Vote YES or NO on Prop 19

[echo_chamber]

Its funny, on multiple forums there are alot of smart people, but nobody can give a good reason to vote "no"... Its all "what if" or "might happen" kinda excuses.

Lets see currently we can possess or grow nothing, after prop 19 passes we can possess an ounce and grow 5x5 AND the law can be amended later?

Those voting no are either Drug Cartels or Law Enforcement. Those are the ONLY people who are negatively effected by this bill, everyone else stands to gain new freedoms...

Those of you saying "its not full legalization" are right, its not, watch CSPAN to get an idea how laws are debated and passed, its a slow process, losing many battles and winning ocassional victories to move the ball down the feild. you will never see outright sweeping legalization in America, this Capitalistic country, the dollar rules, you know this. YOu'll never be able to run a business legally in the US without paying taxes... Sorry...

 

[Hydrosun]

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.

Thats the difference. You anti's can only post speculation. While I can back up my claims with facts and language straight from the proposition.

I cant even imagine how many times ive posted and reposted and reposted this everytime one of you anti19 people bring it up. Do you just not read, or choose its easier to ignore what I post and hope that your fear mongering speculation will fool someone who hasnt read into 19....?

OK, so let's say they do want to regulate, and it wants to regulate in accordance with 19 and 19 passed by a majority vote AND 19 states that localities may REGULATE IRRESPECTIVE of PREVIOUS STATE LAW; then it is very conceivable that San Diego and others would REGULATE ALL MJ. Because 19 gives them the right and NOW San Diego medical holders can further fuck themselves because the majority of Californians said that ALL Localities may REGULATE IRRESPECTIVE of PREVIOUS LAW. Majority rules and all that

Yep, I'm an "Anti" but at least I wish to discuss rather than inflame.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

OK, so let's say they do want to regulate, and it wants to regulate in accordance with 19 and 19 passed by a majority vote AND 19 states that localities may REGULATE IRRESPECTIVE of PREVIOUS STATE LAW; then it is very conceivable that San Diego and others would REGULATE ALL MJ. Because 19 gives them the right and NOW San Diego medical holders can further fuck themselves because the majority of Californians said that ALL Localities may REGULATE IRRESPECTIVE of PREVIOUS LAW. Majority rules and all that

Yep, I'm an "Anti" but at least I wish to discuss rather than inflame.

EXCEPT AS PERMITTED UNDER 215........ do you not understand???? or just disregard anything i say???? its already been shown that 215 patients can grow as much as they want and that 19 in no way gives them power to change that.

like dagnabit would say.... PLEASE STOP LYING.


...arent you from colorado anyway hydro>>>??

 

[StephenMcTowlie]

Sigh. It's really kind of depressing how many people are afraid of this bill. Those opposed seem to roughly fall into two 'camps': those that view the bill as a trojan horse, and those that are just plain greedy. For the latter I have no sympathy; you've made the best of a shitty situation so far and hopefully you've made a bundle of loot, but have some compassion and respect for your fellow humans! No amount of profit is worth the risk of imprisonment for cannabis. As for the trojan-horse riders, I can understand where they're coming from better. After living my entire life being "down by law" it's a little hard to trust any legislation regarding herb, especially a bill with the words "tax and regulate" in it. Still, we have to accept that taxation and regulation are integral to every legal economy on the planet, from tomatoes to oil-tankers to firearms. If we want the privileges of legitimacy, we need to shoulder the responsibilities as well. The limitations don't seem very arduous to me. As Big herb tree pointed out above, existing medical laws are specifically preserved in the bill. Though grow space is limited to 5x5, I know from experience that I can grow enough in that space to never need to purchase weed again. For those that need to grow more for medical reasons, they are still free under Prop 215 to do so. For those that want to grow more for commercial reasons, they are still free to break the law and face whatever consequences may arise, just like today.
And for those that simply want to smoke in peace after a long day, they are finally free to do so without fear, whether there is a medical necessity or not.

