The second issue of age limit is a concession I am willing to give. This says something because I am not even 21 yet. I will just renew my rec. It is still annoying that at 16, we can drive a 1-2 ton hunk of metal legally at speeds up to 70 mph, at 18 we can own a gun and give ourselves cancer with cancerettes but we can't use a substance safer than aspirin? Oh well, like I said I'll just renew my rec.
Meaning that local governments can up your grow area, your personal possession limit, as well as what you can buy from the store. Not only is 5x5 fair for the personal grower, but an oz out in public is fair as well (name me an instance where you'll need more?). But on top of these fair limits, the local government may expand on them as well. Better start getting buddy-buddy with your local politicians ;)
Yes only if the amendments are intended to limit the scope of the initiative
The hemp industry deserves it's place back on the American farm. It could help California get one step closer achieving energy independence.
So your claiming the authors/proponents of this initiative rich lee and jeff jones don't have an agenda? They just invested millions of their own money to fund this campaign from the goodness of their hearts?
Thats like saying to prisoners your free to walk around your jail cell. This initiative restricts possession, cultivation and consumption rights. It attempts to keep cannabis in the shadows and hidden from the public eye by criminalizing public consumption and continues to fine/sentence people for marijuana crimes. It will continue to attach negative stigmas to every cannabis consumer, grower or retailer that simply seeks the social acceptance that only true legalization can offer.
Nothing is stopping these people in California from obtaining medical recommendations. Cali is probably the easiest and cheapest place to obtain a recommendation.
Well because the initiative explicitly protects medical users from the requirements and limits of the bill, I'm sure there will be plenty of places for me to buy my meds from. Businessmen don't just ignore a huge percentage of their customer base (that being the 18-21 college crowd).
Sorry, that's a democracy. 51% get to choose what's fair for the other 49%. That's not my definition of fair, it's the author of the initiative's definition. I just said that I can accept that as being fair. I think it's fair relative to what's currently allowed: nothing.
This is due to its illegality. They are worried about the black market and such, and there is still a stigma attached since it's an illegal product. Take away the illegality, you take away the stigma. Plus if you look at the counties that upped the old 6/12/8oz limits of SB420 it's clear that there are plenty of localities which are tolerant of higher limits.
Well that is 1) an opinion and 2) a hypothetical statement. I'm not talking about what might occur I'm talking about what will occur. And that includes local gov'ts having the option to up those limits. Frankly if you can't get your local gov't to achieve something, especially with the backing of other constituents then you should either move, vote the people out, or run for office yourself.
Maybe my wording was off, as it's impossible to say neither side has an agenda. Rather, one side has an agenda that goes against the ultimate goal of the cannabis culture (legalization) and the other side has an agenda which is in line with that goal (and as you have stated, sunk millions into the campaign to achieve that goal). It's easy to see which side is which.
Really? And what are those rights currently? It's hard to restrict rights that don't exist yet.
You can't drink in public, or be drunk in public it will be no different with cannabis (whether I agree with that is different). Cannabis Cafes will be allowed, so in that sense people will be walking down the street and see us happily enjoying our spliff with our coffee cakes inside a private cafe. Are we going to be having huge jam circles in the park passing PK blunts? No but it's not like we can do legally now so we're not really missing out on anything.
Not at all, because now we will feel more open about telling people about our use, and tell our friends who don't smoke, hey wanna go to XXX Cafe and try this? Without worrying about that person wigging out and narc-ing or worry about them viewing us as a criminal. It will be no different than co-workers saying "hey wanna grab a drink?" no harm in that statement just like now "hey I got some nice OG kush, wanna deuce a blunt after work?" would be a harmless statement thus turning more people on etc etc.
Oh I'm well aware. But why go thru the hassle? Maybe I don't want to spend $100-$200 for the right to grow, when an opportunity to do it for free, sans doctors and half-truth medical condition, is right in front of us?
Businesses, such as bar owners, definitely ignore catering to minors because its illegal. The same will apply here because this initiative doesn't grant immunity to sell cannabis to people 18-20 just because they have a doctors note. It doesn't strip 18-20 years old of their medical rights, it just criminalizes selling to them. I wouldn't want to jeopardize my retail cannabis license to cater to this small demographic.
