# OMG - They're saying we'll poison children and drive stoned now!



## VWFringe (Oct 30, 2010)

the "experiment" did nothing to show the public what they really want to know: What would responsible adult use look like, and would it change our culture significantly?

but instead of real information they put on a circus, and i wonder why none of the adults chosen to participate did nothing to make it more realistic, like, say waiting before you drive after you smoke, at least 45 minutes? What they wanted to do was paint a picture in the voter's minds and they got the media to walk right along with them as they propagated their agenda of lies and deceit to insure their kids college funds.

and tonight i saw them saying that we'd poison children by "accidently" giving them marijuana candies that weren't labelled correctly. They still cost and arm and a leg, and no one's letting that candy get mixed into the halloween stuff, this is just rediculous and shamefull what they're doing.


----------



## ford442 (Oct 30, 2010)

shooting up weed can be a dangerous habit - serious infections at the injection site as well as resin clogging your heart valves..
it is also bad to get high by sticking a joint in your eye, it hurts and does not get you very stoned..
sometimes trans-gender, welfare taking, immigrant, satanist terrorists sell joints to babies that are really uranium ore and the babies sell that to embryos so that they can get abortions..


----------



## MrStickyScissors (Oct 30, 2010)

all I know is that prop 19 has no chance. even if it does pass the Obama administration will enforce strict federal narcotics laws. thats what they said. and thats gud. prop 19 is a scam for a couple of people to get rich while everyone that made the bizz what it is today will be out of work


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 30, 2010)

Although I voted no, I'm amazed at how bad the ads are against P19.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 30, 2010)

MrStickyScissors said:


> all I know is that prop 19 has no chance. even if it does pass the Obama administration will enforce strict federal narcotics laws. thats what they said. and thats gud. prop 19 is a scam for a couple of people to get rich while everyone that made the bizz what it is today will be out of work


yet another obvious reference to the profiteering that is going on under 215.... "work"? Please.....


----------



## Serapis (Oct 30, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Although I voted no, I'm amazed at how bad the ads are against P19.


And you are now associated with those ads. I hope 19 does fail. Then I hope that California authorities realize the huge abuse taking place under 215 growers and they shut them down. Opppssss, would that piss off the smoking anti 19 peeps? A person with allergies should not be permitted a 99 plant grow. That is just plain ridiculous. If 19 fails, 215 wins as the most abused compassionate use law. That is the ONLY reason a stoner would vote no, because of misbeliefs held that their profit machine will dry up. Pretty sad...


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 30, 2010)

MrStickyScissors said:


> all I know is that prop 19 has no chance. even if it does pass the Obama administration will enforce strict federal narcotics laws. thats what they said. and thats gud. prop 19 is a scam for a couple of people to get rich while everyone that made the bizz what it is today will be out of work



the same hysteria was trying to be created about medical marijuana when 215 passed in 1996, the feds fought back a bit for a few years but eventually realized it is a LOSING battle. 
first of all they simply do not have the resources (meaning funds, and man power) to shut down even a small percentage of the gardens that potentially will start sprouting up as soon as 19 passes.


----------



## MrStickyScissors (Oct 30, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> And you are pretty clueless.
> 
> Take a look at my grow, then think about the fact that the police chief in my city personally APPROVED its size based on facts presented by our doctors. He's arrested hundreds of users, and the above agreement was reached shortly after his SWAT team attempted to rob us, and steal my our plants. Who called the police? A next door neighbor who had ripped us off the year before and was pissed when I installed security.
> 
> ...


central cali? fresno? im out here in modesto


----------



## MrStickyScissors (Oct 30, 2010)

luvourmother said:


> the same hysteria was trying to be created about medical marijuana when 215 passed in 1996, the feds fought back a bit for a few years but eventually realized it is a LOSING battle.
> first of all they simply do not have the resources (meaning funds, and man power) to shut down even a small percentage of the gardens that potentially will start sprouting up as soon as 19 passes.


i some what agree with that


----------



## Kindwoman (Oct 30, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> And you are pretty clueless.
> 
> Take a look at my grow, then think about the fact that the police chief in my city personally APPROVED its size based on facts presented by our doctors. He's arrested hundreds of users, and the above agreement was reached shortly after his SWAT team attempted to rob us, and steal my our plants. Who called the police? A next door neighbor who had ripped us off the year before and was pissed when I installed security.
> 
> ...


I posted a thread almost exactly to yours. It's called - True Story - House Raided - What the cops told me. Only thing is yours has a better ending. Your ripper is gone, mine are still here - and yes - I had to install security cameras too! Anyone who smokes and votes NO - is nothing but a hypocrite. YES ON 19!


----------



## desert dude (Oct 30, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> And you are pretty clueless.
> 
> Take a look at my grow, then think about the fact that the police chief in my city personally APPROVED its size based on facts presented by our doctors. He's arrested hundreds of users, and the above agreement was reached shortly after his SWAT team attempted to rob us, and steal my our plants. Who called the police? A next door neighbor who had ripped us off the year before and was pissed when I installed security.
> 
> ...


Oh, the irony, "...He's arrested hundreds of users,...". You got yours, fuck those "hundreds of users".


----------



## tip top toker (Oct 30, 2010)

With regard to driving high, be realistic, the sheer number of people on this site who vehemently defend toking as they drive. There are certainly a LOT of irresponsible tokers out there


----------



## desert dude (Oct 30, 2010)

tip top toker said:


> With regard to driving high, be realistic, the sheer number of people on this site who vehemently defend toking as they drive. There are certainly a LOT of irresponsible tokers out there


Amen. The cops need a test for current impairment so these guys can be arrested for DUI.


