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

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

I am not a "No"...but I do have concerns...and this is suppose to be a discussion...that means that both sides should be able to present their OPINIONS...without being flamed--
I have always been, and still am cool with you...but bro, as long as you are quoting TOU, don't forget this part--

The only difference here is my colorful use of language does not contribute to the continued persecution of thousands upon thousands of innocent americans every year....

But yeah KMK, we have always been on pretty much the same page. If I were to take anyone's argument seriously to vote against this prop it would be yours, and I would love to hear what you think.

Im just beyond sick of hearing these people make up shit that is specifically addressed in this prop. They either have not read it, do not understand the language, or are purposefully misinterpreting it for their own agenda....

-BhT

 

[kmk420kali]

if you side with leo once you are always trash!

What is your stance on Rape, Murder, Child Abuse??

Yes, I know that is silly....so is what you are saying!! Dude, why can't ppl discuss this without the same old rhetoric over and over??
Ppl seem so sure about their stances that they are willing to lose friends, and make enemies!! That is bullshit!!
That is why I am not taking any sides in this just yet...altho I have both praise and questions...for both sides of this-- None of you are fucking Lawyers, and most of what is in here is nothing but opinion...I only hope that we all find out the true facts behind this....we have several months left to do so-- If anybody is going to have their minds totally made up about this from nothing more than a Message Board...they are stupid in the first place!! There is no harm in this discussion...if all can cool off a bit, and discuss it--

 

[Batboy]

What is a threat to me is if prop 19 passes my kids may go to jail instead of getting a ticket if caught with reefer! What is a threat to me is I may go to jail for smoking my medical marijuana in my own house when my kids visit me if prop 19 passes! What is a threat to me is I might go to jail because I grow more than 5 x5 area of medical marijuana if prop 19 passes! What am am willing to do is go to jail for protesting prop 19 if it passes! prop 19 is tyrannous!I won`t stand for it!

Mark - I am genuinely interested in finding out why you keep harping on this point when it has been proven wrong. I painstakingly walked through your argument in post #1148, but you either missed it or ignored it.

Question - Today, if you are caught smoking in your house when your kids visit, what would happen? If 19 is passed, please tell me how things would be different.

We have also proven that 19 was drafted to specifically avoid impossing any restrictions on Prop 215, so if you can grow in more than a 5x5 now, please tell me how that changes when 19 passes.

I really hope that you can backup some of your statements, otherwise you are just a lying, trolling fearmonger, which makes you a chump that deserves a ban.

 

[2Lazy]

I had to catch up on the last 10 pages of posts since I last posted this morning. I'm sad no one wants to talk about my sub-contracting of co-ops to provide the commercial requirements for wineries if prop 19 passes.

More than that though, after reading though much of this garbage I have come to the conclusion that MarkCastle is by no means an expert on this proposition. It would seem he, and several new accounts, are the only ones resisting the yes voters. I think the evidence from the new account holders backing up Mr. Castle should raise concerns regarding who is behind the key board.

It's 80 pages of "Prop 19 makes weed illegal" followed by rational voices saying "what are you? retarded?"

I think anyone with a brain can figure for themselves that Mr. Castle is spewing nothing more than conversational constipation.

It's been said and done.

If you smoke pot, live in CA, and vote no... yeah, I think you're an artard, it's so simple, and I don't need to begin to explain why because there are a hundred of us posting here who know this. Those who don't post will read the constipation, then they'll read the bill and the implications and make up their own minds. And then we won't be the only ones face-palming every time I read something like "Whateva, whateva, I'll do what I want."

 

[kmk420kali]

But yeah KMK, we have always been on pretty much the same page. If I were to take anyone's argument seriously to vote against this prop it would be yours, and I would love to hear what you think.



-BhT

I have no argument to vote No-- But I do have a lot of concerns about this-- IMHO, this is worded in a way that will leave it oopen for bastardization from the Legislature at a later date-- I do believe they will use this to disrupt 215....that is apparent by the omission of specific protections of 215 Grow Rights--
Many more things also...but I unfortunately don't have the time at the moment to go all into it--
In the end...I will prolly vote Yes....but I can't say that it won't come back and bite us in the ass--
Peace bro--

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

I have no argument to vote No-- But I do have a lot of concerns about this-- IMHO, this is worded in a way that will leave it oopen for bastardization from the Legislature at a later date-- I do believe they will use this to disrupt 215....that is apparent by the omission of specific protections of 215 Grow Rights--
Many more things also...but I unfortunately don't have the time at the moment to go all into it--
In the end...I will prolly vote Yes....but I can't say that it won't come back and bite us in the ass--
Peace bro--

Localities will have the power to increase the cultivation and posession amounts, but cannot lower them.

