lwien
Well-Known Member
When ya are ready, please post up, k?
What do Californians (and the rest) think of AUMA?
- Thread starter Magic9
- Start date
When ya are ready, please post up, k?
Gunky
Well-Known Member
Yeah. And so much depends on exactly when the plants are harvested. Same strain can yield very lemony green sativa-ish stuff picked a little earlier or very purple grapey more indica feeling stuff later on. If the temps go very far over 80F some terpenes get lost. It is very difficult to make strains breed true because you need a few generations to achieve it and plant limits make it stupid difficult to pursue that.
archangelz001
FIRE!!
So are you having trouble pursuing your hobby or your hoped way of making a living because of plant limits coming up for recreational users if 64 passes? Or with the limits for individual patients of 100 sq ft in the MCRSA regulations? Are you "legal" relative to any regulations or licensing requirements in the locale or area you currently grow and breed? Or do you already grow and breed for any existing collective(s)? Inquiring minds....
looney2nz
Research Geek, Mad Scientist
Gunky
Well-Known Member
You are trying to make this about me. It's not. I'm old and retired and live in a weed oasis, one of the most liberal jurisdictions for cannabis in the country. My brother lives in CO and he was surprised and envious to discover that we are all allowed to possess two pounds here. And if you happen to have 3 or 4 pounds, well that is still mandated as the lowest priority for police! They'll get somebody for littering first. None of what I do is threatened by the measure. So your attempts to chalk my argument up to self-interest are just plain wrong.
I wish I knew how to communicate to you how this measure changes the entire playing field for cannabis growing in California and in one fell swoop disenfranchises and dispossesses a class of folks who have done a fine job for us over the years and don't deserve to be sacrificed on the altar of convenience and 'legalized' bragging rights, replacing them with a nascent 'big cannabis'. Because the main impact of this measure is not to make cannabis available in CA. It already is. I don't hear anyone complaining about not being able to get it or being put in jail for possession. In fact there is no longer anyone in prison in CA for simple possession of small amounts! Jerry Brown mentioned this recently. The purpose of this proposition is to establish a framework for large-scale canna businesses and to steer the direction of the industry as a whole in CA, tilting the field to the advantage of the big guys in the process. The rest of it is window dressing.
This does not make cannabis legal or available; it changes who gets to produce it, phasing out the existing mom and pop small growers and replacing them with big canna. I predict that many small guys making on the order of 5-15K per year now with this crop will look at license fees, testing fees and taxes and decide fuck all that and go black market. Yippee, legalization. (twirls index finger in air)
Last edited:
archangelz001
FIRE!!
I'm glad to hear my assumptions were wrong, but you got pretty emotional in your use of adjectives to describe those of us who have a different take on things, so I figured you had to have a horse in the race somehow. Maybe you are just an advocate for social justice for small growers and I respect that perspective. We also need to respect the social justice issues facing people of color in America who get arrested at a rate that is 4 times higher than for whites, and the over 700,000 people who get arrested every year in the US, most for simple possession. Not to mention all the dispensaries, collectives, etc. who have been harrassed and busted by the DEA and SWAT teams over the past 20 years since Prop 215 passed. I'm currently a patient and a volunteer working with Valerie Corral at WAMM in Santa Cruz to enhance the patient database so that Quality of Life Measures can be tracked along with patient's response to doses and strains for particular physical problems and illnesses. So I'm not just a mere consumer. I believe in the medicinal and wellness properties of the plant and that it should be available to widest number of people as possible without threat of law enforcement intervening. Prop 64 isn't perfect but it addresses many problems, and may cause new ones - it remains to be seen - I don't have a crystal ball but you seem to think yours can see how it will all unfold.
I live on the SF Peninsula. I'm active in ASA, and ACNA. I'm a retired RN who has advanced prostate cancer for which I have done a FECO 4-month trial in the recent past and will likely be doing a longer period of treatment next year. So my horse in the race is I want affordable and tested safe medical cannabis availability as a priority, and the same for adult use..
I know of no locale where anyone can be in public possession of 2, let alone 3 or 4 pounds of cannabis in Calif. The chart here of allowable limits: http://www.summitdefense.com/california-marijuana-possession-amount doesn't support that so I'm curious to know (just approximately) where you live.
You claim that Prop 64 changes the playing field - but that isn't the measure. It's MCRSA which 64 mimics in it's approach to licensing and regulation that does so. That's why a cottage industry license was added this year by the legislature at the prompting of the California Growers Alliance. Whether 64 passes or not, those changes go into effect Jan 2018.
