Growers are just saying NO to pot legalization

[autumnlight]

Grower scott says he is a small business??? dude your just a greedy tard. I do not agree with law, but it is a crack open into the door of legalization.
If calif. peeps are for legal why the heavy restrictions?? I feel this is weighted for the dispencery businesses, so sad it's all about the benjamins. FREE THE WEED.

 

[autumnlight]

If you agree with the tax and regulate initive, please, I beg you, watch the dennis peron youtube, he explains why this is a bad bad bill...only more grief for cannabis users and growers.

 

[pecosthecat]

This is a really sad and short-sighted attitude on the part of some growers.

 

[AmsterdamAndy]

I hope all of you commenting on this initiative have read it in it's entirety and fully understand it.

For those that think that only growers are against this initiative, you are wrong;
1. Adult voters 18-20 will have to wait up to 3 years before they have any protection under this initiative.
2. Parents with children will not be able to smoke in any "space" where children are & will not be able to "consume" cannabis in public.
3. Adults who live in homes that prohibit smoking will also not be allowed to "consume" cannabis in public.
4. Leaving all taxation and most regulate & control rules to local authorities is totally unfair to those adults living in the less liberal areas of California.
5. Adults who don't live in the liberal areas of California could be forced to drive hours to obtain up to one ounce of cannabis.
6. Small growers that enjoy a variety of strains will not have enough space in 25 sq ft.

Several people say this initiative will not change Prop 215: While it doesn't seem to affect what your Doctor recommends in the amount of medicine you can possess or the # plants you can grow, it may affect where & how you can grow cannabis. This initiative gives FULL CONTROL of all cannabis grows to local governments (outside of 25 sq ft). Already many areas of this state are fighting local rules such as: no grows within 1,000 ft of school bus stop or church; no indoor or no outdoor grows; requiring a list of medical patients being grown for to be submitted to local authorities; and limiting the # of plants per household, no matter what recommendations those residents have from their Doctors. This proposed initiative also would allow medical cannabis to be taxed by local governments at whatever rate they choose. Also medical cannabis patients would no longer be able to "consume" their medication in public. And medical patients would be committing a crime if they smoke cannabis in their home if a minor is in the same "space".

I cannot vote for an initiative that continues to send people to jail for cannabis related crimes or doesn't deal with those already in prison for cannabis related offenses.

I hear so much that this initiative can be improved by later changes:
1. Why not get it right the 1st time or at least a lot better.
2. If the liberal areas of California have a large choice of stores to buy from and more lenient & larger area to grow, I see very little incentive to get a better cannabis initiative in the future.

I have fought for LEGALIZATION of cannabis for nearly 40 years and have never grown or in any way made a living off of cannabis. Just a consumer and a fighter of fairness for all.

 

[SouthrnPrideX]

1 oz ? are you fucking joking ? I would say fuck that also... 2 months for a fucking ounce..These fucks have been in the sause..Sounds like another way to get you guys in jail!!

grow space of 5x5 with max 1oz harvest and fine of $1,000 +6months jail for going over? no,
thanks.

 

[Neo 420]

Several people say this initiative will not change Prop 215: While it doesn't seem to affect what your Doctor recommends in the amount of medicine you can possess or the # plants you can grow, it may affect where & how you can grow cannabis. This initiative gives FULL CONTROL of all cannabis grows to local governments (outside of 25 sq ft). Already many areas of this state are fighting local rules such as: no grows within 1,000 ft of school bus stop or church; no indoor or no outdoor grows; requiring a list of medical patients being grown for to be submitted to local authorities; and limiting the # of plants per household, no matter what recommendations those residents have from their Doctors. This proposed initiative also would allow medical cannabis to be taxed by local governments at whatever rate they choose. Also medical cannabis patients would no longer be able to "consume" their medication in public. And medical patients would be committing a crime if they smoke cannabis in their home if a minor is in the same "space".

I just want to throw out there that everything written above is pure speculation. Where are you getting this info?

 

[gaiusmarius]

he gets his info from reading the bill as far as i understand it, lol. it's simple anyone can get a doc rec now in cali, thereby being free to smoke and grow as they need. after this bill, things will be worse in cali then they are now. in some places this might be a step forward, but not in California. that's my opinion anyway, from the research i did on this subject. that's the only reason it has a chance of passing, because it's much more restrictive then prop 215 ever could be.

 

[Neo 420]

No he is not getting that information from the bill. I have a copy that I have read at least ten times.

