Prop 19 Explained: Common Questions and Misperceptions
- Thread starter tc1
- Start date
- Status
Brokenneck
Well-Known Member
If with prop 19 I am allowed 25 square feet.
I could lets say keep an indoor tent 4x4 and then have an additional 9 feet outdoor?
so I could have a 3x3 outdoor too?
is that right? I just want to understand this completely
I happen to be a patient so I would still be limited to a total 6 flowering and 18 veg.
If I was not a Patient...
If me and my immediate smoking circle (6 persons) all worked together (separate locations) we could have a combined square footage of 150ft.
I see we still have a little time till we start hitting the polls. I do not watch much regular TV per say are there many political ads on this subject hitting mainstream?
what do we have left till voting day 35 days or so?
I could lets say keep an indoor tent 4x4 and then have an additional 9 feet outdoor?
so I could have a 3x3 outdoor too?
is that right? I just want to understand this completely
I happen to be a patient so I would still be limited to a total 6 flowering and 18 veg.
If I was not a Patient...
If me and my immediate smoking circle (6 persons) all worked together (separate locations) we could have a combined square footage of 150ft.
I see we still have a little time till we start hitting the polls. I do not watch much regular TV per say are there many political ads on this subject hitting mainstream?
what do we have left till voting day 35 days or so?
mikhail chalecki
Member
yes i am aware of your lack of space req. "It stops arrests -- not just prosecution -- of card-holding individuals for possession, transportation, delivery or cultivation up to a very minimal level of 6 mature plants per patient and 8 oz of bud or conversion (that could arguably be hash or hash oil, or equivalent amounts of foods and tinctures, which have a lot of liquid weight) 11362.71(e)"
but prop 19 clearly says, in the specific language ur asking for, in my quote, ur exempt from those regulations and are allowed to do whatever is permitted by your doctor. furthermore. there is a clear separation between personal use and medical use patients stated between props 19 & 215/sb420. the quote i showed is the separation of the two systems. how do you not get that? did you not read my post at all? read the quote a few times for your stoner brain to process it. if your house has 3 doctors recs, theres no reason you cannot have 18 flowering plants unbound by space because, you arent following the laws of 19, your following sb420 and are exempt by 19, a right specifically given to you by 19
tc1
Well-Known Member
I don't believe that's how it will work. You get 25 square feet to put all or your marijuana grow op. My guess would be ... if you had a tent indoor, and a plant outdoor ... they would have to be within 25 square feet of each other.
Can't say I'm 100% on that ... but the language in Prop 19 leaves me to believe that's the way it will be handled.
Otherwise they would most likely use wordage like "grow areas" "25 square feet in total". (or so forth)
25 square feet is plenty for recreational users IMHO. Medical patients will still go by 215 numbers. (Unless they feel they can grow more under Prop 19)
mikhail chalecki
Member
im afraid but they are the same
Brokenneck
Well-Known Member
Thx tc1!
I still don't see it as too bad.
gotta go water!
I still don't see it as too bad.
gotta go water!
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
Again...just looking for answers so I will post this here too...
The Ruiners' Hypothetical Questions to 19 Supporters
The Ruiners' Hypothetical Questions to 19 Supporters
Since there is so much debate over the 5x5 and cultivation in general, and the (possible) overlap between that part of the bill and the CUA/MMP, if 19 passes, will people still be able to get doctors rec's and, by what everyone is saying, cultivate however much they want, without restrictions in regards to growing space? Therefore, in order to be part of the action in commerce, ordinary people will simply need to get a doctors rec to grow, and distribute as much as they possibly can to dispensaries and other patients, and quite possibly to the "black market" ? What would be the point of passing all new legislation that can be so easily cast aside? What good does 19 do the state, if all it takes to avoid what will more than likely be thousands of dollars in taxes annually is a $35 doctors rec? Wouldn't that just be, as supporters of the bill have put it "more of the same"? Also, how could the commercial interests backing 19 benefit from making it legal for the entire 21 and over population of the state to possess cannabis if they cant possibly compete with a market that has way more advantages in regards to abundant supply and more relaxed regulations? On the flip side of this coin, what will be the motivation for the "casual smoker" to patronize the commercial establishments, with their elevated overhead and strict regulatory scrutiny which will more than likely spell higher prices, versus just getting the doctors rec and going medical?
