California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative 2012

[stonedmetalhead1]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]

I really just wanted to post this here for reference. Whether or not prop 19 passes I think that people should do something to help get this on the ballot in 2012. This would provide more freedoms and let falsely imprisoned people out of jail while clearing marijuana related charges from criminal records. If the people of California really want legalization, supporters should help collect signatures to assist in getting this up for vote.
​

California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative 2012
​

California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative 2012​

AN ACT TO AMEND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE OF CALIFORNIA:​

I. Add Section 11362.6 to the Health and Safety Code of California, any laws or policies to the contrary notwithstanding:​

1. No person, individual, or corporate entity shall be arrested or prosecuted, be denied any right or privilege, nor be subject to any criminal or civil penalties for the possession, cultivation, transportation, distribution, or consumption of cannabis hemp marijuana, including:​

(a) Cannabis hemp industrial products.​

(b) Cannabis hemp medicinal preparations.​

(c) Cannabis hemp nutritional products.​

(c) Cannabis hemp religious and spiritual products.​

(d) Cannabis hemp recreational and euphoric use and products.​

2. Definition of terms:​

(a) The terms "cannabis hemp" and “cannabis hemp marijuana” mean the natural, non-genetically modified plant hemp, cannabis, marihuana, marijuana, cannabis sativa L, cannabis Americana, cannabis chinensis, cannabis indica, cannabis ruderalis, cannabis sativa, or any variety of cannabis, including any derivative, concentrate, extract, flower, leaf, particle, preparation, resin, root, salt, seed, stalk, stem, or any product thereof.​

(b) The term "cannabis hemp industrial products" means all products made from cannabis hemp that are not designed or intended for human consumption, including, but not limited to: clothing, building materials, paper, fiber, fuel, lubricants, plastics, paint, seed for cultivation, animal feed, veterinary medicine, oil, or any other product that is not designed for internal human consumption; as well as cannabis hemp plants used for crop rotation, erosion control, pest control, weed control, or any other horticultural or environmental purposes, for example, the reversal of the Greenhouse Effect and toxic soil reclamation.​

(c) The term "cannabis hemp medicinal preparations" means all products made from cannabis hemp that are designed, intended, or used for human consumption for the treatment of any human disease or condition, for pain relief, or for any healing purpose, including but not limited to the treatment or relief of: Alzheimer's and pre-Alzheimer's disease, stroke, arthritis, asthma, cramps, epilepsy, glaucoma, migraine, multiple sclerosis, nausea, premenstrual syndrome, side effects of cancer chemotherapy, fibromyalgia, sickle cell anemia, spasticity, spinal injury, stress, easement of post-traumatic stress disorder, Tourette syndrome, attention deficit disorder, immunodeficiency, wasting syndrome from AIDS or anorexia; use as an antibiotic, antibacterial, anti-viral, or anti-emetic; as a healing agent, or as an adjunct to any medical or herbal treatment. Mental conditions not limited to bipolar, depression, attention deficit disorder, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, shall be conditions considered for medical use.​

(d) The term "cannabis hemp nutritional products" means cannabis hemp for consumption by humans and animals as food, including but not limited to: seed, seed protein, seed oil, essential fatty acids, seed cake, dietary fiber, or any preparation or extract thereof.​

(e) The term "cannabis hemp euphoric products" means cannabis hemp intended for personal recreational or religious use, other than cannabis hemp industrial products, cannabis hemp medicinal preparations, or cannabis hemp nutritional products.​

(f) The term "personal use" means the internal consumption of cannabis hemp by people 21 years of age or older for any relaxational, meditative, religious, spiritual, recreational, or other purpose other than sale.​

(g) The term "commercial production" means the production of cannabis hemp products for sale or profit under the conditions of these provisions.​

3. Industrial cannabis hemp farmers, manufacturers, processors, and distributors shall not be subject to any special zoning requirement, licensing fee, or tax that is excessive, discriminatory, or prohibitive.​

