# Issues With Prop 19 Solved! Now we can all Support it.



## Dan Kone (Oct 13, 2010)

Tom Ammiano to the rescue again! He just wrote an assembly bill that fixes all the flaws in prop 19 if it's passed. This solve almost all of everyone's reasonable concerns with prop 19. 

Makes medical patients exempt from prop 19 in every way. (no taxes on 215!)
Makes unlawfully cultivation a misdemeanor instead of a felony.
Increases limits from an ounce to a pound.
Makes possession of more than a pound a $100 fine.
Decriminalizes for those under 21. 

So the problem is solved. Now we can all vote for prop 19.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/abx6_9_bill_20100921_introduced.html


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 13, 2010)

Good luck. I've posted a few threads with nothing but facts, I bet the same people who swear up and down that prop 19 will limit their medical grow haven't changed their minds at all.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 13, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> Good luck. I've posted a few threads with nothing but facts, I bet the same people who swear up and down that prop 19 will limit their medical grow haven't changed their minds at all.


This amendment insures medical marijuana is exempt in every way. So, problem solved.


----------



## Banditt (Oct 13, 2010)

Hopefully you guys out in cali get this thing passed. It will be a huge step forward and get the wheels turning for the rest of the states.


----------



## cephalopod (Oct 13, 2010)

Banditt said:


> Hopefully you guys out in cali get this thing passed. It will be a huge step forward and get the wheels turning for the rest of the states.


 I agree with you...http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2010/oct/07/obama_may_soon_be_forced_embrace


----------



## tc1 (Oct 13, 2010)

You honestly think this will persuade the "No" crowd?

The far majority of them are voting no because of one thing .... profits.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 13, 2010)

tc1 said:


> You honestly think this will persuade the "No" crowd?
> 
> The far majority if them are voting no because of one thing .... profits.



^^^^^ EXACTLY They love being in a position to sell and not have competition amongst other home growers.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 13, 2010)

tc1 said:


> You honestly think this will persuade the "No" crowd?
> 
> The far majority of them are voting no because of one thing .... profits.


Oh I know. They've pretty much lost the argument already. Just trying to bring their credibility level from very low to zero. Hoping some of the people who have bought into their BS will open the link and read Ammiano's senate bill. It pretty much eliminates legally all the anti-prop 19 arguments.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 13, 2010)

Serapis said:


> ^^^^^ EXACTLY They love being in a position to sell and not have competition amongst other home growers.


Check this lady out. Making up non-sense about prop 19 while standing in front of her large commercial crop. lol. Not hard to figure out why she's against it. 

[video=youtube;UufMpt7Om2E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UufMpt7Om2E[/video]

You'd have to really work at it to sound like any more of a crackpot then she does here.


----------



## growgreengrass (Oct 13, 2010)

^^^So prop 19 guarantees that there will be chemicals in your weed thats some funny shit. at the end of the vid it looks like shes about to bust out laughing she probably cant believe the shit spewing from her own mouth.


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 14, 2010)

Ha, made it even more obvious for the "no on 19" dicks that 215 isn't affected. Watch assholes on the forums spew out bullshit to try and convince people to stick with their product. Why anyone wouldn't want weed to be legal is beyond me. Weed should be grown for the love of getting high... not for the love of money.


----------



## Weedoozie (Oct 14, 2010)

Well shit...I guess we'll just see how it turns out...


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 14, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> Ha, made it even more obvious for the "no on 19" dicks that 215 isn't affected. Watch assholes on the forums spew out bullshit to try and convince people to stick with their product. Why anyone wouldn't want weed to be legal is beyond me. Weed should be grown for the love of getting high... not for the love of money.


Greed is in fact the root of all evil. It corrupts everyone. Even pot heads.. It's crazy. More people in Cali that are on 215 need your thinking.


----------



## vradd (Oct 14, 2010)

tc1 said:


> You honestly think this will persuade the "No" crowd?
> 
> The far majority of them are voting no because of one thing .... profits.


even though your a dick to the pot smoking community, ill give you props for at least admitting your in it for the money, not like other users here who hide behind being compassionate when you can flat out see their motives by what they say.

and if you want to make money im for that. but at least be legit about it and not run along the market prices of the blackmarket. THAT alone is complete bs. you'd be treated like any small brewery or wine pro. you'd still have your cult following if your really producing the good buds. 

farmers markets > grocery stores

as for that video, i donno i could maybe agree with the chemical thing that maybe big business would resort to chemicals to 'mass produce'. could they be bad? not really but produce in the grocery store DOES get sprayed right? even our protein products have been enhanced. see so you stingy home growers need to just make your shit official so we can continue to support you as well as giving EVERYONE the chance to enjoy the great plant stress free.

NOW to play devils advocate, maybe if it does go to big business they will keep it chemical free by producing TONS of cultivation farmers to really take the time needed to do it a la natural. that will then satisfy possibly a large number of unemployed people who love smoking lol. BUT unfortunetly (and without trying to sound racist, because trust me im not) but our caucasion and black community's of modern california refuse to take on the trials of real labor that our mexican counterparts would GLADLY do. so i could see where the job population could come from.

but that whole illegal immigrants who are willing to do the dirty jobs normal society wont, is another forum lol..


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 14, 2010)

tc1 is for prop 19, he was simply stating how stupid the no crowd is.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 14, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> Greed is in fact the root of all evil. It corrupts everyone. Even pot heads.. It's crazy. More people in Cali that are on 215 need your thinking.


It's not all just greed, it's fear. I think they are scared that they will loose their livelihood. Wanting to make rent isn't greedy. It's fear and to an extent I understand it. I just wish they'd come out and say that instead of making shit up that isn't true.


----------



## beardo (Oct 14, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Tom Ammiano to the rescue again! He just wrote an assembly bill that fixes all the flaws in prop 19 if it's passed. This solve almost all of everyone's reasonable concerns with prop 19.
> 
> Makes medical patients exempt from prop 19 in every way. (no taxes on 215!)
> Makes unlawfully cultivation a misdemeanor instead of a felony.
> ...


This would ONLY BE IF he files this bill after prop 19 passes and IF he filed the bill as it is now and ONLY IFF THEY GOT 2/3 majority vote to amend prop 19 otherwise prop 19 would remain as is and tom Ammiano's amendment highlights some of the problems with 19 as it is now on the ballot


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 14, 2010)

beardo said:


> This would ONLY BE IF he files this bill after prop 19 passes and IF he filed the bill as it is now and ONLY IFF THEY GOT 2/3 majority vote to amend prop 19 otherwise prop 19 would remain as is and tom Ammiano's amendment highlights some of the problems with 19 as it is now on the ballot


Ammiano wouldn't have released it unless the whip count came out in his favor.He's got the votes. If he didn't, he wouldn't have released it as is. If he didn't have the votes he would have amended the bill (added pork) until it was something that would pass, then released it. This will become law if prop 19 passes.

lol @ your sig.


----------



## Weedoozie (Oct 14, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Ammiano wouldn't have released it unless the whip count came out in his favor.He's got the votes. If he didn't, he wouldn't have released it as is. If he didn't have the votes he would have amended the bill (added pork) until it was something that would pass, then released it. This will become law if prop 19 passes.


This is an assumption though...we don't know if it's fact and I know I'd be a definite Yes vote if I knew it were fact that Ammiano's amendments will for sure be made to Prop 19... :/


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 14, 2010)

Weedoozie said:


> This is an assumption though...we don't know if it's fact and I know I'd be a definite Yes vote if I knew it were fact that Ammiano's amendments will for sure be made to Prop 19... :/


It's a damn good assumption. This is how politics works. You write a bill, distribute it to others in the congress. Get a y/n vote from them. If you get a no vote, you ask why and amend the bill. When you have the votes, you release it and put it up for a vote. You never call a vote unless you know the results. 

At this point it's pretty hard to assume the worst about prop 19. It's becoming more and more of a stretch to say prop 19 is a bad thing. Sure, there will always be a few people who will appose prop 19 for their own financial reasons. But those people are just against ending prohibition all together. Pretty much everyone who supports ending prohibition has to be in favor of prop 19 at this point. It's no longer a reasonable point of view to claim you are against prop 19 and don't support prohibition.


----------



## beardo (Oct 14, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> At this point it's pretty hard to assume the worst about prop 19. It's becoming more and more of a stretch to say prop 19 is a bad thing. Sure, there will always be a few people who will appose prop 19 for their own financial reasons. But those people are just against ending prohibition all together. Pretty much everyone who supports ending prohibition has to be in favor of prop 19 at this point. It's no longer a reasonable point of view to claim you are against prop 19 and don't support prohibition.


[youtube]cz3jj3Itvog&feature=related[/youtube][youtube]4URZe3EFwXo[/youtube][youtube]p_2_Rsy0mdE[/youtube][youtube]nJhBWaNPV3w&p=36724FDCC391F619&playnext=1&index=3[/youtube]


----------



## Weedoozie (Oct 15, 2010)

beardo said:


> [youtube]cz3jj3Itvog&feature=related[/youtube][youtube]4URZe3EFwXo[/youtube][youtube]p_2_Rsy0mdE[/youtube][youtube]nJhBWaNPV3w&p=36724FDCC391F619&playnext=1&index=3[/youtube]


Yes, but these are pre-amendment opinions of Prop 19...


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 15, 2010)

Weedoozie said:


> Yes, but these are pre-amendment opinions of Prop 19...


Most of those arguments can be boiled down to the idea "if cannabis is legal, corporations will be allowed in the game". Sure, that's true, but how do you have legalization while banning people from opening legal cannabis businesses? It isn't really legalization if you do that.

I also disagree with the idea that legal businesses are any worse than illegal businesses. At least with legal businesses we can regulate them so we don't all end up smoking bud with Avid and florimite sprayed on them.


----------



## Rob Roy (Oct 15, 2010)

http://weedaclaus.com/ 

http://freegrafton.com/talley-tv-new-hampshire-to-cage-medical-marijuana-growing-nurse-for-two-years/ 

There are people in other states counting on Californians to get it done. Some of them are either in jail, or waiting to go.
If it is "legalized" it will eventually help everybody, other states will follow California. Click on the web sites above, there are real people who are STILL going to jail and losing their houses. 

Please check out the video of the nurse whose house the feds are stealing and show your friends it's very compelling.


----------



## EmptyWords (Oct 15, 2010)

Rob Roy said:


> http://weedaclaus.com/
> 
> http://freegrafton.com/talley-tv-new-hampshire-to-cage-medical-marijuana-growing-nurse-for-two-years/
> 
> ...


 I disagree. it is federally illegal to grow or possess marijuana so people will always go to jail. Dea raids will continue after 19 passes as they do now even as of last week i believe it was. The Dea has already said they are filing a lawsuit against California if prop19 passes, i saw a news story on youtube about it. i dont know what good their lawsuit will do but we will see what happens when it comes to the feds after prop19. I am tired of people saying this will stop people from going to jail, maybe some people but there will always be people going to jail for marijuana charges federally. In my opinion, anyone that opens up shop to grow commercially will be targeted by the dea.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 15, 2010)

EmptyWords said:


> I disagree. it is federally illegal to grow or possess marijuana so people will always go to jail. Dea raids will continue after 19 passes as they do now even as of last week i believe it was. The Dea has already said they are filing a lawsuit against California if prop19 passes, i saw a news story on youtube about it. i dont know what good their lawsuit will do but we will see what happens when it comes to the feds after prop19. I am tired of people saying this will stop people from going to jail, maybe some people but there will always be people going to jail for marijuana charges federally. In my opinion, anyone that opens up shop to grow commercially will be targeted by the dea.


Yea I agree that this prop won't stop people from going to jail. 215 didn't. Given it is decriminalized in cali to a small fine before prop 19. Many could argue prop 19 is pointless, but what if it is Recriminated? It's happened before. I can't recall which state off the top of my head. Prop 19 is a huge step forward towards national decriminalization/legalization. I think it does little for California as a whole, but it will eventually help the rest of the Country move. Which is a great things so Yes on 19.


----------



## Rob Roy (Oct 15, 2010)

EmptyWords said:


> I disagree. it is federally illegal to grow or possess marijuana so people will always go to jail. Dea raids will continue after 19 passes as they do now even as of last week i believe it was. The Dea has already said they are filing a lawsuit against California if prop19 passes, i saw a news story on youtube about it. i dont know what good their lawsuit will do but we will see what happens when it comes to the feds after prop19. I am tired of people saying this will stop people from going to jail, maybe some people but there will always be people going to jail for marijuana charges federally. In my opinion, anyone that opens up shop to grow commercially will be targeted by the dea.


 
The Federal government was created to serve the states. No, they won't stop raiding right away, but a positive vote in Cali will
be a big part of draining the entire swamp. Having state government(s) laws conflicting with federal law is a good thing. Eventually either the feds will be defunded or a governor with a set of balls will kick feds out of a particular state.

The scam of federal law usurping state law and people's natural right to own themselves is about to blow up, but it needs a match to light the fuse...California is that match. 

You really think the stuff that these videos portrays will go on forever ? http://talley.tv/


----------



## vradd (Oct 15, 2010)

Rob Roy said:


> The Federal government was created to serve the states. No, they won't stop raiding right away, but a positive vote in Cali will
> be a big part of draining the entire swamp. Having state government(s) laws conflicting with federal law is a good thing. Eventually either the feds will be defunded or a governor with a set of balls will kick feds out of a particular state.
> 
> The scam of federal law usurping state law and people's natural right to own themselves is about to blow up, but it needs a match to light the fuse...California is that match.
> http://talley.tv/


100%

it amazes me that common folk dont know what were really allowed as the people. lots of people are scared to stand up for what it right because "big brother". if we REALLY needed to, our state governor could call upon the NATL guard to make sure DEA's dont raid our state. and by law we are given that power. for our militia to defend our people against foriegn and domestic. our constiution grants each state to regulate themselves. thats why we have appointed officials that we elect so that they can represent us and be the voice to our views. 

..but that just doesnt happen.


----------



## beardo (Oct 15, 2010)

Weedoozie said:


> Yes, but these are pre-amendment opinions of Prop 19...


And the prop 19 on the ballot is an un-amended or pre-amendment 19 and this amendment would only take effect if their was a 2/3rd vote to change 19 after it passes as is. Also not only will marijuana continue to be illegal under federal law but under 19 their will be more laws against marijuana in california leading to more people in california state prison for marijuana


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 15, 2010)

beardo said:


> And the prop 19 on the ballot is an un-amended or pre-amendment 19 and this amendment would only take effect if their was a 2/3rd vote to change 19 after it passes as is. Also not only will marijuana continue to be illegal under federal law but under 19 their will be more laws against marijuana in california leading to more people in california state prison for marijuana


Let me be the first to say that is complete bullshit. How will passing prop 19 land more people in jail. Explain your backwards ideology if you're going to go around spewing it out.


----------



## beardo (Oct 15, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> Let me be the first to say that is complete bullshit. How will passing prop 19 land more people in jail. Explain your backwards ideology if you're going to go around spewing it out.


 under prop 19 18- 20 year olds will go to state prison for 3-5 year terms if they sell a joint to or smoke a joint with another 18-20 year old that is just one of the new felonies created by 19


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 15, 2010)

don't give any to your friends is what I would say to that. Under the section where it says what you said, it mentions nothing about a minor being busted alone. It has to do with distribution.

* Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors *

Section 11361 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read: 
Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors 
(a) Every person 18 years of age or over who hires, employs, or uses a minor in transporting, carrying, selling, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling any marijuana, who unlawfully sells, or offers to sell, any marijuana to a minor, or who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give any marijuana to a minor under 14 years of age, or who induces a minor to use marijuana in violation of law shall be punished by imprisonment in the for a period of three, five, or seven years. 


(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years. 


(c) Every person 21 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense.  


(d) In addition to the penalties above an person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to perform any act pursuant to Section 11301, who while so licensed, permitted or authorized negligently furnishes, administers, gives or sells, or offers to furnish, administer, give or sell any marijuana to any person younger than 21 years of age shall not be permitted to own, operate, be employed by, assist or enter any licensed premises authorized under Section 11301 for a period of one year.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 15, 2010)

beardo said:


> under prop 19 18- 20 year olds will go to state prison for 3-5 year terms if they sell a joint to or smoke a joint with another 18-20 year old that is just one of the new felonies created by 19


Not true at all


----------



## trader54321 (Oct 15, 2010)

they are not going to legalize marijuana. its that simple. get it through your heads. they are not going to legalize marijuana. the bill will not pass. most of you dont even live in cali. california will be sued by the federal government if it were to pass. once it again im sorry for all you dreamers out there, marijuana will not be legalized, man up and grow your own. and if any if you do live in cali you would know it is so lax out here that it already is pretty much "legal". i cant wait till this election is over so you all can go hit your resin in sadness. no one or anything will ever just fix your problems, only YOU can fix your situation.


----------



## beardo (Oct 15, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Not true at all





mr2shim said:


> don't give any to your friends is what I would say to that. Under the section where it says what you said, it mentions nothing about a minor being busted alone. It has to do with distribution.
> 
> * Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors *
> 
> ...


 really?? that's what prop 19 say's


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 15, 2010)

beardo said:


> really?? that's what prop 19 say's


It does not say that if someone under 21 is caught giving/selling to someone else under 21 they go to prison. It doesn't have any penalty for that at all. It says that if someone* over 21 knowingly* sells to someone under 21, then they could go to jail.

So no, that is not true at all. And even if someone over 21 gets caught selling to someone under 21 then the cops must prove that they knew the person was under 21.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 15, 2010)

beardo said:


> under prop 19 18- 20 year olds will go to state prison for 3-5 year terms if they sell a joint to or smoke a joint with another 18-20 year old that is just one of the new felonies created by 19


Wrong.....That sentence applies to knowingly employing, using, or giving to minors older than 14 and under 18. That sounds reasonable to me. If you are hanging out with and providing marijuana to 15 year olds, your head should be examined, let alone you receive 3-7 years in prison for it.

So now that we have that straightened out, you'll vote yes? ROFL.....


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 15, 2010)

Yea, it's meant to say that the person who is selling, giving, distributing to a minor and they know it will go to jail. The minor won't. That sounds completely fair.

I see nothing wrong with locking someone up who is willingly supplying marijuana to minors. Same laws apply with alcohol.


----------



## beardo (Oct 15, 2010)

beardo said:


> under prop 19 18- 20 year olds will go to state prison for 3-5 year terms if they sell a joint to or smoke a joint with another 18-20 year old that is just one of the new felonies created by 19





Dan Kone said:


> Not true at all





Dan Kone said:


> It does not say that if someone under 21 is caught giving/selling to someone else under 21 they go to prison. It doesn't have any penalty for that at all. It says that if someone* over 21 knowingly* sells to someone under 21, then they could go to jail.
> 
> So no, that is not true at all. And even if someone over 21 gets caught selling to someone under 21 then the cops must prove that they knew the person was under 21.





Serapis said:


> Wrong.....That sentence applies to knowingly employing, using, or giving to minors older than 14 and under 18. That sounds reasonable to me. If you are hanging out with and providing marijuana to 15 year olds, your head should be examined, let alone you receive 3-7 years in prison for it.
> 
> So now that we have that straightened out, you'll vote yes? ROFL.....





mr2shim said:


> Yea, it's meant to say that the person who is selling, giving, distributing to a minor and they know it will go to jail. The minor won't. That sounds completely fair.
> 
> I see nothing wrong with locking someone up who is willingly supplying marijuana to minors. Same laws apply with alcohol.





mr2shim said:


> don't give any to your friends is what I would say to that. Under the section where it says what you said, it mentions nothing about a minor being busted alone. It has to do with distribution.
> 
> * Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors *
> 
> ...


 Read comprehend- law is literal


----------



## nathenking (Oct 16, 2010)

New news guys... Obamas cabinat came out this week and said even if cali legalizes they are still going to raid and make busts through the DEA... so there you go... even if it does pass, the fed govt will with hold federal funds until the prop is abolished.... i knew this was going to happen... plus in 2012 there will be a presidential election, so the same thing is going to happen then... any president wanting to be elected in this country will have to "attack" this legalization effort to stand a chance to get elected... so for all those big warehouse grows that people are talking about, yeah right... they are gonna get raided faster than a dunkin donuts, just so obama can show that he is against it... so they will take all these peoples property, money and throw them in jail. (the people runnin the warehouses) like R. Lee.... this is gonna be crazy... watching all these capitalists that are thinking they are gonna make a buck off MJ, and then wham... they are in federal prison.... i love it... thats what you get....LOL be careful what you wish for....
here is the link:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._calpot16.html


----------



## nathenking (Oct 16, 2010)

so any body growing and selling marijuana and paying taxes on it are self incriminating themselves under federal law.... hahaha... and the feds will put you in federal prison.... i knew this little prop 19 thing was way to good to be true... like the gov't is gonna stand by and let this shit fly... my point is, why would anybody pay taxes on MJ if that might get you prosecuted under federal law.... this debunks the "making it legal will help us with money because we can tax it" myth... because no one is gonna pay taxes on it 1. because you could get arrested and 2. its already underground so why would anybody want to give money to govt... so now that the money isnt gonna be there, and you stand to be federally prosecuted and the fact the arnold just signed the bill that anything under a ounce is a hundred dollar fine... what is really gonna change IF this passes??? seriously???


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 16, 2010)

nathenking said:


> so any body growing and selling marijuana and paying taxes on it are self incriminating themselves under federal law.... hahaha... and the feds will put you in federal prison.... i knew this little prop 19 thing was way to good to be true... like the gov't is gonna stand by and let this shit fly... my point is, why would anybody pay taxes on MJ if that might get you prosecuted under federal law.... this debunks the "making it legal will help us with money because we can tax it" myth... because no one is gonna pay taxes on it 1. because you could get arrested and 2. its already underground so why would anybody want to give money to govt... so now that the money isnt gonna be there, and you stand to be federally prosecuted and the fact the arnold just signed the bill that anything under a ounce is a hundred dollar fine... what is really gonna change IF this passes??? seriously???


I really hope you don't vote.


----------



## grow space (Oct 16, 2010)

Fuck this shit, let it be as it is, as said here before, it is pretty much legal anyways...if u got your legal card, u can grow your own and even get more licenses to grow more if u want to make some living out of it too..to me, it just sounds supreme, and i hope it will stay at least that way until i one day i reach to cali.The simple thing that i can grow my own herb for myself and maybe for others is my nr one dream in this life, and of course living in cali....


So why u hussle, just go and vote and see what happens...this ranting aint going to change shit in here, maybe just some local cali idiots take this shit seriously...for real, calm down, and lets light up the peace pipe....


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 16, 2010)

grow space said:


> Fuck this shit, let it be as it is, as said here before, it is pretty much legal anyways...if u got your legal card, u can grow your own and even get more licenses to grow more if u want to make some living out of it too..to me, it just sounds supreme, and i hope it will stay at least that way until i one day i reach to cali.The simple thing that i can grow my own herb for myself and maybe for others is my nr one dream in this life, and of course living in cali....
> 
> So why u hussle, just go and vote and see what happens...this ranting aint going to change shit in here, maybe just some local cali idiots take this shit seriously...for real, calm down, and lets light up the peace pipe....


I didn't realize the entire United States lived in California. What do you think would of happened if Prop 215 didn't pass? A good bet would be that *NO* other states would have pass Medical Marijuana laws. Is it really that hard to understand that even if Prop 19 won't affect a lot of Californians It will affect the US as a whole in a much larger way? Do you want to see other states pass marijuana legalization or do you not care enough?

Is that how it is in the west? Once you've got yours, fuck everybody else? Because that is exactly what you're saying.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 16, 2010)

nathenking said:


> so any body growing and selling marijuana and paying taxes on it are self incriminating themselves under federal law.... hahaha... and the feds will put you in federal prison.... i knew this little prop 19 thing was way to good to be true...


You've got to stop and think about that for a second. When you start thinking of the DEA throwing growers in prison as "too good to be true", you're on the wrong side of this. It's never a good thing for anyone to be thrown in jail for growing a harmless plant. What happened to that attitude?


----------



## Wheres my Chippy? (Oct 16, 2010)

I really hope that Oaksterdam does start up their 4-20,000 lbs/yr factory farms in oakland... then the DEA can swoop in and bust them all at the same time!
And for anyone that doesn't think that this will be "toxic" weed, you should really do some research on Monsanto, and all the toxic shit that cigarette co. put into cigarettes that isn't needed.

I really hope that everyone voting YES on this really realizes that this is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT... meaning that once its in, its LAW.... no turning back. We won't be able to make ANY amendments too it to "clean it up" and make it a better bill once its in. 

We won't be able to vote for a better bill down the line if this goes in (like Herer's bill getting ready for 2012, which is a MUCH better bill). SB420 getting shot down and plant limits being thrown out are all the evidence you need of this....

This bill is going to get shot down pretty fast, imo. The last poll showed that more than 55% of voters are against it now. You've gotta figure that EVERYONE from far nor cal (including myself) are voting a def NO, then every grower all-throughout cali are voting a def NO, then all the people that just hate weed in general are voting a def no, and I know for a fact that most clubs and hydro shops employees are voting NO... this shit is going DOWN QUICK imo.... atleast I truly hope so.

I'm all for legalization, this is HARDLY it. I'll wait for the Hemp bill to come around in 2012, patience is a virtue... and NO I'm not a vendor, so don't use that argument that I'm greedy looking for profits.


----------



## potroast (Oct 16, 2010)

Geez, I just can't believe that pot growers are wishing that other pot growers get busted. 

You vote no people are saying the most fucked up things to make your point, which just shows that you have no point. "Supposing" what will happen does not mean anything! If the federal government doesn't like the prop, so what? Our state has over 12 percent of the US population, do you really think that the Fed will threaten us? Our laws always change the entire country, if you would pay attention.

I voted yes.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 16, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> I really hope you don't vote.


same to you.... i cant stand the look of your avatar man.... you obviously dont know the man at all... keep fronting brudda!!! Oh, and you joined this site in aug, newbie...


----------



## nathenking (Oct 16, 2010)

potroast said:


> Geez, I just can't believe that pot growers are wishing that other pot growers get busted.
> 
> You vote no people are saying the most fucked up things to make your point, which just shows that you have no point. "Supposing" what will happen does not mean anything! If the federal government doesn't like the prop, so what? Our state has over 12 percent of the US population, do you really think that the Fed will threaten us? Our laws always change the entire country, if you would pay attention.
> 
> I voted yes.


NO ONE WISHES OTHER PEOPLE GET BUSTED DUDE!!!!! ITS JUST A OUNCe..... YOU DONT GET BUSTED WITH THAT KNOW DUE TO THE NEW LAW THAT WAS SIGNED BY THE GOV.. 

California has the largest deficit in the nation, one of the worst illegal immigrant populations, gang violence that is out of control, etc... During these times in USA, I dont think anybody is gonna take the lead from this state.... You yes crowd might have to stop and think to yourselves here, why are so many people in and out of the MJ industry voting no???? there are lots of reasons but the main one is that this is just such a shitty bill its insulting for it to even be on the ballot.... Its doomed guys, its doomed because the lack of thought and depth that went into the bill....


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 16, 2010)

potroast said:


> If the federal government doesn't like the prop, so what? Our state has over 12 percent of the US population, do you really think that the Fed will threaten us?


Especially since state/local police can't enforce the federal law and local police do not have to cooperate with the feds. The Feds will probably bust Richard Lee and a couple other big time grow ops, but they don't have the resources to go bust everyone.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 16, 2010)

nathenking said:


> You yes crowd might have to stop and think to yourselves here, why are so many people in and out of the MJ industry voting no????


Because they've already got theirs and don't want other people to interfere with their profits.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 16, 2010)

ive been arrested in utah with 60 pounds bro, on a interstate... ive did my time, you know what, if you cant do the time dont do the crime.... if anybody pays taxes on selling MJ, they are federally self incriminating themselves, which will lead to arrests because of there own incrimination.... what im trying to say is that NO ONE is going to pay taxes because of this... Hence, the whole "tax" mj so we can get out of debt is not gonna work.... there goes that point for the YES side... Oh, and the new studies that have been done that show that PROP19 will not affect Drug Cartels at all... So that debunks that Point for the YES side... Arnold signed the Bill for a hundred dollar fine for under a ounce, so that debunks the "I will go to jail if I have a ounce" point as well... Basically the only thing that your gonna be missing is the 5x5 area, WELL, GET A MED CARD AND HAVE A 20x20 area....


----------



## blazeddd (Oct 16, 2010)

*


nathenking said:



so any body growing and selling marijuana and paying taxes on it are self incriminating themselves under federal law.... hahaha... and the feds will put you in federal prison.... i knew this little prop 19 thing was way to good to be true... like the gov't is gonna stand by and let this shit fly... my point is, why would anybody pay taxes on MJ if that might get you prosecuted under federal law.... this debunks the "making it legal will help us with money because we can tax it" myth... because no one is gonna pay taxes on it 1. because you could get arrested and 2. its already underground so why would anybody want to give money to govt... so now that the money isnt gonna be there, and you stand to be federally prosecuted and the fact the arnold just signed the bill that anything under a ounce is a hundred dollar fine... what is really gonna change IF this passes??? seriously???

Click to expand...

 okay seriously dude, you need to look over your posts before you post them.. like what the fuck are you saying? does that really make sense to you up there? paying taxes and getting raided by DEA? what the fuck homie? no more peyote huh..



nathenking said:



New news guys... Obamas cabinat came out this week and said even if cali legalizes they are still going to raid and make busts through the DEA... so there you go... even if it does pass, the fed govt will with hold federal funds until the prop is abolished.... i knew this was going to happen... plus in 2012 there will be a presidential election, so the same thing is going to happen then... any president wanting to be elected in this country will have to "attack" this legalization effort to stand a chance to get elected... so for all those big warehouse grows that people are talking about, yeah right... they are gonna get raided faster than a dunkin donuts, just so obama can show that he is against it... so they will take all these peoples property, money and throw them in jail. (the people runnin the warehouses) like R. Lee.... this is gonna be crazy... watching all these capitalists that are thinking they are gonna make a buck off MJ, and then wham... they are in federal prison.... i love it... thats what you get....LOL be careful what you wish for....

Click to expand...

*


nathenking said:


> *
> here is the link:
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._calpot16.html*


*
but I am wondering about what the Obama administration said:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013175271_calpot16.html* *
I personally think it's a bluff as well(as the Seattle times, not nathenking) To devote all that federal resources to catch.. pot manufactures and dealers? Really? And especially since "Well over 95 percent of all marijuana arrests in this country are made by state and local law enforcement." It must be a complete bluff..


nathenking said:



NO ONE WISHES OTHER PEOPLE GET BUSTED DUDE!!!!! ITS JUST A OUNCe..... YOU DONT GET BUSTED WITH THAT KNOW DUE TO THE NEW LAW THAT WAS SIGNED BY THE GOV.. 

California has the largest deficit in the nation, one of the worst illegal immigrant populations, gang violence that is out of control, etc... During these times in USA, I dont think anybody is gonna take the lead from this state.... You yes crowd might have to stop and think to yourselves here, why are so many people in and out of the MJ industry voting no???? there are lots of reasons but the main one is that this is just such a shitty bill its insulting for it to even be on the ballot.... Its doomed guys, its doomed because the lack of thought and depth that went into the bill....

Click to expand...

* *


nathenking said:



ive been arrested in utah with 60 pounds bro, on a interstate... ive did my time, you know what, if you cant do the time dont do the crime.... if anybody pays taxes on selling MJ, they are federally self incriminating themselves, which will lead to arrests because of there own incrimination.... what im trying to say is that NO ONE is going to pay taxes because of this... Hence, the whole "tax" mj so we can get out of debt is not gonna work.... there goes that point for the YES side... Oh, and the new studies that have been done that show that PROP19 will not affect Drug Cartels at all... So that debunks that Point for the YES side... Arnold signed the Bill for a hundred dollar fine for under a ounce, so that debunks the "I will go to jail if I have a ounce" point as well... Basically the only thing that your gonna be missing is the 5x5 area, WELL, GET A MED CARD AND HAVE A 20x20 area....

Click to expand...

 I really think you should just STOP posting. Your reasoning is just... wrong, kindly put. And now your boasting by pretending to be the walter white of dank? Okay SERIOUSLY, the tax argument.

Damn fool, you are FUNNY.* **


----------



## squarepush3r (Oct 16, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Tom Ammiano to the rescue again! He just wrote an assembly bill that fixes all the flaws in prop 19 if it's passed. This solve almost all of everyone's reasonable concerns with prop 19.
> 
> Makes medical patients exempt from prop 19 in every way. (no taxes on 215!)
> Makes unlawfully cultivation a misdemeanor instead of a felony.
> ...


 I oppose 19, but would support if it these wordings were included. However when prop 215 passed in 1996, it took almost *7 years *for SB 420. Also there is no guarantee this would even pass


----------



## nathenking (Oct 16, 2010)

[Q*UOTE=blazeddd;4777835]okay seriously dude, you need to look over your posts before you post them.. like what the fuck are you saying? does that really make sense to you up there? paying taxes and getting raided by DEA? what the fuck homie? no more peyote huh..


but I am wondering about what the Obama administration said:* *
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013175271_calpot16.html* *
I personally think it's a bluff as well(as the Seattle times, not nathenking) To devote all that federal resources to catch.. pot manufactures and dealers? Really? And especially since "Well over 95 percent of all marijuana arrests in this country are made by state and local law enforcement." It must be a complete bluff..


I really think you should just STOP posting. Your reasoning is just... wrong, kindly put. And now your boasting by pretending to be the walter white of dank? Okay SERIOUSLY, the tax arguement* *
Damn fool, you are FUNNY.[/QUOTE]

To each his own bro.... Im not paying taxes on it ever, either is alot of people.... KEEP THE GOV'T OUT OF MY MJ... Its that simple bro... Ill remember this specific post from you and be the first one to say "you were niave for thinking this was gonna pass" there is no real regulation in this bill, everything is just left up in the air, ITS NOT GONNA PASS BECAUSE ITS A SHITTY BILL. THE biggest problem is you thinking that it is or will be one in the future.... NO YOUR RIGHTS BRUDDA....*


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 16, 2010)

nathenking said:


> if anybody pays taxes on selling MJ, they are federally self incriminating themselves, which will lead to arrests because of there own incrimination.... what im trying to say is that NO ONE is going to pay taxes because of this... Hence, the whole "tax" mj so we can get out of debt is not gonna work.... there goes that point for the YES side... Arnold signed the Bill for a hundred dollar fine for under a ounce, so that debunks the "I will go to jail if I have a ounce" point as well... Basically the only thing that your gonna be missing is the 5x5 area, WELL, GET A MED CARD AND HAVE A 20x20 area....


your sense of reason is hilarious! 
people ALREADY pay taxes on marijuana. medical marijuana is taxed in Oakland, paying taxes doesn't = incrimination, especially when we legalize recreational use at the state level. 
Yes on 19 is not about creating revenue for California, it is about ENDING PROHIBITION of marijuana. The money from taxes, decrease in illegal smuggling, prices, and new businesses are side benefits of ending prohibition, these are not the main reasons we support 19. We support 19 because marijuana was made illegal for racist and greedy reasons 70 years ago, the legislation is wrong and needs to be changed. It is easy to focus on the benefits of legalization because there are many but don't be confused that these are ONLY benefits and not the main goal of prop 19 and the federal legalization movement in general.

