Oakland legalizing large scale grow ops

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
so some of you really do believe in a "magic closet"? :roll:

you are limited to ONE OUNCE of dried buds. whether it's in your closet or in your pocket.


i see A LOT of people getting arrested if this passes. they are all mistaken on the "rules". gonna be a free-for-all for the feds.

good luck.

CA is moving towards legalizing MJ. Obama has told the feds to lay off medical marijuana states on enforcement.

Why do you think that the feds are somehow going to get tougher than they are now?
 

growone

Well-Known Member
so some of you really do believe in a "magic closet"? :roll:

you are limited to ONE OUNCE of dried buds. whether it's in your closet or in your pocket.


i see A LOT of people getting arrested if this passes. they are all mistaken on the "rules". gonna be a free-for-all for the feds.

good luck.
i find it difficult how some are interpreting the proposition, this is extracted from the ballot

(iv) In determining whether an amount of cannabis is or is not in excess of the amounts permitted by this Act, the following shall apply:

(a) only the active amount of the cannabis in an edible cannabis product shall be included;

(b) living and harvested cannabis plants shall be assessed by square footage, not by weight in determining the amounts set forth in section 11300(a);

(c) in a criminal proceeding a person accused of violating a limitation in this Act shall have the right to an affirmative defense that the cannabis was reasonably related to his or her personal consumption.


how can this be interpreted as being a 1 oz limit in the growing area?
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
CA is moving towards legalizing MJ. Obama has told the feds to lay off medical marijuana states on enforcement.

Why do you think that the feds are somehow going to get tougher than they are now?
obama clearly stated he would not allow pot to be legalized.


they followed ALL the rules set by the state and county. look what the feds did, ...

DEA Flouts Mendocino Medical Marijuana Ordinance by Raiding First Grow Permit Applicant


Posted July 10th, 2010 by canorml_admin
COVELO, Cal, Jul 7th 2010: The DEA flouted Mendocino County's newly enacted medical marijuana cultivation ordinance by raiding the first collective that had applied to the sheriff's cultivation permit program.
A multi-agency federal task force descended on the property of Joy Greenfield, 68, the first Mendo patient to pay the $1050 application fee under the ordinance, which allows collectives to grow up to 99 plants provided they comply with certain regulations. Ms Greenfield had applied in the name of her collective, "Light the Way," which opened in San Diego earlier this year. Her property had passed a preliminary inspection by Mendo sheriff's deputies shortly before the raid, and she had bought the sheriff's "zip-ties" intended to designate her plants as legal. In the days before the raid, Ms Greenfield had seen a helicopter hovering over her property; she inquired with the sheriff, who told her the copter belonged to DEA and wasn't under his control.
The agents invaded her property with guns drawn, tore out the collective's 99 plants and took Ms Greenfield's computer and cash. Ms Greenfield was not at home during the raid, but spoke on the phone to the DEA agent in charge. When she told him that she was a legal grower under the sheriff's program, the agent replied "I don't care what the sheriff says."
When she returned to her house she found it in disarray with soda cans strewn on the floor. "It was just a mess," she said, "No one should be able to tear your house apart like that."
Ms. Greenfield called the raid a "slap in the face of Mendocino's government."
The DEA has been tight-lipped about the raid, but claims it was part of a larger investigation involving other suspects.
"Here Mendo is trying to step out in front by passing this ordinance, and what do the feds do but raid the first applicant," commented Ms Greenfield's attorney, Bob Boyd of Ukiah. " The DEA is stepping all over local authorities trying to tax and regulate."
Neither Boyd nor other locals believe that the sheriff tipped off the DEA or gave them any information about permit applicants. Sheriff Allman has been highly supportive of efforts to bring local growers into the permit program. Nonetheless, observers fear that the raid will have a chilling effect.
"This raid is clear evidence that the DEA is out of control," said California NORML director Dale Gieringer. "A change in federal law is long overdue. In the meantime, the DEA needs a new director who will enforce Attorney General Holder's pledge not to interfere in state medical marijuana laws." The agency is currently directed by Michele Leonhart, a Bush holdover who has presided over numerous medical marijuana raids and has obstructed research efforts to develop marijuana for medicine. Obama has renominated her to head the agency - a move strongly opposed by drug reformers, who are calling on the administration to honor its pledge of change.




http://canorml.org/news/deamendo.html
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
i find it difficult how some are interpreting the proposition, this is extracted from the ballot

(iv) In determining whether an amount of cannabis is or is not in excess of the amounts permitted by this Act, the following shall apply:

(a) only the active amount of the cannabis in an edible cannabis product shall be included;

(b) living and harvested cannabis plants shall be assessed by square footage, not by weight in determining the amounts set forth in section 11300(a);

(c) in a criminal proceeding a person accused of violating a limitation in this Act shall have the right to an affirmative defense that the cannabis was reasonably related to his or her personal consumption.


how can this be interpreted as being a 1 oz limit in the growing area?

easily, ......

(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.





looks pretty clear to me.


if you think you can sit on a pound of buds simply because you keep it in "your closet", i wish you luck. ;)
 

growone

Well-Known Member
easily, ......

