No on Prop 64 (2)

I am going to do my best to analyze Prop 64. It is a very lengthy and confusing 62 page document with far too many loopholes and room for the government to screw us. They are saying it is for the patients and to protect our children but I want to dive deeper into this. On November 8th California voters will be given the illusion of choice and allowed to go to the poles and vote on this initiative. This bill would legalize marijuana for recreational use. The bill is known as AUMA. It asks residents of California if it is finally time to legalize marijuana. When phrased this way the majority of the people will be swayed in the direction of legalizing because, well there is nothing wrong with cannabis and there is overwhelming evidence to prove that it has worked in the medical realm for 20 plus years.

AUMA, like mentioned earlier is a complex 62 page document that even a lawyer would have a difficult time getting through. Beings that there are many issues in AUMA that will affect how we grow and access marijuana I think it is important that we know exactly what it is that we are voting for. Grandma used to always say THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS and in order to make an informed decision on this subject I think its imperative that we explore the details. I implore with you as you read this to take notes an to ask yourself if AUMA is really the best for we the people. Has AUMA earned my vote? If you want to follow along here is a link to the initiative and it would not be a bad idea for you to print it out for your own eyes to read

https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0103%20(Marijuana)_1.pdf

page 2 section two. findings and declarations:

B) citing the “widespread abuse) of the medical marijuana system in California, this bill will work to consolidate, tax and regulate both the medical and non medical industries. The difference between the medical and the non medical industries. The difference between the medical and recreational cannabis user requires that these be separate issues and should be treated as so under the law. One only has to look at how well the consolidation process has worked in Washington State with the passage of I-502 which legalized recreational cannabis and rolled medicinal and recreational into one ball and you will see that it is the patients who have suffered due to lack of access to their medication.

D) The language that by passing AUMA, the black market will be incapacitated and children under 18 wont have access to marijuana is a ridiculously lofty goal but rather merit less. Our children find ways to get alcohol and those laws are stringent. Statements like that are intended to get people to vote yes for the bill without realizing that not only is it unlikely to have any impact on children who are determined to get cannabis, but that yes vote will make every aspect of AUMA the law of the land. It is no accident that they put this inflammatory paragraph on the first page of the bill. The authors knew exactly what they were orchestrating.

1)This paragraph describes the safeguards the bill provides for local governments to regulate marijuana businesses through zoning and permitting requirements and that with a vote of the people the marijuana may be banned within a locality

F)   Notice this paragraph addresses environmental and water diversion issues, but the creation of strict environmental regulations that endure marijuana is grown efficiently and legally leaves much to the imagination. Why does it take passing AUMA to enforce current laws that require those who wish to divert water to have a permit to do so. These laws are already on the books and simply need to be enforced. Like paragraph D it is designed to empassion those who care about the environment, to gain their yes vote on AUMA without them fully comprehending the consequences of that vote.

Regardless of whether or not AUMA passes the reduced consequences for marijuana related offenses should be made into law and not a condition that requires the passing of AUMA. As in previous paragraphs this language was added as a way to empassion people to vote yes on this bill.  Those who vote yes will be doing so because they have seen too many people have their lives turned upside down for what we see today as the inconsequential activities that stem from a plant. A plant that for over 80 years our government has declared as so dangerous it is ranked as a schedule one drug and we need to lock those up who have anything to do with it. But today we are aware that it is not the evil gateway drug they presented it to be and its medicinal benefits are undeniable. So those of you who would vote yes on AUMA as a way to get serious about reducing sentences and expunging those records ask yourselves why this language is in this bill in the first place? It should not take passage of this bill to see that happen anyway. It was added to get your vote for the rest of the bill.

The reasoning in section H is extremely flawed. If AUMA passes there will be fewer cultivators as the illicit black market growers disappear.   After licensing and taxes on cannabis bring prices to a new level this will only create greater financial incentives for those to maintain a position in the black market. All they have to do to succeed is not get caught and be cheaper than the licensed cultivator or distributor.

The language in J states that AUMA passing will protect the small to medium sized buisnesses because they will be given a 5 year window of non compete clauses against large scale cultivators.  However at the end of that 5 year period licenses will be granted to those large scale cultivators who would be able to grow crops of what is not stated but may be virtually unlimited in size. In 5 years the RJ Reynolds and Phillip Morris’s will have their acres of cannabis farms and to those small to medium sized cultivators who have not already gone bankrupt well they will be bought out. Who will be affected most by this? THE CUSTOMER. Ask yourself this Why did AUMA not state the maximum allowable size of large scale crop licenses. The answer is because in 5 years the big AG is going to step in and the face of cannabis will be forever changed with GMO and so on and so forth….

This concludes section 2 of why to vote no on prop 64 wake up people smell the coffee. Remember all those sweet little mom and pop stores of our youth? Where are they now? Replaced with Walmart… I do not want Walmart cannabis. DO you?

More tomorrow….

 

 

2 thoughts on “No on Prop 64 (2)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s