Prop 19 Explained: Common Questions and Misperceptions

Status
Not open for further replies.
BluffinCali

BluffinCali

Well-Known Member
The severability clause really scares me, its flat out ridiculous, I decided long ago to vote NO but in the case that it does pass that particular clause could come back to bite everyone. Again Im all for legalization and have no problem waiting till 2012 to vote yes on the JH bill, but I will not just vote yes on prop19 because "its as good as we can do right now", Dick could have made things much clearer and understandable but I think purposely decided not to. I really dont think prop19 is going to pass anyways, besides the non-marijuana people that will vote no, its clearly not getting the majority of support from the established MMJ community and in my opinion for good reason. We shall see in a month and if it does pass I really hope all you pro-19 guys are 100% correct on your claims, I really do, but I think theres a better chance of realizing that government, money and greed will win the day...here's hoping for the best, peace to all!
 
M

mikhail chalecki

Member
The Ruiner said:
The tobacco lobby is one of the biggest lobbies in DC...that's a horrible model to emulate in my opinion. And interestingly enough, are you aware of the restrictions on tobacco cultivation?
Click to expand...
i know its a highly regulated business in every country in the world, i assume personal cultivation isnt a huge deal tho. despite hefty commercial regulation they make massive profits, pay significant taxes, are responsible for thousands of cancer deaths annually all while keeping prices somewhat low prices that change constantly. but other than that i dont know much. it is indeed a terrible model to emulate, but its merely an example of capitalism. as a stoner i think CCHHI is a great prop, i love it and wish it was on the ballot next month instead of this. but i am convinced it wont nearly gain the support this has thus we are missing out on an incredible opportunity by letting this and all the effort that went into go.
 
M

mikhail chalecki

Member
The Ruiner said:
But the problem of severability is that once undertaken the legislature cant do anything about it...its entirely done by the courts, and thats where it ends
Click to expand...
how sure about this are you? i didnt know individual courts had the ability to change and remove individual state health and safety codes clauses. as you know countys can opt out for 19, and that will be that, but they need to enact the prop to abuse it. the section in question indeed says "the provisions of this measure are severable." and whole section is worded strangely and rough to sort out, but were ignoring that the legal definition of the word here and just taking in its general context

the pure legal definition is "That which is capable of being separated from other things to which it is joined and maintaining nonetheless a complete and independent existence."

and lawyer summary of it
"Severability in legal terms refers to a clause in a contract that provides that any portion of the contract deemed to be unenforceable does not affect the validity of the rest of the contract. A severability clause may be included in a contract which is an agreement which is made up of several separate contracts between the same parties, such as series of sales, shipments or different pieces of equipment. Therefore, breach of one of the separate (severable) contracts is not a breach of the remainder of the overall contract and is not an excuse for the other party to refuse to honor any separate part of the contract which has not been breached."

so the severed parts will not disapear in the slightest, but be separated to receive embellishment or punishment/removal if something illegal, but more specific unconstitutional, is happening. but that really doesnt seem to be the case, i mean how can a law that precedes something be considered infringing on a new creation? pretty sure lots of cases say that is illegal to do that or put something in that position and thus the entire prop needs to be removed, and then you win. furthermore persecution and restriction of cancer patients and generally ill people really doesnt look good in any situation, so why would people do something blatantly wrong? from my experience, the really sick demographics would indeed be effected by grow restrictions MAYBE, you can really do a lot in 25 sq ft. but the exemption of permitted patients is something i can say without a doubt is protected and as the prop stands, not an "IF" as you said. so using those moot points to vote no seems... off to me
 
luvourmother

luvourmother

Active Member
The Ruiner said:
While the overhead to actually produce the good may be low, there is no guarentee that commercial producers will sell at lower rates, that is total wishful thinking. My argument works without any false projections, because I have made none...MMJ is not taxed, commercial MJ is, simple.


