An ounce on the road, a sweet little untaxed home garden and all the pot you can harvest from it, no more probable cause to harass you for weed, state and local cops forbidden to cooperate with DEA, and no changes to Prop 215. That's what Stoners Against Legalization want you to vote against.
Since there still remains a vocal – and rude – contingent of Stoners Against Legalization allied with the Cooleys, Trutanichs, and Dumanises who hate medical marijuana, I bring you yet another reading of Prop 215. This time, though, you don’t need to trust my uneducated interpretations. The following comes from J. David Nick, famed California medical marijuana attorney who has never lost a state marijuana case in court and has defended Brownie Mary, Dennis Peron, and Steve Kubby.
Prop 19 is the best thing to happen to medical marijuana patients since Prop 215
Anyone who claims that Proposition 19 will restrict or eliminate rights under the Compassionate Use Act (CUA or “Prop 215″) or the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP or “SB420″) is simply wrong. If anything, Proposition 19 will permit individuals to grow and possess much more than ever before with patients, coops and collectives still receiving the same protections they are entitled to under the CUA and MMP.
Here is why.
The legal arguments claiming the “sky will fall” if Prop. 19 passes are based on the fallacious conclusion that the Initiative invalidates the CUA and MMP. This baseless fear stems from a flawed legal analysis which focuses on just about every portion of Prop. 19 EXCEPT the relevant portions. This flawed legal analysis is driven by an incorrect understanding of the rules of statutory construction.
Although extrinsic materials (such as legislative committee memos or voter pamphlet arguments) may not be resorted to when the legislative language is clear, courts may never ignore the purpose of the legislation. Every interpretation a court gives a statute must be consistent with the purpose of the legislation. This is why statutes have long “preambles” which explicitly state the purposes of the legislation.
This rule is so controlling that a court is required to ignore the literal language of a legislative statute if it conflicts with the purpose of the legislation. By example I call attention to the appellate court case of Bell v. DMV. In this precedent setting case, the court ruled that a statute must be interpreted to apply to civil proceedings even though the statute they were interpreting stated it applied only to “criminal” proceedings. The court’s interpretation of the statute was consistent with the purposes of the legislation and the limitation to criminal cases in the statute itself was not.
In other words, because Prop 19′s purposes state “Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes,” a court cannot interpret Prop 19 in any way to make access more difficult or dangerous.
Prop 19 provides additional protections to patients from the actions of local government and local law enforcement.
Section 2B presents the controlling and relevant purposes for understanding what Prop. 19 can and cannot do. This section EXPRESSLY excludes the reach of Prop. 19 from the CUA and MMP. Sections 2B (7 & 8) specifically state that the purpose of this initiative is to give municipalities total and complete control over the commercial sales of marijuana “EXCEPT as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.”
Prop. 19 makes it perfectly clear that the Initiative does NOT give municipalities any control over how medical marijuana patients obtain their medicine or how much they can possess and cultivate as the purpose of the legislation was to exempt the CUA and the MMP from local government reach. Whatever control municipalities have over patients and collectives is limited by the CUA and the MMP, not by Prop. 19.
To further reduce everyone’s understandable anxiety over allowing municipalities to unduly control collectives, I direct everyone’s attention to the last statute of the MMP, 11362.83, which reads. “Nothing in this article shall prevent a city or other local governing body from adopting and enforcing laws CONSISTENT with this article.”
Since collectives are expressly allowed, local ordinances banning them are not consistent with the MMP. Health and Safety Code Section 11362.83, which limits municipalities ability to ban coops or overly restrict them, is unaffected by Prop. 19 as it expressly states in Sections 2B (7 & 8) that the laws created by Prop. 19 must be followed “EXCEPT as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.”
Which means the collective you’ve belonged to and gotten medicine from and the rules regarding those collectives are absolutely untouched and unchanged by Prop 19.
Prop 19 protects patients’ personal and collective cultivations.
Further protecting patients from local law enforcement actions, Section 11303 states that “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.” If you are a patient, you may “lawfully cultivate” as much marijuana as medically necessary and Prop. 19 protects that right. If you are cultivating for a collective, you may “lawfully cultivate” as much marijuana as your collective allows you to and Prop. 19 protects that right. Unfortunately, many law enforcement officials refuse to recognize the rights provided under the MMP for collectives to “lawfully cultivate” and sell marijuana. Prop. 19 reinforces those rights and makes it even more difficult for law enforcement to bust a collective or collective grower.
Cops can’t even give your marijuana garden a dirty look!
It will keep police from collaborating with the feds.
As you can see from the above paragraph, the statutory scheme Prop. 19 creates expressly forbids law enforcement from seizing lawfully cultivated cannabis.
Prop. 19 will create an insurmountable barrier for local law enforcement which is still bent on depriving you of your rights through the despicable device of using federal law enforcement officers.
Here’s why.
Federal drug enforcement is nearly 100 percent dependent on the ability to use local law enforcement. They do not have the manpower to operate without it. Prop. 19 in no uncertain terms tells local law enforcement that they cannot even “attempt to” seize cannabis. If Prop. 19 passes, California will actually have a law on the books that expressly forbids local police from cooperating with the feds in the seizure of any “lawfully cultivated” California cannabis.
Lanette Davies and Dragonfly de la Luz think that’s not worth voting for.
Prop 19 does not limit patients under the CUA & MMP
The nail in the coffin for those arguing against Prop. 19 is found in Section 2C (1). This is the only section which discusses which other laws the acts is “intended to limit” and nowhere in this section is the CUA or the MMP listed. If the purpose of Prop. 19 was “to limit” the application and enforcement of the CUA and MMP, those laws would have been listed along with all the other laws that are listed in Section 2C (1). Since the CUA and MMP were not listed, then Prop. 19 does not “limit” the CUA and MMP.
It’s that simple.
Unless you’re desperately looking for a way to fool stoners into voting against their own self interest…
Prop 19 makes it easier for patients to obtain their medicine.