----------



## tip top toker (Oct 30, 2010)

Indeed they do, even if just for our own benefit. There is no doubt that the dangers involved with driving high are not quite the same as those driving drunk (bbc did that documentary where the woman went to amsterdam and smoked lots of weed and they did a test on this)

The difference is not to say that it is therefore not dangerous, i may be able to stop or turn just as fast as if sober, but that's not very useful as i'm cruising down a street at 50mph eyes locked on the buttons of the stereo, i find i get drawn away from the raod and distracted incredibly easily when driving high.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 30, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Maybe you found the language exempting my 300 sq. ft grow?
> 
> Nobody here has posted it, and I've read every reference to such language but never found it.
> 
> ...


*Maybe you found the language exempting my 300 sq. ft grow?

Nobody here has posted it, and I've read every reference to such language but never found it.* 


Here you go, read the whole thing at http://hightimes.com/blog/evan/6681:

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.

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.

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.

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.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 30, 2010)

tip top toker said:


> With regard to driving high, be realistic, the sheer number of people on this site who vehemently defend toking as they drive. There are certainly a LOT of irresponsible tokers out there


I don't defend it. I just choose to maintain my medication at all times. If I get busted, my bad.

If I ever hurt someone, I'll accept my blame, and pay the price.

Nearly all Marijuana related accidents also involve alcohol or other drugs.

I have to use cruise control to stay at 55, otherwise I end up driving 35, which is just right for enjoying the scenery, for me.

Irresponsible I'm not. Just medicated.


----------



## SCARHOLE (Oct 30, 2010)

I remember a Big colloge study of marijuanas effect on driving several years back.
The first group was stoners recruited on campus, they actualy drove better high than sober,
So the test was repeated with first time smokers who drove like they were drunk.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 30, 2010)

tip top toker said:


> Indeed they do, even if just for our own benefit. There is no doubt that the dangers involved with driving high are not quite the same as those driving drunk (bbc did that documentary where the woman went to amsterdam and smoked lots of weed and they did a test on this)
> 
> The difference is not to say that it is therefore not dangerous, i may be able to stop or turn just as fast as if sober, but that's not very useful as i'm cruising down a street at 50mph eyes locked on the buttons of the stereo, i find i get drawn away from the raod and distracted incredibly easily when driving high.


I don't seem to have that problem(distractions), but that has more to do with titration levels. I don't get stoned, but just a slight buzz that dissipates after a little while, while leaving the pain relief for an hour or two. Near bedtime, I use more, which leads to a sedative effect after getting the munchies. About 2 hours from medicating to slumber.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 30, 2010)

SCARHOLE said:


> I remember a Big colloge study of marijuanas effect on driving several years back.
> The first group was stoners recruited on campus, they actualy drove better high than sober,
> So the test was repeated with first time smokers who drove like they were drunk.


Autralia's tests showed the same thing. Experienced tokers are better drivers than those with no intoxicants in their systems.

Drinkers were the worst, of course.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 30, 2010)

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/dot78_1e.htm

"In summary, this program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to the consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a steady lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate where they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small. Still we can easily imagine situations where the influence of marijuana smoking might have an exceedingly dangerous effect; i.e., emergency situations which put high demands on the driver's information processing capacity, prolonged monotonous driving, and after THC has been taken with other drugs, especially alcohol. We therefore agree with Moskowitz' conclusion that "any situation in which safety both for self and others depends upon alertness and capability of control of man-machine interaction precludes the use of marijuana". However, the magnitude of marijuana's, relative to many other drugs', effects also justify Gieringer's (198 conclusion that "marijuana impairment presents a real, but secondary, safety risk; and that alcohol is the leading drug-related accident risk factor". Of the many psychotropic drugs, licit and illicit, that are available and used by people who subsequently drive, marijuana may well be among the least harmful. Campaigns to discourage the use of marijuana by drivers are certainly warranted. But concentrating a campaign on marijuana alone may not be in proportion to the safety problem it causes."


----------



## Serapis (Oct 30, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Maybe you found the language exempting my 300 sq. ft grow?
> 
> Nobody here has posted it, and I've read every reference to such language but never found it.
> 
> Therefore, I voted NO.


You've been shown MANY times the exact fucking wording of prop 19, where it specifically states, IN WRITING, that a specific section (3 of them!!!) did not apply to 215 patients.

For you to sit here today, and claim nobody ever posted any such thing is outright bull shit. That is proof alone, to me, that you have other motives for voting no. Why else would you continue to deny what has been cited in numerous responses to your claims that 19 would take away your 215 rights.

300 square feet? Are you fucking kidding me? And that is a personal medical grow? 

How dare you call someone lazy for not going to a Dr and lying about a condition to get a fucking card. It's your attitude and the attitude of other huge growers that benefit off of 215 that piss me off. Don't even try to tell me that your spouse can personally consume a harvest from a 300 square foot garden. How much are dispensaries paying you for "surpluss"?

you have a 300 square foot garden and would deny those that won't lie to a Dr a 25' foot garden? You are a real winner


----------



## tip top toker (Oct 30, 2010)

It does seem to be quite an arguable subject, on just where the dangers lie and all that lot, but i'm certain that like alcohol, there should be a scale. As you say VG, after a couple tokes, it'll wear off and i'll know i'm still effected, but can operate in life as normal, but turn that into a full joint and it's an extremely different sitaution. Until there is this scale, people need common sense, as i've said, far too many forum users defend toking as they drive to the hilt, it doesn't matter that they can drive, they are not the majority, just 1 person, a lot of people will be effected differently so for safeties sake, some kind of restrictipons need to come into place i think. It would be akin to a tank of an NFL player downing a bottle of wine as if it were candy, and getting into his car sober as a bird. He'd still be way over the technical limit but would argue he is absolutely fine to drive. The limit can not be made on one persons tolerance. 

But it is a tricky one, too little and you're just allowing potential accidents to happen, too much and you're just pissing off innocent people who did not deserve a DUI


----------



## VWFringe (Oct 30, 2010)

I believe the public wants to see what responsible adult marijuana usage looks like, they don't know if it can exist side by side in their picture of the value and culture they want to preserve.

they need good info but the media probably has their hands tied...
can't tell people about how much they're spending, and how it's going to escallate
no one can even suggest ending the war on drugs completely, just to spot the deaths in Mexico (we are somewhat responsible, but people's heads are so far from that kind of strategy, given the spin we're all experiencing)

we could do something about the deaths in Mexico by stopping the war on drugs - maybe that's the next ballot measure we should collect sig's for?


