U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-12-2010, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis
146 posts, read 192,845 times
Reputation: 117

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mateo45 View Post
Especially these days, alot of the local economy in some parts of the state comes from the (substantial) profits derived from the marijuana biz. Of course the state (and plenty of others) are salivating at getting a piece of that action. I'm just asking the obvious question of how much of that profit will be "re-directed" to state coffers thru legalization & taxes, and what''ll be the economic impact on all those communities?

As written, the legislation is pretty vague about defining things like "reasonable market prices", "the costs associated with the regulation of the market", "permitting the local government to raise revenue", etc., but pretty specific that however defined, it'll all be "without limitation".
Yes it is pretty vague but probably written so because the market(aside from the Medical Cannabis revenue)only exists as an illegal un-regulated one. Pretty sure the state wouldn't want to put people in the position of going to the black market because of market price and taxation, since the whole purpose is to create a regulated market with substantial tax revenue.

The part about "without limitation" is kind of deceptive, and is speaking to the associative costs initially figured in along with any future associative costs discovered post passage of the bill.

Far as economic impact on the community which already farms cannabis, you have to figure in the increase in business they will be doing not only from legitimate cannabis sales but also the industrial hemp market that would be opened up by the legislation. Yes they would have to adapt and do business differently in order to flourish but, overall there would be more business for them and everyone else along with having a totally new agricultural product to cultivate for the industrial and food markets that can be utilized in tens of thousands of ways.

Industrial hemp also must be figured into the associative costs and it's potential really has not been addressed by the LAO report. Which is a reason to have the without limitation wording so that they can at some point down the road figure the associative regulation costs and apply appropriately to the emerging market.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-12-2010, 02:15 PM
 
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,367 posts, read 8,586,137 times
Reputation: 5919
Quote:
Originally Posted by keroppininja View Post
Yes it is pretty vague but probably written so because the market(aside from the Medical Cannabis revenue)only exists as an illegal un-regulated one. Pretty sure the state wouldn't want to put people in the position of going to the black market because of market price and taxation, since the whole purpose is to create a regulated market with substantial tax revenue.

The part about "without limitation" is kind of deceptive, and is speaking to the associative costs initially figured in along with any future associative costs discovered post passage of the bill.

Far as economic impact on the community which already farms cannabis, you have to figure in the increase in business they will be doing not only from legitimate cannabis sales but also the industrial hemp market that would be opened up by the legislation. Yes they would have to adapt and do business differently in order to flourish but, overall there would be more business for them and everyone else along with having a totally new agricultural product to cultivate for the industrial and food markets that can be utilized in tens of thousands of ways.

Industrial hemp also must be figured into the associative costs and it's potential really has not been addressed by the LAO report. Which is a reason to have the without limitation wording so that they can at some point down the road figure the associative regulation costs and apply appropriately to the emerging market.
It's no secret that the street price of marijuana ("medicinal" or otherwise) is many, many times the cost of production. So most realistic scenarios I've seen suggest that governments have little interest in "lowering the price", preferring instead to maintain prices and just skim all that high profit margin for themselves.

As far as "industrial hemp", etc., that takes alot of land to profitably cultivate. So it's the same point, that the current plans for legalization are looking more and more like an economic boon to "big" (businesses, governments and taxes), and not quite so "profitable" for "small" (individuals, businesses, local economies, etc.). No matter how attractive, nuthin's ever free....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2010, 08:43 AM
 
Location: Minneapolis
146 posts, read 192,845 times
Reputation: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by mateo45 View Post
It's no secret that the street price of marijuana ("medicinal" or otherwise) is many, many times the cost of production. So most realistic scenarios I've seen suggest that governments have little interest in "lowering the price", preferring instead to maintain prices and just skim all that high profit margin for themselves.

As far as "industrial hemp", etc., that takes alot of land to profitably cultivate. So it's the same point, that the current plans for legalization are looking more and more like an economic boon to "big" (businesses, governments and taxes), and not quite so "profitable" for "small" (individuals, businesses, local economies, etc.). No matter how attractive, nuthin's ever free....
You make a good point about industrial hemp of course but, that is worth the risk to get a national industrial hemp market going.

No one can deny that over all more business would open up however as legalization would shrink the market share of the black market supply and place it in the hands of citizens instead. What I don't get is why these people would rather be labeled as criminals and waste state funds, than get a legitimate market going for themselves.

