CA: "Prop 19 written to take away medical growers rights"

[squarepusher]

"Prop 19 written to take away medical growers rights"
bombshell, see it here fast forward to 8:25

YouTube - VOTE NO!!! California Prop 19 debate HempCON (Part 3/4).divx (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-zEdSoOQTo#t=8m25s)

from a lawyer at hand, prop 19 was written to take away medical growers current rights, so Oaksterdam and Richard Lee can monopolize the mass scale production :eek:

[klamath]

"Prop 19 written to take away medical growers rights"
bombshell, see it here fast forward to 8:25

YouTube - VOTE NO!!! California Prop 19 debate HempCON (Part 3/4).divx (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-zEdSoOQTo#t=8m25s)

from a lawyer at hand, prop 19 was written to take away medical growers current rights, so Oaksterdam and Richard Lee can monopolize the mass scale production :eek:

Yeaw they are trying the keep their government protected status so the price stays up. Gotta have those government price controls.:rolleyes:

[GunnyFreedom]

Divide and conquer

[WaltM]

I don't believe in grower's rights to profit, I believe in smoker's rights to access cheap products.

(well, actually I believe in neither, I just prefer one over the other)

[squarepusher]

I don't believe in grower's rights to profit, I believe in smoker's rights to access cheap products.

(well, actually I believe in neither, I just prefer one over the other)

but they go hand in hand. With medical grower's rights being restricted, this will decrease supply, therefore increase demand, therefore increase price $$ and make it more difficult for medical growers to get their meds.

[WaltM]

but they go hand in hand. With medical grower's rights being restricted, this will decrease supply, therefore increase demand, therefore increase price $$ and make it more difficult for medical growers to get their meds.

wait....

sorry for not watching the video.

but how is legalization going to decrease supply??

who is going to grow it?

[dannno]

Not sure if I believe that yet, will need to see the language.. The language I've seen says that the law does not in any way restrict medicinal patients personal amounts or growing amounts.

[WaltM]

Not sure if I believe that yet, will need to see the language.. The language I've seen says that the law does not in any way restrict medicinal patients personal amounts or growing amounts.

well yeah, what else would "legalizing" mean?

[dannno]

well yeah, what else would "legalizing" mean?

It means restricting for-recreation personal grows to 10 sq feet and restricting/taxing commercial grows and sales. That is better than restricting growing completely and arresting people for sales/possession, so I'd intended to vote for the bill.

I as a patient can currently grow 100 sq feet.

If the law restricts patients to 10 sq feet and/or some how outlaws medicinal dispensaries, that would be a problem.. but the language I've read says that the law does not in any way affect medicinal patients rights, access, growing amounts or possession amounts.

[GunnyFreedom]

wait....

sorry for not watching the video.

but how is legalization going to decrease supply??

who is going to grow it?

Yeah, I had to read it like 4 times before I got what he was saying. He was saying if you DON'T legalize it will "restrict" growing (as compared to the legalized paradigm) and thus elevate/keep elevated the pricing structures.

From what I could tell.

In first blush and in the general context it looks like he's saying the opposite of what he's actually saying. You have to look at the SPECIFIC context of trying to break down a perceived lack of "law of supply and demand" economics in Walt's post.

I could be wrong, but I am thinking that squarepusher is talking about how IF prop 19 passes it will do both: reduce the consumer price structure AND probably increase grower's profits through volume production.

I had to read it several times before I got the point I think he was trying to make. but I could still be wrong. :o

[klamath]

The growers in these northern counties don't want legalization. They are spreading rumors to keep it semi illegal so the price stays up.

[Vessol]

The growers in these northern counties don't want legalization. They are spreading rumors to keep it semi illegal so the price stays up.

And the State wants it to be legal so the price can go up even further so they can profit.

Whats the difference?

[WaltM]

The growers in these northern counties don't want legalization. They are spreading rumors to keep it semi illegal so the price stays up.

i suspect it's something as simple as that.

[WaltM]

It means restricting for-recreation personal grows to 10 sq feet and restricting/taxing commercial grows and sales. That is better than restricting growing completely and arresting people for sales/possession, so I'd intended to vote for the bill.


so it's legalization, with quotas?




I as a patient can currently grow 100 sq feet.

