vote NO on legalized and TAXED

F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
you all do realize jack herer was working on his own legalizing laws, don't you?. him and NUMEROUS others are/were actually working to make this all RIGHT. the november ballot will NOT be "our only chance". it is time to clear your heads of the "free pot for everyone" ideal and think reality.





this is the link to sign the petition, .......

http://criminaljustice.change.org/petitions/view/marijuana_activists_against_the_california_oaksterdam_tax_and_regulate_proposal




We the undersigned:

* Are not interested in compromised solutions such as the "Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010" also known as the "California Oaksterdam Initiative." We are in agrement that a one ounce maximum and a "5 by 5" grow area, for self cultivation, is a joke. We demand that all adults, over 18 years of age, have the inalienable right to grow all the Marijuana they wish

* Will dedicate ourselves to make sure this initiative fails through the education of our fellow activists. We will let them know that some of the most important leaders in the Marijuana Re-Legalization movement (e.g., Bruce Cain, Jack Herer, Dennis Peron etc.) find the "Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010" flawed and likely to result in more arrests and the eventual monopolization of Marijuana production.

* Will recommend that Richard Lee (Oaksterdam University) denounce this initiative and instead divert a few million of his Marijuana profits toward a petition drive to place Jack Herer's "CCHH" Initiative on the ballot instead: even if it requires us to wait for a vote in November 2012. "CCHH" allows a maximum of 99 flowering plants and a maximum of 12 pounds of Cannabis per adult.

* Demand that President Obama immediately implement the MERP Model for Marijuana Re-Legalization through a special emergency "joint" session of Congress. This is the same approach that was used to pass the TARP Bailout on 10/03/2008: a bill that was opposed by over 80% of the American People and which only benefited the very same "banksters" that have destroyed the US economy. According to a recent Zogby Poll Marijuana Re-Legalization is now supported by 52% of the American people and is expected to grow by at least 1% each year.

For more information on the MERP Model and our opposition to the "Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010" we recomend consulting the following articles:

How Taxing Marijuana Shits on the Grave of Jack Herer (Part 1)
http://www.newagecitizen.com/MERP/RelegalizeNowObama39.htm

How Taxing Marijuana Shits on the Grave of Jack Herer (Part 2)
http://www.newagecitizen.com/MERP/RelegalizeNowObama41.htm

Petition for the Immediate Re-Legalization of Marijuana by implementing MERP through a Special Joint Session of Congress
http://www.newagecitizen.com/MERP/RelegalizeNowObama29.htm
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I don't think what you're proposing is realistic, as much as I'd like it to be.
Click to expand...

I am not proposing it. it is a website gathering signatures. did anyone bother to click the link?


jack is rolling, ....


in nov, i and most the people i know, will be voting NO. it's gonna fail so we might as well start figuring out whats next. ;)

never put all your eggs in one basket.
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
this is a link =====> http://www.newagecitizen.com/MERP/Re...NowObama39.htm









[FONT=times new roman,times]Introduction[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]While we can argue facts we cannot merely fabricate our facts. And the fact of the matter is that Jack Herer was vehemently opposed to the "taxation and regulation" of Marijuana. And yet "tax and regulate" has become a mantra of the Corporate Media and the Moneyed Drug Reform Organizations over the last two years. As citizen activists for Marijuana Re-Legalization we must demand that the self cultivation of Marijuana is never taxed, regulated or limited. That is the least we can do to honor his legacy. It is the way he would have wanted it. Yet it is absolutely not what NORML, Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and the Marijuana Policy Project are promoting. No, they are all promoting the monopolization, taxation and regulation of a plant that is no more dangerous than the tomatoes in your garden.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]It is also clear that President Obama is secretly pushing for the "taxation and regulation" of Marijuana so that the government -- the same entity that has been persecuting Marijuana consumers for over 72 years -- can now become our new Marijuana "Drug Dealer. The hypocrisy is deafening. And it is not something we can afford to accept.[/FONT]
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
OK, in my opinion, Jack was wrong. If this doesn't pass now, nothing will. If this doesn't pass, you might as well quit hoping for legalization to ever happen.

Stepping stones bro, stepping stones.

If it was up to me, I'd be right there with you for full on legalization with as much pot as you can grow, trust me, but like I said, it's not realistic, it won't happen.
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
OK, in my opinion, Jack was wrong. If this doesn't pass now, nothing will. If this doesn't pass, you might as well quit hoping for legalization to ever happen.