Calnorml recommends growing 6-12 plants depending on local jurisdiction, currently under 215. growing more than this can result in arrest. Prop 19's 25 sq ft space allows for much more than 6-12 plants, meaning we can grow more as recreational users than medical patients currently can legally. Being able to legally grow more marijuana is a HUGE positive to anyone that grows and ingests marijuana!!!!! 
Another HUGE difference will be that we can legally profit from marijuana sales. It is currently illegal (against 215) to profit from medical marijuana sales. all of you growers on this forum that make a living from medical patients can now legally profit from recreational users instead of taking advantage of our current mmj system and exploiting patients that need marijuana by profitting from medical sales (illegal!). Patients will still have non-for profit collectives and non-patients will not have to abuse the medical system for recreational marijuana (as thousands currently are).
Decriminalization is not legalization, we need to legalize because it was made illegal for horrible reasons.


----------



## Wheres my Chippy? (Oct 16, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Because they've already got theirs and don't want other people to interfere with their profits.


I am voting NO and I am in no way making any sort of profit from growing. Infact, I'm loosing money from growing with the electric bill and all the expenses that go into a good grow-op. I just grow for personal indoors(in a 5x5 area, mind you), and I _still_ think this is a shitty bill!

It's got bogus wording and as nathan stated, kind of leaves everything up in the air. And you never responded to me saying that its a constitutional admendment... once its in, theres NO changing it! (SB420 being thrown out in regards to 215 is proof of this).

Can't we wait 2 more years for the Cali Cannabis Hemp & Health bill comes around in 2012? http://www.youthfederation.com/ Its a MUCH better bill, and one that I think the majority of growers would even vote for (most I know will).... Because once we vote YES and let Rich Lee's bill go in; THATS IT! No turning back and there will be no changing it.

I don't think that the point is to jump on any weed related bill that comes along. This bill just seems like a "trojan horse" imo. Seems too loosey goosey to favor big business, thats all.


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 16, 2010)

Wheres my Chippy? said:


> I am voting NO and I am in no way making any sort of profit from growing. Infact, I'm loosing money from growing with the electric bill and all the expenses that go into a good grow-op. I just grow for personal indoors(in a 5x5 area, mind you), and I _still_ think this is a shitty bill!
> 
> It's got bogus wording and as nathan stated, kind of leaves everything up in the air. And you never responded to me saying that its a constitutional admendment... once its in, theres NO changing it! (SB420 being thrown out in regards to 215 is proof of this).
> 
> ...



If 19 favored big business and was all about corporate marijuana growing why is there allowance for personal cultivation? anyone that doesn't want to buy from big corporations doesn't have to, grow it yourself, or buy from a local small supplier....problem solved.

As for not being able to change legislation, that is absolutely wrong! Prop 8 is a perfect example... do your research and learn about how our legislative system actually works before spouting off nonsense.

Many other legalization measures had the same chances of getting on the ballot as tax, regulate and control did. not enough people signed the petitions of the other measures, why would they do it in 2012. the group that supports waiting until a better measure comes along already had a fair chance to get those measures on the ballot this year and they lost, what makes you think the Hemp and Health bill will even make it on the ballots in 2012 (a similar version was petitioned this year and failed...)?


----------



## nathenking (Oct 16, 2010)

Wheres my Chippy? said:


> I am voting NO and I am in no way making any sort of profit from growing. Infact, I'm loosing money from growing with the electric bill and all the expenses that go into a good grow-op. I just grow for personal indoors(in a 5x5 area, mind you), and I _still_ think this is a shitty bill!
> 
> It's got bogus wording and as nathan stated, kind of leaves everything up in the air. And you never responded to me saying that its a constitutional admendment... once its in, theres NO changing it! (SB420 being thrown out in regards to 215 is proof of this).
> 
> ...


Exactly... Favor big business.... Thats exactly what we need in our MJ... Gov't and Big business... Fuck that... NEVER!!!!


----------



## Wheres my Chippy? (Oct 16, 2010)

Prop 8 was a civil rights issue, not a drug issue! Of course Prop 8 was going to get over turned, it completely violated homosexuals rights, and thats what the supreme court saw was happening, so they of course over turned it. You *can't* pass an amendment that strips minorities of their rights, because that in ITSELF is unconstitutional.

IF (and a big IF) this bill does pass, I'm sure that it probably will go to the supreme court by anti-marijuana advocates, but since this bill in no way effects civil rights of a minority it will either get overturned (like prop 8 or stay in place. What makes you think that they will bring this to the supreme court to CHANGE wording and make it a better bill? It will either be about keeping it or getting rid of it, nothing about it will change.

And the only reason Rich Lee was able to get enough signatures is because hes the biggest whore outta any of the reps of the other bills. The dude is all over high times and even NORML is supporting him, OF COURSE his bill was going to get in first. The dude has the big sob story and, most importantly, he has MONEY and lots of it.... To give an example, I'm a huge Ralph Nader supporter, but I know from the start that he doesn't have much money to tought his political stance as much as the Dem's & Republicans have, and his name & image aren't all over the news and media like the two main parties. So there really is no way "realistically" for him to ever become president (same with any third party, maybe except the Tea Party now, but I have my doubts of how "real" of a party they are and not just hardcore republicans in disguise, astro-turfing). And if you don't think that it ALL boils down to money, then you seem to not know how politics works. 

And no, I don't know if it will make it on the ballot in 2012, but thats why I (and others) are trying to spread to word of the intitive, and that there are other (better) options coming up in the near future besides this poor restrictive bill.

I'm not on here looking to get into debates with people about this, because I already know that people that want to vote yes are going to vote yes (and I actually think that most won't vote at all), and those that want no are voting no (which is how I see this bill going).

Now, let me ask, in all honesty, do you think that Prop 19 is a better bill than the Hemp & Health bill? And if not, then why vote for it, and not just wait for that bill to come around?


----------



## squarepush3r (Oct 16, 2010)

luvourmother said:


> If 19 favored big business and was all about corporate marijuana growing why is there allowance for personal cultivation? anyone that doesn't want to buy from big corporations doesn't have to, grow it yourself, or buy from a local small supplier....problem solved.
> 
> As for not being able to change legislation, that is absolutely wrong! Prop 8 is a perfect example... do your research and learn about how our legislative system actually works before spouting off nonsense.
> 
> Many other legalization measures had the same chances of getting on the ballot as tax, regulate and control did. not enough people signed the petitions of the other measures, why would they do it in 2012. the group that supports waiting until a better measure comes along already had a fair chance to get those measures on the ballot this year and they lost, what makes you think the Hemp and Health bill will even make it on the ballots in 2012 (a similar version was petitioned this year and failed...)?


 5x5 is hardly cultivation


----------



## nathenking (Oct 16, 2010)

squarepush3r said:


> 5x5 is hardly cultivation


exactly.... plus the YES crowd will say, we will change it later... why not do it right the first time....


----------



## klmmicro (Oct 16, 2010)

EmptyWords said:


> I disagree. it is federally illegal to grow or possess marijuana so people will always go to jail. Dea raids will continue after 19 passes as they do now even as of last week i believe it was. The Dea has already said they are filing a lawsuit against California if prop19 passes, i saw a news story on youtube about it. i dont know what good their lawsuit will do but we will see what happens when it comes to the feds after prop19. I am tired of people saying this will stop people from going to jail, maybe some people but there will always be people going to jail for marijuana charges federally. In my opinion, anyone that opens up shop to grow commercially will be targeted by the dea.


So, I guess we should just leave everything exactly as it is and not do anything that might enable change...should we approach all issues like this? Basically, if things cannot be made perfect RIGHT NOW...then there is no reason to even try.


----------



## Wheres my Chippy? (Oct 16, 2010)

luvourmother said:


> If 19 favored big business and was all about corporate marijuana growing why is there allowance for personal cultivation? anyone that doesn't want to buy from big corporations doesn't have to, grow it yourself, or buy from a local small supplier....problem solved.


Okay, how come I'm legally allowed to brew as much beer/alcohol as I like on my property for personal use? How come I can grow as many tobacco plants as I want for personal use? Why are there no clauses in these bills about personal cultivation/brewing being restricted? Why is there a restriction on how much weed I am allowed to grow for personal use? Or will we just change this in the courts, instead of questioning the actual bill itself? THIS is the reason why I see this protecting big business. Because they are RESTRICTING personal cultivation, yet commercial cultivation (which you need put to up serious cash upfront in this bill) isn't as restricted, making it so it isn't even worth growing anymore from how expensive it is, and instead buying from them....


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 16, 2010)

squarepush3r said:


> 5x5 is hardly cultivation


Wrong wrong, completely wrong. 

Article 5. Lawful Activities
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:
(1) 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.
(2) 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 25 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.
(3) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to paragraph (2), for personal consumption.

Where does it say 5x5? Quite naturally 5x5 = 25 sq ft, but that's not what it says in the proposition. 

1'x25' = 25 sq ft
2.5'x10' = 25 
3'x8.33'= 25(24.99)
4'x6.25'= 25
5'x5'= 25
6"x50' = 25


----------



## nathenking (Oct 16, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> Wrong wrong, completely wrong.
> 
> Article 5. Lawful Activities
> 11300. Personal Regulation and Controls.
> ...


dude, your splitting hairs.... this bill is so shotily written the most pot smokers see this and are voting no.... seriously man, take the bob pic down bro.... you know not what he stood for.... do you think he would want his religious sacrament to be commercialized bro... yeah right... IRIE, (oh wait, do you know what IRIE even means) not sure if you do... inform me please...


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 16, 2010)

nathenking said:


> dude, your splitting hairs.... this bill is so shotily written the most pot smokers see this and are voting no.... seriously man, take the bob pic down bro.... you know not what he stood for.... do you think he would want his religious sacrament to be commercialized bro... yeah right... IRIE, (oh wait, do you know what IRIE even means) not sure if you do... inform me please...


 Every time I read something you post, I feel as if I've gotten dumber. Thanks for looking past everything I said and going completely off the handle. It really shows your intent. As far as my avatar. I can have whoever the fuck I want, so either put me on ignore list or deal with it. I've been listening to Bob Marley all my life.


----------



## Wheres my Chippy? (Oct 16, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> Where does it say 5x5? Quite naturally 5x5 = 25 sq ft, but that's not what it says in the proposition.
> 
> 1'x25' = 25 sq ft
> 2.5'x10' = 25
> ...


What the hell am I gonna grow in a 1'x25' area?! And a 6"x50' area?! You must have some really scrawny thin plants if they can fit into a 1' or 6" wide area. And what kind of rooms can you even find that are 1'x25'? You can't be serious... Come on man, stay with me now....


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 16, 2010)

Wheres my Chippy? said:


> What the hell am I gonna grow in a 1'x25' area?! And a 6&quot;x50' area?! You must have some really scrawny thin plants if they can fit into a 1' or 6&quot; wide area. And what kind of rooms can you even find that are 1'x25'? You can't be serious... Come on man, stay with me now....


 I'm with you, but when it says 25sq ft, that doesn't automatically equal 5x5. That's like saying all alcohol= sky blue vodka. All I'm saying is if you are going to argue against something at least state the facts.


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 16, 2010)

Fun fact, their is only a certain amount of alcohol you can brew legally without getting a license. However, since alcohol is legal... no one cares nor do cops go raiding party houses for beer. Think weed will be different? The sheer stupidity of the big business argument makes me reluctant to even respond to it... but people seem to think that it is worth debating. You don't want big business bud... well since all of you have already boasted of growing your own bud, don't buy it. Let others buy who want to. Since greed isn't motivating you, why do you care? Let people be stupid and smoke artificial/chemical bud. But stating that all big business bud will be chemical bud is stupid too. Lets take cigarettes for example. Marlboro and Camel... fake and shitty. American spirits, real tobacco... still shitty. Bugler/Drumm/Bali Shagg... etc. Real tobacco, really good, hardly even more expensive than regular cigarettes. Hey would you look at that. For paying a tiny bit more, in bugler's case, less, you get tobacco that is real, and pretty tasty.

I understand that growing is a way of life for people and this bill could affect them negatively, but lets get real. You can always take out loans to start a business, use your house as collateral (that's what most entrepreneurs have to do), and make your own bud company. It's not going to lose money, if you have a good product. You could be the friendly corner store that sells chronic. Call yourself "family smokes" to let everyone know that you're a great guy, and greed isn't your driving motivation. Sure, prices of outdoor weed will go down (peanuts cost more money to grow than weed, and yet they cost 1/100 of the price at least), but you will be growing way more, and you will have a large amount of customers every day. Indoor weed will be expensive so long as electricity is expensive, but there will probably be ways around huge electric bills in the future (LED lights?).

Bob Marley would be for everyone legally allowed to smoke weed. He wasn't a greedy prick, and he didn't use irie and brudda in stupid ways on forums. Bob Marley also would not pretend to know someone and use it against other people that were fans of said figure. In fact, if he was a fan of the same musician, he'd probably be stoked on the fact that he had something in common with some random dude. That's great that you're a huge dealer, I thought I was cool when I dealt with pounds of bud, but then I graduated highschool and realized dealing is a shitty way to make money.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 16, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> Fun fact, their is only a certain amount of alcohol you can brew legally without getting a license. However, since alcohol is legal... no one cares nor do cops go raiding party houses for beer. Think weed will be different? The sheer stupidity of the big business argument makes me reluctant to even respond to it... but people seem to think that it is worth debating. You don't want big business bud... well since all of you have already boasted of growing your own bud, don't buy it. Let others buy who want to. Since greed isn't motivating you, why do you care? Let people be stupid and smoke artificial/chemical bud. But stating that all big business bud will be chemical bud is stupid too. Lets take cigarettes for example. Marlboro and Camel... fake and shitty. American spirits, real tobacco... still shitty. Bugler/Drumm/Bali Shagg... etc. Real tobacco, really good, hardly even more expensive than regular cigarettes. Hey would you look at that. For paying a tiny bit more, in bugler's case, less, you get tobacco that is real, and pretty tasty.
> 
> I understand that growing is a way of life for people and this bill could affect them negatively, but lets get real. You can always take out loans to start a business, use your house as collateral (that's what most entrepreneurs have to do), and make your own bud company. It's not going to lose money, if you have a good product. You could be the friendly corner store that sells chronic. Call yourself "family smokes" to let everyone know that you're a great guy, and greed isn't your driving motivation. Sure, prices of outdoor weed will go down (peanuts cost more money to grow than weed, and yet they cost 1/100 of the price at least), but you will be growing way more, and you will have a large amount of customers every day. Indoor weed will be expensive so long as electricity is expensive, but there will probably be ways around huge electric bills in the future (LED lights?).
> 
> Bob Marley would be for everyone legally allowed to smoke weed. He wasn't a greedy prick, and he didn't use irie and brudda in stupid ways on forums. Bob Marley also would not pretend to know someone and use it against other people that were fans of said figure. In fact, if he was a fan of the same musician, he'd probably be stoked on the fact that he had something in common with some random dude. That's great that you're a huge dealer, I thought I was cool when I dealt with pounds of bud, but then I graduated highschool and realized dealing is a shitty way to make money.


ok. mr mccumcumber... bob was such a capitalist wasnt he... do you even know anything about rastafari religion??? probably not man... your crazy to think they would support big business in their religous sacrement.... this shit still isnt gonna pass so get over it.... latest polls show this man... get over it... your a arm chair activist...


----------



## Wheres my Chippy? (Oct 16, 2010)

None of the Vote YES crowd has answered my question about if they think that the Hemp & Health bill is better than Prop 19? And if so, why not wait for that one to come around and try to make sure that it gets in?

Also, mccumcumber, I don't want ANYBODY smoking toxic bud, I actually care about other peoples health as well....


----------



## potroast (Oct 16, 2010)

It would be a better bill, IF it was on the ballot. Guess what? It's not.

So how many growers will go to jail and have their lives ruined, while we wait for the next Prop? Are you going to help them? What if it happens to you? Will you look back and say gollee, I wish I voted for that last prop?

I voted yes.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 16, 2010)

potroast said:


> It would be a better bill, IF it was on the ballot. Guess what? It's not.
> 
> So how many growers will go to jail and have their lives ruined, while we wait for the next Prop? Are you going to help them? What if it happens to you? Will you look back and say gollee, I wish I voted for that last prop?
> 
> I voted yes.


not many if they get off there lazy asses and get a med card.... there is no excuse in cali to get arrest for growing when gettting a med card is so damn easy....


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 16, 2010)

potroast said:


> It would be a better bill, IF it was on the ballot. Guess what? It's not.
> 
> So how many growers will go to jail and have their lives ruined, while we wait for the next Prop? Are you going to help them? What if it happens to you? Will you look back and say gollee, I wish I voted for that last prop?
> 
> I voted yes.


better watch out, nathenking might start trolling you and calling you a fake as pot smoker and take down you avatar for wanting to vote yes on prop 19.




nathenking said:


> not many if they get off there lazy asses and get a med card.... there is no excuse in cali to get arrest for growing when gettting a med card is so damn easy....


So you admit to and condone abusing the system. That's great to hear! Everybody abusing MMJ is going to really help this country and stop the war on drugs and push for federal legalization. Me, fake? Wow, that comment alone contradicts everything you babble on about. and the Internet Troll of the Year award goes to!


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 16, 2010)

squarepush3r said:


> 5x5 is hardly cultivation


That's crap.

If you can't pull a minimum of pound out of a 5x5 area every 2.5 months then you should find a new hobby. A pound is a lot of bud. You could easily pull twice that with the right strains/set up. That should easily cover recreational use.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 16, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> That's crap.
> 
> If you can't pull a minimum of pound out of a 5x5 area every 2.5 months then you should find a new hobby. A pound is a lot of bud. You could easily pull twice that with the right strains/set up. That should easily cover recreational use.


https://www.rollitup.org/grow-journals/344359-pineapple-express-g13-labs-seed.html

He grows in 1 waterfarm in a 29"X19"X50" space. *MUCH* less than 25sq ft and pulls over a half a pound on one plant.

Less than 4sq ft for .5-.75lb

Good luck arguing against those facts. not to mention his grow setup is very cheap.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 16, 2010)

Wheres my Chippy? said:


> None of the Vote YES crowd has answered my question about if they think that the Hemp & Health bill is better than Prop 19? And if so, why not wait for that one to come around and try to make sure that it gets in?.


There is absolutely no guarantee that another legalization bill will make it on the ballot. Who's going to pay for the signature collecting, campaigning, etc? Do you have any idea how expensive that is? 

Even if it makes it on the ballot, the chances of an even more liberal ballot measure passing are very slim. The *only* reason prop 19 has a shot at passing is because of the non-smokers who will support it for economic reasons. Take out all the perceived potential economic benefits to the state and there is no chance in hell of it passing.

We can pass prop 19. Get everyone in Cali used to the idea of legal bud. Get rid of some of the false stereotypes about cannabis. Then we can pass more liberal legislation. 

Saying "I'll just wait till next time and vote for legalization then" is a HUGE blunder. It's not likely there will be a next time if it fails.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 16, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> There is absolutely no guarantee that another legalization bill will make it on the ballot. Who's going to pay for the signature collecting, campaigning, etc? Do you have any idea how expensive that is?
> 
> Even if it makes it on the ballot, the chances of an even more liberal ballot measure passing are very slim. The *only* reason prop 19 has a shot at passing is because of the non-smokers who will support it for economic reasons. Take out all the perceived potential economic benefits to the state and there is no chance in hell of it passing.
> 
> ...


Completely true. Why is it so hard for people to understand how important this is? They think it's so easy to get bills on the ballot that another, better one will pop up next year. It will probably take years for something like this to come about. The only reason it has is because of the financial situation like you stated. It really sickens me to read people are going to blow this off and vote no for personal gains.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 16, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> https://www.rollitup.org/grow-journals/344359-pineapple-express-g13-labs-seed.html
> 
> He grows in 1 waterfarm in a 29"X19"X50" space. *MUCH* less than 25sq ft and pulls over a half a pound on one plant.
> 
> ...


It's really not hard to pull a pound out of 16sq ft (4x4 tray). I did it on my first hydro grow with 6 days of veg time. Didn't even really know what I was doing. That would be ~25 ounces (1.5lbs) if it were 25sq ft instead of 16sq ft. That would come out to over 10 grams per day. If that still isn't enough you could grow higher yielding strains. The idea that 25sq ft isn't enough for personal recreational use is absurd. 

People are just mad because 25sq ft isn't enough to grow for personal use + covering the rent. I'm not unsympathetic to that. I don't think there is anything wrong growing a trey to pay your bills. But to act like that's not enough space to do a decent personal grow is just lol


----------



## klmmicro (Oct 16, 2010)

Wheres my Chippy? said:


> None of the Vote YES crowd has answered my question about if they think that the Hemp & Health bill is better than Prop 19? And if so, why not wait for that one to come around and try to make sure that it gets in?
> 
> Also, mccumcumber, I don't want ANYBODY smoking toxic bud, I actually care about other peoples health as well....


I'm sorry, I do not see a "Hemp & Health" prop on the ballot...you mean something that may possibly be worked on sometime down the road?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 16, 2010)

klmmicro said:


> I'm sorry, I do not see a "Hemp & Health" prop on the ballot...you mean something that may possibly be worked on sometime down the road?



sure, why not?


----------



## klmmicro (Oct 16, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> sure, why not?


Now THAT is something I can get behind!


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 16, 2010)

klmmicro said:


> Now THAT is something I can get behind!


about as good as "we can fix it later".


----------



## nathenking (Oct 17, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> Completely true. Why is it so hard for people to understand how important this is? They think it's so easy to get bills on the ballot that another, better one will pop up next year. It will probably take years for something like this to come about. The only reason it has is because of the financial situation like you stated. It really sickens me to read people are going to blow this off and vote no for personal gains.


Lets just have R. LEE pay for it again.... He has already made millions of his MMJ dispensary. Mind you, off of people that needed medical MJ for relief... Wow, what a stand up guy R. LEE is, now he wants to take it a step further so he can make even more money off of it... Awesome for R. LEE, he gets to make millions while the majority of us can grow 2 pounds every 2.5 months... wow, that is really fare to us... Lets Vote Yes so R. LEE and a few others can become rich off a plant that we all love, that is another reason I dont support it.... keep the money in the people that need the moneys pocket, not these super rich capitalist pigs.... 2cents...


----------



## nathenking (Oct 17, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> better watch out, nathenking might start trolling you and calling you a fake as pot smoker and take down you avatar for wanting to vote yes on prop 19.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The troll of the year award goes to ME, yay im so excited that you have distaste for me... that means im living the life I should br, if i were to be accepted by you then I would not be true to myself my man... No hard feelings man, lets just dead this issue now, honestly you dont care about me and I dont care about you... Im voting no, your voting yes... There you go, enough said, we cancel each other out... take care


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Lets just have R. LEE pay for it again.... He has already made millions of his MMJ dispensary. Mind you, off of people that needed medical MJ for relief... Wow, what a stand up guy R. LEE is, now he wants to take it a step further so he can make even more money off of it... Awesome for R. LEE, he gets to make millions while the majority of us can grow 2 pounds every 2.5 months... wow, that is really fare to us... Lets Vote Yes so R. LEE and a few others can become rich of a plant that we all love, that is another reason I dont support it....


Get real. People have been making millions of dollars off of cannabis for over 40 years now. Richard Lee didn't invent the concept of making money off of it. With or without prop 19, prop 215, or any other law, there will be people making millions of dollars off of it. The idea that opposing prop 19 somehow stops people from having large scale grows is laughable. They've been around since the 60's.

Didn't you say you got busted with 60 pounds? That's about $180k worth of bud wholesale. Let me guess... That was all for personal use right? Or were you making a buck or two off of that yourself? Why is it ok for you to make a buck, but when other people do it then it's evil? Do as I say, not as I do right?

The "I gots mine" opposition to prop 19 is so hypocritical. Here's a guy who got caught making money off of bud while complaining that if it's legal others might make money, which of course is evil. 

Get off your high horse. It's pretty easy to tell you oppose prop 19 for one reason. You're afraid it'll cut into your own business. Of course you'll never admit that, but everyone can see it plain as day.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 17, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Get real. People have been making millions of dollars off of cannabis for over 40 years now. Richard Lee didn't invent the concept of making money off of it. With or without prop 19, prop 215, or any other law, there will be people making millions of dollars off of it. The idea that opposing prop 19 somehow stops people from having large scale grows is laughable. They've been around since the 60's.
> 
> Didn't you say you got busted with 60 pounds? That's about $180k worth of bud wholesale. Let me guess... That was all for personal use right? Or were you making a buck or two off of that yourself? Why is it ok for you to make a buck, but when other people do it then it's evil? Do as I say, not as I do right?
> 
> ...


it wont cut into my business... im already getting MJ at as low a price as possible, not even these warehouses will be cheaper, so it wont actually screw me out of money, but it will screw alot of little folks out of money, so I stand up for them... im such a shitty person.... and yeah i did make a profit considering the risk I was taking... that is something I can live with and do dan...


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

nathenking said:


> it wont cut into my business... im already getting MJ at as low a price as possible, not even these warehouses will be cheaper, so it wont actually screw me out of money, but it will screw alot of little folks out of money, so I stand up for them... im such a shitty person.... and yeah i did make a profit considering the risk I was taking... that is something I can live with and do dan...


I've got no problem with people growing/selling bud to pay bills. But to say it's ok for you to do that, but if other people do it then they are horrible evil people who must be stopped, then you're being a hypocrite. You're going to oppose a law that could potentially bring an end to prohibition entirely because someone other than you is going to make a buck off of it is a bullshit attitude. Typical "I gots mine, f- everyone else" mentality.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 17, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> I've got no problem with people growing/selling bud to pay bills. But to say it's ok for you to do that, but if other people do it then they are horrible evil people who must be stopped, then you're being a hypocrite. You're going to oppose a law that could potentially bring an end to prohibition entirely because someone other than you is going to make a buck off of it is a bullshit attitude. Typical "I gots mine, f- everyone else" mentality.


That is how all business work, legal or illegal.... Its cut throat man, that is the way of capitalism... i have a home and a family to take care of, and so do alot of people, so what im saying is that this already wealthy man will be taking money out of people with less.... which i dont like, just like the war on the middle class in this country, this is the same type of thing, screw all the pople in the middle getting by so big rich people can have more.... i dont stand for that, wall street, walmart or any other kind of MOM and POP killer... and that is what this bill means to me and alot of people... So you cant blame us for trying to protect what lively hood we do have in this shitty economy... I think you would do the same thing dan.... But on the other hand, if this bill was written better and didnt favor the rich getting richer than of course I would support it, but it does not, so i dont support it... i think you can understand that man...


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

nathenking said:


> so what im saying is that this already wealthy man will be taking money out of people with less....


So you think 4 large scale grows, which btw, the DEA has already promised not to allow is going to stop everyone else everywhere in California from being able to make a living? Really? There are already large scale grows both indoor and outdoor all over California. I'm positive you're already aware of this. 

As long as you have a high quality product, you'll always be able to get rid of it. You know this, I know this, EVERYONE knows this. Californians aren't going to all of a sudden decide they prefer mass produced schwag over locally grow top shelf is way outside the scope of reality.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 17, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> So you think 4 large scale grows, which btw, the DEA has already promised not to allow is going to stop everyone else everywhere in California from being able to make a living? Really? There are already large scale grows both indoor and outdoor all over California. I'm positive you're already aware of this.
> 
> As long as you have a high quality product, you'll always be able to get rid of it. You know this, I know this, EVERYONE knows this. Californians aren't going to all of a sudden decide they prefer mass produced schwag over locally grow top shelf is way outside the scope of reality.


good point dan, i do believe you are right... now to the real tuff question.... do you think 19 is gonna pass, be close or not make it???


----------



## grow space (Oct 17, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> I didn't realize the entire United States lived in California. What do you think would of happened if Prop 215 didn't pass? A good bet would be that *NO* other states would have pass Medical Marijuana laws. Is it really that hard to understand that even if Prop 19 won't affect a lot of Californians It will affect the US as a whole in a much larger way? Do you want to see other states pass marijuana legalization or do you not care enough?
> 
> Is that how it is in the west? Once you've got yours, fuck everybody else? Because that is exactly what you're saying.


I dont actually give a shit about the other states, i live in much worse place now..i have to man up to grow my herb and risk of losing my freedom....Because where i live, i m like 95 % sure that my country will do shit when cali legalizes the herb...Other states, yes, i think they will react to it..sorry, this is my opinion, i am an asshole and i like it, and i will go to cali some day and pursue my dreams ! thats it, if u see in this that i say fuck others the see it, i dont give a damn...yeah it would be nice to see that the whole world woudl free the plant, but it int going to happen, cas we are leaded by creed, and the same creed and poisioned even my mind a little! again, sorry, but this is my opinion and only mine!


----------



## potroast (Oct 17, 2010)

nathen will argue with anyone, HE does not listen to your response, but HE always has another stupid point to make. 

HE can make all the money that he wants, he just has a problem with anyone else doing the same. 

HE can continue to do what he wants while ignoring the law, so everyone else can just make do for themselves.

HE is already paying low prices for pot, so everyone else can just continue paying more.

HE thinks big business is bad, like WalMart, but his business is just fine with him.

OK nathen, we get it.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 17, 2010)

potroast said:


> nathen will argue with anyone, HE does not listen to your response, but HE always has another stupid point to make.
> 
> HE can make all the money that he wants, he just has a problem with anyone else doing the same.
> 
> ...


Finally you got it potroast.... its still gonna be voted NO, so see you at the polls.... if it was such a good bill, me and so many other people would be voting for it.... But its not, so having dignity and a lil bit of self respect tells my inner self to vote no on it... criticize me for thinking for myself and doing what ever I want to weather there are laws or not... its actually quite liberating.... maybe you should take the time and become un afraid, stop watching the TV and start living as truely who you are... instead of being on this board regirgitating the same ole BS man... life is a constant renovation potroast, try not to get to stuck in your ways and and become a square....


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

nathenking said:


> good point dan, i do believe you are right... now to the real tuff question.... do you think 19 is gonna pass, be close or not make it???


It'll pass, but be very close. It'll only pass because a lot of people who could care less about legalization will vote for it because they see it having an economic benefit to the state. I've talked to several supervisors, city counsel members, even my congressman about this. They are all convinced it'll pass and are preparing for it.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

potroast said:


> nathen will argue with anyone, HE does not listen to your response, but HE always has another stupid point to make.


Naw, he's listening. I tend to argue the same way some times. I may have my opinions and will keep making my case, but I do hear what the other side is saying. I have a feeling he's the same way.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

nathenking said:


> do you think 19 is gonna pass, be close or not make it???


it will pass by about 6%, 53% to 47%.

all polls except a few outliers reflect this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19_(2010)#Polls

the poll you cite that has it trailing used a sample size of 448 likely voters. the best poll by PPP with 2,004 likely voters has it ahead by far. they also did cross sections that allow you to see how californians feel about 19 by age, gender, political affiliation, etc.

i did a simple breakdown and factored in a higher turnout of conservative voters based on predictable midterm election politics. i also estimated the undecideds to break decidedly for "no". with all these factors AGAINST prop 19, it still passes comfortably. 

i encourage you to tell me how i went wrong in my calculations and why you feel prop 19 will not pass, despite a litany of evidence to the contrary.

the link to the PPP poll is within the quote, and ocntains all the info you need to dispute me if you wish.



> even if the 34% of self identified californian conservatives, broke towards no on 19 by 7 to 3 (conservative guess)....let's see what would happen with the 66% of liberals and moderates...score so far: 10.2% yes, 23.8% no
> 
> 27% of californians who are liberal break 4 to 1 in favor of yes (a conservative guess). 5.4% more no, 21.6% more yes. score now: 31.8% yes, 29.2% no.
> 
> ...


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> about as good as "we can fix it later".


i don't understand what there is to fix.

everybody gets to grow their own damn weed. 

what the fuck is wrong with that?


----------



## Weedoozie (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> i don't understand what there is to fix.
> 
> everybody gets to grow their own damn weed.
> 
> what the fuck is wrong with that?


The taxes man, the taxes. And the rules regarding the grow size.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> i don't understand what there is to fix.
> 
> everybody gets to grow their own damn weed.
> 
> what the fuck is wrong with that?


it's the yes side that keeps saying "it's a foot in the door", "a step in the right direction", "it can be fixed later". you tell me.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> it will pass by about 6%, 53% to 47%.
> 
> all polls except a few outliers reflect this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19_(2010)#Polls
> 
> ...


It's all about how they ask the questions IMO. When people get confronted by another person asking them if they support prop19, they say no. When it's an automated poll where people feel more anonymous, they say yes to prop 19. I believe that applies to every single poll taken this year.


----------



## klmmicro (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> it's the yes side that keeps saying "it's a foot in the door", "a step in the right direction", "it can be fixed later". you tell me.


I feel that it will prompt other states to consider legislation to legalize cannabis as well. That seems like a step in the right direction to me. The problem will still remain that there are limitations on quantity...which is stupid. If you can posses an ounce, who cares if you have a pound...


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> i don't understand what there is to fix.
> 
> everybody gets to grow their own damn weed.
> 
> what the fuck is wrong with that?


Prop 19 is designed specifically to be amended at the local level so cities and counties can have the amount of legalization they choose to have. So if a county wants to raise the legal levels to allow 100sq ft growing area and allow everyone to have a pound, they can. 

Personally, I'd like to see the 1oz 25sq ft area part of the bill increased. I understand why it's there, to prevent everyone in California from dealing out of their house, and 1oz/25sq ft is perfectly reasonable to grow/possess for personal recreational purposes, but just to be safe so we aren't unnecessarily sending people to jail those limits should be doubled in my opinion.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> it's the yes side that keeps saying "it's a foot in the door", "a step in the right direction", "it can be fixed later". you tell me.


i already told you..."i don't understand what there is to fix". read much?

i'll let you and the rest of the no voters tell me what's wrong with letting everyone grow their own damn weed.

wait a second, i thought you said in a recent thread..."i don't think i said anything about which way i was voting"...and then deleted my posts that showed your statement was not consistent with other statements you continually make.

that's the spirit...just erase anything you don't have an answer for.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

Weedoozie said:


> The taxes man, the taxes. And the rules regarding the grow size.


if a shit like me can pull 8 ounces out of 8 sq feet, there is ntohing wrong with 25 sq ft. you can pull pounds.

and they can't tax what you grow for yourself.

they already tax weed. this bill is not the start of cannabis taxation, in case you hadn't noticed.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Personally, I'd like to see the 1oz 25sq ft area part of the bill increased. I understand why it's there, to prevent everyone in California from dealing out of their house, and 1oz/25sq ft is perfectly reasonable to grow/possess for personal recreational purposes, but just to be safe so we aren't unnecessarily sending people to jail those limits should be doubled in my opinion.


the limit is imaginary for all intents and purposes.

can a cop get a warrant to search your house because you smell greater than 25 sq ft? nope.

as long as one is discreet and prudent, you can basically grow all you want without worry.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> i already told you..."i don't understand what there is to fix". read much?
> 
> i'll let you and the rest of the no voters tell me what's wrong with letting everyone grow their own damn weed.
> 
> ...


maybe you can go back to post #1, if you are confused.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> the limit is imaginary for all intents and purposes.
> 
> can a cop get a warrant to search your house because you smell greater than 25 sq ft? nope.
> 
> as long as one is discreet and prudent, you can basically grow all you want without worry.


well since YOU said it was ok.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> well since YOU said it was ok.


not me, legal precedent.

do you have an idea how many cases get thrown out due to evidence being obtained in the wrong way?

are you that unfamiliar with the american legal system?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> not me, legal precedent.
> 
> do you have an idea how many cases get thrown out due to evidence being obtained in the wrong way?
> 
> are you that unfamiliar with the american legal system?


prop 19 has NEVER been tried in ANY court. nice that you can predict the future though.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> maybe you can go back to post #1, if you are confused.


post #1:



> Tom Ammiano to the rescue again! He just wrote an assembly bill that fixes all the flaws in prop 19 if it's passed. This solve almost all of everyone's reasonable concerns with prop 19.
> 
> Makes medical patients exempt from prop 19 in every way. (no taxes on 215!)
> Makes unlawfully cultivation a misdemeanor instead of a felony.
> ...




nope, that still gives me ZERO insight as to what is wrong with letting everyonegrow their own damn weed.

care to articulate? or will you simply sidestep the question again?
​


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> prop 19 has NEVER been tried in ANY court. nice that you can predict the future though.


no, but evidence that was obtained improperly has been tried, ver and over again.

you don't need a magic ball when you have legal precedent and history to learn from.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> post #1:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i have no desire to waste my time with you. you want nothing but to attack people. you're lucky you're even still around.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> the limit is imaginary for all intents and purposes.
> 
> can a cop get a warrant to search your house because you smell greater than 25 sq ft? nope.
> 
> as long as one is discreet and prudent, you can basically grow all you want without worry.


