November Initiative Tests A Big Voting Block: Marijuana Smokers

California's November ballot initiative to legalize marijuana for recreational use may well ride on a potent voting block - people who currently smoke marijuana or have used pot in the past.

All told, past and present pot smokers comprise 37 percent of registered voters in California, according to a recent poll undertaken by the University of Southern California College of Letters, Arts, & Sciences and the Los Angeles Times.

That's well more than the number of registered Republicans (31 percent) and independent voters (20 percent) and within striking distance of the number of Democrats (just under 45 percent.)

The significance is that pot smokers overwhelmingly support the November initiative to legalize recreational use for Californians over 21, allow small residential cultivation and permit local governments to tax and regulate marijuana.

"It is a very identifiable and easily targeted voter group," said Dan Schnur, director of USC's Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics. "It's very clear that individuals who have used marijuana either medicinally or for recreation are a lot more likely to vote for the initiative.

"Short of giving out free baggies at the polling place, the smartest thing for the 'yes' side to do is motivate that base to turn out on election day."

Yet Dan Newman, a strategist from the Tax Cannabis 2010 campaign, said there will be no bring-the-smokers-to-the-polls election push.

"There won't be any sophisticated, fancy pants micro-targeting," Newman insisted. "We simply don't need it. We have truth, justice and common sense on our side."

In the USC/L.A. Times statewide poll conducted May 19-26, eleven percent of registered voters reported using marijuana in the past year. Of those, 82 percent favored the legalization initiative.

Twenty-six percent of registered voters said they have smoked pot in the past - and 61 percent favored the measure. Overall, 68 percent of current and former marijuana smokers backed legalization.

Voters who never used marijuana opposed legalization by a lesser margin, 53 to 36 percent, according to the poll.

And indications are pot smoking voters will be motivated -- and not too medicated -- to cast their ballots.

Some 88 percent of registered voters who have used marijuana in the past told pollsters they were "almost certain" to vote in 2010 and another seven percent said they would "probably" vote. Seventy-five percent of voters who smoked in the past year reported they were extremely likely to vote and another 14 percent said they would probably cast ballots.

Newman, who promotes the pot measure as an important source of tax revenues for California communities, predicted the initiative will bring out both smoker-voters and others newly discovering where their local polling places are located.

"There are going to be people showing up at the polls who don't vote in every election because this is on the ballot," Newman said.

But Wayne Johnson, lead campaign consultant for Public Safety First, which opposes the legalization, said voters' marijuana use will prove to be irrelevant. Public Safety First, a coalition of law enforcement, transportation and religious organizations, attacks the initiative as promoting a drug that causes physical impairment and presents a safety risk.

"We're going to win both of those groups (pot users and non-users) before this is over - because it's not about marijuana," Johnson said. "People who have driven under the influence are certainly not going to vote for driving under the influence. I don't think the fact that somebody is or isn't a marijuana user takes away from that notion of the public good."


NewsHawk: Ganjarden: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: The Sacramento Bee
Author: Peter Hecht
Copyright: 2010 The Sacramento Bee
 
I`ll have you know there are plenty of us marijuana smokers who oppose this bill strongly! And with ever reason because it is a total bunk law with not one good thing in it for smokers and everything in it for making it backers`Oakstererdam` richer! If you read the many,many,many many,many threads started here by Ganjarden you will see a pattern of bios where every time to many posts by marijuana smokers who oppose this preposed law post up here more newer poses are submitted. I`m begaining to think that this site or at least some members of this site are on the take from Oaksterdam swindlers! Instead of limiting my freedom of speach they limit it`s impact by starting new threads all pro Tax,Regulate, and Control.Trying to make me/us the smallest voice of freedom in this dirty political war against true marijuana users freedom? Read the posts people and read the unedited propossed law! It offers nothing for marijuana users and has only to do with oaksterdam owners becoming richer! The worst thing is they`ve used the moneys of sick med users to aford this afront to our freedom! Let em know a `Head` still has a head in the November elections and join with me to vote a big NO to this evil money scam!
 
