# The RIU prop19 poll vote here.(california resident only pleace)



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

yes or no on prop19 lets have it.(california resident only pleace)


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

can evry one vote or what?


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

vote on this poll


----------



## miteubhi? (Sep 15, 2010)

No. No corporate Mary in the 805.

I expect this type of thread to become very popular in the coming months.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

and the nos take the lead


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

come on where are all the voters


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 16, 2010)

tied up again


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 16, 2010)

nos have it


----------



## kusdoctor1 (Sep 16, 2010)

I vote hell no they are expecting that we are all dumb ignorant pot heads and that all they have to do to hide their hidden agenda is say legalize marijauna news flash its already legal and in our hands the peoples hands the patients hands hell its the only thing keeping cali's economy alive. If you vote yes on prop 19 your an idiot. Read up on what you are voting for , don't give away all the progress we have made things are perfect the way they are, get a state issued medical card from your county's health department grow your own meds or support your local collectives *vote no on prop 19 vote no on prop 19 vote no on prop 19*


----------



## miteubhi? (Sep 17, 2010)

kusdoctor1 said:


> I vote hell no they are expecting that we are all dumb ignorant pot heads and that all they have to do to hide their hidden agenda is say legalize marijauna news flash its already legal and in our hands the peoples hands the patients hands hell its the only thing keeping cali's economy alive. If you vote yes on prop 19 your an idiot. Read up on what you are voting for , don't give away all the progress we have made things are perfect the way they are, get a state issued medical card from your county's health department grow your own meds or support your local collectives *vote no on prop 19 vote no on prop 19 vote no on prop 19*


Yup. It seems silly that people think this is legalization.

It's just the opposite.


----------



## homer371 (Sep 17, 2010)

I'm no expert, but I think voting no is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I'm voting *YES*, because:
- thousands of Californians are having their lives ruined every year for posession. Passing prop 19 will stop this.
- it will lower prices for everyone (sucks for sellers, GREAT for everyone else).
- despite the lower prices, the tax revenue alone will be in the hundreds of millions, something California needs now.
- it will normalize the perception of pot across the state, which will gradually spread across the country.
- it will help curb the pot related violence in the Mexico border

Sure, there are aspects of the law that aren't good, especially for people who are making huge profits right now. But we should look at the bigger picture. I would MUCH live in a California during the next 2, 4, 6 years with an imperfect legalization law, than continue with this *oppressive *prohibition.

Listen to Lester Grinspoon, listen to Jack Herrer's family, to NORML, to Cheech and Chong for crying out loud...

Vote YES!


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

please do not place any suggestions on rather to vote no or yes.
lets try and keep this thread non-biest.
thank you.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

tied up agian


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 18, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> yes or no on prop19 lets have it.(california resident only pleace)


lol. So your side lost the last prop 19 vote on this forum so you're going for do-overs? lol. have fun

if at first you don't succeed, fail, fail again


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 18, 2010)

kusdoctor1 said:


> *vote no on prop 19 vote no on prop 19 vote no on prop 19*


I find this to be a particularly compelling argument for supporting prohibition. Thanks for that.


----------



## SB Garlic (Sep 18, 2010)

miteubhi? said:


> No. No corporate Mary in the 805.
> 
> I expect this type of thread to become very popular in the coming months.


lol u must be joking, the 805 would be the last place ever to see corporate weed.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 18, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> lol. So your side lost the last prop 19 vote on this forum so you're going for do-overs? lol. have fun
> 
> if at first you don't succeed, fail, fail again


 
Im sorry I didnt see the other poll for prop 19 on this site Ive only seen the one for the war on drugs.
I love that this country gives people the right to hate others for thier beliefs.
Its the American way and a right that I would die and kill for.

After being threatened,namecalled,and down right put down for going public with my choice to vote NO on prop19 buy my fellow RIU members Ive decided to vote YES!


Yeah right, Ive made my line im ready to fight to the end win or loose for my beliefs so.

and one other thing, dont quote me boy cause I aint said shit!


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 18, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> Im sorry I didnt see the other poll for prop 19 on this site Ive only seen the one for the war on drugs.


ok. fair enough.



> After being threatened,namecalled,and down right put down for going public with my choice to vote NO on prop19 buy my fellow RIU members Ive decided to vote YES!


don't be such a drama queen. No one is threatening you. People are putting you down only because you tend to make stuff up and try to scare people into agreeing with you.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 18, 2010)

YES outnumbers NO almost 2-1 now on this poll.
Keep it up!


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 18, 2010)

ok well lets just agree to disaree then.

I just want to see where the california members of RIU stand on this sudject overall.So lets keep the votes coming


Thanks for the votes everyone.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 18, 2010)

If we were to require age to be mentioned, I'd say the vote is over 35, no, and under 35, yes(except for the older ones that want to get rich, killing sick people).

No, I DIDN'T say vote yes or no!

LOL


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 19, 2010)

this poll is getting interesting


----------



## deprave (Sep 19, 2010)

I wasnt going to vote since im not a california resident then I look at the thing and I see peoples names on both yes and no that are not California residents so I just went ahead and voted anyway lol


----------



## CultivationArt (Sep 19, 2010)

Iv never acually seen no take the lead in any threads. lol
i dont think its gonna pass because of you guys, id like it to
no argue, i know the truth behind it, im just willin to accept it.
im ok with it. but im defintily voting yes


----------



## RxReefer (Sep 27, 2010)

Ok, Ok.... I know this is a fairly pot friendly forum. However, some of us oppose Prop 19 for very obvious reasons. Here are the best reasons I have seen so far as to why we should oppose Prop 19:


www.opposeprop19.com


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 27, 2010)

RxReefer said:


> Ok, Ok.... I know this is a fairly pot friendly forum. However, some of us oppose Prop 19 for very obvious reasons. Here are the best reasons I have seen so far as to why we should oppose Prop 19:
> 
> 
> www.opposeprop19.com


Anyone who has been in this for any amount of time knows about Harry's affiliation with William Randolph Hearst.

He was influenced by big business because making Cannabis illegal increased the value of Hearst's timber holdings, many times over.

His reasons for Cannabis prohibition are the same as those supporting 19.

Money and power.


