# Vote NO on prop 19... (great read for anyone that will be voting in november in cali)



## sm0keyrich510 (Jul 18, 2010)

before you give me hell at least read the info...for those w/ short attention spans go straight to the myths/facts of prop 19... (scroll down) http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html

very good read...for those that think its gonna be cheaper..or put an end to a drug war/drug crimes then you are sadly mistaken...

just read it...too much to explain.

i feel as if the whole "vote yes on 19" was just people hopping on board when they heard legal...and...weed in the same sentance....didnt bother to read the fine print.

rather than end all these problems and make it legal and open to a more "fair" market its going to actually become less competitive...prop 215 patients WILL be ruined by this.

read and lets have a great thread...





i might not be popular right now by taking the NO position on this one but someone please sticky until after election day...i think these points are valid with good sources...

thank you.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 18, 2010)

Quite possibly one of the best pieces written on this subject to-date. Thank you for linking this.


----------



## GanjaAL (Jul 19, 2010)

So like I have said many times in light of Mr Lee's business dealings... it was never about legalization but a furtherance of his business plan and the MMJ laws will suffer for it.


----------



## sm0keyrich510 (Jul 19, 2010)

thank god someone is on my side. i tried opposing this here before and i got all kinds of bad responses from people...

most of it just calling me a "drug dealer" or whatnot...


if you ask me the businessmen involved here (the ones that stand to gain from this) are the real dealers...in essence this is going to force the people to buy from big business. with a fee of $200,000+ for a license to sell marijuana thats insane...an alcohol license isnt even close to this...this is intended simply for the rich to get rich and the poor to stay that way.

there will NOT be any $39 oz's available should this get voted in...otherwise that high price for a license doesn't seem worth it anymore.

big business is going to rake in the $ and pretty much make it a monopoly...how can you compete as an individual if you have to pay $200k just to get in the game?

as stated in that article this is all just a magic trick...i really believe so...they just tossed out a $39 per oz figure to get the smokers excited and trick them into voting (they probably assumed no one would actually read prop 19 if they knew voting yes means its legal)...it states that its illegal to purchase from anyone who is NOT licensed to grow it...and the penalty for getting caught 18-20 with possession of less than an oz is greater than it is now...from a $100 fine to $1000...

just a shame...and if its legal why are we only allowed a 5x5 area and 1 oz of dried bud? clearly many will be in violation of the law after their harvest...who cant get more than an oz in a 5x5 area? 

its just a trick.


----------



## whiteflour (Jul 19, 2010)

sm0keyrich510 said:


> thank god someone is on my side. i tried opposing this here before and i got all kinds of bad responses from people...
> 
> most of it just calling me a "drug dealer" or whatnot...
> 
> ...


I call it stoner math. It all adds up if you just don't do the math.


----------



## sm0keyrich510 (Jul 19, 2010)

whiteflour said:


> I call it stoner math. It all adds up if you just don't do the math.


did you not read the article? please read it carefully before telling me i dont know what im talking about...i been preaching this forever it seems like...i presented you with a link containing not OPINIONS...but FACTS...w/ sources...

what more do you want?

you think its just hype? well its not...read it over 1st...and if you still dont think it makes sense then i dont know what to tell you.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 19, 2010)

sm0keyrich510 said:


> did you not read the article? please read it carefully before telling me i dont know what im talking about...i been preaching this forever it seems like...i presented you with a link containing not OPINIONS...but FACTS...w/ sources...
> 
> what more do you want?
> 
> you think its just hype? well its not...read it over 1st...and if you still dont think it makes sense then i dont know what to tell you.


Don't waste your breath, mate. That loser has already asserted in another thread that he's only in CA to exploit the medical laws and plans on moving as soon as he's able. As I've continued to assert for months, the only ones who want this bill either stand to profit from it or think that they will. Collaborators and patsies, all. Keep on keepin' on, mate.


----------



## sm0keyrich510 (Jul 19, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Don't waste your breath, mate. That loser has already asserted in another thread that he's only in CA to exploit the medical laws and plans on moving as soon as he's able. As I've continued to assert for months, the only ones who want this bill either stand to profit from it or think that they will. Collaborators and patsies, all. Keep on keepin' on, mate.


you guys should go over to grasscity then because im having a hell of a time with some of them...i honestly didnt care much about prop 19 when i first heard about it...its only once i truly understood what prop 19 would mean for everyone...its really kinda twisted if you ask me...this is a smooth fast one they are trying to pull here...the only ones that stand to benefit are big business, the government/state, and the junkies if you ask me...

those who truly appreciate marijuana are screwed...

the law is written up so that you'll break it easily...


a 5x5 grow space but only 1 oz of dry bud...and it says that you can only buy from a place that sells marijuana (ie the big businesses that can afford $30K-$200K licenses)...AND you CANNOT sell or buy marijuana from ANYONE other than the businesses...why do you suppose that is? 

because its set up to where we are at the mercy of big business...we HAVE to pay whatever they charge...period...with the cost of the license that high you will NOT see $39 oz's...period...why? there wont be enough competition to force them to drop their prices...at least now you can just go to another dealer...with this you HAVE to buy their weed at THEIR prices
same thing

so i know those who support 19 will say, "just grow your own...you're allowed a 5x5 space if you dont want to pay those prices if they are high or its not good quality marijuana"...

well...ok...heres the problems with this:

1) you are only allowed 1oz of bud at a time...(so basically you'll have to buy at least SOME of your marijuana from a business...if you could only harvest 1 oz at a time you would have to buy some at some point unless you RARELY smoke...but an oz lasting 3 months is asking a lot of your average smoker)

2) you are allowed a 5x5 space...you're obviously gonna grow more than 1 oz in a 5x5 space...so at harvest many would be breaking the law right off the bat.


not to mention all the other messed things about this measure...it needs to get shut down...seriously...vote no ppl...

and thank you to anyone on my side finally..haha


----------



## EmptyWords (Jul 19, 2010)

very good read. i am not from cali but i have been getting annoyed hearing people talk about voting yes in November and not having a clue what they are voting on. The sad thing is the majority of voters will never see this article or even get facts about this law and just vote yes because all they want is legalized marijuana. They will soon find out that it was not what they thought and the law cannot be reversed and they have no one to blame but themselves, but they will though, and they will complain etc but if they didnt take the time to understand the law then they have nothing to complain about because they are the lazy idiots that made this law pass. I hope this law does not pass and maybe one day see a "real" legalization law go into effect but it will take a long time. Thanks for posting this article. +rep


----------



## dababydroman (Jul 19, 2010)

im not from cali but id vote no. because im guna grow regardless of the law. and thats how we will change the law.


----------



## sm0keyrich510 (Jul 19, 2010)

EmptyWords said:


> very good read. i am not from cali but i have been getting annoyed hearing people talk about voting yes in November and not having a clue what they are voting on. The sad thing is the majority of voters will never see this article or even get facts about this law and just vote yes because all they want is legalized marijuana. They will soon find out that it was not what they thought and the law cannot be reversed and they have no one to blame but themselves, but they will though, and they will complain etc but if they didnt take the time to understand the law then they have nothing to complain about because they are the lazy idiots that made this law pass. I hope this law does not pass and maybe one day see a "real" legalization law go into effect but it will take a long time. Thanks for posting this article. +rep


thats what i been trying to get people to understand but the main response i receive is pretty much, "i dont care. im voting yes. i want legal weed" but they dont care at what cost it comes...theres no point in legalizing it if we go a step backwards.

im really hoping by november people understand whats going on...right now the yes v. no on prop 19 is pretty much split...hopefully this isn't neck & neck all the way till the end because it would honestly be a sad day in california if it became legal under these guidelines...too much room for error and too many ways to take advantage of this or be in violation of the laws (even if unintended)


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 19, 2010)

This would be more of a giant leap backwards. There will always be those who are ready to capitulate to whoever they have to just to feel safe. And they'd throw anyone and everyone they must to the lions to guarantee their piece of the pie. All we can do is keep fighting and passing the word.


----------



## whiteflour (Jul 19, 2010)

sm0keyrich510 said:


> did you not read the article? please read it carefully before telling me i dont know what im talking about...i been preaching this forever it seems like...i presented you with a link containing not OPINIONS...but FACTS...w/ sources...
> 
> what more do you want?
> 
> you think its just hype? well its not...read it over 1st...and if you still dont think it makes sense then i dont know what to tell you.


Dude, I was agreeing with you. The math in the bill is "fuzzy". I'll be voting NO so long as North Carolina doesn't get MMJ on the ballot this year. If so I'll be absentee voting there.



TokinPodPilot said:


> Don't waste your breath, mate. That loser has already asserted in another thread that he's only in CA to exploit the medical laws and plans on moving as soon as he's able. As I've continued to assert for months, the only ones who want this bill either stand to profit from it or think that they will. Collaborators and patsies, all. Keep on keepin' on, mate.


This guy has no clue. I do plan to move because I can't afford to stay, and why not I have a home and family on the east coast, in a state soon to get MMJ. Idiot.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 19, 2010)

From this thread: https://www.rollitup.org/california-patients/350013-prop-19-will-supercede-amend.html



whiteflour said:


> Because NORML is a non-profit organization. Funded by donations. Donations which come from those who currently and stand to make the most money for this. Corporate lobbying.





TokinPodPilot said:


> http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html
> 
> The real reason NORMAL, the MPP and anyone with three working brain cells oppose this stupid bill. The rest are the ones who stand to profit from corporatization and those whom are happily the Kool-Aid being handed out by Dick Lee.





whiteflour said:


> Sorry. I never bothered to see what NORML's view was. I'm glad they weren't paid off and have a clue.


Try again.


----------



## whiteflour (Jul 19, 2010)

Exactly. I was explaining "corporate lobbying" .... I had never looked at NORML's position on this. I've never liked this bill from the second I read it. Unlike most people I usually don't bother with politics unless its something I feel passionately about. I'd rather abstain than vote for the wrong thing. This one I KNOW is bad.


----------



## boofin (Jul 20, 2010)

Allow mw to play Devils Advocate here... I read this article and have a few thoughts of my own

First of all, I am against big business in any form, I refuse to shop at Walmarx, I like to buy groceries from the farmers market etc... So I am opposed to the bill in the standpoint that BIG business would be the only business to afford the Lic fee. However, I feel that $200K is a large price to pay up front but i think that with an adequate business plan and a loan for about $300K you could have a BOOMING business and have that paid off with short order. I think it is important to realize that this is more than an bill to "legalize it". This is a plan to make the plants accessable to adults while generating revenue for the state (it always comes back to teh $)___ I agree that in a utopian world all would be legal etc etc etc. Lets face the facts, $ makes the world go around and this bill is a means to make MJ accessable to every adult without abusing the medicinal system already in place ( i feel that this is important for the rest of teh US where some patients are not allowed access to medicine, but I digress )

#s 2 and 3
Use around minors, Yes the law states "..." and we need to keep MJ away from children until they have matured both physically and developmentally. ( I can discuss this in great detail if anybody would like... I worked inpatient rehab for quite some time). Also, I believe that it is correct to prosecute adults who contribute to the delinquency of minors. Plus this is going to be rather difficult to; a) enforce this statute and b) prosecute said statute

Myth 4: That is pretty much BS IMO- it all comes back to making $, this means you will have little choice but to visit a local shop

Myth 5: "And if you do buy from a licensed dispensary, better keep your receipts, because the burden of proof will be on you". Utter BS, the burden of proof has been and always will be on the prosecution. Prove that I didnt buy from the state

Myth 7: Where are you getting this information? (im not being cocky, i didnt find it and am not motivated to go read through all of that again)

Myths 8-9: Once again, suggestive language but only to the fact that $200K is too expensive for everybody. I have discussed the earlier....

I have some stuff to do so I can come back and finish this later if need be but I think i get my point across. Yes, this is an underhanded law but the result is adults will be able to have MJ and it will decrease the abuse of the medical system (which is hurting patients elsewhere). It is a system that will generate revenue and it is a step in the right direction. MMJ Patients will be unaffected (no matter what the new law states, they still have the MMJ law to back them up). Those who wish to continue to fight the system and remain rogue will be just doing whatever it is they do now, but with less strings for LEO follow (any adult will be able to buy seeds, clones and grow supplies without scrutiny). Your local guy who cant afford the $ will still be able to do his thing, you can still go see him and if you get stopped with an Oz or less, well I just hope youre not driving and baked 

Look guys and girls. I truly believe in my heart of hearts that anybody should be allowed to grow whatever plants they choose, in a free country we should be free. 

