Old School Arizona

[Ralp]

Dear Mofeta; Please ban me if that will give you comfort. Foreseen is forewarned the topic is not the myopic 6 plants. If anyone would care to just go the the AZ republic and watch the debate between Holyoak and Bill Montgomery. That are several key points that Bill states in the debate that are paramount. On my phone today

1- That Maricopa County doesn't not prosecute simple marijuana posession cases with felonies. All simple posession that is prosecuted as felonies are tied to other felonies crimes used as leverage in plea bargains.

2-Language in this proposal build a new police agency. A administrative court autonomous of the legislature. Does anyone here even understand the administrative governmental impact that will have.

I am here in Mesa it is a beautiful morning having breakfast. I am sitting courtside I see the cars coming in. I notice some feeding the pigeons and sparrows a few other scavenger birds. The birds are going over each other jumping crowding fighting for each morsel to the delight of the patrons. I can see hear them now as they praise each other for giving life and look there a pigeon with one leg. Let's all throw tidbits to him it must be so hard. So now an orchestrated endeavor to feed the physically challenged. OH NO look what's happening the other birds are jumping all over him few attacking seems the community endeavor didn't have the results hopped for. >>> Watching the heartfelt fiasco unfold I look upon the cars that have just pulled in. I see Ravens jump up on the front of the trucks/cars and eat the bugs off the radiators as the other scavenger birds fight and beg for morsels in front of the feasting Ravens.

It come abundantly clear now Arizona is a bunch of pigeons. And the chum of today is 6 plants.

None of the calls you made to MPP's pitchman is binding. In fact the 6 plant was a amended binder added to the proposal was an 11th hour change to the Sec.of State and can be arbitrated when rules come out. The name of the trojan horse is 6 Plants.

Yes I have family in AZ and was hoping not to have the same old LDS/Catholic conservative ideals laid out as baselines for "New Deal Prohibition" which is what this is.

The cat is out of the bag Marijuana is abundant and easily obtained. Montgomery even say's not prosecuting for just simple posession. There are tons of people growing within compliance of the first MMJ 2010 rules law immune from prosecution. It is illegal for an Attorney to tell you it is OK to grow as it would conflict with federal law. As of now Dispensaries have unlimited grow rights this would stop. The MMJ law would go away and soon the 5 big Pharma marijuana & compounds will done with beta testing and will be available through conventional medical administration.

At this time the DEA will make all smokable, homemade, self administered marijuana will remain on the schedule1 list as is heroin but not the opium plant clarification for the scheduling.

Just who do you think Ducey will pick as Director? Just who do you think that director will pick to have the two representatives of the industry? Then 4 from the public with some kind of political affiliation added for smoke. Those will be education/teacher, Medical with a epidemiologic sociological bkgrd and 2 ecmunical. However all of these have needy constituents. This consortium will report back to the board impact "New Deal Prohibition" is having and these qualified individuals with have a finger on the pulse of the community LMFAO. This new board dynamic will praise itself as monies fall from, heaven to their respective isolated communities.

So sorry to mess up this board as I didn't come with chumb but a radiator.

Our monies if passed we will sue NOT to have these enforcement/compliance officer Licensed as law enforcement officers with the DPS. Just 1 of 5 points we will go after if passed. If the board comes into fruition We will sues on every point there will be noting left for education nothing left for anything but defence till it's gone or repealed and something to help the health and welfare of the peoples of the state of AZ a a whole. Not a few to feed the pigeons. Yea I am moving on nothing here good luck with your historical political raping of the citizens.

 

[wolfhoundaddy]

Mpp pulled home cultivation in the 11th hr. Some kinda shit storm must have ensued, because they put it back shortly thereafter. I always wondered about that.

