Cops announce support for marijuana legalization

Funny how the "no" people disappear after facts and logic are posted in these discussions... Yes on 19!!

Dreamdust, no one has ever heard of your proposition 420 (I'll leave that one alone), and you will be the only one that votes for it if they dont pass proposition 19. Which they will. I've waited 22 years for this, and it should have happened 72 ago. I don't live in california, therefore i can not vote yes, however, on november 3, I will be on the road to the west coast, my new home.

Exactly dt. Good stuff

Taking names and kicking ass!!

concerned, you are the man!

@dreamdust
Prop 19 would not overturn or replace Prop 215. Section 11300(a)(i) of Prop 19 says that possession of "not more than one ounce" shall not be a crime, which means that even people without marijuana cards will be able to legally possess an ounce or less. People with marijuana cards will not be affected because section 11300(a) only lists things that "shall not be a public offense" - it is granting rights not taking them away. The same applies to the provision for personal cultivation under section 11300(a)(ii) - your rights under Prop 215 will not be affected.

Purpose #6 is to "provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes." The statute will be construed in a way that is consistent with this purpose. Your faulty assumption is that section 11300(a), which lists things that "shall not be a public offense," somehow criminalizes things that are not listed there. The language "not more than one ounce" means "one ounce or less." It does not mean "more than one ounce shall be prohibited."

Prop 19 does not prevent people from consuming in public parks. Section 11301(j) says that local governments have the power to pass ordinances that prohibit public consumption. I'm sure that this is redundant and that they have this power already. The Stoners Against Prop 19 blog makes another logical error when they quote Prop 215 and claim that it allows people to smoke cannabis in public. The language quoted on the blog says that smoking cannabis is prohibited wherever smoking is prohibited. Bizarrely, they twist that to mean that Prop 215 allows cannabis smoking anywhere cigarette smoking is allowed.

If places have not yet passed ordinances prohibiting smoking cannabis in public, they're probably not going to just because Prop 19 says they can. You lucky motherfuckers will still be able to smoke in Golden Gate Park or on the Berkeley quad or whatever. The language is there to try to make Prop 19 appeal to soccer moms so people without the bullshit medical marijuana card will be able to enjoy their freedom and smoke.

If local governments cannot ban dispensaries under current law, what do you call this: [link]

I agree that the section "Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors" could be better, but this is no reason to vote against Prop 19. It can always be amended later. The NORML blog that Concerned linked to points out that the penalties are the same as you'd get for furnishing alcohol to minors. This was included to preempt the inevitable "what about the children?" argument. Hopefully, it won't be construed to limit the ability of people under 21 to get medical marijuana.

Under section 11301(g), a city can punish you for getting cannabis illegally. But as the NORML blog says, "You can grow your own or you can buy it from a licensed store. You and your friends can share what you grow, up to an ounce each." Sounds pretty damn good to me.

also dream in case you didnt hear the family of Jack Herer said he would support Prop 19 and so do they. google it and read it here:

[link]

Jack knew there was a time for debate but once something was on the ballot you GRABBED IT. With both hands.

please take some time and read this please. before you vote no, even if you have already made up your mind, read this and try to think about it. 215 and 420 are totally seperate from prop 19 and if you are covered by them prop 19 will not effect you.

[link]

Dream, Apparently you haven't read close enough. All of your "facts" stem from the incorrect notion that prop 19 supersedes Prop 215 in any way. IT DOESN'T. You need to reread it my friend, in it's entirety. If you are covered by law under prop 215 your coverage DOES NOT CHANGE, prop 19 covers the rest of us. To try to say differently is false. Please reread and stop trying to scare prop 215 patients that don't want to read on their own.

