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

[Kaneh Bosm]

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in the overall course of the war, it would be one heck of a battle to get implemented, and knowing that as law it was superceded by higher law...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.

I liked your property rights idea, but I think that unless you are specific that the drugs you grow on your land are your property, then the authorities are going to swoop in and steal them saying you can't own contraband.

 

[Kalash]

I liked your property rights idea, but I think that unless you are specific that the drugs you grow on your land are your property, then the authorities are going to swoop in and steal them saying you can't own contraband.

So make a law prohibiting the concept of contraband, so long as the property involved is not stolen - and its ACTUAL storage or use does not violate the rights of anyone that does not consent to its presence or use.
Use of a stereo can be criminal if it is a nuisance to neighbors. Ownership of the stereo is never considered "possession of contraband" - what's the difference?


Let's try to keep it simple (HA! Alright - simplify! >_< I'm not so good at simple... or brief...) - and stay away from drugs for now... at least in name. You have to sell this to the public, remember, and the public is anti-drug regardless of the loss of personal liberty.
Don't SAY drugs, or you lose automatically.
And this isn't about drugs at this point - it's about much more than that.

Proposed Bill

NSFW:

"Constitutional Restoration of All Personal Property Act"
CRAPPA
Findings;
While engaging in the provisioned powers granted to it in the Constitution, the State has both intentionally and unintentionally become destructive of the rights of its people.
As the people have inherent rights, and all powers granted to Government flow from the consent of the people, and such powers are derivative of the rights of the people, it is both an assault upon the Constitution of the State of California as well as an attack upon common reason for the State, or any of the State's agents operating under Color of Law, to assert any claim to control property owned by any of the people.
Legislative acts providing for "State Control" of property, licensing statutes by which the State claims to control the Rights to certain types of properties without creating nor having interest of ownership of the property, have done nothing substantial to benefit the people.
On the contrary, such acts have had severely negative effects upon society by breaking down respect for the Rule of Law, the law itself, law enforcement, elected officials, public representatives, and generally disrupting the ordered liberty established by the Constitution.
The unintended consequences of these laws are far reaching, and are not confined to the borders of California alone.
Persons that have done nothing but engage in the possession of their property are causing our prisons to overflow with people having committed no crimes, bankrupting local and state governments. Thieves and violent people are being released ahead of schedule due to this overcrowding, further inflicting injury and a sense of injustice upon the people.
Violence in the protection of one's property from others, as well as from deprivation by the state through use of violent force has increased in proportion to the passing of these laws removing civil protection of property. The violence created by these laws extends globally, resulting in confrontations between property owners and agents of the State. While defending their unconstitutional enactments, the State claims these outbreaks of violence are associated with the articles the state has claimed to control, but the violence is born of the false "Right to Control" exercised by the state in violation of the rights of the property owners. The violence is nearly always defensive, or to correct some civil violation for which the state refuses to administer justice. At this point, anarchy is overtaking our Constitutional Republic, and the State is encouraging this departure from the rule of law in its never ending attempt to extend its powers. When the State does not recognize the Rule of Law, the people follow the example of the State and begin to lead lawless lives, disregarding Law as it does not protect rights nor punish crime, but victimizes people in the innocent exercise of their unalienable rights.
Street crime increases as persons no longer feel safe in their homes, never knowing if their personal property is protected by the Law, or if the Law is coming to take their personal property and liberty for merely possessing that which they own.
Black markets seemingly endorsed by the state have taken control of intrastate and interstate commerce due to overly restrictive licensing statutes claiming that no rights to property exist, usurping these unalienable rights and converting them to mere privileges, granted and revoked by the state, which a person must pay the state to acquire. Such licensing statutes which require the acquisition of a State issued license to engage in any inherent right is void ab initio. A person with rights to acquire and possess property, or convert that property to any beneficial use unforeseen by the state, cannot be required to obtain a license from an entity established in the exercise of that right.
The only way to reverse this trend towards violent deprivation of rights by the State in pursuit of expanding it's privileged powers, is to reign in those powers and restore the Constitutional limitations which protect the rights of the people from the State's continual attempts at encroachment.
While rationalized by the state, as any criminal rationalizes his actions to himself, these acts are directly and indirectly destructive of the rights from which Government's powers are derived, invalidating the Constitutional Contract between the people and the State, and amounting to State sponsored crime.
If such abuses of power are to continue, the Constitutional Contract by which the state attains its power to operate is deemed breached and has thus become invalid - removing all powers of the State.

Without the passage of this bill, all rights of the people will be restored, and any provisioned powers granted by the people through the Constitution will revert back to the people from which they came.


The purpose of the bill;
(A) To secure the rights of property clearly forbidden from governmental violation in the Constitutions of the United States and the State of California from encroachment by the State in exercise of its limited vested powers, AND
(B) To invalidate powers of the State by which these rights have been abridged, AND
(C) To prevent any future encroachments upon these rights through legislation, AND
(D) To eliminate the monopolies and black markets the State has created by engaging in Unconstitutional exercise of its enumerated powers, AND
(E) To reduce the violence and dangers to society created by the State's exercise of Unconstitutional powers necessitating "Street Justice" whereby the individual is left without any protection of their property except for what they can provide themselves, AND
(F) To restore the right to jury trial and civil protections in property disputes, AND
(G) To initiate a return from Democratic Anarchy to a Constitutional Republic, AND
(H) To re-establish the Rule of Law which protects equally all rights of property.

