[Update - we now have a Spanish translation here.]
I’ve spent the evening reading various blogs that have sprouted up in opposition to Proposition 19, California’s effort to legalize marijuana this November. These “Stoners Against Legalization” blogs confound me; they remind me of Sam Kinison’s line comparing “Rock Against Drugs” to “Christians Against Christ”.
Some of these blogs are based on the notion that legalization would be worse than “what we have now”. The assumption there is that if you smoke marijuana in California, you must already have your Prop 215 recommendation from a doctor, and you’d be losing your rights under Prop 19.
Most marijuana smokers, believe it or not, are healthy and aren’t comfortable spending money for a doctor to give them permission to use cannabis. Currently we face a ticket, fine, and misdemeanor drug conviction record for possession an ounce or less of cannabis. That record prevents us from getting student aid and can cost us our jobs, child custody, and housing, or if we’re on probation, our freedom. (Even if California succeeds at downgrading possession to an infraction from a misdemeanor, a $100 ticket is a lot of money to some people!) We face a felony charge if we grow even one plant at home. For us, Prop 19 is much better than “what we have now”.
Another thing that appears in some of these blogs is outright misinformation, such as talk of a $50/ounce state tax (it’s not in the initiative; that was Ammiano’s bill) or that it would supersede Prop 215 (it wouldn’t, and Prop 19 even references Prop 215 in its language, so it couldn’t). Others play up the “millionaires”, “big corporations”, and “monopolies” that would be created and the earnest Emerald Triangle family growers who’d be put out of business (which amuses me: Prop 19 allows localities to regulate sales, so why wouldn’t Humboldt, Trinity, and Mendocino county residents whose economy depends on pot sales lobby really hard to get legalized pot sales OK’d in those counties and cities within, and regulated in a way that protects the small grower?)
Two notable sticking points have to do with minors below 21: Prop 19 creates a new crime in being an adult over 21 who gives marijuana to adults aged 18-20 and Prop 19 forbids adults over 21 from smoking where minors are present. Prop 19′s penalties in the first situation mirror the penalties for giving alcohol to 18-20-year-olds, but, yes, it is disturbing to create a new statute that calls for jail time over marijuana. It’s also questionable whether an adult should be punished for smoking pot if their child can see them – we don’t even require that of alcohol and tobacco.
But are these reason enough to continue ruining the lives of people 21 and older? Besides, if you’re over 21 smoking with some 18-year-olds or in front of some minors, and you’re doing it inside your home, who is to know? And if you’re 18-20, wouldn’t you love being legal in 1 to 3 years?
Because the biggest thing Prop 19 does, the forest that these blogs are missing for the trees, is LEGALIZE ADULT MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND POSSESSION.
Even under Prop 215, the adult cannabis consumer is guilty of being a criminal unless proven innocent as a patient. When Prop 19 passes, the adult cannabis consumer is considered innocent until proven guilty. It is a complete game changer for law enforcement, because:
- the smell of marijuana on your person is no longer probable cause to search you;
- that joint in your pocket means nothing;
- the seizure of stems, leaves, and seeds from your trash is irrelevant;
- a couple of baggies with weed residue in them are just garbage;
- the sight of that bong on your table visible through the kitchen window isn’t a “welcome” mat for a police search;
- your utility bills raising a bit for water and lights don’t matter;
- your neighbors smelling skunky plants is just a nuisance, not the source for an “anonymous tip”;
- receipts for lights, soil, fertilizer, ballasts, trimmers, and stuff are meaningless;
- infrared signatures of your home aren’t evidence of anything;
- marijuana sniffing K-9 units are out of a job; and
- pre-employment drug testing programs become harder for businesses to maintain for cannabis.
Basically, one of the simplest tools law enforcement has for harassing cannabis consumers – the sight and smell of cannabis and paraphernalia – is no longer in the tool belt. As long as you’re an adult, keep your grow in a 5′x5′ area, don’t smoke in front of kids, and don’t leave the house with over an ounce, you are free from police harassment.
And even if you don’t follow the law perfectly, who’s to know? If you’re pulled over and there’s an ounce and a half in your backpack, how does that cop know? Does it “smell heavy” in your car? So long as you refuse a search, how will he know? The smell of pot isn’t cause for a search; you’re allowed to have an ounce of it.
If you have a 10′x10′ garden, who’s to know? Is the electric bill that much higher? Does the garden smell more (probably not at all if you build a good grow room)? Plus don’t forget that you’re allowed to have more than one ounce, namely, any amount that you grow within your 5′x5′ garden, at the location of the garden. I think by the time law enforcement came back with a warrant to investigate how big my garden is, three-fourths of it would be cut down and I would suddenly have my 5′x5′ garden and my hanging plants from the last 5′x5′ area I harvested.
Suppose there is four pounds of marijuana at my house. Why, officer, that’s the results from my last legal 5′x5′ personal garden harvest. What, you don’t see any 5′x5′ growing space? Well, I used to grow, but I took down my garden and sold my equipment after my last harvest. Why, yes, they were some pretty big plants. No, I didn’t take any pictures, because what I was doing was perfectly legal. (Prop 19 also has a nice affirmative defense to claim the marijuana in your home was for your personal use. These blogs never seem to notice that.)
So below I’ve decided to write a word-for-word analysis of Prop 19, mainly because it seems like many of the people against it have never read it. Standard disclaimer: I am no lawyer… hell, I’m not even a college graduate.
Proposition 19: 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.
If you’re over 21, your personal pot use and cultivation are legal. Some places may even let you buy and sell it. You still can’t smoke it at school, in public, and with kids. Don’t drive stoned. We might even save and raise some money while we’re at it.
Section 1: Name
This Act shall be known as the “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.”
Or, simply, “Prop 19″.
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.
Prohibition’s bad, mmmkay? It doesn’t work, wastes money, and creates crime. This Act will be a first step in ending that.
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.
News flash: most people, especially non-cannabis consumers, think it is a bad idea for kids to use cannabis.
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.
One blogger suggested that this point #6 would be enough for the courts to assume that the people meant Prop 19 to supersede patients’ medical rights under Prop 215, also known as California Health & Safety Code #11362.5. Somehow, #6 means that Prop 215 patients would suddenly be limited to 5′x5′ gardens and an ounce of medicine. Which seems odd to me, when you read further in #7 below…
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.
…where they are saying that if your city doesn’t allow cannabis sales, you can still possess your one ounce, except if you’re permitted more than that under Prop 215 (11362.5). How could any court think that #6 means all of Prop 19 supersedes Prop 215 when a nullified Prop 215 means #7 is granting an exception that wouldn’t exist if it were superseded?
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.
If a city does allow cannabis sales it can regulate how much you buy and sell, except if you’re permitted more than that under Prop 215 (11362.5)… you know, the part that #6 supposedly supersedes.
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.
Well, that’s a lovely premise, but nothing controls how these governments would spend the money. But since were talking about local governments, not the state, there will be more local control and pressure over how local marijuana money is spent.
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.
Well, people consuming less than an ounce are only getting tickets, not arrests, but still there are arrests for possessing more than an ounce at home and for growing any amount at home.
11. Allow the Legislature to adopt a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry.
Someday the state might decide to let cannabis be sold statewide… probably after the feds end their cannabis prohibition. This is important: this line doesn’t force California to violate federal law, but it sets the stage for statewide regulation once it doesn’t violate federal law.
12. Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes.
That might be difficult, as California’s universities and teaching hospitals – the places where you might scientifically study cannabis – often have federal ties that prevent them from engaging in cannabis research. But it will be no more difficult than it is now.
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.
This is kind of a 10th Amendment issue, after all, except for the Supreme Court’s view that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution empowers the Congress to make laws prohibiting citizens of California from consuming a house plant for personal purposes in private.
14. Permit the cultivation of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption.
This is the best part of Prop 19 – the marijuana plant is declared legal in some situations!
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].
This Act will legalize cannabis possession, transportation, cultivation, consumption, and sale of cannabis to some extent…
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.
…except where it concerns kids, schools, and driving or working high.
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.
If you’re 21 or older, you can have an ounce of weed on you, out in public, and share it with your 21 and older friends.
(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.
You can grow a 25 sq ft marijuana garden in your home or on your land. You might have to get your landlord’s permission if you’re renting.
(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.
Whatever you harvest at home in your 25 sq ft garden, you can keep at home. Not just one ounce, the whole harvest. No time limit. If you harvest a pound every three months and have a stash of twelve pounds after four years, and you’re not selling, that pot is all yours and perfectly legit.
(iv) Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection.
Your bongs are now legal, too.
(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.
“In any form” = hash, edibles, tinctures. You’ve got to consume in a non-public place, unless your city is cool and allows public consumption in certain places. (Hello, hash bar!)
(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.
You can’t sell it without a license, smoke in public, smoke while driving, boating, or flying, or smoke around kids.
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:
Local governments can regulate commercial sales. It is very important that this initiative didn’t force the State of California to regulate commercial sales, which could have hung this initiative up in court for putting California in “positive conflict” with the federal prohibition. Here, California isn’t doing anything about sales… literally. California is saying, “if Berkeley wants to allow weed selling, we won’t stop them.”
(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;
If a city wants to legalize sales, it can only be up to an ounce per transaction and everybody involved has to be 21 or older.
(e) consumption of cannabis within licensed premises;
A city can license bars and coffee shops to allow on-site toking, as well as the retail marijuana stores.
(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;
A city can punish you for getting cannabis illegally. You can grow your own or you can buy it from a licensed store. You and your friends can share what you grow, up to an ounce each.
(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;
A city could limit a pot store’s locations, hours, size, advertising, and keep them away from other businesses.
(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;
A city could make you control the smoke and smell and make you be polite to nearby businesses and locals.
(j) appropriate controls to restrict public displays, or public consumption of cannabis;
(k) appropriate taxes or fees pursuant to section 11302;
A city can tax marijuana and keep it out of public view.
(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;
A city might decide you are allowed to grow more than a 5′x5′ garden and possess more than an ounce for personal consumption. And maybe they decide you can buy and sell more than an ounce at a time. Hooray!
(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.
Cities can tax cannabis and create fees for licensing and can use that to cover the costs of enforcing the law.
(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.
Licensed cannabis businesses have to pay their taxes.
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.
Cops cannot take your plants or your weed if you’re obeying the law.
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.
You can’t smoke pot while doing something dangerous. You can’t bring pot to school.
(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.
You can’t take your weed out of state or out of the country. But you can take it from one legal place to another, even if the places in-between aren’t legal.
(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.
This is a big one. You can’t be punished or denied privileges based on pot smoking. The only exception is employers preventing you from smoking pot on the job. Note the “actually impairs job performance” language. This is the loophole through which some attorney is going to drive a big truck delivering us freedom from workplace pee testing for cannabis. Pee test metabolites do not prove workplace impairment.
(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.
Hemp is also in Genus Cannabis. Cities could legalize industrial hemp production. Hash, hash oil, and edibles are all legal, too.
(ii) “One ounce” means 28.5 grams.
We just got an extra 0.15 grams… because an ounce is really 28.3495231 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;
So the ounce in your plate of brownies is still only an ounce, not the pound that the brownies weigh.
(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);
Your plants, in the ground or freshly cut and hanging, don’t count against the one ounce that you can have on your person. So long as the plants fit in 25 sq ft, you’re golden. Since you can already have the fruits of your harvest at home, the fact that this also means your plants don’t count against your home weight is irrelevant
(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.
Even if you have a whole lot of marijuana, you still have a defense in court that your marijuana was for your own 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.
Since “residence” could have more than one occupant, but each “residence” only gets one 5′x5′ garden, this is a minor issue in a multi-roommate situation. But even sharing the garden, it is more garden than they are allowed to grow now.
(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.
These first two sections confuse many readers as they think these are all new additions to law. Parts (a) and (b) are the parts of the law as they already exist. Only (c) and (d) are the new portions:
(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.
This is the one section that gets a lot of attention. Currently, the punishment for a “gift” of marijuana from a 21+ to a 18-20 is a citation and $100 fine. Now it will be six months and $1,000.
But this is the punishment in California for providing alcohol to 18-20s. Politically, initiative backers had to face the fact that “What About the Children?!?” is one of the few compelling arguments the opposition has left. No initiative that legalizes for 18-year-olds – many of whom are still in high school – has a prayer of passing yet.
(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.
If you own or work in a pot store and your marijuana gets in the hands of someone under 21, you can’t own, work in, or even go to any pot store for a 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:
The people, through initiative, or the legislature, through bills, can amend this Act, but only to better define what we said this Act was about in the Purposes above, or to…
(a) Amendments to the limitations in section 11300, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations.
Nobody can make your one ounce and 5′x5′ garden smaller, but the state could give you more.
(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.
The state could set up a statewide cannabis industry.
(c) Laws to authorize the production of hemp or non-active cannabis for horticultural and industrial purposes.
The state could get serious about industrial hemp production.
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.
If the courts strike down, say, the sales portion of the law, that doesn’t kill the personal possession and cultivation parts of the law.
Contact your elected representatives and urge them to 'Stop Arresting Marijuana Smokers'. 
It is appropriate time to make a few plans for the long run and it is
time to be happy. I have learn this publish and if I may
I wish to suggest you some attention-grabbing issues or advice.
Perhaps you could write next articles relating to this article.
I wish to learn even more issues about it!
This piece of writing will assist the internet people for creating new webpage or even a weblog from start
to end.
Oh my goodness! Amazing article dude! Thank you so much, However I
am encountering difficulties with your RSS. I don’t understand the reason why I can’t subscribe to it.
Is there anyone else getting the same RSS problems? Anybody
who knows the answer will you kindly respond? Thanks!!
Hello it’s me, I am also visiting this site daily, this site is truly nice and the visitors are actually sharing good thoughts.
It’s truly a great and helpful piece of information. I’m satisfied that you just shared this
helpful info with us. Please keep us informed like this.
Thank you for sharing.
I personally was basically researching for tips for my
own web site and uncovered your article, “California?s Prop 19: A
word-for-word analysis | The NORML Stash Blog”, would you care in
cases where I really use a number of of your tips? I am grateful -Ramon
It seems u actually understand quite a lot with regards to this particular subject
and that demonstrates as a result of this blog post, labeled “California?s Prop 19: A
word-for-word analysis | The NORML Stash Blog”.
Many thanks ,Mohammad
Just wish to say your article is as astounding. The
clearness in your put up is simply cool and i can assume
you are knowledgeable on this subject. Fine together with
your permission let me to grasp your RSS feed to keep
up to date with imminent post. Thank you 1,000,000 and please continue the enjoyable work.
I’m amazed, I have to admit. Seldom do I come across a blog that’s both
equally educative and interesting, and without a doubt,
you’ve hit the nail on the head. The problem is something which not enough folks are speaking intelligently about. I’m very happy that I found this
in my search for something regarding this.
I would like to know what companies paid to defeat this bill so that I will NOT use their products.
[...] the marijuana laws in California. That is why NORML has posted a word-by-word analysis of Prop. 19 here. Or you can read specific sections of the measure here, along with detailed replies to frequently [...]
[...] do and what it would not do, are welcome to read NORML’s word-by-word analysis of the measure here or read specific sections of the act here. If you reside in California and you wish to help the [...]
[...] the marijuana laws in California. That is why NORML has posted a word-by-word analysis of Prop. 19 here. Or you can read specific sections of the measure here, along with detailed replies to frequently [...]
Cassandra, what you need to understand is that this prop. isn’t here so that we can all be legalized drug dealers lol. Cannabis is used for so many things! Paper, clothing, food, fuel, etc. The only part of the cannabis plant we smoke is the flower. Once this is legal, we will be able to start cultivating, processing, and ultimately turn cannabis into typical things we use every single day! And once that happens, more jobs for people, which means, more money put back into Cali because of course people are gonna spend their hard earned money, which means the economy will start to stabilize.
And YOU, the adult, will be able to grow your own marijuana, which means it will be free to you! And you can buy your own seeds, you will ultimately be in charge of the quality of the stuff you grow.
I hope I answered your questions :) I’m not an expert on any of this, I just do LOTS of research, this is something I’m very passionate about.
Russ, you may not be a college grad… but you are a rational man, and this country needs a lot more people like you my friend! We all just want our own personal freedom to do whatever we want as long as we are not harming other people! Why is it so hard for people to understand that? What person… what ADULT would want their rights as a human being stripped of them without even knowing why? I don’t live in Cali, but I’m doing my best to spread the word amongst family, friends, and new friends on why this NEEDS to happen.
