By William G. Panzer, Attorney at Law.
If passed, California’s Proposition 64 on the 2016 ballot, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), will eliminate and reduce a number of non-medical cannabis penalties, allow many persons with criminal felony records to have their convictions reduced to misdemeanors and also some persons currently serving jail and prison sentences will be released. It will certainly have significant impact on the commercial cannabis industry in California.
There has been a lot of speculation, questioning, and just plain paranoia regarding the relationship between the 1996 Proposition 215 voter initiative, the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), and this new voter initiative on the November 2016 ballot. Prop.64 will, however, have no impact on patient rights under Prop.215 while it will grant new protections to medical cannabis users who find themselves in family or juvenile court.
To analyze how these two Propositions will interact, assuming Prop.64 passes, one must first understand the actual scope of Prop.215. Many people confuse the parameters of the CUA with those of the SB420 Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA). The CUA is fairly basic and easy to read, as compared to many other laws, including the 62-page Prop.64.
Proposition 215 added §11362.5 to the Health & Safety Code and is printed below in its entirety:
Health & Safety Code §11362.5
(a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
(b) (1) The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 are as follows:
(A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person’s health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.
(B) To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.
(C) To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for nonmedical purposes.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes.
(d) Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient’s primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.
(e) For the purposes of this section, “primary caregiver” means the individual designated by the person exempted under this section who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person.
(Added November 5, 1996, by initiative Proposition 215, Sec. 1.)
The CUA/Prop.215 protects three groups of people: physicians, patients and caregivers.
Physicians cannot be punished for recommend or approving the medical use of cannabis to patients.
Caregivers and patients are specifically exempted from two Health & Safety Code Sections, §11357, which covers possession, and §11358, which covers cultivation and processing. In addition, courts have found that the CUA infers a limited defense to §11360, (transportation and distribution) in that a patient or caregiver may transport an amount reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs.
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.
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.
With this understanding, we now look at the areas where Prop. 64 might potentially impact on the provisions of Prop. 215.
- Would Prop.64 change the requirements to qualify as a patient?
- Would Prop.64 change the exemptions to the Health & Safety Code afforded by the CUA?
- Would Prop.64 change the rules regarding the amounts of cannabis a patient could lawfully possess, cultivate and/or transport?
Considerations such as the cost of medical cannabis and accessibility are under the purview of MMPA and MCRSA, and are not legally the province of the CUA. So, let’s look at the potential impact of Prop.64 on these three areas of concern.
1. Would Prop.64 change the requirements to qualify as a patient?
Under the CUA, a person qualifies as a patient authorized to use medical cannabis by obtaining a recommendation or approval from a licensed physician. Prop.64 doesn’t change this. Some critics of Prop.64 argue that it requires a patient to obtain their recommendation only from their primary care physician. In Section 5, entitled Use of Marijuana for Medical Purposes, Prop.64 states,
§11362.712 (a) Commencing on January 1, 2018, a qualified patient must possess a physician’s recommendation that complies with Article 25 (commencing with Section 2525) of Chapter 5 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code. Failure to comply with this requirement shall not, however, affect any of the protections provided to patients or their primary caregivers by Section 11362.5 [the CUA/215], AND
(b) A county health department or the county’s designee shall develop protocols to ensure that, commencing upon January 1, 2018, all identification cards issued pursuant to Section 11362.71 are supported by a physician’s recommendation that complies with Article 25 (commencing with Section 2525) of Chapter 5 of Division 2 of the Business and Profession Code.”
I know what you’re thinking — “legalese gobbledygook.” But what does this mean to 215 patients in the real world? The section of the Business & Professions Code to which Prop.64 refers is already on the books. This section of the Code provides that doctors cannot get kickbacks from MCRSA licensed dispensaries if the physician has an ownership interest in the MCRSA dispensary. It does nothing to change already existing law. Next, Prop.64 authorizes the state Medical Board to consult with the California Marijuana Research Program to develop medical guidelines for the appropriate administration and use of medical cannabis.
It further provides that a physician recommending the use of medical cannabis must be the patient’s “attending physician”. For purposes of this section, “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 the next section, The B&P Code provides that a physician cannot be employed by a dispensary. The last part of this Code section puts certain restrictions on the manner in which a physician can advertise medical cannabis recommendation services.
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. One must also remember, these restrictions on physicians are already the law in California. Prop.64 does nothing to change this. In fact, as quoted above, Prop.64 specifically states that, even if a physician is not compliant, “Failure [by the physician] to comply with the requirement shall not, however, affect any of the protections provided to patients or their primary caregivers by Section 11362.5.”
So Prop.64 does not change the requirements to qualify as a lawful patient under the Prop.215.
2. Would Prop.64 change the exemptions to the Health & Safety Code afforded by the CUA?
As noted above, the CUA/Prop.215 affords patients exemptions from three statutes found in the Health & Safety Code, §11357 (possession); §11358 (cultivation and processing); and, by inference, transportation under §11360. Nothing in Prop.64 removes or impacts in any manner upon these exemptions. Patients may still possess, cultivate, and transport an amount reasonably related to their current medical need. Of note, though is that Prop.64 amends these three Health & Safety Code sections to significantly reduce the penalties for violation of these sections.
