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

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

Backward_Z

?

And you left out this preceding portion of the text:
That is decidedly not just for transportation, BZ. Gotta point that out.

Okay, it's taken me a while to wrap my head around all of this too, as well as reading a lot of legal analyses, mostly from Ms. Soares (she's the only one writing them), but let me take a stab at this.

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:

So. This clause is telling us what is lawful. It's lawful for a person above 21 to do the following things. What it doesn't say is that it in unlawful for that person not to do those things, nor that other things that aren't mentioned are unlawful. It just says, "Ignoring all other statues, this stuff is legal now:"

It is lawful for a person to possess 1 oz for all of those purposes.

The notwithstanding... preface applies to all three sub points of the section.

(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:

...

(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.

So what we're looking at here is that 11300(a)(i) AND 11300(a)(iii) BOTH describe legal behaviors. It is legal to do this. It is also legal to do that. (iii) says that as long as you hold to (ii)--25 sq feet, then whatever you grow you keep as long as you don't try to transport or sell it. (i) doesn't trump (iii). Both have to be given the same weight. They simply say: "This is legal," not "This is legal at the exclusion of that."

That's not what the proposition says. It makes no distinction whatsoever for your location when you're in possession of that ounce.

This is incorrect. 11300(a)(iii) clearly makes this distinction. Just to ram it home again:

(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.

So (i) says: "It is legal to have 1oz." (iii) says: "It is legal to have as much as you can grow at your grow site." They are not mutually exclusive. One does not nullify the other. It's just saying: this is legal. This is also legal.

I just want to be fair about this. I don't support prop 19, but I also don't want to put myself where I'm in the position of distorting the truth... The end does not justify the means. Honestly, I was really concerned about this at first but after another couple of reads, I feel comfortable that keeping the total proceeds of your 5x5 grow is protected under 19 as long as it is ONLY for PERSONAL USE, not for sale or transport, etc.

Personally, I think 1oz is an insulting limit when I can go down to BevMo with a UHaul and buy as many cases of hard liquor as I can cram into it, but that's another discussion. Let's at least be fair to the bill and read it for what's there, lest we be accused of lying and fearmongering.

There are many fights to be picked concerning prop 19. This just ain't one of them.

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.

I find this to be precisely correct. It would be beyond hypocritical for 19 to allow 5x5 and then not allow the total sum yield of that 5x5. To say, "You can grow 5x5 but everything you get over 1oz you have to throw away," would be absurd. Outside of your home, 1oz is the limit, but inside your home/at the garden site, you're allowed as much as you can grow for "personal consumption," which is defined as 5x5.
 
motherlode

motherlode

@Rolln_J
Supporter
still says you can only PROCESS an ounce - so whats the definition of process - to me that means harvest trim and dry
 
B

Backward_Z

still says you can only PROCESS an ounce - so whats the definition of process - to me that means harvest trim and dry

I guess that means that if the cops walk in on your trim sesh and you're working on more than an ounce, you're in trouble.

If the cops come into your grow and find vacuum bags of processed material, then you're in the clear.

11300 says "It's legal to do these things." It doesn't say at the exclusion of anything else. Are there laws on the books that specifically prohibit processing marijuana in limits? 11300(a)(i) says it's legal to do these things but it doesn't tell us what's illegal. Just because 11300 doesn't say it's legal doesn't mean it's not. It's a little beyond my scope here to start digging through existing HHS statues to find whether or not there's specific language dealing with processing marijuana that this bill may or may not affect.

But like I said, I think there are better fights to be fought concerning 19. There's a little bit of gray area here but I think courts would be hard pressed to find ways to prosecute having more than 1oz in one's home due to 11300(a)(iii), DESPITE 11300(a)(i). It says it's legal to process up to an ounce AND you can keep as much processed as your garden will yield. I guess as long as they don't catch you IN THE ACT of processing it, you're fine.

But like I said, this is a niggling point. I'm MUCH more concerned that 19 defines "personal use" as 5x5 whereas 215's language uses "personal medical use" and doesn't define it--leaving it intentionally vague so that gardens don't have any size limit. 19 uses the language "personal use." Not "recreational use," or even "personal recreational use." It says "personal use." The way I'd interpret that is that "personal medical use" and "personal recreational use" are both subsets of "personal use," where any legislation changing the definition or initially defining what "personal use," is affects any other legislation that uses either identifier. As 19 says that personal use is defined as 5x5, I fear this trumps 215's lack of a limit. And since 19 is a voter initiative, it can't be found unconstitutional like parts of SB420 seeking to cap patient limits were.