Rome wasnt built in a day


----------



## whiteflour (Jul 20, 2010)

The result is a detriment to the cause. They are simply playing off the fact you all think this will be "legal". It won't be anymore legal than it is now. For those of us that have a medical card it will be worse, so guess what? We won't be buying them. So you won't be getting any more weed. We'll be sitting at home growing for ourself while you're still buying $400/zips and $50/shwag. 

This market will be determined by the black market price, not the market price. The market supply will go down, and the black market will go up. This will have an opposite effect than what you think, and it will make bullshit weed more prevalent. Taxes on end goods are never for the consumers benefit, taxes on services are. Who's providing a service here? They want me to buy goods.


----------



## boofin (Jul 20, 2010)

I fail to see how this would make MJ any less legal. If anything it takes away the abuse of the healthcare system. I see MASSIVE issues with people abusing prescribed medication. Someone goign and gettign a Rx for MMJ just so they can "get high" is no different than someone goign and faking back pain to get narcotic meds to "get high". The MMJ grower/patient will still be covered by the existing MMJ laws. Nothing will change for them

At risk of flaming here ( I am really not trying to induce flaming ). It seems to me that the major issue at hand from the post is that it would cost $200K for the license to sell cultivate and distribute MJ. This is very costly and will push out the "little guy" (in the legal distribution arena anyway). It is set up so that those with money can monopolize the market and do whatever they please. I am not a fan of this either. I dislike big business in every way I could possible say. But for those people who enjoy MJ and would like to use it recreationally, this is a great jumping off point.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 20, 2010)

boofin said:


> I fail to see how this would make MJ any less legal. If anything it takes away the abuse of the healthcare system. I see MASSIVE issues with people abusing prescribed medication. Someone goign and gettign a Rx for MMJ just so they can "get high" is no different than someone goign and faking back pain to get narcotic meds to "get high". The MMJ grower/patient will still be covered by the existing MMJ laws. Nothing will change for them
> 
> At risk of flaming here ( I am really not trying to induce flaming ). It seems to me that the major issue at hand from the post is that it would cost $200K for the license to sell cultivate and distribute MJ. This is very costly and will push out the "little guy" (in the legal distribution arena anyway). It is set up so that those with money can monopolize the market and do whatever they please. I am not a fan of this either. I dislike big business in every way I could possible say. But for those people who enjoy MJ and would like to use it recreationally, this is a great jumping off point.


You fail indeed. For one, there isn't an abuse of the healthcare system or even of the medical marijuana program. Prop 215 was purposely written so that ANYONE, with the concurrence of a medical provider, could benefit from medical cannabis. Not just certain classes of sick people.... all people. This really needs to be understood. The intent of Prop 215 isn't being wrongfully exploited, it's being effectively utilized. If it makes your life better and your/a doctor agrees, you get a recommendation, not a prescription. And as an underground industry, I think we as growers have done a pretty damn good job of showing how an industry can work when comprised of small and medium entities and not commoditized. We've done a fair amount to inject life into the communities where we live and grow and have had to do so under some pretty damn heavy legal artillery fire. This bill has nothing to protect growers, patients, or even recreational users. Just restrictions and a whole lot of ambiguous language that is easily misinterpreted by law enforcement and or local government.

Honest growers and members of the cannabis community are more than willing to pay our fair share of the economic load. In fact, we have done so. Sales tax, business licenses, gods only know how much in legal and court fees, building services, basic living fees, hiring temporary or full-time help, property rentals... the list goes on. All of it legitimate stuff made illegitimate just because it's cannabis-related. 

And for those that would like to use it recreationally...

http://www.oaklandnorml.org/cms/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=488

If you want real progress, then talk to these people. The one thing that no one can deny is that Prop 19 does set up a fair number of circumstances and regulations regarding not only the possession of cannabis, but also the how and where of your cannabis use. What the proponents of the bill don't want you to know is that under current law, the same ounce everyone is drooling over suddenly being able to have is currently only a misdemeanor(soon to be infraction.... c'mon Ammiano, don't fail us, now) and a relatively minor $100 slap on the wrist fee. No rules on where you got your pot from or where you consumed it outside of the normal rules of civilized society (no public drunk and disorderly, obviously). Prop 19 is a jumping off point to greater Prohibition and more arrests.


----------



## sm0keyrich510 (Jul 21, 2010)

............


whiteflour said:


> The result is a detriment to the cause. They are simply playing off the fact you all think this will be "legal". It won't be anymore legal than it is now. For those of us that have a medical card it will be worse, so guess what? We won't be buying them. So you won't be getting any more weed. We'll be sitting at home growing for ourself while you're still buying $400/zips and $50/shwag.
> 
> This market will be determined by the black market price, not the market price. The market supply will go down, and the black market will go up. This will have an opposite effect than what you think, and it will make bullshit weed more prevalent. Taxes on end goods are never for the consumers benefit, taxes on services are. Who's providing a service here? They want me to buy goods.





boofin said:


> Allow mw to play Devils Advocate here... I read this article and have a few thoughts of my own
> 
> First of all, I am against big business in any form, I refuse to shop at Walmarx, I like to buy groceries from the farmers market etc... So I am opposed to the bill in the standpoint that BIG business would be the only business to afford the Lic fee. However, I feel that $200K is a large price to pay up front but i think that with an adequate business plan and a loan for about $300K you could have a BOOMING business and have that paid off with short order. I think it is important to realize that this is more than an bill to "legalize it". This is a plan to make the plants accessable to adults while generating revenue for the state (it always comes back to teh $)___ I agree that in a utopian world all would be legal etc etc etc. Lets face the facts, $ makes the world go around and this bill is a means to make MJ accessable to every adult without abusing the medicinal system already in place ( i feel that this is important for the rest of teh US where some patients are not allowed access to medicine, but I digress )
> 
> ...





boofin said:


> I fail to see how this would make MJ any less legal. If anything it takes away the abuse of the healthcare system. I see MASSIVE issues with people abusing prescribed medication. Someone goign and gettign a Rx for MMJ just so they can "get high" is no different than someone goign and faking back pain to get narcotic meds to "get high". The MMJ grower/patient will still be covered by the existing MMJ laws. Nothing will change for them
> 
> At risk of flaming here ( I am really not trying to induce flaming ). It seems to me that the major issue at hand from the post is that it would cost $200K for the license to sell cultivate and distribute MJ. This is very costly and will push out the "little guy" (in the legal distribution arena anyway). It is set up so that those with money can monopolize the market and do whatever they please. I am not a fan of this either. I dislike big business in every way I could possible say. But for those people who enjoy MJ and would like to use it recreationally, this is a great jumping off point.





TokinPodPilot said:


> You fail indeed. For one, there isn't an abuse of the healthcare system or even of the medical marijuana program. Prop 215 was purposely written so that ANYONE, with the concurrence of a medical provider, could benefit from medical cannabis. Not just certain classes of sick people.... all people. This really needs to be understood. The intent of Prop 215 isn't being wrongfully exploited, it's being effectively utilized. If it makes your life better and your/a doctor agrees, you get a recommendation, not a prescription. And as an underground industry, I think we as growers have done a pretty damn good job of showing how an industry can work when comprised of small and medium entities and not commoditized. We've done a fair amount to inject life into the communities where we live and grow and have had to do so under some pretty damn heavy legal artillery fire. This bill has nothing to protect growers, patients, or even recreational users. Just restrictions and a whole lot of ambiguous language that is easily misinterpreted by law enforcement and or local government.
> 
> Honest growers and members of the cannabis community are more than willing to pay our fair share of the economic load. In fact, we have done so. Sales tax, business licenses, gods only know how much in legal and court fees, building services, basic living fees, hiring temporary or full-time help, property rentals... the list goes on. All of it legitimate stuff made illegitimate just because it's cannabis-related.
> 
> ...


----------



## Indi (Jul 22, 2010)

Don't vote No. Vote YES! And read this to get the truth about Prop 19 http://legalizemarijuana.tumblr.com/


----------



## ford442 (Jul 22, 2010)

Marc Emery - 
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2010/06/05/Why-You-Should-Vote-YES-California-Control-Tax-Cannabis-Initiative

Tom Ammiano - 
http://blog.norml.org/2010/07/01/california-assemblyman-explains-why-he-is-voting-yes-on-prop-19/

Huffington Post - 
http://blog.norml.org/2010/07/14/i-gots-mine-dispensary-owners-against-marijuana-legalization/

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


----------



## SouthernGanja (Jul 24, 2010)

The linked article in the OP is a compelling collection of false-facts (Such as never being able to change a law. Ever. [see amendments 18 & 21]. It also fails to take judicial opinions/decisions into account, both prior and future. )

It's only compelling if you can stand reading assumptions like: "_This will force many patients to resort to buying instead of growing their own medicine, because of the inconvenience caused by producing multiple grows a year rather than growing a year&#8217;s supply of medicine at one time, as many patients currently do outdoors. And growing indoors&#8212;which typically requires special grow lights, an increase in hydro use, and a lot of time and attention&#8212;is a comparatively expensive endeavor_." LOL! That made me giggle.

There are plenty of articles and opinions for both sides of the argument that make that wordy article/blog look silly and amateurish.

Just sayin.


----------



## ford442 (Jul 24, 2010)

yes.. i really don't think that medical patients are going to see any difference except that there will be more places to acquire medicine and the price will be lower.. if you have a garden larger than 5x5 right now then you would need to show authorities your prescription papers - i do not think that will change with prop 19 - you will still simply need to rely on your doctor's recommendation stating that you require a certain amount.. the supreme court of california supports doctors' recommended dosage for patients.. prop 19 in no way overrides prop 215.. 

if i had something to lose from legalization i would be seriously considering how to work the legitimate side of the business right now - not roaming forums and blogs trying to slow the process down because it won't work - full legalization is coming, so prepare for what is in store - corporate industrialization, more clinical medicinal usage, large scale hemp farming, commercial establishments, licensed home grow ops.. there will be tons of room for the people who grow under the table now to have good jobs working with the plant that they love.. 

i wonder what tens of billions of dollars going back into the california economy looks like...?


----------



## T.H.Cammo (Jul 24, 2010)

The shallowness of the OP's link left me with more questions than answers, mostly because it was all prefabricated bullshit that made very little sense, at all! Please don't insult my intelligence - was I suppoed to follow along and beleive that string of illogical fantasy? The only way you could fall for that is if you are as paranoid as the author and follow him down the rabbit hole (ala "Alice in Wonderland").

First of all, let's get that "1 Ounce" thing out of the way! A little bit of knowledge is, indeed, a dangerous thing. The way the "Anti Prop 19" link was written, it appears that "adults" would only be allowed to posses 1 ounce of dried cannabis - even though they would be allowed to grow in an area of 25 square feet. Those numbers didn't make sense to me when I read the full text of the initiative - so I did a little reshearch of my own, at a "Pro Prop 19" website. That "1 Ounce" figure is very misleading, it's not the maximum you would be allowed to posses at all! In fact it is the minimum that a "Dry City" would be allowed to "Restrict" you to. Let me explain a little more, each individual city and county in the State of California would have the expressed right to control most all facets of how they would handle the legalization of marijuana, including taxation, distribution, sales control, specific possesion details, etc. That's up to, and including, maintaining a complete prohibition (the way it is now). That is what I mean by the term "_*Dry City*_", one that maintains a complete prohibition against marijuana. Even in a "Dry City", where possesion and sale of marijuana would still be prohibited, the State Law would supercede and allow any "legal" adult to carry "Up to 1 ounce" of marijuana on their person. There appears to be no limit to the size of the "Stash" you could have in a "Pot-Freindly" city - but that remains to be seen!

