California may legalize in 2010!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Jeff I humbly disagree. I don't think the California Supreme Court will overturn all of SB 420. But the parts pertaining to counts and limits will most likely be held unconstitutional.

I hope for everyone's sake you are correct.

 

[CaptainTrips]

yeah right, ive heard this one before, not going to happen. Plus what difference does it make, last time I checked federal law trumps state law.

Nothing will ever change unless states start the push. And so? Are feds going to send federal cops/dea into cali to enforce their retarded pot laws looking for little 5 plant grows? Possible, but even so, its still better to pass more favorable laws than not regardless of the federal status of pot.

Will be interesting how this plays out if it comes to pass... Wonder if Obama will have the same attitude if its not medical, IE only coming in in fed and state law is violated.

 

[JackTheGrower]

still we must do it even if we face a fight after.

What choice do we have? Lay down and cry?

Jack

 

[white russian]

Obama made his opinion clear when he shat on the idea of legalization... Only way to actually succeed in doing something like this is getting the people to rally! Or at least 51%!!!!

 

[Blue Dot]

Last time I checked the US Supreme Court upheld California's medical marijuana laws which were started by a ballot proposition. So it's very possible, which is why the proposition needs to be worded just right.

^This logic is flawed.

The SCOTUS stated that the fed gov does not have a right to regulate a states MEDICAL practices. The logic was that the CSA only regulates 'recreational" use and not medical use so the CSA couldn't trump a states laws.

The problem is, it seems to me that this new initiative is to legalize "recreational" use and that's where the feds would step in with their CSA and the SCOTUS would agree with them.

 

[Pythagllio]

There's nothing that says that something can't be against Federal law and legal at the state level. Are there any state laws against Federal tax evasion? How about Treason against the United States? Both are pretty darn serious felonies too but I've never heard of a state prosecuting either. A state law can't protect you from prosecution under federal law, but the state has has no obligation to prosecute in lockstep. The statement 'federal law trumps state law' is true as far as it goes, but is a total red herring. The beginning of the end of alcohol prohibition was when the state of NY dumped its state laws against alcohol. The Feds do not have the resources to prosecute the war on some drugs without the cooperation of the states.

 

[Blue Dot]

The beginning of the end of alcohol prohibition was when the state of NY dumped its state laws against alcohol.

But alcohol prohibition was federal law. It just happened to be repealed because the NATION wanted it to be repealed. There aren't enough people in this country right now who want MJ prohibition repealed on a federal level so that's not going to happen anytime soon.

CA may very well legalize recreational use, (i sure hope they do) but as you said that won't protect us CA's from the feds using the CSA to come in and bust us. Remember, Obama only told holder to say that there would be no fed intervention with regards to medical MJ laws. Obama never said he wants fed legalization for rec use so there will be no presidential mandate to the DEA to hold back.

The point we're all missing though is that if CA legalizes recreational use the feds will pull our highway funding, further spiraling the state into the toilet.

 

[C3RTIFI3D]

Dooope Can't wait. They should just make it legal everywhere

 

[white russian]

You'd think if the feds pull cali's highway funding than the west coast would be like FUCK THAT and just be one step closer to seceding from the rest of the states.

 

[JackTheGrower]

I'm off to the meeting.. It's at 7:30pm at the Oaksterdam University . check TaxCannabis2010.org for the address.

I am told there are events going on all day and live music and such..

I'm taking the camera so I hope to do a show and tell.


Look for the bearded man in the black pot leaf shirt and the Amsterdam hat..

Say HIGH!

I am not afraid.


Jack

 

[CaptainTrips]

But alcohol prohibition was federal law. It just happened to be repealed because the NATION wanted it to be repealed. There aren't enough people in this country right now who want MJ prohibition repealed on a federal level so that's not going to happen anytime soon.

CA may very well legalize recreational use, (i sure hope they do) but as you said that won't protect us CA's from the feds using the CSA to come in and bust us. Remember, Obama only told holder to say that there would be no fed intervention with regards to medical MJ laws. Obama never said he wants fed legalization for rec use so there will be no presidential mandate to the DEA to hold back.

The Feds do not have the resources to come after small time rec users. Like was stated by someone else, there could be no war on pot without the help of the states.

 

[Jeff Lebowski]

I thought Holder's statement was more along the lines of don't break state law and the feds won't interfere. Can you show where he stated medical marijuana specifically besides in New Mexico?

 

[Blue Dot]

I thought Holder's statement was more along the lines of don't break state law and the feds won't interfere. Can you show where he stated medical marijuana specifically besides in New Mexico?

The statement was in response to a question about MMJ dispensaries so his response was in that context.