Upon further analysis, though, I do agree that 11300(a)(ii) should say "cultivate and process." Yet another of Richard Lee's unfortunate oversights arising from his failure to reasonably understand legalese. Writing laws is really something that ought to be left to those with the proper professional training or at least done in large collaboration with many suchlike trained people. How many co-authors did 215 have? Seven? And between those seven was a collective expertise that was widely ranging and divergent. 19 was written by one guy, a capitalist at that, and his lawyer. Two people. It reminds of group projects in high school--215 was the project where all the group members did their part and everybody got an A. 19 is the group where only one person out of five did any of the work and he ratted out the rest of the group so they all flunk while the one gets the A.
 
K

kushpheen

Hey backward, rich lee didn't write this initiative he and jeff jones just sponsored it. They hired a private firm to actually write it.
 
B

Backward_Z

Hey backward, rich lee didn't write this initiative he and jeff jones just sponsored it. They hired a private firm to actually write it.

The point still stands--they were all hired by and working for Lee. Nobody commissioned prop 215.

And the point still stands that because he was the one paying for it, Lee got final say--and his final say isn't worth a hill of beans for all the legal experience he doesn't have.
 
C

czach66

1
1
Its a good first step. I wish I could be a fly on the wall when somebody who voted no on prop 19's loved one gets busted for possession and the gotta look them in the eye and say how much they wish the "could've helped them".
 
B

Backward_Z

So concerning the process/possess question, I went ahead and asked Ms. Soares for her opinion.

Me said:
Hey again,

So over on THCFarmer I've gotten into a prop 19 thread and a question has come up that hasn't come up over here.

Okay. Section 11300--the part that lists what's made legal. (i) is 1oz, (ii) is 5x5, (iii) says you keep everything dried and processed from (ii).

(i) uses the word "process" which is used nowhere else in the section. (iii) says it's legal to keep as much processed material as your 5x5 yielded. So it would appear that it's legal to grow as much as 5x5 will yield, it's legal to keep as much processed material as your 5x5 yields, but it's not legal to process more than 1oz of that material?

By my analysis, this tells me that the only concern is that if the cops show up WHILE you're trimming, that could be trouble or could it be argued that when (ii) says "cultuvate" that "cultivate" is all-inclusive, it includes growing, harvesting, processing, or is it limited--is it just the act of growing the plant?

Personally, I thought this issue had been put to bed but this is a new concern I haven't seen before and it's starting to go over my head. As always, your feedback is greatly appreciated. This kind of analysis would start to get really expensive otherwise, I'd wager.

And she replied:

Jennifer Soares said:
I know you were concerned with THC Farmer, but I saw the discussion with SeaMaiden as well and just wanted to point out (since I can't post) that she is confusing the possession limits for marijuana purchased and possession limits for marijuana grown. No matter where you are (even in your own house) if you purchased the marijuana, you can only be in possession of one ounce. If you grew it yourself, you can have all of the product you personally grew in your possession, but only in your house. When you are out of the house, you can possess only one ounce, no matter where it came from.

As far as the processing issue, I can see the concern. By implication, it would seem that iii allows you to possess the processed marijuana and therefore allows you to process. But implying doesn't always fly when it comes to laws. In fact, usually it doesn't work. In this situation, it is possible that a judge would read it that i only allows processing of 1 ounce. But in my opinion, it is more likely that "cultivation" will be read by a judge to include all aspects of cultivation (harvest, processing, curing, etc).
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Living dead girl
Backward, I won't do the whole quoting thing, but appreciate the effort made to clarify the points regarding possession limits, as well as other points made. Thank Ms. Soares for me.
 
S

swizzlegrower

very informative everyboby.......trying to forgive emery.....is he the defacto voice of pot????
 
E

elBarracho

I find it Ironic that a Emery uses such terms as "thugs" and "commercial growers" to describe the opponents of 19. I remember seeing Emery on CNBC or some such news show bragging about how they were smuggling dope in ballasted kayaks with GPS trackers. The pick up boat would find the GPS ping, drop off a passenger, activate something that would jettison the ballast, and the kayak would be paddled to the US side. This guy was personally connected to who knows how many insane grows in Canada and he is going to villify commercial growers? The real reason the US govt hammered him was because they knew he was shipping massive amounts of poo-poo beasters to the states. The seeds were the only thing the could get him on.

