What's new
  • ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

Status
Not open for further replies.

JJScorpio

Thunderstruck
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Here is a copy of the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010proposed for the State of California. I'll post this here so people can read it and then make an informed decision regarding it.....

http://yes19.org/initiative.pdf


CONTROL&TAX
The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 Title and Summary: Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed. Initiative Statute. Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products. Section 1: Name This Act shall be known as the “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.”
Section 2: Findings, Intent and Purposes This Act, adopted by the People of the State of California, makes the following Findings and Statement of Intent and Purpose: A. Findings 1. California’s laws criminalizing cannabis (marijuana) have failed and need to be reformed. Despite spending decades arresting millions of non-violent cannabis consumers, we have failed to control cannabis or reduce its availability. 2. According to surveys, roughly 100 million Americans (around 1/3 of the country’s population) acknowledge that they have used cannabis, 15 million of those Americans having consumed cannabis in the last month. Cannabis consumption is simply a fact of life for a large percentage of Americans. 3. Despite having some of the strictest cannabis laws in the world, the United States has the largest number of cannabis consumers. The percentage of our citizens who consume cannabis is double that of the percentage of people who consume cannabis in the Netherlands, a country where the selling and adult possession of cannabis is allowed. 4. According to The National Research Council’s recent study of the 11 U.S. states where cannabis is currently decriminalized, there is little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions and the rate of consumption. 5. Cannabis has fewer harmful effects than either alcohol or cigarettes, which are both legal for adult consumption. Cannabis is not physically addictive, does not have long term toxic effects on the body, and does not cause its consumers to become violent. 6. There is an estimated $15 billion in illegal cannabis transactions in California each year. Taxing and regulating cannabis, like we do with alcohol and cigarettes, will generate billions of dollars in annual revenues for California to fund what matters most to Californians: jobs, health care, schools and libraries, roads, and more. 7. California wastes millions of dollars a year targeting, arresting, trying, convicting, and imprisoning non-violent citizens for cannabis related offenses. This money would be better used to combat violent crimes and gangs. 8. The illegality of cannabis enables for the continuation of an out-of-control criminal market, which in turn spawns other illegal and often violent activities. Establishing legal, regulated sales outlets would put dangerous street dealers out of business.

B. Purposes 1. Reform California’s cannabis laws in a way that will benefit our state. 2. Regulate cannabis like we do alcohol: Allow adults to possess and consume small amounts of cannabis. 3. Implement a legal regulatory framework to give California more control over the cultivation, processing, transportation, distribution, and sales of cannabis. 4. Implement a legal regulatory framework to better police and prevent access to and consumption of cannabis by minors in California. 5. Put dangerous, underground street dealers out of business, so their influence in our communities will fade. 6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes. 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. 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. 9. Tax and regulate cannabis to generate billions of dollars for our state and local governments to fund what matters most: jobs, healthcare, schools and libraries, parks, roads, transportation, and more. 10. Stop arresting thousands of non-violent cannabis consumers, freeing up police resources and saving millions of dollars each year, which could be used for apprehending truly dangerous criminals and keeping them locked up, and for other essential state needs that lack funding. 11. Allow the Legislature to adopt a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry. 12. Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes. 13. Permit California to fulfill the state’s obligations under the United States Constitution to enact laws concerning health, morals, public welfare and safety within the State. 14. Permit the cultivation of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption. C. Intent 1. This Act is intended to limit the application and enforcement of state and local laws relating to possession, transportation, cultivation, consumption and sale of cannabis, including but not limited to the following, whether now existing or adopted in the future: Health and Safety Code sections 11014.5 and 11364.5 [relating to drug paraphernalia]; 11054 [relating to cannabis or tetrahydrocannabinols]; 11357 [relating to possession]; 11358 [relating to cultivation]; 11359 [possession for sale]; 11360 [relating to transportation and sales]; 11366 [relating to maintenance of places]; 11366.5 [relating to use of property]; 11370 [relating to punishment]; 11470 [relating to forfeiture]; 11479 [relating to seizure and destruction]; 11703 [relating to definitions regarding illegal substances]; 11705 [actions for use of illegal controlled substance]; Vehicle Code sections 23222 and 40000.15 [relating to possession]. 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: Health and Safety Code sections 11357 [relating to possession on school grounds]; 11361 [relating to minors as amended herein]; 11379.6 [relating to chemical production]; 11532 [relating to loitering to commit a crime or acts not authorized by law]; Vehicle Code section 23152 [relating to driving while under the influence]; Penal Code section 272 [relating to contributing to the delinquency of a minor]; nor any law prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve public safety.

