ICMAG Administration endorses The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

[mullray]

even if we did it still would not be until the feds change it to 3 or 4. I do believe the feds are going to do something if this passes I can not say what but I believe it will be positive. Man it's way past my bed time

I agree - I predict the Feds are going to hammer the legal licensed Oakland grows. Technically they have no choice because when a crime is in progress they are compelled by law to stop that crime. It's not like Oakland has been too quiet about this and even though they have a non disclosure situation regarding giving info to the Feds I'd say the DEA read the NY Times and just about every other newspaper in the country. 3 licenses have been handed out and a lot of other people are scrambling for the fourth. My bet is they don't even get their first crop out but I hope I'm wrong.

 

[StoneElemental]

Your statement is so wrong it seems as though you didn't bother thinking before you said it. In fact prop 19 give the most rights to the average "weekend recreational" user. The average user couldn't be fined 100$ everytime they try to buy or posess a measely little 8th. The real problem is for growers especially growers with larger ideas; mostly small business growers who want in or to stay in the market.

because the people that don't have cards don't need them to begin with. Your average weekend smoker isn't going to get more than a slap on the wrist with how much weed they have, unless they are a street dealer. But we're not legalizing weed so people can sell here. So prop 19 has no benefit to your average American "recreational" drug user.

Whatever anyone thinks it is or isn't is irrelevent, it's what the bill actually states. From what I can tell IMO this bill seems pretty well rounded and easily a bump up from whats currently available which is only medical use.

my only beef with some yes voters is that they really really want 19 to be something it isnt. they want it so bad. they want 19 to be full legalization. when really it isnt. people have waited and wanted their entire lives to have a chance at voting for legal mj.

i just wish those people actually had a real legalization bill to put their yes vote on.

its such a leap of faith for me to say yes to this. it would be so exciting to say cali is legal.

without the pause, and the reality that most likely there will be more arrests, more money taken in the forms of new fines on pot smokers. and without a very real possibility of big businesses pushing out all of the mom and pop growers, and lobbying away our current freedoms on the city and board of supervisor levels, our grows and medical grows.

thats real, thats a very real possibility. hell the fight at the local level is continual just to maintain what we have goin now.

I really see this as progress and fail to see what's so bad about this.

-25sq ft grow area with unlimited home stash potential.
-Carry up to 28.5 grams with you publicly.
-Localities/cities decide on public use, commercial growing, sales and distribution.
-Age requirement to help prevent misuse.
-Tax revenue to help repair the state economy.
-Concentrated/diverted LEO attention to more legitimate problems.

PLEASE someone tell me where they're going wrong here and if I'm missing something thus far.

Take care and stay safe all.
-S.E.

 

[localhero]

i really do like the tax revenue aspect of this. if theres anything that will get the feds on our side its the income potential of cannabis.

thats a big plus to get rid of the giant illegal grows out in them thar hills too. if theres one thing the gvt is good at, its getting paid.

most of my arguments are coming off as negative, and they are. damn straight thats how i feel about most of this issue.

i dont see a problem with aproaching and ironing out all aspects of this 19 thing. and if some do, then what are they afraid of?

if i cant resolve in my own mind atleast the very real argument that 19 is not better than 215, then man its gonna weigh so heavily on me if this passes and goes pear shaped.

and the apple oranges reply, im not buying it. the irs will tell you to your face to use any and all applicaple loopholes and write offs you can to lower your taxes.

i will use any and all applicable loopholes to procure my rights as a marijuana user and grower. that includes 215, which i use and applies to me.

cant sleep over this. because if it goes pear shaped and in 5 years commercial interests have cornered and excluded the market, while lobbying out even our medical rights to grow more than 5 x 5, and we end up with just more ways to get fined and persecuted. man im gonna be so pissed at myself.

im gonna think, why the fuck didnt i listen to my instincts on this? every time i ignore my instincts i get screwed. i could have been out there protesting this. i could have been handing out fliers at every dispensary, writing to ever pot mag and rag, i could have been fucking doing something proactive to stop this.

the 215 v 19 is the lynchpin for me. and im griping here on icmag, im not on the streets doin shit about it. maybe i should be.


night everyone, its been fun, but im taking a break from this thread.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Yeah we should vote against this because localhero not might make as much money off his 215 garden. It's obvious that's his main concern. Our jail time and shattered lifes are a small price to pay to ensure localhero makes that fucking scrilla.

