Feds reply to Cali Prop 19

[Frozenguy]

Your freedoms have already been sacraficed, for over 60 years...

With that logic, you'd be willing to accept damn near anything the slightest hint of "legalization" or regulation/taxation would offer. Prop19 happens to do it for you, but it doesn't do it for me. Just as something less wouldn't do it for you. I imagine, you have a line; a line that you wouldn't cross, yes?

BTW.. I'm not looking for the "perfect" prop, at all. I know that can't be had immediately.

 

[Ben Tokin]

I suppose that could be within ones perception.
There is something to be said for the freedom that we all share at present. Albeit clandestine and subject to severe punishment, it is we...the breeders, growers, and consumers who have control of the genes.

The decriminalization and legalization of cannabis I welcome with open arms and mind. The commercialization and governmental control that is sure to follow is something that is sure to screw the pooch somewhere, as it always does.

It is also a scary thing to think of this going fast track to the supreme court. Such a move could easily happen right after a yes referendum in CA, and it could force things we simply don't want forced. It could possibly be a setback that could take another generation to start to fix again.
Some seem to think it will all iron out in the end, even with votes for bad or lacking legislation. I am not so certain. Like I said, be careful what we wish for.

When your eyes are wide open and you still don't see. You may have a vision problem. You may see but don't want anyone to know. You may not know what you're looking at.

Cannabis is not like alcohol or tobacco. Alcohol and tobacco are physically addictive and can kill you. Cannabis is not physically addictive and will not kill you.

Cannabis, unlike tobacco and alcohol, can be easily produced almost anywhere. Anyone can grow good weed.

Cannabis is a superior substitute for alcohol and tobacco. It is also an excellent substitute for aspirin, tylenol, pain relievers, sleeping pills, and many other big pharma products.

Why is hemp illegal? The actual uses for hemp are enormous. Why is it illegal?

Maybe the money flowing into political coffers might answer that question? Big money owns the media. Big money owns the government. The media and government control the people.

Why is it that big corporations are allowed to control the minds of the voting public and the bank accounts of politicians?

When will we ever learn?

How can we ever really be free when we are constantly being manipulated by the few greedy control freaks that plot our demise?

 

[statusquo]

I know there were a couple people arguing as to whether or not the sheriff is supposed to defend the people from the feds - I don't know about that.

What I know for certain is that the 2nd Amendment (to the US constitution) begins with the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." In 1902, the Dick Act was passed, also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill - this act (HR 11654) created the 'Organized Militia' - known as the State National Guard.

What this all boils down to is that, in a technical, idealistic sense, Arnie should spark up a fatty and fulfill his responsibility to his citizens by deploying the California National Guard to fight off the feds. If Civil War 2 is over weed instead of slavery, I'd say our nation has come along nicely.

This point was already addressed by KMK. SHERRIFS DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GUN DOWN FEDERAL AGENTS. They do NOT have authority over the feds even within their jurisdiction - feds trump state. Also this idea about the sherrif being so powerful spread so fast and got so out of control a public statement was issued by the US District Court of Wyoming. It should be noted a legal decision was not even made; the case was settled outside of court. There is absolutely no precedent for a sherrif having greater authority than the feds. (at least that I am aware of I would love to see it though).
Here is the link to the public statement:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/pdfforms/96cv99.pdf&pli=1

As for the U.S coming a long way if we fight a civil war over pot as opposed to slavery....are you kidding me? Killing your fellow country men over the legalization of a plant? Slavery is a much more just cause to use violence...

Lastly, a lot of people have been asking for facts/reasoning from the No side instead of fear mongering. Well here is my take on it:

Well Richard Lee of Oaksterdam put a lot of thought into 19 haha, and money. More than a million in direct campaigning which leaves who knows how much in regards to indirect spending/discreet spending.

The legislation is written in a manner which effectively monopolizes the bud industry for Richard Lee and maybe a handful of other large companies. Counties will be able to decide if they will permit growing and many conservative counties will probably just deny outright leaving giant farms in Oakland to supply the majority of CA (pretty sure the licensing requirements for commercial operations will be so hard to get only a select few will be able to get them - but guess we'll see). The counties will also determine how its sold, grown and transported and how much too.

One 25 sq ft. plot per parcel (not per person) with a one ounce limit - how can you even grow a plant and not violate this oz rule not to mention a 25 sq ft per parcel is ridiculous in itself? Selling to a minor punishable by 1,000 per offense and up to 6 months in jail. And 'cannabis' is defined very broadly in the text to include pretty much every conceivable form; 1 oz of hash is different than 1 oz of bud is different than 1 oz of edibles. Not under 19 though...

