NO! On Prop 19

tc1 · Oct 7, 2010

I'm not defending the punishments given for smoking in front of minors AT ALL.

What I'm saying is ... it's not reason to vote No. Just don't smoke in front of children and you'll be fine.
What's wrong with that statement? Do you REALLY believe minors without medical conditions should be exposed to psychoactive smoke?

Serapis · Oct 7, 2010

mikhail chalecki said:
hmmm fair enough than. yeah, i am aware of what can happen. but as it stands it does not. its a shame people are being deceived.

its kinda off topic but the lies the dispensaries are spreading is kinda awful. one person i talked to was telling people that it forcibly restricts personal mmj grows to 5 sq ft... yes FIVE. not 25. blatant misinformation.

Don't dispensaries have a lot to lose in this as well as MMJ pain clinics like www.clinic420.com ? Seems to me they'd be at the forefront funding misinformation and an anti campaign. There is a LOT of money being thrown at anti-prop 19. It makes me wonder.... too bad others aren't stopping to look at actual facts. It's a shame actual smokers are gonna vote no...

nathenking · Oct 7, 2010

Serapis said:
Don't dispensaries have a lot to lose in this as well as MMJ pain clinics like www.clinic420.com ? Seems to me they'd be at the forefront funding misinformation and an anti campaign. There is a LOT of money being thrown at anti-prop 19. It makes me wonder.... too bad others aren't stopping to look at actual facts. It's a shame actual smokers are gonna vote no...

You would be amazed at how many smokers are gonna vote no... It blows my mind... You would think that people would jump at the first chance they got for some kind of "vailed prohabition" but they arent... They are actually thinking things thru... Good for them... It gives me hope... If you dont like the way it is written, then vote no... its that simple... if you like what/how it is written, then vote yes... All the speculation is just that... Speculation.... 2cents...

Serapis · Oct 7, 2010

nathenking said:
You would be amazed at how many smokers are gonna vote no... It blows my mind... You would think that people would jump at the first chance they got for some kind of "vailed prohabition" but they arent... They are actually thinking things thru... Good for them... It gives me hope... If you dont like the way it is written, then vote no... its that simple... if you like what/how it is written, then vote yes... All the speculation is just that... Speculation.... 2cents...

And after the vote fails, what do you think will happen? You think Cali is gonna give up on possible revenue when it is billions in debt? Those of you that are believing a better bill will come along and cost you nothing as smokers are smoking a pipe dream. 19 gives you a place to start. The only smokers I know of that are anti 19 are card carrying Medical users. They got their access and could care less about others that don't have a medical reason or will to go spend $200 at www.pain420.com for a card.

mrFancyPlants · Oct 7, 2010

Everyone I know, except three of us, that makes a living(or part of it) off weed is voting no. Everyone I know that only consumes weed is voting yes.

What happens if it doesn't pass?

- Lots of forum gloating

- Prices keep falling, but not as much as if it would've passed.
- MMJ spreads to other states, depriving CA of more export markets.
- Cities keep fighting to limit or ban dispensaries.
- Cops write lots of $100 tickets.
- Med school 'D' students keep writing medical recs.
- More turnover/consolidation in the dispensary market(seeing that already).
- I keep paying the electric company

In the long run? The US can't afford to keep chasing after potheads. Who knows when they'll finally give up?

veggiegardener · Oct 7, 2010

mrFancyPlants said:
Citations please. I posted a link to a very well respected lawyer who debunks the notion that 215 rights are affected by 19. Did you read it? He's backed by NORML. Do you think NORML is out to screw you?

http://sjcbc.org/2010/09/11/an-open-letter-on-prop-19/

NORML has a word-for-word analysis:

http://blog.norml.org/2010/07/19/californias-prop-19-a-word-for-word-analysis/

---

Marc Emery, Ed Rosenthal, Drug Policy Alliance, Marijuana Policy Project, Students for Sensible Drug Policy.. All supporters of 19.