Again, this is because of the stigma attached to cannabis' illegality, in general. While medical cannabis is legal, cannabis is cannabis. It's all the same flower. And outside of a medical environment, it's possession is illegal. With more people being exposed to it in a legal environment that stigma will slowly erode. No longer will the curious have to go out of their way to get a Dr's Rec and all that if they want to experiment legally, they could just go to a retailer, try it for themselves and see it's not so terrible. A lot less effort.
You speak for yourself, that's fair enough. I'm thinking about Johnny Dimebag who gets busted for a small personal grow and ends up with a criminal record, blocking him from financial aid for college, taking away his driving privilege, branding him as a 3rd class citizen who can't get a decent job etc. This happens all too often, whether it's a small grow or a couple oz in the trunk. It's great that California has decriminalized an oz but there's still a fine and still a record. Still 60,000+ people getting arrested every year for a cannabis offense. I say, why wait one more day than we need to, to protect another 60,000 from getting arrested next year? This isn't about you or me man it's about our community as a whole.
That's called drinking on private property where they are licensed to do that. Try having a block party with beer and no permit see what happens.
Same reason they're even talking about this initiative $$$. It's all legal anyways, there's no use in not allowing them. By automatically assuming they won't do this or that you are of course making this initiative sound a lot worse than it is, boxing it into a corner of negativity. The point is that the option is there; that is simply something we don't have right now.
Yes people have been making those statements and it's happening! I know a lot of people who've started using because it's legal, and it's usually for a legitimate medical use like pain or sleeplessness and they don't like narcotics. I wasn't really referring to friends, maybe more like new friends or co-workers. People who you haven't really crossed that barrier of telling them you use yet. When it's legal it won't matter if they know or not. It won't be a crime to pass that joint to the left at the concert anymore.
There's nothing to "think" about it- it WILL be a free right. That line you quoted related to commercial cultivation, as evidenced by the line right above it saying "Commercial Regulations and Controls". Cultivation for personal use will not be licensed.
Simple economics. What legal renewable commodity do you know to cost over $200 an oz? Especially one that yields pounds at a time? Having a legal medical market has already shown wholesale prices drop 30%-50% in the last 5 years alone. Without the black market holding up the falsely inflated price, coupled with the huge influx of legal growers and retailers, the price will most certainly drop substantially. Even with the hypothetical taxes and fees and whatnot. And my statement about med patients having cheaper meds will especially be true, because they won't have to pay those taxes and fees and as I said the price will not be falsely inflated to keep them from diverting their meds to the black market. So medical dispensaries and collectives will actually be able to sell the meds at true non-profit prices, probably between $50-$100 an oz and almost free for low income patients.
But there is reason to believe the majority of them will seek retail licensing.
Sure, for someone who is 21+ that wants to try pot, it will be easier to purchase. I haven't purchased cannabis in a long, long time. This new found convenience for some will be lost on me.
I cant think of a more public place than a ballpark, private property or not. Consuming alcohol or tobacco in public holds only the negative stigmas that come attached with its health concerns. Cannabis use doesn't have those same health concerns, so why are they strictly forbidding public consumption? How can the stigma be dropped if its still a crime to smoke in public. Your still breaking the law. Gradually, it might become more accepted, I hear your argument. We could also just gradually wait for a better initiative, that didn't seek to keep cannabis in the shadows. Make cannabis profitable yes, this initiative will do that, socially acceptable, not yet you damn hippies! :damnhippie:
Heres my thoughts on this section
Regardless of what you think man in the eyes of the law a ball park is not in "public". That ball park could very well have licenses permitting cannabis use on the premises next year, should this initiative pass.
While more people get arrested and more money our state doesn't have gets wasted. Or that money could go towards implementing the first cannabis legalization law in the history of our country. Hmmmm so hard to choose.
True well if it's outdoors it won't matter if there's minors present cuz that's not "a space" it's outdoors. And it isn't smoking in public, concerts are usually held on private property not public property. Yea it would suck if that person I'm trying to be nice to by sharing with is under 21 but good thing if it's an undercover I can run pretty damn fast!
I mean bro all that is in the Commercial Regulation and Control section, which is completely separate from the Personal Regulation and Controls part, in which there is no mention of licensing, or inspection, or any of that. That's all for commercial operators only.
