some people have families & relatives that they do not want to leave. saying "move" is not saying anything...if i was single, i WOULD have moved, over thirty years ago...
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Cannabis is legal in Cali. how long before home growing is outlawed?
- Thread starter shaggyballs
- Start date
some people have families & relatives that they do not want to leave. saying "move" is not saying anything...if i was single, i WOULD have moved, over thirty years ago...
I'm in Massachusetts and yes, I'm playing Bob Marley every day from now on!!! 
Medfinder
Chemon 91
Doingsome research myself, found this
(f) Nothing in this section shall be construed or interpreted to amend, repeal, affect, restrict, or preempt laws pertaining to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
To reiterate, this protected section, 11362.3, only covers the rights to consume and possess. So the restrictions on smoking in public, for example, would not apply to patients, who currently may legally consume anywhere tobacco smoking is allowed. Duly noted. Now let’s get to the cultivation section.
11362.1
(a) Subject to Sections 11362.2, 11362.3, 11362.4, and 11362.45, but notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall be lawful under state and local law, and shall not be a violation of state or local law, for persons 21 years of age or older to:
(3) Possess, plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process not more than six living marijuana plants and possess the marijuana produced by the plants…
And here is where proponents of Prop. 64 make the misguided claim that patients would be exempt from this six-plant cultivation limit:
11362.45
Nothing in section 11362.1 shall be construed or interpreted to amend, repeal, affect, restrict, or preempt: …(i) Laws pertaining to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
(f) Nothing in this section shall be construed or interpreted to amend, repeal, affect, restrict, or preempt laws pertaining to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
To reiterate, this protected section, 11362.3, only covers the rights to consume and possess. So the restrictions on smoking in public, for example, would not apply to patients, who currently may legally consume anywhere tobacco smoking is allowed. Duly noted. Now let’s get to the cultivation section.
11362.1
(a) Subject to Sections 11362.2, 11362.3, 11362.4, and 11362.45, but notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall be lawful under state and local law, and shall not be a violation of state or local law, for persons 21 years of age or older to:
(3) Possess, plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process not more than six living marijuana plants and possess the marijuana produced by the plants…
And here is where proponents of Prop. 64 make the misguided claim that patients would be exempt from this six-plant cultivation limit:
11362.45
Nothing in section 11362.1 shall be construed or interpreted to amend, repeal, affect, restrict, or preempt: …(i) Laws pertaining to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
The part I bolded must be an error or stoner moment, as it does not follow with 11362.45 which is basically telling you that you cannot in fact interpret 11362.1 to restrict laws in 215.
That means you cannot interpret 11362.1 as meaning medical patients will be limited to 6 plants only. As obviously doing so will restrict and affect 215.
Maybe there was a syntax error in what you meant? Maybe you mean non-auma proponents?
Thank you Armedoldhippy , You understand what being a human being means. I have a 90 year old mother that we now have to help and take care of every day. I also have 2 sons and 2 wonderful grand daughters that live within 100 miles of us, and we would not trade our time with them even for gorilla glue clones, or cookies by the lbs. I believe you become a better human being and citizen of the planet when you have loved ones and a new generation of grand children that make you give a shit about them, and the others that live on this earth. Selfishness is a terrible human trait.
I apologize for my above statement. It was crass and out of line. This whole legalization thing and the interests it brings to an industry we made here in cali has my hackles raised. I was rude and came off as very selfish. My apologies BigAl.
I would quit all of this to keep my family that has been loyal to me through thick and thin as I am sure yours is to you.
no offense meant,
advice like "move" is issued on the daily in the united states. not trying to pick on wen-dull, maybe people should think about what it is that causes these "temporary" blights of insensitivity. i mean, we're lucky wendull was postin on teh internet, and not processing dude's vital account or some shit.
this is a rhetorical question because i know the mechanisms by which "perfectly sensible persons" become routinely asinine to each other. what would be "great for america" is not who the fuck you elect, but maybe who the fuck you pay close attention to, like, maybe yourself.
because it ain't you, holmes, it ain't you that decides, hey, here's an opportunity to be a total prick to somebody. there's some kinda force that enters your life and encourages you to fuck people over.
and if the american people would pay some attention to their minds, maybe they would start to notice when, where, how this bullshit gets inside them and makes them pricks. deal with that before your presidential vote and amazing things will happen for the entire world.
the land of "hey let me get my dick out" but "no clue why i am doing that"
i mean i could tell you what it is but you wouldn't care. you need to pay attention to yourself so you can observe it before any shit can be done, because you sure as shit ain't gonna listen to someone else tell you about it.
advice like "move" is issued on the daily in the united states. not trying to pick on wen-dull, maybe people should think about what it is that causes these "temporary" blights of insensitivity. i mean, we're lucky wendull was postin on teh internet, and not processing dude's vital account or some shit.
this is a rhetorical question because i know the mechanisms by which "perfectly sensible persons" become routinely asinine to each other. what would be "great for america" is not who the fuck you elect, but maybe who the fuck you pay close attention to, like, maybe yourself.
because it ain't you, holmes, it ain't you that decides, hey, here's an opportunity to be a total prick to somebody. there's some kinda force that enters your life and encourages you to fuck people over.
and if the american people would pay some attention to their minds, maybe they would start to notice when, where, how this bullshit gets inside them and makes them pricks. deal with that before your presidential vote and amazing things will happen for the entire world.
the land of "hey let me get my dick out" but "no clue why i am doing that"
i mean i could tell you what it is but you wouldn't care. you need to pay attention to yourself so you can observe it before any shit can be done, because you sure as shit ain't gonna listen to someone else tell you about it.