DAs, police, politicians, religious groups... All opposed to 19.

Who are you going to trust?

---

As far as the new felony of smoking around children - it's pretty fucked up and it's sad to see Tc1 try to defend it. However, in my humblest of opinions, you have no fucking chance to pass a measure that doesn't throw a bone to the soccer moms who dominate politics. The good news is that CA is so fucking broke that they won't have the resources to enforce it. Further, if we can all pull together in 2012 after we've had 2 years of regulated weed, maybe we can repeal it.

Finally... "me and all my stoner friends and some churchgoers are going to vote no so 19 is fucked"... HAHA seriously - look at the polls dude. The only one that shows 19 won't pass is one that won't release their methodology.

Those links are irrelevant regarding my primary objection in that the authors never address the garden size. There is no mention in Prop 215.

This means that Prop 19 CAN override 215's(non existent) grow limits. It WAS 6 plants, which was tossed out by the CA Supreme Court.

Square footage is another kettle of fish.

Why guess?

Vote NO on Prop 19.

mrFancyPlants · Oct 7, 2010

veggiegardener said:
Those links are irrelevant regarding my primary objection in that the authors never address the garden size.

I guess you didn't read them. From the first link:

PROP. 19 PROTECTS PATIENTS PERSONAL AND COLLECTIVE CULTIVATIONS

Further protecting patients from local law enforcement actions, Section 11303 states that no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact SEIZE or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is LAWFULLY CULTIVATED. If you are a patient, you may lawfully cultivate as much marijuana as medically necessary and Prop. 19 protects that right. If you are cultivating for a collective, you may lawfully cultivate as much marijuana as your collective allows you to and Prop. 19 protects that right. Unfortunately, many law enforcement officials refuse to recognize the rights provided under the MMP for collectives to lawfully cultivate and sell marijuana. Prop. 19 reinforces those rights and makes it even more difficult for law enforcement to bust a collective or collective grower.

PROP. 19 DOES NOT LIMIT PATIENTS RIGHTS UNDER THE CUA & MMP

The nail in the coffin for those arguing against Prop. 19 is found in Section 2C (1). This is the only section which discusses which other laws the acts is intended to limit and nowhere in this section is the CUA or the MMP listed. If the purpose of Prop. 19 was to limit the application and enforcement of the CUA and MMP, those laws would have been listed along with all the other laws that are listed in Section 2C (1). Since the CUA and MMP were not listed, then Prop. 19 does not limit the CUA and MMP.

...

The rationale behind this rule emanates or comes from another rule of statutory construction which is that existing laws cannot be repealed by inference and instead must be EXPRESSLY repealed. A court cannot find that a law, such as the CUA or MMP, was changed by implication. In other words, it cannot repeal a law by ruling that another law implied that it should.
Although Sections 2B (7 & 8 ) gives cities control over the non-medical distribution of cannabis, that in no way allows a court to repeal or even change the CUA and MMP by ruling that it was implicit in Prop. 19 that they do so. It is contrary to any rational understanding of statutory construction to infer that since Prop. 19 gives cities control over the distribution of non-medical marijuana, that it also gives cities the right to control the medical distribution of cannabis beyond what the CUA and MMP allows.

The courts found that Prop 215 gave you a right to grow an amount of medicine consistent with your medical needs. SB420 attempted to limit this to a fixed amount of plants and therefore that provision of SB420 was deemed invalid. Similarly, 19 cannot reduce rights granter under 215 unless it explicitly says so. It does not, therefore you retain those rights granted under 215.

mr2shim · Oct 7, 2010

mrFancyPlants said:
Everyone I know, except three of us, that makes a living(or part of it) off weed is voting no. Everyone I know that only consumes weed is voting yes.

What happens if it doesn't pass?