Section 2B (6) states that one of the purposes of Prop. 19 is to “Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.” This section is one of the many reasons Prop. 19 is very good for patients. If Prop. 19 passes, the days of having to go through the hassle of getting a doctor’s recommendation to treat simple medical conditions will be coming to an end in those communities which allow Prop. 19 “stores” to exist. When you need an aspirin you do not have to go to a doctor and then to the health department and then to Walgreens – YOU JUST GO TO WALGREENS (the founder of which, Mr. Walgreen, became rich during prohibition by selling “medical” alcohol to patients who had obtained a prescription for alcohol from their doctor).
In those communities which are stubborn and will not allow Prop 19 “stores,” patients will still have the protections of the CUA and MMP and the statutory right to form coops and collectives. Prop. 19 specifically recognizes that these rights are not invalidated and does nothing to limit the ability of patients to cultivate or form collectives or coops.
As I’ve always said, after Prop 19 things will be no worse for Prop 215 patients and will actually be a lot better… unless you’re a patient running a marijuana doctor referral clinic that will suddenly lose most of its business or a dispensary that will face falling prices and increased competition.
Prop 19 allows you to have a lot of marijuana
As an attorney called upon to defend patients and non-patients in marijuana cases, I cannot tell you how beneficial and how much freedom Section 11300 subdivision A (3) of Prop.19 will be to cannabis users. Read it!
Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.
(ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of ANY harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.
Section (i) limits possession to one ounce OUT OF YOUR HOUSE. Section (iii) permits people 21 and over to have within their residence or single parcel ALL the cannabis which one grew in their 25 sq. foot parcel, including what you grew this year, what you grew last year and EVERY SINGLE 25 SQ. FT. HARVEST YOU EVER HAD ON THAT SINGLE PARCEL. This covers as many cycles of indoor and/or outdoor grown cannabis as a person can produce as long as each grow was no more than 25 square feet and done in succession.
Clearly section 11300(a) (i) limits personal possession and consumption to one ounce OUT OF YOUR HOME while section11300(a) (iii) is what you are allowed to have AT YOUR RESIDENCE if that is where your 25 sq. ft. garden is located. That this is the case is established by another rule of statutory construction, i.e. the specific controls the general. Here (iii) is the specific statute with respect to what you can have AT YOUR RESIDENCE ONLY or in the words of subdivision (iii) “on the premises where grown”.
The one ounce limitation only applies when you leave your house, not wherever it is you grow your 25 foot plot. I can picture being able to easily defend a person with 200 pounds who is not even medical.
Adults being able to cultivate and possess 200 pounds of pot in their home. That’s what J. Craig Canada and Dennis Peron want you to vote against.
Under Prop. 19 you can only travel with one ounce, but if you are a patient you can still enjoy the protections of the CUA and MMP and can safely travel with eight ounces, or whatever your doctor permits you to have or the needs of your collective, as allowed by the CUA and the MMP. YOUR SUPPLY PROBLEMS CAUSED BY PARANOID CULTIVATION LAWS AND POLICIES THAT AT TIMES LIMIT YOUR PERSONAL CULTIVATION PROJECTS ARE SOLVED BY PROP. 19.
Prop. 19 creates a marijuana sanctuary IN YOUR HOME ONLY. Prop. 19 allows you to have AT YOUR HOME ONLY ALL OF THE PROCEEDS of every successive 25 sq. foot plot. However, Prop 19 only allows you TO REMOVE IT FROM YOUR HOME one ounce at a time if you are a recreational user.
For patients this is not the case because Prop. 19 exempts them from the one ounce out of home restriction. As stated above, if you are a patient then you can take out of your house up to eight ounces, or whatever your doctor permits you to have or the needs of your collective.
Both medical patients and recreational users should note that Section 11300(a) (i) allows you to “share” up to an ounce which tells me that you can furnish as many one ounces to as many friends as you wish, thus if you have a party with 50 people you could give away 50 ounces.
Gosh, who would have an economic interest in getting you to vote no on you and your friends sharing ounce after ounce of marijuana?
UNDERSTANDING “NOTWITHSTANDING”
As for the argument that the various “Notwithstanding” clauses invalidate the CUA and MMP, I reiterate, that in section 2C (1) where Prop. 19 expressly states which statues are being altered, the CUA and MMP are not listed. Therefore, when you use the word “notwithstanding,” you cannot be referring to statutes that have been expressly excluded.
Claiming there is some doubt as to what “notwithstanding” means or refers to requires at most that we reach back to the purpose of the legislation in order to give it proper meaning. Whatever interpretation you give it, “notwithstanding” cannot be in conflict with Sections 2 B (7 & 8) which exempt patients covered under the CUA and MMP from any actions taken by municipalities to regulate the non-medical use of cannabis.
The word “notwithstanding” is used when reversing prior legislation and has traditionally been interpreted by prior case law to be a word employed for the purpose of allowing conduct that had previously been forbidden by other statutes. If the word “notwithstanding” was not used in Prop. 19, municipalities would be able to claim that there is still a prohibition on their participation in the licensing and regulating of this activity.
For example, a law making skipping in front of a school illegal would be overturned by a law which says “notwithstanding other laws, skipping is legal.” If the word “notwithstanding” was not there, then skipping in front of a school would still be illegal even though skipping itself would be legal at any other location.
The rationale behind this rule emanates or comes from another rule of statutory construction which is that existing laws cannot be repealed by inference and instead must be EXPRESSLY repealed. A court cannot find that a law, such as the CUA or MMP, was changed by “implication.” In other words, it cannot repeal a law by ruling that another law implied that it should.
If Prop 19 doesn’t actually say “This law supersedes Prop 215 and SB420″… then it doesn’t!
