Here's why CA NORML says vote YES on Prop 215!!!

[amstercal]

Seamaiden--I totally agree with what you're saying, but I can't see it being so any time soon. I wasn't kidding when I said a neighbor chastise me for daring to feed my kid dinner at 7pm, regardless of the rest of his schedule. Also, people stare harshly at my mom if she's smoking outside within 20 feet of my kid. Outside. Ironically we can be in a parking lot at the time and still get the look. I would hope a vaporizer would help the 2nd hand smoke issue, but most people don't even know what one is.

People love to judge parents. People love to assume they would do better. People love to assume if you smoke weed, you're leaving it around for your kids, sending them through big hazes of smoke. See above.

 

[amstercal]

Darth is right about a few things, or at least there's some miscommunication somewhere:
It's not a "closed space," It's "any space"--sorry I gave the prop too much credit. It won't happen again. But if my kid's in my space... ok, I have to tangent here. Who's defining what "any space" is? Whatever random judge I would get? Scary notion. One of my professors wrote her thesis on how "domestic space" was any space you occupied with the people you cared about. A ridiculous example, but vague terms like that are just not ok with me.
So back to if my kid's in my space, I no longer am protected under the prop. Why would I vote for that? If you don't have a kid, you can't understand the thought that you might be separated from them, whether it's because you're in jail because it's no longer personal consumption or because my nosy neighbor called CPS to report me. Why would any parent vote for something which calls them out as a group outside of what's ok? It doesn't spell out exactly what would happen, but right now I'm not outside the law, so why would I vote to make myself so?

(c) “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this act shall permit, cannabis:
(4) Smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.


And anyone who said it was a "minor" who would be sent to jail, must have misspoken: A 19 year old could get 5 years for OFFERING, not only giving, but OFFERING to give a joint to a 14 year old and a 21 year old can get 6 months for EACH OFFENSE of giving a joint to a 20 year old. That's just madness I wouldn't vote for.

(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.
(c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each offense.

 

[motherlode]

so if a 21 year old passes a joint to a 20 year old, its a crime

man now thats progress!

I will defend that this bill will create more criminals then it lets out of jail

most people in jail for weed charges arent there for under a zip

 

[Backward_Z]

On the "space" thing, I've heard reports that Richard Lee personally has said that he meant "room" and never thought that the phrasing would be an issue or that a judge might interpret it differently and he admits the mistake.

This illustrates what was one of my initial concerns with 19--what does Richard Lee know about writing laws? I know he hired a lawyer to help him, but it's Lee who gets final say. How's he to know if the lawyer did a good job or if the law says what he thinks it says?

Very good, you've proven my point. NOWHERE HERE does it define "space" as an entire house NOR state that you will have your children taken away as a penalty.

It doesn't define it as not not that either. It doesn't define it at all. That means it's open for interpretation. And guess what, you or I don't get to decide on how it gets interpreted. Maybe some judges will see it as, "room," and treat it fairly. I'm concerned that in the more backwater parts of the state, the places that strongly oppose legalization entirely, judges will see it as, "house," or "apartment complex."

And let's please keep the arguing to the arguments--refute the argument and not the person. If the only refutation you have is to ad hominem, it's not enough.

 

[motherlode]

This illustrates what was one of my initial concerns with 19--what does Richard Lee know about writing laws? I know he hired a lawyer to help him, but it's Lee who gets final say. How's he to know if the lawyer did a good job or if the law says what he thinks it says?

dennis peron told him he didnt think it was a good/well written law and look where that got him

never thought the phrasing would be an issue - lmao

 

[Seamaiden]

I owe a few of you thanks for coming to my defense as well as answering the direct questions posed to me. You've saved me some trouble, thank you.

Where did I say minors would go to jail, though? Perhaps I mentioned miners, and seeing as how I'm in the Motherlode.... no?

What I was trying to illustrate previously is that despite the protections already afforded 215 patients, people are still being targeted. I guess that didn't translate very well. I am firm in my stance that there is a real risk of losing children in your care (I'm not going to limit this to just one's own children, because my husband and I have taken in several who needed a home) because if there is jail time attached to the "offense" of using within the same area/space (legalese!) then someone must care for the kids, and often the state intervenes in these cases. Not sure what there is to debate about that.

I've also been trying to illustrate how, despite having had 215 in effect for almost 15 years, we are still targeted, we are still discriminated against, we are still treated as criminals, we must still fight to assert the rights 215 afforded us almost 15 years ago!

But I also know that people will only see what they wish to see and if they don't want to see anything other than what fits within their own paradigm, then there's not much else to be said about it. C'est la vies.

I've worked with some special needs children, too. Autistic and Tourette's syndrome. I've seen what cannabis can do for these children. But, they're children. Parents of such kids already have to sneak around and dose their kids on the super-sly (results have been amazing, and watching the tics go away with my own Touretter son, again, just amazing). What happens to them should 19 come to pass?

I haven't even begun to touch upon the idea of having far too many laws on the books and how that affects the efficient operations of a state or municipality.

