Measure To Legalize Pot Moves Forward

[Jim Finnel]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Supporters of a new initiative that would legalize, regulate and tax marijuana in California can start collecting signatures for the measure.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen announced Wednesday that proponents must collect signatures of 433,971 registered voters in order for the measure to qualify for the ballot.

Supporters of the measure have 150 days to circulate petitions for the measure, which means the signatures must be collected by Feb. 5, 2010.

The measure would repeal state laws that make it a crime for people 21 years old or older to use, possess, sell, cultivate or transport marijuana or industrial hemp. Under the measure, it would still be illegal to drive while impaired or contribute to the delinquency of a minor.

The initiative also requires state and local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and the sale of marijuana. The taxes would be used on education, healthcare, environmental programs, public works and state parks.

According to an estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance, the impact of legalizing marijuana would save state and local governments tens of millions of dollars on the costs of incarcerating and supervising marijuana offenders.


NewsHawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: KSBW.com
Copyright: 2009 KSBW.com
Contact: Monterey, Salinas, Santa Cruz News, Weather & Sports - KSBW Action News 8
Website: Measure To Legalize Pot Moves Forward - Central Coast News Story - KSBW The Central Coast

 

[The Weed]

Come on California!!! Help pave the way!!

 

[Jim Finnel]

i'd like to encourage our members in cali to get involved in gathering these signatures. i'll be posting the details of how you can do that soon.

 

[Stankybudda]

a ray of hope! i have faith free the tree

 

[alapoet]

Three cheers for legal pot!

Make that three joints.

 

[GanjaAL2]

What do you guys think... Me well I am ambivalent about it and want to here more of what you guys think?

Prices- are we looking at a 1.00 a pound

Quality- outdoors is great but bugs and pestisides... eeeek!~

Government- Gone are the days of the mom and pop... yes/no???

Good or bad-

Gone are the days of indoor grows yes/no-

Will the outdoor grows be as potent yes/no-

Main worry is governmental control of our beloved plant.

 

[MinniBratt]

i came across this and thought to share...

THC 2010 Vs ROT 2010

To date there are two initiatives filed in California that will legalize marijuana. There are marked differences between them.

The first was filed 15 Jul 09 by California Cannabis Initiative 2010. The name of their initiative is "The Tax, Regulate and Control Cannabis Act of 2010". To avoid confusion and for brevity this initiative will be referred to as "THC 2010" henceforth.

The second, titled the "Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010" was filed 28 Jul 09 by Tax and Regulate Cannabis and Oaksterdamn U. It will be referred to henceforth as "ROT 2010".

The first thing to notice about these two initiatives is the similarity of the names: one is "Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis", the other is "Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis". However, they are vastly different measures.

In addition to the initiatives, Tom Ammiano has also introduced a bill in the legislature, AB 390, The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act.

THC 2010 not ROT 2010

THC 2010 is the far superior initiative. Firstly, it retroactively "by operation of law expunges anyone convicted of a cannabis offense." It cleans the slate. ROT 2010 offers no amnesty to anyone.

THC 2010 decriminalizes hemp production and sales, ROT 2010 does not.

THC 2010 prohibits discrimination in healthcare, education, employment, retirement, or insurance. Housing, of primary concern to medical patients, particularly those subsisting on Social Security Disability, is not specified. However, in stark contrast to Oaksterdamn U's ROT 2010 which uses the phrase "without limitation" with regard to taxing, THC 2010 uses the phrase "not limited to" with regard to prohibiting discrimination, so prohibition of discrimination in housing is implied in THC 2010. ROT 2010 has no provision prohibiting discrimination because of marijuana.

There is no better way to highlight the conceptual differences between THC 2010 and ROT 2010 than to examine the context in which the phrase "without limitation" or its equivalent "with no limit" is used.

THC 2010 - Section 11300, Laws Permitting Cannabis Activities by Adults Aged 21 and Over

(b) This Act hereby repeals all state laws that prohibit cannabis possession, sales, transportation, production, processing, cultivation, and removes cannabis from any other statutes pertaining to the regulation of controlled substances, whether now existing or enacted in the future, including but not limited to the following: ...

(f) The Act prohibits any person from being denied any right or privilege for conduct in accordance with this article. No person shall be discriminated against, regarding but not limited to, healthcare, education, employment, retirement, and insurance for conduct permitted in this Act.

ROT 2010 - Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees

(a) Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 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, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.

THC 2010, in Section 11301(a), not only authorizes the state and local government to allow commercial cultivation, production, processing, distribution, and sales but on-premises smoking and other use. And while it allows regulation "not limited to" environmental, accessibility, and zoning ordinances, it prohibits banning any business or activity "allowed by this act". This is important because many cities and counties are using zoning restrictions to de facto ban dispensaries.

While ROT 2010 also authorizes sales and consumption on premises, it prohibits sales in cities that do not enact a local tax on marijuana.

Section 1. B. Purposes, item 7 of The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act (ROT 2010) states:

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.

