Prop 19 Explained: Common Questions and Misperceptions

[TokinPodPilot]

So it sounds to me like you only care about yourself and not the future of this Country. That being said, marijuana doesn't need you. All you care about is the dollar.

Yes, dollars that suddenly shift to large commercial operations that spring up and flood the market with cheap, questionably grown products that will most likely end up having long-term health concerns. Cannabis doesn't need Prop. 19 because Prop. 19 is only about dollars. The routing of as many dollars to people like Dick Lee who's made his fortune off medical patients. I will say this, proponents of the bill are so readily able to just cut people loose and leave them to their just deserved fates. I'd say that's the sort of attitude that cannabis doesn't need. Quite frankly, as much as you proponents try and vilify the opponents, the real deal is that we're looking out for all cannabis consumers. Not just the medical consumers. Because, if we're right, those without the coverage of medical will be in a very bad place. Even those with medical would face a new round of discrimination. This law is ambiguous. Ambiguity in law is never a good thing for citizens.

Aside from that, show me an article in the prop 19 where it says it will effect prop 215, and medical marijuana growers will have to confine to prop 19's 25 sq ft limit.

Better check your facts buddy because you are hating on this bill for no reason. It doesn't effect MMJ growers.

There have been numerous articles and opinions that express that concern. The wording of the bill isn't really encouraging either. Of course, you'd have to understand the particulars of the Kelly decision to understand how.

In short, read the proposition instead of reading and believing what people post on forums. That's just about as bad as listening to the news and quoting them.

I know it can be boring reading bills and propositions but it will do you and every other person who is against prop 19 nothing but good.

Right after you ask for articles to support argumentation, you say that news isn't worth referencing. Contradictory much? In any case, the assumption that opponents "just haven't really read the bill" is a paltry argumentation device. Many of us have been reading the stupid thing since before it was submitted for the ballot and many times since then.

Ignorance like this just goes to show how smart the average American is. Too busy wanting to eat McDonald's and watch American Idol to check the facts first.

It's funny you should mention McDonald's in such a derogatory tone. Dick Lee's vision for Prop. 19 was in fact summarized by himself as wanting to create the McDonald's of pot.

 

[mikhail chalecki]

how can the mcdonalds of pot be bad? low quality but dirt cheap. ofcourse you can just go to a diner and get a real burger if you want but you will pay more.thats the fucking metaphor.
you people who bag on richard lee dont seem to realize his spine is broken... the man cant walk and suffers nerve damage. hes advocated mmj for nearly 20 years and its a major part of his life. not to mention his very well performing MMJ assets that he has in oakland. already tax free and unrestricted. so from what you people are saying, he plans to ruin his already performing assets along with his well being? not bloody likely. with the motivation of capitalism, the one you dick lee haters advocate, it doesnt make a lick of sense to trash high productive assets and force himself into unreasonable regulation, something you all are fearing. where do you think he managed to get the money to run this whole thing?

 

[TokinPodPilot]

Tricky Dick Lee's broken back has no relevance to the argument. The wording of the law is quite clear and very simple to interpret. It's a cute attempt at the "No true Scotsman" argument, but it's still just as false. Especially in light of the fact that far too many of us HAVE met Dicky Lee and know exactly what kind of douche he is.

 

[mikhail chalecki]

sure. gloss over my points entirely. thats productive. ive read 19, 215, and sb 420 many times. and it is not simple to interpret. i had to compare every phrase to legal dictionaries just to complete make sense of everything. the only one thats straight forward is 215 but which only allowed for "seriously ill" and if sb 420 wasnt passed by our state senate, the very people you fear to take away your rights once 19 passes, i can guarantee the VAAAAAAAAAST majority wouldnt even be in the system we have today. these people you are saying will fuck the prop once it passes are the very same that gave you the system we have today. the system you are relying on. just continue to bite the hand that feeds and see where that gets you

 

[TokinPodPilot]

Again, you didn't make any points. Just bandied on about irrelevant things such as Dick Lee's health and made numerous fallacies of relevance and presumption. I'm sure you've read many things any number of times. Unfortunately, multiple readings do not necessarily increase one's ability to comprehend and competently analyze proposed legislation. Again, your opinions of existing legislation and the current medical cannabis system, while entertaining and good for a chuckle, aren't valid rational arguments.

 

[fdd2blk]

how many of these threads are there? you all are out of control.

 

[mikhail chalecki]

Again, you didn't make any points. Just bandied on about irrelevant things such as Dick Lee's health and made numerous fallacies of relevance and presumption. I'm sure you've read many things any number of times. Unfortunately, multiple readings do not necessarily increase one's ability to comprehend and competently analyze proposed legislation. Again, your opinions of existing legislation and the current medical cannabis system, while entertaining and good for a chuckle, aren't valid rational arguments.

weather you think its relevant doesnt mean shit to me. i do. so give me a fucking answer. if im wrong about something then dont adress it. you seem to be glossing over the fact that he suffers from something you dont.

yes reading things multitudes and understanding the actual legal terminology/usage indeed does increase my ability to comprehend legislation. its the only way to truely understand it. how else would anyone know what that stuff says? its all legal terms. they have completely different definitions than usual context

 

[TokinPodPilot]

weather you think its relevant doesnt mean shit to me. i do. so give me a fucking answer. if im wrong about something then dont adress it. you seem to be glossing over the fact that he suffers from something you dont.

