You won't find the word "legalization" in Prop 19... but you will find "It is LAWFUL to possess and cultivate marijuana"
[Updated with some new insights and a couple of grammatical corrections... --"R"R]
After viewing the Prop 19 “debate” at HempCon and battling many of these Stoners Against Legalization online, I’ve come up with some simple rhetorical tools for dealing with these terribly misguided individuals. Unfotunately, I feel like the YES campaign is making a mistake Democrats make in elections: depending on facts, logic, reason, and people voting for their own best interests.
This is an emotional issue and the NO side is doing a good job stoking fear, confusion, and anger. They’re playing right out of Karl Rove’s handbook – demonize the opponent (“millionaire Richard Lee!”, “corporate megagrows in Oakland!”) and obfuscate the issues. Our side is fighting within the opponents frames of “Prop 19 vs. Prop 215″ and “corporate control of cannabis” instead of defining the issue as legalization and improvement over the Jim Crow aspects of Prop 215.
Here are my suggestions for attacking the anti-Prop 19 side, fighting their emotion with more powerful emotion, attacking their strengths and using it against them, and redefining the frames.
Begin any question you have for Anti-Legalizers with “I’m a healthy adult without a Prop 215 recommendation; can you tell me why…?” and then ask. For example:
- “I’m a healthy adult without a Prop 215 recommendation; can you tell me why I should vote against being able to carry an ounce of marijuana on my person?”
- “I’m a healthy adult without a Prop 215 recommendation; can you tell me why I should vote against being able to grow marijuana in my house?”
- “I’m a healthy adult without a Prop 215 recommendation; can you tell me why I should vote to keep the risk of getting a criminal misdemeanor record for smoking pot?”
Almost all of their complaints come from the “Prop 19 destroys Prop 215″ myth they’ve been pushing. So hamstring that by pointing out you’re not a Prop 215 patient and neither are 80%-90% of California’s cannabis consumers.
Next, when the Stoner Against Legalization goes into the thicket of “Under Prop 215 this and that is legal and Prop 19 will make it illegal…” you simply respond with:
“Wow, those sound like powers that (LA District Attorney) Steve Cooley and (San Diego District Attorney) Bonnie Dumanis would love to have… so how come they’re asking people to vote NO?”
Hammer on the point that a NO vote on Prop 19 allies you with the cops, prison guards, drug dealers, drug traffickers, enemies of Prop 215 like Cooley, Trutanich, Dumanis, Brown, and Feinstein. ”If Prop 19 does everything you say to Prop 215, why doesn’t Steve Cooley support it?”
When a Stoner Against Legalization tells you about some terrible prediction of life after Prop 19, you can respond with “So that’s why we need to keep arresting and locking people up for marijuana, then?” Never let them off the hook on any of their points without forcing the audience to reconcile the point that a NO vote means “I am voting to keep myself a criminal.”
The Stoner Against Legalization may then try to steer the debate to the “But marijuana is virtually legal in California under Prop 215″ area. There are two quick replies to that notion. First:
“So why, exactly, have 77,000 Californians been arrested, tried, and convicted on marijuana charges in 2009 if marijuana is legal”
A side argument here from the Stoners Against Legalization is that the California legislature has passed a bill to downgrade possession of an ounce to a simple misdemeanor. The Anti-Legalizers will say, “it’s not even going to be a crime to possess an ounce anyway, it’s just a ticket like ‘flipping a U-ey’”. The proper response to that is, “So I should vote NO so I get a $100 ticket for an ounce and a felony for a plant, rather than making both of those things absolutely legal with no tickets or criminal record?”
They may also say that Prop 19 doesn’t legalize the things that most of those 77,000 got arrested for. Now you’ve got them where you want them with the reply:
“And how many of those 77,000 were busted because of evidence gained through the probable cause that illegal marijuana gives the cops? After Prop 19 passes, marijuana is LEGAL, so the smell of pot, the sight of a plant indoors, a bong on your table, stems in your trash, and multiple baggies of weed in your home are no longer crimes… and not probable cause to harass you in the first place.”
Another response to the “marijuana is legal under Prop 215″ line is to use their own cause célèbres against them.
“So if Prop 215 makes medical marijuana legal, what were Felix Kha, Jovan Jackson, Donna Lambert, Eugene Davidovich, Charles Lynch, Craig X Rubin, et al doing in a California courtroom, losing their businesses, their net worth, and in some cases, their families?”