I understand the impulse to say "it's a trap!" and spread fear and doubt. But I also think that it's important to remember that this is the first step toward public acceptance of our way of life. Passing Prop 19 will show that the negative consequences of legal weed are imaginary - or rather, that they have been constructed and fed to us our whole lives by disingenuous, greedy assholes. Right now it's easy to say any kind of bullshit you like about legal weed (we're all going to die in traffic accidents, our kids will be lazy, it'll turn us into commie pacifists, etc). With no examples to the contrary, people are free to invent any consequences, no mater how absurd. Imagine how foolish it would be to make such claims when we could point to the actual effects as demonstrated by an entire state. Imagine a safe-haven for legal cannabis research without the need to crawl on our bellies to the feds, knowing that our requests will be denied.

Ignorance is much easier to maintain in the absence of facts. Let's pass Prop 19 so that we can show the world that society will not crumble if the demon-weed is allowed out of its cage.

 

[amannamedtruth]

I'm kinda excited about seeing this Prop19 pass (that's if it does ofcourse)....

Does anyone see that we may suddenly have thousands of new growers joining our ranks who are perhaps fearful of growing now and may well take up the hobby when it becomes legal to grow for recreational use?

....a 5 x 5 area under 1000 watts of HPS/MH....should yeild the novice grower a minimum of 0.5 a gramm per watt......maybe even 1 gram per watt....per harvest....and even if they are not into perpetual harvests but have 4 harvests a year..(say a 3 month cycle from seed/clone, veg and then thru flowering), thats a minimum of 2 kilos or around 4 and a half pounds per year of 'erb......or 72 ounces per year.....for the average cannabis consumer 1.38 ounces of 'erb a week is plenty for personal use......and if the grower is real good, it could be double that amount......enough to supply themselves and another person or two.....

Quite a few members here have perfected growing in such an area as a 5x5 and have outstanding yeilds way above what I have stated above......

Thank you so much for chiming in Gypsy. And if for some reason 1.3 oz. is not enough for the recreational user, then they can just go buy some. I'm sure the price will drop so low that people will slow on their smoking and cook with it. I know for sure that if I could go buy an ounce of food grade herb, like mids, but clean (cause its legal 'n all) that I'll be cooking way more with it. How much could that cost, not too bad, I'd guess.

I folks are afraid of commercialization, then be a smart consumer, like where you are everywhere else, and buy from the company/organization who you think best fits your ideals.

 

[Hazelnuts]

OK, so let's say they do want to regulate, and it wants to regulate in accordance with 19 and 19 passed by a majority vote AND 19 states that localities may REGULATE IRRESPECTIVE of PREVIOUS STATE LAW; then it is very conceivable that San Diego and others would REGULATE ALL MJ. Because 19 gives them the right and NOW San Diego medical holders can further fuck themselves because the majority of Californians said that ALL Localities may REGULATE IRRESPECTIVE of PREVIOUS LAW. Majority rules and all that

Yep, I'm an "Anti" but at least I wish to discuss rather than inflame.

This is pretty confusing and I know it, but the "Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9" actually refer to prop 215, so that definitely can't happen. Prop 19 doesn't give anyone the power to change existing 215/SB420 guidelines, laws or regulations, they'll have to do that on another way if they want to do it.

 

[Hydrosun]

This is pretty confusing and I know it, but the "Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9" actually refer to prop 215, so that definitely can't happen. Prop 19 doesn't give anyone the power to change existing 215/SB420 guidelines, laws or regulations, they'll have to do that on another way if they want to do it.

Then you wouldn't like how this author interprets the language.
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=3806040&postcount=2

***********
Paragraph 7 says that if cities ban the sale of cannabis, their 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.” This language could be interpreted to mean that, under 11362.5, MM patients continue to have the right to possess and consume larger quantities than Proposition 19’s ounce limit. But notice that Paragraph 7 specifically leaves out the right to cultivate. Why? This is a very meaningful omission of an existing right held by MM patients. Under Prop. 19, everyone becomes a mere consumer, a captive market to be exploited by a few businesses that get the permits to cultivate and distribute.

Under current law, H & S11362.5, subdivision (d), specifically exempts MM patients from H & S 11358 which makes cultivation illegal. Under the People v. Kelly case, MM patients have no numeric cap on what they can grow, just a requirement that it be related to a medical issue. Will the right to cultivate amounts related to medical issues be changed under Prop. 19? Yes. Here’s why.

