Which States With Legalization on the Ballot will Pass Recreational?

[KimDracula]

https://voteknowprop64.blogspot.com/p/ithought-for-decades-that-legalization.html?m=1

Here's a good legislative analysis of how prop 64 will hurt patients.

This is very misleading.

Here is a lawyer interpreting the law with quotes of specific sections of all relevant laws: http://theleafonline.com/c/politics/2016/08/prop-215-rights-not-affected-prop-64/


A good Russ Belville article outlining myths about 64 with footnotes:
http://hightimes.com/culture/radical-rant-top-ten-myths-about-californias-prop-64-with-footnotes/

There are some people out there spreading misinformation in our community to serve their own agenda which is likely keeping cannabis prices artificially inflated.

 

[j-bug]

This is very misleading.

Here is a lawyer interpreting the law with quotes of specific sections of all relevant laws: http://theleafonline.com/c/politics/2016/08/prop-215-rights-not-affected-prop-64/


A good Russ Belville article outlining myths about 64 with footnotes:
http://hightimes.com/culture/radical-rant-top-ten-myths-about-californias-prop-64-with-footnotes/

There are some people out there spreading misinformation in our community to serve their own agenda which is likely keeping cannabis prices artificially inflated.

Did you actually read what is written in my link or just go straight to debunking it? The author specifically goes over the actual text of the law. I'll read the links you've posted but please show me the courtesy of actually reading the link I posted as well.

My link actually debunks the claim that patients won't be restricted to six plants. The part that says "this section doesn't apply to patients" isn't a section of the law that deals with cultivation. The section that deals with cultivation has no provision that indicates that patients are exempt from the 6 plant limit. Nor does any other portion of the bill specify that the cultivation section of prop 64 does not apply to patients. The unfortunate truth is as written prop 64 does significantly impede patient rights.

Your sources are also misleading as they ignore the effects of Prop 47 and the way in which some of the benefits of 47(passed in 2012) will be rolled back and some offences that are now either not offenses or simple infractions will be recriminalizes. I suggest you actually read the bill you're supporting. It's intentionally misleading so read it a few times. Pay attention to what section you're in and what sections patients are and aren't exempted from. I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised.

 

[lwien]

I voted yes on 64 and here's how I look at.

Much like Obamacare, it is NOT perfect by any means, BUT I look at both of these measures as a starting point, a cracking open the door if you will allowing further refinements to make them both better than what they currently are.

 

[j-bug]

Corporations don't have grow limits. Cannabis is a thirsty plant. We have a drought and no restrictions or regulations on corporate use of water for cannabis agriculture.

Do we really trust corporations in California to responsibly use our water and only use what is sustainable for a given area? Or do corporations have a really really bad track record on how they waste and overuse our catastrophically limited water supply? Colorado considered this in their legalization because they too have a vulnerable water supply and they have reasonable limits on corporate grows. California has no such proposed limits.

Remember prop 47? And how it decriminalized and reduced some felonies to misdemeanors? That was kinda a big deal and since 2012 this has been really effective at reducing the proportion of people imprisoned by unconsionable drug prohibition. Prop 64 specifically and explicitly recriminalizes behavior that has already been decriminalized.

These and other factors make opposing Prop 64 crucial to protect the rights of patients and people in this state.

Currently it is only a relatively inexpensive infraction for a college student passing a joint or a vape to a friend who isn't 21 yet, under Prop 64 that hypothetical student would be guilty of a $500 misdemeanor and if they have any priors they may face imprisonment for sharing cannabis with a friend. This would, to be fair, probably be infrequently enforced; however it would still lead to some people being imprisoned for sharing cannabis that under current state law would only be paying a small fine.

 

[CarolKing]

I think it's good to look at it that way @lwien I don't think any state has it perfect for the consumer. I think though WA state lawmakers really fucked up. CA just needs to make sure that the lawmakers are held accountable and don't screw over the voter. We voted back in 1998 for medical cannabis here. The lawmakers were able to mess with that.

It also says in our rules that patients are suppose to be able to get a medical recommendation from their personal family doctors. That the medical clinics that have the sole purpose of issuing mj medical recommendations would probably be forced to go out of business. That the state would be checking on medical facilities and doctors to see if they issue more than 30 recommendations a month. Just recently I've heard patients say that their family doctors didn't feel comfortable issuing a mj recommendation. That they don't do that.

My brother belongs to the same HMO as myself Group Health Cooperative of WA. I have been getting my mj recommendation through a clinic who's sole purpose is to issue an mj recommendation. I assumed that I would be able to get a recommendation through my family doctor. My brother who has steel plates holding his head up tried to get a recommendation for cannabis through his doctor. Group Heath physicians arent giving out recommendations. His doc told him to get acupuncture.

