Will California’s Prop 19 ‘Supersede’ Medical Marijuana Laws? Don’t Believe the Hype

Much of the article “California’s Proposition 19 will supersede or amend its medical marijuana laws” from The Examiner (which appears to be a blending of other posts including one written by an anti-prop 19 advocate and published in the Sacramento Bee newspaper per the link at the bottom) proceeds from the assumption that Prop 19 supersedes Prop 215. But that assumption is far from certain.

One thing is certain: Prop 19, if it passes, will lead to litigation just like Prop 215 has been the subject of litigation since it passed more than a decade ago. The end result of that litigation will tell the tale. Another thing is certain: if Prop 19 does not pass the headlines the day after the vote will be “California says no to marijuana legalization” not “California medical marijuana users saved”.

Let’s examine the primary assumption: That Prop 19 supersedes Prop 215. Note that anything said on this topic is a personal opinion, not a legal opinion upon which any individual person may or should rely. I am not licensed in California, and the following should not be taken as legal advice.

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”.

I should also point out that in the “Purposes” section of Prop 19 the following three sections are critical to the interpretation to be given to what Prop 19 does and is intended to do:

6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.

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.”

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.

The final clause of this section specifically exempts Prop 215 (which is Health and Safety Section 11362.5). So the purpose is to ensure that if a city does not tax/regulate sales then (a) buying/selling is illegal; (b) citizens can still possess and consume small amounts; and (c) anything legal under Prop 215 remains legal.

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.

But if a city does tax and regulate it can set up a tight regulatory scheme to do including controls on how much can be bought and sold…except as permitted under Prop 215. In other words, the city can’t restrict the rights granted by Prop 215 when setting up its regulatory scheme.

Now let’s examine 11300 (dealing with personal possession/production):

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:

Here the proposition says that certain activities will be lawful. So far so good. Nothing here can be read as restricting the category of existing lawful activities.

(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.

Now we know what has been made lawful. Still nothing restricting any other lawful activity.

(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.

This is an important definitional section as it sets out what “personal consumption” means. Personal consumption is the linchpin of what is legalized by Prop 19 in this section of the law and also relates to certain powers granted to cities in the next section (dealing with commercial production/sale).

(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.

Ok, here are the exemptions from what “personal consumption” is and, therefore, what is made lawful by this section. I think it is here that some of the anti-19 concerns arise. Note, however, that 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.

Next up is the commercial section which permits but does not require municipalities to license production and distribution facilities. I agree that certain sections of this law (section 11301) are less than perfectly clear. I will try to write more on this soon. But I suggest that everyone interested read the Proposition and try to parse out the language themselves.

Finally, a lot of the other stuff in the article is irrelevant. For example that Long Beach already charges dispensaries more than booze joints is irrelevant to Prop 19 – it is by definition already happening under 215. Nobody that I know of is arguing that it is illegal to consume booze “in sight” of minors. It obviously isn’t. And Prop 19 doesn’t make it illegal to consume cannabis “in sight” of minors either. Sidewalk cafes are not “public” places they are private businesses. Cities are not proposing taxes on dispensaries to protect them from being shut down by Prop 19 – nothing in Prop 19 requires cities to tax any cannabis sales outlets though it does permit the imposition of taxes on such locations. I think it is at worst an open question whether that includes medical dispensaries and will try to expand on that in a later post dealing with the tax section.

Comments

15 Comments

  1. Ernst on

    Pardon any multi-posts i don’t see my reply so i am reposting.

    Sep 02
    The right to breed plants is obviously missing.

    Everyone should understand that to breed plants it takes growing out many seeds to find the ones that have the characteristics the breeder is looking for.
    This has been a traditional realm of Humans for all of history ie [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horticulture]Horticulture.[/url]

    Now I knew my Grandfather, a farmer, up to his death and he was 98. I know my father, a farmer, and he is now 95. Part of their and my freedom is to breed and improve the crops I grow. In this light the fact that limiting people to any specific area is removing the right of the individual to practice proper horticulture.
    Once it is only a licensed and regulated industry who can introduce new strains of cannabis we open the door to Government and Industry control of what kinds of Cannabis plants we can have.
    The Spirit of Cannabis Freedom can be seen in most photos of Woodstock. Pictures of folks embracing a counter culture. What I don’t think many of us who can remember being a part of the 60’s ( born in 1961 here ) didn’t think the new Counter Culture with Cannabis would me the Store Counter.

