Growers are just saying NO to pot legalization

[BigBudBill]

How are you going to get conservatives to vote yes for this? Uphold the freedom of everybody being able to toke just because? Or tell them that you're inventing a new tax stream that will help pay for things instead of raising their taxes? Which do you think non-smoking conservatives will more likely support?

True conservatives are supposed to stand for no government interference(including no new taxes) in our personal lives. Its the neo conservatives who all of a sudden want to not believe in those fundamental issues.

So a true conservative should be approached with your reason #1. A Bush-Tea Party conservative-when-it-serves-me should be approached with your reason #2. So it depends, is the conservative you are attempt to sway the vote of a Libertarian or a Right winger? That answer will determine how best to approach the conservative.

Its not always a black or white situation.

 

[Anti]

Just because alcohol and tobacco are unfairly taxed doesn't mean weed needs to be too.

I agree with you. How about we get this thing voted in... and then you can start working on drafting a bill that eliminates the taxes on it? You can put a bunch of your own money behind that "repeal taxes" bill and maybe get it passed.

 

[Anti]

Hey anti some of us have a thing called morals.

Yes. Most of us have them when convenient. What's your point?

I only tell the truth.

That's a lie.

 

[Anti]

True conservatives are supposed to stand for no government interference(including no new taxes) in our personal lives. Its the neo conservatives who all of a sudden want to not believe in those fundamental issues.

Look. I'm not attempting to define what a "true" conservative is. I'm making a simple statement. There are people who are generally against marijuana but might be swayed (or placated) by the tax. Right now, we have to argue that Marijuana is no worse (even though we believe it is BETTER) than alcohol and cigarettes. Right now, the status quo is that Marijuana is a dangerous gateway drug that leads to heroin and meth abuse. We need to convince them it's no more dangerous (and therefore should be regulated in much the same way as) cigarettes and alcohol. Once it is legal to do the damn studies, we can set about proving our case that it's better for you than alcohol and cigarettes.

So a true conservative should be approached with your reason #1. A Bush-Tea Party conservative-when-it-serves-me should be approached with your reason #2. So it depends, is the conservative you are attempt to sway the vote of a Libertarian or a Right winger? That answer will determine how best to approach the conservative.

Its not always a black or white situation.

I don't believe it is black or white. I simply believe that you will need to make concessions to those who will not immediately benefit. People tend to work in their own self-interest. (Note for example how Crunch is against this... it is against his self-interest.)

By making concessions to non-smokers (taxation, regulation) you make them less invested in fighting this bill.

My argument is not that taxation and regulation are the best possible outcome in a utopian world. My argument is that taxation and regulation may help us take the next step toward ending marijuana crime in THIS world.

 

[CaptainTrips]

I agree with you. How about we get this thing voted in... and then you can start working on drafting a bill that eliminates the taxes on it? You can put a bunch of your own money behind that "repeal taxes" bill and maybe get it passed.

Eliminate taxes? Haha... We still have taxes in place to pay for the revolutionary and spanish war and probably every war. Taxes don't go away, they just go up. If you think something is going to go on the ballot to eliminate taxes after prop 19 passes you are high.

 

[BigBudBill]

Look. I'm not attempting to define what a "true" conservative is. I'm making a simple statement. There are people who are generally against marijuana but might be swayed (or placated) by the tax. Right now, we have to argue that Marijuana is no worse (even though we believe it is BETTER) than alcohol and cigarettes. Right now, the status quo is that Marijuana is a dangerous gateway drug that leads to heroin and meth abuse. We need to convince them it's no more dangerous (and therefore should be regulated in much the same way as) cigarettes and alcohol. Once it is legal to do the damn studies, we can set about proving our case that it's better for you than alcohol and cigarettes.

I don't believe it is black or white. I simply believe that you will need to make concessions to those who will not immediately benefit. People tend to work in their own self-interest. (Note for example how Crunch is against this... it is against his self-interest.)

By making concessions to non-smokers (taxation, regulation) you make them less invested in fighting this bill.

My argument is not that taxation and regulation are the best possible outcome in a utopian world. My argument is that taxation and regulation may help us take the next step toward ending marijuana crime in THIS world.