Also, his response basically said that he will do what obama wants and obama has stated that he believes states should be able to regulate their medical laws but obama has also said he does not think cannabis legalization "for rec use" would be wise, or something to that effect.

IOW, when obama, and therefore holder, speak of cannabis, it always seems to be in the medical context.

 

[Jeff Lebowski]

I would agree that typically that seem to be speaking of mmj but they have also asserted states rights. Perhaps this could float on to the recreational side, who knows. I know the current federal position is against legalization but Obama's administration might respect states to decide, especially if brought forth by vote. Do you really think Obama would risk pissing off a large section of his voters in California by busting in on a voted prop? Maybe, but let's hope for the best.

 

[JackTheGrower]

Oaksterdam and TaxCannabis2010

Oaksterdam and TaxCannabis2010

Some times I am privileged to have visited a place and it has an impact on me. Oakland June 18th, 2009 was just that "kind" of experience.

We started out our trip with nearly a two hour drive. I was happy that my non-cannabis smoking fiance' was going along to what had to be a hippy liberal pot rally. What a trooper!

We arrived at just about two hours later after some crazy stop and go traffic on the freeway. Finding the Oaksterdam University was easy even for someone like me who had never been to Oakland at least on foot.



It turned out that Oakland is in the Midst of trying to change it's image and Oaksterdam is a prime force in that change. What I didn't know, and anyone who could have gone missed, was the street party!
It started at 5pm and went I believe till 11 pm.



Two Band stages, vendors, a couple thousand people maybe and some over priced food and drink lined streets. I even sniffed a waft or two of our beloved ganja from the crowd.



The very Amazing thing was spotting Tommy Chong or at least a Tommy Chong look alike.. No that wasn't the Amazing thing really.

Attending the meeting for the TaxCannabis2010 and all the wonderful folks was the truly amazing thing. The Next meeting is on the Third Thursday of July so be there.

The meeting got underway at 7:30 pm after a period of "relaxing" and chatting with some of the students and community folks.

I was amazed as I am someone opinionated when it comes to posting and reading posts but, this is ground zero friends.
The meeting was competent , intelligent and a serious boost to my frame of mind when it comes to my resolution to change things in California on the issue of Cannabis liberty.

It needs to be clearly stated that TaxCannabis2010 is still in Draft language. I received a copy of the latest draft ( thank you friends ) and I will read it carefully.

The meeting and the folks that presented their comments provided rich and extremely informative views into the state of our Cannabis community in California. I took away a whole new portfolio of ideas to go over. I need to.. We all need to.. As Bob Dylan has sang the times are a changing and fast.

And! "I Know I know!" that the idea of 25 sq ft of growing space and one ounce are silly stupid things to sign off on but, please get involved and read for yourself because there is a good argument for it. It's a political world. Really, we can't think we don't live and have to work inside of a political framework. I don't like those restrictions and I do have an idea that may or may not work so I'll present it on the web site TaxCannabis2010.org and again at the next meeting.

The web site for TaxCannabis2010 is TaxCannabis2010.org Please log in and get involved California.

Also I give a thumbs up for Oaksterdam University and Oaksterdam in general who are sponsoring a measure to increase taxes on themselves to help their community.. That's right the medical Cannabis people are sponsoring a new law to tax themselves more.... That sounds like a community that cares about Oakland and California.

My hat is off to those hard working people and know this new friends, "I'm impressed!"


Jack

 

[♥Mo♥]

Sounds like you had a good time Jack, thanks for sharing. I hope to get back to Cali soon.

 

[JackTheGrower]

California Marijuana Legalization Initiative Effort Underway, Aimed at 2010 Ballot

California Marijuana Legalization Initiative Effort Underway, Aimed at 2010 Ballot

And the news just keeps on coming.

--------------------------------

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/590/california_marijuana_legalization_initiative

Talk about marijuana legalization is at a level never seen before this year, and nowhere is that more strongly the case than in California. For the first time, a legalization bill is before the state legislature. Legalization recently polled at 56% in California. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, perhaps entranced by visions of dollar signs as he presides over an exploding budget deficit and imploding state economy, has publicly pondered whether now is the time to talk about legalization. And with the state bordering on Mexico, the notion of undercutting Mexican drug trafficking profits through legalization resonates especially loudly in the Golden State.

Now, somebody wants to do something about it, and the revolution is starting in Oaksterdam, the medical marijuana business empire/social movement centered in downtown Oakland and anchored by Richard Lee's Bulldog Café, SR-71 dispensary, and Oaksterdam University. Lee and a team of activists, attorneys, political consultants, and signature-gathering pros are working on the final drafts of an initiative to tax and regulate marijuana in California that they hope to place on the November 2010 election ballot.

