California will Vote on Recreational Pot in Nov

[oneofus]

Next ; As Letitia Pepper states; and a few informed members have noted:


"Furthermore, as I’ve already noted, no city nor county can do what the State itself cannot do. Since the State of California could not lawfully ban patients from cultivating marijuana — a right protected by the California Constitution — it cannot give its political subdivisions a right it does not have itself. Additionally, cities and counties cannot use the police power to forbid an activity protected by the California Constitution, so they cannot ban cultivation.

Nor may cities and counties impair such a right by the imposition of taxes and similar controls. Under Prop. 215 this is a right; under Prop. 64 it will be a revocable privilege, and therefore subject to being taxed and permitted out of reach. "

http://theweedlynews.com/2016/09/12...persists-facebook-is-misleading-you-not-them/

These are facts friends.

Also; I thought this was interesting.

" PS — My computer was hacked, more than once, my email account was compromised and I lost most of my contacts, and, as I noted above, Facebook refuses to recognize my password, and every time I create a new password, I get stuck in a loop that never lets me get to the final step that gives me access.
Is this a coincidence? I do not think so, given Sean Parker and friends’ involvement in trying to pass this POS Prop. 64. So please pass this info on to FB by posting it to your pages. Thanks! "


Imagine that. Illegal censoring is a common tactic used by the honest man with nothing to hide; correct?

I have seen those against AUMA being censored multiple times by multiple people. Any group or idea that adheres to trash philosophy like that; should be immediately opposed & removed.

@trippn,

thanks for posting this cogent and concise interpretation of the California Constitution as stated by Ms. Pepper.

We also only need to look at People v. Kelly to see what the California Supreme court has had to say about anyone trying to modify Prop 215. It just can't be done by anything short of another Constitutional amendment and AUMA ain't it. Same goes for the MMRSA/MCRSA passed by the legislature.

Strangely, although I've done some digging, I can't seem to find much on anyone pursuing a lawsuit against the MCRSA except for a mention of one disp operator and that was back in Nov. 2015. I can't seem to find anything else on that case nor any other lawsuits against the MCRSA as being an unconstitutional attempt by the legislature to modify a Constitutional amendment.

Can you see if you can dig out what the status of lawsuits against MCRSA is?

I feel that the exact same arguments against AUMA will apply if this blood-sucking leech of a proposition were to somehow pass, in spite of the fact that I am personally convinced it will not.

All the old people who still believe in the government sponsored "Reefer Madness" bs are against it - and leave us not forget that their demographic is the one that always comes out in the largest numbers... - , the Trump supporters who will come out in droves are against it, almost all the people in the ban counties are against it by default, as are all the rest of the conservatives etc. This thing hasn't got a chance in hell of passing, but if it somehow did, again, I refer to People v. Kelly for a quick spray of Raid to kill it deader than a door nail.

The only question is how long will that take.

@tessa,

thanks for posting that excerpt from the weedly news on the actual key to the deception here. That being that it's not actually AUMA in and of itself per se that Pawn Sharker wants to use to kill 215. It's the power that if it actually were a legally valid initiative - which it is so obviously not - it's the local municipalities that would be empowered to do so on a local jurisdictional basis. Excellent digging, my friend, and the most cogent expose of how and why it would work if were able to be enforceable/applicable to 215, which it is not.

Thanks to both of you for exposing the truth for all to see

Major respect to the both of you for carrying the fight so well.


BTW, I'm really enjoying the hell out of the way you two are just ripping the AUMA supporters new assholes. Excellent intellectually-based derisive sarcasm coupled with factual data. Love it. keep it up.

 

[yesum]

Just here to troll. I am an old troll, soon to be turned into fertilizer. hehe Bans will not affect indoors to my knowledge and that is what I have to do now.

I am voting Trump and smoke and grow. A lot of Republicans and 'conservatives' are sick of the war on drugs, mostly pot. I am neither but certainly not a democrap.

You youngins will just have to find another gig. Writing stuff without end seems to suit you, how about you become authors?

The funny thing is that this almost certain to pass. You could at least try to deal with reality as it is now. Like I said, I wish everyone could grow some plants in their backyard, make a comfortable living and not risk jail. While dealing with regulations similar to selling produce.

You have been living a fairy tale existence.