----------



## Cali.Grown>408 (Sep 27, 2010)

im voting no cuz i dont want things to change for the worst..by what i hear and what i have read it sounds like there ganna try to fuk us over..but if prop 19 REALLY doesn't conflict with prop 215 then im all for it


----------



## Matt Rize (Sep 27, 2010)

http://www.steephilllab.com/industry...t-oct-2010.pdf

Here goes Steep Hill Lab's report, They cover some of the possible affects of Prop on 19 on medical Cannabis.

"1- Shrinking of doctors&#8217; sector. It seems feasible that if patients can get their cannabis without a doctor&#8217;s recommendation, they will do so.

2- Reduction of cannabis price overall. While this seems inevitable, Prop. 19 passing or not, the passing could speed up the process. Low income patients who cannot afford recommendations would be able to utilize local dispensaries. The increased demand would be met with increased supply and increased competition from dispensaries. This is a recipe for lower prices on the retail side.

3- Increased effort from outdoor growers to market their products. Outdoor cannabis is far cheaper to produce than indoor. With more price declines, outdoor cannabis becomes more competitive. Technological advances in outdoor growing are already closing the gap between indoor and high- end outdoor quality cannabis. With marketing, consumers may begin to migrate back to outdoor cannabis. 

4- Expansion of capital investment from other industries. Investors are waiting for legalization. Hundreds of millions of dollars will &#64258;ow into the industry over the next &#64257;ve years." 

Big up the researchers! Some really interesting ideas here, like the outdoor gaining in popularity. GO STEEP HILL LAB!


----------



## Matt Rize (Sep 27, 2010)

Cali.Grown>408 said:


> im voting no cuz i dont want things to change for the worst..by what i hear and what i have read it sounds like there ganna try to fuk us over..but if prop 19 REALLY doesn't conflict with prop 215 then im all for it


AGREED. And we won't really know how that may play out unless it passes...so what will we do Californians? I heard 49% yes and 42% no.


----------



## Cali.Grown>408 (Sep 28, 2010)

with all the people who smoke weed im thinking it will pass but hoping it wont..and if it does i sure hope they dont fuk over us growers


----------



## Matt Rize (Sep 29, 2010)

http://podcasts.dreamhosters.com/pcr/CannabisCuts/CannabisCuts-20100928.mp3

Big up Pirate Cat radio, Cannabis Cuts, and DeeJay Wiid.

This debate gets HEATED. Highlights include a challenge to go outside and fight, a challenge of baketball: Kushman with a joint in his mouth vs Rev Allen, and the Rev. gets corrected repeatedly by the moderator. LOL


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 30, 2010)

The latest poll of 2,004 likely voters throughout the state by the Public Policy Institute of California reports that *52 percent of Californians back Prop. 19, versus 41 percent opposed* and seven percent undecided.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 30, 2010)

* Eyes wide open! *

After much reading and much support for this proposition, I must reveal my new *opposition*.
I have picked it apart a few times, racked my head over a few times and came to this conclusion.
There is way too many restriction put upon the average user/cultivator!
As backwards as that sounds.
This carefully scripted paper truly opens the door *only* for big business.
Without large collateral, any budding entrepreneurs have no chance of success and that is apparently intentional!
I cannot in good mind, back something that crushes the "little guy".
Instead, I think we should focus our efforts towards influencing our Governor to sign the bill lessening possession charges. This bill has already made it through and is sitting on his desk.

In short I say this...,

Don't vote *Yes*, or *No*. Vote *Next!*​


----------



## tc1 (Sep 30, 2010)

Average restrictions?


Right now ... the average person can't use or grow marijuana period.


----------



## khm916 (Sep 30, 2010)

tc1 said:


> Average restrictions?
> 
> 
> Right now ... the average person can't use or grow marijuana period.


The average Californian can....if you think otherwise its called 215. If marijuana betters your life in any way, you can get a script.


----------



## tc1 (Sep 30, 2010)

khm916 said:


> The average Californian can....if you think otherwise its called 215. If marijuana betters your life in any way, you can get a script.




You guys keep saying this. But that's not what Prop 215 says.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 30, 2010)

tc1 said:


> You guys keep saying this. But that's not what Prop 215 says.


And you keep saying that. It's not our fault that we can read and only have like 15 years of legal precedent to back us up.


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 1, 2010)

This is all very frustrating, I literally cannot believe that so many people here do not want legalization in california.

I am voting Yes on 19 and campaigning everyday until Nov 2 to help encourage others to vote Yes.
All of you that say we already have legalization because of 215 are quite frankly lying to yourselves. Having to pay a fee for a Dr's recommendation and medical card every year in order to not end up in jail is NOT legalization. When Prop 19 passes we will not have to waste our money on these stupid recommendations.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 1, 2010)

luvourmother said:


> This is all very frustrating, I literally cannot believe that so many people here do not want legalization in california.


Once again, just because you can't tell the difference from a legitimate legalization/decriminalization bill and a commercialization one doesn't mean the rest of us stop using our brains. As a long time proponent of decriminalization and responsible legalization, the potential flows of this bill are all too apparent and the powers granted to local municipalities give them far too much license to circumscribe the lives of the populace regardless of will of the people.



luvourmother said:


> I am voting Yes on 19 and campaigning everyday until Nov 2 to help encourage others to vote Yes.
> All of you that say we already have legalization because of 215 are quite frankly lying to yourselves. Having to pay a fee for a Dr's recommendation and medical card every year in order to not end up in jail is NOT legalization. When Prop 19 passes we will not have to waste our money on these stupid recommendations.


No, instead you'll waste your money on consumption and use taxes and also have to comp the retailer the other associated fees incurred as natural consequence of commercial ventures. No one goes to jail for simple possession. Currently they'll get a misdemeanor and $100 fine. Come January 1, they'll just get a ticket.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 1, 2010)

The YES votes hit 60%

Nice ...


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 2, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Once again, just because you can't tell the difference from a legitimate legalization/decriminalization bill and a commercialization one doesn't mean the rest of us stop using our brains. As a long time proponent of decriminalization and responsible legalization, the potential flows of this bill are all too apparent and the powers granted to local municipalities give them far too much license to circumscribe the lives of the populace regardless of will of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> No, instead you'll waste your money on consumption and use taxes and also have to comp the retailer the other associated fees incurred as natural consequence of commercial ventures. No one goes to jail for simple possession. Currently they'll get a misdemeanor and $100 fine. Come January 1, they'll just get a ticket.


