# Reasons to Vote yes on Prop 19



## deprave (Jul 29, 2010)

So there is not really any threads that are pro prop 19 around here so I think it is about time we had one. I will be brief and state why you should vote for prop 19.

#1. Prop 19 does not effect medical users - Stop buying into all these conspiracy theories

#2. Marijuana will still be in mass production legally with or without prop 19 - as you know oakland passed comercial zoning and lets face it all they need is one city to put their factory at anyway.

#3. All use of marijuana is medicinal

#4. Peoples lives are ruined and people are dieing eveyday across the entire world while prohibition carrys on - prop 19 is a giant leap twoard legalization.

#5. If marijuana is more widely accepted than we can get more scientific studies and who knows maybe perhaps we will find the cure for many diseases and cancer through scientific research of cannabis.

#6. Marijuana is the safest drug on the planet.

#7. I feel I need to say this again: Prop 19 does not effect medical users and growers.

#8 Stop buying into conspiracy theories and the WHAT IFs ....The fact is there will be a 99% chance everyone will be safer and happier if mj is legal for all adults and that includes medical growers and patients. Don't vote on the slim chance that some kind negative outcome could happen, vote on what it is likely to happen.

#9 You can change the world for the better - not just california - NOT just the United States - but the entire world

#10 The price will not likely drop because the demand will increase and skilled growers will not be likely to lose money - It is likely that the price would likely increase in all actuallity.


----------



## ford442 (Jul 29, 2010)

great points!! that about sums it up.. 

i also want to see all of the money and man power that went into trying to stomp it out go back into the system where police and officials can do good.. police can arrest the real dangerous offenders and leave millions of innocent citizens alone..!

i have said it a bunch of times now - remember in alcohol prohibition - when it ended there were big compromises for the liquor industry - we will face the same kinds of conservative sanctions for a time - but, the pot community will be sure to iron out the unfairness that these limitations create.. it will take time, but we must start somewhere and it could be years before a better proposal than prop. 19 sees the light of day.. i do not see the logic in holding out for a more nonrestrictive law.. we can simply start with our 5x5 gardens and maybe counties and towns will quickly say that they want larger areas - they can decide their own commercial codes which may not ever have as big of fees and taxes as Oakland necessarily..

i am voting *YES*!


----------



## GanjaAL (Jul 29, 2010)

I wish you guys would stop using the word legalization when this is only taxation.

Again... prop19 will not stop people from going to jail. The fact is... people now in the state of california are going to jail in record numbers for carring *more* than an oz on their person which carries a 6 month stay in jail and a 500.00 fine. No where in prop19 is that going to change.

Right now... it is only and infraction with a 100.00 fine for an oz or less. Yes prop19 does away with this... which is fantastic.

However people are not going to jail for an oz are they. They are going to jail in record number because of possesion of more than an oz... and again to think it will change with prop19 becoming law is not knowing what prop 19 says or why people are going to jail now.

Also... with prop19 going into effect you will not win the hearts and minds of hard core conservitive states or the bible belt states... that is just plain fact. However you can win them over with the mmj movement.

Again... fact... the Federal government will fight rec use tooth and nail however it is the mmj movement that will aid with a defense at the federal level... how??? The VA has came out and is letting vets use mmj in there legal states without them being punished for it. Soon this will open a door to fight at the federal level. Sorry but prop 19 will not lead the way to this and may infact backfire and have states clam up with even mmj laws.

Sorry but prop 19 only serves to line peoples pockets with money and fill the coffers of irresponsible spending.

Wake up people.


----------



## deprave (Jul 29, 2010)

did you read #8 and #1


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 29, 2010)

prop 19 adds new laws, that WILL imprison even more people. 

enough said.


5 NO's at my house.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 29, 2010)

deprave said:


> did you read #8 and #1


Adding the label "conspiracy theories" doesn't validate your points. Prop 19 adds restrictions to personal consumption and personal cultivation that do not exist on the books now.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 29, 2010)

#11 If it passes in Cali, more states will likely follow. It is very likely to be the beginning of the end of prohibition at a national level.


----------



## GanjaAL (Jul 29, 2010)

Also does not erase the fact that california leads in record number of arrests for possesion. Which again FACT is for more than an oz. So prop 19 will NOT stop the arrest rates as they stand now.


----------



## GanjaAL (Jul 29, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> #11 If it passes in Cali, more states will likely follow. It is very likely to be the beginning of the end of prohibition at a national level.


No it will not... that is wishfull thinking. The only hope is MMJ laws as rec use will not fly in the conservitive states or the bible belt ones. Again do not believe the hype.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 29, 2010)

GanjaAL said:


> Also does not erase the fact that california leads in record number of arrests for possesion. Which again FACT is for more than an oz. So prop 19 will NOT stop the arrest rates as they stand now.


Keep in mind that it also allows cities and counties to establish possessing limits HIGHER than an ounce. That would eliminate this problem in many places. Sure, I'd rather have no limits anywhere, but this is a starting point, not the final result.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 29, 2010)

GanjaAL said:


> No it will not... that is wishfull thinking. The only hope is MMJ laws as rec use will not fly in the conservitive states or the bible belt ones. Again do not believe the hype.


Here's the problem with you guys who are against prop 19. You guys play up and even invent falsehoods about prop 19. Just because you are against it doesn't mean you need to deny every upside of prop 19. Hard to have an honest discussion when you guys do that.

I have no problem supporting prop 19 AND admit and discuss the flaws. You guys just decided you hate it and from there deny any positives about it whether your denial is truthful or not.

Most laws, like this one are not 100% good or 100% bad. You can still be against prop 19 without denying every single benefit of it.


----------



## GanjaAL (Jul 29, 2010)

Yes but you have to take into account socal... already they are banning it left and right. Which is the control that taxation gives to them.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 29, 2010)

GanjaAL said:


> Yes but you have to take into account socal... already they are banning it left and right. Which is the control that taxation gives to them.


Sure, some places will fight it tooth and nail. Other places will embrace it and expand the legality of it beyond the legal minimums this law provides. Some counties/cities will behave corruptly and unjustly. Others will be fair and liberal with their laws. This is California and their is a diversity of opinions in this state.


----------



## GanjaAL (Jul 29, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Here's the problem with you guys who are against prop 19. You guys play up and even invent falsehoods about prop 19. Just because you are against it doesn't mean you need to deny every upside of prop 19. Hard to have an honest discussion when you guys do that.
> 
> I have no problem supporting prop 19 AND admit and discuss the flaws. You guys just decided you hate it and from there deny any positives about it whether your denial is truthful or not.
> 
> Most laws, like this one are not 100% good or 100% bad. You can still be against prop 19 without denying every single benefit of it.


I do not discount some of the possitive but I am pulling for those prisoners of war and those who will still go to jail regardless if prop 19 passes.

The same can be said that most people care about profits and the support of corupt politicians is why people are for prop19 and the heck with those going to jail because I want to smoke recreationally.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 29, 2010)

GanjaAL said:


> I do not discount some of the possitive but I am pulling for those prisoners of war and those who will still go to jail regardless if prop 19 passes.
> 
> The same can be said that most people care about profits and the support of corupt politicians is why people are for prop19 and the heck with those going to jail because I want to smoke recreationally.


oh come on now. You don't really believe most people who support prop 19 because they enjoy political corruption. That's absurd. 

I have no problem with you thinking the negatives of prop 19 outweigh the positives, but please try to be somewhat objective about it. 

There is a very real chance this law could have the end result of national legalization. Sure, that's not a guarantee, but it's a likely possible outcome over time. It would most definitely cause at least a few states to put up their own legalization ballot measures. People who are pro-prop19 are not doing so because they think corruption is awesome. Come on man. Be real.


----------



## GanjaAL (Jul 29, 2010)

I am being real... very real. In SD and SB counties it is very real... they do not uphold the law even at the mmj level.

Also I know for a fact that the mmj movement can win the hearts of the bible belt states and the concervitive ones. I used to be one. But with all the meds that they were giving me... my liver was being effected. Then a friend of mine who used for his shoulder told me about it... and now I am all for it.

Had you came to me with rec use... I would not be using it today. I hate to say it but that is what sucks about it.

I feal that the rec movement may cause more of the conservitive states to back off even for the mmj movement.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 29, 2010)

GanjaAL said:


> I am being real...


Really? So you honestly believe that the majority of people who support prop19 are doing so because they think our government should be more corrupt?


----------



## GanjaAL (Jul 29, 2010)

No brother I do not... but I do feel they are not seeing the big picture or the future but living for right now without thought of the effects of their decision.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 29, 2010)

GanjaAL said:


> No brother I do not...


Then please don't say such things. 

While you're at it please stop spreading the misinformation that prop 19 will supersede medical law. 

You have plenty of legitimate reasons to be against prop 19 and you generally seem like an ok guy who is reasonably intelligent. You don't need to resort to such things, it's beneath you. 



GanjaAL said:


> but I do feel they are not seeing the big picture or the future but living for right now without thought of the effects of their decision.


Well that's a different argument entirely. A very reasonable one. Next time please just say that instead.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 29, 2010)

GanjaAL said:


> Will do.


Much respect.

Peace


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 29, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Here's the problem with you guys who are against prop 19.* You guys play up and even invent falsehoods about prop 19.* Just because you are against it doesn't mean you need to deny every upside of prop 19. Hard to have an honest discussion when you guys do that.
> 
> I have no problem supporting prop 19 AND admit and discuss the flaws. You guys just decided you hate it and from there deny any positives about it whether your denial is truthful or not.
> 
> Most laws, like this one are not 100% good or 100% bad. You can still be against prop 19 without denying every single benefit of it.


actually, it's you doing that.

"we will never have another chance."
"if cali passes the world will follow."
"only dealers vote no."
"the prop will be adjusted later."

blah, blah, balh, ..........


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 29, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Sure, some places will fight it tooth and nail. Other places will embrace it and expand the legality of it beyond the legal minimums this law provides. Some counties/cities will behave corruptly and unjustly. Others will be fair and liberal with their laws. This is California and their is a diversity of opinions in this state.


places like oakland, eh?


----------



## rd116 (Jul 29, 2010)

i am voting NO along with EVERYONE else I know.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 29, 2010)

i got *5* NO's at my house.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 29, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> actually, it's you doing that.


Absolutely not. I'm willing to admit there are both pros and cons to prop 19. You guys won't admit that it does any good at all even if that means you have to spread misinformation. 

Just because you had a personal bad business dealing with Richard Lee doesn't mean prop 19 is 100% evil. Like most things in life it has it's pros and cons. But it's hard to have an honest discussion with people like you who won't even admit the possibility of anything positive coming out of it.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 29, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> places like oakland, eh?


Whatever dude. You've admitted to your own personal agenda on this topic already. It's pointless to even discuss this will you since you can't see past your own person grudge against Richard Lee.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 29, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Whatever dude. You've admitted to your own personal agenda on this topic already. It's pointless to even discuss this will you since you can't see past your own person grudge against Richard Lee.


it goes way beyond my personal agenda. i have read and understand the prop. i do NOT agree with it so i am voting no. there are 25 threads on this where i have already explained my feelings. this prop ADDS new laws that will imprison people, while letting no one who is current imprisoned go. why you would vote YES and put people in jail just so you can have your little sandwich bag full of weed, i have no idea.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 29, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> it goes way beyond my personal agenda. i have read and understand the prop. i do NOT agree with it so i am voting no. there are 25 threads on this where i have already explained my feelings. this prop ADDS new laws that will imprison people. why you would vote YES and put people in jail just so you can have your little sandwich bag full of weed, i have no idea.


Yeah, it puts people in jail who sell weed to kids. boohooo. 

To pretend this law is some fascist plot just because you can get in trouble for not having the common decency to put your stash away around playgrounds is pretty absurd.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 29, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Yeah, it puts people in jail who sell weed to kids. boohooo.
> 
> To pretend this law is some fascist plot just because you can get in trouble for not having the common decency to put your stash away around playgrounds is pretty absurd.


what are you talking about? 

as you accuse this side of "inventing falsehoods". now you gotta throw the "save the children" out there. pretty much an act of desperation. 

see you in Nov.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 29, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> what are you talking about?
> 
> as you accuse this side of "inventing falsehoods". now you gotta throw the "save the children" out there. pretty much an act of desperation.


Well you claim that this law will put more people in jail. The part of the bill that has that capability is the regulations against giving it to the underaged. If that's not what you were talking about then perhaps you'd like to explain further.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 29, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Well you claim that this law will put more people in jail. The part of the bill that has that capability is the regulations against giving it to the underaged. If that's not what you were talking about then perhaps you'd like to explain further.


you are attacking and accusing me without a clue to what i was referring to. it is YOU sir, who is undebatable. good day.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 29, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you are attacking and accusing me without a clue to what i was referring to. it is YOU sir, who is undebatable. good day.


So I ask you to back up your baseless claim that more people will be sent to jail because of this law and you refuse. lol. That's what I thought.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 29, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> So I ask you to back up your baseless claim that more people will be sent to jail because of this law and you refuse. lol. That's what I thought.


you have done nothing but attack and attempt to insult me. i'm voting no dude. i have no reason to argue with you about it. i am not trying to sway you, and my mind is made up. not much more to go on about, is there?


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 29, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you have done nothing but attack and attempt to insult me. i'm voting no dude. i have no reason to argue with you about it.


I'm attacking what you're saying. It isn't true that this law will send more people to jail (aside from people who are exposing kids to it of course). And yes, I'm attacking you because you're willing to say ANYTHING regardless of if it's true or not as long as it makes prop 19 sound bad. That's a dishonest mentality and you should be called out for spreading misinformation.

I don't care how you're voting. I do care that you spread falsehoods.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 29, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> I'm attacking what you're saying. It isn't true that this law will send more people to jail (aside from people who are exposing kids to it of course). And yes, I'm attacking you because you're willing to say ANYTHING regardless of if it's true or not as long as it makes prop 19 sound bad. That's a dishonest mentality and you should be called out for spreading misinformation.
> 
> I don't care how you're voting. I do care that you spread falsehoods.


since when is an 18 year old a child?


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 29, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> since when is an 18 year old a child?


When they go into a bar. See what happens if a cop catches you buying alcohol for a minor.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 29, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> When they go into a bar. See what happens if a cop catches you buying alcohol for a minor.


we are discussing marijuana, not booze. 

this forum allows people 18 and over to join and post. to me 18 is an adult. there is one good reason for me to vote NO. 

there, you happy now? i'm voting NO.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 29, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> we are discussing marijuana, not booze.
> 
> this forum allows people 18 and over to join and post. to me 18 is an adult.


