread, along with various links. Anybody who HAS read it can see you for what you are.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 15, 2010)

underplay said:


> Hey veggiegardener, find a new job, once this passes, everyone will have cheap access to this beautiful plant, and the option to grow there own for free, instead of going through high priced dealers who take advantage of medicals users.


Really hate being wrong, don't you?

You are, you know.


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

I think its you who are working for the dispensary.




> 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&#8217;s understandable anxiety over allowing municipalities to unduly control collectives, I direct everyone&#8217;s attention to the last statute of the MMP, 11362.83, which reads. &#8220;Nothing in this article shall prevent a city or other local governing body from adopting and enforcing laws CONSISTENT with this article.&#8221;
> 
> 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.&#8221;


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

Go ahead and start with factual evidence, i just provided multiple quotes from the proposition that proves, you are clearly, a liar.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 15, 2010)

Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9

I've read that entire diatribe.

I've also read the language in the H &S codes.

WHAT YOU ARE MISSING IS THAT GROWING AREAS ARE NO WHERE MENTIONED. As a referendum, PROP 19 WILL SUPERCEDE Prop 215 BECAUSE Prop 215 DID NOT limit grow size. Do you get it?

Are you subtle enough to understand the consequences?

Accuse me of ulterior motives, but you're wrong. 

I will NOT stop talking about this until Prop 19 is defeated.

The bill's language was designed to take away the rights of Medical growers. The corporations don't like competition.

By the way.

Fuck you.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 15, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Cost to the patient.
> 
> Co-ops charge little or nothing to its members.
> 
> ...


What's the cost of gardening outdoors

This is the first time I've heard someone argue prices will increase.
What is your reasoning behind suggesting medical growers will suffer higher cost?


----------



## miteubhi? (Sep 15, 2010)

I give up trying to reason with the unreasonable. 

You will find your own truth regardless of what the words of prop19 says underplay.

You see an easy way to get cheap pot. Cool. 

Enjoy slavery you ignorant fuck.

I don't like calling names but you sir, if I can call you that, remind me of school on Sunday.

No class.

Go be a bully on the playground.
You have a lot of learning to do underplay.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 15, 2010)

underplay said:


> I think its you who are working for the dispensary.


I went back to check. What you posted isn't in prop 19. It is a diatribe written by a lawyer probably hired by the authors of Prop. 19.

Get your facts straight.

You can find the bill linked on the first page of this thread.

Liar.


----------



## miteubhi? (Sep 15, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> I went back to check. What you posted isn't in prop 19. It is a diatribe written by a lawyer probably hired by the authors of Prop. 19.
> 
> Get your facts straight.
> 
> ...


Zing!!!!!!!!


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 15, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> What's the cost of gardening outdoors
> 
> This is the first time I've heard someone argue prices will increase.
> What is your reasoning behind suggesting medical growers will suffer higher cost?


Go back and read this thread. Everything is repeated endlessly with a few shills from Oakland calling me a liar.

Unfortunately they can't back up anything.

Kinda like Bill O'Reilly.


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

Actually, if you read the bill, you will see that you guys are wrong.


Here you go!



> (C) In a criminal proceeding, a person accused of violating a limitation in this act shall have the right to an affirmative defense that the cannabis was reasonably related to his or her personal consumption.


ZING!!! Medical users can still win in court, this doesn't change shit, except give them MORE rights. They cant just say they smell weed and bust you, they have to have a warrant and probable cause and mj is no longer a probable cause.

So, first they have to find a reason to search your residence, and even then your still legal under what i just quoted...you need some lessons on reading.


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

Sorry people, your little medical monopoly is over, your fucked, cannabis for all now.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 15, 2010)

Damn underplay, you beat me to it.


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Damn underplay, you beat me to it.


Just took a little bit of reading to outsmart these selfish bastards.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 15, 2010)

underplay said:


> Just took a little bit of reading to outsmart these selfish bastards.


No need for insults or labels.
They are filters of misunderstanding.
Even the truth can be a matter of perspective.


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

Well, it seems that they have taken it a little bit over misunderstanding and are now spreading dis-information to back there agenda. Sorry for using insults in your presence sure shot but i dont really respect people who spread disinformation for there own benefit.


----------



## vertise (Sep 15, 2010)

Within prop 19 it is written that you are allowed to request as much space as needed for your medicinal grow according to doctor recommendation.


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

vertise said:


> Within prop 19 it is written that you are allowed to request as much space as needed for your medicinal grow according to doctor recommendation.


Can you quote the proposition directly please? Just to be clear.


----------



## vertise (Sep 15, 2010)

http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&winname=addthis&pub=cjcoffey&source=tbx-250&lng=en-us&s=facebook&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhightimes.com%2Fblog%2Fevan%2F6681%3Futm_source%3Drss_home&title=HIGHTIMES.COM%20%3E%20About%20Prop%2019%20-%20To%20Medical%20Marijuana%20Patients&ate=AT-cjcoffey/-/pz-2/4c91a26794fa3878/1&sms_ss=1&CXNID=2000001.5215456080540439074NXC⪯=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CB0QFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fhightimes.com%252Fblog%252Fevan%252F6681%253Futm_source%253Drss_home%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Ddoes%2520prop%252019%2520limit%26ei%3DSKKRTMyFE8L68Aa6k8nABQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGwg5rVVdgLZTvtKzNIXQFUcPnSFA%26sig2%3D0kN1MPKh3L7qxzMSJ6tEBQ&tt=0http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&winname=addthis&pub=cjcoffey&source=tbx-250&lng=en-us&s=myspace&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhightimes.com%2Fblog%2Fevan%2F6681%3Futm_source%3Drss_home&title=HIGHTIMES.COM%20%3E%20About%20Prop%2019%20-%20To%20Medical%20Marijuana%20Patients&ate=AT-cjcoffey/-/pz-2/4c91a26794fa3878/2&sms_ss=1&CXNID=2000001.5215456080540439074NXC⪯=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CB0QFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fhightimes.com%252Fblog%252Fevan%252F6681%253Futm_source%253Drss_home%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Ddoes%2520prop%252019%2520limit%26ei%3DSKKRTMyFE8L68Aa6k8nABQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGwg5rVVdgLZTvtKzNIXQFUcPnSFA%26sig2%3D0kN1MPKh3L7qxzMSJ6tEBQ&tt=0http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&winname=addthis&pub=cjcoffey&source=tbx-250&lng=en-us&s=google&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhightimes.com%2Fblog%2Fevan%2F6681%3Futm_source%3Drss_home&title=HIGHTIMES.COM%20%3E%20About%20Prop%2019%20-%20To%20Medical%20Marijuana%20Patients&ate=AT-cjcoffey/-/pz-2/4c91a26794fa3878/3&sms_ss=1&CXNID=2000001.5215456080540439074NXC⪯=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CB0QFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fhightimes.com%252Fblog%252Fevan%252F6681%253Futm_source%253Drss_home%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Ddoes%2520prop%252019%2520limit%26ei%3DSKKRTMyFE8L68Aa6k8nABQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGwg5rVVdgLZTvtKzNIXQFUcPnSFA%26sig2%3D0kN1MPKh3L7qxzMSJ6tEBQ&tt=0Here is a Good read from 




http://hightimes.com/blog/evan/6681?utm_source=rss_home

This may clear it up for some....It explains why prop 19 has no effect on prop 215 as in medicinal use obviously via a prominent marijuana lawyer. 

Below is an open leter I received from a Prop 19 supporter. It's long but certainly worth the read:

For my support of Prop. 19, I have been subject to the scorn, approbation and the most demoralizing denunciations imaginable by a group of medical marijuana patients exhibiting what can only be termed medical reefer madness.

With the best of intentions based on a poorly researched legal analysis, these anti-19 folks have joined forces with the people whose indifference and outright hostility have resulted in, and continue to result in, the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of thousands of medical marijuana patients.

Their never-ending harangues that Prop. 215 will go into the trash can of history if Prop. 19 is passed is causing medical marijuana patients extreme anxiety and leading them to question their support of this historic and critical piece of reform legislation. Graphically describing the horrors that will descend like a plague of locusts on unsuspecting medical marijuana patients if Prop. 19 passes, the anti-19 cabal insinuates that we are being duped by unscrupulous and untrustworthy people like Chris Conrad, Judge Jim Gray, Dale Gerringer, Dr. Frank Lucido, State Senator Mark Leno, Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, Jeff Jones, Mark Emery and hundreds of others. To see a list of all their claimed enemies of medical marijuana patients, go to: www.taxcannabis2010.org/node/13

To reveal the fallacy of their arguments and to stop stressing patients, I asked my friend, and frankly the friend of every medical marijuana patient in the state of California, J. David Nick, to weigh in on the controversy.

For 18 years, David Nick has successfully litigated a cornucopia of issues regarding cannabis and the applicable laws in both trial and appellate courts. He has not confined his practice to marijuana law, but also litigates cases involving constitutional rights and criminal procedure.

David Nick has never lost a jury trial in a state marijuana case including many precedent setting trials involving some of the most revered figures in the medical marijuana movement such as Brownie Mary, Dennis Peron (Nick has been Perons sole attorney since 1994) and Steve Kubby.

One of Nicks early defenses of Perons medical marijuana activism resulted in the first appellate court decision affirming that marijuana can be sold. Kubbys case was the first large quantity (200 plants) case to be won on the argument that Kubbys serious ailments necessitated his use of cannabis to keep him alive.

A recent case of interest to patients is the Strauss case, involving a farm in Mendocino County that cultivated marijuana exclusively for a collective in Los Angeles. Nick succeeded in getting a hung jury followed by outright dismissal of all charges involving 250 pounds of processed marijuana, 200 large marijuana plants and $1.5 million in several bank accounts - not exactly consistent with the idea of small collectives with everybody planting, harvesting, trimming and singing Kumbaya.

He is currently representing collectives in Palm Springs, Riverside and Los Angeles in preemptive lawsuits asserting the rights of collectives to provide medicine to their members without undue interference from local government officials.

Nick does not confine his practice to marijuana law, but is involved in significant federal criminal litigation.

His litigation has established the right not to be searched by sniffing dogs without probable cause. This is in contract to car searches where police can search you car for no reason at all.

His litigation has lead to policies requiring police to not draw weapons in a marijuana search unless they have information that the person being apprehended is dangerous.

He has successfully litigated jury trials utilizing a necessity for life defense in order to uphold the operation of needle exchange programs.

As far as I am concerned, these experiences qualify him to provide an opinion about Prop. 19 superior to those I have read from the sky-is-falling alarmists

Here is Mr. Nicks analysis of the effects of Prop. 19 on medical marijuana patients. I will have a few more choice words for you to peruse at the conclusion of Mr. Nicks thoughtful, rational, reasoned, and accurate analysis.

PROP. 19 IS THE BEST THING TO HAPPEN TO MMJ PATIENTS SINCE PROP. 215

Anyone who claims that Proposition 19 will restrict or eliminate rights under the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) or the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) is simply wrong. If anything, Proposition 19 will permit individuals to grow and possess much more than ever before with patients, coops and collectives still receiving the same protections they are entitled to under the CUA and MMP.

Here is why.

The legal arguments claiming the "sky will fall" if Prop. 19 passes are based on the fallacious conclusion that the Initiative invalidates the CUA and MMP. This baseless fear stems from a flawed legal analysis which focuses on just about every portion of Prop. 19 EXCEPT the relevant portions. This flawed legal analysis is driven by an incorrect understanding of the rules of statutory construction.

Although extrinsic materials (such as legislative committee memos or voter pamphlet arguments) may not be resorted to when the legislative language is clear, courts may never ignore the purpose of the legislation. Every interpretation a court gives a statute must be consistent with the purpose of the legislation. This is why statutes have long "preambles" which explicitly state the purposes of the legislation.

This rule is so controlling that a court is required to ignore the literal language of a legislative statute if it conflicts with the purpose of the legislation. By example I call attention to the appellate court case of Bell v. DMV. In this precedent setting case, the court ruled that a statute must be interpreted to apply to civil proceedings even though the statute they were interpreting stated it applied only to "criminal" proceedings. The courts interpretation of the statute was consistent with the purposes of the legislation and the limitation to criminal cases in the statute itself was not.

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.

PROP. 19 PROTECTS PATIENTS PERSONAL AND COLLECTIVE CULTIVATIONS

Further protecting patients from local law enforcement actions, Section 11303 states that no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact SEIZE or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is LAWFULLY CULTIVATED. If you are a patient, you may lawfully cultivate as much marijuana as medically necessary and Prop. 19 protects that right. If you are cultivating for a collective, you may lawfully cultivate as much marijuana as your collective allows you to and Prop. 19 protects that right. Unfortunately, many law enforcement officials refuse to recognize the rights provided under the MMP for collectives to lawfully cultivate and sell marijuana. Prop. 19 reinforces those rights and makes it even more difficult for law enforcement to bust a collective or collective grower.

IT WILL KEEP POLICE FROM COOPERATING WITH THE FEDS

As you can see from the above paragraph, the statutory scheme Prop. 19 creates expressly forbids law enforcement from seizing lawfully cultivated cannabis.

Prop. 19 will create an insurmountable barrier for local law enforcement which is still bent on depriving you of your rights through the despicable device of using federal law enforcement officers.

Heres why.

Federal drug enforcement is nearly 100 percent dependent on the ability to use local law enforcement. They do not have the manpower to operate without it. Prop. 19 in no uncertain terms tells local law enforcement that they cannot even attempt to seize cannabis. If Prop. 19 passes, California will actually have a law on the books that expressly forbids local police from cooperating with the feds in the seizure of any lawfully cultivated California cannabis.

PROP. 19 DOES NOT LIMIT PATIENTS RIGHTS UNDER THE CUA & MMP

The nail in the coffin for those arguing against Prop. 19 is found in Section 2C (1). This is the only section which discusses which other laws the acts is "intended to limit" and nowhere in this section is the CUA or the MMP listed. If the purpose of Prop. 19 was "to limit" the application and enforcement of the CUA and MMP, those laws would have been listed along with all the other laws that are listed in Section 2C (1). Since the CUA and MMP were not listed, then Prop. 19 does not "limit" the CUA and MMP.

Its that simple.

PROP. 19 MAKES IT EASIER FOR PATIENTS TO OBTAIN THEIR MEDICINE

Section 2B (6) states that one of the purposes of Prop. 19 is to Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes. This section is one of the many reasons Prop. 19 is very good for patients. If Prop. 19 passes, the days of having to go through the hassle of getting a doctors recommendation to treat simple medical conditions will be coming to an end in those communities which allow Prop. 19 stores" to exist. When you need an aspirin you do not have to go to a doctor and then to the health department and then to Walgreens - YOU JUST GO TO WALGREENS (the founder of which, Mr. Walgreen, became rich during prohibition by selling "medical" alcohol to patients who had obtained a prescription for alcohol from their doctor).

In those communities which are stubborn and will not allow Prop 19 "stores," patients will still have the protections of the CUA and MMP and the statutory right to form coops and collectives. Prop. 19 specifically recognizes that these rights are not invalidated and does nothing to limit the ability of patients to cultivate or form collectives or coops.

PROP. 19 ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE A LOT OF MARIJUANA

As an attorney called upon to defend patients and non-patients in marijuana cases, I cannot tell you how beneficial and how much freedom Section 11300 subdivision A (3) of Prop.19 will be to cannabis users. Read it!

Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individuals personal consumption, and not for sale.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of ANY harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.

Section (i) limits possession to one ounce OUT OF YOUR HOUSE. Section (iii) permits people 21 and over to have within their residence or single parcel ALL the cannabis which one grew in their 25 sq. foot parcel, including what you grew this year, what you grew last year and EVERY SINGLE 25 SQ. FT. HARVEST YOU EVER HAD ON THAT SINGLE PARCEL. This covers as many cycles of indoor and/or outdoor grown cannabis as a person can produce as long as each grow was no more than 25 square feet and done in succession.

Clearly section 11300(a) (i) limits personal possession and consumption to one ounce OUT OF YOUR HOME while section11300(a) (iii) is what you are allowed to have AT YOUR RESIDENCE if that is where your 25 sq. ft. garden is located. That this is the case is established by another rule of statutory construction, i.e. the specific controls the general. Here (iii) is the specific statute with respect to what you can have AT YOUR RESIDENCE ONLY or in the words of subdivision (iii) "on the premises where grown".

The one ounce limitation only applies when you leave your house, not wherever it is you grow your 25 foot plot. I can picture being able to easily defend a person with 200 pounds who is not even medical.

Under Prop. 19 you can only travel with one ounce, but if you are a patient you can still enjoy the protections of the CUA and MMP and can safely travel with eight ounces, or whatever your doctor permits you to have or the needs of your collective, as allowed by the CUA and the MMP. YOUR SUPPLY PROBLEMS CAUSED BY PARANOID CULTIVATION LAWS AND POLICIES THAT AT TIMES LIMIT YOUR PERSONAL CULTIVATION PROJECTS ARE SOLVED BY PROP. 19.

Prop. 19 creates a marijuana sanctuary IN YOUR HOME ONLY. Prop. 19 allows you to have AT YOUR HOME ONLY ALL OF THE PROCEEDS of every successive 25 sq. foot plot. However, Prop 19 only allows you TO REMOVE IT FROM YOUR HOME one ounce at a time if you are a recreational user.

