Check out this Japanese video on Prop 19
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY6TILz-seY&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY6TILz-seY&feature=player_embedded
Vote YES or NO on Prop 19
- Thread starter Feb2006er
- Start date
- Status
So Felony manufacture/sale will not change under prop 19 and is 17K arrests, and like Dagnabit said the pigs can just use selective enforcement to target who ever they want.
But the chart also states that these 17K arrests are down from 18 years prior (mmj 1996 between the two data points).
The 61K arrests for minor possession have already been reduced to infractions so these arrests won't happen in 2011 irrespective of prop 19.
Like I said VERY WEAK first step.
nobody can say how it's going to turn out, how many people will go to jail after 19. Those numbers from 6 months after and 12 months after will even be different. Remember, ALL marijuana laws will be modified. There is also 'intent' with this law. So felony thresholds (counts) now, may be a misdemeanor after 19. Going by ABX6 9...I can get pulled over with a qp and only get a $100 infraction ticket. Going outside the 25sq ft may only be an infraction as well...depending. Intent intent intent it's a beautiful thing.
Threads like these disappoint me. That people think we would go from our current system to outright full legalization is beyond quixotic.
Its going to get mainstreamed through taxes. Period. If you want it understand you will pay taxes on it. Is alcohol free of taxes? Fuck no. Cigarettes? Give me a break. But none of my friends have done stretches in prison away from their families because they use them. To think such a taboo substance would just be outright completely free like sunflowers is a joke.
But the fact of the matter is that 4x4 (even at 1 ft high) is plenty enough pot for the average consumer. And that is where it breaks down I think. So many people in the marijuana industry have been making their living off of it that they get jaded and forget what they are loyal to. Are you loyal to personal profit, or mostly phony medical patients abusing the system set up, or are you loyal to the average citizen being able to grow a reasonable amount of grass for himself to enjoy in the privacy of their own home without fear of their door being kicked in, or having their profits go to violent drug cartels in mexico.
4x4 ft at any given time is about 4 harvests a year near a pound a piece. I think a person being able to grow 4lbs a year and carry 30 fat ass joints on him at any given moment is an unbelievable privilege we might have for the first time.
There will also be SO MUCH of it that it will be extremely hard to monitor what individuals are doing privately.
I can't believe so many of you are against this and I really think it shows the change in our culture from the 60's and 70's to the current greedy capitalist ideals that have managed to work their way into our counterculture which was supposed to be about sharing and personal freedoms. And here so many of you would vote to keep it where it puts our friends, families, and neighbors in jail for growing a few plants. It boggles my mind it really does.
You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the necessary. Its' a quote from Voltaire but isn't that what Obama keeps telling us? Politics aren't perfect. But you get a platform, and then you can change it. Without the platform you have nothing to stand on to begin with.
Its going to get mainstreamed through taxes. Period. If you want it understand you will pay taxes on it. Is alcohol free of taxes? Fuck no. Cigarettes? Give me a break. But none of my friends have done stretches in prison away from their families because they use them. To think such a taboo substance would just be outright completely free like sunflowers is a joke.
But the fact of the matter is that 4x4 (even at 1 ft high) is plenty enough pot for the average consumer. And that is where it breaks down I think. So many people in the marijuana industry have been making their living off of it that they get jaded and forget what they are loyal to. Are you loyal to personal profit, or mostly phony medical patients abusing the system set up, or are you loyal to the average citizen being able to grow a reasonable amount of grass for himself to enjoy in the privacy of their own home without fear of their door being kicked in, or having their profits go to violent drug cartels in mexico.
4x4 ft at any given time is about 4 harvests a year near a pound a piece. I think a person being able to grow 4lbs a year and carry 30 fat ass joints on him at any given moment is an unbelievable privilege we might have for the first time.
There will also be SO MUCH of it that it will be extremely hard to monitor what individuals are doing privately.
I can't believe so many of you are against this and I really think it shows the change in our culture from the 60's and 70's to the current greedy capitalist ideals that have managed to work their way into our counterculture which was supposed to be about sharing and personal freedoms. And here so many of you would vote to keep it where it puts our friends, families, and neighbors in jail for growing a few plants. It boggles my mind it really does.
