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

[igrowone]

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.

so the legislature can make it a more liberal bill, but can't restrict it, makes sense

 

[localhero]

yeah makes sense to "further the purpose of the act"

the wording on this part is kinda weird though:

(a) Amendments to the limitations in section 11300, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations.

they arent saying the legislature can decide on new minimum thresholds right? im pretty sure they arent but then why not say - minimum thresholds may not be changed, and then go on with the leg can adopt less restrictive meassures?

 

[localhero]

and with this line:
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:

that must be what nomaads quote was reffing. so the ammendments legislature can make on the bill are not limitted to the 2 following suggestions listed.

 

[igrowone]

yeah makes sense to "further the purpose of the act"

the wording on this part is kinda weird though:

(a) Amendments to the limitations in section 11300, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations.

they arent saying the legislature can decide on new minimum thresholds right? im pretty sure they arent but then why not say - minimum thresholds may not be changed, and then go on with the leg can adopt less restrictive meassures?

they talk the legal talk, this is probably some standard legal boiler plate that they reworded to use here
i'm sure there are sound legal reasons for wording it this way, just need a good California lawyer that understands legislative phrasing and practices, which i'm not

 

[localhero]

they say legislature can change the prop only to further its "purpose"

and here is the stated purpose of prop 19:

B. Purposes
1. Reform California’s cannabis laws in a way that will benefit our state.
2. Regulate cannabis like we do alcohol: Allow adults to possess and consume small amounts of cannabis.
3. Implement a legal regulatory framework to give California more control over the cultivation, processing, transportation, distribution, and sales of cannabis.
4. Implement a legal regulatory framework to better police and prevent access to and consumption of cannabis by minors in California.
5. Put dangerous, underground street dealers out of business, so their influence in our communities will fade.
6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.
7. 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.
9. Tax and regulate cannabis to generate billions of dollars for our state and local governments to fund what matters most: jobs, healthcare, schools and libraries, parks, roads, transportation, and more.
10. Stop arresting thousands of non-violent cannabis consumers, freeing up police resources and saving millions of dollars each year, which could be used for apprehending truly dangerous criminals and keeping them locked up, and for other essential state needs that lack funding.
11. Allow the Legislature to adopt a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry.
12. Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes.
13. Permit California to fulfill the state’s obligations under the United States Constitution to enact laws concerning health, morals, public welfare and safety within the State.
14. Permit the cultivation of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption.

 

[nomaad]

yes. this is one of the fishy bits that seem to open this legislation up to be a gateway to wholesale control of the marketplace.

igrowone: your comment is legit when part "a" is taken into consideration... but "b" and "c' belie the impression you posted. had you only read a or b and c as well?

its this kind of murkiness that worries me in the long run.

 

[igrowone]

and with this line:
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:

that must be what nomaads quote was reffing. so the ammendments legislature can make on the bill are not limitted to the 2 following suggestions listed.

thee key phrase is 'only to further the purposes of the act'
this limits them from going wild and gutting it

 

[JJScorpio]

...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.

You came into this thread and simply repeated the same things that had been asked and stated over and over again. It gets redundant listening to that. If you'd have read the thread you'd have known that. To prove what I'm saying, you come into this thread 600 posts in asking for the other Administrators opinions when they gave them in the first 3 pages. Why should we all have to listen to your questions that were answered hundreds of pages back because you don't want to take the time and educate yourself to the thread.

This is the reason why I'm going to discuss with Gypsy closing this thread. It's simply getting cluttered by people like you that don't take the time to read the thread, but instead post the same questions over and over again. So I guess it may be you that didn't do a very good job. If you and the dozen other people that have done the same thing would take the time to read the thread it would make for an interesting conversation, instead of the cluttered mess it's become.......

I'm going to close this for an hour or so and give you and the other people a chance to read it so they don't come in asking questions that have already been answered like you have done in your posts.... A lot of people are complaining that the same questions are being answered over and over again and the thread has become cluttered with repetitive questions. Maybe this will stop people from cluttering it any further.....

 

[JJScorpio]

I'm going to open this thread back up now. .

For those that have followed this thread from the beginning, it gets frustrating and monotonous answering the same questions over and over again. Some questions were asked and answered at least a dozen times. It also makes for a boring read for someone that starts reading it from the beginning because of all the clutter and repeated statements and questions. If you're going to make a statement as fact, include some form of proof, such as a link to where you got it. That will stop a lot of the unfounded statements and arguing that goes along with it.

We want to try and keep this thread readable and interesting, If it's just going to be a cluttered mess there's no sense in leaving it open.

 

[StoneElemental]

From what it seems to me it can only be amended to "further the purpose" to make it better. Serious inquiry here does any of this mean they can change or amend it behind the peoples backs to shift either way? If so then there doesn't really seem much point in voting for any kind of bill restrictive or otherwise.

-S.E.

 

[Hammerhead]

I agree with ya JJ It seems THE SAME QUESTIONS GET ASKED AND ANSWERED. then 2 pages laer the same q and a are posted again. No one listens to what is being said this make it difficult to have a debate

 

[MrBomDiggitty]

so prop 19 is basically one big trojan horse designed to screw over exactly the people it appears to aid?


except for Richard Lee... who still has to worry about the feds, right?

i think I got it now.

 

[nomaad]

that's my thinking as well. not to flog the comparison to 215, but what has made 215 work in california thus far in favor of our community is that its untouchable by anyone but us. wanna change it, vote it down, or piss off. I certainly want future cannabis initiatives to have the same strength to stand up over time. This one being no exception.