For patients this is not the case because Prop. 19 exempts them from the one ounce out of home restriction. As stated above, if you are a patient then you can take out of your house up to eight ounces, or whatever your doctor permits you to have or the needs of your collective.

Both medical patients and recreational users should note that Section 11300(a) (i) allows you to "share" up to an ounce which tells me that you can furnish as many one ounces to as many friends as you wish, thus if you have a party with 50 people you could give away 50 ounces.

UNDERSTANDING NOTWITHSTANDING

As for the argument that the various Notwithstanding clauses invalidate the CUA and MMP, I reiterate, that in section 2C (1) where Prop. 19 expressly states which statues are being altered, the CUA and MMP are not listed. Therefore, when you use the word notwithstanding, you cannot be referring to statues that have been expressly excluded.

Claiming there is some doubt as to what notwithstanding means or refers to requires at most that we reach back to the purpose of the legislation in order to give it proper meaning. Whatever interpretation you give it, notwithstanding cannot be in conflict with Sections 2 B (7 &  which exempt patients covered under the CUA and MMP from any actions taken by municipalities to regulate the non-medical use of cannabis.

The word notwithstanding is used when reversing prior legislation and has traditionally been interpreted by prior case law to be a word employed for the purpose of allowing conduct that had previously been forbidden by other statutes. If the word notwithstanding was not used in Prop. 19, municipalities would be able to claim that there is still a prohibition on their participation in the licensing and regulating of this activity.

For example, a law making skipping in front of a school illegal would be overturned by a law which says notwithstanding other laws, skipping is legal. If the word notwithstanding was not there, then skipping in front of a school would still be illegal even though skipping itself would be legal at any other location.ddddd

The rationale behind this rule emanates or comes from another rule of statutory construction which is that existing laws cannot be repealed by inference and instead must be EXPRESSLY repealed. A court cannot find that a law, such as the CUA or MMP, was changed by "implication." In other words, it cannot repeal a law by ruling that another law implied that it should.

Although Sections 2B (7 &  gives cities control over the non-medical distribution of cannabis, that in no way allows a court to repeal or even change the CUA and MMP by ruling that it was implicit in Prop. 19 that they do so. It is contrary to any rational understanding of statutory construction to infer that since Prop. 19 gives cities control over the distribution of non-medical marijuana, that it also gives cities the right to control the medical distribution of cannabis beyond what the CUA and MMP allows.

The word notwithstanding is simply a legal necessity to repeal the various statutes that prohibit the conduct that prop. 19 now permits.

So can everyone please VOTE YES ON 19.

Sincerely,

J. David Nick
Attorney-at-Law

There you have it in plain simple English  patients have everything to gain and nothing to lose with the passage of Prop. 19 You can believe who you want, but ask yourself, who would you want defending you in court? J. David Nick or your choice of any or all of the authors of the anti-19 screeds?

Get real people. Do you really think the Marijuana Policy Project, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Drug Policy Alliance, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition would stand idly by, let alone support, an initiative that will undo the millions of dollars and the thousands of hours of staff time they have invested in establishing, protecting and defending the medical marijuana laws that many of themt helped put on the books in the first place?

Americans for Safe Access has chosen to stay neutral on the issue because they see themselves as strictly a medical marijuana organization and Prop. 19 is about the recreational use of marijuana, not medical. Do you think ASA would take a neutral position on Prop. 19 if they thought it would undermine Prop. 215?

The only people who will profit from the undermining of Prop. 19 are narco-cops, bail bondsmen, prison guards, Mexican drug cartels, greedy growers, profit-making collectives and old dogs that cant learn a new trick.

Those medical marijuana advocates who have chosen to dedicate their existence to defeating Prop. 19, could actually do something of benefit for the medical marijuana community if they would expend their negative energy defeating Steve Cooley, the Republican candidate for California Attorney General.

Unlike Prop. 19, this man is a real threat to medical marijuana patients. As the District Attorney for Los Angeles, he has claimed collectives have no right to sell marijuana and that collectives must be small groups where everybody gets their hands in the soil. He has spent literally millions of taxpayer dollars pursuing medical marijuana patients and providers and if elected Attorney General will probably rescind AG Jerry Browns guidelines thereby making every collective in California that operates a storefront or delivery service illegal.

Unfortunately, the money is on him to win the AG race and if he is elected, you better hope Prop. 19 passes so he will be so busy trying to undo 19 that he wont have time to screw patients.

Dont just vote YES on 19, work with us to pass this historic initiative that will help, not hurt patients, bring compassion and common sense to marijuana law and deliver a decisive, maybe fatal blow to the war on drugs.

Lanny Swerdlow, RN, LNC


----------



## vertise (Sep 15, 2010)

It will not effect medicinal use, it regulates recreational.


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

Cool, thanks for the direct quote vertise.


----------



## SB Garlic (Sep 15, 2010)

So the ppl against prop19 are the ones benefiting from MJ being illegal so that they can make more money off of med patients? Am I missing anything here? They just wanna keep it illegal to keep prices up?


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

SB Garlic said:


> So the ppl against prop19 are the ones benefiting from MJ being illegal so that they can make more money off of med patients? Am I missing anything here?


You are exactly correct. Thats pretty pathetic isn't it? Not only are they ripping the medical patients off hard core who need it badly, they want to deny the rest of us our freedoms.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 15, 2010)

People get upset when you rock the boat.


----------



## SB Garlic (Sep 15, 2010)

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


----------



## vertise (Sep 15, 2010)

Yup to what underplay said.


----------



## SB Garlic (Sep 15, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> I've been reading about this bill. Do you use more than 25 square feet for growing? I do. I need that space to provide for myself and two family members.


To provide medication or cash?


----------



## vertise (Sep 15, 2010)

In my own opinion its a pretty big step in making it legal throughout the country. Also personally i think that the fear that some people have that it will be taken over by big corp. is a bit ridiculous. Its like hey those who choose to brew their own beer can, those who dont can just go buy it.


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

Yea the big corp fear thing is ridiculous. Its easier to grow good weed then it is to brew good beer.

What they are afraid of, is everyone growing there own, and not buying it at ridiculous prices.


----------



## SB Garlic (Sep 15, 2010)

underplay said:


> Yea the big corp fear thing is ridiculous. Its easier to grow good weed then it is to brew good beer.
> 
> What they are afraid of, is everyone growing there own, and not buying it at ridiculous prices.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-FQKsUjVhQ


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

hahahaha.

Nice! veggiegardener and Needofweed you guys like that song? I fuckin loved it!


----------



## SB Garlic (Sep 15, 2010)

I love Culture.


----------



## rotnaple (Sep 16, 2010)

Hey mitteubhi fuck tard.
I come on here and give a rebuttal to your comment and you talk shit? Fuck you you smarmy piece of shit. I may not have a dog in this hunt but I have a voice you fuck nut. Illegal marijuana at any degree is one of many reasons for the violence in Mexico, and it's fuming ugly asshole. So fuck you I should stay out of the conversation! In fact it's people like you and your smarmy ass attitude that makes this world a little bit shittier. The fuck you would act like that in person. No decent human being would. If I were at all like you, though I am not, I would hope to fuck you get hit by a bus....and live, or the popular Diaf. I just hope you see the light one day, what ever it is that can transform a shit fuck like yourself into.....something better than you are now. So fuck you turd!

While I'm at it, fuck you fddtodck. Your a self important arrogant asshole yourself. With almost 50000 posts? Get a fucking life dude. Is that all you do is post? I bet you are a diagnosed Internet addict arnt you.

Fuck the fuccking dick head, ass hole, smarmy arrogant bastards all over this site!

Y'all can eat a heaping bowl of hot dick!

Fuck this site too! Ive been lurking this site for a few years. Always seeing what the global marijuana news has to say. A lot of dominos out there, who's gonna be first to fall? Califonia? New Mexico? Colorado? One of them goes and just watch what happens. I read a lot, but never post cause of dick head, shit fuck, assholes. I'm headed to a much different forum to check my marijuana news. There has got to be a higher level of discussion than what most of you shit fuck, asshole, cock suckers offer.

Fuck you , Fuck You FUCK YOU!!!

Peace to all the decent ones out there. I'm sure there a quite a few out there that I could pass a joint to around the campfires.

Ban me shit fucks, cause I ain't never comin back


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 16, 2010)

what ever ... lol


----------



## miteubhi? (Sep 16, 2010)

rotnaple said:


> Hey mitteubhi fuck tard.
> I come on here and give a rebuttal to your comment and you talk shit? Fuck you you smarmy piece of shit. I may not have a dog in this hunt but I have a voice you fuck nut. Illegal marijuana at any degree is one of many reasons for the violence in Mexico, and it's fuming ugly asshole. So fuck you I should stay out of the conversation! In fact it's people like you and your smarmy ass attitude that makes this world a little bit shittier. The fuck you would act like that in person. No decent human being would. If I were at all like you, though I am not, I would hope to fuck you get hit by a bus....and live, or the popular Diaf. I just hope you see the light one day, what ever it is that can transform a shit fuck like yourself into.....something better than you are now. So fuck you turd!
> 
> While I'm at it, fuck you fddtodck. Your a self important arrogant asshole yourself. With almost 50000 posts? Get a fucking life dude. Is that all you do is post? I bet you are a diagnosed Internet addict arnt you.
> ...


Wow, you have serious medical problems. 

Try some herbal remedy from my garden for that serious case of vagitis. 

Am I under your skin yet? Seems from this post that I hit a nerve.

You can use all the profanity you like boy, It means precisely dick to me.

I know what I am, and I know what is right to me. You take it or leave it.

And god damn it man, your fucking spelling sucks. sheesh.


----------



## miteubhi? (Sep 16, 2010)

I'm sorry but can I get an award for the person most offended on this site? 

I'm seriously thinking of posting my address to set up a ufc match.

I sure love y'all who support the madness. I'm going to bed.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

underplay said:


> Actually, if you read the bill, you will see that you guys are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here you go![

So now we need to defend ourselves in court again?

Fuck you, shill.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

underplay said:


> Sorry people, your little medical monopoly is over, your fucked, cannabis for all now.


Keep thinking that. Your whining will be epic. LOL


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Damn underplay, you beat me to it.


Consider doing some reading.

Your thinking is shallower than steam on a window.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

underplay said:


> Well, it seems that they have taken it a little bit over misunderstanding and are now spreading dis-information to back there agenda. Sorry for using insults in your presence sure shot but i dont really respect people who spread disinformation for there own benefit.


You are uninformed, and incapable of critical thought. Either read the Health and safety codes, or shut up. 

Liar


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

vertise said:


> Within prop 19 it is written that you are allowed to request as much space as needed for your medicinal grow according to doctor recommendation.


Show me.

I've read it several times and haven't seen that.

Quotes, please.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

vertise said:


> http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&winname=addthis&pub=cjcoffey&source=tbx-250&lng=en-us&s=facebook&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhightimes.com%2Fblog%2Fevan%2F6681%3Futm_source%3Drss_home&title=HIGHTIMES.COM%20%3E%20About%20Prop%2019%20-%20To%20Medical%20Marijuana%20Patients&ate=AT-cjcoffey/-/pz-2/4c91a26794fa3878/1&sms_ss=1&CXNID=2000001.5215456080540439074NXC⪯=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CB0QFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fhightimes.com%252Fblog%252Fevan%252F6681%253Futm_source%253Drss_home%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Ddoes%2520prop%252019%2520limit%26ei%3DSKKRTMyFE8L68Aa6k8nABQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGwg5rVVdgLZTvtKzNIXQFUcPnSFA%26sig2%3D0kN1MPKh3L7qxzMSJ6tEBQ&tt=0http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&winname=addthis&pub=cjcoffey&source=tbx-250&lng=en-us&s=myspace&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhightimes.com%2Fblog%2Fevan%2F6681%3Futm_source%3Drss_home&title=HIGHTIMES.COM%20%3E%20About%20Prop%2019%20-%20To%20Medical%20Marijuana%20Patients&ate=AT-cjcoffey/-/pz-2/4c91a26794fa3878/2&sms_ss=1&CXNID=2000001.5215456080540439074NXC⪯=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CB0QFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fhightimes.com%252Fblog%252Fevan%252F6681%253Futm_source%253Drss_home%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Ddoes%2520prop%252019%2520limit%26ei%3DSKKRTMyFE8L68Aa6k8nABQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGwg5rVVdgLZTvtKzNIXQFUcPnSFA%26sig2%3D0kN1MPKh3L7qxzMSJ6tEBQ&tt=0http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&winname=addthis&pub=cjcoffey&source=tbx-250&lng=en-us&s=google&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhightimes.com%2Fblog%2Fevan%2F6681%3Futm_source%3Drss_home&title=HIGHTIMES.COM%20%3E%20About%20Prop%2019%20-%20To%20Medical%20Marijuana%20Patients&ate=AT-cjcoffey/-/pz-2/4c91a26794fa3878/3&sms_ss=1&CXNID=2000001.5215456080540439074NXC⪯=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CB0QFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fhightimes.com%252Fblog%252Fevan%252F6681%253Futm_source%253Drss_home%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Ddoes%2520prop%252019%2520limit%26ei%3DSKKRTMyFE8L68Aa6k8nABQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGwg5rVVdgLZTvtKzNIXQFUcPnSFA%26sig2%3D0kN1MPKh3L7qxzMSJ6tEBQ&tt=0Here is a Good read from
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oddly enough, these aRE legal OPINIONS THAT are not THE TEXT OF 19.

iRRELEVENT TO THIS DISCUSSION.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

vertise said:


> It will not effect medicinal use, it regulates recreational.


Wrong. 

It affects our ability to provide our meds for ourselves.

Liar


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

SB Garlic said:


> So the ppl against prop19 are the ones benefiting from MJ being illegal so that they can make more money off of med patients? Am I missing anything here? They just wanna keep it illegal to keep prices up?


I'm willing to bet that you will pay higher prices two years from now. This will put the bulk of cultivation in just a few hands.

Until you've grown, you can't realize how small 25 sq. ft. is, and how poorly you do at growing. Get a good job. You'll need it.

I give all my weed away.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

underplay said:


> You are exactly correct. Thats pretty pathetic isn't it? Not only are they ripping the medical patients off hard core who need it badly, they want to deny the rest of us our freedoms.


Liar. Liar. Liar.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

SB Garlic said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMQzRFvCIY


Irrelevant


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

SB Garlic said:


> To provide medication or cash?


Go back to your crack whore, punk.

My wife uses ten pounds annually. Three time cancer survivor, low life.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

vertise said:


> In my own opinion its a pretty big step in making it legal throughout the country. Also personally i think that the fear that some people have that it will be taken over by big corp. is a bit ridiculous. Its like hey those who choose to brew their own beer can, those who dont can just go buy it.


You're in a dream world.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

underplay said:


> Yea the big corp fear thing is ridiculous. Its easier to grow good weed then it is to brew good beer.
> 
> What they are afraid of, is everyone growing there own, and not buying it at ridiculous prices.


Liar. I don't sell.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

SB Garlic said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-FQKsUjVhQ[/
> 
> Irrelevant


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

rotnaple said:


> Hey mitteubhi fuck tard.
> I come on here and give a rebuttal to your comment and you talk shit? Fuck you you smarmy piece of shit. I may not have a dog in this hunt but I have a voice you fuck nut. Illegal marijuana at any degree is one of many reasons for the violence in Mexico, and it's fuming ugly asshole. So fuck you I should stay out of the conversation! In fact it's people like you and your smarmy ass attitude that makes this world a little bit shittier. The fuck you would act like that in person. No decent human being would. If I were at all like you, though I am not, I would hope to fuck you get hit by a bus....and live, or the popular Diaf. I just hope you see the light one day, what ever it is that can transform a shit fuck like yourself into.....something better than you are now. So fuck you turd!
> 
> 
> ...


Irrelevant idiot.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

The idiots must be sleeping it off....


----------



## miteubhi? (Sep 16, 2010)

I think we made a few mad.


----------



## CultivationArt (Sep 16, 2010)

No ones mad, just laughing. oh and yea im playing in my sand box loving it. its so much fun.
im building a sand castel.. wanna play, lol Its honestly funny as hell how un educated you in this
subject. Iv yet seen you put any relyable information on this thread. Your definitly basing your arguement
upon idiotic opinions. I know for a fact you have not read the bill. Mabey you should. Then you can focus your argument
towards the subject, less on the insults of other people. All you guys have said, was no, lairs, and calling everone an idiot.
More peole will vote yes, trust me. so go ahead and spread your bullshit, cause youll never back it up. and 
all you will do is talk shit, so you win. Im gonna continue playin my sand box k.


