The "OFFICIAL" cast your VOTE on PROP 19 thread

PROP 19 - tax and regulate cannabis in California

  • YES

    Votes: 152 66.1%
  • NO

    Votes: 78 33.9%

  • Total voters
    230

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
19 will do nothing for the sterotypes employers attribute to workers. It will change nothing federally (for the time being), youre still a hophead. And voting for your "lawfully obtained" cannabis puts you in a position where you, when questioned, will have to prove your innocence into perpetuity. If its legal, then why so much restriction on what kind of cannabis you can have? It's not progess, 215 was progress, 19 is just bait. Well funded bait. I would advise everyone to keep the hook out of their mouths.
 

Teeaytchsee

Active Member
hmm a hophead. an assumption and an attack... thats very mature of you. there is no restriction to any kind of cannabis in this proposition. you are mistaken. calling it bait is more narrow-minded banter from a conspiracy theorist. how are the ufo's this time of year? (you get what you give)...

what innocence would i need to prove if confronted for possession? my DL proving age and carrying not more than 28.5g of any kind of marijuana for personal consumption. thats not difficult. im fine with carrying only 5g of strong weed to last me all day or more. how much do you smoke that you need to carry around more than one ounce on your person for recreational use as a non mmj patient? your qualm is that there is a restriction? get fucking used to it. no matter what commodity you put on the table there will always be restrictions and controls.

you are fooling yourself more than anyone else.
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
ok well fdd2blk... you want a more concrete reason to that specific amount... this is why

California

Share This Page
decriminalized medical hemp

Incarceration

Fine
Possession 28.5 g or less misdemeanor none $100 More than 28.5 g misdemeanor 6 months $500 28.5 g or less on school grounds while school open (over 18 yers old) misdemeanor 10 days $500 More than 28.5 g on school grounds while school open (over 18 yers old) misdemeanor 6 months $500 Cultivation Any amount (exception for patients or caregivers) felony 16 - 36 months none
Sale Gift of less than 28.5 g misdemeanor none $100 Any amount felony
2 - 4 years​
none 28.5 g or less by a minor misdemeanor none $250 Any amount to a minor over 14 years old felony 3 - 5 years none Any amount to a minor under 14 years old (includes offering, inducing, distributing, or employing) felony
3 - 7 years​
none Miscellaneous (paraphernalia, license suspensions, drug tax stamps, etc...) Any conviction of minor under 21 causes driver's license suspension for 1 year. Details
Possession of 28.5 grams or less of marijuana is not an arrestable offense. As long as the offender can provide sufficient identification and promises to appear in court, the officer will not arrest the offender. Upon conviction of the misdemeanor charge the offender is subject to a fine of $100. Possession of greater than 28.5 grams is punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $500.
Proposition 36
The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act passed by 61% in 2000​
Possession of 28.5 grams or less of marijuana on school grounds when the school is open is punishable by up to 10 days in jail and a $500 fine. Possession of greater than 28.5 grams or more of marijuana in a school zone is punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $500.
The cultivation or processing of any amount of marijuana is punishable by up to sixteen months in state prison. There is an exception to the cultivation prohibition for patients or patients’ caregivers who possess or cultivate for personal use by the patient upon approval of a physician.
The laws regarding possession and cultivation of marijuana do not apply to patients or patients’ primary caregivers who possess or cultivate marijuana for the personal medical use of the patient, upon the recommendation or approval of a physician.
Selling marijuana in any amount is punishable by 2 – 4 years in the state prison. Giving away less than 28.5 grams is a misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine of up to $100.
Sale of marijuana to a minor is punishable by 3 – 5 years in prison.
For anyone under the age of 21 convicted of any of the above offenses, the state may suspend the offender’s driver’s license for up to one year.
Possession of paraphernalia is a civil fine of $200-$300 for the first offense and goes up to $5,000-$6,000 for a fifth or subsequent violation within a five-year periood.
A breakdown of CA county and local medical marijuana guidelines is available here: http://www.safeaccessnow.net/countyguidelines.htm.
Decriminalization: The state has decriminalized marijuana to some degree. Typically, decriminalization means no prison time or criminal record for first-time possession of a small amount for personal consumption. The conduct is treated like a minor traffic violation.

