1. Interested in a popular vape? Short on time? Be sure to check out the Best Of threads for Plug-Ins and Portables.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. What does SSTB mean? See our glossary of acronyms.
    Dismiss Notice

What do Californians (and the rest) think of AUMA?

Discussion in 'Cannabis News and Activism' started by Magic9, Mar 25, 2016.

  1. Magic9

    Magic9 Plant Enthusiast

    Messages:
    881
    Location:
    Middle of the Map
    It looks pretty good on the surface. The limits are low, but that can be fixed later. I also can't imagine the limits being much of an issue unless someone gets too blatant.

    I wonder how the criminal penalties will be rewritten? The only thing I could find was as follows:

    CRIMINAL OFFENSES – SECTION 8
    Current marijuana laws (Health and Safety Code 11357-111360) are rewritten with a new penalty structure. In all cases, offenders under 18 are not liable to criminal punishment, but to drug education and community service.


    The national chapter of NORML is endorsing it.

    http://blog.norml.org/2016/03/23/norml-endorsed-auma-now-we-need-your-help/

    What does everyone think of it? Will it pass? Is it better or worse than what other (legal) states have?
     
  2. CarolKing

    CarolKing Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur

    We don't allow recreational grows in WA. The state wants the money it can make in the 47% it charges in tax per gram.

    I'm hoping you guys get legal cannabis there. It will be legal all along the pacific coastline. Road trip with the RV along the coast for sure.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2016
    sag, chimpybits and Derrrpp like this.
  3. Gunky

    Gunky Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,429
    Location:
    Northern California
    I am not too happy with the limits of 6 plants and up to 1 ounce. Way less than medical allows now. 6 plants makes no sense! If you grow from seed you have to start out with double what you want. If you grow sea of green (lots of little plants made to flower right away) the limits fuck you up... I'll have to evaluate it further, but on first sight that looks shitty. One ounce! WTF! One pound would be more like it. One ounce is still some kind of drug war mentality. Marijuana is legal now and you are each allowed the princely amount of: one lid! I'm cracking up it's so stupid. If you have six plants and they flower at the same time that's very possibly a damn sight more than one ounce (duh!). Imagine alcohol is now legal and you are now allowed to possess 2 whole six-packs of beer! And you can brew your own, but only 1.5 quarts at a time.

    Ed Rosenthal: "The over 60 pages of regulations in AUMA are a Trojan horse claiming to be legalization.”

    http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160311005178/en/Ed-Rosenthal-Legendary-California-Marijuana-Grower-Activist (against auma)

    Better alternative: http://www.marijuanacontrollegalizationrevenueact.com/v7/
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2016
    thisperson, jim-bob, Amoreena and 2 others like this.
  4. Magic9

    Magic9 Plant Enthusiast

    Messages:
    881
    Location:
    Middle of the Map
    I'm very happy it passed in WA, but hopefully you guys can grow your own soon. I think that is a necessary part of legalization. Still great progress though.

    The current medical laws remain the same. The 1 oz. / 6 plants is for recreational only. That seems better than what the current laws are there for recreation. I agree the limits are too low, but very comparable to what has been working in CO. I also doubt the limits will be strongly enforced on a legal substance as long as people don't get silly with it.

    The main focus isn't limits. It's ending the prohibition. Any amount being cultivated by a rec. user is a felony currently under CA law.

    I agree. I think that is the goal we're ultimately trying to reach at both state and federal levels. I just think the AUMA has a better chance at passing than the one page MCLRA.
     
  5. Gunky

    Gunky Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,429
    Location:
    Northern California
    I will vote against AUMA. It causes more problems than it solves. At present recreational users in CA can obtain a doctors letter from one of the many fine letter mills out there with no difficulty whatsoever. Damn near any ailment will do. Back and shoulder pain is always a good wheeze. Heck most docs will actually um, remind you of ailments you might be suffering from... Talking to an M.D. about cannabis is not a bad thing. Often the visit is perfunctory but many doctors try to educate their patients and I have even had doctors discuss vaping. Possession without a letter has been downgraded to a $100 fine. We can afford to wait and I'd much rather wait with what we have now than have that AUMA mess to undo. Get it at least close to right the first time. That isn't close.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2016
    j-bug, unsorted and thisperson like this.
  6. Magic9

    Magic9 Plant Enthusiast

    Messages:
    881
    Location:
    Middle of the Map
    People shouldn't have to get a letter, and they shouldn't face felony charges for recreational growing of a single plant.

    I hope you're right about being able to afford to wait. Once Sativex comes to market, I think there will be a coordinated attack against the medical side. Maybe CA will pass a bill that ends the prohibition one day. I'm just surprised it hasn't happened yet.
     
