ICMAG Administration endorses The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

[MrBomDiggitty]

The most important thing to remember is that this legislation protects us in court, not from the police - who can do whatever they please to. right?

 

[nomaad]

1. But how many responsible parents will WANT to blow smoke at their two year olds? This is to placate the "What about the children?" people and allow the bill to pass. Only really stupid people are going to get in trouble with this. I mean, how many people are smoking around their children NOW? How many are getting prosecuted? What would change?

Right now, it's illegal to smoke in your own home even if you are BARREN and never had children! How is this making things WORSE?

xxx

2. Is it kinda lame? Yes? Do I wish it was better? Yes. Will I take it as is as opposed to 0? HELLS YES!

Good post, anti. Few are like it in here.

1. Depends how it winds up interpreted. The space in question is not defined. Can they throw a criminal charge at me for smoking in my backyard at a BBQ with children present? Mind you, nobody is blowing it in their face. What if I have a neighbor who doesn;t like the noise and calls the cops and adds "and they are smoking pot around kids over there too!" I guess that will depend on where you live and who answers the phone at the cop shop. While I am waiting for the courts to decide what is meant by the language in Prop 19, CPS is taking real good care of my kids.

2. In my view this is a fallacy. To me, its not "as opposed to 0"... First of all we have 215 which in my belief was meant to provide medicine to all who need it. And I have met few smokers who don't use it for medicine. "Chilling out" on it is valid medical use as I see it. I do appreciate that there are those with a greater need for it and have always provided it for free to those who are most in need.

215 is also imperfect, but its here and it works and its OURS. The courts have not been able to fuck with it... much less the legislature.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

My shit is better than your. My plants look way better than yours. My Purple Kush would destroy your best strain in a heads up grow or smoke test any day.

You aren't arguing, you are avoiding direct questions: You claim that you want people to be legal. So I ask you are you paying federal income taxes on 100% of your revenue? My guess is no, and you are making ZERO attempt at being legal in that way.

If I am right and you are happy being a federal tax avoider and violating federal schedule one drug laws, why are you so law and order with Prop 19.

So do you pay taxes on 100% of the revenue?

well your wrong as I am 110% compliant with all laws...

are you really trying to say your purple kush is better than my sour og, or my burkle, or my blueberry bubba, or my original hogsbreatb circa 1986???? Hahahah pk is fucking booty in comparison!!!!!

I grew her ,,, she definatly wasn't good enough to stay more than a few harvys.

Being from CA it's hard to impress me,, you may have the best weed where YOUR from.... But in CA it's just some regs.....

 

[vta]

Good post, anti. Few are like it in here.

1. Depends how it winds up interpreted. The space in question is not defined. Can they throw a criminal charge at me for smoking in my backyard at a BBQ with children present? Mind you, nobody is blowing it in their face. What if I have a neighbor who doesn;t like the noise and calls the cops and adds "and they are smoking pot around kids over there too!" I guess that will depend on where you live and who answers the phone at the cop shop. While I am waiting for the courts to decide what is meant by the language in Prop 19, CPS is taking real good care of my kids.

(4) Prop 19 teaches kids that MJ is too evil to see your parents smoke, but it is OK for them to take you to a restaurant and drink beer in front of you and smoke a cig on the ride home.

Prop 19 ADDS NOTHING to the law in regard to smoking around minors. All it says is that prop 19 doesn't cover smoking in the same space. Think of second hand smoke as far as defining "space" because that would be considered, obviously. So this is a non issue! THERE IS NO CHANGE IN LAW HERE ..oh and hydro...it is illegal to smoke in the car with minors in a lot of places and more and more every year.

2. In my view this is a fallacy. To me, its not "as opposed to 0"... First of all we have 215 which in my belief was meant to provide medicine to all who need it. And I have met few smokers who don't use it for medicine. "Chilling out" on it is valid medical use as I see it. I do appreciate that there are those with a greater need for it and have always provided it for free to those who are most in need.

215 is also imperfect, but its here and it works and its OURS. The courts have not been able to fuck with it... much less the legislature.

Nomaad...much respect man but I really wish people would stop using the 215 argument. This has nothing to with 'medical' cannabis...this is for the 'millions' of 'recreational' users. To say that it is better to fake something to be able to fraudulently obtain special permission to smoke is a joke and not a very mature way to do things. You still get a ticket anyways...growing...still get the 'chop' and maybe jail. All 215 does is give the med user an excuse in court. I can go on and on as you know lol but hey..we have 215 and it is great...I will still fall under 215 if 19 passes if I go to court for growing but is it fair that only the sick and the lairs get the right?

 

[someotherguy]

but is it fair that only the sick and the lairs get the right?

right on man, i'd rather resist and refuse to obey an
unjust law than sell my integrity to gain 'permission'.

peace, SOG

 

[dagnabit]

However trade (which you admit to) is income and revenue therefore you are legally required to include 100% of the revenue value in your income tax figure and you may take ZERO deductions (see. IRC 280e).

only if said trade revenue exceeds $9999.99

Because both of these laws will continue to be ignored I find it very perplexing that the majority of the crowd is arguing "Because we wouldn't be criminals anymore!"

because we wont be at a state level...