Medical marijuana: This state has medical marijuana laws enacted. Modern research suggests that cannabis is a valuable aid in the treatment of a wide range of clinical applications. These include pain relief, nausea, spasticity, glaucoma, and movement disorders. Marijuana is also a powerful appetite stimulant and emerging research suggests that marijuana's medicinal properties may protect the body against some types of malignant tumors, and are neuroprotective. For more information see NORML's Medical Marijuana section.

Hemp: This state has an active hemp industry or has authorized research. Hemp is a distinct variety of the plant species cannabis sativa L. that contains minimal (less than 1%) amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. Various parts of the plant can be utilized in the making of textiles, paper, paints, clothing, plastics, cosmetics, foodstuffs, insulation, animal feed, and other products. For more information see NORML's Industrial Use section.

Also see Federal Laws


this is current CA law as posted directly from the NORML's website and taken from the DEA. keep in mind as said time and again and seems to being ignored by your arguments, porp 19 will in NO WAY effect mmj users in compliance with prop 215b.

lets say for a moment you are not an mmj patient. you are just a regular schmo like myself. that one ounce (of any type/quality/style/smell/taste/potency/etc) is merely an on-hand limitation. now look at the current law. without an mmj card you have 1 ounce... $100 fine a date in court and (though according to this wording not typically, but definately possible) a blemished record to haunt you if youd ever like to go back to school, get a government job, work with children. etc. to us non-mmj 1 ounce attained legally and without fear is a HUGE amount of progress.

if it is still unclear please reword it in a way the rest of us can understand, after so many attempts to answer your question and you saying its all wrong perhaps you should reflect on your question and your motivation. you are hoping to hear something along the lines of "so the government can keep you chained maaan. the maaan just wants to hold you down dude!"? please clarify and continue.

and for instance you have your gorgeous time consuming grows, but you dont have an mmj card...

"The cultivation or processing of any amount of marijuana is punishable by up to sixteen months in state prison. There is an exception to the cultivation prohibition for patients or patients’ caregivers who possess or cultivate for personal use by the patient upon approval of a physician."

this is up to date and concrete. can you still not see our side of it?



that's an honest reply. thank you.

i don't think there should be any limit. i can have all the beer i want. they say the limit is to fool those who may otherwise be opposed. well that sounds like trickery to me. i don't support a bill filled with trickery. even if it is to my benefit. it is strictly a moral issue for me. i hope you all can someday understand my side as well.

i get it. you all want to smoke pot. for me it goes beyond that. ;)
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
hmm a hophead. an assumption and an attack... thats very mature of you. there is no restriction to any kind of cannabis in this proposition. you are mistaken. calling it bait is more narrow-minded banter from a conspiracy theorist. how are the ufo's this time of year? (you get what you give)...

what innocence would i need to prove if confronted for possession? my DL proving age and carrying not more than 28.5g of any kind of marijuana for personal consumption. thats not difficult. im fine with carrying only 5g of strong weed to last me all day or more. how much do you smoke that you need to carry around more than one ounce on your person for recreational use as a non mmj patient? your qualm is that there is a restriction? get fucking used to it. no matter what commodity you put on the table there will always be restrictions and controls.

you are fooling yourself more than anyone else.

nice insults. :clap:

that's all i saw, :(
 

Teeaytchsee

Active Member
that's an honest reply. thank you.

i don't think there should be any limit. i can have all the beer i want. they say the limit is to fool those who may otherwise be opposed. well that sounds like trickery to me. i don't support a bill filled with trickery. even if it is to my benefit. it is strictly a moral issue for me. i hope you all can someday understand my side as well.

i get it. you all want to smoke pot. for me it goes beyond that. ;)
i think we can all agree none of us want a limit, but that is unrealistic and will never pass even on a state level.even with alcohol, by law a purveyor cannot sell to a drunk patron. learned that working at Dave and Busters in OC, CA several years back.

i do not believe it is trickery and i would not support anything as such. people need honesty and true information to base a real decision off of.

