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

[Gunky]

the doctor writing the rec is allowed to note a higher than 'normal' limit.

Yeah and I've paid extra to get a notation like that on my doctor's recommendation but I have heard that it's a scam and has little force in law.

The 99 plant limit that often gets bandied about in recent years was really a federal thing: they wouldn't bother any grows under 100 plants and this is the line that most dispensaries/collectives hew to (because otherwise they risk a federal raid).

 

[thisperson]

First of all, if you are a recreational user you can’t legally grow diddlysquat.

SB420 says:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/sen/sb_0401-0450/sb_420_bill_20031012_chaptered.html

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.

(b) If a qualified patient or primary caregiver has a doctor’s

recommendation that this quantity does not meet the qualified patient’s medical needs, the qualified patient or primary caregiver may

possess an amount of marijuana consistent with the patient’s needs.​

​

First of all, all recreational users who are currently not above the law in california just have to go see a doctor for any of the ailments that marijuana can help with. Considering that list is long as fuck...yeah. The bill was pretty much blanket coverage for the population or at least for those who were willing to pay for a licence.

Who doesn't have an ache?

I have chronic back pain from an accident.

Try this, cite the israeli study showing it reduces tumor growth/kills cancer cells and say you are taking it pre-emptively to ward off cancer. You don't exactly have to stretch the truth if it really is medicine.

The language of Prop 64 is such that it's saying there wouldn't be any expanded growing limits by the doctor allowed. At least that's what I understood from the blog @Gunky provided.

All you're saying in that long text of laws, is that because the recreational user doesn't want to jump through a hoop to be safe, we've all got to give up expanded growing limits.

I read both those articles linked. The criticism and the defense by Chris Conrad. I still fear we'll get rid of our medical limits to funnel everyone into taxed-recreational-weed.

 

[CarolKing]

I don't live in CA. I was reading through the rules and I'm confused probably like a lot of other people. I had read a 10 by 10 foot grow area for medical patients that would be 100 sq ft. The 99 plant awesome rule is out unfortunately. I had also heard of at plant number of six was that for everyone even recreational users? Then there was a slightly higher plant umber for patients, I want to say it was 15. Am I correct?

I think something that is simple and easy to understand would be best for the consumer.

It looks ike it will pass. It's a start and it's up to the citizens to try and adjusts the rules to best suit the medical patients further down the line. Thank goodness for referendums.

In WA state there is also a Cannabis Board of 5 people who decide on important issues and laws regarding cannabis. Unfortunately these 5 people have a lot of power to change things, not always for the better.

Currently they aren't accepting applications for any more stores. I want to say we will have 556 cannbais stores when they are all up and running. This past year we have added stores to replace everyone's fav dispensaries. I miss my farmers cannbais market.

 

[archangelz001]

@Gunky said:

"Yeah and I've paid extra to get a notation like that on my doctor's recommendation but I have heard that it's a scam and has little force in law.
The 99 plant limit that often gets bandied about in recent years was really a federal thing: they wouldn't bother any grows under 100 plants and this is the line that most dispensaries/collectives hew to (because otherwise they risk a federal raid)."​

If you were to get busted by the DEA or local police having a letter of recommendation that says you should be able to grow 25 or 50 or 99 plants it won't help you if in fact it is more than you need for your treatment of your medical problem.

http://theleafonline.com/c/politics/2016/08/prop-215-rights-not-affected-prop-64/

"The CUA (Prop 215) 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.​

Essentially, the CUA allows a patients and their primary caregiver to possess, cultivate and transport an amount that is reasonably related to the patient’s current medical need."​

Many localities already ban outdoor grows. Prop 215 is a defense against conviction for growing a federally illegal plant. If 64 is voted down that won't change. If you are lucky enough to live in a county or city that allows 99 plants (I'm sure there are less than 5 places in the whole state) that won't change if 64 passes. SB420 has been controlling, with it's limits of 6 plants, since 2004. With MCRSA that changes to 100 sq ft. as of Jan 2018. So whether you like it or not, MCRSA already will be controlling Medical Cannabis, and Prop 64 will now allow adult use with no medical necessity and most of the penalties have been reduced. Look at this handy visual comparison and see the real difference between now and if 64 passes.
http://friendsofprop64.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Chris-Conrad-Penalty-Chart-8_2016.pdf

