# NO! On Prop 19



## Humboldt14 (Sep 30, 2010)

*most of us up here in the mountains of Humboldt County Ca. are campagning Vote No!*



*Whats your opinion?*


----------



## whynot (Sep 30, 2010)

Vote YES! Peace!


----------



## LsdgotAholdofMe (Sep 30, 2010)

i want to smoke my dried plant flowers and not be deemed a criminal , If this bill helps me obtain that goal. I and others would have to vote yes imo


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Sep 30, 2010)

this is what the prop says you can and cannot do, and contrary to popular belief none of this part is allowed to be taxed or forced to be licensed,(aka your 25 square ft plot) and will be illegal to do so. there is also a part that forbids police from seizing any amount of pot lawfully aquired. the taxes only apply commercial transfers, transactions and commercial licenses. i will post the tax info too. the commercial laws are too long but read the whole thing here http://yeson19.com/node/6 . simply put, if you want to grow and sell pot as a buisness, theyre gonna tread it like one. and for your medical rights, whatever your doctor says is your limits, are your limits, the minimums are for regular ppl. this bill establishes the term personal consumption a new right for citizens, and 215 is strictly for people with illnesses, so ofourse they will be given special treatment. the same way oxy is illegal unless prescribed 215 patients will be able to carry more and grow however many plants ther doctor rec says

Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:

(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual&#8217;s personal consumption, and not for sale.

(ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.

(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.

(iv) Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection.

(b) &#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;

(iii) consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator;

(iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.


the section here is on commercial regulations and is very long


Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees

(a) Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.

(b) Any licensed premises shall be responsible for paying all federal, state and local taxes, fees, fines, penalties or other financial responsibility imposed on all or similarly situated businesses, facilities or premises, including without limitation income taxes, business taxes, license fees, and property taxes, without regard to or identification of the business or items or services sold.


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Sep 30, 2010)

feel free to vote yes or no, just read the bill a few times


----------



## Drew4312 (Sep 30, 2010)

WHY vote against legalizing weed? please let me know...


----------



## T.H.Cammo (Oct 1, 2010)

Drew4312 said:


> WHY vote against legalizing weed? please let me know...


Voting against California's Prop 19 would "_*keep everything as it is now*_" - recreational use would continue to be illegal and consequently the price (of pot) would remain sky high.


Anybody that profits from this "Black Market" setup would, likely, vote no on Prop 19 so they could continue to line their pockets with money. That's the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - so help me God!


For the "Small Time" personal grower - who just wants to "grow & smoke his own", there is absolutely no good reason to vote against Prop 19. It's all about personal greed and typical, bullshit, misleading tactics.

For "Medical Users" nothing would change, except that the price paid at thier local dispensary would hit "Rock Bottom". If thier "Script" calls for a 1/2 acre garden, then they would still be allowed a 1/2 acre garden (of course this only applies to registered MMJ cardholders).


----------



## reggaerican (Oct 1, 2010)

VOTE NO!!! i think there is just to many restrictions with his prop or "crock of shit" i should say.. if pot is to be leagal it must be @ a federal level...


----------



## KuLong (Oct 1, 2010)

Didn't I see a few post like this in the political section already?


----------



## T.H.Cammo (Oct 1, 2010)

reggaerican said:


> VOTE NO!!! i think there is just to many restrictions with his prop or "crock of shit" i should say.. if pot is to be leagal it must be @ a federal level...


Of course there are restrictions built in to Prop 19, let's be reasonable! Under prop 19 pot would be considered much like alchohol, and subject to similar restrictions - I, for one, think that is realistic and unavoidable.

Have you ever heard of "State's Rights?". There is already a great controversy over how the Federal Government will react to the passage of Prop 19. The truth is - that remains to be seen! 

You are quick to call Prop 19 "A crock of shit", but fail to say what it is that is so bad about it! Prop 19 will allow me (and anyone else who is 21 in California) to buy, use, or grow my own pot for recreational purposes. I think that's a hell of a lot better then the way things are now. Why don't you want that? This is just the next step on the way to "Complete Legalization". First, "Baby Steps", then "Learn to walk", then "Learn to run".


----------



## KuLong (Oct 1, 2010)

Dang it, I am getting sucked into it...

FACT: Most people do not want Marijuana to be legal. 

1. The war on drugs gets a huge budget cut and the gov doesn't want that obviously.

2. The "medicinal" users will have to get a real job because they will not be able to make any money on the side (every medical user I know makes more than the law allows and sells)!

Personally I do not have to worry about that because in my country, it is going to be illegal for a very long time, even if the states or Canada make it legal in their countries.

See? You made me talk about politics. Now everyone is going to hate me.


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 1, 2010)

everybody i know is voting NO


----------



## Nocturnal1 (Oct 1, 2010)

T.H.Cammo said:


> You are quick to call Prop 19 "A crock of shit", but fail to say what it is that is so bad about it! Prop 19 will allow me (and anyone else who is 21 in California) to buy, use, or grow my own pot for recreational purposes.


Not if your city decides otherwise. First post! Woot! (More to come, just need to get my cam back so I can start a thread about my bubblelicious grow)


----------



## Nocturnal1 (Oct 1, 2010)

And I am voting NO. Like someone mentioned, not till its on a fed level...


----------



## tc1 (Oct 1, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> everybody i know is voting NO


You live in the emerald triangle .... 

Everyone around there is profiting from prohibition. Of course they're going to vote no.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 1, 2010)

Nocturnal1 said:


> And I am voting NO. Like someone mentioned, not till its on a fed level...



It will never get to the federal level until enough states have successfully ended prohibition.

Just like we'll need another 10 more states to get medical before the feds start to reconsider re-scheduling.


----------



## MJSkywalker (Oct 1, 2010)

It seems like a lot of people can't see the wood for the trees. Proposition 19 is a watershed that will have far reaching effects not just in the US but worldwide. Surely it's better to get it passed into law then build on the platform from there rather than allowing it to fail at the first hurdle? Considering the many decades of persecution and propaganda against the sacred herb and those who use it I find it very sad indeed that some members of the community ignore the big picture and choose to focus on their own self-interests.


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 1, 2010)

VOTE KNOW!!!!!!!!!!

This POS prop is written solely to attempt to make the writer (Dick) very wealthy. This poorly written (on purpose?) prop will be tied up in courts in most counties for a LONG time. Dick will make plenty more in Alameda county and beyond. 

Why did Dick make it 25sqft??? why not 10, or 100 or 37.325??? Sure this is more than is legal know if you are too cheap to pay the canna doc 12 bucks a month to c.y.a...but it will force us to continue to hide indoors with expensive hid's to grow 365 or grow one fooking plant outdoors in the free sun (then pay the Dick for his commercial KwikiMart bud). This is NOT legalization it is merely decriminalization.

I want to grow outdoors...if I live on 40 acres with a few like minded people...we are restricted to 25 sq ft...If you rent, you need the land lord to ok your grow...does he have to Ok tomatoes and squash??? Is there a law on the books that can only be changed by a vote of the people ($$$) restricting the space where I grow my veggies...essentially regulating supply???...Of course not. This is not even about legalization.

It will destroy the possibility for the right prop in 2012...while setting the precedence for the rest of the country that it is a calamity even in California. Plus all other states will be more prohibited.

But the absolute worst part about this prop for me is the creation of new Canna Crimes...

Casually smoking a toke here and there as needed whether or not my 15 year old is in the area as I have always done would now be a felony!...And smoking with a 20 year old friend or family member mandates jail and a fine!!

Why did Dick do this????? Vote Know!


----------



## sikkbeast (Oct 1, 2010)

... I like many believe legalization needs to take place on a federal level,... after all even if your state says yes whats to stop the feds from busting in and say hey you ,.. you doin bad or wrong ,... bye bye ... 
if they made it federal,.. they could 
a- make you buy a permit
b-make it so you can only grow enough for personal consumtion,..( which should be tax exempt if grown privately)
c-police it the way county health inspectors do resteraunts
d- generate plenty of revenue enforcing stipulations 
e- have variations of permits such as for persons who may grow for sale and profit
...(which could generate revenue in taxation and fines from violators)
............ why do they make this difficult???? it isn't rocket science,.... it could be americas newest industry,...
you wouldnt have to worry about outsourcing .... its already grown every where else.........


----------



## MJSkywalker (Oct 2, 2010)

I think it's overly optimistic to say the least to hope for a federal law to be passed first before legalisation on a state level. If legalisation is ever going to happen it will be a step by step process. The establishment obviously has a very ingrained bias against cannabis and a lot of vested interests against changing the status quo.


----------



## T.H.Cammo (Oct 2, 2010)

Nocturnal1 said:


> Not if your city decides otherwise. First post! Woot! (More to come, just need to get my cam back so I can start a thread about my bubblelicious grow)


That's partially true! If your city, or county, elects to "Stay Dry" by not allowing marijuana to be sold locally, they have that option. But, if Prop 19 passes (dispite the opposition from "The Emerald Triangle" and others) the California State law would still allow those residents to grow thier own, smoke thier own and carry thier own around with them, on thier person (even in thier "Dry Town" they would still be allowed by the new State law to grow, smoke and carry up to one ounce at a time). 


That's one hell of a lot better than it is right now! I don't know what your situation is - but I can certainly live with that! My vote doesn't go to put money in someone else's pocket, I'm voting yes on Prop 19 because of what it will do for me and other "Personal Growers"! It's just common sense that anyone making those "big bucks" on illegal pot would want to keep it that way - _*Al Capone didn't want prohibition on alcohol to end either*_!


----------



## MJSkywalker (Oct 2, 2010)

"Al Capone didn't want prohibition on alcohol to end either!"

I think you've just summed up the argument against Proposition 19 perfectly there.


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 2, 2010)

Except in this case...Al Capone wrote and paid for a law that allowed him to sell even more as long as his kickbacks to the local yokels was above the table...And you can make a little bit of beer just for fun and only buy the rest from me or one of my buddies...and if you get caught drinking a beer in the same room as a 15 year old..you are going to prison...tomatoes are under no prohibition...Cannabis will be prohibited on many levels in this POS Prop...

Dick Lee should think about what happened to Capone


----------



## MJSkywalker (Oct 2, 2010)

The question that needs to be asked with regard to those who oppose Proposition 19 is "who benefits?" Legalisation has got to be better for everyone than prohibition, both in the short and long-term. Prohibition has never worked and never will. It would be ironic if legalisation doesn't come to pass because of members of the community voting against it rather than simply the "just say no" brigade. Ironic and tragic.


----------



## jfa916 (Oct 2, 2010)

everyone vote yes plz


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 2, 2010)

Hmm... as inadequate and short-sighted as those arguments are... I'm still going to have to go with no. Tricky Dick Lee has made more than enough money exploiting cannabis users. I have no intention of handing him and those like him the keys to a brand new industry to corner while people rot in jail for risking what Lee and his cronies don't have the backbone to risk.


----------



## Nocturnal1 (Oct 2, 2010)

tc1 said:


> It will never get to the federal level until enough states have successfully ended prohibition.
> 
> Just like we'll need another 10 more states to get medical before the feds start to reconsider re-scheduling.


I know it will take forever...maybe never. But fsure, I vote No on 19


----------



## Nocturnal1 (Oct 2, 2010)

T.H.Cammo said:


> That's partially true! If your city, or county, elects to "Stay Dry" by not allowing marijuana to be sold locally, they have that option. But, if Prop 19 passes (dispite the opposition from "The Emerald Triangle" and others) the California State law would still allow those residents to grow thier own, smoke thier own and carry thier own around with them, on thier person




Hmm, ok...I was mislead. I thought they could prohibit the growth as well. My apologies.


----------



## HSA (Oct 2, 2010)

This is one that really pisses me off because when someone's wallet is involved they tend you be conservative hypocrites. A friend said he was going to vote against legalization of marijuana because the price would go down. Now I know what he's growing. Sadly, I see just the opposite happening. The price will stabilize eventually with legalization _and then we'll separate those who can and can't produce good marijuana for public consumption at reasonable prices. With legalization it will be affordable, available and we won't have to hide from big brother. I see nothing but progress ahead if it passes. _

Right now we're selectively incarcerating people for the cultivation, sale and use of marijuana and depriving others of a pain reliever that could literally change their lives. Why? Because of money. If it is legalized, not just decriminalized, corporate America would get in on the action; someone like: the oil companies or the cigarette conglomerates, and they would get involved in a New York second. The sales tax alone could help restore our economy and reduce the involvement of the criminal element. Then we could get on with restoring our crumbling infrastructure to what it was in the past and put people to work. 

If nothing else, look at our history from the perspective of alcohol prohibition, it didn't work! The illegality of it in the twenties made a fifty cent drink cost three dollars and the money went to organized crime as the demand went up and the supply vanished but there were no fewer drunks on the street. 

We have the same thing now with marijuana only the organized crime element of the twenty-first century is the bloated bureaucracy of our federal and local law enforcement agencies. Do we really need over thirty prisons in California? The expense of warehousing those individuals convicted for marijuana offenses is overtaking the cost of public education. It's insanity. We could use those resources to secure our borders and solve legitimate issues. I'm voting for it and I hope you will too.


----------



## Juicy Fruit (Oct 2, 2010)

Wish I was down there and could vote but sadly thats not gonna happen (I'am Canadian after all). If I were to chime in it would be to say Vote YES!!! people who vote NO either don't understand the world or are greedy and want more profit for themselves (lets be honest now). Sure the bills not perfect but its a step in the right direction, fact is it doesn't need to be perfect its all about public perception which is all law is realy you need look no further then to google "stupid laws from around the world" to know what I mean. What needs to happen is "perception" of weed needs to be changed first cause since the 60s the Gov has been spewing out faulcitys and pure lies in there own political agenda.
And more so for my own benefit this will help Canada also legalize it fully as we are huge trading partners of the U.S and can't just straight out go against them on such a bigi ssue...


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 2, 2010)

tc1 said:


> You live in the emerald triangle ....
> 
> Everyone around there is profiting from prohibition. Of course they're going to vote no.


thats very true, but you have to understand its alot of our only income. my father grew pot up here and so did my grandfather, i have freinds that are 4th generation growers, we have nothing else up in these mountains to live off of except growing and its been like that here for over 50 years


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 2, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> thats very true, but you have to understand its alot of our only income. my father grew up here and so did my grandfather, i have freinds that are 4th generation growers, we have nothing else up in these mountains to live off of except growing and its been like that here for over 50 years


I really don't understand this? After 19 passes you will be able to have a legal business and have much less worries about your own personal safety, your farm, raids, etc. Does having to pay a business license and some taxes bother you that much that you are willing to sacrifice having a potentially bigger and better business? Or is it the competition that scares you?


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 2, 2010)

luvourmother said:


> I really don't understand this? After 19 passes you will be able to have a legal business and have much less worries about your own personal safety, your farm, raids, etc. Does having to pay a business license and some taxes bother you that much that you are willing to sacrifice having a potentially bigger and better business? Or is it the competition that scares you?


compitition is not the issue, do you know how pot already being grown were i live. 

taxes are not the issue, everytime i pay for somthing i pay taxes.

the issue is the drop in value....

lets say you grow 500 pounds, you 5 workers that live on your ranch growing with you, and as a ranch owner you are paying for everything, all living expences including food, you are working from sun up to sun down for the whole season then you have to give all the workers a share,

then if you can only sell a pound for 500 bucks you are working for free


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 2, 2010)

Nocturnal1 said:


> I know it will take forever...maybe never. But fsure, I vote No on 19


umm why vote no if you acknowledge that whats happening right now might change the nation down the line? counterintuitive if you ask me


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 2, 2010)

well that drop in value wont happen over night, lots of people are claiming it wont even happen. anyway, if you guys plan to continue operating as a business be prepared for it be treated like one subject to licenses and taxes just like every other commercial cultivation operation. this is a very real change that will happen in the way the country looks at the plant. we really shouldn't waste the opportunity.


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 2, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> the issue is the drop in value....
> 
> lets say you grow 500 pounds, you 5 workers that live on your ranch growing with you, and as a ranch owner you are paying for everything, all living expences including food, you are working from sun up to sun down for the whole season then you have to give all the workers a share,
> 
> then if you can only sell a pound for 500 bucks you are working for free


I see, purely out of greed.

The way of growing you just described is what you are SUPPOSED to be doing right now if you were growing legally under 215.


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 2, 2010)

and if somehow a pound will be worth 500$, from the large consumer basis, thats fucking awesome, even more of a reason to vote yes. but be realistic, thats not gonna happen over night, and the government will most likely regulate the prices so they stay high where they can collect a significant tax on it. 35$ an ounce just doesnt seem a reasonable amount to provide tax revenue, especially if you are providing a quality product. if the govnt will be taxing it. depending if its a flat 50/ounce tax or a 12% sales tax the price shouldnt change much anyway durring the transition time


----------



## Brokenneck (Oct 2, 2010)

Hi Guys. 
Ive been in the market for decades. Buying, smoking, yadda yadda. 
I have doubts about ma and pa farmers losing out. Myself, I will choose a mom and pop supplier any day before going to a clinic. 
If ma and pa farmers have the Quality then trust logic, your business runs now on your quality. 
It is hard to grow season, after season and deal with all that is involved. 
If WeedMart becomes a reality will they have Great Quality, Only if Ma and Pa start growing for weedmart. 

another note, 
If you are running an operation now, quality outdoor, then if prop 19 passes there will be millions of gardens in the state.
With that said with more gardens in the state. is a ma and pa operation going to fall off of the radar?

I am so down for the ma and pa operations yes, but hey ma... hey pa... I wanna grow too. I will suck at it, but shit. Give me a chance, I will buy from you anyway I doubt I can produce what you can. 

if the price of elbows drops by X% you could tax me an X. Give the price to the grower and the tax to the state/city. I'm okay with the 200 per z.


Oh and the shared space with a minor thing, that is not very clear. YES I have a hard copy of 19 and no on 19 literature. 
*currently* child protective services will check on a home when abuse is reported and if plants are involved (with Dr. rec) if the plants area, and all paraphernalia are inaccessible to the minor child then no action is taken. 
I know a patient.... No Plants just a locker of paraphernalia and having his cabinet locked saved his gear and kids, when the neighbor smelled smoke daily, they called. 
If we want to get serious on smoking in same space as minor (or under 21) could we not smoke at anytime or in any space?
so we can not read too much into this prop. 
I see it as a Beginning to changing the worlds view on MJ. Don't forget all are watching and it's is the United Nations that have placed this ban.


----------



## Brokenneck (Oct 2, 2010)

Wait A Second. 
500 lbs
$500 per
250K
5 People= $50K Each. 
6 People=$41600 Each.

Okay then let's say I WILL WORK FOR MA AND PA FOR $35K theres a profit!!


----------



## 1gamma45 (Oct 2, 2010)

You guys are become complete and total clown shoes about this Prop 19 crap. You have a chance to have the first completely legal MJ. And the 1/2 that arnt pissing on it cause its not what some dead guy said it sould be while the others are pissing and mouning about 25 feet of space to grow in. 

both are retarded and your cutting your own throat. YOU WILL NOT GET THIS CHANCE AGIAN. Get it legal then fix it. JFCMoJ Wake up you morons.


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 2, 2010)

Brokenneck said:


> Wait A Second.
> 500 lbs
> $500 per
> 250K
> ...


50 grand a share. ITS NOT WORTH IT, thats not alot of profit,


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 2, 2010)

luvourmother said:


> I see, purely out of greed.
> 
> The way of growing you just described is what you are SUPPOSED to be doing right now if you were growing legally under 215.


not greed, thats just the way its been up here for ever,

and people are full of shit getting on us comercial growers up here in HUMBOLDT.

because if you owned land up here in these mountains you would do the same thing, 

people like you get on us because you cant do it.

well too bad!


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 2, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> 50 grand a share. ITS NOT WORTH IT, thats not alot of profit,


50g a year is perfectly fine for anyone in cali to live comfortably. really... whats wrong with that? anything more than what you need indeed is pretty greedy. as i said. you guys are the ones operating as a business, be prepared for it to be treated like one. the government will not set the prices so its people go out of business, thats counterintuitive. forcing businesses to go under means less business to tax and so on untill it all collapses.


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 2, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> not greed, thats just the way its been up here for ever,
> 
> and people are full of shit getting on us comercial growers up here in HUMBOLDT.
> 
> ...


Sorry that you can't see that this is greed at its worst. The only reason you don't want legalization is because you might lose out on making $ (key word here is might), that is greedy. The consequences of prohibition far outweigh your personal income.


----------



## Bamell (Oct 2, 2010)

i think that pot will be treated like alcohol, so ya gotta ask yourself 'do you like what the government has donet o control alcohol?' personally, i dont mind things the way they are now, so i personally wouldnt mind staying where we are at, change could be bad


----------



## mrFancyPlants (Oct 2, 2010)

Wait - everyone is so concerned that big business is coming in... but what about the established growers? Don't they have the upper hand? Sure, you need to change your process and increase automation(if you want to compete with shitty agribusiness weed if that ever even exists), but so what? You know the plant better than they do.

It's not going to be the same old quaint situation but it's not like you can't compete at all. Shit.. sell tours of 'marijuana land'. Humboldt/Mendo is STILL the BEST place on earth to SMOKE weed!  You should know that. 

One thing I've always wondered though - is humboldt really a great place to grow? I know it's good for the cover that the native veg provides, and lots of expertise is there, and the culture and support networks, and stoners really dig the climate... but I think you could grow better weed in the southern mountains where you get longer days, a longer grow period, lower humidity and more UV. Jus' sayin...


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 2, 2010)

It's always amusing to see people who've been hiding in the woodwork because they can't be arsed to know what their rights as smokers are sit there and tell farmers how things are in the cannabis industry. When in fact, your advocating for Prop. 19 for the same reason. You're afraid of the consequences if you get caught. Then YOUR livelihood is on the line and you have now risked it all, just as the grower has. You proponents of Prop. 19 remind me of a line from a great song...

"You just want to be Jesus without the suffering..." 

Sorry if those of us who've been fighting to keep this industry alive and grow a competent network of small and medium growers don't feel like handing things over to large-scale operators who are the actual ones perpetrating most of the inequities that smokers commonly complain about growers. It's amusing that you can sit there and dictate to those who'd be affected financially by this bill what is or is not adequate for their lives. It's hypocritical that you sit there doing so while promoting a clearly commercial bill. The "consequences" of prohibition are minimal, non-existent come January 1, 2011, for cannabis smokers of the non-medical persuasion. 

You may see greed at worst. I see cowardice at it's worst. Pot smokers used to be united in the risk we all shared to grow and smoke cannabis. I suppose it was only a matter of time before some of the ranks began to capitulate. Especially with the shiny profits of commercial operations in their eyes. If you're going to accuse people of being greedy and selfish, it would be less detrimental to your case if you didn't display your own so flagrantly.


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 2, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> You're afraid of the consequences if you get caught. Then YOUR livelihood is on the line and you have now risked it all, just as the grower has.
> Sorry if those of us who've been fighting to keep this industry alive and grow a competent network of small and medium growers don't feel like handing things over to large-scale operators who are the actual ones perpetrating most of the inequities that smokers commonly complain about growers. It's amusing that you can sit there and dictate to those who'd be affected financially by this bill what is or is not adequate for their lives. It's hypocritical that you sit there doing so while promoting a clearly commercial bill. The "consequences" of prohibition are minimal, non-existent come January 1, 2011, for cannabis smokers of the non-medical persuasion.
> 
> You may see greed at worst. I see cowardice at it's worst. Pot smokers used to be united in the risk we all shared to grow and smoke cannabis. I suppose it was only a matter of time before some of the ranks began to capitulate. Especially with the shiny profits of commercial operations in their eyes. If you're going to accuse people of being greedy and selfish, it would be less detrimental to your case if you didn't display your own so flagrantly.


I am an advocate of Prop 19 because prohibition does not work in preventing people from ingesting marijuana and the original reasons for prohibition were racist and down right wrong. This is why I support Prop 19 because these bogus laws need to be changed.
Even with decriminalization soon to be in place, a criminal record will still exist if you are fined for possession of small amounts. and of course there is all associated with intent to sell...
I want to have a legitimate business based around marijuana consumption, this is impossible under current medical legislation because we are not allowed to profit from medical sales. When Prop 19 passes I will be able to legally have an actual for profit business and provide quality buds, supplies, and edibles to my customers. If you see this as greed so be it, I see it as wanting to follow the rules and have a legitimate business that provides much needed services to my community.
Please remember the reasons marijuana was made illegal in the first place, why would you want to continue to support prohibition?


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 2, 2010)

Juicy Fruit said:


> Wish I was down there and could vote but sadly thats not gonna happen (I'am Canadian after all). If I were to chime in it would be to say Vote YES!!! people who vote NO either don't understand the world or are greedy and want more profit for themselves (lets be honest now). Sure the bills not perfect but its a step in the right direction, fact is it doesn't need to be perfect its all about public perception which is all law is realy you need look no further then to google "stupid laws from around the world" to know what I mean. What needs to happen is "perception" of weed needs to be changed first cause since the 60s the Gov has been spewing out faulcitys and pure lies in there own political agenda.
> And more so for my own benefit this will help Canada also legalize it fully as we are huge trading partners of the U.S and can't just straight out go against them on such a bigi ssue...


Wow!!! A stranger with 10 posts and you have 2 bars of +rep...what did rollitup himself rep you????



Brokenneck said:


> we can not read too much into this prop.


This is incredibly dangerous!!! Cuz the law will be reading much into this and it will never be in our favor....And prices NEVER go down.



1gamma45 said:


> You guys are become complete and total clown shoes about this Prop 19 crap. You have a chance to have the first completely legal MJ. And the 1/2 that arnt pissing on it cause its not what some dead guy said it sould be while the others are pissing and mouning about 25 feet of space to grow in.
> 
> both are retarded and your cutting your own throat. YOU WILL NOT GET THIS CHANCE AGIAN. Get it legal then fix it. JFCMoJ Wake up you morons.


Yes there is already another prop which does not include new prohibition and new Canna Crimes...only it makes it so recreational users can grow A LOT, keeps taxes low...but on the down side...Dick might just have to learn to live within his means as a millionaire



luvourmother said:


> I am an advocate of Prop 19 because [...]
> I want to have a legitimate business based around marijuana consumption


There it is! The Forest!!!!!!

For the record...I do not sell...I have been growing a very small amount in ~25sqft for 2 years...the cost is prohibitive...I want to grow outdoors. Everybody keeps saying prohibition does not work...YES!!! but this is just modified prohibition which mildly benefits the short attention span crowd...hurts the small organic grower and greatly benefits those who can afford 4-5 figure permits.

Now...CPS may get involved after an abuse allegation if MJ or paraphernalia is involved...as bad as it would be to lose your kids over a plant...It would be much easier to get them back...if you were not sitting in the state pen. Though right now it could be determined to be contributing to delinquency...this is much different than a FELONY!!!!!!! So this shit passes...CPS Takes the kids and you go to prison...Good luck getting them back!

BUT...What if dick just left this part out, you know...legalizing MJ rather than criminalizing it...now we have prop 19 and it's pseudo legalization but no stipulation of felony level crimes...Would CPS still take the kids...or would they decide that it is legal in the state of California???? IDK the answer, but prop 19 takes the subjectivity out of the equation...well adjusted kids who are doing well in school, active in extra curricular activities, happy and drug free with parent(s) that puff and do not abuse the kids...their (CPS) hands will be tied and they will be required to call LEO and testify at the felony trial...Thanks Dick I truly hope you get what you deserve


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 2, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> It's always amusing to see people who've been hiding in the woodwork because they can't be arsed to know what their rights as smokers are sit there and tell farmers how things are in the cannabis industry. When in fact, your advocating for Prop. 19 for the same reason. You're afraid of the consequences if you get caught. Then YOUR livelihood is on the line and you have now risked it all, just as the grower has. You proponents of Prop. 19 remind me of a line from a great song...
> 
> "You just want to be Jesus without the suffering..."
> 
> ...


nice.......................


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 2, 2010)

luvourmother said:


> I am an advocate of Prop 19 because prohibition does not work in preventing people from ingesting marijuana and the original reasons for prohibition were racist and down right wrong. This is why I support Prop 19 because these bogus laws need to be changed.
> Even with decriminalization soon to be in place, a criminal record will still exist if you are fined for possession of small amounts. and of course there is all associated with intent to sell...


A criminal record of your infraction.... riiight. Sure. Again, Prop. 19 does nothing against the Controlled Substances Act, the real source of cannabis prohibition. Possession is not a crime under state law. Even cultivation for the purpose of personal consumption is relatively decriminalized thanks to Prop. 36. Gifting, sharing, even transport (bearing in mind open container laws and restrictions which means keep it in the bloody trunk) are now decriminalized. In fact, the only thing really still completely criminal is your precious "intent to sell". That one hurdle that keeps you from all the shiny profits like you describe here....



luvourmother said:


> I want to have a legitimate business based around marijuana consumption, this is impossible under current medical legislation because we are not allowed to profit from medical sales. When Prop 19 passes I will be able to legally have an actual for profit business and provide quality buds, supplies, and edibles to my customers. If you see this as greed so be it, I see it as wanting to follow the rules and have a legitimate business that provides much needed services to my community.
> Please remember the reasons marijuana was made illegal in the first place, why would you want to continue to support prohibition?


And there we have the real impetus for your support. You want yourself a business and for whatever reason non-for-profit confuses you. Given your understanding of the current status of decriminalization in this state and what it means, I can see how the concept of earning a reasonable living and being not-for-profit would seem so outrageous. Of course, you also like to gloss over the fact that your profits come at the expense of the 18-20 year olds that get busted because they're suddenly excluded by law you voted in. I am all too aware of the reasons that cannabis was made illegal. As a long time activist and proponent of decriminalization, I have a very clear view of the history that has brought us to where we are. I also have concerns for the non-medical cannabis users. The only difference is that I teach them to stand up for their rights under existing legislation as smokers and potential cultivators. I'm not pushing bad legislation on them so as to garner myself some profit margin. We don't need more laws and regulations, we're doing fine with getting rid of the ones we already have.


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 2, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> We don't need more laws and regulations, we're doing fine with getting rid of the ones we already have.


----------



## Juicy Fruit (Oct 3, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> Wow!!! A stranger with 10 posts and you have 2 bars of +rep...what did rollitup himself rep you???? :


 LOL I dunno I was only +rep once that I can tell (at 125rep atm) also whos "mr rollitup"? :shiftyeyes: lmao someone is watching lol j/k


----------



## MrStickyScissors (Oct 3, 2010)

vote no! note now! yada yada yada but for reals though im just saying tho vote no tho you know what i mean tho


----------



## zephyrfoxy (Oct 4, 2010)

I hope everyone of you voting yes owns your home or has a laid back landlord. You have to have their consent in order to grow. Personally... I think the medicinal marijuana community is an awesome thing. It is finally something grown by the people, distributed by the people, and purchased by the people with little government interference. There are a lot of people in the "Emerald Triangle" that grow just to get by. Not everyone is greedy like this douche, Richard Lee. Personally... I'm not going to vote yes to allow someone to exploit marijuana usage as much as he already has. Vote no against corporate America!


----------



## reggaerican (Oct 4, 2010)

T.H.Cammo said:


> Of course there are restrictions built in to Prop 19, let's be reasonable! Under prop 19 pot would be considered much like alchohol, and subject to similar restrictions - I, for one, think that is realistic and unavoidable.
> 
> Have you ever heard of "State's Rights?". There is already a great controversy over how the Federal Government will react to the passage of Prop 19. The truth is - that remains to be seen!
> 
> You are quick to call Prop 19 "A crock of shit", but fail to say what it is that is so bad about it! Prop 19 will allow me (and anyone else who is 21 in California) to buy, use, or grow my own pot for recreational purposes. I think that's a hell of a lot better then the way things are now. Why don't you want that? This is just the next step on the way to "Complete Legalization". First, "Baby Steps", then "Learn to walk", then "Learn to run".


i understand your point about baby steps.. but here you go just one example why i dont like it.. currently there is hundreds of thousands of people wrongly incarserated for possesion charges.. with prop 19 that # can easilly clime since the limit will only be 1 oz on your person or home.. wow man that is a huge step backwards seeing that now i can possess 1lb.. but thats just one..


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 5, 2010)

zephyrfoxy said:


> I hope everyone of you voting yes owns your home or has a laid back landlord. You have to have their consent in order to grow. Personally... I think the medicinal marijuana community is an awesome thing. It is finally something grown by the people, distributed by the people, and purchased by the people with little government interference. There are a lot of people in the "Emerald Triangle" that grow just to get by. Not everyone is greedy like this douche, Richard Lee. Personally... I'm not going to vote yes to allow someone to exploit marijuana usage as much as he already has. Vote no against corporate America!


best point i have heard!


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 5, 2010)

why the hell would we vote to posses less pot then we can now with our cards. stop being lazy and go get a card and you are safe form arrest .


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 5, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> why the hell would we vote to posses less pot then we can now with our cards. stop being lazy and go get a card and you are safe form arrest .


card holders are exempt, read this 5 times till you understand. i dont wanna point it out again

section 2 B

"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."

11362.5 is prop 215 and 11362.7 is sb 420. what this says is the city can make system to regulate cultivation, sales and restrictions on buying/selling except for people using 215/sb420

that quote is the direct language of the prop. currently for non cardholding smokers you cant hold or grow anything, how is giving everyone in the cities that uphold 19 new weed rights a bad thing? if you want less restrictions you can get a card, it is really gonna be that simple


----------



## Edwardo Ruffian (Oct 5, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> why the hell would we vote to posses less pot then we can now with our cards. stop being lazy and go get a card and you are safe form arrest .


So what you are saying is if someone in a medical mj state wants to smoke recreationally they need to lie to a doctor and abuse the medical mj system?? I hear the "vote no, just get a card" bit often, what crap. So because I want to smoke recreationally I have to bastardize the medical mj laws and lower myself to level of people who do things like cheat the Unemployment services in order to smoke. What a pity people like you exist at all.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 5, 2010)

mikhail chalecki said:


> card holders are exempt, read this 5 times till you understand. i dont wanna point it out again


Or what? You'll whine some more. It's not like you were going to stop anytime soon anyways. See, the problem here isn't that we can't read Prop. 19, it's that you seem to be unable to read and competently understand the arguments against. You're wishful thinking is all fine and dandy for your limited view of the world, but it's really not very useful when making viable assumptions about how this law will play out if voted in.



mikhail chalecki said:


> section 2 B
> 
> "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."
> 
> 11362.5 is prop 215 and 11362.7 is sb 420. what this says is the city can make system to regulate cultivation, sales and restrictions on buying/selling except for people using 215/sb420


Yes, we know that. That's the problem. Prop. 19 concentrates the power to regulate possession, cultivation and use to agencies and entities that are morally and ideologically opposed to cannabis consumption. No matter how many times you try and "interpret" Prop. 19, that fact does not change. Cities and law enforcement, in general, do not like or want cannabis users and no amount of legislation changes that. 



mikhail chalecki said:


> that quote is the direct language of the prop. currently for non cardholding smokers you cant hold or grow anything, how is giving everyone in the cities that uphold 19 new weed rights a bad thing? if you want less restrictions you can get a card, it is really gonna be that simple


 Again with the lies. Or maybe it is blind ignorance. It's hard to tell which of you pro-19ers are just naive and which are outright lying. In any case, we've reviewed existing rights under law numerous times. Possession is decriminalized. Cultivation is eligible for a diversion under Penal Code 100. In fact, per legal precedent, there technically is no limit on garden size for personal consumption. The only thing strictly prohibited is commercial sales. So let's sum up shall we...

Currently: Possession, for anyone 18 and older, is a misdemeanor with a maximum $100 fine with no jail or arrest/detainment. Come January 1, 2011 that becomes an infraction which eliminates all of the negative legal repercussions associated with the previously minor misdemeanor offense. Cultivation is still illegal, but first and second time offenders are eligible for diversion, provided the grow is for personal consumption. Per People v. Williamson, there are no limits on garden size and or plant numbers provided the grow is for personal consumption, again. 

Under Prop. 19: Possession for anyone under the age of 21 is now illegal. Ambiguous wording in Prop. 19 leaves open the legality of smoking cannabis for parents. Personal consumption gardens are defaulted to a maximum of 5' x 5', unless your city allows otherwise. Cities are also empowered to enact regulations and taxation as they deem necessary without legal recourse for the individual as their authority is backed by voter initiative.

Prop. 19 asks too much for the sake of commercial sales. This doesn't give anyone any rights they don't already have. It takes rights from those who deserve them, circumscribes the lives of common smokers and growers through state policy and makes them foot the bill for it all.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 5, 2010)

Edwardo Ruffian said:


> So what you are saying is if someone in a medical mj state wants to smoke recreationally they need to lie to a doctor and abuse the medical mj system?? I hear the "vote no, just get a card" bit often, what crap. So because I want to smoke recreationally I have to bastardize the medical mj laws and lower myself to level of people who do things like cheat the Unemployment services in order to smoke. What a pity people like you exist at all.


Yes... terrible pity all of us who can read the law, understand it's intent and are backed by legal precedent should dare to promote a program that offers legal protections for ANYONE that benefits from cannabis at all. The medical system isn't being abused, despite your opinion.


----------



## Edwardo Ruffian (Oct 5, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Yes... terrible pity all of us who can read the law, understand it's intent and are backed by legal precedent should dare to promote a program that offers legal protections for ANYONE that benefits from cannabis at all. The medical system isn't being abused, despite your opinion.


