The Ruiner Responds to J. David Nick

Status
Not open for further replies.
TokinPodPilot

TokinPodPilot

Well-Known Member
I've heard most, if not all, of the proponent arguments, such as they are, and many of them are not really rational argument and mostly supposition. From your own accounts, it sounds like you live in a pretty restrictive area of Southern California. As someone also in Southern California, I know exactly how permissive and prohibitive the various localities can be. The facts are that the number of communities which have adopted cannabis friendly, or at least tolerant, policies are very few. And that is not from lack of opportunity. The fact that we have some permissive areas is adequate evidence that change can be effected already at a local level without Prop. 19. The majority of municipalities have not adopted less restrictive measures with regards to medical cannabis use and cultivation, nor have they ever indicated that they have any intention of becoming more tolerant, medical use or not.
 
luvourmother

luvourmother

Active Member
TokinPodPilot said:
Maybe you'd receive a more positive reaction if you'd actually informed yourself of the actual facts instead of spreading misinformation. It's called the People vs. Kelly decision, which ruled the limits of SB 420 unconstitutional because state legislation cannot be used to set limits on voter initiatives. Prop. 19, as a voter initiative, would be able to reaffirm those limits as they were never stricken from the books. Again, your ignorance is not a reason for anyone to have to vote in bad legislation.
Click to expand...
Hold on a minute before you bash someone for being misinformed about People vs Kelly because you seem to be confused as well. Yes, People vs Kelly lifted grow limits for prosecution but it doesn't take the risk of arrest and defense away, Canorml recommends growing within previous local and state limits in order to avoid arrest and all that is associated with it.

"In a state supreme court ruling, People v. Kelly (2010), the court held that patients can NOT be prosecuted simply for exceeding the SB 420 limits; however, they can be arrested and forced to defend themselves as having had an amount consistent with their personal medical needs." http://www.canorml.org/prop/patientsguide.htm

"California NORML strongly advises Prop 215 patients to continue following the SB 420 guidelines – six mature or 12 immature plants and 8 ounces of processed marijuana except where local guidelines specify more."
http://www.canorml.org/news/supremekelly.html
 
TokinPodPilot

TokinPodPilot

Well-Known Member
No, I'm not confused. You just don't follow through well enough to see the full implications. Yes, they can be forced to defend themselves, and the defense is readily available and set by legal precedent. CaNORML advises growing within SB 420 constraints to help reduce the likelihood of prosecution, they don't promise complete amnesty from persecution. They also say the following on their California cannabis law summary:

Cultivation of any amount of marijuana is a felony under Health and Safety Code 11358. People who grow for personal use are eligible for diversion under Penal Code 1000 so long as there is no evidence of intent to sell. There are no fixed plant number limits to personal use cultivation.
http://www.canorml.org/laws/calmjlaws.html
 
luvourmother

luvourmother

Active Member
TokinPodPilot said:
You just don't follow through well enough to see the full implications. Yes, they can be forced to defend themselves, and the defense is readily available and set by legal precedent. CaNORML advises growing within SB 420 constraints to help reduce the likelihood of prosecution, they don't promise complete amnesty from persecution. They also say the following on their California cannabis law summary:

Cultivation of any amount of marijuana is a felony under Health and Safety Code 11358. People who grow for personal use are eligible for diversion under Penal Code 1000 so long as there is no evidence of intent to sell. There are no fixed plant number limits to personal use cultivation.
http://www.canorml.org/laws/calmjlaws.html
Click to expand...
You just re-affirmed my original post, thanks.
What are the "full implications" that i have failed to "follow through enough" with?
 
TokinPodPilot

TokinPodPilot

Well-Known Member
What discussion? I pointed out where personal consumption grows have some modicum of protection under existing legislation because it allows for a defense supported by legal precedent. In other words, for those with enough backbone to stand up for their rights, personal cultivation grows are relatively limitless. For anyone that doesn't want the risk, or is in an area where the probability of winning such a legal battle is unlikely, then you are still afforded protections from jail under Penal Code 1000. You've obviously decided to interpret that to your own satisfaction so that you feel justified in your support of 19. As I said... whatever makes you feel better.
 
luvourmother

luvourmother

Active Member
TokinPodPilot said:
In other words, for those with enough backbone to stand up for their rights, personal cultivation grows are relatively limitless. For anyone that doesn't want the risk, or is in an area where the probability of winning such a legal battle is unlikely, then you are still afforded protections from jail under Penal Code 1000. You've obviously decided to interpret that to your own satisfaction so that you feel justified in your support of 19.
Click to expand...
Ok, me and the entire organization called California Norml interpret it as don't grow more than previous limits or you will risk arrest. People vs kelly doesn't protect growers from arrest and all of the costs that can incur from the process.
Also prop 19 doesn't change 215, medical growers will have the same rights as they do today when 19 passes.
 
TokinPodPilot

TokinPodPilot

Well-Known Member
luvourmother said:
Ok, me and the entire organization called California Norml interpret it as don't grow more than previous limits or you will risk arrest. People vs kelly doesn't protect growers from arrest and all of the costs that can incur from the process.
Also prop 19 doesn't change 215, medical growers will have the same rights as they do today when 19 passes.
Click to expand...
Again, whatever makes you feel better about criminalizing adults under the age of 21 so you can feel "safe".
 