  7. Gunky

    Gunky Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,429
    Location:
    Northern California
    Nobody needs to face felony charges for growing. There is a doctor down the street from me who charges $55 for new patients and $45 for yearly renewals. That's what it costs to avoid any charges. This is by no means a desperate situation requiring hasty and chaotic measures. The taxes proposed by AUMA would cost consumers more than a yearly letter renewal but wouldn't include talking to a doctor. So it's a loss to consumers, mostly.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2016
    j-bug likes this.
  8. Magic9

    Magic9 Plant Enthusiast

    Messages:
    881
    Location:
    Middle of the Map
    AUMA wouldn't change any of that. As far as I can tell, it keeps all the medical protections that are in place now. People can still choose to do that. I don't think they should be forced to do that to avoid criminal charges.

    What is hasty and chaotic about it? Other than the taxes, what negative impact would it have for people as compared to what is in place either now, or after the MMRSA takes effect? Genuinely curious because it's not clear to an outsider like myself.

    Agreed. I'd like to see the medical side stay with the current tax (or better yet, tax free). I can see recreational being taxed to pay for the regulatory cost.
     
    HellsWindStaff likes this.
  9. Gunky

    Gunky Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,429
    Location:
    Northern California
    If you search in http://www.canorml.org/news/Cal_NORML_Guide_to_AUMA.html for asterisks, you will see there are many contradictions and inconsistencies in this measure.

    Another measure which looks better (though I haven't studied it thoroughly) is the ReformCA initiative https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ccpr/pages/315/attachments/original/1447118146/Revised_ReformCA_Ballot_Measure.pdf?1447118146
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2016
  10. Magic9

    Magic9 Plant Enthusiast

    Messages:
    881
    Location:
    Middle of the Map
    Read and linked to it in the first post. There are 14 (give or take) asterisks. 2 of those are inconsistencies/contradictions. AUMA allows for adults to transport which contradicts the existing current law making it illegal. The other contradiction is the amount of concentrates allowed under AUMA ( 4 or 8 grams). Either amount is more than what is currently allowed by law (none). *Considering recreational only as AUMA does not interfere with the medical limits of concentrates.

    The other asterisks seem minor (no alcohol at cannbis events, no public consumption), or already coming due to MMRSA.

    The benefits seem to far outweigh the negatives unless I'm missing something further.



    That proposal looked good too. Like AUMA, it utilized a lot of the recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Commission Patways Report.

    As good as the ReformCA measure looks, it's already dead in the water. More than half of their board endorse AUMA now. Along with Lt. Gov. Newsom, National chapter of NORML, MPP, Drug Policy Alliance, California Medical Association, and CA NAACP.

    I think "The Leaf" sums it up nicely with their recent endorsement.

    "That is why the Leaf joins major reform organizations and community leaders in giving a strong endorsement for the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, or AUMA 2016. It protects medical marijuana laws already on the books and adds patient rights. It legalizes adult possession of all forms of cannabis, sharing and home gardens, the basis of cannabis culture. It eliminates or reduces criminal penalties and creates a workable regulatory framework through a business taxation plan designed to keep prices high enough to dissuade youth but low enough to deter the illicit market. It allows on-site consumption and lets the legislature continue to reduce or repeal but not increase penalties, expunges people’s criminal records and lets them re-enter the industry.

    We also see AUMA’s limitations. It is not the total repeal of marijuana prohibition of which many of us dreamed, the taxes are steeper than we wish and it over-regulates an herbal product to appease entrenched fears that some voters still hold against cannabis hemp, as examples; but none of these are “deal breakers” because they are not set in stone. Some of the things we particularly don’t like are actually favored by other of our fellow voters and AUMA complies with the “strictly regulated” and “robustly enforced” controls demanded by the federal government in the Cole Memo. In other states which have passed rules in conformity with the memo, federal interference has sharply declined."
     
    HellsWindStaff likes this.
  11. Gunky

    Gunky Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,429
    Location:
    Northern California
    The act requires a 2/3 majority of the Legislature to revise many of the core provisions. That means we are likely stuck with crappy, hard-coded foolishness for a long, long time, including a tax regime that is worse than WA! It tries to make rules for everything (62 pages) but does it all badly. To say that it only has a few contradictions to be hashed out in the courts is to admit the thing is poorly thought out and overly ambitious.

    Why? What is so urgent that we have to rush into this half-assed thing that hard codes all sorts of stupid, unscientific and even downright idiotic limits which require super-majorities to fix?

