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

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

25,000 more YES votes on 19 !!!

25,000 more YES votes on 19 !!!

Bay Area longshore workers want to legalize pot:

The longshore workers have jumped aboard the pro-marijuana legalization bandwagon, as the 25,000-member Northern California District Council of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union say they are pro-Prop 19.

And why would that be?

"The ILWU NCDC supports Prop 19 for good reason," sez the union's official statement. "The continued prohibition of marijuana costs society too much. Billions of our tax dollars are wasted annually on the prosecution and incarceration of many, whose only crime is using, growing and selling marijuana.

"Peoples' lives are ruined for a lifetime because of criminal records incurred from using a drug that is used recreationally by people from all walks of life. Those criminal records fall disproportionately on the backs of workers, poor people, and people of color," says the ILWU NCDC.

 

[vta]

http://www.examiner.com/santa-cruz-...supersede-or-amend-its-medical-marijuana-laws

I'm not sure what is up now. Perhaps Prop 19 is poorly designed?

Jack...that is Dragonfly's crap and has been brought up many times and every count she spewed has been disproved already, here, in this thread and others.

 

[vta]

Nice!

Last week, proponents secured what they view as a major endorsement, that of Dr. Joycelyn Elders, the former United States surgeon general and the first black to hold that position.

In a statement to be published in a voter guide, Dr. Elders said the legalization bill would help divert law enforcement resources to more serious threats. “We can let police prevent violent crime, or we can accept the status quo, and keep wasting resources sending tens of thousands of nonviolent marijuana consumers — a disproportionate number who are minorities — to jail,” Dr. Elders wrote.

 

[Guest 88950]

...The need of the Cannabis plant for medicinal purposes will not be a valid argument for very much longer.

i disagree.

not everyone responds to pharmaceuticals and do you think that the owner of the patents is going to sell it cheap, NO. the price will cause many w/o health insurance or medicare/medicade to not be able to afford it. also, all pharmaceuticals have side effects that the Cannabis plant doesnt. i bet it even has a determined LD50.

what if some chose edibles over other methods of ingestion? the wonder pill doesnt help them.

i tried getting marinol and a scrip cost over $800 a month. why, because they are only concerned with developing the next Billion dollar patent.


there will ALWAYS be a valid argument that I need the plant instead of the pill.

jmo

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Prof.Dr. Oliver Kayser, a biochemist at University of Dortmund, announced the availability of genetically modified bacteria that produce THC the very same day the German government announced the change in laws dealing with cannabinoid based drugs.
The bacteria are real.
The law in Germany will be adjusted to allow cannabinoid based drugs as pain killers.
It will still remain illegal for everyone to grow plants or even own seeds.
Plant material to produce herb based medicine (medical marijuana, hashish) needs to be imported.
Let's focus on Prop.19 but maybe you guys get a glimpse of what is going on elsewhere and that will help you make a decision regarding Prop.19.

This is exactly what I expected to happend with MMJ. If we dont get recreational away from medical, this too will be our fate. I havent met one medical marijuana patient whos told me they hate getting high, they just use mj as medicine and nothing else. NOT ONE. Yeah its great to smoke and get high, but that should be allowed for anyone of age, not someone whos willing to spend $100+ on a reccomendation and hide their enjoyment of cannabis behind the guise of being medical.

I still dont understand why any 215 people would be against 19 unless they are growing for resale or own a dispensary...

 

[dagnabit]

no props for the creative use of the rick roll?!?!?!?


jeeeez you guys are stuffy

 

[CrumpleZone]

Elders....

Elders....

Nice!

... that name rings a bell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joycelyn_Elders

In 1994, she was invited to speak at a United Nations conference on AIDS. She was asked whether it would be appropriate to promote masturbation as a means of preventing young people from engaging in riskier forms of sexual activity, and she replied, "I think that it is part of human sexuality, and perhaps it should be taught." This remark caused great controversy and resulted in Elders losing the support of the White House. White House chief of staff Leon Panetta remarked, "There have been too many areas where the President does not agree with her views. This is just one too many."[1] Elders was fired by President Clinton as a result of the controversy in December 1994.

Oh yeah.... that elders. Not exactly the name I would wannna hitch my star to. But she is right on this issue.

 

[dagnabit]

... that name rings a bell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joycelyn_Elders

In 1994, she was invited to speak at a United Nations conference on AIDS. She was asked whether it would be appropriate to promote masturbation as a means of preventing young people from engaging in riskier forms of sexual activity, and she replied, "I think that it is part of human sexuality, and perhaps it should be taught." This remark caused great controversy and resulted in Elders losing the support of the White House. White House chief of staff Leon Panetta remarked, "There have been too many areas where the President does not agree with her views. This is just one too many."[1] Elders was fired by President Clinton as a result of the controversy in December 1994.

