Since pot is decriminalized in California, shouldn't the pot offenders be released from jail?

[Philosoraptor]

I mean, they are political prisoners right? If someone was busted for having a dime bag shouldn't that person be released now that it's not illegal in California?

In my opinion, ALL THE POT PRISONERS SHOULD BE RELEASED, in ALL states, except of course those involved in murder over marijuana, and those murders likely wouldn't have happened anyway had it been legal.

[tridim]

1. Those in for simple possession, yes.

Decrim only covers possession, unfortunately.

[itsrobert]

2. still illegal for federal

.

[stranger81]

3. Agreed, but unlikely anyone's serving time for possessing less than an ounce.

Only less than an oz is decriminalized.

[MineralMan]

4. There are damn few people in prison in California for possessing

an ounce or less, if any. So, there'd likely be nobody to release. They haven't been prosecuting people for that level of possession for a long, long time. All this new deal does is remove the possession from being a misdemeanor. But DAs don't prosecute small time possession any more in California. In most counties, they stopped in the 70s.

[Gravel Democrat]

5. No one has gone to jail in CA for a dime bag since the early '70s

and the decriminalization is only for an ounce or less

Also the proposition on the ballot only legalizes an ounce or less in public. And paves the way for the corporitization of Cannabis. Would you apply for a license to grow if it cost $30,000/yr? How about $300,000/yr?

what you haven't heard about California's "legalizing" marijuana:
http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/

"A PANDORA'S BOX OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: WHY WE MUST VOTE NO ON PROP. 19

Prop. 19 claims to do two things for recreational cannabis consumers: allow possession of 1 oz. or less and cultivation in a 5’x5’ space. But read the initiative and you’ll see these rights are not guaranteed, and come with conditions that render Prop. 19 largely ineffective at achieving either of those aims. Still, supporters of Proposition 19 argue that it’s a baby step in the right direction. If the right direction is toward increased prohibition, unlimited taxation (even on cultivation for personal use), the demise of Prop. 215, the corporate cartelization of cannabis and an expanded black market, they’re right. We’ve come a long way from the days of speculation about what could happen under Prop. 19. Now we have our first examples of what will happen. In spite of what it claims to do, this initiative is a Pandora’s Box of unintended consequences whose effects will be extremely difficult to undo if we vote yes on Prop. 19."

"...However, voting yes on Prop. 19 would actually create new prohibitions on possession, whereas the new infraction status does not. This is because Prop. 19 wouldn’t legalize possession outright. Instead it would make some cannabis “lawful” and other cannabis “unlawful,” depending on where you buy it. The new infraction status does not make such distinctions; it doesn’t matter where you buy it, if you have 1 oz. or less, it’s not a crime. So, by prohibiting possession of marijuana that was not “obtained lawfully,” Prop. 19 would actually be more restrictive than the infraction law would be..."

Very few of those supporting this prop have even been exposed to the details. I can imagine why that is.

[Occulus]

6. ....yeah, pretty sure that's all BS n/t

[Gravel Democrat]

8. perhaps you could be more specific

Have you read prop 19?

Have you looked at the arguments she makes or the footnotes on the blog?

What exactly is bs?

[RainDog]

9. Prop 19 does not do way with Prop 215 - or eliminate any of its applications

according to one of the biggest attns in CA who deals with marijuana law.

People who think cannabis will be legalized without any restriction EVER are lying to themselves and to everyone else. People who claim that making cannabis legal will hurt cannabis are, according to Marc Emery, just worried about money - their own money.

People who want the perfect rather than the good have the same mindset that kept cannabis illegal for more than 30 years after the initial law was voted down during the Nixon admin.

NORML, which has led the way in mj reform over the years fully supports Prop 19.

[Gravel Democrat]

10. And here is another attorneys interpretation re:215

http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/p/attorney-dragonfly-is-correct-about.html

Impact on Patients"
Dragonfly Is Correct About Prop. 19's Impact on Patients

(found on the modesto bee's web site: http://thehive.modbee.com/node/20404)

Submitted by letitiapepper on Thu, 2010-08-19 16:52.

Dragonfly's analysis has been trashed on the Internet by pro-Prop. 19 bloggers. So I did my own analysis as to whether Prop. 19 would change the laws related to medical marijuana, and in my opinion she's absolutely correct.