Also there will be no way to objectively tell time of ingestion. This is important because you are allowed to smoke all the way up until you step off your private property to start driving. This means people can easily drive high - not that is necessarily a problem for many people and could possibly even result in safer driving - and LEO will have no way to objectively determine time of use. I foresee this is another potential way for the long dick of the law to find its way inside you. This is all independent of the fact that there aren't road side drug tests for pot in use by CA LEO.

In terms of fiscal effects: now that possession is only an infraction we should at least see some decrease in dollars wasted. Also any meaningful weight would still land you multiple charges even under 19. In regards to direct revenue generated via taxing...currently any legitimate dispensary should be paying both state and federal taxes meaning some of the pot revenue is already accounted for. Also, more money is not the solution. If we give the government more money that won't reduce our deficit it will just increase it because they will just increase spending. 215 will remain unchanged and will operate independently of 19 too which is another interesting point.

Guess you just have to ask yourself if it's worth it and if you're alright with Lee making out like a bandit at the expense of the citizens and the sacred nature of the herb!

EDIT:
I side with frozenguy. I think people are just in a rush to get some form of legalization passed which is totally understandable. However, I don't think we should settle/give up more freedom because we don't have the patience to hold out. Yes the draconian laws suck, yes it's a shame but I don't think 19 is the answer. That being said, I won't be devastated if it passes and there are still positive things to come from 19.

In regards to regulation: why should it be the responsibility of the government to regulate what we put in our bodies. Know your source! If you can't....make your own source haha.

 

[Herborizer]

statusquo

I believe it would help you a lot by reading prop 19. Many of the fears you point out don't exist if prop 19 passes. Right now I don't have energy to point out all your mistakes, but I will start with one:

You claim a 1 oz limit in your home from your personal grows. In fact, prop 19 would provide you unlimited quantities in your home. Yes, even 200 pounds.

Quite frankly, Dragonfly del la luz often times spreads this disinformation which makes me feel like you have not read prop 19 and instead listened to Dragonfly's lies.

Many of us would prefer a better prop, but prop 19 doesn't in any way (I can think of right now), reduce our rights. It only gives us more rights (weed is illegal right now). No downside to passing prop 19, compared to what we have today.

 

[statusquo]

I have read the full text of the law a few times actually. I based my assumption that there is a 1 oz limit on the following:
Section 3 Article 5
11300. Personal Regulation and Controls
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under CA law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(1) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than 1 oz of cannabis, solely for that individual's personal consumption, and not for sale.
(4.a) "Personal consumption" shall include, but is not limited to, possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other nonpublic place, and shall include licensed premises open to the public authorized to permit on-premises consumption of cannabis by a local government pursuant to Section 11301.

Lastly, under Section 11304 Effect of Act and Definitions Subsection (d) Definitions. For purposes of this act:
(1) "Marijuana" and "cannabis" are interchangeable terms that mean all parts of the plant Genus Cannabis, whether growing or not; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; concentrated cannabis; edible products containing same; and every active compound, manufacture, derivative, or preperation of the plant, or resin.
(2)"One Ounce" means 28.5 grams.
(4.b)Living and harvested cannabis plants shall be assessed by square footage, not by weight, in determining the amounts set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 1300
(4.c) In a criminal proceeding, a person accused of violating a limitation in this act shall have the right to an affirmative defense that the cannabis was reasonably related to his or her personal consumption.

Now I believe I saved you some work and found the only part of the text you could possibly construe to argue that 200lbs is allowed and that is 4c. However I disagree with your analysis if this is the case.

If you could point to the specific text where it says you can have up to 200 lbs I would appreciate it. Also, just arbitrarily coming into the thread and claiming I have all these mistakes is a waste of everyone's time and I have no clue who Drangonfly is. My analysis is my own work and independent of other peoples'. I don't know how you could think I didn't read the text (even if I did misinterpret some of it) given I reference specific things that aren't included in the general overview...Also you seem to be one of the individuals that just resorts to saying "lies" and "fear mongering" without actually offering proof. Anyways, if you actually have proof I would love to see it and keep the discussion open and cordial.

I will agree that prop 19 does not reduce our rights compared to right now but it does reduce the rights we could/should have. I am not a pragmatist.

EDIT:
In defense of the yes camp, there was someone saying on the no side saying that there wasn't an amendment clause (in response to a yes person saying let's just get it passed and hammer out the details later - which btw is a retarded idea IMO). Well there is:
Sec. 5. Amendment
Pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 10 of Article II of the CA Constitution, this act may be amended either by a subsequent measure submitted to a vote of the people at a statewide election; or by statue validly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, but only of further the purposes of the act. Such permitted amendments include, but are not limited to:
(a) Amendments to the limitations in Section 11300 of the Health and Safety Code, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations.

