Marc Emery Agrees: MJ Activists Who Oppose Prop 19 Are Wrong

  • Thread starter Darth Fader
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
Darth Fader

Darth Fader

1,195
163
link

Why You Should Vote YES on PROPOSITION 19, the California "Control & Tax Cannabis" Initiative
By Marc Emery - Saturday, June 5 2010


CANNABIS CULTURE - For the first time in US history, there is a state initiative to legalize marijuana possession, use, and production for all adults: the California Control & Tax Cannabis Initiative, which will appear on the November election ballot as Proposition 19. Unfortunately, there are some "marijuana activists" who are aggressively opposing the brilliant initiative. In this article I will address some of the myths being told about this initiative, and why I fully support it.

But first, let me explain that opponents of Richard Lee's initiative fall into three groups. The first group is the police and prison industry, represented by their unions and spokespeople. These are the system exploiters who have profited greatly and built power bases at the expense of the people. These are our archenemies, people who think it’s okay making a buck by arresting, strip-searching, incarcerating, harassing, and jailing ordinary cannabis consumer and home-growers. They are destroying our constitutional freedoms, seizing our kids, and forcing the cost of marijuana up to immoral prices as part of their love affair with prohibition.

The second group includes the cartels, thugs, street gangs, large commercial growers, commercial medical marijuana growers and their dependents that make exploitative profits taking full advantage of prohibition-inflated prices. They correctly surmise that when every adult in California can make all the homegrown cannabis an individual can produce in 25 square feet, the need for them and their rip-off prices evaporates. Like, gone, baby gone. And with home grows legal, police will target the exploiter large scale grows. Who needs their $350- to $450-per-ounce cannabis when we can all safely and legally grow our own weed at home for about $12.50 an ounce?

The third group is the so-called old guard of the cannabis or medical marijuana movement. The wonderful Proposition-215 pioneer Denis Peron is one, but there are many others. Their opposition is entirely trivial and irrational. It stems from a professional jealousy that a successful, compassionate man like Richard Lee (who has provided over a million dollars of his well-earned money to support this initiative) is doing it without their blessing. No one asked Dennis Peron's permission. Dennis is a hero to the pot movement and has done a great deal to provide marijuana to medical users, but it seems he feels the world of activism has passed him by – because it has, and he's jealous.

Perhaps the most loathsome aspect of this debate is the opposition by those large commercial exploiter growers, cartels, "compassionate" medical growers who charge $3,500 - $4,500 a pound wholesale and profit immensely from prohibition, as they have allied themselves with the most cynical and exploitative members of the prohibitionist regime: the cops and the prison industry. I can expect all of the previously mentioned vested interests to contribute big money to the no campaign, which is tragic and unfortunate. That an elder statesman like Dennis Peron is lending false testimony to this campaign against the greatest anti-prohibition initiative put to voters in US history is a sad state of affairs.

I will go through the points asserted by the naysayers and reveal that all are trivial and irrelevant sham arguments. I will point out that the real issue here is the fear these commercial exploiter growers have that their market will utterly dry up. At $12.50 an ounce for your own homegrown, who will pay their rip-off prices anymore? Almost no one, and this has them rightly panicked. Well, I say screw any greedy growers whose love of money is greater than their love of marijuana, and you should too by voting for THE CONTROL & TAX CANNABIS INITIATIVE this November.

COMPLAINT #1: THIS BILL ISN'T REALLY LEGALIZATION

Proposition 215, passed by California voters in November 1996, did not change medical marijuana laws federally, but it was still the most significant ballot initiative in the history of prohibition in the United States. While one might say it was a half measure – hardly legalization, as we understand the word – it demonstrated a process that has been guiding us inevitably (though with much kicking and screaming by both prohibitionists and purists in the movement) towards a freer, brighter future for cannabis users, at least in the state of California.

But look what an example will do! Because of California’s adoption of Proposition 215, there are 14 states and Districts in the US with medical marijuana laws, and 20 more are developing legislation or ballot initiatives leading to a medical marijuana law. Yet the federal government acknowledged none of it until last year when Obama's Justice Department agreed not to oppose or harass any state marijuana initiatives passed by the people contrary to federal law.

Even though federal law still prohibits cannabis, Proposition 215 provided protection to the current 500,000 Californians who possess medical marijuana exemptions. But that law still forbids any healthy person from cultivating, possessing or distributing non-medical cannabis – a group of adults 21 and over that numbers over 31 million in the Golden State.

With 14 states and districts having a medical marijuana statute, about 2 million Americans now have some form of local or state protection against prosecution under state law. While Proposition 215 was only providing protection to a very small number of people, the idea of it spread to other states and is a rallying cry across the land. Proposition 215 cannot even be considered a step towards true legalization; it was a step towards "exemption" from state law that applied to very few people, until recently. Nonetheless, the armor of the drug war was breached and more activism in the US has flowed from the success of 215 than any other single incident in our movement. Yet, since 1996, thousands of Californians have still gone to jail for producing cannabis, selling cannabis, and possessing cannabis. Proposition 215 has very limited application under state law. This 2010 legalization initiative will broaden the scope of protection to include EVERY ADULT 21 and over.

When naysayers claim that Richard Lee's brave, brilliant and shrewd initiative is not legalization as anyone understands it, they are wrong. Legalization to me (and many others) means any individual can grow it, possess it and smoke it in the privacy of their own home. This initiative does precisely that. Sure, there are minor penalties for smoking outside, but Amsterdam has the same penalties for outdoor consumption too. Do we think of Amsterdam, or rather The Netherlands, as a bastion of prohibitionist oppression? No, of course not. Hundreds of thousands of Americans travel to Amsterdam every year to experience a legal taxed, regulated environment where tourists and the Dutch alike can buy it (taxed), carry it home, or smoke it in private property. The Dutch cannot grow 25 square feet of pot however, so this California initiative would make California far more free and accessible to cannabis that Amsterdam is today and ever was – but only if Californians vote for this initiative.

