"Prop 19 written to take away medical growers rights"

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
Funny how Dennis Peron's lawyer (the original MMJ lawyer in Cali) says exactly the opposite of that.

http://sjcbc.org/2010/09/11/an-open-letter-on-prop-19/
why limit to 5x5 space then for personal use? This seems really telling its about profits for big dispensaries.

And this only protects 1 ounce of personal bud? Right now its not even an arrestable offense to have under 1 ounce in california, in fact its soon to be an infraction downgraded from a misdemeanor. So, this law does nothing to keep people out of jail.
 

growone

Well-Known Member
why limit to 5x5 space then for personal use? This seems really telling its about profits for big dispensaries
there are going to be limits, there are limits with 215
if you feel otherwise, try a 500 plant grow and do a 911 on your self, report the results here
there are going to be limits of some sort, 5 x 5 is the minimum, not a maximum, this space can be expanded, not decreased in prop 19
 

vertise

Well-Known Member
the one ounce is what you can carry not what you can have. Also medicinal patients can grow whatever the doctor says.
 

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
there are going to be limits, there are limits with 215
if you feel otherwise, try a 500 plant grow and do a 911 on your self, report the results here
there are going to be limits of some sort, 5 x 5 is the minimum, not a maximum, this space can be expanded, not decreased in prop 19
actually its the opposite. Read the bill

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 25 square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel.
this means, first off your city or town can not allow you to grow at all. Second, if they do, the maximum they can allow is 5x5 feet.
 

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
the one ounce is what you can carry not what you can have. Also medicinal patients can grow whatever the doctor says.
heres the problem. Right now prop 215 does not have any land use mentioned, it just says you can grow for medical use. However, prop 19 does have land use specific (5x5 feet), since prop 215 doesn't mention this, prop 19 will have precedence.
 

vertise

Well-Known Member
No they cannot superciede state law 25 foot area can not be affected by local law. Also the medicinal grow as stated can be as much as the doc says.
 

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
No they cannot superciede state law 25 foot area can not be affected by local law. Also the medicinal grow as stated can be as much as the doc says.
ok, yes 25 is the maxiumum state guideline and cannot be affected by local law. However, the problem is medicinal growers doesn't have a land use, so it may just default to prop 19. Its covered in the debated pretty well.
 

growone

Well-Known Member
actually its the opposite. Read the bill



this means, first off your city or town can not allow you to grow at all. Second, if they do, the maximum they can allow is 5x5 feet.
not a bill, it's a proposition, bills are for the legislature
you seem to have done a very interesting interpretation
take this in a common sense way, if your municipality could ban growing, it would indeed be a worthless proposition
in which case, do you believe that approximately 50% of the cali electorate(from the polls anyways), would vote in a pointless law?
the only places that would do that are in the north of state, where it probably would make little difference
 

vertise

Well-Known Member
as another rollitup member pointed out, a supreme court ruling stated that it is illegal for medication perscribed by a doctor to be limited because of a conflicting law. Meaning that if a law says that you can only take a certain amount of medicine perscribed by a doctor it is illegal. Therefore if you have a doctors perscription you will not be limited to the specific 25 foot area found in prop 19. A doctor can say you require a 100 foot area to grow your required medicinal marijuana, and you are 100 percent with in your legal right to grow in 100ft area.
 

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
as another rollitup member pointed out, a supreme court ruling stated that it is illegal for medication perscribed by a doctor to be limited because of a conflicting law. Meaning that if a law says that you can only take a certain amount of medicine perscribed by a doctor it is illegal. Therefore if you have a doctors perscription you will not be limited to the specific 25 foot area found in prop 19. A doctor can say you require a 100 foot area to grow your required medicinal marijuana, and you are 100 percent with in your legal right to grow in 100ft area.
unfortunately this isn't clearly the case. Yes, a doctor can prescribe you unlimited amounts, but the land use becomes a separate issue if prop 19 passes since 215 doesn't address this.
 

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
I suggest doubters to watch the debates at Hemp Con this year, part 3 is in the youtube link i posted at the top of the page. You can find all 4 parts from there. Its fairly convincing once you see both sides what this bill is really about.
 

growone

Well-Known Member
if this was as you say it was, would you get the overwhelming percentage of law enforcement, district attorneys, several former DEA big dogs to lobby against such a law?
this would be a god send by their standards, DEA agents would be dancing in the streets where California has a law to reduce the right to grow MJ
all the above groups are campaigning against prop 19 as hard as they can, do you think aligning with these groups is a good thing?
 

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
if this was as you say it was, would you get the overwhelming percentage of law enforcement, district attorneys, several former DEA big dogs to lobby against such a law?
this would be a god send by their standards, DEA agents would be dancing in the streets where California has a law to reduce the right to grow MJ
all the above groups are campaigning against prop 19 as hard as they can, do you think aligning with these groups is a good thing?
interesting question you may ask

Here's some of the information that NORML and other organized "Yes" on Prop. 19 groups are NOT sharing with their members.
As you read this information, you may see why that is so.
The information comes from Conrad Kicznenski, an organic farmer and son of a long-time anti-prohibiton activist, who prepared a 25-page long report on the connection between the Yes on 19 campaign, the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), Monsanto and the big pharmaceutical companies.
Here is a very short version of his report.