Terms;

In accordance with the purpose of this bill, the definitions listed in this section shall supersede all other definitions in all other sections of the California code where these terms are used, especially in those sections which would render those sections meaningless or invalid.
'Property' shall mean;
(a) anything coming from or found within the land the person owns, or land they occupy through consent of the owner on a permanent basis, OR
(b) anything acquired through consent of that thing's previous owner so long as

(1) such consent is freely given without threats nor acts of violence, AND
(2) Neither fraud nor false representation is used to secure a contract, oral or written, for the thing acquired, AND
(3) Any contract, oral or written, by which acquisition of the thing is to take place, are either fulfilled or in the process of being fulfilled in accordance to the terms of that contract, OR​

(c) anything one possesses without another raising a claim of ownership, OR
(d) anything which a person creates from any materials gained through sections a-c of this definition.

'Ownership' shall mean;
The inherent rights existent within the person to control property which they own to the exclusion of all others.

'(Right to) Control (of) Property' shall mean;
The exclusive rights inherent in ownership of property; possession, use, destruction, conversion to other use, determining to what use to put, distribution, contract, barter, licensing authority, and all associated rights stemming from ownership of property.

'Controlled Substance' shall mean;
Any property which is possessed, used, destroyed, converted to another use, having a determined use, distributed, contracted with, bartered for, licensed to another, or otherwise shown to be owned by anyone to the exclusion of all others.

'Deprivation of Property' shall mean;
Any property to which the owner is denied the exercise of any right of ownership for any reason, without express consent of the owner, without full procedural AND substantive due process of law for a criminal act resulting in a civil case being brought by a plaintiff with standing prior to any criminal charges being filed by the State.

'Regulation of' shall mean;
A restriction upon the exercise of any right of ownership that does not amount to a deprivation of that right, subject to the restraints on Government in the Constitutions of the United States and California, as well as further restraints in this section.

Text of the Bill;

As property acquisition and possession are inherent rights of all persons, and these rights, recognized by the California Constitution as being beyond the ability of the state to diminish or suspend, it shall be unlawful for any person acting on their own, OR in conspiracy with, OR as an agent for another, OR as an agent of the State, OR under color of law to violate that right through deprivation of any property for any reason.

Violations of this section shall carry both civil and criminal penalties as follows;
Subsection 1

(A) Any deprivation of property, conspiracy, or attempt done for any reason shall carry a civil penalty of not less than 2 (two) times the value of the property which its owner has been deprived and a criminal penalty of not less than 10 (ten) days per $100 value of the property, and each increment shall start at $0.01 above the threshold ($100.01 incurs a civil penalty of not less than $200.02 and a prison term of not less than 20 (twenty) days), along with a fine of 50% the value of the property.
(B) A second offense of this title after a conviction under this title will incur a civil penalty of not less than 4 (four) times the value of the property and a penalty of not less than 20 (twenty) days per $100 value of the property, and a fine of 100% the value of the property, or double the penalties from the first conviction under this section, whichever is greater.
(C) All subsequent offenses after consecutive convictions under this title shall incur double the penalties of the last conviction, or twice the penalty derived from section (B), for example, a 4th offense under this section would require either double the fine, restitution, and incarceration of the 3rd conviction, or a civil penalty of 16 (sixteen) times the value of the property, a fine of 400% the value of the property, and a prison term of not less than 80 days per $100 valuation of the property, whichever is greater.​

Subsection 2
Any attempt, conspiracy to attempt, or actual deprivation done under color of official right, color of law, or legislative enactment shall be punished;

(A) A civil penalty for 2 (two) times the value of the property, a fine of 50% the value of the property, and imprisonment for not less than 30 days per $25 value of the property. AND
(B) A mandatory suspension of privileges and duties of public office, peace officer status, and any receipt of public funds for any purpose during AND for not less than 6 (six) months following their period of incarceration. AND
(C) A mandatory impeachment if the act is committed from an impeachable office.​

Upon a second offense under this subsection the following penalties shall be used;
licensing statute claiming to require the State's permission to acquire or possess any good for any purpose is superseded and invalidated by this law in order to

(A) A civil penalty of not less than 4 (four) times the value of the property, a fine of 200% the value of the property, and a term of imprisonment for not less than 3 months per $25 value of the property.
(B) A mandatory suspension of privileges and duties of public office, peace officer status, and any receipt of public funds for any purpose during AND for not less than 3 (three) years following their period of incarceration. AND
(C) Immediate and mandatory disqualification from the office held, or indefinite suspension of peace officer status, whichever is applicable.
(D) If a felony conviction, suspension of all rights and privileges according to existing law for felony convictions.
​

Subsection 3
Any violation of subsection 1 or 2 done through use of violence, threats of violence, threats of destruction of property

Without weapons; an additional civil penalty of $200 or double the value of the property lost, whichever is greater, an additional fine of $250 or double the value of the property lost, whichever is greater, AND a period of incarceration of not less than 6 (six) months.
With firearms or weapons of mass destruction; an additional civil penalty of $500 or double the value of the property lost, whichever is greater, and additional fine of $500 or double the value of the property lost, whichever is greater, AND a period of incarceration of not less than 1 (one) year and one day.​

Subsection 5
(Reserved) - intended for restitution; requirements of those incarcerated to make at least minimum wage (eliminate slave labor), pay for food and shelter while in prison (compulsory employment), and send a minimum amount of their income to the victims/pay fines/etc.

Subsection 6
(Reserved) - intended for permissive grants for use of revenue acquired through fines collected under this section

Subsection 7
(Reserved) - intended for exceptions; accidents, commission without malice, immediate dangers, etc...

