ICMAG Administration endorses The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010
- Thread starter JJScorpio
- Start date
- Status
desertdweller
Member
I have been reading this for the past couple of weeks and cannot for the life of me understand why anybody would not vote for this prop? granted, it is not perfect, but it is a start. Also, cannot understand why people will bring up things they know nothing about and use it as a reason for voting no..for example, the poster who states that it is a shame you can fight and die for country but cannot smoke until age 21 per this prop. Having been in the military for 5 years, any kind of drug, either legal or illegal can be bought or bought for you. As long as you showed up ready for work, nobody really cared what you did the night before, the day before, or the week before. I have read the prop, and when it passes, people will be a lot better off than the law in place now. did i read that non public places can be set up for the comsumption of marijuana in this prop? like coffeehouses or dispensaries that allow smoking?
To those of you fearmongering regarding kids being present, what you can carry and what you can store at your home, have you taken the time to read the Bill?
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. (ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands. (iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption. (iv) Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection. (b) “Personal consumption” shall include but is not limited to possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other non-public place, and shall include licensed premises open to the public authorized to permit on-premises consumption of cannabis by a local government pursuant to section 11301. (c) “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis: (i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301; (ii) consumption in public or in a public place; (iii) consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator; (iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.
a(i) covers what you can transport.
a(iii) covers the plants and product that you can posess after your harvest
c(iv) states you can't smoke cannabis in any space while minors are present.
This says nothing about any felonies or not smoking in your home. By space I think they mean keep the kids in a seperate room, which kind of sems like common sense anyways.
If you're going to waste bandwidth arguing at least take the time to read it and quit just making things up. It also helps if you take the time to read the deffinitions. If you can't do that remove yourself from the thread....
There are parts that seem open to interpretation but there's a lot of it that's pretty clear cut..... I placed this as an edit in my opening post so people that want to become informed don't get lost in all of the falsehoods being posted here regarding this Bill...
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. (ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands. (iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption. (iv) Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection. (b) “Personal consumption” shall include but is not limited to possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other non-public place, and shall include licensed premises open to the public authorized to permit on-premises consumption of cannabis by a local government pursuant to section 11301. (c) “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis: (i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301; (ii) consumption in public or in a public place; (iii) consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator; (iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.
a(i) covers what you can transport.
a(iii) covers the plants and product that you can posess after your harvest
c(iv) states you can't smoke cannabis in any space while minors are present.
This says nothing about any felonies or not smoking in your home. By space I think they mean keep the kids in a seperate room, which kind of sems like common sense anyways.
If you're going to waste bandwidth arguing at least take the time to read it and quit just making things up. It also helps if you take the time to read the deffinitions. If you can't do that remove yourself from the thread....
There are parts that seem open to interpretation but there's a lot of it that's pretty clear cut..... I placed this as an edit in my opening post so people that want to become informed don't get lost in all of the falsehoods being posted here regarding this Bill...
Last edited:
StoneElemental
Member
This is just for fun and maybe somewhat relevent IMO.
"I met a boy wearing Vans, 501's, and a Dope Beastie tee, nipple rings, new tattoos that claimed that he was OGT, after '92, from The first EP. And in between sips of Coke he told me that he thought we were sellin' out, layin' down, suckin' up to the man.
Well now I've got some advice for you, little buddy. Before you point the finger you should know that I'm the man, and if I'm the man, then you're the man, and he's the man as well so you can point that fuckin' finger up your ass..."
--Maynard James Keenan of Tool
Again it's mostly for fun, no hostility or anything intended. I'd just like to lighten the atmosphere some.
-S.E.
"I met a boy wearing Vans, 501's, and a Dope Beastie tee, nipple rings, new tattoos that claimed that he was OGT, after '92, from The first EP. And in between sips of Coke he told me that he thought we were sellin' out, layin' down, suckin' up to the man.
Well now I've got some advice for you, little buddy. Before you point the finger you should know that I'm the man, and if I'm the man, then you're the man, and he's the man as well so you can point that fuckin' finger up your ass..."
--Maynard James Keenan of Tool
Again it's mostly for fun, no hostility or anything intended. I'd just like to lighten the atmosphere some.
-S.E.
