# I Don't Give A **** About You Sellers...



## mipbar (Sep 24, 2010)

..who make a living from selling marijuana. Legalizing hurts your business, so maybe you'll have to get a real job, but I think most of us don't give a damn about your lazy a$$es and want marijuana to be legalized so we can stop being threatened with incarceration, not to mention all the other benefits.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 24, 2010)

mipbar said:


> ..who make a living from selling marijuana. Legalizing hurts your business, so maybe you'll have to get a real job, but I think most of us don't give a damn about your lazy a$$es and want marijuana to be legalized so we can stop being threatened with incarceration, not to mention all the other benefits.


Umm... I don't sell, but I am totally opposed to 19. It's got a lot of problems, and in the end it will end up doing way more harm than good IMO. If you are worried about incarceration then maybe you should look into getting a card, or not selling, or not carrying more than an ounce, or stop carrying your gun 
(if you have one). because you can't get arrested for having weed, its a fine...$100.

I think you just sound stressed man, check out the CCHHI. It's a way better bill coming in 2012. Link below.

http://www.youthfederation.com/


----------



## mipbar (Sep 24, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Umm... I don't sell, but I am totally opposed to 19. It's got a lot of problems, and in the end it will end up doing way more harm than good IMO. If you are worried about incarceration then maybe you should look into getting a card, or not selling, or not carrying more than an ounce, or stop carrying your gun
> (if you have one). because you can't get arrested for having weed, its a fine...$100.
> 
> I think you just sound stressed man, check out the CCHHI. It's a way better bill coming in 2012. Link below.
> ...


 Try to troll a little and I get a reasonable well-thought answer. Thanks! Sellers on the side of the morons who've kept it illegal for all these years irritate me though. I want to go get a Dairy Queen Rasberry Truffle Blizzard and smoke a bowl, but can't because I may have a drug test for a job next week  So, yes, I'm irritated on that count too  I'm not in CA either... So, please do us a favor and summarize the benefits between both bills and why one is better ? Thanks


----------



## Howard Stern (Sep 24, 2010)

mipbar said:


> ..who make a living from selling marijuana. Legalizing hurts your business, so maybe you'll have to get a real job, but I think most of us don't give a damn about your lazy a$$es and want marijuana to be legalized so we can stop being threatened with incarceration, not to mention all the other benefits.


 You live in cali and you don't have a card? Who is lazy now? Getting a card down there is like snaping your fingers. And if you had a card you could grow more than you could with it being leagal so you seem to be the lazy one.


----------



## DownOnWax (Sep 24, 2010)

Dude is probably 15 or something so he can't get one


----------



## bajafox (Sep 24, 2010)

mipbar said:


> Try to troll a little and I get a reasonable well-thought answer. Thanks! Sellers on the side of the morons who've kept it illegal for all these years irritate me though. I want to go get a Dairy Queen Rasberry Truffle Blizzard and smoke a bowl, *but can't because I may have a drug test for a job next week * So, yes, I'm irritated on that count too  I'm not in CA either... So, please do us a favor and summarize the benefits between both bills and why one is better ? Thanks


Just because we legalize marijuana here in California does not mean it is going to exempt you (well not you because you're not from here) from a drug test at any company. They still have the right to not employ anyone who fails a drug test. Until it's decriminalized federally, companies still have the right to hire or fire you for marijuana.

BTW, if you've done any research, legalizing will not hurt anyone who sells marijuana for a living just because it is legalized...if that's true I would like to see your resources.


----------



## Howard Stern (Sep 24, 2010)

DownOnWax said:


> Dude is probably 15 or something so he can't get one


Yeah you are probably right, I was just waiting to see a thread that was retarded so I could use this one  LOL No worries though I will keep on growing and if I were in cali I would vote no. This guy wants big business and gov to make money on him when buying substandard weed from the local 7-11.


----------



## Smucker G (Sep 24, 2010)

Im usually not the suspicious type but I dont think your really Howard Stern. And that is a very evel amount of posts you got there. Are you the anti-christ? Maybe you are really HS?


----------



## mipbar (Sep 24, 2010)

Howard Stern said:


> You live in cali and you don't have a card? Who is lazy now? Getting a card down there is like snaping your fingers. And if you had a card you could grow more than you could with it being leagal so you seem to be the lazy one.


 Re-read my post and notice the word 'not' It's 3 letters, and it means NOT. And legalizing anywhere is the first step to legalizing everywhere. This board seems to have the biggest morons, who you can tell are obvious massive potheads, and walking ads for why it's criminalized to begin with. Snapping is spelled "SNAPPING" and legal is spelled "LEGAL" Put down your bong and pick up a textbook please. I even said in my last post I was trolling and still dumbasses post. LOL. You win the prize! But, seriously, although this board does have some seriously stupid people, it also has some intelligent, thoughtful people as well. You are not the latter. Again, the word NOT, make that textbook a dictionary.


----------



## Howard Stern (Sep 24, 2010)

Smucker G said:


> Im usually not the suspicious type but I dont think your really Howard Stern. And that is a very evel amount of posts you got there. Are you the anti-christ? Maybe you are really HS?


Hey don't try to highjack this great thread! LOL And if I was the real HS I wouldn't be growing weed! I would be with Beth all day long!


----------



## Smucker G (Sep 24, 2010)

I got out my dictionary and looked up "dick" it said mipbar. So I looked up mipbar and it said 'dick". 
Stop being a mipbar.


----------



## bajafox (Sep 24, 2010)

The REAL HS can bang Beth and post on RIU


----------



## Howard Stern (Sep 24, 2010)

bajafox said:


> The REAL HS can bang Beth and post on RIU


Only if we were all so lucky to have a Beth in our lives.


----------



## Howard Stern (Sep 24, 2010)

Smucker G said:


> I got out my dictionary and looked up "dick" it said mipbar. So I looked up mipbar and it said 'dick".
> Stop being a mipbar.


I'm sure that isn't true. I am going to go look it up..... Well sorry Smucker G it does seem to be true.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 24, 2010)

I dont sell weed but im voting NO. Why do people have to be drug dealers just cause thier voting No.
Like I siad before if voting no make a person a drug dealer, does voting yes make a person a drug addict?


----------



## bajafox (Sep 24, 2010)

Howard Stern said:


> Only if we were all so lucky to have a Beth in our lives.


You don't joke about your penis size and have a girl like that


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 24, 2010)

Who ever said prop19 is our only chance to go legal is a liar




PROPOSED WORDING AS OF 05/13/2010:
California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative 2012​ 
California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative 2012​
AN ACT TO AMEND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE OF CALIFORNIA:


I. Add Section 11362.6 to the Health and Safety Code of California, any laws or policies to the contrary notwithstanding:​

1. No person, individual, or corporate entity shall be arrested or prosecuted, be denied any right or privilege, nor be subject to any criminal or civil penalties for the possession, cultivation, transportation, distribution, or consumption of cannabis hemp marijuana, including:​

(a) Cannabis hemp industrial products.
(b) Cannabis hemp medicinal preparations.
(c) Cannabis hemp nutritional products.
(c) Cannabis hemp religious and spiritual products.
(d) Cannabis hemp recreational and euphoric use and products.​2. Definition of terms:


(a) The terms "cannabis hemp" and &#8220;cannabis hemp marijuana&#8221; mean the natural, non-genetically modified plant hemp, cannabis, marihuana, marijuana, cannabis sativa L, cannabis Americana, cannabis chinensis, cannabis indica, cannabis ruderalis, cannabis sativa, or any variety of cannabis, including any derivative, concentrate, extract, flower, leaf, particle, preparation, resin, root, salt, seed, stalk, stem, or any product thereof.
(b) The term "cannabis hemp industrial products" means all products made from cannabis hemp that are not designed or intended for human consumption, including, but not limited to: clothing, building materials, paper, fiber, fuel, lubricants, plastics, paint, seed for cultivation, animal feed, veterinary medicine, oil, or any other product that is not designed for internal human consumption; as well as cannabis hemp plants used for crop rotation, erosion control, pest control, weed control, or any other horticultural or environmental purposes, for example, the reversal of the Greenhouse Effect and toxic soil reclamation. 
(c) The term "cannabis hemp medicinal preparations" means all products made from cannabis hemp that are designed, intended, or used for human consumption for the treatment of any human disease or condition, for pain relief, or for any healing purpose, including but not limited to the treatment or relief of: Alzheimer's and pre-Alzheimer's disease, stroke, arthritis, asthma, cramps, epilepsy, glaucoma, migraine, multiple sclerosis, nausea, premenstrual syndrome, side effects of cancer chemotherapy, fibromyalgia, sickle cell anemia, spasticity, spinal injury, stress, easement of post-traumatic stress disorder, Tourette syndrome, attention deficit disorder, immunodeficiency, wasting syndrome from AIDS or anorexia; use as an antibiotic, antibacterial, anti-viral, or anti-emetic; as a healing agent, or as an adjunct to any medical or herbal treatment. Mental conditions not limited to bipolar, depression, attention deficit disorder, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, shall be conditions considered for medical use.
(d) The term "cannabis hemp nutritional products" means cannabis hemp for consumption by humans and animals as food, including but not limited to: seed, seed protein, seed oil, essential fatty acids, seed cake, dietary fiber, or any preparation or extract thereof. 
(e) The term "cannabis hemp euphoric products" means cannabis hemp intended for personal recreational or religious use, other than cannabis hemp industrial products, cannabis hemp medicinal preparations, or cannabis hemp nutritional products. 
(f) The term "personal use" means the internal consumption of cannabis hemp by people 21 years of age or older for any relaxational, meditative, religious, spiritual, recreational, or other purpose other than sale.
(g) The term "commercial production" means the production of cannabis hemp products for sale or profit under the conditions of these provisions. ​3. Industrial cannabis hemp farmers, manufacturers, processors, and distributors shall not be subject to any special zoning requirement, licensing fee, or tax that is excessive, discriminatory, or prohibitive.
4. Cannabis hemp medicinal preparations are hereby restored to the list of available medicines in California. Licensed physicians shall not be penalized for, nor restricted from, prescribing or recommending cannabis hemp for medical purposes to any patient, regardless of age. No tax shall be applied to prescribed cannabis hemp medicinal preparations. Medical research shall be encouraged. No recommending physician shall be subject to any professional licensing review or hearing as a result of recommending or approving medical use of cannabis hemp marijuana.​
5. Personal use of cannabis hemp euphoric products.