 Should you be able to sell weed to someone who is 18? Maybe maybe not. That's debatable. If you think you should that's understandable. 

But that's not my problem with what you're saying. You're spinning that into something that isn't true. If you get caught selling weed to an 18 year old now you'll go to jail. If you get caught selling weed to an 18 year old after this becomes law, same result. Under this law it allows you to do something that you would go to jail for now, selling to someone over 21. Yet you're all over here misrepresenting the truth saying that it'll send more people to jail because you can be arrested for selling to someone under 21. Well you can be sent to jail for that now. So what you're saying just isn't true.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 29, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Should you be able to sell weed to someone who is 18? Maybe maybe not. That's debatable. If you think you should that's understandable.
> 
> But that's not my problem with what you're saying. You're spinning that into something that isn't true. If you get caught selling weed to an 18 year old now you'll go to jail. If you get caught selling weed to an 18 year old after this becomes law, same result. Under this law it allows you to do something that you would go to jail for now, selling to someone over 21. Yet you're all over here misrepresenting the truth saying that it'll send more people to jail because you can be arrested for selling to someone under 21. Well you can be sent to jail for that now. So what you're saying just isn't true.


who the hell said anything about selling? keep making shit up. 

i haven't spun anything.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 29, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> who the hell said anything about selling?.


Well you won't tell me who all these mythical people who are going to be sent to jail over prop19 are, so I have to assume you're talking about the age restrictions being that this is the only conceivable way anyone could be sent to jail over prop 19.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 29, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Absolutely not. I'm willing to admit there are both pros and cons to prop 19. You guys won't admit that it does any good at all even if that means you have to spread misinformation.


Perhaps because any "pros" of the proposition are in favor of big business and centralized-distribution models. And those "pros" come at fairly steep cost. New restrictions to "personal consumption" which are downright dangerous to the cannabis community, legislatively backed new profiling techniques for law enforcement to further abuse "intent to sell", and nearly unfettered ability for local governments to outright ban the cannabis industry and/or set guidelines conducive to big business interests only. Yes, they have the option to do otherwise, but you would have to ignore 80 years of local history and politics to believe that. Indeed, this may be the worst time to be giving government entities more ability to set policy as they see fit, given that the two most likely candidates to replace Schwarzenegger are both staunch anti-cannabis platformers. And both are bigger pawns of/collaborators with big business.



Dan Kone said:


> Just because you had a personal bad business dealing with Richard Lee doesn't mean prop 19 is 100% evil. Like most things in life it has it's pros and cons. But it's hard to have an honest discussion with people like you who won't even admit the possibility of anything positive coming out of it.


Let's see. Dick profits unethically off of medical patients and uses that money to bank roll a proposition that he wrote himself and bought the signatures for. And then has enough money to begin to bankroll warehouse grows, and he's not evil, how? I don't know about you, but anyone who uses others to finance themselves into a monopoly, even if it's in one city only, qualifies as evil in my book. To expect someone like Dick Lee would write community-beneficial legislation is about as realistic as expecting BP to suddenly operate safely because they played musical executives.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 29, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Well you won't tell me who all these mythical people who are going to be sent to jail over prop19 are, so I have to assume you're talking about the age restrictions* being that this is the only conceivable way anyone could be sent to jail over prop 19*.



you keep believing that.


----------



## EmptyWords (Jul 29, 2010)

i dont understand what the big hurry to legalize is anyway. prop 19 is bullshit, and yes i read it and am aware of all the bs. Why not vote no on this and wait untill next year and try to pass a law that actually "legalizes" marijuana? im not from cali but if i was i would vote no. thats got to say something when people from other states dont even agree with some bullshit that dont effect them.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 29, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Perhaps because any "pros" of the proposition are in favor of big business and centralized-distribution models.


What specifically in the bill do you think favors of big business? 



TokinPodPilot said:


> And those "pros" come at fairly steep cost. New restrictions to "personal consumption" which are downright dangerous to the cannabis community,


What new restrictions on personal consumption? Right now you can consume no cannabis for recreational purposes under current state law. This allows you to have an ounce or more depending on local laws. How is being allowed to have an ounce (or more depending on where you live) more restrictive than being allowed to have none at all?



TokinPodPilot said:


> legislatively backed new profiling techniques for law enforcement to further abuse "intent to sell",


Yep. Cops are assholes. You'll get no argument from me there. But this bill doesn't make them that way. They can't help it. They all have small dicks or were bullied in highschool.



TokinPodPilot said:


> and nearly unfettered ability for local governments to outright ban the cannabis industry and/or set guidelines conducive to big business interests only. Yes, they have the option to do otherwise, but you would have to ignore 80 years of local history and politics to believe that.


Well that depends. Surely you are going to be correct in some areas. Orange county will probably do everything they can to get in the way of this. Oakland is obviously corrupt as hell, no doubt. But some areas will go the other way. 

San Francisco for example is the complete opposite of either of those places. They have no interest in handing anyone cannabis monopolies. 



TokinPodPilot said:


> Indeed, this may be the worst time to be giving government entities more ability to set policy as they see fit,


Doesn't any legalization law end with that same result?




TokinPodPilot said:


> given that the two most likely candidates to replace Schwarzenegger are both staunch anti-cannabis platformers.


Nah. Jerry is cool. He used to smoke. He just has to pretend he's against it for political purposes. 

Meg Witman however is the devil incarnate. If she's elected we are all fucked. Seriously, we're all screwed if that happens. She'll try to end 215 all together.




TokinPodPilot said:


> And both are bigger pawns of/collaborators with big business.


Awwww come on. Jerry isn't so bad. We could do a lot worse. 



TokinPodPilot said:


> Let's see. Dick profits unethically off of medical patients and uses that money to bank roll a proposition that he wrote himself and bought the signatures for. And then has enough money to begin to bankroll warehouse grows, and he's not evil, how?


Yeah, he's evil. Not arguing that. But hey, just because he's evil doesn't mean he can't do anything good. Hitler made the trains run on time! 



TokinPodPilot said:


> I don't know about you, but anyone who uses others to finance themselves into a monopoly, even if it's in one city only, qualifies as evil in my book. To expect someone like Dick Lee would write community-beneficial legislation is about as realistic as expecting BP to suddenly operate safely because they played musical executives.


Well there is nothing specifically in this bill that prohibits small cannabis businesses. We'll all have our chance to compete against Richard Lee. I for one welcome that competition. He grows schwagg. I say bring it on.


----------



## EmptyWords (Jul 29, 2010)

lol. I love how everyone thinks they are going to start their own cannabis business. good luck getting a license.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 29, 2010)

EmptyWords said:


> s. Why not vote no on this and wait untill next year and try to pass a law that actually "legalizes" marijuana? im not from cali but if i was i would vote no.


Because there is no guarantee there will be another ballot measure that has a legitimate chance to pass next year. The *only* reason this bill has a chance to pass is because of the state of the economy and the tax money it'll bring in. Even with that, polling is with in the margin of error. This could be a one time opportunity. 

A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 29, 2010)

EmptyWords said:


> lol. I love how everyone thinks they are going to start their own cannabis business. good luck getting a license.


Well if you're not afraid of a little (or a lot) of paper work, then why not? This is America right?


----------



## EmptyWords (Jul 29, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Because there is no guarantee there will be another ballot measure that has a legitimate chance to pass next year. The *only* reason this bill has a chance to pass is because of the state of the economy and the tax money it'll bring in. Even with that, polling is with in the margin of error. This could be a one time opportunity.
> 
> A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.


 well im sure eventually another bill will be proposed. its been illegal this long, why not wait it longer? i dont see what the big deal is. the world doesnt revolve around weed, well mine doesnt anyway.


----------



## EmptyWords (Jul 29, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Well if you're not afraid of a little (or a lot) of paper work, then why not? This is America right?


 i was reading it costs at least 30 grand to get a license, i could be wrong but i know i read it from several places.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 29, 2010)

EmptyWords said:


> well im sure eventually another bill will be proposed. its been illegal this long, why not wait it longer? i dont see what the big deal is. the world doesnt revolve around weed, well mine doesnt anyway.


from what i'm hearing this is supposed to "save" california. just like the lottery did.


----------



## EmptyWords (Jul 29, 2010)

EmptyWords said:


> i was reading it costs at least 30 grand to get a license, i could be wrong but i know i read it from several places.


if this is true do you plan on getting a bank loan for that lol.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 29, 2010)

EmptyWords said:


> well im sure eventually another bill will be proposed.


Proposed and having a realistic chance at passing are two different things entirely. How can you be sure and when is eventually?



EmptyWords said:


> its been illegal this long, why not wait it longer?


Because I have ADD. 

What happens if "longer" = 20 years? Why should I wait longer. Prohibition is wrong *now*. This could be the first step at ending it. 



EmptyWords said:


> i dont see what the big deal is. the world doesnt revolve around weed, well mine doesnt anyway.


Actually, mine does. I tried to do the 9/5 work in an office thing when I finished school, but that shit wasn't for me.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 29, 2010)

EmptyWords said:


> i was reading it costs at least 30 grand to get a license, i could be wrong but i know i read it from several places.


Yep. You're wrong. It will cost a mandatory $5k with a $2.5k renewal fee. However that does not stop other cities/counties from adding additional fees on top of that. So it could cost you $5k, or it could cost you $30k. Depends where you live.

edit: that's for commercial grows. There is no set fee to open a dispensary.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 29, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> from what i'm hearing this is supposed to "save" california. just like the lottery did.


Yeah, I didn't buy that one either. lol. But whatever works.


----------



## EmptyWords (Jul 29, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Proposed and having a realistic chance at passing are two different things entirely. How can you be sure and when is eventually?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


how can i be sure? because most likely another bill will be proposed and passed eventually, who the fuck knows how long, and if you think it wont happen than i dont know what to tell you.

Why shouldnt you wait longer?? 
if you can still goto jail for any kind of charge that has to do with weed its not legal, therefore certain shit is still illegal and it doesnt help no one already in jail. this shit was made for big business and thats it.

working at an office is not the life for me either but sometimes you gotta man up and do shit you dont want to do, thats life.


----------



## EmptyWords (Jul 29, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Yep. You're wrong. It will cost a mandatory $5k with a $2.5k renewal fee. However that does not stop other cities/counties from adding additional fees on top of that. So it could cost you $5k, or it could cost you $30k. Depends where you live.
> 
> edit: that's for commercial grows. There is no set fee to open a dispensary.


 i find it hilarious that so many people think they are going to open cafes and other bs in cali and make a living, if everyone that says they are going to do that did, no one would make enough money to keep the doors open. there would be some kind of weed shop on every corner of cali.


----------



## EmptyWords (Jul 29, 2010)

Plus im willing to bet the dea is going to crack down hard on cali and make an example out if it if this shit passes.


----------



## EmptyWords (Jul 29, 2010)

I also believe that med users will be fucked because why would they need medical mj if its legal? i dont need to goto the doctor to get Tylenol.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 30, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Well you won't tell me who all these mythical people who are going to be sent to jail over prop19 are, so I have to assume you're talking about the age restrictions being that this is the only conceivable way anyone could be sent to jail over prop 19.


Oh goodie... from the Initiative, from the added to Heath and Safety Code as section 11300:



> (b) &#8220;Personal consumption&#8221; shall include but is not limited to possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other non-public place, and shall include licensed premises open to the public authorized to permit on-premises consumption of cannabis by a local government pursuant to section 11301.
> (c) &#8220;Personal consumption&#8221; shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis:
> (i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301;
> *(ii) consumption in public or in a public place;*
> ...


The bold are the others besides 18-20 crowd that you're so ready to cut and run on. I know in Golden Gate Park, it's not uncommon for people to gather on the weekend and have a smoke session. Same for Venice Beach in Los Angeles and Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica. Part (iv) is pretty self-explanatory on why it's not such a good idea.

Subsection (a) is the one we all know... blah blah over 21 can grow and cultivate for personal consumption. Gotcha, don't care about kids. They're old enough to work and pay taxes and go die, but not enjoy what they already have the right to enjoy. Not the way I do things, but OK.

Subsection (b) is a real tickler. While it seems to make ground-breaking allowances, we already have the right to consume in the home and non-public spaces. All it does make allowances for are retail centers. Adding more middle men doesn't do much to help the recreational user, in my opinion, but lots to help the middle men.

Subsection (c) I sort of already reviewed. Part (i) and (iii), are clever pieces of legislative trickery. "Intent to sell" and "driving under the influence" are already covered under existing Health and Safety Codes. By including them in this proposition, it makes it easier for law enforcement and/or regulatory agencies to set new guidelines for both charges, which we know are the most common charges utilized for nabbing smokers today. And with the taxes that are suddenly being funneled into regulation, that means more cops hired to bust smokers any way they can.


----------



## EmptyWords (Jul 30, 2010)

also for the people that are concerned with getting busted with weed and whatnot, why not get a med card and be legal? ANYBODY can get one, my doc flat out told me i dont qualify but then he said he was going to lie and make shit up because he thinks it will help me so he spoke in to a recorder for about 5 mins saying alot of bs that i dont have wrong with me and that was that. $190 later i had my card.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 30, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> I know in Golden Gate Park, it's not uncommon for people to gather on the weekend and have a smoke session. Same for Venice Beach in Los Angeles and Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica. Part (iv) is pretty self-explanatory on why it's not such a good idea.


You do realize it's illegal to smoke in public now right? That's not a new law. It doesn't make smoking in public any more illegal than it is now.

To ask people not to smoke in public spaces or around kids isn't *that* unreasonable.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 30, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> You do realize it's illegal to smoke in public now right? That's not a new law. It doesn't make smoking in public any more illegal than it is now.
> 
> To ask people not to smoke in public spaces or around kids isn't *that* unreasonable.


Show me where in California law it says it's illegal to consume in public? You can be cited by the cops and given a misdemeanor (once again, the only one without jail time and only $100 fine) for possessing cannabis, but that's it. It's about as reasonable as expecting people not to drink in public places and no one seems to have a problem with beer and wine all over the place. I think you have the wrong perception of cannabis. You seem to join in with the Kool-Aid drinkers that it's an illicit drug that we have to protect society from. I'm not afraid of a plant that is of great benefit to life, so I have no issue with people and kids in general being around. I don't see a need to restrict people just because you're a canna-shy. You keep moaning and complaining about "80 years of Prohibition" while supporting the same short-sighted and misinformed views of Prohibition. Ending this Prohibition isn't just about making cannabis taxed and regulated, but also about ending unfounded discrimination and the lies that create it.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 30, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> You do realize it's illegal to smoke in public now right? That's not a new law. It doesn't make smoking in public any more illegal than it is now.
> 
> To ask people not to smoke in public spaces or around kids isn't *that* unreasonable.


i thought you wanted it to be like booze. i can drink beer at the park, with my kid next to me.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 30, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Show me where in California law it says it's illegal to consume in public? You can be cited by the cops and given a misdemeanor (once again, the only one without jail time and only $100 fine) for possessing cannabis, but that's it.


