Prop 19 in CA? Will it allow people from out of state to smoke pot in CA?

Or only CA residents?

I can see it being a tourist attraction if is passes. Weekend trips to CA for weekend trips might become popular! :-)

and take deep breaths into the wind

Your state of residence isn't a consideration. The tourism aspect is actually one of the points that some are using to push the idea.

Never have done pot because of the arrest worry and getting fired.
But if it was legal in CA then it might be worth trying.

I would imagine that many of the more liberal burgs (Berkeley, SF) will permit it. Of course, that might not be a perfect assumption...some touristy, liberal burgs like Santa Monica have banned any type of smoking outside of private homes, and will probably meet a huge amount of resistance to any attempt at loosening their smoking laws to permit pot.

It's pretty much a given that most of the conservative, inland counties will simply ban marijuana businesses of any kind. No commercial sales, no Amersterdam-style pot shops.

Because Prop 19 makes it illegal to smoke pot in public (outdoors in any area other than your own private property), you will only be able to smoke it in those areas if you know a resident and can light up at their place.

The actual verbiage of the law permits personal consumption:

(b) “Personal consumption” shall include, but is not limited to, possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other nonpublic place...

Hotel rooms aren't considered public places, and are exempt from many public regulations...which is why hotels can offer "Smoking Rooms", even though smoking is illegal in all businesses in California.

Which actually brings up an interesting related point. Under California law, you can be criminally prosecuted for smoking in a non-smoking hotel room (seriously). Nothing in Prop 19 would countermand that law, so anyone wanting to light a joint in a hotel room would need to make sure that they've requested a "Smoking Room".

Brownies would be legal in any hotel room though :evilgrin:

It's difficult to correctly dose marijuana in edibles. Someone without any experience is liable to be overwhelmed--especially people who have any history of panic attacks.

You should smoke just a bit with an experience person, then, if you feel OK, smoke some more. Leave the brownies until you know how it affects you.

If you are a first timer, try to do it with someone who is experienced. You need very little to get a buzz, and do not eat anything with bud in it if you are a first timer. (Don't want the thread to get shut down, Ask around. You'll figure out why soon enough). And better still, don't smoke. Rather, vaporize. Much better control of what you need. Think of digital rather than analog audio. Can't really tell the difference, but you can set it to pause to the milisecond.

Do you load the suitcase in the car still - with the extra weed? I'd love to just go shopping in Cali.

There was never a time my eyes were bigger than my lungs...

also, (follow the money) it prohibits private sales. 19 was drafted by a dispensary owner so that makes sense (to him).

Apparently this is the only real analysis of the proposition:

http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html
Stoners Against the Prop. 19 Tax Cannabis Initiative

WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE PROP. 19: 19 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW
“People think it’s legalization, it’s being sold as legalization—even though it’s the opposite of legalization.” - Dennis Peron, author of Prop. 215 that legalized medical marijuana in California



dragonfly
i am a long-time pro-marijuana activist and professional stoner. i travel the world, find the best ganja, smoke it, and write about it for pot magazines (cannabis culture magazine, west coast cannabis, and skunk). i am the global ganja correspondent for "cannabis planet," a tv news show focused on cannabis news around the world. follow my column, "getting high with dragonfly," in which every month i evaluate a different strain.

But if dispensaries are selling then where are the big corporation's? If the dispensaries receive their product from private sales where's the big cut out for grower's?

Fact: Few people will be able to compete in the multibillion-dollar marijuana market if the initiative passes. This is because the licensing process, engineered in Oakland, is exceptionally restrictive. Of the more than a thousand dispensaries operating in California until a recent L.A. crackdown, only a handful were licensed. (Conveniently, Richard Lee, the millionaire behind the initiative, owns one of them). In Oakland, the city that’s setting the precedent in the tax cannabis push, a license costs $30,000. Per year. Not to mention the rigorous application process, in which even well-established, law-abiding dispensaries have been denied.