Although Sections 2B (7 & 8) gives cities control over the non-medical distribution of cannabis, that in no way allows a court to repeal or even change the CUA and MMP by ruling that it was “implicit” in Prop. 19 that they do so. It is contrary to any rational understanding of statutory construction to infer that since Prop. 19 gives cities control over the distribution of non-medical marijuana, that it also gives cities the right to control the medical distribution of cannabis beyond what the CUA and MMP allows.
The word “notwithstanding” is simply a legal necessity to repeal the various statutes that prohibit the conduct that prop. 19 now permits.
So can everyone please vote yes on Prop 19?
Sincerely,
J. David Nick
Attorney-at-Law
Contact your elected representatives and urge them to 'Stop Arresting Marijuana Smokers'. 
[url=http://cheapnewchristianlouboutinshoes.webs.com/]christian louboutin shoes for sale[/url]
Think Tank Retrospective 20 camera bag review
The fine folks
[url=http://cheapchristianlouboutinoline2013shop.webs.com/]christian louboutin men[/url]
at Think Tank have released a brand new line of camera bags after following the gripes and grumblings belonging to the photographers community of just what exactly they wished they had in the camera bag. Think Tank has come through which includes a new line of video camera bags called the Retrospective collection.
There are several sizes
[url=http://christianlouboutinsalecheapshoes.webs.com/]red bottom heels[/url]
with this line, the 10, 20, and 30, with the bags getting larger proportions respective to the quantity of the name, and all bags accessible in Black or Pinestone hues. Think Tank graciously hooked me up with a Think Tank 20 throughout black, and I spent the last two months testing the bag in an array of rigorous photographic situations. The green (Pinestone) bags are made of a soft cottom canvas, and the black bags are made of a soft nylon poly weave. The black Retrospective bags are treated which includes a waterproof coating, whose actual ability to repel water is really a function I can neither confirm or deny mainly because that I have not gotten stranded out inside rain with this handbag. Yet.
First and foremost, the bag is stealthy. I cannot tell exactly how important this feature could be to me. I live and work from the large metropolitan city that is certainly Chicago. I do not requirement for everyone on the street to learn that I am having pricey camera equipment. This function in alone is invaluable. It actually resembles the plain diaper bag.
However, this bag is
[url=http://christianlouboutinmensoline.webs.com/]red bottom shoes[/url]
much more than its stealthy exterior – additionally it is stealthy in how great the interior is at the same time. With only camera apparatus, I am able to place two full sensor Digital slrs with lenses as large as being a 70-200mm (with hoods reversed), as well as a new 50mm f/1. 4 lens, a 16-35mm f/2. 8 lens, a Gary Fong Lightsphere and the two accompanying gel domes, a EX580II Speedlite, 8 spare rechargeable AA electric batteries, 8 CompactFlash memory credit cards, 4 SD memory cards, press credentials lanyard, lens cleaning cloth, a pen, 30 business cards, an mp3 player by using headphones, earplugs, a granola bar, and a bottle with water. And it can carry most of these things comfortably. I cannot stress enough how comfortable the strap will be. The strap is created from the same nylon poly weave by using cotton piping, filled with thick, soft filling, and fitted with any thick, ventilated nylon pad together with silicone grippers that maintain the shoulder pad on your shoulder where you will need it. The strap itself is definitely thick and durable plus sets it apart from all the other camera bags I have used in the past. A common problem I encounter is that when carrying a bag brimming with gear, the bag’s strap does bunch and crumple in the strap buckle where it attaches into the bag (see accompanying photo). This was evident in bags such as Crumpler (another stealthy bag but one who has plastic hardware that does fail). The Retrospective’s main strap stays straight and into position, thus displacing the weight from the bag over the strap a lot more evenly. In turn, it makes for a comfortably carrying position.
Accompanying the shoulder strap is a smaller top-carrying handle cut from the same nylon poly weave as well as cotton pad. Most of the interior is a slick nylon material with hook-and-loop fitments that allow you to customize the layout within your camera gear. It is with this particular ability to customize the interior i always was able to configure it to keep my camera and clothing when exercising on the bag to traveling.
In addition to
[url=http://christianlouboutinsalechespshoes.webs.com/]christian louboutin men[/url]
using this as a camera case for concert photography, I have used this to sling every single piece regarding photo equipment I needed in view of several wedding shoots and a couple of corporate events. I also used that bag as my only bag after i traveled to California for just a weekend trip. I was able to keep a full frame DSLR fitted which includes a 28-75mm f/2. 8 lens, a weekend’s worth of clothes (2 twos of socks, 2 pairs of under garment, 3 shirts, 1 pair of shorts, and a dopp kit filled with male necessities – toothbrush, toothpaste, glasses, contact lens solution, soap, pain reliever). The front pocket will be another misleadingly large space for storage where I was able to keep an mp3 gambler, a light jacket (rolled up), and a magazine. The bag was almost as small as my girlfriend’s purse and fit snugly within the stow space under the seat when in front of mine on the airplane. Note: I am trying to travel as a minimalist recently, so the clothes I travel with are usually made of thin, lightweight, quick-drying, moisture-wicking nylon, merino wool, and polyester, tend to pack compactly, and can be washed with ease so I can typically go per week or longer with identical amount of clothes. But that’s another history for another time.
All of the components is metal, not plastic. In fact, I cannot find a single piece of PVC or plastic on this subject bag. And that’s a great thing.
The bottom of the bag
??url=http://cheapchristianlouboutin20.webs.com/ ]christian shoes[/url]
is the same wrap-around nylon material devoid of nubs or feet – which i prefer, as I do not would like to tip off any would-be thieves in the contents of my handbag.
In addition to
[url=http://ch2013ristianlouboutinshoessale.webs.com/ ]louboutins shoes[/url]
the main compartment, there are smaller pockets inside that are smartly thought out and enable you to neatly store your memory cards and other miscellaneous items. The large main flap is actually fitted with large hook-and-loop pads that has a silencer feature that means that you can cover up the hooks-pad if you’re in a church or formal situation that does not look kindly upon high in volume hook-and-loop ripping. Also on the flap is usually a small window compartment that you store some business handmade cards.
