Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012

[vta]

Figured this prop deserved it's own thread.

I like the Regulate MJ Like Wine Act myself...but you can bet I'll be voting for both!!

Legalization Initiative # 2

And now we have another one

'Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012' Filed
By David Downs

2012 promises not one but a flurry of legalization initiatives in battleground states Colorado, California and perhaps Washington.

Today, East Bay physician Dr. Frank Lucido, Mendocino activist Pebbles Trippett, as well as attorneys Joe Rogoway, Omar Figueroa, and William Panzer announce a second California pot initiative, following 'Regulate Marijuana Like Wine'.

The Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012 would allow adults to legally possess up to three pounds of pot and grow a ten-by-ten-foot garden. It puts the California Department of Public Health in charge of administering the commercial side. The text of the initiative now heads to the State Attorney General's office for a title and summary.

The groups says some online surveys point to support for change. However, legalization measure Prop 19 lost in 2010 with 46 percent of the vote. Rogoway and Figueroa were involved in a separate 2010 legalization initiative that failed to gather enough signatures to be placed on the ballot. But this year's measure comes with the imprimatur of Panzer, an attorney who co-authored California's landmark medical marijuana initiative, Prop 215, in 1996.

California adults could lawfully possess up to three pounds under the 'Repeal ... Act'

The folks behind the act have a fundraiser planned for October 1. And a Facebook page.

Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012

This initiative measure is submitted to the People of the State of California in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution.

This initiative measure adds Chapter 6.7, entitled “Repeal of Cannabis Prohibition,” to Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code.


PROPOSED LAW

SECTION 1. Sections 11420, 11421, 11422, 11423, 11424, 11425, 11426, 11427, and 11428 are added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:

11420(a). This Act shall be known and may be cited as the Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012.

(b)(1) The People of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012 are as follows:

(A) To ensure that adults have the right to obtain and use cannabis.

(B) To ensure that adults who participate in cannabis related activities are not subject to criminal arrest, prosecution, or sanction.

(C) To make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from driving impaired, nor to condone the diversion of cannabis to minors.

(c) “Cannabis” means “marijuana” as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 11018 and “concentrated cannabis” as defined in Section 11006.5.

11421(a). The following statutes are hereby repealed from the Health and Safety Code: Section 11054(d)(13), Section 11054(d)(20), Section 11357, Section 11358, Section 11359, Section 11360, and Section 11361. Section 23222(b) of the California Vehicle Code is hereby repealed. Cannabis related activities are hereby removed from the prohibitions contained within Health and Safety Code Sections 11364.7, 11365, 11366, 11366.5, 11379.6 and 11570.

(b). The repeal of Health and Safety Code section 11360, as related to sales only, will be effectuated within 180 days of passage of the Act in order to allow the California Department of Public Health the opportunity to enact commercial cannabis regulations.

11422. It shall not be a crime or public offense for an adult to use, possess, share, cultivate, transport, process, distribute, sell or otherwise engage in cannabis related activities.

11423(a). The California Department of Public Health shall oversee the regulatory system for the commercial cultivation, manufacturing, processing, testing, transportation, distribution, and sales of cannabis. This shall include promulgation of regulations to control, license, permit, or otherwise authorize the commercial cultivation, manufacturing, processing, testing, transportation, distribution and sales of cannabis. These regulations shall include appropriate controls on the licensed premises for commercial cultivation, sales 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 other environmental and public health controls. These regulations may not include bans of the conduct permitted by this Act.

(b) Any regulations created by the California Department of Public Health may not impede on the individual rights set forth in this Act. Any taxes, regulations, fines and fees imposed pursuant to this section shall not be imposed on personal amounts of cannabis below 3 pounds of processed cannabis and 100 sq. ft. of cannabis plant canopy provided that the processed cannabis was not sold or purchased pursuant to subdivision (a).

(c) The California Department of Public Health may regulate the smoking of cannabis in public and where minors are present.

11424. This Act, and all state implementations of this Act, shall preempt enactments of local jurisdictions with the exception that local jurisdictions may enhance the rights and protections of persons involved in cannabis related activities beyond what is delineated by the state or this Act.

11425. This Act shall not adversely affect the individual and group medical rights and protections afforded by California Health and Safety Code §11362.5 through §11362.83.

11426. Cannabis related conduct that contributes to the delinquency of a minor shall remain punishable by Penal Code section 272. Driving while impaired by cannabis shall remain punishable by Vehicle Code Sections 23103, 23152(a) and 23153. Impairment occurs when a person's mental or physical abilities are so impaired that he or she is no longer able to drive a vehicle with the caution of a sober person, using ordinary care, under similar circumstances.