----------



## CultivationArt (Sep 16, 2010)

thanx foe passing this around, my pops found this and told me to throw it out there
THIS IS THE TRUTH ON 19


vertise said:


> http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&winname=addthis&pub=cjcoffey&source=tbx-250&lng=en-us&s=facebook&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhightimes.com%2Fblog%2Fevan%2F6681%3Futm_source%3Drss_home&title=HIGHTIMES.COM%20%3E%20About%20Prop%2019%20-%20To%20Medical%20Marijuana%20Patients&ate=AT-cjcoffey/-/pz-2/4c91a26794fa3878/1&sms_ss=1&CXNID=2000001.5215456080540439074NXC⪯=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CB0QFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fhightimes.com%252Fblog%252Fevan%252F6681%253Futm_source%253Drss_home%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Ddoes%2520prop%252019%2520limit%26ei%3DSKKRTMyFE8L68Aa6k8nABQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGwg5rVVdgLZTvtKzNIXQFUcPnSFA%26sig2%3D0kN1MPKh3L7qxzMSJ6tEBQ&tt=0http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&winname=addthis&pub=cjcoffey&source=tbx-250&lng=en-us&s=myspace&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhightimes.com%2Fblog%2Fevan%2F6681%3Futm_source%3Drss_home&title=HIGHTIMES.COM%20%3E%20About%20Prop%2019%20-%20To%20Medical%20Marijuana%20Patients&ate=AT-cjcoffey/-/pz-2/4c91a26794fa3878/2&sms_ss=1&CXNID=2000001.5215456080540439074NXC⪯=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CB0QFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fhightimes.com%252Fblog%252Fevan%252F6681%253Futm_source%253Drss_home%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Ddoes%2520prop%252019%2520limit%26ei%3DSKKRTMyFE8L68Aa6k8nABQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGwg5rVVdgLZTvtKzNIXQFUcPnSFA%26sig2%3D0kN1MPKh3L7qxzMSJ6tEBQ&tt=0http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&winname=addthis&pub=cjcoffey&source=tbx-250&lng=en-us&s=google&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhightimes.com%2Fblog%2Fevan%2F6681%3Futm_source%3Drss_home&title=HIGHTIMES.COM%20%3E%20About%20Prop%2019%20-%20To%20Medical%20Marijuana%20Patients&ate=AT-cjcoffey/-/pz-2/4c91a26794fa3878/3&sms_ss=1&CXNID=2000001.5215456080540439074NXC⪯=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CB0QFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fhightimes.com%252Fblog%252Fevan%252F6681%253Futm_source%253Drss_home%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Ddoes%2520prop%252019%2520limit%26ei%3DSKKRTMyFE8L68Aa6k8nABQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGwg5rVVdgLZTvtKzNIXQFUcPnSFA%26sig2%3D0kN1MPKh3L7qxzMSJ6tEBQ&tt=0Here is a Good read from
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 16, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Consider doing some reading.
> 
> Your thinking is shallower than steam on a window.


Amazingly weird comment. Or should I say insult upon insult.
Underplay beat me to it because I read over the bill in entirety twice, via pdf.
It was only then that I returned to post.

Next time try and use insults that are at least relevant to the person your insulting.
It's not your fault though. 
It's the status quo for emotional outburst from people after they lose an argument.
I just take it as a victory lap.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

miteubhi? said:


> I think we made a few mad.


Unfortunately not mad enough to make them think(incapable?).


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

CultivationArt said:


> thanx foe passing this around, my pops found this and told me to throw it out there
> THIS IS THE TRUTH ON 19


Unfortunately that lawyer didn't point out the discrepancy between Prop 215 and prop 19.

Something I haven't mentioned was my previous support of this bill, UNTIL I heard about the 25 sq. ft. limit, and did the reading to clarify it.

You don't seem to understand I WANTED to support 19.

I can't because it hurts the sick and dying, while young gangstas burn all they can afford.

Truly sick people can't afford Cannabis, now.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Amazingly weird comment. Or should I say insult upon insult.
> Underplay beat me to it because I read over the bill in entirety twice, via pdf.
> It was only then that I returned to post.
> 
> ...


Have you carefully read the Health and Safety codes? Did you compare them to Prop 19?

Do you see the loop holes?

If not, read more carefully.

If you won't you have nothing to add.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 16, 2010)

Big Alcohol Backs No on Prop. 19&#8242; Campaign
California campaign finance reports disclose that The California Beer & Beverage Distributors Association is one of the primary financial backers of Public Safety First, sponsors of the No on Prop. 19&#8242; campaign.


----------



## miteubhi? (Sep 16, 2010)

CultivationArt said:


> No ones mad, just laughing. oh and yea im playing in my sand box loving it. its so much fun.
> im building a sand castel.. wanna play, lol Its honestly funny as hell how un educated you in this
> subject. Iv yet seen you put any relyable information on this thread. Your definitly basing your arguement
> upon idiotic opinions. I know for a fact you have not read the bill. Mabey you should. Then you can focus your argument
> ...


Why do you keep talking about what your dad said?

He's obviously as misguided as you are.

I'm not here to insult, I'm just here to back up what I believe in.

Try using a dictionary if you are going to attempt to insult someone based on intelligence.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 16, 2010)

CultivationArt said:


> No ones mad, just laughing. oh and yea im playing in my sand box loving it. its so much fun.
> im building a sand castel.. wanna play, lol Its honestly funny as hell how un educated you in this
> subject. Iv yet seen you put any relyable information on this thread. Your definitly basing your arguement
> upon idiotic opinions. I know for a fact you have not read the bill. Mabey you should. Then you can focus your argument
> ...



spelling and grammar are your friends.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 16, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Have you carefully read the Health and Safety codes? Did you compare them to Prop 19?
> 
> Do you see the loop holes?
> 
> ...


There are loopholes in every piece of legislature.
Even ones that are 1000's of pages long.
I have plenty to add, thank you very much.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

The text of 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.&#8221;

Until you read this, you don't know what you're talking about.

*CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.5 : California Code - Section 11362.5*

*Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.5 : California Code - Section 11362.5*



Search by Keyword or Citation
 


(a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. 
(b) (1) The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 are as follows: 
(A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief. 
(B) To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction. 
(C) To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana. 
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for nonmedical purposes. 
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes. 
(d) Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician. 
(e) For the purposes of this section, "primary caregiver" means the individual designated by the person exempted under this section who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person. 



*******************************************


*CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.7 : California Code - Section 11362.7*

*Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.7 : California Code - Section 11362.7*



Search by Keyword or Citation
 


For purposes of this article, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) "Attending physician" means an individual who possesses a license in good standing to practice medicine or osteopathy issued by the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California and who has taken responsibility for an aspect of the medical care, treatment, diagnosis, counseling, or referral of a patient and who has conducted a medical examination of that patient before recording in the patient's medical record the physician's assessment of whether the patient has a serious medical condition and whether the medical use of marijuana is appropriate. 
(b) "Department" means the State Department of Health Services. 
(c) "Person with an identification card" means an individual who is a qualified patient who has applied for and received a valid identification card pursuant to this article. 
(d) "Primary caregiver" means the individual, designated by a qualified patient or by a person with an identification card, who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that patient or person, and may include any of the following: 
(1) In any case in which a qualified patient or person with an identification card receives medical care or supportive services, or both, from a clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1200) of Division 2, a health care facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1250) of Division 2, a residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illness licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.01 (commencing with Section 1568.01) of Division 2, a residential care facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 (commencing with Section 1569) of Division 2, a hospice, or a home health agency licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 1725) of Division 2, the owner or operator, or no more than three employees who are designated by the owner or operator, of the clinic, facility, hospice, or home health agency, if designated as a primary caregiver by that qualified patient or person with an identification card. 
(2) An individual who has been designated as a primary caregiver by more than one qualified patient or person with an identification card, if every qualified patient or person with an identification card who has designated that individual as a primary caregiver resides in the same city or county as the primary caregiver. 
(3) An individual who has been designated as a primary caregiver by a qualified patient or person with an identification card who resides in a city or county other than that of the primary caregiver, if the individual has not been designated as a primary caregiver by any other qualified patient or person with an identification card. 
(e) A primary caregiver shall be at least 18 years of age, unless the primary caregiver is the parent of a minor child who is a qualified patient or a person with an identification card or the primary caregiver is a person otherwise entitled to make medical decisions under state law pursuant to Sections 6922, 7002, 7050, or 7120 of the Family Code. 
(f) "Qualified patient" means a person who is entitled to the protections of Section 11362.5, but who does not have an identification card issued pursuant to this article. 
(g) "Identification card" means a document issued by the State Department of Health Services that document identifies a person authorized to engage in the medical use of marijuana and the person's designated primary caregiver, if any. 
(h) "Serious medical condition" means all of the following medical conditions: 
(1) Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). 
(2) Anorexia. 
(3) Arthritis. 
(4) Cachexia. 
(5) Cancer. 
(6) Chronic pain. 
(7) Glaucoma. 
( Migraine. 
(9) Persistent muscle spasms, including, but not limited to, spasms associated with multiple sclerosis. 
(10) Seizures, including, but not limited to, seizures associated with epilepsy. 
(11) Severe nausea. 
(12) Any other chronic or persistent medical symptom that either: 
(A) Substantially limits the ability of the person to conduct one or more major life activities as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336). 
(B) If not alleviated, may cause serious harm to the patient's safety or physical or mental health. 
(i) "Written documentation" means accurate reproductions of those portions of a patient's medical records that have been created by the attending physician, that contain the information required by paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 11362.715, and that the patient may submit to a county health department or the county's designee as part of an application for an identification card. 



*CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.71 : California Code - Section 11362.71*

*Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.71 : California Code - Section 11362.71*



Search by Keyword or Citation
 


(a) (1) The department shall establish and maintain a voluntary program for the issuance of identification cards to qualified patients who satisfy the requirements of this article and voluntarily apply to the identification card program. 
(2) The department shall establish and maintain a 24-hour, toll-free telephone number that will enable state and local law enforcement officers to have immediate access to information necessary to verify the validity of an identification card issued by the department, until a cost-effective Internet Web-based system can be developed for this purpose. 
(b) Every county health department, or the county's designee, shall do all of the following: 
(1) Provide applications upon request to individuals seeking to join the identification card program. 
(2) Receive and process completed applications in accordance with Section 11362.72. 
(3) Maintain records of identification card programs. 
(4) Utilize protocols developed by the department pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d). 
(5) Issue identification cards developed by the department to approved applicants and designated primary caregivers. 
(c) The county board of supervisors may designate another health-related governmental or nongovernmental entity or organization to perform the functions described in subdivision (b), except for an entity or organization that cultivates or distributes marijuana. 
(d) The department shall develop all of the following: 
(1) Protocols that shall be used by a county health department or the county's designee to implement the responsibilities described in subdivision (b), including, but not limited to, protocols to confirm the accuracy of information contained in an application and to protect the confidentiality of program records. 
(2) Application forms that shall be issued to requesting applicants. 
(3) An identification card that identifies a person authorized to engage in the medical use of marijuana and an identification card that identifies the person's designated primary caregiver, if any. The two identification cards developed pursuant to this paragraph shall be easily distinguishable from each other. 
(e) No person or designated primary caregiver in possession of a valid identification card shall be subject to arrest for possession, transportation, delivery, or cultivation of medical marijuana in an amount established pursuant to this article, unless there is reasonable cause to believe that the information contained in the card is false or falsified, the card has been obtained by means of fraud, or the person is otherwise in violation of the provisions of this article. 
(f) It shall not be necessary for a person to obtain an identification card in order to claim the protections of Section 11362.5. 



*CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.715 : California Code - Section 11362.715*

*Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.715 : California Code - Section 11362.715*



Search by Keyword or Citation
 


(a) A person who seeks an identification card shall pay the fee, as provided in Section 11362.755, and provide all of the following to the county health department or the county's designee on a form developed and provided by the department: 
(1) The name of the person, and proof of his or her residency within the county. 
(2) Written documentation by the attending physician in the person's medical records stating that the person has been diagnosed with a serious medical condition and that the medical use of marijuana is appropriate. 
(3) The name, office address, office telephone number, and California medical license number of the person's attending physician. 
(4) The name and the duties of the primary caregiver. 
(5) A government-issued photo identification card of the person and of the designated primary caregiver, if any. If the applicant is a person under 18 years of age, a certified copy of a birth certificate shall be deemed sufficient proof of identity. 
(b) If the person applying for an identification card lacks the capacity to make medical decisions, the application may be made by the person's legal representative, including, but not limited to, any of the following: 
(1) A conservator with authority to make medical decisions. 
(2) An attorney-in-fact under a durable power of attorney for health care or surrogate decisionmaker authorized under another advanced health care directive. 
(3) Any other individual authorized by statutory or decisional law to make medical decisions for the person. 
(c) The legal representative described in subdivision (b) may also designate in the application an individual, including himself or herself, to serve as a primary caregiver for the person, provided that the individual meets the definition of a primary caregiver. 
(d) The person or legal representative submitting the written information and documentation described in subdivision (a) shall retain a copy thereof. 



*CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.72 : California Code - Section 11362.72*

*Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.72 : California Code - Section 11362.72*



Search by Keyword or Citation
 


(a) Within 30 days of receipt of an application for an identification card, a county health department or the county's designee shall do all of the following: 
(1) For purposes of processing the application, verify that the information contained in the application is accurate. If the person is less than 18 years of age, the county health department or its designee shall also contact the parent with legal authority to make medical decisions, legal guardian, or other person or entity with legal authority to make medical decisions, to verify the information. 
(2) Verify with the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California that the attending physician has a license in good standing to practice medicine or osteopathy in the state. 
(3) Contact the attending physician by facsimile, telephone, or mail to confirm that the medical records submitted by the patient are a true and correct copy of those contained in the physician's office records. When contacted by a county health department or the county's designee, the attending physician shall confirm or deny that the contents of the medical records are accurate. 
(4) Take a photograph or otherwise obtain an electronically transmissible image of the applicant and of the designated primary caregiver, if any. 
(5) Approve or deny the application. If an applicant who meets the requirements of Section 11362.715 can establish that an identification card is needed on an emergency basis, the county or its designee shall issue a temporary identification card that shall be valid for 30 days from the date of issuance. The county, or its designee, may extend the temporary identification card for no more than 30 days at a time, so long as the applicant continues to meet the requirements of this paragraph. 
(b) If the county health department or the county's designee approves the application, it shall, within 24 hours, or by the end of the next working day of approving the application, electronically transmit the following information to the department: 
(1) A unique user identification number of the applicant. 
(2) The date of expiration of the identification card. 
(3) The name and telephone number of the county health department or the county's designee that has approved the application. 
(c) The county health department or the county's designee shall issue an identification card to the applicant and to his or her designated primary caregiver, if any, within five working days of approving the application. 
(d) In any case involving an incomplete application, the applicant shall assume responsibility for rectifying the deficiency. The county shall have 14 days from the receipt of information from the applicant pursuant to this subdivision to approve or deny the application. 



*CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.735 : California Code - Section 11362.735*

*Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.735 : California Code - Section 11362.735*



Search by Keyword or Citation
 


(a) An identification card issued by the county health department shall be serially numbered and shall contain all of the following: 
(1) A unique user identification number of the cardholder. 
(2) The date of expiration of the identification card. 
(3) The name and telephone number of the county health department or the county's designee that has approved the application. 
(4) A 24-hour, toll-free telephone number, to be maintained by the department, that will enable state and local law enforcement officers to have immediate access to information necessary to verify the validity of the card. 
(5) Photo identification of the cardholder. 
(b) A separate identification card shall be issued to the person's designated primary caregiver, if any, and shall include a photo identification of the caregiver. 



*CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.74 : California Code - Section 11362.74*

*Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.74 : California Code - Section 11362.74*



Search by Keyword or Citation
 


(a) The county health department or the county's designee may deny an application only for any of the following reasons: 
(1) The applicant did not provide the information required by Section 11362.715, and upon notice of the deficiency pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 11362.72, did not provide the information within 30 days. 
(2) The county health department or the county's designee determines that the information provided was false. 
(3) The applicant does not meet the criteria set forth in this article. 
(b) Any person whose application has been denied pursuant to subdivision (a) may not reapply for six months from the date of denial unless otherwise authorized by the county health department or the county's designee or by a court of competent jurisdiction. 
(c) Any person whose application has been denied pursuant to subdivision (a) may appeal that decision to the department. The county health department or the county's designee shall make available a telephone number or address to which the denied applicant can direct an appeal. 



*CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.745 : California Code - Section 11362.745*

*Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.745 : California Code - Section 11362.745*



Search by Keyword or Citation
 


(a) An identification card shall be valid for a period of one year. 
(b) Upon annual renewal of an identification card, the county health department or its designee shall verify all new information and may verify any other information that has not changed. 
(c) The county health department or the county's designee shall transmit its determination of approval or denial of a renewal to the department. 



*CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.755 : California Code - Section 11362.755*

*Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.755 : California Code - Section 11362.755*



Search by Keyword or Citation
 


(a) The department shall establish application and renewal fees for persons seeking to obtain or renew identification cards that are sufficient to cover the expenses incurred by the department, including the startup cost, the cost of reduced fees for Medi-Cal beneficiaries in accordance with subdivision (b), the cost of identifying and developing a cost-effective Internet Web-based system, and the cost of maintaining the 24-hour toll-free telephone number. Each county health department or the county's designee may charge an additional fee for all costs incurred by the county or the county's designee for administering the program pursuant to this article. 
(b) Upon satisfactory proof of participation and eligibility in the Medi-Cal program, a Medi-Cal beneficiary shall receive a 50 percent reduction in the fees established pursuant to this section.