I'm really tired of all the conspiracy theory-laden whining that has been going on regarding not only 64 but the Presidential election fiasco. Get a grip folks and start looking at the fact that the cup will be way more than half full, rather than complaining that it's half empty. I agree it's more complicated than necessary and contains items that will need to be fixed in the future. But it is definitely a step in the right direction.

http://www.canorml.org/Cal_NORML_Guide_to_AUMA

Due to its extraordinary length and complexity, AUMA contains a number of glitches and inconsistencies that will have to be ironed out by the courts or the legislature. It also includes a number of restrictions and oversights that many users find objectionable (for example, it makes it illegal to consume in any public place except for specifically licensed premises; continues to let local governments ban medical marijuana cultivation and sales; bans vaporization in non-smoking areas; and imposes an unduly high, 15% + tax increase on medical marijuana). Fortunately, Section 10 of the act allows for most provisions to be modified by the legislature.

AUMA will not be the last word on marijuana reform; further changes in state and federal law will be needed to guarantee affordable medical access, protect employment and housing rights, facilitate banking and allow interstate commerce. Regardless of these problems, AUMA compares favorably to similar legalization measures in other states. If California voters approve AUMA, the pressure for federal marijuana law reform could finally become irresistible to politicians in Washington; if not, it will no doubt be interpreted as a major setback for marijuana reform at the national level.
​

As a medical patient AND a healthcare professional I'm really happy about this section summarized by CaNORML

....CULTIVATION regulations are similar to those established under MMRSA:

• Cultivators must comply with conditions set by Dept. of Fish and Wildlife and State Water Resources Control Board, plus all other state and local environmental laws (26060, 26066).
• The Dept. of Pesticide Regulation is to issue standards for use of pesticides.
• The state shall establish an organic certification program and standards for recognizing regional appellations of origin (26062-3).
• Marijuana to be regulated as an agricultural product by the Dept of Food and Agriculture (26067).
• The Dept. shall establish an identification program with unique identifiers for every marijuana plant.​

 

[Baron23]

Deleted with apologies.

 

[Gunky]

-snip-

I'm really tired of all the conspiracy theory-laden whining that has been going on regarding not only 64 but the Presidential election fiasco. Get a grip folks and start looking at the fact that the cup will be way more than half full, rather than complaining that it's half empty. I agree it's more complicated than necessary and contains items that will need to be fixed in the future. But it is definitely a step in the right direction.

[URL]http://www.canorml.org/Cal_NORML_Guide_to_AUMA[/URL]
[INDENT]Due to its extraordinary length and complexity, AUMA contains a number of glitches and inconsistencies that will have to be ironed out by the courts or the legislature. It also includes a number of restrictions and oversights that many users find objectionable (for example, it makes it illegal to consume in any public place except for specifically licensed premises; continues to let local governments ban medical marijuana cultivation and sales; bans vaporization in non-smoking areas; and imposes an unduly high, 15% + tax increase on medical marijuana). Fortunately, Section 10 of the act allows for most provisions to be modified by the legislature.

[B][U]AUMA will not be the last word on marijuana reform[/U][/B]; further changes in state and federal law will be needed to guarantee affordable medical access, protect employment and housing rights, facilitate banking and allow interstate commerce. Regardless of these problems, AUMA compares favorably to similar legalization measures in other states. If California voters approve AUMA, the pressure for federal marijuana law reform could finally become irresistible to politicians in Washington; if not, it will no doubt be interpreted as a major setback for marijuana reform at the national level.
[/INDENT]
As a medical patient AND a healthcare professional I'm really happy about this section summarized by CaNORML

[INDENT]....CULTIVATION regulations are similar to those established under MMRSA:

• Cultivators must comply with conditions set by Dept. of Fish and Wildlife and State Water Resources Control Board, plus all other state and local environmental laws (26060, 26066).
• The Dept. of Pesticide Regulation is to issue standards for use of pesticides.
• The state shall establish an organic certification program and standards for recognizing regional appellations of origin (26062-3).
• Marijuana to be regulated as an agricultural product by the Dept of Food and Agriculture (26067).
• The Dept. shall establish an identification program with unique identifiers for every marijuana plant.[/INDENT]

You are looking at this from one point of view only: that of a consumer. You don't realize how absurdly tight the profit margins are for indoor flowers right now and how totally devastating this measure will be for the small grower population that has been producing significant portions of the market supply you enjoy as well as making significant contributions to strain development which you also enjoy. You are looking forward to possible minor convenience coming your way; the small grower sees ruin. You see this as a gain with not much loss; it is difficult to be so sanguine from other angles.

 

[MinnBobber]

So gunky and others, here's another point of view
I'm not in CA but see the most important result and by-product of it passing as:

- being a big world-wide victory in the slow march to global legalization. It would spur movement in other countries and from our chicken-shit US legislators at the fed and state levels. They'd see that supporting legalization would help their political careers.
We need to show that legalization is happening now and in a big way. Did I see that CA economy would be like #7 in the world?? So, passing equals a huge shift on the global (and universal??) level.

Let's look beyond CA consumers and growers and look at the possible global ramifications----
a big global boost if it happens.

P.S. I'd still see small growers prospering, even though the "big boys" would surely move in. Craft beer companies are thriving, even if they don't produce a gazillion barrels a year.
And---if the big boys move into CA cannabis, they'd surely hit up their buddy Hillary to get banking privileges established and allowing business expenses as deductions with the IRS so many spin-off positives etc etc as she still owes them bigtime for the $$$ millions they gave her and Bill for all their Wall Street speechs. Time to collect/call in their favors

These benefits would also help the small growers and consumers as prices could come down.

Vote early and vote often.... vote yes..... sorry, that's Chicago's election mantra

 

[Gunky]

So gunky and others, here's another point of view


P.S. I'd still see small growers prospering, even though the "big boys" would surely move in. Craft beer companies are thriving, even if they don't produce a gazillion barrels a year.
And---if the big boys move into CA cannabis, they'd surely hit up their buddy Hillary to get banking privileges established and allowing business expenses as deductions with the IRS so many spin-off positives etc etc as she still owes them bigtime for the $$$ millions they gave her and Bill for all their Wall Street speechs. Time to collect/call in their favors

These benefits would also help the small growers and consumers as prices could come down.

Vote early and vote often.... vote yes..... sorry, that's Chicago's election mantra

You say that without understanding that this destroys the niche these people exist in. Now they either assume a big, new overhead and then somehow within five years compete with vast, automated factory farms which will shave an already slim margin down to nothing for the small guy, or they resign themselves to six diddly-shit plants (not even 12 immature and 6 mature so you could grow from seed), or they can go back to black.

These are the very people who have been at great personal risk supplying you all these years. The moment some jacked-up tech millionaire comes along you all adopt this cavalier attitude and throw them under a bus for the greater glory of big corporate capitalism under the guise of a 'big world-wide victory' for cannabis. And for the sake of some minor convenience you end up sacrificing a lot of genetic diversity, new development, mom and pop business enterprise. You reason abstractly that there is room for big and small growers in this brave new world but miss the fact that this measure privileges big and turns small into micro. The whole point of this thing is not to legalize marijuana - they still jail you for for having 29 grams in the trunk of your car! The point is to establish a big canna system and wipe out small growers.

 

[archangelz001]

You are looking at this from one point of view only: that of a consumer. You don't realize how absurdly tight the profit margins are for indoor flowers right now and how totally devastating this measure will be for the small grower population that has been producing significant portions of the market supply you enjoy as well as making significant contributions to strain development which you also enjoy. You are looking forward to possible minor convenience coming your way; the small grower sees ruin. You see this as a gain with not much loss; it is difficult to be so sanguine from other angles.

