Skipping Commerce ( business ) in Legalizing. Your opinion.

Look you are casting some mythical land where when we pass a law everyone follows it.

The truth is that people will still be doing what they are doing and the feds will still be doing what they do.

If you hate the idea that each Californian can grow , use and trade weed then donate to the Anti-cannabis folks.

I know well that people will continue to sell drugs but we have had no luck with the Initiative process in passing anything that effects the Commerce issue.

So if you are against the people having the right to grow, use and trade just get it over with in this thread. Say it and be done!

Oh and I re-re-edited that post. I took out the finger pointing after I rethought my message.. Sorry I wasn't quick enough for you to quote it. Just reread if you like to see my final post version.

Feel free to change your reply since I sorta edited on you and I didn't intend to have that sort of effect on you. I wasn't looking for your reply when i was re-re-editing my thoughts.

Ernst said:

Look you are casting some mythical land where when we pass a law everyone follows it.

The truth is that people will still be doing what they are doing and the feds will still be doing what they do.

If you hate the idea that each Californian can grow , use and trade weed then donate to the Anti-cannabis folks.

I know well that people will continue to sell drugs but we have had no luck with the Initiative process in passing anything that effects the Commerce issue.

So if you are against the people having the right to grow, use and trade just get it over with in this thread. Say it and be done!

Oh and I re-re-edited that post. I took out the finger pointing after I rethought my message.. Sorry I wasn't quick enough for you to quote it. Just reread if you like to see my final post version.

Click to expand...

And YOU are trying to put words in my mouth! Where in any message either past or present, have I ever said or even IMPLIED that I was against legalization in any form, even YOUR vision of it? I've simply given my opinion (that's what forums and threads are for ya know) on why I think your proposal doesn't stand a chance. When I've asked you questions you've either danced around certain issues or replied with some sort of attack or false implication while attempting to spin my comments. I am not against you Ernst. I would love to see any legislation pass, but I get behind proposals that have broader appeal and and IMO have a more realistic chance of passage. I will ask again, what about the tax issue? How about a piece of legislation that would completely eliminate the black market? Those are 2 things I would like to see happen. More revenue and less violence associated with the cannabis black market. Doubt either of those things will happen soon, but I can HOPE.

No forget about any aspect of Commerce.. The beauty if that once it's legal for everyone then our Government has no choice but to step in and regulate commerce.

Right now they regulate based on the fear of punishment. We have a split class where a minority are allowed Cannabis but the majority is not.

It doesn't matter if this legalizing for the people solves anything commerce or not. I'm trying real hard to get the point across that we can do more to effect commerce if we empower every Californian.

I mean most of the pro-cannabis people I know are trying to expand the medical base they have when medical is a separate and distinct class of Cannabis rights that naturally include derived compounds from cannabis and that means pharmaceutical-companies.

So what sense does it make to try and expand medical as the foundation to legalize selling weed to everyone?

Anyway. We will not get anywhere until the People are free so we shall see what Regulate marijuana like Wine does. I am supporting it.

I take it you are supporting it too?

If it fails or if we fail again in 2012 then we need to consider what i suggest. A solid foot forward because if we cannot pass legalization for all there is no way we can pass commerce laws for a few.

On the black market? We have to make things worse before our Government will do anything since they have been managing their "War of Drugs" for so long it is an industry.
Only by having the entire State legal can we stand as one so if we cannot pass commerce with RMLW this time then let us simplify and unite the whole State on the most basic of levels "Freedom."

Ernst said:

Oh yeah Dan. I get it. There are so many voters that only want to have sales (commerce) that we must advance commerce ahead of rights for the people. NOT!

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you think that is a binary choice. It's not a situation where we are choosing between rights of the people and rights of commerce. In this case, those two things have a symbiotic relationship. The interests of commerce are what can drive the interests of the people. Those commercial interests give nonsmokers incentives to support legalization such as tax revenue, jobs, and reduced black market sales. It also gives a method of funding the ballot initiative which you need to pass a law, with out the money you've got no chance.

Did you know prop 215 was funded by commerce? It was paid for by one of these dispensaries you're opposing. If you ever get a chance ask Dennis Peron about the 5 story felony. That dispensary is what funded prop 215. Who's going to fund what you're advocating?

If Right to Cannabis for all Californians isn't a broad appeal what is?

