Why You Should Vote YES on PROPOSITION 19, the California "Control & Tax Cannabis" Initiative

CANNABIS CULTURE - For the first time in US history, there is a state initiative to legalize marijuana possession, use, and production for all adults: the California Control & Tax Cannabis Initiative, which will appear on the November election ballot as Proposition 19. Unfortunately, there are some "marijuana activists" who are aggressively opposing the brilliant initiative. In this article I will address some of the myths being told about this initiative, and why I fully support it.

But first, let me explain that opponents of Richard Lee's initiative fall into three groups. The first group is the police and prison industry, represented by their unions and spokespeople. These are the system exploiters who have profited greatly and built power bases at the expense of the people. These are our archenemies, people who think it’s okay making a buck by arresting, strip-searching, incarcerating, harassing, and jailing ordinary cannabis consumer and home-growers. They are destroying our constitutional freedoms, seizing our kids, and forcing the cost of marijuana up to immoral prices as part of their love affair with prohibition.

The second group includes the cartels, thugs, street gangs, large commercial growers, commercial medical marijuana growers and their dependents that make exploitative profits taking full advantage of prohibition-inflated prices. They correctly surmise that when every adult in California can make all the homegrown cannabis an individual can produce in 25 square feet, the need for them and their rip-off prices evaporates. Like, gone, baby gone. And with home grows legal, police will target the exploiter large scale grows. Who needs their $350- to $450-per-ounce cannabis when we can all safely and legally grow our own weed at home for about $12.50 an ounce?

The third group is the so-called old guard of the cannabis or medical marijuana movement. The wonderful Proposition-215 pioneer Denis Peron is one, but there are many others. Their opposition is entirely trivial and irrational. It stems from a professional jealousy that a successful, compassionate man like Richard Lee (who has provided over a million dollars of his well-earned money to support this initiative) is doing it without their blessing. No one asked Dennis Peron's permission. Dennis is a hero to the pot movement and has done a great deal to provide marijuana to medical users, but it seems he feels the world of activism has passed him by – because it has, and he's jealous.

Perhaps the most loathsome aspect of this debate is the opposition by those large commercial exploiter growers, cartels, "compassionate" medical growers who charge $3,500 - $4,500 a pound wholesale and profit immensely from prohibition, as they have allied themselves with the most cynical and exploitative members of the prohibitionist regime: the cops and the prison industry. I can expect all of the previously mentioned vested interests to contribute big money to the no campaign, which is tragic and unfortunate. That an elder statesman like Dennis Peron is lending false testimony to this campaign against the greatest anti-prohibition initiative put to voters in US history is a sad state of affairs.

I will go through the points asserted by the naysayers and reveal that all are trivial and irrelevant sham arguments. I will point out that the real issue here is the fear these commercial exploiter growers have that their market will utterly dry up. At $12.50 an ounce for your own homegrown, who will pay their rip-off prices anymore? Almost no one, and this has them rightly panicked. Well, I say screw any greedy growers whose love of money is greater than their love of marijuana, and you should too by voting for THE CONTROL & TAX CANNABIS INITIATIVE this November.

COMPLAINT #1: THIS BILL ISN'T REALLY LEGALIZATION

Proposition 215, passed by California voters in November 1996, did not change medical marijuana laws federally, but it was still the most significant ballot initiative in the history of prohibition in the United States. While one might say it was a half measure – hardly legalization, as we understand the word – it demonstrated a process that has been guiding us inevitably (though with much kicking and screaming by both prohibitionists and purists in the movement) towards a freer, brighter future for cannabis users, at least in the state of California.

But look what an example will do! Because of California’s adoption of Proposition 215, there are 14 states and Districts in the US with medical marijuana laws, and 20 more are developing legislation or ballot initiatives leading to a medical marijuana law. Yet the federal government acknowledged none of it until last year when Obama's Justice Department agreed not to oppose or harass any state marijuana initiatives passed by the people contrary to federal law.

Even though federal law still prohibits cannabis, Proposition 215 provided protection to the current 500,000 Californians who possess medical marijuana exemptions. But that law still forbids any healthy person from cultivating, possessing or distributing non-medical cannabis – a group of adults 21 and over that numbers over 31 million in the Golden State.

With 14 states and districts having a medical marijuana statute, about 2 million Americans now have some form of local or state protection against prosecution under state law. While Proposition 215 was only providing protection to a very small number of people, the idea of it spread to other states and is a rallying cry across the land. Proposition 215 cannot even be considered a step towards true legalization; it was a step towards "exemption" from state law that applied to very few people, until recently. Nonetheless, the armor of the drug war was breached and more activism in the US has flowed from the success of 215 than any other single incident in our movement. Yet, since 1996, thousands of Californians have still gone to jail for producing cannabis, selling cannabis, and possessing cannabis. Proposition 215 has very limited application under state law. This 2010 legalization initiative will broaden the scope of protection to include EVERY ADULT 21 and over.

When naysayers claim that Richard Lee's brave, brilliant and shrewd initiative is not legalization as anyone understands it, they are wrong. Legalization to me (and many others) means any individual can grow it, possess it and smoke it in the privacy of their own home. This initiative does precisely that. Sure, there are minor penalties for smoking outside, but Amsterdam has the same penalties for outdoor consumption too. Do we think of Amsterdam, or rather The Netherlands, as a bastion of prohibitionist oppression? No, of course not. Hundreds of thousands of Americans travel to Amsterdam every year to experience a legal taxed, regulated environment where tourists and the Dutch alike can buy it (taxed), carry it home, or smoke it in private property. The Dutch cannot grow 25 square feet of pot however, so this California initiative would make California far more free and accessible to cannabis that Amsterdam is today and ever was – but only if Californians vote for this initiative.

Is it perfect? Perhaps not – and ask yourself, “perfect according to whom?” because everyone cannot possibly agree on one ideal solution. But it will be the most liberal regime in the entire world, if passed! It allows each adult, 21 and older, to grow 25 square feet of pot. With just one 1,000-watt light, you can produce at least one pound of pot or more every 10 weeks; that’s 80 ounces for every man and woman 21 and over! (And it’s illegal for young people to possess or smoke marijuana now, but they still manage to do it; why wouldn’t that continue to be the situation if the initiative passes?)

The cost of producing your 5 pounds annually is $1,000 ($300 for 1,000-watt light, $200 for pots, soil and nutrients, and $500 for electricity). That’s $12.50 per ounce for your own legal home garden! Then you can carry an ounce of it anywhere, and smoke it in your house, at your friends house, at a club, in your yacht, in any privately owned and contained space! $12.50 an ounce for cannabis that doesn't need to be rushed, can be flushed however long is required, that you can confirm has no pesticides or herbicides – that will be the best cannabis you've ever smoked!

The criticism that this initiative heavily regulates a now "unregulated" environment invites comparisons to The Netherlands. There, the marijuana sales are taxed, regulated, and controlled by the state, yet every American thinks that it is paradise. The Richard Lee initiative provides for homegrown access to every adult 21 and over, which is not available in the Netherlands. In fact, there is nothing in this initiative that makes California any less than Amsterdam, and there is a great deal more in this ballot initiative that goes well beyond the regime in the Netherlands.

This portrait of California as currently being some almost-legal paradise that will be set back if the initiative passes is absolute deception and lies. Many people are in jail right now in California for home grows, dispensaries and distribution.

Today, if you are an adult carrying an ounce, police can seize it, strip search you, use the seizure as the basis for a search warrant to search your home or car or person or handbag, and more. You face a criminal record, a fine, and potentially incarceration. All that is eliminated under this new law. For the 30-million-plus Californians without a medical exemption card, this means a world of difference. The current laws can bring on a world of hurt to anyone caught carrying one ounce. This proposed law eliminates all that if the carrier is 21 or older. Under this initiative you can't be fired from work if you smoke cannabis. Only the cartels, street gangs, and unlicensed exploiter commercial growers will see the cops more frequently – and they know it.

COMPLAINT #2: THE BILL HAS A 21 YEAR AGE LIMIT FOR CANNABIS

The proposed penalty under this bill for supplying 18- to 20-year-olds with cannabis is identical to the fine and penalty for supplying liquor or beer to 18- to 20-year-olds in California. The vast majority of cannabis consumers are 21 and over; and it allows those approximately 31 million adult Californians to grow plentiful quantities of their own homegrown, adequate for a personal supply. 25 square feet under a 1,000-watt light can produce 16 ounces every 10 weeks. It's possible two lights can be suspended above that 25 square feet, producing up to 32 ounces every 10 weeks, so it is not inadequate to the most demanding personal or medical needs.

COMPLAINT #3: YOU CAN'T TOKE OUTDOORS OR IN THE PRESENCE OF MINORS

The initiative doesn't add any penalties for toking outdoors in the same space as minors, it merely says these things are not authorized under the bill. So whatever the current law is regarding outdoor toking or toking near minors would be the same as before the bill was passed.

However, it is not unreasonable to have minors excluded from the initiative. The opposition to the Lee Initiative often focuses on the availability of cannabis to minors. It is a small inconvenience not to have minors present when you are consuming cannabis. Minors need only be in another room while cannabis is being consumed. Cannabis is a psychoactive that travels through the air. You can't supply alcohol to minors either, because it too is regarded as a psychoactive, but alcohol is a liquid. The potential penalties are the same. Yet have you heard of any parents arrested for giving their teenage children a glass of red wine at dinner? Not often, if ever, but the law still forbids it. That will likely be the regime for cannabis. This objection is trivial, as are all the objections coming from the naysayers.

This law absolutely protects your right to privacy in your home to consume cannabis, in a private room absent any minors. It's not unreasonable to restrict consumption of cannabis to adults in any law at this point in our political evolution. It is illegal to smoke cigarettes in an enclosed space with minors. It is illegal to share alcohol with minors. Considering the incredible awesome benefits for adults 21 and over in the legislation, this is a minor inconvenience at most. For most adults without minors in the house, club or private residence, it is not an irritant at all. This aspect of the legislation may go far to reassure voters that it won't be a free-for-all for teenagers in private property, which is entirely reasonable.

Is the "right" to smoke with minors present SO important that we must deny 30 million Californians the genuine right to possess and smoke in safety in their own homes? Give me a break! If you want to campaign to lower the legal age limit of “adulthood”, that’s another initiative.

COMPLAINT #4: YOU CAN ONLY BUY FROM LICENSED DEALERS

If your neighbour is currently selling pot, it’s called trafficking and it's not a $100 fine; it means jail. If your neighbour sells cannabis after this initiative, it's still trafficking, as it is today. So there's no change there. People will most certainly be selling to their friends and neighbours.

Anyone in California can grow his or her own cannabis under this new statute. After this initiative, California will be flooded with cannabis at dramatically reduced prices. Even with a $50 an ounce tax at the retail level, the legal wholesale price should drop to about $20 an ounce, perhaps about $35 to $50-per-ounce retail (plus tax). If you can grow your own for $12.50 an ounce in your own home, even $75 to $100-per-ounce retail with all taxes may be too high for some – but much lower than it costs now. It will be an excellent value for tourists, casual smokers and gourmet tastes.

Note that no specific tax amount is suggested or mandated by Proposition 19. I have included a tax amount of $50 an ounce because that would be the highest likely tax that could reasonably be applied before consumers evaded the tax and bypassed the legal retail system. Many communities would perhaps offer much lower taxes on an ounce of marijuana, especially to compete with other jurisdictions. Tom Ammiano's bill (SB 390) before the California State Assembly mandates a $50 an ounce retail tax. Homegrown cannabis would not be subject to any tax at all.

COMPLAINT #5: CANNABIS TAXES COULD BE USED TO ENFORCE CANNABIS PROHIBITION

Taxes get spent wherever your elected representatives decide. California has a $22 billion deficit in fiscal 2010, and a total $170 billion debt in total, this situation is unsustainable. It is a fine trade-off to end prohibition and reduce prices by ten fold (or higher, if you grow your own) in exchange for a taxed and regulated system.

If you vote, then get involved in politics. Join the Republican, Democratic, or Green Party and have a say in how your taxes are spent. Sadly, many stoners and potheads don't vote, and that's why we get screwed by the political establishment. If you get involved – hell, if you just show up – you could make history this November. If you join a party, nominate a candidate, attend meetings, and write your Assemblyman, you can be part of the debate on how this new tax revenue is to be used.

Of the many terrific things that will happen once this initiative passes, which industry shills and naysayers fail to bring up, is the incredible tourist boom that will transform California. Once cannabis can be legally consumed for all individuals in the state of California, once it can bought at licensed outlets and carried around, millions and millions of Asians, Europeans, Canadians and Americans will flood into California to visit and spend, spend, spend. While buying all their favorite kinds of cannabis that they can only dream of back home, they will be spending money on hotels, restaurants, transportation and entertainment (all of which are taxed.) Dodger’s ball games and Disneyland will have a whole new attraction level!

The millions of new tourists will be spending billions of dollars in the Golden State. That will add up to 500,000 jobs, cut the unemployment and welfare costs drastically, and inject staggering sums of money into the depressed hotel and restaurant industries. Although sales of marijuana may generate only $1 - $2 billion in taxes annually, billions more in taxes will be collected on all the other aspects of tourist spending that is certain to happen.

You don't think every stoner in Missouri isn't going to save every penny he can to visit California for a week or more to smoke White Widow, Sour Diesel, Trainwreck, Purple Urkle, and every other strain in a legal environment? California will be a stoner's paradise, and the 190,000,000 potheads on this Earth (by the most recent UN calculations) will also be making pilgrimages to California. The TV ad for California tourism we've all seen, with Governor Schwarzenegger and others saying, "What are you waiting for?”, will finally have some meaning!

COMPLAINT #6: SHOPS THAT SELL CANNABIS WILL NEED TO BE LICENSED AND PAY TAXES

All businesses in modern society are licensed, regulated, taxed and audited. This will be true for the legal marijuana industry. The initiative requires licensing and zoning for cannabis dispensing businesses, which is simply no different than what’s required for a bookshop, pharmacy, movie theatre, accounting office, factory, shipyard, or any other legal business place. Every business that operates in a legal environment is regulated; that's the reality of the term "legal". If it's not regulated, it’s not legal, so there is no protection or recourse under law – and that lack of protection and accountability is what we have under prohibition.

The price of marijuana today is outrageous as a consequence of its illegality. Since Proposition 215 passed in 1996, the price of marijuana has not gone down at all; in fact, it's gone up, a sure sign that in fact Prop 215 was just a baby step, and nothing like the significant step towards legalization that this initiative is. In a legal environment, the price of cannabis will plummet, and under this initiative, prices WILL plummet as millions of home grows become productive, replacing the need for the large commercial exploiter grow-ops, the cartels, and the street gangs.

COMPLAINT #7: YOU CAN'T GROW MUCH BUD IN A 25-SQUARE-FOOT SPACE

It is the industry standard that one 1,000-watt bulb (complete kit $250-$300) can produce one pound of dry weight cannabis. With Co2 added and diligent gardening, many growers can get 1.2 to 1.4 pounds per light. A 25-square-foot space can accommodate even two 1,000-watt lights, so potential yields in that case would be 2 to 2.5 pounds every 10 weeks; that means ANY competent grower can achieve 16 to 40 ounces every 10 weeks in their space, a generous personal or medical amount by any standard.

This idea that you will just get a few ounces out of a 25 square foot space is simply more lies and spin to scare you away from supporting the initiative. Whether they know it or not, the naysayers are in league with the big commercial growers who are terrified of this initiative and want their black market protected.

IN CONCLUSION

This is the greatest, best ballot initiative to achieve the closest thing ever to full legalization ever put before voters anywhere in the world.

If you are a pot smoker then you will be better off, by far, if this bill passes. The only ones worse off will be gun-toting street gangs and cartels, the police and prison industry, and any exploitative commercial growers who are not honest or skilled enough to legally produce for the licensed market.

The benefit to the 31 million California adults 21 years of age and older will be legal access to their own organic, safe, homegrown at $12.50 an ounce in hugely generous personal quantities, or obtain it from professional licensed outlets who will supply an enormous array of various high-quality cannabis. Add to that the creation of about 500,000 to 1,000,000 new jobs due to the massive influx of tourists flooding California to sample to fruits of an industry 50 times larger than the wine-tasting industry!

It's clear there will be huge amounts in taxes collected from tourists and cannabis retail sales that will impact positively on the California state budget. There will be TEN-FOLD lower retail prices ($35-$50 an ounce instead of $200-$500). Even with a $50 per ounce tax, this means that the best marijuana available will be legally sold for under $100 per ounce to any adult in California. Police will instead direct their efforts at the cartels, street gangs, and unlicensed commercial growers exporting cannabis out-of-state.

As California goes, so does the rest of America. If this initiative passes, it will soon appear in other US states. And as America goes, so will the world. Canada, Europe and countries everywhere will have to end prohibition, or their people will simply flock to California and America. Legalization begets more legalization. Won't it be incredible when California is way better than Amsterdam? Wouldn't it be great if approving this initiative led to Seattle, Austin, Denver, New Orleans, Atlanta, Detroit, Portland and every American city being even cooler than Amsterdam?

I urge all Californians to support and VOTE for the CONTROL & TAX CANNABIS INITIATIVE of 2010. It’s the best chance we've ever had to begin changing the world, but it needs your committed support. The profiteers of prohibition – the cops, gangs, prohibitionists, and exploitative commercial growers – will be giving their prohibition profits to the NO side to protect their lucrative black market exploitation of the sick and dying, so you had better help out the good guys like Richard Lee and campaign for his brave initiative.

This is a brilliantly thought-out, shrewdly written law that is designed to get a majority of voters on board. One side of the debate wants to maintain the prohibition market and prohibition-inflated prices for cannabis, and therefore continue imprisoning and exploiting us all for their own greedy, immoral benefit. The other side wants to see legalization, much more affordable and high-quality cannabis, and an end to the suffering, imprisonment, and human rights abuses caused by prohibition. Which side are YOU on?

- Article written by Marc Emery from SeaTac Federal Detention Center in Seattle, Washington. Marc is awaiting sentencing for pleading guilty after being extradited to the USA from Canada for selling cannabis seeds and using the profits to fund the movement. Click here for more information about Marc and his current situation. Keep up to date at Facebook.com/MarcEmery and Facebook.com/JodieEmery.


More responses to criticism of the Control & Tax Cannabis Initiative

By Jodie Emery

Claim: "This initiative will put medical users and growers in prison!"

Response: Why would Richard Lee create a law that could see himself, his friends, his staff, his clients (from his dispensary), and his students (Oaksterdam University) imprisoned in greater numbers than they are now? That doesn't make any sense at all! He wouldn't have the initiative written up the way it is if there was ANY chance of him losing his personal freedom, companies, clients, students, staff, etc. He would lose TONS of money and -- if the haters are right about him being a greedy bastard -- he would be committing business suicide! That alone exposes the opponents and anti-Richard Lee exploiters as nothing but jealous, fearful, and paranoid rabblerousers.

Also, medical growers won't be limited to 5x5 spaces, so why wouldn't more and more people continue to become medical users under Prop. 215 and continue to grow large indoor and outdoor gardens? That will continue even if people vote YES for the initiative. This initiative is for people who don't want to become medical exemptees -- why should they be punished because of the unfounded fears of medical users and growers?

