Why I voted no on Prop 19

[Irritable Liberal]

Disclaimer - I live in LA and have a medical card although I thankfully do not have any condition that requires the use of pot to alleviate a serious condition. I am no longer the heavy smoker I once was but use it more for recreational and relaxing reasons and then mostly only at night. I can also comfortably go for a few weeks with out any. I also support the full legalization of consuming, growing and the selling, not just for medical use, of pot.

I initially favored Prop 19 until I spoke to veterans the original campaign to get 215 passed. To a person, they opposed 19 which led me to doing some reearch. What I learned was that 19 would have created a legal and logistical nightmare as well as turn some growers and customers into felons. A lot of smaller legal growers who may just grow for their own use or make a modest living off it would have been forced to stop because of excessive local taxes.

Firstly, every grower would have to get a license to grow and sell from the local city/town government,

This is what Prop 19 said:

"Prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300."

In Rancho Cordova, a town north of San Diego the council the town council had already passed a law charging an insanely high tax per square growing foot - (a 10 x 10 growing space would cost $90,000 a year in taxes) in anticipation of Prop 19 passing. As a customer I would have to carry legal proof that any pot I have was legally acquired from a licensed grower/dealer. I would have to get a receipt and carry it with me to smoke legally. Selling or even smoking with anyone under 21 would become a criminal act. Read this 'No on 19' story and you will understand why it had to lose.

Prop 19 was sponsored by a rich businessman, Richard Lee who owns two dispensaries in Oakland set up Prop 19 as a vehicle to become the largest, most profitable legal grower in the state. As one veteran of the medical pot wars said to me, "He wants to become the Annheuser of weed." Prop 19 as written would have made it difficult and far too expensive to legally grow by local authorities such as in Rancho Cordova, a model that would have been copies throughout the state. Read this link to get the full story at:

http://stop19.com/about_prop_19 /

Currently anyone with a medical card can legally grow up to 8 plants. If that person lived in Rancho Cordova it would become economically impossible for that person to grow only 8 plants turning what is now legal into something criminal. More and more people are starting to grow their own. It's not that expensive to set up and growers are learning how to get the best yields etc, and not have the plants die. Indoors you can grow 3-4 crops a year so the outdoor growers in Humboldt etc are already feeling a bit of the hurt where there are an estimated 10,000 growers, some getting quite rich while others make good livings but no more. The Mexican drug cartels are barely involved in the Calif pot business because the supply is so much more plentiful. Prices have even dropped up to 25%. In densely populated areas small indoor growers are proliferating, as are stores than sell the equipment. While there is some proliferation of crime associated with the pot industry most dispensaries have security guards and there is hardly any of the violence one normally associates with the Mexican cartels in California.

Outgoing Gov. Schwarzenegger recently signed a law reducing the possession of up to an ounce to below a misdemeanor, at the level of a parking ticket with a max fine of $100 if you don't have a medical card. Prop 19 could increase the penalties for someone who doesn't have the right documentation. Every buyer would have to be given a receipt for each purchase under Prop 19. No paperwork is requited when one buys from a dispensary now.

Despite the economy, the current law allows a lot of people to make money (not fortunes in most cases) in the pot business. It's become a healthy legal to quasi legal small business that is growing organically for a lot of people. Prop 19 would have put tons of people out of business and would have concentrated the wealth in the hands of a few powerful and rich growers, like many American industries,

A far better proposition will come along soon and when it does it will pass. As with so many Propositions, especially from the right, they are couched in language that sounds reasonable and appears to make sense. You have to dig deep at times to find out what it's really all about. If 19 had passed it would have created a nightmare that would have been all but impossible to undo.

Here are a couple of other sites that explain the legal problems it would have created,

http://all247news.com/california-marijuana-users-oppose... /

http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/p/read-this-bef...

[lame54]

1. wrong move...

it will be a long time before we see anything close to this on the ballot

[leveymg]

2. Thnx. I had no idea about the criminalization, excessive tax and red tape in Prop 19.

Hope you all the next one right. Enjoy your gardening.

[meow mix]

3. cops and republicans played you like a fiddle

complete with the "next bill will be better" bull shit.

next bill will have less support wont even see the light of day lol, pot users are fucking fools

[Statistical]

7. Exactly. It will be a decade or more there is enough support to legalize it.

I think it is funny the OP voted against the bill because he/she currently has a medical card (although no medical reason to use marijuana). Isn't that illegal in itself.

I guess it is some of that "I got mine so fuck off" mentality. Everyone who is unwilling to lie and fraudulently obtain a medical card loses. A small minority gets to keep the status quo. Yeah Democracy.