Well if you get a misdemeanor for doing it then it's illegal. I don't need to show you anything. And by the way, where does it say you'll get a felony for consuming it in public? No where. Show me evidence that people will be given a stiffer penalty than they are now. 

This is your proof that prop 19 is going to send more people to jail? Pretty thin. At best, you're nitpicking. It kind of sounds like you decided you hated it, then tried to find the reason why.



TokinPodPilot said:


> It's about as reasonable as expecting people not to drink in public places and no one seems to have a problem with beer and wine all over the place.


To be fair, cannabis is more comparable to cigarettes than alcohol in this respect. When you drink a beer, the guy next to you doesn't inhale beer smoke as a result. Of course I believe ultimately much more problems are created by drinking alcohol in public than smoking, but whatever. 



TokinPodPilot said:


> I think you have the wrong perception of cannabis. You seem to join in with the Kool-Aid drinkers that it's an illicit drug that we have to protect society from.


lol. Wtf? What have I ever said to make you believe this? I work full time in the medical cannabis industry and have so for a long time. 

Your assumptions about me just aren't true. 

That's kind of the equivalent of me saying that since you're against prop 19 then you must be a gang banger profiting off of the illegal sales of marijuana. It's ridiculous.

In your previous posts you were for the most part posting reasonable, rational concerns. I didn't agree with them all, but it was at least they were honest concerns. 

Then you have to get into this kind of BS rhetoric that doesn't even make sense.

Yeah, that's right. I think cannabis is a horrible illicit plague on humanity that we should protect people from by making it legal? wtf? really dude?



TokinPodPilot said:


> I'm not afraid of a plant that is of great benefit to life, so I have no issue with people and kids in general being around.


That's nice. Unfortunately other people in California have different opinions about cannabis. It's our job to incrementally introduce it to them so they learn the truth about this. The way to do this isn't to start sparking up in front of their kids. It's to slowly show them it isn't that harmful step by step. Step one was 215. Step two is this. 

Thank god you weren't around during the civil rights movement. You'd probably have protested against it because the first civil rights laws didn't go far enough. How'd incremental change work out there? 




TokinPodPilot said:


> You keep moaning and complaining about "80 years of Prohibition"


And you're the one who wants another 80 years of it.




TokinPodPilot said:


> Ending this Prohibition isn't just about making cannabis taxed and regulated, but also about ending unfounded discrimination and the lies that create it.


I'm fine with that. But Rome wasn't built in a day. Just because this law doesn't go far enough that doesn't mean we should reject our best chance to start to end it. 

You keep complaining that prop19 won't end prohibition. You know what? You're right. It doesn't. But it's a step towards that goal. You're willing to throw that opportunity away because there are a few details you don't like. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 30, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i thought you wanted it to be like booze. i can drink beer at the park, with my kid next to me.


I never said that. I said their were comparisons. And by the way, in many parks, it is illegal.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 30, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> I never said that. I said their were comparisons. And by the way, in many parks, it is illegal.


in many parks it's legal, as pot WON'T be. you can't use a positive comparison of booze when it suits you, then ignore the next one when it's against you. you are hand picking your arguments and changing things around to suit your point. then you accuse others of doing the same. you have done nothing to make any valid points in this thread. you are trolling for an argument. no one is changing their minds.


----------



## potroast (Jul 30, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> in many parkas it's legal, as pot WON'T be. you can't use a positive comparison of booze when it suits you, then ignore the next one when it's against you. you are hand picking your arguments and changing things around to suit your point. then you accuse others of doing the same. you have done nothing to make any valid points in this thread. *you are trolling for an argument. no one is changing their minds. *


Pardon me, fdd, but it is YOU who are trolling. This thread is titled "Reasons to vote YES," so why are you posting here?


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 30, 2010)

potroast said:


> Pardon me, fdd, but it is YOU who are trolling. This thread is titled "Reasons to vote YES," so why are you posting here?


why do you care? 

5 NO's at my house.


----------



## rd116 (Jul 30, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> why do you care?
> 
> 5 NO's at my house.


 A few more at mine, and about 50+ more between friends and family....


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 30, 2010)

potroast said:


> Pardon me, fdd, but it is YOU who are trolling. This thread is titled "Reasons to vote YES," so why are you posting here?


For much the same reason that proponents of Prop 19 keep posting and "trolling" in Anti-Prop 19 threads. Funny how it's alright for proponents to shit up anti-prop 19 threads with their "arguments", but you only pop up to say anything when opposition shows up in an Pro-Prop 19 thread. Hypocrisy much anyone?


----------



## potroast (Jul 30, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> why do you care?
> 
> 5 NO's at my house.



Why would I care? Because I've been fighting for this since before you were born. 

We'll pass this in spite of the naysayers.


----------



## potroast (Jul 30, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> For much the same reason that proponents of Prop 19 keep posting and "trolling" in Anti-Prop 19 threads. Funny how it's alright for proponents to shit up anti-prop 19 threads with their "arguments", but you only pop up to say anything when opposition shows up in an Pro-Prop 19 thread. Hypocrisy much anyone?



Yes, anyone can post in any open thread. But if you go into it and disagree, and then accuse others of trolling, well...

Like most salient points, you've missed another one.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 30, 2010)

potroast said:


> Why would I care? Because I've been fighting for this since before you were born.
> 
> We'll pass this in spite of the naysayers.


dude, you really aren't that much older than me. and if this is as far as you've gotten after 40+ years, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 30, 2010)

potroast said:


> Why would I care? Because I've been fighting for this since before you were born.
> 
> We'll pass this in spite of the naysayers.


Nice of you to change idiots to naysayers. And I have no doubt you could very have been fighting for "this" for quite some time. It's not like commercializing cannabis and squeezing out the locals is a new strategy. 



potroast said:


> Yes, anyone can post in any open thread. But if you go into it and disagree, and then accuse others of trolling, well...
> 
> Like most salient points, you've missed another one.


No, I get it. You have your reasons for this bill. I've been working and fighting for decriminalization for almost 20 years myself. I know for a fact that things are far better now than they've ever been before because of our decriminalization efforts. Prop 215 and Prop 36 brought progress to the decriminalization movement through protection for those who use cannabis to enrich their lives and through a massive reduction in penalties for non-violent possession charges, which also includes drop of the charges after completion of a court program. Only one thing is strictly prohibited according to current California statutes and legal precedents, sales or "intent to sell". Even amounts over one ounce and excessive plants numbers are eligible for a personal consumption defense under current California law as there is no actual definition of "personal consumption" currently. Prop 19 sets those standards and give local law enforcement a new set of standards by which to determine "intent to sell". Yes, local governments have the option to set more generous limits. They've always had that option. This proposition does nothing to really alter the blockades to real decriminalization which all lie in existing Health and Safety and California Penal Codes. The proposition does nothing to reduce the ability of law enforcement and local government to prove "intent to sell", but gives them new concrete numbers to live and arrest by. It adds new definitions and laws which translate into more restrictions and more arrests. The past 20 years speak to that. That's just history. Someone who's been fighting for legalization for as long as you claim to have been should know better.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 30, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> It's not like commercializing cannabis and squeezing out the locals is a new strategy.


Misinformation. Nothing in prop 19 squeezes out locals. And on what bizarro world have legal cannabis that you can't sell in a commercial store?


----------



## deprave (Jul 30, 2010)

Dan Kone - The same bizarro world that is decrim - which does'nt make a whole lot of sense , as you put it, "bizarro".

Ok its illegal but its not.....what is the sense? where does it come from?
The only sound answer is legalization and that is what prop 19 is.



*As for the new restrictions that will "put more people in jail" (laughable):* 
It does not matter if there will be new rules and restrictions. As stated by the opressors, the new rules surrounding minors, public use, and definition of personal use, these concerns are made invalid by the fact that they are medical users, however, lets come back to reality for a second here and examine the true impact this will have on you the every day joe or sally; marijuana use - possession - sales whatever will be more widely accepted and not on the radar of the popo as much and the result will be that everyone who uses, sells, or grows cannabis will be safer in the end and the medical people will the the safest of all...."oh you have a card? ok you can go" ..."oh you don't have a card lets investigate this further..."

The fact of the matter is, we don't live in a courtroom. If marijuana is legal far less people would get in trouble for marijuana alone and that is the reality of the situation. I just dont see people getting busted with 1 gram over the limit as their only "crime" being some sort of epidemic like you gentlemen make it out to be and furthermore I don't see your average joes getting raided like they do now, likely nobody would ever get raided for marijuana alone ever again unless they had some sort of huge comerical operation. Due in part to the fact that the amount of mj you could store in your home would be unlimited.

Think about that for a second - No More raids on peoples homes......Think about all the dogs this will save - think about the flashbangs that will be saved to be used for more appropriate operations. Think about the furniture and the electronics - your 54" plasma safe from the sheriffs office and will always remain in your hands - your door will get to keep on keepin on, being that good ole trusty door you have known and loved for so many years.


And finally think about your mustang...thank the lord that it won't end up in some douschebags hands like this:


View attachment 1073090


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 30, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Misinformation. Nothing in prop 19 squeezes out locals. And on what bizarro world have legal cannabis that you can't sell in a commercial store?


Only as much misinformation as your claim that the proposition favors the existing market of small and medium growers by granting local government broad authority to determine regulation, taxing and fee schedules. That worked out real well for all the small and medium entities in the alcohol industry following Prohibition. But, if your last sentence is any sort of metric, it would appear that you're the typical product of the American public educational system and therefore not as versed in the in-depth history, follow-up and impact of the end of Prohibition. So if it's still confusing to you how this proposition does to cannabis what we've already done to our agricultural, alcohol and tobacco industries, I would strongly suggest you do some research. Even Wikipedia can't deny the massive negative repercussions that followed Prohibition.



Dan Kone said:


> Yeah, he's evil. Not arguing that. But hey, just because he's evil doesn't mean he can't do anything good. Hitler made the trains run on time!


I'm glad the attempted genocide of the Jewish people and the near-subjugation of the European continent resulting in the deaths of millions was worth trains running on time in your opinion. You've already shown that you're ready to let the 18-20 crowd go to jail so you can feel safer about your ounce of weed. Who else are you ready to cut loose? I'm fighting for all of us, even the ones that are ready to cut and run.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 30, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Only as much misinformation as your claim that the proposition favors the existing market of small and medium growers by granting local government broad authority to determine regulation, taxing and fee schedules.


I never claimed anything like that. I claim it gives equal footing to everyone. I challenge you to find anything in the text of prop 19 that cuts out small businesses.



TokinPodPilot said:


> I'm glad the attempted genocide of the Jewish people and the near-subjugation of the European continent resulting in the deaths of millions was worth trains running on time in your opinion.


Oh stfu, I was clearly joking.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 30, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> I never claimed anything like that. I claim it gives equal footing to everyone. I challenge you to find anything in the text of prop 19 that cuts out small businesses.


Just as soon as you find the part of California law that specifically outlaws consumption. You didn't feel the need to indulge me, so I feel no need to point out the obvious to you. But, that's alright... you can continue to pick and choose what to respond to and ignore the context that surrounds the items you choose to challenge. It's rather like watching fledgling forensics students who continue to fall back on circular logic to try and make a point. Or a bad episode of Glenn Beck.



Dan Kone said:


> Oh stfu, I was clearly joking.


OH! Well, if it's a joke, that makes it soooo much better.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 30, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Just as soon as you find the part of California law that specifically outlaws consumption. You didn't feel the need to indulge me, so I feel no need to point out the obvious to you.


You asked me to prove it was illegal, then admitted it was illegal in the very next sentence! Why would I prove something to you after you just admitted you already knew it was illegal?

On the other hand there is absolutely *nothing* in prop 19 that prohibits you, me, or anyone else from opening a cannabis related business and competing in the free market. To say otherwise is just a pack of lies. You know it, I know it. 

I've prop 19 is so bad, you should be able to prove that by sticking to the truth. Yet your side continues to spread misinformation to make your point. You guys are sounding worse that the big businesses you claim to be raging against.


----------



## deprave (Jul 31, 2010)

So for the most part the only sound argument anyone has made is that they believe more people could get in trouble because of further restrictions on cannabis (however minor they might be).

As I attempted to illustrate - Cannabis will be LEGAL - 

There will be a lot less cops thinking like this ...."I smell pot so your going to be searched and you better have a card and be within your limit'. 

It will be more like 'I smell pot and they all look like reasonable adults who are excercising their right to smoke pot with no clear sign they are breaking a law so I will let them go on their way...'



There will be no more - Smash and Grab raids on private homes of people suspect of growing marijuana.

There will be no more - Well they are growing pot and who knows if they are within the law so here is our freebie warrant to raid a pot grower.




It will not be the same world we live in today when it comes to the way people and policia look at marijuana. Less people will get in trouble for marijuana plain and simple.


----------



## GanjaAL (Jul 31, 2010)

How is it not the truth that it will not stop the number one reason people are going to jail???? I do not understand that.

Not to mention if you really need to grow and smoke... go get a rec as it will offer more freedom.

How is that missinformation?


----------



## deprave (Jul 31, 2010)

GanjaAL said:


> How is it not the truth that it will not stop the number one reason people are going to jail???? I do not understand that.
> 
> Not to mention if you really need to grow and smoke... go get a rec as it will offer more freedom.
> 
> How is that missinformation?


 If marijuana is legal less people will go to jail its really plain and simple black and white I wish you would understand that.


----------



## deprave (Jul 31, 2010)

If prop 19 made it legal and set a limit of 1 gram - even then less people would go to jail - why? Simple..because of the fact marijuana is now legal....


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 31, 2010)

so why the one ounce limit?

as long as there is ANY type of limit there will be reason to check you. go over this limit and off to jail you go.


----------



## deprave (Jul 31, 2010)

so the lazy cops are going to bust out the digis and weigh up everyones bag after spending an hour searching cause they smelled pot which by the way is now legal....riiiiiight....even with a limit marijuana won't have that same stigma it has now, that is the point I am trying to get across here..Chances are if they are weighing up your weed it is likely they already have you on something else, and being legally medically for how long now? I am suprised you don't understand how silly the limits are to begin with in that they are easy manipulated or you can get around them easily....and really why is it you want to carry more then an ounce or whatever limit your county imposes unless your selling or gifting it..in that case make multiple car trips, take more passengers whatever...Really I think this has to do with something more personal with some of you, its not richard lee...its not increased restrictions...I think it is the fact that you must deliver a large quanity of marijuana on a normal basis and that is what has you worried. If you got more than an ounce put it in the fuse box under your hood or something I mean common we all know this stuff. Legal Marijuana = More protection - Not less protection ...and that is where your head is all twisted on this....

