Refresh Checked Unchecked Menu Search Shopping bag Geolocation Person Facebook Instagram Twitter YouTube Info Icon CBC Icon CBC Shape CBD Icon CBD Shape CBG Icon CBG Shape THC Icon THC Shape THCV Icon THCV Shape Loading…

If You’re Pro-Cannabis, Why Would You Not Vote for Prop. 64?

October 27, 2016
Detail fo man holding a joint in Amsterdam, typical dutch houses in background, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Seriously, can someone please explain? Because vague complaints about how it’s going to put small growers out of business and fear-mongering around DUI laws aren’t quite cutting it for me. Lord knows we heard enough of those criticisms here in Washington when we were considering our own legalization measure, Initiative 502. Now we’re four years in and, last I checked, the sky was still holding strong.

I’m no blind shill for legalization. I’m actually pretty wary of it. You see, I’ve spent the past year eating, drinking, and breathing cannabis policy—though not, believe it or not, actual cannabis—as the cannabis writer for Seattle’s feisty alt weekly, The Stranger, as well as a handful of other publications (Leafly included). I’ve seen firsthand how legalization can go sideways, screwing over patients, minority groups, and even consumers themselves.

In fact, I think it’s safe to say I’ve been one of the most vocal critics of Washington state’s legal cannabis system. I’ve documented our failures to effectively regulate dangerous pesticide use, our failures to welcome minorities into the legal cannabis marketplace, and our failures to provide for our most vulnerable medical marijuana patients. I’m fairly certain that many people assume I’m squarely in the “Repeal I-502” camp.

That couldn’t be further from the truth. I voted for I-502 in 2012, and I’d vote for it again today, warts and all. Without the passage of I-502, we wouldn’t be talking about these tough, vitally important issues. We wouldn’t be fighting to build the fair, well-regulated cannabis system we all want to see. Without a legal system, there’s nothing to make better.


Crossing Ethical Lines: How Your Tax Dollars Are Funding Cannabis Opponents

“We wrote the most conservative bill that still legalized production and distribution for people and created the opportunity to create a legal market that could compete with the illegal market,” Alison Holcomb, the initiative’s chief drafter, told me recently. It was meant as a starting point, and it was designed to pass. “That’s what we were going for.”

For the most part, that’s exactly what they accomplished. The original I-502 is pretty bare bones. It does not mandate a pesticide testing policy, set aside licenses for minority groups, or make any attempt to address medical marijuana.

Here’s the thing: most of the failures we’ve seen in those areas have to do with how the law was implemented after it passed, or with subsequent legislation, not the way the initiative was originally written.

Prop. 64 itself lays the groundwork for what is, in many ways, a better system than ours.

That, perhaps, is the most important thing you skeptical California cannabis advocates can learn from our experiences: Passing a legalization measure is only the first step. The steps we take (or fail to take) afterward that are the ones that really matter.

Like many initiatives, Prop. 64 charges various state agencies with establishing certain rules. California Highway Patrol, for example, is required to develop protocols to detect impaired driving. Will CHP take a measured, science-based approach—one that considers the complicated factors that affect the level of THC present in a driver’s blood, as well as the degree to which it impairs a driver’s ability—or will they let fear dictate their decision? That has more to do with whether or not cannabis advocates are proactive in providing state troopers with the best available information—or whether they show up at all. It’s not hard to imagine how the acrimony that drives so much opposition to Prop. 64 from within the cannabis community could be extremely counterproductive down the road. Cooperation is key.


13 Things You Might Not Know About California’s Prop. 64

Believe me, I understand that lawmakers and regulators are not always cooperative themselves. One of the many failings of our political system is that “respectable” moneyed interests tend to get a more sympathetic ear than eccentric, ponytailed pot farmers. As I see it, that is why it’s even more incumbent upon those who care passionately about cannabis to be involved with regulation, not opposed to it.

I got to see firsthand what happens when medical marijuana advocates, unwilling to compromise on a few relatively minor points—points almost exactly the same as those being disputed in California, I might add—remove themselves from the conversation with regulators. Here, when those voices weren’t present in a meaningful way, crony capitalists got to write the rules, and those rules almost always put profits over patients. Washington’s curiously titled Cannabis Patient Protection Act is a stark example of that.

You’re worried about Big Marijuana? So am I. But from what I’ve seen, those forces arise not from legalization itself but from a failure to appropriately steward the market once it’s legal.

