California Approves Recreational Marijuana Ballot Measure

[Fogdog]

Fuck no, it's all about money. Nobody gives a shit about helping sick people.

I agree that the WA law is fucked up. Oregon got a chance to learn from WA, so thanks for that. And you have my best wishes to fix that fucker going forward. I also agree that CA's laws that allow districts to ban growing weed for personal use is completely fucked up too.

 

[potroastV2]

This is exactly why patients here in Cali should vote no on auma. It's only design is for big money to make more of it. Complete sham.

And yes, I am actively out trying to change people's minds to vote no on this piece of shit bill. But I'm also in the group that wants mmrsa to fall flat on it face.

Good luck trying to change peoples' minds when you don't know what you are talking about.

The language that leaves it open for them to change medical. Also the fact it is all backed by big money and lobbies. You really think w all the corporate Interests behind both auma and mmrsa that either is really in the best interest of patients?

Already both bills place restrictions on medical. (Plant counts, limits on cooperative numbers etc... ). Prop 215 is just fine as it is IMO.

No, wrong again! AUMA does not have any negative effect on what legal patients can do. It will be a benefit though. And patients have NO plant number limits, you can grow as many as you need.

You really should not try to influence others because you will become known as an idiot.

I have more than six types of plants I run from clones, phenotypes that I've found that are irreplaceable.
I will not abide by their six plant law.
I like variety.
but that being said it's not something to bitch about really.
but those six plants when they harvest are gonna be more than an oz, no?
I mean unless you are growing with a 60w incandescent..

You said you are a legal patient. That means you can grow as many plants as you need, and possess at least 1 pound.

 

[ttystikk]

I'm not defending the bill, I'm recreational user, live in Oregon and am happy with the current state of affairs here.

What I hear you say is:
Big money behind the bill, so don't trust it.
Lets individual municipalities set limits on growing (also on sale) of MMJ and recreational.

So vote no.

We have some pretty conservative districts in Oregon who have banned the sale of MJ within their jurisdiction. The city councils are up for election and this has been an issue for some voters. It's my guess that eventually, times change and city councils will change along with them. Bans will go away just like bans on the sale of alcohol after federal prohibition ended. The principle here is home rule where appropriate. For rec users, if they want a dispensary in town then they need to refresh the city council. Why not also in California?

I agree with you on the harm done to medical users who are banned from growing anywhere. I hope the CA Supreme Court sees it your way too.

From my perspective, I see the Oregon bill as on the whole pretty good. We are still developing an understanding of what legal marijuana means in terms of good and bad for the community. When the legislation was crafted, it was necessary to put in home rule that allowed conservative districts fearful of MJ to ban sale. We wouldn't have had a bill at all if we hadn't had this compromise. We went from no recreational sale or growing in Oregon to legal recreational growing or sale in most districts. Our more backward districts will eventually catch up. But that's up to local voters. Except in the case where medical users are harmed, so agree with you regarding medical growing should be available everywhere.

I don't know what to say about not trusting big money. That's a subjective area, either one is swayed by that kind of blanket statement or they are not.

Believe it or not, there are STILL dry counties- no alcohol sales allowed- in the United States.

 

[Dr.Pecker]

Good luck trying to change peoples' minds when you don't know what you are talking about.


No, wrong again! AUMA does not have any negative effect on what legal patients can do. It will be a benefit though. And patients have NO plant number limits, you can grow as many as you need.

You really should not try to influence others because you will become known as an idiot.



You said you are a legal patient. That means you can grow as many plants as you need, and possess at least 1 pound.

That doesn't sound so bad. They were painting it like a nightmare bill. I'll admit I didn't read it because it didn't pertain to me. Does the bill say anything about edibles or extracts?

 

[potroastV2]

AUMA allows adults over age 20 to possess 1 ounce of bud, or 8 grams of concentrate, and yes, edibles or any kind of marijuana product will be allowed.

 

[SomeGuy]

Call me names all you want. I personally think your an idiot for buying into it. They are trying to u do prop215. And that is what this is about to many of us here in CA growing.
http://m.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/...dult-use-of-marijuana-act/Content?oid=4434974

Excerpt from Ron deziel


There is no language in Prop. 215 that allows the legislature to change its terms or reduce the rights to marijuana that the sovereign people granted to themselves through passing this ballot initiative. That’s what is crucial about Prop. 215. These rights of personal cultivation, privacy in choice of doctor, and safe and affordable access cannot be abrogated by the legislature, yet that is exactly what happened.

M.M.R.S.A. re-writes the entire Health Code regulations pertaining to medical marijuana. Ignoring the Propositional Status of units of the code, M.M.R.S.A. treats its changes as merely code changes while it affirms Prop. 215 and SB 420. The legislature has the authority to enhance and broaden the mission of Prop. 215, but not to dismantle it. M.M.R.S.A. does that.

