# The Ruiner Responds to J. David Nick



## The Ruiner (Sep 25, 2010)

PROP. 19 IS THE BEST THING TO HAPPEN TO MMJ PATIENTS SINCE PROP. 215

_Really__? Tell me more.I thought it was people vs. Kelly, but hey, YOU ARE A LAWYER__._

Anyone who claims that Proposition 19 will restrict or eliminate rights under the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) or the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) is simply wrong. If anything, Proposition 19 will permit individuals to grow and possess much more than ever before with patients, coops and collectives still receiving the same protections they are entitled to under the CUA and MMP.

_Wow this is awesome._

Here is why.

The legal arguments claiming the "sky will fall" if Prop. 19 passes are based on the fallacious conclusion that the Initiative invalidates the CUA and MMP. This baseless fear stems from a flawed legal analysis which focuses on just about every portion of Prop. 19 EXCEPT the relevant portions. This flawed legal analysis is driven by an incorrect understanding of the rules of statutory construction.
 
_Do you mean :__ As the Supreme Court has explained: "n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there Okay, I get it! The bill has to mean what it saysat least thats the interpretation by the supreme court.

Although extrinsic materials (such as legislative committee memos or voter pamphlet arguments) may not be resorted to when the legislative language is clear, courts may never ignore the purpose of the legislation. Every interpretation a court gives a statute must be consistent with the purpose of the legislation. This is why statutes have long "preambles" which explicitly state the purposes of the legislation.

Does this mean that all of the pamphlets and letters (like this one) that intend to explain 19 are inadmissible and dont mean anything to the state or prop 19? So the courts are going to focus on the preamble which mostly discusses revenue, jobs creation, and overall taxation and regulation of cannabis?

This rule is so controlling that a court is required to ignore the literal language of a legislative statute if it conflicts with the purpose of the legislation. By example I call attention to the appellate court case of Bell v. DMV. In this precedent setting case, the court ruled that a statute must be interpreted to apply to civil proceedings even though the statute they were interpreting stated it applied only to "criminal" proceedings. The courts interpretation of the statute was consistent with the purposes of the legislation and the limitation to criminal cases in the statute itself was not.

Thats not what the supreme court saysare you lying to me? Or is the supreme court? 

PROP. 19 PROVIDES ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS TO PATIENTS FROM THE ACTIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

Section 2B presents the controlling and relevant purposes for understanding what Prop. 19 can and cannot do. This section EXPRESSLY excludes the reach of Prop. 19 from the CUA and MMP. Sections 2B (7 &  specifically state that the purpose of this initiative is to give municipalities total and complete control over the commercial sales of marijuana "EXCEPT as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

I see bought and sold and possess and consume. What about cultivation and taxation? Those dont appear to be exempt. 

Prop. 19 makes it perfectly clear that the Initiative does NOT give municipalities any control over how medical marijuana patients obtain their medicine or how much they can possess and cultivate as the purpose of the legislation was to exempt the CUA and the MMP from local government reach. Whatever control municipalities have over patients and collectives is limited by the CUA and the MMP, not by Prop. 19.

Well thats good considering you take the position that 19 wont affect MMJ laws. It really shouldnt interfere, right?

To further reduce everyones understandable anxiety over allowing municipalities to unduly control collectives, I direct everyones attention to the last statute of the MMP, 11362.83, which reads. Nothing in this article shall prevent a city or other local governing body from adopting and enforcing laws CONSISTENT with this article.

But 19 isnt the MMPno one has anxiety about the MMP. Why are you quoting the MMP? You wouldnt be trying to confuse the voters now, would you?

Since collectives are expressly allowed, local ordinances banning them are not consistent with the MMP. Health and Safety Code Section 11362.83, which limits municipalities ability to ban coops or overly restrict them, is unaffected by Prop. 19 as it expressly states in Sections 2B (7 &  that the laws created by Prop. 19 must be followed "EXCEPT as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
Yes, for: possession, consumption, and sales.

What about cultivation and taxes? Also, I would just like to point out that 19 neglects to mention 11362.5 in Section 2B (2)that states which standing CA laws are to be unaffected by prop 19. If there were to be no interference then why not list the CUA and MMP right there in the exemptions? 

PROP. 19 PROTECTS PATIENTS PERSONAL AND COLLECTIVE CULTIVATIONS

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

Please explain what lawfully cultivated means under prop 19. Because I know what it means under the CUA and MMP if 19 doesnt affect these statutes why do I need a new definition?

IT WILL KEEP POLICE FROM COOPERATING WITH THE FEDS

As you can see from the above paragraph, the statutory scheme Prop. 19 creates expressly forbids law enforcement from seizing lawfully cultivated cannabis.

Well, I still dont even know what lawfully cultivated  means.

Prop. 19 will create an insurmountable barrier for local law enforcement which is still bent on depriving you of your rights through the despicable device of using federal law enforcement officers.

Heres why.

Federal drug enforcement is nearly 100 percent dependent on the ability to use local law enforcement. They do not have the manpower to operate without it. Prop. 19 in no uncertain terms tells local law enforcement that they cannot even attempt to seize cannabis. If Prop. 19 passes, California will actually have a law on the books that expressly forbids local police from cooperating with the feds in the seizure of any lawfully cultivated California cannabis.

Nearly 100%? Wow, where did you source that from? Either way, it is still federally- illegal, so if by the off chance that DEA raids peoples grows it just means that the state cant/wont protect them? That local law enforcement simply wont be involved? I mean, isnt the key word here cooperating?

PROP. 19 DOES NOT LIMIT PATIENTS RIGHTS UNDER THE CUA & MMP

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

Oh now you mention that section! What about section 2C (2)? The exemptions portionIf, by using your logic, 19 is not being used to limit the CUA/MMP, it is not going to protect the CUA/MMP either. It may not limit CUA/MMP, but neither does it protect or exempt them from 19.