There is not going to be some magic legalize marijuana bill that doesnt have any rules or even one that has rules which are much more reasonable than the ones in prop 19, it just won't pass.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 31, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> You asked me to prove it was illegal, then admitted it was illegal in the very next sentence! Why would I prove something to you after you just admitted you already knew it was illegal?


I never said consumption is illegal. You did. I asked you to prove it is. I know better than to make such a statement since I've been involved in a number of cases involving that very point. But, that's OK. I haven't expected your reading comprehension to get any better the more you post.



Dan Kone said:


> On the other hand there is absolutely *nothing* in prop 19 that prohibits you, me, or anyone else from opening a cannabis related business and competing in the free market. To say otherwise is just a pack of lies. You know it, I know it.


I know that you keep ignoring the context of what's being said. You should go work for the Department of Agriculture. They're good at thinking and acting short-term on cut and paste information. There's nothing in the Twenty-First Amendment that specifically restricts or stops small-medium alcohol entities from competing with large national conglomerates, either. But what there is in Section 2 of the Amendment is the granting of broad discretionary powers granted to the states to establish regulation as they see fit. But, continue to ignore history... or hope that others ignore history. Which ever your purpose here.



Dan Kone said:


> I've prop 19 is so bad, you should be able to prove that by sticking to the truth. Yet your side continues to spread misinformation to make your point. You guys are sounding worse that the big businesses you claim to be raging against.


Yes, yes... big bad opposition to Prop 19. We're so mean and nasty and selfish and greedy. Oh dear... what to do? This "pot calling the kettle black" thing is seriously getting old. I've presented facts. I've posted the link to California NORML's current run down of California Marijuana Law which includes excellent information on any adult user's rights as a citizen. I've presented information about legislation currently before the State Assembly that reduces possession of an ounce or less to an infraction. You keep proclaiming that we haven't made any progress and I counter with plenty of history that says your wrong. Prop 215 was a great victory, not just for people with dire need, but for all of us. If cannabis enriches your life in any way, you can get a doctor to issue a recommendation. It's not just for "sick" people... it's for anyone who derives benefit. Prop 36 was a great victory allowing for diversion of non-violent possession away from jail time and even allowing for the charges against them to be dropped. But you claim we've been waiting for 80 years with no progress. If anyone needs to stop with the misinformation and lies here, it's you, mate. I might sound worse than the big businesses I despise so much, but you're sounding just like them.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 31, 2010)

deprave said:


> If marijuana is legal less people will go to jail its really plain and simple black and white I wish you would understand that.


Nothing in law is ever black and white. Anyone who's been to court or had to fight a battle over cannabis knows this.


----------



## deprave (Jul 31, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Nothing in law is ever black and white. Anyone who's been to court or had to fight a battle over cannabis knows this.


Your right about that.....but somehow it got twisted in your head that legalizing marijuana is going to put more people in jail which is an absolutely ridiculous thought if you think about it. We don't live in a courtroom ya know


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 31, 2010)

deprave said:


> Your right about that.....but somehow it got twisted in your head that legalizing marijuana is going to put more people in jail which is an absolutely ridiculous thought if you think about it. We don't live in a courtroom ya know


Maybe from your point of view. As someone who's been to court, fought for decriminalization for the last 20 years and helped others realize their own rights and live free, I see things differently. I've seen first-hand how the word of ambiguous law is twisted and used to try and ensnare people. You don't have to live in a court room to have the court room question how you live.

BTW, the passive aggressive slights don't make you proponents look good.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 31, 2010)

deprave said:


> so the lazy cops are going to bust out the digis and weigh up everyones bag after spending an hour searching cause they smelled pot which by the way is now legal....riiiiiight....even with a limit marijuana won't have that same stigma it has now, that is the point I am trying to get across here..Chances are if they are weighing up your weed it is likely they already have you on something else, and being legally medically for how long now? I am suprised you don't understand how silly the limits are to begin with in that they are easy manipulated or you can get around them easily....and really why is it you want to carry more then an ounce or whatever limit your county imposes unless your selling or gifting it..in that case make multiple car trips, take more passengers whatever...Really I think this has to do with something more personal with some of you, its not richard lee...its not increased restrictions...*I think it is the fact that you must deliver a large quanity of marijuana on a normal basis and that is what has you worried.* If you got more than an ounce put it in the fuse box under your hood or something I mean common we all know this stuff. Legal Marijuana = More protection - Not less protection ...and that is where your head is all twisted on this....
> 
> There is not going to be some magic legalize marijuana bill that doesnt have any rules or even one that has rules which are much more reasonable than the ones in prop 19, it just won't pass.


who are you talking to?


----------



## deprave (Aug 2, 2010)

[video=youtube;yOEgjkfuMOg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOEgjkfuMOg&feature=fvst[/video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOEgjkfuMOg&feature=fvst


----------



## GanjaAL (Aug 2, 2010)

To funny... however taxation is not legalization!


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 2, 2010)

GanjaAL said:


> To funny... however taxation is not legalization!


Correct, but legalization is legalization. 

This law allows everyone to grow and posses a small amount of cannabis to get started. It also allows us to petition our cities and counties to increase that limit. There is no upper limit on how high counties and cities can increase those limits.

It opens the door to legalization in every county and city in California. That isn't a good thing?


----------



## deprave (Aug 2, 2010)

[video=youtube;iQ3sB09LcLI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ3sB09LcLI[/video]


----------



## GanjaAL (Aug 3, 2010)

Do you really think the prohibitionists are going to allow for increases??? This prop19 gives them alll the power... even to ban it in a city near you.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 3, 2010)

GanjaAL said:


> Do you really think the prohibitionists are going to allow for increases??? This prop19 gives them alll the power... even to ban it in a city near you.


half SoCal hates pot already. the cities and counties down there are already fighting tooth and nail to STOP medical pot. i don't know why people think passing 19 will change any of that.

silly rabbits.


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 3, 2010)

GanjaAL said:


> Do you really think the prohibitionists are going to allow for increases??? This prop19 gives them alll the power... even to ban it in a city near you.


Show me where prop 19 gives cities and counties the power to ban cannabis use.


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 3, 2010)

As things stand right now, the Government has ALL of the Control. Its Called Schedule 1 SUBSTANCE...meaning We have no say, no choice, no rights no nothing. You get caught...It is what it is! However, With Prop 19 WE HAVE A SAY NOW...We remove it from Prohibition( tell me where we have a say in prohibition) WE THEN HAVE A VOICE, a say. We can make amendments, we can change things...But as things stand Now....we have no control, none, ziltch...nada  Sure medical marijuana now has a voice...but its still self defeating having the Plant in Prohibition and scheduled as a Schedule 1 substance...So ....perhaps you can see outside the illusion that prop 19 gives them all the power...they already got it all 

PS---NOWHERE IN PROP 19 is there ANYTHING in regards to local cities and counties having discreational power to ban whatever. NOWHERES...in the words of *FDD* "silly rabbits" please stop spreading false propaganda...just cause the government does it, doesnt mean we should  

I AM THE POTOLOGIST AND I APPROVE PROP 19!!! VOTE YES IN NOVEMBER

Peace, Love, and Happiness


----------



## Serapis (Aug 3, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Adding the label "conspiracy theories" doesn't validate your points. Prop 19 adds restrictions to personal consumption and personal cultivation that do not exist on the books now.


Are you saying anyone can cultivate now? I think some growers are upset the price could come down and weaken their source of income. California leads the way, and I hope this passes. I live in a state that an ioz can get you a year or more in jail, depending on police record. Californians should consider themselves very lucky to be able to vote for this.

You speak as if everyone is carrying around pounds bro..... Only the growers and dealers are.... This law is the next best thing for casual users. It is not meant to legalize a grow house. I'd be thrilled to grow in a 5' x 5' and be within the law.

Vote YES


----------



## colonuggs (Aug 3, 2010)

crazy man....it took the financial downfall of our country to get marijuan out of prohabition (soon it wiil be)...kind of like in the great depression...alcohol became legal and taxed...helped the country out of the great depression ....that along with a war

In the end its all about $$...dont fool yourselfs.....If we all grew our own there would be no need for mass production...anyone can grow weed

How many people you know have $210,000 to start a marijuana farm (thats not even including the warehouse cost or cost of running the place)...not non of my friends...we all poor stoners... thats the cost of my house.....The Rich will get richer...as always


I have grown my own weed for 20 yrs ....I havent had to buy any weed for 20yrs....its a weed.. Marijunana never should have been made illegal in the first place


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 3, 2010)

how does a HIGHER demand LOWER prices?


----------



## GanjaAL (Aug 4, 2010)

Yup... my town just banned all dispensories and *any and all sales*... so that is going to kinda hard in my part of the woods.

Also when prop19 becomes law... they will have all the backing they need. However if prop19 does not go into effect... we have a chance at fighting it.

Sucks... but alot of people that I know who were holding out on a decision for prop19 will be getting their rec and will be voting no as our area is not even fond of mmj.


----------



## Tarkfu (Aug 4, 2010)

Check out this new article.

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_15669701?nclick_check=1


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 4, 2010)

GanjaAL said:


> Yup... my town just banned all dispensories and *any and all sales*...


Sorry dude. That sucks. Keep fighting the good fight!


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 4, 2010)

http://www.baycitizen.org/marijuana/story/feds-looking-oakland-pot-law/

http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html

http://www.newagecitizen.com/MERP/RelegalizeNowObama39.htm


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 4, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> http://www.baycitizen.org/marijuana/story/feds-looking-oakland-pot-law/


If the DEA feels like they *must* go after someone for a harmless plant, I can't think of a better target.


----------



## Turtlehermit (Oct 4, 2010)

*GanjaAL I know isnt it just sad how people are actually falling for this prop19 s***. Just wait till it gets voted on and they will realize it.*


----------



## Serapis (Oct 4, 2010)

I'm still trying to figure out why going from a 0 square foot garden to a legal 25 square foot garden is bad? I'm still trying to figure out how less arrests and prosecutions are bad?

I understand the arguments about legalization vs decriminalization. What I don't understand is why anyone that smokes marijuana would be against this, unless of course they have a mmj card, but even then, this law doesn't change your rights or access. I don't buy the argument that if this doesn't pass that a better bill will come along. By passing this law, you are putting pressure on the White House and the DEA to take marijuana off of schedule one. The reason? It's hard to imagine a grower in Ca faces no persecution yet a grower in Arizona or Florida faces 10-15 years. 

No one ever thought that the DEA would back off of MM states, but they have. I believe they will also honor prop 19. If this goes to court, it will become a matter of states rights vs Federal responsibilities. It is not in the unions interest to prohibit that which a state's voters has approved. Yes there will be dissenters, just as there are in alcohol and cigarettes. Those two items are legal and kill millions of Americans each year and cost us Billions in care and social programs. Continuing to keep MJ on the schedule one of drugs is ludicrous. Passing prop 19 will make it obvious to everyone.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 4, 2010)

California is the world's 4th largest economy ....

If they legalize marijuana, it is going to have profound implications for everyone else ... especially with the way the economy is.
This is the nuclear bomb we've been waiting for.


----------



## Turtlehermit (Oct 4, 2010)

Um Serapis isnt Prop19 gonna change and limit grows down dramatically? Isnt it gonna make it to where you got to grow in a tiny cramped area? For me my plan is to get a medical card for my condition and I don't wanna buy my medicine so I plan on growing it. If this Prop19 screws it up for me I am gonna be mad. lol 


Serapis said:


> I'm still trying to figure out why going from a 0 square foot garden to a legal 25 square foot garden is bad? I'm still trying to figure out how less arrests and prosecutions are bad?
> 
> I understand the arguments about legalization vs decriminalization. What I don't understand is why anyone that smokes marijuana would be against this, unless of course they have a mmj card, but even then, this law doesn't change your rights or access. I don't buy the argument that if this doesn't pass that a better bill will come along. By passing this law, you are putting pressure on the White House and the DEA to take marijuana off of schedule one. The reason? It's hard to imagine a grower in Ca faces no persecution yet a grower in Arizona or Florida faces 10-15 years.
> 
> No one ever thought that the DEA would back off of MM states, but they have. I believe they will also honor prop 19. If this goes to court, it will become a matter of states rights vs Federal responsibilities. It is not in the unions interest to prohibit that which a state's voters has approved. Yes there will be dissenters, just as there are in alcohol and cigarettes. Those two items are legal and kill millions of Americans each year and cost us Billions in care and social programs. Continuing to keep MJ on the schedule one of drugs is ludicrous. Passing prop 19 will make it obvious to everyone.


----------



## Turtlehermit (Oct 4, 2010)

If things are different and this bill gets voted out, who knows maybe something better might come along. It's just a what if. I for one would like a change in the states thoughts on marijuana. I am not for nor against Prop19 but if it does get voted in I would love to see scientists do more research on it and figure out more about it. Maybe it will help more people. With all the lies out there about it, they don't even wanna bother with it, but maybe if it got legalized with this Prop19 it could force them to do more studies on it so that some of this bad shadows on the plant will be lighten and it will come legal in more parts of the country. Who knows but maybe I am wrong and the government will treat it like its been treated and act like its just a gimmick. If that happens when Prop19 gets voted in you might as well consider us screwed because once the bill is in the government has complete control over it, then they can say whatever they want and do as they want. So people please think wisely before you vote.


----------



## growone (Oct 4, 2010)

Turtlehermit said:


> ...If that happens when Prop19 gets voted in you might as well consider us screwed because once the bill is in the government has complete control over it, then they can say whatever they want and do as they want. ...


Complete control? Isn't that that what they have now?
In reality, they lost control, illegal or not. The law just doesn't have the bite it used to, too many people doing what they want.
Don't like the idea of buying taxed government controlled weed? Don't buy it.
Keep doing what you're doing, growing your own or buying through your underground sources.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 4, 2010)

Right now my garden is xompletely legal.

19 would reduce my grow area by 92%

Don't even tell me MMJ gardens are exempt.

There is no language in 19 excluding MMJ gardens from the 25 square foot limit.

Vote NO on 19.

It's bad law.


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 4, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Right now my garden is xompletely legal.
> 
> 19 would reduce my grow area by 92%
> 
> ...


Maybe u should talk to Ruiner, he/she seems to think otherwise:
"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?"