4. Cannabis hemp medicinal preparations are hereby restored to the list of available medicines in California. Licensed physicians shall not be penalized for, nor restricted from, prescribing or recommending cannabis hemp for medical purposes to any patient, regardless of age. No tax shall be applied to prescribed cannabis hemp medicinal preparations. Medical research shall be encouraged. No recommending physician shall be subject to any professional licensing review or hearing as a result of recommending or approving medical use of cannabis hemp marijuana.​

5. Personal use of cannabis hemp euphoric products.​

(a) No permit, license, or tax shall be required for the non-commercial cultivation, transportation, distribution, or consumption of cannabis hemp.​

(b) Testing for inactive and/or inert residual cannabis metabolites shall not be required for employment or insurance, nor be considered in determining employment, other impairment, or intoxication.​

(c) When a person falls within the conditions of these exceptions, the offense laws do not apply and only the exception laws apply.​

6. Use of cannabis hemp products for religious or spiritual purposes shall be considered an inalienable right; and shall be protected by the full force of the State and Federal Constitutions.​

7. 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 to California's wine industry model. For the purpose of distinguishing personal from commercial production, 99 flowering female plants and 12 pounds of dried, cured cannabis hemp flowers, bud, not leaf, produced per adult, 21 years of age and older, per year shall be considered as being for personal use.​

8. The manufacture, marketing, distribution, or sales between adults of equipment or accessories designed to assist in the planting, cultivation, harvesting, curing, processing, packaging, storage, analysis, consumption, or transportation of cannabis hemp plants, industrial cannabis hemp products, cannabis hemp medicinal preparations, cannabis hemp nutritional products, cannabis hemp euphoric products, or any cannabis hemp product shall not be prohibited.​

9. No California law enforcement personnel or funds shall be used to assist or aid and abet in the enforcement of Federal cannabis hemp marijuana laws involving acts which are hereby no longer illegal in the State of California.​

10. Any person who threatens the enjoyment of these provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor. The maximum penalties and fines of a misdemeanor may be imposed.​

II. Repeal, delete, and expunge any and all existing statutory laws that conflict with the provisions of this initiative.​

1. Enactment of this initiative shall include: amnesty, immediate release from prison, jail, parole, and probation, and clearing, expungement, and deletion of all criminal records for all persons currently charged with, or convicted of any non-violent cannabis hemp marijuana offenses included in this initiative which are hereby no longer illegal in the State of California. People who fall within this category that triggered an original sentence are included within this provision.​

2. Within 60 days of the passage of this Act, the Attorney General shall develop and distribute a one-page application, providing for the destruction of all cannabis hemp marijuana criminal records in California for any such offense covered by this Act. Such forms shall be distributed to district and city attorneys and made available at all police departments in the State to persons hereby affected. Upon filing such form with any Superior Court and a payment of a fee of $10.00, the Court shall liberally construe these provisions to benefit the defendant in furtherance of the amnesty and dismissal provision of this section. Upon the Court's ruling under this provision the arrest record shall be set aside and be destroyed. Such persons may then truthfully state that they have never been arrested or convicted of any cannabis hemp marijuana related offense which is hereby no longer illegal in the State of California. This shall be deemed to be a finding of factual innocence under California Penal Code Section 851.8 et seq.​

III. The legislature is authorized upon thorough investigation, to enact legislation using reasonable standards to:​

1. License concessionary establishments to distribute cannabis hemp euphoric products in a manner analogous to California's wine industry model. Sufficient community outlets shall be licensed to provide reasonable commercial access to persons of legal age, so as to discourage and prevent the misuse of, and illicit traffic in, such products. Any license or permit fee required by the State for commercial production, distribution or use shall not exceed $1,000.00.​

2. Place an excise tax on commercial sale of cannabis hemp euphoric products, analogous to California's wine industry model, so long as no excise tax or combination of excise taxes shall exceed $10.00 per ounce.​

