What's new

Summation and Clarification Regarding California Bill AB 390

Koroz

Member
Jawnroot,

Is this to be voted on by the assembly and then the senate, to head to the governors desk?

Or, is this a public bill that the citizens will vote on?

This bill does nothing for me, will not change my life and has no bearing upon my medicinal usage, but I do fear that should it arrive at Arnold's desk he will veto it like he has before. I say before, in reference to the employment bill and multiple hemp bills. This is a huge step forward for the recreational user but with Arnold in office and seeing what happened with Prop 8 and the amazing conservatives with religious backing, I fear the worst. On a public vote, would churches donate millions to stop this and would the public approve? Most assuredly Arnold would not sign this, I am not sure why but it's his MO. Certain areas of CA are still very staunch about this subject and I am not sure if public support is there. Someone should do a poll in CA on who supports MMJ to gauge the possibilities. Nonetheless, this is a step forward not only for users, but for politicians as well.

It is an Assembly vote bill from what I understand.
 

jawnroot

Member
Assembly bill/legislature (ie: will be voted upon by elected reps, but not the general population). It still has to go through committee first, though.
 

Barnt

Member
The steps to be had to pass into law...

bill2law.gif


I guess the next best thing is to contact our local assembly peoples and tell them to support this bill.

Here is a list of our Assembly for CA http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset7text.htm

Enter your zip into this website and it will tell you your local assembly peoples.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html

For sample letters to send, visit the site below. It also has an option to send the letter by email to State Chamber Reps.
https://ssl.capwiz.com/mpp/issues/alert/?alertid=12756556
 
This is a Bad Bill and idea ,This Plant is not a commercial product it is medicine. I would follow Dui laws and public use, strict, along with any endangerment laws.

Let me say this, in California just like anywhere else their are Visions of Gold instead of gained wisdom. like Crabs in a barrel and Pandoras box, the same cliche plays out again.

Let's say a Group of Adults want to run a Not For Profit Collective, What happens then. If this is a not for profit venture in which a selective group of people decide to grow , and pass around the medicine sharing the operating expenses that it would take to run such an operation.This would include the normal operating costs and Salaries that NOT-PROFIT organizations encounter IE (CORPORATE CHARITIES,CHURCHES,POLITICAL COMMITTEES AND THE GIRL SCOUTS. .Oh i forgot to also include receiving the same Tax write-Offs and potential grants and funding which are made available to these organizations frequently through the Government channels.

Can Collectives operate like this as well?,That is my question about this law. Compassionate Collectives do exist and grow better medicine and have low fees not prices.The Bill Above Makes no sense in my View. Other than erasing the convictions and issuing apologies for the THEFT, LIES ,and DEATH these laws have caused.


People Will choose to get their medication through collectives for close to what seems free and know their growers rather than. The SHADY and DANGEROUS conditions these laws bring. IF people want to talk about TAX and MONEY issues then i have a story about BAILOUTS .

Their has to be a better way for solving these problems than the way it has been.
 

Hash Zeppelin

Ski Bum Rodeo Clown
Premium user
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Well I hope it passes a year from now when it goes up for vote. I think it has better chances in one year from now, than right now.
 

bterzz

Active member
Veteran
Well, since everyone is asking for something "wrong" with this bill, I'd have to say its the AGE limit.

I feel fucking cheated. You can call me an adult at 18 and throw my ass in jail at 18, I can VOTE at 18, but I can't make an adult decision to smoke a little pot at 18.
 

nephilthim

Member
It seems there's a lot of confusion over this bill. To be blunt, anyone that doesn't see this as a great thing is suffering from one of the following conditions:

A.) Has not read the full text of the bill.
B.) Does not understand the bill.
C.) All of the above.

I think the biggest misconception is the fact that the vast bulk of this bill is the existing section 68152 of the Government Code. Parts of that code are amended (via strike-through) to reflect the omission of marijuana-related crimes/regulations. In other words, there aren't new laws being added in the criminal code, but an updated Government Code with MJ crimes REMOVED.

To emphasize, page 6, line 24 (beginning of Section 4), to page 34, line 20 (of a 41 page bill), is a complete rehash of 68152, with MJ laws REMOVED.

Here is a complete summary of the bill, with relevant details:

Page 3: Lines 35-40 = Lists costs associated with a cultivation license, which are completely reasonable and in line with costs associated with a brewer's/distiller's license.

Page 4: Lines 1-6 = Highlights the need for a background check when applying for a cultivator's license. This is a requirement for all fields where consumable products are being handled. Reasonably, I'd want someone of sound mind and constitution growing my MJ. All of the justifications the state offers for this are well within tolerance. These regulations would NOT be imposed upon private growers.

Page 11: Lines 35-36 = Marijuana paraphernalia specifically REMOVED from the purview of the law.

Page 12: Line 2 = Continues above.

Page 16: Line 17 = Controlled substances act altered to state only synthetically produced THC is regulated under the drug act/illegal.

Page 17: Line 25-40 = All penalties related to cannabis removed.