I just got my info book for the nov. Election. Pretty interesting bedfellows on the for or against crowd.
Will Humble ex head of the az. Medical marijuana program is for 205. He posed some good comments for and against.
Then we have jason medar,who ran saferaz. He is outspoken against. My problem with these guys was they put out petitions for their initiative and never followed through to pick them up. We had several pages up here in prescott, never heard a word from them. I was for them,but they never made it to the gate.it seems they became more about themselves than the movement. I liked where they were going but I think they devoured theirselves from the inside out.

I hate having to coexist with all these players.
Talk about beat down.

 

[Sforza]

Yea I am moving on nothing here good luck with your historical political raping of the citizens.

So long Ralp. Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on your way out.

 

[Drewsif]

That's how I saw it.

Never could understand why they can't or won't write it so it would be plain what the intention is.

Washington passed 15 plants and a med program. The law brought it down to 6 plants and no mmj.


Az mmj is already ran like rec, it is obvious the corporate interests want you to vote, before you can see what you're voting on. They say it doesnt even connect to the MMJ law.. My ass, its the same people (the mafia i assume).

These places know what a 20 dollar "medical" gram translates to in Rec value. People are about to realize how bad they've been toyed with, having participated in a Rec scene posing as a MMJ program.

I guarantee you, no one will be able to keep 6 clones and a mother. Because 20 foot trees have the potential to put out marketable amounts of low grade (az competition grade) " marijuana "

Legalization is 100% certain. Medical dispensaries are already making moves indicating its already a done deal.

 

[huligun]

Good to see the interesting debate and fun stories again.

 

[Sforza]

Anybody interested in asking the 205 guys for clarification on this or any other matter, here is the contact info that came with the email I got:

Carlos Alfaro
Arizona Political Director
Marijuana Policy Project
202-905-2040
[email protected] | www.mpp.org

Adults 21 and older could possess up to an ounce of flowers and up to five grams of concentrate). Adults could cultivate six cannabis plants each, with a limit of 12 per household, and possess all the resulting harvest from those plants at the home.

http://www.freedomleaf.com/arizona-legalization-guide/

I am not a lawyer either, but it just does not make any sense that you are allowed to grow 12 plants but only possess one ounce in your house from growing the 12 plants.

In any case, you could always keep one oz in the house for smoking and stash the rest someplace where the cops are unlikely to find it.

I have forth acres, so I am pretty sure that I can find a spot to bury a non-metallic container where the cops will not be able to find it. Perhaps just on the other side of the fence line on the federal land would be a good spot for the main stash.

If you are just growing and not selling and minding your own business and not disturbing your neighbors, I doubt very much that anyone is going to take the time and trouble to hassle you over it if 205 passes.

 

[Sforza]

"It would legalize the growing of up to six marijuana plants by those aged 21 years or older in an enclosed, locked space within their residences and the possession of the marijuana produced by those plants in the location where it was grown. Property owners and landlords will still have the right to prohibit marijuana from being grown on their property. Currently growing less than 6 plants can get you almost 9 years in prison alone, not to mention the time you would get for possessing what you harvested."

https://www.marijuanatimes.org/a-closer-look-at-arizonas-proposition-205/

 

[wolfhoundaddy]

marijuana underground

marijuana underground

We the people,have always had to 'be invisible'.

It's kinda like when you are a teenager,expermenting with adult themes. Nobody knew unless you f'd up and drew attention to yourself.

I never had a doubt,that anything above grow and consumed would have the slime of big biz, and big gov..

So for now we have a crack in the foundation. Let a little water in there,freeze and thaw....freeze and thaw.
Agonizing slow,but I will take the token oz. And self sufficiency grow and 'disappear'.

 

[Madjag]

If I can sell my 6 plants (or maybe it's 12 per house for married couples) to a dispensary owner for a price he can't refuse, so be it.

What, you say? Isn't that illegal? hahahahaaaa......

Of course it is, however the dispensary owner who I have met and gotten to know a little bit buys most of his herb from growers in Northern Cali at a much more reasonable prices than he would if he had to buy it wholesale from other AZ dispensaries that had large grow operations. He doesn't have a grow so he is forced to "supposedly" buy it that way - from a dispensary grow op that has extra production.