Claim: "Evil corporations are going to take over the market!"

Response: People tend to think all corporations are simply big, evil, monopoly empires. But consider this: the company that sells you soil for growing your plants is a corporation. The nutrients come from a corporation too. The pots you put seedlings in: corporate-made. The house you live in is entirely furnished and constructed from materials made and sold by corporations. The organic companies selling organic foods are corporations. Dr. Bronner's Hemp Soap is a corporation. Hemp Hoodlamb, Satori, Livity hemp clothing -- all corporations. Manitoba Harvest hemp food, a corporation. High Times Magazine, a corporation. Yes, the big bad Starbucks is a corporation, but so is the "Cafe Paris" or "Homestyle Cooking & Coffee" or any independent business run by individuals or partners or small groups. All companies and businesses that operate legally are corporations -- unless they are non-profit societies, which means they cannot keep the money. So, will corporations run the legal marijuana market? Yes. Is that bad? No, because individuals and two-person partnerships and small groups can all create an Incorporated Company to do business (as everyone must do for any legal business).

Claim: "Pharmaceutical companies and Universities are trying to make and patent extractions and concentrated cannabis medicine!"

Response: We are all very well aware that cannabis holds the cure for cancer and many other ailments, from epilepsy to MS to autism and almost every illness and injury. We also know that many dispensaries are creating and selling lotions, creams, hashes, oils, baked goods, tinctures, and even patches and lozenges. Why do those products exist? Because we know that certain amounts of particular cannabinoids in specific concentrations are better able to treat and relieve pain, suffering, chronic and even terminal illnesses than smoking whole buds. Cannabis holds the cure for SO much suffering, but the extent of the amazing properties cannot be obtained solely through whole-bud consumption -- hence the market for extracts and concentrations.

So what's wrong with a professional corporation (i.e. any currently-operating dispensary that simply becomes incorporated under a legal regime) creating and selling the best-quality medicinal aspects of the cannabis plant? With all of the amazing potential that cannabis holds (and a lot that we surely don't even know about yet, such as possible INSTANT cancer-curing ONE DOSE medicines -- if we can find that right balance and concentration) why on earth would anyone oppose a corporation from finding and marketing that cure? Considering that Chinese medicine and herbal medicine and other traditional, non-pharmaceutical medicine and therapy companies are VERY successful and won't disappear anytime soon, why do you think cannabis would be any different?

Why should anyone deny a terminal cancer patient the opportunity and possibility of a one-dose cannabis cure? That doesn't exist yet, but it can if there are businesses with enough money and passion to find such a miraculous cure. Would it cost more than regular cannabis bud? Yes, but in order to be successful, the companies would offer it at a price people are willing and able to pay (because if they didn't, then people wouldn't buy it, then the businesses would close down, and that goes against their mandate, of course).

Claim: "We shouldn't support any policy that requires taxation and regulation!"

Response: All legal businesses are taxed and regulated. That's the way it is! If you're not legal and taxed and regulated, then you're illegal and untaxed and unregulated. If you want cannabis to be legal, you'll have to accept taxes and regulation. If you don't want taxes and regulation, you want it to stay illegal (prohibited). We've never had legal cannabis in recent history, so people are rightfully nervous and unsure and hesitant... But here we are, and here's our choice: legal, or illegal. Regulations and taxes can change, but there are only two choices for legality: legal, or illegal. Which do you prefer?

We are not going to get a totally "free" cannabis industry right away. Marc is a Libertarian and I too believe in small government and low taxation. We both support the right to self-cultivate free from any taxation or regulation, but we can't go to that point directly from where we are now. There is an established system in place; good or bad, it's the system we live under, and we have to work within that system in order to change it. Nothing happens immediately! Barack Obama did not get elected right after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus. Progress takes time. The need to end prohibition is a battle separate from (though connected to) the need to be free from government control. Marc and I support both those battles, but one must come before the other if we want to finally reach the ideal future of freedom that we all desire.


The following information is from www.TaxCannabis.org

About the Initiative

It’s Time to Reform California’s Cannabis Laws! California voters believe that our laws criminalizing cannabis (marijuana) have failed. According to a recent statewide Field Poll, a majority, 56 percent support legalizing cannabis. The time for reform is now.

The Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative will:

• Control cannabis like alcohol: Allow adults 21 and older in California to possess up to one ounce of cannabis

• Give local governments the ability to tax the sale of cannabis to adults 21 and older

• Generate billions of dollars in revenue to fund what matters most in California: jobs, healthcare, public safety, state parks, roads, transportation, and more

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What does the Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative do?

A: The Initiative will control cannabis just like alcohol, so adults 21 years old and above will be allowed to possess up to one ounce of cannabis. The Initiative will also give local governments the ability to tax the sale of cannabis.

Q: Why do you think the Initiative will pass?

A: According to a recent statewide Field Poll, 56 percent of Californians support legalizing cannabis.

Q: How would the Initiative control and tax cannabis?

A: The Initiative will allow local governments to set up a system to oversee cultivation, distribution, and sales, and determine how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold within area limits. If a local government decides it does not want to control and tax the sale of cannabis, then buying and selling cannabis within area limits will remain illegal, but the possession and consumption of up to one ounce will be permitted.

Q: Is cannabis a dangerous drug?

A: Actually, cannabis has much fewer harmful effects than either alcohol or cigarettes, which are both legal for adult consumption, and taxed to support vital services. Cannabis is not physically addictive, does not have long term toxic effects on the body, and does not cause its consumers to become violent.

Q: Would controlling and taxing cannabis help our state and local governments financially?

A: Absolutely. Right now, there is an estimated $15 billion in cannabis transactions every year in California, but since cannabis remains illegal, our state sees none of the revenue. Controlling and taxing cannabis could bring in billions of dollars in revenue to help fund what matters most in California: jobs, healthcare, public safety, parks, roads, transportation, and more. The California Board of Equalization estimates that controlling and taxing cannabis could generate $1.4 billion in revenue each year: http://www.boe.ca.gov/legdiv/pdf/ab0390-1dw.pdf

Q: If we legalize, control, and tax cannabis, won’t that just lead to a lot more people using it?

A: Actually no. According to The National Research Council’s recent study of the 11 U.S. states where cannabis is currently decriminalized, there is little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions and the rate of consumption.

Q: If we legalize, control, and tax cannabis, won’t that just lead to more crime?

A: No. The illegality of cannabis enables for the continuation of an out-of-control criminal market, which in turn spawns other illegal and often violent activities. Establishing legal, controlled sales outlets would put dangerous street dealers out of business, so their influence in our communities will fade. Also, when we stop arresting thousands of non-violent cannabis consumers, we will be freeing up police resources and saving millions of dollars each year, which could be used for apprehending truly dangerous criminals and keeping them locked up.

Q: If we legalize, control, and tax cannabis, won’t that just lead to more kids using it?

A: No. First of all, the Initiative will control cannabis like alcohol, allowing only adults 21 years and older to consume cannabis. In addition, by bringing cannabis out of the shadows, and implementing a legal regulatory framework to control it, we will be better able to police and prevent access to and consumption of cannabis by minors.

Q: What effect will the Initiative have on medical marijuana laws in California?

A: None. The Initiative explicitly upholds the rights of medical marijuana patients.

Q: But won’t cannabis remain illegal under federal law?

A: Yes, but we can still pass our own state laws in California. The United States Constitution enables individual states to enact laws concerning health, morals, public welfare and safety within the state. For instance, in 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, which legalized medical marijuana in the state. Also, 40 counties and cities in California have regulated medical cannabis without federal interference.

Q: How can I help?

A: This will be an epic battle for cannabis reform in California, and we are going to need every supporter involved. Sign up to volunteer, contribute, and get your friends involved today on our website www.TaxCannabis.org!

Medical Cannabis Patients FAQ

Q: Does the Initiative change medical cannabis laws in California?

A: No, it won’t change or affect current medical cannabis laws or protections offered to qualified patients. Patients will still be able to possess what is needed for medical use, and will retain all rights under Prop 215 and SB 420. In fact, the Initiative will clarify state law, to protect medical cannabis collectives and businesses operating responsibly under their local guidelines. Currently, the legality of medical cannabis sales is in dispute. Many cities and counties are struggling with the interpretation of SB 420, particularly around the allowance for cash transactions. As a result, these localities are unable to control and tax medical cannabis for distribution to qualified patients. The Initiative specifically grants cities and counties the ability to regulate sales for medical cannabis and commercial cultivation for safe, regulated medicine. The Initiative will also allow for research, safety testing, and potency monitoring.

Q: How will the Initiative affect patients who grow at home?

A: Patient gardens will remain legal, and protections will remain unchanged for patients who choose to grow their own medicine.

Q: How will the Initiative affect collective and cooperative cultivation?

A: The Initiative will allow for greater protection for collectives and cooperatives in storefront locations. City and county governments will now have the clearly established ability to regulate collective and/or commercial growing.

Q: If the Initiative passes, will non-medical patients have more rights than
patients?

A: No, adults 21 and over will be able to possess up to one ounce of cannabis outside of the home. Adults may only grow in a 5’x5’ area, and will have an affirmative defense to possess what they grow for personal use in that area. Patients and/or collectives will still be able to possess the amount needed for their medical use.

Q: If the Initiative passes, will it still be beneficial to be a medical cannabis patient?

A: Yes, medical patients will receive the greatest protections. Qualified patients will be allowed to possess and grow more than adults (to cover their medical needs). We also hope to see exemptions or discounts on services, and taxes to subsidize the cost to patients needing medical cannabis.

Q: Will the Initiative make it more difficult to become a medical patient?

A: No, being a medical cannabis patient will still remain private between you and your doctor.

Q: Could the Initiative affect medical cannabis growers?

A: Yes, by providing legal permits to gardens, the Initiative will also make possible the first legal commercial growing, once cannabis cultivation is regulated and permitted by either local governments or the state.

Q: Will the Initiative attract big business and cut out the little guys, and the cottage industry they have worked so hard to create?

A: The Initiative will actually give local groups an equal opportunity to obtain licenses and/or permits for the sale and cultivation of medical cannabis, adult cannabis, and hemp. Local groups can work with local governments to help determine regulations and licensing for cultivation and sales. The Initiative is also significant in that it allows for personal cultivation by adults.

Read the Initiative

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

Title and Summary:

Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed. Initiative Statute.

Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products.

Section 1: Name
This Act shall be known as the “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.”

Section 2: Findings, Intent and Purposes
This Act, adopted by the People of the State of California, makes the following Findings and Statement of Intent and Purpose:
A. Findings
1. California’s laws criminalizing cannabis (marijuana) have failed and need to be reformed. Despite spending decades arresting millions of non-violent cannabis consumers, we have failed to control cannabis or reduce its availability.
2. According to surveys, roughly 100 million Americans (around 1/3 of the country’s population) acknowledge that they have used cannabis, 15 million of those Americans having consumed cannabis in the last month. Cannabis consumption is simply a fact of life for a large percentage of Americans.
3. Despite having some of the strictest cannabis laws in the world, the United States has the largest number of cannabis consumers. The percentage of our citizens who consume cannabis is double that of the percentage of people who consume cannabis in the Netherlands, a country where the selling and adult possession of cannabis is allowed.
4. According to The National Research Council’s recent study of the 11 U.S. states where cannabis is currently decriminalized, there is little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions and the rate of consumption.
5. Cannabis has fewer harmful effects than either alcohol or cigarettes, which are both legal for adult consumption. Cannabis is not physically addictive, does not have long term toxic effects on the body, and does not cause its consumers to become violent.
6. There is an estimated $15 billion in illegal cannabis transactions in California each year. Taxing and regulating cannabis, like we do with alcohol and cigarettes, will generate billions of dollars in annual revenues for California to fund what matters most to Californians: jobs, health care, schools and libraries, roads, and more.
7. California wastes millions of dollars a year targeting, arresting, trying, convicting, and imprisoning non-violent citizens for cannabis related offenses. This money would be better used to combat violent crimes and gangs.
8. The illegality of cannabis enables for the continuation of an out-of-control criminal market, which in turn spawns other illegal and often violent activities. Establishing legal, regulated sales outlets would put dangerous street dealers out of business.
B. Purposes
1. Reform California’s cannabis laws in a way that will benefit our state.
2. Regulate cannabis like we do alcohol: Allow adults to possess and consume small amounts of cannabis.
3. Implement a legal regulatory framework to give California more control over the cultivation, processing, transportation, distribution, and sales of cannabis.
4. Implement a legal regulatory framework to better police and prevent access to and consumption of cannabis by minors in California.
5. Put dangerous, underground street dealers out of business, so their influence in our communities will fade.
6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.
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.
9. Tax and regulate cannabis to generate billions of dollars for our state and local governments to fund what matters most: jobs, healthcare, schools and libraries, parks, roads, transportation, and more.
10. Stop arresting thousands of non-violent cannabis consumers, freeing up police resources and saving millions of dollars each year, which could be used for apprehending truly dangerous criminals and keeping them locked up, and for other essential state needs that lack funding.
11. Allow the Legislature to adopt a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry.
12. Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes.
13. Permit California to fulfill the state’s obligations under the United States Constitution to enact laws concerning health, morals, public welfare and safety within the State.
14. Permit the cultivation of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption.
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: Health and Safety Code sections 11014.5 and 11364.5 [relating to drug paraphernalia]; 11054 [relating to cannabis or tetrahydrocannabinols]; 11357 [relating to possession]; 11358 [relating to cultivation]; 11359 [possession for sale]; 11360 [relating to transportation and sales]; 11366 [relating to maintenance of places]; 11366.5 [relating to use of property]; 11370 [relating to punishment]; 11470 [relating to forfeiture]; 11479 [relating to seizure and destruction]; 11703 [relating to definitions regarding illegal substances]; 11705 [actions for use of illegal controlled substance]; Vehicle Code sections 23222 and 40000.15 [relating to possession].
2. This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of the following state laws relating to public health and safety or protection of children and others: Health and Safety Code sections 11357 [relating to possession on school grounds]; 11361 [relating to minors as amended herein]; 11379.6 [relating to chemical production]; 11532 [relating to loitering to commit a crime or acts not authorized by law]; Vehicle Code section 23152 [relating to driving while under the influence]; Penal Code section 272 [relating to contributing to the delinquency of a minor]; nor any law prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve public safety.

Section 3: Lawful Activities
Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, commencing with section 11300 is added to read:
Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls
(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:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.
(ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.
(iv) Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection.
(b) “Personal consumption” shall include but is not limited to possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other non-public place, and shall include licensed premises open to the public authorized to permit on-premises consumption of cannabis by a local government pursuant to section 11301.
(c) “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis:
(i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301;
(ii) consumption in public or in a public place;
(iii) consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator;
(iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.

Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls
Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:
(a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized;
(b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale;
(c) appropriate controls on cultivation, transportation, sales, and consumption of cannabis to strictly prohibit access to cannabis by persons under the age of 21;
(d) age limits and controls to ensure that all persons present in, employed by, or in any way involved in the operation of, any such licensed premises are 21 or older;
(e) consumption of cannabis within licensed premises;
(f) safe and secure transportation of cannabis from a licensed premises for cultivation or processing, to a licensed premises for sale or on-premises consumption of cannabis;
(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;
(h) appropriate controls on licensed premises for sale, cultivation, processing, or sale 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 persons from unwanted exposure, advertising, signs and displays, and other controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare;
(i) appropriate environmental and public health controls to ensure that any licensed premises minimizes any harm to the environment, adjoining and nearby landowners, and persons passing by;
(j) appropriate controls to restrict public displays, or public consumption of cannabis;
(k) appropriate taxes or fees pursuant to section 11302;
(l) such larger amounts as the local authority deems appropriate and proper under local circumstances, than those established under section 11300(a) for personal possession and cultivation, or under this section for commercial cultivation, processing, transportation and sale by persons authorized to do so under this section;
(m) any other appropriate controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare.

Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees
(a) Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.
(b) Any licensed premises shall be responsible for paying all federal, state and local taxes, fees, fines, penalties or other financial responsibility imposed on all or similarly situated businesses, facilities or premises, including without limitation income taxes, business taxes, license fees, and property taxes, without regard to or identification of the business or items or services sold.

Section 11303: Seizure
(a) Notwithstanding sections 11470 and 11479 of the Health and Safety Code or any other provision of law, no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact seize or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is lawfully cultivated, processed, transported, possessed, possessed for sale, sold or used in compliance with this Act or any local government ordinance, law or regulation adopted pursuant to this Act.

Section 11304: Effect of Act and Definitions
(a) This Act shall not be construed to affect, limit or amend any statute that forbids impairment while engaging in dangerous activities such as driving, or that penalizes bringing cannabis to a school enrolling pupils in any grade from kindergarten through 12, inclusive.
(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed or interpreted to permit interstate or international transportation of cannabis. This Act shall be construed to permit a person to transport cannabis in a safe and secure manner from a licensed premises in one city or county to a licensed premises in another city or county pursuant to any ordinances adopted in such cities or counties, notwithstanding any other state law or the lack of any such ordinance in the intervening cities or counties.
(c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.
(d) Definitions
For purposes of this Act:
(i) “Marijuana” and “cannabis” are interchangeable terms that mean all parts of the plant Genus Cannabis, whether growing or not; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; concentrated cannabis; edible products containing same; and every active compound, manufacture, derivative, or preparation of the plant, or resin.
(ii) “One ounce” means 28.5 grams.
(iii) For purposes of section 11300(a)(ii) “cannabis plant” means all parts of a living Cannabis plant.
(iv) In determining whether an amount of cannabis is or is not in excess of the amounts permitted by this Act, the following shall apply:
(a) only the active amount of the cannabis in an edible cannabis product shall be included;
(b) living and harvested cannabis plants shall be assessed by square footage, not by weight in determining the amounts set forth in section 11300(a);
(c) in a criminal proceeding a person accused of violating a limitation in this Act shall have the right to an affirmative defense that the cannabis was reasonably related to his or her personal consumption.
(v) “residence” means a dwelling or structure, whether permanent or temporary, on private or public property, intended for occupation by a person or persons for residential purposes, and includes that portion of any structure intended for both commercial and residential purposes.
(vi) “local government” means a city, county, or city and county.
(vii) “licensed premises” is any commercial business, facility, building, land or area that has a license, permit or is otherwise authorized to cultivate, process, transport, sell, or permit on-premises consumption, of cannabis pursuant to any ordinance or regulation adopted by a local government pursuant to section 11301, or any subsequently enacted state statute or regulation.

Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors
Section 11361 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors
(a) Every person 18 years of age or over who hires, employs, or uses a minor in transporting, carrying, selling, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling any marijuana, who unlawfully sells, or offers to sell, any marijuana to a minor, or who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give any marijuana to a minor under 14 years of age, or who induces a minor to use marijuana in violation of law shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years.
(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.
(c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense.
(d) In addition to the penalties above, any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to perform any act pursuant to Section 11301, who while so licensed, permitted or authorized, negligently furnishes, administers, gives or sells, or offers to furnish, administer, give or sell, any marijuana to any person younger than 21 years of age shall not be permitted to own, operate, be employed by, assist or enter any licensed premises authorized under Section 11301 for a period of one year.

