Marijuana: California Tax and Regulate Cannabis 2010 Initiative Suspends Signature

[JackTheGrower]

Well there is it.. The First Initiative to reach the finish line.

May I congratulate Tax2010 in getting it done.




Marijuana: California Tax and Regulate Cannabis 2010 Initiative Suspends Signature Gathering -- Because They Have Enough

Lee told the Chronicle Thursday that more than 650,000 signatures have been turned in, and that he expects an additional 50,000 or so to dribble in during the coming weeks. Precisely 433,971 valid signatures of registered California voters are required for an initiative to be approved for the ballot. That leaves Lee and the initiative a substantial cushion of about a quarter-million signatures to make up for any invalid ones.

The campaign will wait to turn in signatures until January 15. If they were turned in this month, the initiative would appear on the June ballot, not the November ballot. Lee and the campaign prefer the latter.

Lee's initiative, which would allow individuals up to 25 square feet to grow their own and would allow counties and municipalities to opt to tax and regulate marijuana sales on a local basis, is controversial. Some national figures believe it is premature and risks going down in flames at the polls, thus setting the movement back, while some California activists believe it does not go far enough and does not entice voters with potential revenues for the crisis-ridden state budget.

But it will be on the November 2010 ballot, provided the signatures are certified by election officials in February. It may not be the only legalization initiative on the ballot. At least two other signature-gathering campaigns for competing initiatives are under way

 

[Blue Dot]

There goes the neighboorhood! lol

 

[fatigues]

Pretty damn fast across the finish line. I know I assumed that it would make it on the ballot without trouble, but still - very satisfying confirmation, to be sure.

The Proverbial Bullet is about to go into the Breach.

There's a lot riding on this: 45 years of activism, prayers, tears, hopes and dreams, give or take. Good men and women - hard work - and faith that their fellow citizens weren't quite as stupid as they seemed damned and determined to prove that they were.

Gimme a dollar for ever discussion two people have ever had over "when it's legalized, someday... " and I could buy every major sports franchise in the NYC area, and still have enough left over to buy NBC, too.

Big dreams, indeed.

I wish TC2010 the best of luck - but better still - my sincerest hopes that they don't ever need to rely upon "luck" to win.

 

[Blue Dot]

Pretty damn fast across the finish line. I know I assumed that it would make it on the ballot without trouble, but still - very satisfying confirmation, to be sure.

The Proverbial Bullet is about to go into the Breach.

There's a lot riding on this: 45 years of activism, prayers, tears, hopes and dreams, give or take. Good men and women - hard work - and faith that their fellow citizens weren't quite as stupid as they seemed damned and determined to prove that they were.

Gimme a dollar for ever discussion two people have ever had over "when it's legalized, someday... " and I could buy every major sports franchise in the NYC area, and still have enough left over to buy NBC, too.

Big dreams, indeed.

I wish TC2010 the best of luck - but better still - my sincerest hopes that they don't ever need to rely upon "luck" to win.

WTH are you talking about? Isn't this the lee initiative that would allow counties like san diego, who are opposed to MMJ, to "opt Out" of the tax by NOT letting it's citizens grow?

Why the hell would I want that?

Lee's initiative, which would allow individuals up to 25 square feet to grow their own and would allow counties and municipalities to opt to tax and regulate marijuana sales on a local basis...

 

[Pythagllio]

Money talks, bullshit walks. Any questions?

 

[Koroz]

Money talks, bullshit walks. Any questions?

Don't you mean Continued Prohibition talks, Lee Makes tons of money off it, and citizens with governments like San Diego walk (get fucked)?

 

[Pythagllio]

Not in the least. That's on those who spread bullshit like you've posted. Are you really stupid enough to swallow that garbage?

 

[JackTheGrower]

WTH are you talking about? Isn't this the lee initiative that would allow counties like san diego, who are opposed to MMJ, to "opt Out" of the tax by NOT letting it's citizens grow?

Why the hell would I want that?

I tag Blue Dot to reread tax2010. http://www.taxcannabis2010.org/

I don't think that is Grow .. Sell or have businesses but personal was 5x5 I understand..

Most medical grows of a small nature exceed 5x5. If I remember correctly that's 5x5 outside for everyone.

However, you may have to have your landlords permission to grow with tax2010.

So Blue Dot.. Want to redeem yourself and check?

Jack

 

[JackTheGrower]

Money talks, bullshit walks. Any questions?

I agree that it is the paid gatherers that get it done. I guess it's also a sleazy side to initiatives but, that story, I'm still learning about.

I take it everyone has compared the Initiatives from California. They are history making for sure.

I'm still a CCI Supporter but I admit California is ready and I respect that. California is smart and willing to lead.

I'm willing to stay in the fight even after 2010.. I feel we can have a better California that adds revenue and jobs while granting the Cannabis Freedom we deserve. No 5x5.. Let a man grow a plant in the Sun and another in a shady area without arrest.