----------



## VWFringe (Oct 30, 2010)

tip top toker said:


> ....The limit can not be made on one persons tolerance. ....


I would suggest that testing how impaired someone really is is the ultimate judgement - can they do the work? that's really all i need to know - if you can't walk a straight line backwards while alternately touching fingers to nose you get to wait a while, or something, but it should be a public health issue, not a criminal one, period. stop the madness.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 30, 2010)

Serapis said:


> You've been shown MANY times the exact fucking wording of prop 19, where it specifically states, IN WRITING, that a specific section (3 of them!!!) did not apply to 215 patients.
> 
> For you to sit here today, and claim nobody ever posted any such thing is outright bull shit. That is proof alone, to me, that you have other motives for voting no. Why else would you continue to deny what has been cited in numerous responses to your claims that 19 would take away your 215 rights.
> 
> ...


You're inability to see why I voted no convinces me that I took the right course.

You'd watch my wife die, happily burning your "legal" joint.

Thanks for confirming my opinion.

You never proved that medical grows are exempt.

All you dide was assure me they are.

Nothing in P19 confirms that.

If it is there, post the exact text, because I'm here to tell you, the language isn't there.

Only you can prove otherwise.

Not my job.


----------



## gupp (Oct 30, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> You're inability to see why I voted no convinces me that I took the right course.
> 
> You'd watch my wife die, happily burning your "legal" joint.
> 
> ...


This again? Look. Where does it say that prop 215 is specifically removed? 


To original topic:

I can think of a lot more harmful things than pot that children and drivers can -and are- exposed to. I accidentally drank beer when I was 5.


----------



## tip top toker (Oct 31, 2010)

VWFringe said:


> I would suggest that testing how impaired someone really is is the ultimate judgement - can they do the work? that's really all i need to know - if you can't walk a straight line backwards while alternately touching fingers to nose you get to wait a while, or something, but it should be a public health issue, not a criminal one, period. stop the madness.


I do very much like the idea of sobriety tests alongside a brethaliser. Think you're right on that.

And 300 square feet for one medical patient, wow, sounds like someone isn't making effective use of their space


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 31, 2010)

tip top toker said:


> I do very much like the idea of sobriety tests alongside a brethaliser. Think you're right on that.
> 
> And 300 square feet for one medical patient, wow, sounds like someone isn't making effective use of their space


That space provides for four heavy users. Take a look at my grow thread, and then remember you've never trimmed a pound of buds.

We consume everything I produce, whether, buds, hash, or butter.

Maybe a little research would improve your understanding of cultivation.

Lesson #1: Growing a wide variety of strains allows patients to switch regularly to maintain effect. Experienced tokers understand that smoking a single variety leads to a tolerance that reduces beneficial effects.

I grew twelve varieties, this year.

Some are not big producers but are valuable for medical purposes.


----------



## VWFringe (Oct 31, 2010)

my 23 square foot lean-to greenhouse yielded only 3.5 oz.
(the sun moved - 4 hrs day, and powdery mildew cut yield by 20-30% otherwise)

only way that size would do anyone for a year is by doing multiple harvests using light dep.

let's start bitchin' about the police and district attorney's offices purposely mis-leading the public, anyone?

we watch TV, and we sympathize or react, but nothing happens, so we are part of their programming, the part that only has to sit there, plugged into the Matrix, which makes us feel better as we toil at our jobs, because this is just a big ant farm, and they want us to feel better while we're working, and not rock the vote, because they know that only the people who are old and make a lot of money vote, and they only care about protecting their slice, but we can vote and must vote and march and protest to get rid of this stupid war on drugs and this stupid prohibition on marijuana....so many people in the government come down on the poor fool who's caught, and they all get paid, so we the people must wrest it from their clammy hands.

but how do we stop them from telling lies about us?

when the police went on TV and said there was a potential public health hazzard due to mis-labeled marijuana edibles, they gave the clear indication once again that edibles are bad, but some people need them, and those patients are adults who do not leave their medication just lying around to get mixed into children's candy - do we need to answer back, or let it ride?

i'm thinking we have to answer back somehow, what do you think?


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 31, 2010)

By now, there are few Americans that don't know that the police are full of shit, regarding pot.

Those that believe their BS believed it long before 215. They're the Mormons, evangelical Christians and far Right Wingers that either look forward to the end of the world, or controlling the peons.

Either way, they should be responded to, clearly and concisely. It is best to make very clear that such silly opinions as theirs are beneath notice by those who actually think.

Obviously, the members of the groups mentioned don't think, or they wouldn't be members of those groups.


----------



## gupp (Oct 31, 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRyLbsW3wZE&feature=player_embedded#at=22


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 31, 2010)

gupp said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRyLbsW3wZE&feature=player_embedded#at=22


I saw that, a couple times, Friday night. Cracked me UP!

Maher must have told him not to hand it to HIM, before the show.

Looked like a small cone joint, to me.

He looked shit faced when he went out there.

LOL!!!


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 31, 2010)

Hmmm...

Memories suddenly flooded in regarding "Smoke Ins" in my youth.

Maybe it is just time to forget about the DEA and FCC and the rest.

Just ignore them, regarding Cannabis.

If we all got serious about our civic duty, we'd attend trials and protests. Politicians start noticing when their constituents start throwing rocks at police cars.

The government still grossly underestimates our numbers.

I believe there are about 80 million users of Cannabis in this country, assuming a minimum usage of once a week.

THAT is a voting block, or an army....


----------



## gupp (Oct 31, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> Memories suddenly flooded in regarding "Smoke Ins" in my youth.
> 
> ...


 i wouldnt recomend this. maybe there are a ton of pot heads....its a voting bloc, not a military junta, or a cartel, or anything else. 