Have you read the bill? It is very similar to 215 with the allowances of counties and cities to draft their own legislation. Guess what dude? I am interested in having a LEGITIMATE marijuana business so prop 19 is great for me and others that want to provide quality buds above the law. All of you growers that use 215 as protection are doing exactly that USING and ABUSING the medical system. Under 215 you cannot legally make a profit and most of you growers here do not follow this and profit heavily from selling medicine to patients, sad.
As for decriminalization, yes its great that we won't have to face a judge anymore for small amounts, however possession of small amounts will still result in a criminal record, so its not even close to enough to keep us safe out there. 

I am not going to waste any money buying commercialized weed because I will choose to grow my own, just the same as I do now. which will cost me a fraction of the price it currently does bc I want need an expensive dr's rec to have my own plants anymore or to get clones.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 2, 2010)

luvourmother said:


> Have you read the bill? It is very similar to 215 with the allowances of counties and cities to draft their own legislation. Guess what dude? I am interested in having a LEGITIMATE marijuana business so prop 19 is great for me and others that want to provide quality buds above the law. All of you growers that use 215 as protection are doing exactly that USING and ABUSING the medical system. Under 215 you cannot legally make a profit and most of you growers here do not follow this and profit heavily from selling medicine to patients, sad.
> As for decriminalization, yes its great that we won't have to face a judge anymore for small amounts, however possession of small amounts will still result in a criminal record, so its not even close to enough to keep us safe out there.


Ahh, so not just greedy and profiteering with looking to generate a new business, but also one of the "Prop. 215 is being abused" crowd. Excellent. There is no abuse of the medical system. Anyone and everyone that finds any benefit to their well-being or health is allowed to have a medical recommendation. Those who are not able or are unwilling to grow for themselves look to the growers to provide them with the medicine they need. I fail to see what the problem of them not being able to openly profit off their patients. Where you see abuse, I see people working under the restrictive auspices of not-for-profit models who make a moderate living. I love how you can promote your agenda of profiteering off cannabis users, but demonize those that provide for them now. It's a nice hypocrisy you live your life by.

As far as this notion of a criminal record of your infractions. I'm not even sure I can call that fear-mongering since you'd have to be pretty dense and afraid of everything including shadows to believe that tripe.



luvourmother said:


> I am not going to waste any money buying commercialized weed because I will choose to grow my own, just the same as I do now. which will cost me a fraction of the price it currently does bc I want need an expensive dr's rec to have my own plants anymore or to get clones.


You can and apparently DO do this now. You don't need Prop. 19 to do so and any assumption that it will be less expensive than a recommendation is just your opinion.


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 3, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Ahh, so not just greedy and profiteering with looking to generate a new business, but also one of the "Prop. 215 is being abused" crowd. Excellent. There is no abuse of the medical system. Anyone and everyone that finds any benefit to their well-being or health is allowed to have a medical recommendation. Those who are not able or are unwilling to grow for themselves look to the growers to provide them with the medicine they need. I fail to see what the problem of them not being able to openly profit off their patients. Where you see abuse, I see people working under the restrictive auspices of not-for-profit models who make a moderate living. I love how you can promote your agenda of profiteering off cannabis users, but demonize those that provide for them now. It's a nice hypocrisy you live your life by.
> 
> As far as this notion of a criminal record of your infractions. I'm not even sure I can call that fear-mongering since you'd have to be pretty dense and afraid of everything including shadows to believe that tripe.
> 
> ...


You assume a lot here!
anyone that makes a profit off of medical marijuana patients is abusing our current system. Profiting off of medical patients is wrong and against 215. I live in LA where most of the medical providers were shut down because they were not operating under 215, you are vastly mis-informed if you think otherwise. 
it is wrong to profit off of medical mj patients, which is why I don't want to make a living this way. Medical patients will still be covered under 19, having investments in a for profit recreational marijuana business is not hypocritical , it is wanting to follow the laws.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 3, 2010)

I am re-posting this here because I dont know if too many people saw it or not. I had posted this in its own thread yesterday...

The Ruiners' Hypothetical Questions to 19 Supporters 
Since there is so much debate over the 5x5 and cultivation in general, and the (possible) overlap between that part of the bill and the CUA/MMP, if 19 passes, will people still be able to get doctors rec's and, by what everyone is saying, cultivate however much they want, without restrictions in regards to growing space? Therefore, in order to be part of the action in commerce, ordinary people will simply need to get a doctors rec to grow, and distribute as much as they possibly can to dispensaries and other patients, and quite possibly to the "black market" ? What would be the point of passing all new legislation that can be so easily cast aside? What good does 19 do the state, if all it takes to avoid what will more than likely be thousands of dollars in taxes annually is a $35 doctors rec? Wouldn't that just be, as supporters of the bill have put it "more of the same"? Also, how could the commercial interests backing 19 benefit from making it legal for the entire 21 and over population of the state to possess cannabis if they cant possibly compete with a market that has way more advantages in regards to abundant supply and more relaxed regulations? On the flip side of this coin, what will be the motivation for the "casual smoker" to patronize the commercial establishments, with their elevated overhead and strict regulatory scrutiny which will more than likely spell higher prices, versus just getting the doctors rec and going medical? 

It just doesnt make sense to me that people with millions riding on the passage and eventual commercial sales of MJ to leave a less regulated and more than likely less expensive competitor. It doesnt make sense to make things harder on yourself, and to pay millions of dollars to do it. It just doesn't make sense for 19 to leave 215 intact if EVERYTHING that is being SAID about 215 being left intact is true.

I would really appreciate someone who fancies themselves as well-versed in 19 to respond.​
So, I did say "millions", but in reality its billions of dollars....which to me makes 19 make less sense...still waiting for answers though!


----------



## tc1 (Oct 3, 2010)

The Yes vote is pulling away ....


----------



## khm916 (Oct 7, 2010)

If we only can get 62% on a MARIJUANA GROWING SITE....that only has pro marijuana members, How does anyone expect this to pass in the real world.


