Prop 19 will not protect you!!!

[GanjaAL]

Sorry but thought this would offer a little more insight.

Again I feel this prop 19 was never about legalization but the protection of one businessmans, business plan.

Oakland approves massive grows; 275k per permit ... Rich Lee Wins One
The Oakland City Council isn't waiting for November to begin jumbling the legal rules. The Council's Public Safety Committee approved licensing wholesale pot growing Tuesday, 3-to-1.

KALW News reporter Ali Winston reports from that meeting that sponsors say the main reason for the proposal isn't revenue, it's safety (as their name implies): residential electrical fires more than doubled in the city in the past three years, and officials think there's a good connection between that increase and unregulated pot "grow houses."

That said, the committee proposes that applicants pay fees of over $275,000 per operation.

Approved by the committee and full City Council, four large growers would be permitted in the first year.

One grower said he embraced regulation but argued that the plan would force medium- and small-scale cultivators to close down, move, or "go back underground into the dark ages."

The ordinance doesn't yet set a limit on the size of the large cultivators

The plan also would permit Oakland's four licensed dispensaries to sell to retailers across California.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=67931

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...nclick_check=1

Last month rich lee purchased a 20 acre plot to build his new growing facilities ...

 

[vta]

it doesnt

 

[medfinder]

CANT WAIT!

CANT WAIT!

YA KNOW...If ONE person avoids jail time for this prop Ill be happy.

But like all laws...shit has way of being good..an bad.

if legal...ya sure Big pharma will decend like locusts and who knows what will happen.

Bayer..I.E..GW pharmacuticals allready has patents in 9 country's on there strains.

soo...JUST KEEP GROWING..and showing.

 

[GanjaAL]

it doesnt

I think it does sir because I am sure that Oakland will do its best to not let the feds interfere with their new cash crop.

Also Change will most likely not come... due in part to everyone's assets drying up because of a 20 acre grow facility.

I am affraid decriminalization will not come... just more taxing and regulating... with people landing themselves in the federal pen.

 

[Kalicokitty]

Prop 19 sounds pretty good to me.
Here in my state were covered by prop nothing, and can go to jail for bong water.

 

[igrowone]

I think it does sir because I am sure that Oakland will do its best to not let the feds interfere with their new cash crop.

how will this occur? not dismissing, just curious
because if Oakland has some 'DEA/federal mojo', many would like to know this
and if Oakland can do it, others will follow quickly

 

[vta]

Prop 19 sounds pretty good to me.
Here in my state were covered by prop nothing

Nice!

I'm sure alot of you peeps outside cali are trippin on all the crying. Some day they will realize...prolly next year when they can run down to 7/11 and grab a ounce of anything on the 100 strain item list.

 

[vta]

I think it does sir because I am sure that Oakland will do its best to not let the feds interfere with their new cash crop.

Also Change will most likely not come... due in part to everyone's assets drying up because of a 20 acre grow facility.

I am affraid decriminalization will not come... just more taxing and regulating... with people landing themselves in the federal pen.

From another thread....

:

Originally Posted by 215forLife
Richard Lee had a copy of this given to him. He could have easily put it on the ballot this year

.

He could of. But that would not of been in his best interest.

He is a business man trying to do two things...no1, make money no2, help finally get some type of legalization going.

I don't know about you...but in my 'real' life, I am a business man. I am in the business to make money. I am always trying to increase my bank account. For I know that someday I will be old and will want to kick back and smoke hash all day in Hawaii instead of work in smoggy LA all day...so I need lots of money to make that happen. The American Dream!

R. Lee is not the only one that is going to make money on 19. Please don't be so naive. All the big time growers with the great pot will be making money too. It might not be Al Capone money anymore...but if their shit is good, then they will have no problem getting rid of it. R. Lee thinks he will be the pot king...great for him! I could care less. I know he won't be. There is nothing in this law that specifies R. Lee gets this or R. Lee gets that....please stop your whining it's starting to hurt my brain. Oakland...what? There gonna have major huge ginormous grows...cornering the market! I don't see how. That is just one city..we got a few thousand more...that can do the same damn thing. Again, nothing in 19 gives R. Lee anything that it gives anyone else...opportunity. It's the American Waytm

because I am sure that Oakland will do its best to not let the feds interfere with their new cash crop.

Good! I should friggen hope so! We don't want the feds here. Do you really mean what I quoted? Seriously, you think its bad for our local gov's to tell the DEA stay away?

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

I think it does sir because I am sure that Oakland will do its best to not let the feds interfere with their new cash crop.

