Is PROP 19 Really Good for 215 patients or are we being TRICKED??

As I undertand it will not effect prop 215 patients, atleast intially, if passed those restrictions will apply to all non-med users. Im somewhat confused since right now in California because of the supreme courts decision we can basicly have and grow as much as we can prove that is all for personal medical use. So for instance with my doctor I have a weekly amount on file for my protection, trust me my amounts will protect me if needed, not sure how else you could prove the amount your growing is for personal use. I know people that have 50-99 plants right now who last year were growing 6-36 and really do have a legitimate defense if they do get raided, but it still somewhat of a gamble, Im growing a few more than last year but Im not going too big quite yet. Also I think the only way we can have a clear law about how many we can grow is if the it goes to the ballot and we vote it in. Now Im not 100% sure on anything really except I know you can have 6/12 right now for sure without a worry in the world, although I think I understand it all correctly, if someone knows different please let me know. Take Care E1, Peace!

KlosetKing said:

i see what your getting at now and i agree that it could be seen as a double tax in some areas due to that. But i would also say keep in mind the restrictions by law a recreational user would have over a medical user. i speak primarily of possession alone.
if this bill had no written effect on medical patients, then it stands to reason that a medical patient could not only grow more plants, but posses more on them at once. a quick look at http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881 and you can see that while 3 states allow only an oz on a med patient, most of them are at least 2 ounces, with 6-12 plants, and some even go as high as 24oz at (OR and WA). so ya i see it may hurt a few people in some states, but the state in question, California, has 8 oz usable; 18 plants (6 mature, 12 immature), and a fee of only 33-66 dollars on average. sounds to me like the medical patient is getting the better end of the deal than a recreational user.

again iam not saying that in other states this may effect med patients differently, but in California, it doesn't seem like its going to directly influence anything for medical users, except for maybe a drop in price due to availability. id be more wary of pharmaceutical companies finding a way into the industry.

Click to expand...

I agree. Personally, myself, I don't mind prop 19. I stand to benefit from it. I can do more with a 5x5 area than I can use myself and I'm more than happy to grow my own. This bill however doesn't fall inline with my long term agenda or idea of what needs to happen. If this get's passed what's really going to happen is restrict the market.

Sure they've said a licensed grower can grow cannabis. The feds have also said with a license I can grow hemp, and that I can own a machine gun. Unfortunately to do this day I'm still looking for places I can buy those licenses. I'd LOVE to own a machine gun more than I'd like a 5x5 grow area. So far the only licenses I know of are those issued to card holders, and they're not upping our limits to grow more. That lends to the idea they're trying to do something with the current "surplus".

People that don't buy a card can't grow more than they need, nor sell it to a dispensary. California is in hopes the people that don't want to pay tax will grow and the people that don't want to grow will be happy getting to pay a rediculous price. The state don't make squat in sales tax if this is $40 an oz. They make that much themselves if it stays near $400.

whiteflour said:

I agree. Personally, myself, I don't mind prop 19. I stand to benefit from it. I can do more with a 5x5 area than I can use myself and I'm more than happy to grow my own. This bill however doesn't fall inline with my long term agenda or idea of what needs to happen. If this get's passed what's really going to happen is restrict the market.

Sure they've said a licensed grower can grow cannabis. The feds have also said with a license I can grow hemp, and that I can own a machine gun. Unfortunately to do this day I'm still looking for places I can buy those licenses. I'd LOVE to own a machine gun more than I'd like a 5x5 grow area. So far the only licenses I know of are those issued to card holders, and they're not upping our limits to grow more. That lends to the idea they're trying to do something with the current "surplus".

People that don't buy a card can't grow more than they need, nor sell it to a dispensary. California is in hopes the people that don't want to pay tax will grow and the people that don't want to grow will be happy getting to pay a rediculous price. The state don't make squat in sales tax if this is $40 an oz. They make that much themselves if it stays near $400.