3. Determine an acceptable and uniform standard of impairment based on performance testing, to restrict persons impaired by cannabis hemp euphoric products from operating a motor vehicle or heavy machinery, or otherwise engaging in conduct that may affect public safety.​

4. Regulate the personal use of cannabis hemp euphoric products in enclosed and/or restricted public places.​

IV. Pursuant to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the people of California hereby repudiate and challenge Federal cannabis hemp marijuana prohibitions that conflict with this act.​

V. Severability: If any provision of this Act, or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid by any court, the remainder of this Act, to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of such provisions to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.​

VI. Construction: If any rival or conflicting initiative regulating any matter addressed by this act receives the higher affirmative vote, then all non-conflicting parts shall become operative.​

VII. Purpose of Act: This Act is an exercise of the police powers of the State for the protection of the safety, welfare, health, and peace of the people and the environment of the State, to protect the industrial and medicinal uses of cannabis hemp, to eliminate the unlicensed and unlawful cultivation, selling, and dispensing of cannabis hemp; and to encourage temperance in the consumption of cannabis hemp euphoric products. It is hereby declared that the subject matter of this Act involves, in the highest degree, the ecological, economic, social, and moral well-being and safety of the State and of all its people. All provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of these purposes: to respect human rights, to promote tolerance, and to end cannabis hemp prohibition.​

Eddy Lepp

George Clayton Johnson

Michael S. Jolson​

[/FONT]

 

[desert dude]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]

"I really just wanted to post this here for reference. Whether or not prop 19 passes I think that people should do something to help get this on the ballot in 2012. This would provide more freedoms and let falsely imprisoned people out of jail while clearing marijuana related criminal records. If people in California really wants legalization, supporters should help collect signatures to assist in getting this up for vote."
​

Where do I sign? Are you collecting signatures to get this on the ballot?

I do have some issues with this initiative:


1. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The terms "cannabis hemp" and “cannabis hemp marijuana” mean the natural, non-genetically modified". Why is genetic modification excluded? GM is how modern biological scientists work, so why should we intentionally lock hemp culture in the middle ages. Does this clause eliminate selective breeding, does it disallow one from crossing "White Widow" with "Bubble Gum", for example?[/FONT]

2. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The term "personal use" means the internal consumption of cannabis hemp by people 21 years of age or older..."[/FONT] Personally, I have no problem with this clause, but considering all the objections voiced by others here over Prop 19's identical clause, maybe this should be lowered to 18 years of age or older.

3. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Testing for inactive and/or inert residual cannabis metabolites shall not be required for employment or insurance, nor be considered in determining employment, other impairment, or intoxication."[/FONT] Personally, I like this clause in the proposition, but many here on RUI insist that, "doctors, nurses, firemen and teachers will all go to work stoned. How will we catch them if we can't test?"

4. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Use of cannabis hemp products for religious or spiritual purposes shall be considered an inalienable right; and shall be protected by the full force of the State and Federal Constitutions." I am not sure what purpose is meant by invoking the Federal Constitution here, this is meant to be a California state initiative, hence it has no effect on the Federal constitution.[/FONT]

5. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]II. Repeal, delete, and expunge any and all existing statutory laws that conflict with the provisions of this initiative." I like this provision a lot![/FONT] I think the limitation of $10 as the maximum fee might cause trouble in the campaign to get this passed because it will cost the state more than $10 to search the records, destroy the records of past offenders, etc. Just a thought on my part.

6. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Determine an acceptable and uniform standard of impairment based on performance testing, to restrict persons impaired by cannabis hemp euphoric products from operating a motor vehicle or heavy machinery, or otherwise engaging in conduct that may affect public safety. "[/FONT] Great idea, it puts the burden of proof on the accuser, where it should be!

7. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Pursuant to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the people of California hereby repudiate and challenge Federal cannabis hemp marijuana prohibitions that conflict with this act." I absolutely agree with the sentiment expressed in this sentence, however it is irrelevant because this whole initiative repudiates the Feds. Superfluous language in a law is never a good idea.