If you read the many,many,many many,many threads started here by Ganjarden you will see a pattern of bios where every time to many posts by marijuana smokers who oppose this preposed law post up here more newer poses are submitted. I`m begaining to think that this site or at least some members of this site are on the take from Oaksterdam swindlers! Instead of limiting my freedom of speach they limit it`s impact by starting new threads all pro Tax,Regulate, and Control.Trying to make me/us the smallest voice of freedom in this dirty political war against true marijuana users freedom?

Mark,
I see alot of your posts spreading alot of opinion about this law. But very little in the way of specifics. And in many of those threads, I have asked you specifically to point out where some of your "facts" are in the initiative. However, I do not see you answer those,, just go to the next thread and start giving more misinformation...
There is alot of spin, and you are right, people should read the initiave.. so here it is..

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010
Title and Summary:

Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed. Initiative Statute.

Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products.

Section 1: Name
This Act shall be known as the "Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010."

Section 2: Findings, Intent and Purposes
This Act, adopted by the People of the State of California, makes the following Findings and Statement of Intent and Purpose:
A. Findings
1. California's laws criminalizing cannabis (marijuana) have failed and need to be reformed. Despite spending decades arresting millions of non-violent cannabis consumers, we have failed to control cannabis or reduce its availability.
2. According to surveys, roughly 100 million Americans (around 1/3 of the country's population) acknowledge that they have used cannabis, 15 million of those Americans having consumed cannabis in the last month. Cannabis consumption is simply a fact of life for a large percentage of Americans.
3. Despite having some of the strictest cannabis laws in the world, the United States has the largest number of cannabis consumers. The percentage of our citizens who consume cannabis is double that of the percentage of people who consume cannabis in the Netherlands, a country where the selling and adult possession of cannabis is allowed.
4. According to The National Research Council's recent study of the 11 U.S. states where cannabis is currently decriminalized, there is little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions and the rate of consumption.
5. Cannabis has fewer harmful effects than either alcohol or cigarettes, which are both legal for adult consumption. Cannabis is not physically addictive, does not have long term toxic effects on the body, and does not cause its consumers to become violent.
6. There is an estimated $15 billion in illegal cannabis transactions in California each year. Taxing and regulating cannabis, like we do with alcohol and cigarettes, will generate billions of dollars in annual revenues for California to fund what matters most to Californians: jobs, health care, schools and libraries, roads, and more.
7. California wastes millions of dollars a year targeting, arresting, trying, convicting, and imprisoning non-violent citizens for cannabis related offenses. This money would be better used to combat violent crimes and gangs.
8. The illegality of cannabis enables for the continuation of an out-of-control criminal market, which in turn spawns other illegal and often violent activities. Establishing legal, regulated sales outlets would put dangerous street dealers out of business.
B. Purposes
1. Reform California's cannabis laws in a way that will benefit our state.
2. Regulate cannabis like we do alcohol: Allow adults to possess and consume small amounts of cannabis.
3. Implement a legal regulatory framework to give California more control over the cultivation, processing, transportation, distribution, and sales of cannabis.
4. Implement a legal regulatory framework to better police and prevent access to and consumption of cannabis by minors in California.
5. Put dangerous, underground street dealers out of business, so their influence in our communities will fade.
6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.
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 through 11362.9.
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 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
9. Tax and regulate cannabis to generate billions of dollars for our state and local governments to fund what matters most: jobs, healthcare, schools and libraries, parks, roads, transportation, and more.
10. Stop arresting thousands of non-violent cannabis consumers, freeing up police resources and saving millions of dollars each year, which could be used for apprehending truly dangerous criminals and keeping them locked up, and for other essential state needs that lack funding.
11. Allow the Legislature to adopt a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry.
12. Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes.
13. Permit California to fulfill the state's obligations under the United States Constitution to enact laws concerning health, morals, public welfare and safety within the State.
14. Permit the cultivation of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption.
C. Intent
1. This Act is intended to limit the application and enforcement of state and local laws relating to possession, transportation, cultivation, consumption and sale of cannabis, including but not limited to the following, whether now existing or adopted in the future: Health and Safety Code sections 11014.5 and 11364.5 [relating to drug paraphernalia]; 11054 [relating to cannabis or tetrahydrocannabinols]; 11357 [relating to possession]; 11358 [relating to cultivation]; 11359 [possession for sale]; 11360 [relating to transportation and sales]; 11366 [relating to maintenance of places]; 11366.5 [relating to use of property]; 11370 [relating to punishment]; 11470 [relating to forfeiture]; 11479 [relating to seizure and destruction]; 11703 [relating to definitions regarding illegal substances]; 11705 [actions for use of illegal controlled substance]; Vehicle Code sections 23222 and 40000.15 [relating to possession].
2. This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of the following state laws relating to public health and safety or protection of children and others: Health and Safety Code sections 11357 [relating to possession on school grounds]; 11361 [relating to minors as amended herein]; 11379.6 [relating to chemical production]; 11532 [relating to loitering to commit a crime or acts not authorized by law]; Vehicle Code section 23152 [relating to driving while under the influence]; Penal Code section 272 [relating to contributing to the delinquency of a minor]; nor any law prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve public safety.

