none of the commercial growers or venders are gonna want this BILL or any other Bill that makes recreational cannabis use/growing legal to pass....they want to keep it illegal for you to grow and posses as much as you want cuz then they will be out of a job..Thats what it boils down to..
none of the commercial growers or venders are gonna want this BILL or any other Bill that makes recreational cannabis use/growing legal to pass....they want to keep it illegal for you to grow and posses as much as you want cuz then they will be out of a job..Thats what it boils down to..
I’m sure that’s what most of them are thinking, but you never know how things will turn out. If our society decides pot is OK to smoke and it’s in main stream movies not just stoner college kid movies. Sales could go thru the roof and demand could out strip supply, for a while till the big money gets in and takes over bulk sales. There will be a big demand for elite and “unobtainable” weed. There will always be “You have got to try this shit” designer grower names “Wolfgang Puck” and brands. The Black Market might grow huge. It will be legal someday and the sooner the better.
:icon_spin:
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.Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted... may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity
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 ;)a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts..to.. authorize.. the following: such larger amounts as the local authority deems appropriate and proper under local circumstances, than those established under section 11300(a) for personal possession and cultivation, or under this section for commercial cultivation, processing, transportation and sale by persons authorized to do so under this section
7. 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[AKA Prop 215] through 11362.9[AKA SB420].
8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 [AKA Prop 215] and 11362.7 through 11362.9 [AKA SB420].
Yes only if the amendments are intended to limit the scope of the initiativeBro voter approved initiatives have to be amended by another voter approved initiative
Amendments to the limitations in section 11300, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations
Would we all feel better if this was touted as a glorified "decriminalization and depenalization" initiative instead? If it was called anything but "legalization" would you vote for it? Don't let philosophy, ideology, and semantics get in the way of progress. So goes Cali, so goes the country. This is evident in how many states immediately jumped on the medical wagon after Prop 215 passed. Within 4 years 9 states had medical programs of some sort. Come on people this is about freedom to just chill on your personal garden and personal stash. And of course the hemp industry!! My god the hemp industry could be huge! I'd say if given the proper attention it deserves it could be twice as valuable as the recreational cannabis side of things.
The hemp industry deserves it's place back on the American farm. It could help California get one step closer achieving energy independence.authorize the production of hemp or non-active cannabis for horticultural and industrial purposes
The first issue was taken care of, nowhere in the initiative does it mandate what the tax on cannabis should be...
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.
I was hung up on the third issue, growing and possession, for a while. That is until I read this:
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 ;)
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?it's safe to say that if you oppose this initiative it is you that have an agenda, not the proponents.
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.If you oppose this, you are opposing freedom and you are opposing progress.
Nothing is stopping these people in California from obtaining medical recommendations. Cali is probably the easiest and cheapest place to obtain a recommendation.Currently, non-med users can not grow anything legally, they cannot possess anything legally, and cannot buy anything legally.
VOTE YES
IF NOT THEN YOU'RE EITHER IGNORANT OR HAVE A MORE SINISTER AGENDA
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).Since this initiative criminalizes the sale of cannabis from adults 21 and over to people between 18-21 and you might find it hard to acquire cannabis from your local medical dispensary should they choose to become a recreational retail outlet. Nowhere in this statement does it offer an exemptions for medical patients 18-21.
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.Sorry, but your definition of whats fair shouldn't have to apply to everyone else.
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.I don't know of a single local government that hasn't sought to limit dispensaries and the personal possession and cultivation limits of patients.
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.I find it very hard to believe they would suddenly embrace cannabis and expand the limited restrictions this initiative seeks to place upon us
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.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?
Really? And what are those rights currently? It's hard to restrict rights that don't exist yet.This initiative restricts possession, cultivation and consumption rights
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.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
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.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
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?Nothing is stopping these people in California from obtaining medical recommendations. Cali is probably the easiest and cheapest place to obtain a recommendation.
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.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).
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.
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?
And for a lot of patients who can't afford their meds, this initiative will be great because it will finally allow the prices to drop substantially. No longer will they be buoyed just because of the black market value.
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
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.Medical cannabis isn't illegal, yet the social stigmas weren't magically erased upon the inception of prop 215. Cities still view dispensaries as a nuisance and have limited their numbers.
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.My goal is true legalization, I'm not so desperate that I'll accept the first initiative that comes along, pretending to be legalizing cannabis.
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.Really, so when I'm drinking at a ball game whats that called then?