It just doesnt make sense to me that people with millions riding on the passage and eventual commercial sales of MJ to leave a less regulated and more than likely less expensive competitor. It doesnt make sense to make things harder on yourself, and to pay millions of dollars to do it. It just doesn't make sense for 19 to leave 215 intact if EVERYTHING that is being SAID about 215 being left intact is true.
I would really appreciate someone who fancies themselves as well-versed in 19 to respond.
It just doesnt make sense to me that people with millions riding on the passage and eventual commercial sales of MJ to leave a less regulated and more than likely less expensive competitor. It doesnt make sense to make things harder on yourself, and to pay millions of dollars to do it. It just doesn't make sense for 19 to leave 215 intact if EVERYTHING that is being SAID about 215 being left intact is true.
I would really appreciate someone who fancies themselves as well-versed in 19 to respond.
tc1
Well-Known Member
Prop 19 is recreational
Prop 215 is medical
215 patients wont be affected at all by these new laws and in fact, will have some added benefits due to the limits it gives law enforcement against marijuana. What's so hard to understand about that?
Prop 19 would not NEED Prop 215 exemptions if it was meant to override Prop 215. Courts have ruled laws passed to supersede old laws must be specifically expressed in the new legislation. PERIOD. So if Prop 19 was to override 215, it would have to SPECIFICALLY STATE that it is doing so. This is the case with ALL laws.
What good would Prop 19? MORE of the SAME? What on earth are you talking about... Prop 19 allows 21+ year old adults to LEGALLY possess, transport, cultivate, and USE marijuana. It allows the cultivation and use of hemp. How in the heck is that more of the same?
We're talking end game here ... the LEGALIZATION of marijuana. You don't have to be sick, die'n, or lie'n in order to use and grow MARIJUANA.
Prop 19 passing effects other states much like Prop 215 did .... duh.
The motivation for casual smokers to buy off of patron businesses is the same motivation that casual beer drinkers still buy off of smaller, patron businesses(micro-breweries).
Why does everyone assume Richard Lee and Co have nothing but evil intentions? A bill they paid for has the possibility to pass and would legalize marijuana for all adults 21+ statewide. No more responsible adults going to jail over marijuana. All commercial sales and regulations are left up to each city. People like Richard Lee will benefit because they will have 1000x more opportunities for commercial ventures. Just look at places which have "legalized" marijuana. You see head shops, smoke shops, bake shops, and bud bars. No doubt Richard Lee will get his hands on an even larger marijuana market. But so can ANYONE with the will and money to start a marijuana business.
The legalization of marijuana destroys the black market and allows all that money to flow into businesses ON the street and not IN the ally. (And you won't convince me that their isn't some "ally business" in the medical marijuana market either.)
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
Thank for your response.
1. I don't see the law enforcement part of your post as an added benefit. In reality they shouldn't go after compliant MMJ patient-growers anyway.
2. The omittance of the CUA/MMP from the pertinent section of exemptions and limitations in prop 19 lends absolutely no credibility to the notion that they are to left intact. As far as I can tell this is the most ambigous and contentious part of this debate. Simply put, I believe that had the writers of 19 intended to leave the CUA/MMP intact then they would have done so by writing this bill with much more clarity. But from what I can read into it, they have left the CUA/MMP to the wolves.