Section 3: Lawful Activities
Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, commencing with section 11300 is added to read:
Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls
(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:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual's personal consumption, and not for sale.
(ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.
(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.
(iv) Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection.
(b) "Personal consumption" shall include but is not limited to possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other non-public place, and shall include licensed premises open to the public authorized to permit on-premises consumption of cannabis by a local government pursuant to section 11301.
(c) "Personal consumption" shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis:
(i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301;
(ii) consumption in public or in a public place;
(iii) consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator;
(iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.

Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls
Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:
(a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized;
(b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale;
(c) appropriate controls on cultivation, transportation, sales, and consumption of cannabis to strictly prohibit access to cannabis by persons under the age of 21;
(d) age limits and controls to ensure that all persons present in, employed by, or in any way involved in the operation of, any such licensed premises are 21 or older;
(e) consumption of cannabis within licensed premises;
(f) safe and secure transportation of cannabis from a licensed premises for cultivation or processing, to a licensed premises for sale or on-premises consumption of cannabis;
(g) prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300;
(h) appropriate controls on licensed premises for sale, cultivation, processing, or sale and on-premises consumption, of cannabis, including limits on zoning and land use, locations, size, hours of operation, occupancy, protection of adjoining and nearby properties and persons from unwanted exposure, advertising, signs and displays, and other controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare;
(i) appropriate environmental and public health controls to ensure that any licensed premises minimizes any harm to the environment, adjoining and nearby landowners, and persons passing by;
(j) appropriate controls to restrict public displays, or public consumption of cannabis;
(k) appropriate taxes or fees pursuant to section 11302;
(l) 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;
(m) any other appropriate controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare.

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.
(b) Any licensed premises shall be responsible for paying all federal, state and local taxes, fees, fines, penalties or other financial responsibility imposed on all or similarly situated businesses, facilities or premises, including without limitation income taxes, business taxes, license fees, and property taxes, without regard to or identification of the business or items or services sold.

Section 11303: Seizure
(a) Notwithstanding sections 11470 and 11479 of the Health and Safety Code or any other provision of law, no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact seize or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is lawfully cultivated, processed, transported, possessed, possessed for sale, sold or used in compliance with this Act or any local government ordinance, law or regulation adopted pursuant to this Act.