(a) No permit, license, or tax shall be required for the non-commercial cultivation, transportation, distribution, or consumption of cannabis hemp.
(b) Testing for inactive and/or inert residual cannabis metabolites shall not be required for employment or insurance, nor be considered in determining employment, other impairment, or intoxication.
(c) When a person falls within the conditions of these exceptions, the offense laws do not apply and only the exception laws apply. ​6. Use of cannabis hemp products for religious or spiritual purposes shall be considered an inalienable right; and shall be protected by the full force of the State and Federal Constitutions.
7. Commerce in cannabis hemp euphoric products shall be limited to adults, 21 years of age and older, and shall be regulated in a manner analogous to California's wine industry model. For the purpose of distinguishing personal from commercial production, 99 flowering female plants and 12 pounds of dried, cured cannabis hemp flowers, bud, not leaf, produced per adult, 21 years of age and older, per year shall be considered as being for personal use.
8. The manufacture, marketing, distribution, or sales between adults of equipment or accessories designed to assist in the planting, cultivation, harvesting, curing, processing, packaging, storage, analysis, consumption, or transportation of cannabis hemp plants, industrial cannabis hemp products, cannabis hemp medicinal preparations, cannabis hemp nutritional products, cannabis hemp euphoric products, or any cannabis hemp product shall not be prohibited.
9. No California law enforcement personnel or funds shall be used to assist or aid and abet in the enforcement of Federal cannabis hemp marijuana laws involving acts which are hereby no longer illegal in the State of California.
10. Any person who threatens the enjoyment of these provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor. The maximum penalties and fines of a misdemeanor may be imposed.​II. Repeal, delete, and expunge any and all existing statutory laws that conflict with the provisions of this initiative.


1. Enactment of this initiative shall include: amnesty, immediate release from prison, jail, parole, and probation, and clearing, expungement, and deletion of all criminal records for all persons currently charged with, or convicted of any non-violent cannabis hemp marijuana offenses included in this initiative which are hereby no longer illegal in the State of California. People who fall within this category that triggered an original sentence are included within this provision.
2. Within 60 days of the passage of this Act, the Attorney General shall develop and distribute a one-page application, providing for the destruction of all cannabis hemp marijuana criminal records in California for any such offense covered by this Act. Such forms shall be distributed to district and city attorneys and made available at all police departments in the State to persons hereby affected. Upon filing such form with any Superior Court and a payment of a fee of $10.00, the Court shall liberally construe these provisions to benefit the defendant in furtherance of the amnesty and dismissal provision of this section. Upon the Court's ruling under this provision the arrest record shall be set aside and be destroyed. Such persons may then truthfully state that they have never been arrested or convicted of any cannabis hemp marijuana related offense which is hereby no longer illegal in the State of California. This shall be deemed to be a finding of factual innocence under California Penal Code Section 851.8 et seq.​III. The legislature is authorized upon thorough investigation, to enact legislation using reasonable standards to:


1. License concessionary establishments to distribute cannabis hemp euphoric products in a manner analogous to California's wine industry model. Sufficient community outlets shall be licensed to provide reasonable commercial access to persons of legal age, so as to discourage and prevent the misuse of, and illicit traffic in, such products. Any license or permit fee required by the State for commercial production, distribution or use shall not exceed $1,000.00.
2. Place an excise tax on commercial sale of cannabis hemp euphoric products, analogous to California's wine industry model, so long as no excise tax or combination of excise taxes shall exceed $10.00 per ounce. 
3. Determine an acceptable and uniform standard of impairment based on performance testing, to restrict persons impaired by cannabis hemp euphoric products from operating a motor vehicle or heavy machinery, or otherwise engaging in conduct that may affect public safety. 
4. Regulate the personal use of cannabis hemp euphoric products in enclosed and/or restricted public places.​IV. Pursuant to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the people of California hereby repudiate and challenge Federal cannabis hemp marijuana prohibitions that conflict with this act.
V. Severability: If any provision of this Act, or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid by any court, the remainder of this Act, to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of such provisions to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable. 
VI. Construction: If any rival or conflicting initiative regulating any matter addressed by this act receives the higher affirmative vote, then all non-conflicting parts shall become operative.
VII. Purpose of Act: This Act is an exercise of the police powers of the State for the protection of the safety, welfare, health, and peace of the people and the environment of the State, to protect the industrial and medicinal uses of cannabis hemp, to eliminate the unlicensed and unlawful cultivation, selling, and dispensing of cannabis hemp; and to encourage temperance in the consumption of cannabis hemp euphoric products. It is hereby declared that the subject matter of this Act involves, in the highest degree, the ecological, economic, social, and moral well-being and safety of the State and of all its people. All provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of these purposes: to respect human rights, to promote tolerance, and to end cannabis hemp prohibition.
Eddy Lepp​ 
George Clayton Johnson​ 
Michael S. Jolson

http://youthfederation.com/cchhi2012.html​


----------



## tc1 (Sep 26, 2010)

Howard Stern said:


> You live in cali and you don't have a card? Who is lazy now? Getting a card down there is like snaping your fingers. And if you had a card you could grow more than you could with it being leagal so you seem to be the lazy one.



So you're telling people to lie to their doctor in order to be protected under Prop 215?

That's great and all but there's a problem ...


States aren't stupid and they know full well the medical marijuana programs are being abused. Which is why you're seeing stricter amendments being added to medical marijuana intiatves. State after state is saying "We don't want a medical marijuana program if it ends up like California or Colorado". Mark my words ... eventually medical marijuana programs with be monitored just as tightly and strict as other medical related programs.


So while some of you choose to hide behind Prop 215 and choose to vote no on Prop 19 .... don't get mad when states start telling you that you have to obtain your recommendation at a state certified medical facility and that you will no longer be able to choose where you get your "medication". Because that is EXACTLY what's starting to come into fruition. 

The days of "wild wild west" medical marijuana programs are close to being over.


You have two choices .... 

Hide behind a lie and watch as the government pulls the reigns down on medical marijuana programs, making it harder to obtain and making it a taller mountain to climb for ANY form of legalization.

-or-

Fight for your right to use marijuana for ANY reason provided you do so responsibly. Medicinally, spiritually, or recreationally.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 26, 2010)

tc1 said:


> So you're telling people to lie to their doctor in order to be protected under Prop 215?
> 
> That's great and all but there's a problem ...
> 
> ...


There's a lot of stupid or greed in this thread.

Dr. Tom O'Connell was my first recommending physician.

This was nearly a decade ago.

At that time he had been doing an informal study of "why" people smoke weed. After interviewing about 7000 users, he concluded that anyone who uses Cannabis daily, "needs", in a medical sense, to smoke Cannabis daily.

His take is that modern life is causing a break up of the nurturing required for healthy emotional development. He strongly believes that anyone who wants a recommendation, needs a recommendation.

http://cannadoc.org/node/64

This guy has done his homework.

Prop 19 cannot improve on our current situation.

As mentioned, the only people without recommendations are those who don't understand what Cannabis does for those who use it.

Stupid people.

The Assembly can't legislate restrictions on the current laws regarding MMJ. 215 is a proposition and can only be changed with another proposition.

Vote for 19 if you like, but if it passes, I'll bet you stop posting here, due to being on record supporting a bill that put YOU in jail.

I don't know how many incorporated cities there are in California, but if 19 passes, every one of those cities and counties will be writing there own set of restrictions and tax codes for Cannabis.

I suggest you move to Rancho Cordova. Growing for personal use, within your 25 square foot space will cost you $600 per sq. ft. $15,000, ANNUALLY.

Do you think your city council will be less greedy?


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 26, 2010)

mipbar said:


> ..who make a living from selling marijuana. Legalizing hurts your business, so maybe you'll have to get a real job, but I think most of us don't give a damn about your lazy a$$es and want marijuana to be legalized so we can stop being threatened with incarceration, not to mention all the other benefits.



dead beat pothead, where's my fucking fries? 

lol


----------



## RIDispensary (Sep 26, 2010)

bajafox said:


> Just because we legalize marijuana here in California does not mean it is going to exempt you (well not you because you're not from here) from a drug test at any company. They still have the right to not employ anyone who fails a drug test. Until it's decriminalized federally, companies still have the right to hire or fire you for marijuana.
> 
> BTW, if you've done any research, legalizing will not hurt anyone who sells marijuana for a living just because it is legalized...if that's true I would like to see your resources.


I don't know much about Californa, but, us Rhode Island Patients have the following on our side:

*§ 21-28.6-4 Protections for the medical use of marijuana.  * (a) A qualifying patient who has in his or her possession a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to, civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marijuana; provided, that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marijuana that does not exceed twelve (12) mature marijuana plants and two and one-half (2.5) ounces of usable marijuana. Said plants shall be stored in an indoor facility. 



Do you Californians have any type of protection like that?