Under §11357, possession of less than an ounce is legalized, while possession of over an ounce remains unchanged as a misdemeanor with a maximum six month sentence. Violations of §11358 and §11360 are reduced from felonies to misdemeanors for the first two convictions.
However, since Prop.64 has no affect on the exemptions provided to patients under the CUA, patients enjoy the same protections as they have always had under the CUA. Prop.64 does not expose patients or caregivers to any additional threats from these sections of the Health & Safety Code.
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.
What does Prop.64 say about patients and medical cannabis?
Prop.64 includes Section 5, Use of Marijuana for Medical Purposes, which adds five new statutes to the Health & Safety Code.
The first of these new sections pertaining to medical cannabis is §11362.712, the section regarding physicians that is discussed above.
Next, 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.
I just want a straight forward answer…
DOES CITY LAW OVERRIDE MY MEDICAL MJ RIGHTS UNDER PROP 215? IE; AM I STILL LIMITED TO 6 PLANTS IF I HAVE MY DOCTORS RECOMMENDATION?
Thank you!
Unfortunately, Prop 215 (Health and Safety Code 11362.5) only created a legal “immunity” defense under state law. Maral, et al., v Live Oak (221Cal.App4th975) held that localities can ban personal cultivation under Prop 215. Prop 64 overturned all indoor bans for six plants for adult personal use but did not change Prop 215 so Maral still applies. Kirby v Fresno says the locality cannot take away your rights under Prop. 215 and People v Kelly says that the state defense allows for any “reasonable” amount. Here is a link to the case law, if you want to see for yourself.
In other words, the state can’t limit your plant count but a jury can convict you for doing so, and a local government can forbid you to grow medical marijuana but must allow any adult to grow six plants indoors for personal use.
[…] Prop 64 does not change medical marijuana rights at all: https://theleafonline.us/c/politics/2016/08/prop-215-rights-not-affected-prop-64/. The author identifies numerous flaws in Prop. 215 but AUMA adds new rights and protections for […]
I’m looking for a statue or attorney who can tell me. As a Caregiver of 5 patients. Am I still allowed to donate a portion of it to the dispensaries in exchange for reasonable compensation?
I am not required to get a license or pay taxes.
Caregivers and patients are specifically exempted from two Health & Safety Code Sections, §11357, which covers possession, and §11358, which covers cultivation and processing. In addition, courts have found that the CUA infers a limited defense to §11360, (transportation and distribution) in that a patient or caregiver may transport an amount reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs.
The provision in SB 420 affording legal protection to patient collectives and cooperatives, HSC 11362.775, will sunset one year after the Bureau posts a notice on its website that licenses have commenced being issued. After that date, all cannabis collectives will have to be licensed, except for individual patient and caregiver gardens serving no more than five patients.
Taxes
MCRSA requires medical cannabis businesses to obtain a seller’s permit with the State Board of Equalization, which imposes a 7.5-10% sales and use tax. Both MCRSA and AUMA permit cities and counties to impose additional taxes on cannabis businesses.
A new tax scheme that impacts both medical and recreational cannabis was created by AUMA. Effective January 1, 2018, a 15% excise tax will be levied on ALL retail sales of cannabis (medical and recreational) on top of the regular state sales tax. Also effective January 1, 2018, all cannabis is subject to a cultivation tax of $9.25 per ounce of dry-weight flowers, and $2.75 per ounce of dry-weight cannabis leaves. The cultivation tax is not imposed on marijuana cultivated for personal use or by a qualified patient or caregiver pursuant to Proposition 215. Effective immediately, qualified patients with state-issued ID cardsare exempt from the 7.5+% state sales tax on retail sales of cannabis, but not from the 15% excise tax or cultivation tax.
7. Possession and Cultivation Guidelines: If a person is acting as primary caregiver to more than one patient under section 11362.7(d)(2), he or she may aggregate the possession and cultivation limits for each patient. For example, applying the MMP’s basic possession guidelines, if a caregiver is responsible for three patients, he or she may possess up to 24 oz. of marijuana (8 oz. per patient) and may grow 18 mature or 36 immature plants. Similarly, collectives and cooperatives may cultivate and transport marijuana in aggregate amounts tied to its membership numbers. Any patient or primary caregiver exceeding individual possession guidelines should have supporting records readily available when:
a) Operating a location for cultivation;
b) Transporting the group’s medical marijuana; and
c) Operating a location for distribution to members of the collective or
cooperative.
Qualified Patients are exempt from state licensing requirements under MMRSA, if they cultivate 100 square feet or less of medical cannabis. Primary Caregivers serving up to five Qualified Patients may cultivate up to 500 square feet of medical cannabis without a state license. Cities and counties retain the right to license, regulate or ban medical cannabis cultivation. MMRSA repeals the cooperative and collective cultivation option created by the MMPA one year after state licensing agencies post a notice that commercial licensing is underway.
Your legal defense to provide to dispensaries continues until January, 2019. However, licensed dispensaries can no longer procure medicine from unlicensed suppliers, so you have to work in the informal network which is only protected by a legal defense (HSC 11362.775) not a personal right. Unfortunately, the Health and Safety Code section that allowed for a caregiver to cultivate for up to five patients, HSC 11362.777 was killed by SB 94; “SEC. 141. Section 11362.777 of the Health and Safety Code is repealed.” HSC 11362.765 covers caregiver transfers to another patient but only when there is no profit. As a non-attorney, I don’t know if you can be a caregiver to more than one patient or what the cap is but as an individual, you still have the Prop., 215 protection for any amount that is “reasonably related” to your current medical need.