Also there is NO MENTION of a penalty for going over weight. ACTUALLY the bill states you can keep WHATEVER you can grow in a 5x5 space. The ounce limit is what you can bring outside of your grow op or house. If you do not like the bill or are campaigning against it, that fine and more power to you BUT when untruths and and lies are told to help your mission the line has been crossed......

 

[kmk420kali]

No he is not getting that information from the bill. I have a copy that I have read at least ten times.

Also there is NO MENTION of a penalty for going over weight. ACTUALLY the bill states you can keep WHATEVER you can grow in a 5x5 space. The ounce limit is what you can bring outside of your grow op or house. If you do not like the bill or are campaigning against it, that fine and more power to you BUT when untruths and and lies are told to help your mission the line has been crossed......

You are correct, that there is no mention of weight you can grow in the Bill...however, the guy you are accusing of saying that, didn't say that-- It was another Post--
At least accuse the right person of lying...the one you quoted, altho used some speculation...did not lie--

 

[Skunkmiester]

Damn I'm sorry Cali, glad I moved when I did. Keep working at it, it will happen the way we want, someday.

 

[Neo 420]

You are correct, that there is no mention of weight you can grow in the Bill...however, the guy you are accusing of saying that, didn't say that-- It was another Post--
At least accuse the right person of lying...the one you quoted, altho used some speculation...did not lie--

I accused no one of lying. I typed a blanket statement. I know who posted the information, thank you for pointing out the obvious.

If you look at my quote post you will see I addresses the proper person(S).

If you look at my second post (first sentence) I addressed gaiusmarius response. The next sentence was actually a response to weight limits from another poster followed with my blanket statement.

It funny how hostile some people get when debating over this target.

I also like how you come in and try to marginalize speculative information. Facts are facts. Rumors are rumors/ Don't distort the two..... (Thats for you kmk420kali...)

 

[kmk420kali]

I accused no one of lying. I typed a blanket statement. I know who posted the information, thank you for pointing out the obvious.

If you look at my quote post you will see I addresses the proper person(S).

If you look at my second post (first sentence) I addressed gaiusmarius response. The next sentence was actually a response to weight limits from another poster followed with my blanket statement.

It funny how hostile some people get when debating over this target.

I also like how you come in and try to marginalize speculative information. Facts are facts. Rumors are rumors/ Don't distort the two..... (Thats for you kmk420kali...)

I was Hostile?? Looks like it is you who is harboring the hostility--
But yeah, now I am hostile--
I did not distort shit...it is not a fucking rumor that it will be left up to the Counties/Cities to come up with their own regulations...that is a fact--
There are certain Counties/Cities that have shown time and time again they are Cannabis Hostile...another fact--
So what else did AmsterdamAndy say that was "Speculation"??
And how did I distort it??
You are just another one of the "If you are against this, you are a greedy grower!" camp--
Newsflash...I want legalization at least as much as the next person...but am against this Initiative...I am not against the taxation...I am against the wording, and the enormous room for each County/City to use it against us--
I am sitting right now at the collective...tending the crop...it is not mine, I am an employee...I get my pay no matter what happens...I gain nothing by hoping prices stay high--
Really man, I see this as maybe not the worse thing that could happen...but definitely could be done better--
No hate man...just kind of frustrated with this all--

 

[Neo 420]

I was Hostile?? Looks like it is you who is harboring the hostility--
But yeah, now I am hostile--

You came into the conversation defending some else with a hostile tone. I harbor nothing against you, or gaiusmarius. Period. SO we are clear on that.....

I did not distort shit...it is not a fucking rumor that it will be left up to the Counties/Cities to come up with their own regulations...that is a fact--

You are taking this way out of hand. I never accused you of distorting but I did say "I also like how you come in and try to marginalize speculative information. Facts are facts. Rumors are rumors/ Don't distort the two."
That statement only states DO NOT DISTORT. What I did accuse you of is marginalizing speculative info which I still stand by.

There are certain Counties/Cities that have shown time and time again they are Cannabis Hostile...another fact--

True.

So what else did AmsterdamAndy say that was "Speculation"??

He "speculated" what I quoted. Nothing else

And how did I distort it??
You are just another one of the "If you are against this, you are a greedy grower!" camp--

No. Where did you get this from? I never said that. My family (FROM HUMBOLDT) and friends have grown for many moons. You got me mixed up with some else.

