Marijuana: California Tax and Regulate Cannabis 2010 Initiative Suspends Signature

[Blue Dot]

Disagreeing with a ballot proposition that, you believe, will exclude your particular conservatively-minded municpality is completely understandable from a standpoint of your self-interest. I get that part.

But I don't think you get the part that it would also include San Berdo county as well as Imperial County and possibly even Orange county. In other words EVERYONE south of LA.

You do realize that there are more people living south of LA then there are the entire population of Northern CA north of the Golden Gate Bridge.

This isn't just Koroz's self interest, this is the interest of a hell of a lot of californians.

 

[fatigues]

But I don't think you get the part that it would also include San Berdo county as well as Imperial County and possibly even Orange county. In other words EVERYONE south of LA.

(Actually, I well understand So. Cal's conservatism in contrast to the rest of the state.)

Assuming (without deciding), that your proposition is correct - how does that get you to "step in the wrong direction"?

 

[Blue Dot]

Assuming (without deciding), that your proposition is correct - how does that get you to "step in the wrong direction"?

Because instead of having it like it is now where our county can at least debate whether sales or legal or not, there will be no questioning it if TC2010 becomes law because bonnie will then have the law behind her to ban sales.

That is TAKING AWAY a power with have currently. I'd say that's a step in the wrong direction.

 

[fatigues]

Because instead of having it like it is now where our county can at least debate whether sales or legal or not, there will be no questioning it if TC2010 becomes law because will then have the law behind her to ban sales.

That is TAKING AWAY a power with have currently. I'd say that's a step in the wrong direction.

Nonsense. If sales are arguably permitted now under Prop 215, they will be permitted tomorrow under Prop 215 - just as arguably.

TC2010 does not change Prop 215 in the least.

Anything else? Or is that all you got?

 

[Blue Dot]

Nonsense. If sales are arguably permitted now under Prop 215, they will be permitted tomorrow under Prop 215 - just as arguably.

TC2010 does not change Prop 215 in the least.

Anything else? Or is that all you got?

Bonnie doesn't even believe sales are permitted under 215 right now so TC2010 will just cement the issue for her and we're screwed.

If Trutinach in LA feels the same way then the MAJORITY of the population in cali will be without sales and an iniative that hurts the majority of the voters is NOT a good iniative.

Iniatives are supposed to help the majority, not hurt them.

 

[fatigues]

Bonnie doesn't even believe sales are permitted under 215 right now so TC2010 will just cement the issue for her and we're screwed.

If Trutinach in LA feels the same way then the MAJORITY of the population in cali will be without sales and an iniative that hurts the majority of the voters is NOT a good iniative.

Iniatives are supposed to help the majority, not hurt them.

The ability to permit or prevent sales of marijuana under TC2010 is left up to municipalities / counties - not to Prosecutors, nor up to the City Attorney. You need to change your whipping girl/boy.

TC2010 does not provide any power to District Attorneys - or City Attorneys - to "decide" anything under it.

I understand that you think that's not a "good initiative". But again - how does that get you to "a step in the wrong direction"?

 

[Blue Dot]

The ability to permit or prevent sales of marijuana under TC2010 is left up to municipalities / counties - not to Prosecutors, nor up to the City Attorney. You need to change your whipping girl/boy.

Great, so it's up to Bill Horn and the SD board of supes, the same group who took 215 all the way to the SCOTUS.

Well then, I feel so much better.

 

[fatigues]

Great, so it's up to Bill Horn and the SD board of supes, the same group who took 215 all the way to the SCOTUS.

Well then, I feel so much better.

I understand that it doesn't make you feel good. But for the fourth time - how does that get you to "a step in the wrong direction"?

 

[Blue Dot]

I understand that it doesn't make you feel good. But for the fourth time - how does that get you to "a step in the wrong direction"?

Since you like law so much.

Asked and answered.

Bonnie doesn't even believe sales are permitted under 215 right now so TC2010 will just cement the issue for her and we're screwed.

If Trutinach in LA feels the same way then the MAJORITY of the population in cali will be without sales and an iniative that hurts the majority of the voters is NOT a good iniative.
Iniatives are supposed to help the majority, not hurt them.

Just replace Bonnie and Trutinach with "counties" in the above quote. Same difference.

 

[fatigues]

Since you like law so much.

Asked and answered.

If that's all you got, then you simply don't have an answer to that question, do you?