EricWilliams5 Once it passes you will have a right to grow, process and keep six plants with or without a medical card and with a medical card you will have a defense to grow as many as you need for your own medical use. You will be able to share an ounce at a time with other people but last year the legislature voted (and governor signed the law) that it will be a misdemeanor for patients to share marijuana and a felony to sell to one another without a license, starting in 2019. The Prop. 64 right to share will eliminate that misdemeanor for adults but no matter what you will need a state license to sell cannabis beginning in 2019.
When 64 passes you will be able to grow 6 plants and have up to an oz on you outside of your home with no medical card required to remain legal.
Prop 64 versus prop 215:
If now I’m using cannabis for medical purposes ( epilepsy) under proposition 215 will I still have to have a medical prescription to grow six plants legally with proposition 64.
weedbay1 Letitiapepper What Letitia doesn’t tell you is that the police would have no way to tell if you grew it yourself with out you telling them and that they are not allowed to search your house in the first place, if we vote Yes on Prop. 64.
Here is what the initiative says that LP will never admit, but read it and Vote Yes.
11362.1.(c) Marijuana and marijuana products involved in any way with conduct deemed lawful by this section are not contraband nor subject to seizure, and no conduct deemed lawful by this section shall constitute the basis for detention, search, or arrest.
SteveWebb1 Have you gotten so far as to read the title and summary of Prop. 64? Apparently not, so let me paste it below for you and see if you can find the words “legalization” or “legalizes”. I’m pretty sure most people can find them:
January 6, 2016 Initiative 15-0103 (Amdt. #1) The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure: MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Legalizes marijuana and hemp under state law.
SteveWebb1 Some unsigned blog is what you use for legal counsel? Wow, I would love to be the prosecutor when you come into court. “Your honor, I read something online that said that.” Judge: “Prosecutor, what say ye?” Prosecutor: Here is the legal citation your honor, right in this section of the criminal code law books.” Judge: “Guilty as charged.”
Luckily, in this case you are better off because your source is a pile of horseshoe, because we have more than 40 attorneys who agree with Bill Panzer that Prop. 215 is protected. Here is the link to see for yourself.
http://friendsofprop64.org/blog/prop-64-protects-patients/
SteveWebb1 an ounce is a lot for weed. So much so that it is the de-facto limit for all the other legal states. For no paper work 1 oz and 6 plants is all most will ever need. If you need more there are medical cards or recreational licenses you can get. A micro license allows you to operate your own delivery service.
What you seem to be saying is your drivers license is only good for passenger cars. If you want to drive a semi-truck you need to update a license. Just because you don’t have a semi-truck license doesn’t make them illegal. After all, for most people a passenger car license is all they ever need.
Letitiapepper By the way, here are 42 more attorneys who say Letitia is wrong.
http://friendsofprop64.org/blog/prop-64-protects-patients/
Letitiapepper The phrase is “open container,” LP. You should know that you’ve been running around the state ranting and raving about it and now you admit that you don’t even know what the initiative says! I knew it all the time. And here are 43 other attorneys who say you are wrong.
http://friendsofprop64.org/blog/prop-64-protects-patients/
SteveWebb1 That’s your argument? Please show me a case law with your “red herring” defense being upheld. There is no such thing, you are misleading people if you they are foolish enough to believe you instead of these 43 attorneys who say you are wrong.
http://friendsofprop64.org/blog/prop-64-protects-patients/
weedbay1 Letitiapepper Here are more than 40 other attorneys who agree with Bill Panzer and say you are misrepresenting the law.
http://friendsofprop64.org/blog/prop-64-protects-patients/
Letitiapepper when Panzer declared the limits on patient cultivation as unconstitutional he did so with 20 or more victories, from up and down the coast of California, and from many local courts. How many of these unconstitutional bans have you gotten overturned?
Letitiapepper at the end of the day you wish you had 1/4 of the cannabi law practice Panzer has. You aren’t even stable enough to address a city council, who would want you representing them in court?
Letitiapepper The language clearly indicates you can have the harvest of 6 plants at your house. You know damn well this is in there:
The living plants and any marijuana produced by the plants in excess of 28.5 grams are kept within the person’s private residence, or upon the grounds of that private residence (e.g., in an outdoor garden area), are in a locked space, and are not visible by normal unaided vision from a public place.
Why are you the only one, out out thousands of attorneys who have poured over this making such obvious lies about it. Please reread the initiative and try to undertand what it says.
Letitiapepper absolutely the craziest thing I’ve read on the internet today. Such paranoia and low self esteem. You can take the language of prop 64 at face value, there is no agenda. Please stop this foolishness.
Jail, for non medical users possessing this plant, would be the result of voting no on 64. Get your facts straight.
Voting yes means less jail than what currently exists for non medical users.
Wrong. Try actually reading the bill. It’s an oz out in public. You can have as much as you want “out of plain site” yes, I used a lock box as an example of this and no you won’t find the word lockbox in the bill because it is my own personal example of “out of site”.