----------



## klmmicro (Oct 7, 2010)

This is not a good cross section of the general population. Read through many of the threads about Prop 19 on this site and you will see that many voting "no" have reasons to vote no. Some are in jeopardy of losing their livelihood, hence they want things to stay as they are. Some are anti anything that says "business" and see it as evil. Instead of paying attention to anything here, ask people who are not closely associated with "pot" and see what they say.


----------



## innout (Oct 7, 2010)

im voteing yes. i cant believe people are voting no on this.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 7, 2010)

I'm voting no. I can't believe that people still can't tell the difference between a decriminalization/legalization bill and a commercialization/industrialization bill.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 8, 2010)

khm916 said:


> If we only can get 62% on a MARIJUANA GROWING SITE....that only has pro marijuana members, How does anyone expect this to pass in the real world.


It's because the people who are voting no have fallen prey to mass hysteria or think they are going to lose money if it passes.



TokinPodPilot said:


> I'm voting no. I can't believe that people still can't tell the difference between a decriminalization/legalization bill and a commercialization/industrialization bill.


I do and I get it, If marijuana is ever going to be legal it will have to be commercialized and industrialized just like alcohol and tobacco. Politicians and lobbiest could care less about you me or anyone else who uses it for normal purposes and not to get rich. This WORLD is built on money, money money. If you think a bill will ever pass to make marijuana just legal and not a industrial, you are really delusional.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 8, 2010)

Marijuana users make up a very small minority of registered voters.

If Prop 19 passes, it will be because average Joes and Janes believe this war is lost, costing money and ruining the lives of peaceful people

62% is pretty good for a site with a lot of 215 patients and growers. (most of the anti-prop 19'ers inside the marijuana community)


----------



## d r0cK (Oct 8, 2010)

vote yes. its for the good of CA. it opens a whole new industry for growth, jobs, income and numerous benefits... puts wasted money, in a war that will never be won, towards more important deeds. given the financial situation of CA it can only help. it's not about you, it's about all of us.


----------



## fatfarmer (Oct 31, 2010)

Dealers look out for #1. Thats why they say NO! I just want to be free to do what I feel is good for me and my love ones around me. Do we that live in states that fuck you for a joint not have same rights as all MMJ users do? wish I did! Tokers are to stand together till this war is over for all of us.Please free us we are in pain and stress and all we can do is take a doc. pill or drink and both are bad and no better then pot .Help us please!


----------



## newatit2010 (Oct 31, 2010)

I don't live in California but I would vote NO. Somebody is trying to fuck up what you all have going.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 31, 2010)

newatit2010 said:


> I don't live in California but I would vote NO. Somebody is trying to fuck up what you all have going.


Finally!

Someone who can see beyond his next doobie!


----------



## desert dude (Oct 31, 2010)

newatit2010 said:


> I don't live in California but I would vote NO. Somebody is trying to fuck up what you all have going.


I do live in California and I ALREADY DID VOTE YES. We are never going to end the horrific drug war by sitting on our asses saying, "wait till the next ballot initiative, that one will be totally awesome..." Herer's initiative won't be on 2012 ballot. 

Prop 19 is your chance to begin to end the drug war. If you are not part of the narco-prison complex then vote yes on P19.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 31, 2010)

I got 8lbs of doobies, and would still vote yes. 
If they hadn't taken that right,.......... for possession of marijuana!


----------



## desert dude (Oct 31, 2010)

Why is this poll "closed"?


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 31, 2010)

desert dude said:


> If you are not part of the narco-prison complex then vote yes on P19.


Wow...again with the "With us or against us" demagoguery.


----------



## GNOME GROWN (Oct 31, 2010)

im not from cali,i also didnt read much up on this,but can someone please explain why u would want to vote no?...isnt prop19 for legalization of marijuana?!?


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 31, 2010)

GNOME GROWN said:


> im not from cali,i also didnt read much up on this,but can someone please explain why u would want to vote no?...isnt prop19 for legalization of marijuana?!?


No. It is about control of Cannabis by a small group of wealthy businessmen.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 31, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> No. It is about control of Cannabis by a small group of wealthy businessmen.


And a total hand-out/compromise with law enforcement to criminalize the thousands and thousands of medical growers.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 31, 2010)

GNOME GROWN said:


> im not from cali,i also didnt read much up on this,but can someone please explain why u would want to vote no?...isnt prop19 for legalization of marijuana?!?


They won't give the real answer anyways.... Most of the ones voting no have personal motivation to avoid taxation on the "medicine" they sell back to dispensaries for one, they also fear their massive gardens may be reduced to 5' x 5', even though the prop specifically states it would not. Some are also upset that the law makes it a felony to provide or smoke marijuana with those under 18 years of age.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 31, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> No. It is about control of Cannabis by a small group of wealthy businessmen.


How do you give control to a few wealthy businessmen when you are allowing private, non-declared marijuana gardens all over the state? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 31, 2010)

Serapis said:


> They won't give the real answer anyways.... Most of the ones voting no have personal motivation to avoid taxation on the "medicine" they sell back to dispensaries for one, they also fear their massive gardens may be reduced to 5' x 5', even though the prop specifically states it would not. Some are also upset that the law makes it a felony to provide or smoke marijuana with those under 18 years of age.


Why would we give the real answers when we have all of you pro-19 people to make them up for us?


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 31, 2010)

Serapis said:


> How do you give control to a few wealthy businessmen when you are allowing private, non-declared marijuana gardens all over the state? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.


You however, dont have linear thought processing and cant see how criminalizing current medical growers leads to allowing the "legitimate" commercial growers total market dominance, medical or otherwise.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 31, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> And a total hand-out/compromise with law enforcement to criminalize the thousands and thousands of medical growers.


3 times in the prop 19, it specifically states that the new law would not affect patients that are under 11362.5

Why do you insist on ignoring those exclussions? Please explain how exactly prop 19 criminalizes legal grows under 11362.5. This should be very enlightening. Please educate me.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 31, 2010)

Serapis said:


> They won't give the real answer anyways.... Most of the ones voting no have personal motivation to avoid taxation on the "medicine" they sell back to dispensaries for one, they also fear their massive gardens may be reduced to 5' x 5', even though the prop specifically states it would not. Some are also upset that the law makes it a felony to provide or smoke marijuana with those under 18 years of age.


The other shoe WILL drop, when all those jurisdiction ban home growing, which P19 specifically allows.

Baby killer.