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. (ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands. (iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption. (iv) Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection. (b) “Personal consumption” shall include but is not limited to possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other non-public place, and shall include licensed premises open to the public authorized to permit on-premises consumption of cannabis by a local government pursuant to section 11301. (c) “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis: (i) 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; (ii) consumption in public or in a public place; (iii) consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator; (iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.
Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following: (a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized; (b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale; (c) appropriate controls on cultivation, transportation, sales, and consumption of cannabis to strictly prohibit access to cannabis by persons under the age of 21; (d) age limits and controls to ensure that all persons present in, employed by, or in any way involved in the operation of, any such licensed premises are 21 or older; (e) consumption of cannabis within licensed premises; (f) safe and secure transportation of cannabis from a licensed premises for cultivation or processing, to a licensed premises for sale or on-premises consumption of cannabis; (g) prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300;

(h) appropriate controls on licensed premises for sale, cultivation, processing, or sale and on-premises consumption, of cannabis, including limits on zoning and land use, locations, size, hours of operation, occupancy, protection of adjoining and nearby properties and persons from unwanted exposure, advertising, signs and displays, and other controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare; (i) appropriate environmental and public health controls to ensure that any licensed premises minimizes any harm to the environment, adjoining and nearby landowners, and persons passing by; (j) appropriate controls to restrict public displays, or public consumption of cannabis; (k) appropriate taxes or fees pursuant to section 11302; (l) such larger amounts as the local authority deems appropriate and proper under local circumstances, than those established under section 11300(a) for personal possession and cultivation, or under this section for commercial cultivation, processing, transportation and sale by persons authorized to do so under this section; (m) any other appropriate controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare. Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees (a) Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities. (b) Any licensed premises shall be responsible for paying all federal, state and local taxes, fees, fines, penalties or other financial responsibility imposed on all or similarly situated businesses, facilities or premises, including without limitation income taxes, business taxes, license fees, and property taxes, without regard to or identification of the business or items or services sold. Section 11303: Seizure (a) Notwithstanding sections 11470 and 11479 of the Health and Safety Code or any other provision of law, no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact seize or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is lawfully cultivated, processed, transported, possessed, possessed for sale, sold or used in compliance with this Act or any local government ordinance, law or regulation adopted pursuant to this Act.
Section 11304: Effect of Act and Definitions (a) This Act shall not be construed to affect, limit or amend any statute that forbids impairment while engaging in dangerous activities such as driving, or that penalizes bringing cannabis to a school enrolling pupils in any grade from kindergarten through 12, inclusive. (b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed or interpreted to permit interstate or international transportation of cannabis. This Act shall be construed to permit a person to transport cannabis in a safe and secure manner from a licensed premises in one city or county to a licensed premises in another city or county pursuant to any ordinances adopted in such cities or counties, notwithstanding any other state law or the lack of any such ordinance in the intervening cities or counties. (c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.

(d) Definitions For purposes of this Act: (i) “Marijuana” and “cannabis” are interchangeable terms that mean all parts of the plant Genus Cannabis, whether growing or not; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; concentrated cannabis; edible products containing same; and every active compound, manufacture, derivative, or preparation of the plant, or resin. (ii) “One ounce” means 28.5 grams. (iii) For purposes of section 11300(a)(ii) “cannabis plant” means all parts of a living Cannabis plant. (iv) In determining whether an amount of cannabis is or is not in excess of the amounts permitted by this Act, the following shall apply: (a) only the active amount of the cannabis in an edible cannabis product shall be included; (b) living and harvested cannabis plants shall be assessed by square footage, not by weight in determining the amounts set forth in section 11300(a); (c) in a criminal proceeding a person accused of violating a limitation in this Act shall have the right to an affirmative defense that the cannabis was reasonably related to his or her personal consumption. (v) “residence” means a dwelling or structure, whether permanent or temporary, on private or public property, intended for occupation by a person or persons for residential purposes, and includes that portion of any structure intended for both commercial and residential purposes. (vi) “local government” means a city, county, or city and county. (vii) “licensed premises” is any commercial business, facility, building, land or area that has a license, permit or is otherwise authorized to cultivate, process, transport, sell, or permit on-premises consumption, of cannabis pursuant to any ordinance or regulation adopted by a local government pursuant to section 11301, or any subsequently enacted state statute or regulation. Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors Section 11361 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors (a) Every person 18 years of age or over who hires, employs, or uses a minor in transporting, carrying, selling, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling any marijuana, who unlawfully sells, or offers to sell, any marijuana to a minor, or who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give any marijuana to a minor under 14 years of age, or who induces a minor to use marijuana in violation of law shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years. (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 $1,000 for each offense. (d) In addition to the penalties above, any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to perform any act pursuant to Section 11301, who while so licensed, permitted or authorized, negligently furnishes, administers, gives or sells, or offers to furnish, administer, give or sell, any marijuana to any person younger than 21 years of age shall not be permitted to own, operate, be employed by, assist or enter any licensed premises authorized under Section 11301 for a period of one year.