Page 18: Line 1-20 = Above con't.
Line 22 to 30 = Fines remain for MJ on school premises (no prison, etc)...similar to alcohol in this regard.

Page 19: Line 8-12 = Penalties associated with the private cultivation of marijuana completely removed.
Line 14-16 = Penalties removed for the sale of marijuana.
Line 19-36 = Trafficking laws removed.
Line 39-40 = Laws associated with minors removed (but elaborated upon later in the bill).

Page 20: Line 1-12 = Con't with above.

Page 21: Line 28-30 = Sifters/seed separators/gins and similar devices removed from paraphernalia.

Page 22: Line 18 = Roach clips specifically removed from paraphernalia.

Page 26: Marijuana removed from property forfeiture laws.

Page 27: Line 19-24 = Testing regulations removed for MJ, effectively making it impossible for cops to seize plants/bud.

Page 28: Line 13-35 = Property seizures/auctions related to MJ operations specifically removed.
Line 40 = Seizures again outlined and removed.

Page 31: Line 7-31 = Level 1 - 4 offenses associated with marijuana sale and cultivation removed.

Page 33: Line 37-38 = Marijuana removed from conspiracy-related charges.

Now the bill specifically enumerates marijuana RIGHTS and REGULATIONS.

Page 34: Line 21 = Highlights the new MJ code.
Line 34-35 = Lawful for a person 21 or older to possess or transport MJ.
Line 36-20 = Lawful to sell, provided seller is in compliance with the reasonable regulations outlined in the bill (akin to alcohol regs).

Page 35: Line 6-11 = Lawful to smoke, provided it's not in public (ie: no public imbibing or intoxication, just like alcohol).
Line 14-17 = Lawful to be high/intoxicated on MJ.

Here is one part on page 35 I wanted to specifically copy and paste:



Page 37: Line 12-15 = Tax exemption for medical users.
Line 22-26 = Tax of $50 per ounce, above and beyond state taxes and the actual retail cost of the MJ itself.

Page 38: Line 17-27 = Tax may be lowered below $50 if the board feels that would satisfy the needs of the program, but not above.

The rest of the bill deals primarily with the fact that you cannot be intoxicated on MJ and drive.

So in summation, if you're of legal age, smoke/grow, and you DON'T support AB 390...then there is something seriously wrong with you.

you know I resent your assertions,and I maintain that just because the state is running on a defecit that the same wonderful folks that brought as s.b.420 want a new source of revenue you go trumpeting glee club style that this is the greatest thing since sliced bread?!
no to taxes,i wouldn't want to give this state 50 cents let alone 50 bucks.
to support the same goverment and all it's encumbent bureaucracy,the only thing i want to be taxed by is my doctor, whom I like so I have no problem giving him a hundred dollars,and his blessing that I can grow over county limits,and as s.b.420 has been declared unconstitutional there is no need for this bill in it's present form.
yea 100 bucks med card grow all you want for your personal needs prop 215 is suffecient at this point.and if you are hear schilling this bill and you grow mj without a med card ...then there is something seriously wrong with you.
 

Green Mama

New member
It all sounds nice and dandy now, i don't see any arguments...
but i just wonder what the feds position will be on this. and what might be between the line that we cant foresee now that will screw the small grower. i still prefer to be under the radar
 
J

JackTheGrower

Well, since everyone is asking for something "wrong" with this bill, I'd have to say its the AGE limit.

I feel fucking cheated. You can call me an adult at 18 and throw my ass in jail at 18, I can VOTE at 18, but I can't make an adult decision to smoke a little pot at 18.

May I remind you that at 18 you can drink in your own house. You just can't buy booze.

I bet that made your day.

Jack

-----------

Just checked again it has to be YOUR house not your parents, friends or other... At least according to a friend that I trust to know.
 
Last edited:
J

JackTheGrower

Ab 390 clips

Ab 390 clips

I posted a collection of clips covering AB 390 in the video clip thread.
 
J

Jeff Lebowski

Schwarzenegger open to studying Marijuana tax Idea

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says California should study other nations’ experiences in legalizing and taxing marijuana, although he is not supporting the idea.

He says it’s time to debate proposals such as a bill introduced in the Legislature earlier this year that would treat marijuana like alcohol. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco Democrat, says taxing marijuana at $50 per ounce would bring more than $1 billion a year to the state.

Schwarzenegger said during a Tuesday news conference that “it’s time for debate” on the idea. But he warned against making harmful decisions just for the sake of raising money.

He said some other nations have had negative experiences. Ammiano’s bill is on hold in the Legislature. He delayed seeking approval until next year.

-- Associated Press

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...gger-open-to-studying-marijuana-tax-idea.html
 
J

Jeff Lebowski

What is the likelihood of this bill being introduced along side a statewide ballot measure to be voted on? I have tried to find some information about starting a petition for signatures, but am unsure where to look. At this point, I am not sure if I want to leave legislation up to the congress or gov. but rather in the hands of the mass idiots. At these more of them agree with me on the position :)


What do you think is the possibility of a voter backed legalize it proposition?
 
Top