Which Version of Legalization Do You Prefer? Please Read Propositions And Then Vote!

are you saying that all these texts you are using for this poll are your own?
Look who ever you are you have consistently disregarded cooperating when I have made request of it as a condition for a joint poll.
I have asked for us to work together but you decline.
So basically using my stuff when you fail to cooperate is plagiarism because you are calling this yours.

I didn't release. I didn't agree. You ignored my requests.

What are you if not a plagiarist? I admit I could be misusing the term. You tell me what and who you are.

-------------

edit:

This is not a game of winning and losing. We need to be serious about these things. It's our freedom that is at stake here. Looking for a way to win or lose is not the way of nature. We must find a stable cycle and effect social change. I wanted to work with you not play a game of win or lose.

We could have done better on the poll. 2 choices isn't a poll it's a contest. And you don't listen to me when I make the effort.

No, you asked him to do it how YOU wanted it. There was no real cooperation involved. And still, you are generalizing why prop 19 failed.

Let me ask you this because the snake in the grass of your position is 10x10 Why in the hell are we to be limited as to where we place our plants?

What if a Strain does better in half shade? Are we to suffer with only full shade strains?

See when we try and make Horticulture into business we are going to lose at the polls.
People who grow and breed and give us new strains for free even are our honoured gardeners.. Let them be free!

Ernst said:

are you saying that all these texts you are using for this poll are your own?

Click to expand...

Yes. If you think otherwise then prove it.

Look who ever you are you have consistently disregarded cooperating when I have made request of it as a condition for a joint poll.

Click to expand...

I tried, I really did. All I got from you is stalling and posturing.

I have asked for us to work together but you decline.

Click to expand...

That's because by work together you mean to accept everything you are saying as a fact when it is not a fact.

Your legal ignorance combined with your refusal to consider new information has made cooperation impossible. You do not understand the reality of how ballot measures become law, majority public opinion, or how congress operates.

It's ok that you don't have a firm grasp on how the state level political machine works, not very many people do. But the fact that you are not willing to consider new information from people who do makes your quest a misguided one.

So basically using my stuff when you fail to cooperate is plagiarism because you are calling this yours.

Click to expand...

I'd like to see proof of that.

But even if that were true, which it's not, that would just mean we agree on something. Why is agreeing with you a bad thing? Wouldn't that mean you convinced me that something was the right thing and your ideas are spreading? How is that not a positive?

What are you if not a plagiarist? I admit I could be misusing the term. You tell me what and who you are.

Click to expand...

My personal life is my business. If you want to post your info that is up to you. The overwhelming majority of people including myself choose not to due to the nature of some of the things discussed on these boards.

Ernst said:

Let me ask you this because the snake in the grass of your position is 10x10 Why in the hell are we to be limited as to where we place our plants?

Click to expand...

I have a 10x10 system myself. It yields more in one cycle than I could ever possibly consume in a year. If you are growing for personal consumption, a 10x10 system is enough for Willy Nelson to stay high. If people want to grow more than that, then they are growing for commercial use and can form a business to do so just like everyone else in America. It's not hard. You can form a company in an afternoon. To object to forming a business is just laziness.

What if a Strain does better in half shade? Are we to suffer with only full shade strains?

Click to expand...

lol. have you invented a new type of cannabis? Cannabis gets it's energy from light. There is no such thing as cannabis that gets it's energy from shade. That is biologically impossible. You're making shit up.

Even with a low yielding strain you should be able to pull several pounds every few months out of a 10x10 setup. To argue that a 10x10 setup is insufficient for personal use is just silly.

See when we try and make Horticulture into business we are going to lose at the polls.

Click to expand...

Do you really think you can stop an over $10 billion per year business by ignoring it? That's pure ignorance. By ignoring it all you're doing is letting big business write that law for you.

Also it is a false assumption that the average Californian voter prefers commercial cannabis be grown and sold in residential neighborhoods rather than in stores.

If you keep subdividing the replies then i feel compelled to counter each division which has been made into division-number separate threads.