I have been an attorney for almost 30 years. I went to Hastings College of the Law, one of California’s top schools, was on the Hastings Law Journal, and have more than 20 years of experience working as a judicial research attorney for the State of California and for the federal district court. I prepared draft opinions in which I presented, from a neutral rather than adversarial perspective, the applicable laws and facts, with conclusions about final results/consequences. (I even once worked (from 1984 to 1987) as a business and municipal law litigation associate at Best, Best & Krieger (yep, the same law firm that’s been advising lots of cities to ban medical marijuana (MM) collectives).)

So, I’m well-qualified to review Prop. 19. Plus, I had a reason to do so.

Two years ago, I became a medical marijuana patient after terrible problems with side effects from prescription medications and after doing research on cannabis. Since I am convinced that marijuana is the non-prescription answer for many diseases, including mine (multiple sclerosis), I want to be able to grow my own medication, and to be able to experiment with and make as many different variants of cannabis-based medications as possible..." (more)

Based on my expertise and review of prop. 19, I can now state, categorically, that if Proposition 19 passes, it WILL affect medical marijuana patients and collectives

Only 1 of the original authors of prop 215 support 19. Do you think they want continued prohibition?

RE: Norml- I've been a member for a really long time and I've never seen a more ineffectual organization in my life.

[RainDog]

11. Legal Cannabis is the Best Thing for Medical Marijuana Patients Since Prop. 215

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/RainDog/28

a link to the entire email is available via the link above. The attn who wrote this specifically deals with cannabis litigation.

A medical marijuana and Prop. 19 supporter asked California attorney David Nick to comment.

For 18 years, David Nick has successfully litigated a cornucopia of issues regarding cannabis and the applicable laws in both trial and appellate courts. He has not confined his practice to marijuana law, but also litigates cases involving constitutional rights and criminal procedure.

David Nick has never lost a jury trial in a state marijuana case including many precedent setting trials involving some of the most revered figures in the medical marijuana movement such as Brownie Mary, Dennis Peron (Nick has been Peron’s sole attorney since 1994) and Steve Kubby.

Here's what Nick has to say:

PROP. 19 IS THE BEST THING TO HAPPEN TO MMJ PATIENTS SINCE PROP. 215

Anyone who claims that Proposition 19 will restrict or eliminate rights under the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) or the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) is simply wrong. If anything, Proposition 19 will permit individuals to grow and possess much more than ever before with patients, coops and collectives still receiving the same protections they are entitled to under the CUA and MMP.

Here is why.

The legal arguments claiming the "sky will fall" if Prop. 19 passes are based on the fallacious conclusion that the Initiative invalidates the CUA and MMP. This baseless fear stems from a flawed legal analysis which focuses on just about every portion of Prop. 19 EXCEPT the relevant portions. This flawed legal analysis is driven by an incorrect understanding of the rules of statutory construction.

PROP. 19 PROVIDES ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS TO PATIENTS FROM THE ACTIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

Section 2B presents the controlling and relevant purposes for understanding what Prop. 19 can and cannot do. This section EXPRESSLY excludes the reach of Prop. 19 from the CUA and MMP. Sections 2B (7 & 8) specifically state that the purpose of this initiative is to give municipalities total and complete control over the commercial sales of marijuana "EXCEPT as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.”

btw, I have read the initiative.

here's a useful wiki about the wording and the effects of the bill -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19_%282010%29

Marc Emery - Why You Should Vote Yes on Prop 19

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2010/06/05/Why-You-Should-Vote-YES-California-Control-Tax-Cannabis-Initiative

This is the greatest, best ballot initiative to achieve the closest thing ever to full legalization ever put before voters anywhere in the world.

If you are a pot smoker then you will be better off, by far, if this bill passes. The only ones worse off will be gun-toting street gangs and cartels, the police and prison industry, and any exploitative commercial growers who are not honest or skilled enough to legally produce for the licensed market.

The benefit to the 31 million California adults 21 years of age and older will be legal access to their own organic, safe, homegrown at $12.50 an ounce in hugely generous personal quantities, or obtain it from professional licensed outlets who will supply an enormous array of various high-quality cannabis. Add to that the creation of about 500,000 to 1,000,000 new jobs due to the massive influx of tourists flooding California to sample to fruits of an industry 50 times larger than the wine-tasting industry!

