I am stuffed! Had Indian food and they really know how to feed a guy.
So Dan, The night has passed and I will make an effort to counter your proposal for the purpose of conversation.
Here's what I support. I support this because it's a good start. It's something all the people of California could get behind, not just a select group with their own interests at heart. It's based off of what has been successful, and what we need to get proper support. Most important, it's practical and reasonable. I will just do an outline, not full legal wording so simpletons such as Ernest can understand it.
Each proposal aims to promote specific interests. Claiming that any one political position if free of bias is a flaw.
My name isn't Ernest Dan. My Name is Ernst. They are tow different things with two different meanings.
And you admit this is a conversation rather than some proper draft of Initiative. Who among us is a lawyer?
1) This is for the purposes of legalization the recreational use of cannabis. Medical laws are excluded from these regulations. Nothing supersedes a doctor's orders.
Still you are trying to be a lawyer. Confusing.
2) Allow all citizens of California to posses and grow cannabis for personal consumption. Legalize a grow area of 100sq ft, 99plants, and possession of up to 8lbs at your home. Legalize possession of up to 1lb on your person.
Why is a numerical limit necessary? Why a 10 by 10? Isn't that the start of not legalizing for the people?
Who cares how much plant material you have? I can see if a person is found with 100 packages of produce packaged for individual sale but why should the law be concerned with how much produce I have as a private citizen?
Why do we have to consent to some measured rule of criminality? This is still aiming at defining the home gardener as a criminal.
WTF? Dan.
3) Allow citizens of California 19 years old and up to have safe access to acquire cannabis. Legalize dispensaries operating as a collective or cooperative either for profit or not-for-profit. Collectives and cooperatives may operate as store front dispensaries, delivery services, bakeries/cafes, or farmers markets. Collectives are limited to one commercial location. No one may have a controlling share in more than one collective.
I like the idea of commerce. I am all in favor of it Dan but the Voters are not. Two strikes for the Props 19 1&2 and a Home Run for a for the people prop 215.
In the places where it is a No vote there is no way to change these people's mind. So the only way to effect change is to give those in those communities the rights to grow in clear and bold wording no mater where they live.
We just have to protect growers in places where they are at risk for a few years while everyone get used to the reality that people grow cannabis and are protected by law.
4) If your personal grow exceeds your personal requirements you may put it up for sale on consignment at the collective of your choice. (for legal purposes, it must be consignment sales so you're not operating an unlicensed business.)
Who decides what exceeds what? Some police agent? Who is going to pay for that? The Tax payer.
Better that the line be when people try to profit from sales ( as always )
If everyone has weed why would there be a need to police their gardens? It's when they have traffic that suggests sales ( as always )
5) Legalize and permit commercial growing. Permits will be granted through the state in a process similar to forming corporation where everyone can access them. Permit costs will remain below $5000. Commercial growing will be limited to 2k feet per grow. One person can not hold more than one permit nor be involved in a company or multiple companies holding more than one permit.
Why is commercial interests part of legalizing for the people?
The average person will not be in the cannabis business why should their future rights be used to empower business especially when areas like Turlock are so against personal freedom and especially anything that effects the balance of local control.
6) Outlaw the taxation of medical cannabis. Tax recreational sales of cannabis at 9%. No further taxation through congress is permitted without an additional ballot measure where 2/3 of Californians agree to the tax.
I do agree with expanding medical rights but to first eliminate all growing restrictions especially where a person is providing produce to medical outlets for non-commercial medical use.
If a person is willing to provide produce then restricting them is against the spirit of prop 215
7) All revenue created by the recreational cannabis tax will go directly to the local schools in that collective's county. Counties that do not allow or take measures to prevent collectives from opening will not receive tax revenue from cannabis. Counties that encourage collectives receive the greatest benefits.
No Taxes on Home Grown No taxes on medical cannabis provided to others in a not for profit outfit.
It's medicine. We shouldn't tax medicine.
8.) State and local government employees including law enforcement are prohibited from cooperating or sharing information with federal police in cannabis related cases.
--------------------------------------------------
Under this set of rules Californians would be allowed to possess, cultivate, purchase, and consume cannabis legally.
Under this concept of freedom in a 10 by 10 and policed garden lifestyle.
A tax rate is set because if you do not, congress will do it for you and their tax will be much worse.
Commercial sales/cultivation is addressed because if you do not do it through a voter initiative, Richard Lee types will lobby congress to set the rules for you. They will attempt to set up monopolies. By addressing it in a voter initiative congress can't over rule that. Another voter initiative would be required to change the rules. Under the system I proposed pot walmart type chains would be illegal. Massive scale farming would be illegal. The purpose of this is to set up an environment where citizens can open their own businesses and do well, but no cannabis billionaires or Phillip Morris type corporations can dominate the market. This will create a lot more middle class/upper middle class jobs where people can make a decent living.
The tax is an incentive for non-smokers. A reason for them to support legalization. The taxes will be distributed locally, not state wide so Californian communities will benefit more by accepting and encouraging legalization.
It is fair, it doesn't leave anyone out in the cold, and it is realistic enough so where the majority of Californians could support it. It is not an ideal law. It is just one everyone can be content with and still have a legitimate chance of passing.
I just got that feeling that I'm leaving out major parts of what I had in mind be I can't seem to remember what they are. Oh well, you get the idea.
Okay Dan there is a review of this post. Moving on to the next.
Ernst