Section 5: Amendment Pursuant to Article 2, section 10(c) of the California Constitution, this Act may be amended either by a subsequent measure submitted to a vote of the People at a statewide election; or by statute validly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, but only to further the purposes of the Act. Such permitted amendments include but are not limited to: (a) Amendments to the limitations in section 11300, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations. (b) Statutes and authorize regulations to further the purposes of the Act to establish a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry that addresses some or all of the items referenced in Sections 11301 and 11302. (c) Laws to authorize the production of hemp or non-active cannabis for horticultural and industrial purposes. Section 6: Severability If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.
 
Last edited:
"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. (ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel."

This means that if I have 150 acres, I can only grow in 25 square feet! I may possess all I harvest, but only on the property?
 

karmical

Active member
It must be missing the part that says this will strike down all medical marijuana patient rights and protection provided therein.
:biggrin:
 
Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following: (a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized; (b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale; (c) appropriate controls on cultivation, transportation, sales, and consumption of cannabis to strictly prohibit access to cannabis by persons under the age of 21; (d) age limits and controls to ensure that all persons present in, employed by, or in any way involved in the operation of, any such licensed premises are 21 or older; (e) consumption of cannabis within licensed premises; (f) safe and secure transportation of cannabis from a licensed premises for cultivation or processing, to a licensed premises for sale or on-premises consumption of cannabis; (g) prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300;


Not cool with this one either. How do you stop a monopoly from occuring if, as Oakland just passed licencing 4 commercial operations, allowing thoseto service the state, and then allowing counties and cities from BANNING cannabis production because they could just buy from oakland? Richard Lee set this whole thing in motion to position himself to get rich.
 
It must be missing the part that says this will strike down all medical marijuana patient rights and protection provided therein.
:biggrin:


I don't remember reading that part. and if anyone 21 or older can use recreationally, then you don't need those dispensaries anymore, right? Richard Lee owns one, is gonna get a warehouse permit for one, and may get his own initiatve to pass so he can supply all of california.
 

JJScorpio

Thunderstruck
ICMag Donor
Veteran
It must be missing the part that says this will strike down all medical marijuana patient rights and protection provided therein.
:biggrin:

If you can't read and don't know what sections say what why even bother commenting? Take a few minutes and research this.

“except as permitted under Health and Safety Section 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9″.
 

joedub

Member
I think it's good that he commented, because I've also heard that it would override our sb215, my biggest reason for opposing this is that it will monopolize the industry for the greedy corporate type that can afford the $211,000 year permit fees, everyone else only allowed an oz? and if your over then your a criminal? so much for decriminalization. just newer tighter leash for us under the name decriminalization for adults... so replacing non violent drug offenders in jail ages 21+ w/ people ages 18-20, and anyone caught w/ over an oz.? This is a bad policy overall, we should wait for a real legalization effort not fueled by greed. we don't need to be the first state to mess up and sign up for something bad, we can speak up and make them legalize the right way not for the profit of a few, but for the good of the country.
There are obvious flaws in the way Prop19 is written(SB215 despite being written a little bit better still lead to us being prosecuted in grey areas of the law mainly relating to amounts and permits) that can/will be exploited by the authorities to arrest and jail more non violent drug offenders. Some are arguing that this might help others see legalization sooner, but at the cost of what will hurt us for sure.
 

BiG H3rB Tr3E

"No problem can be solved from the same level of c
Veteran
your name is reality checker and you think 1 cat can supply millions upon millions of smokers. how fucking delusional are you???? Lee's weed is fucking G-A-R-B-A-G-E,, expanding his operations is only going to ensure this further. If you want to lock down the most mediocre highest yielding no flavor trashweed and grow 1000s of lbs of it ... be my guest. Because cali cats dont smoke that bushshit. So you know who will wind up with it... bEAST cOAST !!!!!!:jump:
 

igrowone

Well-known member
Veteran
... my biggest reason for opposing this is that it will monopolize the industry for the greedy corporate type that can afford the $211,000 year permit fees...

the MMJ factory situation seems to be independent of prop 19
prop 19 can go down in flames and these factories seem ready to go up either way
 

bird

Active member
i wonder how many people that are against this actually sat down and read the whole thing??????
 