Its that simple.
 
Thats right

PROP. 19 MAKES IT EASIER FOR PATIENTS TO OBTAIN THEIR MEDICINE

Section 2B (6) states that one of the purposes of Prop. 19 is to Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes. This section is one of the many reasons Prop. 19 is very good for patients. If Prop. 19 passes, the days of having to go through the hassle of getting a doctors recommendation to treat simple medical conditions will be coming to an end in those communities which allow Prop. 19 stores" to exist. When you need an aspirin you do not have to go to a doctor and then to the health department and then to Walgreens - YOU JUST GO TO WALGREENS (the founder of which, Mr. Walgreen, became rich during prohibition by selling "medical" alcohol to patients who had obtained a prescription for alcohol from their doctor).

I have a doctors recommendation, it wasnt inconvenient at all, and I feel safe when going to get my meds. And if I need an asprin why would I have to go to a doctor anyway? Asprin isnt a schedule 1 narcotic now is it? It has been an over-the-counter medicine for decades, how can you compare cannabis to asprin? Is Mr. Walgreen related to Dick Lee? Where is this paragraph going?

In those communities which are stubborn and will not allow Prop 19 "stores," patients will still have the protections of the CUA and MMP and the statutory right to form coops and collectives. Prop. 19 specifically recognizes that these rights are not invalidated and does nothing to limit the ability of patients to cultivate or form collectives or coops.

Where does prop 19 specifically recognize these rights? Because I dont see that ANYWHERE in the text of prop 19. Show me, in the bill, where it recognizes coops & collectives? Is that because those words arent even found in the text of prop 19? Thats not very specific is it?


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!
 
I really dont like what it says, because I still dont know what lawfully cultivated under prop 19 meansand you havent explained to me yet.

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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.

Arent you basing this entire letter as a response to MMJ patients that are afraid of 19? So you are saying that prop 19 allows me to keep my weed at my house? Well, I already get to keep it. Thats why I have a doctors recommendation. But it has to be lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii)? What does section 11300 (a)(ii) say? And why now does it have to be lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii)? What about my rights as a patient? Arent you starting to blur the lines a little bit here? Mixing the general 21 and over crowd with MMJ patients?

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.
 
But I thought I was exempt from this nonsense? Didnt you say that the CUA/MMP are exempt? You stopped saying that when you starting talking about cultivationwhy? Now you are putting restraints on the size of my garden through prop 19? I dont see you saying here that I and other MMJ patients are exemptand I dont see it in prop 19 either.

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".


Great, so I can have all the weed I want  just as long as I have grown it at my residence. Thanks for the generositybut what if my space is larger than 25 sq ft? Doesnt prop 19 then make my NOW legal garden ILLEGAL? Where are the exemptions for the MMJ patient growers?

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.
 
And 200 lbs grown from a 5x5 space would take approximately 75.66 years to cultivate with a 1gram/1watt exchange for four, three- month cycles per year.. So, you are saying that you can picture yourself defending someone into your centarian years? Admirable.

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.

What supply problems? Which state do you live in? The only laws regarding personal limiting of cultivation are seen in prop 19. Why arent you even referencing the People vs. Kelly decision? There are no limits, so in this case 19 is unnecessary.

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.

Talk about beating a dead horse, you have said this five times already! Dont you have anything else to say?

For patients this is not the case because Prop. 19 exempts them from the one ounce out of home restriction. As stated above, if you are a patient then you can take out of your house up to eight ounces, or whatever your doctor permits you to have or the needs of your collective.

You have nearly repeated yourself verbatim! On the same page of this letter no less.

Both medical patients and recreational users should note that Section 11300(a) (i) allows you to "share" up to an ounce which tells me that you can furnish as many one ounces to as many friends as you wish, thus if you have a party with 50 people you could give away 50 ounces.

Now theres an idea: Just give away your time, money, and energy. Do you do a lot of pro-bono work? Are you leading by example? Why dont you just share with me your money? Why dont you stop charging people for the services you provide?

UNDERSTANDING NOTWITHSTANDING

As for the argument that the various Notwithstanding clauses invalidate the CUA and MMP, I reiterate, that in section 2C (1) where Prop. 19 expressly states which statues are being altered, the CUA and MMP are not listed. Therefore, when you use the word notwithstanding, you cannot be referring to statues that have been expressly excluded.

Well, doesnt that just mean despite? Isnt that the literal meaning of the word? And, arent you talking about the laws that are being LIMITED? Considering section 2C (1) says this act is intended to limit the application and enforcement of state and local laws wouldnt the CUA/MMP be listed under the *next* section which states: This act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of the following state laws and then it lists a bunch of standing laws that are not to be affected by 19? That section omits 11362.5. If 19 was going to leave these STANDING state laws alone, why arent they included in this section?

Claiming there is some doubt as to what notwithstanding means or refers to requires at most that we reach back to the purpose of the legislation in order to give it proper meaning. Whatever interpretation you give it, notwithstanding cannot be in conflict with Sections 2 B (7 &  which exempt patients covered under the CUA and MMP from any actions taken by municipalities to regulate the non-medical use of cannabis.

Again, your whole defense that MMJ patients are going to be left alone is based only off of the wording in regards to possess and consume and bought and sold. What about cultivation? Taxation? When you talked about cultivation you NEVER MENTIONED A MMJ PATIENT EXEMPTION. 

*The word notwithstanding is used when reversing prior legislation and has traditionally been interpreted by prior case law to be a word employed for the purpose of allowing conduct that had previously been forbidden by other statutes*. If the word notwithstanding was not used in Prop. 19, municipalities would be able to claim that there is still a prohibition on their participation in the licensing and regulating of this activity.