----------



## Howard Stern (Sep 27, 2010)

Yeah this thread should be done by now. Who fucking cares if someone makes money off of MMJ? If you care so much about that then go bitch about the drug makers that make oxycotton or tylenol. They are all pain killers but MMJ is better for you. I only grow for MMJ card holders and if someone has a problem with that then you can go fuck yourself! Obviously I wouldn't want it to be legal in cali cus soon after that my state Wa will be right behind them. I look at it as a buisness and of course I will make more money if it isn't leagal. So it is what it is and we will see what happens.


----------



## LsdgotAholdofMe (Sep 28, 2010)

there is no such thing as medical marijuana.


----------



## vradd (Sep 28, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> I suggest you move to Rancho Cordova. Growing for personal use, within your 25 square foot space will cost you $600 per sq. ft. $15,000, ANNUALLY.
> 
> Do you think your city council will be less greedy?


ever wonder that MAYBE they have suggested such a high cost, is MAYBE just because that city is known for having an abundant supply of growers? MAYBE just maybe thats the cities way to say "hey we know what your doing and if you want to keep doing it then your going to pay taxes" MAYBE its a smart tactic to cut down on all the growers. 

amazing when it comes to someones personal profits its cut throat action but if someone crashes a plane into our county society unites against an ignorant war.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 28, 2010)

amazing that fellow stoners would be in favor of cutting back grow ops.


----------



## tc1 (Sep 28, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> amazing that fellow stoners would be in favor of cutting back grow ops.



You can't legally grow recreational marijuana ... so how are people in favor of "cutting back"?


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 28, 2010)

I may be dating myself a tad, but I remember when the rallying cry was "Get your laws off my pot". When the hell did it turn into "Tax and regulate my pot"?


----------



## vradd (Sep 28, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> amazing that fellow stoners dont want the pot they love so dearly being shared with everyone without hurting 'their' finances.


fixed it for you.

different generations on the same side using different tactics.


----------



## tc1 (Sep 28, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> I may be dating myself a tad, but I remember when the rallying cry was "Get your laws off my pot". When the hell did it turn into "Tax and regulate my pot"?



When did the government not tax anything commercially sold?

And what part of Prop 19 states that marijuana MUST BE TAXED?



Show it to me because I don't see it ....


----------



## mrFancyPlants (Sep 28, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> I may be dating myself a tad, but I remember when the rallying cry was "Get your laws off my pot". When the hell did it turn into "Tax and regulate my pot"?


Well, think of it this way - pot is currently taxed at 100%. If you're not a medical user, they'll take your shit and throw you in jail.

19 isn't legalization, but why does it have to be? Why not legalize in 2012 after we regulate and a bunch of stoners move to CA and register to vote?

Seriously - we've all managed to run a very effective underground over the last 80 years - why would 19 stop that? If it turns out to be a bad law, we still have medical protections or the old ways that have worked. 

"But you're encouraging people to break the law!!!" You're god damned right I am.


----------



## vradd (Sep 28, 2010)

thats what im saying.

were moving forward to a new era where pot can enter the market. <---that means the govt DOES acknowledge it might not be as bad as the baby boomers generation was conned to believe.

and if your still convinced its some DEA ploy then i suggest you move from those hills and introduce yourself to society because theirs no conspiracy out to get you guys man. lol


----------



## MrStickyScissors (Sep 28, 2010)

mipbar said:


> ..who make a living from selling marijuana. Legalizing hurts your business, so maybe you'll have to get a real job, but I think most of us don't give a damn about your lazy a$$es and want marijuana to be legalized so we can stop being threatened with incarceration, not to mention all the other benefits.


I make 10 grand a month off this biz. im not hating on it becoming legal dont fucking hate on me cause I make money doing sumthing you cant. thats just crazy


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 28, 2010)

vradd said:


> ever wonder that MAYBE they have suggested such a high cost, is MAYBE just because that city is known for having an abundant supply of growers? MAYBE just maybe thats the cities way to say "hey we know what your doing and if you want to keep doing it then your going to pay taxes"* MAYBE its a smart tactic to cut down on all the growers.
> *
> amazing when it comes to someones personal profits its cut throat action but if someone crashes a plane into our county society unites against an ignorant war.





tc1 said:


> You can't legally grow recreational marijuana ... *so how are people in favor of "cutting back"?*


try to follow along. i was replying to the post above mine.


----------



## vradd (Sep 28, 2010)

man im too crunk right now on information soo many browser tabs!


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 28, 2010)

Damn you people are easy to bait. Throw out a little cheese and you all pipe in with the talking points. Pavlov would be proud of you lot.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 28, 2010)

start the insults so i can just close this one as well.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 28, 2010)

You're a meanie-head, FDD!


----------



## tc1 (Sep 28, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Damn you people are easy to bait. Throw out a little cheese and you all pipe in with the talking points. Pavlov would be proud of you lot.



In other words ... you can't provide the part of Prop 19 that states commercial marijuana must be taxed.
That's because there are no parts in Prop 19 which states it must be taxed.

Are you here to participate in the debate, or to make peanut gallery comments which provide no substantive opinions for people to chew on?


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 28, 2010)

tc1 said:


> In other words ... you can't provide the part of Prop 19 that states commercial marijuana must be taxed.
> That's because there are no parts in Prop 19 which states it must be taxed.
> 
> Are you here to participate in the debate, or to make peanut gallery comments which provide no substantive opinions for people to chew on?


It's exasperating arguing with someone who isn't actually arguing. You're just spewing talking points.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Text_of_Proposition_19,_the_"Regulate,_Control_and_Tax_Cannabis_Act_of_2010"_(California)

It's in the bloody title of the proposition. Regulate, Control *and* Tax Cannabis. 

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Text_of_Proposition_19,_the_"Regulate,_Control_and_Tax_Cannabis_Act_of_2010"_(California)#Section_11302:_Imposition_and_Collection_of_Taxes_and_Fees

Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees. Once again, pretty easy to read.


Cue talking points!


----------



## tc1 (Sep 28, 2010)

Again ...

Where does it say in Prop 19 that marijuana *must be taxed*?


----------



## vradd (Sep 28, 2010)

owned.

that should be /thread right their lol


----------



## MrStickyScissors (Sep 28, 2010)

if prop 19 passes why wouldnt it be taxed? sure you will be able to grow your own cannabis just like if you really wanted to you could grow your own corn tomatoes or tabaco. but alot of people would rather just get it from the store. and if your selling sumthing in the store there is state tax on it so im pretty sure they will tax the shit out of it. its going to be hard to regulate thats why in my opinion it wont pass


----------



## MrStickyScissors (Sep 28, 2010)

just like if they tighten up the boarders wich in my opinion i wish they would. it would cut out drug smuggling and there are alot of people that dont want that to happen moslty cartels in mexico. not to mention labor will go up so there are alot of people here in the USA that wouldnt have there cheap laborers anymore


----------



## MrStickyScissors (Sep 28, 2010)

my bad that was way off topic but thats how i feel about it


----------



## dieselboy (Sep 28, 2010)

mipbar said:


> ..who make a living from selling marijuana. Legalizing hurts your business, so maybe you'll have to get a real job, but I think most of us don't give a damn about your lazy a$$es and want marijuana to be legalized so we can stop being threatened with incarceration, not to mention all the other benefits.


i have a real job and i sell weed. but i don't live in cali. so fuck you.


----------



## tc1 (Sep 28, 2010)

MrStickyScissors said:


> if prop 19 passes why wouldnt it be taxed? sure you will be able to grow your own cannabis just like if you really wanted to you could grow your own corn tomatoes or tabaco. but alot of people would rather just get it from the store. and if your selling sumthing in the store there is state tax on it so im pretty sure they will tax the shit out of it. its going to be hard to regulate thats why in my opinion it wont pass



Cities decide if they want to sell marijuana commercially and tax it ... not Prop 19.
Thus, Saying No to Prop 19 "because of taxes" is a silly argument.

Taxes and regulation of commercial sales are up to cities and the people who live in those cities to decide.

That was my point.


----------



## MrStickyScissors (Sep 28, 2010)

tc1 said:


> Cities decide if they want to sell marijuana commercially and tax it ... not Prop 19.
> Thus, Saying No to Prop 19 "because of taxes" is a silly argument.
> 
> Taxes and regulation of commercial sales are up to cities and the people who live in those cities to decide.
> ...



well yeah I dont know how you can even argue that. of coarse if you grow your own kill your not going to have to pay taxes on it. and your right just because it will be taxed wouldnt be a legit reason to vote against prop 19. what it comes down to it will be taxed if it is sold. if your growing it out of your home and within the legal limit your not going to get taxed for your own shit but most people that dont know how to grow worth a damn or that are to lazy to do it will just go buy a pack of weed. like i said I make a grip off selling purp here in northern cali and I slang it to the clubs and still get top dollar but it will be hard to compete when the government steps in and starts a farm


----------



## MrStickyScissors (Sep 28, 2010)

for pot heads and people who enjoy smoking weed or need to smoke weed prop 19 is a life saver cause not everyone has 250 to buy a ounce of weed. now it will give people the option of growing enough to never have to buy it. for people like me it just means pretty much i need to find another occupation.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 28, 2010)

MrStickyScissors said:


> for pot heads and people who enjoy smoking weed or need to smoke weed prop 19 is a life saver cause not everyone has 250 to buy a ounce of weed. now it will give people the option of growing enough to never have to buy it. for people like me it just means pretty much i need to find another occupation.


People have the right to grow for personal consumption now. But it does require you to stand up for your rights when challenged. The only thing that is truly, expressly illegal is commercial sales.