It's your civic duty to vote. Acting violently will not win hearts and minds.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 31, 2010)

I'd rather not see violence, but I've seen violent acts that led to rapid change, when the powers that be were unaware of, or ignored a problem's severity.

One instance involved a group of sheriff's deputies that had taken it upon themselves to abuse younger drivers. One of these officers was found one freezing night, thoroughly beaten up, naked, and handcuffed to his patrol car. The ensuing investigation got that officer fired and several others were punished.

When the justice system becomes unresponsive, something should be done.

One thing that we must do is keep the debate alive.

In truth, people in power are only as good as they're forced to be.


----------



## gupp (Oct 31, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> I'd rather not see violence, but I've seen violent acts that led to rapid change, when the powers that be were unaware of, or ignored a problem's severity.
> 
> One instance involved a group of sheriff's deputies that had taken it upon themselves to abuse younger drivers. One of these officers was found one freezing night, thoroughly beaten up, naked, and handcuffed to his patrol car. The ensuing investigation got that officer fired and several others were punished.
> 
> ...


The justice "system" that you speak of is actually just a group of people-there are no machines making decisions or anything. 

It seems like the situation you mention could have been dealt with better through legal methods- the end result would appear to have been the same, but without violence. 

They're people just like you or me, it should not have come down to that. We are all citizens....we shouldn't ever break it down into "them vs us".


----------



## veggiegardener (Nov 1, 2010)

gupp said:


> The justice "system" that you speak of is actually just a group of people-there are no machines making decisions or anything.
> 
> It seems like the situation you mention could have been dealt with better through legal methods- the end result would appear to have been the same, but without violence.
> 
> They're people just like you or me, it should not have come down to that. We are all citizens....we shouldn't ever break it down into "them vs us".


Tell that to the Jews when the Brown Shirts came around.

The justice system is broke.

One thing I left out of my little story were the numerous complaints ignored by the Sheriff and County supervisors.

They tried to sweep it under the rug.

Things changed when they realized the issue wasn't going to go away.

Most cops(especially those that are promoted) are thugs, and to earn my respect, will have to prove otherwise.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 1, 2010)

Serapis said:


> And you are now associated with those ads. I hope 19 does fail. Then I hope that California authorities realize the huge abuse taking place under 215 growers and they shut them down. Opppssss, would that piss off the smoking anti 19 peeps? A person with allergies should not be permitted a 99 plant grow. That is just plain ridiculous. If 19 fails, 215 wins as the most abused compassionate use law. That is the ONLY reason a stoner would vote no, because of misbeliefs held that their profit machine will dry up. Pretty sad...


who are "they" and where is the "abuse"? 

seems "they" is "you". you are the only one running around screaming abuse to 215. everybody else just calls their DR. it's ok, i was scared at first myself.

so 48% of californians sell pot, eh?


----------



## Kindwoman (Nov 1, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Maybe you found the language exempting my 300 sq. ft grow?
> 
> Nobody here has posted it, and I've read every reference to such language but never found it.
> 
> ...


Ouch! I have my medical marijuana card - I've had it for 6 years. Yes prop 19 is poorly written - as was 215. That's why SB420 was introduced to correct those imperfections. Why can't this also be done with prop 19? It's not perfect, but let's get it passed and work the rest out?

You obviously are a very intelligent individual. I've read prop 19 over and over again and I just can't find anywhere where this proposition will cancel out 215. So I ask (and this is with all respect - really), can you help me find what you see in 19 that I don't.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 1, 2010)

SB420 was over ruled because once a prop is passed it CAN'T be changed without voter approval.

prop 19 can NOT be fixed later. it is what it is.


----------



## veggiegardener (Nov 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> SB420 was over ruled because once a prop is passed it CAN'T be changed without voter approval.
> 
> prop 19 can NOT be fixed later. it is what it is.


And that's the rub.

Few voters understand the legal system well enough to see the dangers built into P19.

They don't understand that an omission can be more damning than a poorly written sentence.

They don't see how Propositions interact with Legislative laws.

The 25 sq. ft. limit is not limited. It applies to everyone, medical or not, without SPECIFIC language exempting us.

It isn't there, regardless of the shill's assurances to the contrary.

No on P19.


----------



## justlearning73 (Nov 1, 2010)

Veggie not trying to be a prick just asking is all. So because it is not to your liking you want to keep it away from eveyone? Now granted i dont live in Cali and havent for almost 37 years. I was born in Conoga Park. I agree prop 19 isnt wrote out the best, but it would make pot legal. Which just like what happened in Cali with 215, if it is made legal it will spread across the states. I would think this is a good thing for our cause. After all dont we want to end prohibition?


----------



## luvourmother (Nov 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> prop 19 can NOT be fixed later. it is what it is.


Wrong!

ABx6 9 is already drafted and waiting to go...

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

dont talk about things you have no idea about.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Nov 1, 2010)

justlearning73 said:


> Veggie not trying to be a prick just asking is all. So because it is not to your liking you want to keep it away from eveyone? Now granted i dont live in Cali and havent for almost 37 years. I was born in Conoga Park. I agree prop 19 isnt wrote out the best, but it would make pot legal. Which just like what happened in Cali with 215, if it is made legal it will spread across the states. I would think this is a good thing for our cause. After all dont we want to end prohibition?


Nothing stops other states from enacting medical cannabis statutes or cannabis decriminalization statutes NOW. It's been 35 years since CA decriminalized possession for non-medical purposes and less than 15 other states have followed suit. Commercialization is never a good thing except for investors and the oligopolistic few to whom the bulk of the industry profits will funnel to.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 1, 2010)

luvourmother said:


> Wrong!
> 
> ABx6 9 is already drafted and waiting to go...
> 
> ...


assembly bills do not over ride propositions. refer to SB420 and the supreme courts ruling.