If directly lying about having a valid medical condition to obtain mj legally is not considered abusing the system, what do you call it? Using the system? BS quit trying to convince yourself that what you are doing is legal, its not. You seem to have a case of the "I gots mine". Legalizing marijuana is about stopping the hundreds of thousands of possession only arrests that damage people's lives. Its about providing a safer alternative to alcohol. I suffer from no serious condition and an not willing to lie to get a medical card, should that mean I have less of a right to smoke than you? The only thing I see from all the "NO" people is selfish, egotistical inconsistency. Get over yourself and think of others for a change.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 5, 2010)

Edwardo Ruffian said:


> If directly lying about having a valid medical condition to obtain mj legally is not considered abusing the system, what do you call it? Using the system? BS quit trying to convince yourself that what you are doing is legal, its not. You seem to have a case of the "I gots mine".


And right into personal attacks when your baseless arguments fall through. How very proponent of you. In any case, if you're of the impression that someone has to lie to get a recommendation, then again, just because you don't get the system and think it's overly generous and permissive, doesn't mean it is so. I don't have to convince myself that what I do is legal. The law and legal precedent says so. You, of course, see it as "I got mine" syndrome. I suppose if I lived in a world as oppressive as the one you've created for yourself, I might see it the same way. It's a common symptom of the victim mentality.



Edwardo Ruffian said:


> Legalizing marijuana is about stopping the hundreds of thousands of possession only arrests that damage people's lives. Its about providing a safer alternative to alcohol.


For the record, no one gets arrested/detained or jailed for simple possession in California. Currently, possession for non-medical purposes is a minor misdemeanor offense with no jail time or arrest/detainment and a max fine of $100. Beginning January 1, that misdemeanor becomes an infraction. Even cultivation is permissible and liable for protection under diversion. These are rights under current law for common, everyday, non-medical smokers. And these are all things we have achieved through decriminalization efforts. I've said it once and I'll say it again... we don't need more regulation, we are doing fine getting rid of the laws we already have.



Edwardo Ruffian said:


> I suffer from no serious condition and an not willing to lie to get a medical card, should that mean I have less of a right to smoke than you? The only thing I see from all the "NO" people is selfish, egotistical inconsistency. Get over yourself and think of others for a change.


 Not at all. In fact, I've pointed out the inherent rights you have under existing law to smoke cannabis, either medically or non-medically. The only thing restricting your "rights" to smoke is your very obtuse and restrictive viewpoint on the world. One has the right to grow and smoke their own cannabis in the state of California. Under medical recommendation, one is able to fully express their usage of cannabis to enhance and enrich their lives, typically without persecution. Under non-medical auspices, one still has the right to grow and smoke for the purposes of personal consumption, but not the right to sell. The only thing that Prop. 19 adds is commercial sales. Any other rights that proponents claim that Prop. 19 grants are already owed to the citizens of California. You just have to have the backbone to fight for them instead of hiding behind other people.


----------



## Edwardo Ruffian (Oct 5, 2010)

Its not just about you. I dont live in California, and I do participate in the legalization movement in my home state (if I did live in CA I would vote yes). Prop 19 if passed will open the floodgates for total nation wide reform. Dammit people I want to grow my own crop legally without having to go through medial mj hoops or be worried that my employer or future employer will test me. If you are waiting for the perfect time to reform or are waiting on the perfect piece of legislation or for the country to be in just the right political climate, you will be waiting for a very long time. Legalization will never happen first at the Federal level, neither will it happen without some kind of taxation, thats just simple truth. Your view that 215 is "good enough" is just so short sighted that it makes me sorry for you and those that think like you. (you can reply if you want but i am done reading these legalization threads, just plain sad and pathetic)


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 5, 2010)

How can people that dont even really know what the current MJ climate in CA is like come out and just make the assinine assumptions about people against 19? And have the balls to say that "its not just about you"....well dude, I actually live in the state, I actually cultivate in the state, it is JUST ABOUT ME...thats why people vote. They vote in the hopes that their vote will make their lives better. This whole debate isnt just about Dick Lee either - even though he is willing to sacrifice the 100,000+ medical patients and growers for his own unchecked ambitions of wealth and power. "McDonalds of weed" get the hell outta here with that...screw over thousands a long the way...thats selfish.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 5, 2010)

Edwardo Ruffian said:


> Its not just about you. I dont live in California, and I do participate in the legalization movement in my home state (if I did live in CA I would vote yes). Prop 19 if passed will open the floodgates for total nation wide reform. Dammit people I want to grow my own crop legally without having to go through medial mj hoops or be worried that my employer or future employer will test me. If you are waiting for the perfect time to reform or are waiting on the perfect piece of legislation or for the country to be in just the right political climate, you will be waiting for a very long time. Legalization will never happen first at the Federal level, neither will it happen without some kind of taxation, thats just simple truth. Your view that 215 is "good enough" is just so short sighted that it makes me sorry for you and those that think like you. (you can reply if you want but i am done reading these legalization threads, just plain sad and pathetic)


Your ridiculous assumption that Prop. 19 does anything nationally is just that... ridiculous assumption. Prop. 19 does nothing nationally and has no bearing on federal statute or Congressional acts. Prop. 19 also doesn't have any provisions in it regarding workplace discrimination or put any curbs or restrictions on drug-testing mandates. Mandates which are federal anyways. The only one waiting here is you. It's probably just as well that you not participate in this debate since you can't seem to do so without personal attacks or irrelevant emotive pleas.


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 5, 2010)

bong ripppppppppppppppppppppp


----------



## tc1 (Oct 5, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Your ridiculous assumption that Prop. 19 does anything nationally is just that... ridiculous assumption. Prop. 19 does nothing nationally and has no bearing on federal statute or Congressional acts. Prop. 19 also doesn't have any provisions in it regarding workplace discrimination or put any curbs or restrictions on drug-testing mandates. Mandates which are federal anyways. The only one waiting here is you. It's probably just as well that you not participate in this debate since you can't seem to do so without personal attacks or irrelevant emotive pleas.


Yeah ... I mean ..... Prop 215 didn't affect anyone outside of California.

Prop 19 passing can help change the world view of marijuana, just like 215 helped change the view of medical marijuana.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 5, 2010)

tc1 said:


> Yeah ... I mean ..... Prop 215 didn't affect anyone outside of California.
> 
> Prop 19 passing can help change the world view of marijuana, just like 215 helped change the view of medical marijuana.


Oh goodie... you again. Too bad you don't get any better at this. 13 out of 49 states isn't exactly the widespread sweeping change you're pretending it is. But keep trying. No matter how many times you sing this song, the fact remains that no amount of legislation changes the ideology or morality, and those that oppose us ideologically or morally will always find a way to thwart or twist the law and public opinion to their favor or design.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 5, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Oh goodie... you again. Too bad you don't get any better at this. 13 out of 49 states isn't exactly the widespread sweeping change you're pretending it is. But keep trying. No matter how many times you sing this song, the fact remains that no amount of legislation changes the ideology or morality, and those that oppose us ideologically or morally will always find a way to thwart or twist the law and public opinion to their favor or design.


13 states is 13 more before Cali passed Prop 215. And just because every state doesn't have the political backbone to get it done, doesn't mean the national perception hasn't changed.

"People are always going to be against Marijuana ... so vote no on Prop 19 because it doesn't make any difference"
What a stupid argument.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 5, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> *most of us up here in the mountains of Humboldt County Ca. are campagning Vote No!*
> 
> 
> 
> *Whats your opinion?*


 You mean most of those that are growing crops for cash?

Vote YES on 19


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 5, 2010)

tc1 said:


> 13 states is 13 more before Cali passed Prop 215. And just because every state doesn't have the political backbone to get it done, doesn't mean the national perception hasn't changed.
> 
> "People are always going to be against Marijuana ... so vote no on Prop 19 because it doesn't make any difference"
> What a stupid argument.


Then maybe you shouldn't have made it. I can't really be held responsible for the crap you say. Since there's no way to accurately measure "national perception" nor is it a viable indicator for any rational conclusions, we can safely ignore it. 13 states is a great thing. But again, your cut-and-paste argumentation is lacking. The point is 13 out of 49 in 15 years. 15 years later, and if "national perception" has changed as much as you aver, then it should be a lot more than 13 other states. Not to mention that some of those 13 states have ridiculous and restrictive policies that insure that the fewest people possible can qualify. Yeah, our "national perception" has changed so much.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 5, 2010)

Perception doesn't always equate to legislation being passed.

The majority of people in this country believe those who are ill shouldn't be jailed for using marijuana to help alleviate their suffering. But it takes more than public opinion to get laws passed in America.

The fact is, Prop 215 HAS affected people outside of California and it is for that very reason it's reasonable to believe Prop 19 will have a similar effect. How could it not? We're in dire economic straights and Cali is the worlds 4th largest economy. If legalization proves to be a positive thing for California, other states will most definitely look long and hard.

The mere fact that you would sit here and argue that setting precendence would never affect future outcomes is laughable.

It's starting to become quite clear that you're here just to argue.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 5, 2010)

So back to opinions and fantasy and nothing substantive. It's a nice attempt at deflection, sidestepping the fact that a minority of states have adopted medical statutes, restrictive or permissive, which doesn't really equate to this "majority of people in this country" you go on about. Again, the wording of Prop. 19 only allows for the collections of taxes and fees for the purpose of regulating the newly established cannabis industry only. 

The bulk of my arguments have been with regard to precedents, legal and political. Of course I am here to argue... perhaps you missed the point of political debate. The only thing that's really become clear is your inability to argue effectively.


----------



## mrFancyPlants (Oct 5, 2010)

A couple points:

"Possession has been decriminalized in CA" - No it has not. Possession of under one ounce is now a $100 ticket. I don't think people want the threat of a $100 fine and a run-in with the police(who can then go on a fishing expedition) hanging over their heads for smoking a joint in public. Possession of over one ounce still can carry jail time, but that's not affected by 19(right?).

"Cultivation is just diversion" - Have you ever been through diversion? I have. It sucks. According to NORML, cultivation in CA is still a felony. Do you get probation along with the diversion? If so, I hope you want to give up smoking weed for a few months.

I think it is disingenuous to suggest Prop 215 hasn't helped change perception of marijuana across the country. 13 states have come along, more will follow, though likely not all of them. Sure, it hasn't happened as fast as some would like, but it has done more to promote freedom than any other marijuana-related legal act. Prop 19 could be the snowball at the top of the hill that leads to federal legalization 15 or 20 years down the road.

Regarding 'lying to a doctor' - Nearly every living person has a medical condition for which cannabis could be beneficial. You don't need to 'lie' to a doctor. You get headaches and occasionally have trouble sleeping right? MMJ in CA wasn't just intended for AIDS and cancer patients. What I *don't* like about the current system is having to pay some med-school flunkie $35-150 to write me a rec. every year. That is effectively a tax(fee=tax unless you're a democrat).

Here's a recent legal analysis courtesy of NORML: http://sjcbc.org/2010/09/11/an-open-letter-on-prop-19/

It does a very good job of explaining why Prop 19 will not affect rights granted under prop 215.

It's too bad 19 preserves prohibition for <21 year olds, but I don't think you'd have a chance of passing a measure that doesn't You can always try in 2012. Good luck with that.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 5, 2010)

Every medical marijuana national poll I've seen in the last few years has around %60 in support.
Polls provide more substance than any agenda filled opinion you might have. Accept this and move on.

13 medical marijuana states = millions more people able to use medical marijuana.
I call that *progress* .... 

Allowing responsible adults 21+ to LEGALLY use, cultivate, transport and possess marijuana is *progress*.

*You're asking people to vote no to progress*. You can argue your face off and continue to pretend my opinions are somehow not as valid as yours, but it isn't going to change this fact.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 5, 2010)

mrFancyPlants said:


> I think it is disingenuous to suggest Prop 215 hasn't helped change perception of marijuana across the country. 13 states have come along, more will follow, though likely not all of them. Sure, it hasn't happened as fast as some would like, but it has done more to promote freedom than any other marijuana-related legal act. Prop 19 could be the snowball at the top of the hill that leads to federal legalization 15 or 20 years down the road.



He's delusional .... If stating a circle is round somehow placed Prop 19 in good light, he'd argue that a circle is squared.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 5, 2010)

Again, your limited reading is not my issue. Polls say what the pollsters need them to say. And again, public opinion is not legislation. You keep responding with this insubstantial crap about public opinions and polls. Doesn't change the fact that, despite your assertions and your statistics, 13 out of 49 is not 60% or a majority in any respect. No one has said it isn't progress except in your inferences. I'm arguing for people to vote no on Prop. 19. Only you and your fellow proponents are the ones who think Prop. 19 is progress. I'm not the one trying to compare opinions or their validity here or change facts. I leave that to you and the proponents.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 5, 2010)

tc1 said:


> He's delusional .... If stating a circle is round somehow placed Prop 19 in good light, he'd argue that a circle is squared.


And back to personal attacks. Excellent. You object against my alleged discounting of your opinion and then turn around to do the same. This hypocrisy of yours is getting to be a habit.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 5, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Again, your limited reading is not my issue. Polls say what the pollsters need them to say. And again, public opinion is not legislation. You keep responding with this insubstantial crap about public opinions and polls. Doesn't change the fact that, despite your assertions and your statistics, 13 out of 49 is not 60% or a majority in any respect. No one has said it isn't progress except in your inferences. I'm arguing for people to vote no on Prop. 19. Only you and your fellow proponents are the ones who think Prop. 19 is progress. I'm not the one trying to compare opinions or their validity here or change facts. I leave that to you and the proponents.


Right, you're not comparing the validity of other peoples opinions. You just keep telling us that we're wrong and pretend like we have no basis for an argument. You just keep making slight handed comments regarding our methods of debate.

But you're not comparing the validity of peoples opinions ... oh no.


If you don't think sending less people (21+ adults)to jail for responsible marijuana use isn't progress ... I don't know what is.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 5, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Again, your limited reading is not my issue. Polls say what the pollsters need them to say. And again, public opinion is not legislation. You keep responding with this insubstantial crap about public opinions and polls. Doesn't change the fact that, despite your assertions and your statistics, 13 out of 49 is not 60% or a majority in any respect. No one has said it isn't progress except in your inferences. I'm arguing for people to vote no on Prop. 19. Only you and your fellow proponents are the ones who think Prop. 19 is progress. I'm not the one trying to compare opinions or their validity here or change facts. I leave that to you and the proponents.


You are arguing for people to vote no on 19..... WHY? Be specific please because I will be.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 5, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> And back to personal attacks. Excellent. You object against my alleged discounting of your opinion and then turn around to do the same. This hypocrisy of yours is getting to be a habit.



Oh boohoo... you've made plenty of slight handed comments towards me in multiple threads, most of which I ignored.
I state you're delusional (And you ARE) and you want to deflect it back towards me. "But mommmmm ... he hit me first".

If you're going to make smirk comments to others ... be prepared to hear it yourself.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 5, 2010)

tc1 said:


> Right, you're not comparing the validity of other peoples opinions.


Very good. See, telling the truth and sticking to facts doesn't hurt. 



tc1 said:


> You just keep telling us that we're wrong and pretend like we have no basis for an argument.


 Personal opinions don't have any place in a factual argumentation. They belong in the realm of moral or ethical argumentation. Morality and ethics should never be legislated. So since we're discussing legislation, personal opinions aren't really valid, especially where legal repercussions are concerned.



tc1 said:


> You just keep making slight handed comments regarding our methods of debate.
> But you're not comparing the validity of peoples opinions ... oh no.


 Inept argumentation is ofttimes annoying to anyone with a forensics background and makes it easy to spot flimsy argumentation. Like complaining about tangents and irrelevant details to detract from bad or failing argumentation.




tc1 said:


> If you don't think sending less people (21+ adults)to jail for responsible marijuana use isn't progress ... I don't know what is.


 Senate Bill 1449 accomplished that, includes all adults 18 and over and didn't even come with a tax. Your inability to accurately identify "progress" has been a central focus of the arguments against you.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 5, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Senate Bill 1449 accomplished that, includes all adults 18 and over and didn't even come with a tax. Your inability to accurately identify "progress" has been a central focus of the arguments against you.


1449 is progress. But it doesn't LEGALIZE marijuana.

Gives an even bigger reason to vote YES on Prop 19 though .... Adds more protection that Prop 19 won't override.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 5, 2010)

tc1 said:


> Oh boohoo... you've made plenty of slight handed comments towards me in multiple threads, most of which I ignored.
> I state you're delusional (And you ARE) and you want to deflect it back towards me. "But mommmmm ... he hit me first".
> 
> If you're going to make smirk comments to others ... be prepared to hear it yourself.


As with most other points, this one escapes you as well. If name-calling makes you feel better, then whatever, man. But at least make a valid on-topic argument. This whining of yours is derailing the thread.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 5, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> As with most other points, this one escapes you as well. If name-calling makes you feel better, then whatever, man. But at least make a valid on-topic argument. This whining of yours is derailing the thread.




Right after you stop being a hypocrite ....


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 5, 2010)

tc1 said:


> Right after you stop being a hypocrite ....


Way to go... that'll surely show everyone who's the better man here...

Can't wait to see what you come up with next....


----------



## mrFancyPlants (Oct 5, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Senate Bill 1449 accomplished that


I just found this out - SB1449 doesn't apply to concentrates such as hash. You're still up for 1 year jail/$500 fine if you get caught with hash/hash oil/butter/etc(law says 'concentrates').

Still an improvement though.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 5, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Way to go... that'll surely show everyone who's the better man here...
> 
> Can't wait to see what you come up with next....



Can't wait for you to call someone else stupid ... then complain about name calling yet again.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 5, 2010)

tc1 said:


> Can't wait for you to call someone else stupid ... then complain about name calling yet again.


Excellent. Back to lying. I never called anyone stupid or called anyone a name. I leave that for those with lackluster argumentation ability.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 5, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Excellent. Back to lying. I never called anyone stupid or called anyone a name. I leave that for those with lackluster argumentation ability.



More lies ... surprise surprise.


https://www.rollitup.org/legalization-marijuana/370311-ruiner-responds-j-david-nick-2.html#post4717336
_
Normally, I try not to be derogatory, but this post is prime example of why our nation ranks 11th in the world in education. It's quite obvious you don't get it, vradd._


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 5, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> lackluster argumentation.


i bet you spell checked.....


jk..LOL


----------



## reggaerican (Oct 5, 2010)

lets keep it sival people it will all be over soon enough.. 

just al soon as we all agree to vote no!! haha


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 5, 2010)

tc1 said:


> More lies ... surprise surprise.
> 
> 
> https://www.rollitup.org/legalization-marijuana/370311-ruiner-responds-j-david-nick-2.html#post4717336
> ...


Excellent fail. No name calling in there. There's a comment on the deplorable state of the public education system that teaches public policy propaganda instead of factual historical accounts which results in short-sighted and erroneous interpretation of proposed law. I thought you might actually find something with some bite, but alas not. Never mind it's still deflection from the issue at hand which is Prop. 19.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 5, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> i bet you spell checked.....
> 
> 
> jk..LOL



Heh... sadly, no. Damned OCD. Although the red squigglies makes it easy to spot problems fairly quick. Back to the debate!


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 5, 2010)

please continue.........


----------



## tc1 (Oct 5, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Excellent fail. No name calling in there. There's a comment on the deplorable state of the public education system that teaches public policy propaganda instead of factual historical accounts which results in short-sighted and erroneous interpretation of proposed law. I thought you might actually find something with some bite, but alas not. Never mind it's still deflection from the issue at hand which is Prop. 19.



Anyone with a 5th grade education can see you called him stupid. YOU even said you were making a derogatory comment. 

Let's see some other hypocritical comments shall we?

_https://www.rollitup.org/legalization-marijuana/370076-i-dont-give-about-you-13.html#post4712856

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

*Telling someone they don't have a backbone ... sounds like a personal attack to me.*

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

_"Since the point has flown so far over your head as to be in high orbit, let me explain the delusion part."_

*Telling someone else they're delusional .... then complaining that I did the same tonight. Hypocrite.*
_
"I certainly do try not to succumb to the pettiness that intense debates can incur."_
*
You failed.*



You've been exposed on multiple occasions. Your continued backstroke on this subject is hilarious. Please, keep telling us how you don't do name calling, personal attacks, and succumb to pettiness.

I've got more examples ...


----------



## tc1 (Oct 5, 2010)

Seriously ... this guy admitted he was being derogatory before suggesting the poster was stupid.

But he doesn't name call ... oh no. What an ignorant grasp on reality.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 5, 2010)

I bet you do. Seems I have myself a fan or stalker of sorts. Neat. Again, I have been derogatory, which means showing a critical or disrespectful attitude, but none of that involves name-calling. I suppose I could sit here and debate the finer points of semantics and rhetoric, but that would most likely be an exercise in futility. But please continue to blather on about how evil I am... I haven't been vilified in a long while.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 5, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> I bet you do. Seems I have myself a fan or stalker of sorts. Neat. Again, I have been derogatory, which means showing a critical or disrespectful attitude, but none of that involves name-calling. I suppose I could sit here and debate the finer points of semantics and rhetoric, but that would most likely be an exercise in futility. But please continue to blather on about how evil I am... I haven't been vilified in a long while.



Nice attempt to deflect the fact that I caught you in your own web of lives. You suggested vradd was stupid ... that's name calling.

No amount of pretend intellectual jibberish you spout will cover the fact that you were exposed as a liar and hypocrite.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 5, 2010)

tc1 said:


> Nice attempt to deflect the fact that I caught you in your own web of lives. You suggested vradd was stupid ... that's name calling.
> 
> No amount of pretend intellectual jibberish you spout will cover the fact that you were exposed as a liar and hypocrite.


Sure, whatever makes you happy. Can you get back to the topic now?


----------



## tc1 (Oct 5, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Sure, whatever makes you happy. Can you get back to the topic now?



Someone 2 pages ago personally asked you what specific parts of Prop 19 gives you the reasoning to personally vote no.
Answer him and perhaps I will respond tomorrow.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 5, 2010)

In other words, you have nothing. Nice way to deflect for two pages. This thread is full of reasons why this bill is bad and why it's being opposed. Take your pick. None of them have been adequately refuted except by baseless supposition that contradicts legal and historical precedents.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 5, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> In other words, you have nothing. Nice way to deflect for two pages. This thread is full of reasons why this bill is bad and why it's being opposed. Take your pick. None of them have been adequately refuted except by baseless supposition that contradicts legal and historical precedents.



Jebus H Christmas ....

You tell me to get back on topic and you reply with another off topic comment.
You're really getting good at this hypocrite thing ....


----------



## mrFancyPlants (Oct 5, 2010)

Calm tc1, he's given you teh stupidz. He's not going to let you get the last word in. Just let him go man


----------



## Junkiepr (Oct 5, 2010)

Do ppl of Cali realize that the whole world have set eyes on this, states other contries etc... me, I live in Puerto Rico, and in 2008 some ppl said "lets legalize cannibis in PR" but nothing happened like always, you should be proud that a lot of ppl in cali stood in front of the tyrant and said enough.
sorry for my english  hope prop 19 wins and my dear PR will copy cali on legalization.


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 5, 2010)

LsdgotAholdofMe said:


> i want to smoke my dried plant flowers and not be deemed a criminal , If this bill helps me obtain that goal. I and others would have to vote yes imo


You are speaking for a whole lot of CA folks. Being a "criminal" for 45 years, I will be very glad to vote YES on Nov. 2. 
For now, l'll be happy with the "decriminalization", for openers. I can quibble about what size, shape, how much, etc. down the road.
Good luck & good grow.......BB


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 5, 2010)

"Quibble" 

That's not belittling the situation at all... nice measured response. Geez, all these people with their "concerns"


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 5, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> "Quibble"
> 
> That's not belittling the situation at all... nice measured response. Geez, all these people with their "concerns"


Sorry, you lost me at "not belittling the situation". Rereading your post over and over, I'm unable to get the meaning.....BB


----------



## tardis (Oct 6, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> *most of us up here in the mountains of Humboldt County Ca. are campagning Vote No!*
> 
> 
> 
> *Whats your opinion?*


Just like Halliburton would vote NO on ending war... or Goldman Sachs would vote No on making stealing from investors illegal... People who make higher profits when people suffer want as many of you to suffer as possible. And commercial growers are no exception, they WANT you to go to jail, they WANT your child to die at the hands of mexican drug smugglers, it make sthem happy and rich. So vote yes, your profits arnt' worth peoples lives.


----------



## pitbudz87 (Oct 6, 2010)

vote no on this absurd prop, it wuld put people who have been in the buis mom and pop growers in the mountains generations of familys that have grown and lived of the land and gave back to it took care of it. this would be the event horizin if it passes for mj cultivation, meaning the point in wich nothing can exist where it will be ripped molecule from molecule. vote no


----------



## MrStickyScissors (Oct 6, 2010)

vote no. mark my words prop 19 wont pass. look at all the people that grow that are not for it. those are the people smart enough to see what it really is. along with all the people that hate on cannabis good luck with that prop passing. I cant wait tell november


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 6, 2010)

tardis said:


> Just like Halliburton would vote NO on ending war... or Goldman Sachs would vote No on making stealing from investors illegal... People who make higher profits when people suffer want as many of you to suffer as possible. And commercial growers are no exception, they WANT you to go to jail, they WANT your child to die at the hands of mexican drug smugglers, it make sthem happy and rich. So vote yes, your profits arnt' worth peoples lives.


well if theyre growin commercially in cali already that has nothing to do with the smugglers. the smugglers probably sell most their shit in the other 35+ without mmj laws because nobody likes to smoke that bs here. ive got a feeling this wont hurt them in the slightest. 

either way vote YES.


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 6, 2010)

MrStickyScissors said:


> vote no. mark my words prop 19 wont pass. look at all the people that grow that are not for it. those are the people smart enough to see what it really is. along with all the people that hate on cannabis good luck with that prop passing. I cant wait tell november


no actually. most of the people i know who thought to vote no heard some bs and made decisions without even reading the proposition. i then turned them to real thing and showed them with their own eyes how theyre current limits are exempt. but pure legal proof isnt enough for some people... unless they honestly know what theyre talking about it makes me mad to hear them talk shit on it, the majority of growers are just scared of nothing.

the truth is, down the line, some fucked up things can happen in state supreme court and maybe some things can be removed, but it will have to be determined if its constitutional to do so and so on. basically its not gonna be easy, pretty much impossible because everyone is for helping the sick people. as 19 stand 6 plants and 8 oz on person aswell as the legislature of 215/sb420 are exempt from 19. section 2b-8 of 19 grants assured exemption. as for the taxes on personal cultivation, that is no way legal under 19, the only things subject to tax are the COMMERCIAL(key word) cultivation, trading, transportation (trucker weigh stations). now if that terrible scenario is enough to deter you from a yes. so be it. but i dont think that is even possible due to enormous backlash from the state, like what happened to prop 8


----------



## MrStickyScissors (Oct 6, 2010)

mikhail chalecki said:


> no actually. most of the people i know who thought to vote no heard some bs and made decisions without even reading the proposition. i then turned them to real thing and showed them with their own eyes how theyre current limits are exempt. but pure legal proof isnt enough for some people... unless they honestly know what theyre talking about it makes me mad to hear them talk shit on it, the majority of growers are just scared of nothing.
> 
> the truth is, down the line, some fucked up things can happen in state supreme court and maybe some things can be removed, but it will have to be determined if its constitutional to do so and so on. basically its not gonna be easy, pretty much impossible because everyone is for helping the sick people. as 19 stand 6 plants and 8 oz on person aswell as the legislature of 215/sb420 are exempt from 19. section 2b-8 of 19 grants assured exemption. as for the taxes on personal cultivation, that is no way legal under 19, the only things subject to tax are the COMMERCIAL(key word) cultivation, trading, transportation (trucker weigh stations). now if that terrible scenario is enough to deter you from a yes. so be it. but i dont think that is even possible due to enormous backlash from the state, like what happened to prop 8


im not worried about any kind of tax. im more worried about sumone taking over the market and having unfair advantages.


----------



## Moldy (Oct 6, 2010)

I like freedom! Vote yes on prop 19. Those mom and pop growers will do just fine. Anyway, I'm tired of seeing my cannabis brothers and sisters getting arrested. Don't be scared, all you people making a living off it will continue to do so for a long time. It will take years before the prices come down. Of course some lazy dealers and growers will go down first but you have to remember the rest of the country wants weed (bad) and it will take years before the demand is diminished.


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 6, 2010)

MrStickyScissors said:


> im not worried about any kind of tax. im more worried about sumone taking over the market and having unfair advantages.


exactly.............


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 6, 2010)

Moldy said:


> I like freedom! Vote yes on prop 19. Those mom and pop growers will do just fine. Anyway, I'm tired of seeing my cannabis brothers and sisters getting arrested. Don't be scared, all you people making a living off it will continue to do so for a long time. It will take years before the prices come down. Of course some lazy dealers and growers will go down first but you have to remember the rest of the country wants weed (bad) and it will take years before the demand is diminished.


Prop 19 will drive prices UP.

It reduces the area for most MMJ growers, radically. 92% in my case, and I sell NOTHING. If I can only grow in 25 square feet, that will leave a huge shortfall in our meds. If I had to pay a club for that, I would be paying about $40,000 a year.

Do you think the clubs will give me a break?

NO ON 19.

If you think MMJ caregivers are exempt, you haven't read enough.

Cultivation was NOT exempted because the authors consider us "competition".


----------



## BobBanana (Oct 6, 2010)

Lucky yall...im stuck in OH where we haven't even legalized medical yet. HB 478 is stalled time and time again....In my opinion...it all costs us too much...we need to be allowed to develop a weed country lol...like a nudist camp only over a larger area haha


----------



## ImSmokerD (Oct 6, 2010)

so far from the predicted polls, can the outcome be speculated/determined yet?


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 6, 2010)

MrStickyScissors said:


> im not worried about any kind of tax. im more worried about sumone taking over the market and having unfair advantages.


i only said that for claritys sake. some people are still confused on that point. but why are you worried about that? all that is gonna do is provide competition between the mass produced/quality market make prices cheaper to the consumer on both spectrums. my point of view, thats a good thing.


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 6, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Prop 19 will drive prices UP.
> 
> It reduces the area for most MMJ growers, radically. 92% in my case, and I sell NOTHING. If I can only grow in 25 square feet, that will leave a huge shortfall in our meds. If I had to pay a club for that, I would be paying about $40,000 a year.
> 
> ...


cultivation is indeed exempt, go read section 2b-8 of 19. 2b-7 indeed does not mention cultivation, but 2b-7 is the situation in which 19 is not enacted in the county. while 2b-8 is, and what it does is assure exemption from cultivation, limits, and restrictions. basically everything. how do you not get that? also, richard lee has a fucking broken spinal cord... he needs this medicine more than any of you. i can guartee ruining his well being is not his plan here.

proof, notice cultivation is not left out

"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.

11362.5 - 215 and 11362.7- sb 420. in a legal doc, everything that comes before the except is simply exempt from the regulations set by 19, why? because its medicine. they have their own regulations. when new regulation occur they cannot effect previous ones unless it explicitly says so. when a new law comes along setting regulations that go along with another. the new law will set some new regulations, but because the legal term "except as permitted" is used, it gives 215 complete exemption from said regulations to follow the ones set by sb 420.


----------



## tardis (Oct 6, 2010)

pitbudz87 said:


> vote no on this absurd prop, it wuld put people who have been in the buis mom and pop growers in the mountains generations of familys that have grown and lived of the land and gave back to it took care of it. this would be the event horizin if it passes for mj cultivation, meaning the point in wich nothing can exist where it will be ripped molecule from molecule. vote no


May all the children who die in gang violence from Mexican drug cartels who make money off marijuana be illegal be only children of people who vote No. Just so the world is fair and in balance.


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 6, 2010)

pitbudz87 said:


> vote no on this absurd prop, it wuld put people who have been in the buis mom and pop growers in the mountains generations of familys that have grown and lived of the land and gave back to it took care of it. this would be the event horizin if it passes for mj cultivation, meaning the point in wich nothing can exist where it will be ripped molecule from molecule. vote no


Hey, you know what? After reading your clear, concise argument, I'm _almost_ ready to change my vote. The thought of uprooting the lives of a bunch of "cannabis hillbillys" is just too sad! And the "event horizon" with molecules being torn asunder sounds very "black hole" like and most frightening for sure, let me think on this for a while....................BB


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 6, 2010)

tardis said:


> May all the children who die in gang violence from Mexican drug cartels who make money off marijuana be illegal be only children of people who vote No. Just so the world is fair and in balance.


thats the dumbest thing i have ever heard................


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 6, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> Hey, you know what? After reading your clear, concise argument, I'm _almost_ ready to change my vote. The thought of uprooting the lives of a bunch of "cannabis hillbillys" is just too sad! And the "event horizon" with molecules being torn asunder sounds very "black hole" like and most frightening for sure, let me think on this for a while....................BB


hey! I am on of those cannabis hillbillies........LOL


----------



## potroast (Oct 6, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> *most of us up here in the mountains of Humboldt County Ca. are campagning Vote No!*
> 
> 
> 
> *Whats your opinion?*



Well then, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 6, 2010)

potroast said:


> Well then, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.


you live in San Diego not in these mountains were its allot of people's only means of an income and its been like that allot longer then all this medical stuff.


----------



## Nocturnal1 (Oct 6, 2010)

MrStickyScissors said:


> im not worried about any kind of tax. im more worried about sumone taking over the market and having unfair advantages.


Word. There will always be corruption.


----------



## Nocturnal1 (Oct 6, 2010)

I don't think it will pass, not until all the conservative baby boomers die off.


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 6, 2010)

Nocturnal1 said:


> I don't think it will pass, not until all the conservative baby boomers die off.


I'm thinking that a lot of the baby boomers smoked back in the day, and still do, believe me, they're not ALL conservatives!
At 71, I'm too old to be a "boomer", and a bunch of MY peers still smoke, grow, and are going to vote yes on November 2.
Good luck & good grow.......BB


----------



## Nocturnal1 (Oct 6, 2010)

Yes, not all. Of course not...my dad and uncles are baby boomers and they smoke more than I do. But, I like to think 65% of baby boomers are conservative pricks. Maybe it's me just being young, but I see a lot of older people who are conformists, and so easily persuaded by propaganda.

(Religion has a big part in this)


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 6, 2010)

So...everybody is cool with consuming in the presence of a minor being a new felony huh...


----------



## tc1 (Oct 6, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> So...everybody is cool with consuming in the presence of a minor being a new felony huh...



Just don't smoke in front of minors ... risking second hand smoke exposure.


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 6, 2010)

tc1 said:


> Just don't smoke in front of minors ...


Or serve 3 years in the state penitentiaryYeah I'm gonna vote for that! 



tc1 said:


> risking second hand smoke exposure.


Driving on the freeway with the windows down posses more of a health risk. 

I smoke very little very good marijuana...it's not like it is tobacco...the amount I smoke a day is ~1-2 cigarette(s)...and besides it is not even an infraction to smoke all the tobacco you want in the presence of minors...but a felony for cannabis??? WTF is that about???

How is a mother supposed to tell her kids that she smokes Cannbis, and it's ok, cuz it totally legal...but you can not be in here right now or mommy will go to prison...be out in a sec! Kids are not stupid.


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 6, 2010)

you know damn well why cigarettes arent a crime to smoke in front of kids. it most definitely should be imo. thats just not gonna be possible. second, marijuana is a schedule 1 substance under federal law and therefore has to be regulated and restricted. caffein alcohol and tobacco arent even on the list and theres probably quite a few reasons why


----------



## Juicy Fruit (Oct 6, 2010)

In Ontario its illeagel to smoke at/on school property and parks, infact alot of places where minors are it's not allowed...


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 6, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> I smoke very little very good marijuana...it's not like it is tobacco...the amount I smoke a day is ~1-2 cigarette(s)...and besides it is not even an infraction to smoke all the tobacco you want in the presence of minors...but a felony for cannabis??? WTF is that about???
> 
> How is a mother supposed to tell her kids that she smokes Cannbis, and it's ok, cuz it totally legal...but you can not be in here right now or mommy will go to prison...be out in a sec! Kids are not stupid.


 first of all:
It is an infraction to smoke tobacco in the car with minors.
Mom's and Dad's can smoke mj responsibly the same as they drink alcohol responsibly, dont give it to kids or there will be consequences.

Im glad you brought up kids, because this is a very good reason to vote YES on 19. A lot of stupid, dumb, irresponsible parents think it is ok to give marijuana to kids, so far science points to many reasons this is not a good idea (i.e. brain development...) The front page of this website has a great example of such a parent. Kids shouldn't smoke weed, plain and simple and if you want to smoke weed with kids than you have some major problems...


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 6, 2010)

mikhail chalecki said:


> cultivation is indeed exempt, go read section 2b-8 of 19. 2b-7 indeed does not mention cultivation, but 2b-7 is the situation in which 19 is not enacted in the county. while 2b-8 is, and what it does is assure exemption from cultivation, limits, and restrictions. basically everything. how do you not get that? also, richard lee has a fucking broken spinal cord... he needs this medicine more than any of you. i can guartee ruining his well being is not his plan here.
> 
> proof, notice cultivation is not left out
> 
> ...


Where does it mention grow AREA? Until I see language that SPECIFICALLY mentions the area allowed to MMJ growers, I believe you are wrong.

Show me specifics, not assumptions.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 6, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> Or serve 3 years in the state penitentiaryYeah I'm gonna vote for that!
> 
> 
> Driving on the freeway with the windows down posses more of a health risk.
> ...


