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"!

The Cannabis Freedom Act

nepalnt21

FRRRRRResh!
Veteran
ok, i see what you mean. this is why you guys are the law dudes, and im not, although i am interested in this stuff. its just a little bit over my head.

thought of having a few lawyers look over it just to make sure its legit???

and no, i cant think of any loopholes. just putting in my half of a cent is all. a loophole is how we got into this mess in the first place.

for the record, i think what you are doing is amazing. i can only hope this passes and begins a trend.
 

FreedomFGHTR

Active member
Veteran
Dammit, I'm sick and tired of elections where all we have to choose from is the lesser of two evils. I say screw CCI and TCH2010. I hope they both fail and that Richard Lee loses millions of dollars trying to get his bullshit bill passed. We can wait until 2012 for a good law.
The funny thing is all of the money the drug warriors will have to spend to beat that one, only to get a more popular to appear on the ballot 2 years later. It makes it much easier for the right one to win then.

When you think about the taxation issue, if what FF is proposing passed, the state would get sales tax on $Billion+ sales of marijuana, income tax on the profits from those sales and significant savings on law enforcement and incarceration costs. Additionally, once the feds are forced to re-legalize, you can be damn sure that they are going to impose a lot of tax on mj.

BINGO! The poll that said 56% percent of Californians support legalization and taxation was based on the very simple things proposed in the Cannabis Freedom Act. The people don't want confusing details. And they would approve any tax, so lets give the Bueracrats what they want which is a sales since the data on the amount of money that could be raised by taxing pot was based on sales tax revenues, not excise. So give them the very bare minimum. If they want to try to excise tax then they can challenge the Cannabis Freedom Act in court.

There will be plenty of income generated for the economies of California and the governments through the paying of all the taxes currently required under law for normal business that sell normal products. You know the Cannabis Freedom Act really would make weed normal. And lets not forget the other industries that will benefit too, pot isn't just growers, dealers, and smokers in an economic sense.

And yes this does leave room for the Fed's to take their part of the pie should they impose excise taxes.
 

ChronJohn

Member
But in all seriousness mad props, I can say without a doubt this is my dream Act, in just a few sentences. 18+ age limit, no excise tax, no possession/grow limits.

As an added bonus however I would like to see all cannabis offenses cleared from the records of those convicted of a cannabis related offense (other than something that would still be illegal under this Act, such as "furnishing cannabis to a minor"). That way people who were previously denied jobs, school funding, etc can move on with their lives and be treated like real human beings rather than second class citizens.
 

FreedomFGHTR

Active member
Veteran
As an added bonus however I would like to see all cannabis offenses cleared from the records of those convicted of a cannabis related offense.

There is already a law on the books that does that.

California Health and Safety Code said:
11361.5. (a) Records of any court of this state, any public or
private agency that provides services upon referral under Section
1000.2 of the Penal Code, or of any state agency pertaining to the
arrest or conviction of any person for a violation of subdivision
(b), (c), (d), or (e) of Section 11357 or subdivision (b) of Section
11360, shall not be kept beyond two years from the date of the
conviction, or from the date of the arrest if there was no
conviction, except with respect to a violation of subdivision (e) of
Section 11357 the records shall be retained until the offender
attains the age of 18 years at which time the records shall be
destroyed as provided in this section. Any court or agency having
custody of the records shall provide for the timely destruction of
the records in accordance with subdivision (c). The requirements of
this subdivision do not apply to records of any conviction occurring
prior to January 1, 1976, or records of any arrest not followed by a
conviction occurring prior to that date.
(b) This subdivision applies only to records of convictions and
arrests not followed by conviction occurring prior to January 1,
1976, for any of the following offenses:
(1) Any violation of Section 11357 or a statutory predecessor
thereof.
(2) Unlawful possession of a device, contrivance, instrument, or
paraphernalia used for unlawfully smoking marijuana, in violation of
Section 11364, as it existed prior to January 1, 1976, or a statutory
predecessor thereof.
(3) Unlawful visitation or presence in a room or place in which
marijuana is being unlawfully smoked or used, in violation of Section
11365, as it existed prior to January 1, 1976, or a statutory
predecessor thereof.
(4) Unlawfully using or being under the influence of marijuana, in
violation of Section 11550, as it existed prior to January 1, 1976,
or a statutory predecessor thereof.
Any person subject to an arrest or conviction for those offenses
may apply to the Department of Justice for destruction of records
pertaining to the arrest or conviction if two or more years have
elapsed since the date of the conviction, or since the date of the
arrest if not followed by a conviction. The application shall be
submitted upon a form supplied by the Department of Justice and shall
be accompanied by a fee, which shall be established by the
department in an amount which will defray the cost of administering
this subdivision and costs incurred by the state under subdivision
(c), but which shall not exceed thirty-seven dollars and fifty cents
($37.50). The application form may be made available at every local
police or sheriff's department and from the Department of Justice and
may require that information which the department determines is
necessary for purposes of identification.
The department may request, but not require, the applicant to
include a self-administered fingerprint upon the application. If the
department is unable to sufficiently identify the applicant for
purposes of this subdivision without the fingerprint or without
additional fingerprints, it shall so notify the applicant and shall
request the applicant to submit any fingerprints which may be
required to effect identification, including a complete set if
necessary, or, alternatively, to abandon the application and request
a refund of all or a portion of the fee submitted with the
application, as provided in this section. If the applicant fails or
refuses to submit fingerprints in accordance with the department's
request within a reasonable time which shall be established by the
department, or if the applicant requests a refund of the fee, the
department shall promptly mail a refund to the applicant at the
address specified in the application or at any other address which
may be specified by the applicant. However, if the department has
notified the applicant that election to abandon the application will
result in forfeiture of a specified amount which is a portion of the
fee, the department may retain a portion of the fee which the
department determines will defray the actual costs of processing the
application, provided the amount of the portion retained shall not
exceed ten dollars ($10).
Upon receipt of a sufficient application, the Department of
Justice shall destroy records of the department, if any, pertaining
to the arrest or conviction in the manner prescribed by subdivision
(c) and shall notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the law
enforcement agency which arrested the applicant, and, if the
applicant was convicted, the probation department which investigated
the applicant and the Department of Motor Vehicles, of the
application.
(c) Destruction of records of arrest or conviction pursuant to
subdivision (a) or (b) shall be accomplished by permanent
obliteration of all entries or notations upon the records pertaining
to the arrest or conviction, and the record shall be prepared again
so that it appears that the arrest or conviction never occurred.
However, where (1) the only entries upon the record pertain to the
arrest or conviction and (2) the record can be destroyed without
necessarily effecting the destruction of other records, then the
document constituting the record shall be physically destroyed.
(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) or (b), written transcriptions
of oral testimony in court proceedings and published judicial
appellate reports are not subject to this section. Additionally, no
records shall be destroyed pursuant to subdivision (a) if the
defendant or a codefendant has filed a civil action against the peace
officers or law enforcement jurisdiction which made the arrest or
instituted the prosecution and if the agency which is the custodian
of those records has received a certified copy of the complaint in
the civil action, until the civil action has finally been resolved.
Immediately following the final resolution of the civil action,
records subject to subdivision (a) shall be destroyed pursuant to
subdivision (c) if more than two years have elapsed from the date of
the conviction or arrest without conviction.



