TC2010/Prop 19 unlikely to pass (new poll results)

[dagnabit]

Prop 19 doesn't create a legal market though. Like ive said before, if prop 19 mandated a legal market, set licensing fees, taxes, etc for commercial operators, etc. I would be far more likely to vote for it. They just passed it off to local governments which for the most part will not allow sales. And the ones that do, such as Oakland, it will likely be a very limited number of people who will get in on a legal market. They are already trying to do that without prop 19.

maybe at first...

then the tourism dollars start rolling into those municipalities that make provisions for sales and consumption. it starts in the bay then moves north... the triangle becomes a major tourist destination again.then it moves south.
full hotels, service employees working, retail outlets selling Chinese lead based crap tee shirts to pale fat people from kansas.
you get the idea.

 

[johnnyla]

Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.[17] In spite of the fact that the tax cannabis Web site says otherwise, the only medical marijuana exemptions that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative actually makes are with regard to possession, consumption and purchase limits, which only ensure that patients would still be allowed to buy medicine at dispensaries. The word “cultivate” is conspicuously absent.

um that sucks. so all medical growers will have to get a commercial license to have more than 5ft x 5ft? that's fucked.

http://www.examiner.com/x-14883-San...supersede-or-amend-its-medical-marijuana-laws

 

[dagnabit]

Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.[17] In spite of the fact that the tax cannabis Web site says otherwise, the only medical marijuana exemptions that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative actually makes are with regard to possession, consumption and purchase limits, which only ensure that patients would still be allowed to buy medicine at dispensaries. The word “cultivate” is conspicuously absent.

um that sucks. so all medical growers will have to get a commercial license to have more than 5ft x 5ft? that's fucked.

http://www.examiner.com/x-14883-San...supersede-or-amend-its-medical-marijuana-laws

no thats not how the law works..

tc2010 addresses recreational use.
215 addresses medicinal use.
the two are exclusive.

 

[johnnyla]

well that's exactly what this article says happens and they are quoting the law. does anyone know? we need to get this shit straight before the fall or i will vote for a medical law in another state instead.

 

[Grass Lands]

also I would like to see the part that states we can keep what we grow in a 5x5 area...

I keep hearing about this...however here is a piece taken directly from the taxcannabis.org site...the bold print says we can only process up to one ounce...

Section 3: Lawful Activities
Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, commencing with section 11300 is added to read:
Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.

 

[johnnyla]

But i have to agree amidst the smoke and mirrors, that voting with cops is not my bag. Fuck the police! Fuck, fuck, fuck the police!!!

 

[miltonchitlin]

A lot of misinformation in this thread. A lot of views based on the article palmspringsbum wrote for the Santa Cruz examiner. This is the same PSB that was banned here for all his alarmist views and trolling those views over every ordinance that came around. If I recalled correctly his last account lasted 5 days here. He is an extremely poor reporter from an extremely poor news source. Hell you might as well quote mad magazine.

A 20 year old will face the same charges after prop 19 as he faces now. Only he has something to look forward to when he turns 21 if prop 19 passes.

Med patients are not affected. You can say rogue judges might try to instill limits on patients from prop 19 but the appeals and superior courts have set the record straight time after time. So this is nothing new.

Getting the Jack Herer bill on the ballot was a failure. It didn't pass the initial scrutiny of voters and did not receive the required signatures. I personally feel commercial untaxed cannabis is a dream but if you only want to provide for yourself prop 19 has no tax for the home grower.

It's laughable that we are even debating this. no law is perfect and this is a decent first step that opens the door pretty wide for providing cannabis for yourself untaxed.

The Oakland 'grow factories' are just collectives that are allowed to run unlimited trays, instead of the 3 patient collectives all over Oakland now. The 3 patient collectives are untaxed and unregulated. The grow factories are highly regulated. Clean green, tested and best practice. At the end of the day the grow factory will work overtime getting the area ready for inspection by the Alameda dept of Agriculture while the unregulated grower goes to the tool concert. The factory will present it's pound to the dispensary in a clean green packaged bundle, the unregulated grower will pull his turkey bag out of a dog hair covered knapsack. Both pounds face the same chances of being purchased at the club. If they buy the factory's pound there will be tax paid since transfer of cannabis is taxable in this state. The unregulated grower snags his cash without as much as a 1099. The factory permit is $211,000 but it seems like the unregulated growers are complaining. Why?