Furthermore, Oakland has started a trend of capping the number of licensed dispensaries allowed to operate (in Oakland, that number is four). This all but guarantees that the average, small-time marijuana grower will be shut out of this multibillion-dollar industry, concentrating the profits of the potential economic boon in the hands of a small minority of wealthy entrepreneurs who are already making moves to monopolize the industry. Under this initiative, the marijuana industry will not be a free market in which everyone has a chance to compete. Instead, the initiative could mark the beginning of the corporatization of marijuana. (See also Fact #15)
---

One corporation that is poised to take the place of the mom-and-pop growers is AgraMed. While Oakland’s city council prepares to consider a proposal in July to license four commercial indoor marijuana farms in the city, AgraMed has plans to build a 100,000-sq.-ft. marijuana mega-farm near Oakland International Airport that, “according to projections, could generate 58 pounds of pot a day and $59 million a year in revenue.” The company’s president, Jeff Wilcox—a member of the steering committee of the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative—reportedly hopes to “bring a degree of corporate structure to the marijuana industry.”<24>

The language that backers of the initiative use itself is cause for concern among pro-marijuana supporters. Instead of speaking out against the injustice of jailing people over a plant that is widely known not only to be harmless, but beneficial, these multimillionaire supporters of the initiative speak only of their intentions to corporatize marijuana. The owner of one leading marijuana dispensary—that already earns well over $20 million a year—was quoted in the New York Times as having aspirations to become the “McDonald’s of marijuana.”<25> The proprietors of Oakland’s new i-Grow hydroponics store want it to be known as the “Wal-Mart” of grow stores.<26> Meanwhile, Marijuana, Inc., a multimillion-dollar corporation, has plans to build cannabis resorts in the Northern California counties that currently survive off the medical marijuana industry.<27> They intend to create golf resorts with acres of marijuana gardens featuring hundreds of strains. (Apparently, under this initiative, corporations would be permitted to grow quite large quantities of cannabis, while cultivation would be restricted to 5’ x 5’ plots for everyone else.)
http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/

Remember, 19 makes private sales illegal.

There is no "licensing process" within Prop 19.

Prop 19 gives cities and counties the local option of allowing marijuana sales, setting tax rates, and adopting regulations--if that is what the city or county wants.

How (or if) marijuana is sold commercially will be up to each locality.

Dragonfly makes money trimming herb for Norcal growers. She's hardly disinterested.

The Oakland model is just that: a model. Other localities can make up their own rules.

Dragonfly may know how to write about the exquisite buds she's smoking, but she had no credibility as a serious analyst of Prop 19 and what it will and will not do.

Prop 19 allows adults to possess up to an ounce and grow up to 25 square feet (and keep the harvest).

It gives cities and counties the local option of taxing and regulating commercial marijuana sales and cultivation. If you want to sell marijuana commercially, you will have to comply with local rules and regulations, i.e. get a permit.

It DOES NOT interfere with California's medical marijuana law.

Who does Dragonfly align herself with in opposing Prop 19: Police, prosecutors, anti-drug zealots, a crack head bishop, and greed-head hypocrites among growers and in the medical marijuana community.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2010/19_11_2010.pdf

State Legalization of Marijuana Possession and Cultivation for Personal Use

Under the measure, persons age 21 or older generally may (1) possess, process, share
or transport up to one ounce of marijuana; (2) cultivate marijuana on private property
in an area up to 25 square feet per private residence or parcel; (3) possess harvested and
living marijuana plants cultivated in such an area; and (4) possess any items or
equipment associated with the above activities. The possession and cultivation of
marijuana must be solely for an individual’s personal consumption and not for sale to
others, and consumption of marijuana would only be permitted in a residence or other
“non-public place.” (One exception is that marijuana could be sold and consumed in
licensed establishments, as discussed below.) The state and local governments could
also authorize the possession and cultivation of larger amounts of marijuana.

State and local law enforcement agencies could not seize or destroy marijuana from
persons in compliance with the measure. In addition, the measure states that no
Legislative Analyst’s Office individual could be punished, fined, or discriminated against for
engaging in any conduct permitted by the measure. However, it does specify that employers would
retain existing rights to address consumption of marijuana that impairs an employee’s
job performance.

This measure sets forth some limits on marijuana possession and cultivation for
personal use. For example, the smoking of marijuana in the presence of minors is not
permitted. In addition, the measure would not change existing laws that prohibit
driving under the influence of drugs or that prohibit possessing marijuana on the
grounds of elementary, middle, and high schools. Moreover, a person age 21 or older
who knowingly gave marijuana to a person age 18 through 20 could be sent to county
jail for up to six months and fined up to $1,000 per offense. (The measure does not
change existing criminal laws which impose penalties for adults who furnish marijuana
to minors under the age of 18.)