Prove you're not.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 31, 2010)

Serapis said:


> 3 times in the prop 19, it specifically states that the new law would not affect patients that are under 11362.5
> 
> Why do you insist on ignoring those exclussions? Please explain how exactly prop 19 criminalizes legal grows under 11362.5. This should be very enlightening. Please educate me.


Explain how your analysis means absolutely anything to prop 19 and I will give a shit what you say you out of state meddler.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 31, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> The other shoe WILL drop, when all those jurisdiction ban home growing, which P19 specifically allows.
> 
> Baby killer.
> 
> Prove you're not.


They are given the ability to tax and control marijuana sales in their district. Please show me what section of the statute allows localities to ban personal home gardens that prop 19 allows across the state.

As for the Baby comment, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, so I'm not sure what your reference of guilt has to do with prop 19....


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 31, 2010)

Serapis said:


> 3 times in the prop 19, it specifically states that the new law would not affect patients that are under 11362.5
> 
> Why do you insist on ignoring those exclussions? Please explain how exactly prop 19 criminalizes legal grows under 11362.5. This should be very enlightening. Please educate me.


If you bother to read critically, you might realize that no where in the text is Medical Marijuana cultivation excludede from the 25 square foot rule.

PROVE OTHERWISE.

I've asked for this dozens of times, and received only reassurances, in return.

Nothing concrete.

No on P19.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 31, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Explain how your analysis means absolutely anything to prop 19 and I will give a shit what you say you out of state meddler.


Prop 19 has started a conversation about decriminilization across the entire United States. It is being covered in national news. The passing of such a bill has wide sweeping potential to topple prohibition. rather than blow me as an out of stater, answer my question and substantiate your claim please. Prop 19 has the NATION'S attention. If you don't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

Now please explain how legal gardens under 11362.5 are going to be criminlized under prop 19. I'm still waiting....


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 31, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Why is this poll "closed"?


 Great question!
IMO, Some powers that be don't like the results of any of the prop19 polls. 
I'ld love to be proven wrong.


----------



## GNOME GROWN (Oct 31, 2010)

ok wait,so pretty much the people votein no to prop19 are the people that r makeing killer profits off their medical grows and dont wanna be taxed up the ass?!?!... understandable i guess, but think about all the other ppl that dont even have legal rights to medicinal growing!...where im from they decriminalized up to an oz, but theres not medicinal usage here nor can u grow!...so if prop 19 pass's in cali i think it would open up doors for other states to atleast start medicinal usage!...sorry if this makes no sense,i just blazed some hash out the bong!


----------



## Serapis (Oct 31, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> If you bother to read critically, you might realize that no where in the text is Medical Marijuana cultivation excludede from the 25 square foot rule.
> 
> PROVE OTHERWISE.
> 
> ...


Where the prop specificall states 3 times 

"except for patients under 11362.5" There are three exclussions. Also lawyers for High Times and NORML have explained their legal interpretations and all conclude, that gardens under 11362.5 are not affected under prop 19. Please use your legal expertise to prove them wrong and I'll be on your side.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 31, 2010)

I guess every sentence in the prop should have had a medical disclaimer!


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 31, 2010)

Serapis said:


> They are given the ability to tax and control marijuana sales in their district. Please show me what section of the statute allows localities to ban personal home gardens that prop 19 allows across the state.
> 
> As for the Baby comment, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, so I'm not sure what your reference of guilt has to do with prop 19....


You accuse us of greed as our motive in our resistance. That is as legitimate as my belief that you kill babies, when not lying on this forum.

Clear now?


----------



## Serapis (Oct 31, 2010)

GNOME GROWN said:


> ok wait,so pretty much the people votein no to prop19 are the people that r makeing killer profits off their medical grows and dont wanna be taxed up the ass?!?!... understandable i guess, but think about all the other ppl that dont even have legal rights to medicinal growing!...where im from they decriminalized up to an oz, but theres not medicinal usage here nor can u grow!...so if prop 19 pass's in cali i think it would open up doors for other states to atleast start medicinal usage!...sorry if this makes no sense,i just blazed some hash out the bong!


Yes you understand perfectly now.

And you made good sense.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 31, 2010)

GNOME GROWN said:


> im not from cali,i also didnt read much up on this,but can someone please explain why u would want to vote no?...isnt prop19 for legalization of marijuana?!?


The title of the proposition is "Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010", not "Cannabis Legalization Act" or "Cannabis Decriminalization Act". Regulation, taxation and enforcement (control) are components of commercialization. California Senate Bill 1449 was a true decriminalization bill. Any true legalization legislation would not add criminal charges for activities currently decriminalized, which Prop. 19 does. As I've said before, we don't need new cannabis laws, we're doing fine getting rid of the ones we already have.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 31, 2010)

Serapis said:


> Prop 19 has started a conversation about decriminilization across the entire United States. It is being covered in national news. The passing of such a bill has wide sweeping potential to topple prohibition. rather than blow me as an out of stater, answer my question and substantiate your claim please. Prop 19 has the NATION'S attention. If you don't see that, I don't know what to tell you.
> 
> Now please explain how legal gardens under 11362.5 are going to be criminlized under prop 19. I'm still waiting....


I am still waiting for your words to carry any weight whatsoever...until then you are just a know-nothing internet blow-hard.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 31, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> I guess every sentence in the prop should have had a medical disclaimer!


No, they should have just put the exemptions in the right places.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 31, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> I am still waiting for your words to carry any weight whatsoever...until then you are just a know-nothing internet blow-hard.


And because you are a resident of California, that gives you the right to make unsubstantiated claims against prop 19 without being called out on them? Regardless of where I am, you made a statement as if it was fact and are now unwilling or unable to explain it in detail, yet you will resort to name calling and insults?

Perfect..... You represent your side so well...


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 31, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Great question!
> IMO, Some powers that be don't like the results of any of the prop19 polls.
> I'ld love to be proven wrong.


when YOU make the accusation it is YOU who must prove it. 


i did not close it. looking back i see the thread was active until the 8th. then it got bumped today but the poll is closed. i have no idea why, unless there was a cut-off date entered when it was started. or another mod may have closed it. i do not know why they would though.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 31, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> The title of the proposition is "Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010", not "Cannabis Legalization Act" or "Cannabis Decriminalization Act". Regulation, taxation and enforcement (control) are components of commercialization. California Senate Bill 1449 was a true decriminalization bill. Any true legalization legislation would not add criminal charges for activities currently decriminalized, which Prop. 19 does. As I've said before, we don't need new cannabis laws, we're doing fine getting rid of the ones we already have.