[/FONT]
I am willing to sign the petition to get this on the ballot, even without the changes recommended above, and I am willing to vote for it. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is not on the ballot in 2010, correct? What is on the ballot in 2010 is prop 19. Prop 19 is a good stop-gap measure until 2012 when this will be on the ballot, so I voted yes on prop19; you should too.


​

[/FONT]

 

[veggiegardener]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]

"I really just wanted to post this here for reference. Whether or not prop 19 passes I think that people should do something to help get this on the ballot in 2012. This would provide more freedoms and let falsely imprisoned people out of jail while clearing marijuana related criminal records. If people in California really wants legalization, supporters should help collect signatures to assist in getting this up for vote."
​

Where do I sign? Are you collecting signatures to get this on the ballot?

I do have some issues with this initiative:


1. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The terms "cannabis hemp" and “cannabis hemp marijuana” mean the natural, non-genetically modified". Why is genetic modification excluded? GM is how modern biological scientists work, so why should we intentionally lock hemp culture in the middle ages. Does this clause eliminate selective breeding, does it disallow one from crossing "White Widow" with "Bubble Gum", for example?[/FONT]

2. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The term "personal use" means the internal consumption of cannabis hemp by people 21 years of age or older..."[/FONT] Personally, I have no problem with this clause, but considering all the objections voiced by others here over Prop 19's identical clause, maybe this should be lowered to 18 years of age or older.

3. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Testing for inactive and/or inert residual cannabis metabolites shall not be required for employment or insurance, nor be considered in determining employment, other impairment, or intoxication."[/FONT] Personally, I like this clause in the proposition, but many here on RUI insist that, "doctors, nurses, firemen and teachers will all go to work stoned. How will we catch them if we can't test?"

4. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Use of cannabis hemp products for religious or spiritual purposes shall be considered an inalienable right; and shall be protected by the full force of the State and Federal Constitutions." I am not sure what purpose is meant by invoking the Federal Constitution here, this is meant to be a California state initiative, hence it has no effect on the Federal constitution.[/FONT]

5. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]II. Repeal, delete, and expunge any and all existing statutory laws that conflict with the provisions of this initiative." I like this provision a lot![/FONT] I think the limitation of $10 as the maximum fee might cause trouble in the campaign to get this passed because it will cost the state more than $10 to search the records, destroy the records of past offenders, etc. Just a thought on my part.

6. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Determine an acceptable and uniform standard of impairment based on performance testing, to restrict persons impaired by cannabis hemp euphoric products from operating a motor vehicle or heavy machinery, or otherwise engaging in conduct that may affect public safety. "[/FONT] Great idea, it puts the burden of proof on the accuser, where it should be!

7. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Pursuant to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the people of California hereby repudiate and challenge Federal cannabis hemp marijuana prohibitions that conflict with this act." I absolutely agree with the sentiment expressed in this sentence, however it is irrelevant because this whole initiative repudiates the Feds. Superfluous language in a law is never a good idea.

[/FONT]
I am willing to sign the petition to get this on the ballot, even without the changes recommended above, and I am willing to vote for it. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is not on the ballot in 2010, correct? What is on the ballot in 2010 is prop 19. Prop 19 is a good stop-gap measure until 2012 when this will be on the ballot, so I voted yes on prop19; you should too.


​

[/FONT]

I'm willing to wait.

If 19 passes, all such bills become unlikely to make the 2012 ballot.

Agreed on the 21 YO age limit.

If they can fight and die in our military, they are adults.

A direct challenge to Congress regarding State's Rights is at the heart of this.

Based on the Constitution, all Federal Cannabis laws are unConstitutional.

I say, throw down the gauntlet. The Feds will either prove their case to the American people, or they will find out very quickly how "representative" our government is. They'll back down if the choice is to arrest all state officials.

In that case, I'd work toward secession. There would be a lot of Federal buildings to burn, and corrupt Federal employees to incarcerate, try, and hang, for crimes against the American people.

