Prop 19 is a trojan horse just like Prop 215.
Vote YES or NO on Prop 19
- Thread starter Feb2006er
- Start date
- Status
We've been through this repeatedly. Al isn't one to let the truth get in the way of a good story!
Hey dude you are WRONG! Have you EVER lived in CA? We are discussing CA laws here, not your pals the FEDERAL DEA.
California parents hippies or no are NOT subject to having their children taken away over weed.
To say that currently CA has a problem with MJ smoking around kids is a lie. Remember 28 or so years ago "Fast Times at Ridgemont High"? Well Californian's attitude towards weed is pretty mellow AND there are NO LAWS against smoking weed in front of kids.
Prop 19 would change that for the worse and NOTHING you can say about the DEA or other pigs will make that statement untrue.
Hey dude you are WRONG! Have you EVER lived in CA? We are discussing CA laws here, not your pals the FEDERAL DEA.
California parents hippies or no are NOT subject to having their children taken away over weed.
To say that currently CA has a problem with MJ smoking around kids is a lie. Remember 28 or so years ago "Fast Times at Ridgemont High"? Well Californian's attitude towards weed is pretty mellow AND there are NO LAWS against smoking weed in front of kids.
Prop 19 would change that for the worse and NOTHING you can say about the DEA or other pigs will make that statement untrue.
umm i site california health and saftey and criminal code you site fast times at ridgemont high?
okie dokie....
again read 272-a-1 as referenced by prop 19.
wouldnt they be your pals in the dea?
you are both in favor of continued prohibition after all...
Hey dude you are WRONG! Have you EVER lived in CA? We are discussing CA laws here, not your pals the FEDERAL DEA.
California parents hippies or no are NOT subject to having their children taken away over weed.
To say that currently CA has a problem with MJ smoking around kids is a lie. Remember 28 or so years ago "Fast Times at Ridgemont High"? Well Californian's attitude towards weed is pretty mellow AND there are NO LAWS against smoking weed in front of kids.
Prop 19 would change that for the worse and NOTHING you can say about the DEA or other pigs will make that statement untrue.
I had CPS here about this very thing-- https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=86270
They told me that when they interview my daughter, that she told them I never smoke with her in the room, but I did not hide it either--
They told me, that if I had been smoking with her in the room...they would have had to investigate further, with it possible that we would have had to take Parenting classes, and be on Probation--
CPS does recognize 215...but no, you cannot smoke in the same room as your kids--
not a single NEW penalty if you just do the cross referencing..
just read H&S 272-1-a as referenced by 19 and you will understand the "child endangerment" provision in 19 is actually a LESSENING of current law!
this new penalty for possession/use in the presence of a minor is bullshit made up by a prohibitionist whore named "dragonfly".
and 19 does not mention bbq
I've read the entire proposal many times:
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/text-proposed-laws.pdf
(c) “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this act shall permit, cannabis:
(1) Possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to Section 11301.
(2) Consumption in public or in a public place.
(3) Consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat, or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator.
(4) Smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.
If "Personal consumption" is legal ONLY through prop 19 and the language of prop 19 (C4 above) specifically says that NO AUTHORIZATION is made for smoking around kids then one could argue that it makes no change HOWEVER:
The specific language of the intent section # 2 says that this PROP does NOT modify 272, therefore Prop 19 can not lesson penalties.
2. This act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of the following state laws relating to public health and safety or protection of children and others: Section 11357 (relating to possession on school grounds), Section 11361 (relating to minors, as amended herein), Section 11379.6 (relating to chemical production), or Section 11532 (relating to loitering to commit a crime or acts not authorized by law) of the Health and Safety Code; Section 23152 of the Vehicle Code (relating to driving while under the influence); Section 272 of the Penal Code (relating to contributing to the delinquency of a minor); or any law prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve public safety.
Prop 19 also unnecessarily (IMO) adds these criminal penalties:
(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.