You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the necessary. Its' a quote from Voltaire but isn't that what Obama keeps telling us? Politics aren't perfect. But you get a platform, and then you can change it. Without the platform you have nothing to stand on to begin with.
Please forgive my ignorance. I'm not real familiar with the particulars of 19 and this issue may well have benn addressed before. So could someone more knowledgeable (probably most people here) answer this confusion of mine. I know there is a 5' x 5' limit on grow-space, and I think someone would be allowed to allowed to buy an ounce, but my confusion is that you can grow much more than an ounce in a 5' x 5' space. So how much weight would an individual actually be allowed to have under 19? Sorry if this is kind-of a hijack... go 19!
BigBudBill
Member
You would be able to carry up to 1 oz in public legally. At home you may store any cannabis grown from your 5 x 5 regardless of WHEN it was harvested. No limit has been specified and is sure to be tested in court if/when 19 passes.
If this is true it is a major blow.
Police forces with integrity already refuse to work with the FEDS to harass state law abiding citizens.
Unethical police forces in CA and other states routinely work with the DEA and others. Nothing I read in prop 19 would stop a local sheriff from teaming up with the DEA and handing the prosecution over to the feds.
Police forces with integrity already refuse to work with the FEDS to harass state law abiding citizens.
Unethical police forces in CA and other states routinely work with the DEA and others. Nothing I read in prop 19 would stop a local sheriff from teaming up with the DEA and handing the prosecution over to the feds.
It is part of ABX6 9, however.
11310.9. State or local funds shall not be expended on, and state
or local law enforcement or other personnel shall not assist in, the
enforcement of any federal or other laws that are inconsistent with
this article, or provide for greater sanctions than those in state
law for conduct prohibited by this article.
BigBudBill
Member
And that from the legislature... in preparation for 19 passing...already working on fixing issues.
It sounds like Baca is doing just that. He's already in line, on his knees, with his mouth open.
Shit's about to get real.
Thanks. I'm kinda wondering about something else. I know Jerry Brown is against legalization. I wonder if he gets elected how much his influence will effect the acceptance. The battle has still much more to be fought even after 19 passes.
Source: San Diego City Beat (CA)
OUR ENDORSEMENT - PROP. 19
Of course we're endorsing Prop. 19, the ballot initiative to legalize marijuana and allow local governments to tax it. We believe that it'll boost California's economy, create new jobs and ease the budget crisis. We believe that it will strike a blow to cartels and lift a significant burden from our overtaxed justice system. And, yes, we also disclose that legalization will a ) help CityBeat's bottom line-and consequently allow us to serve you better-and b ) make our nights and weekends way more fun. For those who value personal liberty, yes on 19 is the only moral vote.
Don't believe the scare tactics from the opposition. Marijuana is no more a gateway drug than miniskirts are a pathway to prostitution. Our officials are quite capable of writing laws to regulate marijuana and prosecute irresponsible behavior. The prevalence of medical-marijuana collectives have had no major negative impact on San Diego, and anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to get you into church. People: Jesus loves the tokers, too. We'd like you to vote yes on Prop. 19.
OUR ENDORSEMENT - PROP. 19
Of course we're endorsing Prop. 19, the ballot initiative to legalize marijuana and allow local governments to tax it. We believe that it'll boost California's economy, create new jobs and ease the budget crisis. We believe that it will strike a blow to cartels and lift a significant burden from our overtaxed justice system. And, yes, we also disclose that legalization will a ) help CityBeat's bottom line-and consequently allow us to serve you better-and b ) make our nights and weekends way more fun. For those who value personal liberty, yes on 19 is the only moral vote.
Don't believe the scare tactics from the opposition. Marijuana is no more a gateway drug than miniskirts are a pathway to prostitution. Our officials are quite capable of writing laws to regulate marijuana and prosecute irresponsible behavior. The prevalence of medical-marijuana collectives have had no major negative impact on San Diego, and anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to get you into church. People: Jesus loves the tokers, too. We'd like you to vote yes on Prop. 19.
