War breaks out within the marijuana legalization movement

[Barn Owl]

This may come as a shocking surprise to you, but marijuana? Its street value per ounce is currently about half that of gold. The value of the annual retail market for marijuana in the United States is difficult to estimate, but $100 Billion dollars seem to be the number that many accept. That is, admittedly, a value that is inflated precisely because of the high cost of it being a Schedule 1 substance. But even at a tenth of its current street value, that’s a big number that would attract Big Money.

And even if the current value of retail street trade for marijuana is wildly inflated and it’s only $50 or $70 billion dollars a year in the United States, the point to take away from all of this is that marijuana is already a "commercialized” product and has been for decades. That genie is out of the bottle – and it’s not going back in. Ever.


.

I'm not so sure you have the final word on that. In the event of a depression or some other economic collapse, the decrim, or legalization could make home production slowly put a dent in the industry. I do agree that the people in charge, including MPP would rather see it taxed and sold and violators locked up before it is legal for anybody. And of course the plan is to mass market it. But it still is a weed and pretty easy to grow in a pot on your balcony and that could be the problem with your prediction.

Cannabis will always have a big commercial potential, but it is not like gold. It can be mass produced in a three months. As time goes on and people who were considered juvenile rejects in the early '70's now become tangled in politics, the future may determine it even MORE stupid to lock someone else up for 20 years for using a plant. Some of our biggest mainstream assholes like George W. Bush and Obama have admitted to regular use in the past. It almost seems as though time and popularity along with the easy cultivation of the plant may be what (hopefully) destroys the greed of the legal and illegal drug dealer.

 

[WokkaWokka!]

Shame that Herer has passed on, he was really on the right side of this.

Peron, shame on you you cocksucker. I knew Peron was no good since 1996 when he was pushing eighths for $100.

ANYBODY who invites more taxes on us is our enemy.

Cannabis is not to be taxed and regulated, besides that it is IMPOSSIBLE to regulate a plant that grows so freely and easily.

 

[ChronJohn]

i like the way u think fatigues. i have been devising a wholistic plan of legalization and you seem to understand the topic very well. k+ to you my friend.

 

[cobcoop]

I am currently a supporter of MPP,I was unaware of the position taken by MPP in Arizona. I find this position hard to understand and will look into this. If,as the post above claims,that is their position they will have to explain to me why they believe it is justified or they will never receive another dime from me again.
The thought of giving the sole right to produce (grow) cannabis to a select few is not what the majority of Americans would expect from any laws to legalize it. It is difficult for me to understand how anybody who currently grows illegally would willingly give their opportunity to grow legally away to a corporation. Would you really believe that the corp. would willingly give up it's exclusive right at some point in the future? I haven't seen anything like that in my lifetime.
Taking a quote from Blue Dot'ssignature "capitalism ruins everything,including cannabis."

Respect bass

Check it out here: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_Medical_Marijuana_Act_(2010)

 

[maxxim]

Plan C: limit the production to force more individual people to grow to supply the dispensaries and cut out "Biotech and Agribusiness" except for the reasearch side only.

Put in place a substancial tax as to not devalue the product and structure the delivery vehicle to create jobs.

While prices will go down they will have to stay competitive to allow for a person to live off of the limited amount of plants. Right now there is a HUGE demand for domestic produced MJ....


Pretty much plant limits are the only way to stop the corporations just as the public option is the only way to stop the health insurance companies. Do we have enough foresight to discourage that.

 

[Nortin]

its a plant!

its a plant!

All this drama, crap and politics over a plant that grows naturally on this planet and does no harm. This is all because of the Draconian laws and regualations coupled with corrupt politicians of the USA. Fuck Regs! throw your seeds to the wind and live free. Peace

 

[ourcee]

Shame that Herer has passed on, he was really on the right side of this.

did you read something I didnt? he had a heart attack, didnt die.