Click to expand...

excellent then i think we are on the same page. that was my first worry, the fact that the big push in this is to make money for the state, and if it does legalize, the price will drop (in theory) removing the very incentive that got it passed. but, this is also why i think licenses to grow will be more easily available than a license to get a MG because that is probably where they will make their lost revenue due to price drop. say you charge 50 or even 100 bucks for a license to grow, and make you have to renew that once a year, they can still make up for that tax loss.

again, this is all speculation and no one will ever truly know until the bill passes. but one thing is clear to me, we need to stand together patients AND recreational users and work to end this ridiculous prohibition. as i see no TRUE negative side effects at this time for patients, i implore them all to vote for the bill. progress is progress, and we cant let fear of its effect on laws already in effect prevent that progress.

Yeah that's my main problem though. They haven't really made any mention of how much licensing will cost, or if it will even be available. The legislation is laid out like a bad game of madlibs. There's a big fit prize at the end, legalization, but they just put a bunch of blanks and guesswork in legislation as to how it will happen. I kind of get the feeling this will still all be on the backs of the medical growers and the dispensaries. A lot of people are going to opt out of getting a card because they can grow or get it from a friend. Some if not a lot of those people are currently implored in the caregiver scheme. For every patient a caregiver loses that's less supply on the market, meaning higher prices, and larger sales taxes.

Now consider all the MMJ action going on elsewhere right now. Let's fathom for just a minute that North Carolina gets their MMJ program passed and has a plethora supply of pot, and that will happen, because their legislation allows perpetual gardens. That supply has to go somewhere, so the tobacco industry is going to get behind supplying the MMJ states, and push the FDA for rescheduling. Congress will be motivated to oblige because that's a SHIT POT of tax dollars, and why not 1/3 of the nation is breaking the law already?

If that happens marijuana automagically becomes a commodity because anybody can grow. Cigarettes will be the manufactured product. California will lose a lot of tax money because now marijuana is $40/oz because it grown in mass quantity in an agricultural state with corporate funding. California in turn goes back to Prop 19 and starts filling in the blanks to drive the price of the commodity back up. They guarantee their own profits but do so at your leisure.

While I do stand to benefit from Prop 19 I won't be voting for, or against it. I'll be absentee voting in North Carolina.

and i think thats where the definitive line is. i personally do not see any major tobacco companies getting involved in it, at least not for a long while. as for pushing the FDA rescheduling that is also already happening without the tobacco industry. The AMA has recently called for it, and i believe the Oregon Board of Pharmacy has already rescheduled it. Granted thats only one state, but that is exactly how these things will happen. one state at a time. so again i ask, what is more important. getting our favorite thing legalized so we can stop feeling like criminals (patients and recreational users alike) or should we sit and continue to be persecuted because we are afraid that the first bill wont work. if you look at half the states who have MMJ, they are all creating similar bills to change the way their MMJ works. nothing is perfect the first time, and it will be a while before we even rid of all the misinformed old bastards that run our country. but getting the first one passed, that is integral, its the first step, and it has to be taken.

I think you're being a little naive to what corporate lobbying can do. Nobody in California has ever presented any REAL tax dollars for the federal government here. They've created some revenue through income taxes sure. Until this is profitable for the Country the feds could care less. North Carolina opens up a real economic oppurtunity since the corporations are already in state, they have the market, and the supply chain. These aren't things mom and pops pull off overnight when their not even telling us how/where to get a license. That's more legislation we have to deal with locally, in years to come.

I agree the tobacco industry isn't going to 'move' to get involved. And they're certainly not going to bat an eyelash unless it's rescheduled. But you have to ask yourself why did Phillip Morris back up the FDA getting involved with tobacco recently? They have fought FDA regulation tooth and nail for years and with good reason. Makes you wonder if they aren't getting their ducks in a row to become a Pharmaceutical company. The tobacco industry makes or loses hundreds of millions of dollars on less than 1% market share, and profit margins of pennies. Taxes do not help them it helps the government.

The pump billions into this economy in tax funds already. It's a dying business and moving off shore. You really want to sit around thinking the feds aren't going to bail them out to save that money? The only people making money on tobacco now is the corporations, because it's heavily weighted on the international market.

