FRANKENBUDS
Member
The part of me that cares about principles says " no! Its gotta be right!" But the cannabis lover in me just wants it freed! Let's clean it up later
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
URGENT:Take Action Biggest Marijuana News of the Year
- Thread starter pipeline
- Start date
November 22, 2019
Dear :
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act (H.R. 3884). I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this important matter.
Recreational use of marijuana is now the law of the land in California and several other states around the country. Since the founding of our republic, states have been the laboratories of democracy - testing out various solutions to complex policy problems. While I support the right of states to implement the policies that are deemed most appropriate for the state's residents, it is vital that any effort to legalize marijuana at the federal level include restrictions to mitigate the adverse impacts of using the drug.
As you know, H.R. 3884 would decriminalize marijuana allowing states to set their own policies with regards to legalization. Should this bill be considered on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, please be assured that I will keep your views in mind.
Again, thank you for contacting me. If I may be of assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
Sincerely,
Dear :
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act (H.R. 3884). I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this important matter.
Recreational use of marijuana is now the law of the land in California and several other states around the country. Since the founding of our republic, states have been the laboratories of democracy - testing out various solutions to complex policy problems. While I support the right of states to implement the policies that are deemed most appropriate for the state's residents, it is vital that any effort to legalize marijuana at the federal level include restrictions to mitigate the adverse impacts of using the drug.
As you know, H.R. 3884 would decriminalize marijuana allowing states to set their own policies with regards to legalization. Should this bill be considered on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, please be assured that I will keep your views in mind.
Again, thank you for contacting me. If I may be of assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
Sincerely,
Sounds like a no....
I will check my email and let you know what my reps said. Thanks for sharing art.spliff!
FRANKENBUDS
Member
At least you took the time to write the congressman
Can we lock in home growers rights?
If not this is just another money grab for big biz.
Be aware there is a reason this is happening.
And it is not to benefit the little man.
If not this is just another money grab for big biz.
Be aware there is a reason this is happening.
And it is not to benefit the little man.
I too find that part immensely satisfying.
I will smoke to that! I suspect the 'legalization' will come with so much unwanted restrictions as to make it not very good for a lot of people.
Growing it for yourself is the real test of freedom. I am still a bit restricted here in California, no outside grows, so not that hopeful for some other states. Oklahoma of all places, I think has some allowance for homegrown so we will see.
This is a process and damn has it been slow! Forward and onward! I was sure in 1975 pot would be legal in 10 or so years.....
Growing it for yourself is the real test of freedom. I am still a bit restricted here in California, no outside grows, so not that hopeful for some other states. Oklahoma of all places, I think has some allowance for homegrown so we will see.
This is a process and damn has it been slow! Forward and onward! I was sure in 1975 pot would be legal in 10 or so years.....
"Dear [art.spliff]:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the “Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act of 2019” (S. 2227). I appreciate the time you took to write, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.
I understand that you support the “MORE Act,” which was introduced by Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) on July 23, 2019. This bill would decriminalize marijuana nationwide, and would allocate grants—financed through a 5 percent tax on marijuana products—to certain low income Americans. While the House of Representatives passed its version of the bill (H.R. 3884), the Senate version of the “MORE Act” is currently awaiting consideration by the Senate Finance Committee, of which I am not a member. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives will need to pass the same version of the bill before it can become law.
While I believe the federal government should not prosecute individuals who comply with their state’s marijuana laws, I remain concerned about the public health effects associated with recreational marijuana use. I firmly believe appropriate regulations should be in place to protect against youth access, especially as studies have shown marijuana negatively affects the developing brain. I am also concerned about the impact legalization may have on the rates of impaired driving.
I will be sure to keep your support for the “MORE Act” in mind should this or related legislation come before me for consideration.
Once again, thank you for writing."
Thank you for contacting me regarding the “Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act of 2019” (S. 2227). I appreciate the time you took to write, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.
I understand that you support the “MORE Act,” which was introduced by Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) on July 23, 2019. This bill would decriminalize marijuana nationwide, and would allocate grants—financed through a 5 percent tax on marijuana products—to certain low income Americans. While the House of Representatives passed its version of the bill (H.R. 3884), the Senate version of the “MORE Act” is currently awaiting consideration by the Senate Finance Committee, of which I am not a member. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives will need to pass the same version of the bill before it can become law.