 

[dagnabit]

well that's exactly what this article says happens and they are quoting the law. does anyone know? we need to get this shit straight before the fall or i will vote for a medical law in another state instead.

no thats not correct..
the article is opinion and not very sound legal thinking.
when reading this bill first you will find this:

: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.
8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

now cross reference to h&s 11362.7--11362.9

:11362.5. (a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the
Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
(b) (1) The people of the State of California hereby find and
declare that the purposes of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 are as
follows:
(A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to
obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use
is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has
determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of
marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain,
spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for
which marijuana provides relief.
(B) To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who
obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation
of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.
(C) To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a
plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana
to all patients in medical need of marijuana.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede
legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that
endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for
nonmedical purposes.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in
this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for
having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes.
(d) Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and
Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not
apply to a patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who
possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes
of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of
a physician.
(e) For the purposes of this section, "primary caregiver" means
the individual designated by the person exempted under this section
who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health,
or safety of that person.



11362.9. (a) (1) It is the intent of the Legislature that the state
commission objective scientific research by the premier research
institute of the world, the University of California, regarding the
efficacy and safety of administering marijuana as part of medical
treatment. If the Regents of the University of California, by
appropriate resolution, accept this responsibility, the University of
California shall create a program, to be known as the California
Marijuana Research Program.
(2) The program shall develop and conduct studies intended to
ascertain the general medical safety and efficacy of marijuana and,
if found valuable, shall develop medical guidelines for the
appropriate administration and use of marijuana.
(b) The program may immediately solicit proposals for research
projects to be included in the marijuana studies. Program
requirements to be used when evaluating responses to its solicitation
for proposals, shall include, but not be limited to, all of the
following:
(1) Proposals shall demonstrate the use of key personnel,
including clinicians or scientists and support personnel, who are
prepared to develop a program of research regarding marijuana's
general medical efficacy and safety.
(2) Proposals shall contain procedures for outreach to patients
with various medical conditions who may be suitable participants in
research on marijuana.
(3) Proposals shall contain provisions for a patient registry.
(4) Proposals shall contain provisions for an information system
that is designed to record information about possible study
participants, investigators, and clinicians, and deposit and analyze
data that accrues as part of clinical trials.
(5) Proposals shall contain protocols suitable for research on
marijuana, addressing patients diagnosed with the acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) or the human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV), cancer, glaucoma, or seizures or muscle spasms associated with
a chronic, debilitating condition. The proposal may also include
research on other serious illnesses, provided that resources are
available and medical information justifies the research.
(6) Proposals shall demonstrate the use of a specimen laboratory
capable of housing plasma, urine, and other specimens necessary to
study the concentration of cannabinoids in various tissues, as well
as housing specimens for studies of toxic effects of marijuana.
(7) Proposals shall demonstrate the use of a laboratory capable of
analyzing marijuana, provided to the program under this section, for
purity and cannabinoid content and the capacity to detect
contaminants.
(c) In order to ensure objectivity in evaluating proposals, the
program shall use a peer review process that is modeled on the
process used by the National Institutes of Health, and that guards
against funding research that is biased in favor of or against
particular outcomes. Peer reviewers shall be selected for their
expertise in the scientific substance and methods of the proposed
research, and their lack of bias or conflict of interest regarding
the applicants or the topic of an approach taken in the proposed
research. Peer reviewers shall judge research proposals on several
criteria, foremost among which shall be both of the following:
(1) The scientific merit of the research plan, including whether
the research design and experimental procedures are potentially
biased for or against a particular outcome.
(2) Researchers' expertise in the scientific substance and methods
of the proposed research, and their lack of bias or conflict of
interest regarding the topic of, and the approach taken in, the
proposed research.
(d) If the program is administered by the Regents of the
University of California, any grant research proposals approved by
the program shall also require review and approval by the research
advisory panel.
(e) It is the intent of the Legislature that the program be
established as follows:
(1) The program shall be located at one or more University of
California campuses that have a core of faculty experienced in
organizing multidisciplinary scientific endeavors and, in particular,
strong experience in clinical trials involving psychopharmacologic
agents. The campuses at which research under the auspices of the
program is to take place shall accommodate the administrative
offices, including the director of the program, as well as a data
management unit, and facilities for storage of specimens.
(2) When awarding grants under this section, the program shall
utilize principles and parameters of the other well-tested statewide
research programs administered by the University of California,
modeled after programs administered by the National Institutes of