Prices go up and quality going down? How could things get worse? This does not even make sense. It will be legal to grow and possess. If you do not know how to grow and cure well then educate yourself! Seriously though, do you really think people growing large scale are just going to up and stop? They have already been avoiding the cops for this long so why would they stop. as long as there is a demand for highgrade flowers and people are still willing to pay for it there will still be people breaking the law to provide it.
[...] vote yes…. http://stash.norml.org/californias-p…-word-analysis "A city might decide you are allowed to grow more than a 5′x5′ garden and possess [...]
I have one question. Is it possible that prices will go up significantly and we may even be getting crappier weed for our money?? I’m guessing the bud should stay the same or get better because people are still going to be growing like they are now. But what happens when soooo many people are growing and selling..? Will this cash pot eventually become worthless??
Thank you!!
[...] is a the bill and a good write up explaining the issues. http://stash.norml.org/californias-p…-word-analysis Reply With Quote + Reply to [...]
As far as I can tell (particularly from these comments) the only opposition to 19 is from hyperreligious conservatives and hypocritical hippies (you know, that hate the *corporations* and think plants should be worshiped)… both in defiance of logic and reason. Oh, and greedy growers. And drug cartels.
Disgusting.
[...] the marijuana laws in California. That is why NORML has posted a word-by-word analysis of Prop. 19 here. Or you can read specific sections of the measure here, along with detailed replies to frequently [...]
To #3, I can state that tobacco isn’t at all the same as hemp. As I’ve mentioned, growing and cultivating pot is pretty damned easy, much like one brewing their own beer. My sister’s husband brews beer in his spare time. My grower doesn’t like indoor growing of marijuana because of the hassle, but says he’ll continue to grow outdoor if I need the assistance, because it’s so much less work. He can manage a few plants outside without taking up much time – at the moment he’s mostly just worried about the smell causing neighbors to complain. Even though he’s legit in our state, there’s still such a stigma about marijuana.
A single outdoor plant can yield a pound or two of bud in a year from what I’ve been told. That’s 450-900 grams – enough off a *single plant* to smoke a joint every day and have bud left over. I’ve heard really good organic farmers can pull as much as THREE POUNDS off a single plant.
In other words, the attempt to control it by phillip morris may ultimately happen when federal prohibition is repealed, but it won’t be like tobacco. Tobacco is far more difficult for the average person to cultivate than cannabis is. The beer-to-pot analogy is fairly accurate from what I’ve heard. It grows like a weed, as the slang term would suggest. The tough part is really the time spent harvesting, drying, and curing, if you’re an outdoor grower. (Indoor growing is still a pain in the ass as I understand it, but legalization will hopefully make outdoor growing a bit more common)
[...] can't seem to understand what reality is and proves that the anti 19 crowd are just spreading bs. http://stash.norml.org/californias-p…-word-analysis Reply With Quote + Reply to [...]
[...] [...]
[...] do and what it would not do, are welcome to read NORML’s word-by-word analysis of the measure here or read specific sections of the act here. If you reside in California and you wish to help the [...]
[...] [...]
Hi people,
What I find disconcerting about the entire push is about “CONTROL and TAX.” Our government has been corporatized, you can see it takes millions of dollars to have a choice between yes and no, blue or red…and especially in the past 10 years the people’s bill of rights have been eroded. There are sick fuckers running the show that are ready and have imprisoned peaceful people, and over all we see peoples’ rights infringed on. Being exploring, researching and developing my new business in SE Asia, I have seen the kind of policies that the US has carried out on other people in the name of power, money, and control. I am more afraid of what the power behind this is really planning to do with it.
I hear the rallying cry for the end to prohibition, but whether you like to acknowledge it or not our country has disembarked away from democracy, away from our bill of rights and developed into a neo-feudualsitic society where people are chasing the dream, paying taxes, being sensible, only to have everything inputted out of the hands of the people.
My questions remain:
1) What happens when this gets into the realm of big industry and GMO. Does David Watson work with Monsanto?
2) Will this be impetus for an ever expanding federal government to come in and stomp on states rights?
3) What happens when Marijuana is standardized and solid by Phillip Morris and turns something healthy into something very unhealthy. I don’t here very often of people growing their own tobacco? This question is aiming more at the realm at which government should be able to step into the realm of anything on the planet and regulate it away from what nature had built it to be.
4) Does NORML have the capacity or plan to effectively monitor, follow up, and educate local government constituents about what manifests?
My disclaimer is that I really haven’t been cued in to any of this prop 19 until I had a inclination the other day to figure out where the money trail led, that is why I got held up on Soros and his Monsanto connection. I am sorry that I haven’t read up more prior to the 11th hour. I want to see the rest of the plant as a resource that is not co-opted by big Ag in the way other GMO corps have. After seeing how screwed small farmers around the world have become because of the big Ag, monsanto, bayer etc…as well as how unhealthy GMO corn feed America has become, this type of power is regulated by the power that it is supposed to regulate, and I hope this will not be a slippery slope. I realize NORML and the rest of the community cannot sit by and wait for our country’s sanity to be restored, and perhaps smoking higher levels of CBD will help this, I am just concerned about the unintentional consequences of all the good intentioned people that have fought for 19.
In hopes of a positive outcome, keep up the good work.
-Matthew
[...] I’m NORML’s Deputy Director, a Californian, and a parent. This why I told my local newspaper that I’m voting ‘yes’ on Proposition 19. [...]
[...] do and what it would not do, are welcome to read NORML’s word-by-word analysis of the measure here or read specific sections of the act here. If you reside in California and you wish to help the [...]
Thanks for the education. I shared it on FB.
Re: “Get educated before you get regulated….” we are currently regulated, poorly, by the simple fact that in every form Marijuana is illegal on some level. This is a step in the right direction regardless.
I’m new to the Big Ag understanding, but IMO If big ag is going to do anything, it will be to contaminate every plant so they can own every crop and sue every farmer and sorter like they do with soy.
Laws need to be enacted to stop the gross abuse of process and these ridiculous claims against farmers who refuse to use Big Ag seeds. IMHO if any farmer’s crop is pollinated with GMO pollution, they should have the right to make a claim against the patent owner or farmer responsible for the contamination.
“The Man” needs to quarantine their damn GMO crops in a greenhouse (and their salmon in a lined and covered pond) and keep my food safe according to “The Big Guy Upstairs.”
Thanks again for the good read.
I love to see Russ and Dad straighten these people out. I’d have gotten tired of re-explaining things OVER AND OVER, but he just takes it with a grain of salt, or whatever the expression is. People of California need to get right ASAP. I have a speech due on thursday the 4th and you can guess what it’s on. I’m in South Carolina right now and hardly anybody even KNOWS about Proposition 19, so I’m trying to get the word out in every way possible. All you have to do is get the ball rolling and it will eventually reach us all. VOTE YES PEOPLE!!!
There is no problem with businesses that have “Drug Free Workplace” contracts with the feds. Testing positive for THC would be an impairment that would prevent you from doing your job. A pre-employment urinalysis would keep you from getting a job and failing a UA while employed would be grounds for dismissal.
[...] do and what it would not do, are welcome to read NORML’s word-by-word analysis of the measure here or read specific sections of the act here. If you reside in California and you wish to help the [...]
[...] [...]
[...] do and what it would not do, are welcome to read NORML’s word-by-word analysis of the measure here or read specific sections of the act here. If you reside in California and you wish to help the [...]
That’s fair – the hard liquor : pot instead of the beer : pot. It’s a helluva lot better than the current heroin : pot analogy.
Rancho Cordova has on the ballot a measure to tax grows at $600/sqft up to 25, and $900 per after 25. It would have to (1) pass in the election and (2) survive the immediate and inevitable court challenge. The courts will find that the $900 is unconstitutional infringement on Prop 215 rights and the $600 the same for Prop 19 rights.
You cannot tax away someone’s right. See poll taxes in the 1870s.
As for small farmers, Prop 19 gives commercial regulation to localities. The small farmers can better influence a city council than the state assembly. Huge agri-corps with interstate business (think ConAgra or ArcherDanielsMidland) can’t get involved in California’s cannabis business without running afoul of federal regulators who’ll haul them into court and seize assets. Same goes for Big Tobacco or Monsanto. Until cannabis is federally de-scheduled, they won’t touch it.
As to Soros / Monsanto – Saying George Soros is donating to Prop 19 to benefit his Monsanto stock is like saying Jimmy Carter’s building homes for poor people to help sales of his books. George Soros is a hedge fund manager whose holdings include stock in damn near every successful company on the planet. Prop 19 might actually hurt his holdings in energy, textile, lumber, plastics, and other industries hemp would compete with. The reason he donates is because he lived through the fascism of 20th century Europe and fights for the cause of freedom in many arenas, including drug law reform.
Indeed, legalization and regulation ARE the same. Name on thing that is legal that isn’t regulated. Breathing air? Drinking water? Owning pets? Growing tomatoes in your yard? Free speech? All regulated. Regulations are what define the legality. Prohibition = no regulation. Anyone can grow it, buy it, sell it. No taxes, no permits, no age restrictions, no purity guarantees, no limits.
I appreciate you taking the time to get educated on the issue. I know how scary change is. I know how beaten down we tokers have been by “The Man” that when it comes time to engage “The Man” in his arena, we second- and third-guess everything, waiting for the trick ending. But this doesn’t come from “The Man”, it comes from a man, Richard Lee, who drives a used car and lives in a one-bedroom apartment. A man who is a medical marijuana patient himself. A man who has risked $1.5 million of his own money on what most in politics would consider a sucker bet, but now has a real chance to pull it off. A man who invited the input of people who’ve labored in non-profits and grassroots lobbies for four decades (including Dennis Peron, who declined) to review and revise his initiative.
Please vote YES. Please tell your friends to vote YES. “Too good to be true” would be unlimited cultivation, guaranteed commercial rights, no taxation, and immediate pardons for all pot prisoners. This is one ounce, a tiny garden, and cities opting in to commercial if they want – hardly a giant step, and certainly not bog enough for any multinational corporation to bother with.
HA! You’re linking to Letitia Pepper? She’s an “attorney” like I’m a “rock star”. Her claim to legitimacy is that she worked in 1984-1987 for a law firm that has worked on shutting down dispensaries in 2004-2010. She’s been caught in so many contradictions and lies at the various events at which she is spreading her disinformation that she’s become somewhat of a joke among reformers. See http://LetitiaPepper.com.
If you’d like the opinion of a medical marijuana attorney, how about one who, unlike Letitia, has actually defended medical marijuana users in court. One who was Dennis Peron’s attorney, securing for him and all of us in court the right to sell medical marijuana. One who was Steve Kubby’s attorney, defending his medical necessity to be growing 200 plants. One who has defended hundreds of medical marijuana in court and never lost a case.
Prop 19 is the best thing to happen to medical marijuana patients since Prop 215
This I found interesting, an attorney who is a MM user chiming in on what he seems qualified to speak to.
http://thehive.modbee.com/node/20404
peace.
Indeed Russ the legal definitions determine the regulations that come along with it…but it has been pointed out that the terms are crafted in a way that leave too much to the interpretation.
One interesting point to counter your beer analogy is that it is being likened to hard liquor laws rather than the beer laws.
There was a point that one county in California has already imposed a very high tax on personal use growers in Cordova County. Can anyone confirm that this is not true?
Look, what actually concerns me, so you can stop making assumptions about where I am coming from, are the small farmers who are being affected by the regulations that favor industrial agricultural. I have seen small farmers who can’t read the language be forced to sign contracts to grow hemp with sythentic inputs. The crops failed, and I tried to tell them we would not source from them if it wasn’t grown organically, but then I was pushed aside by the government.
In this case legalization has made these small farmers who have grown it for thousands of years be swept under regulatory framework, which has already been shown to be influenced by big ag. as they are planning on getting hemp GMO strains in circulation and are forced to cut it down at anytime the government deems appropriate, which is very gray.
I am just saying that legalization and regulation are not the same. One is a result of the language, intention, and interpretation of the former, with examples like Cordova County, which I get from a secondary source of information, and interests in it like big Pharma which I have received from a primary source, it really is telling that there is more to the story than Prop 19 proponents are idealizing. A top sale rep of one company told me and my bro how they are all set up ready to grow when a law like this is passed.
I would appreciate if any personal attacks were subsided by now, I am just trying to flush this thing out for people to go to vote and feel confident that again, the devil is not in the details. I am not claiming that the premise is bad, but, on face value without going into the details this seems too good to be true.
Thanks.
i have a question.
everyone is making this huge deal that will not be able to pass joints to children for some reason because there is a possibility of getting thrown in jail
1-why do these people wanna pass joints to little kids….cause even though i smoke,if you ever pass a joint to my kid when hes 14 you will hope to god the cops get to you before i do
2-what is the punishment now….im pretty sure its not much more lenient
If you know so much about hemp, you know it would be about as hard to control as beer is. Coors and Bud may hold the majority, but you can find many damned fine micro-breweries all over the country.
Why would people “on the same side” be against prop 19? Money. I have an “internet friend” I talk to about prop 19 a lot. He’s a dealer on a pretty big scale. He won’t give me exact figures, but he definitely makes more money than I do by a ridiculous margin, if you look at it on an hourly basis. His words, paraphrased for his protection, are that he is perfectly happen with the current laws because the risk is fairly low for how much he can make growing a plant.
On the plus side, you and I can agree on your original point: “GET EDUCATED BEFORE YOU GET REGULATED”. Educated voters will ensure 19 passes, so kudos to you for suggesting it! But I suspect that you are on the same side as the dealers, and you’re simply hoping to stir up anti-prop-19 support here.
I leave you with this one last point – it’s very interesting to me that so many “no on 19″ sites don’t allow comments, but Russ does. Maybe it’s because with enough debate, people can see the truth, and “no on 19″ sites don’t want that.
Hi guys, thanks for the feedback. I am just really questioning whether or not this legislation is really for the people and not a corporatization of something that seemed to be in a realm of its own. Like maybe because it has remained illegal, it has been kept in sort of a haven where small growers are keeping bio-diversity intact. Under prop 19 and open ended wording of the prop with what is implied, intended, and what will be law bring this under the auspices of companies with deep pockets and interests, and cut out the small growers.
I have just read about this issue and had a gut feeling something was up. My life is involved with industrial hemp and small farmers, currently in SE Asia where small farmers face a lot of issues with GM seeds, and I am worried about the implications that this kind of industry move. What goes on in the US affects the rest of the world.
Kudos to Soros if he contributed to 215, but, if those ties to Monsanto and other large interest, being that there is ALOT of money at stake here , make me question the bigger picture.
If Monsanto does something like it has with corn, to Cannibis, then slippery slopes could lead them to control strains of hemp which farmers I work with in rural Thailand will eventually have their seeds supplied from Monsanto. Like cotton in Asia and Corn in US and A. I am concerned on the monopoly over seeds, over industrial hemp strains. I know this is a side tangent to the point at hand, but I see it being very connected.
I wouldn’t write this off a conspiracy to keep market power so quickly. It is a game long played. I am not an expert in the Marijuana game, because that is only one of the many things this plant has to offer, but, I think it could play out in ways that are unintended…Don’t know for sure, but again, my gut feeling, and some of the more rationale, and historical references in the No on Prop 19 make me really wonder what is going on here. Even with your good explanation Russ. It is hard to wonder why there is such an uproar and faction within people with seemingly the same goals, to have freedom for the cannabis to reach out to society to help heal people and the planet…
What is up? I don’t buy Emory writing them off as jealous…not with the arguments going on. Sure they are off topic and tangent like the one I did above, but there are connections. I don’t want scared soccer moms, I just don’t want good intentions being lost in the details, in which some other attorneys have picked apart the pieces of the legislation and confirmed concerns of the lay person toward this prop.
Respect.
Do you Soros-conspiracy theorists like Matthew even realize that it was Soros who made the last-minute funding to qualify Prop. 215 — the measure you all so know and love — for the ballot and pay for its professional staffers and ad campaign?! You people are a disgrace to this movement!
Then you’d better have a third thought, Matthew. I’ve debunked the link you’ve listed more times than I can count. Don’t be fooled by the paranoid, the deluded, and those with financial interest in keeping $150 permission slip businesses and $20/gram dispensaries in existence.
Just how does Monsanto monopolize weed when everyone will be allowed to grow it? How does Monsanto avoid a huge federal lawsuit and losing billions in assets in settlements and damages when it engages in a federally-prohibited, Schedule I drug trafficking conspiracy?
If you’ve devoted your life to hemp, then you must realize that for anything to be legal, it has to be regulated. That’s what “legal” means. And all agricultural commodities are taxed in one way or another. Prop 19 doesn’t go as far as I’d like, either, but you don’t write bills to get passed by hempsters like you and I, you write them to not scare soccer moms and religious conservatives.
