True.... and a list of all medical patients names addresses ect will be made available to police enforcement......
Easy for them to link medical patients to drivers licenses....when being pulled over guess who will be automactically asked to test
Why not allow home grows for everyone who wants to and for those who dont they have the stores.....choices thats legalization
....I-514 allows a 20x20
I was already set in a firm no on I-502 when I found out there was no referendum; or whatever the technical term is provision perhaps under the proposed code to allow personal growing. And that was long before I heard about the DUI provision, which was another deal breaker.
But on the concept of homegrown... Tobacco and alcohol below 20% ABV can be produced at home legally in most states, for personal use or at least not for profit.
(I.E.: I can give you a bottle of my sparkling wine, but I can't charge someone for it. This includes a offset fee to cover expenses. Same with tobacco I can grow it process it cure it cut it roll it and smoke it and hand out organic tobacco to my close family members or my friends if I want. But I cannot subcontract a person for any processing for any monetary amount, and I cannot sell it. Once again not even to cover my expenses.) For the very reason mentioned in another post on this thread. If it is a legal commodity who is not to prove I didn't buy it at the store? It isn't illegal to toss my receipt. And in that spirit is part of why the ATF was formed, it would take too much manpower to bust people for making a product that is legal to possess and consume. But sales is a whole different matter, and as such can be focused upon and controlled with a semi-minimal effectiveness. And furthermore the ATF has IMOP the ALMOST THE MOST support period from other federal agencies. Why? Because 99% of what the ATF does deal's with... can ya guess? TAX VIOLATIONS yes sir don't steal from the government, they got a monopoly on it.
Essentially my point was if they do not have a grow your own provision, the cost of regulation will be more than the income in question. I-80 in Oregon has come against a lot of opposition from law enforcement just for the fact it does have a home grown provision. They feel nobody is going to pay $350 an ounce for the product if they are able to grow it themselves, and have a fervent belief that not only can a monkey grow cannabis but it can grow "the dank". And that in fact growing high grade cannabis is not much work and with little learning curve. (High grade like that which would supposedly be available from the state but the cannabis strains and potency will be decided upon by an elitist board much like the alcohol control board.)
But furthermore as a provision to allow home growing would not flood the market with cannabis that is sold without taxes, but it will in fact lower demand and with the combination of the "lost novelty" of legal cannabis that will end up driving the expected price down. But as several states are banking on egg's that haven't hatched with their tax plans if the price of cannabis was driven down even forcibly it is doubted that the government would in fact attempt to meet the market's desire and lower the price. Especially considering the item in question is a luxury, and our current governor and our current president LOVE to add extreme taxes to luxuries. Using the argument that price increases lowers abuse, but in my experience a junkie (someone who is a hardwired addict, we have all seen them) will pay whatever price is necessary to get his fix. Whether it be cigarettes, heroine, alcohol or a Hershey bar.
Not to mention if the tax plan is approved for Cannabis regulation I can state with CERTAINTY it will NEVER get cheaper, save for a national reform of some sort. In marketing there is a basic rule, set your price high in the beginning as the price of a product only drops after it's release. If I charge $200 for this model of blender in 1999 I can't charge $215 for the same blender in 2001, price and demand come into effect along with other economic theories to explain the why of this. But moving along to my point, the opposite is in fact true with most government tax regulations.
As a tax is in effect it is gradually increased, the primary factory for which supposedly being inflation. But I have other opinions as to that matter, but I will not take this moment to elaborate upon it. Bottom line sign a tax into law and it only get's bigger, taxes are almost never permanently lowered for anything. Tobacco being case in point, in the last 8 years there have been so many tobacco tax hikes. Some of which being so extreme that they have in fact fueled a black market for imports from countries without tax laws.
And now finally I will be covering the point which I quoted at the beginning of this very very long dialogue. Does everyone remember the story of the 1947 Marijuana tax act? In order to grow cannabis one was required to get a tax stamp for purpose of regulation. But in fact the only way to get the tax stamp was to take the cannabis to the regulators office to be verified. Once you brought in your cannabis you were cited for possession without the proper paperwork, but ya can't get the paperwork unless ya bring in the product in question. Cool trick huh??? A perfect example in entrapment. I cannot confirm this database concept in I-502 but it is not new news to me. I remember they keep bringing up a concept of a "master list" though, year after year. It even got snuck into a few other provisions, but it was repealed due the federal position of cannabis and as such it was considered close to the grounds for entrapment.
Final thoughts on the DUI provision leads me to ask something. What is the legal limit for Oxycodone? Hydrocodone? Hell the non-non-drowsy Allegra?! (confusing eh? it means the zombie state allergy meds) Sure there are provisions in many states, and warnings on the bottle "do not operate heavy machinery" to let ya know be responsible but precaution is a case by case thing and there is no "blanket" system that can tell to a legal extent whether or not you should be driving. Yes there are roadside sobriety tests but those do NOT stand up in court in UNLESS included with a blood test or breathalyzer results. Bottom line adding a DUI provision for cannabis use is a sticky territory period, because
regulation upon the use of a medication is for a doctor not law enforcement nor men in offices with red pens... (They are called lawyers, they help write laws before they are proposed. Mean little buggers most of the time, but handy to have on retainer.) Although there is some SMALL reprieve, the only was to get a DUI sample for THC is a blood test under the wording in question. Ignoring the fact they just snuck in a new law allowing law enforcement to blood test Washington state citizens just in case I-502 managed to pass. Even if you are in their "master database" they can hold ya up for hours, hassle you and in some folks opinion verbally abuse you but
UNLESS YOU ARE A FELON they CANNOT force you to submit a blood test. They can ask all politely and what not but if you are not a felon they cannot force you to get one.
Most of these is from memory and or my interpretation of the subjects/laws in question. I do make mistakes and if any of my information has been misinterpreted or is just plain wrong please politely let me know, and I will look into it.
Wow... a lot going through my brain. Perhaps this dialogue was self therapeutic had a lot going on in my life and a engagement in active thought was a welcome distraction... I apologize if the hippy bored ya'll.
I did vote yes on Gay Marriage! That was eisier to vote on than 502!