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.Cannabis cafes will only be allowed if local governments allow them. They hardly tolerate limited numbers of dispensaries now, why would they suddenly embrace cannabis cafes next to starbucks
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.People have been making statements like that long before prop 215 and they are definitely make them now. I wouldn't call people who might 'wig out' or 'narc' on me for pot my friends, strangers perhaps
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.I don't think cultivation will be a free right
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.No where in this initiative does it claim the price of cannabis will drop
But there is reason to believe the majority of them will seek retail licensing.There's no reason to think that all the dispensaries are just gonna poof and disappear.
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.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.
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: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.
It won't be a crime to pass that joint to the left at the concert anymore.
Heres my thoughts on this sectionThere'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.
And my statement about med patients having cheaper meds will especially be true, because they won't have to pay those taxes and fees
Well Johnny should of got a doctors note or a better lawyer. There might be 60,000 getting arresting next year, but many of those same people will still be getting arrested if this initiative passes
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.I cant think of a more public place than a ballpark, private property or not
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.We could also just gradually wait for a better initiative, that didn't seek to keep cannabis in the shadows
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!This initiative seeks to specifically make that very act a couple of different crimes. Smoking in public and look minors are present!
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.Its clearly stated here local governments will have the force of law to control or license cultivation. "applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises" Even though it doesn't specifically say for commercial or personal purposes, at the end of the commercial regulation and control section are these 2 important statements which gives local authorities the power to... etc etc etc They can charge you for privilege of having your grow room inspected, measured, licensed and approved.
In my first post on this site I noted the sections specifically exempting med patients from everything put forth by this initiative, including taxes.Where in this initiative does it exempt med patients from taxes?, I remember hearing this claim made, but I can't remember ever reading it
Emphasis mine7. 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[AKA Prop 215] through 11362.9[AKA SB420].
8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 [AKA Prop 215] and 11362.7 through 11362.9 [AKA SB420]
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.The people who will be investing in a regulated cannabis industry do not want to devalue the cannabis currency. They want to protect their potentially billion dollar future ecomony. Which depends on the retail price remaining relatively stable.
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.Mostly because they have so many externalized costs to society that need to be recouped, but also as ways to generate more revenue. Cannabis will be looked at the same way by politicians, they will continue to levy more and higher taxes upon it
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 ;)Of course, this is only if politicians choose to follow the same patterns they have for the last 100 years.
Well that's not very nice =( Johnny was in good health and didn't want to take advantage of the medical system, and why should he have to pay for a lawyer when we're now presenting him with the option of not getting arrested in the first place? And those 60,000 arrests, I forgot to mention, were just the misdemeanor arrests. And growing any amount is a felony in California.
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.Regardless of what you think man in the eyes of the law a ball park is not in "public".
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
I think you're getting hung up on minute details, assumptions, hypothesis, and semantics when you should just take a step back, and read this initiative for what it is: taking criminal penalties away from adults for cultivating and buying for their personal use. If it wasn't called but rather a glorified decriminalization law would it make ya feel better man? I can see that there are things in the initiative that you don't agree with but do they really outweigh the possibility of "pulling the lever" in favor of something that will remove criminal penalties for all responsible adult cannabis consumers over 21? Not to mention all of your accomplices who share your viewpoint. I'd hate to be on the wrong side of history on this one.
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.California dispensaries have had more than a decade to lower the retail price of high grade cannabis and it hasn't happened yet
1) It says you can grow in a 5x5 area, and all harvest can be
possessed on the premises it's grown on, but you can only legally
possess an ounce. So if your 5x5 yields you more than an oz, what do
you do with the extra harvest? And where can you legally store it?
You can legally store anything above an ounce in your residence. We wouldn't recommend traveling with more than an ounce if you're not approved otherwise.
2) It says a 5x5 are per residence. Does this mean that regardless of
the amount of occupants, you can only have one 5x5 grow per household.
Like say my 3 roommates and I all want to grow, will we all have to
share that 5x5 area or so we each get our own 5x5?
5x5 per private residence. You may live in a county/area with a bigger regulation but unfortunately, to prevent illegal sales, the restriction is 25 sq. ft/household.
3. It says that the limits in the initiative can be made less
restrictive by the legislature, does that mean that one day the
legislature could lower the age limit and allow smoking in public
without having to pass another ballot initiative? A lot of people I've
talked to feel that an adult is an 18 year old, and if they can
legally buy a gun and go fight in a war they should be able to buy a
joint every once in a while, and a lot of people would also like to
relax outside and smoke some cannabis, much like tobacco users are
free to smoke their cancer sticks outside and around their kids all
they want.
Yes, the measures in our initiatives are floors but we allow local governments to make changes as they see fit. They can't make things MORE restrictive but they can make things LESS restrictive.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?