lol, and you are saying jack herer is going to vote...
-
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!
CALIFORNIA VOTERS ONLY--SHOULD CANNABIS BE LEGALIZED AND TAXED AND REGULATED?
- Thread starter Sam_Skunkman
- Start date
lol, and you are saying jack herer is going to vote...
why else would you vote no?
your minor friends are medical now right?
so this has no effect on them.
"This Act is intended to limit the application and enforcement of state and local laws relating to possession."
do you understand what the above sentence means?
so if your minor buddies can still smoke by abusing the medical system after this bill passes what is your real reason for voting no?
LOL. Are you stupid or something?... Wait, Dont answer that!. LOL!..Everyone knows the great Jack Herrer is R.I.P. What i am saying is Jack was going to vote no and he publicly spoke out against this Bill. I'm pretty sure all of his friends and family are going to vote NO as well! Jack and Dennis can see right through this majorly flawed BIll as can I and alot of other folks!
VOTE NO!
A few of my buddies that are 20 are recreational smokers. I dont beleive they have their medical recs. We just like to smoke together once in awhile on weekends and chill. Nothing wrong with that. I dont beleive we should have to go to jail for that. Do you? I seriously hope not!
and this bill does not change that in any way.
sec.2 article.C sub sec.1
when this bill says "limit the enforcement" that means it can only loosen restrictions in the referenced existing laws.
that means your fearmongering bullshit about life in prison for passing a doob to another underage smoker like yourself is just that.
if you care to post the exact portion of the law that scares you we could then examine the semantics of that language for real meaning.
till then keep whipping out your ouija board to talk to the dead and ill keep posting the bill.
ITS SO FRIGGIN EASY TO GET A MED CARD RIGHT? TELL YOUR MINORS FRIENDS TO GET MED CARD. PROBLEM SOLVED.
@Travieso
How do you think the DEA will vote on this?
The bill is clearly written. I just can't understand how people get hung up on these little things. That can, and you better believe they will, be changed the first chance the people get..
Don't shut down this bill. It says in section 5(a) this bill can be changed to have less restriction limitations. There goes all your bs excuses for voting no.
Peace
Don't shut down this bill. It says in section 5(a) this bill can be changed to have less restriction limitations. There goes all your bs excuses for voting no.
Peace
LOL... from the CA norml website. I can also find it int he BILL for you if you want.. educate yourself........
TC 2010 has a couple of controversial provisions that are of concern to California NORML. First, it would disallow marijuana smoking in "any space where minors are present" - a restriction unparalleled for any other drug, including tobacco, which is known to be far more harmful. Not only would this ban parents from smoking in the presence of their own children, but it could well leave them without any legal place to smoke, since the initiative also bans smoking in public or "a public place. By the same token, cops could cite pot smokers at any concert, dinner or event where kids under 21 were present. Violations would be punishable by the current $100 misdemeanor fine.
Secondly, TC 2010 would substantially increase existing penalties for adults giving marijuana to youths aged 18-21. TC 2010 would make it an offense punishable by $1,000 and six months for anyone 21 or over to give or share marijuana with someone aged 18-20, This offense is currently a minor misdemeanor punishable by a maximum $100 fine. So, a 21-year-old could be arrested for sharing a joint with his 20-year old friend, something that isn't presently the case.
Although the legislature would theoretically be able to change these provisions, it is highly doubtful they would do so given voters' approval of TC 2010. Should TC 2010 pass, California NORML would strongly support an initiative to repeal these provisions.
Tommy Trichome
Member
Here's the actual text:
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.
Here read it dagnabit and educate yourself!. LOL1
(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.
What dont you understand about this?
(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.
What dont you understand about this?
way to post from the actual bill (sarcasm alert)
here is the actual bill....
http://www.taxcannabis.org/index.php/pages/initiative/
"educate yourself"
nothing will change for your your 16 y/o buddies
SmilinBoob, read this!..Do you comprehend?
