[FreedomFGHTR]

When determining the ultimate value of ballot proposition the legislative analysts opinions are very important. They can be as strong as the wording of the initiative when it comes to clarifying the an initiative in a court room. So here goes for CCI

Originally Posted by https://californiacannabisinitiative.o rg/index.php/about/5-california-cannabis-initiative/29-legislative-analysts-office-on-our-intiative.html

Hon. Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Attorney General
1300 I Street, 17th Floor
Sacramento, California 95814
Attention: Ms. Krystal Paris Initiative Coordinator

Dear Attorney General Brown:
Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9005, we have reviewed the proposed statutory initiative related to the use, possession, and sale of marijuana (A.G. File No. 09‑0022).
Background

Federal Law. Federal law classifies marijuana as an illegal substance. The Federal Controlled Substances Abuse Act provides criminal sanctions for various activities relating to marijuana. Federal laws are enforced by federal law enforcement agencies that may act independently or in conjunction with state and local law enforcement agencies.
State Law and Proposition 215. Under current state law, the possession, use, transportation, or cultivation of marijuana is generally illegal in California. Penalties for marijuana-related activities vary depending on the offense. For example, under the state Penal Code, possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, while selling marijuana is a felony and may result in a prison sanction.
In November 1996, voters approved Proposition 215, which legalized the cultivation and possession of marijuana in California for medicinal purposes. Notwithstanding this initiative, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that federal authorities could continue to prosecute California patients and providers engaged in the medicinal cultivation and use of marijuana for violations of federal law. However, the U.S. Department of Justice announced in March 2009 that it would no longer prosecute marijuana patients and providers whose actions are consistent with state medical marijuana laws.
Proposal

This measure proposes to (1) legalize various marijuana-related activities, (2) regulate the commercial production of marijuana, (3) impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and (4) authorize various criminal and civil penalties.
Legalization of Marijuana-Related Activities. The measure states that it repeals all state statutes that prohibit marijuana possession, sales, transportation, production, processing, or cultivation, as well as removes references to marijuana from all statutes that regulate controlled substances. However, the measure states that it does not repeal existing statutes that prohibit driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The measure also specifies that persons age 21 or older may legally possess, transport, use, furnish, sell, cultivate, or process marijuana. In addition, the measure states that any individual’s previous convictions for a marijuana offense shall be expunged from criminal records, which would likely cause certain persons currently in prison or jail (or on parole or probation) for such an offense to be released from custody. Moreover, the measure prohibits discrimination against a person for conduct permitted by the measure and provides for the "decriminalization" of industrial hemp. (The measure defines industrial hemp as an agricultural non-psychoactive cannabis plant grown exclusively for its mature stalks, fibers, oils, or seeds.)
Regulation of Commercial Production. The measure allows persons 21 or older to cultivate "reasonable amounts" of marijuana for personal use without being subject to regulation. However, production of marijuana in excess of the amounts allowed for personal use would be subject to commercial regulations adopted by state and local governments. These regulations could apply to the cultivation, production, processing, distribution, or sale of marijuana. Specifically, the measure requires the state to establish regulations to ensure that marijuana businesses prevent harm to the environment and protect minors. Under this measure, any marijuana sold must have a label identifying, among other information, the product's content of tetrahydrocannabinol (more widely known as THC), the psychoactive substance in marijuana. Marijuana produced in California could not be sold outside the state unless such sales were consistent with federal or international law. Local governments would be prohibited from banning establishments that allow smoking and other use of marijuana. The measure requires that both state and local governments enact laws and regulations to promote the production and sale ofindustrial hemp.
Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees. Marijuana cultivated for personal use would not be subject to taxation or fees. However, the measure requires that the Legislature create a system for the taxation of commercial marijuana activities within one year of the measure's passage. (The measure does not specify whether these would be state or local revenues, or both.) It specifies that the Legislature initially set the excise tax at no less than $50 per ounce of marijuana and that all revenue collected from this tax be spent on public education, health care, environmental programs, public works, and state parks. In addition, the measure requires state and local governments to create a system for the issuance of permits and licenses for the cultivation and sale of marijuana, as well as the collection of associated fees.
Authorization of Criminal and Civil Penalties. The measure specifies that penalties for furnishing marijuana to a minor shall be consistent with penalties for similar alcohol-related offenses, as determined by the Legislature. In addition, the measure allows the Legislature to establish penalties for minors who commit marijuana offenses but prohibits placing such minors in state custody. The measure also specifically does not permit smoking marijuana (1) on a school bus; (2) by the operator of a motor vehicle, vessel, or aircraft during operation; and (3) within 500 feet of a youth shelter or school, unless the school is a college or university or the personal use occurs within a residence. Any violations of the measure (including unauthorized sales) are subject to civil, regulatory, and licensing penalties, as determined by the Legislature. The measure requires that revenue collected from civil penalties be spent on public education, health care, environmental programs, public works, and state parks, but does not require that existing program funding levels for these programs be maintained.
Fiscal Effects

