Hey GrassCity: If anyone has been paying attention to the California marijuana legalization initiatives floating around, we have two viable initiatives -- the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine (RMLW) Act and the Repeal Cannabis Prohibition (RCP) Act. The RCP allows adults 19+ (yes, 19) to possess and purchase marijuana, while the RMLW allows adults 21+. The RCP is headed by Joe Rogoway & Co., while the RMLW is headed by Steve Kubby (...& Co.). The Regulate Marijuana Like Wine initiative is gaining more momentum, most likely due, in part, to its limits on taxation, and its allowance for personal cultivation. But the RMLW lacks a true regulatory framework. I modified a previous version of my draft to adopt taxation and regulatory rules, along with wording changes to make it preemption-proof, thanks in part to recent court cases in California. I encourage you all to take a look and ask questions. If the RMLW initiative makes the ballot, it'd be a goal to get a legislator to take this bill up for consideration. Enjoy! Summary: CRA Summary Bill Text: http://ca2012.com/download/CRA 12-03-11.pdf
They both should be 18+ If you can serve the country you can drink beer, smoke a joint, and smoke a cigarette.
I'm sure that the OP is familiar with this already, but for those who are interested here is a link to the "cleanup" bill proposed by CA Assemblyman Tom Ammiano in preparation for the passage of Prop 19 in 2010. ABX6 9 Assembly BILL, 6th Extraordinary Session - INTRODUCED It might be helpful to compare/contrast these two proposed bills.
Although the legislation is a culmination of various works including, at times, language from the Ammiano work, most of the language has been improved and refined, along with more defined protections (in the form of statewide non-violations). I believe the BPC code numbers and the chapter for the commercial provisions might be the same, but what Tom Ammiano proposed as far as state regulation in 2009/2010 would arguably not be permitted under the terms of the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act. Thus, this bill was born to address those specific concerns immediately, efficiently, and (arguably) properly if the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine initiative both makes the ballot and passes in 2012.
Hey gang, for those of you following along, I updated the draft on 12/03 to clarify the taxation section slightly. Taxation would be as follows: $0.02/gram of marijuana $0.02/package of marijuana-infused product $0.20/gram of concentrated cannabis $0.20/mature plant used to sell the dried marijuana thereof, upon reaching maturity In the devising of such taxation, the following calculation was made: 1 plant + 8 ounces (~240 grams) = $0.20 + $4.80 = $5/half pound, or presumably $10/pound. Selling 10 pounds = $100 tax on the grower's side. Excise taxes are charged only once, so ultimately most of these taxes will be payed by the grower or wholesaler. In 2006, estimates were that CA grew and sold 8.6 million pounds of marijuana within the state. Let's assume that this amount hasn't increased or decreased, and would enter the legal market in 2013. The taxation amount generated in 2013 would be estimated as: ~ 85 million dollars in excise taxes ~ 392 million dollars in state and local sales taxes (2010 BOE analysis figure) = 477 million dollars in 2013. It's a more realistic amount than the $1.4 billion that was estimated by AB390, and accounts for a variety of factors, including 50% decrease in prices upon legalization, and 40% increase in consumption overall. Enforcement of federal law, along with court cases in the state, may hamper the effect of implementing this taxation immediately. Subverting the tax is a $2500 fine for the first offense, with the addition of six months in county jail for subsequent offenses.
[quote name='"purple grapes"']They both should be 18+ If you can serve the country you can drink beer, smoke a joint, and smoke a cigarette.[/quote] Unfortunately 18 puts it too close to high schools and strongly reduces its chance of passing, because from what I've been reading the "protect the children" stance is the last stable ground prohabitionist are clinging to.... whether its justified or not..
Considering that the non-medical 18 to 21 year old age group likely has no problem whatsoever finding weed now, I think it would be extremely foolish of that age group to not vote or vote against RMLB. I hope we're not going to get the same bullshit from this group that we got from the growers/dispensaries during Prop 19. Take advantage of the opportunity to get it legalized while we have it.
The commercial aspects (endless taxation, no protected zoning) of Prop 19 didn't sit well with the dispensary owners, not the age part (though the 18-25 age group didn't show like they needed to in 2010). Although I think many are in agreement that adults can buy tobacco and die for our country at 18, therefore they should be able to buy marijuana, 21 is unfortunately going to be that number if we are to be successful in 2012. The MMJ program will continue to be maintained, and even expanded, under this legislation. In order to purchase marijuana under 18 from a licensed dispensary (which could also be a store that holds a separate license), a minor would have to possess a state-issued MMJ card. 18-21 would be treated the same requirements as now, along with the added responsibility that police officers must reasonably attempt to verify that a qualified patient, in possession of written documentation at the time of the commission of the alleged violation, is permitted to possess marijuana under California law. And finally, possession of marijuana in public or transportation by persons under 21 (w/o being accompanied by a parent) would result in a $100 fine + court fees much like today (although the driving record will not be suspended under the RMLW or this legislation). There is no proposed law against minors purchasing (or attempting to purchase) marijuana, but purchasing marijuana for a minor (as opposed to selling to) would result in up to 6 months in jail and/or a $2,500 fine. Burden of proof for all marijuana laws is on the police, not the defendant.