When Prop 19 passes, unlike other initiatives, it can be amended by the people and the legislature to further (not reduce) its intents. We can have legal pot now, and all the extra supporters who are in the closet now because it is illegal can come out in 2012 when we work to make Prop 19 even better.
But if Prop 19 fails, initiative backers won’t think “Oh, Prop 19 wasn’t liberal enough”. They’ll think it was too liberal and scared “square” voters and the next attempt – if one is even possible – will be even more conservative than Prop 19 is.
Second thoughts! Make me spread the VOTE NO on 19!
The connections to the financiers, Soros and Monsanto of prop 19 and the damning evidence that hemp has always been controlled by big interests. I would say don’t use one source of information not even NORML, who knows how movements get co-opted from the inside! NORML should not be free from the scrutiny either. There are heavy hitters weighing against this!
I have a gut feeling, that this is wrong. REGULATED AND TAXED?
I would call for a true GET EDUCATED BEFORE YOU GET REGULATED!
Here is a link with evidence http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/p/read-this-before-you-vote-prop-19.html.
I have devoted my life to hemp. I would hate to see the people be fooled thinking what they want is what they are getting…this seems like a slippery slope to give our freedoms away once again, even with the semi-compelling arguments in the blog!
thanks for this… i live in humboldt and am frankly disgusted with the lies being put forth by people here and the people who are running votenoonprop19.com….people here are acting like hypocrites and that site is at the forefront of the paranoia and propaganda being spread
Sure, maybe probably the feds sue. But they have little to go on. Existing precedent regarding Prop 215 determined that states don’t have to enforce federal marijuana laws. The only thing they could conceivably go after is commercial cultivation and sales; they can’t touch the personal possession and cultivation because they can’t force local and state cops to go after pot smokers under federal law. Only DEA could, and they don’t have the manpower to go after 3.3 million California pot smokers.
I’m wondering what your take is on Feds suing the state of California in a nanosecond if Prop 19 passes?
One argument that the dissenting voices keep making is ‘It’s useless anyway, california’s gonna get sued and overruled by the feds instantly once it passes.’ I don’t really know anything about how the Feds work in this country and it makes me wonder if there are any (other) dick move shenanigans that can be pulled by the government if we do succeed in getting Prop 19 passed. I really want us to win our freedom and help take steps in a better, more enlightened direction, but there’s a part of me that’s skeptical and half-expecting our giant push to be muted and nullified by a lot of bureaucratic hullabaloo.
Nevertheless, I’m still voting YES on prop 19! Great work on the article, it’s the most informative thing I’ve read on this whole thing!
[...] on the job. If you do a poor job, you get fired, people. Marijuana or not. Read Russ’s word for word analysis of prop 19 for [...]
Sorry, meant “keep pot ILLEGAL”, not “keep pot legal”.
And if you’re really worried about the quality, keep in mind this ain’t tobacco – the cannabis plant is too easy to grow to be controlled by a handful of companies, and more closely resembles beer production. You don’t like the stuff at the store? Make your own. Maybe your own is so good you can get licensed and sell it, even.
I can’t stand Bud or Coors, but I do like the Ninkasi beer, brewed not more than an hour from where I live.
I’m finding that most people who use these excuses already know this information, however, and are looking for a way to keep pot legal so they can sell a little on the side. It’s a high price to pay to keep cancer victims and the like from getting research into a medication that could really make a difference. I guess if you value money that much, though, I can’t likely change your mind with my sob stories.
No. Not one federal contract was pulled when California passed Prop 215. Prop 19 allows employers to fulfill all their obligations under the Drug Free Workplace Act.
Excellent analysis. I’ve been receiving messages from friends out in CA saying, “Down with 19″ and so on. And these guys are tokers. I’ve read their side’s arguments and it sounds to me like someone wants to keep the medical MJ monopoly alive and well. I hope 19 passes and more importantly–I hope it catches on and spreads across the country.
Hello,
I just read through your explanation. I have heard differing opinions on what “actual impairment” means in regards to the workplace but as a whole I thought it was very thorough. One question no one seems to be addressing: If CA holds federal contracts and those contracts require that the employer maintain a drug free work environment, will CA lose all of it’s federal contracts if Prop 19 passes when marijuana becomes legal in CA but remains illegal Federally?
Please go read Big tobacco is NOT poised to take over California’s marijuana market. Bottom line: “certain cigarette companies” are not going to get into a market that is still federally illegal and risk losing all of their assets in a federal court.
Local businesses or bigger corps, they still have to sell a product you want to buy and at a price cheap enough to compete with you and your friends growing your own.
The rules for labeling any commercial marijuana will be set by the localities that approve that, or perhaps the state if it decides to. Strawberries are so pesticide laden because they need so much pesticide – marijuana doesn’t require that. And again, you’d have to want to buy the toxin-laden stuff; big tobacco gets away with that because (a) nicotine is addictive and (b) you can’t grow your own.
Please, tell your friend to join you in voting YES on PROP 19!
i don’t know if its true or not, but when my friend and i were talking about the prop he said some stuff to me that were unsettling…
he was just saying that a certain cigarette company already has the patten on ‘the spliff’ and if legalized, will ” soon enough” will be in 7-11 everywhere selling them, capitalizing on its ability to be open late hours etc while local growing business suffer because they dont have the funds to do so. this made me upset because id hate to see local business get bought out by bigger corps that have the funds to produce more at a lower rate, but perhaps the quality will be degraded but even so……..do you think this is a realistic scenario…?
and my other question is, will these people distributing be required to put on their weed that it is organic, usda approved, etc. I fear that if weed will become a legalized commodity it could be quickly taken for granted, like many other substances, the toxin levels in strawberries are off the charts when fertilizer and pesticides are introduced into the mix, I definitely don’t want to be smoking that stuff! how will i know it’s safe to smoke!??
thanks
Patients will grow as much as they are growing now – Prop 19′s limits do not apply to them.
I’m just curious because I didn’t really see it addressed (although I could have missed it. I have a rather short attention span.) – I know that prop 19 won’t supersede prop 215 and SB420 and is basically for non-medical smokers. If you are a medical marijuana patient, are you still bound to the grow limits set by (I don’t know which, I’m sorry…I’m still rather new) 215 and 420 or can you go by the grow limits set by 19? It just seems a little muddled to me. Thanks!
Russ, first of all I am for the legalization/decriminalization of marijuana. Not because I am a smoker (I have only smoked two or three times in the past 20 years), but because it makes a lot of sense (I am sure I don’t need to go into all of the reasons). However I have a few opinions/questions of my own that I would like to express. In my opinion to help mitigate or eliminate the drug wars I think we should bring the cartels into the fold of those who can legally participate in marijuana becoming a cash crop. I believe this would give them incentive to go along with legalization since they are probably some of the strongest opponents (their huge illegal profits are in jeopardy). I would stipulate among other things that they have to allow competition and others to prosper from the new legal market. My questions are: What about Federal law trumping the state law if this passes? Also………….if it is currently illegal in California other than for medical use, how do the farmers in the so called “Emerald Triangle” getting away with blatantly growing so much pot? I read an article that pot brings in more revenue than grapes – $14 billion vs. $2 billion for grapes. Someone is obviously prospering heavily from it’s cultivation. Hard to believe it is just going to support the medical use of pot. Is there any justice going on there? Why are we only accusing Mexico of being the source of illegal pot?
[...] [...]
14,000 New Yorkers double-dip into ‘Medicaid Pot” BY Kenneth Lovett DAILY NEWS ALBANY BUREAU CHIEF Wednesday, March 4th 2009, 12:14 AM ALBANY – Nearly 14,000 Medicaid recipients in New York City are double-dipping in other states, a new report found. Florida, Puerto Rico and New Jersey had the most Medicaid recipients also enrolled in New York, an audit by state Controller Thomas DiNapoli’s office revealed. The dual enrollments cost the federal, state and city governments a combined $23.5 million in Medicaid claims from April 2004 through May 2008, the audit found. While some of the claims were legitimate, DiNapoli suspects many were not. In some cases, people may have illegally used the Medicaid program in each state they were enrolled. In others, New York’s more generous program might have covered costs that should have been paid for by other states, DiNapoli said. The city Human Resources Administration has not completed investigations of $11.1 million in possible inappropriate Medicaid managed care premium payments, the audit found. While the enrollees may have been getting services they were not entitled to in New York, the medical providers got the money, DiNapoli said. “The state is facing the worst fiscal crisis of our lifetime,” DiNapoli said. “We can’t afford to waste millions of dollars on people who don’t live here.” The controller said the state Department of Health
Election Year Medicaid Medicare Inducement issues left open for November not openly discussed.Politics have gone from heated to man on fire thoughts. Also the Judicial dilemmas, since all are offically allowed to bear arms again, the big city Mayors are concerned about how the poor will be able to rearm themselves, and are looking for some type of financial relief from Federal State Medicaid programs to maintain their status quo.The higher courts face tough issues this term since making honest fraud legal, there agenda now turns toward making honest kickbacks and honest bribes equally as legal. This topic remains high as a shared issue by the medicaid medicare enrollment providers since they are looking to expand inducements past the complicated pregnancy stage.
The DOJ has serious concerns that if legalized marijuana in California for medical reasons could be used as a inducement or inticement to help secure new enrollments for the Federal State Medicare Medicaid programs.The State of California is concerned that if the Feds step up their effort in killing off the marijuana crops it could cause higher tax problems that effect Medicaid currently under consideration by the State ‘marijuana tax control board’. Limo drivers cancel their planned Medicaid Cuts DC rally and leave for California to protect this years crop. Wow, don’t think I would like to be in Politics for this years elections. Govenor Schwarzenegger indicated that if the Tea Partys membership keeps holding their rallies at our Marijuana burning fields they will have to be taxed for their free use of inhalants, prior to having them bused back to Arizona. Senator Mccain wants the deportation of illegal Mexicans to stop immediatley claims their State has gone to POT and insists California return his landscapers at once.
It makes Prop 19 even better. For example, the anti-Prop 19 crowd warns “You could be busted if you smoke in front of kids… or in public!” Yeah, but that “busted” after SB 1449 means a $100 civil infraction ticket.
1) You may not sell your marijuana. You may give away an ounce at a time to your friends. If you sell, you’re just as illegal after Prop 19 as you are before Prop 19, so no real change there.
2) The penalty for being caught with a 10×10 garden would be the same after Prop 19 as before Prop 19 – you’d be a felon, unless you have a Prop 215 recommendation to grow more.
What Prop 19 does is get rid of the crimes of possessing up to an ounce outside the home, possessing marijuana at home (any amount, virtually), growing up to 25 square feet of marijuana at home, and purchasing marijuana from licensed sellers. Any other marijuana crime that Prop 19 doesn’t specifically legalize will still remain on the books.
Few hypothetical questions that are bothering me.
1) what does prop 19 say about selling your marijuana? lets say i get a bountiful harvest in my 5×5 grow room, and want to sell some at a price better than any dispensary. what type of repercussions would there be if caught? what if i gave my excess away for free?
2) i don’t see anything in the bill mentioning what happens if caught with a 10×10 garden.
I have a question and hope someone will see this. Now that SB1449 has been passed, how does this effect prop 19 if it were to pass?
if we could grow our own flowers. we wouldnt have to buy it and it would boost the economy,because peolple could spend their money on their other lifes needs.like paying for rent and food and gas.and all the other governments bills. it would really help the economy.
Prop 19′s powers of taxation in Section 11302 specifically refer to the activities listed in Section 11301, which is commercial cultivation. There is no power to tax activities listed in Section 11300, which is personal cultivation.
If Prop 19 is passed, how soon would it go into effect?
O.K I am a bit confused over how and who as it pertains to taxation. The regulation is just another minor inconvenience we will adapt to, but when , for whatever reason, I have a legal estimation made regarding my possession, will I have a tax bill levied against me for the proven quantity that could eventually result in I.R.S problems, or liens against my personal property? How will taxation be enforced?
Under Prop 19, each of California’s 478 incorporated cities get to decide if and how they will regulate commercial distribution of marijuana. So if you live in our near a city that opens a “Prop 19″ store, you would be able to go to that store and buy some marijuana. No street corner dealers, no pothead friends, no need to grow your own.
Pardon my ignorance, I do not have any marijuana nor do I have a means of obtaining it legally.
Does prop 19 have provisions on the sale and purchase of marijuana to the general public? Let’s say I’m not licensed, do not have any sort of qualifying medical need, but just want to have a smoke every now and then. Will I still have to make a trip downtown to a shady looking neighborhood and yell “mota mota” at a ramshackle apartment and wait for some bandana-wearing kids to throw down a dime sack? Or do I have to befriend a licensed toker whose only common bond with me is that we both smoke so he or she would share their stash with me? Or invest time and money to construct a dedicated growing space in my crowded studio apartment?
Or is getting marijuana from dispensaries somehow easier than getting vicodin from the pharmacy?
This inheritent decriminalization looks to be geared toward people who are currently able to obtain or cultivate, and are already in possession.
At this point it seems to me like even the proponents of prop 19 are part of an “i gots mine” crowd.
[...] there just aren’t enough G-men to police the nation’s most populous state. Prop 19 specifically forbids state, county, and local law enforcement from assisting in any operations to prosecute anyone for [...]
[...] [...]
[...] NORML has addressed this minority (and fallacious) opinion numerous times on this site and on the Audio Stash blog, but Dave really hits it out of the park here. Prop 19 Would Help — Not Hurt — Medical [...]
[...] [...]
[...] because there just aren’t enough G-men to police the nation’s most populous state. Prop 19 specifically forbids state, county, and local law enforcement from assisting in any operations to prosecute anyone for [...]
Once again yes, Prop 19 has NOTHING to do with Prop 215. Prop 19 is just for us who like smoking for no other reason other than it feels good. Also, I’m not sure anyone is really getting this part: WE ARE IN A RECESSION!!! A severe one at that and legalizing weed and setting up a regulatory system for taxation might be just the thing our state needs to pull us back out of it. But then of course, you’ve got people saying “Well who’s to say where that money’s going.” and you’d be right except for the fact that the money will be collected by local governments and communities and also spent by them. So this money will be likely showing up in schools, hospitals, homeless shelters, community outreach programs, and yes even rehabilitation clinics where courts USED to send people for marijuana violations in lieu of jail time. Yes these are the same violations which will now be protected rights under law. So personally, I feel a little better about the way some of our money will now be spent because of Prop 19. It legalizes something that the state used to spend billions to prevent (badly I might add). And if you’re worried about the people who will still get arrested under these new laws, then you’re probably one of them. I don’t sympathize with Al Capone for losing revenue when Alcohol Prohibition was ended and I don’t sympathize with Johnny Bags because he can’t sell a half a gram of shake for twenty bucks.
Alright let’s say you’re like me. I couldn’t for the life of me consume over an ounce a week and i don’t think many people could. I want to grow and under Prop 19 now I can. Not much because 5×5 is pretty small but definitely enough to keep my own personal usage down. This works great for me. As for anyone else, well I guess it depends on where you live. The proposition says that the regulations can be lessened according to the wishes of local governments. They’re setting up a framework for things to get better. Also, I’m not sure but are you suggesting that we need to defend criminal pot dealers? Why? If you want to go buy some weed, would you rather go to the bad side of town, have run ins with some shady characters, potentially get ripped off or maybe even robbed? Or would you like to run down to the corner store and buy a pack of joints for oh let’s say twenty bucks? If you’re worried about poor Johnny Bags having to resort to selling harder drugs because we made weed legal then maybe you also would’ve defended Al Capone during the end of Alcohol prohibition last century.
Actually, I’ve always wondered that myself. Is it really a big deal that you can’t have more than an ounce on your person at one time? If I had an ounce of pot and I got all my friends who smoke together and we all smoked as much as we possibly could throughout the day, we still wouldn’t have put much of a dent in the bag as long as it’s good stuff. Personally, I think wanting to carry around more than an ounce signifies potential criminal activity and that’s what we’re all trying to avoid. There’s no feasible way that anyone would need more than an ounce at any given time for personal consumption. Hell, if you smoke an ounce of tobacco in a single sitting, chances are it may do irreparable damage to your body. So if this is really anyone’s complaint, well… shut up. You’re a moron and you’re screwing it up for the rest of us
[...] NORML has addressed this minority (and fallacious) opinion numerous times on this site and on the Audio Stash blog, but Dave really hits it out of the park here. Prop 19 Would Help — Not Hurt — Medical [...]
[...] NORML has addressed this minority (and fallacious) opinion numerous times on this site and on the Audio Stash blog, but Dave really hits it out of the park here. Prop 19 Would Help — Not Hurt — Medical [...]
