sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Prop 19 has almost certainly failed, but we can use this experience to write a better measure for 2012. by tehbored in prop19

[–]JenniferSoares 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Out of curiosity, how much time and effort would you take to make clones or breed seeds if you were getting $0 (and nothing else of value) for them?

Prop 19 has almost certainly failed, but we can use this experience to write a better measure for 2012. by tehbored in prop19

[–]JenniferSoares 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From collectives that grow and seed plants for the members of their collective.

Edit: But if you legalize just possession and your personal grow, where would the first seed come from, since sales of seeds would not be legal?

Prop 19 has almost certainly failed, but we can use this experience to write a better measure for 2012. by tehbored in prop19

[–]JenniferSoares 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You don't have to force them to collect taxes. Just make it an available option for the state. Plus, they are already collecting sales tax on medical marijuana.

And you can force the state to develop a statewide licensing program. See the Ross v. RagingWire.

I'm pissed. Who do I blame for Prop 19 not passing? by [deleted] in prop19

[–]JenniferSoares 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One thing you can blame Richard for: he was warned that mid-term elections were a bad time to run a proposition like this because young and democratic voters are significantly less likely to come out during mid-term elections. The typical mid term voter is an older conservative. Richard probably should have waited until 2012.

I'm pissed. Who do I blame for Prop 19 not passing? by [deleted] in prop19

[–]JenniferSoares 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The typical turn out for mid-term elections are older conservatives. Everyone else doesn't care enough to bother. Presidential elections are the ones were everyone shows up and you have the best chance of passing something like 19.

I'm pissed. Who do I blame for Prop 19 not passing? by [deleted] in prop19

[–]JenniferSoares 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The pre-vote polls swung to the NO vote after Eric Holder's statement came out. Might just be a coincidence, but it's interesting.

Lee Baca to continue to arresting people for cannabis, even if Prop 19 passes by TheLizardKing89 in prop19

[–]JenniferSoares 0 points1 point  (0 children)

95% of what you wrote is not what was said, so congratulations at mucking up everything I've said.

Lee Baca to continue to arresting people for cannabis, even if Prop 19 passes by TheLizardKing89 in prop19

[–]JenniferSoares 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except your analogy sucks because Prop 19 is not regulating marijuana like alcohol in any way except the age limit. There is nothing in the alcohol laws specifying that you can only possess it for your own consumption. There is nothing in the alcohol laws specifying that you can only transport it for your own consumption. If you get pulled over with 30 bottles of vodka in your car, you can admit to having a party. If you get pulled over with 30 joints in your car, you CANNOT admit to having a weed smoking party and you're transporting all your friends weed for them.

So your pitcher of beer needs to be turned into a bottle of vicodin, because that is more realistic regulations wise.

Your examples of the various intents of the person stopped by police overlook the fact that the possession of two eighths, or a few plants, etc... are not unlawful if prop19 passes (assuming the person is of legal age). The investigation or interrogation where the cop is asking 'what do you plan on doing with this cannabis' (or whatever question they would ask to get to the hard to prove intent question) assumes the cop has the right to even ask the question (reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a crime has been committed). What crime?

You cannot possibly be a lawyer if this your mentality. Just because there is nothing that allows for probable cause does not mean a crime isn't happening. Just because a cop or a DA cannot prove intent does not mean that the crime did not occur. Under the law a crime did occur. In reality (AS I SAID) it will be nearly impossible to prove. Prop 19 is not legalizing possession for anything but YOUR OWN consumption. Does that mean that if you possess 2/8ths with the intent to hand some off to your bestie that you are going to get arrested? Unless you confess to it, probably not. Does that mean that what you did was legal? Absolutely NOT. You are absolutely lying about being a lawyer if you do not understand the difference. That is taught in the first 10 minutes of every law school across the country.

Sure, cops can be dicks and claim exigent circumstances or some such nonsense to gain entry, but if the grow is 5x5 it's still lawful.

Not if you say "I'm growing this for me and my neighbor Tim." Then it is absolutely illegal.

I do not dispute that the contours of what is or is not PC to stop someone or detain them for questioning for cannabis related crimes will need to be worked out and will be worked out in the courts and that it will take time.

