California will Vote on Recreational Pot in Nov

[_tessarecting]

Let me get this straight. You want us to bullet point for you how wrong you are? You claim to read the threads but you continue to spew misinformation thats been proven false time and time again? You are wrong, your arguments dont even make sense, and are clear to everyone even AUMA supporters that you need to actually comprehend the things you're reading. I swear...you step outsde of Fox news vocabulary and everyone starts wiggin out.



http://theweedlynews.com/2016/09/04/how-prop-64-will-destroy-prop-215-patients-rights/

In a nutshell, Prop. 64 is extremely – and deliberately – convoluted, written to create the appearance of protection for patients, but in actuality, destroying them. For example – and this language is often quoted by Prop. 64 promoters out of context – one section says: “Nothing in this section shall be construed or interpreted to amend, repeal, affect, restrict, or preempt laws pertaining to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 [Prop. 215].” Based on that sentence, it almost sounds like Prop. 64 leaves Prop. 215 intact. But context is everything. Look closely. That sentence does not say, “Nothing in this initiative shall be construed or interpreted to amend, repeal, affect, restrict, or preempt laws pertaining to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996”; it says, “Nothing in this section…” And the section where this disclaimer appears is 11362.3 – a section that refers only to where persons may use and possess – not cultivate:

11362.3
(a) Nothing in Section 11362.1 shall be construed to permit any person to:
(1) Smoke or ingest marijuana or marijuana products in any public place, except in accordance with Section 26200 of the Business and Professions Code.
(2) Smoke marijuana or marijuana products in a location where smoking tobacco is prohibited.
…etc.

This section goes on to list a total of eight items, all related to consumption – in public, in cars, on boats, etc. At the end of that section, the disclaimer is found:

(f) Nothing in this section shall be construed or interpreted to amend, repeal, affect, restrict, or preempt laws pertaining to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

To reiterate, this protected section, 11362.3, only covers the rights to consume and possess. So the restrictions on smoking in public, for example, would not apply to patients, who currently may legally consume anywhere tobacco smoking is allowed. Duly noted. Now let’s get to the cultivation section.

11362.1
(a) Subject to Sections 11362.2, 11362.3, 11362.4, and 11362.45, but notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall be lawful under state and local law, and shall not be a violation of state or local law, for persons 21 years of age or older to:

(3) Possess, plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process not more than six living marijuana plants and possess the marijuana produced by the plants…
And here is where proponents of Prop. 64 make the misguided claim that patients would be exempt from this six-plant cultivation limit:

11362.45
Nothing in section 11362.1 shall be construed or interpreted to amend, repeal, affect, restrict, or preempt: …(i) Laws pertaining to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

But they are wrong. This part is crucial: Despite what appears to be a blanket exemption for patients, Section 11362.1 is itself governed by, or “subject to,” another section – 11362.2 – “notwithstanding [regardless of] any other provision of law.” This is the deception. This is the section that overrides and ultimately governs 11362.1 (and by extension, Prop. 215). It can be read as: “Regardless of any other provision of law” — and that includes Prop. 215 — :

11362.2
(a) Personal cultivation of marijuana under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 11362.1 is subject to the following restrictions:

(1) A person shall plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process plants in accordance with local ordinances, if any, adopted in accordance with subdivision (b) of this section.
[This means that, in order to be exempt from the plant limits in 11362.1, a patient must adhere to local law. Therefore, if your city or county bans cultivation – and according to NORML, nearly 75 percent of localities either already have or are considering bans – then you cannot lawfully cultivate, regardless of what 11362.1 says.]
(2) The living plants and any marijuana produced by the plants in excess of 28.5 grams are kept within the person’s private residence, or upon the grounds of that private residence (e.g., in an outdoor garden area), are in a locked space, and are not visible by normal unaided vision from a public place.
(3) Not more than six living plants may be planted, cultivated, harvested, dried, or processed within a single private residence, or upon the grounds of that private residence, at one time. [Bingo. The evidence you’ve been waiting for.]
(b)(1) A city, county, or city and county may enact and enforce reasonable regulations to reasonably regulate the actions and conduct in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 11362.1.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), no city, county, or city and county may completely prohibit persons engaging in the actions and conduct under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 11362.1 inside a private residence, or inside an accessory structure to a private residence located upon the grounds of a private residence that is fully enclosed and secure.
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 11362.1, a city, county, or city and county may completely prohibit persons from engaging in actions and conduct under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 11362.1 outdoors upon the grounds of a private residence.
While literally anyone can throw a seed outside and let Mother Nature do the rest, Prop. 64 does not grant the right to simply plant a seed in the ground and let it grow. In fact, since Prop. 64 gives cities and counties the right to ban outdoor growing, the majority of Californians will only have the option to grow indoor. But indoor cultivation requires careful attention to every minute detail – from temperature, to humidity, to nutrients, to pests; not to mention sophisticated knowledge of horticulture. And growing indoors requires a dedicated space and carries with it high potential of creating mold. Under these circumstances, few patients or, in fact, Californians as a whole, would be able to take advantage of the highly-restrictive privilege to grow their own.