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.
this part is self contradictory; personally possess, process, share, or transport not more then one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual's personal consumption, and not for sale. how can you share, when it stipulates it's for an individuals personal consumption in the same sentence?
so which is it? can you share it with your mates, or is it solely for your individual personal use?
what ever else these sure are interesting times to be alive.
this part is self contradictory; personally possess, process, share, or transport not more then one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual's personal consumption, and not for sale. how can you share, when it stipulates it's for an individuals personal consumption in the same sentence?
so which is it? can you share it with your mates, or is it solely for your individual personal use?
what ever else these sure are interesting times to be alive.
from what i've seen on this, it's an attempt to allow for the MJ cultural tradition of smoking with your friends
which isn't selling(normally)
the wording is a bit ambiguous, but should cause no harm(i believe)
StoneElemental
Member
Personal is defined in other forms aswell. Plus I think a LEO isn't gonna say hey! I saw you pass your legal joint and bag of pot to your perfectly legal and capable of getting his/her own pot smoking buddy, I gotta arrest/ticket you! I'm sorry most of the users on this subject may or may not be stressing you out but I think you're reading a little too hard into it man. Especially considering the bill discusses permission for sales and cities/localities can decide their own public laws concerning growers, sellers/distributors, and of course outdoor/indoor smoking. Chill for a few homie and come back a little refreshed. I know I had to for a day or two because my bloodpressure was approaching dangerous levels. Altho I also have anger issues that I constantly deal with. Take care and stay safe everyone.
-S.E.
-S.E.
A huge thing that I'm not sure people are considering is the fact that cops can no longer use odor, paraphanelia, leaves in the trash, etc, etc as probable cause or reason for a search warrant. It's easy enough to keep them out of your homes right now... it will be a hell of a lot easier if this passes.
How about you post all my/others legitimate concerns with the bill on your OP and be fair?
Post up all the truths, good and bad about the bill. Or you can just post the ones that fall in line with what you want to see happen.
I would start a new thread with everything laid out, things not really up for discussion... but another T&RC2010 thread? Bleh..
I think the good main points to put up on the no side would be:
---Prop19 does not save people from cruel and unusual punishment
---Prop19 does not give the option of allowing/prohibiting sales in one's community to the people, but to the governing body of that community.
Those are just a few clear cut facts...
Batboy
Member
While you are certainly correct that 19 is not the full legalization bill that many people want it to be (and no state can ever pass the bill that we really want because it's still illegal at the federal level), given the level of opposition to mj, you should feel lucky to have this; even with all of the comprimises that are reflected in the language of the bill. To vote this down would hand a huge victory to the opponents and it would set back the legalization movement by YEARS.
I absolutely hate the argument that you have 215, so why bother with 19? 215 is flawed and has been used by CA as a backdoor to legalization for too long. A doctor's rec for anxiety, shoulder pain, insomnia. . . such horseshit. The storefront mmj quack-docs are needed in order to comply with the language of the law, but they should be an embarrassment to CA. More importantly, they minimize the suffering by truly sick people and the genuine benefits of mmj. I have no doubt that there are many many thousands of CA residents that wish to use legally, but don't want to visit a BS doctor for a BS rec in order to legally grow or legally visit a shop and buy grossly overpriced mmj.
As a non-CA US resident, I have seen the impact of CA mmj laws on some of the other states, and it's not all good. CA's willingness to use 215 to allow nearly anyone to smoke has strengthened the opposition's arguments against mj/mmj and, in some cases, has resulted in terrible mmj laws. Take New Jersey for instance and their joke of a mmj law, drafted specifically so they couldn't turn into another CA:
- no private dispenseries; only 6 total state-run
- very limited list of permissable illnesses: terminal within 1 year, AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, IBS. . . you are SOL if you are looking for a CA-type anxiety, 'my shoulder hurts' diagnosis
- no personal/commercial grows
- all weed to be supplied by the state
NJ residents have no access to mmj because the state drafted itself into a corner. With no personal/commercial grows, and no state-run grows, they can't supply the dispenseries; so no one can access the meds many months after passing the law. Sounds a lot to me like the mj tax stamps from decades past. Whether or not this was intentional remains to be seen.
