Young Trees
Member
45 % approval...
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
ICMAG Administration endorses The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010
- Thread starter JJScorpio
- Start date
- Status
I hear ya, but I see it different. If prop 19 had a state wide tax scheme that said something like 8%, the opposition would argue that it's too restrictive. The poorly written argument is a compete sham.
Another reason, is if Prop 19 had wording that enforced a specific tax scheme (instead of delegating this to local gov), the Prop would of been in direct conflict of Fed law. Feds would of easily struck it down. Prop 19's wording was very well done, in how it legalized in a way that would of made it impossible for the Feds to remove.
19 was not a low bar. From my perspective, after reviewing my thoughts this morning, is that we won't see better legalization in this country for a long long time. Yeah, I think that Medical MJ will make its way across the USA in a restrictive manner. Maybe eventually we will see possession of low amounts also made legal. Growing though, is going to be a tough nut to crack.
I am trying to remain positive though. Hopefully we can see another prop come out with great support.
About 450k votes difference. I am guessing this wasn't the growers and dispensary owners. Who knows though.
I mean, if I was a voter who was undecided and I read articles in the newspaper about how the Cannabis Advocates are split on Prop 19, I might vote no too. So who knows how much influence, the split support of the pro-cannabis crowd, had on the results.
Im thinking the most important thing for Cali now is that Kamela Harris continues to hold on to her lead over Cooley. Having her as AG will make losing prop 19 easier. She has been the DA of SF and understands the movement much better. imho
You're right, without him we wouldn't be here, we would have prop 19 passed today, all crack H did was spread stupid division in the MJ the community, and get a lot of people believing in a complete fantasy of un taxed, unlimited growing that will never happen in the US.
Thanks jack
the sad postmortem, my sympathies to cali residents<br>
my feelings were the commercial sales carried too much baggage, i suspect there were visions of MJ walmarts springing up all over the place<br>
it would have a been a modest step, but a simple bill for growing in one's home could have passed<br>
not a big step, but it could have put the kibosh on any state felony charges for growing your own
my feelings were the commercial sales carried too much baggage, i suspect there were visions of MJ walmarts springing up all over the place<br>
it would have a been a modest step, but a simple bill for growing in one's home could have passed<br>
not a big step, but it could have put the kibosh on any state felony charges for growing your own
le crunch
Member
I've heard of a lot people saying a better prop will come out in 2012. But I think the media and anti-MJ lobby will see this result as advocating their stance. Ca saying yes would have made a lot of other countries round the world re-examine their prohibition stance but sadly I feel there will never be another legalization ballot since the 'liberal' state of CA has said no, even though it was only by a very small majority.
I visited the No on 19 website last night. It hardly seems fair that they were able to promote downright lies on their site - for example that prop19 would allow people to get behind the wheel high and then they somehow tried to link that to the number of deaths caused by drunk-drivers.
As for growers voting no - well what a bunch of ****s. Karma will catch up with you.
I visited the No on 19 website last night. It hardly seems fair that they were able to promote downright lies on their site - for example that prop19 would allow people to get behind the wheel high and then they somehow tried to link that to the number of deaths caused by drunk-drivers.
As for growers voting no - well what a bunch of ****s. Karma will catch up with you.
Seems to me that the vote was No because of all the over 65 year old voters..(mostly Republicans) who were near their mid-20's during the late 60's and attributed cannabis to 'lazy hippies' since they had grown up being fed all the propaganda such as 'Reefer Madness' e.t.c.....and believed it.....and just went on working for the corporations, and now are sitting pretty-ish on their pensions.....with nothing better to do but trundle off to the voting booth....
....and of course all of the 'lazy' youngsters who are totally complacent to any vote since they might have been too stoned at the time to bother and/or don't really care either way since small cannabis possession is only an 'infraction' now......and those that wish to grow only need to fake back-pain, go to a doctor, pay a coupla hundred bucks....and bingo!......they feel immune to prosecution....and can grow their own anyway....
Then there are the minority 'No' voters.....the cash-croppers....who didn't want this Prop to hit their bottom-line.....and see cannabis drop in value....