That is for sure a better way to spend your money! Also it seems that some of the comments people made are as if they did not read your WORD FOR WORD analysis , like the missed 2 out of every 3 words you wrote. Keep up the fight.
and thank you.
Anthony
Russ, I really like that one. Ya’ know it is all part of sustainable growing. I would think doing the parcel thing as a co-op, where everyone who takes “produce” off the property has already made their own privet investment into the co-op, and used their own sweat-equity into the growing of said “produce”, so could that be a loophole in this parcel thing? Or, all the caregivers who could have these large lots, and grow for several patients? Which seems like it would be easier on the grower. So ok, we caregivers have to pay some amount to state or local government to grow this weed, big deal. The benefits still out weigh the downfalls. We all need to remember that we are changing some of the hardest hitting and farthest reaching brainwashing schemes in our countries history. At least we will have made a start on it, let them rework laws over the next 5-10 yrs to really get the most out of it for everyone. The average smoker, the “powers that be” in revenue, or those who are sick.
I’ve wanted to do a co-op fruit and veggie thing here in central ca, but you just gave me a new branch to research. . .This is all a dream for now. I did my first grow this year and I am liking the the results.(btw my first fruit veggie garden was the year before last as I was always in apt’s before that.)
You have been duped.
I love this “it’s not legalization; it’s tax and regulation” complaint. Well, duh! Everything that is legal is taxed and regulated… in fact, it is the absence of regulation that defines prohibition in the first place. Is water legal? Are cell phones legal? Are tomatoes legal? Guess what? They’re all taxed and regulated.
You’re another one of the “I Gots Mine” crowd. “I am a Cal medical user.” Really? Well, guess what? Only 10%-20% of the cannabis consumers in California are!
As for “suspiciously missing”, please go read http://stash.norml.org/prop-19-is-the-best-thing-to-happen-to-medical-marijuana-patients-since-prop-215 so you can have Dennis Peron’s lawyer explain to you the rules of statutory construction and the importance of the “Intents and Purposes” (as you call them “the preliminary section”).
I think prop 19 is doublespeak. Its not really legalization but tax and regulation.In California we have a long history of “Doublespeak” initiatives and unfortunately this is another one, that is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
I am a cal medical user, I originally thought that this so called legalization would be a step forward even if there was competition from corporate growers for those currently providing medicine. I have since changed my mind. Note the name of this bill:
The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010
Cannabis is currently legal in ca and it is not hard to get it ( here in LA county) for stress related medical use. That doesn’t mean you are not healthy. We all know cannabis is great medicine for stress.
However, after reading the actual bill in my election guide and realizing it will tax & restrict my rights as a medical user, I am no longer fooled by the misinformation. Here is link that explains it by an attorney.
WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE THE 2010 TAX CANNABIS INITIATIVE: 18 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW http://thehive.modbee.com/node/20404
http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html
Prop 19 would restrict and tax the rights of current medical users contrary to what proponents are saying. Read the law yourself, but don’t get the intent section mixed up with the actual law. My alarm went off when I realized the language referring to current law “except as permitted under Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9 of the Health and Safety Code”, is only in the preliminary section and suspiciously missing from the actual law. Read the law yourself here and decide if your willing to give up your current rights. I am not.
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/text-proposed-laws.pdf
[...] NORML has addressed this minority (and fallacious) opinion numerous times on this site and on the Audio Stash blog, but Dave really hits it out of the park here. Prop 19 Would Help — Not Hurt — Medical [...]
How about if people take that money to http://Yeson19.com where they know they are contributing directly to the campaign and not just some guy trying to make a buck by putting up a CafePress site?
Support Proposition 19 on the November 2nd California ballot! Get your word out by going to:
http://www.cafepress.com/legalizeinca
You can get several styles of T-Shirts (Men, Women, Children, Pets), Bumper Stickers, and even coffee mugs!
Check it out and find what works for you! Support the legalization of marijuana in California!
[...] NORML has addressed this minority (and fallacious) opinion numerous times on this site and on the Audio Stash blog, but Dave really hits it out of the park here. Prop 19 Would Help — Not Hurt — Medical [...]
[...] issue for the organization is safety of their workforce and the langauge of the proposition, which Stevenson called “poorly written.” She said that the [...]
High tech mini-storage. Just make sure that each unit has its’ own electric meter. Then you’re just a landlord/horticultural consultant.
First of all, you don’t have to limit yourself to one ounce from all your plants in your 25 sq ft garden. One ounce is all you can have on you AWAY FROM your garden. AT your garden you are allowed to have all the harvested and processed marijuana you grew.
Medicinally, you have no defense to DUI. You are as likely to get a felony DUI under Prop 215 as you will be under Prop 19. If “Johnny Law” accuses you of DUI, now or later, you shut the hell up and get yourself an attorney.
Please vote yes! We here in the rest of the country are counting on this passing! I am in Virginia where the marijuana laws are HARSH!!!! It is a step in the right direction! And like someone said here, later we can take more steps in the right direction. Please, Please, Please vote yes! This will tell the rest of the country that marijuana is not the evil the government says it is and we can all benefit from this PLANT! To those opposed to the PROP 19, we beg you to vote yes and let the dominoes fall for the rest of the country! You might not agree with certain things that are in the prop. but nothing is perfect and of corse we don’t want government to rule our lives even more. But they already are by sending us to jail for non violent offenses for a PLANT. 2009 was almost a RECORD year for marijuana arrests! We need to end this PERSECUTION and this is A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION!!! Look at the BIGGER picture!!!!!
ya possession and usage legal but we all know how it works DUI’s on marijuana go up. All the jonny law has to do is start accusing you all of DUI and the burden of proof lies on you give them a UA you fail, refuse and your driving privledges are taken away. and you still will have to plea to the DUI.If they can’t get you felony for possession they’ll get you for felony DUI’s.At least medicinally you might have a defense,where in a out of state court you say well it’s legal in California there going to laugh your ass right to jail or prison.And how do you stay within your numbers one ounce is about a square foot plant . I’m a legal patient I know how my medication grows.Don’t get me wrong,it might be a step forwards but where most states don’t even see it as a legal legitimate medication I think it’s a lose lose situation in my eyes.
I enjoy informed debate as much as anybody, but if all you have is “this is bad” and “ur dumb”, then my retort can be summed up with four simple letters: “STFU”
That’s a troll ! Russ your answers are great, yet getting the vote out is the important thing.
Nowhere does it say legalization? I guess technically speaking, pressing CTRL+F and searching for “legalization” is going to yield “no results found” in Prop 19. However, I think this little piece:
…sounds a lot like the dictionary definition of “legalization” to me.
So to answer your two questions: No and Yes.
Now, you can answer two questions:
1. Do you have a recommendation for the medical use of cannabis by a doctor in California (a.k.a. a “Prop 215″ rec)?
2. Which capitalist scheme did you use to afford the computer you’re using to insult me?
ARE YOU GUYS ON THE YES ON 19 SIDE JUST RETARDED OR HAVE YOU NOT READ THE BILL???
This bill will absolutely hurt California pot smokers/growers/occasional tokers. Nowhere does it say legalization. In fact it creates new serious laws in places where there are none now. Please get informed people, this is just a capitalist scheme for Richard (peice of sh*t) Lee.
VOTE NO ON 19!
[...] Want to learn the facts about Prop. 19? Check out Russ Belville word-for-word analysis here. [...]
[...] like to educate me on how it will affect current medical patients/growers please do so. Peace! http://stash.norml.org/californias-p…-word-analysis Reply With Quote + Reply to [...]
[...] undertakes a word-for-word analysis of Prop. 19: a real word-for-word analysis, not a cut-and-paste exercise in magical thinking such as that published by NORML’s Outreach Coordinator Russ [...]
[...] Want to learn the facts about Prop. 19? Check out Russ Belville word-for-word analysis here. [...]
I don’t think California understands what this means internationally. If California passes 19, Mexico immediately legalizes. If Mexico legalizes I think Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama legalize. If they legalize, Ecuador, Chile, Peru, Argentina and Brazil legalize. A few years later Columbia and Venezuela and the islands. California knock that domino down.
I just used this and logic to change a no voter to a yes voter. People it can be done. Our voice our strong even alone if we speak the truth. Together it will change the world. Vote Yes and tell other to do the same. If you are not from Cali talk about it with anyone you can from the state. You can help get legalization, just speak well and stay calm, they will listen. You will more then likely change their mind if it needs to be changed.
[...] prolific detractors is NORML’s National Outreach Coordinator, Russ Belville. He states, in one of his many diatribes against marijuana advocates who oppose Prop. 19, “I am no lawyer… hell, I’m not even [...]
[...] can also read Russ’ word-for-word analysis of Prop. 19 here. The TaxCannabis.org website also has an excellent and comprehensive FAQ section [...]
RUSS, I enjoy reading your posts. I get some really good info that I did not know before. The fact that is can be 1×25 plot but does it have to be connected? Can it be two 1×12.5 or two 1×10 and a 1×5? I am excited about this passing and I signed the petition on Facebook about protesting the banning of the leaf for marijuana ads. There is an rumor that Marlboro has Black Label for Marijuana cigarettes, its kind of funny that keeps popping up, wonder if they would have filter and non-filtered? They could call it Marlborjuana,LOL.
[...] http://stash.norml.org/californias-p…-word-analysis heres two links with information on the prop 19. read the actual text for the proposition. dont go [...]
[...] can also read Russ’ word-for-word analysis of Prop. 19 here. The TaxCannabis.org website also has an excellent and comprehensive FAQ section [...]
I first toked back in 1951, and have continued on to my current age of 72. During that time I was gainfully employed, supported a family, ran a successful business that provided work to one full time and several part time employees, paid my taxes, participated in community life.
I remember when a ‘nickel’ was a small box for wooden matches filled with tiny flakes. These would be husbanded to the last grain. Then we had kilos of Mex for $40. Then pot began to be sold for outrageous profit. An ounce of pot cost more than an ounce of gold.
I expect that we will find that pot growers experience the same price adjustments that we find in the wine industry. Wine runs the gamut from Thunderbird and Night Train all the way to Chateau Yquem, 1955 and Chateau Rothschild 1966. We will find cannabis with smaller THC content available cheaply. I know construction guys who can’t drink, but who toke low grade “working” pot during beer breaks. Noone minds this. There will be a way found around this legal problem.
On the upper end we will have pot bred for appearance, taste, and effect. The cachet, grand prize winner at this year’s Cannabis Cup, will be a source of prestige and profit for the grower.
I have problems with the proposition, but I will definitely vote for it’s passage. I’m old enough to remember when marijuana was……dumdedumdum…Narcotics. That home-grown drug that drives it’s victims MAD! Think sinister Mexicans in zoot suits….here, kid, the first one’s free…
Pot was outlawed partly as an anti-Mexican and Blacks ordinance. They were the principal consumers of marijuana. You don’t want THEM to move next door….Most whites who smoked were jazz musicians, and we know how decadent….
Isn’t it time to take this step to right a 70 year old wrong? Have you ever seen somebody lying in the gutter with a joint in his hand? It’s a big step in the right direction, and we can take other steps in the right direction as the fearful among us realize that they’re not going to be victims to some nameless dread. PASS PROP 19!!!
What negative consequences do you predict? I predict the opposite – the other states will see that nothing much changes, except they spend less policing marijuana and they make money from tax revenues.
And what if Proposition 19 does pass and sets back the movement 20 years, as other states see all the negative (and possibly unintended) consequences?
I’ve been tossing around the idea of starting a side-business that would set-up or install 25 Sq Ft personal grow-ops for people who wanted to grow their own if or when Prop 19 passed. When I was in college, my roommates/friends and I tried growing bud hydroponically (and later shrooms) out of our apartment, just to see if we could. It was interesting to see the things a botany major, an engineering major, and a finance major (me) could come up w/ such limited space, and right under the nose of our landlord. I should call those guys up and see if I can lure them here to CA to help out.
“Your planting space can be 25 square feet. Could be 5?x5?. Could be 2.5?x10?. Could be six round pots 11.28? in diameter. But how big those plants grow is not limited to five feet in height or width. So maybe you grow a 1?x25? strip of plants that each have roots extending 10 feet and grow to a height of twelve feet tall and eight feet in diameter.”
Sshhhh! Dude, you’re giving away some trade secrets! Just kidding, Russ.
Seriously though, as an Oregonian, you’re probably doing more for this measure than a lot of us Californians. I’m only trying to sway the people around me, and it’s probably an easier feat here in the Bay Area than it is in SoCal or farther upstate. I know how a majority of the Bay is going to vote. So, thanks for all of the work you’re doing on the NORML Stash for Prop 19. [BTW, I was the one who dropped this on StumbleUpon, which may explain a fraction of the views and comments.]
Good idea. I’ll put up a button tonight.
Really? So you’re telling me that if I grow my 5×5 garden now, absent a Prop 215 rec, I’m in the clear? So when, let’s say, there’s a domestic dispute at my home, I can call the cops and have them come over to settle things, and I don’t have to worry a bit about the smell of my 5×5 garden, the sight of a cannabis leaf, or my pissed-off spouse blurting out, “Check out the pot he’s growing in the closet!” to the cops? Or if I think there’s a prowler outside, I can call the cops and the light and heat from my 5×5 grow op won’t give them any pause?
Let’s see if I got this right: because people who grow 10x10s now get busted, and people who grow 10x10s after Prop 19 passes would get busted, I should vote against my right to grow a 5×5 with absolutely no fear of being busted. Do I have that correct?
Do you understand how ludicrous that sounds to most of America? Here we scream and wail that “marijuana is medicine”, and it is, but we have no problem with “the brothers” selling untested, unknown medicine to frail, sick and dying strangers on the street? Was it properly cured? Were pesticides and chemicals used in growing? Did “the brothers” shake the keif off for themselves before selling the buds? Does that 4 grams really weigh 4 grams? None of that bothers you?
Even for the recreational user, imagine your scenario replaced with “the brothers” hawking clear moonshine liquor in Mason jars on the street corner. You think they should be able to legally compete with Smirnoff in the liquor store?
Nope, factually incorrect. Prop 19 specifically states you have the right to carry your ounce even in areas that don’t allow for the buying and selling of weed.
It’s big bad evil Oakland again. Since Oakland did it this way, either (a) Oakland will be the only place to legalize commercial production and sales or (b) if any other city adopts regulations, they’ll have to do it just like Oakland. Ridiculous! In fact, our opposition (you know, the cops and courts and corporations and politicians you’re agreeing with who think marijuana should remain illegal) is pointing out that the local control in Prop 19 is going to lead to municipalities “racing to the bottom” to provide lower taxes and lower fees in order to compete with Oakland. “Squeezed out? Can’t afford that $211,000 license in the East Bay? C’mon up to Ukiah, where our license fees are only $20,000 and we’re selling a hundred of them!” “Ukiah thinks you can afford twenty grand. Ukiah thinks a hundred sellers is enough. If you’ve had enough of high fees and restricted licenses, come on up to Redding, where our licenses are only $2,000 and we have no limits on numbers of licenses. Our proximity to Oregon also makes us a #1 travel stop for California tourists heading down I-5″ And so on.
Yes. People who follow the law are often taxed to bust people breaking the law. Taxes from beer sales sometimes fund DUI patrols. Taxes from cigarette sales sometimes fund “We Card” ID stings. And yes, taxes from people’s purchases of legal commercial marijuana may fund busting people illegally producing commercial marijuana.
The basic thing you’re offended by is that the easy, sleep-til-noon, pay-no-taxes, subject-to-no-inspection, following-no-quality-controls, 1000%-markup-based-on-ruined-lives weed dealer lifestyle is coming to an end.
Prop 19 is not perfect, but passing Prop 19 gives us the chance to perfect it. Marijuana’s illegality is the #1 thing stunting our political power. Your average toker can’t be vocally pro-pot, lest he lose a job, a scholarship, a license, or even friends and family. The vast majority of pot smokers aren’t selling it, they’re buying it at insane prices. The vast majority aren’t wanting to grow massive gardens for profit, they just want to grow their own and maybe some for friends so they don’t have to pay insane prices. Prop 19 LEGALIZES that vast majority.
Yes, the folks involved in illegal marijuana for profit will still be busted – just as they are now; no change there. Besides, they always told me the ounce cost $300 because of the risk of being busted – you can’t charge for the risk and then complain we’re not taking the risk away. And yes, a tiny minority of adults who like to toke with teenagers will face a new crime to be busted for. But if the cost of legalizing marijuana for 98 casual joint puffers is the 1 guy who would have been busted anyway still gets busted and the 1 guy who likes to toke with teenagers gets busted, I can live with that for a couple of years until the next initiative gets on the ballot.
You’re very confused.