I challange you to prove me wrong with actual evidence from the bill.
Telling people they can only have an oz in their home is a TOTAL LIE.
Well if you are trying to say that police will come to my 4 plant 600w garden after 64 passes, then you may need to reread the bill you are attempting to paraphrase.
Again, all untrue. The Feds cannot dictate the nature of state MEDICAL laws. Fact governments do UNCONSTITUTIONAL things does not make those things valid!!!
The state constitution does NOT allow a ban of personal cultivation! Our politicians are passing unconstitutional laws like the Jim Criw laws! Time to fight back: NO on 64!
Prop. 64 does NOT say you can have as much as you like in your home in a locked box!!!!!!! Anyone who believes this crap must not know how to search the PDF file if 64 and look for the words locked box!!! This is a TOTAL lie — all you can have is an ounce, period.
And whose foot will be your door if Prop. 64 passes? The police, CPS, and Code Enforcement! And if you have guns, the ATF.
ChristopherShawnCourtney Under an ounce is legal, no paperwork required and is suitable for most recreational users and it’s why all the other legal states have that limitation. If you have a need for more there are medical or recreation licenses you can get. A micro license allows you to carry enough for your own delivery service. A patient card allows you to carry 1/2 a pound.
You have a driver’s license, some people’s license allows them to drive 60ft semi tractor trailers. Most likely your license does not but they are still legal.
I never said for anyone to vote one way or another, you did that.
Only thing I have done is invited you to provide evidence that says medical users will have to follow non-medical users laws.
We are still waiting for any hint of evidence.
I am not holding my breath though. Lol
You are splitting hairs here. Trying to get me to explain a definition is pointless. Just read the bill yourself. It expkains that in full.
Show us where the proposed bill says established medical rights will be trumped by this non-medical users laws.
I challange you to provide any information that supports those statements.
We are still waiting.
I encourage you to provide actual proof to explain how people facing six months in jail for POSSESSION of over an ounce is an accurate definition that correctly defines legalizeation .How this is a reasonable solution for going over the LIMIT inaccurately defines legalization.The very title is an out right lie.could you explain specficly directly To the previous sentences and explain also that justifacation.
Your reasoning, you” have seen the evidence yourself” prooves nothing .your accusations and others whom cite “evidence” as there proof without providing the exact statements that explain the error in the statement.
Once again you are confusing the non-medical rights with the medical ones. You are comparing apples with oranges here.
People facing six months jail is not ending anything .and people whom were protected before are not allowed the same freedoms after brings us to what conclusion?prop 47 made most felonys misdeamenors andbpossesion of over an ounce is a what.
This is a law that says what it does is legalize cannabis recreationally.Please look up the definition of the word legalize and see how that definition completly conflicts with the discription of what the law does period.If its true that people with possession of over an ounce face six months in jail.500 dollar fine or both.That statement then conflicts with the definition prop 64 legalizes cannabis.The very title of the propisition is a lie .The rest of the 63 64?pages are similarly written vaguely discriptive.inaccurately. reasons for finding conclusions and proving points through insulting and discrediting
Give a specfic example to illustrate your point. your unwilling to cite or quote yourselfanything that was mentioned does nothing to discredit the statements made or disprove the arguements made against.Well he said it so it must be true
Their arguments were by prohibitionist. and thats how you came to the conclusion that their staemnts were untrue.You have serious flaws in your reasoning or your doing poor job discouraging people from a no vote through the use of slander to. Disproove or discredit a statement by slanderising ,namecaling to dicredit the opinion.
Further, the inaccuracies in your statements. You cite for proving a previous statements was false suggest the errors in your ability to critical think.also are telling on how you evaluate arguements weigh an arguments validity.And major errors in how you think or how much you dont objectively think .
Conrad’s own website makes the misleading claim that Prop. 64 “retains the following state laws: Prop. 215 Compassionate Use Act, HS 11362.5” – but he either fails to notice or simply ignores the fact that 11362.5 is only one section of Prop. 215: the one that pertains to the right to use and possess cannabis:
Health & Safety Code 11362.5 — Proposition 215
§11362.5. Use of marijuana for medical purposes.
(b)(l) The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 are as follows:
(A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes…
It is only Section 11358 of the Health & Safety Code that refers to the right to cultivate, and the only place this is referenced in Prop. 64 is in the section that delineates criminal penalties – and harsh ones – for anyone who violates the six-plant cultivation limit.
The initiative would further limit patients’ access by actually making it more difficult to get a doctor’s recommendation. Whereas under current law, a patient needs nothing more than an oral or written recommendation to obtain and grow cannabis, if Prop. 64 passes, a doctor “shall not recommend medical cannabis to a patient, unless that person is the patient’s attending physician” (Section 11362.712; SB 643 Section 2525.2). In other words, patients – the overwhelming majority of whom obtain their recommendations through licensed doctors at a price as low as $35 per year – under Prop. 64 must see a primary care physician for this service. In addition, patients would be required to pay up to $100 annually for an ID card that currently is not required by law [Section 11362.755 (b)]. So, instead of $35 yearly for a doctor’s recommendation, under Prop. 64 patients will have to spend closer to $200 or more.