Well, I am glad you said that! Because couldnt this section read like this and be accurate? 
(*DESPITE*) any other provision of law (*CUA/MMP*) it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to: 
 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. 
So you are telling me in fact, that 19 CAN be used to limit the CUA/MMP via the new growing area restrictions? Since the CUA/MMP is not listed in the list of laws to be exempted from the reach of 19, then there can be no other conclusion drawn from this! The word notwithstanding isnt the issue, it is the BLATANT OMISSION OF THE CUA/MMP FROM THE LIST OF EXEMPTIONS section 2C (2). Had the CUA/MMP been listed there, then the whole usage of the word notwithstanding wouldnt be an issue, but its not. Why?

For example, a law making skipping in front of a school illegal would be overturned by a law which says notwithstanding other laws, skipping is legal. If the word notwithstanding was not there, then skipping in front of a school would still be illegal even though skipping itself would be legal at any other location.ddddd

So a law granting cultivation without size restrictions could be revoked by a law that has growing area size restrictions? You are not making a very good case what is your hourly?

The rationale behind this rule emanates or comes from another rule of statutory construction which is that existing laws cannot be repealed by inference and instead must be EXPRESSLY repealed. A court cannot find that a law, such as the CUA or MMP, was changed by "implication." In other words, it cannot repeal a law by ruling that another law implied that it should.

Isnt that exactly what 19 is doing? Repealing numerous standing laws? Doesnt the wording notwithstanding any other law repeal quite a few laws in regards to cannabis? And given your statutory construction argument, wouldnt the court be bound to merely TAX and Regulate according to the wording of prop 19? And 19 doesnt IMPLY anything it flat-out just says, essentially, despite any other law you cannot cultivate an area greater than 25 sq ft. 

Although Sections 2B (7 &  gives cities control over the non-medical distribution of cannabis, that in no way allows a court to repeal or even change the CUA and MMP by ruling that it was implicit in Prop. 19 that they do so. It is contrary to any rational understanding of statutory construction to infer that since Prop. 19 gives cities control over the distribution of non-medical marijuana, that it also gives cities the right to control the medical distribution of cannabis beyond what the CUA and MMP allows.

What about cultivation? The distribution was never the issue. In fact, you made all of the arguments used in this letter. You are addressing no specific arguments, you merely made some things up, and argued against yourself for the duration of this entire letter. How much did you get paid to write this? Or are you a pro-bono propagandist?

The word notwithstanding is simply a legal necessity to repeal the various statutes that prohibit the conduct that prop. 19 now permits.

And limits.

So can everyone please VOTE YES ON 19.

Sincerely,

J. David Nick
Attorney-at-Law

So can everyone finally see through the bullshit this guy puts out there?
Sincerely Calling You Out On Your Bullshit,
The Ruiner_


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 25, 2010)

Damn, its hard to get some love here....


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 25, 2010)

love it! it about time, thanks again The Ruiner.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 25, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Damn, its hard to get some love here....


I'm sure Dan Beck and the capitalism cronies will be along soon enough to give all the "love" you can possibly stand. It's good to see other people that not only learn history, but learn from it.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 26, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> I'm sure Dan Beck and the capitalism cronies will be along soon enough to give all the "love" you can possibly stand. It's good to see other people that not only learn history, but learn from it.


Do you mean Glen Beck?

I'm 100% against Prop 19.

Basically it just leaves too many ways for our government to screw us.

This will only help those with large grows, and 19 basically limits that to those willing to pay huge fees.

Just a way for a few individuals to get richer, at the expense of everyone else.

A scam, at best.

By the way, I detest Glen Beck and his ilk.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 26, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Do you mean Glen Beck?
> 
> I'm 100% against Prop 19.
> 
> ...


I think he meant another sycophantic pro-19 poster-boy....


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 26, 2010)

My absolute favorite part of that bullshit letter is where this fucker says 'I can easily picture defending someone with 200 lbs.' 

Shame on:

Gary E. Johnson, former two term Republican Governor of the state of New Mexico[26]
Joycelyn Elders, former United States Surgeon General[27]
George Miller, current Democratic House Representative from California's 7th congressional district[28]
Barbara Lee, current Democratic House Representative from California's 9th congressional district[28]
Pete Stark, current Democratic House Representative from California's 13th congressional district[28]
John Dennis, 2010 Republican Congressional candidate for California's 8th congressional district[29]
Dan Hamburg, former Democratic House Representative from California's 1st congressional district[30]
Don Perata, former Democratic President pro tempore of the California State Senate[30]
Mark Leno, current Democratic member of the California State Senate[30]
Tom Ammiano, current Democratic member of the California State Assembly[31][32]
Jorge Castañeda Gutman, former Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Mexico[33]
Larry Bedard, former President of the American College of Emergency Physicians[34]
Tom Bates, current Mayor of Berkeley, California[30]
James P. Gray, former Superior Court judge of Orange County, California and former Libertarian Party senate candidate[35]
John A. Russo, current City Attorney of Oakland, California[36]
Paul Gallegos, current District Attorney of Humboldt County, California[30]
Jeffrey Schwartz, former Senior District Attorney and Prosecutor of Humboldt County, California[30]
Terence Hallinan, former District Attorney of San Francisco, California[30]
Mike Schmier, former District Attorney of Los Angeles, California and California Administrative Law Judge[30]
Norm Stamper, former Seattle, Washington police chief[37]
Joseph McNamara, former San Jose, California police chief[30]
Stephen Downing, former Los Angeles, California police chief[30]
David Doodridge, former Los Angeles, California narcotics detective[38]
Ed Rosenthal, cannabis activist and columnist [39]
Marc Emery, cannabis activist and former cannabis seed seller[40]
California NAACP[41]
Oakland City Council[42]
Berkeley City Council[30]
California NORML[43]
Drug Policy Alliance[44]
Marijuana Policy Project[45]
American Federation of Teachers[46]
National Black Police Association[47]
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition[48]
ACLU of Northern California[30]
ACLU of San Diego[30]
United Food and Commercial Workers Union[49]
Communications Workers of America, Local 9415[50]
International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Northern California District Council[51]
Service Employees International Union of California[52]
Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative[30]
Los Angeles County Democratic Party[53]
San Francisco Democratic Party[54]
Alameda County Democratic Party[30]
Monterey County Democratic Party[30]
Santa Barbara County Democratic Party[55]
California Young Democrats[56]
Republican Liberty Caucus[30]
Green Party of California[30]
United States Libertarian Party[57]
Pisses me off to see the Libertarian Party...may have to rethink my orientation...