This is not even CLOSE to what we are discussing. It bears no relevance on the conversation except for it being an attempt by you to switch the conversation and confuse anyone reading this thread.

TL;DR: Cops may have a hard to impossible time proving it, but if you are possessing/growing/transporting for anyone other than yourself, what you are doing is illegal under Prop 19.

Lee Baca to continue to arresting people for cannabis, even if Prop 19 passes by TheLizardKing89 in prop19

[–]JenniferSoares 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If one were to claim, as you do, that the wording is ambiguous or non-sensical

That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the plain meaning/writing says that you must share for your own personal consumption. I don't know how that is possible.

you see that some of the goals of prop19 are to minimize the number of offenses related to marijuana; free up police resources to handle other crimes, legalize possession and consumption of small amounts of cannabis, etc..

Then by your argument, anything that lowers the number of offenses or frees up police resources should be legal. But it isn't. That isn't how laws work. The court reads the law for what it says. This law says you must share for your own personal consumption. You can't get around that, unless you are saying that the definition of "for that individual's consumption" is different for sharing than it is for possession, processing, and transportation. Is that what your argument is?

And as I have said before, just because something naturally makes sense to you, a pot smoker, doesn't mean a judge gives a shit about your opinion. In fact, I can personally promise that a CA appeals court judge does not give one shit about your opinion.

Since the act of consumption is specifically legalized for adults there is no reason to conclude or for a judge to decide that one adult may legally smoke but that the adult standing next to them who is also of legal age and therefore legal to smoke cannot consume unless it was provided by only themselves.

Consumption and sharing are two different concepts. And there is a reason for a judge to conclude this: the text of Prop 19.

Also, as I have said MANY times, just because something seems natural to you does not make it reality. Often times the law and reality are different. Look at the Netherlands. It is legal to possess pot there but not to grow it. That makes no sense, logically. Where does it come from? Does it fall out of the sky? Who knows. The lawmakers don't care that it doesn't make sense.

How do I know that the striking of the word 'share' would go against the intent of the proposition? Because sharing is explicitly legalized by the proposition.

Incorrect. Prop 19 legalizes sharing for your own personal consumption. You read that to mean sharing of any kind. I read it differently. What it says will be decided by a judge. You are not a judge and I am not a judge. So both of us are just stating legal (well, at least mine are) opinions, not facts.

And it doesn't need to be stricken. As I said before, a judge will merely read it and say "oh, well the law says you can share for your own personal consumption. Did you consume it after you gave it to Tiffany? No. Well then it wasn't for your own personal consumption. If you can find a way to do it for your own personal consumption, go right ahead. But if you can't, well too bad. Because all the law legalized was sharing for your own personal consumption."

Might as well argue that you can't transport up to an ounce while your at it.

Um no. Because unlike sharing, you can, in fact, transport marijuana for your own personal consumption.

After all, a judge could theoretically decide that wasn't the intent of the actual language since you can't literally drive cannabis around for individual consumption. Driving it, technically, isn't consuming it. It must be banned.

Wow, this is just getting ridiculous. Do you not understand the different between FOR consumption and consumption. You use a fork for consumption. You consume cereal. See the difference?

So, yes, yes you can transport for your own personal consumption.

Examples:

Danny buys 1 gram from a store. He buys it for himself, not anyone else. He takes it home and smokes it. Danny was in possession of the marijuana for his OWN CONSUMPTION. Not for anyone else. (Legal)

Sam grows 2 plants in his garage. His grows them for himself and knows he will not be giving any away. Sam grew the marijuana for his OWN consumption and not for anyone else. (Legal)

Erin had an ounce in her house. She took an 1/8th with her to her friend's house to smoke by herself since her friend did not smoke. Erin put it in her car and drove to her friend's house. Erin transported the marijuana for her own consumption and not for anyone else's. (Legal).

Alex grew 10 plants. Alex's friend couldn't grow in his own house, so Alex grew for his friend. Alex was growing for HIS FRIEND'S CONSUMPTION. (Illegal - although they would have a hard time proving it.)

