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

[Anti]

I'm not missing the point.

Freedom for Property owners not Freedom per Citizen.

Why is land ownership a requirement to grow a plant?

Why is it a requirement?

Because a landlord has a right to say what can or cannot be done on their property.

Some apartment complexes have rules against pets... (which are legal)...

Some apartment complexes have rules against youth (you have to be 65 to live there) but being young is not against the law.

Some landlords require that you do not smoke in their building. Smoking itself is still legal.

This law simply does not FORCE landlords to condone people growing cannabis in their spare bedroom. It ALLOWS landlords the CHOICE. And choice is still legal.

If your landlord won't let you grow, find a new landlord. Or save your pennies and buy a house. Or find another solution.

Hope that helps.

 

[JackTheGrower]

It is not a Requirement-- You just need to get permission from the person who owns the land/house-- Same as you would if you wanted to put in new carpeting...or change the blinds--
Why should the person who owns the place have to be forced to let their tenant, who may have never done this before....set up a big hydro op in their $250,000 investment??
If it was my house, I would want to make sure it was going to be safe-- I would let them, with a hefty additional deposit...but I would at least want them to ask first--

There are already legal agreements in regards to renting or leasing property.
There is no need to place one class of citizen in charge of others unless the goal is to further Ultra Right power over the poor.

I am saying that Legalizing should give the people the right to have a garden rather than authorizing a class of citizen to determine rights of another citizen.

The Nazi's did this. Decided Jews couldn't have businesses or live in certain areas because one class of Citizen was authorized to do so by law.

I believe in giving all Citizens rights equally.

Let contracts be settled in court like it has always been done. making a garden an arrestable crime which is what Prop 19 does if you have a garden on a property the owner has not given permission for is the wrong way to go for legalizing IMO.

Do we really need a law that makes us servants of property owners with rights to cannabis?


That's the points I am trying to share. Points I don't see other aware of.

But what do you expect from a True Legalization Guy?

 

[JackTheGrower]

If you don't have to own property to grow on or damage it than why don't we all go guerilla style on public lands?

You can dance around the semantics Jack, but your argument holds no water. It isn't workable.

The right to have a garden is independent from where you can have one.

So we can grant rights to grow to a citizen and still have rules on where and how.

With Prop 19 the right ( to grow cannabis ) is dependent on one Class of Citizen ( property owners ) granting the right to those who are not a privileged class ( non property owners ) to grow cannabis.

Does that make it easier to understand?

I am in favor of the law granting rights to all equally.

 

[Anti]

I am in favor of the law granting rights to all equally.

Me too. As soon as there is a law that will establish such, I will rally behind it even more emphatically than I back this current step forward.

 

[JackTheGrower]

Because a landlord has a right to say what can or cannot be done on their property.

Some apartment complexes have rules against pets... (which are legal)...

Some apartment complexes have rules against youth (you have to be 65 to live there) but being young is not against the law.

Some landlords require that you do not smoke in their building. Smoking itself is still legal.

This law simply does not FORCE landlords to condone people growing cannabis in their spare bedroom. It ALLOWS landlords the CHOICE. And choice is still legal.

If your landlord won't let you grow, find a new landlord. Or save your pennies and buy a house. Or find another solution.

Hope that helps.

Right.. Nothing has changed in the contracts.
We can skip the Ernst is saying that rental/lease agreements are to be voided. I am not saying that at all.

What I am saying is the right to grow for me for example is being handed to a privileged citizen to decide for me. Under Prop 19 the individual is not given the right only a privileged class of citizen is getting the rights to grow.

That I cannot grow Cannabis by contract is one thing but, that my right is assigned to another to decide for me is not democracy it is fascism.

There will be no chance to negotiate a contract when the right to decide if I can grow is solely in the hands of the Landlord completely by law.
In essence I have no rights to even negotiate since the landlord can say yes today and sign off then say no tomorrow since it is a one sided right of Land owners only to allow a garden.
I cannot even sue them in court since I have no rights to have a garden on rented land even if they said yes today and tomorrow come and rip up my garden.
Rip up my garden and haul it away at that! With the Sheriff stand by with guns.
So even if they sign off on a garden they can revoke that right at any time since the law doesn't allow me to have a garden if I don't own the property.

I am in favor of people having the right to a garden and then we all negotiate where we can and how we can have a garden.

It seem like it's semantics but it's actually the difference between it being legal for us and it being illegal for us to grow plants.

This is where personal rights make a difference.


Do you guys see how the Property owner owns the garden?

 

[JackTheGrower]

Me too. As soon as there is a law that will establish such, I will rally behind it even more emphatically than I back this current step forward.

Are you in California? We can start the movement.

 

[JackTheGrower]

Like that has stopped people from growing in rentals? Every house I've rented I've grown in without owners permission...just about every one of them were leased through a property management company who are always far too busy to worry what I'm doing. As long as your not an idiot and repair the house to condition you recieved it in, people usually are none the wiser....

