Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
 skatealex2
/////////////////////////////
Registered: 07/04/08
Posts: 16,732
Last seen: 4 minutes, 18 seconds
|
 California’s Prop 19: A Word-for-Word Analysis-norml 
#12921110 - 07/19/10 07:11 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
"I’ve spent the weekend reading various blogs that have sprouted up in opposition to Proposition 19, California’s effort to legalize marijuana this November. These “Stoners Against Legalization” blogs confound me; they remind me of Sam Kinison’s line comparing “Rock Against Drugs” to “Christians Against Christ”.
Some of these blogs are based on the notion that legalization would be worse than “what we have now”. The assumption there is that if you smoke marijuana in California, you must already have your Prop 215 recommendation from a doctor, and you’d be losing your rights under Prop 19.
Most marijuana smokers, believe it or not, are healthy and aren’t comfortable spending money for a doctor to give them permission to use cannabis. Currently we face a ticket, fine, and misdemeanor drug conviction record for possession an ounce or less of cannabis. That record prevents us from getting student aid and can cost us our jobs, child custody, and housing, or if we’re on probation, our freedom. (Even if California succeeds at downgrading possession to an infraction from a misdemeanor, a $100 ticket is a lot of money to some people!) We face a felony charge if we grow even one plant at home. For us, Prop 19 is much better than “what we have now”.
Another thing that appears in some of these blogs is outright misinformation, such as talk of a $50/ounce state tax (it’s not in the initiative; that was Ammiano’s bill) or that it would supersede Prop 215 (it wouldn’t, and Prop 19 even references Prop 215 in its language, so it couldn’t). Others play up the “millionaires”, “big corporations”, and “monopolies” that would be created and the earnest Emerald Triangle family growers who’d be put out of business (which amuses me: Prop 19 allows localities to regulate sales, so why wouldn’t Humboldt, Trinity, and Mendocino county residents whose economy depends on pot sales lobby really hard to get legalized pot sales OK’d in those counties and cities within, and regulated in a way that protects the small grower?)
Two notable sticking points have to do with minors below 21: Prop 19 creates a new crime in being an adult over 21 who gives marijuana to adults aged 18-20 and Prop 19 forbids adults over 21 from smoking where minors are present. Prop 19’s penalties in the first situation mirror the penalties for giving alcohol to 18-20-year-olds; but, yes, it is disturbing to create a new statute that calls for jail time over marijuana. It’s also questionable whether an adult should be punished for smoking pot if their child can see them – we don’t even require that of alcohol and tobacco.
But are these reason enough to continue ruining the lives of people 21 and older? Besides, if you’re over 21 smoking with some 18-year-olds or in front of some minors, and you’re doing it inside your home, who is to know? And if you’re 18-20, wouldn’t you love being legal in 1 to 3 years?
Because the biggest thing Prop 19 does, the forest that these blogs are missing for the trees, is LEGALIZE ADULT MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND POSSESSION.
Even under Prop 215, the adult cannabis consumer is guilty of being a criminal unless proven innocent as a patient. When Prop 19 passes, the adult cannabis consumer is considered innocent until proven guilty. It is a complete game changer for law enforcement, because:
* the smell of marijuana on your person is no longer probable cause to search you;
* that joint in your pocket means nothing;
* the seizure of stems, leaves, and seeds from your trash is irrelevant;
* a couple of baggies with weed residue in them are just garbage;
* the sight of that bong on your table visible through the kitchen window isn’t a “welcome” mat for a police search;
* your utility bills raising a bit for water and lights don’t matter;
* your neighbors smelling skunky plants is just a nuisance, not the source for an “anonymous tip”;
* receipts for lights, soil, fertilizer, ballasts, trimmers, and stuff are meaningless;
* infrared signatures of your home aren’t evidence of anything;
* marijuana sniffing K-9 units are out of a job; and
* pre-employment drug testing programs become harder for businesses to maintain for cannabis.
Basically, one of the simplest tools law enforcement has for harassing cannabis consumers – the sight and smell of cannabis and paraphernalia – is no longer in the tool belt. As long as you’re an adult, keep your grow in a 5′x5′ area, don’t smoke in front of kids, and don’t leave the house with over an ounce, you are free from police harassment.
And even if you don’t follow the law perfectly, who’s to know? If you’re pulled over and there’s an ounce and a half in your backpack, how does that cop know? Does it “smell heavy” in your car? So long as you refuse a search, how will he know? The smell of pot isn’t cause for a search; you’re allowed to have an ounce of it.
If you have a 10′x10′ garden, who’s to know? Is the electric bill that much higher? Does the garden smell more (probably not at all if you build a good grow room)? Plus don’t forget that you’re allowed to have more than one ounce, namely, any amount that you grow within your 5′x5′ garden, at the location of the garden. I think by the time law enforcement came back with a warrant to investigate how big my garden is, three-fourths of it would be cut down and I would suddenly have my 5′x5′ garden and my hanging plants from the last 5′x5′ area I harvested.