The problem, dreamdust, as I read in your first " fact", is that you have your facts misinterpreted. The medical marijuana laws do not change under prop 19. They don't change one bit, they're even cited as exempt in whats written in prop 19. Under prop 19 everyone over 21 will be able to consume cannabis, unless you are covered under prop 215. Then 215 supersedes it. The "facts" you try to portray right from your first point are fearmongeing and simply wrong. I will go through your "facts" one at a time

"IT WILL BE ILLEGAL TO POSSESS MARIJUANA THAT WAS PURCHASED ANYWHERE OTHER THAN A LICENSED DISPENSARY."

This is true only if a local government adopts such a rule. Look at section 11301 of the proposition. Assuming that San Francisco, for example, will not adopt such a rule, you're not going to have to worry about this rule everywhere in the state. It's possible that no local government will adopt it.

If you're going to advocate against the most liberal cannabis regime in the world, at least be precise when you make claims about what the law is going to do. Don't spread paranoia.

If this proposition gets rejected, the headlines everywhere will be that California rejected legalized marijuana. Are those the headlines you want to see on November 3rd? Since all it takes to get a proposition on the ballot is a certain number of signatures, there's no reason you can't amend Proposition 19 in 2012.

@Concerned:
You cannot speak for me. I'm not voting against my best interest. My best interest is either keeping the medical marijuana gray market or enacting regulation that is better than the medical marijuana laws. Prop. 19 is more restrictive. Why would I vote for it? Why would I vote for something /more/ restrictive than what we have now?

Let's review facts:
It would restrict marijuana to over 21. This is wrong on so many levels I will not vote yes based on this alone. Current MMJ laws allow anyone of any age to consume cannabis if they need to. Prop. 19 is more restrictive.

Prevents people from consuming cannabis in public or in recreational spaces like public parks. Prop 215/SB 420 allows me to consume in public and in parks. Prop. 19 again, is more restrictive.

Allows local counties to choose whether to license any dispensaries at all. This is more restrictive than Prop. 215/ SB 420 as currently counties have no choice on whether to allow collectives or not, they can only regulate them. Prop. 19 gives them the power to ban them completely.

Authorizes a tax in addition to sales tax for marijuana. This is more restrictive than Prop. 215 / SB 420 as mmj dispensaries already pay sales tax. More tax with Prop. 19.

Creates crimes for giving, sharing, or selling marijuana to a person under 21. Again, this is more restrictive than current law.

Limits personal possession to 1 ounce or less. This is more restrictive than the current judicial interpretation of prop 215 / SB 420. I can currently possess whatever my recommendation allows.

Limits cultivation to 5x5 area. This is more restrictive than many existing county limits as well as the judicial interpretation of Prop 215/SB 420

This bill is far more prohibitive than Prop. 215 and I have listed exactly how. I am voting 'no' in the interest of Cannabis freedom, not some desperate attempt to take what I can get. I refuse to be guilt-tripped, this is the best way to vindicate those imprisoned by Cannabis crimes. I invite you to read the Jack Herer initiative for 2012.

Something else that came to mind. Some argue that the ounce has to come from a legal dispensary? Well you can say the ounce came from your 5x5, and the cops would have to prove otherwise. Anything that comes from your 5x5 is legal and the authorities would had to prove anything you had didn't come from your 5x5 grow, which would be impossible. It would be easy to destroy the cops argument in court if it even got that far. You can produce and keeps legally the entire results of your 5x5, just only carry an ounce with you at a time.

To take a step back to hope for something in the future that may never even come to light ( the 2012 initiative) is insane. The prop 19 initiative can be changed after the fact, but if it fails the people that get criminal records in the mean time would surely appreciate your inability to compromise and change it over time. Thats really sad.

If anyone is considering voting no,
especially cannabis consumers, please read

[link]

I've been doing the research and fighting against the nay sayers for 19 ( who all seem to have something to lose monetarily by the legalization of cannabis) for too long, and hear the same tiring arguments. If people are convinced to vote against their own best interests, giving ammunition against the legalization or even medical elsewhere in the country and beyond, and don't care about the thousands in california that get arrested every year despite the "low priority", we are beyond help as a society. It's a tiring fight. This has finally been put on the ballot after so long of a fight, and although it's not ideal, ideal doesn't have a chance to even get on the ballot. Not yet. Baby steps people, you don't lose any rights but gain so much by voting yes on prop 19. Don't be fooled.

