Lemon Paradise
New Member
Very well said. I would love to see some solid facts and numbers.
I was thinking the same thing,,
California Could See Over $1.4 Billion Revenue Spike From Tax Cannabis Act
- Thread starter Ganjarden
- Start date
Very well said. I would love to see some solid facts and numbers.
I was thinking the same thing,,
Very well said. I would love to see some solid facts and numbers.
I was thinking the same thing,,
Again your intelect is showing... how about the fact that I live by a day care provider ...LOL. That is why I get my meds from my provider.
Also consider that a city and county can have a ban in place which leaves us to only get marijuana from hmmmm oakland or up north where it is a more friendlier towards the marijuana movement...
Again... the blind leading the blind. Vote as you wish but I tell you that they are leaving it wide open to hurt the people even further.
Lemon Paradise
New Member
well, #1, I would not live next to a day care.. OMG that has got to be loud.. I love kids, but I would never live next to a day care... I would go mad listening to a bunch of screaming kids all day.
as for county/city having a ban,, what about all those people across america that do not have any legal ability to grow at all. only 14 out of 50 states allow it at all, and most of those 14 can than thanks CA for starting the trend. Alot of people cannot legally grow, but do, for their own personal use, and yes they take quite a risk doing it. Legalizing it in CA would allow approx 30 million (the number I picked up from the threads here,, so it may be way off,,, I am sure I will be corrected..
)people to legally grow it for themselves. I cannot fathome, no matter how stoned I get, I cannot remotely think of a way that it would be more dangerous to grow MJ legally, vs growing it illegally.and well, who is showing their intellect with this type of statement.. ?
really?,, cannot get your point across without resorting to name calling? I wish you the best, and I am sure your dispensaries love you as a customer, who is so loyal to give them 200/oz, and defending that as strongly as you do, and with such passion and determination to be able to continue to pay that 200.00/oz to them.
Lemon Paradise
New Member
oh,, and you responded to the post... but we are still waiting for the actual facts and figures...
MedicalNeed
New Member
This is what I found interesting in the Link I posted.
Quote-Anyone who paid a tax on it would be confessing to a federal felony
---
So I seems like the law will decrim, but until something "Federal" is changed then the right to not incriminate will be used VERY often.
I just don't see how they will be able to get everyone to pay this tax when they have the right not to incriminate themselves? Any ideas on this?
Quote-Anyone who paid a tax on it would be confessing to a federal felony
---
So I seems like the law will decrim, but until something "Federal" is changed then the right to not incriminate will be used VERY often.
I just don't see how they will be able to get everyone to pay this tax when they have the right not to incriminate themselves? Any ideas on this?
Makes you wonder, doesn't it? The US federal government is currently ignoring what is in affect a Constitutional Crisis as it's un-Constitutional law is being (for the most part) ignored where so many medically-approved cannabis users are concerned. ESPECIALLY in California where the good citizens of that state have not simply voted in a piece of legislation but actually voted it into their state's constitution.
States' rights and all that...
I don't see how it can ignore an entire state - and one so populous - if this legislation passes.
It will definitely be interesting. It could force the greater issue into the open and that could have far-reaching consequences - we could actually end up getting our country back, as methinks a civil-war wouldn't be politically-correct (lofl) at this moment and with the media/Internet being so pervasive it would surely prove difficult to just sweep this one under the carpet or to be shown on television laughing at the cannabis culture (again).
States' rights and all that...
I don't see how it can ignore an entire state - and one so populous - if this legislation passes.
It will definitely be interesting. It could force the greater issue into the open and that could have far-reaching consequences - we could actually end up getting our country back, as methinks a civil-war wouldn't be politically-correct (lofl) at this moment and with the media/Internet being so pervasive it would surely prove difficult to just sweep this one under the carpet or to be shown on television laughing at the cannabis culture (again).
To all those who think our youth will not suffer with this new bill can read the statistics from normal... Sorry but according to their accounts... the ones with the most arrests in the male department... 15-19 yo lead the way with 20-24 falling in a close second... yes legalization will do more harm than good for our youth!
Sales by age!
Our jails are still going to be filled with young people. Now who is bullshitting who...???? Here is your sustistics from the souce you wanted it from. Now what???? It will continue on the same, as you can see the new bill does nothing for the age groups that are being arrested!
Sales by age!
Our jails are still going to be filled with young people. Now who is bullshitting who...???? Here is your sustistics from the souce you wanted it from. Now what???? It will continue on the same, as you can see the new bill does nothing for the age groups that are being arrested!