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

One blogger suggested that this point #6 would be enough for the courts to assume that the people meant Prop 19 to supersede patients’ medical rights under Prop 215, also known as California Health & Safety Code #11362.5. Somehow, #6 means that Prop 215 patients would suddenly be limited to 5′x5′ gardens and an ounce of medicine. Which seems odd to me, when you read further in #7 below…

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.

…where they are saying that if your city doesn’t allow cannabis sales, you can still possess your one ounce, except if you’re permitted more than that under Prop 215 (11362.5). How could any court think that #6 means all of Prop 19 supersedes Prop 215 when a nullified Prop 215 means #7 is granting an exception that wouldn’t exist if it were superseded?

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.

If a city does allow cannabis sales it can regulate how much you buy and sell, except if you’re permitted more than that under Prop 215 (11362.5)… you know, the part that #6 supposedly supersedes.

 

[igrowone]

IMHO, this is worded in a way that will leave it oopen for bastardization from the Legislature at a later date--

this is a concern i can understand, that's at least rational
i don't think this is too big a risk, but that could be argued i suppose
i will put it this way, the way the prop is structured it appears to apply only to commercial aspects
the thing is, i don't think there is much choice for a practical bill that deals with commercial sales
we're finding large resistance to the complexity of this bill
this would be much more complex for any practical state wide system(that would pass)
county by county may attract much vote support, that's the hope apparently
but once you do that, there's no telling what the counties might do, would some try to game the bill in some way?
i can see the need for some legislature involvement, i know many hate that thought, but the safeguards look good
but this is certainly an issue that deserves discussion

 

[markscastle]

Mark - I am genuinely interested in finding out why you keep harping on this point when it has been proven wrong. I painstakingly walked through your argument in post #1148, but you either missed it or ignored it.

Question - Today, if you are caught smoking in your house when your kids visit, what would happen? If 19 is passed, please tell me how things would be different.

We have also proven that 19 was drafted to specifically avoid impossing any restrictions on Prop 215, so if you can grow in more than a 5x5 now, please tell me how that changes when 19 passes.

I really hope that you can backup some of your statements, otherwise you are just a lying, trolling fearmonger, which makes you a chump that deserves a ban.

OMG I can`t beleave you are serious! How many ways do I have to put it in no fucking terms does prop 19 have the power to over ride any right given in prop215 end of that arguement ! But it could change the dission of the court in Kelly vs. the people or even have other applications to things medical users/growers have now that are not protected in prop 215. The wording in prop 19 does not express anything in it to say that it would not apply to medical users/growers `if such restrictions are not protected` by prop 215. My point is that even though prop 19 was written all about rec users,some of the restriction may be applyed by the courts to also restrict medical users where prop 215 fails to protect such rights.So your arguement that it won`t appy to medical users/growers is not completely true and I do have valid worries about prop 19 effecting me as a medical user.

Besides that I don`t like or agree to jail our youth remember if they are 18 they will cary that record around all there life for what smoking a joint?

I don`t agree on taxes and don`t like having it as so uncontrolled as to not be able to know just how much taxes will be is even worse!

I`m not at all sure how this law would effect prices.Despite everything people have stated about what might happen I`m not so sure anyone knows for sure.

I`m not so against big corperates and the type getting into the business as not having an even playing field for the small guy. I see no reason for not to exclude some kind of exemption for small growers so they can feed there families as long as they stay small they should be exempt from having to have expencive permits, sellers licences, or colllecting taxes. Hell glade they don`t go after people who have yard sales! Now if they grow bigger they should according to the size of the operation. A Mom and Pop style grow for sale shouldn`t have to pay what a major corperation does in fees, but if say they get al ittle bigger , say small business size, maybe a small fee would be in order as they should be somewhat regulated.

The part about being able to have an oz is a little restrictive and so is the grow size for personal use. But that is the only thing half ass ok with this bill as I see it.

As this bill is written I just can`t get behind it.And calling me names or comparing me to the police won`t change my mind! I feel about the same way about some of you as the way you feel about me! I`ve tryed to be civil as much as I can but some of you are so gun hoe you seem to have rocks for brains to tell you the truth! At least even though I also feel pasionate about my views I am trying to get my worries about this bill understude and I don`t hate any of you for your views just feel this bill is to much of a sell out.

 

[markscastle]

you can carry 1000lbs?