 

[fatigues]

Pretty much plant limits are the only way to stop the corporations... Do we have enough foresight to discourage that.

I had not realized that "stopping corporations" from breeding, processing, packaging, distributing, marketing and selling cannabis to Americans as a mass marketed product was the end aim and object of the marijuana movement.

Farmers -- that's everyday folks -- would still be the people who would end up growing it of course.

"Corporations" like General Hydroponics, Sunlight Supply, and Advanced Nutrients seem quite capable of supporting and supplying marijuana growers currently. Some of them, Canna and Advanced Nutrients, in particular, even have the courage to do so openly.

From time to time, I enjoy a Cohiba with a scotch or brandy. My taste buds do not object to the communist grown tobacco. Believe it or not, the flavor seems to get along quite nicely with a 12-year-old scotch or cognac, too. Even when that heavenly fire is distilled and bottled by the largest corporate purveyor of distilled spirits in the world.

And at other times, I enjoy a nice cold beer. Not a micro-brewed one (though they also have their moments) but sometimes just a nice mass produced premium lager; corporate brewed and union bottled. At other times, a reliable stout like Guinness hits the spot, too.

Seems to me that I missed the memo on "corporations" as somehow being heretical to the mass marketing of well crafted legal drugs. I, for one, very much look forward to inhaling an expertly grown, harvested, packaged, and processed joint -- created and marketed with all the ingenuity that unbridled corporate greed can muster.

I think we must politely agree to disagree.

 

[endlesssummer]

I had not realized that "stopping corporations" from breeding, processing, packaging, distributing, marketing and selling cannabis to Americans as a mass marketed product was the end aim and object of the marijuana movement.

Farmers -- that's everyday folks -- would still be the people who would end up growing it of course.

"Corporations" like General Hydroponics, Sunlight Supply, and Advanced Nutrients seem quite capable of supporting and supplying marijuana growers currently. Some of them, Canna and Advanced Nutrients, in particular, even have the courage to do so openly.

From time to time, I enjoy a Cohiba with a scotch or brandy. My taste buds do not object to the communist grown tobacco. Believe it or not, the flavor seems to get along quite nicely with a 12-year-old scotch or cognac, too. Even when that heavenly fire is distilled and bottled by the largest corporate purveyor of distilled spirits in the world.

And at other times, I enjoy a nice cold beer. Not a micro-brewed one (though they also have their moments) but sometimes just a nice mass produced premium lager; corporate brewed and union bottled. At other times, a reliable stout like Guinness hits the spot, too.

Seems to me that I missed the memo on "corporations" as somehow being heretical to the mass marketing of well crafted legal drugs. I, for one, very much look forward to inhaling an expertly grown, harvested, packaged, and processed joint -- created and marketed with all the ingenuity that unbridled corporate greed can muster.

I think we must politely agree to disagree.

I Think what most people don't want to see is patients needing a permit to grow their own medecine

 

[JackTheGrower]

Blue Sky: No Plant Limits, Anywhere

If you do not put any restrictions on plant counts, other than to impose a requirement for agricultural zoning and licensing past a certain level -- you treat marijuana as you treat any other farming operation. And in that regard, it becomes a matter of zoning and commercial regulation like any other crop.

Oh yeah the State cannot tell my yard from a farm.. Sure..

 

[JackTheGrower]

The Policy Choices

There are a very limited range of long-term policy choices. What is clear is that if marijuana were completely legal and unregulated, the product would not be one where “horticulture” is the term that would ever be applied to its growth by the vast majority of people. The correct term to use would be “agriculture”, as that term would more fairly reflect the scale of the crop under production and the nature of the people who would ultimately grow it.

Bull Shit.

Those who grow in their yards practice horticulture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horticulture

We are the private collections such as tomato, corn and cannabis...