    It concerns me that Landlord are implied in Prop19 as controllers of who can have a garden. After all we have problems with cannabis because of intolerance to personal liberty and that evil Jazz Music..

    So I am a medical person and before my planter box grew 4 plants twice a year for me. I like to roll fat joints and waste them so I grow extra for my medical needs.
    It now looks to me that Prop19 now tells the Corporation that owns the property I rent ( even a Trailer in a Trailer park ) that if they know I have a garden for medical they can evict me.

    Another point I want to make is we still get fired from our jobs for testing positive.
    I don’t know about everyone but my best medical benefit comes the days after I smoke. I have an Anxiety disorder and hypertension. So I will be a target for economic punishment for having cannabis by-products in my urine even if I medicated on Day off work.

    I believe the very basic rights, the right to breed plants and the necessary economic liberty of employment, are not addressed well with Prop 19 and that would be on purpose from what I can tell. After all Richard Lee is a hard core Libertarian not a social liberal like many of our Hippy-forbearer’s.

    So yes.. Do think about Prop 19. We may want to vote yes for the rest of the world but Prop19 has some hidden danger we are not seeing.

    The idea that by law we cannot control what genetics we can grow is one of the sneaky anti-Pot people aspects of Prop 19. The other two which will be in court are who can say yes to a medical garden the owner of a rental property or the one who lives there.

    Another issue is if I have a medical garden and it exceeds 5×5 does that mean the another adult in the household can have another garden on the property or does one 5×5 per property hold no mater what?

    So think about it. How do you feel thinking the Government can decide what cannabis you can grow because you cannot breed seeds in a meaningful way.

  2. Ernst on

    Everyone should understand that to breed plants it takes growing out many seeds to find the ones that have the characteristics the breeder is looking for.
    This has been a traditional realm of Humans for all of history ie Horticulture.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horticulture

    Now I knew my Grandfather, a farmer, up to his death and he was 98. I know my father, a farmer, and he is now 95. Part of their and my freedom is to breed and improve the crops I grow. In this light the fact that limiting people to any specific area is removing the right of the individual to practice proper horticulture.
    Once it is only a licensed and regulated industry who can introduce new strains of cannabis we open the door to Government and Industry control of what kinds of Cannabis plants we can have.
    The Spirit of Cannabis Freedom can be seen in most photos of Woodstock. Pictures of folks embracing a counter culture. What I don’t think many of us who can remember being a part of the 60’s ( born in 1961 here ) didn’t think the new Counter Culture with Cannabis would be the Store Counter.

    It concerns me that Landlord are implied in Prop19 as controllers of who can have a garden. After all we have problems with cannabis because of intolerance to personal liberty and that evil Jazz Music..

    So I am a medical person and before my planter box grew 4 plants twice a year for me. I like to roll fat joints and waste them so I grow extra for my medical needs.
    It now looks to me that Prop19 now tells the Corporation that owns the property I rent ( even a Trailer in a Trailer park ) that if they know I have a garden for medical they can evict me.

    Another important point I want to make is we still get fired from our jobs for testing positive.
    I don’t know about everyone but my best medical benefit comes the days after I smoke. I have an Anxiety disorder and hypertension. So I will be a target for economic punishment for having cannabis related by-products in my urine even if I medicated on Day off work.
    Can we live this way? Legal to sell it but illegal to hold a job if you consume?

    I believe the very basic rights, the right to breed plants and the necessary economic liberty of employment, are not addressed well with Prop 19 and that would be on purpose from what I can tell. After all Richard Lee is a hard core Libertarian not a social liberal like many of our Hippy-forbearer’s.

    So yes.. Do think about Prop 19. We may want to vote yes for the rest of the world but Prop19 has some hidden danger we are not seeing.

    The idea that by law we cannot control what genetics we can grow is one of the sneaky anti-Pot people aspects of Prop 19. The other two which will be in court are who can say yes to a medical garden the owner of a rental property or the one who lives there.