This pivots to the discussion that after 14 years of Prop 215, there still isn’t a definitive right to buy and sell cannabis. But you have to be careful here, because there is a huge emotional investment by Californians in Prop 215. The best way is selling Prop 19 as an improvement, not a replacement, for Prop 215. They’ll wail about the mentions of Prop 215 being in the Purposes and Intents and how those parts aren’t “codified into law”, but that’s easy enough to dismiss:
“The Purposes and Intents ARE used by the legislature to determine how the laws shall be interpreted. So if the intent says ‘Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes’ it’s not going to be possible for lawmakers to reconcile an interpretation that makes medical access more difficult and dangerous.”
Another place they’ll go to is talking about how wicked evil Oakland is licensing megagrows with $211,000 fees or how Rancho Cordova is planning on taxing grows at $600 per square foot. The solution here is to point out that’s happening NOW regardless of Prop 19, so a NO vote still means expensive grows in Oakland and Rancho Cordova, but without carrying an ounce and growing at home being legal.
“Prop 19 does not overturn or supersede Prop 215. #1) Its Purposes and Intents are to make medical access safer and easier. #2) It’s loaded with “Notwithstanding any other provision of law” clauses that mean “except where another law already makes something more legal” – like Prop 215. #3) All powers over cultivation given to localities specifically mention “commercial” purposes.”
This is especially important for the Rancho Cordova line. Hammer away at that one by pointing out that renegade pot-hating cities will try to tax grows out of existence and that is easier for them to do when you don’t have an explicit right to home grow. What they pass and what stands up after inevitable court challenges are two different things. Prop 215 activists will hit that $600/sqft as an unconstitutional infringement on medical rights and Prop 19 activists will hit it by pointing out Prop 19 only gives cities power to regulate commercial grows while explicitly defining the right to personal consumption and the right to grow 25 sqft for personal consumption.
The corollary of this point on the Stoners Against Legalization side is that none of the cities that hate dispensaries are going to approve retail sales once Prop 19 passes. ”Do you think San Diego, which doesn’t even believe in medical distribution, is going to allow recreational?” I’ve heard one of them say. The simple response:
“You mean like now? So because 1 or 2 or 12 or 40 cities might ban commercial marijuana, we should keep it like it is now where all 478 cities ban commercial marijuana?”
So San Diego may not approve recreational marijuana cultivation and sales… just like now. But you’ll still be able to possess your personal ounce in San Diego. You’ll still be able to grow your 25 sqft garden at home in San Diego. And if you really want to, like the Anti-Legalizers always say, you can always go get your Prop 215 recommendation and join a collective just like you can now.
Another facet to the argument is the Anti-Legalizers support of the status quo regarding the “small grower”. This is a powerful emotional meme because they conjure up the small-time family-man grower, forced by tough economic times to make a living growing and supplying to dispensaries, cloaked in all sorts of rebel-with-a-cause fight-the-man folklore. They’ll posit that meme vs. the big bad evil corporation meme.
Karl Rove would use his opponent’s strength as their weakness. Remember Sen. John Kerry, the thrice-decorated Vietnam war hero? That became his weakness once the Swift Boaters were through with him. So here’s how you “swift boat” the “pity the small grower” meme:
“Every dollar earned while marijuana is illegal equals some kid getting a misdemeanor, some mom doing jail time, or some dad being shot by a cop. I support any person who wants to make money growing marijuana, but not at the cost of 77,000 arrests in California every year. Prop 19 will allow cities – not the state – to create commercial regulations. Why wouldn’t a city like, say, Ukiah, make regulations that best support their small grower economic base? That’s the cool thing about something being legal; if it’s not working properly, you can vote in new people and laws to make it work better. But if you vote no on 19, no city can do anything to support their small growers and the state can still send helicopters and cops after them.”
This may lead to a response of “but the small grower can’t compete with the megagrows / corporations!” You can point out that Prop 19 allows any of those growers to form their own corporations; they could truly be a commercial collective of small growers big enough to compete with anybody. They would even have the cache of being “the little guys” and could market their wares as “boutique”, “hand-trimmed”, “home-grown”, “organic”, etc. and charge more than the megagrows. But if they persist on the “pity the small grower” meme, you can always take it back to:
“OK, so then we need to vote no on legalization and continue to arrest and lock up small growers for felonies because they can’t compete in a open legal market? Small growers can’t exist unless we subsidize their jacked-up prices by arresting 77,000 Californians per year, is that what you’re saying?”
