Growers are just saying NO to pot legalization

[GanjaAL]

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--

 

[vta]

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--

By Oakland limiting these Mega Grows to 4, It may help the local growers more than if they just opened it wide open. Besides...what are Lee's projections for both ? 120lbs a day or something? Anyways...120 pounds a day is a drop in bucket in the $14,000,000,000 Cali pot market. Soon other cities will follow and they might not limit such a small number.

 

[MrBomDiggitty]

now im really confused... so prop 19 does affect 215? Because grow area isn't specifically mentioned in MMJ laws, prop 19 can limit them? I don't get it.

 

[vta]

From another thread which is food for thought.

Yeah...that propaganda has already been shot down. There happens to be another blog running where they are taking Dragonfly's 'myths' and giving rebuttal...here is the link and a preview...the response is ongoing and will be updated.

Link

"Stoners Against Tax Cannabis Initiative" Misguided


This afternoon, I was made aware of a new source of opposition to Proposition 19, a blog written by a self-described "professional stoner". She identifies and addresses some eighteen "myths" that Proposition 19 supporters believe. I firmly believe one of the biggest threats to the successful passage of this initiative in November is this kind of paranoid mistrust gone rampant. I will be addressing her concerns one by one, and, if Miss Dragonfly would like to respond, I would welcome an honest dialogue that educates everyone more about both current marijuana laws and Proposition 19.


First, let's look at the introduction:

"Cannabis consumers rejoiced at the idea of being able to buy from their neighbors or at parties—just as they already do—with no legal retribution."

Where is she living? It's not the same California as I am. Unless your neighbor happens to be a legal dispensary (they're getting harder to find, especially around L.A. County), and you have a doctor's recommendation (admittedly, easy to get), there is most certainly legal retribution. And it has never, to my knowledge, been legal to sell or distribute freely at parties. Make no mistake, cannabis is still illegal in California. Even a doctor's recommendation does not protect you; there is great debate over Proposition 215 and SB 420 and exactly what they legally allow and what they don't. Over 400 dispensaries were recently closed in L.A. County alone, and it's well known that Cooley and Trutanich would be just as happy to see the rest closed down too.

"The initiative itself is a hazy maze of regulations and controls, some of which are ambiguous and confusing even for those well-versed in marijuana law."

It's true that some portions could use some clarification. What people need to realize is that this initiative is a foundation, not a panacea. I know that it's disappointing for some, but Prop 19 is not meant to cure the effects of 80 years of cannabis prohibition overnight. It's a only the first step.

"...for an issue that would have such a direct and unprecedented impact on our daily lives, it’s crucial to decide your vote based on knowledge, rather than assumption."

I agree completely. So let's look at these alleged "myths"...

Opposition Myth #1: The initiative will end the War on Drugs and substantially reduce marijuana arrests, saving millions in prison costs.

First of all, please point me at anyone who is seriously saying that passing Proposition 19 will single-handedly and immediately "end the War on Drugs." It would be a huge victory, though. One of the anti-cannabis opposition's biggest fears is that we pass this thing, not because they they believe (as an organization) it will actually be a massive public health and safety nightmare, but because they know it will not be. And how do they continue fighting their "war on drugs" when anyone can point to California and say, "Yeah, so what about them?"


Now, she goes on to point out that the feds will continue to fight tooth and nail. However, 99% of marijuana arrests in 2008 were made by state officials, not federal ones. The federal government cannot compel the states to enforce their laws. And they simply do not have the budget or manpower to do so. DEA agents typically work with local and state police and SWAT in their raids. Without local support, they will be forced to focus on the top level dealers and the largest grow operations.

"Anyone growing or possessing cannabis without a doctor’s recommendation would still be subject to arrest and seizure by the federal police"

Unfortunately, as it stands, anyone with or without a doctor's recommendation or local permit under California's medical laws is subject to arrest and seizure by the federal police. Gonzales v. Raich showed that the U.S. Supreme Court has no problem ignoring the will of the people when it comes to medical cannabis; medical patients cannot use their compliance with the laws of their state as a defense in federal court.

The Obama administration did indeed announce that it would no longer raid medical patients, but sadly, the raids do continue, though not at the rate they did previously. Just last week, federal agents raided two dispensaries in San Diego, over the protests of both ASA and NORML representatives on the scene.

The point is-- we are not safe now. Only by standing up for our rights will we ever be safe.

"Contrary to popular assumption, the drug war in California will not end, nor will it be impacted much by the initiative. This is because the initiative doesn’t call for full legalization; it proposes to legalize possession of only up to one ounce. And in California, there is no “drug war” being fought against possession of up to one ounce, because marijuana is already decriminalized.