Again, his health and physical condition are absolutely irrelevant with regards to the eventual repercussions of proposed legislation. The answers are staring you right in the face, I can't help it if you can't see them.

yes reading things multitudes and understanding the actual legal terminology/usage indeed does increase my ability to comprehend legislation. its the only way to truely understand it. how else would anyone know what that stuff says? its all legal terms. they have completely different definitions than usual context

So English words start meaning different things when legal people use them, eh? That's an interesting viewpoint. Utterly erroneous, but interesting nonetheless. Legal documents and legislative bills aren't difficult to read, understand and interpret. Anyone with a modicum of legal, paralegal, contract negotiation or any number of analytical experiences is quite able to do so.

 

[mikhail chalecki]

yes obviously words mean different things when used in legal. thats why theres legal dictionaries. phrases are very specific and you know that

 

[TokinPodPilot]

yes obviously words mean different things when used in legal. thats why theres legal dictionaries. phrases are very specific and you know that

Exactly. Legal dictionaries don't give alternate definitions of words, but rather rigidly define them as they apply in a legal or legislative context. There is a large difference between specific definition and alternative definition. I'm adequately educated and experience to know not only the various denotative and connotative meanings of words as well as know which denotations are applicable under legal auspices. Keep reading and maybe one day you'll be able to tell the difference.

 

[mikhail chalecki]

Exactly. Legal dictionaries don't give alternate definitions of words, but rather rigidly define them as they apply in a legal or legislative context. There is a large difference between specific definition and alternative definition. I'm adequately educated and experience to know not only the various denotative and connotative meanings of words as well as know which denotations are applicable under legal auspices. Keep reading and maybe one day you'll be able to tell the difference.

the context of which they are used was exactly my point, regular people dont know the difference

 

[TokinPodPilot]

There's only one context. A legal one. Again, words don't mean different things in a legal context such as legislation, they just mean specific things. Specific things which are already parts of the definitions of the words being used. Just because you find it difficult to understand, doesn't mean the rest of us do.

 

[redivider]

people in this forum don't know how law works in this country.

there are two types of law: common law, and so called 'written law'. in the US, laws are based on precedents, like it was in the UK, it's called COMMON LAW. results of past court rulings have weight of law over future rulings, and in some cases, a retroactive effect. There's also the written law, which what prop 19 is.

what you don't understand is that previous precedents on limitations on medical marijuana will still be in effect, because prop 19 does nothing to change prop 215, so basically, prop 215 is still in effect.

the california supreme court already ruled that limitations on medicinal marijuana under 215 were unconstitutional. prop 215 will still be in effect and the ruling by the supreme court, the state's highest legal resource, stands.

any police officer trying to enfoce a limit on medical marijuana would be on the wrong side of the law.

it isn't too hard to understand....

 

[mrFancyPlants]

what you don't understand is that previous precedents on limitations on medical marijuana will still be in effect, because prop 19 does nothing to change prop 215, so basically, prop 215 is still in effect.

the california supreme court already ruled that limitations on medicinal marijuana under 215 were unconstitutional. prop 215 will still be in effect and the ruling by the supreme court, the state's highest legal resource, stands.

Look, I believe that 19 will not limit privileges granted under 215, but that's only because it is written that way. The CA supreme court ruled that the legislature, via SB420, could not impose restrictions on voter approved propositions, Prop 215 in that case, because the CA constitution specifically says so. Future voter propositions could, however, impose restrictions or repeal all or part of past propositions. So, theoretically, 19 could have limited or modified 215, but it does not.

 

[mikhail chalecki]

and the terrible maybes just dont seem likely due to the thing called media, it would be all over the news like prop 8 was. people would not be happy with persecution of cancer and aids sufferers, maybe not the most significant demographic, but still effected by supposed limitations and doesnt look good from any angle

 

[Serapis]

Yes on 19, it's common sense.....

 

[fdd2blk]

got my ballot today. it's all over for me.

 

[mrFancyPlants]

got my ballot today. it's all over for me.

Yep! Gotta love mail-in voting.

 

[budling357]

Yes on 19, it's common sense.....

No kidding.

Funk your personal gain or your medical card, marijuana should be available to any adult who chooses to consume it. Period. Prohibition needs to end! Double period.

got my ballot today. it's all over for me.

Same here. Its in the bag. Lol, speaking of bags....Time to put some in the air.

 

[veggiegardener]

No kidding.

Funk your personal gain or your medical card, marijuana should be available to any adult who chooses to consume it. Period. Prohibition needs to end! Double period.



Same here. Its in the bag. Lol, speaking of bags....Time to put some in the air.

Just think, you'll be able to grow a whole plant(if you know how) or can take your money down and pay $10 for a small joint, made of weed grown how?

Maybe they'll use growth hormones like they do on grapes. Insecticides should bother you.

You obviously don't mind paying heavily for your smoke, and you will.

I really doubt this will pass. I've gotten some feedback from a few folks at the center of this thing. It appears close, but private polls indicate a few percentage points more, in favor of "No".

I figure most folks have made up their minds, and further wrangling is really pointless.