Oh yeah.... that elders. Not exactly the name I would wannna hitch my star to. But she is right.

she was always right...her flaw was integrity and honesty...

 

[CrumpleZone]

she was always right...her flaw was integrity and honesty...

And maybe just a bit simple-minded.

 

[vta]

This is not from a person with a catchy name like DragonFly nor is it the opinion of a lawyer that makes money off pot 'criminals'. This is from the State of California. It is the official LEGAL review of the prop. Every proposition goes through the same legal review and analysis. The AG, or a DA is not going to go by DragonFly DeLaCruz's statements, they will refer to the States own legal analysis.


Legislative Analyst’s Office

Proposition 19
Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be
Regulated and Taxed. Initiative Statute.


BACKGROUND
Federal Law. Federal laws classify marijuana as an illegal substance and provide criminal penalties for various activities relating to its use. These laws are enforced by federal agencies that may act independently or in cooperation with state and local law enforcement agencies.

State Law and Proposition 215.
Under current state law, the possession, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana generally is illegal in California. Penalties for marijuana related activities vary depending on the offense. For example, possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, while selling marijuana is a felony and may result in a prison sentence.

In November 1996, voters approved Proposition 215, which legalized the cultivation and possession of marijuana in California for medical purposes. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005, however, that federal authorities could continue to prosecute California patients and providers engaged in the cultivation and use of marijuana for
medical purposes. Despite having this authority, the U.S. Department of Justice announced in March 2009 that the current administration would not prosecute marijuana patients and providers whose actions are consistent with state medical marijuana laws.

PROPOSAL
This measure changes state law to (1) legalize the possession and cultivation of limited amounts of marijuana for personal use by individuals age 21 or older, and (2) authorize various commercial marijuana-related activities under certain conditions. Despite these changes to state law, these marijuana-related activities would continue to be prohibited under federal law. These federal prohibitions could still be enforced by federal agencies. It is not known to what extent the federal government would continue
to enforce them. Currently, no other state permits commercial marijuana-related activities for non-medical purposes.

State Legalization of Marijuana Possession and Cultivation for Personal Use
Under the measure, persons age 21 or older generally may (1) possess, process, share or transport up to one ounce of marijuana; (2) cultivate marijuana on private property in an area up to 25 square feet per private residence or parcel; (3) possess harvested and living marijuana plants cultivated in such an area; and (4) possess any items or equipment associated with the above activities. The possession and cultivation of marijuana must be solely for an individual’s personal consumption and not for sale to
others, and consumption of marijuana would only be permitted in a residence or other “non-public place.” (One exception is that marijuana could be sold and consumed in licensed establishments, as discussed below.) The state and local governments could also authorize the possession and cultivation of larger amounts of marijuana.

State and local law enforcement agencies could not seize or destroy marijuana from persons in compliance with the measure. In addition, the measure states that no individual could be punished, fined, or discriminated against for engaging in any conduct permitted by the measure. However, it does specify that employers would retain existing rights to address consumption of marijuana that impairs an employee’s job performance.

This measure sets forth some limits on marijuana possession and cultivation for personal use. For example, the smoking of marijuana in the presence of minors is not permitted. In addition, the measure would not change existing laws that prohibit driving under the influence of drugs or that prohibit possessing marijuana on the grounds of elementary, middle, and high schools. Moreover, a person age 21 or older who knowingly gave marijuana to a person age 18 through 20 could be sent to county jail for up to six months and fined up to $1,000 per offense. (The measure does not change existing criminal laws which impose penalties for adults who furnish marijuana to minors under the age of 18.)


Authorization of Commercial Marijuana Activities
The measure allows local governments to authorize, regulate, and tax various commercial marijuana-related activities. As discussed below, the state also could authorize, regulate, and tax such activities.

Regulation. The measure allows local governments to adopt ordinances and regulations regarding commercial marijuana-related activities—including marijuana cultivation, processing, distribution, transportation, and retail sales. For example, local governments could license establishments that could sell marijuana to persons 21 and older. Local governments could regulate the location, size, hours of operation, and signs and displays of such establishments. Individuals could transport marijuana from a licensed marijuana establishment in one locality to a licensed establishment in another
locality, regardless of whether any localities in between permitted the commercial production and sale of marijuana. However, the measure does not permit the transportation of marijuana between California and another state or country. An individual who was licensed to sell marijuana to others in a commercial establishment
and who negligently provided marijuana to a person under 21 would be banned from owning, operating, being employed by, assisting, or entering a licensed marijuana establishment for one year. Local governments could also impose additional penalties or civil fines on certain marijuana-related activities, such as for violation of a local
ordinance limiting the hours of operation of a licensed marijuana establishment.