Second hand tobacco smoke isn't psychoactive ... second hand marijuana smoke is. You don't have to put a joint between your lips and inhale to get high. Hence terms such as "contact high" and "hotboxing". Just because YOU want to get high, doesn't give you the right to intentionally or unintentionally expose someone else ... especially children.

How does a mom answer that question? The same way she tells her kids why mommy can have a glass of wine and they can't. The same way mommy tells the kids they can't come in when mommy and daddy are nude wrestling.

I'd hope marijuana using parents would educate their kids on marijuana, its uses, and the laws. Inform your children of the truth and you don't have to hide anything, nor feel ashamed when you step outside the room to take a toke.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 6, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Where does it mention grow AREA? Until I see language that SPECIFICALLY mentions the area allowed to MMJ growers, I believe you are wrong.
> 
> Show me specifics, not assumptions.



Show me where Prop 19 states it will override Prop 215's cultivation laws. Overriding laws have to be expressed, not applied. (as ruled by the supreme court) Prop 19 states nowhere that 11362.5 cultivation laws will be changed under new law.

Both are separate bills providing separate rights.


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 6, 2010)

mikhail chalecki said:


> you know damn well why cigarettes arent a crime to smoke in front of kids. it most definitely should be imo. thats just not gonna be possible. second, marijuana is a schedule 1 substance under federal law and therefore has to be regulated and restricted. caffein alcohol and tobacco arent even on the list and theres probably quite a few reasons why


I can not believe in the same breath you are touting the scheduling of MJ and wanting to legalize it. It is scheduled wrong...that's the whole damn point...There are recorded deaths every year from Alcohol and caffeine...Never ..not ever even one from MJ...I agree about cigarette smoke. And Fuck federal law...duh!





Juicy Fruit said:


> In Ontario its illeagel to smoke at/on school property and parks, infact alot of places where minors are it's not allowed...


Of course it is illegal to smoke on school property I am talking about the privacy of my own home. We are not loyal subjects!



luvourmother said:


> first of all:
> It is an infraction to smoke tobacco in the car with minors.
> Mom's and Dad's can smoke mj responsibly the same as they drink alcohol responsibly, dont give it to kids or there will be consequences.
> 
> Im glad you brought up kids, because this is a very good reason to vote YES on 19. A lot of stupid, dumb, irresponsible parents think it is ok to give marijuana to kids, so far science points to many reasons this is not a good idea (i.e. brain development...) The front page of this website has a great example of such a parent. Kids shouldn't smoke weed, plain and simple and if you want to smoke weed with kids than you have some major problems...


Who said anything about giving weed to my kids???? My 15 year old is proudly drug free.



tc1 said:


> Second hand tobacco smoke isn't psychoactive ... second hand marijuana smoke is. You don't have to put a joint between your lips and inhale to get high. Hence terms such as "contact high" and "hotboxing". Just because YOU want to get high, doesn't give you the right to intentionally or unintentionally expose someone else ... especially children.
> 
> How does a mom answer that question? The same way she tells her kids why mommy can have a glass of wine and they can't. The same way mommy tells the kids they can't come in when mommy and daddy are nude wrestling.
> 
> I'd hope marijuana using parents would educate their kids on marijuana, its uses, and the laws. Inform your children of the truth and you don't have to hide anything, nor feel ashamed when you step outside the room to take a toke.


I have never...not once in 40 years gotten high off being in a room...that's nasty. If someone is hotboxing the car with the kids that is contributing to delinquency for teens and abuse for the little ones.

Of course we educate our kids about pot...they know it is not bad...hiding it sends a very different message...now you are a liar...this does not work for raising kids that feel they can trust you.

I am not hiding...I am not doing anything wrong...If I was...then it should not be legal!!!!! 

I am shocked that people who ought to know how non-toxic mj is think this way. That means that you guys want mJ legalized so you can legally go get all fooked up...Frat boys??? I have been smoking since '83...it is not about getting f'd up...smoking and the eventual legalization of a simple plant is about freedom.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 6, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> everybody i know is voting NO


Me too... there are more people voting no that you would think... especially people that you would expect to vote yes... are voting no... it will be close...


----------



## MrStickyScissors (Oct 6, 2010)

Nocturnal1 said:


> Yes, not all. Of course not...my dad and uncles are baby boomers and they smoke more than I do. But, I like to think 65% of baby boomers are conservative pricks. Maybe it's me just being young, but I see a lot of older people who are conformists, and so easily persuaded by propaganda.
> 
> (Religion has a big part in this)


your right. all the churches in cali. plus all the growers like myself that will vote no. this prop has no chance.


----------



## MrStickyScissors (Oct 6, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Me too... there are more people voting no that you would think... especially people that you would expect to vote yes... are voting no... it will be close...


cool im glad that my friend nathenking is voting no. gud to hear it brotha


----------



## MrStickyScissors (Oct 6, 2010)

not to mention all the people that will be afraid of there kids being introduced to cannabis. there will definitly be more of it around if it passes


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 6, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Where does it mention grow AREA? Until I see language that SPECIFICALLY mentions the area allowed to MMJ growers, I believe you are wrong.
> 
> Show me specifics, not assumptions.


read the quoted part please. that is a section striaght from prop 19. it doesnt matter if grow area is stated or not. people who are permitted for marijuana use under 215 are exempt from any and all regulations of 19. plain and simple sb 420 doesnt mention a confined grow area therefore you are not confined. you will be in accordance with the laws under the cau act, not 19. theres a clear definition between the two


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 6, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> I can not believe in the same breath you are touting the scheduling of MJ and wanting to legalize it. It is scheduled wrong...that's the whole damn point...There are recorded deaths every year from Alcohol and caffeine...Never ..not ever even one from MJ...I agree about cigarette smoke. And Fuck federal law...duh!


apparently you missed my point entirely. it doesnt matter what we think, public opinion and laws are what count. if we can prove stoners are responsible human beings think of the benefits. caffeine and nicotine are easily as bad as pot, much worse considering the dependancy effects and addiction. but the government will never see it our way if we keep bitching about wanting full legalization. its not gonna happen just like cigarettes being outlawed cant ever happen. a prop like this has to happen, with minimum limits to prove to everyone the main point. every stoner in the country is looking at us to see if this passes. they are so ashamed of the stoners agains 19, its really not funny. comprende? or is simple social economics and logic too complicated?


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 6, 2010)

Actually, therein lies a problem. SB 420 includes limits that were ruled unconstitutional in court since they weren't introduced as part of a voter initiative. Limits which suddenly become quite enforceable under the authority of Prop. 19, since it IS a voter initiative.


----------



## MrStickyScissors (Oct 7, 2010)

I cant wait tell this prop is shot down. I never thought anything political would ever effect me. I have never voted but im voting this year. and I am giving weed to people to vote no. trust me im not going to sit by and watch this scam go thru. im doing my part


----------



## tc1 (Oct 7, 2010)

MrStickyScissors said:


> I cant wait tell this prop is shot down. I never thought anything political would ever effect me. I have never voted but im voting this year. and *I am giving weed to people to vote no.* trust me im not going to sit by and watch this scam go thru. im doing my part


LOL!

If I were them, I'd just take your weed and vote YES in the privacy of the voting booth.
BTW ... what you are suggesting is a FELONY so you might want to be careful.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 7, 2010)

tardis said:


> May all the children who die in gang violence from Mexican drug cartels who make money off marijuana be illegal be only children of people who vote No. Just so the world is fair and in balance.


yeah right, so as soon as we vote yes, everybody stops fighting.... that is propaganda at its fullest...


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 7, 2010)

mikhail chalecki said:


> read the quoted part please. that is a section striaght from prop 19. it doesnt matter if grow area is stated or not. people who are permitted for marijuana use under 215 are exempt from any and all regulations of 19. plain and simple sb 420 doesnt mention a confined grow area therefore you are not confined. you will be in accordance with the laws under the cau act, not 19. theres a clear definition between the two


Some very good lawyers disagree with you.

Once the 25 sq. ft. limit is in place, it will be applied to everybody because THERE IS NO SPECIFIC EXCLUSION.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 7, 2010)

tokinpodpilot said:


> actually, therein lies a problem. Sb 420 includes limits that were ruled unconstitutional in court since they weren't introduced as part of a voter initiative. Limits which suddenly become quite enforceable under the authority of prop. 19, since it is a voter initiative.


thank you!


----------



## mrFancyPlants (Oct 7, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Some very good lawyers disagree with you.


Citations please. I posted a link to a very well respected lawyer who debunks the notion that 215 rights are affected by 19. Did you read it? He's backed by NORML. Do you think NORML is out to screw you?

http://sjcbc.org/2010/09/11/an-open-letter-on-prop-19/

NORML has a word-for-word analysis:

http://blog.norml.org/2010/07/19/californias-prop-19-a-word-for-word-analysis/

---

Marc Emery, Ed Rosenthal, Drug Policy Alliance, Marijuana Policy Project, Students for Sensible Drug Policy.. All supporters of 19.

DAs, police, politicians, religious groups... All opposed to 19.

Who are you going to trust?

---

As far as the new felony of smoking around children - it's pretty fucked up and it's sad to see Tc1 try to defend it. However, in my humblest of opinions, you have no fucking chance to pass a measure that doesn't throw a bone to the soccer moms who dominate politics. The good news is that CA is so fucking broke that they won't have the resources to enforce it. Further, if we can all pull together in 2012 after we've had 2 years of regulated weed, maybe we can repeal it. 

Finally... "me and all my stoner friends and some churchgoers are going to vote no so 19 is fucked"... HAHA seriously - look at the polls dude. The only one that shows 19 won't pass is one that won't release their methodology.


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 7, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Actually, therein lies a problem. SB 420 includes limits that were ruled unconstitutional in court since they weren't introduced as part of a voter initiative. Limits which suddenly become quite enforceable under the authority of Prop. 19, since it IS a voter initiative.


actually the fact that our state supreme court deemed setting limits on medical patients unconstitutional gives even more support to that 215 is exempt from 19


----------



## mrFancyPlants (Oct 7, 2010)

mikhail chalecki said:


> actually the fact that our state supreme court deemed setting limits on medical patients unconstitutional gives even more support to that 215 is exempt from 19


No - that's not true. What they said was that SB420 couldn't impose limits because only voter props can limit voter props. 19 is a voter prop and could theoretically limit 215 but doesn't.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 7, 2010)

mrFancyPlants said:


> No - that's not true. What they said was that SB420 couldn't impose limits because only voter props can limit voter props. 19 is a voter prop and could theoretically limit 215 but doesn't.


19 has three exclusions for MMJ.. The actual statute number and section is listed by article and section number, in 19, sections 6, 7, and 8.


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 7, 2010)

mrFancyPlants said:


> No - that's not true. What they said was that SB420 couldn't impose limits because only voter props can limit voter props. 19 is a voter prop and could theoretically limit 215 but doesn't.


hmmm fair enough than. yeah, i am aware of what can happen. but as it stands it does not. its a shame people are being deceived. 

its kinda off topic but the lies the dispensaries are spreading is kinda awful. one person i talked to was telling people that it forcibly restricts personal mmj grows to 5 sq ft... yes FIVE. not 25. blatant misinformation.


----------



## tc1 (Oct 7, 2010)

I'm not defending the punishments given for smoking in front of minors AT ALL.

What I'm saying is ... it's not reason to vote No. Just don't smoke in front of children and you'll be fine.
What's wrong with that statement? Do you REALLY believe minors without medical conditions should be exposed to psychoactive smoke?


----------



## Serapis (Oct 7, 2010)

mikhail chalecki said:


> hmmm fair enough than. yeah, i am aware of what can happen. but as it stands it does not. its a shame people are being deceived.
> 
> its kinda off topic but the lies the dispensaries are spreading is kinda awful. one person i talked to was telling people that it forcibly restricts personal mmj grows to 5 sq ft... yes FIVE. not 25. blatant misinformation.


Don't dispensaries have a lot to lose in this as well as MMJ pain clinics like www.clinic420.com ? Seems to me they'd be at the forefront funding misinformation and an anti campaign. There is a LOT of money being thrown at anti-prop 19. It makes me wonder.... too bad others aren't stopping to look at actual facts. It's a shame actual smokers are gonna vote no...


----------



## nathenking (Oct 7, 2010)

Serapis said:


> Don't dispensaries have a lot to lose in this as well as MMJ pain clinics like www.clinic420.com ? Seems to me they'd be at the forefront funding misinformation and an anti campaign. There is a LOT of money being thrown at anti-prop 19. It makes me wonder.... too bad others aren't stopping to look at actual facts. It's a shame actual smokers are gonna vote no...


You would be amazed at how many smokers are gonna vote no... It blows my mind... You would think that people would jump at the first chance they got for some kind of "vailed prohabition" but they arent... They are actually thinking things thru... Good for them... It gives me hope... If you dont like the way it is written, then vote no... its that simple... if you like what/how it is written, then vote yes... All the speculation is just that... Speculation.... 2cents...


----------



## Serapis (Oct 7, 2010)

nathenking said:


> You would be amazed at how many smokers are gonna vote no... It blows my mind... You would think that people would jump at the first chance they got for some kind of "vailed prohabition" but they arent... They are actually thinking things thru... Good for them... It gives me hope... If you dont like the way it is written, then vote no... its that simple... if you like what/how it is written, then vote yes... All the speculation is just that... Speculation.... 2cents...


And after the vote fails, what do you think will happen? You think Cali is gonna give up on possible revenue when it is billions in debt? Those of you that are believing a better bill will come along and cost you nothing as smokers are smoking a pipe dream. 19 gives you a place to start. The only smokers I know of that are anti 19 are card carrying Medical users. They got their access and could care less about others that don't have a medical reason or will to go spend $200 at www.pain420.com for a card.


----------



## mrFancyPlants (Oct 7, 2010)

Everyone I know, except three of us, that makes a living(or part of it) off weed is voting no. Everyone I know that only consumes weed is voting yes.

What happens if it doesn't pass? 

- Lots of forum gloating  
- Prices keep falling, but not as much as if it would've passed. 
- MMJ spreads to other states, depriving CA of more export markets.
- Cities keep fighting to limit or ban dispensaries.
- Cops write lots of $100 tickets.
- Med school 'D' students keep writing medical recs.
- More turnover/consolidation in the dispensary market(seeing that already).
- I keep paying the electric company 

In the long run? The US can't afford to keep chasing after potheads. Who knows when they'll finally give up?


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 7, 2010)

mrFancyPlants said:


> Citations please. I posted a link to a very well respected lawyer who debunks the notion that 215 rights are affected by 19. Did you read it? He's backed by NORML. Do you think NORML is out to screw you?
> 
> http://sjcbc.org/2010/09/11/an-open-letter-on-prop-19/
> 
> ...


Those links are irrelevant regarding my primary objection in that the authors never address the garden size. There is no mention in Prop 215.

This means that Prop 19 CAN override 215's(non existent) grow limits. It WAS 6 plants, which was tossed out by the CA Supreme Court.

Square footage is another kettle of fish.

Why guess?

*Vote NO on Prop 19.*


----------



## mrFancyPlants (Oct 7, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Those links are irrelevant regarding my primary objection in that the authors never address the garden size.


I guess you didn't read them. From the first link:



> *PROP. 19 PROTECTS PATIENTS PERSONAL AND COLLECTIVE CULTIVATIONS*
> 
> Further protecting patients from local law enforcement actions, Section 11303 states that no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact SEIZE or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is LAWFULLY CULTIVATED. If you are a patient, you may lawfully cultivate as much marijuana as medically necessary and Prop. 19 protects that right. If you are cultivating for a collective, you may lawfully cultivate as much marijuana as your collective allows you to and Prop. 19 protects that right. Unfortunately, many law enforcement officials refuse to recognize the rights provided under the MMP for collectives to lawfully cultivate and sell marijuana. Prop. 19 reinforces those rights and makes it even more difficult for law enforcement to bust a collective or collective grower.





> *PROP. 19 DOES NOT LIMIT PATIENTS RIGHTS UNDER THE CUA & MMP*
> 
> The nail in the coffin for those arguing against Prop. 19 is found in Section 2C (1). This is the only section which discusses which other laws the acts is intended to limit and nowhere in this section is the CUA or the MMP listed. If the purpose of Prop. 19 was to limit the application and enforcement of the CUA and MMP, those laws would have been listed along with all the other laws that are listed in Section 2C (1). Since the CUA and MMP were not listed, then Prop. 19 does not limit the CUA and MMP.
> 
> ...


The courts found that Prop 215 gave you a right to grow an amount of medicine consistent with your medical needs. SB420 attempted to limit this to a fixed amount of plants and therefore that provision of SB420 was deemed invalid. Similarly, 19 cannot reduce rights granter under 215 unless it explicitly says so. It does not, therefore you retain those rights granted under 215.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 7, 2010)

mrFancyPlants said:


> Everyone I know, except three of us, that makes a living(or part of it) off weed is voting no. Everyone I know that only consumes weed is voting yes.
> 
> What happens if it doesn't pass?
> 
> ...


MMJ won't spread to other states. If anything prop 19 not passing will make it worse. prop 215 has been around for 14 years and how many states have taken it up?? What's that? None? The US WILL keep chasing pot heads, they've been doing so for over 70 years now. Do you think they are going to all the sudden stop because prop 19 failed to pass? If anything that will prove to certain organizations that marijuana IS dangerous if the general population doesn't want it to be legal. They will NEVER give up until A: A president cares enough to take a stance on it and stands there and does everything he/she can do get it to be decriminalized federally. B: Another state other than California goes and tries their own prop 19 and passes..

Medical Marijuana is one thing, having it available to the general public is another. Prop 19 NEEDS to pass and if it doesn't. Honestly I won't be shocked, I don't have much faith in people now days. Especially when they idol people like Justin Bieber.


----------



## mrFancyPlants (Oct 7, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> MMJ won't spread to other states. If anything prop 19 not passing will make it worse. prop 215 has been around for 14 years and how many states have taken it up?? What's that? None?


14 states plus the District of Columbia. 

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881

You don't understand the role of the President in the US. He only signs laws - he doesn't write them. Of course, it would take a veto-proof majority in Congress to get something done without his cooperation. Funny thing though is that a lot of young Republicans are starting to call for an end to the drug war due to financial reasons.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 7, 2010)

mrFancyPlants said:


> 14 states plus the District of Columbia.
> 
> http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881


14 out of 50 is not a majority, no matter how you try and spin it. 13 out of 50 is even less of a majority and that's how many other states have adopted any sort of decriminalization bill for non-medical use. And of those 13 states, no one has full decriminalization. If the majority of people wanted decriminalization, legalization or even were over all approving of medical cannabis, those numbers would be actual majorities. Attitudes and decades of misinformation have to be undone and deconstructed before we can probably see a nationwide decriminalization effort. This is change that cannot be legislated.



mrFancyPlants said:


> You don't understand the role of the President in the US. He only signs laws - he doesn't write them. Of course, it would take a veto-proof majority in Congress to get something done without his cooperation. Funny thing though is that a lot of young Republicans are starting to call for an end to the drug war due to financial reasons.


Yes, I'm sure all the taxes won't be used for enforcement... oh wait. According to the text of the bill, that's all they are authorized for.


----------



## mrFancyPlants (Oct 7, 2010)

Who the fuck said that was a majority of states? 

Not legislated? How the fuck else are you going to do it? We'll all change our minds and the laws will just vanish?

I don't even know how you came up with your response to the second quoted block. Can you explain how one follows the other or do random thoughts just come out of your fingers?

Jesus.. I can understand arguments like "they tuk er jarbs!" or "adding a new felony is bad", but then people post weird, out-of-left-field shit like that and it freaks me out. 

Sorry - tense... not smoking tonight.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 7, 2010)

Again, you're inability to understand simple argumentation is not my problem. Yes, you cannot legislate a change in people's opinions or morality. I sorry that fact confuses and infuriates you so much, but it's just the way it is. 

As far as the applicability and usage of the fees, taxes and assessments generated by Prop. 19 and their intended use, it's all in the bill you keep insisting you've read so carefully.

Sounds like you could use a medical recommendation if you get this unstable when you're not medicating.


----------



## nfoengineer (Oct 8, 2010)

I will vote YES even if the proposition has flaws. It is a step in the right direction. Once its passed, we can continue to work towards refining it. I think the important thing is to get the general populus used to marijuana bein LEGAL for recreational purposes. As they become more and more comfortable with the idea, the easier it will be to make the law eventually be what we all desire it to be. BUT if we stand by and do nothing or vote NO against it, we are defeating ourselves. Is'nt that a great war tactic, "to have dissention within the ranks"? This is a great way to for all of us to be defeated. I urge you all to vote YES in spite of the flaws...IT IS a STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. IF WE CONTINUE TO DO WHAT WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE, THE RESULTS WILL BE THE SAME! Let's not lose this opportunity!

Rome was not built in a day...neither was our country or state. Let's all unite and work together!


----------



## mrFancyPlants (Oct 8, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Again, you're inability to understand simple argumentation is not my problem.


Do you intentionally try to piss people off by talking down to them or does that just come naturally? Passive-aggressive... nice.. sorry but I'm not falling for your trap like Tc1 did. I don't want to give you the opportunity to accuse me of 'personal attacks'. Try going back and reading your post again. To use your passive-aggressive, condescending tone - I'm sorry it's so hard for you to comprehend - maybe if you read it a few more times it will become clear to you. Does it make more sense to you when I borrow your linguistic style? Sorry, that's a rhetorical question. 

I corrected a poster who thought CA was the only MMJ state. You response was that 13 isn't a majority - as if that had a fucking thing to do with what anyone was talking about. Then you quoted me correcting the poster on the political process - and responded with more left-field bullshit about the taxes being used for enforcement. Who cares? Enforce what? Laws I agree with? Are you contending that the use of fees gathered from prop 19 to enforce 19 somehow constitutes an argument against 19? Please, enlighten us all - if only you deem us worthy!


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 8, 2010)

Sounds like someone needs a bowl.


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 8, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Sounds like someone needs a bowl.


Sounds more like someone doesn't know how to respond to cold clear, concise logic. As requested, please enlighten us.....BB


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 8, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> Sounds more like someone doesn't know how to respond to cold clear, concise logic. As requested, please enlighten us.....BB


As soon as someone responds with something concise, logical and factual instead of the irrelevant emotional pleading and useless vituperation. There's really not much to misunderstand about the language in the bill that call for taxes to be levied in support of new regulatory process, which means instant budget for whatever agency(ies) become authorized to confirm people's legality. It's bad enough proponents are so willing to criminalize young adults, but they're abject willingness to pay into the very system that will end up busting those young adults is unconscionable.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 9, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> You are speaking for a whole lot of CA folks. Being a "criminal" for 45 years, I will be very glad to vote YES on Nov. 2.
> For now, l'll be happy with the "decriminalization", for openers. I can quibble about what size, shape, how much, etc. down the road.
> Good luck & good grow.......BB


Well, "Boss" if you took the time to understand word usage and what "quibble" means, you would understand my post. To "quibble" is to attach to those items a sense of insignificance. But, given your usage of the word along with your position on 19 it is understandable that you would belittle the situation and reduce it to "quibbling" and coincidently not understand when someone calls you out on being callous towards the situation. Have fun being oblivious.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 9, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Well, "Boss" if you took the time to understand word usage and what "quibble" means, you would understand my post. To "quibble" is to attach to those items a sense of insignificance. But, given your usage of the word along with your position on 19 it is understandable that you would belittle the situation and reduce it to "quibbling" and coincidently not understand when someone calls you out on being callous towards the situation. Have fun being oblivious.


Great post... BB is absolutly rude and irrelevant...


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 9, 2010)

LOL!

I won a small battle today.

My sister _was_ the biggest supporter of Prop 19 in her small city.

I told her what was up with the legal language, and she was definite that her support for Prop 19 is over.

Of course, she's bright enough to understand the implications of fuzzy legal language. Especially when 500+ separate jurisdictions get to take shots at writing more of it.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 9, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> LOL!
> 
> I won a small battle today.
> 
> ...


It's easy to go fox news on someone and make up a bunch of shit to change their mind. Scare tactics work much better than the truth. Hence why Marijuana is illegal.


----------



## puffntuff (Oct 9, 2010)

If you all that are supporting prop19 think that they are gonna lower prices your sadly mistaken. California will just put a tax on it like they do gas. The huge warehouse growers will keep the price up to justify paying that high California tax and the mom and pop growers will be fucked. Once they see that people will pay a price you think they will lower it nada. Food prices cigarette prices gas prices all went up ask yourselves have they ever come back down nope. Think about it before you base your vote on hopes and not reality.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 9, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> It's easy to go fox news on someone and make up a bunch of shit to change their mind. Scare tactics work much better than the truth. Hence why Marijuana is illegal.


Scare tactics?

I guess that is one way to describe truth.

Grow up.

I would be a MAJOR supporter if not for the bullshit provisions and glaring exclusions.

I have been involved in the legalization movement since the 70's.

19 is an open invitation for local yokels to increase the persecution of those they find "different".

There are those that want to be left alone to live their lives, and those that insist on fucking with them.

You're apparently among the latter.

Don't give them the power.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 9, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> It's easy to go fox news on someone and make up a bunch of shit to change their mind. Scare tactics work much better than the truth. Hence why Marijuana is illegal.


Fox news, i agree... but dont forget that all news is controlled by the same people... fox, cbs, nbc, bbc... you name it... its all fabricated lies to control the masses... you have a pic of bob as your avatar... you must no this... unless your a pseudo activist???


----------



## nathenking (Oct 9, 2010)

puffntuff said:


> If you all that are supporting prop19 think that they are gonna lower prices your sadly mistaken. California will just put a tax on it like they do gas. The huge warehouse growers will keep the price up to justify paying that high California tax and the mom and pop growers will be fucked. Once they see that people will pay a price you think they will lower it nada. Food prices cigarette prices gas prices all went up ask yourselves have they ever come back down nope. Think about it before you base your vote on hopes and not reality.


finally someone connected the dots... you are completly correct... the price will not drop by any appreciable amount... people have show that they will pay a certain price... this will continue... its called good business sense...


----------



## puffntuff (Oct 9, 2010)

That's it. California is already getting tax money from the dispensary at a certain price if they lower the price they lower the amount of taxes coming in. NOT GONNA HAPPEN. The only ones making out are the people interested in doing the warehouse grows. If you make it hard for the mom and pop growers you've just eliminated one less competition. If your worried about getting a med card they are super easy to get. Put that on the ballot limit the price of a med card to $50.


----------



## EvolAlex (Oct 9, 2010)

You can get a med card for an eazy 50 bucks in san diego, 65 at a spot i can verify is quick and simple no paper work needed and thers a nice dispensary right across the hall. And you recieve a coupon for a free 8th


----------



## mikhail chalecki (Oct 10, 2010)

puffntuff said:


> If you all that are supporting prop19 think that they are gonna lower prices your sadly mistaken. California will just put a tax on it like they do gas. The huge warehouse growers will keep the price up to justify paying that high California tax and the mom and pop growers will be fucked. Once they see that people will pay a price you think they will lower it nada. Food prices cigarette prices gas prices all went up ask yourselves have they ever come back down nope. Think about it before you base your vote on hopes and not reality.


cigarettes are taxed up the ass too but theyre cheap. point is? if supply outweighs demand in a real market with competition. prices will drop with or without a tax


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Fox news, i agree... but dont forget that all news is controlled by the same people... fox, cbs, nbc, bbc... you name it... its all fabricated lies to control the masses... you have a pic of bob as your avatar... you must no this... unless your a pseudo activist???


I know that, but IMO fox news is the worst at spreading bs. I don't believe anything I see on the news, in fact I don't watch the news because what you stated.



puffntuff said:


> That's it. California is already getting tax money from the dispensary at a certain price if they lower the price they lower the amount of taxes coming in. NOT GONNA HAPPEN. The only ones making out are the people interested in doing the warehouse grows. If you make it hard for the mom and pop growers you've just eliminated one less competition. If your worried about getting a med card they are super easy to get. Put that on the ballot limit the price of a med card to $50.


Like with anything, mom and pop operations will always get screwed. Until you live in a world where money isn't the only currency of trade this will be the case.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 10, 2010)

Cigarettes are CHEAP?

$50/carton isn't cheap. Without taxes, cigarettes would still be under $10/carton.

Most dispensaries pay only sales tax.

About $30/0z.

That $50 fee would be in addition to sales tax.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Cigarettes are CHEAP?
> 
> $50/carton isn't cheap. Without taxes, cigarettes would still be under $10/carton.
> 
> ...


25ish bucks a carton here after taxes. Cigarette prices vs cannabis is a bit retarded if you ask me, unlike Cigarettes smoking marijuana WON'T *kill* you. Hence the insane tax rate they have on them now in some states. Just like Soda, in Iowa they have a junk food tax or something of the sorts. I forget what it's called but it makes unhealthy food quite expensive to buy. They impose high taxes on things like Cigarettes to try and deter people from buying them because like I said they will kill you.

It's 30 bucks an ounce? Holy shit! I'm moving to Cali after Prop 19 passes. It's $60 for an 1/8th in a place in Iowa.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 10, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> 25ish bucks a carton here after taxes. Cigarette prices vs cannabis is a bit retarded if you ask me, unlike Cigarettes smoking marijuana WON'T *kill* you. Hence the insane tax rate they have on them now in some states. Just like Soda, in Iowa they have a junk food tax or something of the sorts. I forget what it's called but it makes unhealthy food quite expensive to buy. They impose high taxes on things like Cigarettes to try and deter people from buying them because like I said they will kill you.
> 
> It's 30 bucks an ounce? Holy shit! I'm moving to Cali after Prop 19 passes. It's $60 for an 1/8th in a place in Iowa.


Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

Sales taxes in California are between 9% and 10% of sale price.

Ounces are $300 to $400.

$400 x 9.5% = $38 in SALES TAX.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.
> 
> Sales taxes in California are between 9% and 10% of sale price.
> 
> ...


Sentence structure isn't your strong suit. Here, I'll show you how you should have typed that. "Most dispensaries pay only sales tax, about $30/oz."

I like how out of everything I typed that's what you chose to criticize. Clearly shows your intent is to not have anything close to an adult like debate about why you are voting no on Prop 19. Because honestly, you haven't given one real reason.


----------



## lowrider2000 (Oct 10, 2010)

And what is wrong with paying taxes????????? do you know what the flood of money is gonna be be like especially if they do something nation wide. Some people are just selfish the economy is bad we owe 1 trillion to china wtf!!!!!!!!!!! i dont even know how many zeros that is. bottom line the government has to be nuts not to just out right fully legalize the shit nation wide. Of course there has to be restrictions and we are really far from that ever happening. So what get your card take a test each year don't drive high and what ever else they come up with.......fuck it its a step there not just gonna say ok you win here smoke blunts and do what ever the fuck you want.

*U.S. N[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=+2]ATIONAL[/SIZE][/FONT]* [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=+3]*D*[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=+2]*EBT*[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=+3]*C*[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=+2]*LOCK*[/SIZE][/FONT] 

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]The Outstanding Public Debt as of 10 Oct 2010 at 03:52:40 PM GMT is:
[/FONT]





[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]The estimated population of the United States is *309,268,272*
so each citizen's share of this debt is *$44,062.46*. The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
*$4.17 billion per day* since September 28, 2007!
[/FONT]


----------



## lowrider2000 (Oct 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.
> 
> Sales taxes in California are between 9% and 10% of sale price.
> 
> ...


OMG $38 buxxx i cant feed my family tonight W.E pay it and go home n smoke a blunt legally if you cant afford it dont buy it the rum i like is $80 bux a bottle when i can afford it i just dont drink.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

lowrider2000 said:


> And what is wrong with paying taxes????????? do you know what the flood of money is gonna be be like especially if they do something nation wide. Some people are just selfish the economy is bad we owe 1 trillion to china wtf!!!!!!!!!!! i dont even know how many zeros that is. bottom line the government has to be nuts not to just out right fully legalize the shit nation wide. Of course there has to be restrictions and we are really far from that ever happening. So what get your card take a test each year don't drive high and what ever else they come up with.......fuck it its a step there not just gonna say ok you win here smoke blunts and do what ever the fuck you want.
> 
> *U.S. N[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=+2]ATIONAL[/SIZE][/FONT]* [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=+3]*D*[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=+2]*EBT*[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=+3]*C*[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=+2]*LOCK*[/SIZE][/FONT]
> 
> ...


pfff That's nothing. You are clearly blowing the debt WAY out of porportion. Only 44k per person? Oh please.. That's not THAT bad considering the average American makes 10k less than that, we can easily pay that off if everyone decides to be broke for a year! Who's with me! Oh wait... That includes little kids.... hrmm it might take a little longer than a year... Living without food/water/shelter for a year or 3 is possible.. Right?

*epic sarcasm*

Here's a bit of non sarcasm. Fact: This country will never be debt free, ever. If anything the national debt will continue to increase, increasing the strangle hold on people in the Country and the world. Ever put a frog into a pot of water and slowly raised the temperature? We are the frogs. Too stupid, too blind to see what's really going on.


----------



## klmmicro (Oct 10, 2010)

Lowrider, we owe like 7 trillion to China. The politicians that have caused 100% of the problems in this country do not know how to stay within their means.

For those that are voting no on prop 19, which of you are prepared to get a "better written" measure on the ballot in a couple of years? Can you get a straight "legalize cannabis" prop through with no carrot of tax revenue? What is your plan to get the ball rolling if 19 is not that step? The "19 is horribly written" line is old and a total waste of time when it is not backed by action to correct it. Where is this action? Anyone...???

Not a single argument on the NO side has swayed my support for 19. The NO folks seem to simply want everything to stay as it is right now: illegal unless you pay your fee to a Dr, which I do.

Please post a link to YOUR efforts to legalize...


----------



## lowrider2000 (Oct 10, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> pfff That's nothing. You are clearly blowing the debt WAY out of porportion. Only 44k per person? Oh please.. That's not THAT bad considering the average American makes 10k less than that, we can easily pay that off if everyone decides to be broke for a year! Who's with me! Oh wait... That includes little kids.... hrmm it might take a little longer than a year... Living without food/water/shelter for a year or 3 is possible.. Right?
> 
> *epic sarcasm*
> 
> Here's a bit of non sarcasm. Fact: This country will never be debt free, ever. If anything the national debt will continue to increase, increasing the strangle hold on people in the Country and the world. Ever put a frog into a pot of water and slowly raised the temperature? We are the frogs. Too stupid, too blind to see what's really going on.


i was actually planning on pimping out my daughter and wife...i think i can squeeze 44 grand out of em and sending the money in an envelope to china.
i say we need to pass it we are getting greedy and picky its kinda like the first time you asked your parents to do something they kinda said no and gave you a shit load of restrictions but fuck it ight ill be home by 10 pm and wont drink....then before you know it a couple of years later you don't have to call no more and they dont give a fuck when you get home..........


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 10, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> Sentence structure isn't your strong suit. Here, I'll show you how you should have typed that. "Most dispensaries pay only sales tax, about $30/oz."
> 
> I like how out of everything I typed that's what you chose to criticize. Clearly shows your intent is to not have anything close to an adult like debate about why you are voting no on Prop 19. Because honestly, you haven't given one real reason.


No kidding! In my last post, I mistakenly used the word "quibble" as an "act" of negotiation with government agencies. That gave Ruiner the opportunity to play cute and get all pissy about word usage, completely ignoring the intent of the message. Of course then, here comes "Nateking", declaring me rude! This from a person who would go into someone's grow journal and start making RUDE political comments. These are some desperate folks who will do or say anything to advance their losing positions....BB


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 10, 2010)

klmmicro said:


> Lowrider, we owe like 7 trillion to China. The politicians that have caused 100% of the problems in this country do not know how to stay within their means.
> 
> For those that are voting no on prop 19, which of you are prepared to get a "better written" measure on the ballot in a couple of years? Can you get a straight "legalize cannabis" prop through with no carrot of tax revenue? What is your plan to get the ball rolling if 19 is not that step? The "19 is horribly written" line is old and a total waste of time when it is not backed by action to correct it. Where is this action? Anyone...???
> 
> ...


That's just your inability to understand the big picture, showing.

BTW, I AM legal, and have been, for over a decade.

Why fuck with THAT?

If you aren't, that is just your laziness.

You'll pay a ton more in taxes than the cost of a recommendation, if this piece of shit passes.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 10, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> Completely true. They just want things to stay the same because they are fine with hit. They do not care about the future of this country or it's people. The NO to prop 19 are a bunch of stupid selfish fucks. They are nothing more than that. They can not come up with one good reason to vote no. Prop 19 NEEDS to pass. I can't say that enough, otherwise we are just putting national legalization of Cannabis on hold again. Dumping water on the fire that's finally burning strong enough to cook something. Whatever analogy you can think of, the "no to 19" aren't helping anything.


You don't live here.

That makes your opinions worthless.

Go away.

I do my best to communicate.

If you are unable to understand what I say, it isn't my problem.

I think I was pretty clear.

And your opinion doesn't count.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> You don't live here.
> 
> That makes your opinions worthless.
> 
> Go away.




 to all of the out of state people that think they know whats best for us.


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> You don't live here.
> 
> That makes your opinions worthless.
> 
> ...


i with you brother,


----------



## klmmicro (Oct 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> That's just your inability to understand the big picture, showing.
> 
> BTW, I AM legal, and have been, for over a decade.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your evaluation of my cognitive skills. So noted and duly filed.

I am legal, but I am still trying to figure out the argument that I will pay even a single cent more in taxes because of prop 19...

You seem to be simply saying; "I am fine, fuck you". I am not impugning your character, just stating how I perceive your argument. Medical Marijuana laws did not change the status, they just created an exemption.

