Legalize Marijuana-California Initiatives

Ohhhh
So you took the time to read it?

What taxes did 19 establish?

That's right.....
It didn't. It left it up to the localities...

Big tobacco?
I did not know 19 federally rescheduled cannabis to allow multinational companies to grow?

haha props to BigHerbTree, too many lil bitches in cali voting against their own kind for profit...if it really gets hard to make money there you can always move it anywhere else in the country. greedy bitches

dagnabit said:

Ohhhh
So you took the time to read it?

What taxes did 19 establish?

That's right.....
It didn't. It left it up to the localities...

Big tobacco?
I did not know 19 federally rescheduled cannabis to allow multinational companies to grow?

Click to expand...

EXACTLY. if left it up to the localities, imagine paying state, county AND city taxes and license fees, conflicting regulations, more regulatory fees. I find it hard to believe that if you were in a city or county that did not outlaw/over regulate it that they wouldn't all three take their piece (most of the gov't's state and local have deficits/debt think about it).
before you know it they have sucked most the profit out of it and you have an end product that is not terribly profitable to grow and isn't any cheaper for the end consumer either. that or it keeps people underground or marginally on the books, raising not near the revenue that it could if the language lended itself to a more reasonable tax scenario.

As for big tobacco. sure there are some politics that they may not care to dirty their hands dirty with, the point of that statement was that it would be the wealthy and larger corporations that could afford to go big enough to make money in that tax landscape.

Some people were well aware that there would only be a handful of places that the county and city were equally receptive to commercial growing and deals were being made ahead of time. berkeley and oakland sanctioned 3 100,000 sq.ft. warehouses, beyond an estimated state licensure of $250,000 it would cost $1,000,000 just to bid! (never mind the price after bidding and the build out costs) and guess who was promised out one of the warehouses without having to go through the bidding process: Richard Lee! he wanted weed legal at any cost, he didn't care about the cause he cared about money, he had enough cash and enough political juice to make sure he made his and he didn't give a fuck if it gutted the small and middle sized growers.
the lay folk got their 5x5 spaces to grow their likely lackluster weed or at least comfort in the knowledge that they could and richard lee's bill garnered their votes and attendants at his school private school oakstardam college.


JUST to clarify I am not some profiteering anti legalize douche. I disliked 19 for the reasons stated above, I actually LIKE the new prop much better.

ploppertop said:

EXACTLY. if left it up to the localities, imagine paying state, county AND city taxes and license fees, conflicting regulations, more regulatory fees. I find it hard to believe that if you were in a city or county that did not outlaw/over regulate it that they wouldn't all three take their piece (most of the gov't's state and local have deficits/debt think about it).
before you know it they have sucked most the profit out of it and you have an end product that is not terribly profitable to grow and isn't any cheaper for the end consumer either. that or it keeps people underground or marginally on the books, raising not near the revenue that it could if the language lended itself to a more reasonable tax scenario.

As for big tobacco. sure there are some politics that they may not care to dirty their hands dirty with, the point of that statement was that it would be the wealthy and larger corporations that could afford to go big enough to make money in that tax landscape.

Some people were well aware that there would only be a handful of places that the county and city were equally receptive to commercial growing and deals were being made ahead of time. berkeley and oakland sanctioned 3 100,000 sq.ft. warehouses, beyond an estimated state licensure of $250,000 it would cost $1,000,000 just to bid! (never mind the price after bidding and the build out costs) and guess who was promised out one of the warehouses without having to go through the bidding process: Richard Lee! he wanted weed legal at any cost, he didn't care about the cause he cared about money, he had enough cash and enough political juice to make sure he made his and he didn't give a fuck if it gutted the small and middle sized growers.
the lay folk got their 5x5 spaces to grow their likely lackluster weed or at least comfort in the knowledge that they could and richard lee's bill garnered their votes and attendants at his school private school oakstardam college.


JUST to clarify I am not some profiteering anti legalize douche. I disliked 19 for the reasons stated above, I actually LIKE the new prop much better.

Click to expand...

19 also would have moved the whole movement forward milestones and made it so you could have unlimited quantities of MJ at your house and taken away all penalties for concentrate manufacturing as well given the chance for many to succeed outside of the bay area. do you really think it makes a difference how many massive warehouses there are?? not only does california consume stupid amounts of weed,, but it would have turned CA into the new amsterdam,, allowing people to travel to CA and sample the hundreds and hundreds of varieties of herb,, boosting tourism,, increasing the demand 100x fold,,, and contributiing massive amoutns of money to the CA economy ((car rentals, hotels, theme parks, restaurants, etc etc etc)) but hey why think of long term when we can throw our hands up stomp our feet and bitch and moan about ol' dick lee??? >>> honestly to me its like a spoiled 8 year old. it wasnt enough to take them to mcdonalds and get the happy meal. they need the apple pie , the ice cream sunday ... and oh ya... the toy they got in the happy meal is the one they already got. so since it aint good enough guess what?? your going to sit at home and eat a fucking cheese sandwich/.