Is it perfect? Perhaps not – and ask yourself, “perfect according to whom?” because everyone cannot possibly agree on one ideal solution. But it will be the most liberal regime in the entire world, if passed! It allows each adult, 21 and older, to grow 25 square feet of pot. With just one 1,000-watt light, you can produce at least one pound of pot or more every 10 weeks; that’s 80 ounces for every man and woman 21 and over! (And it’s illegal for young people to possess or smoke marijuana now, but they still manage to do it; why wouldn’t that continue to be the situation if the initiative passes?)

The cost of producing your 5 pounds annually is $1,000 ($300 for 1,000-watt light, $200 for pots, soil and nutrients, and $500 for electricity). That’s $12.50 per ounce for your own legal home garden! Then you can carry an ounce of it anywhere, and smoke it in your house, at your friends house, at a club, in your yacht, in any privately owned and contained space! $12.50 an ounce for cannabis that doesn't need to be rushed, can be flushed however long is required, that you can confirm has no pesticides or herbicides – that will be the best cannabis you've ever smoked!

The criticism that this initiative heavily regulates a now "unregulated" environment invites comparisons to The Netherlands. There, the marijuana sales are taxed, regulated, and controlled by the state, yet every American thinks that it is paradise. The Richard Lee initiative provides for homegrown access to every adult 21 and over, which is not available in the Netherlands. In fact, there is nothing in this initiative that makes California any less than Amsterdam, and there is a great deal more in this ballot initiative that goes well beyond the regime in the Netherlands.

This portrait of California as currently being some almost-legal paradise that will be set back if the initiative passes is absolute deception and lies. Many people are in jail right now in California for home grows, dispensaries and distribution.

Today, if you are an adult carrying an ounce, police can seize it, strip search you, use the seizure as the basis for a search warrant to search your home or car or person or handbag, and more. You face a criminal record, a fine, and potentially incarceration. All that is eliminated under this new law. For the 30-million-plus Californians without a medical exemption card, this means a world of difference. The current laws can bring on a world of hurt to anyone caught carrying one ounce. This proposed law eliminates all that if the carrier is 21 or older. Under this initiative you can't be fired from work if you smoke cannabis. Only the cartels, street gangs, and unlicensed exploiter commercial growers will see the cops more frequently – and they know it.

COMPLAINT #2: THE BILL HAS A 21 YEAR AGE LIMIT FOR CANNABIS

The proposed penalty under this bill for supplying 18- to 20-year-olds with cannabis is identical to the fine and penalty for supplying liquor or beer to 18- to 20-year-olds in California. The vast majority of cannabis consumers are 21 and over; and it allows those approximately 31 million adult Californians to grow plentiful quantities of their own homegrown, adequate for a personal supply. 25 square feet under a 1,000-watt light can produce 16 ounces every 10 weeks. It's possible two lights can be suspended above that 25 square feet, producing up to 32 ounces every 10 weeks, so it is not inadequate to the most demanding personal or medical needs.

COMPLAINT #3: YOU CAN'T TOKE OUTDOORS OR IN THE PRESENCE OF MINORS

The initiative doesn't add any penalties for toking outdoors in the same space as minors, it merely says these things are not authorized under the bill. So whatever the current law is regarding outdoor toking or toking near minors would be the same as before the bill was passed.

However, it is not unreasonable to have minors excluded from the initiative. The opposition to the Lee Initiative often focuses on the availability of cannabis to minors. It is a small inconvenience not to have minors present when you are consuming cannabis. Minors need only be in another room while cannabis is being consumed. Cannabis is a psychoactive that travels through the air. You can't supply alcohol to minors either, because it too is regarded as a psychoactive, but alcohol is a liquid. The potential penalties are the same. Yet have you heard of any parents arrested for giving their teenage children a glass of red wine at dinner? Not often, if ever, but the law still forbids it. That will likely be the regime for cannabis. This objection is trivial, as are all the objections coming from the naysayers.

This law absolutely protects your right to privacy in your home to consume cannabis, in a private room absent any minors. It's not unreasonable to restrict consumption of cannabis to adults in any law at this point in our political evolution. It is illegal to smoke cigarettes in an enclosed space with minors. It is illegal to share alcohol with minors. Considering the incredible awesome benefits for adults 21 and over in the legislation, this is a minor inconvenience at most. For most adults without minors in the house, club or private residence, it is not an irritant at all. This aspect of the legislation may go far to reassure voters that it won't be a free-for-all for teenagers in private property, which is entirely reasonable.

Is the "right" to smoke with minors present SO important that we must deny 30 million Californians the genuine right to possess and smoke in safety in their own homes? Give me a break! If you want to campaign to lower the legal age limit of “adulthood”, that’s another initiative.

COMPLAINT #4: YOU CAN ONLY BUY FROM LICENSED DEALERS

If your neighbour is currently selling pot, it’s called trafficking and it's not a $100 fine; it means jail. If your neighbour sells cannabis after this initiative, it's still trafficking, as it is today. So there's no change there. People will most certainly be selling to their friends and neighbours.

Anyone in California can grow his or her own cannabis under this new statute. After this initiative, California will be flooded with cannabis at dramatically reduced prices. Even with a $50 an ounce tax at the retail level, the legal wholesale price should drop to about $20 an ounce, perhaps about $35 to $50-per-ounce retail (plus tax). If you can grow your own for $12.50 an ounce in your own home, even $75 to $100-per-ounce retail with all taxes may be too high for some – but much lower than it costs now. It will be an excellent value for tourists, casual smokers and gourmet tastes.

Note that no specific tax amount is suggested or mandated by Proposition 19. I have included a tax amount of $50 an ounce because that would be the highest likely tax that could reasonably be applied before consumers evaded the tax and bypassed the legal retail system. Many communities would perhaps offer much lower taxes on an ounce of marijuana, especially to compete with other jurisdictions. Tom Ammiano's bill (SB 390) before the California State Assembly mandates a $50 an ounce retail tax. Homegrown cannabis would not be subject to any tax at all.

COMPLAINT #5: CANNABIS TAXES COULD BE USED TO ENFORCE CANNABIS PROHIBITION

Taxes get spent wherever your elected representatives decide. California has a $22 billion deficit in fiscal 2010, and a total $170 billion debt in total, this situation is unsustainable. It is a fine trade-off to end prohibition and reduce prices by ten fold (or higher, if you grow your own) in exchange for a taxed and regulated system.

