New California Marijuana Legalization Initiative Filed
The Drug Policy Alliance has filed a marijuana legalization initiative with the California Secretary of State's office. But it's not clear whether backers will try to get it on the ballot next year.
The initiative is backed by the Drug Policy Alliance, which says that given impressive recent poll numbers, it wanted to have something ready for 2014 just in case.
It's not clear whether there will actually be an effort to get this on the ballot for 2014, or if this is more like a place marker for 2016. Look for a firm decision on that next month.
Another initiative, The California Cannabis Hemp Initiative of 2014, was submitted in August and is now in its signature gathering phase. It has until the end of February to come up with 504,000 valid voter signatures, but it has not received big money backing, making the effort to get on the ballot an uphill battle.
1 ounce of pot, and 4 plants? Are you kidding me?
I haven't examined the details of the different initiatives that have been filed this go-round, but my immediate reaction to this one is: Personal possession is defined as no more than 1 ounce of pot, and 4 plants? Are you kidding me?
Unless you're the world's worst gardener, then on harvest day, you're either going be breaking the law by possessing an amount that's hugely over the limit, or you're going to have to throw pounds of weed into the fireplace. Because apparently you're only supposed to keep one ounce. Which lasts the average user how long? Two weeks? Maybe a month? Seriously, the math just doesn't add up.
You're right
A pound per plant is expected for a plant grown outside.
Feds Control All Commerce. Remove Cannabis From the CSA!
Catch 22²
Raich v Gonzales granted the Federal government Commerce rights over selling or giving away more than reasonable amounts. States have authority over individuals growing reasonable amounts. Reasonable amounts have been established by the Feds IND program as 300 joints every 25 days or 100 plants per year. The 10th amendment was over ridden due to the Commerce clause. Its the IRS busting buyers clubs, not DEA. CA compassionate use act is the only state law permitting reasonable amounts for anyone for any reason. MMJ states, including CO and WA have limited themselves to a catch 22 impossible situation quantifying amounts that are impossible to grow individually. Forcing sales that are illegal under Fed jurisdiction. No one can grow an ounce or less. The UN follows the US concerning the drug war and its lies. Over 30 countries are growing Hemp as the US maintains its ugly prohibition of it. Anslinger set up the UN treaty for this very reason. In case future politicians bow down to the will of the people. Enough! Remove cannabis as a schedule#1 narcotic. Including Hemp that should have never been put there in the first place. Stop incrementalizing. Cannabis is safe, end of story.
Note. Compassionate Use Act not the MMJ Act
Follow CA or Bust'
Methinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much
Why Police Officers Lie Under Oath
What happens when cops write initiatives.
Drug Czar is Required by Law to Lie
Ending D.E.A.th & Pillage Incrementally
Note. Compassionate Use Act not the MMJ Act
HS 11362.5. (a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
* has been recommended by a physician
* person's health would benefit
* or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.
* no physician in this state shall be punished,
* Illegal possession and cultivation of marijuana,
shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver
* upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician
* The department shall establish and maintain a voluntary program for the issuance of identification cards to qualified patients who satisfy the requirements of this article and voluntarily apply to the identification card program.
* "Qualified patient" means a person who is entitled to the protections of Section 11362.5, but who does not have an identification card issued pursuant to this article.
* It shall not be necessary for a person to obtain an identification card in order to claim the protections of Section 11362.5.
* A qualified patient or a person with an identification card
* Any individual who provides assistance
* A designated primary caregiver who transports, processes, administers, delivers, or gives away marijuana for medical purposes
* (a) Subject to the requirements of this article, the individuals specified in subdivision (b) shall not be subject, on that sole basis, to criminal liability.
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.” - Tolstoy
Raich argued, that, since,
If wishes were fishes, no one would starve
So this wish law is not going to change any previous mmj laws they claim, but prop 215 is a compassionate use law separating it from the other states bogus mmj laws. It has already allowed us to grow our own or for patients as long as we don't sell it. It doesn't require any paper work. Only the dispensaries on their own decided to force ID cards. Leaving many buying as they always have. I believe dispensaries are a community or public service. Just convince the Feds.
Obama can remove cannabis and solve the problem nationwide. He has no authority to permit anyone selling it unless he does. Letting it slide is not a legal term. What happens after he is replaced? Until the controlled substance act is dissolved as a tool to profit on prohibition and remove competition from the market. This incremental retardation will exist and continue persecuting citizens and caging growers and arresting individuals. This law would be good in a regular commerce circumstance. As it stands there is no way for the law to be enforced, since there are no stipulations under prop 215 as it is.
The suspicious part of this to me is knowing it has no federal effect. Knowing only citizens can change existing law that is 215. Also knowing after numerous attempts by local and state politicians to tweak the law of the land 215. To fit their appeasement's to the drug worriers is the only logical reason. So all politicians can do is dupe the citizens into giving up what they already have. For limits to put people in state cages over federal? For a few to quasi legally sell it and tax it beyond prices on the streets. Same get rich scheme as before. No thought to the majority of people.