Some miscellaneous rejoinders:
They say, “We’re for legalization; we’re just against Prop 19.”
“Prop 19 is legalization: it says “it shall be LAWFUL to possess and cultivate marijuana for personal consumption” and you are telling me to vote against that, so you’re against legalization.”
They say, “We should wait until 2012 when a better initiative will be on the ballot.”
“Prop 19 is on the ballot now. How many legalization votes were on the ballot in the past forty years? One, back in 1972. How much money have other legalization initiatives raised for 2012? Zero. How much support did these other initiatives get in the past dozen elections? Not enough to make the ballot. Besides, if a better initiative can make the ballot in 2012, it still can when Prop 19 passes. Vote yes on 19 now, and then go ahead and vote yes on the better initiative in 2012!”
They say, “This is written for lawyers and corporations to get rich!”
“Prohibition keeps lawyers in business defending people from marijuana crimes. And I’d rather see a legal taxpaying corporation making money in a competitive market where I’m allowed to grow my own than to see murderous Mexican drug trafficking organizations making money and cops making money when they bust me for growing my own!”
When they paint the picture that all of Southern California will be forced to drive up to buy from the overpriced megagrows in Oakland, call it out for the ridiculous assertion that it is:
“Yeah, I suppose if Prop 19 passes and Los Angeles refuses to allow commercial sales, everyone will have to drive to Oakland. That is, if people in LA don’t grow their own. And don’t have any friends who grow their own and share. And they don’t get Prop 215 recommendations to buy in dispensaries. And the black market sales of marijuana completely disappear. And none of the other 87 cities in Los Angeles County decide to allow commercial sales to beat LA to that thriving tax base and economic windfall. And all of the other 477 California cities but Oakland decide to forbid commercial sales. Sure. But even in that ridiculous worst case scenario, there will still be one legal place in California to buy marijuana and it will still be legal to carry an ounce of it anywhere in the state!”
Finally, deal with their ad hominem attacks – don’t underestimate how vicious lies and false characterizations can sink a campaign (c.f. Sen. John Kerry, 2004; Gov. Michael Dukakis, 1988). When they set up their attacks on “millionaire Richard Lee”, respond with:
“Wait, I thought you guys were supporters of patients and medical access under Prop 215? Last I checked, Richard Lee was a disabled patient in a non-motorized wheelchair whose Oaksterdam University and dispensaries have provided more medical marijuana to sick and disabled patients than all of you combined. Or are profits from medical marijuana only a good thing when you’re making them?”
I also like to throw in “Richard Lee is gambling $1.4 million of his own money to make you legal. How much of your money have you gambled to make me legal?”, but you need to judge the right audience for that dose of snark.
A vote NO on Prop 19 is a vote for at least 150,000 more criminal prosecutions of Californians. It’s a vote to support the prohibition price structure that funds Mexican murderers. It’s a vote to continue costing young people their scholarships and student aid. It’s a vote to continue the discriminatory drug testing of workers to fire and not hire marijuana consumers. It’s a vote to continue the criminal distribution of marijuana that provides no controls, no checks of ID, and no benefit to society by taxation. It’s a vote to continue the prosecution of patients that is inevitable when cops have to determine who’s healthy enough to arrest. It’s a vote that joins the side of cops, prison guards, prosecutors, corporations, and politicians who already persecute patients and demonize marijuana consumers.
Vote YES ON 19! For California, For America, For the World!
Loading ...
[...] I know you won't, but fuck it… it's for future reference for how stupid people were in this ERA. How to debate Anti-Prop 19 Stoners Against Legalization | The NORML Stash Blog [...]
You need to take a look at patent # 6,630,507 B1. It states ” Cannabinoids as Antioxidants and Neuroprotectants”, which was obtained by our Dept. of Health and Human Services, on October 7, 2003. This was filed in early 1999. The patent abstract, in part, ” Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antaganism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of a wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age- related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimers disease, Parkinson’s disease and HIV Dementia.”
Our Gov’t has kept these facts from the American people long enough. It appears they knew these facts as early as 1999, when this patent was filed. That is over ten years. How can this be acceptable? I could go on and on but this should suffice, for now.
[...] http://stash.norml.org/how-to-debate-anti-prop-19-stoners-against-legalization [...]