Another Deep Pocket Steps Up for Proposition 19
by Cannabis Karri
Peter Lewis at home in front of Warhol Paintings of Mao Tse-tung
A retired insurance company executive from Florida who has close ties with the Marijuana Policy Project has donated $209,005 to the campaign to legalize marijuana in the state of California. Peter Lewis, a billionaire philanthropist who built up Progressive Insurance into one of the nation’s largest auto insurers is not new to cannabis law reform initiatives in California. In 1996, Lewis donated a half a million dollars to Proposition 215, the measure that made California the first state in the nation to legalize medical marijuana. In 2000, he donated over a million dollars to Proposition 36 to allow nonviolent drug offenders to spend time in treatment, rather than a concrete box for their crimes.
There has been some speculation that Lewis hadn’t come out earlier to support this measure financially because he wanted to wait and support a legalization effort in 2012, a presidential election that would likely attract more voters and therefore have a better shot at passing. Peter Lewis’ donation makes him the largest single contributor to the effort after the bills sponsor, Richard Lee. Richard Lee has spent more than $1.5 million in his effort to get Proposition 19 on the ballot and to campaign for it’s passage.
Lewis said in a statement on Saturday, “I admire the effort, energy and commitment of the people involved in the campaign, and want to help them get their message out to the voters.” The campaign has been lagging in contributions coming into this last stretch, but a few larger donor have come forward in these last few weeks leading up to the election. Sean Parker, Facebook’s first president and Dustin Moskovitz, one of it’s co-founders gave $170,000 to the effort recently and the president of Dr. Bronner’s Soap Company gave another $100,000.
Along with the extra push from big donors, proposition 19 has had some favorable polls recently. The Public Policy Institute of California showed the initiative polling at 52% support. Meanwhile, the No on 19 campaign has not had the same kind of luck with big donors in their efforts in this last stretch of campaigning before Nov 2nd. So far this month, the largest donation reported is $25,000
by Cannabis Karri
Peter Lewis at home in front of Warhol Paintings of Mao Tse-tung
A retired insurance company executive from Florida who has close ties with the Marijuana Policy Project has donated $209,005 to the campaign to legalize marijuana in the state of California. Peter Lewis, a billionaire philanthropist who built up Progressive Insurance into one of the nation’s largest auto insurers is not new to cannabis law reform initiatives in California. In 1996, Lewis donated a half a million dollars to Proposition 215, the measure that made California the first state in the nation to legalize medical marijuana. In 2000, he donated over a million dollars to Proposition 36 to allow nonviolent drug offenders to spend time in treatment, rather than a concrete box for their crimes.
There has been some speculation that Lewis hadn’t come out earlier to support this measure financially because he wanted to wait and support a legalization effort in 2012, a presidential election that would likely attract more voters and therefore have a better shot at passing. Peter Lewis’ donation makes him the largest single contributor to the effort after the bills sponsor, Richard Lee. Richard Lee has spent more than $1.5 million in his effort to get Proposition 19 on the ballot and to campaign for it’s passage.
Lewis said in a statement on Saturday, “I admire the effort, energy and commitment of the people involved in the campaign, and want to help them get their message out to the voters.” The campaign has been lagging in contributions coming into this last stretch, but a few larger donor have come forward in these last few weeks leading up to the election. Sean Parker, Facebook’s first president and Dustin Moskovitz, one of it’s co-founders gave $170,000 to the effort recently and the president of Dr. Bronner’s Soap Company gave another $100,000.
Along with the extra push from big donors, proposition 19 has had some favorable polls recently. The Public Policy Institute of California showed the initiative polling at 52% support. Meanwhile, the No on 19 campaign has not had the same kind of luck with big donors in their efforts in this last stretch of campaigning before Nov 2nd. So far this month, the largest donation reported is $25,000
Local Cannabis Taxation Ordinances
Albany Measure Q
Do you approve of modifying the Albany Municipal Code, Chapter V, as set forth in the Voter’s Pamphlet, to set a business license tax to be paid by a cannabis business operating in the City of Albany?
Berkeley Measure S
Shall a tax be authorized on medical cannabis businesses not exceeding $25 per $1000 of gross receipts phased in over two years; on nonprofit medical cannabis businesses not exceeding $25.00 per square foot for the first 3000 square feet and $10 per foot thereafter; and on non-medical cannabis businesses of $100 per $1000 gross receipts; and shall the City’s appropriations limit be increased to permit expenditure of these tax proceeds?