11427. If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.

11428. The provisions of this Act shall become effective November 7, 2012.

 

[guest86120975]

Word to the naysayers.. If you want a larger garden, that doesn't mean you're going to jail if you have one...it just means you'll need a license.

 

[OLDproLg]

Wishfull thinking!

Any step is a good step,even baby steps!
if it passes RUBBER WILL BURN an dust will fly..................
Freedom baby!

 

[Hydrosun]

Word to the naysayers.. If you want a larger garden, that doesn't mean you're going to jail if you have one...it just means you'll need a license.

The other CA bill doesn't have the size restriction, nor does it have a possession limit.

For those reasons I feel the regulate like wine act should get the support of this community and the CA voters, but this newer ballot measure should not.

Also I think having two measures on the ballot is a really bad idea. People like myself would vote yes on one and no on another. If other voters also split their vote then it is highly probable that NEITHER act gets 50%

The more I think about it the more disappointed I am with this second group for doing this. Why couldn't they help out with the good thing that was going on instead of creating confusion and division.

 

[Bacchus]

...

Also I think having two measures on the ballot is a really bad idea. People like myself would vote yes on one and no on another. If other voters also split their vote then it is highly probable that NEITHER act gets 50%

Why would you not vote YES for both??? Voting no for either one of them makes no sense.

 

[vta]

The other CA bill doesn't have the size restriction, nor does it have a possession limit.

For those reasons I feel the regulate like wine act should get the support of this community and the CA voters, but this newer ballot measure should not.

Also I think having two measures on the ballot is a really bad idea. People like myself would vote yes on one and no on another. If other voters also split their vote then it is highly probable that NEITHER act gets 50%

The more I think about it the more disappointed I am with this second group for doing this. Why couldn't they help out with the good thing that was going on instead of creating confusion and division.

Pretty much what I was thinking. The downside if voter props...but pretty much the only one. Of course I'll be voting for both...mainly for that reason.

 

[Hydrosun]

Why would you not vote YES for both??? Voting no for either one of them makes no sense.

One might vote Yes only on the version they like best because if both pass there is a possibility that the lame restrictions in the less good act will be imposed on the voter.

That is why I wished the second group would have supported the regulate like wine act instead of going off and dividing the cannabis support in CA.

 

[guest86120975]

They aren't gonna put 2 on the ballot. That would be quite stupid.

 

[kmk420kali]

They aren't gonna put 2 on the ballot. That would be quite stupid.

Yup-- They are only getting signatures for Petitions now-- If they somehow both end up on the ballot, only 1 will pass-- They conflict with each other, and you can't have 2 sets of rules for the same thing--

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

I like the other bill better because it defines that the state of California must provide protection from the federal government. That is ground breaking in my opinion.

 

[OLDproLg]

Yah,the feds are the worry.

Damn......we dont need conflicts?
didnt know 2 were going up for vote,thats dumb.
Straighten it out Cali............geeeeez.

 

[GL_Guerilla]

I see there being more than one initiative as being a bad thing also....its going to cause people to be split on the issue...and we cant afford that...so yes. the only solution is to vote for ALL legalization initatives no matter what the language, so at lease ONE of them passes and we move FORWARD. we cannot afford another repeat of 2010..
END PROHIBITION, by ANY means necessary.
Legalization in california will have more impact on the rest of the nation, than it will in cali...if they pass this...dont worry about sq. footages and shit...they wont have the time or resources to check on that shit anyway....signs of growing wont be probable cause, and therefore they cannot obtain warrants to search...unless your some huge commercial operation, and if you are....get a permit...which i think people should have to have anyway...farmers need permits...
shit in this country is gonna get very REAL in the next 5-10 years....if we the people dont start taking back whats rightfully ours..we will be left homeless on the soil our fathers founded...
Legalization is the first step.

 

[vta]

I have a feeling, or should I say hope, that the Regulate Like Wine Act has a better chance with the general voting public. Part of it is simply the name. Before you even get to read the details you already know that, 1) it's going to be regulated and 2) there is already a 'working' model of regulation is place. Something 19 left in the air and was used against us by the anti's. I am certain that good ol' Judge Gray's endorsement will be noticed as well. It's laid out very nice and pretty much covers everything while keeping fairly simplistic. I just hope that when big money (Soros and friends) joins us, they pick Gray's prop.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Why would you not vote YES for both??? Voting no for either one of them makes no sense.

ill fucking vote for anything that helps mj laws!!!! all you fuckin premadonnas need to grow the fuck up and quit acting like a spoiled little BITCH,,, tired of these fucking retards who think they are some canna soldier freedom fighter who must live in a fuckign delusion to think mj can be legalized without taxes, licensing & permits or that decrim is better so that the big ol bad corporations dont do their job for half the price and produce a product that is twice as good. but hey... if i was some dumbshit little fucker growing in a closet to support my friends weed habit at 300/oz because im too fucking lazy or stupid to get a real job or have the balls to cultivate on a commercial level id probably be against it to and bitch moan and fearmonger to make everyone agree with me

 

[CANNATOPIA]

Nice post Friend.