----------



## justlearning73 (Nov 1, 2010)

Tokin-that is true. The rest of the world is waiting to see what happenes in cali. I just think legal is a good thing over all. Trust me if it was being done in texas I would vote yes. The feds will start to come down on Cali and that would be a good thing in my opion. It gets it out there and we might finally get the Feds to get the hell out of the states buisness. To me the growers voting no, are no better than the cartels and goverment that want to shoot this down. It to me seems to be a freaking money issue. We need to get past this and move on with getting it legal then we can work out specs. Untill then a lot of people go to jail, lawyers, cartels, growers and goverment make money. So so sad.


----------



## veggiegardener (Nov 1, 2010)

luvourmother said:


> Wrong!
> 
> ABx6 9 is already drafted and waiting to go...
> 
> ...


Assembly bills can only make changes where there is no reference in a Proposition.

PERIOD!

Do a little reading.


----------



## veggiegardener (Nov 1, 2010)

justlearning73 said:


> Tokin-that is true. The rest of the world is waiting to see what happenes in cali. I just think legal is a good thing over all. Trust me if it was being done in texas I would vote yes. The feds will start to come down on Cali and that would be a good thing in my opion. It gets it out there and we might finally get the Feds to get the hell out of the states buisness. To me the growers voting no, are no better than the cartels and goverment that want to shoot this down. It to me seems to be a freaking money issue. We need to get past this and move on with getting it legal then we can work out specs. Untill then a lot of people go to jail, lawyers, cartels, growers and goverment make money. So so sad.


So in your view, it's OK if I get screwed, for the greater good?

So, if killing you is for the greater good, you're OK with that? Cannabis has kept my wife alive for over 20 years. Withdrawing it WOULD kill her. I can't provide for her needs, in 25 sq. ft.)

So, NO on P19, because I won't support a Proposition that damages ME and MINE.

There are MANY people out there, like us.

NO on P19.


----------



## justlearning73 (Nov 1, 2010)

Veggie, lets not get over dramitic. So when this was completely illeagal you didnt grow or buy for your wife? What did you do before 215? To answer your question yes I would take a step back for the greater good going forward. As far as I can tell those voting no on prop 19 are no better than the people who first starting the prohibition in the first place, or those that are set to make a profit off prop 19 dieing. Seems like a bunch of stingy, greedy people that think I got mine FU!! The problem with that attitude is that once we are divided we will fall. How long till they come to take away what you have now. If we do not move forward we will fall behind. This makes me very sad to see this.....Veggie please do not take this personal i am not attacking you. You are intitaled to you opinion.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Nov 1, 2010)

justlearning73 said:


> Tokin-that is true. The rest of the world is waiting to see what happenes in cali.


The rest of the world needs to take care of itself and not rely on any one entity to bear the burden of progress. In addition, there are more than enough precedent cases of decriminalization and legalization already, so your argument that the world is just waiting for California to lead the way is fallacious at best.


justlearning73 said:


> I just think legal is a good thing over all.


If this were a legalization bill, it would be a good thing. But it's not. It's a commercialization and regulation bill. We're doing just fine getting rid of existing oppressive criminal cannabis laws, we don't need more.



justlearning73 said:


> Trust me if it was being done in texas I would vote yes. The feds will start to come down on Cali and that would be a good thing in my opion. It gets it out there and we might finally get the Feds to get the hell out of the states buisness.


This doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Especially given the nature and context of the other fucked up worthless propositions on California's ballot being funded by Texas-based interests. If you like the bill so much, please, get it passed in your state and you be the one to challenge the feds on recreational use. You can bear the burden of jail and court battles for once, instead of whining about how hard it is because your state is so backwards. I'm just glad you aren't here to screw up our state, personally.



justlearning73 said:


> To me the growers voting no, are no better than the cartels and goverment that want to shoot this down. It to me seems to be a freaking money issue. We need to get past this and move on with getting it legal then we can work out specs. Untill then a lot of people go to jail, lawyers, cartels, growers and goverment make money. So so sad.


 And to me, the ones getting ready to vote yes despite the fact that they admit there are major flaws in the language and prospective execution of the bill are hypocrites for ostracizing growers for looking out for their personal interests. They're voting yes precisely for their own personal benefit, be it to "finally have their legal grow" or for their own personal false sense of "safety" or because they've actually bought the proponent byline that it's about stopping people from going to jail. Those of you on the outside "watching California" are urging a yes vote for your own selfish reasons in hoping it affects some sort of change that you can't be arsed to put in the effort to gain for yourselves. Prop. 19 doesn't give you anymore opportunity to fight for and/or gain progress in your own state and any assertion otherwise is just an excuse. What's really sad is stoners acting out the damn stereotype in not gaining anything for themselves because it requires effort. We in California have already gotten past the initial hurdles of decriminalization. If you want the same, YOU need to get past this and move on with getting it legal.


----------



## luvourmother (Nov 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> assembly bills do not over ride propositions. refer to SB420 and the supreme courts ruling.


Lesson in Government needed here....

the reason senate bill 420 was overruled is because of the limits it defined were in conflict with 215 (CUA) 

here is how we amend the constitution in CA, pay attention to section 1:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_18

ABX6 9 will not "over ride" 19, it simply amends it and unlike SB420 was with 215, ABX6 9 is not in conflict with 19.


----------



## luvourmother (Nov 1, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Assembly bills can only make changes where there is no reference in a Proposition.
> 
> PERIOD!
> 
> Do a little reading.



which is exactly what ABX6 9 does to prop 19.

what exactly should i be reading that says otherwise?


----------



## Kindwoman (Nov 1, 2010)

VWFringe said:


> the "experiment" did nothing to show the public what they really want to know: What would responsible adult use look like, and would it change our culture significantly?
> 
> but instead of real information they put on a circus, and i wonder why none of the adults chosen to participate did nothing to make it more realistic, like, say waiting before you drive after you smoke, at least 45 minutes? What they wanted to do was paint a picture in the voter's minds and they got the media to walk right along with them as they propagated their agenda of lies and deceit to insure their kids college funds.
> 
> and tonight i saw them saying that we'd poison children by "accidently" giving them marijuana candies that weren't labelled correctly. They still cost and arm and a leg, and no one's letting that candy get mixed into the halloween stuff, this is just rediculous and shamefull what they're doing.


