homer371
Well-Known Member
where did you come up with 95%?
You know where
. So maybe it's 80%, but the point still stands.
Educate yourself before you vote on prop.19.
- Thread starter mvoltage24
- Start date
You know where
. So maybe it's 80%, but the point still stands.
duchieman
Well-Known Member
No. I was referring to Prop. 19. I know what you are talking about though, we have very similar regulations up here only ours is governed nationally where you guys go right down to the local level, hence the clause that talks about transporting from legal A to legal B through a non participating locality without the fear of being charged. What I was referring to was this. Remember it's from Wikipedia so I'm not sure how accurate it is but it Says you can grow up to 25 square feet but that's about it.
Effects of the bill
According to the State of California, the law will have the following effects.[10]
[edit] Legalization of personal marijuana-related activities
Except as permitted under Proposition 215 and SB 420 laws, persons age 21 and older may:
- possess up to 28.5 grams (1 oz) of marijuana for personal consumption.
- use marijuana in:
- a non-public place such as a residence
- a public establishment licensed for on site marijuana consumption.
- grow marijuana at a private residence in a space of up to 25 square feet (2.3 m2) for personal use.
mvoltage24
Member
i feel exactly as you do calidankk
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
No. I was referring to Prop. 19. I know what you are talking about though, we have very similar regulations up here only ours is governed nationally where you guys go right down to the local level, hence the clause that talks about transporting from legal A to legal B through a non participating locality without the fear of being charged. What I was referring to was this. Remember it's from Wikipedia so I'm not sure how accurate it is but it Says you can grow up to 25 square feet but that's about it.
Effects of the bill
According to the State of California, the law will have the following effects.[10]
[edit] Legalization of personal marijuana-related activities
Except as permitted under Proposition 215 and SB 420 laws, persons age 21 and older may:
- possess up to 28.5 grams (1 oz) of marijuana for personal consumption.
- use marijuana in:
- a non-public place such as a residence
- a public establishment licensed for on site marijuana consumption.
- grow marijuana at a private residence in a space of up to 25 square feet (2.3 m2) for personal use.
As you can see, nothing about dry limits.
Umm I think you missed the part that said:
That is a very clear limit of 28.5 grams.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Can you specify exactly what new felonies would have been added?
I just read through it again, and I do find new laws that are added specific to this prop, but no mention of them being classified as felonies, and all of these things were illegal before.
"Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each offense."
This was already illegal.
"(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years."
So was this. Also if these punishments are harsher than a no-prop-19 situation I don't think it should be used as ammo against prop 19. Anyone 18+ selling to a minor SHOULD be punished.
I also don't follow how "even MORE" will go to prison with prop 19 than without. Any way you slice it I think that's untrue.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
it's over. none of it matters anymore.
It is over, but you should still be able to justify your previous posts.
why should i keep repeating myself?
"even more", as in "on top of those already there".
CultivationArt
Well-Known Member
no one can, all that voted no did it ofor the wrong reason.
like the rumor started about 19 affects 215 and 420
but i didnt.
the right reason would have been to rebel agaist
the government on them having control over our meds.
BUT THEYLL NEVER HAVE CONTROL EVER!!!!
it grows on a plants. and fairly easy.
you cant control what grows out the grownd.
and minors + adults without cards, shouldn be smoking.
let alone vote no. on my side, the extra 25 ft plus my 100 sq ft aread.
99 plants plus what i can fit in the 25 ft area. but its all good.
all the real POT HEADS, your voice was heard. be prepared for the worst.
better hope all heve cards. shits gonna crack down.
like the rumor started about 19 affects 215 and 420
but i didnt.
the right reason would have been to rebel agaist
the government on them having control over our meds.
BUT THEYLL NEVER HAVE CONTROL EVER!!!!
it grows on a plants. and fairly easy.
you cant control what grows out the grownd.
and minors + adults without cards, shouldn be smoking.
let alone vote no. on my side, the extra 25 ft plus my 100 sq ft aread.
99 plants plus what i can fit in the 25 ft area. but its all good.
all the real POT HEADS, your voice was heard. be prepared for the worst.
better hope all heve cards. shits gonna crack down.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
why should i keep repeating myself?
You shouldn't repeat yourself, but you never really explained it. You said:
You are implying that prop 19 will increase the number of people sent to prison as opposed to prop 19 not passing. Unless you meant "more" people, as in additional people that are currently not incarcerated will be incarcerated after the prop passed using the language specifically in the verbage.
But again, I cant find any "new felonies" that are "ADDED" that aren't already illegal.
this is post #11, for the third time now, .....
"even more", as in "on top of those already there".
if the new felonies are already there then why was it even mentioned?
i really have no reason to justify anything to you. like i said, it's over. i'm moving on.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
this is post #11, for the third time now, .....
if the new felonies are already there then why was it even mentioned?
i really have no reason to justify anything to you. like i said, it's over. i'm moving on.
Again as I pointed out merely repeating it again and again does not provide the justification that was requested.
They could be mentioned because the penalties are different than the previous law. That would be an extremely good reason to specifically mention it and put it in the prop. This doesn't mean a new felony is really "added", just that there are different (perhaps more severe) penalties. It's also possible that some of these are now classified as felonies where they weren't before. I don't know, and apparently neither do you.
But I am positive many of the "new" laws specified in the prop are already illegal. I don't think it's necessary to dig up the actual laws that state this, nor do I feel the burden of proof falls on me for that.
It is over, and I am done with it as well. PEACE
duchieman
Well-Known Member
No, I did see that but I guess I assumed that that was in public. That's utterly ridiculous that that they would limit 25 square feet to one ounce, that's why I was asking.That's telling a wine maker he can only fill his barrel 20%. So wouldn't all you'd have is a bunch of sitting ducks all over the state in a chargeable/illegal situation? I don't know, don't feel right to me.
