A Change of Heart: Prop 19

[RetroGrow]

I just want to say something about the notion floated by some that big business will swoop in and take over the "market".
I think it is total BS. First of all, no big corporation is going to challenge federal law and even try to get into this business until and unless it is legalized nationally.
Aside from that, I, personally, will never, ever, ever buy cannabis from a corporation, no matter the price or convenience. Not only for "political" reasons, but because I know that I and most of the people on this board can grow better weed than any corporation ever will. And if I can't grow my own, I will get it from a bud. Never from a company.
I've waited 40 years for this.
Don't have another 40.
Vote yes, please.

 

[stinky]

SCF............. |Hey there brother. I am on workmans comp and have Blue Cross also. Spinal injury with neck fusion. I was told by my lawyer that workmans comp does not cover herbal remedy's. What gives? How can i get my insurance to pay for medical marijuana? Or workers comp?


And about insurance companies. Workmans comp paid for my pot. and thats government ran!!! Blue Cross has paid for my Medical Marijuana, and my marinol, for only my deductable of 25 bucks. So i dont know what ur saying.

 

[guest4098]

Everyone is making lots of assumptions about how things are going to be if 19 passes. It could go lots of ways, but I don't think we are doing ourselves justice if we only expect the best out of things. I would rather use reason.

The police. They sure are slow to change. I don't see them having any desire to let things slide. You think you aren't going to be messed with if they smell bud? What do they do now if they smell alcohol? What do they do now if they smell bud and you tell them you are medical? My bet is that they will search you. If you have everything stored away and less then an oz then head on your way. If you have two ounces? You are going to jail!

We need to all look a little deeper into how this is going to change things in CA. I wonder what the little tax stamp on the bags is going to look like?

 

[Grimr3efer]

I am not a regular like some on ICMAG. For the last 5 years I have grown Medical Marijuana (Mainly Pre-98 Bubba Kush..yum!) and sold it to the various clubs and collectives.

I myself am apart of a fully legal collective who does a little bit everything, most importantly helping sick people. Prop 19 made me very fearful for many reasons. Some will not ever be remedied. However, today i spoke with the collectives attorney about the law.

In short, i do not believe there is a chance in hell most cities will choose to regulate against medical marijuana as a result in prop 19 passing. Oakland's (where i live) city council has even set to increase medical grow limits as a result of "mega grows."

Hell for all i know, i could have my medical grow in the room next to my legal 5x5 grow..Point being, there is enough grey area in this law where i dont believe it will hurt the current laws and will most likely help by taking the focus off medical marijuana. Prices wont tank out, its a boutique business. BIG BUSINESS isnt going to sell and eighth they can sell for $50 for $10...

Ive been a real ass-hole about this and I apologize. This fall i will be voting YES on Prop 19! (Thats the first time ive said that/typed that)

Amen brother... Your starting to see the big picture. Money$$$$. Why would a broke city not allow the herb to be sold when there is tons of cash in this to help get some money for their in debt asses. Debt inside the state of Cali is their biggest problem and why would any city not take advantage of these large profits. Your not very smart to think that Oklands going to ban pot or any other city because they can. All of California needs this to help with your state which has the largest debt out of all US states. If you vote no your stae will eventually get much worse like it is now and turn into a possible police state!

Cali is so broke, it will have to do drive-by shootings on the bus.

Cali is so poor, it can't even put it's two cents in this conversation.

Cali is so poor, they can't even afford to pay attention.

 

[kmk420kali]

Everyone is making lots of assumptions about how things are going to be if 19 passes. It could go lots of ways, but I don't think we are doing ourselves justice if we only expect the best out of things. I would rather use reason.

The police. They sure are slow to change. I don't see them having any desire to let things slide. You think you aren't going to be messed with if they smell bud? What do they do now if they smell alcohol? What do they do now if they smell bud and you tell them you are medical? My bet is that they will search you. If you have everything stored away and less then an oz then head on your way. If you have two ounces? You are going to jail!

You're right...we are making assumptions...none of us know for sure how it will go if passed--
But...we all know how it IS if it doesn't--
The idea here...believe it or not...is not to argue with one another...but to make the most informed decision we all can make...about a subject that we all have a common Love for--
But...the things that have been said that are NOT assumption are (Help me here folks..I'm gonna miss most of them!! lol)
1- Burden of Proof will shift-- That is a fact--
2- You will not get a Misdemeanor on your Record for under an ounce...nor will you lose said ounce!!
3- You can have an unlimited amount in your house--
4- Concentrates are now a Felony, in any amount...under 19 it will be legal, as long as you only have an ounce out in public--
5- 215 will not be effected...(Fuck off DragonFly!!)
6- You can cultivate a limited amount under 19...now, you can cultivate nothing-- (Remember...this is for non 215 Rec holders...we are already covered)
7- It will start a snowball effect for Legalization, Nation/Worldwide-- (Ok...maybe a small bit of assumption in this one...but very very most likely!!)