Section 5: Amendment
Pursuant to Article 2, section 10(c) of the California Constitution, this Act may be amended either by a subsequent measure submitted to a vote of the People at a statewide election; or by statute validly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, but only to further the purposes of the Act. Such permitted amendments include but are not limited to:
(a) Amendments to the limitations in section 11300, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations.
(b) Statutes and authorize regulations to further the purposes of the Act to establish a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry that addresses some or all of the items referenced in Sections 11301 and 11302.
(c) Laws to authorize the production of hemp or non-active cannabis for horticultural and industrial purposes.

Section 6: Severability
If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.

Comments

I-1068

Hopefully those of us here in Washington State will be enjoying similar freedoms come this November when we pass Initiative I-1068, legalizing marijuana.

YES ON 19!!!!!!!!!!

If you want the U.S.A recovering from the crisis, vote YES for legalization. This is a great way to collect good money from recreational use of Cannabis, a substance much more harmless than tobacco or alcohol (it is scientific fact). I'm from Venezuela (obviously not support Chavez, he is insane), and I don't have any other option than buying marihuana from dangerous dealers... and it is really pricey. Let's face it, the government has lost the fight against drug traffic. Marihuana exists, and you can't eliminate it, and people always demand it. If we win the next November, I will be in Oksterdam celebrating the freedom. VOTE YES please :)

Thank you for the article.

Thank you for the article. I'm one of those guys that are against the wording of this initiative, but are more open minded as to the overall mission of the initiative.

Clear cut, here are the problems that you didn't address:

-- This initiative gives the power to cities to regulate commercial cannabis sales. There are two possibilities that arise from this: 1) Cities will be slow to adopt new policies regarding regular cannabis sales, much like they have been with medical marijuana; or 2) Because cities set the tax rate, there might be competition to have the lowest tax rate among cities. If I had to put the pin on the horses ass, it's probably somewhere around #1.

-- (You somewhat addressed this) The public place and minors part. This is a big issue, as custody battles and right-to-privacy battles would both see this as a step backward under current law. (It is likely that, by the end of the year, the California legislature will lower the marijuana possession penalty to an infraction from the pseudo-misdemeanor stance it currently has). Right now, if someone smokes marijuana in the privacy of their own home, he/she is only subject to a maximum of a $100 fine, with medical marijuana patients not subjected to such penalty. However, as the initiative is written, it applies to both adults AND medical users alike. Granted, my personal views are that if there are children present, I wouldn't want to smoke around them inside my house. However, the initiative uses the term "minors", and could apply broadly to provide for stronger penalties to otherwise law-abiding citizens who smoke around people who are just a day away from attaining legal adulthood. You can easily argue the "public display" aspect, but what about when the law comes within the privacy of my house? Surely you must have a strong opinion on this one.

-- Inconsistencies and irregularities amongst lawful and criminal activity under the legal framework. The local authority will provide for penalties, but do those negate the statewide penalties? Obviously one cannot be tried multiple times for the same or similar crimes, but would statewide penalties still be in effect in those local jurisdictions that don't allow marijuana sales?

It is likely that some in the legislature will attempt to amend this act to fill in the gaps. The most likely changes would be: 1) Eliminate the 1 ounce rule; 2) lower illegal sales penalties to a civil fine with ~$1000 punishment per "transaction"; 3) extend the decriminalization/legalization of marijuana cultivation to a degree (and make the excess cultivation a civil fine). Hopefully the state would go far enough to take upon the Tom Ammiano bill, yet still leaving on-site businesses to the locality (much like alcohol). However, as Gov. Schwarzenegger is leaving office, and the new governors are less willing to support marijuana policy, I unfortunately cannot see that effectively happening unless there is broad support on the voter side.

Sorry for the essay... but what are your thoughts? Thank you for your time, and your efforts towards the cause of marijuana legalization.

CMH

With regards to my first

With regards to my first complaint (if it's not clear), cities would be more likely to not allow something than to permit its sale and suffer the political repercussions. We have seen that even in cities where the vast majority support medical marijuana (Los Angeles, for one), the city governments are quick to attempt to suppress the legally-operating collectives.

Marijuana

I,m a Texan and I'm all for the legalization of Pot. Please help get this message to Texas. Its a mess here and the GOPs, Tea Party, and 912 stand in the way of any progress. California,other States,Canada and Marc Emory we need your help and support.

Tax and Regulate cannabis

I'd gladly have Richard Lee go back to Texas and have him foist this shitty proposition there. Be my guest you can have him and his proposition.

You say in this article: "Q:

You say in this article:
"Q: What effect will the Initiative have on medical marijuana laws in California?
A: None. The Initiative explicitly upholds the rights of medical marijuana patients."
Can you or anyone quote me the part of this initiative that "explicitly upholds the rights of medical marijuana patients"?

Marc, you don't even know what the age of an adult is in California. Two times you bring this up. "In California, a minor is someone under 21." and "In California, rightly or wrongly, 18- to 20-year-olds are considered minors." In California you are an adult at age 18. source: http://law.justia.com/california/codes/fam/6500-6502.html

Corrected

That error is corrected. Thank you for the information!

The following sections of

The following sections of the initiative uphold MMJ patients' rights, as the Health & Safety Code sections referenced are the ones that deal with medical marijuana.

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.

Peron's point about MMJ patients

One of Peron's points, which Marc doesn't address in this article, is that the new law could be used to "clarify" the medical law, leading to similar restrictions for medical patients and "recreational" users alike. It also brings up that old Peron problem of the "miracle ounce."

Partly, this is Peron's beloved Prop 215 ambiguity coming back to bite him in the ass. But it's worth noting that, given what Jodie said above regarding the tendency of cities to try to limit/stamp out patients' access to their medicine, they will surely do so doubly for legal marijuana sales.

I expect post-initiative legal marijuana sales to be mostly relegated to "red light" type areas, like strip clubs and adult bookstores are now, with little or no access for people who live in cities with populations of 30,000 or below. Also, lots of local ordinances relegating sales to far-flung corners of industrial areas, and routine harassment by cops (but that would be expected anyway).

Which isn't to say I'll be voting against the initiative in November, I'm just not sure I'm a huge fan.

Also, I wish Marc had backed off on the personal explanations for Peron's opposition. I know Peron and Richard Lee have had quite the falling out, but I know Dennis, and his opposition is much more than just sour grapes. (But I will admit--I love the guy, but Dennis is definitely partially motivated by sour grapes.)

ATTORNEY SAYS: PROP. 215 PATIENTS *NOT* PROTECTED UNDER PROP. 19

section 7 refers only to *possession and consumption*. nowhere does prop. 19 exempt MMJ patients with regard to CULTIVATION.

section 8 says that the city will have control over how much people are allowed to cultivate. that means the city would decide how much MMJ patients could grow (right now that amount is UNLIMITED).

it *looks like* prop. 19 will protect MMJ patients, but the wording of the initiative says otherwise! and more and more attorneys are coming out in support of this claim:

"Dragonfly Is Correct About Prop. 19's Impact on Patients,"http://thehive.modbee.com/node/20404

and read "19 REASONS TO VOTE NO ON PROP. 19" here: http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/

STONER BEWARE: PROP. 19 IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT IS...

READ THE FACTS! VOTE NO ON 19!

One stupid bitch

Wrong. Prop 19 DOES NOT superseed prop 215. Your exemption for growing as a MMJ patient will remain intact when prop 19 passes. You are getting bad advice, or are lying to protect profits. I hope you realize the truth, or hang yourself.

Thank you, Marc

I really appreciate your the time you put into writing this, because you are Marc, and people will listen to you.

A week or so back, I stumbled on a post here by David Malmo Levine along the lines of "8 reasons I don't support the California legalization bill". Needless to say I strongly disagreed with a lot that this post said, and to me it really seemed like whoever originally wrote it was not a "big picture" guy, and got hung up on technicalities. Don't get me wrong, I by no way think that this bill is perfect in any measure, and there definitely are some annoyances with it, but that is no reason to go against it, because as history often has shown, real change dealing with these social issues will not come all at one time. If and when the bill passes, it will simply lay the ground work for further relaxation and additional working out the rules to make it as far as possible. To think that the first bill making something like this legal would be perfectly suitable to all of us is just plain assanine. If it all sounded sweet and perfect for all the potsmokers, it would sound awful to all the opposition. The idea with legislation is written is to do things gradually, not all at once. All in all, I think if it really was David who posted that bit, I'm a bit disappointed because I think that lack of solidarity does more harm than good to the movement. No, the law is not perfect. Yes, there is a lot to be desired. If we want to get the system to work how we want it, we have got to give a little while we take a little. We can't get it all at once, and if you think that's feasible or realistic to expect you haven't been paying attention.

So once again, thank you Marc for writing this article. I'm a no-one right now in this movement and no one likes listening to people like me, so I'm glad someone in your position helped strengthen the solidarity instead of weakening it. Thank you for seeing the big picture!

i for one....

am sick to death of baby steps...health care "reform", emissions that might get us back to the gas mileage of cars made in the 80s by 2020, gulf oil spill - the cap has reduced the amount of oil flowing, but hasn't stopped it...you name it we've been conditioned to accept half measures instead of whole ones...

do you think the alcohol anti-prohibitionists would have put up with this crap?

....

and when exactly do you think this will be revisited?

I too am sick of baby steps,

I too am sick of baby steps, and - again - I don't think the proposed law is as ideal as it should be, but we should at least understand if we are ever to get what we want, that is how to obtain it. It's incredibly unrealistic to just one day assume everything will go in our favor. It needs to go both ways for both sides otherwise, otherwise it will be a cold day in hell before it would ever pass. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm simply stating that is how it works, and unless you work with how it works, you'll never get what you want. You can do a lot more damage within the system than outside the system, so if we are serious about what we want, we need to work at it constantly and consistently instead of expecting and only settling for an overnight miracle.

.. and in regard to your

.. and in regard to your question about when it will be revisited, I think it basically goes like this... The law gets voted in and passes. As time goes on and people are more adjusted to a system of legality, then people start proposing additional changes to make things more relaxed. Maybe after it's been legal for a certain time, there is a general consensus that the grow area is too small, so people work on increasing the set grow space. Or maybe after it's been legal for a certain amount of time, people start to complain that the rule about not being able to smoke in the household with a minor is violating their space and that these people are not reckless and negligent, so additional changes are proposed which relax the limitations about who you can smoke around. That's basically how the whole legal process works - I'm not saying I agree with it; I'm simply saying that is how things work and unless we work with them we aren't going to get very far.

Anti-prohibitionists

Well they did, didn't they? Making your own alcohol for sale is still illegal, even today. The are still states and counties that forbid alcohol sales, even today. Many aspects of the proposition that people complain about--selling to minors, limits on how much you can grow yourself, licensed stores-- all apply to alcohol. Does that mean that the 21st Amendment was a bad idea? Heck no.

Federal and other States impact

This is not the initiative I'd have written, and my misgivings about the language are stronger then Marc expresses, HOWEVER...

If it fails, the message in the media, and thus the perception of the President, the US Congress, and other States' Legislatures will not be "The Initiative was defeated because it wasn't strong enough."

Rather, their take-home will be "Even in California, the voters don't want this stuff legalized." This will work against federal reforms, and even incremental improvements in other States.

So pass it, and immediately start gathering the signatures to place an improved regulatory regime on the 2012 ballot.

i say pass it. i do not

i say pass it.
i do not smoke pot.
i do not want to pay taxes to the police to bust you potheads when they cant respond to other more pressing problems in fast time.

Pass it and move on...

I agree with you but you make it sound like arresting potheads was our idea. I assure you, it wasn't.

Let's get this passed then fix it later otherwise we are set back 20+ years in the fight to legalize.

Ben Masel and Marc are our great leaders..VOTE YES

Not a perfect SYNTHESIS,yet a no vote is crazy.Get your butt to voter friendly Cannafornia and get our sacrament LEGAL!!!

5x5 area

it has been my observation that a healthy plant requires 4 square feet of it's own growing area which at harvest time produces about 4 ounces per plant (indoor garden). outside growing will have much better results however this will require a higher level of security for said plants. but with 4 ounces per 3 plants every 10 weeks this gave me much more weed to smoke than i needed. I usually smoked about a 1/4 ounce per week. which leaves me with 9 1/2 ounces to share with friends who do not have a green thumb when it comes to growing anything.

edit

4 ounces per plant X's 3 plants gives me 12 ounces in total. my bad

getting the most out of 25 sq feet outdoors

Rather than a 5x5, do a 25x1 row.

Ben Masel 25'x1' see what i mean.Genius is seeing the obvious

Jodie and Ben along with every activist should focus getting Americans to Cannafornia to VOTE YES on HERO machine/remedy.Freeing our sacred use ,so every adult can worship and possibly cure a broken soma-body.This is beyond words that divide,and the love spirit inside cannabis will more fully be honoured.ONE LOVE is not just hippie -rasta blather.Theism wants free sacrament.Voting is our basic human rights in the dualism of shared responsibility in the SOCIAL CONTRACT.PEOPLE versus GOVT AUTHORITY.

Still no answer to my question-

You say in this article:

"Q: What effect will the Initiative have on medical marijuana laws in California?
A: None. The Initiative explicitly upholds the rights of medical marijuana patients."

Can you or anyone quote me the part of this initiative that "explicitly upholds the rights of medical marijuana patients"?

no one has answered your question...

because it the bill does NOT explicitly protect medical cannabis patients...

I answered her question

I answered her question above where she first asked it. The relevant sections of the initiative that protect MMJ patients are listed there.

http://orangehair.wordpress.com

I repeat Peron's point that the initiative would likely be used to shape the medical law. Prop 215, SB 420 and Jerry Brown's Guidelines have left a whole host of issues unanswered in California. It's still unclear how much a medical patient is allowed to grow, vendor-dispensary transactions are essentially unregulated, and the continued existence of an illegal market keeps prices artificially high.

MMJ patients are only thinly protected as it is. This law will blur the lines between medical patients and recreational users, potentially rendering the medical movement a blow as dispensaries drop the pretense of patient care and get into the business of slinging weed. At that point, what motive will the government have to make an exception for medical users? Since the whole medical law is gray already, and we all know that there are plenty of black market veterans using the medical system, the reduced crop size limits, etc. will likely eventually apply to all of us.

A lot of the opponents are people who are afraid that the progress we have made on the medical front will vanish once pot becomes a vice again. Some of us, myself included, use it for legitimate medical reasons. The provisions about smoking in front of children (how many teenagers will hold that one over their parents' heads?), smoking outside and locating dispensaries in the same ghettos where tattoo parlors, check cashing services and adult bookstores abound will only reinforce the societal notion that marijuana is a vice, and not a legitimate treatment for a variety of ailments.

I understand the arguments for gradual change. I just fear there is a Faustian bargain in this.

Pot is a vice for many

Though we cannot be sure either way, I don't think that medical pot users' needs will go unmet if 18 were passed. I think they will be even better met by basically slashing costs. But OK, maybe we have to hash this out some (no pun intended) and speculate carefully. We recreational smokers are willing to do that. Are you med pot users willing to do something for us as well ? what? and when? (reducing pot possession to an infraction is NOTHING, a likelihood, but not even a certainty - there should simply be no penalty at all.) We've been waiting a long time. The fear of pot becoming (indeed already being) largely a vice is probably justified. It is a vice. It's also medicine. But not helping make this relatively benign substance legal for both camps is essentially the same mind set that puritans and prohibitionists have exploited against us for decades. Wine is a vice, so is beer, tobacco, junk food, video games and, for many, recreational sex. Get over it. Alcohol users have bars, now let us have our space. It's only rational. There is no devil. Don't fear Faustian consequences.

Actually, you didn't

Actually, you did not answer her question. You quoted some vague parts of the purpose that will not actually be codified into law and which can also be interpreted to protect medical patients in only very specific instances.
She was asking where it was going to be codified into law that this would not effect medical patients at all. That is no where in the initiative unfortunately.

RECREATIONAL USE

The ‘supersedes’ argument relies mainly on the use of the phrase “nothwithstanding any other provision of law” in certain sections. This is a fairly typical phrase used in law to mean “despite other already-existing laws”. It does not mean “all existing laws on this topic are null and void and this new set of laws totally replaces them.”

I went into it at length in a previous post in relation to Prop 19?s new section 11300 which legalizes possession, sharing, transport and cultivation of cannabis for personal consumption. My primary point was that the effect of Prop 19 will come from what Prop 19 does – not the use of “notwithstanding”.

That is a quote from Kirk Tousaw. Here is another one

If the anti-19 people are correct, this “purpose” of Prop 19 will be negated. It is hard to see how making access harder by restricting Prop 215 can be held to be one of the legislative intents of Prop 19 when the goal is “easier, safer access.”

and another

…this section simply sets out a range of activities that are not “personal consumption” and therefore are not made lawful by Prop 19. It does not specifically restrict any other activity nor does it make any other currently-lawful activity illegal. It is a modification to what is being legalized, not a restriction on what is already legal. Remember, this section of the statute begins by adding categories of lawful conduct, not restricting anything.

Now lets untangle it a bit. What has happened?

1. Possessing and consuming cannabis for medicine is already legal.
2. Cannabis for “personal consumption” has also become legal.
3. But “personal consumption” doesn’t include consuming in the presence of minors, public consumption, etc. so the category of newly-lawful conduct does not extend to consuming in the presence of minors, public consumption, etc.

The exemption relates to the category of things legalized by Prop 19, not the category of things that had already been legal. I believe that it takes a very strained reading of 11300 to conclude that it (a) applies to medical cannabis at all; and (b) applies to it in such a way as to restrict it to only the situations set out in Prop 19.

Kirk Tousaw has more credibility that Jennifer Soares or Dragonfly whateverthefuckhernamis

lolyer

"Though Soares says she does not smoke weed herself, she's part of a group of fringe cannabis activists, growers, dispensary owners, and casual stoners who have aligned with cops, big business, and anti-gay marriage conservatives to denounce the most sweeping attempt at legalizing marijuana in California in thirty years."

Taken from a blog at
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/stoners-against-legalization/Content?oid=2018142&showFullText=true

Liars

The ‘supersedes’ argument relies mainly on the use of the phrase “nothwithstanding any other provision of law” in certain sections. This is a fairly typical phrase used in law to mean “despite other already-existing laws”. It does not mean “all existing laws on this topic are null and void and this new set of laws totally replaces them.”

I went into it at length in a previous post in relation to Prop 19?s new section 11300 which legalizes possession, sharing, transport and cultivation of cannabis for personal consumption. My primary point was that the effect of Prop 19 will come from what Prop 19 does – not the use of “notwithstanding”.

That is a quote from Kirk Tousaw. Here is another one

If the anti-19 people are correct, this “purpose” of Prop 19 will be negated. It is hard to see how making access harder by restricting Prop 215 can be held to be one of the legislative intents of Prop 19 when the goal is “easier, safer access.”

and another

…this section simply sets out a range of activities that are not “personal consumption” and therefore are not made lawful by Prop 19. It does not specifically restrict any other activity nor does it make any other currently-lawful activity illegal. It is a modification to what is being legalized, not a restriction on what is already legal. Remember, this section of the statute begins by adding categories of lawful conduct, not restricting anything.