No not really! But if my 3/4 ton truck had overload springs maybe?

 

[Batboy]

So prop 19 makes H&S code 11362.5 exempt but 11362.5 (prop 215) doesn`t have any limits in the law. AB420 was passed to make thoughs limits and was struct down because the goverment can not add to a law of the people(kelly vs the People) there are no limits for medical marijuana in any California law as of now and only a vote of the people putting limits would pass the musterd accourding to the State Supreme Court! oh but isn`t prop 19 a vote of the people? Does it not address limits? Does it also not address where marijuana can be smoked and around who? Then why in the fuck can`t you see it could be applyed to conserns not other wise addressed by prop 215 and still not overide anything that is said in prop 215? Only arguement I keep getting is it won`t change any rights in prop 215 but again limits were not in prop 215 they didn`t put them in because unlike prop 19 that tries to regulate everything, prop 215 was trying to get away with everything possible to keep regulations from being inforced on the people! prop 19 may well undue that but admittedly it will be up to the courts to deside not you and I!

I just saw this post. Thank you for explaining your thought process; it shows that you do have a genuine concern about Prop 19 limits affecting med patients. I think that I can help alleviate your concerns.

Prop 19 (HSC 11300) possession and cultivation limitations are implemented by limiting application of HSC 11357 and 11358. 215 (HSC 11362.5(d)) specifies that the possession and cultivation prohibition of 11357 and 11358 do not apply to patients and caregivers. Therefore, the only way that 215 could be limited would be if the limitations of Prop 19 were applicable to 215. Happily, not only is this not the case, but Prop 19 even goes as far as to explicitly state that, when local governments are passing their regulations, they are not allowed to implement controls that are contrary to 215. (now let's close the circle) Since 215 is not limited by 11357, it cannot be limited by 19 or local regs.

I am not saying that there won't be court challenges and attempts at limiting 215, but at the end of the day the legislative intent here is explicit, and limitations of 215 by virtue of the language set forth in 19 is simply not possible.

 

[markscastle]

I just saw this post. Thank you for explaining your thought process; it shows that you do have a genuine concern about Prop 19 limits affecting med patients. I think that I can help alleviate your concerns.

Prop 19 (HSC 11300) possession and cultivation limitations are implemented by limiting application of HSC 11357 and 11358. 215 (HSC 11362.5(d)) specifies that the possession and cultivation prohibition of 11357 and 11358 do not apply to patients and caregivers. Therefore, the only way that 215 could be limited would be if the limitations of Prop 19 were applicable to 215. Happily, not only is this not the case, but Prop 19 even goes as far as to explicitly state that, when local governments are passing their regulations, they are not allowed to implement controls that are contrary to 215. (now let's close the circle) Since 215 is not limited by 11357, it cannot be limited by 19 or local regs.

I am not saying that there won't be court challenges and attempts at limiting 215, but at the end of the day the legislative intent here is explicit, and limitations of 215 by virtue of the language set forth in 19 is simply not possible.

Boy if this passes I sure hope you are right! I`ll have to study this a little more but thank you for the info to digest.

 

[GanjaAL]

Yea funny how they only care about themselves and rec smokers and forget all the people that are going to jail in record numbers and they call us selfish for voting no.

Also ignore the fact that this prop will do nothing to further the movement in the conservitive states or bible belt states. As long as they can have a smoke and grow now.

Ignore the fact that mmj laws offer way more freedoms than prop 19 and will further the movement throughout that nation and eventually give us a deffense at the federal level.

Ignore the fact that prop19 may in fact destroy the chance of mmj laws movement in these concervitive states and bible belt states when they see people still going to jail in record numbers in california even when prop19 is enacted.

FACT: prop19 does nothing to curb the record numbers of people going to jail

FACT: people are going to jail for carrying more than on oz on their person and prop19 does nothing to stop that.... but wait... mmj laws do!

 

[JJScorpio]

If we can keep this civil it would be a lot nicer. I got pissed yesterday and took some time away to collect my thoughts. It's a very hot topic to some of us and it's easy to get angry....

