As that statement is constructed in e.1.b it is doing exactly that. Outlining that a license would be required for personal grows. By repeating the same sentence structure in a row as it does, it in itself creates a distinction, that if interpreted by any decent contract attorney would mean that it means it would be required by both, an individual and a corporation. Good moral character has been used in legal language previously. I believe in Arizona law but there is not a large precedent for its use, which most attorney's would have stayed away from and used language such as..."no felonies in the past five (5) years". Just issues they may encounter when they reach the FL Supreme Court. Mostly I would encourage all FL residents to sign ALL the cannabis petitions. When they get their FL Supreme Court review it will narrow the field going forward until 684k are collected and then more narrowing as for how many get on the ballot. That's why FOR preaches UNITY amongst the PACs. Each petition addresses legalization in different ways. Some have better chances than others based on support, language, legal aptitude, etc....you get the idea. So yes....sign them all....LOL
i disagree. This does not apply to personal grows, rather, commercial, for profit establishments to include individuals who file as a sole proprietor, partnership, or as a corporation, such as an S corporation. Or as a fully incorporated business with executives and board members. The difference is personal grows and retail growing for profit. This passage refers to retail establishments. Good luck.
Petitions that have been reviewed so far. Florida Organiz of Reform 1 Florida citizens for legal that has a long damn name 0 Sensible Florida 0 Floridians for freedom 0 UNITED FOR CARE 125,469 My focus is on the one that will make it. with so many different ones it all just get lost in the sauce. UFC is the only one that will get on the ballot, Whoever are running these groups adding to the list are wasting resources, especially the money resource. The fact that two groups won't/can't work together show the true colors (your group/idea is not the best and you are not helping) It's hard to tell if they want to be the leaders that made it happen or if they are after profiteering somehow. RANT OVER
Please understand what legal sub-sectioning is for. e) was to state regulation 1) establishes a date so the articles under it must be the completed regulation by that date. now a) is applicable to establishments b) then makes a distinction between the two. if individuals didn't need a license there would be no reason to specify so. And there are far clearer ways to specify which is correct. Furthermore, individuals or persons cannot be corporations/sole proprietors/etc. So there is no need to specify a difference by placing a period between them. If it was meant to be applicable for the person owning the business that should have been specified. Again poor language. I wish you and the RegFL team well. Good luck with NORML as well.
I think UFC has a great chance for passage. And I would agree I think the PACs should unite as a sign of unity. FOR was the first approved. I'm not saying this is anyone's intent but by laying out the regulations it is the easiest way to manipulate a market/profiteer as you said. There are serious concerns in the language used by RegFL. It doesn't mean I wouldn't sign their petition. I plan to sign all of them. They all deserve their day in court so to speak.
It's clear how wrong you are, and how strongly you feel that you are right. They make clear in the ballot language the personal use of cannabis. Nowhere does it state that you would require a license to grow for personal use. To make it a little easier to read, i highlighted the important parts that are relevant to our discussion in bold. Have kleen-x ready to wipe tears when done. Personal use of cannabis. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following acts are not unlawful and shall not be an offense under Florida law or the law of any county or municipality within Florida or be a basis for seizure or forfeiture of assets under Florida law for persons twenty-one years of age or older: (1)Possessing, using, displaying, purchasing, or transporting one ounce or less of cannabis; (2)Growing no more than six cannabis plants per household member twenty-one years of age or older, with three or fewer being mature or flowering plants, within a household member's primary residence, provided that the growing takes place in an enclosed, locked space, is not conducted openly or publicly, and the cannabis so grown is not made available for sale; (3) Transfer of one ounce or less of cannabis without remunerati on to a person who is twenty-one years of age or older; (4) Consumption of cannabis within a private business establishmen t or on its premises consistent with this section; or (5) Assisting another person who is twenty-one years of age or older in any of the acts described in paragraphs (1) through (5) of this subsection. This is not even part of our original disagreement, but since you brought it up: Corporations are people too, so says the SCOTUS.
you are correct that it allows personal growing, which by the way I never disagreed with. It doesn't show how "wrong I am" , simply that what you had interpreted from my response was incorrect. The section I pointed to was regarding regulation which includes individuals and corporations. I simply posited that the language they used under e.1.b is not clear why the distinction was made between the both if they did not intend to have individuals apply for a license. Secondly the fact that you resort to pointing to a different section other than the section I pointed out and the fact you felt it was required to make a personal attack proves not only my point but proves your capabilities for understanding legal language. As I said before I wish RegFL well and hope they strive towards unity of the cannabis movement.