Section 11304: Effect of Act and Definitions
(a) This Act shall not be construed to affect, limit or amend any statute that forbids impairment while engaging in dangerous activities such as driving, or that penalizes bringing cannabis to a school enrolling pupils in any grade from kindergarten through 12, inclusive.
(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed or interpreted to permit interstate or international transportation of cannabis. This Act shall be construed to permit a person to transport cannabis in a safe and secure manner from a licensed premises in one city or county to a licensed premises in another city or county pursuant to any ordinances adopted in such cities or counties, notwithstanding any other state law or the lack of any such ordinance in the intervening cities or counties.
(c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.
(d) Definitions
For purposes of this Act:
(i) "Marijuana" and "cannabis" are interchangeable terms that mean all parts of the plant Genus Cannabis, whether growing or not; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; concentrated cannabis; edible products containing same; and every active compound, manufacture, derivative, or preparation of the plant, or resin.
(ii) "One ounce" means 28.5 grams.
(iii) For purposes of section 11300(a)(ii) "cannabis plant" means all parts of a living Cannabis plant.
(iv) In determining whether an amount of cannabis is or is not in excess of the amounts permitted by this Act, the following shall apply:
(a) only the active amount of the cannabis in an edible cannabis product shall be included;
(b) living and harvested cannabis plants shall be assessed by square footage, not by weight in determining the amounts set forth in section 11300(a);
(c) in a criminal proceeding a person accused of violating a limitation in this Act shall have the right to an affirmative defense that the cannabis was reasonably related to his or her personal consumption.
(v) "residence" means a dwelling or structure, whether permanent or temporary, on private or public property, intended for occupation by a person or persons for residential purposes, and includes that portion of any structure intended for both commercial and residential purposes.
(vi) "local government" means a city, county, or city and county.
(vii) "licensed premises" is any commercial business, facility, building, land or area that has a license, permit or is otherwise authorized to cultivate, process, transport, sell, or permit on-premises consumption, of cannabis pursuant to any ordinance or regulation adopted by a local government pursuant to section 11301, or any subsequently enacted state statute or regulation.

Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors
Section 11361 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors
(a) Every person 18 years of age or over who hires, employs, or uses a minor in transporting, carrying, selling, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling any marijuana, who unlawfully sells, or offers to sell, any marijuana to a minor, or who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give any marijuana to a minor under 14 years of age, or who induces a minor to use marijuana in violation of law shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years.
(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.
(c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense.
(d) In addition to the penalties above, any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to perform any act pursuant to Section 11301, who while so licensed, permitted or authorized, negligently furnishes, administers, gives or sells, or offers to furnish, administer, give or sell, any marijuana to any person younger than 21 years of age shall not be permitted to own, operate, be employed by, assist or enter any licensed premises authorized under Section 11301 for a period of one year.

Section 5: Amendment
Pursuant to Article 2, section 10(c) of the California Constitution, this Act may be amended either by a subsequent measure submitted to a vote of the People at a statewide election; or by statute validly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, but only to further the purposes of the Act. Such permitted amendments include but are not limited to:
(a) Amendments to the limitations in section 11300, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations.
(b) Statutes and authorize regulations to further the purposes of the Act to establish a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry that addresses some or all of the items referenced in Sections 11301 and 11302.
(c) Laws to authorize the production of hemp or non-active cannabis for horticultural and industrial purposes.

Section 6: Severability
If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.
 
I don't understand why anyone who wants to stop the prohibition madness would be against this bill. It may not be perfect in every way, but it's a tremendous improvement over what exists currently. Using an analogy: it's like someone refusing to accept a gift of $1000 because they want $10,000... This bill is a great starting point and hope that The Cali's don't let the world down on this vote! Vote YES for the God's sake!
 
I don't understand why anyone who wants to stop the prohibition madness would be against this bill. It may not be perfect in every way, but it's a tremendous improvement over what exists currently. Using an analogy: it's like someone refusing to accept a gift of $1000 because they want $10,000... This bill is a great starting point and hope that The Cali's don't let the world down on this vote! Vote YES for the God's sake!

Because it does not get people out of jail, it will put more people in jail and it will make those backing the bill millions.
 
