"19 doesn't overturn 215, it's a supplement; this talk about 19 stopping people from growing their own seems unfounded."
A majority of the lawyers who have discussed this issue in public disagree with you on that:
Some believe the official ballot argument against the initiative, signed by Senator Feinstein, will save California’s medical marijuana laws because it states that Prop. 19 “makes no change either way in the medical marijuana laws”.
Pepper’s analysis concludes that it will never get that far because under Section 2. B Purposes are six paragraphs that can be interpreted to amend current medical marijuana law, including Proposition 215: paragraphs 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 14.
However, it’s Section 2 C Intent that Pepper calls the smoking gun:
In Section 2 (C), “Intent,” paragraph 1 lists all the existing laws that Prop. 19 is intended to affect, and paragraph 2 lists all the laws it is NOT intended to affect. Here’s the important point:
Neither paragraph 1 nor paragraph 2 mention the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), which is found in H & S Code section 11362.5. If the Prop. 19 people really did not intend to affect patients and collectives, they would have included section 11362.5 in paragraph 2. They didn’t.
Nevertheless, Horowitz states he does not think Prop. 19 is “terminally flawed”. Instead, because Prop. 19 will allow people to see that legalizing marijuana “isn’t as harmful as some want us to think”, that problems will be “easier to fix down the road”:
Proposition 19 allows local governments to pass the very ordinances that … they’re currently using to attack Proposition 215. Whereas Proposition 215 currently prevents some of them from being upheld by the California Supreme Court, that would change if the court decides that Proposition 19 permits the passage of those laws.
The court might not allow local governments to be more restrictive than Proposition 215 when it comes to medical marijuana. However, it might allow it, because, as I keep trying to point out, the court might decide that Proposition 19 removes the barrier against local governments “regulating” and “controlling” how marijuana is grown, possessed, or used. Past experience indicates the court is more likely to go with the latter view than the former.
Nothing in Proposition 19 explicitly protects Proposition 215. Anyone who says differently has apparently not done much reading of the law.
On 16 Sep 10, David Malmo-Levine published the following personal communication from Bill Panzer:
I find Rick Horowitz’ analysis to be thoughtful and, unfortunately, accurate.
Dale is correct about the history of the numerical limits that were the subject of Kelly.
As for David Nick’s analysis, I have to disagree and would refer you to People v. Spark wherein the court explains the use of the purpose language of Prop 215 and its limited relevancy.
- Bill Panzer, Prop 215 author/lawyer, personal communicationhttp://palmspringsbum.org/blog/2010/09/w...proposition-19/
"http://yeson19.com/node/6 --here's the proposal... people can grow their own in 25 square feet... seems fair, plus, the 215 growing allowance remains."
People can grow their own IF they live alone (if not they must share with everyone else who lives with them) and IF they own their own house (if not they must ask the landlord who may not want to risk their property getting seized by the Feds).
The 215 growing allowances are never explicitly protected. Read it yourself:
7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to POSSESS AND CONSUME small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be BOUGHT AND SOLD, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
Do you see cultivation rights protected there? I don't ... just possess, consume, bought and sold rights are protected. Cultivation is not mentioned as a protected med pot right.
"Cato Institute is not reliable; it's a non-scientific global warming denier (that's as wrong as being an evolution denier)."
Yes, I agree. That's why I interviewed six California lawyers for my first article about Prop 19:http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/p/prop-19-ma-and-pa-are-out-of-work-and_26.html
"This 'fuck prop 19' language seems to violate the message board rules by the way... I call foul."
Personal attacks are what I consider uncivil - that didn't happen here. Adults should be able to survive the F-bomb once in a while without someone running and telling the teacher ... especially when it's used to describe a situation where a few dealers make billions and hundreds of thousands of dealers continue to get hunted down like witches - if we can't use an expletive under those circumstances we have all become emotional eunuchs.
"'19 could be used to deny medical growing rights'... says whom?"
Says the three lawyers I quoted above. Says Dennis Peron - the guy who INVENTED those medical growing rights in the first place.
"The proposal says the opposite. It explicity protects medical cannabis growing rights & expands it to include people without the medical permission. It explicity stops non-violent cannabis users from being sent to prison: that is a huge deal."
I don't see it anywhere. Quote the passage in Prop 19 that "explicitly" protects med pot growing rights. Which category of users does it stop from being sent to prison - the ones that were getting 100 dollar fines for smoking in their own houses?
"Every anti-cannabis law on the books today will remain unchanged if Prop 19 passes with a single exception: a new offense is added, Health & Safety Code §11361(c) which provides that a person 21 or older who gives less than an ounce of cannabis to a person 18-21 (as, for example, a 21 year old boy handing a joint to his 20 year old girlfriend) is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to 6 months in jail and a $1000 fine. Under current law, the offense would call for a $100 maximum fine and no jail.
It essentially protects you from getting an infraction ticket in your own home so long as there are no children under the same roof."
- Bill Panzerhttp://palmspringsbum.org/blog/2010/10/the-real-debate-over-californias-proposition-19/
"19 isn't perfect but it expands access to cannabis & that is more moral than 215 alone."
It expands nothing. It opens up cannabis to UNLIMITED taxation, introduces a new jailable offense, fails to explicitly protect med pot cultivation rights anywhere and makes it next to impossible to remove the discriminatory licensing practices currently in place in Los Angeles and Oakland. It is not a baby-step forward - it is a huge leap backward.