In my first post on this site I noted the sections specifically exempting med patients from everything put forth by this initiative, including taxes.
Emphasis mine
Well my point you were alluding to was referring to med patients and medical collectives and dispensaries. These people will remain separate from the recreational side of things. And thus will be able to become true non-profits and sell "at cost" meaning enough to pay the bills. The company that sells herb to Health Canada says it only costs them $15 an oz or something like that to produce the herb, overhead included. It's not a stretch to say that after paying the salaries of employees and board members, a non profit collective could charge under $100 an oz for their members. Even if retail for recreational users drops below $100 an oz, it's still like hundreds of percent profit. Especially if the retailer is vertically integrated and does all the growing themselves. The sheer volume of customers is going to be well enough to make sure everyone gets their slice of the pie.
Cannabis users have a $20 annual cost to society due to health effects. Tobacco users have a $822 cost to society annually and alcohol users have a $318 annual cost to society. So their justification for raising taxes would fall apart there. When/ if this initiative passes, I would like to see our community press for a percentage based tax, not a fixed dollar amount. Just like there are meals tax and candy tax, I would be okay with a cannabis tax. An extra 3%-5% on top of the ~10% state and local sales tax. Putting a fixed dollar amount as tax serves to keep the price artificially high and potentially causing diversion to the black market, one of the big reasons I didn't support this initiative at first with its $50 excise tax. As prices lower while supply and demand find equilibrium, we could well see oz prices approach $50 so a $50 tax would be a 100% tax! On top of sales tax! You can see how ridiculous that is.
Californians would do well to get more involved in their local politics, lest they continue to be robbed blind and still manage to end up billions in the red. I think it is more important for voters to follow different patterns by actually holding politicians accountable, then the politicians pattern will change. Until then, we can not expect them to change without putting their feet to the fire. To expect them to change on their own is foolish. Instead the sheep go "baaaa" and vote for whoever is on the ballot, whose color matches theirs. Not really paying attention to what happens in between elections unless something particularly controversial comes up. That is what I think should change if we want to fix California's broken system. That and the fact that I think only ballot initiatives that will have a positive effect on state revenues (adding revenue instead of removing it) should be allowed. But that is a different debate altogether ;)
Tell that to the people who have been cited or arrested for public intoxication at ballparks, aka drunk and disorderly conduct. There's a reason stadiums have a police presence, and even their own jail cells. Since the majority of ballparks built were funded publicly, they actually fall under the definition of semi-public spaces and the laws governing these semi-public spaces apply.
Our state isn't diverting any of its current funding dedicated to arrest, prosecute or jail marijuana criminals to implement a legalization law. Taxes received from the sale or the licensing and permitting cannabis would be funding the "implementation of a legal regulatory framework to give California more control over the cultivation, processing, transportation, distribution, and sales of cannabis." Our state will still unfortunately receive and spend public funds citing, arresting, prosecuting and jailing the marijuana criminals this initiative fails to legally protect.
Thats because you have people like dds in Canada, growing 4lb trees. God bless you dds. But California dispensaries have had more than a decade to lower the retail price of high grade cannabis and it hasn't happened yet. Since most medical dispensaries will seek retail licensing, medical patients will have fewer options to acquire their medicine. As the larger scale medical growers switch their focus on producing for the recreational market, the smaller scale growers won't be able to meet the demands of the medical market. Thus increasing the demand and inflating the price. Remember, medical collectives will still be required to be supplied by its members on a closed loop system, as required by sb420. The recreational dispensaries that are required to be supplied by state approved sources will have access to cheaper mass produced cannabis. Even though these retail outlets will still cater to some medical patients its unclear whether or not they will be exempted from providing cannabis to medical patients under 20 and whether or not these patients would be exempted from the taxes associated with sales at a retail outlet. Medical consumers might only receive those exemptions at medical dispensaries.
I've seen caps drop lower and lower, I don't know if it's the economy or the flood of mediocre crap from last years harvest or what but I rarely see the 65-75 8ths that were once common, shit I complain if it it's over 40 now. This is just in the past few years. Hash has dropped in price too, its pretty much the same price as buds these days. It used to be about 50% more. Just thought I'd point out my observation on that point.