Subsection 8
Restrictions by the State necessary to prevent the instant violation of another's recognized rights of life, liberty, property, or other rights secured by the Constitution shall not amount to a deprivation provided that the regulation;

(1) Does not disable the right entirely.
(2) Is not arbitrary.
(3) Is in pursuit of a legitimate and proper exercise of a Constitutional Power of the State for the purpose of protecting a right which is directly affected by the use or possession of the property being regulated.
(4) Does not require a license to engage in any right of ownership.
(5) Does not create automatic standing for the State to bring charges against anyone engaging in the right being regulated.
(6) Does not provide for the State to control, in any manner, the property which is to be restricted.
(7) Does not require more than a 10 (ten) day one time wait, for review of records before enjoying the exercise of any right, nor more than 3 (three) days after the first initial period of review to engage in an identical right.
(7) Does not require the divulging of any information from the people engaged in any right.
(8) Does not provide for criminal penalties unless there is a person with standing raising a civil suit against the person engaged in the activities listed under the regulation.
(9) Does not require a cost to comply that is in excess of 3% of the production costs of the property being regulated, per item, and must be the actual cost of compliance, not a fee collected by the state.
(10) Does not show prejudice against a commodity by imposing a tax upon it unless such a tax is applied as a sales tax on commercial retail to consumer sales, and the value of the tax is not more than 25% of the total value of the production cost, and not more than 8% the retail sales price in addition to any other sales tax, whichever is LESS.

(I) Any revenue from this tax must directly go to programs aimed at assisting those that are affected by the commodity being taxed.
(II) Any revenue in excess of that needed for such programs will be placed into a special account and held for not more than 5 (five) years at which point a review of the tax MUST be undertaken by the State Legislature, and the tax revalued if deemed excessive or insufficient. Early review of such a tax may take place but does not preempt the mandatory 5 (five) year review.

(A) If, after 5 years, the tax is seen as insufficient, it may be increased by public majority vote to no more than 50% of the total production cost, and not more than 15% the retail sales price in addition to any other sales tax, whichever is less.​

(III) The mandatory 5 (five) year review must be concluded each consecutive term of 5 (five) years or the special tax will be suspended as of the date of its enactment plus five years.
(IV) Failure of the legislature to complete the review of a tax in 30 days will result in its expiration until completion of the review.​

Subsection 9
(Reserved) - intended for legislators voting for a law suspending any property right in violation of subsection 8.

Thoughts?
Sheesh. My thoughts?
Now I understand why Congress gets 1,000+ page bills to pass.
Hopefully the formatting holds >_<

 

[a thing]

Beautiful Although the title resembling the word "CRAP" is not good...

 

[Kaneh Bosm]

Beautiful Although the title resembling the word "CRAP" is not good...

Yeah the name has to change, I can see it now on Fox news. "This CRAPPA bill is crap!" Other than that it is great. You really went out of your way with it. Thanks a bunch, I think I will take your bill over mine (since mine is not even written yet). So what is next? Find people to sign on to it?

 

[Kalash]

Awww
"Don't crap on the crappa!"

Yeah - it was late. I was tired.
You get what you pay for

Finally Ending Despotism Under Protectionism
Fed-Up?



NO! Don't get people to sign on to it!
It's not finished! Those reserved spots need flushed out, I was half asleep when I finished it.
I'm sure there's grammatical and spelling errors...
There are controversial bits that need addressed...
The Findings bit is a tad harsh and should be re-worked/whittled down...

There's still work to do on it.
Including coming up with a better name

That was meant to get you started. Rip it apart. It's not perfect - far from it.
Refine it a bit, then we'll work on "the next step"
Take the time you were planning to use writing the thing to edit this one.

Anything you don't agree with, or think is too outlandish, question it. Challenge it.
I'm all for communal works (communism ) so long as participation is voluntary. (Not compulsory.)

Come on community... get to work!

 

[Kaneh Bosm]

What about CPPPA, Constitutional Protections of Private Property Act?

 

[Kalash]

What about CPPPA, Constitutional Protections of Private Property Act?

That's better.
Comprehensive Prison Reform and Restoration of Constitutional Protections Act?
CPRRCPA?


To directly answer the question - I suppose that could be a complete bill. Just for kicks, I'd like to add a section citing authorities - probably split it off from the Findings section...

And I want some DEBATE on the thing.
Not just the title >_<

What do you guys think? Really?
What areas need work?
How can it be cleaned up so it reads easier (englishified from the legalish it's currently in)?

 

[Kaneh Bosm]

So far my suggestions are to clean up the findings/preamble. It is a little bit brash in the rhetoric. I think it should also include more instances of what is private property, specific examples. If controlled substances are now considered property then the Bill also needs to revise the California controlled substances act.

We also need to think of any abuses of the bill or holes that prevent it from being active. We really need an experienced 3rd party with some knowledge of law to look over it.

Also what would you say to concerns about clandestine meth labs?

 

[Kalash]

So far my suggestions are to clean up the findings/preamble. It is a little bit brash in the rhetoric.

Thank you.
I said as much - glad I'm not the only one that thinks so :D

I think it should also include more instances of what is private property, specific examples.

I don't agree with this - I may need to make things a little clearer - maybe say that property is anything one may control to the exclusion of all others, but that appears redundant after reading the definition of property and the following definition of control.

Property definition - part C...
And add part E - "Property is to be anything possessed or controlled by any person to the exclusion of all others except by consent of its controller who extracts these rights from ownership of the thing in question."
This furthers the arguments that "controlled substances" are not legitimately controlled by the state, as they are possessed and controlled by persons in violation of the will of the state that does not have ownership. It also helps clarify that possession is an inferior right of ownership - which helps define "theft" as an usurpation of the owner's rights, even though the thief has "possession and control" of the property after the fact of the crime.

If controlled substances are now considered property then the Bill also needs to revise the California controlled substances act.