Lemon Paradise
New Member
that shows that the current trend (well, 9 years ago,, trend that is).. and that is how the law is now. they will be no worse off than they are now. so because it does not make it legal for a minor to smoke, you should not vote for adults to be able to? Any recreational substance will/should be regulated in some way,, it is not legal to give tobacco or alcohol to minors either,, does that mean we should take away the rights of adults to use those substances, because minors cannot?
as for the other questions asked earlier
there is nothing in your post that addresses any of these other questions..
however, I will agree with you that the younger crowd does get busted more, but I bet they also get more warnings, and they are not as careful as adults. Hell, I know I wasn't,, I was a pretty stupid teenager,, I did some REALLY stupid things as a kid,, both legal and illegal (driving my car on the ice is one of them.... wasn't illegal,, but man was it STUPID...) If my kid smoked, I would make sure to rell him to do it in the house.. not on the street, not in pulic, not driving in your car, etc.
but the fact is, it is not going to change the laws for minors, it is what it is now, so they will not suffer any more than they are now.
as for the other questions asked earlier
there is nothing in your post that addresses any of these other questions..
however, I will agree with you that the younger crowd does get busted more, but I bet they also get more warnings, and they are not as careful as adults. Hell, I know I wasn't,, I was a pretty stupid teenager,, I did some REALLY stupid things as a kid,, both legal and illegal (driving my car on the ice is one of them.... wasn't illegal,, but man was it STUPID...) If my kid smoked, I would make sure to rell him to do it in the house.. not on the street, not in pulic, not driving in your car, etc.
but the fact is, it is not going to change the laws for minors, it is what it is now, so they will not suffer any more than they are now.
Let me see if I've got this straight. You pay $200/ounce now without complaint, but you don't like the thought of potentially paying $62.50/ounce in the future? Because $50/ounce of that would be tax? In a state that is barely solvent?
If you mean for medical use, many do - and either way, it would have no bearing on this discussion. If you mean for recreational use, why?
The prices are where they are at because people are buying the products at these prices. If every single one of the three million people who used cannabis in California last year had refused to pay over $100 an ounce, the price would have fallen to that level for any cannabis that was sold in that state. There might have been less sold, but the price would have gone down. But people who buy it in CA are willing to pay $200, $300, and even more per ounce so - surprise! - the people who sell it in CA charge $200, $300, and even more per ounce.
I just looked through the text of the initiative again and it does not specify any new penalties for people under 21 for the consumption/growing of cannabis. It only does that for people age 18 or older who uses a minor in the business sense (sells to them, uses them to sell, transport, cultivate, et cetera) or who furnishes cannabis to people age 14 or under and for people 21 or older who furnishes cannabis to someone under 21.
So... It won't "land alot(sic) of our youth in prison" because the laws for the youth won't change. It does allow for stiffer penalties for adults who are supplying those youth that you profess to be so concerned with with what is inarguably - so don't - a mind-altering substance.
I don't have a problem with that. I suspect that if this initiative passes that the only people who would have such a problem would be people dealing to the youth and people age 21 and over who have girlfriends/boyfriends under age 21 and who supply same with cannabis and cannot keep them out of trouble while so supplied. In short, those who are (in some fashion) in a position of authority over another and aren't qualified to so be. Or who are supplying someone who will turn around and "tell" on them for it.
Not for nothin', lol, but is your girlfriend (or boyfriend) under the age of 21? 18? <GASP> 14? If so... Well, I do try not to make moral judgments, but at the same time I must say that your choice of relationship-partners is not the responsibility of the state
. (Assuming that there's nothing "statutory" going on - and I do, of course, give you the benefit of the doubt here.)Must appear in court, $100 fine, $200 court costs, must attend a court-ordered diversion program if they wish to avoid a criminal record (otherwise, they will have a criminal record for two years), miss work for appearance.
Most people would consider all of those things to be punishment.
If they're not SUPPLYING people younger then themselves then current laws/punishments will apply. So... Fail.
Also: According to The National Research Council’s recent study of the U.S. states where cannabis is currently decriminalized, there is little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions and the rate of consumption. IOW, people that decide to consume cannabis are going to do so whether there are penalties (and regardless of the severity) or not. Fail again.
As far as it being very accessible: They're not exactly keeping it in Fort Knox NOW. Triple Fail.
Thanks. But I don't even break a sweat on this level of debate, so that's really not much of a complement.
No, they can do that NOW. If this initiative passes, it will allow local governments to set up a system to oversee cultivation, distribution, and sales, and determine how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold within area limits. If a local government decides it does not want to control and tax the sale of cannabis, then buying and selling cannabis within area limits will remain illegal, but the possession and consumption of up to one ounce will be permitted. EXPONENTIAL Fail.