Look at the text of Prop. 19, Section 2 (B), paragraph 14. It says that one purpose of Prop. 19 is to “Permit the cultivation of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption.” We already know the “small amounts” are what can be grown in a 25 square foot garden (that’s 5 by 5 feet) – and that however many people live on a property will have to share that small space. So that is a really small amount.

Notice that section 14 says nothing about allowing the cultivation of larger amounts for medical use.

Don’t give up reading yet -- we’re getting to the smoking gun evidence that Prop. 19 has ALWAYS been INTENDED to affect medical marijuana patients and collectives, and was intentionally worded in a way to allow the pro-Prop. 19 people to make claims, OUTSIDE THE TEXT OF THE CONTROLLING LEGAL DOCUMENT, WHERE SUCH CLAIMS CAN’T BE USED TO INTERPRET THE PROPOSITION, that it doesn’t affect medical marijuana patients.



In Section 2 (C), “Intent,” paragraph 1 lists all the existing laws that Prop. 19 is intended to affect, and paragraph 2 lists all the laws it is NOT intended to affect. Here’s the important point:

Neither paragraph 1 nor paragraph 2 mention the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), which is found in H & S Code section 11362.5. If the Prop. 19 people really did not intend to affect patients and collectives, they would have included section 11362.5 in paragraph 2. They didn’t.

Now, since the Pro-Prop. 19 people clearly need the support of MM patients, they obviously did not want to include the CUA and H & S section 11362.5 in paragraph 1 and admit that Prop. 19 will affect patients. So that’s why Prop. 19 is silent about 11362.5, the CUA. The pro-Prop. 19 people are counting on the average voter not knowing anything about statutory interpretation rules. Under those rules, if Prop. 19 had specifically stated in Section 2, “Intent,” that it was NOT intended to affect H & S 11362.5, then the courts would interpret it as not affecting 11362.5. But because the intent section is silent, the courts will look at the language of the proposition to figure out the intent. And as noted above, the Purposes section at paragraphs 6 and 7, already provides evidence that the Proposition is intended to affect MM and MM patients.
************

There appears to be more than enough ambiguity / controversy over the language of this bill that counties like San Diego can start screwing people over immediately and not have to worry about it because the court battles will be decades long.

I know Prop 19 is a badly worded bill and I have far less faith than many in this community that the California courts will side with smokers over county leaders.

 

[Bacchus]

...This language could be interpreted to mean that....

....We already know the “small amounts” are what can be grown in a 25 square foot garden (that’s 5 by 5 feet) – and that however many people live on a property will have to share that small space. So that is a really small amount.....

...the Purposes section at paragraphs 6 and 7, already provides evidence that the Proposition is intended to affect MM and MM patients. TOTAL POOP
************

There appears to be more than enough ambiguity / controversy over the language of this bill From Who[b/]that counties like San Diego can start screwing people over immediately and not have to worry about it because the court battles will be decades long.

Could be???

25' feet is a small garden? WTF where is this guy getting this garbage from???

Total Poop means that he does not prove his conclustion through facts.

You are creating the "controvery over the language" by could be, what if, maybe....

What a total farse of an argument.

 

[OrganicOzarks]

Then you wouldn't like how this author interprets the language.
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=3806040&postcount=2

***********
Paragraph 7 says that if cities ban the sale of cannabis, their 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.” This language could be interpreted to mean that, under 11362.5, MM patients continue to have the right to possess and consume larger quantities than Proposition 19’s ounce limit. But notice that Paragraph 7 specifically leaves out the right to cultivate. Why? This is a very meaningful omission of an existing right held by MM patients. Under Prop. 19, everyone becomes a mere consumer, a captive market to be exploited by a few businesses that get the permits to cultivate and distribute.

Under current law, H & S11362.5, subdivision (d), specifically exempts MM patients from H & S 11358 which makes cultivation illegal. Under the People v. Kelly case, MM patients have no numeric cap on what they can grow, just a requirement that it be related to a medical issue. Will the right to cultivate amounts related to medical issues be changed under Prop. 19? Yes. Here’s why.