I'm just saying don't lump all conservatives into one category because what works for some, will not fly for the others(and here are your main types of conservatives and the ways to approach either).

I am a Libertarian and as such, the new tax stream idea is just as offensive as raising current taxes. It's government interference where not wanted or needed. BUT as a conservative, the ideal of individual freedoms being expanded is what I see is the golden moment of this movement.

Lets just be educated about the best ways to approach no voters.

 

[215forLife]

Must resist urge to feed the troll,..

 

[JJScorpio]

This really cracks me up... all they want is prop19 to pass so they can line the pockets of the fiscally irresponsible and make their money by shipping it to NY and everywhere else... they don't care about legalization... all they want is taxation.

Let me make something real clear. First you've taken your fancy accusations far enough. Secondly, I haven't bought bud in over 20 years. And unlike you, I've sent bud to Cali for people that had no money left because they got ripped by thier "caregiver" and they were dying of a fatal illness. No money, no compassion I guess. I've also gifted thousands of clones and given countless pounds to disabled veterans. All without getting paid, imagine that? Try it sometime.

So as for me hoping Cali legalizes so I can save a few bucks, that's funny. But it shows your morals clearly.....

 

[CaptainTrips]

No "conservative" IE republicans want to expand freedom to do drugs. Libertarians need no convincing, the rest of the "conservatives" are happy with government intrusion as long as it doesn't personally affect them, or even if it does...

 

[JJScorpio]

Do some of you really think that cannabis will ever be legalized, yet not taxed? Name me one thing in this Country that isn't taxed? Gas, Cigs, alcohol, food, clothes, vehicles, prescriptions and on and on. But some of you want something that is illegal in most places to not only not be taxed, but also unregulated? That's funny. Or should I say dillussional.

I think some of you will make any excuse so long as you can keep getting your 4 or 5 hundred dollars an ounce. That's what I think. And it sure doesn't take to much to figure it out. And I'm sure the Govt is seeing it to. Some of you are going to continue fighting for the greed so hard that they just may revisit the 215 issue. You'll have no one to blame but yourselves....

 

[cannaboy]

Must resist urge to feed the troll,..

LOL.

 

[215forLife]

Jj be glad I'm yes for 19 because I could blow holes through that last statement,...

The real question is "how in the fuck will any taxation be enforced when it violates ones 5th ammendment right to not self inciminate? Until feds change the law the state and local governments can't compel compliance and make it hold in court"...

Jah bless the US Constitution!

 

[Herborizer]

Intersting read, prop 19 word-for-word analysis: http://stash.norml.org/californias-prop-19-a-word-for-word-analysis

 

[Gypsy Nirvana]

I look at this whole Californian vote on Prop 19 from a global perspective.......California is within the United States of America.......and the USA over the last 80 years has managed to get most all countries across the globe to comply with it's sullied and in-humane reasoning that cannabis use is some sort of practice conducted by devil worshipers/rapists/habitual criminals/weirdo's/terrorists/outlaws/lunatics/junkies/dark skinned musicians e.t.c.....ad nauseum...

The USA and it's IMF (International Monetary Fund) have with-held much needed aid/grants/loans to a multitude of different countries unless they comply with the USA's attitude on cannabis prohibition to try and eradicate cannabis and criminalize those that grow/supply and use it.....sending thousands of troops into foreign countries to propergate this war on the plant and supplying billions of dollars in military aid to various governments to help them to further this war on the plant and those that choose to cultivate or use it.......

So if I can see Californians vote 'Yes' on legalization of cannabis and the population of that state of the Union can grow and use it without getting their lives screwed up by being penalized for it.......so can the rest of the world who I reckon will take California as a model for their own laws to change for the better in regards to cannabis.......

Taxation of Cannabis on those that wish to sell it will offer a great incentive for other foreign governments to legalize......since they all run on money, and are always looking for more ways to aquire it.....

If the USA is no longer the protagonist that continues the prohibition of cannabis then all of these other nations could well come to their senses and realize that there is a fortune to be made in its legalization and a fortune to save by not criminalizing it......