Whether or not local governments engaged in this regulation, the state could, on a statewide basis, regulate the commercial production of marijuana. The state could also authorize the production of hemp, a type of marijuana plant that can be used to make products such as fabric and paper.

Taxation. The measure requires that licensed marijuana establishments pay all applicable federal, state, and local taxes and fees currently imposed on other similar businesses. In addition, the measure permits local governments to impose new general, excise, or transfer taxes, as well as benefit assessments and fees, on authorized marijuana-related activities. The purpose of such charges would be to raise revenue for local governments and/or to offset any costs associated with marijuana regulation. In
addition, the state could impose similar charges.

FISCAL EFFECTS
Many of the provisions in this measure permit, but do not require, the state and local governments to take certain actions related to the regulation and taxation of marijuana. Thus, it is uncertain to what extent the state and local governments would in fact undertake such actions. For example, it is unknown how many local governments would choose to license establishments that would grow or sell marijuana or impose an excise tax on such sales.

In addition, although the federal government announced in March 2009 that it would no longer prosecute medical marijuana patients and providers whose actions are consistent with Proposition 215, it has continued to enforce its prohibitions on nonmedical marijuana-related activities. This means that the federal government could
prosecute individuals for activities that would be permitted under this measure. To the extent that the federal government continued to enforce its prohibitions on marijuana, it would have the effect of impeding the activities permitted by this measure under state
law.

Thus, the revenue and expenditure impacts of this measure are subject to significant uncertainty.

Impacts on State and Local Expenditures
Reduction in State and Local Correctional Costs. The measure could result in savings to the state and local governments by reducing the number of marijuana offenders incarcerated in state prisons and county jails, as well as the number placed under county probation or state parole supervision. These savings could reach several
tens of millions of dollars annually. The county jail savings would be offset to the extent that jail beds no longer needed for marijuana offenders were used for other criminals who are now being released early because of a lack of jail space.

Reduction in Court and Law Enforcement Costs. The measure would result in a reduction in state and local costs for enforcement of marijuana-related offenses and the handling of related criminal cases in the court system. However, it is likely that the state and local governments would redirect their resources to other law enforcement and court activities.

Other Fiscal Effects on State and Local Programs. The measure could also have fiscal effects on various other state and local programs. For example, the measure could result in an increase in the consumption of marijuana, potentially resulting in an unknown increase in the number of individuals seeking publicly funded substance abuse treatment and other medical services. This measure could also have fiscal effects on state- and locally funded drug treatment programs for criminal offenders, such as drug courts. Moreover, the measure could potentially reduce both the costs and
offsetting revenues of the state’s Medical Marijuana Program, a patient registry that identifies those individuals eligible under state law to legally purchase and consume marijuana for medical purposes.


Impacts on State and Local Revenues
The state and local governments could receive additional revenues from taxes, assessments, and fees from marijuana-related activities allowed under this measure. If the commercial production and sale of marijuana occurred in California, the state and local governments could receive revenues from a variety of sources in the ways described below.
--Existing Taxes. Businesses producing and selling marijuana would be subject to the same taxes as other businesses. For instance, the state and local governments would receive sales tax revenues from the sale of marijuana. Similarly, marijuana-related businesses with net income would pay income taxes to the state. To the extent that this business activity pulled in spending
from persons in other states, the measure would result in a net increase in taxable economic activity in the state.
--New Taxes and Fees on Marijuana. As described above, local governments are allowed to impose taxes, fees, and assessments on marijuana-related activities. Similarly, the state could impose taxes and fees on these types of activities. (A portion of any new revenues from these sources would be offset by increased regulatory and enforcement costs related to the licensing and taxation of marijuana-related activities.)

As described earlier, both the enforcement decisions of the federal government and whether the state and local governments choose to regulate and tax marijuana would affect the impact of this measure. It is also unclear how the legalization of some
marijuana-related activities would affect its overall level of usage and price, which in turn could affect the level of state or local revenues from these activities. Consequently, the magnitude of additional revenues is difficult to estimate. To the extent that a
commercial marijuana industry developed in the state, however, we estimate that the state and local governments could eventually collect hundreds of millions of dollars annually in additional revenues.
Legislative Analyst’s Office

Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be
Regulated and Taxed. Initiative Statute.

Yes/No Statement

A YES vote on this measure means: Individuals age 21 or older could, under state law, possess and cultivate limited amounts of marijuana for personal use. In addition, the state and local governments could authorize, regulate, and tax commercial
marijuana-related activities under certain conditions. These activities would remain illegal under federal law.

A NO vote on this measure means: The possession and cultivation of marijuana for personal use and commercial marijuana-related activities would remain illegal under state law, unless allowed under the state’s existing medical marijuana law.

 

[JackTheGrower]

Jack...that is Dragonfly's crap and has been brought up many times and every count she spewed has been disproved already, here, in this thread and others.