Go ahead No's...let's hear your list?? (Don't forget to be prepared to back it up...I certainly am, to back up what I say--)

 

[kmk420kali]

Cali is so broke, it will have to do drive-by shootings on the bus.

Cali is so poor, it can't even put it's two cents in this conversation.

Cali is so poor, they can't even afford to pay attention.

Cali is so poor...
...they want to Marilize Legaljuana!! (So they can sling!!)

 

[rives]

Don't forget the employer having to show actual impairment!

 

[kmk420kali]

Don't forget the employer having to show actual impairment!

Yes...another of the mis-construed topics!! The media has took this one...aimed at addressing the fact that Cannabis stays in your system for a month...and not being able to use metabolites in your system as grounds for dismissal...they are spinning it like we will be able to smoke weed at the office!!
The crazier the opposition gets...the better it looks for us!!
The Yes Campaign is founded in fact and Legal Jargon...the No's...in Fear--
Fear has fanned the fires of our Gov for too long now!!

 

[Bigrick31]

But isn't one of your...I mean Dragonfly's other big reasons, that you think Big Biz will take over and ruin the Cannabis Market??
Which is it dude...will they take over the Canna Biz...or will Federal Tax Laws make it so we can't sell?? See what I mean, you are contradicting yourself--
Now, unless I get bored with it, I am going to go dissect your other Post--

No I am not contradicting myself merely pointing out conflicts within the bill. 1. the bill allows big business to take over the cannabis market 2. The bill unintentionally makes those that sell cannabis a target for the feds. Im not Miss Cleo here I cant see the future but im pointing out possibilities that the poorly written bill invites if youve got some way to prove that these things cant happen then by all means prove me wrong ive been to a number of different forums reading and discussing this topic and I never get anyone who presents me with facts.

Since your new I'll cut you a little slack and be real nice. Thanks! I dont believe theres any need for being rude when were all here for the same cause. We all want marijuana legal and even though im on the NO on 19 side its only becuase I wants whats best for the people and I worry that prop 19 isnt in our best interests so other than our opposing views on this proposition were all on the same team! For starters, that crap you posted by DragonFly has been proven wrong over and over again in threads here..different day same ol shit. Oh, also NORML has shredded her BS to oblivion as well.

Are you familiar with State Bill ABX6 9? If not I suggest you read it.

No i am not so thank you for being the first person in who knows how long ive been debating this topic in numerous forums to bring this bill to my attention I will give it a read

Mainly because I think your FEAR abut Medical rights and 215 will be put to rest. You see ABX6 9 is the first look at what the State of California envisions the law to be like if 19 is to pass. It is a Bill designed to regulate Marijuana on a state level. All the so called 'gray areas' are covered. remember, this is the State doing this. In the Bill you will read a couple times how medical Marijuana is NOT covered in this law and it shall NOT be subject to ANYTHING related to the commercial regulations and taxes.

So there you have the State, ready with something already to go in-case 19 passes. BTW...they are upping...the Sate that is...the personal possession limit from one ounce to 16. yep...a pound on your person, walking or driving drown the street...will be A OK.

over 70,000 people last year received a LIFE LONG misdemeanor drug conviction on their perm record. Over 10,000 people WENT TO JAIL and received a FELONY for growing as little as one plant.

Prop 19 would end that. Don't be so foolish!

Try to give us a REAL reason we should say no and continue this total bullshit. One worthy reason.

Oh...and if it applies...it's ok to 'come out' and admit your afraid of losing money....if it applies that is.

I wish I was making loads of money off of selling pot but truth is ive produced only enough for personal consumption and I have yet to produce enough to pay for my entire op so I really havnt even begun to taste the fruits of my labor just so everyone knows im not voting no just so I can keep a money horse.