I told my brother to go to the mj recommendation authorization clinic and naturopath that I go to once a year. He had his recommendation in 20 min. He had a huge pile of copies of tests and surgeries and he only needed maybe 4 pages. I don't know if the state is checking on these clinics or not? I will be going to the same mj med authorization clinic come next May it looks like. Not sure if I will approach my doctor? I and my brother have different doctors.

My brother is going to grow too. He has a recommendation for 15 plants. That's the limit. Being able to grow and the 9% tax saving is why he decided to get his recommendation for a mmj card.

I think doctors are still apprehensive about authorizing the use of cannabis. They are still worried about their lisences and the Federal Government is what it looks like.

So hurray for the medical recommendation mj clinics for all that they do.

The Federal Government needs to do their job and stop this insanity against a plant and a medicine that helps millions of people.

 

[lwien]

The Federal Government needs to do their job and stop this insanity against a plant and a medicine that helps millions of people.

The feds believe that cannabis is more harmful than cocaine. Yup..........truly insane.

 

[KimDracula]

I read J-bug's link and provided two articles with clear explanations, quotes, and footnotes. Notice he ignores on-point arguments and pivots to something else. It's always pretty clear on which side the evidence lies regarding Prop 64 since those against it never have any for their paranoid rantings. See for yourself. Whether they appear on this forum, FB, IG, Twitter, etc., these people can never actually support their arguments that place them on the side of cops and other profiteering prohibitionists. This is why I question their motives.

CarolKing: Why must you always turn up to cast doubt on what's going on in CA because of a totally separate and different situation in your state?

 

[j-bug]

I read J-bug's link and provided two articles with clear explanations, quotes, and footnotes. Notice he ignores on-point arguments and pivots to something else. It's always pretty clear on which side the evidence lies regarding Prop 64 since those against it never have any for their paranoid rantings. See for yourself. Whether they appear on this forum, FB, IG, Twitter, etc., these people can never actually support their arguments that place them on the side of cops and other profiteering prohibitionists. This is why I question their motives.

CarolKing: Why must you always turn up to cast doubt on what's going on in CA because of a totally separate and different situation in your state?

"She" by the way, and I read your articles and their sources. I can actually copy and paste parts of the law to show you how the proposedplant limit would actually apply to patients, but as you were unable or unwilling to understand that in the link I posted, which is well sourced and cited, I think that's probably be a waste of my time.

The site I linked is well sourced and supported. These are not paranoid arguments as you're uncharitably miscasting them as these are arguments based on the actual text of the actual proposed initiative that would become actual law. Judges and prosecutors and cops aren't going to be enforcing the law based off of the stated intent and the summaries, they're gonna be enforcing based off of the actual text of the actual law.

 

[CarolKing]

Im wishing CA good luck far as cannabis goes, legal but medical too. It doesn't mean that you can be complacent. Cannabis advocates need to stay on their toes and make sure the medical isn't screwed with for your own sake. I am just voicing an opinion. Wishing everyone the best outcome. I may live in California some day, I want it a better system than what we have here.

Not trying to rain on anybody's parade.

Edit
I just started buying at the state stores here. The prices are more but the quality hasn't gone down. Everything here is in prepackaged amounts. The other day I had to buy 7 grams in 7 separate containers because thats all they had of the Tahoe OG. Yesterday I was able to buy 14 grams of Gods Gift in one 1/2 oz size. I miss being able to smell my product I'm buying beforehand. The good ole days. These are the child proof containers we heard about. It seems like a lot of waist. We recycle everything around here. Returnable dark colored glass jars to recycle back to the cannabis shops seems like the way to go. Like for the 1/4, 1/2 and 1 oz sizes. There needs to be a better way.

 

[j-bug]

Im wishing CA good luck far as cannabis goes, legal but medical too. It doesn't mean that you cant be complacent. Cannabis advocates need to stay on their toes and make sure the medical isn't screwed with for your own sake. I am just voicing an opinion. Wishing everyone the best outcome. I may live in California some day, I want it a better system then easy we have here.

Not trying to rain in anybody's parade.

It's a parade that needs an awful lot of raining on, especially considering the drought

But seriously the more I read the actual bill and research current California law on cannabis the more I'm concerned that we aren't like Washington at all and that our recreational bill passing will be even worse for our state than yours. Partially due to our drought, but also because of how bad the law is. All my friends and former colleagues in the legal field are amazed at how bad the bill is, it's like a Russian doll of bad legislation.

 

[KimDracula]

It's a parade that needs an awful lot of raining on, especially considering the drought

But seriously the more I read the actual bill and research current California law on cannabis the more I'm concerned that we aren't like Washington at all and that our recreational bill passing will be even worse for our state than yours. Partially due to our drought, but also because of how bad the law is. All my friends and former colleagues in the legal field are amazed at how bad the bill is, it's like a Russian doll of bad legislation.