Eyes open here. Time will tell.

 

[igrowone]

^^^ vta, huge finding! that is as close to a court opinion that you will get(short of the real thing)<br>
we'll see what anti 19's have to say about that, probably that the Legislative Analyst's Office has been paid off by Richard Lee

 

[BigBudBill]

This is not from a person with a catchy name like DragonFly nor is it the opinion of a lawyer that makes money off pot 'criminals'. This is from the State of California. It is the official LEGAL review of the prop. Every proposition goes through the same legal review and analysis. The AG, or a DA is not going to go by DragonFly DeLaCruz's statements, they will refer to the States own legal analysis.


Legislative Analyst’s Office

Proposition 19
Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be
Regulated and Taxed. Initiative Statute.


BACKGROUND
Federal Law. Federal laws classify marijuana as an illegal substance and provide criminal penalties for various activities relating to its use. These laws are enforced by federal agencies that may act independently or in cooperation with state and local law enforcement agencies.

State Law and Proposition 215.
Under current state law, the possession, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana generally is illegal in California. Penalties for marijuana related activities vary depending on the offense. For example, possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, while selling marijuana is a felony and may result in a prison sentence.

In November 1996, voters approved Proposition 215, which legalized the cultivation and possession of marijuana in California for medical purposes. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005, however, that federal authorities could continue to prosecute California patients and providers engaged in the cultivation and use of marijuana for
medical purposes. Despite having this authority, the U.S. Department of Justice announced in March 2009 that the current administration would not prosecute marijuana patients and providers whose actions are consistent with state medical marijuana laws.

PROPOSAL
This measure changes state law to (1) legalize the possession and cultivation of limited amounts of marijuana for personal use by individuals age 21 or older, and (2) authorize various commercial marijuana-related activities under certain conditions. Despite these changes to state law, these marijuana-related activities would continue to be prohibited under federal law. These federal prohibitions could still be enforced by federal agencies. It is not known to what extent the federal government would continue
to enforce them. Currently, no other state permits commercial marijuana-related activities for non-medical purposes.

State Legalization of Marijuana Possession and Cultivation for Personal Use
Under the measure, persons age 21 or older generally may (1) possess, process, share or transport up to one ounce of marijuana; (2) cultivate marijuana on private property in an area up to 25 square feet per private residence or parcel; (3) possess harvested and living marijuana plants cultivated in such an area; and (4) possess any items or equipment associated with the above activities. The possession and cultivation of marijuana must be solely for an individual’s personal consumption and not for sale to
others, and consumption of marijuana would only be permitted in a residence or other “non-public place.” (One exception is that marijuana could be sold and consumed in licensed establishments, as discussed below.) The state and local governments could also authorize the possession and cultivation of larger amounts of marijuana.

State and local law enforcement agencies could not seize or destroy marijuana from persons in compliance with the measure. In addition, the measure states that no individual could be punished, fined, or discriminated against for engaging in any conduct permitted by the measure. However, it does specify that employers would retain existing rights to address consumption of marijuana that impairs an employee’s job performance.

This measure sets forth some limits on marijuana possession and cultivation for personal use. For example, the smoking of marijuana in the presence of minors is not permitted. In addition, the measure would not change existing laws that prohibit driving under the influence of drugs or that prohibit possessing marijuana on the grounds of elementary, middle, and high schools. Moreover, a person age 21 or older who knowingly gave marijuana to a person age 18 through 20 could be sent to county jail for up to six months and fined up to $1,000 per offense. (The measure does not change existing criminal laws which impose penalties for adults who furnish marijuana to minors under the age of 18.)


Authorization of Commercial Marijuana Activities
The measure allows local governments to authorize, regulate, and tax various commercial marijuana-related activities. As discussed below, the state also could authorize, regulate, and tax such activities.

Regulation. The measure allows local governments to adopt ordinances and regulations regarding commercial marijuana-related activities—including marijuana cultivation, processing, distribution, transportation, and retail sales. For example, local governments could license establishments that could sell marijuana to persons 21 and older. Local governments could regulate the location, size, hours of operation, and signs and displays of such establishments. Individuals could transport marijuana from a licensed marijuana establishment in one locality to a licensed establishment in another
locality, regardless of whether any localities in between permitted the commercial production and sale of marijuana. However, the measure does not permit the transportation of marijuana between California and another state or country. An individual who was licensed to sell marijuana to others in a commercial establishment
and who negligently provided marijuana to a person under 21 would be banned from owning, operating, being employed by, assisting, or entering a licensed marijuana establishment for one year. Local governments could also impose additional penalties or civil fines on certain marijuana-related activities, such as for violation of a local
ordinance limiting the hours of operation of a licensed marijuana establishment.

