What a REAL CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER SAYS ABOUT 19 screwing over 215.

[jdkronyk101]

prop 19 actually preserves 215's sanctity. dont believe the b.s. read it for yourself. heres the actual text....

http://http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Complete_text_of_The_Regulate,_Control_and_Tax_Cannabis_Act_of_2010_(California)

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

11362.5 is prop 215 "the compassionate use act" meaning "except as permitted by 215."

it actually solidifies 215's place in the text of the law. these so called lawers need to pass the bar before they give opinions. i defended myself in court using the text of health and safety code 11362.5 as my evidence.no lawer needed. just knowledge of the text and my current recommendation. they asked if i wanted to plead guilty or not? i told the judge id like to move to dismiss. i presented the text and my rec.
i dont think these so called lawyers even read these things anymore. they are like politicians...
none the less read it for yourself. google it. educate yourself...counties will be able to opt out of recreational distribution and sales. but the cannot opt out on your medical rights. they cannot set limits for med patients and collectives. period.
hope this helps,
j.d.

 

[Kalicokitty]

Johnny Cochran convinced a jury OJ was innocent, so don't believe everything you hear from them.
There is no bigger professional spin doctor in the world then an Attorney.

 

[gaiusmarius]

not too much you can spin when it come to the meaning of words...."notwithstanding" means; despite, it does not mean; except. like he says the purposes of 19, would seem to contradict this, but the words meanings are clear and you can bet your ass, there will be prosecutors reading it the same way.

would be cool if more lawyers would go through 19 and give their takes on what it will and will not do.

 

[JackTheGrower]

If it can be twisted it will be twisted.
I am sure.

 

[Kalicokitty]

not too much you can spin when it come to the meaning of words...."notwithstanding" means; despite, it does not mean; except. like he says the purposes of 19, would seem to contradict this, but the words meanings are clear and you can bet your ass, there will be prosecutors reading it the same way.

Really?
He's alluding to spinning right here.

"Right now — at least the way I read the law"

If that doesn't mean open to interpretation, I don't know what does.

 

[gaiusmarius]

i read the whole blog and it seemed rather thoughtful and objective as he states that there is a way to look at this bill that should negate the problem he found with regards to notwithstanding. what he is saying is that this view is also what prosecutors will possibly find, specially if they want to go by the word of the law rather then the intent of the law. i really didn't get the impression that he was spinning it, he was just interpreting that one part in 19. he goes on to say, like many other have, that this bill is probably still better then not passing it for the legalization movement and that bettering it should be possible by further initiatives if needed. read his whole blog and you will notice he is explaining both ways this bit could be interpreted. he also explains how many people are prosecuted under legislation that was drafted for some totally other purpose every year. this to me is a valid concern. like i said i want to see many more analysis of 19 like his one, by people who are versed in the language of the law. when this has passed folks need to be ready to take up the fight on all the limitations imposed on prop 19. to be fair i also don't see them limiting med growers with prop 19 as that is exactly what most people understand it not to do. so a judge should be easy to convince of this. it does make you wonder more and more about this prop and exactly why they wrote some things in such a interpretable way?

again letting this opportunity slip by, could be a lot worse for us then taking this thing for a start and going from there. lose this and the people think that Californians don't want legal cannabis.

 

[Darth Fader]

So some local gov't will try to ban sales? So what? You can still grow & have small amts. The bigger issue is the movement. CA has led the nation w/215 and now there are 14 MMJ states. Prop 19, while imperfect, does a lot to move the ball toward the goal line (end of prohibition). If it fails, it gives the anti-MJ crowd a victory and a lot of ammo ("see, even Californians don't want it legal. Momentum is too important here, prop 19 MUST pass.

 

[jdkronyk101]

[B. Purposes
..............,,,,,,,.................
b.6 - Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.
b.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.
b.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.

any lawer worth his salt will also tell you that they can argue anything that they want. what is also fundamental in law is the order of the words.what comes first and where in the bill it is. the above text is before the section quoted with the term "notwithstanding any other provisions of state and local law" so these rights are secured first, and are included in the "findings of intent, and purpose" chapter.
furthermore the section labeled b. is titled. purpose. or "the purpose of this law" in this order section b.7 and b.8 are listed as the purpose of the law, so the purpose of the law is " not to interfere with 215"

then it goes on to say in section 11301 ...

Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls
Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:
cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale anc possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized;
retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale;
appropriate controls on cultivation, transportation, sales, and consumption of cannabis to strictly prohibit access to cannabis by persons under the age of 21;
age limits and controls to ensure that all persons present in, employed by, or in any way involved in the operation of, any such licensed premises are 21 or older;
consumption of cannabis within licensed premises;
safe and secure transportation of cannabis from a licensed premises for cultivation or processing, to a licensed premises for sale or on-premises consumption of cannabis;
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;
appropriate controls on licensed premises for sale, cultivation, processing, or sale and on-premises consumption, of cannabis, including limits on zoning and land use, locations, size, hours of operation, occupancy, protection of adjoining and nearby properties and persons from unwanted exposure, advertising, signs and displays, and other controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare;
appropriate environmental and public health controls to ensure that any licensed premises minimizes any harm to the environment, adjoining and nearby landowners, and persons passing by;
appropriate controls to restrict public displays, or public consumption of cannabis;
appropriate taxes or fees pursuant to section 11302;
such larger amounts as the local authority deems appropriate and proper under local circumstances, than those established under section 11300(a) for personal possession and cultivation, or under this section for commercial cultivation, processing, transportation and sale by persons authorized to do so under this section;
any other appropriate controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare.

the above is the entire chapter. the "not withstanding" empowers them to do what? the answer to that question is the words "the following"
so they are empowered to do all things included within the above chapter. and that is all the bill empowers them to do. and all those things happen to be relevant only to the recreational aspect of marijuana. nothing in "the following" allows/empowers them to tamper in any way with medical/collective operation.
the argument seems to be that this "notwithstanding" would allow them , or empower them to change things that are already protected by state law. if this were the case they could "repeal the seatbelt law" or "make alcohol illegal" , or "change the speed limit". but they cant. the prosecution can argue whatever they want. but to win they must follow the order of operations, as well as the letter/words of the law. if you or your lawyer is worth his salt, they have no "notwithstanding" to stand on.

richard lee and the other big donors to the bill have no intent to cut their own arms off in the medical world. that would be stupid of them. they intend to monopolize the recreational aspect of things by county. they understand that many counties will opt out. and are veriently working with those who have already openly stated that they will "opt in" to secure recreational outlets within those counties.
but none of them want to see their income stream from medical go away. they just want to build on it.
again read it. read it in order. read it with a copy of blacks law dictionary in hand. see what it actually empowers them to do...
and see what it doesnt as well.
j.d.

 

[gaiusmarius]

would you say that people growing to supply medical clubs or a collective of patients will still be able to do what they are doing now?

it seems to me that cultivation over the 25sf limit is not mentioned to be exempt like possessing, buying and using for med growers? do i misread that part of the intent?

 

[TruthOrLie]

from online legal dictionary:

notwithstanding (preposition) - all the same, despite, even, however, in any case, in any event, in spite of, nevertheless, none the less, still, yet

see also: regardless


------
Is my interpretation correct? This prop 19 will legalize and tax it on a statewide level, but individual cities/counties can vote to regulate it with more or less restrictions?

If so, then heavy marijuana producing areas should be fine, while other areas which have a different opinion may regulate production and distribution more.

 

[fatigues]

We've been through this before when TC 2010 was ramping up signatures.

If passed, prop 19 becomes part of the Constitution of the State of California. It does not expressly amend another part of the state constitution; to the contrary it says that it does not.

The ordinary rules of constitutional interpretation therefore apply: one does use one part of the constitution to trump another; they are to be read together harmoniously wherever possible.

There is nothing in Prop 19 which undermines Prop 215. You get rights under both and can choose whichever provision you prefer to rely upon.

But - by all means, please don't let me interrupt your bashing of the legal profession generally, or prop 19 specifically.

 

[rick shaw]

He is one of the many people who will be affected by Prop19.He is afraid.I work as a bike messenger/process server,what is his name.I will check this person out,see who he has represented.There are over 20,000 attorneys in California.Do not be impressed just because somebody passed the state bar exam.Remember Sarah Pallin recieved a bachelors degree in communications with an emphasis in journalism.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

^sarah palin's degree is just a fancy name for a degree in bullshit and propaganda.

 

[justalilrowdy]

I have no doubt that prop 19 in no way will make medicine more affordable for recreational use or for medical use. Are prescribed medicines affordable? Its a way to get control of marijuana and make it a huge and ugly industry as is the history with every valuable natural resource we have.

and another opinion on 19..