Almost the entire "MMJ" system is predicated on a lie, but this is just my observation. I have valid reasons for my recommendation, but when I see 10 perfectly healthy 20 somethings in a dispensary looking for "product" on a Friday afternoon, well...

The plant should be legal, do you agree or disagree...because right now it is not. Sure, we can opt to keep everything the same. The same people will continue to make lots of money off the "prohibited", and lots of innocent people will continue to be fucked with for no reason. The purpose of the original prohibition was based on lie, do you care to do anything to change the unjust laws?


----------



## budling357 (Oct 10, 2010)

klmmicro said:


> Thank you for your evaluation of my cognitive skills. So noted and duly filed.
> 
> I am legal, but I am still trying to figure out the argument that I will pay even a single cent more in taxes because of prop 19...
> 
> ...


Hear, Hear!!!

I know, I know. Think for myself, right veggie? lol, at you.


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 10, 2010)

klmmicro said:


> The same people will continue to make lots of money off the "prohibited", and lots of innocent people will continue to be fucked with for no reason. The purpose of the original prohibition was based on lie


The only thing about this statement that will change with the passage of prop 19 is that fewer of the same people will be making MORE money.

This is modified prohibition designed to make a very few, very wealthy...It's very purpose is based on a lie as well.

Forcing people to grow indoors, or buy warehouse buds with the associated fees/taxes when the one outdoor plant is gone is NOT legalization.

It is NOT illegal to take any OTC, prescription drug, consume any form of alcohol or tobacco product or eat a nice big juicy tomato in front of your children...WHY??? Obviously...these things are legal (not prohibited).

Not only does prop 19 make it illegal to use Cannabis in the presence of your own minor child...it is a damn felony!!!! And don;t give me any crap about hotboxing and contact highs, or smoking massive amounts that smoke up a room ...this is something that KIDS do, not adults casually smoking.

So this is NOT legalization! 

I am certainly not going to vote "yes" for this, making pot a little less legal in California, so that people in other states can be a little closer to the dream...taking one for the team...screw that! 

It is often said in these threads that the only people who are against prop 19 are drug dealers that are selling what they grow and will lose money with Dickie's modified prohibition....BS!!!!

The only people FOR prop 19 are out of stater's or those who have already made steps towards the dream of the warehouse grow.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 10, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> The only people FOR prop 19 are out of stater's or those who have already made steps towards the dream of the warehouse grow.


What? Impossible! Out-of-state people tampering with a local election? Preposterous! You must be a mexican cartel medical grower that just wants to make blood money off of prohibition that hates kittens and senior citizens. You must be a republican that secretly hates marijuana users. You are the scum of the earth because I cant understand your position on this subject because I cant be taught how to think critically! Fuck you Osama Bin Laden Hayduke! Go eat some jew-baby hearts while torturing non-violent drug offenders sitting in prison!


----------



## budling357 (Oct 10, 2010)

Californians should be thankful for their opportunity to change the future and possibly bring their state back from economic disaster. Instead, We get almost a split decision heavily based on personal gains. Typical materialistic, selfish, thoughtless logic.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 10, 2010)

budling357 said:


> Californians should be thankful for their opportunity to change the future and possibly bring their state back from economic disaster. Instead, We get almost a split decision heavily based on personal gains. Typical materialistic, selfish, thoughtless logic.


Taxes, fees and assessments collected under Prop. 19 are to be used for regulation and enforcement of the cannabis industry. Typical baseless argument.


----------



## budling357 (Oct 10, 2010)

baseless?

Lets just start with the hemp industry job opportunities. Or savings within the justice system. Maybe even greener ways of living. Etc.

This is getting redundant. Yes voters continue to point out 19's possibilities for the future of america, shyt, the world for that matter. And the No voters continue to point out their fears and selfishness.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 10, 2010)

budling357 said:


> baseless?
> 
> Lets just start with the hemp industry job opportunities. Or savings within the justice system. Maybe even greener ways of living. Etc.
> 
> This is getting redundant. Yes voters continue to point out 19's possibilities for the future of america, shyt, the world for that matter. And the No voters continue to point out their fears and selfishness.


Yes... this is more baseless supposition. At least you're starting to recognize your own fallacies.


----------



## budling357 (Oct 10, 2010)

Ever felt like you've been cheated? You probably deserved it! Losers usually do....... Winners just get on with it

A man of his own words, eh? 

We the 215ers feel we will be cheated, so f the rest. 

If 19 effects 215 "You probably deserved it!"


----------



## drherbalist (Oct 10, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Taxes, fees and assessments collected under Prop. 19 are to be used for regulation and enforcement of the cannabis industry. Typical baseless argument.


The tax revenues will go into a general fund for those cities and municipalities that choose to tax/regulate cannabis. The regulation and enforcement has to be covered somehow which the taxes would be designed to do. How else would you see this being paid for? Most cities in California are broke, so digging in another fund when every other fund is tapped out is not going to get the job done. I don't want to see any more teachers laid off either...I don't want to see ANYONE laid off as we all need to keep food on the table.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 10, 2010)

If making me seem like the bad guy makes you feel better about your willingness to criminalize young adults and add felonies to the law books, then you do what you gotta do. No matter how you twist things, a Yes vote does exactly that.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 10, 2010)

drherbalist said:


> The tax revenues will go into a general fund for those cities and municipalities that choose to tax/regulate cannabis. The regulation and enforcement has to be covered somehow which the taxes would be designed to do. How else would you see this being paid for? Most cities in California are broke, so digging in another fund when every other fund is tapped out is not going to get the job done. I don't want to see any more teachers laid off either...I don't want to see ANYONE laid off as we all need to keep food on the table.


Sorry, I could never personally rationalize paying a tax to fund further enforcement, especially since young adults will have been suddenly criminalized for simple possession. The only ones this keeps employed are the ones arresting cannabis users. Thanks, but no thanks.


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 10, 2010)

budling357 said:


> Californians should be thankful for their opportunity to change the future and possibly bring their state back from economic disaster. Instead, We get almost a split decision heavily based on personal gains. Typical materialistic, selfish, thoughtless logic.


Right....



TokinPodPilot said:


> Taxes, fees and assessments collected under Prop. 19 are to be used for regulation and enforcement of the cannabis industry. Typical baseless argument.


Exactly!



The Ruiner said:


> What? Impossible! Out-of-state people tampering with a local election? Preposterous! You must be a mexican cartel medical grower that just wants to make blood money off of prohibition that hates kittens and senior citizens. You must be a republican that secretly hates marijuana users. You are the scum of the earth because I cant understand your position on this subject because I cant be taught how to think critically! Fuck you Osama Bin Laden Hayduke! Go eat some jew-baby hearts while torturing non-violent drug offenders sitting in prison!


Hehe...For the record...I could live without cats!



TokinPodPilot said:


> If making me seem like the bad guy makes you feel better about your willingness to criminalize young adults and add felonies to the law books, then you do what you gotta do. No matter how you twist things, a Yes vote does exactly that.


Yup...And wow!!! They are saying that we are voting Know out of selfishness!?!?!?!?!?

OMFG!!! They are only concerned with their own speaker box grow suddenly being legal under certain circumstances


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 10, 2010)

The easiest way to hide one's profiteering motives is to accuse the opposition of profiteering. I wonder which side of a commercialization bill would have profit motives to hide.... I wonder....


----------



## growermike666 (Oct 10, 2010)

Yeah!!! keep up the good work!!! The most recent reuters/ispos poll show prop 19 down by 10 points!!!
Let's hit this thing hard!! Derail and debunk this horrible legislation!! Leave it by the wayside derailed, abandoned, shipwrecked, forgotten, and defeated!!! 

Prop 19 will set us all back decades. Prop 19 enforces all existing marijuana laws and even adds more some of which are serious felonies. It's a Trojan Horse, a fake.

Keep marijuana legal. Vote no on prop 19. Prohibition never worked and prop 19 is prohibition that provides funding allocated to enforce these "new" laws as well as the old laws and prohibitions.

Let's hit em hard and tell the truth about prop 19. Get the word out. Hopefully it will keep going down in the polls and we will win and marijuana will stay legal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101006/hl_nm/us_usa_elections_california_marijuana_3


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 10, 2010)

Good news indeed.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

growermike666 said:


> Yeah!!! keep up the good work!!! The most recent reuters/ispos poll show prop 19 down by 10 points!!!
> Let's hit this thing hard!! Derail and debunk this horrible legislation!! Leave it by the wayside derailed, abandoned, shipwrecked, forgotten, and defeated!!!
> 
> Prop 19 will set us all back decades. Prop 19 enforces all existing marijuana laws and even adds more some of which are serious felonies. It's a Trojan Horse, a fake.
> ...


Marijuana is currently illegal in all 50 states. With the exception of MMJ card holders. Which is an exception not making it legal. You and the others who are voting no are very sadly misguided and very confused.

Prohibition is what's going on now, how is legalizing something prohibition?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_the_United_States

I really feel bad some of you guys are wasting your votes because you've been mislead. Completely illegal as of 10/10/2010

Medical Marijuana is an exception, nothing more. It is still very much illegal to the general population. You aren't helping you are making the problem worse.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 10, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Sorry, I could never personally rationalize paying a tax to fund further enforcement, especially since young adults will have been suddenly criminalized for simple possession.


lol. The recreational use of cannabis is illegal for everyone now. Legalizing it for people over 21 doesn't make it more illegal for people under 21 than it is now. No where does prop 19 add additional possession penalties for someone under 21.

Making shit up to oppose prop 19 doesn't help your cause at all. It just makes it seem like you have your own motivations for opposing it which you aren't saying here ($$). You don't happen to own a farm up in mendo do you?


----------



## puffntuff (Oct 10, 2010)

thank goodness it seems the only fuckers that are pro 19 are lazy fuckers who are not gonna grow anyways. all of a sudden its you growers are the bad guys cuz your making money. WTF prop 19 is bs and it fucks everyone and helps out a few. id rather have it how it is now. help everyone fuck a few.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

puffntuff said:


> thank goodness it seems the only fuckers that are pro 19 are lazy fuckers who are not gonna grow anyways. all of a sudden its you growers are the bad guys cuz your making money. WTF prop 19 is bs and it fucks everyone and helps out a few. id rather have it how it is now. help everyone fuck a few.


Dude you're from Michigan, it's completely illegal there. What the fuck are you going on about? Read my post #221. You are sadly misinformed.


----------



## puffntuff (Oct 10, 2010)

shim get a card and stop crying about it. many news reels have done reports on how fucking easy it is to get a card in cali, oh my back hurts from wearing high heels well heres a card for you. i cant sleep at night when i have my 15" subwoovers banging so loud it rattles the windows well heres a card for you.


----------



## puffntuff (Oct 10, 2010)

im a registered california voter as i live in pomona half of the year. its not illegal here in mi if you have a card so sorry for your uninformed ass.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

puffntuff said:


> shim get a card and stop crying about it. many news reels have done reports on how fucking easy it is to get a card in cali, oh my back hurts from wearing high heels well heres a card for you. i cant sleep at night when i have my 15" subwoovers banging so loud it rattles the windows well heres a card for you.


It's pretty obvious you don't pay attention to my posts. I'm not from California, I live no where near California. I live no where near any state that does medical marijuana. I do not have any medical conditions and I'm not willing to abuse the system just to smoke marijuana. I'd rather go about it the right way and see it be legal.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 10, 2010)

puffntuff said:


> thank goodness it seems the only fuckers that are pro 19 are lazy fuckers who are not gonna grow anyways. all of a sudden its you growers are the bad guys cuz your making money. WTF prop 19 is bs and it fucks everyone and helps out a few. id rather have it how it is now. help everyone fuck a few.


Nothing wrong with growing to make money. I support all of those people who grow medically or illegally. Get paid! Nothing wrong with making a living. What I have a problem with is those who are making up lies and spreading misinformation to support prohibition because they are worried about their own profits. 

If you want to oppose prop 19 because you're afraid you'll lose your income over it, that's a valid reason in my book. No shame in that at all. What I won't tolerate is people being dishonest about out their motivations and then being dishonest about prop 19. 

I openly admit that if prop 19 passes I plan to try and making a living legally off of profits from it. I don't think there is anything wrong with that what so ever. Making a living supporting yourself off of growing/selling bud is in know way shameful. It's an honest profession IMO and it should be legal. 

Interesting that not one person from the anti-prop 19 crowd will admit they grow/sell for a living. Don't tell me know one is doing that. I've been in the game long enough to know that is bullshit. 

People who are against prop 19 because they are scared they won't be able to pay the bills should just come out and admit it. This whole veil of bullshit they are putting up is very transparent. Hard to take their arguments seriously when I know they are lying about their true motivations.


----------



## puffntuff (Oct 10, 2010)

i read your posts you live in iowa or something like that as one of the people that this is going to matter to your opinion doesnt. if you think by us passing this its going to help your cause out sorry but it wont. we have be legit here since 96, it hasnt helped you out any so .........


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

puffntuff said:


> i read your posts you live in iowa or something like that as one of the people that this is going to matter to your opinion doesnt. if you think by us passing this its going to help your cause out sorry but it wont. we have be legit here since 96, it hasnt helped you out any so .........


So when prop 215 passed in 1996 it wasn't a stepping stone for any other state to go the route of MMJ? What was that? It was... Oh. Prop 19, same deal. Stepping stone for the rest of the Country. I like how you can't make one reply without some type of negative remark. How old are you? 18?

Btw, I don't live in Iowa.


----------



## 420God (Oct 10, 2010)

puffntuff said:


> i read your posts you live in iowa or something like that as one of the people that this is going to matter to your opinion doesnt. if you think by us passing this its going to help your cause out sorry but it wont. we have be legit here since 96, it hasnt helped you out any so .........


 Yes it has and you're blind if you can't see that. Many other states have passed the use of medical because of Cali and after 19 passes many other states will soon follow after.


----------



## puffntuff (Oct 10, 2010)

it took like 10 years for any other states besides west coast states to hop on board. it took michigan damn near 12-13 yrs. 
as for people not wanting to admit to making a living growing and selling weed you can tell about that from their position on prop 19. the people that have been helping out the cause since 1996 and are well informed about this prop know that it is setting the cause back in time while helping out a few well paid people already.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

puffntuff said:


> it took like 10 years for any other states besides west coast states to hop on board. it took michigan damn near 12-13 yrs.
> as for people not wanting to admit to making a living growing and selling weed you can tell about that from their position on prop 19. the people that have been helping out the cause since 1996 and are well informed about this prop know that it is setting the cause back in time while helping out a few well paid people already.


You don't know your history at all.

California: 1996
Alaska: 1998
Colorado: 2000
Hawaii: 2000
Maine: 1999
Maryland: 2003
Michigan: 2008
Washington: 1998

10 years for other states? Really? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis_in_the_United_States

You clearly aren't one of those well informed people who have been helping since 1996 when you fail to realize 2 years later states started making it legal. What's that? Every 2 years is when things are voted on? Oh snap....

What's that? Maine is on the east coast?... oh shit...


----------



## puffntuff (Oct 10, 2010)

it was a figure of speech on the 10 yrs but close enough.1. Alaska
1998
Ballot Measure 8 (58%)	
$25/$20
1 oz usable; 6 plants (3 mature, 3 immature)
Unknown *
2. California
1996
Proposition 215 (56%)	
$66/$33
8 oz usable; 18 plants (6 mature, 12 immature)**
No
3. Colorado
2000
Ballot Amendment 20 (54%)	
$90
2 oz usable; 6 plants (3 mature, 3 immature)
No
4. DC
2010	Amendment Act B18-622 (13-0 vote)	***	2 oz dried; limits on other forms to be determined	Unknown
5. Hawaii
2000
Senate Bill 862 (32-18 House; 13-12 Senate)	
$25
3 oz usable; 7 plants (3 mature, 4 immature)
No
6. Maine
1999
Ballot Question 2 (61%)	$100/$75	
2.5 oz usable; 6 plants
Yes****
7. Michigan	2008	Proposal 1 (63%)	$100/$25	2.5 oz usable; 12 plants	Yes
8. Montana
2004
Initiative 148 (62%)	
$25/$10
1 oz usable; 6 plants
Yes
9. Nevada
2000
Ballot Question 9 (65%)	
$150 +
1 oz usable; 7 plants (3 mature, 4 immature)
No
10. New Jersey
2010
Senate Bill 119 (48-14 House; 25-13 Senate)	
*****
2 oz usable
Unknown
11. New Mexico	2007	Senate Bill 523 (36-31 House; 32-3 Senate)	$0	
6 oz usable; 16 plants (4 mature, 12 immature)
No
12. Oregon
1998
Ballot Measure 67 (55%)	
$100/$20
24 oz usable; 24 plants (6 mature, 18 immature)
No
13. Rhode Island
2006
Senate Bill 0710 (52-10 House; 33-1 Senate)	
$75/$10
2.5 oz usable; 12 plants
Yes
14. Vermont
2004
Senate Bill 76 (22-7) HB 645 (82-59)	
$50
2 oz usable; 9 plants (2 mature, 7 immature)
No
15. Washington
1998
Initiative 692 (59%)	
******
24 oz usable; 15 plants
No
[Editor's note: 12 of the 14 states require proof of residency to be considered a qualifying patient for medical marijuana use. Only Oregon and Montana have announced that they will accept out-of-state applications. Karen O'Keefe, JD, Director of State Policies for Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), told ProCon.org in a July 27, 2010 email that "Patients and their caregivers can cultivate in 13 of the 14 states. Home cultivation is not allowed in New Jersey or the District of Columbia and a special license is required in New Mexico."]


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

puffntuff said:


> it was a figure of speech on the 10 yrs but close enough.


Since when is 10 years close to 3? Maine was the "first" State on the east coast to pass Medical and that was in 1999. Congratulations, you can copy and paste.

1996-1999 = 3 years.


----------



## puffntuff (Oct 10, 2010)

how does this effect you in iowa


----------



## 420God (Oct 10, 2010)

Regardless, it helped and it can help again.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

puffntuff said:


> how does this effect you in iowa


I'm not exactly sure considering I don't live in Iowa. I just said that? The point is, California first state to pass Medical Marijuana, literally 2 years later states start doing the same. I recall your original post mentioning something about Prop 19 won't do that sort of thing when 215 did exactly that. 

Basically, you were wrong.


----------



## puffntuff (Oct 10, 2010)

prop 215 helped and obviously will help. Prop 19 not gonna help


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

puffntuff said:


> prop 215 helped and obviously will help. Prop 19 not gonna help


So making marijuana legal to the general population won't help but making it an exception for "medical patients" did?

Do you have one valid reason to be against prop 19?


----------



## puffntuff (Oct 10, 2010)

its not making it legal to everyone its putting stipulations on it for everyone. like one other poter said we worked hard to break threw the laws no reason to add anymore.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

puffntuff said:


> its not making it legal to everyone its putting stipulations on it for everyone. like one other poter said we worked hard to break threw the laws no reason to add anymore.


It's through not threw.

and how is it not making it legal? It clearly states it in the prop. Anyone with a reading comprehension level greater than a 6 year old can understand that. I think you had better read it for yourself and stop relying on 3rd parties to tell you the "facts".
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Text_of_Proposition_19,_the_%22Regulate,_Control_and_Tax_Cannabis_Act_of_2010%22_%28California%29#B._Purposes


but you know something, during prohibition of alcohol. I'm sure there were tons of idiots like you and others who opposed it for no good reason. Then again, unlike alcohol marijuana doesn't kill you.


----------



## puffntuff (Oct 10, 2010)

i read the law i think you need to. threw through thru who the fuck cares its a forum not english class bud.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

puffntuff said:


> i read the law i think you need to. threw through thru who the fuck cares its a forum not english class bud.


How a person talks/types shows a lot about their intelligence.


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 10, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> How a person talks/types shows a lot about their intelligence.


True...It also shows how kind of a person they are


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 10, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> How a person talks/types shows a lot about their intelligence.


And spell check is a no-brainer!


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> And spell check is a no-brainer!


Yea pretty much.


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 10, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> True...It also shows how kind of a person they are


And how kind of you to say so.


----------



## drherbalist (Oct 10, 2010)

growermike666 said:


> Yeah!!! keep up the good work!!! The most recent reuters/ispos poll show prop 19 down by 10 points!!!
> Let's hit this thing hard!! Derail and debunk this horrible legislation!! Leave it by the wayside derailed, abandoned, shipwrecked, forgotten, and defeated!!!
> 
> Prop 19 will set us all back decades. Prop 19 enforces all existing marijuana laws and even adds more some of which are serious felonies. It's a Trojan Horse, a fake.
> ...


Boy do you get your news late. Try this....the latest:
.

As we get closer to the elections, the tides are turning in FAVOR of PROP 19.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 10, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> How a person talks/types shows a lot about their intelligence.


Not at all in my opinion. It just shows how good at English they are. I'm terrible with spelling and grammar. I'm fantastic with math/science. I finished my college math requirements in 7th grade. It took me 3 tries to pass English 1a in college. You can't measure someone's intelligence by their spelling/grammar.


----------



## 420God (Oct 10, 2010)

Here's another up-to-date poll survey showing YES gaining support- http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/10/04/prop-19-gains-slightly-in-latest-poll-winning-48-41/


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

If this passes, I wonder how many years it will take for it to get to the bible belt republican south. Any guesses? My guess is 15-20 years


----------



## 420God (Oct 10, 2010)

If it passes they'll act like it was all them and jump in for the money.


----------



## drherbalist (Oct 10, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Sorry, I could never personally rationalize paying a tax to fund further enforcement, especially since young adults will have been suddenly criminalized for simple possession. The only ones this keeps employed are the ones arresting cannabis users. Thanks, but no thanks.


How else do you envision enforcement of the grow ops? Dispensaries? Etc. to ensure they are following the rules and regulations? Inspections come with a cost as every single other aspect of local government. So where do you suggest that money come from?

Young adults are currently cited for simple possession. That is the way the law currently stands. So it would continue to be a crime under Prop 19. 

It keeps a lot more employed than what you mentioned TokinPodPilot and actually creates more jobs. From growers, trimmers, budtenders, drivers, electricians, real estate agents, insurance brokers, instructors, web designers, photographers .... and more. It could inject commerce and jobs in a state that so desperately needs it. This isn't about me me me....this is about me and you...its about US.


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 10, 2010)

Lets not forget the other states with in place or pending legislation:> 
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881
CA is not the only state with a vital, cannabis positive crowd.
A sincere Good luck & good grow to all.......BB


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 10, 2010)

drherbalist said:


> How else do you envision enforcement of the grow ops? Dispensaries? Etc. to ensure they are following the rules and regulations? Inspections come with a cost as every single other aspect of local government. So where do you suggest that money come from?
> 
> Young adults are currently cited for simple possession. That is the way the law currently stands. So it would continue to be a crime under Prop 19.
> 
> It keeps a lot more employed than what you mentioned TokinPodPilot and actually creates more jobs. From growers, trimmers, budtenders, drivers, electricians, real estate agents, insurance brokers, instructors, web designers, photographers .... and more. It could inject commerce and jobs in a state that so desperately needs it. This isn't about me me me....this is about me and you...its about US.


Lawyers, judges, Monsanto, cops, prison guards, drug treatment centers(For the criminally under age), and a bunch of other "regulators" this will require.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Lawyers, judges, Monsanto, cops, prison guards, drug treatment centers(For the criminally under age), and a bunch of other "regulators" this will require.


ROFL...... Your crystal ball is working overtime Veg...


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 10, 2010)

Serapis said:


> ROFL...... Your crystal ball is working overtime Veg...


My crystal ball has always proven optimistic when dealing with politics.

It could be far worse.(Think George W. Bush. Nobody figured he could be that bad.)


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 10, 2010)

If prop 19 passes a bunch of people will profit or be employed by that. If it fails, a different group of people will continue to profit and be employed by that. Illegal growers, prisons, and drug agents, etc will all continue to be employed or make huge profits off the current system. If prop 19 passes, yes, douchbags like Richard Lee will make money. Some small business will start up, others will shut down. 

If prop 19 passes, some assholes and some good people will financially benefit or suffer. If prop 19 fails then some assholes and some good people will financially benefit of suffer. This happens either way.

The question we have to all ask ourselves is does this bring us a step closer to ending prohibition. 

In my opinion that is a definite yes! It's a yes for two reasons. It will likely lead to other states passing legalization laws. Also it allows counties/cities to end prohibition locally. If you want to fight big national or state lobby/interest groups your best chance to do so is at a local level. If prohibition ends it may very well have to be done county by county, city by city in the beginning. Prop 19 allows us to have that fight.


----------



## klmmicro (Oct 10, 2010)

I just wonder why the opposition chooses not to see this...the argument that someone will get rich under prop 19 is just not a valid reason to vote no.

Like you said, with the prop passed, then we have the legal means to fight. Without it, more of the same we can expect.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 10, 2010)

klmmicro said:


> I just wonder why the opposition chooses not to see this...the argument that someone will get rich under prop 19 is just not a valid reason to vote no.


It makes me wonder what their real motivations are for opposing prop 19. They obviously see this and choose to ignore it. Hard to have an honest discussion with people who refuse to take into account obvious truths. 



> Like you said, with the prop passed, then we have the legal means to fight. Without it, more of the same we can expect.


Yep. It'll be prohibition as usual. I'm not saying prop 19 ends prohibition, but it does give us a great way to fight prohibition. Hard to fight multimillion dollar lobbies on the national level. But on the county level every voter has access to their board of supervisors. You don't need to be a CEO. They have open office hours where anyone can talk to them. Big lobbies usually don't play on that level. 

A single person can go out and gather a couple hundred signatures of registered voters on a petition. A county supervisor will take that very seriously. You don't need a million dollars to effect local progress. Prop 19 allows cities and counties to end prohibition entirely in a way that an average person can have a serious effect. There is no disputing that this is a good thing.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 10, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> It makes me wonder what their real motivations are for opposing prop 19. They obviously see this and choose to ignore it. Hard to have an honest discussion with people who refuse to take into account obvious truths.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A lot of wishful thinking in that post.

You're guessing. Nothing more.

We see glaring inconsistencies between what supporters claim, and what is actually in the bill.

You've chosen to believe what you will. You're wrong, but it will be your vote.

If you expect to get rich selling pot, you will be sadly disappointed. You'll be regulated into eating a bullet in frustration.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> A lot of wishful thinking in that post.
> 
> You're guessing. Nothing more..


How so?



> We see glaring inconsistencies between what supporters claim, and what is actually in the bill.


You've got people on your side opposing prop 19 on these forums by claiming that prop 19 makes possession a felony. That is an outright lie. 

These "glaring inconsistencies" are largely you misinterpreting prop 19. The original medical cannabis lawyer, norml, Tom Ammiano, and pretty much every prominent legal mind in the cannabis community all think you are misinterpreting prop 19. It's just a few people like you and the prohibitionists opposing it. 

Please, tell me, what do you know about interpreting legal language that J. David Nick and Tom Ammiano don't know. What law school did you attend? Why should people believe your interpretation of prop 19 over prominent pro-cannabis activist lawyers? 



> You've chosen to believe what you will. You're wrong, but it will be your vote.


Take a look at the people on your side. Mostly narcotics officers, DA's, other anti-drug groups, and the alcohol lobby. You're playing for the wrong team here. 



> If you expect to get rich selling pot, you will be sadly disappointed. You'll be regulated into eating a bullet in frustration.


 It's not all about getting rich. It's about being able to support yourself and your family off of doing something you love. There is nothing sinister about that. Sorry if I refuse to be a 9-5er and sit in a cubicle all day. I've tried that already. That life isn't for me. I guess that makes me a bad person.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 11, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dream on.... LOL


----------



## Serapis (Oct 11, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Dream on.... LOL


What a well thought out and articulate response from the prohibitionist.... He is right ya know. You can count yourself among cops, prosecutors, anti-drug and church groups. Those are the ones you are standing in solidarity with. I think it is assinine for medical marijuana users to trash prop 19.... it is ironic beyond comprehension. And yes, I know I misspelled the word.... but it fits....


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 11, 2010)

Am I the only one that finds it hilarious mr. veggie only posts in threads that bash prop 19 or have gone that way. If it contains facts he can't touch it like a vamp touching silver.


----------



## 420God (Oct 11, 2010)

He also tries and claims his wife NEEDS more smoke than any 3 of us in a month, ha. Grow better smoke than.


----------



## growone (Oct 11, 2010)

i do have to admit, i am in awe of the level of conspiracy that has been described here
not only does prop 19 create new felonies, destroy MMJ, and aid in the big business take over of MJ
but law enforcement(the real big winner from prop 19) has cleverly come out against this new major source of funding
it's just diabolical, and i thought the Illuminati was the ultimate in paranoia


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 11, 2010)

growone said:


> i do have to admit, i am in awe of the level of conspiracy that has been described here
> not only does prop 19 create new felonies, destroy MMJ, and aid in the big business take over of MJ
> but law enforcement(the real big winner from prop 19) has cleverly come out against this new major source of funding
> it's just diabolical, and i thought the Illuminati was the ultimate in paranoia


Yea, the BS that people can come up with to change minds is amazing,. well not really. When you present someone with the truth all they can do is make up shit. Take my thread of facts for example. Still haven't seen the major anti 19 folks on this board post in that thread.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 11, 2010)

the gov't fucks up everything... this will be no different... everybody that thinks this is gonna be some kind of miracle is sadly mistaken... any thing the gov't touches they ruin... this will be no different and you know this...


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 11, 2010)

nathenking said:


> the gov't fucks up everything... this will be no different... everybody that thinks this is gonna be some kind of miracle is sadly mistaken... any thing the gov't touches they ruin... this will be no different and you know this...


Did they fuck up prop 215 to the point where you wish you voted no on it? They govt decriminalized marijuana in California, did they fuck that up? State and local governments touch and fix roads, did they fuck that up? They zone and require new fire depts, schools, police stations. Do they fuck those up?

So far, it seems like all you've posted is slander. So where are the facts to back up your statement?


----------



## nathenking (Oct 11, 2010)

look at the budget bro... look at the recounts, look at welfare... look at how any prisons and prisoners we have... look at corporations buying and paying for the senate and the presidency... you should take that photo of bob down man... seriously... you think that shit is o.k.? you dont think this country is going down hill, that we owe china a trillion dollars, that we are in wars we should have never even been involved with??? and your talking about roads and schools... News flash, our school system in this country is shit as well... especially in cali... dont even act like shit is o.k. it seems that you only care about Mj... congratulations, everything else is fucked but as long as you can have a ounce it will be alright.... its complete BS... pseudo activist BS...


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 11, 2010)

nathenking said:


> look at the budget bro... look at the recounts, look at welfare... look at how any prisons and prisoners we have... look at corporations buying and paying for the senate and the presidency... you should take that photo of bob down man... seriously... you think that shit is o.k.? you dont think this country is going down hill, that we owe china a trillion dollars, that we are in wars we should have never even been involved with??? and your talking about roads and schools... News flash, our school system in this country is shit as well... especially in cali... dont even act like shit is o.k. it seems that you only care about Mj... congratulations, everything else is fucked but as long as you can have a ounce it will be alright.... its complete BS... pseudo activist BS...


you don't think I don't know all of that? Do you think Bob would be ok with marijuana being only medical and decriminalized or do you think he'd want it to be legal? I'm sure he would support prop 19 if he was still around. We can't change all of those things over night. They have gotten that bad through time. And as time keeps ticking so will the problems marijuana being illegal creates. How many people do you think are in jail because of marijuana being illegal in California? Have those people been released yet because of prop 215? No they haven't, with Prop 19 there stands a change those I think it was 60,000 people a year get their records cleaned and their case thrown out. How many people do you think have died because of marijuana being illegal through drug busts? How many people locked up for marijuana do you think have been murdered in the prison system by a killer? Prop 19 no passing continues the war on marijuana and drugs in general considering that's where it started. I hope you know your history. 

Seems like you don't care at all. You can throw out all those different problems, but what are YOU doing to help them? Are you protesting anything? Do you have a non profit organization? NO bill is perfect the first time around, it takes years of changes to get it to be somewhat decent. You can not expect and you will not ever get the perfect legalize marijuana bill the first time around. If anybody is a pseudo activist it's the people who have MMJ cards and are voting no on the 2nd.

So you think voting no is helping lessen drug related crime? Is it helping random drug raids and busts on people growing a couple plants? Just because you're in California and you're safe doesn't mean you shouldn't care. There are hundreds of millions of people in this Country. Millions of people every year are locked up for stupid marijuana charges. It has happened in the past with Prop 215 that California is almost always at the front of the line when it comes to changing laws. It happened with 215, it can happen with 19. You voting no is not helping one soul. You sir are the pseudo activist. You are the one ruining this Country even more so. Don't give me all that reflection bullshit, you need to take a good look in the mirror because you are no better than the people who say marijuana is dangerous. You are voting the same. No to Prop 19. I pity you. I pity you and everyone who votes no thinking they are doing something positive.


----------



## Nocturnal1 (Oct 12, 2010)

I am voting no. It's just going to be one huge cluster fuck of shit. Trust me, I am psychic. No....really, I am. 









when I'm stoned


----------



## potroast (Oct 12, 2010)

I am voting yes. It's just going _*to continue*_ to be one huge cluster fuck of shit if it _*doesn't*_ pass. 

Check out Allen's quote in my sig.


----------



## Keenly2 (Oct 12, 2010)

potroast said:


> I am voting yes. It's just going to continue to be one huge cluster fuck of shit if it doesn't pass.
> 
> Check out Allen's quote in my sig.


agreed

people are so worried about the money they have failed to remember we wont get arrested / fined anymore, which to me is what its all about


----------



## klmmicro (Oct 12, 2010)

Keenly2 said:


> agreed
> 
> people are so worried about the money they have failed to remember we wont get arrested / fined anymore, which to me is what its all about


Quit with the simple logic please. It will spoil the fun of watching the conspiracy theorists predicting doom for all!


----------



## Keenly2 (Oct 12, 2010)

conspiracy is a word that does not apply here, as it does not fit the definition of the word

the term you are looking for is something i would call "financial speculation fear mongering"

you know, the "if it passes, this and this and this might happen"


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 12, 2010)

It's good to see more people who are going to vote yes. I was getting a bit worried about this forum. I don't understand why people hate this bill so bad. All they have to do is read it.


----------



## growone (Oct 12, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> It's good to see more people who are going to vote yes. I was getting a bit worried about this forum. I don't understand why people hate this bill so bad. All they have to do is read it.


i think sites like these have a slant that may differ sharply from the broad based electorate
i saw a comparison of the number of registered 215 patients and the number of registered california voters
registered 215 patients are not going to affect prop 19 materially, the numbers are too small
and not all patients are anti 19
the polls are confusing, most seem to show 19 having a lead, it looks close either way


----------



## klmmicro (Oct 12, 2010)

Keenly2 said:


> conspiracy is a word that does not apply here, as it does not fit the definition of the word
> 
> the term you are looking for is something i would call "financial speculation fear mongering"
> 
> you know, the "if it passes, this and this and this might happen"


Thank you for the clarification Keenly. You figured out exactly what I was trying to say.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 21, 2010)

nathenking said:


> the gov't fucks up everything... this will be no different... everybody that thinks this is gonna be some kind of miracle is sadly mistaken... any thing the gov't touches they ruin... this will be no different and you know this...


This is precisely the reason why you should vote for 19, to get the [email protected]#$ing government out of people's lives. Why do you think the government has come down so hard against 19? Do you really want to align yourself with the past 6 drug czars? Are you gonna be holding Lee Baca's balls for him while he is cracking the skulls of law-abiding citizens after 19 passes? Take a look at who your allies are in opposing 19, that alone ought to let you know you are on the wrong side of this.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 21, 2010)

desert dude said:


> This is precisely the reason why you should vote for 19, to get the [email protected]#$ing government out of people's lives. Why do you think the government has come down so hard against 19? Do you really want to align yourself with the past 6 drug czars? Are you gonna be holding Lee Baca's balls for him while he is cracking the skulls of law-abiding citizens after 19 passes? Take a look at who your allies are in opposing 19, that alone ought to let you know you are on the wrong side of this.


Logic escapes him. It's all about profit, and prop 19 cuts into that.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 21, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> Logic escapes him. It's all about profit, and prop 19 cuts into that.



True. But maybe the simple shame of licking the drug czars' balls will at least make him (and others) hang their heads and slip away quietly.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 21, 2010)

desert dude said:


> This is precisely the reason why you should vote for 19, to get the [email protected]#$ing government out of people's lives. Why do you think the government has come down so hard against 19? Do you really want to align yourself with the past 6 drug czars? Are you gonna be holding Lee Baca's balls for him while he is cracking the skulls of law-abiding citizens after 19 passes? Take a look at who your allies are in opposing 19, that alone ought to let you know you are on the wrong side of this.


I've tried explaining that several times. They won't hear that. The logic of what is better for most people doesn't count when you're talking about people's jobs. I know lots of people who fear they will be out of work if prop 19 passes. That's the bottom line for them. To an extent that is an understandable position IMO.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 21, 2010)

desert dude said:


> True. But maybe the simple shame of licking the drug czars' balls will at least make him (and others) hang their heads and slip away quietly.


No, the money they bring in is too much. They can't lose their lifestyle and will do anything, say anything to keep it. Even if it means spreading lies about prop 19. They make a living doing nothing. How great is that? The thought of a normal 9-5 scares them. The thought of cutting back. They would probably take it up the ass from a drug czar if it meant them still making what they make from selling their marijuana. They have no shame, and that is the worst type of person.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 21, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> No, the money they bring in is too much. They can't lose their lifestyle and wilil do anyhting, say anything to keep it. Even if it means spreading lies about prop 19.