----------



## CultivationArt (Sep 16, 2010)

again has nothing to do with the inactive. lol thats great, and yes i bring my pops into it.
hes a doctor and berkly medical center, and knows the loop holes in 19. and there not what your saying.
iv backed up everything i have to say. as for yourself, no. nothing, just shit talking.
And you know it. so again youll reply with some ignerant ass remark, and ill be right ok.
i dont care that my spelling is not up to par. I care about this prop passing. with or without
your lies. Dont worry about my grammer buddy, worry about yourself, and your lies you have to spread.
cause i know the REAL truth on this prop. iv read the bill, i know my rights and i know the truth.
so spread your lies, cause no one cares. YOUR WRONG and you know it. lol im done with this. remember you won


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

More!

*CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.76 : California Code - Section 11362.76*

*Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.76 : California Code - Section 11362.76*



Search by Keyword or Citation
 


(a) A person who possesses an identification card shall: 
(1) Within seven days, notify the county health department or the county's designee of any change in the person's attending physician or designated primary caregiver, if any. 
(2) Annually submit to the county health department or the county's designee the following: 
(A) Updated written documentation of the person's serious medical condition. 
(B) The name and duties of the person's designated primary caregiver, if any, for the forthcoming year. 
(b) If a person who possesses an identification card fails to comply with this section, the card shall be deemed expired. If an identification card expires, the identification card of any designated primary caregiver of the person shall also expire. 
(c) If the designated primary caregiver has been changed, the previous primary caregiver shall return his or her identification card to the department or to the county health department or the county's designee. 
(d) If the owner or operator or an employee of the owner or operator of a provider has been designated as a primary caregiver pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 11362.7, of the qualified patient or person with an identification card, the owner or operator shall notify the county health department or the county's designee, pursuant to Section 11362.715, if a change in the designated primary caregiver has occurred. 



*CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.765 : California Code - Section 11362.765*

*Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.765 : California Code - Section 11362.765*



Search by Keyword or Citation
 


(a) Subject to the requirements of this article, the individuals specified in subdivision (b) shall not be subject, on that sole basis, to criminal liability under Section 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, or 11570. However, nothing in this section shall authorize the individual to smoke or otherwise consume marijuana unless otherwise authorized by this article, nor shall anything in this section authorize any individual or group to cultivate or distribute marijuana for profit. 
(b) Subdivision (a) shall apply to all of the following: 
(1) A qualified patient or a person with an identification card who transports or processes marijuana for his or her own personal medical use. 
(2) A designated primary caregiver who transports, processes, administers, delivers, or gives away marijuana for medical purposes, in amounts not exceeding those established in subdivision (a) of Section 11362.77, only to the qualified patient of the primary caregiver, or to the person with an identification card who has designated the individual as a primary caregiver. 
(3) Any individual who provides assistance to a qualified patient or a person with an identification card, or his or her designated primary caregiver, in administering medical marijuana to the qualified patient or person or acquiring the skills necessary to cultivate or administer marijuana for medical purposes to the qualified patient or person. 
(c) A primary caregiver who receives compensation for actual expenses, including reasonable compensation incurred for services provided to an eligible qualified patient or person with an identification card to enable that person to use marijuana under this article, or for payment for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in providing those services, or both, shall not, on the sole basis of that fact, be subject to prosecution or punishment under Section 11359 or 11360. 



*CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.77 : California Code - Section 11362.77*

*Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.77 : California Code - Section 11362.77*



Search by Keyword or Citation
 


(a) A qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana per qualified patient. In addition, a qualified patient or primary caregiver may also maintain no more than six mature or 12 immature marijuana plants per qualified patient. 
(b) 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. 
(c) Counties and cities may retain or enact medical marijuana guidelines allowing qualified patients or primary caregivers to exceed the state limits set forth in subdivision (a). 
(d) Only the dried mature processed flowers of female cannabis plant or the plant conversion shall be considered when determining allowable quantities of marijuana under this section. 
(e) The Attorney General may recommend modifications to the possession or cultivation limits set forth in this section. These recommendations, if any, shall be made to the Legislature no later than December 1, 2005, and may be made only after public comment and consultation with interested organizations, including, but not limited to, patients, health care professionals, researchers, law enforcement, and local governments. Any recommended modification shall be consistent with the intent of this article and shall be based on currently available scientific research. 
(f) A qualified patient or a person holding a valid identification card, or the designated primary caregiver of that qualified patient or person, may possess amounts of marijuana consistent with this article. 



*CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.775 : California Code - Section 11362.775*

*Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.775 : California Code - Section 11362.775*



Search by Keyword or Citation
 


Qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards, who associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions under Section 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, or 11570.


*CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.78 : California Code - Section 11362.78*

*Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.78 : California Code - Section 11362.78*



Search by Keyword or Citation
 


A state or local law enforcement agency or officer shall not refuse to accept an identification card issued by the department unless the state or local law enforcement agency or officer has reasonable cause to believe that the information contained in the card is false or fraudulent, or the card is being used fraudulently.


*CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.785 : California Code - Section 11362.785*

*Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.785 : California Code - Section 11362.785*



Search by Keyword or Citation
 


(a) Nothing in this article shall require any accommodation of any medical use of marijuana on the property or premises of any place of employment or during the hours of employment or on the property or premises of any jail, correctional facility, or other type of penal institution in which prisoners reside or persons under arrest are detained. 
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a person shall not be prohibited or prevented from obtaining and submitting the written information and documentation necessary to apply for an identification card on the basis that the person is incarcerated in a jail, correctional facility, or other penal institution in which prisoners reside or persons under arrest are detained. 
(c) Nothing in this article shall prohibit a jail, correctional facility, or other penal institution in which prisoners reside or persons under arrest are detained, from permitting a prisoner or a person under arrest who has an identification card, to use marijuana for medical purposes under circumstances that will not endanger the health or safety of other prisoners or the security of the facility. 
(d) Nothing in this article shall require a governmental, private, or any other health insurance provider or health care service plan to be liable for any claim for reimbursement for the medical use of marijuana. 



*CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.79 : California Code - Section 11362.79*

*Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.79 : California Code - Section 11362.79*



Search by Keyword or Citation
 


Nothing in this article shall authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances:
(a) In any place where smoking is prohibited by law. 
(b) In or within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a school, recreation center, or youth center, unless the medical use occurs within a residence. 
(c) On a schoolbus. 
(d) While in a motor vehicle that is being operated. 
(e) While operating a boat. 



*CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.795 : California Code - Section 11362.795*

*Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.795 : California Code - Section 11362.795*



Search by Keyword or Citation
 


(a) (1) Any criminal defendant who is eligible to use marijuana pursuant to Section 11362.5 may request that the court confirm that he or she is allowed to use medical marijuana while he or she is on probation or released on bail. 
(2) The court's decision and the reasons for the decision shall be stated on the record and an entry stating those reasons shall be made in the minutes of the court. 
(3) During the period of probation or release on bail, if a physician recommends that the probationer or defendant use medical marijuana, the probationer or defendant may request a modification of the conditions of probation or bail to authorize the use of medical marijuana. 
(4) The court's consideration of the modification request authorized by this subdivision shall comply with the requirements of this section. 
(b) (1) Any person who is to be released on parole from a jail, state prison, school, road camp, or other state or local institution of confinement and who is eligible to use medical marijuana pursuant to Section 11362.5 may request that he or she be allowed to use medical marijuana during the period he or she is released on parole. A parolee's written conditions of parole shall reflect whether or not a request for a modification of the conditions of his or her parole to use medical marijuana was made, and whether the request was granted or denied. 
(2) During the period of the parole, where a physician recommends that the parolee use medical marijuana, the parolee may request a modification of the conditions of the parole to authorize the use of medical marijuana. 
(3) Any parolee whose request to use medical marijuana while on parole was denied may pursue an administrative appeal of the decision. Any decision on the appeal shall be in writing and shall reflect the reasons for the decision. 
(4) The administrative consideration of the modification request authorized by this subdivision shall comply with the requirements of this section. 



*CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.8 : California Code - Section 11362.8*

*Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.8 : California Code - Section 11362.8*



Search by Keyword or Citation
 


No professional licensing board may impose a civil penalty or take other disciplinary action against a licensee based solely on the fact that the licensee has performed acts that are necessary or appropriate to carry out the licensee's role as a designated primary caregiver to a person who is a qualified patient or who possesses a lawful identification card issued pursuant to Section 11362.72. However, this section shall not apply to acts performed by a physician relating to the discussion or recommendation of the medical use of marijuana to a patient. These discussions or recommendations, or both, shall be governed by Section 11362.5.


*CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.81 : California Code - Section 11362.81*

*Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.81 : California Code - Section 11362.81*



Search by Keyword or Citation
 


(a) A person specified in subdivision (b) shall be subject to the following penalties: 
(1) For the first offense, imprisonment in the county jail for no more than six months or a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both. 
(2) For a second or subsequent offense, imprisonment in the county jail for no more than one year, or a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both. 
(b) Subdivision (a) applies to any of the following: 
(1) A person who fraudulently represents a medical condition or fraudulently provides any material misinformation to a physician, county health department or the county's designee, or state or local law enforcement agency or officer, for the purpose of falsely obtaining an identification card. 
(2) A person who steals or fraudulently uses any person's identification card in order to acquire, possess, cultivate, transport, use, produce, or distribute marijuana. 
(3) A person who counterfeits, tampers with, or fraudulently produces an identification card. 
(4) A person who breaches the confidentiality requirements of this article to information provided to, or contained in the records of, the department or of a county health department or the county's designee pertaining to an identification card program. 
(c) In addition to the penalties prescribed in subdivision (a), any person described in subdivision (b) may be precluded from attempting to obtain, or obtaining or using, an identification card for a period of up to six months at the discretion of the court. 
(d) In addition to the requirements of this article, the Attorney General shall develop and adopt appropriate guidelines to ensure the security and nondiversion of marijuana grown for medical use by patients qualified under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. 



*CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.82 : California Code - Section 11362.82*

*Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.82 : California Code - Section 11362.82*



Search by Keyword or Citation
 


If any section, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this article is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and that holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion thereof.


*CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.83 : California Code - Section 11362.83*

*Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.83 : California Code - Section 11362.83*



Search by Keyword or Citation
 


Nothing in this article shall prevent a city or other local governing body from adopting and enforcing laws consistent with this article.


*CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.9 : California Code - Section 11362.9*

*Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 11362.9 : California Code - Section 11362.9*



Search by Keyword or Citation
 


(a)(1)It is the intent of the Legislature that the state commission objective scientific research by the premier research institute of the world, the University of California, regarding the efficacy and safety of administering marijuana as part of medical treatment. If the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, accept this responsibility, the University of California shall create a program, to be known as the California Marijuana Research Program.
(2)The program shall develop and conduct studies intended to ascertain the general medical safety and efficacy of marijuana and, if found valuable, shall develop medical guidelines for the appropriate administration and use of marijuana.
(b)The program may immediately solicit proposals for research projects to be included in the marijuana studies. Program requirements to be used when evaluating responses to its solicitation for proposals, shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
(1)Proposals shall demonstrate the use of key personnel, including clinicians or scientists and support personnel, who are prepared to develop a program of research regarding marijuana's general medical efficacy and safety.
(2)Proposals shall contain procedures for outreach to patients with various medical conditions who may be suitable participants in research on marijuana.
(3)Proposals shall contain provisions for a patient registry.
(4)Proposals shall contain provisions for an information system that is designed to record information about possible study participants, investigators, and clinicians, and deposit and analyze data that accrues as part of clinical trials.
(5)Proposals shall contain protocols suitable for research on marijuana, addressing patients diagnosed with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) or the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), cancer, glaucoma, or seizures or muscle spasms associated with a chronic, debilitating condition. The proposal may also include research on other serious illnesses, provided that resources are available and medical information justifies the research.
(6)Proposals shall demonstrate the use of a specimen laboratory capable of housing plasma, urine, and other specimens necessary to study the concentration of cannabinoids in various tissues, as well as housing specimens for studies of toxic effects of marijuana.
(7)Proposals shall demonstrate the use of a laboratory capable of analyzing marijuana, provided to the program under this section, for purity and cannabinoid content and the capacity to detect contaminants.
(c)In order to ensure objectivity in evaluating proposals, the program shall use a peer review process that is modeled on the process used by the National Institutes of Health, and that guards against funding research that is biased in favor of or against particular outcomes. Peer reviewers shall be selected for their expertise in the scientific substance and methods of the proposed research, and their lack of bias or conflict of interest regarding the applicants or the topic of an approach taken in the proposed research. Peer reviewers shall judge research proposals on several criteria, foremost among which shall be both of the following:
(1)The scientific merit of the research plan, including whether the research design and experimental procedures are potentially biased for or against a particular outcome.
(2)Researchers' expertise in the scientific substance and methods of the proposed research, and their lack of bias or conflict of interest regarding the topic of, and the approach taken in, the proposed research.
(d)If the program is administered by the Regents of the University of California, any grant research proposals approved by the program shall also require review and approval by the research advisory panel.
(e)It is the intent of the Legislature that the program be established as follows:
(1)The program shall be located at one or more University of California campuses that have a core of faculty experienced in organizing multidisciplinary scientific endeavors and, in particular, strong experience in clinical trials involving psychopharmacologic agents. The campuses at which research under the auspices of the program is to take place shall accommodate the administrative offices, including the director of the program, as well as a data management unit, and facilities for storage of specimens.
(2)When awarding grants under this section, the program shall utilize principles and parameters of the other well-tested statewide research programs administered by the University of California, modeled after programs administered by the National Institutes of Health, including peer review evaluation of the scientific merit of applications.
(3)The scientific and clinical operations of the program shall occur, partly at University of California campuses, and partly at other postsecondary institutions, that have clinicians or scientists with expertise to conduct the required studies. Criteria for selection of research locations shall include the elements listed in subdivision (b) and, additionally, shall give particular weight to the organizational plan, leadership qualities of the program director, and plans to involve investigators and patient populations from multiple sites.
(4)The funds received by the program shall be allocated to various research studies in accordance with a scientific plan developed by the Scientific Advisory Council. As the first wave of studies is completed, it is anticipated that the program will receive requests for funding of additional studies. These requests shall be reviewed by the Scientific Advisory Council.
(5)The size, scope, and number of studies funded shall be commensurate with the amount of appropriated and available program funding.
(f)All personnel involved in implementing approved proposals shall be authorized as required by Section 11604.
(g)Studies conducted pursuant to this section shall include the greatest amount of new scientific research possible on the medical uses of, and medical hazards associated with, marijuana. The program shall consult with the Research Advisory Panel analogous agencies in other states, and appropriate federal agencies in an attempt to avoid duplicative research and the wasting of research dollars.
(h)The program shall make every effort to recruit qualified patients and qualified physicians from throughout the state.
(i)The marijuana studies shall employ state-of-the-art research methodologies.
(j)The program shall ensure that all marijuana used in the studies is of the appropriate medical quality and shall be obtained from the National Institute on Drug Abuse or any other federal agency designated to supply marijuana for authorized research. If these federal agencies fail to provide a supply of adequate quality and quantity within six months of the effective date of this section, the Attorney General shall provide an adequate supply pursuant to Section 11478.
(k)The program may review, approve, or incorporate studies and research by independent groups presenting scientifically valid protocols for medical research, regardless of whether the areas of study are being researched by the committee.
(_l_)(1)To enhance understanding of the efficacy and adverse effects of marijuana as a pharmacological agent, the program shall conduct focused controlled clinical trials on the usefulness of marijuana in patients diagnosed with AIDS or HIV, cancer, glaucoma, or seizures or muscle spasms associated with a chronic, debilitating condition. The program may add research on other serious illnesses, provided that resources are available and medical information justifies the research. The studies shall focus on comparisons of both the efficacy and safety of methods of administering the drug to patients, including inhalational, tinctural, and oral, evaluate possible uses of marijuana as a primary or adjunctive treatment, and develop further information on optimal dosage, timing, mode of administration, and variations in the effects of different cannabinoids and varieties of marijuana.
(2)The program shall examine the safety of marijuana in patients with various medical disorders, including marijuana's interaction with other drugs, relative safety of inhalation versus oral forms, and the effects on mental function in medically ill persons.
(3)The program shall be limited to providing for objective scientific research to ascertain the efficacy and safety of marijuana as part of medical treatment, and should not be construed as encouraging or sanctioning the social or recreational use of marijuana.
(m)(1)Subject to paragraph (2), the program shall, prior to any approving proposals, seek to obtain research protocol guidelines from the National Institutes of Health and shall, if the National Institutes of Health issues research protocol guidelines, comply with those guidelines.
(2)If, after a reasonable period of time of not less than six months and not more than a year has elapsed from the date the program seeks to obtain guidelines pursuant to paragraph (1), no guidelines have been approved, the program may proceed using the research protocol guidelines it develops.
(n)In order to maximize the scope and size of the marijuana studies, the program may do any of the following:
(1)Solicit, apply for, and accept funds from foundations, private individuals, and all other funding sources that can be used to expand the scope or timeframe of the marijuana studies that are authorized under this section. The program shall not expend more than 5 percent of its General Fund allocation in efforts to obtain money from outside sources.
(2)Include within the scope of the marijuana studies other marijuana research projects that are independently funded and that meet the requirements set forth in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive. In no case shall the program accept any funds that are offered with any conditions other than that the funds be used to study the efficacy and safety of marijuana as part of medical treatment. Any donor shall be advised that funds given for purposes of this section will be used to study both the possible benefits and detriments of marijuana and that he or she will have no control over the use of these funds.
(o)(1)Within six months of the effective date of this section, the program shall report to the Legislature, the Governor, and the Attorney General on the progress of the marijuana studies.
(2)Thereafter, the program shall issue a report to the Legislature every six months detailing the progress of the studies. The interim reports required under this paragraph shall include, but not be limited to, data on all of the following:
(A)The names and number of diseases or conditions under study.
(B)The number of patients enrolled in each study by disease.
(C)Any scientifically valid preliminary findings.
(p)If the Regents of the University of California implement this section, the President of the University of California shall appoint a multidisciplinary Scientific Advisory Council, not to exceed 15 members, to provide policy guidance in the creation and implementation of the program. Members shall be chosen on the basis of scientific expertise. Members of the council shall serve on a voluntary basis, with reimbursement for expenses incurred in the course of their participation. The members shall be reimbursed for travel and other necessary expenses incurred in their performance of the duties of the council.
(q)No more than 10 percent of the total funds appropriated may be used for all aspects of the administration of this section.
(r)This section shall be implemented only to the extent that funding for its purposes is appropriated by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 16, 2010)

CultivationArt said:


> again has nothing to do with the inactive. lol thats great, and yes i bring my pops into it.
> hes a doctor and berkly medical center, and knows the loop holes in 19. and there not what your saying.
> iv backed up everything i have to say. as for yourself, no. nothing, just shit talking.
> And you know it. so again youll reply with some ignerant ass remark, and ill be right ok.
> ...


care to explain to me "the lies i'm telling". 


perfect example of the "team" i chose not to play on. i'd rather be oppressed by the hand of the government then to be free to speak my mind. if this is the shit i have to listen to.

maybe your daddy can sit you down with some english lessons. or, you can just get your GED while you sit in jail for breaking one of the NUMEROUS new laws this prop will add.

just what we need, MORE pot laws,


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> There are loopholes in every piece of legislature.
> Even ones that are 1000's of pages long.
> I have plenty to add, thank you very much.