If we want to send a message, the Golden State is the bullhorn.

Prop. 64 leaves a lot of things up to the implementation process, but that doesn’t have to go as poorly as it has in Washington. You don’t have to accept a draconian 5 nanogram DUI limit. You don’t have to drop the ball on consumer safety regulations, like pesticide testing. You don’t have to limit licenses, inciting the type of fierce competition that minority populations, systemically disadvantaged by the drug war, simply cannot win. You don’t have to watch your existing medical marijuana dispensaries be shut out of the new system by unfair regulation. No, you can learn from our mistakes. In fact, Prop. 64 itself lays the groundwork for what is, in many ways, a better system than ours.

Judging from many of the measure’s provisions—a lower tax rate, a viable priority system for existing MMJ businesses, no mandated cap on available licenses, measures to ensure non-violent drug offenders have access to licensing, a delivery system, protections for small business, public consumption sites, etc.—its drafters have learned a lot in the four years since we Washingtonians passed I-502. I’m not always proud of how we’ve implemented the law here, but I’m very proud that my state was bold enough to be one of the proverbial canaries in the coal mine.

Now it’s your turn. You might not feel it from where you are, but the rest of the world is watching. One in eight Americans lives in California. The feds still regard cannabis as more dangerous and less useful than cocaine or methamphetamines. If we want to send a message that that needs to change, the Golden State is the bullhorn.

If you are truly an advocate for progressive cannabis policies—not someone selfishly clinging to a system that works for them, even while it fails so many others — you will take this rare opportunity to push those policies forward, not stymie them. You will not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Most importantly, you will wake up the day after it passes, take a moment to let it sink in, and then get right back to work making sure it’s implemented as fairly and effectively as possible. Don’t fight the future, fight to shape it.

Tobias Coughlin-Bogue's Bio Image

Tobias Coughlin-Bogue

Tobias is a freelance journalist based out of Seattle. His work has appeared in Vice, Broadly, The Stranger, and GreenState.

View Tobias Coughlin-Bogue's articles

  • jontomas

    The only people who are against Prop 64 are the prohibitionists and the greedy sellers against legalization. (GSAL) That’s not all growers and sellers. — Just a loud-mouthed few. – They don’t care who it hurts to keep their outrageously high prices and quasi-monopolies.

    • I am neither. Perhaps you might actually listen to people like Dennis Peron, Darryl Cotton, Ed Rosenthal, myself and others as to our reasons before flapping your lips so insultingly.

      • Superstorm250

        The reasons of you and the other prohibitionists that you name are driven by greed and conspiracy theories.

      • jontomas

        Yeah, right. – I don’t know Darryl Cotton, but “All-Use-Is-Medical” Dennis Peron has clearly gone off the edge. Ed Rosenthorn has become completely obnoxious with his disdain for the freedom of California marijuana consumers – and the whole world that is looking for California to deliver the coupe de grâce to the planetary evil that is the monstrously destructive, counter-productive, freedom-strangling FRAUD of marijuana prohibition.

        Naming those traitors to the cannabis culture only condemns you more.

      • ThoseDays AreOver

        I guess jontomas considers $200/ounces outrageously high. People like him should be relegated to smoking brick weed from mexico. The best top shelf is grown with love and will never be commoditized. connoisseur level organically produced cannabis will hopefully retain its value when commercially grown “work” is legally available.

    • xX NorCal3udz Xx

      All growers will have to go through a distributor to sell there cannabis. The distributor takes 20% off the top so in turn all growers will have to raise there price by 20%. Then the distiburtor does there mark up of course. Don’t forget the collective has to get there weed from a distributor and they have to have margins as well so they mark it up also. By the time is gets to the consumer the price has sky rocketed compared to prices today.

      • Ben Adlin

        Or that grower could just apply for a retail license and sell the cannabis to consumers itself. This is one of the attributes of the vertical integration allowed under Prop. 64. In Washington state, in works just like you describe. But California would look more like Colorado in this regard—no middleman necessary, no markup necessary.

        • alacrity

          nope- mandated distribution requires any and all cannabis or cannabis products be handled by a state licensed distributor- no exception.

          • Kenny Morrison

            in prop 64, nothing precludes a cultivator or manufacturer from holding both licenses (grow + distro, or manufacture + distro), only in MCRSA is dual licensure not allowed. YES ON PROP 64 exactly for this reason.