If CA can pass a sensible legalization bill that the strongest opponents can stomach, then the dominoes begin to fall in the other 49 states and abroad. Like it or not, CA is the litmus test and if you 215 patients are responsible for voting this down, then you have done a huge disservice to your fellow mj enthusiasts around the country and the world. Not too be mellodramatic, but like it or not, you are the tip of the sword that is the legalization movement. don't fuck it up
Batboy
Member
Oh comeon! Prop 19 also doesn't end world hunger or bring piece to the middle east, but that's no reason to lobby against it. Save people from cruel and unusual punishment? There have to be limits, and punishment legislated to define those limits. Is LEO really going to police those on the fringes of the bill, or can they finally focus on the real criminals?
The option of "allowing sales in one's community"? Can you now brew liquor/beer at home and sell it locally? You ask too much from this bill to expect something to go from a prohibited, illicit substance to an unregulated commodity.
StoneElemental
Member
Haha! very good point and mostly it was hypothetical. And it's possible you're in a city that later decides it's ok to smoke outside (maybe with some further regulation but hey who knows)and somehow he passes by at the right time. And I certainly hope he doesn't see me now as that's intensely creepy and paranoia causing seeing as this hasn't even passed and I don't even live in the state and would wonder his intentions for not attempting to arrest/ticket me.
-S.E.
-S.E.
I wouldn't expect it to even touch on world hunger, its tax and regulate cannabis.
Yes, when cannabis is legalized, I expect it to end cruel and unusal punnishment of cannabis users LOL... You dont?
So you are in support of the prison terms? You are in support of non violent "drug criminals" getting more time then rapists and vehicular manslaughterists?
I never said unregulated and I'm not talking about growing at home and selling.
I'm saying that if my county decides to go dry (herb or alcohol, even though I dont drink) I would want to have a say in it! Not just sit back while a handful of people decide what I can buy to consume in my own neighborhood.
this is how law's get written, they have a memory of things from many years ago
there was a time when passing a joint was a great felony charge, probably still is in some states
so they roll the 'share' in to remove that ploy, it's not a likely situation, they were just being thorough
Your language and argument style is offensive and a violation of the terms of use of this sight. It is very nice of you to tell a moderator to "Now fuck off."
You sir are doing more to recruit NO votes than any amount of logic could achieve.
I am not afraid of competition I am afraid of weak remembers of this community like you that would sell others out and place them in prison so that a smoker can buy an OZ from one of the Government approved vendors.
Also nice hating on Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, these long dead freedom fighters are resting much better knowing you are not their legacy.
Thank you,
I have not seen anyone try to refute this yet. To me it's just so obvious that this entire bill is worded so that those currently in the business will stand to make a ton of money if this passes. After all they're the ones who put this bill together. Supply of legal marijuana will be controlled by a few, and you won't see the prices drop either, if they want to impose a $50 tax per ounce. It'll be just the same as before except now you've mcdonaldized marijuana.
The licensing and regulation part is left very vague which means they can set the rules however they see fit, and you can bet your ass there are gonna be more bribes left and right by these drug cartels to get the cities to set regulations in their favor.
So making possession, use, and cultivation legal isn't going to prevent people from being arrested for possession, use, and cultivation? This chart shows how much cruel and unusual punishment there is for a plant.
Give me one example where sale/regulation of anything is governed directly by the people, and not by elected officials. In case you didn't realize, we don't have a purely democratic government. The USA is a democratic republic. Elected officials are your voice, and if they're not, then vote for someone else, or do it yourself.
You should be happy that you live in a state where the citizens can put something up for vote themselves, only about half the states have this form of direct democracy.
its only fishy or ambiguous if you want it to be.
ive explained it to you but you choose not to understand.
Babba when I see members of our own community blatantly trying to misguide and misinform the undecided vote it gives me no other option. These people are making up shit that is not in this prop. They are grasping at straws at any sort if a chance to make this not pass. The excuses seem to change with each page. The fact is these opposers of 19 have made it clear they don't want this to pass because they are afraid of losing revenue, and if they just said that I would have much more respect for what they are saying, but the fact is they can't find a single thing in this prop that makes it worst for our current political atmosphere thanakes it better. Prop 19 is all win. Please prove that I'm wrong and 19 is the worst thing since Rosie o donnel.
- Status