Personally I would take less net profit per unit with more over all business, instead of being labeled criminal any day of the week.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2010, 10:20 AM
 
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,367 posts, read 8,586,137 times
Reputation: 5919
I'm not arguing against legalization, but I am saying that alot of folks apparently see it as some sort of holy grail/"answer" to state & local budget woes, prison crowding, hemp production, whatever their "goal".... yet seem to be ignoring (nor planning for) the other realities.

And no matter how "desireable" it may be, an industrial hemp farm sure ain't gonna help the thousands of just regular folks living in already marginal economies around the state. Folks who now make their mortgage, school their kids, and support the local economy & jobs, thru cultivating & selling the "herb". Because much of that projected "windfall" to state coffers will be coming straight out of their pockets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2010, 10:27 AM
 
4 posts, read 4,518 times
Reputation: 15
Vote no on this initiative. It's designed to make the people who wrote it richer than they already are. Don't put young people in jail for getting caught with a joint. The initiative calls for 3-5-7 yr. mandatory sentences for people under 21 caught with pot. Is this how the police are going to stay out of this???? The marijuana movement has come out of compassion. The authors of this initiative have made a lot of money and have profited quite nicely from the medical marijuana community. If you really analyze this initiative you will see that it raises way more questions then it answers. It's banking on liberals not reading the initiative and blindly voting yes...please educate yourself about it before making any snap decisions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2010, 11:04 AM
 
Location: Minneapolis
146 posts, read 192,845 times
Reputation: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by dolcevespa View Post
Vote no on this initiative. It's designed to make the people who wrote it richer than they already are. Don't put young people in jail for getting caught with a joint. The initiative calls for 3-5-7 yr. mandatory sentences for people under 21 caught with pot. Is this how the police are going to stay out of this???? The marijuana movement has come out of compassion. The authors of this initiative have made a lot of money and have profited quite nicely from the medical marijuana community. If you really analyze this initiative you will see that it raises way more questions then it answers. It's banking on liberals not reading the initiative and blindly voting yes...please educate yourself about it before making any snap decisions.
Looks like you didn't read the initiative yourself, unless you are intentionally trying to misinform people about the bill?

Quote:
Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors
(a) Every person 18 years of age or over who hires, employs, or uses a minor in transporting, carrying, selling, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling any marijuana, who unlawfully sells, or offers to sell, any marijuana to a minor, or who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give any marijuana to a minor under 14 years of age, or who induces a minor to use marijuana in violation of law shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years.

(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.

(c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense.

(d) In addition to the penalties above, any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to perform any act pursuant to Section 11301, who while so licensed, permitted or authorized, negligently furnishes, administers, gives or sells, or offers to furnish, administer, give or sell, any marijuana to any person younger than 21 years of age shall not be permitted to own, operate, be employed by, assist or enter any licensed premises authorized under Section 11301 for a period of one year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2010, 08:31 AM
 
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,367 posts, read 8,586,137 times
Reputation: 5919
Certainly alot of folks believe it's "high time" to overturn the current laws, but Dolcevita raises a larger point, that maybe we shouldn't be "overeager" here, and blindly leap at every opportunity that comes along.

There's a good discussion of many of those issues here, including the difference between the "Beer" and "Hard Liquor" Models for Marijuana Re-Legalization:

"You can basically brew all of the beer you want and you don't have to worry about any taxation or regulation. This is also consistent with a true free market. Because while most people buy beer through commercial outlets, they always have the option of brewing their own should the producers of beer get too greedy. Truth be told Marijuana is not a hard plant to grow. That's why they call it "weed." But in the current climate of Marijuana prohibition, Marijuana is selling for between $300 and $600 dollars an ounce. Yet if you could invest your own labor you could essentially grow it for free outdoors or for about $30 an ounce indoors under lights.

On the other side of the divide are the "tax and regulate" proponents. They want Marijuana treated like "hard liquor." You will be able to buy it commercially at highly inflated prices in order to fill the tax coffers of government and the bank accounts of the elite. And it will be a small elite that will monopolize production and distribution. And to insure the profits for the elite and the government you will either be prohibited or completely restricted from "growing your own." Try it and go to jail just like the moonshiners that dare to produce their own hard liquor through a self made still. There is no "free market" in the "hard liquor" model. It is a monopoly that will only benefit greedy governments and the elite that will gain control of production and distribution."


