If marijuana possession is now an infraction in California, are they letting people out of prison?

[Count Olaf]

Is anyone talking about the non violent offenders currently in prison?

[grasswire]

1. they have to justify their prison expansion somehow!

So I can't see them letting out everyone who is already convicted. Revenues would collapse for vendors doing business with the state. That ol' prison-industrial complex that sucked up all of California's money isn't going to let go easily.

[FirstLight]

2. good question...

If they would cut the money spent on the prison, legal, and law enforcement costs of this...wouldn't the budget be easier to balance? (without taking $ and services from the poor?)


then again, my ex is in prison now for a related conviction...so i hope he *doesn't* get released.....(though i think he had a violent charge attached to it, so we may be safe)

[Hannah Bell]

13. prisons are profit centers for the ptb. cutting them would hurt the funding base.

[Orrex]

3. How is the law worded?

Does it explicitly apply only to possession from the signing-date forward, or does it also apply retroactively?


If the former, then the state would argue that it has no bearing on persons already convicted for past crimes.

[Mz Pip]

4. I would be interested

in learning how many people are actually in prison in CA for non-violent pot possession. Are there any numbers on that available.

I seriously doubt the CA prisons are filled with non-violent pot offenders.

[asdjrocky]

5. No.

The people in prison now are not there for possession of an ounce or less. This is why we still need to pass prop 19.

[Gravel Democrat]

10. if 19 passes any amount over 1 ounce will still be illegal in public

But you knew that

19 is full of new laws and regulations that don't exist now.

It's a trojan horse and it's not what people think it is.

a 5x5 piece of dirt per residence to grow? Permission required from landlords?

Have you read 19 or are you just believing the media when they say 19 "legalizes" pot?

Here's the only real analysis available: http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com

Few people actually know what 19 is about. Like the Health Insurance "reform" debacle.

[asdjrocky]

11. Wow.

Yeah, I have read it and I'm working on the campaign and I know it's imperfections. It's, and I'm not one to go along with this on a regular basis, incremental. I don't even expect it to be implemented for a few years after it's passing because there will be lawsuits from mysteriously well funded public interest groups.

There is a lot of misinformation out there as well.

On the topic of a 5 x 5 space per resident, that is plenty if you are growing for personal use. I've been a grower, legal, in Cali for a couple of years now, with my house, I can grow plenty for the people that live here. Remember, it's per resident, not per house.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Swamp Rat]

16. Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls (a)(i)(ii)

Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls (a)(i)(ii)

Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.

---------------

(Bold letters added by me for purposes of illustration)

My take on this: If someone owns an parcel of land, with two separate residences, it therefore is possible for more than one person to grow in their own 5x5 space.

[asdjrocky]

17. Granted.

I'm a 215 patient, as is just about everyone in the legal industry in California. I don't know anyone who medicates that doesn't have a doctors rec. You are combining prop 19 and 215, which is done to scare people who are already using or growing under 215 guidelines into voting no on 19. Most of your stuff is right out of Stoners Against Prop 19, a front group.

Propitiation 19 has nothing to do with medical cannabis, that's decided California law.

Most everything you are discussing is refuted here-
http://www.prop19truth.info/

The initiative is also there to read, and yes I have read it.

On another note, your aggression leads me to believe you are not a cannabis, and if you are, you're doing it wrong or not enough.

I'm voting yes on 19 because it's a step, an important step to removing cannabis as a class 1 narcotic. It's a step to getting people out of prison and keeping them out. It's a step toward sanity.

[leftstreet]

14. Thanks for posting that link

Wow, lots of info in there

[the redcoat]

6. In 2009

there were more marijuana possession arrests than violent crime arrests. Law enforcement priorities are so unbelievably skewed, but anything to can keep those damn potheads behind bars, huh?


http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/Marijuana #8

[mikelgb]

7. the change was in name only, the penalty is still the same: $100

just less paperwork now that it is not a "misdemeanor."

[Mike Marble]

8. Pot possession was only a $100 fine. No prison time.

That said, non-violent drug offenders make up about a quarter of all California prisoners. That's a lot of money spent to punish people we're mad at for their lifestyle choices.

[Joanne98]

9. No. The prison guards would get mad!

[rollin74]

15. I don't think prison time

was an option for someone caught with under an ounce of marijuana in California
$100 maximum fine, no jail time

[Scuba]

18. And give up all that slave labor? Silly question.