I could tell you more about his clever interstate importing tactics, but I won't because it would instantly compromise him and I.D. him for the unusual side business that he is in. His technique would become flagged and I could end up in court somehow.

OK, so he.......

 

[7thson]

If you are just growing and not selling and minding your own business and not disturbing your neighbors, I doubt very much that anyone is going to take the time and trouble to hassle you over it if 205 passes.

You just described me.

 

[Sforza]

If I can sell my 6 plants (or maybe it's 12 per house for married couples) to a dispensary owner for a price he can't refuse, so be it.

What, you say? Isn't that illegal? hahahahaaaa......

Of course it is, however the dispensary owner who I have met and gotten to know a little bit buys most of his herb from growers in Northern Cali at a much more reasonable prices than he would if he had to buy it wholesale from other AZ dispensaries that had large grow operations. He doesn't have a grow so he is forced to "supposedly" buy it that way - from a dispensary grow op that has extra production.

I could tell you more about his clever interstate importing tactics, but I won't because it would instantly compromise him and I.D. him for the unusual side business that he is in. His technique would become flagged and I could end up in court somehow.

OK, so he.......

Ganja, like money, if fungible. It is hard to tell if it is legal ganja or illegal ganja, just by looking at it. If some ganja is legal, it makes it harder to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that other ganja is illegal.

I guess that is why states with recreational ganja are requiring the use of UID tags to track ganja from seed to dispensary, but I imagine ways will be found to get around that method.

 

[Sforza]

Some interesting information on Prop 205. It seems as though the polls show that it is likely to pass.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...rizona-legalized-marijuana-pot-laws/91637368/
Q: If Prop. 205 passes, when could adults begin purchasing marijuana?

A: Sales could start on March 1, 2018.

Q: If Prop. 205 passes, would individuals be allowed to grow marijuana?

A: If you’re 21 or older, then yes. The initiative does not specify how soon after legalization growing could begin, but both campaigns say you could start growing once election results are made official. That generally happens a few weeks after the election. Adults could grow up to six marijuana plants each at a place of residence, and in an enclosed space. That could mean a room, a garage or even a backyard, as long as it’s out of public view. No more than 12 plants could be grown in a single residence.

Q: If Prop. 205 passes, when could adults legally posses marijuana?

A: Again, the initiative does not specify a date, but both campaigns agree it would be legal to posses marijuana as soon as election results become official.

Q: Where would marijuana be sold?

A: At shops licensed by the state. At first, the number of stores would be limited to about 147 — 10 percent of the number of the state’s Series 9 liquor store licenses, according to an analysis by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. Additional stores could open starting on Sept. 1, 2021

Q: Where could I consume marijuana?

A: Not in public. We’ve all seen the images of people in Colorado toking in parks or on the sidewalks. That’s not allowed there, and it isn’t allowed under Prop. 205, at least for now. In 2020, the Department of Marijuana Licenses could adopt rules allowing use of pot “on the premises where sold.”

The initiative would allow you to use marijuana in public view only if you are on private property, like your front porch or patio. The initiative allows cities and towns to restrict “smoking production, processing” or manufacture of marijuana and marijuana products “when it is injurious to the environment or otherwise is a nuisance to a considerable number of persons.”

Marijuana use would be prohibited on government property, in correctional facilities or at K-12 schools.

Q: How would consumers buy marijuana?

A: Buyers would need to use cash or a debit card. Since marijuana remains illegal under federal law, banks are reluctant to do business with marijuana retailers. Many stores in Colorado, where the drug is legal, don't accept credit cards.

Buyers would also need to bring an ID to prove they are at least 21.

Like the medical marijuana dispensaries, retail stores would likely have a lot of security to discourage criminal activity.

Q: Would a record be kept of consumers' marijuana purchases?