This requires further research - and it's going to be a rough one.
I kinda touched upon it - that the definitions to be used here are to be used elsewhere in the code - and under the statute, citations will have to be drawn showing specifically which other parts of the CA code will be struck by the passing of this bill.
I still don't want to refer to drugs by name - only cite the codes that will be struck - "This bill supersedes CA Code sections.... Replaces Sections.... And renders section XXX invalid."
Surely the media will pick up on this, and that can't be avoided, which means that more protections need written into the bill itself - particularly to address the fears people will have in regards to drugs, concerns which you, yourself, have already expressed.

We also need to think of any abuses of the bill or holes that prevent it from being active. We really need an experienced 3rd party with some knowledge of law to look over it.

I've been working on this somewhat. "Eminent Domain" is a mistake. The people possess all rights, and therefore all property.
Government was created by the people - it cannot preempt the people in ownership of property.
I'd strike that from the law as well (especially considering the controversial abuses it's been put to lately... demolishing homes to build Walmarts, and other private interest companies...)

For this bill to work, I really think it's going to need to be a comprehensive overhaul of most of the current code.
Theft is covered here, and considering that, I wonder if the punishments listed are sufficient enough - particularly the terms of imprisonment, as they seem quite low for fairly high amounts of theft ($1000 is less than a year in prison).
Thinking along those lines, however, the entire section of the code on theft could be replaced with this, probably removing books worth of code and replacing it with this simple section.

The Controlled Substances bit is struck completely, and doesn't need replaced.
Considering parallel abuses/concerns/benefits of the bill...
The reason for the waiting period provision was written in consideration of gun regulations, since this act would prohibit the state from requiring a license to own a gun. The regulations existing - aside from licenses - could continue under this law while providing time for criminal record searches, and the "cool off" period defined already. (Talk about getting the NRA on board...)
Concealed carry permits/licenses could still exist, as that is a limited regulation preventing only a specific type of possession while on public property, but Government could not PROHIBIT concealed carry permits, and must make them relatively easy to obtain.
If this "cool off period" should apply to drugs according to the public, so be it. 10 day wait for a first time user - they come in to buy drugs and are told that after 10 days they can have what they've asked for. I'd make this less - I'd make it 3 days - but for a first time consumer, I think this is just fine. "Let's go get high!" doesn't work - you're required to wait, or purchase off the black market. The waiting period can't be too long, or the black market will continue operations.
Registration could be done at a pharmacy, and the cost of the regulation must be maintained by the user - at the actual cost of the regulation. While this leaves some leeway for private registration companies to charge whatever they see fit, the cost cannot be too steep because there is no centralized registration agency.
I'm envisioning this kind of thing to be taken up by pharmacies - where computer records of people and prescriptions are already kept, with dating services. Head to any pharmacy, register with them - pay their registration fee - wait the initial X day period, then pick up the drugs you've requested.
After the initial registration, you can pick up any time you want - or, if certain other regulations are put into place, the requisite waiting period - however any additional waiting period would seem counter productive to the elimination of the black market, as well as lead to addicts getting frustrated at not being able to obtain what they want when they're in need.
Needles, on the other hand, can have no waiting period - as the potential harms from depriving someone of clean needles far outweighs any rationalization to regulate them - particularly now that there is no "illicit use" of needles - unless one uses a needle to harm another against their will.


I do want to make it clearer that Government retains the ability to license use of public land - and license use of private property on public land (driver's licenses, etc.) but that there are limits to such licensing authority, but this, too, is more of an overhaul of existing code than new law, and requires further thought.

These regulations would allow for things like speed limits - and fines, but no imprisonment for violations. This would include drunk driving...
But maintaining the position that use of a car (private property) on public roadways (not private property) is a privilege under the state's ability to regulate the use of public property, denial of this privilege is fully within the powers of the state.
Drunk driving can carry a penalty of mandatory license revocation for a period the legislature deems appropriate - along with ridiculous fines (I'd recommend something based upon the value of the car being driven )
If someone is found to be driving while their license is suspended for drunk driving, then there would need to be a trial, but criminal penalties at this point would be appropriate.
Drunk driving resulting in an accident - even driving under the influence of drugs (recently legalized) would carry far harsher penalties - mandatory 5-10 year terms, possible life sentences.


But let's just re-write the whole code and have the legislature vote on replacing the old with the new >_<
=P

Also what would you say to concerns about clandestine meth labs?

It depends on where they are.
Any use of property that directly inflicts damage on another without their knowing consent remains criminal.
Any use or possession of property that directly threatens the life, liberty, or property of another without their knowing consent remains criminal.
Meth labs (as they're not truly illegal anyway) in apartment buildings? Illegal - unless there is posted notice of their existence, their exact location, the potential harms of coming in contact with the chemicals held there while in public areas, and the risk of fire/etc being very prominent, available, and visible to anyone entering the property (not just those living there, but all people who may unwittingly enter the dangerous area.)
A meth lab in the middle of nowhere - where even the grossest irresponsible behavior can harm no-one (nor the property of) anyone but the person running the thing? I'd probably still make them put up a warning sign at their property entrance, but aside from that, let them blow themselves up. It is a free country - and weighing risks and benefits to come to a decision is an inherent right we all hold...
And none of us has any right to make a single risk:benefit decision for anyone else (hence the reason drunk driving is illegal...)

We have laws requiring such sings in laundry mats and things already. Public places with microwaves requires signs warning people with pacemakers to keep their distance.
These kinds of regulations are what I'm taking into consideration when I say that the regulations may exist, but must cover the cost of compliance, not be a fee paid to the state.
The burden of the cost of such signs would be on the person desiring to run the meth lab - or otherwise hold proximity threatening chemicals.
Refined drugs are not dangerous to anyone in the vicinity of the refined drugs, and any prohibition or restriction on their possession would be an abuse of power.
Help solving this riddle?


Of course - now we're talking about a comprehensive act, not a simple bill.

I looked up the amendment stuff too...


And this won't work as an amendment...
It's more of a Constitutional Revision that has to first pass through the legislature.