[RainDog]

4. the vote is done

I hope the 2012 initiative can please the emerald triangle.

[Hawkeye-X]

8. Colorado's first in trying the 2012 legislation not Emerald Triangle

per many sources.

[RainDog]

10. I'm glad Colorado is going forward - but someone already drafted the Jack Herer 2012 initiative

two states, and more, would be great.

The Jack Herer Cannabis Hemp Initiative 2012


AN ACT TO AMEND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE OF CALIFORNIA:

I. Add Section 11362.6 to the Health and Safety Code of
California, any laws or policies to the contrary notwithstanding:

1. No person, individual, or corporate entity shall be arrested or prosecuted, be denied any right or privilege, nor be subject to any criminal or civil penalties for the possession, cultivation, transportation, distribution, or consumption of cannabis hemp marijuana, including:
(a) Cannabis hemp industrial products.
(b) Cannabis hemp medicinal preparations.
(c) Cannabis hemp nutritional products.
(d) Cannabis hemp religious and spiritual products.
(e) Cannabis hemp recreational and euphoric use and products.

2. Definition of terms:
(a) The terms "cannabis hemp" and “cannabis hemp marijuana” mean the natural, non-genetically modified plant hemp, cannabis, marihuana, marijuana, cannabis sativa L, cannabis Americana, cannabis chinensis, cannabis indica, cannabis ruderalis, cannabis sativa, or any variety of cannabis, including any derivative, concentrate, extract, flower, leaf, particle, preparation, resin, root, salt, seed, stalk, stem, or any product thereof.
(b) The term "cannabis hemp industrial products" means all products made from cannabis hemp that are not designed or intended for human consumption, including, but not limited to: clothing, building materials, paper, fiber, fuel, lubricants, plastics, paint, seed for cultivation, animal feed, veterinary medicine, oil, or any other product that is not designed for internal human consumption; as well as cannabis hemp plants used for crop rotation, erosion control, pest control, weed control, or any other horticultural or environmental purposes, for example, the reversal of the Greenhouse Effect and toxic soil reclamation.
(c) The term "cannabis hemp medicinal preparations" means all products made from cannabis hemp that are designed, intended, or used for human consumption for the treatment of any human disease or condition, for pain relief, or for any healing purpose, including but not limited to the treatment or relief of: Alzheimer's and pre-Alzheimer's disease, stroke, arthritis, asthma, cramps, epilepsy, glaucoma, migraine, multiple sclerosis, nausea, premenstrual syndrome, side effects of cancer chemotherapy, fibromyalgia, sickle cell anemia, spasticity, spinal injury, stress, easement of post-traumatic stress disorder, Tourette syndrome, attention deficit disorder, immunodeficiency, wasting syndrome from AIDS or anorexia; use as an antibiotic, antibacterial, anti-viral, or anti-emetic; as a healing agent, or as an adjunct to any medical or herbal treatment. Mental conditions not limited to bipolar, depression, attention deficit disorder, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, shall be conditions considered for medical use.
(d) The term "cannabis hemp nutritional products" means cannabis hemp for consumption by humans and animals as food, including but not limited to: seed, seed protein, seed oil, essential fatty acids, seed cake, dietary fiber, or any preparation or extract thereof.
(e) The term "cannabis hemp euphoric products" means cannabis hemp intended for personal recreational or religious use, other than cannabis hemp industrial products, cannabis hemp medicinal preparations, or cannabis hemp nutritional products.
(f) The term "personal use" means the internal consumption of cannabis hemp by people 21 years of age or older for any relaxational, meditative, religious, spiritual, recreational, or other purpose other than sale.
(g) The term "commercial production" means the production of cannabis hemp products for sale or profit under the conditions of these provisions.

3. Industrial cannabis hemp farmers, manufacturers, processors, and distributors shall not be subject to any special zoning requirement, licensing fee, or tax that is excessive, discriminatory, or prohibitive.

4. Cannabis hemp medicinal preparations are hereby restored to the list of available medicines in California. Licensed physicians shall not be penalized for, nor restricted from, prescribing or recommending cannabis hemp for medical purposes to any patient, regardless of age. No tax shall be applied to prescribed cannabis hemp medicinal preparations. Medical research shall be encouraged. No recommending physician shall be subject to any professional licensing review or hearing as a result of recommending or approving medical use of cannabis hemp marijuana.