A: Buyers' privacy is supposed to be protected. The state is not supposed to require customers to provide information other than identification to verify age — kind of like buying alcohol or cigarettes. Prop. 205 says stores are not required to “acquire or record” personal identifying information other than information typical to a retail transaction.

Q: Would there be retail stores in residential neighborhoods?

A: It depends on where you live. Prop. 205 would allow cities and towns to ban new retail shops if local voters approve doing so through an election.

Medical pot dispensaries get the first shot at retail licenses. Local governments could not block existing medical dispensaries from getting retail licenses at their current locations, says Yes on 205 attorney Ryan Hurley.

Both campaigns say medical dispensaries could either sell recreational pot out of the medical dispensary or out of a different location, if allowed by local land use rules.

Most counties have at least one medical marijuana dispensary, according to the state Department of Health Services. And in urban areas like metro Phoenix and Tucson, there are a lot more.

Q: How else could people obtain marijuana?

A: Someone could give it to you, as long as it’s under 1 ounce, you don’t pay for it, and it’s not publicly advertised (like, you don't buy it off of Craigslist). It seems like a barter situation could be developed here, if one were careful.

Also, in January 2020, Prop. 205 allows the marijuana department to adopt rules for marijuana to be delivered to consumers. You read that right: Marijuana delivery could one day be “a thing,” like pizza delivery.

Q: Could property owners keep marijuana use and related activities off their property?

A: Prop. 205 says anyone who owns, manages or leases a property can prohibit or regulate “the smoking, production, processing, manufacture or sale of marijuana and marijuana products on or in that property.” Missing from that list: possession and consumption of marijuana.

Q: I keep hearing about marijuana gummy bears and brownies. How are those regulated?

A: So-called edibles are marijuana-infused food products that are becoming more popular. They include soft and hard candies, chocolate bars, drinks and more.

Prop. 205 would allow marijuana stores to sell edibles. On or before Sept. 1, 2017, the marijuana department must spell out requirements for the packaging of marijuana and marijuana products. Those requirements include: child-resistant packaging, a symbol or other mark indicating the package contains marijuana, the amount of THC and cannabidiol in the package, and in each serving of the product, the number of servings in the package and a list of ingredients used to manufacture the products.

Q: Will there be potency limits?

A: No. Prop. 205 does not cap the potency of marijuana. Opponents often say today's marijuana is not like the marijuana smoked at Woodstock. Marijuana has become increasingly potent, and in Colorado, attempts to limit potency have failed. A 2015 study by Colorado's Department of Revenue found the average potency of marijuana products is about 17 percent for cannabis flower and about 62 percent for marijuana extracts.

Q: Can motorists use marijuana while driving?

A: No. The measure says driving a car, boat or other vehicle while impaired by marijuana would remain illegal.

Arizona does not have a per se impairment limit for marijuana, so law enforcement would use the same assessments they now use when they suspect someone is impaired by marijuana. Those include blood tests and other evidence such as moving violations and field sobriety tests.

Prosecutors working with the No on Prop. 205 campaign say the measure would make it more difficult to prosecute DUI cases. They point to a provision that says a person “may not be penalized for an action taken while under the influence of marijuana or a marijuana product solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of marijuana in the person’s body or in the urine, blood, saliva, hair or other tissue or fluid of the person’s body.”

The Yes on 205 campaign says the state Legislature could set a per se marijuana limit in the future, although the No on 205 campaign disagrees.

Q: What happens to underage users caught with less than an ounce of marijuana, or a fake ID to buy marijuana?

A: Underage users would get a slap on the wrist with a petty offense. Think of it as a traffic ticket. They'd have to pay a fine of no more than $300 and do community service. Right now, people under 21 could be charged with a felony for possession, however, under state law, marijuana possession charges are first referred to treatment and cannot be jailed until a third conviction.

Q: What happens to the state’s medical marijuana program?

A: The medical program, which has about 100,000 participants, continues as is for now. Prop. 205 would transfer on Sept. 1, 2017, responsibility for regulation of the medical program to the new marijuana department from the state Department of Health Services.