----------



## tc1 (Sep 28, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> People have the right to grow for personal consumption now. But it does require you to stand up for your rights when challenged. The only thing that is truly, expressly illegal is commercial sales.



If someone does not have an ailment which medical marijuana can be prescribed, they do not have a right to grow marijuana.

You are asking people to ABUSE medical marijuana programs in order to be "safe" from the law. This does not help either side with the progression of both medical and recreational use. It is getting harder and harder to pass medical marijuana initiatives in other states because they see the abuses going on in systems like California. It's also creating tougher restrictions in current medical marijuana states.

People need to stand up for their right to use marijuana for ANY reason they see fit. period.

Asking people to abuse the medical system is not the answer. I can't name a single good reason why responsible adults should go to jail for using marijuana ... regardless if they have a health condition or not.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 28, 2010)

tc1 said:


> If someone does not have an ailment which medical marijuana can be prescribed, they do not have a right to grow marijuana.
> 
> You are asking people to ABUSE medical marijuana programs in order to be "safe" from the law. This does not help either side with the progression of both medical and recreational use. It is getting harder and harder to pass medical marijuana initiatives in other states because they see the abuses going on in systems like California. It's also creating tougher restrictions in current medical marijuana states.
> 
> ...



Once again... your ignorance is not my issue and your continued dissemination of misinformation is a disservice to people at large at best, and pretty damn douchey at worst. As someone who has stood as defendant in court over this very distinction in state law, I know for a fact that recreational use and cultivation for personal consumption face at worse a fine of $100 and the cannabis-equivalent of traffic school. In fact, it has been argued and won in court that limits on grows for personal consumption are also bunk. 

And AGAIN, no one is abusing the medical system by being a part of it. Despite what your personal reservations regarding who should or should not qualify for a recommendation, it's been proven in court that it's for anyone. People do need to stand up for their rights to use cannabis. Which is why they need to be aware of their existing rights under current legislation and stand up for them.

I'm not advocating anyone break or abuse any law, despite your opinion. In fact, I'm advocating that residents of California stand up for their current rights to grow and consume cannabis under existing legislation. I'm advocating that residents of California contact Governor Schwarzenegger to sign into law SB 1449 which drops existing possession charges to an infraction and no longer needs diversion to expunge misdemeanor charges. I'm advocating against the wrongful perception that one must have a life-threatening or severely debilitating condition to warrant a medical recommendation.

Your either ignorant of everyone's rights under law or you're just spewing talking points.


----------



## tc1 (Sep 28, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Once again... your ignorance is not my issue and your continued dissemination of misinformation is a disservice to people at large at best, and pretty damn douchey at worst. As someone who has stood as defendant in court over this very distinction in state law, I know for a fact that recreational use and cultivation for personal consumption face at worse a fine of $100 and the cannabis-equivalent of traffic school. In fact, it has been argued and won in court that limits on grows for personal consumption are also bunk.
> 
> And AGAIN, no one is abusing the medical system by being a part of it. Despite what your personal reservations regarding who should or should not qualify for a recommendation, it's been proven in court that it's for anyone. People do need to stand up for their rights to use cannabis. Which is why they need to be aware of their existing rights under current legislation and stand up for them.
> 
> ...


You're accusing me of being "douchey" and in the same breathe say _"I know for a fact that recreational use and cultivation for personal consumption face at worse a fine of $100 and the cannabis-equivalent of traffic school."_ 

Wow ... just wow

In California ... ANY cultivation of marijuana for recreational use is a *felony*. No $100 fine ... no get out of jail free card. We're talking state prison for up to 3 years. 

Talk about misinformation .....

And yes, you are telling people to hide behind Prop 215 regardless of any medical condition. You know, I know, and EVERYONE else with half a brain knows 215 would have never passed in 1996 if the idea was to allow EVERYONE to use medical marijuana. 

You are telling people to use Prop 215 for something it was never designed for. That is the very definition of abuse.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 28, 2010)

tc1 said:


> You're accusing me of being "douchey" and in the same breathe say _"I know for a fact that recreational use and cultivation for personal consumption face at worse a fine of $100 and the cannabis-equivalent of traffic school."_
> 
> Wow ... just wow
> 
> ...


If disinformation bothers you so much, then stop spreading it. As one who has stood his day in court and defended his right to cultivate and consume cannabis for the purpose of personal consumption, I know what I say is true. 

http://www.canorml.org/laws/calmjlaws.html

If that's not straight-forward enough for you, then I'm sorry for you. But, I still cannot and will not advocate bad statewide legislation because some people don't have the backbone to stand up for their rights.



tc1 said:


> And yes, you are telling people to hide behind Prop 215 regardless of any medical condition. You know, I know, and EVERYONE else with half a brain knows 215 would have never passed in 1996 if the idea was to allow EVERYONE to use medical marijuana. You are telling people to use Prop 215 for something it was never designed for. That is the very definition of abuse.


This again. No matter how many times you repeat your opinion about the medical system, that doesn't make it fact. But, please rave on...


----------



## tc1 (Sep 28, 2010)

You realize not everyone can get a Diversion Plea right?

You realize it's still a felony right?
(Ask people how easy it is to find a job with a felony in this economy)


Your "solution" is to hide behind Prop 215 and not fight for personal freedom. No thank you.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 28, 2010)

tc1 said:


> You realize not everyone can get a Diversion Plea right?
> 
> You realize its still a felony right? (Ask people how easy it is to find a job with a felony in this economy)


Even more disinformation and lies... excellent. Diversion is pretty straight-forward on who it covers, and if one uses both sides of one's brain as opposed to just the half you previously mentioned, then you'd be able to see that those covered under diversion are the same people who would be "protected" by Prop. 19. Also, simple possession is not a felony crime under California law. Simple possession of an ounce or less of cannabis is a misdemeanor offense with no jail time, no arrest/detainment required and a fine of $100. Your desperation is showing through your lies.



tc1 said:


> Your "solution" is to hide behind Prop 215 and not fight for personal freedom. No thank you.


Right... we get it. Prop. 215 confuses and infuriates you for whatever reason... I could care less. Just because you don't get it, doesn't make it wrong. Plus the fact that Prop. 215 is so easy for the average person to acquire shows me that my fights for not only my personal rights and freedoms, but those of others has worked. Again, I've been in the fight, in and out of court. And I didn't need Prop. 19 to do it.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 28, 2010)

some people have NO clue. * 



The text of the Prop 215 initiative follows:*

Section 1. Section 11362.5 is added to the California Health and Safety Code, to read:11362.5. (a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. (b) (1) The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 are as follows:(A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the persons health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.







​


----------



## tc1 (Sep 28, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Even more disinformation and lies... excellent. Diversion is pretty straight-forward on who it covers, and if one uses both sides of one's brain as opposed to just the half you previously mentioned, then you'd be able to see that those covered under diversion are the same people who would be "protected" by Prop. 19. Also, simple possession is not a felony crime under California law. Simple possession of an ounce or less of cannabis is a misdemeanor offense with no jail time, no arrest/detainment required and a fine of $100. Your desperation is showing through your lies.



Who's the one diverting now? We were talking about personal cultivation ... not personal possession.
Cultivation is a felony .. period.

The same people covered under the Diversion Plea are the same people covered under Prop 19? That's interesting .. because I'm pretty sure Prop 19 covers EVERYONE. 

If you have had a felony within the past 5 years ... you CAN NOT get a Diversion Plea

If you have a conviction involving a controlled substance (alcohol is a controlled substance) ... you CAN NOT get a Diversion Plea

If law enforcement was called to your house because of a fight, domestic violence, or you making a threat to someone else ... and they find a marijuana garden ... you CAN NOT get a Diversion Plea.

If you have already completed a Diversion Program ... you CAN NOT get a Diversion Plea

Did I mention the prosecuting attorney must sign off on the Diversion Plea?


How oh how is that the same as Prop 19? Just when you think you've heard it all .... lol


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 28, 2010)

@FDD:Wait... which part was the important bit?



j/k Please don't ban me.


----------



## tc1 (Sep 28, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> some people have NO clue. *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So if I'm perfectly healthy ... what's my illness?


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 28, 2010)

tc1 said:


> So if I'm perfectly healthy ... what's my illness?


you are fucked up in the head.


----------



## tc1 (Sep 28, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you are fucked up in the head.


It's a perfectly reasonable question.

If I am perfectly healthy ... what is my illness?


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 28, 2010)

tc1 said:


> How oh how is that the same as Prop 19? Just when you think you've heard it all .... lol


I know. But you just keep going and going.


----------



## tc1 (Sep 28, 2010)

Here .. let me rephrase my overall question.


Hi! My name is thecurious1. I am a perfectly healthy person and do not have a Prop 215 recommendation.
Why should I vote no on Prop 19 and suffer the consequences of going to jail for using marijuana?


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 28, 2010)

tc1 said:


> It's a perfectly reasonable question.
> 
> If I am perfectly healthy ... what is my illness?


i gave you my honest answer.



why are you smoking pot? what benefits are you getting out of it? is it altering your physical being? whether you use it for fun or not, it's still a drug. talk with your DR and he will arrange a plan best suited for your needs.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 28, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you are fucked up in the head.


To be really honest, that WAS my first reason for my first recommendation. I felt it to be of benefit to health and well-being if I could smaoke cannabis and be happy as opposed to drink alcohol and get into fights. Best decision ever.


----------



## tc1 (Sep 28, 2010)

What if I go to my doctor and can't receive a 215 recommendation because I am perfectly healthy and have no ailments?