OK, smart guy, pick them apart. Show me where I'm protected from Prop 19.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

CultivationArt said:


> again has nothing to do with the inactive. lol thats great, and yes i bring my pops into it.
> hes a doctor and berkly medical center, and knows the loop holes in 19. and there not what your saying.
> iv backed up everything i have to say. as for yourself, no. nothing, just shit talking.
> And you know it. so again youll reply with some ignerant ass remark, and ill be right ok.
> ...


LOL!

I know that hospital. I really doubt your dad works there.

Read the above, or if you can't have your dad do it.

If he does, he'll change his mind(if he is a doctor).


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

By the way, your Dad probably won't be thrilled that you mentioned his work place(f he is a doctor).


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 16, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> OK, smart guy, pick them apart. Show me where I'm protected from Prop 19.


LOL!
What a waste of forum space.
You want me to find something in all that ridiculous cut and paste job?
You posted many codes that have no relevance to this argument, weird.

But I will post something of relevance.
In fact here is what they call legal precedent.

_The People v. Patrick K. Kelly_

In it&#8217;s 53-page decision, the Court unanimously ruled that the state&#8217;s guidelines, enacted in 2004, *should not preclude patients from receiving legal protections in court if they possess cannabis in quantities above those recommended under state law* (six mature or twelve immature plants and/or eight ounces) or county law.

In short, the Court affirmed that *the state&#8217;s guidelines in no way override the sweeping legal protections provided under Proposition 215*, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. As long as a patient possess quantities of cannabis that are &#8220;related to meet his or her current medical needs,&#8221; then they are legally protected under state law &#8212; regardless of whether or not these quantities are in accordance with state-imposed or locally-imposed guidelines.
In a separate legal issue before the Court, justices further ruled that provisions enacted by the Legislature allowing for counties to establish a voluntary identification system for legally recognized patients did not infringe upon the intent of the 1996 voter-approved initiative.
So precisely what does this decision mean for California patients and providers? Aaron Smith provides an excellent summation here. The bottom line: *patients in California have a legal right to possess and use marijuana in the way that is in best accordance with their medical treatment, as decided by the patient and his or her doctor &#8212; not by state or local legislators.*


*Source:NORML
*


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 16, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> LOL!
> What a waste of forum space.
> You want me to find something in all that ridiculous cut and paste job?
> You posted many codes that have no relevance to this argument, weird.
> ...



until otherwise changed by THE VOTERS. this is why the states guidelines didn't hold. they weren't voted in by the people. prop 19 sets LIMITS that _are _being voted in by the people. 

i get it.


----------



## SB Garlic (Sep 16, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Unfortunately that lawyer didn't point out the discrepancy between Prop 215 and prop 19.
> 
> Something I haven't mentioned was my previous support of this bill, UNTIL I heard about the 25 sq. ft. limit, and did the reading to clarify it.
> 
> ...


Truly sick people can't afford quality medication in the current situation because of these high prices. Imagine if u couldn't grow and had to buy ur wife the 12 grams she uses daily. You would go broke. Once cannabis is legal prices go down because risk goes down.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 16, 2010)

SB Garlic said:


> Truly sick people can't afford quality medication in the current situation because of these high prices. Imagine if u couldn't grow and had to buy ur wife the 12 grams she uses daily. You would go broke. Once cannabis is legal prices go down because risk goes down.


prices will go UP because they are going to TAX it.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 16, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> until otherwise changed by THE VOTERS. this is why the states guidelines didn't hold. they weren't voted in by the people. prop 19 sets LIMITS that _are _being voted in by the people.
> 
> i get it.


The state guidelines did hold actually.
They were reaffirmed by the Supreme Court thats all.
This was substantial because prior to this, it was always held as hazy what would happen.
This is because the written language of the bill gave no limit only a bare minimum. 
Which many misconstrued to be a limit.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 16, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> The state guidelines did hold actually.
> They were reaffirmed by the Supreme Court thats all.
> This was substantial because prior to this, it was always held as hazy what would happen.
> This is because the written language of the bill gave no limit only a bare minimum.
> Which many misconstrued to be a limit.


from what i understood , the state couldn't over rule what was voted in by the people. which is why the prop should concern us all. it CAN'T be changed later. just like 215 can't be changed. 

i could be wrong. 





Dear everyone in california:

you could be smoking ALL the pot you want, TODAY. you could come over here, grab a pound, drive home and get pulled over by CHP and then told to "have a nice day". simple pick up the phone, ... http://www.sfadvertiser.com/categories/medical-marijuana

tell the govern to get bent. 

or fold for a few days worth of commercial.


----------



## SB Garlic (Sep 16, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> prices will go UP because they are going to TAX it.


Prices drop when more people grow, it's that simple.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 16, 2010)

If they both can't be changed, then they both stand as they should. Right?


----------



## SB Garlic (Sep 16, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> prices will go UP because they are going to TAX it.


And I bet prices went up on liquor when prohibition ended because of taxes...


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 16, 2010)

SB Garlic said:


> Prices drop when more people grow, it's that simple.


just ignore the word "tax" and it will go away. 

they are going to TAX your grow. grower joe is NOT going to cover it for you.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 16, 2010)

SB Garlic said:


> And I bet prices went up on liquor when prohibition ended because of taxes...


how long has medical been around? HUGE amounts of pot, everywhere in california. the price is holding strong. it's not going to change. the state wants this prop because they are broke. they NEED to make money off of pot. has anyone been paying attention?


----------



## N!pples (Sep 16, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> they are going to TAX your grow. grower joe is NOT going to cover it for you.


This one got out of control lol, Vote yes for weeds sake! We need the freakin tax money horribly... How do you propose they are going to find and tax everyones private 5x5 grow?? There will be 30 on every block! Impossible! It will be taxed when you buy it or sell it, thats the price.. Fuckin awesome!!!! I'm sure more people are going to be happy with this Prop than not so become sheep along with us?!?! Dorks!

VOTE YES on 19


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> LOL!
> What a waste of forum space.
> You want me to find something in all that ridiculous cut and paste job?
> You posted many codes that have no relevance to this argument, weird.
> ...


That's the entire relevant text. Did you read it, dick head?

Ridiculous to ignore my points. If you don't read it, you are irrelevant.

If I'd left anything out, you'd say I was "cherry picking".

You're in over your head.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> LOL!
> What a waste of forum space.
> You want me to find something in all that ridiculous cut and paste job?
> You posted many codes that have no relevance to this argument, weird.
> ...


Again, you don't present anything relating to cultivation, which IS the issue that brought about this thread.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> until otherwise changed by THE VOTERS. this is why the states guidelines didn't hold. they weren't voted in by the people. prop 19 sets LIMITS that _are _being voted in by the people.
> 
> i get it.


You and I may have our differences, but thanks for joining the discussion!


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> If they both can't be changed, then they both stand as they should. Right?


The whole point is that Prop 215 DID NOT discuss grow area limits.

If 19 passes, the 25 sq.ft. limit will apply to EVERYBODY.

Do YOU understand?

I use roughly 300 sq. ft.

That means it would take 12 people growing at my level of skill to replace my grow.

The medical supply of pot will be drastically reduced.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 16, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> how long has medical been around? HUGE amounts of pot, everywhere in california. the price is holding strong. it's not going to change. the state wants this prop because they are broke. they NEED to make money off of pot. has anyone been paying attention?


Exactly... But nobody sees it... The price of MJ will not go down... Best case scenario is that it stays the same... Everybody growing pot in CA is already growing pot... Ya there may be a few people that join in after the vote but not enough for a price drop... Plus its hard to grow killer dank ass buds, otherwise that is all we would have around everywhere and they would be cheap... But that is not the case...


----------



## nathenking (Sep 16, 2010)

SB Garlic said:


> Prices drop when more people grow, it's that simple.


Yeah right, more people grow in Humbodlt, Medno and trinity, but do prices drop, no... there is a certain equilibrium that has been reached and it will not change...


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 16, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Again, you don't present anything relating to cultivation, which IS the issue that brought about this thread.


Read it again. Maybe a little slower, or look for the red words.

In it&#8217;s 53-page decision, the Court unanimously ruled that the state&#8217;s guidelines, enacted in 2004, *should not preclude patients from receiving legal protections in court if they possess cannabis in quantities above those recommended under state law* (six mature or twelve immature plants and/or eight ounces) or county law.


----------



## delta9tetra (Sep 16, 2010)

Of course. The medicinal angle was just a way to get things moving towards legalization. I self-medicate as much as the rest of them, but for those of us without cancer, aids, ms, etc., we would like to have the same rights. Cannabis has a powerful medicating effect, but it is also used for other reasons. Like spiritual enlightenment, recreational fun having, etc.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 16, 2010)

N!pples said:


> This one got out of control lol, Vote yes for weeds sake! We need the freakin tax money horribly... How do you propose they are going to find and tax everyones private 5x5 grow?? There will be 30 on every block! Impossible! It will be taxed when you buy it or sell it, thats the price.. Fuckin awesome!!!! I'm sure more people are going to be happy with this Prop than not so become sheep along with us?!?! Dorks!
> 
> VOTE YES on 19


How, because you said it... They NEED MONEY... Hence they will have a motive to do this... especially if its something like 2-5000 dollars a year for tax man... Think hard on that....


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

N!pples said:


> This one got out of control lol, Vote yes for weeds sake! We need the freakin tax money horribly... How do you propose they are going to find and tax everyones private 5x5 grow?? There will be 30 on every block! Impossible! It will be taxed when you buy it or sell it, thats the price.. Fuckin awesome!!!! I'm sure more people are going to be happy with this Prop than not so become sheep along with us?!?! Dorks!
> 
> VOTE YES on 19


Vote NO on 19.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Read it again. Maybe a little slower, or look for the red words.
> 
> In it&#8217;s 53-page decision, the Court unanimously ruled that the state&#8217;s guidelines, enacted in 2004, *should not preclude patients from receiving legal protections in court if they possess cannabis in quantities above those recommended under state law* (six mature or twelve immature plants and/or eight ounces) or county law.


DO YOU SEE ANYTHING ABOUT AREA?

You are kinda stupid or are attempting to side step the facts.

Which is it?


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Read it again. Maybe a little slower, or look for the red words.
> 
> In it&#8217;s 53-page decision, the Court unanimously ruled that the state&#8217;s guidelines, enacted in 2004, *should not preclude patients from receiving legal protections in court if they possess cannabis in quantities above those recommended under state law* (six mature or twelve immature plants and/or eight ounces) or county law.


BTW, the limits you mention were overturned by the California Supreme Court, a year ago.

Don't know much, do you?


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

delta9tetra said:


> Of course. The medicinal angle was just a way to get things moving towards legalization. I self-medicate as much as the rest of them, but for those of us without cancer, aids, ms, etc., we would like to have the same rights. Cannabis has a powerful medicating effect, but it is also used for other reasons. Like spiritual enlightenment, recreational fun having, etc.


A sore back or insomnia will get you a recommendation, if you're over 18.

Most pot docs know that Law enforcement is the greatest threat to a young person's well being.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 16, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> I read that list before posting it. Strange bedfellows?
> 
> Maybe, but remember those folks haven't read any farther than you have.
> 
> Did you watch the video of the Lady lawyer? Letitia is her first name, and she's done the in depth research, as I have. I spent a big part of today talking to friends who have shown up on lists, supporting 19.


She's an anonymous person on youtube who may be a lawyer. You have no idea how much research she's done. And I know you haven't done any research besides reading a couple blogs. So please quit making shit up.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 16, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> DO YOU SEE ANYTHING ABOUT AREA?
> 
> You are kinda stupid or are attempting to side step the facts.
> 
> Which is it?


Ooh more insults, I must be winning.
I see the Supreme Court upholding the will of the people, tax dollars at work.
Growing area was not an issue in this case, so you won't find it.
What you do find, is the word quantity or quantities.
This was the issue of the case fore-mentioned.
And it is clear the court system is not going to impose further restrictions against the will of the people.
Nothing in this new proposition is worded against medical cultivation.
Therefore, it could not be misconstrued by the court that the will of the people has changed towards medical cultivation.
So the court would literally refuse to hear or dismiss charges of such manner swiftly.


veggiegardener said:


> BTW, the limits you mention were overturned by the California Supreme Court, a year ago.
> 
> Don't know much, do you?


Actually, I started a thread on this back in Jan.
*California Supreme Court: State&#8217;s Marijuana Possession Limits Are A Floor!*


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

I guess our difference is that I don't trust our justice system, and you do.

I think you'll end up very unhappy, if it passes.

I won't know who "won" until November.

I'm simply refuting(quite effectively, I might add) your shot in the dark denials of this glaring hole.

Did you watch the link with the lady lawyer?

She's not anonymous. Call me a liar and I'll post the link, if you aren't capable of finding it.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 16, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Did you watch the link with the lady lawyer?
> 
> She's not anonymous. Call me a liar and I'll post the link, if you aren't capable of finding it.


If she's not anonymous why do you call her "the lady lawyer"? lol. Is that her name. You claim she's done extensive research. How do you know that? You know who has done extensive research? Dennis Peron's lawyer, J. David Nick. He's the original medical marijuana lawyer in California. How come what he says is pretty much the opposite of everything you're saying? Maybe his 18 years working California marijuana cases just don't match up the "extensive research" done by you and "the lady lawyer". lol

I know this has been posted before, but maybe you should read what he has to say, you know, for the sake of your "extensive research". Or do you only do extensive research on random bloggers and anonymous youtube posters who agree with you? 

http://sanjosecannabis.org/2010/09/11/open-letter-from-j-david-nick-re-yes-on-prop-19/


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 16, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> I guess our difference is that I don't trust our justice system, and you do.


No. It's pretty damn simple actually. You either have your own motivations for supporting prohibition, or you've been tricked/scared into supporting prohibition by people who have their own financial motivations to do so. 

You are siding with the DEA against cannabis legalization and supporting prohibition. Do you understand how absurd that is?


----------



## SB Garlic (Sep 16, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Yeah right, more people grow in Humbodlt, Medno and trinity, but do prices drop, no... there is a certain equilibrium that has been reached and it will not change...


Thats great but its irrelevant to that fact that once mj is legal more farms will be growing it, and supply will go up. Also more people will grow their own in their backyard or house. The current prices will go down, stop trying to argue this.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 16, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> DO YOU SEE ANYTHING ABOUT AREA?
> 
> You are kinda stupid or are attempting to side step the facts.
> 
> Which is it?





veggiegardener said:


> I guess our difference is that I don't trust our justice system, and you do.
> 
> I think you'll end up very unhappy, if it passes.
> 
> ...


You are absolutely right, veggiegardener. I will be negatively effected substantially.
Just when I started to feel comfortable, too.

But, this is not about me necessarily.
It's more about the next me.
It's about the huge culture that is blatantly present.
It's about unjust laws. 

As far as trusting the judicial system;
I have very mixed feelings over our legal systems, as I believe do most.
I've been through juvenile institutions, county jails, and state penitentiaries.
No one should suffer a day in jail for supplementing their endocannabinoid system.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 16, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> A sore back or insomnia will get you a recommendation, if you're over 18.
> 
> Most pot docs know that Law enforcement is the greatest threat to a young person's well being.


no doubt, get your med card... then you can have 8 ozs and grow as much as you want..


