What do Californians (and the rest) think of AUMA?
- Thread starter Magic9
- Start date
Yeah I've noticed prices going up. I'm presently debating purchasing more storage just to be able to stock up on more before the increase. Most of the edibles I prefer I don't like to store for too long but I think I may need to look into other edible options for increased storage capacity if I can figure out a reasonably low cost(by my budgetary standards) solution for storage of more of well basically all cannabis products that I regularly use. I'm not pleased with how things are and hope I'm able to move into a place where I'll be able to grow before much longer as I've been wanting to grow for a while and if the prices here go up too much I'm not going to be able to continue to afford medicine, I guess there will have to be sacrifices, I wish microdosing was something that was effective for my particular needs. Perhaps I will experiment with that again. Though I suppose by my sister's standards I microdose based on how slowly I go through weed. She's probably going to buy a vape if auma passes if only because of the money she'll save. I suppose that's one bright side, if auma passes perhaps more of the people who combust will fuck combustion. Silver linings on all of the clouds if we look hard enough or are medicating properly I guess. Perhaps with recreational we may be able to reduce taxes on on medical as currently medical is taxed in some cities which is imo absurd. I don't pay taxes when I was prescribed any other medicine, and insurance helps cover the tab. At least with increased legalization perhaps someday I'll pay a reasonably affordable prescription copay per 30 day supply per method of administration. Maybe grow all my own flower and have a $30 copay per month of lab tested concentrates that'll be the day.
KimDracula
Well-Known Member
Prices are the same where I am.
Even with taxes, a move toward legalization should ultimately lead to lower prices in most places.
Proliferation and legitimization will give us real competition which gives consumers a chance to experience what the actual dollar value of cannabis should be.
This fear runs a bit counter to the fear of corporate weed, btw. Large-scale grows moving large quantities in a legal environment could provide quality cannabis at a more affordable price.
Change sometimes leads to some temporary pain for the greater good. It's often scary for people to want to change a system that is familiar to them even if that system isn't really the one they want. This change can be even scarier when the proposed changes aren't exactly what we want, either. It's always going to be a cost-benefit analysis, but there is more to think about than temporary regional fluctuations in price. It's also always possible that the status-quo changes without the decisions being ours to make. It could be a mistake to assume the status-quo one is comfortable with can continue indefinitely. It may be that the politics of the day dictates that these things are bound to be over-taxed and over-regulated at first and we need to take intermediate steps to the system we ultimately want.
Even with taxes, a move toward legalization should ultimately lead to lower prices in most places.
Proliferation and legitimization will give us real competition which gives consumers a chance to experience what the actual dollar value of cannabis should be.
This fear runs a bit counter to the fear of corporate weed, btw. Large-scale grows moving large quantities in a legal environment could provide quality cannabis at a more affordable price.
Change sometimes leads to some temporary pain for the greater good. It's often scary for people to want to change a system that is familiar to them even if that system isn't really the one they want. This change can be even scarier when the proposed changes aren't exactly what we want, either. It's always going to be a cost-benefit analysis, but there is more to think about than temporary regional fluctuations in price. It's also always possible that the status-quo changes without the decisions being ours to make. It could be a mistake to assume the status-quo one is comfortable with can continue indefinitely. It may be that the politics of the day dictates that these things are bound to be over-taxed and over-regulated at first and we need to take intermediate steps to the system we ultimately want.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
With taxes and regulations comes higher prices. It sounds like average for medical is around $14 a gram already. How high would depend how high of tax the lawmakers decide upon. There are city taxes too.
Just make sure that you have a voice in the decision making. What's worse is, for the citizen to be lied to by those that they are suppose to trust. That erodes the trust the people have with their state. Our state decided to combine the medical with the recreational no matter how hard the patients fought.
The recreational owners had highly paid lobyist that had some lawmakers in their back pockets. Ann Rivers was the main instigator to close down medical dispensaries. We have no medical system in our state.
What about those that choose to grow? Will the state eventually decide to stop that because it's interfering with the state's revenue? Things change over time, depending how hard up the state is for money.
Edit
I'm not trying to rain on anybody's parade. It seems like you have a very good medical system in your state. It includes most conditions. I personally voted for legal cannabis. I regret my vote now. Most medical patients feel as I do.
We lost many medical cannabis farmers markets throughout the state, with prices cheaper than the dispensaries.
Just make sure that you have a voice in the decision making. What's worse is, for the citizen to be lied to by those that they are suppose to trust. That erodes the trust the people have with their state. Our state decided to combine the medical with the recreational no matter how hard the patients fought.
The recreational owners had highly paid lobyist that had some lawmakers in their back pockets. Ann Rivers was the main instigator to close down medical dispensaries. We have no medical system in our state.
