vote NO on legalized and TAXED

fdd2blk said:

what claims have i made that i need to back up?

voting yes ADDS new laws to the books which will get MORE people arrested.

it is only 100 dollar fine to posses an ounce today.

you will go to jail smoking in the same house as your 17 year old child yet you are only allowed to smoke in your home.

this bill was written by pot clubs to benefit pot clubs. it is about more money for a few people. it is not about you.

there are better options being worked on as this all happens.



i could go on and on, but no one's listening anyways so just keep insulting me. i don't mind. i still have my vote.

Click to expand...

rotnaple said:

arnt you the one that started the thread? dont you think if you are telling people to vote no you could give some bulleted reasons? If you are trying to sway people to your side your doing a very bad job of it. (dont think thats an insult, just constructive critisism). Sway me. Show me your side, you started this thread. Or am i to just vote no because some dude on the internets said so?

Click to expand...

i just gave several reasons.

rotnaple said:

arnt you the one that started the thread? dont you think if you are telling people to vote no you could give some bulleted reasons? If you are trying to sway people to your side your doing a very bad job of it. (dont think thats an insult, just constructive critisism). Sway me. Show me your side, you started this thread. Or am i to just vote no because some dude on the internets said so?

Click to expand...

better yet, why don't YOU read the FIRST POST? i won't even insult you for not.

fdd2blk said:

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

Click to expand...

how many of you have signed THIS petition?

i have alot of respect for you fdd for you are a smart person... but i do not believe in what you are saying and im sure it will be proven in november. which side of the fence are you on? and also be realistic

gloomysmokes707 said:

i have alot of respect for you fdd for you are a smart person... but i do not believe in what you are saying and im sure it will be proven in november. which side of the fence are you on? and also be realistic

Click to expand...

unlike everyone else here, i am not asking you to agree with me. i am simply sharing INFO. i am not here to debate or argue or act like a fitful child. i am here to help others see ALL sides of what is happening and to make their own choice based on what they believe. this is not a campaign. it was simply a thread to quiet those who keep saying "this will be our only chance". NO, this is not our only option. there are other options out there.

how many of you have signed the petition? even if you don't think it will happen it would still be a good idea to sign it. wouldn't it? by the same reasoning that is already being discussed? sign it, ...... http://www.newagecitizen.com/MERP/RelegalizeNowObama29.htm

oh ok... i knew there had to be something motivating you. in that case... but that doesnt change my vote mister! lol

I thank you for this thread, FDD. I did sign the petition and I appreciate that there are other people who are thinking more rationally about how to bring this prohibition to an end that doesn't end in oligarchic monopolization much like the last prohibition did. In addition, any measure or legislation that does not include the release and expunging of criminal records for the thousands upon thousands of us who've been imprisoned for our way of life is not only an insult but, in my opinion, a matter of shame. Shame for those who'd so callously throw away those who've sacrificed for decades to keep this wonderful way of life alive despite billions of dollars being spent to destroy it. Shame for those who'd so cheaply sell us all into the same system of deceit and lies that has discriminated against us until they could suddenly see profit margins. Prop 19 isn't effective legislation for the benefit of the cannabis community. It's a conspiracy of control being offered by those who wish to be the "Anhueser-Busch"s of the cannabis industry and supported by their cronies and those who are willing to capitulate and sacrifice anyone else for their own personal gains.

If you thinking of voting YES, please read this. This Bill is Majorly flawed!

Peron, co-author of Proposition 215, cites three "fatal flaws" in the Oaksterdamn U initiative . These can be described as limits, taxes, and penalties regarding minors.

Regarding the limits of one ounce and 25 square feet for personal cultivation:

"Imagine a law to “tax and regulate” alcohol that only allows for possession of up to one bottle of wine imprisoning those who exceed that amount, be it two bottles or a small collection of choice vintages. These limits guarantee confusion, harassment and black marketeering forevermore. We don’t control alcohol by imposing a 25 sq. foot limit on grape vines. But one extra gram or sq. foot of pot means jail and even worse; this initiative specifies that if accused of having too much cannabis the burden of proof is on you, not the state."