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 30, 2010)

bump so hopefully more people see this....


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 30, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Pisses me off to see the Libertarian Party...may have to rethink my orientation...


That's why my voter registration card had the 'Other' box ticked and "Independent" entered in the blank.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 30, 2010)

Join the true minority! Seriously... I think there's like maybe all of a 100 or so that've done the same. Personally, I think more want to, but get bamboozled by the American Independent Party option. Those buggers are bloody weird.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 30, 2010)

I still register Democrat. Mostly because my family has always been Democrat.

I'm disgusted with our government. I was basically an Anarchist, forty years ago. I was hoping for the Revolution.

Now, we have twice as many people, and greatly depleted resources.

Common sense hasn't broken out.

Things could get very bad, very quickly as respect for authority erodes.

Our money, economy, and government are ideas that lose strength at the whim of public confidence.

Expect the worst, and expect to be proven optimistic.


----------



## veggiegardener (Sep 30, 2010)

About the only power we have is the right to vote "No".

This law criminalizes people.

Not a positive goal.

Vote NO on 19.


----------



## vradd (Oct 1, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Basically it just leaves too many ways for our government to screw us.
> 
> This will only help those with large grows, and 19 basically limits that to those willing to pay huge fees.
> 
> Just a way for a few individuals to get richer, at the expense of everyone else.


guy stop having so much paranoia. if your scared that much of our govt then why are you living here? go to canada where the govt gives you free health care and crimes rates are at a low. hell its prob less smoggy out their too! pot will not be this huge cash crop once it gets rolling. their obvious will never be a short supply of it. and soon enough its going to be like every other produce we grow. the only difference is pot has a HUGE cult following wether it be medical or recreational. THATS why they can tax it, because their is a market for it. once it becomes legalized their will be some balancing out so your not getting big revenue spikes from certain individuals who want to have these huge grow ops.

i applaud your dedication to how you feel. and im sure a loooooong time ago when farmers wanted to grow certain fruits and vegetables and the govt told them hey this is whats gonna happen, they prob put a fight up too saying its their right. but look how it all balances out now maaaany years later. who'se to say pot wont do the same?

if u want to put up a fight, why not argue why our govt who employees thousands upon thousands of men and women to defend our country yet they make it completely accessible to tobacco products that


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 1, 2010)

vradd said:


> guy stop having so much paranoia. if your scared that much of our govt then why are you living here? go to canada where the govt gives you free health care and crimes rates are at a low. hell its prob less smoggy out their too! pot will not be this huge cash crop once it gets rolling. their obvious will never be a short supply of it. and soon enough its going to be like every other produce we grow. the only difference is pot has a HUGE cult following wether it be medical or recreational. THATS why they can tax it, because their is a market for it. once it becomes legalized their will be some balancing out so your not getting big revenue spikes from certain individuals who want to have these huge grow ops.
> 
> i applaud your dedication to how you feel. and im sure a loooooong time ago when farmers wanted to grow certain fruits and vegetables and the govt told them hey this is whats gonna happen, they prob put a fight up too saying its their right. but look how it all balances out now maaaany years later. who'se to say pot wont do the same?
> 
> if u want to put up a fight, why not argue why our govt who employees thousands upon thousands of men and women to defend our country yet they make it completely accessible to tobacco products that


Normally, I try not to be derogatory, but this post is prime example of why our nation ranks 11th in the world in education. It's quite obvious you don't get it, vradd. We're voting no because that's how we feel and believe. If that bothers you so much, then maybe it's YOU that needs to seek someplace else to live.


----------



## Greather420 (Oct 6, 2010)

You know, I hesitate to even respond to this thread....I'm afraid of what everyone might have to say to me because of the fact I am going to vote YES. For myself, with the area I live in, MMJ is VERY looked-down-upon, and at the moment we are only allowed to have 6 plants per person. I'm not sure where all you are from, but in Southern California prop 19 will actually HELP those of us who grow at home. I guess it's easy to say no to something that will limit your already large gardens, but you have to understand that there are PLENTY of people out there who will benefit from this, NOT just the government. MMJ Collectives are ALREADY taxed; new taxes don't automatically mean prices will raise. Maybe I'm reading the proposition wrong, but the biggest draw for me to vote yes is the fact that local and state officials will not be able to confiscate plants/product from me...as it stands right now, the police could come into my house, tear down my LEGAL plants, and take me to court. Sure, I would most likely be able to get the case thrown out of court, but the damage will have already been done! 
I'm not saying you are not entitled to your opinions. I'm not saying I look down on you for your decision to vote no. I'm simply saying that maybe you shouldn't be getting so down on those of us that believe prop. 19 is a good thing. Ultimately, I think it will help our State more than harm it!


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 7, 2010)

Greather420 said:


> You know, I hesitate to even respond to this thread....I'm afraid of what everyone might have to say to me because of the fact I am going to vote YES. For myself, with the area I live in, MMJ is VERY looked-down-upon, and at the moment we are only allowed to have 6 plants per person. I'm not sure where all you are from, but in Southern California prop 19 will actually HELP those of us who grow at home. I guess it's easy to say no to something that will limit your already large gardens, but you have to understand that there are PLENTY of people out there who will benefit from this, NOT just the government.


