What's new
  • Please note members who been with us for more than 10 years have been upgraded to "Veteran" status and will receive exclusive benefits. If you wish to find out more about this or support IcMag and get same benefits, check this thread 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"!

Myth busting prop 64

Hash Zeppelin

Ski Bum Rodeo Clown
Premium user
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Nice job voting yes on 64 everyone; open up your doors and ass for uncle scam to come FUCK YOU REAL HARD!!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-name-address-and-141-grow-pot-home/95542906/

I guess you didn't read the article you posted. The state of California will determine this unconstitutional. There is already three California Supreme Court precedents enfornicing this. Also prop 64 will create new precedent. 64 already clearly states that no one can stop you from growing 6 plants. The city just ignored the law, and in return they will create a new court precedent that yields them the exact opposite result their city council desires.

Furthermore you're point is mute for at least two reasons.

1. Prop 215 rights will still be protected. The state has delayed retail sales now until 2019 for the purpose of taking even more time to protect prop 215 rights. It states this in the original bill as well.

2. Now that 64 passed, all three branches of the California government have publically stated that they will protect California's new rec laws and old medical laws from federal intervention. They believe in protecting California business and medicine. They also want the revenue because the state of California may lose federal funding for having sanctuary cities.

As growers we are more valuable now than ever. At least the good growers are. There is a multibillion dollar industry depending on us to produce the base product of the entire industry. We now have the bargaining power. Use it. Don't give into paranoia and defeatist attitudes.
 

trippn

Member
I guess you didn't read the article you posted. The state of California will determine this unconstitutional. There is already three California Supreme Court precedents enfornicing this. Also prop 64 will create new precedent. 64 already clearly states that no one can stop you from growing 6 plants. The city just ignored the law, and in return they will create a new court precedent that yields them the exact opposite result their city council desires.

Furthermore you're point is mute for at least two reasons.

1. Prop 215 rights will still be protected. The state has delayed retail sales now until 2019 for the purpose of taking even more time to protect prop 215 rights. It states this in the original bill as well.

2. Now that 64 passed, all three branches of the California government have publically stated that they will protect California's new rec laws and old medical laws from federal intervention. They believe in protecting California business and medicine. They also want the revenue because the state of California may lose federal funding for having sanctuary cities.

As growers we are more valuable now than ever. At least the good growers are. There is a multibillion dollar industry depending on us to produce the base product of the entire industry. We now have the bargaining power. Use it. Don't give into paranoia and defeatist attitudes.



Hahaha. We will see. Not allowing obviously corrupt laws into place would have been more ideal. Havinng faith in the State is pretty pathetic. Jerry Brown is not on your side. Outrageous you assume otherwise. You are so ill informed ; this is mindblowing.

Prop 64 CAN and WILL stop people from growing; and yes it does allow counties to ban growing ENTIRELY.

No..... For the 100th time; AUMA invalidated Prop 215 when Brown ILLEGALLY signed MMRSA into law. I am so sick of posting this.


"Jerry Brown, California’s Governor, just signed a new law, the Medical Marijuana Regulation & Safety Act (M.M.R.S.A.), that violates Prop. 215. M.M.R.S.A. purports is to change the Prop. 215 rights held by medical marijuana patients, but M.M.R.S.A.’s provisions that impact Prop. 215 rights are unconstitutional. That is because the Legislature and Governor have no legal right to change Prop. 215’s provisions. Those provisions set out in Prop. 215 can only be changed by a vote of the voters of the whole state. (Cal. Const. Art. II, Section 10, subsection (c)."


Subsection (k) of Section 3 of A.U.M.A. says that it will “Strengthen the state’s existing medical marijuana system by requiring patients to obtain by January 1, 2018, a new recommendation from their physician that meets the strict standards signed into law by the Governor in 2015, and by providing new privacy protections for patients who obtain medical marijuana identification cards as set forth in this Act.“

"WARNING! This is just one way that A.U.M.A. plans to take away patients’ Prop. 215 rights! What “strict” standards did Brown sign into law in 2015? He signed the Medical Marijuana and Safety Act, M. M.R.S.A., that unconstitutionally attempts to change Prop. 215’s provisions. The M.M.R.S.A. says that only a patient’s primary care physician can give recommendations to use marijuana. So patients will be stuck with whatever doctor their healthcare provider allows them to see."


Pay better attention; you failed your peers.
 

trippn

Member
"The California law does allow jurisdictions to establish "reasonable" regulations within their city, but this extensive regulation is far beyond what the law allows, according to University of California, Irvine law school dean Erwin Chemerinksy. "

Yup. You just let the most corrupt Conservative swine in the State make those choices for you.


Those provisions set out in Prop. 215 can only be changed by a vote of the voters of the whole state. (Cal. Const. Art. II, Section 10, subsection (c)." = AUMA


You had informed Stoners yelling at you for a year. I don't understand why you were not listening.
 

mojave green

rockin in the free world
Veteran
I guess you didn't read the article you posted. The state of California will determine this unconstitutional. There is already three California Supreme Court precedents enfornicing this. Also prop 64 will create new precedent. 64 already clearly states that no one can stop you from growing 6 plants. The city just ignored the law, and in return they will create a new court precedent that yields them the exact opposite result their city council desires.

Furthermore you're point is mute for at least two reasons.

1. Prop 215 rights will still be protected. The state has delayed retail sales now until 2019 for the purpose of taking even more time to protect prop 215 rights. It states this in the original bill as well.

2. Now that 64 passed, all three branches of the California government have publically stated that they will protect California's new rec laws and old medical laws from federal intervention. They believe in protecting California business and medicine. They also want the revenue because the state of California may lose federal funding for having sanctuary cities.