Regarding taxes:

"Singling out those who want to use marijuana for a huge excise tax is just plain unfair. It maintains cannabis as the most expensive, blatantly overpriced product on the market thus forcing most people to choose cheaper, more dangerous drugs with huge externalized costs to society as a whole."

Regarding minors:

"Sending teenagers to state prison for three years for pot is evil. This initiative mandates that 18, 19, and twenty year old minors serve three to seven year terms in California state prison for the crime of passing each other a joint or selling one another a small amount. Under this law if a 21 year old person passes a joint to a 20 year old he or she goes to county jail for six months. Likewise this measure has no exceptions for parents in their own homes from the “smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present” prohibition. We don’t lock up parents for having a glass of wine with dinner and we certainly don’t tell the kids to leave the house for the purpose of consuming any other substance so why start with cannabis?"

Peron vows that if the proponents "buy" enough signatures to get the initiative on the ballot he will campaign against it:

"This initiative is bad for parents, students and, ultimately, the effort to get the state to stop ruining lives enforcing these draconian pot laws. Initiatives create permanent statutes. This one with its petty restrictions for personal users, prohibitive unfair taxes, and mandatory state prison sentences for teen agers need be nipped in the bud. We will campaign and vote against it should its proponents succeed in purchasing the necessary number of signatures to put it on the 2010 ballot. The tax revenue it will supposedly generate is a mere smokescreen for the kids it will regulate into three, five and seven year state prison sentences."


VOTE NO!

I'd like to sign it but giving my address is kinda sketch... And do I have to live in Cali?

has anyone posted the actual bill itself? does anyone have it to post, or a link to view it at? i'd like to read it.

doowmd said:

has anyone posted the actual bill itself? does anyone have it to post, or a link to view it at? i'd like to read it.

Click to expand...

