The fine print in Prop 19, and a very interesting discussion on "Cannabis Nation", on KOFY TV 20 (hippie TV) a rabidly pro pot TV program.
A young woman spoke very articulately on the legal wording of the proposition and how California courts have already ruled on similar wording in other law.
This gal was no glassy eyed pothead, and pointed out how 19 could be applied by a judge that wanted to collect money for the state. We got any of those around?
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
-snip-
(ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property.
-end excerpt-
______________________________________
You said Prop 19 "would prevent ALL private growing and require the possessor to prove they purchased from a legal grower (and thus paid the tax) on the spot." The above excerpt seems to contradict your assertion. Can you copy and paste the "fine print" that you say backs your claim?