California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative 2012

stonedmetalhead1 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

People vs Kelly

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

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

stonedmetalhead1 said:

True

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

stonedmetalhead1 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Vote yes on 19.

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

stonedmetalhead1 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Reassurances abound, but no language in the text.

LEOs love that shit.

stonedmetalhead1 said:

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

Click to expand...

Bullshit!

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

veggiegardener said:

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

Reassurances abound, but no language in the text.

LEOs love that shit.

Click to expand...

You write clearly, so I assume you can read:

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

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

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

Moldy said:

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

Click to expand...

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

desert dude said:

You write clearly, so I assume you can read:

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

stonedmetalhead1 said:

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




Section 2B is "purpose" and is an outline of what the law portion of the bill intends to address and is not constituted as actual law being voted on. Section 3 is the actual law part of the bill which doesn't mention prop 215 at all.

Click to expand...

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

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

stonedmetalhead1 said:

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




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

Click to expand...

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

stonedmetalhead1 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

Hello everyone,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Together we can do this!

Dannabis Ruderalis
CCHHI SD 2012
Vice Coordinator