 

[Anti]

2. In my view this is a fallacy. To me, its not "as opposed to 0"... First of all we have 215 which in my belief was meant to provide medicine to all who need it.

Let me help you clear your view. Bear with me.

215 patients limits are NOT AFFECTED by this Prop. Therefore, anyone who is already a 215 patient are not the people who are currently faced with the choice of nothing or 5x5. Once this passes, the 215 people will not be limited to the 5x5, they will be continued to be limited by their doctor's recommendation. If 3 people in the same household are all 215, they'll all be able to grow or co-op their grow or whatever they're doing now.

So for anyone who ISN'T 215, this represents an expansion of the law from the current legal limit of "none" to the proposed MINIMUM of 25 sq feet.

Anyone who IS 215, this represents only a separate voter initiative which STRENGTHENS MMJ because there is wording in THIS voter approved prop that supports it, not to mention an additional ratcheting DOWN of cannabis related fear-mongering.

 

[Hydrosun]

well your wrong as I am 110% compliant with all laws...

are you really trying to say your purple kush is better than my sour og, or my burkle, or my blueberry bubba, or my original hogsbreatb circa 1986???? Hahahah pk is fucking booty in comparison!!!!!

I grew her ,,, she definatly wasn't good enough to stay more than a few harvys.

Being from CA it's hard to impress me,, you may have the best weed where YOUR from.... But in CA it's just some regs.....

My PK has found its way to the hands of many ICmagers, several from CA and it has never left their gardens. In fact it has become the main strain for their operations. You must have had a different PK cut.

I'd put my stuff up against yours in a blind taste test any day. Your blue berry bubba sounds interesting. I have a black berry bubba that is nice.

Pass or fail, we'l have to give this a test and if prop 19 passes we'll have to get a nice group together and bet on the outcome.

 

[nomaad]

Let me help you clear your view. Bear with me.

215 patients limits are NOT AFFECTED by this Prop. Therefore, anyone who is already a 215 patient are not the people who are currently faced with the choice of nothing or 5x5. Once this passes, the 215 people will not be limited to the 5x5, they will be continued to be limited by their doctor's recommendation. If 3 people in the same household are all 215, they'll all be able to grow or co-op their grow or whatever they're doing now.

So for anyone who ISN'T 215, this represents an expansion of the law from the current legal limit of "none" to the proposed MINIMUM of 25 sq feet.

Anyone who IS 215, this represents only a separate voter initiative which STRENGTHENS MMJ because there is wording in THIS voter approved prop that supports it, not to mention an additional ratcheting DOWN of cannabis related fear-mongering.

But I'm not arguing for 215 instead of a recreational legalization or whatever 19 is.

All I am saying is that we don't have "nothing" if we don't have 19. We still have the most progressive marijuana legislation in the world here in California. Medical or otherwise (including the downgrading of under 1oz possession to an infraction. Granted, its flawed and there are valid issues against 215 being abused (not so sure about this), but the possibility should be considered that because we have 215 and it has stood the test of time, we should wait for better legislation that will always be in the hands of the voters and not up for grabs for politicians to change based on who pays into their pampered retirement.

I'm really stuck on this "voter initiative" having language that takes it out of the hands of voters. Voter initiatives are the closest things to the excercise . and then there is prop 19... unless somebody can convince me, by November, that I am misunderstanding something about the language of this bill, it doesn't seem like I could possibly vote for it.

I hate to suddenly take what has been for ages a people's struggle and serve it up to anyone other than the people.

 

[localhero]

nomaad,

im starting to think that because its such a large omission to not define what space means in the prop (they clearly defined many other things) that it must have been on purpose to avoid possible backlash from some kind of childrens group.

thats my guess i have no idea. but i could see an anti 19 ad on tv with smoke piling out from under a door and a little girl on a big wheel in the hallway coughing as they zoom in to a close up of her blood shot eyes... fade to... 19 allows parents to smoke in the same house as their kids...no on 19, for the childrens sake.

 

[nomaad]

lh: Your guess at the intent is interesting, but unimportant. It won't even come up until some unlucky person has to be the guinea pig in court. Of the two issues I raise in my last post, this is the one that bothers me the least.

 

[localhero]

i dunno, i mean 19 is such a whisper of a prop. instead of trying to woo opposition who would never vote for your cause no matter what concessions you allot them, have the balls and write in what is right.

if i didnt think that there is an impending conservative backlash, state wise and nationally, if i didnt think that a no vote would be taken as a referendum on pot.. i wouldnt vote for 19 either.

we could easily exist under 215 while a legitimate legalization bill without the corporate undertones of cornering the market and without creating new ways to screw pot smokers.

i just hope if 19 passes that we get together to write up a new legalization bill that elliminates the dog shit aspects of 19. and yeah next time dont write in such a unnesessary ammendment clause. that still boggles my mind. needing the govs sig to complete any ammendments via leg is the most sorry, stupid thing i can imagine.