Greather420

Greather420

Active Member
Yeah, don't criminalize people that aren't 21....we should lower the drinking limit, too, and let high school kids buy cigarettes!! God forbid a high school kid get in trouble for drinking or doing drugs! It's their right as Americans!


I'm sorry...I really didn't intend to respond to this thread any more, but I mean, come on! MJ may have medicinal purposes, but that doesn't mean the age limit should be lowered. So kids have to wait till they're 21 to blaze legally...most collectives require you to be 21 to become a member as it is....so they can celebrate their 21st with a blunt and a beer, sounds like something to look forward to as far as I'm concerned!
 
veggiegardener

veggiegardener

Well-Known Member
luvourmother said:
Ok, me and the entire organization called California Norml interpret it as don't grow more than previous limits or you will risk arrest. People vs kelly doesn't protect growers from arrest and all of the costs that can incur from the process.
Also prop 19 doesn't change 215, medical growers will have the same rights as they do today when 19 passes.
Click to expand...
There's the rub.

Prop 19 offers no protection for larger medical grows.

If that were the case, it would be mentioned in the same paragraph where "25 square feet" is mentioned.

Read critically. You might learn something.
 
mrFancyPlants

mrFancyPlants

Well-Known Member
TokinPodPilot said:
People who grow for personal use are eligible for diversion under
Click to expand...
You seem to take the punishment of diversion lightly. Maybe you can explain to us what diversion entails?

From a quick reading of PC 1000, it looks like 18-36 months of probation, possibly including forced rehab and drug tests. Also, you can only go through diversion if it's your first felony(incl. previous growing busts) in 5 years.

Also, you're right - there are no fixed limits for personal use cultivation. So you could grow 5 plants, and if they find some baggies and a scale in your kitchen - then what?

Finally - sure, most of use are just potheads, right? But if they find some mushrooms, your friend's xanax, some ecstasy... no diversion for you.

But, you know, hiring a lawyer, having all your equipment and plants taken, the trauma of a raid - which I can tell you from first hand experience is not something to take lightly - and only getting 'diversion'... that doesn't sound too bad to you, eh?
 
TokinPodPilot

TokinPodPilot

Well-Known Member
mrFancyPlants said:
You seem to take the punishment of diversion lightly. Maybe you can explain to us what diversion entails?

From a quick reading of PC 1000, it looks like 18-36 months of probation, possibly including forced rehab and drug tests. Also, you can only go through diversion if it's your first felony(incl. previous growing busts) in 5 years.
Click to expand...
If diversion bothers you so much, then go to jail instead. The friends and family I know that have been able to avoid jail sentences because of diversion would rather deal with a short term of probation and a clean record at the end. And yes, if you have a tendency to break the law and get caught for it, then you won't be available for diversion. The law isn't meant to be license for people to act irresponsibly.

mrFancyPlants said:
Also, you're right - there are no fixed limits for personal use cultivation. So you could grow 5 plants, and if they find some baggies and a scale in your kitchen - then what?
Click to expand...
And there's nothing in Prop. 19 that stops that kind of profiling or irrational use of indicia. There's new indicia, but nothing to control how those determinants are used. So, even with your "perfectly legal" Prop. 19 grow, if there's nothing to stop police from making a case, justly or unjustly, based on incidental and circumstantial evidence much like they do now.

mrFancyPlants said:
Finally - sure, most of use are just potheads, right? But if they find some mushrooms, your friend's xanax, some ecstasy... no diversion for you.
Click to expand...
And Prop. 19 doesn't do anything in such cases either. Nice fallacy of irrelevance.

mrFancyPlants said:
But, you know, hiring a lawyer, having all your equipment and plants taken, the trauma of a raid - which I can tell you from first hand experience is not something to take lightly - and only getting 'diversion'... that doesn't sound too bad to you, eh?
Click to expand...
Soooo... after all the "trauma", you want to bemoan a option that turns the end of such a tragedy from a jail sentence to temporary probation with expunging of records at the completion of a relatively simple court program. You're right, it doesn't sound too bad to me at all... certainly much better than jail. The dozens of friends and family who are continuing their lives having avoided irrational jail sentences, think so too.
 
TokinPodPilot

TokinPodPilot

Well-Known Member
Greather420 said:
Yeah, don't criminalize people that aren't 21....we should lower the drinking limit, too, and let high school kids buy cigarettes!! God forbid a high school kid get in trouble for drinking or doing drugs! It's their right as Americans!
Click to expand...
At 18 years of age, they are able to vote and serve their country in combat. Yes, I think they do deserve the right choose how they decide to live their lives including choosing how they decide to alter their perceptions. No one said anything about high school kids except you. I'm talking about adults 18 years of age and older. Not to mention that existing regulations have very much failed in keeping alcohol or cigarettes out of the hands of minors. But, again, whatever you have to tell yourself to justify criminalizing young adults.

Greather420 said:
]I'm sorry...I really didn't intend to respond to this thread any more, but I mean, come on! MJ may have medicinal purposes, but that doesn't mean the age limit should be lowered. So kids have to wait till they're 21 to blaze legally...most collectives require you to be 21 to become a member as it is....so they can celebrate their 21st with a blunt and a beer, sounds like something to look forward to as far as I'm concerned!
Click to expand...
There's no 21+ age limit now, so your erroneous argument about limit lowering is irrelevant. Most collectives are actually 18 and older, not 21. And those that are 21 and older are so by personal/policy choice not due to non-existent age limits.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top