Voting against prop 19 because you're afraid of losing your source of income is understandable. Lying and creating irrational fear about prop 19 is inexcusable. That's the part that gets me. If these people would just come out and lay out their real reasons for opposing prop 19 we could have a real discussion about those things. I would be much more open to hearing them out on that. But this misinformation campaign they are on is both obvious and shameful.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 21, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Voting against prop 19 because you're afraid of losing your source of income is understandable. Lying and creating irrational fear about prop 19 is inexcusable. That's the part that gets me. If these people would just come out and lay out their real reasons for opposing prop 19 we could have a real discussion about those things. I would be much more open to hearing them out on that. But this misinformation campaign they are on is both obvious and shameful.



All true. The thing of it is, I don't think the price of MJ will decline much if 19 passes because it will still be a federal crime and it will probably make CA the mecca for MJ for the other lower 48 states. That will give the dope dealers the best of both worlds, immunity from state laws and they still get to work two months per year and make a nice living.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 21, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> *most of us up here in the mountains of Humboldt County Ca. are campagning Vote No!*
> 
> 
> 
> *Whats your opinion?*


My opinion is that everybody should vote yes!

What are your reasons for voting no?


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 21, 2010)

desert dude said:


> My opinion is that everybody should vote yes!
> 
> What are your reasons for voting no?


well lets see because the county i live in, we are what you call a green county in california.

people in Humboldt County have been growing grass in these mountains for generations,

my father is a grower my grandfather was a grower, every 1 of my friends are 3 and 4th generation growers if and and when it go's legal its going to kill the outdoor market value, and there is NO OTHER ECONOMY in Southern Humboldt... our economy has been based on pot since the 60's...


everybody i know is voting NO.......

if you dont live were i live you will not understand how it going to effect allot of people in the mountains that have no other source of income or like allot people i know they have no other skill but the knowledge of growing. I know people that have never left these mountains. we are modern day moonshiners .

this is just my opinion.


here are some pics of a couple of my green houses to show you a peek of the level of growing thats growing on.

we are not just growing a couple hundred plants people are growing thousands up here.

I OBVIOUSLY DONT FOLLOW ANY PLANT LIMIT LAWS... LOL


----------



## nathenking (Oct 21, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> well lets see because the county i live in, we are what you call a green county in california.
> 
> people in Humboldt County have been growing grass in these mountains for generations,
> 
> ...


Exactly brudda... I feel the same exact way... This law is set up to push out you and your fam, me and my fam and alot of good hearted people... what for, so they can make a buck... that is what i call robbing peter to pay paul... an ounce only gets you a 100 dollar fine now... and a 5X5 area is not enought for anybody to make a living off of... this isnt for the people, this is for a select few like LEE to make millions on top of there already millions and push out people that were doing it and promoting the movement before these men were wearing diapers.... its absolutly disgusting... it reminds me of corporate farms, corporate walmart, corporate insurance, corporate wall street.... does everything in this country have to make a select few rich? or can we spread the wealth around? the way it is now, there is alot of natural, normal, respectable men making a living off of MJ in Norcal.... so take there lively hood away so a few people can become multi millionaires...


----------



## nathenking (Oct 21, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> well lets see because the county i live in, we are what you call a green county in california.
> 
> people in Humboldt County have been growing grass in these mountains for generations,
> 
> ...


these people will never get it either norcal, they arent up in the hills, they dont see how meager these people live... its not limos and champagne up here... its alot of fucking hard god damn work, plus the risk on top of it.... some people just havnt been down like us bro, so they cant walk a mile in the shoes... cant blame them for that, but also cant respect them for that either...


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 21, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Exactly brudda... I feel the same exact way... This law is set up to push out you and your fam, me and my fam and alot of good hearted people... what for, so they can make a buck... that is what i call robbing peter to pay paul... an ounce only gets you a 100 dollar fine now... and a 5X5 area is not enought for anybody to make a living off of... this isnt for the people, this is for a select few like LEE to make millions on top of there already millions and push out people that were doing it and promoting the movement before these men were wearing diapers.... its absolutly disgusting... it reminds me of corporate farms, corporate walmart, corporate insurance, corporate wall street.... does everything in this country have to make a select few rich? or can we spread the wealth around? the way it is now, there is alot of natural, normal, respectable men making a living off of MJ in Norcal.... so take there lively hood away so a few people can become multi millionaires...


you know exactly what i am talking about, 
these fuc##n where house super grows that are about to start running in Oakland.

people need to understand we are making a living and not getting filthy rich and its all allot of us full time growers have.(multi generational) 

talk about a poverty stricken county if this passes


----------



## nathenking (Oct 21, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> you know exactly what i am talking about,
> these fuc##n where house super grows that are about to start running in Oakland.
> 
> people need to understand we are making a living and not getting filthy rich and its all allot of us full time growers have.(multi generational)
> ...


I know exactly what your talking about... its a god damn full time job growing alot of outdoor pot, you need people to work for you and you have to pay them... it creates jobs... and people love there jobs that is for sure, even though there not driving brand new duramax diesels, everybody gets by and its a great community... its sad that these people will ruin one of the last great and FREE places in the USA.... im so bummed just thinking about it bro....


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 21, 2010)

nathenking said:


> I know exactly what your talking about... its a god damn full time job growing alot of outdoor pot, you need people to work for you and you have to pay them... it creates jobs... and people love there jobs that is for sure, even though there not driving brand new duramax diesels, everybody gets by and its a great community... its sad that these people will ruin one of the last great and FREE places in the USA.... im so bummed just thinking about it bro....



it realy is one of those last untouched places in these mountains, 

we i live you can go months with out seeing a cop.

everybody grows with each other and we are our own community in these mountains

and yes running a large outdoor grow is a all year round thing

when we harvest it takes a couple to dry and trim, by then its december and we are preparing for next season already, 

cleaning all the patches (grow sites in the woods) pots, tubing, trash.. that can take weeks

taking down all the greenhouses and replacing all the plastic which costly also, ($900.00 of plastic for each greenhouse) and takes along time if you working alone or with 1 other person

the list go's on... its allot

my point is all of this will be gone and whole generations of full time growers will be out of work


----------



## potroast (Oct 21, 2010)

Well, I'm sorry, norcal growers, change is coming, and long overdue. I hear you that it's your living, and all of your relatives. So let me ask you then, have you or any of them been busted? You mentioned the risk involved of getting busted. Won't it be nice when you don't have that risk anymore? How can you vote against the chance of having that now? What if this does not pass, and the pigs come down on you hard, and take many of you out? The change in our lifestyle that results from this is inevitable, and we will have to adjust, like we always have over the years.

If Cooley gets elected AG and he wants to shut down all production, he will try. And with the defeat of Prop 19 the religious right will jump on board to stop all cannabis use. We don't need to give them any ammo, and helping to defeat Prop 19 goes against our entire cause. It's my living, too, and I know that I have to get by with whatever results.

I hope it passes, because whatever it causes, it will be an improvement for everyone.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 21, 2010)

potroast said:


> Well, I'm sorry, norcal growers, change is coming, and long overdue. I hear you that it's your living, and all of your relatives. So let me ask you then, have you or any of them been busted? You mentioned the risk involved of getting busted. Won't it be nice when you don't have that risk anymore? How can you vote against the chance of having that now? What if this does not pass, and the pigs come down on you hard, and take many of you out? The change in our lifestyle that results from this is inevitable, and we will have to adjust, like we always have over the years.
> 
> If Cooley gets elected AG and he wants to shut down all production, he will try. And with the defeat of Prop 19 the religious right will jump on board to stop all cannabis use. We don't need to give them any ammo, and helping to defeat Prop 19 goes against our entire cause. It's my living, too, and I know that I have to get by with whatever results.
> 
> I hope it passes, because whatever it causes, it will be an improvement for everyone.


you still dont get it... it wont be an improvement for everyone... didnt you read the last 5posts or so... alot of people will have no job, place to live man... there are losses in anything, this is no different.... there still will be risk from CAMP even after nov2, there will still be risk from the DEA... There will still be risk from the newly formed tax service from this TAX act.... there will still be risk from thiefs, there will always be risk man... 

and do you think people like us really sit and thiink, what if we got caught???? shit, if everybody thought like that, there wouldnt even be a humboldt or any time of free thinking movement.... 
The pigs have never been able to take us out, hence the generations of growers.... its private land, suround by more private land with private roads... REAL FREEDOM!!! unless you live it, you will NOT EVER UNDERSTAND, and that is the sad reality for us all....


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 21, 2010)

potroast said:


> Well, I'm sorry, norcal growers, change is coming, and long overdue. I hear you that it's your living, and all of your relatives. So let me ask you then, have you or any of them been busted? You mentioned the risk involved of getting busted. Won't it be nice when you don't have that risk anymore? How can you vote against the chance of having that now? What if this does not pass, and the pigs come down on you hard, and take many of you out? The change in our lifestyle that results from this is inevitable, and we will have to adjust, like we always have over the years.
> 
> If Cooley gets elected AG and he wants to shut down all production, he will try. And with the defeat of Prop 19 the religious right will jump on board to stop all cannabis use. We don't need to give them any ammo, and helping to defeat Prop 19 goes against our entire cause. It's my living, too, and I know that I have to get by with whatever results.
> 
> I hope it passes, because whatever it causes, it will be an improvement for everyone.



have i ever been busted? No

but i have had thousands of plants taken by CAMP , The Sheriffs, and DEA many many times. the 80's were the worst but that does not matter because i would much rather have some of my patches hit then legalization


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 21, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> my father is a grower my grandfather was a grower, every 1 of my friends are 3 and 4th generation growers if and and when it go's legal its going to kill the outdoor market value, and there is NO OTHER ECONOMY in Southern Humboldt... our economy has been based on pot since the 60's...
> .


I've yet to meet anyone who's going to stop growing because prop 19 passes. Why not just form a legal corporation and grow all you want?

I respect your growing tradition and everything, I'm second generation myself. But I don't understand why you can't just form a business and do it that way? All my humboldt friends feel about the same way you do about prop 19, but none are willing to take the steps necessary to grow legal. I don't get this. It doesn't matter if you guys all are against prop 19. By refusing to participate in the process you're all going to just hand over the whole industry to people from out of town.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 21, 2010)

nathenking said:


> these people will never get it either norcal, they arent up in the hills, they dont see how meager these people live...


Oh come on now. Don't act like you guys are the only people who work in the business.


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 21, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> I've yet to meet anyone who's going to stop growing because prop 19 passes. Why not just form a legal corporation and grow all you want?


well i already grow as much as i want. i have never fallowed any plant limit guidelines regardless but the legalization will kill the value so regardless if its a legal CO OP or not the value is the same right now, i consider myself a CO OP anyways, maybe not legal but still a CO OP.


if you want to smoke go get a card. LOL i just wish it will stay how it is. thats all. LOL


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 21, 2010)

potroast said:


> I hope it passes, because whatever it causes, it will be an improvement for everyone.


For sure. Change is scary. But it's not like humboldt is all of a sudden going to stop growing. Time for people to adapt to the new way. Ending prohibition may have some costs, but it does way more good than bad.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 21, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Oh come on now. Don't act like you guys are the only people who work in the business.


we are not... we dont work in the business we LIVE in it.... 2 different things, but you obviously dont know.... not to insult you, but you just dont man... thats the way it is and I dont hold that against you man... you are a heady dude that I respect the most out of all the yes-19 folks... so please dont take that the wrong way


----------



## nathenking (Oct 21, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> For sure. Change is scary. But it's not like humboldt is all of a sudden going to stop growing. Time for people to adapt to the new way. Ending prohibition may have some costs, but it does way more good than bad.


we shall see.... you never know, it could get privatized to an absolute measure and all of us might be out... no one knows the future.... that is one thing for sure....


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 21, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> well i already grow as much as i want. i have never fallowed any plant limit guidelines regardless but the legalization will kill the value so regardless if its a legal CO OP or not the value is the same right now, i consider myself a CO OP anyways, maybe not legal but still a CO OP.
> 
> 
> if you want to smoke go get a card. LOL i just wish it will stay how it is. thats all. LOL


Yeah, I get that. But isn't it eliminating the risk from the process worth something to you? It's not that hard or expensive to form a legal business. In exchange for that you get peace of mind. Isn't that a fair deal?


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 21, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Oh come on now. Don't act like you guys are the only people who work in the business.


maybe not but before the industry exploded us up here in Humboldt were some of the only people really doing it big in the US.

infact Humboldt provided a majority of the Ganga in US for many many years, all this stuff going on now is all new. 98 percent of the people on this site did not even think about growing until recent years (past 10 to 12 years)


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 21, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Yeah, I get that. But isn't it eliminating the risk from the process worth something to you? It's not that hard or expensive to form a legal business. In exchange for that you get peace of mind. Isn't that a fair deal?


leave it alone............................


----------



## nathenking (Oct 21, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Yeah, I get that. But isn't it eliminating the risk from the process worth something to you? It's not that hard or expensive to form a legal business. In exchange for that you get peace of mind. Isn't that a fair deal?


piece of mind, until the FED comes in and arrests you for 500 plant count... that is some federal time brother.... who wants to be the first to get busted?????


----------



## nathenking (Oct 21, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> leave it alone............................


he doesnt get it, "risk from the process" doesnt even make sense to me... there is risk, but thats the way its always been... you aint gonna find anybody up here too concerned with the "risk" man... that has what has seperated us from you.... how we look at things... alot of things.... ah welll, you cant win them all....


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 21, 2010)

nathenking said:


> we are not... we dont work in the business we LIVE in it.... 2 different things, but you obviously dont know.... not to insult you, but you just dont man... thats the way it is and I dont hold that against you man... you are a heady dude that I respect the most out of all the yes-19 folks... so please dont take that the wrong way


I assure you, I live it every bit as much as you do. I'm in my garden first thing in the morning and I end my nights trimming. We just have different perspectives. 

No disrespect meant by me either. If I seem blunt or confrontational that's just how I am, no ill feelings intended.


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 21, 2010)

nathenking said:


> he doesnt get it, "risk from the process" doesnt even make sense to me... there is risk, but thats the way its always been... you aint gonna find anybody up here too concerned with the "risk" man... that has what has seperated us from you.... how we look at things... alot of things.... ah welll, you cant win them all....



LOL your right. 

Risk does not cross the mind of the biggest growers up here. 

I dont even know that word "Risk" LOL there is no risk here but getting some plants taken which is part of the deal up here and i am content with it and so is every one else. LOL

o yea clear your inbox messages it says i can not send you PM's cause your inbox is full


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 21, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> I assure you, I live it every bit as much as you do. I'm in my garden first thing in the morning and I end my nights trimming. We just have different perspectives.
> 
> No disrespect meant by me either. If I seem blunt or confrontational that's just how I am, no ill feelings intended.


look we all have oppinions and thats little part of what this sites about, i dont get affended by peoples point of veiw because thats all it is bro.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 21, 2010)

cleared brudda...


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 21, 2010)

nathenking said:


> piece of mind, until the FED comes in and arrests you for 500 plant count... that is some federal time brother....
> 
> Prop 19 makes local law enforcement cooperation with the feds illegal when it comes to cannabis. Feds don't have the resources to go around and bust everyone and the federal government doesn't have the political capital to endure a drug war against legal businesses created by American citizens. They'll make a big show of it, then move on. There is a real drug war in Mexico, opium poppies controlled by terrorists, and a finite number of DEA agents. They can't afford a war on pot in California right now.
> 
> ...


----------



## nathenking (Oct 21, 2010)

med growers are still getting busted, clubs are as well.... and this is completly different.... this is recreational, which changes the whole game... the federal gov't can not show anymore weakness, things are already really shaky in this country... its politics, which will take presedence over RLEE plan anyday of the week.... its against the law federally... which will always trump state law... i didnt make the rules, that is the way it is... remember montana and the speed limit... well take that times 1.0 x 10 ^9 man.... plus, the rest of the country is not to fond of this prop, so that will also play a roll in how hard they push, if the majority of the states and or population supported taxed MJ, it would not be that big off a deal, but that is not the case at the moment.... I do agree with you on the fact that either way, its gonna be super hairy for at least 3-5 years for anybody trying to run a business... the fedgovt will commandeer all the property and cash from these illegal business just like they do to any organized crime.... when they put there foot down, it goes down... they are the biggest GANG in america bro... dont forget that...


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 21, 2010)

I'll vote no if you give me a trimming job . 
All jokes aside, You can still make a killing once the prop passes. If anything it will cause pussies to buy way more bud than before. Humboldt bud is world renown. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fucking stupid. All you have to say is that it's from Humboldt/Mendocino county and your shit is automatically gold. Plus, if you sell your shit legally in SoCal, the kush alone will sell for thousands a pound. Definitely more than you could sell it for in the bay (I'm assuming that's as far south as you're willing to drive with lots of product now). Think about it, Uncle Humboldt14's kind kush! Everyone will snatch that shit up, and as long as you keep it low key and have a cuddy grow you could be in for a lot of money.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 22, 2010)

nathenking said:


> med growers are still getting busted, clubs are as well....


Sure, but it's not like it was right after prop 215 passed. Prop 215 stirred up a lot of shit, but eventually it made things better for everyone. Prop 19 will stir the shit, but eventually we will be better off. You'll see. 



> the federal gov't can not show anymore weakness, things are already really shaky in this country...


They will make a big show of it for sure. But they can't afford a drawn out campaign where they are arresting business owners who are creating jobs and paying big tax money during a recession. They piss off both liberals and conservatives that way. It won't fly. Also you've got boarder states begging for federal assistance with the drug cartels. If Obama ignores them to go on a campaign against US citizens who are not committing violent or hurtful crimes, that'll piss off everyone.

Combined that with the fact that the DEA will have to run hundreds if not thousands of investigations without cooperation of local law enforcement, and I don't see how it's possible for them to do anything more than put on a show. They'll drag Richard Lee out in cuffs on the 5:00 news, have a big trial, and that'll be the end of it.



> I do agree with you on the fact that either way, its gonna be super hairy for at least 3-5 years for anybody trying to run a business...


I've got a plan for that


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 22, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> LOL your right.
> 
> Risk does not cross the mind of the biggest growers up here.
> 
> I dont even know that word "Risk" LOL there is no risk here but getting some plants taken which is part of the deal up here and i am content with it and so is every one else. LOL


Doesn't matter if you think about it or not. It's not about that. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Ending prohibition does in the long run.


----------



## DelSlow (Oct 22, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> well lets see because the county i live in, we are what you call a green county in california.
> 
> people in Humboldt County have been growing grass in these mountains for generations,
> 
> ...


First of all NiCe greenhouse man. So much greeeen! Now about prop 19, i get that you like how things are now. But even if the prop passes, what will be the negatives? There will probably be more smokers=more demand=more $$$ for you. Plus, the warehouse grows will use HIDs right? You can market your shit as "organically grown" in "real sunlight". We all know how organic shit demands a higher price right? Anyway, just adding conversation. Again, nice greenhouse.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 22, 2010)

The Federal Government doesn't have the leg to stand on prohibition at this point. All it will take is some smart young lawyer to point out to the right Federal judge, that the US Govt, while listing Marijuana as a schedule one with no medical value, has in it's possession, a patent, issued to it's Dept Health and human Services for medical cannabis for the treatment AND prevention of many diseases. The patent was issued in 1999. The patent states that marijuana, extracts, oils are beneficial in treating diseases such as HIV Dementia, Alzheimers, cancer, Lou Gherrigs' and many other devasting diseases. The Government scientists cited studies and trials.

If the U.S. department that is responsible for overseeing health and medical issues obtains a patent on medical marijuana, why is another department fightinig a war against it? If marijuana does indeed have proven, patentable benefits for Americans, why is it listed on Schedule One?

The tide is indeed turning.

Vote YES on 19!


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 22, 2010)

DelSlow said:


> First of all NiCe greenhouse man. So much greeeen! Now about prop 19, i get that you like how things are now. But even if the prop passes, what will be the negatives? There will probably be more smokers=more demand=more $$$ for you. Plus, the warehouse grows will use HIDs right? You can market your shit as "organically grown" in "real sunlight". We all know how organic shit demands a higher price right? Anyway, just adding conversation. Again, nice greenhouse.


thanks man....

we are all ready trying to promote the Humboldt Organically grown in the sun, but people per fer indoor and the clubs already dont pay us anything barley anything already for our outdoor compared to what they are giving for indoor. indoor will holds it value if Prop 19 passes, its the outdoor prices thats going to negativity effect my county s economy due to drop in value of outdoor. 

thats why allot of us growers up here a having to grow 500 to 1000 pounds to make enough money to live and pay everybody that works on your proper-tie and then pay for the next year, if it passes its going to force us outdoor growers to have to grow well 0ver a 1000 pounds every year in order to make it. So we will still be illegally growing.


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 22, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Doesn't matter if you think about it or not. It's not about that. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Ending prohibition does in the long run.


yea but i am content with the way it is, i was content in the 80's and early 90's when C.A.M.P. and DEA were ragging war against us up here in Southern Humboldt. Thats part of the culture up here. nobody complains its accepted.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 22, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> yea but i am content with the way it is, i was content in the 80's and early 90's when C.A.M.P. and DEA were ragging war against us up here in Southern Humboldt. Thats part of the culture up here. nobody complains its accepted.


What about the rest of the Country? Do you not care? As long as you've got yours, right? Selfish mentality, selfish person. Why do you even smoke marijuana if all you care about is yourself.

Last time I checked, I do not live in this world alone. Move to an island or something, we don't need you here. Selfish prick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19_%282010%29#Oppose

By you and every other selfish Californian voting no, you're supporting and siding with everyone of them. Congrats at being the biggest hypocrite on the internet.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 22, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> thats why allot of us growers up here a having to grow 500 to 1000 pounds to make enough money to live and pay everybody that works on your proper-tie and then pay for the next year, if it passes its going to force us outdoor growers to have to grow well 0ver a 1000 pounds every year in order to make it. So we will still be illegally growing.


So the fact that prop 19 passing could/will push for legalization in other States doesn't matter to you? Ending prohibition, keeping millions of lives from being ruined? No longer being shoved in jail with murderers. None of that matters, it's all about the dollar, right?

Take a good look in the mirror bud, you're just as corrupt as politicians.


----------



## x<Juniper][niartS>x (Oct 22, 2010)

Unfortunately prop 19 won't affect me either way. On my first read through I pegged it as a bad bill but after much re-reading and some critical thinking while not blazed it became a lot more reasonable. the 25 sq. ft. grow space should be enough for personal, especially if you know what you are doing. I was hoping to see a number of plants limit though like they have for homegrown tobacco instead of spacial limitations. But like I said, it doesn't matter for me. I hate Alabama laws.


----------



## klmmicro (Oct 22, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> So the fact that prop 19 passing could/will push for legalization in other States doesn't matter to you? Ending prohibition, keeping millions of lives from being ruined? No longer being shoved in jail with murderers. None of that matters, it's all about the dollar, right?
> 
> Take a good look in the mirror bud, you're just as corrupt as politicians.


They are looking at their livelihoods being shut out. It will not matter what the bill, prop or otherwise...the reasons that I have heard stated in this (and other threads) means that this group will ALWAYS be against legalization. If it goes legal under 19, their reasoning is that big business will take over. I can already hear their arguments against the 2012 initiative where there will be no limit. That will shut them down and WILL drive the value into the ground. Any average Joe under that one will be able to grow as much as they want and norcal will be a novelty at that point.

This is about a business model becoming defunct due to progress. No matter the vehicle used to end prohibition, the people arguing against it here will be out of income.


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 22, 2010)

klmmicro said:


> They are looking at their livelihoods being shut out. It will not matter what the bill, prop or otherwise...the reasons that I have heard stated in this (and other threads) means that this group will ALWAYS be against legalization. If it goes legal under 19, their reasoning is that big business will take over. I can already hear their arguments against the 2012 initiative where there will be no limit. That will shut them down and WILL drive the value into the ground. Any average Joe under that one will be able to grow as much as they want and norcal will be a novelty at that point.
> 
> This is about a business model becoming defunct due to progress. No matter the vehicle used to end prohibition, the people arguing against it here will be out of income.


thank you for understanding.. but see you kind of understand because you live in California and you know about the generational growing culture that go's on up here.

applauded...


----------



## growone (Oct 22, 2010)

i don't think you have to be in the northern counties, or california for that matter, to understand that a large change in MJ law could be a massive impact to those making their living based on current law
it's not complicated, even some of us from NY(gasp) know this
but i think the vast majority of us(grower and consumer) understand change is coming whether 19 makes it over the top
i actually do hope growers aren't driven to poverty or homelessness
but 19 being voted down will just be a temporary respite, NY will probably go MMJ this year
it's federal law that is so disconnected from reality, and that could change over the next 2 years
the old scare stories of MJ are losing their effect, change is coming


----------



## klmmicro (Oct 22, 2010)

It is a two edged sword really. Either side of the blade you are on...you are going to get cut. I am for legalization as I feel that the entirely of its prohibition was based on fallacy. Nearly 90 years of lies used to keep it illegal, but it was the "war on drugs" that started the real money coming in for government. I can understand that during that time, a type of business grew up around it. I am saddened that those people relying on this model will be out because of legalization, but that still is not enough to change my mind that it should be legal.

My view is simple, we are up against the largest man powered machine ever created...the US Government. They stand to lose A LOT if cannabis is ever legalized. Compared to weed, the other drugs available pale. I am willing to bet that weed users outnumber users of all other drugs (illicit, as prescription addicts are a whole 'nother ballgame entirely) combined. They are the largest group, therefore the easiest target. Also, Cannabis is easy to grow and so supply is always fairly high (no pun intended). Prohibition has created a "market" where profits are cash and people have come to rely on it.

The problem comes as more and more "normal folks" start to see through the falsehood that the government uses to perpetuate its control over cannabis. Legalization is inevitable, and I find myself supporting anything that furthers that. It has become my goal, for my part. Prop 19 is a tool, nothing more. My thought, at least with 19 there is a vehicle to growing for the newly formed "legal" market. The ball has to start rolling somewhere no measure is ever going to be perfect until it is outright legalized on a federal level.

Humbolt, thanks for understanding what I was trying to say.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 22, 2010)

klmmicro said:


> It is a two edged sword really. Either side of the blade you are on...you are going to get cut. I am for legalization as I feel that the entirely of its prohibition was based on fallacy. Nearly 90 years of lies used to keep it illegal, but it was the "war on drugs" that started the real money coming in for government. I can understand that during that time, a type of business grew up around it. I am saddened that those people relying on this model will be out because of legalization, but that still is not enough to change my mind that it should be legal.
> 
> My view is simple, we are up against the largest man powered machine ever created...the US Government. They stand to lose A LOT if cannabis is ever legalized. Compared to weed, the other drugs available pale. I am willing to bet that weed users outnumber users of all other drugs (illicit, as prescription addicts are a whole 'nother ballgame entirely) combined. They are the largest group, therefore the easiest target. Also, Cannabis is easy to grow and so supply is always fairly high (no pun intended). Prohibition has created a "market" where profits are cash and people have come to rely on it.
> 
> ...


Completely agree. Great post. As much as it would suck to see peoples livelihoods destroyed because of legalization, I still want to see it happen.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 22, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> So the fact that prop 19 passing could/will push for legalization in other States doesn't matter to you? Ending prohibition, keeping millions of lives from being ruined? No longer being shoved in jail with murderers. None of that matters, it's all about the dollar, right?
> 
> Take a good look in the mirror bud, you're just as corrupt as politicians.


and so are you.... you have your own agenda as well... everybody does.... i would much rather support hb14 then anybody that you have quoted or refereneced or even mentioned.... he is a normal person that stands to lose alot... alot more than you that is.... you dont get it... you never will.... get over it... quit trying to be original or think for youself clone.... just keep being scared about what ever it is that they scare you about bruddda... rastafari!!!


----------



## nathenking (Oct 22, 2010)

klmmicro said:


> They are looking at their livelihoods being shut out. It will not matter what the bill, prop or otherwise...the reasons that I have heard stated in this (and other threads) means that this group will ALWAYS be against legalization. If it goes legal under 19, their reasoning is that big business will take over. I can already hear their arguments against the 2012 initiative where there will be no limit. That will shut them down and WILL drive the value into the ground. Any average Joe under that one will be able to grow as much as they want and norcal will be a novelty at that point.
> 
> This is about a business model becoming defunct due to progress. No matter the vehicle used to end prohibition, the people arguing against it here will be out of income.


Humboldt will always be able to grow/sell their ganja.... the best produced MJ in the world comes out of their... Im not saying THE ABSOLUTE BEST BUD OR BAG YOU EVER BOUGHT CAME OUT OF THERE... Im saying for mass quantities and how good the quality is.... I can find the best indoor strains that are clone only, as well as 200 out door Blueberrie haze in a single day... No one will ever touch that.... its a way of life, its a livelyhood...

not to take away from any other place that grows, im just saying the sheer size and quality is hard for anybody to beat.... it is the mecca that is for sure....


----------



## desert dude (Oct 22, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> yea but i am content with the way it is, i was content in the 80's and early 90's when C.A.M.P. and DEA were ragging war against us up here in Southern Humboldt. Thats part of the culture up here. nobody complains its accepted.


Humboldt, thanks for being honest about it. You are in it for the money, and you are afraid of losing your livelihood; I respect that.

I think your fears are overblown regarding P19. What you are doing now is illegal. If 19 passes, what you are doing will still be illegal. P19 is a change to state law only, so I don't expect it to have much effect on MJ prices. There will probably be a shit storm from the feds for a while if 19 passes, so keep your head down and be careful if that happens.

If MJ gets legalized at the federal level, then you are screwed because then the price WILL drop by a lot. You will have to get a regular job like the rest of us.


----------



## Needofweed (Oct 22, 2010)

Vote no.....


----------



## desert dude (Oct 22, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> Vote no.....


OK. You persuaded me.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 22, 2010)

Humboldt14 said:


> what about the rest of the country? most of the rest of the country can go get a job.
> this all we have and we had it way before you were swimming around in your daddy's ball sac
> 
> you obviously dont live here so you are sort of ignorant on the subject of the Economical Crash thats going to happen here.
> ...


There will be no economic crash. Bud won't stop being grown in humboldt. All you have to do is form a legal business to do it now. That really isn't the end of the world. In exchange for that a lot of people all over California will stop being put in jail. Maybe you don't care about the risk personally, but those are real people and they really are going to jail regardless of if you think about that sort of thing or not. 

BTW - Humboldt isn't the only place in Cali with a bud growing tradition. We know a thing or two about that down here too.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 22, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> Vote no.....


What a compelling argument..... I'm convinced now, thank you....

<smirk>

Vote YES on 19 and quit imprisoning pot heads.


----------



## ky|e (Oct 22, 2010)

Well said. I still would like to see legalization tho.


TokinPodPilot said:


> Hmm... as inadequate and short-sighted as those arguments are... I'm still going to have to go with no. Tricky Dick Lee has made more than enough money exploiting cannabis users. I have no intention of handing him and those like him the keys to a brand new industry to corner while people rot in jail for risking what Lee and his cronies don't have the backbone to risk.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 22, 2010)

ky|e said:


> Well said. I still would like to see legalization tho.


We all would... voting no for 19 will not bring it...... Those that tell you it will are fools.... The mob didn't want prohibition to end either.... makes one wonder....


----------



## tardis (Oct 22, 2010)

Vote Yes or you are supporting mexican smugglers and expensive lower quality weed. 

VOTE YES. It means legal, cheaper, higher quality pot for everyone.


----------



## constructionpig (Oct 22, 2010)

Just vote one way or the other. If you don't vote then don't complain if things are not going your way.


----------



## joeh3000 (Oct 22, 2010)

I thought norml already attempted to change cannabis laws on the Federal level but the prop or bill failed. That is why Prop. 19 is to change the State's law. Former San Jose Chief of Police Joseph McNamara said Friday that "Californians are not going to let politicians in Washington, DC tell them how to vote." I'm voting YES.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 22, 2010)

constructionpig said:


> Just vote one way or the other. If you don't vote then don't complain if things are not going your way.


great point...


----------



## nathenking (Oct 22, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> Vote no.....


Your damn right.... there is so many folks voting no... its actually surprising me...


----------



## nathenking (Oct 22, 2010)

tardis said:


> Vote Yes or you are supporting mexican smugglers and expensive lower quality weed.
> 
> VOTE YES. It means legal, cheaper, higher quality pot for everyone.


its been proven that this prop will not effect cartels.... who cant buy a elbow of mexi for 400, the lower quality weed is already cheap...2cents


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 22, 2010)

nathenking said:


> its been proven that this prop will not effect cartels.... who cant buy a elbow of mexi for 400, the lower quality weed is already cheap...2cents


I would like to know how prop 19 passing will personally affect you.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 22, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> I would like to know how prop 19 passing will personally affect you.


actually, its not about me... its about how this is a corporate bill, that is probably the top reason... if you cant see that, then dont worry about it.... corporations are systematically ruining our country.... that is the truth....


----------



## joeh3000 (Oct 22, 2010)

On another note... Check out the movie "grass" for those who need a little more insight on how far our government has taken this War on Americans/Drugs. Voting no will only fuel the fire they have had going for us for too damn long! One guy had to go to jail for 50 Years after serving in Vietnam.


Hopefully, after the slightest considerations you will then vote YES.


----------



## joeh3000 (Oct 22, 2010)

In my area, there is a lot of support for Prop. 19. Thank You Los Angeles! Yes on 19!


----------



## nathenking (Oct 22, 2010)

joeh3000 said:


> In my area, there is a lot of support for Prop. 19. Thank You Los Angeles! Yes on 19!


actually, in SF area its 50/50, and pretty much anywhere south of there is less than that for support... so there maybe alot of "support" but it wont show up in the polls...


----------



## nathenking (Oct 22, 2010)

and farther north of SF, I assume its more like 60/40 against, and maybe even higher... with the latest polls, you guys better pray for a huge turnout of young people to counter balance all of us "MJ anti-poop-19 folks"


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 22, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> I would like to know how prop 19 passing will personally affect you.


Since I'm on the exact opposite end of that spectrum it's only fair that I answer that too. 

If prop 19 passes I plan to open a small for profit price capped dispensary opened to everyone 21+. I also intend to apply for a grow permit on a 40 light legal grow (max allowed in county). I plan to make a living off of it and giving my friends and other local people in the industry jobs. I don't think there is anything greedy or immoral about that. In fact I think it's great that people may be allowed to do this legally. Legal businesses provide a benefit to the entire community. The idea that I'll be taking away a job from illegal/medical NorCal growers is complete nonsense. I have every much of a right to making a living as anyone else.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 22, 2010)

nathenking said:


> corporations are systematically ruining our country.... that is the truth....


That's a gross generalization. Pretty much every legal business is some type of corporation. Is your local bakery "systematically ruining our country?". Is a farmer growing strawberries ruining our country? Corporation just means legal business. These businesses provide jobs to the majority of Americans and services to the community. Without corporations, the whole country would fall apart. 

Are there bad corporations? Sure. But that doesn't mean every corporation is bad. The overwhelming majority of corporations are small businesses. Small business owners aren't bad people in general. 

Me opening a legal corporation to grow/dispense cannabis doesn't make me a bad person or mean I'm doing anything to ruin the country. 

Now if you want to say the concept of publicly traded corporations are evil, I could see where you are coming from. But to say all corporations in general are evil is just ignorant. A corporation is a thing. It's a business tool. That's it. It's incapable of evil. That's like saying forks are evil because you can stab someone with one.

It's people that are capable of ruining the country. Those same people are capable of doing the same bad things if prohibition is around or not, so prohibition might as well not be around.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 22, 2010)

The only reason it won't is because weed is already so common in cali that many of you are just going to sit tight for a better bill..... meanwhile, other states still have draconian laws. Maybe some of them would be convinced if Cali led the way? I think many voting no that burn and grow are doing so out of selfish reasoning.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 22, 2010)

nathenking said:


> and farther north of SF, I assume its more like 60/40 against, and maybe even higher... with the latest polls, you guys better pray for a huge turnout of young people to counter balance all of us "MJ anti-poop-19 folks"


Yeah, I'd say it's at least 60/40 against. Everyone I know up there is against it. They are convinced that the economy will just stop if prohibition ends. Fortunately there aren't enough people up there to make a significant difference. San Francisco turns out 6 times as many voters. We all know it'll pass in a landslide there. 

Orange county, San Diego, Modesto, and Fresno are the places where the opposition is significant.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 22, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Yeah, I'd say it's at least 60/40 against. Everyone I know up there is against it. They are convinced that the economy will just stop if prohibition ends. Fortunately there aren't enough people up there to make a significant difference. San Francisco turns out 6 times as many voters. We all know it'll pass in a landslide there.
> 
> Orange county, San Diego, Modesto, and Fresno are the places where the opposition is significant.


I agree with your assesment...


----------



## desert dude (Oct 22, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Yeah, I'd say it's at least 60/40 against. Everyone I know up there is against it. They are convinced that the economy will just stop if prohibition ends. Fortunately there aren't enough people up there to make a significant difference. San Francisco turns out 6 times as many voters. We all know it'll pass in a landslide there.
> 
> Orange county, San Diego, Modesto, and Fresno are the places where the opposition is significant.


I am in Kern county and I already voted yes. Of course that doesn't mean much, but I think there are a lot of people like me who are not involved with MJ in any way that are voting yes on this. The drug war has been an absolute disaster for this country, it has done nothing good and almost everything bad, and a lot of us want it ended!

