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
Advertise on Leafly

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

September 30, 2016
If you’re a California voter, you probably haven’t read the whole text of Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act. You should—here it is—but you won’t. So I did.

You know the basics: Prop. 64 would legalize cannabis under state law for adults 21 and older. It would designate state agencies to license and regulate the industry, set up a system of taxes (medical patients are exempt from some), and set restrictions on things like packaging and marketing. Products would be tested for cannabinoids, terpenes, pesticides, and foreign contaminants. And people who’ve been convicted of cannabis-related crimes would become eligible for resentencing or to have those records destroyed.

Related

California Just Legalized Cannabis! Now Comes the Hard Part

That’s the highlight reel. I read all 62 pages of Proposition 64 looking for things you might not hear about in most reporting. Here’s what I found:

1. Cannabis won’t be available everywhere.

It’s hard to locate a town in California without a tavern or a liquor store, but don’t expect same thing with cannabis. Cities and counties can ban cannabis businesses, and it’s likely that many will. This is a common feature of legalization measures, meant to allow communities to decide locally how to regulate the cannabis industry.

Related

Behind the Big Ban: Why California Towns Are Scrambling to Oust Dispensaries

Don’t like it? Reach out to your local officials. Some cities have made tremendous progress thanks to citizen activism. And it’s worth noting: Municipalities that ban cultivation or retail sales won’t be eligible to receive certain cannabis tax revenues meant to enhance law enforcement, fire protection, or other public safety programs.

2. Anyone can grow cannabis at home.

Even if your city or county decides to ban cannabis businesses, it can’t keep you from growing your own. Municipalities would be required to allow adults 21 and older to cultivate up to six plants for personal use. Local governments could prevent you from growing those plants outdoors, but they couldn’t bar you from cultivating small amounts of cannabis inside your private residence.

Related

How to Grow Organic Cannabis at Home

It’s not clear, though, whether landlords could prevent tenants from growing for personal use. Prop. 64 defines a private residence as “a house, an apartment unit, a mobile home, or other similar dwelling,” but it’s possible cultivation could be disallowed under the terms of a lease. (Americans for Safe Access has a helpful summary of current housing law for medical patients.)

3. Retail shops can’t sell blunt wraps.

Are you one of the many cannabis consumers who prefer blunts? Don’t plan on a one-stop shop. Businesses that sell tobacco or alcohol products aren’t eligible to sell nonmedical cannabis. Entrepreneurs eager to sell pre-rolled blunts—or consumers plain tired of rolling them—will have to wait.

4. Organic cannabis is coming.

This is California, after all. Prop. 64 directs the state Department of Food and Agriculture to “establish a certified organic designation and organic certification program for marijuana and marijuana products.” If adopted, California’s program could become the first of its kind in the country. Colorado put forward a similar plan but lawmakers earlier this year rejected the proposal, saying an organic label would imply cannabis is healthy. (Want to buy organic Colorado vodka, though? Go for it.)

5. Appellations are getting support, too.

Farmers in Humboldt and Mendocino counties are well aware their regions have a reputation for primo cannabis. Prop. 64 wants to make sure that producers outside those areas don’t try to cash in on their names through clever branding. Only cannabis grown in a specific region can use that name on labels, packaging, or marketing materials. Further, materials for cannabis grown outside a particular appellation can’t display “any statement, design, device, or representation which tends to create the impression that the marijuana originated in [that] particular place or region.”

Related

What’s So Special About Humboldt County Cannabis?

It’s tempting to associate the appellations program with a growing interest in cannabis terroir—the character cannabis takes on from a region’s soil and its environment—but Prop. 64 wouldn’t require appellation-specific cannabis to be grown outdoors or even in soil. That could diminish any regionally identifying traits in the final product. (Is Napa Valley wine the same thing if the grapes were grown hydroponically in a warehouse?)

6. Delivery services are here to stay.

Don’t have a car? Unsafe to drive? Broke your stupid ankle? Prop. 64 would allow licensed retailers and delivery services to bring cannabis to your door. And even though local governments could ban cannabis businesses, the measure says jurisdictions “shall not prevent delivery of marijuana or marijuana products on public roads.” In other words, picking up a pack of pre-rolls could soon be as easy as ordering a pizza. This isn’t exactly new: A thriving delivery market already has emerged quasi-legally within the state’s existing medical system.

The California aqueduct, the central component of the California State Water Project, moves fresh water down the state from Northern California into the irrigation networks of the central valley and into the Southern California. Image via Metropolitan Water District

The California aqueduct, the central component of the California State Water Project, moves fresh water down the state from Northern California into the irrigation networks of the central valley and into the Southern California. Photo via Metropolitan Water District

7. Water could set an upper limit on California cannabis.

Under Prop. 64, licensed growers would be required to obtain a unique identifier for every single plant. Imagine barcodes on bracelets around the base of each one. The identifiers would be a key part of the measure’s track-and-trace program, but they could also dictate the future of California’s cannabis industry. A provision in the measure says that new identifiers could only be issued in areas where there’s enough water to support the plants. “If a watershed cannot support additional cultivation,” it says, “no new plant identifiers will be issued for that watershed.”

California has long struggled with water supply issues, and problems have only gotten worse as the climate grows hotter and drier. Regulators have already slowed pumping water to Southern California in order to protect a tiny, endangered fish critical to the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta ecosystem. It’s conceivable that water woes could one day set a cap on cannabis cultivation in the state, too.

8. Say goodbye to infused Sour Patch Kids.

California medical patients (or fans of Conan O’Brien) are likely familiar with some of the infused lookalike products currently sold in the state. Those could soon disappear. Prop. 64 prohibits products “easily confused with commercially sold candy or foods that do not contain marijuana.” It will be interesting to see how courts interpret that phrase; Sour Patch Kids might be obvious, but an infused brownie can sure look a lot like a regular one.