I do feel for the small growers, some of whom may get caught not transitioning well in the fall-out after legalization. But the carbon footprint of indoor grows is just not sustainable in the future anyway when an outdoor plant can deliver 2-3-5 pounds. I agree with @MinnBobber, as I said the same thing in a previous post: there will be room for high-end, mid grade and budget cannabis in the coming market, just as in the wine industry and beer industry. Boutique wineries and small-scale craft beer. Personally I purchase outdoor grown cannabis that has been tested for contaminants and cannabinoid profile. I usually don't purchase anything else because a) it's more expensive, and b) potentially unsafe and of unknown potency. But I purchase outdoor grown from places like Happy Day Farms and GangaMa Gardens through FlowKana for example, which reinforces the farm direct to consumer model where farmers get significantly more of the proceeds by comparison to what the big dispensaries pay them. On the other hand I've just harvested a large plant I grew in my own backyard that will provide me with 1-1/2 pounds of dry herb to go with the several ounces of autoflowers I grew earlier in the year so I doubt I'll be purchasing much at all in the next year.

But both MCRSA and Prop 64 protect the small grower for at least 5 years after the Jan 2018 commercial license implementation before larger grows MAY be licensed. AND the good benefits of 64 become effective immediately on Nov 9 this year. Those include
1. Possession, transport, sharing of cannabis becomes completely legal for all adults immediately
2. Growing becomes legal immediately
3. Police can't stop and harass the public because they detect the smell on a person
4. Those in jail and those out of jail for cannabis-related offenses can petition to be released from jail and have their records expunged.

An estimated $1billion in tax dollars will be SAVED, primarily by law enforcement resources.
$10mill is earmarked for research on the public health effects of legalization
$2mill to UCSD Center for Medical Cannabis Research http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/
$10mill up to $50mill go to Community Grants for those most negatively impacted by the Drug Wars
Banking for the industry on the Federal level will now have the economic weight of Calif added to Colorado, Wash, Oregon and Alaska to force change

So, on balance, there are so many good reasons to vote FOR 64. And we will have all of 2017 legislative session to put pressure on the state senate and assembly to fix some of the problems with 64. It's not the end, it's just the beginning.

Luz and others complain that somehow the meaning of the words "attending physician" now requires that your primary MD must be the one to write your recommendation. That is just false. That language already exists in other pertinent legislation and simply means as quoted from Prop 64:

“Attending physician means an individual who possesses a license in good standing to practice medicine or osteopathy issued by the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California and who has taken responsibility for an aspect of the medical care, treatment, diagnosis, counseling, or referral of a patient and who has conducted a medical examination of that patient before recording in the patient’s medical record the physician’s assessment of whether the patient has a serious medical condition and whether the medical use of marijuana is appropriate.”

In addition offenses by minors that now have the same penalties as for adults will change to "Counseling, community service, drug education" that can be expunged from their record when they turn 18. And the maximum penalty for possessing publicly more than ounce, or excess concentrates, or transport and giving away more than an ounce, or sell without a license, or possess with intent to sell, all currently have penalties of from 16 months to 2,3 or 4 years plus $500 fines will be reduced to just a 6 month and/or $500 fine. Is this perfect? Of course not. Is it way better than the law today? Absolutely.

 

[Gunky]

No, you don't get it. Almost all the weed sold in dispensaries in CA is indoor. So cavalier. And you keep quoting those false talking points for ex:
1. Possession, transport, sharing of cannabis becomes completely legal for all adults immediately
28 grams. 29 grams in the trunk of your car and off to jail you go.
2. Growing becomes legal immediately
Yeah you can have 6 plants, which means you are growing clones supplied by somebody else, or you fumble around with seeds till you can find a female and then you clone that. There is no such thing as breeding with six plants. To work with six is to be hobbled, to never have more than one strain, etc etc. You don't get it. There is a reason they did this. It pushes small growers completely out of the picture. And this limit of six plants lives in a part of the measure that requires a super-majority or another referendum to fix. They lock us in a tiny closet and throw away the key!

 

[lwien]

Is this perfect? Of course not. Is it way better than the law today? Absolutely.

