Poll shows Cali voters favor legalization

[ratdawgie]

I agree Superb. Two things concern me about the legislation language and may motivate me (scripted, legal MMJ grower for personal use only) to vote against the law:

#1- the change from plant numbers' limits to 25 sq. ft.... currently 6 plants. 5x5 is a really small area and my unanswered question is (drumroll) where do you measure? The area the plant touches the ground or the area the canopy covers... totally undefined (and as such open for angry minded legislators to fuqu with)

#2: this text - "(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." This is still very nebulous... 1 ounce per person general "possession" like around town, yet how much allowed at the home front? This needs defining... even if it's defined as unlimited, or a really high poundage.

Now I DO like the idea of going to a sq. foot measurement.. eliminates all the nebulousness of "6 mature but not over 12 immature" yada yada. But even I need a larger space than that with my 2 150s if the measurement is done in a biased way.

Summary: The allowance of all varying districts to set their own regulation and (ahem) tax/ fee amounts combined with all the law nebulousness = an ongoing environment of "we'll screw with you if we want"... and I am currently surrounded by backwards counties who have "teabagger" outbursts in their supervisor sessions related to this issue.

No, I think this law could have been written more balanced, including the needs of patients and districts more clearly defined. We need laws that benefit districts and their (very often) legitimate concerns, BUT that also define CLEARLY the rights of all MMJ users and growers in the state in a way that no-one, in any district, or with any agenda, can refute... like it or not. Clear, concrete, un-fuzzy, and not open for debate from some DA on a witch hunt, or some corporation on a $$ only agenda.

I may opt to keep the law we have while waiting for someone to finally realize that if you leave any space for argument on these process issues, those who wish to control us and our behavior will surely use it to thwart our freedom.

And you KNOW that when it comes time to amend this law if passed, that the passion on the issue will have waned, and we'll all probably forget where we left the signature petitions when it comes time to turn them in ..lol

 

[guest5703]

I saw they mentioned Concentrates and edibles once, did I miss anything else? Cause what I read doesnt really explain if we can have any or not....


"in a criminal proceeding a person accused of violating a limitation in this Act shall have the right to an affirmative defense that the cannabis was reasonably related to his or her personal consumption."

So if I had a quarter pound inside my house I would be arrested right? Cant have more than 1 ounce? But would I in any way be protected by the fact that I could prove I take many pictures and document all my marijuana for my personal hobby, would the court consider that at all do you think?

No scale so how do we know how much we possess? 25 square ft is basically what I have right now so I'm ok at the moment, but I want more space and to be able to possess at least a lb....

 

[kmk420kali]

#1- the change from plant numbers' limits to 25 sq. ft.... currently 6 plants.

The Cali Supreme Court already changed that-- There is no plant count any more-- http://safeaccessnow.org/punbb/viewtopic.php?id=4661

 

[Hammerhead]

I thought it was 70 now. Shit man gets changed and you dont even know.


I just read that and im not a state card holder I have medicann so I guess this wont help me and I quote

Exemption from arrest and prosecution upheld for state-issued ID cardholders

 

[Easy Skanking]

If California legalizes it in any way it will be a step forward for everyone! It will also hopefully make the feds reschedule it.

 

[mikek7849]

If California legalizes it in any way it will be a step forward for everyone! It will also hopefully make the feds reschedule it.

Too bad this bill doesn't legalize marijuana. And in many cases it makes marijuana production, possession, consumption, and dispensing more restrictive then it is now. The only way this bill will pass is by the ignorance of those who only read the title but not the text.

 

[Hammerhead]

I have read the bill. Im not in your camp so this make me stupid boy your a winner. This statement of your is ludacris I don't vote on this blindly. I make my choice with the information I researched . If it passes or fails we will all have to deal with it. Are you willing to burn your bridges because someone does not agree with you analogy of the bill. I guess we will see how bad it get when it passes wonrt we.

 

[Neo 420]

Too bad this bill doesn't legalize marijuana. And in many cases it makes marijuana production, possession, consumption, and dispensing more restrictive then it is now. The only way this bill will pass is by the ignorance of those who only read the title but not the text.