A lot you here seem to think that "conservatives" are against 19. That might be true to some extent, but the way I see it P19 is a conservative issue. Conservatives say they believe in limited government; P19 certainly limits government interference in the lives of citizens. By the way, I am a libertarian, so I don't pretend to speak for conservatives of the bible thumping stripe, the conservatives I know, and I know lots, are not bible thumpers.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 22, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> That's a gross generalization. Pretty much every legal business is some type of corporation. Is your local bakery "systematically ruining our country?". Is a farmer growing strawberries ruining our country? Corporation just means legal business. These businesses provide jobs to the majority of Americans and services to the community. Without corporations, the whole country would fall apart.
> 
> Are there bad corporations? Sure. But that doesn't mean every corporation is bad. The overwhelming majority of corporations are small businesses. Small business owners aren't bad people in general.
> 
> ...


Yeah, im taking about the large, publicly traded ones, that out source jobs, give huge benefits to the people at the top and neglect the bottom people... I thought you kinda understood what I was talking about... you kinda have an idea about me now... i also agree that its people that are ruining the country obviously man... i dont think you needed to patronize me with a definition of corporation man... if your in cali, what is stopping you from doing a larger style grow now, or the last 10 years... i know you will say the Law or getting arrested, but there is alot of people that have enough balls to do that, because they believe in it... so you want all the reward with no risk, but all the people that have been risking it would suffer... Its not fair to you or them.... it puts everybody in a shitty situation....


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 22, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Since I'm on the exact opposite end of that spectrum it's only fair that I answer that too.
> 
> If prop 19 passes I plan to open a small for profit price capped dispensary opened to everyone 21+. I also intend to apply for a grow permit on a 40 light legal grow (max allowed in county). I plan to make a living off of it and giving my friends and other local people in the industry jobs. I don't think there is anything greedy or immoral about that. In fact I think it's great that people may be allowed to do this legally. Legal businesses provide a benefit to the entire community. The idea that I'll be taking away a job from illegal/medical NorCal growers is complete nonsense. I have every much of a right to making a living as anyone else.


If prop 19 passes I seriously hope you do that. It's the right way to go imo, and I wish you the best.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 22, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Since I'm on the exact opposite end of that spectrum it's only fair that I answer that too.
> 
> If prop 19 passes I plan to open a small for profit price capped dispensary opened to everyone 21+. I also intend to apply for a grow permit on a 40 light legal grow (max allowed in county). I plan to make a living off of it and giving my friends and other local people in the industry jobs. I don't think there is anything greedy or immoral about that. In fact I think it's great that people may be allowed to do this legally. Legal businesses provide a benefit to the entire community. The idea that I'll be taking away a job from illegal/medical NorCal growers is complete nonsense. I have every much of a right to making a living as anyone else.


Sounds like a good plan. I don't understand what p19 has to do with your plan, though. Forty lights would require you to operate under the medical law, no?


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 22, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Yeah, im taking about the large, publicly traded ones, that out source jobs, give huge benefits to the people at the top and neglect the bottom people... I thought you kinda understood what I was talking about... you kinda have an idea about me now... i also agree that its people that are ruining the country obviously man... i dont think you needed to patronize me with a definition of corporation man...


Only reason I did so is because you are over generalizing which lumps people like me in with Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina. I knew what you meant, but that isn't what you were saying. 



> if your in cali, what is stopping you from doing a larger style grow now, or the last 10 years... i know you will say the Law or getting arrested, but there is alot of people that have enough balls to do that, because they believe in it...


They believe in that, I believe in ending prohibition. Just because they are willing to risk larger chunks of their freedom than I am doesn't mean they are any more entitled to grow than I am. 

I do ok now with running my collective. I'd like to do more, but if I don't I want it to be recognized as a legitimate part of my community. It should be legal anyways. There should be a way to do commercial grow/sell legally. 



> so you want all the reward with no risk


Right now the cannabis industry is primarily taking a risk in exchange for profit. I just want to work in exchange for profit, no different than someone who grows strawberries or runs a 7/11. 

So yeah, I do want the reward with lowered risk. I'm not sure how that is a bad thing. If that means less profit and more work than growing illegally I'm ok with that.



> , but all the people that have been risking it would suffer... Its not fair to you or them.... it puts everybody in a shitty situation....


I'm no millionaire. I'm not from a powerful family. They have all the same access and the same abilities that I do. Absolutely nothing is stopping them from starting a legal business and involving themselves with local government just like me. I have no unfair advantage. I'm just a guy with a dream and the drive to make it happen. Nothing is stopping them from being the same way. Their apathy is not my fault. Anyone who gets pushed out of the industry because of legalization has no one to blame but themselves.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 22, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Sounds like a good plan. I don't understand what p19 has to do with your plan, though. Forty lights would require you to operate under the medical law, no?


Nope. It would all be legal and for profit. Although if my permit is approved, I am considering running the grow as medical just for the additional legal protection. Prop 19 allows me to make that choice as well as open my doors to everyone 21+.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 22, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Only reason I did so is because you are over generalizing which lumps people like me in with Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina. I knew what you meant, but that isn't what you were saying.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well said man... I truely hope all the best for you no matter what turns out after this election... You got a great mind and a understanding personality... Maybe you should have been in on writing this bill... It would have been alot better man...


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 22, 2010)

desert dude said:


> I am in Kern county and I already voted yes. Of course that doesn't mean much, but I think there are a lot of people like me who are not involved with MJ in any way that are voting yes on this. The drug war has been an absolute disaster for this country, it has done nothing good and almost everything bad, and a lot of us want it ended!
> 
> A lot you here seem to think that "conservatives" are against 19. That might be true to some extent, but the way I see it P19 is a conservative issue. Conservatives say they believe in limited government; P19 certainly limits government interference in the lives of citizens. By the way, I am a libertarian, so I don't pretend to speak for conservatives of the bible thumping stripe, the conservatives I know, and I know lots, are not bible thumpers.


Ouch! Kern county is not a friendly place when it comes to bud from what I've read. And yes, it all depends on what type of conservative they are. Fiscal/social libertarian conservatives think it should be legal, social conservatives like to make a habit out of judging people who aren't like them and making everyone's behaviors besides their own illegal. IMO social conservatives hate freedom.


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 22, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Yeah, im taking about the large, publicly traded ones, that out source jobs, give huge benefits to the people at the top and neglect the bottom people... I thought you kinda understood what I was talking about... you kinda have an idea about me now... i also agree that its people that are ruining the country obviously man... i dont think you needed to patronize me with a definition of corporation man... if your in cali, what is stopping you from doing a larger style grow now, or the last 10 years... i know you will say the Law or getting arrested, but there is alot of people that have enough balls to do that, because they believe in it... so you want all the reward with no risk, but all the people that have been risking it would suffer... Its not fair to you or them.... it puts everybody in a shitty situation....


Right on nathenking I've done big grows but now I do less plants but huge



that plant was 5 x 5 so prop 19's grow area sucks for everyone so what I'm suppose to be exempt fucking lies all lies.


----------



## Howard Stern (Oct 22, 2010)

Prop 19 can eat shit! It will be interesting to see what happens down in Cali if it passes!


----------



## nathenking (Oct 22, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> Right on nathenking I've done big grows but now I do less plants but huge
> 
> View attachment 1227494
> 
> that plant was 5 x 5 so prop 19's grow area sucks for everyone so what I'm suppose to be exempt fucking lies all lies.


yep yep... thats what ive been saying all along... that says it all... pic is worth 1000words folks.....


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 22, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Well said man... I truely hope all the best for you no matter what turns out after this election... You got a great mind and a understanding personality... Maybe you should have been in on writing this bill... It would have been alot better man...


thx bro. I appreciate that. Either way it'll work out for both of us. 

If I had the money to get full legalization on the ballot I would. I did have a hand in writing county policy though. I just hope the bureaucratic hacks working in the planning department don't fuck it up too much. But I did everything I could to make sure the business stayed with locals, no massive scale operations are permitted, and permit costs don't exclude people. 

Regardless of if people support or oppose prop 19 everyone out there who cares about such things does have the ability to make a difference at the local level. The only way people aren't going to get fucked over is if you go out and do something about it. Your city councilmen/counties supervisors have open office hours. Show up and talk to them! When you do, they may or may not agree with you, but they will listen. Come up with a plan that explains to them how a policy you support benefits the voters of their district. If you can, gather 100 signatures from registered voters and bring that with you. If you do that, they will seriously consider what you are saying.

If you don't do that, the only people who will are the Richard Lee types. Usually, that type of person is the only one who shows to give their viewpoint. How is your local representation supposed to know what you want if you don't tell them? In my county, I was the only non-big business interest who took time the time to give them a well thought out point of view. The result was, they called me back and asked for my input when writing the law.

I'm not special in any way. If I can do that, so can anyone else.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 22, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> that plant was 5 x 5 so prop 19's grow area sucks for everyone so what I'm suppose to be exempt fucking lies all lies.


I like my 100sq ft per patient rules that apply to me now. It's fair. I won't be stopping that no matter what any law says. I've got a damn good lawyer who agrees with me too.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 22, 2010)

I wish all of you the best, no matter how the vote on 19 turns out. Stay out of the DEA's cross hairs.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 22, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> I like my 100sq ft per patient rules that apply to me now. It's fair. I won't be stopping that no matter what any law says. I've got a damn good lawyer who agrees with me too.


thats the spirit bro...


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 23, 2010)

What about if it passes the cost of light and equipment will go up let alone the price will go up the state needs $$$$$


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 23, 2010)

Please tell more! I've never thought about 19 driving the price anything UP?.......BB


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 23, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> Please tell more! I've never thought about 19 driving the price anything UP?.......BB


Well for one if 19 passes everyone who wasn't growing will as well as the people who would have normally wouldn't smoke will . Thus the supply and demand will grow, if y'all think the price will drop you're wrong corporate greed will prevail.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 23, 2010)

*Poll finds 51 percent against pot legalization measure*


Associated Press

Posted: 10/22/2010 07:58:25 AM PDT
Updated: 10/22/2010 07:58:27 AM PDT


Related Stories


Oct 13:
Proposition 19: limited legalization of marijuana
Oct 22:
Prop. 19 could flicker out
Oct 15:
AG: We'll still prosecute pot, Prop. 19 or not
Oct 8:
Calderon skeptical of California measure to legalize marijuana
Facebook co-founders Parker, Moskovitz donate to pro-pot Prop. 19
Oct 13:
Mercury News editorial: No on Proposition 19: legalizing marijuana's inevitable, but this is the wrong way
Oct 20:
Opinion: Passing Prop. 19 will have numerous positive impacts
Oct 17:
Opinion: Proposition 19 is no solution to drug problems
Sep 17:
Opinion: Proposition 19 has too many flaws
Sep 10:
Opinion: Legalizing marijuana will make Californians safer



LOS ANGELES -- A Los Angeles Times/USC poll is showing that about half of the likely voters asked say they will vote against Proposition 19, the ballot initiative that would legalize recreational marijuana use in California. 
According to the poll released today, 51 percent said they would vote against the proposition, while 39 percent said they would voter in favor. Ten percent said they didn't know, or refused to answer. 
The poll was conducted by telephone from Oct. 13 through Oct. 20 among a random sample of 922 likely voters. 
If passed, Proposition 19 would allow adults at least 21 years old to possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana and grow 25-square-foot pot gardens for personal pleasure. 
It would also authorize county and city governments to regulate and tax commercial cultivation and sales.


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 23, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> Well for one if 19 passes everyone who wasn't growing will as well as the people who would have normally wouldn't smoke will . Thus the supply and demand will grow, if y'all think the price will drop you're wrong corporate greed will prevail.


your ignorance is showing 
supply and demand theory is that when demand increases prices drop...
grow equipment will be more available at cheaper prices than now because the legal demand will exist

im a clerk in a mom and pop hydro store here in so. cal. the owner is already planning on losing profits when 19 passes because competition will open up. meaning more hydro stores and places that sell growing supplies, leading to lower prices all around.


----------



## growone (Oct 23, 2010)

luvourmother said:


> your ignorance is showing
> supply and demand theory is that when demand increases prices drop...
> grow equipment will be more available at cheaper prices than now because the legal demand will exist
> 
> im a clerk in a mom and pop hydro store here in so. cal. the owner is already planning on losing profits when 19 passes because competition will open up. meaning more hydro stores and places that sell growing supplies, leading to lower prices all around.


interesting economic view, increased demand means lower prices?
that is certainly not true in some cases, look at the price of crude oil
but it could happen in the hydro business, if supply can be easily increased, that does tend to decrease prices
competent MJ growers though may be a different story, there will be more growers, but good growers?
that is not clear at all, and probably will take a while to happen, big grows just won't be allowed by DEA for a while(IMHO)


----------



## klmmicro (Oct 23, 2010)

High Availability/Low Demand=Low Prices
Low Availability/High Demand=High Prices

I think the prediction that there will be a spike in prices will be true. There will be some people that decide this is for them and they will jump in to growing. The supply will go down, the demand will go up...until they actually go to harvest their first and find they wasted a bunch of money. After a while, cheap used gear will abound on craigslist and ebay. The price will fall sharply within about 6 months. Just my thoughts.


----------



## klmmicro (Oct 23, 2010)

luvourmother said:


> im a clerk in a mom and pop hydro store here in so. cal. the owner is already planning on losing profits when 19 passes because competition will open up. meaning more hydro stores and places that sell growing supplies, leading to lower prices all around.


I would think that they can count on some loyal customers though. I have found a hydro store that I like and I stick with it. I will order an odd or end once in a while online, but that is due to shear convenience. Do they really think that there will be that many hydro stores popping up? Seems like the ones in business now will simply see an increase in customers. It is expensive to start a business and the established stores should have the advantage.


----------



## tardis (Oct 23, 2010)

nathenking said:


> its been proven that this prop will not effect cartels.... who cant buy a elbow of mexi for 400, the lower quality weed is already cheap...2cents


actually its proven that mexican cartel weed has gone way uphill. some say its on par with humbolt or chico. It also is known that Mexico's marijuaan sales in the US make up 70% of their income, that same income which allows them to cut off heads int he street and murder familys on a daily basis. You dont know you are buying mexican weed if you live in southern cali, you might think it was grown in northern cali. Yes voting Yes will stop the cartels or at least force them to find more difficult ways of making their money which will leave them wide open to being stopped. Its proven.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 23, 2010)

tardis said:


> actually its proven that mexican cartel weed has gone way uphill. some say its on par with humbolt or chico.


Because they are growing it in Cali now so they don't have to compress it.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 23, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> *Poll finds 51 percent against pot legalization measure*
> 
> 
> Associated Press
> ...


http://yeson19.com/sites/default/files/Prop%2019%20live%20vs%20auto%20poll.pdf


----------



## desert dude (Oct 23, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> http://yeson19.com/sites/default/files/Prop%2019%20live%20vs%20auto%20poll.pdf


I sure hope the vote turns out the way your link implies it will.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 23, 2010)

tardis said:


> actually its proven that mexican cartel weed has gone way uphill. some say its on par with humbolt or chico. It also is known that Mexico's marijuaan sales in the US make up 70% of their income, that same income which allows them to cut off heads int he street and murder familys on a daily basis. You dont know you are buying mexican weed if you live in southern cali, you might think it was grown in northern cali. Yes voting Yes will stop the cartels or at least force them to find more difficult ways of making their money which will leave them wide open to being stopped. Its proven.


keep believing that bro... what ever makes you feel better... the cartels sell the majority of there MJ in other states then cali.... californians grow there own bro... that is the truth and that is a fact... the cartel weed goes to tthe south&midwest, trust me, i was locked up with a few of these bros, i know where alot of there shit goes brudda.... and these are real people, not folks that right down arbitrarty numbers and then you read them and regirjitate... real people with real experience....


----------



## growone (Oct 23, 2010)

this is one tough vote to call, nature of the beast i think
i will say that the few prior votes that have occurred didn't have much of a chance(one in Nevada if i remember right)
but this time it could be yes, first real chance at MJ legalization(limited) in a vote
that's a breakthrough in itself


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 23, 2010)

luvourmother said:


> your ignorance is showing
> supply and demand theory is that when demand increases prices drop...
> grow equipment will be more available at cheaper prices than now because the legal demand will exist
> 
> im a clerk in a mom and pop hydro store here in so. cal. the owner is already planning on losing profits when 19 passes because competition will open up. meaning more hydro stores and places that sell growing supplies, leading to lower prices all around.


oh yeah you think Hydrofarm is gonna drop it's prices because 19 passes? Hell nah!!!!! You think Advanced Nutrients is gonna drop their prices? You're the who is ignorant I know sales look at Microsoft is Windows 7 Ultimate cheap?You're lost about greed and money.


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 23, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> http://yeson19.com/sites/default/files/Prop%2019%20live%20vs%20auto%20poll.pdf


Hey Dan, great find. This poll shows the "Reverse Bradley" effect, where the "live" calls get more no's, but the "robo-calls" are getting a higher % of folks saying they will vote yes. The polls the naysayers are all happy about, are the "live" calls where people were embarrassed to admit voting yes. And in 9 more days this crap will be history, thank God!


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 23, 2010)

desert dude said:


> I sure hope the vote turns out the way your link implies it will.


So do I. But all it really proves is that polls, especially live operator polls are completely unreliable. I don't think anyone knows how this is going to turn out. I suspect the robo-polls to be more accurate. It makes sense. Can't really say for sure though. It'll be too close to call.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 23, 2010)

nathenking said:


> keep believing that bro... what ever makes you feel better... the cartels sell the majority of there MJ in other states then cali.... californians grow there own bro... that is the truth and that is a fact... the cartel weed goes to tthe south&midwest, trust me, i was locked up with a few of these bros, i know where alot of there shit goes brudda.... and these are real people, not folks that right down arbitrarty numbers and then you read them and regirjitate... real people with real experience....


What he's saying is there is a different type of cartel bud that's been coming up in the last 2 years. Yes, the Mexican grown brick weed is not going to Cali, but now the cartels are growing outdoor in California. It's not distinguishable from any other Cali outdoor.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 23, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> oh yeah you think Hydrofarm is gonna drop it's prices because 19 passes? Hell nah!!!!! You think Advanced Nutrients is gonna drop their prices? You're the who is ignorant I know sales look at Microsoft is Windows 7 Ultimate cheap?You're lost about greed and money.


I think I agree with you on this. Especially with smaller scale growing equipment/nuts. I can see them putting out special 5x5 systems and ripping off who ever buys them.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 23, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> So do I. But all it really proves is that polls, especially live operator polls are completely unreliable. I don't think anyone knows how this is going to turn out. I suspect the robo-polls to be more accurate. It makes sense. Can't really say for sure though. It'll be too close to call.


I agree. Just have to wait till November 3 to see how it turns out.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 23, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> http://yeson19.com/sites/default/files/Prop%2019%20live%20vs%20auto%20poll.pdf


your stats come from the YES on 19 site. 

i'm simply reporting what today's local news is saying.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 23, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> your stats come from the YES on 19 site.
> 
> i'm simply reporting what today's local news is saying.


If you are implying that it's possible the yes on 19 site would ask questions to people in a way to get a positive response and therefor is possibly inaccurate, then I absolutely agree with you. That's very likely. But that wasn't the point at all. Click on the link and look at the results on robocalls vs live operator polls. 

I not saying it depicts an accurate result. I'm saying it *proves all polls on prop 19 are inaccurate* because people aren't answering truthfully. When asked the same questions, people answered differently depending on if it was a live person on the phone or a robo call. The same thing applied to all demographics. Between 10-24% of people from each different demographic lied to the live operator. For all we know there is another 5-10% of people lying on the robo call. People don't like to admit they support prop 19 publicly. 

You news can report whatever it wants, it's proven that people are lying to pollsters so the poll your local news is possibly reporting inaccurate information.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 23, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> If you are implying that it's possible the yes on 19 site would ask questions to people in a way to get a positive response and therefor is possibly inaccurate, then I absolutely agree with you. That's very likely. But that wasn't the point at all. Click on the link and look at the results on robocalls vs live operator polls.
> 
> I not saying it depicts an accurate result. I'm saying it *proves all polls on prop 19 are inaccurate* because people aren't answering truthfully. When asked the same questions, people answered differently depending on if it was a live person on the phone or a robo call. The same thing applied to all demographics. Between 10-24% of people from each different demographic lied to the live operator. For all we know there is another 5-10% of people lying on the robo call. People don't like to admit they support prop 19 publicly.
> 
> You news can report whatever it wants, it's proven that people are lying to pollsters so the poll your local news is possibly reporting inaccurate information.


but when it's in favor of the other guy, ........................


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 24, 2010)

And tic-toc goes the clock......9 more days......"Are we having fun yet?"......Hmmm....I know I am!......my best harvest ever, and no 215 or 19 involved.......I just did it and got away for another year.......my only question for next year's grow is, can I take the wall down......I'll find out in 9 more days......Good luck & good grow.......BB


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 24, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> And tic-toc goes the clock......9 more days......"Are we having fun yet?"......Hmmm....I know I am!......my best harvest ever, and no 215 or 19 involved.......I just did it and got away for another year.......my only question for next year's grow is, can I take the wall down......I'll find out in 9 more days......Good luck & good grow.......BB


LOL!

Do you live in Rancho Cordova?

Your neighbors will insure that you pay your $600/ sq. ft. fee for your 25 sq. ft garden.

Other jurisdictions may charge more, once it is legal to do so.

(Read P19)


----------



## growone (Oct 24, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> LOL!
> 
> Do you live in Rancho Cordova?
> 
> ...


this is where it gets a bit funny
DEA has announced that any tax receipts from MJ growing may be interpreted as being accessory to a felony(or some similar wording)
the municipalities seem to have gotten the message, they're pulling these tax referendums
which is funny, DEA is small growers friend?
bit murky what is going on with these initiatives, call it the fog of war


----------



## nathenking (Oct 24, 2010)

growone said:


> this is where it gets a bit funny
> DEA has announced that any tax receipts from MJ growing may be interpreted as being accessory to a felony(or some similar wording)
> the municipalities seem to have gotten the message, they're pulling these tax referendums
> which is funny, DEA is small growers friend?
> bit murky what is going on with these initiatives, call it the fog of war


you got that right... so all the people that are saying this tax money is gonna help cali out of debt, it actually isnt... no one is gonna self incriminate themselves.... its called survival instinct... i would rather get busted with a grow in cali by local law enforcement, then get busted by the DEA on federal tax charges.... any day of the week.... tax myth debunked, cartel myth debunked, a ounce is now decriminalized... 5x5 absolutely unacceptable, WHY NOT WAIT UNTIL 2012, this bill gets shittier and shittier....


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

nathenking said:


> you got that right... so all the people that are saying this tax money is gonna help cali out of debt, it actually isnt... no one is gonna self incriminate themselves.... its called survival instinct... i would rather get busted with a grow in cali by local law enforcement, then get busted by the DEA on federal tax charges.... any day of the week.... tax myth debunked, cartel myth debunked, a ounce is now decriminalized... 5x5 absolutely unacceptable, WHY NOT WAIT UNTIL 2012, this bill gets shittier and shittier....


Sure, why not wait until 2012, I mean we have only been waiting for forty years already? Maybe your grand kids can debate the wonderful legalize MJ initiative on the ballot in 2042, and you can tell them how you fucked up so bad in 2010.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 24, 2010)

yeah right man... you personally have been waiting for 40 years... that must make you a least 55 or 60 correct?


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 24, 2010)

nathenking said:


> yeah right man... you personally have been waiting for 40 years... that must make you a least 55 or 60 correct?


NO mr. King, not him....ME!.......I'VE been waiting *46* years!!!!! And I WONT make the 2042 ballot.......2012 is a little dicey LOL.
8 more days........Yep.......I plan to be on line and in here, Weds., Nov. 3 around 3/4 a.m.......Care to join the celebration?.......BB


----------



## nathenking (Oct 24, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> NO mr. King, not him....ME!.......I'VE been waiting *46* years!!!!! And I WONT make the 2042 ballot.......2012 is a little dicey LOL.
> 8 more days........Yep.......I plan to be on line and in here, Weds., Nov. 3 around 3/4 a.m.......Care to join the celebration?.......BB


sounds good BB.... i know you have been waiting that long... i was just wondering about the other fellow... ill pop in on the 3rd to check in with you... either way... I wish you all the best ol man..lol


----------



## Serapis (Oct 24, 2010)

Voting YES for 19 sends a clear and loud message that we want cannabis decriminalized. Voting NO, could mean many different things, including "Your a 215 'I've got mine, get your own' bird, or maybe you favor the profits made selling off excess? Voting NO puts you in with groups like churches, pharmacies, dispensaries, prudes, 

Vote YES on 19 and BE HEARD & COUNTED

We can always amend a law later, if it is on the books.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 24, 2010)

Serapis said:


> Voting YES for 19 sends a clear and loud message that we want cannabis decriminalized. Voting NO, could mean many different things, including "Your a 215 'I've got mine, get your own' bird, or maybe you favor the profits made selling off excess? Voting NO puts you in with groups like churches, pharmacies, dispensaries, prudes,
> 
> Vote YES on 19 and BE HEARD & COUNTED
> 
> We can always amend a law later, if it is on the books.


whatever dude... quit putting people in with churches etc. just because we are not voting yes, does not mean we agree with any of those groups man... get over it... if we disagree, then we disagree, thats it...


----------



## Serapis (Oct 24, 2010)

I'm merely saying that by voting NO, your vote is counted right along with pro-prohibition, church and other special interest groups. The ones voting YES are sending a loud and clear message. What clear message are you sending by voting no? None.... cause you vote could have just as well come from a church or special interest. That's my point, and I have the right to share it and state it so here in this forum. Your NO vote might as well be from a church... I've read all of your posts and it's obvious why you are voting no...


----------



## nathenking (Oct 24, 2010)

Serapis said:


> I'm merely saying that by voting NO, your vote is counted right along with pro-prohibition, church and other special interest groups. The ones voting YES are sending a loud and clear message. What clear message are you sending by voting no? None.... cause you vote could have just as well come from a church or special interest. That's my point, and I have the right to share it and state it so here in this forum. Your NO vote might as well be from a church... I've read all of your posts and it's obvious why you are voting no...


Im so tired of this worn out shit... im an american... I can choose to vote the way I want... You can "classify" or "group" me in with whom ever you want... Good thing that doesnt mean shit... 1 man 1 vote... which ever way a person chooses to vote, get over it... your starting to sound like a "religous right" fanatic just because people dont vote/believe in the same as you... you have to put your self above, or bring people down for it... doesnt matter what side your on... you dont want to be like that Serapis...


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

nathenking said:


> yeah right man... you personally have been waiting for 40 years... that must make you a least 55 or 60 correct?



Yeah, I am 57.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Yeah, I am 57.


right on... so you have been waiting a while... how bout 2 more years??? i can understand where you are coming from.... I hope all the best for you if it does or does not pass... good luck...


----------



## Serapis (Oct 24, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Im so tired of this worn out shit... im an american... I can choose to vote the way I want... You can "classify" or "group" me in with whom ever you want... Good thing that doesnt mean shit... 1 man 1 vote... which ever way a person chooses to vote, get over it... your starting to sound like a "religous right" fanatic just because people dont vote/believe in the same as you... you have to put your self above, or bring people down for it... doesnt matter what side your on... you dont want to be like that Serapis...


Very nice spin, master Nathen. I like how you take my opinion and twist me into a bad guy for having it. Like you, I'm fed up with all of the BS too. Many of the anti 19 people that smoke and grow pot do so under 215. Those that don't, are dealing or selling off surplus to dispensaries. Seems like a whole lot of self interest and special interest going on in Cali.

It's a simple fact really, all the votes against 19, will appear to be from those that do not favor ANY advancement in marijuana laws. Those groups are pharacueticals, the beer and wine distributors, distillers, churches, MADD, DADD, etc...... Your no vote is not going to send any clear message to the state capital making it clear the laws are not fair and need rewritting. The NO votes will appear to be just what they are, "No to marijunana".

Whether you like it or not, that is the way it is. Voting no is simply a way to stop advancement of marijuana reform. It is as simple as that, regardless of what you would choose to preach.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 24, 2010)

nathenking said:


> right on... so you have been waiting a while... how bout 2 more years??? i can understand where you are coming from.... I hope all the best for you if it does or does not pass... good luck...


And what do you expect to happen in two more years? A revenue free bill? LOL.... If you guys vote no and win, that's it. There is no other law in the pipeline. Telling people there is is BS. It could happen, but what HAS happened is 19 is up for vote. 

Send a CLEAR message and vote YESD on 19!!


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

nathenking said:


> right on... so you have been waiting a while... how bout 2 more years??? i can understand where you are coming from.... I hope all the best for you if it does or does not pass... good luck...




If I could be absolutely certain that another initiative would make it to the ballot in 2012, I would feel a little better about. Frankly, I doubt there will be a legalization measure on the ballet in 2012, it is a difficult and expensive task to a measure on the ballot. On top of that, the 2012 measure contains language to exonerate all the past convictions of MJ convicts. While I think that is a good idea, I don't think it will fly with the voters. I think a 2012 initiative with those exonerations will have a much better chance of passing if P19 passes this year because then supporters will have two years worth of legalization under their belts and be able to say, "look, we legalized it in 2010 and the world did not end and it is simply unfair that our society spent all those years persecuting people for no good reason".

I hope the best for you too.


----------



## Kindwoman (Oct 24, 2010)

What's my opinion on your stand? Sad, just very sad. But this is the United States and we all have the right to voice our opinions. Whether we agree or not, at least we are free to speak. Yes on Proposition 19!



Humboldt14 said:


> *most of us up here in the mountains of Humboldt County Ca. are campagning Vote No!*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 24, 2010)

nathenking said:


> whatever dude... quit putting people in with churches etc. just because we are not voting yes, does not mean we agree with any of those groups man... get over it... if we disagree, then we disagree, thats it...


If you vote no on prop 19 that totally makes you a mormon.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 24, 2010)

nathenking said:


> right on... so you have been waiting a while... how bout 2 more years???


It is not reasonable to assume another legalization bill will be on the ballot in 2012. Even if there one does get on the ballot there is no guarantee that it will be any better than prop 19. It's very possible that a much worse measure comes up in 2012.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> If you vote no on prop 19 that totally makes you a mormon.


And remember kids, "mormon" is only letter away from "moron"!!!!


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

somewhere a child molester is voting YES.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> somewhere a child molester is voting YES.


I'm pretty sure most priests are voting no actually.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> I'm pretty sure most priests are voting no actually.


hahahhahahah.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> I'm pretty sure most priests are voting no actually.



Excellent!


----------



## Kindwoman (Oct 24, 2010)

nathenking said:


> yeah right man... you personally have been waiting for 40 years... that must make you a least 55 or 60 correct?


I too have been waiting for over 40 years. Anyone in their 50's and 60's remember - those were bad days! I watched a good friend of mine get handcuffed and led away because a couple of Long Beach, CA cops found TWO SEEDS in his car. He did some serious time for it too! Those memories still haunt me and I'm sure many others in my age group. We cannot go backwards and we sure as hell can't be frightened by what the Feds are saying. If we had been, my generation could have never done what we did to stop the Vietnam war, and a lot of you youngsters may have never been born.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 24, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> If you vote no on prop 19 that totally makes you a mormon.


That is classic...lol


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 24, 2010)

Kindwoman said:


> What's my opinion on your stand? Sad, just very sad. But this is the United States and we all have the right to voice our opinions. Whether we agree or not, at least we are free to speak. Yes on Proposition 19!


They have legitimate concerns. I think they are absolutely wrong, but I can see where they are coming from. Most of the people up there either directly or indirectly supporting themselves off of the cannabis market. If something were to happen where humboldt could no longer produce buds, most of the towns would turn into ghost towns. Entire communities would collapse. There would be nothing left up there but tweakers. They can't just go out and get a job. There will be no other jobs there. It's either growing bud or becoming a tree butcher and logging redwoods. 

That being said the idea that humboldt will suddenly stop growing bud because prop 19 passes is pretty lol. If anything, I'll bet they produce more bud. Cali will have a bigger market than ever. Also I'd bet the exporting of pounds to other states goes way up.


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> somewhere a child molester is voting yes.


lol.......................


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 24, 2010)

Humboldt county is the "wine country" of cannabis. Some of the finest smoke comes from there. It seems to me that "corporate weed", grown in large warehouses like commercial egg production, could never compete with "Humboldt Gold". You folks will be just fine....BB


----------



## Kindwoman (Oct 24, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> Humboldt county is the "wine country" of cannabis. Some of the finest smoke comes from there. It seems to me that "corporate weed", grown in large warehouses like commercial egg production, could never compete with "Humboldt Gold". You folks will be just fine....BB


I totally agree. High Times Mag made a good point in saying that what could really happen is that tourisim will begin to flourish as folks from around the country come to sample not only the amazing wines, but the amazing buds that would be made available to them (if prop 19 passes of course). Amsterdam may be too far away for some people, myself included - but a trip to California? Yes, I can see the tourists flocking in.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 24, 2010)

Kindwoman said:


> I totally agree. High Times Mag made a good point in saying that what could really happen is that tourisim will begin to flourish as folks from around the country come to sample not only the amazing wines, but the amazing buds that would be made available to them (if prop 19 passes of course). Amsterdam may be too far away for some people, myself included - but a trip to California? Yes, I can see the tourists flocking in.


I would deff make a trip to California to test some of that good stuff if prop 19 passes. I've always wanted to fly out to Cali, that could be my excuse.


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 24, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> I would deff make a trip to California to test some of that good stuff if prop 19 passes. I've always wanted to fly out to Cali, that could be my excuse.


YES! C'mon out!! And bring lots of money!!!! LOL.......BB


----------



## tardis (Oct 24, 2010)

nathenking said:


> keep believing that bro... what ever makes you feel better... the cartels sell the majority of there MJ in other states then cali.... californians grow there own bro... that is the truth and that is a fact... the cartel weed goes to tthe south&midwest, trust me, i was locked up with a few of these bros, i know where alot of there shit goes brudda.... and these are real people, not folks that right down arbitrarty numbers and then you read them and regirjitate... real people with real experience....


Yeah, experience in cutting off good peoples heads... If it makes you feel better to keep criminals powerful enough to prey on citizens then you go right ahead beliving mexican cartel violence over weed is ok. The fact is they do sell in california and people don't know it. If Cali legalizes then of course they wont beable to get in because of how many people sell weed. Better quality at cheaper prices for everyone including you! But if you want to believe that no will maintain your status quo, you are wrong sir. You are out of the game no matter what. There are plenty of states that will have it illegal if you so choose to continue doing it that way. You can move out of Cali to a state where they punish marijuana smokers and grow there if thats what makes you feel good...


----------



## tardis (Oct 24, 2010)

nathenking said:


> tax myth debunked, cartel myth debunked, a ounce is now decriminalized... 5x5 absolutely unacceptable, WHY NOT WAIT UNTIL 2012, this bill gets shittier and shittier....


Cartel Myth Debunked? So the cartel doesn't exist and doesn't make 70% of its money off marijuana in the USA? Go tell politicians who have had their heads cut off in the street that the cartel myth is debunked. Or tell that woman whos husband was shot and killed on a jetski that the mexican cartel violence is not affecting anything. You dont debunk anything, you just say random crap and say it counts as proof. I can do that too.

Nathan king, your arguments lack any real substance when it comes to the things you say... Nathankings knowledge debunked!


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 24, 2010)

I'm just wondering, why does everyone think a massive aero/hydro warehouse grow op is going to produce terrible weed? I might just be inexperienced, but I can't see how hydro on a 60k or 100k sqft scale is going to produce bad buds.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 24, 2010)

tardis said:


> Cartel Myth Debunked? So the cartel doesn't exist and doesn't make 70% of its money off marijuana in the USA? Go tell politicians who have had their heads cut off in the street that the cartel myth is debunked. Or tell that woman whos husband was shot and killed on a jetski that the mexican cartel violence is not affecting anything. You dont debunk anything, you just say random crap and say it counts as proof. I can do that too.
> 
> Nathan king, your arguments lack any real substance when it comes to the things you say... Nathankings knowledge debunked!


the research department in mailibu or something came up with the cartel being hindered by this prop 19... not me... it was posted somewhere else on this site... i just read it...


----------



## nathenking (Oct 24, 2010)

tardis said:


> Cartel Myth Debunked? So the cartel doesn't exist and doesn't make 70% of its money off marijuana in the USA? Go tell politicians who have had their heads cut off in the street that the cartel myth is debunked. Or tell that woman whos husband was shot and killed on a jetski that the mexican cartel violence is not affecting anything. You dont debunk anything, you just say random crap and say it counts as proof. I can do that too.
> 
> Nathan king, your arguments lack any real substance when it comes to the things you say... Nathankings knowledge debunked!


so nov 3, the cartels are fucked and no more violence... yeah right... we have been trying to stop them for decades, but yet nothing has come close... nor will this buddy... prop 19... that shit is funny that the violence will stop because of it... get over it man.... its speculation from your side and mine... but there is that study that says that it will NOT stop any thing cartel related... california allready grows the majority of the weed it smokes, all the other stuff goes out of state.... so how will this stop/reduce anything... you tell me sir


----------



## beardo (Oct 24, 2010)

_D&C 132:60-66_

61 &#8211;if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.


Dan Kone said:


> If you vote no on prop 19 that totally makes you a mormon.


Rep to the Mormons-


----------



## nathenking (Oct 24, 2010)

beardo said:


> _D&C 132:60-66_
> 
> 61 &#8211;if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
> 62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
> 63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.Rep to the Mormons-


LOL, that is just awesome....