Related

Colorado Gives Cannabis Candy a New Look to Avoid Confusion

9. So long to swag, too.

“No licensee shall give away any amount of marijuana or marijuana products, or any accessories, as part of a business promotion or other commercial activity,” the measure reads. This will likely come as a disappointment to California consumers who’ve developed a fondness for traveling from dispensary to dispensary to collect new-member freebies. It could also put a damper on industry and consumer events, where giving away dabs, pre-rolls, grinders, and other goodies is the practice du jour.

10. Advertisers, start your calculators.

Some legalization opponents—we’re looking at you, Sen. Dianne Feinstein—have claimed Prop. 64 would allow cannabis advertising aimed at children. We can all agree that would be terrible. So it’s a good thing it’s not exactly true. (PolitiFact rated her claim “mostly false.”) But that doesn’t mean the advertising laws would be simple.

Prop. 64 says advertising “in broadcast, cable, radio, print and digital communications shall only be displayed where at least 71.6 percent of the audience is reasonably expected to be 21 years of age or older, as determined by reliable, up-to-date audience composition data.” I was on page 34 and feeling pretty good about myself at that point, but when I got to that phrase I called a lawyer.

Rebecca Stamey-White, a partner at Hinman & Carmichael in San Francisco who handles alcohol and cannabis matters, told me the rule was borrowed from the adult beverage industry, where it exists as a self-imposed industry guideline, not a law. It means advertisers have to pay attention to (and a lot of money for) things like Nielsen ratings and other industry data that break down audiences into demographics.

Related

Data Dive: Prop. 64 Poll Reveals Bikers Love Legalization (and Other Curious Trends)

It probably goes for unpaid social media activity, too—already widely used by the state’s medical cannabis market. “The way it works in alcohol is, everything is advertising. It’s all commercial speech,” said Stamey-White. That said, she predicted many platforms could meet those standards. “When Snapchat came out, it skewed very young. That was a platform a lot of brands wanted to be on, but it took a while to rise above that threshold.” Even if the state were to have a hard time policing that requirement, as Stamey-White predicted it could, violation still would technically put businesses out of compliance with state law—and compliance with state law is key to protecting state medical markets from federal prosecution.

Related

Federal Court Bars Justice Department From Prosecuting Medical Cannabis

11. Get ready for social consumption.

This will be up to cities and counties if Prop. 64 passes. The initiative says “a local jurisdiction may allow for the smoking, vaporization, and ingesting of marijuana or marijuana on the premises of a retailer or microbusiness.” Consumption couldn’t be visible from a public place, and the establishment wouldn’t be able to sell alcohol or tobacco. Still, it means Amsterdam-style coffeeshops could be coming to at least some parts of the Golden State in the next few years.

12. Big growers would be prohibited until 2023.

In an effort to prevent industry monopolization, Prop. 64 wouldn’t begin licensing any large growers—those with more than one acre of outdoor grow space or 22,000 square feet of indoor canopy—until Jan. 1, 2023.

Although size would be limited during the first few years, most businesses would be eligible to apply for multiple licenses, meaning a single company could be a grower, concentrate manufacturer, retailer, and delivery service. Testing laboratories must be separate under the measure.

Related

Oakland Rolls Out Drug War Reparations

13. We’ll know who wants to change the rules.

Concerned about lobbying efforts by special industry interests? You’re not alone. Prop. 64 requires annual reports from state licensing authorities, which must include “a detailed list of the petitions for regulatory relief or rulemaking changes received by the office from licensees requesting modifications.” The measure doesn’t seem to add additional state requirements to track lobbying lawmakers in Sacramento, but it does attempt to build an element of transparency into the process.

Have you slogged your way through all 62 pages? Here’s the link again. Read it and let us know what jumps out at you.

Ben Adlin's Bio Image

Ben Adlin

Ben Adlin is a senior editor at Leafly who specializes in politics and the law. Follow him on Twitter: @badlin

View Ben Adlin's articles

  • Sergio Farias

    Pass proposition 64!

    • Blake Beagelsmith

      Oh; look who it is. They guy that wants to shill for AUMA; but not debate any of the facts on why it is a truly horrible bill.

      Keep posting your bullshit AUMA propaganda; and I will follow EVERY post you make.

      • sll1965

        Where is the proposition that you wrote? Didn’t get enough signatures? Didn’t have a viable game plan? Dude — we all know that you’re a grower, and you don’t want competition. give it a rest.

        • Blake Beagelsmith

          ” a grower” ?

          Dude; you are a f#cking idiot.

          Before you insult people you don’t know; you should familiarize yourself with the facts. What a first class scumbag.

          Do you even live in my state?

        • Blake Beagelsmith

          I don’t have multi millions to throw behind a fake legalization bill; to make more millions. I grow 6 plants; for me. You f#cking a$$hole.

          • Sergio Farias

            Your level of intelligence is really showing….

      • Sergio Farias

        Says the guy supporting the cops unions, prison guards union, and pharmaceutical companies. Voting no puts you on the prohibitionists’ side.

        • Blake Beagelsmith

          You clearly read NOTHING I shared with you. What is your problem?

          I already told you GEORGE SOROS is behind the AUMA bill. One of MONSANTO’S largest shareholders.

          Do you understand what that means?

          • Sergio Farias

            It means that both small and big company are getting into the market just like alcohol. (Small brewers and big brewers, you still have the choice whether you want to buy from small dispensaries or big dispensaries).

            I read everything and it is all based on emotions, fears, and ignorance.

            Colorado legalization wasn’t perfect, but if they wouldn’t have legalized this reality would’ve been different. (Worse)

          • Blake Beagelsmith

            No; actually; it is well thought out responses; by lawyers and and long time Cannabis advocates. I guess you only trust the liars not on our side though.

