War breaks out within the marijuana legalization movement

[Pythagllio]

I haven't specifically called anyone an extremist, if you actually read what I wrote. But I've noticed a couple of people have tried the shoe on, noticed that it fits well, and have decided to wear it.

Anyway, the poster above prefers to keep putting people in jail, rather than face political reality. You've really got to be in lala land and /or a blistering idiot to believe the claptrap above, much less to be offended by being referred to as an extremist. What in the world could be more extreme than your dogmatic, absolutely unworkable point of view? Exactly why the pot movement will continue to crap out, too many dogmatic idiots that think they're the arbiters of right and wrong, unable to come to a unified front based on reasonable consensus, because of their fantasy of 'the way it should be'. What great reasoning..."I'd rather have it illegal in San Diego and the rest of the state than have it illegal in San Diego." BTW If you don't like being called an extremist, quit being one, and I'll betcha it happens a lot less often.

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

I haven't specifically called anyone an extremist, if you actually read what I wrote. But I've noticed a couple of people have tried the shoe on, noticed that it fits well, and have decided to wear it.

For some damn reason the thing won't come off.

What in the world could be more extreme than your dogmatic, absolutely unworkable point of view? Exactly why the pot movement will continue to crap out, too many dogmatic idiots that think they're the arbiters of right and wrong, unable to come to a unified front based on reasonable consensus, because of their fantasy of 'the way it should be'. What great reasoning..."I'd rather have it illegal in San Diego and the rest of the state than have it illegal in San Diego." BTW If you don't like being called an extremist, quit being one, and I'll betcha it happens a lot less often.

Just so you know it was a bunch of "extremists" who got 215 passed. But I agree with you that the number one problem is that nobody can come to a unified front on the issue when it should be pretty simple.

Also neither initiative will win at the polls. Prop 215 passed by 56% and you can bet a lot more people will be voting no on either of these and the drug warriors will be funding the no campaigns. Think about the source of funding for the initiatives. Richard Lee's is financed by drug money. CCI is donations and volunterism. Prop 215 was blessed by George Soros. CCI just won't have the money and Richard Lee will probably get fucked with by the feds and they will freeze the money. Atleast with 215 there was enough money to get it done and it was from a clean source. So yeah until the whole community can get on the same page nothing has a chance of passing because of one problem... money.

 

[JackTheGrower]

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?

What will be will be. I already had my emotional outburst in this forum over this issue so I'm all done with that.

Maybe the voter will choose to pass any solitary initiative on the ballot simply because it looks like legalization but, we can still get CCI on the ballot and give them a choice.


If it is on the ballot and people have to pick then I believe CCI will win hands down. The fight is to get it on the ballot.

We will do well to completely legalize first then worry about the haters later.

What can Oaksterdam's do that CCI can't?

 

[Koroz]

I haven't specifically called anyone an extremist, if you actually read what I wrote. But I've noticed a couple of people have tried the shoe on, noticed that it fits well, and have decided to wear it.

Anyway, the poster above prefers to keep putting people in jail, rather than face political reality. You've really got to be in lala land and /or a blistering idiot to believe the claptrap above, much less to be offended by being referred to as an extremist. What in the world could be more extreme than your dogmatic, absolutely unworkable point of view? Exactly why the pot movement will continue to crap out, too many dogmatic idiots that think they're the arbiters of right and wrong, unable to come to a unified front based on reasonable consensus, because of their fantasy of 'the way it should be'. What great reasoning..."I'd rather have it illegal in San Diego and the rest of the state than have it illegal in San Diego." BTW If you don't like being called an extremist, quit being one, and I'll betcha it happens a lot less often.

Because in the end, I am not for trading "one" form of prohibition for another. It doesn't fix the problem. It shifts it to another medium and venue.

Sorry if I don't agree with you, so there for I am an extremist. If so, then so be it. If you can't see why Oaksterdam has a bad initiative, and the fact that the same lawyers he hired to help him write the initiative left because they felt it was dangerous and he wasn't willing to listen to reason, and by their own words he is opening a can of worms for harsher penalties then I don't know what to tell you other then I, nor anyone I talk to will vote for Richards proposal of an Oakland Cannabis paradise.