Oh I agree. It's not something that would effect many people. I guess it's the 1 ounce thing then. I think a few (not many, and it'll be their own fault, but still) people will get busted for having slightly more than an ounce and the cops will claim they are dealers when they aren't. 99% of people driving around with more than an ounce are dealers, but still we should look out for that 1%. It's very unlikely anyone would carry around more than 2 ounces for any reason other than dealing. 

I know that opens up the law to protect illegal dealers, but I'm ok with that too. 

The flaws in prop 19 are very minor. It's written in a way that makes it sound like there are harsh penalties, but it makes it extremely difficult to bust people for anything. The no on prop 19 side has tried to blow those minor flaws out of proportion. Those minor flaws are not a good reason to support prohibition. But in the long run I would like to see some of the limits and restrictions removed.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i have no desire to waste my time with you. you want nothing but to attack people. you're lucky you're even still around.


where did i attack you? i simply pointed out FACTS.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> But in the long run I would like to see some of the limits and restrictions removed.


ditto. this is ho it would be in a perfect world.

but in the meantime, in the real world, i have no problem with 25 sq ft. that is sufficient area to pull pounds.

i appreciate how you bring us the facts. thank you for that.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> ditto. this is ho it would be in a perfect world.
> 
> but in the meantime, in the real world, i have no problem with 25 sq ft. that is sufficient area to pull pounds.


Agreed. 25sq ft is a lot more than zero sq ft. Not going to let anyone tell me otherwise. 

It's not a perfect world. IMO this isn't a perfect law. But it's a huge step in the right direction. It'll stop a lot of people who just grow as a hobby from going to jail. Takes away almost all probable cause that police use to fuck with us. It's not a perfect law, but it's a very good one.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> IMO this isn't a perfect law.


agreed, 100%.

but as you said, it takes away a shitload of probable cause and allows a more than fair size of a grow space.

most importantly, as goes cali goes the rest of the nation.

anyone want to take bets on margin of passage? i would bet $25 on 5-6%


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> where did i attack you? i simply pointed out FACTS.


Prohibitionists often get offended by facts


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

as long as there are limits there will be causes to investigate. 


like i said, it's not worth wasting my time over. i have already sealed my ballot, and have nothing to prove.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Prohibitionists often get offended by facts


i just looked back over the thread and could not find any semblance of an attack. 

i came into this thread to honestly answer someone's question on whether we thought this would pass. i also asked what is wrong with this bill.

apparently, those are grounds for a ban, not that i give half a shit about that.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> as long as there are limits there will be causes to investigate.


Really? How often to cops kick down people's doors because they bought a home brewing kit?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> i just looked back over the thread and could not find any semblance of an attack.
> 
> i came into this thread to honestly answer someone's question on whether we thought this would pass. i also asked what is wrong with this bill.
> 
> apparently, those are grounds for a ban, not that i give half a shit about that.


see, you love the drama. can't stay focused on the topic at hand. let's see how long this one drags out.

get over me dude, i have NO interest in you.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> as long as there are limits there will be causes to investigate.


on what grounds? 

how are you going to get a warrant to search? does it smell like 26 sq ft? 

eveidence obtained illegally is inadmissible in a court of law. so please explain how said evidence will be obtained if someone decides to go big, or why 25 sq ft is not sufficient for a recreational user. your choice.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Really? How often to cops kick down people's doors because they bought a home brewing kit?


so if prop 19 passes you're telling me it's a free for all as long as a cop doesn't walk in?


i lower myself to continue, .......


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> on what grounds?
> 
> how are you going to get a warrant to search? does it smell like 26 sq ft?
> 
> eveidence obtained illegally is inadmissible in a court of law. so please explain how said evidence will be obtained if someone decides to go big, or why 25 sq ft is not sufficient for a recreational user. your choice.


can't explain something that hasn't happened yet.



eveidence? 


you get 2 now  


slow down and check your spelling, it goes a long way.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> get over me dude, i have NO interest in you.


you say that as you stalk my posts and respond immediately. sorry for not believing that. 

but thanks for thinking you have greater insight into the contents of my own mind than i do.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> can't explain something that hasn't happened yet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


damn the spelling, full speed ahead.

we don't need to look at this with respect to prop 19. let's take a look at other places that have limits on how many plants a patient may grow.

where are the limit checkers? where are the cops busting in doors because it 'smells heavy'?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> you say that as you stalk my posts and respond immediately. sorry for not believing that.
> 
> but thanks for thinking you have greater insight into the contents of my own mind than i do.


it is you that keeps chasing me. i deleted your post directed at me after i told you i would. you kept posting them anyways. get a HINT dude. you are annoying as fuck. 

i already sealed my ballot. you are wasting you time on me.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> so if prop 19 passes you're telling me it's a free for all as long as a cop doesn't walk in?


Yeah, pretty much. Even if you have empty nutrient bottles on your front door, that's not evidence of a crime. A cop saying "I smell marijuana" is no longer permission for him to enter. Prop 19 makes it very difficult for cops to bust anyone. They are probably going to have to retrain all the police dogs in California.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> damn the spelling, full speed ahead.
> 
> we don't need to look at this with respect to prop 19. let's take a look at other places that have limits on how many plants a patient may grow.
> 
> where are the limit checkers? where are the cops busting in doors because it 'smells heavy'?


2 doors down at my buddies house. kinda why he shut down. the dogs sat down in front of his warehouse door. it's all they needed.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Yeah, pretty much. Even if you have empty nutrient bottles on your front door, that's not evidence of a crime. A cop saying "I smell marijuana" is no longer permission for him to enter. Prop 19 makes it very difficult for cops to bust anyone. They are probably going to have to retrain all the police dogs in California.




you guys kill me. all this time i thought you were serious. my stupid.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> it is you that keeps chasing me. i deleted your post directed at me after i told you i would. you kept posting them anyways. get a HINT dude. you are annoying as fuck.
> 
> i already sealed my ballot. you are wasting you time on me.


i ignore people i find annoying as fuck. you apparently gravitate to their posts. i don't give a shit what you voted, you are one person. i would bet more than one fence-sitter has been influenced by my 'annoying as fuck' (ie, factual) posts.

i'm going to go have a smoke now. don't miss me too much while i'm away


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> i ignore people i find annoying as fuck. you apparently gravitate to their posts. i don't give a shit what you voted, you are one person. i would bet more than one fence-sitter has been influenced by my 'annoying as fuck' (ie, factual) posts.
> 
> i'm going to go have a smoke now. don't miss me too much while i'm away


as a mod, it really isn't "productive" to put members on ignore. 
what's your excuse again? oh yeah, you love me. 

or fear my influence.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> as a mod, it really isn't "productive" to put members on ignore.
> what's your excuse again? oh yeah, you love me.
> 
> or fear my influence.


Ever considered a career in law enforcement? People with that kind of attitude excel in that particular field.


----------



## Weedoozie (Oct 17, 2010)

Shitty...I still don't know which way I want to vote and I know I've read at least 24 hours worth of writing on this prop...


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Ever considered a career in law enforcement? People with that kind of attitude excel in that particular field.



woo hoo, jabs at insults.

keep it coming, it's what you guys do.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> 2 doors down at my buddies house. kinda why he shut down. the dogs sat down in front of his warehouse door. it's all they needed.


your anecdotal evidence is too overwhelming for years of legal precedent to possibly overcome.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> as a mod, it really isn't "productive" to put members on ignore.
> what's your excuse again? oh yeah, you love me.
> 
> or fear my influence.


i meant ignore as in 'move on with your merry day'.

i fear nothing but fear itself. and having to shoo away leo's at my door. and spiders, but only when i am not wearing shoes.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

Weedoozie said:


> Shitty...I still don't know which way I want to vote and I know I've read at least 24 hours worth of writing on this prop...


No matter how you vote on prop 19, please remember to vote for Kamala Harris for state Attorney General. Her opponent Steve Cooley considers medical marijuana just a front for growing/selling drugs. He has shut down hundreds of dispensaries in LA where he is currently district attorney. He's made his entire career on throwing people in jail for cannabis.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> i meant ignore as in 'move on with your merry day'.
> 
> i fear nothing but fear itself. and leo's at my door. and spiders, but only when i am not wearing shoes.


why don't YOU show me how? 

you can't.




i don't swing that way dude, give up.


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 17, 2010)

> 2 doors down at my buddies house. kinda why he shut down. the dogs sat down in front of his warehouse door. it's all they needed.


That's all they needed because weed isn't legal now. The cops had a reason to enter the house, they witnessed illegal activity. However, prop 19 makes it so a dog smelling weed isn't illegal. There's no way to tell from outside a house how much someone is growing, and a cop cannot enter a house without a warrant. If s/he barges in anyway then any evidence found cannot be used against you in court. Cops will probably be getting warrants if the prop passes based on electricity used. So no, you cannot grow an unlimited amount. You probably could grow a good amount more than 25 sqft and get away with it though... but that's really pushing it, and if you're planning on growing to sell, why not just get a club card?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> That's all they needed because weed isn't legal now. The cops had a reason to enter the house, they witnessed illegal activity. However, prop 19 makes it so a dog smelling weed isn't illegal. There's no way to tell from outside a house how much someone is growing, and a cop cannot enter a house without a warrant. If s/he barges in anyway then any evidence found cannot be used against you in court. Cops will probably be getting warrants if the prop passes based on electricity used. So no, you cannot grow an unlimited amount. You probably could grow a good amount more than 25 sqft and get away with it though... but that's really pushing it, and if you're planning on growing to sell, why not just get a club card?



he's medical. 
it's as legal for him today as it will be for you tomorrow.




so under prop 19 everyone can grow as much as they want and the cops can't do anything about because it's all been tried in the courts already.

well shit, i gotta get my ballot back. 




who said anything about selling?


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> That's all they needed because weed isn't legal now. The cops had a reason to enter the house, they witnessed illegal activity. However, prop 19 makes it so a dog smelling weed isn't illegal.


Correct. Any evidence gathered because a dog smells a legal substance will likely be thrown out in court.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> why don't YOU show me how?
> 
> you can't.
> 
> ...


i don't find you "annoying as fuck". no need for me to ignore you and move on with my merry day.

quite the ego thogh, thinking i want to "swing that way" with you....whatever the fuck you mean by that.

if i was going to be gay with someone, it would be with someone who has the presence of mind to understand decades of legal precedent, like mccumcumber.

what are you doing tonight, mccumcumber?


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> i don't find you "annoying as fuck". no need for me to ignore you and move on with my merry day.
> 
> quite the ego thogh, thinking i want to "swing that way" with you....whatever the fuck you mean by that.


Dude. He's trying to bait you to say something he considers a personal insult so he can lock the thread. Don't play into it.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> he's medical.
> it's as legal for him today as it will be for you tomorrow.


if he had a reason to grow (medical) and got busted in the way you describe, by simply 'smelling heavy', then he *should* be able to get illegally obtained evidence dismissed. you gave us none of the details. they may have already had a huge case on him for illegal activities anyway.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you can't even spell.


but i do understand legal precedent. and i didn't even stay at a holiday inn last night.


----------



## beardo (Oct 17, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Tom Ammiano to the rescue again! He just wrote an assembly bill that fixes all the flaws in prop 19 if it's passed. This solve almost all of everyone's reasonable concerns with prop 19.
> 
> Makes medical patients exempt from prop 19 in every way. (no taxes on 215!)
> Makes unlawfully cultivation a misdemeanor instead of a felony.
> ...


 Prop 19 HAS NOT been changed. Tom Ammiano's bill would not automaticaly take effect their would have to be a vote with 2/3 majority in favor of his bill.


----------



## Weedoozie (Oct 17, 2010)

Must you ridicule one another? Is it too hard to argue factually and without all these emotional insults?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> if he had a reason to grow (medical) and got busted in the way you describe, by simply 'smelling heavy', then he *should* be able to get illegally obtained evidence dismissed. you gave us none of the details. they may have already had a huge case on him for illegal activities anyway.


maybe he did get it dismissed. AFTER it was all taken. after he was arrested and jailed, after his family was harassed and his home destroyed. but yeah, sure, they can't do shit.


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 17, 2010)

> he's medical.
> it's as legal for him today as it will be for you tomorrow.
> 
> 
> ...


Turns out cops can still arrest you for having weed, even with a card if they're dicks. You need an attorney to help you out of jail or a ticket. I got caught in the central coast with a little less than an ounce, and I had to fight the ticket in court, which is actually a misdemeanor. When weed is only legal for a small amount of the population, there's nothing to stop local law enforcement from going into a house b/c a dog smells weed. The cop had no idea until after he was in (or maybe when your buddy went to jail in his case) that what your buddy was doing was legal. When cops cannot state (or feign) ignorance, then they have no grounds to barge into a house. Eliminating any chance of someone going to jail just because they smell weed.

I never said you could grow as much as you wanted. I actually said that the cop could get a warrant to search your house if you did that, and you would be fucked. All I said was that weed smell will no longer be a reason to invade a house, making the likelihood of getting arrested go WAY down. The whole dunce thing is superfluous man, please don't insult me for no reason.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

Weedoozie said:


> Must you ridicule one another? Is it too hard to argue factually and without all these emotional insults?


i keep telling him, simply take the time to check his spelling. it's hard to argue with third graders is what it is.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> Turns out cops can still arrest you for having weed, even with a card if they're dicks. You need an attorney to help you out of jail or a ticket. I got caught in the central coast with a little less than an ounce, and I had to fight the ticket in court, which is actually a misdemeanor. When weed is only legal for a small amount of the population, there's nothing to stop local law enforcement from going into a house b/c a dog smells weed. The cop had no idea until after he was in (or maybe when your buddy went to jail in his case) that what your buddy was doing was legal. When cops cannot state (or feign) ignorance, then they have no grounds to barge into a house. Eliminating any chance of someone going to jail just because they smell weed.
> 
> I never said you could grow as much as you wanted. I actually said that the cop could get a warrant to search your house if you did that, and you would be fucked. All I said was that weed smell will no longer be a reason to invade a house, making the likelihood of getting arrested go WAY down. The whole dunce thing is superfluous man, please don't insult me for no reason.



it was several others who keep saying you can grow as much as you want. your reply simply got mixed in with theirs. if it doesn't pertain to you, don't reply to it. i meant no insult towards you.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> maybe he did get it dismissed. AFTER it was all taken. after he was arrested and jailed, after his family was harassed and his home destroyed. but yeah, sure, they can't do shit.


so you have no idea of the details of the case yet shove it in our face as a trump card? 

if his property was taken and he and his family suffered as a result of illegally obtained evidence, he has recourse. it is written in the first amendment. goes under the 'right to petition the government for a redress of grievances'. 

understanding your legal rights is not only fun, but helpful.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 17, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> Turns out cops can still arrest you for having weed, even with a card if they're dicks. You need an attorney to help you out of jail or a ticket. I got caught in the central coast with a little less than an ounce, and I had to fight the ticket in court, which is actually a misdemeanor. When weed is only legal for a small amount of the population, there's nothing to stop local law enforcement from going into a house b/c a dog smells weed. The cop had no idea until after he was in (or maybe when your buddy went to jail in his case) that what your buddy was doing was legal. When cops cannot state (or feign) ignorance, then they have no grounds to barge into a house. Eliminating any chance of someone going to jail just because they smell weed.
> 
> I never said you could grow as much as you wanted. I actually said that the cop could get a warrant to search your house if you did that, and you would be fucked. All I said was that weed smell will no longer be a reason to invade a house, making the likelihood of getting arrested go WAY down. The whole dunce thing is superfluous man, please don't insult me for no reason.


it wont be a reason, but they still will search you... i dont care what anybody says... maybe in 2-4 years after this law has taken effect they may not search you but make no mistake that if this law changes that the cops are just gonna go with out resistance....


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> so you have no idea of the details of the case yet shove it in our face as a trump card?
> 
> if his property was taken and he and his family suffered as a result of illegally obtained evidence, he has recourse. it is written in the first amendment. goes under the 'right to petition the government for a redress of grievances'.
> 
> understanding your legal rights is not only fun, but helpful.


um, i know all the details. i just chose not to share them all. you're making shit up now because of it. 


you're so easy it's fun. and i *am* having fun.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i keep telling him, simply take the time to check his spelling. it's hard to argue with third graders is what it is.


you may want to take the time to check your legal rights. it is more helpful than good spelling.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

nathenking said:


> it wont be a reason, but they still will search you... i dont care what anybody says... maybe in 2-4 years after this law has taken effect they may not search you but make no mistake that if this law changes that the cops are just gonna go with out resistance....



dude, if this law passes everyone can do whatever they want. 

cops won't be able to do a thing. and if they do you can sue them.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> you may want to take the time to check your legal rights. it is more helpful than good spelling.


i'm not in any trouble. i'm well aware of my rights. have you seen my garden?

and i check my spelling.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> laughing, not hating.


You're just hating because you got burnt by Richard Lee. Now you're willing to support prohibition to make sure his ballot measure doesn't pass. 

If you really hate Richard Lee so much you should support prop 19. The DEA is going to arrest him when prop 19 passes.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> um, i know all the details. i just chose not to share them all. you're making shit up now because of it.
> 
> 
> you're so easy it's fun. and i *am* having fun.


 
i wager if the details all came out we'd find out he was illegally selling, or something to that effect. that is, if your story is actually REAL.

i once knew this one dude, i can't share all the details but he banged the police chief's wife and then bludgeoned the police chief with a branch from his 25 foot tall plant. he got away with it. i choose not to share all the details.

ain't the interwebz fun?


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

nathenking said:


> it wont be a reason, but they still will search you... i dont care what anybody says... maybe in 2-4 years after this law has taken effect they may not search you but make no mistake that if this law changes that the cops are just gonna go with out resistance....


Evidence gathered based on the probable cause of cops claiming to smell marijuana will get thrown out in court. They'll have to stop.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> You're just hating because you got burnt by Richard Lee. Now you're willing to support prohibition to make sure his ballot measure doesn't pass.
> 
> If you really hate Richard Lee so much you should support prop 19. The DEA is going to arrest him when prop 19 passes.




richard lee is only one of many reasons, though you refuse to accept it. you have to keep going back to this because it's your simplest attempt at mocking me. pathetic dude. as pathetic as fucking someone over for a book. i see why you side with him.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> richard lee is only one of many reasons, though you refuse to accept it. you have to keep going back to this because it's your simplest attempt at mocking me. pathetic dude. as pathetic as fucking someone over for a book. i see why you side with him.


So much for your crusade against insults eh?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> i wager if the details all came out we'd find out he was illegally selling, or something to that effect. that is, if your story is actually REAL.
> 
> i once knew this one dude, i can't share all the details but he banged the police chief's wife and then bludgeoned the police chief with a branch from his 25 foot tall plant. he got away with it. i choose not to share all the details.
> 
> ain't the interwebz fun?



he was fully legal. growing in a warehouse under 2 scripts with the landlords permission. had less then 99 plants. running 4000 watts. the late night security dude saw him carry a tray of clones in and called the sheriff. the sheriff came with the dog and the dog sat down. the sheriff sat there until the warrant was served. 


it must suck to have to address anything other that what you agree with. even though you feel otherwise you can't even address the reality of what happened. it happens all the time. enough that i really feel stupid even trying to convince you. where exactly do you live that you don't know of all this?


your maturity level in your story telling speaks volumes.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> So much for your crusade against insults eh?


what, did i hurt your feelings? 


you all sure have a hard time paying attention. i thought this thread was about prop 19. seems all you all care about is me and my opinions.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

i'm done here for tonight.

does anyone care to faux-wager with me on margin of passage, the very thing that brought me to this thread?

i wager it passes by 5-6% points.

i bet 10 interwebz on it.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> i'm done here for tonight.
> 
> does anyone care to faux-wager with me on margin of passage, the very thing that brought me to this thread?
> 
> ...


I see your 10 interwebz and raise you an imaginary medical warehouse grow.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> he was fully legal. growing in a warehouse under 2 scripts with the landlords permission. had less then 99 plants. running 4000 watts. the late night security dude saw him carry a tray of clones in and called the sheriff. the sheriff came with the dog and the dog sat down. the sheriff sat there until the warrant was served.
> 
> 
> it must suck to have to address anything other that what you agree with. even though you feel otherwise you can't even address the reality of what happened. it happens all the time. enough that i really feel stupid even trying to convince you. where exactly do you live that you don't know of all this?


so he was in compliance with 215 yet suffered due to poor and illegal law enforcement and you don't think he has full legal rights to seek recourse for his pain and suffering?

where exactly do you live where you don't understand the first amendment and rights enumerated therein?

NOW i'm done.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> i'm done here for tonight.
> 
> does anyone care to faux-wager with me on margin of passage, the very thing that brought me to this thread?
> 
> ...


i bet 10 dollars you can't pass a high school spelling test.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

UncleBuck said:


> so he was in compliance with 215 yet suffered due to poor and illegal law enforcement and you don't think he has full legal rights to seek recourse for his pain and suffering?
> 
> where exactly do you live where you don't understand the first amendment and rights enumerated therein?
> 
> NOW i'm done.


where did i ever say he couldn't seek recourse? 

veering, ..................

seriously dude, wtf?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

see we were talking about searches.

i said "all it took for them to search my buddies was a dog".

now suddenly you are attacking me about my undisclosed opinion of recourse.


i'm here yanking chains. i think you are being serious.

i'd be embarassed about now.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

[video=youtube;YDpePRDnm3Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDpePRDnm3Y[/video]


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

I know this one guy who opposes prop 19 because it'll interfere with his personal profits but he doesn't want to say that so he makes stuff up about prop 19 sending people to jail and taking away freedoms. It's pretty funny stuff.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2010)

i pray prop 19 passes so i can sell all this weed to my sissy friends who hide it from their kids. now they can all drop their guilt, come out of the closet, and buy an ounce of my herb. instead of dime bags. 

i'm still voting no. 

if prop 19 passes more people will buy my glass. i would prefer to sell glass over pot any day. 

i really miss welding. i already have a job lined up for the coming spring. i'm excited but worry about my bad back. it was pots fault i quit 3 years ago. my garden was DEMANDING too much of my attention. i would love to be able to ONLY have to to grow what i needed. the money really takes a lot out of it. adds drama that isn't needed. pot should be free to grow and free to give away. not to be taxed and controlled. 

keep calling me simple though. it's the easiest way to defend your side.


----------



## beardo (Oct 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> dude, if this law passes everyone can do whatever they want.
> 
> cops won't be able to do a thing. and if they do you can sue them.





k4p10kr0n1c said:


> When you vote NO on PROP19, your voting NO to FULL legalization. I've noticed people(s) main problems with Prop 19 is it is a "fake" legalization & it's not "full" legalization. It is partial legalization so that mega-corps can profit & us independent growers will go under because we have certain restrictions. People feel as if these restrictions are pointless & only there to restrict us from making money & allow business' to make money.
> 
> *WRONG.* Restrictions are there for the benefit of the vote. In other words, imagine if Prop 19 stated this,
> "_Prop 19 legalizes marijuana in any amount of possession & any size of grow area, wherever the resident feels to grow on his/her own property is ok as long as it's on they're property. With Prop 19 you will be allowed to possess ANY amount of marijuana you feel is needed._"
> ...


 Yeah if we vote yes and it passes we can allways just say you voted yes and then if it sucks you can just explain that you didn't understand....then you click your heels 3 times and everything's cool again


----------



## beardo (Oct 17, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Ever considered a career in law enforcement? .


 If 19 passes maybe they'll be hiring more cops to inspect grows and more building code inspectors and fire code inspectors and tax collectors. We will need to build new prisons to house 18-21 year old marijuana offenders who become felons if 19 passes and marijuana is recriminalized


----------



## Wheres my Chippy? (Oct 17, 2010)

Wowsers! This thread is still going, and I see its veered WAAAAY off course! haha

Damn, I just can't wait for it to fail miserably so this bickering can end!

Then we can finally all agree to an actual good bill that will pass without a hitch!


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

Wheres my Chippy? said:


> Then we can finally all agree to an actual good bill that will pass without a hitch!


That is incredibly naive. Who's going to pay for this "good bill"? The ONLY reason prop 19 is on the ballot is because it has financial backing for commercial interests. The ONLY reason it is going to pass is it's because it has economic benefits to the state. The majority of Californians don't care about the details of this law as long as it creates legal jobs and brings in tax money. You guys want to take that out of the bill + let 18 year olds buy bud (so they can sell it at their highschools). No legalization bill like that will ever pass. If you want to wait for that you're looking at another 70 years. Good Luck.

You choices are a bill which makes it legal for everyone 21 and up or continuing prohibition. It's insane to vote to continue to end prohibition. 

What we have here are growers/dealers afraid of losing profits Vs everyone else. Even then, if they were smart growers/dealers they'd support prop 19 and open up legal businesses. So basically it's growers/dealers who are too lazy to figure out how to open a business Vs everyone else.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

beardo said:


> If 19 passes maybe they'll be hiring more cops to inspect grows and more building code inspectors and fire code inspectors and tax collectors. We will need to build new prisons to house 18-21 year old marijuana offenders who become felons if 19 passes and marijuana is recriminalized


Dude. Do understand how insane that sounds? That is completely out of the realm of possibility.

Show me where prop 19 makes possession a felony for 18-21 year olds. That's a lie and you know it. 

If you're really that afraid of losing profits, then just come out and say it. Shoot me a PM and I'll point you in the right direction on how to open a legal business and then you'll be all good. You don't need to make stuff up.


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 17, 2010)

Almost 15 years after the passage of 215...the only club within 25 miles was just shut down by a county court order after being sued by the city for being a nuisance. You can bet that San Diego county will do everything they can to oppose this, while enforcing cannabis prohibition.

I have been quite conflicted over this issue for the last couple of weeks, since Arnie signed the decrim bill and now this Assembly bill to amend 19. I am still not convinced one way or the other which trumps which?
The thought of voting no on something that may lead to real change, is very troubling. 

I do not understand why earlier versions of the proposition spelled out the punishment for smoking in the presence of minors as a felony, and now everything just says it is not permitted...


----------



## beardo (Oct 17, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> That is incredibly naive. Who's going to pay for this "good bill"? The ONLY reason prop 19 is on the ballot is because it has financial backing for commercial interests. The ONLY reason it is going to pass is it's because it has economic benefits to the state. The majority of Californians don't care about the details of this law as long as it creates legal jobs and brings in tax money. You guys want to take that out of the bill + let 18 year olds buy bud (so they can sell it at their highschools). No legalization bill like that will ever pass. If you want to wait for that you're looking at another 70 years. Good Luck.
> 
> You choices are a bill which makes it legal for everyone 21 and up or continuing prohibition. It's insane to vote to continue to end prohibition.
> 
> What we have here are growers/dealers afraid of losing profits Vs everyone else. Even then, if they were smart growers/dealers they'd support prop 19 and open up legal businesses. So basically it's growers/dealers who are too lazy to figure out how to open a business Vs everyone else.


 prop 19 expands prohibition. 215 got on the ballot and passed without major commercial funding dennis perone and jack herer got the signatures - Both of them have spoken out against 19


----------



## beardo (Oct 17, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Dude. Do understand how insane that sounds? That is completely out of the realm of possibility.
> 
> Show me where prop 19 makes possession a felony for 18-21 year olds. That's a lie and you know it.
> 
> If you're really that afraid of losing profits, then just come out and say it. Shoot me a PM and I'll point you in the right direction on how to open a legal business and then you'll be all good. You don't need to make stuff up.





mr2shim said:


> don't give any to your friends is what I would say to that. Under the section where it says what you said, it mentions nothing about a minor being busted alone. It has to do with distribution.
> 
> * Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors *
> 
> ...


 the tax money raised from 19 will be used to enforce the new marijuana laws. under 19 posession becomes a felony as soon as a 18 year old passes a joint to his 18 year old friend


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

beardo said:


> the tax money raised from 19 will be used to enforce the new marijuana laws. under 19 posession becomes a felony as soon as a 18 year old passes a joint to his 18 year old friend


No it doesn't. Nothing you quoted says that. No where does prop 19 say that. If I'm wrong, show me the specific line in prop 19 that proves me wrong.


----------



## beardo (Oct 17, 2010)

*Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing marijuana to Minors *

Section 11361 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read: -Heres your line------- (b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.............- 18-20 year olds are considered minors under prop 19 so this would be 14-20 year olds administered or given by someone 18 years old.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

beardo said:


> (b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.


Just don't share your bud with 14 year olds and you'll be ok. You're still talking about giving bud to minors. Is it so unreasonable not to give bud to minors?


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

beardo said:


> prop 19 expands prohibition. 215 got on the ballot and passed without major commercial funding dennis perone and jack herer got the signatures - Both of them have spoken out against 19


Well Jack isn't around anymore and his family has asked that people stop using his name to oppose prop 19. So how about we respect that ok?


----------



## beardo (Oct 17, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Just don't share your bud with 14 year olds and you'll be ok. You're still talking about giving bud to minors. Is it so unreasonable not to give bud to minors?


Oh I thought i was making stuff up....?? dont smoke a joint with a 20 year old war veteran either right.


----------



## beardo (Oct 17, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Just don't share your bud with 14 year olds and you'll be ok. You're still talking about giving bud to minors. Is it so unreasonable not to give bud to minors?


 i'm not saying i'm going to hang with kids i'm saying kids are kids and I was a teenager who smoked pot and I don't think we should have police breaking up high school house partys and sending the seniors to prison for 5 years


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

beardo said:


> Oh I thought i was making stuff up....?? dont smoke a joint with a 20 year old war veteran either right.


Prop 19 does not change the state of California's definition of a minor. It says people under 21 can not posses cannabis. It does not say "people under 21 are now considered minors".

You are intentionally ignoring the part of prop 19 that addresses 18-20 year olds. It says it is illegal to knowingly give or sell cannabis to someone under 21 but over 18. That means the cops have to prove that you knew the person's age in advance. Basically, you'd have to get busted selling to a 19 year old undercover cop who announced he was under 21 while wearing a wire. 

The idea that we will have to build new prisons to house people who get busted for that very specific and unlikely situation is utterly stupid. But I think you know that. I think you're only problem with prop 19 is that you think you may lose $$$.


----------



## beardo (Oct 17, 2010)

I'm sorry if you never completly read or comprehended prop 19 I posted that one section so you could read it and think about what it means but their are a lot of problems with the prop


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

beardo said:


> I'm sorry if you never completly read or comprehended prop 19 I posted that one section so you could read it and think about what it means but their are a lot of problems with the prop


Dude. You're inventing problems with prop 19. It doesn't say that if a 20 yr old passes a joint to another 20 yr old he's going to prison for 5 years. You are intentionally misinterpreting it for your own purposes.

How about we just doing give joints to kids and we'll all be ok?


----------



## beardo (Oct 17, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Prop 19 does not change the state of California's definition of a minor. It says people under 21 can not posses cannabis. It does not say "people under 21 are now considered minors".
> 
> 
> The idea that we will have to build new prisons to house people who get busted for that very specific and unlikely situation is utterly stupid. But I think you know that. I think you're only problem with prop 19 is that you think you may lose $$$.


 People under 21 are Minors with Alcohol and under prop19 would be with marijuana. I think your pro 19 because of $$$ your invested in seeing it pass for your own finacial gain....you couldn't possibly ignore the potential negitive impact of 19 on california


----------



## beardo (Oct 17, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Dude. You're inventing problems with prop 19. It doesn't say that if a 20 yr old passes a joint to another 20 yr old he's going to prison for 5 years. You are intentionally misinterpreting it for your own purposes.
> 
> How about we just doing give joints to kids and we'll all be ok?





beardo said:


> *Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing marijuana to Minors *
> 
> (b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years


 Let's try this again...Think about it


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 17, 2010)

beardo said:


> I'm sorry if you never completly read or comprehended prop 19 I posted that one section so you could read it and think about what it means but their are a lot of problems with the prop


You do realize that you are complaining about something that is already a standing law right? lol. The passage you keep quoting is part of an existing California Health code that has been on the books since 2009.

This is nothing new. You're blowing things out of proportion in order to scare people.

http://law.onecle.com/california/health/11361.html

Does that link look familiar? It should. It's the "new regulation" you keep complaining about. (yeah, the one that's been law for over a year without any complaints)

So enough with the scare tactics ok?


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 18, 2010)

beardo said:


> Let's try this again...Think about it


Those are existing laws. The only new parts of the law are parts c & d. You know, the part that says you can only get busted for giving/selling bud to someone under 21 if you know they are under 21 ahead of time?

Don't take my word for it. Look it up for yourself. It's California Health and Safety Code Section 11361. And it's already law in CA.


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> You do realize that you are complaining about something that is already a standing law right? lol.





beardo said:


> People under 21 are Minors with Alcohol and under prop19 would be with marijuana.


 I didn't realize you had already passed prop19....


----------



## gupp (Oct 18, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> I have been quite conflicted over this issue for the last couple of weeks, since Arnie signed the decrim bill and now this Assembly bill to amend 19. I am still not convinced one way or the other which trumps which?


Prop 19 will override decriminalization. It will amend the law, in that exact area.

SB 1449 (decriminalization) 
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1449_bill_20101001_status.html
An act to amend Section *11357* of the Health and Safety
Code, and to amend Section *23222* of the Vehicle Code,
relating to controlled substances.
Prop 19
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/abx6_9_bill_20100921_introduced.html
An act to add Section 23394.1 to, and to add Chapter 19
(commencing with Section 26000) to Division 9 of, the Business and
Professions Code, to amend Section 68152 of the Government Code, to
amend Sections ...*11357*, ...of the Health and Safety
Code,... to amend Sections *23222* and
40000.15 of the Vehicle Code, and to amend Section 18901.3 of the
Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to marijuana.


----------



## jfa916 (Oct 18, 2010)

legalize marijuana everywere


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 18, 2010)

jfa916 said:


> legalize marijuana everywere


Where in Cali do you live?


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 18, 2010)

gupp said:


> Prop 19 will override decriminalization. It will amend the law, in that exact area.


Correct. It will change the penalty for having 1 ounce or less from $100 ticket to legal with no penalty. Growing however has not been decriminalized.


----------



## gupp (Oct 18, 2010)

*


REALSTYLES said:



2012 there will be a better prop so don't go out and vote yes until you see "legalization" not taxation on the proposal. And if you can show me where it says legalized on this prop 19 I'll vote yes but for now it's not!!!