Help me out here. I keep reading Prop 19 over and over and I can't find the part where it takes away any rights at all. If you could point out that section or sections it would be great. Thank you

I did in previous posts look 4 posts above where you posted this where I posted all the stuff about myths of prop 19. Those wernt written by me but taken from a website I came across while researching prop 19 just type stoners against prop 19 into google and youll find the site. I reference these sites in discussions like this in hopes that someone can prove them to be incorrect of if they are in fact valid concerns maybe they will open a few eyes. I hate it when I hear someone say "Prop 19 makes pot legal? well im voting for it then!" Without knowing all that this proposition does.

Reality: Under 19, we can share or gift that ounce with anybody...Legally, no fine, no drug related Misdemeanor on your Record--
The under 21 thing is unfortunate, but acceptable, as it is the same with alcohol--

Then they should fully treat marijuana as they do alcohol IMHO.

Reality: If you rent somebody else's property, they SHOULD have a say in what goes on there-- I am sure most won't care if you have a couple plants in the yard...but they might, if you are going to risk fire hazard and water/mold damage to their property--
As far as the Per Parcel thing...that kinda sucks, but not a reason to vote no-- I'm sure this will get dealt with through Legislation-- Besides, if you have multi residences, as in houses on 1 parcel, that will most likely be found in compliance--

if the plant is goring outside then I say the landlord should have as much say over it as they would a tomatoes plant and ive never seen any no tomatoes in the backyard clause but im sure you will see no pot in the backyard because even if 19 passes there will still be a taboo about marijuana for a long time. As far as fires and stuff goes though I agree that landlords should be able to say no to indoor grows because many times people wont construct their own grow rooms anrt professionals and they dont take the time to learn the proper way to do the job.

Reality: Absolutely wrong-- With 215, the Burden of Proof is on us...but with 19, it will be on the police, since it will be a legalization across the board...not just for Patients--
If you are stupid enough to say you bought your weed, then I don't know what to say-- Anybody can grow it, and anybody can give or receive a gift of up to 1 ounce--
Besides, it is already that way with 215...it says you must grow your own, or buy it from a Dispensary...they do not ask us for proof of where we got it now--
Seriously, seems like just making up shit to support your unsupportable stance--

You are assuming here that they will treat prop 19 if it passes teh same as they do 215. Another way to look at it is they dont ask you where you got your weed now because you have this card or script that says you can have it. But now if its legal for everyone but only from a select number of dispensaries whats to stop anyone from making it mandatory to have a current receipt with you at all times that you also have marijuana on you?

Then grow your own...or have a friend do it for you--
How would it be decreased access...since it is fucking illegal now??

Oakland set a limit on growing permits within its city theres a limit right there. Sacramento is talking about an obscene growers tax I dont recall the exact numbers but it was in the sept 29th 2010 edition of the sacbee. I do remember though that if someone had a 150sqft grow op they would have to pay an annual tax of close to $175,000 I dont like that a city can abuse us like that the bill should have someting in it to stop cities from using its citizens to further its income by creating outrageous taxs anyways my point here is again limiting in one way or another if you charge a very high tax for a growers permit than you are limiting the people who are able to grow to only those who can afford your tax that tax goes for everyone who grows in sac though the price is per sq ft so smaller ops would cost less but heck growing in and of itself is frustrating enough to first time gardeners add a tax on top of that thats so steep people would rather buy their pot rather than hassle with growing it we give enough to our government in tax dollars. When I get paid they take my money when I buy something they take a percentage of what I spend now they want me to either pay a high tax to get a growers permit or pay someone else to grow my bud for me. I may be a little to pessimistic but perhaps others are being to optimistic about this bill when I see a bill come along that involves big business and the government trying to do something good for the people well the first thing I ask is whats the catch so for me I still believe theres a hidden agenda why else would something so big have a bill written so poorly?

Right now cities and counties are already banning Dispensaries. This is TODAY. Yep, under Prop 215. Even if what you say above is true, how would it be any different then today?

Cities can ban dispensary but they can not ban delivery services from operating within the city limits. That is a freedom we currently enjoy today! But if they make the buying and selling of marijuana illegal in said city than even delivery services wouldnt be able to operate.

It will not be Probable Cause for a search, no-- Just because they want to, doesn't mean they can--
With 215, it is on us to prove we are a patient, and in compliance-- But under 19, smell will mean nothing, since it is Legal for everyone--

I dont agree with this at all. If prop 19 passes it will still be illegal to drive a motor vehicle while impaired. If your in a car and a cop pulls you over and smells alcohol they can search your vehicle. Therefore if a cop pulls you over and smells weed that can give them the impression that your ability to drive said motor vehicle is impaired and just as they can with alcohol they will search your vehicle. Ive been in a car that was pulled over because the cop suspected that the driver was "on something" The driver was the straightest square you could ever meet he at that time had never even tried a sip of beer but the cop pulled us over gave the driver a sobriety tests asked the rest of us out of the car and he searched it. We had no alcohol or drugs nor had we done any prior to our drive the cop fabricated the whole thing because we were a couple of young guys driving down I-5 late at night.