I know what caused it hence the apologies on a public forum. But just being a dick doesn't mean I would go as far fucking with some ones account info.
That is beyond being a dick.
That is beyond being a dick.
Just look at what happened to the medical dispensary sales and caregiver rights fading quickly in Colorado post Amendment 64 in 2012. There's a similar model to your future California. I was proud of Cali for not passing similar legislation in 2012. I wished Colorado had done the same.
Police have been the original gangster, look into history. A force starts off as an armed mob and before too long their tribe is in power. They conquer the competing mobs, rape and impregnate their women. Eventually that successful mob takes up the area the size of a country and that is what they become. They are the legal holders of the weapons and what they say rules. They have all the cards and never miss a trick. The only movement they make at all is to profit at the expense of others. It is the oldest game in the book, literally. Read the old testament. The only difference in any of them as some are better at hiding their motives than others. But they are all dogs with slightly different fleas.
Well, if y'all want to be in the best state for legal weed, move to Maine. The state that has the other Portland. But Question 1 has to survive a recount, and does not go into effect until January 1 of 2017. Plenty of time to move there though and get a head start on the growing season. Oh yah, it gets really cold in New England in the winter. Really freaky cold compared to sunny California. But, you can get all the legal laws there that you are complaining about in CA!
You do not want to move to Oregon. We can only grow 4 plants here, and it is way too crowded and expensive here now. And there are 111 people moving into the Portland area every day. The weather here sucks as well. It has been raining all October and November. I got 17 inches of rain here in October. A record for October, but I got 25 inches of rain here last December. Now, that was wet.
Do not move to WA either, you cannot grow rec weed there for personal use. Sorry. And in CO and AK, you can only grow 3 mature plants. And its freaky cold in both of those two states as well. Hey, maybe Nevada? Lemesee... oh no, you do not want to move to Nevada either. Under Question 2, you cannot grow rec weed at home in Nevada if you live within 25 miles of a retail weed store! Well, that leaves Taxachusetts, another freaky cold winter place (I have been there in January), but the legislature there is working on gutting Question 4 just like all the other legal states have done. But there like in Maine, the laws for home grows look really good. 6 mature plants per person, a whopping limit of 12 per household, you can grow indoor and out, and like Oregon it just has to be out of unaided view.
So move to ME or MA in New England and grow your hearts out!
Or keep complaining about whether Prop 64 sux or may not suck!
You do not want to move to Oregon. We can only grow 4 plants here, and it is way too crowded and expensive here now. And there are 111 people moving into the Portland area every day. The weather here sucks as well. It has been raining all October and November. I got 17 inches of rain here in October. A record for October, but I got 25 inches of rain here last December. Now, that was wet.
Do not move to WA either, you cannot grow rec weed there for personal use. Sorry. And in CO and AK, you can only grow 3 mature plants. And its freaky cold in both of those two states as well. Hey, maybe Nevada? Lemesee... oh no, you do not want to move to Nevada either. Under Question 2, you cannot grow rec weed at home in Nevada if you live within 25 miles of a retail weed store! Well, that leaves Taxachusetts, another freaky cold winter place (I have been there in January), but the legislature there is working on gutting Question 4 just like all the other legal states have done. But there like in Maine, the laws for home grows look really good. 6 mature plants per person, a whopping limit of 12 per household, you can grow indoor and out, and like Oregon it just has to be out of unaided view.
So move to ME or MA in New England and grow your hearts out!
Or keep complaining about whether Prop 64 sux or may not suck!
Last edited:
Maine will be a very bad place to live until you get rid of your nut case governor. He will do his best to screw up legalization which is the least of his sins. Vermont is much better, legal or not.
It looks to be the same in Taxachusettes.
http://www.weednews.co/will-the-people-of-massachusetts-get-the-marijuana-law-they-voted-for/
The people in these states pass legal weed measures, and then the state legislatures revise and gut them, and county or city munis opt out or pass more restrictions. Unhinging prohibition is a long and painful process. Never mind the Feds...
My friend Bombadil has been a good member of good standing since I have been frequenting this site, which is much longer than my membership shows. I do now he had to change his handle on here at least one time because (I think) he comes from a country that is not very popular with the free world... still that has nothing to do with cannabis or it's worldly legal standing. I was close to reporting some comments on here until I seen the sites founder come in and say something about it. Being a Roman Catholic I have had my fair share of attacks and can understand that someone picking on another culture or religion is a bad thing that no good can come from. We are all supposed to be united here under one topic and all other difference do not matter in a coalition of lobby. Think about that. United we stand, divided we fall. Cannabis has been illegal for racist, cultural, financial and ethnic reasons for a tiny fraction of the existence of humans. It is damn time for a change. Hitler and Stahlin are gone, time for Cannabis to be accepted as a mainstream part of social humanity. Pardon my English as some know it is not my first language.
You should move
Well the war on home growing has started like i knew it would!