Click to expand...

ok, heres the link to the text of prop 19:
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/abx6_9_bill_20100921_introduced.html* *
and here's a relevant quote for you. 

T* *o remove all existing civil and criminal penalties for
persons 21 years of age or older who personally cultivate, possess,
process, share, or transport a limited amount of marijuana, solely
for that individual's personal consumption in a residence or other
nonpublic place, including premises licensed for that purpose, and
not for resale, without impacting existing laws proscribing dangerous
activities while under the influence of marijuana, or certain
conduct that exposes younger persons to marijuana.

The certain amount being currently a pound right now. The law is long, its late, cant think....hope it helps.* *

As an interesting side note the law currently allows you to grow plants (in a 25 square foot area) and not have them be taxed...at all, as long as they are for personal consumption.- it's legal to share it too with somebody over 21 as long as it is not for resale.* *



Dan Kone said:



Correct. It will change the penalty for having 1 ounce or less from $100 ticket to legal with no penalty. Growing however has not been decriminalized.

Click to expand...

* *
I'm fairly certain growing is legalized. 
http://www.taxandregulate.org/prop19anchors.html#11300share* *
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:
(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.

It's an older version. Can't find it in the new one (See previous link), but I'm not sure if it is still included, or not. * *
Edit: yes, you can legally grow a 25 square foot area, I was looking at the wrong bill.
Anyway, it is late, time to sign off.*


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 18, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> Prop 19 is a joke a fairytale Pandora's box. I was charged with a wobbler (felony/misdemeanor) for possession of a gram of has and I had my doctors rec march of this year. Now I'm on 3 years formal probation. So if you think 19 is gonna stop the arrests your wrong


If prop 19 passes, what you did will no longer even be illegal. So what are you talking about? Cops are just going to walk up to you and send you to prison for something legal? no dude. 

And you can't get a felony for possession of a gram. That's not possible. Something doesn't add up there.


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 18, 2010)

gupp said:


> ok, heres the link to the text of prop 19:
> http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/abx6_9_bill_20100921_introduced.html
> and here's a relevant quote for you.
> 
> ...


I read that and no where does it state legalization don't be fooled. if you think it's gonna be legal and not controlled then let me sell you some swamp land in Florida or maybe you won the Canadian sweepstakes of a $10,000,000 you just gotta pay me $5,000 to clear the taxes


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 18, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> *removed*


Something you might be interested. A group of congressmen right now are in the early stages of writing a bill that expunges the record of anyone convicted of possession, releasing everyone in jail for possession, and retroactively ending all penalties for those convicted of possession. That only applies to those convicted of strait possession (not intent to sell) and it's by no means a sure thing yet. Just thought you might be interested.


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 18, 2010)

Fun fact! You actually can get arrested for having a gram of hash. It's considered a condensed narcotic. Prop 19 actually states that hash is not a condensed narcotic, so... Realstyles! You could get your current probation dropped! Seems like a good incentive for you. If you can't afford a lawyer though nevermind, the legal battle that you would have to fight would be way too hard to do on your own.


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 18, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> If prop 19 passes, what you did will no longer even be illegal. So what are you talking about? Cops are just going to walk up to you and send you to prison for something legal? no dude.
> 
> And you can't get a felony for possession of a gram. That's not possible. Something doesn't add up there.


a gram of hash is a felony read the california health and safety code


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 18, 2010)

funny thing is June of 09 had cop in my house with 6 plants growing and they asked if I had my rec I did and they didn't do shit and it was bigger than 5 x 5 if prop 19 passes I can only grow 1 plant my last grow I had 1 plant that was 5 feet wide 



https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/364056-indoor-monster-plant.html


----------



## gupp (Oct 18, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> I read that and no where does it state legalization don't be fooled. if you think it's gonna be legal and not controlled then let me sell you some swamp land in Florida or maybe you won the Canadian sweepstakes of a $10,000,000 you just gotta pay me $5,000 to clear the taxes


 Can you please explain what you mean by legalization, then?



REALSTYLES said:


> funny thing is June of 09 had cop in my house with 6 plants growing and they asked if I had my rec I did and they didn't do shit and it was bigger than 5 x 5 if prop 19 passes I can only grow 1 plant my last grow I had 1 plant that was 5 feet wide


mm. you will still receive the benefits of prop 215. If its legal under 215, its legal under prop 19.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 18, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> funny thing is June of 09 had cop in my house with 6 plants growing and they asked if I had my rec I did and they didn't do shit and it was bigger than 5 x 5 if prop 19 passes I can only grow 1 plant my last grow I had 1 plant that was 5 feet wide


Nah dude. The limits don't apply to medical patients. Prop 19 is about recreational use.


----------



## gupp (Oct 18, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> a gram of hash is a felony read the california health and safety code



He's saying the hashish is removed as it isn't listed anymore. 

Edit:

"Marijuana" and "cannabis" are interchangeable terms that mean all parts of the plant Genus Cannabis, whether growing or not; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; concentrated cannabis; edible products containing same; and every active compound, manufacture, derivative, or preparation of the plant, or resin.

Since it isn't a felony anymore, a charge could be dropped...

(I think so at least, not a lawyer.)


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 18, 2010)

gupp said:


> since it isn't a felony anymore, a felony charge could be droppped.


Unfortunately it's not going to work like that. But if prop 19 passes it won't be a felony if you get busted for that after the election. However as I mentioned there is a group of congressmen working to retroactively eliminate all cannabis possession related charges and clear everyone's record. If that passes, then his record would be clean and the probation would end.


----------



## homer371 (Oct 18, 2010)

Hey California-dwelling Prop 19 supporters:

Here's something you can put on your window sills on Halloween night and spread the good word...



took me an hour to make


----------



## mae (Oct 18, 2010)

It was an hour well spent!


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Correct. It will change the penalty for having 1 ounce or less from $100 ticket to legal with no penalty. Growing however has not been decriminalized.


 And it changes the penalty for 18 year olds who smoke with their friends to a 3-5 year prison sentence


----------



## vradd (Oct 18, 2010)

you stole my idea!!

so whats been going on the last 23 pages? someone wanna give me cliffnotes


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> If prop 19 passes, what you did will no longer even be illegal. So what are you talking about? Cops are just going to walk up to you and send you to prison for something legal? no dude.
> 
> And you can't get a felony for possession of a gram. That's not possible. Something doesn't add up there.


 Again your wrong


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> Fun fact! You actually can get arrested for having a gram of hash. It's considered a condensed narcotic. Prop 19 actually states that hash is not a condensed narcotic, so... Realstyles! You could get your current probation dropped! Seems like a good incentive for you. If you can't afford a lawyer though nevermind, the legal battle that you would have to fight would be way too hard to do on your own.


 They won't drop his probation if 19 passes and hash will still be subject to the LEO's discression as far as legality.


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> If prop 19 passes, what you did will no longer even be illegal. So what are you talking about? Cops are just going to walk up to you and send you to prison for something legal? no dude.
> 
> And you can't get a felony for possession of a gram. That's not possible. Something doesn't add up there.





REALSTYLES said:


> a gram of hash is a felony read the california health and safety code


 Oh yeah...thought you would read the law before you enter into a legal debate


----------



## potroast (Oct 18, 2010)

beardo said:


> Again your wrong



heeheehee! Beardo saying someone else is wrong! Classic!


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 18, 2010)

[video=youtube;jY6TILz-seY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY6TILz-seY[/video]


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

Rep to those who are reading 19 thinking about it and understanding what it means. some people's argument seems to be vote yes on 19-someone on t.v. said it legalizes weed so it's awsome and if you vote no you suck. Then when you point out what the problems with 19 are they say Your lying it doesn't say that ...then when you show them what prop 19 says they'll say well that's only IF- or they'll say they will change 19 after it passes to make it better or they say your greedy and trying to make money. Legalization would be great -19 IS NOT legalization


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 18, 2010)

How is 19 a step in the wrong direction from where we are now?


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> How is 19 a step in the wrong direction from where we are now?


 It creates more laws restricting marijuana creates new felonys increaces penalties it also recriminilizes marijuana for 18-20 year olds.- Read one of the prop 19 threads....theirs 24 pages of debate about how 19 is a step in the wrong direction in this thread alone


----------



## gupp (Oct 18, 2010)

I am not so sure. It explicitly states criminal penalties for persons 18 or over who give marijuana to minors.
I am fairly sure that this means if you are 18 and give marijuna to someone who is 18 or over=standard legal penalty, no new laws here, but if you are 18 and give marijuana to anyone aged 1-17 there are new criminal penalties.

Any previous law not overridden would still stand here.

I think that minor refers to someone under 18 in most California law.


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

gupp said:


> I am not so sure. it explicitly states criminal penalties for persons 18 or over who give marijuana to minors. I am fairly sure that this means if you are 18 and give marijuna to someone who is 18 or over=standard legal penalty, no new laws here, but if you are 18 and give marijuana to anyone aged 1-17 there are new criminal penalties.


 we all know 18 year olds hang with 17 year olds sometimes...It isn't specific but prop 19 is allowing consumption of marijuana for adults prop 19 classifies adults as those 21 and over so I believe it is stating those under 21 as in 18 19 and 20 year olds would be considered minors - if you purchase alcohol for a 20 year old you have purchaced alcohol for a minor and can face prosicution for it. I think prop 19 could be applied the same way. I think it was written purposly to read this way. I do not know for sure but this is my opion and I see many potential problems


----------



## gupp (Oct 18, 2010)

Yeah, I would agree, that anyone under 21 would be a minor in this case. 
It's not even legal for them to possess it though. The law is trying to limit legal consumption to those 21 and over. Which it does. Whether or not you think the implementation is correct or not, that's more subjective.

Edit: What is the current law for giving/selling to a minor?


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

gupp said:


> Edit: What is the current law for giving/selling to a minor?


 it would be the same for those under 18 the change would be for those smoking with or giving pot to 18 19 and 20 year olds..even a 18 year old who smokes a joint with a 20 year old could face a 3-5 year prison sentence


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 18, 2010)

beardo, may I ask how old you are. It seems all you have going against prop 19 is the age thing. That leads me to think you're below 21 and are pissed about it. Every anti prop 19 post I've read from you it has to do with age. 

My solution to you would be to either, not get caught or don't smoke until you're 21. Same goes for alcohol. What's the sentence for someone giving a minor alcohol?

I can't fathom how the cops would figure out your age unless you're stupid enough to carry an ID on you when you're high.

One minor clause that you disagree with shouldn't be enough to make you tell people to vote no. It's a start, it's better than being illegal or decriminalized. it's a step in the right direction, and I can grantee you if it fails there won't be another legalization bill for years. Go ahead and crap on progression all you want, you better hope to god it passes otherwise you will be regretting all the anti prop 19 shit you spew out.


----------



## gupp (Oct 18, 2010)

beardo said:


> it would be the same for those under 18 the change would be for those smoking with or giving pot to 18 19 and 20 year olds..even a 18 year old who smokes a joint with a 20 year old could face a 3-5 year prison sentence


This is actually what it is right now

http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=11001-12000&file=11357-11362.9

Ctrl+F minors for relevant info.


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 18, 2010)

> Edit: What is the current law for giving/selling to a minor?


3-5 years in state prison I believe. It was made law by prop36, which passed a while ago (2000). Prop36 made minor possession of mj (28.5 grams or less) into a misdemeanor AND decreased the jail time for selling. It also made giving away less than one ounce of mj have no fine. Fun stuff! The laws in prop19 are consistent with the laws of prop36 except that a 21 year old who deals to minors (18 and under, laws are the same for 18-20) gets fucked over really hard. Which I have no problem with, because adult drug dealers who deal to highschoolers are assholes (imo).
Norml has a summary of prop 36, just google it. If you don't like norml, go to prop36.org.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 18, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> 3-5 years in state prison I believe. It was made law by prop36, which passed a while ago (2000). Prop36 made minor possession of mj (28.5 grams or less) into a misdemeanor AND decreased the jail time for selling. It also made giving away less than one ounce of mj have no fine. Fun stuff! The laws in prop19 are consistent with the laws of prop36 except that a 21 year old who deals to minors (18 and under, laws are the same for 18-20) gets fucked over really hard. Which I have no problem with, because adult drug dealers who deal to highschoolers are assholes (imo).
> Norml has a summary of prop 36, just google it. If you don't like norml, go to prop36.org.


So prop 19 is no different as far as giving/selling to a minor than the current laws? Wow.

I also read that what the gov signed only decriminalizes anything less than an ounce. If you have more than an oz it's still a felony, same goes for cultivation. So unless you have a medical card, you can't grow or have more than an ounce which blows. Sounds to me like Prop 19 is getting better by the day.


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> beardo, may I ask how old you are. It seems all you have going against prop 19 is the age thing. That leads me to think you're below 21 and are pissed about it. Every anti prop 19 post I've read from you it has to do with age.
> 
> My solution to you would be to either, not get caught or don't smoke until you're 21. Same goes for alcohol. What's the sentence for someone giving a minor alcohol?
> 
> ...


 I'm well into my 30's but at one time I was a teenager and I dont think putting teenage marijuana users into the california state prison system and releasing them as convicts 3-5 years later will help america. I'm sorry if you are bothered by the fact that I am conserned about the impact this law will have on those other than myself. If you no longer want to attempt to debate the section you earlier claimed did not exsist and asked me to point out lets move on to another portion of the bill....25 square feet?? how about comercial licences and permits??? or how about local implamentation and regulation??? Or the 1 Oz limit?? want to discuss the impact on prop 215 and how it was only exempted in certian sections? How about the loss of U.S. jobs and its impact on the economy? what about the potential loss of fedral funding to california if this passes?


----------



## nathenking (Oct 18, 2010)

beardo said:


> I'm well into my 30's but at one time I was a teenager and I dont think putting teenage marijuana users into the california state prison system and releasing them as convicts 3-5 years later will help america. I'm sorry if you are bothered by the fact that I am conserned about the impact this law will have on those other than myself. If you no longer want to attempt to debate the section you earlier claimed did not exsist and asked me to point out lets move on to another portion of the bill....25 square feet?? how about comercial licences and permits??? or how about local implamentation and regulation??? Or the 1 Oz limit?? want to discuss the impact on prop 215 and how it was only exempted in certian sections? How about the loss of U.S. jobs and its impact on the economy? what about the potential loss of fedral funding to california if this passes?


exactly beardo.... why get consumed by the minor penalties when the there are so many more things wrong with this bill... 25 square feet, nope not enough, commercial rich folks can grow as much as they want... nope not happening.... oh and the local implementation, so its just left up to every place to decide what it is right and wrong, not enough consistency... 1 oz limit... that is another joke... it should at least be 1/4 pound at the very least.... what about all the people with the 215 card, nothing in there makes me feel that they are REALLY protected at all.... and lets not get started on the loss of federal funding, which will happen... shit, they did that to montana because of the SPEED limit in the early 90's... they cut off (well actually didnt have to, but threatened to) funding to the state if they didnt change the limitless speed limit... imagine what they will do for MJ.... we could be here all day... the point is that this bill IS SO SHITTY I cant believe that people think this is a STEP in the right direction.... Its not even close... Its VAILED so people will VOTE AWAY THEIR RIGHTS..... 2cents
p.s. lets not forget that now you WILL NOT GET ARRESTED FOR POSSESSING A OUNCE IN THE WHOLE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.... so people really arent gaining as much as they think they are with this bill, they are actually hindering the large scale effort of full and absolute LEGALIZATION.....


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 18, 2010)

beardo said:


> I'm well into my 30's but at one time I was a teenager and I dont think putting teenage marijuana users into the california state prison system and releasing them as convicts 3-5 years later will help america. I'm sorry if you are bothered by the fact that I am conserned about the impact this law will have on those other than myself. If you no longer want to attempt to debate the section you earlier claimed did not exsist and asked me to point out lets move on to another portion of the bill....25 square feet?? how about comercial licences and permits??? or how about local implamentation and regulation??? Or the 1 Oz limit?? want to discuss the impact on prop 215 and how it was only exempted in certian sections? How about the loss of U.S. jobs and its impact on the economy? what about the potential loss of fedral funding to california if this passes?


Prop 19 doesn't affect prop 215. Anyone who says it does is lying. What about the 1oz limit? That sounds better than a 0oz limit. What about 25sq ft? That sounds better than 0sq ft. As far as jobs go, If it is industrialized, which I'm sure it will be. That will create more jobs, unless robots are going to be growing, trimming, packaging, driving the trucks. What are the current laws with minors? From what I read in another thread prop 36 carries the same penalties for minors under 21. So what's the difference? There isn't a current bill or prop that is going to lessen the laws on minors. I'm not sure how legalizing marijuana on a state level is going to decrease jobs. I'd love to hear you go in depth with that one. What about potential loss of federal funding? Did prop 215 cause a loss in federal funding? If the answer is no, what is to say prop 19 will? Any facts or just more propaganda?

nathenking, at least a 1/4lb are you fucking serious? Try this, pretend you don't smoke marijuana, grow marijuana or sell marijuana. Pretend you're just some schmuck that knows nothing about it and thinks it's dangerous, would you be ok with your neighbor having a 1/4lb of pot living next to you and you family? Wouldn't 1oz sound a lot better? If you're answer is no, you're a fucking liar.

News flash dipshit, most of America doesn't smoke marijuana and they know next to nothing factual about it. Americans are a bunch of lazy, fat, stupid, adult like babies. They have to be spoon fed everything and if you think they are going to be ok with joe schmo having 80 plants and 1/4lb+ of marijuana in his house next to you and your perfect little family, something is seriously wrong with you.


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> So prop 19 is no different as far as giving/selling to a minor than the current laws? Wow.
> 
> I also read that what the gov signed only decriminalizes anything less than an ounce. If you have more than an oz it's still a felony, same goes for cultivation. So unless you have a medical card, you can't grow or have more than an ounce which blows. Sounds to me like Prop 19 is getting better by the day.


 Possesion of more than an OZ not a felony now it is a misdimenor and 19 makes 20 year olds minors as far as marijuana is concerned


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 18, 2010)

beardo said:


> Possesion of more than an OZ not a felony now it is a misdimenor and 19 makes 20 year olds minors as far as marijuana is concerned


Yea, you're right it is a misdemeanor, is that for people under 21 as well?


----------



## gupp (Oct 18, 2010)

I'm confused as to the status of Tom Ammiano's bill, is it already attached to 19? Does it require a separate vote?

Edit: Ok it will need another vote but chances of it passing seem rather high.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 18, 2010)

beardo said:


> Oh yeah...thought you would read the law before you enter into a legal debate


Dude. I thought he was talking about bud then he explained it was hash. Case closed. No need for a legal debate.


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> Prop 19 doesn't affect prop 215. Anyone who says it does is lying. What about the 1oz limit? That sounds better than a 0oz limit. What about 25sq ft? That sounds better than 0sq ft. As far as jobs go, If it is industrialized, which I'm sure it will be. That will create more jobs, unless robots are going to be growing, trimming, packaging, driving the trucks. What are the current laws with minors? From what I read in another thread prop 36 carries the same penalties for minors under 21. So what's the difference? There isn't a current bill or prop that is going to lessen the laws on minors. I'm not sure how legalizing marijuana on a state level is going to decrease jobs. I'd love to hear you go in depth with that one. What about potential loss of federal funding? Did prop 215 cause a loss in federal funding? If the answer is no, what is to say prop 19 will? Any facts or just more propaganda?
> 
> nathenking, at least a 1/4lb are you fucking serious? Try this, pretend you don't smoke marijuana, grow marijuana or sell marijuana. Pretend you're just some schmuck that knows nothing about it and thinks it's dangerous, would you be ok with your neighbor having a 1/4lb of pot living next to you and you family? Wouldn't 1oz sound a lot better? If you're answer is no, you're a fucking liar.
> 
> News flash dipshit, most of America doesn't smoke marijuana and they know next to nothing factual about it. Americans are a bunch of lazy, fat, stupid, adult like babies. They have to be spoon fed everything and if you think they are going to be ok with joe schmo having 80 plants and 1/4lb+ of marijuana in his house next to you and your perfect little family, something is seriously wrong with you.


I think i'm done...their are lots of facts you just seem eager to ignore them. as far as not affecting prop 215...I didn't realize you were a C.A. supreame court judge. A voter initiative changes the law when it passes prop 19 will affect 19 we have been through this it is only exsempt from certian sections and those exsemptions are only mentioned in the stricable purposes section. Eric Holder has said they will crack down on california passes and that they will not allow a rougue state. no i'm not uncomfortable if my neighbor has a 1/4lb i'm more worried if someone with a gun that our tax dollars paid for wants to know how much of something people have. As far as the economy I dont think taxing and regulating the states number one crop is a good idea...do you know how many americans could lose their livelyhoods??? Do you want to work in a marijuana warehouse that will pay a handful of people minimum wadge to work and take 50,000 living wadge jobs from growers and condence them into 500 minimum wadge jobs-THESE NUMBERS ARE HYPOTHETICAL- and don't you think they can produce marijuana cheaper in mexico or china??? By by U.S. jobs...what about resturants where growers eat? what about the homes they buy? what about cars and trucks they buy? what about property values in nor cal? more forclousers if 19 passes and mom and pop growers go under. what about all the towns that rely on tax revenue from these growers? how about the finacial impact if these major players pass 19 then offshore the entire industry


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 18, 2010)

beardo said:


> it would be the same for those under 18 the change would be for those smoking with or giving pot to 18 19 and 20 year olds..even a 18 year old who smokes a joint with a 20 year old could face a 3-5 year prison sentence


You are talking about something that is already in the law books! That is not a new addition to the law! Look! It's right here!

http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=11001-12000&file=11357-11362.9

Since you have problems connecting to the senate website, here's another link to it.

http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/hsc/11357-11362.9.html

That's from the 2009 health code. It says word for word the passage you keep claiming prop 19 adds to the law. Look at the 2009 health and safety code section 11361 sections a and b. There it is. This is not something new that prop 19 adds to the law. It's existing law. 

Please quit claiming prop 19 adds a law that will send 18 year olds to prison for passing a joint to their friends. It just isn't true. The section you are misinterpretation to scare people into thinking that is already law in California. How many more times am I going to have to say that to get you to stop deceiving people?


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 18, 2010)

beardo said:


> increaces penalties it also recriminilizes marijuana for 18-20 year olds.


That's another lie. It adds no specific penalties for people under 21. If I'm wrong, prove it.


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> You are talking about something that is already in the law books! That is not a new addition to the law! Look! It's right here!
> 
> http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=11001-12000&file=11357-11362.9
> 
> ...


 Prop 19 isn't a law that is allready on the books. Prop 19 changes the definition of a minor in regards to marijuana...changing the implications of the H.S. code you posted link to. Under prop 19 the definition of age 14 and up would be up to 21...so a 20 year old is included in the 14 and up.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 18, 2010)

gupp said:


> I'm confused as to the status of Tom Ammiano's bill, is it already attached to 19? Does it require a separate vote?
> 
> Edit: Ok it will need another vote but chances of it passing seem rather high.


Correct. At the very least, Ammiano seems to think he has the votes to pass it.


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Dude. I thought he was talking about bud then he explained it was hash. Case closed. No need for a legal debate.


 I was under the impression that you were reading and understanding the thread...he had allready stated a gram of hash...and this thread is about legal debate...


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 18, 2010)

beardo said:


> Prop 19 isn't a law that is allready on the books. Prop 19 changes the definition of a minor in regards to marijuana...changing the implications of the H.S. code you posted link to. Under prop 19 the definition of age 14 and up would be up to 21...so a 20 year old is included in the 14 and up.


Read the links to the existing state law! Section 11361. *What you are complaining about is existing state law!* It is not a new addition to the law created by prop 19. Two people have proven that in this thread and you're refusing to look at the proof. At this point you are outright lying.

Here is the link to the proof again

http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/hsc/11357-11362.9.html


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> That's another lie. It adds no specific penalties for people under 21. If I'm wrong, prove it.


 I Allready have remember the whole 3-5 year thing...try reading the thread if you dont understand what is being discussed ask for help or try a dictionary or encyclopedia...you could even check out the law books at the library...


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 18, 2010)

beardo said:


> I was under the impression that you were reading and understanding the thread...he had allready stated a gram of hash...and this thread is about legal debate...


Then I misread the first time. I was wrong, he was right. Happy?


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Read the links to the existing state law! Section 11361. *What you are complaining about is existing state law!* It is not a new addition to the law created by prop 19. Two people have proven that in this thread and you're refusing to look at the proof. At this point you are outright lying.
> 
> Here is the link to the proof again
> 
> http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/hsc/11357-11362.9.html


 we are not debating the H.S. code we are debating 19 wich is not yet a law and increases marijuana penelties my spelling is bad but your reading comprehension and abstract thinking skills are terrible.......PROP 19 WILL CHANGE WHAT THE H.S. CODE MEENS...MINORS NO LONGER 17 AND UNDER THEY WILL BE 20 AND UNDER


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 18, 2010)

beardo said:


> I Allready have remember the whole 3-5 year thing...try reading the thread if you dont understand what is being discussed ask for help or try a dictionary or encyclopedia...you could even check out the law books at the library...


You are misrepresenting the truth. Why are you really against prop 19? It's definitely not the reasons you claim since they have been proven to not be true. So tell us, what's the real reason? If you're just afraid you'll lose profits, then just say it. It's a legit concern for a lot of people and there is nothing wrong with coming out and saying it. It's hard to have an honest discussion with people who aren't being truthful about their motivations.

If prop 19 is so bad, then why do you need to lie to oppose it?


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 18, 2010)

beardo said:


> we are not debating the H.S. code we are debating 19 wich is not yet a law and increases marijuana penelties my spelling is bad but your reading comprehension and abstract thinking skills are terrible.......PROP 19 WILL CHANGE WHAT THE H.S. CODE MEENS...MINORS NO LONGER !& AND UNDER THEY WILL BE 20 AND UNDER


Ok. Well if you are going to continue lying after you've been proven wrong I guess there is nothing I can say to stop that. good luck


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

gupp said:


> I'm confused as to the status of Tom Ammiano's bill, is it already attached to 19? Does it require a separate vote?
> 
> Edit: Ok it will need another vote but chances of it passing seem rather high.


 it is not part of 19 and would require another vote to pass and that would have to be a 2/3rds majority vote to modify a voter inititave


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> You are misrepresenting the truth. Why are you really against prop 19? It's definitely not the reasons you claim since they have been proven to not be true. So tell us, what's the real reason? If you're just afraid you'll lose profits, then just say it. It's a legit concern for a lot of people and there is nothing wrong with coming out and saying it. It's hard to have an honest discussion with people who aren't being truthful about their motivations.
> 
> If prop 19 is so bad, then why do you need to lie to oppose it?


REALLY???????? who's misrepresenting the prop?? look at the title of the thread. .. Is that true or is it a misrepresentation???


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Ok. Well if you are going to continue lying after you've been proven wrong I guess there is nothing I can say to stop that. good luck


 who has been repeatdly proven wrong and who is making false statements...? I invite anyone to reread the thread.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 18, 2010)

beardo said:


> who has been repeatdly proven wrong and who is making false statements...? I invite anyone to reread the thread.


You are. You're claiming prop 19 adds something to the law that has been on the books since 2009. You claim that we are going to have to build new prisons to hold all the 18 year olds who are going to be locked up for this. You know these things aren't true, but you keep saying them anyways.

You are making stuff up because you don't want to come out and say why you are really against prop 19. Instead you'd rather scare people into voting no based on something that isn't true. 

If prop 19 was really a bad thing, you wouldn't need to lie to oppose it.


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> You are. You're claiming prop 19 adds something to the law that has been on the books since 2009. You claim that we are going to have to build new prisons to hold all the 18 year olds who are going to be locked up for this. You know these things aren't true, but you keep saying them anyways.
> 
> You are making stuff up because you don't want to come out and say why you are really against prop 19. Instead you'd rather scare people into voting no based on something that isn't true.
> 
> If prop 19 was really a bad thing, you wouldn't need to lie to oppose it.





beardo said:


> who has been repeatdly proven wrong and who is making false statements...? I invite anyone to reread the thread.


 If you have read the thread you know why i oppose 19 I have no reason to misrepresent my reasons for oposition. I am not lying in my posts I am stating facts I am commenting on what prop 19 does and does not say. And if prop 19 were good you wouldn't have to resort to lies or rely on ignoring points or changing subjects and attacking my motives or character to convince me how great 19 is. If 19 were good I would vote for it instead of debating with close minded individuals about its lack of merit


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

a lot of The same people who are so pro 19 either don't live in Cali or don't even use marijuana and most of the pro 19 people either cant understand the bill or haven't bothered to read it or dont care what it says and will make things up to mislead people into voteing yes.-I am guessing a lot of the pro 19 stand to make money off the tax and controll prop if it passes


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 18, 2010)

beardo said:


> we are not debating the H.S. code we are debating 19 wich is not yet a law and increases marijuana penelties my spelling is bad but your reading comprehension and abstract thinking skills are terrible.......PROP 19 WILL CHANGE WHAT THE H.S. CODE MEENS...MINORS NO LONGER 17 AND UNDER THEY WILL BE 20 AND UNDER


Who cares, it's just a ploy to make it more acceptable among the masses. It's not that hard to understand, and you go on about someones reading comprehension, it seems like your logic is skewed. Just like the ounce limit. It's to get marijuana to be acceptable among the masses. You, me or anyone else on here that is prop marijuana isn't among the masses. Would you be ok with a 12 year old driving a car? Do you think the masses would be ok with an 18-20 year old drinking? No? Why, because A: It's against the law and B: It's more appealing to the,... masses. 

When something is written, it's not written in favor of the minority. It's written to favor and be accepted among as many people as possible, where in this case it would be the people who know little to nothing about marijuana.

It's really not hard to understand. You guys are being illogical and downright ignorant.

I like the idea that anyone under 21 could face jail time for smoking marijuana, it just gives the people who are against it all together more initiative to accept it.


----------



## gupp (Oct 18, 2010)

Yes, it makes some sense. If you are under 17, the law doesn't apply as harshly to you. 18-20, well, you are still legally an adult but you can't smoke mj so you will receive a fine/prison. If you are over 21 you are allowed to smoke but can't give it to anyone under 21.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 18, 2010)

gupp said:


> 18-20, well, you are still legally an adult but you can't smoke mj so you will receive a fine/prison.


Same penalties for that age group that exist now. Personally I think it should be changed to 19 and up (because 18yr olds can be in highschool). But I'll take 21 and up for now.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 18, 2010)

beardo said:


> I am guessing a lot of the pro 19 stand to make money off the tax and controll prop if it passes


A lot of people on both sides stand to make money based on prop 19 passing or failing. What's wrong with making a living growing/selling bud? I'll admit I do it. I'm not rich or anything. Just trying to pay the bills like everyone else. Why the fuck would I want to work at WalMart when I can grow herb instead?


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 18, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> I can't fathom how the cops would figure out your age unless you're stupid enough to carry an ID on you when you're high.


Truly unfathomable...



mr2shim said:


> I like the idea that anyone under 21 could face jail time for smoking marijuana, it just gives the people who are against it all together more initiative to accept it.


Yeah, I think that is great too...not only does it make this palatable for the "masses"...but think of all the jobs it will create...and in this economic climate, if a few adult citizens have to do hard time so that other states can have the dream of re-legalization...well...so be it.

After all...I'm over 21 so who cares


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Same penalties for that age group that exist now. Personally I think it should be changed to 19 and up (because 18yr olds can be in highschool). But I'll take 21 and up for now.


 wrong. try to read prop again- 3-5 years for a 18 year old who smokes a joint with a 20 year old war veteran


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 18, 2010)

beardo said:


> wrong. try to read prop again- 3-5 years for a 18 year old who smokes a joint with a 20 year old war veteran


LOL! God you're hilarious. 20 year old war veteran? Where the fuck did it say that... Oh boy you're posts make me lol


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 18, 2010)

beardo said:


> wrong. try to read prop again- 3-5 years for a 18 year old who smokes a joint with a 20 year old war veteran


Is that happening now? No! What you are complaining about is already existing state law and it's not happening now. Give it up dude. No one is buying that.


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Is that happening now? No! What you are complaining about is already existing state law and it's not happening now. Give it up dude. No one is buying that.


 prop 19 is not a state law already- try again go back and read the prop think about it. If you are unable to read the prop then reread this thread it has been explained pretty clearly


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

you might also want to read up on what a voter initiative is and what it does and what is required to amend a voter initiative


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 18, 2010)

beardo said:


> prop 19 is not a state law already- try again go back and read the prop think about it. If you are unable to read the prop then reread this thread it has been explained pretty clearly


The passage you keep quoting from prop 19 is just repeating already existing state law. You already know this is true. I've proven it to you. To deny it is outright lying. You know you are lying and you keep doing it anyways. 

I can repeat myself and prove it for a third time if you like. But you'll just ignore that too and keep lying. If you're just going to repeat the lie over and over again until people believe it's true, good luck with your propaganda campaign.


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> The passage you keep quoting from prop 19 is just repeating already existing state law. You already know this is true. I've proven it to you. To deny it is outright lying. You know you are lying and you keep doing it anyways.
> 
> I can repeat myself and prove it for a third time if you like. But you'll just ignore that too and keep lying. If you're just going to repeat the lie over and over again until people believe it's true, good luck with your propaganda campaign.


 you are wrong...prop 19 considers a 20 year old a minor and prop 19 is not already a state law.so eventhough the H.S. code allready is law prop 19 changes that law to apply to 18 19 and 20 year olds when a voter initiative is passed what is written in that prop becomes law - and superceeds prior law - 19 would also be changing arnolds decriminalization


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 18, 2010)

I've bloody well waited for over 45 fucking years for this, done my "state" time for 5 plants.....the goddamned "kids" can wait til they're 21 or what ever!.......BB


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 18, 2010)

beardo said:


> you are wrong...prop 19 considers a 20 year old a minor


No man, it doesn't. There is a definitions section. Read it. It does not redefine the word "minor". It does redefine the word ounce interestingly enough. 

Here is the only thing prop 19 adds to the laws about minors:



> (c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each offense.
> (d) In addition to the penalties above an person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to perform any act pursuant to Section 11301, who while so licensed, permitted or authorized negligently furnishes, administers, gives or sells, or offers to furnish, administer, give or sell any marijuana to any person younger than 21 years of age shall not be permitted to own, operate, be employed by, assist or enter any licensed premises authorized under Section 11301 for a period of one year.





> *This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of the following state laws relating to public health and safety or protection of children and others: Health and Safety Code sections 11357 [relating to possession on school grounds]; 11361 [relating to minors as amended herein];*


Prop 19 *clearly* states that it does not effect Health and Safety code 11361. That is the HS code you keep quoting while making your claims. What you are saying is not true. You know it's not true. You just keep saying it anyways because you are trying to scare people.

So yeah, if the police can prove that you gave bud to someone you knew in advance was under 21 you can go to jail for up to 6 months and pay a $1000 fine. You also wouldn't be allowed to own a dispensary for a year. It's almost impossible to prove "knowingly", and it's not that stiff of a penalty.


----------



## beardo (Oct 18, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> No man, it doesn't. There is a definitions section. Read it. It does not redefine the word "minor". It does redefine the word ounce interestingly enough.
> 
> Here is the only thing prop 19 adds to the laws about minors:
> 
> ...


it affects the legal definition of minor in regards to marijuana -even in the section you quote it says relating to minors as amended herein- I have other problems with the law also like the 25 square feet. Lack of mention of any 215 exsemption in the law only in the strikeable pourposes section


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 18, 2010)

I love this part...
(c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each offense

[youtube]lLE1ZXuTK4g&feature=more_related[/youtube]

Towelie...how dare you!!!! Offer to furnish marijuwanna to the (18-20 year old) kids!!!! Now go to jail!!!!!