The truth is, if people smarten up and back CCI instead of spreading between the two then we will have the power to pass it. But instead, you have some falsehood belief that Oaksterdam's initiative will pass because it allows local government control, where as a complete repeal of archaic laws won't because people will be scared of it..

hate to tell you, if one isn't going to pass, neither will pass. The question is, do you want to keep fighting for a piece of legislature that takes the power away from you as a citizen, or do you want to fight for one that will put the power back in your hands?

Sounds to me like you are the one who needs to rethink their position in the grand scheme of things.

 

[fatigues]

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.

You are now spreading fear and doubt that is unfounded and utterly without merit.

What you say is possible under TC2010 is, in fact, a lie. I called you on it the first time. You could not respond with anything approaching factual coherence.

You are now resorting to the tactics of the Prohibitionists and the Republican Right. Lies in support of a particular initiative are never justified. The ends do not justify those means.

You are entitled to your views and to your legislative preferences. But to spread such baseless fear and doubt on TC2010, based upon legal provisions it simply does not contain, to suggest its passing will erode present legal rights or empower local governments to impose stricter laws than already exist, is an unfounded and deliberate distortion of the truth. It is, in fact, a lie.

When I asked to point out the basis for your position, you replied:

"As for the second part to your rebuttal, I have to find it. I haven't read the initiative since it was first introduced to the AG, but I know its in there."

Well. I'm still waiting. Where is this traitorous provision that would empower local governments to erode legal rights, allow local councils to increase fines for possession of pot, and make matters worse than they are right now? Still looking?

You'll be looking a very long time. It's not there.

We've had enough lying about Marijuana for the past 72 years. We don't need more of it here. Stop the lying. We can talk about this like adults and point out the strengths and the weaknesses of both initiatives; legally and politically.

I have no problem with admitting that overall, CCI is a better plan. I have no problem admitting that, given a choice as to which I would prefer to actually pass? CCI. Hands down.

But I don't let my personal preferences get in the way of sound political judgment. That's the difference.

What makes TC2010 politically attractive? It has a far better chance of winning because it is more gradual and less extreme. That's it; that's all. 2/3rds of a loaf is better than no loaf at all. That's TC2010's legislative strength -- it is politically viable.

Prisoner amnesty and mass release? Trafficking to be made legal everywhere in the State, in every county, whether the county residents want it or not? The Right Wing will have a field day with those provisions. It's a very, very tough sell politically.

When you find yourself needing to stretch the truth - or outright lie - to support your position?

Maybe that's the cue to rethink your position.

 

[johnnyla]

You are now spreading fear and doubt that is unfounded and utterly without merit.

What you say is possible under TC2010 is, in fact, a lie. I called you on it the first time. You could not respond with anything approaching factual coherence.

You are now resorting to the tactics of the Prohibitionists and the Republican Right. Lies in support of a particular initiative are never justified. The ends do not justify those means.

You are entitled to your views and to your legislative preferences. But to spread such baseless fear and doubt on TC2010, based upon legal provisions it simply does not contain, to suggest its passing will erode present legal rights or empower local governments to impose stricter laws than already exist, is an unfounded and deliberate distortion of the truth. It is, in fact, a lie.

When I asked to point out the basis for your position, you replied:

"As for the second part to your rebuttal, I have to find it. I haven't read the initiative since it was first introduced to the AG, but I know its in there."

Well. I'm still waiting. Where is this traitorous provision that would empower local governments to erode legal rights, allow local councils to increase fines for possession of pot, and make matters worse than they are right now? Still looking?

You'll be looking a very long time. It's not there.

We've had enough lying about Marijuana for the past 72 years. We don't need more of it here. Stop the lying. We can talk about this like adults and point out the strengths and the weaknesses of both initiatives; legally and politically.

But when you find yourself needing to stretch the truth - or outright lie - to support your position?

Maybe that's the cue to rethink your position.

Any Law that would take away patients rights in exchange for privileges is an unjust law.

 

[Koroz]

/snip for size

No, I am just not responding to you. I gave you the reasons why. You didn't want to agree because you didn't think it was the truth.

The truth is, you don't live here. You never lived here, and you have no idea what the climate is like in California from place to place. You tell us that Oaksterdam is the only initiative that can pass in California because of how WE feel as a state toward it, yet you have no clue about what we as a state feel because YOU DON'T LIVE HERE.