Can anyone deny that Marc Emory is the Poster Boy for "World Wide Acceptance for Marijuana"? Smoking, growing, whatever! His philosophy is "Give it back to the people"! He doesn't pull any punches about gready "Commercial Growers", Cartels and "Street Sales Organizations" being against Prop 19. The following is an excerpt from one of his articles about legalization, he is explaining that are 3 groupes who are opposed to Prop 19 and why they are opposed. You can find the whole article here http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/co...bis-Initiative :
The first group is the police and prison industry, represented by their unions and spokespeople. These are the system exploiters who have profited greatly and built power bases at the expense of the people. These are our archenemies, people who think its okay making a buck by arresting, strip-searching, incarcerating, harassing, and jailing ordinary cannabis consumer and home-growers. They are destroying our constitutional freedoms, seizing our kids, and forcing the cost of marijuana up to immoral prices as part of their love affair with prohibition. 
The second group includes the cartels, thugs, street gangs, large commercial growers, commercial medical marijuana growers and their dependents that make exploitative profits taking full advantage of prohibition-inflated prices. They correctly surmise that when every adult in California can make all the homegrown cannabis an individual can produce in 25 square feet, the need for them and their rip-off prices evaporates. Like, gone, baby gone. And with home grows legal, police will target the exploiter large scale grows. Who needs their $350- to $450-per-ounce cannabis when we can all safely and legally grow our own weed at home for about $12.50 an ounce?
The third group is the so-called old guard of the cannabis or medical marijuana movement. The wonderful Proposition-215 pioneer Denis Peron is one, but there are many others. Their opposition is entirely trivial and irrational. It stems from a professional jealousy that a successful, compassionate man like Richard Lee (who has provided over a million dollars of his well-earned money to support this initiative) is doing it without their blessing. No one asked Dennis Peron's permission. Dennis is a hero to the pot movement and has done a great deal to provide marijuana to medical users, but it seems he feels the world of activism has passed him by  because it has, and he's jealous.

I'm not a "Commercial Grower" and I don't see any reason for me, or anyone else, to fall for this kind of "Scare Tactics" bullshit spread around by selfish, money hungry growers who are affraid of the compitition that a "Free Market" would bring. It's not about some Ya-hoo who is affraid of Philip Morris - it's about me, and anybody who feels like it, growing our own - legally! 


Californians - vote "Yes on Prop 19!".


----------



## Tarkfu (Jul 25, 2010)

Wow, I immediately recognized this from the grasscity forums. I'm glad it was shot down so quickly here with logic. That anti-prop 19 link is just full of more propaganda spread by commercial growers and those standing to lose out of some of their black market cash. Sorry, but this is the most liberal marijuana policy in the world. No way will you convince stoners to vote no. I'm glad someone posted the article by marc emery so I didn't have to, it pretty much sums everything up nicely. 


Also, for those who don't know, that grasscity thread was shut down and the OP was banned due to some extremely harsh flaming from him. It was also pointed out via a link to his other posts on that forum that he admitted to being a cali MMJ liar and a commercial grower.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 25, 2010)

you are trippin, .... http://www.taxcannabis.org/index.php/pages/initiative/


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




T.H.Cammo said:


> The shallowness of the OP's link left me with more questions than answers, mostly because it was all prefabricated bullshit that made very little sense, at all! Please don't insult my intelligence - was I suppoed to follow along and beleive that string of illogical fantasy? The only way you could fall for that is if you are as paranoid as the author and follow him down the rabbit hole (ala "Alice in Wonderland").
> 
> First of all, let's get that "1 Ounce" thing out of the way! A little bit of knowledge is, indeed, a dangerous thing. The way the "Anti Prop 19" link was written, it appears that "adults" would only be allowed to posses 1 ounce of dried cannabis - even though they would be allowed to grow in an area of 25 square feet. Those numbers didn't make sense to me when I read the full text of the initiative - so I did a little reshearch of my own, at a "Pro Prop 19" website. That "1 Ounce" figure is very misleading, it's not the maximum you would be allowed to posses at all! In fact it is the minimum that a "Dry City" would be allowed to "Restrict" you to. Let me explain a little more, each individual city and county in the State of California would have the expressed right to control most all facets of how they would handle the legalization of marijuana, including taxation, distribution, sales control, specific possesion details, etc. That's up to, and including, maintaining a complete prohibition (the way it is now). That is what I mean by the term "_*Dry City*_", one that maintains a complete prohibition against marijuana. Even in a "Dry City", where possesion and sale of marijuana would still be prohibited, the State Law would supercede and allow any "legal" adult to carry "Up to 1 ounce" of marijuana on their person. There appears to be no limit to the size of the "Stash" you could have in a "Pot-Freindly" city - but that remains to be seen!
> 
> ...


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 25, 2010)

some more "facts", .... http://www.taxcannabis.org/index.php/pages/initiative/


(i) &#8220;Marijuana&#8221; and &#8220;cannabis&#8221; are interchangeable terms that mean *all parts* of the plant Genus Cannabis, *whether growing or not*; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; concentrated cannabis; edible products containing same; and every active compound, manufacture, derivative, or preparation of the plant, or resin.


(ii) &#8220;One ounce&#8221; means 28.5 grams.


----------



## rap89431 (Jul 25, 2010)

This is a very interesting dilema we have here. thanks for the link. it is like the healt care bill... there are a lot of people who thought we were getting free health care. Now i have to pay for health care or be fined. So on this issue I don't think that the gov regulating anything is good. They want to be able to tax it and they can't figure out how to tax the growers. So this is how they figured out how to do it. I read that the Oakland city council gave them the go ahead last Tue. for industrial growing. So as for the Mom amd pop growsers who support the impoverished economies all over Cali, if the inititave is passed they will just go back underground. Unfortunatley this will cause more proplems. If there was a way that there could be legitamite Mom and pop grow businesses where they could pay taxes and write off expenses and have employees do you think they would go fo it? I'm sure they would. There really are more bigger problems in this counrty than MMJ. Oakstrdam is going to to charge $100 for an eighth when its all said and done. I'd rather buy locally at a cheaper price and support my buddy even if it was illegal. 

Question: How much in taxes woiuld the state make if they were able to legitamize all the small time growers? as oppessed to a couple large corporate opperations? I think the state needs to rethink this.

At this time I woulld vote NO and keep things the way they are.


----------



## brickedup417 (Jul 25, 2010)

im voting no, everytime i say this its like a bashing from hell people come outta the woodworks


----------



## sm0keyrich510 (Jul 25, 2010)

ford442 said:


> yes.. i really don't think that medical patients are going to see any difference except that there will be *more places to acquire medicine and the price will be lower..* if you have a garden larger than 5x5 right now then you would need to show authorities your prescription papers - i do not think that will change with prop 19 - you will still simply need to rely on your doctor's recommendation stating that you require a certain amount.. the supreme court of California supports doctors' recommended dosage for patients.. *prop 19 in no way overrides prop 215..*
> 
> if i had something to lose from legalization i would be seriously considering how to work the legitimate side of the business right now - not roaming forums and blogs trying to slow the process down because it won't work - full legalization is coming, so prepare for what is in store - corporate industrialization, more clinical medicinal usage, large scale hemp farming, commercial establishments, licensed home grow ops.. there will be tons of room for the people who grow under the table now to have good jobs working with the plant that they love..
> 
> i wonder what tens of billions of dollars going back into the california economy looks like...?


 
there will be FEWER places to get marijuana than there is now... think about how it is under prop 215 now...at least near where i live theres probably at least 25-30 ppl within 10 mins of me...almost anywhere i go theres around that many places or people to get it from. the price is NOT going down...truth be known...these big commercial growers that support prop 19 aren't doing so because its going to hurt their business...only make it better...remember that...

think about the main supporters of prop 19...

they are behind it because they have the most to gain. 

once it becomes legal and it cannot be sold without acquiring certain a license (that are very expensive) a big number of suppliers will be gone. a huge number. those people will be replaced by "weed-r-us" or whatever they come up with. the market is as low as it is now in California because of prop 215 and how many growers/suppliers there are...when the pond has that many fish it forces more competition and for people to constantly try and beat out their competitions prices. 

if all these fish get taken out of the pond there will be less sources to acquire marijuana and therefore the price will actually be higher (because where else can you get it?)

now it works out if i want and 8th and you tell me you want $50-$70 I'm gonna hang up on you and get it for $30-$40 from someone else...same strain...same quality. if i have to buy it from weed-r-us and they tell me $50-$70 an 8th what can i say? 

granted i can say i will grow my own...however there are problems with that for the average person...
A)what if they don't own their property (ie they rent) and the landlord doesn't give them permission to grow?
b) what if you don't have the $$$ to set up your own grow(and pay the pg&e) ...or the room to do it etc...
C) the knowledge (i know people that have smoked 20+ years and they just found out that weed is made by female plants only!) like they never wondered why its called Mary Jane instead of mike Jones.
d) or if they are able to grow but unable (for whatever reason) to grow enough to last them between grows?

then what is one to do? pay the high price...these companies are not going to spend ALL this money to drop weed prices to $39 per oz like everyone is claiming. the companies will most likely stay competitive but high priced to make top $. its just like that with anything else...if you can get it anywhere its dirt cheap...if you can only get it from a few sources its extremely expensive...think about getting seeds online...there are only a few places worth trusting and they charge $10-$25+ for 1 seed sometimes. 

if you could get seeds as easy as clones then the prices would be much lower...when you buy a clone its usually $8-$12 each and its already well on its way in the veg stage. 

why do they charge so much? because you will have to pay it...same thing with oil and gas prices. 






rap89431 said:


> This is a very interesting dilema we have here. thanks for the link. it is like the healt care bill... there are a lot of people who thought we were getting free health care. Now i have to pay for health care or be fined. So on this issue I don't think that the gov regulating anything is good. They want to be able to tax it and they can't figure out how to tax the growers. So this is how they figured out how to do it. I read that the Oakland city council gave them the go ahead last Tue. for industrial growing. So as for the Mom amd pop growsers who support the impoverished economies all over Cali, if the inititave is passed they will just go back underground. Unfortunatley this will cause more proplems. If there was a way that there could be legitamite Mom and pop grow businesses where they could pay taxes and write off expenses and have employees do you think they would go fo it? I'm sure they would. There really are more bigger problems in this counrty than MMJ. Oakstrdam is going to to charge $100 for an eighth when its all said and done. I'd rather buy locally at a cheaper price and support my buddy even if it was illegal.
> 
> Question: How much in taxes woiuld the state make if they were able to legitamize all the small time growers? as oppessed to a couple large corporate opperations? I think the state needs to rethink this.
> 
> At this time I woulld vote NO and keep things the way they are.


thank you



brickedup417 said:


> im voting no, everytime i say this its like a bashing from hell people come outta the woodworks


tell me about it...as you can see they are trying to "hurt me feelings"...on the internet...i swear i dont know if some realize i get a kick out of there attempts to bash me. i could really care less. i dont even reply to half of these posts anymore because its the same stuff.


----------



## joedubs (Jul 26, 2010)

I will also be voting No, for the reasons mentioned in the link, but my only fear is that others are too blind/ignorant to read the bill and see it for what it really is.


----------



## brickedup417 (Jul 26, 2010)

have no fear joedubs when i was in town today they told me the collectives across nor-cal are makeing everyone aware of th b/s theyre trying to sneek in behind this so called "legalization" which is far from what it is. They told me you gotta figure it like this, most people in the mmj community grow with theyre familys and friends if they keep spreading the word were gonna be A-ok. And as everyone knows there are alott of familys that depend on mmj, thats alott of people saying hell no


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 26, 2010)

got 5 NO's here at my house.


----------



## sm0keyrich510 (Jul 27, 2010)

thanks guys...i was just about to start stressing here... for the longest it seemed as if it were going to pass. only in the last month or two have i started to think we have a chance...for all of you that think prop 19 is so great you'll be thanking those who voted no. if it were to pass everyone that voted yes on 19 would feel real stupid when they realized it didn't work out as they believed it would. 

keep spreading the word everyone...no on 19...i try to tell as many people as i can that prop 19 is just a trick to rape us on taxes and "fees" not to mention have big business be our new gang/drug cartel...if those who are for 19 think prices are high now you wouldn't believe what would happen if this passed and you had to buy marijuana from big business only (unless you grow your own which even if you did would force you to buy SOME of your marijuana from them unless you smoke less than 1 oz ever 2-3-4 months which your average smoker does NOT...)