 

[desert dude]

I'm willing to wait.

If 19 passes, all such bills become unlikely to make the 2012 ballot.

Agreed on the 21 YO age limit.

If they can fight and die in our military, they are adults.

A direct challenge to Congress regarding State's Rights is at the heart of this.

Based on the Constitution, all Federal Cannabis laws are unConstitutional.

I say, throw down the gauntlet. The Feds will either prove to the American people will find out very quickly how "representative" our government is. They'll back down if the choice is to arrest all state officials.

In that case, I'd work toward secession. There would be a lot of Federal buildings to burn, and corrupt Federal employees to incarcerate, try, and hang, for crimes against the American people.

We mostly agree. I think prop 19 makes it more likely to get a bill like this approved by the voters in 2012, not less.

I honestly think the "expunge the records and declare them factually innocent" clause will be a very hard sell to the voters, I can hear the campaign ads now, "prop xyz wants to put dangerous criminals in the house next to yours, blah, blah, blah..." Legalizing marijuana is hard enough to sell to the majority without this clause.

 

[vradd]

is this how the actual ballot would read? ill vote for it if veggie votes yes for 19. you scratch my back and ill scratch yours.

now heres where i have some issues,

1) why is the term 'marijuana' still being used? you do know thats not even the real term for it, its a govt slang term. thats like if you were to say we want the chronic legal. by you acknowleding the term marijuana you are still playing their games.

2) im all for the legal age of 21 but i would also vote for 18. if a 17yr old can join the military with mommy/daddy's signature to carry a gun and fight a war that was based on former president bush's propaganda, then by all means let them have the judgment to make THAT decision.

3) for the drug tests, i agree they should be null, BUT i also agree to leave it up to the business to establish some type of guidlines in reguards to it. i can see the paranoia that we dont want those who serve/protect us to be stoned, BUT i also have faith that those who hold those types of jobs have enough common sense when to and when not to take care of your business.

4) i dont like how 'euphoric' keeps getting brought up. alcohol isnt labeled with that, neither is tobacco. that just seems like a word that would get twisted the wrong way. remember its going to be difficult to explain eurphoric to someone who's never smoked or experienced anything semi mind altering.

5) i dont think the whole burning of all pot files would work to well... that in itself will be a very expensive process. if pot does go fully legal, the next ballot would be where the taxes to make this happen come from.

6) i really dont see anything different from prop 19 and this other than the choice of words used.

i really dont think pot will ever be legal federally. eventually im sure each state will adopt some kind of article's to regulate it. even if you look in other countries that work with it, its only still legal in some parts of europe or some parts of canada.

if you notice the DEA only busts HUGE operations. hopefully you guys also realize it costs LOTS of money to run these raids. in other words if the 'operation' is generating enough money to get noticed, its worth it to them to take it down. i think it will always be like this, and frankly im semi fine with it. but then you have those stories of what seem like normal people who get raided. to that i donno im sure theirs a lot more back story than what normal media discuss's.

if 19 doesnt pass then ill vote for this if it gets written better. for some reason as i read 19 and this, 19 just seems a LOT more realistic to happen vs what would be needed to establish this.

LASTLY, i see the biggest obstacle is going from labeling pot as 'medical' to being set as 'recreational'... that will be the biggest issue i see because what happens if it becomes legal, do all the current patients get labled as just that, patients? like how is that transition going to go?

 

[beardo]

I'll Vote yes on this-let's get it on the ballot -no on 19 yes on this. legalize in 2012 no on 19

 

[veggiegardener]

is this how the actual ballot would read? ill vote for it if veggie votes yes for 19. you scratch my back and ill scratch yours.

now heres where i have some issues,

1) why is the term 'marijuana' still being used? you do know thats not even the real term for it, its a govt slang term. thats like if you were to say we want the chronic legal. by you acknowleding the term marijuana you are still playing their games.

2) im all for the legal age of 21 but i would also vote for 18. if a 17yr old can join the military with mommy/daddy's signature to carry a gun and fight a war that was based on former president bush's propaganda, then by all means let them have the judgment to make THAT decision.

