And I'm with the Professor on this one. Let me re-state that; I've read AB2254 in it's entirety, and not JUST the initiative. Here, for reference sake; AB2254
Why will I vote no? How about the fact that this bill "..shall not preempt the authority of any county, city, city and county, California Community College campus, campus of the California State University, or campus of the University of California to adopt and enforce additional smoking and tobacco control ordinances, regulations, or policies that are more restrictive..." which basically translates into a LEGAL and BINDING way for your local Government to restrict the consumption of recreational cannabis anyway it wants just short of your own home. In short, the local politicians will decide FOR YOU where you can buy, consume and commercially cultivate cannabis.
Does that mean they lose out on tax revenue? Not exactly. They could limit the number of commercial growers and tax them, however since your local gov't won't allow a legal place for recreational purchase they won't be able to sell locally. Sure you could grow your own in a 5x5 area but the only place you can consume it is your home. But what if you're a UC or CSU college student 21+ yrs old and you live on campus? Now, with this bill there's a possibility you won't even be able to do that.
Now someone posted that since the legal possession limit is 1oz of cannabis flowers or concentrate that they would grow as much as possible and sell from their home...(really?) Unfortunately, under this bill you would need to ask your local gov't for a permit to do so, which would cost money (up to $5000) to apply and IF they allow you to do so, it would cost another $2500 which you would have to pay annually. It will also mean that your "commercial" premises would have to be inspected continuously. Don't believe me? Ask the The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control as they "shall administer and enforce..." the regulations. Who also by the way recently proposed UPPING the alcohol tax in CA so that a bottle of two buck chuck ($2 bottle of Charles Shaw wine) would cost $7.11. Who knows what they would tax for legal Cannabis? A wholesaler could purchase a few pounds at $600!
Pretty cheap right? But that's tax free. How much would a consumer (who pays the tax) expect to pay?
There's also the argument that the generated revenue from tax would help alleviate California's financial woes. Don't make this stoner laugh harder. I just can't take it. The advocates state that there's roughly $1.5 billion in annual revenue from illegal marijuana sales and this bill will derail the crime syndicate's cash flow and generate income for the state. But that's revenue from ILLEGAL sales so of course the numbers are astronomical. NEWS FLASH: California ALREADY GETS REVENUE from the taxing of medical marijuana (which is legal) and guess what California spends more money on than anything else, including schools, community centers, local programs, artistic institutions and hospitals? Correctional Facilities. Look this up as it is an undeniable fact. CA spends more tax revenue on jails than anything else. While they cut school programs and ask teacher's to take furloughs to curb spending, what do jails do to help? Nothing really unless you consider the release "less violent" criminals which would include some of our counter-culture buddies (thank goodness) a way to alleviate our debt. All the while, they still clamor in Sacramento to expand jails so they don't have to release anyone. As for the people they release, while they may dodge incarceration, will they still be fined? Hell yes.
My biggest problem with this bill however is the enforcement guidelines especially when it comes to driving; they are the same as alcohol. Operating a vehicle or heavy machinery while impaired is never a good idea but if a PO stops you for swerving in your lane and thinks you're drunk, he/she can give you a sobriety test and or a breathalyzer. You can of course refuse these field test and request a blood test to determine your B.A.C. But what if the PO thinks you're high? What then? There is no breathalyzer for cannabis. The only way I know of to determine the presence of cannabinoids in your body is through a blood test and to me that's the problem. Cannabinoids can stay present in your system for up to 50 days in some cases. So let's say you toke up with your legally purchased or grown bud one fine day and never so again for a week. Then you're pulled over for some minor traffic violation and the PO thinks you are under the influence of something and makes you perform sobriety tests and you pass. Let's say that he/she then administers a breathalyzer test and that too, you pass. BUT he/she now believes you are under the influence of cannabis and order's a blood test. That toke last week will still be in your system and you'll be slapped with a hefty fine, lose your privilege to drive and/or jailed. Sure cops can do this now but they don't. Why? Because right now Marijuana is not legal for recreational use and therefore, less common. Until there is an effective and conclusive way to determine you are presently under the influence of cannabis then this bill is a bad idea.
I am not against the legalization of Pot, but this bill has some shoddy wording and was hastily conceived. Instead of trying to legalize cannabis for recreation in CA, I think we should focus on the Federal Government recognizing the plant as medication because let's face it, that what cannabis is. For those thinking that it's legalization for recreational use will spur the Federal Government to adopt the same guideline, please wake up and think about this clearly. For over a decade, the state of California has had a near perfect model for, while medically classified, effectively legal cannabis in all of its practices. Several states have followed suit modeling CA's system and more are currently considering new legislation to create a MMJ program. But the Federal Government has yet to do so. So let me ask you folks this: What in the world makes you think that cannabis will be legalized on a Federal level if this shoddy bill passes?