----------



## doublejay (Oct 24, 2010)

You NEED TO READ THE HOLE BILL PROP 19 IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT WILL BE LIKE ! THERE ARE LOT OF UNANSWERED ?'S NO ON PROP 19


----------



## nathenking (Oct 24, 2010)

doublejay said:


> You NEED TO READ THE HOLE BILL PROP 19 IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT WILL BE LIKE ! THERE ARE LOT OF UNANSWERED ?'S NO ON PROP 19


nice to have you here doublejay... i agree completely...


----------



## Narsil01 (Oct 24, 2010)

Anybody who smokes weed and votes no on prop19 i the best evidence of weed affecting one's better judgement. If it is voted down because of you idiots I hope you are the next ones who get busted. As for corporations taking over, guess what? This is the USA and corporations will take over anything that is deemed legal, deal with it. If you are so self centered that you would rather see your fellow tokers go into jail so you can make a little easy money you deserve to be the next ones locked up, hopefully for a long time. If you are so deluded that you think a bill to legalize marijuana is some big conspiracy, maybe marijuana should be illegal because you are obviously past reasoning with. To all you who are against prop 19 burn in fucking hell, you are worse than the fucking dea.


----------



## jfa916 (Oct 24, 2010)

legalize it now


----------



## nathenking (Oct 24, 2010)

Narsil01 said:


> Anybody who smokes weed and votes no on prop19 i the best evidence of weed affecting one's better judgement. If it is voted down because of you idiots I hope you are the next ones who get busted. As for corporations taking over, guess what? This is the USA and corporations will take over anything that is deemed legal, deal with it. If you are so self centered that you would rather see your fellow tokers go into jail so you can make a little easy money you deserve to be the next ones locked up, hopefully for a long time. If you are so deluded that you think a bill to legalize marijuana is some big conspiracy, maybe marijuana should be illegal because you are obviously past reasoning with. To all you who are against prop 19 burn in fucking hell, you are worse than the fucking dea.


O.K narsil01... you sound like your a pissed of 18 year old man... i appreciate your opinion... but your allegations about anybody that supports NO on poop19, are just plane wrong...


----------



## beardo (Oct 24, 2010)

doublejay said:


> You NEED TO READ THE HOLE BILL PROP 19 IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT WILL BE LIKE ! THERE ARE LOT OF UNANSWERED ?'S NO ON PROP 19


 I'm glad you took the time to read the Tax and Regulate prop-No on 19


----------



## beardo (Oct 24, 2010)

Narsil01 said:


> Anybody who smokes weed and votes no on prop19 i the best evidence of weed affecting one's better judgement. If it is voted down because of you idiots I hope you are the next ones who get busted. As for corporations taking over, guess what? This is the USA and corporations will take over anything that is deemed legal, deal with it. If you are so self centered that you would rather see your fellow tokers go into jail so you can make a little easy money you deserve to be the next ones locked up, hopefully for a long time. If you are so deluded that you think a bill to legalize marijuana is some big conspiracy, maybe marijuana should be illegal because you are obviously past reasoning with. To all you who are against prop 19 burn in fucking hell, you are worse than the fucking dea.


19 creates marijuana crimes- and where is the ' bill to legalize marijuana' you speak of because the only marijuana bill i know of is prop 19 the tax and regualte bill


----------



## one11 (Oct 24, 2010)

by not voting yes you are betraying the very thing you stand for. and if you vote yes, well it doesnt matter either way, the outcome wont change.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

Narsil01 said:


> Anybody who smokes weed and votes no on prop19 i the best evidence of weed affecting one's better judgement. If it is voted down because of you idiots I hope you are the next ones who get busted. As for corporations taking over, guess what? This is the USA and corporations will take over anything that is deemed legal, deal with it. If you are so self centered that you would rather see your fellow tokers go into jail so you can make a little easy money you deserve to be the next ones locked up, hopefully for a long time. If you are so deluded that you think a bill to legalize marijuana is some big conspiracy, maybe marijuana should be illegal because you are obviously past reasoning with. To all you who are against prop 19 burn in fucking hell, you are worse than the fucking dea.


While I agree with your point about delusions of the no voters, you're a little harsh on them. Jail cells and hell should be reserved for somebody else, maybe the murderers in the narco gangs.


----------



## kronic1989 (Oct 24, 2010)

Lets jump the gun on this one here, lets push to get crack legalized.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 24, 2010)

jfa916 said:


> legalize it now


problem is prop 19 doesnt legalize anything...


----------



## nathenking (Oct 24, 2010)

kronic1989 said:


> Lets jump the gun on this one here, lets push to get crack legalized.


hell yeah bro.... crack is better than MJ anyday....


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 24, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> It is not reasonable to assume another legalization bill will be on the ballot in 2012. Even if there one does get on the ballot there is no guarantee that it will be any better than prop 19. It's very possible that a much worse measure comes up in 2012.


It is equally unreasonable to assume that the myriad mistakes in P19 will be corrected in the future.

NO on 19.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 24, 2010)

Narsil01 said:


> Anybody who smokes weed and votes no on prop19 i the best evidence of weed affecting one's better judgement. If it is voted down because of you idiots I hope you are the next ones who get busted. As for corporations taking over, guess what? This is the USA and corporations will take over anything that is deemed legal, deal with it. If you are so self centered that you would rather see your fellow tokers go into jail so you can make a little easy money you deserve to be the next ones locked up, hopefully for a long time. If you are so deluded that you think a bill to legalize marijuana is some big conspiracy, maybe marijuana should be illegal because you are obviously past reasoning with. To all you who are against prop 19 burn in fucking hell, you are worse than the fucking dea.


Narsil is a sword of incredible lethality. Sharp I mean.

Find another nickname.

Or do a bunch of reading.

I was called a Communist for opposing George Bush and his policies.

You won't win, calling names. Prove your points in debate.

You can't, because you refuse to arm yourself with facts.

Think about this, if you dare.

Prop 19 will allow over 500 separate jurisdictions the opportunity to write their own local ordinances regarding all aspects of Cannabis, with little or extremely negative(Cooley) guidance from the Attorney General. The confusion will, in my opinion, put a lot of people in jail.

I may be wrong, but you certainly can't prove it. Quite a few good people went to jail after Prop 215 was passed because local sheriffs and judges refused to accept Medical Cannabis without a bunch of (eventually) successful appeals.

I won't accept this. It is idiocy to do that again.

Now, I think everybody knows what is wrong with P19. 

We can do better, and now know what we really want. State law with clout that protects our rights without injuring those MMJ patients that have already weathered the storms of bad law and a corrupt legal system.

Lets write a good law, and get it passed. We don't need corporate money. Just a willingness to do the leg work.


----------



## Needofweed (Oct 25, 2010)

down with 19


----------



## nathenking (Oct 25, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> down with 19


I hope it fizzles out!


----------



## desert dude (Oct 25, 2010)

Pretty much everything has already been said in these posts, and at FDD official poll on 19, https://www.rollitup.org/politics/353347-official-cast-your-vote-prop-20.html.

I voted yes. P19 is a fairly good bill, some flaws, but nothing is perfect. If you guys want to keep yammering about the evil corporations, and P19 creates new felonies, that is your business. 

Just remember who else urges you to vote against 19: the drug czars, the US attorney general, President Obama, every politician running for national office in California (Libertarians excepted), Sheriff Lee Baca, Candidate for CA attorney general Steve Cooley. With friends like those, who needs enemies?


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 25, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Pretty much everything has already been said in these posts, and at FDD official poll on 19, https://www.rollitup.org/politics/353347-official-cast-your-vote-prop-20.html.
> 
> I voted yes. P19 is a fairly good bill, some flaws, but nothing is perfect. If you guys want to keep yammering about the evil corporations, and P19 creates new felonies, that is your business.
> 
> Just remember who else urges you to vote against 19: the drug czars, the US attorney general, President Obama, every politician running for national office in California (Libertarians excepted), Sheriff Lee Baca, Candidate for CA attorney general Steve Cooley. With friends like those, who needs enemies?



It is called being Right, for the wrong reasons.

I prefer making my own decisions, based on MY perceptions. I won't be stampeded by those who assume the opposition is always wrong.

Prop 19 is a junk bill, worthy of early demise.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 25, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> It is called being Right, for the wrong reasons.
> 
> I prefer making my own decisions, based on MY perceptions. I won't be stampeded by those who assume the opposition is always wrong.
> 
> Prop 19 is a junk bill, worthy of early demise.


You need to learn to compromise. Do you think Senators or Congressmen have the luxury of only voting on perfect bills? If they shared your attitude, nothing would ever be done.

At least by voting YES, you are sending a message that marijuana should not be illegal. It's not a perfect bill, 215 wasn't either, but it started a trend. I think it is very shallow and farsighted that pot smokers and growers would vote no on 19 and group themselves with anti-marijuana groups such as churches, bars, and prudes. 

Vote YES on 19 and let them know that you support marijuana use for ALL


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 25, 2010)

YOU send a message.

I'll protect my family's rights under current law.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 25, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> YOU send a message.
> 
> I'll protect my family's rights under current law.


You have no marijuana rights under current law, unless you are seriously ill and marijuana has been determined to ease your suffering. That is the black and white of it, period.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 25, 2010)

Serapis said:


> You have no marijuana rights under current law, unless you are seriously ill and marijuana has been determined to ease your suffering. That is the black and white of it, period.


you still can't accept the fact that you do NOT have to be "seriously ill". prop 215 *CLEARLY* says *"any ailment"*. you really should learn what this means.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 25, 2010)

Serapis said:


> You need to learn to compromise. Do you think Senators or Congressmen have the luxury of only voting on perfect bills? If they shared your attitude, nothing would ever be done.
> 
> At least by voting YES, you are sending a message that marijuana should not be illegal. It's not a perfect bill, 215 wasn't either, but it started a trend. I think it is very shallow and farsighted that pot smokers and growers would vote no on 19 and group themselves with anti-marijuana groups such as churches, bars, and prudes.
> 
> Vote YES on 19 and let them know that you support marijuana use for ALL


 

YOU send a message.

I'll protect my family's rights under current law.

NO on P19!

By the way, nobody asked for my input on this bill. It was offered as a whole.

It is junk, written by inferior legal minds.

Spent the day in Golden Gate Park, yesterday, with two superior minds. Family members. Very bright. Very successful. P19 was never mentioned. One handles the hiring and firing of 20,000 employees. If 19 passes, she'll have a LOT to say about this bill. She's another that sees random testing as the only corporate response to Prop 19.

Ever visited the California Academy of Sciences?

A very nice museum. The planetarium is state of the art.​


----------



## Serapis (Oct 25, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you still can't accept the fact that you do NOT have to be "seriously ill". prop 215 *CLEARLY* says *"any ailment"*. you really should learn what this means.


I know that "Seriously Ill Californians" is a quote taken directly out of 215.... In fact, it could be argued that many medical cards do not fall under seriously ill conditions. Here is the entire section...

"* To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where the medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's 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.* "

There are two qualifiers there, the first one being seriously ill Californians... The second one is ILLNESS, not "ailment" as you have quoted. An allergy is an ailment, as is sleep disorders. They are not illnesses, as defined by the AMA.

I'm only pointing this out to all of the 215 card members that are considering a no vote on 19. 215 does not cover ailments or discomforts. It was a compassionate use law that was intended to allow seriously and gravely ill patients access to Marijuana. What it has become today, is simply because of abuse. The text of the statute has not changed. 

So, I apologize Fdd2, I disagree that 215 clearly says "any ailment" as you claim. It does not. I really do know how to read and I have a 4.0 GPA after 4 semesters in my pursuit of a bachelor degree. You keep taking pot shots at me, like "You really should le4arn what this means", when you are the one clearly in the wrong. You are misinterpreting a law, which is worded in a specific way, and you have insrerted other words or changed meanings to make it fit what you like.

I could just as easily say that you really should learn what seriously ill or illness means, but I won't stoop to that level


----------



## mr.swishas&herb (Oct 25, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> YOU send a message.
> 
> I'll protect my family's rights under current law.
> 
> ...


you should become a travel agent haha, didn't mean that offensively but you are making me wish i was in cali that much more...have you ever seen the natural museum of history in manhattan? state of the art...but good luck enjoying the scenery sober


----------



## Serapis (Oct 25, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> YOU send a message.
> 
> I'll protect my family's rights under current law.
> 
> ...


You can't say that random testing would be a result of 19 passing. Random testing and required testing are prevalent TODAY.  It should be nobody's business what we do on our time off. Imagine the outrage if a piss test were devloped to determine alcohol abuse within the last 60 or 90 days. People would be livid, yet they tolerate drug tests....


----------



## ent931 (Oct 25, 2010)

ppl that vote no on this bill must very conservative not only could this help us non medical states change our ways pot would become dirt cheap cause our reps. in our state have said that if pot was to be sold it would have to be sold at 60 dollars an ounce which to me doesnt sound bad at all for chronic which btw our state produces the second most marijuana in the country after cali


----------



## desert dude (Oct 25, 2010)

"She's another that sees random testing as the only corporate response to Prop 19."

She is seriously in trouble in that case because Prop 19 precludes random drug testing, at least as it currently exists. Current testing identifies metabolites, not THC, and does not establish impairment or intoxication. Most large companies already do random drug testing because they are forced to do so by the fed under the "drug free workplace" law, so if she manages 20,000 employees she is awfully late to the game if her company does not already do random drug testing.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 25, 2010)

Serapis said:


> I know that "Seriously Ill Californians" is a quote taken directly out of 215.... In fact, it could be argued that many medical cards do not fall under seriously ill conditions. Here is the entire section...
> 
> "* To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where the medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's 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.* "
> 
> ...




 

read your own quote, really S-L-O-W this time. 


ailments, illness; splitting hairs.

the state of california issues cards to everyone who applies. they recognize any ailment. the DR's recognize it. the cops recognize it. seems the only people who have an issue with any of it is those who are to scared to visit a DR. nobody else is complaining.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 25, 2010)

ent931 said:


> ppl that vote no on this bill must very conservative not only could this help us non medical states change our ways pot would become dirt cheap cause our reps. in our state have said that if pot was to be sold it would have to be sold at 60 dollars an ounce which to me doesnt sound bad at all for chronic which btw our state produces the second most marijuana in the country after cali


That is a pipe dream. You might be able to allocate commercially grown weed for that price if cities such as Oakland have their way, but you are not going to get the good dank for $60 an oz from an experienced grower, regardless. Pricing is the furthest from anyone's mind regarding 19, except for those that currently profit from growing marijuana.


----------



## mr.swishas&herb (Oct 25, 2010)

desert dude said:


> "She's another that sees random testing as the only corporate response to Prop 19."
> 
> She is seriously in trouble in that case because Prop 19 precludes random drug testing, at least as it currently exists. Current testing identifies metabolites, not THC, and does not establish impairment or intoxication. Most large companies already do random drug testing because they are forced to do so by the fed under the "drug free workplace" law, so if she manages 20,000 employees she is awfully late to the game if her company does not already do random drug testing.


good point...also i had to submit to a drug test to work at fucking sears in NY so i highly doubt that Prop 19 is the cause of drug testing lmao...just sounds like a joke saying it, i do believe it could increase the random drug testing however...but the key to solving this issue is removing the incorrect label of marijuana being classified as a class 1 drug with no medicinal uses whatsoever...how could a portion of the country have it legalized for medicinal use whereas our federal government still sees absolutely no use for it?! national government has too much power and we need to get the uses of marijuana penetrated through their skulls in order to liberate everyone in the U.S. from being a political target while poking smot...

my .02


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 25, 2010)

i ate to many cookies, i feel "ill".


----------



## mr.swishas&herb (Oct 25, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i ate to many cookies, i feel "ill".


 tummy ache?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 25, 2010)

mr.swishas&herb said:


> tummy ache?


i need a cure to what "ails" me.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 25, 2010)

Serapis said:


> You can't say that random testing would be a result of 19 passing. Random testing and required testing are prevalent TODAY.  It should be nobody's business what we do on our time off. Imagine the outrage if a piss test were devloped to determine alcohol abuse within the last 60 or 90 days. People would be livid, yet they tolerate drug tests....


That was my argument when manditory testing first appeared. My employers told me that Insurance companies offered steep premium reductions if testing was enacted and threatened to withdraw coverage without testing.

I'm repeating what people in the position to make these decisions are telling me. They're dead serious.

Both the individuals I've mentioned HATE the idea, but, as corporate managers, they MUST consider their respective company's welfare, first.

"Legalizing" Cannabis will make dirty pee tests far more common(if you pro 19 types are correct).

Random testing is the only way to reduce employee consumption.

(How many folks do you know who drink on the job? Cannabis will have similar numbers.)


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 25, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you still can't accept the fact that you do NOT have to be "seriously ill". prop 215 *CLEARLY* says *"any ailment"*. you really should learn what this means.



my mistkae. i'll correct it for clarity.


prop 215 *CLEARLY* says *"any illness"*. you really should learn what this means. 



there. now you should get it. :")


----------



## mr.swishas&herb (Oct 25, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> That was my argument when manditory testing first appeared. My employers told me that Insurance companies offered steep premium reductions if testing was enacted and threatened to withdraw coverage without testing.
> 
> I'm repeating what people in the position to make these decisions are telling me. They're dead serious.
> 
> ...


 marijuana numbers should be 2x as high unless they are doctors...i do my job much better high as opposed to sober...and then alcohol? a CNS depressant...comparing apples and oranges imo


----------



## Serapis (Oct 25, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> read your own quote, really S-L-O-W this time.
> 
> 
> ailments, illness; splitting hairs.
> ...


It's not splitting hairs, we are talking about the wording of written law. An ailment and an illness are two different things. It is not ambiguous, as you make it out to be.

The last time you and I got into this, you pulled a shit load of rep points from me. You claimed I was disrespectful. Now I look at your posts and see that you have no basis to back up your own opinion, other than a misinterpretation of the word illness, and your staunch defense of abuse under 215. 

You know as well as anyone else that 215 is widely abused. 19 would easily take care of that. Your suggestion that anyone can go get a card is just encouraging further abuse of a compassionate use law. That abuse could cause other states to give pause in their consideration of use laws. In fact, the Florida AG has used California as an example of why he will fight compassionate use laws in Florida.

Vote yes on 19! Not every smoker is ill.....


----------



## MR.HEADY (Oct 25, 2010)

Please if you are in cali VOTE YES some of us arent lucky enough to have such liberal politicians . We need the momentum to boil over to us on the bastard east coast.. Praise god and beer. But damn the demon weed is their attitudes in the southeast. It is time here for it to becomae at least mediacl legal. So do be dick go and vote yes . END THE PROHIBITION NOW GO DO YOUR PART SOLDIER


----------



## Serapis (Oct 25, 2010)

mr.swishas&herb said:


> good point...also i had to submit to a drug test to work at fucking sears in NY so i highly doubt that Prop 19 is the cause of drug testing lmao...just sounds like a joke saying it, i do believe it could increase the random drug testing however...but the key to solving this issue is removing the incorrect label of marijuana being classified as a class 1 drug with no medicinal uses whatsoever...how could a portion of the country have it legalized for medicinal use whereas our federal government still sees absolutely no use for it?! national government has too much power and we need to get the uses of marijuana penetrated through their skulls in order to liberate everyone in the U.S. from being a political target while poking smot...
> 
> my .02



Just to add to your shock..... The Department of Health and Human Services was awarded a patent in 1999 for it's studies on medical marijuana use. Many government scientists and doctors signed on to the patent application, claiming marijuana was indeed shown to have medicinal value. So not only can you question why the states all have differing laws regarding MJ, but ask yourself how one arm of the government recognizes the benefits of MJ and the other arm prosecutes use of it.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 25, 2010)

Serapis said:


> It's not splitting hairs, we are talking about the wording of written law. An ailment and an illness are two different things. It is not ambiguous, as you make it out to be.
> 
> The last time you and I got into this, you pulled a shit load of rep points from me. You claimed I was disrespectful. Now I look at your posts and see that you have no basis to back up your own opinion, other than a misinterpretation of the word illness, and your staunch defense of abuse under 215.
> 
> ...


it was MY mistake in wording. i meant ILLNESS, and it changes nothing.

you can get prescribed pot for ANY illness.

you will distract from this fact so you don't have to admit it. you always do. 

there are NO requirements to be prescribed mmj. you do NOT need to be dying. you can have a headache and get a card. the prop clearly state ANY ILLNESS. 



you got it yet?


----------



## mr.swishas&herb (Oct 25, 2010)

MR.HEADY said:


> Please if you are in cali VOTE YES some of us arent lucky enough to have such liberal politicians . We need the momentum to boil over to us on the bastard east coast.. Praise god and beer. But damn the demon weed is their attitudes in the southeast. It is time here for it to becomae at least mediacl legal. So do be dick go and vote yes . END THE PROHIBITION NOW GO DO YOUR PART SOLDIER


love the passion but you have to push your congressmen, not californians to vote yes...the entire country already sees cali as the pot head state and most states did not respect their prop 215 movement, therefore they are definitely going to oppose prop 19 and view the west coast in an even more scornful manner, we should win over individual states until we can push for an amendment in the white house...or have obama get a pair and push for a national legalization bill to get on the floor

and in regards to Serapis' comment:

that is quite intriguing to hear that...I strongly believe that the lobbyist who pay the congressmen's bills have a lot of money tied up in prescription drugs that would be intensely hurt by the legalization of MJ (one of the many reasons i believe that the government has been ignoring the research and the proof that they demanded, ever since nixon's goons proved mj was the most dangerous drug ever because it fucked up monkeys who were given little to no oxygen in order to pump columbian bud into their lungs

too many personal priorities tossed in the mix to make clear cut/logical decisions


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 25, 2010)

Serapis said:


> It's not splitting hairs, we are talking about the wording of written law. An ailment and an illness are two different things. It is not ambiguous, as you make it out to be.
> 
> The last time you and I got into this, you pulled a shit load of rep points from me. You claimed I was disrespectful. Now I look at your posts and see that you have no basis to back up your own opinion, other than a misinterpretation of the word illness, and your staunch defense of abuse under 215.
> 
> ...



how is 215 "abused"? i never could understand this. "abused" according to WHO? all i hear is opinions of people against 215 saying this. the state isn't saying it. the cops aren't saying it. the courts aren't saying it. who exactly, other than you, is saying this? 

the courts drop charges if you are 215, for any reason.
cops let you drive away if you are 215, for any reason.
dr's prescribe you mmj, for any reason. 

i don't see the "abuse".

the law says "any illness". sounds legit to me.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 25, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> it was MY mistake in wording. i meant ILLNESS, and it changes nothing.
> 
> you can get prescribed pot for ANY illness.
> 
> ...



So it is your opinion that anyone in California can get a card for any ailment or illness that they wish? How is that a part of a compassionate use law? Why were the words "Seriously Ill Californian's" inserted into the wording? You are correct in your assumption that the law covers ANY ILLNESS, as defined today. That was not the INTENT of the law, and do not be surprised if 215 card carrying users ever come under audit. 215 is widely abused. That is a known fact. Because of it, other states that might consider compassion laws are watching a bit more closely now.

Like it or not, California is the 4th largest economy in the world. The number one crop is marijuana. The rest of the country tends to follow California. It is absurd to think that users of the drug will vote no and cite 215 as the reason.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 25, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> how is 215 "abused"? i never could understand this. "abused" according to WHO? all i hear is opinions of people against 215 saying this. the state isn't saying it. the cops aren't saying it. the courts aren't saying it. who exactly, other than you, is saying this?
> 
> the courts drop charges if you are 215, for any reason.
> cops let you drive away if you are 215, for any reason.
> ...


end of discussion..... you can continue to cite 215 in defense of your stance against 19, however the two are not even related.

Vote YES on 19, because not every smoker is ill.....


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 25, 2010)

Serapis said:


> *So it is your opinion that anyone in California can get a card for any ailment or illness that they wish?* How is that a part of a compassionate use law? Why were the words "Seriously Ill Californian's" inserted into the wording? You are correct in your assumption that the law covers ANY ILLNESS, as defined today. That was not the INTENT of the law, and do not be surprised if 215 card carrying users ever come under audit. 215 is widely abused. That is a known fact. Because of it, other states that might consider compassion laws are watching a bit more closely now.
> 
> Like it or not, California is the 4th largest economy in the world. The number one crop is marijuana. The rest of the country tends to follow California. It is absurd to think that users of the drug will vote no and cite 215 as the reason.




it is not my "opinion" or "assumption", it is CLEARLY WRITTEN into the law. 

and dude, that WAS the intent of the law, that is WHY it was put in there.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 25, 2010)

Serapis said:


> end of discussion..... you can continue to cite 215 in defense of your stance against 19, however the two are not even related.
> 
> Vote YES on 19, because not every smoker is ill.....


i'm not citing it in defense, i'm trying to help you understand it so you too can grow all you want or need.


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 25, 2010)

It's very rare you get legislation passed that benefits the public which 215 does. Stop bitching and go to the doctor Prop 19 isn't getting passed anyway. This bill doesn't even have the full support of marijuana enthusiasts. Between that and the fact that half of the people that would vote yes won't even bother going to vote this bill is't going anywhere.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 25, 2010)

i wonder if any of the YES voters will go 215 after 19 fails.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 25, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i'm not citing it in defense, i'm trying to help you understand it so you too can grow all you want or need.



I'd be happy not telling my Dr a lie and growing in a 5' x5'. I have no illnesses or ailments. Do I have to lie to get a card or can I just vote YES on 19?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 25, 2010)

Serapis said:


> I'd be happy not telling my Dr a lie and growing in a 5' x5'. I have no illnesses or ailments. Do I have to lie to get a card or can I just vote YES on 19?


do you grow or smoke right now? is breaking the law better than lying? do you feel any "better" when you smoke pot? the only one who has an issue with you "lying" is you. 

what will you do IF 19 does NOT pass? will you stop smoking and growing?


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 25, 2010)

Serapis said:


> I'd be happy not telling my Dr a lie and growing in a 5' x5'. I have no illnesses or ailments. Do I have to lie to get a card or can I just vote YES on 19?


Because it's a horrible bill with horrible restrictions and a horrible basis for reform.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 25, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> Because it's a horrible bill with horrible restrictions and a horrible basis for reform.


It is however a beginning. Do you believe that if 19 fails, a better proposal will creep up next election? To the growers that profit heavily off of growing under 215, do you believe that everyone is going to want to actually start and care for a garden? Some will, but certainly not all. Remember, some of the patients are actually too ill to care for their own garden.

If 19 passes, at least it is on the books and can then be amended to suit other needs or looked over items. If 19 fails, it will look like the churches and MADD and DADD groups won, not marijuana.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 25, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> do you grow or smoke right now? is breaking the law better than lying? do you feel any "better" when you smoke pot? the only one who has an issue with you "lying" is you.
> 
> what will you do IF 19 does NOT pass? will you stop smoking and growing?


Absolutely not. And I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one that has issues with lying to my doctor.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 25, 2010)

Serapis said:


> Absolutely not. And I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one that has issues with lying to my doctor.


You are not the only one. Not to mention having to go to the doctor, and pay the doctor to get a permission slip to get high.


----------



## growone (Oct 25, 2010)

i don't have the luxury of going to a Dr in NY(yet) for MMJ, and if that's what was available i would use it
but the thought of going to some fucking quack whose career has devolved to the point where their sole source of income is MMJ scripts?
let's just say i would prefer to lose the MMJ Dr


----------



## nathenking (Oct 25, 2010)

desert dude said:


> You are not the only one. Not to mention having to go to the doctor, and pay the doctor to get a permission slip to get high.


whats the difference from paying a doctor to get high, or paying taxes to get high... it will cost you the same amount of time roughly and probably less money in the long run just to get your card... You cant even bitch about laws if you dont have the card... If it being illegal was/is such a big issue to you... You should already have your card... And since you dont, its hard for us to understand any of your points about the illegalization of MJ... Think about all the people in the bible belt and the upper midwest, they would do anything to have the relaxed laws on MJ like cali does, they would do anything for medical MJ... These people are just blown away at how easy it is to get a card in cali, and here you are complaining about 215... It is just unfathomable to a lot of people at how you are stuck in your bubble in probably the most relaxed place in the world for MJ...


----------



## nathenking (Oct 25, 2010)

Serapis said:


> Absolutely not. And I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one that has issues with lying to my doctor.


Oh and another note, doctors lie to patients all the time... cops lie to judges all the time... parents (when it is necessary) lie to there children... Dont act like telling a lie is such a burden on your consicous... the world works and gets by on lies.... that is the truth, and this poop 19 will not affect any of that in any way...


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 25, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Oh and another note, doctors lie to patients all the time... cops lie to judges all the time... parents (when it is necessary) lie to there children... Dont act like telling a lie is such a burden on your consicous... the world works and gets by on lies.... that is the truth, and this poop 19 will not affect any of that in any way...


its like you take words right out of my mouth. 

right on brother.


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 25, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i wonder if any of the YES voters will go 215 after 19 fails.


This one wont.


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 25, 2010)

Serapis said:


> Absolutely not. And I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one that has issues with lying to my doctor.


You're not!


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 25, 2010)

Serapis said:


> It's not splitting hairs, we are talking about the wording of written law. An ailment and an illness are two different things. It is not ambiguous, as you make it out to be.
> 
> The last time you and I got into this, *you pulled a shit load of rep points from me. You claimed I was disrespectful.* Now I look at your posts and see that you have no basis to back up your own opinion, other than a misinterpretation of the word illness, and your staunch defense of abuse under 215.
> 
> ...


You aren't the only one to lose points for "disrespect". I, too crossed swords with this "moderator". It must be great to have so much unchecked power, Truly, a visit to RIU these days is like going "Through the looking glass"! Complete with a "Queen of Hearts".......BB


----------



## desert dude (Oct 25, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> You aren't the only one to lose points for "disrespect". I, too crossed swords with this "moderator". It must be great to have so much unchecked power, Truly, a visit to RIU these days is like going "Through the looking glass"! Complete with a "Queen of Hearts".......BB


WTF are "rep points"? What are they used for?


----------



## klmmicro (Oct 25, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i wonder if any of the YES voters will go 215 after 19 fails.


Or if any 215 goers are supporters of 19.


----------



## Kindwoman (Oct 25, 2010)

klmmicro said:


> Or if any 215 goers are supporters of 19.


My husband and I are both Medical Marijuana Patients and we are both voting YES ON PROPOSITION 19


----------



## tardis (Oct 25, 2010)

nathenking said:


> the research department in mailibu or something came up with the cartel being hindered by this prop 19... not me... it was posted somewhere else on this site... i just read it...


I did
I read that the Cartels would take a huge lack of income for at least 2 years, after which time they'll make it up in gambling or other industries when looking at the American Mafias after Liquor was made legal again. But it still will hit them for 2 years in which time we can move in and take them out.


----------



## tardis (Oct 25, 2010)

nathenking said:


> so nov 3, the cartels are fucked and no more violence... yeah right... we have been trying to stop them for decades, but yet nothing has come close... nor will this buddy... prop 19... that shit is funny that the violence will stop because of it... get over it man.... its speculation from your side and mine... but there is that study that says that it will NOT stop any thing cartel related... california allready grows the majority of the weed it smokes, all the other stuff goes out of state.... so how will this stop/reduce anything... you tell me sir


Yes, becasue to get away with this violence the cartels use MONEY to pay off politicians and to buy weapons to intimidate law enforcement. By cutting into 70% of their income we would be limiting how many weapons they can own and who they can pay off THUS putting and end to the violence. That is a logical argument even though you might say such things dont make sense. basically i'm not saying we'll shut them down or their violence, i'm saying we'll shut down their ways to GET AWAY with such things.

Does that answer your question, or will you still find some reason to say that somehow its not about the money to drug dealers? lol


----------



## Karmapuff (Oct 25, 2010)

California is going to fuck it up for all of us.. yay prop 19!


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 25, 2010)

Karmapuff said:


> California is going to fuck it up for all of us.. yay prop 19!


bro you dont even live here in the US, 

all of us exclude you..............................


----------



## Karmapuff (Oct 25, 2010)

Rofl... I have been to cali more then 10 times was born in Reno and raised, have lived in Arizona and Texas then moved to Canada to live with my fiance. California is going to fuck this prop over and will set a bad example for the rest of the world.


----------



## beardo (Oct 25, 2010)

Karmapuff said:


> Rofl... I have been to cali more then 10 times was born in Reno and raised, have lived in Arizona and Texas then moved to Canada to live with my fiance. California is going to fuck this prop over and will set a bad example for the rest of the world.


Voting no on a bad prop to tax and regulate is what were doing that is setting a bad example for the rest of the world??? I'm sure you could think of at least 50 things were doing to set a bad example but I don't think this is one


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 25, 2010)

Karmapuff said:


> Rofl... I have been to cali more then 10 times was born in Reno and raised, have lived in Arizona and Texas then moved to Canada to live with my fiance. California is going to fuck this prop over and will set a bad example for the rest of the world.


ummmmmm. ok i guess i dont understand your theory behind that if Prop 19 passes that its going to fuck it up for the rest of the WORLD.


but i will be Voting NO.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 25, 2010)

Had the prop allowed unlimited grow space and mass profits, the anti-19 crowd would be minuscule.... It seems that more and more, it is big growers that are against 19. Ironic...


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 25, 2010)

beardo said:


> Voting no on a bad prop to tax and regulate is what were doing that is setting a bad example for the rest of the world??? I'm sure you could think of at least 50 things were doing to set a bad example but I don't think this is one


no shit........ LOL...... what is this guy talking about?


----------



## Karmapuff (Oct 25, 2010)

beardo said:


> Voting no on a bad prop to tax and regulate is what were doing that is setting a bad example for the rest of the world??? I'm sure you could think of at least 50 things were doing to set a bad example but I don't think this is one


This is more for everyone... This is a very unique issue I'm not going to treat it like any other prop when its not. So keep in mind the many sides for this are more extreme then an average day prop.


----------



## Humboldt14 (Oct 25, 2010)

Serapis said:


> Had the prop allowed unlimited grow space and mass profits, the anti-19 crowd would be minuscule.... It seems that more and more, it is big growers that are against 19. Ironic...


thats not true because us big growers up in Humboldt are all ready growing as much as we want.

you think anybody follows plant limits up here in Humboldt County. hell no!


----------



## beardo (Oct 25, 2010)

Serapis said:


> Had the prop allowed unlimited grow space and mass profits, the anti-19 crowd would be minuscule.... It seems that more and more, it is big growers that are against 19. Ironic...


 Wrong again-that is what 19 does which is why I oppose it, it allows huge grows and huge profits


----------



## mr.swishas&herb (Oct 25, 2010)

beardo said:


> Wrong again-that is what 19 does which is why I oppose it, it allows huge grows and huge profits


 unfortunately politicians love huge profits, the only reason that prop 215 was passed, in order to make money off of taxing dispensaries...as for the ethics involved with lying to a doctor, I would say it depends....here is an analogy, if you were pulled oveand asked if you were high would you tell the truth and get a dui?! point is that if the truth debilitates your quality of life, who in their right mind would tell it? 

i personally believe that mj benefits everybody not simply the cripple or those w/ serious illnesses...who is to say that depression or a mental state of cognitive dissonance/ambiguity is any better than cancer? (obviously cancer is worse, but the seriousness of a situation depends on the individual perceiving said situation) plus its a plant that grows in the ground, even the bible states that God gave us all seed bearing plants (he didn't state that I give peyote to native americans, mj to the dutch, etc.) 

I don't expect anybody to legalize because of what the bible states, but everyone can agree the bible has conservative concepts and ideals, therefore for God to say that mj is okay in moderation (along w/ alcohol) then who is our government to tell us that you can only smoke weed if you are dying of cancer? (in stricter mmj states) 

It must be politics because the big 3 addictions that destroy people's lives and their families are legal and sold basically everywhere (alcohol, tobacco, and gambling)...simply illogical to me.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 25, 2010)

http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_16408972?IADID=Search-www.insidebayarea.com-www.insidebayarea.com


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 25, 2010)

Serapis said:


> You have no marijuana rights under current law, unless you are seriously ill and marijuana has been determined to ease your suffering. That is the black and white of it, period.


Precisely.

Feel better, now?


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 25, 2010)

desert dude said:


> "She's another that sees random testing as the only corporate response to Prop 19."
> 
> She is seriously in trouble in that case because Prop 19 precludes random drug testing, at least as it currently exists. Current testing identifies metabolites, not THC, and does not establish impairment or intoxication. Most large companies already do random drug testing because they are forced to do so by the fed under the "drug free workplace" law, so if she manages 20,000 employees she is awfully late to the game if her company does not already do random drug testing.


You think P19 will eliminate current practices?

Personally, I think the corporate world will spend whatever is necessary to insure profits.

Her company has large, powerful unions that would not allow that chip to hit the table. Politics.

Their policy is to treat everyone equally, so management isn't randomly tested, either.

My own union sold out to insure raises that helped cover increasing medical costs, nearly 20 years ago. Politics.

Her company is self insured which means their rules are even more difficult to overcome.

The unions will lose, on this one.


----------



## growone (Oct 25, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> You think P19 will eliminate current practices?
> 
> Personally, I think the corporate world will spend whatever is necessary to insure profits.
> 
> ...


 maybe, but how will you know if 19 isn't passed?
there seems to be less complaining about 19's employment protections then other parts
this would be a major change in MJ rights, even in California
if you think all the aspects of 19 can be twisted, then no proposition has a chance, not ever


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 25, 2010)

growone said:


> maybe, but how will you know if 19 isn't passed?
> there seems to be less complaining about 19's employment protections then other parts
> this would be a major change in MJ rights, even in California
> if you think all the aspects of 19 can be twisted, then no proposition has a chance, not ever


There are NO employment protections in Prop. 19. Nothing in Prop. 19 CAN supersede Federal drug testing mandates for businesses. Please stick to screwing up your own state.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 26, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> You think P19 will eliminate current practices?
> 
> Personally, I think the corporate world will spend whatever is necessary to insure profits.
> 
> ...