Because it does not get people out of jail, it will put more people in jail and it will make those backing the bill millions.
Originally posted by: GanjaAL2

I'm not sure how legalizing one of the countries notorious nuance is going to put MORE people in jail. Thousands of people are thrown through the court system on petty misdemeanor cases for marajuana use and distribution every day. It's quite simple: take the main cause out of the equation and you have more money from state taxes to feed back into the starved education system, less crowded jail space and less crime due to the fact that there's no further need to grow crop illegally. Hikers in Northern Cali are killed all the time for "stumbling" into a national preserved forest and finding an illegal cannabis crop armed by gunned men. If it's legal, there's no need for the guns other than protecting the crop itself from thieves and not the feds. The bill itself is what I've personally been suggesting for the longest. It clearly stands up in comparison with alcohol and tobacco when it comes to health and sobriety issues. Why not regulate it as both are? This bill gives the people not only recreation usage of the drug but it's given the same guidelines as alcohol and tobacco for general safety precautions. There is not ONE argument that anyone can use against the use of recreational marijuana without recycling the same rhetoric for prescription drug abuse and alcoholism, which we currently allow freely in our households. God put it here so lets cut out the bull and legalize it already!
 
Because of the 18-20 age limits... sorry but it is the young people that are being arrested the most and not so much the older generation as they know how to keep it on the down low. The 18-20 crowd will have it basically at their disposal and it will bite them in the butt. Furthermore... they will also loose all rights and benifits like social programs and benifits for school once they are arrested... but again... this is only my observation so do what you want.
 
I don't like the one ounce limit, or the twenty-five square foot grow limit, so I'm glad they included this:

"(l) 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;"

I live in Santa Cruz County, and I expect the local authorities here to much more generous. They voted to let medical cannabis patients keep up to 8 pounds, and have a grow of 100 square feet. They'll shoot that one ounce limit down quickly.
 
Because of the 18-20 age limits... sorry but it is the young people that are being arrested the most and not so much the older generation as they know how to keep it on the down low. The 18-20 crowd will have it basically at their disposal and it will bite them in the butt. Furthermore... they will also loose all rights and benifits like social programs and benifits for school once they are arrested... but again... this is only my observation so do what you want.

I'm going to have to dismiss your claims as complete non-sense. Younger people do tend to act on impulse or lack common sense (hell I sure did), so that may be a wonderful reason to keep an immature person away from something that they may or may not fully understand: like getting high. In all reality though, being 18 never kept a joint outta my hands, and I highly doubt that any law would change that for any 18 year old. Weed will be there, so people under 21 are just going to keep have to choose between using or not.

Getting arrested does NOT mean that you loose all rights and benefits. Felons are allowed to attend college. I have been arrested and I just wrapped-up my second year of college on a scholarship that I earned. I earned that scholarship writing about my experiences in life, the justice system, the futility of incarceration for non-violent individuals, and some other stuff.

So kids, smoke-up, use your heads, and if you get caught, pray that you learn something.
 
Sorry but you are full of it.. if you are convicted of a drug charge you will not recieve any type of aid... I have been on it and am attending school. They do ask and if you were convicted, you get nothing. Funny how other crimes allow you to keep benifits but drug ones do not.
 
I`m begaining to think that this site or at least some members of this site are on the take from Oaksterdam swindlers!

LMFAO. This site makes Oaksterdam superfluous. Why pay to learn in any other way besides going on to share your learned knowledge with others.
 
LMFAO. This site makes Oaksterdam superfluous. Why pay to learn in any other way besides going on to share your learned knowledge with others.

The sick thing about it is that they are going to ruin alot of peoples lives with this bill. It sound great but when you dig deeper and look further at the bill you will see it is going to hurt alot of people and put alot of our youth in prison. However the classes will be filled to learn how to grow your own weed and no one will be let out of prison and our youth will loose!

Do your homework people... if your are caught using drugs or arrested for using drugs you will not qualify for finacial aid for school or if you need temporary assistance from the state... you will get nothing! No foodstamps or cash aid. They ask and do check.

How about a bill that will decriminalize an oz. with no fine or ticket for 18 and over and let everyone who was arrested for such or for personal use out of jail... that would be a great start.. as it will not benifit anyone but the people who use marijuana!
 
