I do love people that state they will not engage in a debate after demonstrating they have no argument to make or facts to rely on.
Since you clearly did not take the time to read the article I shared with you, I will present you with facts based on the actual language of the bill, and not what has been whitewashed and spoon fed to people via High Times:
In the entire text of Prop. 64, Prop. 215 is referenced ONLY ONCE
11362.3
(a) Nothing in Section 11362.1 shall be construed to permit any person to:
(1) Smoke or ingest marijuana or marijuana products in any public place, except in accordance with Section 26200 of the Business and Professions Code.
(2) Smoke marijuana or marijuana products in a location where smoking tobacco is prohibited.
…etc.
[This section goes on to list a total of eight items, all related to consumption — in public, in cars, on boats, etc. At the end of that section, the disclaimer is found]:
(f) Nothing in this section shall be construed or interpreted to amend, repeal, affect, restrict, or preempt laws pertaining to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
That’s it. That’s the only reference to Prop. 215, which is that Prop. 64 won’t repeal any of the legalized consumption established by Prop. 215. Otherwise, the remainder of the bill can and will impact the already established Prop. 215. There is no other language in Prop. 64 that would protect any portions of Prop. 215, and in fact, in many instances, the language of Prop. 64 explicitly undoes portions of 215.
Also, Prop. 64 screws the public out of tens of millions of dollars of tax revenue: Section 34018
(a) The California Marijuana Tax Fund is hereby created in the State Treasury. The Tax Fund shall consist of all taxes, interest, penalties, and other amounts collected and paid to the board pursuant to this part, less payment of refunds.
(b) Notwithstanding any other law, the California Marijuana Tax Fund is a special trust fundestablished solely to carry out the purposes of the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act…
© Notwithstanding any other law, the taxes imposed by this part and the revenue derivedtherefrom, including investment interest, shall not be considered to be part of the General Fund…
With regards to patient rights, currently, under California law, anyone with a valid medical card may grow plants without limitation. Prop. 64 establishes a maximum cap of 6 plants per person. Again, from the text of the bill:
11362.1
(a) Subject to Sections 11362.2, 11362.3, 11362.4, and 11362.45, but notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall be lawful under state and local law, and shall not be a violation of state or local law, for persons 21 years of age or older to:
(3) Possess, plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process not more than six living marijuana plants and possess the marijuana produced by the plants…
also this:
11362.2
(a) Personal cultivation of marijuana under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 11362.1 is subject to the following restrictions:
(1) A person shall plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process plants in accordance with local ordinances, if any, adopted in accordance with subdivision (b) of this section.
(3) Not more than six living plants may be planted, cultivated, harvested, dried, or processed within a single private residence, or upon the grounds of that private residence, at one time.
There is also the issue of taxation. The sales tax, consumption tax, grower taxes, etc. that are authorized and established by Prop. 64 would increase the current price of medical marijuana by about 24–32% AT LEAST. Medical patients with valid cards get a break though, as long as they register their name, address, SS#, medical conditions, and marijuana source with a state database ( Sec. 11362.713). Furthermore, because of the language in Prop. 64, almost all medical dispensaries currently in operation in the state would have to reapply for a seller’s license under the new law. Their old distribution licenses under 215 would become invalid.
Your arrest records are wrong. Just wrong. Since 2014, felony arrests for pot down almost 80% across the state. http://www.canorml.org/news/California_felony_drug_arrests_plummet_after_Prop_47. Can you get arrested for marijuana possession now? Yes, but it is a misdemeanor punishable by fines, not jail time. Will people continue to be arrested without Prop. 64? Yes, but they will also be arrested under Prop. 64, because Prop. 64 doesn’t add anything new that Prop. 47 didn’t do. I’m sorry, it is reckless to say that “millions” will be arrested in the future without Prop. 64.
Finally, the issue of corporations. I recommend reading up on the Cal Growers Association’s analysis of 64: http://www.calgrowersassociation.org/proposition_64_julyconcerns
The “anti-monopoly” clause has a shelf-life of 5 years. After that, ANY corporate entity can apply for a license and begin growing any number of plants they want. have you stopped to consider the catastrophic environmental impact that will have on California? can you imagine multiple grow farms in the central valley using billions of gallons of water a year? factor in pesticide runoff, fuel consumption for transportation, and the massive consumption of electricity to grow 24/7 year-round.
But sure, the allure of being able to walk into a store, buy a dime bag, and smoke it with friends like they do in Denver is just too great, huh? Prop. 64 isn’t going to turn California into Amsterdam. It’s going to screw over A LOT of people from growers to patients. This is one of those times where keeping things the way they were outweighs something flashy and new.