While I believe the federal government should not prosecute individuals who comply with their state’s marijuana laws, I remain concerned about the public health effects associated with recreational marijuana use. I firmly believe appropriate regulations should be in place to protect against youth access, especially as studies have shown marijuana negatively affects the developing brain. I am also concerned about the impact legalization may have on the rates of impaired driving.
I will be sure to keep your support for the “MORE Act” in mind should this or related legislation come before me for consideration.
Once again, thank you for writing."
May I summarize....
Dear Art,
Blow me. Fucking drug addict, hippie fuck.
Love,
Your Duly Elected Leader
Oh, and don't forget to vote. I DOES make a difference (as you can see). LMAO
.
Dear Art,
Blow me. Fucking drug addict, hippie fuck.
Love,
Your Duly Elected Leader
Oh, and don't forget to vote. I DOES make a difference (as you can see). LMAO
.
Douglas.Curtis
Autistic Diplomat in Training
Yes, obviously still ignorant of the facts on cannabis. Unfortunately, they'll never be able to tell their grand children how noble they were in defending their own ignorance, and letting the public continue to suffer. Nice little campfire story for them, yeah?
PDX Dopesmoker
Active member
It was nearly half a century between the end of alcohol prohibition and Carter legalizing home brewing in 1978 and distilling your own alcohol is still illegal. All this in a nation founded by people who preferred to make their rum from higher quality, less expensive, smuggled French molasses because the British imports were taxed heavily enough to make the crime worth the effort and risk.
This is Conrad Heyer, fought in the Revolutionary War, which was fought in part to guarantee tax free liquor, and if he was still around today he would be 270 years old and still waiting for the payoff for his efforts.
Instead he just giving you that look wondering how dumb we all are
No shit... as if he is saying.... "Can they REALLY be that fucking stupid." LMAO Pretty funny
.
.
M
Mr D
The biggest problem has always been the war on drugs morphing in to a big business. Lawyers, Judges, Police agencies, private jailers and others would be out of business.
Probably a million or more people employed in the cannabis prohibition industry.
Probably a million or more people employed in the cannabis prohibition industry.
@pipeline--thank you for starting this thread! weed world has always needed a comprehensive and precise knowledge of law--then and now. this has long been a task of particular importance to me. not only do we all need to educate each other on the letter of the law, but we also need to cultivate (pun intended) a broader understanding of approaches and goals to law and policy. we need to know what we personally support or oppose, and we need to listen to each other so we can be as informed in our positions as possible.
i have long felt people pay insufficient attention to these issues. we need to get better at this. let's perhaps start with asking ourselves what our logic is behind our views.
to be frank, it makes me nuts that people can want 'the weed freed', and in the very next breath, wail about the government getting involved in licenses or taxes or regulation. very few of us are actually constrained by these new rules. those of us who may be are OVERJOYED to be able to pay some money and keep some books in order to NOT GO TO JAIL. for example, here in California, in most counties, everybody is allowed to possess and grow enough for personal use. if you want to make a living from it, then--TRUST THE OLDER FOLKS LIKE ME--you LOVE being able to pay someone to be safe.
now, let's be sure we are all thinking for ourselves, and not taking the bait laid out for us by some politicians. what constitutes 'big government' and 'socialism'? what is 'liberty'? certainly the federal war on drugs and the mass incarceration of our population isn't liberty. it's rather the definition of 'big government'. it has brought an ugly 'socialism' with it--not the socialism of labor laws and environmental protection and taxes that we pool to have schools and fire departments and streets. it oppresses whole communities for the long-term--dooming them to dependence on 'the system'.
one of the most beautiful things about this plant has always been its ability to free people economically--to offer people a way out from the financial and psychological slavery most suffer under. think about this...THIS IS LIBERTY.