- Lots of forum gloating
- Prices keep falling, but not as much as if it would've passed.
- MMJ spreads to other states, depriving CA of more export markets.
- Cities keep fighting to limit or ban dispensaries.
- Cops write lots of $100 tickets.
- Med school 'D' students keep writing medical recs.
- More turnover/consolidation in the dispensary market(seeing that already).
- I keep paying the electric company

In the long run? The US can't afford to keep chasing after potheads. Who knows when they'll finally give up?

MMJ won't spread to other states. If anything prop 19 not passing will make it worse. prop 215 has been around for 14 years and how many states have taken it up?? What's that? None? The US WILL keep chasing pot heads, they've been doing so for over 70 years now. Do you think they are going to all the sudden stop because prop 19 failed to pass? If anything that will prove to certain organizations that marijuana IS dangerous if the general population doesn't want it to be legal. They will NEVER give up until A: A president cares enough to take a stance on it and stands there and does everything he/she can do get it to be decriminalized federally. B: Another state other than California goes and tries their own prop 19 and passes..

Medical Marijuana is one thing, having it available to the general public is another. Prop 19 NEEDS to pass and if it doesn't. Honestly I won't be shocked, I don't have much faith in people now days. Especially when they idol people like Justin Bieber.

mrFancyPlants · Oct 7, 2010

mr2shim said:
MMJ won't spread to other states. If anything prop 19 not passing will make it worse. prop 215 has been around for 14 years and how many states have taken it up?? What's that? None?

14 states plus the District of Columbia.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881

You don't understand the role of the President in the US. He only signs laws - he doesn't write them. Of course, it would take a veto-proof majority in Congress to get something done without his cooperation. Funny thing though is that a lot of young Republicans are starting to call for an end to the drug war due to financial reasons.

TokinPodPilot · Oct 7, 2010

mrFancyPlants said:
14 states plus the District of Columbia.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881

14 out of 50 is not a majority, no matter how you try and spin it. 13 out of 50 is even less of a majority and that's how many other states have adopted any sort of decriminalization bill for non-medical use. And of those 13 states, no one has full decriminalization. If the majority of people wanted decriminalization, legalization or even were over all approving of medical cannabis, those numbers would be actual majorities. Attitudes and decades of misinformation have to be undone and deconstructed before we can probably see a nationwide decriminalization effort. This is change that cannot be legislated.

mrFancyPlants said:
You don't understand the role of the President in the US. He only signs laws - he doesn't write them. Of course, it would take a veto-proof majority in Congress to get something done without his cooperation. Funny thing though is that a lot of young Republicans are starting to call for an end to the drug war due to financial reasons.

Yes, I'm sure all the taxes won't be used for enforcement... oh wait. According to the text of the bill, that's all they are authorized for. :clap:

mrFancyPlants · Oct 7, 2010

Who the fuck said that was a majority of states?

Not legislated? How the fuck else are you going to do it? We'll all change our minds and the laws will just vanish?

I don't even know how you came up with your response to the second quoted block. Can you explain how one follows the other or do random thoughts just come out of your fingers?

Jesus.. I can understand arguments like "they tuk er jarbs!" or "adding a new felony is bad", but then people post weird, out-of-left-field shit like that and it freaks me out.

Sorry - tense... not smoking tonight.

TokinPodPilot · Oct 7, 2010

Again, you're inability to understand simple argumentation is not my problem. Yes, you cannot legislate a change in people's opinions or morality. I sorry that fact confuses and infuriates you so much, but it's just the way it is.

As far as the applicability and usage of the fees, taxes and assessments generated by Prop. 19 and their intended use, it's all in the bill you keep insisting you've read so carefully.

Sounds like you could use a medical recommendation if you get this unstable when you're not medicating. bongsmilie

nfoengineer · Oct 8, 2010

I will vote YES even if the proposition has flaws. It is a step in the right direction. Once its passed, we can continue to work towards refining it. I think the important thing is to get the general populus used to marijuana bein LEGAL for recreational purposes. As they become more and more comfortable with the idea, the easier it will be to make the law eventually be what we all desire it to be. BUT if we stand by and do nothing or vote NO against it, we are defeating ourselves. Is'nt that a great war tactic, "to have dissention within the ranks"? This is a great way to for all of us to be defeated. I urge you all to vote YES in spite of the flaws...IT IS a STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. IF WE CONTINUE TO DO WHAT WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE, THE RESULTS WILL BE THE SAME! Let's not lose this opportunity!