So are we going to play another round of tire me out or shall we actually crack nuts? ( meaning get to the meat of the nut like a squirrel eats nuts. Food nuts. )

-----
Under proper Horticulture, and horticulture is the highest liberty I have known as a medical person in the State of California, the need to make clones just to have backups of genetics one is working with is not production. Horticulture is key if the future of cannabis is to be in the hands of the common people.
So what size? You state that you can get Willy Nelson high and I am humbled because i wouldn't make any claims until Willy Smiles at me after tokin anything I had. So what size?

The Size has to relate to the activity. Method of production and any parameters that define reasonable use. Honestly there is a line between private trade and commerce and yes the market has to find itself once we grant people horticulture rights but we already have organized drug dealing so those who are still doing that will find they have to deal with Mom and Pop stuff but we will protect Mom and Pop if they are honouring the law.

So who cares if you grow 10 pounds? Maybe you will make some hash.. Maybe donate to the local dispensary? Maybe grow some for your friends too? Maybe they can't grow and you would love the excuse to grow 10 pounds. But cross the commerce line and you face prison and it may well be the Federal Kind. I understand Arizona is looking for new inmates.
See the change Be the change.

Prop B rings better with me, not only can you grow but it also legalizes coffee shops like they have in Amsterdam. The taxation will also bring in much needed revenue.

Ernst said:

If you keep subdividing the replies then i feel compelled to counter each division which has been made into division-number separate threads.

Click to expand...

Some of us like to address the substance of posts rather than just repeat tired meaningless rhetoric. Dividing responses allows me to make sure I address most or all of the content in a post. If you don't like it, that is too bad for you. I'm not going to change how I post because you demand it.

Under proper Horticulture, and horticulture is the highest liberty I have known as a medical person in the State of California, the need to make clones just to have backups of genetics one is working with is not production. Horticulture is key if the future of cannabis is to be in the hands of the common people.

Click to expand...

And? My proposition makes growing legal.

The Size has to relate to the activity. Method of production and any parameters that define reasonable use. Honestly there is a line between private trade and commerce and yes the market has to find itself once we grant people horticulture rights but we already have organized drug dealing so those who are still doing that will find they have to deal with Mom and Pop stuff but we will protect Mom and Pop if they are honouring the law.

Click to expand...

And my proposition protects mom and pop shops. Your proposition allows congress to put them out of business so corporate America can take over.

Why is it better to allow corporate America to run the cannabis industry? What's wrong with letting real Californians run the show in small collectives?

So who cares if you grow 10 pounds? Maybe you will make some hash.. Maybe donate to the local dispensary?

Click to expand...

And my proposition allows you to do so. If you're over your limit, it's just a matter of selling it on consignment at your local dispensary. Why isn't that an ideal system?

I'd like to thank everyone who's voted so far as well as those people who have given feedback regardless of which proposition you support. Thanks for your input, it is appreciated.

This is an aside comment but it is based on actually hearing Richard lee speak at a meeting.
He was concerned with the Central valley in some way that we would grow cannabis by the ton and ruin the market ( I assume ). Now if we swap out Central Valley for Horticulture and contrast that with the fear of loss of current market then I believe we see where this rift between us comes from.

If the people are required to sacrifice to secure some image of market that makes City production equal to someone who owns an acre he can use for his garden then we get rules like 5x5 or 10x10.

I suggest we all adopt the horticulture foundation and grant right to common people to cannabis. That is the foundation I feel makes the greatest contribution to future people of this planet.
So that where a square foot gardener can have plants outside and clones inside and breed strains for fun they can and where a person can use an acre to have a most excellent garden place let that be as well.

From my perspective these things are not commerce but do effect commerce in that people buy things to garden with.

See the change be the change.

I hope that makes sense for you.

Dan Kone said:

I definitely see where you're coming from, but think about this. If we don't pass commercial cannabis law in a ballot initiative, then congress will certainly do it for us. If we allow congress to do it for us, then the corporate lobbyists will write cannabis commercial law. Philip Morris and Richard Lee types will gain monopolies over cannabis trade all over California.

Basically, by not addressing cannabis sales, that does not mean we won't have cannabis sales, it just means corporate America gets to decide what that law will be and that's not good for any one. Congress can not over rule a ballot measure.

Commerce is like a force of nature. You can't stop it by ignoring it. Wouldn't you rather have the people write that law rather than corporate America?

Click to expand...

