California's "Legalization of Marijuana Act of 2012", Part Deux

Discussion in 'Marijuana Legalization' started by GreenDevil420, May 15, 2011.

  1. #1 GreenDevil420, May 15, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: May 16, 2011
    Hello all at Grasscity:

    After creating the first initiative of the same name, I received hundreds of comments and emails on how to improve the legislation. I have taken in consideration the vast amounts of comments I received toward this initiative and it’s extent in regulations, and as a result, the “Legalization of Marijuana Act of 2012” has been extensively updated and refined to be as liberty-favoring as possible, while also focusing on establishing an effective regulatory apparatus for marijuana (using the wine grape industry as a model).

    With this initiative, which is easily adaptable into a bill form that the legislature could debate if another legalization initiative garners 50%+ support, any person 21 years of age or older can generally:
    --> Possess not more than 12 pounds of dried marijuana.
    --> Cultivate not more than 25 plants of marijuana.
    --> Sell marijuana to any person 21 years of age or older until the Department of ABC adopts the regulations and issues licenses, provided that all sales and excise taxes are paid by the seller (if the Department fails to issue rules or licenses, sales will remain lawful until 30 days after they do so)
    --> Allows the cultivation of up to 99 plants per household before a commercial license is required.
    --> Any person lawfully consuming marijuana shall not be discriminated in the workplace unless for safety-sensitive jobs.

    Licenses such as “Cannabusiness” and “Commercial Marijuana Grower” licenses are added to the wine-model-based regulatory apparatus. License fees total no more than $2000 for the first year, and no more than $1000 for annual renewals. Collectives and Cooperatives would be regulated under the ABC, with shared authority on medical marijuana transactions (for-profit). All license information is left confidential, except as needed for state and local law enforcement regulation needs. H&S 11357, 11358, 11359 and 11360 have been repealed and re-codified commencing with H&S 11720, and allows the expunging of any cannabis offense no longer a law.

    My goal with this piece of legislation is simple – to ensure liberties, while also protecting the public welfare where reform is needed. The initiative imposes a 6% tax in addition to sales tax (but not more than a combined tax of 14%) for the sale of marijuana for recreational purposes. There is no per-ounce fee, nor shall any fee or tax be more than the respective amount for alcohol, except as provided within the initiative. No personal cultivation or possession taxes could ever be assessed, protecting the personal at-home growing cannabis experts.

    This initiative text presents the most comprehensive reform to California’s Marijuana Laws in the state’s history, and is intended to provide clear guidance to law enforcement officials, governmental agencies and commercial entities regarding California’s cannabis regulation. All the tools needed by law enforcement and regulatory agencies are included, so as to ensure that further legislative acts by the Californian government are not necessary to implement this Act. The bill text has been cleaned up in many areas for readability, and there are comments to accompany the significant parts of the initiative. For more curious readers, an updated Summary and Intent is provided on Although the initiative text will be corrected and refined over the coming weeks, the spirit of this initiative should resonate with cannabis consumers and marijuana cultivators alike. I strongly encourage the avid marijuana legal enthusiasts to read through this initiative and find fault with the wording or implementation. As before, I continue to welcome your comments and suggestions on how to improve this legislation.

    The time to introduce an initiative for the 2012 election is rapidly approaching, and Californians who are serious about marijuana law reform need to start debating the merits of having an effective and comprehensive regulatory apparatus as a means to an end at the polls.

    You may read the Initiative Text, Summary, and Initiative Text with Markup here.

    Cannabem Liberemus,

    ~ Chadwick,
  2. #2 greenterror, May 15, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2011
    Sweet. Better than prop 19 from what I've read so far.

    I agree with the person that said Cannabis would be a better name in place of Marijuana.
  3. What about hemp though?
  4. Hemp is legalized under this initiative (second to last page of initiative text). Could eventually be regulated much like the cotton or paper industries as a model.

    ~ Chadwick
  5. I am so stoked about this. I hope it takes off and people (all the people this time) get behind this ballot proposal.
  6. I haven't had time to read this(besides the summary here and at, but I think California should follow Sensible Washington's lead and seek legalization of personal use and cultivation by adults.

    Votes will be lost depending on the regulatory model used.

    Last time around there seemed to be some consensus that legalizing marijuana was the thing to do, and people argued over the path to legalization rather legalization itself.