I don't know if there are any records, but I suppose man has fought or squabbled over weed many times in our history? I hope it all works out..DD

Doobieduck said:

I don't know if there are any records, but I suppose man has fought or squabbled over weed many times in our history?

Click to expand...

Nope- I'm pretty sure this is the first time

ploppertop said:

EXACTLY. if left it up to the localities, imagine paying state, county AND city taxes and license fees, conflicting regulations, more regulatory fees. I find it hard to believe that if you were in a city or county that did not outlaw/over regulate it that they wouldn't all three take their piece (most of the gov't's state and local have deficits/debt think about it).
before you know it they have sucked most the profit out of it and you have an end product that is not terribly profitable to grow and isn't any cheaper for the end consumer either. that or it keeps people underground or marginally on the books, raising not near the revenue that it could if the language lended itself to a more reasonable tax scenario.

As for big tobacco. sure there are some politics that they may not care to dirty their hands dirty with, the point of that statement was that it would be the wealthy and larger corporations that could afford to go big enough to make money in that tax landscape.

Some people were well aware that there would only be a handful of places that the county and city were equally receptive to commercial growing and deals were being made ahead of time. berkeley and oakland sanctioned 3 100,000 sq.ft. warehouses, beyond an estimated state licensure of $250,000 it would cost $1,000,000 just to bid! (never mind the price after bidding and the build out costs) and guess who was promised out one of the warehouses without having to go through the bidding process: Richard Lee! he wanted weed legal at any cost, he didn't care about the cause he cared about money, he had enough cash and enough political juice to make sure he made his and he didn't give a fuck if it gutted the small and middle sized growers.
the lay folk got their 5x5 spaces to grow their likely lackluster weed or at least comfort in the knowledge that they could and richard lee's bill garnered their votes and attendants at his school private school oakstardam college.


JUST to clarify I am not some profiteering anti legalize douche. I disliked 19 for the reasons stated above, I actually LIKE the new prop much better.

Click to expand...

lol....1st off the Oakland warehouses were for MEDICAL MMJ...they had NOTHING to do with 19 or recreational MJ.

19 would of 'flipped' the legal switch...sure there were a couple parts that were not necessary...but you can't please everyone. And a vote for keeping prohibition is still a vote against your fellow man.

The new one is better.
I just hope this doesn't get voted down.
We need some fresh momentum.

DD loved the pic! It looked like an air battle.

Stranger said:

The new one is better.
I just hope this doesn't get voted down.
We need some fresh momentum.

DD loved the pic! It looked like an air battle.

Click to expand...

we still have some momentum, it's not as breath taking as what 19 could have done
but NJ is going with an implementation of MMJ
there is some low key talk at the Governor's mansion in NY, it's getting closer in NY
and we got Arizona in the last election season, not bad on the whole
and Ron Paul has been busy, who knows how far he could go?

ploppertop said:

EXACTLY. if left it up to the localities, imagine paying state, county AND city taxes and license fees, conflicting regulations, more regulatory fees. I find it hard to believe that if you were in a city or county that did not outlaw/over regulate it that they wouldn't all three take their piece (most of the gov't's state and local have deficits/debt think about it).
before you know it they have sucked most the profit out of it and you have an end product that is not terribly profitable to grow and isn't any cheaper for the end consumer either. that or it keeps people underground or marginally on the books, raising not near the revenue that it could if the language lended itself to a more reasonable tax scenario.

As for big tobacco. sure there are some politics that they may not care to dirty their hands dirty with, the point of that statement was that it would be the wealthy and larger corporations that could afford to go big enough to make money in that tax landscape.

Some people were well aware that there would only be a handful of places that the county and city were equally receptive to commercial growing and deals were being made ahead of time. berkeley and oakland sanctioned 3 100,000 sq.ft. warehouses, beyond an estimated state licensure of $250,000 it would cost $1,000,000 just to bid! (never mind the price after bidding and the build out costs) and guess who was promised out one of the warehouses without having to go through the bidding process: Richard Lee! he wanted weed legal at any cost, he didn't care about the cause he cared about money, he had enough cash and enough political juice to make sure he made his and he didn't give a fuck if it gutted the small and middle sized growers.
the lay folk got their 5x5 spaces to grow their likely lackluster weed or at least comfort in the knowledge that they could and richard lee's bill garnered their votes and attendants at his school private school oakstardam college.


