SB 374 Will prevent Nevadans from growing their own!

[Hydrosun]

Where is the nazi counterpart to this bill? Currently it is not illegal to grow cannabis in Nevada, those laws and penalties were repealed when MMJ went into effect.

I have read the amendment saying patients and caregivers will no longer be allowed to grow their own, but where are the penalties for ignoring their new rule?

 

[resinryder]

Doesn't list or refer to any penalties. guess they will lock us up for whatever charges they want.

 

[Anteah]

AZ Kingman dispensary....

AZ Kingman dispensary....

Just heard on the radio someone drove a burning car into a Kingman dispensary then got out and git into a good car and drove away.. as much as i feel their frustration I doubt this is a good approach. Either way i guess these are the first signs of the growing public discontent.

 

[resinryder]

Heard about that this morning. Hell of a way to "drive" their point home wouldn't ya say?

 

[Anteah]

Yeah they sure are sending a message.. but somehow I just dont see it being real effective on the long run. Eventually everyone willing to pull things like that off will be jailed and the good ole dispensaries will flourish as if nothing has happened serving those who can afford it. Leaving us in limbo like we dont exist.

Also about penalties once we will not be allowed to grow anymore. I assume they will be those that are already in place for illegal cultivation.. and who knows maybe even intent to sell.. if they happen to find a scale and some sandwich baggies... somewhere in the kitchen cabinet.

Like someone who i spoke with recently and who has apparently been fighting the whole system in NV for quite a while "It's about to get real stupid up in here".

I'm already looking into a move to CA.. this thing has been done deliberately and without much regard for those who it will negatively affect as we are not their customer to begin with and so dont have much weight when it comes to their decision making.

Nothing new, same old shit.

 

[Hydro-Soil]

Just heard on the radio someone drove a burning car into a Kingman dispensary then got out and git into a good car and drove away.. as much as i feel their frustration I doubt this is a good approach. Either way i guess these are the first signs of the growing public discontent.

Good approach? Perhaps not. Sign that people are extremely upset? Yes.


People don't wake up one day and decide to drive a burning car into a business, just 'cause they feel like it.

Persecution is earned.


Look up Mormon history.

Stay Safe!

 

[macncheese]

wtf, are you implying that american indians earned their treatment?

 

[Hydro-Soil]

ROTFLMAO!

Ummm... Is that really how you interpreted that?

Wow.

Stay Safe!

 

[resinryder]

Hasn't been voted on yet. It is in the Senate finance committee at the moment. It hasn't been acted/discussed in there yet. Once it is, there will be 1 last chance for public discussion before it is passed on to the full assembly for final votes.
If you go here---http://leg.state.nv.us/
You can sign up for the---Personalized Legislative Tracking

There is a free option once you sign up for the Personalized Legislative Tracking. From there you can sign in and track any bill you want updates on. It's SB 374. Unlike the other options that you can pay for, the free option will not email you when any action is taken on the bill you are tracking.

Also, to make it easy you can go to this page---

https://nelis.leg.state.nv.us/77th2013/App#/77th2013/Committee/Meetings/Senate/Finance

Under the agenda for their day, Next to the Discussion Items, you can click on Bills. The day they discuss the bill (it will be listed here), they will have a public i hearing time on the bill. This will be in Carson City or the Grant Sawyer Building in Las Vegas where you can sign up to speak either for or against passage and the impact it will have on you.


Hope that info helps.

 

[MangoCat]

The way I read the legislative calendar is that SB374 would need to be passed by the Assembly Judiciary committee by next Friday, May 17th or it is dead. I also thought that it needed to be passed by the full Senate by April 27th; but apparently that's not true. Who the fuck knows.... when does this bill die if not passed?

 

[resinryder]

The bill was passed as amended by the Judiciary Committee. It is now in the Senate Finance commettee because it has a financial impact on the state. It hasn't been placed on the agenda for discussion by that committee yet. Because it has been tagged as EXEMPT, it does not have to go back to the Judiciary committee after leaving the Senate Financial Committee. From there it will go straight to the full Assemble for a vote. If the bill didn't have the EXEMPT status, it would need to go back to the Judiciary Co.
NOW, if the Finance Committee doesn't act on it by whatever their dead line is, the bill dies in Committee. But from what I've been told, that isn't going to happen.
What need to really happen right now, before it goes for the final votes, is that everyone effected calls their Rep and Senator AND the bills sponsors and tell them to take out the no grow section of the bill which is Section 22 Item #6.
Hope that wasn't confusing. I've been on the phone with people in Carson City that I really haven't wanted to talk with otherwise.