You are right no one is going to turn around and stop breaking the law.

Prop 19 will fail to serve the needs of the people.

It does add more crimes to Cannabis including having a garden on property that the owner has not approved a garden to be.

Not to mention putting those under 21 in jail for smoking weed with or in the presence of others under 21.

 

[Anti]

Are you in California? We can start the movement.

I am currently in a state with much, much harsher penalties for mere possession of cannabis for any reason.

I understand why people are skeptical of government. I too am leery, and I read through this bill several times, as well as reading every article that has been posted in this thread and every POST in this and several other prop19 threads on this site and others.

Having done all of these things, I still see this as a momentous occassion and an opportunity for recreational cannabis users to stand proudly in the sunlight with relative fear from reprisal. If you say "we can do that with 215 now, man!", then you are missing my point.

RECREATIONALLY LEGAL (with certain annoying but certainly not unlivable restrictions) versus MEDICAL NECESSITY.

HUUUUUGE STEP.

Amsterdam is not as liberal as Prop 19. And hasn't it been wearing the Pot-Friendliest crown for long enough?

 

[JackTheGrower]

I understand.

I understand the argument that a step forward is better than no step forward.

However, we never were walking to start with.
All our efforts of growing and selling in the Underground is proverbial "crawling."

So are we now walking? Is this step just one in a long string of steps we make happen?

I don't know.. Perhaps prop 19 failing will do more for us than it passing now that Legalization discussion is so World wide ( Mexico is considering real legalization ).

Whatever happens the public awareness is better than just 2 years ago.

 

[kmk420kali]

There are already legal agreements in regards to renting or leasing property.
There is no need to place one class of citizen in charge of others unless the goal is to further Ultra Right power over the poor.

I am saying that Legalizing should give the people the right to have a garden rather than authorizing a class of citizen to determine rights of another citizen.

The Nazi's did this. Decided Jews couldn't have businesses or live in certain areas because one class of Citizen was authorized to do so by law.

I believe in giving all Citizens rights equally.

Let contracts be settled in court like it has always been done. making a garden an arrestable crime which is what Prop 19 does if you have a garden on a property the owner has not given permission for is the wrong way to go for legalizing IMO.

Do we really need a law that makes us servants of property owners with rights to cannabis?


That's the points I am trying to share. Points I don't see other aware of.

But what do you expect from a True Legalization Guy?

It gives all the Right to grow...If you don't have a place to grow, that is your problem...same as you have a Right to build a house anywhere you want...you just need to purchase the land, and the materials--
If you do not own a car...you can still have the Right to drive...but you need to get a car-- Same thing--

 

[dagnabit]

Come on..

Read the very thing posted.. It is all relative to property ownership.

But if you need to explain in detail I will.

yes please...

i see no prohibition on non owner growers...

on the contrary i see opportunity...

higher rent for "19 ok" homes and apartments.
warehouses divided into 25 sq' "grow apartments" for rent.

but what i dont see is the prohibition on rental growers..so yes please in detail?

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

When did breaking a renters agreement equate to breaking law? That's like saying I would get thrown in jail fir having a dog in a house where I either did not recieve permission or was advised against having a pet on the property. You can get evicted under 19 for growing, but at least you won't get arrested. And I have had landlords allow me to grow for medical use and ID have to imagine many more landlords would be more leniant if 19 passes. If your that worried about it, just look at alot of houses and express your concern to maintain a small legal garden for personal use. There are alot of people desperate to rent their property in CA, eventually you would find someone who would grant you permission. Or you could just grow and keep it on the downlow, which would be much simplier since most landlords contract the propert to a management company so they aren't constantly having to deal with payments, repairs, etc...

 

[JackTheGrower]

yes please...

i see no prohibition on non owner growers...

on the contrary i see opportunity...

higher rent for "19 ok" homes and apartments.
warehouses divided into 25 sq' "grow apartments" for rent.

but what i dont see is the prohibition on rental growers..so yes please in detail?

I don't understand what your reply is about.

Rental growers? Oh people that want a garden in a rental.. The owner of the property can revoke your garden any time.

 

[rives]

215forLife-
Since you decided to neg rep me and make a pitiful attempt at insulting my mother on a now-closed thread (oooooh, what a man! Next time, really hurt me and use your light saber), I guess I will put this here and hope you find it. It’s interesting that you can find all of these legal precedents to prop up your position, yet you choose not to assimilate the meaning of the first six words in part A of prop 215. If you had hit puberty when 215 was voted in, you would remember that 56% of Californians had voted for 215 in order to give succor to “seriously ill Californians”, just as the proposition states, not so that some unemployable little weasel could make a nice living gouging sick people. I don’t really care what Dennis Peron has to say at this point, or if you are butt-buddies with him. He has become a sad little figure, obviously allowing ego and injured feelings to get in the way of furthering a movement that he feels overly proprietary toward. The fact is that what has gone on with 215 in the last 14 years is a perversion of what the voters at that time thought they were voting into law. It has taken us to this point, and now it is time to take the next step. 19 gives us freedoms that 215 doesn’t even approach, and while it is mildly flawed, it is a hell of a step forward. After giving it more thought, with the way that you conduct yourself while hidden behind the veil of the internet, perhaps you are one of the little crackheads that Dennis is reportedly hanging with these days. (see link)