i have been trying to understand your side, but (no offense intended) many of your arguments against have been self-serving or unrealistic. you want it to be free for whoever, whenever, wherever with no limits, no restrictions, and the government to keep their grubby paws off us, correct? hell we call that a Utopia and its well documented those do not work.

the word government by itself should tell you how unrealistic that goal is:

gov·ern·ment

&#8194; <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/G02/G0277800" target="_blank"><img src="http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif" border="0" alt="government pronunciation" /></a>&#8194;/&#712;g&#652;v
&#601;rn
m&#601;nt, &#8208;&#601;r
m&#601;nt/ Show Spelled[guhv-ern-muh
nt, &#8208;er-muh
nt] Show IPA
&#8211;noun 1. the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society.

2. the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed: monarchical government; episcopal government.

3. the governing body of persons in a state, community, etc.; administration.

4. a branch or service of the supreme authority of a state or nation, taken as representing the whole: a dam built by the government.

5. (in some parliamentary systems, as that of the United Kingdom) a. the particular group of persons forming the cabinet at any given time: The Prime Minister has formed a new government.

b. the parliament along with the cabinet: The government has fallen.



6. direction; control; management; rule: the government of one's conduct.

7. a district governed; province.

8. political science.

9. Grammar . the established usage that requires that one word in a sentence should cause another to be of a particular form: the government of the verb by its subject.




i heartily feel we need to start somewhere and the sooner the better. there is no reason we cant vote in 19 and STILL go to bat for the 2012 changes.
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
those pushing the yes vote have openly admitted that it is trickery. that people wouldn't vote for it otherwise. i'm basing my reply on those claims. if you didn't make them you can't defend them.
 

Teeaytchsee

Active Member
can you cite any of these claims? i havent seen a single one trying to take a stance of obscuring truth other than from opponents of the bill... gimme a min and ill cite that claim.
 

Teeaytchsee

Active Member
that was easy heres one from today:

Former Anti-Drug Chiefs Seek To Block Legal Pot Posted by CN Staff on September 13, 2010 at 11:20:06 PT
By Janie Lorber
Source: New York Times

California -- Every past administrator of the 37-year-old Drug Enforcement Administration is calling on the Justice Department to sue California if its voters decide to legalize marijuana in November.Peter Bensinger, who ran the D.E.A. from January 1976 through July 1981, said legalizing recreational use of pot, even in one state, would be a &#8220;disaster,&#8221; leading to increased addiction, traffic accidents and trouble in the workplace.

So, he and the eight other former D.E.A. administrators are asking the Obama administration to step in &#8211; much as it did when the Arizona legislature passed its tough new immigration law this spring.
&#8220;The Justice Department invoked the Supremacy Clause in the state of Arizona and in that case the laws weren&#8217;t even in direct conflict,&#8221; Mr. Bensinger said in an interview with The New York Times on Monday, referring to the portion of the Constitution that says federal law prevails over any contradictory state law.
An Aug. 24 letter to Attorney General Eric Holder signed by the nine former administrators points out that California&#8217;s Proposition 19 directly conflicts with the Controlled Substances Act and goes against the administration&#8217;s 2010 national drug strategy, which &#8220;firmly opposes the legalization of marijuana or any other illicit drug.&#8221;
Supporters of Proposition 19 argue that legalizing and regulating marijuana would reduce violence at the border while reaping tax revenue for financially strapped states. The administrators believe it would not bring in a substantial amount of money because anyone trying to pay taxes on the sale of pot would also be declaring themselves guilty of a federal offense.
The government, however, could end up turning a blind eye. Mr. Holder directed federal prosecutors last fall not to pursue cases against medical marijuana users and distributors as long as they comply with state law, making a federal legal challenge less likely.
&#8220;Nothing in the Constitution requires a state to prohibit as a matter of state law and prosecution what the federal government has chosen to prohibit as a matter of federal law and prosecution,&#8221; said Bruce Fein, a prominent supporter of the measure, who served in the Reagan Justice Department as an associate deputy attorney general. &#8220;Proposition 19 leaves the power of the federal government to enforce federal prohibitions on marijuana trafficking or use unimpaired.&#8221;
A spokesman for the Justice Department said it could not speculate on what it would do if the measure passes.
&#8220;The federal government is committed to enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act and the Department of Justice will continue to focus its enforcement resources on significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, in all states,&#8221; he said.
The former administrators, who held a news conference in Washington on Monday along with several national law enforcement and substance abuse groups, have not received a response from the department.
Meanwhile, on the West Coast, two law enforcement groups supporting the measure spoke out.
&#8220;This November, Californians finally have a chance to flip the equation and put drug cartels out of business, while restoring public respect for the criminal laws and their enforcement,&#8221; said William John Cox, a former Los Angeles Police Department sergeant and Los Angeles County deputy district attorney.
Note: From The New York Times Blog.
Source: New York Times (NY)
Author: Janie Lorber
Published: September 13, 2010
Copyright: 2010 The New York Times Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
URL: http://drugsense.org/url/9OMHCakN