Once and for all, this is the proof we’ve all been seeking. It is now apparent that Prop. 64 does not protect a patient’s most hard-won right: the right to cultivate their own medicine in quantities necessary for their particular ailments. [Check back soon for details on how Prop. 64’s right to grow will be useless for almost everyone.]

It’s understandable that Prop. 64’s supporters have been duped into believing that patients’ right to unlimited cultivation would not be affected: The drafters of Prop. 64 are very clever, indeed, and have done quite a convincing job of giving the appearance of protecting patients’ rights, even though in reality, they revoke them.

And I’m not the only one that Prop. 64 deceived.

Say bye bye to your 6 plants. That argument is moot. If you're in a ban county they're going to see your greenhouse and come down and try to slap you with as many felonies as they can. Just go to bed Dave we dont need your misinformation here.

 

[Mate Dave]

You've heard of the Mob and the Teamsters. Well that is Shantibaba's click there will be shootings disappearings and lots of money go missing.. Remember Nicky and John Gotti.. That's how I think they will be dealing with the pisstakers.

I said literate folks can bullet point, that's a copy paste you clown.. So what if it says that if your out of the Jurisdiction, weed will be cheap available and you can move can't you.. Your already out of the Jurisdiction 1/2 of you so it's no different, just that everyone can grow pot where they are allowed to..

 

[Betterhaff]

After reading posts like that one ^ and checking the vibe from some of the more seemingly vested proponents of AUMA, I suddenly remembered the Ohio Massacre thread

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=326429&page=9

post # 85

I can’t believe you guys, you tell Mate Dave to stop posting here because he’s not from Cali and unless he’s talking about AUMA and then you post up a link to an Ohio thread that you posted in wondering if a mass killing had anything to do with a pending legalization issue.

The Ohio law was a little different than AUMA. The organizers were going to be the producers if passed, period. No licensees’, period.

 

[_tessarecting]

Your argument is so poorly put together and articulated that it makes zero sense. Are you drunk Dave?

 

[Mate Dave]

If your looking to get a following of folks to vote against AUMA I think it would be best done in public where you live and on a highly visited FB page on social media directed to some folks who can vote.

I've read it and I feel the same way as I did before i read it. I don't care.. I wish the folks who need meds and can't grow get it, and that those who have prevented the medicine getting to these folks have the same suffering till they wise up and get on with their life elsewhere.

 

[_tessarecting]

Then you dont support AUMA by default.

 

[Mate Dave]

I don't live in the USA and if I did I wouldn't be subject to the rules, I'd get a licence and crack on not whinge and moan..

 

[_tessarecting]

Right, because this is all about you and your grandeurous license, and not about how everyone's going to get fucked over for this, and because standing up for our rights in a political debate is whinging and moaning, really excellent points there. I'm voting no along with the rest of the state who can see through the lies. Take your misinformation and misunderstanding elsewhere dude.

 

[geneva_sativa]

You can still grow 6 plants so nobody is taking anything away from you as individuals, 'they' are taking the puppet strings and controlling them so bullies can't. You could all club together and share the profits on licence if your clean.. A bit like you do now..

If some of you hadn't smoked before reading then it would make more sense. Cannabis will have you believe that you can fly...

This may be the best thing to happen to the industry..

I can't see Tom Dick and Harry growing the kinda pot in their backyard that someone in a cannabis facility can't do much better for the people and not themselves.. Currently a college dropout with dirty nails can grow weed for sale.. That's wrong.. Get a job..

If I have got this all wrong I expect that some of the more experienced and literate folks could show me where I am being mislead and they could list or bullet point the issues that you think I don't get in your view.

This has got cannabis activists turning into what they would never have become, bias unruly thugs and villains who should be put in place.

First bold segment - you seem not to know how big business and government are fucking over people around the planet.

Second bold segment - you obviously do not know any decent growers or even what true healing herb is like. Buy medicine from your " Marihuana Factory " ? No thanks, bet almost any person would prefer someone that grow the sacred herb with love and respect.

Third bold segment - So, standing up for our rights and the rights of others from an attempt to usurp those rights, is biased, unruly, thuggish, villainous ? And what do you mean, " should be put in place " ?

You sound so much like an occupier - dictator.

 

[Mate Dave]

I hope that works for you.. I'll ask you again in a year if it's worked for you.. Who said it was about me.. It's about getting a solution to the problem.. Nobody has the answer just suggestions and things to try. You should try moving somewhere that allows production if your not tied down to a mortgage and got family ties and bail restrictions..


There is no need to answer the questions in bold.. They are very self explanatory. The reasons below are not conclusive but inclusive along with other aspects of safty and environmentalism.


1) There is a need to find a solution to the problem of excessive pollution and land erosion.