Wrong. The 6 plant limit was abolished by the California Appellate Court. If you want more plants, grow more plants. That is your right under law... for now. In fact, that same decision was based on the fact that SB 420 set limits that weren't part of a voter initiative. However, since Prop. 19 IS a voter initiative and pretty much reinforces SB 420, then that also means the limits that we had to work so hard to get abolished are now in question again. 



Greather420 said:


> MMJ Collectives are ALREADY taxed; new taxes don't automatically mean prices will raise.


So, additional taxes or fees will be assessed, but it won't affect pricing? That statement speaks for itself.



Greather420 said:


> Maybe I'm reading the proposition wrong, but the biggest draw for me to vote yes is the fact that local and state officials will not be able to confiscate plants/product from me...as it stands right now, the police could come into my house, tear down my LEGAL plants, and take me to court. Sure, I would most likely be able to get the case thrown out of court, but the damage will have already been done!


There's nothing in Prop. 19 that says any of that. If the police decide to bust you, they'll do it in much the same way they have been.



Greather420 said:


> I'm not saying you are not entitled to your opinions. I'm not saying I look down on you for your decision to vote no. I'm simply saying that maybe you shouldn't be getting so down on those of us that believe prop. 19 is a good thing. Ultimately, I think it will help our State more than harm it!


Well, so long as you think so, it must be! This bill doesn't help our state. It helps commercial interests at the expense of our state's citizens. Prop. 19 doesn't change ideology or personal ethics. Those who are against cannabis will continue to be so. Giving them the authority to regulate cannabis, non-medical or otherwise, is never a good idea.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 7, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Pisses me off to see the Libertarian Party...may have to rethink my orientation...


I flirted with Libertarianism for a while.

After some thinking, I realized that their ideas are as flawed as Socialism and Communism.

As long as we are human, no rigid political system will work.


----------



## Greather420 (Oct 7, 2010)

Do any of you actually realize how regulated the laws are now? DO you think the best thing is to freeze the legalization process where it is right now? No one thought they would take any further steps towards legalizing MJ, but now here's prop 19. BABY STEPS!! Are you all saying you are completely content with the laws the way they are, and you NEVER want to see full legalization in this state? Maybe this new prop isn't all you want it to be, but the way I see it, it's just a stepping stone towards not having to worry about this shit anymore.
LIKE I SAID IN MY LAST POST...I hesitate to offer my opinions on this matter because of the way people would respond, and now I'm being told I'm stupid by one person and berated by another....makes me really glad I even spoke my mind...thanks for that!

BTW, can anyone send me a link to the site that states there are NO LIMITS on cultivating plants for patients? Because everywhere I have looked specifically states 6 PLANTS FOR MOST COUNTIES IN CALIFORNIA. We have 6 plants, and they cover about a 9' sq. area....25' sounds MUCH more appealing to me! But again, that's just MY opinion.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 7, 2010)

Greather420 said:


> Do any of you actually realize how regulated the laws are now? DO you think the best thing is to freeze the legalization process where it is right now? No one thought they would take any further steps towards legalizing MJ, but now here's prop 19. BABY STEPS!! Are you all saying you are completely content with the laws the way they are, and you NEVER want to see full legalization in this state? Maybe this new prop isn't all you want it to be, but the way I see it, it's just a stepping stone towards not having to worry about this shit anymore.
> LIKE I SAID IN MY LAST POST...I hesitate to offer my opinions on this matter because of the way people would respond, and now I'm being told I'm stupid by one person and berated by another....makes me really glad I even spoke my mind...thanks for that!
> 
> BTW, can anyone send me a link to the site that states there are NO LIMITS on cultivating plants for patients? Because everywhere I have looked specifically states 6 PLANTS FOR MOST COUNTIES IN CALIFORNIA. We have 6 plants, and they cover about a 9' sq. area....25' sounds MUCH more appealing to me! But again, that's just MY opinion.


Maybe you'd receive a more positive reaction if you'd actually informed yourself of the actual facts instead of spreading misinformation. It's called the People vs. Kelly decision, which ruled the limits of SB 420 unconstitutional because state legislation cannot be used to set limits on voter initiatives. Prop. 19, as a voter initiative, would be able to reaffirm those limits as they were never stricken from the books. Again, your ignorance is not a reason for anyone to have to vote in bad legislation.


----------



## Greather420 (Oct 7, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Maybe you'd receive a more positive reaction if you'd actually informed yourself of the actual facts instead of spreading misinformation. It's called the People vs. Kelly decision, which ruled the limits of SB 420 unconstitutional because state legislation cannot be used to set limits on voter initiatives. Prop. 19, as a voter initiative, would be able to reaffirm those limits as they were never stricken from the books. Again, your ignorance is not a reason for anyone to have to vote in bad legislation.


misinformation? I'm sorry, you must have misunderstood what I wrote. I was simply saying what I had read, and asking where I could read more about those laws changing. Thank you for the info, hadn't heard about that one, but it's interesting. By the way, not trying to spread misinformation or argue, but has anyone read some of the positive arguments for this proposition? I like to read what both sides have to say, but that's just me. Again, thank you for being so informative in answering my questions, Tokin, really helped me out a lot.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 8, 2010)

I've heard most, if not all, of the proponent arguments, such as they are, and many of them are not really rational argument and mostly supposition. From your own accounts, it sounds like you live in a pretty restrictive area of Southern California. As someone also in Southern California, I know exactly how permissive and prohibitive the various localities can be. The facts are that the number of communities which have adopted cannabis friendly, or at least tolerant, policies are very few. And that is not from lack of opportunity. The fact that we have some permissive areas is adequate evidence that change can be effected already at a local level without Prop. 19. The majority of municipalities have not adopted less restrictive measures with regards to medical cannabis use and cultivation, nor have they ever indicated that they have any intention of becoming more tolerant, medical use or not.