Besides making it a felony to smoke with or provide marijuana to minors under 18 years of age, what felonies are you talking about? Do you advocate that minors should be provided with marijuana? If the answer is no, what other felonies are you referring to?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 31, 2010)

GNOME GROWN said:


> ok wait,so pretty much the people votein no to prop19 are the people that r makeing killer profits off their medical grows and dont wanna be taxed up the ass?!?!... understandable i guess, but think about all the other ppl that dont even have legal rights to medicinal growing!...where im from they decriminalized up to an oz, but theres not medicinal usage here nor can u grow!...so if prop 19 pass's in cali i think it would open up doors for other states to atleast start medicinal usage!...sorry if this makes no sense,i just blazed some hash out the bong!


yeah, that's it exactly. because the big growers would NEVER sell out of state for the BIG dollars, thus not really caring what happens either way.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 31, 2010)

Serapis said:


> And because you are a resident of California, that gives you the right to make unsubstantiated claims against prop 19 without being called out on them? Regardless of where I am, you made a statement as if it was fact and are now unwilling or unable to explain it in detail, yet you will resort to name calling and insults?
> 
> Perfect..... You represent your side so well...


At this point I dont really care about how you care to see things...or how i say them... you are exactly what I said you are (in my eyes). If you can't even see a grain of truth in my statements - then you are also considerably delusional. Every chance you get you try and twist everything around... you make a bunch of insinuations and allegations that are as patently false as the medical exemptions you claim are a part of 19. You are an embodiment of everything that is wrong with modern politics in this country.


----------



## jfa916 (Oct 31, 2010)

legalize it already


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 31, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> No, they should have just put the exemptions in the right places.


Precisely!

The authors left those exemptions out because THEY want control of the market.

The really nasty part is those wealthy men KNOW how difficult growing can be for home growers.

Maybe one in ten newly legal users will have the ability to successfully grow in their 25 sq. ft.

Everyone else will be forced to buy their buds from the commercial interests.

Serapis: I've placed others on "ignore" because they refuse to provide proof of their claims, instead accusing me of greed.

You get to join them. As an out of state bullshitter, you have no place in this discussion.

Byeeee!


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 31, 2010)

jfa916 said:


> legalize it already


No.

Bad laws are like Shingles. Hard to get rid of, and very painful.

Read up on the Marihuana Tax Act.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 31, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> At this point I dont really care about how you care to see things...or how i say them... you are exactly what I said you are (in my eyes). If you can't even see a grain of truth in my statements - then you are also considerably delusional. Every chance you get you try and twist everything around... you make a bunch of insinuations and allegations that are as patently false as the medical exemptions you claim are a part of 19. You are an embodiment of everything that is wrong with modern politics in this country.


You guys have been proven wrong in your claims about P19's effects on P215. Every major pro MJ group supports P19. Retired judge Jim Gray has stated in his blog that P19 exempts P215. You guys are voting your wallet, which is fine, but you are also a bunch of big fat liars trying to scare others with insinuations and allegations that are as patently false as your claims that P19 will affect P215.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 31, 2010)

Serapis said:


> Besides making it a felony to smoke with or provide marijuana to minors under 18 years of age, what felonies are you talking about? Do you advocate that minors should be provided with marijuana? If the answer is no, what other felonies are you referring to?


Anyone 18-20 years is liable for criminal possession charges under Prop. 19, whereas under existing statutes they're protected and are further protected by the new decriminalization statutes. Anyone who shares cannabis with someone between the ages of 18-20 years is subject to felony charges whereas this would be allowed and equally protected under existing and recent new legislation.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 31, 2010)

desert dude said:


> You guys have been proven wrong in your claims about P19's effects on P215. Every major pro MJ group supports P19. Retired judge Jim Gray has stated in his blog that P19 exempts P215. You guys are voting your wallet, which is fine, but you are also a bunch of big fat liars trying to scare others with insinuations and allegations that are as patently false as your claims that P19 will affect P215.


if prop 19 passes more people will come to me for weed. i don't pay taxes now, why would any of this "scare me"? half the people i know only smoke a little here and there because it is illegal. prop 19 would allow them to smoke A LOT more, which would bring me more MONEY. your logic is flawed. 

maybe if you called us all names and made people think we were bad your side would get more votes.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 31, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> No, they should have just put the exemptions in the right places.


They did according to every pro MJ group in existence.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 31, 2010)

desert dude said:


> They did according to every pro MJ group in existence.


Oh well, if all the cool kids are doing it, it must be right!


----------



## desert dude (Oct 31, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Oh well, if all the cool kids are doing it, it must be right!


Oh well, if all the drug thugs say vote no on 19, that must be right.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 31, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Oh well, if all the drug thugs say vote no on 19, that must be right.


i bet you'd suck a dick for a LEGAL ounce.

hey, it's a start. 



this is fun.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 31, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i bet you'd suck a dick for a LEGAL ounce.
> 
> hey, it's a start.
> 
> ...


My guess is that you are more likely to be sucking dick than me, when you are sitting in a federal penitentiary for growing and distributing marijuana. I don't smoke it, sell it or grow it.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 31, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> At this point I dont really care about how you care to see things...or how i say them... you are exactly what I said you are (in my eyes). If you can't even see a grain of truth in my statements - then you are also considerably delusional. Every chance you get you try and twist everything around... you make a bunch of insinuations and allegations that are as patently false as the medical exemptions you claim are a part of 19. You are an embodiment of everything that is wrong with modern politics in this country.


How can I see a grain of truth in your statements when you make claims that you can't even back up or explain in any type of detail? You have yet to explain how 215 gardens will become criminal under 19, as you claim. I have asked you three times to expand upion that in detail, because I know it is a false statement, therefore you can't explain it or justify the remark. I'm simply asking you to explain a false statement that you made, and you are twisting this into allegations and insinuations? Go read prop 19 sections 6, 7, and 8 and come back here and tell me that they don't specifically EXEMPT 11362.5 smart ass.....