          • Blake Beagelsmith

            How did you get to be so badly informed?
            AUMA passing won’t help ” dispensary greed “. As i Stated; it will get worse. I don’t know why you are failing to understand basic Economics.

          • Blake Beagelsmith

            AUMA = less Cannabis; – H!GHER prices.

          • Sergio Farias

            That is big lie. All the states that have legalized have cheaper weed than California!

        • Blake Beagelsmith

          Why do you trust a government that lies to you?

          Whose side are you on?

          • Sergio Farias

            I’m on the side of legalization.

            Whose side are you on?

      • Sergio Farias

        Say the guy supporting police unions, prison guards unions, pharmaceutical companies, rehab centers and other special interests with money at stake. Vote yes on legalization! End the prohibition now!

      • Sergio Farias

        Please do follow me so you can educate yourself.

  • Open Minds

    Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Prop 64 is not perfect but it’s a start. The California market is so big that once it goes legal, it will begin an unstoppable cascade throughout the country. Let’s get this ball rolling…

    • Blake Beagelsmith

      No dude… it is REGRESSION. Literally stripping Prop 215 patients of their rights; and replacing everything with state mandated bullshit, CA already has a start. The best one the Nation has ever seen. Let’s do our jobs and protect it against Corporate takeover. Vote NO.

      • EZdoes

        What are you afraid will happen to Prop 215 patients if Prop 64 passes?

      • Tony

        I’ve read ALOT of comments similar to this one but haven’t seen any facts in those comments. What SPECIFICALLY if going to be stripped away from Prop 215 patients? (I am a Prop 215 patient myself so i’d certainly like to know).

        • Rat Rangler

          Prop 215 allows you to grow as much as you need. Prop 64 limits your growing to six plants and only indoors. Prop 215 makes it easy to get a recommendation by allowing you to see any licensed doctor familiar with cannabis. Prop 64 (with MMRSA) will make it much harder to get a recommendation. If you can’t get a recommendation, you will have no protection from the federal government if they think you are a bad person and use your weed against you. I’ve even tried asking my physician and he said “No”. Even if anyone gets a recommendation, it’s most likely Prop 215 will be dissolved once the legislature is enabled to change things around, which they can do with a simple majority vote. Therefore whenever Prop 64 says it falls back on “the compassionate use act” those sections will be outdated.

          • Tony

            Thank you, all i asked for was specifics and you provided at least one. I don’t know if that alone makes this bill terrible since I doubt most people are planning on growing more than 6 plants for personal use. I smoke everyday and I don’t ever see the need for more than 6 plants of personal use granted I don’t represent everyone.

            Now at least I see some flaws in this bill, thank you. I went from all for it to on the fence.

          • DJ Nahay

            Except California can’t create laws that restrict medical pts anymore than prop 215 does. See here: https://ballotpedia.org/People_v._Kelly

            So that six plants rule would only apply to recreational users and not medical users.

          • Rat Rangler

            There will be no medical. Prop 64 replaces Prop 215. What you are talking about will not exist. It’s all promises. When the legislature gets control, they will remove Prop 215. Guaranteed.

          • DJ Nahay

            The California Supreme Court ruled that no laws California implements can/will change or restrict Prop 215. Even if the goal of 64 is to restrict med pts, the Supreme Court already ruled that it can’t, so 64 only actually applies to recreational users. Also, 64 leaves it up to the counties/cities whether or not dispensaries are allowed, but they can’t stop people from growing in their own home, or buying in another city and bringing it back to your home.

          • Rat Rangler

            You aren’t listening. Prop 64 can do what it wants after it passes because it will REPLACE Prop 215. All references to Prop 215 will be moot. Prop 215 will not have any power. One voter initiative cannot exist with another where Marijuana is concerned on this. There are no legal or enforceable provisions for Prop 215 In AUMA!!!!!!

          • meow~

            i dont think this is true at all sorry

          • David Gonzalez Herrera
          • rsteeb

            That is some bovine scatology. Prop 215 is going NOWHERE.

          • Rat Rangler

            Additionally, with Prop 215 out of the way, this will remove your protections like you won’t believe. They could legally start busting current medical patients the day after the election, for having more than an oz, or more than six plants. What you people aren’t considering is, your hopes are not what will go down. But they want you to believe all will be well, that’s what sharks do before they eat you.

          • meow~

            doesn’t that make you a prohibitionist, i mean im sure you’re convinced if any prop passes that legalizes weed this will happen.

          • Rat Rangler

            It also isn’t stopping the cities from requiring new permits to grow your six plants indoors. This is not legalization, it’s a trap.

        • Blake Beagelsmith
    • Blake Beagelsmith

      Argue with the Veterans; they will be more than pleased to inform you of why AUMA is absolute government trash.

      https://www.instagram.com/p/BKoIGL6AgdT/?taken-by=cchi2018

      • jontomas

        Total nonsense vomited by the Greedy Sellers Against Legalization (GSAL). – Legalization with Prop 64 improves things exponentially for all consumers – including patients! – Stop trying to fool people into voting against their own freedom.

        • Blake Beagelsmith

          “This person is either a liar or incompetent. – How could she not remember how she voted on Prop 215? – The only way would be that she was so DISINTERESTED that it didn’t matter to her. – If she was THAT disinterested in marijuana, how could she be qualified to direct marijuana policy for California? – It doesn’t add up. ”

          You remember writing that?

          • jontomas

            Vaguely. What’s the point?

          • Blake Beagelsmith

            So you appear to pretty valiantly be defending Proposition 215; against MMRSA… which is by default; the AUMA bill

            So do you support Prop 215; or AUMA?

            They are absolutely opposed.

    • Rat Rangler

      Let’s get this ball rolling that’s still illegal at the federal level!