11361.7. (a) Any record subject to destruction or permanent
obliteration pursuant to Section 11361.5, or more than two years of
age, or a record of a conviction for an offense specified in
subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 11361.5 which became final more
than two years previously, shall not be considered to be accurate,
relevant, timely, or complete for any purposes by any agency or
person. The provisions of this subdivision shall be applicable for
purposes of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. Section 552a) to the
fullest extent permissible by law, whenever any information or record
subject to destruction or permanent obliteration under Section
11361.5 was obtained by any state agency, local public agency, or any
public or private agency that provides services upon referral under
Section 1000.2 of the Penal Code, and is thereafter shared with or
disseminated to any agency of the federal government.
(b) No public agency shall alter, amend, assess, condition, deny,
limit, postpone, qualify, revoke, surcharge, or suspend any
certificate, franchise, incident, interest, license, opportunity,
permit, privilege, right, or title of any person because of an arrest
or conviction for an offense specified in subdivision (a) or (b) of
Section 11361.5, or because of the facts or events leading to such an
arrest or conviction, on or after the date the records of such
arrest or conviction are required to be destroyed by subdivision (a)
of Section 11361.5, or two years from the date of such conviction or
arrest without conviction with respect to arrests and convictions
occurring prior to January 1, 1976. As used in this subdivision,
"public agency" includes, but is not limited to, any state, county,
city and county, city, public or constitutional corporation or
entity, district, local or regional political subdivision, or any
department, division, bureau, office, board, commission or other
agency thereof.
(c) Any person arrested or convicted for an offense specified in
subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 11361.5 may, two years from the
date of such a conviction, or from the date of the arrest if there
was no conviction, indicate in response to any question concerning
his prior criminal record that he was not arrested or convicted for
such offense.
(d) The provisions of this section shall be applicable without
regard to whether destruction or obliteration of records has actually
been implemented pursuant to Section 11361.5.
 

ChronJohn

Member
Ohhh ok I have never come across that before. Was that in whatever law decriminalized cannabis in California? And does it include cultivation charges and possession of amounts over the 1oz thats decriminalized?
 

FreedomFGHTR

Active member
Veteran
Ok so I edited the original to add the following
"(d)The words marijuana and cannabis and all its surnames shall be removed from the penal and health and safety code.

(1) Section 11362.5 The Compassionate Use Act, Section 11357.1, Section 11361, Section 11361.5 and Section 11361.7 of the Health and Safety Code shall retain the words marijuana, and cannabis.

This is at the bequest of a very important person when it comes to the legalization of weed. ;)

Well the first part. The second part specifying sections to leave alone is my clarification to accept that addition.
 

FreedomFGHTR

Active member
Veteran
Come ask Dennis Peron what he thinks of all the proposals on the table. He will be here.

picture.php
 

vta

Active member
Veteran
yep...and I should be driving a Lamborghini and fuking a super model. Dreams are great until we wake up.
 

vta

Active member
Veteran
215forLife said:
Richard Lee had a copy of this given to him. He could have easily put it on the ballot this year.

He could of. But that would not of been in his best interest.

He is a business man trying to do two things...no1, make money no2, help finally get some type of legalization going.

I don't know about you...but in my 'real' life, I am a business man. I am in the business to make money. I am always trying to increase my bank account. For I know that someday I will be old and will want to kick back and smoke hash all day in Hawaii instead of work in smoggy LA all day...so I need lots of money to make that happen. The American Dream!

R. Lee is not the only one that is going to make money on 19. Please don't be so naive. All the big time growers with the great pot will be making money too. It might not be Al Capone money anymore...but if their shit is good, then they will have no problem getting rid of it. R. Lee thinks he will be the pot king...great for him! I could care less. I know he won't be. There is nothing in this law that specifies R. Lee gets this or R. Lee gets that....please stop your whining it's starting to hurt my brain. Oakland...what? There gonna have major huge ginormous grows...cornering the market! I don't see how. That is just one city..we got a few thousand more...that can do the same damn thing. Again, nothing in 19 gives R. Lee anything that it gives anyone else...opportunity. It's the American Waytm
 
Top