Click to expand...

That's not what you're proposing at all. You're proposing the right of people to grow their own bud and trade it on the black market. You're leaving the majority of cannabis users out in the cold with what you're proposing. Most cannabis users want safe access to buy their cannabis. Most can't or don't want to grow their own. Most like the idea of being able to safely purchase it in a store where they have a wide variety to choose from rather than just accept whatever a black market dealer gives them. And for some, buying on the black market is a safety issue. Some people under what you're proposing will have no other options in their community other than buying from gang/cartel members.

You're ignoring all those needs of the majority as well as all the hard working folks who just want to make an honest living without fear of being thrown in prison just so you can advocate something that suits your own personal needs better. You're also ignoring the primary reason non-smokers would support legalization, economic benefits.

Commerce is a small portion of Cannabis re-legalization and is one many jurisdictions across California have fought and or prohibited since the start of prohibition.

Click to expand...

It's not a small portion of legalization at all. The majority of cannabis users buy their bud. What you're proposing only helps a very small portion of the population. You're advocating the rights of small scale growers. Everyone agrees they deserve to not be harassed by police, but what about everyone else Ernest? Why are the majority of cannabis users less deserving of their rights than small scale growers?

Ernst[/QUOTE]

Again I repeat myself. It's about doing one thing before the other. But you already know that.

And folks wonder why it gets frustrating...

Ernst said:

So it comes down to if you two want all the people to have legal weed or not.. What is it friends?

Click to expand...

And you're not supporting real legalization. If it's legal, why shouldn't people be able to buy it in a store? Why should they have to turn to black market dealers for their bud?

Again I repeat myself. It is about passing something to help us get where we want to be.

But you already know that.

Ernst said:

Again I repeat myself. It's about doing one thing before the other. But you already know that.

And folks wonder why it gets frustrating...

Click to expand...

And you've still ignored the important questions.

Why are only small scale growers deserving of protection from the police? Why aren't people who want to buy their cannabis in a store deserving of their rights?

Why would non-smokers vote for this when it does not provide any benefit to the community like other legalization efforts that create tax revenue and jobs?

Who's going to fund a legalization effort that doesn't include commerce?

You can keep ignoring these questions all you want, but as long as you keep pushing this very specific agenda I will keep asking them.

Ernst said:

Again I repeat myself. It is about passing something to help us get where we want to be.

But you already know that.

Click to expand...

Who's "us"? Certainly not the majority of Californians who prefer to buy their buds from a dispensary over the black market. Certainly not the majority of nonsmokers when you take out all the economic incentives out of it.

"Us" seems like a VERY small group. It sounds like that group is limited to people who grow for themselves and people who deal on the black market. That isn't a majority of ANYTHING. If you want a law that effects everyone, you've got to think about majorities, not small groups.

I'm not skipping a damn thing. I know you understand the one step at a time issue since we have what 4 or 5 threads where we discussed it already.

So do you have anything new?

Correct me if I am wrong : You prefer that people have to buy their cannabis. You do not believe in legalization you believe in regulation and limiting production by individuals to a space no larger than 10x10 feet.

So what about that large scale growing there?

Anyway I need to get things done. I am enjoying time off after working 7 days a week for a few months. Be well..
TTYL

Ernst said:

Correct me if I am wrong : You prefer that people have to buy their cannabis.

Click to expand...

Ok. You're wrong. I don't care if people buy or grow their cannabis, that's up to them. I'm just acknowledging the fact that most people do prefer to buy their cannabis in a store.

You do not believe in legalization you believe in regulation and limiting production by individuals to a space no larger than 10x10 feet.

Click to expand...

Again, you're wrong.

So what about that large scale growing there?

Click to expand...

I've got no problem with large scale growing. But if you're going to grow more than 10x10, that's not for personal use, that's commercial use. Even a 10x10 area is enough to grow more than enough bud for someone to possibly smoke in a year.

I've got a 10x10 grow room. I know what is produced by a room that size.

I believe that if you want to grow commercially, you should be allowed to. You should just have to do it like any other business in America and file corporate paperwork.