Remove it as a scheduled narcotic and sell as much as you want, or grow what you need. Including hemp to boost local economies. No more cop initiatives. Browne has already taken his stand by siding with the prison industrial complex over releasing non violent prisoners. Big Pharma, Big Ag and the Prison Industrial Complex are not in the least bit concerned about smoking cannabis safely.
This is how bad it is. States refusing to let kids live. Forcing their parents to move to another state knowing it treats seizures for the kids. How do you even try to make sense of it? Enough of these me me me initiatives and remove cannabis as a controlled substance. Let each state treat the kids or allow the adults to make a smarter choice over the legal booze and pharmaceuticals. Enough of this Shell Game. Many are selling it in dispensaries that have better QA than governments. Let it be or remove it federally. No more bad fixes to what ain't broke or can't be fixed outside of DC. The predicted outcome of state incrementalism...
Families See Colorado as New Frontier on Marijuana
Source: New York Times By Jack Healy December 06, 2013
Fountain, Colo. — As their children cooed from wheelchairs and rocked softly in their arms, the marijuana migrants of Colorado clasped hands, bowed their heads and said a prayer of cautious thanks.
They thanked God for the dinner of roast turkey and mashed potatoes, for their children and for the marijuana-based serum that has drawn 100 families to Colorado on a desperate pilgrimage to quell the squalls of seizures inside their children’s heads. They have come from Florida and Virginia, South Carolina and New York, lining up to treat their children with a promising but largely untested oil that is considered legal medicine in this cannabis-friendly state. Read More…
Ganjay Supta.
Marijuana Stops Child’s Severe Seizures
N.J.’s Youngest MMJ Patient Gets Her Turn
The initiative is backed by the Drug Policy Alliance. tsk tsk tsk
Peter Lewis Is DEAD, and So Is This for 2014
Does anyone else notice that this article says NOTHING about the "status" of this alleged initiative? It doesn't says it's in a final draft form, it doesn't say that it's been filed with the Attorney General's Office for a summary and title, it doesn't say that it's been reviewed by the Legislative Analyst's Office for a summary of its impacts -- it doesn't say anything much concrete at all. If you know anything about the initiative process, you can pretty much tell that this thing is dead for 2014.
That is why the "Jack Herer" initiative, the California Cannabis Hemp 2014 Initiative, is the only realistic hope we have for relief, by 2014, from Prohibition. That initiative has been up and circulating for signatures since October 1, 2013, and its signatures must all be turned in by February 28, 2014. Another initiative, Marijuana Legalization, Control and Revenue, "MCLR," has claimed it will be ready for 2014, that that is extremely unlikely. It's been withdrawn and refiled, and then was reported to different cannabis groups that it had been told by the Legislative Analysts's Office that, as worded, would be subject to court challenge, so it was planning to refile yet again today, December 6, 2013, which starts the clock all over again for it to make it out of the State's vetting process. According to the State's Initiative Coordinator, if MCLR refiled today, it wouldn't be released for circulation until about February 6-- assuming it didn't have any further problems -- which would give it only from February 6 to April 18 to collect all the signatures it would need.
What's currently happening is that the organizations, like the DPA. that want to "tax, control and regulate" PEOPLE who use cannabis -- remember, plants don't pay taxes, plants don't go to prison for breaking laws, and plants don't have assets that can be seized -- want PEOPLE to wait until 2016 so they can be advertised into voting against their own self interests and voting to tax, control and regulate each other. Big Government and Big Business will benefit from taxation, control and regulation. PEOPLE, on the other hand, will benefit from DECRIMINALIZATION and the kind of legalization that creates a playing field on which small businesses, too, benefit from legalized cannabis. To read the text of the Jack Herer initiative, see www.CCHI2014.org. It's the only initiative that's good for average people, too.
CCHI2014 is the best
I'm from Oregon and donated to this initiative last year. Wish we could get this one on the ballot here in Oregon. Seems to me the who's who honor Jack Herer in words only, but cater to BIG GOVERNMENT TAXATION and FOR PROFIT CORPORATE types.
Why would the DPA support
Why would the DPA support this and not the CCHI. Maybe because part of DPA's funding comes from club owners who want to see little to no competition.
§ 27380. Zoning; Voter Referendum.
(b) The governing body of a city, county, or city and county of more than 25,000 residents may limit the number of storefront cannabis businesses to one for each 25,000 residents. The governing body of a city or county with 10,000 to 25,000 residents may limit the number of storefront cannabis businesses to one. The governing body of a city with fewer than 10,000 residents may ban storefront cannabis businesses.
So in a suburban neighborhood of 50,000 people the residences can only have two shops to purchase from?
Sounds like legislation of a monopoly setup. Business men disguised as club managers hate competition.