TC 2010 would substantially increase existing penalties for adults giving marijuana to youths aged 18-21. TC 2010 would make it an offense punishable by $1,000 and six months for anyone 21 or over to give or share marijuana with someone aged 18-20, This offense is currently a minor misdemeanor punishable by a maximum $100 fine. So, a 21-year-old could be arrested for sharing a joint with his 20-year old friend, something that isn't presently the case.
Here read it dagnabit and educate yourself!. LOL!
(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.
What dont you understand about this?
i understand it completely.
its perfectly written and not subject to any interpretation.
it says anyone under 21 who smokes recreationlly and anyone who furnishes marijuana to a minor for recreational use is committing a crime.
good deal.
do you really believe that the government is ever just going to turn this commodity over with absolutely zero regulation?
do you honestly believe that one day an 18 year old could set up a 1,000,000 w warehouse and grow all the smoke he wants without any regulation what so ever?
and btw right now passing your joint to your buddies if under 18 in CA five year felony.
by strictest definition right now passing a doob to your 18-21 y/o friend is concidered distribution under hs11361 (i may be off on the #)
educate yourself.
this bill LIMITS ENFORCEMENT how can you not understand that?
Yes, I understand it very well. It says DON'T GIVE DRUGS TO MINORS.. wtf is wrong with that.
Please stop dodging my questions. Tell us all how these 3 points you keep bringing up is worse than the current illegality of marijuana.
25 sq ft limit, keep drugs away from kids, pay your taxes
Those are your problems with this bill, or at least those are the key points that deter you being on the yes side. So explain to us how those 3 things are worse than:
American citizens going to prison for growing a plant
Fueling the black market, which increases violence that surrounds the illegality of marijuana
Continuing to give money to drug cartels that fund terrorism
Continuing wasting tax money on policing marijuana 'crimes'
Keep prices of marijuana high
Using tax money to eradicate marijuana instead of giving it to school, focusing police on hard drugs, or even giving that money to help secure our borders.
Just to name a few..
You are a lost cause. The points you make are valid, but do not come close to being as bad as you make them out to be. They don't come close to outweighing the cons that surround marijuana's illegality.
Stop with the childish remarks. It's not entertaining, it's not cute, and it doesn't help you prove your points.
I agree those 3 things in the bill aren't the best regulations, but I also know that they are no where near as bad as marijuana being illegal. These things you keep spouting off about can easily be changed in the years to come, read section 5(a), It clearly says that this bill can only be amended to include less restrictive limitations. That means that things can only get better from here.
Peace
LOL. The way the law is today if i pass a joint to my 20 year old friend the most i can get is a 100 buck fine! If this BILL passes i would get 6 years in jail and $1000 fine. Do you understand now!...LOL
TC 2010 would substantially increase existing penalties for adults giving marijuana to youths aged 18-21. TC 2010 would make it an offense punishable by $1,000 and six months for anyone 21 or over to give or share marijuana with someone aged 18-20, This offense is currently a minor misdemeanor punishable by a maximum $100 fine. So, a 21-year-old could be arrested for sharing a joint with his 20-year old friend, something that isn't presently the case.
Richard Lee's plan. What do you think?
Oakland City Council Looking to Close Patient Gardens
This is what happens when you buy city council members, you can convince them to grant you a legal monopoly of the medical and recreational cannabis market by outlawing personal medical gardens under the pretense of public safety and allow 4 giant commercial gardens to come in, set their own prices and force dispensaries city wide to choose from one of these 4 gardens. Im guessing rich lee will own at least 2 of them.
If Oakland city council members are worried about public safety, they might want to consider their own safety first. Destroying the livelihoods of thousands of Oaklands most well connected people will have its consequences. If you want to open a 100,000sqft warehouse in Oakland in an attempt to monopolize the medical or recreational pot market, buy fire insurance.
If your a grower in Cali and support prop 19 read this and let me know how you feel....
California Watch
A Project of the Center for Investigative Reporting
Public Safety
Follow us
Maillists Subscribe Follow Us on Facebook Follow Us on Twitter Check Us out on Flickr
California WatchBlog
New ordinance in Oakland would legalize big industrial pot farms
July 13, 2010 | Michael Montgomery
Flickr photo by Neeta Lind
The city of Oakland could become home to some of the world’s largest government-licensed marijuana-growing operations, with permits to distribute products around the state, according to a draft ordinance released yesterday.