 

[geneva_sativa]

Just here to troll. I am an old troll, soon to be turned into fertilizer. hehe Bans will not affect indoors to my knowledge and that is what I have to do now.

I am voting Trump and smoke and grow. A lot of Republicans and 'conservatives' are sick of the war on drugs, mostly pot. I am neither but certainly not a democrap.

You youngins will just have to find another gig. Writing stuff without end seems to suit you, how about you become authors?

The funny thing is that this almost certain to pass. You could at least try to deal with reality as it is now. Like I said, I wish everyone could grow some plants in their backyard, make a comfortable living and not risk jail. While dealing with regulations similar to selling produce.

You have been living a fairy tale existence.

Greetings Yesum,

I have thought about this a lot, like most that have followed this thread, and something I feel is crucial to all this, is that we are all important in this, but we are a varied lot, at different stages of our lives.

What I have heard often in this thread from some of the generation older than myself is, something like, " I just would like to grow six plants in freedom. " And, " If I could only see legalization before I die, I would be a happy man. "

I got 0 qualms with either, ( Although, I think that voting something that reduces freedoms and sets up unfair privileges just for the sake of LEGALITY is detestable. )

AUMA is not about leveling the playing field as it might sound like, it actually is the exact opposite.

Right now, there exists the chance for anyone, if they are so willing, to grow a fair amount of ganja. This benefits a wide strata of society from medical patients, breeders, business people, and more. And if you wanted to do it, you or anyone else here that has been promoting AUMA, could. And none of these guys here opposing AUMA would care or feel threatened in the least if you guys decided to utilize Prop 215.

AUMA will make that level playing field dramatically tilt in favor of the rich and connected.

And as I said, we are at different places in life's road, and just because some youngsters are on the upswing and some of us older are levelling out, or moving towards our twilight years, we shouldn't try to make it so only one of those groups benefits, at the expense of the others, right ?

Six plants is enough for some, but not really freedom to do anything of consequence with cannabis. And Sam knows this as well as any breeder. If it is enough for you, fantastic. But know that there are others with more motivation, ambition, or just plain fucking nuts delusions of grandeur, than you. Why try and shut them out of the equation, just for the "Legal" biscuit that is being thrown to you ?

By the way, I think it is mucho foolish to marginalize old, young or anywhere in between people.

 

[yesum]

^^ 2 things. I have said this a bunch, but there are cities now where you can not legally grow even indoors, and this will expand for sure.

What industry, most importantly a 'vice' industry, do they not regulate, tax, the hell out of? Also favor bigger players. This biscuit is about all I would expect to get from the powers that be. Asking more is a surefire way to keep this plant illegal indefinitely, and yes it is illegal, even if you will not do time over. The law as I understand it gives rights somewhere about the same as making moonshine.

I do not think you can even sell moonshine as far as that goes. I am more interested in my 6 plants than some gray area seller, you got that right. Same could be said of the caregiver-cashcropper.

 

[_tessarecting]

The bans are bullshit...unconstitutional....no ones going to raid you over 6 plants indoors. Thats what? 600 watts? It's legal regardless of the semantics you use. You should be pissed your government is trying to pull shit it can't even legally defend and oppress you. Waiting for them to "legalize" is like waiting for pigs to fly.

 

[trippn]

oh shit boys; backup has arrived.

This crew does not appear to be taking this lightly; things are about to get heated

https://www.instagram.com/p/BKmPI9-gkNq/?taken-by=wfw_project

 

[trippn]

^^ 2 things. I have said this a bunch, but there are cities now where you can not legally grow even indoors, and this will expand for sure.

What industry, most importantly a 'vice' industry, do they not regulate, tax, the hell out of? Also favor bigger players. This biscuit is about all I would expect to get from the powers that be. Asking more is a surefire way to keep this plant illegal indefinitely, and yes it is illegal, even if you will not do time over. The law as I understand it gives rights somewhere about the same as making moonshine.

I do not think you can even sell moonshine as far as that goes. I am more interested in my 6 plants than some gray area seller, you got that right. Same could be said of the caregiver-cashcropper.

what if something happens to your six plants?

Don't you think you deserve 6 more backup plants?

You see how AUMA .. is nowhere near "legalization"?

 

[trippn]

@trippn,

thanks for posting this cogent and concise interpretation of the California Constitution as stated by Ms. Pepper.