No one is doing a 50 x 50 grow for personal use. Even if you're grinding it all up to make tincture and drinking tincture all day long every day, that's still more bud than any person could possibly consume. If you're growing for profit, you're running a business, and you should have to follow the rules of business and pay taxes just like everyone else.

what are the reasons that people fear full on commercialization? i think that it is part of the deal now that people are voting with their wallets and their inner VISA points to legalization to help fix the economy. and they don't even understand how big hemp could be money wise yet...

my only concern is that monsanto/camel/whoever will try to make crap weed.. but, there are so many home growers that there will surely be organic, locally farmed weed in just about every place that wants it..

ford442 said:

what are the reasons that people fear full on commercialization?

Click to expand...

I know why the government fears commercialization. Once a multibillion dollar industry puts down roots, it's usually their to stay. It's very difficult to get rid of a whole industry like that.

I don't think many people fear commercialization. I think for most people, the devil lies in the details. They are very concerned with how commercialization is implemented, but I don't think many oppose commercialization all together.

If commercialization is legalized in a way that gives a small handful of large companies total control over the market then there will be opposition to it. But if it's patterned after our current collective system I don't think it'll face any significant opposition at all, I think it will get a net benefit of votes.

i think that it is part of the deal now that people are voting with their wallets and their inner VISA points to legalization to help fix the economy. and they don't even understand how big hemp could be money wise yet...

Click to expand...

Indeed.

my only concern is that monsanto/camel/whoever will try to make crap weed.. but, there are so many home growers that there will surely be organic, locally farmed weed in just about every place that wants it..

Click to expand...

Depends on the law. Both are possible.

right.. like how not all counties allow beer brewing at home.. i'm glad we are mostly on the same page with Tax and Regulate Like Wine. it is just like with alcohol prohibition and we know how that worked out..!

Dan Kone said:

I'm not sure why you think that is a binary choice. It's not a situation where we are choosing between rights of the people and rights of commerce. In this case, those two things have a symbiotic relationship. The interests of commerce are what can drive the interests of the people. Those commercial interests give nonsmokers incentives to support legalization such as tax revenue, jobs, and reduced black market sales. It also gives a method of funding the ballot initiative which you need to pass a law, with out the money you've got no chance.

Did you know prop 215 was funded by commerce? It was paid for by one of these dispensaries you're opposing. If you ever get a chance ask Dennis Peron about the 5 story felony. That dispensary is what funded prop 215. Who's going to fund what you're advocating?



That's not what you're proposing at all. You're proposing the right of people to grow their own bud and trade it on the black market. You're leaving the majority of cannabis users out in the cold with what you're proposing. Most cannabis users want safe access to buy their cannabis. Most can't or don't want to grow their own. Most like the idea of being able to safely purchase it in a store where they have a wide variety to choose from rather than just accept whatever a black market dealer gives them. And for some, buying on the black market is a safety issue. Some people under what you're proposing will have no other options in their community other than buying from gang/cartel members.

You're ignoring all those needs of the majority as well as all the hard working folks who just want to make an honest living without fear of being thrown in prison just so you can advocate something that suits your own personal needs better. You're also ignoring the primary reason non-smokers would support legalization, economic benefits.



It's not a small portion of legalization at all. The majority of cannabis users buy their bud. What you're proposing only helps a very small portion of the population. You're advocating the rights of small scale growers. Everyone agrees they deserve to not be harassed by police, but what about everyone else Ernest? Why are the majority of cannabis users less deserving of their rights than small scale growers?

Ernst

Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it better myself!

I am puzzled by why Ernst thinks we are against him or his version of legalization. Never have I said or implied this. It seems he wants to put the cart before the horse. He seems to want to sidestep a lot of issues that have been stumbling blocks to legalization. I totally understand why he wants to do this, but it's unrealistic! If Ernst's initiative showed up on the ballot, I would vote for it! I just don't think it stands a real chance because it is too simplistic and doesn't address a lot of issues that most people care about. And when an initiative like this shows up on the ballot, people will ask questions. What then? Just ignore them or tell them not to worry about it because everything is going to just fall into place once we get this thing passed? Sorry, I just don't think this is how it usually works.

The idea of legalizing black market dealing is simply unrealistic. That idea is popular amongst black market dealers only, pretty much everyone else would prefer it was sold in stores where customers get a better selection, a potential for higher safety standards/testing, provides legal jobs, and gives communities tax revenue.