i slightly agree, but also i think that is contorted thinking. I personally think Phillip Morris is doing what they are doing because they knew they were about to get busted for child labor. sure its in another country, but they know that with the huge changes they are making to tobacco (cant label them lights anymore, no more cloves or flavored cigs, they almost got rid of menthol completely) they cant afford our government getting angrier with them. we raise a huge fuss about anybody using child labor anywhere in the world, whether we can actually do anything about it or not, we put sanctions out, or feed enough bad press out until they change on their own. Doesn't look so good when its an American company in another country doing the things we hate so much. Phillip Morris could very simply be trying to get a bit more favor. with all the regulations that have passed i would say if anything the FDA is NOT happy with cigarette companies, and it shouldn't be seen as them giving more money to them. they are removing the tobacco tricks to get young smokers, they are removing mislabeling tactics to make some cigarettes seem 'safer' than others, and they are raising the tax to unbelievable amounts. does that mean they are getting more money? sure the government is, for now. but smoking WILL decrease due to this, god knows i have cut back (i cant afford 7 bucks a day for my smokes anymore, its absurd).

now it does stand to reason that prices will drop, therefore tax revenue for the state will drop. come to find out it is incredibly hard to find any actual data on how much places like Oakland and Denver have made from taxes on MMJ, but i find it just as hard to find any articles claiming otherwise that actually have any proof. Its easy for some people to say 'show me the numbers' when we offer tax revenue as an idea to pass the law. But how quickly a lot of opinionated blogs and sites forget about that 'data' when they start stating that no money has been made. i assure you money has been made, we just may not know how much for some time. Denver wants to increase this tax by 6%, Oakland is talking about increasing theirs again, Santa Cruz and Long beach are both in talks of introducing the first tax, as are other communities. you start stacking this up, and you are finding plenty of areas that will stand to make some (big or small) money off of this, and in a place like california, every dollar is needed.

That leads to my last thought, which trails off the first thing you said. your absolutely right (i would assume) that the feds havent made ANY money off of these taxes. sounds right to me, they are still opposing it. they cant very well accept money off something they want to continue claiming they dont support. It's why we see the raids in california to begin with. California actually stands to make considerable money if they legalize pot, both through normal use, and through tourism for the 'pot shops' that will undoubtedly open there, not to mention the people like me who will move there (in my case going back to my birth-state) JUST for the legalization. The feds dont like money that they cant take a cut of, and thats exactly what MJ is until they reschedule or federally legalize. Problem is, that is NOT something they want to do. For the time being, MJ prohibition is a stimulus. it creates jail/prison jobs, it provides local police funding, and up until recently, it was still that 'scourge on our streets' that our nation could unite and fight against. it was a war on our own country. Lets not forget the thousand other reasons our government wont get behind it:
Lumber is still a major national Export. Marijuana/Hemp would eliminate much lumber usage, and most other countries are already producing their own MJ, or at the very least are willing and able should the international community accept it as a legitimate crop.
We want to save face; i.e. we don't want to re-neg on something we have been telling every other country in the world is terrible.
Mexico will be PISSED; we have been forcing their hand in fighting marijuana cartels, and they have had literal and metaphorical wars on their streets because of it. we legalize, and its a slap in the face to all the lives lost in this 'war' that we forced them into, due to OUR demand.

Ive drawn this out long enough, i apologize. i hope my thoughts didnt get to jumbled along the way. once again, thanks for the great convo.

As of right now I plan on voting No on prop 19, purely because I dont like the regulations proposed in the bill and dont fully know what sort of power it would yield for the state against what the conditions are now for medical users. Ive heard both that it wont effect medical patients and the rights we have now, or that we could end up having to get another liscense, get growing area more restricted with more regulations, not to mention that genetics will get slowly watered down with the increase in growing. Right now in California your golden if you stick to 6/12 plants, but you can actually grow more as long as you can prove that its for personal use, if you ever got arrested and it miraculously made it to trial, which just in my county theres been quite a few raids on people who were over the limits but charges almost always get dropped, Ive havent heard of anyone actually getting sentenced to time, although I imagine there has had to be some just not in county or general area up north. Basicly this bill would have a negative impact on me, now maybe its selfish to worry about that, but being a medical patient I like the way it is right now, especially since the supreme courts decision a few months back. Ive not fully made up my mind yet, but Im for sure leaning torwards voting NO. With this bill or any future bill if needed, I want to know exactly every thing the bill would do, no speculation or "what if's" and if anything make conditions better for medical users especially those that have extremely serious conditions, cancer, hiv/aids, ms I think are most serious then onto anorexia, pain, insomnia etc. The last thing medical users need is a bill that makes us wonder if it would restrict the rights we have right now, I wish/hope it becomes legal someday, personally so far I just dont think this proposition has any positives for patients although it could have some negative side effects, and cheaper prices are not necessarily a benefit if the genetics/quality go down with the prices as well. I would really like to hear as many opinions as possible about this bill before I truely make up my mind, I do care about those out there that its not legal for recreational purposes for, so dont get me wrong I do want legalization.

