Why did the marijuana bill NOT make it on the 2012 ballot in California?

T

T.H.Cammo

Well-Known Member
After Proposition 19 being so close to passing, I though sure that "The New Improved" version would be on California's 2012 Election Ballot. Seeing that it wasn't there not only surprised me but really disappointed too!

I don't really want to hear everybody's biased opinions. Just the inside scoop on WTF really happened to make such an important issue miss the "Big Game". Where there not enough warm bodies working on the campaign? Not enough signitures to get the inititive process in gear? Just missed the "deadline"? Or what?
 
G

growone

Well-Known Member
from what i've seen, there were multiple competing propositions
the RMLW seemed like a slam dunk, sigh, just didn't happen
but colorado has something cooking, with pretty good numbers last i saw, washington too
just not happening in cali this year, but it does look we got Uruguay
 
Ernst

Ernst

Well-Known Member
My Signature here is my opinion on why.

Now I have politically liberal parents ( in some ways ) so I grew up a Democrat more or less.

Here is what I believe happened.


First off the efforts to provide the people with rights was glued to the efforts to have legal sales. Prop 19 aimed at a blanket solution rather than a "baby step" solution.

So in a political effort of all or nothing Prop-19 and the ilk since from California takes on Federal powers against commerce. Also in the last days of Prop-19 the Federal Government did something it shouldn't have. It used it's power to influence an election outcome in California.

Now, with 2012, we were still trying to pass commerce language when the only successful "legalization" effort has been our non-commerce Medical Cannabis laws known as prop-215

We are ignoring baby steps of allowing the people to grow what they want in non-commercial ways and are still trying to define an industry rather than rights for people. Big Fail!

So if we all focus on granting rights and protections to all Californians to grow, consume and share in non-commercial ways for 2016 we will crack open the door for commerce. But we didn't focus on rights for all Californians in 2012 and have splintered into camps of wishful thinkers with out a political base of support and therefore promoted many "Brands" or "Flavors" of "Decriminalization" like RMLW and others that aimed at something California consistently votes no on; "Commerce Language."


We cannot go against the Federal powers over Cannabis Trade. Also to say that allowing people to grow, consume and share in non-commercial ways is somehow bad and we cannot have that is foolish since we already do in the ONLY successful "legalization" effort Prop-215.

What is holding us up and stopping us taking that first Baby-Step is Commerce language in our "Legalization Efforts."

We cannot afford to say to anyone they must have x-square feet. There is no money to enforce that.
We cannot do anything except establish guidelines for our law enforcement to arrest those who are engaging in Commerce with it.

Sure this means that there will be a lot more cannabis and perhaps it will effect the Black Market but as it is now, keeping it illegal is the cause of keeping it valuable. Keeping it valuable is the motive for illegal trading. Keeping it illegal keep the law enforcement industry well funded.

It seems to me that both the Law Enforcement side and the Profiteers side benefit from high Cannabis prices and are against legalization. It would seem that with those two on the same side that the only thing that gets support is a compromise of "Commerce Language" that includes industry on both sides.

So the thing to do for 2016 is to take that Baby-Step of Legalizing for all Californians the rights to Grow, Consume and share in non-commercial ways. To hell with the Cement Shoes of Commerce-Language when the Federal Government has the last word always.
We are wasting our efforts, as seen by history, so an Industry might become legit when we need rights and protections for the people first and most!

We we have the cart before the horse.. We are trying to have business before we have rights as citizens. Some suggest that the Horse and Cart should be side by side but if we do that, as we have seen, we go nowhere.

It's that simple.. The answer is not always Capitalism.
 
G

growone

Well-Known Member
I like the notion about refocusing away from the commerce option. That's currently a decided issue in SCOTUS, if there's any MJ commerce, Fed wins.
But something closer to Alaska's arrangements. Say state legalization of small grows for head of household. Grow it in your home, consume it in your home. No commerce involved. Not quite what some feel is their God given right, but progress.
 
Ernst

Ernst

Well-Known Member
T.H.Cammo said:

I don't really want to hear everybody's biased opinions. Just the inside scoop on WTF really happened to make such an important issue miss the "Big Game". Where there not enough warm bodies working on the campaign? Not enough signatures to get the initiative process in gear? Just missed the "deadline"? Or what?
Click to expand...
So you post this in a forum instead of researching the subject? How odd. But it's okay with me..