But I digress..

So yes no end to the prohibition game.. Tax2010 doesn't upset the apple cart IMO.. We can have better if we will get off our asses and volunteer for CCI.. The last days to get that on are closing in fast. I would hope we have a choice come November 2010.


Anyway Congrats Tax2010 people.. Does any Tax2010 people wish to say some words for the rest of us? What exactly is a Tax2010 California like?

Jack

 

[Koroz]

Not in the least. That's on those who spread bullshit like you've posted. Are you really stupid enough to swallow that garbage?

So wait, you are saying the provision inside of the initiative that says local governments may choose to NOT allow sales or taxation of Cannabis, is not continued prohibition?

So whats this, You mean its NOT filtering business to areas like Oakland by allowing counties like San Diego to not allow sales of Cannabis, and only allowing an ounce to be on hand at one time?? that means for me I have to either move to Oakland, or, I have to drive to Oakland from San Diego at least once a month to pick up more because they allow the local government to decide WITH OUT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE WHO PASSED THE INITIATIVE to continue to ban sales?

Remember I have to have the written permission of the land owner to grow, and since I rent and my current complex is very against Cannabis in any form, medicinal or not that makes sure I either have to pay early termination fee's to end my lease before it is up and move or I get to spend tons of gas to drive to another county.

Care to explain how you think this is bullshit?

-EDIT thanks for the negative rep, I would do it back but im not a douche bag.

 

[fatigues]

So wait, you are saying the provision inside of the initiative that says local governments may choose to NOT allow sales or taxation of Cannabis, is not continued prohibition?

I think the point is that TC2010 would extend to you the right to possess and transport at least one ounce of marijuana anywhere in Cali - for any reason - at any time.

Is there much doubt that MANY counties in Cali will legalize the sale of marijuana, fully (and increase possession limits - as they did under SB420)? No, there isn't.

Is there any doubt that SOME counties in Cali will NOT initially choose to legalize the sale of marijuana fully? NO, there is not.

But the nature of the economy and the utter futility of refusing to permit sales when the next county over allows them will bring this matter to a resolution far more quickly than you think, just as it did in respect of the prohibition of Alcohol in many states across the country.

At the same time, by providing for an "out" for counties that do not want it, TC2010 appears to be a moderate step and is, therefore, more palatable to voters overall and is more likely to prevail at the polls as a consequence.

In other words, it's a poison pill for legalization via inexorable small steps that become impossible to resist over the long haul. Perfect immediate legislative result? No. Clever politics to assist in achieving legalization NOW? Absolutely.

TC2010 also allows you to grow a 5x5 plot, for any reason, at any time - and such right attaches to the land, not to the person. So you are not limited to ONE 5x5 grow at all. You can have more than one 5x5 grow space.

The fact that you may happen to have a landlord who might not grant you the freedom to exercise that right at your rented parcel is unfortunate, but it does not change the great improvement in the current law that TC2010 would provide for those who can.

And I expect there will be MANY landlords happy to rent our 5x5 parcels, both indoors and out of doors to many prospective growers. Indeed - it will be an entirely new rental industry within urban areas of Cali. Complete with 24 hour security to monitor against rippers, too, I expect.

So is it perfect and complete legalization? Hell no. But is it a significant step forward that attempts to guage and balance the interest of all voters, pro and con, in a calculated and shrewd attempt to win 50% plus 1 in California, right NOW? Hell yes.

Legalization is not an event; it is a process. TC2010 is not the final legislation that will ever be written in California with respect to marijuana. It does not pretend to be, either. What it IS, is a significant step forward that has a real and credible chance of winning at the polls. That counts large, imo.

Nothing in TC2010 ousts people's rights under Prop 215 either. If you can rely upon Prop 215 to grow more or possess more - you can continue to rely upon your Prop 215 rights after TC2010 passes, too. You are never forced to choose between Prop 215 rights and TC2010 rights. You get them both.

So, is that an improvement over what exists in Cali right now? Assuming your income does not depend on the continuation of Prohibition - yes it is.

 

[richyrich]

Don't you mean Continued Prohibition talks, Lee Makes tons of money off it, and citizens with governments like San Diego walk (get fucked)?

7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

^^^ There it is. IMO, there is no need for this provision in the initiative. Lee is on an agenda for a lock down since he is golden right now in Oakland. Monopoly!

 

[fatigues]

Lee is on an agenda for a lock down since he is golden right now in Oakland. Monopoly!

Clearly, there is no political advantage to persuade voters in the centre and right-of-centre that a ballot Proposition will not force the sale of marijuana down their throats if their own city does not want it.

And just as clearly, Oakland is certain to be the only area, in all of California, that will allow sales of marijuana - thus ensuring Richard Lee is the de facto next billionaire of California!

