State of California OKs petition drive for pot legalization

Discussion in 'Marijuana Legalization' started by Deutschbag, Sep 23, 2009.

  1. State OKs petition drive for pot legalization

     
  2. Why can't people team up and put all the effort into one bill? With 2 bills, it will be harder for any one of them to get enough signatures. We all want the same thing. What is the point of making another petition when there is already one out there?
     
  3. This is great news.
     


  4. There are THREE initiatives now given the go ahead for petition circulation. The more I think about it, what a move it would be if the prohibitionists decided to put a false initiative in circulation to take signatures away from the real McCoy. Divide and conquer?:eek:
     
  5. 400,000? That's nothing considering California's population.

    Here in Florida, I think we need 700,000 for the initiative we want passed and it's only for MMJ and Florida doesn't have as much people as California. Remember, Florida initiative's site is PUFMM A Political Comittee. (Hope you Cali people don't mind)

    Good luck, California. :)
     
  6. Divide and conquer is right. Like I said in previous posts, "What happens to NORML and MPP when the fight is over?" They go broke and no one needs them. Put multiple initiatives out there and make sure not a one passes to keep their 8th largest economy in the world donating and such. So... We can not even count on the people we should be able to count on 100%, we have to do it ourselves. If anyone in Cali wants legalization they will need to put forth any and every effort to make it happen. Shit... get all 3 initiative's petitions and go out and get all of them signed.
    What would happen if all 3 passed? Well, pot would be legal there, but who's laws and language to follow? It would cost California a bunch of money figuring it out, and they will wish they had legalized on their own "state" terms and done it earlier.:smoking:

    I say, collaborate and conquer, push all 3 through.

    :wave:I want to move to cali just to help this out, but it is not realistic for me to do so. For those living there, I beg you (and so do 48 other state's people ) to work hard and do your part, you can make this happen!:wave:
     
  7. I support California Cannabis Initiative - The Tax, Regulate and Control Cannabis Act of 2010 aka The Legalize, Regulate and Tax Marijuana Initiative initiative this is the only REAL DeCrimization of CANNABIS.

    The Oakland Initiative does not DeCriminalize prior offenses. Written by Dispensaires Owners for Dispensaires owners.

    The Long Beach Initiative also Does not DeCriminalize prior offenses and Allows City such as San Diego and Anheim opt-out allowing Cities to continue to arrest.

    California Residents please sign this petition. To ensure you are signing the correct one please look for (09-0022.) Above the signatures.

    With everyone's help we can change policy.

    Tina
     

  8. hey im from texas so i was jw how the bill AB 390 was going?
     
  9. Even if AB 390 gets passed by the state Reps the Governor will probally not sign it! He is against legalization.
     
  10. o man thats tough.
    well GL , hopefully yall will be able to set the example for the rest of us.
     
  11. This is the only way we will ever get it legalized - by popular ballot iniatives. No politician will ever stick his neck out for us with a bill.
     
  12. SHUT UP! Your going to give them ideas.
     
  13. Since there are three initiatives in circulation, somebody's taking signatures away from someone else, making it that much more difficult to reach the ballot requirement. We're shooting each other in the foot going about it this way. Norml, MPP and others have not openly endorsed any of these initiatives. That's a concern. You have to question this. They do chat up Richard Lee, the creator of Oaksterdam, quite a bit. His initiative is 99-0024. He's a kook if you ask me. But he's a kook with clout, and his initiative is in depth and comprehensive. But you can't help to ignore the prohibitionist conspiracy that I stated. A reason we need to rally behind one initiative, get the sigs, and get it on the 2010 ballot.
     
  14. So if this does get on the ballot, and 51% of people vote for it, is it the new law? i think if it gets on the ballot it will be passed, my concern is their wont be enough signatures on it, to get it on the ballot. So if it is passed and our wildest dreams come true do we have to worry about any anti-mj figure coming in and ruining? what about the feds?
     
  15. The main Reason that Norml hasn't officially endorsed is that for the last 40 years they have gotten money to fight the fight. If a 100% legal law is passed in California we they are based they will lose alot of funding.

    How do you keep fighting for something that gets fixed?

    Richard Lee is trying to pass a bill for the dispensaries not for users.

    Tina
     
  16. How is Lee's initiative not for users?

    Some more clout:

    Reuters, the San Francisco Chronicle, CBS, ABC and other major media outlets descended on the 38th-Annual NORML convention this afternoon for a press conference by leading Oakland drug law reformer Richard Lee. Rich Lee's Tax and Regulate Cannabis 2010 ballot initiative begins gathering more than a half a million signatures today to qualify for the November 2010 ballot. TaxCann2010 will legalize personal possession of small amount of cannabis and create a regulatory framework for commercial sales, similar to alcohol.

