An interesting article in the East Bay Express about marijuana advocates who oppose Proposition 19 for various reasons. It’s not radical enough. It allows corporations to make money on it. All of the sudden people who have lived outside of the law for decades would have to deal with the law and all it’s intricacies and bureaucracies.
Mostly I think there is a set which is simply afraid of change, even if it means less risk of jail and fewer killings like those in the headlines of late.
Our own Charlie Custer is quoted in the article.
19 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 29, 2010 at 9:38 am
Disagree with U
I don’t believe your conclusion, sorry. Would the current legalization law work retroactively? Anybody currently in the clink or facing prosecution going to be set free? If not, then another snub at prop. 19. The authors designed it around themselves, like any other lobbied bill. I don’t know enough about them, I smell money.
But my biggest concern is how often and easily people will be prosecuted. In the long run, Prop. 19 might prosecute more people that aren’t being prosecuted with any severity right now…especially among people under age 21. It would be ridiculous to plant the seeds for a nation of felons convicted before they were 21, and an ever growing number of seniors convicted of assisting minors in felonies…because of marijuana. Minors smoke lots and lots of weed…they always have. Didn’t you?
Decriminalize it completely and immediately…THAT’s what the people have always wanted “legalization” to mean. To rebute that it’s too complicated to make such a big step sells your own intelligence short.
August 29, 2010 at 10:01 am
Anonymous
I’m for complete decriminalization as well, but an inch in the right direction is better than none.
August 29, 2010 at 11:44 am
ED Denson
I’m with anonymous on this one. People opposed Prop 215 because they wanted it written differently, also, yet it has proven to be a huge success. So will Prop 19 most likely, but none of us are really able to see into the future to know what direction things will go. But it’s hard to oppose a law that allows every adult in California to grow, process, possess, and use marijuana. Even in the restricted amounts it allows that is a major reversal of a foolish and failing public policy. Then as a bonus it allows local option commercial cultivation and sale. “Some people just get onery when things start going right” as the poet said.
August 29, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Eric Kirk
I should read it before I firmly decide, but it really does sound like the typical sectarian whining from those who want it all at once and assume that the majority of the human race is with them whether it knows it.
August 29, 2010 at 6:21 pm
michael mckaskle
Could I have some free public legal advise? If so…..
In your opinion would section 11301 (g and m) allow conservative communities to trump prop. 215 and prohibit clubs?
I realize that (7 & 8) of the purposes section states that it won’t impact 215 (H&S 11362.2-.9) but does that trump the text or would a suit have to happen and have a judge make a ruling.
Could San Diego say “Notwithstanding 215, we choose to punish all actions beyond personal use/production and transportation over one oz.. So sue us….. Oooh! We like that judge! He recognizes that sick people can grow their own or go to Alameda Co. to get their ‘medicine’.”?
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:
(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;
(m) any other appropriate controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare.
(sec 11300 deals only with personal use/production and is also poorly written in that it allows any person (singular) 21 years of age or older to: (i) Personally possess, process, SHARE, or transport… SOLELY for that individual’s PERSONAL consumption (so how does one share)…)
August 29, 2010 at 6:23 pm
michael mckaskle
How did I get a smiley face instead of an 8?
August 29, 2010 at 6:49 pm
anon
’cause yer smiling boy…
August 29, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Eric Kirk
Somewhat, but not totally, off topic – a huge indoor medical grow is proposed for the Chico Airport.
http://www.chicoer.com/ci_15910557
August 29, 2010 at 7:33 pm
anonymous
Washington DC legalized regulated medical pot and is working on the regulations. This from Saturday’s Washington Post that goes on to describe D.C. efforts to keep medical pot local :
The District is writing strict new rules to regulate its nascent medical marijuana industry, but some of the entrepreneurs best positioned to lead the way have blemished backgrounds— including drug convictions at odds with the city’s vision.
Among the District’s 300 proposed rules is a requirement that operators would need to be “of good character”: No felony convictions or misdemeanor drug convictions allowed.
“Historically, the people who have dealt with marijuana have, unsurprisingly, come from a noncompliant background, you might say,” said Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the Washington-based National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. “They have a compulsion to not follow the law. So these rules might be viewed as just another bump in the road or a minor impediment for these guys.”