----------



## Turtlehermit (Oct 4, 2010)

I don't buy it haha. You can yap all day about how the government has complete control the truth is they only have control because us stoners are to lazy to gtfu and protest like 60s style. Whatever you think though.


----------



## vradd (Oct 4, 2010)

Turtlehermit said:


> I don't buy it haha. *You can yap all day about how the government has complete control the truth is they only have control because us stoners are to lazy to gtfu and protest like 60s style.* Whatever you think though.



100%. and this is what it comes down to.


----------



## growone (Oct 4, 2010)

Turtlehermit said:


> I don't buy it haha. You can yap all day about how the government has complete control the truth is they only have control because us stoners are to lazy to gtfu and protest like 60s style. Whatever you think though.


to make clear, i meant that on paper(i.e. by the law) government has complete control
on paper is not equal to reality, in reality government control of MJ has slipped, it's just too much for them to keep up, except for the very large growers
and they don't seem to be doing much of a job there either
if you live in cali, and don't want to vote, that's your choice
kind of strange to criticize the proposition then say you won't bother to vote


----------



## Serapis (Oct 4, 2010)

Turtlehermit said:


> Um Serapis isnt Prop19 gonna change and limit grows down dramatically? Isnt it gonna make it to where you got to grow in a tiny cramped area? For me my plan is to get a medical card for my condition and I don't wanna buy my medicine so I plan on growing it. If this Prop19 screws it up for me I am gonna be mad. lol


Medical card Growersd are not affected by prop 19. The 25 sq foot grow area is for ANYONE over 21 years of age.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 4, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Right now my garden is xompletely legal.
> 
> 19 would reduce my grow area by 92%
> 
> ...


Parts 7,6,and 8 of the proposition SPECIFICALLY exclude marijuana patients. And pray tell, what disastrous disease or malady are you suffering from? Allergies? Not everyone has a card, even as easy as it appears to be to get one. You have pain clinics popping up all over Cali to offer MMJ paperwork to anyone that comes in and pays for it. Prop 19 is for people that won't take that route. 215 was for dying and severe suffering, not what some of you have made it out to be. As I stated, only ones against 19 are those abusing 215. ^^^^ evidence


----------



## Serapis (Oct 4, 2010)

Turtlehermit said:


> *Shits On The Voting Pad*


Then you have absolutely nothing to say that anyone needs to hear.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 5, 2010)

Serapis said:


> Parts 7,6,and 8 of the proposition SPECIFICALLY exclude marijuana patients. And pray tell, what disastrous disease or malady are you suffering from? Allergies? Not everyone has a card, even as easy as it appears to be to get one. You have pain clinics popping up all over Cali to offer MMJ paperwork to anyone that comes in and pays for it. Prop 19 is for people that won't take that route. 215 was for dying and severe suffering, not what some of you have made it out to be. As I stated, only ones against 19 are those abusing 215. ^^^^ evidence



you are clearly mistaken. prop 215 was written specifically so anybody could get it. 

*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. *​


----------



## redfox66 (Oct 5, 2010)

Deprave stated: "#1. Prop 19 does not effect medical users - Stop buying into all these conspiracy theories"

I just read my voter guide and I don't see any protection or even reference to the section for current medical growers or users in the actual text of the law. It does say that in the intent of the law, but it is missing in the actual text. I don't need any theory to conclude that if medical users are not made reference to, then the stated restrictions could apply to them!! People currently legally using medicine!
We are always being tricked by doublespeak propositions that say one thing and do another.
Arnold just signed a law so you don't have to appear in court for small amounts;
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2010/oct/01/california_governor_signs_mariju
Proposition 19 would restrict how much you can grow and add limits that were just disallowed by the CA Suprme court. Don't be fooled into giving away your rights. You can get a med card for stress for $100 and grow 6 mature or 12 vegetative plants. Try fitting them both into 25 square ft. 
Read more here and look at the actual text of the proposed law before you vote http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html


----------



## Serapis (Oct 5, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you are clearly mistaken. prop 215 was written specifically so anybody could get it.
> 
> *The text of the Prop 215 initiative follows:*
> 
> ...


I've highlighted in red the begining that many in cali seem to miss.... compassionate Use has nothing to do with allergies, sneezing, insomnia, colds, anxiety, etc. I believe that Medical Marijuana should include anything that a physician believes that marijuana may ease, but currently, that is not the case. The law is vague..... what exactly is an illness? Trouble sleeping? allergies? cancer? I hardly consider the first two serious illnesses, as defined by the law, but people in ali can go buy cards just for having the cash and you know as well as I do that it is happening. Let me repeat section 11362.5 for you....

"(A) To ensure that *seriously ill* Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for *medical purposes*"

This is being abused. To claim it is not is ludicrous. That is why 19 should be voted into law to allow ANYONE that wants to grow or buy MJ.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 5, 2010)

redfox66 said:


> Deprave stated: "#1. Prop 19 does not effect medical users - Stop buying into all these conspiracy theories"
> 
> I just read my voter guide and I don't see any protection or even reference to the section for current medical growers or users in the actual text of the law. It does say that in the intent of the law, but it is missing in the actual text. I don't need any theory to conclude that if medical users are not made reference to, then the stated restrictions could apply to them!! People currently legally using medicine!
> We are always being tricked by doublespeak propositions that say one thing and do another.
> ...


read the proposed statute, sections 6, 7 and 8. It specifically exempts those under 11362.5 It says so word for word.....

Again, another "medical" user (stress? come on, we all deal with stress) that would deny others the right to grow. I'm tired of the "I've got mine" attitude that some of you are exhibiting. As I stated earlier, it seems to be misinformed abusers of 215 that are mostly against 19.

To set the record straight, I feel anyone should be able to use marijuana for whatever purpose they desire. It is a plant that was placed on the planet by God. In Genesis, he says that every seeded herb was placed on the planet to benefit man. Marijuana is not an accident or a freak of nature.

What I despise is those that would abuse a compassionate marijuana system for serious illnesses and then protest against 19, even when it specifically states that 11362.5 overrides 19. Just because you are stressed, or have bad nerves or anxiety is no reason to go to one of the clinics that advertise for the purpose of obtaining 215 papers. Yet many people have done so, and then they would deny the right of others that don't have cards to grow or enjoy marijuana legally.

It sickens my stomach.....

Vote yes on 19


----------



## tc1 (Oct 5, 2010)

Prop 19 can't override Prop 215 without SPECIFICALLY EXPRESSING so in the bill .... end of discussion.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 5, 2010)

Serapis said:


> I've highlighted in red the begining that many in cali seem to miss.... compassionate Use has nothing to do with allergies, sneezing, insomnia, colds, anxiety, etc. I believe that Medical Marijuana should include anything that a physician believes that marijuana may ease, but currently, that is not the case. The law is vague..... what exactly is an illness? Trouble sleeping? allergies? cancer? I hardly consider the first two serious illnesses, as defined by the law, but people in ali can go buy cards just for having the cash and you know as well as I do that it is happening. Let me repeat section 11362.5 for you....
> 
> "(A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes"
> 
> This is being abused. To claim it is not is ludicrous. That is why 19 should be voted into law to allow ANYONE that wants to grow or buy MJ.


You dont find at all hypocritical to think that just because of the utilitarian healing nature of cannabis that for some reason to fully utilize its potential is "abuse"? Why is it abuse? Should those people that got cards for other ailments just be forced to use convential medications instead? Would you not prefer that people use cannabis? I dont understand your logic, or position. Just because it works for a lot of different applications, and you dont seem to agree with it doesnt diminish its importance to those that use it.

You can have your opinions, it just doesnt make them right.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 5, 2010)

tc1 said:


> Prop 19 can't override Prop 215 without SPECIFICALLY EXPRESSING so in the bill .... end of discussion.


Not quite...and this discussion will be going on for a LONG time to come if 19 passes. 

Fish on!


----------



## tc1 (Oct 5, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Not quite...and this discussion will be going on for a LONG time to come if 19 passes.
> 
> Fish on!


Laws designed to supersede old laws or parts of old laws must be expressed and can not be implied. This has been ruled by the courts.

FACT


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 5, 2010)

Serapis said:


> read the proposed statute, sections 6, 7 and 8. It specifically exempts those under 11362.5 It says so word for word.....
> 
> Again, another "medical" user (stress? come on, we all deal with stress) that would deny others the right to grow. I'm tired of the "I've got mine" attitude that some of you are exhibiting. As I stated earlier, it seems to be misinformed abusers of 215 that are mostly against 19.
> 
> ...


Misinformed how? Because we refuse to accept the propaganda? Because you have told us so many times about the "explicit exemptions" that are neither explicit or exemptions? 

Furthermore, I have done a damn fine job in my thread illustrating how it makes no sense for 19 to leave 215 intact...the two simply cannot and will not co-exist. 

The Ruiner's Hypothetical Questions to Prop 19 Supporters...check it out...I even give you the benefit of the doubt about 215 staying intact if 19 passes...no one can answer these questions...no one can present any case worth its salt that 19 can serve any beneficial purpose to the state if 215 is intact. I encourage you to try.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 5, 2010)

Anti-Prop 19'ers

"Debating Prop 19 with hypotheticals, propaganda, and fear tactics"




Hey ... Anslingerism worked before ... right?
Not this time.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 5, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> You dont find at all hypocritical to think that just because of the utilitarian healing nature of cannabis that for some reason to fully utilize its potential is "abuse"? Why is it abuse? Should those people that got cards for other ailments just be forced to use convential medications instead? Would you not prefer that people use cannabis? I dont understand your logic, or position. Just because it works for a lot of different applications, and you dont seem to agree with it doesnt diminish its importance to those that use it.
> 
> You can have your opinions, it just doesnt make them right.


read my post again. You specifically left out the portion that would have answered your questions. Selective editing for the loss.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 5, 2010)

19 and 215 can exist just fine together. Please explain in detail why they can't....

I think you have something to gain personally if 19 fails.... what is it?


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 5, 2010)

Serapis said:


> 19 and 215 can exist just fine together. Please explain in detail why they can't....
> 
> I think you have something to gain personally if 19 fails.... what is it?


dude...my set up is a 400 watt hps...my box is a 4x4...what the hell can I gain from 19 failing? I am a hobbyist grower that prefers the company of plants instead of city full of strangers...

And I did explain the contradictions here....


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 5, 2010)

tc1 said:


> Anti-Prop 19'ers
> 
> "Debating Prop 19 with hypotheticals, propaganda, and fear tactics"
> 
> ...


Like an overt amount of propaganda is a respectable thing?


----------



## Serapis (Oct 5, 2010)

How much weed can the average Joe legally carry on him right now in Cali? ZERO?

So the new law would allow one to carry up to 28 grams with no legal repercussions? How much was allowed before to Joe Public? Zip, zero, nada, nil....

How big were pre 19 gardens? 0 square feet! 215 gardens are a different entity. A post 19 grow will be 25' feet. Thats more room than a lot of grow journal participants are using now. Hell, I'm only using 9 square feet in my closet grow.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 5, 2010)

Serapis said:


> How much weed can the average Joe legally carry on him right now in Cali? ZERO?
> 
> So the new law would allow one to carry up to 28 grams with no legal repercussions? How much was allowed before to Joe Public? Zip, zero, nada, nil....
> 
> How big were pre 19 gardens? 0 square feet! 215 gardens are a different entity. A post 19 grow will be 25' feet. Thats more room than a lot of grow journal participants are using now. Hell, I'm only using 9 square feet in my closet grow.


And where do you live again? What is your interest in california politics? You dont find it all selfish to ask of people to risk their personal freedoms and protections for the sake of your own desires? Dont give me some BS about the "exemptions" we are WAY passed that...Think about it for a second from another persons perspective. Would you want to have to forfeit your rights out of FORCE? Because of a deceptive piece of legislation? Would you like it if you had to pay money to cultivate your own medicine? If 19 didnt call for the sacrifice of prop 215 then there wouldnt be any sort of contentious debate. 

Think about it: a guy with 15 years of experience of CA-MMJ laws comes up with a bill like 19? I dont necessarily smell the good intentions in the air.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 5, 2010)

I've made my points. You have yet to make any substantial thoughts that back your theory. You spread myth, I look at facts and read words. You guess what "might" happen and I work to make change.

Again, asking where I'm from or where my interests lie is not part of the discussion. Try giving factual reasons to vote no. You don't have any.


----------



## tardis (Oct 5, 2010)

Serapis said:


> How much weed can the average Joe legally carry on him right now in Cali? ZERO?
> 
> So the new law would allow one to carry up to 28 grams with no legal repercussions? How much was allowed before to Joe Public? Zip, zero, nada, nil....
> 
> How big were pre 19 gardens? 0 square feet! 215 gardens are a different entity. A post 19 grow will be 25' feet. Thats more room than a lot of grow journal participants are using now. Hell, I'm only using 9 square feet in my closet grow.


Unfortunatly the commercial weed growers have come to become the evil corporations that feed on Americans and punish their prey. Like Goldman Sachs, or Halliburton. They dont care if people who use their product go to jail, die or lose someone they love to gang violence... They probly would laugh at it. They care about the money in their pocket and to them witnessing you go to jail is just a bonus. 

This is a country where we should be free to do whatever we want as long as we don't harm others. LIberty and Pursuit of happiness. Im just waiting for the day when one of you gets arrested for eating more fast food than legally allowed.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 6, 2010)

Serapis said:


> I've highlighted in red the begining that many in cali seem to miss.... compassionate Use has nothing to do with allergies, sneezing, insomnia, colds, anxiety, etc. I believe that Medical Marijuana should include anything that a physician believes that marijuana may ease, but currently, that is not the case. The law is vague..... what exactly is an illness? Trouble sleeping? allergies? cancer? I hardly consider the first two serious illnesses, as defined by the law, but people in ali can go buy cards just for having the cash and you know as well as I do that it is happening. Let me repeat section 11362.5 for you....
> 
> "(A) To ensure that *seriously ill* Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for *medical purposes*"
> 
> This is being abused. To claim it is not is ludicrous. That is why 19 should be voted into law to allow ANYONE that wants to grow or buy MJ.



you missed the OR and several of the things you say aren't worthy are listed in the wording, including headaches and asthma. 

you can deny it all you want, but you are still wrong. prop 215 was written so anyone could get a card. and it IS a dr who prescribes it, not a law.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 6, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you missed the OR and several of the things you say aren't worthy are listed in the wording, including headaches and asthma.
> 
> you can deny it all you want, but you are still wrong. prop 215 was written so anyone could get a card. and it IS a dr who prescribes it, not a law.