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 27, 2010)

boofin said:


> At risk of flaming here ( I am really not trying to induce flaming ). It seems to me that the major issue at hand from the post is that it would cost $200K for the license to sell cultivate and distribute MJ. This is very costly and will push out the "little guy" (in the legal distribution arena anyway). It is set up so that those with money can monopolize the market and do whatever they please. I am not a fan of this either. I dislike big business in every way I could possible say. But for those people who enjoy MJ and would like to use it recreationally, this is a great jumping off point.


It's also important to mention that the 200K fee is for the city of Oakland only. It costs 200k because city counsel member and mayor candidate Rebecca Kaplan is 100% owned by Richard Lee. He funded her initial campaign to put her on the city council and continues to fund all her campaigns. She is the one making it happen for him in Oakland. He is only able to do this because there aren't a lot of competing well funded lobbies in Oakland. 

Could this happen in other places too? Sure it could, absolutely. I'm sure there will be other cases of this happening. But it's not a given that it's going to happen frequently. In fact, it's very unlikely. There will most likely be many cities/counties where permits to start for profit cannabis related businesses will be affordable. To point to Oakland as what is going to be the norm in California is completely inaccurate. It took a very special set of circumstances to do what is being done in Oakland.


----------



## sm0keyrich510 (Jul 27, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> It's also important to mention that the 200K fee is for the city of Oakland only. It costs 200k because city counsel member and mayor candidate Rebecca Kaplan is 100% owned by Richard Lee. He funded her initial campaign to put her on the city council and continues to fund all her campaigns. She is the one making it happen for him in Oakland. He is only able to do this because there aren't a lot of competing well funded lobbies in Oakland.
> 
> Could this happen in other places too? Sure it could, absolutely. I'm sure there will be other cases of this happening. But it's not a given that it's going to happen frequently. In fact, it's very unlikely. There will most likely be many cities/counties where permits to start for profit cannabis related businesses will be affordable. To point to Oakland as what is going to be the norm in California is completely inaccurate. It took a very special set of circumstances to do what is being done in Oakland.


That doesn't make it right... No one that grows for ANY type of profit can be thrilled about paying $200K+ in Oakland. so if you're an Oakland resident you are really gonna be screwed harder than anyone else...

its just this type of slime ass crap that makes me want to vote no. with 215 you don't pay a fee to obtain a license to grow/sell marijuana...you just pay the cost of your card every year...which is a whole lot cheaper and affordable to literally everyone (who can't get $100-$200 per year for card? ) beyond that renewing a card is much cheaper (usually) than the inital cost the first year. 

I think what Oakland is doing is wrong...i think they are just trying to cash in on this and its wrong...they don't deserve 90% of what they are asking.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 27, 2010)

sm0keyrich510 said:


> That doesn't make it right... No one that grows for ANY type of profit can be thrilled about paying $200K+ in Oakland. so if you're an Oakland resident you are really gonna be screwed harder than anyone else...


You're right. It's messed up if you're an Oakland grower. I can't argue against that. They'll have to commute to move their product or turn to the black market. I live in a city that has already done what Oakland did 6 months ago. So I'm not without sympathy for that. It sucks. 



sm0keyrich510 said:


> its just this type of slime ass crap that makes me want to vote no. with 215 you don't pay a fee to obtain a license to grow/sell marijuana...you just pay the cost of your card every year...which is a whole lot cheaper and affordable to literally everyone (who can't get $100-$200 per year for card? ) beyond that renewing a card is much cheaper (usually) than the inital cost the first year.


Well regardless of if prop 19 passes or not, 215 will still be there, so don't worry too much.



sm0keyrich510 said:


> I think what Oakland is doing is wrong...i think they are just trying to cash in on this and its wrong...they don't deserve 90% of what they are asking.


I don't see things as so black and white. No doubt Rebecca Kaplan is corrupt as hell, but at the same time you have to consider the position the city of Oakland is in. There are much more pressing problems in the city of Oakland than cannabis law. 

Sure, they are trying to cash in. But not so they can all have mansions in the Oakland Hills. Oakland was one of the most dangerous cities in the country before this year when they had to let go 80 police officers due to their financial problems. 

While I do agree with you that what they are doing is wrong, it's not all for sinister motivations. They do have much bigger problems. It's not all out of greed. Some of this is out of necessity at least in their minds.


----------



## 10jed (Jul 28, 2010)

Wow... this article and a few like it are causing a great big stir. You guys really need to look at the big picture and read the prop 19 instead of the translations of it. we are all smart enough to understand what is said!

First off I would like to point out that all of this line by line debate and doubt casting started after the bill was no longer amendable. By intent do you think? Some of what I read are good points but mostly it is bullshit, and is written more to undermine the entire concept than to provide a better bill. If the people casting these doubts wanted any form of regulation these points would have been brought up months ago while the bill was still amendable. People with illegal commercial grows don't want any form of legalization unless it allows them to do business as usual... selling product without taxes. That is what the opposition cares about.

I don't like the idea of big business commanding the MJ trade any more than the next guy, but there is nothing in the prop that says there is a $200,000 licenses fee. It says that local governments have the right to do what they will. Fuck Oakland if they want to make it corporate! Do you think Mendocino county wants that. Do think they are going to fuck their residents because Oakland did? Give me a break. Oakland can produce big quantities from 4 business moguls but the rest of the state can do as they will. Each local government can tweak their laws to fit in all areas except among age restrictions. Other than the kids here, I think we all agree that is OK and probably wise. The 18-20 bracket I don't think is really getting a fair shake on this deal as I personally would rather see hard working young adults and college age students smoke a joint than doing keg stands on a Wednesday night. But whatever, wait 2 more years kids and it will be all good! If a local government wants to license businesses with a 50 lb per year cap they can. If a local government wants to keep the big hitters out they can. If a local government wants to help their residents compete in the market they can. No where in the prop does the little guy get screwed. Though it does mean they have to run as a legal business, and pay income taxes like the rest of us. 

Speaking of taxes, do people really oppose paying taxes on MJ? We pay taxes on it now! Since illegal commercial growers are living at least partially if not fully on their sales we are paying their income tax for them. That's right, government doesn't say "we are taxing everyone x%" and be done with it, they say " we need x million dollars and divide it by the number of tax payers", so since the people in the community who are profiting from mj sales are not paying taxes, we get the pleasure of paying their taxes for them. so that is tax #1. Tax #2 that we are already paying is sales tax. This we pay to criminal organizations and street dealers. Our taxes now fund not only general gang activity but also the sale and import of wonderful drugs like crack, meth, and heroine, and the illegal sales of pharmaceuticals that turn into heroine addictions. Tax #3 is a great one too, this is the tax we pay for conviction and rehabilitation. Because mj is illegal people who get caught are often offered a break if they seek treatment. This means state funded rehabilitation centers for "pot addicts", and/or people out of work and now on welfare, and court costs to mediate all this bullshit. That just adds to the cost of our income and property taxes, so it is a tax we now pay. Pot convictions can ruin lives, it can prevent smart and otherwise law abiding young adults from getting college loans, it can add drain to the welfare system through incarceration and job-site testing resulting in loss of employment because of a joint you smoked last weekend. We currently pay for all this bullshit. There are many other examples of how we are currently taxed for MJ... well all except the commercial growers, the criminal organizations they sell to, and the street dealers. We have tax now but no regulation, none that works anyways.

The overall impact of prop 19 is huge for the entire country and for the legitimization of recreational mj use. This is a massive step for the entire country and maybe even the planet. If nothing else, this will force the federal government to finally acknowledge that MJ is not harmful and that people want it. there is language in the prop that will allow for testing. We can't even test MJ now. The feds are adamant on people not realizing that the reasons prohibition started 80 years ago were a bunch of bullshit!

This bill will allow the simple consumer the option to legally grow their own, and for people to consume without fear of prosecution. I understand that some medical users go though ounces per week, but for the rest of us a 5x5 garden is more than sufficient. Now we can go buy clones or openly talk to our friends about our grow. Wouldn't it be nice to show off your girls to your friends when they come over instead of lighting a dozen candles? Rule #1 of growing, the one that says tell nobody, is abolished with this prop! Wouldn't you like to help your friends start a grow? Wouldn't you like to talk openly about the gooseberry skunk pheno you found in a 10 pack of $30 beans? wouldn't it be cool to casually talk about your grow with anyone in hopes of finally getting a clone of that real Indiana bubble gum that was lost and/or raped in Amsterdam years ago? This is legal growing folks! How many here say "I would grow but I don't want to get caught"? how many have kids that are in dare programs and don't grow for fear of their kids seeing it as the demon drug they are told it is?

This bill puts into perspective of weight vs square footage vs # of plants. This is an important clarification. We don't want the authorities to say we have 50 plants when we have a small sog and a half dozen mothers do we? we don't want the authorities to say we have 10 lbs of MJ when all we have 6 wet ounces on a 4 foot plant in a 2 gallon pot full of dirt. This is good and much needed verbiage!!! also a pound of brownies isn't a pound of pot.

The bill says that a person using lawfully cannot be discriminated against and even goes on to say that an employer can't discriminate unless there is proof of impairment at the workplace. This bill clearly states that no local or state law enforcement shall impair or impede a legal grow so it puts the DEA out on their own and allows the local guys to say "sorry we can't let you use our resources because we are bound by state law" That is HUGE. DEA doesn't currently do too much without help from the locals.

Don't fall into the vote no hype, because it is all hype! This prop gives a lot of the control over to the city and county governments and will allow communities the choice of helping the corporations or the residents. This will provide income for the cites and state. This will offer protection on a state level to people who abide by it. This will allow, at least in some communities, the local farmer to do what he does best in a legal business format. This will set an example for the rest of the country and for the rest of the world. 

I appreciate all that Jack Herrer has done for the pot smoking community but his dream of treating pot like a tomato plant is a hippy pipe dream. I would love it and you would love it but it doesn't solve the problems that prohibition has created and offers -0- incentive for government or non-smokers to support this. If you are waiting for that, then don't hold your breath it just won't ever happen even though that is what we all want. We are being taxed already, and although I hate much of what the government does as much as the next guy, I would rather my taxes go to government then street gangs and cartels. I would rather see that people making 5x the money I do paying 5x the taxes and people making the same paying the same. I would rather the underground community be brought to sea level so that the criminals and their corrupt sidelines can better be dealt with. This is a great bill and anyone who is in favor of peace, order, and smoking pot should be voting yes. The no votes are a vote for prohibition and the criminal activities that follow it.

Jed


----------



## akashefi12 (Jul 28, 2010)

A lot of misleading and incorrect facts in that link though. For example, 
"and in California, there is no &#8220;drug war&#8221; being fought against possession of up to one ounce, because marijuana is already decriminalized"?

I just spoke to a lawyer about opening a dispensary and he told me this - " I have a client who had all the proper paperwork, recommendations,
and was within all limitations who was arrested. Now, it should get dropped but that is just a big hassle" So, to say marijuana is decriminalized
is far fetched. Anyway, that was just one point on just one of the myths I thought I should point out. There are more but i'm not here to stir stuff up. 
Anyone reading this, though, all I can say is do not base your decisions on one piece of info like this.


----------



## skate4theherb (Jul 28, 2010)

HAS ANYONE SEEN THIS..THE BILL FQA
http://www.taxcannabis.org/page/content/faq
General FAQs

Q: What does Proposition 19 do?
A: Proposition 19 will control cannabis just like alcohol, so adults 21 and older will be allowed to possess up to one ounce of cannabis. Proposition 19 will also give the state and local governments the ability to tax the sale of cannabis to adults 21 and older.

Q: Why do you think Proposition 19 will pass?

A: According to several recent polls, a majority of Californians support legalizing, controlling, and taxing cannabis.

Q: How would Proposition 19 control and tax cannabis?

A: Proposition 19 will allow local governments to set up a system to oversee cultivation, distribution, and sales, and determine how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold within area limits. If a local government decides it does not want to control and tax the sale of cannabis, then buying and selling cannabis within area limits will remain illegal, but the possession and consumption of up to one ounce will be permitted.

Q: Is cannabis a dangerous drug?

A: Actually, cannabis has much fewer harmful effects than either alcohol or cigarettes, which are both legal for adult consumption, and taxed to support vital services. Cannabis is not physically addictive, does not have long term toxic effects on the body, has never led to an overdose death, and does not cause its consumers to become violent.