Also if you pass legalization without addressing commerce, that opens up the door for corporate America to lobby our government to pass their own version of commerce legalization that will surely screw everyone over other than a few select companies who did the lobbying. It's basically saying "we don't care how cannabis is sold, let's let Philip Morris and Monsanto write the laws for us". Is that what we really want?

I am not a user or seller of marijuana. If it becomes legal I will still not be a user or seller. My only interest in this matter is to end the war on drugs because the war on drugs has done more to destroy our country than anything else I can think of. For that reason, I want the black market dismantled. I would vote for Ernst's ballot initiative if it came up on the next ballot, but I agree with Dan, an initiative that benefits only growers has no prayer of passing.

It wouldn't benefit only growers people!

It would legalize domestic production and domestic supplies.

Exactly what will effect the black market in a pro American way.

Also is it not better to get some place with the vote than to fail every two years?
One thing at a time.

doc111 said:

I couldn't have said it better myself!

I am puzzled by why Ernst thinks we are against him or his version of legalization. Never have I said or implied this. It seems he wants to put the cart before the horse. He seems to want to sidestep a lot of issues that have been stumbling blocks to legalization. I totally understand why he wants to do this, but it's unrealistic! If Ernst's initiative showed up on the ballot, I would vote for it! I just don't think it stands a real chance because it is too simplistic and doesn't address a lot of issues that most people care about. And when an initiative like this shows up on the ballot, people will ask questions. What then? Just ignore them or tell them not to worry about it because everything is going to just fall into place once we get this thing passed? Sorry, I just don't think this is how it usually works.

Click to expand...

It's my experience with Dan's antics that has bittered me on this site.

Absolutely side step some of the issues and make it simplified.

I applaud the idea that we can have something a majority will vote yes for that includes commerce but many do not use cannabis and see sales as the devil. A majority I might add from the last vote.

I guess simple is exactly what we need. First we have to empower the people before we can empower industry.

Just think about what the political reality will be if it is legal for people in California.

I don't know if any of you really know much about the conservative nature of the opposition and what has any chance of getting support.

I thought our problem was we didn't have enough yes votes to pass legalization.
If passing legalization is the goal then we have to appeal to the No voters and last time I asked Dan he had no clue as to how to get No voters to vote yes outside of offering "incentives" but I ask what incentive does someone have who is against weed?

Anyway if the goal is to legalize selling weed then supporting people first is an enemy of it's own.

Just how can we get legal public sales while keeping the people illegal?

Ernst said:

It's my experience with Dan's antics that has bittered me on this site.

Click to expand...

I'm just addressing the content of your posts. That really shouldn't be offensive to you. You seem to have a very authoritarian attitude towards people who disagree with you or ask questions. It's very disturbing.

I applaud the idea that we can have something a majority will vote yes for that includes commerce but many do not use cannabis and see sales as the devil. A majority I might add from the last vote.

Click to expand...

There are a certain amount of people who are going to oppose ANY legalization effort. They don't want commerce because they know power comes with the money and they don't want to see the cannabis community gain power.

You're never going to get those folks to vote for legalization anyways, so why appease them? It's better to go after the votes of people who are indifferent to legalization with incentives like taxes and jobs.

I guess simple is exactly what we need. First we have to empower the people before we can empower industry.

Click to expand...

The industry with their money and lawyers provides protection for legalization that we wouldn't have otherwise. Empowering the industry is empowering the people. Just look what's going on now. Instead of the feds trying to bust aids patients for consumption like they used to do, they are going after dispensaries. These dispensaries are more capable of fighting back than the average citizen.

I don't know if any of you really know much about the conservative nature of the opposition and what has any chance of getting support.

Click to expand...

I understand them. Hell, I'm related to some of them. And you are NEVER under any circumstances going to get them to change their minds and support legalization. That's why we need to instead go after people who vote for their economic interests rather than folks who are too socially conservative to ever support legalization.

We do not have to appease people who will never support us. We shouldn't change our goals to make these people happy. These people want us all in jail. They will never support us.

Pocketbook voters will potentially support us however. If we make the case that legalization helps the state fiscally, we can gain their support.

Just how can we get legal public sales while keeping the people illegal?

Click to expand...

We can't. No one wants to. That is a failed model for legalization and prop 19 proved that. Any legalization of sales must also include reasonable personal freedoms or it would get wide spread support.