Now lets untangle it a bit. What has happened?

1. Possessing and consuming cannabis for medicine is already legal.
2. Cannabis for “personal consumption” has also become legal.
3. But “personal consumption” doesn’t include consuming in the presence of minors, public consumption, etc. so the category of newly-lawful conduct does not extend to consuming in the presence of minors, public consumption, etc.

The exemption relates to the category of things legalized by Prop 19, not the category of things that had already been legal. I believe that it takes a very strained reading of 11300 to conclude that it (a) applies to medical cannabis at all; and (b) applies to it in such a way as to restrict it to only the situations set out in Prop 19.

Kirk Tousaw has more credibility that Jennifer Soares or Dragonfly whateverthefuckhernamis

Medical Marijuana for T&R 2010

From the initiative:

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.

Please see those Health and Safety sections.
T&R2010 does not override state medical marijuana laws.

I repeat

Again...that quote is from the purpose. The purpose will not be codified into law. Therefore, it is not law.
Regardless, it is written so poorly, it can be interpreted to very limited applications.

It is the purpose for and of

It is the purpose for and of the law. Why have a purpose of the law if its not going to be part of the law? To me its like saying 'the purpose of this law is to legalize carrying up an ounce of weed but if you are seen with one joint we'll throw you in jail' it just does not make sense.

Barely legal

"Though Soares says she does not smoke weed herself, she's part of a group of fringe cannabis activists, growers, dispensary owners, and casual stoners who have aligned with cops, big business, and anti-gay marriage conservatives to denounce the most sweeping attempt at legalizing marijuana in California in thirty years."

Taken from a blog at
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/stoners-against-legalization/Content?oid=2018142&showFullText=true

Oust all governments.

my problem with this bill is it puts more people in jail. It puts more money in the governments pocket and it is a gateway for the feds to regulate and control cannabis which will lead to patents and the deterioration of the medicine. As a user I can see why this bill seems cool but I am not a user i am a patient and my life depends on this medicine for survival, no joke. Frankly this bill infringes on everyone's civil rights. I personally think I should be able to smoke, my medicine anywhere I want and in front of anyone I want because it is my life saving medicine. which I can do under the current law and if Lee's bill passes I will no longer be able to do that and then i will be a criminal for medicating. This bill will be untouchable like prop 215 which means that nobody will be able to change that law. This bill also does not release all those in Jail whom are wrongly incarcerated for medicating themselves. If we are going to enact a law of this kind it must seek to benefit everone involved and not just the state's economy which is not our fiscal responsibility.Jodie I commend you on you compassion for this movement but not being in Cali; I assure you do not get the whole picture, I am a jounalist in California and I have lots of insight about some of the real intentions of our government. The bottom line is it is time for a revolution, its time to take back the power and keep it where it belongs : with the people not the government. Do you really feel that the government deserves our money, I don't they are already robbing our incomes here in the U.S. which is purely absurd. They tax our property which is absurd. In the U.S. we donnot tax medicine and for a good reason so why start now. Its not our problem to fix the economy but it is our problem to take back our power. And its my God given right to grow as many plants as I need and no Government can tell me otherwise. peace. hugs. love

There are other means of administering meds

Make some canna butter (budder). Whip up a batch of anything you like and consume anywhere you wish. It is in the proposal!!

Anonymous Nation has GENII ..the obvious details..EAT IT

Master RICK SIMPSON has reinvented HERO MACHINE the REMEDY of HEMP EXTRACT RESIN OIL.This miracle mechos is the possible cure for so much,and we are on the precipice.This is my THESIS today,that the obvious seen in a creative manner can be pure genius.Make sacred budder cookies and do your thing. BRAVO!!!

I'd vote for this initiative

if it was in Canada. It's not perfect but it's huge leaps forward.

Allowing 25 sq/ft for growing is a joke and an insult

That 25 square foot limit only works if you're willing to grow indoors. $250 - $300 for a light is only the start, you'll need two of them. One for vegetative growth and one for flowering, each taking a specific ballast that cant be used with the other. You'll also need exhaust fans and scrubbers, a timer, a hydroponic set up, and some way to battle all that heat those big hot lamps put out. And then there's the electrical bill. It's not just simply how much electricity the lamps use, it's also what billing tier they will bump you up to.
If you want to grow outdoors (way cheaper!) how are the local police going to determine when you've reached the 25 sq/ft limit? Knowing LE they will claim it's the amount of space the foliage takes up. That means even one plant can exceed the space limit.
And who thinks a 1 ounce limit is a good idea? I don't see anyone telling alcohol consumers how many bottles of beer, wine, or hard liquor they may buy, transport, or have on hand. We're still going to be treated like second class citizens even if this passes. Treat cannabis EXACTLY like alcohol with the same restrictions and penalties (or lack thereof). This is a half assed initiative that is little better than what we have now. I'm treating this ill conceived and thought out piece of garbage for what it is, a foot in the door hopefully leading to TRUE legalization. Still, it's better than nothing at all.

Indeed but it is a start

I totally agree with you but you have to lay the tracks before you can get that locomotive moving.

TRANS-DERMAL and BUDDER COOKIE HEAVEN ...

Anonymous Nation needs the referendum to legalize.HERO as a lotion with fresh seed-nut NO THC oil skin massage industry.Eat a hemp budder cookie,and save the lungs for a night away from home.Children see loving parents tending plants and respect for nature,instead of PRISON of blk/brown $35,000 per year.HARVARD $40,000 not PRISON INDUSTRY $30,000 per man per year.VOTE YES *OFTEN*...chicago is my birthplace.

not only that...

but what happens when you get 5, 10, 20 ounces from that space when you are only allowed to possess ONE?

i am beginning question whether it really IS better than nothing at all...

One ounce is in public

There isn't a limit on how much you can have or grow at home; you just can't walk around in public with more than an ounce. But really, do you think police will be pulling out scales and weighing every bag that every adult cannabis user has on their person while shopping downtown or walking through a park? Doubtful.

COGENCY of argument is how you come out of the ANONYMITY

Police in KALIfornia want control and taxes to pay teachers.Yes, must make friends with the enemies of TRUTH,and use LOVE and eating or lotion topical anointment,using a little HERO machine.Legal because Rich Lee and TOM JAMES teach ,and don't BLOW SMOKE ANYMORE. You want answers,teach LOVE and remind people that EX-BUSH-DEA is in CANADA .Teach it's should be legal to self-cure.Make the edible HERO cream and teach in SYSTEM TWO, The CONSCIOUS mind is how you legalize in Canada.

BETTER THAN NOTHING? the alternative is PROP. 215, not nothing!

what will we have if we don't vote in the "regulate, control and tax cannabis initiative"? nothing? hardly.

the alternative is actually quite appealing. it's Prop. 215.

under Prop. 215, every citizen is allowed to grow up to an UNLIMITED number of plants and TRANSPORT and POSSESS up to 3 LBS. you don't have to pay $50 tax onto every ounce--all you have to do is pay about $150 a year to renew your prescription.

prescription? does that mean you have to be SICK to legally use medical marijuana? absolutely not. it was deliberately designed to apply to a range of "illnesses"--with no limit. WHATEVER MARIJUANA HELPS YOU WITH, that's an excuse to be prescribed medical marijuana. the idea is that if you told your doctor with honesty that marijuana assisted you with some problem, then the doctor should respect that and give you what you say works for you. that's why you can get a pot prescription for something as benign as headaches, insomnia, cramps, lack of appetite (ha!), and even a broken heart. to cultivate up to an unlimited amount and carry up to 3 lbs. without penalty or harassment. and you can smoke anywhere cigarettes can be smoked. and if you're complying with the law, the cops totally protect you. i've seen it so many times. speaking as someone who LIVES there, trust me: it IS a pot paradise... the generous restrictions make it almost impossible to be non-compliant. so the alternative to the initiative ain't bad at all!

look for my article in SKUNK magazine in JULY and seriously educate yourself on what the initiative really says. VOTE KNOW!

blah

I will rejoice when the power goes back to the people and out of medical/recreational profiteers and blackmarket hands. Marc is spot on on that point. Take away the undeserved profits i say give the power to the people. Stop getting ripped off. Wake up

Prop 215 is not Legal its Exemption

Under prop 215 your are not legal but Guilty till proven Innocent, with Prop 19 you are innocent unless you are carrying more then an ounce and how would they know how much you are carrying if you don't show anyone they won't be able to search you cause they smell it on you like they can now. Prop 215 does not allow you to grow unlimited plants nor can you carry and unlimited amount on you.

Prop 215
www.drugpolicy.org/library/cmrguide.cfm
Cultivation guidelines. It is important to take steps to keep any medical marijuana cultivation within the boundaries suggested by Prop. 215. First off, grow no more marijuana than you need for personal consumption. There is no concrete standard for numbers of plants under Prop. 215. Generally speaking, a few healthy plants should satisfy a patient's needs.

http://www.canorml.org/prop/local215policies.html
Here is shows that the number of plants and the amount you can have varies Greatly from county to county.
Berkeley - 10 plants.
Butte Co. - 6 mature or 12 immature plants, 1 pound processed material.
Humboldt Co. - County guidelines allow patients 100 square feet and 3 lbs
w/no plant number limit. Cities of Eureka and Fortuna PDs and
CHP enforce SB 420 limits (6 mature/12 immature plants, 1/2 lb).
Oakland - Indoors - 72 plants in maximum 32 sq. ft growing area. Outdoors -
20 plants, no area limit. Weight limit 3 lbs dried marijuana per
patient

Here is the section about the minimum the state allows
H&SC 11362.77(a). A qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana per qualified patient. In addition, a qualified patient or primary caregiver may also maintain no more than six mature or 12 immature marijuana plants per qualified patient.

This section says they may allow you more but its a may they don't have to
H&SC 11362.77 (c) Counties and cities may retain or enact medical marijuana guidelines allowing qualified patients or primary caregivers to exceed the state limits set forth in subdivision (a)

Under Prop 19 you will still be able to keep this but for those who don't have a card you can grow a 25 sq ft plot that according to Radical Russ is the base area not the top so couldn't your plants on the side areas be on an angle which means you can grow more plants in that 25 sq ft area and here is something no one seems to get its "You Get to KEEP ALL from your PLOT not just 1 lb not just 3 lbs but ALL of it, if you have 20 lbs all you have to say its what I grew this year and its yours also even though you can't sell there is nothing stopping your friends from sharing up to an ounce with you plus this should for once really end the raids on caregivers. Also Prop 215 has not stopped the raids and the closings of dispensaries.

ATTORNEY SAYS: PROP. 215 PATIENTS *NOT* PROTECTED UNDER PROP. 19

it's not surprising that you would assume prop. 215 patients would be protected under prop. 19--richard lee, author of the initiative, keeps saying 215 would not be protected.

but have you read the initiative itself? because the wording of the initiative--the legally binding part; not the "purposes" section--says otherwise. PROP. 19 DOES NOT MAKE EXCEPTIONS FOR PROP. 215 PATIENTS (except regarding consumption and possession). MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENTS' RIGHT TO CULTIVATE IS NOT PROTECTED.

read more: "Dragonfly Is Correct About Prop. 19's Impact on Patients,"http://thehive.modbee.com/node/20404

and read "19 REASONS TO VOTE NO ON PROP. 19" here: http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/

STONER BEWARE: PROP. 19 IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT IS...

Wrong again TurdFly

Jennifer Soares is barely a lawyer. You should find someone else to get legal advice from. Try Kirk Tousaw. He will be able to show you where the "attorney" Jennifer Soares is wrong about, or is misrepresenting prop 19

Barely?

Barely is still longer than the length of time you've been an attorney.

Me?

I don't believe Dragonfly was quoting me or citing to me in her comments. I believe she was talking about Ms. Pepper.
But I agree with Anonymous. I've been an attorney long enough for the state bar to license me to make legal opinions and give legal advice. How long have you been an attorney licensed to do so?

Also, Kirk is a "barrister" in Canada. Not an attorney in the US.

DUMB DA DA DUMB

1.The price of cannabis did not drop when Prop 215 was passed or within the 14 years that it has been around. It did not even drop when there were 1,000 dispensaries in LA City alone competing with each other.

2.Richard Lee told me so himself. In a conversation between Richard and I and two other people, Richard told us that the market had already shown that people were willing to pay X for their cannabis. He also compared it to water, saying, if people are willing to pay $1.50 for a bottle of water why would I lower the price even if it only costs me 10 cents to produce? It seems that supply and demand are not the only influence at issue. According to Richard himself, whatever the market will bear is what he will charge. Hamburgers are not $1,000 because no one would pay $1,000 for a hamburger. Cannabis users throughout the state have already paid $50 (or more) per 1/8th. They will continue to do so if Prop 19 does not pass. So Richard's logic is that you will continue to do so if that is the price that it is at even if Prop 19 passes. If he increases it to $1,000 he would lose a lot of clients. But if he maintains the current prices, he won't.

MOST weed smokers buy mexican weed for $50 per ounce. You are not as informed as you would have us think. When the market is open to big business, the price will drop. You have no logical argument against that fact. Richard Lee is not big business. He is a small boutique operation, like almost all other dispensary operators, who will continue to offer products at a boutique price. They will probably not see a negative impact from lower priced weed, as they will continue to serve a MINORITY of Californian cannabis users. Medical marijuana will remain availible, and your EXEMPTIONS from the illegality will also remain. Any illegality associated with cannabis use after prop 19 passes will still be exempted for prop 215 patients, if it was before prop 19. You are not being honest with your arguments, or you are simply stupid.

Again with this stupid cuntfly

The ‘supersedes’ argument relies mainly on the use of the phrase “nothwithstanding any other provision of law” in certain sections. This is a fairly typical phrase used in law to mean “despite other already-existing laws”. It does not mean “all existing laws on this topic are null and void and this new set of laws totally replaces them.”

I went into it at length in a previous post in relation to Prop 19?s new section 11300 which legalizes possession, sharing, transport and cultivation of cannabis for personal consumption. My primary point was that the effect of Prop 19 will come from what Prop 19 does – not the use of “notwithstanding”.

That is a quote from Kirk Tousaw. Here is another one

If the anti-19 people are correct, this “purpose” of Prop 19 will be negated. It is hard to see how making access harder by restricting Prop 215 can be held to be one of the legislative intents of Prop 19 when the goal is “easier, safer access.”

and another

…this section simply sets out a range of activities that are not “personal consumption” and therefore are not made lawful by Prop 19. It does not specifically restrict any other activity nor does it make any other currently-lawful activity illegal. It is a modification to what is being legalized, not a restriction on what is already legal. Remember, this section of the statute begins by adding categories of lawful conduct, not restricting anything.

Now lets untangle it a bit. What has happened?

1. Possessing and consuming cannabis for medicine is already legal.
2. Cannabis for “personal consumption” has also become legal.
3. But “personal consumption” doesn’t include consuming in the presence of minors, public consumption, etc. so the category of newly-lawful conduct does not extend to consuming in the presence of minors, public consumption, etc.

The exemption relates to the category of things legalized by Prop 19, not the category of things that had already been legal. I believe that it takes a very strained reading of 11300 to conclude that it (a) applies to medical cannabis at all; and (b) applies to it in such a way as to restrict it to only the situations set out in Prop 19.

Kirk Tousaw has more credibility that Jennifer Soares or Dragonfly whateverthefuckhernamis

Agree

I agree, this is going to give even more power to the state on how much they can regulate cannabis users. We deserve to have free use of our medicine, no one tells me I can only grow 25 square feet of vegetables or herbs, yet cannabis will have that limit? We deserve better. This is like us being pushed even further onto an island of scrutiny and obviously doesn't make up for the years of mistreatment cannabis users have endured. I live in San Diego, and the immediate effects of this are going to be felt in a violent way here. Officers are STILL arresting medi-card holders here, so I wonder how they are going to take this new law if it passes.

Good Job Marc/Jodie

Once again Marc's straight forward HONESTY Nails it!!!

i still think...

the parts about consuming (not just smoking) around minors is WAY too vague and has the potential for opening up new and innovative ways to bust cannabis users AND take away their children...the initiative does not explicitly contain the explanation the author provides, it does NOT make allowances for use in ones private residence...rather it is open to WIDE interpretation...it's not that i think adults *should* consume in the presence of minors, but cannabis needs to be treated the same way as alcohol in this regard...i have no personal grudge on this point...my children are adults...

But you can grow with kids!

If this initiative isn't going to get parents in trouble for growing plants inside their home with children present, do you really think that police will bust in doors because some cookies or Volcano vapour bags are inside the same rooms as those same kids? Again, I doubt it.

Another COGENT argument,thanks Jodie married to a SAINT..

The SOCCER MOMS are scared of POT AND KIDS,and they vote in SYSTEM ONE fear part of brain.This BILL has the balance to take this FEAR out of primal UNCONSCIOUS mindal,except from silly freedom activists that don't understand the modern SOCIAL CONTRACT.You can start a CHURCH with legal advertisement.OUR "ONE LOVE" CHURCH is unleashed on the greening minds of rational thought.***LOVE*** the word that is pure and does not DIVIDE our CC family.DEAR JODIE we love you and MARC.Get people to CANNAFORNIA.

i do not see where in this

i do not see where in this bill it says that medical users will be taxed. you should still have current medical rules.
i imagine you could grow your own ( tax free) or you could buy from a medical supplieror whatever it is you do under your current system.

as for smoking amongst minors. that is only sensible. it is not a drink in that smoke will be in the room.

people should not be able to smoke medical cannabis wherever they like either. it offends some people in public and you should not rely on medical need excuse because there are other ways of taking your medicine if you need to go out.

Give me a break. Who's

Give me a break. Who's paying YOU? The legislation says "smoking cannabis in and SPACE while minors are present". What do you think LEO is going to interpret "space" as? Knowing how the top cop in LA feels, a space will be a building like an apartment, a city block or even a city. This language is inexcusable and I don't think it was a mistake. The only place where it will truly be legal will probably be Oakland. In this legislation, the cities have to take the initiative to write ordinances. What are the odds with budgets so tight that any city in Southern California are going to do that? Richard Lee hasn't answered that question or done anything to help out LA.

I think that is getting a

I think that is getting a little carried away. I tend to believe that space would be in the same room. That room could living room, bed room, inside a motor home. It seems to make sure the minor can't breath in the smoke like its illegal to smoke a cigarette in the same space with a minor.
Once this passes I think it would be harder for them to stop you from smoking as you don't have to buy but grow at home and you get to keep every bit you harvest and carry an ounce. You can also go to friends house you can't buy but he can share an ounce with you.

All you need to know

All you need to know is in the title of the article. "Complaint #1" is right - haha, label all of your detractors as complainers. Really set us up for a skew, go on and do your best.

WHO THE FUCK CRIES OUT TO BE TAXED?
This isn't really legalization! That's true and it's all you need to read. I'm not going to waste my time on this huge screed, it's propaganda all the way through if it's pro-tax in any way.

This isn't legalization. We still see television commercials for illegal tobacco, and we still see people getting their houses kicked in and raided, dogs shot, family members beaten and property seized for illegal tobacco.