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 18, 2010)

beardo said:


> it affects the legal definition of minor in regards to marijuana -even in the section you quote it says relating to minors as amended herein-


omg. Give it up dude. 

It says:


> *This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement* of the following state laws relating to public health and safety or protection of children and others: Health and Safety Code sections 11357 [relating to possession on school grounds]; *11361* [relating to minors as amended herein];


What about that is too complex to understand?



> Lack of mention of any 215 exsemption in the law only in the strikeable pourposes section


More bullshit. I even asked my lawyer about that just to make sure. He agrees that is crap and prop 19 has no effect on prop 215 legally. Norml and even the original prop 215 lawyer also agree that this is a BS interpretation. 

You are attempting to twist the meanings and making false claims because you oppose prop 19 for your own motivations. I'd be willing to discuss those things with you if you'd at least admit what your real problems with prop 19 are. It's very difficult to discuss this reasonably with someone who refuses to be honest about their reasons for opposing it. 

Want me to go first? Fine. I like prop 19 because it could lead to a national end to prohibition. I like that it allows everyone to carry some bud on them without a penalty, I like that everyone in California who just grows a little as a hobby can do so without committing a felony. And yes, I like the fact that you can have for profit cannabis businesses. If I want to grow for a living, I should be able to without fear of going to prison.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 18, 2010)

Ya, I don't agree with that either. But, is that enough to make you want to vote no?


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 19, 2010)

A certain individual keeps bringing up 20 year old war vet. But I'm almost positive that you need to spend at least 3 years in the military before you are given the option to leave. Now this doesn't mean that you have to stay in combat for 3 years, but what it does mean is that you are still enlisted. Do enlisted combatants get drug tested... yes, very frequently as it turns out. Does this mean that someone who is enlisted can smoke, no. A 21 year old war vet could smoke though cause he would be out of the army.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 19, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> omg. Give it up dude.
> 
> It says:
> 
> ...


He's clearly avoiding what you're saying. It's obvious, I'm not even sure why he continues to post his lies. Anyone that read half this thread will see he's making up shit.


----------



## beardo (Oct 19, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> He's clearly avoiding what you're saying. It's obvious, I'm not even sure why he continues to post his lies. Anyone that read half this thread will see he's making up shit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 from the guy who doesn't use marijuana and wants it taxed and controlled


----------



## klmmicro (Oct 19, 2010)

This is interesting. What happens if someone under the age of 21 does get caught right now? My daughter got caught with a small bag and it was a $100 fine and she now has a misdemeanor on her record. The police never asked her where she got it, and neither did I. I just heard the story when they were finished issuing her the ticket and she called me.

She will be able to get her doctor's rec under 215, which will not be effected by 19. This will exempt her from the age restriction based on a medical status. Please, do not bother to try and convince me that 215 will be vacated. It has been hashed through by enough legal minds that say NO to that assertion, the wording is there to protect 215.

Once she turns 21, she can stop paying the doctor her legality fee. All these 18, 19 and 20 year olds' complaining for what? Because they will be able to look forward to turning 21?


----------



## Wheres my Chippy? (Oct 19, 2010)

Another great thing about this bill is that it states that counties and cities can implement it however they want... meaning that they don't have to follow prop19 if they don't want to. There are still counties/cities that REFUSE prop215 patients and don't allow it in there counties. Hell prop215 was passed 14 years ago.... You can ask all the patients and the clubs that just got raided a month ago BY LOCAL & STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT up in Butte County and Chico how well they think this bill is going to protect them, when their city doesn't even want to recognize prop215, let alone the cities that don't recognize prop215 AT ALL.

This is directly from the CANorml website under Local Cultivation Guidelines:

Despite supposed protections of SB 420 and Prop 215, patients may still be arrested if law enforcement suspects they are outside the law, for example, by being involved in illegal sales or distribution, or *growing plants with excessive yields.*
In general, the state Attorney General has given local authorities discretion in how they enforce Prop. 215, as explained in a letter to local law enforcement officials. 

Wow, since there is so much confusion over prop215 and counties, I can't WAIT to have all the counties also deciding for themselves what they want to do with this!
Also, since its a constitutional amendment, once its in, ITS IN! No more "fixing it afterwards". And don't use the Supreme Court excuse for changing the law like one person did with me, trying to use Prop8 as an example that amendment's can be changed. Prop8 was a CIVIL RIGHTS issue, therefore it was no doubt that it was going to be THROWN OUT, not CHANGED. You CANT create a constitutional amendment that TAKES rights away from a MINORITY (for the person stating that bills are written for "the masses", when in fact, most constitutional amendements are written for minorities...), because that in itself is unconstutional. The Supreme Court saw that, knew it was bullshit, and so they COMPLETELY THREW OUT PROP8, nothing was amended to it. Once a bill is voted in by the people, it either a) Stays in or b) gets thrown out. There is no changing it, as pro-prop19 would want you to believe. SB420 being thrown out is all the proof you need of this...

Also, for anyone that wants to use the bullshit excuse of that I'm somehow making $ off of prop19 failing, that is complete bullshit, because I STRICTLY grow for PERSONAL between my wife & I, and I have NEVER profited off of cannabis in ANYWAY. I just see how much of a bullshit bill this is.

This will be the last time that I post this argument, because I've posted it 3 times in this thread already, and NONE of the pro-19 people even responded to it, they would rather ignore it I guess, and continue to think that prop19 is some great bill that is going to make cali a weed haven for all cannabis related prisoners, and we will be dancing in the streets as the STATE & LOCAL cops continue to raid LAW ABIDING citizens (like is what happening with 215 currently).


----------



## desert dude (Oct 19, 2010)

Where's my Chippy? said:


> "Also, for anyone that wants to use the bullshit excuse of that I'm somehow making $ off of prop19 failing, that is complete bullshit, because I STRICTLY grow for PERSONAL between my wife & I, and I have NEVER profited off of cannabis in ANYWAY. I just see how much of a bullshit bill this is."


If this is true, then why do you not support P19? P19 makes it legal to grow for your own consumption. It is currently illegal to grow.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 19, 2010)

desert dude said:


> If this is true, then why do you not support P19? P19 makes it legal to grow for your own consumption. It is currently illegal to grow.


Because the people who don't support p19 are idiots. Especially the ones that grow for personal use now.


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 19, 2010)

You can amend amendments btw. Or make another amendment that destroys the previous one. Here's one for example: Alcohol Prohibition. Any constitution can have any part of it amended. This whole once it's in IT'S IN bullshit is getting annoying. Take a government class please.


----------



## joeh3000 (Oct 19, 2010)

I've noticed there have been many raids recently here in cali but I believe that is do to the fact the Feds are nervous about this and are feeling the pressure. It's a great thing knowing Prop. 19 will make a law preventing police from ever messing with you or any "lawfully cultivated" cannabis. People that have any kind of relation to cannabis should vote YES! SHAME ON THOSE WHO DON'T!


----------



## Wheres my Chippy? (Oct 19, 2010)

I am a prop215 patient (I actually do have a very real medical condition), so I can already grow legally.

I just see how much harm this bill can do, as opposed to good. I see a lot of people loosing jobs because of it, I see how it is very wishy-washy with wording. I don't like the fact that its being "Taxed, regulated, & CONTROLLED". 

I don't really think that the "idea" is to vote in ANY law that concerns cannabis, JUST BECAUSE it involves cannabis. There is a much better bill that could have a shot in 2 years, I can wait for that. I've done my time in jail and know that it sucks to have to wait 2 more years, but hey, you knew from the start that what you were doing was illegal, and that the consquenses for those actions were highly real. I'm not saying that I support locking up and jailing people for doing nothing more than growing a plant, but what I am saying that you knew what you were doing had very real consquences if you were busted. Thats the point of being a political prisoner, unfortunatly, you have to serve time in jail.

I want the plant to be FREE, not "REGULATED AND CONTROLLED". That would REALLY cut out the black market, if thats what the government and the people behind this bill really want to see. If every single person was FREELY allowed to grow and do what they wanted with this plant without capital involved (and "concidently" there is a bill trying to get this to happen in 2012..) This bill is just taking the money away from the "illegal" black market mafia, and putting it into the hands of the "legal" free market Mafia. Sorry, but I am more concerned about what our government can and will do to this plant, than any mom & pop grower. Because the decisions that the government makes effect me (and everyone else) directly, not the profits that growers are getting. I may be idealistic, but I am realistic enough to know that a bill is trying to go on the ballots in 2012 that is 100 times better than prop19. One that will ACTUALLY free the plant (like Jack Herer has supported), not some band aid like this bill is offering that will make the extremely rich richer and the people just getting by poorer. I don't think that the pro-19 crowd really wants to see this plant free, but controlled and regulated, obviously, because that is the bill title that they are voting for. I am not a capitalist, I am an anarchist, sorry.

And if you don't think that by 2012 we will have the numbers to get that bill passed, then you obviously know nothing of human evolution and the "Doubling of Knowledge" as its known in Quantum Mechanics. The world is getting SMARTER as time goes on. Think of how much more freedom we have now as opposed to just 15 years ago, let alone thousands of years ago. Think of all the information that we are being saturated with daily (the internet being an amazing example, anyone can find out anything without any gatekeepers to that information, within a click of a button). And as time goes on we are learning more and more and knowledge keeps getting vaster and vaster. Think of how far we've come just since the 1960's with EVERYTHING (homosexual rights, black rights, womens rights, abortion rights, cannabis rights, drug rights). We are COLLECTIVELY (as a planet) getting SMARTER, not dumber, and we are moving in a direction towards more and more freedom and information. Hell, they have even been approving scientific research into psychedelics. But then again, I am an optimist, sorry that I can't be more pessimistic about the future like most people.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 19, 2010)

"I may be idealistic, but I am realistic enough to know that a bill is trying to go on the ballots in 2012 that is 100 times better than prop19. One that will ACTUALLY free the plant (like Jack Herer has supported), not some band aid like this bill is offering that will make the extremely rich richer and the people just getting by poorer. I am not a capitalist, I am an anarchist, sorry."

Cool. So vote for P19 now, and then vote for the "100 times better" bill in 2012. Best of both worlds.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 19, 2010)

"Think of how far we've come just since the 1960's with EVERYTHING (homosexual rights, black rights, womens rights, abortion rights, cannabis rights, drug rights)."

The drug war kicked into high gear since the 1960s, we have certainly not "gone far" unless you mean loss of civil liberties and an increase in tyranny.

Oh, by the way, p19 will not affect your p215 rights, but you already knew that because it has been said here hundreds of times (and backed up up with legal analysis, and by the specific wording of p19).


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 19, 2010)

Mr. Chips! You Sir, play fast and loose with the truth!: 

_"Okay, how come I'm legally allowed to brew as much beer/alcohol as I like on my property for personal use?"_

Wrong! Not allowed in some states, and in others you are allowed 100 gallons. >> http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/pages/government-affairs/statutes

_"There are still counties/cities that REFUSE prop215 patients and don't allow it in there counties."_

Wrong! Every Ca county is in compliance with prop 215. >> http://www.safeaccessnow.net/countyguidelines.htm

Why do you naysayers keep coming with these crappy little lies? It certainly doesn't serve your side very well.....BB


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 19, 2010)

I can tell some of you guys are idealists, you really should take some lessons in realism. If you honestly think marijuana is ever going to be legal but not taxed or controlled you are seriously delusional.


----------



## Wheres my Chippy? (Oct 19, 2010)

desert dude said:


> "Think of how far we've come just since the 1960's with EVERYTHING (homosexual rights, black rights, womens rights, abortion rights, cannabis rights, drug rights)."
> 
> The drug war kicked into high gear since the 1960s, we have certainly not "gone far" unless you mean loss of civil liberties and an increase in tyranny.
> 
> Oh, by the way, p19 will not affect your p215 rights, but you already knew that because it has been said here hundreds of times (and backed up up with legal analysis, and by the specific wording of p19).


Wow, that is a pretty ignorant thing to say. So I guess the end of segregation, womens rights, homosexuals getting married, prop 215 (along with many other MMJ states), research into psychedelics, the right to an abortion, those are all non-progressive?


----------



## Wheres my Chippy? (Oct 19, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> I can tell some of you guys are idealists, you really should take some lessons in realism. If you honestly think marijuana is ever going to be legal but not taxed or controlled you are seriously delusional.


Well of course it'll never happen with an attitude like that. Must suck to be such a pessimist. Sorry, I refuse to lower myself to that standard. There have been many studies that prove that optimists live at least 19% longer than pessimists, maybe you should try it!

I also honestly believe that one day Capitalism will fall, like all other empires. You're views are very Americentric. You should look to see whats happening in most parts of Europe (Greece, espically), which gives me great hope for the future. The entire globe isn't America, sorry (at least not yet, I know that the government would love it to be).


----------



## desert dude (Oct 19, 2010)

Wheres my Chippy? said:


> Wow, that is a pretty ignorant thing to say. So I guess the end of segregation, womens rights, homosexuals getting married, prop 215 (along with many other MMJ states), research into psychedelics, the right to an abortion, those are all non-progressive?


I was talking about the drug war. Arrests for MJ possession are higher today than they ever have been.


----------



## Wheres my Chippy? (Oct 19, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> Mr. Chips! You Sir, play fast and loose with the truth!:
> 
> _"Okay, how come I'm legally allowed to brew as much beer/alcohol as I like on my property for personal use?"_
> 
> ...


Well, I suppose your right about Homebrewing, but I am still allowed to possess as much alcholoe as I want legally. Just because I can't homebrew it doesn't mean that I can't go buy out an entire liquor store, which under prop19 would limit me to only 1 ounce of weed.

Also, thats GREAT that its recognized "legally" in every county in CA! Now go tell that to Butte County that just raided heavily last month, then they'll tell you just how "legal" it "really" is there.


----------



## Wheres my Chippy? (Oct 19, 2010)

desert dude said:


> I was talking about the drug war. Arrests for MJ possession are higher today than they ever have been.


So is the rate of use.....

That has nothing to do with how progressive the actual laws and peoples opinions towards these drugs has changed since then. I'm not doubting that law enforcements bread & butter are marijuana/drug related. But the peoples actions (not the governments) are extremely progressive. The government is living in the stone age among dinosaurs, there is no doubt about that. But the government doesn't represent the will of all the people, which polls have showed are mainly progressive in thinking (remember I'm talking about on a GLOBAL scale; get your head outta strictly America...)


----------



## klmmicro (Oct 19, 2010)

Weren't the Butte County raids Federal? No state prop will stop the feds from raiding and we can expect them to really step up the federal enforcement if there are no proposed limits in possession. Seriously, this is going to be a gradual chipping away at the camp that has set up the current federal prohibition laws. They will not easily release their grasp after nearly 90 years of having it their way.

You can have all the support you want in 2012...there will be a federal judge that vacates the entire thing with the stroke of a pen within a couple of days. For that, Prop 19 will probably suffer the same fate, but it can be used as a rallying cry to garner more support for any 2012 Prop...


----------



## Wheres my Chippy? (Oct 19, 2010)

klmmicro said:


> Weren't the Butte County raids Federal? No state prop will stop the feds from raiding and we can expect them to really step up the federal enforcement if there are no proposed limits in possession. Seriously, this is going to be a gradual chipping away at the camp that has set up the current federal prohibition laws. They will not easily release their grasp after nearly 90 years of having it their way.
> 
> You can have all the support you want in 2012...there will be a federal judge that vacates the entire thing with the stroke of a pen within a couple of days. For that, Prop 19 will probably suffer the same fate, but it can be used as a rallying cry to garner more support for any 2012 Prop...


Nope, it was all local law enforcement. 100 officers from 2 dozen agencies, to be exact. They don't give a fuck what's "law" and what isn't. "Law" is what the government and enforcement say it is. Their entire clubs were smashed and all product taken. Yeah, they _may_ get it back in courts, but its a hassle, and they had to stay closed for a while. And who would wanna even stay open after something like that? It's scare tactics, and they work great...

http://www.modbee.com/2010/07/01/1234331/8-chico-dispensaries-raided-in.html


----------



## desert dude (Oct 19, 2010)

" I'm not doubting that law enforcements bread & butter are marijuana/drug related."

Which gets us back to the point at hand, vote for prop 19.


----------



## Civil.Dis0bedience (Oct 19, 2010)

voting is a scam. do what you want. make your own laws


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 19, 2010)

Wheres my Chippy? said:


> Well of course it'll never happen with an attitude like that. Must suck to be such a pessimist. Sorry, I refuse to lower myself to that standard. There have been many studies that prove that optimists live at least 19% longer than pessimists, maybe you should try it!
> 
> I also honestly believe that one day Capitalism will fall, like all other empires. You're views are very Americentric. You should look to see whats happening in most parts of Europe (Greece, espically), which gives me great hope for the future. The entire globe isn't America, sorry (at least not yet, I know that the government would love it to be).


I'm not being a pessimist about marijuana. I'm being a realist. I'm not going to fool myself into thinking it will be legal and not taxed. That's just retarded. I'm very optimistic, too bad you don't know that.. because you don't know me. 

I'm sure it could happen. I know it's not going to happen in this lifetime. People are too greedy. Maybe in a couple hundred years. I'm not going to sit around and wait for that though, so I'll gladly take second best and get legal marijuana that is taxed to shit. That's better than sitting behind bars.


----------



## beardo (Oct 19, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> I'm not being a pessimist about marijuana. I'm being a realist. I'm not going to fool myself into thinking it will be legal and not taxed. That's just retarded. I'm very optimistic, too bad you don't know that.. because you don't know me.
> 
> I'm sure it could happen. I know it's not going to happen in this lifetime. People are too greedy. Maybe in a couple hundred years. I'm not going to sit around and wait for that though, so I'll gladly take second best and get legal marijuana that is taxed to shit. That's better than sitting behind bars.


 you wouldn't be 'behind bars' now either if caught today with the same amount of marijuana you will be able to posses under prop 19-get real realist- who's lying again? who have you refered to as 'Idiots' and 'retarded'?


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 19, 2010)

desert dude said:


> If this is true, then why do you not support P19? P19 makes it legal to grow for your own consumption. It is currently illegal to grow.


Does anyone in Cali really grow without paying the Dr Tax????



mr2shim said:


> Because the people who don't support p19 are idiots. Especially the ones that grow for personal use now.


^^^^^^^^^^^



joeh3000 said:


> I've noticed there have been many raids recently here in cali but I believe that is do to the fact the Feds are nervous about this and are feeling the pressure. It's a great thing knowing Prop. 19 will make a law preventing police from ever messing with you or any "lawfully cultivated" cannabis. People that have any kind of relation to cannabis should vote YES! SHAME ON THOSE WHO DON'T!


The Evil Obama called off the goons...hard to disobey the Commander in Chief...the raids are always local...usually a "Joint Task Force" (have to point the finger simultaneously in many directions)...and usually show no Agency identifying markings (SCARY!!!!). 



Wheres my Chippy? said:


> I am a prop215 patient (I actually do have a very real medical condition), so I can already grow legally.
> 
> I just see how much harm this bill can do, as opposed to good. I see a lot of people loosing jobs because of it, I see how it is very wishy-washy with wording. I don't like the fact that its being "Taxed, regulated, & CONTROLLED".
> 
> ...


WOOOHOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!



Burger Boss said:


> Wrong! Not allowed in some states, and in others you are allowed 100 gallons. >> http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/pages/government-affairs/statutes
> 
> _"There are still counties/cities that REFUSE prop215 patients and don't allow it in there counties."_
> 
> ...


some of the "lies" are just honest mistakes...I brewed my 100 gallons for several years...enjoyed it daily, shared with friends and brew club members, shipped it away to competitions, wasted lots running the taps...and NEVER got close to running out. Also there is no restriction on how I brew...I can brew 2-5 gallon batches several times a year, OR I can brew my 100 gallons all at once...Hell I need more than 25 square feet to brew!!!!

And although 215 should be protecting patients and dispensaries...In several counties (the ones that will not allow 19!!!) they are still busting people...this is not a "Lie"...the "Law" thinks it is above the law...and some DA's support them. 

The local clinic was just forced to close after being sued by the City for being a Nuisance in the industrial park where it WAS located...local patients now must travel 25 miles for medicine



Wheres my Chippy? said:


> Nope, it was all local law enforcement. 100 officers from 2 dozen agencies, to be exact. They don't give a fuck what's "law" and what isn't. "Law" is what the government and enforcement say it is. Their entire clubs were smashed and all product taken. Yeah, they _may_ get it back in courts, but its a hassle, and they had to stay closed for a while. And who would wanna even stay open after something like that? It's scare tactics, and they work great...
> 
> http://www.modbee.com/2010/07/01/1234331/8-chico-dispensaries-raided-in.html


an interesting quote from the Modesto Bee article above:

"Maloney said a judge authorized search warrants after people claiming to be medical marijuana patients told authorities that the dispensaries weren't properly verifying customers' physician recommendations for medical pot or 'weren't even asking if they had one.'"

This is interesting...I was reading the few reviews that were posted for a fairly new clinic in Ramona, Ca...I found one very odd...The poster claimed that he was not even asked for ID and felt very unsafe and would not be returning...to which the owner of the Collective vehemently denied.

Looks like it is pretty easy to get a Judge to issue a warrant on the hearsay of people who may or may not, be MMJ patients, or for that matter exist at all. 




​


----------



## Wheres my Chippy? (Oct 19, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> I'm not being a pessimist about marijuana. I'm being a realist. I'm not going to fool myself into thinking it will be legal and not taxed. That's just retarded. I'm very optimistic, too bad you don't know that.. because you don't know me.
> 
> I'm sure it could happen. I know it's not going to happen in this lifetime. People are too greedy. Maybe in a couple hundred years. I'm not going to sit around and wait for that though, so I'll gladly take second best and get legal marijuana that is taxed to shit. That's better than sitting behind bars.


Realism only gets you so far. It keeps you trapped in your narrow-reality-tunnel to sit on your hands and keep your head in the sands, so you never really question authority in any true sense of the word. Reality is what you can get away with. Imagine if everyone thought that way "realisticly" we would never have gotten out of the waters and walked on land! We would still be living in the dark ages and still think that the earth is flat, because hey, there is no need to think of anything that can't be "perceived" as "real", its just a distraction. Not too scientific of a mind, chap... Think outside the box, and then realize that their "is" no box at all, but this is a-whole-nother convo...

And who told you to sit around an wait for anything? I told you, take a look at whats happening in Europe (mainly Greece) and then you'll get a picture of what the future holds and what you should do to contribute to it. Don't believe that this is something that is going to happen in a couple hundred years, take a look into Quantum Mechanics, like I said as well, its scientific proof that knowledge is doubling. You say "people are too greedy", again your Ameri-centric POV. Take a look OUTSIDE of America, to get a much better picture of the world. America is in a bubble compared to the rest of the globe as far as progressivism and civil rights goes. When you still have people debating whether Evolution is a "fact" or not says a great deal about the intelligence of a population.

But I also tend to agree with the poster Civil.Disobdience in that voting is a scam, make your own laws.... again, Reality is what you can get away with.


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 19, 2010)

Funny thing about most dispensaries, which applies to the dispensaries that got shut down in Butte. They don't have all the required legal work. In Butte's case it's probably a bunch of Chico drop outs trying to get away with stupid shit. If you don't have your correct paperwork your dispensary can and will get shut down. Law enforcement does not like stoners, in fact they hate them. Prop19 kicks cops in the balls. Which I wish I could do on a regular basis.

What's happening in Europe, as far as I can tell, is that countries are going bankrupt. Greece is not in a good situation right now. Our future should not be anywhere near Greece's future though. We have been through some random spending, but not nearly the level that Greece has been through, and our government is not plagued with corruption. Capitalism, though the probably the least sympathetic civic, works because it is basically human nature. Any hominid's number one priority is survival. That's part of our evolutionary DNA. That's why a system that is cutthroat (basically) and absolutely ensures survival for those who can obtain it is so appealing. Any socialist based government does not work because human's innate response to any situation is: "How can *I* benefit," it's not something that humans can easily changed because it has been ingrained in our mind through evolution. It's what kept us alive when there was no technology. 

You keep bringing up quantum mechanics, but that has nothing to do with the statement that knowledge is doubling. Knowledge is doubling is just a simple scientific phenomina that has to do with populations. It's more of a statistics based argument than anything else. You are misinterpreting Schrodinger's equation (I believe that's the closest thing in Quantum that you're talking about.) They used this info now on modern day computers called quantum computers which makes them extremely efficient. It has nothing to do with the statistical anomaly that exponential growth causes doubling knowledge, that is not quantum mechanics, that is statistics.

You like to talk out of your ass, and it's really annoying. The fact that more knowledge will be obtained in the future doesn't make the average voter smarter. In fact, the average voter is still as uneducated as ever. Only a small percentage of the population actually contributes to the research that goes on today. What do you do might I ask? Do you think in two years you will benefit society with some revolutionary breakthrough. No, you won't. At least you found your chippy.


----------



## Wheres my Chippy? (Oct 19, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> Funny thing about most dispensaries, which applies to the dispensaries that got shut down in Butte. They don't have all the required legal work. In Butte's case it's probably a bunch of Chico drop outs trying to get away with stupid shit. If you don't have your correct paperwork your dispensary can and will get shut down. Law enforcement does not like stoners, in fact they hate them. Prop19 kicks cops in the balls. Which I wish I could do on a regular basis.
> 
> What's happening in Europe, as far as I can tell, is that countries are going bankrupt. Greece is not in a good situation right now. Our future should not be anywhere near Greece's future though. We have been through some random spending, but not nearly the level that Greece has been through, and our government is not plagued with corruption. Capitalism, though the probably the least sympathetic civic, works because it is basically human nature. Any hominid's number one priority is survival. That's part of our evolutionary DNA. That's why a system that is cutthroat (basically) and absolutely ensures survival for those who can obtain it is so appealing. Any socialist based government does not work because human's innate response to any situation is: "How can *I* benefit," it's not something that humans can easily changed because it has been ingrained in our mind through evolution. It's what kept us alive when there was no technology.
> 
> ...


When I say look at Greece, what I mean is look at the REVOLTS in Greece, not the government.... Take a look at the Greece riots of 2009. I don't want socialism either.... I am an anarchist, as I've already pointed out....

I won't respond to much else of what you say, because that is your opinion if thats how you look at evolution (which you are only looking at the very hunter-gatherer base of it, humanity SHOULD have evolved past that and we ARE continuing to evolve, but governments aren't allowing it much) Take a look at Leary's 8 circuit Model of Consciousness for a better example of what I'm getting at.

Also, I am a clinical psychoanalyst who mainly specializes with Jungian/Reichian techniques, with an extreme bent towards Occult practices, so I just might benefit society with some revolutionary breakthrough, you never know! I've already done many peer-reviewed journals for colleagues, and even co-authored a book of radical sociology! What do you do might I ask? It seems you know a little about Schrodingers Cat, but not much at all if thats all you think its good for is computers. Notice how I've never once attacked anyone specifically on here, yet you and other pro19 have given direct insults towards me and other no-voters, shows how caring you all are! See, you are looking at the here & now, I am looking at the future of evolution! S.M.I2.L.E.!


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 19, 2010)

As it so happens I'm an applied mathematics major with an emphasis in Astro physics, I'm a third year at the moment. Sch's cat has everything to do with quantum computer. Look them up. I only attacked you b/c I felt that you kept on spewing out irrelevant arguments. I admit I was wrong to do that, it was very immature of me, and I'm sorry. 
However I don't want to have an argument with you that has nothing to do with 19, it's a waste of both of our time. I feel like neither of us are going to come an agreement on 19 though, so I opt to agree to disagree.


----------



## beardo (Oct 19, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> Law enforcement does not like stoners, in fact they hate them. Prop19 kicks cops in the balls. Which I wish I could do on a regular basis.


 I didn't know prop 19 was the kick cops in the balls bill. I thought prop 19 was for TAXING AND CONTROLLING marijuana which would give the police more ainti marijuana laws to enforce


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 19, 2010)

beardo said:


> I didn't know prop 19 was the kick cops in the balls bill. I thought prop 19 was for TAXING AND CONTROLLING marijuana which would give the police more ainti marijuana laws to enforce


If what you are saying is even remotely true, then the majority of cops would support it. Instead they have strongly opposed it. 

Again, you know what you're saying is bullshit, but you keep saying it because you're trying to scare people into supporting prohibition.

If you oppose prop 19 you are siding with cops and the DEA to support prohibition. Scaring people based on misleading information into siding with the DEA is shameful. You should be embarrassed.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 19, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> If what you are saying is even remotely true, then the majority of cops would support it. Instead they have strongly opposed it.
> 
> Again, you know what you're saying is bullshit, but you keep saying it because you're trying to scare people into supporting prohibition.
> 
> If you oppose prop 19 you are siding with cops and the DEA to support prohibition. Scaring people based on misleading information into siding with the DEA is shameful. You should be embarrassed.


I oppose prop 19, but I do not support prohibiton or side with any form of law enforcement....And i assume beardo does as well... i cant figure out how you can lump us in with everyone who opposes' is, that is not like you at all... I dont support prop 19 because its a piece of SHIT bill that only hinders the REAL movement.... Not just the tax and control movement.... And the whole scaring people thing is just way off base Dan, the people who allow them selves to be scared are just that, allowing themselves.... true direction comes from inside the mind... everything else is just accessory brudda....


----------



## Weedoozie (Oct 19, 2010)

So did Ammiano's amendments pass yet?


----------



## beardo (Oct 19, 2010)

Weedoozie said:


> So did Ammiano's amendments pass yet?


 No It wouldn't be up for a vote untill after prop 19 passes then it would need a 2/3rds majority vote


----------



## Weedoozie (Oct 19, 2010)

beardo said:


> No It wouldn't be up for a vote untill after prop 19 passes then it would need a 2/3rds majority vote


damn...wish I had a little psychic premonition ability right now...


----------



## beardo (Oct 19, 2010)

nathenking said:


> I oppose prop 19, but I do not support prohibiton or side with any form of law enforcement....And i assume beardo does as well... i cant figure out how you can lump us in with everyone who opposes' is, that is not like you at all... I dont support prop 19 because its a piece of SHIT bill that only hinders the REAL movement.... Not just the tax and control movement.... And the whole scaring people thing is just way off base Dan, the people who allow them selves to be scared are just that, allowing themselves.... true direction comes from inside the mind... everything else is just accessory brudda....


 Thank you.^^ I think california is currently very aceptant of marijuana I think 215 is great and arnolds decrim was a huge step forward. I feel so lucky to be living at this point in the history of the mj movement I could have only dreamed of it becoming as lagitimate as it is now when i was young. It is not perfect their are problems still but for the most part I feel things are pretty good for marijuana users here. I am not trying to scare people-I am the one who is scared not just for myself but for others. I am trying to open thought and debate on the potential impact of 19 on C.A. I wouldn't want to take a step twords opression. I worry that I keep hearing about prop 19 legalize marijuana in C.A. but it is actually tax and controll-which doesnt sound as cool. It seems weird to let citys or counties set taxes or regulate it seems their would be straight numbers for the whole state. I just dont see how creating more laws taxes regulations and restrictions on marijuana will help someone who uses marijuana. If something says marijuana not to be prohibited. I will vote untill then i'm voting no.


----------



## gupp (Oct 19, 2010)

beardo said:


> Thank you.^^ I think california is currently very aceptant of marijuana I think 215 is great and arnolds decrim was a huge step forward. I feel so lucky to be living at this point in the history of the mj movement I could have only dreamed of it becoming as lagitimate as it is now when i was young. It is not perfect their are problems still but for the most part I feel things are pretty good for marijuana users here. I am not trying to scare people-I am the one who is scared not just for myself but for others. I am trying to open thought and debate on the potential impact of 19 on C.A. I wouldn't want to take a step twords opression. I worry that I keep hearing about prop 19 legalize marijuana in C.A. but it is actually tax and controll-which doesnt sound as cool. It seems weird to let citys or counties set taxes or regulate it seems their would be straight numbers for the whole state. I just dont see how creating more laws taxes regulations and restrictions on marijuana will help someone who uses marijuana. If something says marijuana not to be prohibited. I will vote untill then i'm voting no.


Let's clear this up, you are for prop 215 and against criminalization. But you dislike prop 19.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 19, 2010)

gupp said:


> Let's clear this up, you are for prop 215 and against criminalization. But you dislike prop 19.


I think he dislikes prop 19 because of the taxes, control and regulation. IMO, that isn't a good enough reason to vote no but nevertheless it's his choice.


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 19, 2010)

I'm for prop 215 and not 19 for it's control over my medicine point blank. All who are for it are the ones who can't get their rec so they want to fuck it up for everybody who has one and what will you do if 19 passes and it's bullshit?


----------



## gupp (Oct 19, 2010)

I'm not sure there's much to lose, honestly.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 19, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> I'm for prop 215 and not 19 for it's control over my medicine point blank. All who are for it are the ones who can't get their rec so they want to fuck it up for everybody who has one and what will you do if 19 passes and it's bullshit?


um,. I can tell you really don't know what you're talking about so I'll simply say this. Prop 19 does not affect Prop 215. You should read it.

Some people will argue that it will affect people who sell marijuana now under the table. I'm sure it will, but they're breaking the law by selling their medical to people who don't have a medical card. The arguments are endless really, if you want to be stupid and babble bullshit, don't read the bill. If you actually want to make the right choice, read it.

FAQ
http://yeson19.com/node/97


----------



## beardo (Oct 19, 2010)

gupp said:


> Let's clear this up, you are for prop 215 and against criminalization. But you dislike prop 19.


 you have my stance right


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 19, 2010)

Think about it CONTROL & TAXES. How much do you think it will be? Sales tax right now is 9.75% where I'm at last year it was 8.25%. Will they raise the pot tax? I think yes because California needs money? Please fucking think about it, people who don't even smoke will set the tax rate lol and you guys want it to be legal, it won't be it will be controlled.


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 19, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> um,. I can tell you really don't know what you're talking about so I'll simply say this. Prop 19 does not affect Prop 215. You should read it.
> 
> Some people will argue that it will affect people who sell marijuana now under the table. I'm sure it will, but they're breaking the law by selling their medical to people who don't have a medical card. The arguments are endless really, if you want to be stupid and babble bullshit, don't read the bill. If you actually want to make the right choice, read it.
> 
> ...


show me where it says "all 215 patients are exempt from the bill" in those exact words in the prop.


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 19, 2010)

I can read and I read the bill. Obviously y'all lack reading comprehension the title of the bill states taxation control and regulation no where does it state it's legal. If you would stop smoking before reading you'll comprehend. I'm 41 years old I just don't open my mouth just to talk bullshit. I've done my research and know that this is not good. If Jack was still alive what do you think he would say?


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 19, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> show me where it says "all 215 patients are exempt from the bill" in those exact words in the prop.


ok. No problem.



> Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that citys limits remain illegal, but that the citys citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, *except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5* and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
> 
> 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 = prop 215

And there you go. Prop 19 refers to recreational cannabis, NOT medical needs. It specifically exempts medical use.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 19, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> Think about it CONTROL & TAXES. How much do you think it will be? Sales tax right now is 9.75% where I'm at last year it was 8.25%. Will they raise the pot tax? I think yes because California needs money? Please fucking think about it, people who don't even smoke will set the tax rate lol and you guys want it to be legal, it won't be it will be controlled.