If you vote, then get involved in politics. Join the Republican, Democratic, or Green Party and have a say in how your taxes are spent. Sadly, many stoners and potheads don't vote, and that's why we get screwed by the political establishment. If you get involved – hell, if you just show up – you could make history this November. If you join a party, nominate a candidate, attend meetings, and write your Assemblyman, you can be part of the debate on how this new tax revenue is to be used.

Of the many terrific things that will happen once this initiative passes, which industry shills and naysayers fail to bring up, is the incredible tourist boom that will transform California. Once cannabis can be legally consumed for all individuals in the state of California, once it can bought at licensed outlets and carried around, millions and millions of Asians, Europeans, Canadians and Americans will flood into California to visit and spend, spend, spend. While buying all their favorite kinds of cannabis that they can only dream of back home, they will be spending money on hotels, restaurants, transportation and entertainment (all of which are taxed.) Dodger’s ball games and Disneyland will have a whole new attraction level!

The millions of new tourists will be spending billions of dollars in the Golden State. That will add up to 500,000 jobs, cut the unemployment and welfare costs drastically, and inject staggering sums of money into the depressed hotel and restaurant industries. Although sales of marijuana may generate only $1 - $2 billion in taxes annually, billions more in taxes will be collected on all the other aspects of tourist spending that is certain to happen.

You don't think every stoner in Missouri isn't going to save every penny he can to visit California for a week or more to smoke White Widow, Sour Diesel, Trainwreck, Purple Urkle, and every other strain in a legal environment? California will be a stoner's paradise, and the 190,000,000 potheads on this Earth (by the most recent UN calculations) will also be making pilgrimages to California. The TV ad for California tourism we've all seen, with Governor Schwarzenegger and others saying, "What are you waiting for?”, will finally have some meaning!

COMPLAINT #6: SHOPS THAT SELL CANNABIS WILL NEED TO BE LICENSED AND PAY TAXES

All businesses in modern society are licensed, regulated, taxed and audited. This will be true for the legal marijuana industry. The initiative requires licensing and zoning for cannabis dispensing businesses, which is simply no different than what’s required for a bookshop, pharmacy, movie theatre, accounting office, factory, shipyard, or any other legal business place. Every business that operates in a legal environment is regulated; that's the reality of the term "legal". If it's not regulated, it’s not legal, so there is no protection or recourse under law – and that lack of protection and accountability is what we have under prohibition.

The price of marijuana today is outrageous as a consequence of its illegality. Since Proposition 215 passed in 1996, the price of marijuana has not gone down at all; in fact, it's gone up, a sure sign that in fact Prop 215 was just a baby step, and nothing like the significant step towards legalization that this initiative is. In a legal environment, the price of cannabis will plummet, and under this initiative, prices WILL plummet as millions of home grows become productive, replacing the need for the large commercial exploiter grow-ops, the cartels, and the street gangs.

COMPLAINT #7: YOU CAN'T GROW MUCH BUD IN A 25-SQUARE-FOOT SPACE

It is the industry standard that one 1,000-watt bulb (complete kit $250-$300) can produce one pound of dry weight cannabis. With Co2 added and diligent gardening, many growers can get 1.2 to 1.4 pounds per light. A 25-square-foot space can accommodate even two 1,000-watt lights, so potential yields in that case would be 2 to 2.5 pounds every 10 weeks; that means ANY competent grower can achieve 16 to 40 ounces every 10 weeks in their space, a generous personal or medical amount by any standard.

This idea that you will just get a few ounces out of a 25 square foot space is simply more lies and spin to scare you away from supporting the initiative. Whether they know it or not, the naysayers are in league with the big commercial growers who are terrified of this initiative and want their black market protected.

IN CONCLUSION

This is the greatest, best ballot initiative to achieve the closest thing ever to full legalization ever put before voters anywhere in the world.

If you are a pot smoker then you will be better off, by far, if this bill passes. The only ones worse off will be gun-toting street gangs and cartels, the police and prison industry, and any exploitative commercial growers who are not honest or skilled enough to legally produce for the licensed market.

The benefit to the 31 million California adults 21 years of age and older will be legal access to their own organic, safe, homegrown at $12.50 an ounce in hugely generous personal quantities, or obtain it from professional licensed outlets who will supply an enormous array of various high-quality cannabis. Add to that the creation of about 500,000 to 1,000,000 new jobs due to the massive influx of tourists flooding California to sample to fruits of an industry 50 times larger than the wine-tasting industry!

It's clear there will be huge amounts in taxes collected from tourists and cannabis retail sales that will impact positively on the California state budget. There will be TEN-FOLD lower retail prices ($35-$50 an ounce instead of $200-$500). Even with a $50 per ounce tax, this means that the best marijuana available will be legally sold for under $100 per ounce to any adult in California. Police will instead direct their efforts at the cartels, street gangs, and unlicensed commercial growers exporting cannabis out-of-state.

As California goes, so does the rest of America. If this initiative passes, it will soon appear in other US states. And as America goes, so will the world. Canada, Europe and countries everywhere will have to end prohibition, or their people will simply flock to California and America. Legalization begets more legalization. Won't it be incredible when California is way better than Amsterdam? Wouldn't it be great if approving this initiative led to Seattle, Austin, Denver, New Orleans, Atlanta, Detroit, Portland and every American city being even cooler than Amsterdam?

I urge all Californians to support and VOTE for the CONTROL & TAX CANNABIS INITIATIVE of 2010. It’s the best chance we've ever had to begin changing the world, but it needs your committed support. The profiteers of prohibition – the cops, gangs, prohibitionists, and exploitative commercial growers – will be giving their prohibition profits to the NO side to protect their lucrative black market exploitation of the sick and dying, so you had better help out the good guys like Richard Lee and campaign for his brave initiative.

This is a brilliantly thought-out, shrewdly written law that is designed to get a majority of voters on board. One side of the debate wants to maintain the prohibition market and prohibition-inflated prices for cannabis, and therefore continue imprisoning and exploiting us all for their own greedy, immoral benefit. The other side wants to see legalization, much more affordable and high-quality cannabis, and an end to the suffering, imprisonment, and human rights abuses caused by prohibition. Which side are YOU on?