 

[JackTheGrower]

B - you have a product that has a market price which provides no incentive to people not engaged in its large scale commercial production to want to bother to do so for a significant commercial purpose (Note: There will always be hobbyists and connoisseur gardeners). Agribusiness makes money on volume and market share. Mass marketed consumer products? Even more so.

I'm going to treat you like everyone else.. We call each other out on issues.

It has always been about the People! Ten Thousand Years of Cannabis in human history and you want us to think Cannabis isn't anything if it isn't an industry?

What Disinformation rock are you being paid to come out from under?

Jack

 

[JackTheGrower]

What is true, and we all know it, is that we will continue to evade bad cannabis laws.
Maybe our system will hand us a bad law; then we will still go to prison, Law Enforcement will continue to be funded by federal monies, the Medical Cannabis industry can expand, we will still want to keep our grows indoors so the electric company will not lose money, our neighbors will have legal protection to hate us and what other nightmare reality can we expect with Decriminalization?

The end result is more suffering up on the very people we are supposed to be freeing.

That alone makes Taxes look just fine with me.. I'd rather Tax it commercially then grow under the control of a land owner.

Edit:

here is the thing people.. If it's legal there won't be any production issues.. The whole case for us to accept the handcuffs of decriminalization is that someone is going to grow a lot of cannabis.. So what? Let them.. With out sending them to prison.

The number one thing Lee's initiative does is keeps us going to prison.
Ask yourself if your Sativa grows outside your 5x5 and they take your kids from you will you still want to vote for Lee's initiative?

Don't we get it? We must do this for the people.

 

[baan]

???

There is something I'm missing...

If it was legal and taxed, you wouldn't have to go to the store and buy it. You could still grow it. Nobody would fly around looking to bust somebody who didn't pay their cannabis tax... The police could say "i smell pot" when they come to your house and you say "that's just the kush I picked up at the corner market today"... So...

What's the big deal about having it taxed?

The dudes who didn't have the patients to grow their own would be taxed.

I openly and admittedly grow my own tobacco. I pay no tobacco taxes. I am still around, never been to jail. Or forced to pay a tobacco tax. I also fire up the hookah, knowing what I am putting into my body, and how it came to be.
(of course the laws might be different. But the 'illegal' and 'legal' would probably be so blurred it would be damned near impossible to enforce)

Even though there is an industry, you don't have to support it. Millions of people might support it, but you don't have to. The only question is, how much would it take, how much could you loose or gain, and how far you are willing to go.

 

[fatigues]

Bull Shit.

Those who grow in their yards practice horticulture.

Yes. They do.

But if cultivation and sale of marijuana is completely legal, the vast majority of it will be cultivated by farmers as a cash crop on their farmland. Not by gardeners gardening in their backyards.

Hence the later comment re: Tractors. Ball Caps and Drain to waste farming. As a commercial enterprise, that undertaking is more properly reflected in the word agriculture (though both technically apply).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture

Bullshit? Nope. I don't think so. I think it's a balls on accurate prediction of who the producers in a legal marijuana market would look like. Because they'll be farmers, not suburban stoners.

It appears that you disagree. Yes, yes - "power to the people" and all that. But if you can get past your ideological position and perhaps think about the economic implications of a truly legal cannabis plant, commercial competition and the means of production used to produce a legal crop efficiently? Once you manage that, it is difficult to disagree with my prediction on any rational basis.

Jack the Grower said once more:

Ten Thousand Years of Cannabis in human history and you want us to think Cannabis isn't anything if it isn't an industry?

Absolutely.

Obviously, the entire thrust of my posts have been to denigrate cannabis and to decry its very existence. I have plainly and obviously crafted the argument that only commercial exploitation of the plant by the Very Very BIG BIG BIG Corporation or America can rescue cannabis and restore it to its proper place in human history.

Or...or it could be that you have not read what I have written very carefully. On reflection, what do you think?

Oh yeah the State cannot tell my yard from a farm.. Sure..

