ReformCA releases their legalization initiative

Discussion in 'Marijuana News' started by ogderp, Oct 5, 2015.

  1. So the day has finally come, ReformCA the group who has the most traction, money, and support for a 2016 legalization bid in California has filed their initiative today. I haven't finished reading it yet, but I'll post it here for everyone to read. Starting on Wednesday, they'll be accepting input from the public for 3 days so if you live in California and don't like something about their initiative, let them know.

    https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ccpr/pages/299/attachments/original/1443981648/Ballot_Measure_(Final)_(10-02-15).pdf?1443981648
     
  2. It's basically a replica of AB 266. Just cross out "medical" and throw in "recreational". 1 oz limit while Oregon has 8 oz. 100 sq ft garden. Disappointed, but not surprised.
     
  3. Yeah, they said that they wanted to make it compatible with AB 266, but they're making it a little too compatible. Doesn't Oregon allow a maximum of 8 oz only for possession at home, and that limit includes your harvest from home growing? Because I know that in public, the maximum amount that they allow is 1 oz. I remember reading the 8 oz limit and thought that was ridiculous because they allow you to grow up to 4 plants and you can easily get over 8 oz's from that many and then you'd be committing a crime just by harvesting your crop. Does ReformCA's initiative allow you to be in possession of no more than an oz just in public or at home too?

    The problem is that this will probably be the initiative that ends up on the ballot. I like the language of MCLR and CCHI, but unfortunately they don't have the money or resources to make it on the ballot and run an effective campaign.
    All of the stakeholders are throwing their support behind ReformCA because they would profit off of the new industry that this initiative would create, they wouldn't profit as much off of what would be created under MCLR or CCHI.
     
  4. Not exactly. Check this out.
     
  5. Oh yeah, I read that article earlier today. So is Sean Parker actually trying to get his own initiative on the ballot, or is he just gonna fund the best one? I couldn't find anything else on that. And I had a feeling that DPA would go off on their own, they've done that before in the past. What initiative gets on the ballot now really could be anyone's guess if the biggest donors haven't officially thrown their support behind an initiative yet.
     
  6. #6 dabs710, Oct 5, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2015
    They're keeping all the nuisance laws the same where they can ban dispensaries and cultivation everywhere. They're putting the your landlord's opinion of whether he wants you messing with marijuana in his rental into law too. Hopefully something much better comes along.
     
  7. Yeah hopefully, at least they're making it so that licensed delivery services can't be banned and that personal cultivation can't be outlawed by a local government. There's still time for something better to come along, but all the money and support will probably go to this one or a DPA initiative if nothing else comes along.
    Yeah hopefully, at least they're making it so that licensed delivery services can't be banned and that personal cultivation can't be outlawed by a local government. There's still time for something better to come along, but all the money and support will probably go to this one or a DPA initiative if nothing else comes along.
     
  8. Oregon is looking greener by the day.
     
  9. #9 dabs710, Oct 5, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2015
    On the sunny side, the initiative appears to say that you can keep the proceeds from your grow. The question remaining is if cities have the right to ban or restrict these grows (it seems like they can).
     
  10. Yeah the initiative says that you can keep everything that you grow, I think the 1 oz limit is just for possession in public places. And I found the answer to the question about local control over home grows on an article from the daily chronic, local governments can't ban them.

    "Local Control: Cities and counties can ban marijuana commerce, including retail outlets, but not delivery services, but only by popular vote-not by executive or legislative action. This means the default position is “no ban.”Localities cannot ban personal cultivation."

    Here's the whole article

    http://www.thedailychronic.net/2015/47720/here-comes-the-big-one-reformca-files-its-california-marijuana-legalization-initiative/
     
  11. #11 dabs710, Oct 6, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2015
    When I read it, the confusing thing is that it looks like you can only have 1 oz. The loophole around it is seems to be growing it yourself. It kinda doesn't make that good of sense when you think about it. You can't buy that much but you can collect pounds from your grow? Okay by me. The sq. ft limit is a little problematic for outdoor cultivation though.


    That's some good news if the points in the article are true. Bans are a huge problem.

     
  12. Yeah when you think about it, that's a total loophole. But at least there's no actual limit on the number of plants you can have or any limit on how much you can have at home. I think a lot of people don't like the 100 sq ft grow space limit though and it's definitely problematic for outdoor growing. I bet the emerald triangle growers are all against that part, because now they'll have to get a special license to grow in the same space that they've been growing in for years, then their whole grow op will be taxed. But I like how they're handling local bans. It should be the citizens' decision, not their local government's decision like it has been for years.
     
  13. #13 dabs710, Oct 6, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2015
    They should encourage outdoor growing too. This model keeps everyone inside.
     
  14. You must not live in Califoria lol. Patients having been asking for home grow sovereignty since 1996 and people like Reform CA keep (allegedly) wanting to push the poor patients into the expensive dispensaries run by their rich farmer/real estate buddies. Small growers of cannabis have been consistently betrayed and abused from the beginning by big farmers wanting all of the profits.
     
  15. Yeah I agree, this model pretty much keeps everyone's grow op inside and California has a huge outdoor growing industry. I don't know how they could overlook something like that.
     
  16. I do live in California and this initiative still allows home growing. Maybe you missed this part in the initiative, but it said that MMJ patients won't have to pay the recreational taxes if they show their card and prove that they are in fact a MMJ patient. Even if California doesn't legalize next year, things are probably still gonna change because of the new MMJ regulations that are very likely going to be signed into law.
     
  17. Uh huh. Since 1996 this "defining of proper langauge and tax structure" has been going on. Get back to me when the actual taxes are assessed and let me know how everything works out for you (nd your neighbors) financially.


    NORML and the ASA havent been able to perfect a single piece of legislation in any state in almost 20 years' worth of combined practice on initiative after initiative.


    I'm skeptical.

     
  18. Well I couldn't get the taxation section of the initiative to copy and paste, but here's the link to the whole thing and the taxation section begins at the end of page 20 and ends at the beginning of page 23. Now do I think that this initiative is perfect? No I don't and I definitely disagree with parts of it, I actually think that the tax rate should be lower than what's proposed. But they're only charging patients 5% local tax for anything, while recreational customers are paying a total of 10% tax for flower and 15% tax for edibles and concentrates. Their taxation process is definitely flawed, but I don't think they're pricing out patients.

    https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ccpr/pages/299/attachments/original/1443981648/Ballot_Measure_(Final)_(10-02-15).pdf?1443981648
     
  19. I can't figure out why edibles and concentrates are taxed more than flowers.
     

Share This Page