 

[Hydrosun]

ill fucking vote for anything that helps mj laws!!!! all you fuckin premadonnas need to grow the fuck up and quit acting like a spoiled little BITCH,,, tired of these fucking retards who think they are some canna soldier freedom fighter who must live in a fuckign delusion to think mj can be legalized without taxes, licensing & permits or that decrim is better so that the big ol bad corporations dont do their job for half the price and produce a product that is twice as good. but hey... if i was some dumbshit little fucker growing in a closet to support my friends weed habit at 300/oz because im too fucking lazy or stupid to get a real job or have the balls to cultivate on a commercial level id probably be against it to and bitch moan and fearmonger to make everyone agree with me

That is a genius approach. Why didn't you just tell people to grow the fuck up last time and pass that shitty bill?

The fact remains that splitting the issue will hurt the pro cannabis movement in CA, and all your yelling will not change human behavior.

Don't you think generations before you also yelled "Grow the fuck up!"

Maybe it would be easier to persuade the adults that are introducing the second initiative despite the very good language of the first proposed act.

But you are probably right, yelling at people always works.



PS. Since you work in the cannabis industry does that mean you "Don't have a real job?" No blanket is as warm as that of hypocrisy.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

That is a genius approach. Why didn't you just tell people to grow the fuck up last time and pass that shitty bill?

The fact remains that splitting the issue will hurt the pro cannabis movement in CA, and all your yelling will not change human behavior.

Don't you think generations before you also yelled "Grow the fuck up!"

Maybe it would be easier to persuade the adults that are introducing the second initiative despite the very good language of the first proposed act.

But you are probably right, yelling at people always works.



PS. Since you work in the cannabis industry does that mean you "Don't have a real job?" No blanket is as warm as that of hypocrisy.

i own 5 businesses>>> only 1 of them that works with mmj patients. so i play all ends of the spectrum --- im not your average grow a few plants and flip it grower .and really waht the fuck else can i do but tell people what childish fucking pricks they are?? no amount of thought process,, exprience or wisdom will change their minds --- that was MORE than apparant with prop19. so at least i feel better when i can associate whos in this for the good of the people and whos just some small game who would rather put people in jail to keep their profits up then step up their game and compete in a real market, which i do on a daily basis

 

[Hydrosun]

You may be correct that many people can not be persuaded; but it is a certainty that no one will be persuaded if you call them childish fucking pricks.

The splitting of the electorate and the minutia of politics and the dirty tactics such as introducing a similar competing proposal are well traveled means of control, diversion, and political victory.

I too used the put people in jail (cages) argument and suggested trading one slave master for a kinder master isn't always best especially if your consent is read as surrender.

The regulate like Wine act is very reasonable. There is no reason the 2nd group had to jump in with another bill EVEN if they thought theirs was better because they are splitting the signature gathering effort as well as fracturing the cannabis supporters into two camps.

I don't see the NO group at all, everyone I've seen comment in this community said they supported the regulate like wine act. The people you call childish disappeared and the support for the regulate like wine act was there. Now that shit is divided into two camps who knows if either will have enough support.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

You may be correct that many people can not be persuaded; but it is a certainty that no one will be persuaded if you call them childish fucking pricks.

The splitting of the electorate and the minutia of politics and the dirty tactics such as introducing a similar competing proposal are well traveled means of control, diversion, and political victory.

I too used the put people in jail (cages) argument and suggested trading one slave master for a kinder master isn't always best especially if your consent is read as surrender.

The regulate like Wine act is very reasonable. There is no reason the 2nd group had to jump in with another bill EVEN if they thought theirs was better because they are splitting the signature gathering effort as well as fracturing the cannabis supporters into two camps.

I don't see the NO group at all, everyone I've seen comment in this community said they supported the regulate like wine act. The people you call childish disappeared and the support for the regulate like wine act was there. Now that shit is divided into two camps who knows if either will have enough support.

its because TOO many people who consider themselfs MJ advocates have a massive fucking ego. in fact just about all of them do.... thats why its so fucking hard to get anything accomplished. nobody wants to work together. everybody wants THEIR name to be the one who does it. if not than fuck it>>> thats why you see ZERO cooperation between all these "legalization" groups

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

^I wrote letters to NORML, Hightimes, MPP, for months trying to get them to get together an organized million man march and they wouldn't even respond. They even gave me a sticky thread for it here at icmag in the legal forum section to help me.