Health, including peer review evaluation of the scientific merit of
applications.
(3) The scientific and clinical operations of the program shall
occur, partly at University of California campuses, and partly at
other postsecondary institutions, that have clinicians or scientists
with expertise to conduct the required studies. Criteria for
selection of research locations shall include the elements listed in
subdivision (b) and, additionally, shall give particular weight to
the organizational plan, leadership qualities of the program
director, and plans to involve investigators and patient populations
from multiple sites.
(4) The funds received by the program shall be allocated to
various research studies in accordance with a scientific plan
developed by the Scientific Advisory Council. As the first wave of
studies is completed, it is anticipated that the program will receive
requests for funding of additional studies. These requests shall be
reviewed by the Scientific Advisory Council.
(5) The size, scope, and number of studies funded shall be
commensurate with the amount of appropriated and available program
funding.
(f) All personnel involved in implementing approved proposals
shall be authorized as required by Section 11604.
(g) Studies conducted pursuant to this section shall include the
greatest amount of new scientific research possible on the medical
uses of, and medical hazards associated with, marijuana. The program
shall consult with the Research Advisory Panel analogous agencies in
other states, and appropriate federal agencies in an attempt to avoid
duplicative research and the wasting of research dollars.
(h) The program shall make every effort to recruit qualified
patients and qualified physicians from throughout the state.
(i) The marijuana studies shall employ state-of-the-art research
methodologies.
(j) The program shall ensure that all marijuana used in the
studies is of the appropriate medical quality and shall be obtained
from the National Institute on Drug Abuse or any other federal agency
designated to supply marijuana for authorized research. If these
federal agencies fail to provide a supply of adequate quality and
quantity within six months of the effective date of this section, the
Attorney General shall provide an adequate supply pursuant to
Section 11478.
(k) The program may review, approve, or incorporate studies and
research by independent groups presenting scientifically valid
protocols for medical research, regardless of whether the areas of
study are being researched by the committee.
(l) (1) To enhance understanding of the efficacy and adverse
effects of marijuana as a pharmacological agent, the program shall
conduct focused controlled clinical trials on the usefulness of
marijuana in patients diagnosed with AIDS or HIV, cancer, glaucoma,
or seizures or muscle spasms associated with a chronic, debilitating
condition. The program may add research on other serious illnesses,
provided that resources are available and medical information
justifies the research. The studies shall focus on comparisons of
both the efficacy and safety of methods of administering the drug to
patients, including inhalational, tinctural, and oral, evaluate
possible uses of marijuana as a primary or adjunctive treatment, and
develop further information on optimal dosage, timing, mode of
administration, and variations in the effects of different
cannabinoids and varieties of marijuana.
(2) The program shall examine the safety of marijuana in patients
with various medical disorders, including marijuana's interaction
with other drugs, relative safety of inhalation versus oral forms,
and the effects on mental function in medically ill persons.
(3) The program shall be limited to providing for objective
scientific research to ascertain the efficacy and safety of marijuana
as part of medical treatment, and should not be construed as
encouraging or sanctioning the social or recreational use of
marijuana.
(m) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), the program shall, prior to any
approving proposals, seek to obtain research protocol guidelines from
the National Institutes of Health and shall, if the National
Institutes of Health issues research protocol guidelines, comply with
those guidelines.
(2) If, after a reasonable period of time of not less than six
months and not more than a year has elapsed from the date the program
seeks to obtain guidelines pursuant to paragraph (1), no guidelines
have been approved, the program may proceed using the research
protocol guidelines it develops.
In order to maximize the scope and size of the marijuana
studies, the program may do any of the following:
(1) Solicit, apply for, and accept funds from foundations, private
individuals, and all other funding sources that can be used to
expand the scope or timeframe of the marijuana studies that are
authorized under this section. The program shall not expend more than
5 percent of its General Fund allocation in efforts to obtain money
from outside sources.
(2) Include within the scope of the marijuana studies other
marijuana research projects that are independently funded and that
meet the requirements set forth in subdivisions (a) to (c),
inclusive. In no case shall the program accept any funds that are
offered with any conditions other than that the funds be used to
study the efficacy and safety of marijuana as part of medical
treatment. Any donor shall be advised that funds given for purposes
of this section will be used to study both the possible benefits and
detriments of marijuana and that he or she will have no control over
the use of these funds.
(o) (1) Within six months of the effective date of this section,
the program shall report to the Legislature, the Governor, and the
Attorney General on the progress of the marijuana studies.
(2) Thereafter, the program shall issue a report to the
Legislature every six months detailing the progress of the studies.
The interim reports required under this paragraph shall include, but
not be limited to, data on all of the following:
(A) The names and number of diseases or conditions under study.
(B) The number of patients enrolled in each study by disease.
(C) Any scientifically valid preliminary findings.
(p) If the Regents of the University of California implement this
section, the President of the University of California shall appoint
a multidisciplinary Scientific Advisory Council, not to exceed 15
members, to provide policy guidance in the creation and
implementation of the program. Members shall be chosen on the basis
of scientific expertise. Members of the council shall serve on a
voluntary basis, with reimbursement for expenses incurred in the
course of their participation. The members shall be reimbursed for
travel and other necessary expenses incurred in their performance of
the duties of the council.
(q) No more than 10 percent of the total funds appropriated may be
used for all aspects of the administration of this section.
(r) This section shall be implemented only to the extent that
funding for its purposes is appropriated by the Legislature in the
annual Budget Act.