By making it legal for every adult age 21 or older to possess up to an ounce of cannabis? By allowing for a legal personal garden space? By including language that provides for licensing places for consumption? By recognizing that if it is legal to grow/possess/consume cannabis, then required and associated "paraphernalia" will be legal as well?
And perhaps most important of all, something that I haven't seen a great deal of discussion about: The initiative also has a clause that could halt abusive drug testing. It provides that "no person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against or denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act" - i.e. using marijuana - "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 would appear to rule out random urine screening, which does not detect on-the-job impairment.
Anyone in the audience lose their job (or decide not to try for a particular job) because of random drug screen when they weren't impaired at work? I bet they get to the polls EARLY to vote for this initiative.
Sorry, but... I do appreciate the fact that you went to the trouble of hitting up the NORML site and hunted around through their list of 92 charts & figures until you found two that you thought supported your position. But what you produced dealt with a time ranging from eight to ten years ago. One of which shows that during that time, for males, that there was a downward trend in the number of arrests for simple possession. So even though at first glance, the numbers in the columns for the 15-19 and 20-24 ages (for which you seem to be more concerned than with the remainder of the population) are higher, if you choose to extrapolate the data that you provided... by this point in time, they may well be significantly lower. I do concede that there is the possibility that they might not be; however I have based my supposition on the data that YOU chose to post.
At this point I'd like to mention a few things that you could have quickly and easily pulled from the NORML site had you chosen to do so: ALL of the people in those two categories were engaged in criminal behavior under the current laws. A significant number of them were MINORS and aren't realistically going to get a law that gives them free reign to consume cannabis recreationally - nor should they. Another significant number of your groups - that of the 20-24 year olds - were age 21 or above (there's a chart in the list from which you picked the two that you posted that actually breaks down the age groups further if you'd like to check it) and they would NOT have been considered to be doing anything illegal under the proposed initiative! Here's a statistic covering a more recent year for you to consider: In 2007 in California, 57,995 people got nailed for misdemeanor possession. A significant amount of those people would not have been if this initiative had already been passed by 2007. And it is important to keep in mind the fact that oft times people get caught in the first place because they had to go to their dealer, purchase their cannabis, and then transport it. There is much less of a window of opportunity for them to be caught in the first place if they need only travel as far as the closet where they store their curing cannabis.
And once again, for those under the age of 21, the same laws and penalties that apply now will still apply after (/if) this initiative passes! As long as they are not supplying those who are younger than themselves - or using them for business purposes - they will see no change for the better OR for the worse. So your repeated claims that this will somehow cause the youth to be "harmed" or the numbers of them that are charged to skyrocket are, to put it plainly, ludicrous.
You are, of course, allowed to vote any way that you want and this includes voting against an initiative that will so plainly do such an immense amount of good for so many people because it does not also legalize it for kids and near-kids, but this is illogical and would seem to fly in the face of common-sense. Now I'm certainly not saying that you are incapable of thinking logically or using common-sense. But I DO hope that the rest of the citizens of the state of California are capable of thinking with MORE logic and of using MORE common-sense.
That question has been clearly answered, lol. Although I might have been politer and suggested that you might simply have been mis-informed (assuming that you do not have some sort of unfathomable agenda).
I don't know. Now you go hunt up some relevant ones
? It's almost always possible to find things that appear to support your claims if you hunt around long enough. But this is NOT valid scientific method. It is better to look at all of those things and give equal credence to each - and then to form your opinion afterwards (not vice versa).One reason that it is generally unwise to use blanket statements like that is that they are often incorrect. Even looking at the charts that you provided it is evident that people of every age group (except for the 0-9 year olds) are being arrested. I cannot comprehend why you would be against such an initiative, to be honest with you. A case of "sour-grapes," perhaps.
If you go back and look at the rest of the charts and figures and then separate your chosen groups into the categories of minors (those age 14-18), age 18-20, and age 21-24, you'll see that you really haven't made your point at all.
You can try again if you want to. So far it hasn't required much time at all to formulate (and type in) my rebuttals.
Two final mentions about those age groups: although I wouldn't condone it, it is likely that as recreational cannabis consumption becomes legalized and even more mainstream, there will be some number of parents that end up providing cannabis to their kids in the same way that there are idiots now that provide alcohol to their children (something I absolutely don't condone, but unfortunately you don't have to take an IQ-test in order to have children), which will be likely to shrink the window-of-opportunity for those kids to get caught because they won't be "dealing" with a dealer either. Also, as has been said in the other thread here about the initiative, one reason that people of that age get caught more often is because they are statistically more likely to be the ones that are breaking the law - including, but not limited to, stealing the stuff; and they just aren't as savvy/experienced as people even five or ten years older. In short, there are good reasons as to both why those age groups have higher arrest/fine incidences AND why laws that help keep cannabis out of younger people's lives are (generally) a good thing.
