It may very well be the only chance. What you don't get is that even this proposition only has a chance at passing because of the recession and the economic implications of legalization. If the economy recovers before November, even this law has zero chance at passing. So yes, it's realistic to say this might be a one time window. A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. You're willing to give up this chance for another, hypothetical law that has NEVER in 77 years had a significant chance at passing. I'm being entirely reasonable. You're the one willing to bet the farm on a future law that does not exist and there is no evidence it ever will exist.
Unlike you, I'll refrain from pretending that I know what you think, because frankly, I don't. You are using some freaky Glenn Beck logic or something. Anyways, fear-monger much? "OMG, we have to do this now or the people's might not want to do it again later?!?!?!" You really love this tack of propoganda. You seriously can't go a single argumentative post without it. In any case, you're banking on the economy not recovering in order to get legislation passed? While that's a really good reason for people to stop and reflect on why proponents like you are banking on their misfortunes to edge in your legislation, it's really not effective in making said legislation seem favorable. In fact, we have had other measures brought before the citizens of California and they haven't been quite as catastrophic as you'd let on. In fact, there was another Prop 19 1972, that also called for legalization of cannabis that was defeated 66%-34%. That was in 1972, when the drug war was still relatively fresh and new, didn't involve the levying of any taxes and extended possession privileges to those 18 and up. We have a lot more than you are willing to admit or just plain don't know about. If anyone is betting the whole farm, it's you. You're betting that Prop 19 won't be misinterpreted, while ignoring the fact that November also represents a change in state leadership. Neither of the likely candidates to replace Schwarzenegger are pro-cannabis in the least and represent nothing but the interests of big business. Not exactly the time I want to be handing the State of California a new taxable industry with loosely worded guidelines. No... that wouldn't be a reasonable course of action at all. I'm not betting anything since I know what I already have.
Well that's just not true at all. You can't grow or possess cannabis for recreational purposes in California. Nor can you start a for profit business growing or selling cannabis. This law enables that.
You should really try doing some research beforehand. It'd save you a lot of foot-in-mouth moments. Possession and cultivation for personal consumption is, in fact, quite possible and real. In fact, Prop 19 restricts your existing rights and privileges under current California law. See if you can follow me on this... I know you live in a world where nothing has changed or progressed for 77 years, but let's look at the real world facts. The sections of law we're primarily concerned with here are Health and Safety Code ,hereby abbreviated as "H&SC", 11357 (
http://www.canorml.org/laws/hsc11357.html), H&SC 11358 (
http://www.canorml.org/laws/hsc11358.html) and Penal Code 1000 (
http://www.canorml.org/laws/pc1000.html). In short, for the same ounce that you keep going on about being able to have under Prop 19, you currently do no jail time and at worst have to pay a $100 fine in the event you get stopped. In addition, under current law, there's not a restriction on how many plants or how big your growing space is allowed to be, so long as it's for personal consumption. Prop 19 specifies some pretty hard limits with the one ounce of possession and 5'x5' growing space.
To be quite frank, I'm not nearly as concerned about being able to engage in for-profit business practices. As a medical provider operating under not-for-profit model, I still manage to make more than enough to cover my expenses and some extra. Not-for-profit doesn't mean without profit. So really, we growers have already built an industry which benefits the communities where we exist. Prop 19 doesn't enable it, it simply shifts control out of the hands of the farmers and into the hands of big business and government agencies who are not on our side.
Which, btw has completely failed to produce results in 77 years. What you're hoping for is a pipe dream. You're living in a fantasy world. I'm sorry for having to say this but if you think there will ever be legal cannabis where people aren't profiting and no taxes or regulations are put on it, then you are ignorant to how the world works. It's that simple. This is America. Things just don't work out like that here. We don't in some anarchist paradise where there are no rules, no taxes, and no one trying to make money.
Seriously, you are like a bad parrot or a broken-record with this stuff. This is just irrational fear-mongering of the worst sort. "Just give up, the system can't be beat." Prop 215, Prop 36 and SB 1449 say otherwise. And of course, there's the obligatory insult of ignorance I've come to expect of you. But that's OK, insults are a common means of bolstering support for a weak argument. You're right on one thing. This is America. However, instead of the land of "this is how it is and no one can do better", we shall choose to make it a better place. Some of us don't roll-over quite so easily as you seem willing to do. Some of us, not at all. And you really want to avoid the ridiculous hyperbole. No one has proposed an "anarchist paradise" and inferring so is very much a straight out lie which requires you to completely ignore the facts that there is already an established network of cultivators paying taxes and following rules and making money while contributing heavily to their local economies.
It helps the community grower because for a relatively low price he can get a commercial growers permit and make a living of growing cannabis legally.
The $275K permits issued by the City of Oakland would argue against that particular fantasy of yours, but I will concede that as my opinion. However, first indicators are not so good.
It helps the common smoker because they can posses cannabis without conning their way into a medical recommendation.
They don't need to now. Possession is a misdemeanor (hopefully soon to be infraction) with no jail time and a maximum of $100, IF you are stopped. In accordance with H&SC 11357, H&SC 11358 and Penal Code 1000, possession of one ounce or less results in a promise to appear in court and the payment of a small fine. Should SB 1449 be passed then that becomes a simple infraction that you pay the fine for without the need for a court appearance. For possession of more than an ounce for personal consumption and in case of cultivation for the purpose of personal consumption, you would need to prove that there is no "intent to sell", which brings us back to diversion or court-ordered treatment program, instead of jail time.
It helps the state of California because it is projected to give our broke state 1.5billion + in desperately needed tax dollars.
And wrong again... This time, let's look at the text of the initiative itself, specifically:
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.
There is nothing in there about revenues being used for anything except to enforce the new regulatory programs. What we do find is the groundwork for numerous taxes to be levied against cannabis at multiple tiers of production and distribution, thereby driving the prices back into current black market ranges or worse. In addition, we also find ample wording which allows for the collection of more taxes and fees to recoup direct and indirect costs with no definitions as to what constitutes a direct or indirect cost.