Totally agree and is the reason that I voted yes. The way I see it, it's a work in progress, not only for Cali but for the country.

 

[MinnBobber]

Totally agree and is the reason that I voted yes. The way I see it, it's a work in progress, not only for Cali but for the country.

...............................................

A step forward for Cali and the US and the world----this can help push worldwide cannabis legalization/ be a turning point/ a huge gain in momentum.
It's not perfect but it's a starting point and improvements can come afterwards.

 

[Gunky]

...............................................

A step forward for Cali and the US and the world----this can help push worldwide cannabis legalization/ be a turning point/ a huge gain in momentum.
It's not perfect but it's a starting point and improvements can come afterwards.

That would be great if improvements had a snowball's chance in hell of being achieved. The big things wrong with this require a 2/3 majority in the state legislature or another referendum. Everything wrong with this is almost impossible to change. Some people want to brag that we have 'legal marijuana'. Therefore lets enable a small group of rich capitalists to take over the market while forcing a multitude of mom and pop enterprises to go under or go black. Yippee, legalization.

 

[MinnBobber]

Therefore a whole group of people will now find their livelihood going down the tubes.

..........................................................................
How are small cannabis growers different than small craft beer brewers? Craft beer brewers are at an extreme economic disadvantage to Miller and Bud, yet they are multiplying like crazy.

Small growers don't have economies of scale like the big boys will, but folks are willing to pay more for premium buds. I don't see their livelihood going down the tubes. Why isn't there room for small and big growers?

CA getting legal weed isn't for bragging rights, it's to help your cannabis brothers and sisters around the world get what they deserve too, a basic human right to nature's perfect herbal supplement.
Don't you even agree that a NO vote puts a damper on legalization around the world??

Jealous in Minnesota, land of the nation's worst MMJ law.

 

[Gunky]

..........................................................................
How are small cannabis growers different than small craft beer brewers? Craft beer brewers are at an extreme economic disadvantage to Miller and Bud, yet they are multiplying like crazy.

Small growers don't have economies of scale like the big boys will, but folks are willing to pay more for premium buds. I don't see their livelihood going down the tubes. Why isn't there room for small and big growers?

Because these laws force them to either invest a great deal of money and become big growers in a hurry or be micro growers with 6 plants. The middle ground - what we now think of as a small to medium volume grower (keep in mind that the universe of what is legal and not super risky in CA now is 99 plants and under) - is mostly erased for five years, after which it is entirely erased by price competition from factory farms. Which part of that is hard to understand? The people sponsoring this are in it for exactly the same reasons as that boondoggle in Ohio. They want to become big canna and their first step is to nobble the competition under the guise of legalization.

 

[archangelz001]

No, you don't get it. Almost all the weed sold in dispensaries in CA is indoor. So cavalier. And you keep quoting those false talking points for ex:
1. Possession, transport, sharing of cannabis becomes completely legal for all adults immediately
28 grams. 29 grams in the trunk of your car and off to jail you go.
2. Growing becomes legal immediately
Yeah you can have 6 plants, which means you are growing clones supplied by somebody else, or you fumble around with seeds till you can find a female and then you clone that. There is no such thing as breeding with six plants. To work with six is to be hobbled, to never have more than one strain, etc etc. You don't get it. There is a reason they did this. It pushes small growers completely out of the picture. And this limit of six plants lives in a part of the measure that requires a super-majority or another referendum to fix. They lock us in a tiny closet and throw away the key!

Actually I do get it. Whiskey distillers and their bootleggers weren't happy about the end of prohibition either. Do you have a horse in this race?

Your points don't take into account the current state of affairs. Regarding #1 above, you complain about the limitation but it's the same and the penalties are worse today.
#2 Dont confuse what Prop 64 does versus what already exists now with MCRSA. And remember 64 doesn't do away with all the requirements to be a producer, even indoors, in the new regulated medical cannabis environment. The good news with that item is you don't need to be a patient to grow, use, transport and share cannabis.