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 8, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Maybe you'd receive a more positive reaction if you'd actually informed yourself of the actual facts instead of spreading misinformation. It's called the People vs. Kelly decision, which ruled the limits of SB 420 unconstitutional because state legislation cannot be used to set limits on voter initiatives. Prop. 19, as a voter initiative, would be able to reaffirm those limits as they were never stricken from the books. Again, your ignorance is not a reason for anyone to have to vote in bad legislation.


Hold on a minute before you bash someone for being misinformed about People vs Kelly because you seem to be confused as well. Yes, People vs Kelly lifted grow limits for prosecution but it doesn't take the risk of arrest and defense away, Canorml recommends growing within previous local and state limits in order to avoid arrest and all that is associated with it.

"In a state supreme court ruling, _People v. Kelly_ (2010), the court held that patients can NOT be prosecuted simply for exceeding the SB 420 limits; however, they can be arrested and forced to defend themselves as having had an amount consistent with their personal medical needs." http://www.canorml.org/prop/patientsguide.htm

*"California NORML strongly advises Prop 215 patients to continue following the SB 420 guidelines  six mature or 12 immature plants and 8 ounces of processed marijuana except where local guidelines specify more.*"
http://www.canorml.org/news/supremekelly.html


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 8, 2010)

No, I'm not confused. You just don't follow through well enough to see the full implications. Yes, they can be forced to defend themselves, and the defense is readily available and set by legal precedent. CaNORML advises growing within SB 420 constraints to help reduce the likelihood of prosecution, they don't promise complete amnesty from persecution. They also say the following on their California cannabis law summary:

_*Cultivation*_ of any amount of marijuana is a felony under Health and Safety Code 11358. People who grow for personal use are eligible for diversion under  Penal Code 1000 so long as there is no evidence of intent to sell. *There are no fixed plant number limits to personal use cultivation*.
http://www.canorml.org/laws/calmjlaws.html


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 8, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> You just don't follow through well enough to see the full implications. Yes, they can be forced to defend themselves, and the defense is readily available and set by legal precedent. CaNORML advises growing within SB 420 constraints to help reduce the likelihood of prosecution, they don't promise complete amnesty from persecution. They also say the following on their California cannabis law summary:
> 
> _*Cultivation*_ of any amount of marijuana is a felony under Health and Safety Code 11358. People who grow for personal use are eligible for diversion under  Penal Code 1000 so long as there is no evidence of intent to sell. *There are no fixed plant number limits to personal use cultivation*.
> http://www.canorml.org/laws/calmjlaws.html


You just re-affirmed my original post, thanks.
What are the "full implications" that i have failed to "follow through enough" with?


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 8, 2010)

Whatever makes you feel better.


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 8, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Whatever makes you feel better.


naturally, a reply that doesn't explain yourself or anything at all, nice way to bail out of a discussion....


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 8, 2010)

What discussion? I pointed out where personal consumption grows have some modicum of protection under existing legislation because it allows for a defense supported by legal precedent. In other words, for those with enough backbone to stand up for their rights, personal cultivation grows are relatively limitless. For anyone that doesn't want the risk, or is in an area where the probability of winning such a legal battle is unlikely, then you are still afforded protections from jail under Penal Code 1000. You've obviously decided to interpret that to your own satisfaction so that you feel justified in your support of 19. As I said... whatever makes you feel better.


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 8, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> In other words, for those with enough backbone to stand up for their rights, personal cultivation grows are relatively limitless. For anyone that doesn't want the risk, or is in an area where the probability of winning such a legal battle is unlikely, then you are still afforded protections from jail under Penal Code 1000. You've obviously decided to interpret that to your own satisfaction so that you feel justified in your support of 19.


Ok, me and the entire organization called California Norml interpret it as don't grow more than previous limits or you will risk arrest. People vs kelly doesn't protect growers from arrest and all of the costs that can incur from the process. 
Also prop 19 doesn't change 215, medical growers will have the same rights as they do today when 19 passes.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 8, 2010)

luvourmother said:


> Ok, me and the entire organization called California Norml interpret it as don't grow more than previous limits or you will risk arrest. People vs kelly doesn't protect growers from arrest and all of the costs that can incur from the process.
> Also prop 19 doesn't change 215, medical growers will have the same rights as they do today when 19 passes.


Again, whatever makes you feel better about criminalizing adults under the age of 21 so you can feel "safe".


----------



## Greather420 (Oct 8, 2010)

Yeah, don't criminalize people that aren't 21....we should lower the drinking limit, too, and let high school kids buy cigarettes!! God forbid a high school kid get in trouble for drinking or doing drugs! It's their right as Americans!


I'm sorry...I really didn't intend to respond to this thread any more, but I mean, come on! MJ may have medicinal purposes, but that doesn't mean the age limit should be lowered. So kids have to wait till they're 21 to blaze legally...most collectives require you to be 21 to become a member as it is....so they can celebrate their 21st with a blunt and a beer, sounds like something to look forward to as far as I'm concerned!


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 8, 2010)

luvourmother said:


> Ok, me and the entire organization called California Norml interpret it as don't grow more than previous limits or you will risk arrest. People vs kelly doesn't protect growers from arrest and all of the costs that can incur from the process.
> Also prop 19 doesn't change 215, medical growers will have the same rights as they do today when 19 passes.


There's the rub.

Prop 19 offers no protection for larger medical grows.

If that were the case, it would be mentioned in the same paragraph where "25 square feet" is mentioned.

Read critically. You might learn something.


----------



## mrFancyPlants (Oct 8, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> People who grow for personal use are eligible for diversion under


You seem to take the punishment of diversion lightly. Maybe you can explain to us what diversion entails?

From a quick reading of PC 1000, it looks like 18-36 months of probation, possibly including forced rehab and drug tests. Also, you can only go through diversion if it's your first felony(incl. previous growing busts) in 5 years. 