11362.5. (a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
(b)(1) The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 are as follows:
(A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/08/dennis_peron_raided_suffering.php

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Peron having meth-fueled gay sex with young men is nothing new for him. I'm suprised anyone seriously would follow that doods word... funny how quick people are to back someone they know nothing about.... Kinda like all these people who are on the anti 19 ship because they think that's what herer would have wanted...

 

[dagnabit]

I don't understand what your reply is about.

Rental growers? Oh people that want a garden in a rental.. The owner of the property can revoke your garden any time.

you mean like it should be?

ok so we are on the same page?

19 does not in any way require anyone to be a land owner to enjoy protection from human rights abuses.

im glad we cleared that up. so you can stop saying it.

 

[dagnabit]

Peron having meth-fueled gay sex with young men is nothing new for him. I'm suprised anyone seriously would follow that doods word... funny how quick people are to back someone they know nothing about.... Kinda like all these people who are on the anti 19 ship because they think that's what herer would have wanted...

maybe meth fueled sex behind a tree?

 

[binaryfission]

The right to have a garden is independent from where you can have one.

So we can grant rights to grow to a citizen and still have rules on where and how.

With Prop 19 the right ( to grow cannabis ) is dependent on one Class of Citizen ( property owners ) granting the right to those who are not a privileged class ( non property owners ) to grow cannabis.

Does that make it easier to understand?

I am in favor of the law granting rights to all equally.

ZOMG... a garden isn't a pocket knife. it doesn't go with you. therefore a garden will be somewhere on someone's land. There is no legislative wording that allows all people to grow pot that does not impede the current rights of property owners.

Are you really so naive as to not see all the problems your version of the law would bring? It is not workable. you can post a million times and spew loads of poop all over this thread, but facts are facts. You can't allow every person to grow on land that isn't theirs without owner consent. Your law would make growing in a national forest legal.

 

[zen_trikester]

There are already legal agreements in regards to renting or leasing property.
There is no need to place one class of citizen in charge of others unless the goal is to further Ultra Right power over the poor.

I am saying that Legalizing should give the people the right to have a garden rather than authorizing a class of citizen to determine rights of another citizen.

The Nazi's did this. Decided Jews couldn't have businesses or live in certain areas because one class of Citizen was authorized to do so by law.

I believe in giving all Citizens rights equally.

Let contracts be settled in court like it has always been done. making a garden an arrestable crime which is what Prop 19 does if you have a garden on a property the owner has not given permission for is the wrong way to go for legalizing IMO.

Do we really need a law that makes us servants of property owners with rights to cannabis?


That's the points I am trying to share. Points I don't see other aware of.

But what do you expect from a True Legalization Guy?

Geeze Jack, you are starting to sound like Cooter! This isn't "The Man keepin the poor people down" you know. this is again a common sense thing. A landlord can dictate what you do or don't do based on the terms of the lease regardless of what the prop says. This prop doesn't say that the landlord has the right to say you can't grow in your rented property because he already has that right. This prop opens the doors to to allow landlords to say it is OK.

Without saying it like they did they would have had to say either "anyone can grow in their rented property despite what the landlord wants" or "you can't grow on rented property". You get a yes, a no, or an "up to the property owner". Making it mandatory would loose votes for the prop because it is ridicules to say a property owner has no word on the issue, and saying no would be bunk. AGAIN, this is the best way to word it. This isn't the money bags holdin the nuts of the poor folk! And plenty of people with more cash that you or I will ever see, rent their homes! Besides, the way it is worded it says that you can lease land and it doesn't say how much. all it says is that you get a 25 sq ft garden per parcel, and that you must store your product on that parcel less 1 ounce per trip. So if your neighbor doesn't want to grow his plot you can lease his backyard from him and store your spoils in his basement... or throw them over the fence and store them in your own. That verbiage is GOOD Jack. As has been said, they are working out ways to offer rented warehouse grow room space and that won't replace your home garden. That will be an additional space! Your breeding room maybe?

Jed

 

[dagnabit]

i guess i have to say vote no..

there is no provision protecting the homeless from discrimination! it basically places those greedy ultra right fuckholes living in their homes trying to determine the rights of other citizens over the poor unfortunate homeless!

i fully support the complete repeal of 215 and the creation of a new piece of legislation making ANY possession whatsoever a felony until the scourge of homeless discrimination and class warfare is ended!!

will you stand with me?!?!?