i would also like this

Section 1: Name
This Act shall be known as the “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.”
Section 2: Findings, Intent and Purposes
This Act, adopted by the People of the State of California, makes the following Findings and Statement of Intent and Purpose:
A. Findings
1. California’s laws criminalizing cannabis (marijuana) have failed and need to be reformed. Despite spending decades arresting millions of non-violent cannabis consumers, we have failed to control cannabis or reduce its availability.
2. According to surveys, roughly 100 million Americans (around 1/3 of the country’s population) acknowledge that they have used cannabis, 15 million of those Americans having consumed cannabis in the last month. Cannabis consumption is simply a fact of life for a large percentage of Americans.
3. Despite having some of the strictest cannabis laws in the world, the United States has the largest number of cannabis consumers. The percentage of our citizens who consume cannabis is double that of the percentage of people who consume cannabis in the Netherlands, a country where the selling and adult possession of cannabis is allowed.
4. According to The National Research Council’s recent study of the 11 U.S. states where cannabis is currently decriminalized, there is little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions and the rate of consumption.
5. Cannabis has fewer harmful effects than either alcohol or cigarettes, which are both legal for adult consumption. Cannabis is not physically addictive, does not have long term toxic effects on the body, and does not cause its consumers to become violent.
6. There is an estimated $15 billion in illegal cannabis transactions in California each year. Taxing and regulating cannabis, like we do with alcohol and cigarettes, will generate billions of dollars in annual revenues for California to fund what matters most to Californians: jobs, health care, schools and libraries, roads, and more.
7. California wastes millions of dollars a year targeting, arresting, trying, convicting, and imprisoning non-violent citizens for cannabis related offenses. This money would be better used to combat violent crimes and gangs.
8. The illegality of cannabis enables for the continuation of an out-of-control criminal market, which in turn spawns other illegal and often violent activities. Establishing legal, regulated sales outlets would put dangerous street dealers out of business.
B. Purposes
1. Reform California’s cannabis laws in a way that will benefit our state.
2. Regulate cannabis like we do alcohol: Allow adults to possess and consume small amounts of cannabis.
3. Implement a legal regulatory framework to give California more control over the cultivation, processing, transportation, distribution, and sales of cannabis.
4. Implement a legal regulatory framework to better police and prevent access to and consumption of cannabis by minors in California.
5. Put dangerous, underground street dealers out of business, so their influence in our communities will fade.
6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.
7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
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.
9. Tax and regulate cannabis to generate billions of dollars for our state and local governments to fund what matters most: jobs, healthcare, schools and libraries, parks, roads, transportation, and more.
10. Stop arresting thousands of non-violent cannabis consumers, freeing up police resources and saving millions of dollars each year, which could be used for apprehending truly dangerous criminals and keeping them locked up, and for other essential state needs that lack funding.
11. Allow the Legislature to adopt a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry.
12. Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes.
13. Permit California to fulfill the state’s obligations under the United States Constitution to enact laws concerning health, morals, public welfare and safety within the State.
14. Permit the cultivation of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption.
C. Intent
1. This Act is intended to limit the application and enforcement of state and local laws relating to possession, transportation, cultivation, consumption and sale of cannabis, including but not limited to the following, whether now existing or adopted in the future: Health and Safety Code sections 11014.5 and 11364.5 [relating to drug paraphernalia]; 11054 [relating to cannabis or tetrahydrocannabinols]; 11357 [relating to possession]; 11358 [relating to cultivation]; 11359 [possession for sale]; 11360 [relating to transportation and sales]; 11366 [relating to maintenance of places]; 11366.5 [relating to use of property]; 11370 [relating to punishment]; 11470 [relating to forfeiture]; 11479 [relating to seizure and destruction]; 11703 [relating to definitions regarding illegal substances]; 11705 [actions for use of illegal controlled substance]; Vehicle Code sections 23222 and 40000.15 [relating to possession].
2. This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of the following state laws relating to public health and safety or protection of children and others: Health and Safety Code sections 11357 [relating to possession on school grounds]; 11361 [relating to minors as amended herein]; 11379.6 [relating to chemical production]; 11532 [relating to loitering to commit a crime or acts not authorized by law]; Vehicle Code section 23152 [relating to driving while under the influence]; Penal Code section 272 [relating to contributing to the delinquency of a minor]; nor any law prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve public safety.
Section 3: Lawful Activities
Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, commencing with section 11300 is added to read:
Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls
(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:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.
(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. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.
(iv) Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection.
(b) “Personal consumption” shall include but is not limited to possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other non-public place, and shall include licensed premises open to the public authorized to permit on-premises consumption of cannabis by a local government pursuant to section 11301.
(c) “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis:
(i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301;
(ii) consumption in public or in a public place;
(iii) consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator;
(iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.
Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls
Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:
(a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized;
(b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale;
(c) appropriate controls on cultivation, transportation, sales, and consumption of cannabis to strictly prohibit access to cannabis by persons under the age of 21;
