Why pro-pot activists oppose the 2010 tax cannabis initiative

[Jamshyd]

How are they going to interpret the 25 square foot thing exactly? Trees are 3 dimensional. Would someone be allowed to set a plant on each step of a spiral staircase so long as the staircase has a radius no greater than 33.5 inches? Can such a staircase be placed inside a privately-owned skyscraper?

What if its shadow falls on Oregon?

Exactly, if you read through it, the author talks about this. Another ambiguity is that it is one 5'X5' per "parcel". It is hard to tell exactly how much of a building constitutes a "parcel". If your neighbors have children, can you be arrested for that?

You know a law is bad when it favors corporate interests and increases taxes, fees, contol etc. of ordinary people.

Exactly, thank you.

This actually has very little to do with weed, and more to do with corporate control. I don't care if you're a stoner or whatever, you should oppose this proposal because it is, in fact, NOT about you - it's about the corporations with the big dollars.

 

[dankstersauce]

I almost read the entire thing and IMHO this initiative is still better than nothing.

I'd rather take regulation over decriminalization. Yeah a monopoly would suck but I'd surely take it over sitting in jail. Obviously this isn't perfect but it does send a strong message to the federal government and the rest of the US. And I think the change in mentality this initiates will have a more profound impact than the quasi-legalization will. Every state will wait and watch and be forced to reevaluate their cannabis laws (hopefully for the better). Not only the laws themselves but also the judge's interpretation of those laws.

I just hope California doesn't fuck this up. To me, this in fighting seems ridiculous. IMHO it's not time to nitpick.

 

[HippieChick]

And ya'll knock Arkansas

For instance, in Florida possession of an ounce of marijuana is a felony.

Be thankful that you live in California where it is possible and even fairly easy (from what I'm told) to acquire weed.

Furthermore, there is a town here in Arkansas, called Eureka Springs where it is a misdemeanor if you posses less than an oz. They will just pour it out on the ground (or possibly confiscate it for personal use?). But you sure can't go into a 'Dr.s' office and ask for a scrip because you broke your toe 20 years ago.

 

[radric davis]

I agree with dankerersauce, i think we should pretty much take what we can get. id rather see marijuana turn into a corperate conglomerate like alcohol or tobacco than keep seein peoples lives ruined because of its illegality. I mean itd be nice if we could legalize it and itd just be all peace and love, small growers, tight knit stoner communities, but the fact is it will never be legalized unless there is some sort of corporate infulence.

 

[Jamshyd]

^ The problem is that many things that weren't specifically illegal are actually named and made illegal. In a way, if this law passes, it would lead to very blunt interpretations and arrests thereafter.

I honestly don't see where people actually see this as legalization. It is not. It is basically saying "you can buy weed from us, but if we catch you buying it from someone else, or giving it to anyone younger, you will be punished for it. You're a stoner after all, we know we can trick you by claiming 'legalization'".

 

[radric davis]

^ so is this bill giving large corporsations exclusive rights to dispensing marijuana? someone couldnt get the appropriate liscences and open thier own shop? also i agree with not being allowed to give marijuana to minors...what would you expect legalization to be, weed for any age?

 

[Jamshyd]

^ The point is not the ethics of giving weed to minors. The point is making plainly illegal and reason to arrest something that previously wasn't labelled as such.

And yes, the bill makes sure that the only people growing and dispensing weed are those who are rich enough to afford it. It gives power to a select few people in plain daylight. In fact, much of it is designed to help THOSE WHO WROTE IT monopolize on the business.

And I insist that those who dreamt up this proposal are taking it for granted that stoners are stupid enough to agree just because what they propose looks like legalization.

No, I think decriminalization is MUCH better at this point.

 

[seep]

The way the amendment is written, "parcel" only applies to properties that contain no residence.

---

Before voting, Californians should reflect on how they feel about the following:

Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:

(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.
(ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.
(iv) Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection.
​

(b) “Personal consumption” shall include but is not limited to possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other non-public place, and shall include licensed premises open to the public authorized to permit on-premises consumption of cannabis by a local government pursuant to section 11301.

(c) “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis:

(i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301;
(ii) consumption in public or in a public place;
(iii) consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator;
(iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.​

as well as

Section 11303: Seizure

(a) Notwithstanding sections 11470 and 11479 of the Health and Safety Code or any other provision of law, no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact seize or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is lawfully cultivated, processed, transported, possessed, possessed for sale, sold or used in compliance with this Act or any local government ordinance, law or regulation adopted pursuant to this Act.

You can't vote for it piecemeal, so sections 11301, 11302 and 11304 need to be looked at as well; but the core of this amendment seems to be the 2 sections I quoted.

Objection to almost anything else in the amendment seems like the bickering of trade guilds, whose principal business in the US seems to be to manipulate local elections by urging their members to vote as blocs.

---

Fence-sitters (including those outside the drug community) should consider that voting "No" and not voting are vastly different things, just as zero and negative one are different.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Liquor licenses are often hard to get and costly. Distillery and production type licenses even more so. There are some really strange regulations about alcohol most anywhere you go. Those with substantial capitol are at a tremendous advantage in selling or manufacturing. I would not go back to prohibition in order to try to make the playing field level between everyone.

