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

[localhero]

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

the bill cannot be completely reversed, parts of it can be determined to be invalid though:

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.

 

[StoneElemental]

By the way what happened to the governator? Term limits? Please someone answer my previous question if they have the facts/ability.

-S.E.

 

[dagnabit]

which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations.

this is unambiguous

please stop lying?

 

[nomaad]

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

-S.E.

my interpretation is this. it says it can be changed in keeping with the stated purposes of the Bill.... then there are 14 stated purposes. lots of room for lawyers to fuck around with it. my point is that what makes 215 a strong law for the people is that it cannot, by any means be altered by anything but another popular referendum. Makes it OUR law. This is one of the more elegant and libertarian aspects of California politics. I LOVE this about the democratic process in this state. its absent from this bill and that don;t sit right with me.

 

[StoneElemental]

I'm on my second or third round thus far haha!

-S.E.

I am since I have cycled through this 4 times here now.

 

[markscastle]

MC Seeds stands against Prop 19 and asks that you vote NO in November against Taxing,Regulation, and Control of our Blessed Sanctification in Cannabis.

 

[StoneElemental]

OK is it to be assumed at this point?(I know kinda screwed up) Or left out on purpose or alterior motive? (speculative I know but work with me please.)Thank you for answering by the way nomaad high respect in your direction bro.

-S.E.

my interpretation is this. it says it can be changed in keeping with the stated purposes of the Bill.... then there are 14 stated purposes. lots of room for lawyers to fuck around with it. my point is that what makes 215 a strong law for the people is that it cannot, by any means be altered by anything but another popular referendum. Makes it OUR law. This is one of the more elegant and libertarian aspects of California politics. I LOVE this about the democratic process in this state. its absent from this bill and that don;t sit right with me.

 

[localhero]

i would like to reitterate this:

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:

------------

so basically unless we have a cannabis friendly governor, the governor could veto or not sign any positive legislation legislature put out regarding 19.

that is really bad, that means basically if whitman wins we are so fucked.

this WILL weigh heavily on me come election time, if whitman is way ahead in the polls, that will be something serious to consider.

otherwise the only positive change we can mold out of 19 will come from lobbying at the local level and introducing more pro cannabis props.

that kinda makes this whole thing into a circular conundrum.

 

[dagnabit]

which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations.

this means the limits can only be increased...

what is the problem?

 

[nomaad]

this is unambiguous

please stop lying?

(a) seems to say what we'd all like it to say. (b) and (c) are where it gets confusing. rather than grumping at it, attempt a cogent defense.

 

[Babbabud]

We have months to talk this out ... Im sure people will do the "right thing " when the time arrives. Just because I asked a question about how a commercial grower with a felony would fare in the whole thing doesnt mean I would vote no ... or that I am a commercial grower. We are lucky enough to have this open forum to really examine the nuts and bolts of this thing... if we dont take advantage of it and truly look at this thing from every angle possible then that will show who we are. Lets keep discussing this openly and diplomatically .... just because I ask a question for the "no" side doesnt mean I would vote "no" it just means I want to help get more info on the board. Lets keep talking and questioning and really making sure everyone has all the facts. The truth always speaks for itself

 

[dagnabit]

(a) seems to say what we'd all like it to say. (b) and (c) are where it gets confusing. rather than grumping at it, attempt a cogent defense.

(a)says we are all not agreed. (b) told (c) it was full of shit

 

[JJScorpio]

We're going to remove any posts that are off topic or argumentative.

I've stated my opinion on how I feel regarding this Bill and those against it. I don't think I need to discuss it anymore......

I'm just going to read and listen for a while...

 

[markscastle]

http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html

 

[dagnabit]

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.

whats your issue?

(c) Laws to authorize the production of hemp or non-active cannabis for horticultural and industrial purposes.

friggin awesome

 

[localhero]

jj- feel free to delete this post, it is admittedly off topic, but for the record would you please draw very clear cut lines as to what exactly the topic is, becasue the title of the thread is :ICMAG Administration endorses The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

but the spirit of the thread is: discuss 19

edit---dagnabit, could you please include section titles when quoting 19, otherwise its hard for someone to find from where you are quoting without already knowing what you are talking about.

 

[dagnabit]

jj- feel free to delete this post, it is admittedly off topic, but for the record would you please draw very clear cut lines as to what exactly the topic is, becasue the title of the thread is :ICMAG Administration endorses The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

but the spirit of the thread is: discuss 19

good point...

there are several discussion threads already

 

[nomaad]

We're going to remove any posts that are off topic or argumentative.

at your discretion, of course. i wonder how much actual record of JJ getting a talking-to actually exists on ICM. careful not to erase any of gypsy's posts this time.

sorry dude. your conduct here has made me lose all respect. i kept my shit on check for many pages, but you are a tiny tyrant if i ever met one. have fun adapting history to your needs.

 

[igrowone]

the quick impression i get is this is keyed towards the commercial setups
the 1 oz and 25 sq ft grow are part of the core, not changeable(i.e. not smaller) from what i can see
the commercial rules are practically non-existent, by design to let localities design something that works for them
i believe the intent is to provide some way to deal with a commercial situation that might be going bad
rec shop being setup in an orphanage, or some fool thing like that, because it wasn't specifically excluded

 

[dagnabit]

the quick impression i get is this is keyed towards the commercial setups
the 1 oz and 25 sq ft grow are part of the core, not changeable from what i can see
the commercial rules are practically non-existent, by design to let localities design something that works for them
i believe the intent is to provide some way to deal with a commercial situation that might be going bad
rec shop being setup in an orphanage, or some fool thing like that, because it wasn't specifically excluded

ding ding ding!!!!!


and (a) supports the individual over the corporation.