TC2010/Prop 19 unlikely to pass (new poll results)

[Guest 88950]

It legalizes possession of 28 grams (what happens if you go over?)...

so you ADMIT that it LEGALIZES Cannabis for those over 21 w/o having to get a med rec.

i guess your argument isnt that prop219 doesnt really Legalize Cannabis...

but

your beef is the laws making it Illegal for possessing over 1 oz in public or in transit.

i think this is BS b/c how are legit suppliers following the rules going to transport their #'s to the retail establishment.

just b/c you will have to operate within the scope of the law doesnt make that activity illegal b/c if so then Tobacco & Alcohol would be illegal. Correct?

please state your real beef. just b/c you dont like the rules or proposed laws regarding poss over 28 gms doesnt make it illegal.

help me and others understand your point.

 

[CaptainTrips]

so you ADMIT that it LEGALIZES Cannabis for those over 21 w/o having to get a med rec.

i guess your argument isnt that prop219 doesnt really Legalize Cannabis...

but

your beef is the laws making it Illegal for possessing over 1 oz in public or in transit.

i think this is BS b/c how are legit suppliers following the rules going to transport their #'s to the retail establishment.

That is not addressed by prop 19 and is left to local governments, as far as I know.

please state your real beef. just b/c you dont like the rules or proposed laws regarding poss over 28 gms doesnt make it illegal.

My beef is everything regarding sales is left to local governments, as well as 25sqf being total bs. I am playing somewhat devils advocate. Even though I doubt I will vote for prop 19, it probably won't be the end of the world if it passes. I would be curious what happens if you were caught with 30, 40 or 60 grams. Does current law take hold? Or what?

 

[GanjaAL]

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.

Looks like mmj patients will loose some of their rights!

 

[SOTW GTR 3]

this makes me sick to my stomach and my head spin. how can fuckin alcohol be so LEGAL and so DAMAGING, and yet people still want to throw draconian laws on MJ. I wish i was living 50 years in the future, maybe then all this will be behind us then...

 

[GanjaAL]

In light of other information about mr. Lee I do not believe this was accidental but a way of furthering his business plan.

Funny how everyone was complaining that this will not effect MMJ laws... when it in fact does. Like it was told to us who will be voting NO... people really need to read this bill.

 

[dagnabit]

In light of other information about mr. Lee I do not believe this was accidental but a way of furthering his business plan.

Funny how everyone was complaining that this will not effect MMJ laws... when it in fact does. Like it was told to us who will be voting NO... people really need to read this bill.

sorry buddy but ive already used logic to disprove all of "dragonfly's" emotional bullshit.

just look back in the thread.

hell with a legal thinking mind you can see that the expert "dragonfly" has no clue of how the law works.

i made a quite lengthy post explaining the entire 215/tc2010 alarmist situation.


its quite simple though. TC2010 is designed to LIMIT enforcement of laws.

 

[SilverSage]

I'm still amazed how the members of this site can still blatantly support and vote for any political candidate that will allow the suppression of human rights as it pertains to such an innocent and obviously beneficial plant.

Then there's the hemp plant, but that's a story we all love to hate.

 

[JJScorpio]

this makes me sick to my stomach and my head spin. how can fuckin alcohol be so LEGAL and so DAMAGING, and yet people still want to throw draconian laws on MJ. I wish i was living 50 years in the future, maybe then all this will be behind us then...

You can make your own booze and drink it. With the new law you can grow your own weed and smoke it.

If you make your own booze and sell it, it's illegal. If you sell your bud under the new law it's illegal.

The Gov't taxes booze sold in stores. The Gov't will tax bud sold in stores under the new law.

In most states it's illegal for someone under the age of 21 to consume alcohol. Under this new bill it will be illegal for persons under the age of 21 to smoke.

Where's the difference? I don't see any.....

If you're a commercial grower you don't want this law passed. If you're just a smoker you will want this law passed. There's the problems with this bill...........

As for what this will do to the price, lets look at Prohibition. When booze was illegal it sold for triple of the price of when it was legal. What does that tell you will happen to the price of bud? Like I said, this bill isn't for commercial growers.......

 

[SilverSage]

You can make your own booze and drink it. With the new law you can grow your own weed and smoke it.

If you make your own booze and sell it, it's illegal. If you sell your bud under the new law it's illegal.

The Gov't taxes booze sold in stores. The Gov't will tax bud sold in stores under the new law.

In most states it's illegal for someone under the age of 21 to consume alcohol. Under this new bill it will be illegal for persons under the age of 21 to smoke.

Where's the difference? I don't see any.....

If you're a commercial grower you don't want this law passed. If you're just a smoker you will want this law passed. There's the problems with this bill...........

As for what this will do to the price, lets look at Prohibition. When booze was illegal it sold for triple of the price of when it was legal. What does that tell you will happen to the price of bud? Like I said, this bill isn't for commercial growers.......

I believe you have your facts slightly wrong. It is not illegal for a minor to consume alcohol when in the presence and with the approval of a parent in a private dwelling. I am not certain how this new law, if approved, would apply to minors in this situation.