  • Uwe

    I’m by no means against legalization although I quit using 30 years ago when I grew out of that age. What I’m against though is growing in residential neighborhoods. Have you driven through sonoma or lake county recently with your top off (or windows down)? The entire county reeks horribly up to a point where you’re getting nauseous. My neighbor two houses down has a nice illegal operation going – 350 feet from an elementary school with “customers” coming and going. I’m paying a city permit and taxes for my home office, yet the city won’t even do anything about the horrible smell, the exposure to kids nor the trafficking of a currently illegal drug. I seriously doubt the kiddies showing up at his door have a medical use license.
    well, guess I’ll sell my house eventually and go someplace else where it doesn’t stink all summer long

    • EZdoes

      I wasn’t aware there was an age at which one could grow out of cannabis. And that smell is wonderful to me. Different strokes for different folks.

      • Uwe

        Well, you reach that age when you realize that life without drugs is more fun.
        That smell might be nice when you drive by. It’s a completely different story when you have it in 90 degree weather 24/7 for two to three months right up your nose. A smell that pervasive is never good no matter what it is.

        • EZdoes

          I’m in my 40’s and cannabis as a drug is wonderful. I don’t get stoned like when I was in college but Cannabis is certainly a positive inclusion in my life. You sound negative to the general idea of cannabis and possibly all “drugs”. Do you take aspirin, caffeine?
          “A smell that pervasive is never good no matter what it is.” – using statements with absolutes are not usually a good idea when debating your views. Words like “never” and “always” reduce your statements to emotional “feelings” about the subject and you begin to lose your credibility. You now come off a bit like an old fuddy-duddy that wants those kids to just “stay off your lawn.”

          • Uwe

            No, I don’t do caffeine nor aspirin. I can’t even remember the last time I had need for a painkiller or a stimulant. I’m not against drugs. If people want to use them it’s just fine with me. Actually I would get rid of all drug restrictions including heroin, morphine, cocaine, lsd and whatever else is out there. It should be a persons right to inhale/inject/ingest whatever they want as long as it doesn’t interfere with other people. I would also eliminate the entire prescription drug business. Why not go to a pharmacy and buy what you want? It’s your life and your decision to make and shouldn’t be the decision of a doctor who’s paid off by the pharma industry to prescribe their drugs.

            So, I use my credibility by using the word never? How about this sentence: “rape is never a good thing”. Should I word it “rape is sometimes a bad thing” instead so I don’t lose my credibility?

          • EZdoes

            Oh no! Rape is never a good thing, I agree with you. I didn’t state using words like “always” and “never” were “always” a bad thing. You should try not to overly infer things too. See what I did there?

            Oh, and I agree with all of your other comments in the first paragraph.

        • Rat Rangler

          It’s not a drug, it’s a plant. It has many uses. If you don’t need it, don’t use it. I would rather smell cannabis than car exhaust.

          • Uwe

            “It’s not a drug, it’s a plant.” – I’ll tell that to the judge when they arrest me for growing poppies or coca. I’m certain he’ll go for the “it’s just a plant” defense.
            My problem is not growing it or allowing it. My problem is that city code prohibits me from a whole lot of things because it’s detrimental to the neighborhood, the environment or some other imaginary cause. For example, it’s perfectly ok to lock a dog in your backyard and let it bark all day long. Unless you find a bunch of neighbors to co-sign and file with local authorities nobody will do anything about it. If I put a rooster in my backyard, the police will be here in 3 minutes flat. I’d love to start a cow manure business out of my backyard, yet city codes prohibit me from that because of the smell. As a matter of fact, whenever you run a business out of your residential place you have to get a license from the city which is very specific about the potential impact on neighbors. I.e. I can not have a sign up-front or even have my business name on my car because that’s considered to have a negative impact on my neighbors. Thing is, you obviously don’t need a license to run a commercial cannabis operation.
            The city I live in has rules that cannabis cultivation is limited to regions zoned industrial and the state says no cannabis production within 600 ft of a school. The rules just don’t do any good if nobody cares to enforce them. Beyond that, right now it’s perfectly illegal to sell the stuff at the front-door to minors (and that will remain illegal). Yet if I give my neighbor’s son a beer I’ll end up in jail, if I sell pot to him the cops don’t even bother. Guess next year I’ll have a very generous application of weedkiller in windy conditions…

        • Blake Beagelsmith

          Cannabis is an ancient medicinal plant. The only reason you refer to it as a ” drug” is because the corrupt government told you to.

          Cannabis = good. Government = bad.

    • Blake Beagelsmith

      Who cares; they should worry about all the tweakers and illegal cartels. Don’t worry about what grown men do with their own land.

    • Blake Beagelsmith

      and yes; if Cannabis bothers you; I would move. It is going to become an absolute MASSIVE force of our State. The east coast is much cheaper; you know? Less freedom loving liberals too.

      • Uwe

        freedom loving liberals?
        Well, if that isn’t an oxymoron I don’t know what is. California is the most regulated state in the US aside from NY

        • Blake Beagelsmith

          I hear the old people say that all the time; but I have never really seen any indication proving it.
          ” regulated”? like overtaxed? environmental things?

          in most states; i will still get thrown in jail for a decade for an ounce of pot. In CA; I can go sit on a nude beach and smoke as much pot as i want. How regulated is that?

          • Sergio Farias

            Bullshit. I want to see you smoke as much as you can without a medical card and see how well you do. It is decriminalized not legalized, you are definitely confused.

          • Blake Beagelsmith

            Are you in the same CA I am?

            Anything less than an ounce and you get a ticket; is it?

            If they even decide to charge you…

            Plus; most smokers DO have their medical card. Why would they support AUMA and give those rights up?

          • jontomas

            So, even though most people are not medical marijuana patients, they should just lie (breaking the law) to pay $80 to a “doctor” for a phony examination for “medical” permission. – What’s sad is you think that moronic fiction is a good basis for sound public policy. And we can’t begin to attack problems like the right to work and the right to maintain child custody until we end ALL of the punishment of consumers and bogus “criminality” of marijuana.