The Doctor’s Note,” for example, will change. It must be issued by one’s Primary Care Physician. If your medical plan’s doctors do not issue such recommendations, you have to bear the expense privately of having more than one PCP. The terms of the Note will now say that the medical condition is a “serious” one. This is a usurpation of power because Prop. 215 did not specify a serious ailment.

Just a final cause for concern: M.M.R.S.A. gives terms and conditions under which personal grows have state legality. However, the legislation also gives local governments (city and county and special districts) the right to change or modify or even ban any benefits the legislation grants. What had previously been a right to cultivate under Prop. 215 becomes a revocable privilege to grow under M.M.R.S.A..

For all of these objections, it is premature to give in to M.M.R.S.A. It doesn’t go into effect until 2018. It is still contestable in court. M.M.R.S.A. hijacked Prop. 215. It is still contestable in court precisely because the legislature, acting on Lt.Governor Gavin Nuisance’s so-called Blue Ribbon Commission, overstepped its authority. Prop. 215 did not contain language allowing the legislature to restrict its terms. M.M.R.S.A. is moving medical marijuana therapy from the wholistic plant to a pharmaceutical derivative. Prop. 215 does not say that cannabis use must follow an AU.M.A. or AmPharmA mode of delivery. Prop. 215 says marijuana plant and everything from it is covered.

Good luck trying to change peoples' minds when you don't know what you are talking about.


No, wrong again! AUMA does not have any negative effect on what legal patients can do. It will be a benefit though. And patients have NO plant number limits, you can grow as many as you need.

You really should not try to influence others because you will become known as an idiot.



You said you are a legal patient. That means you can grow as many plants as you need, and possess at least 1 pound.

 

[potroastV2]

Now you're quoting Ron Deziel?? He has proven that he is not paying attention, so you have just lost all credibility.

It sounds like you have objections to mmrsa, which has been passed by the Legislature. I'd say you should talk to your representative.

 

[potroastV2]

Real world example

My town had no cultivation ban. The rule was just keep it away from prying eyes etc...

Enter mmrsa
Instant ban on all cultivation and no discussion. Within thier right according to mmrsa.

I guarantee there will be challenges to mmrsa that will go to ca supreme Court. It infringes on patient rights by giving local cities cart blanche against patients who have the right to grow thier own.

Let me clear that up for you. Your town put a ban in place because the prohibitionists, read pigs, put out the word that if communities don't act, then they will lose the ability to govern their community. So you are just giving a perfect reason why you should support AUMA!

AUMA will make it illegal to ban growing, so if it passes your ban will end.

 

[OneHitDone]

So, roughly an ounce and an half per week, let's round up to two ounces per week or 104 ounces per year. 6.5 pounds per year. An outdoor grow easily makes this amount with six plants doesn't it? What's the gripe? Agree that one ounce possession limit is not in line with the six plant limit. That can be fixed. To vote down the whole measure because of that seems a bit off in the head. As paddy said, recreational users are being fined and worse for simple possession.

Now your assuming everyone in cali lives in an area where they can grow outdoors? Think again - outdoor ain't happening where I live unless you like smoking immature mold and bud rot

 

[SomeGuy]

Let me clear that up for you. Your town put a ban in place because the prohibitionists, read pigs, put out the word that if communities don't act, then they will lose the ability to govern their community. So you are just giving a perfect reason why you should support AUMA!

AUMA will make it illegal to ban growing, so if it passes your ban will end.

With a majority vote they can also revoke all the grow privileged. It does away with prop215. I am not in favor of that. I see you are and so the argument is lost on you. Prop215 guaranteed the right to grow your own medicine. That is why it is so important. Auma does not guarantee that. As a matter of fact it makes it way easier for them to change thier mind.

I for one do not trust the government or politicians to keep thier word. Sounds like you do. We have a fundamental difference of opinion. I think we do not need more regulation, and you obviously are in favor of it.

You think we are all quaks till you lose the rights we fought so hard to get.

 

[potroastV2]

Jesus, Man, you quoted my post where I told you that AUMA will make it illegal to ban growing!

No one is "doing away with Prop 215." AUMA will give patients more rights than we have already.

Now you're saying that I am the one who doesn't understand?

 

[SomeGuy]

Jesus, Man, you quoted my post where I told you that AUMA will make it illegal to ban growing!

No one is "doing away with Prop 215." AUMA will give patients more rights than we have already.

Now you're saying that I am the one who doesn't understand?

I am. I'm saying you haven't really read it. No where does it guarantee our right to grow. Cut and paste the part of the bill that says so.

It does make it easier for them to revoke the growing privilege. You have NOT read this thing well. It does create create more imprisonment. It does give more power to corporate interest.

I think you most likely have personal gain coming from this. Mark my words. AUMA passes and eventually all the rights we have enjoyed will gradually be whittled down to nothing again through legislation.