This would greatly limit access, because many patients cannot afford expensive health insurance and co-pays to see a primary care physician. This would also have the much intended affect of forcing patients into the recreational market – if they can afford the expected rise in the cost of cannabis, on top of the more than 30 percent increase taxes will demand – or back into the illicit, black market realm of untested cannabis, if they can’t.
So, while Prop. 64 masquerades as a great protector
Clearly it states that for NON-MEDICAL use. It does not say anything about current medical rights being replaced with NON-MEDICAL usage laws. You have yet to provide any evidence at all, being from a trusted source or not, you are just making statements here. Fun!!
Once again, we are all still waiting for any shred of evidence that backs up any of your previous statements.
I’m still listening, but starting to feel like I am speaking to a brick wall here about this lack of evidence issue you are having.
Comprehend the meanng of the words that im saying ,next clearly directly explain exactly why they are not true refer to the .material your citing the statements that are being said .and accurately ,directly specficly explain why they are not true .So the sources you are. Saying are true. please examine the words. And there accurate. Meaning inexplaining why or why not.that were used to make the statement.And what defines someone as being an expert by the way? a self proclaimed expert wittness is a title lawers give to people whom argue cases in court .Not an explanation For why they are. Right or wrong to begin with .name droping does not respond to the previous statement directly or prove a pointNow red the sentence under prop64 people with possession of over an ounce still face six months in jail not true.Are you capable?I will be waiting.The context in which a word is used in a sentence will asist
Not true if you have your CA medical card. I have seen concrete evidence to justify these words. Please actually read the above article you are posting on. I challenge you to actually come up with real concrete evidence sited by trusted sources to back up a single word that you have stated above.
We are all waiting to see this…
Post your evidence as a reply and I will retract everything I have said.
You are not an expert in this field. Although, I too see an issue with smaller businesses losing to “the man”. Only, my concerns are not limited to this industry.
Try backing up your words with evidence, until then you will not be able to fool anyone here with that nonsense about medical patients losing their already established rights.
You will have to settle for 1oz(singular)and face six months in jail(thats not legalization!) if you had ounces. Be careful growing you aloted six plants When people who were not opressed and limited under the many JUSTand FREEDOMS under 215 That would be a step backward. and still proposing jail as a solution to an already unjust overregulated needless limit and unnesccicarly incarcerating as a practical way to regulate thats not a minor flaw but a critical impact and elemination of freedoms of individuals that currently enjoyTRUE FREEDOM and protection under215 (ifbit aint broken dont fix it) .The only consequnce of this becoming law would be the power grab by corparate puppeteers that WILL criminalize all the moms and pops hard working familys that currently cultivate without fear of incarceration,criminalization under 215 currently that clearly and accurately by effect have an impacton 215 Chris Conrad. all the suggestively worded untrue(legalize)deceptivlyworded statements this makes.That is a complete con to the public We dont need to unjustly tax medical marijuana patients (what other medicine is taxed, and how is it justifiable to target and discriminate against MEDICALcannabis patients.That is a huge step backwards.and TRULY UNJUSTLY,IMPACTING 215s rights.
Nice try to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes here. Chris Conrad is not the only one stating your comments detailed above are false. He even backed up his comments with literature.
I hear what you are saying, but you are just making up facts. Let’s see some evidence to support what you say.
You claim cultivation is prohibited in 75% of counties. False. Maybe outdoor cultivation, but not indoor.
Your attempts at fooling everyone here are very irritating. Try backing up your wild guesses with some actual evidence.
Thank you for you for voting against and addressing the very important points to vote against prop64 .The title that proclaims this as legalizing cannabis is completly untrue.And they should be legally bound to make a correct tittle to something that more correctly and accurately discribe .The very title of this deceptively,incorrectly worded and misleading, incorrectly suggestive .Vaguely and incompletely explaining. The entire proposition is worded poorly and indirectly explain, incorrectly suggestive discriptions of the many laws,regulation,penalties,criminal prosecution of people ,overly tax ,overregulate,discriminatory, unjust taxation of medical patients.If medical patients are limited to one ounce under this propositions proposals then this in effect will obviously and TRUTHFULLY have an impact on medical patients.As i believe Chris Conrad was incorrectly,untruthfully proclaiming this would not have any impact on 215 I would consider that an impact.You may possibly consider it another deceptivly worded, ,incorrectly suggestive.This entire proposition true effects will impact 215 if people will be unjustly taxed, overregulated and criminalize .six months in jail exclude this proposition from TRULY legalizing it.A very important ,factual and unaddressed point.that has been accurately, specficly ,directly not responed to with any legitimate correct explanation.Six plants 1 ounce does one LIMIT exclude the other?75 %of countys plan to ban cultivation altogether.your explanation and discription of the effects, impacts,and consequences of this proposition are worded like a used car salesman promoting a car to a customer trying to sell a lemon.Spoken like a true lawer.
If an attorney is asked to write a piece like this and his client demands it, the attorney cannot admit he was paid for his opinion. I respect Bill a lot, but this is politics, not law.