So... if we wanted to abandon the timely (though necessary) process to revise existing code (and/or scrap it all and start over), I suppose we could cut nearly all of it and try to pass it as an amendment to Article I Section I...

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.

The amendment would be short, simple, and sweet.

The government created by this constitution cannot convert any right held by the people into a privilege, nor criminalize the exercise of any rights protected by this document for any reason.
Laws Government creates must prescribe penalties for a trespass by one person on another's rights, and no law may be made in which there is no victim.

I'd also amend section 15 -

SEC. 15. The defendant in a criminal cause has the right to a
speedy public trial, to compel attendance of witnesses in the
defendant's behalf, to have the assistance of counsel for the
defendant's defense, to be personally present with counsel, and to be
confronted with the witnesses against the defendant. The
Legislature may provide for the deposition of a witness in the
presence of the defendant and the defendant's counsel.
Persons may not twice be put in jeopardy for the same offense, be
compelled in a criminal cause to be a witness against themselves, or
be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

The amendment would be to insert "nor prior to the requisite procedural" - just after "without" in the last sentence.

Persons may not twice be put in jeopardy for the same offense, be
compelled in a criminal cause to be a witness against themselves, or
be deprived of life, liberty, or property without, nor prior to the requisite procedural due process of law.

And go on to define property as done in the bill above...

That may be easier - but revising the entire code would be so much more rewarding :D

 

[tylerwashere]

Sounds like a great idea. LEGALIZE IT!

 

[KeepJimMorrisonAli]

The Obama administration has made it clear that federal laws will NOT override state laws concerning Marijuana. So as far as that goes, you're fine.

 

[Kalash]

The Obama administration has made it clear that federal laws will NOT override state laws concerning Marijuana. So as far as that goes, you're fine.

Unless you're in California running a medical marijuana dispensary - as they exist (according to the CA Attorney General) in a "legal gray area" - they are "decriminalized" (the laws are not enforced against them) but they remain "illegal" - fully prosecutable under the New Federal Position.

Obama has done nothing beneficial for medical marijuana - while giving appearances of being a great hero for the cause.
Watch his slippery tongue. It will trick you again and again... and it seems it already has at least once.

 

[HighonLife]

"Are there any precedents for state constitutions versus federal laws? "

yes most of these precedents arose during the states rights times of the 50's 60's and 70's and most of these precedents rule in favor of the federal govt b/c at the time most states rights advocates were so because of states rights protecting discrimination and segregation

 

[morphene]

Hey for real. I didn't read the whole thread, but how you started out: "since there would not be a legal market in cannabis"

stop right there. I don't know how you decided to take up initiative crafting, but however you got the idea that was a good idea should really be thought about.

Are you in california?

A LEGAL 100% ABOVE BOARD PAY YOU TAXES BUY WEED WITH A MASTERCARD

is really the only thing that cali wants. No penalties for anything cannabis related aside DUI and furnishing to minors, compulsory license cultivation and sale.

Basically that's it. Keep it simple. Fending off the feds with words is LOL. Writing a bunch of your own rules to replace the old ones and proclaiming victory doesn't seem wrong?

LEGAL. Like Dirt. (but not for kiddies!)


Also this isn't cynical - this is my I can't even comprehend that I read two different advocates today propose shit with a lot more restrictions than the bill that an assemblyman wrote. WTF? Prop 215 anyone? Freedom

 

[lostsoul.On.E]

i wouldnt waste my time. but hey im glad theres people that are willing to! enjoy!

 

[Kalash]

Hey for real. I didn't read the whole thread, but how you started out: "since there would not be a legal market in cannabis"

stop right there. I don't know how you decided to take up initiative crafting, but however you got the idea that was a good idea should really be thought about.

Are you in california?

We've progressed sense then...
There cannot be a "criminal" market in marijuana under the Constitution... which is the whole point of the bill proposed in here...

A LEGAL 100% ABOVE BOARD PAY YOU TAXES BUY WEED WITH A MASTERCARD

is really the only thing that cali wants. No penalties for anything cannabis related aside DUI and furnishing to minors,

STOP.

compulsory license cultivation and sale.

You just made a black market, and REQUIREMENTS for "penalties" for anything cannabis related regarding sales and use.
You can't do that if you want a "legal 100% above board pay your taxes when you buy weed with a mastercard" and require a LICENSE (permission slip to do such a thing - without which it is CRIMINAL to do that thing) to do it.

This is why the medical marijuana laws are unconstitutional and invalid - a LICENSE cannot be required to "possess, distribute, or use" personal property which you OWN (as those are inherent rights of OWNERSHIP).

Also this isn't cynical - this is my I can't even comprehend that I read two different advocates today propose shit with a lot more restrictions than the bill that an assemblyman wrote. WTF? Prop 215 anyone? Freedom

Freedom?
Go LEARN, stoner boy... go learn.
Prop 215 does not legalize medical dispensaries at all.
Prop 215 is NOT freedom, but subjugation.
You say, "Freedom" and claim that a higher authority (government) to whom you MUST PETITION for PERMISSION to do that which you wish to do...
Is "Freedom"?

This is the problem with America today...
Not just you - but a good 85+% of the population.
They believe in democracy (which we do not have) and do not understand the meaning of "freedom."

Certain slaves were permitted to live in the house, play with the white children, eat good food, and learn to read.
Does this mean those slaves were free... or PRIVILEGED?
Subjects can be privileged.
Free people cannot be "privileged"

The concept of liberty refuses to permit licensing of one's RIGHTS to another.
The Constitution refuses to permit licensing of one's RIGHTS to another/any group.
Government cannot take this authority - as it is CRIME - and all person are equal in this nation - to include government officials.