    Another issue is if I have a medical garden and it exceeds 5×5 does that mean the another adult in the household can have another garden on the property or does one 5×5 per property hold no mater what?

    So think about it. How do you feel thinking that the Government can decide what cannabis you can grow because you cannot breed seeds in a meaningful way with Prop 19?

    Jobs and no limits on the area a private person can grow plants in for the practice of horticulture.

    To the people who say we are greedy why is it okay for a Corporation to grow enough to make money but an individual cannot grow out 100 plants to breed a new strain?

  3. CommonSense on

    Just Vote Yes and be done with it.

    I guarantee every “vote no” poster has some vested interest in it not passing. It’s as shady as shady gets.

    The article is right. Don’t believe the hype, go with your gut and make it legal so honest folks can stay out of jail.

    –JUST VOTE YES–

  4. Anonymous on

    Amen. Fuck these greedy cunts.

  5. Dan on

    I was referring to the first comment.

  6. Dan on

    The problem, with the above comment, is one huge missing chunk.

    There is no legal right to distribute or sell marijuana in California. Even to medical users.

    Prop 215, only ever granted the right for a patient or their primary caregiver to cultivate for their own purpose. Collectives are only legal when individuals put equity in advance and they own the plants and they are deemed part of the cultivation process.

    As is, towns can shut down and ban any outlet. And if prop 19 fails, prohibitionists in those cities will be emboldened to crack down further.

    With prop 19, local cities will be able to decide whether to allow a commercial cannabis sales or collectives.

    Prop 19 will certainly be boom to the commercial growing industry, but any law that will legalize marijuana for a general population will. Towns are always going to retain the rights to have zoning ordinances.

    That this bill does not explicitly extinguish the rights of medical users, means they will have the same legal rights before and afterwards. If a doctor prescribes a greater amount, they will be legally allowed to grow more.

  7. foam on

    terrible law- we have enough corporatism already..

    The courts could care less about symbolism..

  8. yonnie on

    Honestly, who really needs that much weed? A 5×5 area is plenty enough area to supply a household. And if you dont have any, just go to the store and buy some.

    You greedy growers and dealers really need to get your heads out of your asses.

  9. dragonfly de la luz on

    author, thanks for pointing out that your blog IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION, AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED LEGAL ADVICE.

    meanwhile, a qualified, california-licensed attorney says otherwise–that prop. 19 WILL impact prop. 215:

    “Based on my expertise and review of prop. 19, I can now state, categorically, that if Proposition 19 passes, it WILL affect medical marijuana patients and collectives. It will limit patients to tiny grow areas — one per parcel, not one per patient — and allow cities to legally ban collectives (the current bans are, in my opinion, illegal).”

    she also says:

    “Are you a medical marijuana patient? Have you bought the lie by the pro-19 folks that 19 won’t affect you at all? I’ve posted a comment on the Modesto Bee website — following Dragonfly de la Luz’s “18 Reasons to Vote ‘Know’” discussion, that explains how Prop. 19 only allows medical marijuana patients to possess and consume more pot than non-patients — but severely restricts their rights to grow and distribute marijuana collectively.” — letitia pepper

    read her entire article below, and paste it far and wide!

    (http://thehive.modbee.com/node/20404)

    Dragonfly Is Correct About Prop. 19’s Impact on Patients

    Dragonfly’s analysis has been trashed on the Internet by pro-Prop. 19 bloggers. So I did my own analysis as to whether Prop. 19 would change the laws related to medical marijuana, and in my opinion she’s absolutely correct.

    I have been an attorney for almost 30 years. I went to Hastings College of the Law, one of California’s top schools, was on the Hastings Law Journal, and have more than 20 years of experience working as a judicial research attorney for the State of California and for the federal district court. I prepared draft opinions in which I presented, from a neutral rather than adversarial perspective, the applicable laws and facts, with conclusions about final results/consequences. (I even once worked (from 1984 to 1987) as a business and municipal law litigation associate at Best, Best & Krieger (yep, the same law firm that’s been advising lots of cities to ban medical marijuana (MM) collectives).)

    So, I’m well-qualified to review Prop. 19. Plus, I had a reason to do so.

