War breaks out within the marijuana legalization movement

[FreedomFGHTR]

Absolutely not one single cent, directly, indirectly or otherwise. I've never met the man. I'm not from California. I don't CARE which one wins, only that one of them does.

If I've made a mistake in my legal analysis (which is possible) show me where.

Ahh ok another outsider who thinks they know what is best for our laws. Maybe thats why you fail to understand the signifigence of prop 215 and sb 420 and why both of these measures are failures in my opinon.

You may have a valid legal analysis but what you cannot grasp is the culture(s) here in California. You cannot make a valid analysis of the economic impact either without being here.

Otherwise, you might keep your words soft and sweet in case you are forced to eat them.

Traitor!

 

[JackTheGrower]

I think it would be cool if people started protesting infront of Lee's club, say maybe on Friday's from 4-7? I heard birds chriping about somethign like that earlier today.

You make me laugh.. But I am willing.. Carpool anyone?

 

[Red Swan]

So this discussion seems to have two groups...

1. Those who have read the proposals and are reacting to their understanding.

2. Those who haven't clearly read the proposals and are reacting to what they are afraid might happen.


FWIW, Oakland is a city going down the toilet. I've been there plenty of times and Oaksterdam looks like a battered housewife. That city is desperate for any kind of business that will STAY. So many have left. People who bought property thinking it would get better are selling at a loss to get away from the low life. The idea of additional revenue for the city from MJ comes at a time when the city ( and the state) have massive deficits due to Prop 13 and mismanagement.

The entire proposition process has ruined California. The one proposition I would vote for would be the one to end this idiotic process that has saddled us with programs we can't afford.

It will be interesting to see how much financial desperation will play in the legislature's decision and the governors decision to veto.

I think this is important in the context of why politicians are finding this attractive now.

 

[PharmaCan]

No, it's just not possible that there are people that honestly disagree with you. You've got it all figured out, and anyone who presents themselves in opposition must actually secretly agree with you, but are presenting a different point of view because they're corrupt. After all, you know everything, and your moral code is superior and righteous to all others.

What I want to know is will the extremist assholes who are denigrating the Lee proposition actually vote for both, and hope that the 3 legged horse in the race pulls out the upset? Or do they really support that people should keep being put in jail in order to support their extremist viewpoint? Do people honestly believe that the rednecks in Butte County and the conservative San Diegans are actually going to go for amnesty? No chance that enough voters might say 'I don't care what they do in Oakland, but here in Trinity County we don't want dope'? Are you so into forcing this into every community that you would rather see it remain illegal everywhere?

You people just don't get it. If you demand all or nothing you get nothing.

ROFL - Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. So those that disagree with you are extremest assholes?

And what makes someone an asshole for believing that rights that extend to some should extend to all?

Forcing marijuana into every community? Do you live in a cave? Marijuana is already in every community. Man, this ain't the bible belt where jack-off bible thumpers get to impose their idea of morality on a county-by-county basis. The days of the drug warriors are over in California - some of them just haven't got the word yet. Why should the people in San Diego suffer because of corrupt politicians who believe that their personal moral code should be imposed on others who believe differently? No one is forcing anyone else to use mj. Yet non-mj users somehow think they have the right to put mj users in cages. We're in Afghanistan killing Taliban for having that kind of attitude.

PC

 

[Koroz]

Interesting. Can you show me where, specifically :

1) Tax Can 2010 provides for local governments "to decide if they want to penalize Cannabis users"

Answer: it says no such thing. You'll be looking for that for a long while.

2) Tax Can 2010 provides for local government to apply new laws and penalties for the sale or purchase of Cannabis?

That will be a loooooooong search my friend. It's not there. What is there is this:

Section 11304: Effect of Act and Definitions:

(c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act.

Section 11301 governs and empowers local government to set up a regulatory structure for cannabis production, transport, sale, "cannabis bars and clubs" and so forth.

In that regulatory context alone, the local government can impose civil fines and other remedies where people have not complied with the bylaws the county has created to regulate the cultivation, sale, transport, advertising etc. of cannabis.

It does not allow the county to ban cannabis or to otherwise impose new criminal laws in connection with cannabis. That's just a complete distortion of the initiative.

I might add, that's essentially the Tax Can 2010 initiative grants the same power to counties that generally prevails throughout much of the USA at a local level in relation to sale of alcohol.

A little less of a "sky is falling" attitude would be helpful.

You should read it yourself.

Question 1) From the initiative itself.