And de-criminalization isn't going to have the political momentum that a new revenue stream is going to have for a near bankrupt state. If I were a Californian I'd vote for this proposition.

I do worry about how to keep the Feds in check as they act out against medical marijuana periodically, even when Justice is telling them to knock it off. I'm sure they will argue they have to act because Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon are getting some sort of contact high.

 

[SubDude]

if someone wants to summarize the main points for me, i'll smoke a blunt with you

Me too... Has anyone yet done pros/cons/summary and concluded cons outweigh pros?

Based on quick skim of OP... It seems like opposition [to reform] have advocates right where they want them. Forget those who profit and all the other negatives... don't worry about minors, sellers...etc. for now... those and all other provisions can be addressed later. The 1st step is to get anything closely related to "legal" passed... even if not perfect for everyone.

One thing for certain is that anything as controversial as this will have much disagreement among those who want the same thing.

 

[Mehm]

seems like misinformation if you ask me.

-the stuff about how this will not make it legal federally. yep, the same is true for the current system. any "pot mcdonalds" is ridiculous. those guys in oakland are asking for it.

-the roll back of prop 215. the current prop doesn't mention it (as far as I can find) so no, the current medical system will be kept in place.

-destroy small growers. why and how? because they will be ambiguously regulated? guess what the current system does...

At the end of the day, voting yes is a step in the right direction. It sends a clear message. People will still be able to buy and grow non-corporate stuff just as you can brew your own and buy local microbrews. I think this article is coming from the rich ass norcal growers who have been making a killing at $3500 a pound for the last 15 years. If this is true....fuck off haters.

 

[Jamshyd]

The article is clearly written by a grower, that's for sure...

 

[panic_the_digital]

seems like misinformation if you ask me.

-the stuff about how this will not make it legal federally. yep, the same is true for the current system. any "pot mcdonalds" is ridiculous. those guys in oakland are asking for it.

-the roll back of prop 215. the current prop doesn't mention it (as far as I can find) so no, the current medical system will be kept in place.

-destroy small growers. why and how? because they will be ambiguously regulated? guess what the current system does...

At the end of the day, voting yes is a step in the right direction. It sends a clear message. People will still be able to buy and grow non-corporate stuff just as you can brew your own and buy local microbrews. I think this article is coming from the rich ass norcal growers who have been making a killing at $3500 a pound for the last 15 years. If this is true....fuck off haters.

Thank you. I can't believe how people on this board that I know to be intelligent enough to see through enough bullshit see how you can't hold back the corporate structure through weed alone. I think that if America beat the rest of the world in legalizing weed, we would have a pretty good economic revival. America has needed a new product for years.

 

[phenethylo J]

-destroy small growers. why and how? because they will be ambiguously regulated? guess what the current system does...

At the end of the day, voting yes is a step in the right direction. It sends a clear message. People will still be able to buy and grow non-corporate stuff just as you can brew your own and buy local microbrews. I think this article is coming from the rich ass norcal growers who have been making a killing at $3500 a pound for the last 15 years. If this is true....fuck off haters.

+1
Small companies for alcohol and tobaco still work good and the same will happen with weed. Of coarse big corperations will get involved but that is the ways America works.

Hopefully this will have the ripple effect across the states but we really need stuff change at a federal level some time soon for things to be the way they should. Even with state legalization all you need is one Bush like fuck head back in the White House to get the DEA to start fucking shit up. He was the one that got them to drag people that were half dead and suffering off to federal prison.

 

[atruestory]

the whole point is that there will be no small companies producing. licencing will be difficult and costly to obtain, leaving joe schmoe to his 5x5 "parcel" to grow his one plant outdoors or run something in his closet.. barely... the law makes it illegal to smoke in public (which is legal now under prop 215 and sb 420) the law also makes it illegal to sell or possess any amount for sale unless licensed (all you need now is your doctors recomendation... and lets say you do get a license. im guessing you will have to fork over $50/ ounce(more), or sell to your small client base and risk being caught and charged with tax fraud or some shit.

the way the laws are now any californian can grow cannabis, smoke cannabis (anywhere and around anyone)... there is no tax, there is no 5x5 parcel bullshit, and there is no minimum wage being forced to people who currently make a living without the man stepping in, and stepping on fingers.

 

[SubDude]

I don't want to cause no fuss... just get the fuck off my magic bus.... WHO knows best? Yea thats what i'm talking about.. i make no sense whatsoever but just heard the song first time in awhile and...feel like smoking some kick ass... or maybe I just did???

 

[Jamshyd]

atruestory: That's my general opinion as well.

I'm all for legalization, but I can't help but feel that this is a cheap-shot to trick stoners. I hope people realize that if this passes, it is the best you're ever going to get in your lifetime.

 

[Damien]

^ You can't say that because you just don't know.

 

[Jamshyd]

"That" being...?

 

[Damien]

That this initiative will be the best thing we will ever get if it gets voted in. It just doesn't make sense.