What democratic process are you talking about? I hope you are not trying to say that we all live in a democracy here! We live in a republic. We vote on an electoral college. They are the ones who ultimately decide who our political leaders will be. There is no democracy there my friend. Please look this information up for yourself. The founding fathers didn’t think you or I were capable of voting for the best leaders. They thought we would choose the best looking or most charismatic. So they actually formed our current society based on the old idea of a republic. Don’t take my word for it. Fact check this yourself. Excercise your right to be informed.
I fight all corporate influence in our democratic process
Vote yes for 28th amendment
If you think that was all about race and bodies…you have much more research to do on that subject.
Btw, nice way to totally avoid the question I asked. Spoken like a true politition.
My point was that all laws are flawed in some way. No single law can be right for everyone. Can we agree on that at least?
I too am concerned about the small businesses and corporate take over. But my concerns of corporate take overs are not limited to this mj industry.
So should every small business be protected from the cooperations? Would that make you change your mind about this entire prop 64 issue?
Emancipation was needed for north to have more bodies.
Your logic is flawed like your argument.
Ho hard would it to be to make a bill to protect mom and pop farms not corporate farming and no incarceration. You want to compare that to freeing a race in our society
Actually, no law is perfect because the idea of a perfect law is just a fantasy.
Would you have voted against the emancipation proclamation because segregation was still leagal at that period in time?
Just curious.
No law is perfect many because folks like you will settle. I have been here saying no on 64 for it is a bad bill and after 80 can’t we really get a bill that does not infringe on us still.
End the war on drugs yes but don’t pass another bad law with weed. Thanks
No on 64
I love camping with ozs!! lol I’m in!!!
No I totally agree!! Booze = bad. Lol
Drunk drivers run red lights, stoners only go when it’s green. 😉
The law is no where near perfect. Still much work to be done.
I am saying it’s a step in the right direction. We always must strive to be better.
Let’s get out of the unstoned ages and into the future!!
Baby steps my brother. It’s called the foot in the door technique. Once we establish some form of legality… although not perfect. Then we can perfect it along the way. Voting no is like taking 10 steps backwards to a period in time which I am coin phrasing right here and now as the unstoned ages!
So let’s go camping for a weekend I will bring one ounce you bring once case no more I think your missing the point. Alcohol creates problems MJ does not, an ounce lasts me a few days is all a case should last you a few days also right? Your ok with limits on your alcohol you can have then correct. ?
Re-thought yes… I agree. But not tossed out completely. See, if you vote no on 64… you are essentially saying that you would like to see the bill re-written verbatim. If you vote yes on 64, you can amend the current bill to make it work best for the actual situation.
I’m no political science major… just a lowly mechanical engineer. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong about policy here. I believe that’s how it works.
I can fit an oz in my pocket. I can fit a single beer into that same pocket after I smoked that oz. lol
I think you are comparing apples with oranges here.
I get what you mean, but an oz can get 16 plus people fried out of their brains (if it’s true dank). Put 16 people on a bottle of JD and you will have 16 sober pissed off people lol.
Look, I get it… there are flaws in the law. Name any law, most likely there are a few flaws in it. Doesn’t mean you toss out the entire bill and start all over, you amend the parts that do not fit and continue on.
I do not see the statements detailed above as any reason to vote “no” sorry, but you lost me there. Maybe find another point to make, and maybe I’ll reconsider. Until then “yes on 64”!!!
Alcohol is the gateway drug with cigs, 80 years of lies and propaganda have created a society where one drug can be used basically anyplace even though side effects are detrimental to society, while other drug is still shunned by many, even many that are users.
I love the lock box idea for alcohol, might as well do cigs in that to and coffee in my opinion. Why we make laws to continue to oppress then they are the wrong laws for society and should be re thought
Some people say it all starts with sugar, the lactose in mother’s milk that keeps the baby coming back for more. I’m not sure how you would carry your coffee in a lockbox but it’s an interesting ideal. The State legislature has come up with its own definition of “open container” in Senate Bill 94 and I agree with you, they have the whole thing wrong. It should just be a closed container like a doob tube or a ziplock bag, in other words unless it’s in the ashtray, being or sitting loose in the console area, it should not matter. As you say, the stigma against cannabis needs to be re-thought but IMHO that means give us time for people to get used to the idea and keep the Feds out of it as long as possible.
I hear what you are saying about the alcohol. But you are not addressing all the facts in the specific circumstances they may exist. For example…
In the home you can have as much cannabis you desire inside a locked box. Just like you can have as much alcohol as you desire in your home, only no lock required there. Outside of your home you are limited to an oz. on your persons. Any more any it can be fined or jail. With alhohol any single open container can get you fined, sent to jail, or maybe sent to detox.
Yes, you are correct when you say you can have as much alchohol ouside your home… only stipulation is that as long as the containers are closed and the labels are not visible (just going off the top of my head, I’m no lawyer so you might want to fact check the label statement I just made).
Your oz does not need to be contained in any specific fashion.
For outside the home consumption, you just can’t smoke any mj unless you are in a designated location. (Pretty much the same as alcohol consumption).
So as you can see, both aliments do have some limiting factors with carry and consumption.
I think, at best, an argument could be made that after 64 passes that all alchohol needs to also be inside a locked box or fridge inside your home. You may have some merit there.
Hope that makes sense.
Future 4hemp, what do you think?