I saw that on Friday. That big dog cop standing over a table full of edibles. I'm sure (without a doubt) that those edibles were confiscated from some poor dispensary owner. Yeah, like I'm going to throw my expensive cookies into some kids bag. Are you kidding me?


----------



## stingmenot (Nov 1, 2010)

So, it's late nite 11-2-10, the results are in, Prop. 19 is defeated 52% to 48. Now what do you think happens? Will everything stay the same in your marijuana universe? Will the conservative "take-back" of america leave medical marijuana alone.?


----------



## beardo (Nov 1, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Although I voted no, I'm amazed at how bad the ads are against P19.


 why didn't they just go through the prop and point out it's flaws, the problems that it could create? I saw some ads and heard debates against 19 and the arguments were retarded refer madness stuff,- teenagers might try marijuana, it's a gateway drug, people will drive high.


----------



## veggiegardener (Nov 1, 2010)

justlearning73 said:


> Veggie, lets not get over dramitic. So when this was completely illeagal you didnt grow or buy for your wife? What did you do before 215? To answer your question yes I would take a step back for the greater good going forward. As far as I can tell those voting no on prop 19 are no better than the people who first starting the prohibition in the first place, or those that are set to make a profit off prop 19 dieing. Seems like a bunch of stingy, greedy people that think I got mine FU!! The problem with that attitude is that once we are divided we will fall. How long till they come to take away what you have now. If we do not move forward we will fall behind. This makes me very sad to see this.....Veggie please do not take this personal i am not attacking you. You are intitaled to you opinion.


Yes, I grew illegally for over a decade.

I DON'T want to go there again, but I should for YOUR sake?

Yes, I have "mine" and I payed a high price for it.

I don't sell because I have enough to deal with without complications.

I know many growers who do sell, and they do a good job providing high quality meds to their friends at far lower prices than can be found in the "compassionate" dispensaries.

Those of us that have been involved for several decades owe nothing to the young stoners claiming we should make sacrifices for "the greater good".

If you get caught, pay your $100 fine and move on.(That's the way it is, in California.

I'm supposed to go to prison(if I am arrested for my 300 sq. ft.) so YOU can avoid a FINE?

I've spent a lot of time over the last month or two, trying to make my issues clear.

I've been accused of all sorts of things.

Whether P19 passes or fails, I'll be growing 300 sq. ft. next year.

BTW, "over dramatic" suggests I'm exaggerating.

Not according my wife's doctors. One wrote her recommendation, and the others are wondering why she's still kicking.


----------



## desert dude (Nov 1, 2010)

stingmenot said:


> So, it's late nite 11-2-10, the results are in, Prop. 19 is defeated 52% to 48. Now what do you think happens? Will everything stay the same in your marijuana universe? Will the conservative "take-back" of america leave medical marijuana alone.?


I think the DEA will make a big fuss, the attorney general will make a big fuss and sputter about "supremacy". Over the next few months the DEA will arrest some people for growing/selling. In other words it will all be pretty much as is it is now.


----------



## justlearning73 (Nov 1, 2010)

Veggie-I was refering to your statement "So, if killing you is for the greater good, you're OK with that?" I mean no offence to you or your wife. I took it the wrong way. I have no idea what your ills are. You are intitled to your opinion. Sorry to have bothered you.


----------



## MrStickyScissors (Nov 2, 2010)

prop 19 isnt going to pass. its behind. mark my fucking words that gay ass prop will not pass. I hate prop 19 with a passion. call me greedy or whatever thats what the fuck I do for a living is grow dank. now I can only grow in a 5x5 lol yeah right


----------



## Dan Kone (Nov 2, 2010)

If prop 19 passes the first thing I'm going to do is get stoned and drive around looking for children to poison.


----------



## MrStickyScissors (Nov 2, 2010)

there we go. I was driving in the wal mart parking lot the other day with my friend and we were high. a couple starting walking in frount of my jeep. If I hit one I told my friend I would get out of the car and tell everyone I was stoned. at least sumthing gud would come out of it. no on prop 19


----------



## vradd (Nov 2, 2010)

yea what? attempted man slaughter? then be a lil bitch cop out and *blaim* it on pot??/


lmao well when it passes' i hope you built up a nice savings account with all your revenue. because now you will have to look for a real job.


----------



## veggiegardener (Nov 2, 2010)

vradd said:


> yea what? attempted man slaughter? then be a lil bitch cop out and *blaim* it on pot??/
> 
> 
> lmao well when it passes' i hope you built up a nice savings account with all your revenue. because now you will have to look for a real job.


And if it fails, there goes your business plan.

Too bad. So sad.


----------



## justlearning73 (Nov 2, 2010)

You know I could see the bickering and fighting betweern "us" and the man. but instead we are all fighting amongest ourselves. So looks like the man wins. So sad. All over a plant. The feds must be laughing their ass off at us. Looks like they will pull off keeping the plant illeagal if we cant all come together and work together.


----------



## veggiegardener (Nov 2, 2010)

It isn't illegal in California.

You just need to follow the law.

MMJ has become far more liberal than Prop 19 would be. I view P19 as a step back.

With just a few differences, it would have been acceptable, but those differences are a deal breaker.


----------



## justlearning73 (Nov 2, 2010)

LOL not illegal in Cali, brother i got news for you it is illegal in all of the US due to federal law. Heck even in Cali it is decrimmalized, not legal........


----------



## veggiegardener (Nov 2, 2010)

justlearning73 said:


> LOL not illegal in Cali, brother i got news for you it is illegal in all of the US due to federal law. Heck even in Cali it is decrimmalized, not legal........


How about joining those of us who have a grasp of reality?

