I would really like to be able to legally share cannabis with my out of state friends when they visit. I've gathered signatures for cannabis legalization initiatives in other states and have done canvassing for recreational legalization. That said, a bad bill with this many "poison pills" is worse than the status quo. It's easier to pass a good initiative than it is to fix a bad initiative. A bill like this is only going to ensure that only big corporate cannabis survives in California and that's bad for everyone. It also doesn't even effectively decriminalize what it's ostensibly decriminalizing, it also creates more excuses for police to violate an individual's privacy.
Going from medical to recreational.......
- Thread starter lwien
- Start date
I would really like to be able to legally share cannabis with my out of state friends when they visit. I've gathered signatures for cannabis legalization initiatives in other states and have done canvassing for recreational legalization. That said, a bad bill with this many "poison pills" is worse than the status quo. It's easier to pass a good initiative than it is to fix a bad initiative. A bill like this is only going to ensure that only big corporate cannabis survives in California and that's bad for everyone. It also doesn't even effectively decriminalize what it's ostensibly decriminalizing, it also creates more excuses for police to violate an individual's privacy.
Gunky
Well-Known Member
I totally agree with the writer of that article: 6 plants is so stupid! Why? You should be able to have dozens of plants of several different strains in various stages of growth. You should be able to keep a few males around in a veg state which you occasionally put into bloom with 12/12 light/dark for seed production and breeding and that should not mean you have to sacrifice having a couple females out of the 6. If you are seriously interested in breeding and improving your stock how are you gonna do that with 6 plants? You need to let a lot germinate and grow for a while and produce flowers, then select for desired traits. Stop treating this plant as some sort of furtive pariah which has to be constrained at every turn. Let a thousand flowers bloom!
1 oz is also a stupid limit which essentially creates a class of criminals, people possessing over 1 oz, which guess what, is gonna be a lot of people. One plant can produce a few ounces. How does it make sense to allow 6 plants but only allow possession of 1 ounce? Absurd and to what end? Why is it necessary to constrain people from having copious amounts of cannabis if they want to?
1 oz is also a stupid limit which essentially creates a class of criminals, people possessing over 1 oz, which guess what, is gonna be a lot of people. One plant can produce a few ounces. How does it make sense to allow 6 plants but only allow possession of 1 ounce? Absurd and to what end? Why is it necessary to constrain people from having copious amounts of cannabis if they want to?
Last edited:
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
@Gunky if everybody grows as much as they wanted the state wouldn't be receiving all the revenue from the tax. That gives the state more control. The six plant rule is that for just full grown plants? Is that all the plant together small and full mature plants too?
So if a cop comes to your house for anything and notices you are growing cannabis will there be the ticket for too many plants? Maybe just a warning.
So if a cop comes to your house for anything and notices you are growing cannabis will there be the ticket for too many plants? Maybe just a warning.
Last edited:
Gunky
Well-Known Member
Absolutely wrong, wrong language for this and makes growing difficult or at least inconvenient. You are forced to have 3 in veg and 3 in bloom or something. You can get around this by letting them veg for a long time so the plants are enormous and then put them in bloom. But to support a big canopy with three plants you need three big honking pots of soil, heavy for me to handle and hard on my joints, which this is supposed to be helping. And what happens when you plant 6 seeds and 5 are male? You clone that female and fucking wait a couple more months? And if 5 people in the same residence consume weed, they still only can have 6 plants total. In order to clone a plant, you are forced to simultaneously kill the mother plant. Stupid, stupid law. Morons. It's actually kind of difficult to abide by this restriction and still produce quantities similar to what medical patients are allowed now. In a way this actually makes the growing situation worse than it is now.
It is somewhat unclear whether "planted, cultivated, harvested, dried, or processed" are exclusive categories, or if the number 6 is comprised of the sum of all those categories. If six plants are drying, are you allowed to have six growing?
Whom does this restriction help? Big producers. They are trying to start out by nobbling any small, independent competition.