            Prop 64 solves that and is the key piece in the larger puzzle of ending the fraudulent federal prohibition – the true death knell of the monstrous, 80-year war on millions of marijuana consumers.

          • Blake Beagelsmith

            You beat the government by disobeying them; not by signing their corrupt bills into law. We are so opposed it is not even funny! I really would not expect AUMA to pass; you lot are really the minority here.

          • jontomas

            You wish. – Polls show 60 percent of Californians support legalizing marijuana with Prop 64!

          • Blake Beagelsmith

            No; polls show Californians support LEGALIZATION.

            AUMA and legalization are not the same thing.

            Don’t you feel bad straight out lying to ” prove” your point?

          • Blake Beagelsmith

            Yes. They should ” lie” . Why do I need to respect a government that does not respect me?
            Man; you are living in dystopia 1984 haha!!
            “lie” ? Did the government teach you that?
            Why the f#ck is it a lie that ANYbody chooses to use Cannabis medicinally?
            Who has any right to decide that for me; beside myself?
            You sound more like a cop than a stoner. Definitely not a liberal.

          • jontomas

            Wow. – How sick. – The answer to fixing our government is not to be as dishonest as some of them are. – It’s amazing you would say such a thing. — It shows you definitely are not a marijuana reformer.

          • Blake Beagelsmith

            Nobody is being dishonest. If I have a headache; I should be able to use Cannabis medically. Uncle sam is not my daddy. If you need more government help; move somewhere where they control your life more?

          • Sergio Farias

            You are not giving anything up, if anything if you legalize you will get cheaper weed, higher quality, less arrests, and homegrow (unlike Washington ).
            Just because you have a medical card doesn’t mean others do. (You are not the only person living in California )

            If you decide to keep weed illegal you will be in many people’s eyes a prohibitionist.

            Be part of the solution and join Colorado, Washington, Alaska, and Oregon.

            No proposition is perfect, all of them can be in improved as time passes. Proposition 64 is better than many other legalization measures that were passed in the current legal states.

          • Blake Beagelsmith

            Anybody can get their card at the drop of a hat; you have no argument.

          • JeffWalenta

            You may be willing to lie to get a card but a lot more people then you think won’t knowingly break the law to do it. Why should access be dependent on this dog and pony show where folks are required to shell out money just for the right to buy something? In Oregon when legalization happened, despite how cannabis friendly Oregon already was and despite a robust medical system being in place since 1998, there has been a noticeable increase in folks coming to cannabis for the first time or after 30 years of not using it. Those folks will never be willing to break the law just to have some sort of legally ambiguous access to cannabis. This is not just for your special club, everyone should have access to cannabis like we now do to alcohol.

          • Uwe

            Any regulation – and CA has a ton of those. Just don’t smog your car next time or try to patch your roof without a permit.
            I don’t know why they’re called “liberals” since that would imply being liberal. They should be called socialists – but then very few people in the US actually know what that means unless they actually visited a socialist country.
            Well, in the Netherlands I can have booze in my left hand, a joint in my right while getting a BJ prom a paid prostitute in public in front of a cop and nobody will blink. How’s that for freedom? If that’s all you care about, you should leave the country.

          • Blake Beagelsmith

            haha; well ; the USA is not Europe; let alone a dutch paradise. I might leave when you put it like that.

            I will take CA over the shit most other states are though 😉

          • Blake Beagelsmith

            haha; well ; the USA is not Europe; let alone a dutch paradise. I might leave when you put it like that.

            I will take CA over the sh!t most other states are though 😉

          • jontomas

            You should definitely watch Michael Moore’s new documentary – “Where To Invade Next” – You will see the reason why Europeans and other countries are happier than we are.

          • Uwe

            I’ll watch it, thanks for the suggestion. Thing is, I grew up in Europe and came to the US in my mid-30ies. I’ve been to eastern countries before the wall came down and when there’s an armed guard walking you to the bathroom and waiting for you to do your business you quickly learn what freedom means (and no, it’s not pot smoking). The reason I came to the US is government. Bernie Sanders plan for the US (the only nominee who actually had a plan) sounds all great on paper: free schools, universal healthcare, social systems etc. etc. However, when you pay almost 80% of your income for all sorts of taxes and social services you start thinking that all those getting the benefits of those services don’t deserve them (and truth be told, after a while of running such a system most recipients will be freeloaders, not deserving unfortunate people). The only thing I ever agreed with in that department is free schools. Everyone should be able to attend a school of choice as long as the grades qualify him/her for it. I see California take the same socialist (aka liberal) route, so I’m working on moving again – possibly even outside the US. There’s other nice countries and I’m not a US citizen, so people around the world don’t hate me because of my passport 😉

          • jontomas

            Old, Eastern Europe is NOTHING like the current day. – See the movie. – Yes. There will be more taxes, but mostly paid by the rich who aren’t paying ANY taxes now. – Even with the tax increases on the middle class, their overall expenditures for services will be FAR less because they will be performed in a much more efficient manner.