Whether or not local governments engaged in this regulation, the state could, on a statewide basis, regulate the commercial production of marijuana. The state could also authorize the production of hemp, a type of marijuana plant that can be used to make products such as fabric and paper.

Taxation. The measure requires that licensed marijuana establishments pay all applicable federal, state, and local taxes and fees currently imposed on other similar businesses. In addition, the measure permits local governments to impose new general, excise, or transfer taxes, as well as benefit assessments and fees, on authorized marijuana-related activities. The purpose of such charges would be to raise revenue for local governments and/or to offset any costs associated with marijuana regulation. In
addition, the state could impose similar charges.

FISCAL EFFECTS
Many of the provisions in this measure permit, but do not require, the state and local governments to take certain actions related to the regulation and taxation of marijuana. Thus, it is uncertain to what extent the state and local governments would in fact undertake such actions. For example, it is unknown how many local governments would choose to license establishments that would grow or sell marijuana or impose an excise tax on such sales.

In addition, although the federal government announced in March 2009 that it would no longer prosecute medical marijuana patients and providers whose actions are consistent with Proposition 215, it has continued to enforce its prohibitions on nonmedical marijuana-related activities. This means that the federal government could
prosecute individuals for activities that would be permitted under this measure. To the extent that the federal government continued to enforce its prohibitions on marijuana, it would have the effect of impeding the activities permitted by this measure under state
law.

Thus, the revenue and expenditure impacts of this measure are subject to significant uncertainty.

Impacts on State and Local Expenditures
Reduction in State and Local Correctional Costs. The measure could result in savings to the state and local governments by reducing the number of marijuana offenders incarcerated in state prisons and county jails, as well as the number placed under county probation or state parole supervision. These savings could reach several
tens of millions of dollars annually. The county jail savings would be offset to the extent that jail beds no longer needed for marijuana offenders were used for other criminals who are now being released early because of a lack of jail space.

Reduction in Court and Law Enforcement Costs. The measure would result in a reduction in state and local costs for enforcement of marijuana-related offenses and the handling of related criminal cases in the court system. However, it is likely that the state and local governments would redirect their resources to other law enforcement and court activities.

Other Fiscal Effects on State and Local Programs. The measure could also have fiscal effects on various other state and local programs. For example, the measure could result in an increase in the consumption of marijuana, potentially resulting in an unknown increase in the number of individuals seeking publicly funded substance abuse treatment and other medical services. This measure could also have fiscal effects on state- and locally funded drug treatment programs for criminal offenders, such as drug courts. Moreover, the measure could potentially reduce both the costs and
offsetting revenues of the state’s Medical Marijuana Program, a patient registry that identifies those individuals eligible under state law to legally purchase and consume marijuana for medical purposes.


Impacts on State and Local Revenues
The state and local governments could receive additional revenues from taxes, assessments, and fees from marijuana-related activities allowed under this measure. If the commercial production and sale of marijuana occurred in California, the state and local governments could receive revenues from a variety of sources in the ways described below.
--Existing Taxes. Businesses producing and selling marijuana would be subject to the same taxes as other businesses. For instance, the state and local governments would receive sales tax revenues from the sale of marijuana. Similarly, marijuana-related businesses with net income would pay income taxes to the state. To the extent that this business activity pulled in spending
from persons in other states, the measure would result in a net increase in taxable economic activity in the state.
--New Taxes and Fees on Marijuana. As described above, local governments are allowed to impose taxes, fees, and assessments on marijuana-related activities. Similarly, the state could impose taxes and fees on these types of activities. (A portion of any new revenues from these sources would be offset by increased regulatory and enforcement costs related to the licensing and taxation of marijuana-related activities.)

As described earlier, both the enforcement decisions of the federal government and whether the state and local governments choose to regulate and tax marijuana would affect the impact of this measure. It is also unclear how the legalization of some
marijuana-related activities would affect its overall level of usage and price, which in turn could affect the level of state or local revenues from these activities. Consequently, the magnitude of additional revenues is difficult to estimate. To the extent that a
commercial marijuana industry developed in the state, however, we estimate that the state and local governments could eventually collect hundreds of millions of dollars annually in additional revenues.
Legislative Analyst’s Office

Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be
Regulated and Taxed. Initiative Statute.

Yes/No Statement

A YES vote on this measure means: Individuals age 21 or older could, under state law, possess and cultivate limited amounts of marijuana for personal use. In addition, the state and local governments could authorize, regulate, and tax commercial
marijuana-related activities under certain conditions. These activities would remain illegal under federal law.

A NO vote on this measure means: The possession and cultivation of marijuana for personal use and commercial marijuana-related activities would remain illegal under state law, unless allowed under the state’s existing medical marijuana law.

What is so flipping hard for them to reassure mmj people they arent risking anything if this passes? Can't they just put in the damn voter guide? I am voting for it, but man.....if it passes and I get screwed out of my mmj rights somehow....Dagnabit better be prepared to be my caregiver!