KlosetKing said:

i slightly agree, but also i think that is contorted thinking. I personally think Phillip Morris is doing what they are doing because they knew they were about to get busted for child labor. sure its in another country, but they know that with the huge changes they are making to tobacco (cant label them lights anymore, no more cloves or flavored cigs, they almost got rid of menthol completely) they cant afford our government getting angrier with them. we raise a huge fuss about anybody using child labor anywhere in the world, whether we can actually do anything about it or not, we put sanctions out, or feed enough bad press out until they change on their own. Doesn't look so good when its an American company in another country doing the things we hate so much. Phillip Morris could very simply be trying to get a bit more favor. with all the regulations that have passed i would say if anything the FDA is NOT happy with cigarette companies, and it shouldn't be seen as them giving more money to them. they are removing the tobacco tricks to get young smokers, they are removing mislabeling tactics to make some cigarettes seem 'safer' than others, and they are raising the tax to unbelievable amounts. does that mean they are getting more money? sure the government is, for now. but smoking WILL decrease due to this, god knows i have cut back (i cant afford 7 bucks a day for my smokes anymore, its absurd).

Click to expand...

But PM really has no reason to invite the FDA in. They've had a supreme court ruling since the 90's saying the FDA had no right to regulate tobacco. Everyone hated it. I was shocked by it, but hey it happened. Tobacco is big business and they have a lot of pull in this country. To start talking numbers game though you have to realize it's Phillip Morris that has the most to lose.

The tobacco companies really don't have a lot holding them here right now. It's actually cheaper to import cigarettes due to the taxing than it is to make them domestically. Now at the same time the tobacco industry can't afford to move to keep the domestic market. The main thing holding them here now is obligations to the state, but as those contracts run out you're going to see more and more off shore movement. That's why they're giving out so many coupons and everything else. Right now the domestic market is just a tit for tat to maintain marketshare and whoever loses will get banished from America, essentially.

While Phillip Morris does have international market share it's not their big business, they've always tried to be #1 in the domestic market. International has been BAT or B&W now Reynolds big game with the Japanese market. But that presents another problem. The Japaness only want to buy American tobacco. They don't want anything to do with tobacco from Europe or S. America. That's the main motivation to add American in the name of "Reynolds American" after the merger. They need to get Japan used to the idea that this is an American company regardless to where it's located. So far that's working.

Phillip Morris is going to have to find themselves a new sand pile to play in because while the domestic market is dying, the international market is flourishing. It's a slow downward spiral for them if they can't find a new "suitable" crop domestically. The only crop that really makes sense is cannabis.

Forgive me if I dont feel sorry for tobacco companies, there products kill thousands of people each year, were talking about marijuana, I see how you want to compare it to what would happen with herb, but who knows where it will all lead to. Just bad analogy to me, weed doesnt kill like tobacco, nor is it even in the same ball park as far as dependency/addiction issues. Seriously why all the fascination with Phillip Morris?

i'm a little troubled we may let the government "tax and regulate" last time they did that with weed you needed a stamp to grow or have it, and the stamps were not for sale.

of course they will tax the hell out of it, like cigarettes, what like $4 tax for every $1 in product. the cost of pot will not go down much and the tax put on it will more than make up for that. it will start small like all tax then go up a little at a time untill they drive it back under ground.

BluffinCali said:

Forgive me if I dont feel sorry for tobacco companies, there products kill thousands of people each year, were talking about marijuana, I see how you want to compare it to what would happen with herb, but who knows where it will all lead to. Just bad analogy to me, weed doesnt kill like tobacco, nor is it even in the same ball park as far as dependency/addiction issues. Seriously why all the fascination with Phillip Morris?

Click to expand...

Marijuana is not safe to smoke. It still contains tar, four times that of tobacco, it still contains carcinogens like benzene. Sure there might not be a direct link to lung cancer but you can rest assured it's coming when it can be studied in depth by anyone. This is all a game for the Pharmaceutical companies. They're perfectly fine with you being addicted to nicotine so long as it comes from a patch, bubblegum, or any freebase form they control.