 

[gaiusmarius]

i do find it interesting that some of the most vehement yes guys are using insulting and uncivilized language and keep ignoring the few valid points that are still being brought up.

it's also really annoying to have to re post shit because people don't bother reading the whole thread before jumping in.

as i said on the whole i can see this as a step forward, but i am surprised at the attitude of some folks here that seem to be pretending this thing is all sun shine and lolly pops from here on out.

the fact that cultivation is not mention in regards to prop 215, when they do mention all other aspects of 215, is what has so many 215 growers worried.

then there is the legitimate part about the increased penalties and jail time for cannabis related stuff. voting to make penalties heavier is hard to swallow no matter how big the bribe. didn't we want an end to people being locked up for non crimes with no victim?

those famous quotes by Ben Franklin and Jefferson should make you think; are we not giving up the potential for real cannabis freedom for temporary safety? ie from the law?

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), Letter to Josiah Quincy, Sept. 11, 1773.

Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not
have, nor do they deserve, either one.
-- President Thomas Jefferson. 1743-1826

 

[binaryfission]

The part regarding minors that is being argued is the following language:

(iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.

It's ambiguous. It does not define "space." Is that a room? A home? A backyard? If a cop smells herb from my yard and hears kids playing in the same "space" what is your liability?

No such laws exist for alcohol or tobacco.

One poster mentioned that a bong on your table, visible from the window is no longer probable cause for search. But what about if there is a Care Baers coloring book on the table next to it?

100% valid concern with the language of the prop.

unenforceable, and the law permits smoking around kids, reread it.

Double standard.

It's different because with 19 we can still go to jail but corporations and large scale grow ops can't because they can afford a license? Fuck that.

Also, it is a really bad idea that the process for getting a license is not worded into this bill. This means that whichever agency is put in charge later will be able to regulate, tax, and set the license fees at their whim?

dude, the licensed folks are going to face FED task forces. Real rippers with badges. who are you tryin got kid?

 

[binaryfission]

back, for a minute.

yes i already said im voting yes on this, and i am voting yes.

but i really hate this prop.

im voting yes because i believe we as cannabis afficianados will band together to mold the crappy possible outcomes of this crappy prop to our favor.

history has proven this wrong so far, but something exciting might be happening very soon that has my hopes up that we will.

still no answer to my question eh?

First you are a walking contradiction.
Second, History has proven that we can and will expand the Prop to fit our needs. Look at LA. you think they envisioned that many dispensaries when 215 or 420 were authored?

You say you're for progress and you believe there will be a transformation of the bill as it evolves. SO , why all the fear mongering on points that will be quickly clarified after the Prop passes and legal challenges for and against begin the transformation process.

Every argument you have presented will be challenged in the first month after passage i suspect.

SO please, stop with the misinformation and fear mongering.

 

[binaryfission]

i do find it interesting that some of the most vehement yes guys are using insulting and uncivilized language and keep ignoring the few valid points that are still being brought up.

what valid points? all i see are bad legal scholars misinterpreting things, failing to read the bill, or not understanding how the law evolves thru lawsuits.

I'm not a legal scholar and even if i were the law is vague, as most legislation is, and will be until it is allowed to be debated and challenged in the courts.

 

[Mister Postman]

I dont know. I'm not even from Ca., and I'm on the fence on these issues. With Oregon trying to pass I-28, and with my state "not wanting to be another Ca." it would seem to me that all these recent bills/initiatives are all aimed at taking the plants out of the patients/citizens backyards, and into their backyards, and state run facilities. Regulation can be such a slippery slope..

The feds. Well those pigs been providing medical MJ for years... 2 strains only crappy, crappier.. If it's medical marijuana they all want, well then it's usda regulated medical marijuana they shall recieve... I know, we'll hand it out with the Gov. cheese half the population is already recieving

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Quit quoting Ben and Tom. The patriot act is an example of quotes you posted. Prop 19 gives liberties and freedoms at the cost of nothing. Now fuck off with your fox news esque fear mongering, we all see you for what you guys are... Small growers and small dealers afraid of competition. Sorry but your profits don't justify tens of thousands of lifes ruined annually.

 

[gaiusmarius]

what valid points? all i see are bad legal scholars misinterpreting things, failing to read the bill, or not understanding how the law evolves thru lawsuits.

I'm not a legal scholar and even if i were the law is vague, as most legislation is, and will be until it is allowed to be debated and challenged in the courts.

you see, that's where you lose credibility, there are points in this thing that had no need to be in there. these things make it very unpalatable for anyone able to see all sides and not just his own narrow perspective. to pretend it's perfect, makes me question your judgment.

here some points i think most can agree are shitty:

1.- only 1 garden per residence instead of per person.

2.- the longer prison terms and higher fines for some cannabis related non harmful victimless activity.