The penalty for carrying an ounce is a mere citation and maximum $100 fine. Moreover, possession of one ounce is on its way to being downgraded from a misdemeanor to an infraction, because the state Senate voted in June to reclassify its status. No one goes to jail for having an ounce or less in California, and no one gets arrested, because it is not an arrestable offense."

This is all true, in terms of lowered penalties for under one ounce. However, decriminalization is not legalization. First, $100 is still a chunk of cash for a lot of us. In this economy, especially, I know I don't always have an extra $100 lying around. Beats going to prison, yes, but it's not an acceptable state of affairs. Second, you get cited and will not be arrested as long as you appear in court. And once you appear and presumably are found/plead guilty, you will have a misdemeanor drug conviction on your record. Such a charge is enough to bar you from federal student loans unless you attend an "acceptable rehabilitation program." It will haunt you years down the line as you try to get a job, or in a custody battle with an ex-spouse. That doesn't even begin to discuss repeat "offenders." Decriminalization is better than nothing, but it's a far cry from ending prohibition.

Under Proposition 19, these misdemeanor "citations" for mere possession will disappear entirely, as will the more serious felony charges for cultivation.

"One often-quoted statistic in the initiative debate is that misdemeanor marijuana possession arrests reached 61,388 in 2008. However, it is important to note that this statistic does not refer to any arrest demographic that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative would affect. This statistic refers only to possession of more than one ounce, possession by minors and possession on school grounds —offenses which the initiative will not legalize. It does not refer to nor does it include marijuana arrests for possession of one ounce or less, because this is not an arrestable offense. Therefore, the initiative would have no impact on reducing these arrests rates."

This is true, as far as it goes, but this means things will be no worse than they are currently for those caught on school grounds or with larger amounts, and will, as explained above, significantly improve for those with reasonable amounts. I can think of no reason why even a heavy cannabis user would need more than one ounce at a time for purely personal use.

"Statistically, the demographic that accounts for nearly one-quarter of total arrests for marijuana possession in California happens to be those in the 18-20 age group. But because the initiative explicitly makes it illegal for even adults age 18-20 to possess marijuana, these arrests will not decrease, and the drug war against young adults will rage on."

It is currently illegal for 18-20-year-olds to possess cannabis (along with everyone else). The fact that the 21 age limit is unfair to young adults is not a good reason to not pass it for the large majority of us that are over 21.

"Furthermore, since the initiative would keep possession of amounts greater than one ounce illegal and likewise maintain the illegality of private sales of any amount, the overall impact that the initiative would have on ending the drug war, reducing arrest rates and saving on prison costs would be negligible, at best."

Proposition 19 guarantees certain state-wide basic rights to cannabis possession, transportation, consumption, and cultivation. Commercial activities are left to individual communities. Cannabis is too profitable and the benefits too tangible for most cities and counties to keep all sales illegal for very long, while their neighbors reap the financial rewards of their residents spending their money (and paying their taxes) the next city or county over. The state Legislative Analyst's Office, a non-partisan fiscal and policy advisor, found in their review of the the initiative that Proposition 19:

could result in significant savings to state and local governments, potentially up to several tens of millions of dollars annually, by reducing the number of marijuana offenders incarcerated in state prisons and county jails. It could also reduce the number of persons placed on county probation or state parole. The county jail savings would be offset to the extent that jail beds no longer needed for marijuana offenders were used for other criminals who are now being released early because of a lack of jail space.

and that it "could result in a major reduction in state and local costs for enforcement of marijuana-related offenses and the handling of related criminal cases in the court system."

"As an example of how highly misunderstood this initiative and its potential impact on the drug war is, the California NAACP recently pledged their support for the initiative based on the belief that it will put an end to the disproportionately high number of African-American youth going to jail “over a joint.” [7] But in reality, the initiative will have no impact on this phenomenon whatsoever. As it is now, the State of California does not jail people for having a joint; it is not an arrestable offense. And, as mentioned above, possession of up to one ounce is on its way to being reclassified from a misdemeanor to an infraction—which carries no criminal-record stigma. The state does, however, incarcerate people for selling small amounts of marijuana. And since this initiative keeps private marijuana sales illegal, no matter the quantity, there will be no decrease in the number of African Americans—or anyone else—arrested for selling a joint."

Alice Huffman of the California NAACP understands what's at stake. She never said in the cited (and linked) article that Prop 19 will end African-American youth going to jail over a joint. Here's the actual quote:

"In California African Americans make up 7 percent of the population, but 22 percent of the marijuana arrests," she says. "I see it as a civil rights issue because so many of our young people get their start in the criminal justice system over a joint."