            “Where To Invade Next” – Trailer

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly4_QiXv8es

          • Uwe

            It’s a movie…
            You can’t possibly be that oblivious to how things work. Please name a single country where average joe pays less for governmental run services than they did 10 year or even just a year ago. Also please name one country where the rich pay more than they did a few years ago. Also name one country where any of the services is performed more efficiently than it was a while ago. I seriously doubt you will find any. Particularly the US will never be like that unless Americans actually use the 2nd amendment for what it was designed to do and we all know that’s not going to happen. The world is built on money and power. Those who have both will never give up either – they will simply take more. Just go to any country that has a half-way functioning social system (Sweden, Denmark, Germany come to mind). Nobody in those countries pays less than 50% taxes and fees, most pay more. Heck, the VAT alone in those countries is already around 20%, which means all the money you have left after taxes and social services takes another 20% hit, because unlike sales tax in the US, the VAT applies to all services and goods including food. Where I’m from I paid 52% income tax on ALL earnings (no brackets) plus 2.5% “solidarity tax” and then 18% retirement, 8% healthcare and 5% long term care. The last 3 are calculated from other values than gross income, but overall I paid almost 70% of my gross income – before you get hit by the (back then) 17% VAT. In the end, you have 40 to 50k from a 150k income (before VAT), so more likely in the 30k range if you consider VAT. For that you have retirement, healthplan, unlimited unemployment etc. Question is, does it calculate over your lifetime?
            My reference to old eastern Europe was towards the freedom point. Most people in industrialized countries don’t even know what freedom is. Russians and Chinese can smoke weed, legally go to prostitutes and they even have GMO labeling – nonetheless, I wouldn’t call either of those countries “free”. A country where you can get incarcerated without due process or be harmed by those in power without repercussions is not free. Latest since the Patriot Act the US come to mind (the Patriot Act allows anyone to be incarcerated without due process for an unspecified time)

          • Rat Rangler

            You should definitely watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feGXIK–OdM

          • Blake Beagelsmith

            Ah; you are talking about the minor things that are worth living in CA

            haha; well ; the USA is not Europe; let alone a dutch paradise. I might leave when you put it like that.
            I will take CA over the most other trash states are though 😉

          • Blake Beagelsmith

            Well.. growing those 15 foot plus Cannabis plants outside you don’t like in full sun; you certainly cannot do in the netherlands ;D

          • Uwe

            No, you can’t. See, growing Cannabis is a felony in the Netherlands. Importing it is too. The weed supply stems from seized illegal imports and the government sells it (really cheap too. Back in the day when they started that I bought a pound for about 12 bucks). The trick is, this program was really successful. They pretty much put the entire cannabis industry out of business by flooding the market. Nobody bought from dealers anymore because you got guaranteed quality for little money from the government. That freed up the police to go after really bad boys. It was a win/win for everyone.

        • Blake Beagelsmith

          fyi; liberals are not the hillary supporting clowns. liberals are the ones that backed sanders against hillary

      • JeffWalenta

        I don’t know how freedom loving you are considering how much you want to maintain prohibition. I guess your profit margin means more then the right for people to be able to use a harmless plant without fear of arrest or having to lie and jump through hoops just to be protected from that. Black folks are still getting arrested over cannabis, there are folks sitting in jail now that would be free if the AUMA passes and folks that could get their records expunged. They shouldn’t have to wait because you don’t get your “regulate cannabis like tomatoes” initiative. Things can and will be modified by the legislature, to squander this opportunity because it’s not absolutely perfect is reckless and ignores the real possibility that a new administration could come in and shut everything down.

        • Rat Rangler

          We are protecting our right to self medicate with Cannabis in California. Prohibition is a federal issue that needs to be resolved before we give up our rights in California.

  • AAMCO

    Should be 50 to 100 plants for personal. Not a fan of this bill to much regulation.

    • jontomas

      Oh, woe is me! – I want 100 plants so I will vote against having six instead of zero! – Start making sense. —– YES on 64!

      • Hans Lear

        Yeah because I want to buy weed from Marlboro

        • Sergio Farias

          Your point is invalid. You are not forced to buy products from corporations.

          There will always be independent growers for small dispensaries.

          • jontomas

            And home growing which can yield up to two pounds a month!

          • Rat Rangler

            IF you have the room and IF your plants are healthy and IF you have enough light and IF you know what you’re doing. Right now I can grow up to 30 plants outdoors. I’m not going back to six plants indoors which I don’t have room for.

          • Sergio Farias

            Learn and adapt like everyone else eventually we’ll get it perfect, but right now proposition 64 needs to pass so the rest of the country legalize as well…

          • Rat Rangler

            It wont pass. California stoners are not that stupid. 62 pages of recriminalization. The country wont see legal weed till it is descheduled. Prop 215 decriminalizes and protects against the feds. Prop 64 recriminalizes and does not protect you since you aren’t medical.

          • jontomas

            You’re whistling in the dark. – Polls show 60 percent of all Californians support ending prohibition with Prop 64. – And legalizing state by state is HOW we end the federal prohibition. California will be the tipping point, breaking the back of the fraudulent federal prohibition as soon as next year. – Your last sentence is simply bizarre.

          • Sergio Farias

            Prop 64 will be a better legalization measure compared to any of the legal state. Don’t support Kevin Sabet in his fight to continue the war on drug.

          • Rat Rangler

            We can all speculate about the future. The point is prevention. Why leave a door open for corruption? TOO MANY HOLES! No on Prop 64

          • Sergio Farias

            What makes you think there isn’t any corruption right now? Stop being naive and just pass prop 64 unless you want your state to be left behind.

          • Hans Lear

            There may not be any small dispensaries if this passes. You can grow six plants or be a giant corporation. Those are your choices.

          • Sergio Farias

            That didn’t happen to Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska, so where are you getting your facts from?

          • Hans Lear

            Well Colorado cannabis is controlled by about 6 companies. This Auma is very restrictive, it hurts prop 215 patients. You get less rights and many people need more than 6 plants. It is better to have a prop 215 recommendation and wait for a bill that is written with the interests of the people, not the corporations.

        • jontomas

          A huge, new segment of the legal market will be organically grown marijuana. – I will HAPPILY buy this healthy product.

          • Rat Rangler

            Good for you! You can buy it now even. Just get a medical recommendation and go for it!

          • Sergio Farias

            I’m healthy therefore I don’t qualify for a medical card so that is why legalization is my only option.

            No law is perfect, as wisdom progresses so will our laws.