----------



## nathenking (Sep 16, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> If she's not anonymous why do you call her "the lady lawyer"? lol. Is that her name. You claim she's done extensive research. How do you know that? You know who has done extensive research? Dennis Peron's lawyer, J. David Nick. He's the original medical marijuana lawyer in California. How come what he says is pretty much the opposite of everything you're saying? Maybe his 18 years working California marijuana cases just don't match up the "extensive research" done by you and "the lady lawyer". lol
> 
> I know this has been posted before, but maybe you should read what he has to say, you know, for the sake of your "extensive research". Or do you only do extensive research on random bloggers and anonymous youtube posters who agree with you?
> 
> http://sanjosecannabis.org/2010/09/11/open-letter-from-j-david-nick-re-yes-on-prop-19/


He says that shit because he has a motive... What? I dont know, but that is what it is... Probably more business for him defending "legal" people that get busted with a pound or something... just my opinion... who knows?


----------



## nathenking (Sep 16, 2010)

SB Garlic said:


> Thats great but its irrelevant to that fact that once mj is legal more farms will be growing it, and supply will go up. Also more people will grow their own in their backyard or house. The current prices will go down, stop trying to argue this.


You dont know if it will go up or down... Either do I... That is the only fact...


----------



## vertise (Sep 16, 2010)

i see theres alot of greedy people out there. The big thing is that it is a step foward in the right direction. It seems as though alot of people want a law that says grow as much marijuana as you want sell it how you want and forget paying taxes on it. Alot of people prob would not mind a completely legit 100 percent state legal grow simply by paying taxes on their grow. As in I personally would not mind spending 1,000 dollars a year for a permit to grow knowing that i am completely ok legaly. If you do end up selling your product they can simply collect taxes on income made. Also i think that a majority of people will not grow there own product. The casual user will simply buy it in a store. This is where the main tax income for the state will be made via marijuana.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 16, 2010)

vertise said:


> i see theres alot of greedy people out there. The big thing is that it is a step foward in the right direction. It seems as though alot of people want a law that says grow as much marijuana as you want sell it how you want and forget paying taxes on it. Alot of people prob would not mind a completely legit 100 percent state legal grow simply by paying taxes on their grow. As in I personally would not mind spending 1,000 dollars a year for a permit to grow knowing that i am completely ok legaly. If you do end up selling your product they can simply collect taxes on income made. Also i think that a majority of people will not grow there own product. The casual user will simply buy it in a store. This is where the main tax income for the state will be made via marijuana.


it already is grown as mush as people want, sold as they want to and they dont pay taxes... all this so you can have a ounce???


----------



## vertise (Sep 16, 2010)

Also alot of people here seem to forget that marijuana is illegal, tech you med license means jack shit. Federal laws always supercede state laws.


----------



## SB Garlic (Sep 16, 2010)

vertise said:


> i see theres alot of greedy people out there. The big thing is that it is a step foward in the right direction. It seems as though alot of people want a law that says grow as much marijuana as you want sell it how you want and forget paying taxes on it. Alot of people prob would not mind a completely legit 100 percent state legal grow simply by paying taxes on their grow. As in I personally would not mind spending 1,000 dollars a year for a permit to grow knowing that i am completely ok legaly. If you do end up selling your product they can simply collect taxes on income made. Also i think that a majority of people will not grow there own product. *The casual user will simply buy it in a store*. This is where the main tax income for the state will be made via marijuana.


And when the prices drop to <$30 an eighth for top shelf smoke a lot of people will be buying a lot more than there did before, prop19 is good for business.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 16, 2010)




----------



## vertise (Sep 16, 2010)

All this so i don't go to jail....for growing marijuana.


----------



## SB Garlic (Sep 16, 2010)

nathenking said:


> it already is grown as mush as people want, sold as they want to and they dont pay taxes... all this so you can have a ounce???


Your mind is stuck on money and greed. This is about changing the way mj is viewed by society and bringing justice to everyone that uses cannabis.


----------



## vertise (Sep 16, 2010)

As for prices i dont know if they will go up or down. I think of cigs being about 11 bucks a pack in nyc and people still buy them. Used to be 4 bucks 15 years ago, meanwhile in most of the country they cost 5 dollars still.


----------



## SB Garlic (Sep 16, 2010)

vertise said:


> As for prices i dont know if they will go up or down. I think of cigs being about 11 bucks a pack in nyc and people still buy them. Used to be 4 bucks 15 years ago, meanwhile in most of the country they cost 5 dollars still.


ppl cant grow their own cigs, and cannabis doesnt have nicotine.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 16, 2010)

SB Garlic said:


> Your mind is stuck on money and greed. This is about changing the way mj is viewed by society and bringing justice to everyone that uses cannabis.


I know that... So do it RIGHT the first time...


----------



## nathenking (Sep 16, 2010)

vertise said:


> As for prices i dont know if they will go up or down. I think of cigs being about 11 bucks a pack in nyc and people still buy them. Used to be 4 bucks 15 years ago, meanwhile in most of the country they cost 5 dollars still.


Nobody knows... Its just speculation... Just like this whole thread is speculation.... But it sure is fun...


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 16, 2010)

SB Garlic said:


> ppl cant grow their own cigs, and cannabis doesnt have nicotine.


People can most definitely grow tobacco all over the United States and most of the world.


----------



## vertise (Sep 16, 2010)

Its not that they cannot grow it, they can. Most just don't. Taxes however are huge. Also if you wanted to in places like ny you could just buy your cigs on indian reservations for around 3 bucks a pack. Most dont cause they convenient shoppers. Just as the casual marijuana shopper will be. Why grow it when i can just buy it in a liquor store, despite the overwhelming cost.


----------



## vertise (Sep 16, 2010)

Hell personally I wouldnt mind joining some type of compassion society that allows non medicinal growers the ability to donate medicine to those who need it who do not have enough or do not have the money to grow. I know that its a novelty type idea but I donate clothing and volunteer. I dont see why donating a ounce of weed or more a month to a worthy cause would be ridiculous. With prop 19 such donations could tech take place.


----------



## SB Garlic (Sep 16, 2010)

vertise said:


> Hell personally I wouldnt mind joining some type of compassion society that allows non medicinal growers the ability to donate medicine to those who need it who do not have enough or do not have the money to grow. I know that its a novelty type idea but I donate clothing and volunteer. I dont see why donating a ounce of weed or more a month to a worthy cause would be ridiculous. With prop 19 such donations could tech take place.


Nah bro we cant do that, these dispensaries need to sell theyre sourD and Og Kush for $65 an 8th.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

If you want to learn about Co-ops, etc. do a look at

http://www.weedtracker.com/forums/

A great MMJ site, supported by dispensaries.

Take a hard look around. You might learn something.

Oh!

Don't mention cultivation! It will get you banned.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 16, 2010)

prop19 advocates say it will produce billions in dollors of tax revenue yearly. this analysis is based on taxing todays market price of "$300" an oz.At the same time prop19 advocates say mj prices will drop to 30 dollors an oz. thats a 90% drop in the propesed tax revenue for the state.This is whats going to take my state out of the hole.This is barly enough to pay the bureacrats associated with prop19.


----------



## vertise (Sep 16, 2010)

um lol i got to say whoever says it will drop to 30 an ounce is dumb. Sorry people who may think that it def will not. Just cause something is legal does not mean that it will decrease in price. whoever is selling it sure as hell will not drop it down in price. it will prob be 300 a zip.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

As long as there are middlemen, prices will be over $300 PLUS TAX. Friends in British Columbia went through the glut phase when Bushco locked up the Canadian border, stranding many tons of BC bud in Canada.

Prices dropped rapidly, but never below $2K Canadian, from the producer.

Indoor growers would be working very cheap, below that.

Say the same applies here.

Standard 100% markup makes it $4k a pound. Add another 20%(a guess) for taxes = $4800/lb.

$300/oz.

It isn't going to get cheaper.

I tried growing tobacco, once, just to see what was involved. I gave up about half way through. I don't think California is good for tobacco. The plants never really took off.

Growing pot requires about half the work. Especially the curing process which is lengthy and touchy for the real killer weed.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 16, 2010)

I'm growing tobacco right now in California and they are doing great.
I even have one that's about 6ft. tall in less then a gallon of soil.
My only regret is that I didn't plant 100 of them.
They are extremely difficult to germinate and establish but well worth it.
The smoothness of properly dried and cured tobacco is priceless.
Nothing like the harsh, chemical ridden, store bought variety.


----------



## vertise (Sep 16, 2010)

did you know that the tobacco plant releases a chemical that interfers with a specific wasps nervous system, which in turn makes those wasp attack catipillars that eat the tobacco plant....Totally off topic just thought it was interesting


----------



## nathenking (Sep 16, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> I'm growing tobacco right now in California and they are doing great.
> I even have one that's about 6ft. tall in less then a gallon of soil.
> My only regret is that I didn't plant 100 of them.
> They are extremely difficult to germinate and establish but well worth it.
> ...


That sounds super nice bro... I wish I had some super smooth tobacco to smoke on... The fiance smokes, so I worry about all those chemicals she is smoking... But she wont smoke american spirits.... She is a Marlboro chic....


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 16, 2010)

I've smoked a total of 25 years in my life. My wife has smoked continuously for over 40 years. She was addicted in the womb, the daughter of farmers who smoked from childhood.

Although I love smoking, I'd rather never start again. I came from a family of heavy smokers as well.

I don't want to be gasping for air when I croak.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 16, 2010)

sureshot how much does your local government tax you for growing tabacco?


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 16, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> sureshot how much does your local government tax you for growing tabacco?


Taxes don't apply to personal consumption.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

yeah and that the why it should be


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 17, 2010)

That's right


----------



## SB Garlic (Sep 17, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> As long as there are middlemen, prices will be over $300 PLUS TAX. Friends in British Columbia went through the glut phase when Bushco locked up the Canadian border, stranding many tone of BC bud in Canada.
> 
> Prices dropped rapidly, but never below $2K Canadian, from the producer.
> 
> ...


ppl like me wont smoke at that price we will either grow our own or pass.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 17, 2010)

nathenking said:


> He says that shit because he has a motive... What? I dont know, but that is what it is... Probably more business for him defending "legal" people that get busted with a pound or something... just my opinion... who knows?


Aww, come on man. This is the guy who's gotten Dennis Peron out of jail like 100000 times. He defended the first dispensary in California. He's done a lot for the cause. Give him some credit. Not everyone who supports prop 19 is doing so because they are evil and greedy.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

*Rancho Cordova* is asking voters to make the city the first in California to approve a *tax* on home-grown pot for personal use.
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/29/2990210/rancho-cordova-asking-voters-to.html



brought to you buy prop 19


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

A look at Oakland's *marijuana* price, *tax*, sales, and production *...*

http://palmspringsbum.org/blog/2010/08/a-look-at-oaklands-marijuana-price-tax-sales-and-production/comment-page-1/


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 17, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> A look at Oakland's *marijuana* price, *tax*, sales, and production *...*
> 
> http://palmspringsbum.org/blog/2010/08/a-look-at-oaklands-marijuana-price-tax-sales-and-production/comment-page-1/


Thanks for posting that.

Those license holders will be pushing to sliminate small growers to protect their investment.

*Vote NO on Prop. 19.*


----------



## ssmith270 (Sep 17, 2010)

I support Prop 19 because I live in Va which still criminalizes over 1/2 oz as a Felony Intent to Distribute. I support Prop 19 not because it is perfect, but because it can become a HUGE stepping stone to additional states and even the federal government over the coming years to pass similar laws. Marijuana has been illegal in this country since the 1930's and Prop 19 has the best chance of making substantial headway towards full legalization throughout the US.

For those of you that choose to grow more than 25 square feet go for it. The state isn't going to suddenly start knocking on everyone's doors to arrest those with 26 square feet of grow space. As long as you aren't making any loud noise by selling in large quantities then no one will know. No harm and no foul. The proposition is more of a mindset changer for much of the country than just a law as it is in Cali.

I'm over in Va where weed is very expensive and can be hard to find depending on who you associate with. I work in Criminal Defense and see a lot of drug dealers but cannot exactly ask my clients to hook me up. I'm now out and my supplier got raided a few days ago so I have been looking everywhere with no success.

I have a client who got caught growing 17 plants inside for personal use. He's looking at going to prison for years. California started everything with medical marijuana in 1996. 14 years later, California has another chance to help the country move forward to a more pot friendly legal environment.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 17, 2010)

ssmith270 said:


> I support Prop 19 because I live in Va which still criminalizes over 1/2 oz as a Felony Intent to Distribute. I support Prop 19 not because it is perfect, but because it can become a HUGE stepping stone to additional states and even the federal government over the coming years to pass similar laws. Marijuana has been illegal in this country since the 1930's and Prop 19 has the best chance of making substantial headway towards full legalization throughout the US.
> 
> For those of you that choose to grow more than 25 square feet go for it. The state isn't going to suddenly start knocking on everyone's doors to arrest those with 26 square feet of grow space. As long as you aren't making any loud noise by selling in large quantities then no one will know. No harm and no foul. The proposition is more of a mindset changer for much of the country than just a law as it is in Cali.
> 
> ...


I've been legally growing for over a decade. The policew have seen my garden.

Hell, the city published a picture of one of my greenhouses in the quarterly newsletter on the front page.

You think they won't drop by my house, next Spring, if this passes?

If they do limit my grow, I'll be suing to overturn Prop. 19.

It's best to pass good laws, because bad laws will be overturned.

And 19 is bad.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

im sorry ive never heard of the word sliminat. whats it mean?


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

Im with you 100% veggiegardener


----------



## Stalwart (Sep 17, 2010)

Just like anything! If you let some asshole/conservative into the conversation it will have a slight deviation that ruins it! It's like you have to include it to get it passed before it gets to you!
But remember it's most important to get the product taxed to support our government whose hated us for so long, lol


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 17, 2010)

If 19 were to pass, I think it would drive many people back underground, because access to "legal" buds may be very difficult in jurisdictions that choose to make production ridiculously difficult and expensive.

Guv'mint may find itself collecting less revenue than they are now.

Black markets, once established, tend to grow into any area where there's a buck to be saved, or made.

What other products are inflicted with "sin taxes"?

Cigarettes? Alcohol? 

It might be worth educating yourselves about how black market economies work.(Think Russia after the fall of socialism.)

Corruption.

Crooked cops, crooked judges, and crooked politicians, attempting to control a disgusted population that avoids as many taxes as possible.

Most folks have a hard time seeing possible future consequences of seemingly innocuous laws.

Others just don't seem to care what happens next week.

The door is wide open for this seemingly positive step to be twisted and corrupted by the devious few.

They've bought the Oakland city government, with promises of huge permit fees and taxes. Other cities will try to cash in, like Rancho Cordova. $600/sq.ft. won't make them a dime, while they'll be fighting lawsuits from every medicinal grower within their city limits. Everyone else will just ignore the ordinance.

If 19 passes, things will get very entertaining, if not comfortable.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 17, 2010)

Corruption is rampant everywhere, in seemingly every market.
That's why we have massive regulating entities.
It's human nature.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 17, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Corruption is rampant everywhere, in seemingly every market.
> That's why we have massive regulating entities.
> It's human nature.


That's why we need to keep mj to ourselves.... f the govt...


----------



## colonuggs (Sep 17, 2010)

Last year... Obama&#8217;s justice department said they&#8217;d look the other way if marijuana use was allowed under state laws, and they would not enforce federal prohibitions. 

That policy was made with the understanding that the only legal use of marijuana was for medical purposes.

If people are growing, selling and smoking pot just to get stoned ....the Feds will probably get over their case of couch lock and start enforcing their laws....that will definatley effect medical patients

Another thought...... If California unilaterally legalizes marijuana use and cultivation, would that reduce the influence of illegal drug cartels -- as Prop. 19 supporters suppose -- or would it create a profitable and protected market for them in California?

Unless the Feds change the laws on marijuana Federally....the battle will be on if they make it legal for everyone in Cali.....I will roll a fatty and bring the popcorn for the show


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 17, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> *Rancho Cordova* is asking voters to make the city the first in California to approve a *tax* on home-grown pot for personal use.
> http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/29/2990210/rancho-cordova-asking-voters-to.html
> 
> 
> ...


That law goes into effect with or without prop 19. Oh, it's also most likely unconstitutional. But you already know that. You're just trying to scare people.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 17, 2010)

colonuggs said:


> Last year... Obama&#8217;s justice department said they&#8217;d look the other way if marijuana use was allowed under state laws, and they would not enforce federal prohibitions.
> 
> That policy was made with the understanding that the only legal use of marijuana was for medical purposes.
> 
> ...


Exacty right... The feds are not gonna sit by idle... Obama also will not support it because he has another election to win in 2 years... California will vote Democrate no matter if he does support it or not... my 2cents... its not gonna be as easy as just voting on nov 2 and shit will be a piece of cake... there is still at least another decade of fighting left to do folks... get your combat boots ready...


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 17, 2010)

nathenking said:


> That's why we need to keep mj to ourselves.... f the govt...