"On Drug Policy Alliance's website it states state that DPA is a leading advocate for Prop 19 in California. DPA's board of directors have included ex-deputy directors of the CIA and the department of defense, leading executives from the Carlyle Group, and other defense contractors, presidents of the federal reserve bank, people from IBM, the Rockefeller foundation, and of course George Soros, who is in fact a major shareholder in MONSANTO, as well as multiple other petroleum companies.
"George Soros is likened as the 'father' of the modern Cannabis legalization
movement. His finances have made DPA, MPP and organizations like NORML what they are today. . . All the while his major investments in Monsanto suggest that he
has other interests in the plant as well . . .
"This is more than just Monsanto. GW Pharma has admitted to having "high level"
talks with the FDA, DEA and state legislators from California in their effort to bring their patented Cannabis plants and compounds to market in the U.S.. All the while, GW Pharma has partnered with HortaPharm, which is an R & D company that has compiled the largest Cannabis seed library in the world to deliver to GW Pharma any combination of strains they desire, which are then patented and marketed by GW. GW has sold some of their patent rights to Bayer, which is a bio-tech equivalent to Monsanto.
"Monsanto is also working with the university of Mississippi's Cannabis research program through their affiliate Mallincrockdt, to patent and market Cannabis compounds.
"Monsanto has also heavily influenced Canada's largest hemp research program based in the University of Guelph.
"The DEA, which has licensed Cannabis programs with UM, GW and HortaPharm, has also licensed research done by George Weiblen, who is very close to Genetically Engineering THC-FREE Cannabis plants.
"GW pharma and hortapharm have stated their intent to produce Cannabis strains that do not reproduce viable seed, to protect their genetic copyright, which they have succeeded to patent and proliferate in the market via 'feminized seeds'. All with the help of the DEA and Bayer.
"So, in other words, the legalization movement, being fueled by Monsanto's
shareholders, is merely bringing about the interest of these transnational
companies to corner the cannabis market."
If you want to read Kiczenski's full report, contact him at Conrad Kiczneski <[email protected]>.
Don't be fooled. Prop. 19 was NEVER about legalization, a word that does NOT APPEAR in the text of Prop. 19. It has ALWAYS been about taxation, regulation and control -- that means taxation, regulation and controlling the "little people" (and I don't mean leprechauns, I mean you and me) and pushing us out of being able to grow for ourselves and share with each other. That's why Prop. 19 HAD to affect medical marijuana patients -- if we were allowed to continue to grow and share as much as we need for our medical needs, we wouldn't make a good market.
Prop. 19, if it passes, means that you'll be forced to buy cannabis from the same folks who've brought us unsafe and wildly expensive prescription drugs. It means all those people who've been developing different strains and doing their own research into what kinds of cannabis work best for their health problems -- people who are doing it for love and out of concern for their relatives and themselves, just like in the fact-based movie "Lorenzo's Oil" -- will be pushed out of being able to breed and grow and share.
This isn't legalization -- it's a bloody coup.
Please share this info with your friends ASAP -- the absentee voter ballots go out very soon.
 

growone

Well-Known Member
ok, it's the tin foil hat time
but let us say this is true, Monsanto wants to grow weed
well, if you legalize MJ, corporations can do with MJ what they want growing wise
but that lets us small growers grow, Monsanto can grow their Frankenweed to their hearts content, hope it give the corporate board testicular cancer
i wouldn't touch crap like that with a 10 feet joint clip, i think few will
but no jury is going to convict a small grower after you start letting Monsanto grow, no way
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
why limit to 5x5 space then for personal use? This seems really telling its about profits for big dispensaries.
Because you can grow a pound and a half every 2.5 months with that space. That's quite a bit of bud for personal use. They put that limit to discourage people from selling bud illegally out of their houses. And yes, it is quite a bit of profit for dispensaries. They'll be able to open up to the general public. But so they make money, who cares. This is a big step towards ending prohibition.

And this only protects 1 ounce of personal bud? Right now its not even an arrestable offense to have under 1 ounce in california, in fact its soon to be an infraction downgraded from a misdemeanor. So, this law does nothing to keep people out of jail.
I've been denied jobs because I got busted with 1 gram and a bong. I didn't go to jail, but that shit stays on your record.

More importantly than that it ends most of the probable cause police use to bust people. A cop saying "I smell marijuana" is no longer probable cause for them to invade your privacy. A joint in your pocket doesn't give them permission to search you. etc, etc, etc.
 

vertise

Well-Known Member
square, prop 19 can NOT limit medicinal product for patients. It has already set via a prior case that the supreme court ruled on. It is ILLEGAl to limit legal medication to a certain number when a doctor perscribes it. Also there is no such thing as a 600 dollar per square foot tax. They will not tax buy the foot, if they do collect taxes via personal cultivation it has to be practicle. Which means that if they have 1 million people who grow and they simply set a tax via purchasing a permit of a 1000 dollars for the year that equates to 1billion in tax. The main source of tax collected is not from the growers that do it for personal use, it will be from casual smokers who purchase the product in smoke shops and liquor stores.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
this means, first off your city or town can not allow you to grow at all. Second, if they do, the maximum they can allow is 5x5 feet.
Not true. A city can allow no less than 25sq feet. They can raise that limit as high as they want. Read the bill.
 
Top