.
Click to expand...
Actually not, Oakland taxes medical mj sales.
The big difference that you keep asking for between selling mj under 215 vs 19 is profit. It is against 215 to profit from medical marijuana sales, where as sales of marijuana under 19 can be for profit. Collectives that want to continue to provide medical marijuana for patients can still do so as non profit ventures (as they should be doing now, but as we learned in LA recently were not...). When 19 passes for profit marijuana based businesses will be legal.
As you have said yourself, we cannot speculate on what might happen to prices because we simply don't know. However we can look to history (as with alcohol prohibition) and the science of economics which both indicate that when an illegal substance is legalized supply and demand principles can be applied, meaning prices will follow to match demand.
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
mikhail chalecki said:
how sure about this are you? i didnt know individual courts had the ability to change and remove individual state health and safety codes clauses. as you know countys can opt out for 19, and that will be that, but they need to enact the prop to abuse it. the section in question indeed says "the provisions of this measure are severable." and whole section is worded strangely and rough to sort out, but were ignoring that the legal definition of the word here and just taking in its general context

the pure legal definition is "That which is capable of being separated from other things to which it is joined and maintaining nonetheless a complete and independent existence."

and lawyer summary of it
"Severability in legal terms refers to a clause in a contract that provides that any portion of the contract deemed to be unenforceable does not affect the validity of the rest of the contract. A severability clause may be included in a contract which is an agreement which is made up of several separate contracts between the same parties, such as series of sales, shipments or different pieces of equipment. Therefore, breach of one of the separate (severable) contracts is not a breach of the remainder of the overall contract and is not an excuse for the other party to refuse to honor any separate part of the contract which has not been breached."

so the severed parts will not disapear in the slightest, but be separated to receive embellishment or punishment/removal if something illegal, but more specific unconstitutional, is happening. but that really doesnt seem to be the case, i mean how can a law that precedes something be considered infringing on a new creation? pretty sure lots of cases say that is illegal to do that or put something in that position and thus the entire prop needs to be removed, and then you win. furthermore persecution and restriction of cancer patients and generally ill people really doesnt look good in any situation, so why would people do something blatantly wrong? from my experience, the really sick demographics would indeed be effected by grow restrictions MAYBE, you can really do a lot in 25 sq ft. but the exemption of permitted patients is something i can say without a doubt is protected and as the prop stands, not an "IF" as you said. so using those moot points to vote no seems... off to me
Click to expand...
The courts cant change the bill, they can however strike the provisions that are found to be in conflict with the intention of the bill.
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
What the severability does is allow certain statutes to be stricken while retaining the over legislation. But, the legislature doesnt get another chance to change the bill.
 
M

mikhail chalecki

Member
The Ruiner said:
The courts cant change the bill, they can however strike the provisions that are found to be in conflict with the intention of the bill.
Click to expand...
well lucky for us, one of the intents of the bill is to protect medical patient rights while providing a reasonable market and restriction to adults who dont want to get permitted to do so. so that seems impossible
 
veggiegardener

veggiegardener

Well-Known Member
mikhail chalecki said:
well lucky for us, one of the intents of the bill is to protect medical patient rights while providing a reasonable market and restriction to adults who dont want to get permitted to do so. so that seems impossible
Click to expand...
So, we're supposed to hope that the courts agree with your opinion?

Not if there's a buck to be made, ignoring the "intent".

I learned long ago that voting "No" on an initiative is safer than "hoping" for a desired result.

If it isn't in the text of the proposition, it doesn't exist.
 
1gamma45

1gamma45

Active Member
As well as this piece was put together. I can see by reading just the first few posts most morons still dont understand it and even when spelled out in black and white they still choose to burry thier heads in the sand.

If you voting no On prop 19 my only hope is you truely understand what your doing and not just hoping on the short bus to lick windows with the other retards that not only dont understand this prop. but dont bother to find out the facts either. I hope for Prop 19 sake and Cali there are far less morons then people that understand just what Prop. 19 will do.


I swear to god people Reading Is Fundamental.
 
M

mikhail chalecki

Member
veggiegardener said:
So, we're supposed to hope that the courts agree with your opinion?

Not if there's a buck to be made, ignoring the "intent".

I learned long ago that voting "No" on an initiative is safer than "hoping" for a desired result.

If it isn't in the text of the proposition, it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
its not an opinion, its specifically listed under the section intent. something the laws will have to follow
 
M

mikhail chalecki

Member
veggiegardener said:
Show me specific language exempting MMJ caregivers.

You can't.

It isn't there.
Click to expand...
ive posted this many times, but here we go again.

section 2b
blah blah blah 1. 2. 3. etc....
"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."