There will always be government.
Even in the jungles full of guerrilla combatants, government exists.
Because government simply means; an organization that exercise authority on it's subjects.
So if you subject yourself to any society. You are then subjecting yourself to authority.
Running water, electricity, yadda, yadda, yadda., all require government for stabilization. 
If you enjoy them, then you enjoy government to a larger extent then you might realize.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 17, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> It might be worth educating yourselves about how black market economies work.(Think Russia after the fall of socialism.)


lol. Clearly you're educated about the economy if you know about Russia and the fall of socialism. I heard that was almost as bad as the fall of communism in the Soviet Union. Either way, comparing communist soviet Russia to prop 19 is lol.

You'd be a lot better off if you stuck to topics you knew about. Russians didn't turn to the black market to avoid taxes. They did so because of shortages which lead to rationing, bread lines, etc. It wasn't because they didn't want to buy taxed goods. It's because there weren't enough of those goods to buy. 

Probably the worst comparison to prop 19 I've ever heard. You just failed the "are you smarter than a 5th grader" test. That info is in every elementary school/jr high social studies book in America. come on now.....



> They've bought the Oakland city government, with promises of huge permit fees and taxes.


That is actually true. Richard Lee/Oaksterdam does ALOT of the fund raising for current city counsel member mayor candidate Rebecca Kaplan and several other counsel members. Google Richard Lee and Rebecca Kaplan and several of the results will be fund raising events conducted by Oaksterdam employees.

But that's 2 cities out of over 450 cities in California. Should we really vote against prop 19 because 2 cities have shitty local governments? That's a bunch of crap.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

oh what ever!
hes not talking about government in general, more like big out of contorl massive government that try and control damn near every aspect of it citizens through regulations, taxation and more.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

those cities are model cities that the rest will follow.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 17, 2010)

colonuggs said:


> If people are growing, selling and smoking pot just to get stoned ....the Feds will probably get over their case of couch lock and start enforcing their laws....that will definatley effect medical patients


Actually, prop 19 will have the opposite effect.

Prop 19 prohibits local/state police from working with the DEA on cannabis cases. The DEA isn't a large organization. There are only ~5000 DEA agents tasked with covering the entire world. The DNA doesn't have the manpower to fuck with medical patients without the assistance of local/state police. Since prop 19 stops that, it makes California safer for medical patients.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 17, 2010)

Our gov't is too big... they should stay out of the MJ business... Tax a plant?? Yeah right, its not even rational...


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 17, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> those cities are model cities that the rest will follow.


bullshit. I know for a fact my city/county won't. Many won't. Like usual, you're just saying whatever you think sounds good without any concern for the truth.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 17, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Our gov't is too big... they should stay out of the MJ business... Tax a plant?? Yeah right, its not even rational...


Show me where prop 19 adds a tax to cannabis.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

yeah and if local police refuse to help the feds guess what NO more federal funding.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 17, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> bullshit. I know for a fact my city/county won't. Many won't. Like usual, you're just saying whatever you think sounds good without any concern for the truth.


So, you got yours and you could care less about what happens to anyone else. Between this and your profit motives, you are a prime example of who really wants this bill to pass and exactly why to vote no. This bill exacts a pretty hefty price for the sake of establishing your retail market.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

are you serious Dan Kone. Thay say it themselfs that there model cities.
Look what happen when 1 city put and band on mmj dispenseries, every other city in the state either drastically resticted dispenseries or right out banded them all together.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

btw it only called, tax regulate and control act .
TAX


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 17, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> oh what ever!
> hes not talking about government in general, more like big out of contorl massive government that try and control damn near every aspect of it citizens through regulations, taxation and more.



Are you propsing that, "f the govt...", is not a generalized term?


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 17, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> So, you got yours and you could care less about what happens to anyone else. Between this and your profit motives, you are a prime example of who really wants this bill to pass and exactly why to vote no. This bill exacts a pretty hefty price for the sake of establishing your retail market.


Even one city or county ending prohibition is a huge improvement. We may very well have to end prohibition one city at a time. Just because one or two cities are going to try and pass stupid laws, doesn't mean the rest of California shouldn't be allowed to try and end prohibition.

As far as me personally, yeah "i got mine" by personally talking to ever member of the county board of supervisors and city counsel and explained to them how they could make prop 19 a good thing for the county with out passing restrictive laws and excessive permits. If you think I am somehow guilty of being selfish for participating in our democracy and doing my part to ending prohibition in my home town, then you must be high on something stronger than bud.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 17, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> yeah and if local police refuse to help the feds guess what NO more federal funding.


it'll be the law. It's not optional. If police violate the law to prosecute someone the case will be dismissed. It's not like the cops can just lie about it and choose to ignore this law. If both local police and the DEA provide evidence in a case that is proof they cooperated and the case gets tossed.

So quit with your scare tactics. Stick to reality. Like usual, you've got no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 17, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> are you serious Dan Kone. Thay say it themselfs that there model cities.
> Look what happen when 1 city put and band on mmj dispenseries, every other city in the state either drastically resticted dispenseries or right out banded them all together.


Really? Dispensaries are banned all across cali? Last time I checked there were thousands of them.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 17, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> btw it only called, tax regulate and control act .
> TAX


Then it should be easy for you to show me where prop 19 adds a tax to cannabis. Oh wait, it doesn't do that.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 17, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Our gov't is too big... they should stay out of the MJ business... Tax a plant?? Yeah right, its not even rational...


Government will forever grow. It's the inevitable evolution of society.
So voting no and keeping it illegal, is more rational to you?
I don't follow your logic.


----------



## colonuggs (Sep 17, 2010)

Myth #2: The initiative will keep young adults out of jail for using marijuana.

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

At 18 you are old enough to die for your country but you cant legally smoke pot??

Myth #3: You'll be able to light up freely in the privacy of your home.

Fact: That depends. Under the initiative, even adults consuming marijuana in the privacy of their homes could face arrest if there are minors present (not something one would expect from an initiative that claims to treat marijuana like alcohol and tobacco).... Current marijuana law contains no such restrictions..... Thanks to Prop. 215, which legalized marijuana for medicinal use, cannabis consumers have been legally free to smoke in the privacy of their homes since 1997.

This initiative seeks to undermine that freedom, making it absolutely illegal to smoke marijuana if there are minors present. (The initiative is ambiguous with regard to whether &#8220;present&#8221; means being in the same room as the consumer, the same house, the same apartment building, or within wafting distance&#8212;apparently leaving this up to the interpretation of judges.) 

There is no exception for medical marijuana patients or for parents consuming in the presence of their own children...so you can only legally smoke when anyone under 21 is not in your presence

Myth #4: Under the initiative, anyone 21 or over will be allowed to grow marijuana in a 5&#8217;x5&#8217; space.

Fact: Not quite. This allotment is per property, not per person. If you share a residence with other people, you&#8217;ll be sharing a 5&#8217;x5&#8217; grow space, as well. Even if you own multiple acres that many people live on, if it is considered one parcel, the space restriction of 5&#8217;x5&#8217; (3-6 plants) will still apply. [11] Plus, if you rent, you will be required to obtain permission from your landlord&#8212;which they may be unwilling to grant since doing so will subject them to forfeiture by the federal government.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

go to freson theres no despenaries.
there were over 500 at one time in LA now theres alittle over 100.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

look man im voting no. its not my fualt you hate the "drug dealers" that suppply you now bet you didnt hate them before prop19.sorry you would rather buy your weed at a gass station.
and if u got your 215 card and are paying 60 an eighth thats your choice.
i got my 215 card because i get headachs for $60.you dont need aids or be dying to get your card.
you just need the want to live a better, more comfortable life.
i grow my own weed and buy it inbeetween harvest from other growers for no more than $120 an once for top grade medical of course


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 17, 2010)

Nobody supplies me.


----------



## colonuggs (Sep 17, 2010)

food for thought



> What now?
> 
> The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative is not the only path to legalization. We have come so far, and are now so close&#8212;it is imperative that we let the next step be the right one. Legalized marijuana is within reach, yet the movement could be set back with such a problematic initiative at the helm. Instead of rushing to pass a measure that prohibits marijuana under the guise of legalization, we can draft an initiative that calls for true legalization and that has the full support of marijuana law reform organizations and leaders of the movement.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 17, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> go to freson theres no despenaries.
> there were over 500 at one time in LA now theres alittle over 100.


I thought you said if one city bans them the rest will follow? That was your logic for why every city/county will make laws like rancho cordova. So how come there are still thousands of dispensaries in California?

Should we repeal prop 215 just because some cities in California don't allow dispensaries? Your telling people they should vote against prop 19 because 2 cities are making bad laws. Well there are several cities that ban dispensaries and have several bad medical marijuana laws. So do you support the repeal of prop 215 for the same reasons?

If not, then it doesn't make sense to vote against prop 19 just because it'll have some of the same problems as prop 215. Waiting to legalize until every city/county in California won't pass their own bad cannabis laws is probably the stupidest idea I've ever heard in my life.


----------



## colonuggs (Sep 17, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> I thought you said if one city bans them the rest will follow? That was your logic for why every city/county will make laws like rancho cordova. So how come there are still thousands of dispensaries in California?
> 
> Should we repeal prop 215 just because some cities in California don't allow dispensaries? Your telling people they should vote against prop 19 because 2 cities are making bad laws. Well there are several cities that ban dispensaries and have several bad medical marijuana laws. So do you support the repeal of prop 215 for the same reasons?
> 
> If not, then it doesn't make sense to vote against prop 19 just because it'll have some of the same problems as prop 215. Waiting to legalize until every city/county in California won't pass their own bad cannabis laws is probably the stupidest idea I've ever heard in my life.


September 14, 2010 

SAN DIEGO &#8212; The San Diego Board of Supervisors took a stand this week on legalizing marijuana in California. The supervisors voted against it. Unanimously. But drive a few hundred miles north and visit the Oakland City Council. They voted in favor of legalization. Unanimously.

. 
The subject comes up because we&#8217;ll be voting this November on the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, a.k.a. Proposition 19. Up until now, marijuana has been legal in California for medicinal uses only. But Prop. 19 would allow the cultivation, sale and use of pot for any reason you desire.

Supporters of legalizing marijuana say passing Prop. 19 could solve a host of social and economic problems.

It would remedy our state budget disaster by generating a huge amount of sales tax revenue. It would free up cops and D.A.&#8217;s to arrest and jail dangerous criminals because they wouldn&#8217;t waste their time prosecuting people who sell marijuana. So, legalizing the stuff would make us our state richer and safer, not to mention more happy and blissful.

The march toward legalizing marijuana in California began 14 years ago with the passage of Prop. 215, which allowed for medical use. Unfortunately Prop. 215 has been nothing but trouble. It put state law in direct conflict with federal law, which does not allow any sale or use of marijuana. The proposition was also badly written. It&#8217;s short and vague, and it&#8217;s required years of legislative work to try to clarify it for practical use. 

Here&#8217;s my take on medical marijuana: If cannabis has medicinal value, and some studies show that it has, we already have a tested institution for selling prescription medicine. It&#8217;s called a pharmacy. In the ideal world we'd throw out Prop. 215, make sure marijuana clears all of the legal hurdles to get approved for medical use, let doctors prescribe it to worthy patients and let patients pick it up at their local drug store.

If, on the other hand, California voters decide to legalize marijuana for medical and recreational use by passing Prop. 19, it&#8217;s a whole new ballgame and (I assume) a whole new fight between the state and the feds.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

im just trying to show you that if one city does it others will follow.
quit tying to put words in my mouth dude.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 17, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Government will forever grow. It's the inevitable evolution of society.
> So voting no and keeping it illegal, is more rational to you?
> I don't follow your logic.


Im not voting to keep it illegal, im voting no so WE can write a new prop and not shoot ourselves in the leg... That is my reasoning...


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

it just like saying if pot is legalized in cali it wil spread through the whole country
california is a model state.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

exactly nathenking! thank you


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

prop19 advocates say it will produce billions in dollors of tax revenue yearly. this analysis is based on taxing todays market price of "$300" an oz.At the same time prop19 advocates say mj prices will drop to 30 dollors an oz. thats a 90% drop in the propesed tax revenue for the state.This is whats going to take my state out of the hole.This is barly enough to pay the bureacrats associated with prop19


----------



## nathenking (Sep 17, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> prop19 advocates say it will produce billions in dollors of tax revenue yearly. this analysis is based on taxing todays market price of "$300" an oz.At the same time prop19 advocates say mj prices will drop to 30 dollors an oz. thats a 90% drop in the propesed tax revenue for the state.This is whats going to take my state out of the hole.This is barly enough to pay the bureacrats associated with prop19


Exactly... All this speculation from the supporters isnt any more sain or valid than from the nay sayers... I dont know a single person who is gonna pay taxes on there ganja... Some are gonna 5000watters, and some are gonna be farmers with a few hundred elbows... And not a one of them is gonna all of a sudden pay tax... That turns out to be alot of money at the end of the year... So where is all this tax money gonna come from... The fools that pay it, and the fools that get there certificate to have these big grows... With tax, electric, labour, insurance, supplies and security... The price is gonna stay the same for killer indoor.... 2 cents


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 17, 2010)

75,000 people are arrested for marijuana-related arrest are made each year in California alone.
89% of marijuana-related arrest are simply for possession!


----------



## nathenking (Sep 17, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> 75,000 people are arrested for marijuana-related arrest are made each year in California alone.
> 89% of marijuana-related arrest are simply for possession!


And how many people get let off... out of the 89percent of people, who had more than an ounce????


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 17, 2010)

nathenking said:


> And how many people get let off... out of the 89percent of people, who had more than an ounce????


I don't know. Enlighten me.


----------



## SB Garlic (Sep 17, 2010)

nathenking said:


> And how many people get let off... out of the 89percent of people, who had more than an ounce????


I got busted with less that an eighth before I had a rec and was not let off at all. I had to waste 6 months in a drug rehab program, which really hurt my education. This was right after high school and it really slowed my life down, and is a huge waste of everyones money.


----------



## vertise (Sep 17, 2010)

yea you normally dont just get "let go". Alot of time, money and problems that come from being arrested for minor pot issues.


----------



## nowwhat (Sep 17, 2010)

> any other appropriate controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare.


from section 11301, last item apparently opens up local regulations to regulating ANY and ALL aspects if they play the "public health and welfare" card. In other words, using said language a county or city could outlaw most aspects of the legalization. 

Am i reading this langauge wrong????


----------



## nowwhat (Sep 17, 2010)

I can't even lay down in 25 square feet, much less grow a year's worth of mmj.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 17, 2010)

nowwhat said:


> from section 11301, last item apparently opens up local regulations to regulating ANY and ALL aspects if they play the "public health and welfare" card. In other words, using said language a county or city could outlaw most aspects of the legalization.
> 
> Am i reading this langauge wrong????


Yes, city councils still hold power. 
Go figure


----------



## nowwhat (Sep 17, 2010)

So it comes down to being a roullette because of the loosely written language, which opens it up to re-regulation and taxation by every tom, dick and harry with a council seat.....

Did you file your mj-4 this year?


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 17, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Then it should be easy for you to show me where prop 19 adds a tax to cannabis. Oh wait, it doesn't do that.



Oh, come on. Prop 19 does nothing EXCEPT make it possible for every jurisdiction in California to tax Cannabis at whatever rate they find suitable. You can't deny it and claim you've read the bill. Prop 19 doesn't specifically impose a tax, because that would limit the number of ways local governments can milk us for maximum cash.

Your arguments are weak because you don't stick to facts, instead crying, "The sky isn't orange!".

Prop 19 is so full of loop holes that it provides a bunch of wiggle room for bad government to get worse.

Your trust in the law and the justice system is appalling.

I really believe you have a huge interest in seeing this pass. You are in Alameda County, aren't you?


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 17, 2010)

nowwhat said:


> from section 11301, last item apparently opens up local regulations to regulating ANY and ALL aspects if they play the "public health and welfare" card. In other words, using said language a county or city could outlaw most aspects of the legalization.
> 
> Am i reading this langauge wrong????


No. You are right on the money.


----------



## vertise (Sep 17, 2010)

I do not understand how everyone thinks that they are going to tax it to the extent of making it almost non affordable. You cannot collect on something if you make it to high. Its the idea of charging alot for limited product or selling alot of product and charging little. The more product you sell the lower you can charge. Same idea, sure your local government could charge alot and see very few people paying that amount, or they could charge little and see alot of people paying it.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 18, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> im just trying to show you that if one city does it others will follow.
> quit tying to put words in my mouth dude.


and? after prop 215 passed some cities passed bad laws. Do you think we should have voted against prop 215 because some cities passed bad laws?

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You're going all over these forums trying to scare because of what one city is doing.

Do you support prop 215? If so then why should we vote against prop 19 for having some of the same problems as prop 215? 

No matter what type of legalization bill comes up, cities will pass dumb laws as a response. That's a given. It's an incredibly short sided reason to support prohibition.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 18, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Im not voting to keep it illegal, im voting no so WE can write a new prop and not shoot ourselves in the leg... That is my reasoning...


Who is "we" and who's going to pay the millions of dollars required to get it on the ballot?


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 18, 2010)

nathenking said:


> And how many people get let off... out of the 89percent of people, who had more than an ounce????


1 person getting arrested for having under an ounce is too many.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 18, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Oh, come on. Prop 19 does nothing EXCEPT make it possible for every jurisdiction in California to tax Cannabis at whatever rate they find suitable. You can't deny it and claim you've read the bill. Prop 19 doesn't specifically impose a tax, because that would limit the number of ways local governments can milk us for maximum cash.