Proposition 19 to Legalize Marijuana; How will patients fare?
Posted By Dr. Sean Breen on August 10th, 2010

If you are a medical marijuana patient (proposition 215) and are wondering how proposition 19 will change things I want to make a few points for you to think about.

1. Only patients with recommendations will be allowed to get medicine from current dispensaries. They will not be allowed to sell marijuana for recreational use.

2. Already cities have placed bans on the recreational sale of marijuana so it is highly unlikely that you will be able to get it legally for recreational use anytime soon. Given that cities are barely embracing dispensaries taking care of patients I think its clear that they are not going to support recreational sale.

3. If you have minors in the house it will be a felony to use marijuana in that house without a medical recommendation. On top of that you are ONLY allowed to medicate in your residence. It is not going to be legal to use marijuana recreationally at the beach or at concerts or at bars for that matter.

4. The amounts of marijuana you can possess or grow will be much less for recreational users vs medical patients. As law enforcement knocks on doors it will be very helpful to be able to show them a medical marijuana growers certificate signed by a physician.

5. Recreational use will still be illegal federally. From all the attorneys I have spoken with about Prop 19 it is pretty clear the federal government will tie this up in court and it will not become law any time soon.

All of these restrictions are making it pretty clear that it still behooves patients to continue to use their physicians recommendation and not forgo it in hopes of saving a few dollars to use recreationally.

I would be happy to get your thoughts on these points and answer any questions you may have.

Dr. Breen

 

[highwayman1]

hey rowdy i agree with you these bone heads need to read the law they may change thier minds after doing so........... number 3 pretty much says it all there making it legal why the feloney then...............dc

 

[vta]

My stuff in RED


QUOTE=justalilrowdy I have no doubt that prop 19 in no way will make medicine more affordable for recreational use or for medical use. Are prescribed medicines affordable? Its a way to get control of marijuana and make it a huge and ugly industry as is the history with every valuable natural resource we have.

I see your reasoning...but when a million new people start growing...the price will go down. Economics 101. You can't compare 'FDA' approved drugs to cannabis. The FDA drugs go through development, ten years of trials, scientists to pay, advertising, etc...Pot grows in the dirt not a beaker. But anyways...economics...when LA went from 200 to 600 clubs guess what happened. The price dropped! Big time! $45 cap at stores all over the place. Now that they closed a bunch...most places are $60 to top with NO BREAK. So I say FUCK these greedy motherfuckers. Last week I was at a club that I have been a member of for years, Their top self was always $60 an eight but ounces were $380. Now that the other 2 clubs on the block got shut down...there is no beak on ounces. So I ask the owner,we have puffed many times, if his cost is more. He tells me that since all the closures, he has vendors coming in all day trying to get rid of their gear. I then ask about the new ounce prices, he tells me that his landlord raised his rent. OK...so his landlord raised his rent...how much ya think> $1,000 a month, that would be a high guess considering the small size of this place but say it's even $2,000 a month. They guy has 500 customers average a day. Say 50 of them buy an ounce...I know it's prolly more but hey I'll give him a little doubt, That's 50 times and extra $100...I'm no mathematician but that's $5,000 more a day. Bullshit!


and another opinion on 19..

Proposition 19 to Legalize Marijuana; How will patients fare?
Posted By Dr. Sean Breen on August 10th, 2010

If you are a medical marijuana patient (proposition 215) and are wondering how proposition 19 will change things I want to make a few points for you to think about.



1. Only patients with recommendations will be allowed to get medicine from current dispensaries. They will not be allowed to sell marijuana for recreational use.

OK..that's a no brain'er.

2. Already cities have placed bans on the recreational sale of marijuana so it is highly unlikely that you will be able to get it legally for recreational use anytime soon. Given that cities are barely embracing dispensaries taking care of patients I think its clear that they are not going to support recreational sale.

That is a very strange thing to say. Nobody is legally selling recreational cannabis because it does not exist yet...legally. Also that 'opinions' last sentence is full of fear mongering. Recreation cannabis is the cash cow that medical is not. Cities need money, why wouldn't they regulate and tax a 'now legal' product. It's not like they can stop people from using it. Sure some cities will not regulate...but after time, most will.

3. If you have minors in the house it will be a felony to use marijuana in that house without a medical recommendation. On top of that you are ONLY allowed to medicate in your residence. It is not going to be legal to use marijuana recreationally at the beach or at concerts or at bars for that matter.