Guess I'm ignat too. And I have read the ENTIRE bill at least 10 times with the help of some legal type people.

Two questions Mike:

How in heck can it be more restrictive if it passes when it is illegal now? This bill can not modify prop 215/SB420 so that has no bearing on your statement. So please explain how this will "Tighten" the control?

 

[real ting]

Big things happening down there.

 

[mikek7849]

I have read the bill. Im not in your camp so this make me stupid boy your a winner. This statement of your is ludacris I don't vote on this blindly. I make my choice with the information I researched ...

Your are right, I apologize. Just because people vote for this bill does not make them ignorant. I guess that statement was out of frustration for the number of individuals that simply go off what is being advertised about the bill as opposed to what the bill states (and in some cases doesn't state). This bill in my opinion is written not to legalize but to corporatize.

 

[Bulldog11]

I am going to have to agree with Neo 420 and Hammerhead. Make it legal and over grow the state. Me being a med patient, technically things don't change. But if everybody can grow, it makes it a lot less likely that my crops will get ripped, or the cops will have the man power to care about my small crop.

I think the medical scene has started the flow but this bill will open the flood gates. We have been saying it forever, "Overgrow The World"

 

[mikek7849]

Two questions Mike:

How in heck can it be more restrictive if it passes when it is illegal now? This bill can not modify prop 215/SB420 so that has no bearing on your statement. So please explain how this will "Tighten" the control?

Because this bill is not making marijuana legal. It simply makes it lawful for a person to posses less then an ounce. It also makes it lawful for an individual to consume and cultivate marijuana in certain circumstances. We are also permitted to posses paraphernalia and equipment needed to cultivate.

After the 4 paragraphs of what is being made lawful the bill is followed by 17 paragraphs of new regulations. And following those 17 paragraphs is another whole section on fees and taxes.

As far as modifying prop 215 and/or sb240 it doesn't need to alter them because anything that is in conflict with this "tax and regulate bill" is superseded by the legislation due to the following wording in the bill:

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:

 

[Hammerhead]

I just read your quote. You are misinterpreting it's meaning this only applies to tc2010. Prop 215 is already law and can not be changed. It's paranoid folk like your self that breed fear into others. I have asked many of these questions and got my answers from the people that wrote the bill. I was told prop 215 will in no way be effected by tc2010. You can go to there website and ask the questions yourself. I have had 10 of these debates it wont help you here make your voting power herd by vote no. I on the other hand will be voting Yes.


I will let you finish sqabling about this horid bill. I have had my fill of these theads. I leave it to you to change our minds lol

 

[Neo 420]

Because this bill is not making marijuana legal. It simply makes it lawful for a person to posses less then an ounce. It also makes it lawful for an individual to consume and cultivate marijuana in certain circumstances. We are also permitted to posses paraphernalia and equipment needed to cultivate.

After the 4 paragraphs of what is being made lawful the bill is followed by 17 paragraphs of new regulations. And following those 17 paragraphs is another whole section on fees and taxes.

As far as modifying prop 215 and/or sb240 it doesn't need to alter them because anything that is in conflict with this "tax and regulate bill" is superseded by the legislation due to the following wording in the bill:

Hey Mike,

I know this bill is crap but I like it better that than the status quo. And 1 thing to add. A person can have up to a ounce on their possession but can have whatever they harvested from the 5x5 area. Currently, a non med licensed patient can have 0 ounces on them. NONE.

Whats better? A bird in the bush or a ounce in the hand? I respect your opinion and feel what you saying. Maybe in 3 or 4 years once the system has set. We can write a amendment bill to fix the crap. You have to admit, we are at the best point in history to do this with Cali leading the way. Join us brother and lets fix the rest later....

PS..Don't worry about the price going down....With the tax(es), overhead, etc etc.. being added the price may even go up. Look at the MMJ model. Crappy weed at inflated prices..