    Former senate pro tem Don Perata was scheduled to appear and endorse the TaxCann kick-off, but he missed his appearance at the last minute for "personal reasons." TaxCann2010 political director Doug Linney could not elaborate on the Perata's absence. Still, Perata issued a statement endorsing TaxCann 2010 as a billion-dollar revenue generator for a broke state, and as a way to keep cannabis out of the hands of minors.

    Lee needs in excess of 430,000 signatures in 150 days to qualify for the ballot, and has deployed paid signature gatherers Masterton and Wright to spearhead a $1 million effort. "We're confident we'll be able to get it onto the ballot."

    Weekly meetings are being held in Oakland and across the state. Expect to see signature gatherers at major music events and other hubs of cannabis culture, TaxCann2010 said.
     
  17. #17 seeds4thebirds, Sep 26, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 26, 2009
    Initiative_09-0024 Here are the points:

    Limits personal possess of no more than one ounce
    only a 25 square feet per private residence
    g) it is a crime to purchase weed from anyone other than a dispensary
    1000 fine if marijuana is furnished to person's 18 to 21
    3-7 years penalty for furnishing to someone under 18
    Anyone with a prior crime of possession - still has a record of possession
    Anyone previously charged with selling (Charles Lynch) stays in Jail



    Now Initiative 09-0022 Here are the points that are GOOD
    Completely De-criminalizes Possession
    Weed can be purchased, exchange from anyone over 21 to anyone
    Allows for Medical legalization to stay in place
    Anyone previously charged with Selling or Possession can have their record Expunged
    Charles Lynch could be released.

    If anyone grows they know that the limit of 1 ounce is ridiculous

    I am not the only one check out this great article:
    http://www.420magazine.com/forums/i...nabis-marijuana-legalization-initiatives.html

    So, please help support California Cannabis Initiative - The Tax, Regulate and Control Cannabis Act of 2010 aka The Legalize, Regulate and Tax Marijuana Initiative

    Thanks

    Tina
     
  18. Good points. However, in regards to the one ounce limitation for possession under Lee's, there is an exception for cultivating for personnel consumtion:

    "In determining whether an amount of cannabis is or is not in excess of the amounts permitted by this Act, the following will apply:

    (b) living and harvested cannbis plants shall be assessesd by square footage, not by weight in determining the amounts set forth in section 11300(a)"

    So it looks like you can grow as big of buds as you like within 25 sqft, and is backed by this:

    Section 11303:Seizure

    "Notwithstanding section 11470 and 11479 of the Health and Safety Code or and other provision of law, no state or lacal law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact seize or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds, or cannabis that is lawfully cultivated, processed, transported, possessed for sale, sold or used in comliance with this Act or any local government ordinance, law, or regulation adopted pursuant to this Act"

    Teeth baby.

    As far as only buying from a dispensary, this is not entirely true. If a city decides it wants to allow for legal sales transactions of cannabis other than for medicinal purposes it can do so, and will govern how a proprietor can engage in that business. Without some sort of legal license, you obviously can't sell cannabis. I believe this rings true with both.

    I think the penalties for selling to minors is just. The 3-7 year term applies to anyone 18 and over that in some way involves a person 14 years and younger with cannabis. Very strict. Yes. But it ansewers the question "What about the childern?". Don't worry. This bill will have some teeth. So if you're a drug dealer going after little kids. Better not.

    I've seen some bogus talk about lee's initiative not making exceptions for the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and S.B. 420. Absolutely not true. These Acts will still be valid if Lee's initiative becomes law.

    One thing I do like about Joe Rogoways (I think I spelled that right) initiative is the statement about past MJ criminal records being expunged. This is cool. But this will probably be an inevitable outcome if legalization gets past either way.

    Basically it's a win win situation we 're talking about here. What matters most is getting one of these on the G.D. 2010 ballot!
     
  19. I don't know any City that is going to allow for legal sales unless forced to allow.

    The bolded part is not the same. On 09-0022 Anyone can furnish weed to anyone over 21. On Lee's bill you need a license.

    Both groups have professional signature teams, just one is paying 1 million for the support.
     
  20. This is good point. A city such as San Diego, with all the military and what not, probably doesn't want establishments for recreational cannabis use/selling. Is O.B. part of the city? I know those folks are down! In situations like this you might have to travel out of city limits to buy your stuff. But I see your point, it's better to force legalize and have the city zone these establishments(away from schools, churches, ect).

    No license required to furnish/share cannabis to someone over 21:

    Section 11300:personal Regulation and Controls

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years or older to:

    (i) personally possess, process, share... not more than one ounce of cannabis...

    The one that's paying 1 million is Richard Lee's. All I am saying is let's get on board with the most likely to succeed. I'd be willing to support Joe's initiative if it had a chance. There are just too many things going against him: Money, media spot light, and money.
     
Loading...

Share This Page