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 28, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> To be really honest, that WAS my first reason for my first recommendation. I felt it to be of benefit to health and well-being if I could smaoke cannabis and be happy as opposed to drink alcohol and get into fights. Best decision ever.


you are approved.

you can now grow and carry ALL the pot you can prove you need. whether it be an ounce or 10 pounds.

enjoy your day, i know i am.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 28, 2010)

tc1 said:


> What if I go to my doctor and can't receive a 215 recommendation because I am perfectly healthy and have no ailments?


just talk to him for a few minutes. he'll see your problem and you'll get your card. it's as easy as the hustle you keep telling us to pull if 19 passes. 2 trips to the store to get 2 ounces and all that nonsense. if you're willing to pull crap like that, might as well just visit a DR.


vote YES on 19 if you're SCARED to get a 215 card. 

people who don't have 215 cards are SCARED. every person i have ever talked to in cali that smokes but doesn't have a card is scared. they admit it. they are scared they won't be approved. they are scared they will be put on a list. they are scared because they feel like they are lying. they are scared because they think their friends will tease them. they are scared because they will have to explain it to their kids. i could go on and on. these are all true feelings from people i have spoken with over the past 7 years of me being medical. i have no idea why my buddy would risk jail time when all he has to do is get a card. he told me it's because he is scared.


----------



## tc1 (Sep 28, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> just talk to him for a few minutes. he'll see your problem and you'll get your card. it's as easy as the hustle you keep telling us to pull if 19 passes. 2 trip to the store to get 2 ounces and all that nonsense.


But I'm healthy and he won't give me a recommendation.

Why would you need to go to the store? Looks like your growing your own marijuana.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 28, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you are approved.
> 
> you can now grow and carry ALL the pot you can prove you need. whether it be an ounce or 10 pounds.
> 
> ...


Indeed... what with no restrictions on grow sizes, I can easily manage all the strains I need to deal with a myriad of illnesses, conditions and desires that I like.

Thank you, good sir!

/me dons a wizard hat and warps to his Orbital Growing Station.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 28, 2010)

tc1 said:


> But I'm healthy and he won't give me a recommendation.
> 
> Why would you need to go to the store? Looks like your growing your own marijuana.


You're either really bad at argumentation or easily confused by other people's use of rhetorical situations. Either way, just more reason not to put stock in your opinions.


----------



## tc1 (Sep 28, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Your either really bad at argumentation or easily confused by other people's use of rhetorical situations. Either way, just more reason not to put stock in your opinions.


Who are you kidding? As if you were putting any stock in my opinion from the beginning?
Two people on two different sides of the issue not putting much stock in each others opinions .... imagine that.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 28, 2010)

tc1 said:


> Who are you kidding? As if you were putting any stock in my opinion from the beginning?
> Two people on two different sides of the issue not putting much stock in each others opinions .... imagine that.


Way to miss the point. No wonder you don't get Prop. 215.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 28, 2010)

tc1 said:


> But I'm healthy and he won't give me a recommendation.
> 
> Why would you need to go to the store? Looks like your growing your own marijuana.


maybe i want something different. why do i need a reason? i'm a grown adult.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 28, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Indeed... what with no restrictions on grow sizes, I can easily manage all the strains I need to deal with a myriad of illnesses, conditions and desires that I like.
> 
> Thank you, good sir!
> 
> /me dons a wizard hat and warps to his Orbital Growing Station.


the party is tonight behind the old oak grove. don't tell anyone. 
here's your ring.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 28, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> just talk to him for a few minutes. he'll see your problem and you'll get your card. it's as easy as the hustle you keep telling us to pull if 19 passes. 2 trips to the store to get 2 ounces and all that nonsense. if you're willing to pull crap like that, might as well just visit a DR.
> 
> 
> vote YES on 19 if you're SCARED to get a 215 card.
> ...


I know how they feel. I was there too. I even lobbied and volunteered for 215 and I still got caught up in bullshit hype. I believed the crap about state databases and lists. In fact, that's why I ended up in court. I waited until after I got busted and the cops tried to attach intent to sell to land me in jail before I finally got my recommendation.


----------



## tc1 (Sep 28, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> vote YES on 19 if you're SCARED to get a 215 card.



I'm not afraid ... I just can't get a recommendation without lie'n to my doctor about my health.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 28, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> the party is tonight behind the old oak grove. don't tell anyone.
> here's your ring.



SCORE! Decoder ring! And I didn't have to eat half a box of cereal to reach it.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 28, 2010)

tc1 said:


> I'm not afraid ... I just can't get a recommendation without lie'n to my doctor about my health.


Way to cut and paste paraphrase. How very FOX! News of you.


----------



## tc1 (Sep 28, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Way to cut and paste paraphrase. How very FOX! News of you.



Sorry, I don't watch cable news. It's full of nothing but sensationalism and agenda.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 28, 2010)

tc1 said:


> Sorry, I don't watch cable news. It's full of nothing but sensationalism and agenda.


Yeah well... Prop. 215 is enough to get your ire up, I can see where simple media-exposure can be overwhelming. Hey, you should see a doctor and get a recommendation to help with your anxiety!!


----------



## tc1 (Sep 28, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Yeah well... Prop. 215 is enough to get your ire up, I can see where simple media-exposure can be overwhelming. Hey, you should see a doctor and get a recommendation to help with your anxiety!!


LOL @ calling Fox News or any other cable news network "simple media-exposure".
"media-exposure for simpletons" maybe.

Fox News = Obama is the devil
MSNBC = Obama is the messiah
CNN = Let's get a panel of 20 people and discuss if Obama is the devil or the messiah

Boy, don't I now feel educated ....


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 28, 2010)

tc1 said:


> LOL @ calling Fox News or any other cable news network "simple media-exposure".
> "media-exposure for simpletons" maybe.
> 
> Fox News = Obama is the devil
> ...


I thought you didn't watch. Way to contradict.


----------



## tc1 (Sep 28, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> I thought you didn't watch. Way to contradict.



I've never been on the moon either ... but that doesn't mean I don't know what it looks like.

Such a silly argument.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 28, 2010)

tc1 said:


> I've never been on the moon either ... but that doesn't mean I don't know what it looks like.


Poetic, albeit irrelevant.


----------



## BluffinCali (Sep 28, 2010)

You need to find a different doctor...seriously if your all for prop19 cause you cant get a recommendation then you obviously havent tried or care enough to locate doctor willing to help. Bottom line for me is Im all for legalization but not at all if it comes in the form of prop19, seriously one of the worst written pieces of legislation Ive ever read, Id much rather keep the current system and cast my "yes" vote in 2012. Prop 19 will allow every county and city to determine their own set of regulations and taxes, which depending on where you live and what they decide, they could make cultivation impossible with excessive fees per sq. footage and annual garden taxes, its all about government control...I was all for prop19 until I actually read the bill, its ridiculous


----------



## tc1 (Sep 28, 2010)

BluffinCali said:


> You need to find a different doctor...seriously if your all for prop19 cause you cant get a recommendation then you obviously havent tried or care enough to locate doctor willing to help. Bottom line for me is Im all for legalization but not at all if it comes in the form of prop19, seriously one of the worst written pieces of legislation Ive ever read, Id much rather keep the current system and cast my "yes" vote in 2012. Prop 19 will allow every county and city to determine their own set of regulations and taxes, which depending on where you live and what they decide, they could make cultivation impossible with excessive fees per sq. footage and annual garden taxes, its all about government control...I was all for prop19 until I actually read the bill, its ridiculous


Local legislation is a GOOD thing. It allows you, and people who think like you to affect the policies within your local government. A SINGLE person can make a difference at the city level. It takes thousands upon thousands of people and millions of dollars to effect things at the state or federal level.

Under Prop 19, cities are NOT allowed to tax personal grows. The only mention of taxes in Prop 19 is for commercial cultivation and sale. And Prop 19 gives that power to cities to decide.

I'd much rather vote for Prop 19 than tell people they have to be criminals and risk everything for 2 more years. 73 years is long enough ....


----------



## MrStickyScissors (Sep 28, 2010)

mipbar said:


> ..who make a living from selling marijuana. Legalizing hurts your business, so maybe you'll have to get a real job, but I think most of us don't give a damn about your lazy a$$es and want marijuana to be legalized so we can stop being threatened with incarceration, not to mention all the other benefits.



lol i just cant get over how lame this guy is thats sum funny shit. he must of paid way to much for a 8th or sum shit today lol


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 29, 2010)

tc1 said:


> Local legislation is a GOOD thing. It allows you, and people who think like you to affect the policies within your local government. A SINGLE person can make a difference at the city level. It takes thousands upon thousands of people and millions of dollars to effect things at the state or federal level.


Local legislation does not need statewide policy. You talk a good game, but if you really believed that one person can effect such radical change, you should be out there doing it. 



tc1 said:


> Under Prop 19, cities are NOT allowed to tax personal grows. The only mention of taxes in Prop 19 is for commercial cultivation and sale. And Prop 19 gives that power to cities to decide.


You can't guarantee that in any way. In fact, the verbiage of the bill allows local government to assess fees and taxes as they see fit for the purpose of regulating the local cannabis industry. 

from the text of the bill:



> * 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.


That bold bit is far too easily interpretable as allowing the taxation of even personal grows. You can claim it doesn't, but I, and anyone with eyes to see it, know better. No matter how much you want to pretend that Prop. 19 makes local government and law enforcement accepting of cannabis, the reality is that voting doesn't make people think different. They just find new loopholes to screw you over with. But pretend on... I'm waiting for the part where you get to unicorns that crap rainbow ice-cream.



tc1 said:


> I'd much rather vote for Prop 19 than tell people they have to be criminals and risk everything for 2 more years. 73 years is long enough ....


Sounds rather like what your willing to tell 18-20 year old voters because you can't stand up for your rights. 73 years is a very long time. Especially when you just sit on the sidelines and let other people do the work. Those of us doing the work don't discount 15 years of progress so easily.