The interior and exterior both have a
[url=http://clchristianlouboutinshoesuk.webs.com/]christian louboutin shoes sale[/url]
large zipped pocket when I usually store my photo assignments, shot list, directions, contracts, etc. The outside pocket followed in handy for trying to keep important documents, like airline tickets, cash, passport, when I used that bag for traveling.
When using this tote for shooting concerts and other photography assignments, I really enjoy the low-profile nature of the bag. When you are within a jam-packed Aragon Theater, Metro, or most recently my photo shoot of Dave Matthews Group at Wrigley Field, having the ability to weave throughout the crowd without a gigantic camera bag is really a huge advantage.
My only problem
[url=http://fashionchristianlouboutinshoesuk.webs.com/]louboutins shoes[/url]
while using bag is the not enough padding, particularly on the sides and the bottom. I have to be very careful about setting down this bag. If there are lenses within the bottom of the travelling bag, I oftentimes hear the clunk belonging to the metal on the terrain. So I’m a bit of worried about its ability for taking a small drop or or have something smack it on the sides. I’m not about to discover, but it does worry me occasionally. Also, the side exterior pockets have become tight. I can only in shape granola bars or any rubber banded 4 group of AA batteries within them. Sometimes, because of how stretched the pockets are, the items are hard to retrieve.
All in all, the Retrospective 20
[url=http://2013christianlouboutinshoessaleoline.webs.com/]discount christian louboutin shoes[/url]
great camera bag. I might have chosen the smaller, more compact Retrospective 12, but the 20 proved that they are useful when traveling. This bag is designed smart and strong enough to get your primary bag. It does not possess any exterior straps to get tripods or anything in the sort. But that would completely negate the stealthy nature belonging to the bag.
You can find the particular Think Tank Retrospective 20 in the official Think Tank site, or you can discover it locally at Helix Video camera near Chicago’s UIC campus on the Near West Side.
The back and forth about prop-19 can be confusing. I’m sure that I am eligible for a Medical MJ Card and I am almost ready to apply for the Dr.’s appointment, but I’m now wondering if there’s a necessity of spending at least $75.00 for the Medical MJ Card if Prop-19 is actually going to pass? Also, what is this County License all about once you get your authorization certificate (whatever) from the Doctor? Everyone has their hand out or has an agenda don’t they! It is an insult that the fools who are responsible for outlawing marijuana (medical, recreational, industrial) for these past 75 years and who have greatly profited by doing so are now going to profit by Prop-19, as I’m sure they have somehow profited on Prop-215. One way or the other—it is time for complete legalization/decriminalization of marijuana and no amount of double talk or Hegelian Dialectic should stop us doing the right thing!
[...] claim that Prop. 19 will allow cities to close collectives is not correct; as my prior detailed opinion piece explained, Prop 215 and SB 420 are EXPLICITLY excluded from the reach of municipal regulators; thus, [...]
[...] again, Prop 19 does not create any rules and regulations over MEDICAL growing and distribution. Prop 19 creates rules and regulations for COMMERCIAL growing and distribution. It legalizes my [...]
[...] You can also download a PDF version of Proposition 19 with complete hyperlinks, comtents, and index of popular terms. Also read our previous Word-for-Word Analysis of Prop 19 and Attorney J. David Nick’s Why Prop 19 is the Best Thing for Medical Marijuana Patients Since Prop 215. [...]
[...] Tobacco has already publicly stated they are not interested in entering the Marijuana industry. Prop 19 is the best thing to happen to medical marijuana patients since Prop 215 | The NORML Stash B… __________________ [9:30] ToFu – man i had the funniest convo with my coworker today [9:30] [...]
[...] Peron established the right to collectively cultivate and sell medical marijuana, please visit Prop 19 is the best thing to happen to medical marijuana patients since Prop 215 | The NORML Stash B…. For my own analysis, based on my coverage of fourteen medical marijuana states over fourteen [...]
Jason,
MPP absolutely endorses 19, as does every other major drug law reform org like DPA, LEAP, DRCNet/StoptheDrugWar, etc.
MPP’s director even has a commentary in Huffington Post outlining their support of Prop. 19
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-kampia/if-people-oppose-the-mari_b_749092.html
and asking the question: “If People Oppose the Marijuana Initiative in California, Are They Prohibitionists?”
But somehow I guess you missed that, huh? You allege in your post to be an honest broker in all this, but then you include in your post blatant falsehoods?
[...] Prop 19 is the best thing to happen to medical marijuana patients since Prop 215 (20) [...]
That bill did not make it out of committee for the legislative year.
“In fact, I even remember reading that the Marijuana Policy Project does NOT endorse Prop 19 because it contains poorly written language. MPP does endorse the CCHHI though, while Norml endorses Prop 19!”
Hmm… strange. So if MPP doesn’t endorse Prop 19 but endorses CCHHI, why is it I keep receiving MPP newsletters and keep reading blog posts on the MPP website telling me to vote for Prop 19 in November? Why have I not heard them bring up CCHHI?
Why do you think voting for Prop 19 will prevent you from voting for CCHHI? Because it doesn’t. There is a measure on the ballot now, Prop 19, that you can vote on, and then in 2012, if it gets financial support and signatures and makes the ballot (which it hasn’t for two decades now), then you can vote on it, too.
To restate: You CAN’T vote on CCHHI now. You CAN vote on Prop 19 now.
Please go back and re-read this post. What part of J. David Nick’s analysis about how Prop 19 can never be construed to eliminate or reduce Prop 215 did you not understand? The reason Purpose 7 and Section 11301 don’t have “cultivate” in them is because those parts aren’t dealing with cultivation, they are dealing with “sales”. Think of it this way:
- Medical patients have right to buy, sell, and cultivate cannabis (already established law)
- Prop 19 legalizes personal possession and cultivation only (it cannot implicitly repeal Prop 215 according to Nick)
- Prop 19, Purpose 7 gives cities the power to choose to regulate commercial (not medical) sales or deny commercial (not medical) sales
- If city denies commercial (not medical) sales that doesn’t mean they can restrict personal (not medical) use and possession.