...Kinda sad really.....since if Prop 19 had passed it would have given growers and users of cannabis GLOBALLY a lot of hope that within their lifetimes they might see the same happen.....in their neck of the woods....
....since the USA....is the 'whipping boy' where cannabis prohibition is concerned internationally.....well it spends at least $45 Billion a year (and most probably more).....on this drug war bollocks....
....and of course all of the 'lazy' youngsters who are totally complacent to any vote since they might have been too stoned at the time to bother and/or don't really care either way since small cannabis possession is only an 'infraction' now......and those that wish to grow only need to fake back-pain, go to a doctor, pay a coupla hundred bucks....and bingo!......they feel immune to prosecution....and can grow their own anyway....
Then there are the minority 'No' voters.....the cash-croppers....who didn't want this Prop to hit their bottom-line.....and see cannabis drop in value....
...Kinda sad really.....since if Prop 19 had passed it would have given growers and users of cannabis GLOBALLY a lot of hope that within their lifetimes they might see the same happen.....in their neck of the woods....
....since the USA....is the 'whipping boy' where cannabis prohibition is concerned internationally.....well it spends at least $45 Billion a year (and most probably more).....on this drug war bollocks....
Great news Canabis in Cali is Decriminalized! better then legal for those in cali and anyone who doesn't live here, talk all you want you got no say in the matter, just filty carpetbaggers spewing shite!
IF you thought Prop19 would have passed you were very mislead, there was no way all the major producing counties would have taking away there cash cow for the last few decades. and the results show it in the numbers!! Mendocino, Humboldt, Lake, Trinity and so on VOTED NO!!!!!!!! And for good reason to THEM it would have taken away Millions of $ in profit.
This is very greedy and beyond shitty as the other people out there would have enjoyed the freedom of cannabis usage we all deserve!!! This prop was doomed due to selfish greed and profits!
There is no way something in 2012 will pass either, how can you make so many growers and dealers give up there means of majority income?!?!?!?!? It will NOT HAPPEN!
SGS
This is very greedy and beyond shitty as the other people out there would have enjoyed the freedom of cannabis usage we all deserve!!! This prop was doomed due to selfish greed and profits!
There is no way something in 2012 will pass either, how can you make so many growers and dealers give up there means of majority income?!?!?!?!? It will NOT HAPPEN!
SGS
to quote Artie Lange "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH"
Until the change in how people hold elected official accountable to the laws of the state, getting them to be fiscally responsible and push mmj to get weed unscheduled or atleast rescheduled... nothing we put on the ballot will work. Plain and simple... and to the person that blamed old republicans... sorry... they read what is put in front of them and understand the issues. They are not blinded by desperation of some would be millionairs who were pushing to get the feds and the state off there back as everyone would be growing. That way they could continue their interstate illegal trade without being noticed.
Thomkal Vwalaa
Member
That "person" is Gypsy, he runs shit here FYI
That "person" is Gypsy, he runs shit here FYI
Agreed that the old folks don't give a damn about ganja freedom, and they make their decisions based on the info provided. Thing is the info provided these days is BS propaganda.
19 is dead, EFF IT, NEXT UP JACK H 2012
From here: http://www.examiner.com/santa-cruz-county-drug-policy-in-san-francisco/the-jack-herer-initiative
"Jack Herer's initiative, titled The California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative, appears to be far superior to any of the measures purporting to legalize marijuana likely to come before the people of California.
It begins not with a long-winded and superfluous list of whereases, intents, and purposes, but with the actual legal language of §11362.6 to be added to the Health & Safety Code.
Subsection 1 of the proposed §11362.6 states:
Subsection 2 of the proposed §11362.6 consists of definitions. These contain language specifically legalizing industrial hemp, recreational marijuana, and medical marijuana (or cannabis). It is to be noted that the definition of "cannabis hemp medical preparations" specifies "mental conditions".
Subsection 3 of the proposed §11362.6 prohibits "any special zoning requirement, licensing fee, or tax that is excessive, discriminatory, or prohibitive."
