CALIFORNIA VOTERS ONLY--SHOULD CANNABIS BE LEGALIZED AND TAXED AND REGULATED?

[Travieso]

For those of you who think prop19 wont have an affect on our current med laws, read this and tell me what you think....

California's Proposition 19 will supersede or amend its medical marijuana laws

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


p.s. after reading the article, watch the 2 videos in the link especially the last one. open your eyes people.

VOTE NO ON PROP 19!

 

[Yes4Prop215]

HORSESHIT....all you VOTE YES people were lying this whole time. "DUDE 19 wont do shit to 215"

well guess its in the open now....19 is a direct attack on prop215 under which we have better rights.

i was on the fence about voting yes or no, but after reading this...



"While amendments were made ostensibly to prevent the initiative from affecting current medical marijuana law, a careful reading of the initiative reveals that this is not, in fact, the case. Certain medical marijuana laws are exempt from the prohibitions the initiative would enact, while others are glaringly absent.

Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.[17] In spite of the fact that the tax cannabis Web site says otherwise, the only medical marijuana exemptions that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative actually makes are with regard to possession, consumption and purchase limits, which only ensure that patients would still be allowed to buy medicine at dispensaries. The word “cultivate” is conspicuously absent. Whereas today a person with a doctor’s recommendation has the right to grow up to an unlimited number of plants, the initiative would drastically reduce that number to whatever can fit in a 5’x5’ footprint (around 3-6 plants—per property, not per person). This will force many patients to resort to buying instead of growing their own medicine, because of the inconvenience caused by producing multiple grows a year rather than growing a year’s supply of medicine at one time, as many patients currently do outdoors. And growing indoors—which typically requires special grow lights, an increase in hydro use, and a lot of time and attention—is a comparatively expensive endeavor.

The initiative would further impact medical marijuana patients by banning medicating in the privacy of their own homes if there are minors present, as well as in public (currently perfectly legal[18])—an invaluable liberty to those with painful diseases who would otherwise have to suffer until they got home to relieve their pain.

Finally, the medical marijuana laws that are exempted from this initiative apparently only apply to cities. For medical marijuana patients who live in an area that has county or local government jurisdiction, according to a strict reading of the initiative, medical marijuana laws are not exempt.[19]"


now i am for sure voting NO.

 

[Yes4Prop215]

per property too...wow this bill is BS. its a blatent attack on 215, which allows growers to use certain loopholes to allow bigger grows in one house.

i just smoked a blunt with my friend who is 20, now under the bill i could be arrested for "furnishing" him cannabis. BULLSHIT.....

now i cant combine me and my brother and cousins script under one roof, we all have to rent our own houses to grow. BULLSHIT

now if you want to get into the cannabizness you gotta pay up 275k in licensing costs..BULLSHIT

this bill is bullshit, and gives us nothing we dont already have, just takes away nice things we do have...

you guys are so willing to give up everything we have under 215 just so some lazy fucks who didnt get their med cards can not worry about jail time? GET YOUR DAMN SCRIPT, and you will realize its already as legal as we need it.

NO ON 19...

 

[dagnabit]

per property too...wow this bill is BS. its a blatent attack on 215, which allows growers to use certain loopholes to allow bigger grows in one house.

i just smoked a blunt with my friend who is 20, now under the bill i could be arrested for "furnishing" him cannabis. BULLSHIT.....

now i cant combine me and my brother and cousins script under one roof, we all have to rent our own houses to grow. BULLSHIT

now if you want to get into the cannabizness you gotta pay up 275k in licensing costs..BULLSHIT

this bill is bullshit, and gives us nothing we dont already have, just takes away nice things we do have...

you guys are so willing to give up everything we have under 215 just so some lazy fucks who didnt get their med cards can not worry about jail time? GET YOUR DAMN SCRIPT, and you will realize its already as legal as we need it.

NO ON 19...

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

Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

now cross reference to h&s 11362.7--11362.9

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



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

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

by saying "the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9."


legal thinking takes more than knee jerk reactions.

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

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

 

[mSeTxOiNcEaRn]

Thank you! i didnt have to post anything haha

 

[can.i.buz]

wall of humanity/ voter registration drive

wall of humanity/ voter registration drive

I've been commissioned by a company to put together medical cannabis seminars and speaker panels for expos and concerts. I'll be doing that and a voter registration drive at the KROQ SmokeOut in October. It's the last weekend to register to vote. I'm going to make a wall with the stories and pictures of all of you that have had cannabis touch your life. If you're interested in participating, please send me your story. It needs to fit on one page. Please include a picture in your story. I'll send you a release if we decide to use yours and let you know where it will be displayed. Please forward this to your loved ones that may have a great story but might not see this forum.

One person can make a difference!

[email protected]

 

[Yes4Prop215]

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


now cross reference to h&s 11362.7--11362.9



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

by saying "the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9."


legal thinking takes more than knee jerk reactions.

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

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

i sure hope you are right in case this passes

 

[Neo 420]

I do have to inject that I think Oakland is heading toward the wrong direction...........

 

[dagnabit]

I do have to inject that I think Oakland is heading toward the wrong direction...........

those fuckers!!!!

being all lenient on those no good reefer heads!

 

[Neo 420]

those fuckers!!!!

being all lenient on those no good reefer heads!

LOL..By wrong direction I mean the proposed plan to allow only 4 cultivation centers. That in all means is to shut out the lil guy. I have news article here on ICMAG that should be showing in an hour or so...

 

[Yes4Prop215]

^yea i just saw that article too. berkeley also wants to implement some crazy program where all the growers have to open their books and are subject to cultivation taxes. they also have to donate product to low income users and offset their electricity costs somehow.

its sounds all feel good and everything, but its just more progressive regulations that we dont want or need.

 

[Tommy Trichome]

Anyone see this yet? The writer has made a very strong point in regards to the legality of non-MMJ in California. It can't be done because a state can't decriminalize a felony under the Controlled Substances Act..

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/16/opinion/la-oe-kleiman-marijuna-legalization-20100714

 

[dagnabit]

Anyone see this yet? The writer has made a very strong point in regards to the legality of non-MMJ in California. It can't be done because a state can't decriminalize a felony under the Controlled Substances Act..

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/16/opinion/la-oe-kleiman-marijuna-legalization-20100714

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

 

[Tommy Trichome]

dagnabit - I understand the 10th Amendment, but what about Gonzalez v Raiche or the fact that the feds have filed against AZ in regards to immigration?

 

[subrob]

Anyone see this yet? The writer has made a very strong point in regards to the legality of non-MMJ in California. It can't be done because a state can't decriminalize a felony under the Controlled Substances Act..

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/16/opinion/la-oe-kleiman-marijuna-legalization-20100714

---good point tt

---good point dagEDIT: tried to get the whole quote in there END EDIT

dagnabit - I understand the 10th Amendment, but what about Gonzalez v Raiche or the fact that the feds have filed against AZ in regards to immigration?

---good point tt

 

[igrowone]

Anyone see this yet? The writer has made a very strong point in regards to the legality of non-MMJ in California. It can't be done because a state can't decriminalize a felony under the Controlled Substances Act..

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/16/opinion/la-oe-kleiman-marijuna-legalization-20100714

i think this is spot on, the days of large commercial recreational grows may be a ways off, prop 19 passage or not
but the situation for DEA could change a lot
from what i've seen, many busts have a combination of state/county/municipality law enforcement with DEA agents
you've got to think a lot of drug growing intelligence comes from non DEA law enforcement
by my crude calculation, all available DEA field agents would need to deploy to California just to keep a break even situation(and likely not even close to break even)
not every DEA agent is going to Cali, prop 19 passage or not

 

[mcsock]

If the law passes or not does not change much on the big picture. It still violates federal law. It is still a crime with some serious penalties if you are caught. I really do not know if I will vote yes or no on the prop. I see so many neg. on it passing. But see a lot on the plus side too. Does the law outline how commercial grower will be picked to grow legal mmj? I see this selection process creating some big money payoffs.

 

[igrowone]

If the law passes or not does not change much on the big picture. It still violates federal law. It is still a crime with some serious penalties if you are caught. I really do not know if I will vote yes or no on the prop. I see so many neg. on it passing. But see a lot on the plus side too. Does the law outline how commercial grower will be picked to grow legal mmj? I see this selection process creating some big money payoffs.

the negative/positive balance does seem to depend on where you sit
if you're growing under 100 plants, DEA isn't going to be a problem, that seems to be the consensus number many mention
for for the small grower, it would take state and local law enforcement out of the picture
it just seems to be a big win for the small guy, for the time being anyways
now when we cross federal law barrier, that will be a different world, should be some great threads when that begins to appear on the horizon

 

[mcsock]

Also, the taxes would increase MMJ costs to the people that do need it as med. This is a concern to me. I am new to growing, but really was forced into it. I simply can not afford dispencery pricing. If the law does pass, med prices go up.

 

[igrowone]

Also, the taxes would increase MMJ costs to the people that do need it as med. This is a concern to me. I am new to growing, but really was forced into it. I simply can not afford dispencery pricing. If the law does pass, med prices go up.

the bill, as i understand it, does not affect prop 215, all previous rules apply
some argue that it will affect dispensary prices, but i can't see the logic
you should get a large increase in small growers, lower risk should increase MJ production, more production ought to decrease prices