The whole world is looking at California to do the right thing here and legalize cannabis.....no matter what the small print is, no matter what taxes are put upon it.......it could well set the ball rolling so that all the people on the planet who wish to peacefully cultivate or use cannabis can do so without risking their lives and liberty any more.....

 

[binaryfission]

^^^ i couldn't agree more. the world could see a huge benefit from the normalization of cannabis and other "drugs". It is the poorest countries of any specific region that produce "narcotics". Why not stop prohibition and help these countries and, in turn, the world? With fair trade standards and marketing practices these countries and their people's could place the products they have grown for centuries on an international market.

Imagine cannabis in a market like the Dutch flower market. Imagine raw resin grown in India on a commodities market being hedged by organically grown Thai sticks or aged gardah from a sustainable farming community on the Af/Pak border.

Imagine walking into a coffee shop in California or Amsterdam and being able to buy the same Thai Sticks, grown by the same farmer. Sold just like coffee with his face on the bag.

Imagine our community establishing a standard like "Equitably Hand Trimmed." Meaning the trimmer was not using a machine and payed a fair wage that the community agreed upon. This seems especially pertinent to the California brethren worried of diminishing returns for their crops destroying the economy. This simple act of solidarity could keep prices high and keep the money in the hands of the people.

 

[215forLife]

Free market marijuana! I agree...! I'm curious as if anyone can answer how prop 19 doesn't help promote it.

 

[215forLife]

If anything it encourages it. Nothing will stop anyone from starting their own corporation
. Infact it gives greater latitude for the Secretary of State to approve more types of entities and not just the two it does now.

 

[GanjaAL]

From another thread which is food for thought.

Though we all assumed it would not do so, it appears that either by omission or by setting new precedents, Prop 19 WOULD impact medical users in the state.



From http://www.examiner.com/x-14883-San...supersede-or-amend-its-medical-marijuana-laws



Proponents of California's Regulate Control and Tax Cannabis 2010 Initiative (Prop. 19) claim it will have no effect on California's medical marijuana laws, that it "explicitly upholds the rights of medical marijuana patients".

The language of the initiative says otherwise.

Yesterday, Russ Belville stated in a comment to his blog in The Huffington Post that "Prop 19 does nothing to change Prop 215 or your access to your current dispensary." Belville is NORML's Outreach Coordinator and Host of NORML Show Live.

Meanwhile, in an article that is causing quite a stir among proponents of ending marijuana prohibition, Dragonfly De La Luz lists 18 reasons "Pro-Pot Activists" oppose Prop. 19.

Regarding whether or not Prop. 19 will amend or supersede California's medical marijuana laws she had this to say:

While amendments were made ostensibly to prevent the initiative from affecting current medical marijuana law, a careful reading of the initiative reveals that this is not, in fact, the case. Certain medical marijuana laws are exempt from the prohibitions the initiative would enact, while others are glaringly absent.

Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.[17] In spite of the fact that the tax cannabis Web site says otherwise, the only medical marijuana exemptions that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative actually makes are with regard to possession, consumption and purchase limits, which only ensure that patients would still be allowed to buy medicine at dispensaries. The word “cultivate” is conspicuously absent. Whereas today a person with a doctor’s recommendation has the right to grow up to an unlimited number of plants, the initiative would drastically reduce that number to whatever can fit in a 5’x5’ footprint (around 3-6 plants—per property, not per person). This will force many patients to resort to buying instead of growing their own medicine, because of the inconvenience caused by producing multiple grows a year rather than growing a year’s supply of medicine at one time, as many patients currently do outdoors. And growing indoors—which typically requires special grow lights, an increase in hydro use, and a lot of time and attention—is a comparatively expensive endeavor.

The initiative would further impact medical marijuana patients by banning medicating in the privacy of their own homes if there are minors present, as well as in public (currently perfectly legal[18])—an invaluable liberty to those with painful diseases who would otherwise have to suffer until they got home to relieve their pain.

Finally, the medical marijuana laws that are exempted from this initiative apparently only apply to cities. For medical marijuana patients who live in an area that has county or local government jurisdiction, according to a strict reading of the initiative, medical marijuana laws are not exempt.[19]

The amendments she refers to were made after Comparing California cannabis/marijuana legalization initiatives was published 31 Jul 09 in Examiner.com. This article noted that the proponents of Proposition 19 had manged to get through 14 drafts without exempting medical marijuana patients from any of its provisions: not the unlimited taxes & licensing fees, not the possession & cultivation limits, not the prohibition on smoking in public or in sight of anyone under 18.