Look at the text of Prop. 19, Section 2 (B), paragraph 14. It says that one purpose of Prop. 19 is to “Permit the cultivation of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption.” We already know the “small amounts” are what can be grown in a 25 square foot garden (that’s 5 by 5 feet) – and that however many people live on a property will have to share that small space. So that is a really small amount.

Notice that section 14 says nothing about allowing the cultivation of larger amounts for medical use.

Don’t give up reading yet -- we’re getting to the smoking gun evidence that Prop. 19 has ALWAYS been INTENDED to affect medical marijuana patients and collectives, and was intentionally worded in a way to allow the pro-Prop. 19 people to make claims, OUTSIDE THE TEXT OF THE CONTROLLING LEGAL DOCUMENT, WHERE SUCH CLAIMS CAN’T BE USED TO INTERPRET THE PROPOSITION, that it doesn’t affect medical marijuana patients.



In Section 2 (C), “Intent,” paragraph 1 lists all the existing laws that Prop. 19 is intended to affect, and paragraph 2 lists all the laws it is NOT intended to affect. Here’s the important point:

Neither paragraph 1 nor paragraph 2 mention the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), which is found in H & S Code section 11362.5. If the Prop. 19 people really did not intend to affect patients and collectives, they would have included section 11362.5 in paragraph 2. They didn’t.

Now, since the Pro-Prop. 19 people clearly need the support of MM patients, they obviously did not want to include the CUA and H & S section 11362.5 in paragraph 1 and admit that Prop. 19 will affect patients. So that’s why Prop. 19 is silent about 11362.5, the CUA. The pro-Prop. 19 people are counting on the average voter not knowing anything about statutory interpretation rules. Under those rules, if Prop. 19 had specifically stated in Section 2, “Intent,” that it was NOT intended to affect H & S 11362.5, then the courts would interpret it as not affecting 11362.5. But because the intent section is silent, the courts will look at the language of the proposition to figure out the intent. And as noted above, the Purposes section at paragraphs 6 and 7, already provides evidence that the Proposition is intended to affect MM and MM patients.
************

There appears to be more than enough ambiguity / controversy over the language of this bill that counties like San Diego can start screwing people over immediately and not have to worry about it because the court battles will be decades long.

I know Prop 19 is a badly worded bill and I have far less faith than many in this community that the California courts will side with smokers over county leaders.

And let there be light.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

See you are cherry picking what you decide to read and not read.

The very next paragraph states that if city bans commercial sales and commercial cultivation, they cannot ban 215 grows.

You can "interpret" anything you like, anyway you like.... But it's wrong. Plain and fucking simple.

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.

 

[dagnabit]

OK, so let's say they do want to regulate, and it wants to regulate in accordance with 19 and 19 passed by a majority vote AND 19 states that localities may REGULATE IRRESPECTIVE of PREVIOUS STATE LAW; then it is very conceivable that San Diego and others would REGULATE ALL MJ. Because 19 gives them the right and NOW San Diego medical holders can further fuck themselves because the majority of Californians said that ALL Localities may REGULATE IRRESPECTIVE of PREVIOUS LAW. Majority rules and all that

Yep, I'm an "Anti" but at least I wish to discuss rather than inflame.

the subsection that scares you is 11300 ss (a)
it reads

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:~~~

couple that with the intent statement that frames the entire proposition as a charter of negative governmental liberties..

C. Intent

1. This Act is intended to limit the application and enforcement of state and local laws relating to possession, transportation, cultivation, consumption and sale of cannabis, including but not limited to the following, whether now existing or adopted in the future

how does one make that logical leap?

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

how does one make that logical leap?

They will do and say anything. Just like a wolf would gnaw it's own leg off to get out of a trap. It's desperation at it's highest form....