We also only need to look at People v. Kelly to see what the California Supreme court has had to say about anyone trying to modify Prop 215. It just can't be done by anything short of another Constitutional amendment and AUMA ain't it. Same goes for the MMRSA/MCRSA passed by the legislature.

Strangely, although I've done some digging, I can't seem to find much on anyone pursuing a lawsuit against the MCRSA except for a mention of one disp operator and that was back in Nov. 2015. I can't seem to find anything else on that case nor any other lawsuits against the MCRSA as being an unconstitutional attempt by the legislature to modify a Constitutional amendment.

Can you see if you can dig out what the status of lawsuits against MCRSA is?

I feel that the exact same arguments against AUMA will apply if this blood-sucking leech of a proposition were to somehow pass, in spite of the fact that I am personally convinced it will not.

All the old people who still believe in the government sponsored "Reefer Madness" bs are against it - and leave us not forget that their demographic is the one that always comes out in the largest numbers... - , the Trump supporters who will come out in droves are against it, almost all the people in the ban counties are against it by default, as are all the rest of the conservatives etc. This thing hasn't got a chance in hell of passing, but if it somehow did, again, I refer to People v. Kelly for a quick spray of Raid to kill it deader than a door nail.

The only question is how long will that take.

@tessa,

thanks for posting that excerpt from the weedly news on the actual key to the deception here. That being that it's not actually AUMA in and of itself per se that Pawn Sharker wants to use to kill 215. It's the power that if it actually were a legally valid initiative - which it is so obviously not - it's the local municipalities that would be empowered to do so on a local jurisdictional basis. Excellent digging, my friend, and the most cogent expose of how and why it would work if were able to be enforceable/applicable to 215, which it is not.

Thanks to both of you for exposing the truth for all to see

Major respect to the both of you for carrying the fight so well.


BTW, I'm really enjoying the hell out of the way you two are just ripping the AUMA supporters new assholes. Excellent intellectually-based derisive sarcasm coupled with factual data. Love it. keep it up.

I know there are definitely more than a few informed folks who know MMRSA is illegal; I suppose people are waiting to see how AUMA falls into place before worrying about MMRSA perhaps?

Telling enough how Jerry Brown signed MMRSA into law in the first place; with ZERO voter input; absolutely illegally invalidating and over riding prop 215. The nerve of our elected officials makes my blood boil. Such an egotistical greedy bastard to assume he can steal the rights from hundreds of thousands and expect us to do nothing. What a fool.

How about who he picked to head the MMRSA; never smoked pot Republican ; Lori Ajax.

:http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-lori-ajax-marijuana-regulator-20160408-htmlstory.html

"Did you vote in favor of Proposition 215, the measure legalizing medical marijuana, and why? "

"I don't remember, to be quite honest with you. That was a long time ago. " - Our future Cannabis overlord.


Oh for the love of God you have to be kidding me!!?!

 

[geneva_sativa]

. . .

 

[oldchuck]

I read an article yesterday in a business publication that said billions in venture capital would flood the California weed business if AUMA passes.

 

[iBogart]

When they turn up and see 6 scrogged out wenches doing the whole of 220 square yards they can F off.. If your legit your legit.

Word to your mutha

Yes on 64

 

[_tessarecting]

So after everyone showing what a sham 64 is and how everyones arguments for it are now moot, all you have is a yes on 64, and a pat on the back for the troll? I've got another one to add to the ignore list.

 

[geneva_sativa]

Just here to troll. I am an old troll, soon to be turned into fertilizer. hehe Bans will not affect indoors to my knowledge and that is what I have to do now.

I am voting Trump and smoke and grow. A lot of Republicans and 'conservatives' are sick of the war on drugs, mostly pot. I am neither but certainly not a democrap.

You youngins will just have to find another gig. Writing stuff without end seems to suit you, how about you become authors?

The funny thing is that this almost certain to pass. You could at least try to deal with reality as it is now. Like I said, I wish everyone could grow some plants in their backyard, make a comfortable living and not risk jail. While dealing with regulations similar to selling produce.

You have been living a fairy tale existence.

many people, young and old have been living a " fairytale " existence (as you so smugly put it) for the past 3 decades.

but I guess these people, familys, and communities are the youngins and undesirables that you advise to wake up, snap out of it, and get a job ?

you might be the one due for a wake up call.