It's clear there will be huge amounts in taxes collected from tourists and cannabis retail sales that will impact positively on the California state budget. There will be TEN-FOLD lower retail prices ($35-$50 an ounce instead of $200-$500). Even with a $50 per ounce tax, this means that the best marijuana available will be legally sold for under $100 per ounce to any adult in California. Police will instead direct their efforts at the cartels, street gangs, and unlicensed commercial growers exporting cannabis out-of-state.

As California goes, so does the rest of America. If this initiative passes, it will soon appear in other US states. And as America goes, so will the world...

This is already apparent. Mexico is looking at California's vote - and may legalize and, thus, stop the cartel violence that kills so many innocent people every year. An Oregon state rep has already said he will intro a legalization bill there if Prop 19 passes. Washington State would likely be next.

I hope Californians make history and vote yes.

[RainDog]

12. From the same attn: the ounce limit is outside of your home. there is no restriction in your home.

with a direct link- http://www.weedtracker.com/forums/1189-181-medical-cannabis-use-and-discussion/1189-medical-marijuana-politics/255502-mmj-attorney-breaks-down-prop.html

As an attorney called upon to defend patients and non-patients in marijuana cases, I cannot tell you how beneficial and how much freedom Section 11300 subdivision A (3) of Prop.19 will be to cannabis users. Read it!

Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of ANY harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.

Section (i) limits possession to one ounce OUT OF YOUR HOUSE. Section (iii) permits people 21 and over to have within their residence or single parcel ALL the cannabis which one grew in their 25 sq. foot parcel, including what you grew this year, what you grew last year and EVERY SINGLE 25 SQ. FT. HARVEST YOU EVER HAD ON THAT SINGLE PARCEL. This covers as many cycles of indoor and/or outdoor grown cannabis as a person can produce as long as each grow was no more than 25 square feet and done in succession.

Clearly section 11300(a) (i) limits personal possession and consumption to one ounce OUT OF YOUR HOME while section11300(a) (iii) is what you are allowed to have AT YOUR RESIDENCE if that is where your 25 sq. ft. garden is located. That this is the case is established by another rule of statutory construction, i.e. the specific controls the general. Here (iii) is the specific statute with respect to what you can have AT YOUR RESIDENCE ONLY or in the words of subdivision (iii) "on the premises where grown".

The one ounce limitation only applies when you leave your house, not wherever it is you grow your 25 foot plot. I can picture being able to easily defend a person with 200 pounds who is not even medical.

Under Prop. 19 you can only travel with one ounce, but if you are a patient you can still enjoy the protections of the CUA and MMP and can safely travel with eight ounces, or whatever your doctor permits you to have or the needs of your collective, as allowed by the CUA and the MMP. YOUR SUPPLY PROBLEMS CAUSED BY PARANOID CULTIVATION LAWS AND POLICIES THAT AT TIMES LIMIT YOUR PERSONAL CULTIVATION PROJECTS ARE SOLVED BY PROP. 19.

Prop. 19 creates a marijuana sanctuary IN YOUR HOME ONLY. Prop. 19 allows you to have AT YOUR HOME ONLY ALL OF THE PROCEEDS of every successive 25 sq. foot plot. However, Prop 19 only allows you TO REMOVE IT FROM YOUR HOME one ounce at a time if you are a recreational user.

[independent_voter]

7. not legally required, but morally right

technically, the law was broken.

it works both ways - the police pull you over, you have K2 (the new synthetic pot), and it's not illegal when you get pulled over, they cant come back and retroactively charge you if they make a law against it for possession you had before the law was passes

but morally, if they decide pot's really not that big of a deal, adjusting penalties accordingly for those alreayd caught is right

[Sinistrous]

13. If I'm not mistaken, the prohibition against ex post facto laws cuts both ways.

[Fumesucker]

14. Nope, telco immunity in the FISA bill, which Obama voted for, showed that..

To the best of my knowledge the FISA bill has not had a Constitutional challenge..

[Sinistrous]

15. OK.

I hope there is some legal mechanism -- be it a new law specifically exonerating those convicted of marijuana-only offenses, or a court decision doing the same. I think/feel/believe something more is needed than the "now that it's legal, everybody should be pardoned" argument. Something just doesn't mesh, but I don't know enough about the law to know what it is, or even (as is probable) I'm dead wrong.

[mdmc]

16. ..