Read the proposed bill I've written...
Don't read the early comments and make up your mind.
I'm serious.
Get stoned and read what I've written...
Then tell me how this is "more restrictive" than prop 215.

 

[morphene]

I'm sorry I was in a bad mood I was flashing back to arguing about the super shitty and 100% self serving crap that is tax cannabis 2010.

Oh but now you tell me to GO LEARN. great. You picked a bad day but I just sent two letters to reporters discussing some finer points of... ack... a legalization law they covered. And read AB 390 and SB 420 and yeah that was today. Like I said picked a bad day and well i'm still gonna tell you whats up.

But first I'll be nice.

No possession amount. Why? Well first, why do you care? 1 # is a lot, but whats the difference between in and 2 # at that point? Basically nothing. What makes 1.35333 a special weight? It's obviously arbitrary, that's why it's not a good idea. You say 10 plants right? Well I could get 20 pounds off that if i waited forever and used a million lights. dumb but you see the point. if you figure 10 per at xxx ouches what are you supposed to do, throw it away? I know people do it (notice ammiano didn't) but what exactly are you stopping or encouraging? If they are committing another crime then thats the problem. Otherwise it's just borderline compost.

10 plants is pretty decent, only thing is it could yeild 10 ounces or like i said 20 pounds. I agree you need to limit cultivation though as otherwise morons burn down houses all day and blow them up with butane. At least if it isn't legal they try a bit harder not to destroy houses. Ok so the best secret is canopy size because it force a growing style and is easy to comply with and yields similar bud big or small. 5x5 or 25sq ft is pretty good but thats a little smaller than 10 plants, which might be 7x7 but eh. Some 215 limits are 10x10 but thats a lot.

ok mean time

There cannot be a "criminal" market in marijuana under the Constitution... which is the whole point of the bill proposed in here...

Ok. I don't really give a shit. It might be a reasonable novel defense (99% says: judge lols) but what the fuck does that have to do with me using a mastercard?

Right now there is a law that says blah blah NO SELLING POT. I saw it struck out like 5 times today. so. are you going to fix that or let it sit there? If it's sit there then fuck it right. Thanks for legalizing everything except how 99% of people will get it. You say oh you just won't know or care? Welcome to cali right now with the shit you fixed amiright?

I don't really care at all, but there are two things about weed that california loves. $85 short 8ths and co-ops. Me? hate em, never buy shit the scum sucking varmints. But it's reality, shit people born after 1985 think finding a dealer is another name for weedtracker. So either do it somehow or just tell them to get another card next year.

Yes I am being extreme but it's not legalization if one of the three things you do with it ain't covered. Cry however you want.

You just made a black market, and REQUIREMENTS for "penalties" for anything cannabis related regarding sales and use.
You can't do that if you want a "legal 100% above board pay your taxes when you buy weed with a mastercard" and require a LICENSE (permission slip to do such a thing - without which it is CRIMINAL to do that thing) to do it.

Ok. You said you made weed legal, right? A lot like this house plant. I grew it, now here give me a dollar. Either I just created a black market, I didn't make one the first time, or you still have shit to do.

This is the most pedantic conversation ever. I thought I was trying to buy weed but sure I'll sell it. So give me my license, my tax id #, give me online filing software, tell me what code to use for rice crispy treats and gtfo.

This is why the medical marijuana laws are unconstitutional and invalid - a LICENSE cannot be required to "possess, distribute, or use" personal property which you OWN (as those are inherent rights of OWNERSHIP).

Whatever. So you're saying the thing that works for everyone now and even the fucking feds wont go after anymore because we outlasted them like champions is useless, and instead you'd like to propose this other system where you have a law that says SHITS ILLEGAL. And when I tell the LAPD about you they just beat me.

I suppose you just took a government class or are pre-law or something? That's great but you need to understand something thats happening right in front of you. Obviously you know that practically it does work, except sometimes some asshole would get snatched by the DEA but I don't fucking care a) he made bank and b) he knew it could happen. and c) lol they are all dicks anyway.

Ammiano's bill expressly permits vendor broker dealer user relationships, yours won't because you're a twat but it doesn't matter because neither of your bills will get anywhere. I will sign though, then you'll only need 429,999 valid signatures and 3 million in tv time.

Wow I just raged at you for a very long time. The funny thing is I couldn't care less really, but someones gonna do it at some point because its obviously the next step. And then you can let some other asshole sell weed and see if the DEA pops em, it's kind of fun.

/thread

 

[morphene]

Ok, I know I shouldn't be posting but I realized another way to solve your existential crisis. It's called what happens when no one gives a fuck:

Me: Hi

San Francisco District Attorney Kamala D. Harris: You're in serious trouble!

Me: Really?

San Francisco District Attorney Kamala D. Harris: lol, no. no one in california gets re-elected taking pot cases to the supreme court.

Me: I see

San Francisco District Attorney Kamala D. Harris: Do you know a co-op with good grape ape?

/win

 

[Kalash]

I'm sorry I was in a bad mood I was flashing back to arguing about the super shitty and 100% self serving crap that is tax cannabis 2010.

I'm sorry about that.
I'm not talking about that bill though.

Oh but now you tell me to GO LEARN. great. You picked a bad day but I just sent two letters to reporters discussing some finer points of... ack... a legalization law they covered. And read AB 390 and SB 420 and yeah that was today. Like I said picked a bad day and well i'm still gonna tell you whats up.

