Tax cannabis 2010 is a joke.

[skoobie dew]

California's tax cannabis 2010 is a poorly written joke. You can grow about 2lbs & poses only 1oz?

Let's say a cop looks over my fence in august & sees several large plants. He looks over my fence again in October & they have been cut down. He can get a search warrant & bust me for possession of over a oz????

Currently under ca law if I pass the bowl to someone that's 19 it's an infraction(like a speeding ticket). Under the new law I could spent 6 months in and a $1000 fine per instance. Remind me not to go to a party that has folks under 21 at it.

I don't think California has a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. The state spends too much money on teachers, cops, firefighters, and all the rest of it's employees. I know that these are important jobs and the folks that do these jobs deserve decent compensation. But a rn working for the state should not make over 300,000 plus some of the best benefits and retirement in the u.s. Nor should a corrections officer make more than 1/4 million a year.
http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/stateovertime/

If this passes it will be the end of medical marijuana in states that don't have it yet. The opponents of medical marijuana will point at California and say "Medical Marijuana is just a trick! What these people really want is full legalization." And they will be right. Look at who got the prop on the ballot! The owner of blue sky, a mmj club owner.

 

[larry badiner]

apparently (correct me if im wrong) you can posses as much as you want on your property, but you can only transport up to 1 oz

 

[Koroz]

apparently (correct me if im wrong) you can posses as much as you want on your property, but you can only transport up to 1 oz

You are wrong. You can only have 1 ounce of cultivated Cannabis, any portion that has gone over that one ounce has to be destroyed. It can not be gifted or sold unless you own a tax license and thanks to Richard Lee's initiative that won't be up to you to decide, since he gave the power to the local governments to deny the right for you to buy and sell Cannabis even with a state sponsored license, or a vote from the constituents in their district.

 

[CalcioErba2004]

Well said!

 

[Frozenguy]

You are wrong. You can only have 1 ounce of cultivated Cannabis, any portion that has gone over that one ounce has to be destroyed. It can not be gifted or sold unless you own a tax license and thanks to Richard Lee's initiative that won't be up to you to decide, since he gave the power to the local governments to deny the right for you to buy and sell Cannabis even with a state sponsored license, or a vote from the constituents in their district.

I agree with most of what you said, although I dont quite agree with you on the fact about 1oz in your house. You can have more then 1 oz in your house, you just cant leave with more then ounce..

Can I ask what made you believe otherwise?

(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.

With that said, harvested plants (cut, hanging/drying plants) will be counted in the 25sqft. So the sqft requirement only ends when the bud is processed, as in trimmed out off the main stems..

 

[Koroz]

I agree with most of what you said, although I dont quite agree with you on the fact about 1oz in your house. You can have more then 1 oz in your house, you just cant leave with more then ounce..

Can I ask what made you believe otherwise?



With that said, harvested plants (cut, hanging/drying plants) will be counted in the 25sqft. So the sqft requirement only ends when the bud is processed, as in trimmed out off the main stems..

You left out section a.1 the whole basis of what I was telling the second poster. Kinda the most important part of our discussion yea?

Section 3: Lawful Activities
Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, commencing with section 11300 is added to read:
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:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.

(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.

With that said, I am not clear on if the law will state that if multiple people live in the residence if that 1ounce rule will be increased per person, but as of right now and my understanding of what I have read you will not be allowed to have more then an ounce personally, and as section a.1 you can not process more then an ounce. Process, at least as I have ever seen it used in regards to Cannabis means the change from having the hanging bud on plant, to bud's in drying/cure/cultivated.

 

[Frozenguy]

You left out section a.1 the whole basis of what I was telling the second poster. Kinda the most important part of our discussion yea?





With that said, I am not clear on if the law will state that if multiple people live in the residence if that 1ounce rule will be increased per person, but as of right now and my understanding of what I have read you will not be allowed to have more then an ounce personally, and as section a.1 you can not process more then an ounce. Process, at least as I have ever seen it used in regards to Cannabis means the change from having the hanging bud on plant, to bud's in drying/cure/cultivated.

Right. but read iii again. It says pursuant to ii. Not i. only ii. So your all results can be possessed. i doesn't specifically state in the house. ii and iii are more specific. Plus chronjon asked them. I'll try and find the link whre they said you can legally have as much as you want at your house. Just dont travel with more then on ounce.