I never looked for the second part, because in the grand scheme of things you don't matter to the movement in California. You are a mouth piece from states that have no bearing on what happens here. I fail to see the point of wasting my time answering your views because of that fact. It is like me talking about abortion rights intiatives in Kentucky and how they would feel passing such things when I never lived there. I have lived in multiple states, Oregon, Arizona, California, Texas, NY and I will tell you this. It is different from state to state in terms of personality, how they feel about social programs, policing, and everything else under the sun. So unless you know what you are talking about, you are the one trying to pass off falsehoods telling us how California people feel about Cannabis laws.

The bottom line is the whole reason CCI was started was because Richard hired lawyers to make sure his initiative was bulletproof, when they told him it wasn't an allowed interpretation of the local courts in regards to a lot of the bylaws and regulations he didn't want to change it. THAT is why CCI was started.

The problem is there isn't verbiage that strait up allows them by SAYING it allows them the right, the fact that they don't DEFINE certain things is what gives them the ability. You can't see that because you don't want to. Simple as that. Your book long replies calling me a liar isn't going to change the truth.

 

[fatigues]

Any Law that would take away patients rights in exchange for privileges is an unjust law.

Which patient rights are you referring to?

Show it.

 

[HippyJohnny]

The legal right to brew your own beer is not in effect in all 50 states yet today.
Oklahoma, Wisconson and others havent taken the legislative time to put it on the books.

Clip from Beertown.org
"For 13 years the manufacture, transportation or sale of alcoholic beverages was forbidden. Fortunately, Prohibition was repealed in 1933 and brewing once again prospers. For unknown reasons, however, homebrewing wasn't made federally legal until 1978. "

So if cana follows the same path of re-legalization.... it just might be the liars might not be lying ...


Just a thought

 

[fatigues]

The legal right to brew your own beer is not in effect in all 50 states yet today.

"For 13 years the manufacture, transportation or sale of alcoholic beverages was forbidden. Fortunately, Prohibition was repealed in 1933 and brewing once again prospers. For unknown reasons, however, homebrewing wasn't made federally legal until 1978. "

So if cana follows the same path of re-legalization.... it just might be the liars might not be lying ...

We don't have to guess if the equivalent of "home brewing" would be permitted under CCI - we know that it would be.

The CCI provides:

Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, commencing with section 11300 is added to read:

Section 11300: Laws Permitting Cannabis Activities by Adults Aged 21 and Over
(a)It is lawful, and not a crime or public offense under California law for persons aged 21 and older to engage in the following acts or activities related to the plant genus cannabis: possession, transportation, use, furnishing, sales, cultivation, or processing.
(1)Persons aged 21 and over may cultivate reasonable amounts of cannabis for their personal use. Amounts cultivated beyond personal use needs are subject to commercial restrictions, taxes and fees imposed pursuant to this Act.
(2)All persons aged 21 and over may possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and material associated with activities permitted under this Act. This includes scales or other weighing devices.


We ALSO don't have to guess if it would be permitted under TC2010, because we know it would be:

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.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.
(iv) Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection.

If either wins in November 2010, you won't have to worry about whether the pot equivalent of "home brewing" will make the books or not: you'll know that the Constitution of the State of California has been directly amended to ensure that it has.

Let's not confuse matters. The suggestion was that TC2010 allows

1) local councils to be empowered to erode legal rights and make new offenses in relation to cannabis.

I said show it - he can't.

2) another poster suggests that TC2010 erodes "patients' rights". We'll wait and see what johnnyla is complaining about. Might be he has a point - might be that he has read something that isn't true.

 

[Koroz]

Let's not confuse matters. The suggestion was that TC2010 allows

1) local councils to be empowered to erode legal rights and make new offenses in relation to cannabis.

I said show it - he can't.

There is a huge difference between "Can't" and "Didn't bother".