Although the federal government recently announced that it would no longer prosecute medical marijuana patients and providers whose actions are consistent with Proposition 215, it has continued to enforce its prohibitions on non-medical marijuana activities. To the extent that the federal government continued to enforce existing federal marijuana laws, it would generally have the effect of impeding or eliminating the cultivation, possession, transportation, sale, or use of marijuana permitted by this measure under state law.
Moreover, some of the provisions of this measure could be subject to challenge in the courts and found unconstitutional. For example, the way in which this measure proposes to change California's existing marijuana-related statutes could be challenged in the courts. That is because the measure in some cases makes general references to the other laws that are to be changed, rather than directly amending or striking out the specific existing laws relating to marijuana.
Thus, the revenues or expenditures resulting from this measure would be subject to significant uncertainty. The measure could have the following fiscal effects discussed below.
Reduction in State and Local Correctional Costs. The measure could result in significant savings to state and local governments, potentially in the several tens of millions of dollars annually, by reducing the number of marijuana offenders incarcerated in state prisons and county jails. It could also reduce the number of persons placed on county probation or state parole. The county jail savings would be offset to the extent that jail beds no longer needed for marijuana offenders were used for other criminals who are now being released early because of a lack of jail space.
Redirection of Court and Law Enforcement Resources. The measure could result in a major reduction in state and local costs for enforcement of marijuana-related offenses and the handling of related criminal cases in the court system. However, it is likely that state and local governments would redirect some or all of their resources to other law enforcement and court activities, reducing or perhaps eliminating the savings that could otherwise be realized.
Potential Increased Substance Abuse Program Costs. The measure could result in an increase in the consumption of marijuana, potentially resulting in an unknown increase in the number of individuals seeking publicly funded substance abuse treatment services. For example, the state Drug Medi-Cal Program could incur increased costs of a few million dollars annually. This measure could also have fiscal effects on state- and locally funded drug treatment programs for criminal offenders, such as drug courts.
Reduction in Medical Marijuana Program. The measure could potentially reduce both the costs and offsetting revenues of the state's Medical Marijuana Program, a patient registry that identifies those individuals eligible under state law to legally purchase and consume marijuana for medical purposes. That is because adults 21 and over would no longer need to participate in the program to obtain marijuana.
Potential New Revenues From the Legalization of Marijuana. As noted earlier, this measure directs the Legislature to adopt an excise tax of no less than $50 per ounce on commercially produced marijuana. Based on the limited data available, it appears that an excise tax of this level could potentially generate additional state or local revenues of a few hundred millions of dollars annually. The actual amount of revenues generated, however, would depend upon whether the Legislature chooses to adopt an excise tax, the rate of such a tax, and how the measure changed the consumption and sales price of marijuana. State and local governments could realize additional revenues from sales taxes generated by commercial producers of marijuana and from licensing and permitting fees. The state could also realize additional income tax revenues from the production and sale of marijuana. The amount of the various tax and fee revenues that could be generated under this measure would depend considerably on the extent to which the federal government enforces its laws against marijuana in California.
Effects on State and Local Fine Revenues. The measure could reduce state and local revenues from the collection of the fines established in current law for marijuana criminal offenders. However, there could be additional fine revenue generated from the new civil penalties for violators of the measure, such as for selling marijuana commercially without authorization. The net fiscal effect of these changes in fine revenues is unknown.
Increased Costs for Expungement of Records. The measure could result in potentially minor state costs and potentially significant local costs related to expungement of criminal records.
Summary of Fiscal Effects


Given that the federal government continues to enforce federal marijuana laws that do not conflict with state medical marijuana laws, the revenues and expenditures resulting from this measure would be subject to significant uncertainty. In addition, it is uncertain if the measure would withstand state constitutional legal challenges as discussed above. If upheld in the courts, we estimate that this measure would have the following major fiscal effects:

• Savings in the several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders.
• Unknown but potentially major new excise, income, and sales tax revenues related to the production and sale of marijuana products.