First off, you’re confusing “arrested for” with “criminal”. Today if I’m caught with a joint, I’m not arrested, but it is still a crime. I end up with a misdemeanor drug offense on my record for life. This prevents me from getting student loans, can affect my job and housing prospects, can be used against me in child custody, and so forth.
No, they won’t.
Possessing an ounce of weed will not be a crime – you will not get a criminal record (arrested or not).
Growing a 25 sq ft garden will not be a crime.
Possessing everything you harvested from that 25 sq ft garden at the garden will not be a crime (this could be a whole lot of cannabis!)
Opening a store to buy and sell weed – in some cities – will not be a crime.
Also:
The smell of marijuana is no longer probable cause
The sight of marijuana is no longer probable cause
Companies will be unable to discriminate against marijuana users
What you’re seemingly saying is that there are only two models: one where marijuana is a crime in all circumstances and one where marijuana is free in all circumstances. We don’t even have the “free in all circumstances” model for beer, why do you think we’d have it for marijuana? You can be jailed for providing beer to minors. You can be jailed for drinking beer in public. You can be jailed if you try selling beer without a license. You can be jailed if you brew more than 100 gallons of home beer.
Here you’re confusing square feet with cubic feet and the parcel for your garden with the plants themselves. Your planting space can be 25 square feet. Could be 5′x5′. Could be 2.5′x10′. Could be six round pots 11.28″ in diameter. But how big those plants grow is not limited to five feet in height or width. So maybe you grow a 1′x25′ strip of plants that each have roots extending 10 feet and grow to a height of twelve feet tall and eight feet in diameter.
And remember, you can keep the processed harvest from that garden at your garden. How much do you think you can harvest from a 25′ row of cannabis plants?
Uh, the 3 million Californians who smoke pot and for whom one ounce and a household garden and an end to pee testing for a job seems like a dream come true?
Kinda like how the taxes on beer can be used to fund DUI patrols by the cops or underage liquor store stings.
We are setting up a LEGAL right to use, possess, and grow cannabis. We are setting up a possible LEGAL right to buy and sell cannabis. So, yes, if people don’t follow the law, we’re setting up a system of checks and balances. What good is a legal system if there is no way to police the flouting of that legality?
Jesus, it’s the big bad Oakland again, as if after Prop 19, the only place you’ll ever be able to buy weed is Oakland. Don’t like Oakland? Grow your own! Or lobby your local city to adopt better regulations than Oakland. Or just become a Prop 215 patient and do what you’ve been doing now.
(I’ll never understand why some people oppose a corporation creating jobs, paying taxes, following environmental and safety regulations, and undermining murderous drug traffickers by making a profit selling $300 ounces, but think the one guy who creates a job just for himself, pays no taxes, may be polluting and unsafe, supporting a system that enriches murderous drug traffickers by making a profit on $300 ounces is some sort of folk hero freedom fighter.)
Because… why, after Prop 19 passes, California will never be able to propose another voter initiative?
To “really legalize” (whatever the hell that means) we first have to have massive voter and political support. So long as marijuana possession is illegal, most our supporters must stay in the cannabis closet, for fear of job loss and other repercussions. But once Prop 19 passes, marijuana possession is LEGAL. Now millions of tokers can come out and vocally support the next marijuana measure to extend more freedoms in 2012, 2014, and beyond.
But we get NOWHERE by defeating Prop 19. Marijuana remains illegal, and when the next initiative time comes around, folks will believe that Prop 19 was too liberal, and must be tightened up in order to pass. One rarely sees a conservative initiative fail, only to be replaced by a more liberal initiative in the next cycle. The “Stoners Against Legalization” who think 19 is too conservative won’t be a fart compared to the windstorm of the status quo who believe it to be too liberal.
So either something worse that 19 gets offered up, which you guys will hate even more, or something better gets offered up, which will turn off even more of the on-the-fence marijuana-ignorant voters who barely could have voted for a limited one ounce and 25 sq feet.
If you think people should continue to be misdemeanor criminals for possession one marijuana joint and felony criminals for growing one cannabis plant…
If you like voting on the same side of a marijuana issue as Los Angeles DA Steve Cooley, San Diego DA Bonnie Dumanis, and dispensaries that charge you $15/gram and don’t want competition…
If you think “legalization” means strangers should be able to sell you unregulated cannabis, you should be able to grow a massive garden, and you should be able to smoke anywhere you please, even in front of children…
Then join Johnny S. and Arnold Schwarzenegger in voting No on Prop 19.
But if you’re politically mature enough to understand that:
We don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good…
Half a loaf is better than none…
Change comes incrementally…
Then join NORML, MPP, SSDP, and the vast majority of your fellow tokers in voting YES ON PROP 19!
its about time. we should be able to do whatever we want. ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE ME. if i wanna smoke, thats MY right,!!! NOT ANYBODY ELSES. its my body,my mind, my decision.
Russ,
Thank you for posting that, I responded before and it didn’t show up on other Norml blogs, so I aprreciate your fairness.
I just have difficulty how you are saying pot will be legal when ALL of the same marijuana crimes that you can be arrested for will still be crimes ( except having a tiny 5×5 grow space). You said that I could produce a pound per plant and have six plants in that space, it doesn’t make sense unless you are talking exclusively indoor which require a large investment and creates more pollution through electricity use. Why can’t grow six plants outside just one time a year and let them get as big as they will? Each plant unless stunted will take up more than a 5×5. It doesn’t sound like legalization if the only change is instead of a ticket you can legally possess only under an ounce, after all,aren’t we trying to help the people getting arrested and imprisoned for marijuana with this law. But even after passing 19 as you said,
“selling dime bags on the street will still get you time. Yes, growing more than 25 sq ft will still get you time. Yes, possessing more than one ounce will get you time. Those things will get you time NOW” and then you suggest that we could still break the marijuana laws with respects to amounts of weed or the size of our gardens because they wont have a reason to get a warrant or harass us? I understand that could be a benefit, but does it really seem like it’s legal then?
Who will benefit? Under prop 19 , Section 11302 A
The taxes collected can be used to for “enforcement against unauthorized activities”(under prop 19). This refers to unlicensed grows, your neighborhood dealer and the usual suspects that are going to jail now….. and this new law will give them more money to enforce the continuing drug war specifically for jail-able marijuana offenses. That is not legalization. But it will ensure profits to the big grows in Oakland, by driving out competition. Also according to Agramed’s Oakland Projections, they need to sell their pounds of weed for $2800 ( before taxes and before retail) to meet their projected profits according to their own estimates of production. That doesn’t sound like a huge price drop…
I know your heart is in the right place Russ, but I hope I can show you that this bill is compromised by the greed of those who wrote it.
TO REALLY LEGALIZE WE MUST FIRST DEFEAT 19
I’m glad that you see how stupid It is for people to say they would ever need more then an ounce when you can just buy more at the store, legally.
No one was making that point and it was driving me mad.
If this is legalization, why are all of the crimes you can be arrested for the same? obviously, you will be able to grow a 5×5 space of ganja, but chances are slim you’d be busted for that now anyway. Most people in jail for going had bigger gardens than that. Also the brothers who sell a joint on the street will go to jail even if they sell it to an adult or even a medical marijuana patient. Also anyone of age to smoke transporting an ounce of weed will also be arrested. Why are they calling this legalization. In Oakland( the model for cannibiz) only four places will be licensed to produce and the money and fees from that will go to bust the other “illegal grow rooms”, Is this legalization, sounds like funding the drug war to me.
Please don’t moderate me out. ThANKS,
Amigo DeLaGente
@Cannabiscat The other important thing to keep in mind is this: People have been trying for decades to convince the government to reclassify marijuana because it does not belong in Schedule I. There has been no success, because control over that lie is firmly in the hand of government agencies who are heavily influenced by the big pharmaceutical megacorporations who benefit from continued prohibition.
By contrast, Proposition 19 will become law BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE which means, #1 we can actually make this change in spite of certain government employees having their heads too far up their asses to think straight, and #2 When it passes, from now on POLITICIANS WILL KNOW THEY FACE POLITICAL SUICIDE IF THEY GO AGAINST THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY so it will have a major impact on the way politicians publicly speak about marijuana in the future.
Again, I implore you, if you want massive change on a massive scale let’s start with the population and laws of California which represents literally tens of millions of US Citizens (over 35 Million people). If Prop 19 passes, it will be like firing a nuclear photon grenade of freedom right into the dark heart of the dragon of evil, immoral prohibition, and when that baby explodes, the entire beast is coming down.
Brilliant! Even the sickest patients I know don’t use an ounce a day. With legal marijuana, like you say, you could go buy another ounce tomorrow.
prop 19 is how we get our foot in the door.people who complain that it limits this or that are ignorant.It’s better than what we legally have now.Right now I’m waiting to be caught and sent to prison because the police smelled marijuana and kicked in my locked bedroom door,if you vote yes on prop 19 you can deter such volatile,heinous police activity, you return some of our civil rights and personal privacy.
What the heck? I didn’t hit “submit”!! I have a ghost at the keyboard with me apparently.
Regarding the Federal misclassification of marijuana: Both the AMA (American Medical Association) and the California Medical Association have come out publicly in support of medical marijuana and CALLING FOR THE FEDS TO RESCHEDULE MARIJUANA. Various parties, with the full backing of science, logic, reason, and the facts, have called upon the Federal government to reclassify marijuana because IT DOES NOT MEET ANY OF THE CRITERIA of Schedule I narcotics by definition.
Unfortunately, so far, the DEA and FDA’s response for decades now has been to stick their fingers in their ears and sing “LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA.”
If you want to change things on a Federal level, there is NO BETTER WAY to get that ball rolling than to VOTE YES ON PROP 19. Why? Why does this do anything substantial when Prop 19 only impacts state law? Because THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO DO NOTHING about their lies. They will be forced to take some kind of action, because local police will no longer be doing anything to bust marijuana users as long as they’re in compliance with the state law.
So the Federal government will be facing a situation they will not be able to ignore. If they want to prosecute people under Federal law, do you think they have the resources to bust millions of Californians in hundreds or thousands of cities across California? And even if they did, do you think the public would go along quietly with such a perverted misuse of public resources? HELL NO!!
Passing Prop 19 is the important step of pulling one cornerstone card out of the entire house of cards. Soon, the entire prohibition will crumble. It may take a few years, or ten years, who knows — But we are about to set into motion an irreversible chain of events. PLEASE BE A PART OF IT. Thank you.
@Cannabiscat While it isn’t ideal, we have to take baby steps, that is how all major reform happens. This is a MAJOR huge step in the right directions. In the future, when all of society sees that civilization as we know it has not crumbled to the ground and the gates of Hell have not opened to swallow us all alive, then we can work on lessening restrictions even more. Only after decades of educating the public and fighting hard for the truth have we finally ended up where we have a CHANCE of passing this law, which is infinitely better than the current prohibition. In spite of the shortcomings, we should not oppose Prop 19 just because it isn’t perfect. We will work out the kinks later. If Prop 19 fails to pass, this will embolden our opponents, discourage freedom fighters, and could set the movement back ten years.
Regarding the Federal misclassification of marijuana: Both the AMA (American Medical Association) and the California Medical Association have come out publicly in support of medical marijuana and CALLING FOR THE FEDS TO RESCHEDULE MARIJUANA
Is there any way NORML can make a link to this page more prominent on the site? I had a heck of a time finding my way back to it so I could share it with some people. (I have since bookmarked it, but for the benefit of others, it would be great if this was “featured” so many more people would end up reading it.)
One point i don’t get is the ” over an ounce go to jail part “. Why I, you or anyone else would have more then an ounce when its legel?
People only buy that much cuss it IS ELLGEL, and it might be some time before you can get more. That, and prices go down the more you buy at once.
However, if you get it cheaper at the store, and if you run out you can get more at the store. Why O WHY do you need more then an ounce EVER??
So people stop useing this as “a way to justify this more then an ounce clam”.
Sorry for bad spelling you may find.
thanks for your time.
My grower (for my son’s medical marijuana here in OR) has a grow room that’s about half plants, half storage/infrastructure/etc. Total room dimensions are probably 8×10, and it accommodates twelve mature plants and many seedlings. The yield is expected to be at least six pounds a year if he grows year-round for me (one harvest will probably be enough to last me a year or longer, given that I can also use the shake the make hash).
Growing outdoors is a different situation, but as plants get bigger, so does the yield. You may not get as much, having only one harvest a year, but the casual user will have plenty off a single outdoor plant (I’ve heard a good grower can pull three pounds of bud off a single outdoor plant).
More importantly, the people who /really/ need medical marijuana but are cared for in a government facility of some kind (like my son) CANNOT get it right now, period. That’s the #1 reason I’m pro-19 even if the wording isn’t perfect for every single situation out there. Legalization means real research and real medicinal development, not to mention casual smokers are completely set. Dealers are screwed — and you know what? I consider that very acceptable.
I don’t call all Prop 215 growers “I Gots Mine”, just the ones fighting Prop 19. Because they can’t be arrested for growing pot, but I can because I’m healthy and have too much integrity to lie to a doctor, and they are fighting to maintain a system that puts me in prison. Anybody who wants to imprison me for growing and smoking a personal amount of marijuana, whether they are pothead or prohibitionist, earns my wrath.
25 sq ft is the garden size, not the canopy size. My growers tell me they can do six plants in that space and get a pound of yield at least per plant. If you’re harvesting four times a year, that’s two pounds of buds per month. Even if you half that for crop failures and low yields, it’s a pound a month. I’m not convinced there are very many marijuana users, medical or not, who need more than a quarter pound a week.
Yes, people will stop going to jail, not because a lot of 25 sq ft gardens were leading to prison time, but because (for the fiftieth time) MARIJUANA WILL BE LEGAL.
Yes, selling dime bags on the street will still get you time. Yes, growing more than 25 sq ft will still get you time. Yes, possessing more than one ounce will get you time. Those things will get you time NOW (again, if you’re me and the other 80% of California pot smokers / growers who aren’t Prop 215 patients). But after Prop 19, how do the police investigate and prosecute such “crimes”? If you’re holding more than an ounce, unless you’re flashing it and showing it to the cops, how do they know? They have no probable cause to search you just because you smell like weed. If you have a 10×10 garden, how do they know? That electric bill and infrared heat signature are no longer probable cause to get a warrant to bust in your door.
If you have under an ounce of weed on you, it’s not the “Same old SH#@!”. It’s no fine, no search, no harassment, no ticket, no misdemeanor because (for the fifty-first time) MARIJUANA IS LEGAL.
I’m fascinated by the idea that since not enough people go to jail for an ounce of weed and a small personal garden, we shouldn’t legalize marijuana in those amounts.
Finally, you reveal the source of your “arguments that make sense” by invoking Oakland, assuming that the only way any city or county would legalize commercial production and sales is to implement Oakland’s $3 million insurance requirement and four licensed mega-grows with $211,000 permits. Prop 19 specifically gives commercial control to local jurisdictions – not to Sacramento or Oakland to dictate to the entire state.
You want your small-time family growers to continue their cottage industry? Then get involved at your local city council to pass regulations that make it possible for them to play the game! Why couldn’t, say, Ukiah, decide that the city shall have four licensed distributors paying a grand for a license, and that individuals could be licensed producers who pay a $200 license annually? Everybody I’ve read on the anti-19 sites seems to think that every city will have to adopt Oakland or Berkeley’s regulations, but it just ain’t so.
I won’t “moderate you out”, obviously.
Nothing’s stopping you from spending that time and energy on 2012, after Prop 19 passes in 2010.
I have been one of the biggest proponents of this campaign, but I have to say that it’s not too late, nor too stupid to put the brakes on and take a really good look @ this verbiage. I’m beginning to think that this is all just absolutely ridiculously backwards. What would happen if we spent this much time and energy reclassifying this plant and getting it out of schedule I – solving the problems across the board w/out creating any shady and limited laws?! WHAT THEN?
Radical,
I have read many of your points and I don’t understand why you you make charactures of people now who grow under the system of 215 as “I got mine” greedy people. Will they be able to continue to grow under the new system? Many of them would have a hard time growing even one plant in a five by five space, be cause pot just gets bigger than that outdoors. They certainly wont be able to sell it to clubs. Also, you seem to imply that people will stop going to jail for the crimes they going to jail for now like growing( but who goes to jail for a 5×5 garden-( I have only seen one like that, it was pitiful, all the rest were decent 10×20 spaces with a few kinds of weed in them or bigger ops- not getting rich but doing alright supporting their communities and families) these are the people that have been going to jail and they still will under the law, Most can’t afford the insurance permit and the like and likely they’ll only be a few permitted grows per county if Oakland is an example. Also the brothers selling joints or dim bags on the street are filling the prisons too, will they be exempt under this law? no, didn’t think so, but one good thing. If you have under an ounce of weed, something most cops ignore in California could get you up to a $100 fine now but with this prop 19 you will be able possess it. That doesn’t sound like legalization, sounds like the Same old SH#@! Still there will be the same imprison-able crimes. Almost nobody who WENT TO JAIL under current laws would be exempt from that under 19, just those who got a little ticket for possession and the probably nearly non-existent minority who went to jail for a 5×5 garden spot( LOL- that is small).