But since you want to keep pushing the subject, even though as you admit you have no interest in which one passes just as long as one does:

Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls
Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:
(a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized;
(b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale;
(c) appropriate controls on cultivation, transportation, sales, and consumption of cannabis to strictly prohibit access to cannabis by persons under the age of 21;
(d) age limits and controls to ensure that all persons present in, employed by, or in any way involved in the operation of, any such licensed premises are 21 or older;
(e) consumption of cannabis within licensed premises;
(f) safe and secure transportation of cannabis from a licensed premises for cultivation or processing, to a licensed premises for sale or on-premises consumption of cannabis;
(g) prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300;
(h) appropriate controls on licensed premises for sale, cultivation, processing, or sale and on-premises consumption, of cannabis, including limits on zoning and land use, locations, size, hours of operation, occupancy, protection of adjoining and nearby properties and persons from unwanted exposure, advertising, signs and displays, and other controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare;
(i) appropriate environmental and public health controls to ensure that any licensed premises minimizes any harm to the environment, adjoining and nearby landowners, and persons passing by;
(j) appropriate controls to restrict public displays, or public consumption of cannabis;
(k) appropriate taxes or fees pursuant to section 11302;
(l) such larger amounts as the local authority deems appropriate and proper under local circumstances, than those established under section 11300(a) for personal possession and cultivation, or under this section for commercial cultivation, processing, transportation and sale by persons authorized to do so under this section;
(m) any other appropriate controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare.

As I said, Vague undefined measures which allow the local authorities and government to determine the punishments as they deem fit. Places like San Diego which are arresting people in wheel chairs for medical marijuana will have the power to then decide what they feel is appropriate punishments for offenses they will have the power under tax canna to prosecute for.

so, in effect, as I said they will be allowed the power with out a public vote to inflict harsher penalties as they see fit for offenses that are now only punishable by 100 dollar fines. As I said to a poster a few posts back: Less does NOT equal more in terms of wording of legal documents, when this happens it leaves the decisions in the hands of the enemy, those people who want to continue the profiteering of jailing our non violent drug offenders. This isn't a witch hunt against a man just trying to save the cannabis movement, this is a thought out revolt against a man who wants to get rich while ignoring the possible fallout from his badly written, open ended initiative.

 

[fatigues]

There is a huge difference between "Can't" and "Didn't bother".

But since you want to keep pushing the subject, even though as you admit you have no interest in which one passes just as long as one does:

Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls
<<snip>>

No, it's "can't". These are the exact same provisions I referred you to two pages back .

11301 is a regulatory enabling provision. It is expressly subject to 11304, which you did not quote - and which I did quote, two pages back.

11304 provides:

(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.

11301 which you say is the problem, is not granting counties new criminal powers. It enables a county to impose "civil fines and other remedies" (not criminal penalties) as part of an enabling provision for the regulation of commerce, sale, advertising and cannabis clubs etc. if the county chooses to allow such sales. 11301 provides a legislative basis for doing so.

11301 does not grant a county any power to diminish or derogate from the right to consume, cultivate, use or possess granted by TC2010. It does not allow the counties to ban cannabis or to otherwise impose new criminal laws in connection with cannabis. 11304(c) prevails.

You are mistaken.

As I already mentioned, these powers are no different than exists across much of the USA at the local level in relation to alcohol. It's the basic legislative model used to empower a vast majority of the regulation that goes on at the local level --every day -- over a vast host of mundane things. How else do you think that local government regulation of business actually works?

The CCI MANDATES that the Legislature pass laws to govern the commercial sale and cultivation of cannabis -- and contemplates these very sorts of provisions being implemented by the Legislature within one year of the CCI being passed.

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

Has anyone considered the age restrictions being bad simply for the fact that it will be prevent college students from being able to do research on the plant if they are under age.

This is one of the serious flaws with all the proposed initiatives and AB390.

 

[Koroz]

"conduct permitted by this act"

That is the term you are forgetting. Considering that they are not "permitting" people to do the things they are talking about where I quoted, instead are leaving it up to the local government to decide what is "permitted" they are in effect letting the local government decide A) what is permitted, and B) then decide with open ended terms how to handle it in regards to the provisions I quoted.

I'm done arguing with you about it. When you A) live in California, B) come clean with what your hidden agenda is ill continue the conversation. Until then something doesn't smell right with you.. and it isn't the Cannabis.

 

[fatigues]

Has anyone considered the age restrictions being bad simply for the fact that it will be prevent college students from being able to do research on the plant if they are under age.

This is one of the serious flaws with all the proposed initiatives and AB390.

I don't think it necessarily does that, actually. A person who is simply doing sample tests on a plant in a lab setting is not the one who "possesses" the sample: the lab remains in possession of the cannabis. But someone in the funding process is sure to squawk about it, I grant you that.