Q: Would controlling and taxing cannabis help our state and local governments financially?


A: Absolutely. Right now, there is an estimated $14 billion in cannabis transactions every year in California, but since cannabis remains illegal, our state sees none of the revenue that would come from controlling and taxing it. Controlling and taxing cannabis could bring in billions of dollars in revenue to help fund what matters most in California: jobs, healthcare, public safety, parks, roads, transportation, and more. California's tax collector, the Board of Equalization, estimates that controlling and taxing cannabis could generate $1.4 billion in revenue each year. http://www.boe.ca.gov/legdiv/pdf/ab0390-1dw.pdf


Q: If we legalize, control, and tax cannabis, wont that just lead to a lot more people using it?


A: Actually no. According to The National Research Councils recent study of the 11 U.S. states where cannabis is currently decriminalized, there is little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions and the rate of consumption.


Q: If we legalize, control, and tax cannabis, wont that just lead to more crime?


A: No. The illegality of cannabis enables for the continuation of an out-of-control criminal market, which in turn spawns other illegal and often violent activities. Establishing legal, controlled sales outlets would put dangerous street dealers out of business, so their influence in our communities will fade. Also, when we stop arresting thousands of non-violent cannabis consumers, we will be freeing up police resources and saving hundreds of millions of dollars each year, which could be used for apprehending truly dangerous criminals and keeping them locked up.


Q: If we legalize, control, and tax cannabis, wont that just lead to more kids using it?


A: No. First of all, Proposition 19 will control cannabis like alcohol, allowing only adults 21 and older to consume cannabis. In addition, by bringing cannabis out of the shadows, and implementing a legal regulatory framework to control it, we will be better able to police and prevent access to and consumption of cannabis by minors.


Q: What effect will Proposition 19 have on medical marijuana laws in California?


A: None. Proposition 19 explicitly upholds the rights of medical marijuana patients.


Q: But won't cannabis remain illegal under federal law?


A: Yes, but we can still pass our own state laws in California. The United States Constitution enables individual states to enact laws concerning health, morals, public welfare, and safety within the state. For instance, in 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, which legalized medical marijuana in the state. Also, 40 counties and cities in California have regulated medical cannabis without federal interference.


Q: How can I help?


A: This will be a major fight for cannabis reform in California, and we are going to need every supporter involved. Sign up to volunteer, contribute, and get your friends involved today on our website!

Download PDF



Medical Cannabis Patients

Q: Does Proposition 19 change medical cannabis laws in California?

A: No, it wont change or affect current medical cannabis laws or protections offered to qualified patients. Patients will still be able to possess what is needed for medical use, and will retain all rights under Prop 215 and SB 420. In fact, Proposition 19 will clarify state law, to protect medical cannabis collectives and businesses operating responsibly under their local guidelines. Currently, the legality of medical cannabis sales is in dispute. Many cities and counties are struggling with the interpretation of SB 420, particularly around the allowance for cash transactions. As a result, these localities are unable to control and tax medical cannabis for distribution to qualified patients. Proposition 19 specifically grants cities and counties the ability to regulate sales for medical cannabis and commercial cultivation for safe, regulated medicine. Proposition 19 will also allow for research, safety testing, and potency monitoring. 
Q: How will Proposition 19 affect patients who grow at home?

A: Patient gardens will remain legal, and protections will remain unchanged for patients who choose to grow their own medicine. 

Q: How will Proposition 19 affect collective and cooperative cultivation?

A: Proposition 19 will allow for greater protection for collectives and cooperatives in storefront locations. City and county governments will now have the clearly established ability to regulate collective and/or commercial growing.

Q: If Proposition 19 passes, will non-medical patients have more rights than patients?

A: No, adults 21 and over will be able to possess up to one ounce of cannabis outside of the home. Adults may only grow in a 5x5 area, and will have an affirmative defense to possess what they grow for personal use in that area. Patients and/or collectives will still be able to possess the amount needed for their medical use.

Q: If Proposition 19 passes, will it still be beneficial to be a medical cannabis patient? 

A: Yes, medical patients will receive the greatest protections. Qualified patients will be allowed to possess and grow more than adults (to cover their medical needs). We also hope to see exemptions or discounts on services, and taxes to subsidize the cost to patients needing medical cannabis. 
Q: Will Proposition 19 make it more difficult to become a medical patient?

A: No, being a medical cannabis patient will still remain private between you and your doctor. 

Q: Could Proposition 19 affect medical cannabis growers?

A: Yes, by providing legal permits to gardens, Proposition 19 will also make possible the first legal commercial growing, once cannabis cultivation is regulated and permitted by either local governments or the state.

Q: Will Proposition 19 attract big business and cut out the little guys, and the cottage industry they have worked so hard to create?

A: Proposition 19 will actually give local groups an equal opportunity to obtain licenses and/or permits for the sale and cultivation of medical cannabis, adult cannabis, and hemp. Local groups can work with local governments to help determine regulations and licensing for cultivation and sales. Proposition 19 is also significant in that it allows for personal cultivation by adults.
Download PDF



Fiscal Benefits

We are currently facing historic budget deficits in California. Passing Proposition 19 will put our fiscal priorities where they belong, saving California hundreds of millions of dollars each year, and provide California with billions in much needed revenue to fund what matters most.

Revenue

Controlling and Taxing Cannabis Could Generate $1.4 Billion in Revenue Per Year

According to Californias tax regulator, the Board of Equalization (BOE), controlling and taxing cannabis in California could generate $1.4 billion in much needed revenue each year. These funds could go towards jobs, public safety, healthcare, parks, roads, transportation, and more.

A $14 Billion Per Year Illegal Cannabis Market in California

The BOE estimates that there is a $14 billion per year illegal cannabis market in California. But since cannabis remains illegal, our state sees none of the revenue that could have been generated from controlling and taxing it. http://www.boe.ca.gov/legdiv/pdf/ab0390-1dw.pdf

Savings

Over $200 Million in Annual Savings for Public Safety

According to a study by the California chapter of NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), controlling and taxing cannabis would save the state over $200 million that would have been spent on arrests, prosecutions, and prison for non-violent cannabis consumers.

$12-18 Billion Generated Annually by Spin-Off Industries

According to the California NORML study, controlling and taxing cannabis could generate an additional $12-18 billion a year for Californias economy from spin-off industries like coffeehouses and tourism.

Thousands of New Jobs and Billions in Wages for Californians

According to the California NORML study, if a controlled and taxed cannabis market operated at the same level as the California wine industry, it would create between 60,000 and 110,000 new jobs, and $2.5 -3.5 billion in wages for workers each year.

http://canorml.org/background/CA_legalization2.html

Download PDF




Public Safety Benefits

California wastes hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of police hours per year arresting, prosecuting, and imprisoning non-violent cannabis consumers. Meanwhile, illegal cannabis sales in the U.S. generate the majority of revenue for violent drug cartels across the border. Proposition 19 will enable police to focus resources on violent criminals, and replace a dangerous street market with safe, regulated cannabis sales outlets, putting street dealers and drug cartels out of business.

Drive the Drug Cartels Out of Business

60 Percent of Mexican Drug Cartels Revenue Comes from Cannabis Sales in the U.S.
According to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, in 2006 more than 60 percent of the revenue generated by Mexican drug cartels came from cannabis sales in the U.S.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/06/AR2009100603847.html

Controlling and Taxing Cannabis will Weaken the Mexican Drug Cartels
Proposition 19 will weaken the power of the Mexican drug cartels. A former Mexican official recently told CNN that he supports legalizing cannabis in the United States and Mexico, in order to stop the cartel killings. In 2008 alone, 6,290 people were murdered by the cartels in Mexico, a number greater than the total amount of American troops killed in both Iraq and Afghanistan combined since 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/02/02/us.mexico.marijuana/index.html?section=cnn_latest
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-02-26-mexico-drug-violence_N.htm
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/

Put Police Priorities Where They Belong

Every Hour Spent On Cannabis is an Hour Lost on Violent Crime
Every police hour spent on non-violent cannabis consumers is an hour lost that could have been spent on violent criminals. According to a study by Florida State University economists Bruce Benson and David Rasmussen, violent crime increases when police are focused on drug enforcement, particularly cannabis prohibition. They found that every 1% increase in drug arrests leads to a 0.18% increase in violent crimes. (Benson et al. 2001, The Impact of Drug Enforcement on Crime: An Investigation of the Opportunity Cost of Police Resources, Journal of Drug Issues, 31: 989-1006)

Put Police Priorities Where They Belong: Save Millions, Keep the Violent Locked Up
The California Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), which provides nonpartisan fiscal and policy advice, states that Proposition 19 could save several tens of millions of dollars annually and permit the redirection of court and law enforcement resources, and that jail beds no longer needed for marijuana offenders could be used for other criminals who are now being released early because of a lack of jail space. http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2009/090512.aspx

Californias Legal System Has its Priorities Wrong
According to the FBI, in 2008, almost 60,000 violent crimes went unsolved in California. That same year, over 61,000 Californians were arrested for misdemeanor cannabis possession.


----------



## potroast (Jul 28, 2010)

Yes, of course I'm voting Yes.

It's the first bill of it's kind in the lower 48, and it will cause many ripples, either good or bad.

If it passes, WE WIN, if it does not pass, THEY WIN.


figure it out.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 28, 2010)

potroast said:


> Yes, of course I'm voting Yes.
> 
> It's the first bill of it's kind in the lower 48, and it will cause many ripples, either good or bad.
> 
> ...



And you would be wrong. There was another Prop 19 that was for legalization without most of the crap that's in this bill which was up for vote in 1972. Proponents of this bill like to pretend that nothing has been done on the legalization front, when in fact, 30 years of activism and rational lobbying has accomplished much in this state. I would think that someone from the San Diego region would have a more realistic view about the obvious negative repercussions of this bill on the cannabis community at large, but then again, we thought Dick Lee was a good guy at some point, too.

Although, if one really thinks about it, maybe you are right. To be honest, I haven't come across any other legislative initiatives that attempted to establish a commercial market with free reign on tax assignment being peddled as legalization when it actually enhances existing prohibition. Maybe it is the first of it's kind... but, as far as unique phenomena go, this one stinks.


----------



## ford442 (Jul 28, 2010)

an email to me yesterday morning from NORML - 

"This just in from Public Policy Polling: *As of today, 52% of voters support Proposition 19, while only 36% are against it.* This puts us ahead by 16% among California voters!"


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 28, 2010)

10jed said:


> Wow... this article and a few like it are causing a great big stir. You guys really need to look at the big picture and read the prop 19 instead of the translations of it. we are all smart enough to understand what is said!



Most of us against the bill have read it. Extensively. Repeatedly. Hell, I'm about ready to start citing the damn thing from memory. At this point, I only have to pull the initiative text when I get need to pull a direct quote. We all should be smart enough to understand what is said, and yet we get posts like this filled with misinformation and flat-out wrong information in support of a weak fear-mongering platform. Whether that's a result of just being misinformed or a straight up propaganda tactic, I could really care less. The easiest way to deal with baseless rhetoric and tangential emotive argumentation is with fact and reason. So, let's get to it, shall we...



10jed said:


> First off I would like to point out that all of this line by line debate and doubt casting started after the bill was no longer amendable. By intent do you think? Some of what I read are good points but mostly it is bullshit, and is written more to undermine the entire concept than to provide a better bill. If the people casting these doubts wanted any form of regulation these points would have been brought up months ago while the bill was still amendable. People with illegal commercial grows don't want any form of legalization unless it allows them to do business as usual... selling product without taxes. That is what the opposition cares about.



I'll assume that your signature is an indicator that you are not a resident of California and therefore were not here for the initial months of action on not only Prop 19, but the 2 other initiatives as well. The doubt, debate and general disgust with the direction Prop 19 took happened well before the initiative was finalized. Many like Jack Herer and Dennis Peron walked away from supporting the bill, which left Dick Lee holding the bag on legislation no one but him wanted. So he hired a political consultant and financed the necessary signatures for his bill to be on the November ballot, while the other two initiatives were unable to gather enough signatures as they were volunteer-run efforts. Arguments against Prop 19 are not intended to come up with a better bill. There are already better legislative initiatives which could be built upon to make a rational legalization policy. There was a lot of ferocious debate and contention in the early phase of drafting this proposition, which resulted in key figures walking away from Dick's crazy bill and trying to work on better solutions. Unfortunately, Dick Lee has spent a long time building his political nest egg on the backs of patients and their medical needs, and now uses that money to draft some of the worst legalization legislation ever. You are right that those with illegal commercial grows may not want legalization, but you're very much in error in assuming that the opposition is comprised completely of nothing but illegal growers. Gross generalizations don't do anyone any good, and only serve to obfuscate an already muddy and complex issue. The opposition to Prop 19 is varied and diverse as are the reasons we oppose it. 