The amendments consisted of adding the phrase "except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9" to the end of Items 7 & 8 under Purposes.

The initiative mentions medical marijuana three times and omits mentioning it once.

The Mentions

The three mentions are Items 6, 7, and 8 in Section 2, B. Purposes.

6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.

The courts will determine that this means Prop. 19 is intended to amend and supersede California's medical marijuana laws; Proposition 215 (H&S 11362.5) and SB 420 (H&S 11362.7-H&S 11362.9).

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.



8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

The first thing to note about these sections is that they are specific to cities. Nowhere does the word "county" appear.

In Item 7, "city" is specified 3 times, every way they know how: "if a city", "that city's limits", "the city's citizens". The rule of thumb is if you say something three times you mean exactly what you said.

This item exempts medical marijuana patients only in cities, and only with regard to how much they may possess and consume. It makes it legal to ban medical marijuana dispensaries, collectives, and delivery services. Unless the city enacts a sin tax, any buying and selling will be illegal.

The Omission

Section C, Intents, has two items.

Item 1 is a list of the laws Prop. 19 is "intended to limit the application and enforcement of". The inclusion of the phrase "including but not limited to the following, whether now existing or adopted in the future" opens the door for the argument to be made that Prop. 19 may (and most likely will) be interpreted to "limit" the "application and enforcement" of the now existing medical marijuana laws.

This interpretation is reinforced by Item 2 under this section, a list of state laws Prop. 19 "is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of".

Note that Item 2 is not open-ended. There is no "including but not limited to" modifier for this Item.

Conspicuously absent from either list are California's medical marijuana laws: Health & Safety Code Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7-11362.9.

These mentions and omissions occur in the 'preamble' of the initiative, titled Findings, Intent and Purposes. Concerns have been expressed regarding how legally binding these sections are and that nowhere in the sections to be added to California's legal code is there any mention of medical marijuana or any exemption for medical marijuana patients and providers.

Exploiting pain and suffering




Nowhere does the initiative exempt medical marijuana cultivators or distributors from the tax.

Proponents of Prop. 19 often argue that everything is taxed. This is not true. Illinois is the only state that taxes prescription pharmaceuticals, and that tax is 1%.

Proponents of Prop. 19 claim they want to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol. It costs $450 to license a pharmacy in California and between $340-$580 to license a retail alcohol establishment. Long Beach claims 85 medical marijuana dispensaries and charges $14,742 for a license. Oakland has a limit of 4 dispensaries and charges them $30,000 for a license.

Proponents of Prop. 19 argue that it is illegal to consume alcohol in sight of anyone under 21 or in public. California is littered with sidewalk cafes and pizza parlors that serve beer, wine, and mixed drinks in public and in the sight of children.

To date the cities of Oakland (the home or Proposition 19), Sacramento (The State Capital), Long Beach, and Berkeley have announced proposals to tax medical marijuana in order to keep their medical marijuana dispensaries from being shut down should Proposition 19 pass.

The most liberal of these is Berkeley, where medical marijuana patients will pay 7.5% less tax than recreational users, and it will only cost them 2.5% more than the 9.75% in sales tax they're already paying.

Sacramento is proposing a sin tax of between 5% and 10% for recreational users and 2% to 4% for the sick and dying. "We're trying to get ahead of the process," said councilmember Sandy Sheedy, who proposed the ordinance.

Medical marijuana patients use considerably more than recreational users. Irv Rosenfeld receives 11 ounces per month from the federal government. Maine recently determined that it's medical marijuana patients would use 5 ounces per month, on average. The tax on medicine, besides being ethically inconsistent, falls most heavily on the sickest, who tend to be the poorest.

At $400 per ounce, a medical marijuana patient who needs 3 ounces a month will pay $138.60 tax per month in Oakland.

Meanwhile, no city or county in California has reversed itself on a ban or moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries since Oakland (home of Prop. 19) passed Measure F, the first medical marijuana tax.

Meanwhile, several cases are working through the courts challenging medical marijuana bans, moratoriums, and regulations which are de facto bans, as discriminatory and in violation of California's medical marijuana laws. Passage of Prop 19 will remove any legal basis for these cases.

Taking the 'medical' out of 'marijuana'

Dennis Peron on Tax & Regulate #1



Prop. 19 adds five sections to California's Health & Safety Code, §§ 11300-11304.

§11300 is titled Personal Regulation and Controls. Item a) begins with the phrase "Notwithstanding any other provision of law".

This section makes possession of more than an ounce or by anyone under 21 illegal. It also limits non-licensed cultivation to 25 square feet per residence or parcel, not per person.

If the authors of Prop. 19 wanted to protect medical marijuana patients, why did they say "notwithstanding any other provision of law"?

§11301 is titled Commercial Regulations and Controls. It begins with the phrase "Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law". It prohibits sales to anyone under 21. Nowhere in this section is there any exemption for medical marijuana patients, cultivators, or distributors.

In addition to allowing cities and counties to ban commercial cultivation and sales (including medical marijuana collectives and dispensaries) it states the following:

(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;

This means that the taxes and fees paid by the licensed commercial cultivators and distributors will be used to eliminate the competition. For example, Oakland (the home of Prop. 19) is in the process of licensing four cultivators to supply the approximately 6,000 pounds per year sold by the four licensed dispensaries. Bay Citizen put it this way:

Growing marijuana can be lucrative, but the city’s proposed new rules would eliminate small-timers. It would cost $5,000 just to apply for a cultivation permit, and a regulatory fee of $211,000 for the lucky winners. If one has the cash, it’s a small price to pay for the right to produce a crop with an estimated retail value of $7 million. The fee pays for regulating cultivation in Oakland, which will include enforcement against the guys with grow lights in their garages and backyard sheds.

The New York times reports that the leading contender for one of these cultivation permits is Jeff Wilcox, a member of the Proposition 19 steering committee. "Mr. Wilcox estimated that AgraMed would cost $20 million to develop."

Reasonable Accommodation



Montel Williams lights up Maine medical marijuana conference

Current California medical marijuana law does not prohibit smoking in public. It is not currently illegal for medical marijuana patients to smoke in public or in sight of anyone under 18:


11362.79. Nothing in this article shall authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances:

(a) In any place where smoking is prohibited by law.

(b) In or within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a school, recreation center, or

youth center, unless the medical use occurs within a residence.

(c) On a schoolbus.

(d) While in a motor vehicle that is being operated.

(e) While operating a boat.

While debating Keith Kimber on Time4Hemp Chris Conrad stated Prop. 19 would have to win by a wider margin than Prop. 215 in order to supersede it. He reiterated this in an email that was passed around Facebook.

Even if it did conflict with or amend the medical marijuana laws, which it repeatedly does not do, Prop 19 would still have to pass by more than 56% to have any effect on Prop 215, which is highly unlikely.

Conrad is in error. The California Initiative Guide states the following:

If the provisions of two or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail (Cal. Const., art. II, Section 10(b)).

This is not a case of two or more measures in the same election.



I for one am not voting for Prop 19, for a multitude of reasons, this one just being the latest and most egregious.

For me... it is just going backwards. Right now... the VA just gave veterans a tool so that is can be fought as the federal level. Where as prop 19 will still not stop people from going to jail.

 

[IwannatokeNbone]

pro legalization
pro hemp seeds for kids school lunches
pro hemp for clotheing, soaps etc.


im also for raw consumption or at the very least experiements being done to see what the effects of cannabinoids in there natural state are on cancers and other imbalances, as well as consumeing the leaves like a salad for silica with as we all know along with mag builds bone, not calcium and is hard to find outside of horsetail and nettles in the plant world.

 

[kmk420kali]

Free market marijuana! I agree...! I'm curious as if anyone can answer how prop 19 doesn't help promote it.

I would say that after the recently adopted Oakland Restrictions...that only allowing 4 Mega Grows (2 of which will be the Dear Mr Lee's)...that is not really promoting "Free Market" at all--
"Monopoly"...it's not just a Game anymore--