 

[amstercal]

Seamaiden--I hope after your post some of the haters feel like they should stow it. I am in awe that you also take in other children in addition to your own. Girl, how do you find the time for all that? I believe DF was talking about karma. Can't talk any smack on yours.

I totally agree about the special needs children. I have a lot of family who are teachers. Autism is on the rise in a scary way. It sucks that there's such a stigma that doctors often don't look into MJ as a treatment. Hopefully one day it will be about what's best for the kids rather than this other crap.

 

[BOSSMAN88188]

I am voting NO.
Just reading it proves it bad.
I am surprised Cooley doesn't Support it.
Every patient I care give for is also voting NO!

 

[amstercal]

Does anyone know how 19 would affect smell etc as a probable cause? I saw on NORML's website they have someone claiming it would take it away as probable cause, but it doesn't say he's a lawyer.

 

[Seamaiden]

I think it would depend on how the state AG interprets the law, should it come to pass. That said, I don't think that if s/he said that smell is no longer enough to gain a warrant that it would really stop any LE who are of a mind.

Seamaiden--I hope after your post some of the haters feel like they should stow it. I am in awe that you also take in other children in addition to your own. Girl, how do you find the time for all that? I believe DF was talking about karma. Can't talk any smack on yours.

I totally agree about the special needs children. I have a lot of family who are teachers. Autism is on the rise in a scary way. It sucks that there's such a stigma that doctors often don't look into MJ as a treatment. Hopefully one day it will be about what's best for the kids rather than this other crap.

I have to be honest and put it on my husband. If it were up to me we'd both be living like a couple of troglodytes. But then you have teenagers, and those teens have friends, and those friends have fucked up lives, tugs on your heart strings and next thing you know you NEED a minimum of 4 bedrooms.

The issue with differing special needs, and my direct experience is with autism (high functioning) and Tourette's, is a whole other ball of wax. The receptiveness, or lack thereof, really depends on the doctor, where and how they practice (medical group versus private practice, for instance). My husband's MD will barely discuss MMJ. My DOs, both my gyno and internist (hubby & wife team, they're a blast), however, are completely open to the idea and even encouraged me to use MMJ for my back and hip problems, however, they don't want to have problems with the feds so won't touch making reco's themselves.

And so I find myself wondering about the prescribing psych my youngest boy went to before he stopped meds and her receptiveness to the idea. The drugs we used to control the symptoms were extremely strong, heavy duty drugs. I'm talking the sort of stuff used to control psychotic episodes--Zyprexa, Depakote, clonidine/clonipil, Haldol (yeah, Haldol)--the list is extensive. And these were just a few of the Rx drugs that were prescribed for a child.

Yet, here we have a plant that carries with it not a single one of the risks that the drugs I listed above carry and we can't use it for these kids? It's better to risk serious physical and mental harm than try a small experiment with a little bit of weed?

My goodness.

 

[Seamaiden]

Not if you knew what a dirty motherfucker he is, too. Neither of them is good for us as citizens, in my very honest opinion. Jerry keeps putting this phrase in his ads "at this stage in his/my life". Huh? So, you weren't really prepared or knew enough to be good as a _________________ [fill in the blank] before??? You weren't ready before? Clean up the mess you left in Oakland before you get started on the rest of the state.

If it were up to me I'd first have a constitutional convention to change how the state handles propositions and legislation, then I'd have a lottery of qualified individuals for these important positions, and anyone who has demonstrated *any* level of malfeasance is automatically disqualified.

 

[motherlode]

I fucking HATE voting for the lesser of 2 evils!

we need a "Do whats right" Party!

 

[Seamaiden]

My general policy is to vote out incumbents because I believe that if voters, as a whole, began doing that (along with realigning their definition of such elected folk to "representative" rather than "leader") then it would keep each and every one of them on their toes, as well as disallowing the types of networks that have developed to come into existence in the first place. No one would be able to become too comfortable in their position, unless their performance is exemplary. Stellar, even.

 

[greenthumbdanny]

Darth Fader you need to chill with your attitude>>talking pronto<<<
as the farm will manage to get by without updates from your 400watt closet grow of blue dream<<>>word?

gtd

 

[amstercal]

So I didn't see anything about the probable cause issue in the prop and no one else did either? And it's definitely not a de facto sort of situation, right? Leaving it up the the AG again scares the hell out of me.
A lot of the yes people claim that we need 19 because with 215 officers will still raid and arrest you and just let the judge sort it out. Well, if smell is still on the table as a probable cause, really what will we have won? We will still be subject to raids and arrests (yes, hopefully with acquittals), but again, we're back to the only people getting new rights are cultivators who aren't patients, and the removal of the threat of an infraction plus $100 fine.
That's so crazy that the probable cause issue isn't clearly spelled out. Kinda the lynchpin of most MJ arrests, no?

Every election I think about that Simpsons episode where the 2 candidates are revealed as aliens and tell the Springfield-ites: "It's a 2-party system. You must vote for one of us." Then everyone walks around saying it's not their fault; they voted for the other alien.