3) for the drug tests, i agree they should be null, BUT i also agree to leave it up to the business to establish some type of guidlines in reguards to it. i can see the paranoia that we dont want those who serve/protect us to be stoned, BUT i also have faith that those who hold those types of jobs have enough common sense when to and when not to take care of your business.

4) i dont like how 'euphoric' keeps getting brought up. alcohol isnt labeled with that, neither is tobacco. that just seems like a word that would get twisted the wrong way. remember its going to be difficult to explain eurphoric to someone who's never smoked or experienced anything semi mind altering.

5) i dont think the whole burning of all pot files would work to well... that in itself will be a very expensive process. if pot does go fully legal, the next ballot would be where the taxes to make this happen come from.

6) i really dont see anything different from prop 19 and this other than the choice of words used.

i really dont think pot will ever be legal federally. eventually im sure each state will adopt some kind of article's to regulate it. even if you look in other countries that work with it, its only still legal in some parts of europe or some parts of canada.

if you notice the DEA only busts HUGE operations. hopefully you guys also realize it costs LOTS of money to run these raids. in other words if the 'operation' is generating enough money to get noticed, its worth it to them to take it down. i think it will always be like this, and frankly im semi fine with it. but then you have those stories of what seem like normal people who get raided. to that i donno im sure theirs a lot more back story than what normal media discuss's.

if 19 doesnt pass then ill vote for this if it gets written better. for some reason as i read 19 and this, 19 just seems a LOT more realistic to happen vs what would be needed to establish this.

LASTLY, i see the biggest obstacle is going from labeling pot as 'medical' to being set as 'recreational'... that will be the biggest issue i see because what happens if it becomes legal, do all the current patients get labled as just that, patients? like how is that transition going to go?

Sorry, I voted my conscience, as did my wife and son.

NO on P19.

 

[stonedmetalhead1]

Where do I sign? Are you collecting signatures to get this on the ballot?

Signatures aren't being collected yet. Voter initiatives have one year before the election in which it will be voted on to collect votes (I think). I just think the more people who know about this the better.

I do have some issues with this initiative:


1. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The terms "cannabis hemp" and “cannabis hemp marijuana” mean the natural, non-genetically modified". Why is genetic modification excluded? GM is how modern biological scientists work, so why should we intentionally lock hemp culture in the middle ages. Does this clause eliminate selective breeding, does it disallow one from crossing "White Widow" with "Bubble Gum", for example?[/FONT]

The people who wrote this bill want to see marijuana kept pure. We saw what Monsanto did when they patented genetically modified soy beans and proceed to wage war on the rest of the soy bean industry. Breeding is not genetic modification.

2. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The term "personal use" means the internal consumption of cannabis hemp by people 21 years of age or older..."[/FONT] Personally, I have no problem with this clause, but considering all the objections voiced by others here over Prop 19's identical clause, maybe this should be lowered to 18 years of age or older.

Agreed but it's not something that's really a deal breaker.

3. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Testing for inactive and/or inert residual cannabis metabolites shall not be required for employment or insurance, nor be considered in determining employment, other impairment, or intoxication."[/FONT] Personally, I like this clause in the proposition, but many here on RUI insist that, "doctors, nurses, firemen and teachers will all go to work stoned. How will we catch them if we can't test?"

Really? Me and you both know testing for marijuana to get a job or for insurance wouldn't prove one way or another if someone was high on the job. This clause is to protect the people from being discriminated against plain and simple.

4. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Use of cannabis hemp products for religious or spiritual purposes shall be considered an inalienable right; and shall be protected by the full force of the State and Federal Constitutions." I am not sure what purpose is meant by invoking the Federal Constitution here, this is meant to be a California state initiative, hence it has no effect on the Federal constitution.[/FONT]

It's just pointing out that freedom of religion is protected on state and federal levels.

5. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]II. Repeal, delete, and expunge any and all existing statutory laws that conflict with the provisions of this initiative." I like this provision a lot![/FONT] I think the limitation of $10 as the maximum fee might cause trouble in the campaign to get this passed because it will cost the state more than $10 to search the records, destroy the records of past offenders, etc. Just a thought on my part.

It's a small cost for the state to pay for keeping non violent decent people in jail not to mention voter initiatives are allowed to come at the expense of the state.

6. "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Determine an acceptable and uniform standard of impairment based on performance testing, to restrict persons impaired by cannabis hemp euphoric products from operating a motor vehicle or heavy machinery, or otherwise engaging in conduct that may affect public safety. "[/FONT] Great idea, it puts the burden of proof on the accuser, where it should be!

They just want it defined. Thc stays in the system for thirty days and they don't want any abuse of the law from disgruntled law enforcement.

[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
I am willing to sign the petition to get this on the ballot, even without the changes recommended above, and I am willing to vote for it. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is not on the ballot in 2010, correct? What is on the ballot in 2010 is prop 19. Prop 19 is a good stop-gap measure until 2012 when this will be on the ballot, so I voted yes on prop19; you should too.

While this bill says, all other legislation prior to this bill that this bill addresses will be abolished, I don't think it can legally change other voter initiatives without going through the proper channels and there are limitations and clauses I don't agree with in prop 19.

 

[stonedmetalhead1]

6) i really dont see anything different from prop 19 and this other than the choice of words used.

Except this bill is directed at freedoms for everyone and doesn't set strict limitations on individuals while allowing more freedoms to marijuana companies. This bill protects everyone and that is the difference.

 

[veggiegardener]

LOL!

There's no difference between Mao's Little Red Book and the Bible, except the words used!

That's FUNNY!

LOL

 

[vradd]

you guys are forgetting that we live in a society based on capatilism. capatialism may not exist deep in the woods where yall live, but down here thats how it is. if you dont like it then move the fuck out of country. either you gotta just accept it or always be apart of 'that' crowd. let this be the first step into making it fully legal. you gotta crawl before you walk right? and apparently govt is still using the same old tactics right? and overall govt > you right? so why not just run with it and build the momentum. if CA pass's. then other states will try. they might not succeed right away, but thats the momentum you need. this isnt gonna be a overnite thing, this is gonna take YEARS. it'll take years to reverse all that was done. let it be a slow transition, dont just jump up and scream we want it now.

 

[mr2shim]

I'd really like to see a southern state do something like this.

 

[vradd]

southern as in back south? why because of their traditional grass roots theme?

the thing i hate about CA is we are a materialistic state. we are expensive as fuck, and as long as you can cut it above the rest aka high class people you really dont care about action, as long as your getting yours. when katrina hit all of louisiana came together rich and poor they united. here we dont really do that. everyone can always buy their problems away, either permanently or temp. thats why politics work so well for rich people. media campaigns are overwelming to the lower class. big words and crazy terms. thats why i can see why some people flip out because of how its worded they think its a trap.

 

[veggiegardener]

southern as in back south? why because of their traditional grass roots theme?

the thing i hate about CA is we are a materialistic state. we are expensive as fuck, and as long as you can cut it above the rest aka high class people you really dont care about action, as long as your getting yours. when katrina hit all of louisiana came together rich and poor they united. here we dont really do that. everyone can always buy their problems away, either permanently or temp. thats why politics work so well for rich people. media campaigns are overwelming to the lower class. big words and crazy terms. thats why i can see why some people flip out because of how its worded they think its a trap.

Leave.

My family has been here since 1870. We intend to stay.

 

[vradd]

why because you wont accept our country is based on capitalism?

 

[Dan Kone]

I'll Vote yes on this-let's get it on the ballot -no on 19 yes on this. legalize in 2012 no on 19

It's not likely to even make the ballot in 2012. Even if it did, what makes you think it has a chance in hell of passing?