IF YOU'RE STUPID ENOUGH TO VOTE FOR THAT, STOP VOTING FOR ANYTHING AT ALL

What you're voting for is corporate-sponsored and likely corporate-originated legal propaganda. This law STINKS, it seems like something Philip Morris or Imperial Tobacco would want you to vote for - because they will be the only people with the legal authority to sell this to you. And you'll still get your doors broken down for it.

ASK YOURSELF - ARE YOU ALLOWED TO GROW TOBACCO? No! You get arrested and your life is over.

You're voting to take control of the trade away from your local mom & pop pot growers and into the hands of the Tobacco Cartels and their corporate ilk.

Look at what these fucks are putting in Tobacco. THE ONLY TOBACCO YOU CAN GET LEGALLY HAS OVER 400 CARCINOGENS IN IT and the government doesn't even ask for the full list - it's a "Tobacco trade secret." CAN YOU GET PURE TOBACCO? Not without being completely illegal about it. You can get cancer or go to jail if you want tobacco, but you can't avoid both without breaking the law. A law nobody tries to change. They just don't smoke. You'll have to make the same choices with your marijuana if you give control of it to the tax man.

I fucking hate you people for being so stupid. And you're supposed to be the free thinkers with open minds. Can you not tell exactly who is trying to fool you? THIS IS CORPORATE! This is a corporate takeover of the cannabis culture. BE FUCKING WARNED!

paranoias

GET A GRIP ADAM! Go back and understand what Marc writes. Corporations sell tomatoes, but if you want to you can grow your own. The 25sqft rule should be enough for those who make the effort.

If this was a decriminalisation measure (with fines) I would be scathing (because there are amongst us the confused and feeble who think that would be progress). But it isn't.

Adam is an extreme thesis vs antithesis (antiADAM) A>B=C

Tripartite of HEGEL's DIALECTIC PROCESS written about 200 yrs ago is A thesis creates an automatic B antithesis, and we think dialogically (back and forth).The third part is C a SYNTHESIS or compromise that Hegel calls a possible PERFECT IDEA.Process is a little more complex than this explanation,yet the SYNTHESIS of the workable new referendum that Rich Lee wrote gives us CC people access to BEGIN LEGAL MODALITY.Adam don't compromise with THESIS of corporatocracy is kleptocracy,and maintain status quo.OK< use fear to stay same modus.Most will VOTE YES and hold the law to NEW MODALITY which will allow eating outside home ok,and trans dermal lotions,smoking inside your home etc..to get the healing locomotive (LOVE CHURCH)legal and free to do it's magic.APPEAL TO FEAR is a LOGICAL FALLACY

?

How is being allowed to grow your own pot in the privacy of your own home a corporate take-over? This regulation of pot really isn't that different than the regulation of alcohol. I for one, would be more than glad to be able to walk down the block and pick up a baggy of some good old California Kush instead of having to get some shitty no-name schwag from a shady ass drug dealer. It seems to me that the only people who are opposing this on here are the people who already have their medical cards. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES! Yeah, it's great you're already able to get your pot legally. But guess what, there's still millions of us out there being arrested and harrassed by the police! I would take this non-perfect form of regulation ANY DAY over the way things are now. It's all about baby steps whether you want it to be or not. You can't just shoot down this bill and then in the next election expect to bring about full legalization. It's not gonna happen. Dream on, though. DREAM ON.

Brilliant!

Brilliant. I love it! Keep up the good work. I wish i could repost this.

All you need to know? You need to learn some more.

It is Legalizing it in small steps at a time.

Where have you ever seen anyone's home raided for growing Tobacco? I Bing'd it and its Legal to grow Tobacco for your own consumption now to sell thats another story you have to pay taxes and have a permit but for your own use Legal just Google it and you'll find out. You can buy 'American Spirit' its additive Free All Natural Tobacco. So not all Tobacco is chemical ladened. You can get Pipe Tobacco and its Not chemical ladened nor is Good Cigars so yes you can Smoke and not get Cancer nor go to jail.

This will not take it away from Mom & Pop growers just like vegetables you can still buy them from local growers.

What CORPORATE World are you with? Prop 19 is great, maybe not Perfect, but a Great Step Forward in ending Marijuana Prohibition. Look it up and you will find out that passing Prop 19 is the Right Thing to do.

you're right bro...

YEP, You are RIGHT. People are stupid. THEY think they will be able to grow freely in their backyard. In some BULLSHIT 5x5. Wait until they TAX you to grow in that 5x5. Say, $600.00 per square foot indoors. YES, THAT is on a BALLOT in Rancho Cordova, CA. Check it out DUMBFUCKS. Their is SO much wrong with this Proposition, but everyone just wants to sceam FREEDOM. Next, we'll be passing a law to have sex with your dog. It's about MONEY and NOT FREEDOM, why are Californian's so FUCKING BLIND !!! OH, you're stoned, that's why...

Disagreement

I disagree with some of Emery points. Old time activists are all not jealous. They truly think some very bad things were written into this proposition that were not necessary for passage. The reason for that is this is going to be debated on the big idea of legalize or not. It is not going to pass or fail on it's details. For that reason there are things here that did not need to be.

The $50 tax is ridiculous, period. It is WAY TOO HIGH. But worse than that, a tax should be on THC content, not plant material weight. Whoever though such a tax was good excise tax policy is an idiot. As a producing state, in the future should legality spread to other states CA could become a provider, just like wine, except that tax will make our product non competitive. A gallon of wine in CA is excise taxed at 0.20 per GALLON. That makes our wine competitive across the US. Depending on THC content the excise tax on an oz should not exceed 1 or 2 dollars. Retail prices (including all taxes) for outdoor grown should be as low as $10 for the lowest content product.

Lee made sure to create a space for himself in what this proposition mandates with his must be purchased from licensed seller provision.

This did not mandate the release of all current cannabis prisoners or the expungement of all cannabis records.
There will be cannabis prisoners locked up if this becomes law. That's really wrong.

These things could have been in there. They would not insure failure, any more than not putting them in ensures passage.

Read the prop first

If you'd read the proposition, you'd know that there is no "$50/oz excise tax" any where in there. In fact, there is NO mandate regarding taxes at all. All it says is that municipalities and counties are able to figure that out for themselves.

I don't know why people insist on smashing this proposition without reading it. And YOU OBVIOUSLY DID NOT READ IT. That $50 tax was in Assemblyman Ammiano's bill, NOT prop 19.

If you're going to claim to be pro-cannabis, but oppose 19, all without READING the damn thing, you're just as bad as the sheeple who believe the propaganda that states that cannabis is more carcinogenic than tobacco and it highly addictive.

As for having to buy from licensed sellers... have you ever bought alcohol? You know, maybe from a liquor store? THEY'RE LICENSED. Maybe from a bar? THEY HAVE A LIQUOR LICENSE. One of the main points of the prop is to regulate it in a similar fashion to alcohol. And last I checked, selling your home brewed beer without a LICENSE is, wait for it... illegal.

I won't argue your point about cannabis offenders remaining in prison. It certainly isn't ideal. HOWEVER! Don't let the Perfect be the enemy of the Good! What will happen to the prisoners if Prop 19 DOESN'T pass? They'll stay in prison. So at least after passing the bill, we'll be one step closer to liberating them. By making it legal, even if it is more restrictive than we'd like, we will start smashing the barriers and stigmas attached to cannabis. In doing that, it will be MUCH easier to convince the public to release these prisoners.

Now, formulate a real argument. You know, the kind supported by facts, logic, reason. Maybe then we'll talk.

control and tax cannabis... 2010

thanks to marc and jodie for this article. it would be great if the people of california voted yes in november...this is a stepping stone on the way to legalization of cannabis not only in america but canada and the world... there is much progress written here in the fight against prohibition and thanks also to richard lee for his hard work... it goes to show how complex this issue of cannabis legalization is and the long and painful journey since 1937 to 2010... all i have ever known in my lifetime is the war on marijuana and the fight by all the many great advocates that taught us to resist this bad law... now a definite date with destiny is written in america and the whole world is watching and waiting and cheering on the cannabis culture there on this road to cannabis freedom... bob marley sang, 'this could be the first trumpet, might as well be the last...' natural mystic blowing through the air.

Corrections

Without even approaching my personal feelings about Tax and Regulate, this article does such a bad job of addressing the actual issues that us “rabble-rousers” have.

I can safely say that I fall into none of your 3 groups. I am not a LEO in any way shape or form. I am not a commercial grower or one’s dependant. And I am not an old guard of Prop 215. I am, however, an attorney that, unlike the proponents of this bill, see poorly written law interpreted against the cannabis users every day in court. I am someone that can read this bill and see it for what it will be one day in front of a judge: vague, poorly written, and open to vast interpretation by judges who are anti-cannabis.

“Who needs their $350 to $450 per ounce cannabis when we can all safely and legally grow our own weed at home for about $12.50 an ounce?” You are making several huge and incorrect assumptions here. First, you assume that everyone will be able to grow their own. If that were true, there wouldn’t be medical marijuana dispensaries now. There are a HUGE amount of them because not everyone can grow cannabis and many of those that can can’t grow high quality cannabis. Second, you assume that anyone can do it cheaply. Perhaps in Washington your overhead is low, but come on down to Southern California and see how much your home grown stuff will cost. And third, you assume that ANYONE is going to lower their prices for recreational cannabis. That is a hugely misguided assumption. Proponents of Tax and Regulate have already admitted that “if I already know you are going to pay X for the product, why would I lower the price even if it is cheaper for me to make it.” And that is a direct quote. So if you think that suddenly your local dispensary is going to be selling $15 ounces, you are insane.

Your assumption that the likes of Dennis Perone are opposing Tax and Regulate purely out of jealousy is absurd and insulting. God forbid someone disagrees with you, they must be irrational. Or perhaps, they have a very good reason for opposing Tax and Regulate. I sure do. And it has nothing to do with professional jealousy. I’m not in any way in competition with Richard Lee or even any of his minions. I sure haven’t heard Dennis say that he is opposing the bill strictly out of jealousy. So, unless you’re a mind reader, I would suggest that you keep your highly slanderous and ridiculous comments to your inner group of friends. My testimony is not false or a “sham.” My issues are real. They are important. They could ruin this industry. For you to brush them off as if they don’t matter just makes me realize you have clearly not read this initiative for what it is. You have joined the rah-rah-rah-ing without regard for the problems it will (not might) cause. And I find that to be a “sad state of affairs.” The fact that you are trying to intimidate those of us that oppose by calling us names and attempting to make us look bad to those that are undecided just proves that you know we have valid issues and you are scared that we will win.

“Look what an example will do!” Yes indeed. Look at what an example California has been thus far. Other states are watching us so closely. But not for the reasons that proponents of Tax and Regulate want us to think. Other states are looking at California and saying “how can we avoid the mess California has made?” And “what can we do to avoid being like California?”

“Obama’s Justice Department agreed not to oppose or harass any state marijuana initiatives.” That is patently false. Re-read the statement made by US Attorney Eric Holder.

“Under this initiative you can’t be fired from work if you smoke cannabis.” Again, patently false. Just because Richard Lee told you that is true, does not make it so. Most Californians are “at-will employees” which means they can be fired at any time for any reason except their race, gender, age, or sexual orientation. If your employer drug tests, they can still fire you for consuming cannabis over the weekend. Just like they can fire you for getting drunk on your weekends. Just like they can fire you for having blue eyes. And just like they can fire you for having smelly feet. Furthermore, even the few Californians that are contract employees, the Federal Drug Free workplace rules still apply to most employees. Since it will still be illegal federally, they can still fire you. Even if you weren’t under the influence at work. Period.

“Only the cartels, street gangs, and unlicensed exploiter commercial growers will see the cops more frequently.” Yeah, those people, AND medical patients and recreational users alike. President Obama has outright laughed at the idea of recreational legalization. He has told the DEA to make medical patients following state law “not a priority.” But he has not said so for recreational users. Does anyone remember the raids by the DEA California used to have? Welcome back. And since, under this law, at first glance it will be impossible to tell the difference between a medical patient and a recreational grower, medical patients will be injured by DEA raids meant for recreational users.

“The proposed penalty under this bill for supplying to 18-20 year olds with cannabis is identical to the fine and penalty for supplying liquor or beer in California.” Wrong again. The fine and penalty for selling beer to an 18-20 year old is a misdemeanor. The fine and penalty for selling cannabis to an 18-20 year old is a felony carrying 3-5-7 years in prison. That is more than a little different. Unless you just give it away (but who does).

“The initiative doesn’t add any penalties for toking outdoors or in the same space as minors.” There is no law presently against either of these things. So yes, it does add penalties. It would not be the same as before the bill was passed.

“Minors need only be in another room while cannabis is being consumed.” Untrue. They cannot be in the same space as you. You may define “space” as room. Richard Lee might too. But he didn’t put “room.” He put “space.” And a judge might not agree with either of you that “space” means “room.” He might think that “space” means house. He might think that “space” means apartment complex. Like you say, it is a psychoactive that travels through the air. It will easily travel from apartment to apartment. It certainly won’t be a small inconvenience if you can’t smoke in your apartment. Then where?

“After this initiative, California will be flooded with cannabis at dramatically reduced prices.” According to your own previous statement, that will still be trafficking. So…no…no there will not be a flood of dramatically reduced priced cannabis. Or, you are assuming that getting a license is going to be easy. Maybe in Oakland. But no where else. The local governments are going to have to take time and effort to make up a permitting system. Los Angeles took over 5 years to decide what to do with medical cannabis. What in the world makes you think that Los Angeles will take only 5 minutes to make a permitting system for recreational cultivators/distributors?

You brought up the complaint that cannabis taxes could be used to enforce prohibition, but you failed to actually address it. In the limited response you gave, you citied lower prices as a way that this will not be true. Again, that is making an assumption that I don’t think is wise to make. Not to mention that licensing fees could do the same thing. If it costs $500,000 to become a distributor, how many distributors will there be? Your numbers for wholesale cannabis are already drastically lower than what is reasonable. But add on top of that a $100,000 cultivation license (similar to alcohol), a $100,000 wholesaler’s license, and a $100,000 distributor’s license and you will not have anywhere close to the prices you are talking about. Then add tax on top of that. Good luck with those $50 ounces.

As for tourism, if there are no licensed distributors, there is no tourism. Not to boost your bubble, but Oakland already has recreational cannabis. And we haven’t had 500,000 new jobs in California because of the sudden crazy rush in tourism. And where did you come up with your numbers? What study are you quoting that we will get 500,000 new jobs? Not to mention, you are going to scare the crap out of the mainstream audience if you are going to sell them with floods of stoners coming to California – the new “stoner’s paradise” as you say. 190 million pot heads coming to California? Yeah, that’s a winning argument for the mainstream audience.

“Dodger games and Disneyland will have a whole new attraction?” Umm…public places, no smoking allowed remember?

“Shops that sell cannabis will need to be licensed and pay taxes.” None of the nay-sayers are complaining about this. In fact, most of us having been begging to be licensed to grow and sell medical cannabis for years.

“In a legal environment, the price of cannabis will plummet.” Really? “Since Prop 215 passed in 1996 the price of marijuana has not gone down at all.” Oh…so why would it be any different with recreational? What proof do you have that it will? Because the word straight out of the proponents’ mouth is that it won’t change a bit.

“That means ANY competent grower can achieve 16 to 40 ounces every 10 weeks in their space, a generous personal or medical amount by any standard.” Unless there is more than one adult living in your residence, since you are only allowed one 5x5 per residency. And if you rent, you have to get permission from your landlord. Good luck with that, considering they can still be subject to forfeiture by the federal government.

“The only ones worse off will be gun-toting street gangs and cartels.” AND medical patients. And all recreational users that cannot grow for themselves in every city besides Oakland and San Francisco. And everyone that gets raided by the DEA because Obama does not support recreational use. And everyone that has minors in their household. And everyone that has more than one adult in their household.

You have failed to address MANY of the legitimate complaints by the “nay-sayers.” Perhaps because you had no argument against them? How about the fact that this initiative leaves the decision up to the local municipalities. And that the path of least resistance for local authorities is to do nothing and no permits will be issued for commerial cultivation, wholesaling, and distribution? Are you aware that 129 cities have an outright ban on medical marijuana dispensaries? There are more that have moratoriums. How many of those cities are going to suddenly be okay with recreational cannabis?

Or what about the concern that no law is better than bad law. I know you think that this law is the most brilliantly written law. But many people would disagree. Many attorneys that actually know how these laws play out in court disagree. If you start reading case law and see how differently the various judges have interpreted Prop 215, you will see what I mean. Vagueness will destroy this initiative.

What about the fact that this initiative creates many new crimes that will do exactly what this initiative is “supposed” to stop, make people criminals. This initiative creates a new crime for illegally purchasing cannabis. Not true before. It creates a new crime for smoking in public places. Not true before (except where it is illegal to smoke cigarettes). It creates a new crime for smoking in the same “space” as a minor.

In conclusion, please do not try to intimidate those of us that have our issues with this initiative by making us out to be jealous evil people. We have legitimate issues with this initiative. And the voting process of this country allows us to have our own opinion. We shouldn’t have to be intimidated by the likes of you or Richard Lee or anyone else because we have our own opinion.

You make a lot of sense

How do we get ahold of you for legal representation?

Local government can handle it

One of the major criticisms against TC 2010 is that it relies on local governments to tax and regulate marijuana sales, should they choose to do so, and the folks who make that argument tend to use medical marijuana ordinances as an example of why that approach won't work. Yet the exact opposite is true.

Granted, a statewide approach -- like the one envisioned under Assembly Bill 2254 -- would be preferred by local politicians. It gets them off the hook from having to address a contentious issue themselves. State lawmakers, in turn, would no doubt like the feds to take the lead, but they're too busy bashing illegal immigrants right now to embrace meaningful drug-law reform. So the cities and counties were left holding the bag after the Obama-Holder policy change as dispensary opportunists and carpetbaggers set up camp wherever they wanted to, often ignoring local regulations in the process. A total mess, right?

But look what happened: Local government stepped up. Not the way we wanted to, perhaps, but unlike the state Legislature they took meaningful action in response to the concerns and demands of their constituents. In many communities, that response was a moratorium on dispensaries, which strongly suggests that those same communities wouldn't authorize sales under TC 2010. But some cities, including Sacramento, are taking a more pragmatic approach, studying regulations to put in place should TC 2010 pass in November. You can refer to http://calpotnews.com/city-ordinances/ for reference; while the list is woefully incomplete, you can see the cities are getting the job done.

To me, the state vs. local argument over taxation and regulation is largely academic. Prop. 215 changed the law statewide, but it was interpreted differently depending on jurisdiction and often actively undermined by local law enforcement. Fourteen years later, the same sort of crap still goes on, and continued prohibition for recreational users is the biggest reason for that. It swells the ranks of medical marijuana "patients" beyond the bounds of reason, leading cops, medical professionals and everyday citizens alike to view the law with utter disdain. And, as Emery correctly notes, it's led to widespread profiteering within the medipot industry. It's fine to champion patients' rights and all that jazz, but when your so-called medicine costs $50 an eighth, and some bozo camped out on a Humboldt hillside starts talking trash because TC 2010 might hurt his bottom line, it's easy to understand why Prop. 215 gets dismissed as both bad medicine and bad law.