    Now if a pure personal use and cultivation initiative was put forth, then we could really see where people stood on the issue(rather than hide behind the "regulatory model" excuse).

    As for things in the summary themselves:
    Selling marijuana should not be legal without the appropriate retailer license.(I know in the longer summary you state as long as they have the sales and excise taxes, so it's a bit misleading summary)

    I'm not sure on the plant/possession limits. The summary seems oddly worded so that a household of say 3 people could have 36 pounds and 75 plants, even if 2 of the 3 don't know anything about it.
    I also think a sq ft limit makes more sense then a plant limit, but that just may be me.
    I also assume there's some legal distinction between dried marijuana and marijuana plant. Because I'm sure there will be something brought up about the inbetween stage.

    The license entry fee seems like it should be higher, or at least have tiers(based on production or sales). There's no way a microgrow and so called "PhillipMorris" should pay the same price. A larger grow/retailer/wholesaler uses alot more resources, so should pay proportionally.

    There hopefully is some punishment for establishments selling to minors, like the revocation of the license and banishment from re-applying for X years.

    The so called infraction and fines (overage fee) seem a bit small or trivial, especially considering the current street price(if the price of marijuana were to go down immediately, this would be more reasonable).
    Underage cultivation only has a fine attached. I believe it should be a bit like alcohol where they have to go to some program. Maybe also tiered, so 18-20 pay a smaller fine and no program.(The intent here is to discourage underage use/cultivation, and the 18 and under larger fine and program may get the parent involved more).

    This is already a bit long and it's late, so I'll stop there.
  7. #7 HappyBoy1981, May 16, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: May 16, 2011
    Jesus H Christ. Thats it. Lets start fighting among ourselves and start hating each other just long enough for this to fail just like Prop 19 did.
    Heres the thing about this proposition and Prop 19.....lets get it PASSED and THEN it can be tweaked.

    Guess what? Washington hasn't PASSED their law yet. So where do you get off telling the Calis what they're doing wrong?
  8. Nobody was fighting in this thread at all.

    The poster was simply making suggestions and there's nothing wrong with that, in fact it should be encouraged.
  9. You don't get it.
    Get something passed first. When you start adding ten thousand opinions to the mix then nothing gets done.
  10. Licensing in this initiative is intentionally non-prohibitive, and both big businesses and small businesses have the same license. Cities can enact zoning requirements and square footage rules on commercial entities. A commercial license is $2000 for the first year, with $1000 annual renewal. Therefore, it is in the best interests of both the grower/company and the consumer to have a well-grown and well produced product -- and I strongly feel that local and regional growers in Northern California have an edge that big business will significantly lack if it attempts to enter this market.

    As for individual personal cultivation, I've considered adding a subdivision that addresses square footage, as assessing it by square footage rather than plant count would suggest that you could fit more plants within that space than the law would permit you to cultivate under a static number. But from environmental and nuisance control standpoint, it could be argued that having a "cities and counties may restrict the activity of marijuana cultivation intended for personal use to an area not less than 100 square feet" clause (as that's the minimum that I would restrict the growing area to in a statewide initiative.

    I've cleared up the original post to address the issue of taxation before rules are adopted. Thank you for the comments!

  11. No, I understand what you're saying and, for the most part, I do agree with it.

    What didn't make sense was you getting all pissy about somebody discussing/making suggestions, especially when that is very important to the process.
  12. any way we can change marijuana to cannabis? :eek:

  13. Thats how Prop 19 went down in flames.
  14. i hope this passes and then the rest of the country can see how beneficial cannabis is :hello:
  15. Or at least show them that the sky didn't fall because they legalized it.
  16. Hey all: has a new sleek (and simple) website, and both the decriminalization bill and legalization initiative have gotten a few minor tweaks. Check it out!

    ~ Chadwick,
  17. So this ISN'T the "Regulate Marijuana Like Wine" initiative being backed by Judge Gray? Gotta read much more.

  18. No, Prop 19 went down in flames because the average American is ignorant to the way our legal system works. You and I understand that improvements and changes can be made once the proposition is passed, but to most people they read it, don't agree with some part of it, and then won't vote for it.

    Thats why I think it is more important to get people's input on how they feel about a particular initiative before it is introduced, and not try and push half-assed initiatives that most people don't agree with.

    Op, not saying your initiative is half-assed at all, yours is one of the better ones I've seen lately.
  19. Well stated Berry. What do you think about this one?

Share This Page