If the law restricts patients to 10 sq feet and/or some how outlaws medicinal dispensaries, that would be a problem.. but the language I've read says that the law does not in any way affect medicinal patients rights, access, growing amounts or possession amounts.

in other words, non-medical users are allowed 10 sqft, (which is every adult in CA) and medical users can continue to have their 100 sqft?

[WaltM]

And the State wants it to be legal so the price can go up even further so they can profit.

Whats the difference?

no, I think the state wants it to be legal so the price can go DOWN per plant, per oz, but OVERALL increase, and they profit by transaction and volume.

[squarepusher]

Here's some of the information that NORML and other organized "Yes" on Prop. 19 groups are NOT sharing with their members.
As you read this information, you may see why that is so.
The information comes from Conrad Kicznenski, an organic farmer and son of a long-time anti-prohibiton activist, who prepared a 25-page long report on the connection between the Yes on 19 campaign, the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), Monsanto and the big pharmaceutical companies.
Here is a very short version of his report.

"On Drug Policy Alliance's website it states state that DPA is a leading advocate for Prop 19 in California. DPA's board of directors have included ex-deputy directors of the CIA and the department of defense, leading executives from the Carlyle Group, and other defense contractors, presidents of the federal reserve bank, people from IBM, the Rockefeller foundation, and of course George Soros, who is in fact a major shareholder in MONSANTO, as well as multiple other petroleum companies.
"George Soros is likened as the 'father' of the modern Cannabis legalization
movement. His finances have made DPA, MPP and organizations like NORML what they are today. . . All the while his major investments in Monsanto suggest that he
has other interests in the plant as well . . .
"This is more than just Monsanto. GW Pharma has admitted to having "high level"
talks with the FDA, DEA and state legislators from California in their effort to bring their patented Cannabis plants and compounds to market in the U.S.. All the while, GW Pharma has partnered with HortaPharm, which is an R & D company that has compiled the largest Cannabis seed library in the world to deliver to GW Pharma any combination of strains they desire, which are then patented and marketed by GW. GW has sold some of their patent rights to Bayer, which is a bio-tech equivalent to Monsanto.
"Monsanto is also working with the university of Mississippi's Cannabis research program through their affiliate Mallincrockdt, to patent and market Cannabis compounds.
"Monsanto has also heavily influenced Canada's largest hemp research program based in the University of Guelph.
"The DEA, which has licensed Cannabis programs with UM, GW and HortaPharm, has also licensed research done by George Weiblen, who is very close to Genetically Engineering THC-FREE Cannabis plants.
"GW pharma and hortapharm have stated their intent to produce Cannabis strains that do not reproduce viable seed, to protect their genetic copyright, which they have succeeded to patent and proliferate in the market via 'feminized seeds'. All with the help of the DEA and Bayer.
"So, in other words, the legalization movement, being fueled by Monsanto's
shareholders, is merely bringing about the interest of these transnational
companies to corner the cannabis market."
If you want to read Kiczenski's full report, contact him at Conrad Kiczneski <radicaljusticeman@yahoo.com>.
Don't be fooled. Prop. 19 was NEVER about legalization, a word that does NOT APPEAR in the text of Prop. 19. It has ALWAYS been about taxation, regulation and control -- that means taxation, regulation and controlling the "little people" (and I don't mean leprechauns, I mean you and me) and pushing us out of being able to grow for ourselves and share with each other. That's why Prop. 19 HAD to affect medical marijuana patients -- if we were allowed to continue to grow and share as much as we need for our medical needs, we wouldn't make a good market.
Prop. 19, if it passes, means that you'll be forced to buy cannabis from the same folks who've brought us unsafe and wildly expensive prescription drugs. It means all those people who've been developing different strains and doing their own research into what kinds of cannabis work best for their health problems -- people who are doing it for love and out of concern for their relatives and themselves, just like in the fact-based movie "Lorenzo's Oil" -- will be pushed out of being able to breed and grow and share.
This isn't legalization -- it's a bloody coup.
Please share this info with your friends ASAP -- the absentee voter ballots go out very soon.

[WaltM]

I could be wrong, but I am thinking that squarepusher is talking about how IF prop 19 passes it will do both: reduce the consumer price structure AND probably increase grower's profits through volume production.


that's what I thought from the beginning. except, it'll push small scale growers (current semi-legal, non-profit, medical) out of business when big companies can invest in it for profit, on a bigger scale.