Now it's TC 2010's turn to go under the microscope, and the common complaints I hear rarely center around the most important concept: Legalization for personal use, possession and cultivation. That's huge. That's historic. It's a relief valve for the medical marijuana community, whose ranks won't be artificially inflated anymore by those seeking legal refuge from arrest and prosecution simply for puffing a joint. Voter-approved home cultivation -- seriously, we're arguing about garden sizes? -- is as strong a protection as one could want against the "evil corporations," which aren't evil, by the way, but necessary in a maturing cannabusiness economy. You don't want to buy a pack of MarlBuds at the corner liquor store? Fine, you don't have to, and in fact you won't be able to in most California cities initially.

TC 2010 isn't the end-all, be-all of marijuana legalization, anymore than Prop. 215 settled the issue of medical marijuana once and for all. So what is it? An incremental approach toward moving cannabis away from a crime-and-punishment issue toward a social issue that we'll continue to wrestle with much like alcohol and tobacco. There will be more regulations and likely more taxes, and hopefully some drug-program dollars will emerge as a result. The Legislature may even puff, puff, pass some common-sense regulations should TC 2010 receive widespread support, and they'll have more political cover to do so with a larger margin of victory.

Will legalization instantly end the black market and put those dispensary profiteers out of business? Oh, hell no, but it's a start. So what's more productive, dissecting the shortcomings of Tax Cannabis 2010 or the ongoing disaster of marijuana prohibition? Asked and answered, counselor.

Local Government will "handle it" right into the garbage

You clearly misunderstood my argument. I wasn’t saying that all cities would do nothing because they were politicians that did not want to “step up.” You’re right; many cities did step up. 129 cities did step up and ban medicinal cannabis. Many more stepped up and put in moratoriums, including Sacramento I might add. And many more cities stepped up even further and made brilliant ordinances that put dispensary owners through the ringer only to have them fail to meet the requirements. And you’re right again. The exact opposite of how cities approached medical marijuana is going to happen with recreational. But that is because cities had to pass ordinances to stop medical marijuana dispensaries from opening. Here, they can achieve the same goal by doing nothing, and all commercial aspects of recreational cannabis are banned in their city. So sure, I guess that is the exact opposite.

Indeed, the cities are “getting the job done.” They are doing an awfully fine job of banning medical marijuana and will have an even easier time banning recreational. Local government sure can handle it. Just ask everyone that has been going to any of the local city council meetings in southern California or the central valley. Local governments are handling it right into the toilet.

Now here’s the thing you are clearly missing. One of my main and first points is that a bad law is NOT better than no law. Bad law will be interpreted against this industry. In a very bad way. In ways you cannot possibly imagine. I’m not holding out for a perfect law. Of anyone, those of us in the legal industry know that is not possible. But I am holding out for a law that is not going to stagnate the progress this industry has made and can make in the near future and is not written so loosely that it can be interpreted so drastically against recreational users. I’m also holding out for a law that doesn’t punish someone 7 times higher for selling a minor cannabis than alcohol. I’m holding out for a law that doesn’t totally suck.

You can rah-rah-rah all you want. This initiative is not progress if it stops future progress completely. Do you have any idea how hard it is to change a voter referendum? Do you have any idea how difficult it will be to correct the flaws in this initiative at a later time? TC 2010 isn’t the “end all be all” of recreational legalization. Hopefully. But it certainly could be if it passes in November. And that is exactly what I am afraid of.

You know what else was historic law? The Arizona immigration law. The corporate political contribution law. That didn’t make them good laws.

So to me, it is more productive to dissect TC 2010 than to vote blindly for something because someone from TC 2010 yelled “Legalize it!!” into my ear. So how about you answer me this…which direction did you go if you went 1 step forward and 10 steps back? Answer: backwards (by 9 steps to be exact).

jennifer soares

thank you so much for the education you just instilled into me.
i am 100% behind everything you said.
these are the same points i bring up when engaging in arguments with friends.
i always leave them amazed and almost convince them to vote no.
thats not what i'm trying to do tho, i just ask questions that i know they know the answers to and it amazes me every time the look on their faces.
you know that look after you just discovered something you're not sure should be discovered.
on another note. i'd love to take you to dinner sometime. maybe converse more about this. big.frank.916@gmail.com let me know, i'm free all the time.

Sorry but none of them are

Sorry but none of them are any reason NOT to Vote YES. I get an amazed look when I explain about this prop to people, she's talking about IF this and IF that and some of her info is not true; about providing marijuana to an 18 to 20 year old and about alcohol to an 18 to 20 year old maybe not the same its close. Alcohol its min 6 months and a max $1000 fine Marijuana is up to 6 months and a max $1000; see close but the 3 - 5 - 7 years in state prison is for an 18 and older providing to an 14 year and older. Again Why is This a Problem, Why do you want to provide Marijuana to an person under 21 anyway?

Just because its not the Greatest it is great and its here NOW, why wait for a maybe better two years from now?

Prohibition lover

"Though Soares says she does not smoke weed herself, she's part of a group of fringe cannabis activists, growers, dispensary owners, and casual stoners who have aligned with cops, big business, and anti-gay marriage conservatives to denounce the most sweeping attempt at legalizing marijuana in California in thirty years."

Taken from a blog at
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/stoners-against-legalization/Content?oid=2018142&showFullText=true

at last, a voice of reason!

THANK YOU for pointing out all the flaws with the initiative that marc and jodie declined to address. even the issues they do bring up prove that they have a severely limited understanding of the initiative which makes them both unqualified to even engage in this debate. i bring up these same points and more in my forthcoming JULY article in SKUNK magazine, which i think you and others who are serious about the debate will appreciate. my article refrains from cheer-leading, evangelizing, editorializing, speculating, assuming, and throwing out random and unfounded numbers, as marc so zealously does here, and instead lists only FACTS--facts which every marijuana consumer, activist, stoner, and politico will find essential for developing an opinion on this very serious matter. look for it in the *JULY ISSUE OF SKUNK MAGAZINE!*

it is so easy for people outside of california to spout an uninformed opinion, but for those of us who live here, it is our lives that will be directly and very negatively impacted if such a poorly-written initiative passes. it is insulting that marc claims our concerns are a matter of jealousy. WE ARE ALL PRO-LEGALIZATION HERE--but apparently *to be pro-legalization and pro-initiative are two different things entirely.*

this is not a matter of being concerned about the price of pot dropping--the "green rush" has already gone bust and prices are already extremely low (NPR says they're at $2,000/lb.), just due to sheer over-saturation of the market. this is about the fact that a vague, ambiguous initiative that is so open to interpretation will result in court cases and other unintended consequences which will wreak havoc on the movement. instead of want to follow our example, the rest of the country could see legalization as a disaster to be avoided.

we can do better!

your article.

I just love you dragonFly. Keep up the great work, Im in full support of No on prop 19 and hope we can educate everyone before we ruin California.

Peace

I am sorry but Really? If

I am sorry but Really? If "we can do better"? Then why didn't you do better on this one? I keep hearing people outside CA don't know what they are talking about. If this prop is SO BAD then why did you let get on the ballot like this? Why didn't you all fight to make sure it was more cut and dry instead of being so vague? I am not so sure that we will be in shape to pass any prop in two years. I hear that over 120 cities outright banned dispensaries, at this rate, what do you think will happen in two years if we DON'T Pass this?

I can't talk about others then I ones I have talked to but we in TN are watching this because what starts in CA the other states will follow. Right now we are studying Medical Marijuana and could pass it here the beginning of next year, that will be awesome, just like Medical Marijuana started in CA and is now in 14 other states so will Legal Marijuana pass in other states too.

your article

Would I be able to post this wonderful piece. I think more people need to see it.

Feel free to repost my

Feel free to repost my comments where ever you choose. Just try to quote me as accurately as possible :)

Everyone can grow their own

Everyone can grow their own the problem is that many won't or don't know how to. If they take a class on how to grow there will more growing at home. I think you are assuming that it will be expensive well its true that it can be but that does not mean it has to be that expensive, there are ways to grow cheaper.

I have no idea why Dennis Perone is against prop 19 I have read that he might be dropping his fight against it, don't know if thats true or not but are you going to let him for what ever reason he has against this to stop you from voting YES on Prop 19? Why would you let one person stop you from doing something?

"“Obama’s Justice Department agreed not to oppose or harass any state marijuana initiatives.” That is patently false. Re-read the statement made by US Attorney Eric Holder."
What I have read is that they will stop the raids on dispensaries as long as the followed state laws. Its true as I read, he said that, but it appears to be a lie from the Government itself.

Providing Alcohol to a minor try min 6 months in jail and or max $1000 fine. As to the weed this is weird one part says about adult 18 and older to a minor 14 and older here it is, it doesn't say felony:

(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.

Now here is for an adult 21 and older to an 18 to 21 minor and its different then the other but unlike alcohol its UP to 6 months in jail and or max $1000 dollars for alcohol its a min 6 month and thats if you GIVE it to them not just sell it :

(c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense.

So it seems the harder penalty is for providing to a minor 14 to 18 years old. But why is this such a big deal if the minor 18 to 21 has a medical marijuana card then they will still be able to buy from a dispensary just like before other then that is this really a reason to vote NO on 19? Besides do you really want to provide marijuana to a minor even if he is 20?

No getting a license will be hard how hard I don't know but I doubt that will stop people from getting one if they really want one and yes that should lower the price down some how much I think we will have to wait and see.

As to the 5x5 plot that per residence yes but in the absence of residence a plot I am not sure how but it seems that there should be away to rent land and be able to grow your 5x5 plot on it not sure but it will take lawyer in real estate to figure that out. If they have a friend that owns he can grow for the person that needs more or can't grow because of renter the friend just can't sell but can share up to an ounce at a time actually they both can carry an ounce to the none grower house per trip. So there is away around this.

You keep saying IF there is no licenses in other cities besides Oakland thats a mighty Hugh IF, but do you want to risk being able to get another Prop on the ballot in 2012 instead of now because of an IF? To know for sure we first have to pass this Prop then see how many new jobs but going on the idea that there will be licenses in other cities then there will be new jobs for building home grow rooms, building grow farms, prep work of the harvests, and selling in the shops. I don't know how many new jobs that will be.

They say Public place that does not include Clubs for members only which would be an attraction and would bring in tourist like Amsterdam.

Not sure what you mean by new crimes? Its always been illegal to sell marijuana whether to a minor or adult they just up the penalty when providing to a 14 to 18 year old but now providing to an 18 to 21 is the same as alcohol. Thats not a new crime. Also how is it a new crime to buy marijuana unless you had a medical card it was illegal to buy marijuana now it will will be legal to buy up to an ounce per transaction(you can buy an ounce go home come back and buy another one) You can still smoke in public if you you were allow to before with a medical card(according to Radical Russ this will not affect prop 215 laws. As to 'Space' in as smoking in one with a minor I didn't know that was legal before, why would it be ok to smoke marijuana in a space with a minor when its illegal to smoke cigarettes? I think space means and indoor area that uses the same air like a room or garage or shed.

I do not talk bad about people that are against this, I don't understand why you would vote NO though. You talk about if's, can's, should be's, and Will Be's on what will happen after this passes how would you really know, this is not 215 this does not just exempts some people from the state law which for them is guilty till proven innocent but would make it LEGAL for All Adults 21 and up and thats a big difference then just exempted and I think there will be many who will grow at home, it maybe too much to ask for the sick to have to grow at home. Hey, here is an idea, just like you have gardeners for your yard how about one for the inside marijuana grow he could come in once a week to tend to your crops at home? Maybe you could share an ounce with him, not as payment but to be friendly.

Everyone won't grow their own...

"What I have read is that they [the DEA] will stop the raids on dispensaries as long as the followed state laws. Its true as I read, he said that, but it appears to be a lie from the Government itself."

Followed state MEDICAL marijuana laws. Medical being the very key word.

"As to the weed this is weird one part says about adult 18 and older to a minor 14 and older here it is, it doesn't say felony:"

It doesn't need to say its a felony (most laws don't). If it is punishable by county jail it is a misdemeanor. If it is punishable by prison it is a felony. If the law says "either county jail or state prison" it is a "wobbler" and can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony.

"You keep saying IF there is no licenses in other cities besides Oakland thats a mighty Hugh IF"

Is it? There are 149 cities in CA that ban MEDICAL marijuana commercial facilities. There are others that "allow" them but have zoned them out of existence. Do you really think these cities are going to be cool with recreational marijuana. It's not a big if. It's a big definitely.

"would bring in tourist like Amsterdam."

Which the government in the Netherlands is trying to stop. They have had an increase in crime with that tourism. So they are trying to pass laws to prevent non-dutch people (ie: tourists) from getting into the clubs.

"Not sure what you mean by new crimes"

-The penalty for selling to a person aged 18-20 will increase by 3 years
-Actually there was no crime for buying before. Only a crime for selling or possessing. So if you were a patient, you could buy from someone who was illegally selling and not be committing a crime.
- There is no crime currently on the books to punish a person for smoking in the same space as a minor. I'm not sure how you define space, but I can assure you, many people would have a different definition than you. Who knows which one will end up sticking.
- The penalty for handing a joint to a person 18-20 went from a non-jailable ticket to an arrestable/jailable/searchable offense. Now instead of a ticket you get to spend a night in jail and be on probation.

"You talk about if's, can's, should be's, and Will Be's on what will happen after this passes how would you really know"

I don't know for certain. But neither does the Yes on 19 people OR Radical Russ. So, their certainty is giving false hope to thousands of voters. And the "what ifs" and "cans" will be what put people back in jail, back on probation, and back to the black market.

"just like you have gardeners for your yard how about one for the inside marijuana grow he could come in once a week to tend to your crops at home?"

All cultivation has to be for "personal consumption." How is your gardener going to cultivate marijuana for YOU for his personal consumption? He would be considered a commercial grower and would have to obtain a license. If he even was able to in the city he lived in.

Jennifer Soares is a fraud with a conflict of interest

A line of argument I have seen gaining more traction over the last few days is being peddled by an attorney named Jennifer Soares. Her arguments can be found on many of the No on 19 blogs and repeated in many comment sections even here on reddit. Here are a couple of examples...

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2010/06/05/Why-You-Should-Vote-YES-California-Control-Tax-Cannabis-Initiative#comment-29899

http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html?showComment=1279437960986#c3869748808779970903

Here is her being referenced in our comments: http://www.reddit.com/r/Marijuana/comments/cpwp7/have_you_been_wondering_exactly_how_theyre_going/c0ukytl

I want to be clear that I think she is entitled to her opinion. Everyone is and as a lawyer of course she can offer her opinion as a lawyer. However, I want people to understand who she is and her background before running around and citing her as an expert.

The first thing to know about Ms. Soares is her background. First, she graduated law school from University of the Pacific in 2009. That's not a typo, she graduated law school last year. She attended undergrad from 2002 - 2005 at UCal Davis. The math on that is correct as well, she finished her BA in 3.3 years. A point she seems to be very proud of.

Before graduating she was an intern in the public defenders office.

Why does her background matter? Because she is offering opinions of legal theory and future interpretations. She gets very defensive if you challenge her credentials and says things like...

"I simply claimed that 3 years of schooling and 8 months of practice gave me ample time to see the effect of prohibition and poorly written laws in the judicial system."

I disagree. The judicial decisions that matter are going to happen on an appellate level, not the trial court level. She is not an appellate lawyer, she is a trial court lawyer.

The second thing that is important to know about Ms. Soares is what she does now. Currently according to her LinkedIn page she is working for herself. Her line of work is medical marijuana. Some items from LinkedIn:

-Law office specializing in medical cannabis and criminal defense representation. " Medical cannabis representation: - drafting and filing corporation documents - act as agent for service processes as well as agent for neighborhood complaints as required by many city ordinances - draft, file, and represent clients in obtaining seller's permits, business licenses, and board of equalization permits - represent clients during lease and/or employment negotiations - representation of patients fighting city and/or county ordinances that limit access to medication - legal training for employees of collectives/dispensaries - mock raid training"

This screams conflict of interest. If Prop 19 passes her business will be impacted. With real legalization, many if not most of the people using the medical marijuana system in Cali will stop. This means less need for her services.

LinkedIn Screencap

tldr: Jennifer Soares is neither experienced nor objective enough for people to take seriously. Stop feeding the troll who just wants to keep her payday coming.

Edit 1: You may also notice from her LinkedIn page that she is "Chief Legal Counsel" for VibeNation Multimedia. A quick look into them shows the owner is Susan Soares. Either that's a remarkable coinciedence or their is some nepotism going on.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/susan-soares/9/752/582

Also, here is the website for vibenation media... http://www.vibenationmultimedia.com/

Edit 2: Here is a comment from someone who says they went to school with her, along with their opinions on prop 19.

Blog taken from - http://www.reddit.com/r/prop19/related/crudi/who_is_jennifer_soares/

Fraud? No. Conflict of interest? Not really.

The only conflict of interest I have is with my conscious and my own financial interest. My financial interest is begging me to support Prop 19 and gladly accept the money that will come my way should it pass. But my conscious is telling me not to the greedy person everyone is accusing me of being, and continue my posts.

I have successfully proven over and OVER again that I have no self interest in voting no on Prop 19, or convincing anyone else to do so. The fact that you have resorted to blogging this drivel on additional sites as opposed to confronting me further on reddit proves that.

You are slandering my name because you cannot counter my arguments. Even if I did have a self interest in voting no, which I clearly do not, my arguments should stand on their own, or should fail on their own. If you don't agree with that, you can't believe anything Richard Lee or any of his employees say either. Or anyone else in Oakland/SF that will profit from Prop 19. Everyone's arguments are either valid or not, regardless of the author's self interest.

You put the "pro" in prohibitionist.

"Though Soares says she does not smoke weed herself, she's part of a group of fringe cannabis activists, growers, dispensary owners, and casual stoners who have aligned with cops, big business, and anti-gay marriage conservatives to denounce the most sweeping attempt at legalizing marijuana in California in thirty years."

Taken from a blog at
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/stoners-against-legalization/Content?oid=2018142&showFullText=true

CA TC-2010 Referendum is flawed, like Prop-215

The flaws in Prop-215 are apparent and in the news every week across California. The will of that majority of voters who passed Prop-215 is being thwarted by the will of a minority. That minority is using largely undefined grey areas in the supporting State legislation to arrest MMJ users and growers, or put MMJ dispensaries out of business. That's a fact.

There are a number of flaws in TC-2010 that have largely undefined grey areas. There will continue to be arrests of MJ/MMJ users when this referendum passes. Clarification and refinement of MJ re-legalization will come from the CA legislature or the CA court system -- that is to be expected. That does not make TC-2010 fatally flawed; it makes this referendum a work in progress. It is progress. It is a step forward toward personal freedoms that have been stripped away nationally since 1937.

That progress makes it worth while getting politically active, and voting for this referendum in November.

will this work

i dont think the bill is going to protect people and it sure as hell wont keep the DEA out of the state. like any DEA officer they want a raise and what better state to get a raise in than California. DEA officers will go to California to arrest and prosecute anyone with any amount of marijuana. even though marijuana will be legal for anyone 21 and over that wont mean more people will be growing or using there rights.

so the DEA will come into the state and even have the government spend more money on them putting us in more debt.