10jed said:


> I don't like the idea of big business commanding the MJ trade any more than the next guy, but there is nothing in the prop that says there is a $200,000 licenses fee. It says that local governments have the right to do what they will. Fuck Oakland if they want to make it corporate! Do you think Mendocino county wants that. Do think they are going to fuck their residents because Oakland did? Give me a break. Oakland can produce big quantities from 4 business moguls but the rest of the state can do as they will. Each local government can tweak their laws to fit in all areas except among age restrictions. Other than the kids here, I think we all agree that is OK and probably wise. The 18-20 bracket I don't think is really getting a fair shake on this deal as I personally would rather see hard working young adults and college age students smoke a joint than doing keg stands on a Wednesday night. But whatever, wait 2 more years kids and it will be all good! If a local government wants to license businesses with a 50 lb per year cap they can. If a local government wants to keep the big hitters out they can. If a local government wants to help their residents compete in the market they can. No where in the prop does the little guy get screwed. Though it does mean they have to run as a legal business, and pay income taxes like the rest of us.



OK, let's waltz past the guesswork on what cities will or won't do should Prop 19 pass. At this point, it's all an academic exercise. Proponents want to believe that municipalities will welcome commercial growing with open arms and will treat the cannabis community with equality and respect. I'm not sure which California they've been watching, but there are few communities that openly welcome the cannabis community and quite a few that are looking for any way they can to restrict us out of their towns as quickly as possible. Prop 19 doesn't gain anyone new rights or privileges, it adds new restrictions and more ways for smokers and cultivators to be arrested and incarcerated. Proponents of the bill seem so eager to cut and run on people it's almost shameful. You may not have an issue with the sudden exclusion of 18-20 year olds from protection under the law, but I do. These individuals have every right to consume cannabis as someone who is 21 or older. They have those rights today, and there is no rational reason to change it now. 


I also have no problem with local government setting reasonable regulations and taxing structures. I do have a problem with not being able to have a say in the development of those regulations and taxes. No taxation without representation, as they used to say in the old days. Prop 19 gives municipalities the power to set those standards as they deem fit. Many medical collectives and dispensaries are fighting local municipalities for the right to exist as it is, and proponents want to hand them even more power to dictate policy without oversight. 



10jed said:


> Speaking of taxes, do people really oppose paying taxes on MJ? We pay taxes on it now! Since illegal commercial growers are living at least partially if not fully on their sales we are paying their income tax for them. That's right, government doesn't say "we are taxing everyone x%" and be done with it, they say " we need x million dollars and divide it by the number of tax payers", so since the people in the community who are profiting from mj sales are not paying taxes, we get the pleasure of paying their taxes for them. so that is tax #1. Tax #2 that we are already paying is sales tax. This we pay to criminal organizations and street dealers. Our taxes now fund not only general gang activity but also the sale and import of wonderful drugs like crack, meth, and heroine, and the illegal sales of pharmaceuticals that turn into heroine addictions. Tax #3 is a great one too, this is the tax we pay for conviction and rehabilitation. Because mj is illegal people who get caught are often offered a break if they seek treatment. This means state funded rehabilitation centers for "pot addicts", and/or people out of work and now on welfare, and court costs to mediate all this bullshit. That just adds to the cost of our income and property taxes, so it is a tax we now pay. Pot convictions can ruin lives, it can prevent smart and otherwise law abiding young adults from getting college loans, it can add drain to the welfare system through incarceration and job-site testing resulting in loss of employment because of a joint you smoked last weekend. We currently pay for all this bullshit. There are many other examples of how we are currently taxed for MJ... well all except the commercial growers, the criminal organizations they sell to, and the street dealers. We have tax now but no regulation, none that works anyways.



Your fundamental misunderstanding of the taxing system in this country is truly astounding. I don't know who you've been listening to, but you are getting hoodwinked. The taxes you are describing are an interesting fantasy of paranoia and nonsense. Tax #1... I have to admit, that's a new one. I can't say I've ever come across such a fundamentally wrong perception of the tax and budgetary processes in this country. Since anyone who has actually done their taxes in the past, say 20 years, can hopefully see the crazy, I won't bother. Tax #2 isn't a tax. It's a choice. Yes, it's hard to source cannabis as a recreational user without contacting illegal elements that will charge you some sort of overhead or surcharge for product. And yes, with illegal organizations there is a chance, a good one most likely, that the money you spent could be used to finance worse crimes. Prop 19 doesn't mitigate that. Hard drugs and illegal pharmaceuticals generate their own profit and there's no direct evidence to support the theory that commercializing cannabis will make a significant difference. Tax #3 is probably the the most backwards perception of all. Pot convictions can and do ruin lives. I feel bad for anyone that lives in states other than California that have not seen fit to adopt rational legislation and protect the recreational smoker/cultivator. It's sad that you see the diversion aspect of California's Penal Code as a drain on society, but your associating those programs with costing the tax payer money is flat out wrong. These programs save communities money by removing simple possession and cultivation for personal consumption cases from resulting in jail sentences and reduce court costs by removing the need for proceedings. The fact is, under current California law, possession of one ounce or less and/or cultivation for personal consumption is a misdemeanor with a $100 max fine. Three or more repeat offenses will probably necessitate attending an education/rehab program, but if you've been popped three or more times, I think you have larger concerns to consider, like why do you keep getting popped. All in all, these programs cost significantly less than incarcerating these same people. Plus, there is also the fact that because of programs like these, the charges that necessitated your participation in them, are immediately dropped from your record upon completion of the program. In fact, there is currently legislation on it's way to the State Assembly that will further reduce those possession/cultivation for personal consumption charges from a misdemeanor to a simple infraction. No more court appearance, just pay the fine.



10jed said:


> The overall impact of prop 19 is huge for the entire country and for the legitimization of recreational mj use. This is a massive step for the entire country and maybe even the planet. If nothing else, this will force the federal government to finally acknowledge that MJ is not harmful and that people want it. there is language in the prop that will allow for testing. We can't even test MJ now. The feds are adamant on people not realizing that the reasons prohibition started 80 years ago were a bunch of bullshit!



Prop 19 doesn't legitimize cannabis anymore than it already is. It restricts the personal consumption statute and adds new standards by which law enforcement will be able to establish intent to sell. The rest of that paragraph is pure fantasy. The Federal government is only one part of the opposition to cannabis legalization. The bulk is made up of big business interests that do not want competition from the cannabis industry. The Feds are adamant that people believe their propaganda about cannabis being dangerous and the perception of cannabis as a drug. Prop 19 won't force anything to change in the Controlled Substances Act. Maybe if more states were to adopt medical and/or recreational cannabis policies, we could begin to force some action at a national level. The V.A.'s recognition of cannabis as medically valid is progress, Prop 19 would not be.



10jed said:


> This bill will allow the simple consumer the option to legally grow their own, and for people to consume without fear of prosecution. I understand that some medical users go though ounces per week, but for the rest of us a 5x5 garden is more than sufficient. Now we can go buy clones or openly talk to our friends about our grow. Wouldn't it be nice to show off your girls to your friends when they come over instead of lighting a dozen candles? Rule #1 of growing, the one that says tell nobody, is abolished with this prop! Wouldn't you like to help your friends start a grow? Wouldn't you like to talk openly about the gooseberry skunk pheno you found in a 10 pack of $30 beans? wouldn't it be cool to casually talk about your grow with anyone in hopes of finally getting a clone of that real Indiana bubble gum that was lost and/or raped in Amsterdam years ago? This is legal growing folks! How many here say "I would grow but I don't want to get caught"? how many have kids that are in dare programs and don't grow for fear of their kids seeing it as the demon drug they are told it is?



Recreational users can cultivate their own now. As you proponents keep asserting, this should have nothing to do with medical users, so bringing them up and making baseless generalization about them isn't very honest. Your fantasy about the utopia of legal growing is optimistic, to say the least. Too bad it's not pragmatic. If you can't trust someone to know about your grow now, there's no reason you'll be more inclined to trust everyone and show it off after Prop 19. Even if it was fully legalized, cannabis still has value. If you can't grow because you're afraid your kids will narc you out because they're brainwashed by DARE, then you seriously have much LARGER problems and need to work on parenting better.



10jed said:


> This bill puts into perspective of weight vs square footage vs # of plants. This is an important clarification. We don't want the authorities to say we have 50 plants when we have a small sog and a half dozen mothers do we? we don't want the authorities to say we have 10 lbs of MJ when all we have 6 wet ounces on a 4 foot plant in a 2 gallon pot full of dirt. This is good and much needed verbiage!!! also a pound of brownies isn't a pound of pot.



Yeah, not so much. Under current laws and in accordance with legal precedents, possession and cultivation for personal consumption are allowable without restrictions on garden size or number of plants. If this bill is meant to be progress, then there's no reason to set limits that don't exist now. 



10jed said:


> The bill says that a person using lawfully cannot be discriminated against and even goes on to say that an employer can't discriminate unless there is proof of impairment at the workplace. This bill clearly states that no local or state law enforcement shall impair or impede a legal grow so it puts the DEA out on their own and allows the local guys to say "sorry we can't let you use our resources because we are bound by state law" That is HUGE. DEA doesn't currently do too much without help from the locals.



Because law enforcement doesn't misinterpret ambiguous law to establish illegality now. In addition, the proposition makes allowances for municipalities to use money raised via taxes in any way they deem necessary to control and enforce regulations. There is nothing in the bill which prevents Federal and local cooperation and/or transfer of resources so long as local government deems it necessary. 



10jed said:


> Don't fall into the vote no hype, because it is all hype! This prop gives a lot of the control over to the city and county governments and will allow communities the choice of helping the corporations or the residents. This will provide income for the cites and state. This will offer protection on a state level to people who abide by it. This will allow, at least in some communities, the local farmer to do what he does best in a legal business format. This will set an example for the rest of the country and for the rest of the world.



Nice... lots of baseless hype to tell everyone to avoid the hype. This proposition isn't friendly to the cannabis community and undoes a lot of progress made over the last 20 years. 



10jed said:


> I appreciate all that Jack Herrer has done for the pot smoking community but his dream of treating pot like a tomato plant is a hippy pipe dream. I would love it and you would love it but it doesn't solve the problems that prohibition has created and offers -0- incentive for government or non-smokers to support this. If you are waiting for that, then don't hold your breath it just won't ever happen even though that is what we all want. We are being taxed already, and although I hate much of what the government does as much as the next guy, I would rather my taxes go to government then street gangs and cartels. I would rather see that people making 5x the money I do paying 5x the taxes and people making the same paying the same. I would rather the underground community be brought to sea level so that the criminals and their corrupt sidelines can better be dealt with. This is a great bill and anyone who is in favor of peace, order, and smoking pot should be voting yes. The no votes are a vote for prohibition and the criminal activities that follow it.



It is a lofty dream. One that is sadly beyond most people, I can understand that. It's not easy to change the way we've done business for almost 80 years, but that's not a reason to accept things as they are. Just because you've given up and/or haven't the fortitude for the fight ahead, that is no reason for everyone else to vote in bad legislation. We have more in the way of rights and protections now than we have ever before and we make more progress every year. I won't bother with the insulting insinuations that aren't really vote-related and just a cheap shot at opposing viewpoints.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 29, 2010)

ford442 said:


> an email to me yesterday morning from NORML -
> 
> "This just in from Public Policy Polling: *As of today, 52% of voters support Proposition 19, while only 36% are against it.* This puts us ahead by 16% among California voters!"


That seems inaccurate to me. Is it possible that poll was commissioned by prop19 backers? 

All the recent polling I've seen have the yes/no within the margin of error.