The corporate world will need to develop an MJ test that determines actual impairment, not metabolites, if they want to keep drug testing for current employees because P19 preclude them from testing for metabolites.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 26, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> There are NO employment protections in Prop. 19. Nothing in Prop. 19 CAN supersede Federal drug testing mandates for businesses. Please stick to screwing up your own state.


Are you a lawyer?


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 26, 2010)

beardo said:


> Wrong again-that is what 19 does which is why I oppose it, it allows huge grows and huge profits


There are huge grows with huge profits now. The only difference is with prop 19 there will be a way to do those huge grows without going to jail. This is a good thing. Not sure why you can't see that.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 26, 2010)

Poll shows prop 19 ahead 48 to 44... too close to call

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=ae46633e-2251-4fd1-86b9-75b194d1b848


----------



## desert dude (Oct 26, 2010)

beardo said:


> Wrong again-that is what 19 does which is why I oppose it, it allows huge grows and huge profits


What do you have against profits? Are you a communist?


----------



## desert dude (Oct 26, 2010)

Kindwoman said:


> My husband and I are both Medical Marijuana Patients and we are both voting YES ON PROPOSITION 19


Peace be upon you and your husband.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 26, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> There are huge grows with huge profits now. The only difference is with prop 19 there will be a way to do those huge grows without going to jail. This is a good thing. Not sure why you can't see that.


Why not just forget the 25 square foot limit and keep the playing field level?

Then I don't care how many monster grows are out there.

AND then you WILL see lower prices.


----------



## beardo (Oct 26, 2010)

desert dude said:


> What do you have against profits? Are you a communist?


yes to some extent. 
I can see the merit in some of their ideals and I think i'm also a nationalist


----------



## desert dude (Oct 26, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Why not just forget the 25 square foot limit and keep the playing field level?
> 
> Then I don't care how many monster grows are out there.
> 
> AND then you WILL see lower prices.


The 25 sf rule is the minimum, it can be raised by cities and counties at their discretion.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 27, 2010)

desert dude said:


> The 25 sf rule is the minimum, it can be raised by cities and counties at their discretion.


That rule is there more to protect people from counties who would try to pass a law saying trying to get you to grow less than 25 ft. It can be raised, and there is no limit to how high it can be raised. The point of it is that it can not be lowered.


----------



## Rawness (Oct 27, 2010)

i know you guys want to make your money i understand that but shit dude theirs other people also think of them people want to grow their shit to without cops arresting and it will be better for usa get money from it all u have to do is lower the price of what u sell thats it also if they do legalize it the goverment will make shops and factories like tabco company but they wont offer all types of strains u offer to ur clients


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 27, 2010)

desert dude said:


> The 25 sf rule is the minimum, it can be raised by cities and counties at their discretion.


I was watching some news clips from all over California and they said this bill would allow counties to opt out of prop 19. I still don't know if it's true and I can't see what part of the bill would allow that but if it does I could see most counties opting out of it.


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 27, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> I was watching some news clips from all over California and they said this bill would allow counties to opt out of prop 19. I still don't know if it's true and I can't see what part of the bill would allow that but if it does I could see most counties opting out of it.


 Prop 19 is VERY similar to 215 when it comes to cities and counties drafting ordinances in regards to marijuana. However this is just for sales, and regulation, they cannot eliminate the 25 sq ft growing allowance because that is statewide. 
The cities and counties that currently allow medical marijuana dispensaries and collectives will most likely allow recreational sales too. conversely the places that have set of a precedent of being anti-marijuana will most likely limit sales, but once again they cannot eliminate the right to grow within the state limits at home.


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 27, 2010)

It just doesn't make sense to me why Lee would write this bill to limit individuals so much without a hidden agenda. This will probably will be a close decision and if it fails it will be because marijuana supporters aren't all on board do to personal restrictions. If this bill fails the only person you can blame is Lee for not writing this bill for the people.


----------



## growone (Oct 27, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> It just doesn't make sense to me why Lee would write this bill to limit individuals so much without a hidden agenda. This will probably will be a close decision and if it fails it will be because marijuana supporters aren't all on board do to personal restrictions. If this bill fails the only person you can blame is Lee for not writing this bill for the people.


if MJ growers were deciding the issue, then the proposition would likely have been written differently
but growers are a very small percentage of the California electorate
this proposition was written to appeal to a large cross section of voters
most legislation is about compromise, it's the real world, you don't always get exactly what you want


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 27, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> It just doesn't make sense to me why Lee would write this bill to limit individuals so much without a hidden agenda. This will probably will be a close decision and if it fails it will be because marijuana supporters aren't all on board do to personal restrictions. If this bill fails the only person you can blame is Lee for not writing this bill for the people.


im sorry what is limiting about 19? It allows for Everyone of age is to grow more bud than they need...


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 27, 2010)

growone said:


> if MJ growers were deciding the issue, then the proposition would likely have been written differently
> but growers are a very small percentage of the California electorate
> this proposition was written to appeal to a large cross section of voters
> most legislation is about compromise, it's the real world, you don't always get exactly what you want


I think you would be surprised how many growers there are and I bet Lee was banking on the fact that the growing community doesn't make up a huge percentage of voters. This way he can get his self benefiting bill passed without many people even questioning this angle.


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 27, 2010)

luvourmother said:


> im sorry what is limiting about 19? It allows for Everyone of age is to grow more bud than they need...


25 sq ft! no free market! yeah that's not limiting.


----------



## growone (Oct 27, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> I think you would be surprised how many growers there are and I be Lee was banking on the fact that the growing community doesn't make up a huge percentage of voters. This way he can get his self benefiting bill passed without many people even questioning this angle.


it's hard to refute conspiracy theories, the imagination seems to run wild
if prop 19 passes, do you actually think the people that grow now will start limiting their grows after?
if they're currently black market, i don't see prop 19 scaring anyone into smaller grows
Lee is one of a number of large dispensary operators in the Oakland area, just what advantage does he get over other operators?


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 27, 2010)

growone said:


> it's hard to refute conspiracy theories, the imagination seems to run wild
> if prop 19 passes, do you actually think the people that grow now will start limiting their grows after?
> if they're currently black market, i don't see prop 19 scaring anyone into smaller grows
> Lee is one of a number of large dispensary operators in the Oakland area, just what advantage does he get over other operators?


Thats not my problem with this bill. Yes people will continue to grow and they will still be considered criminals while Lee grants himself and a few others (people lucky enough to get commercial permits) immunity from prosecution. He is in fact making it so any possible competition remains illegal. Oakland, the city where Lee is from, only has 4 permits. Hmmm? that doesn't seem shady.


----------



## growone (Oct 27, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> Thats not my problem with this bill. Yes people will continue to grow and they will still be considered criminals while Lee grants himself and a few others (people lucky enough to get commercial permits) immunity from prosecution. He is in fact making it so any possible competition remains illegal. Oakland, the city where Lee is from, only has 4 permits. Hmmm? that doesn't seem shady.


i will give you that, the permit process is shady
but that's not just MJ, liquor licensing is hardly a squeaky clean process
no matter how you structure it, there likely will be shady goings on in any permitting process, whether it's permits for residential building, retail stores, you name it
but i can't imagine a proposition that can cope with this, it goes beyond MJ and into government at its core


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 27, 2010)

growone said:


> i will give you that, the permit process is shady
> but that's not just MJ, liquor licensing is hardly a squeaky clean process
> no matter how you structure it, there likely will be shady goings on in any permitting process, whether it's permits for residential building, retail stores, you name it
> but i can't imagine a proposition that can cope with this, it goes beyond MJ and into government at its core


No, as you can see in the CCHHI it specifically talks about limiting restrictions on the permit process. Prop 19 allows for cities and counties to regulate permits however they choose. As for liquor licenses, show me one town that only has 2 bars that are allowed to sell alcohol. I understand that more than likely permits would be limited to some degree but Prop 19 allows places like Oakland set up a monopoly for 4 individuals dealing with commercial production and 2 individuals for distribution.


----------



## potroast (Oct 27, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> It just doesn't make sense to me why Lee would write this bill to limit individuals so much without a hidden agenda. This will probably will be a close decision and if it fails it will be because marijuana supporters aren't all on board do to personal restrictions. If this bill fails the only person you can blame is Lee for not writing this bill for the people.



Of course it doesn't make sense to you, you have made that abundantly clear. The big picture is difficult to grasp. But putting the blame for this not passing on Lee is ridiculous. If it doesn't pass, it will be because of people like YOU are are campaigning against it. Please try to take some responsibility instead of blaming others for your actions.

But of course, a typical conspiracy theorist will always place blame elsewhere.

Please vote YES.


----------



## growone (Oct 27, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> No, as you can see in the CCHHI it specifically talks about limiting restrictions on the permit process. Prop 19 allows for cities and counties to regulate permits however they choose. As for liquor licenses, show me one town that only has 2 bars that are allowed to sell alcohol. I understand that more than likely permits would be limited to some degree but Prop 19 allows places like Oakland set up a monopoly for 4 individuals dealing with commercial production and 2 individuals for distribution.


if prop 19 tried to spell out a specific regulatory framework for commercial sales, it would have likely become a nightmare of complexity
it's already too complicated for many who suspect the worst
you may get a permit process that is less than ideal at the local level
but there are other laws that regulate commerce, and MJ will start to fall under those laws
that some sketchy deals will appear i have no doubt, but there other checks and balances
local officials screwing you over? these people are quite vulnerable in local elections, organize and get them out of there


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 27, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> It just doesn't make sense to me why Lee would write this bill to limit individuals so much without a hidden agenda. This will probably will be a close decision and if it fails it will be because marijuana supporters aren't all on board do to personal restrictions. If this bill fails the only person you can blame is Lee for not writing this bill for the people.


Precisely!


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 27, 2010)

luvourmother said:


> im sorry what is limiting about 19? It allows for Everyone of age is to grow more bud than they need...


Not so, and the idea that the 25 sq. ft. as a minimum is misleading. In Rancho Cordova, they want to charge $900 per square foot for grows larger than 25 sq. ft.

At that price, an oz. will cost you at least $1000.


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Oct 27, 2010)

potroast said:


> Of course it doesn't make sense to you, you have made that abundantly clear. The big picture is difficult to grasp. But putting the blame for this not passing on Lee is ridiculous. If it doesn't pass, it will be because of people like YOU are are campaigning against it. Please try to take some responsibility instead of blaming others for your actions.
> 
> But of course, a typical conspiracy theorist will always place blame elsewhere.
> 
> Please vote YES.


Give me one good reasons these restrictions on citizens should be in the bill.

It is Lee's fault. He tried to impose legislation that directly set him up for control while screwing the average person. I'm not going to vote for that just because it dangles marijuana reform in my face. It's a horrible bill and the problem with people is that they are so impatient and want instant gratification. I personally would never vote for a piece of legislation as shotty as prop 19.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 27, 2010)

growone said:


> if prop 19 tried to spell out a specific regulatory framework for commercial sales, it would have likely become a nightmare of complexity
> it's already too complicated for many who suspect the worst
> you may get a permit process that is less than ideal at the local level
> but there are other laws that regulate commerce, and MJ will start to fall under those laws
> ...


Sorry.

Badly written Propositions should never be passed.

My Dad told me to always vote NO on Propositions unless the benefit is OBVIOUS. He knew several California governors, including Pat Brown and Ronald Reagan, and knew something about how the process works.

This bill has far too much negative baggage.

Encourage everyone to vote NO!


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 27, 2010)

potroast said:


> Of course it doesn't make sense to you, you have made that abundantly clear. The big picture is difficult to grasp. But putting the blame for this not passing on Lee is ridiculous. If it doesn't pass, it will be because of people like YOU are are campaigning against it. Please try to take some responsibility instead of blaming others for your actions.
> 
> But of course, a typical conspiracy theorist will always place blame elsewhere.
> 
> Please vote YES.



i have done a lot to push the NO campaign. if this prop fails i will take FULL responsibility. 

now call your DR.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 27, 2010)

Now, if you want to take responsibility for paying the national debt, I'm all for it.

I offered, but they wanted my name and a legible signature. I won't go THAT far!

Regarding P19, I want SOME of the credit for sending it back to the drawing board!

Or maybe not. These kids might go after blood.

LOL


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 27, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Not so, and the idea that the 25 sq. ft. as a minimum is misleading. In Rancho Cordova, they want to charge $900 per square foot for grows larger than 25 sq. ft.
> 
> At that price, an oz. will cost you at least $1000.


One shit hole municipality gets state wide attention for an outrageous attempt to thwart the coming prop 19, and the nay sayers seize upon it, like this is "The model" for every city in CA! 
Rancho Cordova's little "adventure through the looking glass", wont last 5 minutes in court!
There will be *NO* $1000 per ounce private grows.....BB


----------



## desert dude (Oct 27, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> Give me one good reasons these restrictions on citizens should be in the bill.
> 
> It is Lee's fault. He tried to impose legislation that directly set him up for control while screwing the average person. I'm not going to vote for that just because it dangles marijuana reform in my face. It's a horrible bill and the problem with people is that they are so impatient and want instant gratification. I personally would never vote for a piece of legislation as shotty as prop 19.


I will give you one good reason the restrictions have to be in the bill: it won't pass otherwise. CA is filled up with ordinary people. They don't much like hop heads, and they won't vote for an initiative that says, "free all the convicts, and legalize growing and selling an unlimited quantity of MJ". It is that simple. CCCHI won't be on the 2012 ballot, and if it does get there by some miracle, it won't pass.


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 29, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Not so, and the idea that the 25 sq. ft. as a minimum is misleading. In Rancho Cordova, they want to charge $900 per square foot for grows larger than 25 sq. ft.
> 
> At that price, an oz. will cost you at least $1000.


so don't grow more than 25 sq ft if you are resident in a city that MIGHT tag high fees to get a license to grow. or move 

25 sq ft allows for more plants than 420 every did. you are full of shit


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 29, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> Give me one good reasons these restrictions on citizens should be in the bill.
> 
> It is Lee's fault. He tried to impose legislation that directly set him up for control while screwing the average person. I'm not going to vote for that just because it dangles marijuana reform in my face. It's a horrible bill and the problem with people is that they are so impatient and want instant gratification. I personally would never vote for a piece of legislation as shotty as prop 19.


so what exactly is wrong with 19?


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 29, 2010)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> 25 sq ft! no free market! yeah that's not limiting.


25 sq ft is more than enough space to grow more bud than a person can smoke themselves, it also allows for more plants than 420/215 does...

do you know what free market even means? obviously not!! lol


----------



## abudsmoker (Oct 29, 2010)

vote no or this might happen

http://www.break.com/index/funny-prop-19-attack-ad-1943704


----------



## nathenking (Oct 29, 2010)

luvourmother said:


> 25 sq ft is more than enough space to grow more bud than a person can smoke themselves, it also allows for more plants than 420/215 does...
> 
> do you know what free market even means? obviously not!! lol


your crazy if you think 5x5 is enough room man.... i do 3 5x5 areas now, so why should i vote for something where im still gonna be illegal, dont change much for me...


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 29, 2010)

nathenking said:


> your crazy if you think 5x5 is enough room man.... i do 3 5x5 areas now, so why should i vote for something where im still gonna be illegal, dont change much for me...


how much weed do you need for yourself? if you are "selling" to others why not just become a legit business when 19 passes?

i dont share too much information about spacing and amount of plants because we have developed aeroponics system that can fit between 20-35 plants (depending on strain) with a few feet to spare within 25 sq ft space. you have to think outside the box of what growers have traditionally been doing up until this point. the possibility to yield more bud in less space is huge and very marketable whether 19 passes or not.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 29, 2010)

nathenking said:


> ... so why should i vote for something where im still gonna be illegal, dont change much for me...


For the same reason I should vote to exonerate those convicted in the past for marijuana convictions. It is the right thing to do. It's not all about you.


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 29, 2010)

Federally growing is still illegal regardless. If you have your 215, why would you care what 19 restrictions are, they do not affect you in the slightest. Just continue doing what you've been doing, nothing;s going to change.


----------



## SwungChris (Oct 29, 2010)

Prop 19 is no conspiracy theory. It's not about this person making money or that person making money, it's about rights. The man who got it put on the ballot would never have followed through with it if it was just about money. I personally am tired of being considered a criminal because I smoke pot. I have to lie to get some stupid ass medical card. I have to lie just to get a job. I pay prices that are outrageous just because I can't grow in my apartment. I can care less what the federal government thinks they're a bunch of idiotic assholes. They can't even take care of illegal immigration and do you think that it bothers them that our money goes to fighting a war on "drugs." I have already voted yes on prop. 19 and I know many others will join me.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 29, 2010)

SwungChris said:


> Prop 19 is no conspiracy theory. It's not about this person making money or that person making money, it's about rights. The man who got it put on the ballot would never have followed through with it if it was just about money. I personally am tired of being considered a criminal because I smoke pot. I have to lie to get some stupid ass medical card. I have to lie just to get a job. I pay prices that are outrageous just because I can't grow in my apartment. I can care less what the federal government thinks they're a bunch of idiotic assholes. They can't even take care of illegal immigration and do you think that it bothers them that our money goes to fighting a war on "drugs." I have already voted yes on prop. 19 and I know many others will join me.


When he added the 25 sq. ft limit and the minimum 21 age limit, he doomed his investment to failure.

Opening the option for each jurisdiction to write its own ordinances nailed the coffin shut.

Forgetting to exempt MMJ grows and patients from those rules will cause the remains to be dug up, and burned in effigy.

No on P19.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 29, 2010)

25 square feet per HOUSEHOLD.

what if 4 smokers live in the same house? they only get 6.25 square feet each.


----------



## abudsmoker (Oct 29, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> 25 square feet per HOUSEHOLD.
> 
> what if 4 smokers live in the same house? they only get 6.25 square feet each.


you can grow lowryder with cfl's

 please dont ban me for that ....

i remember the CFL's are stupid thread years back


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 30, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> 25 square feet per HOUSEHOLD.
> 
> what if 4 smokers live in the same house? they only get 6.25 square feet each.


There are three in my household.

Fuck P19.


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 30, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> When he added the 25 sq. ft limit and the minimum 21 age limit, he doomed his investment to failure.
> 
> Opening the option for each jurisdiction to write its own ordinances nailed the coffin shut.
> 
> ...


according to you, which fortunately for the rest of us is a minority pov.
also, medical marijuana is exempt from prop 19, get that through your thick skull please.


----------



## potroast (Oct 30, 2010)

NOW you're finally starting to get it luvourmother,


The skull is too thick.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 30, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> There are three in my household.
> 
> Fuck P19.


I will admit it will be hard for you to support a 3oz/day (or was it 3oz/week) habit on 25sf. Of course, you are a 215 patient, so it won't affect you anyway, so vote no on P19 to deny your neighbors the right to grow their own.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 30, 2010)

desert dude said:


> I will admit it will be hard for you to support a 3oz/day (or was it 3oz/week) habit on 25sf. Of course, you are a 215 patient, so it won't affect you anyway, so vote no on P19 to deny your neighbors the right to grow their own.



so_ i_ will ask you, ... what if 4 smokers/growers live at the same house? how can you support your needs with only 6.25 square feet?


----------



## Kindwoman (Oct 30, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Peace be upon you and your husband.


Thanks Desert Dude, my medical condition was due to an accident, but my soulmate has Multiple Sclerosis and it's one bad Mother F*#ker. 

Proposition 19 has flaws but we MUST start somewhere.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 30, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> so_ i_ will ask you, ... what if 4 smokers/growers live at the same house? how can you support your needs with only 6.25 square feet?


Better than they can now with 0.0sf.

Maybe they will buy from you. You're not opposed to that, are you?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 30, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Better than they can now with 0.0sf.
> 
> Maybe they will buy from you. You're not opposed to that, are you?


so you just keep spinning your answer back to attempts at insults directed at me. 

i don't get it. 

do you have an honest opinion, or are you simply here to bash people? 


25 square feet per HOUSEHOLD is ridiculous. whether it a "start" or not. would it really be so hard to admit this?


----------



## desert dude (Oct 30, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> so you just keep spinning your answer back to attempts at insults directed at me.
> 
> i don't get it.
> 
> ...


I would like to see a bigger grow area allowed, but would the average voter in CA go along with that? Probably not.

25sf is better than 0.0sf. Making it legal removes the probably cause excuses for authorities to kick your door down and shoot your dog, and grandmother. That is a BIG improvement.

Don't be so sensitive, FDD. I am not here to bash you. I don't even know you. You actually sound like a pretty nice guy and somebody I would like to have as a neighbbor.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 30, 2010)

desert dude said:


> I would like to see a bigger grow area allowed, but would the average voter in CA go along with that? Probably not.
> 
> 25sf is better than 0.0sf. Making it legal removes the probably cause excuses for authorities to kick your door down and shoot your dog, and grandmother. That is a BIG improvement.
> 
> Don't be so sensitive, FDD. I am not here to bash you. I don't even know you. You actually sound like a pretty nice guy and somebody I would like to have as a neighbbor.


i'm not being sensitive. just wondering why people feel they need to add insults to opinions. everytime someone says No they get called a drug dealer. what does that prove? you insinuated it, i addressed it. no need to call me sensitive, we are debating aren't we? 

just another insult i assume.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 30, 2010)

if you lived with 3 other smokers/growers you would not get 25sqf, you'd get 6.25.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 30, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i'm not being sensitive. just wondering why people feel they need to add insults to opinions. everytime someone says No they get called a drug dealer. what does that prove? you insinuated it, i addressed it. no need to call me sensitive, we are debating aren't we?
> 
> just another insult i assume.


No insult intended. Hey, I said I would like to have you as a neighbor, didn't I? That is a compliment.


----------



## biroboosh (Oct 30, 2010)

i wish my state, MI would get a move on already. so many city wide improvements could be made, and our streets are only trying to move towards a safer atmosphere where you can obtain quality herbs without having to make a shady transaction at a parking lot or deal with non-regulated providers. think about it, legalize it, tax it, and let new large scale companies who have the know how and resources to grow top quality meds cash in on this could be booming industry.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 30, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> if you lived with 3 other smokers/growers you would not get 25sqf, you'd get 6.25.


I agree. That is the way I read P19 as well. One 25sf grow per residence. From what I read here, one could expect about 1 pound every three months on 25 sf. Personally, I could not smoke a pound in a hundred years, but I realize that many of you think 25sf is too small. I would like to see the grow area bigger. Still, 25sf is more than 0.0sf, and 25sf is the minimum and could be expanded by local authorities or even by the state legislature. The ability to legally grow on 25sf solves a bunch of other problems related to "probable cause" as well.

P19 ain't perfect, but it is a start.


----------



## yeson19 (Nov 2, 2010)

http://stash.norml.org/californias-prop-19-a-word-for-word-analysis

"A city might decide you are allowed to grow more than a 5&#8242;x5&#8242; garden and possess more than an ounce for personal consumption. And maybe they decide you can buy and sell more than an ounce at a time. Hooray!"

"
And even if you dont follow the law perfectly, whos to know? If youre pulled over and theres an ounce and a half in your backpack, how does that cop know? Does it smell heavy in your car? So long as you refuse a search, how will he know? The smell of pot isnt cause for a search; youre allowed to have an ounce of it.
If you have a 10&#8242;x10&#8242; garden, whos to know? Is the electric bill that much higher? Does the garden smell more (probably not at all if you build a good grow room)? Plus dont forget that youre allowed to have more than one ounce, namely, any amount that you grow within your 5&#8242;x5&#8242; garden, at the location of the garden. I think by the time law enforcement came back with a warrant to investigate how big my garden is, three-fourths of it would be cut down and I would suddenly have my 5&#8242;x5&#8242; garden and my hanging plants from the last 5&#8242;x5&#8242; area I harvested."


----------



## Serapis (Nov 2, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> so you just keep spinning your answer back to attempts at insults directed at me.
> 
> i don't get it.
> 
> ...


I have a 4' x 4' secret Jardin with a 600w light and I'm estatic about having it. I love the hobby and the yields. The problem is, my state doesn't even recognize marijuana as having medical benefits. I use only 16' sqaure and it is more than enough for me and my friends. Do you realize what a 4'x4' or a 5'x5' scrog will produce? It won't produce the hundreds of pounds that your outdoor grows do, but I'd love to have a legal 5'x5'. You can easily pull a pound every 5-6 weeks if you work it right.

Look at it this way, a 5' x 5' garden is certainly bigger than a 0' x 0' garden. Don't mention 215 sizes in rebuttal, as they aren't the same thing. I grow for me and two others. We aren't able to smoke 16 ounces in 6 weeks. An ounce lasts me two weeks. What do you think is an appropriate sized garden for recreational use?


----------



## poke smot420 (Nov 2, 2010)

vote no! i'll be out of a job


----------



## poke smot420 (Nov 2, 2010)

what do you tell the inmates in prison for pot? what about medical patients? what about the feds suing CA? what about the rise in trafficking out of CA to other states? its causes more problems then it solves. plus it puts small/medium growers such as myself out of work. vote no on that shit. i agree with fdd2blk 100%. small towns in humboldt, hayfork, crescent city etc will cease to exsist


----------



## medicalsb420 (Nov 2, 2010)

vote fuck no! if you truly love this plant- protect her! VOTE NO!


----------



## tardis (Nov 2, 2010)

VOTE YES, or just go to jail now and eliminate the middle man.


----------



## WeedSavesLives (Nov 2, 2010)

I could go into detail for pages explaining on and on my views and correcting people but... 

I would just like to say that every educated activist thats dedicated their lifes to cannabis in california and knows how these things work inside/out (it's their life), is going to vote yes. It is a complex issue, people are very confused but it's something you NEED to go out and vote for. It's going to be messy and not all fun and games with an all out war with the feds but it's a matter of being the first to lead the way for other states and towns move in the right direction. It's not much different from medical marijuana, except maybe harder.

Peace


----------



## mr2shim (Nov 2, 2010)

medicalsb420 said:


> vote fuck no! if you truly love this plant- protect her! VOTE NO!


Yea, keep mother nature illegal! That makes complete sense. You sir are a fucking idiot.

Loving this planet by keeping part of it illegal. Wow, The world really doesn't have a bright future when someone tries to tie that together.


----------



## yeson19 (Nov 2, 2010)

poke smot420 said:


> vote no! i'll be out of a job


you're pathetic.

prohibition has to end somewhere. if you want to continue making money off of a BLACK MARKET, forget voting no and take your stupid ass the fuck out of California. don't ruin it for everyone. please?


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 2, 2010)

Serapis said:


> I have a 4' x 4' secret Jardin with a 600w light and I'm estatic about having it. I love the hobby and the yields. The problem is, my state doesn't even recognize marijuana as having medical benefits. I use only 16' sqaure and it is more than enough for me and my friends. Do you realize what a 4'x4' or a 5'x5' scrog will produce? It won't produce the hundreds of pounds that your outdoor grows do, but I'd love to have a legal 5'x5'. You can easily pull a pound every 5-6 weeks if you work it right.
> 
> Look at it this way, a 5' x 5' garden is certainly bigger than a 0' x 0' garden. Don't mention 215 sizes in rebuttal, as they aren't the same thing. I grow for me and two others. We aren't able to smoke 16 ounces in 6 weeks. An ounce lasts me two weeks. What do you think is an appropriate sized garden for recreational use?


however big you want to make it. 

i feel there should be no limit and i am NOT willing to "take what i can get". 

those are my feelings. you don't have to accept them.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 2, 2010)

tardis said:


> VOTE YES, or just go to jail now and eliminate the middle man.


you don't go to jail for an ounce. you get a ticket.


----------



## veggiegardener (Nov 2, 2010)

WeedSavesLives said:


> I could go into detail for pages explaining on and on my views and correcting people but...
> 
> I would just like to say that every educated activist thats dedicated their lifes to cannabis in california and knows how these things work inside/out (it's their life), is going to vote yes. It is a complex issue, people are very confused but it's something you NEED to go out and vote for. It's going to be messy and not all fun and games with an all out war with the feds but it's a matter of being the first to lead the way for other states and towns move in the right direction. It's not much different from medical marijuana, except maybe harder.
> 
> Peace


Bullshit.

Dennis Peron, Jack Herer(before he passed on) and several others of my acquaintance oppose this piece of junk.

Keep it straight, OK?


----------



## tardis (Nov 2, 2010)

yeson19 said:


> you're pathetic.
> 
> prohibition has to end somewhere. if you want to continue making money off of a BLACK MARKET, forget voting no and take your stupid ass the fuck out of California. don't ruin it for everyone. please?


Think of all the poor slave traders when the laws put them out of business. I'm sure they put their dollar bills above other peoples freedoms too


----------



## tardis (Nov 2, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> Dennis Peron, Jack Herer(before he passed on) and several others of my acquaintance oppose this piece of junk.
> 
> Keep it straight, OK?


Jack Herers family has been on the frontline on this saying he would have supported it 100% if he were alive. VOTE YES!


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 2, 2010)

tardis said:


> Jack Herers family has been on the frontline on this saying he would have supported it 100% if he were alive. VOTE YES!


"jack herers FAMILY"

he himself openly opposed it. find a clip of him stating otherwise. 

sooooo tacky to even bring up his name though.


----------



## veggiegardener (Nov 2, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> "jack herers FAMILY"
> 
> he himself openly opposed it. find a clip of him stating otherwise.
> 
> sooooo tacky to even bring up his name though.


If mentioning the FACT that JH opposed P19 is in poor taste, my apologies.

Blanket statements such as the one above make my jaws tight.

Very few of those who have been around for decades, support this poorly written junk.


----------



## desert dude (Nov 2, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> "jack herers FAMILY"
> 
> he himself openly opposed it. find a clip of him stating otherwise.
> 
> sooooo tacky to even bring up his name though.


I agree, it is tacky to use Herer's name, so why did you bring it up?


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 2, 2010)

desert dude said:


> I agree, it is tacky to use Herer's name, so why did you bring it up?


i wasn't the one who did.


----------



## desert dude (Nov 2, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i wasn't the one who did.


First time I saw it was in post #587, by you.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 2, 2010)

desert dude said:


> First time I saw it was in post #587, by you.


you are HIGHLY mistaken. i did not post post #587.


----------



## Serapis (Nov 2, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> however big you want to make it.
> 
> i feel there should be no limit and i am NOT willing to "take what i can get".
> 
> those are my feelings. you don't have to accept them.


So rather than start somewhere and begin with 25 square feet, it is your opinion that 0.0 square feet as current is better? that doesn't surpise me coming from a guy that had to quit his job so he could tend to his forest of MJ plants. that seems rather selfish. This is not a jab at FFD, but a comment on all the opposition I have read here at RIU. It seems every last person against 19 has a 215 card and most of them are growing surplus pot to sell to dispensaries, tax free......

It boils down to opposition because of conflict of interests.... Maybe 215 needs to be interpreted by a court and those carrying cards because of allergies or discomforts or because they sought out a quack Dr and paid hundreds for a recommendation have their rights revoked. If 215 was enforced as it was intended at it's inception, as a compassionate use law for seriously ill Californians, many in opposition would be for prop 19. Their attitude today is that anyone that won't get get a 215 card is just lazy... That is plain wrong and an abuse of 215, no matter what excuses you make...


----------



## Serapis (Nov 2, 2010)

desert dude said:


> First time I saw it was in post #587, by you.


Better go check, it was Veggiegardner....


----------



## desert dude (Nov 2, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you are HIGHLY mistaken. i did not post post #587.



My apologies, FDD. It was veggie who made post 587. I can't keep you luddites straight.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 2, 2010)

where do i say i'm worried about prop 19 causing me any conflict? i keep repeating over and over again, "PROP 19 will bring me MORE sales". half my friends smoke in fear of others finding out because of it's "taboo". if it passes they will call me twice as often for twice as much. i WANT prop 19 to pass. i just don't want to be the one voting for all the restrictions. you can continue to paint me/us as the bad guys, but i think we have deeper reasons then our pocketbooks. 

i make no excuses.


----------



## veggiegardener (Nov 2, 2010)

LOL!

Methinks it was a good choice, ignoring DD.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 2, 2010)

desert dude said:


> My apologies, FDD. It was veggie who made post 587. I can't keep you luddites straight.


maybe if you calmed down a little.


----------



## desert dude (Nov 2, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> maybe if you calmed down a little.


If I calm down any more I will be asleep, and then you will be deprived of my opinions. I know you don't want that.


----------



## abudsmoker (Nov 2, 2010)

desert dude said:


> If I calm down any more I will be asleep, and then you will be deprived of my opinions. I know you don't want that.


are you sure ..... go vote or something


----------



## desert dude (Nov 2, 2010)

abudsmoker said:


> are you sure ..... go vote or something


I voted two weeks ago. You go vote.


----------



## abudsmoker (Nov 2, 2010)

i dont have to worry we will be state #51 to go legal


----------



## desert dude (Nov 2, 2010)

abudsmoker said:


> i dont have to worry we will be state #51 to go legal


You must be in Sarah Palin's district.


----------



## growone (Nov 2, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> where do i say i'm worried about prop 19 causing me any conflict? i keep repeating over and over again, &quot;PROP 19 will bring me MORE sales&quot;. half my friends smoke in fear of others finding out because of it's &quot;taboo&quot;. if it passes they will call me twice as often for twice as much. i WANT prop 19 to pass. i just don't want to be the one voting for all the restrictions. you can continue to paint me/us as the bad guys, but i think we have deeper reasons then our pocketbooks.
> 
> i make no excuses.


now this was a bit of a shock, breakthrough here of a sort
so you're a bit conflicted, an honest answer
well, its in the hands of the smoke god now, tomorrow we begin the analysis of what happened


----------



## Serapis (Nov 2, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> LOL!
> 
> Methinks it was a good choice, ignoring DD.


shutting out the opinions of others to support your own is rather childish. I could understand if he was calling you names, but to simply ignore people you disagree with is rather immature. I thought DD made some good points and he doesn't even smoke or grow. He is in it just for the merits of the debate and to promote freedoms as he sees fit. You placed me on ignore for the very same reasons. sooner or later the forums will be nothing but yes men to you. LOL... Thank God most adults don't respond in kind.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 2, 2010)

growone said:


> now this was a bit of a shock, breakthrough here of a sort
> so you're a bit conflicted, an honest answer
> well, its in the hands of the smoke god now, tomorrow we begin the analysis of what happened


i'm not conflicted at all. once you take money out of it you can look at it for what it really is. i get paid either way.


----------



## vradd (Nov 2, 2010)

im starting to like this fdd more and more...


----------



## tardis (Nov 2, 2010)

desert dude said:


> I agree, it is tacky to use Herer's name, so why did you bring it up?


Great point. It was in high times Veggie.


----------



## tardis (Nov 2, 2010)

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/08/18/18656323.php

Oh and that link shows he would be PRO 19, not Anti. If you are for the pot smokers vote yes, if you are only for the few people who currently grow to sell, then vote no.


----------



## desert dude (Nov 2, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> where do i say i'm worried about prop 19 causing me any conflict? i keep repeating over and over again, "PROP 19 will bring me MORE sales". half my friends smoke in fear of others finding out because of it's "taboo". if it passes they will call me twice as often for twice as much. i WANT prop 19 to pass. i just don't want to be the one voting for all the restrictions. you can continue to paint me/us as the bad guys, but i think we have deeper reasons then our pocketbooks.
> 
> i make no excuses.


FDD, I used your response above to generate a "DADA poem". It seems much more sensible in poetic format:

*others no *

as as "taboo"; finding half;
reasons i
much,
me/us the;

keep will about twice

worried i
MORE
bring will it i you. twice
if

pocketbooks where, say
excuses one 19 to my: restrictions but just voting
passes prop friends to


----------



## Hydrotech364 (Nov 2, 2010)

Any News Yet?????


----------



## growone (Nov 2, 2010)

hydrotech364 said:


> Any News Yet?????


there is a results thread over in the legal forum, there is a bit of news


----------



## beardo (Nov 2, 2010)

I got in trouble- they pulled our posts arguing in this thread and gave me an infraction and deducted a point or something, I think people are mad 19 might not pass


----------



## tardis (Nov 2, 2010)

beardo said:


> I got in trouble- they pulled our posts arguing in this thread and gave me an infraction and deducted a point or something, I think people are mad 19 might not pass


OMG, did they put you on Double Secret Probation?


----------



## beardo (Nov 2, 2010)

tardis said:


> OMG, did they put you on Double Secret Probation?


4-sure, nothing but love from me though I wish everyone well.


----------



## tardis (Nov 2, 2010)

beardo said:


> 4-sure, nothing but love from me though I wish everyone well.


I'm the same way, i might hate that "no" won on 19, but I don't hate the people that did it. Lots of them are my friends, we just disagree on that one issue. In the end we all find the benefits of smoking the weed so we all got one major thing in common.


----------



## nathenking (Nov 2, 2010)

tardis said:


> I'm the same way, i might hate that "no" won on 19, but I don't hate the people that did it. Lots of them are my friends, we just disagree on that one issue. In the end we all find the benefits of smoking the weed so we all got one major thing in common.


very well said brudda... I would burn one down with you anyday man... take care


----------



## tardis (Nov 3, 2010)

nathenking said:


> very well said brudda... I would burn one down with you anyday man... take care


Hell yeah. We'll spark up a 2 month cured Vortex.


----------