- Article written by Marc Emery from SeaTac Federal Detention Center in Seattle, Washington. Marc is awaiting sentencing for pleading guilty after being extradited to the USA from Canada for selling cannabis seeds and using the profits to fund the movement. Click here for more information about Marc and his current situation. Keep up to date at Facebook.com/MarcEmery and Facebook.com/JodieEmery.

More responses to criticism of the Control & Tax Cannabis Initiative

By Jodie Emery

Claim: "This initiative will put medical users and growers in prison!"

Response: Why would Richard Lee create a law that could see himself, his friends, his staff, his clients (from his dispensary), and his students (Oaksterdam University) imprisoned in greater numbers than they are now? That doesn't make any sense at all! He wouldn't have the initiative written up the way it is if there was ANY chance of him losing his personal freedom, companies, clients, students, staff, etc. He would lose TONS of money and -- if the haters are right about him being a greedy bastard -- he would be committing business suicide! That alone exposes the opponents and anti-Richard Lee exploiters as nothing but jealous, fearful, and paranoid rabblerousers.

Also, medical growers won't be limited to 5x5 spaces, so why wouldn't more and more people continue to become medical users under Prop. 215 and continue to grow large indoor and outdoor gardens? That will continue even if people vote YES for the initiative. This initiative is for people who don't want to become medical exemptees -- why should they be punished because of the unfounded fears of medical users and growers?

Claim: "Evil corporations are going to take over the market!"

Response: People tend to think all corporations are simply big, evil, monopoly empires. But consider this: the company that sells you soil for growing your plants is a corporation. The nutrients come from a corporation too. The pots you put seedlings in: corporate-made. The house you live in is entirely furnished and constructed from materials made and sold by corporations. The organic companies selling organic foods are corporations. Dr. Bronner's Hemp Soap is a corporation. Hemp Hoodlamb, Satori, Livity hemp clothing -- all corporations. Manitoba Harvest hemp food, a corporation. High Times Magazine, a corporation. Yes, the big bad Starbucks is a corporation, but so is the "Cafe Paris" or "Homestyle Cooking & Coffee" or any independent business run by individuals or partners or small groups. All companies and businesses that operate legally are corporations -- unless they are non-profit societies, which means they cannot keep the money. So, will corporations run the legal marijuana market? Yes. Is that bad? No, because individuals and two-person partnerships and small groups can all create an Incorporated Company to do business (as everyone must do for any legal business).

Claim: "Pharmaceutical companies and Universities are trying to make and patent extractions and concentrated cannabis medicine!"

Response: We are all very well aware that cannabis holds the cure for cancer and many other ailments, from epilepsy to MS to autism and almost every illness and injury. We also know that many dispensaries are creating and selling lotions, creams, hashes, oils, baked goods, tinctures, and even patches and lozenges. Why do those products exist? Because we know that certain amounts of particular cannabinoids in specific concentrations are better able to treat and relieve pain, suffering, chronic and even terminal illnesses than smoking whole buds. Cannabis holds the cure for SO much suffering, but the extent of the amazing properties cannot be obtained solely through whole-bud consumption -- hence the market for extracts and concentrations.

So what's wrong with a professional corporation (i.e. any currently-operating dispensary that simply becomes incorporated under a legal regime) creating and selling the best-quality medicinal aspects of the cannabis plant? With all of the amazing potential that cannabis holds (and a lot that we surely don't even know about yet, such as possible INSTANT cancer-curing ONE DOSE medicines -- if we can find that right balance and concentration) why on earth would anyone oppose a corporation from finding and marketing that cure? Considering that Chinese medicine and herbal medicine and other traditional, non-pharmaceutical medicine and therapy companies are VERY successful and won't disappear anytime soon, why do you think cannabis would be any different?

Why should anyone deny a terminal cancer patient the opportunity and possibility of a one-dose cannabis cure? That doesn't exist yet, but it can if there are businesses with enough money and passion to find such a miraculous cure. Would it cost more than regular cannabis bud? Yes, but in order to be successful, the companies would offer it at a price people are willing and able to pay (because if they didn't, then people wouldn't buy it, then the businesses would close down, and that goes against their mandate, of course).

Claim: "We shouldn't support any policy that requires taxation and regulation!"

Response: All legal businesses are taxed and regulated. That's the way it is! If you're not legal and taxed and regulated, then you're illegal and untaxed and unregulated. If you want cannabis to be legal, you'll have to accept taxes and regulation. If you don't want taxes and regulation, you want it to stay illegal (prohibited). We've never had legal cannabis in recent history, so people are rightfully nervous and unsure and hesitant... But here we are, and here's our choice: legal, or illegal. Regulations and taxes can change, but there are only two choices for legality: legal, or illegal. Which do you prefer?

We are not going to get a totally "free" cannabis industry right away. Marc is a Libertarian and I too believe in small government and low taxation. We both support the right to self-cultivate free from any taxation or regulation, but we can't go to that point directly from where we are now. There is an established system in place; good or bad, it's the system we live under, and we have to work within that system in order to change it. Nothing happens immediately! Barack Obama did not get elected right after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus. Progress takes time. The need to end prohibition is a battle separate from (though connected to) the need to be free from government control. Marc and I support both those battles, but one must come before the other if we want to finally reach the ideal future of freedom that we all desire.
 
motherlode

motherlode

@Rolln_J
Supporter
5,524
313
lmao yeah dennis is just jealoous and you can grow pot for 12.50 an ounce,
does that include the 5 k permit fee?

can anybody explain how you can have a 5 x 5 garden and posess only an ounce?
 
T

TokinPodPilot

16
1
Can't imagine why a man with a business selling cannabis seeds would possibly advocate for a commercial cannabis bill....:mad0233:
 
B

Backward_Z

86
0
I saw this and I thought, "Jesus, this article is old--I read this months ago! I thought this article had already been well refuted as sensational bullshit."

And it turns out it has.

If you scroll down to the comments, you'll see Jennifer Soares's rebuttal.

Jennifer Soares said:
Without even approaching my personal feelings about Tax and Regulate, this article does such a bad job of addressing the actual issues that us “rabble-rousers” have.