Also Change will most likely not come... due in part to everyone's assets drying up because of a 20 acre grow facility.

I am affraid decriminalization will not come... just more taxing and regulating... with people landing themselves in the federal pen.

no it would only matter if the market was limited.
I did the math and it is cheaper by far to get 30-50 individual growers with the 5,000 state permit and grow as a group in different locations, than it is for one of those large growers permits in the bay area. Plus that just limits that bay area not the state.

the smaller groups working together will have better weed, and it will be in many locations all over the state under one brand name so it will be seen just as much as blue sky bud. lower overhead, and less taxes as well.

this bill isnt perfect but it isnt near bad enough to vote down because you are scared because have tunnel vision in your thought process. voting yes on prop 19 is still the way to go.

Believe me if you have any business sense at all you can make a killing in the legalized market. If you cant run a business in the legal market then you shouldn't be running any business of any kind because you will bankrupt it.

 

[GanjaAL]

Sorry brothers but it looks like I was right... and if this does pass, I as a MMJ patient will be loosing some rights.

Sorry but people need to read this bill like everyone tells us people who are voting NO.



MMJ patients will be loosing our rights if this passes.



Proponents of California's Regulate Control and Tax Cannabis 2010 Initiative (Prop. 19) claim it will have no effect on California's medical marijuana laws, that it "explicitly upholds the rights of medical marijuana patients".

The language of the initiative says otherwise.

Yesterday, Russ Belville stated in a comment to his blog in The Huffington Post that "Prop 19 does nothing to change Prop 215 or your access to your current dispensary." Belville is NORML's Outreach Coordinator and Host of NORML Show Live.

Meanwhile, in an article that is causing quite a stir among proponents of ending marijuana prohibition, Dragonfly De La Luz lists 18 reasons "Pro-Pot Activists" oppose Prop. 19.

Regarding whether or not Prop. 19 will amend or supersede California's medical marijuana laws she had this to say:

While amendments were made ostensibly to prevent the initiative from affecting current medical marijuana law, a careful reading of the initiative reveals that this is not, in fact, the case. Certain medical marijuana laws are exempt from the prohibitions the initiative would enact, while others are glaringly absent.

Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.[17] In spite of the fact that the tax cannabis Web site says otherwise, the only medical marijuana exemptions that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative actually makes are with regard to possession, consumption and purchase limits, which only ensure that patients would still be allowed to buy medicine at dispensaries. The word “cultivate” is conspicuously absent. Whereas today a person with a doctor’s recommendation has the right to grow up to an unlimited number of plants, the initiative would drastically reduce that number to whatever can fit in a 5’x5’ footprint (around 3-6 plants—per property, not per person). This will force many patients to resort to buying instead of growing their own medicine, because of the inconvenience caused by producing multiple grows a year rather than growing a year’s supply of medicine at one time, as many patients currently do outdoors. And growing indoors—which typically requires special grow lights, an increase in hydro use, and a lot of time and attention—is a comparatively expensive endeavor.

The initiative would further impact medical marijuana patients by banning medicating in the privacy of their own homes if there are minors present, as well as in public (currently perfectly legal[18])—an invaluable liberty to those with painful diseases who would otherwise have to suffer until they got home to relieve their pain.

Finally, the medical marijuana laws that are exempted from this initiative apparently only apply to cities. For medical marijuana patients who live in an area that has county or local government jurisdiction, according to a strict reading of the initiative, medical marijuana laws are not exempt.[19]

The amendments she refers to were made after Comparing California cannabis/marijuana legalization initiatives was published 31 Jul 09 in Examiner.com. This article noted that the proponents of Proposition 19 had manged to get through 14 drafts without exempting medical marijuana patients from any of its provisions: not the unlimited taxes & licensing fees, not the possession & cultivation limits, not the prohibition on smoking in public or in sight of anyone under 18.

The amendments consisted of adding the phrase "except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9" to the end of Items 7 & 8 under Purposes.

The initiative mentions medical marijuana three times and omits mentioning it once.

The Mentions

The three mentions are Items 6, 7, and 8 in Section 2, B. Purposes.

6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.

The courts will determine that this means Prop. 19 is intended to amend and supersede California's medical marijuana laws; Proposition 215 (H&S 11362.5) and SB 420 (H&S 11362.7-H&S 11362.9).

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.

The first thing to note about these sections is that they are specific to cities. Nowhere does the word "county" appear.