Once again FEAR mongering. He caps ONLY and states a misconception as fact. This guy is a DR.? You would think they would be able to comprehend a little better. 19 does not add ANYTHING to law regarding the smoking around minors. It simply does not allow it....the law STAYS THE SAME as far as that goes. Added felony..haha funny, sad and a LIE.

4. The amounts of marijuana you can possess or grow will be much less for recreational users vs medical patients. As law enforcement knocks on doors it will be very helpful to be able to show them a medical marijuana growers certificate signed by a physician.

OK...so that's a good thing I guess.

5. Recreational use will still be illegal federally. From all the attorneys I have spoken with about Prop 19 it is pretty clear the federal government will tie this up in court and it will not become law any time soon.

More FEAR. 19 was worded so it won't get caught up in court. The feds can't sue cali over 19 because it does not put the state in conflict with fed laws. It simply 'allows' local government to tax and regulate...not the state and that is the most important part of this law...so that it could be implemented without fed conflicts.

All of these restrictions are making it pretty clear that it still behooves patients to continue to use their physicians recommendation and not forgo it in hopes of saving a few dollars to use recreationally.

Is he saying that he is going to lose money??? Sure sounds like it to me...make up a bunch of shit so people keep their rec current. Smart man lol

I would be happy to get your thoughts on these points and answer any questions you may have.

And I would like to give some to you...whats your contact info??????

Dr. Breen

 

[Kalicokitty]

I have no doubt that prop 19 in no way will make medicine more affordable for recreational use or for medical use. Are prescribed medicines affordable? Its a way to get control of marijuana and make it a huge and ugly industry as is the history with every valuable natural resource we have.

and another opinion on 19..

Proposition 19 to Legalize Marijuana; How will patients fare?
Posted By Dr. Sean Breen on August 10th, 2010

If you are a medical marijuana patient (proposition 215) and are wondering how proposition 19 will change things I want to make a few points for you to think about.

1. Only patients with recommendations will be allowed to get medicine from current dispensaries. They will not be allowed to sell marijuana for recreational use.

2. Already cities have placed bans on the recreational sale of marijuana so it is highly unlikely that you will be able to get it legally for recreational use anytime soon. Given that cities are barely embracing dispensaries taking care of patients I think its clear that they are not going to support recreational sale.

3. If you have minors in the house it will be a felony to use marijuana in that house without a medical recommendation. On top of that you are ONLY allowed to medicate in your residence. It is not going to be legal to use marijuana recreationally at the beach or at concerts or at bars for that matter.

4. The amounts of marijuana you can possess or grow will be much less for recreational users vs medical patients. As law enforcement knocks on doors it will be very helpful to be able to show them a medical marijuana growers certificate signed by a physician.

5. Recreational use will still be illegal federally. From all the attorneys I have spoken with about Prop 19 it is pretty clear the federal government will tie this up in court and it will not become law any time soon.

All of these restrictions are making it pretty clear that it still behooves patients to continue to use their physicians recommendation and not forgo it in hopes of saving a few dollars to use recreationally.

I would be happy to get your thoughts on these points and answer any questions you may have.

Dr. Breen

I was waiting for the Dr's to chime in with their own brand of alarmist crap.
I think that they probably stand to lose as much $ as anyone.
No more cushy rec writing all day when prop 19 passes, because no one will need a rec anymore.

F**k off Dr. Breen, now you have to go back to practicing real medicine, instead of running your money machine Rec mill.

 

[vta]

hey rowdy i agree with you all these bone heads need to read the law they may change thier minds after doing so........... number 3 pretty much says it all there making it legal why the feloney then...............dc

LMAO...you tell us BONEHEADS to read the law when you yourself do not even understand it... there is no added felony for smoking around your kids....19 simply does not allow for it. They are not adding any extra penalties..nothing! So maybe you should read the law before you help spread lies and misconceptions. I'm sure you can see how that is wrong.

 

[highwayman1]

ive read it vta ............. and all it is is to tax and give the counties and cities to go around prop 215 we will see in due time who the bonehead.............DC

 

[localhero]

i wonder if allowing localities to control the sales and whatnot is a violation of fed law?

i am 100% sure it will be open to a court challenge at the least. if it is and 19 is negated, it will look like free and open med laws would be the way to go for the rest of the states before we can really achieve actual legalization.

obama wont be around forever, eventually 19 will get its day in court.