Last edited:
herbivore21
Well-Known Member
For private medical users who produce their own concentrates - this is really oppressive.
What about people like me who find that full melt hash is the best medicine for their needs? How on earth can somebody find enough raw material to make any meaningful amount of medicine if they can only have a total of 6 living plants? It just doesn't add up!
That legislation is also very poorly written, it has some serious syntactical problems! How can you dry a 'living plant'? It's killed when it's harvested and deprivation of water for drying a live plant without harvesting (don't ask me why someone would do that) would also kill it!!!!!! I'm especially curious as to how the powers that be think that folks might process a living plant? Are they expecting a bunch of charas producers to spring up in the good old US of A? lol
syrupy
Authorized Buyer
@Gunky, it's 12 immature and 6 mature (will vary by county). The idea is that with odds of getting a female are 50%, half of the immature 12 will give you 6 lovely ladies. Or if you clone, you can keep the strongest half.
PROPOSITION 215 ENFORCEMENT GUIDELINES
State Default Guidelines - Health and Safety Code 11362.77
(a). A qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana per qualified patient. In addition, a qualified patient or primary caregiver may also maintain no more than six mature or 12 immature marijuana plants per qualified patient.
PROPOSITION 215 ENFORCEMENT GUIDELINES
State Default Guidelines - Health and Safety Code 11362.77
(a). A qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana per qualified patient. In addition, a qualified patient or primary caregiver may also maintain no more than six mature or 12 immature marijuana plants per qualified patient.
MinnBobber
Well-Known Member
syrupy
Authorized Buyer
You, and the excerpt from 215 are correct. A big difference between, 'and' & 'or'
Edit: Also, those rules are per medical patient. If you have a collective of 5 people, I believe you can multiply these numbers by 5.
Last edited:
MinnBobber
Well-Known Member
It's a tough call on how to vote for such a shitty legalization law. That posted article helped to summarize the 60+ pages.
So 6 plants per residence/building too. If you live in a 24 unit apt, then each unit gets a spectacular 1/4 plant.
And if NO wins, then the naysayers point to, "the people have spoken" and they don't wanted legal cannabis when the real message is the people don't want a really f#ucked up law and hope to get a better law next time.
So 6 plants per residence/building too. If you live in a 24 unit apt, then each unit gets a spectacular 1/4 plant.
And if NO wins, then the naysayers point to, "the people have spoken" and they don't wanted legal cannabis when the real message is the people don't want a really f#ucked up law and hope to get a better law next time.
syrupy
Authorized Buyer
Oh I missed the per-building restriction. It looks like MMJ is going down the toilet. Because of the sheer numbers of rec. users, I expect some messed up dui laws will have to go into effect if the new law passes. I'm having trouble getting excited about a YES vote.
MinnBobber
Well-Known Member
It's a bitch to have to think about voting NO on legalization, but holy crap--- this version seems very bad.
It's really too bad someone/some group with money to fund an effort, can't step forward to create a better option. Like an option where the prime concern is the people getting what is best for them, NOT the special interests getting what's best for them/ what's worst for the people.
It's all too familiar as Minnesota recently got Med MJ, but arguably the worst in the country. And now some say, shut the F up, you have your Med MJ. It can be a bitch to get a program to CHANGE once established
It's really too bad someone/some group with money to fund an effort, can't step forward to create a better option. Like an option where the prime concern is the people getting what is best for them, NOT the special interests getting what's best for them/ what's worst for the people.
It's all too familiar as Minnesota recently got Med MJ, but arguably the worst in the country. And now some say, shut the F up, you have your Med MJ. It can be a bitch to get a program to CHANGE once established
Gunky
Well-Known Member
I am not sure I understand your point. Prop 215 is the existing 1996 medical law, which allows 12 immature or 6 mature. Note also that many jurisdictions, such as Oakland, have expanded those limits. The new recreational initiative which will come up for a vote in November, AUMA, is as I quoted above, six plants max, period (and some dastardly ambiguity about whether you can have 6 drying and 6 growing at the same time...).