 

[gaiusmarius]

threads like these are good because over time they cover things from every angle conceivable. while and untruths or misconceptions are seen and pointed out by the majority.

i can understand some people having worries about this, because people are used to getting screwed by government regulation and this thing isn't exactly easy to understand at key parts and even has what can only be called contradictory language in the part where it says you can share, but its solely for that persons personal consumption. some one said the share part is referring to sharing joints and the solely for personal consumption is more about not selling it. this interpretation may well be the correct one, but you have to admit it's hard to be sure of the meaning with the wording they chose. i would love to read a legal opinion about prop 19 listing what exactly each part means and does.

it's also hard for 215 people with 420 gardens to understand that their rights will not be effected, they seem to worry that the 420 plant limits will be changed for them.

the real reason im my opinion to vote for this bill is that it's still a step forward for the vast majority. specially if the punishments really don't get harsher for young tokers that get caught. they do mention that revenue gathered will be spent on enforcing the new law, so there may be some surprises yet.

good night all

 

[mullray]

4. Flaming/Trolling: Flames are posts intended to insult and provoke. Posters who speak incessantly and/or rabidly on some relatively uninteresting subject or with a patently ridiculous attitude will be banned. Repeated posts directed with hostility at a particular person or group of people or their beliefs will be cause for banning. Any individual who chronically trolls, who regularly posts arguments, flames or personal attacks for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion will be banned. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand.

I'm split on this one. I find the trolls arguments hilarious, entertaining a totally valid in an extremely twisted and funny way (call me kinky). On the other hand the Nor Cal mob may actually be having an impact on the unthinking and besides this are getting extremely boring with their twisted and hilarious fear mongering, perverted truth . Anyway - Oakland rocks!!! Fuck the dinosaurs (soon to be extinct) from Nor Cal Go Prop 19----- hell yeah!

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

See the difference is were talking about protecting the end turn user, the little guy, etc. etc.

This is not about million plant grows. This is not about carrying 4000 kilos. This is not about any of that shit.

If thats what you want to fight for, great. Just dont complain to me when your locked up in jail because your version of legalization didnt come soon enough.

And if 215 is so fucking great then what is your concern? This is not a bout to see which is better. PROP 19 IN NO WAY EFFECTS 215.

They are seperate entities. 1 is for SICK people 1 is for people who dont want to fucking lie or justify their need through a sickness or injury to enjoy cannabis.

This is the equivilant of saying I like mcdonalds better than burger king so lets burn down the home of the whopper

Hey maybe id like a fucking whopper over a big mac ???


....jesus am I talking to a wall here? or are these people really that dense?

Yea funny how they only care about themselves and rec smokers and forget all the people that are going to jail in record numbers and they call us selfish for voting no.

Also ignore the fact that this prop will do nothing to further the movement in the conservitive states or bible belt states. As long as they can have a smoke and grow now.

Ignore the fact that mmj laws offer way more freedoms than prop 19 and will further the movement throughout that nation and eventually give us a deffense at the federal level.

Ignore the fact that prop19 may in fact destroy the chance of mmj laws movement in these concervitive states and bible belt states when they see people still going to jail in record numbers in california even when prop19 is enacted.

FACT: prop19 does nothing to curb the record numbers of people going to jail

FACT: people are going to jail for carrying more than on oz on their person and prop19 does nothing to stop that.... but wait... mmj laws do!

PS::: people like you ganjal are the reason why mmj is failing in other states. when the medical aspect has been thouroughly abused over and over and over by people like you who would rather peop;e ""just get a recc"" than getting behind a legalization bill.

right now people look to CA and all the young healthy looking people who are "medical" and say what a fucking joke it is out there. if you dont believe me you are even more foolish than i imagined.

many states have actually written far harsher mmj laws BECAUSE of people like you. such as in maine where you have to have a terminal condition to qualify for MMJ rather than just making any fucking excuse youd like,,, as it is here in CA....

hmmm.....sure looks like people are agreeing with what i have to say....

 

[rives]

....jesus am I talking to a wall here? or are these people really that dense?

Well, there is starting to be a preponderance of evidence that indeed they are! "People are going to jail in record numbers" "Nobody goes to jail in Cali any more" - I have a hard time believing that both of these justifications are endlessly reiterated by the No folks.

 

[igrowone]

i can understand some people having worries about this, because people are used to getting screwed by government regulation and this thing isn't exactly easy to understand at key parts and even has what can only be called contradictory language in the part where it says you can share, but its solely for that persons personal consumption. some one said the share part is referring to sharing joints and the solely for personal consumption is more about not selling it. this interpretation may well be the correct one, but you have to admit it's hard to be sure of the meaning with the wording they chose. i would love to read a legal opinion about prop 19 listing what exactly each part means and does.

plainly, worry is in the air
and as you have said, the best way to deal with the worry is discuss(and re-discuss) all the angles
it's tiring in some cases, but as a thread gets to a certain size, some repetition is inevitable
i can't render a legal opinion(at least not as a lawyer), but where you see the attempt to add rights, such as sharing, those are usually good things
the worst that should happen is the right might be interpreted as less than you would like, but you shouldn't lose from having it added

 

[markscastle]

Mark - I am genuinely interested in finding out why you keep harping on this point when it has been proven wrong. I painstakingly walked through your argument in post #1148, but you either missed it or ignored it.