What about those that choose to grow? Will the state eventually decide to stop that because it's interfering with the state's revenue? Things change over time, depending how hard up the state is for money.
Edit
I'm not trying to rain on anybody's parade. It seems like you have a very good medical system in your state. It includes most conditions. I personally voted for legal cannabis. I regret my vote now. Most medical patients feel as I do.
We lost many medical cannabis farmers markets throughout the state, with prices cheaper than the dispensaries.
Last edited:
KimDracula
Well-Known Member
I understand what you're saying about taxes, but the rest of that seems vague and hypothetical, even paranoid. With respect, you could say those things no matter how good the legalization measure. Lies and mismanagement are always a risk, but not one that is unique to legalization. Evil moves by government leaders could damage the cannabis community in CA even if we don't legalize.
If you look at what has happened in other states I think you'll find that for budget friendly concentrates and edibles prices in most areas have gone up considerably. With the way the proposition is written(poorly) I can't imagine prices being what they are like now. I think until we reach the eventual point when insurance is paying for our meds for a lot of us is going to be the next best thing to what we have now. That'll be much better for some and worse for others and will likely carry the headache of dealing with insurance and getting pre-approval or some other nonsense. Though when insurance companies are paying top dollar and patients are getting that I'm betting we'll see a quality hit and some people are gonna be making loads and others will lose their primary income. I don't like solutions that will probably screw small businesses and mom&pop kinda shops. I know for many the current system is close to ideal, it's not for me as I'd like a little more piece of mind from lab tested extracts, but when you can occasionally score grams at local places on sale for as low as $15 for quality stuff and more reliably on sale for around 20-25 (sometimes even lab tested) but right now the cheapest I see for lab tested is beyond what makes sense for me already. Perhaps with regulation that will become more affordable and I'll use more lab tested concentrates and less edibles. But I still want to have compassion and consideration for patients for whom medicating with edibles is the only way they can. I know for me it is more convenient to use edibles at work, so I don't have to hide in my car or the restroom to have a vape break, but with relative pricing of different meds changing I may have to go back to medicating in hiding. I wish the pill/capsule edibles were more affordable, maybe they will become a relatively better value in the future or if candies end up banned like in Washington, eating candy may be fun after lunch but taking "vitamins" on my lunch break would be much simpler perhaps. Would also seem more medical I think, which suits me.
syrupy
Authorized Buyer
I predict prices will be about the same. Gains in efficiency will be offset by increased taxes. Desire to pass on higher costs to the recreational consumer will be balanced by more competition. In my town flower prices have been the same for about 5 years now (concentrates are still largely overpriced). If prices get too low, the black market moves is. If prices go too high, people go back to the black market.
California may become a marijuana ‘epicenter,’ with pot a $6.5 billion market
If Californians legalize marijuana under Proposition 64 in November, legal cannabis sales in the state likely will climb by $1.6 billion within the first year of implementation, according to a report released Tuesday.
That would put the state’s medical and recreational market on track to hit $6.5 billion in revenue by 2020 — up from $2.8 billion in 2015, industry research firms Arcview Group and New Frontier state in the report. And the researchers argue it would serve as a “watershed moment” for the industry in and outside the United States.
If Californians legalize marijuana under Proposition 64 in November, legal cannabis sales in the state likely will climb by $1.6 billion within the first year of implementation, according to a report released Tuesday.
That would put the state’s medical and recreational market on track to hit $6.5 billion in revenue by 2020 — up from $2.8 billion in 2015, industry research firms Arcview Group and New Frontier state in the report. And the researchers argue it would serve as a “watershed moment” for the industry in and outside the United States.
turk
turk
...the people opposing the initiative, could just as easily be on another list, titled ..."biggest assholes"...so there's that reason for voting for it...
...not expecting any lower prices ...(when does that...happen in america)...may take away a tool that the cops have for shooting some black guy...but...I'm sure they'll come up with another..anyways ...I'm in.
...not expecting any lower prices ...(when does that...happen in america)...may take away a tool that the cops have for shooting some black guy...but...I'm sure they'll come up with another..anyways ...I'm in.
4 Reasons California's Marijuana Growers Surprisingly Oppose Prop 64
Prop 64 is getting opposition from what can only be described as the unlikeliest of sources: cannabis growers within the state. A recent poll from the California Growers Association of 750 cannabis farmers found that just 31% supported prop 64, with another 31% opposing it and a whopping 38% undecided.
Prop 64 is getting opposition from what can only be described as the unlikeliest of sources: cannabis growers within the state. A recent poll from the California Growers Association of 750 cannabis farmers found that just 31% supported prop 64, with another 31% opposing it and a whopping 38% undecided.
