NO! On Prop 19

im not worried about any kind of tax. im more worried about sumone taking over the market and having unfair advantages.
i only said that for claritys sake. some people are still confused on that point. but why are you worried about that? all that is gonna do is provide competition between the mass produced/quality market make prices cheaper to the consumer on both spectrums. my point of view, thats a good thing.
 
Prop 19 will drive prices UP.

It reduces the area for most MMJ growers, radically. 92% in my case, and I sell NOTHING. If I can only grow in 25 square feet, that will leave a huge shortfall in our meds. If I had to pay a club for that, I would be paying about $40,000 a year.

Do you think the clubs will give me a break?

NO ON 19.

If you think MMJ caregivers are exempt, you haven't read enough.

Cultivation was NOT exempted because the authors consider us "competition".
cultivation is indeed exempt, go read section 2b-8 of 19. 2b-7 indeed does not mention cultivation, but 2b-7 is the situation in which 19 is not enacted in the county. while 2b-8 is, and what it does is assure exemption from cultivation, limits, and restrictions. basically everything. how do you not get that? also, richard lee has a fucking broken spinal cord... he needs this medicine more than any of you. i can guartee ruining his well being is not his plan here.

proof, notice cultivation is not left out

"8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

11362.5 - 215 and 11362.7- sb 420. in a legal doc, everything that comes before the except is simply exempt from the regulations set by 19, why? because its medicine. they have their own regulations. when new regulation occur they cannot effect previous ones unless it explicitly says so. when a new law comes along setting regulations that go along with another. the new law will set some new regulations, but because the legal term "except as permitted" is used, it gives 215 complete exemption from said regulations to follow the ones set by sb 420.
 

tardis

Well-Known Member
vote no on this absurd prop, it wuld put people who have been in the buis mom and pop growers in the mountains generations of familys that have grown and lived of the land and gave back to it took care of it. this would be the event horizin if it passes for mj cultivation, meaning the point in wich nothing can exist where it will be ripped molecule from molecule. vote no
May all the children who die in gang violence from Mexican drug cartels who make money off marijuana be illegal be only children of people who vote No. Just so the world is fair and in balance.
 

Burger Boss

Well-Known Member
vote no on this absurd prop, it wuld put people who have been in the buis mom and pop growers in the mountains generations of familys that have grown and lived of the land and gave back to it took care of it. this would be the event horizin if it passes for mj cultivation, meaning the point in wich nothing can exist where it will be ripped molecule from molecule. vote no
Hey, you know what? After reading your clear, concise argument, I'm almost ready to change my vote. The thought of uprooting the lives of a bunch of "cannabis hillbillys" is just too sad! And the "event horizon" with molecules being torn asunder sounds very "black hole" like and most frightening for sure, let me think on this for a while....................BB
 

Humboldt14

Well-Known Member
May all the children who die in gang violence from Mexican drug cartels who make money off marijuana be illegal be only children of people who vote No. Just so the world is fair and in balance.
thats the dumbest thing i have ever heard................
 

Humboldt14

Well-Known Member
Hey, you know what? After reading your clear, concise argument, I'm almost ready to change my vote. The thought of uprooting the lives of a bunch of "cannabis hillbillys" is just too sad! And the "event horizon" with molecules being torn asunder sounds very "black hole" like and most frightening for sure, let me think on this for a while....................BB
hey! I am on of those cannabis hillbillies........LOL
 

Burger Boss

Well-Known Member
I don't think it will pass, not until all the conservative baby boomers die off.
I'm thinking that a lot of the baby boomers smoked back in the day, and still do, believe me, they're not ALL conservatives!
At 71, I'm too old to be a "boomer", and a bunch of MY peers still smoke, grow, and are going to vote yes on November 2.
Good luck & good grow.......BB
 

Nocturnal1

Active Member
Yes, not all. Of course not...my dad and uncles are baby boomers and they smoke more than I do. But, I like to think 65% of baby boomers are conservative pricks. Maybe it's me just being young, but I see a lot of older people who are conformists, and so easily persuaded by propaganda.

(Religion has a big part in this)
 

Hayduke

Well-Known Member
Just don't smoke in front of minors ...
Or serve 3 years in the state penitentiary:cuss:Yeah I'm gonna vote for that!

risking second hand smoke exposure.
Driving on the freeway with the windows down posses more of a health risk.

I smoke very little very good marijuana...it's not like it is tobacco...the amount I smoke a day is ~1-2 cigarette(s)...and besides it is not even an infraction to smoke all the tobacco you want in the presence of minors...but a felony for cannabis??? WTF is that about???

How is a mother supposed to tell her kids that she smokes Cannbis, and it's ok, cuz it totally legal...but you can not be in here right now or mommy will go to prison...be out in a sec! Kids are not stupid.

:leaf::peace::leaf:
 
you know damn well why cigarettes arent a crime to smoke in front of kids. it most definitely should be imo. thats just not gonna be possible. second, marijuana is a schedule 1 substance under federal law and therefore has to be regulated and restricted. caffein alcohol and tobacco arent even on the list and theres probably quite a few reasons why
 

Juicy Fruit

Active Member
In Ontario its illeagel to smoke at/on school property and parks, infact alot of places where minors are it's not allowed...
 

luvourmother

Active Member
I smoke very little very good marijuana...it's not like it is tobacco...the amount I smoke a day is ~1-2 cigarette(s)...and besides it is not even an infraction to smoke all the tobacco you want in the presence of minors...but a felony for cannabis??? WTF is that about???

How is a mother supposed to tell her kids that she smokes Cannbis, and it's ok, cuz it totally legal...but you can not be in here right now or mommy will go to prison...be out in a sec! Kids are not stupid.

:leaf::peace::leaf:
first of all:
It is an infraction to smoke tobacco in the car with minors.
Mom's and Dad's can smoke mj responsibly the same as they drink alcohol responsibly, dont give it to kids or there will be consequences.

Im glad you brought up kids, because this is a very good reason to vote YES on 19. A lot of stupid, dumb, irresponsible parents think it is ok to give marijuana to kids, so far science points to many reasons this is not a good idea (i.e. brain development...) The front page of this website has a great example of such a parent. Kids shouldn't smoke weed, plain and simple and if you want to smoke weed with kids than you have some major problems...
 

veggiegardener

Well-Known Member
cultivation is indeed exempt, go read section 2b-8 of 19. 2b-7 indeed does not mention cultivation, but 2b-7 is the situation in which 19 is not enacted in the county. while 2b-8 is, and what it does is assure exemption from cultivation, limits, and restrictions. basically everything. how do you not get that? also, richard lee has a fucking broken spinal cord... he needs this medicine more than any of you. i can guartee ruining his well being is not his plan here.

proof, notice cultivation is not left out

"8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

11362.5 - 215 and 11362.7- sb 420. in a legal doc, everything that comes before the except is simply exempt from the regulations set by 19, why? because its medicine. they have their own regulations. when new regulation occur they cannot effect previous ones unless it explicitly says so. when a new law comes along setting regulations that go along with another. the new law will set some new regulations, but because the legal term "except as permitted" is used, it gives 215 complete exemption from said regulations to follow the ones set by sb 420.
Where does it mention grow AREA? Until I see language that SPECIFICALLY mentions the area allowed to MMJ growers, I believe you are wrong.

Show me specifics, not assumptions.
 
Top