Authorization of Commercial Marijuana Activities

The measure allows local governments to authorize, regulate, and tax various
commercial marijuana-related activities. As discussed below, the state also could
authorize, regulate, and tax such activities.
Regulation. The measure allows local governments to adopt ordinances and
regulations regarding commercial marijuana-related activities—including marijuana
cultivation, processing, distribution, transportation, and retail sales. For example, local
governments could license establishments that could sell marijuana to persons 21 and
older. Local governments could regulate the location, size, hours of operation, and signs
and displays of such establishments. Individuals could transport marijuana from a
licensed marijuana establishment in one locality to a licensed establishment in another
locality, regardless of whether any localities in between permitted the commercial
production and sale of marijuana. However, the measure does not permit the
transportation of marijuana between California and another state or country. An
individual who was licensed to sell marijuana to others in a commercial establishment
and who negligently provided marijuana to a person under 21 would be banned from
owning, operating, being employed by, assisting, or entering a licensed marijuana
establishment for one year. Local governments could also impose additional penalties
or civil fines on certain marijuana-related activities, such as for violation of a local
ordinance limiting the hours of operation of a licensed marijuana establishment.

Whether or not local governments engaged in this regulation, the state could, on a
statewide basis, regulate the commercial production of marijuana. The state could also
authorize the production of hemp, a type of marijuana plant that can be used to make
products such as fabric and paper.

Taxation.

The measure requires that licensed marijuana establishments pay all
applicable federal, state, and local taxes and fees currently imposed on other similar
businesses. In addition, the measure permits local governments to impose new general,
excise, or transfer taxes, as well as benefit assessments and fees, on authorized
marijuana-related activities. The purpose of such charges would be to raise revenue for
Legislative Analyst’s Officelocal governments and/or to offset any costs associated with
marijuana regulation. Inaddition, the state could impose similar charges.

http://stash.norml.org/californias-prop-19-a-word-for-word-analysis

I’ve spent the evening reading various blogs that have sprouted up in opposition to Proposition 19, California’s effort to legalize marijuana this November. These “Stoners Against Legalization” blogs confound me; they remind me of Sam Kinison’s line comparing “Rock Against Drugs” to “Christians Against Christ”.

Some of these blogs are based on the notion that legalization would be worse than “what we have now”. The assumption there is that if you smoke marijuana in California, you must already have your Prop 215 recommendation from a doctor, and you’d be losing your rights under Prop 19.

Most marijuana smokers, believe it or not, are healthy and aren’t comfortable spending money for a doctor to give them permission to use cannabis. Currently we face a ticket, fine, and misdemeanor drug conviction record for possession an ounce or less of cannabis. That record prevents us from getting student aid and can cost us our jobs, child custody, and housing, or if we’re on probation, our freedom. (Even if California succeeds at downgrading possession to an infraction from a misdemeanor, a $100 ticket is a lot of money to some people!) We face a felony charge if we grow even one plant at home. For us, Prop 19 is much better than “what we have now”.

Another thing that appears in some of these blogs is outright misinformation, such as talk of a $50/ounce state tax (it’s not in the initiative; that was Ammiano’s bill) or that it would supersede Prop 215 (it wouldn’t, and Prop 19 even references Prop 215 in its language, so it couldn’t). Others play up the “millionaires”, “big corporations”, and “monopolies” that would be created and the earnest Emerald Triangle family growers who’d be put out of business (which amuses me: Prop 19 allows localities to regulate sales, so why wouldn’t Humboldt, Trinity, and Mendocino county residents whose economy depends on pot sales lobby really hard to get legalized pot sales OK’d in those counties and cities within, and regulated in a way that protects the small grower?)



Much, much more at the link.

I've been here on biz since Sunday and all the radio i've heard, even on sports talk, suggests it's a pretty popular initiative.

I've only been here 5 days, so i don't have the pulse or anything, but i've heard very little derisive or dismissive by anybody, either hosts or callers on the shows i've heard.
GAC

Welcome to California!