Remember when 215 was passed how there were wildly differing enforcements, opinions, etc until 420 nailed things down? This is exactly why Ammiano has come up with his bill - to nail down all of the "gray areas" without a seven year lag. This is typical of voter propositions - they are intentionally loosely worded to get the intent across, and then the details are worked out in assembly bills.

This is what happened in 1913 when we created the federal reserve to even out the economy and look how well thats done its job.

I just want to say something about the notion floated by some that big business will swoop in and take over the "market".
I think it is total BS. First of all, no big corporation is going to challenge federal law and even try to get into this business until and unless it is legalized nationally.

You know the guy in oakland that owns the Igrow store the (walmart of weed) as the papers dubbed it? Well lets just say hes loaded the city has already approved his 57,000sq ft grow operation

 

[Herborizer]

I did in previous posts look 4 posts above where you posted this where I posted all the stuff about myths of prop 19. Those wernt written by me but taken from a website I came across while researching prop 19 just type stoners against prop 19 into google and youll find the site. I reference these sites in discussions like this in hopes that someone can prove them to be incorrect of if they are in fact valid concerns maybe they will open a few eyes. I hate it when I hear someone say "Prop 19 makes pot legal? well im voting for it then!" Without knowing all that this proposition does.

I suggest to re-read what you typed there. Especially take a pause at the parts I bold and underlined.

Ok, now here is how I heard what you typed above, please correct me if I am wrong:

You are saying that you have not read Prop 19, that you found a website that says that we will loose our rights. Right?

Also, it sounds like you are frustrated with people because they don't do their research and just take a stance. Instead of doing their due diligence. Right?

I had to-do a double take on your comments. Hopefully you get my point.

 

[Herborizer]

You are assuming here that they will treat prop 19 if it passes teh same as they do 215. Another way to look at it is they dont ask you where you got your weed now because you have this card or script that says you can have it. But now if its legal for everyone but only from a select number of dispensaries whats to stop anyone from making it mandatory to have a current receipt with you at all times that you also have marijuana on you?

How do you come up with this stuff. It's amazing.

Ok, if you read Prop 19, it actually states that "it is lawful to possess up to 1 oz of Marijuana". It doesn't specify how you came to possess it, just that it's lawful.

Sure it says it's illegal to sell Marijuana without a license. That's completely different. Possession would be lawful, and proving how you came to possess it doesn't have anything todo with it being lawful. That's one of the problems with Prop 215, possession is only lawful if you can show that you are a Medical patient and that the amount you have is necessary for your medical condition. This is what many people call burden of proof, and one of the major flaws in Prop 215. Prop 19 wouldn't have this burden of proof issue with possession.

 

[krunchbubble]

No I am not contradicting myself merely pointing out conflicts within the bill. 1. the bill allows big business to take over the cannabis market 2. The bill unintentionally makes those that sell cannabis a target for the feds. Im not Miss Cleo here I cant see the future but im pointing out possibilities that the poorly written bill invites if youve got some way to prove that these things cant happen then by all means prove me wrong ive been to a number of different forums reading and discussing this topic and I never get anyone who presents me with facts.






I did in previous posts look 4 posts above where you posted this where I posted all the stuff about myths of prop 19. Those wernt written by me but taken from a website I came across while researching prop 19 just type stoners against prop 19 into google and youll find the site. I reference these sites in discussions like this in hopes that someone can prove them to be incorrect of if they are in fact valid concerns maybe they will open a few eyes. I hate it when I hear someone say "Prop 19 makes pot legal? well im voting for it then!" Without knowing all that this proposition does.




Then they should fully treat marijuana as they do alcohol IMHO.




if the plant is goring outside then I say the landlord should have as much say over it as they would a tomatoes plant and ive never seen any no tomatoes in the backyard clause but im sure you will see no pot in the backyard because even if 19 passes there will still be a taboo about marijuana for a long time. As far as fires and stuff goes though I agree that landlords should be able to say no to indoor grows because many times people wont construct their own grow rooms anrt professionals and they dont take the time to learn the proper way to do the job.