----------



## tc1 (Sep 29, 2010)

What part of:

_(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. _

Don't you understand?

Section 11301 is *COMMERCIAL Regulations and Controls*! Not personal cultivation. There are ZERO taxes for personal cultivation. PERIOD.

And here we go again ... you pretend like you know me and what I've done in my life all while pretending to be some kind of Jack Herer clone. You can't even interpret a bill ... why in the HELL should anyone listen to you?

What a joke ....


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 29, 2010)

tc1 said:


> What part of:
> 
> _(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. _
> 
> ...


Most of your arguments are kinda humorous in that you either believe this tripe and/or you expect others to believe your lying. I suppose the rest of the clause following the reference to 11301 doesn't count? You can play cut-and-paste paraphrase all you want, but the whole sentence doesn't stop because you don't like the bit that comes after. It's pretty simple, really. The clause says that any regulation or ordinance created to regulate commercial sales can be funded by taxes, assessments and fees from ANY activity authorized by regulations. There's nothing in there that says personal cultivation is exempt. You can keep lying and that's fine with me, but no matter how you twist the words here on the internet, it doesn't change the text of the bill.

I'm sorry if my personal life experience bothers you. Maybe if you got off the sidelines and did something, you could participate in story time, too.

Addendum: Upon retrospection, I'd like to thank you for the unintentional compliment. Jack Herer was a selfless, compassionate human being who spent much of his life fighting for true decriminalization/legalization. He fought and spoke for CCHHI 2012 nearly until his dying breath. I wish I had met the man earlier in his life than I did. But even with the various infirmities of his late life, he was still as firey as ever. I should think any person would consider themselves honored to be considered a "clone", even despite your malicious intention.


----------



## teryy (Sep 29, 2010)

If you vote yes youre a dip shit why give them the right to CONTROL,TAX,REGULATE something that is free and of the earth???? Vote no and in do time a bill will come along that we want..We waited this long get a med card and be happy..They dont control and tax roses or fucking daisies.Last time i checked weed is a god given thing why give some one the power to control yet another thing that should be free. If it was free and grew wild who would need a drug war or dealer since you hate them so much..Voting yes will just be turning over the game to a more powerfull evil <dealer> think about it would you vote for water or air to be controlled and taxed?? what god gives people should control not the rich and powers that be.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 29, 2010)

teryy said:


> If you vote yes youre a dip shit why give them the right to CONTROL,TAX,REGULATE something that is free and of the earth???? Vote no and in do time a bill will come along that we want..We waited this long get a med card and be happy..They dont control and tax roses or fucking daisies.Last time i checked weed is a god given thing why give some one the power to control yet another thing that should be free. If it was free and grew wild who would need a drug war or dealer since you hate them so much..Voting yes will just be turning over the game to a more powerfull evil <dealer> think about it would you vote for water or air to be controlled and taxed?? what god gives people should control not the rich and powers that be.



Sadly, air and water are controlled and taxed. You just have to look at your water bill for the taxation part. As far as control, I know I didn't ask them to put chlorine in my water, but it's certainly there. I'm not entirely sure where AQMD pulls their funding from, but if memory from my days working for the county, I know it's not from bake sales and is definitely from public funds. They're the ones who determine acceptable pollution levels and assess the slap-on-the-wrist fines when they screw up. Between advocacy and time spent working for public agencies and private corporations, it shouldn't surprise me what people will do or give up for the sake of profit and a false sense of safety.


----------



## vradd (Sep 29, 2010)

teryy said:


> If you vote yes youre a dip shit why give them the right to CONTROL,TAX,REGULATE something that is free and of the earth???? Vote no and in do time a bill will come along that we want..We waited this long get a med card and be happy..They dont control and tax roses or fucking daisies.Last time i checked weed is a god given thing why give some one the power to control yet another thing that should be free. If it was free and grew wild who would need a drug war or dealer since you hate them so much..Voting yes will just be turning over the game to a more powerfull evil <dealer> think about it would you vote for water or air to be controlled and taxed?? what god gives people should control not the rich and powers that be.


vegetables and fruit is free and of this earth, water is free from the mountains, nothing is america is free anymore, you guys are forgetting this is what our country was founded on. everything that is marketed in america is TAXED. why is that so hard to comprehend? if they want to tax pot thats the govt telling us hey we acknowledge it and if u want it to be marketable then this what needs to be done. why is that such a bad thing? u pay taxes on everything else you have. and people are forgetting that the state tax for CA is a max of 10.75% (including local city taxes) if pot becomes legal it will instantly become a price:demand game. and since they want factories for mass production that means prices will shoot down. hell if ppl would get their head out of their ass's they could stand up to prices now, but ppl would rather let them selves get raped in the wallet and pay street prices at a dispensary that gets to COLLECT and KEEP that money. thousands and thousands of those dollars they keep. its a viscous cycle that revolves around the grower and the dispensary. why do u think so many shops get shut down??? their making more than they should and they dont have to account for it an the govt which allows them to opperate doesnt like that. 

if cities decide to mark up their own taxes well dont blaim that on them, blaim that on the countless growers who arent being accountable for the thousands of dollars they are keeping. wouldnt u rather have some of that money go towards fixing roads and schools and what not? because if its taxed thats what the money HAS to go to. thats why its a tax.

unless your a 100% certified farmer who has a real farm who produces their own livestock or produce you have no right to hate on them taxing pot. only the real farmers should be the ones complaining because thats their lively hood. and im sure they grow and use most of what they grow, and u know what i bet they still go to the store and buy supplies and or produce that they dont grow and pay taxes on it and dont complain.


----------



## tc1 (Sep 29, 2010)

Way to dodge the fact that you are once again wrong TokinPod ....
And nice slant to somehow pretend I was calling you a Jack Here clone.

You aren't even close. Nor would he be happy so many of you are fighting tooth and nail to oppose Prop 19.
I personally know someone who SAT with Jack while he read Prop 19. And guess what? He was in FAVOR of Prop 19.
He knew it has its shortcomings, but he KNEW it was a start. Jack Herer would NEVER ... EVER vote no on a piece of legislation which gives adults the freedom to legally use marijuana and/or hemp. His very own family has stated this.

Your "counter arguments" consist of putting the blinders on even after you have been called out for being wrong.
People like you are the same people it took 100 years to convince that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe despite scientific proof.

Pathetic at best.


----------



## jfa916 (Sep 29, 2010)

legalize marijuana now


----------



## BluffinCali (Sep 29, 2010)

The bill is not going to pass anyways, so all the arguing is really a mute point....


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 29, 2010)

nobody likes an angry pothead. why are all the yes voters so angry?


----------



## Howard Stern (Sep 29, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> nobody likes an angry pothead. why are all the yes voters so angry?


Yeah I thought smoking weed was supposed to calm you down! LOL


----------



## vradd (Sep 29, 2010)

i thot pot was supposed to be the kind bud.

i thot we were all for the same cause, its basically split between those who want to keep their profits rather than just being happy for everyone.


----------



## tc1 (Sep 29, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> nobody likes an angry pothead. why are all the yes voters so angry?


You're kidding right?
The Yes people (especially myself) have been attacked over and over again. Heck, I've even been threatened. (LOL)

But it does get frustrating when people say things like "Let's treat marijuana like alcohol" or "Man ... if they legalized it they could tax" only to see people complain about them being in Prop 19 and telling people to vote no.

It gets frustrating to have people ignore unquestionable facts and unwilling to state they are/were wrong. Not to mention all the hard work activists have worked to pass medical marijuana initiatives only to see medical marijuana patients betray the very people who helped them get their medicine.

I'm not angry at all ... I'm simply looking for a good debate.
But when you prove someone is 100% false and they pretend it didn't happen ... how much more polite can you get?


----------



## vradd (Sep 29, 2010)

hey fdd, your a mod right? werent you and veggie raging pretty bad on the keyboard in my thread? u even made an angry face and locked it lol.

as for my emotions, well it just appalls me the concept of why people want to be greedy instead of being happy for all, and most important why they are complaining about taxes? sir if yall dont like taxes then MOVE. CA is the highest taxing state in the country. i bet you paid taxes on the computer your typing on now. or the electricity your using now.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 29, 2010)

vradd said:


> hey fdd, your a mod right? werent you and veggie raging pretty bad on the keyboard in my thread? u even made an angry face and locked it lol.
> 
> as for my emotions, well it just appalls me the concept of why people want to be greedy instead of being happy for all, and most important why they are complaining about taxes? sir if yall dont like taxes then MOVE. CA is the highest taxing state in the country. i bet you paid taxes on the computer your typing on now. or the electricity your using now.


i locked the thread because the people on the yes side can't stop with the attacks. 

what's an "angry face"? this one ...  ?


----------



## vradd (Sep 29, 2010)

well at least now i know not to take this forum too seriously now if they hire mods with characterizations like yours sir


----------



## BluffinCali (Sep 29, 2010)

It sure does seem like anyone who voices their opinion about not liking the construction of the bill is attacked and called greedy or ignorant, we all have the right to vote as we please, Im sure there are those out there that will simply vote no because they feel it will effect their income, but there is also others like myself that are willing to wait until 2012 and vote yes for a much better piece of legislation. Bottom line for me assuming I do understand the verbage correctly is prop19 will not effect me as an existing medical patient, but I cant even be sure of that because of the way the bill is worded, any assumptions as to what is going to happen if it passes is pure speculation at this point, we can all take our best guesses but no one knows for sure.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 29, 2010)

vradd said:


> well at least now i know not to take this forum too seriously now if they hire mods with characterizations like yours sir


see, an attack. just as stated. so predictable.


