ICMAG Administration endorses The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

[nomaad]

The waste of bandwidth listening to commercial growers come up with one redundant excuse after another to confuse the issues of this Bill has reached a dead end.

And my job isn't to be politically "saavy" as you say. It's to uphold the TOU and the principles of this site. And our mission has always been to see people worldwide grow and smoke their own Cannabis legally.

...intelligent discourse be damned.

great attitude. you do your POV a disservice. this is the "official" endorsement. like it or not, you've taken on the job of being its champion because its ADmin's POV and you're admin and the OP. You're doing a shitty job.

Maybe I should take it up with Gypsy... personally... LOL. Nah, I'd just look like a big tool and then nobody (especially the legitimately undecided) would listen to me while I get all douchey and pumped up about the official POV.

Genius political strategy. Others at the top of the chain have wisely stood out of it or managed to remain civil. You are incapable.

There are lots of people who are dying for legitimate debate and quality info to inform their decision... There are months before it has to be made and you are stifling the legititmate debate in one of the only venues where we might be able to have the discussion civilly. And before you start defending your passionately held decision... saying that nobody else has a valid argument because they could only possibly be able to come to that opinion through greed is a complete fallacy.

Not to say that there aren't others on both sides of the argument that continue to bring this conversation down to a level fit only for idiots... but again, you are an admin and should be the first to take responsibility for the sake of the site claim to love so much. Especially when getting behind their official opinion in the official thread you were instructed to create to that topic.

If what you are saying is that this thread is for the sole purpose of supporting P19 and that any dissension from this, ICM's official stance, is not welcome and will be countered with insults and accusations, then I'd like to hear from other Admins that this is the official stance of ICM and raison d'etre of this thread, then so be it. But regardless of their opinions, I'm pretty sure nobody else is willing to be such a fascist about it.

 

[JackTheGrower]

That's awesome...most here and I included feel the same. It's just not relevant as we are not voting on that...unlimited cannabis freedom. As one that preaches the gospel of freedom, you should be fully aware of the voting populace. A populace that listens to a preacher of a different gospel. When you do then please realize that they would never vote for a law with no restrictions. One with no limitations and no regulations. "It will be everywhere!" they will scream, "think of the children!".

Now present these people with a law that:
Regulates the commercial growing..they think of 'Mexicans in Yosemity'.
Increases penalties for selling to minors...big plus for them
Tax Money...They are being told that the revenue generated could be over a billion dollars a year...for education and roads.
Restricts growing space....Most people don't want a 10k grow in the apartment next to them. No way they go for unlimited.
Allows cities to regulate...they see this as control when in reality it allows for us to be able to purchase from stores and ANY changes to cultivation can only be to increase said minimums.
Keeps people out of Jail..even the most conservative person knows someone that smokes pot, and they don't see them as criminals.

You give them something like that {prop19} then they might vote for it.

Don't give up your dream though...this 1st step will lead to it.

You are Afraid so you turn this into a logical defence. That is all.

Go run hide! Settle for chains.

With Prop 19 we are being offered Liberty when everyone wants freedom.

If we all gather together and work together for freedom we do not have to settle for liberty.

 

[igrowone]

Nobody can answer this yet. It will all depend on how an individual city wants to regulate and license. I'm sure some counties like San Bernadino will not have licenses at first but when they do they will come with tons of regulations and I am sure it will suck. Then again other counties may have a much more relaxed view on the subject and won't be as strict.

the licensed rec shops will be one hell of an adventure
if DEA tolerates one, that is practically waving a white flag
unless a large number of localities and brave entrepreneurs agree to a massive start up
which has to be the DEA nightmare
at that point, DEA may be ready to work a deal, anything to keep it from exploding(which is going to happen eventually)

 

[GanjaAL]

I think that rec users masquerading under medical auspices is way more of a problem in the bible belt, and probably responsible for there only being 14 states that have followed California so far. And as I pointed out to you last night, some people simply can't be helped regardless of how liberal the laws are. An added benefit here is that it gets them out of the breeding population. Perhaps you need some brighter friends, Al.

My friends are very smart... but they grew up differently then some and have had it ingrained in them their whole life.

So by your very admission the rec user could be the hinderence to the movement... I did see it that way. But I look at it in a different light. Most people I know drink because they want to relax and relieve stress. Some people use pills to achieve this... So why not go and get your rec instead of using alcohol and pills?
That is where I am at now. If a hard core in your face concervitive and bible thumper can see the benifits I am sure others who were like me can but at the mmj level.