So, as a current medical patient and father of 2 who is suffering from migraines and insomnia and is growing for others that do not have the ability to grow themselves, this bill will force me to "work" with local government who will decide for me if I can have a license to legally grow and tell me what "legal" limits I'm entitled to? All the while, being a father of 2 young children I will not be able to smoke on my backyard patio as my children play in the backyard? As of right now, I can decide for myself how much I can grow, use and possess within my reasonable limits. This bill seems little more than a ploy for commercial growers to squash the local grow ops. Nowhere does this bill say "who" or "how" one can obtain the authorization to grow in an area bigger than a 5x5 which many grow ops exceed to meet the needs of patients. For all we know, the state could charge several thousand dollars for a permit to grow in an area larger than 5x5. And who would regulate these commercial growers? What's stopping them from growing marijuana treated with harsh pesticides only to be consumed by the patients and recreational users alike? What about law enforcement practices for traffic stops? What going to stop LEO from swabbing your mouth (which has been proven to produce a lot of false negatives) or worse, issuing a blood test that will show you smoked 10 days prior after you got pulled over for a dead headlight? Great, now you've got fines, possible jail time and if you are a grower, you can no longer legally grow marijuana. But that's assuming law enforcement would be EXTRA tough on you. I mean law enforcement has always been kind and understanding folk right?:hmmmm:
Now I understand that this initiative is not perfect and some would argue it's a start to full legalization. First, who is behind this bill? What sort of entity would take it upon themselves to draw this up and present it in hopes of passing? Second, even if it passes it's still illegal on the Federal level. The DEA and FBI could come down on California growers and commercial retailers like a swarm of hornets. Not that they would of course as the DEA and FBI are organizations where only cute, fuzzy, fun-loving and compassionate forest creatures who are corruption-proof are allowed to work.

Come on California, we can do better than this. Please see through the "legal weed" smoke and recognize this as the siren song that it is.
 
All the while, being a father of 2 young children I will not be able to smoke on my backyard patio as my children play in the backyard?.

I am the father of 2 children as well, and I do not smoke in front of them, they are older now, but I never smoked in fornt of them. What you do is what you do, not preaching, but I do not see what is so bad about smoking in a different room...

this is a quote from cannabis culture, an article by marc emery from 6/10 - Why You Should Vote YES on the California "Control & Tax Cannabis" Initiative

this deals with the smoking by a minor

The initiative doesn't add any penalties for toking outdoors in the same space as minors, it merely says these things are not authorized under the bill. So whatever the current law is regarding outdoor toking or toking near minors would be the same as before the bill was passed.

However, it is not unreasonable to have minors excluded from the initiative. The opposition to the Lee Initiative often focuses on the availability of cannabis to minors. It is a small inconvenience not to have minors present when you are consuming cannabis. Minors need only be in another room while cannabis is being consumed. Cannabis is a psychoactive that travels through the air. You can't supply alcohol to minors either, because it too is regarded as a psychoactive, but alcohol is a liquid. The potential penalties are the same. Yet have you heard of any parents arrested for giving their teenage children a glass of red wine at dinner? Not often, if ever, but the law still forbids it. That will likely be the regime for cannabis. This objection is trivial, as are all the objections coming from the naysayers.

This law absolutely protects your right to privacy in your home to consume cannabis, in a private room absent any minors. It's not unreasonable to restrict consumption of cannabis to adults in any law at this point in our political evolution. It is illegal to smoke cigarettes in an enclosed space with minors. It is illegal to share alcohol with minors. Considering the incredible awesome benefits for adults 21 and over in the legislation, this is a minor inconvenience at most. For most adults without minors in the house, club or private residence, it is not an irritant at all. This aspect of the legislation may go far to reassure voters that it won't be a free-for-all for teenagers in private property, which is entirely reasonable.

Is the "right" to smoke with minors present SO important that we must 30 million Californians the genuine right to possess and smoke in safety in their own homes? Give me a break! If you want to campaign to lower the legal age limit of "adulthood", that's another initiative.
 