Thanks for your comment. Here’s what you need to know:
This is just false. Marijuana possession of 1oz or less is an infraction now – a ticket that doesn’t go on your record. Prop 19 removes that entirely – no ticket, no fine, no probable cause if you’re 21 and over. But even if you’re 18-20, the possession of marijuana is still just that infraction ticket. The only new misdemeanor is in http://stash.norml.org/prop-19#Sec11361c which creates a crime of a person 21 and older supplying marijuana to persons 18-20.
That is false as well. Prohibition on smoking in public found in http://stash.norml.org/prop-19#Sec11300cii and smoking where minors are present http://stash.norml.org/prop-19#Sec11300civ are specifically defined as “personal consumption”. That section http://stash.norml.org/prop-19#Sec11300a opens with “Notwithstanding any other provision of law”, which means “here we’re making a new set of activities legal, but it doesn’t change any of the other set of activities that are already legal”. So if you’re smoking medically in public around kids legally now, you will still be able to on Nov 3.
You’re buying illegally from little Danny now. But once again, Prop 19 applies to buying for recreational purposes. If you’re buying legally for medical purposes now, you still will be on Nov 3.
Complete fabrication. There is no inspection requirement for personal gardens under Prop 19.
If you’re growing for personal consumption. If you’re a Prop 215 patient, you’ll still be allowed to grow as much after Prop 19 as you do now.
Nobody! That’s the point. Do you really think it is going to be a profitable use of police resources to root out the few non-compliant gardens out of the thousands of legal gardens?
The enforcement of the Sections 11302 http://stash.norml.org/prop-19#Sec11302 and 11301, which are all designated for the commercial production and sales, are what the commercial tax revenue can go toward. Nothing directs taxes for enforcement of Section 11300, the portion about personal consumption and cultivation. Plus, in California, tax revenues can’t be designated for other purposes outside an initiative without a 2/3rds vote of the people.
That’s a half-truth. It is true, there’s no law against buying marijuana. There are laws against possessing it, possessing it to sell, and selling it, but not the actual act of buying it. That doesn’t change under Prop 19 anyway, so it’s a wash. See the following California Health and Safety Code:
HS 11360. (a) Except as otherwise provided by this section or as authorized by law, every person who transports, imports into this state, sells, furnishes, administers, or gives away, or offers to transport, import into this state, sell, furnish, administer, or give away, or attempts to import into this state or transport any marijuana shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of two, three or four years.
And now we’re at the crux of the issue on which we’ll never agree. We want cannabis to be inspected, free from contaminants, and to have people’s IDs checked to make sure kids don’t get it. We don’t want “little Danny” selling weed out of his house.
However, consider this: If you still do want to engage in the black market, Prop 19 makes your life a whole lot better, because marijuana will be LEGAL. That ounce you got from “little Danny”, how does anybody know where you got it? It’s legal to grow your own. It’s legal for friends to give you some. You could even go to a Prop 19 store, buy an ounce, save that receipt, and keep it in your wallet at all times … it’s not like anyone is going to carbon-date your herb to make sure it matches the receipt. When the cop asks where you got it, you say “I grew it!”. The only way they could bust you is if they happened to see you exchanging money for weed or if “little Danny” is a narc… which is how they could be busting you now.
“The man”? The man is AGAINST Prop 19! Damn the short-sighted dispensary owners and self-promoting party girls for bamboozling you into voting for prohibition in the guise of protecting patients.
Please forgive me, I have never posted here before. From what I can gather, I, as a medical user, will lose rights that I now have…you neglect to mention the fact that the law that Arnold recently passed made it an “infraction” (not recorded on your permanent record), if you are caught with a small amount of pot…Prop 19 bumps it back up to a “misdemeanor” – “just like a traffic ticket” – which means it will GO ON YOUR RECORD – that’s a BIG DEAL to a whole lot of people, and a major point that you neglect to clarify.
Also, I will not be allowed to smoke anywhere in public when I need to, as I currently can…I will NEVER be allowed to smoke in public, or in front of children (even my own grandchildren, in my own home, smoking a licensed substance, but I can drink alcohol, a known poison, in front of them, no problem). I will also ONLY BE ALLOWED to purchase from LICENSED PURVEYORS…so I ain’t gonna be buying from little Danny down the street (fictitious name, don’t worry, ha ha)…Licenses most likely will be expensive, and fees will be decided city by city, and you will NOT be allowed to grow any for Personal Consumption unless you get your grow space INSPECTED by a Government Official. Your grow space can be no larger than 5′x 5′ PER HOME, NOT per user.