as you can see the bill (TC2010) specifically addresses prop.215 (aka) h&s 11392.7--.9 (aka)the compassionate use act by saying

"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."

legal thinking takes more than knee jerk reactions.

mr. peron is either ignorant of how the wording of laws works(which seems odd seeing as how he authored 215)or there is some other motive for his deception about TC2010 and 215.

i know this is alot to read but to truly understand laws you have to do the cross referencing

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Ok, so your name is only on seeds and you have never made any money off weed ever. Hey if thats the case good for you. Seems unlikely, but whatever.... All seed is overpriced imo... Nature of the game at the moment.

And what about the price growers charge dispensaries or the dispensaries charge patients? Overpriced? Legalization will lower the prices.
And gee you are so nice to believe me, All I said was that my prices were the lowest in the industry, by a long shot...

-SamS

 

[Guest 88950]

Prop 19 doesn't create a legal market though. Like ive said before, if prop 19 mandated a legal market, set licensing fees, taxes, etc for commercial operators, etc. I would be far more likely to vote for it. They just passed it off to local governments which for the most part will not allow sales. And the ones that do, such as Oakland, it will likely be a very limited number of people who will get in on a legal market. They are already trying to do that without prop 19.

how is Legalized and Regulated still illegal.

everything has regulations. if you dont like rules and regulations then do things outside the scope of the law.

by your way of thinking tobacco, alcohol and every other commodity sold in the USA is illegal.

why, b/c they have rules and regulations that they MUST follow to play in a CAPITALIST market.

275k to enter the Legal Canna Trade....not bad b/c if KrunchB is right and he can make a couple million in months.

if you dont intend on selling Cannabis then these regulations and taxes do not apply.

if you still disagree then MOVE to another Country that has NO regulations or rules that you have to follow.

our country, good or bad, funds itself by taxes and most regulations are put in place to protect the idiots of our society and to ensure greed doesnt replace safe practices.

ie: making products are not manufactured with toxic chemicals, making sure food is free from e-coli, making sure theres no led in paint, toyota cars stop.....

i beginning to wonder that ALL the Good Jack Herer has done will be clouded by some that has taken ONE point that he has made and bandwagon that point to the point that prop19 fails.

the point about not comprimising on the tax and regulation of Cannabis. that is where his attemps at moving legalization forward has failed.