You can switch to quack quack if you'd like - since your insults are like water off a duck's back to me. But they're also repetitive and not nearly as witty as you appear to think they are. And while they do not bother me nearly as much as they might the staff or other members, I would appreciate a little originality if you are able.
SnowBender
New Member
I find this whole argument that the bill will negatively effect persons under 21 rather comical.
it was weeds illegality that kept me from loosing my license when I was a teen. one more ticket and i would loose my license. luckily when the cop found my weed, he forgot about the speeding ticket and wrote me up for MIP, then released me to my parents custody (over the phone). i was mandated to go to drug counseling for 6 weeks. but the counselor let me go after two meetings, she said that "i didn't belong in there with real drug users/addicts."
Keep weed illegal for the under 21, so kids can keep driving!
I couldn't vote in the 70's when CA tried to decriminalize...So-"Now is the time!"
it was weeds illegality that kept me from loosing my license when I was a teen. one more ticket and i would loose my license. luckily when the cop found my weed, he forgot about the speeding ticket and wrote me up for MIP, then released me to my parents custody (over the phone). i was mandated to go to drug counseling for 6 weeks. but the counselor let me go after two meetings, she said that "i didn't belong in there with real drug users/addicts."
Keep weed illegal for the under 21, so kids can keep driving!
I couldn't vote in the 70's when CA tried to decriminalize...So-"Now is the time!"
Tyrone Hamilton
New Member
Man, I love to read your stuff when you get on a roll TS.
Way to drive that big yellow bus.
Lemon Paradise
New Member
OBX I have to agree with you... TS that was ONE GREAT POST.. +1000 reps if I could..
Snowbender.. that cracked me up... keep is illegal so kids can drive... funny stuff..
Snowbender.. that cracked me up... keep is illegal so kids can drive... funny stuff..
Snowbender.. that cracked me up... keep is illegal so kids can drive... funny stuff..
Sometimes the realities of a situation are not entirely what they appear to be at first glance - or what people mean for them to be. Occasionally, that manages to work out in our favor.
So then what was the reasons for this bill if not to curb arrests and bring money??? at what cost??? our youth! Here are your updated stats sir.
Here we go taken from the Norml website again to prove my point! Grant you it is from Oregon but I fear it is not much better here in California and may be even higher here and this was posted 1/30/10 and updated 3/16/10:
Campaign For Liberty — Oregon Cannabis Tax Act (OCTA)
Young people and African-Americans are disproportionately affected by marijuana arrests.
Males aged 15 to 24 account for 52% of all marijuana arrests. While the national rate of marijuana possession arrests is 248 per 100,000, the arrest rate for males aged 15 to 19 is 1,911 per 100,000.
While the marijuana-use rate for African-Americans is only about 25% greater than for whites, the marijuana possession arrest rate for blacks is three times greater. This is not a regional disparity, but is seen in every state and most counties.
Sorry but the age group is not covered fully by this legalization bill.
Here we go taken from the Norml website again to prove my point! Grant you it is from Oregon but I fear it is not much better here in California and may be even higher here and this was posted 1/30/10 and updated 3/16/10:
Campaign For Liberty — Oregon Cannabis Tax Act (OCTA)
Young people and African-Americans are disproportionately affected by marijuana arrests.
Males aged 15 to 24 account for 52% of all marijuana arrests. While the national rate of marijuana possession arrests is 248 per 100,000, the arrest rate for males aged 15 to 19 is 1,911 per 100,000.
While the marijuana-use rate for African-Americans is only about 25% greater than for whites, the marijuana possession arrest rate for blacks is three times greater. This is not a regional disparity, but is seen in every state and most counties.
Sorry but the age group is not covered fully by this legalization bill.
Here we go... most current that I can find. 75% arresst rate for 30 and under with every 1 in 4 being 18 or younger. I am all for legalization but I want it done right... 18 and over with education for those who are under 18. Sorry but this bill will not do that and will further seek to feed the correctional dept.
NORML 2008 Conference: “The War on Pot Is a War on Young People” | NORML Blog, Marijuana Law Reform
NORML 2008 Conference: “The War on Pot Is a War on Young People” | NORML Blog, Marijuana Law Reform
hydronewbie
New Member
Sigh*** I guess someone has to play Glenn Beck on this issue.