I can tell by your deceit and manner that you are a conservative, you are very conservative with the truth in this matter. You have been very vocal in all 19 threads, and you have made some outrageous claims. When asked to back them up and show us where in the prop it states that, YOU ALWAYS resort to name calling and insults.... I wonder why that is? If you have a solid platform, you should be able to easily defend your statements...


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 31, 2010)

desert dude said:


> My guess is that you are more likely to be sucking dick than me, when you are sitting in a federal penitentiary for growing and distributing marijuana. I don't smoke it, sell it or grow it.


and you are the type of person who would love to see that happen. 


as i've said from the beginning, "one of my main reasons for voting no is because i would prefer not to be associated with those voting yes".


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 31, 2010)

Serapis said:


> How can I see a grain of truth in your statements when you make claims that you can't even back up or explain in any type of detail? You have yet to explain how 215 gardens will become criminal under 19, as you claim. I have asked you three times to expand upion that in detail, because I know it is a false statement, therefore you can't explain it or justify the remark. I'm simply asking you to explain a false statement that you made, and you are twisting this into allegations and insinuations? Go read prop 19 sections 6, 7, and 8 and come back here and tell me that they don't specifically EXEMPT 11362.5 smart ass.....
> 
> I can tell by your deceit and manner that you are a conservative, you are very conservative with the truth in this matter. You have been very vocal in all 19 threads, and you have made some outrageous claims. When asked to back them up and show us where in the prop it states that, YOU ALWAYS resort to name calling and insults.... I wonder why that is? If you have a solid platform, you should be able to easily defend your statements...


well you certainly haven't insulted anyone, have you?


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 31, 2010)

desert dude said:


> They did according to every pro MJ group in existence.


Right...that's not stretching it just a little...every one of them? Really? Do you think we are all stupid? Or ignorant to the MJ groups out there? Seriously? "every"? Such bullshit... more and more bullshit from a bullshitter....


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 31, 2010)

desert dude said:


> My guess is that you are more likely to be sucking dick than me, when you are sitting in a federal penitentiary for growing and distributing marijuana. I don't smoke it, sell it or grow it.


You just love coming on to this website and pontificating your ignorant analysis of a law that doesn't matter to you?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 31, 2010)

"in existence" even. 

shows how in touch with reality they really are.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 31, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> and you are the type of person who would love to see that happen.
> 
> 
> as i've said from the beginning, "one of my main reasons for voting no is because i would prefer not to be associated with those voting yes".


Actually, as much as I disagree with you on P19, and as annoyed as I am with your silly bullshit and lies about P19, I would not like to see you or anybody else in prison for growing/selling Cannabis.

As far as preferences about who you associate with, you have made that point clear: you prefer to be the useful idiot of the drug czars, Steve Cooley, Lee Baca, et al. I prefer to associate with those who want Cannabis legalized.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 31, 2010)

Serapis said:


> How can I see a grain of truth in your statements when you make claims that you can't even back up or explain in any type of detail? You have yet to explain how 215 gardens will become criminal under 19, as you claim. I have asked you three times to expand upion that in detail, because I know it is a false statement, therefore you can't explain it or justify the remark. I'm simply asking you to explain a false statement that you made, and you are twisting this into allegations and insinuations? Go read prop 19 sections 6, 7, and 8 and come back here and tell me that they don't specifically EXEMPT 11362.5 smart ass.....
> 
> I can tell by your deceit and manner that you are a conservative, you are very conservative with the truth in this matter. You have been very vocal in all 19 threads, and you have made some outrageous claims. When asked to back them up and show us where in the prop it states that, YOU ALWAYS resort to name calling and insults.... I wonder why that is? If you have a solid platform, you should be able to easily defend your statements...


Serapis, I have done more than my fair share of research and attempted a numerous logical debates...sadly the pro-19 crowd has favored diversion from the actual issue when their "facts" (read PROPAGANDA) fail them. You however have done little more than regurgitate the swill you have read from peddlers of this POS bill. Sorry that you have no official voice and that your opinion is as useful as soiled underwear, but you are just a meddler, a spectator that has formed opinions about conflicts you know nothing of. Go back to your super secret 3x3 closet grow and leave the actual participants alone. Better yet, go change YOUR states MJ laws and leave mine alone.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 31, 2010)

"AgraMed has plans to build a 100,000-sq.-ft. marijuana mega-farm near Oakland International Airport that, &#8220;according to projections, could generate 58 pounds of pot a day and $59 million a year in revenue.&#8221; The company&#8217;s president, Jeff Wilcox&#8212;a member of the steering committee of the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative&#8212;reportedly hopes to &#8220;bring a degree of corporate structure to the marijuana industry"."

Many growers don't want to see this happen, knowing it will drain money from their friends and community.
I completely understand that sentiment.
There are far more reasons for their side as well.
I weigh the pros and cons differently, but that's why we vote,.......except I can't!


*WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE PROP. 19: 19 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW*


----------



## desert dude (Oct 31, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> You just love coming on to this website and pontificating your ignorant analysis of a law that doesn't matter to you?


Why would you think this law doesn't matter to me? Anybody who wants our country to be one of laws, and who wants the federal government to be one of limited and enumerated powers ought to be very interested in P19. 

It is not my "ignorant analysis" of P19 that I have posted, but rather the "ignorant analysis" of NORML, High Times, LEAP, Judge Jim Gray, etc. Now, I will grant that you MIGHT be smarter than all of them, and your motives might be purer than their motives, but I doubt it. I suspect that you are motivated by your belief that if MJ is legalized, its price will decline and cut into your profits, so you conjure up absurd conspiracies about KKKorporashuns taking over the MJ business to scare people into voting against P19. This poll shows 2/3 support of P19, so it hasn't worked completely.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 31, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Why would you think this law doesn't matter to me? Anybody who wants our country to be one of laws, and who wants the federal government to be one of limited and enumerated powers ought to be very interested in P19.
> 
> It is not my "ignorant analysis" of P19 that I have posted, but rather the "ignorant analysis" of NORML, High Times, LEAP, Judge Jim Gray, etc. Now, I will grant that you MIGHT be smarter than all of them, and your motives might be purer than their motives, but I doubt it. I suspect that you are motivated by your belief that if MJ is legalized, its price will decline and cut into your profits, so you conjure up absurd conspiracies about KKKorporashuns taking over the MJ business to scare people into voting against P19. This poll shows 2/3 support of P19, so it hasn't worked completely.