The city’s public safety committee meets tonight to consider the plan to permit four industrial-scale, “medical cannabis” cultivation facilities.
The ordinance does not limit the size of the indoor operations, but says the council has received proposals ranging from 20,000 to 100,000 square feet.
“The cultivation of medical cannabis in Oakland has not been regulated and occurs entirely in small-scale home operations or larger-scale illicit warehouses,” reads a report submitted to the committee by city council members Rebecca Kaplan and Larry Reid. “These unregulated operations have led to public safety hazards, including fires, burglaries and home invasions, health risks to patients, and related response costs to the city.”
But the plan doesn’t restrict operations to Oakland. “Responsible transfer permits” would allow registered dispensaries anywhere in the state to purchase medical marijuana from the city’s pot farms. “Sales would be subject to the recently approved sales tax on medical cannabis providing additional revenue for the city through sales taxes,” reads the report.
In addition to improving public safety, the report suggests the plan could help revive the city’s anemic finances, raising anywhere from $3 million to $38 million in permit fees and sales taxes.
Experts say licensed marijuana-growing operations of this size and purpose do not exist anywhere in the world. Even the pot-friendly Netherlands only legally permits small-scale marijuana cultivation for distribution to consumers.
“I am not aware of any indoor-growing facility of that size or one whose product is meant to be consumed,” said Jonathan Caulkins, a Carnegie Mellon professor who co-authored a recent RAND Corporation study on marijuana in California.
Dale Gieringer, who heads the California branch of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said he could think of only a few government-sanctioned, outdoor pot farms that were larger than the indoor facilities being considered for Oakland.
“This is a very big deal,” he said.
The plan is raising a few eyebrows, even among legalization advocates like Gieringer. He said the ordinance envisions a “monopoly” for marijuana growers while also maintaining a virtual stranglehold on distribution (the plan would increase the number of legal dispensaries in Oakland from four to six).
“There are certainly more than four brands of wine and beer in Oakland and there are certainly more than four brands of cannabis,” Gieringer said.
But the supporters predict the plan would lead to lower prices and help wipe out illegal growing operations.
“Permitting larger-scale cultivation will allow for lower production costs per pound by creating economies of scale,” reads the committee report. “Lower production costs will allow regulated cultivation facilities to undercut wholesale prices of cannabis grown in unregulated operations.” Still, the report estimates dispensaries will continue to purchase at least 20 percent of their product from boutique growers who cultivate within a 96-square-foot legal limit.
Berkeley’s City Council is also considering industrial-scale marijuana cultivation and Mendocino recently passed regulations allowing outdoor pot farms to expand capacity to 99 plants per land parcel.
It’s leading some observers to wonder whether the battle for the statewide medical marijuana market – and accompanying tax dollars – is intensifying among local governments, well in advance of the vote this fall to legalize marijuana use in California.
Of course, much depends on the actions (or inactions) of the federal government. The feds still classify pot as a schedule one narcotic and DEA agents continue to raid some farms that claim to be operating within the state’s medical marijuana laws.
KQED's Forum program devoted an hour today to the Oakland ordinance.
Oakland City Council Looking to Close Patient Gardens
This is what happens when you buy city council members, you can convince them to grant you a legal monopoly of the medical and recreational cannabis market by outlawing personal medical gardens under the pretense of public safety and allow 4 giant commercial gardens to come in, set their own prices and force dispensaries city wide to choose from one of these 4 gardens. Im guessing rich lee will own at least 2 of them.
If Oakland city council members are worried about public safety, they might want to consider their own safety first. Destroying the livelihoods of thousands of Oaklands most well connected people will have its consequences. If you want to open a 100,000sqft warehouse in Oakland in an attempt to monopolize the medical or recreational pot market, buy fire insurance.
If your a grower in Cali and support prop 19 read this and let me know how you feel....