----------



## BluffinCali (Sep 29, 2010)

I sure wish the bill spelled out some sort of statewide regulations for the maximum amount of fees and taxes any local jurisdictions could charge for annual garden fees, fees per sq. foot, fee for registering with the county/city etc.


----------



## BluffinCali (Sep 29, 2010)

Your right fdd, if you even mention that you dont support prop19 it seems you get a barrage of comments on how greedy and ignorant you must be....


----------



## tc1 (Sep 29, 2010)

BluffinCali said:


> I sure wish the bill spelled out some sort of statewide regulations for the maximum amount of fees and taxes any local jurisdictions could charge for annual garden fees, fees per sq. foot, fee for registering with the county/city etc.



I hear ya ... but ultimately it would be up to citizens in each city to help create sensible tax laws regarding commercial. Remember, Prop 19 only allows the OPTION of commercial sale. It's main purpose is to legalize the possession, use, cultivation, and transportation of marijuana for adults 21+. All of that is tax free.


----------



## vradd (Sep 29, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> see, an attack. just as stated. so predictable.


your mind tricks wont work on me old man. i am strong in the force.

but i also agree we are all entitled to our opinions. we are merely 4-5 votes compared to the rest of the state.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 29, 2010)

vradd said:


> your mind tricks wont work on me old man. i am strong in the force.
> 
> but i also agree we are all entitled to our opinions. we are merely 4-5 votes compared to the rest of the state.


keep going with the name calling.


----------



## BluffinCali (Sep 29, 2010)

Wouldnt it be up to a board of supervisors in each city to pass their own restrictions, regulations and fee amounts? To my understanding the fees and taxes are not just limited to commercial operations, I know you disagree with that, but they way the darn bill is worded there is no way to be sure. The only positive part I like is the fact that it may be a step in the right direction and the rules/regulations could be amended in the future, but how long would it take for any amendments to happen, I really dont know. I dont mind paying a sales tax if I purchased marijuana, I dont even mind paying a small reasonable fee for having a garden, but the fact that there is no sort of cap for what counties/cities could charge really bugs me. At this point Im personally not freaking out whether it passes or not, I may just abstain from the vote cause I dont see myself changing to a yes vote, I really hope if the bills does pass that it does have a positive effect for everyone in our state, but I think we will see a boom in huge commercial grows mainly indoors, but also outdoors aswell, I forget which tobacco company, I think phillip morris if I remember right has already purchased some outrageous amount of forest land up in the emerald triangle preparing for legalization, maybe thats a good thing, but I honestly dont know how things will be impacted, but in no way would I personally ever vote againist legalization because I was afraid it would cut into my own profits, bottom line is their will always be market for superior quality but their will just be an huge increase in competition....we shall see


----------



## tc1 (Sep 29, 2010)

BluffinCali said:


> Wouldnt it be up to a board of supervisors in each city to pass their own restrictions, regulations and fee amounts? To my understanding the fees and taxes are not just limited to commercial operations, I know you disagree with that, but they way the darn bill is worded there is no way to be sure. The only positive part I like is the fact that it may be a step in the right direction and the rules/regulations could be amended in the future, but how long would it take for any amendments to happen, I really dont know. I dont mind paying a sales tax if I purchased marijuana, I dont even mind paying a small reasonable fee for having a garden, but the fact that there is no sort of cap for what counties/cities could charge really bugs me. At this point Im personally not freaking out whether it passes or not, I may just abstain from the vote cause I dont see myself changing to a yes vote, I really hope if the bills does pass that it does have a positive effect for everyone in our state, but I think we will see a boom in huge commercial grows mainly indoors, but also outdoors aswell, I forget which tobacco company, I think phillip morris if I remember right has already purchased some outrageous amount of forest land up in the emerald triangle preparing for legalization, maybe thats a good thing, but I honestly dont know how things will be impacted, but in no way would I personally ever vote againist legalization because I was afraid it would cut into my own profits, bottom line is their will always be market for superior quality but their will just be an huge increase in competition....we shall see



It would be up to local officials to make tax laws ... indeed. But you and others as citizens have a right to speak loud and have your voice heard.

And Prop 19 is pretty clear regarding taxation. No where in the section regarding what cities are allowed to tax does it mention section 11300. 11300 is the section regarding personal use and cultivation.

If Prop 19 doesn't say they can tax 11300, then it is unlawful for a city to do so.

The taxation section of Prop 19 really isn't that big:

* 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.

_See ... it only speaks of section 11301 with regards to taxation. 11301 is commercial regulation.


----------



## vradd (Sep 29, 2010)

do we all agree that they can only present whats actually on paper?
like, their cant be some secret memo right? wat about changes prior to nov 2nd? can that happen?


----------



## tc1 (Sep 29, 2010)

vradd said:


> do we all agree that they can only present whats actually on paper?
> like, their cant be some secret memo right? wat about changes prior to nov 2nd? can that happen?



Correct. Nothing can be implied. What you see is what you get with regards to Prop 19.

No changes could be made without reintroducing the proposition and regaining signatures. There are time limits as well if im not mistakes. So pretty much impossible.


----------



## BluffinCali (Sep 29, 2010)

If indeed the case is local counties/cities arent going to be taxing culitvation of their 5x5 area by the sq. footage, or any annual garden taxes/fees, basicly any fee or tax to the private person except for sales tax when purchasing marijuana, then I think that would clear up part of my own personal issues. I also want to be guaranteed that it wont in any way effect the current medical rights patients have through prop215 as it is today, which I dont know if anyone can guarantee that it wont. My worry has never been about prop19 effecting any profits I may make, its always been about what how far is the government going to go with the "taxing, regulating and controling" of marijuana, I do think marijuana should be legal for any adult, its less harmful than tobacco or alcohol with very little chance for any kind of physical addiction, it truely is a miracle plant that one day will be looked at very differently than what early political propaganda did to generations. Its insane that our government hardly even allows for the correct and affective studying of marijuana, who knows how all different cannabinoids could help suffering people. Anyways sorry for going on, those have been most of problems Im having with prop19, it seems if it were a more plainly written so people had a clearer understanding of how the bill would directly effect the main issue of legalization and at what cost to everyone in our state and mainly the medical community as a whole.


----------



## vradd (Sep 29, 2010)

bluffincali, do you agree that if its being stated on paper that, that is the intent, nothing more nothing less? and that the govt would be held to uphold what they are presenting in black and white?

i think people are paranoid that the govt is on a secret plot to have secret agendas. well remember if they did it would be the politicians who would be supporting it, WE THE PEOPLE elect who we want to represent our rights.

this isnt area 51 people are forgetting that this is just a plant. a natural element in the life kingdom


----------



## BluffinCali (Sep 29, 2010)

I think alot of the bill and the way its worded can be interpreted in slightly different ways and possibly abused by local governments to further complicate the issue. I dont really know of anyone who is implying secret government plots, I think people are worried that if it does get passed and there are considerable problems that arise, it will take signifigant time to try and get parts of the bill amended to fix the problems. Of course "we the people" elect the officials, not sure what that has to do with the bill or why you reference area 51, Who exactly is forgetting that marijuana is a natural plant? Theres not a grip of people that use marijuana or medical patients that are opposed to this bill solely because they're thinking they wont be able to sell their own pot, there are some fundamental problems with this bill and maybe its just the way its worded but its obvious that a large portion can be interpreted differently. If I was the average purely recreational user without a recommendation then I imagine I would be all for this bill cause it would allow to grow 1 plant outside or a few inside, cause thats all thats fitting in 5x5 area, none of this has anything to do with govt. conspiracies, not sure where that idea came from.


----------



## vradd (Sep 30, 2010)

its being intrepetid in many ways due in part to paranoia , the people who are used to a set standard now might have to readjust themselves as our society moves forward. do you think the people will let the cities go crazy on these ordinances? do you think city councils would risk mass protests if they tried to get to wild with taxation? 

govt sets high taxes->people dont like and mass protests begin->no one buys pot and perhaps it gets boycotted, and the underground market continues->cops are being brought in to maintain these peaceful protests->cops are working over time because of this and no revenue is being brought in with said taxation money.

and if something does goes wrong with the measure, it would just as easily be able to get a court order on it to put it on hold if need be, its the same thing with gay marriages, one day its legal next day court has a hold on it. im sure they would have the same power to put a hold on pot if needed.

the area 51 comment was just extra jibberish to the paranoia statements.

again its the people who are taking a proposition thats clearly written in black and white text and trying to read inbetween the fine lines when their is none. their is none because it would be illegal if their was a fine print. remember this prop is to give power to your local jurisdiction. if they decide not to be tax friendly maybe its because theirs a bigger picture involved because they have reports of high potential revenue, or maybe it'll play out backwards and tax more for those who grow less because they'd see other cities make up their lowered friendlier taxes by the amount of those who participate.

again no one really knows how this would pan out, but if its already been proven countless times with actual text that it WILL NOT affect 215 users one bit, then why not vote yes? it helps you it helps me and it helps start getting the roots down into the 'system' that if we can make this work as a society maybe big brother change its views and other states will follow suite.

nothings perfect the first time around but if your truley supportive of pot and your not a big grower then why not. lets see wat happens. remember we are still considered a new and young country. all we gotta do is keep standing up for ourselves and we will be heard.