 

[ratdawgie]

Balance

Balance

I agree mikek7849... in that it mostly seems to deal with the ills and worries of the current system... for districts and co(r)ps. Not a bad bill... just seems incomplete on the consideration of the patient... again, clarity in these bills seems to be the key... it's just loose and leaves more room for messin' with ya.

kmk420kali: I had forgotten the precedent was broken in that recent legal decision re: numbers... ironically the numbers thing was thrown out as I recall because the language re: numbers was.. nebulous.... worked to the favor of many patients.

randude101: just taking my first look at that Washington bill.. do you see any improvement/ downside compared to the CA language?

One would think advocacy agencies for legalization might have demonstration language drafted up for copy and paste for these situations? NORML? Anyone?

 

[ratdawgie]

Amendability

Amendability

I DO like the language in the CA initiative re: amending it later....seems to allow for any amendment in the spirit of improving the bill w/out allowing lawmakers to ruin it.

It's also simple and workable language, especially after glancing thru Washington's initiative, which basically removes all criminal connection to pot... and deals with each area of the law re: drug use and connection to remove cannabis' connection to it. 18 or older also. THAT would be landmark legislation for sure.

I am now leaning in favor of the CA initiative as a starting point... based on further review. Just wish there were some (more) concrete passages re: getting the holier than thou-ers in LEA's and government positions to not be able to "well, then we'll get to you THIS way" us anymore.

But maybe a baby step is what it takes. I anticipate areas that embrace the law and develop effective and fair practices might become destination industries... while those who are stiff about it lose out on their $ cow... guess we'll see soon.

 

[mikek7849]

I also worry about the economic aspects. In CA much of our state continues to thrive while some parts of the Country are experiencing a massive economic depression. I feel the ambiguity regarding the taxes, fees, and licencing is going to be used to give deep pocketed and influential corporations an unfair advantage. If that happens, money that was once used for the benefit of CA will now be siphoned to out of state and in some cases out of the Country corporate entities and executives. With cannabis being California's number 1 cash crop this could cause a huge depression in CA.

The other section that bothers me is this one: "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;" The bill makes it lawful for a person to cultivate in small numbers the bill then turns around and gives local government the right to authorize cultivation (or not).

It just seems that this bill is written in order to corporatize not legalize. Until these major, unacceptable issue are worked out, it is in all of our best interest to maintain the status quo and work to get a bill on the ballot that will actually legalize the plant next year. The legalization movement has already started therefore we can't sell our selves short and allow a bill to pass that is against the best interest of quality local grown herb.

 

[SeniorBuzz]

I also worry about the economic aspects. In CA much of our state continues to thrive while some parts of the Country are experiencing a massive economic depression. I feel the ambiguity regarding the taxes, fees, and licencing is going to be used to give deep pocketed and influential corporations an unfair advantage. If that happens, money that was once used for the benefit of CA will now be siphoned to out of state and in some cases out of the Country corporate entities and executives. With cannabis being California's number 1 cash crop this could cause a huge depression in CA.

The other section that bothers me is this one: "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;" The bill makes it lawful for a person to cultivate in small numbers the bill then turns around and gives local government the right to authorize cultivation (or not).

It just seems that this bill is written in order to corporatize not legalize. Until these major, unacceptable issue are worked out, it is in all of our best interest to maintain the status quo and work to get a bill on the ballot that will actually legalize the plant next year. The legalization movement has already started therefore we can't sell our selves short and allow a bill to pass that is against the best interest of quality local grown herb.

don't know where the thrive parts of CA are?? Unemployment is over 12%. and CA has a $19 Billion Dollar budget deficit.

 

[mikek7849]

The parts of the state that are agricultural based.

 

[Brain]

Neo 420- I wouldn't leave it to the politicians to further relax the laws if this passes. Legalizing hemp is a must for sure I don't think it will pass but I'm sure a similar bill will pass in the next few years as it is almost assured that there will be some sort of cannabis legalization bill on the ballot every year for the foreseeable future until it happens. This bill is the foundation for the movement and not a very solid one. Should not build a house without a solid foundation. Also, if I may continue with the house analogies, when buying a house it is best to look around and find the one perfect for you, not buy the first one you see.