I'm not against putting growers out of business. I completely don't get how this will decrease supply. (unless it means decrease supply of certain strains and quality, while increasing supply of cheap stuff)




I had to read it several times before I got the point I think he was trying to make. but I could still be wrong. :o

better to wait for him to explain it.

[WaltM]

Here's some of the information that NORML and other organized "Yes" on Prop. 19 groups are NOT sharing with their members.
As you read this information, you may see why that is so.
The information comes from Conrad Kicznenski, an organic farmer and son of a long-time anti-prohibiton activist, who prepared a 25-page long report on the connection between the Yes on 19 campaign, the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), Monsanto and the big pharmaceutical companies.
Here is a very short version of his report.

"On Drug Policy Alliance's website it states state that DPA is a leading advocate for Prop 19 in California. DPA's board of directors have included ex-deputy directors of the CIA and the department of defense, leading executives from the Carlyle Group, and other defense contractors, presidents of the federal reserve bank, people from IBM, the Rockefeller foundation, and of course George Soros, who is in fact a major shareholder in MONSANTO, as well as multiple other petroleum companies.
"George Soros is likened as the 'father' of the modern Cannabis legalization
movement. His finances have made DPA, MPP and organizations like NORML what they are today. . . All the while his major investments in Monsanto suggest that he
has other interests in the plant as well . . .
"This is more than just Monsanto. GW Pharma has admitted to having "high level"
talks with the FDA, DEA and state legislators from California in their effort to bring their patented Cannabis plants and compounds to market in the U.S.. All the while, GW Pharma has partnered with HortaPharm, which is an R & D company that has compiled the largest Cannabis seed library in the world to deliver to GW Pharma any combination of strains they desire, which are then patented and marketed by GW. GW has sold some of their patent rights to Bayer, which is a bio-tech equivalent to Monsanto.
"Monsanto is also working with the university of Mississippi's Cannabis research program through their affiliate Mallincrockdt, to patent and market Cannabis compounds.
"Monsanto has also heavily influenced Canada's largest hemp research program based in the University of Guelph.
"The DEA, which has licensed Cannabis programs with UM, GW and HortaPharm, has also licensed research done by George Weiblen, who is very close to Genetically Engineering THC-FREE Cannabis plants.
"GW pharma and hortapharm have stated their intent to produce Cannabis strains that do not reproduce viable seed, to protect their genetic copyright, which they have succeeded to patent and proliferate in the market via 'feminized seeds'. All with the help of the DEA and Bayer.
"So, in other words, the legalization movement, being fueled by Monsanto's
shareholders, is merely bringing about the interest of these transnational
companies to corner the cannabis market."
If you want to read Kiczenski's full report, contact him at Conrad Kiczneski <radicaljusticeman@yahoo.com>.
Don't be fooled. Prop. 19 was NEVER about legalization, a word that does NOT APPEAR in the text of Prop. 19. It has ALWAYS been about taxation, regulation and control -- that means taxation, regulation and controlling the "little people" (and I don't mean leprechauns, I mean you and me) and pushing us out of being able to grow for ourselves and share with each other. That's why Prop. 19 HAD to affect medical marijuana patients -- if we were allowed to continue to grow and share as much as we need for our medical needs, we wouldn't make a good market.
Prop. 19, if it passes, means that you'll be forced to buy cannabis from the same folks who've brought us unsafe and wildly expensive prescription drugs. It means all those people who've been developing different strains and doing their own research into what kinds of cannabis work best for their health problems -- people who are doing it for love and out of concern for their relatives and themselves, just like in the fact-based movie "Lorenzo's Oil" -- will be pushed out of being able to breed and grow and share.
This isn't legalization -- it's a bloody coup.
Please share this info with your friends ASAP -- the absentee voter ballots go out very soon.

not surprising it at all.

way to see the irony!

this is capitalism, nobody likes it when they're on the wrong end!

[squarepusher]

Right now, growers are protected from taxation.