In its current form (which is still subject to revision), the initiative would:

* Allow for the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana by adults;
* Allow adults to grow in an area of up to 25 square feet, and keep the fruits of the harvest;
* Allow counties and municipalities to license the cultivation of marijuana for commercial sales and license marijuana retail sales;
* Allow consumption in licensed premises;
* Allow counties and municipalities to tax any licensed production or sales;
* Not allow interstate or international sales.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/files/marijuana-plants.jpg
marijuana plants (photo from US Fish and Wildlife Service via Wikimedia)
Each provision leaves room for argument over its wisdom and its complications. Leaving legal marijuana commerce and taxation to localities instead of the state, for instance, could weaken the argument for state tax revenue benefits, but make the measure more palatable to counties either cash-strapped and eager for revenues or conservative and not desirous of allowing "pot clubs" to sprout in their domains.

Others require a bit of explanation. The provision for allowing possession of only an ounce runs contrary to treating it like alcohol -- there are no limits on wine cellars or beer collections -- and appears at first glance to at least potentially conflict with the personal grow provision. But the one ounce would be the state minimum; even in counties or cities that choose not to allow marijuana commerce, pot smokers could still have their stash.

The larger questions around a 2010 legalization initiative in California are whether the time is right and what would be the consequences of failure. Movement opinion appears to be split.

"We see a lot of things making it right for this time," said Lee. "The budget crisis here in California, the violence in Mexico, the economy continuing to decline, the polls -- all suggest that this may be the time to do it. The bigger picture is it's important to keep the issue alive, and we hope to have a vigorous campaign over the next year and a half to move this forward."

"This initiative is inevitable," said long-time Southern California activist Cliff Schaffer, who has been insisting for several years now that legalization in California is unstoppable. "I understand the money is already in place to gather signatures. They plan to do this whether anybody else likes it or not."

The time is ripe now, said Schaffer. "We've already got the tax issue -- the billion dollars in tax revenue even got Arnold's attention, and I think that 56% approval number is going to increase naturally. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it in the 60s by this time next year," he predicted.

But the national marijuana reform organizations are not so excited, and even a little bit nervous. National NORML didn't even want to talk about it, deferring instead to the state chapter. And the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), while diplomatic, was decidedly lukewarm.

"Everybody supports the idea of what Richard is trying to do and wants to see marijuana regulated and taxed in California as soon as possible, but there is also an ongoing debate and uncertainty as to when and how is best to proceed," said Bruce Mirken, MPP's San Francisco-based communications director. "Our take is that the polling we've seen so far suggests it is not likely to pass in 2010. Everyone wants to take advantage of public opinion moving in our direction, but it's not clear that it has moved enough. There is honest debate about when to pull the trigger. In our opinion, we should wait and build our forces and aim at 2012."

"I think it's premature," said Dale Gieringer, executive director of California NORML. "If you look at the poll numbers carefully, it's clear it wouldn't pass. We saw 56% in the Field Poll, but other polls show smaller margins, and once an initiative has any particulars to attack, you start seeing support melting away percentage point by percentage point."

Urging patience, Gieringer harkened back to the days of Proposition 215. "Before we did Prop. 215, there had been three medical marijuana bills in the state legislature, the Vasconcelos medical marijuana bill had passed and been vetoed, and that was basically what we took to the voters," he said. "We knew that an initiative to allow the personal use and cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes would pass because we had already gotten it through the legislature."

Marijuana legalization, on the other hand, doesn't have that extensive legislative pedigree or the years of discussion in Sacramento about its ins-and-outs that allows points of contention to be fleshed out. California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) has introduced a legalization bill this year, but this is the first time, and it hasn't even had a hearing yet.

"The Ammiano bill is very far-reaching, but it hasn't been discussed," said Gieringer. "We need to take this to the legislature, see where the weak points are. Those kinds of discussions will lead to changes and revisions and give us an idea where we can get the public to support this."

And then there's the cost. "Initiative campaigns are mind-bogglingly expensive here, and we may not get a lot of chances to raise the money to do it right," Mirken pointed out. "Smaller states like Nevada, we could do for around $2 million, but that doesn't even cover a decent local campaign here in California."

The challenges are considerable, Lee conceded, but that isn't stopping him. "We need to collect 460,000 valid signatures, and that means we need to collect 650,000 signatures. We think it will cost about $1.50 a signature, so you're looking at about a million dollars just to get it on the ballot."

Lee said backers hoped to have a final draft early next month. From there, the initiative goes to the attorney general's office for a title and summary, and should be ready for signature-gathering by the end of August. From then, organizers will have 150 days to collect the required signatures.