I can safely say that I fall into none of your 3 groups. I am not a LEO in any way shape or form. I am not a commercial grower or one’s dependant. And I am not an old guard of Prop 215. I am, however, an attorney that, unlike the proponents of this bill, see poorly written law interpreted against the cannabis users every day in court. I am someone that can read this bill and see it for what it will be one day in front of a judge: vague, poorly written, and open to vast interpretation by judges who are anti-cannabis.

“Who needs their $350 to $450 per ounce cannabis when we can all safely and legally grow our own weed at home for about $12.50 an ounce?” You are making several huge and incorrect assumptions here. First, you assume that everyone will be able to grow their own. If that were true, there wouldn’t be medical marijuana dispensaries now. There are a HUGE amount of them because not everyone can grow cannabis and many of those that can can’t grow high quality cannabis. Second, you assume that anyone can do it cheaply. Perhaps in Washington your overhead is low, but come on down to Southern California and see how much your home grown stuff will cost. And third, you assume that ANYONE is going to lower their prices for recreational cannabis. That is a hugely misguided assumption. Proponents of Tax and Regulate have already admitted that “if I already know you are going to pay X for the product, why would I lower the price even if it is cheaper for me to make it.” And that is a direct quote. So if you think that suddenly your local dispensary is going to be selling $15 ounces, you are insane.

Your assumption that the likes of Dennis Perone are opposing Tax and Regulate purely out of jealousy is absurd and insulting. God forbid someone disagrees with you, they must be irrational. Or perhaps, they have a very good reason for opposing Tax and Regulate. I sure do. And it has nothing to do with professional jealousy. I’m not in any way in competition with Richard Lee or even any of his minions. I sure haven’t heard Dennis say that he is opposing the bill strictly out of jealousy. So, unless you’re a mind reader, I would suggest that you keep your highly slanderous and ridiculous comments to your inner group of friends. My testimony is not false or a “sham.” My issues are real. They are important. They could ruin this industry. For you to brush them off as if they don’t matter just makes me realize you have clearly not read this initiative for what it is. You have joined the rah-rah-rah-ing without regard for the problems it will (not might) cause. And I find that to be a “sad state of affairs.” The fact that you are trying to intimidate those of us that oppose by calling us names and attempting to make us look bad to those that are undecided just proves that you know we have valid issues and you are scared that we will win.

“Look what an example will do!” Yes indeed. Look at what an example California has been thus far. Other states are watching us so closely. But not for the reasons that proponents of Tax and Regulate want us to think. Other states are looking at California and saying “how can we avoid the mess California has made?” And “what can we do to avoid being like California?”

“Obama’s Justice Department agreed not to oppose or harass any state marijuana initiatives.” That is patently false. Re-read the statement made by US Attorney Eric Holder.

“Under this initiative you can’t be fired from work if you smoke cannabis.” Again, patently false. Just because Richard Lee told you that is true, does not make it so. Most Californians are “at-will employees” which means they can be fired at any time for any reason except their race, gender, age, or sexual orientation. If your employer drug tests, they can still fire you for consuming cannabis over the weekend. Just like they can fire you for getting drunk on your weekends. Just like they can fire you for having blue eyes. And just like they can fire you for having smelly feet. Furthermore, even the few Californians that are contract employees, the Federal Drug Free workplace rules still apply to most employees. Since it will still be illegal federally, they can still fire you. Even if you weren’t under the influence at work. Period.

“Only the cartels, street gangs, and unlicensed exploiter commercial growers will see the cops more frequently.” Yeah, those people, AND medical patients and recreational users alike. President Obama has outright laughed at the idea of recreational legalization. He has told the DEA to make medical patients following state law “not a priority.” But he has not said so for recreational users. Does anyone remember the raids by the DEA California used to have? Welcome back. And since, under this law, at first glance it will be impossible to tell the difference between a medical patient and a recreational grower, medical patients will be injured by DEA raids meant for recreational users.

“The proposed penalty under this bill for supplying to 18-20 year olds with cannabis is identical to the fine and penalty for supplying liquor or beer in California.” Wrong again. The fine and penalty for selling beer to an 18-20 year old is a misdemeanor. The fine and penalty for selling cannabis to an 18-20 year old is a felony carrying 3-5-7 years in prison. That is more than a little different. Unless you just give it away (but who does).

“The initiative doesn’t add any penalties for toking outdoors or in the same space as minors.” There is no law presently against either of these things. So yes, it does add penalties. It would not be the same as before the bill was passed.

“Minors need only be in another room while cannabis is being consumed.” Untrue. They cannot be in the same space as you. You may define “space” as room. Richard Lee might too. But he didn’t put “room.” He put “space.” And a judge might not agree with either of you that “space” means “room.” He might think that “space” means house. He might think that “space” means apartment complex. Like you say, it is a psychoactive that travels through the air. It will easily travel from apartment to apartment. It certainly won’t be a small inconvenience if you can’t smoke in your apartment. Then where?

“After this initiative, California will be flooded with cannabis at dramatically reduced prices.” According to your own previous statement, that will still be trafficking. So…no…no there will not be a flood of dramatically reduced priced cannabis. Or, you are assuming that getting a license is going to be easy. Maybe in Oakland. But no where else. The local governments are going to have to take time and effort to make up a permitting system. Los Angeles took over 5 years to decide what to do with medical cannabis. What in the world makes you think that Los Angeles will take only 5 minutes to make a permitting system for recreational cultivators/distributors?

You brought up the complaint that cannabis taxes could be used to enforce prohibition, but you failed to actually address it. In the limited response you gave, you citied lower prices as a way that this will not be true. Again, that is making an assumption that I don’t think is wise to make. Not to mention that licensing fees could do the same thing. If it costs $500,000 to become a distributor, how many distributors will there be? Your numbers for wholesale cannabis are already drastically lower than what is reasonable. But add on top of that a $100,000 cultivation license (similar to alcohol), a $100,000 wholesaler’s license, and a $100,000 distributor’s license and you will not have anywhere close to the prices you are talking about. Then add tax on top of that. Good luck with those $50 ounces.