California Watch
A Project of the Center for Investigative Reporting
Public Safety
Follow us
Maillists Subscribe Follow Us on Facebook Follow Us on Twitter Check Us out on Flickr
California WatchBlog
New ordinance in Oakland would legalize big industrial pot farms
July 13, 2010 | Michael Montgomery
Flickr photo by Neeta Lind
The city of Oakland could become home to some of the world’s largest government-licensed marijuana-growing operations, with permits to distribute products around the state, according to a draft ordinance released yesterday.
The city’s public safety committee meets tonight to consider the plan to permit four industrial-scale, “medical cannabis” cultivation facilities.
The ordinance does not limit the size of the indoor operations, but says the council has received proposals ranging from 20,000 to 100,000 square feet.
“The cultivation of medical cannabis in Oakland has not been regulated and occurs entirely in small-scale home operations or larger-scale illicit warehouses,” reads a report submitted to the committee by city council members Rebecca Kaplan and Larry Reid. “These unregulated operations have led to public safety hazards, including fires, burglaries and home invasions, health risks to patients, and related response costs to the city.”
But the plan doesn’t restrict operations to Oakland. “Responsible transfer permits” would allow registered dispensaries anywhere in the state to purchase medical marijuana from the city’s pot farms. “Sales would be subject to the recently approved sales tax on medical cannabis providing additional revenue for the city through sales taxes,” reads the report.
In addition to improving public safety, the report suggests the plan could help revive the city’s anemic finances, raising anywhere from $3 million to $38 million in permit fees and sales taxes.
Experts say licensed marijuana-growing operations of this size and purpose do not exist anywhere in the world. Even the pot-friendly Netherlands only legally permits small-scale marijuana cultivation for distribution to consumers.
“I am not aware of any indoor-growing facility of that size or one whose product is meant to be consumed,” said Jonathan Caulkins, a Carnegie Mellon professor who co-authored a recent RAND Corporation study on marijuana in California.
Dale Gieringer, who heads the California branch of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said he could think of only a few government-sanctioned, outdoor pot farms that were larger than the indoor facilities being considered for Oakland.
“This is a very big deal,” he said.
The plan is raising a few eyebrows, even among legalization advocates like Gieringer. He said the ordinance envisions a “monopoly” for marijuana growers while also maintaining a virtual stranglehold on distribution (the plan would increase the number of legal dispensaries in Oakland from four to six).
“There are certainly more than four brands of wine and beer in Oakland and there are certainly more than four brands of cannabis,” Gieringer said.
But the supporters predict the plan would lead to lower prices and help wipe out illegal growing operations.
“Permitting larger-scale cultivation will allow for lower production costs per pound by creating economies of scale,” reads the committee report. “Lower production costs will allow regulated cultivation facilities to undercut wholesale prices of cannabis grown in unregulated operations.” Still, the report estimates dispensaries will continue to purchase at least 20 percent of their product from boutique growers who cultivate within a 96-square-foot legal limit.
Berkeley’s City Council is also considering industrial-scale marijuana cultivation and Mendocino recently passed regulations allowing outdoor pot farms to expand capacity to 99 plants per land parcel.
It’s leading some observers to wonder whether the battle for the statewide medical marijuana market – and accompanying tax dollars – is intensifying among local governments, well in advance of the vote this fall to legalize marijuana use in California.
Of course, much depends on the actions (or inactions) of the federal government. The feds still classify pot as a schedule one narcotic and DEA agents continue to raid some farms that claim to be operating within the state’s medical marijuana laws.
KQED's Forum program devoted an hour today to the Oakland ordinance.
F_T_P!
Active member
http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i821_initiative_09-0024_amdt_1-s.pdf
The name is enough for me to vote No.
The less our government is involved the better. I don't give a flying Fuck about the rest of the country and the "cause". We have Medical in California because the people of California made it happen. This bill is a power grab for the government and multi-national corporations.
No is the way to go!
The name is enough for me to vote No.
The less our government is involved the better. I don't give a flying Fuck about the rest of the country and the "cause". We have Medical in California because the people of California made it happen. This bill is a power grab for the government and multi-national corporations.
No is the way to go!