"We're a draft or two away," said Lee. "We're making some changes in the current draft and then we will test it again with our focus groups. We're getting pretty close now."

Once the initiative makes it to the ballot, said Lee, financial backing should appear. "I think people will start coming out of the woodwork to get on board," he said.

There are also arguments that could appeal to so far untapped, even unfriendly constituencies, said Schaffer. "It's not just taxes. We're also talking about the revenue from growing this stuff. The tax revenues are chump change compared to that. We'll see an additional $20 billion in revenue from the Central Valley, and people here have to pay income taxes at an 11% rate; that's another $2 billion right there. We have to make that an issue," he said.

Schaffer already has been playing that card in the conservative, but economically depressed and increasingly desperate Central Valley, the state's leading agricultural region, and one of the most important in the world. His brash views have garnered interest from farmers and press attention in an area of the state not considered friendly towards marijuana.

"That's a huge cash crop -- do we want those billions to go to Mexico or to Central Valley farmers?" is the question Schaffer is posing. "This is going to be a very important argument in the Central Valley, and we're going to have trouble unless we can pick up votes there, too. If we turn this into an economic opportunity, then we're not arguing about whether marijuana is good or bad, but does Fresno want $20 billion."

While putting dollars signs in the eyes of farm country will build support there, said Schaffer, the best argument for legalization proponents will be the "like alcohol" argument. "Everyone understands that," he said. "The closer we can come to just saying tax and regulate it like alcohol, the better off we are with the general public."

It's the consequences of losing a legalization initiative in California that concern MPP's Mirken and CANORML's Gieringer. "California has a reputation as a liberal, progressive state," said Mirken. "If it loses badly here, that could be perceived as serious setback at the national level."

"If we lose in 2010, that will really take the wind out of our sails," said Gieringer. "The legislature won't have to take us seriously, and there won't be anything on the 2012 ballot because funders will get discouraged and pull out. When an initiative loses in California, the cause dies. We're on a really great track toward legalization now, but we need to develop this further, and that's going to take a few years."

And so begins the debate within the California marijuana legalization debate. Would California voters jump on board for legalization next year, with momentum growing like Iranian demonstrations, or will opponents find enough niggling loose ends and unanswered questions to derail it? Is now the time for the final push, or will eagerness to make progress turn into a trap?

Right now, the ball is in the hands of Richard Lee and his Oaksterdam team.

 

[JackTheGrower]

Sounds like you had a good time Jack, thanks for sharing. I hope to get back to Cali soon.

I'm considering joining the community... That's how good it felt.

I just hope we can get folks to get involved with gathering signatures once the wording is finalized.

Jack

 

[JackTheGrower]

For something that is supposed to be legalization it seems awfully restrictive to me.

The beauty of prop 215 is in how open and permissive it is. Instead of restricting citizens it should be the government that is restricted from putting its hands in the pot.

I know...

The thing I had to get past was the limits.. An indoor 5x5 is big enough for 6 plants! I run 6 in 4x4.. I harvest 8 ounces of prime time when I grow.
Or 24 clones.. So it really isn't small when you think about it.

Outside.. Well that's a trick now isn't it.. I can see that one could have say 8 5 gallon pots in a 5x5 space.. I'd have them spread out so they get good sun but able to put them into that 5x5 if John law asks.

I'd be tempted to grow a huge Tree one year tho.. Make Ice hash for the winter. I understand 6 to 8 feet tall is possible... Wow

What I gathered at the meeting is to get the right to grow and carry one oz is the thing.. I have to read my copy of the language tonight but i think we can keep what we grow, Just don't sell and you will be fine.

There has to be a line between personal and commercial. There is limits to what voters will go for.. To make the Initiative something average non-smoking people will vote for it has to look reasonable; that's my take on the discussion.

After really giving them hell on TaxCannabis2010.org and going to the meeting I feel very comfortable that the folks involved are upstanding clear minded and intelligent activists.

I understand we also have to keep in mind the Federal political machine. I understand from the conversation that there isn't a chance at this time to allow growing for personal use Federally but a possession of 100 Grams before one is in violation of Federal law sounds damn good to me.

BUT PLEASE DON"T TAKE MY WORD FOR THINGS PEOPLE GET INVOLVED.

When have we had a better chance to get free of Jail and Prison for consuming this plant?

Get up Stand up my friends.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zTxUxFjLB0


Jack

 

[Blue Dot]

I agree with FreedomFGHTR here.

5' x 5' is tiny.

Outside that is literally just one large tree.

Nature didn't give me soil and sun to be limited to 1 plant by the government.

One plant is not a victory, that's bottom of the barrel, barely being thrown a bone.