Q: Could people use marijuana at a hotel?

A: Hotels can, but are not required to, prohibit smoking of marijuana on their property, says attorney Julie Pace, who is not associated with either campaign and advises employers.

"Assuming the hotel room is not a public place, hotels can choose to allow smoking of marijuana in designated smoking rooms," Pace said. The Smoke-Free Arizona Act provides an exception that allows hotels to designate smoking rooms. She noted public consumption of marijuana is against the law, which includes any common area of a hotel.

Q: Could Arizona users legally take marijuana across state lines or into Mexico?

A: No.

Q: How is any of this legal since marijuana is still illegal under federal law?

A: Marijuana is still illegal under the Controlled Substances Act. But the U.S. Justice Department has said it will not challenge state laws legalizing medical or recreational use as long as certain federal priorities are met, such as selling to kids or helping out trafficking organizations. With the guidelines, released in 2013, the federal government signaled it was taking a hands-off approach with states that make weed legal.

Q: Speaking of drug trafficking, will legal weed get rid of it?

A: Not altogether, if Colorado is any indication. The Yes on 205 campaign has said there will be a "transition period" for a fully legal market to emerge, and that could take years. In Colorado, illegal drug trafficking still occurs.

Legal marijuana in Arizona could upend years of drug smuggling

Q: Is science settled on the long-term public health consequences of legal marijuana?

A: No. We don't fully know the long-term impact on health, communities and public safety.

Q: What else should voters know about Prop. 205?

A. Go straight to the source: Check out the Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act. If you want to see the arguments for and against Prop. 205, read the secretary of state’s publicity pamphlet that's mailed to voters and is available online. You can also see what the Yes on 205 and No on 205 campaigns have to say about it.

 

[wolfhoundaddy]

I didn't know we could do back yard. I thought it would have to be in an enclosed and lockable space.
FAROUT.

I was also surprised about the med getting transfered to this new marijuana dept. Thought it took alot to change it and only for the better. They also gave themselves that med war chest that has been building since the begining.

Well...I'm an old fuck..been around the track a few times. Things change. Go with it or go against it. Still gonna change.

Can't wait!

 

[McKush]

Thanks Sforza! You got my vote.... now i need to move to AZ!!! Lol very envious of you all from where i sit

 

[Madjag]

Well I'm stoked if the only qualifier for the home grow is that it cannot be seen by the public. I'm sure that will get more specific as people have 10 footers poking above their 6 foot solid walls.

Thanks for finding this update and summary @Sforza.

 

[huligun]

I like the way it used to be not so long ago in the dispensaries. I would buy a pound of pretty good weed, much better than mids, for about $700. I would go to a market and just tell everyone I only had $700. Wouldn't take more than 15 minutes of haggling. Then send it to my good friend back east for $2500 and he would pay me in advance. The same day he got it he would be pressuring me to send him more. There are some places back east where weed is just insanely priced because they have no MMJ, no Rec, no nothing. The guy that pays me $2500 is making a hell of a profit.

I didn't really like doing it because of the extreme risk of using the mail and honestly, I am pretty well off. I have a business that pays well and I have about half a dozen employees or more (depending on the season) that all make good money too. I just did it for my friend because he pressured me and I thought it would be fun to have a couple of bucks mad money. It meant my weed was free.

The weed business is like so many other businesses, that if you have the gift of gab you could sell an ice box to an Eskimo. BTW, I dated a native from Alaska and she informed me the term Eskimo is a degrading term.

 

[Sforza]

I didn't know we could do back yard. I thought it would have to be in an enclosed and lockable space.
FAROUT.

I think you would have to put a fence around your grow space and perhaps some grow fabric to have it out of site and put a lock on the gate, if you were growing it in your backyard.

If it is enclosed, out of sight, and has a lock on it, we should be good. There are lots of ways to enclose something without having to build a building.