You make a good point and indeed this has been on my mind, there does need to be a good Citizen Ballot Initiative but even that needs money and how can you get money if there is no fancy dollar signs taunting economic and financial gurus ya know? There would need to be a compromise or it will stay illegal unless congress does it and then well you know what that likely means.

Legalization means a loss of revenue across the board for everyone including the people. How in capitalism can we make marijuana legal when it clearly goes against capitalism in doing so, this is what the professional economic brains are saying that tell the elites what to do with their money. We need to let them have their make pretend taxes they THINK they will get...as long as they let us grow with little restrictions SMALL BUSINESS AND THE PEOPLE WIN - Their delusion that they are going to get 50$ an ounce or whatever well let them have it or how else will they bite the bullet, we will grow it in our homes enough for everyone laughing all the way to freedom. 2 Bad Everyone doesnt realize this!

Man, I don't think anyone yet has argued that we wouldn't LIKE your proposal. To be completely free to grow it just as another crop. I'd be down on that. I just don't think it will pass right now. And I think Dan's proposition is a nice stepping stone.

Oh, and to everyone who thinks Ernest's proposition represents true "freedom", you might want to keep in mind that under his proposition everyone would have to register their personal cannabis gardens with the government, get a permit to even have a garden, pay a fee to do so, and leave you open to police inspections.

How is that "freedom"? Anyone else here not interested in having the police inspect their personal garden or is it just me?

Ernst, the size limit is just so it doesn't intimidate voters who are on the fence. Your proposition appeals to like-minded individuals, such as myself. But you have to understand that you will need some non tokers to win. 9% isn't that much of a tax burden. And the revenue will go to a good cause (schools/community). That may appeal to non tokers. Limits (garden size/weight) are just so people don't go "Holy shit! A fucking free-for-all! 1000s of plants will be grown in our neighborhood!"

I would vote for both but I did place a vote for one...

more votes please!

I voted for B only because I feel that the rights of the employer must be protected. I know that I shouldn't be taking care of children, or pressing steel, or re-assembling an automobile high as a mf-er. People can get hurt. Until more accurate tests are present (The "Are you high now" test) then I feel that employers should have the right to select employees based on their drug use or non-use.

If Hooters is protected when they pick one girl over another because of the size of her chest cushions then the safety inspector of the local Natural Gas pipelines should be held to a standard as well when it comes to Cannabis use.

Other jobs, like accounting, or network administrating, marketing, house painting... There is a whole world of trivial jobs a person can do high. Bus Driving... not so much... but Bus Washing... Fuck yeah. It is this discretion I think we need.

If they do come up with a "high now" test then I'd support Proposition A, so long as you could be held responsible. If you drop a pallet of Air Conditioners on someone while working the lift at Home Depot you should take a "high now" test. If found to be "high now" then that would need its own level of legislation.

Personally... I'd be fine with the legalization of the production and synthesis of cannabinoids. I don't need anything past that. Non-Med sales could remain illegal for all I care. I grow for personal consumption, so if I can grow it and give it away and use it myself... That's all I need.

There are already laws for protecting employers no need to vote for rights to protect employers.
Vote for the weed people.

Do you smoke weed? You just voted against your self.

Okay how about everyone state if they are in California or not and what area?

Turlock California here..

If not what State or Country are you in?

You are limiting this vote to California Dan yes? It will be hard to claim victory if the voters are not California voters.

This is a badly designed contest.

Ernst, the size limit is just so it doesn't intimidate voters who are on the fence

Click to expand...

Exactly. It's so they are reassured that people aren't going to put up multimillion dollar black market grow houses next door to them legally.

It really doesn't matter much what the limit is, as long as there is a limit that separates commercial from personal. Sure, people will grow a little more than they need and sell it on consignment at their local dispensaries, but that's ok. We don't need to worry that IMO. That doesn't really harm anyone.

DelSlow said:

9% isn't that much of a tax burden.

Click to expand...

If you don't address the tax issue through a ballot initiative, then you are making it legal for congress to do it for you. I doubt they would be that nice about it. If you cap the tax rate in a voter initiative, then congress can not place their own tax on it. Only another voter initiative could place additional taxes on cannabis.

looks like a tie....lol