    Two years ago, I became a medical marijuana patient after terrible problems with side effects from prescription medications and after doing research on cannabis. Since I am convinced that marijuana is the non-prescription answer for many diseases, including mine (multiple sclerosis), I want to be able to grow my own medication, and to be able to experiment with and make as many different variants of cannabis-based medications as possible.

    Based on my expertise and review of prop. 19, I can now state, categorically, that if Proposition 19 passes, it WILL affect medical marijuana patients and collectives. It will limit patients to tiny grow areas — one per parcel, not one per patient — and allow cities to legally ban collectives (the current bans are, in my opinion, illegal). And it will probably cause the price of marijuana to go up, put the profits from marijuana into the hands of a few large businesses instead of a lot of small businesses, and, depending on the goodwill of politicians in Santa Cruz, put compassionate collective groups like the Wo/Man’s collective out of business. But let’s skip speculation about how decreased competition affects prices, and just stick to whether or not, as a matter of alw, Prop. 19 will change patients’ rights under the Compassionate Use Act, Health & Safety Code section 11362.5 (“the CUA”).

    Inititatives like Prop. 19 are reviewed by courts using specific rules, generally known as rules of statutory interpretation. Under those rules, any arguments or statements by Chris Conrad or Russ Belville, or the flyers handed put by the pro-Prop. 19 people that claim medical marijuana patients won’t be affected, have no relevance. Instead, it’s the actual language of Prop. 19 that counts. (Get the complete text at http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Complete_text_of_The_Regulate,_Control_and_Tax_Cannabis_Act_of_2010_(California). Only if the text is ambiguous will a court look any further than the text – and then only at certain items, such as ballot summaries — not at general commentary by people like Conrad and Belville.

    To see for yourself how Prop. 19 changes medical marijuana patients’ and collectives’ rights, look at the language of Prop. 19 and the official ballot summary. (The ballot summary is at http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ballot_titles,_summaries_and_fiscal_statements_for_California_2010_ballot_propositions#Proposition_19.) First, note that the official ballot summary does not mention medical marijuana (MM), or MM patients and collectives, at all. Does that mean Prop. 19 is not intended to affect laws that relate to medical marijuana? No. Does it mean Prop. 19 IS intended to affect MM or patients? No. It’s just neutral. So, now let’s look at the text of Prop. 19.

    Section 1, the name, is pretty straightforward. “This Act shall be known as the “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.” Notice it does not distinguish between cannabis used recreationally or medicinally. So, based on the name, it MIGHT affect patients by regulating, controlling and taxing marijuana used by patients. (By the way, aren’t the pro-Prop. 19 people referring to this as the “legalize, tax and regulate” proposition? I think the actual text doesn’t say that, because, in reality, cannabis is ALREADY legal in California as a medicine. So it wouldn’t have been truthful or accurate to claim, in the official ballot proposition, that Prop. 19 is going to legalize marijuana . . . . .)

    Section 2, A., “Findings,” doesn’t mention MM or MM patients at all. It doesn’t say anything about the fact that marijuana is actually a very useful medicine, which people also use as a recreational drug.

    Section 2, B., the “Purposes” section, at paragraph 1, states that one of the Proposition’s purposes is to “reform cannabis laws in a way that will benefit our state.” The law that relates to MM and MM patients is the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), H & S Code section 11362.5. Is section 11362.5 a “cannabis law”? Of course it is. So paragraph 1 indicates that one purpose of Prop. 19 is to reform cannabis laws – which include 11362.5. So a court would say, well, here’s some evidence that Prop. 19 might be intended to affect the Compassionate Use Act — and thereby affect medical marijuana patients. But how? The court would have to keep reading the text to see.

    Section 2, B, “Purposes” at paragraph 3, states that another intent is to create a legal regulatory framework to give California more control over, among other things, cultivation and distribution of cannabis. MM patients currently have a right to cultivate and distribute under the CUA. Because paragraph 3’s language applies to all cultivation and distribution without any exception, it seems it is intended to apply to cultivation and distribution of all cannabis, including by MM patients, and to cultivation and distribution by everyone, including patient collectives. As noted earlier, Prop. 19 makes no distinction between recreational and medicinal use.