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

What is so flipping hard for them to reassure mmj people they arent risking anything if this passes? Can't they just put in the damn voter guide? I am voting for it, but man.....if it passes and I get screwed out of my mmj rights somehow....Dagnabit better be prepared to be my caregiver!

It says in there multiple times that 19 is not 215 and 19 is subject to different laws than 215. Anyone who is saying 19 will effect 215 is just fear mongering. The proof is right there in the pudding. How can this be so hard to understand. If 19 was effected, it would have made mention in the language of 19 and in the CA legal analasis of 19. But it's NOT. So can we please stop beating a dead horse???

 

[vta]

Just in case some don't make it to the Cali thread....




THE 8 MOST ABSURD EXCUSES FOR TRYING TO DEFEAT LEGAL POT


Author: Russ Belville

I've Collected the Eight Craziest Claims About a Post-Legalization State of California Predicted by Opponents of Prop 19.

As California gets set to vote on Prop 19 - an initiative to legalize marijuana statewide - some people's minds are being completely blown, man. But it's not the people smoking the stuff, it's the people trying to keep it banned.

I've collected the eight craziest claims about a post-legalization state of California predicted by opponents of Prop 19. Stunningly, three of these crazy predictions come from people who do use marijuana, proving once again that with enough repetition and scaremongering, you can convince a certain percentage of any group to vote against their own best interests.

8. The federal government will pull all its contracts with California businesses because they won't be able to drug test employees!

This is a favorite of the California Chamber of Commerce. The idea is that since the federal government has a Drug Free Workplace Act, when California law no longer allows employers to discriminate based on pee, all these California companies wouldn't be able to comply and the feds would pull all their contracts and grants.

Never mind that these same opponents predicted the same dire consequence when California was considering Prop 215, the initiative that legalized medical marijuana fourteen years ago, and we haven't seen any contracts or grants pulled since. The plain fact is that the Drug Free Workplace Act doesn't actually require workplace pee tests. This from" HRHero.com: Your Employment Law Resource" ( emphasis mine )...

..employers must certify that they will provide a drug-free workplace. The law doesn't require alcohol or drug testing, but testing is implicitly authorized as a means to maintain a drug-free workplace.

So what does it mean to provide a "drug-free workplace"? Certainly that must mean that even if they don't have to drug-test, they couldn't comply because Prop 19 would allow employees to possess marijuana, right? Wrong.

Employers whose companies fall under this category must have a policy prohibiting the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance in the workplace and specifying what actions will be taken in the event of violations.

When Prop 19 passes, possession of marijuana, up to an ounce, is no longer unlawful. There is no basis to claim a California company was allowing "unlawful possession", so they could still maintain an "( illegal ) drug-free workplace" and therefore, give no reason for the federal government to pull any contracts or grants.

7. Legalizing marijuana for healthy people will end medical marijuana for sick people!

Try to wrap your mind around the idea that allowing everyone to grow a 25 square foot garden means sick people will not get their medicine. Then imagine that a court will decide that a public that voted for legal marijuana for healthy people really meant to end medical marijuana for sick people. If you can manage that, you've entered the mind of J. Craig Canada.

Canada's analysis rests on this bit of Prop 19's language:

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

The courts will determine that this means Prop. 19 is intended to amend and supersede California's medical marijuana laws; Proposition 215 ( H&S 11362.5 ) and SB 420 ( H&S 11362.7-H&S 11362.9 ).

Then Canada goes on to criticize the next two paragraphs in the initiative, which provides cities the right to tax and regulate marijuana for adults, "except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9."

Got it? Canada says the first paragraph will supersede - that is, eliminate - California's Prop 215, and then moves on to the next two paragraphs that specifically provide exceptions under Prop 215. So I guess Prop 19 makes Prop 215 moot... except when it doesn't.

6. Legalizing marijuana will never raise any money because the social costs would outweigh any fiscal benefits... look at alcohol and tobacco!

Forget for a moment that in this country, we don't determine people's rights based on whether it makes a buck or not. ( I mean, we shouldn't. ) It doesn't matter whether legalizing marijuana will make a dime; it is simply wrong to lock up adults for smoking pot. Proponents of Prop 19 have floated the idea that legalizing pot would raise tax revenues for the state and the opponents, like San Mateo Police Chief Susan Manheimer, who is acting president of the California Police Chiefs Association, deny that advantage of the proposition by pointing out that alcohol and tobacco taxes bring in less than what alcohol and tobacco cause in health and safety costs

This is one of the instances where figures don't lie, but liars figure. Indeed, the taxes we collect from alcohol and tobacco don't come close to covering the social costs from those substances. Lung cancer, cirrhosis, emphysema, drunk driving, cigarette breaks, domestic violence, after a while the costs of smoking and drinking add up... because smoking and drinking are toxic and addictive.

