Falsehoods About prop 19

[Dan Kone]

Myth 1) With prop 19 you will only allowed to carry an ounce and grow 25sq feet anywhere in California
False: An ounce and 25 square feet is a minimum standard. Every city and county in California will be allowed to set higher standards. It will be up to you to be active in your community and get your city/county to set higher limits.

Myth 2) Prop 19 hands control of the cannabis industry over to big business
False: There is absolutely nothing in prop 19 that stops you from opening up your own cannabis business. There is nothing in the text that specifically favors big corporations over you. If your city/county tries to hand over the cannabis industry to a small group of big corporations then it is up to you to gather an opposition. I've been to many city counsel meetings relating to cannabis. When ever a city hands over a monopoly to a few people there is usually a common theme. Little or no vocal opposition.

Myth 3) Prop 19 eliminates your rights as a 215 patient to grow/posses cannabis for your personal medical needs.
False: You will be able to retain those rights completely. There is nothing in prop19 that eliminates them.

Myth 4) If we vote against prop19 some day we can have legalization without any taxes or regulations.
False: Any legalization is assured to come with taxes and regulations. Even if a proposition passes that doesn't include taxes and regulations, our state government will institute them anyways.

The common theme in most of these topics is that prop19 will require further effort from cannabis community to make prop19 work in our favor. No one will ever hand us legalization. We will have to work for it ourselves. Prop 19 gives us what we need to have legalization in our cities/counties but by no means is prop19 going to just deliver legalization to us on a silver platter.

We can't blame prop 19, Richard Lee, or big business for our own apathy. Rather than handing us legalization, prop 19 simply gives us the ability to work for the goal of legalization.

If you want to end prohibition and aren't afraid of a little hard work, vote yes on prop 19. If you want to continue prohibition or are unwilling to fight to end it, then by all means, vote no and hope that in the future someone else gives you everything you want with no personal effort.

 

[Dan Kone]

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_15669701?nclick_check=1

Opinion: Critics of Prop. 19 on marijuana rely on fear, not facts

By Paul Armentano
Special to the Mercury News
Posted: 08/04/2010 12:01:00 AM PDT

The California Legislative Analyst's Office's recently published critique of Proposition 19, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, provides needed clarity to the ongoing debate regarding marijuana policy and offers a swift rebuttal to the doomsday scenarios touted by many of the measure's opponents.
According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, the immediate effect of the measure would be to allow adults age 21 and older to possess and grow limited amounts of marijuana in the privacy of their own home. The agency estimates that halting the prosecution of these minor marijuana offenses would save state and local governments "several tens of millions of dollars annually," and enable law enforcement to reprioritize resources toward other criminal activities.
The longer-term impact of Proposition 19 would be to enable "local governments to adopt ordinances and regulations regarding commercial marijuana-related activities." These activities would include taxing and licensing establishments to produce and dispense marijuana to persons 21 and older. By doing so, "state and local governments could eventually collect hundreds of millions of dollars annually in additional revenues," the office estimates.
Predictably, critics of Proposition 19 have tried to paint a much more foreboding picture. For example, California senior Sen. Dianne Feinstein claims that the measure is "a jumbled legal nightmare that will make our highways, our
Advertisement

workplaces and our communities less safe."
Not so, says the Legislative Analyst's Office, which calls Feinstein's fears about pending workplace and roadway calamities unfounded. States the office: "(T)he measure would not change existing laws that prohibit driving under the influence of drugs or that prohibit possessing marijuana on the grounds of elementary, middle, and high schools. "... (E)mployers would retain existing rights to address consumption of marijuana that impairs an employee's job performance."
Opponents' other claims -- that Proposition 19 will dramatically increase consumption and cost the state millions in health and social costs -- ring equally hollow.
Right now virtually anyone in California who wishes to obtain or consume marijuana can do so, and it is hard to believe that adults who presently abstain from cannabis would no longer do so simply because certain restrictions on its use were lifted.
Finally, unlike alcohol and tobacco -- two legal but deadly products -- marijuana's estimated social costs are minimal.
According to a 2009 report by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, health-related costs per user are eight times higher for drinkers than they are for those who use cannabis and are more than 40 times higher for tobacco smokers. It states, "In terms of (health-related) costs per user: tobacco-related health costs are over $800 per user, alcohol-related health costs are much lower at $165 per user, and cannabis-related health costs are the lowest at $20 per user."
A previous analysis commissioned by the World Health Organization agreed, stating, "On existing patterns of use, cannabis poses a much less serious public health problem than is currently posed by alcohol and tobacco in Western societies."
So then why are we so worried about adults consuming it in the privacy of their own home?
California lawmakers criminalized the possession and use of marijuana in 1913 -- a full 24 years before the federal government enacted prohibition. Yet right now in California, the federal government reports that one out of 10 people annually use marijuana and together consume about 1.2 million pounds of it. Self-evidently, cannabis is here to stay. Let's address this reality and stop ceding control of this market to unregulated, untaxed criminal enterprises and put it in the hands of licensed businesses. Proposition 19 is a first step in this direction.