No one smoking cigarettes is saying their healthy. I'm not advocating anyone start smoking. I wish I never did, but at the same time penalizing those that smoke just so you can make a buck isn't the solution. You want to talk about bad analogies and poor business practices that comes in the form of Pharmaceutical companies and their endless rackets.

And for the matter I depise Phillip Morris, but I find their position to be quite lucrative to this cause. My family is employed by RJR so I'd be happy to see PM roll over tomorrow

phillip morris will not be growing your pot, richard lee will. and he isn't trustworthy. IMO

I'll be growing mine, and I agree on Richard Lee.

I really don't think it's too far fetched to see PM try to make a move on this though. The feds are going to lose a lot of tax money if they leave, which is imminent, but they can minimize that burden by allowing them to get into the MMJ market. They bailed out GM and the banks and they're still losing money. The tobacco companies are still turning a profit despite all the current hardships.

there have been many legal precedents set protecting your rights as a medical patient, aswell as protecting your rights to posses 8 ounces, and grown 6 plants. your limits will not be set by this law because they are two distinct props dealing with two distinct issues, medicinal/recreational. many cases have, as i said, set precedents involving pharmacudicals protecting rights to carry the limits set by doctors, that can be translated into plant growing allowances and are to not be restrained by non-patient limits. the fact that 19 does not mention 215 in the slightest means they are 2 entirely separate entities

and honnestly you people arent gonna trust richard lee? his nickname is the grandfather of medical marijuana. he has so much money invested in medical marijuana assets, growing and selling, currently low taxed, you honestly think he is planning to start all over again and get taxed out the ass for his operations? seeing how he made the bill that wouldnt make any sense.

mikhail chalecki said:

there have been many legal precedents set protecting your rights as a medical patient, aswell as protecting your rights to posses 8 ounces, and grown 6 plants. your limits will not be set by this law because they are two distinct props dealing with two distinct issues, medicinal/recreational. many cases have, as i said, set precedents involving pharmacudicals protecting rights to carry the limits set by doctors, that can be translated into plant growing allowances and are to not be restrained by non-patient limits. the fact that 19 does not mention 215 in the slightest means they are 2 entirely separate entities

and honnestly you people arent gonna trust richard lee? his nickname is the grandfather of medical marijuana. he has so much money invested in medical marijuana assets, growing and selling, currently low taxed, you honestly think he is planning to start all over again and get taxed out the ass for his operations? seeing how he made the bill that wouldnt make any sense.

Click to expand...

Your ignorance is still not sufficient argument to vote in bad legislation. Nice try, though. There is nothing to trust about Tricky Dick Lee.

TokinPodPilot said:

Your ignorance is still not sufficient argument to vote in bad legislation. Nice try, though. There is nothing to trust about Tricky Dick Lee.

Click to expand...

my thoughts exactly..... I've read that entire bill and it doesn't say anywhere specifically that prop 215 people aren't affected in ANY way..... its all indirect crap which is NOT good enough in legal text...

the reason it isnt said is because it doesnt need to be said. the legal precedents are already set

mikhail chalecki said:

the reason it isnt said is because it doesnt need to be said. the legal precedents are already set

Click to expand...

Just because you don't feel the need to use your brain is, once again, no reason for any of the rest of us to stop using ours. As someone who's been involved both directly and peripherally with the "legal precedents" you keep referring to, I can easily see how this ambiguously worded proposition can and would be abused by commercial/government entities. No amount of your "because I said so" argumentation is going to counter that experience.

TokinPodPilot said:

Just because you don't feel the need to use your brain is, once again, no reason for any of the rest of us to stop using ours. As someone who's been involved both directly and peripherally with the "legal precedents" you keep referring to, I can easily see how this ambiguously worded proposition can and would be abused by commercial/government entities. No amount of your "because I said so" argumentation is going to counter that experience.

Click to expand...

straight up man I don't even need to waste my breath now .

spread the word, this bill is flimsy, why pass a flimsy bill?

just because this one is crap doesn't mean there will never be another legalization bill, common.


oh well, if it does pass and they do fuck with us medical people we will fight back for our rights.