Marijuana is neither toxic nor addictive. A Canadian study found that a tobacco smoker cost the country $800 per year, each drinker cost $165, and each toker cost $20, and half of that was laundry costs for Cheetos stains ( I kid! ). Also, it is not as if nobody is smoking pot now and post Prop-19 we'll be overrun with tokers. People are smoking pot now and we're taking in zero dollars in taxes and we're spending a billion dollars in California failing to stop it.

5. Big Tobacco will buy up great huge tracts of land in Northern California and mass produce lousy joints pumped full of toxic addictive chemicals!

This is one of the complaints by the people making money growing marijuana now, mostly in Northern California, who have long claimed that "Philip Morris is buying up 400 acres of land in Humboldt County in case legalization passes" and "RJ Reynolds already has the trademark on such names as 'Acapulco Gold', 'Maui Wowie', and 'Panama Red' for their joints once legalization passes".

These urban legends have been around as long as there have been hippies. Any in-depth search of news archives from Humboldt, Mendocino, Trinity, and Del Norte counties in California will fail to find the great Philip Morris land buy - you can imagine that would make for an above-the-fold headline in a local "Emerald Triangle" newspaper. Another search on the US Patent & Trademark Office finds all sorts of interesting trademarks for pot names, but none owned by a cigarette company.

But let's suppose Big Tobacco wants to get into cannabis production. Prop 19 gives individuals the right to grow their own marijuana and share it with friends. This isn't tobacco, where cigarette companies have a captive audience for an addictive substance with proven toxic results from repeated use. If Big Tobacco makes a bunch of toxic schwaggy joints, who's buying them? They'll have to produce a product that's a better deal than growing and rolling your own.

4. Today's pot is fourteen times more powerful than Sixties weed and will lead to more crack babies!

Credit Los Angeles Bishop Ron Allen for this bit of reefer madness. "It's going to cause crime to go up. There will be more drug babies," he warned the LA Times. The New York Times reported on Allen describing marijuana as "the most sinister drug," and asking that "the demonic spirits be cast back into hell." The good Bishop should know, because he was a former crack addict and the first illegal drug he used was marijuana.

The logical problem with Bishop Allen's gateway theory is that while nearly all crack addicts have smoked pot, very few pot smokers have ever smoked crack. The only commonality between marijuana and crack is that they are both illegal drugs ( even then, marijuana is more illegal; it is in Schedule I while cocaine is in Schedule II ). Marijuana doesn't make people smoke crack any more than alcohol or tobacco makes people smoke crack, at least according to the US Institute of Medicine.

I've been following the US government's Potency Monitoring Project for years ( yes, there is a federal agency using your tax dollars to prove just how diggity dank your chronic is ). The most potent weed seizure I recall was 37.2% THC. So if Bishop Allen was smoking weed that was 14x weaker than that, he was smoking 2.65% THC weed, or a grade somewhere between ditchweed and feral hemp at best! Since the average weed seizure tests at 8.52%, Bishop Allen was smoking the equivalent of a hemp t-shirt.

The Project has shown average potency to have doubled, which means nothing since THC is non-toxic, can't cause overdose, and is self-titrating, which is a fancy way of saying you smoke til you get stoned then you stop, whether it's one regular joint or one-quarter of a potent joint.

3. People who smoke marijuana in the same apartment building as a child will be arrested! ( Not that your landlord will let you grow pot anyway. )

There are some marijuana smokers who think that an ounce of cannabis and a 25 square foot garden just aren't enough. They've taken to sifting through the initiative for every possible flaw, misinterpretation, and slippery slope to muddy the conversation. Take this 2am-stoned-to-the-gills contemplation of "space".

..consuming cannabis would be illegal in the same "space" as a minor. Police and judges are free to interpret the word "space" to mean the same room, house, or entire apartment complex.

Well, I suppose police and judges are free to interpret the word "space" to mean the Cosmos, and since there are children in the universe, the vote to legalize marijuana means nobody can smoke pot anywhere!

If that wasn't enough to dissuade you, renters would have to ( *gasp* ) ask their landlord's permission to grow marijuana! I can't imagine why property owners would be apprehensive about that...

While growing your own supply is fun as hell, it can also be messy, dangerous, and can easily cause damage if done improperly. ( Not to mention homeowners insurance is likely to rise and homes containing cannabis could face seizure by the federal government. )

So, to sum up, you should vote no on being able to grow weed and hold an ounce, even if you own your own home, because some renters wouldn't be able to grow ( but could still hold an ounce ) and you couldn't smoke around kids.