That is what the law has BECOME today. That was not it's intent when it was written and passed by the voters. It was originally passed so that seriously ill Californians could legally use MJ to alleviate suffering. That is why it was called the compassionate Use law. Today, people with allergies to smoke can get a card. It's because of that mindset that many are against prop 19. Nearly every person against it on RIU has a MMJ card. I find that very odd considering 19 doesn't even affect 215 gardens or possession amounts. They have the mentality of "I have mine, get your own" and fear 19 is coming to take away their recreational drugs. I think more of them would be pro 19 if California rewrote 215 to only allow terminally ill and excessive suffering patients access to MMJ. California has become the joke of the MMJ industry. dispensaries popping up left and right with exotic offerings and pain clinics that have such URLs as www.thcclinic.com or www.clinic420.com and advertise prices for "Dr's rec's" (new street slang for 'papers') make it obvious that many are profiting from the law while California has a huge budget shortfall. Prop 19 makes sense in retrospect.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 6, 2010)

Serapis said:


> That is what the law has BECOME today. That was not it's intent when it was written and passed by the voters. It was originally passed so that seriously ill Californians could legally use MJ to alleviate suffering. That is why it was called the compassionate Use law. Today, people with allergies to smoke can get a card. It's because of that mindset that many are against prop 19. Nearly every person against it on RIU has a MMJ card. I find that very odd considering 19 doesn't even affect 215 gardens or possession amounts. They have the mentality of "I have mine, get your own" and fear 19 is coming to take away their recreational drugs. I think more of them would be pro 19 if California rewrote 215 to only allow terminally ill and excessive suffering patients access to MMJ. California has become the joke of the MMJ industry. dispensaries popping up left and right with exotic offerings and pain clinics that have such URLs as www.thcclinic.com or www.clinic420.com and advertise prices for "Dr's rec's" (new street slang for 'papers') make it obvious that many are profiting from the law while California has a huge budget shortfall. Prop 19 makes sense in retrospect.



no sir, that is how the law was written. it was done that way on purpose. just because you deny it doesn't make you right. 

talk to dennis peron and then get back to me.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 6, 2010)

I don't remember any "Medical Marijuana is for everyone" posters during the Prop 215 campaign.


I remember a lot of "Don't send cancer and aid patients to prison" posters though .....


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 6, 2010)

tc1 said:


> I don't remember any "Medical Marijuana is for everyone" posters during the Prop 215 campaign.
> 
> 
> I remember a lot of "Don't send cancer and aid patients to prison" posters though .....


yet today *anyone* can get a card.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 6, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> yet today *anyone* can get a card.


Which is exactly my point. Because of that fucked up attitude, many of you are against 19. Had the original intent of 215 survived, you guys would be falling over each other to vote yes on 19. I suggest you guys step back and take it into perspective. 215 is NOT FOR EVERYONE, 19 is! At any time now, California can decide to crack down on BS pain centers, dispensaries and quack Dr's that issue rec's for colds. I hope it happens soon, and I hope all you anti 19 people feel it first.

FDD2 is real cute with his whimsical come backs, but when reality cuts to the chase, many of you should not have cards or gardens. The law was passed for compassionate use, not BS use or abuse. I love my weed, but I'm man enough to stand my ground and demand that access be given to everyone, not just the fuckers faking headaches or paying $150 for a BS scam Dr's rec AND THEN MARCHING AROUND WITH ANTI-19 posters! What frauds they are!

The only reason ANYONE can get a card today, Mr FDD2blk, is because of FRAUD and ABUSE. plain and simple. Defend it however you wish. 19 has the other people in mind, the recreational users that man up and refuse to abuse a compassionate use law. The rest of you can Dr shop and pay for your paperwork. You aren't fooling anyone.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 6, 2010)

Serapis said:


> Which is exactly my point. Because of that fucked up attitude, many of you are against 19. Had the original intent of 215 survived, you guys would be falling over each other to vote yes on 19. I suggest you guys step back and take it into perspective. 215 is NOT FOR EVERYONE, 19 is! At any time now, California can decide to crack down on BS pain centers, dispensaries and quack Dr's that issue rec's for colds. I hope it happens soon, and I hope all you anti 19 people feel it first.
> 
> FDD2 is real cute with his whimsical come backs, but when reality cuts to the chase, many of you should not have cards or gardens. The law was passed for compassionate use, not BS use or abuse. I love my weed, but I'm man enough to stand my ground and demand that access be given to everyone, not just the fuckers faking headaches or paying $150 for a BS scam Dr's rec AND THEN MARCHING AROUND WITH ANTI-19 posters! What frauds they are!
> 
> The only reason ANYONE can get a card today, Mr FDD2blk, is because of FRAUD and ABUSE. plain and simple. Defend it however you wish. 19 has the other people in mind, the recreational users that man up and refuse to abuse a compassionate use law. The rest of you can Dr shop and pay for your paperwork. You aren't fooling anyone.




you do not know me or my medical condition. you should watch yourself. it's rather rude.

talk to dennis peron about 215 and get back to me. you do know who dennis is don't you?


----------



## Serapis (Oct 7, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you do not know me or my medical condition. you should watch yourself. it's rather rude.
> 
> talk to dennis peron about 215 and get back to me. you do know who dennis is don't you?


No reason for you to get defensive, I NEVER accused you of fraud or abuse, I stated that the only reason ANYONE can get a card is because of fraud or abuse. Read into it whatever you want, but I think the number of doc rec shops that have popped up sum it up quite nicely. And it is obvious to me that the majority of anti 19 people on RIU have cards. Coincidence? I'm not accusing anyone here, but we both know abuse of 215 is rampant. If it weren't, there would be no need for 215 pain clinics.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 7, 2010)

" you guys", "the rest of you" does not mean YOU, I'm referring to Cali in general. Sorry you took personal offense, that was not my intention.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 7, 2010)

Serapis said:


> No reason for you to get defensive, I NEVER accused you of fraud or abuse, I stated that the only reason ANYONE can get a card is because of fraud or abuse. Read into it whatever you want, but I think the number of doc rec shops that have popped up sum it up quite nicely. And it is obvious to me that the majority of anti 19 people on RIU have cards. Coincidence? I'm not accusing anyone here, but we both know abuse of 215 is rampant. If it weren't, there would be no need for 215 pain clinics.


i don't see anyone screaming "abuse" other than stoners who have some issue with paying for a card. 

"i refuse to pay a DR for a card, but bring on taxes and i'll line right up to pay that."


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 7, 2010)

The biggest threat to a young person's health is law enforcement.

A recommendation is insurance against a busted skull.

Prop 19 just gives the LEOs a way to bust more skulls.

Is there ANYONE that thinks their jurisdiction will choose to increase your grow area or possession limits?

My city is 40% Mormon. If 19 passes, I'm betting things won't be better.


----------



## growone (Oct 7, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> The biggest threat to a young person's health is law enforcement.
> 
> A recommendation is insurance against a busted skull.
> 
> ...


i'd tend to think you're right about central california, the 1 oz and 25 sq ft is what you will get
probably true for most of california except for the northern counties
but this should appeal to the growers that have such a hard time with 19
the immediate changes will be modest, it will take time for acceptance as people gradually forget why they thought legal MJ would bring a collapse in social order
most will get their closet grow with a bit more peace of mind


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 7, 2010)

So, spend $40,000 a year until the locals wake up?

FUCK THAT.


----------



## growone (Oct 7, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> So, spend $40,000 a year until the locals wake up?
> 
> FUCK THAT.


i'm guessing you're referring to RC's proposed tax on MJ gardens?
that will apply to prop 19 or prop 215 gardens, if it passes, and it doesn't get blown away in the courts
from what i've seen, the RC tax originators aren't all that optimistic it will pass
and prop 19 doesn't matter here, they're trying to tax 215 gardens too, irrespective of whether prop 19 passes
the tax is a stretch, i forget the rate they've proposed $600 per sq ft?
their rationale is these gardens require extra police, fire, emergency services
they're going have to provide good evidence that these numbers are real, not something they've pulled out of their asses, when it gets challenged in court


----------



## Serapis (Oct 7, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i don't see anyone screaming "abuse" other than stoners who have some issue with paying for a card.
> 
> "i refuse to pay a DR for a card, but bring on taxes and i'll line right up to pay that."


They should just decriminalize it for all then. That would put all of the 'pain' clinics out of operation and the state could tax it for sale like cigarettes. Those that grow their own can pay a tax for every oz they have in possession. If your crop looks like it may come in dry at 1200 grams, you pay the appropriate tax and get stamps to put on your shit. That way, the only law you would be breaking is state tax evasion if you choose not to pay. The sick would be exempt from taxation of weed, but only the seriously ill, unless all prescrip meds are tax free.

Let's be realistic.... The only way Cali and following states would even consider decriminalizing MJ is if they can increase their coffers in these tough economic times.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 7, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> yet today *anyone* can get a card.



Anyone can get a gun and shoot someone in the forehead too ...

That doesn't mean you're not abusing your constitutional right.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 7, 2010)

growone said:


> i'm guessing you're referring to RC's proposed tax on MJ gardens?
> that will apply to prop 19 or prop 215 gardens, if it passes, and it doesn't get blown away in the courts
> from what i've seen, the RC tax originators aren't all that optimistic it will pass
> and prop 19 doesn't matter here, they're trying to tax 215 gardens too, irrespective of whether prop 19 passes
> ...


NOPE!

I currently grow for myself and three others. My wife is a huge consumer. Saturation levels to prevent the return of cancer, and pain relief for several other issues. Steve Kubby is the only person we know that consumes more. The $40k is the cost of replacing the meds I wouldn't be able to produce due to the 25 sq. ft. limit.


----------



## growone (Oct 7, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> NOPE!
> 
> I currently grow for myself and three others. My wife is a huge consumer. Saturation levels to prevent the return of cancer, and pain relief for several other issues. Steve Kubby is the only person we know that consumes more. The $40k is the cost of replacing the meds I wouldn't be able to produce due to the 25 sq. ft. limit.


understood that you don't want your 215 rights endangered
you have convinced yourself that 19 does that
i can't understand the logic that has led you to your conclusion, but it is certainly up to you to make that call
best of luck for your wife's continued health
but remember we are on the same side here, even if it gets hard to see with all heated exchanges that take place over this topic


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 7, 2010)

growone said:


> understood that you don't want your 215 rights endangered
> you have convinced yourself that 19 does that
> i can't understand the logic that has led you to your conclusion, but it is certainly up to you to make that call
> best of luck for your wife's continued health
> but remember we are on the same side here, even if it gets hard to see with all heated exchanges that take place over this topic


It's pretty plainly expressed in the bill. People v. Kelly ruled limits in H&SC 11362.775 as unconstitutional since they were introduced as state legislation, which cannot be used to limit voter initiative. Part of the ruling was also the determination that only another voter initiative can limit or change existing voter initiative legislation. Prop. 19, a voter initiative, very clearly states which sections of the H&SC in which medical allowances are expressly permitted, which includes 11362.775.


----------



## growone (Oct 8, 2010)

this is excerpted from the purposes section of prop 19
i interpret this as meaning limits for medical grows are not to be affected by prop 19, i also interpret the scope of this to apply to the whole of the proposition

7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that citys limits remain illegal, but that the citys citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9. 8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9. 9.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 8, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> It's pretty plainly expressed in the bill. People v. Kelly ruled limits in H&SC 11362.775 as unconstitutional since they were introduced as state legislation, which cannot be used to limit voter initiative. Part of the ruling was also the determination that only another voter initiative can limit or change existing voter initiative legislation. Prop. 19, a voter initiative, very clearly states which sections of the H&SC in which medical allowances are expressly permitted, *which includes 11362.775.*





growone said:


> this is excerpted from the purposes section of prop 19
> i interpret this as meaning limits for medical grows are not to be affected by prop 19, i also interpret the scope of this to apply to the whole of the proposition
> 
> 7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city&#8217;s limits remain illegal, but that the city&#8217;s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9. 8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, *except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9. 9.*


Interpret all you want. What it says is pretty clear.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 8, 2010)

growone said:


> this is excerpted from the purposes section of prop 19
> i interpret this as meaning limits for medical grows are not to be affected by prop 19, i also interpret the scope of this to apply to the whole of the proposition
> 
> 7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city&#8217;s limits remain illegal, but that the city&#8217;s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9. 8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9. 9.


Yea, that doesn't sound like it's going to affect prop 215 at all. So where did this craziness come from?


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 8, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> Yea, that doesn't sound like it's going to affect prop 215 at all. So where did this craziness come from?



I agree, 19 doesn't change 215, medical growers will still have the same rights to grow under 215 as they have right now. Judging from the posts on this forum, the hysteria created at local dispensaries, and media coverage the only people that are against 19 are those that are currently making $ abusing our medical marijuana system. 
It is greed plain and simple, the same reason marijuana was made illegal in the first place...


----------



## Turtlehermit (Oct 9, 2010)

I will be looking forward to weed legalization. Does anyone know if weed will ever be legal in Texas? Anyone at all? God I hate living in Texas.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 9, 2010)

growone said:


> this is excerpted from the purposes section of prop 19
> i interpret this as meaning limits for medical grows are not to be affected by prop 19, i also interpret the scope of this to apply to the whole of the proposition
> 
> 7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city&#8217;s limits remain illegal, but that the city&#8217;s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9. 8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9. 9.


Kelly eliminated the plant numbers issue, but the ONLY place anywhere, that grow size is limited is prop 19.

This leaves the doors open to courts who wish to rule that medical grows are only limited as Prop 19 ALLOWS. *25 square feet. *

Without a specific exemption within the text of Prop 19, the situation is ambiguous. 

Believe it or not, our justice system is corrupt and will use any tool it can get to justify its existence.

Prop 19 is full of loopholes that can be interpreted in hundreds of different ways, in various jurisdictions.

This is bad law. 

I've been involved in this fight for a very long time.

I'd hate to see us settle for junk when a good law would resolve ALL the issues left unanswered by prop 19.

Considering how varied politics are around this state, I think we'll find people living a hundred miles away from a legal oz in a jurisdiction that enjoys harassing pot heads with bogus ordinances.(Rancho Cordova's permit fees of $600 sq. ft.)


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

Turtlehermit said:


> I will be looking forward to weed legalization. Does anyone know if weed will ever be legal in Texas? Anyone at all? God I hate living in Texas.


If prop 19 passes in Cali next month, I'd imagine a few states that already do MMJ will follow suit. Texas? lol, they'll probably be right behind Alabama with legalization in 2080.