So, you see, there is nothing in Prop 19 that says “cities can control medical cultivation and personal cultivation”. That right is given to the people. So there is no need to make exception for those because nothing in Purpose 7 says that they can affect them anyway. I actually even think that the part that excepts personal use and possession isn’t necessary, because Purpose 7 doesn’t give them the power to affect that, either.
And with 11301:
- Commercial regulations and controls…
“Commercial”. “Commercial”. “Commercial”. Nothing in 11301 is giving cities power over “Medical”. It doesn’t have to make an exception for something it doesn’t have the power to affect in the first place. It would be like saying “Russ Belville shall have the power to regulate his comments, except that he can’t suspend someone’s First Amendment rights.” We don’t need to write the comments rules with an exception to protect your First Amendment rights, because my comments have nothing to do with government censoring you and my powers to make comments rules could never possibly end your free speech rights.
Similarly, if we’re writing a law that regulates commercial marijuana, and a right already exists to medical marijuana, and the law we’re writing doesn’t specifically say “we’re intending this to regulate medical, too,” then there is no power over medical given by Prop 19 that we need to except from the law!
Look, if you want to hold in equal esteem the opinions of a party girl who writes strain critiques and one of the most successful medical marijuana attorneys in the state, I don’t know if I can convince you. A guy who defended Steve Kubby for 200 plants. A guy who defended Dennis Peron’s sales of marijuana. If you think you can hold your nose and vote with Bonnie Dumanis and Steve Cooley against Prop 19 because you like an initiative that isn’t on the ballot, has never been on the ballot, and has no realistic shot at getting on the next ballot, then I hope you’re not one of the 150,000 Californians who’ll get criminal records for pot in the next two years.
Russ,
I’ve read both arguments from both you and Dragonfly. I have kept an open mind throughout reading both sides of the argument. At this point, I’m trying to educate myself as best as possible prior to voting. I am 100% for legalization, but I am a seriously ill medical patient first.
My main concern with Prop 19 is Dragonfly’s contention that Prop 19 will limit medical grow-operations in Cities that choose not to tax and sell cannabis.
Taken from Dragonfly’s article:
“While amendments were made ostensibly to prevent the initiative from affecting current medical marijuana law, a careful reading of the initiative reveals that this is not, in fact, the case. Certain medical marijuana laws are exempt from the prohibitions the initiative would enact, while others are glaringly absent.
Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt. In spite of the fact that the tax cannabis Web site says otherwise, the only medical marijuana exemptions that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative actually makes are with regard to possession, consumption and purchase limits, which only ensure that patients would still be allowed to buy medicine at dispensaries. The word “cultivate” is conspicuously absent.
Finally, the medical marijuana laws that are exempted from this initiative apparently only apply to cities. For medical marijuana patients who live in an area that has county or local government jurisdiction, according to a strict reading of the initiative, medical marijuana laws are not exempt.”
I must say, that bit definitely alarms me. I did read Prop 19 to see if this was the case, and it appears to be so:
“B: Purposes, 7: Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9. (Note: The word “cultivate” is conspicuously absent here as well as in the exempted Health and Safety Sections that pertain to medical marijuana laws.)”
“Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following: (a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized. (Note: This section provides no exemptions for medical marijuana law.)”
As I have read the initiative, this means that if my city decides not to tax and sell marijuana, they can also then prevent me from growing my own medicine. And although I did read many peoples contentions that Prop 19 does not effect the CSU, I can’t help but notice that the language of the law does indeed leave out the word “cultivation”, which can’t be overlooked!
My question is whether or not you think this is an accurate reading of the law? This is, as you know, Dragonfly’s contention that Prop 215 patients will be negatively effected by Prop 19.
Me? I’m just not sure how to feel. It seems that you both make some very valid points in regards to Prop 19.
Personally, I DO support legalization and I could care less about the Prop 215 community losing out on profits. However, I did read the language for both Prop 19 and the California Cannabis Hemp and Health Initiative (CCHHI) of 2012. After doing some non-biased comparisons, it seems to me that the CCHHI is the better written law and also provides us far more freedom than Prop 19 ever will!
As someone who obviously supports legalization, I know that YOU couldn’t possibly be opposed to the California Cannabis Hemp and Health Initiative!
So why do you support Prop 19 INSTEAD of CCHHI? Because as I read the law, it seems that the CCHHI provides nearly all of the same protections as Prop 19, only with less restrictions to prevent corporate takeovers. Mainly, it seems that the CCHHI would allow for complete legalization without doing economic harm to people who rely on this industry to pay the bills each month. You know, the mom and pop growers up in the emerald triangle that really rely on this industry!
Again, as an honest and sincere question; Why not wait for the CCHHI?
I too am inclined to vote YES on Prop 19 because I want legalization YESTERDAY! But at the same time, if Prop 19 places unnecessary restrictions on patients and pot smokers alike, perhaps we should consider waiting for the CCHHI?!?
It seems to me that the main reason to vote on Prop 19 in to enact legalization NOW rather than later. Because although Prop 19 is a step in the right direction, it just doesn’t seem like the best choice in comparison.
In fact, I even remember reading that the Marijuana Policy Project does NOT endorse Prop 19 because it contains poorly written language. MPP does endorse the CCHHI though, while Norml endorses Prop 19! I guess this really goes to show you how truly divided the community is on how to go about legalizing! And it sure does make things confusing for people like myself, the uninformed voter who just wants true legalization with no gimmicks!
Thanks for reading Russ!
Is this Bruce Cain guy serious? I recommend EVERYONE peruse his link there.. ROFL. What a wacko! Oh yeah. LOT’S and LOT’S of people will rally behind this guy in California.