This is how it usually goes. We on the side of legalizing get paranoid baseless arguments that are debunked because they are known paranoid arguments. The prohibitionist will then pivot to more paranoid baseless arguments instead of actually arguing real points. That link was BS and its arguments are directly rebutted in the links I provided. You're wrong and you're side is gonna lose. Otherwise I hope you stay high and happy.

 

[j-bug]

Dude my link actually quotes the bill. I've actually read the bill. Your links quote the bill and then basically gloss over the actual legal implications of the actual law. Please point to the actual point in the new law where it specifies the plant limits don't apply to patients. I'll wait. I'll be waiting a while cause the law doesn't specify that. Since the law doesn't specify that the clear interpretation is that this law limits patients growing rights. This may be quickly overturned in court, and will then no longer matter, as our courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of patient rights but until it's been tried in court I'd recommend that patients stick to the grow limits in the new law if passed unless they are willing to become the test case for the new law.

 

[Baron23]

I think it's good to look at it that way @lwien I don't think any state has it perfect for the consumer. I think though WA state lawmakers really fucked up. CA just needs to make sure that the lawmakers are held accountable and don't screw over the voter. We voted back in 1998 for medical cannabis here. The lawmakers were able to mess with that.

It also says in our rules that patients are suppose to be able to get a medical recommendation from their personal family doctors. That the medical clinics that have the sole purpose of issuing mj medical recommendations would probably be forced to go out of business. That the state would be checking on medical facilities and doctors to see if they issue more than 30 recommendations a month. Just recently I've heard patients say that their family doctors didn't feel comfortable issuing a mj recommendation. That they don't do that.

My brother belongs to the same HMO as myself Group Health Cooperative of WA. I have been getting my mj recommendation through a clinic who's sole purpose is to issue an mj recommendation. I assumed that I would be able to get a recommendation through my family doctor. My brother who has steel plates holding his head up tried to get a recommendation for cannabis through his doctor. Group Heath physicians arent giving out recommendations. His doc told him to get acupuncture.

I told my brother to go to the mj recommendation authorization clinic and naturopath that I go to once a year. He had his recommendation in 20 min. He had a huge pile of copies of tests and surgeries and he only needed maybe 4 pages. I don't know if the state is checking on these clinics or not? I will be going to the same mj med authorization clinic come next May it looks like. Not sure if I will approach my doctor? I and my brother have different doctors.

My brother is going to grow too. He has a recommendation for 15 plants. That's the limit. Being able to grow and the 9% tax saving is why he decided to get his recommendation for a mmj card.

I think doctors are still apprehensive about authorizing the use of cannabis. They are still worried about their lisences and the Federal Government is what it looks like.

So hurray for the medical recommendation mj clinics for all that they do.

The Federal Government needs to do their job and stop this insanity against a plant and a medicine that helps millions of people.

Hi Carol - my primary physician, who I love, also refused to engage in MMJ certification. Not because she opposes it in any way or doesn't think I'm qualified, it was simply due to two issues; 1) she doesn't know a thing about it and; 2) the state medical associations are indeed counseling Dr's here that there still is a great deal of ambiguity and hence risk to their licenses from the Feds no matter the state law.

I can't blame her, she has worked all her life to become a really great physician and to risk that would be to ask too much. So, I went to a clinic and 20 minutes later I'm certified.

It sure it going to be a strange and bumpy ride until the Fed's get their collective heads out of their arse and legalize it (and fire Rosenberg while they are at it...PLEASE fire this fascist asshole).

 

[KimDracula]

Dude my link actually quotes the bill. I've actually read the bill. Your links quote the bill and then basically gloss over the actual legal implications of the actual law. Please point to the actual point in the new law where it specifies the plant limits don't apply to patients. I'll wait. I'll be waiting a while cause the law doesn't specify that. Since the law doesn't specify that the clear interpretation is that this law limits patients growing rights. This may be quickly overturned in court, and will then no longer matter, as our courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of patient rights but until it's been tried in court I'd recommend that patients stick to the grow limits in the new law if passed unless they are willing to become the test case for the new law.

I think you're mistaken. Here's part of one of the articles I posted that addresses this common myth:


"3. Would Prop.64 change the rules regarding the amounts of cannabis a patient could lawfully possess, cultivate, and/or transport?

In Section 4, Personal Use, Prop.64 adds §11362.1 to make it legal for adults 21 years of age and older to possess, process, transport, purchase, obtain, or give away without any compensation whatsoever, not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana not in the form of concentrated cannabis and to grow up to six plants and possess the entire harvest produced by those plants. Several opponents of Prop.64 argue that this restricts 215 patients to six plants. Such an argument, however, is not supported by the language of Prop.64 which also adds §11362.45 to the Health & Safety Code. This new section provides, in relevant part, as follows:

“Nothing in section 11362.1 shall be construed or interpreted to amend, repeal, affect, restrict or preempt: (i) Laws pertaining to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.”