(c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each offense.
What seems very interesting to me is if an 18 year old gave weed to his 18 year old buddy NO PROBLEM. But let that kid go to college get a little older then the 21 year old man can expect to be IMPRISONED for 6 months and fined $1,000 if he passes a joint to a 20 year old.
The wording where Prop 19 has no penalties against an 18 year old giving weed to minors 18, 19, and 20, but has STRONG penalties for a 21 year old giving weed to a 20 year old makes no logical sense.
I had CPS here about this very thing-- https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=86270
They told me that when they interview my daughter, that she told them I never smoke with her in the room, but I did not hide it either--
They told me, that if I had been smoking with her in the room...they would have had to investigate further, with it possible that we would have had to take Parenting classes, and be on Probation--
CPS does recognize 215...but no, you cannot smoke in the same room as your kids--
But going to town on Marlboro and pounding Budweiser in the same studio apartment as your kids is perfectly fine, correct?
I wish all CA parents who smoked cigarettes were subject to parenting classes and probation.
did you read 272-a-1?
the penalties in 19 are (since you have size issues....) less than existing penalties for contributing..
for 18-21 year olds..sorry bout 'ya but to continue to criminalize the rest of the adult population because they will still need a rec?
i think your full of shit.
what is the REAL objection since 19 LESSENS penalties for contributing!
nice try..
i guess if you LIE IN BIG ENOUGH LETTERS someone will believe you.
the penalties in 19 are (since you have size issues....) less than existing penalties for contributing..
for 18-21 year olds..sorry bout 'ya but to continue to criminalize the rest of the adult population because they will still need a rec?
i think your full of shit.
what is the REAL objection since 19 LESSENS penalties for contributing!
nice try..
i guess if you LIE IN BIG ENOUGH LETTERS someone will believe you.
do you find it duplicitous that an 18 y/o can fuck a 17 y/o but a 50 y/o would be imprisoned for 15 years?What seems very interesting to me is if an 18 year old gave weed to his 18 year old buddy NO PROBLEM. But let that kid go to college get a little older then the 21 year old man can expect to be IMPRISONED for 6 months and fined $1,000 if he passes a joint to a 20 year old.
not a single "lets pass the right bill in 2012" liar has nutted up on these questions yet!!!
I do personally have a problem with sliding unequal laws. If a 17y/o is thought to be old enough to consent then it should not matter if he or she chose to fuck an 18yr old or a 50yr old.
Now if Prop 19 has no penalties for a 19 year old handing a joint to an 18 year old, how does it make LEGAL sense that the day the older person turns 21 they are now a criminal for doing the exact same thing that they have been doing for two years?
Now for your 272-a-1 which Prop 19 is NOT intended to modify.
272. (a) (1) Every person who commits any act or omits the
performance of any duty, which act or omission causes or tends to
cause or encourage any person under the age of 18 years to come
within the provisions of Section 300, 601, or 602 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code or which act or omission contributes thereto, or
any person who, by any act or omission, or by threats, commands, or
persuasion, induces or endeavors to induce any person under the age
of 18 years or any ward or dependent child of the juvenile court to
fail or refuse to conform to a lawful order of the juvenile court, or
to do or to perform any act or to follow any course of conduct or to
so live as would cause or manifestly tend to cause that person to
become or to remain a person within the provisions of Section 300,
601, or 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, is guilty of a
misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine
not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by
imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by
both fine and imprisonment in a county jail, or may be released on
probation for a period not exceeding five years.
Prop 19:
(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.
So it appears that the penalties go from county jail "Not more than one year" to state prison for a period of "Three, four, or five years." Help me understand how prison instead of jail and five years instead of one is lessoning penalties. It would appear that Prop 19 moves misdemeanor violation to the status of felonies and then locks up people for 3 - 5 years.
you wont get one. None of these questions are actually relevant. If they would do there reserch for them we would not have to keep citing case law back at them. Not all Parents should be parents. I think we all know that. These are the parents that send the wrong message to there children need some help and should seek it out. I dont drink,smoke in front of the kids. we have our place in the Garage that we can go to take our meds or have a beer. The kids know this area is off limits when the sign is turned on unless off a emergency then they knock. When they where young we would trade off and let me tell you it helps. The wife would go and relax for an hr do her thing and then tag me and off I would go.