3. You are right, to a point. But this is why I was asking these questions in the form of a hypothetical scenario that you have seemingly totally ignored. There are no incentives for people to be bound to a crap ton of rules and regulations and taxes and fees if they simply dont have to be. In fact, it leaves no incentive for there to even be a prop 19, in my opinion. Basically, 19 opens up a pandora's box of market supply and demand via the legality of possession (which I wonder why so much control over HOW the MJ is obtained is such a HUGE focus with the pro-19'ers). So, if someone wants to cultivate or possess more all they have to do is get a script? And then they wont be subject to the regulations of 19? Do you get the conundrum here? By using the reasoning of your own words, 215 makes 19 completely unecessary in terms of its aim to (over) regulate the cannabis trade since it can be so easily avoided. Essentially, what i hear from pro-19 people is that 19 is an OPTIONAL law, meaning it can either be enforced or totally avoided. Thus, "more of the same" was an apt description.
4. Passing prop 19 will affect other states....and I hope that it doesnt because I dont feel that prop 19 sets a good model for the nation to follow..duh.
5. As far as consumers go, dont you think that they would just go where they could get the best bang for their buck? If that happened to be medical, because it is of high-quality and at a lower price, why would people continually over-pay at commercial joints when in the short-run they can save money, and gain WAY more protections if they just got scripts? And given that there will still be a MMJ community, what are the odds that the commercial enterprises would even be successful?
6. I feel that Dick Lee and Co have malicious intentions because of the low quality of the written bill, quoted apsirations of extreme wealth, and a general reluctance to address these issues in an acceptable format. They have made no effort to clarify anything. The reluctance to state actual figures for the taxes and regulation fees tells me that no, not ANYONE will be able to start a MJ business because I doubt that many will be able to afford it.
7. The "legalization" cannot destroy the black market as it is now. That "black market" is the same market of people that Dicklee and Co. are looking to take over, and it is not just domintated by "mexican cartels", it has a major contingent of ma & pa small growers, which if they can provide a service for less, will ultimately win out in the end. Now I will be the first to call out abusers of the MMJ system, and I have. And this is a major fundamental beef that I have with many in the MJ community - the lack of quality decision making has ruined the image of medical cannabis...not to mention numerous smear campaigns based off of assumptions thrown around by those in support of 19. 19 NEEDS 215 to be dismantled in order to be successful.
mikhail chalecki
Member
1. well they can and they do
2. we have quoted many times where 19 specifically says 215 and sb 420 are exempt from tax, regulations, and controls. also i believe you should reread how the taxing/regulating
3. yes. 19 will be an optional law basically, but it will be free as opposed to not. how is it a conumdrum? its an even bigger loophole with what we currently have with the parodimes being illegal - or permitted amounts. the change is simple restricted amounts - permitted ones.
4. its not the model of 19 that is what will change the nation but the success or failure of it. the fact that so many non stoners/smokers support it is the only reason we have this chance. the polls are hardly winning. and if the stoner ass jack herer initiative was up. i honestly believe it wouldn't get the general support
5. this just seems wrong. competition between the small home grows and the corps will most likely put the price much lower on both side. from a consumer point thats pure win.
6. i disagree with ur saying "low quality bill" and for the governments making it so nobody can affort the licensing to grow would be entirely counterintuitive dont you think. if nobody can afford the licensing, where is the buisness that can be taxed? if anything they will make the licensing cheap to attract growers and tax transactions enough so you can get by. i can only see them benefitting from it and why wouldnt they with the states budget and ridiculously high unemployment rate? they will get money from the tax and people will get jobs from larger scale gro ops i hope, cuz people really need those jobs now. not 2 years from now.... is 12.4% unemployment not baffling? this is a very real opportunity for new jobs and i believe the govnt will not over tax because they can only get more from the income tax of the new jobs created by the bill.