I am the father of 2 children as well, and I do not smoke in front of them, they are older now, but I never smoked in fornt of them. What you do is what you do, not preaching, but I do not see what is so bad about smoking in a different room...

this is a quote from cannabis culture, an article by marc emery from 6/10 - Why You Should Vote YES on the California "Control & Tax Cannabis" Initiative

this deals with the smoking by a minor

No disrespect to Mr. Emery as he is a valued member of our community but why should I as a California resident take his opinions about law enforcement to heart? He is a Canadian citizen who is thankfully concerned for the community as a whole but his thoughts on the matter are of little concern to himself. If I recall correctly, wasn't it him was who was hoping his own government would not extradite him to faces charges in the United States? How did that work out for him? I personally feel his barometer for law enforcement intentions needs some fine tuning. While I have never heard of a family being persecuted for allowing minors to sip red wine at the dinner table or champagne at a special occasion I have heard of people being arrested and prosecuted for using marijuana whether a minor was present or not. Don't assume for one second that law enforcement will think marijuana consumption by a minor will be as trivial as alcohol consumption by a minor. Also, doesn't this act state that anyone who knowingly or unknowingly provides a minor with marijuana loses their right to grow it themselves? I'm pretty sure if I throw my son a kegger for his 16th bday and get caught I'll get in trouble but I won't lose my right to buy myself a drink at my local pub.

Also this bit about Mr. Emery's quote confuses me "The initiative doesn't add any penalties for toking outdoors in the same space as minors, it merely says these things are not authorized under the bill." So this means it's illegal to toke outdoors around minors but since the bill adds no penalties, guess who does? Your local government, that's who. Thanks for trying to ease my frustration regarding minors with this initiative but there's a few more concerns I have. What about my concerns of a DUI (cannabis not Alcohol) or my concerns as a medical grower? Can you please address them as well?
 
It changes nothing to the medical marijuana laws. Whatever they are they will be the same when this passes.

I'm pretty sure if I throw my son a kegger for his 16th bday and get caught I'll get in trouble but I won't lose my right to buy myself a drink at my local pub.

Actually if you were arrested and convicted for doing that yes you would lose your right to drink. If you are in jail you can't drink.(well drink anything decent) If your on probation for anything you are not allowed to drink period. You would still be able to if your not on pee tests and since cops don't follow you around to watch your every move you could still drink at a pub but it would be illegal and you could be arrested on probation violation.

Now I know cops will have a hard time if this passes because they are so indoctrinated with the drug war that they believe that this plant is evil.

You have to remember one of the main talking points of the prohibitionist is what about the children. The writers of this took that in to consideration. This initiative doesn't change the charges about people under 21 and cannabis. It will have the same fines and incarceration as the law is now. So whats the complaint? You don't like it because it doesn't allow minors to be around cannabis? That's the law now and it seems like it hasn't caused you to much trouble.
 
I'm pretty sure if I throw my son a kegger for his 16th bday and get caught I'll get in trouble but I won't lose my right to buy myself a drink at my local pub.

Yeah, that's messed-up. You should lose your rights if you were to do such a thing. Our children have plenty of friends. What they need most is parents.
 
It changes nothing to the medical marijuana laws. Whatever they are they will be the same when this passes.



Actually if you were arrested and convicted for doing that yes you would lose your right to drink. If you are in jail you can't drink.(well drink anything decent) If your on probation for anything you are not allowed to drink period. You would still be able to if your not on pee tests and since cops don't follow you around to watch your every move you could still drink at a pub but it would be illegal and you could be arrested on probation violation.

Now I know cops will have a hard time if this passes because they are so indoctrinated with the drug war that they believe that this plant is evil.

You have to remember one of the main talking points of the prohibitionist is what about the children. The writers of this took that in to consideration. This initiative doesn't change the charges about people under 21 and cannabis. It will have the same fines and incarceration as the law is now. So whats the complaint? You don't like it because it doesn't allow minors to be around cannabis? That's the law now and it seems like it hasn't caused you to much trouble.