The November proposition is of the second variety.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2010, 01:01 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis
146 posts, read 192,845 times
Reputation: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by mateo45 View Post
Certainly alot of folks believe it's "high time" to overturn the current laws, but Dolcevita raises a larger point, that maybe we shouldn't be "overeager" here, and blindly leap at every opportunity that comes along.

There's a good discussion of many of those issues here, including the difference between the "Beer" and "Hard Liquor" Models for Marijuana Re-Legalization:

"You can basically brew all of the beer you want and you don't have to worry about any taxation or regulation. This is also consistent with a true free market. Because while most people buy beer through commercial outlets, they always have the option of brewing their own should the producers of beer get too greedy. Truth be told Marijuana is not a hard plant to grow. That's why they call it "weed." But in the current climate of Marijuana prohibition, Marijuana is selling for between $300 and $600 dollars an ounce. Yet if you could invest your own labor you could essentially grow it for free outdoors or for about $30 an ounce indoors under lights.

On the other side of the divide are the "tax and regulate" proponents. They want Marijuana treated like "hard liquor." You will be able to buy it commercially at highly inflated prices in order to fill the tax coffers of government and the bank accounts of the elite. And it will be a small elite that will monopolize production and distribution. And to insure the profits for the elite and the government you will either be prohibited or completely restricted from "growing your own." Try it and go to jail just like the moonshiners that dare to produce their own hard liquor through a self made still. There is no "free market" in the "hard liquor" model. It is a monopoly that will only benefit greedy governments and the elite that will gain control of production and distribution."


The November proposition is of the second variety.
Saying the second argument is an accurate description of this initiative is not true at all Mateo, I'm not sure if you are making shock incentive for others to read the initiative or not but; the second argument does not describe the legislation that will be waiting on the ballot for voters this Novermber 2nd.

I agree of course that people should never vote on something they don't understand or haven't read, everyone should read this bill before voting either way. Because really lets face it if you don't read it and only go by what people say, then you don't understand what you are voting on.

Maybe it would be best to just post the darn thing here since we seem to be getting people coming in and making assumptions or blatant lies, regarding what it actually would change. IE Dolcevespa.

Quote:
The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed. Initiative Statute.
Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products.

Section 1: Name
This Act shall be known as the “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.”

Section 2: Findings, Intent and Purposes
This Act, adopted by the People of the State of California, makes the following Findings and Statement of Intent and Purpose:

A. Findings
1. California’s laws criminalizing cannabis (marijuana) have failed and need to be reformed. Despite spending decades arresting millions of non-violent cannabis consumers, we have failed to control cannabis or reduce its availability.
2. According to surveys, roughly 100 million Americans (around 1/3 of the country’s population) acknowledge that they have used cannabis, 15 million of those Americans having consumed cannabis in the last month. Cannabis consumption is simply a fact of life for a large percentage of Americans.
3. Despite having some of the strictest cannabis laws in the world, the United States has the largest number of cannabis consumers. The percentage of our citizens who consume cannabis is double that of the percentage of people who consume cannabis in the Netherlands, a country where the selling and adult possession of cannabis is allowed.
4. According to The National Research Council’s recent study of the 11 U.S. states where cannabis is currently decriminalized, there is little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions and the rate of consumption.
5. Cannabis has fewer harmful effects than either alcohol or cigarettes, which are both legal for adult consumption. Cannabis is not physically addictive, does not have long term toxic effects on the body, and does not cause its consumers to become violent.
6. There is an estimated $15 billion in illegal cannabis transactions in California each year. Taxing and regulating cannabis, like we do with alcohol and cigarettes, will generate billions of dollars in annual revenues for California to fund what matters most to Californians: jobs, health care, schools and libraries, roads, and more.
7. California wastes millions of dollars a year targeting, arresting, trying, convicting, and imprisoning non-violent citizens for cannabis related offenses. This money would be better used to combat violent crimes and gangs.
8. The illegality of cannabis enables for the continuation of an out-of-control criminal market, which in turn spawns other illegal and often violent activities. Establishing legal, regulated sales outlets would put dangerous street dealers out of business.

B. Purposes
1. Reform California’s cannabis laws in a way that will benefit our state.
2. Regulate cannabis like we do alcohol: Allow adults to possess and consume small amounts of cannabis.
3. Implement a legal regulatory framework to give California more control over the cultivation, processing, transportation, distribution, and sales of cannabis.
4. Implement a legal regulatory framework to better police and prevent access to and consumption of cannabis by minors in California.
5. Put dangerous, underground street dealers out of business, so their influence in our communities will fade.
6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.
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.
9. Tax and regulate cannabis to generate billions of dollars for our state and local governments to fund what matters most: jobs, healthcare, schools and libraries, parks, roads, transportation, and more.
10. Stop arresting thousands of non-violent cannabis consumers, freeing up police resources and saving millions of dollars each year, which could be used for apprehending truly dangerous criminals and keeping them locked up, and for other essential state needs that lack funding.
11. Allow the Legislature to adopt a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry.
12. Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes.
13. Permit California to fulfill the state’s obligations under the United States Constitution to enact laws concerning health, morals, public welfare and safety within the State.
14. Permit the cultivation of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption.

C. Intent
1. This Act is intended to limit the application and enforcement of state and local laws relating to possession, transportation, cultivation, consumption and sale of cannabis, including but not limited to the following, whether now existing or adopted in the future: Health and Safety Code sections 11014.5 and 11364.5 [relating to drug paraphernalia]; 11054 [relating to cannabis or tetrahydrocannabinols]; 11357 [relating to possession]; 11358 [relating to cultivation]; 11359 [possession for sale]; 11360 [relating to transportation and sales]; 11366 [relating to maintenance of places]; 11366.5 [relating to use of property]; 11370 [relating to punishment]; 11470 [relating to forfeiture]; 11479 [relating to seizure and destruction]; 11703 [relating to definitions regarding illegal substances]; 11705 [actions for use of illegal controlled substance]; Vehicle Code sections 23222 and 40000.15 [relating to possession].
2. 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: Health and Safety Code sections 11357 [relating to possession on school grounds]; 11361 [relating to minors as amended herein]; 11379.6 [relating to chemical production]; 11532 [relating to loitering to commit a crime or acts not authorized by law]; Vehicle Code section 23152 [relating to driving while under the influence]; Penal Code section 272 [relating to contributing to the delinquency of a minor]; nor any law prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve public safety.

Section 3: Lawful Activities
Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, commencing with section 11300 is added to read:

Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls
(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.
(b) “Personal consumption” shall include but is not limited to possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other non-public place, and shall include licensed premises open to the public authorized to permit on-premises consumption of cannabis by a local government pursuant to section 11301.
(c) “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis:
(i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301;
(ii) consumption in public or in a public place;
(iii) consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator;
(iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.

Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls
Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:
(a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized;
(b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale;
(c) appropriate controls on cultivation, transportation, sales, and consumption of cannabis to strictly prohibit access to cannabis by persons under the age of 21;
(d) age limits and controls to ensure that all persons present in, employed by, or in any way involved in the operation of, any such licensed premises are 21 or older;
(e) consumption of cannabis within licensed premises;
(f) safe and secure transportation of cannabis from a licensed premises for cultivation or processing, to a licensed premises for sale or on-premises consumption of cannabis;
(g) prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300;
(h) appropriate controls on licensed premises for sale, cultivation, processing, or sale and on-premises consumption, of cannabis, including limits on zoning and land use, locations, size, hours of operation, occupancy, protection of adjoining and nearby properties and persons from unwanted exposure, advertising, signs and displays, and other controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare;
(i) appropriate environmental and public health controls to ensure that any licensed premises minimizes any harm to the environment, adjoining and nearby landowners, and persons passing by;
(j) appropriate controls to restrict public displays, or public consumption of cannabis;
(k) appropriate taxes or fees pursuant to section 11302;
(l) such larger amounts as the local authority deems appropriate and proper under local circumstances, than those established under section 11300(a) for personal possession and cultivation, or under this section for commercial cultivation, processing, transportation and sale by persons authorized to do so under this section;
(m) any other appropriate controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare.

Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees

(a) Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.
(b) Any licensed premises shall be responsible for paying all federal, state and local taxes, fees, fines, penalties or other financial responsibility imposed on all or similarly situated businesses, facilities or premises, including without limitation income taxes, business taxes, license fees, and property taxes, without regard to or identification of the business or items or services sold.

Section 11303: Seizure
(a) Notwithstanding sections 11470 and 11479 of the Health and Safety Code or any other provision of law, no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact seize or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is lawfully cultivated, processed, transported, possessed, possessed for sale, sold or used in compliance with this Act or any local government ordinance, law or regulation adopted pursuant to this Act.

Section 11304: Effect of Act and Definitions
(a) This Act shall not be construed to affect, limit or amend any statute that forbids impairment while engaging in dangerous activities such as driving, or that penalizes bringing cannabis to a school enrolling pupils in any grade from kindergarten through 12, inclusive.
(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed or interpreted to permit interstate or international transportation of cannabis. This Act shall be construed to permit a person to transport cannabis in a safe and secure manner from a licensed premises in one city or county to a licensed premises in another city or county pursuant to any ordinances adopted in such cities or counties, notwithstanding any other state law or the lack of any such ordinance in the intervening cities or counties.
(c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.
(d) Definitions
For purposes of this Act:
(i) “Marijuana” and “cannabis” are interchangeable terms that mean all parts of the plant Genus Cannabis, whether growing or not; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; concentrated cannabis; edible products containing same; and every active compound, manufacture, derivative, or preparation of the plant, or resin.
(ii) “One ounce” means 28.5 grams.
(iii) For purposes of section 11300(a)(ii) “cannabis plant” means all parts of a living Cannabis plant.
(iv) In determining whether an amount of cannabis is or is not in excess of the amounts permitted by this Act, the following shall apply:
(a) only the active amount of the cannabis in an edible cannabis product shall be included;
(b) living and harvested cannabis plants shall be assessed by square footage, not by weight in determining the amounts set forth in section 11300(a);
(c) in a criminal proceeding a person accused of violating a limitation in this Act shall have the right to an affirmative defense that the cannabis was reasonably related to his or her personal consumption.
(v) “residence” means a dwelling or structure, whether permanent or temporary, on private or public property, intended for occupation by a person or persons for residential purposes, and includes that portion of any structure intended for both commercial and residential purposes.
(vi) “local government” means a city, county, or city and county.
(vii) “licensed premises” is any commercial business, facility, building, land or area that has a license, permit or is otherwise authorized to cultivate, process, transport, sell, or permit on-premises consumption, of cannabis pursuant to any ordinance or regulation adopted by a local government pursuant to section 11301, or any subsequently enacted state statute or regulation.

Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors
Section 11361 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors
(a) Every person 18 years of age or over who hires, employs, or uses a minor in transporting, carrying, selling, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling any marijuana, who unlawfully sells, or offers to sell, any marijuana to a minor, or who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give any marijuana to a minor under 14 years of age, or who induces a minor to use marijuana in violation of law shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years.
(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.
(c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense.
(d)
In addition to the penalties above, any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to perform any act pursuant to Section 11301, who while so licensed, permitted or authorized, negligently furnishes, administers, gives or sells, or offers to furnish, administer, give or sell, any marijuana to any person younger than 21 years of age shall not be permitted to own, operate, be employed by, assist or enter any licensed premises authorized under Section 11301 for a period of one year.

Section 5: Amendment
Pursuant to Article 2, section 10(c) of the California Constitution, this Act may be amended either by a subsequent measure submitted to a vote of the People at a statewide election; or by statute validly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, but only to further the purposes of the Act. Such permitted amendments include but are not limited to:
(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.

Section 6: Severability
If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.

Last edited by keroppininja; 04-16-2010 at 02:11 PM.. Reason: For ease of reading the RCTC Act
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2010, 02:16 PM
 
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,367 posts, read 8,586,137 times
Reputation: 5919
Quote:
Originally Posted by keroppininja View Post
Saying the second argument is an accurate description of this initiative is not true at all Mateo, I'm not sure if you are making shock incentive for others to read the initiative or not but; the second argument does not describe the legislation that will be waiting on the ballot for voters this Novermber 2nd.

I agree of course that people should never vote on something they don't understand or haven't read, everyone should read this bill before voting either way. Because really lets face it if you don't read it and only go by what people say, then you don't understand what you are voting on.