With this proposition 19, if it passes, it will allow the right to tax what you grow for personal use. Right now a city in California is trying to pass legislation to tax $600 per square feet of growing area. Thats equivalent to $90,000 per year tax for a 10 x 10 space. Right now growers are protected from this tax, but if the prop 19 passes, they will have no protection.

http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=6103

[klamath]

that's what I thought from the beginning. except, it'll push small scale growers (current semi-legal, non-profit, medical) out of business when big companies can invest in it for profit, on a bigger scale.

I'm not against putting growers out of business. I completely don't get how this will decrease supply. (unless it means decrease supply of certain strains and quality, while increasing supply of cheap stuff)




better to wait for him to explain it.

Non profit is the joke here. There are huge profits being made now.

[WaltM]

Non profit is the joke here. There are huge profits being made now.

i know, but the point is, they're currently limited to the patients as to how much they can grow, if the bar is lifted, they'll be pushed out of business quickly (or at least, they'll make less per plant)

[MozoVote]

I don't really see the problem. Non profits will operate as real non profits. Businesses will enter, and push the price away from black market levels. Fewer people will be criminalized, and indivuduals can grow 100 square feet of it. (That is a LOT of weed.) I'd vote for it, if I still lived in SoCal.

[squarepusher]

I don't really see the problem. Non profits will operate as real non profits. Businesses will enter, and push the price away from black market levels. Fewer people will be criminalized, and indivuduals can grow 100 square feet of it. (That is a LOT of weed.) I'd vote for it, if I still lived in SoCal.

whos growing 100 feet? this bill allows 5x5 per parcel of land.

[Noob]

I wonder what the DuPont family thinks about making it legal? Since it seems they were among the ones making it outlawed.

[dannno]

whos growing 100 feet? this bill allows 5x5 per parcel of land.

10 sq feet is actually only 3.2' x 3.2'


Jack shit.

My question is, who is going to pay the tax?

Are they really going to enforce people who grow and don't pay the grow tax if they are having such a hard time enforcing grow laws already?

[squarepusher]

10 sq feet is actually only 3.2' x 3.2'


Jack shit.

My question is, who is going to pay the tax?

Are they really going to enforce people who grow and don't pay the grow tax if they are having such a hard time enforcing grow laws already?

well, i hear they will put it on your property tax (so, failure to pay would put a lein on your house). Um, how will they find out? Not sure, i guess similar to how they would find out now. Also, its not clear in the bill if you would have to have big brother come and inspect your grow area to see if its regulation, or what.


The thing that imo is a dead ringer that this bill is about controlling/monopolizing the cannabis market, and not about legalization, is the very small space restriction given to growers, and also limits for possession. There is really no other reason to put this into the bill other than to reveal it for what it is, Richard Lee's attempt to have a monopoly.

[dannno]

Ok, so it is 25 sq. feet, 5x5

I can't find anything in the bill about a medicinal exception as I'd read about before.. it is 30 pages..

Hmmm.

[dannno]

Text

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/text-proposed-laws.pdf#prop19

[Promontorium]

If by some circumstance the legal weed is more expensive than the illegal weed, this law will make it much easier for the illegal weed production, and I'm damn sure the the illegal weed will continue to be produced and imported. Effectively, these theories are bullshit, some weed farmer isn't going to stop because it's more legal and more profitable. The illegal trade is a built in bottom, it is impossible for this law to make weed less available or more expensive, as long as you are still willing to break the law. And if it becomes legal, whole areas of the trade will be legalized even for criminal production. There's no expectation for you to produce a receipt, nor a capability for a cop to know the difference between Conspiracy Corp's weed, and Johnny Bootleg's weed once it's left the building.


All your doomsday models presume legalizing weed will magically make criminals decide to stop being criminals.

[Promontorium]

None of this changes the fact that marijuana is still federally illegal. Medical marijuana growers are still prosecuted. Obama's bs promise was meaningless, without a law legalizing marijuana on a federal level, as soon as Obama leaves office, his so far ignored orders will be void. Doesn't matter what you call it, the Feds will be knocking. If big corps get into this business, the federal government will strong arm them, either levy heavy fines or bribe them out of the business.