I do personally have a problem with sliding unequal laws. If a 17y/o is thought to be old enough to consent then it should not matter if he or she chose to fuck an 18yr old or a 50yr old.
Now if Prop 19 has no penalties for a 19 year old handing a joint to an 18 year old, how does it make LEGAL sense that the day the older person turns 21 they are now a criminal for doing the exact same thing that they have been doing for two years?
Now for your 272-a-1 which Prop 19 is NOT intended to modify.
272. (a) (1) Every person who commits any act or omits the
performance of any duty, which act or omission causes or tends to
cause or encourage any person under the age of 18 years to come
within the provisions of Section 300, 601, or 602 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code or which act or omission contributes thereto, or
any person who, by any act or omission, or by threats, commands, or
persuasion, induces or endeavors to induce any person under the age
of 18 years or any ward or dependent child of the juvenile court to
fail or refuse to conform to a lawful order of the juvenile court, or
to do or to perform any act or to follow any course of conduct or to
so live as would cause or manifestly tend to cause that person to
become or to remain a person within the provisions of Section 300,
601, or 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, is guilty of a
misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine
not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by
imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by
both fine and imprisonment in a county jail, or may be released on
probation for a period not exceeding five years.
Prop 19:
(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.
So it appears that the penalties go from county jail "Not more than one year" to state prison for a period of "Three, four, or five years." Help me understand how prison instead of jail and five years instead of one is lessoning penalties. It would appear that Prop 19 moves misdemeanor violation to the status of felonies and then locks up people for 3 - 5 years.
maybe your reading comprehension sux but there re TWO separate issues here
for the 18-21 year olds...i said before..damn the bad luck! have to keep doing EXACTLY what you are doing now, go get a rec.
i dont see absolutely nothing changing for 18-21 year olds as a valid reason to deny adults the right to grow in their own homes do you?
arent you the same one who said leo act like its fast times at ridgemont high?
so they all of the sudden will change that when 19 passes?
remember 19 is intended to limit enforcement of existing law.
But going to town on Marlboro and pounding Budweiser in the same studio apartment as your kids is perfectly fine, correct?
I wish all CA parents who smoked cigarettes were subject to parenting classes and probation.
Bro, I couldn't agree with you more!!
I was just stating how it is...not how it should be--
where is the "right bill"?
There should be no bill needed to recognize our unalienable rights
what does it say?
In a perfect world, the US Supreme Court would overturn decades of bad precedent and state: "The privacy protections and guarantees found in the US Constitution prohibit the government from infringing on any INDIVIDUALS right to grow or use cannabis."
The Alaska Supreme Court has made a similar ruling and Alaskan's are constitutionally guaranteed their right to privacy which includes the use and possession of MJ on their property.
who is paying to get it on the ballot?
Unfortunately we all pay for all the laws that change. If we see progress through court rulings then we all pay because we pay for the courts. If we see progress through the legislature than we all pay because these pig like politicians all draw salaries and graft. If we see progress through initiative we all pay because the new law seeks to restrict our right to privacy.
who is paying for the marketing?
Again we are all paying (some more than others), with our time thoughts dollars and personal lobbying efforts.
Don't wait until 2012 or Nov 2010 exercise your UNALIENABLE rights and OverGrow the planet today and if you ever get on a jury exercise your right to JURY NULLIFICATION. If juries would refuse to convict for non-violet drug offenses this war would come to a screeching halt. Seth MacFarlane (creator of The Family Guy) has been JURY NULLIFICATION for years.
- Status