I know I can’t change your mind, I understand the desire to have it legal, I want it too. I just want it all the way legal. Please don’t Moderate me out. Please. It seems like none of these blogs sites accepts any arguments that make sense, please allow people to look into what I say, and please do it yourself too. Thanks,
Johnny S
I can but tomato seeds and grow my own or, go to the store and buy a tomato.
Is my being able to grow a tomato cutting into the grocers profit? No.
There may be price adjustments but growing a crop is always going to make money.
Its up to 6 months and a max of $1000 for an 21 and up to provide to an 18 to 21 year old
for an 18 and older providing to a 14 or older it 3 to 5 years. For Alcohol under 21 is a minor.
On the other hand if that 18 to 21 had a doctors medical card then he can smoke and buy it himself from a dispensary.
[...] can also read Russ’ word-for-word analysis of Prop. 19 here. The TaxCannabis.org website also has an excellent and comprehensive FAQ section here. [...]
[...] majority of Californians continue to voice their support for Prop. 19 — which would eliminate penalties for the private possession and use of marijuana by adults, and allow local governments to regulate [...]
[...] majority of Californians continue to voice their support for Prop. 19 — which would eliminate penalties for the private possession and use of marijuana by adults, and allow local governments to regulate [...]
[...] majority of Californians continue to voice their support for Prop. 19 — which would eliminate penalties for the private possession and use of marijuana by adults, and allow local governments to regulate [...]
Why couldn’t a person rent land like renting an apartment and grow his 5×5 on there?
[...] Here is an easy-to-follow break down of Proposition 19. [...]
[...] A majority of Californians continue to voice their support for Prop. 19 — which would eliminate penalties for the private possession and use of marijuana by adults, and allow local governments to regulate [...]
[...] majority of Californians continue to voice their support for Prop. 19 — which would eliminate penalties for the private possession and use of marijuana by adults, and allow local governments to regulate [...]
It’s funny you should mention this – one of the big arguments I see a lot is how pot would turn into a huge corporate business, and that would destroy the little guy. I can’t say that’s not true, but right now, the “Al Capones” are already destroying the little guy as best they can. You can bet the growers with acres of fields want to be the ones selling to every street dealer, every medical patient, etc. They’re obviously not in it for charity or else the street prices would be insanely lower than today.
Beer is legal, and while the masses may be happy with Coors or Bud, I myself prefer something a bit more local (and flavorful), like Ninkasi or Deschutes, even though it’s far more expensive. And whenever I get the chance to visit, my brother-in-law’s home brew is superb.
I guess I’d rather see big companies “destroy” pot, because the little guys will still sell their goods in the same way they manage to do so with all the crazy alcohol legalization. And let’s face it — growing our own cannabis is going to be a much easier endeavor when it’s legal, giving us a chance to make our own for personal consumption. Just like alcohol.
[...] majority of Californians continue to voice their support for Prop. 19 — which would eliminate penalties for the private possession and use of marijuana by adults, and allow local governments to regulate [...]
[...] PluginA majority of Californians continue to voice their support for Prop. 19 — which would eliminate penalties for the private possession and use of marijuana by adults, and allow local governments to regulate [...]
[...] majority of Californians continue to voice their support for Prop. 19 — which would eliminate penalties for the private possession and use of marijuana by adults, and allow local governments to regulate [...]
Money is the true key.
I recently spoke with a guy with a small grow who basically depends upon his crop to pay his bills and feed his family. His operation isn’t large, by any measure, and his customer base is made up of a few regular and loyal consumers.
He sees legalization as a severe threat to his livelyhood.
I absolutely hate that, but no matter what logic I use in my arguments with him, nothing will convince him that any form of legalization would benefit him or his family.
He’s just one little grower.
Multiply that by thousands of growers cultivating much larger crops, and it’s easy to see why the opposition is coming as much (or more) from the cannabis community as from the anti-pot crowd.
I’m an old guy, and I realize that the days when tokers had a kind of common bond, and we all dreamed of the day when we could feel safe sparkin’ one up without fear of arrest, are long gone.
Nowadays, folks have thousands of dollars invested in grow-ops. Every harvest means huge financial gain.
The hippies are gone, and enterpreneurs have taken their place.
Al Capone is in fear the whiskey will become legal, and his business will be gone.
I wish it were as simple as freedom for tokers, but it’s not. It amounts to a changing of the guard in a multi-billion dollar industry, and Proposition 19 is, I fear, a very long shot.
About idiots who are stoners but still oppose Prop 19: I am constantly amazed at how many people will vote against their own best interests.
I actually found a comment on a site where some person who did drugs was supporting drug testing, on the grounds that “it keeps us safe”. The claim was made of fail, really. First of all, she uses drugs and still works because she knows how to get around the tests, so how is it keeping drug-users from working if she’s working? Does she think that she alone is “smart” enough to get around the test but that all others are too stupid? She really believed that drug testing was protecting her from the other drug-users, and I still can’t wrap my head around that one. Second of all, she is suggesting that anyone anywhere who has ever done any kind of illicit drug is inherently dangerous, even when not actually on any drugs (because informed people know it doesn’t test impairment, just irrelevant past behaviors)–is she suggesting that she herself is a dangerous person? Or is it just every drug-user except herself is dangerous and she alone among drug-users can be trusted? Or perhaps this is an example of the complete ignorance so many have on the subject and she believes that it is protecting her from the “hard” drug users–when testing mostly targets harmless weed while the “hard” drugs so often slide past detection.
I don’t even smoke, much less smoke weed, but a little honest research on the subject will show that it is harmless and should be legalized, and that the Drug War is harmful and does the opposite of protecting society and should be ended. You don’t really have to be a user to face up to reality (if you care about that sort of thing), but it astonishes me every time I find a user who is completely clueless as to the facts and to what is in their best interests. Here I am arguing with my “clean” acquaintances on the subject, as a “credible” individual who can’t be said to just “want to get away with criminal behavior”, and there you are sabotaging my efforts on your behalf! That’s gratitude for you!
I know some morons who would say this is an indication of how dangerous “teh drugs” really are, that so many would be in blatant opposition of their own best interests, but it would be false. I’ve seen this attitude in too many different situations, not just in the Drug War policies. People are terminally stupid in this country and eager to do anything as long as “I gots mine!” for the moment, and there are too many greedy, dishonest people eager to take advantage of that. Sure, you gotz yours–you got your grubby crust of bread for the moment. What will it cost you down the line? Do you even care? Or are you like the idiots in the Simpsons, eager to give up their dental plan in return for a keg of beer?
I agree with pbeal on this–if you are a stoner and against Prop 19, you are a moron, selfish, or like to hang out in jails.
[...] California’s Prop 19: A word-for-word analysis | The NORML Stash Blog 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. Cities can tax cannabis and create fees for licensing and can use that to cover the costs of enforcing the law.(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. Licensed cannabis businesses have to pay their taxes. [...]
Here are the two things I’m most worried about, much more than the “I Got’s Mine” crowd of the selfish, ignorant, and/or gullible & misinformed. Two things that scare me:
1. I’m worried about out of state money pouring in from churches to fight this with fear mongering and lies. The same thing happened with Prop 8. They spent $40 Million and flooded my TV with a bunch of lies and religious nonsense and barely managed to pass that thing with 52% of the vote, because they had enough money to basically brainwash enough people into thinking there would be some harm to children by bombarding every TV in the state almost non-stop with their bullshit ads. If you think they won’t do the same thing with this initiative, you obviously don’t know what an insane posse they are, those zealots who falsely claim to be followers of the very first Hippie (Jesus). They want to make the law force everyone to observe their religious beliefs in one way or another, and they won’t stop until this country is a Theocracy. God help us all.
So… Every one in California who favors freedom, please if you can spare $25. or $5. or whatever you can afford, PLEASE support Prop 19 with donations to any legitimate organization that is asking for funds to put ads on air in California to promote a “YES ON 19″ message, because we MUST combat the lies, twisted logic, and ignorance by spreading TRUTH–and that takes money. Think of it as an investment in your own future freedom.
2. I’m worried that PEOPLE WILL BE TOO LAZY TO GET OUT AND VOTE because they think it will pass without their help!! Now, as badly as people want Prop 19 to pass, I know there will be some people who will say to themselves, “Wow, I’d rather just get baked today, just bought a new box of Cocoa Pebbles and this is my favorite episode of SpongeBob, and I’m going to smoke a bowl and maybe later if I feel like going out I might go vote… I mean, all the polls show we have over 50% for legalization, so my vote won’t matter…”
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE if you live in California and you’re over 18, PLEASE GET OUT AND VOTE ON ELECTION DAY!!! We need every single vote!! Because you’re not the only one who may be thinking that your vote isn’t needed. If there is one day all year you MUST get out of the house, it’s election day this November. We cannot afford to lose one single vote!!
If you think I’m being paranoid, consider this: After Prop 8 barely passed, I actually read an article by a gay rights activist who said that more than HALF of his gay friends DIDN’T EVEN BOTHER TO GET OUT AND VOTE NO ON PROP 8!!! The thought of this is absolutely mind-boggling. Do you know why they didn’t? Almost all of them, when questioned, told him, “Well, I really didn’t think it was going to pass.” Well no shit, Sherlock!! OF COURSE THE BAD GUYS WILL WIN IF YOU SIT ON YOUR ASS AND DON’T GO VOTE!!! Jeez!! I don’t know why it’s such a difficult concept to understand. EVERY VOTE IS IMPORTANT, EVERY SINGLE ONE. This means YOU.
So no matter what the poll numbers show going into the election, even if it looks like we’re going to take it by a landslide, remember THAT WON’T HAPPEN IF YOU PERSONALLY DON’T GO AND VOTE!!
OK, sorry, I know I’m spazzing out here but this is of dire importance to the future of our entire nation and the freedoms and liberties of our grandchildren. This vote is critical. Thank you, fellow Californians for listening.
That ounce is what you can carry one you not how much you can have at home. If you run out of the ounce bum some of another person or go home and get some more.
What do you mean if you can get that ounce?
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.
That says you can buy from an adult, or grow at home.
You and me both, even with so much BS going on against it I still feel it has a great chance to pass.
My brother under the new law, if it passes, where will peeps be able to purchase herb? Will it be sold in herbal stores, like any other “herb”..We’re the GS GHOSTSeekers YouTube Partners, we’re 100% behind prop 19..Furthermore man, I love your site..Maybe we can work on a project together, lol..
Have a nice day
Forrest xD
Prop 19 does not change Prop 215. There are exceptions written right into Prop 19 to allow for the use of cannabis by minors if protected under Prop 215.
You have the right to not have anyone smoking in your home and in Your backyard as a physical space(the fenced in property right behind your house). Yes as an American you have these rights and you say you are NOT Closed minded that people should get high elsewhere but then you try to deny them their right to do so by you and your friends Voting NO Thats sounds very Closed Minded.
People have earned the right to smoke as a Vietnam Vet, taxpayer, homeowner too. I don’t know how many Vietnam Vets that have a Medical Marijuana cards but I am sure there are a few. Even if the person is not a Vietnam VET but just a VET they have the right to smoke in their House and by you voting NO you are saying their rights are nowhere near as important then your rights. WRONG.
But don’t vote yes because an Open Minded thing to, but Do IT To right a wrong that has been going on for Over 70 years.
russ my 17 yr. old daughter is a cancer patient here in california .where does she stand in all this mess both now and if prop. 19 passes ??
You just made soda shoot out my nose I laughed so hard at this one. Since you seem adverse to backing up your wild claims with any text from the initiative to back them up, I figured I’d give you a hand… but my sarcasm filter is broken and it may not come out as you intended:
“As narcotics officers on the front-line each day, we know the devastating impacts Prop 19 will have…” on our easy jobs shaking down cannabis consumers and reaping federal Byrne Grant money to do so.
“A California employer will no longer be able to: screen job applicants for marijuana use” to discriminate against them for what they may be doing away from the workplace in their homes on their private time, or “regulate any employee conduct related to marijuana unless the employer can prove job impairment” — you know, that impairment we claimed was the whole reason we were drug testing in the first place.
“If an employer allows employees cigarette smoking breaks, they would have to allow marijuana smoking as well,” which is obvious from the Ballot Summary: “Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public…” and that section that says “This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of … any law prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve public safety,” and that part about “Personal consumption shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis … consumption in public or in a public place.” “Is your doctor stoned? Is your child’s teacher?” Is your average California Narcotics Officer?
“According to Prop 19, no driver over 21, can be required to be drug-free while operating a vehicle,” they could have a bag of weed on them when we pull them over and couldn’t arrest them unless they were actually smoking it or they were demonstrably impaired by cannabis. It’s all right there in the part that says “Personal consumption shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator.”
“California stands to lose $80 billion in federal monies! If Proposition 215 passes, California employers will no longer be eligible to receive federal government grants or contracts greater than $100,000.” Whoops, I’m sorry, I mistakenly cut-n-pasted the exact same argument you guys made in 1996. Though I am excited about the prospect of Washington messing with the eighth-largest economy in the world and 55 electoral votes to squash the will of their voters, that bodes well for a presidential reelection campaign.
“It won’t reduce the state deficit” that we contribute to by spending man hours and equipment flying around the Emerald Triangle to pay people like me overtime wages to pull weeds in a forest. There’s no way marijuana sales can balance the California budget, to be sure, so we ought to keep taking in $0 in taxes and spending a billion a year in futile enforcement.
“All Prop 19 will do is legalize marijuana in your community,” instead of allowing criminals to continue buying and selling marijuana, evading law enforcement with illegally-rewired grow houses and outdoor grows in national forests while providing no tax benefit through sales and payroll taxes from the jobs legal cannabis would create. God knows we wouldn’t want that!
OK, so nobody will smoke in your home. I agree with you. But why would you vote no if you think people should “get high somewhere else”, especially if they are Vietnam veteran taxpaying homeowners like you?
Nobody wants to legalize smoking pot in your back yard.
This November, there will be an initiative on the ballot to legalize the sale and cultivation of marijuana. If passed, this measure will have innumerable harmful effects on our state. That is why I urge you to join in opposing Proposition 19 donating to the campaign!
As narcotics officers on the front-line each day, we know the devastating impacts Prop 19 will have. Here are some additional facts about the initiative you may not know:
Smoking dope on the job? According to an analysis released by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office, a California employer will no longer be able to: “screen job applicants for marijuana use; regulate any employee conduct related to the use, transportation or cultivation of marijuana unless the employer can prove job impairment; or choose to maintain a drug-free workplace consistent with federal law.” If an employer allows employees cigarette smoking breaks and/or certain areas in which cigarette smoking is allowed, they would have to allow marijuana smoking as well. Is your doctor stoned? Is your child?s teacher? You won?t know.
Driving while stoned? According to Prop 19, no driver over 21, including bus, taxi, light rail train operators, or everyday commuters can be required to be drug-free while operating a vehicle. Although the initiative says you cannot use marijuana while driving, it is completely permissible to use marijuana just prior to getting behind the wheel. You might wonder if that bus driver next to your family on the freeway is stoned.
California stands to lose $80 billion in federal monies! If Proposition 19 passes, California employers will no longer be eligible to receive federal government grants or contracts greater than $100,000. This includes any California businesses, governments and educational institutions that receive federal money. This will drive up California?s unemployment even higher than the current rate of 2.2 million!
It won?t reduce the state deficit. Supporters say that taxing marijuana once it is made legal will reduce the state deficit. But, marijuana sales are illegal under federal law and the United States Supreme Court has ruled that sellers may refuse to pay the tax. Further, all taxing and regulatory authority is left to the cities ? not the state. You know what a jumbled legal nightmare that will become. All Prop 19 will do is legalize marijuana in your community.
Don’t smoke, have no intentions to smoke and will not allow anyone in MY house to smoke. This is my right as a homeowner and I plan to exercise this right. Get high, but get high somewhere else. I am not close minded I know the pros and cons. I see an adult giving it to a minor, I WILL turn them in, that goes for alcohol also. I and my friends are voting NO. NOT IN MY BACKYARD. Get high, get stoned, get thrashed somewhere else. I have earned this right as a Vietnam Vet, taxpayer, homeowner.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Do not be waylaid by specious arguments.