As for tourism, if there are no licensed distributors, there is no tourism. Not to boost your bubble, but Oakland already has recreational cannabis. And we haven’t had 500,000 new jobs in California because of the sudden crazy rush in tourism. And where did you come up with your numbers? What study are you quoting that we will get 500,000 new jobs? Not to mention, you are going to scare the crap out of the mainstream audience if you are going to sell them with floods of stoners coming to California – the new “stoner’s paradise” as you say. 190 million pot heads coming to California? Yeah, that’s a winning argument for the mainstream audience.

“Dodger games and Disneyland will have a whole new attraction?” Umm…public places, no smoking allowed remember?

“Shops that sell cannabis will need to be licensed and pay taxes.” None of the nay-sayers are complaining about this. In fact, most of us having been begging to be licensed to grow and sell medical cannabis for years.

“In a legal environment, the price of cannabis will plummet.” Really? “Since Prop 215 passed in 1996 the price of marijuana has not gone down at all.” Oh…so why would it be any different with recreational? What proof do you have that it will? Because the word straight out of the proponents’ mouth is that it won’t change a bit.

“That means ANY competent grower can achieve 16 to 40 ounces every 10 weeks in their space, a generous personal or medical amount by any standard.” Unless there is more than one adult living in your residence, since you are only allowed one 5x5 per residency. And if you rent, you have to get permission from your landlord. Good luck with that, considering they can still be subject to forfeiture by the federal government.

“The only ones worse off will be gun-toting street gangs and cartels.” AND medical patients. And all recreational users that cannot grow for themselves in every city besides Oakland and San Francisco. And everyone that gets raided by the DEA because Obama does not support recreational use. And everyone that has minors in their household. And everyone that has more than one adult in their household.

You have failed to address MANY of the legitimate complaints by the “nay-sayers.” Perhaps because you had no argument against them? How about the fact that this initiative leaves the decision up to the local municipalities. And that the path of least resistance for local authorities is to do nothing and no permits will be issued for commerial cultivation, wholesaling, and distribution? Are you aware that 129 cities have an outright ban on medical marijuana dispensaries? There are more that have moratoriums. How many of those cities are going to suddenly be okay with recreational cannabis?

Or what about the concern that no law is better than bad law. I know you think that this law is the most brilliantly written law. But many people would disagree. Many attorneys that actually know how these laws play out in court disagree. If you start reading case law and see how differently the various judges have interpreted Prop 215, you will see what I mean. Vagueness will destroy this initiative.

What about the fact that this initiative creates many new crimes that will do exactly what this initiative is “supposed” to stop, make people criminals. This initiative creates a new crime for illegally purchasing cannabis. Not true before. It creates a new crime for smoking in public places. Not true before (except where it is illegal to smoke cigarettes). It creates a new crime for smoking in the same “space” as a minor.

In conclusion, please do not try to intimidate those of us that have our issues with this initiative by making us out to be jealous evil people. We have legitimate issues with this initiative. And the voting process of this country allows us to have our own opinion. We shouldn’t have to be intimidated by the likes of you or Richard Lee or anyone else because we have our own opinion.
Submitted by Jennifer Soares () on Tue, 06/08/2010 - 16:20.

Emery is so full of shit. He calls farmers who oppose 19 greedy prohibitionists and yet made tens of millions of dollars for selling seeds at exorbitant prices...
 
A

amstercal

539
18
There is so much rhetoric here.

The first group is the police and prison industry, represented by their unions and spokespeople. These are the system exploiters who have profited greatly and built power bases at the expense of the people. These are our archenemies, people who think it’s okay making a buck by arresting, strip-searching, incarcerating, harassing, and jailing ordinary cannabis consumer and home-growers.

Archenemies? So Dickensian. Do they have capes? Uber melodramatic.

And as always, it's back to the same argument...
But look what an example will do!... As California goes, so does the rest of America. If this initiative passes, it will soon appear in other US states. And as America goes, so will the world.

I am a Californian. I was born and raised here and aside from a few excursions have lived here my whole life. While I'm interested to hear if anyone from another state has a valid point, with all due respect to Emery, he's not exactly a voter or even a Californian. I personally think anyone who won't actually be directly affected by this law should stop telling people who live here and actually live with 215, sb 420 etc every day how it will affect them. Those of us who live here know how hard it is to push for every inch of our rights given to us by 215 and now you want to assume that law enforcement will treat us a certain way???

Yet have you heard of any parents arrested for giving their teenage children a glass of red wine at dinner? Not often, if ever, but the law still forbids it. That will likely be the regime for cannabis. This objection is trivial, as are all the objections coming from the naysayers.

This is a HUGE HUGE HUGE assumption, one I'm not willing to take with my child. Again, only someone who doesn't have children or doesn't have custody of their children, in California, could say something like this. Trivial? Hardly.

Unfortunately, his statements didn't address most of MY concerns since my problem was never:

I will point out that the real issue here is the fear these commercial exploiter growers have that their market will utterly dry up. At $12.50 an ounce for your own homegrown, who will pay their rip-off prices anymore? Almost no one, and this has them rightly panicked. Well, I say screw any greedy growers whose love of money is greater than their love of marijuana

I still have concerns with the poor writing of the prop. I still think it infringes on my rights as a medical user. And now I'm wondering what I would have to do if I dare grow more than an ounce? Good point, motherlode.
 
C

Cannabear

66
0
yes, this article is complete horseshit and pretty hilarious if you ask me..

i love how you think because marc emery, (a canadian millionaire who exploited the fuck out of cannabis through years of shady seed deals and ripping customers/breeders off) says to vote for it, that the bill is just.

gives everyone yet ANOTHER reason to vote no on prop 19.
 
motherlode

motherlode

@Rolln_J
Supporter
5,524
313
my 2 light grow can produces just over 3 lbs a run. lets break that down, realistically

so If nothing goes wrong (hermies, mold, pm, spider mites, timer failure, power out for 2 days after a storm etc etc) 3 lbs in 90 days or 48 ounces.

I wont even figure the 3k plus i have invested in my room and that I constantly upgrade and do maintenance on my gear

every grow I spend:
200 bux on new bulbs
200 bux for nutes
100 bux for medium
600 bux on electricity (200 monthly x 3)
900 bux rent (1 bedroom of 3, my house monthly is 900, so 1/3 of that for 3 months)

2k total

now were already at 48.50 an ounce and that doesn't take into consideration that its a LOT OF WORK and if I wasn't a disabled guy doing this for the love/hobby (and cheap meds) I would prolly want to get paid for my hours.