You are ignorant because you only are considering one side of the situation. You have shown no inclination towards objectivity. Just some ignorant and outlandish remarks directed towards those that don't agree with you. You think you are on the "right" side, but you are just on one side.


----------



## potroast (Oct 31, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Why is this poll "closed"?





Sure Shot said:


> Great question!
> IMO, Some powers that be don't like the results of any of the prop19 polls.
> I'ld love to be proven wrong.



The OP set up the poll to close in 45 days. It was posted on 9-15.


----------



## rzza (Oct 31, 2010)

fdd did you switch your avatar cuz someone stole it? whats this new one?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 31, 2010)

rzza said:


> fdd did you switch your avatar cuz someone stole it? whats this new one?



i changed mine until tuesday and now there is an impostor among us. i will change it back on wednesday and we'll see what he does.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 31, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> don't you love it?


Actually, I do.
I actually can appreciate being wrong.
I see it like this.
I may have been wrong then, but know I know what is right. It's this mindset that has allowed me to continue to learn each and every day.
I honestly fiend for information, and find myself watching every documentary and reading every article that sparks my interest.
So, I do enjoy being wrong. It's much more mental stimulating then being right all the time.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 31, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Actually, I do.
> I actually can appreciate being wrong.
> I see it like this.
> I may have been wrong then, but know I know what is right. It's this mindset that has allowed me to continue to learn each and every day.
> ...


you are a rare creature among us. you should breed. 

+rep


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 31, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you are a rare creature among us. you should breed.
> 
> +rep


Thank you, fdd.
That's exactly what I tell my wife!


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 31, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Thank you, fdd.
> That's exactly what I tell my wife!


at least keep practicing.


----------



## Viagro (Oct 31, 2010)

Regardless of all the rationalization, PROHIBITION IS WRONG.

Vote yes for any form of decriminalization, and you vote to live in a truly free country.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 31, 2010)

I just don't see High Times and NORML encouraging a yes vote, when they both rely on and exist for the community, unless they really believed it was a good law. No one should go to jail for growing a plant.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 31, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> at least keep practicing.


View attachment 1242557
Here's little Sure Shot trying to be like his daddy.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 31, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i bet you'd suck a dick for a LEGAL ounce.
> 
> hey, it's a start.
> 
> ...


Now you understand me.

I was campaigning for GWB's impeachment in 2000, BEFORE the election...

LOL


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 31, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Now you understand me.
> 
> I was campaigning for GWB's impeachment in 2000, BEFORE the election...
> 
> LOL


I tried explaining to people how Obama wont make a difference...before he even had the nomination...it was a futile endeavor.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 31, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> I tried explaining to people how Obama wont make a difference...before he even had the nomination...it was a futile endeavor.


He implied that he would be better on Cannabis law, but he did not deliver. No politician will deliver on Cannabis law. This issue will only be fixed by the voters, nobody else has the nerve.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 31, 2010)

desert dude said:


> He implied that he would be better on Cannabis law, but he did not deliver. No politician will deliver on Cannabis law. This issue will only be fixed by the voters, nobody else has the nerve.


He not only implied, but pretty much stopped just short of promising the world. If anyone cared to look into who was running and supporting his early campaign it should have been totally obvious...but...you know how these things go: a lot of people get really excited about really bad ideas, they vote for them and are dissapointed with the results...exactly why I am voting no on 19. Same exact M.O.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 31, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> He not only implied, but pretty much stopped just short of promising the world. If anyone cared to look into who was running and supporting his early campaign it should have been totally obvious...but...you know how these things go: a lot of people get really excited about really bad ideas, they vote for them and are dissapointed with the results...exactly why I am voting no on 19. Same exact M.O.


When you vote for a politician, you get a politician. A voter initiative is a different animal, it is simply a package that amends the constitution. It is simple to understand, at least when compared to a politician, and it doesn't change its mind. It means what it says. Not to say that bad actors won't try to thwart it or bend it to mean something different from what it actually says, certainly we can expect all of those things to happen. If the courts are honest though, then ultimately P19 will do exactly what it says: legalize MJ possession and cultivation, exempt P215 from its restrictions, allow local governments to allow commercial growth and sales and to liberalize P19's restrictions.

In the long run, if P19 passes, it will force a rethinking of the war on people who use politically incorrect substances and will bring about more freedom for all of us. That is my interest in the whole matter.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 31, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> He not only implied, but pretty much stopped just short of promising the world. If anyone cared to look into who was running and supporting his early campaign it should have been totally obvious...but...you know how these things go: a lot of people get really excited about really bad ideas, they vote for them and are dissapointed with the results...exactly why I am voting no on 19. Same exact M.O.



I was a Clinton supporter. I think she'd have been the best choice, because she knows how to bully Republicans. Bill was the best I've seen at that in my 60 years.

Anyway, a close friend had the opportunity to ask Bill point blank(nose to nose) what Hillary thought of Cannabis legalization. "She doesn't oppose it." was the reply. this was in Eureka, shortly before the election.

Obama only supported MMJ weakly, AFTER his staff realized that on the coasts, this could be a big deal.

I think, if he can find the support in Congress, he'll try to get some sort of Medical Cannabis bill passed, but he needs to call Republicans and teabaggers what they are, short sighted, greedy, venal, stupid, unqualified idiots. And make it stick.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 31, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> I was a Clinton supporter. I think she'd have been the best choice, because she knows how to bully Republicans. Bill was the best I've seen at that in my 60 years.
> 
> Anyway, a close friend had the opportunity to ask Bill point blank(nose to nose) what Hillary thought of Cannabis legalization. "She doesn't oppose it." was the reply. this was in Eureka, shortly before the election.
> 
> ...


You can put your faith in politicians if you like. I prefer written law.


----------



## Sure Shot (Nov 6, 2010)

Proposition 19 found its strongest support in the Bay Area, passing in San Francisco and four nearby counties. San Francisco voters were most supportive, favoring the measure, 65% to 35%.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 6, 2010)

my county passed it.


----------



## Sure Shot (Nov 6, 2010)

There is something sinister to that smile.


----------