(d) age limits and controls to ensure that all persons present in, employed by, or in any way involved in the operation of, any such licensed premises are 21 or older;
(e) consumption of cannabis within licensed premises;
(f) safe and secure transportation of cannabis from a licensed premises for cultivation or processing, to a licensed premises for sale or on-premises consumption of cannabis;
(g) prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300;
(h) appropriate controls on licensed premises for sale, cultivation, processing, or sale and on-premises consumption, of cannabis, including limits on zoning and land use, locations, size, hours of operation, occupancy, protection of adjoining and nearby properties and persons from unwanted exposure, advertising, signs and displays, and other controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare;
(i) appropriate environmental and public health controls to ensure that any licensed premises minimizes any harm to the environment, adjoining and nearby landowners, and persons passing by;
(j) appropriate controls to restrict public displays, or public consumption of cannabis;
(k) appropriate taxes or fees pursuant to section 11302;
(l) such larger amounts as the local authority deems appropriate and proper under local circumstances, than those established under section 11300(a) for personal possession and cultivation, or under this section for commercial cultivation, processing, transportation and sale by persons authorized to do so under this section;
(m) any other appropriate controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare.
Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees
(a) Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.
(b) Any licensed premises shall be responsible for paying all federal, state and local taxes, fees, fines, penalties or other financial responsibility imposed on all or similarly situated businesses, facilities or premises, including without limitation income taxes, business taxes, license fees, and property taxes, without regard to or identification of the business or items or services sold.
Section 11303: Seizure
(a) Notwithstanding sections 11470 and 11479 of the Health and Safety Code or any other provision of law, 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, processed, transported, possessed, possessed for sale, sold or used in compliance with this Act or any local government ordinance, law or regulation adopted pursuant to this Act.
Section 11304: Effect of Act and Definitions
(a) This Act shall not be construed to affect, limit or amend any statute that forbids impairment while engaging in dangerous activities such as driving, or that penalizes bringing cannabis to a school enrolling pupils in any grade from kindergarten through 12, inclusive.
(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed or interpreted to permit interstate or international transportation of cannabis. This Act shall be construed to permit a person to transport cannabis in a safe and secure manner from a licensed premises in one city or county to a licensed premises in another city or county pursuant to any ordinances adopted in such cities or counties, notwithstanding any other state law or the lack of any such ordinance in the intervening cities or counties.
(c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.
(d) Definitions
For purposes of this Act:
(i) “Marijuana” and “cannabis” are interchangeable terms that mean all parts of the plant Genus Cannabis, whether growing or not; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; concentrated cannabis; edible products containing same; and every active compound, manufacture, derivative, or preparation of the plant, or resin.
(ii) “One ounce” means 28.5 grams.
(iii) For purposes of section 11300(a)(ii) “cannabis plant” means all parts of a living Cannabis plant.
(iv) In determining whether an amount of cannabis is or is not in excess of the amounts permitted by this Act, the following shall apply:
(a) only the active amount of the cannabis in an edible cannabis product shall be included;
(b) living and harvested cannabis plants shall be assessed by square footage, not by weight in determining the amounts set forth in section 11300(a);
(c) in a criminal proceeding a person accused of violating a limitation in this Act shall have the right to an affirmative defense that the cannabis was reasonably related to his or her personal consumption.
(v) “residence” means a dwelling or structure, whether permanent or temporary, on private or public property, intended for occupation by a person or persons for residential purposes, and includes that portion of any structure intended for both commercial and residential purposes.
(vi) “local government” means a city, county, or city and county.
(vii) “licensed premises” is any commercial business, facility, building, land or area that has a license, permit or is otherwise authorized to cultivate, process, transport, sell, or permit on-premises consumption, of cannabis pursuant to any ordinance or regulation adopted by a local government pursuant to section 11301, or any subsequently enacted state statute or regulation.
Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors
Section 11361 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors
(a) Every person 18 years of age or over who hires, employs, or uses a minor in transporting, carrying, selling, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling any marijuana, who unlawfully sells, or offers to sell, any marijuana to a minor, or who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give any marijuana to a minor under 14 years of age, or who induces a minor to use marijuana in violation of law shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years.
(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.
(c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense.
(d) In addition to the penalties above, any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to perform any act pursuant to Section 11301, who while so licensed, permitted or authorized, negligently furnishes, administers, gives or sells, or offers to furnish, administer, give or sell, any marijuana to any person younger than 21 years of age shall not be permitted to own, operate, be employed by, assist or enter any licensed premises authorized under Section 11301 for a period of one year.
Section 5: Amendment
Pursuant to Article 2, section 10(c) of the California Constitution, this Act may be amended either by a subsequent measure submitted to a vote of the People at a statewide election; or by statute validly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, but only to further the purposes of the Act. Such permitted amendments include but are not limited to:
(a) Amendments to the limitations in section 11300, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations.
(b) Statutes and authorize regulations to further the purposes of the Act to establish a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry that addresses some or all of the items referenced in Sections 11301 and 11302.
(c) Laws to authorize the production of hemp or non-active cannabis for horticultural and industrial purposes.
Section 6: Severability
If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.