I have researched some of your books, and I believe whole heartedly that you are an expert on this subject matter. I would like to know what your opinion is on alcohol not having to be in a lock box inside your home. Seems discriminatory to me.
letvus step back and have you first answer my simplistic reason for no on 64 (as a farmer and legal weed advocate for 35 years)
Why do we get incarcerated for possession of 29 grams of weed ? That is a little steep seeing how much alcohol can I have before I am incarcerated ? (Have not be drinking)
Red herring fallacy. So you know what that is?
No on 64
No until no jail for a plant
Sure call it legalization and put folks in prison still, last I checked that is incarceration not legalization. Can you explain why folks will still go to jail? Why can they have endless supply of alcohol but little supply of weed and jail you need according to prop 64
No on 64
Hemp4theFuture Willsb I read the article word for word. How specifically does the info in the article “prove that is full of nonsense”? How specifically do you discredit the comparison to what happened with Washington state and Prop 64?
Listen to this guy hemp for the future… he really knows what he is talking about. Respect.
Toker1
Looking to Buy Weed Online? We have multiple grade A strains buds and Cannabis Award Winning strains. We also have Quality
Marijuana edibles and Weed brownies, Marijuana concentrates with THC levels too 23%-58% forum cut buds. We are mainly
located in the Miami,Florida area frequently or abroad internationally. We ship top discrete packaging via USPS and UPS and
pickups are welcome. All prices are negotiable, if you’re looking for long term business, but no low ballers you’re
already exotic AAA+ strains for low. If interested or any questions Text or call me at (315) 928-2371
Or email me at greyareaweed420@gmail.com
Please only contact if your serious, we take pride in my time
E-mail:::greyareaweed420@gmail.com
Number:::(315) 928-2371
VISIT: http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.grey-areaweed.com%2F&h=9AQEet063AQGPuAr9VhqJ_KMPO44c9DOSIZ82Ehpkbb-qEA&enc=AZNxrRoZ6U8zt1QKQY4tRkMdzy-bA1mg8_HF-0qI3UsVdSzSk7nckXIGXqNhG7zFvJecZp2nGZ-3rBg9ibQFf7rkks4ADZd7lGi022aHfVp79-HRe_KIUF94l1UcNxS2BDZauAgrYYqwfFUyGPQQxGFAyZoYrbqqtCFQWMrIkqempTmJcjHPvCQzVj79uvOHIsf18j5muG_VUTpWORwzOoAA&s=1
Run a non profit activist organization in San Diego and also I am a farmer which pays for my activism. 64 will end out non profit and out farm. Corporation will take over farming industry and dispensaries leaving mom and pop farms behind
No on 64 save small business
They said it would not change medical in Washingtion and Colorado also but they totally lied there. You want me to trust the same government that has lied about the plant for over 80 years.
No on 64
Legalize is no incarcerating people
Correct prop 215 did that 20 years ago. We all have our cards by now seeing there is no shoes medical records just pay 40 bucks and then I can drive with 8 ounces no problem completely legal.
Pass prop 64 and that legality is out the window.
No on 64 stop incarcerating people that use a plant
So how many cases of beer can one have before they put you in jail? Under prop 64 of it passes you go to jail with over an ounce. So 3 cases of beer you go to jail also? I mean alcohol is worse than the plant
No on 64
Legalize the right way not this way
SteveWebb1 No, Prop 215 already did that 20 years ago. This initiative doesn’t change your medical marijuana legal defense. Read the article you are commenting about and you should be able to grasp the situation a little better but you don’t seem to be willing to do that, so try this on for size: Prop 64 is for nonmedical adult use, so Vote Yes on Prop 64.
SteveWebb1 Most likely a ticket, at most. You’re hyperventilating, breathe, life will go on after cannabis is legalized by Prop 64. Vote Yes.
90% of all farmers say no on 64
Vote No on 64 to keep folks out of jail
Prison you will still go to for prison is where they send folks with more than an ounce
In eyes of court today weed is legal if you pay 40 bucks for card. Does 64 make it that way? No
SteveWebb1 Which just goes to show that I am right and you are wrong, thanks for that.
SteveWebb1 De facto legal results in more than 8,000 arrests per year for marijuana felonies that will be misdemeanors and tens of thousands of people ticketed for doing things that would be legal. Look up the definition of legalization, it means making something illegal (small amounts and sales of marijuana) and makes it legal. Your word games aren’t keeping anyone out of prison, Prop 64 will so Vote Yes on Prop 64.
They are not doing that so that would be De juro De facto in legal terms (black law dictionary)
Exactly. So how is that legalization? How many cases of beer can I have before I go to jail? Whiskey? Aspirin? Just that plant they have been lying about, they still want us in jail for if and. In California most intelligent folk are already prop 215 legal, that cost 40 bucks and then I can have how much?? Yeah. I want a real legalization bill not one for the prison industrial complex and Corporations to take control of farming to eliminate mom and pop farms.
SteveWebb1 No, Steve. The feds say they will only allow state laws that are “tightly regulated” and “strictly enforced,” so your dream law can’t happen until federal law changes. Prop 64 will be the best marijuana legalization law in the country once it passes. Vote Yes on Prop 64.