          • alacrity

            Kenny, the language is indeed nebulous and vague regarding this- but I’d bet the agency in charge will deny a grower possession of both. It would be like allowing Jack Daniels to not only distill whiskey, but control where it’s sold, and by whom.

          • shoobie

            actually, many are advocating for models more in line with craft beer where the brewer is allowed to hold both a manufacturing license and a distro license. others like the wine model. wineries in ca are allowed to grow, have a tasting room/store and tours on site, sell cases to members of a wine club via mail, and sell their product to restaurants themselves.

            i’d bet against your bet.

          • alacrity

            Kenny, I admire- and agree- with your points, but it ain’t gonna happen. The leash on this puppy is too short.

          • shoobie

            AB 266: B&P Code section 19326: Subsection B (3) This section does not limit the ability of licensed cultivators, manufacturers, and dispensaries to directly enter into contracts with one another indicating the price and quantity of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products to be distributed.

            SB 837: B&P Code 19326: Subsection B(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a cultivator shall not be required to send medical cannabis to a distributor if the medical cannabis is to be used, sold, or otherwise distributed by methods approved pursuant to this chapter by a manufacturer for further manufacturing.

          • alacrity

            hell- I’d go for that in a second! I just don’t believe the possibility is there yet- maybe in a few years, after the dust has settled. It took wineries and distilleries decades to get to that point- and that was for a federally legal intoxicant. Cannabis is going to take a bit longer, I think.

          • Ben Adlin

            I’m curious to see what passage you’re looking at in Prop. 64 that strikes you as “nebulous and vague regarding this.”

          • alacrity

            Ben, I’m done- I read the proposal 7-8 weeks ago, and I can’t recall nor am i willing to go back and re-read the damned thing. I do recall that there is no language specifically limiting which licenses an individual can have, but there is implied language that says they must be mutually exclusive. I could get one of my kids to go through it and break it down into plain english, but they bill at $300 and hour and I’m too damned cheap to pay ’em just to win an argument.

          • Ben Adlin

            Actually, there is language specifically limiting which licenses an individual can have. See Sec. 26053(b), which prevents a licensed testing lab from obtaining any other cannabis license (a measure designed to ensure testing independence). The provision in (c) is also relevant here.

            (a) The bureau and licensing authorities may issue licenses under this division to persons or entities that hold licenses under Chapter 3.5 of Division 8.
            (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a person or entity that holds a state testing license under this division or Chapter 3.5 of Division 8 is prohibited from licensure for any other activity, except testing, as authorized under this division.
            (c) Except as provided in subdivision (b), a person or entity may apply for and be issued more than one license under this division.

            This is on page 21 of Proposition 64 text, which anyone can read right here:

            I think it’s important that California voters have access to accurate information in order to make an informed decision.

          • Ben Adlin

            You’re mistaken. The mandatory distribution requirement was part of MCRSA, a set of three bills to regulate the state’s medical marijuana industry that have already been passed legislatively and signed into law by the governor. That takes effect in 2018. Prop. 64 actually *reverses* much of that, in part to address the type of concerns you’re raising here.

            See David Downs’s article here:

            “Last year, California made history by regulating its billion-dollar medical marijuana industry for the first time. Part of those regulations included a “mandatory distribution” layer of licensed independent drivers, who were billed as being a check on other parts of the industry.”

            A few paragraphs later:

            “Prop 64 removes the mandatory distribution later from recreational pot for all but the biggest farms.”

            If you can point me toward a relevant section of Prop. 64, please do. I’d love to see it.

          • alacrity

            Nice catch- I may have been cross-eyed by that point in the read. Concerns me, though, is the bit “by a manufacturer for further manufacture” and the nebulous nature of it. I guess I’m too old- I just don’t trust the government to do things right when there are taxes involved.

            I’m done here- cheers.

          • shoobie

            read this here…

            AB 266: B&P Code section 19326: Subsection B (3) This section does not limit the ability of licensed cultivators, manufacturers, and dispensaries to directly enter into contracts with one another indicating the price and quantity of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products to be distributed.

            SB 837: B&P Code 19326: Subsection B(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a cultivator shall not be required to send medical cannabis to a distributor if the medical cannabis is to be used, sold, or otherwise distributed by methods approved pursuant to this chapter by a manufacturer for further manufacturing.