“I Gots Mine”: Dispensary Owners Against Marijuana Legalization
Wed, 14 Jul 2010 22:56:36 By: Russ Belville, NORML Outreach Coordinator



Yesterday on our daily webcast for NORML we interviewed Dale Sky Clare, a spokesperson for Proposition 19, the initiative that will ask Californians to vote on a very limited form of marijuana legalization. We discussed the latest polling on the initiative from SurveyUSA, showing a 50%-to-40% lead for the measure.
We dug through the demographics to find that older and more conservative people are the only groups more likely to oppose the measure (no, really?), support is greatest among the young and in the Bay Area (who knew?), and support among comedians named “Cheech” or “Chong” is approaching 100% (OK, I made the last one up.)
But there is one growing demographic group that no poll has begun to track: medical marijuana dispensary owners.
Since the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Initiative was mercifully truncated to a headline-friendly “Prop 19″ by virtue of making it on the California ballot, I have been tracking on our NORML Stash Blog the stories of dispensary owners who are publicly opposing the legalization of the product they sell, even shelling out money they’ve made from selling marijuana to oppose its legalization!
Paul Jury just posted Legalize It? Ask a Guy Who Runs a Medicinal Marijuana Dispensary in which he speaks to Craig, a dispensary owner in Venice Beach, who is also opposed to Prop 19:
Gee, there seems to be a whole lot of different "strains" of beer, even in Los Angeles!

Remember how alcohol prohibition ended in the 1930’s (probably not, but indulge me) and Anheuser, Busch, Coors, and Miller flooded the market with 3.2 beer and ruined alcohol? Wouldn’t it be nice if we could go to shops with every flavor of every micro-brew, in its purest form… oh, wait, I live in Portland, Oregon, the micro-brew capital of America and that’s what we have right now under alcohol legalization!
We have every flavor and potency of beer you can imagine plus people can go buy a kit and brew their own beer if they like. And there is wine, too, with a huge tourist industry that depends on people checking out vineyards and tasting endless varieties of vino. And there is whiskey, rum, tequila, vodka, brandy, and even super-potent Everclear in some states, all in their purest form, which is to say that used responsibly they won’t make you blind like a tub of Prohibition moonshine might.
The “Philip Morris / RJ Reynolds Toxic Addictive High-less Marijuana Market Flood” scare has been floating around the cannabis community like a stale hit of schwag for decades now. It’s a form of conspiracy theory thinking embraced by the kind of people who think you could plant 40,000 lbs. of explosives surreptitiously in a busy World Trade Center or convince all the world’s scientists and a very large soundstage crew to keep quiet about that faked moon landing for four decades. Here’s why it’s stupid:

• Prop 19 allows you to grow your own. If Philip Morris’ weed sucks, you’ll smoke your own or your friend’s.
• Prop 19 allows cities to consider sales. Bad toxic Philip Morris weed is the kind of competition a purveyor of hand-trimmed, non-keifed*, organic high-potency bud would want, wouldn’t she?
• Prop 19 allows cities to regulate production. They can dictate exactly what is or isn’t added to cannabis, how much is produced, by whom, and where.
• In order for Philip Morris to sell their weed, somebody has to want to smoke it. Nothing about Prop 19 makes Prop 215 or the dispensaries go away. In fact, it gives the existing dispensaries the potential to serve even more customers. So who’s buying this toxic addictive high-less marijuana?

Actually, it worked quite well if your goal is to build large profitable murderous criminal enterprises...

No, if you want to really understand what is going on here, look back to that alcohol prohibition and ask yourself how excited Al Capone was reading the headlines trumpeting its imminent repeal. It’s not a perfect analogy, as Capone was a murderous criminal thug and these dispensary owners are law-abiding businesspeople. And yes, dispensary owners, like Craig, often help destitute cancer patients for free, though one could counter that Capone and his gangs gave out free turkeys on Thanksgiving. My main point is that both are businesspeople dealing in a prohibited product.
Or just look back to the article on Craig:
Discount Relief Collective at this year's "Spring Gathering" in San Bernardino, advertising "Nothing over $45 / eighth. $15 for all grams."