Newsflash...I want legalization at least as much as the next person...but am against this Initiative...I am not against the taxation...I am against the wording, and the enormous room for each County/City to use it against us--
I am sitting right now at the collective...tending the crop...it is not mine, I am an employee...I get my pay no matter what happens...I gain nothing by hoping prices stay high--
Really man, I see this as maybe not the worse thing that could happen...but definitely could be done better--
No hate man...just kind of frustrated with this all--

We are in agreement.

I have shown no negativity in my post in this thread. I just want fair playing grounds with out "speculation" or what if's and that's from either side of the argument. AmsterdamAndy put out some information that's not fact and I want everyone to know that. Next thing I know your jumping down my throat. I mean no harm here. BUT I will continue to point anything that is not fact that is presented as facts. PERIOD.

I think I will roll a joint up now...

 

[kmk420kali]

Haha...I will concede this one...maybe I was wrong-- I didn't even know you can hear "tone" in written word--lol
I am not trying to create enemies here...just have a convo...
I have been out here in the desert, alone...away from family and civilization for 5 days a week now, for the last few months-- Maybe my "People skills" are a bit rusty!! lol
I just got internet out here last week...
I don't know that I am really wrong...but I should go about it different-- Peace man--

 

[AmsterdamAndy]

I just want to throw out there that everything written above is pure speculation. Where are you getting this info?

I got my info from reading this proposed initiative but even just as important is reading Prop 215 and what it does & does not cover. There are no rules regarding growing & dispensaries in Prop 215. This proposed initiative says: "6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes." And the same for everything else I mentioned. If not covered in Prop 215 and if it is covered in this proposed initiative, it will become law if this initiative passes.

Richard Lee & friends have written a really difficult to understand initiative. Here's a link to Prop 215: http://vote96.sos.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/215text.htm

 

[Neo 420]

Haha...I will concede this one...maybe I was wrong-- I didn't even know you can hear "tone" in written word--lol
I am not trying to create enemies here...just have a convo...
I have been out here in the desert, alone...away from family and civilization for 5 days a week now, for the last few months-- Maybe my "People skills" are a bit rusty!! lol
I just got internet out here last week...
I don't know that I am really wrong...but I should go about it different-- Peace man--

No hard feelings this way. I'm here for friends and good convo too brother..

 

[Neo 420]

I got my info from reading this proposed initiative but even just as important is reading Prop 215 and what it does & does not cover. There are no rules regarding growing & dispensaries in Prop 215. This proposed initiative says: "6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes." And the same for everything else I mentioned. If not covered in Prop 215 and if it is covered in this proposed initiative, it will become law if this initiative passes.

Richard Lee & friends have written a really difficult to understand initiative. Here's a link to Prop 215: http://vote96.sos.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/215text.htm

I agree the initiative is written in a opened ended manner with a lot of missing "safety" gaps for laying its framework. The bill specifically states cities can lay their own framework in administering the implementation of the initiative. What you read was someone theory on how the situation MAY come out. This may or may not happen in select cities. No dispute there. Is it fact? NO..

In regards to prop 215, I believe there is a section that stipulates that the initiative will have no impact on prop 215. I will dig it up and check.

 

[AmsterdamAndy]

I agree the initiative is written in a opened ended manner with a lot of missing "safety" gaps for laying its framework. The bill specifically states cities can lay their own framework in administering the implementation of the initiative. What you read was someone theory on how the situation MAY come out. This may or may not happen in select cities. No dispute there. Is it fact? NO..

In regards to prop 215, I believe there is a section that stipulates that the initiative will have no impact on prop 215. I will dig it up and check.

Fact: An overwhelming majority of cities in California do not currently allow medical marijuana dispensaries. You really think these same cities are going to allow stores to sell marijuana for recreational use? Dream on!

Prop 215 does not cover growing or dispensaries or many other issues covered by this proposed initiative, so this initiative would not have an impact because these issues were not covered. How can I be any clearer? READ Prop 215 to see how little is covered!

 

[Useless]

Pro's and Con's as I see it..

Pro's and Con's as I see it..

In respect to monetary compensation, in this area of business, if your business plan is not fluid enough to allow for repositioning and maneuvering in a dynamic and ever changing market, you need to get out while you're ahead. People are going to have to change their business model in order to survive. It happens in a capitalistic society. Those who don't have the business sense or intuition to change with the market will die off.


