Marijuana 'Silicon Valley' gets go-ahead

[MongyMan]

Quick question Mongy, since its now fully reckonised as a medicine and large scale grows are gona occur. Will the average joe growing for him self still get jail time in cali if he aint got a permit.

 

To me i would think that it if is a legal substance in some way than the criminal of 0ffence for ILLIGAL cultivation should drop to a fine now.

 

I'm not 100% familiar with Cali law but my understanding is that if you don't have a licence to grow then yes you are a criminal and will be charged in the eyes of the law. If it was legal it would be different. But there is a big difference between legalized and licensed. It's possible penalties will be decreased but imo it's more likely they will be increased. Normally when something is given a legal market the black market is policed that much harder to protect that market.

 

It's a good reason to fight for personal growers licences imo. Then legalization.

 

Peace MM

[pisspotgrower]

Thats disappointing, was hoping that when social tolerance went up n the government started to make a move that maybe jail terms would drop. As for the personal grower, not saying if selling or whatever other crimes can be attributed.

[mull-ray]

Quick question Mongy, since its now fully reckonised as a medicine and large scale grows are gona occur. Will the average joe growing for him self still get jail time in cali if he aint got a permit.

 

To me i would think that it if is a legal substance in some way than the criminal of 0ffence for ILLIGAL cultivation should drop to a fine now.

 

The answer to that is no. On the upside Prop 19 legalizes 5 x 5 grows for med card holders. When you live in a Draconian Police State like Australia we lose touch with what's happening outside of Australia. The fact is that it's inevitable that if they legalise mj that corporations are going to step in and form or build monopolies. I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing if it means people stop getting busted and personal growers can grow their own legally (let's face it how does a system try someone for 10 plants when they're giving out licences for 7.4 hectare grows). There's been a lot of debate around the forums regarding prop 19 but it seems the commercial growers are the ones who are mostly against it. They're just bitching because they're not the ones getting licenses and as far as I can tell it isn't organized crime that are getting the licenses but instead established Med Dispensaties and the Oaksterdam University. It's a bit of a joke because the US Federal Government won't legalise and this means they simply will target these grows and bust their operators so I doubt corporate mull is going to be a reality in the US. More like their operators are going to be spending a lot of time in US Fed Penitentiaries.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/us/22oak...ranciscobayarea - here's the latest press from the NY Times...... What's cool is that thy're subject to criminal record checks.... at least they're trying to keep bikies and other organised crime scum out of the picture

Edited July 23, 2010 by mull-ray

[Indycar]

I'd be surprised if we'll even see a licensing system here within Australia (for the personal grower) if/when it gets that far. As you stated mull-ray the monopolies will do whatever they can to protect their profits, it's as simple as that.

 

Then there's the next problem that arises, there'd need to be a regulatory department/body that would have to be setup to oversee the going's-on of all the personal growers. Which would amount to a huge financial burden that taxpayers would have pick up, as what personal growers would pay for licenses wouldn't go close to funding the whole system entirely. It's no secret to what governing bodies are like when it comes to burning through the funds.

 

And if anything, there's a trend within Australia of deregulation of industries nowadays. So much so there's federal ministerial role for deregulation. At the moment, I think it's Lindsay Tanner that holds that position.

 

I know I burst a few people's bubble with my opinion on this topic. But I struggle to see a positive outcome as time goes by for relaxed laws/system for the personal grower within Australia. I really do hope i'm proven very wrong, when the time arises.

[Fibrofeend]

Yeah I hope Indy is wrong. But it makes sense that its the way things would go.

I have thought about a personal growers licensing system.

It would create jobs thats for sure. But yeah the probability would be that it would end up costing the taxpayer.

Would it be more than the current situation though? Policing, courts, jail time?

 

Vic guns licensing checks is run by the cops, they can rock up without notice to check if you are following the rules.

Why would this not work for personal growers?

 

People who want to lump cannabis with alcohol should think twice as well, remember it is still illegal

to DISTILL your own alcohol in Aus, yet this is quite big business selling all the bits to do it......?

 

Its such a crazy state of affairs.

[grace]

So in a nut shell....

 

THE city council of Oakland, California is replacing the hundreds of growers who currently supply Oakland medical dispensaries with four large growers who will pay them around $311,000 each, in addition to an 8 per cent tax rate on gross sales.

 

Their reason for doing this.....

A tax on wholesale pot sales would bring in more than $US3 million ($3.4 million) to the city, which faces a $35 million deficit.

Shoddy electric systems at poorly-regulated indoor growing operations led to an increase in electrical fires in recent years.

 

What I think that means........

Big business or possibly something more sinister is monopolizing the market and and are paying the council a kickback for handing it to them in the form of tax. This is replacing the hundreds of small legal businesses who currently supply Oakland medical dispensaries and putting them out of business.