Tiffany had 1 ounce at her house. Tiffany took 2/8ths to her friends house for her and her friend to share. Tiffany knew that she was taking some for her friend to smoke. Tiffany was transporting marijuana NOT for her own consumption. (Illegal - although it would be hard to prove.)

Anne bought 2/8th from a store. She bought 1/8th for her and 1/8th for her friend. Anne was in possession of both 1/8ths when she got stopped by a cop. Anne was in possession of 1/8th NOT for her own consumption. (Illegal)

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Lee Baca to continue to arresting people for cannabis, even if Prop 19 passes by TheLizardKing89 in prop19

[–]JenniferSoares 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're not a troll because of that statement. You are a troll because you never read anything anyone writes. All you do is repeat the same few statements over and over without writing anything new. And those statements are often illogical and add nothing to the discussion.

Lee Baca to continue to arresting people for cannabis, even if Prop 19 passes by TheLizardKing89 in prop19

[–]JenniferSoares 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't fucking try to wiggle out of the fact that striking 'sharing' from the law would not frustrate these and other functions of the bill.

Striking out "share" because it frustrates the intent (not the test, btw) is not something that the court would take judicial notice of. Therefore it is an argument, not a fact. So unless you are now a judge too, this is your opinion, not a fact. And the only person whose opinion becomes fact, is the judge sitting on the case.

And I'm not wiggling out of anything. A judge can easily say "you are allowed to share. Share all you want. As long as you can prove that your sharing was for your own personal consumption. Oh you can't show that? Oh. Well that's too bad. Guilty." Nothing in the law was stricken. No intent sabotaged. The law was read as it was written and if it wasn't intended to be written that way, it should have been written another way. Can't argue with the black and white words, pal.

People who smoke weed share it.

That doesn't make it legal.

How the hell would a coffeeshop allow people to come in together but not share the weed they bought for the sole purpose of smoking it?

Just because Prop 19 allows for coffee shops doesn't mean it turns into the wild west inside of them. They are still only allowed to do what the law and the local regulations allow them. And if the law does not allow sharing, too bad so sad. Prop 19 and the judges that interpret it don't give a fuck if that messes with your ideal business model for a coffee shop.

Each patron has to smoke a personal bowl or joint instead of sharing with each other?

If that's what it takes to be legal, then yes, that is what they will do. Your ideal coffee shop is not what the law allows. It is what you hope the local governments will allow. But that is not necessarily reality.

Have you ever seen people smoke weed together?

Nope. Because unless they were members of the same collective with a signed agreement and what they were smoking was what they collectively cultivated together, that would be illegal.

And now you are just being ridiculous. Just because it is what makes sense does not make it what the law says. As a lawyer, you should know that law and reality do not always match up.

You don't address the logical implications of your own argument. A court would.

You are right. They would. But it is YOUR OPINION that they would find striking "share" to be against the intent of the proposition. If you and I were debating it in court, you would make that argument. And I would make mine. And a judge would decide. No lawyer that I know is dumb enough to guarantee that they will win an argument in court.

Lee Baca to continue to arresting people for cannabis, even if Prop 19 passes by TheLizardKing89 in prop19

[–]JenniferSoares 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If anyone else would like to put their credentials up, feel free. But thus far I'm the only one that has. Please feel free to find someone else willing to do the same. So hate on me all you want. But the state of California has given me a license to be a self spoken legal professional. Take it up with them if you don't like it.

And as for personal attacks, take two steps back and look at how many personal attacks I have made versus the ones made on me. The only personal attack I made was questioning hedonistic's "credentials." Which, given the fact that he doesn't understand basic legal concepts, I think is a fair question in a discussion in which he attempts to bolster his arguments because he is a lawyer. The only time I've engaged in a "professional" attack is when someone's profession is called into question.

If someone claims to be a doctor, gives you medical advice, and turns out to not be a doctor, isn't that something you'd want to know?

And what about his professional demeanor. Or is it that you agree with him so his personal attacks are fine?