There are benefits and relief in the bill, that I can't argue. Pro's of the bill -
1) Anyone can have an oz. in their possession without fear of arrest or even a ticket. As it is now, non mmj smokers will get a ticket and $100 fine.
2) Any person can grow in their residence, a 5x5 plot. Plant count is irrelevant. Any amount you can harvest from the plot, is allowed to be stored on the premises of the plot.
3) It allows for research. Awesome!
4) The biggest pro to the bill imo - It promotes an active hemp industry. This is huge. This will mean a lot of jobs and money.
5) The bill does allow for amendments by statewide vote.
6) I read that the laws would be retro active, and anyone currently in jail for mj that met this bills requirements would be released. I can not find that language in the current version of the bill however.


Now, here are some negatives or at least questionable points -
1) The bill states it does not override Prop215. Great. BUT, Prop215 has no plant guidelines in it. The new bill has a 5x5 plot limit. Even though the bill states it does not change anything with Prop215, it also says "Notwithstanding any other statute or current law" (Notwithstanding - in spite of. regardless of) therefore, does this mean the new bill will limit mmj patients to a 5x5 plot? It certainly seems like an argument could be made to that effect since Prop 215 does not discuss plant limits or quantity of medicine. This is my primary concern with the bill.
2) It does not allow anyone under 21 to smoke. That is wrong imo. If you are 18, you can buy cigs, go to war etc. If someone is old enough to fight for our country, they should be allowed to smoke as well. Your 19 y/o soldier nephew can kill people, but can't smoke a J.
3) If you go over the 5x5 plot size, go to jail. (??) This isn't so bad for the casual smoker. But heavy smokers like me can burn through a 5x5 area of OG Kush (small small yields) before the next crop finishes. This will effect outdoor growers far more than indoor. If you can only grow a 5x5' plant outdoors once a year, that isn't going to last even the casual smoker until the next years harvest.
4) It requires a license and zoning permits similar to alcohol. Now, the actual cost of an alcohol license in my area is about $15-25K, and up to $50K USD, depending on location. I know a lot of bar owners and managers, and all have told me it took $100-$150K to get the license, after greasing the right hands. This seems to tip the law in favor of corporate America, not the individual smoker.
5) Considering Richard Lee's current monopoly in Oakland with cannabis clubs it seems to solidify that monopoly. IMO, RL is a douche and is out solely for $$$$, not for patients or smokers or even the plant. But, that is a personal opinion, and not necessarily a wise argument to pursue, so I won't. Just rubs me the wrong way.
6) You can't purchase more than oz. It has to be purchased through a retailer. Your buddy with the 5x5' plot can't sell it to you. He can give it to you, but how many people are going to give away ounces when they can only grow in a 5'x5'?
7) There is supposed to be a $50 per oz tax. That means, if selling retail it's $800 per Lb. in tax. It is extremely difficult to speculate on a non regulated market, so attempting to guess what prices will to is pointless. Again, can not find this language in the current version. If we aren't going to impose a tax, what good is this bill?
8) If local authorities are left to regulate the industry, then people in the Bay, NoCal, and LA are golden, but really the rest of the state is screwed. San Diego is still fighting prop 215. They are not going to allow commercial operations, neither will San Berdoo, Marin, or any other hard liner county. The state needs to set the rules here.

Just some thoughts.

Now before anyone bashes me for being on the fence and not 100% in support of the bill, please understand, I could care less about money. I want people incarcerated for mj to be released. I want freedom for all who choose to use mj to be able to do so without fear of LEO. I think legalization and taxation, if done properly would be beneficial to the people of California and the economy. I don't want to hear or see anyone getting their house invaded and pets or people killed over mj. I fully support legalization, I'm just not sure this is the correct way to go about it. I hope that makes sense.

 

[SpacedCWBY]

Any grower who is against legalization is against for the same reason as the gov't - MONEY MONEY MONEY... I understand the argument about not wanting the gov't to control supply/quality/etc, but that can easily be worked out.

Those greedy fuck bags need to look at the big picture and not just their wallets. They must feel pretty damn good about seeing someone's door kicked in, house seized, kids put into "protective custody", cars auctioned off, etc... Sick fucks.

I don't care how the bill is written, so long as it addresses people not going to jail or being fined for pot.

As for grower Scott, if you're reading this, you ought to be stoned to death in a deep pit of horse shit. $70k a month??? I don't make that much in 3 years and you're crying that it might hurt your income? FUCK YOU! People like you are the reason this country is in such a shitty mess right now.