GanjaAL

Member
your name is reality checker and you think 1 cat can supply millions upon millions of smokers. how fucking delusional are you???? Lee's weed is fucking G-A-R-B-A-G-E,, expanding his operations is only going to ensure this further. If you want to lock down the most mediocre highest yielding no flavor trashweed and grow 1000s of lbs of it ... be my guest. Because cali cats dont smoke that bushshit. So you know who will wind up with it... bEAST cOAST !!!!!!:jump:

Yea but with Mr. Richard Lee opening 4(2 in Oak town and 2 in SoCal) of this monster facilities cranking out a whopping total of 240#'s of marijane a day... he is giving it a real good try.

I hear alot about how it is going to be dirt weed but with all the money he stands to make... do you not think he can hire some of the best growers in the world and the best R&D guys money can buy in order to produce the dankest weed in the world????

I think so... he dared to dream and now for him it is coming true once his prop19 passes.

It was never about legailization... it was always about controling the market.

Taxation is not legalization.

Decriminalization is legalization.

When prop 19 passes... don't step out of the cages slave... or you will be punished.
 

jdkronyk101

Active member
it appears to me that medical limits and collective rights will still be valid. meaning the only people other than the corporates that will be permitted to exceed the limits described in the bill actually are the patients and collectives themselves. i highly doubt that every city will jump on the oakland bandwagon, in fact many will ban it outright. so the patients and the collectives will still controll the "niche market" of high end boutique quality cannabis. and if that is correct , i say let them grow all the schwag they want.
it preserves the patient/collective rights. and you definitely cant overgrow the govt with a 5' X 5' area. so i dont actually see the economy dropping out completely. just the days of a $2000 an hour job with your barn sized indoor farm are over. and for one im ok with that. i believe that we as medical farmers will still be able to make a fair wage for our labors, and it will definitely raise the quality bar just like mmj did in the first place...
i wonder this though what of the seed market? will that be a new venture for cali breeders? and also think of the jobs in security and transportation, fair trade labor possibilities , and amnesty for non violent offenders. these are issues we should discuss as we move toward november.
great post jj
jd
 

GanjaAL

Member
raise the quality bar just like mmj did in the first place...
i wonder this though what of the seed market? will that be a new venture for cali breeders? and also think of the jobs in security and transportation, fair trade labor possibilities , and amnesty for non violent offenders. these are issues we should discuss as we move toward november.
great post jj
jd

Mr. Lee I am sure is working on that...;)
 

igrowone

Well-known member
Veteran
Yea but with Mr. Richard Lee opening 4(2 in Oak town and 2 in SoCal) of this monster facilities cranking out a whopping total of 240#'s of marijane a day... he is giving it a real good try.

from what i've seen in other thread posts, this is not Lee's doing
it's a consortium of other club/dispensary owners
Lee may well be making similar plans, what choice does he have if this is the way the biz is going?
 

subrob

Well-known member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
two ways of looking at this:
---what does it mean for me today?
--what does this mean for the movement in the future?

some questions to ask yourself before deciding to vote
------before you make up your mind on how to vote, decide which camp you are in. do you want to help the movement? or do you wanna take your frustrations w the federal system out on the movement? do you wanna move forward w legalization or do you want to hamper progress? do you want to help change the face of cannabis reality in the state, country and world? or do you wanna argue that jack didnt like paying taxes? progress? or take a chance that a canna friendly individual (who, yes, will get rich) will spend a couple million maybe next year to get something else passed? or maybe the year after...or maaaaaaaaybe sometime this decade? hey, ive got a thought...maybe a critical mass has been reached, and the government will at some time step in and do it themselves out of desperation...oooo...wouldnt that just please us all?
---if you are not currently making tens of thousands of dollars a month off "patients" i do not see, under any circumstances, how you can be against this....its not perfect...but its the best we got. DO NOT listen to people who have a vested interest in the status quo...kinda mirrors federal policy....in that they dont want change....its even mirrored in the way the anti19 people argue....go through the threads on the subject not w the intent to learn anything about the bill...but just to see the general flow of the arguments...(not too see whos the biggest asshole, cuz that was probably me, and that doesnt help my argument)which side has a moral argument? which side presents more facts? which side relies, almost solely, on scare tactics, hearsay, beliefs of idols and "what ifs" and " i thinks"....anyways...i hit the coffee machine again....cant believe this is such a heated battle on a cannabis website! hahaha...
EDIT--- that is not too say that extremely valid points and GENUINE concern regarding this bill, what it does, and its origins have not been brought to the table by the opposition....just, for me personally, its just not enough to overcome the obvious need to get this bill passed if we have a chance....while i AM an asshole, i certainly share many concerns expressed. in fairness to the 'yea' side though, when these points are being recycled over and over, and worse, by dispensary owners, who, regardless of rhetoric, really just wanna keep thier wallets fat..they tend to lose the weight they deserve...and i have nothing against the dispensaries or the growers who supply them or even the perversion of the "medical laws" that has gone on here in cali...i have no moral issues whatsoever w what has happened....BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE MOVEMENT AS A WHOLE!
 