 

[nomaad]

I agree with ya JJ It seems THE SAME QUESTIONS GET ASKED AND ANSWERED. then 2 pages laer the same q and a are posted again. No one listens to what is being said this make it difficult to have a debate

really...we've discussed the specifics of the part being discussed now? Please link me to the place where this legaleze was cruched to the satisfaction of those involved.

so prop 19 is basically one big trojan horse designed to screw over exactly the people it appears to aid?

not necessarily. that seems to be a bit melodramatic... but there is an inherent weakness where there was none in 215. and the weakness is not in what it does for cannabis users or growers, but how it stands up as a voter initiative subject only to voter initiative.

 

[igrowone]

so..basically, the legislature can change it for any of these 14 nebulous reasons. that their lawyers can argue.

this could be described as flexibility
completely reversing it sounds unlikely, but regulation is certainly part of the game rules
i can see reasonable caution with this aspect

 

[localhero]

From what it seems to me it can only be amended to "further the purpose" to make it better. Serious inquiry here does any of this mean they can change or amend it behind the peoples backs to shift either way? If so then there doesn't really seem much point in voting for any kind of bill restrictive or otherwise.

-S.E.

well it looks that way,

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.


B. Purposes
1. Reform California’s cannabis laws in a way that will benefit our state.
2. Regulate cannabis like we do alcohol: Allow adults to possess and consume small amounts of cannabis.
3. Implement a legal regulatory framework to give California more control over the cultivation, processing, transportation, distribution, and sales of cannabis.
4. Implement a legal regulatory framework to better police and prevent access to and consumption of cannabis by minors in California.
5. Put dangerous, underground street dealers out of business, so their influence in our communities will fade.
6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.
7. 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.
9. Tax and regulate cannabis to generate billions of dollars for our state and local governments to fund what matters most: jobs, healthcare, schools and libraries, parks, roads, transportation, and more.
10. Stop arresting thousands of non-violent cannabis consumers, freeing up police resources and saving millions of dollars each year, which could be used for apprehending truly dangerous criminals and keeping them locked up, and for other essential state needs that lack funding.
11. Allow the Legislature to adopt a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry.
12. Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes.
13. Permit California to fulfill the state’s obligations under the United States Constitution to enact laws concerning health, morals, public welfare and safety within the State.
14. Permit the cultivation of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption.



so as long as you can twist your legislative change to fit in with any of the stated purposes, then yes it can go either way, good or bad. but it will be in the hands of legislature partially atleast.

important!!!

the governor always has to sign it? we better damn well get a pot liberal governor, or DAMN straight nothing passed by legislature will ever be in our favor. BET

 

[nomaad]

i can see reasonable caution with this aspect

to me that means ferreting out the potential implications of this language over the next several months...

and herein lies the importance of an open discussion. if you have made up your mind before you understand this particular complexity, I would consider you careless with your vote.

I am sure there are others that we'd like to better understand and hash out from now till november.

 

[StoneElemental]

Thank you but it still didn't really answer my question. Stab again or let someone else take a stab at it.

-S.E.

well it looks that way,

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.


B. Purposes
1. Reform California’s cannabis laws in a way that will benefit our state.
2. Regulate cannabis like we do alcohol: Allow adults to possess and consume small amounts of cannabis.
3. Implement a legal regulatory framework to give California more control over the cultivation, processing, transportation, distribution, and sales of cannabis.
4. Implement a legal regulatory framework to better police and prevent access to and consumption of cannabis by minors in California.
5. Put dangerous, underground street dealers out of business, so their influence in our communities will fade.
6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.
7. 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.
9. Tax and regulate cannabis to generate billions of dollars for our state and local governments to fund what matters most: jobs, healthcare, schools and libraries, parks, roads, transportation, and more.
10. Stop arresting thousands of non-violent cannabis consumers, freeing up police resources and saving millions of dollars each year, which could be used for apprehending truly dangerous criminals and keeping them locked up, and for other essential state needs that lack funding.
11. Allow the Legislature to adopt a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry.
12. Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes.
13. Permit California to fulfill the state’s obligations under the United States Constitution to enact laws concerning health, morals, public welfare and safety within the State.
14. Permit the cultivation of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption.



so as long as you can twist your legislative change to fit in with any of the stated purposes, then yes it can go either way, good or bad. but it will be in the hands of legislature partially atleast.

important!!!

the governor always has to sign it? if so, we better damn well get a pot liberal governor, or DAMN straight nothing passed by legislature will ever be in our favor. BET

 

[nomaad]

Lotta potential risks in those "purposes" for corporate lawyers and lobbyists to exploit.

 

[JackTheGrower]

I'm going to open this thread back up now. .

For those that have followed this thread from the beginning, it gets frustrating and monotonous answering the same questions over and over again. Some questions were asked and answered at least a dozen times. It also makes for a boring read for someone that starts reading it from the beginning because of all the clutter and repeated statements and questions. If you're going to make a statement as fact, include some form of proof, such as a link to where you got it. That will stop a lot of the unfounded statements and arguing that goes along with it.

We want to try and keep this thread readable and interesting, If it's just going to be a cluttered mess there's no sense in leaving it open.

I'm guessing you are way younger than I am.. I am 49.

I grew up wishing Cannabis was legal. That's my POV.

I also figure you didn't read the threads of old or you would be used to the repetition. I am since I have cycled through this 4 times here now.

Gotta read what's happening JJ even if it is old news to you. We have to see the newness in the poster and the reader.

The issue boils down to Liberty or Freedom JJ.
Liberty is where we have permission and Freedom is where we have rights.

Prop 19 grants us Liberty if we own property and Most folks expect Freedom.

That's the bottom line.