7. "ma and pa" do not provide service for less and neither do dispensaries. and why would the medical market be dismantled? there will simply be a real market to compete against, and theres a good chance the use of the medi system will shrink down to those who really need it. forcing out all those abusing it. maybe real health restrictions
and do you understand the section on amending? the limits can only get less restrictive, the way they are now is to entice the people supporting restrictions to vote yes. also all counties can be forced to adhere to the bill if the decided. basically its asking you to vote for the jack herer bill in 2 years aswell as this
"(a) Amendments to the limitations in section 11300, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations.
(b) Statutes and authorize regulations to further the purposes of the Act to establish a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry that addresses some or all of the items referenced in Sections 11301 and 11302.
(c) Laws to authorize the production of hemp or non-active cannabis for horticultural and industrial purposes."
2. we have quoted many times where 19 specifically says 215 and sb 420 are exempt from tax, regulations, and controls. also i believe you should reread how the taxing/regulating
3. yes. 19 will be an optional law basically, but it will be free as opposed to not. how is it a conumdrum? its an even bigger loophole with what we currently have with the parodimes being illegal - or permitted amounts. the change is simple restricted amounts - permitted ones.
4. its not the model of 19 that is what will change the nation but the success or failure of it. the fact that so many non stoners/smokers support it is the only reason we have this chance. the polls are hardly winning. and if the stoner ass jack herer initiative was up. i honestly believe it wouldn't get the general support
5. this just seems wrong. competition between the small home grows and the corps will most likely put the price much lower on both side. from a consumer point thats pure win.
6. i disagree with ur saying "low quality bill" and for the governments making it so nobody can affort the licensing to grow would be entirely counterintuitive dont you think. if nobody can afford the licensing, where is the buisness that can be taxed? if anything they will make the licensing cheap to attract growers and tax transactions enough so you can get by. i can only see them benefitting from it and why wouldnt they with the states budget and ridiculously high unemployment rate? they will get money from the tax and people will get jobs from larger scale gro ops i hope, cuz people really need those jobs now. not 2 years from now.... is 12.4% unemployment not baffling? this is a very real opportunity for new jobs and i believe the govnt will not over tax because they can only get more from the income tax of the new jobs created by the bill.
7. "ma and pa" do not provide service for less and neither do dispensaries. and why would the medical market be dismantled? there will simply be a real market to compete against, and theres a good chance the use of the medi system will shrink down to those who really need it. forcing out all those abusing it. maybe real health restrictions
and do you understand the section on amending? the limits can only get less restrictive, the way they are now is to entice the people supporting restrictions to vote yes. also all counties can be forced to adhere to the bill if the decided. basically its asking you to vote for the jack herer bill in 2 years aswell as this
"(a) Amendments to the limitations in section 11300, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations.
(b) Statutes and authorize regulations to further the purposes of the Act to establish a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry that addresses some or all of the items referenced in Sections 11301 and 11302.
(c) Laws to authorize the production of hemp or non-active cannabis for horticultural and industrial purposes."
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
1. Then how does 19 change that? Because, if MMJ isnt a part of 19 when how can there be protections for it written into it? Logically, it makes no sense to say there are protections, when in reality they dont even apply.
2. I don't accept your "proof" because of the ambiguity of those sections, but I am willing to accept them for the purposes of the hypothetical question: "What good is 19 if it leaves 215 intact?" Nobody as of yet has come up with a fundamental proof as to how 19 keeps 215 intact, everything, absolutely EVERYTHING out there is based off of opinion whereas the fact of the matter is the blatant omission of mention of the CUA/MMP from the pertinent sections of 19. That cannot be debated.
3. This shows to me how poorly conceived the bill actually is then. If it is so easily skirted, then what makes people think that this is anything new or beneficial? Essentially, the major selling points of this bill (at least with the supporting, but not partaking demographic of CA) fall flat on their face with this...no revenue, a horrible cluster-fuck of conflicting laws, rampant cultivation and consumption, and no clear way of standard legal enforcement. It basically would just revoke a $100 fine for possesion and create stricter controls on actual consumption...It makes no sense!