KimDracula
Well-Known Member
There are a lot of people with bad information on 64 and I suspect they are getting it from some of these people who are worried that their profits will take a hit once the medical market has to compete with the rec market in CA.
Gunky
Well-Known Member
Still voting against it. When a measure creates limits which are immediately a problem and locks them in with a provision making a huge majority in the state legislature necessary to change these limits (in other words another referendum is required to fix a measure that is clearly already broken), it is quite simply a lousy measure. Anyone who is in favor of this measure should ask themselves: how will this help me? How will this help other California consumers of cannabis? The absurdity of this measure is: it is difficult to come up with a satisfactory answer to either of those questions. The measure helps corporate cannabis. It does little or nothing for consumers. Anyone who wants cannabis now can do so with less hassle, cheaper, and with a nice doctor visit thrown in for good measure. I'm not voting for something that locks in a stupid, poorly thought out bureaucracy and complex arrangement of multi-layered taxation, hard-codes dumbass limits that screw small growers, keeps sending people to prison for marijuana, etc etc. Beware of people who urge you to sell your birthright cheap because "it's better than nothing".
Last edited:
KimDracula
Well-Known Member
Penalties are reduced, limits are increased, corporate grows have to wait giving existing operations a head start (small grows are all that's allowed for years).
Sure it's unfortunate that we have to have any personal limits but do we think it's at all politically feasible to legalize without them? Furthermore, if you oppose limits shouldn't you then support expanding them? If you oppose sending people to prison for cannabis then shouldn't you support reducing penalties?
The medical market is less hassle than a legal one? Small growers are screwed how?
The medical market is cheaper? Should MMJ really be as expensive as it is in CA? I think it is far more likely that prices fall in the years following legalization. It seems to be much cheaper in legal states even with taxes. If your objection to Prop 64 is about the addition of a significant tax then at least I understand that. I don't get all the rest of the vague but scary rhetoric.
This is better than "better than nothing." It improves everything unless you believe the conspiracy theories about killing MMJ or somehow tricking us into breaking the law so the cops can arrest us even more. We're not gambling anything here, or selling our birthright. We're simply trying to make progress.
Here are some things Prop 64 adds for medical users (Panzer, the author, is quite well-qualified):
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.64 adds §11362.713. This section provides for privacy rights of patients, insuring that any patient information from the voluntary Identification Card Program established by MMPA, is officially deemed “medical information” within the meaning of California’s “Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,” similar to the federal HIPPA.
Prop.64 then amends §11362.755 of the MMPA, which establishes the voluntary state identification card. It limits the fee a county can charge to $100. It further establishes a complete waiver of the fee for indigent patients.
In the next section, §11362.84, AUMA/Prop.64 imbues patients with a new protection, providing that: “The status and conduct of a qualified patient who acts in accordance with the Compassionate Use Act shall not, by itself, be used to restrict or abridge custodial or parental rights to minor children in any action or proceeding under the jurisdiction of family or juvenile court.”
Lastly, in §11362.85, AUMA/Prop.64 provides that if the federal government reclassifies or declassifies cannabis, the Legislature may similarly reclassify or declassify cannabis to conform with federal law.
In summary, Prop.64 will have no impact on patient rights under Prop.215 but it will grant new protections to medical cannabis users who find themselves in family or juvenile court.
Sure it's unfortunate that we have to have any personal limits but do we think it's at all politically feasible to legalize without them? Furthermore, if you oppose limits shouldn't you then support expanding them? If you oppose sending people to prison for cannabis then shouldn't you support reducing penalties?
The medical market is less hassle than a legal one? Small growers are screwed how?
The medical market is cheaper? Should MMJ really be as expensive as it is in CA? I think it is far more likely that prices fall in the years following legalization. It seems to be much cheaper in legal states even with taxes. If your objection to Prop 64 is about the addition of a significant tax then at least I understand that. I don't get all the rest of the vague but scary rhetoric.
This is better than "better than nothing." It improves everything unless you believe the conspiracy theories about killing MMJ or somehow tricking us into breaking the law so the cops can arrest us even more. We're not gambling anything here, or selling our birthright. We're simply trying to make progress.
Here are some things Prop 64 adds for medical users (Panzer, the author, is quite well-qualified):
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.64 adds §11362.713. This section provides for privacy rights of patients, insuring that any patient information from the voluntary Identification Card Program established by MMPA, is officially deemed “medical information” within the meaning of California’s “Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,” similar to the federal HIPPA.
Prop.64 then amends §11362.755 of the MMPA, which establishes the voluntary state identification card. It limits the fee a county can charge to $100. It further establishes a complete waiver of the fee for indigent patients.