5. Personal use of cannabis hemp euphoric products.
(a) No permit, license, or tax shall be required for the non-commercial cultivation, transportation, distribution, or consumption of cannabis hemp.
(b) Testing for inactive and/or inert residual cannabis metabolites shall not be required for employment or insurance, nor be considered in determining employment, other impairment, or intoxication.
(c) When a person falls within the conditions of these exceptions, the offense laws do not apply and only the exception laws apply.

6. Use of cannabis hemp products for religious or spiritual purposes shall be considered an inalienable right; and shall be protected by the full force of the State and Federal Constitutions.

7. Commerce in cannabis hemp euphoric products shall be limited to adults, 21 years of age and older, and shall be regulated in a manner analogous to California's wine industry model. For the purpose of distinguishing personal from commercial production, 99 flowering female plants and 12 pounds of dried, cured cannabis hemp flowers, bud, not leaf, produced per adult, 21 years of age and older, per year shall be considered as being for personal use.

8. The manufacture, marketing, distribution, or sales between adults of equipment or accessories designed to assist in the planting, cultivation, harvesting, curing, processing, packaging, storage, analysis, consumption, or transportation of cannabis hemp plants, industrial cannabis hemp products, cannabis hemp medicinal preparations, cannabis hemp nutritional products, cannabis hemp euphoric products, or any cannabis hemp product shall not be prohibited.

9. No California law enforcement personnel or funds shall be used to assist or aid and abet in the enforcement of Federal cannabis hemp marijuana laws involving acts which are hereby no longer illegal in the State of California.

10. Any person who threatens the enjoyment of these provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor. The maximum penalties and fines of a misdemeanor may be imposed.


II. Repeal, delete, and expunge any and all existing statutory laws that conflict with the provisions of this initiative.

1. Enactment of this initiative shall include: amnesty, immediate release from prison, jail, parole, and probation, and clearing, expungement, and deletion of all criminal records for all persons currently charged with, or convicted of any non-violent cannabis hemp marijuana offenses included in this initiative which are hereby no longer illegal in the State of California. People who fall within this category that triggered an original sentence are included within this provision.

2. Within 60 days of the passage of this Act, the Attorney General shall develop and distribute a one-page application, providing for the destruction of all cannabis hemp marijuana criminal records in California for any such offense covered by this Act. Such forms shall be distributed to district and city attorneys and made available at all police departments in the State to persons hereby affected. Upon filing such form with any Superior Court and a payment of a fee of $10.00, the Court shall liberally construe these provisions to benefit the defendant in furtherance of the amnesty and dismissal provision of this section. Upon the Court's ruling under this provision the arrest record shall be set aside and be destroyed. Such persons may then truthfully state that they have never been arrested or convicted of any cannabis hemp marijuana related offense which is hereby no longer illegal in the State of California. This shall be deemed to be a finding of factual innocence under California Penal Code Section 851.8 et seq.


III. The legislature is authorized upon thorough investigation, to enact legislation using reasonable standards to:

1. License concessionary establishments to distribute cannabis hemp euphoric products in a manner analogous to California's wine industry model. Sufficient community outlets shall be licensed to provide reasonable commercial access to persons of legal age, so as to discourage and prevent the misuse of, and illicit traffic in, such products. Any license or permit fee required by the State for commercial production, distribution or use shall not exceed $1,000.00.

2. Place an excise tax on commercial sale of cannabis hemp euphoric products, analogous to California's wine industry model, so long as no excise tax or combination of excise taxes shall exceed $10.00 per ounce.
3. Determine an acceptable and uniform standard of impairment based on performance testing, to restrict persons impaired by cannabis hemp euphoric products from operating a motor vehicle or heavy machinery, or otherwise engaging in conduct that may affect public safety.

4. Regulate the personal use of cannabis hemp euphoric products in enclosed and/or restricted public places.


IV. Pursuant to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the people of California hereby repudiate and challenge Federal cannabis hemp marijuana prohibitions that conflict with this Act.


V. Severability: If any provision of this Act, or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid by any court, the remainder of this Act, to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of such provisions to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.


VI. Construction: If any rival or conflicting initiative regulating any matter addressed by this act receives the higher affirmative vote, then all non-conflicting parts shall become operative.


VII. Purpose of Act: This Act is an exercise of the police powers of the State for the protection of the safety, welfare, health, and peace of the people and the environment of the State, to protect the industrial and medicinal uses of cannabis hemp, to eliminate the unlicensed and unlawful cultivation, selling, and dispensing of cannabis hemp; and to encourage temperance in the consumption of cannabis hemp euphoric products. It is hereby declared that the subject matter of this Act involves, in the highest degree, the ecological, economic, social, and moral well-being and safety of the State and of all its people. All provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of these purposes: to respect human rights, to promote tolerance, and to end cannabis hemp prohibition.