3.- the lack of clearly mentioning and allowing 215 guys to keep up their 215 cultivation, while it does mention 215'ers buying and smoking amounts are not changed. just leaves out that 215 cultivation will not change.

4.- the forbidding of smoking outside (your garden/openair/lake/parks/etc)

5.- and the fact that you can't even share your cannabis even though norml tries to imply you can. (see my post with the copy paste of the negative parts of this bill)

6.- then there is the other in my opinion legitimate concern about the licensing process and what looks like the beginnings of a monopoly through regulation. i admit i could be wrong about this and some places might well make it easy to get a lisence as long as they get their cut of any profits made and no children are endangered.

7.- also making cannabis use illegal for young adults that can go out and be killed for their country is ridiculous. 18 seems fair, even if it's a bit much to expect kids to wait that long till they experiment. but 21 is really extreme. after all, it seems a shame to turn a 19 year old in to a criminal for sharing a joint with an 20 year old or vice verse. this rule alone will insure lots of young adults going to jail. this creates a whole new class of criminal.

in the end the story and wording of this bill is a typical one for this day and age, it's all about back room deals, bribes, give and take among politicians. i guess the prison complex needed to be convinced this bill wouldn't bankrupt them and continue their yearly increasing profit margins by keeping harmless, easy to manage people locked up and using them for cheap labor. while law enforcement needed to see that they could still go after enough cannabis users to keep their revenues up. while the large majority of pot smokers have been bribed with all the nice parts of this bill. including myself if i had a say. because when all is said and done this bill should end up helping more folks then not by a long shot.

 

[igrowone]

many ask why prop 19 is better than prop 215, i.e. why bother?
215 is wide open, anyone can get in, that is true
but prop 19 is a more direct challenge to federal MJ law
unless pressed, federal law is not going to change, vested bureaucracies hate change
other states are watching this closely, this is no vacuum
we've seen how federal enforcement changes from time to time, under Obama it is low
but you think this is a guarantee? i wouldn't bank on it
as it stands now, prop 19 is the most effective tool in giving the federal government some hurt
some have spoken about dealing with this on the national level, but where has that gone?
nowhere

if you want to say NO! to federal MJ law and policy, prop 19 is the best opportunity we have now

 

[r1rider]

I`m British and if i could vote yes, i would in an instant.

I want to see the end of this futile war, and 19 is the way to go.

r1

 

[dagnabit]

1.- only 1 garden per residence instead of per person.

right now that number is zero gardens per residence per person.

2.- the longer prison terms and higher fines for some cannabis related non harmful victimless activity.

please do elaborate?

3.- the lack of clearly mentioning and allowing 215 guys to keep up their 215 cultivation, while it does mention 215'ers buying and smoking amounts are not changed. just leaves out that 215 cultivation will not change.

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.

you will notice that cultivation is included with distribution sales and the amounts to-with the reference to amounts is seperated from the actions (cultivation,distribution and sales) by a comma and the conjunction (and) meaning they are not separate clauses but joined clauses.
the joined clauses are affected by the exemption listed subsequently.

all of this is correlated with the bold type

4.- the forbidding of smoking outside (your garden/openair/lake/parks/etc)

not quite true....your backyard is private.
but even if it were...smoking on the sidewalk is not legal now.

5.- and the fact that you can't even share your cannabis even though norml tries to imply you can. (see my post with the copy paste of the negative parts of this bill)

ive read this again and again and the language just does not support this..but lets say it did..

is distribution legal now?
no
my point is your not losing anything.

7.- also making cannabis use illegal for young adults that can go out and be killed for their country is ridiculous. 18 seems fair, even if it's a bit much to expect kids to wait that long till they experiment.

"fair"
continuing prohibition for adults because kids are not included seems "fair" to you?

but 21 is really extreme. after all, it seems a shame to turn a 19 year old in to a criminal for sharing a joint with an 20 year old or vice verse. this rule alone will insure lots of young adults going to jail. this creates a whole new class of criminal.




in the end the story and wording of this bill is a typical one for this day and age, it's all about back room deals, bribes, give and take among politicians. i guess the prison complex needed to be convinced this bill wouldn't bankrupt them and continue their yearly increasing profit margins by keeping harmless, easy to manage people locked up and using them for cheap labor. while law enforcement needed to see that they could still go after enough cannabis users to keep their revenues up. while the large majority of pot smokers have been bribed with all the nice parts of this bill. including myself if i had a say. because when all is said and done this bill should end up helping more folks then not by a long shot.

ill never understand how prohibitionists think?

so you believe that the leos are gonna go out and start rounding up 18-20 year old smokers as soon as the law passes because they can?

the 18-20 year old KIDS who want to smoke just go pay a "doctor" and beg the state for permission like grown people have to do now.

this is basic.

this bill limits enforcement. its takes absolutely nothing from you and gives you a little.
(unless your a 10kw grower then this bill may be of concern to you but your in danger from the feds anyway)

most importantly this is a chance for R.Lee to be arrested and go to the SCOTUS on a recreational 10th basis. this will circumvent the interstate medical standards judgment made a few years ago. now with a younger set of justices (and only being one vote off before) this could actually be the gateway!