 

[Koroz]

Right. but read iii again. It says pursuant to ii. Not i. only ii. So your all results can be possessed. i doesn't specifically state in the house. ii and iii are more specific. Plus chronjon asked them. I'll try and find the link whre they said you can legally have as much as you want at your house. Just dont travel with more then on ounce.

(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest

I guess I don't understand how that phrase can be taken to mean more then an ounce can be held on premise AFTER cultivation (not prior)

 

[Frozenguy]

I guess I don't understand how that phrase can be taken to mean more then an ounce can be held on premise AFTER cultivation (not prior)

It says you are allowed to keep any results from your harvest pursuant (considering you follow) part ii. I see that as saying that if my results are 3 oz, I get to keep it as long as I followed the law from part ii.

process from part i probably means you cant make more then like one ounce of hash at a time? Not too sure.

 

[ThcInfused]

this is all very confusing political doublespeak. the only acceptable path to legalization is FULL legalization with no strings attached

 

[2Lazy]

Mmmmm.... one ounce of hash.... mmmmmmm.....

The problem with California is not teachers, fire fighters, and police officers. It's all the stupid ass middle management. It's the 6 person teams of canal rescue teams all with state owned vehicles. You don't even know how many SUVs the state of California owns and pays for. The numbers there are boggling.
,
Now think about street lights. If each light is 400w, and there is a street lamp every 100 feet on both sides of the street, then we're talking about more than 40,000Kw/p just for that one stretch of road, for 12 hours per day, then add up all the miles and miles of street lamps and it's no wonder the state has it's hands in power management.

The final problem is all the middle management. All these people got government jobs that had a ceiling, there was only so far they can go. The state wanted to keep them on, so they hired new people to do the jobs they used to and made them managers. This is the quintessential problem with the CA state government from the ground up. Too much of the state's cash winds up in gov't owned vehicles, the energy bill, and the middle management.

You know... California used to have it's own space program and built a dozen state universities at one time. It's just too much overhead and someone needs to come in and just start it over. Do it right. Fire these butt wipes who sit on facebook all day and drive home in a suburban with gov't plates.

Actually, screw it, I'm moving to Portland in 12 days anyway.

 

[Koroz]

It says you are allowed to keep any results from your harvest pursuant (considering you follow) part ii. I see that as saying that if my results are 3 oz, I get to keep it as long as I followed the law from part ii.

process from part i probably means you cant make more then like one ounce of hash at a time? Not too sure.

1st topic the term process)

In legal speak or "cop talk" processed marijuana is considered to be any marijuana product that has been "processed" for smoking. That means dried and cured. It could mean hash oil, or hash, or Budder. The main part of "processed" that you need to take away from the word in laymen terms would be "ready to smoke"

2nd topic limits defined in the initiative)

The 1 ounce limit is referring to all subsections of article (a). That includes, 1, 2, 3, 4 whatever. You do not have to define all limits in every article when you have the main article defining the limits in part A.1

(a) defines what the section is about and sets an age limit.
(a.1) further defines the limits and in which instance those limits are imposed. Processing is part of this limit. That means that you can not have more then 1 ounce processed at a time.
(a.2) defines where the Cannabis can be cultivated and under what circumstances for those who do not own their land must obtain authorization from the land owner.
(a.3) expands the "personal limit" to also include your home, as long as it is GROWN PURSUANT to section (a.2)

(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.

That is my take, I am hoping you are right and I am wrong. If you notice there are no limits defined in section (a.2) so then the limits would revert to where they are defined in (a.1). The ONLY part of article (a.3) that could if challenged mean more then an ounce on your property would be that they used the term "ANY" there for negating the 1 ounce limit imposed in section (a.1). Can someone in Oakland PLEASE go to Richards store and ask?

 

[ChronJohn]

.

 

[Koroz]

this is what I asked them with their response

It says you can grow in a 5x5 area, and all harvest can be
possessed on the premises it's grown on, but you can only legally
possess an ounce. So if your 5x5 yields you more than an oz, what do
you do with the extra harvest? And where can you legally store it?