Things failed because the People of California do not support Commerce Language as seen in Prop-19 One, Prop-19 Two and RMLW and the ILK.
 
Ernst

Ernst

Well-Known Member
growone said:
I like the notion about refocusing away from the commerce option. That's currently a decided issue in SCOTUS, if there's any MJ commerce, Fed wins.
But something closer to Alaska's arrangements. Say state legalization of small grows for head of household. Grow it in your home, consume it in your home. No commerce involved. Not quite what some feel is their God given right, but progress.
Click to expand...
Sure, Boundaries are necessary. However, we already have areas that Ban Medical Grows all together and Outside Grows for the most part.
So if we Swing in 2016 we need to Swing together hard left no mater how we individually feel about what outcome we would rather see.
We can't compromise before we win is what I am saying. Prop-19, RMLW and the ilk all try to offer a sensible compromise that might make a good law but we have the Feds so that is right out.

We cannot pass the All in One.. Not for 20-30 years I fear. I base that opinion on the History of California Voting.
 
T

T.H.Cammo

Well-Known Member
Ernst said:
So you post this in a forum instead of researching the subject? How odd. But it's okay with me..

Things failed because the People of California do not support Commerce Language as seen in Prop-19 One, Prop-19 Two and RMLW and the ILK.
Click to expand...
Well, I took your lead and went right to the horse's mouth (so to speak). It looks like growone's answer in post # 2 was pretty "spot on" for what I was asking. It seems that none of the competeing initiatives managed to file petitions with the required amount of signitures by the deadline date. Also, they claimed insufficient funding as a major problem.

I agree with your notion that the majority of the voting populous has negative "vibes" over the issue of commercially oriented language as it has appeared up till now. But aren't the commercially motivated people the one's who are funding this thing in the first place? Of course they want to include thier interests onto the ballot. Without potential commercial growers funding the project - what have we got?


Did Prop 19 evolve from a "single effort", or were there competeing versions with different ideas and wordings; each backed by different groupes who eventualy joined together?
 
Ernst

Ernst

Well-Known Member
T.H.Cammo said:
Well, I took your lead and went right to the horse's mouth (so to speak). It looks like growone's answer in post # 2 was pretty "spot on" for what I was asking. It seems that none of the competing initiatives managed to file petitions with the required amount of signatures by the deadline date. Also, they claimed insufficient funding as a major problem.

I agree with your notion that the majority of the voting populous has negative "vibes" over the issue of commercially oriented language as it has appeared up till now. But aren't the commercially motivated people the one's who are funding this thing in the first place? Of course they want to include their interests onto the ballot. Without potential commercial growers funding the project - what have we got?


Did Prop 19 evolve from a "single effort", or were there competing versions with different ideas and wordings; each backed by different groups who eventually joined together?
Click to expand...

I only attended one meeting but at that meeting the split between what became prop-19 and what became California Cannabis infinitive ( which I gathered signatures for ) was obvious.

I stood up and spoke about organizing for 2012 at that 2010 meeting. Everyone seemed to think grand profits were there to grab.

In my opinion Richard Lee didn't know what it meant to have grown up Californian and pro weed so his vision was too Texas-Libertarian and not enough Peter Frampton, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and so on.
Later RMLW saw the funding and organization was not there just as for CCI did circa 2010. It has to be organized.

As for the joining together? Perhaps it was more like sifting out. I dropped Prop-19 once I saw the restrictions on who could grow and how much.

The idea of only Property Owners having rights is so 1776 not 2010.

---------------------------

So how about we do a 4 year plan? We Organize for Three and raise funds then we pay for the signatures.

Just $200 a year from a few Thousand will do it.

Forget 2014... Go for 2016.. The bottom line is granting rights to citizens for non-commercial.. Remember it's only a fine to posses cannabis now but still a felony to grow it.

The Initiative has to be basic enough. No Commerce. It has to grant rights by changing our laws. We can spend 4 years doing it right or like we already have waste 4 years doing it wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYGp5shqLZg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl6s1x9j4QQ

As to :
[quote]
I agree with your notion that the majority of the voting populous has negative "vibes" over the issue of commercially oriented language as it has appeared up till now. But aren't the commercially motivated people the one's who are funding this thing in the first place? Of course they want to include their interests onto the ballot. Without potential commercial growers funding the project - what have we got? [/quote]

What Commercial Growers?