I know Marc Emery wants to get paid (hence why he supports said prop)

so yeah the magic water fairy doesnt come in and check my res, top off nutes, trim, train, check for pests, harvest, cure etc etc

lets just say 10 hours a week (thats 120 for those of you who havent fallen asleep yet) and about another 40-60 harvesting, cleaning up, drying etc - again low ball estimates

so lets say Im a lazy worthless fuck and your only willing to pay me 10 bux an hour (hmm sounds like the weed is gonna not be so damn good dont it?)

1800 labor

3800 total divided by 48 is 79 bux

now your looking at 80 bux an ounce

I dont know anybody who will run your grow as well as I would for 10 bux an hour but still this conservative "real world" estimate shows you how full of shit marc emery is

but most of us already knew that...

there is one thing in that article I agree with - Richard is shrewd

dick lee has nothing to lose, he already has Oakland's blessing to run his plantation, fuck he doesn't even grow his own weed, students pay him 750 bux to grow it for him...

I know for a fact that weed grown at OU is sold at the Bull Dog and the Student Union (both illegally)
 
K

kushpheen

299
0
"For the first time in US history, there is a state initiative to legalize marijuana possession, use, and production for all adults"

Didn't California try to legalize cannabis in the 70s?

"But first, let me explain that opponents of Richard Lee's initiative fall into three groups. The first group is the police and prison industry, represented by their unions and spokespeople. These are the system exploiters who have profited greatly and built power bases at the expense of the people. These are our archenemies, people who think it’s okay making a buck by arresting, strip-searching, incarcerating, harassing, and jailing ordinary cannabis consumer and home-growers. They are destroying our constitutional freedoms, seizing our kids, and forcing the cost of marijuana up to immoral prices as part of their love affair with prohibition.

The police and the prison unions support this initiative because it still allows them to arrest and incarcerate people in possession of more than an ounce, people smoking in public, people cultivating in areas greater than 25sqft, people sharing cannabis with minors and people smoking cannabis in front of minors. Its a win win situation for them either way. This initiative just provides them a few new crimes, while taking away one that isn't really a crime now anyway.

"The second group includes the cartels, thugs, street gangs, large commercial growers, commercial medical marijuana growers and their dependents that make exploitative profits taking full advantage of prohibition-inflated prices. They correctly surmise that when every adult in California can make all the homegrown cannabis an individual can produce in 25 square feet, the need for them and their rip-off prices evaporates. Like, gone, baby gone. And with home grows legal, police will target the exploiter large scale grows. Who needs their $350- to $450-per-ounce cannabis when we can all safely and legally grow our own weed at home for about $12.50 an ounce?"


Does rich lee fall into this category, a commercial grower? someone who has been able to profit in a non-profit industry. Where did all his millions come from again? His business plan for a commercial cultivation warehouse in Oakland isn't going to make 50 million a year charging $12 an ounce.

"Who needs their $350- to $450-per-ounce cannabis when we can all safely and legally grow our own weed at home for about $12.50 an ounce?"


The people who have no idea how to grow cannabis and the people who dont want to smoke your $12 swag miracle grown outdoor. The people who realize fine cannabis cultivation is an art not a hobby.


"Perhaps the most loathsome aspect of this debate is the opposition by those large commercial exploiter growers, cartels, "compassionate" medical growers who charge $3,500 - $4,500 a pound wholesale and profit immensely from prohibition, as they have allied themselves with the most cynical and exploitative members of the prohibitionist regime: the cops and the prison industry. I can expect all of the previously mentioned vested interests to contribute big money to the no campaign, which is tragic and unfortunate. That an elder statesman like Dennis Peron is lending false testimony to this campaign against the greatest anti-prohibition initiative put to voters in US history is a sad state of affairs."

What does an 1/8th sell for in Oaksterdam $40-50?(i wouldnt pay a fucking penny) somewhere around $5-8000/lb. Here is the real crook, the real cartel, here is the man behind the curtain. When you produce your own cannabis and sell it at your own club and then dump the proceeds into this psuedo legalization initiative, and then call your opponents criminals, you have some serious balls, seriously useless balls.

"Today, if you are an adult carrying an ounce, police can seize it, strip search you, use the seizure as the basis for a search warrant to search your home or car or person or handbag, and more. You face a criminal record, a fine, and potentially incarceration."


This is definitely not the case if your a medical patient, but even if your not you face a 100 fine, there's no record, no cavity search. An average smoker will pay far more in taxes than he would in fines over the course of a year. So its your choice, give the gov't money each time you choose to use cannabis, or just when the government catches you using cannabis.

"The criticism that this initiative heavily regulates a now "unregulated" environment invites comparisons to The Netherlands. There, the marijuana sales are taxed, regulated, and controlled by the state, yet every American thinks that it is paradise"

I dont need a Canadian telling me what my idea of paradise is and it sure as hell isn't Amsterdam. Btw where are all the $12 ounces in Amsterdam? Is it down the street from where I can get a $12 blow job?

COMPLAINT #2: THE BILL HAS A 21 YEAR AGE LIMIT FOR CANNABIS

Prosecuting adults between the ages of 18-20 for cannabis is absurd and in no way can be justified by comparing it to alcohol. If your 18 and this bill passes, your screwed for 3 years. If it fails, go outside and celebrate, because the current fines for possession are negligible and there is currently no law preventing medicinal consumption in public where smoking is allowed.


COMPLAINT #3: YOU CAN'T TOKE OUTDOORS OR IN THE PRESENCE OF MINORS

You sell seeds marc, correction use to sell seeds, your not a lawyer, your interpretation of 'in the presence of minors' isn't going to be hitting any legal books in the future. Does the privacy of your own home allow you to smoke in your back yard while kids are playing outside in your neighbors back yard?

COMPLAINT #4: YOU CAN ONLY BUY FROM LICENSED DEALERS

"Anyone in California can grow his or her own cannabis under this new statute."


Anybody can grow cannabis under the current statues without needing to restrict themselves to a 5x5 grow area, with a $50 doctors note. How much will that $50 ounce cost in the future after taking into consideration the 15k license you'll need to 'legally' grow in your city?