Sincerely,



_____________________________
Mac Taylor
Legislative Analyst



_____________________________
Michael C. Genest
Director of Finance

[FreedomFGHTR]

lol unconsitutional on delivery...

I thought this was done by lawyers.

[Koroz]

Originally Posted by FreedomFGHTR

lol unconsitutional on delivery...

I thought this was done by lawyers.

what exactly are you trying to say here.. would like a more concise viewpoint so that I can reply with a better understanding of your stance on the subject.

What I am reading from the analysis is:

It basically says what we all knew when we passed 215, that the federal government doesn't back medicinal marijuana, just as the federal government wouldn't back this initiative if passed. With such, we "could" face possible DEA intervention in area's that state citizens are following state laws.

But, with that said, this initiative has the ability to free up a lot of state funding from the investigation, arresting, trial and incarceration of Marijuana related offenses, while at the same time leaving open a possible landslide of taxes due to the fact there is no defined ceiling on the taxes imposed.

[FreedomFGHTR]

Moreover, some of the provisions of this measure could be subject to challenge in the courts and found unconstitutional. For example, the way in which this measure proposes to change California's existing marijuana-related statutes could be challenged in the courts. That is because the measure in some cases makes general references to the other laws that are to be changed, rather than directly amending or striking out the specific existing laws relating to marijuana.

In addition, it is uncertain if the measure would withstand state constitutional legal challenges as discussed above

Did you actually read the analysts report? Not once but twice.

[Koroz]

uncertain, could be, your statement was a statement of fact. The statements in the quoted article are statements of possibility.

Huge difference.

[PharmaCan]

The legislature could clean up the referenced matter of changing existing laws with some simple legislation, and do so without the political fallout associated with them legalizing mj. Personally, I think that if CCI passes the legislature will be all over trying to make it work because it is a new source of revenue and, like all good whores, they'll do just about anything for money.

PC

[FreedomFGHTR]

Koroz have you ever seen a legislative analysis of an initiative that warned of it's constitutionality? Let us take a look at one of the most controversial propositions in recent memory prop 8.

Originally Posted by Prop 8 legislative analysis

ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND

In March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22 to specify in state law that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution. As a result of the ruling, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid or recognized in the state.
PROPOSAL

This measure amends the California Constitution to specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. As a result, notwithstanding the California Supreme Court ruling of May 2008, marriage would be limited to individuals of the opposite sex, and individuals of the same sex would not have the right to marry in California.
FISCAL EFFECTS

Because marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid in California, there would likely be an increase in spending on weddings by same-sex couples in California over the next few years. This would result in increased revenue, primarily sales tax revenue, to state and local governments.
By specifying that marriage between individuals of the same sex is not valid or recognized, this measure could result in revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, to state and local governments. Over the next few years, this loss could potentially total in the several tens of millions of dollars. Over the long run, this measure would likely have little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND

In March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22 to specify in state law that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution. As a result of the ruling, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid or recognized in the state.
PROPOSAL

This measure amends the California Constitution to specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. As a result, notwithstanding the California Supreme Court ruling of May 2008, marriage would be limited to individuals of the opposite sex, and individuals of the same sex would not have the right to marry in California.
FISCAL EFFECTS

Because marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid in California, there would likely be an increase in spending on weddings by same-sex couples in California over the next few years. This would result in increased revenue, primarily sales tax revenue, to state and local governments.
By specifying that marriage between individuals of the same sex is not valid or recognized, this measure could result in revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, to state and local governments. Over the next few years, this loss could potentially total in the several tens of millions of dollars. Over the long run, this measure would likely have little fiscal impact on state and local governments.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND

In March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22 to specify in state law that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution. As a result of the ruling, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid or recognized in the state.
PROPOSAL