I have even seen the argument presented that marijuana smokers will be at great risk from lung cancer because if it is legalized, smokers will mix their marijuana with tobacco.
Here is the link to this preposterous claim by Keith Humphreys, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral medicine at the Stanford School of Medicine and a former senior policy advisor in the Obama administration’s Office of National Drug Control Policy.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/04/news/la-heb-proposition-19-health-20100803
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.
I wonder if it would much different then say buying a large parcel of land and dividing that into 20×20 for homes? I’m sure there will be people looking to this idea. It would be a great way to get around the 5×5 ft limit people are complaining about. What if it was zoned as private farm land leased out to people?
The trick is getting these individual 5x5s legally zoned as separate parcels, and that may not be possible.
I got this idea from what you said about buying a 25 sq ft of land.
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 private residence’s not per person?
not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel
Thanks Russ for clarifying that for me. Thats a great idea and something I’d be interesting looking into later on.
Will this also make Industrial Hemp Legal TOO? That would be SOO Awesome. To be able to grow HEMP for clothes, paper, and the Thousand of other uses.
Catherine, you’re so RIGHT – especially Hemp! Use this in emails, pass it along to all your friends, use it in Reader’s Comments…
Free Hemp! Free Enterprise! Free America!
Industrial Hemp Farms don’t cave-in, don’t explode, don’t pollute the oceans, the land, the air.
Industrial Hemp Farms don’t convert ‘food’ (corn) into fuel.
Industrial Hemp Farms don’t destroy forests.
Industrial Hemp Farms don’t scar the visual landscape.
Industrial Hemp Farms don’t produce poisoned wallboard.
Industrial Hemp Farms don’t kill people.
Industrial Hemp Farms will create industry, jobs, could help fuel our electric plants.
Free Hemp! Free Enterprise! Free America!
[...] What Does Prop. 19 Really Mean? Here’s a nice breakdown of the Tax Cannabis 2010 Act, and how it would play out, courtesy of [...]
I’m in Washington and am extremely excited to see California vote yes on the proposition. Washington has always been behind Cali in regards to marijuana laws by about 2 years. As for me, I work a job that I couldn’t risk losing with an illegal or even decriminalized system. Legal is the only way to go or else I can’t possibly feel free to indulge once in a while.
Vote YES on prop 19 California, show the world we don’t need to be afraid of our own government and passing laws we feel or right.
It means if you own property, you can grow there. If there’s a house on that property, you can grow there. If your property doesn’t have a house on it, you can still grow there on that parcel of land. You can’t grow on public land, no way no how.
So, I suppose if you were a renter, you could go buy 25 sq ft of land somewhere and grow your pot there. Hmm, I just thought of a great business opportunity: take a bunch of land, subdivide it into 25 sq ft parcels, lease the plots to individuals for pot farming. “No, officer, that’s not a one acre pot farm. It’s 1,742 individually-leased plots for personal 5′x5′ gardens. I’m just the guest of 1,742 Californians who asked me to care for their personal gardens, that’s all.”
It might be a stretch, but don’t think that some potrepreneur isn’t thinking the same thing…
If you can get that ounce. Looks like the only way to get it is to grow it and a lot of people don’t have their five by five’s. It’s a start, but we still need to keep pushing. We need our rightful commercial freedom.
Also, more than an ounce of weed? Really? Why is this that big of an issue? Even if you were a daily pot smoker at an average rate of 0.2 g a day (basically a bowl or two a day by my estimate), it’d take over four months to go through that much weed. Most PHARMACIES only allow most patients to renew their medicines every 30 days. So we’re getting a GREAT deal (by we, I mean the people of California; I honestly plan to move there if it passes…)! In my mind, the only people who should want this initiative to fail are dealers (for obvious reasons) and general haters of pot.
I’m from Texas, and people here are extremely weird about weed. Less than an ounce of weed gets you a criminal record (meaning no financial aid, you may lose your job, etc.)… All this for a mostly benign substance. I don’t understand why anyone who smokes weed (except for dealers, really) would vote no on this issue… Even with the minors thing (which I don’t condone), are the cops really gonna know if mostly 21-year-olds blaze with teenagers? If it’s mostly legal, are they really gonna waste time busting in your door to see if minors are getting stoned? I know plenty of minors who get drunk in the presence of 21+ people, which is ILLEGAL by the way, and for the most part, you don’t see cops raining on their parade.
[...] to "Everyday English". This may be what you are looking for, here's the link: http://stash.norml.org/californias-p…sis#more-17744 I know you weren't asking for opinions – but I have to say this, I don't see why anybody who is [...]
I am extremely concerned about that limitation. I want to see marijuana grown like corn, especially hemp. Cultivation of hemp for paper, clothing, food, oil, and other uses would be so economical, efficient.
(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.
Russ I have a question about this part:
in the absence of any residence, the parcel.
What does this mean? If you don’t own a residence you can have a parcel?
Also this part
nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.
If Prop 19 makes Marijuana legal then if you grow on public lands would that still be illegal? Can you get a license to grow on public land?
So if your landlord says NO to you growing you can grow some where else?
[...] Heres line by line analysis of Proposition 19 by my friend Russ Belville 06 Aug This entry was written by Mose Kalev, posted on August 6, 2010 at 8:00 am, filed under photographs. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. View EXIF Data Browse Older: Previous Post [...]
[...] to see for my self as well……… here is a link to the NORML word for word analysis of prop19 http://stash.norml.org/californias-p…-word-analysis (((( Together we stand Divided we all fall)))) Reply With Quote + [...]
AWESOME article!! Prop 19 written in laymans term. I’m a MMJ cardholder, and they still mess with us in Cali. As for the tax solution, I’m middle of the road on that one. There are still going to be infractions, the same as alcohol and tobacco. Hell, I get my cat stoned Vote YES on 19!!!
If I know my history, WRHearst of pulp fame incited the country against hemp, because he had an interest in trees for newsprint, and hemp was going to cut into his profits. I don’t recall any racism against blacks but he can be held accountable for some of the “Yellow Peril” mess. I think he was just a amoral, ambitious opportunist.
[...] California Prop 19 Word for Word Analysis Uncategorized [...]
Kwame Binta, white folks get arrested for cannabis as well.
Cannabis should definitely be legal for everyone!
I would argue it was not made illegal because of racism but greed. Jack Herer discusses this in detail in his books and interview’s.
I have a problem with no man, regardless of race or creed, who is righteous and just in all his way’s. We’re you married to the mother(s) of your child(ren)? Do you buy weed rather than pay child support? At the end of the day can you sit back and say “today I worked hard and earned my pay”? Are you a good example to your children of what a “man” is?
Quit blaming everything on the color of your skin. Bad things happen to everyone, from time to time, regardless of their race.
Reparations? Why should my tax dollar’s go to pay you reparations? Two of my great, great grandfathers fought for the Union during the war between the states. None of my people ever owned a slave. There were black slave owners and native American slave owners though. So, just who would you collect these reparations from?
Lastly, this is the land of opportunity man take advantage of it! Think about this as well…. would you rather be in the U.S.A. or Africa? Think before you speak next time, you give stoners a bad name.
Reparations indeed.
it is amazing that our country as close together as we stand can be so harsh and unforgiving. if our country could just put a face to the people who have had their life destroyed by this pointless prohibition we might have an easier time with legalization. i too am a single father, pot smoker, and army soldier and i fear i might loose my daughter and job because of my recreational personal use. i pray that this legalization is not just a false hope. We are all tired of living in fear from those who are supposed to protect and serve the citizens of this United States of America.
if we ever want legalization to happen we have to give way to precautionary regulations. i want to see legalization and any step forward is greatly appreciated. i cant wait for Cali to pass prop 19 cause to me that’s just one step closer to my home state doing the same. If we stand together our goals will be reached in due time.
[...] it. Standard disclaimer: I am no lawyer… hell, I’m not even a college graduate. Click here to read my Word-for-Word Analysis of Prop 19. Posted in Medical Marijuana [...]
[...] via California’s Prop 19: A word-for-word analysis | The NORML Stash Blog. [...]
You are absolutely right, Mississippi Hippy. The only one missing in these comments are the general “Poorly Written Legislation” people, who won’t vote “yes” b/c they think Prop 19′s language is too vague and believe it will end up hurting us more than it will help us (Prop 215 was poorly written too but look where we are now w/ it).
I always assumed that the closer we’d get to November would be louder and harder the people in the “Prohibitionist” and “Moralizer” camps would argue against the measure, and legalization in general, in an attempt to be the influential voice. The funny thing is, except for the usual suspects of law enforcement and politicians, they seem to be in the minority of these discussions and debates (god forbid they’re the silent majority). They’re probably happy w/ sitting back and letting us argue it out, while taking notes on how to drop the October Surprise.
Rabid, I actually knew and worked with Jack Herer. Let the man rest in peace and quit trying to play John Edward and claim to talk to the dead.
Your “simple infraction” is actually a misdemeanor drug conviction in the State of California. A conviction that haunts you for the rest of your life.
It will curb arrests, not the 1oz possession cases get pleaded down.
The only “Turns a simple infraction into a possible 6 month state in a state prison and 1000.00 fine” would apply to a very small subset of adult consumers who provide marijuana to people aged 18-20.
But your point-of-view is summed up here: “licensed grows can kill you livleyhood”
Because, yes, your untaxed, unregulated, jacked-up-prices, sleep-til-noon weed dealer lifestyle is coming to an end.
You write: “Decriminalization not Taxation” which I’ve learned from people like you means: Let me deal my $300 ounces and $3,500 pounds and don’t put me in prison for it. Let me charge the prices built on the risk of arrest and imprisonment, but don’t make me face the risk of arrest and imprisonment.
“Decriminalization not Taxation” is exactly what exists here in my home state of Oregon and in twelve other states in America. 1oz or less (3.5oz in Ohio) will only get you a ticket and no record. But over an ounce, busted. Growing weed? Busted. Selling weed? Busted. That’s the system that maintains the $300 ounces and $3,500 pounds from which you make your “livleyhood”.
Or by “Decriminalization not Taxation”, do you mean anybody can have it, buy it, sell it, grow it, no regulations, no taxes? If so, explain to me a couple of things:
1) Name another agricultural commodity – much less a mind-altering one – that enjoys the laissez-faire system you envision.
2) Under that system, wouldn’t that be freer than Prop 19, and thereby kill your $300 ounce price faster?
Hmmmm…
There seems to be several groups argueing this out.
The “Legalizers” (Folks who view prop 19 as better than the present system and will vote for it)
The “I Gots Mines” (Med MJ folks who erroneously think Prop 19 will restrict prop 215 rights)
The “If I can’t have it, I ain’t voting for its” (Immature18-20 year olds instant gratification folks)
The “Just like tomatoes” (folks that forget that cannabis is an intoxicant and tomatoes are not)
The “Medicalizers” (folks that say it should only be used as medicine)
The “I Wanna Shares” (Adults 21+ who want to use cannabis with minors 18-21)
The “Moralizers” (Pot is bad, because it is bad, because being high is bad, because it’s illegal because it says in the bible, I just don’t know where ’cause I never read it)
and The “Prohibtionists” (No way, Jose… antilegalizers).
Each group could be divided further and some folks fit more than one group.
Legalize it already!
Sheesh, this is the BS that got me so angry the other night! Stop posting this kind of BS. If the people vote 19 up, the legislators would be signing their resignations to try and make it illegal again.
Good point, Russ. Once again, greedy a**holes would rather lie for money than see the millions helped by ending workplace discrimination, allowing patients in hospitals (or in my son’s case, any government-funded facility) to get the medicine they need, etc. etc.
The Plant should never been against the law for adults to possess or to use in any shape form or fashion. We all know the law to make it a crime was passed based on racism, the problem is no one wants to address the role that this racist system has and continues to negatively effect so many lives in so many ways. I did six years for 28grams in federal prison. because the sacred herb made my legal gun illegal. i was not selling it, it was for personal use. I had no prior felony, no history of violence. I was a student in college, working at the college, a Street Vender and had just completed all requirements to start working as a bail-bond men. Now there years out of prison, because of my conviction I can not find a job, So I had to create my own home improvement business, but because of the state of the economy I am not able to pay all my child support so I gave what i could and can each month. but the state said that is not enough so they suspend my driver license now how am I suppose to pay child support when now I can’t drive my truck to do home improvement work which at time is my only means of any study income to make money to support my family or myself. So what are we to do now? I was only convict of a federal crime making me a convicted felon, because of the color of my skin, the length of my hair and my spiritual way of life. Reparations now!
[...] it. Standard disclaimer: I am no lawyer… hell, I’m not even a college graduate. Click here to read my Word-for-Word Analysis of Prop 19. This entry was posted in Blog. Bookmark the permalink. ← NORML SHOW LIVE back with [...]
Taxation is not legalization… can’t you guys get it through your head. They are not your friends and are the enemies of true legalization.
Turns a simple infraction into a possible 6 month state in a state prison and 1000.00 fine. Now tell me that is not back ass wards!
It will not curb arrests one bit as the people now getting arressted are for more than just an ounce. All this serves as big as ganja pharma and lining their pockets with cash while people still go to jail…. tell me who gets busted for an ounce or less here in Cali….??? fucking no one! it is for the commercial grows. All they want to do is limit what you can grow in order for them who have the licensed grows can kill you livleyhood.
Decriminalization not Taxation quit feeding the fiscal irresponsible!
To bad Jack Herer was not here… he hated this bill!
Yes, the new crime would be 21+ passing to 18-20.
I understand the high school / college age arguments. But the same argument can be made for alcohol. Sure, frat boys drinking could be aged 17 (I was a college freshman at 17) to over 21… but the 21-year-olds giving drinks to minors or allowing minors to drink can go to jail.
It’s an unfortunate reality that the “What About The Children?!?” argument is the only effective weapon, aside from “Marijuana Mayhem on the Freeways!”, that the prohibs have left. Any legalization campaign that doesn’t recognize this and goes on the offense on it is bound to lose.
here in upstate ny we are excited just to dream of the day when we can feel like americans and light up
Thank you for straightening that out.
OK, then, the only new felony (aside from diversion to minors by licensed distributors) would be for someone over 21 passing a joint to a person age 18–20?
BTW, I am NOT among those “people who want to smoke marijuana with teenagers with impunity,” as you suggest above. Obviously, you don’t have any children who recently graduated high school with their 17-year-old friends, or college students in their early twenties whose peers may well be under 21 years of age.
MediCann makes money by providing doctor’s recommendations for the use of medical marijuana under Prop 215.
A recommendation you would not need to spend $100+ for if Prop 19 passes.
So, readers, you do the math…
phase 1 Measure Z
phase 2 Prop 19
phase 3 Grow Farms for 4 people in Oakland.
http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html
Not much else to say. MediCann supports the medicinal use of cannabis. to us and our 199K patients cannabis is the safest medicine we can choose to take.
By the WAY, why does TAX CANNABIS ALLOW enabling powers from the legislators in Sacramento? NO OTHER LAW in the HISTORY of California has this…..SO why with this law and why NOW???
I think, so legislators can out right ban. AND, this is a local law, where do you SEE COUNTIES??????
You are incorrect – that exact felony is what currently exists in California code. Re-read the initiative. You’ll see:
By “is amended”, they mean, “here’s the current law and the new stuff we’re going to tack onto it.
Next you’ll see sections (a) and (b) – the one you’re concerned about – written in plain text. This means that these portions already exist in law (look for yourself: http://law.onecle.com/california/health/11361.html). Then you’ll see sections (c) and (d) are underlined, which is how in legislative text they indicate the new parts being added to the law.
So, the law that imprisons 18+ for passing a joint to a child exists now. When we pass Prop 19, it will still be illegal for adults to pass a joint to a child, but adults who use responsibly (a.k.a. not passing joints to kids) will be free from prosecution, punishment, fine, and sanction.
I find it telling that the loudest complaints I hear about Prop 19 seem to come from people who want to smoke marijuana with teenagers with impunity. I’m sorry, but the voting public generally and the responsible adult cannabis consumers NORML represents specifically do not support children using cannabis for non-medical purposes.
Why did you not address the only section that disturbs me the most, proposed 11361(b):
“(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.”
This means that an 18-year-old who passes a joint (perhaps at his or her own 18th birthday party) to a 17-year-old peer will have committed a felony punishable by 3, 4 or 5 years in state prison.
No such felony presently exists in the California Code. How can I vote for a proposed law that lowers penalties for those 21 and over in exchange for subjecting our 18-20 year olds to three years imprisonment and a permanent felony record passing a joint to a friend?
And in the promised land, “Radical” Russ Belville, I would imagine pot to be like tomatoes. In that promised land, we are all going to be so high that pot wouldn’t touch us, and would probably only be used as an aspirin.