La Puente Measure M
Shall an ordinance be adopted to require a Cannabis Business to pay an annual business license tax in the amount of 10% per $1,000 of gross receipts to provide for general municipal services, such as law enforcement and fire services, animal control, code enforcement, building inspection, plan checks, planning and public works?
Long Beach Prop B
To protect public safety services such as 911 emergency response, police and fire, as well as essential quality of life programs like parks, libraries, public works and infrastructure, sould the city of long beach impose an 15% tax on recreational marijuana businesses if legalized, with a $25 tax on cultivation sites per square foot, with an annual CPI adjustment.
Oakland Measure V
Shall the Oakland Municipal Code be amended to increase the business tax rate for “Medical Cannabis Businesses” from $18 per $1,000 of gross receipts to $50 per $1,000 of gross receipts, and creating a new “Non-Medical Cannabis Business Tax” of $100 per $1,000 of gross receipts, with all proceeds placed in the City’s General Fund to be used for any governmental purpose?
Richmond Measure V
Shall an ordinance be adopted to amend the Richmond Business License Tax to provide that every person engaged in a marijuana business pay a general business license tax of five percent (5%) of its gross receipts?
Sacramento Measure C
“Marijuana Business Tax. To help preserve essential services like fire, police, and 911 emergency response, shall City of Sacramento's business operations tax be updated by taxing businesses engaged in medical marijuana transactions, and in commercial production and sale of marijuana if legalized by California voters, at maximum rates of 4% and 10%, respectively, of gross receipts, with City Council discretion to lower tax rates or raise tax rates to the maximums, and requiring independent audits?"
San Jose Measure U
In order to provide funding for essential City services such police, fire, emergency response, street maintenance, pothole repair, parks, libraries and youth and senior programs, shall an ordinance be adopted to impose a tax at a rate of up to 10% of gross receipts on marijuana businesses in San Jose, subject to existing independent financial audits, with all revenue controlled by the City?
Stockton Measure I
Establish Fair Business Tax on Permitted Marijuana Sales. Shall Stockton’s Business License Tax Ordinance be amended to establish new business categories of: (1) permitted “Medical Cannabis Dispensaries” at a tax rate of $25.00 for each $1,000.00 of gross receipts; and (2) non-medical “Marijuana Businesses” at a tax rate of $100.00 for each $1,000.00 of gross receipts, for general fund revenue to mitigate impacts on City services such as police, fire and code enforcement?
Albany Measure Q
Do you approve of modifying the Albany Municipal Code, Chapter V, as set forth in the Voter’s Pamphlet, to set a business license tax to be paid by a cannabis business operating in the City of Albany?
Berkeley Measure S
Shall a tax be authorized on medical cannabis businesses not exceeding $25 per $1000 of gross receipts phased in over two years; on nonprofit medical cannabis businesses not exceeding $25.00 per square foot for the first 3000 square feet and $10 per foot thereafter; and on non-medical cannabis businesses of $100 per $1000 gross receipts; and shall the City’s appropriations limit be increased to permit expenditure of these tax proceeds?
La Puente Measure M
Shall an ordinance be adopted to require a Cannabis Business to pay an annual business license tax in the amount of 10% per $1,000 of gross receipts to provide for general municipal services, such as law enforcement and fire services, animal control, code enforcement, building inspection, plan checks, planning and public works?
Long Beach Prop B
To protect public safety services such as 911 emergency response, police and fire, as well as essential quality of life programs like parks, libraries, public works and infrastructure, sould the city of long beach impose an 15% tax on recreational marijuana businesses if legalized, with a $25 tax on cultivation sites per square foot, with an annual CPI adjustment.
Oakland Measure V
Shall the Oakland Municipal Code be amended to increase the business tax rate for “Medical Cannabis Businesses” from $18 per $1,000 of gross receipts to $50 per $1,000 of gross receipts, and creating a new “Non-Medical Cannabis Business Tax” of $100 per $1,000 of gross receipts, with all proceeds placed in the City’s General Fund to be used for any governmental purpose?
Richmond Measure V
Shall an ordinance be adopted to amend the Richmond Business License Tax to provide that every person engaged in a marijuana business pay a general business license tax of five percent (5%) of its gross receipts?