2. Legally home-grown marijuana will lead to outbreaks of toxic deadly molds!

It's fascinating to me the little niches some prohibitionists stake out. Canada's Barbara Kay works the "pot causes schizophrenia" angle ( it doesn't ). Calvina Fay likes to put quotes around "medical" marijuana. But for sheer 50's sci-fi horror predictions about legalization, nobody can touch Alexandra Datig of NipItInTheBud2010.org and her dire warnings of toxic mold...

Aspergillus & Stachybotrys Next Health Nightmare If Marijuana Legalization Takes Place?

In 1996, there was a study of 10,000 cases of Aspergillosis with treatment costs of $633 Million. That means on average, just to try and treat ( not cure ) the problem, each case accrued average costs of roughly $63,300.

If the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 passes, 1/3 of California will be at risk of serious BLACK MOLD CONTAMINATION as well as Aspergillus exposure. And how will anyone be able to control the contamination when anyone can cultivate marijuana in their home or backyard at any time without supervision? ...Well? ...Anyone?

Aspergillus is a toxic mold and yes, it does grow on marijuana ( if you're a lousy grower ). It grows on carpets, trees, and drywall, too. It killed 261 people in 2004 for a death rate of 0.88255 deaths per 1 million people. You are more likely to die from appendicitis ( 371 deaths ) than aspergillus.

Still, it might be scary until you realize that people are growing marijuana indoors now and because it is illegal, do it in ways that are more likely to cause an outbreak of mold.

1. Workplaces would be overrun by workers smoking marijuana on the job!

We opened up with the California Chamber of Commerce, so it is only fitting we end with their most apocalyptic pronouncement to date:

Imagine a workplace where employees show up to work high on marijuana and there is nothing you can do about it. That's what employers can look forward to if Proposition 19 passes.

Employers would have to permit to employees to smoke marijuana at work.

Prop 19 does nothing of the sort. It specifically retains "the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected." Nobody is going to be working blazed with no fear of being fired - California is an "at will" employment state, anyway.

The Chamber's real fear - and they're not even shy about saying so publicly - is that management won't be able to discriminate against workers who might smoke pot off the job:

Employers would be prohibited from discriminating against marijuana users by taking marijuana use into account when deciding whether to hire an applicant.

When it comes to legal analysis, I prefer the non-partisan California Legislative Analysts Office take on Prop 19 and the workplace:

State and local law enforcement agencies could not seize or destroy marijuana from persons in compliance with the measure. In addition, the measure states that no individual could be punished, fined, or discriminated against for engaging in any conduct permitted by the measure. However, it does specify that employers would retain existing rights to address consumption of marijuana that impairs an employee's job performance.

So that's it - if you vote to legalize and tax pot in California, the state will lose all federal contracts, end medical marijuana, cost billions, create toxic addictive schwaggy joints, lead to crack babies, eliminate smoking in the Cosmos, overwhelm us with toxic mold, and fill the workplaces with blazed wastoids.

And they say smoking pot will make you crazy. Seems like legalizing it makes some people crazier.

 

[JJScorpio]

What is so flipping hard for them to reassure mmj people they arent risking anything if this passes? Can't they just put in the damn voter guide? I am voting for it, but man.....if it passes and I get screwed out of my mmj rights somehow....Dagnabit better be prepared to be my caregiver!

They have an official website that answers all of the questions.....

http://www.taxcannabis.org/node/97#medical

 

[dagnabit]

What is so flipping hard for them to reassure mmj people they arent risking anything if this passes? Can't they just put in the damn voter guide? I am voting for it, but man.....if it passes and I get screwed out of my mmj rights somehow....Dagnabit better be prepared to be my caregiver!

im working on starting up again....

ive got a new breeding project in mind..RHB (Red Hair Bud)

remember back home in october growing up every year about fair time the old school "red hair bud" would roll into town? all neon green and red "hairs" (pistils) all over it. smelled like somebody beat a skunk to death on a pine stump scraped up the skunk tinged pine sap and put it in a sammich bag.

yeah that

 

[Guest 88950]

vta, it sounds like the author has been following these threads and the anti prop19 rhetoric.

 

[vta]

vta, it sounds like the author has been following these threads and the anti prop19 rhetoric.

It sure does! I thought the same thing when I was reading it.

 

[JackTheGrower]

So, to sum up, you should vote no on being able to grow weed and hold an ounce, even if you own your own home, because some renters wouldn't be able to grow ( but could still hold an ounce ) and you couldn't smoke around kids.

This is really the kick in the pants that Lee and crew went with property owners instead of people.

I'm guessing that if anything causes 19 to fail it will be this short sighted view of Cannabis freedom.

renter contracts are renter contracts there was no need to have it in prop 19.

If the rental agreement states you cannot grow then you cannot grow. That Prop 19 limits freedom to one garden per property if the property owner said so is unnecessary.