 

[GanjaAL]

the licensed rec shops will be one hell of an adventure
if DEA tolerates one, that is practically waving a white flag
unless a large number of localities and brave entrepreneurs agree to a massive start up
which has to be the DEA nightmare
at that point, DEA may be ready to work a deal, anything to keep it from exploding(which is going to happen eventually)

I do not think it will be a nightmare for them. If they are hauling in the sick what makes you think they will give thought to rec providers??? Only thing is... prop19 will do half the work for them as all they have to do is go down the list. Soft target baby!

 

[nomaad]

And also for the millionth time it can be later amended or replaced with something better.

Or something worse. I am looking for a citation to post, but I think there are some very strange provisions in this proposition that allow it to be changed by something other than another vote. Which is what has protected 215 from being adapted by the political machine.

This is what makes voter chosen ballot initiatives special. and I think that the language of this prop takes that whole thing out.

Anybody know what I'm talking about? I'll go back and see if I can figure it out.

 

[nomaad]

You are Afraid so you turn this into a logical defence. That is all.

Go run hide! Settle for chains.

With Prop 19 we are being offered Liberty when everyone wants freedom.

If we all gather together and work together for freedom we do not have to settle for liberty.

Got a link to the text of a better initiative?

 

[kmk420kali]

The waste of bandwidth listening to commercial growers come up with one redundant excuse after another to confuse the issues of this Bill has reached a dead end.

And my job isn't to be politically "saavy" as you say. It's to uphold the TOU and the principles of this site. And our mission has always been to see people worldwide grow and smoke their own Cannabis legally.

JJ....if you admit you are not Politically Savvy, how can you be so sure that you are so absolutely correct, that you threaten to get rid of anybody who is undecided or has concerns about this Prop??
You say your job is to uphold TOU, but you and several others have been name calling, accusing ppl of being cops--
As i have stated several times, I am on the fence, but will prolly vote Yes....however, for you to say that anybody who has concerns...and there are several valid ones...are on the side of cops, and deserve to be banned...is just childish!!
Some Members here have been using the same old rhetoric here...."Greedy", "Cops"....and that is just fucking stupid!!
Whatever....I will shut up now, as I really do enjoy this Site....but I think I should maybe just stay out of these Threads...as they are showing me that some ppl I have great respect for, may not deserve it--
Nothing is "Black & White" bro--

 

[igrowone]

I do not think it will be a nightmare for them. If they are hauling in the sick what makes you think they will give thought to rec providers??? Only thing is... prop19 will do half the work for them as all they have to do is go down the list. Soft target baby!

for the most part, they've stopped hauling in the sick, for the moment
they will certainly go after rec vendors with equal gusto, but it's the numbers that are getting unmanageable
medical in more states + maybe rec shops, this is all they would be doing
of course, they could go to congress for more money, i'm sure there's plenty of cash laying around for another failed war
and they will need more money, they manage to spend all the confiscated funds
then a bit more, they are, after all a government agency

 

[GanjaAL]

True. I know as they have been spending like crazy, like they have a blank check or something.

 

[JackTheGrower]

It just doesn't mater here.. The Vote happens in a few months.

I am learning more about people I barely see post tho.

So relax everyone.. I assume we are reflecting the real status of this political movement. The Prop 19 movement.

It is not a very popular Initiative. It may pass or it may fail but real Heros or our modern age will not stop with Prop 19.
Those satisfied with Prop 19 are the ones making Money on it from what I can tell.

The elitist profiteers are the same as Slavers of old IMO.

So get out and Vote your mine but Vote..

 

[JackTheGrower]

Got a link to the text of a better initiative?

Yes.. http://www.californiacannabisinitiative.org/

 

[Frozenguy]

The waste of bandwidth listening to commercial growers come up with one redundant excuse after another to confuse the issues of this Bill has reached a dead end.

And my job isn't to be politically "saavy" as you say. It's to uphold the TOU and the principles of this site. And our mission has always been to see people worldwide grow and smoke their own Cannabis legally.

Which one of us are the commercial growers that you speak of?

I'm not. All my points were from a non commercial standpoint. I know there are a couple commercial growers here, but they are only a fraction.

And are you threatening everyone who takes the no stance?
Because I've felt rather threatened by your posts. Just because I'm voicing a different opinion then you want? You start grouping me in with siding with LEO and wanting prop19 to fail for the same reasons LEO does? Thats rather stereotypical of you, and unnecessary.

Just because your mission is to get people to smoke legally doesn't mean you jump on the first prop offering a (any) fraction of freedom. You can still be supportive of your mission (even more so in my opinion) by holding out for a better prop, especially since its not a dire need right now. If this was 1990, I would be speaking otherwise. But its 2010, and we have bud falling out of ears in Cali.