Sacramento Measure C
“Marijuana Business Tax. To help preserve essential services like fire, police, and 911 emergency response, shall City of Sacramento's business operations tax be updated by taxing businesses engaged in medical marijuana transactions, and in commercial production and sale of marijuana if legalized by California voters, at maximum rates of 4% and 10%, respectively, of gross receipts, with City Council discretion to lower tax rates or raise tax rates to the maximums, and requiring independent audits?"
San Jose Measure U
In order to provide funding for essential City services such police, fire, emergency response, street maintenance, pothole repair, parks, libraries and youth and senior programs, shall an ordinance be adopted to impose a tax at a rate of up to 10% of gross receipts on marijuana businesses in San Jose, subject to existing independent financial audits, with all revenue controlled by the City?
Stockton Measure I
Establish Fair Business Tax on Permitted Marijuana Sales. Shall Stockton’s Business License Tax Ordinance be amended to establish new business categories of: (1) permitted “Medical Cannabis Dispensaries” at a tax rate of $25.00 for each $1,000.00 of gross receipts; and (2) non-medical “Marijuana Businesses” at a tax rate of $100.00 for each $1,000.00 of gross receipts, for general fund revenue to mitigate impacts on City services such as police, fire and code enforcement?
statusquo
Member
Reflections on Prop 19's text
Reflections on Prop 19's text
After reading the actual text of prop 19, I have a few important questions. Please excuse me if this has already been discussed in one of the previous 148 pages.
1. In the beginning of the prop it says that anyone over 21 may:
"Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual's personal consumption" Article 5, Section 11300, A.1
Towards the end where the authors decided to define some vague terms:
"'Marijuana' and 'cannabis' are interchangeable terms that mean all parts of the plant Genus Cannabis, whether growing or not; the resin extracted from any part of of the plant; concentrated cannabis; edible products containing same; and every active compound, manufacture, derivative, or preparation of the plant, or resin." Section 11304, D.1
The first potential problem I see is that cannabis/mj are defined way too broadly - this could be a blessing or a curse depending on the situation. However if cannabis means all parts of the plant Genus Cannabis, whether growing or not, than we are forced to include the actual plant itself in the 1 oz. limit are we not? Independently of this line of reasoning, how is it really even possible, even in a plot smaller than 25 sq ft, to have a harvest with less than 1 oz? Even one indoor plant could easily pass this mark and that's not even counting the weight of the trim and the rest of the plant if case law ended up dictating that we do in fact need to include those things.
Another problem I see is that prop 19 doesn't distinguish between bud, hash or anything really. If we aren't willing to objectively measure the contents in bud as to objectively compare drug content to hash/other concentrates then why does the law stipulate that: "Only the active amount of the cannabis in an edible cannabis product shall be included"? This means they are willing to distinguish in some cases but even in this one case where they actually decide to approach things objectively and not weight the whole edible, it is unclear whether the courts would refer to the cannabis as an approximation of bud weight or cannabinoid weight.
Another issue some of you may have an answer for regards transactions. It doesn't (in)directly address minor-minor or minor-adult sales. A transaction between someone 18+ and <14 results in 3, 5 or 7 years in state prison. Between 14 and 18+ results in 3, 4 or 5 years in state prison. Also citizens protected under 19 are only allowed to buy/possess bud from authorized places...What about transactions between prop 215 patients and normal citizens?
These are just a few of the ambiguities/loopholes/ways for the long dick of the law to find its way inside us but I don't have the desire/time to point out more. I know I will get bashed for it but I won't be voting for prop 19. I will submit that there would be positives to arise from its passing but the cost would be too great. 19 is a compromise and the arguments for are based on faulty premises (if someone really wants an enumeration of some of the fallacies/incoherencies I will provide one later). On top of all that, Richard Lee could potentially make out like a bandit at the citizen's expense (as long as the feds don't raid his spot which they just came out and said they would do a few days ago). If I think of anything else I'll add it. Thanks to all, if any, of those who took the time to read and/or address my arguments and points
Reflections on Prop 19's text
After reading the actual text of prop 19, I have a few important questions. Please excuse me if this has already been discussed in one of the previous 148 pages.