Stepping stones bro, stepping stones.

If it was up to me, I'd be right there with you for full on legalization with as much pot as you can grow, trust me, but like I said, it's not realistic, it won't happen.
Click to expand...

i still can't understand how this would be "it", "the only chance". that's a load of crap with no evidence of it being true. there is no cut off point. no "now or never". we have been fighting for years and will CONTINUE to regardless if this passes or not.

i'm still voting NO. :)

"bro"? :neutral:
 
bajafox

bajafox

Well-Known Member
I was a definite yes until I read the proposition on this website. The pros outweigh the cons for the short term but the long term could be a bigger pay off. I think people have been waiting too long for it to get legalized that they'll take it anyway they can get it. I still have a few months to decide how I am going to vote....gonna be harder than I had thought

Jack Herer co-authored Proposition 215 with Peron. Herer also opposes the taxation of marijuana. He gave a speech at Oregon's HempStalk Festival on September 12th, 2009 during which he decried what he calls "cannabusiness", indicating his opposition to the taxation of marijuana:
"I don't want to f**king give the United States government one f**king dollar of taxes. I think that they should go to f**king jail for getting you and me and 20 million people getting arrested for pot. It is the safest thing you can do in the universe. And that is what we are going to do in California."
Click to expand...
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Special:Search/California_Proposition_19,_the_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative_(2010
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
fdd2blk said:
i still can't understand how this would be "it", "the only chance". that's a load of crap with no evidence of it being true. there is no cut off point. no "now or never". we have been fighting for years and will CONTINUE to regardless if this passes or not.

i'm still voting NO. :)
Click to expand...
What do you mean no evidence? When was the last time weed was completely legalized? It takes years to get to the table, then when we finally do, people vote No. That's pretty amazing to me... Why would you vote no? Voting yes is a vote for progress, you can still have exactly what you have now and more by voting yes. Voting no, you don't get any of the restraints lifted and stay where you're at for another decade before we get another shot. Where's the sense in that? Tell me why you're voting no on this.
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
What do you mean no evidence? When was the last time weed was completely legalized? It takes years to get to the table, then when we finally do, people vote No. That's pretty amazing to me... Why would you vote no? Voting yes is a vote for progress, you can still have exactly what you have now and more by voting yes. Voting no, you don't get any of the restraints lifted and stay where you're at for another decade before we get another shot. Where's the sense in that? Tell me why you're voting no on this.
Click to expand...
voting yes ADDS NEW pot laws that will get MORE people arrested. i have a minor child in my home. am i even allowed to grow now?
 
TokinPodPilot

TokinPodPilot

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
What do you mean no evidence? When was the last time weed was completely legalized? It takes years to get to the table, then when we finally do, people vote No. That's pretty amazing to me... Why would you vote no? Voting yes is a vote for progress, you can still have exactly what you have now and more by voting yes. Voting no, you don't get any of the restraints lifted and stay where you're at for another decade before we get another shot. Where's the sense in that? Tell me why you're voting no on this.
Click to expand...
<sigh> It would be nice if people actually knew some history. Cannabis and hemp were completely legal and legitimate for thousands of years until 1937. This bill has about as much "progress" in it as the Progressive party itself and your argument is about as well-thought out as the script for "Reefer Madness".
 
stupidclown

stupidclown

Well-Known Member
thanks fdd i've been getting crap for telling people vote no and to look in to the jack herer initiative. lets get it right for every one, not just club owners
 
CaRNiFReeK

CaRNiFReeK

Well-Known Member
Who really cares what Jack Herer was "Vehemently opposed" to? "We are in agreement... that all adults, over 18 years of age, have the inalienable right to grow all the mj they wish." Really? In what pillar of American government can we find this statement? What amendment to our constitution do we need to twist so that mj falls squarely into the limelight that we all know she deserves? It is my belief that, "They" are trying to seduce us all by stating something similar to one of the most well crafted, influential sentences in the history of the English language.