This measure amends the California Constitution to specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. As a result, notwithstanding the California Supreme Court ruling of May 2008, marriage would be limited to individuals of the opposite sex, and individuals of the same sex would not have the right to marry in California.
FISCAL EFFECTS

Because marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid in California, there would likely be an increase in spending on weddings by same-sex couples in California over the next few years. This would result in increased revenue, primarily sales tax revenue, to state and local governments.
By specifying that marriage between individuals of the same sex is not valid or recognized, this measure could result in revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, to state and local governments. Over the next few years, this loss could potentially total in the several tens of millions of dollars. Over the long run, this measure would likely have little fiscal impact on state and local governments.
BACKGROUND
In March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22 to specify in state law that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution. As a result of the ruling, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid or recognized in the state.
PROPOSAL
This measure amends the California Constitution to specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. As a result, notwithstanding the California Supreme Court ruling of May 2008, marriage would be limited to individuals of the opposite sex, and individuals of the same sex would not have the right to marry in California.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Because marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid in California, there would likely be an increase in spending on weddings by same-sex couples in California over the next few years. This would result in increased revenue, primarily sales tax revenue, to state and local governments.
By specifying that marriage between individuals of the same sex is not valid or recognized, this measure could result in revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, to state and local governments. Over the next few years, this loss could potentially total in the several tens of millions of dollars. Over the long run, this measure would likely have little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

Now lets let at another popular ballot initiative that was successful that is still subject to constant constitutional scrutiny

Originally Posted by Prop 215 legislative analysis

BACKGROUND
Under current state law, it is a crime to grow or possess marijuana, regardless of whether the marijuana is used to ease pain or other symptoms associated with illness. Criminal penalties vary, depending on the amount of marijuana involved. It is also a crime to transport, import into the state, sell, or give away marijuana.
Licensed physicians and certain other health care providers routinely prescribe drugs for medical purposes, including relieving pain and easing symptoms accompanying illness. These drugs are dispensed by pharmacists. Both the physician and pharmacist are required to keep written records of the prescriptions.
PROPOSAL
This measure amends state law to allow persons to grow or possess marijuana for medical use when recommended by a physician. The measure provides for the use of marijuana when a physician has determined that the person's health would benefit from its use in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or ''any other illness for which marijuana provides relief." The physician's recommendation may be oral or written. No prescriptions or other record-keeping is required by the measure.
The measure also allows caregivers to grow and possess marijuana for a person for whom the marijuana is recommended. The measure states that no physician shall be punished for having recommended marijuana for medical purposes. Furthermore, the measure specifies that it is not intended to overrule any law that prohibits the use of marijuana for nonmedical purposes.
FISCAL EFFECT Because the measure specifies that growing and possessing marijuana is restricted to medical uses when recommended by a physician, and does not change other legal prohibitions on marijuana, this measure would probably have no significant state or local fiscal effect.

Notice that neither have "consitutional" warnings.

So supporting CCI now is stupid. It can't stand a constitutional challenge, so why throw your money and time at this? Honestly if the legislative analysis questions it's constitutionality I am sure there will be plenty of judges who will see that way too.

[Koroz]

First, I am not arguing with you that its a concern. So if you are getting defensive don't. I just like to discuss things instead of blindly agreeing with any post that gets put up here.

With that said:

I will say that both people who worked on that are Christian right wingers. I know the office they work under is bipartisan so I do give it validity, but in the back of my mind I can't help but wonder if at least some of the "Fear" associated with it is due to his personal and religious belief system.

That said. It concerns me of course. But Tax Canna still assures that in counties like San Diego where I have lived the majority of my adult life and will be living in again in the next couple of months will be in the same situation it is in today. There is other Initiatives that I like, but for right now CCI still seems like the best choice of the 4, and a much better choice of the top 2 (CCI / Tax Canna).

They have been trying to overturn 215, and Prop 8 both for a while now. Neither has been successful as of today. So although I agree that it will go to court, I think there will be groups who take any initiative to court to try and have it revoked. That doesn't mean it will. I would be a lot more inclined to jump ship quick like had the review actually said something more then "could be", or and that it was "uncertain" if it would hold up in court.

/shrug I can't really give you more then that man, not really looking for an argument just giving you my opinions =)

**You must spread rep around before giving it to FreedomFGHTR again"** - either way, appreciate the post and the review. It gives us all a bit more to think about.