          • Hans Lear

            Much of it is already organic, just not certified. If you think commercially grown organic is anywhere close to small scale organic, you have no clue about farming.

    • Anastasia Beaverhausen

      You have to start somewhere.

  • Rat Rangler

    You aren’t voting for legalization, you’re voting to surrender
    California cannabis to multinational corporations which is masked as
    legalization. Prop 64 (The ADULT Use of Marjuna act – which doesn’t protect children) is 62 pages of recriminalization masked as legalization. The convoluted verbiage is designed to put anyone off from actually untangling the wires to get to the power switch, but the facts are these: Medical use is under attack because the patient/doctor framework is the best protection we have from being driven to use medicines we do not want and to use and grow as much cannabis as we need. It works to strip away medical rights two ways: #1, via MMRSA makes it harder to get a recommendation. Patients that cannot secure a recommendation will default as a “recreational user”. The DOJ recently affirmed they will not prosecute medical users. MMRSA passed in 2015 and has already been shown to be unconstitutional against the current law, Prop 215. This means that (Reason #2) if AUMA passes, MMRSA goes into full effect and Prop 215 will be voted out by the legislature as it will conflict with Prop 64, and their new power to amend will allow them to make changes to your “privilege” to consume. That’s right kids, the laws you are voting for can change after it passes. Prop 64 makes it clear that changes to some sections require a 2/3 majority vote for the legislature to change the laws, but in section 10: Amendment, it states – “the legislature may by majority vote [not 2/3] amend the provisions of this Act contained in Sections 5 [use of marijuana for medical purposes] and 6 [marijuana regulation and safety] to implement the substantive provisions of those sections.” (additions in brackets). So basically they can change anything with just 51% of the legislature. You will probably need a license to grow in your home too, so if you think the lines at the DMV are bad…

    • jontomas

      More GSAL nonsense. – Who grows and sells the marijuana doesn’t matter, as long as the war on consumers exists. First end the monstrous persecution. – I’m so sick you GSAL fighting against legalization, I’d rather have the government grow and sell all the kind herb. – You ghouls don’t deserve to be a part of the cannabis culture in any way.

      • Rat Rangler

        More propaganda trash. There is no “War on Consumers” O’Reilly. Prop 215 has protected consumers for 20 years. Consumers who have found relief in Cannabis for their medicinal needs. Prop 215 puts the breaks on capitalists who are trying to leverage federal scheduling to corner the cannabis market under an initiative that will remove protections for medical users when Prop 215 is replaced by Prop 64. This is what hemp activists should be watching for. Predatory organizations that see the demand but don’t respect it. However there are new developments that make this a horrible initiative, as cities are starting to file for selling permits so users (in Aliso Viejo and San Clemente particularly) can grow in their own house. So a freedom medical users had to grow as much as they needed indoors AND outdoors, will be reduced to six plants you need a permit for. So see how this is going to gouge everybody when these cities start to see how they can capitalize on the new laws, whereas before it was unconstitutional under Prop 215. So the time and money it takes you to get a medical marijuana recommendation now, where you can grow almost as much as you want and use as much as you need, is infinitesimal to the fees, fines, restrictions, jailtime and federal prosecution that will hover over all of us if Prop 64 passes…. so you can grow and use less.

        • jontomas

          Prop 215 doesn’t protect you like you think it does. – It only gives you an affirmative defense that may, or may not, work in court – after you have been arrested – or ticketed. – Also Prop 215 does nothing to give marijuana consumers the right to work or the right to child custody. The stigma from 80 years of the world’s largest propaganda campaign will take at least a generation to erase. – We can’t begin that correction until we end ALL punishment for any responsible, adult consumption of marijuana. – Prop 215 does not give us the right to have businesses for social consumption and gathering similar to what exists for much more harmful alcohol.

          Prop 64 solves all these problems, and perhaps, best of all, will push national marijuana reform over the tipping point, causing the crumbling fraud of the federal prohibition to collapse under its own dead weight.

          You cry about what you claim will happen in the future, just like the GSAL in the four Free States did before their legalization passed. – None of their dire predictions came true, and yours won’t either. After the dust settles on re-legalization, average quality marijuana will sell for less than $50 an ounce. Medical probably won’t be taxed.

          We will continue to refine marijuana policy until it reaches its optimum form, just as we did with alcohol after ending its prohibition. We just have to take that first big leap to legalize with Prop 64.

        • Sergio Farias

          Your propaganda is the worst of all. You are for prohibition and the criminalization of thousands of innocent people who didn’t happen to have a medical card to help them fight a court battle.

          Vote yes on 64!

          • Rat Rangler

            You are a moron.

            Vote No on Prop 64.

          • Rat Rangler

            Vote NO on Prop 64!
            62 pages of recriminalization.

          • Rat Rangler

            Vote NO on Prop 64!
            62 Pages of Recriminalization!

          • Rat Rangler

            Vote NO on Prop 64!
            62 Pages of Recriminalization!

          • JeffWalenta

            Vote yes on 64! Don’t let folks who have a financial interest in keeping cannabis legal stop you from doing the right thing!

  • Blake Beagelsmith
    • jontomas

      The same thing the Greedy Sellers Against Legalization (GSAL) screamed before the initiatives in the four Free States (Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska.) – Stop trying to ride our oppression to the bank. — YES on Prop 64!!

      • Blake Beagelsmith

        Washington WAS robbed of their medical. You are not even allowed to GROW your own Cannabis anymore.

        What is wrong with you?
        You think that is legalization?

        • jontomas

          Don’t hold up the worst state that legalized. Who wants to follow the most problematic version? And patients there aren’t that bad off since they can obtain their medicine from the recreational stores. – Patients in more than 20 states would love to change places with them.

          It’s logical to look at Colorado and Oregon. – Prop 64 is like the legalization in those successful states, and better in some ways.