 

[CaptainTrips]

how is Legalized and Regulated still illegal.

everything has regulations. if you dont like rules and regulations then do things outside the scope of the law.

by your way of thinking tobacco, alcohol and every other commodity sold in the USA is illegal.

why, b/c they have rules and regulations that they MUST follow to play in a CAPITALIST market.

275k to enter the Legal Canna Trade....not bad b/c if KrunchB is right and he can make a couple million in months.

How is a a 275k tax fair, right, or neccessary? Who is this money going to? Most likely designed so only big biz can enter, with no legal competition from the small guy. 275k is outrageous. What other consumable has such an entry fee?

 

[dagnabit]

How is a a 275k tax fair, right, or neccessary? Who is this money going to? Most likely designed so only big biz can enter, with no legal competition from the small guy. 275k is outrageous. What other consumable has such an entry fee?

taking into account liability insurance, liquor licenses,a.t.f. regs and fees,

opening a large scale distillery or brewery would have commiserate governmental administrative costs.

the detriment will probably be lost federal stimulus tax incentives for the potential new business owner.

 

[CaptainTrips]

I doubt opening a craft distillery takes 275k. Perhaps it does. Im talking purely in taxes/fees paid to the government. And why should something as benign as weed be taxes/regulated the same as alcohol?

 

[dagnabit]

I doubt opening a craft distillery takes 275k. Perhaps it does. Im talking purely in taxes/fees paid to the government. And why should something as benign as weed be taxes/regulated the same as alcohol?

because it is the closest allegory the masses will accept at present.

just look at how hard and how expensive it is to get a liquor license.

 

[Guest 88950]

How is a a 275k tax fair, right, or neccessary? Who is this money going to? Most likely designed so only big biz can enter, with no legal competition from the small guy. 275k is outrageous. What other consumable has such an entry fee?

its not a 275k tax.

ill answer after you inform me on how Legalized and Regulated is illegal.

i couldnt tell you the fees associated with consumables but what legal business is started for free.

275k isnt bad b/c in the product development field that is a drop in the bucket. hell, some products have moulds that cost more than that, all for products sold for under $50. when you amortize the the start up and production costs over X # of units, # of lbs in Cannabis, the costs are reasonable.

im not sure if you have any expierence in starting a business but fees, taxes and regulations are a necessary evil.

if there were no checks & balances and people were free to operate a business however they see fit then there would be those who sacrifice public safety for profit. a builder building homes that do not withstand earthquakes, a food company packaging contaminated food, etc...

even with rules, regulations and threat of jail there are those whowill always put profit before public safety.

is it right if a person vending Cannabis Consumables to med patients doesnt keep their food prep area clean and virus/bacteria free and people get sick. regulations will limit unsafe practices regarding the Medical Cannabis industry.

 

[CaptainTrips]

its not a 275k tax.

ill answer after you inform me on how Legalized and Regulated is illegal.

Where did I say legalized and regulated is illegal?

 

[trichrider]

Thank You Marc Emory.
You have done more to advance this cause than any before you.
Those millions of seeds you alledgedly distributed fostered awareness in many.
These cannabis cultivators are now on the verge of gaining acceptance.

oh yeah...vote or don't, it makes little matter...

“Those who vote decide nothing…
Those who count the votes decide everything.”
Joseph Stalin

 

[Guest 88950]

Prop 19 doesn't create a legal market though...

i was responding to this statment.

i injected that Taxing and Regulating an industry indicates it Legal.

sorry, you didnt say that but explain what prop19 does then?

it makes it Legal for adults over 21 to use/purchase/cultivate Cannabis doesnt it?

 

[CaptainTrips]

i was responding to this statment.

i injected that Taxing and Regulating an industry indicates it Legal.

sorry, you didnt say that but explain what prop19 does then?

it makes it Legal for adults over 21 to use/purchase/cultivate Cannabis doesnt it?

It legalizes possession of 28 grams (what happens if you go over?), but leaves sales up to local govs, as far as I know selling will still be illegal unless your city/county sets up some sort of legal framework. The "purchase" part of your equasion is a big question mark, nobody really knows how the state or local governments (not to mention fed) will respond if it passes.

 

[215forLife]

Capttrips sacramento has allready responded by dedciding to tax medical cannabis.