Great Article, needs a correction

While you *COULD* use a 1000w lamp, new LED technology is blowing that away and making incredible yield progress.

Also, that pound per 1000w lamp is for horizontal lighting - vertical lighting will get you much, MUCH more with fewer plants.

Follow The Money.

I'm not trying to be confrontational but...you saying

"...medical growers who charge $3,500 - $4,500 a pound wholesale and profit immensely from prohibition"

is an interesting comment coming from someone who made a lot of money selling individual seeds for more than US$10 each. Doesn't one seeded plant yield thousands of seeds?

If you want to see what the real wholesale price of medical marijuana is, then go look at some of the 100's of ads for pounds on budtrader http://budtrader.com or craigslist.org from small boutique growers who aren't exactly profiteers. That site will give you a lot of visibility into what cannabis is really selling for here in California.

Growing top quality organic, indoor, connoisseur-grade, marijuana is expensive. Here in the Bay Area the price per square foot of indoor growing space is expensive. Nutrients are expensive. Electric power is expensive. Water is expensive. USS$3500 per pound for extreme HQ marijuana isn't exactly an "immense" profit. Growing high quality marijuana is a low yield process. Average around a pound per 1,000 watts of light while standard "commercial" weed can produce over 2 pounds in the same space. The input costs are the same for each crop. I have no doubt that they will be able to produce lower cost ganja but it will also be a lower quality "commercial"product than what is available from boutique growers. Think of Budweiser vs. a micro-brewed beer. Budweiser sells for around US$3 - $4. Micro-brews are more than twice that at US$8 - $10 for the same 6 pack.

I don't know why after reading your thoughtful piece on why I should support the Tax Cannabis Initiative Reading between the lines it still looks like a stealth way for a small handful of people in Oakland to establish a marijuana monopoly for themselves. How much money has someone already made off of the suffering of others who can dump 10 Million US dollars into a campaign FOR A proposal that will further enrich themselves? What's the payoff? Mr. Lee has said repeatedly that he is a capitalist in a for-profit business. For a capitalist I guess 10 MILLION dollars is a small investment to have the monopoly over marijuana in one of the world's largest economies. Rule #1: It is always about the money. Except in the rare cases that it isn't then refer to Rule #2: It is always about the money.

I don't know how I'm going to vote yet. I've waited so long to have a chance to vote on legalization and am now faced with having to vote for a greedy and flawed proposal. This initiative reminds me of someone who wants a spouse so bad that when they finally end up with an ugly, mean and nasty one that they then have to wonder if they were better off before.

THIS IS NOT OUR ONLY CHANCE TO VOTE FOR LEGALIZATION.

"I've waited so long to have a chance to vote on legalization and am now faced with having to vote for a greedy and flawed proposal. This initiative reminds me of someone who wants a spouse so bad that when they finally end up with an ugly, mean and nasty one that they then have to wonder if they were better off before."

--we have all waited so long for the chance to vote for legalization. if this were full legalization, i would vote for it. but it obviously is not. marijuana is clearly more "legal" in california now than it would be if this initiative were to pass.

the good news is, THIS IS NOT OUR ONLY CHANCE TO VOTE FOR LEGALIZATION. it is only our first chance. we will have another in 2012. maybe even this very initiative will be improved upon and be acceptable to voters in time for the 2012 elections. both NORML and the MPP have suggested we wait until 2012. this, to me, makes much more sense than rushing to vote in a permanent statute that PROHIBITS marijuana under the guise of legalization. it will be far easier to get it right the first time than try to change it after it becomes law. it will be almost impossible to change it. let's just get it right the first time.

so VOTE KNOW!

Follow the money

Great response, You hit some very important points. Its also funny how they say that we are aggressive when its the pro 10 people that want to linch you if you oppose them. To make matters worse, this proposition adds 2 felonies to the California law books. Someone 21 or over can go to jail for exposing or giving cannabis to anyone under 21. I know of MMJ patients that are 19. So now Im a felon? Im sorry. too many holes in this prop and only the rich get richer.

Facebok discussion group

There's a facebook group of medical/marijuana activists for open discussion of the Tax & Regulate initiative. If you're on facebook and want to read (or get into) the discussion, here's the link:

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=103582173025094

Great Comments against Tax and Devastate

I've known Marc for over 20 years now and value the contributions he has made. But that said I am very disappointed in his assessment. Tagging those activists, including luminaries such as Dennis Peron, as supporting the DEA is particularly sad in my view. We can have our differences without the name calling. And Dennis has no ax to grind as he has nothing to do with dispensaries any longer and hasn't for years.

I also think it troubling that no mention is made of Jack Herer's initiative, CCHH, which would have allowed 99 female plants and 12 pounds for personal use. I think it only greed that could have compelled Richard Lee to push for such an ill conceived initiative. After all he controls 2 of the 4 large dispensaries in Oakland.

And whatever happened to Marc's former position to disallow any government regulation or control of our Marijuana: something he was saying late into the 90's. Finally kudos to the activists that have contributed to these comments. No one is going to call you "stoners." LOL.

Finally the only long term solution involved getting Marijuana completely off the Controlled Substances Act and withdrawing from all UN Drug accords involving Marijuana: both of which can be done through executive power or Congressional mandate. Until this is accomplished the Federal Government always holds the trump card. I am hopeful that Marc and Jodie begin to discuss the MERP Model which addresses these very issues and offers a strategy that could legalize Marijuana completely in a matter of weeks.

Here are a few of my articles on the subject.

http://www.newagecitizen.com/MERP.htm

http://www.newagecitizen.com/MERP/RelegalizeNowObama36.htm

http://www.newagecitizen.com/MERP/RelegalizeNowObama41.htm

Thank You

Thank You. Im with you.

juz a lil message

Now I'm from a lil island down the bottom of the world called Australia,so I far away from the trubz,but recently I've been bothered by the sitch in Mexico/America...relating to this so called "war on drugs" now my biggest gripe is this-DO I FALL FOR THE PROPAGANDA-drugs r bad n everybody that does them should be punished..or so it seems..There we have Mexico-which i know is a major dumbing down of the horrid situation the common peeps are put in...OR
USE MY MIND AND THINK..now if we decide to change some pathetic outdated laws and go over the drug dealers and side ways -legalise some..well --what happens then??? would that not take a bit of the money equation away too ..which brings me to my current problem,or theres more the point-Other than that statement making more sense than the current answers,IZ IS BECAUSE OF THE MONEY IN ARMS ETC ..THAT REALLY FUELS THE CURRENT STUPIDITY???

Your such a idiot Ms. Snow

You are an idiot, I bet you dont even smoke. Are you paid for hire? Will you support anything your paid to follow?

Jennifer doesn't smoke

"Though Soares says she does not smoke weed herself, she's part of a group of fringe cannabis activists, growers, dispensary owners, and casual stoners who have aligned with cops, big business, and anti-gay marriage conservatives to denounce the most sweeping attempt at legalizing marijuana in California in thirty years."

Taken from a blog at
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/stoners-against-legalization/Content?oid=2018142&showFullText=true

Your right it is all about the money!

Show me the money... So the truth is finally comes out. I can not emagine the size of the grow facility that could sit on a 20 acre site... but I tell you what... with a monopoly like this... who needs to grow anymore when Mr. Lee can do it for you. Legalization to further the business plan... It is just good business and not legalization!

Oakland approves massive grows; 275k per permit ... Rich Lee Wins One
The Oakland City Council isn't waiting for November to begin jumbling the legal rules. The Council's Public Safety Committee approved licensing wholesale pot growing Tuesday, 3-to-1.

KALW News reporter Ali Winston reports from that meeting that sponsors say the main reason for the proposal isn't revenue, it's safety (as their name implies): residential electrical fires more than doubled in the city in the past three years, and officials think there's a good connection between that increase and unregulated pot "grow houses."

That said, the committee proposes that applicants pay fees of over $275,000 per operation.

Approved by the committee and full City Council, four large growers would be permitted in the first year.

One grower said he embraced regulation but argued that the plan would force medium- and small-scale cultivators to close down, move, or "go back underground into the dark ages."

The ordinance doesn't yet set a limit on the size of the large cultivators

The plan also would permit Oakland's four licensed dispensaries to sell to retailers across California.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=67931

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...nclick_check=1

Last month rich lee purchased a 20 acre plot to build his new growing facilities ...

It was never about legalization... but a protection for a business man's business plan.

He is the founder of prop19.

STONER BEWARE: prop 19 is NOT what you think it is.

with all due respect, marc, almost none of the points you address are relevant to the arguments actually being made by the pro-legalization supporters who oppose this initiative. furthermore, nothing you claim is supported by actual fact or substantiated by actual references. you throw numbers around as if they have some basis in reality, when so much of what you say here is patently incorrect.

if you want to see what the real arguments against this initiative are, read "WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE THE 2010 TAX CANNABIS INITIATIVE: 18 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW" at http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com. it refutes every claim you make, and it is fully cited and referenced. (there are no made-up numbers or fabricated arguments.) read it for yourself and discover what the initiative really says and why pro-pot supporters are going to VOTE KNOW.

just because the initiative's FAQ section says it will not impact prop 215 doesn't mean that the initiative itself says that. the initiative itself says that it WILL impact prop 215. it also says that possession of 1 oz of marijuana will be ILLEGAL if it is purchased anywhere other than the few licensed dispensaries that will be a part of the monopoly that the initiative seeks to create. and it doesn't allow every adult to grow in a 5x5 space--that allotment is *per residence*, not per person. and no marijuana activist or enthusiast should want to finance the drug war by allowing cannabis tax revenue to go toward law enforcement.

STONER BEWARE: this initiative is NOT what you think it is. read "WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE THE 2010 TAX CANNABIS INITIATIVE: 18 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW" and see what prop 19 really says.

http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com

Jennifer Soares is a fraud with a conflict of interest

So is this stupid cunt. Prop 19 = better than prop 215. We ALL want our legal bud. Some of us are healthy and not willing to LIE to get an exemption to use an illegal product. WE would rather just purchase a legal product for recreational purposes. WE outnumber medical users by about a factor of 4, so say goodbye to $100 recomendations, and $50 eights, because the REAL STONERS, are coming to save cannabis for EVERYONE!!!

ITS ALL LIES !!!!

This Proposition is Bullshit. ANYBODY with half a fucking brain can see that. Do you think they won't Tax the Fuck out this ??? A city here, Rancho Cordova, is proposing a "Personal Cannibus Cultivation Tax". $600.00 per square foot indoors, up to 25 square feet. $900.00 per square foot anything over that. Do you HONESTLY think that ALL the cities in California won't do the same ??? This Proposistion CREATES more PROBLEMS for Pot Smokers than it does SOLVE them. Will EVERYONE put down the pipe for a minute and do your HOMEWORK !!!! 2012 will be our year for LEGALIZATION....Don't VOTE on this because YOU think this is YOUR only chance to LEGALIZE MARIJUANA. Have some Patience & Common Sense CALIFORNIA !!!!!

Taking the power away from the people

"Then you can carry an ounce of it anywhere, and smoke it in your house, at your friends house, at a club, in your yacht, in any privately owned and contained space!"

I don't need Prop 19 to do this, I already do it.

VOTERS BEWARE! Prop 19 gives government control of the marijuana trade, thereby restricting it even more than it is now, by controlling its price, distribution and mode of delivery. This is not a step in the right direction, what we need is full legalization!

Right now, the people have all control of marijuana growing and distribution. DO NOT GIVE UP CONTROL TO THE GOVERNMENT. THEY CANNOT BE TRUSTED, JUST LOOK AT WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO MARC EMERY.

Yes you can but if you get

Yes you can but if you get caught then you are busted, lose of weed, a drug record, and a fine. All they have to do is smell it and that is grounds to search you and the space your in, or an anonymous tip to search.

After Prop 19 they won't be able to search you or your space by smell or tip. Just because you don't go to jail for under an ounce does not make it legal like it will be. It would be great to get full legalization but I see too many people are still blinded by the lies and propaganda told by our government for over 70 years to go for full legalization thats why they are taking step by step.

Facts Don't Need Snark

Good summary of facts. The casting of aspersions at anyone that doesn't agree with you sounds like the American DPA. It isn't necessary and distracts. Let people decide if Dennis Peron is being a jerk. Sounded like you were close to saying "purity troll".

On balance, I happen to agree with you. There are smart, well-meaning people in the third group. Are we going to be real, or act like politicians and argue as if a rational person simply has no choice but agree?

As far as credibility goes, it would be nice if you didn't take money from advertisers that are selling bogus products. You can think what you want about the Phototron, but the fact of the matter is they are not authorized to transact business any longer. Putting an ad. on this page that facilitates their taking folks' money, doesn't help clear up the issue with the prop.

To whit:

Entity Name: PYRAPONIC INDUSTRIES, INC.
Entity Number: C1901374
Date Filed: 04/01/1996
Status: DISSOLVED
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 54716 N. CIRCLE DRIVE
Entity City, State, Zip: IDYLLWILD CA 92549
Agent for Service of Process: BARBARA J. BURGESS
Agent Address: P.O. BOX 991
Agent City, State, Zip: IDYLLWILD CA 92549-0991

Ridiculous Argumentative Essay

Nothing in this article is true. The facts cited in this article are NOT facts. Proposition 19 as it reads today would ruin the lives of thousands of medical marijuana patients.

This article has given me a headache.

One example of some very subtle BS... And I quote...
"It allows each adult, 21 and older, to grow 25 square feet of pot."
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! It allows each PROPERTY to use 25 square feet to grow pot. If you have three MJ patients in a family, and it does happen, they would ALL be limited to a collective 25 square feet!.

This is just one of the many falsehoods in this article. Take the time to do the research. Come on author! Tell the truth!

Prop 19 is total BS (AS IT IS WRITTEN TODAY).

Mark

Ridiculous Argumentative Essay

What do you mean NOTHING in this Article is true? Ok check out this one:
http://stash.norml.org/californias-prop-19-a-word-for-word-analysis

It talks about the 25 sq ft grow space and its per residence but if you have 3 MMJ patients they can still buy from a dispensary and it says how wide but Not how tall grow tall. But that is still more then you can grow now. Even in Amsterdam they Can't grow at home.

(f) safe and secure transportation of cannabis from a licensed premises for cultivation or processing, to a licensed premises for sale or on-premises consumption of cannabis;
-You can buy what you can't grow and your friends can Share what they grow up to an ounce each, whats wrong with that?

This is a LOT Better then what we have now. Do you really want to wait years for a maybe? I don't understand. If its not perfect then its no way? We will not win if we are divided. Once we get the Government to admit they Lied to us for 70+ years we can make it better but lets not wait for that.

I realize that the

I realize that the proposition says that adults can share their cannabis (up to one ounce), but if someone could please explain to me how a person is supposed to share something for their own personal consumption, I'd appreciate the clarification. On a similar note, if someone could also explain how one is supposed to cultivate for their own PERSONAL consumption if they are intending on sharing it with their friends after it is done.

I looked up personal in the dictionary and it says:

per-son-al: adj. intended for private use or use by one person.

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that means no sharing.

Oh...and Datrebor: Are you sure you're going to be able to buy what you can't grow? If you live in Southern California, Central California, or certain parts of Northern California you might not be able to. Or, in the very least, you'll have to travel to Oakland to buy it. I'm not particularly fond of the idea of people having to drive 10 hours to legally buy cannabis.

You can't really be a lawyer?

PROP 19 DOES NOT SUPERSEED PROP 215. You can still pay $100 dollars for your rec if you want to, you simply won't have to anymore to be considered legit.

Prop 19 WILL NOT affect your personal medical gardens, AS YOU HAVE AN EXEMPTION FOR THE ILLEGALITY OF THAT GARDEN.

If I grow some weed for myself, I may not intend to share it, but I'm not a dick. That is how personal weed becomes shared weed.

Go back to law school, or stop giving legal opinion, because yours is not based in truth.

Hiding behind "anonymous" to spread hate

Can you provide the comment that you are refuting, because the comment above says nothing about Prop 215. And unless someone is posing under my name, I have NEVER discussed Prop 215 and garden size, EVER.

The comment above was about shared marijuana. How can you share something for your own personal consumption. Answer that or keep your hate and drivel to yourself.

Sharing is Caring

I did answer it. If you can't read or comprehend, then you need help outside of posts on an internet blog.

Here we go again...

If I grow cannabis for my personal consumption, I cannot be prosecuted for sharing it. BOOM!!!!!!! My intent for the cannabis was to use it personally, but through this prop., I am allowed to share it with adults, should the opportunity present istself. Can you not read?

Original Bizness

If I grow some weed for myself, I may not intend to share it, but I'm not a dick. That is how personal weed becomes shared weed.

In case you missed it again in the original response.

In addition to my two above responses to this particular post of

Where is an example of this "hate" I am spreading?

subdivide

buy yourself an acre of land subdivide it into 10'X10' parcels and sell the plots like grave sites. you'll be very wealthy very fast just a thought

Ridiculous Argumentative Essay

I got this idea if you rent and your landlord won’t allow you to grow at home.

Get a group of friends together and buy an empty lot. Depending on how many 5×5 plots fit on the land is how many friends to get. Well now you own the land and you all can grow as its a commune and have that many residences, or maybe you can lease a 5×5 plot as your’s and grow it there.

I wonder if you can have many such residences and then grow many 5×5 plots? Instead of one 5×5 plot you can have 5 10 20 such plots because its per residence’s not per person?

"not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel"

Whose to say you can't have more then one private residence or parcels?

Not Exactly

That won't work. On an empty lot, you will be able to have one 5x5 unless you can parcel it out. Parcels are a legal land term. You cannot just divide a property up without permission from your local government into 5x5 pieces. Each 5x5 would have to have its own address. Good luck getting permission to do that from your municipality. And you can't just make a 5x5 plot and call it a "residence" either. First, it would have to conform to actual residential requirements (habitability, zoning, etc) and have its own address. Again, it still would have to be parceled out and you would have to get permission from the city. Ask anyone that has tried to build an apartment building; It is incredibly hard to get permission from your city, and if they do grant it you have to jump through all kinds of hoops to do it. This just isn't plausible.

But yes, it is true that you could have more than one residence and grow in each one, if they were already established residences. How in the world would that be worth it though, if you are paying rent on each residence for a 5x5.... especially when it all has to be for PERSONAL consumption. That means if you have 10 residences and you are growing a 5x5 in each residence, you can legally grow that all, but you can't sell or distribute any of it. So now you are paying rent on 10 residences for what purpose? Cost/benefit wise, at that point it would not be worth the cost, since you will never recoup any of the cost by selling it. So, is it worth $10,000 a month in rent and bills to grow 5-8 5x5 grows? If you really need that much cannabis and you want to grow it all on your own, go for it. But if you are doing it to skirt the proposition and find a way to produce larger amounts of cannabis because you think you are going to be able to sell it, that isn't going to happen.

And...if you plan on having any grow, especially more than one, don't do it in Rancho Cordova, where they are trying to pass a $15,000 a year tax on a 5x5 personal grow.