So many people have been chiding these guys opposing AUMA as greedy, money hungry brats.

But, have you no fucking common sense ? Who are you opening the door to by voting for AUMA ? Think about this, dingbat.

Some areas in Cali are blessed to have some of these fine human beings amongst them, you think big business is gonna support the locals like many of these guys do ?

sad to hear such things coming from you yesum

 

[iBogart]

So after everyone showing what a sham 64 is and how everyones arguments for it are now moot, all you have is a yes on 64, and a pat on the back for the troll? I've got another one to add to the ignore list.

Everyone? All you guys complaining are stuck in yesterday with no innovative ideas. If you can't figure out how to make the laws work for you, then, I'm sorry, you'll be left out of the game with your measly six plants.

Just vote no and continue to support this:

http://www.thecannabist.co/2016/09/21/california-marijuana-farm-captives-forced-work/63604/

 

[geneva_sativa]

oohhh the progressive angle, yeah bogart ?

what an elitist vibe from the pro AUMA camp

" everybody heading for the top, tell me how far is that from the bottom ? "

keep imagining you are going forward and oh so innovative. . .

the earliest cultivators 10,000 plus years ago were light years ahead of you

 

[AeroKush102]

interesting thread.

 

[yesum]

Yeah I am advising a lot of growers to wake up to the fact that this or similar will pass and make them irrelevant, or certainly could. Not my call to make, it is being made for me. I said if it were up to me, we can all grow in our backyard and make a nice living.

6 plants is a joke, I get it. Once again, not my call, not my choice. Given the fact that pot is still lumped with heroin federally, I think 6 plants is barely adequate for a first ever legal law. Progress to me, but not to many here. Canopy size should have been the limiting factor of course.

In a way I am wimping out by supporting 64, I admit it. This is politics and compromise is part of it.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

oh shit boys; backup has arrived.

This crew does not appear to be taking this lightly; things are about to get heated

https://www.instagram.com/p/BKmPI9-gkNq/?taken-by=wfw_project

WOW, now I will vote No on Prop 64 for sure. I am so scared by this crew that I will just blindly do what they tell me to do. I would think they might remember they are veterans and they fought to keep the bill of rights alive, the American Constitution, that includes having the rights to different opinions then the project veterans? To me they sound more like Trump bullies, trying to scare and force others to think their way? wfw_project you have zero influence on the ballot and you are wrong about AUMA Prop 64, which I will Vote YES For. The election will be decided by non smokers, they are the majority of voters in Calif, and the polls say the vote will go YES on Prop 64 AUMA.
-SamS

 

[bombadil.360]

The people at NORML in California have a pretty good guide to Auma 64, pointing out the weak points and explaining how they can be amended by the voters.

http://www.canorml.org/Cal_NORML_Guide_to_AUMA

Interesting bit on how the people at NORML think of the importance of this passing:

"AUMA will not be the last word on marijuana reform; further changes in state and federal law will be needed to guarantee affordable medical access, protect employment and housing rights, facilitate banking and allow interstate commerce. Regardless of these problems, AUMA compares favorably to similar legalization measures in other states. If California voters approve AUMA, the pressure for federal marijuana law reform could finally become irresistible to politicians in Washington; if not, it will no doubt be interpreted as a major setback for marijuana reform at the national level."


AMENDMENT: SECTION 10
The legislature may by a 50% majority vote (1) reduce any penalties in the act, (2) add protections for employees of licensees, or (3) amend Section 5 (Medical Use) or Section 6 (Regulation and Safety) consistent with the purposes of the act. A 2/3 vote is required for other amendments.


Section 6 is where local bans can be found, and even local bans can be amended and even up-lifted for good.

All you gotta do is speak up, go out and vote.

Pretty simple.

 

[iBogart]

oohhh the progressive angle, yeah bogart ?

what an elitist vibe from the pro AUMA camp

" everybody heading for the top, tell me how far is that from the bottom ? "

keep imagining you are going forward and oh so innovative. . .

the earliest cultivators 10,000 plus years ago were light years ahead of you

Innovative was the wrong word. Creative is the one.


Not being elitist, just giving some truth. The market rules the rules eventually. It's our own demand that creates supply, not the other way around. Vote no crowd can't stop the incoming tide. And it's coming in.