You are assuming here that they will treat prop 19 if it passes teh same as they do 215. Another way to look at it is they dont ask you where you got your weed now because you have this card or script that says you can have it. But now if its legal for everyone but only from a select number of dispensaries whats to stop anyone from making it mandatory to have a current receipt with you at all times that you also have marijuana on you?





Oakland set a limit on growing permits within its city theres a limit right there. Sacramento is talking about an obscene growers tax I dont recall the exact numbers but it was in the sept 29th 2010 edition of the sacbee. I do remember though that if someone had a 150sqft grow op they would have to pay an annual tax of close to $175,000 I dont like that a city can abuse us like that the bill should have someting in it to stop cities from using its citizens to further its income by creating outrageous taxs anyways my point here is again limiting in one way or another if you charge a very high tax for a growers permit than you are limiting the people who are able to grow to only those who can afford your tax that tax goes for everyone who grows in sac though the price is per sq ft so smaller ops would cost less but heck growing in and of itself is frustrating enough to first time gardeners add a tax on top of that thats so steep people would rather buy their pot rather than hassle with growing it we give enough to our government in tax dollars. When I get paid they take my money when I buy something they take a percentage of what I spend now they want me to either pay a high tax to get a growers permit or pay someone else to grow my bud for me. I may be a little to pessimistic but perhaps others are being to optimistic about this bill when I see a bill come along that involves big business and the government trying to do something good for the people well the first thing I ask is whats the catch so for me I still believe theres a hidden agenda why else would something so big have a bill written so poorly?



Cities can ban dispensary but they can not ban delivery services from operating within the city limits. That is a freedom we currently enjoy today! But if they make the buying and selling of marijuana illegal in said city than even delivery services wouldnt be able to operate.




I dont agree with this at all. If prop 19 passes it will still be illegal to drive a motor vehicle while impaired. If your in a car and a cop pulls you over and smells alcohol they can search your vehicle. Therefore if a cop pulls you over and smells weed that can give them the impression that your ability to drive said motor vehicle is impaired and just as they can with alcohol they will search your vehicle. Ive been in a car that was pulled over because the cop suspected that the driver was "on something" The driver was the straightest square you could ever meet he at that time had never even tried a sip of beer but the cop pulled us over gave the driver a sobriety tests asked the rest of us out of the car and he searched it. We had no alcohol or drugs nor had we done any prior to our drive the cop fabricated the whole thing because we were a couple of young guys driving down I-5 late at night.



This is what happened in 1913 when we created the federal reserve to even out the economy and look how well thats done its job.



You know the guy in oakland that owns the Igrow store the (walmart of weed) as the papers dubbed it? Well lets just say hes loaded the city has already approved his 57,000sq ft grow operation

not bad, not bad, think i like this guy........

 

[kmk420kali]

No I am not contradicting myself merely pointing out conflicts within the bill. 1. the bill allows big business to take over the cannabis market 2. The bill unintentionally makes those that sell cannabis a target for the feds. Im not Miss Cleo here I cant see the future but im pointing out possibilities that the poorly written bill invites if youve got some way to prove that these things cant happen then by all means prove me wrong ive been to a number of different forums reading and discussing this topic and I never get anyone who presents me with facts.

1. This Prop does not allow Big Biz to "take over the cannabis market...it allows it to "Participate" in it--
Get real man, do you really think the Black Market will get disbanded that quickly??
2- Dispensaries are paying taxes now...there is a "Fact" for you--


Originally Posted by kmk420kali
Reality: Under 19, we can share or gift that ounce with anybody...Legally, no fine, no drug related Misdemeanor on your Record--
The under 21 thing is unfortunate, but acceptable, as it is the same with alcohol--

Then they should fully treat marijuana as they do alcohol IMHO.

I agree..except I think it should not be anywhere near as restrictive as alcohol!! Too bad that means nothing--
It has got to start somewhere...and to vote no, just because you want more...is childish--
Oh...how about the part about we can share an oz with anyone we like?? Nothing to say there??

You are assuming here that they will treat prop 19 if it passes teh same as they do 215. Another way to look at it is they dont ask you where you got your weed now because you have this card or script that says you can have it. But now if its legal for everyone but only from a select number of dispensaries whats to stop anyone from making it mandatory to have a current receipt with you at all times that you also have marijuana on you?