Really? Maybe its harder to divide land?

You don't have to call the lot a residence :"in the absence of any residence, the parcel" As I understand this if you have land and not a residence its an Parcel; you can grow on it. Why does it have to have its own address if its land rented out for growing? Wouldn't that be If you were going to live on it and not just to grow on it? This is just an Idea for those whom complain about only able to grow on a 25 sq ft plot.

As for the sharing it under section i: Share, or transport not more than one ounce for Solely for THAT Individual's personal consumption (not yours but their's, that says to you Can Share.

I did a search for the word 'sale' and there are many and more then a few talk about being able to buy and sale and I find
" by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so" which sounds like you can be permitted by License to sale to Adults 21 and older so I if you city says ok you will be able to buy from a licensed person. Look at section 11301 it talks about being able to sale of not more then one ounce Per Transaction. I didn't see anything about how many transaction per day though.

I feel very strong about this being passed it seems we have been trying to end prohibition all of my life. This is not the first try to legalize but the best one and why should we have to wait for a maybe when this is already on for Vote in November? I just don't get it? Why not get this in and then instead of trying to get another prop on the ballot in 2012 amend this more to your likening?

Also if your city agrees you can sell
Section 3: Lawful Activities
Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, commencing with section 11300 is added to read:
Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls
(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:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.
(ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property.
(c) “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis:
(i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301;

Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls
Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:
(a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized;
(b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale;

As I said before, residence

As I said before, residence or not, "parcel" is a legal term. You cannot just cut an empty lot into a bunch of 5x5 spaces and call them parcels. Even if each "parcel" remains empty, you still have to get permission from your local municipality to "parcel" a piece of land into multiple pieces. Read your local rules on parceling and then decide if it will be as simple as you think it will be.

As far as the licensing process goes, sure, you can get a license to sell if your city allows it. But two problems with that:
#1) IF is the key word. If you live in Oakland, your city will. If you live in San Francisco, your city probably will. But other than that, it is a big IF. Even IF your city does allow licensing, most cities will take years to do so. Leaving you with no where to buy, and no one to sell.
#2) Even IF your city does license people, do you really think every joe schmoe is going to be able to get a license? Absolutely not. If Oakland is any tell on the situation, they are going to charge $211,000 a year for a cultivation license. And who knows what they are going to charge for a retail distribution (sales) license. I believe they are currently charging $30,000 per year. So if you want to grow it commercially (more than a 5x5) do you have $211,000 per year? And if you want to be able to then sell that commercial crop, do you have another minimum $30,000 per year?

Its not as simple as you'd like to think. Words on paper are one thing. How this plays out in real life is completely different. Academically, it seems this proposition will allow for licenses to grow and sell marijuana. In real life, over 129 cities in California have outright banned medical marijuana, for SICK people. Now you expect them to license recreational cannabis stores for everyone 21 and over? It looks nice on paper, but it just won't happen in reality.

""Why not get this in and then instead of trying to get another prop on the ballot in 2012 amend this more to your likening?""

That is a good question, with a simple answer. "Amending" this one WILL take another prop on the ballot in 2012. So why not just WAIT until then for a better one? If you read up on the voter initiative process, you will see that voter initiatives cannot be changed by legislative actions. They can only be changed by ANOTHER voter initiative. So if Prop 19 needs all kinds of changes and we have to put another ballot up in 2 years to change it, why not wait all together???

I did not say is would be

I did not say is would be easy just something to look into. Yes and residence is a legal term too, I don't understand what you mean by saying its a legal term? It said you can grow on a parcel if no residence. I don't see why it would be a problem if a group of people got together and bought an empty lot to use in lack of residence, the renters that on landlord won't allow they to grow on the rented property, each person would own the lot and should be allowed to grow his 5x5 parcel, right?

Thats if you want to sell but that would be up to that person to decide if its worth it to go through all that to sell but if you are allowed to get a license to sell that means you will be able to buy from them. If its legal to buy one ounce legally then why couldn't you buy from a dispensary? Right now you have to have a card to buy but when 19 passes then it would not be illegal for adults to buy then you should be able to buy from a dispensary.

Wouldn't this put and end to the banning of dispensaries? That sounds like a serious back slide and seems to me an even more important reason to show these cities with the passing of Prop 19 that the people are sick and tired to Marijuana Prohibition as it is now. Also how important to do something now because in two years who know how many dispensaries will be open nor what will happen to prop 215 itself.

Try to explain the wait for two years is a good thing to the people that don't have a dispensary or card that will get fined and have a drug record. In that two years it could be in other states, I feel that this could start the end of prohibition.

One 5x5 PER PARCEL

You can grow ONE 5x5 per residence OR parcel. So if you and 20 friends own a 20 acre empty lot you can have ONE 5x5. Not a 5x5 for each person; only one 5x5 for the entire parcel (20 acres) of land.

This law is not going to put an end to the banning of dispensaries because the local governments that have the power to ban medical dispensaries now are going to have that same power to ban recreational dispensaries under Prop 19. In fact, it will be even easier to ban recreational dispensaries under Prop 19 than it was under Prop 215/SB 420.

Its not that 5x5 wouldn't be

Its not that 5x5 wouldn't be enough for me but for the ones that complain that you can grow only one 5x5 plot on that parcel. It seems that if a group got together to buy or if you rented or rented out these 5x5 plots that there could but more then one 5x5 grown there. It would take a real estate lawyer to figure out if there is away to subdivide a parcel that more then one 5x5 plots can be grown.

My thought on this is that when 19 passes that they that has banned dispensaries will see that the people want this and if they don't support us maybe they won't be in office anymore. Even if they do ban dispensaries you can still grow at home and I don't think it will be that hard, do you have to start out with all the grow lights, tubbing and everything? I grew a plant from seed in a regular flower pot.

Nope

As I said before, there is only ONE 5x5 allowed per parcel and parceling will be basically impossible. Cities are not going to allow a seemingly commercial grow without a commercial license. Please do ask a real estate lawyer about it. They will tell you the same thing. Parceling up a piece of land will be hard and expensive, and therefore, not worth it.

What I am trying to do is

What I am trying to do is come up with interesting ideas for those that want to use the complaint that we can ONLY Grow one 5x5 parcel per residence, and for renters that their landlord won't allow growing, to not vote YES on Prop 19. Ya know if you can think of an idea about this?

If you buy land is there a size that is have to be? Can you buy say 1 acre or 10 acres? If there is not limit on the size you can buy from a private owner then why couldn't you buy a 10x10 parcel that you own out of the X amount of acres? I don't know what is the legalese on buying land for purpose other then living on? When a person buys a farm how ever the size does that have to have an address? IF so couldn't it just use the longitude and latitude as an address? With this thought one person wouldn't own all of the land just that 10x10 parcel.

Also it seems that if you

Also it seems that if you can sell plots to grow on, I know big if, then you can rent the plots like any other rental property?

But this is a moot point if 19 does not pass.

5x5s

Of course you can rent/buy a piece of land as little or as big as you want, if you can find such a piece of land. But a seller cannot simply cut off a piece of their empty lot the size you want and sell it to you. In order to do so they would have to parcel/subdivide their land. They would have to get permission from their city to do so and would have to create a deed and land lines for each piece of land they subdivide. Thus, although it is possible for you to purchase a 5x5, it is highly unlikely that you will find a piece of land that size for sale.

Although it is not required for each piece of land to have an address, per say, each existing piece of land currently has land lines. You have to read the deed to find the land lines sometimes. If say, you own a piece of land that is 1 acre and you wanted to split it up and sell a piece to 4 different people, you couldn't just do it. You would have to get permission from your city, make new land lines, and make new deeds. Then, and only then, could you sell off smaller pieces of your land.

So...AGAIN...if you and 9 friends get together and buy a piece of land that is 1 acre, you will all be able to have 1 5x5 between ALL of you, not each. If you want to subdivide it between the 10 of you, you will have to get permission from your city. Your city will ask why you want to subdivide your land. When you tell them it is because you want to grow marijuana, they will laugh at you. And they will laugh at you for suggesting that you would be able to subdivide the land into such small parcels. Even if you somehow manage to get permission from your city, it will be so expensive, you would probably be better off each buying an empty lot on your own.

As far as coming up with a way of getting around the 5x5 rule, if I could think of one, the opposition would have too. And if the opposition thought of it, they would be hooting and hollering about the huge weed gardens that will pop up if Prop 19 passes. They aren't worried about it. And you shouldn't be either. Because it isn't going to happen.

Ok so I can rent any size I

Ok so I can rent any size I want. Lets drop the 9 friends getting together and buying land maybe that was not the right wording. But lets say I alone bought land and rented spaces for, say, flower gardens so they could have flowers at home, or maybe, I own a U store storage place and rented out rooms? Would that work? You can store anything legal and marijuana would be legal. A generator and some lights and your growing, or maybe a unit with instead of a roof a wire fence covering it so it will get sun light then no lights needed.

Why would the city automatically just laugh at me, is that not assuming what they will say? Why would it be so expensive? There are already plans for large grow ops, I've read about that. OAKLAND, CA (KGO) -- The Oakland City Council has approved a plan to license four production plants where marijuana would be grown, packaged and processed. Well there are your huge weed gardens that will pop up after 19 passes and I do believe this will pass. It will be awesome when it does.

Wrong again...

ONE 5x5 per parcel. If you owned a storage facility, the entire property would be ONE parcel. So you would be allowed to have ONE 5x5 on the entire property.

No matter how you slice it, word it, or rent it, unless you get a property subdivided by your city (which won't happen), you can only have ONE 5x5 per piece of land UNLESS there are residences on the lot. Then you can have ONE 5x5 per residence. So unless you buy a piece of land and build residences on it, you are stuck with ONE 5x5 for the entire piece of land. And if you plan on trying to build residences, good luck with that. It will be expensive, and as I have said many times before, not worth the cost.

The city would laugh at you for two reasons. (1) They don't want big marijuana grows like Oakland has or (2) If they do want big grows, they want to make some money off of it, and your plan, if it were even possible, would essentially take that ability away from them, since they would all be "personal" grows. So, if you live in Oakland and have $211,000 and the right attorney, you can get a licenses to grow commercially and you won't need to "parcel" up the land so you and your friends can grow together. If you don't live in Oakland, you're still going to have to pony up some serious cash to get that license, if your city even offers it. If your city doesn't, then you are totally out of luck.

No one ever said huge weed gardens weren't going to "pop up" under Prop 19. There will be some seriously massive ones. Just not the way you are trying to do it. And they won't be as many as you think either, since Oakland is only allowing 4.

Lies, no suprise considering the source...

UNLESS YOU ARE A PROP 215 PATIENT!!!!!!!! PROP 19 DOES NOT TAKE AWAY ANY OF YOUR PROTECTIONS FROM EXEMPTION!!! I THOUGHT YOU WERE A LAWYER?! Wait, you just graduated in 2009?!! LOL!!! HAHAHAHA!!!! Go back to school before you ruin someone's life.

Douche

When did you go to law school? Oh wait...never. Go back to high school before you comment. Your grammar proves you need to.

Eat it

No argument to my point though? Maybe you need to go back to high school for a debate class.

subdivide

the way u deal with tht is SUBDIVIDE! you may have to get a variance but like a cemetery each plot is considered privet property and holds there own deed so lots 3'x 10 can easily be achieved.

Subdivide indeed

Yes, this is exactly what I was talking about, you will need to subdivide the land into parcels. Good luck doing that. Especially for marijuana crops.
Even liberal Oakland wouldn't let that happen, since they want your $$ for commercial grows and won't get it if you try to use the subdivision loophole.

Entire cemetery = 1 parcel

Also, it should be noted that legally speaking, the entire cemetery is considered 1 parcel of land. So legally, someone owning a cemetery would nevertheless only be able to grow one 5x5 on the entire cemetery.

Don't forget

Ladies and Gentlemen, Do not be waylaid by specious arguments.
The article above and the FACTS have proven that something needs to be done in the name of sanity.
The country is watching. Do not blow this chance to right a wrong.
In this country, that doesn't happen very often.
Those of you in California, get out there and make the FACTS known.

Folks, Don’t forget the important points of this debate:
1. There is now a debate.
2. Marijuana is being revealed as a harmless and usually beneficial substance.
3. Even the longest journey begins with the first step.
4. More often than not, law enforcement will have less reasons to search, seize property, and ruin the lives of productive citizens.
5. The word “Criminal” will no longer be applied to those who wish to smoke something other than tobacco.

r we pussies??????

we sound like pussies!! thats right pussies!! fuck the government!! fuck the politicians!! stop voting stop paying taxes and stop bending over an taking it in the ares. the NWM is going to take over because there's power in numbers and it wont matter soon

We will grow it ,we will smoke it

You silly American controll freaks,what the fuck makes anyone think they can tell me what I can grow or smoke.
All law abiding citizens have the god given right to smoke marijuana that they have grown themselves after all it is a plant created for us to use by our creator/universe.
Like I keep saying folks it is time to round up all these sick hate mongers and imprison them all for they are nothing but lovers of Hitler and choose only to enslave us all.

When I am forced to by my weed from a government oked dealer then I am wronged of my god given right to cultivate the plants that sustain my life and this is nothing but tyranny.
What a stupid law after all it means nothing has changed and I still cannot grow the weed I smoke instead I have to buy it from criminals and if forced to buy from government then it is still criminal.

We will grow hemp aswell and it will be everywhere and the only thing the people of this country have to do to make it all happen is to prove to my wife and family that yes I have indeed been discredited/harrasssed/stalked/persecuted/character assasination/wrongfull accusal/wrongfull suspetion.

It really is easy just make sure Judy the social worker In Alberni answer my questions like did the RCMP ever come into your office to discuss me because they have concerns for me being a foster parent for the two boys whos father I went to on his death bed and told him I would watch over his boys after he is gone????

Did they suspect accuse me of anything? Would you act like a psychopath and sit back and watch as they take me away from my wife and home for two weeks to a psychward because they say I am nuts this is not true and no the police did not come into your office to talk of me?????.

Same with the EIC people they did they same with them and sndy and everyone else in that office know it is true and they to are sick to sit back and watch and enjoy the torture I endure.

Well blah blah blah go to concen.org click on intoductions/Canadian conspiracy by persecutedinalberni to find out more.
what I am saying California/America is all the luck in the world to you because it don't mean shit in this country because I have other plans for marijuana in my country didn't you know lol.

I sit out on highway #4 in Port alberni with my big free Marc Emery signs every saturday for two hours,I have a 8by12 America must free Marc Emery sign and a 4by8ft google Marc Emery now sign and a few other smaller ones.
So far I have sat out there faithfully for 13 goin on 14 saturdays straight in a row and I will continue untill Marc is home with Wife and home.

Yes that is right America every fuckin saturday so I can catch the eye of all you Americans that are here because you know this is the best place on earth you know it is gods country and you know where true freedom is.

I am there to defend my country and freedom and even though it makes me feel like My whole country has abandoned me in the face of invasion like they are all nothing but cowards as I seem to be the only one out there that is able and willing to stand up to this.

If only you knew Canada that if you just took two hours off of your life and grab all your family and friends and came and joined me out there on #4 with my signs we would all make a difference in a matter of just one beautiful sunny afternoon.

If everyone did as I we would send a message to the tyranny of the Harper government that we will not stand for the kidnapping and hostage taking by America.

If you don't like me or affraid of me then please go make your own signs and go stand on a busy road or highway near your home and do the same every saturday for two hours, even one hour will do,it will still educate in just that short amount of time.

I would love to block the highway so it would really make a point but since it is just me and maybe a few other guys I think I will just sit there way off to the side with my signs.
I guess that sort of thing is only possible when there are hundreds/thousands who have had enough or the Harper tyranny then blocking highways becomes a reality.

I am out there on that highway for more than just freedom,I want my wife back I want her to believe in me again and the same with my family I want them back and it will only happen when the RCMP and the Sick Harper government are done torturing me like this.

I beg you please someone tell them it is true about the persecution the government and the RCMP have done to me.
Someone please tell them to wake up and realize my town is full of sick people who are corrupt as they too enjoy the pain they cause me by turning my loved ones against me.

So again America your rules will not apply here soon enough when I am good and ready to pull something out of my as that will wake my country up.

We need to worry about the children and their future not Greed Oil Drugs and it seems that it is that all we currently care about.

Don't get me wrong California legalize it quickly if you can and show the rest of your country you are the leaders in freedom,good luck to you and remember FREE MARC EMERY NOW.

what about visitors or out of staters

what about visitors or out of staters? tourist? will we be able to come to CA and enjoy the rights of that state? it should be just like Amsterdam where you can go into a cafe like a bar an use. will the vendors be able to sell to anyone over 21? no license no id just tax it at a higher rate like tobacco and alcohol. can a non primary resident receive benefits? exm..someone who owns multiple residents throughout the country and has there primary residents in lets say NJ. you will have a mass exodus to CA from all over the world. other states will lose massive revenue by the lose of residents.

Cannabis "Tourism"

Prop 19's "benefits" don't differentiate between in state and out of state residents. Therefore, just like someone from Nevada can come to California and go to the bars, they will be able to come to California and buy/smoke cannabis here. They will need an ID though. How else would the seller know you are 21?

GOOD

That is good for everyone. You are a shill, trying to protect what you thought was going to be a lifetime carrer of windfall profits from cannabis. HAHAHA!!!!! Soon, you will have to find other work, because weed will be freed from the clutch of LEOs and Drug dealers/dispesary owners.

Uneducated People will keep me in business

Thanks to people like you spreading lies and false hope on the internet, my business won't fail or stop if Prop 19 passes. Much to your chagrin, my business will go up.

So now I am a liar that is saying things you agree with and like. How funny.

Maybe you should stop hiding behind anonymity and make some comments under your true name. Or are you too scared to be attacked the way you have attacked me?

You don't have the capacity to attack me.

My name is DJ Zac Maniac. I live in AZ. I spin DnB/Jungle, Dubstep and Breakbeats. Please mention me as much as possible!

Dumb Dumb

Business is apparently your motivating factor. Since you don't even smoke weed.

"Though Soares says she does not smoke weed herself, she's part of a group of fringe cannabis activists, growers, dispensary owners, and casual stoners who have aligned with cops, big business, and anti-gay marriage conservatives to denounce the most sweeping attempt at legalizing marijuana in California in thirty years."

Taken from a blog at
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/stoners-against-legalization/Content?oid=2018142&showFullText=true

Bullshit....

your "NEW" drug dealer will be JEFF WILCOX. Do the people REALLY think it will stop or slow down illegal drug activity ? When Wilcox is charging $400.00+ for crappy weed, we will all be buying it from that Mexican Gangster for half the price...WAKE UP YOU STUPID FUCK !!!!

Advertisement

Advertisement

Related Articles

Cannabis Culture
Oct 12 2010
CANNABIS CULTURE - Dear Californians, we know you don't need any reminders about registering for the November 2 vote to...
Nov 18 2012
POT TV - On Sunday, November 18, Marc Emery was interviewed for the first time from US federal prison by Roy Green, host of the...
Cannabis Culture
Nov 18 2011
CANNABIS CULTURE - The White House has finally issued a response to the "Pardon Marc Emery" petition signed by 8,249 people...

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement