• CD Moderators: someguyontheinternet
  • Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

I am trying to write a legalization/decrim. bill.

Kaneh Bosm

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Messages
607
Location
CA
I am trying to write a legalization/decriminalization bill in CA. Just in case the one in the legislature, does not pass or is inactive once passed due to conflicting with federal law. The one I am proposing would hold up to federal challenges since there would not be a legal market in cannabis, more on that later.

The purpose of this thread is to get suggestions from those knowledgeable of law both state and federal, and the bill writing process. I also would like suggestions from the cannabis using community as well. As well as possibly get people from CA on board with this idea as well.

There is currently a bill in the California legislature but many speculate that it will be inactive when it passes because it is conflicting with federal law. What I am proposing would be radical decriminalization, make the cultivation, use and possession of cannabis for personal use, neither a civil or criminal act. This is possible since 99%(#?) of all drug arrest happen at the state and local level, rather than at the federal level. I would like my bill to eliminate all criminal statues relating to the personal possession, use, and cultivation, in the state of California. See where I am going with this?

So what would be the definition of personal use? This is where I need your help. I believe that any adult should be able to grow on their property, or with written consent of the property owner/ homeowner's association. Cultivation on public land, or on a tenet's land without permission will outlawed.

So what should the plant and processed bud weight limits be? Preferably none right? =D Lets be realistic, we need a number that low enough to appease the public yet high enough that we are allowed a certain amount of freedom. I would say 10 plants in various stages of growth, no more than 5 flowering at one time. (This number is open to construction) I believe I read that one indoor plant can yield 4 ounces of dried/cured processed bud. Correct me if I am way off base. This is how I came up with the weight max, of 1.25 lbs.

Now that pretty much covers plants so what about renters who cannot grow? In my bill's preamble it is going to have some language of how my bill would curb black market profits and resulting violence, so where are these people who don't grow going to get their bud without supporting the black market? My bill is going to allow for the not for profit transfers of one ounce between adults. Selling or providing cannabis to people under 18 will still be a felony. I believe that my bill would severely cut down on the black market since all adult cannabis consumers would be able to either grow their own or get it from a friend that grows. It will destabilize the black market of cannabis making it not profitable for the thugs to enter it.

This is the bare bones, skeleton of my bill. I am open to all suggestions, as long as they are constructive. Don't be cynical, otherwise you are a part of the problem.

Thanks in advance.=D
 
All I have to say is, before you send the bill or whatever it is you do with a bill, think it through very thuroughly. Also, I have a question, can anybody sends bills to the government like this? If so, they probably have tons already and will just ignore yours, but its worth a try
 
I don't normally post here and I think weed is crap, but I commend the OP for really being the change. You get so many people who bitch and do nothing, but people like the OP are the ones who make a difference. Good for you dude!
 
All I have to say is, before you send the bill or whatever it is you do with a bill, think it through very thuroughly. Also, I have a question, can anybody sends bills to the government like this? If so, they probably have tons already and will just ignore yours, but its worth a try

Actually, I would not be surprised if they get very few. The legalization bill that made the news in Mass. was submitted by a civilian.

I am going to try and have this be my summer hobby, I want this to make it into the legislature!
 
I don't normally post here and I think weed is crap, but I commend the OP for really being the change. You get so many people who bitch and do nothing, but people like the OP are the ones who make a difference. Good for you dude!

Thanks for that, I do support change in the laws for other drugs as well, but I do not think there is as much public support as cannabis has right now:\.
 
Consult a actavist group(norml,SSDP,safer etc) they have concrete experiance in this feild whereas the common BLer doesn't. Just a suggestion.

I was thinking of writing it first then go to my local chapter and see what they could to do drum up support.
 
shit you have my support we should all be writing bills the "war against drugs" is BULLSHIT...if the block headed ass gov got it thru their heads that legalization would be better then locking us up for using they would know that the economy would def. thrive.
 
theres a similar bill in MAssachusetts hopefully they pass

But i do agree contact NORML or somethin
 
There is currently a bill in the California legislature but many speculate that it will be inactive when it passes because it is conflicting with federal law. What I am proposing would be radical decriminalization, make the cultivation, use and possession of cannabis for personal use, neither a civil or criminal act. This is possible since 99%(#?) of all drug arrest happen at the state and local level, rather than at the federal level. I would like my bill to eliminate all criminal statues relating to the personal possession, use, and cultivation, in the state of California. See where I am going with this?

How is this different from the existing bill? How does limiting it to personal use avoiding violating federal law?
 
You have my support. I am off too somewhere right now but will be back shortly!
 
Thoughts; (Sorry... read the PM a while ago and forgot about it the craziness I'm caught up in...)

Local and State law CANNOT trump Federal law. No bill you write/pass can ever supersede Federal Law. Sorry.

Now - the trick with this would be to implement some sort of Constitutional Amendment (at the state level) which would secure property rights to those creating property...
And to establish that the "owner of the title of land" is the sole proprietor and controller of the land, and all which the land should produce.

Heuristic will contend with me (if he finds this thread), but apparently that's where the lack of strength comes from in any drug argument with Government - there are no property rights recognized in the people... only privileged grants by Government.



Amendments in California aren't that hard to do - if you can get enough signatures to get a bill onto the ballot, you only need a few thousand more to get a proposed amendment on there.
(I don't remember exact numbers, but check into this - it's how Prop 8 was an Amendment instead of just a bill...)
And simple majority wins on the amendment as well.

So... I'd suggest a carefully written amendment expressing that property ownership is inherent in the creator of that property and that no regulatory measure may reduce the owners rights to their property, so long as there is no violation of another's rights.

But then - in California, property rights already exist Constitutionally... Unlike at the Federal level (where the idea of private property is laughed at.)
And I think a properly challenged case at the CA Supreme court level could undo all drug regulation under state and local law - but I'm an optimist when it comes to ending oppression, completely delusional in my beliefs that petitioning the oppressors will elicit any sort of change from them.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
Of course - this is where Heuristic and I begin to disagree - I hold that this right is inherent in all people, regardless of judicial rulings otherwise.
And... of course... the Constitution, as written, sides with me. It's re-interpretation over the course of 200+ years... not so much.
U.S. Constitution Article IV Section 2;
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Acquiring, possessing, and protecting property are recognized rights under CA law - and no state law can infringe upon, nor eradicate those rights. These are immunities from outside control - these rights CANNOT be seized by the legislature by acts of law, nor the executive in the enforcement of law, nor the judiciary through Judicial Activism.

Medical Marijuana is illegal in California (the passing of the bill creating it is illegal) in that it proclaims that one must first acquire (and pay for) a license, issued by the state, to engage in a right to acquire, possess, and use marijuana for a purpose recognized as legitimate by the state.
This clearly falls under the category of "Unconstitutional Licensing Statute" and can be ignored with impunity according to the Supreme Court in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham...
For many reasons - personal choice is liberty, and engaging in the acquisition and use of property is clearly an exercise in pursuit of one's happiness.
For the state to dictate what may and may not bring happiness to someone, and to deny them that choice - and that path - is to deprive them of their fundamental liberties and absolutely unalienable rights.
Then there's the bit the CA Constitution says about property as well...

The trick is to find someone arrested for mere possession of Marijuana at the local or state level that doesn't have a medical license - that's willing to take this up to the State Supreme Court.
Funding for this battle - assuming the legal theory is sound - would be VERY easy to acquire, and the backing for this would be immense. (See LEAP, NORML, etc... Signatures? With 5 of the biggest anti-prohibition agencies backing you? Not a problem.)

There are further protections in section 7...
SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
laws;...
(Lots of stuff about schools, etc...)
(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked. (Special Note; Section 1 RIGHTS are not GRANTED by the legislature and are not subject to their alteration nor revocation. Look at the language of section 1.)
Here is the issue with Medical Marijuana. It is a privilege granted by the state to the people. (Much as is a marriage license, but I digress...)
The conflict with Federal Law arises from the claim of the Federal Government that no property they have scheduled may be controlled by any outside source without first acquiring a DEA license (it's another licensing statute proclaiming that one must first secure a licenses in order to engage in the acquisition or possession of property).
The State has no re-distributable DEA license; the state cannot control marijuana (nor any other drug).
Since this is beyond the State's control, any license granting permission to possess or use marijuana for any purpose originating from the state is a false license - as the State cannot issue a license to use something that it does not have control over.

Simpler example...
I can't give you permission (license) to live in my neighbor's house for a week. I don't control their house, nor do I have any rights to it.
The state cannot give you permission (license) to use the Federal Government's marijuana for any reason, as the state has no right to it.

So - with this in mind - you can see why it's important to raise the issue as a RIGHT secured by Constitutional Amendment, and even then, the State Constitution, being in conflict with Federal Law, may not hold up as well as you or I perceive.

Mere decriminalization isn't enough as it still recognizes an authority to control property the State has not acquired through procedural due process, nor just compensation...
It is mere legislative fiat proclaiming that people can engage in any rights to marijuana regardless of the Federal licensing statute.
Again - the supremacy clause prohibits the states from making any such statements. While the state can refuse to implement measures by which they support and uphold Federal law, they can offer no protection from Federal prosecution, should it come.

As for marijuana possession and use itself, it is not criminal, but unlawful (not malum in se, but mala prohibita). The courts and Congress don't see it this way either - and this also must be attacked. Caselaw (not at the Circuit Court level, but above) backs you in this, however this is a rational thought/argument in an irrational set of policy based upon fear, terrorism, and lies.


Honestly, I'd encourage you to contact the Campaign for Liberty - as this is a greater social cause than mere marijauna legalization; it's a battle for the people to regain their fundamental rights to property which were once held to be SACRED rights.
It's a fight to re-secure freedoms lost that encompass far more than the drugs the majority of us would like to see free for personal use in accordance with one's personal choice.



Short answer - since it's late, I'm tired, and rambling...
No bill nor law will work; a Constitutional Amendment has a chance, however even an amendment asserting a positive RIGHT to one's property so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of another in their possession nor use could be superseded by Federal law.

