Caliornia Cannabis Hemp Initiative Or Cchi 2016

[markscastle]

You also failed to state the fact that they got more signatures than any of the other attempts despite the other attempters had $ backing. It`s the most popular legalization attempt out there, we just need to get it on the ballot and it`s a ringer! So do what you can and make sure you sign! If nothing else send them some donations , they can still use paid help if they had the cash to pay them to get some of the signatures!

 

[liketosmoke]

cal will go legal in 2016 for sure, what bill will they vote on hear is the four bills trying to get on the ballot.

http://www.theweedblog.com/initiatives-california-marijuana-legalization-2016/

The group behind the Marijuana Control, Legalization and Revenue Act of 2014 – which failed to gather enough signatures to appear on the ballot in 2014 — announced today that they want public input on 2016 language. The group wants to be the most inclusive, they say, and is using an open Google Document to solicit ideas.

The MCLR’s announcement follows opening moves by a second group that failed to make the ballot in 2014, or 2012, or 2010 — the California Cannabis Hemp Initiative. That group promises to legalize twelve pounds of pot for personal use and has been working to stoke its base by appearing in a string of videos by HashBar TV.

Thirdly, Californians can now review the California Artisan Cannabis Initiative – 2016 which comes from Northern California lawyer Omar Figueroa, who also participated in failed initiative efforts in years past. The CACI hopes to protect small farmers from post-legalization competition by bigger businesses.

Lastly, there is the most credible group, ReformCA — also called the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform. ReformCA comprises the coalition that formed during 2010-s Proposition 19, and includes California NORML, the NAACP, and Oaksterdam University. ReformCA is working with the Marijuana Policy Project and the Drug Policy Alliance, and has been focused on conducting stakeholder meetings in northern and southern California.

California is going to be the most expensive state to get an initiative passed in. Estimates are as high as 20 million dollars. A volunteer-only effort is not going to be enough to get on the ballot, nor is a medium-sized financial foundation. If California is going to legalize, it needs to be an ‘all hands on deck’ effort, and everyone needs to work together. I get that there are multiple visions for what marijuana legalization should look like in California, but something needs to happen to bring everyone together. Even the most well financed drug reform organizations can’t do it on their own. It would be a shame to see another election pass without a legalization vote in California. I will be keeping my fingers crossed that a fair, reasonable solution is found.

 

[Texas Kid]

Man y'all just got a pile of new rules out there for medical..I feel for you for sure, we went through the same thing out here and it was painful. I can also tell you that if you think AB266, 243, and 643 are restrictive, hold on to your hats because recreation regulation has proven to be far more restrictive and cost prohibitive than medical regulations ever where.

Gotta be fluid and able to change direction on a dime if you want to stay in the game because it is in constant change for years after it is officially voted on.

22,000 sq.ft. max canopy facilities is a real kick in the sack and who knows what the actual license fees are going to be...at least you still have a few years to hit a lick and make some cash under the radar so to speak.

Good luck to all my farmer bruthas out there

 

[liketosmoke]

Bills Signed by California Gov. Jerry Brown

Last night in the eleventh hour the California Legislature passed three "historic" bills in an effort to regulate the medical cannabis industry. They passed AB 266, which is a comprehensive framework for licensing all cannabis businesses in California over the next couple of years. They passed SB 643, which is a law that creates new restrictions on recommending cannabis to patients, as well as requirements for licensing of cannabis businesses. It also includes schemes for taxation and tracking cannabis products from seed to sale.
.
In addition, they passed AB 243, which is more focused on environmental regulations and standards for cannabis cultivation. Combined these three bills make up a fairly comprehensive structure to try and "rein in" the medical and eventually adult use, cannabis markets. While there is a lot of back-patting and strutting around by the legislators and lobbyists who put this patchwork of bullshit together and barely got it passed in the middle of the night, the reality is that these bills are inadequate and fail to understand the realities of today's modern cannabis industry.

 

[geologic]

"like": (I like your take on it)...

 

[GrowGod]

So California is becoming Just like Colorado tracking from seed to sale meaning banning of buying herb from the public?

 

[Texas Kid]

No more private back pack brigade soldiers selling unlicensed product to the dispensaries...it really changes the supply model dynamic completely. I know out here in Colorado it put 20,000 or so home spun suppliers out of business over night...you'll start seeing a lot of folks getting haircuts and wearing sleeves to cover their tattoos in order to get back in the mainstream work force..back ground checks is another process that thins the players out significantly.