 

What I think about councils reasons given to justify this.....

What a load of crap. The same tax could be raised from the current growers and any "poorly-regulated indoor growing operations" can only be blamed on a council slack on regulating them.

Something stinks here to me, and it's not the skunk.

 

Peace MM

 

 

If a licensing system such as this was adopted in Australia consumers may argue that the practice was unconscionable conduct under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Section 51AB.

 

These provisions may prevent corporations from monopolising the market and give protection to consumers who would rather purchase their cannabis from small business or not for profits dispensaries or possibly a single person who supplies cannabis to a small amount of people.

 

The court may have regard to the relative strengths of the bargaining positions of the corporation and the consumer and the amount for which, and the circumstances under which, the consumer could have acquired identical or equivalent goods or services from a person other than the corporation.

 

It’s a matter of choice from whom consumers want to purchase their cannabis from and any licensing system which attempts to dictate who consumers can or cannot purchase their cannabis from may be invalid and in contravention of the Trade Practices Act.

 

It may be possible that this section could be used by consumers now to invalidate the state drug laws which allow pharmaceutical companies to monopolise the current market with chemicals drugs rather than consumers having the choice to purchase botanical cannabis from current suppliers.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

 

Unconscionable conduct

 

(1) A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a person, engage in conduct that is, in all the circumstances, unconscionable.

 

(2) Without in any way limiting the matters to which the court may have regard for the purpose of determining whether a corporation has contravened subsection (1) in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a person (in this subsection referred to as the consumer ), the court may have regard to:

 

(a) the relative strengths of the bargaining positions of the corporation and the consumer;

 

( whether, as a result of conduct engaged in by the corporation, the consumer was required to comply with conditions that were not reasonably necessary for the protection of the legitimate interests of the corporation;

 

c) whether the consumer was able to understand any documents relating to the supply or possible supply of the goods or services;

 

(d) whether any undue influence or pressure was exerted on, or any unfair tactics were used against, the consumer or a person acting on behalf of the consumer by the corporation or a person acting on behalf of the corporation in relation to the supply or possible supply of the goods or services; and

 

(e) the amount for which, and the circumstances under which, the consumer could have acquired identical or equivalent goods or services from a person other than the corporation.

 

(3) A corporation shall not be taken for the purposes of this section to engage in unconscionable conduct in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a person by reason only that the corporation institutes legal proceedings in relation to that supply or possible supply or refers a dispute or claim in relation to that supply or possible supply to arbitration.

 

(4) For the purpose of determining whether a corporation has contravened subsection (1) in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a person:

 

(a) the court shall not have regard to any circumstances that were not reasonably forseeable at the time of the alleged contravention; and

 

( the court may have regard to conduct engaged in, or circumstances existing, before the commencement of this section.

 

(5) A reference in this section to goods or services is a reference to goods or services of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption.

 

(6) A reference in this section to the supply or possible supply of goods does not include a reference to the supply or possible supply of goods for the purpose of re‑supply or for the purpose of using them up or transforming them in trade or commerce.

 

(7) Section 51A applies for the purposes of this section in the same way as it applies for the purposes of Division 1 of Part V.

 

 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/con...4149/s51ab.html

[MongyMan]

Thank you Grace, Interesting reading. Gives me faith Australian medical cannabis doesn't have to go down the same track of 'wallmarting' supplies as appears to be happening in America now.

 

 

Peace MM

[mull-ray]

I'd be surprised if we'll even see a licensing system here within Australia (for the personal grower) if/when it gets that far. As you stated mull-ray the monopolies will do whatever they can to protect their profits, it's as simple as that.

 

Then there's the next problem that arises, there'd need to be a regulatory department/body that would have to be setup to oversee the going's-on of all the personal growers. Which would amount to a huge financial burden that taxpayers would have pick up, as what personal growers would pay for licenses wouldn't go close to funding the whole system entirely. It's no secret to what governing bodies are like when it comes to burning through the funds.

 

And if anything, there's a trend within Australia of deregulation of industries nowadays. So much so there's federal ministerial role for deregulation. At the moment, I think it's Lindsay Tanner that holds that position.

 

I know I burst a few people's bubble with my opinion on this topic. But I struggle to see a positive outcome as time goes by for relaxed laws/system for the personal grower within Australia. I really do hope i'm proven very wrong, when the time arises.

 

I agree Indy, "I struggle to see a positive outcome as time goes by for relaxed laws/system" myself. That's why Prop 19 is a major positive. If Cal legalizes then other States will follow suit. If the US legalizes it's game over for the war on drugs. There's some major stuff going on in the US as we speak. It's odd how we have a rhetoric that says cannabis is harmful and the US are stating otherwise. Someone is telling fibs. So in a way the US softening up drug laws creates the perfect storm where real evaluated and positive research can be conducted on medicine.