      • jontomas

        No. Prices are falling rapidly in the Legal states. – They will settle around $50 an ounce with $20 to $30 in taxes. – It’s just a plant. – Home growing will keep the system honest. – If price plus taxes edges over $100 an ounce, large numbers of consumes will just grow their own. That will reduce commercial demand which will, in turn, bring prices back down to earth. – Marijuana will naturally hover a little higher than the price of fine tobacco.

        • ThoseDays AreOver

          got news bud. the work, products such as soil/ nutes/ hardware and electricity involved are real. Its a considerable investment, I dont see prices going too much farther down than they are at $200/ounce for top shelf product

        • ThoseDays AreOver

          you cant seem to close your mouth on the topic. Are you really just some stoner super-stoked to be able to buy an ounce of pot????

      • christopher rose

        Thank you ….good point!

        I stopped reading and instantly voted ” NO “…when I saw how all Cali growers will have to line up for growers credits for water allocation and bar code tag each plant for registration so another pension sucking government regulator can endlessly pull strings on your life.
        All this will limit growers production and prices will rise….on a wholesale level , if product is stifled by California regulation….and prices end up so high at a retail level….product will leave the state for places with better wholesale prices.
        Remember….when flowers are cured…they have to go to market immediately…like any produce.
        And…common sense would dictate…giving a cop the power to guess wither your too high or not will land you in jail every time…where right now in most places , they could give a rats ass.
        This whole thing stinks of being forced back into the closet because someone laughingly pasted a legal sign on it.
        You really have to ask yourself….does it feel like it’s not legal right now???….I see almost zero persecution at a local level and yet people are willing to vote in a immense amount of regulation and “Law Enforcement ” on the buzz word ” LEGAL “….which is just government legalese for “DO AS WE SAY ” …GET IT!
        Are things that bad right now?….We only really need change at the Federal level , and even DOJ has given up prosecuting busts…
        It’s amazing how the word “Legal ” blinds people to the inherent power they possess in mass by their actions….
        Gandhi was not a idiot….It’s beauty when passivity wilts a monster.

      • shoobie

        all growers have to go through a distributor NOW, because of MCRSA (goes into effect 2018). if prop 64 passes, you will not have to use a separate distributor. learn the facts dudebro.

        • alacrity

          back atcha, man- read the f’n thing- mandatory distribution network means exactly that: Any and all cannabis products must be passed through a state licensed distribution network.

          Don’t be a dick.

      • Schmaltzy

        I can’t take cannabis advice from someone who writes like they’re still in junior high.

    • alacrity

      Dude, don’t be a dick.

      I’m a proponent of legalization, and against 64.

      The greed in 64 is rampant- from the State, not the 215 industry. The estimates of $800 million to $1.3 billion in tax revenue are coming out of every consumer’s pocket, and in return they get squanto other than the ability get toasted without having to pay a $100 ticket when caught.

      Once the State gets a taste of that sweet lucre- they’re addicted to it, and things will only get more expensive from there. The consumer- recreational or medical- is wrung dry of every cent.

      Knock it off.

  • For a start, as a patient you might be concerned about having to register your more than six plants with a county registry that is NOT HIPPA-protected. Your mere presence on such a register would be sufficient to issue a federal search warrant, possibly even an arrest warrant as it is a signed admission of committing a federal crime.

    • jontomas

      You don’t get that Prop 64 is real legalization – similar or better than the legalization in the four Free States. – Soon, no one, not even police, is going to care if you have six plants or twelve.

  • Perhaps you care about the environment. Of the six plants which AUMA will allow you to grow, only three of which may be in flower, all must be grown in an enclosed area.This means that unless you have an enclosed courtyard or a semi-opaque greenhouse you must grow inside. The vast majority of people will go to a local grow shop who will tell them inefficient methods of growth which use far more electricity and water than is necessary. Putting it in perspective, According to a pair of studies done at the University of New Mexico and the University of Colorado, generating electricity, averaged across all means, ties up 197 trees worth of air cleaning per 1000 watts. The most commonly recommended light for growing is 1000 watt HPS, Even though the real number of people who would grow their own is far greater let’s say 40,000 people start growing under 1000 watt HPS lights. That’s 7,880,000 less trees cleaning up car fumes and cow farts.

    • jontomas

      Times will be good for sun-room builders. 8^) – Put it on the south side of the house if you can.