Suppose there is four pounds of marijuana at my house. Why, officer, that’s the results from my last legal 5′x5′ personal garden harvest. What, you don’t see any 5′x5′ growing space? Well, I used to grow, but I took down my garden and sold my equipment after my last harvest. Why, yes, they were some pretty big plants. No, I didn’t take any pictures, because what I was doing was perfectly legal. (Prop 19 also has a nice affirmative defense to claim the marijuana in your home was for your personal use. These blogs never seem to notice that.)
So on The NORML Stash Blog I’ve decided to write a word-for-word analysis of Prop 19, mainly because it seems like many of the people against it have never read it. Standard disclaimer: I am no lawyer… hell, I’m not even a college graduate. Click here to read my Word-for-Word Analysis of Prop 19. http://stash.norml.org/californias-prop-19-a-word-for-word-analysis#more-17744"
http://blog.norml.org/2010/07/19/californias-prop-19-a-word-for-word-analysis/
--------------------
Edited by skatealex2 (07/19/10 08:39 PM)
|
 mukhail
Creeper
Registered: 02/06/10
Posts: 934
Loc: Antarctica
Last seen: 10 hours, 53 minutes
|
 Re: California’s Prop 19: A Word-for-Word Analysis [Re: skatealex2]
#12921470 - 07/19/10 08:22 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Very nice writeup
|
whatever123
Whatever I did, I'm sorry
 
Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 2,613
Loc: San Diego, CA
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
Re: California’s Prop 19: A Word-for-Word Analysis [Re: skatealex2]
#12921481 - 07/19/10 08:24 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
This is an excellent post, and brings up countless valid points. I hadn't even thought about the fact that police will no longer be able to use the "I smell pot" line to search my car at every stop, or that a dog that smells smoke in my car from weeks ago can't give the police the okay to search. They'll have to retrain their dogs to not respond to marijuana, or else anything gained from a search prompted by a dog's warning will be inadmissible in court.
Again, excellent post.
--------------------
Koala Koolio said:
there should be a 3 month waiting period between registration and posting. 
|
bluecurry
Dragons don't
Registered: 12/20/08
Posts: 889
Loc: half past purple, between... 
Last seen: 3 months, 17 days
|
Re: California’s Prop 19: A Word-for-Word Analysis [Re: whatever123]
#12922134 - 07/19/10 10:12 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
All this means is that growing and/or operating outdoors will be easier to do, as illegal growing goes the way of the dodo and as such, task forces set in place to eradicate said crops also disappear.
Not to mention an exploding industry and new demand for, soon to be regulated, extracts. I hope they put a rule in place demanding a maximum THC content, $$$
|
Smitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,357
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 7 hours, 25 minutes
|
Re: California’s Prop 19: A Word-for-Word Analysis [Re: bluecurry]
#12923593 - 07/20/10 08:48 AM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Please explain why cops won't be able to use "I smell pot" to search your car. Driving under the influence of marijuana will still be a crime, and last time I checked if they smell alcohol or marijuana it is reasonable to suspect that the driver is intoxicated. This brings up another issue, how are they going to determine intoxication? With alcohol it's easy, but marijuana stays in your system for a while. If they perform any kind of thc test on you at the scene it will be positive even if you haven't smoked in days or weeks. After that, they have full cause to search your vehicle and even fuck your life up by taking your liscense away.
--------------------
|
realfuzzhead
Registered: 03/03/10
Posts: 10,365
Loc: above the smog layer
Last seen: 1 hour, 1 minute
|
Re: California’s Prop 19: A Word-for-Word Analysis [Re: Smitington]
#12923862 - 07/20/10 10:00 AM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Smitington said:
Please explain why cops won't be able to use "I smell pot" to search your car. Driving under the influence of marijuana will still be a crime, and last time I checked if they smell alcohol or marijuana it is reasonable to suspect that the driver is intoxicated. This brings up another issue, how are they going to determine intoxication? With alcohol it's easy, but marijuana stays in your system for a while. If they perform any kind of thc test on you at the scene it will be positive even if you haven't smoked in days or weeks. After that, they have full cause to search your vehicle and even fuck your life up by taking your liscense away.
tests and studies can and have been done showing that driving under the influence of marijuana is not nearly as dangerous and alcohol, and you are right about how it is hard to tell if we are under the infueluence at any given time because there are remains in our system for weeks, but seeing how the U.S. court system is set up so the benefit of the doubt goes to the one being charged,we can easily use this fact to our advantage.
We need to pass this bill and worry about the negatives later, because the bill can always be repealed :p
fucking excellent write up bro
--------------------
trippin tits? have some skittles !
"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -
Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.