        • Sergio Farias

          Better than nothing at all which is what want you, prohibition.

          Washington legalization wasn’t perfect, but at least with PROP 64 you still have the right to grow.

          • Blake Beagelsmith

            Dude. I am on your side. AUMA is MORE Prohibition than we have now. You are never going to convince real liberals to vote to give up more freedom than they are currently receiving

            You must admit how silly that sounds?

          • Sergio Farias

            How is it more prohibition when current law does not allow cannabis social clubs to exist?

            People will be able to grow plants without having to lie or pay to get a medical card.

            Give me facts not subjective opinions from you or others.

            Prop 64 is the way forward!

            Do not allow the selfish medical holders to continue this convenient prohibition that only benefit the greedy and the black market.

          • Rat Rangler
          • Blake Beagelsmith

            If you want to be forced to buy Cannabis from the government ; go ahead. Don’t be an a$$hole and assume everyone else wants to as well.

          • Rat Rangler

            Prop 215 is not nothing. You either respect this medicine or you are my enemy. It deserves more respect than being pimped out as an amusement park ride.

  • Thomas Shaffer

    watch my Yes on 64 video on Youtube and join the conversation…did they get it right? https://youtu.be/tW8eHdH6uZ4

  • offbeatskipper

    First, I’m very privileged to have access to medical marijuana for my Cancer & other chronic medical conditions, however I don’t like the idea behind Prop 64 for recreational use. Sadly, the number of irresponsible people in this state, (especially in the city I live in), outweigh the responsible adults who would treat it with care. A great example would be alcohol. Prop 64 would allow people 21 & older to purchase & consume just like alcohol, yet many people abuse alcohol everyday. There isn’t a day where I don’t hear about a drunk driving incident, violence or minors easily obtaining alcohol. Have we learned nothing? That’s all we need is more people being drunk & high while driving, etc. I’ve observed people driving in this city with vapes & getting high. Even those who are getting their “MJ cards” makes me wonder if they truly have a medical condition and not just faking it. I truly feel for those who would genuinely be mature & responsible with recreational marijuana, but as I stated, the scale dips with more irresponsible people who would abuse it rather than treat it as a privilege. Yes, 1 bad apple spoils it for many. We’ll see how this plays out…

  • offbeatskipper

    Again, this is just my opinion, neither wrong or right, but based on what I see daily in the city I reside in. People are obtaining marijuana regardless of it’s legal status, whether it’s off the streets or from someone who gets it medically. I know I’m being biased basing this on one city, but I have also seen this in many other California cities too. So, why make this recreational? Please, share your thoughts. For years, marijuana has been labeled for medical use, but now, they want to push it for fun/recreational? It’s like saying, “Here, this pill will help your ailments but if you’re not sick it’s OK, it doubles up as a happy fun pill too”. Yes, I grew up in the 70’s, so I know marijuana has been around a LONG time. Yes, I’m well aware of the uses beforehand. Yes, people who get it medically are abusing it. Double edge sword, so I guess whether it’s medical or recreational, it doesn’t matter, right?! Just like with alcohol, the pendulum swings both ways… Sighs.

    Either way, what will be, will be. I just hope for the best outcome for all. Much love & peace. 🙂

  • digitalbeachbum

    Legalize everything. Create small towns in undeveloped areas to house the druggies, away from the people who don’t do drugs. Offer free drugs to those who want it. Free medical. Have them sign a waiver forfeiting their lives to get free drugs, free housing and free medical care. The government has wasted billions on the so called “drug war” but they could eliminate all the drug lords and the crime associated with the drug cartels by legalizing every thing, taxing it, then controlling it.

  • Dale Baker

    From Colorado:

    1. Legalization has generated a non-stop flow of homeless, transients, and general riff-raff into the state. This is I have witnessed with my own eyes.

    2. Pot is grown in every available commercial building in town: as a result, nearly all small businesses, repair and service industries, etc are now being forced to pay astronomical rents – the cost passed on to the consumer.

    3. Pot is EVERYWHERE. Before legalization, I may have smelled pot smoke once or twice in a 25 year period; now, I smell it nearly everyday – usually coming from passing cars. And it’s not a nice smell, really. It’s aromatherapy in reverse.

    .

    • Rat Rangler

      It’s medicine! Nobody should be toking up like they are kicking back a sprite! Even I take too much and I’ve been smoking half my life. It needs more respect than to be pimped out as an amusement park ride!

    • Grumpy

      Sucks to be you!

  • Kittu

    Prop 64, if passed would legalize the Marijuana for recreational use. I cannot comprehend the wisdom of it and inclined to vote ‘NO’ on this measure.
    Many authentic data (NIH etc) show that some 30 percent users develop some kind of disorder (that’s high no) and also over the years the THC content (causative ingredient) in Marijuana has increased making it more dangerous. Some of the physiological effect of marijuana are scary! Its effect is not the same on all. It may cause schizophrenia, depression, cognitive impairment, induce fear and much more. So recreational use is just a folly, may be for a few!
    Evidence from animal research and a growing number of studies in humans indicate that marijuana exposure can cause long-term or possibly permanent adverse changes in the brain!
    Once the measure is passed, the cultivation would increase exponentially, the production, sale would move from criminal activities to capitalist system, which would organize and promote the sale, would promote sponsored research, lobbying, only to create a degenerative society in the future. Because of its capitalistic nature, it could be hard to repeal it later, bcz they would manipulate the data to favor the business.

  • Dawn D Ayala

    wow … this has been an up and down trending conversation with pros and cons of Prop 64 AND Prop 215 … Amazing what everyone has to say … and how passionate they are to their beliefs. Rat, Blake, Jontomas, and Sergio and a few others … you MUST be an out-in-the-public activist of your thoughts and opinions and not hiding behind monitors and smartphone screens. Good on you, all.