Remember all that stuff about decriminalization not being the same as legalization? Because young blacks are more likely to be subject to racial profiling, they are more likely to be caught, despite having overall lower numbers of cannabis users than whites. And if they are caught-- even on a misdemeanor charge-- suddenly they can't go to college (because they are ineligible for student loans) or get a decent job (because the drug charge shows up on their record). It can be crippling, even if you never see the inside of a jail. Let's not forget that marijuana prohibition originally came about in this country due to hysterical racist fears of African-Americans and Mexicans.

Tomorrow: Myths #2 and #3

Where as prop 19 will still not stop people from going to jail.

lol...really?

 

[CaptainTrips]

Yeah...that propaganda has already been shot down. There happens to be another blog running where they are taking Dragonfly's 'myths' and giving rebuttal...here is the link and a preview...the response is ongoing and will be updated.








lol...really?

What happens if your grow is 40 square feet rather than 25? You get caught with 35 grams in public? What if 20lbs of weed is found in your grow room? Do you think "they" will respect that and not try to lay some distribution charge on you?

 

[GanjaAL]

But like he said no one will go to jail with prop 19 LOL... When prop 19 goes into effect... it will be just like it is now... but 18-20 will end up in jail more it turns a minor infraction into a possible 6 month stay in jail... sorry but they seem to forget that right now they do not take you to jail for an ounce or less.

 

[cannaboy]

If you end up in jail your a DUMB ASS!!! regardless of grasses or being 18/21

 

[vta]

What happens if your grow is 40 square feet rather than 25? You get caught with 35 grams in public? What if 20lbs of weed is found in your grow room? Do you think "they" will respect that and not try to lay some distribution charge on you?

What happens if you get caught driving 100mph on the freeway? You go to jail.

Your being silly.

What happens if you get caught now with 40 square feet...go to jail!

If you are a 'recreational' smoker...not a med user!!!!!...then don't break the law and do what a good boy does.

Why do you need to carry more than an ounce out in public? As a recreational user that is?

If you can pull 20lbs from a 'legal' 5x5, then you my friend are a God.

Listen...judging by your need to have 20 lbs at home and carry more than an ounce when you leave your house...then either your a dealer or have one severe hang nail...either way..go get a card. This law isn't for you then. Its for the millions or 'ordinary' people that don't want to go to jail for growing a plant on their porch or smoke a joint.

 

[vta]

But like he said no one will go to jail with prop 19 LOL...

So know your going to put words in my mouth. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously if you spew garbage like that.

 

[Lazyman]

By Oakland limiting these Mega Grows to 4, It may help the local growers more than if they just opened it wide open. Besides...what are Lee's projections for both ? 120lbs a day or something? Anyways...120 pounds a day is a drop in bucket in the $14,000,000,000 Cali pot market. Soon other cities will follow and they might not limit such a small number.

At $5000 a pound retail, that's about $220,000,000.00 a year, or about 1.5% of California's weed. The other two growers will probably have similar outputs (so they claim) so now 4 growers (ok 3,) are supplying what, 3% of Californias weed, to the tune of a half a billion a year?

I just don't see how these grows can be legit under California law, let alone Federal. I bet the DEA raids these big shops as soon as they have plants.

 

[Lazyman]

What happens if you get caught driving 100mph on the freeway? You go to jail.

Your being silly.

What happens if you get caught now with 40 square feet...go to jail!

If you are a 'recreational' smoker...not a med user!!!!!...then don't break the law and do what a good boy does.

Why do you need to carry more than an ounce out in public? As a recreational user that is?

If you can pull 20lbs from a 'legal' 5x5, then you my friend are a God.

Listen...judging by your need to have 20 lbs at home and carry more than an ounce when you leave your house...then either your a dealer or have one severe hang nail...either way..go get a card. This law isn't for you then. Its for the millions or 'ordinary' people that don't want to go to jail for growing a plant on their porch or smoke a joint.

Ok I gotta agree the law is very vague on this.

Say you get popped with a 6X6 grow. Do they arrest you for illegal cultivation of 36 square feet, or illegal cultivation of 11 square feet? With no per plant limits, and seemingly no vertical limits (square vs cubic feet) and no penalties outlined for overages, how is that to be addressed?

Since an apartment complex is one parcel, does that mean there's one designated grow per complex? Same for most condos. Who gets to grow for all 100 units?

 

[CaptainTrips]

What happens if you get caught driving 100mph on the freeway? You go to jail.

Your being silly.

You'll get a ticket most likely.

What happens if you get caught now with 40 square feet...go to jail!

Most likely not. I posted on this thread or maybe was another. I know someone caught setting up a grow room by the police in the middle of the night with no paper work + plants and nothing happened. Sure its only an anecdotal incident, but its the general mood of california.

If you are a 'recreational' smoker...not a med user!!!!!...then don't break the law and do what a good boy does.

Why do you need to carry more than an ounce out in public? As a recreational user that is?

Its not about need its about the government nanny state saying what people can and cannot do. Sure an ounce is better than you can do now. But its still creating more laws and expanding the nanny state in a way.

If you can pull 20lbs from a 'legal' 5x5, then you my friend are a God.

With 2x1000 watt and 4 harvests a year, it wouldn't take long to build up the poundage. Or a 5x5 outdoor harvest...

 

[Anti]

Since an apartment complex is one parcel, does that mean there's one designated grow per complex? Same for most condos. Who gets to grow for all 100 units?

Don't really have definitive answers for the rest, but I can take a crack at this last segment.

If you live in an apartment complex.... do you split the rent with all of your neighbors and each pay a 'chunk' of the apartment complex rent? Or do you have an individual lease and pay merely for your own apartment? If the former, you may have an issue. If the later, you can grow 5x5 in each apartment. Each apartment is a separate living space and legally your own domain. You still have to have your landlord's permission, however.

A condo is even MORE your own space because you own it.

If you and a roommate split one living space, 5x5 (to share) for both of you.

If your roommate has his own entry/exit, kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, ADDRESS, etc. then likely 5x5 (each) for both of you.

 

[vta]

I just don't see how these grows can be legit under California law, let alone Federal. I bet the DEA raids these big shops as soon as they have plants.

I don't think they are. Even Oakland's City Attorney advised the Counsel it was against the law. I really do think your right about the DEA...they might chill after the smoke dies from 19 passing and people are growing it everywhere. Even then, until something changes at the FED level these guys will be an easy target.

At $5000 a pound retail, that's about $220,000,000.00 a year, or about 1.5% of California's weed. The other two growers will probably have similar outputs (so they claim) so now 4 growers (ok 3,) are supplying what, 3% of Californias weed, to the tune of a half a billion a year?

$5,000 a pound? Must be some of that 70%thc stuff they got going on in Hawaii. lol

1st off...these guys aren't selling to the consumer, retail. These guys will be wholesaling their product. Not only that....but unless their stuff knocks the crap out of the current growers weed, then their price will really be low.

Ok I gotta agree the law is very vague on this.

Say you get popped with a 6X6 grow. Do they arrest you for illegal cultivation of 36 square feet, or illegal cultivation of 11 square feet? With no per plant limits, and seemingly no vertical limits (square vs cubic feet) and no penalties outlined for overages, how is that to be addressed?

Since an apartment complex is one parcel, does that mean there's one designated grow per complex? Same for most condos. Who gets to grow for all 100 units?

I don't know about the penalties for going over. Remember that these are minimums and different cities will increase this. Also that if you need to grow more than that..then you probably should get a card.

The majority of voters will not go for full out legalization...with no restrictions. Maybe after a few places loosen up first but not when its illegal almost every place in the world. R. Lee is a business man and he wants to make more money, that is why he did all this...not because he wants to help end the drug war. I don't think for one minute that he is doing this for 'us'. What I do believe is that is law is going to keep more people out of the criminal system...at large. It's going to allow anyone 21 ore over to grow. So what if the most you can grow is in a 5x5...it's a start and it's better than what we have now....generally speaking of course.

 

[vta]

You'll get a ticket most likely.

really....I went to jail for going 102mph on my bike.

Most likely not.

most likely yes...your buddy was lucky. This is from 2008:

Felony arrests, which involve sales or cultivation, surged 19% to 16,123, the highest level since the height of the drug war in 1990.

Also depends on where you live in this big state. Grow 10 plants without a card in San Bernadino or Riverside and tell me you won't go to jail! Seriously...I can dig up hundreds of reports of people going to jail for cultivation. And I'm not talking about 10,000 plant busts either. As a matter of fact, go check out the security thread here and then tell me the same thing.

With 2x1000 watt and 4 harvests a year, it wouldn't take long to build up the poundage. Or a 5x5 outdoor harvest...

were trying to be realistic here. How common is it to have a 20 lb outdoor plant while keeping it contained within 5x5? Think about it...20 pounds. Anyways...I see your trying to take it to extremes to prove your point and I don't want to argue with you. So keep on your fight and good luck to ya!

 

[CaptainTrips]

were trying to be realistic here. How common is it to have a 20 lb outdoor plant while keeping it contained within 5x5? Think about it...20 pounds. Anyways...I see your trying to take it to extremes to prove your point and I don't want to argue with you. So keep on your fight and good luck to ya!

How about 5 pounds then? 20 pounds seems like a big number, but if you grow continously and don't sell or give away large amounts your freezer is going to get rather heavy. Im just saying "what if". Prop 19 says you can have as much as you want, but it does not legalize sales and if you get caught with pounds in your house I think theres a good chance you could get nailed with some sort of trumped up distribution...

 

[JJScorpio]

Why would you again post this self serving garbage even after the section of the Bill concerning MM clearly shows this person is a liar at best?

Here is the exact wording of the Bill pertaing to current medical marijuana laws in California.

“except as permitted under Health and Safety Section 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9″.

This section explicitly exempts California’s medical marijuana statutes, patients, and providers or caregivers from the provisions of ROT 2010. You don't even need to be a Lawyer to understand what it means.

It's getting to the point we are going to start removing articles and statements that aren't backed up by fact. This is a very important Bill and people aren't going to be able to make an informed decision with lies being printed.

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.

 

[vta]

How about 5 pounds then?

Right on Captain...I totally agree with you now. The thing is we won't know until those things play out. Just like we didn't with 215 at 1st. It is going to take some case law before any little piggies start respecting. Until then I would keep a 'reasonable' amount and just give any leftovers to a friend or something.

 

[Anti]

Right on Captain...I totally agree with you now. The thing is we won't know until those things play out. Just like we didn't with 215 at 1st. It is going to take some case law before any little piggies start respecting. Until then I would keep a 'reasonable' amount and just give any leftovers to a friend or something.

I'm pretty sure that someone who found themselves with 5 (or 20) lbs of excellent herb and no way of smoking it all could throw a party for consenting adults as often as they liked... once this was legalized.

Absolutely no need to stockpile 5lbs if you're constantly growing more, right? Not to mention that you don't have to blow your 5x5 out getting max yield if you are concerned about the possibility of having too much herb.

(Just imagine that. "I have too much herb." What a wonderful problem to have!)

 

[liquidlight]

I'm with the guy (among others) who said this:

I'm not even american so, take my comments with a pinch of salt

To those of you saying quality will go down, how will legalisation affect your growing skills, you can either grow good weed, or u cant, it being legal or not simply doesnt come into it

To those saying you can already grow, just keep it secure and you'l be safe ..... c'mon are u for real ?, the paranoia that comes with growing is horrible, constantly having to check for smells, constantly cleaning up house so no tools are visible, having to tell people your not home when you have to do some work. The list goes on.

To those worrying about your profit margins on the black market .... in all fairness, your scum of the earth, get up off your hole and find something your good at, you uttery useless human beings.

Bills do set precedents, but its much easier to change something thats already in effect, than bring about a new bill altogether. Be sure before u vote no, that this will actually come up for debate again

Before medical marijuana became an issue, Amsterdam was considered the haven of weed. This current bill is introducing MUCH better conditions than they've ever had, so i really cant see what the big complaint is. I understand this is a californian issue, but realise aswell, that this is a worldwide concern.

In a 5x5 area if u cant grow enough weed for yourself, you really shouldnt be growing imo lol (please dont come back at this with a "u dont smoe as much as i do" comment, u clearly arent maximizing your space. For those worrying about multiple users per residence, look up vertical growing.

I'm gonna stop, i think i'll have lost most people by the starting comment of not being american anyway. Hopefully this is the start of a worldwide change on the war against weed.

I've underlined a part of what he said because it's very important;

Be sure before u vote no, that this will actually come up for debate again

. What kind of message is voting 'NO' sending to your government, be it county, state or national? In my view it sends a message that people don't want cannabis legalised. Period. I don't think anyone is going to take the time to listen to all your individual reasons as to why you're saying no ... they'll just count the votes and determine from the ballot that no one wants cannabis legalised, and i don't think thats a clever move at all. Do you actually believe that your government is going to legalize cannabis wholesale with no conditions atatched?!! Be realistic! Like many have said in this thread, It's a start and it will make smoking cannabis publicly acceptable as more conservative folk begin to realise that all their fears of hippie pothead maniacs were unfounded. Amendments to this bill can come later for the picky choosy ... and selfish, ones among you.

I also agree strongly that this should primarily be about freedom to smoke cannabis legaly, without fear of prosecution and stop making criminals out of people who enjoy smoking our beloved herb.

A reminder:

Bills do set precedents, but its much easier to change something thats already in effect, than bring about a new bill altogether

.