11362.5 is 215
11362.7 is sb 420
notice cultivation is in the direct line of the prop. click the links in my signature maybe you might learn a few things. if your calling the actual legal document a lie... you shouldnt be a part of this discussion

read this quote ten times and look up what the terms mean. 215 permittees are exempt from all regulations and restrictions of 19. if a cop or someone trys to screw you, get your lawyer and sue em. make money bitch
 
mr2shim

mr2shim

Well-Known Member
Good post OP. Very informative. It's really sad reading on THIS forum how many people are going to vote no because they think they are going to lose on making money from MMJ, or because their friends are drug dealers. Fucking pathetic.

That being said, it's a STEP in the right direction, it might not be perfect but you stupid sob's in California should be happy you have that much, try living in Georgia or Florida... Ungrateful bastards.
 
veggiegardener

veggiegardener

Well-Known Member
mr2shim said:
Good post OP. Very informative. It's really sad reading on THIS forum how many people are going to vote no because they think they are going to lose on making money from MMJ, or because their friends are drug dealers. Fucking pathetic.

That being said, it's a STEP in the right direction, it might not be perfect but you stupid sob's in California should be happy you have that much, try living in Georgia or Florida... Ungrateful bastards.
Click to expand...
You obviously have read nothing about my motives. Very simply, I would have to replace $40,000 worth of medicine I would be unable to grow under the 25 sq. ft limit.
 
veggiegardener

veggiegardener

Well-Known Member
mikhail chalecki said:
ive posted this many times, but here we go again.

section 2b
blah blah blah 1. 2. 3. etc....
"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."

11362.5 is 215
11362.7 is sb 420
notice cultivation is in the direct line of the prop. click the links in my signature maybe you might learn a few things. if your calling the actual legal document a lie... you shouldnt be a part of this discussion

read this quote ten times and look up what the terms mean. 215 permittees are exempt from all regulations and restrictions of 19. if a cop or someone trys to screw you, get your lawyer and sue em. make money bitch
Click to expand...
Still can't produce the text specifically exempting medical cultivation?

You obviously don't understand what I mean.

Again

If square footage is mentioned in a Proposition, it overrides any other proposition that doesn't specify square feet.

Why haven't the authors of this bill clarified this?

Because they don't want to go on record as supporting larger medical grows.

Because such statements could be used as evidence of intent to exempt medical grows, which they definitely don't want to do.
 
Serapis

Serapis

Well-Known Member
Rusko said:
yeppp.we got it good right now in cali.WHY CHANGE IT?!?! the government shouldnt b able to tell us patients how much medicine we can have or limit our grow spaces.PROP 19 IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT
Click to expand...
I suggest you read the prop if you are going to vote no on it. You have no argument, no details, no valid reasons for voting no other than what someone else told you.
 
veggiegardener

veggiegardener

Well-Known Member
Serapis said:
I suggest you read the prop if you are going to vote no on it. You have no argument, no details, no valid reasons for voting no other than what someone else told you.
Click to expand...
All the arguments have been made. The Proposition has been read.

YOU can't provide any reassurance that medical grows won't be limited.

Without that, you are just a shill for corporate interests that will charge you a ton for their "recreational" Cannabis.
 
R

redivider

Well-Known Member
veggiegardener said:
All the arguments have been made. The Proposition has been read.

YOU can't provide any reassurance that medical grows won't be limited.

Without that, you are just a shill for corporate interests that will charge you a ton for their "recreational" Cannabis.
Click to expand...
you can't provide any assurance that medical grows WILL be limited either.
 
mr2shim

mr2shim

Well-Known Member
veggiegardener said:
You obviously have read nothing about my motives. Very simply, I would have to replace $40,000 worth of medicine I would be unable to grow under the 25 sq. ft limit.
Click to expand...
So it sounds to me like you only care about yourself and not the future of this Country. That being said, marijuana doesn't need you. All you care about is the dollar.

Aside from that, show me an article in the prop 19 where it says it will effect prop 215, and medical marijuana growers will have to confine to prop 19's 25 sq ft limit.

Better check your facts buddy because you are hating on this bill for no reason. It doesn't effect MMJ growers.

In short, read the proposition instead of reading and believing what people post on forums. That's just about as bad as listening to the news and quoting them.

I know it can be boring reading bills and propositions but it will do you and every other person who is against prop 19 nothing but good.

Ignorance like this just goes to show how smart the average American is. Too busy wanting to eat McDonald's and watch American Idol to check the facts first.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top