Again - I'm sorry, but that isn't what we're discussing here.
I poorly chose those words, but would appreciate review of the proposed bill in this thread rather than attacks on my positions based on bills I'm not familiar with - and from the sound of things wouldn't come anywhere near supporting.
A cursory review of AB 390 shows that it would only take effect after Federal regulations are changed.
That's pointless- but addresses the issue I'm attempting to correct. The State of California CANNOT grant anyone LICENSE to engage in activities LICENSED/CONTROLLED by the Federal Government...
CA is not the "issuing authority" for any "drug license" and any license issued by CA is falsely granted.
That said, the bill itself (scrapping the "when Federal law permits us to..." things) doesn't look too bad.
I still question the authority of the state to "permit" possession and use of property that belongs to the person possessing and using it. Those kinds of laws still scream "ARMED ROBBERY WITH IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION" to me.
While AB 390 provides for fees and things, it doesn't guarantee anyone will be able to obtain the license described in the bill. It even says that background checks can be authorized prior to someone getting permission to grow marijuana.
Suppose the license is denied for some reason... What then?
Suppose the state eventually decides that they don't like commercially grown pot and retract all (annually issued) licenses?
You still have PROHIBITION - you have just moved it up the chain. With prohibition, you still have a black market.
This is the cornerstone of "Corporatism" - monopolies protected by governmental violence, and this is a BAD thing.

SB 420 doesn't impress me at all.
The conversion of "privileges" into "legally protected privileges" when those things are - by nature - rights of ownership to begin with seems counter productive... and I'm still at the very beginning of the bill.
There are underlying issues not being addressed by either bill...
"Where is the authority to control PROPERTY belonging to the people without compensation or due process first TAKING that property in accordance to the Constitution?"
There is no, "Unless we want to or deem it necessary" clause that overcomes the limitations on Government written into the amendments.
Rights are to beyond Governmental control - that's the purpose of having RIGHTS rather than Government issued (and retractable) PRIVILEGES of life, liberty, free speech, religion, property, etc...

But first I'll be nice.

Thanks. I appreciate it.
I like nice people :D
I'm sorry we're starting off poorly - let's see if we can resolve this without turning it into a war over different bills.
If not, let's at least war over what's being proposed HERE rather than some other bill that you're taking issue with (that I assuredly don't agree with either.)

No possession amount. Why? Well first, why do you care? 1 # is a lot, but whats the difference between in and 2 # at that point? Basically nothing. What makes 1.35333 a special weight? It's obviously arbitrary, that's why it's not a good idea. You say 10 plants right? Well I could get 20 pounds off that if i waited forever and used a million lights. dumb but you see the point. if you figure 10 per at xxx ouches what are you supposed to do, throw it away? I know people do it (notice ammiano didn't) but what exactly are you stopping or encouraging? If they are committing another crime then thats the problem. Otherwise it's just borderline compost.

You're still consenting to governmental "control" over property that does not belong to Government.
This "control" is unconstitutional - and is the source of my contention with the laws as they exist now, and any proposed "license" to possess drugs.
Limits on amounts cannot exist under the bill proposed in this thread, as marijuana is nothing more than property, subject to the same Governmental "control" as electronics, paper, pens, pencils, etc.
If you produce it, it is yours. Possession of your personal property cannot, under the constitution, be criminalized - no matter how much Government may protest that possession, nor how much of your property you own/possess.

10 plants is pretty decent, only thing is it could yeild 10 ounces or like i said 20 pounds.

And this is irrelevant. Suppose a farmer wanted to grow pot or hemp? Laws still exist prohibiting it. (Any licensing statute IS prohibition)
I don't like those kinds of laws that punish people for NON-crimes in exercise of their fundamental, unalienable property rights.

I agree you need to limit cultivation though as otherwise morons burn down houses all day and blow them up with butane.

What?
Personal use wouldn't require a whole lot of pot plants. These laws would only prevent low cost commercial pot from being produced.
They only drive the black market and make it profitable.
Stopping the profits and violence associated with the black market is concern #1.
Growing inside (unsafely) would be a thing of the past as growth would no longer need to be hidden... Safe products for growing wouldn't me "monitored" or "licensed" and would be freely accessible to anyone wanting them.
Dangerous activities threatening your neighbors' lives and property are still ILLEGAL - but these laws have NOTHING (and shouldn't) to do with pot.
Placing others at risk is illegal regardless of the cause of that risk. Why make special laws for something that MAY cause risk when that risk is not directly attributable to the thing the law seeks to "control"?

At least if it isn't legal they try a bit harder not to destroy houses. Ok so the best secret is canopy size because it force a growing style and is easy to comply with and yields similar bud big or small. 5x5 or 25sq ft is pretty good but thats a little smaller than 10 plants, which might be 7x7 but eh. Some 215 limits are 10x10 but thats a lot.

Which is all good advice for growers, but should NOT (ABSOLUTELY NOT) be put into "law" as "laws" impose prison time or fines for those not in obedience to the laws.
You're proposing we ASK government to criminalize non-criminal activity (which is currently illegal, but that isn't the point) when they have no LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY to make non-criminal activities into crimes.
This is the difference between the American Free State - Free people with RIGHTS, and other nations with a Sovereign head - and privileged subjects.
We do not have PRIVILEGES derived from a sovereign head - sovereignty rests in the people themselves in America - people have RIGHTS to property, and ALL PERSONS (including Governmental officials) are subject to EQUAL APPLICATION of LAW protecting interests in those rights.
Drugs, cars, tvs, computers, cell phones, pens, paper, video games...
You have no "rights" to any of these things - you have the right to OWN them.
From OWNERSHIP you obtain the RIGHTS of ownership - which include possession, distribution, destruction, use, and full control over those things which you OWN.
For government to deny you use, control, and distribution of YOUR PROPERTY is a crime against you. It amounts to a "taking" which is subject to the terms of the 5th Amendment - YOU MUST BE COMPENSATED JUSTLY for the property taken from you.

ok mean time
Ok. I don't really give a shit. It might be a reasonable novel defense (99% says: judge lols) but what the fuck does that have to do with me using a mastercard?