Putting that aside for a moment, I think the age restrictions are bad, for the better reason that most people who try marijuana try it for the first time LONG before age 21.

Banning sales of alcohol to those under 21 is pretty stupid as well. But that's the legislative trend since Reagan.

The idea is to get an initiative passed and the age 21 limit is there to be consistent with alcohol laws and not deliver a weapon to the "protect the kids" knee-twiching certain to emanate out of the Republican and Christian Right.

I suppose the initiative drafters could have been morally and rationally consistent and tried to do what the Canadian Senate actually recommended to the Government of Canada in 2002: permit the regulated sale and taxation of marijuana to any Canadian over the age of 16.

You can well guess how well that sort of recommendation went over in Canada, too. The prohibitionists had a field day with the "over 16" element of the Report.

Even still, the so-called Nolan Committee's report on Marijuana is still the most thorough and sane governmental report on Marijuana ever conducted. Well worth reading (the full report is about 600 pages long though).

 

[PharmaCan]

11304 provides:

(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.

11301 which you say is the problem, is not granting counties new criminal powers. It enables a county to impose "civil fines and other remedies" (not criminal penalties) as part of an enabling provision for the regulation of commerce, sale, advertising and cannabis clubs etc. if the county chooses to allow such sales. 11301 provides a legislative basis for doing so.

"Other remedies" could be anything. Show me where it says in plain language that "any remedies" doesn't also include criminal sanctions. What you are insisting upon is your interpretation of what the initiative says. I'll bet you a dime to a dollar that Bonny Dumanias has a whole different take on the matter.

Koroz wrote: I'm done arguing with you about it. When you A) live in California, B) come clean with what your hidden agenda is ill continue the conversation. Until then something doesn't smell right with you.. and it isn't the Cannabis.

Amen to that.

PC

 

[fatigues]

"Other remedies" could be anything. Show me where it says in plain language that "any remedies" doesn't also include criminal sanctions.

The ordinary phrase you see is "criminal, administrative, civil or other remedies".

"Civil" is the important part of the phrase, and the word "other" draws its context from that word. If it was criminal, it would say "criminal". That's how statutory interpretation works.

"Other remedies", when they appear as part of the phrase "civil and other remedies" uses the phrase "other remedies" to mean injunctive relief, as distinct from civil damages. It refers to the remedies awarded by Courts exercising their jurisdiction in equity. It doesn't mean imprisonment (exception: contempt).

The only time "civil fines and other remedies" includes detention is through imposition of a sentence by a finding of contempt of court. Civil contempt remains a coercive tool available under "other remedies".

I'm sorry. I'm not going to put you through law school or teach "Remedies" online at ICM.

 

[PharmaCan]

The ordinary phrase you see is "criminal, administrative, civil or other remedies".

"Civil" is the important part of the phrase, and the word "other" draws its context from that word. If it was criminal, it would say "criminal". That's how statutory interpretation works.

"Other remedies", when they appear as part of the phrase "civil and other remedies" uses the phrase "other remedies" to mean injunctive relief, as distinct from civil damages. It refers to the remedies awarded by Courts exercising their jurisdiction in equity. It doesn't mean imprisonment (exception: contempt).

The only time "civil fines and other remedies" includes detention is through imposition of a sentence by a finding of contempt of court. Civil contempt remains a coercive tool available under "other remedies".

I'm sorry. I'm not going to put you through law school or teach "Remedies" online at ICM.

Don't try to parse words with an English teacher, pal. California propositions are required, by law, to be written in plain English and the plain English interpretation of "other remedies" could mean criminal sanctions. In that sentence civil is an adjective exclusive to the noun fines - and other remedies is a conjunctive phrase with a meaning independent from its predecessor.

Sorry, I'm not going to put you through linguistics school or teach grammar online at IC Mag. However, you are resorting to doublespeak and trying to say that when this initiative says one thing it means something else. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

PC

 

[johnnyla]

Which patient rights are you referring to?

Show it.

The State Supreme Court of CA upheld the rights of patients to collectively Cultivate.

Proposition 215 allows medical cannabis in quanitities deemed necessary.

it's already more legal than your butt budies oaksterdam law.

I have a right to cannabis. I get your dumb law passed and then i get the privelege to grow it in a 5x5 area until you take away my privelege.

If you don't live in Cali than go fuck yourself.

 

[johnnyla]

I smell BACON.