4. But why wouldnt it gain support? This argument is hallow, there is no basis for it, no standard. Just nay-saying from nothing. The CCHHI can actually be modified BEFORE being submitted to a vote, not leaving the hundreds of thousands of MMJ patients in limbo because of shoddy draft composition, not addressing major issues - like that of determining impairment while driving and workplace standards. Those are dealt with in the CCHHI, not prop 19. Dont you think that it would be wise to present a much more comprehensive policy to the rest of the nation than the one being brought to the CA voters?
5. Well, the real difference is between overhead then, right? Since commercial ops will be forced to comply with the slew of taxes and fees, they CANT compete with the small growers and make money as a result of deficiency in profit and returns. No one will ever put in more than they take out when running a business. Then the ma & pa's win...
6. Because of the overwhelming evidence that employers give their employees less and less while demanding more and more I dont see this as any sort of incentive. Are these some really awesome jobs like working for yourself? I want to work for myself...I don't break any laws, and I can take as much as I want from my own business (hypothetically of course) Who do you think would work in the commercial biz? What kind of jobs does it create: laborers? store clerks? drivers? Not business owners, not people with steady income. Just people forced to rely on another for their daily bread that can be taken away just as soon as it was given to you. And, when you are talking about the MJ communities, the most desirable people to bring in would be the people with 15 years of experience in the field - the patient growers, budtenders, dispensary operators... all people that 19 wants to put out of a job in the first place.
7. Sorry, but you have absolutely no basis for saying they cant provide it for less. Especially when you consider that you already admitted that 19 would be "optional" for the MMJ community...I think that it would be provided at MUCH lower rates than that of the commercial market. And as far as the dismantling goes, then why all the talk of 19 providing "safer access" for MMJ patients? They are talking about a CA where todays dispensaries dont exist! In J. Nick Davids' letter, redistributed by so many here, he says straight up "gone are the days of getting a doctors recommendation" ( I am recalling that from memory)....obviously the intention of 19 is to rid CA of the dispensaries and medical market in general...it is absolutely imperative for 19 to do this, otherwise there can be no possible way for commercial interests to make money if their competitors play on an uneven playing field in their (the competitions') favor.
Yes, I "understand" the section on amending... but I am concerned with the very end of the bill....SEVERABILITY... I really, really think this will be the trump-card for Dick & Co...Watch out for this if it passes because that little paragraph at the end of the bill can reshape it in very drastic ways.
SmokeyMc74
Active Member
theres moree poeple in souther cali so they will ALL VOTE YES down there
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
Not quite...I went to two different dispensaries yesterday that were both totally opposed to 19. And I live in Los Angeles.
tc1
Well-Known Member
Well duh ... anyone making money off of prohibition is going to say no.
Legalized marijuana = competition and price drops.
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
tc1
Well-Known Member
Sure I do ... It's called supply and demand.
If marijuana is legalized, there will be an abundant supply thus driving down prices.
Our whole economy is based on supply and demand ... marijuana is no different.
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
Okay, lets think about this....the whole premise of your "team's" arguement is that prohibition has failed....what makes you think that there will be a higher supply or demand in the state that cultivates and consumes far more weed than any other state? And again, you are ignoring the premise of my argument: 19 leaves 215 intact and leaves commercial outlets, with their higher overheads to match the prices of the medical. One side will be forced to ask a certain price while the other remains much more flexible...
I will say it again: It makes no sense for 19 to leave 215 in place.
I will say it again: It makes no sense for 19 to leave 215 in place.
tc1
Well-Known Member
Higher overheads? Medical marijuana prices are the same as the drug dealer down the street. Marijuana is ridiculously overpriced BECAUSE it is illegal and people are willing to pay the price. Do you honestly believe the vast majority of marijuana smokers use the medical system to get their weed? If that were the case ... there wouldn't be pot dealers in Cali.
The end of prohibition = the end of price gouging. Anyone who denies this has zero credibility on issues regarding economics.
- Status