Why will I vote no? How about the fact that this bill "..shall not preempt the authority of any county, city, city and county, California Community College campus, campus of the California State University, or campus of the University of California to adopt and enforce additional smoking and tobacco control ordinances, regulations, or policies that are more restrictive..." which basically translates into a LEGAL and BINDING way for your local Government to restrict the consumption of recreational cannabis anyway it wants just short of your own home. In short, the local politicians will decide FOR YOU where you can buy, consume and commercially cultivate cannabis.
Does that mean they lose out on tax revenue? Not exactly. They could limit the number of commercial growers and tax them, however since your local gov't won't allow a legal place for recreational purchase they won't be able to sell locally. Sure you could grow your own in a 5x5 area but the only place you can consume it is your home. But what if you're a UC or CSU college student 21+ yrs old and you live on campus? Now, with this bill there's a possibility you won't even be able to do that.
Now someone posted that since the legal possession limit is 1oz of cannabis flowers or concentrate that they would grow as much as possible and sell from their home...(really?) Unfortunately, under this bill you would need to ask your local gov't for a permit to do so, which would cost money (up to $5000) to apply and IF they allow you to do so, it would cost another $2500 which you would have to pay annually. It will also mean that your "commercial" premises would have to be inspected continuously. Don't believe me? Ask the The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control as they "shall administer and enforce..." the regulations. Who also by the way recently proposed UPPING the alcohol tax in CA so that a bottle of two buck chuck ($2 bottle of Charles Shaw wine) would cost $7.11. Who knows what they would tax for legal Cannabis? A wholesaler could purchase a few pounds at $600!
Pretty cheap right? But that's tax free. How much would a consumer (who pays the tax) expect to pay?There's also the argument that the generated revenue from tax would help alleviate California's financial woes. Don't make this stoner laugh harder. I just can't take it. The advocates state that there's roughly $1.5 billion in annual revenue from illegal marijuana sales and this bill will derail the crime syndicate's cash flow and generate income for the state. But that's revenue from ILLEGAL sales so of course the numbers are astronomical. NEWS FLASH: California ALREADY GETS REVENUE from the taxing of medical marijuana (which is legal) and guess what California spends more money on than anything else, including schools, community centers, local programs, artistic institutions and hospitals? Correctional Facilities. Look this up as it is an undeniable fact. CA spends more tax revenue on jails than anything else. While they cut school programs and ask teacher's to take furloughs to curb spending, what do jails do to help? Nothing really unless you consider the release "less violent" criminals which would include some of our counter-culture buddies (thank goodness) a way to alleviate our debt. All the while, they still clamor in Sacramento to expand jails so they don't have to release anyone. As for the people they release, while they may dodge incarceration, will they still be fined? Hell yes.
My biggest problem with this bill however is the enforcement guidelines especially when it comes to driving; they are the same as alcohol. Operating a vehicle or heavy machinery while impaired is never a good idea but if a PO stops you for swerving in your lane and thinks you're drunk, he/she can give you a sobriety test and or a breathalyzer. You can of course refuse these field test and request a blood test to determine your B.A.C. But what if the PO thinks you're high? What then? There is no breathalyzer for cannabis. The only way I know of to determine the presence of cannabinoids in your body is through a blood test and to me that's the problem. Cannabinoids can stay present in your system for up to 50 days in some cases. So let's say you toke up with your legally purchased or grown bud one fine day and never so again for a week. Then you're pulled over for some minor traffic violation and the PO thinks you are under the influence of something and makes you perform sobriety tests and you pass. Let's say that he/she then administers a breathalyzer test and that too, you pass. BUT he/she now believes you are under the influence of cannabis and order's a blood test. That toke last week will still be in your system and you'll be slapped with a hefty fine, lose your privilege to drive and/or jailed. Sure cops can do this now but they don't. Why? Because right now Marijuana is not legal for recreational use and therefore, less common. Until there is an effective and conclusive way to determine you are presently under the influence of cannabis then this bill is a bad idea.
I am not against the legalization of Pot, but this bill has some shoddy wording and was hastily conceived. Instead of trying to legalize cannabis for recreation in CA, I think we should focus on the Federal Government recognizing the plant as medication because let's face it, that what cannabis is. For those thinking that it's legalization for recreational use will spur the Federal Government to adopt the same guideline, please wake up and think about this clearly. For over a decade, the state of California has had a near perfect model for, while medically classified, effectively legal cannabis in all of its practices. Several states have followed suit modeling CA's system and more are currently considering new legislation to create a MMJ program. But the Federal Government has yet to do so. So let me ask you folks this: What in the world makes you think that cannabis will be legalized on a Federal level if this shoddy bill passes?