You do realize it's legal to tax cannabis now without prop 19 right? Prop 19 adds no specific taxes to cannabis.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 19, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> Obviously y'all lack reading comprehension the title of the bill states taxation control and regulation no where does it state it's legal. If you would stop smoking before reading you'll comprehend. I'm 41 years old I just don't open my mouth just to talk bullshit. I've done my research and know that this is not good. If Jack was still alive what do you think he would say?


 Don't judge a book by it's cover. Read past the title. Better yet, check out this legal analysis of prop 19:

http://www.findmypot.com/2010/07/20/californias-prop-19-wordforword-analysis/


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 19, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> ok. No problem.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


that's the problem recreational the Feds frown on that. They can't be dicks to people with cancer or chronic pain. I was shot 20 years ago in my left ankle while being robbed I still have buck shots in my ankle in-bedded in my bone. You'll see for yourself and hopefully it won't pass


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 19, 2010)

Dan Kone how long have you been growing?


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 19, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> You do realize it's legal to tax cannabis now without prop 19 right? Prop 19 adds no specific taxes to cannabis.


Really you mean the tax the seller has to pay for being a business in California.


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 19, 2010)

Or do you mean the patient who goes into a dispensary for their medicine?


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 19, 2010)

they can't put tax on it without our vote. who old are you? I'm just curious to know


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 19, 2010)

Ok realstyles, some info that you may not know. They have started to tax bud in all dispensaries in Oakland with a vote that was passed overwhelmingly. All dispensaries in SF and Berkeley that I know of have begun to tax bud that they sell now b/c they know they can get away with it. Obviously the epicenters of medical weed will start a trend that continues throughout the state. Don't even try to argue that anywhere else is the epicenter of medical marijuana.

Prop19 says that health and safety codes 11362.5 11362.7-9 are exempt which are your 215 rights. Says it plain as day.

I'm pretty certain that if you grow your own bud you won't be taxed on it. If you're growing under 215 then you definitely will not be taxed on it. And since most people who oppose 19 are worried about bud being taxed and about shitty corp bud they can kill two birds with one stone by not buying the taxed bud.


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 19, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> Ok realstyles, some info that you may not know. They have started to tax bud in all dispensaries in Oakland with a vote that was passed overwhelmingly. All dispensaries in SF and Berkeley that I know of have begun to tax bud that they sell now b/c they know they can get away with it. Obviously the epicenters of medical weed will start a trend that continues throughout the state. Don't even try to argue that anywhere else is the epicenter of medical marijuana.
> 
> Prop19 says that health and safety codes 11362.5 11362.7-9 are exempt which are your 215 rights. Says it plain as day.
> 
> I'm pretty certain that if you grow your own bud you won't be taxed on it. If you're growing under 215 then you definitely will not be taxed on it. And since most people who oppose 19 are worried about bud being taxed and about shitty corp bud they can kill two birds with one stone by not buying the taxed bud.


You mean where Richard Lee is at? Who spent 1.5 Million dollars to get this on the ballot? This is like when George Bush told Businesses to go and buy SUV's for a tax cut and gas went up afterwards.


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 19, 2010)

What are you even arguing right now?


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 19, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> What are you even arguing right now?


Did I lose you somewhere?


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 19, 2010)

you are trying to rationalize why 19 is good but not looking at the whole picture. Put yourself in my shoes I grow plants big 3-5 feet wide so the 5x5 still applies to me in 19 fuck that I grow less plants but big. my last grow 3 plants 1 lb


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 19, 2010)

Yeah, I know that Richard lee spent a lot of money, but that was to get required signatures. It's practically impossible to pass a prop without a shit ton of signatures, and those companies cost a lot of money to fund. I would know, I worked for one.
You don't have to buy the corporation bud if you don't want to. You can keep going to your dispensary or grow your own, like most people on this forum do.


----------



## beardo (Oct 19, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> You don't have to buy the corporation bud if you don't want to. You can keep going to your dispensary or grow your own, like most people on this forum do.


Did you miss this?



REALSTYLES said:


> you are trying to rationalize why 19 is good but not looking at the whole picture. Put yourself in my shoes I grow plants big 3-5 feet wide so the 5x5 still applies to me in 19 fuck that I grow less plants but big. my last grow 3 plants 1 lb


----------



## beardo (Oct 19, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> you are trying to rationalize why 19 is good but not looking at the whole picture. Put yourself in my shoes I grow plants big 3-5 feet wide so the 5x5 still applies to me in 19 fuck that I grow less plants but big. my last grow 3 plants 1 lb


 Do you do that outdoors? have you read the requirements for spacing from property lines and fencing? how many harvests a year do you get outdoors? how long would your harvest from the 5by5 have to last? could you ration your marijuana to last you and everyone on your property? do you rent? would your landlord give permission?


----------



## gupp (Oct 19, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> ok. No problem.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


here is a link to 11362.5 and other docs. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=11001-12000&file=11357-11362.9


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 19, 2010)

Beardo did you miss the multiple times it has been said that 215 does not get affected. You can grow in more than a 5x5 place for fucks sake. Why is everyone choosing to ignore that 215 does not get affected by 19?


----------



## nathenking (Oct 19, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> Beardo did you miss the multiple times it has been said that 215 does not get affected. You can grow in more than a 5x5 place for fucks sake. Why is everyone choosing to ignore that 215 does not get affected by 19?


It may say that, but good laws have never stopped bad men.... Keep the Gov't out of my LIFE, especially my MJ.... its that simple man... why invite these corrupt fucks into this so they can do whatever they want.... and for what, oh yeah, a OUNCE.... shit, in most states you get caught with a ounce and things will get harry for you... but in cali, its a 100 dollar fine.... we got it so easy out here that I cant fathom why anybody cant wait for a better bill....


----------



## nathenking (Oct 19, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> You mean where Richard Lee is at? Who spent 1.5 Million dollars to get this on the ballot? This is like when George Bush told Businesses to go and buy SUV's for a tax cut and gas went up afterwards.


lets not forget haliburton as well... i dont know where any of these pro 19 people have been living for the last 20 years, but it sure doesnt seem like its been here in the good old corrupt USA... DO NOT TRUST THE GOV'T....PERIOD....


----------



## nathenking (Oct 19, 2010)

beardo said:


> Do you do that outdoors? have you read the requirements for spacing from property lines and fencing? how many harvests a year do you get outdoors? how long would your harvest from the 5by5 have to last? could you ration your marijuana to last you and everyone on your property? do you rent? would your landlord give permission?


Exactly Beardo!!!!!! This shit is so pathetically written I cant believe people are jumping at the BIT for this shit.... Hence AMERICA is a shit show now because people have no integrity or discipline... WAIT FOR A BETTER BILL!!!!!


----------



## nathenking (Oct 19, 2010)

Has anybody else been paying attention to the amount of traffic/members on this thread.... We are over growing the GOVT all ready, why fuck it up now by letting them control US in a way we do not want to be controlled.... AND FOR WHAT?????? A OUNCE????? NEVER!!!!!


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 19, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> that's the problem recreational the Feds frown on that. They can't be dicks to people with cancer or chronic pain. I was shot 20 years ago in my left ankle while being robbed I still have buck shots in my ankle in-bedded in my bone. You'll see for yourself and hopefully it won't pass


How is that a problem? It gives cops someone else to mess with besides medical patients.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 19, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> Dan Kone how long have you been growing?


On and off for about 15 years. Although most of that time it was just a hobby. Few plants in the back yard every year. Then while in college it was just a few plants in the closet with a 400.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 19, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> Really you mean the tax the seller has to pay for being a business in California.


No, I mean cities/counties can add whatever tax they want to cannabis in California right now with out prop 19. Prop 19 adds no specific tax to cannabis at all.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 19, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> they can't put tax on it without our vote.


Two counties are already have taxes on the ballot that will apply with or without prop 19.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 19, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> you are trying to rationalize why 19 is good but not looking at the whole picture. Put yourself in my shoes I grow plants big 3-5 feet wide so the 5x5 still applies to me in 19 fuck that I grow less plants but big. my last grow 3 plants 1 lb


You said you were a medical patient so it doesn't matter. You can still grow your 215 limits.


----------



## beardo (Oct 19, 2010)

Originally Posted by *mr2shim*  
I can't fathom how the cops would figure out your age unless you're stupid enough to carry an ID on you when you're high.
hayduke
Truly unfathomable...

 Originally Posted by *mr2shim* 
I like the idea that anyone under 21 could face jail time for smoking marijuana, it just gives the people who are against it all together more initiative to accept it.



mr2shim said:


> Who cares, it's just a ploy to make it more acceptable among the masses. It's not that hard to understand, and you go on about someones reading comprehension, it seems like your logic is skewed. Just like the ounce limit. It's to get marijuana to be acceptable among the masses. You, me or anyone else on here that is prop marijuana isn't among the masses. Would you be ok with a 12 year old driving a car? Do you think the masses would be ok with an 18-20 year old drinking? No? Why, because A: It's against the law and B: It's more appealing to the,... masses.
> 
> When something is written, it's not written in favor of the minority. It's written to favor and be accepted among as many people as possible, where in this case it would be the people who know little to nothing about marijuana.
> 
> ...







' Hayduke '
Yeah, I think that is great too...not only does it make this palatable for the "masses"...but think of all the jobs it will create...and in this economic climate, if a few adult citizens have to do hard time so that other states can have the dream of re-legalization...well...so be it.

After all...I'm over 21 so who cares 


this post was great-post #273 in thread -Beardo


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 20, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> Yeah, I know that Richard lee spent a lot of money, but that was to get required signatures. It's practically impossible to pass a prop without a shit ton of signatures, and those companies cost a lot of money to fund. I would know, I worked for one.
> You don't have to buy the corporation bud if you don't want to. You can keep going to your dispensary or grow your own, like most people on this forum do.


Why did Dick do this??? Yes to get signatures...but definitely not because he wants MJ to be legal...he wants YOUR money!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## beardo (Oct 20, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> Why did Dick do this??? Yes to get signatures...but definitely not because he wants MJ to be legal...he wants YOUR money!!!!!!!!!!!!!


yeah it was an investment to get a huge market and split it up between a few major companies-60,000 foot warehouse in oakland..but I wouldn't be suprised they offshore the jobs in the future. the people who wrote the bill are very smart they didn't forget anything or missword anything and they wont be changing it if it passes. the people who wrote it know how it will be interpreted. the pro 19 people have lead a misleading promotion campaign


----------



## nathenking (Oct 20, 2010)

beardo said:


> yeah it was an investment to get a huge market and split it up between a few major companies-60,000 foot warehouse in oakland..but I wouldn't be suprised they offshore the jobs in the future. the people who wrote the bill are very smart they didn't forget anything or missword anything and they wont be changing it if it passes ant the people who wrote it know how it will be interpreted. the pro 19 people have lead a misleading promotion campaign


They sure have, these people that are pro19 are shotting themselves in the foot from their own misunderstanding.... It happens all the time in this country...


----------



## beardo (Oct 20, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> if/when it does pass it would be nice to see huge tobacco companies get into cannabis growing. Not that it would be great for quality cannabis, but great for global legalization. But I don't think legalization in California is alone to get corporations like Altria to jump ship.


 I think I would rather support small local producers and i'm more inclined to trust the breeders we have now


----------



## nathenking (Oct 20, 2010)

beardo said:


> I think I would rather support small local producers and i'm more inclined to trust the breeders we have now


Beardo.... I also think that the price of quality indoor cannabis is not gonna drop that much either... not by any appreciable amounts... what are your thoughts...


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 20, 2010)

beardo said:


> I think I would rather support small local producers and i'm more inclined to trust the breeders we have now


You quoted that from a thread in a completely different section. why? 

If it were to come down to what I said, big companies like Altria manufacturing cannabis and small time growers, I would buy from the smaller group. Much like people who prefer Samuel Adams over Budweiser. Even though I don't drink, they are about quality and it's wroth paying the premium. All I was saying is I think it would help with global legalization.


----------



## beardo (Oct 20, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Beardo.... I also think that the price of quality indoor cannabis is not gonna drop that much either... not by any appreciable amounts... what are your thoughts...


 It cant drop to much- mega grows could be somewhat more efficient but the price is so competitive already it wont drop to much especially when you consider this bill is ment to raise revenue -Their will be the tax and insurance and licences and permits wich will raise production cost enough to offset any gain in efficiency. I also think everyone is basing their projected profits using prices close to the MMJ dispencary prices. You will be able to get real cheap leaf/shake joints maybe. People are consuming a lot of marijuana at todays prices I dont see why anyone would slash prices or even how they could cut price and maintain quality


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 20, 2010)

Q:When was the last time the price went down on ANYTHING people actually want???

A: NEVER.

If this passes...the only way anyone will be able to support small local growers will be illegally.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 20, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> Q:When was the last time the price went down on ANYTHING people actually want???
> 
> A: NEVER.
> 
> If this passes...the only way anyone will be able to support small local growers will be illegally.


great point hayduke...


----------



## desert dude (Oct 20, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> Q:When was the last time the price went down on ANYTHING people actually want???
> 
> A: NEVER.
> 
> If this passes...the only way anyone will be able to support small local growers will be illegally.


You typed that post on some sort of computer. The price of computers has dropped many thousands of percent in price in the last twenty years, and we all own them.


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 20, 2010)

After alcohol prohibition alcohol prices plummeted. It is speculated that weed prices will go down because huge grows now have a chance to be legal. Quality will still be pricey, but there will be way more quality producers. With more producers, comes cheaper prices. That is why many people think the prices will go down. It's almost a fact that outdoor will go down when thousands upon thousands of acres will be dedicated to growing with no threat of being taken down. That means the price of maintenance will plummet, making the price of weed lower significantly. Businesses also get cheaper electricity prices than residential areas do, as well as cheaper water etc. So, a new company, in order to undercut the current dispensary market (which has already started to drop funny enough) would come out with the same quality bud at a cheaper price.


----------



## klmmicro (Oct 20, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> It's almost a fact that outdoor will go down when thousands upon thousands of acres will be dedicated to growing with no threat of being taken down. That means the price of maintenance will plummet, making the price of weed lower significantly.


Except for one thing, the analogy of ending prohibition of alcohol does not apply in this case. This is STATE LAW ONLY. The Feds still can (and WILL) go after anything that surfaces on the radar. They have stated thus already that they will not tolerate California (or any other state) showing their war on drugs as the garbage that it is. My thought is simple, small personal "recreational" grows will slip under the radar without issue while the feds will pound anything commercial out of existence. We will not see any significant change in price or supply chain for a long time. The state agencies will be obliged a blind eye, but DEA and such will be keen to step up enforcement.


----------



## gupp (Oct 20, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> Q:When was the last time the price went down on ANYTHING people actually want???
> 
> A: NEVER.
> 
> If this passes...the only way anyone will be able to support small local growers will be illegally.


 Now, let's not forget that we're in a recession so a lot of things seem to be going up in price. Cost is pretty much defined as supply:demand. If I were to find a billion diamonds tomorrow....(as an example) the price would not be as high after I sold a few.


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 20, 2010)

gupp said:


> Now, let's not forget that we're in a recession so a lot of things seem to be going up in price. Cost is pretty much defined as supply:demand. If I were to find a billion diamonds tomorrow....(as an example) the price would not be as high after I sold a few.


Wrong you'll keep the same price and make more. Let's be real here


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 20, 2010)

klmmicro said:


> Except for one thing, the analogy of ending prohibition of alcohol does not apply in this case. This is STATE LAW ONLY. The Feds still can (and WILL) go after anything that surfaces on the radar. They have stated thus already that they will not tolerate California (or any other state) showing their war on drugs as the garbage that it is. My thought is simple, small personal "recreational" grows will slip under the radar without issue while the feds will pound anything commercial out of existence. We will not see any significant change in price or supply chain for a long time. The state agencies will be obliged a blind eye, but DEA and such will be keen to step up enforcement.


Right now man right now


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 20, 2010)

desert dude said:


> You typed that post on some sort of computer. The price of computers has dropped many thousands of percent in price in the last twenty years, and we all own them.


computers and weed are two different things computers legal weed not


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 20, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> computers and weed are two different things computers legal weed not


Plus there's so many computer companies, if 19 passes there won't be no competition for the big corps so they'll be able to do what ever they want


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 20, 2010)

> Plus there's so many computer companies, if 19 passes there won't be no competition for the big corps so they'll be able to do what ever they want


What makes you think that there won't be tons of weed companies?


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 20, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> computers and weed are two different things computers legal weed not


Yes, very different, but think of the logic behind it. Supply is low, prices are high, supply is high prices are low. Marijuana is illegal so essentially supply is low because it's illegal. Make it legal, supply will increase price will drop. 

It's simple economics. Things are always more expensive when they're illegal.


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 20, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> Yes, very different, but think of the logic behind it. Supply is low, prices are high, supply is high prices are low. Marijuana is illegal so essentially supply is low because it's illegal. Make it legal, supply will increase price will drop.
> 
> It's simple economics. Things are always more expensive when they're illegal.


Not when it get Regulated and controlled. Look at alcohol there's a lot that around and the good stuff is expensive there's no price break and don't get me talking about gas and cigarettes. This bill has too many alternative motives to it mostly money and when money is involved someone gets screwed.


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 20, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> What makes you think that there won't be tons of weed companies?


do you know how much it will cost to get that big grow permit?


----------



## gupp (Oct 20, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> Wrong you'll keep the same price and make more. Let's be real here


How am I going to keep the price of diamonds above sand? Think huge amounts here man, huge.

Edit, for clarity lets just say that it was announced that there was a 10,,000 foot mountain of pot, like mount shasta, and it regrew itself, how is the price going to stay high

Because if i have your position right, you are trying to tell me that it is literally impossible for the price of an item to change, like somehow it's just pegged to a certain price or dollar value. 

Edit: I think you are confusing price for utility. Many things have a use for them- be it making computers, entertainment, or anything else. This doesn't have to correlate with its availability (or price) at all.


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 20, 2010)

Funny thing is I don't grow 50+ plants. I grow 4-6 plants and they're at least 2 1/2 feet wide indoor and my grow area is now reduced to 5 x 5 and y'all don't think I'm pissed about it. Maybe when realized this is a phased you'd be pissed too.


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 20, 2010)

gupp said:


> How am i going to keep the price of diamonds above sand? think huge amounts here man, huge.
> 
> Edit, for clarity lets just say that it was announced that there was a 10,,000 foot mountain of pot, the size of a mountain in the middle of town, how is the price going to stay high


If it's fire it will and if it came from one plant it would be more way more . Because everyone would want to try it for it came from a mountain. It would be all over the news and shit


----------



## gupp (Oct 20, 2010)

But its dollar value would not have to reflect that.
|
Edit: 

Basically I'm saying that there are some things, like water, or potatoes, that we could charge more for if they were scarce. Water in particular is so abundant that it's basically free.


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 20, 2010)

Your grow is not reduced if you have a 215. Even if you didn't have your 215 then your grow wouldn't be reduced. It would increase by 25 sqft.
Do you know how much the permit is going to cost? Probably not more than a loan could cover.


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 20, 2010)

Bullshit! If the supply is high...YOU MAKE HASH!!!!!!

The price of weed is NOT going to plummet!!! Taxes, fees and greed make sure of it.

There will not be tons of companies...19 allows local governments to charge what they wish...or not allow it at all.

This was written by and for Dick Lee...SF and Alameda County will be fine with working with a select few Mega growers.

Conservative SoCal will see very little commercial production because Jesus is coming back and they don't want to risk pissing him off...Hemp threatens the timber industry in the North, and the Central Valley fights for every drop of Delta water they can get...and it's NOT enough!

But don't worry...you will probably be able to buy Oaksterdam weed all over the state.


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 21, 2010)

gupp said:


> Water in particular is so abundant that it's basically free.


You can't be serious????? Do you live East of the Rockies???????


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 21, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> do you know how much it will cost to get that big grow permit?


Yep. $2500


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 21, 2010)

You're being a bit pessimistic. The Bay Area has a large following. After SF deems it ok and cool to have grow warehouses, San Jose will soon follow to make it less sucky, little do they know nothing will make San Jose suck less. Santa Cruz will definitely follow SF and Alameda's roll, they have for almost everything in the past. And once Santa Cruz accepts shit more liberal southern areas will start to as well (not Monterrey, but Santa Barbara probably). Not to mention that Fairfield and north towards Sacramento is filled with assholes that claim bay area, so they will push and push for weed factories in their cities. LA may be conservative, but it is heavily influenced by Hollywood. Once moviestars and other asshats can smoke legally and do so publicly the masses will follow. Northern Cali may not have grow warehouses, but they already have enormous outdoor operations so... they probably just keep supplying the underground. If you don't think weed prices will drop then they will be unharmed. But, like every other government employee, once Humboldt county (mendo and trinity included) see the massive profits that something they're globally known for is making, they will soon follow.
Even if the domino effect doesn't happen, move to the Bay Area. Why would you live anywhere else? (Only kind of joking)


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 21, 2010)

> Yep. $2500


That's it? Really. That's one fucking pound of bud. Hot damn I'm opening up a weed shop!


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 21, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> That's it? Really. That's one fucking pound of bud. Hot damn I'm opening up a weed shop!


Not everywhere, just my county. No fee to open the dispensary, only to grow. Also you must solar panel the roof of the grow.

It all depends where you live. Certain counties are going to be assholes, some will understand that they can make more money if they let a lot of people grow and just tax all the commercial grows rather than making them pay a fee up front.


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 21, 2010)

Which county is this that you live in?


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 21, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> Which county is this that you live in?


I'll let you know Nov 9th


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 21, 2010)

The blue balls are killing me.


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 21, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> move to the Bay Area. Why would you live anywhere else? (Only kind of joking)


 I agree...SoCal is a sh!thole...Excramento is better.


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 21, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Yep. $2500


 Your weed must be shit then that's even if you know how to grow


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 21, 2010)

It's like $100,000 to get a liquor license to sell alcohol, so if the Alcohol Bureau controls Marijuana. How much will it cost to get a grow permit?


----------



## N!pples (Oct 21, 2010)

$13.50 according to the &#8220;internet&#8221;....


----------



## REALSTYLES (Oct 21, 2010)

N!pples said:


> $13.50 according to the &#8220;internet&#8221;....


?????? $13.50 for a large grow permit? How old are you?


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 21, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> Your weed must be shit then that's even if you know how to grow


lol. Really dude? My weed is bad because my county wrote a law with a low costing permit? That makes perfect sense....

I grow just fine TYVM


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 21, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> It's like $100,000 to get a liquor license to sell alcohol, so if the Alcohol Bureau controls Marijuana. How much will it cost to get a grow permit?


 It's different in every county. Some will be very expensive (up to $250,000) some will only be a few thousand dollars. Every county makes their own law, sets their own fees.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 21, 2010)

ould Prop. 19 Cut Crime And Boost Economy, Or Harm Public Safety, Health
In his white cowboy hat, bluejeans and boots, John Pinches might seem an unlikely champion for the legalization of marijuana.
Pinches, a Mendocino County rancher, businessman, grandfather and two-term county supervisor who once called himself an &#8220;old hillbilly,&#8221; has no personal taste for the intoxicating weed.
&#8220;To me, it&#8217;s overrated, kind of like warm beer,&#8221; he said, sitting in his Ukiah office with family photos and maps plastered on the walls.
But with Proposition 19 on the Nov. 2 ballot &#8212; and California a majority vote away from the most sweeping embrace of marijuana in modern history &#8212; Pinches is in the spotlight.
The British Broadcasting Corp. and National Geographic have sought him out, and Pinches is back to explaining his &#8220;common sense&#8221; conclusion that people should be free to grow and smoke their own pot in peace.
&#8220;Isn&#8217;t that what America is all about?&#8221; he asked, calling marijuana use a &#8220;victimless crime.&#8221;
&#8220;Shouldn&#8217;t you have certain rights in your own home?&#8221;
Prohibition, including California law enforcement&#8217;s seizure of more than 17 million marijuana plants since 1983, hasn&#8217;t worked, Pinches said.
In Mendocino County, one of the nation&#8217;s top illegal pot cultivation spots, the seizures have been &#8220;the best farm-price support ever&#8221; by curbing supply and keeping prices high, he said.
Michael Spielman, executive director of the Santa Rosa-based Drug Abuse Alternatives Center, said he is leery of legalization because it would increase youth exposure to marijuana.
&#8220;Use goes up, more kids get affected,&#8221; he said.
Health officials point to evidence that marijuana can cause respiratory damage, increased risk of heart attack and psychosis and harm to fetuses in pregnant women who smoke pot.
Violent crime related to marijuana will likely continue and &#8220;may even increase&#8221; with legalization, Sonoma County Sheriff Bill Cogbill said.
1 billion joints a year
Californians consume 500 tons &#8212; or 1 billion joints, typically less than half a gram each &#8212; of marijuana a year, according to a RAND Corp. think tank report on Proposition 19.
Legalization would cut the price of pot by as much as 80 percent and could increase consumption by 50 percent to 100 percent or more, the report said.
If marijuana use doubled, it would bring California close to the rate of consumption in the late 1970s, when 13 percent of the population reported using pot, the report said.
Proposition 19 would permit possession in public of up to an ounce of pot, as well as cultivation for personal use. Cities and counties would be allowed to authorize, and tax, commercial production and sale of pot.
Several polls give the ballot measure a plurality of voter support, but neither the &#8220;yes&#8221; or &#8220;no&#8221; faction is waging much of a campaign.
Campaign spending on Proposition 19, the brainchild of Oakland marijuana entrepreneur Richard Lee, totals about $2 million for both sides, a fraction of the more than $80 million spent on the contentious battle over same-sex marriage in 2008.
Measure called vague
Opponents say that legalizing recreational marijuana use will jeopardize public safety, thwart drug-free workplace measures and provoke confusion because the ballot measure is overly vague.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said passage of Proposition 19 would &#8220;significantly undermine&#8221; efforts to keep California communities safe. The government will &#8220;vigorously enforce&#8221; federal prohibitions against recreational marijuana use, he said.
Backers say it&#8217;s time for a new approach to pot, that adults should be free to grow their own and that California cities and counties should have the right to regulate and tax the here-to-stay marijuana culture.
&#8220;It&#8217;s rampant,&#8221; said Valerie Brown, chairwoman of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. &#8220;It&#8217;s got to be controlled.&#8221;
The board voted unanimously in August to oppose Proposition 19 because it sets no standards for regulating commercial marijuana operations, Brown said, but a turnabout will be needed if the measure passes.
Sonoma County, in that case, should &#8220;move fairly quickly&#8221; to develop a regional policy with Lake, Napa, Marin and possibly Solano counties. Mendocino and Humboldt counties might be included, too, but Brown said they tend to be &#8220;less restrictive than we are&#8221; on marijuana matters.
Tax revenue eyed
Brown thinks most of California&#8217;s 58 counties would permit pot sales in order to reap tax revenues. &#8220;We&#8217;re all hurting for funding right now,&#8221; she said.
Santa Rosa Mayor Susan Gorin said the prospect of pot revenue is &#8220;somewhat attractive,&#8221; but that legal and social concerns may transcend economics.
For example, Gorin said she could imagine a Santa Rosa resident raising nuisance complaints over the aroma, perceived as a &#8220;stench,&#8221; from a neighbor&#8217;s outdoor pot patch.
&#8220;I don&#8217;t think many jurisdictions are going to blithely allow this to happen for the revenue considerations,&#8221; Gorin said. &#8220;The old phrase &#8216;penny-wise and pound-foolish&#8217; comes to mind.&#8221;
Ann Peck, an attorney in the Sonoma County counsel&#8217;s office, said the ballot measure is vague but entrepreneurs will jump at the chance to sell pot.
&#8220;I have no doubt they will come knocking on our door,&#8221; she said. &#8220;At this point I do not know what we would say to them.&#8221;
Sebastopol&#8217;s City Council, on a 3-2 vote in June, backed away from putting a 5 percent marijuana business tax on the November ballot. No other local agency has officially broached the idea.
San Jose, Berkeley and Sacramento have put marijuana taxes on the ballot in anticipation of the initiative&#8217;s passage.
&#8220;Uncharted territory&#8221;
&#8220;California would be stepping into uncharted territory,&#8221; said Beau Kilmer, lead author of the RAND report, titled &#8220;Altered State?&#8221;
No modern nation has legalized commercial marijuana production, Kilmer said, leaving researchers with scant evidence for estimating the proposition&#8217;s impact on marijuana consumption or tax revenues.
The Netherlands legalized retail distribution &#8212; giving rise to Amsterdam&#8217;s famous cannabis cafes &#8212; but does not sanction pot production.
Legalization would cut the cost of weed by at least 80 percent, the RAND researchers wrote, estimating the number of California marijuana users at 4.2 million.
But how the price plunge would affect consumption, and the validity of Proposition 19&#8217;s promise of &#8220;billions of dollars for our state and local government&#8221; remains uncertain, Kilmer said.
That California would be the first state to entertain pot legalization was inevitable, said Elaine Leeder, a Sonoma State University sociology professor.
Marijuana and same-sex marriage are social movements &#8220;whose time has come,&#8221; Leeder said. Both are in the third phase of movements, known to academics as institutionalization.
Abolition of slavery, woman suffrage and civil rights are movements that migrated over time from society&#8217;s margins to mainstream acceptance, she said.
A Gallup poll last year found that 44 percent of Americans favored marijuana legalization, the peak in a fairly steady climb from 12 percent acceptance in 1970. Opposition over the same period has fallen from 84 percent in 1970 to 54 percent in 2009.
In the West, a 53 percent majority favored decriminalization and taxing of marijuana, the poll said.
&#8220;We are going to continue to battle over these quality-of-life issues,&#8221; SSU political scientist David McCuan said, predicting that pot and gay marriage will eventually be sanctioned.
But Proposition 19 is largely a cipher, he said, intended to &#8220;raise the issue&#8221; of marijuana legalization rather than change the law.
If it were to pass, McCuan said, the measure would be &#8220;tied up in court forever.&#8221;
Worry over teens
Spielman, a recovering addict who has worked at the local drug treatment center for 30 years, said he is personally opposed to Proposition 19.
He said that among teenage pot users, he observes &#8220;amotivational syndrome,&#8221; a diminished engagement in social relationships and schoolwork.
&#8220;I have seen enough kids affected by it, and that makes me nervous about ( legalizing ) it,&#8221; he said.
Proposition 19 would retain criminal sanctions for those under 21 who use or cultivate marijuana.
The RAND report said there were 181 marijuana-related hospital admissions and 32,000 drug treatment program admissions a year in California. It also said that &#8220;serious, acute health problems&#8221; due to moderate or even excessive marijuana use were rare.
According to the latest California Healthy Kids Survey, 26 percent of Sonoma County high school juniors said they were using marijuana in 2008, well above the statewide rate of 16 percent.
Three-fourths of the students said that pot was &#8220;very easy&#8221; or &#8220;fairly easy&#8221; to obtain.
Medical marijuana, legal since 1996 in California, helped make cannabis commonplace, Spielman said. &#8220;The pot doctors advertise on 101, for God&#8217;s sake,&#8221; he said.
Robert Jacob, executive director of Peace in Medicine Healing Center, a Sebastopol medical marijuana dispensary, said he has no objection to Proposition 19.
The measure is about recreational pot use, and has &#8220;nothing to do with medical cannabis,&#8221; he said.
&#8220;With our current laws, we ruin people&#8217;s lives for possession of marijuana,&#8221; Jacob said.
The California Chamber of Commerce came out against Proposition 19 in August, contending that it &#8220;blurs the line&#8221; on whether employers must tolerate workers showing up stoned or smoking on the job.
Drug tests at issue
Erika Frank, the chamber&#8217;s attorney, said it&#8217;s clear that employers could no longer reject a job applicant who failed a test for marijuana.
What&#8217;s troubling, she said, is the measure&#8217;s provision that employers can deal with marijuana use that &#8220;actually impairs&#8221; job performance. &#8220;It&#8217;s a standard that does not exist today,&#8221; she said.
Pinches, who owns a 1,000-acre cattle and sheep ranch in the far northeast end of Mendocino County, said there may well be marijuana growing in secret on his land.
But since his livestock often run onto neighbors&#8217; land, he couldn&#8217;t complain about pot sprouting on his spread.
If marijuana is not legalized in November, he said, it will be back on future state ballots.
&#8220;There is an insatiable demand for marijuana out there,&#8221; Pinches said. &#8220;People are going to get it.&#8221;
[sidebar]
ON THE CUTTING EDGE
California was one of the first states to prohibit marijuana in 1913, predating the federal Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 by nearly 25 years. In 1975, California was one of the first states to reduce the maximum sentence for possessing less than an ounce to a $100 fine. In 1996, California was the first state to allow medicinal marijuana under Proposition 215, approved by 56 percent of voters. Effective Jan. 1, possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is an infraction, like a speeding ticket, among the most tolerant pot laws in the nation. Source: Rand Corp., news reports.
How it works:
Proposition 19 allows:
Possession of an ounce of marijuana for personal use by anyone 21 or older. Cultivation of marijuana on up to 25 square feet of private property and possession of the harvested pot for personal use. Cities and counties to authorize and establish standards for the commercial cultivation, processing, transportation, retail sale and on-premises consumption of marijuana. Taxation of commercial marijuana operations. Employers to deal with marijuana consumption that &#8220;actually impairs job performance.&#8221; The measure prohibits: Marijuana consumption in public, or by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft. It does not limit any law that &#8220;forbids impairment&#8221; while driving. Interstate or international transportation of marijuana. Smoking marijuana around children or bringing it to a kindergarten through 12th grade school.
By the numbers:
10: Pounds of pot harvested per year from a 25-square-foot hydroponic plot allowed by Proposition 19
26: Percent of Sonoma County high school juniors who use marijuana
500: Tons of marijuana consumed annually in California
4.2 million: California marijuana users
17 million: Pot plants seized by California law enforcement since 1983
*Source:* Press Democrat, The (Santa Rosa, CA)
*Copyright:* 2010 The Press Democrat


----------



## N!pples (Oct 21, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> ?????? $13.50 for a large grow permit? How old are you?


I'm the internet!! I'm as old as rumors.......  How old are you?

great post btw....


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 21, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> Not when it get Regulated and controlled. Look at alcohol there's a lot that around and the good stuff is expensive there's no price break and don't get me talking about gas and cigarettes. This bill has too many alternative motives to it mostly money and when money is involved someone gets screwed.


American gas tax is quite low compared to other countries like Canada or the UK. Cigarettes tend to cause cancer and death so I have no problem seeing the increasing tax on those. It's to deter people from smoking them because they're harmful. Same goes for junk food. Iowa imposes extra tax on soda.

The good stuff, as you put it is expensive because it isn't massively produced, meaning hundreds of thousands of bottles produced in one day. Just like I said, high supply=low price. Low supply=high price. Ever been to the Budweiser factory? They shell out massive amounts of beer everyday. They showed it on some discovery show once, How it's made or how do they do it. I can't remember.

Looks a Porsche's. There are tons of those around, but they are still expensive. A: Because you're paying for quality and B: They still don't produce as many in one day as Chevrolet produces the Camaro.

Marijuana goes to big business, it will be high production low cost. Smaller grow companies will obviously have lower production, higher quality and thus higher price.

Again it's simple economics.