As I wrote, and trust me I have seen the roll of the eyes and inability to comprehend in reply many times before, No Comerce language means No Comerce language. Not some or a little "if." It means None!

The whole point is to get past the Feds and lay a foundataion to build on. The All or Nothing has failed three times now not counting 2012's failed efforts.
I see this again and again. Once No-Commerce is defined my conversation partner gets pathological about Commerce.
Some People cannot seperate the two in their minds.. well, folks under 28 have some brain development to go through that allows us to contemplate independant "threads" and competing ideas better. Until then and especially in the 16-24 year olds they tend towards all in one thinking rather than compartmental thinking.

The rights of Medical People need law that protects them on the job and in the community.
The rights of the individual to grow, consume and share in non-commercial ways needs law!

If anything when we pass rights for people the house of cards that is Federal Commerce reguilation via the War on Drugs will have to adapt.

So What I am pointing out again after 4 years of doing so is that we cannot pass commerce language in California. We cannot get support for it nor can we get people to volunteer to gather enough signatures.

So Non-Commerce and a long and organized fundrasing is needed. 2016 is looking good!

I don't know what is up with the underline.. I tried to cancle it..
 
P

purklize

Active Member
Just decriminalize it all - possession, sale, and growing of small quantities. The guys who are against legalization, expecting Wal-Mart to move in, will still vote for it, and the pro-legalization folks will too. Might be more appealing to some people on the fence as well.
 
Ernst

Ernst

Well-Known Member
purklize said:
Just decriminalize it all - possession, sale, and growing of small quantities. The guys who are against legalization, expecting Wal-Mart to move in, will still vote for it, and the pro-legalization folks will too. Might be more appealing to some people on the fence as well.
Click to expand...
You are missing the whole point! We can't get it past.. Three times at the Polls and California votes it down every time.

I understand the idea of an all in one law that takes care of the problems but that doesn't work. Not because I say it doesn't but because it has failed three times with the 2012 season falling on it's face before it got to the polls.

Commerce isn't going to fly but private gardens could! I mean if we cannot get rights for non-commercial use we cannot get anything including Sales!
 
P

purklize

Active Member
Commerce isn't going to fly? That ship has sailed! The CA Supreme Court recently upheld the legality of dispensaries and there was no uproar over it. 2010 was just a really bad year to put it on the ballot - we had record conservative turnout. MI elected the worst legislature it's ever had.
 
Ernst

Ernst

Well-Known Member
purklize said:
Commerce isn't going to fly? That ship has sailed! The CA Supreme Court recently upheld the legality of dispensaries and there was no uproar over it. 2010 was just a really bad year to put it on the ballot - we had record conservative turnout. MI elected the worst legislature it's ever had.
Click to expand...
I think you are mentioning an appeals court in So. Cal.. Not the Ca. Supreme Court.

The Second District Court of Appeal in California issued the decision on Monday in County of Los Angeles v. Alternative Medicinal Cannabis Collective (AMCC). In particular, the court held that Los Angeles County's "complete ban" on medical marijuana is "pre-empted" by state law and, therefore, void.
Click to expand...

It should have an impact on the Supreme Court but only an influence.

Again I say we are not seeing the reality of how to get there from here in general.

Have to get rights for non-commercial first then deal with Commerce after that.
We have tried three times in a row and fail!
The 4th was a face plant before we got to the polls.

The "Dispensary" in California is not a commercial establishment it is a place people can "share" cannabis. I believe it is defined as not-for-profit. So they are saying an absolute ban is too much. What is left is harsh restrictions and that is State Wide with already Banned outdoor grows and some areas Banning all Growing.
One area Taxes by the sqft so one must pay something like $60,000 a year for a 5x5 medical garden space indoors in your own home. I forget the exact amount .. It's near Sacramento Ca.. My Bad I am not remembering the name of the city.
 
P

purklize

Active Member
Looks like we're both right. I'm glad you raised the issue as I was a little off.

http://www.thedailychronic.net/2012/11395/landmark-medical-marijuana-dispensary-ruling-prevails-denied-review-by-california-supreme-court/

[h=1] Landmark Medical Marijuana Dispensary Ruling Prevails, Denied Review by California Supreme Court
Click to expand...
[/h]
So it was originally a COA ruling but the Supreme Court has effectively affirmed it.