 

[Sforza]

Well I'm stoked if the only qualifier for the home grow is that it cannot be seen by the public. I'm sure that will get more specific as people have 10 footers poking above their 6 foot solid walls.

Thanks for finding this update and summary @Sforza.

The public cannot see most of my place, so I don't have to hide them too well.

Reading the threads on growing trees in California certainly seems more like a "how to" instead of a fantasy, with this in mind. 12 monsters a couple times a year could lead to having enough ganja that I could afford to give it friends.

 

[Sforza]

BTW, I dated a native from Alaska and she informed me the term Eskimo is a degrading term.

Isn't everything these days, except honky, cracker, and gringo? Just don't call me late for dinner.

 

[mofeta]

I am not a lawyer either, but it just does not make any sense that you are allowed to grow 12 plants but only possess one ounce in your house from growing the 12 plants.

Hi Sforza

Hope you and yours are well and happy.

Yeah, that wouldn't make much sense from the viewpoint of someone actually wanting people to be able to be self-sufficient in producing weed for themselves. The people that wrote this initiative don't want you to be self-sufficient, they want you to have to buy from them.

These are the same people who came up with the "25 mile rule", that effectively bans medical grows. For the less than 2% of the population that CAN have 12 plants under the 25 mile rule, you still have to abide by the 2.5 ounce limit. To me, the difference between that and not allowing growing at all is trivial. So they were able to tout the MMJ initiative as allowing patients to grow (technically true) while banning it in actual practice.

These guys are quite skilled at this type of deception. In the current voter initiative, the "WHETHER GROWING OR NOT" in the definition of marijuana (Section 36-2851) is like a poison pill to the happy "AND POSSESS THE MARIJUANA PRODUCED BY THE PLANTS" in the section on personal use and production (Section 36-2860). I guess the MPP guys would say that that was intended to keep people from transporting fully mature, budded plants in order to skirt the possesion limits, and that homegrown really was exempt from the limit. Hopefully, a judge will agree with this. I say this thinking about the lengths Bill Montgomery was willing to go to to defeat part of the MMJ law. He made an absolutely absurd case for banning concentrates (something explicitly allowed by the MMJ initiative/law) based on truly byzantine logic involving the various definitions of "marijuana" and "cannabis". A judge eventually slapped him down, but it took the ACLU and a lot of time to do it. Another judge might have sided with him, even though his case was built on the most flimsy of foundations. Here is a link to a story about the resolution of that case: Court rules medical marijuana patients can use extracts I am certain that Montgomery and a number of other county prosecutors will be all over the most fucked up interpretation of the "WHETHER GROWING OR NOT" language, and that the chance of a judge siding with them is at least 50:50.

The other big trick in the new initiative with regards to personal cultivation is the part in Section 36-2856 that allows cities and counties to: "RESTRICT THE SMOKING, PRODUCTION, PROCESSING OR MANUFACTURE OF MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS WHEN IT IS INJURIOUS TO THE ENVIRONMENT OR OTHERWISE IS A NUISANCE TO A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF PERSONS." Now this part is in a section mainly about the commercial establishments allowed in the law, but is not explicitly just for them, when it could have been with just a couple more words if that was their true intent. Once again, a fair, objective judge would find that that personal grows were exempt from this, but how many fair, objective judges are there? Once again, I say 50:50 chance of favorable outcome in court, and it will be brought to court. If the judge finds that this applies to personal grows, I think more than half of the cities and counties would ban.


I am changing my thought on how to vote on this, however. Upon further consideration, I will probably vote "YES" after all. Even though I think the chances of the average Joe being allowed to grow are not at all guaranteed or even likely, it may be best for the overall progression towards full liberty to keep a forward momentum going. Even with the other problems this new initiative it is probably best to keep moving forward. A carefully crafted, small voter initiative in 2018 could fix both the MMJ law (remove 25 mile limit and possession amounts on homegrown) and any problems with this new initiative (assuming it passes).