And Seamaiden--I hear you, but I don't see it changing soon, not when there the attitude is reinforced so often. There was an episode of "Private Practice" last week where the mom (played by Justine Bateman) of an autistic kid gave him some of the MJ she had been prescribed. The dr got mad at her so she agreed to not give him any more prescription. She had to rush him to the er the next day because she bought weed off the street and it was laced with pcp.
First, I have many years as an MJ smoker. Has anyone here EVER bought a bag and found it to be laced with pcp? Never happened to me or any of the other heads I know. So ridiculous. If people continue to get messages like this from a source as lame as a tv show, the uphill battle will be even steeper.
It's hilarious/sad to me how anyone could consider MJ as harmful as that list of drugs.

 

[amstercal]

And here's the article from NORML's website that got me thinking about the probable cause? Does this guy have any legal backup for his statements AT ALL? I feel like he's dispensing bad legal advice, from Oregon no less. Again, I have such a problem with people who won't actually have to live under the law telling people from CA what's good for them. I kind of expected better from NORML.

I copied a bunch of stuff out that concerns me. California employers are "at will" so how would that protect anyone from pee test firings? And there's also a lot of the whole argument of passing prop 19 because there will be so many people with weed now, who will notice if you're actually breaking the law with a bigger garden? Why would anyone vote for making something they're already allowed to do illegal under the guise of legalization?



Even under Prop 215, the adult cannabis consumer is guilty of being a criminal unless proven innocent as a patient. *When Prop 19 passes, the adult cannabis consumer is considered innocent until proven guilty. *It is a complete game changer for law enforcement, because:
• the smell of marijuana on your person is no longer probable cause to search you;
• that joint in your pocket means nothing;
• the seizure of stems, leaves, and seeds from your trash is irrelevant;
...
• marijuana sniffing K-9 units are out of a job; and
• pre-employment drug testing programs become harder for businesses to maintain for cannabis.
...
And even if you don’t follow the law perfectly, who’s to know? *If you’re pulled over and there’s an ounce and a half in your backpack, how does that cop know? *Does it “smell heavy” in your car? *So long as you refuse a search, how will he know? *The smell of pot isn’t cause for a search; you’re allowed to have an ounce of it.
...
If you have a 10′x10′ garden, who’s to know?
...
(c)**** No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act.* Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.
This is a big one. *You can’t be punished or denied privileges based on pot smoking. *The only exception is employers preventing you from smoking pot on the job. *Note the “actually impairs job performance” language. *This is the loophole through which some attorney is going to drive a big truck delivering us freedom from workplace pee testing for cannabis. *Pee test metabolites do not prove workplace impairment.

 

[Backward_Z]

And here's the article from NORML's website that got me thinking about the probable cause? Does this guy have any legal backup for his statements AT ALL? I feel like he's dispensing bad legal advice, from Oregon no less. Again, I have such a problem with people who won't actually have to live under the law telling people from CA what's good for them. I kind of expected better from NORML.

"Radical" Russ Belville is not a lawyer. According to Jennifer Soares, he has personally voiced concerns about prop 19 but publicly he supports it fully at the behest of NORML.

And even if you don’t follow the law perfectly, who’s to know? *If you’re pulled over and there’s an ounce and a half in your backpack, how does that cop know? *Does it “smell heavy” in your car? *So long as you refuse a search, how will he know? *The smell of pot isn’t cause for a search; you’re allowed to have an ounce of it.
...
If you have a 10′x10′ garden, who’s to know?

Again with the prop 19 supporters already advocating breaking the new law.

 

[Darth Fader]

And here's the article from NORML's website that got me thinking about the probable cause? Does this guy have any legal backup for his statements AT ALL?

NORML has plenty of lawyers so I would imagine that, yes, he does.

 

[Nobull56]

I'm a newbie to the farm but not to the grow. So here's my two cents from California.
One of the major problems is that 'Local' bodies will have a voter approved law to limit tax & regulate cannabis.
Here in Lake Co we have been fighting moratoriums and zoning regulations that will require 10 acre minimum to have a grow! They also want a couple of thousand dollars in fees for the ‘zoning permit’, then fees to Sheriff & Health Department for inspections.
If Porp 19 passes the big business of DEA & the Prison housing industry will not stop!
We need to enact Federal Freedom!

 

[amstercal]

NORML has plenty of lawyers so I would imagine that, yes, he does.

That's a mouthful right there. You IMAGINE he has lawyers backing up his statements.

I think there's a lot of naive idealism going on about prop 19. You would think after watching the aftermath of 215 and seeing the so much of how it plays out is policy... of the AGs of Bush or Obama... people would see that we can write a law with the best of intentions, but law enforcement etc have their own agenda. If it doesn't say it explicitly, then assume it may work against you. Even then, there is the federal problem.

Even if he has lawyers backing him up, how could he say definitively that odor is no longer probable cause, since a court will end up having to sort it out?