7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

Hence, gives the local government the right to keep cannabis illegal with out a vote to buy or sell. As I said, it will funnel business right into the area's they want it to be funneled, their back yard. They know places like San Diego will not pass a tax law and there for keep Cannabis buying and selling illegal. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand why they want it this way. This does penalize users, now they will have to drive to a city where it is ok to buy, costing them time and gas for each trip. Considering you are given a 1ounce limit, this trip would need to happen more then once a month for the average daily smoker. CCI Doesn't allow this to happen, in fact it gives the end user a legal repercussion to use as force against those counties like San Diego who choose to ignore state law instead of empowering them to ignore it.

As for the second part to your rebuttal, I have to find it. I haven't read the initiatve since it was first introduced to the AG, but I know its in there because I was backing Tax Can 2010 until I read the published and final version and those were the 2 main reasons on top of the increased punishment for furnishing a minor and the making it illegal to consume cannabis in any habitat with children under the age of 18 (which means apartment complexes with shared ventilation).

 

[JackTheGrower]

Are we ready to examine CCI and Oaksterdam line by line?

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

Are we ready to examine CCI and Oaksterdam line by line?

Yeah but you have to include prop 215 with related legislative actions and court decisions.

 

[fatigues]

Koroz first said:

Tax Can 2010 provides for local governments "to decide if they want to penalize Cannabis users"

fatigues responds by saying:

“it says no such thing”

Koroz rebuts by saying

“you should read it yourself, TC2010 provides:

“7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.”

Hence, gives the local government the right to keep cannabis illegal with out a vote to buy or sell. As I said, it will funnel business right into the area's they want it to be funneled, their back yard. They know places like San Diego will not pass a tax law and there for keep Cannabis buying and selling illegal. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand why they want it this way. This does penalize users, now they will have to drive to a city where it is ok to buy, costing them time and gas for each trip.

We are here talking about the legality of Cannabis, and you sow fear and suspicion about TC2010, saying that is empowers local government “"to decide if they want to penalize Cannabis users".



When called on it, you point to a section that allegeldy permits San Diego to make somebody drive farther? That’s the "penalty"? You can’t do any better than that?

If that’s the only thing we have to worry about with the legalization of MMJ – it will be a helluva victory party, won’t it?

Koroz then goes on to say:

“CCI Doesn't allow this to happen, in fact it gives the end user a legal repercussion to use as force against those counties like San Diego who choose to ignore state law instead of empowering them to ignore it.”

It’s true on one point: the CCI makes the sale of marijuana legal in the state of California. How exactly those sales are to be governed, and where, by what process, and pursuant to what penalties for non-compliance, is left entirely in the hands of the legislature. The CCI doesn’t say how the Legislature has to do that. As a point of fact, it is entirely possible the Legislature could punt and leave it to local counties to regulate it on a per county basis, in the same exact manner as how TC2010 does.

But I do grant you that the CCI makes the sale of MJ to not be an offense, whereas TC2010 does not go that far and empowers the Legislature to pass those provisions later. That’s an important distinction between the two initiatives. I’d go so far as to say – if I had to choose which one I’d rather would actually pass, on that basis alone, it would have to be CCI. No argument at all.

If I was asking a different question – say – is TC2010 more likely to pass precisely because it does not include such a state-wide section? Then I come to a very different answer.

And that’s the problem in all of this discussion, isn’t it? We’re asking different questions – and so arriving at different answers.

As for CCI not allowing San Diego to weasel around it through employing bylaws to implement regulations that the Legislature would be required to draft and pass? Sorry. The CCI does not necessarily go that far. Jury is still out on that one.

Koroz then goes on to say:

“on top of the increased punishment for furnishing a minor...”

The kids? Are we back to the kids already? Here’s what the law is now:

Health & Safety Code 11361
§11361. Employment of or sale to minor by adult; punishment.
(a) Every person 18 years of age or over who hires, employs, or uses a minor in unlawfully transporting, carrying, selling, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling any marijuana, who unlawfully sells, or offers to sell, any marijuana to a minor, or who furnishes, administers or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give any marijuana to a minor under 14 years of age, or who induces a minor to use marijuana in violation of law shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years.
(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers or gives or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.

TC2010 adds the following in relation to “the kids”:

(c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense.

Effect: Adds a new crime to those older than 21 who distribute marijuana to those over 18 but under 21. This is a key provision dealing with the creation of the new right to possess marijuana granted to those who are older than 21. It prevents them from being able to just share their dope with those who are over 18, but under 21.

This provision is clearly added to make the entirely regulatory framework palatable to members of the public so that they will be persuaded to vote for it as it “makes their kids safer”. This is political marketing – and rather wise marketing at that.

(d) In addition to the penalties above, any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to perform any act pursuant to Section 11301, who while so licensed, permitted or authorized, negligently furnishes, administers, gives or sells, or offers to furnish, administer, give or sell, any marijuana to any person younger than 21 years of age shall not be permitted to own, operate, be employed by, assist or enter any licensed premises authorized under Section 11301 for a period of one year.

Effect: This means if you have a license to sell MJ, and you sell it to someone under 21 negligently, you lose your MJ license.

Obviously, another provision to sweeten the deal “for the kids”. The entire thrust of marketing this regulation is to persuade parents this makes it harder for their kids to get weed, not easier. This is a deal breaker for you? As if the legislature’s rules for governing the sale of MJ under the CCI – that they are mandated to create – wouldn’t include such a provision as well in a manner similar to how alcohol and tobacco sales are governed? Come on! That’s a bet only a fool would take.

Lastly, Koroz says:

“and the making it illegal to consume cannabis in any habitat with children under the age of 18 (which means apartment complexes with shared ventilation).”

TC2010 says no such thing at all.

TC2010 provides:
(c) “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis:
....
(iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.

It does not use the word “habitat”; it uses the word “space”.

I am unaware of any case or statute that has ever construed the word “space” to mean an entire apartment complex simply by virtue of ventilation being shared in the building. Your belief that the word “space” means such a thing is entirely without foundation.

Moreover, the word to focus upon is not “space”; it is the use of the word “present”. "Presence of a minor" is a long established issue of fact which the law has well defined. (In California, also see in particular Penal Code s. 272 and its reliance in turn upon s. 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

Ordinarily, a minor is “present” when they are physically in attendance in both time and space within visual range of the unlawful activity as it occurs.

In the Health and Safety Code provisions dealing with drugs and drug offences, there is a more expansive provision concerning the presence of a minor in a place where precursor chemicals for crystal meth are used. Section 11379.7 deals with that offence. It uses the phrase “present in a structure”. “Structure” is defined expansively in 11397.7(c) and includes “apartment building”.

So you think “space” means something at least as big as “structure”. TC2010 could easily have said “structure” – but it didn’t. Nevertheless, “space”, which is ordinarily intended to refer to the absence of a thing (like, say, the absence of WALLS when you rent "space"), now is to be interpreted to mean an entire apartment building? “Space” really means dozens of stories, and hundreds, maybe thousands of walls? Even when they used the word “structure” in an associated section of the Code, but deliberately chose not to do so here? Really?

Would there be any statistical likelihood of there being ANY apartment building, (nursing home excepted – perhaps) in the entire State of California, where it would be reasonable to assume that someone under the age of 18 was not habitually present somewhere inside of it? I think the fair answer to that question would have to be: “NO.”

If “space” includes “apartment building”, then you are saying that should this comes up for statutory interpretation, a majority of the people of California should be taken to have intended to amend the Constitution of the State to permit the possession and use of marijuana for personal consumption in a residence, provided ONLY that that residence did not contain a child anywhere within it at any time, or if that personal residence was in an apartment, provided ONLY that the entire apartment building did not contain one single person under the age of 18 within it? You say the people of California meant exactly that when they employed the word “space” when they amended the Constitution?

Wouldn’t that be granting a rather meaningless “right”, don’t you think?

You say the word “space” didn’t mean something more restrictive than “structure” and it didn’t mean something more restrictive than “home” or even “residence”. It didn’t mean something, say, more in the nature of “room”, where one could be visually seen smoking dope from an adjoining or contiguous “room” if those two areas were visually connected because of the ABSENCE OF A WALL (no wall = space). You know... where the child could be fairly said to be “present”?

And how does the CCI deal with this issue, in comparison? The CCI provides:

11300(2) (c) This act is not intended to affect the application ...and Penal Code §272 [relating to contributing to the delinquency of a minor].

S. 272 ties us back in to s. 300 of the of the Welfare and Institutions Code, mentioned above, yadda yadda yadda...

In other words – the CCI provides the exact same thing in relation to contributing to the delinquency of a minor as does TC2010. They both ultimately default to s. 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

Why do they both do that? Because in both instances, it’s just political marketing. Chillax.

 

[karmical]

Are we ready to examine CCI and Oaksterdam line by line?

yes we are, just remember cci has quite a few more lines to examine than tc 2010, just make sure you allow yourself the added time in examining all that additional baggage cci is trying to bring to the table.

 

[fatigues]

Are we ready to examine CCI and Oaksterdam line by line?

Sure Jack. No problem.

 

[Possum]

i still say

ANY SALES TRANSACTION CAN BE TAXED - Otherwise grow and smoke all you want.

This IS the way America works. This is what 'legal' dope means.

Why are we even arguing? TAX SALES. Otherwise LEAVE US ALONE.

 

[JackTheGrower]

Alright then we start.

I'm at the end of my day so i defer to the next poster to make the first.

 

[JackTheGrower]

I can use some help on this..

Comparing Oaksterdam and CCI

-------------------------------------------

Oaksterdam's

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

Title and Summary:

Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed. Initiative Statute.

Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products.

------------------------------

CCI

CHANGES CALIFORNIA LAW TO LEGALIZE, REGULATE, AND TAX MARIJUANA. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Repeals state laws that make it a crime for people 21 years old or older to use, possess, sell, cultivate, or transport marijuana or industrial hemp, except laws that make it a crime to drive while impaired or to contribute to the delinquency of a minor. Expunges state convictions based on the repealed marijuana-related laws. Requires state and local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana.
Requires taxes to be spent on education, healthcare, environmental programs, public works, and state parks. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Savings in the several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major new excise, income, and sales tax revenues related to the production and sale of marijuana products. (09-0022.)

------------------------

The way I see this working is we read parts that relate to each other and discuss it then move on to the next after we agree on moving on.
So one of us posts the passage and the we reply..

If that's okay..

 

[JackTheGrower]

The first thing I read is Oaksterdam's "Allows" people 21 and over where CCI repeals the laws that make it a crime.

-----------------------------

 

[karmical]

The first thing I read is Oaksterdam's "Allows" people 21 and over where CCI repeals the laws that make it a crime.

-----------------------------

all or nothing type thinking vs let's try and make something that can actually make it pass voters.

Bare in mind state v federal, thus must it be absolute?

 

[johnnyla]

The first thing I read is Oaksterdam's "Allows" people 21 and over where CCI repeals the laws that make it a crime.

-----------------------------

we want a law that repeals the illegality of cannabis.

We DO NOT want a law that grants us a privilege to use cannabis.

Rights cannot be taken away. Privileges can.

 

[Koroz]

Fatigues, do you know the history of places like San Diego and Cannabis? You think its an unfounded "fear mongering" attempt on my part to say that if there is an initiative that allows a local government to keep Cannabis purchasing and selling illegal that San Diego will be the first on the block to outlaw it?

Do you actually read these forums? I lived in San Diego for 15 years. They are to this DAY still fighting to keep prop 215 from its local constituents. It as a county is STILL to this day trying to jail people for following state guidelines.

If you don't think that Oaksterdam initiative isn't going to burden the local residents of places like Inland Empire, Butte county, San Diego county by making them spend rediculous amounts of gas and time trying to get to places like Oakland to buy their Cannabis multiple times a month since you can only have 1 ounce on hand at a time then you are either delusional or are purposely trying to ignore the fact that one puts the power into the hands of the people, while the other puts the power into the hands of the local government when it comes to continued prohibition of Cannabis.

Didn't you say you don't even live in California? How can you even try to argue with someone who spent 30 years of their life there on what the climate is like for Cannabis users from County to county? What exactly is your hidden agenda? As for the word of space vs. habitat, the point made was that part of the reason that the lawyers who were originally on oaksterdam's team leave and make their own (cci) was because of wording like that allows lawyers to be the ones to determine what parts of oaksterdamn means via court proceedings. If I live in an apartment with children, in my own space or in a shared space as long as "second hand" smoke is able to travel between two "spaces" the way the oaksterdam initiative is worded there is room left open for interpretation to allow them to take users to court over it.

That is the whole problem with Oaksterdam that you obviously don't get. It is short, and a lot of the issues I am talking about are NOT defined in clear verbiage which leaves it open to interpretation of the courts. I'm sorry but I don't want to leave it up to the political/justice system that has got us here in the first place to try and fix the holes in a prop that leaves things open ended, instead ill keep backing the one that was actually written to prevent Cannabis prohibition, not continue it as the local governments see fit. Both would pass, the question is, why do you want the one that keeps it a crime.

 

[Koroz]

yes we are, just remember cci has quite a few more lines to examine than tc 2010, just make sure you allow yourself the added time in examining all that additional baggage cci is trying to bring to the table.

It isn't baggage, it is verbiage aimed at defining things that Oaksterdam doesn't. Why? Because they don't want their initiative language decided in court, they want it decided by the people, for the people.

There is many things left open ended for interpretation in Tax Can 2010's initiative which means places that love to use local tax money and take these to court (yes, I bring up San Diego again, Butte County, Inland Empire, etc) will have a field day arguing over what exactly certain things in Tax Can's prop means.

Sometimes "more" doesn't = "worse".

 

[Pythagllio]

Fatigues, do you know the history of places like San Diego and Cannabis? You think its an unfounded "fear mongering" attempt on my part to say that if there is an initiative that allows a local government to keep Cannabis purchasing and selling illegal that San Diego will be the first on the block to outlaw it?

Are you confident of getting enough of the swing votes in San Diego to get the CCI passed? SD is a pretty conservative town. Myself I doubt that the CCI is even going to get the sigs needed to get on the ballot, much less have a prayer of passing. You're arguing for 'the way it should be' rather than for what is pragmatically realistic. We don't have the fucking votes to cram stuff like unilateral amnesty for drug dealers convicted and sentenced. Should they be pardoned? Yes, indeed. Is it going to happen, not bloody likely. It's that one part of the CCI that makes it DOA.

Demand all or nothing, and you get nothing. What in the world makes you think that the majority of the voters of CA share your viewpoint? How's Bonnie's approval rating nowadays?

I notice none of the extremists here have bothered to answer if they'll at least have the decency to vote yes to both if somehow they manage to get the CCI on the ballot. I just wonder if you guys are so caught up in your dogma that you'd actually prefer to maintain the status quo for all Californians than to take the chance that some pockets of CA won't allow commercial enterprise.

 

[Koroz]

Are you confident of getting enough of the swing votes in San Diego to get the CCI passed? SD is a pretty conservative town. Myself I doubt that the CCI is even going to get the sigs needed to get on the ballot, much less have a prayer of passing. You're arguing for 'the way it should be' rather than for what is pragmatically realistic. We don't have the fucking votes to cram stuff like unilateral amnesty for drug dealers convicted and sentenced. Should they be pardoned? Yes, indeed. Is it going to happen, not bloody likely. It's that one part of the CCI that makes it DOA.

Demand all or nothing, and you get nothing. What in the world makes you think that the majority of the voters of CA share your viewpoint? How's Bonnie's approval rating nowadays?

I notice none of the extremists here have bothered to answer if they'll at least have the decency to vote yes to both if somehow they manage to get the CCI on the ballot. I just wonder if you guys are so caught up in your dogma that you'd actually prefer to maintain the status quo for all Californians than to take the chance that some pockets of CA won't allow commercial enterprise.

I am very confident in that fact. I will NOT vote yes on oaksterdam, period. I will not back an initiative that will put the power in the hands of the local governments and that leaves enough holes in it that can, and possibly will allow stricter control over laws we have now. If oaksterdam added the verbiage to allow local governments the right to call a VOTE for the people to decide, then yes I would have voted yes on it also. But since they didn't, and they want the government to have the free ride to keep prohibition going, Richard Lee will never get my vote.

I will not risk taking a law that gives me a 100 dollar fine now for possession and take the chance that because Richard Lee didn't want to listen to his legal team and wrote his proposition half assed that we risk the chance we will be met with stricter regulations in places where it has been known to be cannabis unfriendly medical or not.

And keep calling me an extremist. That really helps your point. Yes, because people who don't agree with you are "extremists". How about calling us terrorists since that's what you are trying to elude to by using the same "scare" buzz words that our government has been using for the last 8 years to push for the wars in the middle east.

Every single non cannabis friendly person I know in California which includes family, friends and many coworkers all across the state want it legalized. They want ALL prohibition against it to end because they are tired of spending their tax dollars on fighting a losing battle. They know with CCI that prohibition will END. Bottom Line. It ends. With Tax Canna it doesn't. It is just shifted from county to county. They are tired of spending 50k per head, per year for people who are non violent drug offenders in jail, they are tired of letting them become better criminals by mixing with the people who deserve to be there.

Bonnie's approval rating proves dick about San Diego's conservative vote against Cannabis. Quit trying to add 2+2 and having it equal 6. There is a ton more things that adds to a persons approval rating then our push for Cannabis legalization. I know at least 30 people personally who like Bonnie, but do NOT agree with her view on Medical Cannabis. Does that mean they aren't for legalization too? No.

But what CCI will do that Oaksterdam won't? It will take the frigging option AWAY from people like Bonnie and put it in the hands of the people where it belongs. Nice try though.