    You can grow six plants but you're only allowed to possess one ounce! If that is not nonsense I don't know what is. Do you know anyone who is going to go to the trouble of growing but only grow 28 grams? OK, that's an ounce, turn off the lights! What, you'll trim each of your six plants to 1/6th oz? It positively invites disobedience. Did any of the people who wrote this monstrosity ever grow anything?
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2016
  12. Gunky

    Gunky Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,429
    Location:
    Northern California
  13. Magic9

    Magic9 Plant Enthusiast

    Messages:
    881
    Location:
    Middle of the Map
    "The legislature may by a 50% majority vote (1) reduce any penalties in the act, (2) add protections for employees of licensees, or (3) amend Section 5 (Medical Use) or Section 6 (Regulation and Safety) consistent with the purposes of the act. A 2/3 vote is required for other amendments."

    If you like the current system and expect it to stay that way, then don't. Just let me know when CA will get rid of prohibition because it is good for the movement as a whole.

    Except that it is not true. You are allowed to keep all that you harvest from those six plants. The 1 oz. limit is for outside your house. It addresses trafficking concerns. If you harvest multiple pounds from the 6 plants, you keep it. Legally.

    "All plants and harvested marijuana in excess of one ounce must be (1) kept with the person’s private residence or on its grounds, (2) in a locked apace, and (3) not visible from a public place. (11362.2). Cities and counties may regulate and prohibit cultivation outdoors, but cannot completely prohibit cultivation inside a private residence or accessory structure that is “fully enclosed and secure.” (11362.2(b))"

    -

    I agree that the single page MCLR is the better bill. I also doubt it can pass. Legalization without regulation will never happen. We've been waiting a long time.
     
  14. Gunky

    Gunky Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,429
    Location:
    Northern California
    The limits, such as 1 ounce, appear in section 4. Therefore a 2/3 super-majority is required to change them. What you end up with is it would take another initiative to change the fundamental terms of this one.
    The thing is you can have more than 1 ounce locked in a safe in your house, but you can't take it across town with you when you move. You have to transport it one ounce at a time, otherwise you can be prosecuted and imprisoned. I don't call that legalization. I call it another form of decriminalization of tiny amounts. The fine goes from $100 to zero for less than 1 ounce. Am I the only one who thinks it is stupid to say you can only have 1 ounce, but ok we'll let you have more if you secretly grow it yourself and never take it out of your house? Come on, this is mickey mouse stuff which people will start disobeying the moment it goes into effect. Where is the fairness: a guy with a medical card can grow 12 plants but everybody else can grow 6? Why? Truth is the whole plant number limit is unscientific and doesn't work as a way to control amounts grown. I can't understand why we would be thinking so small in California in this day and age.

    The measure claims kids can easily obtain black market weed now, so this is necessary to eliminate the black market. But how could it, with 68% total tax on flowers? Far from eliminating the black market, this measure might well stimulate it. Most adults who know what's going on will bypass it by getting a medical card and there will be plenty who will resell medical at prices below recreational. This whole approach is a classic mistake.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2016
    thisperson, Amoreena and CarolKing like this.
  15. Magic9

    Magic9 Plant Enthusiast

    Messages:
    881
    Location:
    Middle of the Map
    How much can they transport currently?

    It removes the $100 fine. It allows rec. users to grow (currently a felony), it allows people to purchase cannabis from a retail outlet without needing a doctors recommendation, and it removes the possible one year sentence for concentrates. All while leaving the current medical part intact.

    Call it what you want. Removal of any criminal charges related to cannabis is a step in the right direction.

    If you can convince the opposition that people should be allowed to transport unlimited quantities, I'd fully support your efforts.
     
    CarolKing likes this.
  16. CarolKing

    CarolKing Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur

    The powers that be told us that we didn't need to worry about medical cannabis when the people of the state of WA voted for legal cannabis. Medical would be kept separate. Before we knew it the state legislature voted to roll medical cannabis with the new legal.

    They have ruined medical cannabis in the state of WA. We will have to buy the legal cannabis that is being grown with all kinds of pesticides. My organic medical dispensary will be forced to close in July 2016. The medical patients tried to get the legislature to keep things separate like we were promised but they wouldn't listen.

    Medical patients will be paying 37% tax if you have a medical certificate and put on a registry. Everyone else will be paying 47% tax. Medical patients will be able to grow 6 plants, the doctor can allow 15 if he or she gives permission.

    Legal cannabis was the worst thing to happen to the medical. I am so upset with our lawmakers. The recreational stores lobbied the legislature with large amounts of money to stop medical cannabis. I agree vote no on legal cannabis.