COMPLAINT #5: CANNABIS TAXES COULD BE USED TO ENFORCE CANNABIS PROHIBITION

Its not could, its will. Revenue raised from cannabis taxes first and foremost needs to pay for the infrastructure its created. The people who will be regulating and controlling this industry will cost our state hundreds of millions of dollars. The money raised from cannabis taxes funds the rehabilitation centers for 18-20 year olds that are forced to attend in order to avoid jail time. So take that into consideration when you throw out the $1 billion in revenue pot taxes might raise in comparison to our $22 billion deficit. It doesn't even keep the lights on for a day. But we appreciate how thoughtful you are of our economy.

[I"]Of the many terrific things that will happen once this initiative passes, which industry shills and naysayers fail to bring up, is the incredible tourist boom that will transform California"[/I]

Transform California into what exactly? Last time I checked California already had a pretty thriving tourist economy because its Cala-fucking-fornia, its already fucking paradise, it doesn't need to be transformed into anything.

"COMPLAINT #7: YOU CAN'T GROW MUCH BUD IN A 25-SQUARE-FOOT SPACE

It is the industry standard that one 1,000-watt bulb (complete kit $250-$300) can produce one pound of dry weight cannabis. With Co2 added and diligent gardening, many growers can get 1.2 to 1.4 pounds per light. A 25-square-foot space can accommodate even two 1,000-watt lights, so potential yields in that case would be 2 to 2.5 pounds every 10 weeks; that means ANY competent grower can achieve 16 to 40 ounces every 10 weeks in their space, a generous personal or medical amount by any standard."


Take into consideration, bug attacks, mold, the somewhat sharp learning curve I think most of us will attest to here and you dont get anywhere near the numbers hes talking about, not to mention, where the hell I'm I suppose to keep my moms, clones, or teens in this magical 5x5 area? Should I be dependent on the commercial sector to buy clones? GM clones from your friends at monsanto perhaps?

"This is a brilliantly thought-out, shrewdly written law that is designed to get a majority of voters on board. One side of the debate wants to maintain the prohibition market and prohibition-inflated prices for cannabis, and therefore continue imprisoning and exploiting us all for their own greedy, immoral benefit. The other side wants to see legalization, much more affordable and high-quality cannabis, and an end to the suffering, imprisonment, and human rights abuses caused by prohibition. Which side are YOU on?"

This initiative was written by greedy people for greedy people, hell bent on monopolization. These people have no intention of lowering the price of cannabis, just its value. The good of the greater legalization movement doesn't excuse the inherent greed this initiative is based on. There are much better initiatives out there, this will not be last the one.
 
motherlode

motherlode

@Rolln_J
Supporter
5,524
313
^^^ great post!

still waiting to hear how you can have a 5 x 5 garden but posses only an ounce of weed...

oh right, phrasing isnt that important
 
J

just_in_ct

35
0
can anybody explain how you can have a 5 x 5 garden and posess only an ounce?



YOU can posses whatever you want in your home. The ounce is actually 28.5 and that's what you are allowed to have on your person outside of your home.
 
J

just_in_ct

35
0
so if you are traveling or bringing something to someone to trade then don't have more than 28.5 on you.
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Living dead girl
23,596
638
Emery is so full of shit. He calls farmers who oppose 19 greedy prohibitionists and yet made tens of millions of dollars for selling seeds at exorbitant prices...
I kinda noticed that. Pretty amusing, to be accused of being greedy by the likes of Emery. He who is ostensibly the Prince of Pot is not one I want representing the likes of me.

But hey! If Marc likes it then so should I, right?

Wanna know what I have sittin' on my sofa behind me (now the state only sends one, so I had to wrestle my 21yo for it)? The Official California Voter Guide. Every time I get one, since the age of 18, I read it cover to cover, sometimes twice, before voting.

YOU can posses whatever you want in your home. The ounce is actually 28.5 and that's what you are allowed to have on your person outside of your home.
That's not what the proposition says. It makes no distinction whatsoever for your location when you're in possession of that ounce.
 
B

Backward_Z

86
0
SeaMaiden said:
YOU can posses whatever you want in your home. The ounce is actually 28.5 and that's what you are allowed to have on your person outside of your home.
That's not what the proposition says. It makes no distinction whatsoever for your location when you're in possession of that ounce.

(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.

1 oz is the travel limit. You can have as much as you want at your garden site.
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Living dead girl
23,596
638
Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city's limits remain illegal, but that the city's citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
?

And you left out this preceding portion of the text:
Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls


  • 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:
      1. Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual's personal consumption, and not for sale.
That is decidedly not just for transportation, BZ. Gotta point that out.
 
motherlode

motherlode

@Rolln_J
Supporter
5,524
313
I guess I'm just a fucktard then - I fail to see where that says I can possess as much as I want at my garden site

fuck it even says PROCESS no more then an ounce


but hey thats just semantics right?
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Living dead girl
23,596
638
We're both fucktards, then, motherlode. It doesn't say that, it doesn't qualify where you may possess that ounce, only where you may not possess or consume that ounce.
 
motherlode

motherlode

@Rolln_J
Supporter
5,524
313
word SM - just a couple of fucktard peas in a fucktard pod
 
motherlode

motherlode

@Rolln_J
Supporter
5,524
313
so how much is that permit again that will turn you into a criminal unless your a fucktard and cant grow more than an ounce in your 5 x 5
 
BC_Bud

BC_Bud

Premium Member
Supporter
291
18
I'm no lawyer but I interpreted it like this:

(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.

Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls

(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.

Item (i) refers to personal possession for transportation with a 1 oz limit. Item (ii) of section 11300(a) does not say anything about quantity.

That's what I guess is called a gap in the law. And I think it was purposedly left out, because how could you guess how much exactly your plant would produce before it's chopped, dried and cured?

Say you guess your plant will produce 1 oz, but you do shit right and produce 1.5 oz, a type of improved yield which is not unheard once a grower gets a plant dialed in or lets it veg for an extra week or two, for example. If this was not left open, the law would then criminalize the grower just for being a better grower.

The way I see it is that you can produce as much as you are able in that 25 sq ft area, but can only bring out with you outside the growing premises 1 oz of bud ready to smoke.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom