2012: Crafting A Better Legalization Proposition In California

[Jim Finnel]

With the defeat of Prop. 19 and the dissatisfation of many Cannabis users and growers with 19, what needs to be included in the next version thats sure to follow in 2012?

Let your voice be heard.

 

[TorturedSoul]

A special preface to the dealers stating that they can still make a buck?

Another one to the under-21 crowd?

Of course, both of those would garner about 0.00000000000000% of the non-consumer vote and the measure would be soundly defeated by a much wider margin than Prop19 was, but at least those two "special-interest" cannabis groups wouldn't complain. Especially the first one, as cannabis for recreational use would remain illegal and their profits would remain high.

Some would say that my words are angry and ill-considered. In the words of the late, great Roger Zelazny, "Not so. I considered every one of them." (But I wholeheartedly admit to the anger.)

EDIT: To pass, a proposition must be worded to fall within the realms of acceptability to the average NON-consumer. Alas, it seems that the things which a certain portion of the consumers are most concerned with having placed into the text will cause such a measure to fail because it would not then meet that requirement.

 

[Jim Finnel]

If a new prop can be worded properly so that its acceptable by a majority of voters then I don't think that the growers would have enough votes to defeat it.

I think the legal age should be 18. If your old enough to be in the military, to fight and die for our country then you should be old enough to decide if your going to use Cannabis or not.

 

[vanceredwood]

in my opinion it wont work unless you address the taxes that are to be applied to reg.rec. users and not to medical users.there was a s#^t load of of new taxes on med marijuana in the San Francisco area this election.until this is addressed you will not sway the people i have talked to.prices will not come down if there is a 10-20% tax they will only go up

 

[TorturedSoul]

Does that mean that you would combine recreational and medicinal legislation together for the next try? (Prop19 was strictly concerning recreational cannabis.)

 

[vanceredwood]

i would like to see a separation of the two because the politicians are sure to screw this up.stop taxing my meds prop 19 did not mention med marijuana they left it up to the state reps to keep them apart

 

[G-Dog]

I think the 1 ounce maximum and the small grow room (25 square foot) bothered a bunch of users and that cost some votes. I don't think the supporters of prop 19 that were non-users cared about the grow room size or maximum possession quantity. In all actuality there really shouldn't be limits on that sort of thing. Why can't I have a pound or two in my safe to last me for awhile? I had always felt that once it was legal or decriminalized they would refine the law in time. Many felt that once the law was on the books it would never be refined.

 

[TorturedSoul]

i would like to see a separation of the two because the politicians are sure to screw this up.stop taxing my meds prop 19 did not mention med marijuana they left it up to the state reps to keep them apart

Agreed!

I think the 1 ounce maximum and the small grow room (25 square foot) bothered a bunch of users and that cost some votes. I don't think the supporters of prop 19 that were non-users cared about the grow room size or maximum possession quantity. In all actuality there really shouldn't be limits on that sort of thing. Why can't I have a pound or two in my safe to last me for awhile? I had always felt that once it was legal or decriminalized they would refine the law in time. Many felt that once the law was on the books it would never be refined.

Agree to that as well. Setting any arbitrary limit on grow space or the amount a person can have on hand either directly as a result of their garden or in addition to it has always seemed wrong to me. In simplest terms, it presupposes that all growers have the same skill level, that all strains produce the same amount in a like-sized garden - to say nothing of the fact that some of the best sativas I ever had not only produced less per square foot, but took MUCH longer to do it and setting a size-limit on gardens discriminates against the sativa grower as he cannot make up the lack of multiple harvests and grams per square foot with a larger garden - and it also presupposes that all persons wishing to use cannabis in their recreation are and will be affected the same by the same amounts. That is obviously not the case and some will be happy with amounts that would pass unnoticed to others - and that would temporarily debilitate still others. Yet with such arbitrary limits...

I think it stems from the whole (often false) "quantities above a certain amount MUST be with intent to distribute." Which seems especially stupid in terms of such illogic being able to affect any piece of prospective legislation that intends to legalize consumption in the first place!

I would like to see an unlimited "you grow it, you smoke (etc.) it" provision that states that a person can decide for themselves what is large enough in terms of garden space, and that they will not be looked askance at regardless of how much they can/do produce from it.

But that only leaves two things, basically:

1) Limits to possession in public. I see no point whatsoever in having any. IDK how to get it across to non-consumers in such a way that it doesn't actually hurt prospects, but if the public in general is allowed to grow its own then what matter is it if one of them happens to be carrying a pound in their pack? If they decide to distribute it in equal parts to three people, the person is not enabling them in any way that they could not accomplish on their own with their own garden.

2) Taxation of cannabis and cannabis-containing products that enter the commercial market (IOW, that are bought and sold). The government - more to the point, the agents representing it - is always going to be out for what it can get in terms of taxation (et cetera). And many people who DON'T use cannabis will consider legalization if it can be put forth (whether or not it would actually be the case) that some portion of the tax burden will come from a product that they do not use and therefore will not have to pay the tax on. (Do I have a problem with taxing cannabis that is sold for recreational use? Not as such, no. Why? In terms of recreational use, it is optional. Realizing that some taxation is necessary in any society - and wishing to leave the discussion of government wastage to a different thread, lol - I feel that it is better to tax an optional item - even one that I use - than to tax items that are not optional.) Tax sales of recreational (NOT medicinal) cannabis. If you must, apply a small tax to growing equipment - but be aware that it can and is used for growing many more things than cannabis and therefore it would in many ways be non-specific. But don't tax the personal garden. Don't tax any garden.

I guess there's three things. I forgot the 18-20 issue. I have contradicting thoughts on that one.

 

[SnowBender]

10'x10' grow. and 1/2 pound to travel. Retail and commercial licenses to be handled by local munis decision just like strip clubs and big box stores. Retail sales taxed at the normal local sales tax rate unless stipulated higher by muni.

Good luck getting anything passed for recreational use for those under 21. You thought the backlash against the so-called 'stoned bus drivers' was bad, wait till the opposition gets a hold of 'stoned teenagers behind the wheel' angle.

...Maybe If the drinking age was still 18, legal rec weed might have a chance for the under 21 crew.

Unfortunately lowering the age limit needs to be part of "phase two" for recreational legalization.

 

[G-Dog]

I agree. You are not going to lower the limit for rec use to under 21. At a point in my life you could cross state lines when you were under 21 to get alcohol. You cannot do that anymore. It is 21 across all states and is not going down. It is a form of a trend. Don't expect rec use under 21 to pass. Not that I care, I just know better from the trend.

 

[Odin]

There are a lot of great posts in this thread and I pretty much agree with everyone 100%. Obviously with all laws appeasing the most people from different demographics is the way to get it passed. Someone mentioned getting more voters to defeat the growers... well what if all the growers were voting for it? Since its a safe bet most of them did note vote for prop 19, how many potential votes can they provide if the new law is not just good for everyone, but them as well? We already know it barely lost this last election in its first incarnation. By reworking it to a much fairer, and more realistic set of guidelines, can't we not get the same votes from this election PLUS that of all the growers who initially said no? I think its possibile and here are my ideas on the 2012 Legalization measure.

This was a post in reply to a news article, but since it pertains exactly to this post which I had not seen yet, I will cross post it here as this is where it belongs.

Now, the cannabis movement is asking, why did Prop. 19 lose? How did we go wrong, and what can we do about it?

The language and provisions of Prop. 19, which would have legalized cannabis for recreational use for people over 21, have been widely criticized and were admittedly less than perfect in the eyes of both cannabis consumers and the wary general public — but they were not the decisive factor in its defeat. The low turnout typical of midterm elections and young voters was no doubt a contributing factor, but also not decisive. And it's not clear that more funding would have made a difference — Prop. 19 backers exponentially outspent the opposition.

I believe at the root, California voters decided against Prop. 19 because they still are not convinced that cannabis can be legally distributed in a safe, seemly and responsible fashion.

In my opinion, these are some of the main reasons why it failed. I also think there is a lot of unrest with the idea of mass comercialization of Cannabis. I think the people behind the advances made in Cannabis genetics in California are feeling like they going to get tossed out with the garbage when it becomes legalized.

In my opinion, the best start for a new law would include (and this is in a perfect world, but getting these ideas out is key to working towards better legislation):

Prohibition of massive commercial-sized grow ops. At least for the first couple years. I think creating an agency somewhat similar to the Organic Certification agencies that regulate organic food production would be a great start. They would certify who is allowed to grow organic, high quality Cannabis. They would issue grow certificates that would allow these growers to package and sell their product to retailers. They would ensure proper organic methods were being followed. They would collect taxes and fees on these farms, and whatever small (keyword small) taxes were placed on the product at the retail outlet. Etc, etc.

Anyone else that wanted to grow could do so glady, but if they did not have the proper paperwork to be a certified organic cannabis grower for market consumption, they could not distribute their product to retail outlets. Wether a $5000 Rule Exemption or similar rule be included, I dont know. Since there is substantially more profit in growing cannabis than growing potatos, I think it should not be included. Only licensed, inspected, and tax paying certified growers would be allowed to sell their product on the market.

This way, the Emerald Triangle and many other counties that have created the fabulous genetics we get to smoke today, aren't put out of business and the great strains they posess lost in the flood of commercial pot. If the small timers are not able to keep up with demand (I think they will have no problem keeping up) then down the road provisions can be made for more large scale, Budweiser type operations. Is this a perfect idea? Probably not, but I think these general ideas are by far the best way to go about it. I think instant comercialization is honestly a fucked up way to go about it. I support Microbreweries for example. Let the small time, microgrowers set the scene for the legal CA Cannabis market. A Napa valley type tourist attraction across the entire state will bring more interest, and do more to spread California legend, than a state covered in Coors style production. If comes to it, the mass produced stuff comes in later, it gives the small time more time to establish a name for themselves which in my mind is only fair to them. Without them, we'd all have been be smoking Mexican shwag for a loooong time.

With that said, no posession limits and no personal growing limits would also be musts. With an established system of regulating the organic Cannabis for mass consumption, YES there would still be the "Friend to friend" type deals going on but on a not-very-profitable level. I buy tons of organic produce from my friend without paying taxes, its not realistic to ever be able to regulate small time transactions like that Cannabis or otherwise.

The regulating agency needs to be established and fairly put together as part of the legislation. Fair, non-excessive taxes be established. Another key aspect would be pushing the Feds to reclassify Marijuana and work towards Federal level elimnation of its illegal status. With other states spring up with more MMJ, and more legalization efforts, the fire has been ignited and what we must do now is legalize it THE RIGHT WAY.

Collectivly we need to stop hoping for scraps and instead demand the whole platter. California is a trend setter, so lets set the morally correct and most honest trend we can.

Thoughts on this?

 

[TorturedSoul]

Prohibition of massive commercial-sized grow ops. At least for the first couple years. I think creating an agency somewhat similar to the Organic Certification agencies that regulate organic food production would be a great start. They would certify who is allowed to grow organic, high quality Cannabis. They would issue grow certificates that would allow these growers to package and sell their product to retailers. They would ensure proper organic methods were being followed. They would collect taxes and fees on these farms, and whatever small (keyword small) taxes were placed on the product at the retail outlet. Etc, etc.

Please do not discriminate against those who do not wish to confine themselves to the government-defined organic standard.

It IS discriminatory, and it's not always as healthy (especially compared to quality "non-organic" fertilizers) as people think.

 

[Odin]

Please do not discriminate against those who do not wish to confine themselves to the government-defined organic standard.

It IS discriminatory, and it's not always as healthy (especially compared to quality "non-organic" fertilizers) as people think.

Please re-read my post with emphasis on something SIMILAR. I don't want any kind of government controlled standards, I think it needs to be set up similar to how it is done for organic grown foods. Private, not .gov. Should have made that clearer. This all needs to be as far from .gov control as possible, and since many of the agencies that deal with organic foods are private agencies not government agencies I think trying to push something like is a much better idea than giving control to corperate interests to patent cannabis and give the market to the government. Using the MMJ and current knowledge of quality cannabis control, independent groups need to set up the standards for the agency, not the government.

 

[TorturedSoul]

Please re-read my post with emphasis on something SIMILAR. I don't want any kind of government controlled standards, I think it needs to be set up similar to how it is done for organic grown foods. Private, not .gov. Should have made that clearer. This all needs to be as far from .gov control as possible, and since many of the agencies that deal with organic foods are private agencies not government agencies I think trying to push something like is a much better idea than giving control to corperate interests to patent cannabis and give the market to the government. Using the MMJ and current knowledge of quality cannabis control, independent groups need to set up the standards for the agency, not the government.

Apologies. I fear my sense of panic got the best of me. I am not opposed to organically-grown. I am not 100% for it, however, and that caused me to not fully digest your post.

The thought of setting up "standards" for cannabis and writing it into any legalization also scares me. If done, I would hope that it would be applied only towards the commercial side of things. But even then, I would rather see such things be voluntary. Both because of the expense in meeting - and proving that one is meeting - them and because I would worry that at some point in the future, they might decide to modify those standards, what qualifications are required to meet them, etc.

As for corporations patenting things having to do with cannabis, I do have fears along the Monsanto and Dr. Frankenbeanstein ("Sam the Skunkman") lines. I fear that cannabis will be a GMO crop and that one or more breeders will claim ownership of certain genes and all plants down the line that contain any portion of those genes. I fear these things because they are already happening.