It appears they believe either medicine should be taxed or that marijuana is not medicine.

THC 2010, on the other hand, specifically exempts cannabis that is not commercially grown from tax as well as medical users. Also, while personal use is exempt from the tax and regulation, no amount or limit is set on the quantity one may have for personal use. Commercial sales would be taxed at $50 per ounce.

ROT 2010 limits the amount, statewide, that may be possessed for "personal consumption" to an ounce and requires an ordinance or legislation to lift this limit.

Since there is no exemption in ROT 2010 for medical patients anywhere for anything, this will make criminals of many patients, particularly those who grow their year's supply in one crop. Perhaps the intent was to force patients to purchase their medicine when they would normally grow their own?

Quite frankly, ROT 2010 is a byzantine maze, and that in itself is reason enough to oppose it. THC 2010, on the other hand, is short, sweet, and clear as a bell.

It appears that ROT 2010 could be used to force the closure of existing dispensaries and collectives in those communities that do not enact local taxes on marijuana. Conversely, it could force communities to tax medical marijuana in order to keep existing dispensaries and collectives when they would not otherwise do so because medicine should not be taxed.

ROT 2010 prohibits consumption in public or in the presence of minors. Currently, medical consumption of cannabis in public is not prohibited. Instead, H&S 11362.79 prohibits smoking cannabis where smoking is prohibited, implying it is legal where smoking is allowed. The prohibition against medicating in front of children will be particularly onerous for medical marijuana patients. Will medical marijuana patients be forced to choose between their medicine and their children?

THC 2010 implicitly decriminalizes smoking or consumption in public when it prohibits it within 500 feet of a school (except a college or university) or youth center.

Most troubling about ROT 2010, is Section 2, C - Intent. Item 1 in this section lists the statutes ROT 2010 will "limit the application" of with regard to cannabis. In this instance "limit" appears to mean "exempt" or "exclude" from existing state drug laws. Item 2 is a list of statutes not affected by the initiative.

Notably absent from the statutes not affected by the initiative are Health & Safety code 11362.5 - The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 or Proposition 215, and Health & Safety codes 11362.7 - 11362.83 or SB 420. These are California's medical marijuana statutes.

Thus, not only does this initiative fail to exempt medical marijuana patients from any of its provisions, but by explicitly listing statutes it does not affect, and omitting the medical marijuana statutes from this list, it implies that it does affect them, replacing or superseding them.

ROT 2010 also prohibits the sales to minors and possession by minors. Since there is no exemption anywhere in ROT 2010 for medical patients, this will make criminals of all the medical marijuana patients in California under 21.

The first item in THC 2010 specifically exempts medical use by minors from its provisions.

Section 11304 (a) of ROT 2010 states: "This Act shall not be construed to affect, limit or amend any statute that ... that penalizes bringing cannabis to a school enrolling pupils in any grade from kindergarten through 12, inclusive." Note here how specific it is - just those statutes that "penalize" bringing cannabis to school are not affected by The Act. Those that would allow it, the medical marijuana statutes which protect the right of patients to have and use marijuana as medicine, are explicitly excluded from what the act "shall not" affect.

While THC 2010 would prevent minors who are medical marijuana patients (or anyone else) from smoking marijuana within 500 feet of a school, it does not prohibit possession or consumption by means other than smoking. Thus, underage marijuana patients would not be prevented from taking their medicine while attending school under THC 2010.

ROT 2010 specifically authorizes amendment by the legislature.

In summary THC 2010 - The Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010 gives amnesty for marijuana prisoners in California, decriminalizes hemp, legalizes marijuana, and exempts medical marijuana patients from having to pay tax on medicine. It protects children who are medical marijuana patients. It prohibits discrimination based on marijuana use. It is short, sweet, and clear as a bell.

ROT 2010 - The Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 is a treacherous byzantine maze of obfuscation. Prohibiting discrimination never occurred to the authors. Neither did protecting medical marijuana patients. They thought about decriminalizing hemp, but didn't do it. The statedpurpose is to force the taxation of cannabis, medicine or not, "without limitation" and prohibit sales in cities and counties that have the moral cojones not to tax medicine. It penalizes possession of more than one ounce for personal use and requires cities and counties to enact ordinances to raise the limits. It could be used to prosecute medical patients having more than one ounce and to prevent the medicinal use of marijuana by children. It increases some penalties for sales to anyone under 21. It is a Trojan Horse. It is the new improved Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

For more info:
The Tax, Regulate and Control Cannabis Act of 2010 (THC 2010)
California Cannabis Initiative / Rogoway, Figueroa, Clark | 15 Jul 09

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010)
Tax Cannabis 2010 / Oaksterdamn U, Richard Lee | 28 Jul 09

 

[GanjaAL2]

Nice read... and THC 2010 is the way to go!

 

[flank]

Its times like this that i wish i lived in cali (ok, i wish i lived in cali everyday, but still, more now). I wish there was something i could do for the movement, but up here in Canada land theres not much. I hope something similar comes to my neck of the woods.