 

[Brain]

Looks like the Cali residents are wising up to this mirage of "legalization". Out of state residents who really haven't educated themselves on the bill must think it is real legalization and are all for it. I am for legalization. I am oppressed to this bill. 1oz and a 5x5 is a carrot on a stick as it acts as a restriction forcing people to buy 1oz. sacks from commercial producers. The bulk to this legislation is geared towards commercial production and the bills authors have already gotten approval from Oakland to set up shop if it passes. If the authors really wanted legalization they would have dropped all felonies for cultivation and possession. I doubt any of us could argue against that. Instead they make it just legal enough to sell 1 oz sacks to the masses.

Lets wait for 2012 for voting to real legalization. Voting yes now on Prop 19 will make it harder in the long run because we will have corporate interests in the politicians pockets helping to prevent it.

 

[mullray]

Looks like the Cali residents are wising up to this mirage of "legalization". Out of state residents who really haven't educated themselves on the bill must think it is real legalization and are all for it. I am for legalization. I am oppressed to this bill. 1oz and a 5x5 is a carrot on a stick as it acts as a restriction forcing people to buy 1oz. sacks from commercial producers. The bulk to this legislation is geared towards commercial production and the bills authors have already gotten approval from Oakland to set up shop if it passes. If the authors really wanted legalization they would have dropped all felonies for cultivation and possession. I doubt any of us could argue against that. Instead they make it just legal enough to sell 1 oz sacks to the masses.

Lets wait for 2012 for voting to real legalization. Voting yes now on Prop 19 will make it harder in the long run because we will have corporate interests in the politicians pockets helping to prevent it.

Fortunately most Cali folk don't visit IC Mag to be fed a load of smoke and mirror shite by commerical interests such as yourself. The commercial interests of which you speak are opposed to Prop 19 and are lobbying to ensure it never passes. Visit your med dispensary and ask them what they think of Prop 19 - most are opposed.

 

[Brain]

The bill was written by med dispensary owners. All the ones I talk to are for it as they will already have a retail outlet. The hydro industry is for it. The potting soil industry is for it. I am not part of either so what are these commercial interest you speak of? Why are you for 19?

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

So wheres this magical legalization bill in 2012 you all dream of....? I see colorado has one.. but nothing about california. And we already have seen the greed factor take effect, should we really expect any of these growers to give any money to passing legalization? Hell Jack Herer couldnt even raise the measly $100k to get his iniative on the ballot. How in the hell would anyone ever raise another 2million dollars to pass a proposition? And do you think any one person is willing to put up that kind of money if 19 fails?

I truly believe that everyone screaming "19 isnt legalization" doesnt really WANT legalization. They just want to continue business as usual and keep making that underground money.

I havent heard a single valid argument against 19. Not one. If 19 isnt good enough for you, keep your holy grail mmj recc and keep doing things as usual. 19 can be vastly improved on, but like most americans everyone is addicted to instant gratification. If YOU cant have legalization served to you on a silver tray with no limits, no regulations, then fuck it let people goto jail.

Who honestly believes that a no regulation no limit legalization would EVER pass?

I remembered when MMJ in my town meant 3 plants vegging, 3 plants harvesting, any more than that and you were manufacturing with intent to sale.

Now under the same law you can grow as much as youd like and possess as much as you like.

 

[dagnabit]

The bill was written by med dispensary owners. All the ones I talk to are for it as they will already have a retail outlet. The hydro industry is for it. The potting soil industry is for it. I am not part of either so what are these commercial interest you speak of? Why are you for 19?

ill stand by those you mentioned..

every lea in cali and every DA in california stand with you...

 

[Brain]

Strange bed fellows, I agree. We won't be together in 2012. You know 19 still allows them to pack the prisons since all the felonies on the books will remain if it passes. It even adds some.

 

[dagnabit]

Strange bed fellows, I agree. We won't be together in 2012. You know 19 still allows them to pack the prisons since all the felonies on the books will remain if it passes. It even adds some.

it add none.
removes ALOT
leaves some alone

0+10-0= 10

its a net positive.

please tell us what section of the prop scares you and we will go over it together.

 

[Dorje113]

is it that obvious? there are way more smokers then growers. the smokers want it legal, the growers don't.....

even though we have supplied you with your meds, weed for years, you now want to throw us under the bus because we are "greedy".

Don't speak for "growers" they don't all agree with you.