Your words: "Yes that's right you'll have to apply for a license to grow your own. Wait I thought this was treat "marijuana like alcohol", you can brew your own beer and wine correct? So they are not even following through on their title." I said you didn't need a license, and then you go on to point out that a license was required for "persons" and "corporations" in the section of the ballot that dealt with regulations for retail establishments. Somehow you confused "persons" with individual personal grows. The definition of "persons" in the retail section refers to sole proprietors, partnerships, and perhaps even S Corps as more often is the case that your name, in addition to your fictitious business name, would be required for registration for a license, whereby a corporation would register under it's corporate name, hence the distinction that was made between the two. But that's something for the supreme court to review for legality once they get the required sigs.
Regulations apply to both individuals (persons) and corporations. Section e.1 isn't titled regulations for business establishments, it's titled regulation. I'm pointing out that by making the distinction of persons (individuals) and corporations that it creates ambiguity within the language itself. So it could easily and correctly be interpreted as requiring a license for an individual (persons) as well as a corporation (and its persons that make up the corp). Persons and individuals are synonymous. You're making this personal and I'm reading from the petition. And I think a lawyer with decent contract skills and experience would note the ambiguity easily. As you pointed out it will be resolved upon FL Supreme Court review. As for now, sign all cannabis petitions.
(e) Regulation of cannabis. (1)Not later than July 1, 2017, the department shall adopt regulations necessary for implementation of this section. Such regulations shall include: a. Procedures for the issuance, renewal, suspension, and revocation of a license to operate a cannabis establishment, with such procedures subject to all requirements of s. 120.54, Florida Statutes (2015) or as amended The way I read it, there is no ambiguity. Nothing in this section would suggest that someone would need a license to grow 6 plants for their own personal use.
Except I said e.1.b Nice try. The subsection b plays no direct relation to that in a, however b is a subsection of 1. Please stop using misinformation like this. I simply pointed out a concern that leads me to believe that a license will be required with RegFL. If that is not the case please feel free to have one of their Chairpeople clarify with me directly through Facebook. Thank you for your time.
A license will be required if you plan on running a cannabis establishment. Notice how they do not state procedures for licensing home growing of 6 plants? Why? Because there is a section on personal use that clarifies this.
I thought you weren't an attorney? So how is it that you can speak to what is intended? Again I will state this and hope you understand, whether personal use (home grow) or not regulations are required for personal grows and corporations, furthermore apply to both. This is why FOR has previously and continues to try to reach out to all the PACs to create a dialogue and/or a panel discussion to inform voters of the substance and intent of each petition.
I've cited numerous examples of the different sections that correspond to personal use and regulations for operating an establishment. The intent is clear as black ink on white paper. You're trying to pull a reference out of the language and define it to your understanding, which as I have said before, is incorrect. Your argument is weak, and doesn't have a leg to stand on. It's unfortunate that the supreme court will probably not get the chance to review the ballot language as I don't believe Regulate Florida will get the signatures in time. Maybe 2018.
http://thejointblog.com/over-half-a-million-signat... Good news they got a half million sigs already with 143,000 verified, I got a stack i haven't turned in, still getting more. I might have to move if this doesn't pass
The sad thing is that just like the text above no one can get on the same train. There is no unity yet in Florida and that is the downfall.
Dude, this is for medical. Why are you posting this in this thread about recreational? Still impressive amount of sigs for united for care.
it involves the legal campaign, as in most people won't sign multiple ones later IE full legal and the fact that they are almost to the goal.
Ask yourselves: Do you REALLY want to let big brother know who you are, where you grow....? Think how MonSATANo has destroyed the small farmer (gmo seeds are like autos, can't be pollinated, forcing the farmer to buy new seed each season), or the dairy industry harassing and arresting raw milk farmers Big Brother will develop rules/regulations that the small grower cannot afford. The bill United for Care is promoting will limit the small grower, if not outright force them out, but then big brother knows who you are
we have discussed this before, you can't be forced out if you where never in. This is the only bill going to the table, "reality" and "dreams" my friends. Everyone forgets where you are, this is FLORIDA a republican run state, well be lucky if they ever set it up with how much blocking they will do. UFC will hit a million again, all those signers will not sign again and most people i encounter are only for medical at this point. It's really laughable that people think we skip a step here