"Prop 19 written to take away medical growers rights"
- Thread starter squarepush3r
- Start date
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
You and I aren't trying to persuade eachother...that much should be clear. This is debate, of some form...I have responded to that letter in its entirety, now pick up the torch for your team and carry them to victory! Show me my flaws! Crush the opposition! come on, where's your vigor and endurance for a cause you feel so strongly about?
he's scared of you.
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
Dude...come on we haven't even hit the fevered pitch yet...this isnt even october and you are bowing out...
vertise
Well-Known Member
This will be my last point then
"Although extrinsic materials (such as legislative committee memos or voter pamphlet arguments) may not be resorted to when the legislative language is clear, courts may never ignore the purpose of the legislation. Every interpretation a court gives a statute must be consistent with the purpose of the legislation. This is why statutes have long "preambles" which explicitly state the purposes of the legislation.
This rule is so controlling that a court is required to ignore the literal language of a legislative statute if it conflicts with the purpose of the legislation. By example I call attention to the appellate court case of Bell v. DMV. In this precedent setting case, the court ruled that a statute must be interpreted to apply to civil proceedings even though the statute they were interpreting stated it applied only to "criminal" proceedings. The court’s interpretation of the statute was consistent with the purposes of the legislation and the limitation to criminal cases in the statute itself was not."
This means that medicinal patients will only need to worry about prop215. The rules of one legislation can only be interpreted....Without comparison to another. The legislation for medicinal patients is only used for medicinal patients. If the DA takes you to court as a medicinal user because they feel like you have violated prop 215 thats one thing but they cannot take a medicinal patient to court who has not violated 215 only 19.
"Although extrinsic materials (such as legislative committee memos or voter pamphlet arguments) may not be resorted to when the legislative language is clear, courts may never ignore the purpose of the legislation. Every interpretation a court gives a statute must be consistent with the purpose of the legislation. This is why statutes have long "preambles" which explicitly state the purposes of the legislation.
This rule is so controlling that a court is required to ignore the literal language of a legislative statute if it conflicts with the purpose of the legislation. By example I call attention to the appellate court case of Bell v. DMV. In this precedent setting case, the court ruled that a statute must be interpreted to apply to civil proceedings even though the statute they were interpreting stated it applied only to "criminal" proceedings. The court’s interpretation of the statute was consistent with the purposes of the legislation and the limitation to criminal cases in the statute itself was not."
This means that medicinal patients will only need to worry about prop215. The rules of one legislation can only be interpreted....Without comparison to another. The legislation for medicinal patients is only used for medicinal patients. If the DA takes you to court as a medicinal user because they feel like you have violated prop 215 thats one thing but they cannot take a medicinal patient to court who has not violated 215 only 19.
so if i have a med card i can smoke in the same room as a 15 year old and not get in trouble?
why? got any backing to this? as far as i know there is nothing illegal about it right now. as long as i have my med card.
and what do you mean by "another charge"? what is the first charge?
vertise
Well-Known Member
Prop. 215 contains a provision ensuring that "conduct that endangers others" remains illegal. Such conduct is likely to include driving under the influence of marijuana, operating heavy machinery, or other similar activities, in which there is a realistic risk that a person's marijuana use could impair judgment and lead to harm to other people. Courts would probably also consider smoking marijuana in public or in the workplace to be a danger to others, permitting sanctions against anyone for doing so.
if prop 19 passes and i have a 215 med card and i smoke pot in the same room as a 15 year old will i risk being arrested under the NEW LAWS?
so is that a "no" to my question?
prop 19 clearly addresses this issue. why can't you answer my direct question about it?
vertise
Well-Known Member
I found this point interesting, about the courts ability to decide if your medicine card is actually needed even if you have a doctors rec.
Prop. 215 was designed to protect a specific class of people - the seriously and terminally ill. It does not apply to recreational users of marijuana who simply feel they get some "medical" benefit. It does not even apply to terminally ill patients who fail to get their physicians' approval. Prop. 215 enables the courts to sort out who is entitled to these new protections, and who is not. Every detail, from proof of illness to the form and reasons for a marijuana recommendation, is a potential weak link in a person's case.
Prop. 215 was designed to protect a specific class of people - the seriously and terminally ill. It does not apply to recreational users of marijuana who simply feel they get some "medical" benefit. It does not even apply to terminally ill patients who fail to get their physicians' approval. Prop. 215 enables the courts to sort out who is entitled to these new protections, and who is not. Every detail, from proof of illness to the form and reasons for a marijuana recommendation, is a potential weak link in a person's case.
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
No, it doesnt mean MMJ only need to worry about 215... its merely saying his letter and any other propaganda will not be considered by the court when interpreting 19, that the courts are to held to the actual bill itself, which grants NO EXEMPTIONS FOR MMJ PATIENT-GROWERS ANYWHERE AND PUTS RESTRICTIONS ON ALL CANNABIS CULTIVATION NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW. Furthermore, 19 makes no exemptions in regards to MMJ except for possession, consumption, and sales...not cultivation or taxation thereof. If 19 was to leave the CUA and MMP alone it would have been listed CLEARLY in section 2C (ii)...and do you want to know why....BECAUSE THEY ARE STATE LAWS and if they were meant to be exempt then they would appear like the other state laws in that section.
The rules of the legislation in question grant no exemptions to MMJ patient growers. 19 is being used to supercede numerous state laws, so saying that one wont be affected for no other reason than totally and complete hearsay is absurd. 19 grants CA lawmakers a fucking gem of a sweetheart deal by restricting all cannabis cultivation NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW. Section 11300 (a)(ii) is the end of any garden larger than a 5x5, even if it is legal now, 19 makes it ILLEGAL. And it says so...
mikhail chalecki
Member
i disagree. you have a large demographic to apeal to, if we were proposing the jack herer initiative i think it wouldnt have nearly the backing 19 does. and with the amendment section, all the restrictions and county regulations can be changed with the current standards as a threshold. these changes arent up the individual judges and must be enforced because it will have to go through a peoples vote or legislature and our new governor, who i hope will make some correct decisions
mikhail chalecki
Member
u can smoke drugs in front of kids now? since when? never....
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
The potential new governors are actually against 19...both of them.
since when CAN'T you take prescription drugs in front of kids?