 

[HUGE]

Will email suffice? I sent a bunch but I havnt received any replys.

 

[resinryder]

Yeah man. anything to let them know this isn't right. I'm keeping a close eye on when the bill will be up for public comment.

 

[MangoCat]

Thanks resinryder, So the bill doesn't have to pass over to the Assembly Judiciary Committee for them to vote on before it goes to the full house? I thought that's how bills passed back and forth between the Senate and the Assembly, ie: through their corresponding committees who vote and pass it on for a full vote. I hope so as the more steps they've got to go through the better for us. A potential long hearing in the Assembly Judiciary Committee could run the bill out of time at this late date. Especially with the protest that's being raised over the grow issue and a lot of people testifying.
I thinks that's how the awful Senator Copening 8+ plants is a felony bill from last session was killed, ie: it passed the Senate committee; but died in the Assembly committee when time ran out.

With all that in mind, is the deadline for passage by the Assembly Judiciary Committee next Friday, May 17th according to the legislature posted deadlines?

https://nelis.leg.state.nv.us/77th2013

Or do I not have a clue as to how this crap works......

 

[resinryder]

You are very close and that is normally how it works. BUT!!! The bill now has an EXEMPT status tacked to it meaning it can leave the Senate Finance committee and does not have to go back to the Judiciary Committee before heading to a vote. If it didn't have the EXEMPT status it would go back to the Judiciary and then on to the Assembly for the vote.
They did this so that it would get to the Assembly for the vote without getting hung up and possibly dying in some committee.

I sincerely hope people are raising hell about it. Just a small number aren't going to sway these greedy bastards one way or the other.

 

[HUGE]

Couple things. 1. From What I've heard the fix is on this one. 2. How about the constitution saying nevadans have acess to rhe "plant". Does that make this provision unconstitutional?

 

[resinryder]

Here's what the ballot question said in 1998 and again in 2000.

The language that appeared on the ballot:

Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to allow the possession and use of a plant of the genus Cannabis (marijuana) for the treatment or alleviation of certain illnesses upon advice of a physician, to require parental consent for such use by minors, and to authorize appropriate methods of supply to patients authorized to use it?[1]

So as you can see, it says we shall be allowed to possess and use AND that the state is to authorize appropriate methods of supply.
So yes, it does seem that section 22 item 6 of the bill, SB 374 is a blatant l violation of the constitutional amendment. But you know Nevada. A little thing like the constitution doesn't matter to government.

 

[Hydro-Soil]

I give them 1 point for using the word Cannabis.

Stay Safe!

 

[HUGE]

Article 4 of the constitution of the State of Nevada is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section to read as follows: *Sec. 38.**1.* The legislature shall provide by law fora)* The use by a patient, upon the advice of his physician, of a plant of the genus Cannabis for the treatment or alleviation of cancer, glaucoma, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome; sever, persistent nausea or cachexia resulting from these or other chronic or debilitating medical conditions; epilepsy and other disorders characterized by seizure; multiple sclerosis and other disorders characterized by muscular spasticity; or other conditions approved pursuant to law for such treatment.(b)* Restriction of medical use of the plant by a minor to require diagnosis and written authorization by a physician, parental consent, and parental control of the acquisition and use of the plant. *(c)**Protection of the plant and property related to its use from forfeiture except upon conviction or plea of guilty or nolo contendere for possession or use not authorized by or pursuant to this section.**************(d)* A registry of patients, and their attendants, who are authorized to use the plant for a medical purpose, to which law enforcement officers may resort to verify a claim of authorization and which is otherwise confidential.(e)* Authorization of appropriate methods for supply of the plant to patients authorized to use it.2.* This section does nota)* Authorize the use or possession of the plant for a purpose other than medical or use for a medical purpose in public.(b)* Require reimbursement by an insurer for medical use of the plant or accommodation of medical use in a place of employment.

 

[Hydrosun]

I give them 1 point for using the word Cannabis.

Stay Safe!

Them was Nevada voters who TWICE used the word cannabis and plant to amend the constitution. This bill as proposed is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and as such INVALID.

Time to think about who should file the constitutional challenge with the NV Supreme Court.