RMLW is holding it's Breath!

Ernst

Well-Known Member
That's Right.. A poll is expected soon and may decide the fate of the RMLW effforr!

[h=1]Major Funders Awaiting Results of RMLW Poll[/h]

Last Friday, the Committee to Regulate Marijuana Like Wine signed a contract with Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) to conduct a poll of our initiative. On Tuesday, January 31st, this campaign will be releasing the results of that poll. If our initiative polls anywhere above 55%, it will be big news for media and for major donors who are awaiting the results.
That's right, for the first time in this campaign, we have the attention of several major donors. These funders, and their representatives, are patiently waiting to see if an upcoming poll of our initiative will show if we can actually win.

In addition to their critical work for the Prop. 215 campaign, FM3 has provided research and strategic consulting services for ballot measure efforts to reform drug laws in Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, Washington State, and the District of Columbia as well as the local level. Also, it was FM3 that first advised us about a poll by the Economist magazine that showed 62% support for regulating marijuana like alcohol, which we used to base our initiative. We believe this approach will give us much higher polling numbers than anyone is expecting.


As a result of their prior work, we believe FM3 knows how best to examine voters’ willingness to reform governmental regulation of marijuana, and which messages have been most effective in convincing voters to support such initiatives. Furthermore, their past research on drug policy and regulatory reform means they can work quickly and efficiently on our behalf to design the questionnaire, and provide us with results and strategic recommendations in a timely manner.


FM3 will work closely with us to develop the survey instrument. They foresee proceeding through several drafts of the survey, incorporating feedback before each revision so that the research identifies all pertinent issues in order to provide a strategic roadmap for the development of public communications and to guide campaign activities.


Please see link for full article. http://regulatemarijuanalikewine.com/major-funders-awaiting-results-of-rmlw-poll/
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
I am in the process of reading the RMLW proposition. I like it!

I don't like this provision, though:
"(10) Experimentation, development, research, testing, cultivation, sales, or possession of genetically-modified (GMO) marijuana, hemp, and its seeds, shall be banned throughout the state of California."

It is foolish to ban genetic research. I don't want to be associated with a bunch of superstitious anti-science boobs. If not for genetically modified food crops, the world would currently be in the midst of a famine.
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
This seems pretty weak, how do you make an outdoor grow "invisible"?

(2) Adults 21 years and older may produce up to 6 mature outdoor flowering plants, or up to 12 mature indoor flowering plants per person; or a total number of plants cultivated per household not to exceed 12 mature flowering plants outdoors or 24 plants indoors. The cultivation shall take place in an indoor or outdoor space or area not visible to the public. These plants and their produce may not be made available for sale.
 

Scyntra

Well-Known Member
This seems pretty weak, how do you make an outdoor grow "invisible"?
it meens from the ground level by someone walking by your house, you would need to use a privacy fence or a green house with blackout sides ect.. could not grow in say your front yard in the open...
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
it meens from the ground level by someone walking by your house, you would need to use a privacy fence or a green house with blackout sides ect.. could not grow in say your front yard in the open...
That is certainly one interpretation. I would rather see the RMLW proposition to say something specific: "All Cannabis grown outdoors for personal consumption must be planted behind a privacy fence at least six feet tall". That would remove "interpretations". As is it is now, another interpretation is that a city councilman flew over your property in his cessna and saw your cannabis, so take it out!

And I still object to the anti-GMO non sense.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
It isn't perfect for sure but we in California are still getting used to civil rights.
 

GreenDevil420

Active Member
That is certainly one interpretation. I would rather see the RMLW proposition to say something specific: "All Cannabis grown outdoors for personal consumption must be planted behind a privacy fence at least six feet tall". That would remove "interpretations". As is it is now, another interpretation is that a city councilman flew over your property in his cessna and saw your cannabis, so take it out!


And I still object to the anti-GMO non sense.
The Anti-GMO clause will be hard to enforce, given RMLW 11420(b)(6): "This Act enjoins the search, arrest, prosecution, property seizure, asset forfeiture, eradication costs, and/or any criminal or civil penalty, or sanction, for activity authorized herein." However, no institution would be able to lawfully secure funding for research concerning GMO-marijuana.

Although the provisions of Regulate Marijuana Like Wine specify certain limitations, as the initiative repeals H&S 11358 (laws pertaining to marijuana cultivation), there would be no law providing for any direct penalties other than commercial violations (fine of $2,500). The visibility alone would not constitute a commercial violation.

If RMLW qualifies for the 2012 General Election and passes, and the legislature does nothing to further the purposes of RMLW, then it would be up to local governments to adopt ordinances and enforce non-commercial regulations. However, given the difference of medical marijuana vs. recreational marijuana, along with the fact that most mentions of "marijuana" currently codified would be repealed, the surge in commercial cannabis activity would be hard to ignore by the state legislature. In that event, the state government would attempt to implement a system that could exist in tandem with Federal Law (which is possible).

In other words, within a reasonable amount of time, expect the state to Regulate Cannabis Like Wine... but don't expect the employment issue to be resolved any time soon.
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
The Anti-GMO clause will be hard to enforce, given RMLW 11420(b)(6): "This Act enjoins the search, arrest, prosecution, property seizure, asset forfeiture, eradication costs, and/or any criminal or civil penalty, or sanction, for activity authorized herein." However, no institution would be able to lawfully secure funding for research concerning GMO-marijuana.

Although the provisions of Regulate Marijuana Like Wine specify certain limitations, as the initiative repeals H&S 11358 (laws pertaining to marijuana cultivation), there would be no law providing for any direct penalties other than commercial violations (fine of $2,500). The visibility alone would not constitute a commercial violation.

If RMLW qualifies for the 2012 General Election and passes, and the legislature does nothing to further the purposes of RMLW, then it would be up to local governments to adopt ordinances and enforce non-commercial regulations. However, given the difference of medical marijuana vs. recreational marijuana, along with the fact that most mentions of "marijuana" currently codified would be repealed, the surge in commercial cannabis activity would be hard to ignore by the state legislature. In that event, the state government would attempt to implement a system that could exist in tandem with Federal Law (which is possible).

In other words, within a reasonable amount of time, expect the state to Regulate Cannabis Like Wine... but don't expect the employment issue to be resolved any time soon.
I agree on the anti-GMO clause, I think it will be impossible to enforce. It might (probably) will mean that the scientific research on Cannabis will be done elsewhere and the improved Cannabis will be controlled by those outside of California.
 
Top