I could argue the first amendment to the US constitution. Based on my beliefs that the plants of The Earth are a wellspring for us all, I argue that I am bound by my constitutional right to religion- my spiritual belief that mj is a benefit of humanity.
The terrorist organizations I support by purchasing mj are not against the American people but the American Government. They can now , (possibly) afford weapons to combat the Government that is clearly against us all. Did I just make an argument for the second amendment?
How many people- of the millions of people that have been convicted of pot crimes- were convicted on the, "he said she said?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc BTW, this has to do with the 5th amendment.
Or the 7th amendment... How many people were convicted just because their public defender, (who is vying for a DA seat) told them to plea out- WAIVE this right?
Did I get a 1,000,000 million dollar drug tax stamp charge? Yes I did. Was I convicted for selling drugs? No. Do I make 10 bucks an hour? Yes I do. Was a 2.5 million dollar bond against my 8th amendment rights? Yes it was. Did that take four years? Was that quick and speedy? Was that a violation of my 6th amendment right, too?
So now all you need to do is understand the 9th amendment. The 10th amendment pretty much says it though... "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This means that if my state wants mj, the federal government has no say in it. That is what makes the USA free. Not the other way around. If a state says yes to medical mj. the federal government cant raid. If they do, it is illegal. It may be expensive to prove, but it is illegal.
I guess my point is that in a lot of states, mj has always been legal. If you have been jailed in most states for mj, you were kidnapped and not arrested. Getting on the bandwagon, supporting NEW laws. All of these rights- we already have them. Just costs a lot to fight for them. grow it, sell it, buy it, smoke it. As an American citizen you already have these rights. The cost of not defending them is personally very high. But the cost of a plea bargain will put us all in chains.
 
abe23

abe23

Active Member
I think we should go even further and only support legalization proposals that also include 1) a free bong and 2) four-day weekends

I don't see the point of legalization if we can't have those...
 
potroast

potroast

Uses the Rollitup profile
If this passes, it will NOT apply to medical use, IOW patients will still have the same regulations that we have now. I can't fathom that ANY cannabis consumer would vote against this initiative. I have been yearning for just such a thing since 1970 when Keith Stoup formed NORML and said he thought we would have legalization in 5 years. In those 40 years we haven't ever had anything like this, and now that it is coming, I am appalled to hear that growers are so selfish that they will vote no, AND they are actually campaigning against it.

Absolutely reprehensible!
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
it has nothing to do with selfishness. this does not effect me, so how can it be selfish?

i feel if it passes there will be a higher demand for more pot, which is good for me. it will cause an increase in demand which is an increase in sales. i like this thought. for me, IMO, voting yes could easily benefit me financially. yet i'm still voting NO.
 
dyzel

dyzel

Well-Known Member
fdd2blk said:
voting yes ADDS NEW pot laws that will get MORE people arrested. i have a minor child in my home. am i even allowed to grow now?
Click to expand...
LAWYERED!

This legislation does not personally affect me, seeing as I live much further away from all of it.
Regardless, new laws always come into town with their own baggage.

Sure you are allowed to carry around some weed, and have a small grow area (I did not catch any height restrictions. If used wisely, this space can hold two decent sized rooms for veg and flowering).
But issues such as housing a minor under the same roof as your cannabis plant would probably not go down so well with the law.

Also, you give the cops more reason to question you over incidences such as driving etc. Regulation can make stuff tough.

P.S - I am not really seeing myself sitting down to do my marijuana taxes any time soon, so not having that headache to deal with all together, would be pretty sweet! :eyesmoke:
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
selfish would be voting YES simply so YOU can have YOUR ounce. what about the people already in jail? shouldn't we free them first?

selfish. :roll:
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
TokinPodPilot said:
<sigh> It would be nice if people actually knew some history. Cannabis and hemp were completely legal and legitimate for thousands of years until 1937. This bill has about as much "progress" in it as the Progressive party itself and your argument is about as well-thought out as the script for "Reefer Madness".
Click to expand...

Yeah, Anslinger, I know the story, I know the history.

I didn't say when was it legal, I asked when was the last time it was completely legalized?

We never get opportunities like this. I'm the last person to want a new law on the book, but this is progress. More progress than we've seen since prop. 215.

There is no way in hell any state government will up and legalize all the pot you can grow, like Mr. Herrer's initiative proposes, even though that's our right, and I completely agree with it. It just wont happen. Sitting adamant and stern isn't going to change it either. At a certain point it stops being courageous and "right" to fight for the "correct initiatives" that should be on the ballot and starts being stupid, and a waste of time and effort for everyone involved.

Do you think that's a realistic option FDD, complete legalization. Is that what you're holding your "Yes" vote for?

Still didn't mention your reasons for voting "No".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top