Because, Catherine, nobody is worried about a bunch of fifteen-year-olds hopping your fence and stealing a bunch of tomatoes to get high. Nobody is worried about sellers of tomatoes overserving their customers who then drive a car.
I get so tired of the “pot should be like tomatoes” argument, because tomatoes will not get you high!
I know we all smoke pot and we like it a lot and we all know the alleged harms of weed are mostly bunk and that there are many medical and industrial benefits to cannabis to both people and the planet. I get that. But it ain’t tomatoes!
So we need to be realistic about how we regulate something that alters a person’s mental state. Granted, marijuana’s effect on the mental state is generally positive and benign – but it isn’t for 100% of the users. Currently the only two models society accepts for such substances are alcohol-and-tobacco and prescription drugs. As much as I’d like the greatest degree of marijuana freedom possible, realistically it is going to take a series of steps to get there — decrim, medical, dispensaries, limited legalization, and then, maybe, after a while, we start getting to the promised land (whatever it is).
I can grow tomatoes, all I want in my backyard which is considerably larger than five by five. I can give the tomatoes to my neighbors. I think I can sell them from my backyard without breaking some rule or regulation. If there is a rule or regulation then I ask indignantly, “Why?” What business is it of yours? My neighbor thinks my tomatoes are great, and wants a whole lot of them to can. He has friends that he exchanges excess canned tomatoes for their canned peaches. There really shouldn’t be any rule or regulation for this kind of intimate trading. We shouldn’t have to look over our shoulders for anybody waving some reg at us. The same should hold for the pot. I am sure some people are really good at growing stuff and enjoy the process of it. Why shouldn’t they be free to grow as much as they want? But as I said, I am still voting yes for this. This is a great start.
Tomatoes aren’t decriminalized. Tomatoes are legal.
Because tomatoes are a legal commodity, I can legally grow my own tomatoes and I don’t have to fear the cops busting down my door, seizing my contraband, and prosecuting me. Cannabis would be classified the same way under Prop. 19 — legal! That is: I can grow my own and not have to fear the cops busting down my door, seizing my contraband — because marijuana is no longer classified under the law as contraband.
Now, if I want to grow tomatoes commercially and sell them to a retail outlet; well then I am subject to regulation. Imagine that. Tomatoes are legal yet the commercial production and sale of them are subject to licensing and regulations. But doesn’t that make tomatoes any less legal? Of course not. This same principle applies to cannabis under Prop. 19.
Prop. 19 makes marijuana legal — just like tomatoes. End of story!
Decriminalized the way I meant it is like the way ‘Dad’ said it in the case of the tomato. There are no rules or regulations regarding the tomato. We are so used to pot being illegal that I guess it is difficult to see it like an innocent tomato.
I think different people see “decriminalized” as two different things. I once talked to a grower who said that decriminalization is what happens to a plant like the tomato. Anybody can grow it, buy it, sell it, etc. I don’t know where that definition comes from, or how it could ever happen without first regulating it, given our stance on alcohol and cigarettes (and the common perception that marijuana is as bad or worse than those). But that seems to be one definition I’ve seen a few times.
I don’t understand your point.
Decriminalization = if you have less than an ounce, you get a ticket and a fine. But if you have more, or buy, or sell, or cultivate, you’re a criminal who will be locked up in a prison
So, in other words, just like it is now in California (except maybe no misdemeanor conviction if California truly decriminalized).
If there is going to be legalized “buying a joint like a bottle of wine”, then the small growers are going to have to compete with the Ernest & Julio Gallos and Franzias of herb, too.
Like anything, the term “minor” all depends on the context of the application. If we’re talking about the age of majority or the age of consent, then yes, a person under the age of 18 is considered a minor. However, there are exceptions like the legal drinking age of 21 (and I’d know; many years ago, I got busted by a douchebag cop for a minor in possession of alcohol charge a week before my 21st b-day), which Prop. 19 is trying to mimic and set a standard.
If it does truly introduce a new punishment, so be it. But I’m still one who thinks the age of 21 is an acceptable age for legalized recreational toking, it’s really not enough of an issue to get butthurt over and try and vote against it. It’s a perfect age since, IMO, 21′s more palatable as a measure to vote for than 18. Imagine the arguments from the prohibitionist if 18 was the age. And like you said, it could always be changed afterward, especially if there was enough support.
Of course I am going to vote yes for this proposition. But I find myself wishing that we were just decriminalizing the stuff. That way the guys in Humbolt County can just carry on with their production and and compete with newcomers. I would like the ease of buying a joint like a bottle of wine. And just because I am voting yes doesn’t mean I am rushing out to buy. It could be I will never smoke it again because I am 62 years old. But it would be wonderful to know the silly criminalization of pot is OVER!
This is driving me batty, and I’m damned happy to see somebody respected really stick it to these ignorant (or perhaps greedy?) people trying to shoot down prop 19!
The big battle isn’t the ultra-conservatives or close-minded people fearful of this plant – that battle was already won when medical marijuana proved to be desired by the masses in so many states. Of course we’d love to change the minds of those people, but it’s unlikely to happen, and really rather unnecessary. Some of them are realizing on their own that cannabis isn’t evil, and some of them will never change no matter what.
The battle CA now faces is really quite sad. It’s a civil war. Dealers and growers making tons of money are helping to plant these little seeds of doubt. They use hard-to-follow legal-speak to their advantage and convince voters how bad prop 19 is. It’s despicable.
I get that greed is everywhere, but the cannabis community of all communities is one that always seemed so friendly and happy to me. Granted I’m very much on the outside looking in (I was one of the ignorant until my son’s situation taught me better), but still, seeing all this anger and knowing that somewhere people are purposely lying WITHIN THE COMMUNITY just to make a buck…. It’s sad.
[...] This will not happen. As I recently added to my last post, please read Russ Belville’s analysis of prop 19, and pay special attention to the exceptions noted. The prop 215 protection for medical use [...]
“Currently, anyone between 18-21 is still considered a minor, and selling to them can get a sentence between 3 and 5 years. This act doesn’t introduce a new punishment, it replaces jail with a fine for those ages. It is also the maximum fine, and the legislature can go with a lower fine if they want.”
No, a “minor” is a person under 18 in California. I checked. So it does introduce a new punishment.
In fact, the legislature would probably be able to lower the age limit for cannabis as well if they wanted to.
Well, yeah, I suppose. They should be able to IF Prop 215 gave them that right and protected them from arrests… Unfortunately, it didn’t.
“Prop. 215 does not give a broad freedom to medical marijuana patients to use marijuana anywhere, any time.” … “Proposition 215 was designed to protect seriously and terminally ill patients from criminal penalties for using marijuana medically. Only people with their doctor’s recommendation to use marijuana in medical treatment can take advantage of Prop. 215 as a legal defense against marijuana charges.”… “It changes how certain people – medical patients and their “primary caregivers” – will be treated by the State of California’s court system.”
via: http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/cmrguide.cfm
tl;dr version: Nope, non issue.
So if Prop. 19 does NOT supersede Prop. 215, then medical marijuana patients should be able to smoke in public wherever cigarette smoking is allowed in California.
I have never voted once in my life because it was my right as an American not to. I’m 24 and never cared much about voting because of such issues as marijuana being illegal, but it’s good to finally see a bill worth voting for. Prop 8 didn’t get my vote, but prop 19 will.
Please carefully reread the article, Nick. As Russ has stated many times throughout it, Prop. 19 does NOT supersede Prop. 215. Meaning, if there are existing medical patients who happens to be under-aged it won’t take away their right to MMJ.
As Russ and others have noted repeatedly, Prop. 19 in no way undermines or amends the medicalization protection already in place under Prop. 215 or SB 420.
I’m all for full legalization, and I fully supported Proposition 19 until I read this article and didn’t see any written protection for medical marijuana patients under 21.
“(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.”
Any law that would restrict patient access is something I can’t fully get behind, or is there something I’m missing?
Please pass this proposition. We are counting on you in Michigan.
Awesome!!! This is a beautiful bill! California, Please Vote YES!!! So what, there are a few imperfections, dont let that ruin it for the rest of the world.
What you May fail to realize,, being a californian is that the rest of the WORLD not just the USA the whole WORLD is waiting to see this happen. It will be like a dam bursting open I guarantee it.
You think the legalization of marijuana has made leaps and bounds in the last couple years its all because YOU CALIFORNIA passed 215 a few years ago. Now look, almost half of the US has adopted your laws, If you voteYES on this it will ENSURE ALL of the USA will adopt at least the medical laws.
Probably more than halfof the states will outright legalize within the next 5 years and that is almost Gauranteed!!! The rest of the world follows the US laws and drug policies as they are pretty much forced to by trade agreements etc… If you pass this law You WILL CHANGE the world. Way more than Obama could ever dream of!!!!
Do understand that the “criminal” in this scenario would be the 21 year old who provides to the 18-20, not the 18-20 who took the weed. The treatment of the 18-20 (most of those college students) remains the same as it is now…
…except that when they graduate college they’ll have a better chance of getting a job because Prop-19 severely kneecaps workplace pee testing.
I agree. Here in Alabama they are frightened into silence. Currently they are rounding up people here and forcing them to go to religion-based ‘recovery’ programs or face jail time. Most are afraid to speak out. I was forced to do ‘community service’ for having a ‘dilute’ urine test. I was clean but they said I had signed an agreement with them that superceded my 13th Ammendment Constitutional rights.
Pres. Obama should stop federal funding for state and local drug enforcement. This funding is their ‘cash cow’ for the time being. The law enforcement community here is BROKE. If it were not for the federal funds they would have to compete for a real job just like the rest of us peons.
So, if you are wondering, we are all hoping for the greatest success there in Ca. We are being scared into silence. The illusion that we have freedom is just that, an illusion. ‘Those who disagree shall pay, resistance is futile’. We are ruled by ‘The Borg’.
Help us please! Pass good legislation and don’t abuse it by providing fodder for the negative press corps. We want legalization also. This is the darkest corner of the U.S., with the most repressive government.
I meant “I do take issue with the age limit being 21 and the punishments for giving to adults between the ages of 18-21″. We don’t need to be making criminals out of college students in their prime.
Hey Russ thanks for doing this. I have debated with many of these growers and stoners against Prop 19 on various forums and you were on point with each of your rebuttals and explanations. There are certainly some imperfections in the law, and I do think that there will be some medical patients who will be affected when Prop 19 passes but nothing cataclysmic at all, and definitely far more beneficial outcomes than negative. I do take issue with the age limit being 21 and the punishments for giving to them. Even though, as you point out, an 18 year old is still in high school, nothing about the law exempts any adult from taking cannabis onto school grounds especially during school hours; so therefore it comes down to personal responsibility. This same high school 18 year old can legally choose to die in a war, buy a gun and do whatever with that, drive a 2000lb hunk of steel at speeds up to 70mph, buy death-inducing cancer-ettes and tobacco products of all flavors, amongst a myriad of other dangerous and ultimately self-responsibility-controlled actions and products but an herb from the earth with negligible, nearly benign side effects remains illegal to these 18 year old high schoolers? I’m sorry but as much as the “think of the children” card may be played up here this is the 21st century, where were those people when the tobacco laws were written? Or the gun laws? Or maybe those people were silent because the personal responsibility argument won over (for the record, I feel the same way about alcohol laws, but that’s a whole other argument I just thought I’d let you know I’m consistent)? An 18 year old can choose to stop going to school altogether if they really want to. Cannabis is just one of many things that a person of that age can be distracted by. Legal or not. Let’s grow up and face that reality instead of living in a fairy tale world where people old enough to die for our country can’t even use a safe substance that could help them with the PTSD (amongst other disorders) after they’ve watched their best friend die right in front of them. Fuck anyone that thinks differently. God bless America.
By passing Prop. 19, we finally have the chance to put the issue of cannabis legalization in the national spotlight. No longer would legalization be an issue that politicians can just laugh off and ignore, it will be something that they will be forced to look at and consider, especially if Prop. 19 gets the voters that it’s predicted to receive. It can also spur supporters in other states to really start pushing for similar reform, especially in places with MMS laws aimed to ruin the lives of innocent citizens. The impact of a Green California is too large, too necessary for us to allow those with “I gots mine” attitudes to get their way. We won’t have another chance like this in a long, long time. We must take this first step.
[...] more ridiculous than the ones on fox news or msnbc. pure insanity to even call this all a debate http://stash.norml.org/californias-p…sis#more-17744 goodbye Originally Posted by beardo has anyone used the birth control pill on their [...]
There are some aspects missed.
1) Nothing in the referendum makes it illegal to be in the same room as kids, smoke pot out doors, or do any of the exempted activities.
All this referendum does is not include them in the list of legal activities and leaves it up to the state politicians to decide whether those are legal or what the penalty will be. Unless the state passes another law, those activities will still be rendered legal. All this bill is saying is that even though possession is legal it does not PREVENT the state from making other such regulations.
2) Currently, anyone between 18-21 is still considered a minor, and selling to them can get a sentence between 3 and 5 years. This act doesn’t introduce a new punishment, it replaces jail with a fine for those ages. It is also the maximum fine, and the legislature can go with a lower fine if they want.
I can’t believe more people from other states aren’t commenting on this post, Russ. This affects EVERYONE across the country and around the world. Wake up, people! Let’s re-legalize it already. Support California and Prop 19! End the status quo once and for all!
Awesome, Russ!
This is what I needed in the first place to understand. Didn’t want to come across as a “Stoner Against Legalization” in your prev article.
Now what about Oregon? Is there a chance?
And if 19 fails, what’s our next hope?
Dems need a turnout issue in ’12 for sure.
We’re in a less compassionate nearby state and we’re considering our next and last move.
We both have valid med issues, esp myself with spasming back injuries times 3 and fibromyalgia.
I know MJ helps me, but I can’t use it here. -G
[...] read it. Standard disclaimer: I am no lawyer… hell, I’m not even a college graduate. Click here to read my Word-for-Word Analysis of Prop 19. L.O.W. T.H.C. results from an imbalance in one of these; Light Oxygen Water Temperature [...]
Great comment! I think one of the big problems here is that young people are being bamboozled into thinking it is a choice between Prop 19 and Prop 215. Let’s face it, any dedicated stoner in California has gotten his Prop 215 recommendation already. He’s loving going to dispensaries to get a much greater selection than he has ever gotten on the street, and he’s not paying prices any different than the street. He’s loving getting his “215 wristband” at the Kottonmouth Kings or Cypress Hill show and smoking right under the California sun with friends of all ages. He doesn’t have to think too much about how much he has on him or how much he is growing.
So people they worship for bringing them this ganja utopia, like Prop-215′s Dennis Peron, come out and tell them that Prop 19 will make all of that disappear. They’re gonna take away your ounces! The dispensaries will turn into Philip Morris Schwag Megamarts! They’re gonna lock you up for hanging out with your younger friends!
This is the nightmare scenario I’ve always predicted for medical marijuana – that enough people on our side will become enamored of the system they have and don’t mind the hoops they’re jumping through that they will fight to protect the status quo. “I Gots Mine”!
Thanks for that Russ! I hope you can get it on the Huffpost or Alternet. Also I hope you don’t mind if I use for “other” forums that have those same bloggers spewing lies about prop 19.
Bravo Russ. Your breakdown doesn’t dwindle into lawyereze based drivel and precedent arguments while making it clear there is no hidden agenda in the Prop 19 text.
Again, people seem to prefer a good scare and instant mythos than reality. Fear driven media and other social factors showing their ugly colors there.
Thank you for taking the time on this.
[...] against it. A comment on that post alerted me to this wonderful article by Russ Belville of NORML. It is a detailed, word-for-word analysis of Prop 19 and dispels many of the myths that are already cropping up about it. When it comes to the nuts and [...]
I would hope the “Stoners Against Legalization” will eventually come around but really you cant reason with a moron. But I am going to try.
“the lesser of two evils is still evil” thinking, is the ethical thinking of a eight year old. If you are old enough to vote, Then you are old enough to chose the less bad option of two bad options a 18 year old should have the brain power and maturity to figure these kind of ethical problems out.
In the case of Prop 19 there are not even two bad options, The Status Quo is evil and Prop 19 is slightly imperfect. If you vote no on 19 and you are a stoner then you are a moron, selfish or like to hang out in jails.
The phrase “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” applies here. Is prop 19 perfect, probably not, but it is certainty a lot better than the status quo. Besides its California if you end up not liking it you can always repeal it in the same way it got enacted.
there are a lot of things i don’t like about this law.. but i’ll be pissed if it does not pass
RadRuss you sir… are awesome brother of ONELOVE..DESTINY. We love you in Cambodia. Have Roger Christie on your show..