Playing the Federal card makes ALL Marijuana cultivation, trafficking and use, illegal. P19 in no way changes this. You think it will send a message? I think the message is, the DEA will be hiring lots of new agents. Prosperity for Federal employees!

MMJ provided a way to get Cannabis to those who need it, while allowing the Feds to somewhat save face.

After losing dozens of expensive court cases in California, they've pretty much laid off the patients, and only prosecuted where there was evidence of illegal sales, or massive grows, like the one in South Humboldt, as couple years ago.

Are you in California?


----------



## vradd (Nov 2, 2010)

business plan? hahah dude get a life. i dont care to make money off something we should ALL be allowed to use. your quick to preach about constitutional rights yet you dont want anyone else to have it. that we should all have to register with a card to smoke pot. 

and i agree prop 19 will lose because we are arguing with each other, the *man* doesnt have to put work into it because they know those hillybilly farmers will do all the arguing for them. hahah 

and your arguement about getting a card and taxing, dude their is NOT one product produced in america that isnt taxed. id preach for everyone to get a card as well since it does in many ways seem safer, EXCEPT! how can you claim *medical* and *black market prices* in the same sentence? maybe if you hillybilly growers would stop trying to make 1000% profit off everyone and scale it down to 500% profit you'd still afford all your nice stuff AND everyone will be allowed to smoke freely. 

THEN you wouldnt have crooks stealing your crop hahaha.


----------



## veggiegardener (Nov 2, 2010)

vradd said:


> business plan? hahah dude get a life. i dont care to make money off something we should ALL be allowed to use. your quick to preach about constitutional rights yet you dont want anyone else to have it. that we should all have to register with a card to smoke pot.
> 
> and i agree prop 19 will lose because we are arguing with each other, the *man* doesnt have to put work into it because they know those hillybilly farmers will do all the arguing for them. hahah
> 
> ...


Obviously, you haven't read what I've written.

Grow up.

You sound desperate.

Call Richard Lee and ask HIM why he wants to eliminate medical grows.

Maybe you'll learn something.

YFI

P.S.

You are now ignored as are others that have nothing to back up their BS. Not worth the time to read.


----------



## Serapis (Nov 2, 2010)

Wow, I'd hardly say that he sounded desperate or childish, he actually made good points. You talk about people not being able to back up BS, that sounds perfctly like yourself. I've read you state before that people should just go see a Dr and get a card.... I take issue with that, as I'm sure many recreational users will. Why should anyone go get a 215 card when they have no medical reason to? Just because many others have? Some don't see any abuse in the 215 system, yet you actually encourage it.

Amazing....


----------



## vradd (Nov 2, 2010)

obviously u failed at education, CA is a capitalism country. land of opportunity. your not a very humane person ya know that... u want all the benefits to yourself. you dont care about society, as long as you get yours thats all that matters to you. your a disgusting human being. well as i told the other guy, i hope you have started a savings plan just in case this pass's. with all the money you have made you should still BE set on an early retirement.


----------



## sk'mo (Nov 2, 2010)

Don't American DUI laws include prescription drugs?

It's nice that you'd accept responsibility for your actions, but I think the person on the receiving end of that choice would have a different view.

Medicated, sure. Irresponsible nonetheless.


----------



## justlearning73 (Nov 2, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> How about joining those of us who have a grasp of reality?
> 
> Playing the Federal card makes ALL Marijuana cultivation, trafficking and use, illegal. P19 in no way changes this. You think it will send a message? I think the message is, the DEA will be hiring lots of new agents. Prosperity for Federal employees!
> 
> ...


I was born in Conoga Park Ca, but no i do not live there now. I know P19 will not change Fed law. So basicly you are stating by the above statement that you believe only those that have a medical need for pot should have access to it? The fight is over now? Trust me I have nothing against those that need it. But i dont think the fight is over yet. And No Cali you are not alone, there have been people standing up in there states to get similar bills passed for the meds. Like it or not though Cali is the place to look on this subject. I am proud of my brothers and sisters who have stood up to fight the feds in ALL states. But the fight is not over till it is legal for all. I think sometimes we loose sight of the over all goal and foreget.


----------



## TreeOfLiberty (Nov 2, 2010)

It's sad how most growers and sellers in California that are against Prop.19 are against it out of greed for the dollar. Prop.19 passing will have a positive effect on the entire nation. Other state's politicians will take notice, and more people in other states will start stronger pro-legalization and pro-mmj movements. I'm looking at Prop.19 as a small tidal wave that turns into a giant tsunami creating a vast movement that sweeps from the coast of California reaching all the way to the coast of New York city's coastline.

Dispensaries want to keep those $350 ounces going, damn the movement huh? I'd rather see what benefit's WE THE PEOPLE, not greedy growers intent on keeping prices set averaging $350 ounces. Prop.19 will speed both the MMJ and legalization efforts in other states. It's a catalyst for positive change. Prop.19 isn't perfect but it's a step towards something better for the rest of the nation. I hope I live long enough to see 1 out of every 5 households in the nation have a grow room. FREE THE HERB ! and set aside selfishness for the benefit of the nation. Empty the freakin jails ! 

Ed Rosenthal had this to say about it>

I've been working for legalization for 35 years and this is the first chance that I'll have to vote on it. I've waited all this time for the legislature or the federal government to change the laws, but they never did. The most we got was decriminalization. You can't depend on the legislature. They have had their chance. Sorry about Obama, but you can't count on him either. It was only Dennis Peron and the many people he inspired to work on Prop 215 that made medical marijuana legal in California in 1996. Now we have to make all use legal. 

Whether you like Prop 19 or not, whether it is the best initiative or not, whether or not it meets your particular standard really doesn&#8217;t matter. Tax and regulate is about legalization. We cannot let this lose. We owe legalization to the world because after California legalizes many other states will follow. Whatever happens in California travels to the rest of the world. California has had good and bad things to offer. Reagan: that&#8217;s a bad thing. Legalizing medical marijuana: that&#8217;s a great thing. Now California has a chance to do another great thing: Legalize It. 