----------



## growone (Oct 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Kelly eliminated the plant numbers issue, but the ONLY place anywhere, that grow size is limited is prop 19.
> 
> This leaves the doors open to courts who wish to rule that medical grows are only limited as Prop 19 ALLOWS. *25 square feet. *
> 
> ...


this is manufacturing fear for the sake of fear
ultimately, it will be the california supreme court that will set the interpretation
if the process was as corrupt as you state, you would not have MMJ, the court system would have negated 215 through various means
how many of your Mormon neighbors do you think will be voting for 19 in the expectation to limit MMJ grow sizes?
none of the district attorneys and law enforcement that are against prop 19 seem to have such an interpretation
they're scared of it, and make no secret of that they are scared of it
again, your vote is your choice, but when you start voting in the same way that every california DEA agent is going to vote, i'd think you have to question your thoughts on 19


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 10, 2010)

growone said:


> this is manufacturing fear for the sake of fear
> ultimately, it will be the california supreme court that will set the interpretation
> if the process was as corrupt as you state, you would not have MMJ, the court system would have negated 215 through various means
> how many of your Mormon neighbors do you think will be voting for 19 in the expectation to limit MMJ grow sizes?
> ...


If 19 were well written and actually does the things it claims(legalization) I would support it, wholeheartedly.

It doesn't, and won't without years of court battles.

Why vote to make lawyers and a few commercial growers rich?

You think you'll be one of them?

I've posted facts.

Unfortunately as with the Bushies, the 19 supporters refuse to read(or understand).

LOL!


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 10, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> If prop 19 passes in Cali next month, I'd imagine a few states that already do MMJ will follow suit. Texas? lol, they'll probably be right behind Alabama with legalization in 2080.


Dreamer.

The court battles we'll have here will dissuade any other states from trying for a VERY long time. I doubt I'll live to see state #2.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Dreamer.
> 
> The court battles we'll have here will dissuade any other states from trying for a VERY long time. I doubt I'll live to see state #2.


There isnt even going to be a state #1 if it passes...


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 10, 2010)

growone said:


> this is manufacturing fear for the sake of fear
> ultimately, it will be the california supreme court that will set the interpretation
> if the process was as corrupt as you state, you would not have MMJ, the court system would have negated 215 through various means
> how many of your Mormon neighbors do you think will be voting for 19 in the expectation to limit MMJ grow sizes?
> ...


Do you live in California? Do you read?

It took over a decade to settle most of the many issues left open by 215 and 420.

19 is far muddier than they were.

The justice system went to great lengths to ignore both statutes until the CA Supreme Court had a moment of clarity.

I'm betting that no DA's office in California has spent the necessary to study this bill.

They're short handed, and very busy, prosecuting everybody they can, in support of the prison system.

California has lots of prisons that need to remain full, if all those employees are to keep their jobs.

It's about the only growth industry in California, right now.

Go rob a liquor store if you want to help.

If you won't, they'll probably get you for having 30 grams, or your grow takes 26 square feet.

I posted all my reasons a bunch of times.

I've only written about 1700 posts.

Search, and you will find.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 10, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> There isnt even going to be a state #1 if it passes...


Good point.

No...

*Exactly* the point!

*NO on 19, if you value your freedom.*


----------



## Serapis (Oct 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Kelly eliminated the plant numbers issue, but the ONLY place anywhere, that grow size is limited is prop 19.
> 
> This leaves the doors open to courts who wish to rule that medical grows are only limited as Prop 19 ALLOWS. *25 square feet. *
> 
> Without a specific exemption within the text of Prop 19, the situation is ambiguous.


Your logic and reasoning are flawed here. Why would a court of law, in deciding a 215 issue, refer to prop 19, which has nothing to do with compassionate medical usage? Several lawyers have already made this case, and you and others against 19 refuse to accept that. In fact, your arguments perfectly orchestrate what I have been saying all along; ""the only smokers fighting 19 are medical marijuana smokers.""  That in and of it's self tells me 215 is abused.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 10, 2010)

I do...that's why I am voting no.

Why on earth would I vote my constitutional rights away and make myself a criminal? It makes no sense.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Good point.
> 
> *NO on 19, if you value your freedom.*


ROFLMAO...... you sound like a Republican alarmist with no platform to stand on. All they do is campaign by creating fear.... Prop 19 opens up freedoms many in america would die for. The fact that some of you have compassionate use cards for "Seriously ill Californians" is the true definition of abuse of freedoms.

Vote YES on 19 and lead the nation in formulating sensible marijuana laws.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 10, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> I do...that's why I am voting no.
> 
> Why on earth would I vote my constitutional rights away and make myself a criminal? It makes no sense.


You have the constitutional right to grow marijuana? You have the constitutional right to purchase marijuana?

If you are going to be against something and preach it day and night, how about using details and facts? The scare mongering is getting old.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 10, 2010)

Serapis said:


> Your logic and reasoning are flawed here. Why would a court of law, in deciding a 215 issue, refer to prop 19, which has nothing to do with compassionate medical usage? Several lawyers have already made this case, and you and others against 19 refuse to accept that. In fact, your arguments perfectly orchestrate what I have been saying all along; ""the only smokers fighting 19 are medical marijuana smokers."" That in and of it's self tells me 215 is abused.


Critical reading is your friend.

If you read carefully, those attorneys never directly address our concerns, instead skirting them with erroneous blanket statements.

In this case, I'm predicting what WILL happen if 19 passes.

Kinda silly to interpret my comments, otherwise.


----------



## budling357 (Oct 10, 2010)

These are the majority against prop19= MMJ consumers, drug dealers, law enforcement, alcohol industry, etc...

All have their own agendas.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 10, 2010)

Serapis said:


> Your logic and reasoning are flawed here. Why would a court of law, in deciding a 215 issue, refer to prop 19, which has nothing to do with compassionate medical usage? Several lawyers have already made this case, and you and others against 19 refuse to accept that. In fact, your arguments perfectly orchestrate what I have been saying all along; ""the only smokers fighting 19 are medical marijuana smokers."" That in and of it's self tells me 215 is abused.


They wouldnt be brought up under 215, they would be brought up on violations of 19. Law enforcement knows they cant win a lot of cases battling against 215, but 19, you-fucking-betcha they can and will be prosecuting people under the new provisions of 19.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 10, 2010)

Serapis said:


> You have the constitutional right to grow marijuana? You have the constitutional right to purchase marijuana?
> 
> If you are going to be against something and preach it day and night, how about using details and facts? The scare mongering is getting old.


You are qualified to comment how again? Yes, I have a constitutional right to grow my cannabis. If you dont understand that, then you have absolutely no understanding of medical marijuana laws. 

Where do you live again?


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 10, 2010)

Serapis said:


> You have the constitutional right to grow marijuana? You have the constitutional right to purchase marijuana?
> 
> If you are going to be against something and preach it day and night, how about using details and facts? The scare mongering is getting old.


I guess you ignore what you can't respond too?

Address post #177.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 10, 2010)

budling357 said:


> Hear hear!!!


Can't read or think for yourself?


----------



## Serapis (Oct 10, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> They wouldnt be brought up under 215, they would be brought up on violations of 19. Law enforcement knows they cant win a lot of cases battling against 215, but 19, you-fucking-betcha they can and will be prosecuting people under the new provisions of 19.


Thats ridiculous. You can't prosecute 215 patients under 19, read the prop.... sections 6, 7 and 8 specifically exclude patients under 215. 19 specifically states that provisions of 19 DO NOT apply to patients under 215. How much clearer can the language be? 19 opens up rights to those not involved in 215. Plain and simple.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 10, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> You are qualified to comment how again? Yes, I have a constitutional right to grow my cannabis. If you dont understand that, then you have absolutely no understanding of medical marijuana laws.
> 
> Where do you live again?


I wish I'd said that first.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 10, 2010)

Serapis said:


> Vote YES on 19 and lead the nation in formulating sensible marijuana laws.


 
You cant even vote.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> I guess you ignore what you can't respond too?
> 
> Address post #177.


Post 177 is a self serving post by you that does not address a single fact or item in prop 19. You are doing nothing more than gazing into a crystal ball and making the most dire of predictions.


----------



## budling357 (Oct 10, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> They wouldnt be brought up under 215, they would be brought up on violations of 19. Law enforcement knows they cant win a lot of cases battling against 215, but 19, you-fucking-betcha they can and will be prosecuting people under the new provisions of 19.


Were does it state anywhere that one overrides the other? It doesnt, so they dont. 215 applies to MMJ card holders and 19 applies the the remainder.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 10, 2010)

Serapis said:


> Thats ridiculous. You can't prosecute 215 patients under 19, read the prop.... sections 6, 7 and 8 specifically exclude patients under 215. 19 specifically states that provisions of 19 DO NOT apply to patients under 215. How much clearer can the language be? 19 opens up rights to those not involved in 215. Plain and simple.


If you read more carefully. I mean like you actually went to school, you might realize that cultivation was NEVER mentioned, other than referring to 420 and 215, *WHICH CURRENTLY INCLUDE NO RESTRICTION ON GROW SIZE.

*By mentioning 25 square feet, Prop 19 brings restrictions to state law, *WITHOUT EXEMPTING MMJ GROWS.

*If you can't understand that, you don't understand the issues well enough to have an informed opinion.


----------



## budling357 (Oct 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Can't read or think for yourself?


I bet that response took all the thought process you could muster.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 10, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> You are qualified to comment how again? Yes, I have a constitutional right to grow my cannabis. If you dont understand that, then you have absolutely no understanding of medical marijuana laws.
> 
> Where do you live again?


It doesn't matter where I live, and for you to ask that and dismiss my arguments FRO prop 19 because of it is ridiculous. This upcoming vote has become a national discussion and those of you with 215 cards that are suffering terrible pain and terminal illness in california do not own the discussion.

The fact of the matter is, all of your arguments are meritless and you have nothing left but to sow fear and discord. I could care less where I live. This decision will open up other states to relax their stance on Marijuana laws. How big headed of you to think that Non-californians can't discuss this or debate the topic.

Pretty foolish...


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

I took it upon myself to make my own thread directly addressing the one thing people against prop 19 seem to have under their belt. 10 bucks say's they won't be able to answer the question.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 10, 2010)

Serapis said:


> Your logic and reasoning are flawed here. Why would a court of law, in deciding a 215 issue, refer to prop 19, which has nothing to do with compassionate medical usage? Several lawyers have already made this case, and you and others against 19 refuse to accept that. In fact, your arguments perfectly orchestrate what I have been saying all along; ""the only smokers fighting 19 are medical marijuana smokers."" That in and of it's self tells me 215 is abused.


Well if lawyers are saying it, then it MUST be true! That's some truly impeccable logic and reasoning there.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 10, 2010)

Serapis said:


> Thats ridiculous. You can't prosecute 215 patients under 19, read the prop.... sections 6, 7 and 8 specifically exclude patients under 215. 19 specifically states that provisions of 19 DO NOT apply to patients under 215. How much clearer can the language be? 19 opens up rights to those not involved in 215. Plain and simple.


Oh yes, the "exemptions" how could I forget those!?! The "exemptions" that wouldnt even need to be written into the bill if they had added the CUA in section 2C (2)... where the ACTUAL laws to be exempted from the reach of 19 are listed...thats right....thanks serapis for your out of state inside track on 19.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 10, 2010)

budling357 said:


> Were does it state anywhere that one overrides the other? It doesnt, so they dont. 215 applies to MMJ card holders and 19 applies the the remainder.


*DUDE!

*You need to read more than what the authors wish to spoon feed you.

The fact is, the *STATE CONSTITUTION includes the language empowering referendums(propositions) to override all other laws*.

THINK!


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> *DUDE!
> 
> *You need to read more than what the authors wish to spoon feed you.
> 
> ...


Let's see where it says that. I have a hard time believing anything you say. But wait, if California's constitution has the power to override laws in propositions, what's stopping them from overriding prop 215?


----------



## Serapis (Oct 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> If you read more carefully. I mean like you actually went to school, you might realize that cultivation was NEVER mentioned, other than referring to 420 and 215, *WHICH CURRENTLY INCLUDE NO RESTRICTION ON GROW SIZE.
> 
> *By mentioning 25 square feet, Prop 19 brings restrictions to state law, *WITHOUT EXEMPTING MMJ GROWS.
> 
> *If you can't understand that, you don't understand the issues well enough to have an informed opinion.


I'm not going to result to tossing insults around like you have, but for your info, I'm pursuing a masters degree and am sure that my education far outperforms yours. Let me explain something to you regarding law.... have you heard of the term precedent? I suggest you look it up and apply it to 215 and then take a look at prop 19. Those of you that are making the stretch that 19 supersedes 215 are the ones that have no informed opinion.

So if you want to start tossing around insults, go visit a school yard and feel free to do so with your peers. If you want to have a debate on actual issues like an adult, bring your facts.....


----------



## growone (Oct 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Do you live in California? Do you read?
> It took over a decade to settle most of the many issues left open by 215 and 420.
> 19 is far muddier than they were.
> The justice system went to great lengths to ignore both statutes until the CA Supreme Court had a moment of clarity.
> ...


as far as as being in California, you can see from my location, i'm in NY
i do not pretend to be in California, but i do see that Prop 19 is the greatest move forward in MJ law since prop 215
that you have written many posts on 19, i will give you the benefit of the doubt, but are they good and insightful posts?
Prop 19 is muddy if you want to see it that way, but what uber MJ law do you think is going to come next?
Prop 19 is it for quite some time
if you want to keep the status quo with 215, you likely have your reasons
i don't know those reasons, because i don't know you
but it does seem to be growers that have the problem with 19
in particular, the fear of MJ prices dropping
i'd like to see MJ laws progress across the county, and 19 is the best chance we have
there is nothing in Prop 19 that endangers Prop 215 growers, not realistically
nearly any law can be interpreted in slanted ways to prove nearly any point


----------



## Serapis (Oct 10, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Oh yes, the "exemptions" how could I forget those!?! The "exemptions" that wouldnt even need to be written into the bill if they had added the CUA in section 2C (2)... where the ACTUAL laws to be exempted from the reach of 19 are listed...thats right....thanks serapis for your out of state inside track on 19.


Again, you are making jumps of logic, huge ones. And I could care less where i live. Last time I checked, California is one of the US states and marijuana laws have been i the news about as much as gay marriage. I have just as much right to spread facts as you do dis-information about 19.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 10, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> Let's see where it says that. I have a hard time believing anything you say. But wait, if California's constitution has the power to override laws in propositions, what's stopping them from overriding prop 215?


 
Thats what 19 is doing!!!! FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 10, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> Let's see where it says that. I have a hard time believing anything you say. But wait, if California's constitution has the power to override laws in propositions, what's stopping them from overriding prop 215?