There is NO way in hell I’d align myself with a racist wacko like that. And for the record I am as white as the snow capped mountains in Colorado. So just imagine how the rest of my California brethren of color would feel about a whack job like this guy.
Please please please don’t even entertain the thought of even speaking with this man on his show or your show. He deserves to be ignored, let him live in his own little fantasy world. I care not to be apart of it.
The guy can’t even organize a decent website, it’s completely outdated with broken links. Not to mention it looks like it was designed in 1995 using notepad.
Dear Bruce; Even your buddy Alex Jones is YES on 19,so give it a rest…we love and respect your lifelong commitment to Jack Herer, his friends, and the movement.
Please leave important people like RadRuss alone,so he can concentrate his very sane,articulate and utilitarian voice in more important directions. People didn’t spend decades of work and hardship to be conned into voting against meaningful synthesis-compromise. Any decent person would shut up and abstain,if they disagreed with the minutiae in this statute.
Hyperbole,logical fallacy and very few facts…you and Alex Jones still get your free say !
I have a better idea… why don’t I go on your show to debate Prop 19? See, I’ve got 100,000 readers a month and 5,000 listeners a day and you’re a lunatic on a street corner screaming at passers-by. Why exactly would I want to give you a platform? Oh, right, because YOU started the global movement to re-legalize marijuana. Which is why one can’t turn on the news or attend a major drug policy event without seeing your smiling face promoting MERP.
Actually, it’s secretly because I’m afraid of you and your irrefutable logic. That and George Soros paid me one billion dollars to make sure you never get heard. Because it is my lifelong goal to make sure marijuana stays criminal so attorneys can get rich in criminal defense (the lowest-paying legal field) for drugs (the lowest-paying criminal defense category) and specifically marijuana (the lowest-paying drug subcategory).
You’re such an idiot you can’t even understand that voting Yes on Prop 19 (you know, making marijuana possession and cultivation LAWFUL) doesn’t prevent anyone from then voting on Jack Herer’s CCHH 2012 or even MERP, if so inclined. You’d rather that 150,000 California cannabis consumers remain criminals for another two years and I’M THE TRAITOR?
I’ve only posted your comment and links so my readers can click them and determine what a lying guanoloco gnat you are for themselves. To help, here’s a link to stuff you’re selling to help spread the MERP Message:
http://www.newagecitizen.com/NacEmporium.htm
Russ Buzzhead:
Anytime you want to debate the issue of Prop19 I am available. LOL. You are a traitor to the Re-Legalization movement.
I am recommending that all Marijuana Legalization groups, throughout the planet, endorse: The Marijuana Legalization Policy Project (MERP) Model. I have provided texts to my series of videos on MERP which can be read in over 30 different languages. My name is Bruce Cain and I began the Global Movement to Re-Legalize Marijuana in 1990 with the “International Drug Policy Day” events. I will now be helping to better organize future Global Marijuana March events in order to establish Marijuana Legalization world wide. Please go to the following internet link and read my articles on MERP in your own language.
MERP Headquarters
The Marijuana Re-Legalization Policy Project (MRPP)= “MERP”
http://www.newagecitizen.com/MERP.htm
“NO” On Prop19 “YES” on CCHH & MERP
http://www.newagecitizen.com/NoOnProp19.htm
PROPOSITION 19, MONSANTO, AND GMO TERMINATOR CANNABIS
http://community.kpfz.org/node/17
Fax to Your Representatives to Immediately Re-Legalize Marijuana:
http://www.change.org/actions/view/petition_for_the_immediate_re-legalization_of_marijuana#
19 reasons to vote NO on 19:
http://www.votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com
Jack Herer’s CCHH 2012 Initiative:
http://www.youthfederation.com/cchhi2012.html
Working Group Against Prop19 and For CCHH and MERP
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/GlobalMarijuanaReLegalization/
Peron knows all of this stuff. He has advisors and discusses the fine print of Prop 19. The real reason why Peron is against Prop 19 is other than this.
As Marc Emery said, concerning Dennis Peron, on June 5th, it is “professional jealousy.”
“The wonderful Proposition-215 pioneer Denis Peron is one, but there are many others. Their opposition is entirely trivial and irrational. It stems from a professional jealousy that a successful, compassionate man like Richard Lee (who has provided over a million dollars of his well-earned money to support this initiative) is doing it without their blessing. No one asked Dennis Peron’s permission. Dennis is a hero to the pot movement and has done a great deal to provide marijuana to medical users, but it seems he feels the world of activism has passed him by – because it has, and he’s jealous.”
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2010/06/05/Why-You-Should-Vote-YES-California-Control-Tax-Cannabis-Initiative
It just blows my mind that the selfishness of Dennis Peron would allow him to oppose Proposition 19 for all users.
Proposition 215 was intended only for:
quote
Sec. (1)
(A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes
unquote
This law was NOT enacted to allow people who use marijuana for recreational or other non-medical purposes to circumvent the system by getting an MMJ card, and thus to become legal and free from prosecution.
Many anti-Proposition 19 campaigners tell us that anyone can get an MMJ card if they want to. The point is, why should people have to lie to do this? Heck no, we want legalization for EVERY cannabis user – without having to lie and circumvent current cannabis law via Proposition 215.
Proposition 215 will not remain the de-facto law for marijuana use in the USA. Here at Legalise Cannabis International we will campaign for legalization for EVERY cannabis user for ANY reason. It is unjust that one section of the cannabis community is legally covered and the rest of the people continue to be criminalised and many sent to jail.
In year 2009 alone there were 858,408 people arrested for cannabis offences in the USA – and in our opinion here at LCI, that is 858,408 TOO MANY.
http://www.norml.com/index.cfm?Group_ID=8342
And as for Peron saying that all users are medical users – well that is just plain-in-the=face bs.
“We already have legalization,” Peron said. “We just have patients not admitting it.”
http://stash.norml.org/prop-215-co-author-dennis-peron-opposes-prop-19-marijuana-legalization
It appears that Peron will say ANYTHING to prevent Proposition 19 from passing. Peron is clutching at straws, terrified that his legacy will be superseded by Prop 19.