You keep insisting that only "big cannabis" will survive legalization and there will be no place for boutique growers. I just disagree with that assessment and so do many, many, smart people who I've talked to who CARE about the issue. Not to mention all the small companies that can't wait for legalization so they can expand their business opportunities. Capitalism is the American Way. We live right in the middle of it. It's not going away. It is much more complicated legally, socially, even metaphysically and spiritually than just a play orchestrated by big cannabis to put small growers out of business and end medical cannabis. In a previous post you accused some of us (oh, but I'm sure not me) of Trumpian attitudes, but I'd say that your conspiracy theory of doom and gloom borders on that kind of thinking. You've got to try to see the glass is more than half-full and stop staring at the empty part. Compromise is an essential skill to living in the real world. Just try to see all the good that comes from legalization, not just for Californians, but for the whole country and for the world. Small part-time businesses will have to figure out how, if possible, they can scale up to be competitive. I'd consider 5-10k profit as part-time. You can make that much gross selling 2-5 pounds, or profit off 5-10 pounds. AND under MCRSA, without reference to Prop 64, you have to be legally selling to a collective or dispensary anyway. But if they are already selling in the black market they may have no intention of going legal anyway.
I take it you didn't read Swami's explanation for why he's voting for 64 here? http://www.swamiselect.com/
I live on the SF Peninsula. I'm active in ASA, and ACNA. I'm a retired RN who has advanced prostate cancer for which I have done a FECO 4-month trial in the recent past and will likely be doing a longer period of treatment next year. So my horse in the race is I want affordable and tested safe medical cannabis availability as a priority, and the same for adult use..
I know of no locale where anyone can be in public possession of 2, let alone 3 or 4 pounds of cannabis in Calif. The chart here of allowable limits: http://www.summitdefense.com/california-marijuana-possession-amount doesn't support that so I'm curious to know (just approximately) where you live.
You claim that Prop 64 changes the playing field - but that isn't the measure. It's MCRSA which 64 mimics in it's approach to licensing and regulation that does so. That's why a cottage industry license was added this year by the legislature at the prompting of the California Growers Alliance. Whether 64 passes or not, those changes go into effect Jan 2018.
You keep insisting that only "big cannabis" will survive legalization and there will be no place for boutique growers. I just disagree with that assessment and so do many, many, smart people who I've talked to who CARE about the issue. Not to mention all the small companies that can't wait for legalization so they can expand their business opportunities. Capitalism is the American Way. We live right in the middle of it. It's not going away. It is much more complicated legally, socially, even metaphysically and spiritually than just a play orchestrated by big cannabis to put small growers out of business and end medical cannabis. In a previous post you accused some of us (oh, but I'm sure not me) of Trumpian attitudes, but I'd say that your conspiracy theory of doom and gloom borders on that kind of thinking. You've got to try to see the glass is more than half-full and stop staring at the empty part. Compromise is an essential skill to living in the real world. Just try to see all the good that comes from legalization, not just for Californians, but for the whole country and for the world. Small part-time businesses will have to figure out how, if possible, they can scale up to be competitive. I'd consider 5-10k profit as part-time. You can make that much gross selling 2-5 pounds, or profit off 5-10 pounds. AND under MCRSA, without reference to Prop 64, you have to be legally selling to a collective or dispensary anyway. But if they are already selling in the black market they may have no intention of going legal anyway.
I take it you didn't read Swami's explanation for why he's voting for 64 here? http://www.swamiselect.com/
Gunky
Well-Known Member
I guess you have never been in this biz. The going wholesale rate is 1500-2200 per pound in the bay area for indoor. I know everyone thinks marihuaneros are all filthy rich from the easy profits, but with all the restrictions (99 plant absolute federal ceiling, local limits on plants, area, amounts, etc) it has to be kind of decentralized and small - this is about the size of growing. These are people who supplement their meager country income with 5-15 from their patch. I talked to a lady from the north a while back who was very pleased with herself for bringing in a profit of 7k in a year. Suppose you produce a pound a month. In most places that is getting close to the limits. 12 lbs a year wholesale does not a jet-setter make. Of course there are some big guys now, but they are unusual large collectives or illegal. Most of these people are using this alongside some other gig to reach lower middle class status. A lot of these places, like Humboldt county, are depressed areas that still haven't recovered from the recession. That's who you are throwing under a bus.
I read and like the swami's article and mostly agreed with him. He did not seem to realize the permanent nature of some of the limits and the clever ambiguities that fuck over medical.
Ask yourself: do I need this Prop 64 to get my meds? I am pretty sure the answer is no. You hope this passes more out of a generalized wish for 'legality' and normalization. So for you this is a nice-to-have. It is not essential and you won't suffer if it doesn't pass. For growers in Humboldt this will likely blow up a nice gig they have; they will suffer near immediate economic effects. Why are you in such a hurry that you are willing to casually sacrifice these people and airily dismiss their losses with "they'll figure out ways to be boutique producers" as you break their rice bowl, pull the industry out of their grasp and hand it over to Bud-weiser? Easy to say. Do you think you could wait till a better deal is struck that offered more fairness?