this federal legislation could transform so so so many communities--grants given to people to let them start a business. jobs, revenue, and positive models for populations kept in subjugation for generations. i'm very happy to pay a tax that we pool together to give people a leg up, to clear their records and get them out of jail--collectively we can truly unleash the power of this plant. That collective action, like Social Security, is socialism. And, like Social Security, it can protect people and provide liberty and justice for working people. I very much doubt you know anybody who isn't almost completely dependent on Social Security during their old age. Without it, we would have seas of elderly starving and out on the streets with no health care and no rest after a lifetime of giving everything to the corporations for which they worked. Tell me people in your family have earned and saved enough for retirement and health insurance and everything else needed to live and then I'll hear about your hatred of socialism.
i have long felt people pay insufficient attention to these issues. we need to get better at this. let's perhaps start with asking ourselves what our logic is behind our views.
to be frank, it makes me nuts that people can want 'the weed freed', and in the very next breath, wail about the government getting involved in licenses or taxes or regulation. very few of us are actually constrained by these new rules. those of us who may be are OVERJOYED to be able to pay some money and keep some books in order to NOT GO TO JAIL. for example, here in California, in most counties, everybody is allowed to possess and grow enough for personal use. if you want to make a living from it, then--TRUST THE OLDER FOLKS LIKE ME--you LOVE being able to pay someone to be safe.
now, let's be sure we are all thinking for ourselves, and not taking the bait laid out for us by some politicians. what constitutes 'big government' and 'socialism'? what is 'liberty'? certainly the federal war on drugs and the mass incarceration of our population isn't liberty. it's rather the definition of 'big government'. it has brought an ugly 'socialism' with it--not the socialism of labor laws and environmental protection and taxes that we pool to have schools and fire departments and streets. it oppresses whole communities for the long-term--dooming them to dependence on 'the system'.
one of the most beautiful things about this plant has always been its ability to free people economically--to offer people a way out from the financial and psychological slavery most suffer under. think about this...THIS IS LIBERTY.
this federal legislation could transform so so so many communities--grants given to people to let them start a business. jobs, revenue, and positive models for populations kept in subjugation for generations. i'm very happy to pay a tax that we pool together to give people a leg up, to clear their records and get them out of jail--collectively we can truly unleash the power of this plant. That collective action, like Social Security, is socialism. And, like Social Security, it can protect people and provide liberty and justice for working people. I very much doubt you know anybody who isn't almost completely dependent on Social Security during their old age. Without it, we would have seas of elderly starving and out on the streets with no health care and no rest after a lifetime of giving everything to the corporations for which they worked. Tell me people in your family have earned and saved enough for retirement and health insurance and everything else needed to live and then I'll hear about your hatred of socialism.
no, the other committees don't have to approve it. now it can go to the Floor of the House. with Democrats in control of the House, it will pass. But then it needs to go to the Senate. With Republicans in control of the Senate, it will die there. It will never get to Trump. We'll have to wait for Democrats to take back either the Senate or the Presidency to get this through.
And please do take a moment to count the number of Republican-controlled states that have legalized it compared to the number of Democrat-controlled states.
All of us goddamn liberal commie socialists in California, citizens who were serving in state, county, and local government and citizens who used the law to get a ballot measure and who voted, all of us here in California say 'you're welcome America'. The real revolution is when we take responsibility for governing ourselves--the revolution is when we ARE the government. They want us to believe that all government is evil and that we can't possibly change things, because then we leave them to run things as they want.
I imagine the founding of a new nation free from European colonial rule would be sufficient payoff for Conrad Heyer, and for all the others who fought and won the Revolutionary War. Plus, the British had outlawed slavery. American colonists would keep it for almost another century. How else would the sugar cane plantations make huge profits selling molasses for rum? Rum was a major industry and was exported by British and French alike--there's nothing to be proud in sugar cane plantations run by slave labor and Native genocide, making obscene profits for a very few very rich people.
And it is federally legal to brew up to 100 gallons of beer, and you can distill liquor with a license that costs a few hundred dollars.