Peron – you are HISTORY.
Jayelle Farmer
Founder & Coordinator
Legalise Cannabis International
quote credits to Marc Emery at cannabisculture.com, Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director at NORML and “Radical” Russ Belville at NOTRML
[...] Prop 19 does not invalidate, change, or supersede Prop 215 in any way, shape, or form! Please see Prop 19 is the best thing to happen to medical marijuana patients since Prop 215 for the full explanation, but the relevant analysis is this:Anyone who claims that Proposition 19 [...]
When 19 passes… State Bill ABX6 9 would also benefit Medical Cannabis users and caregivers.
Looks like were not the only ones hoping for legalization. ABX6 9 is the States answer for Prop 19. The bill was introduced by Assembly Member Tom Ammiano. I am very surprised that we are not seeing a lot of media attention as it furthers Prop 19 and sets the stage for commercialization of the cannabis market. This bill is contingent upon passage of Prop 19.
The Bill covers just about every aspect such as removing criminal penalties from code, authorizes the ABC to control regulation, sets filing and licenses fees, etc..
This Bill has a few special treats. For starters, it increases the personal possession limit to 16oz. Yep…we would be able to carry up to a POUND on our person…in public. It also helps to further Medical rights. The Bill explicitly exempts Medical Cannabis from the regulation and taxing scheme.
Here are a few quotes from the Bill…
“To further the purposes of the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010″
“To address the overall failure of marijuana prohibition to protect the public health and safety.”
“To exclude medical marijuana from the fees and regulations imposed by this act.”
So, here we have the State admitting the failure of the prohibition of cannabis. I like that! However I like this part the best…”26000. (a) This chapter is an exercise of the police powers of
the state for the protection of the safety, welfare, health, peace,
and morals of the people of the state, to eliminate the evils of
unlicensed and unlawful production, selling, and disposing of
marijuana, and to promote temperance in the use and consumption of marijuana. It is hereby declared that the subject matter of this
chapter involves in the highest degree the economic, social, and
moral well-being and the safety of the state and of all its people.
All provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed for the
accomplishment of these purposes.”
So here we have the State indicating, by law that Morally, it is OK to smoke cannabis. Everyone should read it and then tell everyone they know.
The Anti’s are using the “gray” area against us…well with ABX6 9, it’s all Green! All the “what if’s” are in that bill.
The time is NOW! We are ready, the State is ready…lets get this freedom bringing, job creating law passed!
its a shame that our government spews out missinformation and the sheep will follow. vote yes an help the planet
I know I will NEVER purchase or pick up for that matter any publication or other merchandise with any of those peoples names connected to it. Especially Dragonfly de la Luz. “Professional Stoner” not on my dime! Would love to see advertisers in these publications pull their accounts.
Those guys are immensely ignorant about how the legal system works in america (with the exception of Louisiana). The one thing that irks me the most about these people are those who read proposition 19 and “interpret the law”.
Only judges can interpret law. That plain and simple. The evidence those people really need to provide is Common law. Why? Because when it is not governed by legislative statutes, or if there is anything ambiguous about the laws, it is the judge’s duty to clarify the situation. California is a common law nation, not a civil law nation.
But shifting through tons of court cases is not only mindbogglingly boring, its time consuming. After all, you have to provide evidence solely on California because each and every other state is a sovereign state. Meaning what? That their court decisions are basically worthless in California because it is only persuasive precedent (google it!) and not a binding precedent which means it is still left for the judges in California to decide.
Those guys take the easy way out and use “philosophy” or their own subjective reasoning to come to a conclusion of a concept that they have zero knowledge about. That type of method of interpreting law is flawed because of what I just said before.
Therefore it becomes an intellectual stall tactic because judging by the reaction of those people, many of do not understand the basic construction and method of law. This means that not only do we have to pour all of our intellectual power into disproving the entire situation, due to their immensely flawed reasoning and lack of actual evidence, our efforts would become insignificant and worthless once it passes. And, god forbid, it fails, our arguments also become worthless because the argument only works when it’s actually law. They’ll become smug bastards.
Ah well, enough of my rant. Heres a california supreme court decision.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/summary/opinion/ca-supreme-court/2009/01/27/161482.html
“In order for the second law to repeal or supersede the first, the former must constitute a revision of the entire subject, so that the court may say that it was intended to be a substitute for the first. . .Courts will infer the repeal of a statute only when . . . a subsequent act of the legislature clearly is intended to occupy the entire field covered by a prior enactment. The courts are bound, if possible, to maintain the integrity of both statutes if the two may stand together.”
Oh, if you read the entire case, you’ll see the court cases which they judges cite. But the great thing about google?
Google the below statement word for word with the quotes.
“In order for the second law to repeal or supersede the first”
OH WOW LOOK AT ALL THOSE COURT CASES.
Ah well. Since its on the intents/purposes section it probably doesn’t matter since they don’t actually have any legal weight correct?
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/summary/opinion/ca-supreme-court/2009/08/10/165316.html
Under settled canons of statutory construction, in construing a statute we ascertain the Legislature’s intent in order to effectuate the law’s purpose. We must look to the statute’s words and give them “their usual and ordinary meaning.” “The statute’s plain meaning controls the court’s interpretation unless its words are ambiguous.” “If the statutory language permits more than one reasonable interpretation, courts may consider other aids, such as the statute?s purpose, legislative history, and public policy.”
GASP!