    Telling folks that they can only have a certain amount of something that's legal is stupid. In WA you can only have an ounce of cannabis. They will allow a medical patient to have 3 ounces. Learn from my states problems and mistakes so you don't repeat them.

    You want a good bill that the legislature can't screw with.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2016
  17. Gunky

    Gunky Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,429
    Location:
    Northern California
    The rules are somewhat vague for medical currently but basically there is no constraint on transporting cannabis you legally possess, as long as it's in the trunk of a car for ex. and you have your documents or have some way of being checked as valid by cops.

    You said "Removal of any criminal charges related to cannabis is a step in the right direction." The problem is it doesn't remove all criminal charges related to cannabis. It removes charges for one ounce or less but still criminalizes all sorts of other infractions involving an ounce or less like serving alcohol with cannabis in some situations (insane!), vaporizing in a public park, etc.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2016
    CarolKing likes this.
  18. Magic9

    Magic9 Plant Enthusiast

    Messages:
    881
    Location:
    Middle of the Map
    The worst thing that is going to happen to medical is when Sativex gets FDA approval. I predict the push back on medical cannabis to be swift and severe.

    As the medical side stays the same, I was only referring to the transport of recreational cannabis.

    I would like to see all criminal charges removed for cannabis. I also know that that is very unlikely to happen anywhere. AUMA doesn't just remove charges for under an ounce, it also removes charges for recreational growing of up to 6 plants (current mandatory felony), it removes criminal charges for up to 8 grams of concentrates (up to a year incarceration), it removes criminal penalty for recreational users that have over 1 oz in their house (currently misdemeanor), it allows up to one oz. to be transported (current law allows none), possession for sale is reclassified as a misdemeanor (currently a mandatory felony), it also addresses people that have been previously convicted of anything that would be legal under AUMA to expunge their record.

    I like AUMA. Not only for CA, but as a national legalization vehicle. It's not full legalization, but as of yet, full legalization doesn't exist anywhere in the US. We have to make incremental progress. Legalization won't happen without compromise.[/quote][/quote]
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2016
    CarolKing likes this.
  19. CarolKing

    CarolKing Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur

    I know, I changed my mind. The more I thought about it and reread the information I had second thoughts.

    It doesn't sound like that they gave this bill enough thought. You need to make sure they aren't going to stick a huge tax on your cannabis. You need to make sure big commercial growers don't get involved they will ruin your product. Big business with a lousy product.

    Small growers that have been providing cannabis for years to their customers could get squeezed out of the market.

    The state could pick and choose who they give a lisence to grow.

    All the dispensaries that the medical patience have been using are closing down in July here in WA.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2016
    j-bug, Gunky and Magic9 like this.
  20. Magic9

    Magic9 Plant Enthusiast

    Messages:
    881
    Location:
    Middle of the Map
    They've addressed some of those concerns. Even added some protections for small business. The licenses are also different for med. vs. rec.

    With or without AUMA, regulation is coming to CA by the way of MMRSA.
     
  21. Gunky

    Gunky Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,429
    Location:
    Northern California
    I view the AUMA as a step backwards from where we are now. It is not a good model for national implementation either. It's a shitty compromise which still regards the plant as a kind of pariah, taxes the shit out it, and regulates and licenses it to death (with 62 pages of byzantine regulations which few voters will read), and which may have severe consequences for many small growers.
     
    thisperson and Magic9 like this.
  22. Magic9

    Magic9 Plant Enthusiast

    Messages:
    881
    Location:
    Middle of the Map
    Good points (I stand by my support of AUMA at a federal level until something both better and "passable" comes along though). I'm wondering what new regulations/licenses are in AUMA that aren't in MMRSA?

    While I'm not liking what I'm reading about MMRSA, it's already a done deal at this point right?
     
  23. Gunky

    Gunky Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,429
    Location:
    Northern California
    I am hoping a legalization initiative might short circuit or simplify some of the over-regulation/licensing I see in MMRSA. The new rules are still coming online and we still taking stock of the new system.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2016
    Magic9 likes this.
  24. CarolKing

    CarolKing Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur

    Originally I was thinking selfish, how nice it would be to get cannabis while on vacation. We have an RV and plan on vacationing in CA a month in the winter eventually.

    You guys need a law that works for everybody. Who ever put this together has had plenty of time to get it right. They need to please the Feds as well maybe that's why the limits are there.
     
  25. Amoreena

    Amoreena Grown up Flower Child

    Messages:
    538
    Location:
    So. California
    :disgust: That looks awful. Just the thought of such a change scares me. Hopefully the image will help folks to vote in the best way possible.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2016

Support FC, visit our trusted friends and sponsors