F=Gm1m2/r2
Edited by realfuzzhead (07/20/10 10:27 AM)
|
MrBump
Third prize is you're fired
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 4,253
Loc: Where Art Meets Crime
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
Re: California’s Prop 19: A Word-for-Word Analysis [Re: Smitington]
#12923971 - 07/20/10 10:25 AM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Smitington said:
Please explain why cops won't be able to use "I smell pot" to search your car. Driving under the influence of marijuana will still be a crime, and last time I checked if they smell alcohol or marijuana it is reasonable to suspect that the driver is intoxicated. This brings up another issue, how are they going to determine intoxication? With alcohol it's easy, but marijuana stays in your system for a while. If they perform any kind of thc test on you at the scene it will be positive even if you haven't smoked in days or weeks. After that, they have full cause to search your vehicle and even fuck your life up by taking your liscense away.
There's a difference between finding THC and THC-COOH in your blood.
THC = active, ThC-COOH = inactive (ie not currently under the influence)
if/when you get a drug test for a job, you lay off the smoke for a couple weeks. if you happen to fail it's b/c they found the latter in your system, not the former.
--------------------
If it weren't for the bloody corpses, I wouldn't have any corpses at all.
There are two ways to get to the top of an oak tree: start climbing or sit on an acorn.
Are you a carrot, an egg, or a coffee bean?
|
smokescreen
80's Transformer
Registered: 08/13/09
Posts: 807
Loc: north carolina
Last seen: 1 month, 3 days
|
Re: California’s Prop 19: A Word-for-Word Analysis [Re: MrBump]
#12924401 - 07/20/10 12:02 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
excellent point mrbump. Again, great post, op
"Prop 19 creates a new crime in being an adult over 21 who gives marijuana to adults aged 18-20"
Im pretty sure it's illegal to give anyone marijuana right now, including other adults.
--------------------
 "Let's get together and feel alright"   
Edited by smokescreen27 (07/20/10 12:06 PM)
|
Revolutionine
number9..number9..num
Registered: 11/16/08
Posts: 499
Loc: Everywhere
Last seen: 3 days, 15 hours
|
Re: California’s Prop 19: A Word-for-Word Analysis [Re: smokescreen]
#12926005 - 07/20/10 04:28 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
nice job, good writeup. when this passes in november its all 
--------------------
Smoke weed everyday
All I ever wanted was to be free,
and in the end that's how it turned out to be
|
whatever123
Whatever I did, I'm sorry
Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 2,613
Loc: San Diego, CA
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
Re: California’s Prop 19: A Word-for-Word Analysis [Re: Revolutionine]
#12927157 - 07/20/10 08:14 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
The reason they won't be able to search your car because they smell marijuana is that you can have marijuana in your car and it's not a crime; they can't search you on suspicion of having a legal substance. If they smell marijuana smoke, then it's as simple as saying your clothes reek of weed. Mine do.
--------------------
Koala Koolio said:
there should be a 3 month waiting period between registration and posting.
|
Insomnolence
Stranger
Registered: 04/20/09
Posts: 52
Last seen: 1 year, 9 days
|
Re: California’s Prop 19: A Word-for-Word Analysis [Re: whatever123]
#12939705 - 07/23/10 07:19 AM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
With alcohol it's easy, but marijuana stays in your system for a while. If they perform any kind of thc test on you at the scene it will be positive even if you haven't smoked in days or weeks.
In Australia the police here run random roadside saliva tests for cannabis often in tandem with alcohol breathlyzer tests. I have heard that the time frame of testing positive with these is 8 hours from last smoke. Not sure what the likelihood of false positives is but there you have a THC test with immediacy. Though... come to think of it, 8 hours after a toke SWIM feels completely straightened out; not the least bit incapable of driving.
My 2¢
|
durian_2008
Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 1,912
Last seen: 13 hours, 13 minutes
|
|
Legal pursuits are measured and weighed, all the time.
I'm fairly harmless. The property, where I live, is reasonably maintained, yet code enforcement has come around, at least a half dozen times. They've taken notes on the height of the crabgrass, growing up through the cracks in the driveway and told the neighbor that he would would have to move the fridge he was selling further away from the street.
It is then up to the (often-mythical) anonymous tipster to alert the authorities over questions of measurement.
Since you repeatedly crossreference both laws, how do the punishments for "new crimes" compare with the punishments for the old ones?
I'm not trying to set you up with a rhetorical question. I've been reading that police won't come out to 40 specific kinds of calls anymore.
Are they too cheap to prosecute pot, now, or are they fighting, tooth and nail, to keep you within tightly controlled limits? IDK.
Quote:
News flash: most people, especially non-cannabis consumers, think it is a bad idea for kids to use cannabis.
Hypothetically speaking, the most ethical medicine is the one which is certain not to cause parts of children's faces to turn black and fall off.
| |
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: veggie
1,335 topic views. 2 members, 8 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
| | |
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