I'm a prop 19 supporter, but I'm an even bigger supporter of an honest discussion on the topic. (not saying you're being dishonest, but it seems like whoever conducted that poll is)


----------



## sm0keyrich510 (Jul 29, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> That seems inaccurate to me. Is it possible that poll was commissioned by prop19 backers?
> 
> All the recent polling I've seen have the yes/no within the margin of error.


i agree. just earlier this month a poll came out stating it was 44% support to 48% against.

so i have a hard time believing that in less than 1 month it goes from the above figure to 52% support to 36% against...


i think we just have to keep in mind its random people being asked...so these polls are really inaccurate as you can (at random) get any number of supporters or those against it.

they can do a poll every week but if it only includes the opinions of 1,000 or so people then its not reliable info to get psyched on.


----------



## brickedup417 (Jul 29, 2010)

i dont know theres gonna be alott of nor-cal locals voteing no, and now theres alott of collectives pushing no.....so hopefully it wont pass


----------



## 10jed (Jul 29, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Most of us against the bill have read it. Extensively. Repeatedly. Hell, I'm about ready to start citing the damn thing from memory. At this point, I only have to pull the initiative text when I get need to pull a direct quote. We all should be smart enough to understand what is said, and yet we get posts like this filled with misinformation and flat-out wrong information in support of a weak fear-mongering platform. Whether that's a result of just being misinformed or a straight up propaganda tactic, I could really care less. The easiest way to deal with baseless rhetoric and tangential emotive argumentation is with fact and reason. So, let's get to it, shall we...


First off Tokin,
Thanks for reading and considering my entire post. Sometimes when I write a book-like post such as this I look after it is done and wonder if anyone will ever actually read it! I don't believe my words are based on misinformation and I can assure you that I am not trying to incite any fear. I also appreciate your peacable and classy dissagreement. 





> I'll assume that your signature is an indicator that you are not a resident of California and therefore were not here for the initial months of action on not only Prop 19, but the 2 other initiatives as well. The doubt, debate and general disgust with the direction Prop 19 took happened well before the initiative was finalized. Many like Jack Herer and Dennis Peron walked away from supporting the bill, which left Dick Lee holding the bag on legislation no one but him wanted. So he hired a political consultant and financed the necessary signatures for his bill to be on the November ballot, while the other two initiatives were unable to gather enough signatures as they were volunteer-run efforts. Arguments against Prop 19 are not intended to come up with a better bill. There are already better legislative initiatives which could be built upon to make a rational legalization policy. There was a lot of ferocious debate and contention in the early phase of drafting this proposition, which resulted in key figures walking away from Dick's crazy bill and trying to work on better solutions. Unfortunately, Dick Lee has spent a long time building his political nest egg on the backs of patients and their medical needs, and now uses that money to draft some of the worst legalization legislation ever. You are right that those with illegal commercial grows may not want legalization, but you're very much in error in assuming that the opposition is comprised completely of nothing but illegal growers. Gross generalizations don't do anyone any good, and only serve to obfuscate an already muddy and complex issue. The opposition to Prop 19 is varied and diverse as are the reasons we oppose it.


Certainly not all no voters are illegal commercial growers. I'm sorry that I stated it that way but I believe that the general movement is spawned by their opinions. The thing that a lot of the non-malicious "vote no" people are hinging on is that there will be another opportunity for this to all happen again soon with a prop they like better. There is no guarantee to that! In fact, if this is voted down it won't be publicized as the "true freedom fighters of cannabis not being satisfied with the wording" instead it will be publicized as "California apparently doesn't want marijuana legalized as much as we thought". All your championing efforts will be simply seen as a no vote. If you had the option of this or nothing would you be happy with nothing? I know some would prefer that, and those are the ones that I am calling out in my original post as being the ones who seem to be leading the fight for no. I'm not implying that you feel that way, I don't know. You seem like a sensible guy, and if we met we may very well agree on many other facets of life.

From government's standpoint the current mmj laws are flawed. The things that you are complaining about with Dicks prop are a direct result of that, and many cities closing or denying licensing to prospective dispensaries is further proof that what is in place now is not good for all involved. It is a situation of people getting rich off of MJ. It is a situation where the prop that got the votes did so because a guy who got rich off of MMJ funded it. That is how things get done though, that guy stepped up to the plate and made an investment in his own personal future. I don't like it, you don't like it, but that is how things work in this country. Feel lucky that he did that because the grass roots efforts didn't get it done like he did. He bought 1/4 of Oakland's MJ business but the rest of the state is up for grabs to people with business savvy who are in communities where the general populous or economic needs support it. 






> OK, let's waltz past the guesswork on what cities will or won't do should Prop 19 pass. At this point, it's all an academic exercise. Proponents want to believe that municipalities will welcome commercial growing with open arms and will treat the cannabis community with equality and respect. I'm not sure which California they've been watching, but there are few communities that openly welcome the cannabis community and quite a few that are looking for any way they can to restrict us out of their towns as quickly as possible. Prop 19 doesn't gain anyone new rights or privileges, it adds new restrictions and more ways for smokers and cultivators to be arrested and incarcerated. Proponents of the bill seem so eager to cut and run on people it's almost shameful. You may not have an issue with the sudden exclusion of 18-20 year olds from protection under the law, but I do. These individuals have every right to consume cannabis as someone who is 21 or older. They have those rights today, and there is no rational reason to change it now.


I agree that anything relating to how individual communities handle this issue at this point is only conjecture, but the fact remains that individual communities have the right to tweak this. I think it is safe to say that some will embrace it and some will want no part of it, just as some will side with their residents and some will side with larger corporate entities such as Oakland seems to be doing. But, would you rather gather up your 50 closest buddies and speak your peace in front of your state government or in front of your local government? I guaranty that you will have far more push in your local government to get things the way you want them. Divide and conquer my friend. You still get to fight the good fight but now you have a far less threatening opponent. If the people of your community are really for this, you will certainly have a say in how your community deals with these new laws, but if not, nothing will change that unless those peoples minds are changed. Voters have a far bigger voice in local government than they do in state or federal.

As for 18-20 or anyone in California for that matter, they most certainly do not have those rights. MJ is still illegal in California for non-medical users! Decrim means you get a misdemeanor instead of a felony! I don't have any misdemeanors, do you? I don't want any misdemeanors on my record. That is something they ask on job applications, and business loan or banking applications. That is something that will come up to bite you when you are fighting with your ex about child support issues, getting a license for bartending or real estate, or fighting an unrelated crime! Misdemeanors are not OK, they are not a felony or a free ticket to the pokey but you don't want misdemeanors on your record! And $100 is nothing compared to a felony arrest but in today's society $100 is a lot of money to a lot of people! Your decriminalization still is an open invite for a cop to search your car, or check your bag or otherwise hassle you. If it is legal it is legal but what you have now is not legalization. It is passive acceptance with a right to bust you if they want to.

Currently in CA a lot of the MMJ growers grow for themselves or their patients and sell what is left to the dispensaries. This bill changes that. OK, so now the only people who can sell weed or produce enough to sell legally are those who are specifically licensed to do so. How is that bad? Bad for the grower who wants to make a buck but not for anyone else. OK, maybe the guy who has cancer and lives with his wife who has cancer and their uncle who has chronic back pain can't get by on a 5x5 grow but for the most part it is possible under these restrictions to supply all but the most chronic smokers. Besides, the "compassion" of selling MMJ for street prices or more isn't really compassion is it? I know a lot of growers gift MMJ or sell at very low prices and there is no reason that people who truly are compassionate cant still help people with needs that are greater than what their gardens produce. That is compassionate. Under this prop you just can't sell without a license for commercial production. That's what the verbiage on this prop addresses and that is a big step in the crime thwarting efforts of this bill. MJ crimes are high in parts of CA! Granted you CA guys are the ones who got this whole ball rolling in the first place, and we all thank you for that, but many other states look first at the crime issues that exist in CA and the struggles in some cities to control it as a reason to deny or ignore new MMJ bills. To Dick that angle was probably more to fill his own wallet but to the rest of the State it is a way to control sales of MJ. How is that not reasonable? There is absolutely no need to ever have more than an ounce on you at any time or purchase more than in ounce at one time unless you are making a delivery. That is very reasonable verbiage and only negatively effects the criminal element short of maybe some inconvenience to people who have to travel to buy it.

The 18-20 bracket, as I said, I feel for on all of this because I personally feel that MJ is a safer alternative to alcohol, but the non-smoking community that will be voting on this isn't experienced with MJ like we are. I see that as throwing them a bone, and ultimately it will account for quite a few votes. Kids and pot is a big issue for most people in or out of the culture and unfortunately our society sees under 21 as a kid in many aspects of life. It was hard enough to get people to finally come to terms with the fact that MJ isn't the demon weed it was made out to be but to expect the populous to vote on a prop that gives pot rights to ages younger than what is deemed acceptable for alcohol sales is another pipe dream. Won't happen now... baby steps!



> I also have no problem with local government setting reasonable regulations and taxing structures. I do have a problem with not being able to have a say in the development of those regulations and taxes. No taxation without representation, as they used to say in the old days. Prop 19 gives municipalities the power to set those standards as they deem fit. Many medical collectives and dispensaries are fighting local municipalities for the right to exist as it is, and proponents want to hand them even more power to dictate policy without oversight.


I answered some of this above, but you have the ability to control your local government with your votes far more easily than you do state or federal. Many collectives are not about compassionate care or helping the sick but more about making money. Maybe even most are in that bracket I don't know. The unregulated production, although nice for people who really need it, does nothing to stop criminal profits and that is why strict regulated production is necessary. You have a better chance of a local official reading your letter or looking over your petition, and you may even be able to call their office and have a friendly chat with them. Big business has less influence on local government because they are smaller fish so even the looming corporate giants loose some of their strength in your home town. Another line from the prop states that "appropriate" fees may be dictated. I'm no lawyer but to me $200K is far from appropriate and that may be something that could be argued in court, I don't know.




> Your fundamental misunderstanding of the taxing system in this country is truly astounding. I don't know who you've been listening to, but you are getting hoodwinked. The taxes you are describing are an interesting fantasy of paranoia and nonsense. Tax #1... I have to admit, that's a new one. I can't say I've ever come across such a fundamentally wrong perception of the tax and budgetary processes in this country. Since anyone who has actually done their taxes in the past, say 20 years, can hopefully see the crazy, I won't bother. Tax #2 isn't a tax. It's a choice. Yes, it's hard to source cannabis as a recreational user without contacting illegal elements that will charge you some sort of overhead or surcharge for product. And yes, with illegal organizations there is a chance, a good one most likely, that the money you spent could be used to finance worse crimes. Prop 19 doesn't mitigate that. Hard drugs and illegal pharmaceuticals generate their own profit and there's no direct evidence to support the theory that commercializing cannabis will make a significant difference. Tax #3 is probably the the most backwards perception of all. Pot convictions can and do ruin lives. I feel bad for anyone that lives in states other than California that have not seen fit to adopt rational legislation and protect the recreational smoker/cultivator. It's sad that you see the diversion aspect of California's Penal Code as a drain on society, but your associating those programs with costing the tax payer money is flat out wrong. These programs save communities money by removing simple possession and cultivation for personal consumption cases from resulting in jail sentences and reduce court costs by removing the need for proceedings. The fact is, under current California law, possession of one ounce or less and/or cultivation for personal consumption is a misdemeanor with a $100 max fine. Three or more repeat offenses will probably necessitate attending an education/rehab program, but if you've been popped three or more times, I think you have larger concerns to consider, like why do you keep getting popped. All in all, these programs cost significantly less than incarcerating these same people. Plus, there is also the fact that because of programs like these, the charges that necessitated your participation in them, are immediately dropped from your record upon completion of the program. In fact, there is currently legislation on it's way to the State Assembly that will further reduce those possession/cultivation for personal consumption charges from a misdemeanor to a simple infraction. No more court appearance, just pay the fine.


Ahh I see you liked that part! Obviously those aren't actual taxes, but the truth is you pay overhead when you buy weed on the street and it doesn't go to the state. Prohibition, regardless of decriminalization, costs tax payers money in a myriad of ways. People loose jobs because of drug testing techniques that do not actually test for intoxication but for recent or even not so recent use. Much of that is gone with prop 19. Your "just a ticket" version of decrim is not yet law, right? Buying weed on the street may sometimes get you weed and sometimes you get "well, I don't have any weed but I have *insert other illegal substance*" It happens, not everyone has the awesome consistent hookup even in Cali. By having state regulated outlets you know you can get quality weed and you won't be offered any alternatives.





