Can we defeat Prop 19? will it pass? Is it as bogus as it seems?

UncleBuck said:

prop 19 makes explicit reference to medical.

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.


http://yeson19.com/node/6


go ahead and google 11362.5, 11362.7, and 11362.9

ruiner, your argument is ruined. kinda ironic, eh?

Click to expand...

The Mastermind said:

You're a loony. The actual, objective words of the law go out to say the following here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19_(2010)#Effects_of_the_bill

Patients make up such a small number of smokers. Many documentaries I have watched regarding marijuana advocation has in somewhere referred to medical marijuana being a loophole for individuals wanting to be able to smoke marijuana. I've gone through forums and read stories and watched videos on individuals going up to their doctors, jokingly jabbing them in the ribs, and saying, "I'm sick." This is pathetic in terms of how our healthcare system is being abused and used as a loophole.

The guarantees of the law are within its text. If you understood the exact objectivity of law, you would understand how far words, sentences, and phrasing go.

Individuals such as yourself are in some way or another paranoid. Anything passed onto you is someway stupid and going to suppress your liberties and lead to a huge governmental overhaul where you'll end up with chips in your brains and have to take some kind of shot everyday so you stay a simple minded servant to the radical government. Grow up. You've all been going at it since the 60s, and none of this has happened.

Click to expand...

The Ruiner said:

you are not funny. and your "evidence" doesnt even refer to cultivation. you know that. the word "cultivation" is not included in those "exemptions." 11362.5, 11362.7, and 11362.9 are not listed in section 2C (2) of prop 19...the actual list of laws NOT TO BE AFFECTED by 19, so you're wrong. if you actually believe what you just put up, then god help you.

Click to expand...

The Mastermind said:

You're a loony. The actual, objective words of the law go out to say the following here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19_(2010)#Effects_of_the_bill

Patients make up such a small number of smokers. Many documentaries I have watched regarding marijuana advocation has in somewhere referred to medical marijuana being a loophole for individuals wanting to be able to smoke marijuana. I've gone through forums and read stories and watched videos on individuals going up to their doctors, jokingly jabbing them in the ribs, and saying, "I'm sick." This is pathetic in terms of how our healthcare system is being abused and used as a loophole.

The guarantees of the law are within its text. If you understood the exact objectivity of law, you would understand how far words, sentences, and phrasing go.

Individuals such as yourself are in some way or another paranoid. Anything passed onto you is someway stupid and going to suppress your liberties and lead to a huge governmental overhaul where you'll end up with chips in your brains and have to take some kind of shot everyday so you stay a simple minded servant to the radical government. Grow up. You've all been going at it since the 60s, and none of this has happened.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

your distinction is irrelevant.

section 2C (2) as you call it, is the 'intent' section. this is what it states: This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of the following state laws relating to public health and safety or protection of children and others.

ie, it is a negative statement of intent, not a positive statement of purpose.

what i quoted was out of section 2B (7) & (8 ), the 'purposes' section. that is far and beyond what you bring up. the purpose of the bill carries far more weight than the intent.

you asked for someone to point it out to you in the text of prop 19 itself, i did.

should i draw you a picture next?

Click to expand...

mccumcumber said:

I don't understand why growers who are making money, like ruinner I assume, think that prop 19 is going to hurt them. STOP SAYING THAT 19 OVERRIDES 215, IT DOESN'T. If you're a small time grower, now you can make your own dispensary. Already have one? Now your amount of customers has increased ten fold. If you are making a good deal of money from bud, then renting a decent sized office space and paying for advertisement should not be a problem. In fact, you can very likely make much more money because your product will no longer be considered illegal. Everyone can buy it and when prop 19 first passes, and a few months later, anyone who smokes over the age of 21 will go to a store as soon as they can and buy some bud to express their legal right.
The only people who will really be hurt by prop 19 are the shitty doctors that most people (including myself) get their medical cards from by giving some bullshit reason. I said I had insomnia, I had no doctor's referral, nor did I have any proof whatsoever that I had insomnia, I just wanted to smoke and grow weed and my doctor wanted his $100 cash.

Click to expand...

The Ruiner said:

No, you should just accurately depict the prop.... without trying to distort what it says...

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

The Ruiner said:

I dont make any money...you are just basing this off of propaganda that has formed your opinions for you.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

what am i trying to distort?

here are the words once again, straight from the 'purposes' section.

in other words, if the city chooses not to tax cannabis, cannabis is still illegal except for the possession and consumption of small amounts and medical users. if the city chooses to tax, we set up a regulatory system and the city can decide on amounts but not for medical users.

oh, hell....i really think the picture will help...



View attachment 1187072

Click to expand...

mccumcumber said:

I'm not brainwashed by propaganda, sorry that you feel that way.

I only assumed that you were making money off of bud because you said the prop would hurt you. The prop does not take away medical rights because it never states that it takes away those rights. I do admit that the prop gets confusing around section 11300 when it says:

"(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.
(ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.
(iv) Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection."

I see how this could interpreted as "too bad 215 patients, now you only get an ounce and a 25 sqft grow spot." The notwithstanding bit through me off at first too, cause I thought it was saying "despite the fact that you have a card it doesn't mean shit, here's the new law." However, all it's saying (or what I interpret it as saying) is that it is legal for anyone over 21 to have that much bud,grow that much bud, and smoke that much bud, regardless of any laws against mj.

Click to expand...

The Ruiner said:

again, "possess and consume" and "bought and sold" are not "CULTIVATION"

Click to expand...

The Ruiner said:

No one can point to any part of the bill and say "look, there's the 215 exemption for cultivation" BECAUSE THERE ISNT ANY.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

§11362.5. Use of marijuana for medical purposes.
(a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
(b)(l) The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 are as follows:
(A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.
(B) To ensure that patients and their primary care-givers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.
(C), To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for nonmedical purposes.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law: no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes.
(d) Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.
(e) For the purposes of this section, "primary care-giver" means the individual designated by the person exempted under this section who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person. (Added by 1996 initiative Measure Prop 215 §1, eff.: 11/6/96.)

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

i am convinced that you are purposely not getting this because you are too firmly set in your stance, which is based on false

you made this statement earlier...



then i showed you this...

[/COLOR][/B]

now, let's take a look at what 11362.5 says about 'cultivation'.




shall i go on and talk about 11362.7 and 11362.9?

Click to expand...

The Ruiner said:

Deflecting to another piece of legislation is retarded. We are not debating that. You are cornered and trying like hell to get out.

Click to expand...