August 29, 2010 at 9:27 pm
joe the plumber
Whoever said “the perfect is the enemy of the good” was right on. I agree with Ed that this is a HUGE step in the right direction. Meanwhile, inside the local grower’s echo chamber, the conversation feels like corporate America’s response to global warming legislation; create doubt and charge conspiracy. It is sad to see all the otherwise PC growers arguing about how flawed this is. Wish they’d just admit that they like the money and fuck it if people who can’t grow have to pay them for it.
August 30, 2010 at 6:40 am
Mr. Nice
This scares the shit out of white boys for not being able to plant a twomp sack on every kid they want to haul downtown. If Prop 19 passes they will have to find some other way to oppress the community.
August 30, 2010 at 7:52 am
Eric Kirk
It’s actually new that the African American vote majority opposes prohibition, if that indeed plays out this fall. I believe the majority voted against Prop 215. Something may have turned, but traditionally they are the most hard hit communities in terms of drugs, and many black voters who otherwise vote liberal policies would love to see the drugs off the streets.
August 30, 2010 at 8:04 am
Disagree with U
Joe the Plumber, you’re vision of the grower’s echo chamber is WAY off…in fact you’re doing exactly what you say they’re doing. There are good people in all trades who care about justice. I don’t know anybody who’s adamantly opposed to this form of legalization, myself included….that doesn’t mean it isn’t important to acknowledge how it’s flawed as loudly as possible so that when real people’s lives start to be affected, they’ve got a hand on their back, no matter how small.
August 30, 2010 at 8:06 am
Disagree with U
…mark my words…if this bill passes, you can expect the author and the businesses that are financially sponsering it to jump up a few tax brackets.
August 30, 2010 at 8:21 am
Eric Kirk
If it’s legal, it’s doing to be corporatized. Corporatization goes where the money goes. Duh.
As with every other industry, we will have to set up alternative business institutions. We have corporatized produce. We also have food coops and the like which purchase and make available to consumers local produce. It’s up to the alternative crowd to market the virtues of their stuff.
August 30, 2010 at 8:45 am
Disagree with U
Erik, corporatization works to make money come to it more than it chases money. They made this bill, for example, to be their funnel that would be placed in the stream. We’re potentially witnessing corporatization of an otherwise “unregulated industry”. Money is the only thing that’s keeping this from going completely decriminal…for all the reasons they say legal is good, decriminal would be better for the consumer (average person…society…etc). I only hope the kids are making note of the difference and paying attention to how things unfold, because they’re going to be dealing with the consequences down the line, and deciding on similar laws in the future.
August 30, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Eric Kirk
I’m not sure what you can do to keep corporations from profiting. They already profit actually. You buy your lights, pots, fertilizer, energy in one form or another, and a slew of industry accessories from corporations as it is.
You haven’t explained how you would legalize it and keep corporations out of the industry. Frankly, I don’t think it’s possible.
August 30, 2010 at 4:12 pm
joe the plumber
Disagree with U, you say my “vision” of the grower’s echo chamber is way off but my statement wasn’t generated by a vision. It was generated by what I’ve heard with my own ears in conversation. You can disagree with me but don’t think I base my opinion on a vision.
So then, which way are you voting?
August 31, 2010 at 8:31 am
Disagree with U
Joe, unless you’re hanging out with some real arseholes, nobody’s saying “Boy I sure loves me that money and screw you if you have to pay me for it.” Tell us honestly, how many times have you heard such jive in conversation? You can call it a major stretch of a minor truth at best…there are lots of reasons people are disgruntled about the bill, I’ve named a few. It isn’t a stretch of the truth to say the corporate side is money grubbing…just read their bill and look at their plans. It sucks that that’s just business as usual.
Erik, nobody’s nitpicking over where the hardware came from…the money circle you describe regarding the indy growers shares the wealth over a significantly larger population of people than concentrated warehouse mega-grows, don’t you agree? Yet the law’s authors say a smaller group of people getting a larger sum of money is going to mean they have to give more money back to the people (BS…the theoretical money would go right into the beaurocratic loop with the rest of it)…it’s trickle-down economics…it’s never flown. Has anybody read the bill? It’s all open ended money talk…proof in it’s own writing that if you introduce enough money into the equation, a horrible crime is suddenly seen as a civil service in the eyes of the current establishment.
It’s kind of one of those “you either get it or you don’t” things for me…this isn’t a revolutionary law at all as far as social consciousness goes. It’s not what people have been talking about for decades when it comes to “legalization”. The cops will be busting down just as many doors and arresting just as many people for possession. I think we’re smarter than to take only a baby step toward decriminalization.