    • Darren Mason

      This has been my point all along! And honestly, its the one portion which makes me want to vote NO on this measure. It makes growing your own medicine or recreational supply next to impossible.

    • RXR

      Vote it legal for Central Valley farmers to grow and they will
      Grow it from hedgerow to hedgerow. Higher quality meds for sick more constancy for rec user.

      Prices will fall and the demand will be met.

      Indoor and its environmental impact will be a non factor.

      • Schmaltzy

        What is “constancy” Is that like indica and sativa?

        • alacrity

          it’s short for consistency- much like DB is short for douche bag…

    • KLB999

      If you care about the environment, you will vote for Prop 64. Illegal growers – cartels – are causing a huge environmental disaster in our state’s forests. This would end any motivation for illegal growing. It is a much bigger problem than using more electricity would be.

    • alacrity

      Seriously? You’re equivocating an indoor grow to deforestation?


      • ThoseDays AreOver

        people with outdoor farms will say anything at this point. hard to blame them. self preservation is a mofo

        • Hasbara Hillary


          i should not be allowed to grow a plant outside??

          Are you serious?

          • ThoseDays AreOver

            is that what I said, dummy? I’m pointing out that their resistance to the new laws are a matter or perspective and self-interest.

            You can still grow outside as long as its not viewable by the public. (i.e a courtyard surrounded by walls or a green house

            now go put words in someone else’s mouth or I’ll put something else in yours

          • Hasbara Hillary

            No; actually AUMA allows every county to entirely ban outdoor cultivation. Please inform yourself better before commenting.

          • Hasbara Hillary

            .. a greenhouse is a greenhouse… not outdoor.

            Was that a joke?

            Plants grow outside; under full sun.

            Get it?

            Anything less than that is a fucking joke; and not legalization

  • How about the right of local governments to impose local taxes. What percent? Not stated.

    • jontomas

      Prices are rapidly falling in the legal states. – After Prop 64 passes, they will settle around $50 an ounce with $20 to $30 in taxes.

      This is a vast improvement.

      • ThoseDays AreOver

        OMG $50 an ounce? that will put home growers like me out of business too. $200/ounce is already barely worth the electricity, time/effort. this is a confusing mess to me

      • Robert Petersen

        Come on, I can’t even grow quality product in my greenhouse for $50/oz. I’m pretty sure the $200/oz I set as my ceiling in the 70’s will end up as the legal market average for the 2020’s. With 25% of that going to build a better society instead of more prisons.

  • Then there’s the basic dishonesty of it’s most visible supporter–Chris Conrad. He says that AUMA doesn’t affect 215. If this were true the previously mentioned registry wouldn’t be imposed.

    • jontomas

      That’s not Prop 64. That’s the California legislature that finally got around to regulating medical marijuana. – Prop 64 clearly improves things vastly for medical patients and ALL consumers.

  • Shall we talk about what happens if a cop in a shitty mood spots you passing a joint to your 20 year old friend and chooses to hassle you?The term is a “felony indictment.” Now you’ll have a NADDIS number. Even if you beat the charge.

  • There’s much more but I hope this illustrates how you can be someone who has been a life member of NORML since 1979, have done more time than anyone else busted as part of “Operation Green Merchant (Do you even know what that was JonTomas?) for 12000+ plants, have been one of the major innovators in US American cannabiculture and oppose AUMA wholeheartedly.

    • jontomas

      No. – You haven’t shown anything yet, except your opposition to everyone’s freedom and silly, scary predictions that won’t come true.

  • Since Leafly is holding it hostage down below I will repeat this here. Let’s talk about what happens to you if a cop in a bad mood sees you passing a joint to your 20 year old friend and chooses to hassle you. Welcome to the experience of catching a felony indictment. You will now be listed on the North American Drug Distribution Investigation System. This is even if you beat the charge and you will feel its results every time you try to travel abroad.

    • jontomas

      The same silly predictions the GSAL made in every state that legalized, and NONE of their scary scenarios came true. – The fact is, one legal ounce changes everything. – The police will no longer be interested in marijuana.

      • alacrity

        unless of course, you get tabbed on something else- and have more than the legal limit. Things like a bit of shatter, some bubble hash and a few concentrate carts that go over the 8g line, and you find yourself with felony possession. Have a strain archive (I know several people who do, with ounces in storage) that goes past the 1oz limit? C’ya in jail, son.
        All you need is a reason for the police to do a walk through of your home- even a home grow in full compliance, and they can do a compliance check at any moment, without a warrant- and the potential for a bad day blossoms.