One thing you have to realize is that the masses don't get a vote in the actual rules. When something gets put on the ballot for a vote, it isn't the actual rules of a bill that you are really voting for. You are voting for an initiative to go forward and have the legislature create the actual nuts and bolts of the rules and the nuts and bolts part of house bills/initiatives, you have no vote in that part. So when you CCHI2016 put forth this long slate of actual rules and conditions, that doesn't really mean anything because that is not how it works, those are not things the citizens actually have a say in at all just the initiative itself.

 

[liketosmoke]

SB 643 ANALYSIS AND BREAKDOWN. WHAT DOES IT DO? Reformca.org
Next will come break down of AB266,AB243
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 643, as amended, McGuire. Medical marijuana.

(1) Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, an initiative measure enacted by the approval of Proposition 215 at the November 6, 1996, statewide general election, authorizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Existing law enacted by the Legislature requires the establishment of a program for the issuance of identification cards to qualified patients so that they may lawfully use marijuana for medical purposes, and requires the establishment of guidelines for the lawful cultivation of marijuana grown for medical use. Existing law provides for the licensure of various professions by the Department of Consumer Affairs. Existing law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, provides for the regulation of food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics, as specified. A violation of that law is a crime.

• In other words….. They can regulate everything in one way or another under their authority.

This bill would, among other things, set forth standards for a physician and surgeon prescribing medical cannabis and require that the Medical Board of California to prioritize its investigative and prosecutorial resources to identify and discipline physicians and surgeons that have repeatedly recommended excessive cannabis to patients for medical purposes or repeatedly recommending cannabis to patients for medical purposes without a good faith examination, as specified. The bill would require the Bureau of Medical Marijuana to require an applicant to furnish a full set of fingerprints for the purposes of conducting criminal history record checks. The bill would prohibit a physician and surgeon who recommends cannabis to a patient for a medical purpose from accepting, soliciting, or offering any form of remuneration from a facility licensed under the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act. The bill would make a violation of this prohibition a misdemeanor, and by creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

• So the goal is to make it more difficult for doctors to recommend cannabis to patients, and authorizes the Medical Board to “prioritize” going after pot docs. Bottom line is they want less people qualifying to use cannabis and will make it a priority to fuck with doctors who are writing “excessive” recommendations.
• It also authorizes them to take fingerprints and run background checks on applicants, and ensure doctors are not taking kickbacks from dispensaries.
• See rest of bill on web page

 

[liketosmoke]

So California is becoming Just like Colorado tracking from seed to sale meaning banning of buying herb from the public?

Yes it is all about paying tax,It will be diffcult to renew your medical card now too, you will have to have a real medical problem. read AB643

 

[markscastle]

Sorry you are dead wrong on that. The vote of the people supersedes the authority of representatives in Government. It cannot be changed, reworded or altered in anyway by the legislative body. If more than one law were to be approved by the people and were in conflict the Supreme Court would then have the power to decide what the voters contentions were on just those parts that conflict. Truly the power of government is with the people. we supersede the three branches of government and all lower governments, state, county and city. But if we fail to act then our government is given a free hand to control us. So voting on issues does make a difference. The more issues voted on by the people , the less voted on by our representatives, the more accurately our laws reflect the will of the people. But beware when a law is passed it is the wording that is passed and not the intent. It has to be right in order to reflect the people`s will. Just tagging the legalize word fraise to a proposed bill doesn`t mean that we will have a law we will want to live with. This is why it is SO important to read the proposed laws well and vote accordingly.

 

[markscastle]

The question of the day is do we want to be taxed? If so on medical as well as recreational cannabis? Do we want to be Controlled? and how much do we want the government empowered to Control us? Do we want to be Regulated? and if so how much Regulation do we want? or do we want Freedom to choose to do more of what we want to do without Taxes , Regulations and Controls. Can`t we, haven`t we been controlling our selves just fine , despite cannabis not being legal? I think the Control needs to be in the hands of the people not our Government! I think we also do a better job in most cases of spending our money than the Government does of spending our money. After all didn`t we start our country with the idea the we don`t need more and more Taxes? More and more Controls ? and more and more Regulations? What happened to having a free country?

 

[liketosmoke]

break down of AB266
It spells out all of the nifty licensing schemes and how DISTRIBUTORS will be the gatekeepers between cutivators and manufacturers and dispensaries. So much fun!

 

[GrowGod]

Oh the hammer is coming boys and none of you are going to like it.