[squarepusher]

If by some circumstance the legal weed is more expensive than the illegal weed, this law will make it much easier for the illegal weed production, and I'm damn sure the the illegal weed will continue to be produced and imported. Effectively, these theories are bullshit, some weed farmer isn't going to stop because it's more legal and more profitable. The illegal trade is a built in bottom, it is impossible for this law to make weed less available or more expensive, as long as you are still willing to break the law. And if it becomes legal, whole areas of the trade will be legalized even for criminal production. There's no expectation for you to produce a receipt, nor a capability for a cop to know the difference between Conspiracy Corp's weed, and Johnny Bootleg's weed once it's left the building.


All your doomsday models presume legalizing weed will magically make criminals decide to stop being criminals.

actually, you missed a point that this will currently take medical growers ability to grow as much as they want away. That's the whole point, right now medical growers can compete with Richard Lee, so he needs this law to pass so they wont be able to.

[dannno]

The idea that the municipalities would charge you something like $15,000 for your little grow zone is insane.. I mean, can you imagine trying to learn how to grow, and having failing, spider mite infested crops and get virtually nothing, yet still having to pay $15,000???

And if you can't SELL it, then how the fuck do you recoup your costs for your equipment, let-a-lone the taxes!! If they are going to tax the zone, there has to be some assumption that you can sell the product, right :confused:

[fedup100]

They know this is a huge cash cow and they do plan on legalizing it but only after they get to control all of it a great expense to you.

[dannno]

I need some help from some eyes here:

From: http://yeson19.com/node/97#medical



Medical Cannabis Patients FAQ

Q: Does Proposition 19 change medical cannabis laws in California?

A: No, Proposition 19 will not change or affect current medical cannabis laws or protections offered to qualified patients. Patients will still be able to possess what is needed for medical use, and patients, caregivers and medical cannabis collectives and cooperatives will retain all existing rights under Proposition 215 and SB 420 (codified at California Health & Safety Code 11362.5; 11362.7 - 11362.9). Section 2.B of Proposition 19 expressly lists as one of the initiative’s purposes: “Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.” Section 2.B also expressly notes that existing medical cannabis statutes will remain the law after passage of Proposition 19. Finally, none of the provisions in Proposition 19 conflict with Proposition 215 or SB 420. As a result, even in the absence of the provisions in Section 2.B of Proposition 19, Proposition 19 could not possibly provide any legal basis for limiting existing medical cannabis law.


Again, here's the text of the bill:

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/text-proposed-laws.pdf#prop19


In Section 2.B, I'm seeing the language stating that it will be "easier" for medicinal patients to get their medicine, but I'm NOT seeing language that it specifically does not limit medicinal statutes anywhere in the document. I'm not seeing any references to SB 420 or Prop 215 anywhere in the bill.


Is the FAQ from yeson19.com misleading?

[sailingaway]

My issue is that if it is voted down people are going to say 'Even California doesn't support legalization' not 'California doesn't support govt controled monopolies'. I agree it is the (govt favored tribes) Indian casinos all over again, but is it a start? I'm not sure. I'm wondering if we shouldn't legalize it then modify the referendum in 2012 to something better, anyhow.

[newyearsrevolution08]

I have always said

it is better to get it into law THEN fix the issues versus us not passing this and then trying to repass a MUCH HARDER to achieve bill.

legalize

get people used to pot being o.k. again and then the people will realize that there would NEVER be a reason to ever make it illegal ever again.

get it legal then tweak it later

if there is still medical reasoning then they will never have complete control PLUS our country is getting sick of the government control so I say lets get this going and then soon enough we will get all of our rights back anyways and limit the government back to where it should be.

[dannno]

More from the FAQ:


Q: If proposition 19 passes, would patients be limited to possessing one ounce or less of cannabis?

A: No, qualified patients will not be subject to the one-ounce quantity limitation for recreational cannabis in Proposition 19. As stated above, patients will retain all of their rights under Proposition 215 and SB 420, including the right to possess any amount of cannabis that is reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs. Section 3 of Proposition 19 provides in part that “it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to” possess one ounce or less of cannabis. Nothing in this provision, or any other provision of Proposition 19, makes it unlawful for qualified patients (including qualified patients under the age of 21) to possess more than one ounce of cannabis.

Q: How will Proposition 19 affect patients who grow medical cannabis? Will patients be limited to cultivating cannabis in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence?

A: Proposition 19 will not affect patients who grow medical cannabis. Patient gardens will remain legal, and protections will remain unchanged for patients who choose to grow their own medicine. As with all of its provisions, the “twenty-five square feet” provision does not affect or limit the rights of qualified patients under Proposition 215 and SB 420.