Best of luck. Really.
Give me some feedback on this, and when I'm awake I'll respond ;)
 
Its called marble cake federalism(not joking). Layer cake(again not a joke) federalism puts federal laws above states, marble cake looks at equal shared power. Truely its an interpretation of the constitution. But for now yes we have people in power that say fed trumps state law, but we need new judges/politicians to change this not a constitutional ammendment. Congress wont bring up such divisive bills sowe do need state change first.
 
Its called marble cake federalism(not joking). Layer cake(again not a joke) federalism puts federal laws above states, marble cake looks at equal shared power. Truely its an interpretation of the constitution. But for now yes we have people in power that say fed trumps state law, but we need new judges/politicians to change this not a constitutional ammendment. Congress wont bring up such divisive bills sowe do need state change first.

Actually - the Constitution has supremacy over everything.
Federal law has supremacy over state law, but must be in compliance with the Constitution (enumerated powers, limited privileged grants of power by the States - who inherit their powers and the ability to create The Union from the people themselves...)
The challenge would be between a State Constitution guaranteeing a certain right to the people of that state where the Federal Government - through powers not enumerated in the Constitution (and therefore invalid powers) has created a regulatory scheme which disables the rights protected by the State Constitution.

At that point, with any luck, the view of the founders will be reviewed, and common reason will prevail; rights are inherent in the people... People came together and formed communities, communities came together and formed states, states came together and formed "The Union" - which separates The Union (federal power) from the Rights of the People (where all powers come from) further than any other level of government....
Meaning that Federal Law is weaker than any of the other laws...

The enemy isn't Government, however, it's the prevailing mindset that we have a Democracy.
This is a repugnant notion that the majority rules.
Democracy is prohibited by the Constitution - and before getting all semantic on this - the problem isn't Democracy vs. Republic...
It's Democracy v. Constitutional Rule of Law.

The Constitution has been dismantled - and the real problem we're facing is how to put it back into its proper place as the Supreme Law of the Land.
 
You put it more elegantly but overall our views are the same I just wasn't talking about law so much as concepts or interpretations of the constitution. The federal gov't should be limited when dealing with states to interstate issues, leaving all intrastate affairs to the states themselves. So yes the constitution trumps state laws but in these matters gov't shouldn't have laws therefore letting the states choose.
 
You put it more elegantly but overall our views are the same I just wasn't talking about law so much as concepts or interpretations of the constitution. The federal gov't should be limited when dealing with states to interstate issues, leaving all intrastate affairs to the states themselves. So yes the constitution trumps state laws but in these matters gov't shouldn't have laws therefore letting the states choose.

Legally, the Fed. Govt. cannot make such laws.
I'd posit that neither can the state nor local levels of government either.
But that's a dead horse I've beaten over and over again.

3 people come together to form a government - whereby they are all equal, with inherent rights.
Two vote away the rights of the 3rd seizing all powers for themselves and denying the 3rd any property, forcing him to pay tribute/licensing fees in order to possess or acquire property, or - even vote to use guns against him if he tries to possess property not owned by another, or with consent of the controlling party... (stripping him of his right to life - converting it into a conditional privilege, so long as he obeys the will of the other 2).
Simply because THEY have voted away any property right the 3rd guy had.

It doesn't make sense at this level, it doesn't make sense at the local, state, nor federal levels either.
The first two people simply don't have that authority - the rights of the 3rd are inalienable (recognized by the U.s. Constitution, and every state Constitution (to my knowledge)).
 
Kalash, I should have been more clear, yes no state law trumps federal law since the USSC does not acknowledge the 9th & 10th amendments as they were intended. The reason my bill would work in theory is because the state would not be sanctioning the sale of cannabis. Since upwards of 90% of drug arrests happen at the state and local level, if state law is replaced with complete decriminalization then there is nothing the FEDs can do. They rely completely on the police of the state and local municipalities to enforce their drug laws. The 1,000 strong DEA does not have the resources to investigate every cannabis growing operation in the state.
 
Kalash, I should have been more clear, yes no state law trumps federal law since the USSC does not acknowledge the 9th & 10th amendments as they were intended. The reason my bill would work in theory is because the state would not be sanctioning the sale of cannabis. Since upwards of 90% of drug arrests happen at the state and local level, if state law is replaced with complete decriminalization then there is nothing the FEDs can do. They rely completely on the police of the state and local municipalities to enforce their drug laws. The 1,000 strong DEA does not have the resources to investigate every cannabis growing operation in the state.

That's a good point.
It's a good tactical measure, but in the overall course of the war, it would be one heck of a battle to get implemented, and knowing that as law it was superceded by higher law...
I don't know.
I think you'd end up with more conflicts between local authorities and the state de-crim. with local cops arresting and handing over to Federal custody (much like the issues in San Diego - where local authorities continued marijuana arrests under the presumption that the state laws protecting MM patients were invalidated by the Fed. laws).

It wouldn't be an overnight fix, and it may initiate a war - between local authorities and the state, the State and the Fed. Govt...
It would become an issue of state sovereignty - and we know how that fight turned out last time.

If that's the goal, however, I need to think about it differently.
I'll get back to you on suggested wording and such.
 
Top