1. In the beginning of the prop it says that anyone over 21 may:
"Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual's personal consumption" Article 5, Section 11300, A.1
Towards the end where the authors decided to define some vague terms:
"'Marijuana' and 'cannabis' are interchangeable terms that mean all parts of the plant Genus Cannabis, whether growing or not; the resin extracted from any part of of the plant; concentrated cannabis; edible products containing same; and every active compound, manufacture, derivative, or preparation of the plant, or resin." Section 11304, D.1
The first potential problem I see is that cannabis/mj are defined way too broadly - this could be a blessing or a curse depending on the situation. However if cannabis means all parts of the plant Genus Cannabis, whether growing or not, than we are forced to include the actual plant itself in the 1 oz. limit are we not? Independently of this line of reasoning, how is it really even possible, even in a plot smaller than 25 sq ft, to have a harvest with less than 1 oz? Even one indoor plant could easily pass this mark and that's not even counting the weight of the trim and the rest of the plant if case law ended up dictating that we do in fact need to include those things.
Another problem I see is that prop 19 doesn't distinguish between bud, hash or anything really. If we aren't willing to objectively measure the contents in bud as to objectively compare drug content to hash/other concentrates then why does the law stipulate that: "Only the active amount of the cannabis in an edible cannabis product shall be included"? This means they are willing to distinguish in some cases but even in this one case where they actually decide to approach things objectively and not weight the whole edible, it is unclear whether the courts would refer to the cannabis as an approximation of bud weight or cannabinoid weight.
Another issue some of you may have an answer for regards transactions. It doesn't (in)directly address minor-minor or minor-adult sales. A transaction between someone 18+ and <14 results in 3, 5 or 7 years in state prison. Between 14 and 18+ results in 3, 4 or 5 years in state prison. Also citizens protected under 19 are only allowed to buy/possess bud from authorized places...What about transactions between prop 215 patients and normal citizens?
These are just a few of the ambiguities/loopholes/ways for the long dick of the law to find its way inside us but I don't have the desire/time to point out more. I know I will get bashed for it but I won't be voting for prop 19. I will submit that there would be positives to arise from its passing but the cost would be too great. 19 is a compromise and the arguments for are based on faulty premises (if someone really wants an enumeration of some of the fallacies/incoherencies I will provide one later). On top of all that, Richard Lee could potentially make out like a bandit at the citizen's expense (as long as the feds don't raid his spot which they just came out and said they would do a few days ago). If I think of anything else I'll add it. Thanks to all, if any, of those who took the time to read and/or address my arguments and points
Statusquo -
Because the derivatives - hash, oil, etc, are defined in this manner they no longer carry harsher penalties. The one ounce limit is simply the limit on what you can carry outside of your house. Inside your house, there are no limits - it is legal to have the proceeds from numerous harvests. If you didn't grow it there, pretend you did.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.
Vote as you will, but I think it is both short-sighted and foolish to pass up an opportunity that has only come once before in the last 70+ years.
Because the derivatives - hash, oil, etc, are defined in this manner they no longer carry harsher penalties. The one ounce limit is simply the limit on what you can carry outside of your house. Inside your house, there are no limits - it is legal to have the proceeds from numerous harvests. If you didn't grow it there, pretend you did.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.
Vote as you will, but I think it is both short-sighted and foolish to pass up an opportunity that has only come once before in the last 70+ years.
It isn't legal for prop 215 patients to sell to normal citizens now is it? Under 19, unless your slinging on the street corner, how are they going to prove you didn't grow it or it wasn't gifted?
The taxes and permits are to ensure that only the big can play and the little guy gets the pointy end of the pigs guns.
Not from what I see above-- Those Taxes and Permits were aimed at those that are selling-- But I did notice the absence of any Tax or Penalty for Medical Grows, that are not being sold--
Like the Humboldt thingy, where it is directed at Medical Grows...I oppose that-- There are many Collectives that are not money based, I think I referenced WAMM, that should not have to endure a cost like that, which they would have no choice but to start charging Patients for--
I feel the same for Dispensaries that grow their own product...they already will be Taxed, and had to pay for Permits...so I don't think they should have to pay for Taxes and Permits for their Grows...since they are already doing so for the Distribution--
But for those who are growing to sell to dispensaries, or whoever...I don't see why they should not have to pay for that, the same as any other Distributor--
- Status