Taxing cannabis is legal right now. If cities and counties want to tax it they will do it anyways.



> Your arguments are weak because you don't stick to facts,


ironic coming from you



> Prop 19 is so full of loop holes that it provides a bunch of wiggle room for bad government to get worse.


That's exactly what they said about prop 215. Do you want to repeal that too since it " provides a bunch of wiggle room for bad government to get worse"?



> Your trust in the law and the justice system is appalling.


Your ignorance of the law is nauseating. 



> I really believe you have a huge interest in seeing this pass. You are in Alameda County, aren't you?


Of course you do. You're a total nut. I wouldn't expect anything less. And no, south bay, not east bay.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 18, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Even one city or county ending prohibition is a huge improvement. We may very well have to end prohibition one city at a time. Just because one or two cities are going to try and pass stupid laws, doesn't mean the rest of California shouldn't be allowed to try and end prohibition.
> 
> As far as me personally, yeah "i got mine" by personally talking to ever member of the county board of supervisors and city counsel and explained to them how they could make prop 19 a good thing for the county with out passing restrictive laws and excessive permits. If you think I am somehow guilty of being selfish for participating in our democracy and doing my part to ending prohibition in my home town, then you must be high on something stronger than bud.


Nice deflection, but once again your hypocrisy is showing. As you've often pointed out, Prop. 19 isn't needed for local authorities to make changes both positive and negative. But, you also like to gloss over the blanket policy ban option that Prop. 19 makes quite legitimate and despite your erroneous conclusions, very difficult, if not impossible to challenge legally. From your accounts, you've achieved major improvement by swaying the opinions of your own local authorities and have done so without Prop. 19. Good job, but I'd have to say that at a early tally of 2 douche-bag cities versus one allegedly good one, the trade offs are still way against the pot smoking community at large and only serve to circumscribe their lives more.

I appreciate the attempt to cloak your profit motives in flowery rhetoric like "democracy" (not mentioning that profit-driven lobbyism is one of the worst aspects of the current democratic process) and "ending prohibition" (of course, pretending that it's still the mid-80's and no progress *has* been made). Problem is that no matter how you put it, actions and intents speak for themselves. As someone intimately familiar with and vested in sustainable agricultural operations and in support of local sustainable food systems over the production-intensive system of modern agri-industrial operations and their impact on the culture of farming and the diminishing standards of modern food, I recognize all too well the implications of Prop. 19 in respects to cannabis. This is nothing more than corporatization and lays the groundwork for centralized distribution systems.

Alcohol and tobacco are actually good examples of potential outcomes of this proposition. The similarities to contemporary national agricultural policy and the history that lead to it shouldn't be ignored either. The fact that it's not only happened before, but has happened every time with every "industry" concerns me. I can see how it would not concern someone who looks to profit from passage of Prop. 19. 

In the case of tobacco, yes, one can in fact grow and smoke their own tobacco. And much like this law is attempting to do, you cannot sell that tobacco, in any amount, without paying the various excise taxes and satisfying the various regulations. Taxes which are too onerous for any but large-scale end product producers to burden. Even the typical production tobacco grower is suffering much the same plight as the mid-west grain farmers face. Surviving on federally subsidies in the presence of a reducing market demand and the availability of cheaper imported raw materials to large scale end product producers. Not to mention that the damage to the tobacco industry that the current trend of anti-smoking sentiment and litigation is doing. Not to mention the monoculture that such industry models inherently induce. Also, not to mention the absolutely insane number of shortcuts that large-scale producers are able to take in the production of their product and the regulation that allows them to, thanks to profit-motivated lobbying. There are no provisions or shelters of any kind for small or medium scale producers. Not even the shoddy ones that are available to "conventional" cultivators. Big tobacco in my cannabis, I think not.

So how about the alcohol industry. After all, one can make beer and wine galore! Hurray for the 21st Amendment! Pffft... yeah right. Anyone with an understanding of the history of Prohibition and the results of the 21st Amendment beyond what they brainwash children with in public schools knows that this is one of the worst examples of laissez-faire legislation with regards to it's effect on what was previously a thriving regional/local industry of hundreds of small/medium scale producers and associated industries. The 21st Amendment, much like Prop. 19 proposes to do for local government authority, gave states unilateral rights to determine the legality and regulation of alcohol without regard to the desire of it's citizenry. Hell, even Mississippi remained "dry" until 1966. You honestly think no one in Mississippi drank or wanted to brew/distill until the mid-60's? Or that they even could... I'll admit I'm a little short on my Mississippi specific history, but I'm willing to bet the shift from dry to not-dry status was more for the sake of retail sales rather than a blessing of tidings and business for the small/medium producer. But, in any case, let's not assume uber-conservative locality. Hell, let's even pretend the fed's come around and reschedule it and blah blah blah. Well, even under federal standards (as enforced by the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Agency) there are limits on the amount of beer or wine that can be produce for personal consumption and no allowances at all for distilled alcohols. In fact, there are regulations that allow them to request customer lists from companies that manufacture and distribute stills. So what are those standards and how are they set? Roughly, 100 gallons of beer or wine each can be produced for personal or family use per adult, for up to two adults per household, per calendar year. Roughly about a 6-pack/person/day worth of beer *and* wine together per household, assuming only two adults in the household. Yep... sounds a lot like what Prop 19 wants to do. Unreasonable limits that make for a system that leaves clients dependent on large-scale/commercial interests to provide supply with no protections or consideration for small or medium scale operations. But, since you're of the "no one needs more than an ounce or a grow bigger than 5'x5'" crowd, I'm sure you see no issue. Not really surprising since you're looking to gain yourself a nice little retail business on the back on Prop. 19. In addition, there is an all out ban on distillation of alcohol for any reason other than commercial distribution. In fact, the ATF has regulatory policy that allows them to request customer lists from the manufacturers and distributors of stills and distillery equipment. I certainly don't want similar standards applied to cannabis.

Even modern agriculture is a prime example of broad-spectrum discretionary powers used in support of large-scale production and the resulting decimation of the small and medium farm population as well as the near disappearance of subsistence farming. Sadly enough, the demise of modern agriculture and the prohibition of cannabis share a fair number of causal factors. In fact, the two weren't really separate until 1937, when prohibition caused cannabis to diverge from the path of agriculture in general. Since then, regulations on agricultural practices and financial barriers to entry that favor large entities and central distributors have reduced the small/family and medium/cooperative farm to near extinction, replaced by vast swaths of monocultured production-intensive systems that deplete the land of vital nutrients and topsoil. Not to mention the loss of diversity not only the types and varieties of foods we produce, but also in the biospheres we inhabit. Also, similar is the use of government-funded public campaigns to misinform for the benefit of commercial entities. Obviously with cannabis, the public message is one of false dangers. With agriculture, the message is one of false assurances. It's taken numerous incidents of food poisoning and other health disasters to not only question the safety and security of our food but, also to realize that we've regulated ourselves nearly into a corner since almost all such cases originate from retail-driven intensive-production systems and monocultured farms/plantations.

That's three times that government and commercial interests have used regulation and taxation/imposition of fees to control industries. Three times that small and medium entities in those industries were squeezed out by regulatory practices that present financial or operational barriers to entry for anyone but those who seek to conduct business for the sake of profit. Also, three times that regulation results in mass-production of inferior products that result in public health risks. That's three times too many to me. 

In fact, strangely enough... I think for once, I may have to change my mind and agree with you on one point you like to repeatedly make. All this reflecting on history and legislation, as well as personal and family interests in agriculture has got me thinking and realizing a few things. I suppose I am in support of prohibition as it stands. After all, what is really, truly illegal at the moment. Yes, you can get a misdemeanor for possession, but there is no jail time that is associated with a simple possession charge. The only misdemeanor without jail time, mind you. In addition, legislation is currently underway to reduce that to an infraction. That would mean near-impunity for the casual recreational smokers with the occasional bummer of a ticket and $100 fine should one get pulled over with the same ounce that Prop 19 allows for. A key difference will be paying the overhead and taxes that retail entails at every purchase under 19. I also agree that things are broken and there are people making more money than they should. Unfortunately, adding more middlemen and intermediaries doesn't fix the problem, but rather exacerbates it. Prop 19 isn't good for anyone but middlemen and intermediaries.

So yes... you are quite greedy for your "participating in our democracy" (lobbyism is the primary tool of greedy interests) and for "doing [your part to end] prohibition in [your] home town" and no amount of personal attack is going to cover your intentions to anyone with eyes to see it. The only part of "prohibition" that Prop. 19 changes is commercial sales and the enabling, if not straight out legitimization of large scale production operations. Far from control or removal of those who work outside the constraints of law now, Prop 19 will give them a veritable license to get legitimate and continue, if not expand their operations. The "ones making millions" will become the few making hundreds of millions. Personally, I'd rather have hundreds of thousands of relatively well-off small and medium scale growers than a small number of extremely wealthy commercial entities.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 18, 2010)

tl;dr

cool story bro


----------



## vertise (Sep 18, 2010)

yea pretty much all it is a story. I feel like i shouldn't bring up the independent breweries that are all over the country and very successful. All the independent bars that brew there own stuff cause its different and good. Also that tax that we all pay when we sell something and make money from it is income tax. With the new bill how does a big corp like big tobacco grow enough product in the allowed 25foot area.


----------



## vertise (Sep 18, 2010)

My main point is how does a big legal grow in a sole location make millions in a 25ft area.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 18, 2010)

vertise said:


> yea pretty much all it is a story. I feel like i shouldn't bring up the independent breweries that are all over the country and very successful. All the independent bars that brew there own stuff cause its different and good.


What he's intentionally ignoring is the fact that there are very very large scale grows all over California that are much bigger than any of the corporate grows planned under prop 19. 

Those massive grows do not put small scale growers out of business. He's basically fighting for the profits of the current massive scale grows. He pretends to be independent anti-corporate. But the truth is he's just fighting on the side of one business interest against another. 

Clearly he could give a shit less about all the smokers not covered by prop 215. He's got his prop 215 and he's making money, so why would he care about anyone else?



> With the new bill how does a big corp like big tobacco grow enough product in the allowed 25foot area.


Prop 19 allows for permits of large scale commercial grows beyond any limits we have now. It allows allows for larger than 25 sq foot grows for just personal growing. 

Despite what people are trying to make it look, 25sq feet + one ounce are *not *the maximum limits. They are the minimum limits. No city or county can go below those limits. 

If you would like me to show you where prop 19 allows this feel free to ask and I'd be happy to show you.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 18, 2010)

vertise said:


> My main point is how does a big legal grow in a sole location make millions in a 25ft area.


Nah man. Under prop 19 you can start your own business, get a commercial grow permit, and do warehouse or greenhouses with potentially unlimited sq footage.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 18, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> What he's intentionally ignoring is the fact that there are very very large scale grows all over California that are much bigger than any of the corporate grows planned under prop 19.
> 
> Those massive grows do not put small scale growers out of business. He's basically fighting for the profits of the current massive scale grows. He pretends to be independent anti-corporate. But the truth is he's just fighting on the side of one business interest against another.


So it wasn't that you didn't read it... you just didn't understand it as usual. I didn't ignore large scale ops working outside the laws. I addressed them directly. But since you can't even seem to remember that I've already said that Prop. 19 won't affect me personally. The one that has admitted to profit-bearing motives is you. Once again, your "everyone else is doing it/it's happening anyways, why should I make a buck?" argument is a childish attempt to gloss over your own greed and deflect it on to someone else.



Dan Kone said:


> Clearly he could give a shit less about all the smokers not covered by prop 215. He's got his prop 215 and he's making money, so why would he care about anyone else?


Oh joy... another baseless personal attack. How predictable. I care very much for every smoker. That's why I make it a point to see that anyone I come in contact with who is a smoker is aware of their rights under California law. Do cops still try to bust them and threaten them with jailfor simple possession? Sure. Do any of them go to jail? No. Anyone who goes to jail for simple possession of ounce or less anywhere in California needs to get themselves a good cannabis lawyer and get ready for a civil lawsuit. But, since Dan wants people to believe they have no rights or recourse under the law as justification for his retail enterprise, he likes to ignore that important fact. Nevermind the hypocrisy of accusing someone else of profit-motive when that is his own justification for support of Prop. 19. But that's his typical response when someone points out his admitted profit motives. Suddenly the cry of "where's the compassion?!?" comes from him. Never mind that he's the owner of a "mutual benefit collective" which is exactly the middle man reseller model that we need less of and that Prop. 19 promotes.



Dan Kone said:


> Prop 19 allows for permits of large scale commercial grows beyond any limits we have now. It allows allows for larger than 25 sq foot grows for just personal growing.
> 
> Despite what people are trying to make it look, 25sq feet + one ounce are *not *the maximum limits. They are the minimum limits. No city or county can go below those limits.
> 
> If you would like me to show you where prop 19 allows this feel free to ask and I'd be happy to show you.


Pretty much the response I expected. I'd do something clever like disparagingly assign you a new nick name. Probably something like the name of Pavlov's dog given how simple and programmed your responses are. But, he had like 40 or more dogs, and I can't be arsed to see which ones were used in the conditioned response experiments and not one of his dozens of other theories. But, in any case, I did in fact mention microbreweries and winery movements and that they represent a nearly insignificant percentage of the market in total. I also mentioned that they are subject to the same excise and usage taxes as large entities. That rather large barrier to entry prevents many, if not most potential small producers who'd like to just provide for a small customer list and directly market to clients. As far as favoring one "business interest" over another, then yeah, I suppose that's technically true. I'm a big supporter of the direct-marketing approach to fair and competitive pricing and community-supported agriculture models. I'm also a big proponent of the urban agriculture movement and the return of responsible, sensible and sustainable farm practices. I'm a big supporter of legislation that grants fee and regulatory exemptions that protect the competitiveness of small and medium scale producers and promotes productive localized economy. Please note, that it's not active legislative regulation that helps small/medium agriculture but exemption from regulatory requirements that allows them to not only offer superior food to their clients, but also do so at a market competitive price. If there were similar protections for small scale alcohol production, you wouldn't see just a small handful of microbreweries, but larger market presence of smaller entities. But, like I said... it's a reseller's law. As a proponent of source to customer interactions and the removal of intermediaries, I can see all too well how this ambiguously worded proposition will work for the very corporate models that have failed to provide the quality of life promised while enriching themselves anyways.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 18, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> 1 person getting arrested for having under an ounce is too many.


And one sick person dying for lack of medicine is criminal.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 18, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> tl;dr
> 
> cool story bro


Didn't read it?

Not surprised.

Everything he wrote is right on the money.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 18, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Nah man. Under prop 19 you can start your own business, get a commercial grow permit, and do warehouse or greenhouses with potentially unlimited sq footage.


I talked to a few more folks last night.

The consensus is, this thing won't pass.

Too many fleas.

Now we know who the enemies of legalization really are.

Greedy wannabe drug lords, like Mr. Kone.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 18, 2010)

Strange thing. For the most part, people only voice their opinion when they feel comfortable to do so.

Chances are those people you spoke to already knew of your position on the matter. Either from prior knowledge, or from slight inclinations from your tone. Either intentional, or not.


----------



## SB Garlic (Sep 18, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> I talked to a few more folks last night.
> 
> The consensus is, this thing won't pass.
> 
> ...


Enemies of legalization are the people like you pulling 30k+ out of their backyard every summer. Also the DEA and street gangs and drug cartels.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 18, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Strange thing. For the most part, people only voice their opinion when they feel comfortable to do so.
> 
> Chances are those people you spoke to already knew of your position on the matter. Either from prior knowledge, or from slight inclinations from your tone. Either intentional, or not.
> 
> View attachment 1163555


Oddly enough, my friends understand me well enough to speak their minds. They're bright people and aren't afraid of a heated discussion.

In other words, they'd tell me what they think, regardless of my position.

Good friends. 

The only kind to have.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 18, 2010)

SB Garlic said:


> Enemies of legalization are the people like you pulling 30k+ out of their backyard every summer. Also the DEA and street gangs and drug cartels.


I'm saving myself that much, but don't sell it. I put about $1000 into my garden annually, including veggies. I'll sell you a nice watermelon at cost.

Accusing me of selling is an exercise in ignorance.

In other words, you are in over your head.

Addresss the issues, or STFU.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 18, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Oddly enough, my friends understand me well enough to speak their minds. They're bright people and aren't afraid of a heated discussion.
> 
> In other words, they'd tell me what they think, regardless of my position.
> 
> ...


The far and few between. Yes, good friends indeed.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 18, 2010)

I love that this country gives people the right to hate others for thier beliefs.
It the American way and a right that I would die and kill for.

After being threatened,namecalled,and down right put down for going public with my choice to vote NO on prop19 buy my fellow RIU members Ive decided to vote YES!


Yeah right, Ive made my line im ready to fight to the end win or loose for my beliefs so. 


and one other thing, dont quote me boy cause I aint said shit!


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 18, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> After being threatened,namecalled,and down right put down .......


What are you referring to?
You were once insulted by a member on this thread 2 days ago.
Get over it.
This is not a place for lines in the dirt.This is a forum for discussion.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 18, 2010)

i'm just gonna close ALL these prop 19 threads. it's not like anything is coming out of them.


----------