Now, if you ran a business where you could sell your product for $5-$15 per GRAM or $200 to $800 per OUNCE, and you only had to compete with one other business in your local area, would you be excited about the prospect of many more competitors and prices dropping as much as 80%? Most of your customers already got their Prop 215 recommendation, so it isn’t as if legalization is going to bring you enough additional customers to offset the change in business margins.
Prop 19 means that marijuana retailers become more like other retail businesses, instead of the loosely-regulated turnkey goldmines they have been. That’s what Craig doesn’t like. Well, that and kids smoking pot:
Really, the “What About the Children?!?” argument? Right now, under prohibition, 85% of high school seniors and 69% of sophomores (a.k.a. fifteen-year-olds) find it easy to get weed. Right now, under prohibition, kids say it is easier to buy marijuana than alcohol. So it appears to me that locking up healthy adults for their marijuana use hasn’t really done much to stop teens from getting and using pot. How about we try letting adults smoke a joint, and when they go to buy it, they buy it from a regulated shop where only adults are let in and all IDs are rigorously checked, you know, like that alcohol kids find harder to buy.
More 15-year-olds smoke pot than tobacco... because we've really succeeded in preventing tobacco use among teens... and we didn't lock up a single adult to achieve this!

Besides, there is no reason to believe that youth use will increase. Since California passed Prop 215 in 1996, the regime Craig likes now, teen use of marijuana has decreased. Prop 19 makes the penalty for supplying weed to those under 21 as stringent as supplying alcohol to those under 21. And we’ve seen teen use of tobacco, a legal substance far cheaper and more addictive than marijuana, plummet in the past ten years through education, advertising restriction, social disapproval (no indoor smoking, for example) and strict ID requirements.
Craig and the other dispensary owners who oppose Prop 19 are the “I Gots Mine” element of the anti-legalization campaign. They’ve got the corner on a retail market worth billions, one that is only worth billions if you arrest 850,000 mostly-black-and-brown adults a year for participating in it. They’ve got their doctors happy to take a Benjamin or two to give you permission to use a drug safer than the aspirin you need no permission for. I wouldn’t want people to vote to change that, either…
…except that I think it’s just immoral to arrest people for smoking weed if we’re going to leave them alone when drinking alcohol. I don’t care if it is profitable to the state or detrimental to the dispensary industry – arrests for marijuana are wrong, period.
*”Kiefed” means to shake loose the crystals of THC from the product before packaging for sale. The crystals, or “kief” are collected and smoked or vaporized, and, being THC crystals, are very effective. Philip Morris will certainly need to use huge machines to process weed, which will certainly shake loose a lot of kief. One grower friend of mine says he will advertise for his prized buds with the slogan “Don’t let ‘em thief the kief!”

wouldn't you be able to grow it all to your self?!?!? why would you want it illegal?

Vote NO on amsterdam coffeeshops. There's all kinds of strict rules and standards. You can only buy 5 grams at a time and that's total BS. I only support legalization if it comes without any rules or restrictions. If I can't have that, then I prefer prohibition and drug war. Got it?

Its taken the gov this long (almost 80 years) to figure out that they are losing a shit load of money fighting the battle against pot.

now they want a piece of the pie.

i say let them legalize it, the only people that are going to suffer are the ones making money off it now while its illegal. (sorry guys) (not the mexican cartles tho i hate em)

i bet that pot prices will drop dramaticly.

and i know i wouldnt buy it from anywhere that taxes it as well. i would grow it myself and make sure i have enough to last the winter.(maybe trade w/ my buddies)

all the shit about selling to minors and going to jail is what happens now when you sell to ANYBODY.

in my opinion this pointless drug war has been going on for too long and this is the first step in the right direction.

and if you want to have bumper crops, find neighbors/family/friends who dont grow themselves and ask if you can use a spot in thier garden and youll give em something for it. after all it will be perfectly legal "for personal consumption"

and i know lazy people will buy from these dispensarys or the future "marlboro maryJs", so i guess thats a plus for the tax side.

as for me ill be perfectly fine having to never pay for weed again and never having to pay a tax unless i do go into a "coffe shop" once in a while.

i just hope this bill makes its way to my state pretty soon.

this is all just my opinion from what ive gatherd....anyone agree?

I love the idea of 99 flowering plants but I doubt the government would pass that kind of legislation. The house and senate would need to be run by members of RIU for that to happen.

Your are crazy...Got it?????

I agree with you...