Last edited:
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
I hope she knows that you are a person that is willing to rat people out to the cops for only disagreeing with you politically. You are not to be trusted. Ever.
Last edited:
archangelz001
FIRE!!
@Gunky No, I'm not on the business side at all, at least not since I was buying Panama Red and Acapulco Gold by the kilo brick for $200 and selling it in $10 lids back in the 60's in my youth. I thought the numbers I presented were consistent with the wholesale price you suggested. It's been going down for the past 10-15 years. Gone are the days when they could get 5k per pound. Are you in the industry or were you?
The whole question is are they in the market legally now? Or do they intend to get legal per MCRSA? If not then 64 won't affect them and they'll keep on doing what they do. But if they are like Swami, who grows about 50 or 60 plants, they should want to escape the constant paranoia and come into the light. But I guess you must be talking about small indoor growers who do it as an avocation. When you figure out a way to get rid of the Costco and Walmart stores maybe you can create a world where only small growers live and prosper. Good luck with that pipe dream.
I'm not throwing anyone under the bus, stop with the personal accusations. But change is coming, there is too much money involved to keep out "big cannabis" forever, whoever that is. Steve de Angelo has purchased a large greenhouse in the Central Valley and is just waiting to unlock the door. Is that who you mean?
And where do you live and under what circumstances are you alllowed to posses 2-3-4 pounds in public?
The whole question is are they in the market legally now? Or do they intend to get legal per MCRSA? If not then 64 won't affect them and they'll keep on doing what they do. But if they are like Swami, who grows about 50 or 60 plants, they should want to escape the constant paranoia and come into the light. But I guess you must be talking about small indoor growers who do it as an avocation. When you figure out a way to get rid of the Costco and Walmart stores maybe you can create a world where only small growers live and prosper. Good luck with that pipe dream.
I'm not throwing anyone under the bus, stop with the personal accusations. But change is coming, there is too much money involved to keep out "big cannabis" forever, whoever that is. Steve de Angelo has purchased a large greenhouse in the Central Valley and is just waiting to unlock the door. Is that who you mean?
And where do you live and under what circumstances are you alllowed to posses 2-3-4 pounds in public?
Gunky
Well-Known Member
I am trying to be nice here. You should not ask people personal questions about their location. You should not ask people if they sell or sold. I believe that is against the rules. You keep trying to make this about me. Stop.
Gunky
Well-Known Member
So who did I rat out? And I don't know why saying a nameless somebody made 7k legally in a year is ratting them out. Even if I could remember her name and went to a police station and mentioned this matter they would undoubtedly respond with "And your point is?" And who says I disagree with her politically? Possibly you are really drunk? Your post violates FC rules.
Last edited:
Baron23
Well-Known Member
HI my friend...I think we understand that. But do you assert that this applies to clones as well, that being the point made in the video that I believe we were discussing?
Actually, I think we (me) are taking the thread a bit off topic here and should probably allow it to return to CA cannabis law discussion.
momofthegoons
vapor accessory addict
archangelz001
FIRE!!
Not trying to make this about you at all. I'm just trying to understand what you say. You said you can carry 2-3-4 pounds. I asked where in Calif is that legal??? I'm not asking for your address.
In any case have a nice weekend and think nice thoughts and know you are doing what you can to make the world a better place. I honor and respect that. Peace out...
Last edited:
Gunky
Well-Known Member
You've been here long enough to know that public discussion of moderator decisions are not permitted. Warning point issued.
What? Somebody comes out of nowhere and suddenly says
a completely absurd, unprovoked, not to mention false, personal attack against me and your response is to blame both of us? You have banned me from a thread and thrown me off the board for a few days for far less than this. Now you can't even figure out who is in the wrong here? Cheezit.
Last edited:
lwien
Well-Known Member
Off in the distance, as it approaches........is it a bird?........is it a plane?.......no......it's.....it's.......it's another warning !!!!!
archangelz001
FIRE!!
Just for the doubters, and the believers in Dragonfly de la Luz's total misunderstanding about Prop 64, you need to read what the lawyer who wrote Prop 215 has to say:
Prop 215 rights are not changed by Prop 64
By: William G. Panzer, Attorney at Law.August 31, 2016
http://theleafonline.com/c/politics/2016/08/prop-215-rights-not-affected-prop-64/
Prop 215 rights are not changed by Prop 64
By: William G. Panzer, Attorney at Law.August 31, 2016
http://theleafonline.com/c/politics/2016/08/prop-215-rights-not-affected-prop-64/
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Having read many statutes over time and have seen the courts' interpretations of them, I say again, NO ONE knows what is going to happen. The author's assurance there is no change in rights is...convenient...to his goals. That is not to say he is wrong. As I wrote when @KimDracula posted the link in this thread earlier:
Even the co-author of the proposition (the author of the article) cannot say with certainty the results of its passing. Many aspects are going to be in the courts for years. Making the claim no rights are changed is simply that, a claim. Everything in the proposition is going to be interpreted by those who put it into effect in a way they want. How it plays out depends on the money of those who want to profit from it, the feelings of the administrators in enforcing it and the judges who interpret it. Most of them have far different goals from us.