Whoops. I stand corrected. Guess that shows how often I put that toe out of line huh? LOL. All jokes aside I understand this bill has taken the minors into consideration and like I said before, it is one of parts in this that makes perfect sense. But what I'm concerned about is the consequences I should face if I am growing in my 5x5 and my son/daughter/niece/nephew or under age child of a friend consumes cannabis on my property? Mr Emery feels like its no big deal. Ganja, you've stated that you have friends or know of persons in Law enforcement who view this plant as absolute evil. What would happen if one of them catches me medicating on my front porch while my children enjoy the tire swing I built them out front? This initiative doesn't add penalties for this but clearly states that you can not do it.

Also, what about my concerns regarding DUI (under cannabis not alcohol) and my rights as a medicinal grower. This new initiative WILL affect medicinal growers using more than a 5x5 space if it passes. It does not state the procedure for obtaining said legal permits but leaves this to local government. What if local government says heck no, no commercial grows AT ALL. Under this new initiative wouldn't all grows larger than 5x5 be regarded as commercial? What about Federal law enforcement agencies? Since all commercial growers and commercial outlets will be "out in the open" wouldn't the DEA or FBI essentially have a list of who's who and where? PLEASE. Since so many of you seem to be well versed in this initiative, please address these concerns. I have read the initiative but if I'm just being a bit paranoid and mis-interpreted the wording PLEASE TELL ME I'VE DONE SO and why.
 
If your a medical grower this initiative does not affect you. Whatever the law is now that you follow for medical grows will be the same after this passes. So if you doctor says you need to grow more then a 5x5 area would provide you would still be protected under prop 215.

I'm not sure how this law would open up for the commercial growers who would supply stores with cannabis. The local governments will have to come up with there own regulations about that. So that won't be known until this passes and the local governments act. But the amount that is already grown in Cali I can't see this being a problem. I see cali bud coming to maryland all the time.

When this passes it will still be illegal under federal law as it is now. The federal govt finally said they will stop going after legal medical users(about damn time). So I would figure they would do the same if this passes because there is no way they have enough resources to go after everyone who justs want to smoke. It's a small step and we have so many more steps til we get everything back to the way it should be but this is a step in the right direction.

The dui laws will be the same as before. So I don't know what to say to you about that. I think it's ridiculous that we could get in trouble for dui when all that's in your systems in the broken down thc that stays around for awhile. While we are no longer intoxicated. But there is good news coming out of Michigan about that. Click here

What would happen if one of them catches me medicating on my front porch while my children enjoy the tire swing I built them out front? This initiative doesn't add penalties for this but clearly states that you can not do it.

I understand your paranoia about this. I find it rather stupid that cops would arrest you or get you in any kind of trouble for medicating around your kids. I feel if your a good parent and take care of your kids then it should be of no business to the authorities what you do on your own property. That being said it would be up to the officer at the scene whether to arrest or not and unless a nosy neighbor is bitching and whining I don't see that happening.

Now if kids are smoking at your house shouldn't you say something before the cops even need to be called out? Hell i think the drinking age should be more like europes laws in that respect and should be legal for anyone over 18 as they can fight and die for this country but can't share a drink with friends at a pub. Same for cannabis but that is another argument for another time. Now is the time stop arresting adults for something that doesn't hurt anyone else.

I don't like that aspect much either as my girlfriend is only 19 and I would be getting in trouble for smoking with her which would happen regardless as the laws are now, but I think the freedoms of some 30 million people should not be held back because this law wouldn't allow that. (Would I still smoke with her? Hell yeah but I'd do it like I do it now behind closed doors and in the privacy of my own house) If only I lived in cali. lol

This isn't the end all be all law. This is just a first step and if it passes more and more of these regulations will be loosened up.

I think I got to all your points and I hope I helped you to further understand this initiative. I'm just trying to be free myself. I know I don't live in cali but the ramifications of this passing would effect the whole world in a way cannabis consumers never had a chance to yet. This is only the first step and once we take it maybe we can start running and truly free the weed like it should be.
 
Back
Top Bottom