CannabisNews -- Cannabis Archives
http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml
 

Teeaytchsee

Active Member
that word we use "fear-mongering" means the spread of lies in an effort to invoke fear and force a modicum of control. its used far too often from the opponents side.

not to sound dramatic, but i just find it curious that it hold a very similar definition as terrorism...
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
can you cite any of these claims? i havent seen a single one trying to take a stance of obscuring truth other than from opponents of the bill... gimme a min and ill cite that claim.
it's all over these threads.

just because you don't see it doesn't mean i made it up.
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
that word we use "fear-mongering" means the spread of lies in an effort to invoke fear and force a modicum of control. its used far too often from the opponents side.

not to sound dramatic, but i just find it curious that it hold a very similar definition as terrorism...
what are you going on about now? :neutral:
 

Teeaytchsee

Active Member
you mentioned trickery, fear-mongering is in fact trickery

you have really got to start reading full posts. or maybe re-read them if you are smoking. youve asked many questions repeatedly and were baffled by things weve previously discussed because you either forgot what they said or didnt read them. you are very vocal, but you dont listen well.
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
you mentioned trickery, fear-mongering is in fact trickery
i have asked numerous questions numerous times and gotten the answer of "it was written that way to get more votes. otherwise peiople wouldn't follow along." i really don't have the time or the desire to go thru 3000 posts to quote them. i have been paying attention and i see it being said.

once again, sorry if you don't. it's just not worth it to me to prove anything to you. sorry. i have better things to do,
 

Teeaytchsee

Active Member
it's all over these threads.

just because you don't see it doesn't mean i made it up.
i never said you made anything up. i asked you to cite your source. you dont just speak for another person and take credit for their post. show me where you got that... even 1 link will suffice for arguments sake. please learn to listen
 

Teeaytchsee

Active Member
i have asked numerous questions numerous times and gotten the answer of "it was written that way to get more votes. otherwise peiople wouldn't follow along." i really don't have the time or the desire to go thru 3000 posts to quote them. i have been paying attention and i see it being said.

once again, sorry if you don't. it's just not worth it to me to prove anything to you. sorry. i have better things to do,
read back ive never once blown you off with any kind of cop-out. in some cases "that's the way it is" is the correct answer and one you refuse to accept. however you not liking it doesnt make it any less correct.

if you cant take the time to read what you are responding to you really ought not respond to it. you are making a very large amount of assumptions and taking an even larger amount of liberties.

i have no need to read through 3000 posts. dont be absurd, but i certainly will read what i am responding to. if im to call you a moron i want you to know why and i dont want to look like one myself in the process.
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
i never said you made anything up. i asked you to cite your source. you dont just speak for another person and take credit for their post. show me where you got that... even 1 link will suffice for arguments sake. please learn to listen
excuse me.

done.

unsubscribed.
 

Teeaytchsee

Active Member
you didnt read the whole thing did you? im not calling you a moron. that was a hypothetical to make a point. come on back i like you having a polar opposite view. i wouldnt have thought to ask "why 1 ounce?" if it werent for you. :(

seriously my aim is to educate. when i hear you say "you are right i agree, prop 19 is a step, however small, in the right direction" thats the time we should be done with the discussion. (hehe)
 

Teeaytchsee

Active Member
or perhaps i was wrong about you and you should stick to mmj since prop 19 does nothing to effect your usage anyhow. sad, winning from forfeiture.
 