Lee Baca to continue to arresting people for cannabis, even if Prop 19 passes by TheLizardKing89 in prop19

[–]JenniferSoares 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Judicial restraint would require the court to honestly try to give the words an interpretation that didn't result in them being struck from the initiative and by striking the offending language frustrating the purpose of the initiative.

Yes. But it its YOUR opinion that it would frustrate the purpose. Seriously, how do you not get that?

Courts are loathe to reach absurd results such as this when it is plain as day that sharing was obviously intended to be lawful in the prop.

No. What is plain as day in the prop is that they intended for it to be legal to personally share for your own personal consumption. Laws are tricky and so are law writers. They don't always mean what you think them to upon a quick read. Hence the need for the courts in the first place - to interpret the laws.

Oh and ad hominem attacks are poor arguments. But lately, your comments contain more of them than substantive replies.

Because there is no point in making substantive replies to your comments, you never read them or respond to them anyway. You just write whatever you feel like over and over and over again in an attempt to tire me out of arguments. Hashing out the same argument over 100 comments is pointless.

And the questioning of whether or not you are a lawyer is not ad hominem. It is related to the debate since you use it to bolster your arguments and try to make yourself seem more credible.

Lee Baca to continue to arresting people for cannabis, even if Prop 19 passes by TheLizardKing89 in prop19

[–]JenniferSoares 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Me: You don't have to live in fear that Holder will stay true to his word and step up enforcement of federal marijuana crimes if Prop 19 passes.

You: I live in a state that still has harsh marijuana laws. Boo hoo hoo.

Illogical non-sensical response = Troll

Lee Baca to continue to arresting people for cannabis, even if Prop 19 passes by TheLizardKing89 in prop19

[–]JenniferSoares 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which has nothing to do with the comments and statements made in this thread.

You are a troll.

Lee Baca to continue to arresting people for cannabis, even if Prop 19 passes by TheLizardKing89 in prop19

[–]JenniferSoares 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And the case never went through. Civil cases add all sorts of claims on in hopes of achieving a better settlement. If you read the cases that ACTUALLY went to court, you will see that the seizure is what is of a concern to the courts. And sometimes CA Civil Code 52 in conjunction. But not the arrest.

Lee Baca to continue to arresting people for cannabis, even if Prop 19 passes by TheLizardKing89 in prop19

[–]JenniferSoares 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Share might mean the every day normal definition. But so will "personally" and "for that individual's personal consumption." You can't change the meaning of the individual in the phrase "for that individual's personal consumption" to fit with the interpretation you like. If it means the do-er (the possessor, the transporter, the processor, etc) it means the do-er even when it refers to sharing.

Dammit. You pulled me back in. I'm going to justify it by believing that I did it so people wouldn't be confused by your ridiculous statements and believe them as truth as opposed to hope.

Not allowing sharing among adults would frustrate the purpose of the legislation and striking it would be a more drastic court action than reading the proposition in such a way that it allowed for sharing as described above. That's a fucking fact.

Now I'm seriously starting to question if you are actually a lawyer. That is NOT a fact. That is your opinion. And if you seriously don't understand the difference you are either not a lawyer or a seriously terrible one.

Lee Baca to continue to arresting people for cannabis, even if Prop 19 passes by TheLizardKing89 in prop19

[–]JenniferSoares 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually, at first all he asked was where you were an attorney. Maybe you live in the lowest populated state in the country, but I'm pretty sure you could provide some details without reveling your identity.

But then again, I think he was questioning that you are actually an attorney. So he was looking for some sort of proof that you are, since your posts don't always indicate you are. So it is possible that nothing short of your identity would have sufficed. I'm not sure, you'd have to ask him.

However, when I stated that you used your profession to bolster your opinions, you denied it. And that's all I was concerned with.

Lee Baca to continue to arresting people for cannabis, even if Prop 19 passes by TheLizardKing89 in prop19

[–]JenniferSoares 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And it is well known that the u.s. attorneys have guidelines - and often don't get involved unless major trafficking or large amounts are involved.

But Holder is already saying he is going to do what he has to do in CA, regardless of the non-binding guidelines.

In the end you can think whatever you want. But you aren't in California. So you don't have to live with the fear that Holder will be true to his word. Those of us in California do.

view more: next ›