Last edited:

EndtheWAR420

New member
two ways of looking at this:
---what does it mean for me today?
--what does this mean for the movement in the future?

some questions to ask yourself before deciding to vote
------before you make up your mind on how to vote, decide which camp you are in. do you want to help the movement? or do you wanna take your frustrations w the federal system out on the movement? do you wanna move forward w legalization or do you want to hamper progress? do you want to help change the face of cannabis reality in the state, country and world? or do you wanna argue that jack didnt like paying taxes? progress? or take a chance that a canna friendly individual (who, yes, will get rich) will spend a couple million maybe next year to get something else passed? or maybe the year after...or maaaaaaaaybe sometime this decade? hey, ive got a thought...maybe a critical mass has been reached, and the government will at some time step in and do it themselves out of desperation...oooo...wouldnt that just please us all?
---if you are not currently making tens of thousands of dollars a month off "patients" i do not see, under any circumstances, how you can be against this....its not perfect...but its the best we got. DO NOT listen to people who have a vested interest in the status quo...kinda mirrors federal policy....in that they dont want change....its even mirrored in the way the anti19 people argue....go through the threads on the subject not w the intent to learn anything about the bill...but just to see the general flow of the arguments...(not too see whos the biggest asshole, cuz that was probably me, and that doesnt help my argument)which side has a moral argument? which side presents more facts? which side relies, almost solely, on scare tactics, hearsay, beliefs of idols and "what ifs" and " i thinks"....anyways...i hit the coffee machine again....cant believe this is such a heated battle on a cannabis website! hahaha...
EDIT--- that is not too say that extremely valid points and GENUINE concern regarding this bill, what it does, and its origins have not been brought to the table by the opposition....just, for me personally, its just not enough to overcome the obvious need to get this bill passed if we have a chance....while i AM an asshole, i certainly share many concerns expressed. in fairness to the 'yea' side though, when these points are being recycled over and over, and worse, by dispensary owners, who, regardless of rhetoric, really just wanna keep thier wallets fat..they tend to lose the weight they deserve...and i have nothing against the dispensaries or the growers who supply them or even the perversion of the "medical laws" that has gone on here in cali...i have no moral issues whatsoever w what has happened....BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE MOVEMENT AS A WHOLE!
You couldn't of said it better!!!!
 

GanjaAL

Member
This is what it means...

The Oakland thing is saying that ONLY those 4 will be able to supply the Dispensaries, and that any other grow, except personal only...will be illegal-- At least that is how I am understanding it--

If I am wrong, will someone pls clarify??

Definate violation of the mmj cultivation and collective laws.
 

nomaad

Active member
Veteran
and amnesty for non violent offenders. these are issues we should discuss as we move toward november.
great post jj
jd

if you're pushing for a win on 19, I suggest you leave the subject of amnesty out of your discussions as we approach November. Not a political winner. Not ever. Now, tax amnesty... parking ticket amnesty... those might win you an election in California.
 
This is what it means...

The Oakland thing is saying that ONLY those 4 will be able to supply the Dispensaries, and that any other grow, except personal only...will be illegal-- At least that is how I am understanding it--

If I am wrong, will someone pls clarify??

Definate violation of the mmj cultivation and collective laws.

for the third time you are wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/us/18bcmarijuana.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&fta=y

The debate was heated in part because the proposed ordinance has gone through several revisions, and rumors have swirled about the regulations. City Council members said they received a flood of calls amid concerns that all dispensaries would be required to buy marijuana from the industrial facilities. But that is not a requirement.


on top of the language in the bill which states that prop 215 and 420 are exempted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top