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 21, 2010)

I don't even think small companies will have that much better quality. It's not like it's all that hard to grow good bud. Especially something like hydro or aero, which I believe are the techniques the oaksterdam factories are going to use. Once there are enough cool gadgets, people really only need to watch their weed as it grows. There are timers for lights, watering, and nutes. Really, the big factories would only need someone checking up on the plants for diseases and shit.
If they decide to go soil, which would be awesome... I love tasty buds, then more work would be required. But the growing process is pretty systematic, so much so that it could be controlled by machine and does not require much maintenance. There's always the topping and other cool upkeep tricks involved, but what I'm getting at is that a machine could probably make better bud then humans in the very near future.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 21, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> I don't even think small companies will have that much better quality. It's not like it's all that hard to grow good bud. Especially something like hydro or aero, which I believe are the techniques the oaksterdam factories are going to use. Once there are enough cool gadgets, people really only need to watch their weed as it grows. There are timers for lights, watering, and nutes. Really, the big factories would only need someone checking up on the plants for diseases and shit.
> If they decide to go soil, which would be awesome... I love tasty buds, then more work would be required. But the growing process is pretty systematic, so much so that it could be controlled by machine and does not require much maintenance. There's always the topping and other cool upkeep tricks involved, but what I'm getting at is that a machine could probably make better bud then humans in the very near future.


It would probably be pretty similar to a tomato hydro farm.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 22, 2010)

One more reason for everyone to by California grown.
   
*Mexico burns marijuana haul *


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 22, 2010)

The _Associated Press_ has pulled together an excellent video package of mothers speaking out in favor of California&#8217;s Proposition 19. These collective voices and images make a powerful statement.
[youtube]3nf-5q22zZ8[/youtube]


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 22, 2010)

[youtube]NdIYVWA0dr0[/youtube]


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 22, 2010)

*15 Million Americans Have Been Arrested*


----------



## klmmicro (Oct 22, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> One more reason for everyone to by California grown. Mexico burns marijuana haul


Mexico can burn whatever they want...they get 0% of my business already. I do not smoke anything where I do not know the grower personally or that I grow myself. I am a legal patient and take advantage of the laws as they are. My rule to make sure that nothing I do supports the corruption that is south of the border. Also, I not support the imported criminals from down south that have come up here to spread their lawlessness in our backwoods. Prop 19 will greatly diminish the money that the cartels make from citizens in California, though I doubt it will do anything to curb their growth efforts in our state. The ground is too fertile here and it is easy for them to move it to states where there IS money to be made.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 22, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> *15 Million Americans Have Been Arrested*



prop 19 ADDS new felonies to the books.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 22, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> prop 19 ADDS new felonies to the books.


 [youtube]XUfTdASDfHo[/youtube]


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 22, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> [youtube]XUfTdASDfH[/youtube]


jsbdkjabcfkjabwejkcvbaqwkcvbn


----------



## klmmicro (Oct 22, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> jsbdkjabcfkjabwejkcvbaqwkcvbn


While I understand this argument...


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 22, 2010)

[youtube]QYdPfYSULhg&NR[/youtube]


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 22, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> *15 Million Americans Have Been Arrested*


How many of those were in California???...Unfortunately This is not H.R. 19...Nor does it do anything to stop arrests for possession. 

If anyone thinks that the passage of 19 will suddenly make chicken shit pigs start fighting real crime rather than taking advantage of the situation they are seriously high. 

Stipulating that the costs associated with the taxing, controlling and regulating of Marijuana INSURES that it will be heavily taxed, highly controlled and regulated ad nauseum...think DMV IF all you have to do to get more revenue for the bureaucracy is raise the fee... 

How much prop 19 taxes will go to improving our shitty school system???

And the Cartels...what a joke!!! We smoke so little Mexican pot here...it is near worthless.

While Los Federales were distracted confiscating all that mota...the cartels were sneaking in the Heroin and meth with the help of the bilingual US Border Patrol


----------



## desert dude (Oct 22, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> How many of those were in California???...Unfortunately This is not H.R. 19...Nor does it do anything to stop arrests for possession.
> 
> If anyone thinks that the passage of 19 will suddenly make chicken shit pigs start fighting real crime rather than taking advantage of the situation they are seriously high.
> 
> ...


P19 makes possession of one ounce legal, carry it wherever you want. P19 makes it legal to possess, in your home, all that you can grow in 25 square feet. Current law makes both of those things illegal.

If you are worried about the taxes and fees, then don't pay them; you will be breaking the law for evading those taxes, but your are breaking the law by growing pot now. What's the fucking difference?


----------



## klmmicro (Oct 22, 2010)

desert dude said:


> P19 makes possession of one ounce legal, carry it wherever you want. P19 makes it legal to possess, in your home, all that you can grow in 25 square feet. Current law makes both of those things illegal.


Just remember that this is a STATE Prop and will only effect the state law. The feds can and have stated will still continue to prosecute cannabis possession and production. Something tells me that an ounce of weed is a bit small for the DEA to waste time on, but you never know. My belief is that Prop 19, if passed is another step in decriminalizing cannabis on a federal level. We have seen the process begun with the medical laws that various states have passed, and continue to pass.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 22, 2010)

klmmicro said:


> Just remember that this is a STATE Prop and will only effect the state law. The feds can and have stated will still continue to prosecute cannabis possession and production. Something tells me that an ounce of weed is a bit small for the DEA to waste time on, but you never know. My belief is that Prop 19, if passed is another step in decriminalizing cannabis on a federal level. We have seen the process begun with the medical laws that various states have passed, and continue to pass.


All true. P19 is just another chink in the armor of the federal narco-industrial complex.


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 22, 2010)

desert dude said:


> P19 makes possession of one ounce legal, carry it wherever you want. P19 makes it legal to possess, in your home, all that you can grow in 25 square feet. Current law makes both of those things illegal.
> 
> If you are worried about the taxes and fees, then don't pay them; you will be breaking the law for evading those taxes, but your are breaking the law by growing pot now. What's the fucking difference?


Although I am not above breaking an unjust law...I am not breaking any in regards to my growing cannabis.

As for that legal zip of commercial bug spray...The only way that prop 19 is a better deal is if you get caught about every other time you have an ounce...get caught...pay the $100 tax...personally, I have not been caught since 1993 in pot unfriendly Missouri.

Personally I would rather pay my tax to the guy who was nice enough to give up his medical career to give letters of freedom to those who want them.

I think I will start an ebay store exclusively selling 5x5 tents...cause if your plants hang outside Dicks magic square...then all that pot could be taken cuz you are not in compliance with dicks regulation.

Legalize pot so we can grow it with the sun!!!!!


----------



## desert dude (Oct 22, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> Although I am not above breaking an unjust law...I am not breaking any in regards to my growing cannabis.
> 
> As for that legal zip of commercial bug spray...The only way that prop 19 is a better deal is if you get caught about every other time you have an ounce...get caught...pay the $100 tax...personally, I have not been caught since 1993 in pot unfriendly Missouri.
> 
> ...


If you are growing, you are breaking federal law. If you are growing MMJ, then P19 will have no affect on you.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 22, 2010)

desert dude said:


> If you are growing, you are breaking federal law. If you are growing MMJ, then P19 will have no affect on you.


Correct. 1 plant even for medical purposes is a federal crime.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 23, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Correct. 1 plant even for medical purposes is a federal crime.


If you want to grow in 25 sq. ft., I have a design worked out for outdoor growing that will allow me to get a yield of about five or six pounds from that space. I've also developed some ideas for indoor spaces that could yield nearly as much, every ten weeks or so.

I'll be offering blueprints for a price, and might even start fabricating them, IF this travesty passes. I'm thinking people are starting to see the flaws.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 23, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> If you want to grow in 25 sq. ft., I have a design worked out for outdoor growing that will allow me to get a yield of about five or six pounds from that space. I've also developed some ideas for indoor spaces that could yield nearly as much, every ten weeks or so.
> 
> I'll be offering blueprints for a price, and might even start fabricating them, IF this travesty passes. I'm thinking people are starting to see the flaws.



That's the spirit! Make some money no matter what happens.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 23, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> If you want to grow in 25 sq. ft., I have a design worked out for outdoor growing that will allow me to get a yield of about five or six pounds from that space. I've also developed some ideas for indoor spaces that could yield nearly as much, every ten weeks or so.
> 
> I'll be offering blueprints for a price, and might even start fabricating them, IF this travesty passes. I'm thinking people are starting to see the flaws.


Wow. Creative. GJ. 

Luckily I'm a medical grower so I can still do 100sq ft.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 23, 2010)

Dan....

What is the point of an assembly bill if it will have no authority to over-ride a voter initiative? Ammiano's bill is powerless and cant do anything...Voter initiatives cant be altered except by ANOTHER VOTER INITIATIVE. I just saw this thread and didnt have the stomach for 43 pages of stuff I have already seen, but I think that this is just another distraction from the real and glaring issues. Did anyone bring else bring this up?


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 23, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Dan....
> 
> What is the point of an assembly bill if it will have no authority to over-ride a voter initiative? Ammiano's bill is powerless and cant do anything...


It doesn't over ride it. The ability to amend the limits set by prop 19 are written into the ballot measure, the 25 sq ft/1 ounce limits are MINIMUMS, not maximums. And there is no set penalty in prop 19 for exceeding those limits. If an assembly bill wants to set that penalty as a $100 fine, they can. There isn't a contradiction there.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 23, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> It doesn't over ride it. The ability to amend the limits set by prop 19 are written into the ballot measure, the 25 sq ft/1 ounce limits are MINIMUMS, not maximums. And there is no set penalty in prop 19 for exceeding those limits. If an assembly bill wants to set that penalty as a $100 fine, they can. There isn't a contradiction there.


Thanks for clarifying!


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 23, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> It doesn't over ride it. The ability to amend the limits set by prop 19 are written into the ballot measure, the 25 sq ft/1 ounce limits are MINIMUMS, not maximums. And there is no set penalty in prop 19 for exceeding those limits. If an assembly bill wants to set that penalty as a $100 fine, they can. There isn't a contradiction there.


Oh....but he needs the 2/3 "supermajority" to make that happen...whereas the first court case related to 19 could result in one judge determining if the provision of the statute in question stands in the "statutory construction" of the bill? So basically, we need to have 2/3 of the california legislature, or a DA with a hair up his ass and a sympathetic judge to make changes to 19 as it stands? Awesome.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 23, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Oh....but he needs the 2/3 "supermajority" to make that happen...whereas the first court case related to 19 could result in one judge determining if the provision of the statute in question stands in the "statutory construction" of the bill? So basically, we need to have 2/3 of the california legislature, or a DA with a hair up his ass and a sympathetic judge to make changes to 19 as it stands? Awesome.


Dude, you are incoherent.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 23, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Dude, you are incoherent.


oh please enlighten me...


----------



## desert dude (Oct 23, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> oh please enlighten me...


Prop 19 specifically allows for increased freedoms in the language of the proposition.

In CA it takes 2/3 to increase taxes, a simple majority for everything else.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 23, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Prop 19 specifically allows for increased freedoms in the language of the proposition.
> 
> In CA it takes 2/3 to increase taxes, a simple majority for everything else.


Pretty sure I just read that its 2/3...


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 23, 2010)

And I am pretty damn sure I am right about this considering I have found it at two different sources...one of them being from the secretary of state website...


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 23, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Oh....but he needs the 2/3 "supermajority" to make that happen...


As did SB420. This bill is to prop 19 what sb420 is to prop 215.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 23, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> As did SB420. This bill is to prop 19 what sb420 is to prop 215.


But there were intentions behind SB420 that were not quite in the best interests of patients...


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 23, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> But there were intentions behind SB420 that were not quite in the best interests of patients...


Right, which is why this is better.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 23, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Right, which is why this is better.


But what are the chances of the legislature approving it? That same 2/3 vote is what's needed for our damn budget, and we cant even get that. I don't see the assembly putting amendments to 19 a really high priority...especially if they grant more privileges. All in all Tom's move here is just a ploy with very little chance of success in order to try and gain the votes of the people this bill already has in the crosshairs. I tried to get behind 19...I just can't...It's too flawed and far too open to interpretation for the senate and assembly...and inevitably judges with the power to strike provisions as long as they have defendants and government prosecutors like DA's or worse "Attorney General Steve Cooley".... (I think he's one problem everyone agrees on "NOT COOLEY").


----------



## desert dude (Oct 23, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> But what are the chances of the legislature approving it? That same 2/3 vote is what's needed for our damn budget, and we cant even get that. I don't see the assembly putting amendments to 19 a really high priority...especially if they grant more privileges. All in all Tom's move here is just a ploy with very little chance of success in order to try and gain the votes of the people this bill already has in the crosshairs. I tried to get behind 19...I just can't...It's too flawed and far too open to interpretation for the senate and assembly...and inevitably judges with the power to strike provisions as long as they have defendants and government prosecutors like DA's or worse "Attorney General Steve Cooley".... (I think he's one problem everyone agrees on "NOT COOLEY").


I agree with you about Cooley. I voted for the Democrat for AG. You are wrong about the 2/3 majority:

OVERVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
The process of government by which bills are considered and laws enacted is commonly referred to as the Legislative Process. The California State Legislature is made up of two houses: the Senate and the Assembly. There are 40 Senators and 80 Assembly Members representing the people of the State of California. The Legislature has a legislative calendar containing important dates of activities during its two-year session. 

Bills passed by committees are read a second time on the floor in the house of origin and then assigned to third reading. Bill analyses are also prepared prior to third reading. When a bill is read the third time it is explained by the author, discussed by the Members and voted on by a roll call vote. Bills that require an appropriation or that take effect immediately, generally require 27 votes in the Senate and 54 votes in the Assembly to be passed. Other bills generally require 21 votes in the Senate and 41 votes in the Assembly. If a bill is defeated, the Member may seek reconsideration and another vote. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bil2lawx.html


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 23, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> But what are the chances of the legislature approving it? That same 2/3 vote is what's needed for our damn budget, and we cant even get that. I don't see the assembly putting amendments to 19 a really high priority...especially if they grant more privileges.


It's pretty necessary. It's not necessarily meant to amend prop 19, it's meant as a mechanism to implement and better define prop 19. 

Here's an example of what I mean;



> (g) * prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies* the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300;


That is impossible to enforce because it lists no specific penalty. A senate bill to clarify is absolutely necessary. 

There is no one better to write this than Ammiano. The assembly does have better things to do than deal with this, which is why they'll pass this and get it over with. They need to pass something to implement prop 19, they have other things they want to do. That's exactly why this will get through. They aren't going to want to waist time fighting over this. 



> All in all Tom's move here is just a ploy with very little chance of success in order to try and gain the votes of the people this bill already has in the crosshairs.


Ammiano doesn't need to pull stunts to get votes. He's possibly the most popular politician in the city. He got 83% of the vote in his last election. He has his assembly seat locked up. He represents the Castro, Filmore, tenderloin, HP, and the haight. Unless a half black/half latino-transvestite-pot smoking-socialist-jazz musician is running against him, he's in pretty good shape. 



> "Attorney General Steve Cooley".... (I think he's one problem everyone agrees on "NOT COOLEY").


I think voting against Cooley is WAY more important than prop 19.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 23, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> But what are the chances of the legislature approving it? That same 2/3 vote is what's needed for our damn budget, and we cant even get that. I don't see the assembly putting amendments to 19 a really high priority...especially if they grant more privileges. All in all Tom's move here is just a ploy with very little chance of success in order to try and gain the votes of the people this bill already has in the crosshairs. I tried to get behind 19...I just can't...It's too flawed and far too open to interpretation for the senate and assembly...and inevitably judges with the power to strike provisions as long as they have defendants and government prosecutors like DA's or worse "Attorney General Steve Cooley".... (I think he's one problem everyone agrees on "NOT COOLEY").


Read David Nick's analysis of prop 19 in high times: http://hightimes.com/blog/evan/6681. Nick is a practicing MJ lawyer with a stellar record. He thinks 19 is a good amendment and will protect MJ consumers and growers.

The only way I can see for a judge to strike all, or part of 19 is if it conflicts with the US constitution. Every analysis I have read on that matter is that there is no conflict so P19 is airtight in that regard.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 23, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> It's pretty necessary. It's not necessarily meant to amend prop 19, it's meant as a mechanism to implement and better define prop 19.
> 
> Here's an example of what I mean;
> 
> ...


Dan...it is 2/3, youre not realizing that you are talking about bills passed by committee, not voter initiatives - which is requires the 2/3's vote. Specifically research the laws pertaining to voter initiatives, not material that suits your purposes.

Techinically the prop (if passed) goes immediately into effect...the amendments, like the one Ammiano proposes need the 2/3 vote. But the prop becomes law if passed...the re-structuring comes later (if ever, and more likely to be changed by a judge than a 2/3 senate vote or a new voter initiative). And I have a hard time believing that 2/3 of the senate will go for these changes.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 23, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Read David Nick's analysis of prop 19 in high times: http://hightimes.com/blog/evan/6681. Nick is a practicing MJ lawyer with a stellar record. He thinks 19 is a good amendment and will protect MJ consumers and growers.
> 
> The only way I can see for a judge to strike all, or part of 19 is if it conflicts with the US constitution. Every analysis I have read on that matter is that there is no conflict so P19 is airtight in that regard.


I have read the letter, and it didnt do much to alleviate my concerns - in fact it only amplified them.

And the judge can strike provisions if found to be outside of the "statutory construction" of the bill, not just for being "unconstitutional"....


----------



## desert dude (Oct 23, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Dan...it is 2/3, youre not realizing that you are talking about bills passed by committee, not voter initiatives - which is requires the 2/3's vote. Specifically research the laws pertaining to voter initiatives, not material that suits your purposes.
> 
> Techinically the prop (if passed) goes immediately into effect...the amendments, like the one Ammiano proposes need the 2/3 vote. But the prop becomes law if passed...the re-structuring comes later (if ever, and more likely to be changed by a judge than a 2/3 senate vote or a new voter initiative). And I have a hard time believing that 2/3 of the senate will go for these changes.


I give you credit for being stubborn. Passing a bill in the CA legislature requires a simple majority. Read it for your self:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bil2lawx.html

There is such a persistent campaign of lies about P19 on here, it is simply amazing!


----------



## desert dude (Oct 23, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> I have read the letter, and it didnt do much to alleviate my concerns - in fact it only amplified them.
> 
> And the judge can strike provisions if found to be outside of the "statutory construction" of the bill, not just for being "unconstitutional"....



Would you be willing to amplify on your concerns. 

You obviously disagree with David Nick on his analysis of 19, and you are siding with the drug czars and Steve Cooley on P19. Would you care to explain why? Maybe you will convince me and others here that P19 ought to be rejected.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 23, 2010)

desert dude said:


> I give you credit for being stubborn. Passing a bill in the CA legislature requires a simple majority. Read it for your self:
> 
> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bil2lawx.html
> 
> There is such a persistent campaign of lies about P19 on here, it is simply amazing!


Dude...that simply majority does not apply to voter initiatives...yes they apply to SENATE BILLS but not VOTER INITIATIVES....thats a persistant campaign of lies right here and now...repeating the same disinfo about this again and again and again... It's two-thirds, people...learn your state laws!


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 23, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Would you be willing to amplify on your concerns.
> 
> You obviously disagree with David Nick on his analysis of 19, and you are siding with the drug czars and Steve Cooley on P19. Would you care to explain why? Maybe you will convince me and others here that P19 ought to be rejected.


Nice try.

I will say that I found his letter to be quite misleading when he discussed cultivation - considering he was touting all of the possession, consumption, bought and sold exemptions for MMJ-patients, then when talking about cultivation there were no such exemptions anymore....just limitations IMO, and he makes absolutely no clarifications otherwise.

His "analysis" is propaganda, and has no bearing on the states' interpretation of 19, therefore futher discussion is moot and pointless and makes no difference on the outcome and effects of 19 than this conversation.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 23, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Dude...that simply majority does not apply to voter initiatives...yes they apply to SENATE BILLS but not VOTER INITIATIVES....thats a persistant campaign of lies right here and now...repeating the same disinfo about this again and again and again... It's two-thirds, people...learn your state laws!


OK, we can agree to disagree on legislative rules. Any interested reader can follow the link I provided (maybe "The Ruiner" can provide a link to support his argument) and decide for himself whether a simple majority can pass a bill in the CA legislature.

Ruiner, would you care to explain how taking the same position on P19 as the drug czars and Steve Cooley (vote no or I will crack your heads) increases your credibility with the readers here?


----------



## desert dude (Oct 23, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Nice try.
> 
> I will say that I found his letter to be quite misleading when he discussed cultivation - considering he was touting all of the possession, consumption, bought and sold exemptions for MMJ-patients, then when talking about cultivation there were no such exemptions anymore....just limitations IMO, and he makes absolutely no clarifications otherwise.
> 
> His "analysis" is propaganda, and has no bearing on the states' interpretation of 19, therefore futher discussion is moot and pointless and makes no difference on the outcome and effects of 19 than this conversation.


Here is David Nick on cultivation, source http://hightimes.com/blog/evan/6681:
"PROP. 19 PROTECTS PATIENTS PERSONAL AND COLLECTIVE CULTIVATIONS

Further protecting patients from local law enforcement actions, Section 11303 states that &#8221;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.&#8221; If you are a patient, you may &#8220;lawfully cultivate&#8221; as much marijuana as medically necessary and Prop. 19 protects that right. If you are cultivating for a collective, you may &#8220;lawfully cultivate&#8221; 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 &#8220;lawfully cultivate&#8221; and sell marijuana. Prop. 19 reinforces those rights and makes it even more difficult for law enforcement to bust a collective or collective grower."


Here is David Nick on P19's effect on how much MJ you can have in your home under P19:

"PROP. 19 ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE A LOT OF MARIJUANA

As an attorney called upon to defend patients and non-patients in marijuana cases, I cannot tell you how beneficial and how much freedom Section 11300 subdivision A (3) of Prop.19 will be to cannabis users. Read it!

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.
(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.

Section (i) limits possession to one ounce OUT OF YOUR HOUSE. Section (iii) permits people 21 and over to have within their residence or single parcel ALL the cannabis which one grew in their 25 sq. foot parcel, including what you grew this year, what you grew last year and EVERY SINGLE 25 SQ. FT. HARVEST YOU EVER HAD ON THAT SINGLE PARCEL. This covers as many cycles of indoor and/or outdoor grown cannabis as a person can produce as long as each grow was no more than 25 square feet and done in succession.

Clearly section 11300(a) (i) limits personal possession and consumption to one ounce OUT OF YOUR HOME while section11300(a) (iii) is what you are allowed to have AT YOUR RESIDENCE if that is where your 25 sq. ft. garden is located. That this is the case is established by another rule of statutory construction, i.e. the specific controls the general. Here (iii) is the specific statute with respect to what you can have AT YOUR RESIDENCE ONLY or in the words of subdivision (iii) "on the premises where grown".

The one ounce limitation only applies when you leave your house, not wherever it is you grow your 25 foot plot. I can picture being able to easily defend a person with 200 pounds who is not even medical.

Under Prop. 19 you can only travel with one ounce, but if you are a patient you can still enjoy the protections of the CUA and MMP and can safely travel with eight ounces, or whatever your doctor permits you to have or the needs of your collective, as allowed by the CUA and the MMP. YOUR SUPPLY PROBLEMS CAUSED BY PARANOID CULTIVATION LAWS AND POLICIES THAT AT TIMES LIMIT YOUR PERSONAL CULTIVATION PROJECTS ARE SOLVED BY PROP. 19.

Prop. 19 creates a marijuana sanctuary IN YOUR HOME ONLY. Prop. 19 allows you to have AT YOUR HOME ONLY ALL OF THE PROCEEDS of every successive 25 sq. foot plot. However, Prop 19 only allows you TO REMOVE IT FROM YOUR HOME one ounce at a time if you are a recreational user."

Who should we believe on this issue, some guy aptly named "The Ruiner" with a bunch of nebulous "concerns", or an accomplished MJ lawyer and High Times magazine?


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 23, 2010)

desert dude said:


> OK, we can agree to disagree on legislative rules. Any interested reader can follow the link I provided (maybe "The Ruiner" can provide a link to support his argument) and decide for himself whether a simple majority can pass a bill in the CA legislature.
> 
> Ruiner, would you care to explain how taking the same position on P19 as the drug czars and Steve Cooley (vote no or I will crack your heads) increases your credibility with the readers here?


Damn you like to make assumptions...your link is in reference to SENATE BILLS not voter initiatives, but hey who cares about the accuracy of the arguments made here by 19 supporters? They can claim to have all the "facts" when they are really just propaganda by definition. Yes, a majority vote can pass a SENATE BILL but not VOTER INITIATIVES. As far as a link...there are several- here is one http://www.californiachoices.org/node/146 where they discuss the 2/3's needed to change voter initiatives. 

And techically, as far as I am concerned YOU take the same position on 19 as Steve Cooley by saying that 19 will not affect MMJ in CA...so maybe that's something for you and your other hired-help to consider taking off of the arsenal walls.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 23, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Who should we believe on this issue, some guy aptly named "The Ruiner" with a bunch of nebulous "concerns", or an accomplished MJ lawyer and High Times magazine?


Right... a hired propagandist - probably like most of the more vocal pro-19 people. And how do you even know why I took this name? You are just the king of assumptions. Your technique of making this a character debate is bar none.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 23, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Damn you like to make assumptions...your link is in reference to SENATE BILLS not voter initiatives, but hey who cares about the accuracy of the arguments made here by 19 supporters? They can claim to have all the "facts" when they are really just propaganda by definition. Yes, a majority vote can pass a SENATE BILL but not VOTER INITIATIVES. As far as a link...there are several- here is one http://www.californiachoices.org/node/146 where they discuss the 2/3's needed to change voter initiatives.
> 
> And techically, as far as I am concerned YOU take the same position on 19 as Steve Cooley by saying that 19 will not affect MMJ in CA...so maybe that's something for you and your other hired-help to consider taking off of the arsenal walls.


Your link explains how the state legislature puts a ballot initiative on the general ballot for the CA voters to vote on; they have the authority to do that if they get a 2/3 vote that approves it. The other way a ballot initiative can be put to a general vote is by getting enough registered CA voters signature petitioning for it. That is how P19 got on the ballot, the legislature had NOTHING to do with it. If it had been up to our legislature we would not be having this discussion because P19 would not be on the ballot. 

Your link has nothing to do with simple legislative bills, such as the bill proposed by Ammiano, it is all about the process used by the legislature to put a ballot initiative before the voters in a general election. Ammiano's bill is an assembly bill that implements and expands on P19, it is NOT a ballot initiative. Either you don't understand the contents of the page you linked to, or you are counting on other readers here to misunderstand, which is actually pretty clever of you.

When did Cooley say P19 would have no effect on MMJ? He certainly is against P19, and has said that he will ignore it if he becomes CA attorney general.

Why would Dave Nick propagandize about P19? He is a successful attorney who specializes in CA MJ law, and says 19 will make his job of defending MJ growers, including MMJ growers, MUCH easier. 

Why would NORML and High Times and all of the long-time MJ legalization groups support 19 if it was so flawed? 

Why would Steve Cooley and the drug czars and the US attorney general and all the other usual suspects oppose 19 if it was so flawed; they should be chomping at the bit to get it passed so they could snicker and continue business as usual.

Why are you, and several others here so comfortably aligned with Steve Cooley and Lee Baca and the rest of the drug warriors? Could it be because you are happy with the status quo? You're making dough while 80,000 or so citizens of CA are pulled through a legal knot hole every year, but because it puts a few dollars in your pocket you don't give a shit.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 23, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Right... a hired propagandist - probably like most of the more vocal pro-19 people. And how do you even know why I took this name? You are just the king of assumptions. Your technique of making this a character debate is bar none.



As Evan Nison of High Times observes: "The only people who will profit from the undermining of Prop. 19 are narco-cops, bail bondsmen, prison guards, Mexican drug cartels, greedy growers, profit-making collectives and old dogs that can&#8217;t learn a new trick." Which one out of the list are you, Ruiner?


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 23, 2010)

desert dude said:


> As Evan Nison of High Times observes: "The only people who will profit from the undermining of Prop. 19 are narco-cops, bail bondsmen, prison guards, Mexican drug cartels, greedy growers, profit-making collectives and old dogs that can&#8217;t learn a new trick." Which one out of the list are you, Ruiner?


http://hightimes.com/blog/evan/6681




> The only people who will profit from the undermining of Prop. 19 are narco-cops, bail bondsmen, prison guards, Mexican drug cartels, greedy growers, profit-making collectives and old dogs that can&#8217;t learn a new trick.
> 
> Those medical marijuana advocates who have chosen to dedicate their existence to defeating Prop. 19, could actually do something of benefit for the medical marijuana community if they would expend their negative energy defeating Steve Cooley, the Republican candidate for California Attorney General.
> 
> ...


----------



## desert dude (Oct 23, 2010)

Good points Mr2Shim, if prop 19 fails and Cooley becomes CA AG, you MMJ types are fucked, plain and simple. I would hate to see that happen, but after reading some of the incredible bullshit on this thread from some of the guys who are obviously invested in the status quo, I have to think they are getting what they deserve. It is sad for the ethical guys like Dan, I sure hope he is not caught up in the mess that will probably follow.

I did my part, I voted yes on 19 and I voted the Democrat for AG. Voting for a democrat not something I do lightly, every other candidate that got my vote was a Libertarian.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 23, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Good points Mr2Shim, if prop 19 fails and Cooley becomes CA AG, you MMJ types are fucked, plain and simple. I would hate to see that happen, but after reading some of the incredible bullshit on this thread from some of the guys who are obviously invested in the status quo, I have to think they are getting what they deserve. It is sad for the ethical guys like Dan, I sure hope he is not caught up in the mess that will probably follow.
> 
> I did my part, I voted yes on 19 and I voted the Democrat for AG. Voting for a democrat not something I do lightly, every other candidate that got my vote was a Libertarian.


Yea, the bullshit in these threads is appalling. I'm glad you did your part and voted yes. If I lived in Cali I would vote yes right along with you.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 24, 2010)

LOL!

Is Richard Lee going to hold off paying you, if 19 fails?

I sense desperation among the 19 staff.


----------



## beardo (Oct 24, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> LOL!
> 
> Is Richard Lee going to hold off paying you, if 19 fails?
> 
> I sense desperation among the 19 staff.


 yeah at least one of these 19 guys who debated through this thread doesn't live in Cali, says he hasn't smoked in months and has argued then claimed not to have said things that he has said when he realizes he is losing the debate then when quoted goes back and edits his posts in an attempt to appear correct. Vote no on taxation and regulation


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> LOL!
> 
> Is Richard Lee going to hold off paying you, if 19 fails?
> 
> I sense desperation among the 19 staff.



I don't know who that was directed at, I assume everybody here who is defending P19. Talk about desperate, you have no facts to back up your arguments, you are in the same camp as the drug czars, Steve Cooley and Lee Baca and you have the gall to imply that WE are tools. Enjoy your time in the cell if Cooley wins.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 24, 2010)

California&#8217;s marijuana legalization ballot initiative, Proposition 19, is trailing badly, according to a new Los Angeles Times/USC poll, which found likely voters opposing it 51% to 39%.

Read about it here.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 24, 2010)

[youtube]8F8K5mB-QbE[/youtube]


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 24, 2010)

I just had a huge reply lost due to a computer error... I dont have the time to do it again...19 is bad. That's about all I got right now...


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 24, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> I just had a huge reply lost due to a computer error... I dont have the time to do it again...19 is bad. That's about all I got right now...


Don't you mean, you completely forgot what you wrote because you're medicated.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> I just had a huge reply lost due to a computer error... I dont have the time to do it again...19 is bad. That's about all I got right now...


I have had the same thing happen to me. I don't blame you for not wanting to retype it. Let's face it though, "... 19 is bad...", that's about all you got, period.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> I have had the same thing happen to me. I don't blame you for not wanting to retype it. Let's face it though, "... 19 is bad...", that's about all you got, period.


That's all I need....and I wish I were medicated right now...


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Don't you mean, you completely forgot what you wrote because your medicated.



it's "you're".


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> it's "you're".


Doh!...............


----------



## beardo (Oct 25, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Doh!...............


 [youtube]5CAU2k1Xw9U[/youtube]Dont stop believing


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 26, 2010)

The really scary race in this election is Steve Cooley for Attorney General.

Even if 19 passes, he swears he'll stamp out "legal" marijuana.

....and he's leading.


----------



## klmmicro (Oct 26, 2010)

Does he have the authority to override Prop 215 OR 19 (should it pass), or any other state law? He can make his case and hope that the legislature will side with him, but I do not see where he has the power to create legislation...that is purposefully not part of the AG job description. The DA's are elected positions as well, and they have to consider what the result of thwarting the voter could be when their time to renew comes up.

The problem comes about that there are a few issues in the state that need to be addressed besides cannabis. One of those has to do with firearm ownership. Cooley is pro Second Amendment and the Dem competitor is just more of the same for firearms owners. Aside from Cooley, the only other candidate worth voting for is Hannan as *both* issues would be addressed in an amicable fashion. The Libertarian candidate will not win unfortunately.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 26, 2010)

Under Dan Lungren, a LOT of legal MMJ patients were prosecuted.

Juries are a committee. Committees are stupid.

There are still folks in jail for legal grows.

Interpretation by the AG is what guides local DAs.

Expect the worst.


----------



## potroast (Oct 26, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Under Dan Lungren, a LOT of legal MMJ patients were prosecuted.
> 
> Juries are a committee. Committees are stupid.
> 
> ...



Yes, we are expecting the worst, like when cannabis consumers campaign against Prop 19. 

So Cooley could try to wipe out all cannabis in the state, medical use too, if Prop 19 fails. But if Prop 19 is law, he will have a harder time prosecuting us.

Figure it out, we need your YES vote for Prop 19 and Kamala Harris for Attorney General.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 26, 2010)

[youtube]L_oIpIyZRu0[/youtube]

Automated Polls Show Consistent Support For Prop. 19


----------



## desert dude (Oct 26, 2010)

potroast said:


> Yes, we are expecting the worst, like when cannabis consumers campaign against Prop 19.
> 
> So Cooley could try to wipe out all cannabis in the state, medical use too, if Prop 19 fails. But if Prop 19 is law, he will have a harder time prosecuting us.
> 
> Figure it out, we need your YES vote for Prop 19 and Kamala Harris for Attorney General.


I voted for prop 19 and Kamala Harris.

I am not so sure that Harris will be any better than Cooley on MJ, though.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 26, 2010)

klmmicro said:


> Does he have the authority to override Prop 215 OR 19 (should it pass), or any other state law? He can make his case and hope that the legislature will side with him, but I do not see where he has the power to create legislation...that is purposefully not part of the AG job description. The DA's are elected positions as well, and they have to consider what the result of thwarting the voter could be when their time to renew comes up.
> 
> The problem comes about that there are a few issues in the state that need to be addressed besides cannabis. One of those has to do with firearm ownership. Cooley is pro Second Amendment and the Dem competitor is just more of the same for firearms owners. Aside from Cooley, the only other candidate worth voting for is Hannan as *both* issues would be addressed in an amicable fashion. The Libertarian candidate will not win unfortunately.


Every election is a lesser of two evils situation. I am very pro second amendment, and I support prop 19. I voted against Cooley because of his prop 19 stance.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 26, 2010)

potroast said:


> Yes, we are expecting the worst, like when cannabis consumers campaign against Prop 19.


Actually, it's mostly 215 growers that have the maximum number of plants and the ones that ignore plant limits that are campaigning against 19. I don't think the average smoker or consumer is voting no.... That would really make no sense...


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 26, 2010)

REALSTYLES said:


> Funny thing is I don't grow 50+ plants. I grow 4-6 plants and they're at least 2 1/2 feet wide indoor and my grow area is now reduced to *5 x 5* and y'all don't think I'm pissed about it. Maybe when realized this is a phased you'd be pissed too.