[Le Taz Hot]

5. Every one of your talking points has been

countered, literally hundreds of times on this board alone. Next time you do "research," do the rest of California a favor and make it thorough. And just for the record, it will be a VERY long time before this will be on the ballot again.

Welcome to California. Now go home!

[RainDog]

9. why do you think it will be a very long time?

all it takes to put an initiative on the ballot is a certain number of signatures and someone to pay for the legal processes to make it happen. after that, people with an initiative need money to pay for advertising and gotv work.

there's already another initiative in the works. I expect it will be on the 2012 ballot.

it took more than one vote for the medical marijuana law to pass - this is normal for social issues - the public starts to hear people talking about something and they begin to understand that the sky will not fall if they make various changes.

those who had complaints about this initiative now have a chance to address those complaints and create an initiative that they will support - the chief people in this case being the small growers who felt their livelihoods were threatened. it's just politics that these people need to be brought into the conversation in a way that will allow them to support legalization.

take the long view.

the reality is that support for legalized recreational cannabis has soared over the last decade - because people have seen the value in medical marijuana - have seen that it DOES help people with various illnesses and side effects of illness - and also recognize that cannabis, like alcohol, is part of the social fabric of life. some people choose to drink alcohol from time to time. some choose to vape or smoke. the world keeps spinning. civilization is not destroyed.

so...forward to 2012

[Le Taz Hot]

14. I think it will take a very long time

because we passed MM in 1996 (iirc) and 14 years later, we've JUST gotten this on the ballot for the first time.

Can we get it on the ballot again? Of course (and I know I'm contradicting myself here) but I see the same outcome because the same players are taking the same positions. We already know the conservatives are going to vote it down. What would be nice if SOMEONE from the flippin' Democratic Party would be honest and come out for it. SEIU had the courage but the corporate-controlled Democrats couldn't find the cojones.

The complaints that were issued against Prop. 19 could have easily been countered. The "yes on 19" campaign out fundraised the opposition by 10:1, so it wasn't the money. What it was was incompetence and a complete failure to get out the message. I swear the same people who were in charge of defeating Prop. H8 were in charge of the "Yes on 19" campaign. The incompetence (which I witnessed first-hand) was staggering. Unless they change players, again, the outcome will be the same.

I find it ironic that the corporate Dems, the Republicans, large for-profit California growers and the Mexican drug cartels all have this one issue in common. One of these has to give before things change and I don't see any signs of that.

[RainDog]

18. you've got to accept some reality about politicians

politicians are not the leaders of this nation as far as social movements go. they never have been. they never will be...or let me amend that to say that FEW of them are and those are usually at local levels where they have like-minded constituents.

why? because they have to get elected to office by people who do not always understand or agree with those social movements. however, there comes a point in the cultural life of a nation or the world or whatever when enough people have been educated, when enough people have experience to allay the fears of those who operate from ignorance of something (I mean lack of experience or exposure, not stupidity), when enough people stand up and say that the other side is lying...

and when that happens, change happens.

I have come to realize that it's a pipe dream to expect politicians to be leaders. they're not. they're dealmakers. we haven't had very many real statesmen and women ever in this nation and when we have it's been because of happenstance as much as their choosing.

there are two social issues at this moment that have moved from the fringes to incorporation into American life - those are legalization and civil rights for the GBLT community. Those two things are going to happen, as long as people continue to advocate for them. There will ALWAYS be some people who reject these things - look at this nation now - it's been a more than a century since Darwin explained evolution as change over time and yet there are freaks in Kentucky with a creation museum.

There are still women who think they are lesser human beings than their husbands because of some stone age crap written by misogynists. still.

So, save yourself the heartache and accept that, especially at the federal level, pols are like game show hosts. Kind of slick and far too egotistical and overpaid and their biggest gift is schmoozing. They're the Ted Baxters of the world who do as much harm as good half the time because they want to know what's in it for themselves.

The people in CA that need to outreach on this issue are the elderly. But they're a perfect constituency for this issue because they have limited funds, they have plenty of aches and pains and they don't need to be driving anyway a lot of the time. LOL. just sort of joking. but not.

[Le Taz Hot]

15. Duplicate Post.

Sorry, computer is hiccuping again.

[Little Star]

6. Didn't you ever hear of:

pass shit now and fix it later? That is the theory on HCR. :sarcasm:

[Hepburn]

11. -1...

...unbelievable.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

12. thanks for your vote

Your willingness to swallow law enforcement & corporate propaganda is one reason why my state will be the first to legalize cannabis use for adults instead of CA. Thanks for your willingness to abandon the economy and common sense!