Bonehead
New Member
Any legal-easy people out there? What is the difference between a bill and a proposition? Legally? People keep referring to this measure as a bill. It's not. It is a proposition. I know that one goes through our state senate process (bills) and one is a vote of the people (propositions). Is one process better than the other? Again legally. Can one be over turned by a higher court easier than the other?
hydronewbie
New Member
I'm no legal expert, but I have some government experience. I googled your question and got this: Resource = LA Law Library | California Ballot Propositions
"California Ballot Propositions"
"California uses the direct initiative process which allows state citizens to bypass the Legislature and have a voice in directly adding, repealing or amending provisions of the California Constitution or statutes. This is done through the use of ballot propositions. Ballot propositions can be proposed either by the Legislature or citizens."
Legislative propositions: begin as resolutions or bills and are adopted like other legislative measures
Citizen ballot propositions: started by petitions circulated for a requisite number of voter signatures.
Initiatives: propositions that propose legislative or constitutional changes
Referenda: propositions that allow citizens to approve or reject legislative enactments"
I was listening to PBS radio yesterday and the political commentator said that the Marijuana Legalization proposition promises to be the most controversial issue on the ballot and will bring out the most voters both pro and con in California.
You may remember Measure 8, the anti-gay marriage proposition: "Proposition 8 (or the California Marriage Protection Act) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008, state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Proponents and opponents of Measure 8 plan to fight its legality, as a human or civil rights issue, all the way to the supreme court. Opponents say it violates 'equal protection under the law' the 14th amendment of the constitution. But I digress.
If it passes, California's marijuana legalization proposition will contradict federal law - much the same as New York did in the 20th century when it legalized alcohol consumption 10 years prior to the federal repeal of prohibition. Legal ages for alcohol consumption vary state by state. Most states the age is 21 but some, like Hawaii, the legal age to drink alcohol is 18.
In my opinion, it would be far more beneficial to vote for and support Tax Cannabis 2010 as imperfect as it may be. I recommend you read: Tax Cannabis 2010 Initiative Headed for November Ballot | California NORML for NORML's opinion of the proposition which recognizes certain provisions with which they disagree.
"California Ballot Propositions"
"California uses the direct initiative process which allows state citizens to bypass the Legislature and have a voice in directly adding, repealing or amending provisions of the California Constitution or statutes. This is done through the use of ballot propositions. Ballot propositions can be proposed either by the Legislature or citizens."
Legislative propositions: begin as resolutions or bills and are adopted like other legislative measures
Citizen ballot propositions: started by petitions circulated for a requisite number of voter signatures.
Initiatives: propositions that propose legislative or constitutional changes
Referenda: propositions that allow citizens to approve or reject legislative enactments"
I was listening to PBS radio yesterday and the political commentator said that the Marijuana Legalization proposition promises to be the most controversial issue on the ballot and will bring out the most voters both pro and con in California.
You may remember Measure 8, the anti-gay marriage proposition: "Proposition 8 (or the California Marriage Protection Act) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008, state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Proponents and opponents of Measure 8 plan to fight its legality, as a human or civil rights issue, all the way to the supreme court. Opponents say it violates 'equal protection under the law' the 14th amendment of the constitution. But I digress.
If it passes, California's marijuana legalization proposition will contradict federal law - much the same as New York did in the 20th century when it legalized alcohol consumption 10 years prior to the federal repeal of prohibition. Legal ages for alcohol consumption vary state by state. Most states the age is 21 but some, like Hawaii, the legal age to drink alcohol is 18.
In my opinion, it would be far more beneficial to vote for and support Tax Cannabis 2010 as imperfect as it may be. I recommend you read: Tax Cannabis 2010 Initiative Headed for November Ballot | California NORML for NORML's opinion of the proposition which recognizes certain provisions with which they disagree.
MedicalNeed
New Member
Many gay couples go to Canada to get married as I believe the US recognizes Canadian marriages.
There is a show called Escape To Canada that outlines the Cannabis and Gay Marriage issues as they dealt with them both at the same time.
They had a good point in saying Cannabis Cures Homosexuality as a way to get people to accept others Cannabis Consumption.
Canada also give asylum to people facing prison from Cannabis Charges in the US
Escape To Canada.
Escape To Canada
There is a show called Escape To Canada that outlines the Cannabis and Gay Marriage issues as they dealt with them both at the same time.
They had a good point in saying Cannabis Cures Homosexuality as a way to get people to accept others Cannabis Consumption.
Canada also give asylum to people facing prison from Cannabis Charges in the US
Escape To Canada.
Escape To Canada
But they have extradited Canadian citizens to face drug charges/sentences in the USA?
Similar threads