I suggest that what you really mean to say by "a step in the wrong direction" is, in fact:

"A step in the right direction that does not go far enough to suit my geographical interests and those who share my geographical interests."

All of which is an acceptable and legitimate reason to express disappointment.

But that's a far cry from "a step in the wrong direction."

 

[Pythagllio]

The really silly thing about bitching about the commercial aspects of TC2010 is that they won't take effect until the Feds give the thumbs up...not in any part of the state. That's a good 10 years away with the most optimistic outcome. All of the personalities bitched about above will have long since moved and the entire landscape will be different. Yeah, it makes a whole lot of sense to vote against TC2010 over something that may never be doable, and if doable is years if not decades away. In the meantime things get better for everyone in CA.

 

[Blue Dot]

If that's all you got, then you simply don't have an answer to that question, do you?

I suggest that what you really mean to say by "a step in the wrong direction" is, in fact:

"A step in the right direction that does not go far enough to suit my geographical interests and those who share my geographical interests."

All of which is an acceptable and legitimate reason to express disappointment.

But that's a far cry from "a step in the wrong direction."

Just from a purely logical arguement how can something possibly be a step in the "right" direction if it negatively impacts the majority of the state?

You don't make progress by making negative steps.

 

[fatigues]

Just from a purely logical arguement how can something possibly be a step in the "right" direction if it negatively impacts the majority of the state?

You don't make progress by making negative steps.

A majority of the state?

Firstly, you don't even GET to the "majority of the state" until you make the LEAP that city councils in a majority of the state will do just that - a difficult assumption given that the premise of a successful passage of TC2010 requires passage by more than 50% of the vote, statewide. I am simply not prepared to concede that assumption. In the circumstances, it appears to be unjustified.

Secondly, a "negative" step is "a step in the wrong direction" - and we've just spent the last page going through your inability to get to that conclusion on any logical basis. You don't get there again by just stating it again with a different word.

Give it up already.

What is comes down to is this: you think this proposition would pass even if the ability to opt out of allowing sales by municipalities was not present.

By including it, you believe that you are being denied a ballot victory that would entitle you to leverage Berkeley's votes to assist you in shoving it up the ass of your conservative neighbours. I well appreciate the sentiment, and if I lived in San Diego, I might share it, too.

If the numbers on TC2010 result in numbers that bears that belief out, you'll get your chance to do just that some 2-6 years later when a statewide ballot initiative is put forward. At that point, people will have had a chance to live with TC2010 for a while and the proposition will no longer seems so radical to some. Additionally, the demographic train will be that much closer to having arrived.

Right direction, right goal, but with a finish line that does not put you there as quickly as you think you can reach right now.

You might be right; you might be wrong.

The people who put their money and effort on the line disagree with your political assessment of what the state is willing to do now and how the Federal gov will react to it. Given that there are many people in the movement who think that the ballot initiative is about 2 or 6 years too early, there is a genuine difference of opinion on the point among interested parties. TC2010 is the compromise between yours and the other divergent position.

 

[Unsane]

Just from a purely logical arguement how can something possibly be a step in the "right" direction if it negatively impacts the majority of the state?

You don't make progress by making negative steps.

It will POSITIVELY impact the MAJORITY of the State. We Californians will be permitted to possess, cultivate, and use cannabis. How is this a NEGATIVE development?

As the sale of cannabis, let us do some rough calculations:

California has a population of roughly 36 million.

The Bay Area has about 7 million people

LA County has about 10 million people.

The Emerald Triangle plus Sacramento has about 2 million people.

SD County has 3 million people.

Even if we assume that the remaining parts of the state (14 million) follow SD's model, then the majority of the state would still benefit from being allowed to buy and sell cannabis.

(This is a rough picture, but I hope the point is made)

If the numbers on TC2010 result in numbers that bears that belief out, you'll get your chance to do just that some 2-6 years later when a statewide ballot initiative is put forward. At that point, people will have had a chance to live with TC2010 for a while and the proposition will no longer seems so radical to some. Additionally, the demographic train will be that much closer to having arrived.

Right direction, right goal, but with a finish line that does not put you there as quickly as you think you can reach right now.

Again, the initiative is a positive step that will move us forward to a stronger legalization regime.

 

[Blue Dot]

As the sale of cannabis, let us do some rough calculations:

California has a population of roughly 36 million.

The Bay Area has about 7 million people

LA County has about 10 million people.

The Emerald Triangle plus Sacramento has about 2 million people.

SD County has 3 million people.