Subsection 4 of the proposed §11362.6 restores "cannabis hemp medicinal preparations" to "the list of available medicines in California" and specifically exempts "prescribed cannabis hemp medical preparations" from any tax. It also prohibits any professional hearing or licensing review of physicians for "recommending or approving medical use of cannabis hemp marijuana".
Subsection 5 of the proposed §11362.6 prohibits the requirement of any "permit, license, or tax" for the "non-commercial cultivation, transportation, distribution, or consumption of cannabis hemp." It also prohibits testing for "inactive and/or inert cannabis metabolites" for employment or insurance or "intoxication". In other words, not only does it define cannabis as an "euphoric" as opposed to an "intoxicant", but it specifies that evidence of cannabis use may not be used to establish charges of "intoxication" but instead such charges must be based on evidence of impairment.
Compare this to Oregon's Cannabis Tax Act, which defines cannabis as an "intoxicant" and therefore equates it to alcohol. A search of the Oregon Revised Statutes shows 2 hits for "intoxicant" and 26 for "intoxicated".
Subsection 6 of the proposed §11362.6 declares the use of cannabis hemp for religious purposes an inalienable right protected by the state and federal constitutions.
Section II of The Jack Herer Initiative would "repeal, delete, and expunge any and all provisions that conflict with the provisions of this initiative."
This section also authorizes taxing "commercial" sales, so long as "no excise tax or combination of excise taxes shall exceed $10.00 per ounce."
The only flaw found in the California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative is the title.
It should be called The Jack Herer Initiative.
The suggested deadline to file an initiative with the California Attorney General is this Friday, September 25, 2009. Filing an initiative requires a $200 application fee. Then the Attorney General has about 30 days to prepare an official summary. Once the official summary is filed the proponents have 150 days to gather the signatures to qualify for the ballot.
I can think of no more fitting legacy for the Emperor of Hemp than to get The Jack Herer Initiative And Act on the California ballot in 2012, and to pass it."
I <3 Jack H 2012
That "person" is Gypsy, he runs shit here FYI
Agreed that the old folks don't give a damn about ganja freedom, and they make their decisions based on the info provided. Thing is the info provided these days is BS propaganda.
19 is dead, EFF IT, NEXT UP JACK H 2012
From here: http://www.examiner.com/santa-cruz-county-drug-policy-in-san-francisco/the-jack-herer-initiative
"Jack Herer's initiative, titled The California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative, appears to be far superior to any of the measures purporting to legalize marijuana likely to come before the people of California.
It begins not with a long-winded and superfluous list of whereases, intents, and purposes, but with the actual legal language of §11362.6 to be added to the Health & Safety Code.
Subsection 1 of the proposed §11362.6 states:
Subsection 2 of the proposed §11362.6 consists of definitions. These contain language specifically legalizing industrial hemp, recreational marijuana, and medical marijuana (or cannabis). It is to be noted that the definition of "cannabis hemp medical preparations" specifies "mental conditions".
Subsection 3 of the proposed §11362.6 prohibits "any special zoning requirement, licensing fee, or tax that is excessive, discriminatory, or prohibitive."
Subsection 4 of the proposed §11362.6 restores "cannabis hemp medicinal preparations" to "the list of available medicines in California" and specifically exempts "prescribed cannabis hemp medical preparations" from any tax. It also prohibits any professional hearing or licensing review of physicians for "recommending or approving medical use of cannabis hemp marijuana".
Subsection 5 of the proposed §11362.6 prohibits the requirement of any "permit, license, or tax" for the "non-commercial cultivation, transportation, distribution, or consumption of cannabis hemp." It also prohibits testing for "inactive and/or inert cannabis metabolites" for employment or insurance or "intoxication". In other words, not only does it define cannabis as an "euphoric" as opposed to an "intoxicant", but it specifies that evidence of cannabis use may not be used to establish charges of "intoxication" but instead such charges must be based on evidence of impairment.
Compare this to Oregon's Cannabis Tax Act, which defines cannabis as an "intoxicant" and therefore equates it to alcohol. A search of the Oregon Revised Statutes shows 2 hits for "intoxicant" and 26 for "intoxicated".
Subsection 6 of the proposed §11362.6 declares the use of cannabis hemp for religious purposes an inalienable right protected by the state and federal constitutions.
