First of all, I would like to say that I support marijuana legalization in any form (including Prop. 19).
I admit that I am somewhat ignorant of the laws and restrictions surrounding marijuana, especially those in California since I live on the east coast. I have been reading up on Prop. 19 because I think that it is a good start to legalization nationwide - and I hope that if it passes other states will follow suit.
Today I was reading the arguments of Stoners Against Legalization (yes, I know there's a lot of hate for them on this site, but I'm trying to get myself informed about these issues). It seems to me that they do bring up SOME valid points in their arguments against Prop. 19, but since I am admittedly ignorant of current laws, I am hoping that some of you who are more informed about this subject can help me understand more about these points that the Stoners have problems with.
Following are some quotes from http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/ called Stoners Against the Prop. 19 Tax Cannabis Initiative, section A PANDORA'S BOX OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: WHY WE MUST VOTE NO ON PROP. 19.
Quote:
However, voting yes on Prop. 19 would actually create new prohibitions on possession, whereas the new infraction status does not. This is because Prop. 19 wouldn’t legalize possession outright. Instead it would make some cannabis “lawful” and other cannabis “unlawful,” depending on where you buy it. The new infraction status does not make such distinctions; it doesn’t matter where you buy it, if you have 1 oz. or less, it’s not a crime. So, by prohibiting possession of marijuana that was not “obtained lawfully,” Prop. 19 would actually be more restrictive than the infraction law would be.
Section 11301(g) states:
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.
(The key words being, “[c]annabis that was not obtained lawfully…”)
According to the initiative, a person who can “lawfully” provide cannabis is “a person pursuant to this section or section 11300.” And who is “a person pursuant to section 11300?”
Section 11300 (i): ...a person who is licensed or permitted to do so [sell marijuana] under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301.
Thus, the initiative’s exact words—“prohibit and punish... the possession... of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully... from a person who is licensed or permitted to do so”—mean exactly this: It will be against the law to possess marijuana that was purchased anywhere other than a licensed dispensary—effectively making it illegal to buy from the black market, even though that is not against the law now. Believe it or not, it is not a crime to buy marijuana in California. Your dealer could get busted for selling it, but you couldn’t get busted for buying it. You can’t even get busted for having it as long as it’s one ounce or less. But if Prop. 19 passes, possessing marijuana you bought off your dealer would make you a criminal.
Quote:
The other objective of Prop. 19 is to allow anyone 21 and over the right to grow in a 5’x5’ space (per residence, not per person). But by leaving taxation up to local governments, it could have the unintended consequence of rendering even personal home cultivation inaccessible.
Under Section 11302, cities will be able to adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts to impose “appropriate” “general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees,” in order to “permit the local government to raise revenue.” In California, a tax to raise revenue has no limit unless one is imposed by law. Since Prop. 19 doesn’t enact any limit, technically, cities could tax cannabis so high that you can’t afford to get high. And this won’t just apply to cannabis you buy. Even your home-grow could get taxed without limitation—and it would be perfectly legal under Prop. 19. Think that’s a little far-fetched?
In anticipation of the initiative passing, the City of Rancho Cordova has proposed a tax on cannabis home-grown for personal use—be it recreational or medicinal. The city’s Personal Cannabis Cultivation Tax measure, which will join Prop. 19 on the Nov. 2 ballot, would impose an annual tax of $600 per square foot on indoor grows up to 25 square feet, and a $900-per-square-foot tax for anything larger. For the casual toker growing in the 5’x5’ space that Prop. 19 allows (3-6 plants), that calculates to $15,000 per year. A 10x10 space (6-12 plants), which you may need if your roommates want to grow, too, would cost $90,000 per year.
Quote:
Consider the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. It didn’t make marijuana illegal, but prohibited possession of marijuana without a special tax stamp—which the government never issued. So even though marijuana was legal, it was impossible to possess it legally. Prop. 19 would do the very same thing—make it “legal” for you to cultivate marijuana, yet allow cities to make it economically infeasible for anyone to actually be able to grow it. This isn’t legalization; this is back-door prohibition. Will you grow your own, even if you can’t afford to pay the taxes? Will you trade the felony of cultivation for the felony of tax evasion? Will you vote for Prop. 19 only to become a criminal?
Quote:
One goal of Prop. 19 is to limit police interaction with cannabis consumers and redirect law enforcement toward serious crimes. But an unintended consequence of the regulatory nature of the initiative would be increased law enforcement presence.
Law enforcement’s time is freed up by the elimination of prohibition, not by exchanging old prohibitions for new ones. Since Prop. 19 allows cities to tax and regulate cannabis as they see fit, it would indirectly create prohibitions that obligate police to waste time and your tax money enforcing them. And by “your tax money,” I mean yours—that you pay for permission to have your home-grow. Consider what Rancho Cordova spokesperson Nancy Pearl said about that city’s proposed personal cultivation tax: “Our building and safety people, and police and fire, will have to work more to protect the community. And there are costs associated with that.” Indeed, Prop. 19 specifically states that any cannabis tax revenue can be used toward enforcing the new prohibitions it enacts. So, not only does the initiative do little to end the pot war, it apparently taxes the drug to fund the drug war. Is this where you want your tax dollars to go?