You can legally store anything above an ounce in your residence. We wouldn't recommend traveling with more than an ounce if you're not approved otherwise.

hope that helps

Thank you ChronJohn, that goes a LOT further then I thought it would and has made me very happy. I am still very unhappy about them giving the power to local governments to decide if they want to tax and allow sales but this basically means I don't have to take a trip to Oakland (since when I am in cali I live in SD) to buy an ounce every month.

++rep, and thank you for the good discussion Frozen.

 

[Barnt]

Here is my conversation with them regarding employers and drug testing:

Me-
> I thought I would point this out, however I think it is passed the
> time to edit this initiative.
>
> Section 11303-c says:
> "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. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to
> address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an
> employee shall not be affected."
>
> This essentially created a huge loop hole for employees that
> undergoes a drug test. I hope this is not news for you guys, because
> anyone serious about marijuana should already have the following
> information. Drug tests indicate a positive result for marijuana by
> testing for METABOLITES, not actually detecting any form of
> impairment. In essence, current tests only can see if you've used it
> recently (within the past 30 days since the metabolites are fat
> soluble) and not if you are currently impaired.
>
> So even if this initiative passes, people still can lose their jobs
> for simple use!!! For this initiative to protect the people it claims
> to protect, section 11303-c needs to be amended to include a
> definition that any form of impairment testing from an employer to an
> employee will strictly forbid any testing for metabolites. After all,
> the employer should be worried about current impairment, not past
> usage. As it currently stands, employers will use the current tests
> as it still will be legal to do so (since this initiative doesn't
> state otherwise) and the employees will be discriminated for their
> 'legal' use.
>
>
> Everything else in this initiative sounds good, but with this huge
> oversight, my lively-hood is slightly less at stake over the current
> laws. Currently the risks are prosecution and loss of job. If this
> initiative passes it will only change prosecution while leaving a huge
> mess for the people this is trying to protect.
>
>
> Please provide a thoughtful response on how this can be changed or if
> you think this will be a problem as I see it.
>
> Thank you.

Response-

Greetings,

Thank you for your email. Your concerns are valid and are ones that we
are well aware of. While it is an injustice that someone could lose
his or her job because of cannabis consumption, it is quite a step to
allow for recreational use and also prohibit discrimination on that
fact. When drafting the bill, we were very conscious as to what we
could pass and what measures would potentially scare off voters.
Workplace discrimination is a battle that needs to be fought as it is
likely to become a concern if/when the initiative passes. I'll make
sure to bring up your inquiries to the drafters of the initiative and
let you know if I can find out any information but I hope that is an
initially adequate explanation.

The Tax & Regulate Cannabis Team


I emailed them back-
> I 100% agree that we need to get some sort of law on the book as a stepping
> stone. Once it gets passed then we can fine tune, but if we ask for too
> much at the beginning it might not go anywhere.
>
> One other concern that I had was that this initiative does not explicitly
> prevent rewrites/provisions added or deleted without voter approval such as
> Prop 215. While this can be good and bad, what would stop legislators from
> gutting this bill and essentially changing back to prohibition after it
> passes? Obviously the good of writing it this way allows for easier changes
> to fine tune things, but I see it more as a potential problem since this is
> such a touchy topic. Especially now with Barbra Boxer coming out against
> the movement.
>
> Thanks for your reply.

Their response-
Thanks for the follow-up. Because it is a voter initiative, the
legislature can't touch it. If it passes, they can't change the
wording which makes many legislatures nervous that they won't be able
to control the direction of the industry. Prop 215 was voter passed as
well. Any changes to the literature of the bill will have to go
through the voters so hopefully we'll hold everyone more accountable.

The Tax & Regulate Cannabis Team


Essentially, this bill may not be perfect, but it is a needed stepping stone. Vote it in and we can work on changing it in the future. If it doesn't get voted in, there will never be a legal future for marijuana.

 

[skoobie dew]

The legislature could if it wanted to change the law via constitutional amendment. I don't think they will. The measure could also be struck down due to constitutionality revision, also unlikely.

I'll look at the law again, but it sounds to me that you can keep 1oz.

I have read what the tax cannabis people have said. I always take anything said by a paid political spokes hole with a mound of salt. They spin and lie like dogs. Not that they necessarily did here.

Oh and f Barbra Boxer for coming out against the movement.