 

[bluntmassa1]

Maine is also trying to pass a recreational marijuana bill this November.
The problem with legalization is (and I'm surprised no one has touched on this) there are people with big money backing these bills. They want to make millions (not just a living) while cozying up to these Masters, in lieu of super high taxes. Unlike the 1800's people are lining up for the tax man to steal their money.
Meanwhile the ones backing these bills, trying to become millionaires, are just going to make it easier (once enough states make it legal) for the government to hand it all off to big business and take it out of the hands of the people.

Rob Roy is right. Decriminalization is key.

We are turning this whole movement into a movement of greed. Not a movement for freedom. Name one state that taxes prescription drugs...... Yet we pay taxes on medical marijuana. Why? So the man will except our bills,

I'm under no delusion, greed will win in the end. It always does.

Legalization works just as well I would sell weed tax free the big guys can try to make millions but once people realize it's not much harder than farming tomatoes the government will have already shot themselves in the foot.

 

[bluntmassa1]

I think "legalization" will pass, but don't think what is presented is the best it could be.

My preference is complete decriminalization. Much of the "legalization" talk features a kinder way of administering prohibition, "prohibition lite" if you will. You get to grow a handful of plants etc.

If the ONLY possible options were old school prohibition or some form of legalization with plant limits etc. , I'd say the lesser form of prohibition is better. However those aren't the only options. Complete decriminalization to me, is akin to freeing the slaves, "legalization" as proposed by many states is akin to treating the slaves better. I want to end slavery outright, hence why I support complete decriminalization.

Besides, most of us know, "When freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will be free". Peace.

They have decriminalization in a few states in New England and not one can you grow or you can end up in prison.

 

[Rob Roy]

Do you people seriously not understand the implication of having a completely legal state with a population pushing 40 million?

If California goes legal, so goes the nation

This is much bigger than just you

Legal in the way being presented isn't the same as completely decriminalized.

One tells you what your "choices" are, still has penalties if you have one plant "too many" etc.

The other, complete decriminalization, respects your freedom of choice.

The legalization efforts to me are an expansion of privilege from master because he wants to head off complete decriminalization and the ahem "chaos" of people actually owning themselves. Gee, what a horrible idea. <sarcasm>

The legislative measures reinforce the idea that your "rights" are really just a revocable privilege and other people can and should control you. THAT is the issue much bigger than any of us.

 

[Rob Roy]

They have decriminalization in a few states in New England and not one can you grow or you can end up in prison.

I mean complete decriminalization of cannabis.

Meaning, the overlords butt the fuck out of it completely and people get to stand on their hind legs for a change.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Legal in the way being presented isn't the same as completely decriminalized.

One tells you what your "choices" are, still has penalties if you have one plant "too many" etc.

The other, complete decriminalization, respects your freedom of choice.

The legalization efforts to me are an expansion of privilege from master because he wants to head off complete decriminalization and the ahem "chaos" of people actually owning themselves. Gee, what a horrible idea. <sarcasm>

The legislative measures reinforce the idea that your "rights" are really just a revocable privilege and other people can and should control you. THAT is the issue much bigger than any of us.

Legal means no limits, no restrictions on the number of plants you can grow

 

[potroastV2]

Yeah, what ever pie-in-the-sky thing these "idealists" envision, needs to be kept to themselves so we can actually get something accomplished. They are background noise, nothing more.

The ones who are paying attention, and achieve something positive, know to disregard their blather.

 

[Rob Roy]

Legal means no limits, no restrictions on the number of plants you can grow

It sort of looks like if you grow 100 plants, there could be a presumption it's commercial. Would you consider a tax a kind of restriction ? I would.

(f) Commerce in cannabis hemp euphoric products shall be limited to adults, 21 years of age and older, and shall be regulated in a manner analogous, and no more onerous than California’s beer and wine model. For the purpose of distinguishing personal from commercial production, 99 flowering female plants and 12 pounds of dried, cured cannabis hemp flowers, but not leaf, produced per adult, 21 years of age and older, per year shall be presumed as being for personal use.


I do agree with you though that passage of this initiative will have an impact on how at least some other plantations treat their slaves.

 

[Padawanbater2]

It sort of looks like if you grow 100 plants, there could be a presumption it's commercial. Would you consider a tax a kind of restriction ? I would.

(f) Commerce in cannabis hemp euphoric products shall be limited to adults, 21 years of age and older, and shall be regulated in a manner analogous, and no more onerous than California’s beer and wine model. For the purpose of distinguishing personal from commercial production, 99 flowering female plants and 12 pounds of dried, cured cannabis hemp flowers, but not leaf, produced per adult, 21 years of age and older, per year shall be presumed as being for personal use.


I do agree with you though that passage of this initiative will have an impact on how at least some other plantations treat their slaves.

Do you feel the same way about people who brew their own beer? If they brew a certain amount it's considered commercial (as far as I know, that goes for pretty much any product made in the USA)

I don't really see any point to this conversation, I mean your line of reasoning is always just going to revert back to your libertarian philosophy anyway, so unless legislation gets passed that allows people to grow unlimited amounts of plants without having to pay taxes, you will always be against it no matter the language