    Paragraph 6 of “Purposes” then specifically refers to patients and cannabis for medical purposes – so this makes it clear the Proposition is intended to affect MM and patients. How? Only to make access safer and easier, it says — but not cheaper. I guess access will be safer and easier if you can buy from Big Weed, Inc. instead of growing it yourself, or getting it from a collective. But it will be more expensive for patients who have been allowed to grow as much as they need, because instead of being allowed to grow quantities large enough for each person’s medical problems, and/or to share collectively, Prop. 19 severely limits everyone’s rights to cultivate and distribute.

    Paragraph 7 says that if cities ban the sale of cannabis, their citizens “still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.” This language could be interpreted to mean that, under 11362.5, MM patients continue to have the right to possess and consume larger quantities than Proposition 19’s ounce limit. But notice that Paragraph 7 specifically leaves out the right to cultivate. Why? This is a very meaningful omission of an existing right held by MM patients. Under Prop. 19, everyone becomes a mere consumer, a captive market to be exploited by a few businesses that get the permits to cultivate and distribute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Why would the Prop. 19 people set things up like this? This is no accident; a lot of attorney work and money went into drafting this thing to accomplish the desired results – results presumably desired by Richard Lee and friends. Why would they want to be sure that patients’ current rights to grow and distribute are SEVERLY limited, while running around telling efveryone they are not affected?

    Well, in addition to being potential voting support for Prop. 15, MM patients also reflect a LARGE and VALUABLE potential market share for the “commercial cannabis industry” this proposition is intended to create. It is going to be contrary to the commercial interests of whoever wants to create a “commercial cannabis industry” to let such a large group of potential cannabis consumers continue to cultivate and share with each other, via the collective system, cannabis – instead of being FORCED TO BUY IT FROM THE “COMMERCIAL CANNABIS INDUSTRY.”

    Prop. 19 is clearly aimed at reducing competition by restricting who can cultivate and distribute.

    Prop. 19, if passed, will be interpreted as affecting patients and collectives because the Prop. 19 folks intentionally chose not to specify that it was NOT intended to affect patients in Section 2, “Intent.”

    So why are the pro-Prop.19 lying about what it will do? Something sneaky’s going on.?

  10. Anonymous on

    Who will go through all that crap to grow 1 or 2 plants? It’s a joke. See what happens when you involve government in Cannabis growing? They regulate it to death making the “legalizaion” worse than simply taking your chances. How would you get busted for growing 2 plants in your house anyway? Just don’t give any guided tours to any snitches, meaning anybody, because everyone can be turned into a snitch by the cops with enough threats and browbeating. Even if it were legalized I would choose to simply do it in secret and save a bunch of taxes and a whole lot of aggravation. Who wants inspectors coming into their house whenever they want to check up on them?

    “Tax and regulate”? Why would anybody advocate that, other than politicians? Only real sloppy growers ever get busted anyway, or ones that do it way too big because they are doing it as a business. Anybody growing for their own use is only going to need a small number of plants anyway. All you need is a small CFL cabinet setup, using about 400 watts total. Two sections, upper and lower (200 watts each), so you get a crop every 4-5 weeks instead of 8-10, and a small cloning unit to start them off. Maybe 500 watts total. How are the cops going to bust that? Even if somebody came into your house, like a landlord, all they would see is a cabinet. So what?

    Put the two sections of the cab on separate 12 hour cycles so the power usage is 200 watts steady instead of 400 watts on easily identifiable 12 hour cycles (in case the landlord puts something on the meter). Not much heat from 200 watts either. Put your waste (leaves etc) down a garbage disposal in your sink, instead of putting them in the garbage bags and leaving them on the curb for the cops to pick up. How would you get busted? Screw tax and regulate and screw the government in general.

  11. cpr4mercy on

    What they say: Prop. 19 will let everyone grow marijuana legally.