Thanks dreamdust ;)

dt, read this:
"--Thus, the initiative's exact words--"prohibit and punish... the possession... of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully... from a person who is licensed or permitted to do so"--mean exactly this: ***IT WILL BE ILLEGAL TO POSSESS MARIJUANA THAT WAS PURCHASED ANYWHERE OTHER THAN A LICENSED DISPENSARY.***

I asked Richard Lee, principle investor in this initiative, directly about this in an interview:

"Let's say I get pulled over by a cop and I'm carrying an ounce. How will I be able to prove that it was 'lawfully obtained?'" I asked.

Lee's response: "You'll have to keep your receipt."

Not only is this inconvenient, but it sets the industry up to be monopolized. This prohibition also means that even if you are in possession of marijuana that was gifted to you-—if it was purchased from anywhere other than a licensed dispensary, you will be illegally in possession of "unlawfully obtained" cannabis, and you will be subject to punishment under Prop. 19.

And there are very few licensed dispensaries in California, by the way. In Oakland, there are four—-Richard Lee owns one of them—-and a cap has been placed in that city so that there can be no others. (Cha-ching!)"

I could go on and on about why I refuse to advocate Prop 19, but I'd just be reiterating what [link] the Stoners Against Prop 19 website says. Read it for yourself, and read the entire proposition for yourself before blindly supporting it. [link]

There's a book called The Paranoid Style in American Politics. No wonder it's prevalent among stoners! Come on, vote for a state where people can be free.

Prop. 19 is a scam! Straight-up. It gives counties the power to ban dispensaries, landlords the power to prevent growing, and prohibits owning an ounce or more. It's more prohibition than legalization. It protects big dealers like Seymour LLC while preventing individuals from participating in the market.

The law is worse than the medical marijuana gray market we have now. Tryp is correct, vote no on Prop. 19 and wait for Jack Herer and Peron's initiative in 2012.

wtf?? What part of the law says that you need "receipt proof"? That is complete BS. Prop 19 would legalize up to an ounce. I don't even live in California, but my mind is blown by the fact that cannabis smokers would vote "no" on what would be the most liberal cannabis regime in the world. I know you have it good over there already, but voting "yes" would be a big "fuck you" to international drug prohibition, and it could start a chain reaction.

If you are considering supporting Prop 19, I would read this entire blog first:

[link]

"The California Police Chiefs Association publicly admits that they do not waste their time on cases involving an ounce or less.[14] Moreover, many cities have already passed measures that require law enforcement to make marijuana possession their lowest priority.

What the initiative would do is create new prohibitions where there were none before, obligating police officers to spend valuable time enforcing them. The cases cops presently de-prioritize are minor offenses, like simple possession. But the initiative takes minor offenses and reclassifies them as more serious crimes (e.g., passing a joint to an adult aged 18-20). Law enforcement’s time is freed up by the elimination of prohibition, not by exchanging old prohibitions for new ones."

Not to mention if you get caught with weed you bought "illegally" from your friend or dealer instead of having receipt proof that it's from a legal dispensary, you could face charges that are much worse than what people face right now, including jail time. Right now all you get is a $100 fine if you're caught with an ounce or less, but if the prop passes and you get caught with "illegal" weed, you're basically fucked.

Be aware that Prop 19 and Legalization are really not the same thing. If you want true legalization, wait for Jack Herer's initiative on the 2012 ballot instead of supporting this poorly regulated law.
[link]

"while restoring public respect for criminal laws and their enforcement"

This is a side of the issue that doesn't get spoken about enough.

That just blew my mind