In the next section, §11362.84, AUMA/Prop.64 imbues patients with a new protection, providing that: “The status and conduct of a qualified patient who acts in accordance with the Compassionate Use Act shall not, by itself, be used to restrict or abridge custodial or parental rights to minor children in any action or proceeding under the jurisdiction of family or juvenile court.”
Lastly, in §11362.85, AUMA/Prop.64 provides that if the federal government reclassifies or declassifies cannabis, the Legislature may similarly reclassify or declassify cannabis to conform with federal law.
In summary, Prop.64 will have no impact on patient rights under Prop.215 but it will grant new protections to medical cannabis users who find themselves in family or juvenile court.
Gunky
Well-Known Member
Please read the blog linked by T-bug: https://voteknowprop64.blogspot.com/p/ithought-for-decades-that-legalization.html?m=1
I am not going to address each of your points till you read the link. It's important. I have mentioned earlier that having a breeding program with a 6 plant limit is absurd. This essentially outlaws small growers from developing strains and varieties and reserves that right for big canna. Wake up, this is a shitty measure. It's not even so-so. It's loaded with poison pills, devious, deceptive language, and dastardly ambiguities.
In summary, this measure won't improve access; it makes medical more expensive right off the bat and then charges higher taxes long term. It constrains small growers into irrelevance and privileges mammoth growers. It's full of mickey mouse, contradictory provisions like you can grow six plants but can't possess more than an ounce; but should those six plants happen to grow into more than an ounce (duh!) you can't possess it, transport it or let anyone else see it, etc.
Last edited:
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Even the co-author of the proposition (the author of the article) cannot say with certainty the results of its passing. Many aspect 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.
I'm voting yes. I suspect any changes to the law that is negative really won't affect me to any serious degree. But, unless it is the tipping point to legalization in the country, I am uncertain as to if the regulatory regime will be any better.
I'm voting yes. I suspect any changes to the law that is negative really won't affect me to any serious degree. But, unless it is the tipping point to legalization in the country, I am uncertain as to if the regulatory regime will be any better.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
I don't live in CA so I don't have a dog in this fight.....except as OldNewbie alluded. I hope this measure passes as then the entire west coast of the country will be rec legal and this will place enormous pressure on the Feds to adjust their stance (and fire Rosenberg....PLEASE, somebody fire Rosenberg! LOL).
KimDracula
Well-Known Member
Fine. Don't address any of it. The only reason I bother with this is so that others can see that there is a more reasonable analysis of the situation. I'm not trying to convince you or J-bug.
I read that paranoid screed the first time J-bug posted it. It seemed dodgy to me so I went and found an article by Bill Panzer who is not only an expert attorney in the field but also one of the writers of 215. Anyone interested can compare the two and judge for themselves which seems more credible.
Gunky
Well-Known Member
In other words, you are going to keep regurgitating spin from someone who participated in writing the measure and dismiss and refuse to consider other viewpoints. If you would actually read the blog you might be surprised. Numerous posts from you strongly indicate you haven't read it. It cites chapter and verse from the proposed law. The articles you cited give bland assurances, gloss over critical blunders in the language which mean medical is subject to the same limits as recreational, etc
Last edited:
KimDracula
Well-Known Member
Just because I don't agree with that blog doesn't mean I didn't read it. You're being just as condescending and rude as J-bug was.
You and J-bug both ignore what I've put forth while you both continue to cross-apply that blog to every argument as though it is the gospel truth. You're pretending this blog is so credible as opposed to my "spin" from a known and qualified author who participated in designing the MMJ system that many on your side claim to be so worried about. I'm the one who is somehow being dismissive by having a different opinion, as well, it appears.
Gunky
Well-Known Member
The blog cites chapter and verse. You keep saying it's paranoia but you refuse to examine the details. Now you are resorting to ad hominem attacks. I just want you to look at the details quoted from the proposed law by the blog. They are very troubling. It's actually a terrible law. Don't be fooled by corporate blandishments or because you badly want the west coast to go green.
KimDracula
Well-Known Member
Pointing out that it's rude to claim I haven't read something when I say I have isn't an ad hominem attack. I'm through with this discussion because of this constant cloying condescension from you and J-bug. Continue to advertise your vaunted blog without interference from me, please.
Gunky
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, but if you had read and understood the details, you wouldn't be saying the things you say. If observing that is impolite, so be it. And here you go again, refusing to look at the details. You are squinting your eyes until everything is rosy and out of focus. Legal marijuana! (never mind the details).
The lawyer who wrote the bill might have a vested interest in it passing and is not exactly anything close to an unbiased or even reliable source. The lawyer who wrote the bill wants it to pass obviously and is going to say and do whatever to work on that. Someone who's been active in the cannabis community and doesn't have a financial stake other than as a patient seems like a much more reliable source than the guy who (co-)wrote the bill.