Question - Today, if you are caught smoking in your house when your kids visit, what would happen? If 19 is passed, please tell me how things would be different.

We have also proven that 19 was drafted to specifically avoid impossing any restrictions on Prop 215, so if you can grow in more than a 5x5 now, please tell me how that changes when 19 passes.

I really hope that you can backup some of your statements, otherwise you are just a lying, trolling fearmonger, which makes you a chump that deserves a ban.

Today if I smoke in front of my children in my house nothing can be done as they are 18 yrs old or over. Now if they were under 18 the police may not have much to say as no penal codes would be being broken as I`m a legal med user,but CPS has sometimes brought up complaints. I`m a little worried under todays laws about my kids having problems with CPS if I smoke when my grandkids are here.

Under Prop 19 I`m worried that even having my married children who are not 21 yrs old around when I need medication could be a problem! Now some people have stated that many people in Cali are not really disabled and are using medical marijuana laws just to sneek by.Maybe, but that is clearly not the case with me! I am considered permenently disabled and am on social Security for life (not welfare,Not SSI) I qualify because of my age at this point anyway!

As for size of grow.215 doesn`t set a size of grow and AB 420 was struct down by the courts.I can grow as much as I need for my condition under state law.Under fedral law it is still a crime to grow or have any marijuana how ever.But because the only thing I have is my Doctors recomendation I`m afraid that prop 19 would limit my grow area or plant count to 5x5 which would not come close to my needs.I use 2-3 oz a day on my good days and have been able to stop taking most of my other medications because of that including the morphine sulfate. I also sometimes need to carry much more than an oz if I have to be away for any amount of time.Some times when I`m in pain or the inflamation from my illness, not being in remission I have been known to vape over 5 oz at a time in order to try to keep my illness under control! And that is dank stuff also Tahoe OG Kush, Banana OG kush, Herijuana, hash,ect. and many other strains as well as Sativa strains so I can get up and about.If this law has a wisper of a chance of limiting my needed consumption I`m a dead man! I have already out lived 3 of 4 doctors who have each given me less than a month to live. Because of smoking marijuana from early youth I`m still here! An other reason I am dead against limiting youth from smoking marijuana! Ok admittedly maybe that`s why I get away with leo knowing I have an M-16 and grow/smoke marijuana I have yet to find a Leo who will arrest me for anything in the condition I am in! And I do very much enjoy out shooting them at the range! Makes them feel stupid to carry a gun and not be able to out shoot a dam dope smoking old Hippie that has on foot in the grave and the other in Hell! LOL!

 

[mullray]

Yea funny how they only care about themselves and rec smokers and forget all the people that are going to jail in record numbers and they call us selfish for voting no.

Also ignore the fact that this prop will do nothing to further the movement in the conservitive states or bible belt states. As long as they can have a smoke and grow now.

Ignore the fact that mmj laws offer way more freedoms than prop 19 and will further the movement throughout that nation and eventually give us a deffense at the federal level.

Ignore the fact that prop19 may in fact destroy the chance of mmj laws movement in these concervitive states and bible belt states when they see people still going to jail in record numbers in california even when prop19 is enacted.

FACT: prop19 does nothing to curb the record numbers of people going to jail

FACT: people are going to jail for carrying more than on oz on their person and prop19 does nothing to stop that.... but wait... mmj laws do!

Fact - are you kidding? Prop 19 takes MJ into the mainstream via taxation and pseudo legalization and therefore legal recognition beyond med. Once mainstream, Prop 19 can be legally challenged on levels that med laws can't. Also enter into the mix big business and lobbying power (it simply aint good business if their clients are in prison). Please substantiate these boated claims with legal definitions, precedent (which is 0 but soon will be) and conclusions/summaries because I think you're full of it.

"Ignore the fact that prop19 may in fact destroy the chance of mmj laws movement in these concervitive states and bible belt states when they see people still going to jail in record numbers in california even when prop19 is enacted." You're shitting us right? Are you really so stupid as to take us for as stupid as you must be to state this? Hey ----- Med is state; Dumb Fuckerstan aint going med. However Prop 19 takes it to the Feds and the only way Dumbfuckerstan is going pro legal is via Fed. You surely don't need to be a lawyer to understand this...