JUST to clarify I am not some profiteering anti legalize douche. I disliked 19 for the reasons stated above, I actually LIKE the new prop much better.

Click to expand...

This might be fun...19 opened the door to a 5X5 space, unlimited product from previous grows...made concentrates Legal...and (This is where it gets fun...)and had an Assembly Bill (Much like AB420 was to Prop215)...that EXPANDED all those things...already written up to push though into LEGISLATION-- Here is the thing...A Voter Initiative is bound to it's bottom...meaning if they say you can have a 5X5 space, they cannot limit that with any Legislation...However...it CAN be expanded...which is what was in the works--
It is the same with this one, and any and every Voter Initiative that will ever be-- They start at the bottom, and work up--
Sounds way better than, "You're Busted!!"--

deleted (Kuby interview at CC is different than the initiative)

onegreenday said:

the 12 plant limit is HORRIBLE.

How could they screw up that part?

Click to expand...

Better question is "how will they enforce it?"

12 is 12 more than zero...

"deleted" the Kuby interview at CC is different than the initiative.

Here's from their website.. See if you can figure this out.

quote:

(B) Adult alcohol manufacturing and use in the winery and beer industries allow for non-commercial home brewing. Any person, association, or collective group not producing more than 12 outdoor flowering plants per adult, or 25 indoor flowering plants per adult, shall be exempt from commercial regulations of the alcohol industry model, excises, fees, and taxes, except for income taxes and sales taxes, if they apply. This act creates and requires statewide standards and preempts and nullifies any conflicting local regulations, while allowing local jurisdictions limited regulation over cultivation in residential zones. However, no local residential regulation shall disallow a maximum total of 12 outdoor or 25 indoor plants per residence in a residential zone.

MEDICAL use is authorized under 214/420.

This prop. Is concerning RECREATIONAL.

I hope this aliveates some of your confusion.

This prop also has zero effect on probable cause or search and seizure laws. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion it would allow for house to house plant count inspections however that conclusion is a bit off base...

dagnabit said:

MEDICAL use is authorized under 214/420.

This prop. Is concerning RECREATIONAL.

I hope this aliveates some of your confusion.

This prop also has zero effect on probable cause or search and seizure laws. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion it would allow for house to house plant count inspections however that conclusion is a bit off base...

Click to expand...

People don't think twice before posting about this subject. It may be better to be sober when contemplating laws and their enforcement. Paranoia can make for some very strange thought processes.

most dont understand the language these bills are written. You have understood the legalese within the bill. if you dont you should before making comments on something you dont understand. 19 was 19 this one is whats next. There is no need to argue the semantics of something thats done finished. Lets focus on this new bill. It seems more like this one then the last one. I can hope this one wont get the same miss info as the last one. People will believe what they will its very difficult to change there minds. When all they see is $$. I know we have people that are in it for business but they also embrace full open legalization. Prohibition NEEDS TO BE REPEALED BOTTON LINE.

Here's the part on plant counts:

(B) Adult alcohol manufacturing and use in the winery and beer industries allow for non-commercial home brewing. Any person, association, or collective group not producing more than 12 outdoor flowering plants per adult, or 25 indoor flowering plants per adult, shall be exempt from commercial regulations of the alcohol industry model, excises, fees, and taxes, except for income taxes and sales taxes, if they apply. This act creates and requires statewide standards and preempts and nullifies any conflicting local regulations, while allowing local jurisdictions limited regulation over cultivation in residential zones. However, no local residential regulation shall disallow a maximum total of 12 outdoor or 25 indoor plants per residence in a residential zone.

onegreenday said:

Here's the part on plant counts:

(B) Adult alcohol manufacturing and use in the winery and beer industries allow for non-commercial home brewing. Any person, association, or collective group not producing more than 12 outdoor flowering plants per adult, or 25 indoor flowering plants per adult, shall be exempt from commercial regulations of the alcohol industry model, excises, fees, and taxes, except for income taxes and sales taxes, if they apply. This act creates and requires statewide standards and preempts and nullifies any conflicting local regulations, while allowing local jurisdictions limited regulation over cultivation in residential zones. However, no local residential regulation shall disallow a maximum total of 12 outdoor or 25 indoor plants per residence in a residential zone.

Click to expand...

It simply says you can grow 12 (outdoors) or 24 (indoors) per Adult, without having to be subject to any Commercial Regulations or Taxes--
If you are wanting to grow more, then you would have to pay for a Commercial License--
It also limits any Local Codes/Regulations from infringing on that Right--

if you cant get 5lbs from ea one of those 12 outdoor plants keep trying it happens all the time. Read tom hills gowing large plants outdoor thread.