    FACT: Prop. 19 gives each and every city the right to control and regulate this alleged “right” to grow. So, for example, one city has already put into place rules like: your
    outdoor “garden” must be at least 10 feet away from every boundary fence. If you grow
    indoor, you can’t use more than 1200 watts. If you rent, you must have written permission from your landlord and apartment owners must first submit the apartments to an inspection. If any of your under-21-y.o. kids have access to your backyard, the garden must be in a separately fenced and locked area. You are only allowed one plant outdoors and two indoors, regardless of square footage.
    Any violation of such ordinances is a public nuisance, with fines of up to $1,000.00
    per day. Cities can get administrative search warrants to investigate what you‘re doing.
    And anyone who grows for personal use must pay the city a tax (in an amount left up to
    each city) on whatever they grow, even though they grew it and didn’t buy it! See an example at http://www.cityofranchocordova.org/index.aspx?recordid=2378&page=351

  12. David Malmo-Levine on

    … specifically the cultivation point outlined below:

    Myth #10: Medical marijuana patients would be exempt from the initiative.
    Fact: This is not exactly true. While amendments were made ostensibly to prevent the initiative from affecting current medical marijuana law, a careful reading of the initiative reveals that this is not, in fact, the case. Certain medical marijuana laws are exempt from the prohibitions the initiative would enact, while others are glaringly absent.

    Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.[17] In spite of the fact that the tax cannabis Web site says otherwise, the only medical marijuana exemptions that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative actually makes are with regard to possession, consumption and purchase limits, which only ensure that patients would still be allowed to buy medicine at dispensaries. The word “cultivate” is conspicuously absent. Whereas today a person with a doctor’s recommendation has the right to grow up to an unlimited number of plants, the initiative would drastically reduce that number to whatever can fit in a 5’x5’ footprint (around 3-6 plants—per property, not per person). This will force many patients to resort to buying instead of growing their own medicine, because of the inconvenience caused by producing multiple grows a year rather than growing a year’s supply of medicine at one time, as many patients currently do outdoors. And growing indoors—which typically requires special grow lights, an increase in hydro use, and a lot of time and attention—is a comparatively expensive endeavor.

    The initiative would further impact medical marijuana patients by banning medicating in the privacy of their own homes if there are minors present, as well as in public (currently perfectly legal[18])—an invaluable liberty to those with painful diseases who would otherwise have to suffer until they got home to relieve their pain.

    Finally, the medical marijuana laws that are exempted from this initiative apparently only apply to cities. For medical marijuana patients who live in an area that has county or local government jurisdiction, according to a strict reading of the initiative, medical marijuana laws are not exempt.[19]

  13. David Malmo-Levine on

    … specifically the cultivation point outlined below:

    Myth #10: Medical marijuana patients would be exempt from the initiative.
    Fact: This is not exactly true. While amendments were made ostensibly to prevent the initiative from affecting current medical marijuana law, a careful reading of the initiative reveals that this is not, in fact, the case. Certain medical marijuana laws are exempt from the prohibitions the initiative would enact, while others are glaringly absent.

    Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.[17] In spite of the fact that the tax cannabis Web site says otherwise, the only medical marijuana exemptions that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative actually makes are with regard to possession, consumption and purchase limits, which only ensure that patients would still be allowed to buy medicine at dispensaries. The word “cultivate” is conspicuously absent. Whereas today a person with a doctor’s recommendation has the right to grow up to an unlimited number of plants, the initiative would drastically reduce that number to whatever can fit in a 5’x5’ footprint (around 3-6 plants—per property, not per person). This will force many patients to resort to buying instead of growing their own medicine, because of the inconvenience caused by producing multiple grows a year rather than growing a year’s supply of medicine at one time, as many patients currently do outdoors. And growing indoors—which typically requires special grow lights, an increase in hydro use, and a lot of time and attention—is a comparatively expensive endeavor.

    The initiative would further impact medical marijuana patients by banning medicating in the privacy of their own homes if there are minors present, as well as in public (currently perfectly legal[18])—an invaluable liberty to those with painful diseases who would otherwise have to suffer until they got home to relieve their pain.

    Finally, the medical marijuana laws that are exempted from this initiative apparently only apply to cities. For medical marijuana patients who live in an area that has county or local government jurisdiction, according to a strict reading of the initiative, medical marijuana laws are not exempt.[19]

  14. IanJ on

    Good article. As I tell all my friends who ask the same question here is my answer. Prop 19 won’t supersede Prop 215, P19 has nothing to do with P215 in any way outside of the cannabis link but thats about it.