 

[mullray]

7.- also making cannabis use illegal for young adults that can go out and be killed for their country is ridiculous. 18 seems fair, even if it's a bit much to expect kids to wait that long till they experiment. but 21 is really extreme. after all, it seems a shame to turn a 19 year old in to a criminal for sharing a joint with an 20 year old or vice verse. this rule alone will insure lots of young adults going to jail. this creates a whole new class of criminal.

This is about the only thing I agree with the detractors about. But then guys in many states you need to be 21 to drink. Last I heard there was no one in prison for underage drinking. Does suck though ---- if a person is old enough to die for their country they are old enough to choose what they can put in their body. The author's of the bill however were possibly clever to write it this way. Challenge it later.

 

[gaiusmarius]

wow a miricle has occurred; 1 negative is admited to...

wow a miricle has occurred; 1 negative is admited to...

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.

Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.

personal consumption, seems straightforward to me...

 

[JJScorpio]

You antis don't want to fight for shit. You are all praying it never legalizes so your uneducated no skill having ass can suckle on the weed tit for more years. You all act like were losing rights and giving up by voting yes. Do you really expect cannabis will ever be non regulated and untaxed in a legal market? You can't call yourself a functioning non retard and think the highest revenue creating crop in the world would go untaxed and unregulated.

If this fails, it will easily set the movement back for decades (and I know your probably jizzing your fucking pants praying for this). It will send a definitive message that "we don't want legalization now or ever" and could possibly turn the tide for the next republican president in 2012 to wage a anti-mj war. Anyone care to remember the Carter - Reagan fiasco?

We need to send a loud clear message that this war on cannabis is unfair, unjust and unconstitutional. Passing 19 would be a deafening message to Washington.

It's 2010, let the legalization begin !!!

Don't forget how they want the entire State of Cali to run to a Doc and get a certificate so they can all buy 20 dollar and up grams, lol....

 

[gaiusmarius]

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.

to me this part is fishy, it doesn't seem to make it clear that 215 patients can continue cultivating as before. they say med patients will be able to buy and use as before, but the cultivation part of this weird sentence that uses and 3 times, seems to be refering to the cities making rules about cultivation for buying and selling. the part later about 215 doesn't list cultivation amongst the other 215 rights.

i ain't a lawyer so could be totally misunderstanding this strange wording. i do know that the language of the law is not always the same as English. would be interesting to see the take of an actual cannabis lawyer on this bill. up to now all the stuff i read about this bill has been written with the clear disclaimer about not being a lawyer, but it means the following. maybe as we get closer to the time we will get a lawyers legal opinion on the wording and meaning of this bill.

 

[Babbabud]

I think saying ppl want 20 dollar grams and only to profit off pot is wrong. I havent made up my mind totally yet because I am still reading the pros and cons. Herb has some pretty strong language for the ppl that havent committed yet. I see Oakland has approved huge grows. Its all a bit scary to me and surely dont want to give back any ground ... right now it looks pretty good ... but Im still reading and getting a good feel for this thing. You guys are using some pretty strong tactics to convince ppl. I surely hope you guys are right ... I feel like a man in the winter crossing a cold creek.

 

[Babbabud]

Great point Gaus

Great point Gaus

to me this part is fishy, it doesn't seem to make it clear that 215 patients can continue cultivating as before. they say med patients will be able to buy and use as before, but the cultivation part of this weird sentence that uses and 3 times, seems to be refering to the cities making rules about cultivation for buying and selling. the part later about 215 doesn't list cultivation amongst the other 215 rights.

i ain't a lawyer so could be totally misunderstanding this strange wording. i do know that the language of the law is not always the same as English. would be interesting to see the take of an actual cannabis lawyer on this bill. up to now all the stuff i read about this bill has been written with the clear disclaimer about not being a lawyer, but it means the following. maybe as we get closer to the time we will get a lawyers legal opinion on the wording and meaning of this bill.

Yup its all the lawyer double speak that has me hesitating the most.