PAUL ARMENTANO of Vallejo is deputy director of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, and co-author of the book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink? He co-chairs the Health Professionals steering committee for the Proposition 19 campaign and wrote this article for this newspaper

 

[lightningkid]

So, are you a judge? Or even a lawyer? Didn't think so. So what you are saying means nothing. It's only your uneducated opinion.

You can't say that prop 19 won't affect prop 215 patients. YOU DON'T KNOW! PERIOD. This will be left to California judges to decide.

Obviously there isn't anything specifically in the text that hands over the industry to big corporations. Nobody said that. But if you use your head and look at the history of commerce, especially highly regulated commerce, it doesn't take a genius to see that Prop 19 favors big biz. Wake up and stop regurgitating the BS pro-19 talking points.

 

[Tarkfu]

"
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.
"


The key to both of those passages for my purpose is the part that says "except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9". Those sections are Prop 215. This is where prop 19 says it will not affect prop 215. Putting prop 215 patients in a different category as exceptions.



To respond to the OP, I can imagine all these local coops and collectives basically forming unions to keep big business out. To keep big business out, form a union in the community that will not allow the presence of these corporations. It seems to me that some of these coops and collectives especially in northern california should have enough sway to put some members of their own onto the city councils and state senates to represent their interests. At least the city councils.

 

[Space Captain]

I think the reason to vote YES is because at the rate things are going, the increasingly visible and sophisticated medical cannabis movement will surpass the general legalization movement, if it hasn't already. If things continue and marijuana becomes seriously, universally, classified as a prescription only medicine, it would never be, could never be, legalized for recreational use.

Anyway, medical marijuana means a small percentage of deserving pot users get their bud. Prop 19 says that everyone does.

 

[Serapis]

Vote yes on 19. You are not going to get a better deal later. Many people would kill for a legal 5' x 5' garden.

The overall goal should not be legalization, it should be to have marijuana removed as a schedule 1 drug, which it should have never been classified as anyways.

 

[Space Captain]

One of my fears is that marijuana classified as a "prescription only" drug, which is apparently what dispensaries want, won't "need" to be removed. I hope I'm dead wrong.

 

[Dan Kone]

So, are you a judge? Or even a lawyer? Didn't think so. So what you are saying means nothing. It's only your uneducated opinion.

You can't say that prop 19 won't affect prop 215 patients. YOU DON'T KNOW! PERIOD. This will be left to California judges to decide.

They aren't even related! Prop 19 has nothing to do with a medical patient accessing medicine. It doesn't take a law degree to see that.

Obviously there isn't anything specifically in the text that hands over the industry to big corporations. Nobody said that. But if you use your head and look at the history of commerce, especially highly regulated commerce, it doesn't take a genius to see that Prop 19 favors big biz. Wake up and stop regurgitating the BS pro-19 talking points.

So you admit there is nothing in prop 19 that favors big corporations, then go on to claim it favors big corporations. The only people the regulations prevent from opening up cannabis business are certain types of felons.

 

[TokinPodPilot]

http://blogs.sacbee.com/weed-wars/2010/08/rancho-cordova-readies-measure-to-tax-marijuana-cultivators.html

So glad that nothing in Prop 19 could possibly be misinterpreted by a municipality to restrict medical or recreational cannabis users.

 

[Serapis]

http://blogs.sacbee.com/weed-wars/2010/08/rancho-cordova-readies-measure-to-tax-marijuana-cultivators.html

So glad that nothing in Prop 19 could possibly be misinterpreted by a municipality to restrict medical or recreational cannabis users.

While you are banging your head on the wall and spreading misinformation, try ACTUALLY reading the article you cited.... here is a quote I pulled out just for YOU....

"But the city's proposed "Personal Cannabis Cultivation Tax" also makes no distinction between medical and recreational cultivation. So the tax would kick in for anyone currently cultivating for personal medical use -- whether Prop 19 passes or not.

Do you see that last bit? Whether prop 19 passes or not? And this issue is in Rancho Codorva only, not state wide.

Vote yes to 19!! The rest of the states are counting on you Cali!!