In Item 7, "city" is specified 3 times, every way they know how: "if a city", "that city's limits", "the city's citizens". The rule of thumb is if you say something three times you mean exactly what you said.

This item exempts medical marijuana patients only in cities, and only with regard to how much they may possess and consume. It makes it legal to ban medical marijuana dispensaries, collectives, and delivery services. Unless the city enacts a sin tax, any buying and selling will be illegal.

The Omission

Section C, Intents, has two items.

Item 1 is a list of the laws Prop. 19 is "intended to limit the application and enforcement of". The inclusion of the phrase "including but not limited to the following, whether now existing or adopted in the future" opens the door for the argument to be made that Prop. 19 may (and most likely will) be interpreted to "limit" the "application and enforcement" of the now existing medical marijuana laws.

This interpretation is reinforced by Item 2 under this section, a list of state laws Prop. 19 "is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of".

Note that Item 2 is not open-ended. There is no "including but not limited to" modifier for this Item.

Conspicuously absent from either list are California's medical marijuana laws: Health & Safety Code Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7-11362.9.

These mentions and omissions occur in the 'preamble' of the initiative, titled Findings, Intent and Purposes. Concerns have been expressed regarding how legally binding these sections are and that nowhere in the sections to be added to California's legal code is there any mention of medical marijuana or any exemption for medical marijuana patients and providers.

Exploiting pain and suffering

Nowhere does the initiative exempt medical marijuana cultivators or distributors from the tax.

Proponents of Prop. 19 often argue that everything is taxed. This is not true. Illinois is the only state that taxes prescription pharmaceuticals, and that tax is 1%.

Proponents of Prop. 19 claim they want to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol. It costs $450 to license a pharmacy in California and between $340-$580 to license a retail alcohol establishment. Long Beach claims 85 medical marijuana dispensaries and charges $14,742 for a license. Oakland has a limit of 4 dispensaries and charges them $30,000 for a license.

Proponents of Prop. 19 argue that it is illegal to consume alcohol in sight of anyone under 21 or in public. California is littered with sidewalk cafes and pizza parlors that serve beer, wine, and mixed drinks in public and in the sight of children.

To date the cities of Oakland (the home or Proposition 19), Sacramento (The State Capital), Long Beach, and Berkeley have announced proposals to tax medical marijuana in order to keep their medical marijuana dispensaries from being shut down should Proposition 19 pass.

The most liberal of these is Berkeley, where medical marijuana patients will pay 7.5% less tax than recreational users, and it will only cost them 2.5% more than the 9.75% in sales tax they're already paying.

Sacramento is proposing a sin tax of between 5% and 10% for recreational users and 2% to 4% for the sick and dying. "We're trying to get ahead of the process," said councilmember Sandy Sheedy, who proposed the ordinance.

Medical marijuana patients use considerably more than recreational users. Irv Rosenfeld receives 11 ounces per month from the federal government. Maine recently determined that it's medical marijuana patients would use 5 ounces per month, on average. The tax on medicine, besides being ethically inconsistent, falls most heavily on the sickest, who tend to be the poorest.

At $400 per ounce, a medical marijuana patient who needs 3 ounces a month will pay $138.60 tax per month in Oakland.

Meanwhile, no city or county in California has reversed itself on a ban or moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries since Oakland (home of Prop. 19) passed Measure F, the first medical marijuana tax.

Meanwhile, several cases are working through the courts challenging medical marijuana bans, moratoriums, and regulations which are de facto bans, as discriminatory and in violation of California's medical marijuana laws. Passage of Prop 19 will remove any legal basis for these cases.

Taking the 'medical' out of 'marijuana'

Prop. 19 adds five sections to California's Health & Safety Code, §§ 11300-11304.

§11300 is titled Personal Regulation and Controls. Item a) begins with the phrase "Notwithstanding any other provision of law".

This section makes possession of more than an ounce or by anyone under 21 illegal. It also limits non-licensed cultivation to 25 square feet per residence or parcel, not per person.

If the authors of Prop. 19 wanted to protect medical marijuana patients, why did they say "notwithstanding any other provision of law"?

§11301 is titled Commercial Regulations and Controls. It begins with the phrase "Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law". It prohibits sales to anyone under 21. Nowhere in this section is there any exemption for medical marijuana patients, cultivators, or distributors.