Are you actually reading what I'm writing or just too pissed off to care at this stage? *shrug*

I think that municipal authorities elected by its residents have a valid recognized legislative interest in controlling land use. That they are empowered as a matter of law to restrict and prevent commercial agriculture from being conducted from residentially zoned land. Because commercial agriculture is to be carried on in agriculturally zoned property. That's what zoning is for.

Fact is, municipalities have often and frequently exercised that legislative power to prevent homeowners from keeping smelly livestock within residentially zoned property. It's well settled law. You think farming skunky marijuana is likely to be handled differently when you are trying to grow it on a commercial scale? I don't think so.

That does not mean that you cannot grow legal marijuana in your backyard in this theoretical future. It does not mean that some local council's definition of a "commercial purpose" in terms of plant limits on growing marijuana on residential zoned property is not open to abuse. It probably will be abused, too, initially. I agree with you on that point. But that's why we have courts and appeals from zoning decisions.

To suggest a municipality could stop personal use gardening under such a legislative power, however, is incorrect. They have absolutely no authority to stop something like that through zoning.

Seems to me, that if you wanted to grow marijuana on a commercial scale as a legal cash crop -- the place to do that would be on a farm, not in the suburbs. You want to farm? Go and farm man - nobody stopping you in this theoretical new world.

I also expect that in an economic environment where commercial cannabis would be grown by the acre, your ability to economically compete with farmers using only your backyard is ... more than a little optimistic and borders on hubris.

That said, quality and loving attention to detail does have its place and would be valued by connoisseurs. *shrug*

 

[fatigues]

The number one thing Lee's initiative does is keeps us going to prison. Ask yourself if your Sativa grows outside your 5x5 and they take your kids from you will you still want to vote for Lee's initiative?

The number one thing Lee's initiative does is permit possession, cultivation and sale of cannabis by Californians.

They are taking your kids from you right now my friend. This is, by any stretch, an improvement over existing laws.

It enables the Legislature to amend the Act by increasing the limits one can possess (but not to reduce them) and to provide for commercial production of cannabis in further legislation and regulations.

It sets the stage my friend. It sets the stage brilliantly.

Ask yourself the following question:

Are you better off under existing legislation where:

You can go to jail for cultivation of a single plant, be charged and fined with possession, and be sent to prison for sharing a joint with a friend (potentially under the three strikes law, for decades)?

OR

Under the The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, be entitled to cultivate a 5x5 plot of land on any parcel or residence, to possess an ounce of cannabis, to be able to legally share it with others if you do not charge a fee for doing so, and to purchase it if over the age of 21 from a licensed establishment?

Which would you prefer to live under? A or B?

Never mind the fact that it also establishes normalization of marijuana laws and a legislative precedent that you can further build upon in later years when people get used to it? It is clearly drafted as a launch pad, not as a final destination.

And you are against the language of this initiative? WOW. Not only that, but against it with a clarion "call to arms" mentality? WOW.

I said it before, I'll say it again: Real legislation is what happens while idealists and crusaders wait for moments that never come.

 

[johnnyla]

The number one thing Lee's initiative does is permit possession, cultivation and sale of cannabis by Californians.

They are taking your kids from you right now my friend. This is, by any stretch, an improvement over existing laws.

It enables the Legislature to amend the Act by increasing the limits one can possess (but not to reduce them) and to provide for commercial production of cannabis in further legislation and regulations.

It sets the stage my friend. It sets the stage brilliantly.

Ask yourself the following question:

Are you better off under existing legislation where:

You can go to jail for cultivation of a single plant, be charged and fined with possession, and be sent to prison for sharing a joint with a friend (potentially under the three strikes law, for decades)?

OR

Under the The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, be entitled to cultivate a 5x5 plot of land on any parcel or residence, to possess an ounce of cannabis, to be able to legally share it with others if you do not charge a fee for doing so, and to purchase it if over the age of 21 from a licensed establishment?

Which would you prefer to live under? A or B?