Quote:
Supporters point to the Purposes section of the initiative to buttress their claim that Prop. 19 preserves medical marijuana patients’ rights. Yet by failing to make those exemptions in the ballot argument—the only part of the initiative that would be codified into law—an unintended consequence is that Prop. 19 will override some parts of Prop. 215, reversing patients’ cultivation rights and revoking their right to share medicine collectively (the way patients who don't grow their own currently obtain medicine).
Whereas today anyone with a doctor’s recommendation can legally grow up to an unlimited number of plants, Prop. 19—by failing to exclude patients from the cultivation restrictions it imposes—would limit that to whatever can fit in a 5’x5’ footprint. This restriction will force many patients to resort to buying instead of growing their own medicine, because of the inconvenience caused by producing multiple grows annually rather than a year’s supply at once; not to mention the high tax rate that would make the cost of personal cultivation out of reach if we vote yes on Prop. 19.
The initiative would further impact medical marijuana patients by prohibiting medicating in the privacy of their homes if there are minors present. And although currently it is perfectly legal for patients to medicate in public anywhere cigarette smoking is allowed—an invaluable liberty to those with painful diseases who would otherwise have to suffer until they got home to relieve their pain—Prop. 19 would ban smoking in public, with no exception for patients.
Quote:
Letitia Pepper has been practicing law for almost 30 years since graduating from Hastings, one of California’s most prestigious law schools. She has more than 20 years of experience working as a judicial research attorney for the State of California and for the federal district court. So she is well qualified to review Prop. 19. And she had a reason to: She is a medical marijuana patient. After carefully studying the initiative, Pepper concluded:
“Based on my expertise and review of Prop. 19, I can now state, categorically, that if Proposition 19 passes, it WILL affect medical marijuana patients and collectives. It will limit patients to tiny grow areas—one per parcel, not one per patient—and allow cities to legally ban collectives (the current bans are, in my opinion, illegal).”
She goes on to say: “In Section 2 (C), ‘Intent,’ paragraph 1 lists all the existing laws that Prop. 19 is intended to affect, and paragraph 2 lists all the laws it is NOT intended to affect. Here’s the important point: Neither paragraph 1 nor paragraph 2 mentions the Compassionate Use Act [Prop. 215/section 11362.5]… If the Prop. 19 [authors] really did not intend to affect patients and collectives, they would have included section 11362.5 in paragraph 2. They didn’t. … Something sneaky’s going on.”
Quote:
Prop. 19 aims to eliminate the black market for marijuana. But it could have the unintended consequence of expanding the black market, because by encouraging exorbitant licensing fees, it would push currently legitimate growers underground.
Currently, anyone with a Prop. 215 recommendation can legally provide marijuana. Under Prop. 19, however, only licensed vendors may distribute marijuana. Although specific licensing arrangements are left up to local governments, Oakland, birthplace of the initiative, has already set the precedent for what other cities will likely follow. Oakland’s licensing process for commercial vending is prohibitively expensive for ordinary citizens. A license costs $60,000 per year—not to mention the application process itself, which is so rigorous that even well-established, law-abiding dispensaries have been denied. Furthermore, Oakland has started a trend that every other city preparing for the possibility of Prop. 19 has adopted—capping the number of licensed dispensaries allowed to operate (in Oakland, that number is four. Conveniently, Richard Lee, the millionaire businessman behind the initiative, owns one of them). A commercial cultivation license is even more prohibitive. The application fee alone is $5,000, a license costs an astronomical $211,000 annually, and only six are allotted. This all but guarantees that average, small-time, legal growers will be shut out of this multibillion-dollar industry and forced underground, expanding the black market that has been consistently dwindling since the passage of Prop. 215 created a legitimate marijuana industry.
These growers, who have invested tens of thousands of dollars creating these presently legal, home-based businesses, are not likely to tear down their grow rooms and apply for a job working the cash register at a dispensary. If they can’t afford the expensive licensing fees that would enable them to participate legally in the green market, it is much more likely that they will take their business to the black market underground, creating the opposite effect of what Prop. 19 intends to do.
Some of the arguments quoted above seem plausible to me - please let me know what you think about them. Yes I quoted a lot, feel free to choose specific arguments to address if you don't feel like reading all of it.
There are some fallacies that are already apparent to me, such as the fact that they are using the proposed taxation of one town (Rancho Cordova) in nearly all of their arguments, and assuming that other cities will try to do the exact same thing. It does however seem like Prop. 19 can cause more restrictions on medical marijuana users, depending on how cities enforce Prop. 19.
In conclusion, I am trying to learn more about all of this and hope you well-informed shroomerites can help me. I support Prop. 19 myself (even though I can't vote on it) because I believe that it is a good first step to legalization. Logical arguments against some of the thing quoted above would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
-------------------- Leaving the shroomery forever
|