In addition to allowing cities and counties to ban commercial cultivation and sales (including medical marijuana collectives and dispensaries) it states the following:

(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;

This means that the taxes and fees paid by the licensed commercial cultivators and distributors will be used to eliminate the competition. For example, Oakland (the home of Prop. 19) is in the process of licensing four cultivators to supply the approximately 6,000 pounds per year sold by the four licensed dispensaries. Bay Citizen put it this way:

Growing marijuana can be lucrative, but the city’s proposed new rules would eliminate small-timers. It would cost $5,000 just to apply for a cultivation permit, and a regulatory fee of $211,000 for the lucky winners. If one has the cash, it’s a small price to pay for the right to produce a crop with an estimated retail value of $7 million. The fee pays for regulating cultivation in Oakland, which will include enforcement against the guys with grow lights in their garages and backyard sheds.

The New York times reports that the leading contender for one of these cultivation permits is Jeff Wilcox, a member of the Proposition 19 steering committee. "Mr. Wilcox estimated that AgraMed would cost $20 million to develop."

Reasonable Accommodation

Current California medical marijuana law does not prohibit smoking in public. It is not currently illegal for medical marijuana patients to smoke in public or in sight of anyone under 18:

11362.79. Nothing in this article shall authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances:

(a) In any place where smoking is prohibited by law.
(b) In or within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a school, recreation center, or
youth center, unless the medical use occurs within a residence.
(c) On a schoolbus.
(d) While in a motor vehicle that is being operated.
(e) While operating a boat.

While debating Keith Kimber on Time4Hemp Chris Conrad stated Prop. 19 would have to win by a wider margin than Prop. 215 in order to supersede it. He reiterated this in an email that was passed around Facebook.

Even if it did conflict with or amend the medical marijuana laws, which it repeatedly does not do, Prop 19 would still have to pass by more than 56% to have any effect on Prop 215, which is highly unlikely.

Conrad is in error. The California Initiative Guide states the following:

If the provisions of two or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail (Cal. Const., art. II, Section 10(b)).

This is not a case of two or more measures in the same election.

 

[ReelBusy1]

all local and state LEO's know they are the Fed's bitch.
Like a pimp's ho.
If they get out of line they get slapped and don't get the cool toys to use.
Getting down on their knees for the DEA is standard op for a local PD

so if you are not safe under Prop 215 then you have to vote YES on Prop 19 and keep sending the message to the politicians that Prohibition is a failed public policy.

 

[GanjaAL]

Are you kidding me sir??? They do not care about us MMJ patients all they care about is votes and money. Looks like money is going to win over MMJ patient rights. No biggy I guess I could move to CO...LOL.

 

[dagnabit]

Are you kidding me sir??? They do not care about us MMJ patients all they care about is votes and money. Looks like money is going to win over MMJ patient rights. No biggy I guess I could move to CO...LOL.

ive already disproven "dragonfly's" bullshit.
try another source for your regurgitated emotional drivel.

maybe you could get perez hilton to write an article and you could c&p it.

just remember your on the same side as leo,arnold,barbara,republicans and democrats.

 

[BirdManFlyHigh]

Op has a point. She may can sue and win, but her time and money is lost. She shouldn't have to go to court. Let's not take everything that's given to us. Make them re-write those laws until they are acceptable.

 

[vta]

Sorry brothers but it looks like I was right... and if this does pass, I as a MMJ patient will be loosing some rights.

looks like your right? Because of an editorial by some dude? lol

Just because 19 doesn't reference 215 in every line, you think your not protected? Well if this law was about 215, then I would feel the same way...but this is about 'recreational' use and the fact that they do mention protections for 215 patients...is just a bonus. After all, they didn't have to put any of that language in there.

 

[vta]

BTW...I'm no lawyer. But lets 'speculate' and say that 19 may restrict mmj is some way. If that is the case, I will still vote yes. This law can help far too many people from getting busted and sometimes you need to think of your fellow man before yourself. Stop the madness!

 

[Toyot4]

prop 215 does not cover you in this case either. this story is a reason to vote yes.

 

[GanjaAL]

Yes it does at the state level thanks to the Supreme Court which threw out limits.

As for anyone that claims 215 and sb420 is protected because it says "paitients have right to consume and posses" please note it conspicously leaves our cultivation and collective association. The two cornerstones of prop 215 and Sb420.

 

[dagnabit]

Yes it does at the state level thanks to the Supreme Court which threw out limits.

As for anyone that claims 215 and sb420 is protected because it says "paitients have right to consume and posses" please note it conspicously leaves our cultivation and collective association. The two cornerstones of prop 215 and Sb420.

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.

its simple really cultivation is protected under 215 and 215 is the exception to the rule(TC2010)

how are you not getting this?