Willsb It is so cut and dried, that’s why the “no” side has to make up these elaborate schemes, such as the one to which you refer people. Have you read the article you are commenting on that was written by an actual Prop 215 attorney? The answer is simple. Vote Yes on Prop 64 to defend medical marijuana patient gardens, vote no if you want to ban all home grows. Smart people are voting Yes on Prop 64.
SteveWebb1 If you have more than an ounce without a doctor’s note you are already a criminal, SteveWebb1. If you have less than an ounce you are also a criminal. If you have a doctor’s approval you will still have your same rights as now, a defense in court. Yes on Prop 64 means your first ounce is legal and after that you still need a Prop 215 approval. Vote Yes.
Puts me in jail for over an ounce. That is criminal
If you have more than an ounce without a doctor’s note you are already a criminal, SteveWebb1. If you have less than an ounce you are also a criminal. If you have a doctor’s approval you will still have your same rights as now, a defense in court. Yes on Prop 64 means your first ounce is legal and after that you still need a Prop 215 approval. Vote Yes.
I am a farmer and I will say that everything 64 does is already legal to do but 64 will incarcerated me of passed for having over an ounce. That is re criminalizing
No on 64
Can we have a legalize weed bill and not a restrictive one that makes alcohol still the drug of choice for USA
SteveWebb1 That website is run by a group of narcs funded by porn promoter Craig Baresh, who has a monopoly on retail medical marijuana sales in part of Southern California. He’s playing you for a sucker, or you are playing us for one by posting his propaganda. Anybody who believes his tripe deserves the felony sentences he wants you to vote for, or you can vote to protect Prop 215 and legalize nonmedical use by voting Yes on Prop 64.
HarryBellafonte It legalizes marijuana, stops bans on home grows, and makes sales legal with a license. You might not call that legalization but according to the dictionary, that is exactly what it is. Prop 64 is a great initiative. Vote Yes.
Willsb Did you even read the article above that you are posting this comment on? It completely proves your link is full of nonsense. Please read the article again. The link you are posting is by prohibitionists who are trying to dupe you into voting no when we all need to vote Yes on 64.
Available now quality meds. Whether for health or for recreation, hmu. Discreet delivery too.weedfarm0@gmail.com
SteveWebb1 seriously you think an article that the author won’t put his name on is equal to an article written by Bill Panzer? Quit playing the fool, there’s a reason the author kept his name off of it.
HarryBellafonte the state constitution and plenty of case law allows these bans, many set up before AUMA was ever thought of.
Willsb the sourc is blogspot, enough for me to question it, not to mention the misinterpretation of many things in the ‘story’.
You were almost smart enough to realize AUMA & MMRSA collude to steal our rights. Luckily; I still did your research for you!!!
” At the end of 2015 (effective 2016), the California state legislature over-rode Prop 215 with MMRSA – the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act of 2015/16 – which effectively rewrites the Health Code pertaining to medical marijuana. Opponents contend that MMRSA is unconstitutional, since a voter initiative cannot be changed by legislative action unless it so provides. And that is why its backers need AUMA, a voter initiative that validates MMRSA in its fine print.
In combination with stricter California Medical Association rules for enforcement, MMRSA effectively moves medical marijuana therapy from the wholistic plant to a pharmaceutical derivative, one that must follow an AUMA or American Pharmaceutical Association mode of delivery. MMRSA turns the right to cultivate into a revocable privilege to grow, contingent on local rules. The right to choose one’s own doctor is also eliminated. “
The initiative is pretty bad. It is overly long, confusing, and allows the local governments to ban outdoor grows and retail shops (as well as continue to ban clinics). I don’t call any of that “legalization”.
Are you Pro-Marijuana? Register to vote at http://www.promarijuana.vote
Willsb The article you cite uses Washington’s experience as some harbinger of doom for California MMJ should Prop. 64 pass, but the comparison misses a couple of key points:
1. To the extent California had any sort of regulated system under SB 420 (which is debatable), the current MMJ system was effectively dismantled by the passage of the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act. Its ticking time-bomb repeals the “collective” language of SB 420, by design, putting the business models of most collectives and dispensaries at risk if they fail to obtain both state and local licenses starting in 2018.
2. The MCRSA creates a state-licensed framework of commercial activities for MEDICAL CANNABIS. Prop. 64 leverages that existing MCRSA framework and extends it cover NON-MEDICAL regulations as well. Two laws, two separate classes of licensure, evolving state regulations, and two consumer bases with different needs. My working theory is that commercial licensing for medical-only dispensaries will finally take flight in previous ban areas, while stonier adult-use sales outlets will be limited to certain portions of the state initially.
3. Prop. 64’s provisions for personal use, cultivation and sharing among adults is not aimed solely at Prop. 215 patients, but they will be among 64’s greatest beneficiaries. No complete bans, even in previous ban areas. No reliance on pot docs, and no more trying to convince skeptics and cops that you’re “sick enough” to grow your own. If you want to SELL or even DONATE medical cannabis, MCRSA just made your life more difficult. But if you’re a truly patient-centered person who’s most interested in SHARING good medicine with the people who need it most, Prop. 64 allows you to do so on a personal, one-to-one and fully legal basis.
I’m not so sure it’s so cut and dried. Have you seen this analysis? https://voteknowprop64.blogspot.com/p/ithought-for-decades-that-legalization.html?m=0