Again, you absolutely missed the point.

Read the California Constitution.

Until you do, you are woefully uninformed.

During the last week, I assumed that the players in these discussions had done some research.

Now you've proven you're here strictly for entertainment.

I'm now blocking you, and won't respond to your drivil, any more.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 10, 2010)

Serapis said:


> I'm not going to result to tossing insults around like you have, but for your info, I'm pursuing a masters degree and am sure that my education far outperforms yours. Let me explain something to you regarding law.... have you heard of the term precedent? I suggest you look it up and apply it to 215 and then take a look at prop 19. Those of you that are making the stretch that 19 supersedes 215 are the ones that have no informed opinion.
> 
> So if you want to start tossing around insults, go visit a school yard and feel free to do so with your peers. If you want to have a debate on actual issues like an adult, bring your facts.....


A masters dont mean shit dude...and you better hope your ass never gets busted because your career as a server with a masters degree might get ruined.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Again, you absolutely missed the point.
> 
> Read the California Constitution.
> 
> ...


Where in the constitution does it say that? I linked it for you in the thread I started. Just point it out I'll gladly read it. 

It must say something along the lines "all previous propositions are completely invalid upon voting in another"

That's the only way anything you are saying would make sense and even be factual. Why do you continue with the propaganda and lies?


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 10, 2010)

Serapis said:


> Again, you are making jumps of logic, huge ones. And I could care less where i live. Last time I checked, California is one of the US states and marijuana laws have been i the news about as much as gay marriage. I have just as much right to spread facts as you do dis-information about 19.


How can something that isnt a law be a fact? How can you guys keep saying "facts" when referring to 19? THERE ARE NO FUCKING FACTS!!! It hasnt even passed...the facts are 215 and the constitution. Those are the facts, and veggie connected those dots really freaking cleary in post#201


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 10, 2010)

Serapis said:


> I'm not going to result to tossing insults around like you have, but for your info, I'm pursuing a masters degree and am sure that my education far outperforms yours. Let me explain something to you regarding law.... have you heard of the term precedent? I suggest you look it up and apply it to 215 and then take a look at prop 19. Those of you that are making the stretch that 19 supersedes 215 are the ones that have no informed opinion.
> 
> So if you want to start tossing around insults, go visit a school yard and feel free to do so with your peers. If you want to have a debate on actual issues like an adult, bring your facts.....


Nope, don't have a college degree. Just two years before I went to work.

I got to send my daughter to a major university, though. She's finishing her MBA in December at the same university. Her BS is in Mechanical Engineering.

Yes, I understand precedent.

Another thing that will have to be hashed out in court.

Prop 19 is just an accident waiting to happen.

You obviously aren't old enough to know what being a pot head was like before 215.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 10, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> Let's see where it says that. I have a hard time believing anything you say. But wait, if California's constitution has the power to override laws in propositions, what's stopping them from overriding prop 215?


Because only another voter initiative, like Prop. 19, can amend voter initiative legislation, Prop. 215. That was the whole point of the Kelly decision. Limits can be expanded in line with the intent of the law, but not reduced.

Prop. 19 also specifies under which sections of the Health and Safety Code medical cannabis is permitted. The sections of code include the SB 420 limits that we had to work 7 years to get ruled unconstitutional.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Nope, don't have a college degree. Just two years before I went to work.
> 
> I got to send my daughter to a major university, though. She's finishing her MBA in December at the same university. Her BS is in Mechanical Engineering.
> 
> ...


err, move out of California? lol. It's that easy to know what being a pot head is like before 215 in states where it's completely illegal.. It's time to pull that head out of your ass.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 10, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Thats what 19 is doing!!!! FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!


Please quote where in 19 it states it supersedes 215? It doesn't. But in three subsections, it exclusively exempts 215 from any possible ambiguities. As I stated, I'll put my belief in Ed Rosenthal and NORML and their lawyers before I put any faith in anything you have to say. In all of your anti 19 posts, you never cite a fact. You make leaps of logic, if that is the best way to describe it.

Many having issue with 19 are the ones that sell pounds every month to their coop or dispensary or to their patients. They also cite fears that their medical gardens will be restricted to non-medical garden sizes of 5x5. Relax, your 99 plant grows are safe under 19, at least until California begins to look into abuses and prosecuting the abusers. If that happens all bets are off the table.

If 19 fails, I hope that everyone selling pot to dispensaries and coops start getting 1099's each transaction, along with having your Cali license scanned and filed. If 19 fails, I hope all medical growers that sell are visited once a month and inspected for health, pest, plant count and other state law violations. If 19 fails, I hope that ALL issued cards are looked into and the medical condition verified as terminal or serious illnesses.

Go ahead and vote no....


----------



## budling357 (Oct 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> *DUDE!
> 
> *You need to read more than what the authors wish to spoon feed you.
> 
> ...


Even if this was true, your decision to vote no is still based on personal gain. Lets say 19 limits you to 25square for the time being, so the fuck what, it opens the door for the rest of the country and eventually the taboo behind marijuana will wear off. Adjusting the laws as citizens see fit.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 10, 2010)

growone said:


> as far as as being in California, you can see from my location, i'm in NY
> i do not pretend to be in California, but i do see that Prop 19 is the greatest move forward in MJ law since prop 215
> that you have written many posts on 19, i will give you the benefit of the doubt, but are they good and insightful posts?
> Prop 19 is muddy if you want to see it that way, but what uber MJ law do you think is going to come next?
> ...


Since you aren't living here, you must be unaware that other, better written propositions are working their way through the system.

You aren't likely to be harassed by local LEOs who don't understand 19 any better than you do.

In your shoes, I'd be inclined to do some more digging before claiming that 19 is good for California.

I've laid my entire situation out, only to be denigrated for wanting to maintain MY completely legal, non profit situation. My extra is given to other patients. (Remember, these are SICK people.)

If I lose my ability to grow at my current levels, I don't have the finances to buy the shortage.

Maybe you could send me $40,000 each year?

I'll change my mind if I receive the first check before I get my absentee ballot.


----------



## budling357 (Oct 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Nope, don't have a college degree. Just two years before I went to work.
> 
> I got to send my daughter to a major university, though. She's finishing her MBA in December at the same university. Her BS is in Mechanical Engineering.
> 
> ...


You must also forget that 215 opened the door for the rest of the country!


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> removed


Wow you sure as hell don't act like you're an adult. So sad this is what has become of your posts. I mean they've always been a bit nonfactual and negative but really?


----------



## growone (Oct 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Since you aren't living here, you must be unaware that other, better written propositions are working their way through the system.
> 
> You aren't likely to be harassed by local LEOs who don't understand 19 any better than you do.
> 
> ...


 i don't fault you a bit for having plenty of caution in dealing with this proposition
it's a big change, i do realize that
but as for other propositions, such as Jack Herrer's prop?
then why aren't they are on the ballot this year? or in previous years?
because it's damn tough to get a proposition on the ballot, R. Lee put up the money, no one else did
i don't doubt there are better propositions from growers points of view
but these discussions are small change, growers aren't going to decide this election
and those other props(ones i've seen anyways) wouldn't have a chance, they might get a grower majority, but not much else


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 10, 2010)

Serapis said:


> Please quote where in 19 it states it supersedes 215? It doesn't. But in three subsections, it exclusively exempts 215 from any possible ambiguities. As I stated, I'll put my belief in Ed Rosenthal and NORML and their lawyers before I put any faith in anything you have to say. In all of your anti 19 posts, you never cite a fact. You make leaps of logic, if that is the best way to describe it.
> 
> Many having issue with 19 are the ones that sell pounds every month to their coop or dispensary or to their patients. They also cite fears that their medical gardens will be restricted to non-medical garden sizes of 5x5. Relax, your 99 plant grows are safe under 19, at least until California begins to look into abuses and prosecuting the abusers. If that happens all bets are off the table.
> 
> ...


You are putting your faith in the people that stand to make millions if 19 passes? That's really smart, good work on that masters. And if CA does look into "abusers" of the system do you know what they will find? A consitutionally upheld defense...try beating that. As far as 1099's go, technically all the transactions are untaxable DONATIONS, and growers are entitled to reasonable compensation for their services.


----------



## budling357 (Oct 10, 2010)

Im confident that my decision to vote yes is a contribution to the solution, not the problem. And as the saying goes, if your not part of the solution, you are the problem!

Do you feel the same about your decision? Do you think you will still feel that way when prohibition ends?

If so, I hope your wrong.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> You are putting your faith in the people that stand to make millions if 19 passes? That's really smart, good work on that masters. And if CA does look into "abusers" of the system do you know what they will find? A consitutionally upheld defense...try beating that. As far as 1099's go, technically all the transactions are untaxable DONATIONS, and growers are entitled to reasonable compensation for their services.


Do you eat fast food? Do you shop at Walmart? Do you drive a car? Do you have electricity? Do you live in a house? Are you using a computer?

Stop acting like you care so much about the little people getting squashed when just about everything you do supports big business.


----------



## 420God (Oct 10, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> You are putting your faith in the people that stand to make millions if 19 passes? That's really smart, good work on that masters. And if CA does look into "abusers" of the system do you know what they will find? A consitutionally upheld defense...try beating that. As far as 1099's go, technically all the transactions are untaxable DONATIONS, and growers are entitled to reasonable compensation for their services.


 Pretty sure I asked this before but why don't you invest? Sounds like a lot of these companies will be public. They are not the only ones that can make money from this.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 10, 2010)

420God said:


> Pretty sure I asked this before but why don't you invest? Sounds like a lot of these companies will be public. They are not the only ones that can make money from this.


You proponents are absolutely obsessed with money. Personally, I find profiting at the expense of fellow smokers going to jail to be very poor form.


----------



## 420God (Oct 10, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> You proponents are absolutely obsessed with money. Personally, I find profiting at the expense of fellow smokers going to jail to be very poor form.


 How is it profiting from other smokers being locked up? Passing 19 makes it so people won't get locked up.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 10, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> You proponents are absolutely obsessed with money. Personally, I find profiting at the expense of fellow smokers going to jail to be very poor form.


Says the guy supporting prohibition and all the mendo millionaires. You act like prop 19 is what is bringing profits into cannabis. But people have been getting rich off it for 40 years. The idea that supporting prohibition is supporting freedom is laughable.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

420God said:


> How is it profiting from other smokers being locked up? Passing 19 makes it so people won't get locked up.


I'm still a bit confused on how people say if prop 19 passes the war on drugs will continue and get worse. Very confusing...


----------



## 420God (Oct 10, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> I'm still a bit confused on how people say if prop 19 passes the war on drugs will continue and get worse. Very confusing...


 They almost make it sound like it will get worse if it passes, like all out madness or something.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 10, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Says the guy supporting prohibition and all the mendo millionaires. You act like prop 19 is what is bringing profits into cannabis. But people have been getting rich off it for 40 years. The idea that supporting prohibition is supporting freedom is laughable.


Ah yes... Dan Beck is back with more empty associations and baseless assumption. You never fail to deliver with the propaganda. The infantile derivation that anyone voting no is for prohibition is just pathetic. You're hypocritical attempt to attach and attack my non-existent profit motives to cover your profit motives in this are what's laughable here. It's very clear you're willing to throw anyone you have to under the bus of regulation in the name of your profit margin. I'd rather not see any of my friends or family go to jail just because they're suddenly "not old enough".


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Ah yes... Dan Beck is back with more empty associations and baseless assumption. You never fail to deliver with the propaganda. The infantile derivation that anyone voting no is for prohibition is just pathetic. You're hypocritical attempt to attach and attack my non-existent profit motives to cover your profit motives in this are what's laughable here. It's very clear you're willing to throw anyone you have to under the bus of regulation in the name of your profit margin. I'd rather not see any of my friends or family go to jail just because they're suddenly "not old enough".


I'd much rather not see any of my friends or family go to jail because it's completely illegal. Come on Californians, now is not the time to start burrowing in your own asses.


----------



## 420God (Oct 10, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Ah yes... Dan Beck is back with more empty associations and baseless assumption. You never fail to deliver with the propaganda. The infantile derivation that anyone voting no is for prohibition is just pathetic. You're hypocritical attempt to attach and attack my non-existent profit motives to cover your profit motives in this are what's laughable here. It's very clear you're willing to throw anyone you have to under the bus of regulation in the name of your profit margin. I'd rather not see any of my friends or family go to jail just because they're suddenly "not old enough".


 Still not understanding why you think anyone would be locked up if it passes, it's just the opposite. If you're trying to argue the age factor then the medical bill trumps that and that's according to the Supreme court.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 10, 2010)

420God said:


> Still not understanding why you think anyone would be locked up if it passes, it's just the opposite. If you're trying to argue the age factor then the medical bill trumps that and that's according to the Supreme court.


Yes well, with reasoning like that, I can see how you'd misunderstand. Medical only applies to those that have a recommendation. Anyone under the age of 21, without a recommendation, is subject to a felony possession charge, whereas before they'd have only received an infraction. But you do whatever mental gymnastics you need to make yourself feel justified.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 10, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Anyone under the age of 21, without a recommendation, is subject to a felony possession charge, whereas before they'd have only received an infraction.


Calling you out. That is a lie. If I'm wrong, prove it.


----------



## budling357 (Oct 10, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Yes well, with reasoning like that, I can see how you'd misunderstand. Medical only applies to those that have a recommendation. Anyone under the age of 21, without a recommendation, is subject to a felony possession charge, whereas before they'd have only received an infraction. But you do whatever mental gymnastics you need to make yourself feel justified.


It states no where that "Anyone under the age of 21, without a recommendation, is subject to a felony possession charge". 

Those selling/supplying to "Anyone under the age of 21, without a recommendation, is subject to a felony possession charge".


----------



## 420God (Oct 10, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Yes well, with reasoning like that, I can see how you'd misunderstand. Medical only applies to those that have a recommendation. Anyone under the age of 21, without a recommendation, is subject to a felony possession charge, whereas before they'd have only received an infraction. But you do whatever mental gymnastics you need to make yourself feel justified.


 Mental gymnastics? I believe my posts are clear and to the point.

Where does it say the laws will get stiffer if it passes?


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 10, 2010)

budling357 said:


> Those selling/supplying to "Anyone under the age of 21, without a recommendation, is subject to a felony possession charge".


It actually says those *knowingly* selling to those under 21 are subject to a felony charge. So in order for someone to get busted for that, the cops have to prove you knew they were under 21. That makes it almost impossible to bust anyone for that unless you are standing out on a street corner selling to an undercover cop who states his age before you sell to him. In that case, no sympathy. That's some dumb shit.


----------