No wonder more Californians move to Denver every year than the reverse....

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

13. Rancho Cordova is way north of San Diego. Like 500 miles.

:shrug:

[Irritable Liberal]

16. A couple of points.

I did not obtain my medical card fraudulently. My reason's for getting a card were anxiety and insomnia. Having tried legal medication I found that the effects on me were detrimental. I tried Xanax but found that my tolerance went way up. Ambien was a total disaster. I had no horse in this race. I don't profit from the current situation and it's not a case of "screw you, I've got mine".

One objection is why didn't Prop 19 call for a statewide level of reasonable taxation instead of handing authority over to every municipality in the state. Local governments are all hurting for revenue and one likely outcome would have been overaggressive policing of growers/users not on compliance with local tax rules with large fines for non compliance. While California is largely a liberal/democratic state most dems live in the larger urban areas such as L.A. (as I do) or San Francisco where taxes/tolerance would probably have been reasonable but for one Los Angeles there are hundreds of far more conservative local towns who could have gone the Rancho Cordova (east of Sacramento and far north of San Diego) route which would have essentially driven out every grower or set relatively high ax rates to limit the amount of growers along with stiff fines for non compliance and aggressive policing.

My question is why did the authors leave the taxation issue up to local governments instead of a standard statewide tax? I can see no other reason than it would make growing in certain locations a lot easier than in others, where it might be economically impossible, such as Rancho Cordova. It is no coincidence that Richard Lee is already well established in the one city that has already granted him large scale growing permits, knowing that the Rancho Cordova model will have been repeated in countless other towns. For me, that was a deal-breaker and the fact that many in the medical marijuana community including many who do not profit by it were opposed.

I've been around long enough and I think I am smart enough not to be duped on anything by police or politicians support or lack of support for anything.

[RainDog]

17. the reason they left it with localities instead of the state

was to avoid direct confrontation with the federal govt at the level of the state. the feds are not going to go after every county in CA - if they had a direct target with the state, it would have been much easier for them to try to use sanctions against the state to shut down the law.

(this is what the federal govt did to states with highway funds to make states raise the drinking age to 21.)

the truth is that legalization will mean that there will be some large growers. there is no getting around that. the truth, also, is that legalization will most likely mean a steep reduction in price. the truth is that legalization will require business licenses - if you want to open a biz and employ people in CA now, you have to pay for a biz license. why should this one industry be exempt? that's a pretty crazy way of thinking - and, when someone is in the business of creating a product that is considered for adults only - there are regulations for that.

if you want to legalize, you're going to have to accept that parents want the assurance that their kids are not going to be able to get pot legally. that may not make the kids happy, but that's reality, too. there will be some limits. that's called compromise - and that's what people do in order to create a change for the better.

if the new law wants to make it okay for 18 year olds to partake, they'll have to deal with the fact that liquor is limited to those 21 and older. that's the model that people will look to - even tho I think that alcohol should be legal for 18 year olds because, if they are old enough to go fight a war, they're old enough to be able to choose to take a drink - but the federal govt doesn't agree.

people who want to grow and sell cannabis can and will find a niche for themselves - just as the vineyards in northern california have done to compete with big wineries - they don't have the same scale of biz, but part of the way they market themselves is as local, small, discriminating places for people who vacation to Napa Valley, for instance.

it's hard for me to understand why the growers in the emerald triangle are more comfortable living with the threat of arrest for themselves, loss of their property - why don't they form a co-op to compete with bigger outfits? they have ALL the major cred b/c of the history of the area. one guy in the region is also offering organic vegetables along with medical mj for people with illnesses. that's the way to do it - offer healthy food along with medical mj delivered to people who are undergoing chemo, for instance. that's "right work." the profit margin isn't as steep, but it's rewarding and a way to honor the goals of the medical mj movment, for instance.

then there'e tourism - people will come to CA to legally use cannabis, just as they do in The Netherlands from all over Europe. this sort of tourism increases jobs for others - people open grocery stores with take-out picnic baskets for people who want to go hike, people open b&bs, people open spas. people open coffee shops - that's how this nation (and others) create jobs.

in addition, as the only state in which it is legal to grow hemp, people who want to make hemp jeans, for instance, will move their businesses to CA - one guy already wanted to go this (make hemp jeans in the U.S. but he would've had to import the hemp so he choose not to.) Hemp products have a cache because hemp is associated with environmentally friendly products. The first state or states to create a market position for this will benefit by being first. CA is the logical place for this to happen.

it's not just about the recreational use growers.