I've smoked in front of officers here and they didn't do anything. Not even check for my rec. I was in a car too, at an overlook site for a beach. He just told me and my passenger to take our time, as to not drive away so quickly..

 

[localhero]

Or something worse. I am looking for a citation to post, but I think there are some very strange provisions in this proposition that allow it to be changed by something other than another vote. Which is what has protected 215 from being adapted by the political machine.

This is what makes voter chosen ballot initiatives special. and I think that the language of this prop takes that whole thing out.

Anybody know what I'm talking about? I'll go back and see if I can figure it out.

here nomaad:

Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls
Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:
(a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized;
(b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale;
(c) appropriate controls on cultivation, transportation, sales, and consumption of cannabis to strictly prohibit access to cannabis by persons under the age of 21;
(d) age limits and controls to ensure that all persons present in, employed by, or in any way involved in the operation of, any such licensed premises are 21 or older;
(e) consumption of cannabis within licensed premises;
(f) safe and secure transportation of cannabis from a licensed premises for cultivation or processing, to a licensed premises for sale or on-premises consumption of cannabis;
(g) prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300;
(h) appropriate controls on licensed premises for sale, cultivation, processing, or sale and on-premises consumption, of cannabis, including limits on zoning and land use, locations, size, hours of operation, occupancy, protection of adjoining and nearby properties and persons from unwanted exposure, advertising, signs and displays, and other controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare;
(i) appropriate environmental and public health controls to ensure that any licensed premises minimizes any harm to the environment, adjoining and nearby landowners, and persons passing by;
(j) appropriate controls to restrict public displays, or public consumption of cannabis;
(k) appropriate taxes or fees pursuant to section 11302;
(l) such larger amounts as the local authority deems appropriate and proper under local circumstances, than those established under section 11300(a) for personal possession and cultivation, or under this section for commercial cultivation, processing, transportation and sale by persons authorized to do so under this section;
(m) any other appropriate controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare.


edit- i think i misread your querry, but i do know what you mean. i'll look.

 

[nomaad]

no. that's not what I mean.

 

[nomaad]

here we go:

Myth #17: We can vote in the initiative and fix the tangles as they come up.
Fact: Initiatives create permanent statutes. Once an initiative is voted into law, it cannot be reversed. It remains law forever. It is worth noting that this initiative makes some unusual provisions with regard to amendments. For starters, it allows the legislature (traditionally hostile toward marijuana legislation) to amend the initiative without voter approval.

Now, to find the basis for this...

 

[vta]

You are Afraid so you turn this into a logical defence. That is all.

Go run hide! Settle for chains.

With Prop 19 we are being offered Liberty when everyone wants freedom.

If we all gather together and work together for freedom we do not have to settle for liberty.

no one is stopping you from drafting up a law that would satisfy everyone. The Total Cannabis Freedom Act. I will vote yes...I even told you I would help get signatures. What more do you want from me?

That is not what we are faced with now...though. Lets stick to this law first...lets deal with what is really going on. Jack...you talk about liberty and freedom, you should know nothing changes overnight. There are steps that need to be taken. For you to say that this isn't enough or that you want more, is not a good excuse to vote no in my book. Almost every incident a cop has with someone with cannabis, involves less than an ounce. All of a sudden now they can't mess with any of them. The truth is that if 19 was law 15 years ago, I would not of been on probation. I would not of had to go every month and piss in a cup in front of some dickhead for 2 years. I wouldn't of had to live in fear for two years of getting caught smoking. I wouldn't of had to spend $40 a month to fake my piss. Most of all I wouldn't have a Marijuana conviction on my record. Are you starting to get it yet? Just because this law doesn't let you grow a hundred trees like you said is no way a valid reason to vote no.

 

[localhero]

maybe they were talking about the severability clause?

Section 6: Severability
If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.

meaning some parts could be found invalid by legislature and removed without it affecting the entire bill?

edit- im pretty sure the intent here was to allow the entire prop to not be affected if something was found unconstitutional or was INVALIDATED lol

 

[GanjaAL]

VTA were you carying more than an oz or was it less?

 

[localhero]

duh, ok here i found it, it was right on top of the severability clause:

Section 5: Amendment
Pursuant to Article 2, section 10(c) of the California Constitution, this Act may be amended either by a subsequent measure submitted to a vote of the People at a statewide election; or by statute validly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, but only to further the purposes of the Act. Such permitted amendments include but are not limited to:
(a) Amendments to the limitations in section 11300, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations.
(b) Statutes and authorize regulations to further the purposes of the Act to establish a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry that addresses some or all of the items referenced in Sections 11301 and 11302.
(c) Laws to authorize the production of hemp or non-active cannabis for horticultural and industrial purposes.