Most pro Marijuana Presidential Candidates | Page 3 | TigerFan.com

Bengal B · Sep 20, 2015

uscvball said: ↑

Not exactly. What makes you think that anything for sale or requiring licensure would somehow decrease the size of government?

"On Friday afternoon, both the California Senate and Assembly are expected to pass amended versions of Assembly Bill 266, AB 243 a nd Senate Bill 643 — the three bills containing California’s historic new medical cannabis regulations.

What precisely was in those amendments had been anyone’s guess, right up until they dropped. Here is the latest text of AB 243.

Assemblymember Jim Wood's part of the regulations focus on cultivation regulations and licenses.

“This bill would require the Department of Food and Agriculture, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, the State Department of Public Health, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the State Water Resources Control Board to promulgate regulations or standards relating to medical marijuana and its cultivation” — including pesticides.

AB 243 provides $10 million to fund the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation (the BMMR)."

Further explanation....
"Personal and caregiver medical marijuana rights go untouched, but everything else is considered commercial and requires one of about twelve different types of licenses.

Californians would get tested products and organic certifications. Cities could ban pot activity. Licensees would need both local and then state approval for a license.

Farms are capped at one acre, or 20,000 square-feet. Deliveries would be allowed, but only if tied to a physical dispensary. Farmers could process or extract, but can’t retail pot. Retailers could extract or process their own products, but couldn’t own the farm. Transporters would be separately licensed and independent.

The governor’s draft language deletes certain layers of bureaucracy and trims expenses. A General Fund loan would pay for the $20 million program’s startup costs, and would be paid back through licensing and taxes."

So now growers need a license, need to conform, need to obey, need to pay. The Emerald Triangle just might be sorry to get what they asked for. And the government will hire a bunch of new nosey-butts who will try to assert their pencil authority and CA will once again be the state of legislative/licensing hell and more taxes. Brilliant.
Click to expand...

Bureaucrats sh0uld all be line up against a wall and shot.

LaSalleAve · Sep 20, 2015

uscvball said: ↑

Not exactly. What makes you think that anything for sale or requiring licensure would somehow decrease the size of government?

"On Friday afternoon, both the California Senate and Assembly are expected to pass amended versions of Assembly Bill 266, AB 243 a nd Senate Bill 643 — the three bills containing California’s historic new medical cannabis regulations.

What precisely was in those amendments had been anyone’s guess, right up until they dropped. Here is the latest text of AB 243.

Assemblymember Jim Wood's part of the regulations focus on cultivation regulations and licenses.

“This bill would require the Department of Food and Agriculture, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, the State Department of Public Health, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the State Water Resources Control Board to promulgate regulations or standards relating to medical marijuana and its cultivation” — including pesticides.

AB 243 provides $10 million to fund the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation (the BMMR)."

Further explanation....
"Personal and caregiver medical marijuana rights go untouched, but everything else is considered commercial and requires one of about twelve different types of licenses.

Californians would get tested products and organic certifications. Cities could ban pot activity. Licensees would need both local and then state approval for a license.

Farms are capped at one acre, or 20,000 square-feet. Deliveries would be allowed, but only if tied to a physical dispensary. Farmers could process or extract, but can’t retail pot. Retailers could extract or process their own products, but couldn’t own the farm. Transporters would be separately licensed and independent.

The governor’s draft language deletes certain layers of bureaucracy and trims expenses. A General Fund loan would pay for the $20 million program’s startup costs, and would be paid back through licensing and taxes."

So now growers need a license, need to conform, need to obey, need to pay. The Emerald Triangle just might be sorry to get what they asked for. And the government will hire a bunch of new nosey-butts who will try to assert their pencil authority and CA will once again be the state of legislative/licensing hell and more taxes. Brilliant.
Click to expand...

3 letters sister. DEA.

uscvball · Sep 20, 2015

LaSalleAve said: ↑

3 letters sister. DEA.
Click to expand...

3 more....WTF?

What does the DEA have to do with what CA is doing? This is about state and local govt expanding, not getting smaller.

Frogleg · Sep 21, 2015

So Vitter has stated that he would not necessarily be opposed to medical pot, but does not support recreational weed. What about Angelle, Dardenne, and John Edwards?

LaSalleAve · Sep 21, 2015

uscvball said: ↑

3 more....WTF?

What does the DEA have to do with what CA is doing? This is about state and local govt expanding, not getting smaller.
Click to expand...

Oh wait so now state government is big government. I was talking about federal, you know the bad kind, not the wonderful do no wrong state government you pubs like so much.

Legalize pot, decrease funding to the DEA, federal government shrinks.

uscvball · Sep 21, 2015

LaSalleAve said: ↑

Oh wait so now state government is big government. I was talking about federal, you know the bad kind, not the wonderful do no wrong state government you pubs like so much.

Legalize pot, decrease funding to the DEA, federal government shrinks.
Click to expand...

I'm all about state's rights. But that's not the issue here. CA is increasing the size of government to ensure they get their money. They are bringing the laborious, tedious, bureaucratic nightmare of business licensing and procedure in CA to pot growers. Businesses in this state, particularly the size of most pot growers, are leaving in droves because it's just too damn hard to make it. You have to apply for too many licenses, pay for each one, register with too many agencies, pay for each one, and then spend money to make sure you don't violate any laws or policies....because if you do violate? You WILL pay.

Winston1 · Sep 21, 2015

LaSalleAve said: ↑

Oh wait so now state government is big government. I was talking about federal, you know the bad kind, not the wonderful do no wrong state government you pubs like so much.

Legalize pot, decrease funding to the DEA, federal government shrinks.
Click to expand...

To be a big government it doesn't matter whether it's a state, municipality or national government. If it is intrusive and inhibits people with regulations and micro management then it's big. California is the mother of big government in the U.S.

You're dreaming if you think legalized pot will reduce government. BTW I'm for legalization for both medical and personal use.

LaSalleAve · Sep 22, 2015

Winston1 said: ↑

To be a big government it doesn't matter whether it's a state, municipality or national government. If it is intrusive and inhibits people with regulations and micro management then it's big. California is the mother of big government in the U.S.

You're dreaming if you think legalized pot will reduce government. BTW I'm for legalization for both medical and personal use.
Click to expand...

It should reduce the DEA's budget significantly, and they will have to get rid of workers because that's what lazy people with no brains do, they cut labor.

Winston1 · Sep 22, 2015

LaSalleAve said: ↑

It should reduce the DEA's budget significantly, and they will have to get rid of workers because that's what lazy people with no brains do, they cut labor.
Click to expand...

Nah they'd just be transferred to the FDA or Agriculture where they can put their experience to use. Seriously you of all people should know how hard it is to get rid of a civil servant.

Bengal B · Sep 22, 2015

Winston1 said: ↑

Nah they'd just be transferred to the FDA or Agriculture where they can put their experience to use. Seriously you of all people should know how hard it is to get rid of a civil servant.
Click to expand...

Time for another episode of Undercover Filing Clerk! Not going to make very good TV