Genuine ‘Stoners’ Are Against The New California Cannabis Act

Is it possible that California may lastly unwind its marijuana laws for the first time in years? and Are everyday cigarette smokers versus the California Grownup Use of Marijuana Act? A current Huff Post article makes a good argument of why true ‘stoners’ might not want the new act to pass. The article explains that long time activist Steve Kubby describes “The Lie Being Used To Offer The Parker Effort

The Huffington Post Credit reports:

No sooner do I get the most current post up about the California Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA or “Sean Parker Initiative”) then my Facebook lights up with a tagged postfrom long time California cannabis lobbyist Steve Kubby.


According to Russ Belville, and other fans, the point of the Sean Parker Initiative is that by legalizing just one ounce, police officers will no longer have any potential cause, based on smell, for browsing [your] vehicle.

This is absolutely INCORRECT. Under the Parker Initiative, the presence of an “open container” of weed is a criminal offense. So police officers will know that the majority of people keep their weed in baggies or individual containers, none which will be legal under Parker.

It is an outright lie to tell anyone that cannabis arrests will go down, when Parker specifically creates a brand new criminal activity of not having your weed sealed in a state authorized container. You could be detained, even if you are NOT generating and are ONLY A PASSENGER.

I appreciate Kubby, exactly what he’s been through, and his devotion to activism. However in this and other posts, he and other California lobbyists, like Mickey Martin, are as gravely mistaken as the Stoners Versus Legalization from Washington 2012 who likewise informed me that carrying a non-store ounce would be prohibited.

Arrests in all the states that have actually legislated cannabis have actually decreased. Not simply the less-than-an-ounce busts in Colorado and Washington and not just the less-than-six-plants busts in Colorado. All marijuana arrests have actually gone down. In Washington (with no house grow) “All classifications of cannabis law infractions are down 63 % and marijuana-related convictions are down 81 %.” In Colorado, “The overall number of charges filed in court for cannabis belongings, distribution, and growing in Colorado fell … 80.1 %.”

Even in Washington, with no house grow and a horrible per se DUID arrangement, cannabis arrests went down and DUIDs didn’t change them. California’s AUMA legislates marijuana in an extremely similar method to the currently-legal states, and even consists of some arrangements that improve on legalization (like permitting pot lounges), so it is reasonable to believe their arrests will decline after legalisation, too.

My contention that the possible cause based on odor going away isn’t really just observation of the fact in 4 legal states where they’ve had to retire pot smelling K-9s, however the actual text of the AUMA:

Section 11362.1(c) Marijuana and cannabis items involved in any way with conduct considered lawful by this area are not contraband nor based on seizure, and no conduct considered legal by this area shall constitute the basis for detention, search, or arrest.

But exactly what about that “open container” Kubby’s complaining about? Certainly, AUMA makes that prohibited:

Section 11362.3(a) Absolutely nothing in Area 11362.1. will be interpreted to permit anybody to: (4) Possess an open container or open package of cannabis or marijuana items while driving, operating, or riding in the passenger seat or compartment of a motor vehicle, boat, vessel, airplane, or other vehicle utilized for transportation.

Section 11362.4 (b) A person who participates in the conduct explained in paragraphs (2) through (4) of class (a) of Area 11362.3. will be guilty of an infraction punishable by no greater than a two hundred and fifty dollar ($250) fine.

Maybe that’s the language Kubby is using to claim that there will be more arrests after legalisation as police officers bust adult stoners riding in the traveler seat with less than an ounce of weed in a Ziploc baggie, rather than the state-approved container.

Never ever mind asking him “How do we wind up with more arrests with $250 fines for open containers that are non-arrest offenses?” Focus a minute on that “state approved container” part and ask “why does that Area 11362.3(a)(4) point out both ‘open container’ and ‘open bundle?’”

AUMA has lots of language dictating exactly how cannabis is to be packaged, consisting of alerting labels that have to be on the plans sold at the future cannabis stores. AUMA likewise includes demands that marijuana at the stores can be found in childproof containers. Maybe that’s how Kubby came to presume “open container” and “open package” can only be those acquired at the state-licensed weed store.

Other than for this part of the section on meanings:

Section 6, Division 10, Chapter 1, 26001(x) ” Plan” indicates any container or receptacle utilized for holding marijuana or cannabis products.

Any container. And to be clear about marijuana not being just the things you get at the state store:

26001(s) ” Cannabis” has the exact same significance as in Section 11018. Marijuana of the Health and Safety Code …

Which defines “marijuana” like so:

Section 4, 11018. “Cannabis” implies all parts of the plant Marijuana sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin removed from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. It does not include (a) industrial hemp, as specified in Area 11018.5 or (b) the weight of other active ingredient combined with marijuana to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink, or other item.

Perhaps Kubby’s theory is based upon the idea that Section 6 handle the business marijuana industry, for that reason the definition of “plan” in that section needs to suggest “any store-bought container or receptacle made use of for holding marijuana, full with the required material and alerting labels and a childproof seal.” However that would mean the Ziploc baggie on our imaginary stoner passenger could not be a legal package, open or closed, and would oppose the property rights granted by AUMA.

Consider that it will be legal to (among other things) “transportation or hand out to individuals 21 years of age or older with no payment whatsoever, not more than 28.5 grams of cannabis.” It’s also legal for me to cultivate cannabis in your home and possess the outcomes of the harvest. So if I lawfully grow some weed and legally hand out less than an ounce to an adult buddy who’s lawfully allowed to have it, how does my buddy legally transport his gift house, other than walking, if a sealed cannabis package from the store is the only lawful closed container?

Plainly the point of the open container law is to bust people who are toking and generating. Section 11362.3(a) lists eight things you can’t do, with (7) being “toke and drive” (I paraphrase) and (8) being “toke in a car as a passenger.” However Section 11362.4 just lists punishments for paragraphs (1) through (6)– there is no penalty noted for (7) or (8). So they provide you the $250 fine for breaking paragraph (4), the open container.

The solution, naturally, is fail to toke in your automobile and keep the weed in a sealed container, preferably in the trunk. It’s tough to fathom why that’s an unacceptable compromise to ending marijuana prohibition, unless you’re fighting for the right to toke and drive. Don’t think the scares that cannabis legalisation is somehow worse than continuing restriction; it’s been shown incorrect in four-out-of-four states so far.

Leave a Reply