----------



## BluffinCali (Sep 30, 2010)

I dont expect it to be perfect, but to say its black and white I believe is a bit of an exaggeration, but I totally understand why you support the bill, but at the same time it seems like the "yes voters" dont understand how anyone who smokes pot could oppose this bill. On the surface it does seem strange and for those out their that are just voting no because their indeed scared about not be able to move their own product, well that is a tad greedy, but who am I or anyone else to tell someone dont think about yourself, think about the greater good, its just not a for sure thing the prop19 is actually for the greater good. I dont see one way this bill will help me, actually I know for a fact that this bill will do nothing to help me in any way,shape or form. Ive had my recommendation since 2003, Ive gone through the different ups and downs and seen how much prop215 has even made this notion of legalization actually have a chance to pass, that is all because of the slow de-sensitizing of our society to the fact that marijuana is one of the safest drugs on the planet, and whether used recreationally or medical purposes for those who choose to take advantage of maybe the most incredible plant we've been blessed with. Its just like you last sentence implies "lets vote yes and see what happens...", Id like to vote and know what will happen if a particular bill passes, thats how voting works, if not how do you actually make an informed vote if all you know is the wording but not the actual effect it will have in our state.


----------



## tc1 (Sep 30, 2010)

It's hard to understand why marijuana users would vote no because Prop 19 ensures that ALL marijuana users 21+ are allowed to possess, cultivation, use, and transport marijuana without going to jail.

It allows for commercial sale of marijuana.

It takes away the ability for law enforcement to threaten or execute searches and seizures because of marijuana-related activity. (this HELPS 215 people)

It gives discrimination rights to marijuana users for employment. "Bye bye marijuana drug testing". (this HELPS 215 people)

It allows for the production of industrial hemp.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 30, 2010)

tc1 said:


> It's hard to understand why marijuana users would vote no because Prop 19 ensures that ALL marijuana users 21+ are allowed to possess, cultivation, use, and transport marijuana without going to jail.


And just because you're willing to throw people under the bus so you don't have to grow a backbone, doesn't mean the rest of us would.



tc1 said:


> It allows for commercial sale of marijuana.


 Here's your one kernel of truth. The fact that you are so willing to welcome big business says all that needs to be said for your viewpoints.



tc1 said:


> It takes away the ability for law enforcement to threaten or execute searches and seizures because of marijuana-related activity. (this HELPS 215 people)


 You need to make up your mind. This either does or does not affect Prop. 215. In either case, it's still a crock of shit. Law enforcement and local authorities will ALWAYS find ways to bust pot smokers and growers. There's nothing you can vote in to make them change their minds or attitudes towards cannabis users.



tc1 said:


> It gives discrimination rights to marijuana users for employment. "Bye bye marijuana drug testing". (this HELPS 215 people)


There's nothing in the bill that guarantees that. I'll be interested to see how you try and prove that one. Not to mention that a state initiative has no bearing or authority over a Congressional Act.



tc1 said:


> It allows for the production of industrial hemp.


 Possibly yes. Of course, it'll be commercial interests who corner the industry and do what they do best. I leave that to each person to decide if that's a good or bad thing. I'm not sure how many public health and/or safety crises have to happen before people get that bigger isn't better


----------



## tc1 (Sep 30, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> And just because you're willing to throw people under the bus so you don't have to grow a backbone, doesn't mean the rest of us would.
> 
> Here's your one kernel of truth. The fact that you are so willing to welcome big business says all that needs to be said for your viewpoints.
> 
> ...


Prop 19 DOESN'T effect Prop 215. However, there are things in Prop 19 which benefit both medical and recreational users. 
If you can't grasp that idea ... you're too obtuse and ignorant to even bother replying to anymore.


And you call me a troll? lol

Trolls ignore facts, sensible logic, and lack the proper skills to relay a point in conventional ways.. You are the troll sir.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 30, 2010)

good ole tc1... makin' my points for me.


----------



## mrFancyPlants (Sep 30, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> The fact that you are so willing to welcome big business says all that needs to be said for your viewpoints.


Why does "business" automatically mean "big business"? The biggest businesses are federally regulated and won't touch the market with a 6' bong. The medical market is full of 'businesses' but I don't see Pfizer running a dispensary yet.



TokinPodPilot said:


> Law enforcement and local authorities will ALWAYS find ways to bust pot smokers and growers. There's nothing you can vote in to make them change their minds or attitudes towards cannabis users.


"Nothing you can do... hey, vote for my competing prop in 2012!" You sound like a paranoid stoner who's more connected to the scary pictures in his head than reality.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 30, 2010)

mrFancyPlants said:


> Why does "business" automatically mean "big business"? The biggest businesses are federally regulated and won't touch the market with a 6' bong. The medical market is full of 'businesses' but I don't see Pfizer running a dispensary yet.
> 
> "Nothing you can do... hey, vote for my competing prop in 2012!" You sound like a paranoid stoner who's more connected to the scary pictures in his head than reality.


These are amusing delusions. I'm not the one saying there's nothing anyone can do. I'm the one that has been telling people to stand up for their rights. I'm not paranoid, nor is my head full of scary pictures. If painting me so makes you feel better, then whatever floats your boat. Personal attacks are a common response when one can't argue reason.


----------



## mrFancyPlants (Sep 30, 2010)

Nice! Say things that mean one thing, then pretend you didn't and imply I'm the bad guy for pointing them out. I'm sure you and tc1 wouldn't know anything about personal attacks.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 30, 2010)

mrFancyPlants said:


> Nice! Say things that mean one thing, then pretend you didn't and imply I'm the bad guy for pointing them out.


Since the point has flown so far over your head as to be in high orbit, let me explain the delusion part. Just because YOU are mistakenly under the impression that big business won't enter the recreational cannabis market because of federal regulation, doesn't make it so. You're a bad guy for name-calling and general poor conduct, not for your "arguments". 



mrFancyPlants said:


> I'm sure you and tc1 wouldn't know anything about personal attacks.


So, even if true, other people act wrongfully, so your response is to do the same. Excellent ethos.


----------



## mrFancyPlants (Sep 30, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Since the point has flown so far over your head as to be in high orbit


Wow! You're such a nice guy! Thanks for pointing out my delusion.



TokinPodPilot said:


> that big business won't enter the recreational cannabis market because of federal regulation, doesn't make it so.


Except that we've had legal medical cannabis for years and they haven't made a move yet. I'm sure they will any day now though, right?



TokinPodPilot said:


> Excellent ethos.


Well you know I've learned from the best.



tc1 said:


> It allows for commercial sale of marijuana.





TokinPodPilot said:


> Here's your one kernel of truth. The fact that you are so willing to welcome big business says all that needs to be said for your viewpoints.


commercial == big business. You said it, not me.



tc1 said:


> It takes away the ability for law enforcement to threaten or execute searches and seizures because of marijuana-related activity. (this HELPS 215 people)





TokinPodPilot said:


> Law enforcement and local authorities will ALWAYS find ways to bust pot smokers and growers. There's nothing you can vote in to make them change their minds or attitudes towards cannabis users.


Damn dude, sorry for making that up. Maybe your cat typed it while it walked across your keyboard?

I'm sorry for all of these 'personal' attacks... I guess I can't pick on your logic or characterize your statements without personally attacking you, right?


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 30, 2010)

mrFancyPlants said:


> Wow! You're such a nice guy! Thanks for pointing out my delusion.


Never claimed to be nice. You're the one concerned with "niceness". Your arguments are rubbish and I have no qualms about saying it.



mrFancyPlants said:


> Except that we've had legal medical cannabis for years and they haven't made a move yet. I'm sure they will any day now though, right?


The fact that you can't seem to be able to comprehend the differences between the existing quasi-legal commercially prohibitive medical cannabis industry and fully-actualized commercial cannabis says it all. Well done.



mrFancyPlants said:


> Well you know I've learned from the best.


I'm sure you believe so.



mrFancyPlants said:


> commercial == big business. You said it, not me.


Very good. I've never contended otherwise. 



mrFancyPlants said:


> Damn dude, sorry for making that up. Maybe your cat typed it while it walked across your keyboard?
> 
> I'm sorry for all of these 'personal' attacks... I guess I can't pick on your logic or characterize your statements without personally attacking you, right?


It would be better if you could stick to picking AT my logic and just characterizing statements. Personal attacks are a poor substitute for good argumentation.


----------



## mrFancyPlants (Sep 30, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Never claimed to be nice.


Ahh, no, but you do imply that you're above it all. And there you go with claiming I personally attacked you again... 

I'm beginning to think the entire forum should be closed. All it's doing is dividing stoners.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 30, 2010)

mrFancyPlants said:


> Ahh, no, but you do imply that you're above it all. And there you go with claiming I personally attacked you again...


I certainly do try not to succumb to the pettiness that intense debates can incur. That's a habit left over from high school forensics, and once again, I'm sorry if my sensibilities bother you so much. I didn't say you attacked me again. I made a statement about the use of personal attacks instead of good argumentation.



mrFancyPlants said:


> I'm beginning to think the entire forum should be closed. All it's doing is dividing stoners.


It's too rough for you, so we all should just give up. That's a common sentiment amongst the proponents. "There's no way we can get real decriminalization!! We have to just settle for whatever comes our way!" My answer is still the same. Just because you don't have the resolve and determination to fight, doesn't mean the rest of us give up. Diversity of opinion doesn't scare me and I welcome challenge.


----------



## mrFancyPlants (Sep 30, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> It's too rough for you, so we all should just give up.


And there you go again... who are you arguing with? Me? Because you don't seem to be responding to what *I* said.

How does "dividing stoners" == "too rough for me"? 

You make accusations of personal attacks when none have been made, then you make an implicit one by twisting my words.

I can't wait to see what you read into this post.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 30, 2010)

I'm not the one commenting on closing forums because people don't agree with each other. Please continue with the tirade. The Daily Show has been lacking in Glenn Beck clips lately, so this fits the bill nicely.


----------

