Summation and Clarification Regarding California Bill AB 390

[mr noodles]

i wonder...10 mature plants per adult of 21

if we are 2 adult living at the same address ? 10 each right ? mean a garden of 20 would be legal ?

me 10 and my wife 10


and i can grow shit ass huge plant in huge rubermaid...i mean 4 foot wide and almost a 1k lamp for each....longer veg period but lol at the yield !

 

[jawnroot]

So I guess the government should cap how many prescription pills we can take per year also.

There is no cap saying how much or how little someone can or cannot smoke, just how much they can grow. If someone is using more than 100 ounces of grass a year (a quarter ounce per day), that individual is supplying a network of people, and will need to get a commercial license. Period, end of sentence.

As mentioned, there is a cap of 100 gallons for home brewed beer, and no homebrewer is pissing and moaning about that fact, because 100 gallons is far more than most people drink in a year. Indeed, the MJ bill is even more lenient than the home brew standard, because it doesn't say how much you can produce, but only how many flowering plants you can have at once. If you really had an insane setup with some serious trees, you could easily pull a pound or more A WEEK, and still be well within this regulation. That's 52 pounds a year -- how much more do you need?!

Why special treatment with one of the safest drugs on the planet?

This is not special treatment. It is being handled exactly like beer.

Who are you or anyone to say how much medicine someone needs, except a doctor. I know many people that only consume edibles, it takes a lot of herb to make edibles, and as you build a tolerance you can eat more and more, just like a patient who uses Oxycoiton, Vicoden, etc.. etc..

This is not about medical. **This bill has NOTHING to do with medical.** This is about recreational cultivation, sale, and use. Medical laws will stay exactly how they are now.

Just so you are aware of the current laws, 6 plants is the state minimum. If your doctor or county allows more, then you are allowed more.

In my experience, and from everything I'm aware of, doctors will not prescribe more than that unless you have a seriously debilitating condition. I was just using the 6 plant number as a point of reference.

The minimum was set to protect patients from counties who tried to make zero tolerance laws. There is a huge difference between indoor and outdoor plants, capping the plant number is just proof of the ignorance of the bill.

Again, this is not about medical, but recreational use. Capping plant numbers is right in line with the home brewing standard. The cap is in place so there is a clear legal distinction between a personal grower, and a commercial grower.

You can spew false information until your blue in the face. The fact is, this bill is a slap in the face to many patients as well as our Constitution and American rights. You have to think of everyone, and not just a select group of people who would benefit from this.

First of all, everything I've posted is straight fact. Regarding the patients, this bill has ZERO impact on them. Medical laws and standards WILL NOT be impacted by this bill.

Again, you can't expect to have your cake (legalization) and eat it too (personal plantation with no government regulation).

I am not sure where you got your degree from, but both licensing and taxation are forms of government regulation.

It's fairly clear that you completely missed the point of my statement. To spell it out, you can't expect to have legalization without some degree of regulation and/or taxation. That's the way it's going to be, no matter what.

This law would keep prices sky high, even higher then they are now.

Do you have any basis for this assertion?

Once legal, lower quality weed will command lower quality prices -- the budweiser of bud, if you will. Higher quality stuff -- similar to what most of us smoke -- will remain at around the same price point it is now. There is no possible way the prices can get higher. Prices topped out in the mid nineties, and have held constant since then in spite of inflation, because if it got any higher patronage would go down -- people simply cannot afford higher prices.

If anything, once reefer is released onto a free-market system (as opposed to a black-market system), prices will come down due to competition.

Sure grow your own.... what if you cant or don't want to? You ever try growing your own medicine while going through chemo therapy and vomiting 10 hours a day?

MR^^

No, thankfully. But again, the current medical laws will not be altered!

If anything, this bill improves the medical situation. Patients that can grow for themselves will no longer need to pay a doctor for an annually renewed recommendation, and there will be no taxes. Meanwhile, the current medical laws will still be in effect for patients that need more/can't grow for themselves.

AB 390 is nothing but good, and I maintain that anyone who disagrees with this fact either hasn't read the bill, or doesn't understand it.

 

[OldDeadHead]

It seems to me what ever the final wording is, it can only help the movement towards full legalization.
The more the public gets accustom to having cannabis around the more tolerant society seems to be.

 

[Tony Aroma]

It doesn't look like anyone has mentioned or discussed this part of the bill:

25406. Beginning 30 days after the operative date of the regulations issued pursuant to this chapter, or 30 days after the date when federal law permits the possession and sale of marijuana consistent with this chapter, whichever is latest, the department shall begin to enforce the provisions of this chapter.