 

[igrowone]

I'm really stuck on this "voter initiative" having language that takes it out of the hands of voters. Voter initiatives are the closest things to the excercise . and then there is prop 19... unless somebody can convince me, by November, that I am misunderstanding something about the language of this bill, it doesn't seem like I could possibly vote for it.

i'm assuming 'out of the hands of the voters' refers to the county powers creating rules for commercial growing
that is true, the county voters lose direct control
but i was wondering if this is something there isn't much choice over
is there a state law for county voter initiatives? i get the impression there is not
in which case, the 2 choices seem to be a state wide commercial law, or handing it over to the counties
though there may be other options, those seem to be the most likely to me

 

[localhero]

i'm assuming 'out of the hands of the voters' refers to the county powers creating rules for commercial growing

people keep getting this confused.

voter propositions, voter initiatives et al, are one of the only forms of direct democracy in america, in states that allow voter initiatives.


unless they specifically choose to, no voter initiative has to allow legislature the ability to ammend them.

prop 19 does allow the legislature to ammend it.

imagine how little teeth 215 would have had with an ammendment clause like 19's?

being able to be ammended by legislature, in effect takes away the purpose of a voter initiative.

and i know ten people will chime in , "oh but local, it can only change it to further the purpose of the prop"

- well there are 14, yes 14 defined purposes in 19. choose your evil, because its not a stretch to interpret a few of those defined purposes in a direction that will not be to our liking.

 

[nomaad]

igrowone: no, when I say "out of the hands of the voters" i am referring to the language that grants the legislature the right to change the will as long as its in keeping with the stated purposes of the bill. one of the 14 purposes is something like "to be in keeping with the heath (nice), safety (great), laws (awesome), and morals (HUH?!) of the state of California. Each of the 14 purposes is open to attack. Not just in the courts, but by politicians and the lobbyists that run them.

the legislature should never have power to change a voter initiative. only another voter initiative should be able to change it.

 

[igrowone]

igrowone: no, when I say "out of the hands of the voters" i am referring to the language that grants the legislature the right to change the will as long as its in keeping with the stated purposes of the bill. one of the 14 purposes is something like "to be in keeping with the heath (nice), safety (great), laws (awesome), and morals (HUH?!) of the state of California. Each of the 14 purposes is open to attack. Not just in the courts, but by politicians and the lobbyists that run them.

the legislature should never have power to change a voter initiative. only another voter initiative should be able to change it.

morals - that is not a great word for legislators
they could have done without that one, i don't see what it adds either
not clear if it opens up a legal attack, does not appear to

 

[localhero]

ok so thats what i wasnt sure of, only another voter initiative can change a voter initiative.

can another voter initiative eliminate completely a previous one?

thats the very real downside of all this. i doubt people will be as excited to jump off their couches to vote on another legalization bill just to fix a few bulshit aspects of 19. i can imagine the uninitiated pot friendly voting block being somewhat confused as to why they have to vote in legalization twice.

 

[nomaad]

not clear if it opens up a legal attack, does not appear to

not sure what you mean by legal attack. that would happen in the courts. not what I am talking about.

I am talking about it being able to be changed for very ambiguous reasons ("morals" is an ambiguous term, but there are 13 other "purposes" that could be defined in a number of ways to serve a number of purposes... and changed by politicians rather than another vote by the people.

 

[GanjaAL]

AHAHAH these cats is not commercial. they are kicking 1 MAYBE 2 lights and selling extra shit they cant smoke... i meean we seen hydros weak ass garden. its obvious hes growing to sell but he aint slangin packs. hes slinging gs 1/8s and 1/4s AND SINCE HES NOT EVEN IN CA (so why the fuck does it even matter to you if 19 happends????) hes prolly raping his buddies wit 70 1/8s of mediocre....

ganja al??? this clown couldnt cultivate a thought if he was instructed by albert einstein himself. id love to see him post whatever garbage hes growing and selling.... i KNOW we could all use a good laff about now!!!!!


im over it. im not going to sit and argue with some bold faced shit spewers. you dont want to tell us why your REALLY against it??? dont fuggin matter, we KNOW through your pathetic arguments.

at least hydro makes an attempt to reason in speculation... ganja is just too fucking stupid to even form a cognitive thought in that pea sized pile of shit he calls a brain...

LOL... funny how certain groups try and get you to post pictures so they can get you to incriminate yourself.

I am not a grower but a mmj user who gets his meds from local mom and pops collective.

 

[igrowone]

ok so thats what i wasnt sure of, only another voter initiative can change a voter initiative.

can another voter initiative eliminate completely a previous one?

thats the very real downside of all this. i doubt people will be as excited to jump off their couches to vote on another legalization bill just to fix a few bulshit aspects of 19. i can imagine the uninitiated pot friendly voting block being somewhat confused as to why they have to vote in legalization twice.

on the last issue, that is probably not a desired situation, i.e. another legal MJ prop
small amendments would seem to be more compatible, wholesale replacement implies problems