        • Schmaltzy

          state your source please. thanks.

          • alacrity

            as to the limits- from the proposition itself in the Ca Voter’s guide. As to the prosecution- any law enforcement agency with a bug up their ass, or county sheriff. Especially the sheriff- they tend to follow Federal guidelines first, their own interpretation of State laws second, their own mood and bias third, and if you argue- well, that never ends in your favor.

        • Ben Adlin

          “They can do a compliance check at any moment, without a warrant.”

          This is patently false.

          • alacrity

            not really- had a conversation with a couple people relevant to law enforcement- one a retired county sheriff, another a retired county ADA (my age and standing has collected a strange group of friends)- and yeah, at face value it wouldn’t happen, but the term “probable cause” came into play a lot. Sure, a few things would have to be present, like complaints, kids, and a variety of others- but law enforcement can indeed do so. Refusal to cooperate prompts a call to a judge and odds are things have already escalated to the point where civil liberties are temporarily overlooked and a search warrant is issued.

            It’s a definite possibility.

    • ThoseDays AreOver

      why would anyone pass a joint in front of a cop? are you that stupid??? you still cant smoke in public

      follow the rules and you will be fine

  • “But what about those people who can get their record cleared?” Only if what they were doing is legal under AUMA. Possession over an ounce? Nope, unless it was in your house.
    Growing more than three plants which were in flower? Nope.
    possession with intent to sell? Nope
    sales? nope

    • jontomas

      But what about all those who CAN get their record cleared? – What about all the marijuana consumers who will live free because it will be easy to have less than an ounce outside the house. – Inside the house you can have ALL the results of your harvests. – What about all those that can’t grow any now, but will soon be able to grow up to six plants? – Why would you deny all this incredible progress?

  • awnone

    This dude. The common theme I read in this article is, we got fucked here in Washington but don’t worry California your getting a better deal than we did. Stay in Washington. You aren’t even from California why are you writing about us? We aren’t worried about traffic stops wtf. We are worried about corporate America putting small business owners out of business, and for you to tell me that isn’t a threat goes to show how ignorinant you are about the subject and how you probably should be writing about it. Cost of business owners will go up, and cost of product will go up, simple facts. Our laws are very lenient, and with proper paper work that already exist were protected. Please stay the fuck out of our business Washington.

  • xX NorCal3udz Xx

    It’s funded by Monsanto they have also bought out Gavita. Any grower who is currently selling to a collective will have to go through a distributor after it passes. The distributor will take 20% off the top for packaging and transportation. Therefore the growers will have to bumb prices by 20% and so will the distributor and so will the collective it’s self. Also this will take away from the faces of the company’s. No more the growing company’s like True Humbolt and Insanity Strains be able to have a face to face with a collective to build the name and the brand. Instead a collectives manager (like my wife) will go to a website and buy the strains from a long list of strains not knowing where it came from and not building repour with the company’s. We are completely happy with the way it is now.

    • jontomas

      You are completely happy with making criminals out of your “precious” customers. – That’s why you are the Greedy Sellers Against Legalization. (GSAL) – Sorry, the medical excuse marijuana days are over.

    • shoobie

      prop 64 doesnt make you use a separate distributor. learn the facts before you type

      • alacrity

        dude- read the thing. It states clearly that there will be no more “direct sales” to dispensaries, nor any allowances for “self generated product” manufacture or sales. A grower will be required to register as a commercial producer, apply for a permit, pay said fee’s associated with same, and only then will they be allowed to grow. Once harvested, the crop must be turned over to a “state licensed distributor” who will then verify and validate said crop. Once that’s done, the distributor can deliver to the state licensed retail store or secondary manufacturer (concentrates/bakery/etc) and in the latter, the distributor must again handle transfer to retail or packaging.
        There are scenarios where the distributor would handle a single harvest as many as 5 times- all documented at each step- before delivery to retail, and each step being a separate transaction- a separate mark-up is applied.

        Oh- and the strain thing? say bye-bye to anything that sounds like it would appeal to kids, like Sunset Sherbet, Grape Ape, Tangie, etc… 64 goes way too far.

    • Robert Petersen

      I think you mean rapport. repour is what happens if it rains on your new patio project.