Never mind the fact that it also establishes normalization of marijuana laws and a legislative precedent that you can further build upon in later years when people get used to it? It is clearly drafted as a launch pad, not as a final destination.

And you are against the language of this initiative? WOW. Not only that, but against it with a clarion "call to arms" mentality? WOW.

I said it before, I'll say it again: Real legislation is what happens while idealists and crusaders wait for moments that never come.

you can already grow a larger plot medicinally. this law would hurt medical marijuana patients. yeah, it may be better for recreational users, but not for sick people.

 

[Unsane]

you can already grow a larger plot medicinally. this law would hurt medical marijuana patients. yeah, it may be better for recreational users, but not for sick people.

The Richard Lee initiative would leave the medical laws alone.

The number one thing Lee's initiative does is keeps us going to prison. Ask yourself if your Sativa grows outside your 5x5 and they take your kids from you will you still want to vote for Lee's initiative?

While it is true that 25 square feet is not enough for some people, the initiative also allows local governments to expand the 25 sq ft. rule (local governments can also expand the possession limits).

I think it is a stretch to say that the initiative would "keep us going to prison." After all, it does legalize cannabis....

In any case, I prefer the California Cannabis Initiative. I will actively support it, but I wouldn't mind if the Richard Lee initiative gets passed. It is undoubtedly better than our current misguided prohibition regime.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

I still learn toward passing any legalization bill we can. things happen in little steps in the united states. full legalization has taken many small steps and has many more to go before we reach a conclusion.

 

[fatigues]

you can already grow a larger plot medicinally. this law would hurt medical marijuana patients. yeah, it may be better for recreational users, but not for sick people.

You are gravely mistaken. This is incorrect.

Let me show you why:

What makes cultivation of marijuana illegal in the state of California is section 11358 of the California Health & Safety Codewhich provides as follows:

11358: "Every person who plants, cultivates, harvests, dries, or processes any marijuana or any part thereof, except as otherwise provided by law, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison."

That's the part which makes cultivation UNLAWFUL, okay?

The existing Compassionate Use Act overrides 11358 by establishing the following:

1362.765. (a) Subject to the requirements of this article, the individuals specified in subdivision (b) shall not be subject, on that sole basis, to criminal liability under Section... 11358.

Again, s. 11358 is the legislation that makes cultivation of any amount UNLAWFUL. Under the Compassionate Use Act, section 11358 does NOT APPLY to qualified patients and designated primary caregivers and those that assist them if they stay within its provisions.

INSTEAD, 11362.77 applies to qualified patients and primary caregivers (and those who assist them), which provides as follows:

11362.77. (a) A qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana per qualified patient. In addition, a qualified patient or primary caregiver may also maintain no more than six mature or 12 immature marijuana plants per qualified patient.

So that's the plant count that applies to qualified patients or primary caregivers in place of s.11358.

Now let’s turn to The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010. It provides:

Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(ii) 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 twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.

It says it is LAWFUL. It DOES NOT SAY that to cultivate more than that is UNLAWFUL. In order to make it unlawful, you still need to be able to rely upon s. 11358.

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 DOES NOT set aside 11362.77(a). It still applies.

The only way that more than twenty-five square feet could be UNLAWFUL is by resort to section 11358. That's it - that's all. But as clearly stated above, medical marijuana patients STILL don't have to worry about section 11358, because 11362.77 already overrides it if they fall within its parameters.

END RESULT: The sections are to be read harmoniously. The person is entitled to protection of whichever section provides them the most protection against s. 11358. It's better for recreational users, and it does not hurt medical patients one bit.

In fact, if a medical patient or primary caregiver can fit more mature plants on their 5x5 plot, such that under the old test it would be in contravention of the section? Then this act still helps them to avoid s. 11358. They are always better off - and NEVER worse off.

Accordingly, You are mistaken. Please, correct your friends and do not spread false information of this kind. It HURTS.