How can anybody think that they might vote no? Are these the American colonists who sided with the British? Can you imagine saying to a friend, &#8220;You know, I had a chance to vote for legal marijuana, but I voted no.&#8221; Would you vote yourself into slavery? That isn't a light analogy, because we live in a police state, and one of the ways the police enforce their power is this noxious law, the law against marijuana. Every marijuana user owes it to themselves and their friends and to their fellow marijuana users to vote and convince everyone else around them to vote Yes on 19 on Nov. 2.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 2, 2010)

wow, reagan, slavery, police state .....


----------



## vradd (Nov 2, 2010)

i like FDD.... at least he admits hes in it for the money and not hiding behind sick relatives in order to grow and make profit.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 2, 2010)

vradd said:


> i like FDD.... at least he admits hes in it for the money and not hiding behind sick relatives in order to grow and make profit.


i get money either way. i really don't know why everyone is making an issue of that. it's not about money to me. if it passes more people buy weed, if it doesn't i'm still sitting right where i'm sitting. i think the real "greedy dealers" actually want it to pass. if you think about it logically. and i'll simply get a "real job" growing pot at the pot farm. 

wanna see my x-ray?


----------



## beardo (Nov 2, 2010)

vradd said:


> business plan? hahah dude get a life. i dont care to make money off something we should ALL be allowed to use. your quick to preach about constitutional rights yet you dont want anyone else to have it. that we should all have to register with a card to smoke pot.
> 
> and i agree prop 19 will lose because we are arguing with each other, the *man* doesnt have to put work into it because they know those hillybilly farmers will do all the arguing for them. hahah
> 
> ...


you obviously have no idea what you are talking about- peanuts for 1 are not taxed- marijuana is a medicine, medicine is not taxed, marijuana is a food, foods are not taxed. You are wrong. vote no on tax and controll


----------



## beardo (Nov 2, 2010)

vradd said:


> obviously u failed at education, CA is a capitalism country. land of opportunity. your not a very humane person ya know that... u want all the benefits to yourself. you dont care about society, as long as you get yours thats all that matters to you. your a disgusting human being. well as i told the other guy, i hope you have started a savings plan just in case this pass's. with all the money you have made you should still BE set on an early retirement.


From someone who does not know the difrence between a state and a country......


----------



## vradd (Nov 2, 2010)

food isnt taxed? lol dude next time u go grocery shopping look at your recipte. you are being taxed by the state. your right the food itself is not, but the process for you to get it is.

and yea i noticed that CA/country thing lol... oh well dont think to much of it simple typo.

and yea FDD, id welcome you with arms wide open if you wanted to make your role legit. especially if your shits as good as u claim, then you'd for sure continue to have a stable income.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 2, 2010)

vradd said:


> food isnt taxed? lol dude next time u go grocery shopping look at your recipte. you are being taxed by the state. your right the food itself is not, but the process for you to get it is.
> 
> and yea i noticed that CA/country thing lol... oh well dont think to much of it simple typo.
> 
> and yea FDD, id welcome you with arms wide open if you wanted to make your role legit. especially if your shits as good as u claim, then you'd for sure continue to have a stable income.


i NEVER make any claims about my own stuff. i simply post pics.


----------



## beardo (Nov 2, 2010)

vradd said:


> food isnt taxed? lol dude next time u go grocery shopping look at your recipte. you are being taxed by the state. your right the food itself is not, but the process for you to get it is.
> 
> and yea i noticed that CA/country thing lol... oh well dont think to much of it simple typo.
> 
> and yea FDD, id welcome you with arms wide open if you wanted to make your role legit. especially if your shits as good as u claim, then you'd for sure continue to have a stable income.


either your grocery store is ripping you off or you can't read. hot prepaired food is taxed-like a mcdonalds 99 cent burger they add tax...if you buy hamburger and buns and ketchup and cheese from a grocery store their is 0% tax -state and federal


----------



## justlearning73 (Nov 2, 2010)

proccessed foods are taxed as well as foods for consumpion now, raw foods are not.


----------



## beardo (Nov 2, 2010)

justlearning73 said:


> proccessed foods are taxed as well as foods for consumpion now, raw foods are not.


 proccessed foods like doritos or spam are not taxed-prepaired foods are like a rotesserie chicken hot and ready to eat from the deli would be taxed


----------



## vradd (Nov 2, 2010)

well explain the tax on your recipe.


----------



## beardo (Nov 2, 2010)

vradd said:


> well explain the tax on your recipe.


 ? before you were making stuff up and now you are not making sense. Food crops are not taxed, foods are not taxed, pescription medication is not taxed. prop 19 is a recipe for tax and it is certianly not my recipe


----------



## MrStickyScissors (Nov 2, 2010)

what it comes down to is weed shouldnt be illegal. just like alcohol. I think weed has a different affect on sum people and most can handle a little alcohol when sum cant handle two hits off a joint. still the same anyone of age should be able to smoke weed. the fucked up part is that others like myself will be limited to a smaller grow area out of pure greed of a few people. I think if its legal we should all be able to grow as much as we want in a controlled environment and have an equal opportunity at selling our product. If you dont want it from me then fuck it thats fair. But no they want you to run out they want you to have to go to them for it in the long run and only them. thats sum str8 bullshit if you ask me. I have 4 kids and thats how I support them. and you say get a real job. shit its more work than a real job if your growing anything worth a damn. you go ahead and work for a half a gram a hour sumwhere. after taxes a fucking bowl load. lol gud luck


----------



## tip top toker (Nov 5, 2010)

Us killing our kids with weed sweets? Who gives a damn about weed sweets, i just went to tesco and bought a 1.25KG tub of hard bioled sweets, lollies etc, reduced from £10 to £2.50, omfg, if i had gotten hold of a tub like that for that price when i was a kid, i'd have bought many tubs and it would be gone within a few days. Heaven help them


----------