Oh and the payoff? A country in which we can say whatever we want. And in which we can revolutionize things by legalizing marijuana. We the people...
yes, this bill DOES lock in home grower rights. you gotta read stuff people--it's right there at the beginning of the bill. i just don't understand why so many people are so intensely critical of legalization. isn't that what we wanted? why are people complaining as much about legalization as they were when it was incredibly dangerous to grow?? yes, some counties and municipalities have banned outdoor grows in California--but indoor is protected. if you want to do an outdoor grow, move!
under the new laws, anyone over 21 can grow 6 plants, but amazingly few people know that medical patients may grow 24 plants at a time. you may be required to justify the amount at some point. Just get a doc to authorize the 24. you can use existing medical literature, PUBmed is a good online source for studies that, for example, say pain may indicate that 20mg of THC 3 times per day is required. Some conditions like cancer, require much more, like 1000 mg per day for the better part of a month. If your weed is 20% THC, one ounce has 5000 mg THC in it.
RECREATIONAL can possess an ounce. Possess, transport, obtain or give away to other adults 21 or older no more than one ounce of marijuana or 8 grams of concentrated cannabis.
RECREATIONAL can grow six plants. Cultivate up to six plants per residence and possess the marijuana produced by these plants. All plants and harvest in excess of one ounce must be kept in a locked space not in public view at one’s residence. Local governments may still forbid cultivation outdoors, but must allow it inside a private residence or accessory structure that is “fully enclosed and secure.”
MEDICAL can grow 24 plants or more if their condition requires. Medical marijuana patients keep their existing rights under Proposition 215 to possess and cultivate as much as they need for personal medical use so long as they have a doctor’s recommendation, regardless of the Proposition 64 limits for adult users. Beware though that local governments may still restrict cultivation via nuisance bylaws (except for the six indoor plant minimum allowed for personal use).
MEDICAL CAN USE, GROW AT COLLECTIVES AND DISPENSARIES. Proposition 215 patients with a doctor’s recommendation can purchase and grow at medical collectives, cooperatives and dispensaries.
MEDICAL DON'T PAY STATE CANNABIS TAX. Tax Tip for 215 Patients: Patients who have a state medical marijuana ID card will be exempt from the state sales tax immediately, according to the State Board of Equalization. If you spend more than $100 per month on medicine, it should pay you to get a state ID card. State ID cards are available from county health departments; under Proposition 64 the card fees are capped at $100 ($50 for Medi-Cal patients).
MEDICAL CAN BUY CONCENTRATES AND STRONG STRAINS. Recreational users will be limited to strains less than 18% and access to concentrates. Medical patients with a licensed doctor's recommendation can buy any cannabis product and the highest THC strains, which may go up to 30%.
MEDICAL PATIENTS are allowed to grow indoors provided they follow the safety rules and regulations, no county may prohibit your rights to grow medical cannabis to treat your symptoms and conditions.
MEDICAL PATIENTS CAN POSSESS AND TRANSPORT, obtain or give away to other adults 21 or older one oz of cannabis or 8 grams of concentrated cannabis. Note: You cannot sell.
MEDICAL COMPLY MORE EASILY WITH REGULATIONS under the subject of "reasonable regulations" by local govePatient protections scattered throughout laws
In the new parring, there are still a number of other protections remaining for patients. The new standards are much more restrictive, unfortunately.
We retain the entirety of Prop. 215 / HSC 11362.5, the HSC 11362.7(a) presumptive safe harbor of 8 ounces (at least if you are taking it home, per case law) and up to 12 plants and HSC 11362.765, which gives a legal defense against charges of sales, transportation, intent to sell or sales.
However, the defenses that remain are either 1) this is all for me alone or, as primary caregiver, for a single patient; 2) I provide another qualified patient with no more than eight ounces and only for their personal medical use; 3) this quantity is a necessary amount and 4) I did not make any profit from doing this.
There are protections in Business and Professions Code 26033 for a caregiver who provides medical marijuana for up to five patients, however they seem to cover the BPC and related regulations, not the criminal statutes such as distribution and sales. In other words, you don’t need a license to cultivate and provide to five patients but you need to meet the definition of caregiver in HSC 11362.7(d), you can’t profit from it and you still may need to defend your actions in criminal court.
THANK FUCKING GOD! Now stop complaining!