Even if we assume that the remaining parts of the state (14 million) follow SD's model, then the majority of the state would still benefit from being allowed to buy and sell cannabis.

If you include San Berdo county + Orange County + Imperial county then if LA goes along with what Trutinach wants then the entire socal will have no sales and I hate to break it to you but socal has more of a pop then NorCal, hence the MAJORITY.

 

[fatigues]

if LA goes along with what Trutinach wants

If LA council rejects marijuana sales and taxes under TC2010, which will have only won state approval in the first place because about 58-60% of the City voted in favor of it at the polls, I'll take that as a sign of the Apocalypse.

If you have to make unjustified assumptions to support your argument, your argument is almost always wrong.

 

[Blue Dot]

If LA council rejects marijuana sales and taxes under TC2010, which will have only won state approval in the first place because about 58-60% of the City voted in favor of it at the polls, I'll take that as a sign of the Apocalypse..

If you mean that 58-60% of LA's pop voted for 215 then that may be correct but what does that have to do with sales since 215 NEVER mentioned sales?

I guess you haven't been following LA closely recently, they are (were) pretty close to banning dispensaries. Obviously not everyone in LA likes the idea of sales.

 

[richyrich]

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.

^^^ There it is. IMO, there is no need for this provision in the initiative. Lee is on an agenda for a lock down since he is golden right now in Oakland. Monopoly!

Clearly, there is no political advantage to persuade voters in the centre and right-of-centre that a ballot Proposition will not force the sale of marijuana down their throats if their own city does not want it.

And just as clearly, Oakland is certain to be the only area, in all of California, that will allow sales of marijuana - thus ensuring Richard Lee is the de facto next billionaire of California!

Or... or... it could be that you're analysis of what will happen is only-ever-so-slightly paranoid, unbalanced and biased as all hell, and that, just MAYBE, that if more than 50% of Californians vote in support of TC2010, then, just possibly, more than the City of Oakland might allow the sale of MJ, hmm? <------ Not at all. I am not willing to vote on your speculation here.

Let's get back to this provision ^^^. That is the problem I have with the initiative. Why does it need to be in there if, as I continue to read, I keep on hearing that the public is in such support to legalize now. We need not give any concessions to the ones who may oppose; the ones who are not to have "sales" crammed down their throats. I don't think the public has a problem with sales as much as they do their bias against MJ itself alone, period. Again, I say that provision has no place and no need.

 

[Greensub]

I can see your point with San Bernardino/Riverside/Imperial/Sandiego but I not sold on wich way it would go in LA or Orange County. Fatigues had a good point in that the city/county attorneys don't get to vote on that, and didn't LA city council just vote to allow medical sales?

sorry, I forgot to quote Blue Dot (to whom I was responding) and missed some of the posts...

However, I don't like that provision in the bill either... I don't think it was necessary to get it on the ballot, and I don't think it will be needed to pass, but I guess we're gonna find out by the looks of things.

Does anyone know how close any of the others are in gathering signatures...

 

[Koroz]

The problem is Fatigues doesn't live here. Simple as that. He only see's the major headlines and that is it. He hasn't lived here for over 30 years like some of us, so he sees an influx of hundreds of Dispensaries in LA, and Richard Lee in Oakland or the huge grows in Humbolt and he thinks that means the MAJORITY of California are all into Cannabis and prop 215.

You are wrong. Flat out, unequivocally wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about int his situation and NOTHING you say will change that. When you look at every place south of LA City, East of LA City, North of LA City to Oakland. West of Oakland, East of Oakland and north of Oakland to Sac.

Then North of Sac all the way to Humboldt (including, Glenn, Butte, Siskiyou, Tehama, Shasta) and the like you have constant barrage of Anti Cannabis, anti Prop 215 media, you have raids on medicinal users and Dispensaries from the local governments and DA.

The reality is my friend, I lived in Northern California for 20 years, Southern California for 15, I visit frequently and have family in both who live, work, and medicate there. If you think the MAJORITY of California local governments are going to allow sales you are so sorely mistaken its not funny. There is going to be bans on sales and purchasing state wide that will spread like wild fire.

Richard Lee is a long time Resident of California. He knows this. Why do you think he added the provision? There is one simple problem I have with Richard Lee's initiative. He is taking the power out of the hands of the majority of California voters who will vote yes on legalization, and putting it back into the hands of the local governments.

This is always a problem. The government doesn't need "more" power, it needs less.