And where will the money come to pay the newly created Government Job of “Inspector of tiny grow room applications” and also, who will be enforcing these laws to make sure my space is less than 5×5, and that I am not smoking in front of children in my own home? Will they install monitors in every home? The money that they collect on Taxes will go towards ENFORCEMENT of these newly created, equally unfair, unbearable “regulations”, and will not be applied to other areas of our economy!!
Currently IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO BUY A SMALL AMOUNT OF POT in CA. But under the new Prop 19 law, BOTH THE BUYER & SELLER WOULD BE CRIMINALS if they are not buying or selling products that have been PROPERLY “Licensed”…with fees being determined by City Governments.
There are so many flaws with this law, I’m surprised you think it would be an improvement…as a medical user I see no way that things will be better after passage of this law.
It’s not going to be Amsterdam over here, by any means!!
By having HIGH FEES just to get a LICENSE to SELL weed, you are basically insuring the continuance of a healthy Black Market. Many small Mom & Pop growers that live off their gardens won’t be able to afford to grow legally, (kinda like what happened to the CA Organic Growers, where it now costs a fortune to be licensed),. Entire Northern California towns survive on the business that is generated by these Mom & Pop growers…I suspect I will boycott anyone that can afford to be licensed, on principle – they’re too rich already, and their weed will probably be dry, brown non-sticky crap. I’ll stick with my Black Market dealers, thanks.
I have not been convinced that Prop 19 is a good thing, no. Damn the man – trying to steal our economy out from under us, in the guise of helping us! Ha!
[...] movement has been lively. Radio host, “Radical” Russ Belville, of the Seattle chapter of NORML (National Association for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), has been a vocal debunker of Stoners [...]
@Mitch
Rules are not always the evil you make them out to be.
I dont see any issue with not passing weed to minors just like i wouldnt buy them beer either, sorry.
I think your being hyperbolic on the space issue.
Yeah, I dont see why my landlord should not be able to disallow me to do something on property I dont actually own but he does. So that whole point to me is useless.
Your not going to jump straight from where we are to full on legalization like you want, without taking some baby steps, deal with it. You guys owe it to the rest of us to make some change or get out of the way so others can. Meanwhile, while you stand on your little soap box spitting out semantics and little more than paranoia you continue to perpetuate a system that promotes cartels and crime everywhere else in the country but your one little state. And by doing so, you not only pass up an opportunity to make some change for everyone, you let them continue to have their little drug war and for all of those people to profit off of it while the vast majority of us live in fear for having even a gram in some places. legislation can improve, but the absence of it leaves all of us with the status quo. So yeah, approve the shitty legislation of the future, and while your at it buy the shitty electric car of the future, at least then more progress will be made in the right direction instead of NONE.
[Russ says: Normally I don't edit comments here, but Mitch is obviously cutting and pasting the latest Tossed SALAD and doesn't bother to read any other post on this blog debunking his blatant falsehoods. So I'll help him out.]
Governator signed into law SB 1449, essentially making pot possession under 1 oz no more serious than a speeding ticket. Keep it under an ounce and you CANNOT be arrested, sent to court, or receive a criminal record, PERIOD. But you can enjoy paying that $100 ticket every single time you’re caught. And since it is still illegal, like speeding, cops can pull you over if they see or smell marijuana. And, like in New York City, where marijuana possession of an ounce is only a ticket yet they arrest more tokers than any other city in the world, cops can find all sorts of way to turn your $100 pot ticket into a trip to the jail.
Prop 19 only allows possession of up to an ounce when you’re away from your personal garden, but at your garden you could have dozens even hundreds of pounds of marijuana, [and an ounce] is now essentially legal just like speeding and littering are legal. By voting for Prop 19, you are voting for new cannabis crimes called “violations of the regulations we create that make marijuana legal”; of course there are more ways to break the rules once you make rules! and the ‘walmartization’ of cannabis by large corporations that everyone will be forced to buy, because no one will want to grow their own at home, share will their friends, or open a boutique marijuana shop anywhere in the state. Ganja is more legal than ever my friends, just ask Jovan Jackson, Donna Lambert, and 77,000 other Californians who got a criminal record for cannabis this year, so let’s pass on Prop 19 and wait for REAL legalization, not this Prop 19 that says “Personal use, possession, and cultivation is LAWFUL, because if we pass this, we’ll never ever be able to propose any amendments, new laws, or new initatives about marijuana in the future.
How will Prop 19 affect you by making it legal for every adult in the state, resident or not, to carry around an ounce?