(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.





looks pretty clear to me.


if you think you can sit on a pound of buds simply because you keep it in "your closet", i wish you luck. ;)
this text is from section 11300a of the proposition, and the key phrase is 'Personally possess'
section 11304 states 'living and harvested cannabis plants shall be assessed by square footage, not by weight in determining the amounts set forth in section 11300(a)'
which differentiates between 'Personally possess' and plants growing and harvested
furthermore, 11300a does allow for the personal growing space
the intent is clear here to differentiate between what is on one's person and what is in one's growing space
 

stonedmetalhead1

Well-Known Member
this text is from section 11300a of the proposition, and the key phrase is 'Personally possess'
section 11304 states 'living and harvested cannabis plants shall be assessed by square footage, not by weight in determining the amounts set forth in section 11300(a)'
which differentiates between 'Personally possess' and plants growing and harvested
furthermore, 11300a does allow for the personal growing space
the intent is clear here to differentiate between what is on one's person and what is in one's growing space
Once the herb is harvested and dried, would the grower not "personally possess" more than he is allowed.This bill is written for law enforcement and local governments to use and abuse however they want and is not clear at all.
 

growone

Well-Known Member
Once the herb is harvested and dried, would the grower not "personally possess" more than he is allowed.This bill is written for law enforcement and local governments to use and abuse however they want and is not clear at all.
there is no doubt that many laws can be interpreted in many ways, that is true in general, not just prop 19
now is 'harvested and dried' different than 'harvested'?
if i was a judge, i would say no, harvested means it's no longer living and has been cut
law enforcement does not care for this bill, at least in general
now for local governments, that is true, this does leave local governments latitude in how they will deal with commercial setups
but try to pas a bill that doesn't in California, plenty of the southern counties will react quite differently to a looser legalization bill
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
More lies, eh? That's OK... par for the course, with you. This time, let's try a simple summary page from CA NORML even.
I'm not lying at all. The part of the prop he was quoting specifically has to do with commercial regulations and controls. Look at the section he was quoting. It's titled "Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls". I don't need someone else's summery to interpret it. It's very clear.




http://www.canorml.org/laws/calmjlaws.html

I'll even quote the significant parts for you so you don't have to strain yourself with clicking the link or having to reason everything out for yourself....

So, from no plant limits and virtually no possession cap, provided you can establish personal consumption, to 5'x5' default growing space and one ounce default possession. On top of which, recreational smokers get to foot the bill for cops to come up with new and interesting ways to bust smokers and growers. Prop 19 is only a starting point if your intention is to be exploited and taxed for the pleasure of being exploited.
lol. Fail. No where in that passage does it say it's taking away the ability to have a personal medical grows.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
This law is a starting point for the corporations not the people. If you think the local governments are going to give more rights to the people your crazy.
That'll just depend on where you live. When prop 215 came out many counties/cities increased state legal minimums. It'll be the same way.

These marijuana corporations will buy the politicians and laws will become more and more strict on the average citizen. Also, this bill is very vague and doesn't outline what is considered commercial so I wouldn't be suprised if law enforcement see's any sales as commercial.
Yeah, you're probably right about all of that. But that's really not any different than other legal substances.
 

TokinPodPilot

Well-Known Member
I'm not lying at all. The part of the prop he was quoting specifically has to do with commercial regulations and controls. Look at the section he was quoting. It's titled "Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls". I don't need someone else's summery to interpret it. It's very clear.
Still can't read worth a damn, eh? Or you really do live in a weird bizarro world where there's been no progress of any kind. I live in California, luckily and we have some pretty damn reasonable laws on the books already. And that's not just "someone else's" summary. That page is a rundown of current California marijuana laws as they stand today and also reflects the current precedents used to determine such things as "intent to sell" and applicability of the "personal consumption" defense.

lol. Fail. No where in that passage does it say it's taking away the ability to have a personal medical grows.
Who said anything about personal medical grows being taken away? Seriously, you need to actually READ what your replying to... preferably before you type your response and post it. Try paying attention this time: Under current law, you can grow as many plants as you want and possess as much as you want, but you'll have to prove "personal consumption" should you ever get arrested for "intent to sell". No matter how much you deny it, Prop 19 sets default possession limits and restrictions on personal cultivation which do not exist today.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Who said anything about personal medical grows being taken away? Seriously, you need to actually READ what your replying to... preferably before you type your response and post it.
Ok. Done. The comment I was responding to was:

Originally Posted by stonedmetalhead1
This new legalization bill up in November already effects your rights as a patient which was written by lawyers that represent the people trying to take herb corporate and supersedes prop 215.
We were in fact talking about prop19 superseding prop 215. Please take your own advice. As you'd say "seriously, you need to actually READ what your replying to... "
 

TokinPodPilot

Well-Known Member
Try again, Danny boy... just stop now, please. You aren't good at this and I'm starting to be embarrassed for you with the level of these gaffes you make.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Try again, Danny boy... just stop now, please. You aren't good at this and I'm starting to be embarrassed for you with the level of these gaffes you make.
Ok. Well if you are going to deny direct quotes from this thread, I guess there is nothing I can do about that.

I went back and reread the series of posts I was replying to as you requested. I even re-quoted the post I was replying to. I guess that still isn't enough for you, so congratulations, you win. Think what you want. I will no longer respond to you on this subject.
 
Top