Strike the *5X5*, insert *25 sq. feet*, O.K., continue.............


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 26, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> *Q:When was the last time the price went down on ANYTHING people actually want???
> 
> *A: NEVER.
> 
> If this passes...the only way anyone will be able to support small local growers will be illegally.


The last item *I really wanted, * was a 48" flat screen hi-def TV. The model I wanted was $1850 4 years ago, I bought one for $937 a month ago. Hopefully, now you see the picture, When something is in HIGH demand with SHORT or ILLEGAL supply, it WILL be expensive.
BUT, open the floodgates, get multiples of legal product out there.................OK?


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 26, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> _]Bullshit! If the supply is high...YOU MAKE HASH!!!!!!
> 
> _[/B]The price of weed is NOT going to plummet!!! Taxes, fees and greed make sure of it.
> 
> ...


And when the *HASH* supply reaches epic proportions, THEN WHAT?

This is a Cannabis Growing Forum! So "don't worry"...WE WONT NEED OAKSTERDAM WEED! (At least I wont!).....BB


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 26, 2010)

NORML is going to John Stewart's rally in support of Prop 19


----------



## desert dude (Oct 26, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> NORML is going to John Stewart's rally in support of Prop 19
> View attachment 1234854


Is Stewart having a rally? I hadn't heard of that.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 27, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Is Stewart having a rally? I hadn't heard of that.




you are joking, aren't you?


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 27, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> The last item *I really wanted, * was a 48" flat screen hi-def TV. The model I wanted was $1850 4 years ago, I bought one for $937 a month ago. Hopefully, now you see the picture, When something is in HIGH demand with SHORT or ILLEGAL supply, it WILL be expensive.
> BUT, open the floodgates, get multiples of legal product out there.................OK?


Unfortunately weed is not some new technology...It's a freaking commodity...price aint gonna drop, again if you think so...you are high.



Burger Boss said:


> And when the *HASH* supply reaches epic proportions, THEN WHAT?
> 
> This is a Cannabis Growing Forum! So "don't worry"...WE WONT NEED OAKSTERDAM WEED! (At least I wont!).....BB


That's funny "Today the California Hash supply reached "Epic" proportions...leading to a crash in the Hash markets worldwide...News at 11"...What will we do with all this hash???? Winterize your home?...replace rubber cement?...Art?...temporary tooth fillings?...dry wall mud?...Bondo?...oh hell try smoking it, I here it is a real gas!!!!

Of course I wont need no stinking Oaksterdam weed...and although this is a weed growing forum...it seems like half the people are out or smoking "Cartel" weed.
No County around here is going to allow commercial growing...notwithstanding any other law! and watch for local restrictions on outdoor growing...Gotta protect the kiddies!!!

[youtube]dN3GbF9Bx6E&feature=list_related&a=GxdCwVVULXdmIqWmXf5U2p5MOX8km4Q3&list=ML&playnext=1[/youtube]


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 27, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Is Stewart having a rally? I hadn't heard of that.


You must really be in a desert oasis.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 27, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> You must really be in a desert oasis.


I don't watch Stewart.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 27, 2010)

desert dude said:


> I don't watch Stewart.


Where do you find sanity in the media then?


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 27, 2010)

[youtube]WqAkJjSYj6w[/youtube]


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 27, 2010)

desert dude said:


> I voted for prop 19 and Kamala Harris.
> 
> I am not so sure that Harris will be any better than Cooley on MJ, though.


Harris has been spotted in the LAJEMM...she's even got an ad and an article...I think she will be awesome actually. Totally has my vote.


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 27, 2010)

Harris has done wonderful wonderful things for San Francisco. Under her supervision it was legal to toke on buses, because lets be honest, who wants to ride the bus sober... no one. She was hard on drug dealers, but simultaneously lenient on pot smokers. Regardless of your views on 19, Harris is definitely the better choice, Cooley will do his best to take out all of the medical dispensaries in California, because he's a dick.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 27, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Harris has been spotted in the LAJEMM...she's even got an ad and an article...I think she will be awesome actually. Totally has my vote.


I voted straight Libertarian with two exceptions, one was Harris and the other was Fiorina. I don't like either of them, but I think Harris might be better than Cooley, though frankly I will not be surprised if she is terrible on Cannabis. I voted for Fiorina because Boxer's old fat ass need to get out of the senate. I only voted for these two because I am a realistic Libertarian, hence I know that no Libertarian has any real chance at being elected even though ANY Libertarian will be better on the Cannabis issue than any D or R.


----------



## klmmicro (Oct 27, 2010)

I simply cannot vote for Harris...she may let you smoke, but is against the ownership of firearms. Cooley is against smoking, but pro 2A. There i simply no win with either of these choices. Cooley cannot get rid of Medical, no matter how hard he campaigns against it. To succeed in his goal, he would have to get the people of California to rescind their original decision. Harris, on the other hand...well she can freely trash 2A in this state. The other liberal AG's have had a great time doing it over the past 30 years.

If weed is more important than basic rights outlined in the Bill of Rights, than more power to you. There are other things besides that going on though.


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 27, 2010)

klmmicro said:


> I simply cannot vote for Harris...she may let you smoke, but is against the ownership of firearms. Cooley is against smoking, but pro 2A. There i simply no win with either of these choices. Cooley cannot get rid of Medical, no matter how hard he campaigns against it. To succeed in his goal, he would have to get the people of California to rescind their original decision. Harris, on the other hand...well she can freely trash 2A in this state. The other liberal AG's have had a great time doing it over the past 30 years.
> 
> If weed is more important than basic rights outlined in the Bill of Rights, than more power to you. There are other things besides that going on though.


 Good Point.


----------



## potroast (Oct 27, 2010)

Well, Cooley has succeeded in closing hundreds of dispensaries in LA and wants to close them all. He will not end MMJ, but he can control how it happens. And his stated belief is that no sales are legal, so anyone selling it will be prosecuted. I don't see how any cannabis consumer could vote for that arrogant prick.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 27, 2010)

potroast said:


> Well, Cooley has succeeded in closing hundreds of dispensaries in LA and wants to close them all. He will not end MMJ, but he can control how it happens. And his stated belief is that no sales are legal, so anyone selling it will be prosecuted. I don't see how any cannabis consumer could vote for that arrogant prick.


The NRA will do their usual song and dance and keep our second amendment rights.

Cooley would be a disaster as AG, just like Dan Lungren(my current Congressman). Lungren would be a better fit as a door stop. A really vile human being. Cooley wants to grow up to be just like him.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 28, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Harris has been spotted in the LAJEMM...she's even got an ad and an article...I think she will be awesome actually. Totally has my vote.


Agreed. She'll be the best thing to happen to medical growing since Jerry Brown.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 28, 2010)

desert dude said:


> I voted for Fiorina because Boxer's old fat ass need to get out of the senate. I only voted for these two because I am a realistic Libertarian, hence I know that no Libertarian has any real chance at being elected even though ANY Libertarian will be better on the Cannabis issue than any D or R.


What? Fiorina has a proven record of incompetence. Her major claim to fame was her work at HP which was a total disaster for everyone. Not only did HP fire 15-30k people, but the stock price tanked as well while she was CEO. What makes you think she's any better than Boxer?


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 28, 2010)

klmmicro said:


> Cooley cannot get rid of Medical, no matter how hard he campaigns against it. To succeed in his goal, he would have to get the people of California to rescind their original decision.


The hell he can't. The reason things are what they are is largely because of the AG guidelines Brown wrote. Cooley interpenetrates prop 215 in a way where dispensaries are all illegal. He sees any exchange in currency within a collective to be illegal. That effectively shuts down the whole network that has been built.

I don't know about you, but personally I like the option of being able to go to a dispensary and put some bud on consignment, pick up some new clones, and then maybe buy a few grams of strains I've never tried before.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 28, 2010)

klmmicro said:


> I simply cannot vote for Harris...she may let you smoke, but is against the ownership of firearms. Cooley is against smoking, but pro 2A. There i simply no win with either of these choices. Cooley cannot get rid of Medical, no matter how hard he campaigns against it. To succeed in his goal, he would have to get the people of California to rescind their original decision. Harris, on the other hand...well she can freely trash 2A in this state. The other liberal AG's have had a great time doing it over the past 30 years.
> 
> If weed is more important than basic rights outlined in the Bill of Rights, than more power to you. There are other things besides that going on though.


Good point. The only limiting factor to Harris is DC V Heller and McDonald V Chicago.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 28, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> What? Fiorina has a proven record of incompetence. Her major claim to fame was her work at HP which was a total disaster for everyone. Not only did HP fire 15-30k people, but the stock price tanked as well while she was CEO. What makes you think she's any better than Boxer?


I don't think Carly is better than Babs, just different. I hate the "politician" for life minset.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 28, 2010)

[youtube]L0Wz7OZotFY[/youtube]


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 28, 2010)

[youtube]nL5614ZBDfA[/youtube]


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 28, 2010)

Petey's pot problem


General Potton


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 28, 2010)

If you want to know how your local candidates stand on pot, go here.
*Politicians on Pot*


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 28, 2010)

Imagine a giant schlong. Now, imagine your butt. Cooley is the schlong, your butt are the dispensaries. And Cooley is hornier than a life prisoner with no parole. He wants to fuck every dispensary in the ass, and probably take away all of the legal marijuana rights... hell, he might even try to take away the decriminalization for less than one zip... then we're all fucked. Cooley is a big no no. Harris is only against guns because she grew up in Oakland. They don't even have a gun shop in that city, yet every single gangster and wanna be "gangsta" has a gun.... that's 75% of the population right there. I don't think Harris could do much against firearms. Maybe she'll only outlaw them in cities, which would be fucking awesome.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 28, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> Imagine a giant schlong. Now, imagine your butt. Cooley is the schlong, your butt are the dispensaries. And Cooley is hornier than a life prisoner with no parole. He wants to fuck every dispensary in the ass, and probably take away all of the legal marijuana rights... hell, he might even try to take away the decriminalization for less than one zip... then we're all fucked. Cooley is a big no no. Harris is only against guns because she grew up in Oakland. They don't even have a gun shop in that city, yet every single gangster and wanna be "gangsta" has a gun.... that's 75% of the population right there. I don't think Harris could do much against firearms. Maybe she'll only outlaw them in cities, which would be fucking awesome.


Grab some KY and bend over because it looks like he will be elected.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 28, 2010)

desert dude said:


> I don't think Carly is better than Babs, just different. I hate the "politician" for life minset.


Anyone elected Senator is from that point on a politician for life. You can't really get away from that. Personally, I'd rather have a pro who looks out for my interests then some amateur who will screw up for years before they know what they are doing. 

If I have to go to a hospital, I want a doctor for life to fix me up, not an amateur with a fresh perspective. Same goes for my auto mechanic, teachers, and pretty much everything else. 

I don't know where everyone got the idea that being a senator/governor was a job that pretty much anyone can walk in off the street and be good at doing, but I don't think that is true.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 28, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Anyone elected Senator is from that point on a politician for life. You can't really get away from that. Personally, I'd rather have a pro who looks out for my interests then some amateur who will screw up for years before they know what they are doing.
> 
> If I have to go to a hospital, I want a doctor for life to fix me up, not an amateur with a fresh perspective. Same goes for my auto mechanic, teachers, and pretty much everything else.
> 
> I don't know where everyone got the idea that being a senator/governor was a job that pretty much anyone can walk in off the street and be good at doing, but I don't think that is true.


True, they are entrenched the moment they are elected. That is why it is my personal policy to always vote anti-incumbent. I don't compare politics to normal life. I want a skilled doctor, mechanic, and pot gardener, but politics is different. To be a good politician all it takes is average intelligence and determination to act in the best interests of the community as a whole; this country was started by a bunch of amateur politicians and they did pretty well. Babs has Babs' best interests at heart.

Babs is terrible on the drug war. She opposes P19, as do all the major Democrat and Republican candidates in CA this year. Vote her out.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 28, 2010)

> True, they are entrenched the moment they are elected. That is why it is my personal policy to always vote anti-incumbent.


That doesn't make any sense. If they are entrenched the moment they are elected, then what's the difference? All that means is a new person is going to screw up for a few years while we train a new one.



> To be a good politician all it takes is average intelligence and determination to act in the best interests of the community as a whole; this country was started by a bunch of amateur politicians and they did pretty well. Babs has Babs' best interests at heart.


I couldn't disagree more. I think politicians of average intelligence are exactly the problem.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 28, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> That doesn't make any sense. If they are entrenched the moment they are elected, then what's the difference? All that means is a new person is going to screw up for a few years while we train a new one.
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't disagree more. I think politicians of average intelligence are exactly the problem.


Fair enough. I didn't come here to discuss run of the mill politicians; I respect your opinion. All I really care about is Prop 19 in 2010. The rest is all just window dressing.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 28, 2010)

A multi-billionaire investor with a long interest in loosening drug laws endorsed Proposition 19 and donated $1 million.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 29, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> A multi-billionaire investor with a long interest in loosening drug laws endorsed Proposition 19 and donated $1 million.


Wish he would have done that 2 weeks ago.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 29, 2010)

The latest national poll numbers from Gallup, which has been tracking public opinion on cannabis legalization since the late 1960s, shows that Americans&#8217; support for &#8216;making marijuana legal&#8217; is now at its highest reported level of support ever.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 29, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> The latest national poll numbers from Gallup, which has been tracking public opinion on cannabis legalization since the late 1960s, shows that Americans&#8217; support for &#8216;making marijuana legal&#8217; is now at its highest reported level of support ever.


Presented in the right way, legalization would pass, nationally. If it were over regulated as 19 wants to do, every argument mentioned here, would bury such a move in Congress. I think if Obama gets reelected in 2012, there might be a chance for Barney Frank to shove through a decent bill.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 30, 2010)

The naysayers are now resulting to spreading lies!
Spread the fear before it's too late! LOL!

Say &#8216;No&#8217; To The Lies; Say &#8216;Yes&#8217; To Prop. 19


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 30, 2010)

spreading lies like:

"school lunch programs are federally funded."


----------



## desert dude (Oct 30, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> spreading lies like:
> 
> "school lunch programs are federally funded."


Prop 19 ate my lunch.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 30, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Prop 19 ate my lunch.


hey, i posted that in the "lie about prop 19 thread". no reason to label ME stupid.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 30, 2010)

state school lunch programs are funded with federal money. the feds do not need stormtroopers to attack where it really hurts. they will simply stop funding programs as soon as cali thumbs their nose at them. 

that's cool though, we'll all be high so no one will care.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 30, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> spreading lies like:
> 
> "school lunch programs are federally funded."


No, the best lies are full of truths like that.
Lies have to be squeezed in. Usually just after or before, an emotionally stimulating sentence or topic, like your child's lunch.
Such tactics are meant for knee jerk reactions, and I find them comically void of sustenance. 

Or, do really consider that a viable threat?
If so, then you believe the feds will cut funding to kids to teach the rebellious adults a lesson.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 30, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> No, the best lies are full of truths like that.
> Lies have to be squeezed in. Usually just after or before, an emotionally stimulating sentence or topic, like your child's lunch.
> Such tactics are meant for knee jerk reactions, and I find them comically void of sustenance.
> 
> ...


from what all my local news channels in the bay area are saying, YES, that is what i am getting at. but see i didn't just pull this out of my ass. i am repeating what is being discussed among politicians. at least the ones they are interviewing. 

so brush me off as a whack job lying. doesn't really bother me. i'll just turn on channel 4 for my news.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 30, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> from what all my local news channels in the bay area are saying, YES, that is what i am getting at. but see i didn't just pull this out of my ass. i am repeating what is being discussed among politicians. at least the ones they are interviewing.
> 
> so brush me off as a whack job lying. doesn't really bother me. i'll just turn on channel 4 for my news.


I'm not brushing you off, sir.
I'm not referring to you as a liar either.
I was instead referring to the internal memo from the California Chamber of Commerce.
I linked to it in my post.
I'm always open to sound debate, and I value your opinion.
I just don't agree.

You say, "what is being talked about by politicians", but that is another big part.
Politicians are typically lost in the generation gap and are the last to accept new social norms.
Also, people act and react differently went the cameras are on.
Live polls and automated polls prove this time and time again, with "sensitive" issues such as this.

I believe anyone who even threatens to cut funding after the fact would likely lose.
It's O.K. for them to make predictions and carefully word it to scare the piss out of you now, because it's all hypothetical.
But, in the end it's just the same fear-mongering IMO. I wonder what threats were spread at the end of alcohol prohibition?


----------



## klmmicro (Oct 30, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> from what all my local news channels in the bay area are saying, YES, that is what i am getting at. but see i didn't just pull this out of my ass. i am repeating what is being discussed among politicians. at least the ones they are interviewing.
> 
> so brush me off as a whack job lying. doesn't really bother me. i'll just turn on channel 4 for my news.


When I had kids in school, neither "qaulified" for that stupid lunch program anyway. I made squat and they still told me _that_ was too much. I saw the kids that did get it, and made my mind up that it was totally mismanaged. I just stepped up to the plate and paid for the food MY children would eat instead of relying on a handout.

That the feds would threaten us this way tells you that it is not in what they consider _their_ interest. It really does have potential too begin dismantling the 90 years of lies they used to suppress cannabis. They are scared.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 30, 2010)

i don't rely on polls to base my opinions.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 30, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i don't rely on polls to base my opinions.


Neither do I.
My opinion is mine, and yours is yours.

My reference to polls was to show a correlation between human responses, based on the observer.
The Observer effects the observed.
In other words, people say what they think they should in instances where an unknown party is involved.
But, when left with zero accountability, people can be brutally honest.

To sum it up, Don't trust politicians!
But, you already knew that.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 30, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> hey, i posted that in the "lie about prop 19 thread". no reason to label ME stupid.


I sincerely apologize, my mistake.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 30, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> state school lunch programs are funded with federal money. the feds do not need stormtroopers to attack where it really hurts. they will simply stop funding programs as soon as cali thumbs their nose at them.
> 
> that's cool though, we'll all be high so no one will care.


The feds are going to starve poor children because CA voters did not vote as they were told. I can just see Obama doing that, a Democrat president trying to get reelected in 2012 punishing the voters (not the legislature) of a mostly Democrat state. 

The fact is, if 19 passes, there is nothing the feds can do except to invade CA with the DEA, which they might do. I am all for it, this is a fight that America needs to have.


----------



## potroast (Oct 30, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i don't rely on polls to base my opinions.



We know that, you just said you watch Channel 4 News. 


I voted YES, because the entire world is watching our vote.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 30, 2010)

potroast said:


> We know that, you just said you watch Channel 4 News.
> 
> 
> I voted YES, because the entire world is watching our vote.



something wrong with channel 4? 


what are you going to do IF this doesn't pass? other than watch your friends get arrested.


----------



## tip top toker (Oct 30, 2010)

potroast said:


> I voted YES, because the entire world is watching our vote.


well said.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 30, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> something wrong with channel 4?
> 
> 
> what are you going to do IF this doesn't pass? other than watch your friends get arrested.


What are you gonna do if it does pass, other than get a real job?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 30, 2010)

except the entire world doesn't live in cali.

i am voting for what is best for my STATE. since it will effect me the most. 

the rest of the world is on their own. they don't need us to hold their hands.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 30, 2010)

desert dude said:


> What are you gonna do if it does pass, other than get a real job?


i, unlike most of you, aren't worried about it passing. if it passes i will do exactly what i do today. 

as far as a "real job". i already have plans of going to work in the springtime. whether this passes or not. i have been playing at the lake for the last 3 years and i'm bored. i weld for a living and really miss it. i am not afraid to go back to making $25 an hour. on top of my medical grow. 


can you accept this?


----------



## desert dude (Oct 30, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i, unlike most of you, aren't worried about it passing. if it passes i will do exactly what i do today.
> 
> as far as a "real job". i already have plans of going to work in the springtime. whether this passes or not. i have been playing at the lake for the last 3 years and i'm bored. i weld for a living and really miss it. i am not afraid to go back to making $25 an hour. on top of my medical grow.
> 
> ...


I absolutely can accept it. I like welding, but I am an amateur at it.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 30, 2010)

I miss welding, too!
But, I don't miss the black snot.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 30, 2010)

i'm an aluminum mig welder. unless i'm grinding and polishing, i usually go home clean.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 30, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i'm an aluminum mig welder. unless i'm grinding and polishing, i usually go home clean.


 Nice.
I use to fabricate Grape Harvesters for a company called AIM.
I used Flux-cored wire and a 9-inch angle grinder.
At home, I would blow black and sometimes red laced snot out in the shower.
Even still, I loved the feeling of watching a harvester roll away!


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 30, 2010)

Well folks, in approx. 65 hours the polls will be open. Then the voters of CA will speak to this issue, and everything said in here will be moot.
The various threads, for and against have been lively, animated, and quite often, down right personal. Motives, integrity, and honesty have all been challenged in one way or another. I just spent about an hour going back over several hundreds of posts to prop 19 related threads
and it ain't pretty! Having dialog over political matters is older than America, but when personal agendas get all mixed in, it seems to become very toxic! So, in the future, unless directly _asked_, I have NO political feelings about _ANYTHING_ anymore.
Good luck & good grow.......BB


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 30, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> in the future, unless directly _asked_, I have NO political feelings about _ANYTHING_ anymore.


Time to change your avatar then.


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 31, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Politicians are typically lost in the generation gap and are the last to accept new social norms.


but the first to set policy and interpret legal wording...you can be assured that the D.A is also lost in the generation gap.

As long as a group of Marijuana Lawyers supports 19 (NORML) I think we should all vote yes...Like Dick Lee...they all just want MJ to be legal...Kum-by-ya


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 31, 2010)

Too bad those lawyers didn't help writing the bill.

Too many loopholes and omissions to vote for.

Hell, given a day, I could do better.


----------



## Burger Boss (Oct 31, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Time to change your avatar then.


Thank you for pointing out my oversight, problem corrected.....BB


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 31, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Too bad those lawyers didn't help writing the bill.
> 
> Too many loopholes and omissions to vote for.
> 
> Hell, given a day, I could do better.


It's too bad that all the BS that's been said about this bill means nothing, either way you look at it. The only voices that matter if this POS is passed are the legislature, then the DA's, then the judges...too bad for the voters.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 31, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> It's too bad that all the BS that's been said about this bill means nothing, either way you look at it. The only voices that matter if this POS is passed are the legislature, then the DA's, then the judges...too bad for the voters.


True. Right now, though, the only voices that matter are the voices of the voters.


----------



## gupp (Oct 31, 2010)

desert dude said:


> True. Right now, though, the only voices that matter are the voices of the voters.


 I'm hoping that we'll see a positive result. It's interesting to see what appears to be real, grassroot support among voters- no lobbyists- just people supporting and voicing their opinions.


----------



## Sure Shot (Nov 1, 2010)

[youtube]CnfJWypjjno[/youtube] [youtube]doRymwwLdE0[/youtube]


----------



## desert dude (Nov 1, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> [youtube]CnfJWypjjno[/youtube] [youtube]doRymwwLdE0[/youtube]


Pretty good ad.


----------



## Wheres my Chippy? (Nov 2, 2010)

welp, seems like only the bay area wanted this! (surprise surprise)

Thank you cali voters for shutting this shit bill down down down!


----------



## beardo (Nov 2, 2010)

Wheres my Chippy? said:


> welp, seems like only the bay area wanted this! (surprise surprise)
> 
> Thank you cali voters for shutting this shit bill down down down!


I cant wait untill we get a prop on the ballot to legalize marijuana


----------



## klmmicro (Nov 2, 2010)

beardo said:


> I cant wait untill we get a prop on the ballot to legalize marijuana


I would love to see that too, but I would be very surprised if it got anywhere. The 2012 Herer initiative is a loss waiting to happen. With no carrot to dangle, it will suffer an even worse result. For now, we need to look at protecting our medical rights against law makers and legislatures who would seek its demise. Cooley is currently ahead by a very wide margin!


----------



## veggiegardener (Nov 3, 2010)

klmmicro said:


> I would love to see that too, but I would be very surprised if it got anywhere. The 2012 Herer initiative is a loss waiting to happen. With no carrot to dangle, it will suffer an even worse result. For now, we need to look at protecting our medical rights against law makers and legislatures who would seek its demise. Cooley is currently ahead by a very wide margin!


Thank goodness THAT'S changed!


----------



## klmmicro (Nov 3, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Thank goodness THAT'S changed!


In freakin' deed!


----------



## Burger Boss (Nov 4, 2010)

beardo said:


> I cant wait untill we get a prop on the ballot to legalize marijuana


Of course you can wait!.....I did, for close to 50 years, ......nothing to it.....you can do it standing on your head......Hell, I'll just wait for another 50, WTF!....as I said nothing to it.......it goooooeeeeesssssss byyyyyyyy SSSOOOOOOOOOO Faaaaassssstttttttttt!
Fucking enjoy *YOUR* wait.....................(and Steve Cooley)......BB


----------



## Sure Shot (Nov 4, 2010)

"Today, Californians recognized that legalizing marijuana will not make our citizens *healthier*, solve California's budget crisis, or reduce drug related violence in Mexico," White House Drug Policy Director Gil Kerlikowske said.

Watch out medical growers, politicians have now been affirmed of public opinion.
At least in their eyes.


----------



## grow space (Nov 4, 2010)

Lets all hope 2012 will be better...


----------



## The Ruiner (Nov 4, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> Of course you can wait!.....I did, for close to 50 years, ......nothing to it.....you can do it standing on your head......Hell, I'll just wait for another 50, WTF!....as I said nothing to it.......it goooooeeeeesssssss byyyyyyyy SSSOOOOOOOOOO Faaaaassssstttttttttt!
> Fucking enjoy *YOUR* wait.....................(and Steve Cooley)......BB


Oh calm down...two more wont kill you.


----------



## Sure Shot (Nov 4, 2010)

Yeah! Tomorrow is promised to everyone.


----------



## veggiegardener (Nov 4, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Oh calm down...two more wont kill you.


Good response!

Actually two years might kill some of us, but not the lack of P19's blessings.

I'm 60, and smoked my first "J" at 17.

Lessee....

Hmmmm..

That means I've been waiting a pretty long time, too.

If anybody my age can't get a recommendation, I think they haven't gone to the doctor.

They SURELY have SOMETHING wrong with them!

LOL!


----------



## klmmicro (Nov 4, 2010)

If you are referring to the Herer prop...that will fail as badly if not worse than the last. The same people who voted down 19 will be there for that one too. There will be yet another smear campaign by people afraid to lose their incomes. Also, they will have had 2 years to figure out what portions of their negative approach to 19 were most effective. The ship has sailed on straight up legalization.

As for Cooley, he lost his race. Would not matter anyway, he would be facing a majority democrat legislature. His opinion on cannabis would be moot. There could be a recount, but Democrats are masters of that process and he will lose again and again.


----------



## klmmicro (Nov 5, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> removed


Not sure what you are trying to argue here. The SAME people who voted not on 19 will vote no on the next prop as well. It is my opinion, you are entitled to yours. Do you contend that the masses will read the next one and say, "Wow, it is not commercially driven prop at all...I think I will vote YES!"? Tell me how you think things will be different.

We all know that it was more than just "drug dealers" voting no. Evangelists, moralists and un-thinking conservatives did as well. Doubt they will ever be swayed. Maybe next time enough of the youth can be motivated to get to the polls, but for liberal issues...you simply cannot count on it.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 5, 2010)

klmmicro said:


> Not sure what you are trying to argue here. The SAME people who voted not on 19 will vote no on the next prop as well. It is my opinion, you are entitled to yours. Do you contend that the masses will read the next one and say, "Wow, it is not commercially driven prop at all...I think I will vote YES!"? Tell me how you think things will be different.
> 
> We all know that it was more than just "drug dealers" voting no. Evangelists, moralists and un-thinking conservatives did as well. Doubt they will ever be swayed. Maybe next time enough of the youth can be motivated to get to the polls, but for liberal issues...you simply cannot count on it.


i voted no. if a properly written prop were to be introduced i'd vote yes.


----------



## potroast (Nov 5, 2010)

heeheehee! You just made the guy's point for him, 

and you don't even realize it.  


You and people like you will always vote no, because it will always be "improperly written."


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 5, 2010)

potroast said:


> heeheehee! You just made the guy's point for him,
> 
> and you don't even realize it.
> 
> ...



not really true, but whatever feeds your hate. 

i voted yes for 215.


----------



## veggiegardener (Nov 5, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> not really true, but whatever feeds your hate.
> 
> i voted yes for 215.



There are some folks(mostly teabagger types = closed minds) that don't understand the concept of critical thinking. People who use that method of analysis not only READ, but endeavor to understand what they read.

Critical thinkers are capable of changing their minds, once their concerns are addressed, without prejudice. What we saw in this election was a TON of prejudice.


----------



## Dan Kone (Nov 5, 2010)

potroast said:


> You and people like you will always vote no, because it will always be "improperly written."


That will always be true with some people. However I do have faith that a more clearly written bill would get the support of the majority of no voters. Prop 19 should have been written in a way where we couldn't have a debate about the effects of it because everyone knew what it's effects would be.

Part of the problem was what happened with prop 19's backers in Oakland. When the city council gave out only a handful of permits with a very exclusive cost it scared people into thinking that is how it would be everywhere. That wasn't a problem with the text of the law, but it was something that prohibition supporters could point to that gave the impression that their interpretation of prop 19 was correct. Many reasonable people were convinced by that. They created a huge impression problem. Any future legalization efforts can learn a lot from that.

I know there will always be prohibition supports, but I think they are actually very few in numbers. I think a lot of folks (right or wrong) didn't vote for prop 19 because they weren't convinced it was legalization. I could be wrong about that, but I have to choose to be optimistic.


----------



## Hayduke (Nov 5, 2010)

klmmicro said:


> Not sure what you are trying to argue here. The SAME people who voted not on 19 will vote no on the next prop as well. It is my opinion, you are entitled to yours. Do you contend that the masses will read the next one and say, "Wow, it is not commercially driven prop at all...I think I will vote YES!"? Tell me how you think things will be different.
> 
> We all know that it was more than just "drug dealers" voting no. Evangelists, moralists and un-thinking conservatives did as well. Doubt they will ever be swayed. Maybe next time enough of the youth can be motivated to get to the polls, but for liberal issues...you simply cannot count on it.


Sorry I removed my post moments after writing it when I discovered that I had not read your post clearly...and had no argument....but anyways...the way it would be different is if "legalization" was not just a catch phrase...and as for the youth and liberal issues...what about Clinton and Obama???



fdd2blk said:


> i voted no. if a properly written prop were to be introduced i'd vote yes.


Here, Here!




potroast said:


> heeheehee! You just made the guy's point for him,
> 
> and you don't even realize it.
> 
> ...


wow! "you and people like you" WTF...chuck?...sounds like "I am not a racist...some of my best friends are _____"




fdd2blk said:


> not really true, but whatever feeds your hate.
> 
> i voted yes for 215.





Dan Kone said:


> That will always be true with some people. However I do have faith that a more clearly written bill would get the support of the majority of no voters. Prop 19 should have been written in a way where we couldn't have a debate about the effects of it because everyone knew what it's effects would be.
> 
> Part of the problem was what happened with prop 19's backers in Oakland. When the city council gave out only a handful of permits with a very exclusive cost it scared people into thinking that is how it would be everywhere. That wasn't a problem with the text of the law, but it was something that prohibition supporters could point to that gave the impression that their interpretation of prop 19 was correct. Many reasonable people were convinced by that. They created a huge impression problem. Any future legalization efforts can learn a lot from that.
> 
> I know there will always be prohibition supports, but I think they are actually very few in numbers. I think a lot of folks (right or wrong) didn't vote for prop 19 because they weren't convinced it was legalization. I could be wrong about that, but I have to choose to be optimistic.


No optimism needed...I believe you are correct...Not close enough to legalization to even use the word!...soon it could be like the word "Theory"

And as for Oakland and the limited licensure...they are very pot friendly...few other counties are! It sure as hell would not have been very legal in Potroast's San Diego...look at the map of the vote by county...Thank you for always keeping your posts respectful and free of divisive name calling...very nice!


----------



## klmmicro (Nov 6, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i voted no. if a properly written prop were to be introduced i'd vote yes.


I definitely appreciate that. Do you think even a well written prop would fair well though?


----------



## klmmicro (Nov 6, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> The way it would be different is if "legalization" was not just a catch phrase...and as for the youth and liberal issues...what about Clinton and Obama???


The change in phrasing would have to be as you say. Neutral at best to remove the oppositions ability to rally around some slogan they make up.

Clinton to some degree and Obama for sure were sort of anomalies in the political world. For Clinton, we had a bad economy under Bush 1 and a lot of adults came out to vote that would normally have stayed home. The youth vote was there, but there was a strong turn out in the polls by 25-35 year old that were being hurt direclty by economy being sour. Obama is the first time that I can find where a large number of 18-25 year old people actually made the polls...this may or may not repeat as there is no "enemy" (Bush 2) to really rally against. If it does, we have a shot at seeing the next prop pass. Without it, I just cannot see it passing.

I have to agree that this thread has stayed clear of the "sand box" very well, even after reaching some pretty heated points. Agree or disagree with 19, cool heads prevailed.


----------



## Hayduke (Nov 6, 2010)

klmmicro said:


> I definitely appreciate that. Do you think even a well written prop would fair well though?


 It would certainly have my vote!


----------



## Sure Shot (Nov 8, 2010)

Now look what's happening!
Bad News For California Medical Marijuana Patients

The new California Attorney General is going to see to it that there are no more over the counter sales in dispensaries!
Now, California medical growers are safe from taxes.....


----------



## Dan Kone (Nov 8, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Now look what's happening!
> Bad News For California Medical Marijuana Patients
> 
> The new California Attorney General is going to see to it that there are no more over the counter sales in dispensaries!
> Now, California medical growers are safe from taxes.....


The voting isn't done yet.


----------



## nathenking (Nov 8, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> The voting isn't done yet.


hey dan, you inbox is full


----------



## Dan Kone (Nov 8, 2010)

nathenking said:


> hey dan, you inbox is full


my bad. it's cleaned out now


----------



## Sure Shot (Nov 8, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> The voting isn't done yet.


 Let's all cross our fingers.


----------



## Dan Kone (Nov 8, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Let's all cross our fingers.


Yeah, it looks bad now, but it looked bad on election night too. Never know. It's still close.


----------



## Sure Shot (Nov 8, 2010)

It looks like L.A. is a big part of the uncounted votes, and he was losing there by a good margin. WOO HOO!


----------



## Sure Shot (Nov 18, 2010)

Just when you think the coast is clear........
This shit storm is headed to all medical marijuana nationwide!

*Obama&#8217;s DEA Nominee Pledges To Ignore Administration&#8217;s Medical Marijuana Policy*


----------



## klmmicro (Nov 19, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Just when you think the coast is clear........
> This shit storm is headed to all medical marijuana nationwide!


Part of this is that his nominees are now going to actually bear scrutiny by "the other side". No more "ramming things through" without opposition. This just goes to show that you cannot trust anyone in the political world when it comes to cannabis legalization.

The Feds will never give up their war on cannabis. They have invested too much time into brainwashing the masses to be against it and do not want to lose the billions they get from the persecution. Also, big pharma paid off both parties and they certainly do not want any competition.

In the end, it will mean a return to raids on dispensaries. They do not have the man power to go after the personal med grower, so the more self reliant are still safe.


----------