Also, you're right - there are no fixed limits for personal use cultivation. So you could grow 5 plants, and if they find some baggies and a scale in your kitchen - then what?

Finally - sure, most of use are just potheads, right? But if they find some mushrooms, your friend's xanax, some ecstasy... no diversion for you.

But, you know, hiring a lawyer, having all your equipment and plants taken, the trauma of a raid - which I can tell you from first hand experience is not something to take lightly - and only getting 'diversion'... that doesn't sound too bad to you, eh?


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 10, 2010)

mrFancyPlants said:


> You seem to take the punishment of diversion lightly. Maybe you can explain to us what diversion entails?
> 
> From a quick reading of PC 1000, it looks like 18-36 months of probation, possibly including forced rehab and drug tests. Also, you can only go through diversion if it's your first felony(incl. previous growing busts) in 5 years.


If diversion bothers you so much, then go to jail instead. The friends and family I know that have been able to avoid jail sentences because of diversion would rather deal with a short term of probation and a clean record at the end. And yes, if you have a tendency to break the law and get caught for it, then you won't be available for diversion. The law isn't meant to be license for people to act irresponsibly. 



mrFancyPlants said:


> Also, you're right - there are no fixed limits for personal use cultivation. So you could grow 5 plants, and if they find some baggies and a scale in your kitchen - then what?


And there's nothing in Prop. 19 that stops that kind of profiling or irrational use of indicia. There's new indicia, but nothing to control how those determinants are used. So, even with your "perfectly legal" Prop. 19 grow, if there's nothing to stop police from making a case, justly or unjustly, based on incidental and circumstantial evidence much like they do now.



mrFancyPlants said:


> Finally - sure, most of use are just potheads, right? But if they find some mushrooms, your friend's xanax, some ecstasy... no diversion for you.


And Prop. 19 doesn't do anything in such cases either. Nice fallacy of irrelevance. 



mrFancyPlants said:


> But, you know, hiring a lawyer, having all your equipment and plants taken, the trauma of a raid - which I can tell you from first hand experience is not something to take lightly - and only getting 'diversion'... that doesn't sound too bad to you, eh?


Soooo... after all the "trauma", you want to bemoan a option that turns the end of such a tragedy from a jail sentence to temporary probation with expunging of records at the completion of a relatively simple court program. You're right, it doesn't sound too bad to me at all... certainly much better than jail. The dozens of friends and family who are continuing their lives having avoided irrational jail sentences, think so too.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 10, 2010)

Greather420 said:


> Yeah, don't criminalize people that aren't 21....we should lower the drinking limit, too, and let high school kids buy cigarettes!! God forbid a high school kid get in trouble for drinking or doing drugs! It's their right as Americans!


At 18 years of age, they are able to vote and serve their country in combat. Yes, I think they do deserve the right choose how they decide to live their lives including choosing how they decide to alter their perceptions. No one said anything about high school kids except you. I'm talking about adults 18 years of age and older. Not to mention that existing regulations have very much failed in keeping alcohol or cigarettes out of the hands of minors. But, again, whatever you have to tell yourself to justify criminalizing young adults.



Greather420 said:


> ]I'm sorry...I really didn't intend to respond to this thread any more, but I mean, come on! MJ may have medicinal purposes, but that doesn't mean the age limit should be lowered. So kids have to wait till they're 21 to blaze legally...most collectives require you to be 21 to become a member as it is....so they can celebrate their 21st with a blunt and a beer, sounds like something to look forward to as far as I'm concerned!


There's no 21+ age limit now, so your erroneous argument about limit lowering is irrelevant. Most collectives are actually 18 and older, not 21. And those that are 21 and older are so by personal/policy choice not due to non-existent age limits.


----------



## budling357 (Oct 10, 2010)

All these big words, how will I cope.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 10, 2010)

budling357 said:


> All these big words, how will I cope.


Use a dictionary, maybe?


----------



## budling357 (Oct 10, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Use a dictionary, maybe?


That will help me to understand, but I will still feel feeble in comparison. OOooo... How will I cope.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 10, 2010)

budling357 said:


> That will help me to understand, but I will still feel feeble in comparison. OOooo... How will I cope.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry5LNJLHzDo

Carter USM has the answer for everything....


----------



## budling357 (Oct 10, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry5LNJLHzDo
> 
> Carter USM has the answer for everything....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMQzRFvCIY
Puff Puff, Ahhh.... Much better.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 10, 2010)

budling357 said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMQzRFvCIY
> Puff Puff, Ahhh.... Much better.


I think the best part of clicking that link was the immediate dump into a McDonald's ad. Pretty much says it all.


----------



## budling357 (Oct 10, 2010)

Man, the inspirational music is really flowing on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YywFjQzatlQ


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 10, 2010)

budling357 said:


> Man, the inspirational music is really flowing on youtube.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YywFjQzatlQ


I'd rather be inspired to think for myself than be told what to think personally...

[video=youtube;vWj8teXRXs8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWj8teXRXs8[/video]


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 10, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> My absolute favorite part of that bullshit letter is where this fucker says 'I can easily picture defending someone with 200 lbs.'
> 
> Shame on:
> 
> ...


Take a long hard look at this list of people you are shaming. Barbara Lee, Tom Ammiano, California NORML, marijuana Policy Project. These people have done a great deal for people all over California. All you've ever done is complain. Who the hell are you to shame them? 

You should be embarrassed for shaming Tom Ammiano. He's one of the few politician in the world with balls enough to speak out and fight for cannabis. This reminds me of when Fox news and the republicans started slandering the 9/11 widows who refused to support the Iraq war.

Then take a look at the list of groups opposing prop 19.

The DEA, the prison guards union, Steve Cooley (LA DA who shut down hundreds of dispensaries), DARE America, Coalition for a Drug-Free California, Gil Kerlikowske (drug czar), California Police Chiefs Association, California Narcotics Officers Association, California Beer & Beverage Distributors.