Thus, the six plant limit on nonmedical cannabis cultivation would not apply to patients. Patients would be subject to the same restrictions they are currently, that is a patient may cultivate, possess, and/or transports an amount reasonably related to current medical need. Nothing in AUMA/Prop.64 changes this legal standard."

PS: I know you're trying to convey condescension and sarcasm but do you realize how often you use the word "actually"? You're not the only one to have read the bill, champ.

EDIT: Oh, there was also all that nonsense about how some things would be re-criminalized with 64. That is just not true. All penalties are reduced except smoking where tobacco is already prohibited which has a fine that increases. Big deal. There is no grand conspiracy here to trick stoners into jail with a voter initiative.

 

[j-bug]

"Nothing in section 11362.1 shall be construed or interpreted to amend, repeal, affect, restrict or preempt: (i) Laws pertaining to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996"

Which section are plant limits discussed in? It's not section 11362.1. Lots of things that effect patients are in other sections of the bill. Like I said read the bill. The changes I'm talking about occur in other sections that do apply universally.

If that paragraph said something like: "Nothing in act shall be construed or interpreted to amend, repeal, affect, restrict or preempt: (i) Laws pertaining to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996" then everything you're saying would be accurate. Unfortunately it says what you've quoted it as saying. Please point to a part of the law that refers to the plant limits and exempts patients from those limits.

The provided example is not an example of that.


Edit: re your "ps", not my intention just how I talk. I've endeavored to adjust my tone in this post to not create whatever impression you were getting.

And regarding what is and isn't recriminalized or not read the law, read existing relevant statutes and get back to me.

 

[Gunky]

"Nothing in section 11362.1 shall be construed or interpreted to amend, repeal, affect, restrict or preempt: (i) Laws pertaining to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996"

Which section are plant limits discussed in? It's not section 11362.1. Lots of things that effect patients are in other sections of the bill. Like I said read the bill. The changes I'm talking about occur in other sections that do apply universally.

If that paragraph said something like: "Nothing in act shall be construed or interpreted to amend, repeal, affect, restrict or preempt: (i) Laws pertaining to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996" then everything you're saying would be accurate. Unfortunately it says what you've quoted it as saying. Please point to a part of the law that refers to the plant limits and exempts patients from those limits.

The provided example is not an example of that.


Edit: re your "ps", not my intention just how I talk. I've endeavored to adjust my tone in this post to not create whatever impression you were getting.

And regarding what is and isn't recriminalized or not read the law, read existing relevant statutes and get back to me.

Good point which I hadn't noticed. Abysmal drafting gotchas all over the place! People insisting it wont affect medical but the text we are voting on indicates it will.

 

[Crohnie]

Massachusetts is starting to look good. The latest polling shows 55% support for legalization!

wbur.org/politicker/2016/10/19/wbur-ballot-question-poll-october​

 

[Papa Woody]

Nevada will pass they've lost tourist revenue to Colorado and they want to be more tourist friendly and now that means cannabis in Vegas imo. I expect there'll be places you can get high or medicate and gamble on the strip before too long.

Nevada will definitely pass legalization but the Nevada Resorts Association that represents the casinos is against legalization.
They will ply you with booze 24 hours a day to grease your wallet but they don't think cannabis tourists would spend as much per visit...

Nevada Question 2:

https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Marijuana_Legalization,_Question_2_(2016)

 

[Crohnie]

The latest polling shows Arizona at 50% in favor of legalization!

 

[Crohnie]

Here's the latest poll results for the Recreational Vote

1. Arizona: Yes 50% No 42%

2. California: Yes 54%

3. Maine: Yes 50% N0 41%

4. Massachussetts: Yes 61% No 34%

5. Nevada: Yes 47% No 43%

 

[Kermitt]

I hope this is the right place to ask my question.
Accepted in Massachusetts is the legalization, then open the shops actually only 2018? Or you can already buy legal anywhere before 2018?

 

[MinnBobber]

@Vitolo ,
WTF is happening in AZ????
I just saw an update with 53% against your cannabis prop

It's a crime that those anti mj ads with blatant lies were allowed to air---with statements like in CO, schools were not getting mj tax money as promised...... BS

Hope the vote turns around

 

[Crohnie]

California, Massachusetts, and Nevada have passed! Maine is looking really close. Forget about Arizona.

 

[stonedbob]

we waiting for more news or its end with 3 countries?

Edit: Maine congratz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[MyCollie]

And now we have to wait for the response from the Feds. I'm not optimistic regardless of who is the new AG or the DEA Administrator.