I understand your concerns, but I don't see a way around them. If you want enough votes to legalize you have to convince the social conservatives who will vote NO that their fears are unjustified, at least a sufficient number of them. And compromise is necessary to benefit the greatest number of beneficiaries. Yet the interests of the minority need to be honored and provided for as much as possible. There will always be a place for the small grower with superior product and the desire to innovate.

 

[Gunky]

Regarding #1 above, you complain about the limitation but it's the same and the penalties are worse today.

Nope, it's not. Right now I can carry several ounces in my car trunk. If stopped I show a doctor's letter and bob's your uncle. But under this thing if I carry 29 grams in my trunk, they can arrest and jail me. There are several fines that would go up, too.

 

[Gunky]

There will always be a place for the small grower with superior product and the desire to innovate.

That's just it. The cost of doing 'over 6 plant' business is way more than the small guy is paying now. So he has to go big or go micro. That's the whole point of the plant limitation: if you stick within 6 you are effectively pushed out of the market and effectively prevented from doing any breeding. Suppose he says ok i'm in I'll go big. Five years later he is like the little grocery store put out of biz by arrival of a supermarket down the street. I hate to use this word, but the measure rigs the system in favor of the big boys. Ed Rosenthal, who has a pretty decent understanding of the economics of weed in CA, calls it a Trojan Horse.

The maddening thing is that nowhere is there any discussion of the downsides of this measure. Most voters will view it as a binary choice: pot or not. It is really a bit more nuanced than that but 99% of voters will have no clue. Meanwhile there are all these cruel people cheer leading for 'legalization' never mind if it puts people out of work and hands the industry over to rapacious capitalists who will lower the price till all but the biggest players are shaken out, then start raising it...

 

[Tranquility]

Because these laws force them to either invest a great deal of money and become big growers in a hurry or be micro growers with 6 plants. The middle ground - what we now think of as a small to medium volume grower (keep in mind that the universe of what is legal and not super risky in CA now is 99 plants and under) - is mostly erased for five years, after which it is entirely erased by price competition from factory farms. Which part of that is hard to understand? The people sponsoring this are in it for exactly the same reasons as that boondoggle in Ohio. They want to become big canna and their first step is to nobble the competition under the guise of legalization.

Under current law, where is the provision that allows a grower to profit?

Nope, it's not. Right now I can carry several ounces in my car trunk. If stopped I show a doctor's letter and bob's your uncle. But under this thing if I carry 29 grams in my trunk, they can arrest and jail me. There are several fines that would go up, too.

Bob's your uncle only if the officer uses his discretion. The only thing an officer is required to accept is the actual government-issued card. (Which the vast majority of MMJ uses in CA don't have.)

 

[Gunky]

Bob's your uncle only if the officer uses his discretion. The only thing an officer is required to accept is the actual government-issued card. (Which the vast majority of MMJ uses in CA don't have.)

Once again, nope. Officers are required to verify a letter or card issued by a doctor. Issuing doctors usually have a verification tel number on the letter or card. I don't know why people bs about things like this but it is disconcerting that so many posters have so little regard for truth and accuracy.

 

[Tranquility]

Once again, nope. Officers are required to verify a letter or card issued by a doctor. Issuing doctors usually have a verification tel number on the letter or card. I don't know why people bs about things like this but it is disconcerting that so many posters have so little regard for truth and accuracy.

No, they don't.

All they need is probable cause.

The officer is not required to do the level of investigation you seem to imply before making an arrest.

 

[MinnBobber]

Gunky, you didn't answer the question, do you have a horse in this race as it's starting to seem like the case? And the question, do you think a NO vote would dampen the legal movement in the US and worldwide, or don't you care about that??

I still see no difference comparing to small brewers. When they brewed in their "bathtubs" , their costs were low. When they go legal, their costs multiply to comply with OSHA, health regs, labor laws, tax laws, environmental laws, zoning laws, etc etc. And with the big boys calling in favors, business deductions may happen and credit card use etc etc. When X Bank talks, Hillary listens as she's on their "informal payroll"
The choice is comply or die.