Maybe it would be best to just post the darn thing here since we seem to be getting people coming in and making assumption or blatant lies as to what it actually does such as Dolcevespa.
Unless I'm misreading it, the proposition does specifically describe 3, 5 or 7 year penalties for "Every person 18 years of age or over" who "furnishes, gives, etc.", to a minor (which is defined as under 18 in California). So to Dolcevespa's point, though not strictly accurate, it's not difficult to imagine a couple 18-19 year old kids getting popped by some overzealous local constabulary, because they were "smoking" and had a 16 or 17 year-old in the group. And the penalties do sound pretty harsh, compared to say, sharing a beer with a "minor". Although I understand why it was written that way nevertheless, and folks' fears about "selling to minors" do need to be assuaged.

But re: the "Beer vs Liquor" argument, the prop. does provide for strict control of the amounts you can cultivate and possess. Yet right now, if I want to keep a dozen cases of assorted specialty ales (homemade or otherwise) in my collection, no problem (and certainly no jail time). Besides, overall it seems to me that alot of this is still left to the laws (and discretion) at the local level re: taxes, "legal amounts", penalties, etc..

Understood re: the need to "de-criminalize", tax revenues, "hemp" potential, etc., but I'm just suggesting it wouldn't hurt to look a bit more closely at what we're "buying" here. Especially since the average person on both sides will likely be voting pretty simplistically ("Marijuana: Yes or No?"), on something that'll be so hard to get "back in the barn" once it's out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2010, 09:23 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis
146 posts, read 192,845 times
Reputation: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by mateo45 View Post
Unless I'm misreading it, the proposition does specifically describe 3, 5 or 7 year penalties for "Every person 18 years of age or over" who "furnishes, gives, etc.", to a minor (which is defined as under 18 in California). So to Dolcevespa's point, though not strictly accurate, it's not difficult to imagine a couple 18-19 year old kids getting popped by some overzealous local constabulary, because they were "smoking" and had a 16 or 17 year-old in the group. And the penalties do sound pretty harsh, compared to say, sharing a beer with a "minor". Although I understand why it was written that way nevertheless, and folks' fears about "selling to minors" do need to be assuaged.

But re: the "Beer vs Liquor" argument, the prop. does provide for strict control of the amounts you can cultivate and possess. Yet right now, if I want to keep a dozen cases of assorted specialty ales (homemade or otherwise) in my collection, no problem (and certainly no jail time). Besides, overall it seems to me that alot of this is still left to the laws (and discretion) at the local level re: taxes, "legal amounts", penalties, etc..

Understood re: the need to "de-criminalize", tax revenues, "hemp" potential, etc., but I'm just suggesting it wouldn't hurt to look a bit more closely at what we're "buying" here. Especially since the average person on both sides will likely be voting pretty simplistically ("Marijuana: Yes or No?"), on something that'll be so hard to get "back in the barn" once it's out.
Actually Mateo you're misunderstanding the personal cultivation part of the act, the part about minors you are correct but it would never pass without strong protection for minors not that it would be effective on a street level tbh. Section 4 while I believe that the sentencing terms are on the harsh side, I think it does need to be there; not because it would be an effective determent for minors to try and obtain Cannabis, but because it would be a very effective deterrent for the 21+ crowd who cares more about staying out of jail than hooking up some dumb**** teen, that you and your friends don't want to hang around with anyways. Additionally I see it is a very reasonable compromise that can be amended in accordance with section 5 if the citizens choose to do so at a later point.

Going back to the language in regards to personal cultivation..
Quote:
Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls
(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.
(b) “Personal consumption” shall include but is not limited to possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other non-public place, and shall include licensed premises open to the public authorized to permit on-premises consumption of cannabis by a local government pursuant to section 11301.
(c) “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis:
(i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301;
(ii) consumption in public or in a public place;
(iii) consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator;
(iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.
The bolded section supersedes the personal possession limit in a public space, in the area of your home/cultivation you are allowed to have an unlimited amount in possession without license. Which is what I was talking about previously, saying the "Beer vs liquor argument" doesn't apply to the RCTC act. However it probably should be noted that there is a limit to how much you could grow due to the regulations on the size of the grow area, 5'x5' per residence. That and trust me when I say this, is more than enough floor space to cultivate for personal consumption.

Last edited by keroppininja; 04-16-2010 at 09:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top