Looks like this part of the bill—the part about commercial licenses and sales—doesn't take effect until after federal law changes. Is that correct, or am I misinterpreting this section? If I am correct, then all this bill does for the time being is take away criminal penalties for possession. Or am I missing something?

 

[medmaker420]

So I guess the government should cap how many prescription pills we can take per year also.
MR^^

They do, through the doctors

2 refills left.....

 

[B.Grant]

So I guess the government should cap how many prescription pills we can take per year also.

There's a whole section in the Pot-Doc - High: The True Tale of American Marijuana (see link in my sig), about how the DEA currently arrests doctors in the US because of the amount of pain medicine these doctors are prescribing to their patients. Not dope heads, but real pain patients that need these medicines to function daily, can't get the treatment they need, and the doctors are afraid to prescribe what they need for fear of being witch hunted. How sad. If you haven't seen it, you should check it out. If this isn't regulating the amount of pain pills you are prescribed, I don't know what is? And besides, they're DEA, they're not even doctors.

 

[jawnroot]

It doesn't look like anyone has mentioned or discussed this part of the bill:



Looks like this part of the bill—the part about commercial licenses and sales—doesn't take effect until after federal law changes. Is that correct, or am I misinterpreting this section? If I am correct, then all this bill does for the time being is take away criminal penalties for possession. Or am I missing something?

This essentially means "30 days after AB 390 goes into effect, OR after federal law permits the use/cultivation, etc of MJ." It's complicated, but that is basically a legal addition to keep AB 390 valid should the fed legalize. For all intents and purposes, just ignore it.

 

[Koroz]

If you live in Cali: http://gov.ca.gov/interact

Email the Governor and tell him to get behind this bill. Talk in a non combative, clear and concise manner. Use spell check and don't get them ammunition to label us as "stupid" stoners.

You want this bill to pass, he will be the one to likely veto it if it does, and we need to make sure he knows exactly where we stand.

 

[purrpullkush]

I'm for it as long as it doesn't effect medical marijuana laws or policies. I think they should have included a provision for large scale cultivation for the non-medical market also if they are gonna go to all this trouble, since that will certainly continue and could be another source of badly needed state tax revenue.

 

[Mr. Tony]

so 21 years or older 10 mature plants no tax? super scrog anyone? I'm down as fuck....

 

[hippie_lettuce]

the negativity of some people about this bill just GRINDS MY GEARS!!
i think they're just being negative because they're being greedy..that's right, i said the G-word! wouldn't you be happy as hell to be able to grow 10 plants of your own TAX-FREE? Without the repercussions that you have now?! I would!!

 

[B.Grant]

the negativity of some people about this bill just GRINDS MY GEARS!!
i think they're just being negative because they're being greedy..that's right, i said the G-word! wouldn't you be happy as hell to be able to grow 10 plants of your own TAX-FREE? Without the repercussions that you have now?! I would!!

Um...yep. Definitely.

 

[Sir_Nugget]

WHEN WILL THE VOTING TAKE PLACE FOR THIS BILL?!

 

[Skip]

You realize of course that the conservatives are going to fight this by saying, "See, we told you so! After medical marijuana, they want to legalize the whole thing! Prop. 215 was just a gateway to total legalizaton!" And they'd be right. The point is marijuana use, cultivation and sale should not be a criminal act. That's tolerance in a democratic society!

 

[Mr. Tony]

Think about the tourism. da dam but in california

 

[jawnroot]

WHEN WILL THE VOTING TAKE PLACE FOR THIS BILL?!

According to second-hand information, it hits committee the 26th of March. If it doesn't get scrapped right then and there, it'll move to a vote in November.

 

[dongle69]

Does anyone have a problem with this bill funding the drug war?

 

[Jeff Lebowski]

Jawnroot,

Is this to be voted on by the assembly and then the senate, to head to the governors desk?

Or, is this a public bill that the citizens will vote on?

This bill does nothing for me, will not change my life and has no bearing upon my medicinal usage, but I do fear that should it arrive at Arnold's desk he will veto it like he has before. I say before, in reference to the employment bill and multiple hemp bills. This is a huge step forward for the recreational user but with Arnold in office and seeing what happened with Prop 8 and the amazing conservatives with religious backing, I fear the worst. On a public vote, would churches donate millions to stop this and would the public approve? Most assuredly Arnold would not sign this, I am not sure why but it's his MO. Certain areas of CA are still very staunch about this subject and I am not sure if public support is there. Someone should do a poll in CA on who supports MMJ to gauge the possibilities. Nonetheless, this is a step forward not only for users, but for politicians as well.

 

[On The BBC]

Jawnroot, I appreciate your explanations of this bill. Those of us outside of California are certainly watching with interested eyeballs. +1 to your rep.

 

[canary]

thks jawnroot