No, you have it wrong--
With 215, they CAN ask you where you got it, because it is only legal if you are a valid Patient, so they can ask questions that you must answer--
With 19, it will be legal for every person over 21, so they do not have to verify anything, except your age...once that is done, so are they--
Yeah dude, I know that there are cops who are going to lie, and abuse their power...but that is going to happen no matter what happens...it is happening now--
It says that you can only Buy from a licensed vendor...is that any different than alcohol?? But the weed you have on you, could be grown by you, gifted from a friend...they will have no Legal Standing for what you are proposing--

Oakland set a limit on growing permits within its city theres a limit right there. Sacramento is talking about an obscene growers tax I dont recall the exact numbers but it was in the sept 29th 2010 edition of the sacbee. I do remember though that if someone had a 150sqft grow op they would have to pay an annual tax of close to $175,000 I dont like that a city can abuse us like that the bill should have someting in it to stop cities from using its citizens to further its income by creating outrageous taxs anyways my point here is again limiting in one way or another if you charge a very high tax for a growers permit than you are limiting the people who are able to grow to only those who can afford your tax that tax goes for everyone who grows in sac though the price is per sq ft so smaller ops would cost less but heck growing in and of itself is frustrating enough to first time gardeners add a tax on top of that thats so steep people would rather buy their pot rather than hassle with growing it we give enough to our government in tax dollars. When I get paid they take my money when I buy something they take a percentage of what I spend now they want me to either pay a high tax to get a growers permit or pay someone else to grow my bud for me. I may be a little to pessimistic but perhaps others are being to optimistic about this bill when I see a bill come along that involves big business and the government trying to do something good for the people well the first thing I ask is whats the catch so for me I still believe theres a hidden agenda why else would something so big have a bill written so poorly?

Assumption, newspaper articles...but nothing on the table to back up any of this-- Please don't forget, that THEY don't forget...we still do have a few tattered remnants of a Constitution--
Remember, this is a Voter Initiative...it is written with bare minimum limits for everything...because tho it can be Amended...it can only be Amended "Up"...it cannot be limited-- So everything in here is nothing but minimums right now-- Sheesh..all it takes is to look at 215/420 to figure that out--lol

You know the guy in oakland that owns the Igrow store the (walmart of weed) as the papers dubbed it? Well lets just say hes loaded the city has already approved his 57,000sq ft grow operation

Good for him!!! Makes it all that much more legit for us!!
(But he may have a prob with Uncle Sam...once he opens it--)
Who fucking cares who comes in and tries what?? Do you honestly think the Canna Market can be contained that quickly or easily??

 

[SCF]

Proponents of Prop. 19 often argue that everything is taxed. This is not true. Illinois is the only state that taxes prescription pharmaceuticals, and that tax is 1%.

Proponents of Prop. 19 claim they want to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol. It costs $450 to license a pharmacy in California and between $340-$580 to license a retail alcohol establishment. Long Beach claims 85 medical marijuana dispensaries and charges $14,742 for a license. Oakland has a limit of 4 dispensaries and charges them $30,000 for a license.

Im glad your insurance company pays for your weed but mine does not. I wasnt hurt at work either so workmans comp wont help me I was in my car stopped on a highway when a large suv hit me at 40mph from the rear and fractured my lower spine im 24 and get to live with back pain for the rest of my life because the alternative is surgery and limited mobility my fiance has migraines so bad that we often have to take her to the ER for a shot because nothing else will help her and under prop 19 the both of us get a 5x5 grow area to produce our own medicine in or we have to go buy it from some city or state ran dispensary.

And you are making my point valid. They are Attacking us medical patients. By making us pay out the ass because its the only LEGAL means of a CASH CROP. If you read Prop 215, which is NOT BEING AMMENDED, which means, no changes can be made unless made BY THE VOTERS. 11362.5 section C. " To Encourage the Federal and STATE Government to implement a plan, for safe AND AFFORDABLE distrubution to ALL patients in medical need of marijuana"

How about some proof from you? Its a pretty broad statement to say the only people that don't want it legalized are the people making money.

I think until we have something nationwide we are just wasting out time. The US government is already planning on suing the state of California if this passes, meaning it won't go into effect anyways. Just more tax dollars pissed down the drain. It must be really profitable to be a lawyer these days, they sure are busy all the time.

I think most of the people that want this passed are people that are not from Cali. They believe it will set some sort of precedent for it to be "legalized" where they are from.

Good. This is what we want. They have wasted enough of my money on the war on drugs. now we can waste it, on fighting against, THE WAR ON DRUGS. If you don't Fail, you NEVER TRIED.

prop 19 would not of done anything for me and my situation. dont get it confused homeboy, your now trying to say that prop 19 would of helped my medical defense? it gets weirder and weirder, the shit you guys come up with.......

but, got a nice judgment coming my way......

dont understand how im out of line.......

i am not arguing, calling people names or anything of that sort. if you read the threads, the YES people are.......

you guys are out of line and have been all this time, i think you guys are too passionate about prop 19........

you guys want it so bad, your willing to shit on anyone who dares not to agree with you......

reminds me of grade school days.........

there's a lot of could's and probably's there.....

so let me get this straight, you think if a cop smells pot in your vehicle, they wont search to determine how much you have? even if prop 19 passes, you are still limited to the amount you can have/carry.

so, just because it may pass, they wont care anymore and just let people go if they smell weed, fuck no! there will be a limit and they will prosecute you if your over, this is not decriminalization!

if i was a cop and smelled pot in your car, i will search to make sure you dont have lb's and lb's of it, and it will happen if it passes, no way around it, there not just all of a sudden not going to give a shit about weed......

Now who's the one that sounds like they are in High School.

And making opinionated gestures as if they are fact about search and seizure laws. Do you not know your California Laws?

If you tell a High Way Patrol man you are medical. Its a HANDS OFF policy. They cant ask a thing, and let you go, unless they give u a infraction moving violation ticket. This is once again, besides the point as you like to do!!!

There are plenty of gray areas!
entire article can be found here :http://www.420magazine.com/forums/i...persede-amend-its-medical-marijuana-laws.html

Section C, Intents, has two items.

Item 1 is a list of the laws Prop. 19 is "intended to limit the application and enforcement of". The inclusion of the phrase "including but not limited to the following, whether now existing or adopted in the future" opens the door for the argument to be made that Prop. 19 may (and most likely will) be interpreted to "limit" the "application and enforcement" of the now existing medical marijuana laws.

This interpretation is reinforced by Item 2 under this section, a list of state laws Prop. 19 "is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of".

Note that Item 2 is not open-ended. There is no "including but not limited to" modifier for this Item.

Conspicuously absent from either list are California's medical marijuana laws: Health & Safety Code Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7-11362.9.

These mentions and omissions occur in the 'preamble' of the initiative, titled Findings, Intent and Purposes. Concerns have been expressed regarding how legally binding these sections are and that nowhere in the sections to be added to California's legal code is there any mention of medical marijuana or any exemption for medical marijuana patients and providers.

Exploiting pain and suffering

Nowhere does the initiative exempt medical marijuana cultivators or distributors from the tax.

.

No where does it say that it will tax Medical Marijuana.

They are already taxing Medical Marijuana in Santa Cruz. They need to legalize it so they can tax healthy working people, who can make a living just fine because of good health. People are willing to pay this tax to see Hemp and Marijuana be Free. This just isn't about Marijuana. This is a lot about HEMP! too.


Now these next three lines, are from Prop 19, number 6,7,8 in Section 2, B . I can use that thread too. These are the only Three places i see Medical Marijuana mentioned. And in every single time, it mentions it being Exempt. Loud and Clear.



6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.

Back to what i said earlier about Prop 215 section B. Which once again says,BY THE VOTERS. 11362.5 section C. " To Encourage the Federal and STATE Government to implement a plan, for safe AND AFFORDABLE distribution to ALL patients in medical need of marijuana"

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.

This is saying that even if the city does not allow Legal Marijuana, ANYONE can have small amounts by law, but they are EXCLUDING PROP 215 PATIENTS from that. because in prop 215, it states, a patient may have as much as they need determined by their doctor.! So that's the exception. Medical patients can carry MORE than the average Joe. Which my Recommendation from my doctor is all i need, once again, according to PROP 215.

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.


once again section 11362.5 is prop 215 by the way. and this says that prop 19 has nothing to do with prop 215 that was already passed. And these are the ONLY 3 places it mentions medical marijuana in the initiative. Unless i missed something.

 

[Herborizer]

The funny thing, is that big biz is already in the Medical Cannabis business. It amazes me to think that the people who run the show now won't be the same people in the future. Sure there will be new players, but DeAngelo and the likes are not small frys by any means.

 

[SCF]

And it doesn't matter. Because its going to Win and pass anyways. . Lets just all pray that everything goes well in the future regardless of what happens. Greed is bad man... real bad.... sustaining is life......