  • Jason Seeglle

    What happened to medical in Washington? Gone to waste I tell u. Screw prop 64, it will just pad the pockets of the corporate elite!

    • jontomas

      What you REALLY want is ‘medical excuse marijuana.’ – Everyone knows you can’t get rich just selling to sick people. – I’ve been to many dispensaries. It’s easy to tell from the conversation and questions about 80 percent of customers are there for recreational purposes. – You want to continue to force these vast numbers to commit fraud.

  • MikeParent

    If you find yourself on the same side as Kevin Sabet, you’re on the wrong side.

  • Randy Meier

    this writer is moron, idk how they’re employed. I think I might start “writing”

  • Roger

    Under Prop 64 / AUMA Section 11362.2 mandates that no more that 6 cannabis plants may be grown on the property at any time. Yes that’s 6 plants per property not per patient! That total of 6 plants applies to clones, veg and flowering plants. Also under AUMA local governments are empowered to charge a permit fee to grow those plants. Palos Verdes charges $600 per sq-ft for that ‘privilege’. Many other cities are setting up fee schedules for personal grow if Prop 64 passes. What’s YOUR city going to charge YOU to grow 6 plants? Read the bill! It’s a mess!

    Those who KNOW say NO to AUMA!

    Please SHARE and #VoteNOonAUMA #VoteNOonPROP64…/pdfs/15-0103%20(Marijuana)_1.pdf

  • potmaster

    Most of what has been written is wrong. Some have mixed the regulations for Medical use with the law for recreational use. The structure of distributors and the licenses are for the medical use community. A lot of the opposition lot Prop 64 comes from the fact that it is written in there for big Pharma to come in in the future and take over most of the production.

    • alacrity

      Big Pharma can’t- Federal law kinda frowns on mega corporations from handling the forbidden fruit. Unless it’s made illegal on a national scale, big pharma ain’t a player.

  • RevJack

    I am sure the electric companies as well as the suppliers of hydroponic supplies are thrilled that it will now be illegal to grow your plants cheaply outdoors. Oh and surprise surprise, some of them are already connected to Prop 64.

  • RevJack

    No surprise that this organization is for 64, but it wasn’t written for patients or the casual user, in spite of cleverly worded but false promises. It was written by and for corporate and government interests and that is who will be served and that is where the money will go. And not one penny for schools or roads in spite of huge tax increases. Qualified lawyer-patients like Letitia Pepper have pointed out how deceitful the language in 64 is. And well-respected, longtime activists like Richard Eastman and Patrick Moore are also calling this a scam and a betrayal patients and certainly not real decriminalization.

  • alacrity

    My biggest reservation is the “seed to sale” network to be imposed on how cannabis is channeled through the system. Here in Nor-Cal, we’ve had amazing vendors with almost a seamless transition from harvest to dispensary, growing, trimming, curing and delivering- sometimes offering “farm direct sales” in local markets- that will be eliminated by the mandated “distributorships” where growers must turn over their harvest to a distributor, who then will test, verify and transport to the state licensed retail stores- with the appropriate mark-up, of course. Concentrates? well, they get an extra taste of that, too- as the distributor handles the transfer both ways from the farm to the manufacturer- who can’t test or verify their own product- back to the distributor who tests & verifies the product, then transfers the concentrates to the packaging agent, and finally on to the retail store. If you’re a fan of carts- get ready for massive price increases.

    Another facet on this jeweled turd: Your local dispensary will be shut down. Closed. Toast.

    64 states that “all dispensaries and collectives will eventually closed and replaced by state licensed retail stores” on page 94 of the California voter’s guide. There’s no wiggle room there- they aim to enforce that by fiscal year 2018/19, so the nice people who put their ass on the line daily get nothing for what they’ve done other than “hey thanks, we appreciate your tax revenue thus far but now get in line and we’ll talk once you pay $100k (est) for a license- oh, and you’ll need to do that every year.”

    Oh- and edibles? Like those cute candies or baked goods? Guess again- they’ve been deemed too attractive to kids, and severe restrictions will be imposed on them, if not eliminated entirely. Oh yeah- the distributor gets to do their thing, too- if they’re allowed at all.

    64 was a great idea, conceptually- but like the elephant, it’s a mouse built to government specifications.

  • It’s time to debunk the myths of prop 64.

  • Josh Leiderman
    Voting yes in Cali is just not smart!

  • Hasbara Hillary
  • Hasbara Hillary