Right now there is a law that says blah blah NO SELLING POT. I saw it struck out like 5 times today. so. are you going to fix that or let it sit there? If it's sit there then fuck it right. Thanks for legalizing everything except how 99% of people will get it. You say oh you just won't know or care? Welcome to cali right now with the shit you fixed amiright?

Have you looked into Charlie Lynch's case?
Have you read the CA Supreme court ruling in People v. Mench?
The CA dispensaries are DECRIMINALIZED - they remain "illegal" though the laws are not enforced.
This means they are fair game for the Feds under the new policy.
Struck down or not - that's how the laws lay now.
Enforced or not, that's how the laws lay now.
Locally it isn't that big of an issue, but Federally the dispensaries are still COMPLETELY illegal, and the federal laws are STILL being enforced FULLY in California.

I don't really care at all, but there are two things about weed that california loves. $85 short 8ths and co-ops. Me? hate em, never buy shit the scum sucking varmints. But it's reality, shit people born after 1985 think finding a dealer is another name for weedtracker. So either do it somehow or just tell them to get another card next year.

Why "pay" a third party for permission to possess property you own?
This is what I don't understand. Why do you consent to give up this freedom - this fundamental RIGHT?

Yes I am being extreme but it's not legalization if one of the three things you do with it ain't covered. Cry however you want.

Umm...
What?

Ok. You said you made weed legal, right? A lot like this house plant. I grew it, now here give me a dollar. Either I just created a black market, I didn't make one the first time, or you still have shit to do.

House plant... Assuming it's just some random plant (possibly flowering with cute pink petals hanging in a vine-like manner from a pot...) and you sell it to me - that is a consensual contract.
A "black market" exists when there are laws prohibiting your sale to me.
You proposed that a "license" be required to buy/sell drugs.
THAT is where the black market was created - not simply creating a product and selling it to a consenting customer without use of violence or coercion.
Any time there is a LICENSE, there is a black market.
No license (or ridiculously high "usage fees/taxes" as they're placing on cigarettes now), no black market.

This is the most pedantic conversation ever. I thought I was trying to buy weed but sure I'll sell it. So give me my license, my tax id #, give me online filing software, tell me what code to use for rice crispy treats and gtfo.

I see no difference.
If you buy a new TV do you need a license, tax ID, filing software, and special codes to access that software in order to sell your neighbor your old TV?
This is a RIGHT.
The conversion into a PRIVILEGE through a licensing statute is CRIME against the people.
There is a difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEGE.
Government has failed to recognize this difference and has licensed the exercise of rights back to the people in violation of Constitutional law.

So again - WHY?
What benefits do you receive by paying special fees (licensing, tax stuff, etc...) in order to sell things you own to consenting customers?
And - your black market - what benefit is there to CRIMINALIZING (i.e. arresting and locking people up) for giving home-grown pot to their friends and neighbors?
This would remain ILLEGAL - and CRIMINAL - under your proposed licensing scheme.

Whatever. So you're saying the thing that works for everyone now and even the fucking feds wont go after anymore because we outlasted them like champions is useless, and instead you'd like to propose this other system where you have a law that says SHITS ILLEGAL. And when I tell the LAPD about you they just beat me.

What?
The Feds do not recognize legitimacy of CA dispensaries.
People v. Mench.
Go read it. And until it's superseded, or some protection for dispensaries is created by CA Government (prop 215 does NOT PROTECT THEM AT ALL), there is a long way to go.
What law have I proposed saying pot is "illegal"?
The only thing I've said is "ILLEGAL" is Government converting the exercise of a RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE through a licensing statute.

I suppose you just took a government class or are pre-law or something? That's great but you need to understand something thats happening right in front of you. Obviously you know that practically it does work, except sometimes some asshole would get snatched by the DEA but I don't fucking care a) he made bank and b) he knew it could happen. and c) lol they are all dicks anyway.

So you don't care that CRIMES are committed by government against your countrymen?
You believe that "knowing a crime may be committed against you" means you deserve to have that crime committed?
Every time you walk down the street you MAY be mugged.
Do you deserve that?

Ammiano's bill expressly permits vendor broker dealer user relationships, yours won't because you're a twat but it doesn't matter because neither of your bills will get anywhere. I will sign though, then you'll only need 429,999 valid signatures and 3 million in tv time.

Er... what I wrote prohibits any Governmental intervention in vendor, broker, dealer, user relationships - provided consent of the interested parties is not coerced.
You're talking about "permission" from the State to do these things one can do BY RIGHT.
You seek to "criminalize" these things if one fails to obtain "consent" of Government - permission... a license.
And I'm the one claiming to keep drugs illegal?

Wow I just raged at you for a very long time. The funny thing is I couldn't care less really, but someones gonna do it at some point because its obviously the next step. And then you can let some other asshole sell weed and see if the DEA pops em, it's kind of fun.

/thread

Yes - yes you did.
And hopefully we'll be on the same page now.
But maybe we won't be - since you're advocating governmental violence and enhancement of the black market through your unconstitutional licensing scheme...
Denying your neighbor his "rights" because you can use a license to obtain a PRIVILEGE, and you're content paying for the privilege to engage in a RIGHT doesn't make the laws "good" nor does it protect you or your rights.

If government is a "necessary evil" - as it is generally held to be - why ask for "more evil" when none is required?
There are already laws governing commerce - allow them to government ALL commerce regardless of the nature of the item in commerce (a triviality that the law cannot recognize anyway) and regardless of any moral trepidation related to that item in commerce.
What makes pot "special" that it requires its own laws, regulations, and licenses?
That's the question I don't have an answer for - and without that answer, any special legislation for pot is a frivolous enhancement of Government without reason in my mind.