The only reason prop 19 has the support it does is because of the recession and the potential tax dollars it will bring in. If you take those financial incentives out, who's going to vote for it? You? lol. Your vote and the vote of others who share your view are a tiny minority. They don't come anywhere close to making up for all the votes it will lose from those non-smokers out there who are voting for prop 19 because they think it'll help the state economically.

With prop 19 polling the way it is, it's an absolute joke that thinking an even more liberal law with less economic benefits will pass. You're living in a dream world. I wish what you were saying was realistic. If it was, I'd be agreeing with you. Yes, I'd rather have this be the law rather than prop 19. But it is in no way realistic.

 

[stonedmetalhead1]

It's not likely to even make the ballot in 2012. Even if it did, what makes you think it has a chance in hell of passing?

The only reason prop 19 has the support it does is because of the recession and the potential tax dollars it will bring in. If you take those financial incentives out, who's going to vote for it? You? lol. Your vote and the vote of others who share your view are a tiny minority. They don't come anywhere close to making up for all the votes it will lose from those non-smokers out there who are voting for prop 19 because they think it'll help the state economically.

With prop 19 polling the way it is, it's an absolute joke that thinking an even more liberal law with less economic benefits will pass. You're living in a dream world. I wish what you were saying was realistic. If it was, I'd be agreeing with you. Yes, I'd rather have this be the law rather than prop 19. But it is in no way realistic.

The CCHHI still allows the taxation of sales and it will make it to the ballot if people make an effort to get it there.

I'm just saying this is a bill I would vote for. I'm not going to vote for a bill that establishes legal "cartels" (a coalition of political or special-interest groups having a common cause, as to encourage the passage of a certain law.) with total protection while still criminalizing citizens for growing more than a 25 sq ft area.

 

[Dan Kone]

The CCHHI still allows the taxation of sales and it will make it to the ballot if people make an effort to get it there.

I'm just saying this is a bill I would vote for. I'm not going to vote for a bill that establishes legal "cartels" (a coalition of political or special-interest groups having a common cause, as to encourage the passage of a certain law.) with total protection while still criminalizing citizens for growing more than a 25 sq ft area.

lol @ legal cartels. Last time I checked Richard Lee wasn't decapitating people or kidnapping people's children to force them into indentured servatude. I'm pretty sure that has a lot more to do with why people don't like drug cartels.

I'll vote for the 2012 bill IF it makes the ballot. It might be a better bill, but it has no chance of passing. I'll still vote for it, but it's a pipe dream. I'll take what is real for now.

 

[stonedmetalhead1]

lol @ legal cartels. Last time I checked Richard Lee wasn't decapitating people or kidnapping people's children to force them into indentured servatude. I'm pretty sure that has a lot more to do with why people don't like drug cartels.

Not true, they are trying to control the market and pass laws that benefit themselves while keeping citizens in limbo. Just because they aren't killing people doesn't mean that they are all rainbows and butterflies. I say coming together to establish laws with personal benefits while not benefiting the people is just as bad. Citizens will still be going to jail and Lee will be fully protected by state law. All that he had to do was give the people more rights and more people would vote yes on this bill.

 

[luvourmother]

Not true, they are trying to control the market and pass laws that benefit themselves while keeping citizens in limbo. Just because they aren't killing people doesn't mean that they are all rainbows and butterflies. I say coming together to establish laws with personal benefits while not benefiting the people is just as bad. Citizens will still be going to jail and Lee will be fully protected by state law. All that he had to do was give the people more rights and more people would vote yes on this bill.

utter crap!
u obviously don't understand capitalism, sad because its the system we live in.
Anyone has the chance to make as much $ from the marijuana biz as Lee has, we have had always had this opportunity available.
once again, if 19 was only about lee and big biz why does it allow for everyone of age to be able to grow their own bud for free at home?
Lee is an amazing person and we should all be thanking him for all of his hard work, contributions, and biz that has brought mj to the public eye and started the end of prohibition in the USA. He is the best thing that could have happened to every single pot smoker in this state!