Are we legalizing pot so club owners can have extreme profits or are we legalizing this so people can grow and use cannabis without fear of the police arresting them?
$50 fine per square for growing over the limit of 100 square foot. This is insane. You should throw in regulations how big of an area I can grow my tomatoes or cucumbers. Also add regulation to make sure my other plants are under lock and key and not visible. Anybody who has something to hide is probably ashamed of what they are doing and shouldn't be doing it. There is no reason why people should be hiding that they are growing cannabis or should it be under lock and key. This law reads that cannabis growth should be hidden.
Anybody who read this law and supports legalization knows this bill is not it.
I'm giving money to the cchi2014.org.
This regulation bill is not for California
Nicky, the neighborhood
Nicky, the neighborhood zoning is a small baby step over Colorado’s Amendment 64. To say that cities of at least 10,000 residents must have at least one store, at least two for at least 25,000 residents, is better than saying, as with Colorado, that any city can choose to ban it entirely. The political reality is that if you force legalization down the throats of communities who don’t want stores around, you will stir resentment and it may cost you votes. Like the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. Eventually, over time, hostile cities may become tempted by the taxation windfall going to other cities and ease up on their own restrictions.
If you watch Ethan Nadelmann’s signature speech at the recent Drug Reform Policy Conference, there’s one point where he says, “It does come with my apologies, as well, and these are sincere apologies. I apologize to those of you in Colorado, Washington, and Oregon because you’re going to have to bear the burden of leadership. That means your system is going to have be tighter and more restrictive and constrained, than sometimes seems reasonable. It means you’ll have to put with all sorts of bullshit from neighboring states and from feds and others, just so others can follow. So the country can be reassured that this is the right the way to go.”
I will give my money to any campaign which can get on the ballot, realism rather than idealism.
Just for clarity
“The governing body of a city, county, or city and county of more than 25,000 residents may limit the number of storefront cannabis businesses to one for each 25,000 residents.”
Just for clarity, Nicky, you misread the regulation. It’s “may” limit, not “must” limit. It sets a minimum number of stores, not a maximum. So to your question, “So in a suburban neighborhood of 50,000 people the residences can only have two shops to purchase from?”, the answer is no.
Nicky, Debbie, Letitia,DPA is
Nicky, Debbie, Letitia,
DPA is fielding an initiative of this type because they want voters to pass it, rather than reject it. It has nothing to do with getting people to vote against their interests or anything like that. They don't think the CCHI will pass. And while I do not know for sure, I'm also skeptical that CCHI will pass.
I respect the efforts of people like yourselves who are working for CCHI, and we have made sure to cover it. But I think you should also respect the efforts of people who don't agree with your strategy and are trying to get something done that they think will work. If CRTM passes, it will strongly serve the interests of voters in California, including marijuana consumers, relative to the status quo -- keeping prohibition fully in place would be the worst of all outcomes. If CCHI gets to the ballot but fails to pass, it won't serve those interests and may hurt them.
As for 2014 vs. 2016, it's only very recently that polling has suggested California could possibly have a chance at passing something in 2014. We are in a time of evolving public opinion. As Phil's article notes, the timing makes 2014 very expensive to do, so it may be too late for that. But if someone figures out a way to do it in 2014, I certainly have an open mind.
CCHI polls at 56% No to limitations No to discrimination!
Good News borden! A current Field Poll says CCHI has a 56% approval rating. You may think CCHI won't pass but people polled recently say differently. http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2442.pdf
If CRTM passes (which is very if'y) it will placate people. I don't know if you are on the streets talking to people, but many people not knowledgeable to the laws think marijuana is legal in California because of The Compassionate Use Act of 1996. They think it is legal in Colorado and Washington. The truth is marijuana is not legal in any of these states. There will still be criminal penalties for possession over an ounce in California if CRTM passes. This would not change any of the 21,000 arrest that happened in California in 2012 for marijuana crimes. All this bill will do is stop the infraction tickets and allow and few plants for each person to be grown.
Most people on the street are either for or against marijuana legalization. The good news is that the swing vote for marijuana is with people that are for legalization of marijuana. I talk to people everyday who are for legalization and didn't vote for prop 19 because of it limitations and penalties. People that are against legalization are not going to vote for something just because it allows only one ounce. They are not going to vote for any form of legalization.
I know many atheists that despise churches in their neighborhoods, bigots that despise people of other races and sexual orientations, tee tootlers that don't like liquor stores in their neighborhoods. We don't live in a society that tolerates discrimination. We shouldn't stand or support anything that limits people ability to purchase marijuana, especially if you are in support of marijuana legalization. Putting a limit on something is like saying that it is wrong. We don't limit how many cigarette or bottles of wine or sugar product people can have, we allow adults to make that decision for themselves. Why should there be a limit to how much marijuana somebody can have. There should not be!
Post new comment