Anyone here who wants to side with these people is playing for the wrong team.


----------



## Greather420 (Oct 10, 2010)

As far as the high school kids statement goes.....I was being sarcastic; I guess that's hard to show through words alone. I was basically trying to point out how ridiculous it is to argue AGAINST prop 19 and use not being able to sell to people under age 21 as a reason to argue that way. But hey, everyone's got a right to their own opinion.....don't they?


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 10, 2010)

Greather420 said:


> As far as the high school kids statement goes.....I was being sarcastic; I guess that's hard to show through words alone. I was basically trying to point out how ridiculous it is to argue AGAINST prop 19 and use not being able to sell to people under age 21 as a reason to argue that way. But hey, everyone's got a right to their own opinion.....don't they?


No one said anything about selling. That's the obsession of you and your fellow proponents. I said you are willing to criminalize adults under the age of 21 for the sake of your sense of safety. You can rationalize it any way you need to, but there are adults who do not go to jail now for possession that will should Prop. 19 pass.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 10, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Take a long hard look at this list of people you are shaming. Barbara Lee, Tom Ammiano, California NORML, marijuana Policy Project. These people have done a great deal for people all over California. All you've ever done is complain. Who the hell are you to shame them?
> 
> You should be embarrassed for shaming Tom Ammiano. He's one of the few politician in the world with balls enough to speak out and fight for cannabis. This reminds me of when Fox news and the republicans started slandering the 9/11 widows who refused to support the Iraq war.
> 
> ...


Agreed. Strange bedfellows.

Apparently, they don't understand 19, either.
*
NO on 19.* It isn't what is seems to be.


----------



## budling357 (Oct 10, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Agreed. Strange bedfellows.
> 
> Apparently, they don't understand 19, either.
> *
> NO on 19.* It isn't what is seems to be.


If its not what it seems to be, what is it? Some facts please, not just rambling of opinion.

Face value is the legalization of marijuana. Anything else is speculation.


----------



## budling357 (Oct 10, 2010)

My wife and I wont be able to grow ten pounds for our personal consuption. Wah wah wah.

(That was me pretending to be Mr. NO on 19)


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 10, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Take a long hard look at this list of people you are shaming. Barbara Lee, Tom Ammiano, California NORML, marijuana Policy Project. These people have done a great deal for people all over California. All you've ever done is complain. Who the hell are you to shame them?
> 
> You should be embarrassed for shaming Tom Ammiano. He's one of the few politician in the world with balls enough to speak out and fight for cannabis. This reminds me of when Fox news and the republicans started slandering the 9/11 widows who refused to support the Iraq war.
> 
> ...


Dan...I dont really care about how you look to twist things anymore. I can shame whoever the fuck I want to, including you. I personally am tired of all the bullshit and have come to terms with the realities. I think its a horrible idea, and I think the people supporting are horrible people....yes, I said that - I don't fucking care anymore. Stay away from me then, because I can assure you that I will have absolutely nothing nice to say. Until November, and I hope to god that this fails, I might be nicer if that happens. I hope that all these people that have been pushing this piece of shit, with "collectives" like yours, go down in flames, or out in handcuffs. Its fucking criminal what certain elements within the MJ community are willing to do for money, and I hope that someday very fucking soon you will be forced to pay the karmic price for your evil intentions. If you dont like what I say, ignore me. Go the fuck away, forever I hope, when this thing fails. 

I could tolerate taking the rap for "losing out" on 19 - that I could totally live with for the rest of my life.

What I couldn't live with is knowing that I was responsible for ruining (at least) tens of thousands of lives out of avarice.

And for the record A-hole, you and steve cooley say the same thing about 19...."it wont affect medical marijuana." I have learnt well enough not to trust Cooley, and thats enough for me not to trust you.


----------



## budling357 (Oct 10, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> Dan...I dont really care about how you look to twist things anymore. I can shame whoever the fuck I want to, including you. I personally am tired of all the bullshit and have come to terms with the realities. I think its a horrible idea, and I think the people supporting are horrible people....yes, I said that - I don't fucking care anymore. Stay away from me then, because I can assure you that I will have absolutely nothing nice to say. Until November, and I hope to god that this fails, I might be nicer if that happens. I hope that all these people that have been pushing this piece of shit, with "collectives" like yours, go down in flames, or out in handcuffs. Its fucking criminal what certain elements within the MJ community are willing to do for money, and I hope that someday very fucking soon you will be forced to pay the karmic price for your evil intentions. If you dont like what I say, ignore me. Go the fuck away, forever I hope, when this thing fails.
> 
> I could tolerate taking the rap for "losing out" on 19 - that I could totally live with for the rest of my life.
> 
> ...


I bet you voted for Obama. All in in the beginning, but run at the first sign of failure.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 10, 2010)

budling357 said:


> I bet you voted for Obama. All in in the beginning, but run at the first sign of failure.


Funny you say that, I was going to say he's a die hard McCain/Palin supporter.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 10, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> My absolute favorite part of that bullshit letter is where this fucker says 'I can easily picture defending someone with 200 lbs.'
> 
> Shame on:
> 
> ...


You are missing a lot of other supporters and groups, including many retired sheriffs, judges, and feds. Even NORML and Ed Rosenthal are for this law. Am I to believe you are smarter than them? I believe that all of your arguments are based in fear of losing 215 rights. consider this, even if your card was cheap and easy to obtain, there are those that are healthy that will not toss their morals in the trash to take advantage of compassionate use laws. To them, 19 offers an expansion from a zero sq foot garden to a 25 square foot one. It also decriminalizes possession of up to an oz. 

19 is not written to supersede 215. It is written for those that take take advantage of 215. All others opposed to 19 have personal and financial reasons to be so.


----------