 

[Herborizer]

And it doesn't matter. Because its going to Win and pass anyways. . Lets just all pray that everything goes well in the future regardless of what happens. Greed is bad man... real bad.... sustaining is life......

I hope so! I am worried this vote is going to be a close one my friend. So much fear mongering, wild statements that cloud the issue, and flat out people who just don't take the time to read the Prop.

Of course, this is not to say that all the "no" crowd hasn't read it, many of them know it very very well.

 

[krunchbubble]

And making opinionated gestures as if they are fact about search and seizure laws. Do you not know your California Laws?

If you tell a High Way Patrol man you are medical. Its a HANDS OFF policy. They cant ask a thing, and let you go, unless they give u a infraction moving violation ticket. This is once again, besides the point as you like to do!!![/

im decent on knowing about California laws. making opinionated gestures? if the police, be it cali patrol, local or whatever smells pot or alcohol in your car, there going to search. there not going to let you go and get in an accident later on from being impaired and get sued because they let you go.....

what is this bullshit about if you ell highway patrol your medical its "HANDS OFF POLICY". tell that to my former partner who just got busted two days ago with 6 lb's by the highway patrol on the way to his dispensary....

i better stand on this chair, because the bullshit is getting really high in here......

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Supply will increase but demand will SKYROCKET!!!! Look at all the millions of people who visit CA every year and as soon as anyone 21+ can buy and smoke Cali weed you know those numbers will be even HIGHer.... Even with all these massive grows there will still be PLENTY of room for others.

California Statistics & Trends

* California was the destination for 338 million domestic person-stays*in 2008.*

* Approximately*13.4 million international visitors traveled to California in 2008.* Five and a half*million were from overseas origins, 6.7 million*were from Mexico and 1.2 million were from Canada.

 

[SCF]

im decent on knowing about California laws. making opinionated gestures? if the police, be it cali patrol, local or whatever smells pot or alcohol in your car, there going to search. there not going to let you go and get in an accident later on from being impaired and get sued because they let you go.....

what is this bullshit about if you ell highway patrol your medical its "HANDS OFF POLICY". tell that to my former partner who just got busted two days ago with 6 lb's by the highway patrol on the way to his dispensary....

i better stand on this chair, because the bullshit is getting really high in here......

Yeah because you are filling up this room....


IF you don't show signs of intoxication. And you let the officer know you are a medical patient. They cant touch you. I don't care if you have 5 pounds in your car drying and curing. Trust me. Got pulled over like that not to long ago. I was let go. Just like any medications or drinking. If you are driving normal, and don't look or physically act impaired. They have no probable cause at the point of letting them know you are a medical patient. Read this.
L.A. Times

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/09/local/la-me-pot-return9-2010jan09


Judge orders CHP to return 60 pounds of marijuana

It had been confiscated from a motorist whose attorney convinced a judge that California's medical marijuana law allowed its transport.
January 09, 2010|By Gerrick Kennedy
With the debate on medical marijuana still at a full boil in Los Angeles, a judge Friday ordered the return of 60 pounds of pot to a man after his attorneys successfully argued that a state law gave him the right to transport it.

Saguro Doven, 33, was initially charged with possession of marijuana for sale and transportation of the drug, a violation of the state's health and safety code.


The marijuana was bundled in individual bags that were tucked inside a larger duffel bag when Doven was pulled over on the 101 Freeway by a California Highway Patrol officer, according to court records.

But defense attorney Glen T. Jonas argued that his client was a member of a Venice-based medical marijuana collective and that he was authorized to transport the marijuana. The California attorney general's guidelines regarding medical marijuana indicate that collectives are allowed to both grow and transport quantities of marijuana for its members.

Jonas said the prosecution's expert witness, CHP Sgt. Richard Fuentes, was unqualified to render an expert opinion in the case because he lacked the knowledge required to distinguish lawful from unlawful possession and transportation of marijuana, according to court records.

Fuentes had testified that only caregivers can transport or carry large quantities of marijuana. The law, however, states that members of a collective may transport marijuana on behalf of the group and are exempt from prosecution.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge William Sterling agreed that the prosecution expert was unqualified and ordered the charge of possession for sale dismissed.

On Monday, the Los Angeles County district attorney's office asked that the remaining transportation count be dismissed.

Doven's attorney then asked for the 60 pounds of marijuana to be returned -- a request that was granted. Doven could have faced a maximum of four years in state prison if found guilty.

"Although justice was delayed, I am thankful it wasn't denied," Doven said.

[email protected]