As growers we are more valuable now than ever. At least the good growers are. There is a multibillion dollar industry depending on us to produce the base product of the entire industry. We now have the bargaining power. Use it. Don't give into paranoia and defeatist attitudes.
Oops, forgot you were so knowledgeable in the law that you can predict how the courts will rule!
Hard to argue with that level of self imposed superiority!
:laughing:
 

Skip

Active member
Veteran
"64 already clearly states that no one can stop you from growing 6 plants."

Let's see, your landlord can stop you.
If you are in violation of local building codes they can stop you.
If you're breaking any law to grow (say stealing energy) they can stop you.
If you grow outside they can stop you.
If you sell it without license they can stop you.

So much for real freedom. But it's a step in the right direction. Better than before. Question is how much enforcement will there be?
I'm guessing not much on an individual level (unless way over the limits).

The LEOs are going to go where the money is. Big ops are their goal so they can confiscate the property. They're not gonna wanna get tied up in court proceedings when there's not much profit involved for them.

It's going to be up to code inspectors to do the dirty work. I really doubt much will change with indoor grows except more people doing them, which would be a good thing, other than the fact it wastes so much energy!
 

Babbabud

Bodhisattva of the Earth
ICMag Donor
Veteran
stealing power ?

stealing power ?

"64 already clearly states that no one can stop you from growing 6 plants."

Let's see, your landlord can stop you.
If you are in violation of local building codes they can stop you.
If you're breaking any law to grow (say stealing energy) they can stop you.
If you grow outside they can stop you.
If you sell it without license they can stop you.

So much for real freedom. But it's a step in the right direction. Better than before. Question is how much enforcement will there be?
I'm guessing not much on an individual level (unless way over the limits).

The LEOs are going to go where the money is. Big ops are their goal so they can confiscate the property. They're not gonna wanna get tied up in court proceedings when there's not much profit involved for them.

It's going to be up to code inspectors to do the dirty work. I really doubt much will change with indoor grows except more people doing them, which would be a good thing, other than the fact it wastes so much energy!

Just to be clear ... if your "stealing power" you are a thief .. not a grower to begin with. imho :)
 

Hash Zeppelin

Ski Bum Rodeo Clown
Premium user
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Oops, forgot you were so knowledgeable in the law that you can predict how the courts will rule!
Hard to argue with that level of self imposed superiority!
:laughing:

I'm going off what they have already ruled in the California Supreme Court on three different occasions.
 

Hash Zeppelin

Ski Bum Rodeo Clown
Premium user
ICMag Donor
Veteran
"64 already clearly states that no one can stop you from growing 6 plants."

Let's see, your landlord can stop you.
If you are in violation of local building codes they can stop you.
If you're breaking any law to grow (say stealing energy) they can stop you.
If you grow outside they can stop you.
If you sell it without license they can stop you.

So much for real freedom. But it's a step in the right direction. Better than before. Question is how much enforcement will there be?
I'm guessing not much on an individual level (unless way over the limits).

The LEOs are going to go where the money is. Big ops are their goal so they can confiscate the property. They're not gonna wanna get tied up in court proceedings when there's not much profit involved for them.

It's going to be up to code inspectors to do the dirty work. I really doubt much will change with indoor grows except more people doing them, which would be a good thing, other than the fact it wastes so much energy!

The majority of California has almost zero enforcement already. They stopped caring years ago. There is almost zero code enforcement even in wealthy cities, like Berkeley and SF. My warehouse in Berkeley had 600 amp breakers from the 50's. I had to update the electrical system myself. The offices were still covered in aspestos tiles from the 50's. The last inspection on that place was 1957, when it manufactured things for the navy after ww2.

One of the wealiest cities, Santa Barbra, went out of their way to secure the medical industry. They removed their mayor, and entire city council when they tried to out law dispensaries.

LA has more dispensaries than Starbucks. They are physically unable to shut them all down, even though they have tried multiple times.

There are 300 light grows in Oakland, and Santa Rosa.

The city of Richmond has been granting business liscesnses for grows for like 4 years now.

Prop 64 allows micro liscenses for small growers. For the first two years of recreational grows, out door canopy is limited to 22,000 square feet. There are med grows larger than that right now, which will remain protected by prop 215.

The state of California has decided to delay rec sales and decided to keep prop 215 and prop 64 separate.

As soon as prop 64 passes the California state government took steps to protect prop 215, and California citizens from the federal government. They all have publically declared and signed a letter saying they will not cooperate with the federal government to violate our States rights.

The Supreme Court of California has multiple Court precedents for protecting prop 215. This means they can nullify any law signed by Jerry Brown that limits those rights.

The state of California has not taken any direct action to limit prop 215.

Everything I listed is historical facts. Everything else about what they might do is speculation.
 

soil margin

Active member
Veteran
If you are in violation of local building codes they can stop you.
If you're breaking any law to grow (say stealing energy) they can stop you.
!

Lol so you're pissed that you're not allowed to break important existing laws in order to grow cannabis? Omg let me cry some tears for you!
 

subrob

Well-known member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Lol so you're pissed that you're not allowed to break important existing laws in order to grow cannabis? Omg let me cry some tears for you!

Uh...Dude...I think he was rebutting an argument..Making detailed points...Way to blow something out of proportion...Way out....Do you work in media by chance? Ha... perfect example of what we are all trying to move past after the last year...
 

Hash Zeppelin

Ski Bum Rodeo Clown
Premium user
ICMag Donor
Veteran
The HOA point is a good point. If you sign a contract, then you fuck your self.
 
Last edited:

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
Those muthrfukrs can restrict anything...

in all of the HOAs i am familiar with, no. your FRONT yard is the battleground, what is visible from the street. the IJ has backed homeowners in court & won in many cases where HOAs overreached about veggie gardens in the front yard.
 

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top