• Are you age 18-20? You will not be allowed to consume recreational cannabis legally under Prop 19. Currently, all you need is a medical recommendation to do so which you will still be able to get after Prop 19 (recreational legalization) passes, since it doesn’t affect Prop 215 (medical legalization).
• Do you interact with anyone under age of 21? You will be looking at up to 6 months in jail for passing them a joint, just like if you passed a bottle of Jack Daniels to someone under legal age. (If the person is under 18 you will be looking at up to 7 years in prison, which will happen whether we pass Prop 19 or not, because that is the law that is on the books NOW; Prop 19 does not add this penalty.)
• Do you live in the same “space” [with] a minor? (Space could mean anything from the same house to an entire apartment complex, or even the entire cosmos!.) You will not be allowed to consume cannabis anywhere in the universe, because some cop might think “apartment complex” or “cosmos” is equal to the intent of “space”, and some prosecutor might push it, and some judge might approve it, and no marijuana attorneys would ever challenge or appeal it on the grounds that “space” has to reasonably meet the purpose of “reducing youth access to marijuana” and you smoking pot in your apartment 3C behind a locked door can’t reasonably be interpreted to be increasing access for the kid in 16G.
• Do you rent your home? Prop 19 will only allow you to grow cannabis if you have permission from your landlord, like he expects for you putting in a waterbed, mounting a big screen to the wall, or putting a satellite dish on the roof, since, after all, it is his property. Due to the risks involved, many (if not most) California landlords do not allow it. How is this legalization, unless you consider that it will be perfectly legal for anyone who owns their own property to grow marijuana?
• Do you grow cannabis with a doctor recommendation? Prop 19 will likely be interpreted by law enforcement and judges that have special powers to ignore statutory construction and determine that Prop 19 overturns Prop 215, contrary to the settled law that says a proposition must explicitly overturn a law, and it can never implicitly do so, but trust me, I can cut and paste from Dragonfly’s blog, so I know they’ll use Prop 19 to limit your grow space to 5?x5?.
• Do you provide your extra medical cannabis to dispensaries? It will be a crime to do so if Prop 19 passes unless you understand that Prop 215 isn’t going anywhere and Prop 19 affects recreational, not medical, cannabis, and you also realize that some cities will have recreational stores and you can lobby your local government for regs that will allow you to grow and sell to them. In addition, large Oakland growers, who will be in the only city out of 478 that will allow commercial grows and you’ll be forced to buy from them because you wouldn’t grow your own or get it from friends who grow their own or get a Prop 215 rec and get your dispensary weed or you wouldn’t buy it on the black market and tobacco companies will take control of the market because they aren’t at all afraid of the federal government seizing all their corporate assets for engaging in federally illegal activity and push you out.
• Do you currently have to use your medical cannabis anywhere but home? Prop 19 will prevent patients from using their medicine anywhere in pubic if they don’t have their Prop 215 recommendation, otherwise, things will be like they are now for patients who need to medicate in public. Not “pubic”. Medicating in pubic takes great flexibility and years of practice, Which for many people with illnesses is not always possible.
• Do you sell your extra medical cannabis to other medical patients? Prop 19 will make this practice illegal if you both don’t have your Prop 19 recommendations, otherwise, you’re going to be treated just like you are now. Even if you are only selling it to cover your growing cost.
• Do you currently enjoy the use of cannabis free from Government interference, I mean, beside the constant threat of getting a ticket for holding less than an ounce, or being a felon for having more than an ounce or a single marijuana plant in your home? Not only will the 478 city Governments that decide to allow the commercial sales of marijuana impose a variety of differing taxes, some low taxes, some excessive taxes that would probably be found to be unconstitutional, since a government cannot tax away a fundamental right under Prop 19, but the federal government will likely respond with unprecedented action against California cannabis users which would happen no matter how any state chose to legalize marijuana. I mean, remember when we were trying to pass Prop 215 and people said, “The federal Controlled Substances Act makes it a felony to grow or sell cannabis. California can repeal its own marijuana laws, leaving enforcement to the feds. But it can’t legalize a federal felony. Therefore, any grower or seller paying California taxes on marijuana sales or filing pot-related California regulatory paperwork would be confessing, in writing, to multiple federal crimes.” Just like people who fill out paperwork for dispensaries under Prop 215 are doing now.
Thanks for cutting and pasting, Mitch. Try reading some of this blog next time.
Awesome points and commentary Russ, once again.