You say improvements have "a snowballs chance in hell", but with enough pressure, things happen.
Here in MN we have the worst MMJ law in the US but it was a starting point. I attended/ testified (spent a lot of time and effort cuz its important) at several public meeting and we are on the verge of getting conditions added. It took a lot of work BUT many had said it too was impossible.

peace, out

EDIT- and IMO a NO vote gets interpreted as "the tribe has spoken and we don't want legal cannabis ever" instead of "this measure is flawed, we want legal mj but not this version".
I think that is another key consideration.

 

[thisperson]

Gunky, you didn't answer the question, do you have a horse in this race as it's starting to seem like the case? And the question, do you think a NO vote would dampen the legal movement in the US and worldwide, or don't you care about that??

I still see no difference comparing to small brewers. When they brewed in their "bathtubs" , their costs were low. When they go legal, their costs multiply to comply with OSHA, health regs, labor laws, tax laws, environmental laws, zoning laws, etc etc. And with the big boys calling in favors, business deductions may happen and credit card use etc etc. When X Bank talks, Hillary listens as she's on their "informal payroll"
The choice is comply or die.

You say improvements have "a snowballs chance in hell", but with enough pressure, things happen.
Here in MN we have the worst MMJ law in the US but it was a starting point. I attended/ testified (spent a lot of time and effort cuz its important) at several public meeting and we are on the verge of getting conditions added. It took a lot of work BUT many had said it too was impossible.

peace, out

EDIT- and IMO a NO vote gets interpreted as "the tribe has spoken and we don't want legal cannabis ever" instead of "this measure is flawed, we want legal mj but not this version".
I think that is another key consideration.

The only thing I'll say regarding your last point, is that 4 years ago there was also a marijuana legalization bill. If this bill is viewed as not good enough, there will be another in 4 years. Things aren't so bad how they currently are that I wouldn't mind waiting 4 years to do it right.

It's like the dude in the Presidential thread said. You've got to hold the door against these people who would sell out public interest for the gain of a few of their friends. I don't tolerate that unless I'm a dupe and unwittingly voted. I think this bill is designed for high schoolers who smoke. Not adults. They still treat us with chains and manacles if we go over the limit of what they deem appropriate. Keep in mind, no one has died from a chemical overdose of pot.

A lot of this (medical cannabis) is on shaky ground at a federal level as I understand it, because they view cannabis as a multi state commerce and thus under their jurisdiction. But reserved powers and all they imply means that while we keep it in state and medical we have some protection as per the constitution due to our medical laws. Again, reserved powers. I don't know how legalization will effect that, but as it stands based on what I see around me: Pot is pretty much decriminalized and large grows are legal.

The 2/3 majority that Gunky keeps talking about scares me. We'll never get the legislature to agree on that I feel. Not when they understand that the bill is there for their friends with deep pockets who want to be big canna. That story about the small state getting an expansion of their mmj bill gives me hope, but I'll wait until it actually passes. We put pressure on our political figures, but how many times has that actually paid off?

You telling me that kid who's 18, once he gets legal cannabis, he isn't just going to forget about the law and improving it. He has no horse in the race anymore. He doesn't grow, doesn't have kids, probably doesn't need to bank cannabis money and he probably never needs to hold more than 29 grams, you seriously telling me he's going to help? Politically aware/awake folks not included. We need to do this right the first time. When the impetus for legalization is largest.

 

[Tranquility]

A lot of this (medical cannabis) is on shaky ground at a federal level as I understand it, because they view cannabis as a multi state commerce and thus under their jurisdiction. But reserved powers and all they imply means that while we keep it in state and medical we have some protection as per the constitution due to our medical laws. Again, reserved powers. I don't know how legalization will effect that, but as it stands based on what I see around me: Pot is pretty much decriminalized and large grows are legal.

The commerce clause is so encompassing by current jurisprudence, it is irrelevant that a grow or act takes place completely in a single state. A small farmer who grows grain for his cows to eat has been found to "affect" interstate commerce and allow federal regulations to be enforced on him.

 

[lwien]

We need to do this right the first time. When the impetus for legalization is largest.

It's gonna pass. I'm as sure about that as I am that Trump will never be our president.

Case closed on both counts.