Either way I think the things that freak people out if anything are "pot shops." It's been the main angle of attack here in MI. There's been an uproar in MI since the COA shut down patient-to-patient sale, with a lot of editorials from major papers viciously criticizing the ruling.

I think the biggest concern is pro-mj folks voting against a bill because they think it's not permissive enough, or too permissive and will result in Wal-Weed taking over everything and putting mom and pop growers out of business. Hence, my suggestion for a full decriminalization bill - it would allow individuals to do whatever they liked while keeping the storefronts at bay. The bill in CA failed in 2010 not because of commerce but because of pro-mj people voting no and people thinking it would cause the next civil war after Holder said he would crack down if it passed.
 
Ernst

Ernst

Well-Known Member
purklize said:
Looks like we're both right. I'm glad you raised the issue as I was a little off.

http://www.thedailychronic.net/2012/11395/landmark-medical-marijuana-dispensary-ruling-prevails-denied-review-by-california-supreme-court/

[/SIZE][/h]
So it was originally a COA ruling but the Supreme Court has effectively affirmed it.

Either way I think the things that freak people out if anything are "pot shops." It's been the main angle of attack here in MI. There's been an uproar in MI since the COA shut down patient-to-patient sale, with a lot of editorials from major papers viciously criticizing the ruling.

I think the biggest concern is pro-mj folks voting against a bill because they think it's not permissive enough, or too permissive and will result in Wal-Weed taking over everything and putting mom and pop growers out of business. Hence, my suggestion for a full decriminalization bill - it would allow individuals to do whatever they liked while keeping the storefronts at bay. The bill in CA failed in 2010 not because of commerce but because of pro-mj people voting no and people thinking it would cause the next civil war after Holder said he would crack down if it passed.
Click to expand...


Ah, yes, I was not aware of the events.. Seems too quick IMO. Interesting time frame.

So given the basic statement "to qualify for protection under the state’s medical marijuana law would likely “limit drastically the size of medical marijuana establishments,” "

That would reduce to basic rights to Citizens.. Am I wrong?

If so it is a good event.

What do you think?
 
espoker19

espoker19

Active Member
There's already too many hands in the cookie jar. Too many competing interests. They must all unify if they want to succeed. They won't though. There are plenty of groups even medical groups, that want it to stay illegal to help keep prices up.
 
ford442

ford442

Well-Known Member
nobody's heart was in it.. perhaps after prop 19 failed so recently people were not optimistic from the get go - then i realized a month or two back that there were no enthusiastic supporters in my inbox every morning.. in fact no one but me was willing to consider the possibility that 2013 could be the year we go green in my circle of friends and family.. they are all used to the status-qua i suppose..
 
M

mensabarbie

Active Member
My atty is Jerome Handley. He worked on 215 and 420. I spoke to him on Friday. He said that the reason 19 failed is that there was some regulation language that miffed the growers because they don't want whatever that language entailed. As long as growers pay taxes there should not be much regulation but that's just me being a Republican.
 
ford442

ford442

Well-Known Member
ridiculous really.. what if beer barons voted to keep alcohol prohibition? unacceptable on many levels.. but, i really think that CO has a chance this Nov..
 
SFguy

SFguy

Well-Known Member
think of it... a northern cali 8 X 1/8 mix pack.. or a SO-cal indoor mix pack that would be nice... im dreamin again is the liquor store stil open??:hug:
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
Ernst said:

I only attended one meeting but at that meeting the split between what became prop-19 and what became California Cannabis infinitive ( which I gathered signatures for ) was obvious.

I stood up and spoke about organizing for 2012 at that 2010 meeting. Everyone seemed to think grand profits were there to grab.

In my opinion Richard Lee didn't know what it meant to have grown up Californian and pro weed so his vision was too Texas-Libertarian and not enough Peter Frampton, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and so on.
Later RMLW saw the funding and organization was not there just as for CCI did circa 2010. It has to be organized.

As for the joining together? Perhaps it was more like sifting out. I dropped Prop-19 once I saw the restrictions on who could grow and how much.

The idea of only Property Owners having rights is so 1776 not 2010.
Click to expand...


Did you seriously suggest property rights were outdated, or are you simply commenting on the reality that you basically have no rights anymore (to anything)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top