 

[MrBelvedere]

Sorry you are dead wrong on that. The vote of the people supersedes the authority of representatives in Government. It cannot be changed, reworded or altered in anyway by the legislative body. If more than one law were to be approved by the people and were in conflict the Supreme Court would then have the power to decide what the voters contentions were on just those parts that conflict. Truly the power of government is with the people. we supersede the three branches of government and all lower governments, state, county and city. But if we fail to act then our government is given a free hand to control us. So voting on issues does make a difference. The more issues voted on by the people , the less voted on by our representatives, the more accurately our laws reflect the will of the people. But beware when a law is passed it is the wording that is passed and not the intent. It has to be right in order to reflect the people`s will. Just tagging the legalize word fraise to a proposed bill doesn`t mean that we will have a law we will want to live with. This is why it is SO important to read the proposed laws well and vote accordingly.

I agree, this is why many parts of sb643 will be taken to court and possibly reversed. Like the concept of collectives disappearing, when challenged that could be reversed because it totally contradicts prop 219.

It's all in the wording of the initiative. That is why parts of the old Cali SB420 were taken to court and reversed because they conflicted with prop219. That's why it's important to get behind cchi2016 because it's wording is very clear and will make many of the current regulations passed in sb643 on Friday reversible.

http://www.canorml.org/news/kellyruling.html


Court Strikes Down SB420 Limits

Los Angeles, May 22, 2008: The Second District of California Court of Appeals ruled that the state limits on medical marijuana possession and cultivation established under state law SB 420 are unconstitutional.

In the case People v. Patrick Kelly, the court overturned defendant's conviction for possessing 12 ounces of dried marijuana plants on the grounds that the prosecutor had improperly argued that the defendant was guilty because he possessed more than the 8-ounce limit established in Health & Safety Code Sec. 11362.77 and did not have a doctor's recommendation authorizing more. (Text of Kelly decision).

The Court validated the long-standing view of California NORML and other Prop 215 advocates that the SB 420 limits are unconstitutional. Cal NORML attorneys have successfully argued the point in several lower court cases, but this is the first time it has been addressed by an appellate court.

In a 3-0 decision, the court ruled: "The prosecutor's argument was improper. It was improper because the CUA [Compassionate Use Act] can only be amended with voters' approval. Voters, however, did not approve the eight-ounce limit and other caps in section 11362.77 [of SB420]; hence, section 11362.77 unconstitutionally amends the CUA." The decision is certified for partial publication, pending possible appeal to the Supreme Court.

The full implications of the Kelly decision remain unclear. In particular, it is not clear whether it rules out the use of SB 420 numbers as guidelines to protect patients with state ID cards from arrest. The court's reasoning would seem to apply only when the SB 420 numbers are used to limit patients' rights, not when they are used to protect them. However, the court's sweeping pronouncement that this section of SB 420 is "unconstitutional" might be interpreted otherwise by police who would prefer to ignore it. Further litigation therefore seems likely.

Ironically, the court noted that the constitutional problems in SB 420 could have been avoided by enactment of Sen. Vasconcellos' proposed "SB 420 Clean-Up" bill SB 1494 in 2004. That bill made it clear that qualified patients could legally possess whatever amount of marijuana was consistent with their needs. However, SB 1494 was vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger on the grounds it removed "reasonable and established quantity guidelines."

One incidental casualty of the Kelly decision was Mendocino's Measure B anti-pot initiative, aimed at rolling back the county's limits for medical marijuana cultivation from 25 to 6 plants. Measure B specifically cites the clause in SB 420 that was struck down in the Kelly decision, H&SC 11362.77. Measure B therefore appears to rest on invalid law, making it vulnerable to legal and political challenge.

 

[markscastle]

This just isn`t going to work, a waste of time for our State Government. Almost grantees a thriving black market for medical cannabis. It`s going to be challenged in court for years and in the end the CCHI bill or some other bill approved by the people will make it mute.

 

[liketosmoke]

Los Angeles is exempt from all this new bills because of prop D its in bill AB266 unreal

 

[Dagwood]

From Prop. 215

Section 1. Section 11362.5 is added to the California Health and Safety Code, to read:

11362.5. (a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
(b) (1) The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 are as follows:
....
(2)(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes.

 

[motherlode]

Oh the hammer is coming boys and none of you are going to like it.

adapt and move on - some people been doing this since long before 215...

 

[MrBelvedere]

adapt and move on - some people been doing this since long before 215...

So correct, I hope the people who have been doing it a long time can guide the newer ones to figure things out.

 

[markscastle]

I won`t adapt. Instead I will continue the fight to free the weed!