Section II of The Jack Herer Initiative would "repeal, delete, and expunge any and all provisions that conflict with the provisions of this initiative."
Section III of The Jack Herer Initiative authorizes the legislature to enact measures to regulate commercial marijuana. It sets a limit of $1,000 on any "license or permit fee required by the state" for "commercial production, distribution, or use" and requires sufficient community outlets shall be licensed to provide reasonable commercial access to persons of legal age. Compare this to Oaksterdamn U's proposal, which stipulates cities and counties must tax marijuana in order to license "concessionary establishments", and prohibits commercial sales and distribution in cities and counties that do not pass such a tax.
This section also authorizes taxing "commercial" sales, so long as "no excise tax or combination of excise taxes shall exceed $10.00 per ounce."
The only flaw found in the California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative is the title.
It should be called The Jack Herer Initiative.
The suggested deadline to file an initiative with the California Attorney General is this Friday, September 25, 2009. Filing an initiative requires a $200 application fee. Then the Attorney General has about 30 days to prepare an official summary. Once the official summary is filed the proponents have 150 days to gather the signatures to qualify for the ballot.
I can think of no more fitting legacy for the Emperor of Hemp than to get The Jack Herer Initiative And Act on the California ballot in 2012, and to pass it."
I <3 Jack H 2012
Why are you here? If it's just to troll let me know....
Thomkal Vwalaa
Member
Hey JJ and Gypsy: does ICmag have a stance on the The California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative? (not that you can vote here, but your opinion does move the masses)
You mean this one? http://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=3977154&postcount=3452
Jack Herer on California's "Legalize and Tax Marijuana " initiative:
Jack Herer vehemently denounced the attempts by the Cannabusiness community to push for the government taxation and regulation of our Marijuana during his speech at the HempStalk Festival in Oregon (09/12/2009). Unfortunately he suffered a heart attack shortly after delivering what could become his most important speech.
Mr. Herer said the following "I don't want to f**king give the United States government one f**king dollar of taxes. I think that they should go to f**king jail for getting you and me and 20 million people getting arrested for pot. It is the safest thing you can do in the universe. And that is what we are going to do in California. Okay? Come over to my booth, over there, and I will see you next time."
Z
zen_trikester
lets hope for a better prop 2012. this is now an image campaign to combat what will be deemed a referendum on pot.
it needs to be known 19 went down because it was a poorly written proposition that did not clearly define taxation guidelines/commercial licensing guidelines, nor did it offer up substantial gains for marijuana freedoms. 25 square ft didn't win an applause from the community.
I believe a proposition that decriminalized possession of marijuana universally for those over 21, allowed up to half an acre for outdoor cultivation (no commercial wording), 100sf min indoor, and set a 10% sin tax on sales, no extra ways to fine or incarcerate, no hidden commercial agenda, no dry counties... something like that wouldn't split the community and would pass with flying colors.
on a brighter side, whitman lost
You are joking right? So anyone and everyone could grow 1/2 acre? Based on 5x5 per plant that is 820 plants! Right situation and the right grower that is 800+ lbs! If it is unregulated who is going to pay the sin tax? Does this stop gang/cartel violence? Does this provide jobs, and income for the state? Does this keep weed out of the hands of kids? Does this provide a level of job security for current growers? Who the hell wants this really? Prices would go to shit and pot dealers would be all over the street. Never in a million years my friend! Not even cash croppers want something like this, only wanna-be's that haven't thought things through or have no idea how an economy works.
Prop 19 was on the right track. I can see people going for a little bigger outdoor garden but the 25 indoor is reasonable for a truly personal, non-medical grow. I can also see them saying no outdoor grows in populated areas due to kids obtaining access. I can see the one ounce carry limit and exchange limit being a must. The statewide regs are potentially an issue with the feds and I am unsure if they could lay out a starting point, but I don't think they would be able to force any form of commercial production or sales down any communities throat.
I seriously doubt anything even close to 19 will ever come for Cali in the near future, and I see changes coming in mmj production. I really think a lot of Cali growers are going to be kicking themselves in a few years for not getting behind this when they had a chance.
Jed
- Status