Legalization Initiative # 2

And now we have another one

'Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012' Filed
By David Downs

2012 promises not one but a flurry of legalization initiatives in battleground states Colorado, California and perhaps Washington.

Today, East Bay physician Dr. Frank Lucido, Mendocino activist Pebbles Trippett, as well as attorneys Joe Rogoway, Omar Figueroa, and William Panzer announce a second California pot initiative, following 'Regulate Marijuana Like Wine'.

The Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012 would allow adults to legally possess up to three pounds of pot and grow a ten-by-ten-foot garden. It puts the California Department of Public Health in charge of administering the commercial side. The text of the initiative now heads to the State Attorney General's office for a title and summary.

The groups says some online surveys point to support for change. However, legalization measure Prop 19 lost in 2010 with 46 percent of the vote. Rogoway and Figueroa were involved in a separate 2010 legalization initiative that failed to gather enough signatures to be placed on the ballot. But this year's measure comes with the imprimatur of Panzer, an attorney who co-authored California's landmark medical marijuana initiative, Prop 215, in 1996.

California adults could lawfully possess up to three pounds under the 'Repeal ... Act'

The folks behind the act have a fundraiser planned for October 1. And a Facebook page.

Click to expand...

Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012

This initiative measure is submitted to the People of the State of California in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution.

This initiative measure adds Chapter 6.7, entitled “Repeal of Cannabis Prohibition,” to Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code.


PROPOSED LAW

SECTION 1. Sections 11420, 11421, 11422, 11423, 11424, 11425, 11426, 11427, and 11428 are added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:

11420(a). This Act shall be known and may be cited as the Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012.

(b)(1) The People of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012 are as follows:

(A) To ensure that adults have the right to obtain and use cannabis.

(B) To ensure that adults who participate in cannabis related activities are not subject to criminal arrest, prosecution, or sanction.

(C) To make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from driving impaired, nor to condone the diversion of cannabis to minors.

(c) “Cannabis” means “marijuana” as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 11018 and “concentrated cannabis” as defined in Section 11006.5.

11421(a). The following statutes are hereby repealed from the Health and Safety Code: Section 11054(d)(13), Section 11054(d)(20), Section 11357, Section 11358, Section 11359, Section 11360, and Section 11361. Section 23222(b) of the California Vehicle Code is hereby repealed. Cannabis related activities are hereby removed from the prohibitions contained within Health and Safety Code Sections 11364.7, 11365, 11366, 11366.5, 11379.6 and 11570.

(b). The repeal of Health and Safety Code section 11360, as related to sales only, will be effectuated within 180 days of passage of the Act in order to allow the California Department of Public Health the opportunity to enact commercial cannabis regulations.

11422. It shall not be a crime or public offense for an adult to use, possess, share, cultivate, transport, process, distribute, sell or otherwise engage in cannabis related activities.

11423(a). The California Department of Public Health shall oversee the regulatory system for the commercial cultivation, manufacturing, processing, testing, transportation, distribution, and sales of cannabis. This shall include promulgation of regulations to control, license, permit, or otherwise authorize the commercial cultivation, manufacturing, processing, testing, transportation, distribution and sales of cannabis. These regulations shall include appropriate controls on the licensed premises for commercial cultivation, sales and on-premises consumption of cannabis including limits on zoning and land use, locations, size, hours of operation, occupancy, protection of adjoining and nearby properties, and other environmental and public health controls. These regulations may not include bans of the conduct permitted by this Act.

(b) Any regulations created by the California Department of Public Health may not impede on the individual rights set forth in this Act. Any taxes, regulations, fines and fees imposed pursuant to this section shall not be imposed on personal amounts of cannabis below 3 pounds of processed cannabis and 100 sq. ft. of cannabis plant canopy provided that the processed cannabis was not sold or purchased pursuant to subdivision (a).

(c) The California Department of Public Health may regulate the smoking of cannabis in public and where minors are present.

11424. This Act, and all state implementations of this Act, shall preempt enactments of local jurisdictions with the exception that local jurisdictions may enhance the rights and protections of persons involved in cannabis related activities beyond what is delineated by the state or this Act.

11425. This Act shall not adversely affect the individual and group medical rights and protections afforded by California Health and Safety Code §11362.5 through §11362.83.

11426. Cannabis related conduct that contributes to the delinquency of a minor shall remain punishable by Penal Code section 272. Driving while impaired by cannabis shall remain punishable by Vehicle Code Sections 23103, 23152(a) and 23153. Impairment occurs when a person's mental or physical abilities are so impaired that he or she is no longer able to drive a vehicle with the caution of a sober person, using ordinary care, under similar circumstances.

11427. If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.

11428. The provisions of this Act shall become effective November 7, 2012.