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
or perhaps i was wrong about you and you should stick to mmj since prop 19 does nothing to effect your usage anyhow. sad, winning from forfeiture.
That's really yet to be known....that arguement is a total and complete assumption. If there were to ABSOLUTELY no interference with 215, then 19 would have been written much more clearly and explicitly, leaving no room for ANY misinterpretations...but thats not the case. It's bait, *******.
 

Teeaytchsee

Active Member
That's really yet to be known....that arguement is a total and complete assumption. If there were to ABSOLUTELY no interference with 215, then 19 would have been written much more clearly and explicitly, leaving no room for ANY misinterpretations...but thats not the case. It's bait, *******.
...

rly?

perhaps its the legalese language of it thats throwing you off. this quote from an article on http://www.opposingviews.com/i/anger-at-marijuana-smokers-who-oppose-prop-19 says it better than i could:

Kirk Tousaw, writing in Cannabis Culture, examines this phenomenon, but in a much more polite Canadian manner than my own. For the only cannabis consumer who can even consider voting no on Prop 19 has to be one who fears losing rights under Prop 215:
The &#8216;supersedes&#8217; argument relies mainly on the use of the phrase &#8220;nothwithstanding any other provision of law&#8221; in certain sections. This is a fairly typical phrase used in law to mean &#8220;despite other already-existing laws&#8221;. It does not mean &#8220;all existing laws on this topic are null and void and this new set of laws totally replaces them."

I went into it at length in a previous post in relation to Prop 19&#8242;s new section 11300 which legalizes possession, sharing, transport and cultivation of cannabis for personal consumption. My primary point was that the effect of Prop 19 will come from what Prop 19 does &#8211; not the use of &#8220;notwithstanding&#8221;.​
quote from http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6601631-full-text-of-california-prop-19-which-would-legalize-marijuana taken from the prop itself:

(b)
11304. Effect of Act and Definitions.
(a) This act shall not be construed to affect, limit, or amend any statute that forbids impairment while engaging in dangerous activities such as driving, or that penalizes bringing cannabis to a school enrolling pupils in any grade from kindergarten through 12, inclusive.
(b) Nothing in this act shall be construed or interpreted to permit interstate or international transportation of cannabis. This act shall be construed to permit a person to transport cannabis in a safe and secure manner from a licensed premises in one city or county to a licensed premises in another city or county pursuant to any ordinances adopted in such cities or counties, notwithstanding any other state law or the lack of any such ordinance in the intervening cities or counties.
(c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301. Provided, however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.
(d) Definitions. For purposes of this act:
(1) &#8220;Marijuana&#8221; and &#8220;cannabis&#8221; are interchangeable terms that mean all parts of the plant Genus Cannabis, whether growing or not; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; concentrated cannabis; edible products containing same; and every active compound, manufacture, derivative, or preparation of the plant, or resin.
(2) &#8220;One ounce&#8221; means 28.5 grams.
(3) For purposes of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 11300, &#8220;cannabis plant&#8221; means all parts of a living cannabis plant.
(4) 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 subdivision (a) of Section 11300.
(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.
(5) &#8220;Residence&#8221; means a dwelling or structure, whether permanent or temporary, on private or public property, intended for occupation by a person or persons for residential purposes, and includes that portion of any structure intended for both commercial and residential purposes.
(6) &#8220;Local government&#8221; means a city, county, or city and county.
(7) &#8220;Licensed premises&#8221; is any commercial business, facility, building, land, or area that has a license, permit or is otherwise authorized to cultivate, process, transport, sell, or permit on-premises consumption of cannabis pursuant to any ordinance or regulation adopted by a local government pursuant to Section 11301, or any subsequently enacted state statute or regulation.

how bout we stop being lazy and do some research? stop stating hearsay and misinterpretation as fact. the bill is clear in many aspect of what you and others argue against, you simply need to figure out the jargon and legalese.
 
Top