 

[karmical]

If you're a commercial grower you don't want this law passed. If you're just a smoker you will want this law passed. There's the problems with this bill...........

As for what this will do to the price, lets look at Prohibition. When booze was illegal it sold for triple of the price of when it was legal. What does that tell you will happen to the price of bud? Like I said, this bill isn't for commercial growers.......

Alcohol Prohibition was lifted by Constitutional Amendment thus removal of the federal no-no...

Prop 19 is a State stepping stone that maybe one day providing eough power to make a "Federal Change" so in your comparing mj price drop to booze end of prohibition isn't correct to support your claim, since mj will still under federal law still remain illegal.

commercial growers need to chill for a moment and look at the big picture.

If you're making $$ now, you'll be making $$ when this thing passes, maybe its time to step your game up, because each and every day I see 10+ people that need mj, You haven't reached them yet...

Last time I checked the store their were more mirco-brews than budwiser/coors.

Don't believe the hype of the super grow warehouses, good mj will always be a valuable commodity, if you know what to do with it once its finished

 

[JJScorpio]

I believe you have your facts slightly wrong. It is not illegal for a minor to consume alcohol when in the presence and with the approval of a parent in a private dwelling. I am not certain how this new law, if approved, would apply to minors in this situation.

I'm not sure what Country you live in, but in most states if a parent lets a minor drink alcohol in their home they are charged with endangering the welfare of a child and the child would be removed. In my State you face a year in County....

 

[215forLife]

Ofcourse you see 10+ people a day you work at Lee's clubs...

Anyways the only way I would vote on prop 19 is if the "rebuttal to arguement against prop 19" contained two very specific sentences that would absolutly guarantee our current prop 215 freedoms (and give us safe haven if regulation goes sour) and guarantees that we have a right to compete.

The first is, "this initiative will not affect prop 215, sb420, and relevant supporting caselaw." The second one is "The non discrimination clause guarantees a fair equal chance for all to compete in an emerging industry".

Just as one sentence in ballot arguements gave us unlimited grow, these two sentences provide the safety we all want. Taxes are a moot point since legislative analyst report on 19 said taxes are un collectable.

 

[215forLife]

Jj I think its not right to compare alcohol to cannabis.

Fact is they are two totally different things. Alcohol is scientifically proven to cause brain damage. Whereas Cannabis is scientifically proven to make people smarter and to protect the brain from damage (the us gov nueroprotectant patent).

Why should we put the most benefical substance known to man in the same category as the most destructive? It seems like we would be somehow reinforcing the bogus notion that weed is bad.

 

[karmical]

Ofcourse you see 10+ people a day you work at Lee's clubs...

thank goodness the plastic bubble gets lifted every now and again and I get the chance to go outside, as I do actually have a life away from work, as those 10+ people I mention have nothing to do with work...

as for the rest of that stuff you mention, this thing has nothing to do with sb420 or 215<period> thus making any addition on that or any regards at this point just can not happen, in order to please... Really?

 

[215forLife]

Bingo! Thanks for proving that the agenda is the destruction of 215 to ensure a monoply for a select few. I thought you guys wanted to win this thing. Without specific protections to 215 and a guaranteed right for all to compete how can you expect our commuinty as a whole to embrace it?

 

[215forLife]

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.

The pro campaign is lying and I spoke with a lawyer friend of mine who might write opinions for one of the district appellate courts in California. He was amazed at my analysis and said I am dead on right.

 

[215forLife]

Anyways Karmical iif you get those two sentences in the rebuttal I can guarantee one of two things will happen to help get 19 passed. The first is that I can talk Dennis into supporting it with mmj protections, if he is still against it, I will debate him into the ground like I did Chris Conrad to show he is wrong. But until those sentences are in there he is right.

 

[215forLife]

Oh and if you don't like my suggestion I would urge you to call Aaron Smith (head of california MPP) he agrees with me that its the best way to unite the community behind prop 19. Have a wonderful day!

 

[dagnabit]

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.

The pro campaign is lying and I spoke with a lawyer friend of mine who might write opinions for one of the district appellate courts in California. He was amazed at my analysis and said I am dead on right.

tired of repeating myself...

read my previous posts concerning the interrelation between TC2010 and 215 to your lawyer and let me know what he says.

also point out the intent and scope statement establishing a negative charter for law enforcement by stating quite plainly "this bill is intended to limit enforcement of law".

 

[215forLife]

Yeah it limits enforcement to those who either have less than an ounce, grow 25sq feet or less, or have paid big bucks for licensing. Limit and Eliminate are two different things. Fact is that prop 19 doesn't protect current patients cultivation rights nor nor does it protect the right to collectively associate. Infact it gives the legislature the means to limit patients cultivation and collective association.

There is one final document Lee & Co have to file that has full weight of law in california court. Its the rebuttal to arguement against. If we are wrong then those sentences will be included. The rebuttal has full weight in court whereas a website faq doesn't mean shit in court.