But I guess since it is a voters initiative we can’t really look into their intent right? After all it has to have at least the same issue.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/summary/opinion/ca-court-of-appeal/2009/11/06/166737.html
In identifying the purposes of an initiative, we examine the initiative as a whole, and are guided by, but not limited to, its general statements of purpose. (Amwest, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 1257.) We must give effect to an initiative’s specific language, as well as its major and fundamental purposes. (Id. at pp. 1259, 1260 [identifying initiative’s “major purposes”; argument that initiative had “a narrower scope than would follow from its broad language” rejected “ ‘in view of the particular language’ ” used]; Foundation, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 1370 [citing initiative’s “fundamental purpose”; amendment must not “violate[] a specific primary mandate” or “do violence to specific provisions” of the initiative].) Although legislative findings “are given great weight” (Amwest, 11 Cal.4th at p. 1252), the issue is not whether the legislation “furthers the public good, but rather whether [it] furthers the purposes of [the initiative]” (id. at p. 1265).
GASP!
Ah well. Prop 19 still supersedes prop 215 because I believe it to be so.
Simple minds need simple ideas:
No on 19 means ~78,000 Californians (disproportionately minorities) will be arrested and incarcerated for the crime of cannabis.
While I can appreciate the importance of such monumental events as Californians’ opportunity ot vote on Proposition 19, I hope those who would warn about “permanent medicalization” remember there is still a group of American patients with no real hope for safe and legal access to medical cannabis in the near (and in some places, the not-so-near) future.
That group has a name: The Overwhelming Majority.
I join those across the country, crossing our collective fingers, who enthusiastically support Prop 19.
I hope to see the initiative pass, and for California to continue to lead the country in sensible marijuana law reform.
My only concern is that millions of suffering patients are being put on the back burner, their medical needs being denied while there are folks celebrating the freedom to attend to their wants.
How many times have I heard speakers deny the ONLY purpose for medical marijuana was to serve as a springboard for legalization? How many said “patients should be at the head of the line!”?
I don’t fault Californians for taking advantage of every bit of law reform available to them. In fact, I salute them!
But, as the entire nation is gathering its breath to hold until November in California, I hope they don’t forget why the word ‘compassion’ is used so much when referring to medical cannabis. The word’s been used a lot, but its meaning hasn’t changed.
31 states have passed legislation recognizing the medical value of cannabis.
In the 14 states with legal medical cannabis, deserving patients are denied medical cannabis because their medical conditions aren’t part of a list. In the more liberal states, simply obtaining authorization by specialist physicians and paying for them and the required fees can simply be too expensive, especially for patients who live on fixed incomes from disability checks.
I’m just sayin’…
Celebrate! Rejoice! Several million people finally have the chance to start to undo a 73 year old injustice!
But please keep in mind, the facts are still true. People are unnecessarily suffering and dying because they don’t have access to a proven medicine.
Way too many.
Sorry about missing the “reply” format.
Yes. You are exactly right. I’ve been fighting the reform battle on the Internet since 1996, and I have NEVER seen what we are facing now – where our biggest problem comes from people supposedly in our own ranks. Well, they’re NOT in our ranks.
I believe we made one BIG mistake when we passed/implemented Prop 215. We SHOULD have limited the price dispensaries can charge to $50 an ounce. That way, growers and vendors would be fairly compensated for their labor, but they would not be so willing to sell out marijuana reform, and perpetuate the persecution of millions of innocent Americans..
The OUTRAGEOUS compensation they have been getting is the ONLY thing that fuels their anti-Prop 19 positions. They are making the same profits as the drug dealers in the streets – with none of the risk. They’re riding a golden gravy train that will never happen again. OF COURSE, they will do and say anything to keep raking in the BLOOD MONEY!
Prop 19 ENDS the persecution of responsible, adult marijuana consumers. THAT is the Holy Grail we have been fighting for for so long. Now that it is within our grasp, we cannot let greedy people derail the movement. Somehow, we have got to close ranks, claim our rightful, hard-earned position as leaders and send a powerful message to all in the cannabis culture that THIS is our moment, and to not be distracted by those greedy people who are conducting a campaign of deception.
Perhaps we need a high-powered advertising group. I’d certainly be willing to contribute to it. I’m hoping our October surprise will be better than theirs.
If we somehow don’t win this, we need to take something positive out of it. At the very least, we should remember who these people are that want to keep making criminals out of their precious “customers.” They deserve nothing but contempt, and need to be made known for what they really are.
Well put. Some people criticize me for being so snarky with the Stoners Against Legalization. Sorry, but I reserve the same amount of disdain and disrespect for anyone who want me to remain a criminal, whether they be the drug czar or some “professional stoner” who writes about partying with weed.
This is what I’ve always feared about medical marijuana; that our opponents would realize they’ve lost the battle on medical marijuana and decide that, OK, we’ll make it as medical as can be. Enrich a few dispensary owners and referral clinics and let their own self-interest divide the pro-marijuana movement to the point where a compromise is made enacting a “permanent medicalization” for marijuana – a world where you need doctor’s permissions and cultivation is limited and those who don’t jump through the hoops can still remain fodder for the police/prison/rehab complex. Turn marijuana over to Big Pharma and cut out from the reform movement all those heartstring-tugging wheelchair-bound baldheaded chemo patients from their arsenal… and even turn the most sympathetic case into an anti-legalization zealot.
If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then the friend of my enemy is my enemy. Anyone voting NO on Prop 19 along with Jerry Brown, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Bonnie Dumanis, Carmen Trutanich, and Steve Cooley is my enemy.
We are now at the cusp of the vote on Prop 19. I hate to have to bring this up, but SO MUCH depends on winning now. The whole country, even much of the rest of the world, is depending on us to make this happen.
If you were part of the powerful interests that will lose their billions of dollars of blood money, what would you do right now? Wouldn’t the most effective thing be to divide the reform movement and take away the support that we thought was the strongest? How would you do that?
What better way would there be than to buy off some marginal “reformers” to fight against the initiative?
If this is the most logical course of action for those enriched by prohibition, how in the world are we to assume it’s not happening? The most rational thing is to assume it IS happening, and begin to look VERY closely at all “reformers” who are standing up against Prop 19.
It’s sad to say, but a traitorous “friend” is much more dangerous than an up-front enemy.
Et tu, Brute?