Or... or... it could be that you're analysis of what will happen is only-ever-so-slightly paranoid, unbalanced and biased as all hell, and that, just MAYBE, that if more than 50% of Californians vote in support of TC2010, then, just possibly, more than the City of Oakland might allow the sale of MJ, hmm?

 

[SOTF420]

So someone could have ten plots of 5x5 in their backyard per say?

 

[Hazelnuts]

So someone could have ten plots of 5x5 in their backyard per say?

No, I think you'd have to rent/buy 5 different properties and then you could have one 5x5 grow on each of them

 

[Koroz]

Clearly, there is no political advantage to persuade voters in the centre and right-of-centre that a ballot Proposition will not force the sale of marijuana down their throats if their own city does not want it.

And just as clearly, Oakland is certain to be the only area, in all of California, that will allow sales of marijuana - thus ensuring Richard Lee is the de facto next billionaire of California!

Or... or... it could be that you're analysis of what will happen is only-ever-so-slightly paranoid, unbalanced and biased as all hell, and that, just MAYBE, that if more than 50% of Californians vote in support of TC2010, then, just possibly, more than the City of Oakland might allow the sale of MJ, hmm?

You don't get it because you don't live here. In places like San Diego, its not that the PEOPLE of the city don't want it, it is that the GOVERNMENT of the city doesn't want it.

I would have ZERO problems with it if they just added the nomenclature that for them to pass a vote to deny the rights to the county sales and taxation of Cannabis, they have to have a vote from the people. Simple as that. If the CITY itself (constituents) really don't want it then hey, that is acceptable to me. But to allow a group like the San Diego politicians to decide for the City with no vote is why this bill is garbage. It takes the power of the people away, and puts it in the hands of the few. It doesn't mean jack shit if 90% of the population in California votes for TC2010, because the initiative doesn't put the choice in their hands once its passed.

 

[richyrich]

Clearly, there is no political advantage to persuade voters in the centre and right-of-centre that a ballot Proposition will not force the sale of marijuana down their throats if their own city does not want it.

And just as clearly, Oakland is certain to be the only area, in all of California, that will allow sales of marijuana - thus ensuring Richard Lee is the de facto next billionaire of California!

Or... or... it could be that you're analysis of what will happen is only-ever-so-slightly paranoid, unbalanced and biased as all hell, and that, just MAYBE, that if more than 50% of Californians vote in support of TC2010, then, just possibly, more than the City of Oakland might allow the sale of MJ, hmm?

I just don't see a point in adding that provision to the initiative if the people of the state, as we both assume, are more than willing to accept this. Why give politicians a choice. We already know how they are about MMJ. I'm not into seeing what they will do and follow along as the rest of the cities and counties do as you have alluded to. Again, there is just no point for that provision if the people of the state are really in such support for legalization.

 

[richyrich]

It makes me question why the provision was added and then take a look at who helped author and sponsor it.

 

[JackTheGrower]

I believe we found info that R. Lee is a member of group that runs things.. It's a much larger organization than Mr. lee alone from what I remember reading.

So it is a corporation that stands to step out front in Cannabis profits. So 1 million spent may reward 100% return of those funds.

Well Step forward it is a step forward but not the end of the journey from my point of view.

 

[Pythagllio]

So wait, you are saying the provision inside of the initiative that says local governments may choose to NOT allow sales or taxation of Cannabis, is not continued prohibition?

So whats this, You mean its NOT filtering business to areas like Oakland by allowing counties like San Diego to not allow sales of Cannabis, and only allowing an ounce to be on hand at one time?? that means for me I have to either move to Oakland, or, I have to drive to Oakland from San Diego at least once a month to pick up more because they allow the local government to decide WITH OUT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE WHO PASSED THE INITIATIVE to continue to ban sales?

Remember I have to have the written permission of the land owner to grow, and since I rent and my current complex is very against Cannabis in any form, medicinal or not that makes sure I either have to pay early termination fee's to end my lease before it is up and move or I get to spend tons of gas to drive to another county.

Care to explain how you think this is bullshit?

-EDIT thanks for the negative rep, I would do it back but im not a douche bag.

No need to thank me, you earned it. Don't sell yourself short on the douche bag thing.

TC2010 is definitely an improvement on the status quo, has a realistic chance of passing vs the hare brained Props being pushed by those who are clueless about political reality, and the parts your bitching about won't take effect for years and years, if ever, since they're dependent on the Feds legalizing. Richard Lee could well be dead from old age before those parts take effect, and you're presuming that there are politicians that will pass on 'free' revenue, lol. In the meantime, it will no longer be probable cause for a cop to smell burning or growing cannabis.

If Richard Lee just cared about money only the Prop could well have been written to define dispensaries as legal, and how they can legally operate But it's positively retarded to believe that Mr. Lee thinks he's going to somehow corner the cannabis market, or that he needs the money. Your entire argument is that you'd rather keep your head totally submerged in a bucket of shit rather than starting to extricate it.