Regulation of Cannabis Act of 2012 CA Legalization "Clean-Up" Bill

Discussion in 'Marijuana Legalization' started by GreenDevil420, Sep 6, 2011.

  1. After seeing the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act start to tank in its libertarian ideas -- just check it's massively amended restrictive personal cultivation limitations -- I began to seriously consider the Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act. I was originally against that initiative proposition due to the fact that it limited possession to 3 pounds, yet allowed for 100 square-foot gardens which could easily produce twice that amount in dried marijuana. In addition, there were no tax rates listed, which I can see the government in the end taking advantage of the commercial industry much as it over-taxes other commodities.

    But the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine bans commercial advertising, experimentation, possession and research of Genetically Modified Marijuana, has low cultivation amounts, and sets the age limit at 21. One of the selling points of the Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act is that it uses the term "adults", allowing persons at the age that they can fight and die for our country to also purchase, consume and cultivate marijuana, as well as work at a "cannabusiness".

    To show support for this new initiative, I drafted a bill -- to be introduced shortly after passage on November 6, 2012 in a special session to be held by the Legislature, which might be spun by the media of america as an "emergency session" -- to deal with the issue of marijuana and industrial hemp regulation. As an initiative should be short, clear and to the point, this bill is a work in progress in establishing the industry rules and regulations for California. This establishes very specific details such as: what agents of license holders can lawfully do under California law; what cities and counties can do in prohibiting the public smoking of marijuana and how much of a fine they can impose; it establishes specific tax rates for different types of marijuana transactions (dried marijuana, edible/infused product, concentrated cannabis, etc.). The 3lb. limit is removed, and amounts are not considered in determining commercial activity.

    Although the language will no doubt be improved depending on the qualifying and successfully voted initiative, along with other updates along the way, the plan that presumably many libertarians who support the RCP Act would love to see considered is directed in the Regulation of Cannabis Act of 2012.

    It is an omnibus bill, and it has been considered to split this up into multiple parts. Behold the Regulation of Cannabis Act of 2012 (fundamentally implementable regardless of passage of an initiative).

    --> Repeals most laws pertaining to the use, possession, cultivation, production, sales, transfer, or transportation of marijuana by adults.
    --> Allows adults (18+) to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use, with a cultivation limit of up to 99 plants or cultivating in a 100-square foot area.
    --> No possession limits. Unlawful commercial activity, such as excessive cultivation, or sale of marijuana without a license, are heavy-fine and jail time misdemeanors in most cases.
    --> Establishes seven statewide commercial licenses, and provides through-yet-libertarian regulations using the grape wine industry as a model for taxation, and and a combination of the alcohol and tobacco reulatory systems.
    --> Legalizes the possession, transport, and cultivation of industrial hemp, and sale of industrial hemp as provided.
    --> Permits local governments to reasonably regulate or zone licensed establishments or sales outlets.
    --> Prohibits state and local airport police from interfering with adult and medical cannabis possession by travelers, so long as the possession is under 3 pounds or 6 marijuana plants per person.
    --> Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, and allows cities and counties to prohibit the public consumption of marijuana.
    --> Maintains prohibitions against driving while impaired.

    Read more here.
     
  2. i like this. too bad it wont even be considored.
     

  3. Law of Probability suggests that, given a long enough timeline, eventually an initiative like this has to be considered....

    ...not holding my breath though.
     
  4. Who cares if the Government gets a massive share from the industry.

    Fact of the matter is:

    Government Regulation: They'll create the jobs.

    You Having Control: You're still a criminal for possessing pot.

    Sorry Charlie, this is the way it has got to be. If you have a problem with that, file an appeals in court. If not, don't halt progress by voting no: Don't vote at all.
     
  5. The government will have to be involved one way or another just like it is with alcohol and cigs. Something has to be in it for them or they won't care.
     
  6. I hope the second one passes but if not I'd go for number 1 cause legalization is better than no legalization.
     

Share This Page