Good luck! And i hope all of the 420mag cali people jump on this!

 

[GanjaAL2]

Yes deffinately... however the only hope for the cause is THC 2010 as people will be best served all around.

 

[Shanty]

Absolutely the best news. It has taken many years of hard work by many thousands of people before now, to get to this point. Each time, and I cannot see not receiving twice the signatures needed, we make a step like this, each state, with the economy in need of serious repair, will see income generation.

From something that will happen regardless, better to tax it and have our money kept in the USA than to just a small few billionaires South and on a much lesser scale, North of our borders.

Think how much this will allow our Law Enforcement, to do much more meaningful work than putting Joe Plumber in front of a Judge for growing and smoking his or her choice or relaxants. The Court Systems, already deludged in California, will be able to save, not just tens of Millions, but billions of dollars, moving forward for decades to come. Our prison systems are too full, all the way down to city and county jails, of non violent, not otherwise dangerous citizens using up funds that just are not available under incarciration and supervised. I have to believe Parole Officers and Social Systems alone must be applauding this move.

 

[alapoet]

Well put, LED.

Unfortunately, too many in law enforcement and in Corrections stubbornly stand by the pot laws, because they see in them a source of job security.

 

[GanjaAL2]

Well put, LED.

Unfortunately, too many in law enforcement and in Corrections stubbornly stand by the pot laws, because they see in them a source of job security.

As a source of funding... I wonder how much the local and federalies made off the latest bust's in san diego and the ones not to long ago in L.A.???

 

[KiwiKing]

Marijuana should not be legalized. Medical marijuana should be. The market would become saturated with pot from corporate growers, while making cali a safe haven for criminal organizations to to grow and transport product out of state. The market would be saturated with pot from large corporations...

 

[CB1976]

yeah just like alcohol, we dont need anymore bars in our neighboorhood. I wonder if strbucks buys all ther muffins from the same place? By the way where would one sign sed petition?

 

[lutherstyles]

The allowance of commercial production alone will defeat this measure. If it had a provision clearly outlawing commercial production but legalizing any adult joe to grow a few trees in his back yard or to grow in his closet it would have a hope. With commercial production there would be to great a threat to export to other states. Although I'm sure the federal government would lock up for life anyone growing 300 acres of cannabis. I mean I don't want my daughter exposed at every convience store on her way home to joints or worse hash oil. I expect to talk educate and instill a great work ethic into her at a pace where I see fit. I'll introduce cannabis and other drug education probably early in her teens in the secluded enviroment of my home. It's a hard toss up between freedoms of medicinal qualities as well as just relaxation like beer and law. We'll get there eventually. Here in California in the next 10 years or so and federally in the next 20. I'm sure it will go down the lines of no commercial, small quantities, liscencing and taxation.

 

[CharlieMopps]

Marijuana should not be legalized. Medical marijuana should be. The market would become saturated with pot from corporate growers, while making cali a safe haven for criminal organizations to to grow and transport product out of state. The market would be saturated with pot from large corporations...

But it would litterally cripple the "mexican cartels" that smuggle in weed or grow it in our state parks. I have been ticketed numerous times for posession of a dried flower. It needs to stop.

This is the best news i've heard all year.

 

[Shanty]

lutherstyles,

I can certainly feel you as a parent, but I wonder if you have forgotten when you were young, did you need a conveinant store to get your stuff? nope and neither do kids today. Ask any kid, user or not user, in Middle school or High school, which locker do you go to, to get drugs. Your argument/statement is logical, but as a parent, you are not thinking clearly. There is abuse everywhere, but to control it, in no matter what way there will be abuses, has to be better than what we live with today.

 

[free2blaze]

I cant say that to legalize pot would be the best idea , I would lean more towards decriminalization, I feel all out legalization will destroy marijuana, I guess in that im being alittle greedy but I like to get high,

 

[keeganmichael]

Although the allowance of commercial growing makes me worry that the ballot will be disregarded, it is the right thing that should be done.
With very little research anyone can learn that our laws that also make growing industrial Hemp illegal are ridiculous. Both industrial and recreational hemp should be allowed to be grown by anyone, whether you're a commercial business or a private user - its a plant of this earth and no one should be prohibited from growing the earth. Lets stop pushing the market of this crop into the black. Statistics show that where marijuana is legal, user rates especially minor use are not higher, or are even lower like in amsterdam... so if the market of recreational marijuana does not increase (alcohol drinking rates where also higher during the alcohol prohibtion) then creating a legal market has to mean removing most of the clientele of the black market. Sure neighboring states would worry it might be easy to cross state boundries... but this plant should be legal there too..
There is no even government reason why industrial hemp was ever made illegal but it could save the world. Hemp for victory is a fda video from 1942 about how great hemp is and how to grow and harvest it.

It is lunacy to imprison anyone simply for possessing a fruit of the earth. We were born from the resources of this planet, which also offers up Cannabis, and to prohibit it is due to arrogance, ignorance, and lots of greed.