One of my concerns is they will sell this recreational mess by saying medical is unchanged - bait. After it passes they fold medical into rec - switch.
Last edited:
syrupy
Authorized Buyer
Sorry I got this thread mixed up with another.
Also, as @MinnBobber corrected me, prop 215 states 12 immature OR 6 mature.
Will counties be able to set higher limits with AUMA the way they can with 215?
Also, as @MinnBobber corrected me, prop 215 states 12 immature OR 6 mature.
Will counties be able to set higher limits with AUMA the way they can with 215?
Gunky
Well-Known Member
Basically if you wanted to do some sort of perennial grow scheme with 6 plants, you could do something like have 4 in veg and 2 in bloom. Every two or three months you harvest 2 plants, make 2 clones, move 2 plants from veg to bloom area... Ed Rosenthal describes strategies like this in his Marijuana Growers Handbook in the section on 'growing within the limits'. He maximizes yield by having 3 lights (one veg and one for each month of bloom) so each plant gets lots of space and light. But with only two plants under a light you need some muhongoid big tubs of soil in order to have much of a canopy - so inconvenient. And there is no room for males. There is an unfairness about these restrictions which I really hate. If you are going to fucking legalize pot, do it for real and not throw people in jail for having or transporting over an ounce or having 'too big' a patch, or having 7 diddley-shit plants instead of 6. WTF? Why on earth would we start out with restrictions that anyone serious about growing would start flouting on day one.
TeeJay1952
Well-Known Member
So that at any given moment it is up to someone in the Law Enforcement chain to decide your fate. (Where did you get that, and the ever popular, What do you know that we can turn against someone else.)
I am in a Med state. Allowed to grow, just not be good at it.
Gunky
Well-Known Member
I suspect you could manage with 6 to supply a single person with enough full-melt if you vegged up each plant to completely fill a 5 x 5 tent and had two or three lights going simultaneously in some sort of perennial scheme. You could harvest a whole tent once a month and use everything - leaves, buds, whatever - to produce ice water hash with bubble bags. But I shudder to think of handling a single tub of soil supporting an entire 5 x 5 canopy. You would need a wheeled dolly or something to move it around. Why oh why?
All of this is so not necessary. Small growers are not much competition for the big boys and won't cut into tax revenues significantly. Growing is not that difficult and there are several good books on the subject and plenty of info on the internet but most people in the end are just not going to do it. It's too far out of their box and they don't have time for all the many daily chores you have to do to keep a grow operation working, especially indoors. It can be physically demanding, re-potting, moving pots, endless watering, checking and adjusting water ph, nutrient schedules, pruning, tying, hefting big bags of soil, hours of trimming buds (which is work)... There are security concerns and issues. Plus it is difficult for a small grower to achieve the low sale prices the big boys can with their mechanized ops. I evaluated it as a legal cottage industry a few years ago and did a pilot project and decided it was not worth it at current wholesale prices in CA - very cost effective for personal stash but I found that small-time selling into the current, legal wholesale medical market is too much work for very little prospective profit. Most people will take a look at the initial investment required for equipment and the low current market prices and just buy commercial weed. Like beer.
Last edited:
Baron23
Well-Known Member
I would love to buy those products at those prices any day of the week. Thanks
newVaper420
Vapor Enthusiast
Agreed. Those prices are amazing. I pay a little more than double.
But for those of us who are patients in the California system paying that much would be a significant price increase for my medical needs on edibles, which I cannot make with my current living situation so I am stuck paying or going without necessary medicine if the price goes up. And I know some months, some weeks and some days I would go without with prices like that, despite having a daily medical need. The prices for dry herb at that particular shop is competitive with my area on the lower end, but on the higher end it's a little less competitive. But it is also my understanding that shop is not representative of pricing that exists in all parts of the state.
lwien
Well-Known Member
Yup. Me too.