There are a few more letters but you get the idea.

 

[Baba Ku]

The civil war was over the states rights vs the federal governments rights. It was not about slavery. Although monumental, slavery was but one of the grievances that led to war.
Citizens of the time period would not have said the war was about slavery.

 

[TrichyTrichy]

Gotta love how history get's glossed and PR'd to a nations glory.

 

[statusquo]

Ok, my point still stands lol. That is a just cause and slavery was included as one of the reasons. Pot is not a just cause to start a war.
Edit: also that was a very very minor point of the whole post and kind of irrelevant to the thread haha. I would love to hear your (and others') thoughts on the rest of the post/thread though

 

[Herborizer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdIYVWA0dr0

 

[Future]

They should go after the Tweekers and not us. I'm doing research on the current people running and if they support prop 19 or not. That will also be a deciding factor on my vote.whoever wants to mess with my right to smoke, will definatly not have my vote!

What if CA broke off and became it's own? Would the government try to go to war with us? That would be a crazy plot for a movie...govment taking away our pot, we become our own nation and they bomb us to invade and take our land..just for some weed..

People calling us addicts!

IMO I think the government and people against pot are actually addicted to pot.
It's on their minds, and agenda..they think about it all the time..how to shut the US people down. They spend LOTS of money on dope..yup lots of money, to find that green and burn it. They are the addicts!

 

[statusquo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdIYVWA0dr0

That girl made the video totally worth watching. Thank you.

 

[heady blunts]

can we get some decentralization of government back in this country or what?

 

[BigBudBill]

can we get some decentralization of government back in this country or what?

At this point, probably not....Not without bloodshed. We passed the point of no return decades ago.

 

[zen_trikester]

I have read the full text of the law a few times actually. I based my assumption that there is a 1 oz limit on the following:
Section 3 Article 5
11300. Personal Regulation and Controls
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under CA law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(1) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than 1 oz of cannabis, solely for that individual's personal consumption, and not for sale.
(4.a) "Personal consumption" shall include, but is not limited to, possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other nonpublic place, and shall include licensed premises open to the public authorized to permit on-premises consumption of cannabis by a local government pursuant to Section 11301.

Lastly, under Section 11304 Effect of Act and Definitions Subsection (d) Definitions. For purposes of this act:
(1) "Marijuana" and "cannabis" are interchangeable terms that mean all parts of the plant Genus Cannabis, whether growing or not; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; concentrated cannabis; edible products containing same; and every active compound, manufacture, derivative, or preperation of the plant, or resin.
(2)"One Ounce" means 28.5 grams.
(4.b)Living and harvested cannabis plants shall be assessed by square footage, not by weight, in determining the amounts set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 1300
(4.c) In a criminal proceeding, a person accused of violating a limitation in this act shall have the right to an affirmative defense that the cannabis was reasonably related to his or her personal consumption.

Now I believe I saved you some work and found the only part of the text you could possibly construe to argue that 200lbs is allowed and that is 4c. However I disagree with your analysis if this is the case.

If you could point to the specific text where it says you can have up to 200 lbs I would appreciate it. Also, just arbitrarily coming into the thread and claiming I have all these mistakes is a waste of everyone's time and I have no clue who Drangonfly is. My analysis is my own work and independent of other peoples'. I don't know how you could think I didn't read the text (even if I did misinterpret some of it) given I reference specific things that aren't included in the general overview...Also you seem to be one of the individuals that just resorts to saying "lies" and "fear mongering" without actually offering proof. Anyways, if you actually have proof I would love to see it and keep the discussion open and cordial.

I will agree that prop 19 does not reduce our rights compared to right now but it does reduce the rights we could/should have. I am not a pragmatist.

EDIT:
In defense of the yes camp, there was someone saying on the no side saying that there wasn't an amendment clause (in response to a yes person saying let's just get it passed and hammer out the details later - which btw is a retarded idea IMO). Well there is:
Sec. 5. Amendment
Pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 10 of Article II of the CA Constitution, this act may be amended either by a subsequent measure submitted to a vote of the people at a statewide election; or by statue validly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, but only of further the purposes of the act. Such permitted amendments include, but are not limited to:
(a) Amendments to the limitations in Section 11300 of the Health and Safety Code, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations.

There are a few more letters but you get the idea.

your handle pretty much tells us what you want there hoss...

You forgot a few lines in your quote.

Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.
(ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.
(iv) Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection.

fucking prohibitionists... we aren't friggin idiots! We have read this many times and know when you take the defining lines out... sheesh!

jed

 

[zen_trikester]

People calling us addicts!