Q: How will Proposition 19 affect collective and cooperative cultivation?

A: Proposition 19 will not affect the provision of California law that recognizes medical cannabis collectives and cooperatives (California Health & Safety Code § 11362.775). These collectives and cooperatives will remain lawful throughout the state, regardless of whether or not a locality chooses to control and tax the cultivation and distribution of cannabis for non-medical purposes.

While Proposition 19 does not affect existing medical cannabis law, it will allow for greater protection for collectives and cooperatives in storefront locations. City and county governments that choose to control and tax the cultivation and distribution of cannabis under Proposition 19 will now have the clearly established ability to regulate collective and/or commercial growing.

[dannno]

All of this FAQ stuff that I'm posting is completely contradicting the OP, but I don't see any real proof in the wording in the legislation that it's true.

[dannno]

bump for answers

[newyearsrevolution08]

we won't know until it passes

bills change and get added to and how it actually plays out won't be known until it does

kind of like sb 420 and then prop 215 needing being there

we can fix shit once it is in place versus keeping it how it is and simply expanding the medicinal market.

[dannno]

E-mailed the yeson19 campaign:


Protecting Patients


In your Medical Patients FAQ located here:

http://yeson19.com/node/97#medical

It states that Section 2.B of the bill says that it will make it 'easier' for medical patients to get cannabis and that it provides specific exemptions for patients from the limitations set forth in the bill. I'm seeing the language stating that it will be "easier" for medicinal patients to get their medicine, but I'm NOT seeing language that it does not limit medicinal statutes anywhere in the document. I'm not seeing any references to SB 420 or Prop 215 anywhere in the bill either.

I've read the FAQ on your site, and it sounds great, but I can't find where in the bill any of this is stated.

Can you help clear this up for me as well as other patients who have questions about how this will affect us and update the FAQ with this information? I'd like to be able to inform patients of what is in your FAQ currently, but I can't cite it from any language I can find in the bill.


Thanks

[dannno]

we won't know until it passes

bills change and get added to and how it actually plays out won't be known until it does

kind of like sb 420 and then prop 215 needing being there

we can fix shit once it is in place versus keeping it how it is and simply expanding the medicinal market.

Ya it really puts us in a bad spot when a bill is so bad you are considering voting against it, which would ultimately send a message that we don't want cannabis to be legal or something...

[dannno]

bump

[squarepusher]

yeah, just woke up, but the FAQ says a lot of things about what it will and wont do, but the FAQ doesn't go into law, the actual bill wording does go into law, which is only about 2.5 pages.

See here, about 9:35
YouTube - VOTE NO!!! California Prop 19 debate HempCON (Part 1/4) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac_F7cYfSUk)

Right now prop 215 allows unlimited growing for yourself and family, however prop 215 does not give a land use permit. Therefore, the land use permit of of prop 19 will supersede because 215 does not specifically mention it. Also, the tax issue, such as local counties will have precedence over medical grows.

Also here is some info
http://www.noonproposition19.com/

[Minuteman2012]

How about commercial growers. Let's say I wanted to grow for commercial purposes, would I be restricted to a certain acreage?

[squarepusher]

How about commercial growers. Let's say I wanted to grow for commercial purposes, would I be restricted to a certain acreage?

thats up to the city or township
1) if they allow commercial growing at all
2) if so, how much limits or space
3) how much tax
4) how much fees for a liscense

[WaltM]

thats up to the city or township
1) if they allow commercial growing at all
2) if so, how much limits or space
3) how much tax
4) how much fees for a liscense

so let me get this straight, you're afraid of this bill giving too much power to the local government to decide how to handle this issue on their own?

[squarepusher]

so let me get this straight, you're afraid of this bill giving too much power to the local government to decide how to handle this issue on their own?

in short, yes, its a plant, and no need for government to tell you which plants you can grow, if you can grow them at all, how much area and what taxes or fees will be on it. That's almost not far off from a breathing tax

[WaltM]

in short, yes, its a plant, and no need for government to tell you which plants you can grow, if you can grow them at all, how much area and what taxes or fees will be on it. That's almost not far off from a breathing tax

so its' better to keep it as it is??