2) You can't grow pot outside like you can under glass for the same price and quality per tonne.

3) The guys who fight the change are seen as actavists regardless of indervidual opinion or reason, just from what perspective that opinion is based on I don't know. If your operating outside of jurisdiction it's a no brainer that your a villain. I am for growing my meds FFS..

We don't need to Dictate when we follow the rules that are set by the service provider..

I would like to see hemp offset some of the carbon that is dumped out of peat beds and trees when you clear the way for these shitty lil farms..

 

[z-ro]

You can still grow 6 plants so nobody is taking anything away from you as individuals, 'they' are taking the puppet strings and controlling them so bullies can't. You could all club together and share the profits on licence if your clean.. A bit like you do now..

If some of you hadn't smoked before reading then it would make more sense. Cannabis will have you believe that you can fly...

This may be the best thing to happen to the industry..

I can't see Tom Dick and Harry growing the kinda pot in their backyard that someone in a cannabis facility can't do much better for the people and not themselves.. Currently a college dropout with dirty nails can grow weed for sale.. That's wrong.. Get a job..

If I have got this all wrong I expect that some of the more experienced and literate folks could show me where I am being mislead and they could list or bullet point the issues that you think I don't get in your view.

This has got cannabis activists turning into what they would never have become, bias unruly thugs and villains who should be put in place.

you sound like a cop

 

[yesum]

The price of pot will drop when 64 passes, meaning what a grower will get for it. Might take a year or 3 but it will.

If not Shantibaba then some other Bill Gates kinda guy or guys will carve out the lion's share. Inevitable as far as I am concerned. But you sellers can keep bitching, if it makes you feel better.

 

[Mate Dave]

I mostly want to see the cost, effect and the environment change for the better.

There is still shit pot in the medi clubs and crap stuff in the fields. Make the most of this season because things will be different next season. You might need to save some moneys aside to get through the next few years.

The media you buy might well not be there at a nice price, you might be getting undercut and under supplied and you will have to go back to the basics in virgin ground if you move..

 

[_tessarecting]

64 would drive the price up because of the taxes and regulations. Price of weed has hardly budged in years. Indoor will never be cheap. It's always going to cost something to process and produce. I predict it will be the #1 cash crop for the rest of our lives like it already has been. You should start getting used to it. Not everyone's going to be using machines or machine processed oil. Bans all over the state and local bans continuing under AUMA further enforce this basic economic principle.

I don't see anyone bitching here but you? It's like you want something, but AUMA isn't it?

Dave, again, you know absolutely nothing about this. You keep digging yourself deeper with these incoherent posts.

 

[Mate Dave]

Small strings are hardly worth pulling are they.. They might as well let you run yourselves out the game with that attitude.. It won't be long.. There isn't enough comprehension in all of you in this thread to muster the litricacy to apply for a permit let alone to read what's proposed..


Sam S and Yesum are exempt from that statement.. There is no indoor market when the OD is as good and 1/2 the price.. You'll wait on the money to come in a long time like I said but you've missed that bit in all the fury and ignorance trying to post a witty response..

Pull my finger..

 

[geneva_sativa]

glad this is all a joke to you, why don't you pull your own finger, mate ?

 

[Mate Dave]

I'm pointing the finger.. There are issues that need to be sorted out globally.. Lets all help a lil bit.

 

[geneva_sativa]

but your ass is not the moon we talking bout

 

[Mate Dave]

I do understand the other flip side to the coin and that it causes a mass inconvenience and disruption but it's not going to go away the problems. I think everyone should be allowed to grow meds, it just should be monitored in commerce as should all the micro business like every other business. You don't grow corn on pasture land like you don't build on flood-planes for reasons. I think backyard growing is the future, all the artisan crops will be unique and susceptible to the ability of the grower, it's your yard, however the larger stuff needs to be made to order on a regular basis without fluctuations.. Something needs to offset the footprint of the not so enviromental growers..

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

64 would drive the price up because of the taxes and regulations. Price of weed has hardly budged in years.

Sure 215 had zero effect on prices? Prop 64 AUMA will do the same.
-SamS

Indoor will never be cheap. It's always going to cost something to process and produce. I predict it will be the #1 cash crop for the rest of our lives like it already has been. You should start getting used to it.

What do you think it costs to grow herb outdoors or in a unlighted greenhouse in Calif.? If legal the costs will fall, fall, fall, you sound exactly like the growers pre passage of 215 they all denied that prices would fall if 215 passed, they were wrong.
-SamS

Not everyone's going to be using machines or machine processed oil. Bans all over the state and local bans continuing under AUMA further enforce this basic economic principle.

I don't see anyone bitching here but you? It's like you want something, but AUMA isn't it?

Dave, again, you know absolutely nothing about this. You keep digging yourself deeper with these incoherent posts.

tessarecting, again, you know absolutely nothing about this. You keep digging yourself deeper with these incoherent posts.
-SamS