Rome was not built in a day...neither was our country or state. Let's all unite and work together!

mrFancyPlants · Oct 8, 2010

TokinPodPilot said:
Again, you're inability to understand simple argumentation is not my problem.

Do you intentionally try to piss people off by talking down to them or does that just come naturally? Passive-aggressive... nice.. sorry but I'm not falling for your trap like Tc1 did. I don't want to give you the opportunity to accuse me of 'personal attacks'. Try going back and reading your post again. To use your passive-aggressive, condescending tone - I'm sorry it's so hard for you to comprehend - maybe if you read it a few more times it will become clear to you. Does it make more sense to you when I borrow your linguistic style? Sorry, that's a rhetorical question.

I corrected a poster who thought CA was the only MMJ state. You response was that 13 isn't a majority - as if that had a fucking thing to do with what anyone was talking about. Then you quoted me correcting the poster on the political process - and responded with more left-field bullshit about the taxes being used for enforcement. Who cares? Enforce what? Laws I agree with? Are you contending that the use of fees gathered from prop 19 to enforce 19 somehow constitutes an argument against 19? Please, enlighten us all - if only you deem us worthy!

TokinPodPilot · Oct 8, 2010

Sounds like someone needs a bowl. bongsmilie

Burger Boss · Oct 8, 2010

TokinPodPilot said:
Sounds like someone needs a bowl.

Sounds more like someone doesn't know how to respond to cold clear, concise logic. As requested, please enlighten us.....BB

TokinPodPilot · Oct 8, 2010

Burger Boss said:
Sounds more like someone doesn't know how to respond to cold clear, concise logic. As requested, please enlighten us.....BB

As soon as someone responds with something concise, logical and factual instead of the irrelevant emotional pleading and useless vituperation. There's really not much to misunderstand about the language in the bill that call for taxes to be levied in support of new regulatory process, which means instant budget for whatever agency(ies) become authorized to confirm people's legality. It's bad enough proponents are so willing to criminalize young adults, but they're abject willingness to pay into the very system that will end up busting those young adults is unconscionable.

The Ruiner · Oct 9, 2010

Burger Boss said:
You are speaking for a whole lot of CA folks. Being a "criminal" for 45 years, I will be very glad to vote YES on Nov. 2.
For now, l'll be happy with the "decriminalization", for openers. I can quibble about what size, shape, how much, etc. down the road.
Good luck & good grow.......BB

Well, "Boss" if you took the time to understand word usage and what "quibble" means, you would understand my post. To "quibble" is to attach to those items a sense of insignificance. But, given your usage of the word along with your position on 19 it is understandable that you would belittle the situation and reduce it to "quibbling" and coincidently not understand when someone calls you out on being callous towards the situation. Have fun being oblivious.

nathenking · Oct 9, 2010

The Ruiner said:
Well, "Boss" if you took the time to understand word usage and what "quibble" means, you would understand my post. To "quibble" is to attach to those items a sense of insignificance. But, given your usage of the word along with your position on 19 it is understandable that you would belittle the situation and reduce it to "quibbling" and coincidently not understand when someone calls you out on being callous towards the situation. Have fun being oblivious.

Great post... BB is absolutly rude and irrelevant...

veggiegardener · Oct 9, 2010

LOL!

I won a small battle today.

My sister was the biggest supporter of Prop 19 in her small city.

I told her what was up with the legal language, and she was definite that her support for Prop 19 is over.

Of course, she's bright enough to understand the implications of fuzzy legal language. Especially when 500+ separate jurisdictions get to take shots at writing more of it.

NO! On Prop 19

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member