We were not wrong to oppose. The only people who could make an honest assessment of the true dynamics in the California trade would be active participants. Sorry to tell ya Marc, but a Canadian in custody of the FBOP is a little out of touch.
 
true grit

true grit

Sorry but i could only get through the 1st 3 paragraphs of BS before i had to stop and say STFU marc emery.

Dude is way off base- guess when ya live in canada and think ya know what all is going on you can preach?
 

Green Supreme

Guest
C'mon then preacher man, tell it like it is so we outta touch people in Canada can know. Peace GS
 
true grit

true grit

I dont preach, i use logic and can see through money greedy smoke screens.

Again, if they are not in a med state here in teh US or in Cali- how the fuck do they know whats up?

There arent any issues, they now have decrim'd, this was all political and money.
 

Green Supreme

Guest
And explain nothing. Hmm that sounds logical, also an easy way out. Inquiring minds want to know. Peace GS

ps. and decrim is not about the money? Doesn't it allow them to collect fines. Sorry just a Canadian, not sure how it goes up there
 
true grit

true grit

Because decrim made it a non misdemeanor/civil fine...

Hmm lets start here in CO- biggest fucking mistake- giving counties/cities the right to determine if MMJ/pot business can be there at all... by passing a law "legitimizing" commercial pot business, there are now cities/counties that don't allow access to meds. Yeah real nice, quasi legalize it just to limit access to patients- cuz it is about people getting medicine correct?

And now- much like prop 19- here they are attempting to limit the amount a person can grow in residential areas- for fear of safety? So now, like prop 19, they are trying to get the right to police you and your medicine in the privacy of your home. No plant number or sq. footage etc limit, justifies some greedy political scam.

You do realize Dick lee has the ability to monopolize correct? shitty weed or not...if that passed who do you think has first dibs with big tobacco on those counties that may be allowing commercial supply and keeping the current legit business owners/growers/long time devoted med suppliers locked out of business. Cuz thats fair right? So other folks can get screwed by skewed legislation...

Oh and besides subpar mass production in most cases (more so when the current skilled professionals are pushed out of business), they can't keep up with quality...again who suffers- people in need. And how is that resolved- by small time growers...but oh wait now they can get policed and face criminal charges for dippin into politicians pockets.

Sorry bro, but the reason Marc Emery digs Dick Lee's stance is because they are two sheep in a heard looking for attention, thinking that the more notariety they can build the bigger their voice is, the more they are "heard" and all the while use the movement as an excuse....and in Dick Lee's case capitolize.

I mean yeah why wouldn't Emery want it passed, it gives him some ammunition to get the fuck out of his situation a bit faster.

Doesn't like Perron? Well guess what he and one other prop were better designed for the people- such as and most notably- instead of incarceration or fines - fuckin rehabilitation. Cost to incarcerate is much higher than rehab. Plant numbers weren't an issue, etc....and its because Dick Lee "donated" million of his own to the campaign...more so he put down money to lock all other propostions out of contention.
 

Green Supreme

Guest
For me the med system is about divide and conquer pure and simple. The governments realize sympathy for the ill is high. If they deny these folks...well results wouldn't be good and they know it. So give these folks the right to their medicine, then everyone else is a criminal, pure and simple. Personally I don't see this plant as so evil that only the very sick should be allowed access. It is a pure and beautiful plant, useful in ways we have not yet begun to understand. For me very little would change in a decrim state. I would still need to make my own meds and those for my friends. I find the same could be said in a legal state too though. I mean take alcohol for example. I know many folks that brew their own whether it be beer, wine or spirits, so government control doesn't mean the end of quality.

If you look at the way things have gone in Cali, I suppose it could be said med was the foot in the door, that brought the whole thing to the point where this could happen. We can only watch and see how it goes. Peace GS
 
true grit

true grit

Sorry but i don't understand what side you were taking in that last one. Government doesn't care about sympathy, they want more money. Prop19 was a way to do that.

And like I said poorly designed shit such as Prop 19 and HB1284 do nothing but line pockets, limit and in cases eliminate access to patients, and criminalize adults.

Only problem you see in Cali with mmj is the fucking politicians trying to either stop it or tax it.
 
Top Bottom