BtW, the government itself has at least one patent having to do with cannabis: US Patent #6630507 "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants."

 

[jrebel]

Apologies. I fear my sense of panic got the best of me. I am not opposed to organically-grown. I am not 100% for it, however, and that caused me to not fully digest your post.

The thought of setting up "standards" for cannabis and writing it into any legalization also scares me. If done, I would hope that it would be applied only towards the commercial side of things. But even then, I would rather see such things be voluntary. Both because of the expense in meeting - and proving that one is meeting - them and because I would worry that at some point in the future, they might decide to modify those standards, what qualifications are required to meet them, etc.

As for corporations patenting things having to do with cannabis, I do have fears along the Monsanto and Dr. Frankenbeanstein ("Sam the Skunkman") lines. I fear that cannabis will be a GMO crop and that one or more breeders will claim ownership of certain genes and all plants down the line that contain any portion of those genes. I fear these things because they are already happening.

BtW, the government itself has at least one patent having to do with cannabis: US Patent #6630507 “Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants.”

Well you have to realize, as with any market, there has to be regulation. in this modern world, no new commodity is going to come to any American market without some form of control and regulation on it, some kind of set standard. especially if its a drug. I don't like it either, but its going to have to be something we deal with to get it legalized.

The way I see it, there are organic growing standards, and then there are my organic growing standards. I don't follow the GOV plan or seek their approval in my backyard tomato garden, nor would I follow any standards set for legal pot growing.

You want legal pot, you have to accept theres gotta be some standards and quality control somewhere.

In a perfect world, pot would just be legal and none of this would be an issue. we are trying to bring something illegal for 100 years to the legal market. there is certain aspects of doing this that cant be avoided.

 

[Jim Finnel]

Roadmap for victory - from Yes on 19

On Nov. 2, 2010, over 4 million Californians voted to legalize, control and tax cannabis, over 46% of the electorate. Prop. 19 received 47.7% of the vote in Los Angeles County, 46.9% in San Diego and 63.2% in San Francisco.

On that night, we made history.

Prop. 19 set a new record for marijuana legalization ballot initiatives. In spite of not being backed by a multi-million-dollar advertising campaign, we received more votes than Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina.

We've shown that we can win. If younger voters had comprised the same portion of the electorate as they had in 2008, the vote would have been tied. While social progress at this scale does not happen overnight, we've taken a giant step forward.

Along the way, we brought together one of the largest coalitions ever assembled to ensure our children don't inherit these failed policies. It is with this coalition, made even stronger and even broader, that we will move ahead to 2012.

We will be making an announcement soon about bringing back together our coalition and making it stronger than ever to pick up where Prop. 19 left off and finish the job in 2012.

November 2 was just the beginning. We will be working with our allies to draw up plans to hold open forums and a state summit, as well as ways to improve on the bill and work with legislative allies to move forward.

Because of the conversation we started, every day more and more Americans understand the need to end prohibition and what that solution looks like. The incredible energy across California and the nation that brought us here has not gone away. In fact, it is stronger than ever. We continue to receive an outpouring of support from all over the world.

Thank you for being part of our family and for helping make Prop. 19 the campaign that was heard around the world.

We look forward to making history with you once again in the months ahead.

Sincerely,

Dale Jones
Spokesperson, Yes on 19

info@yeson19.com

 

[Jim Finnel]

So apparently the same folks who brought us prop 19 are annointing themselves the guardians of the cause and intend to give us the next version in 2012. I'm not sure how I personally feel about this (not speaking for 420 Magazine). I do think that if they are going to do this they need and should seek all the advice and opinions they can get from all of us who support re-legalization of Cannabis.

I'll keep you informed of what you can do to help shape this next effort.

 

[G-Dog]

What we need in this forum, and that question that was asked, pertains to finding a way to word legislation that is passable by the most populace state, and the 8th largest economy on the planet. All that other stuff you talk about are dreams that will never come true.

 

[Jim Finnel]

never say never, but at least not by 2012

 

[TorturedSoul]

So apparently the same folks who brought us prop 19 are annointing themselves the guardians of the cause and intend to give us the next version in 2012. I'm not sure how I personally feel about this (not speaking for 420 Magazine).

Well, they stepped up to the plate - twice now. Props to them for doing something. Additionally, their last attempt (Prop19) got 44% or 46% - I cannot remember which - of Californians who cared enough to vote one way or another to vote for it. Again, props to them.