KimDracula
Well-Known Member
This is, of course, true, but it doesn't mean there is an equivalency between the sources. De la Luz isn't very credible while William Panzer was one of the architects of the MMJ law here in CA that some people claim to be so worried about and so makes it unlikely that he would collaborate on something nefarious that is intended to subvert his previous work. It's not like everyone is just guessing about what is going to happen. There are educated predictions and then there is baseless paranoia on the "No on 64" side.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
The fact he cannot predict where the law will go does not mean he collaborated on something nefarious. And, I say again, everyone IS just guessing about what will happen. Just like for each proposition. Even in the article claiming to know, you didn't find a LOT of legal argument and qualifiers there? It seems to want to focus solely on the 215 "rights" and the the overall scheme. We know he believes (Which seems to discount any "paranoia" claim.) "It will certainly have significant impact on the commercial cannabis industry in California."
Those are the only protections afforded by Prop. 215. The CUA does not allow for collectives, co-operatives, sales or commercial cultivation. All of those activities are governed by SB420, the MMPA, and will soon be governed by MCRSA, the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, once it is fully implemented (anticipated by January, 2018), which requires state and local licenses for all state collectives.
Then, we have the conclusion in one part:
While this section of the B&P Code may have a negative impact on medical cannabis recommendation mills from the physician’s standpoint, it does not impede on the basic CUA rights outlined above.
In other words, our "rights" won't change, just how they are interpreted.
Further on:
Such an argument, however, is not supported by the language of Prop.64 which also adds §11362.45 to the Health & Safety Code.
They just made it up to not have legal weed? What was the actual argument?
Look, I voted for the proposition and think this thread's "anti" representative does not really understand his side's arguments. At the very least, the law is not really going to change for those doing what he describes they are doing now. It seems he just doesn't want those acts to be illegal ALSO under the proposition. But, to worry about how the law will actually change things is hardly paranoid.
KimDracula
Well-Known Member
@OldNewbie : I'm not arguing with you, really. I was only adding my perspective to your points.
I agree that people are offering guesses of a sort but wanted to differentiate between a source like de la Luz and one like Panzer. There is a similar difference between your realistic concerns and what I consider to be paranoia from others 'round here with whom I have had arguments.
My goal was to point out that lack of equivalency between the two sides; not to advocate just as blindly as they are opposing. I think we're on the same page.
EDIT: My reference to Panzer and the fact that he was an architect of 215 was to this point: many pushing what I consider to be paranoid arguments contend that Prop 64, although ostensibly a legalization proposal, is actually a nefarious plot to undermine MMJ in CA.
I agree that people are offering guesses of a sort but wanted to differentiate between a source like de la Luz and one like Panzer. There is a similar difference between your realistic concerns and what I consider to be paranoia from others 'round here with whom I have had arguments.
My goal was to point out that lack of equivalency between the two sides; not to advocate just as blindly as they are opposing. I think we're on the same page.
EDIT: My reference to Panzer and the fact that he was an architect of 215 was to this point: many pushing what I consider to be paranoid arguments contend that Prop 64, although ostensibly a legalization proposal, is actually a nefarious plot to undermine MMJ in CA.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Remember this one, with the cops eating pot-laced edibles on a hidden camera?
Santa Ana to pay marijuana dispensary $100,000 after video appears to back police harassment claims
The city of Santa Ana will pay $100,000 to settle a lawsuit alleging police harassment during a raid on a marijuana dispensary. The city will also drop misdemeanor charges against a dozen people accused of unlawfully operating Sky High Holistic, the Orange County Register reported Wednesday.
Santa Ana to pay marijuana dispensary $100,000 after video appears to back police harassment claims
The city of Santa Ana will pay $100,000 to settle a lawsuit alleging police harassment during a raid on a marijuana dispensary. The city will also drop misdemeanor charges against a dozen people accused of unlawfully operating Sky High Holistic, the Orange County Register reported Wednesday.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Anyone who saw the video(s) knew this was going to be a loser for the city with the measure of damages being the main litigation. The clever thing the attorney did was to include accusations against the mayor that would be investigated in discovery. I guarantee that was worth tens of thousands in the settlement from a council who would rather just let their very expensive sleeping dogs lie.
archangelz001
FIRE!!
Somehow I missed KimDracula's post. Didn't mean to double-post the link...