IMO I think the government and people against pot are actually addicted to pot.
It's on their minds, and agenda..they think about it all the time..how to shut the US people down. They spend LOTS of money on dope..yup lots of money, to find that green and burn it. They are the addicts!

mybe a tad left field, but I'mgiving you this one! That is actually a solid way to look at it. +R

Jed

 

[SCF]

With that logic, you'd be willing to accept damn near anything the slightest hint of "legalization" or regulation/taxation would offer. Prop19 happens to do it for you, but it doesn't do it for me. Just as something less wouldn't do it for you. I imagine, you have a line; a line that you wouldn't cross, yes?

BTW.. I'm not looking for the "perfect" prop, at all. I know that can't be had immediately.

I see nothing wrong with people able to grow there own pot. And if someone was going to write some, different bill in some time in the "near" future, then im sure they can spend the money to put on the ballet the amendment of the extra Freedoms and clarifications, that i guess you are looking for. But in short, i see nothing but positive things happening with this bill.

 

[statusquo]

your handle pretty much tells us what you want there hoss...

You forgot a few lines in your quote.

Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.
(ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.
(iv) Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection.

fucking prohibitionists... we aren't friggin idiots! We have read this many times and know when you take the defining lines out... sheesh!

jed

Again more personal attack haha. I didn't intentionally leave anything out to better my argument, I apologize for not taking even more time to quote more facts for the people requesting them. I don't see the need to get judgmental/angry =/. Also I am not a prohibitionist. Nowhere did I say that in fact I said the opposite. Also your quote affirms what I said. It relates to your personal consumption and you would have to give an affirmative defense for said personal consumption for anything over an oz. Good luck with that defense, I doubt you will have much luck convincing anyone that any kind of substantial weight could qualify as personal consumption.
Edit: Also, pursuant to that section means whatever you can get out of a 25 sqft grow (note that this is per parcel not per resident so its one 25sq ft [not cubic foot] grow per property) which can't be that substantial...certainly not the 200lbs as stated earlier.

Edit: I just have to point out, and I'm truly sorry SCF as I hold no hostile feelings towards you despite it seeming you guys don't like me haha, that you keep using there instead of their. Grammar police I know it's just a personal pet peeve haha. In regards to my handle...I always use tightirl but that was taken for some reason and statusquo was the result of my friend spouting the first thing that came to his mind while we were both high at the computer in junior year of highschool...so be careful about the judgements you make before knowing any of the facts. I am not a republican or a conservative. I am a libertarian.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Again more personal attack haha. I didn't intentionally leave anything out to better my argument, I apologize for not taking even more time to quote more facts for the people requesting them. I don't see the need to get judgmental/angry =/. Also I am not a prohibitionist. Nowhere did I say that in fact I said the opposite.

That won't matter much, I still carry the label as well.

I appreciate your honesty, as I was sure somebody else felt the same way.

 

[Frozenguy]

I see nothing wrong with people able to grow there own pot. And if someone was going to write some, different bill in some time in the "near" future, then im sure they can spend the money to put on the ballet the amendment of the extra Freedoms and clarifications, that i guess you are looking for. But in short, i see nothing but positive things happening with this bill.

Right, but consider if prop19 ONLY offered possession of small amounts, like an ounce or something. No growing blah blah..

That would be "nothing but positive" right? It's "better" then today, because today we have nothing.. Well I look at it as, we have worked for decades on this movement, AND THIS is what people expect us to vote on? WTF lol.. People worked this hard to get something this low on the ballot? Majority of people voted cannabis in with essentially no upper limits in 1996. You think 14 years later we need up the age and drop huge regulation on it all of a sudden? Just seems like a couple steps back.. California loves weed. If the prop was written better, there wouldn't be so much opposition.

 

[vta]

Right, but consider if prop19 ONLY offered possession of small amounts, like an ounce or something. No growing blah blah..

That would be "nothing but positive" right? It's "better" then today, because today we have nothing.. Well I look at it as, we have worked for decades on this movement, AND THIS is what people expect us to vote on? WTF lol.. People worked this hard to get something this low on the ballot? Majority of people voted cannabis in with essentially no upper limits in 1996. You think 14 years later we need up the age and drop huge regulation on it all of a sudden? Just seems like a couple steps back.. California loves weed. If the prop was written better, there wouldn't be so much opposition.

This goes back to what the voters will go for. Don't forget that MOST voters have never smoked cannabis. 19 can go either way...if 19 didn't have the limits and regulation...it would be tanking hard. That is reality. We need something we can build off of and 19 allows for that while at the same time it gives us the most liberal cannabis law in 100 years.

Vote YES