> Prop 19 doesn't legitimize cannabis anymore than it already is. It restricts the personal consumption statute and adds new standards by which law enforcement will be able to establish intent to sell. The rest of that paragraph is pure fantasy. The Federal government is only one part of the opposition to cannabis legalization. The bulk is made up of big business interests that do not want competition from the cannabis industry. The Feds are adamant that people believe their propaganda about cannabis being dangerous and the perception of cannabis as a drug. Prop 19 won't force anything to change in the Controlled Substances Act. Maybe if more states were to adopt medical and/or recreational cannabis policies, we could begin to force some action at a national level. The V.A.'s recognition of cannabis as medically valid is progress, Prop 19 would not be.


I certainly agree that the culprits against federal legalization are and always have been corporate entities. They buy our governments with their campaign donations and spin tales with their lobbyists, but it is the government that has the face of the power. Decrim is still illegal, legal is legal. Just because your local fuzz is ok with things happening in front of their faces now doesn't mean that any of that will change. Up to an ounce is more than reasonable for anyone who isn't looking to sell it. They are making a long overdue clarification as to what is deemed as personal, clarifying how to measure amounts, and making a big step in reducing crime. Then, if communities want to extend those limits they can. 

You don't think that this will clear the way for other states to do the same or maybe even make a large stride toward federal legalization? This passing will put the US in a bad spot with the INCB. The INCB is the international entity that controls the world's legal drug trade and they use the power of their treaties to dictate law to us and other countries. US MJ legalization, even in just 1 state could finally be a way for us to break free of some of that, so although this won't be that single straw most likely, it may spur a movement for revision of those treaties and be a major stepping stone toward global legalization of MJ, as well as recognition of the medical benefits. The INCB and the Pharmaceutical industry would both prefer that MJ be reduced to a pill that can't be created without lab coats and million dollar machines. Won't be too long and they will be able to synthesize more than thc... With the state verbiage to allow testing we can finally have documentable scientific proof, and statistical information that is based on a population that is free from any prosecution for use. Now statistics are based on backwards control groups that don't show segments of the population that are closet users and that is the bulk of the people using. "We polled 1000 people with colon cancer and found that 25% were frequent MJ users, so MJ causes colon cancer 25% of the time!" I'm sick of that kind of bullshit! All that would mean is that 25% of the people use MJ. Granted a lot of the above is global concern more so than CA, but I would think the smokers of CA would have some concern for the rest of the people in the world. In seems that the writers of prop 19 did.





> Recreational users can cultivate their own now. As you proponents keep asserting, this should have nothing to do with medical users, so bringing them up and making baseless generalization about them isn't very honest. Your fantasy about the utopia of legal growing is optimistic, to say the least. Too bad it's not pragmatic. If you can't trust someone to know about your grow now, there's no reason you'll be more inclined to trust everyone and show it off after Prop 19. Even if it was fully legalized, cannabis still has value. If you can't grow because you're afraid your kids will narc you out because they're brainwashed by DARE, then you seriously have much LARGER problems and need to work on parenting better.


You keep saying that it is legal to grow and smoke and it isn't! This is from NORML's website:

Possession
28.5 g or less misdemeanor none $100
More than 28.5 g misdemeanor 6 months $500
28.5 g or less on school grounds while school open (over 18 yers old) misdemeanor 10 days $500
More than 28.5 g on school grounds while school open (over 18 yers old) misdemeanor 6 months $500

Cultivation
Any amount (exception for patients or caregivers) felony 16 - 36 months none

Sale
Gift of less than 28.5 g misdemeanor none $100
Any amount felony 
2 - 4 years
none
28.5 g or less by a minor misdemeanor none $250
Any amount to a minor over 14 years old felony 3 - 5 years none
Any amount to a minor under 14 years old (includes offering, inducing, distributing, or employing) felony 
3 - 7 years
none
Miscellaneous (paraphernalia, license suspensions, drug tax stamps, etc...)
Any conviction of minor under 21 causes driver's license suspension for 1 year.

Based on that, the only place where your rights are reduced is for the 18-20 year olds, and that is to make it more like alcohol regulations! This isn't reasonable? Advantages are no misdemeanors and you get fucked for selling without a commercial license, but get no misdemeanor or hassle from johnny law with under an ounce, and no persecution from your job unless you are intoxicated on site... According to what I see about CA law you don't have any right to cultivate now, but you do get a felony arrest and up to 3 years in jail for growing only 1 plant. MMJ laws certainly override that, but as we all know in many peoples eyes those laws are flawed so don't expect government support for a system that still allows the criminal aspect to get a piece of the action. 

I'm a great parent and I don't let people know about my grow, especially my kid. I don't ever want my kid to feel she has to keep that important of a secret for me. When she is older sure, but right now it is too much to ask of her. As for others, it gives someone power over you if you end up on their shitlist! A friend of mine dumped his girlfriend and a few days later the police had a tip that he had an op. You can't tell people about your grow with prohibition. There are 4 people on this planet who know about my grow, and 3 live hours away!






> Yeah, not so much. Under current laws and in accordance with legal precedents, possession and cultivation for personal consumption are allowable without restrictions on garden size or number of plants. If this bill is meant to be progress, then there's no reason to set limits that don't exist now.


Progress would be to control the illegal sale and distribution. For most, the garden size limitations is no more than a small inconvenience for anyone other than people looking to sell or with extremely high medical dose requirements. Communities that want to increase the numbers or make exceptions for medical users can. People can also always buy what they can't grow themselves and true compassion just might show up and pick up the slack for the people who are in need. I do that now as a recreational smoker with a 1.5 sq ft garden! If you have a MMJ card because of a hangnail, or problems falling asleep at night and go through more than a qp or even a hp in a year then you should probably look into some help. Certainly some people need large quantities but it is my understanding that the bulk of the MMJ cards out there aren't for those kind of illnesses.



> Because law enforcement doesn't misinterpret ambiguous law to establish illegality now. In addition, the proposition makes allowances for municipalities to use money raised via taxes in any way they deem necessary to control and enforce regulations. There is nothing in the bill which prevents Federal and local cooperation and/or transfer of resources so long as local government deems it necessary.


What does this mean?
Section 11303: Seizure (a) Notwithstanding sections 11470 and 11479 of the Health and Safety Code or any other provision of law, 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, processed, transported, possessed, possessed for sale, sold or used in compliance with this Act or any local government ordinance, law or regulation adopted pursuant to this Act.

Sounds to me like if you follow the rules they can't touch you. This is what legality is.




> Nice... lots of baseless hype to tell everyone to avoid the hype. This proposition isn't friendly to the cannabis community and undoes a lot of progress made over the last 20 years.


Certainly there has been some progress but people have taken advantage of the loopholes and this evens the playing field. It will be an eye opener for the rest of the world. This is far bigger than California and that is why myself and a billion other non CA residents are speaking out about it.




> It is a lofty dream. One that is sadly beyond most people, I can understand that. It's not easy to change the way we've done business for almost 80 years, but that's not a reason to accept things as they are. Just because you've given up and/or haven't the fortitude for the fight ahead, that is no reason for everyone else to vote in bad legislation. We have more in the way of rights and protections now than we have ever before and we make more progress every year. I won't bother with the insulting insinuations that aren't really vote-related and just a cheap shot at opposing viewpoints.


So you just want to be able to grow a bigger garden and have more than an ounce on your person. Is that it? Prop 19 is a stepping stone, it isn't the final result of the fight. Nobody is giving up. I think most of us just want to be able to have pot treated like beer. Make your own if you want to, go to a store and buy from a selection of quality product, keep it out of the hands of kids, provide jobs, stimulate the economy, not be persecuted by our peers or employers or our government... prop 19 does all of that but just makes it really tough for an illegal commercial grower to sell his wares on the street. I don't know how it could be seen otherwise.

Jed


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 29, 2010)

and with that, i'm voting NO.


----------



## brickedup417 (Jul 29, 2010)

hell ya im glad to see another no vote.


----------



## 10jed (Jul 30, 2010)

Well, I'm not going to force-feed any more of my views in this thread. I have stated my opinion and my interpretations so hopefully somebody will find some insight that is usable. I'm not sure how a pot-loving, free thinking, big-business hating, government bashing person like myself gets compared to Palin, McCain, and Bush Jr. Though I do kinda get the cattle prod part . 

I really, honestly, just don't get your viewpoint. I can't see how a no vote could be best for anyone but the criminals and the profiteers.

Jed


----------



## lowryder666 (Jul 30, 2010)

Looks like we're all selfish c***s at the end of the day


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 30, 2010)

10jed said:


> Well, I'm not going to force-feed any more of my views in this thread. I have stated my opinion and my interpretations so hopefully somebody will find some insight that is usable. I'm not sure how a pot-loving, free thinking, big-business hating, government bashing person like myself gets compared to Palin, McCain, and Bush Jr. Though I do kinda get the cattle prod part .
> 
> I really, honestly, just don't get your viewpoint. I can't see how a no vote could be best for anyone but the criminals and the profiteers.
> 
> Jed


Your lack of imagination, baseless emotive rhetoric and fundamental misunderstanding of current California law is still no reason to vote in ridiculous legislation. I maintain my prior position. Get off your ass and fix your own state. You claim to be "a pot-loving, free thinking, big-business hating, government bashing person" and yet you're attitude is ride the coat tails of REAL activists and advocates and hope their efforts in some way influence the powers in authority over you and yours, so that maybe, just MAYBE they'll stop persecuting you. Take responsibility for your own part in the decriminalization process and do something in your own state. "Trickle down" doesn't work in economics or politics. I'm not sure how many decades people will need to exploited before they do something about taking back control of their own lives. Frankly, I'm beginning to think far too many like it or just don't have the fortitude to deserve freedom from persecution. Liberty is something you have to take, not something you are granted or that can be bought.


----------



## GanjaAL (Jul 30, 2010)

funny how everyone is calling us selfish... I am votin *NO *because it will not release anyone from prison and will not stop the incarceration rates as it stands now.

The reason people are going to jail in record numbers in california in an alarming rate that keeps growing is for possesion of more than an oz... sorry but that will not change with the passing of prop19. If anything it may increase because people think TAXATIon is Legalization which it is not. Prop19 only serves the people who wrote it and the politicians who will fill there coffers so they can empty them again with fiscal irresponsibility!

If you want to grow and smoke... get a rec as it sure offers more freedom and protection than prop19!


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 30, 2010)

GanjaAL said:


> funny how everyone is calling us selfish... I am votin *NO *because it will not release anyone from prison and will not stop the incarceration rates as it stands now.


You are correct. No one will be released from jail if it passes. Prop 19 doesn't go far enough. But the end of prohibition isn't going to happen over night and it certainly won't happen with one law. Change often comes piece by piece. Just because we aren't getting all the change we need all at once, doesn't mean we shouldn't get the ball rolling by supporting prop19.



GanjaAL said:


> The reason people are going to jail in record numbers in california in an alarming rate that keeps growing is for possesion of more than an oz... sorry but that will not change with the passing of prop19.


That's not necessarily true. You will be able to possess more than an ounce in many places, just not everywhere.

From the text of prop19:



> Amendments to the limitations in section 11300, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations.


That means everywhere in California you will be able to carry at the least an ounce. It's the minimum, not the maximum. There is no upper ceiling on the amounts cities/counties can approve. If your city/county decides you should be allowed to grow 500 square feet and possess 50 pounds, they are allowed to make it legal in any city or county in California.

Prop 19 is specifically designed to be an amendable work in progress. It will be our responsibility to write petitions, gather signatures, and then deliver them to our city counsels and county boards of supervisors all across California. If enough voters demand higher limits, for the most part cities and counties will be forced to listen.

But no one else will make that change for us. That is up to us. 



GanjaAL said:


> Prop19 only serves the people who wrote it and the politicians who will fill there coffers so they can empty them again with fiscal irresponsibility!


Not true. Prop 19 will serve the people who work hard to make it into what they want it to be. If we all sit back and do nothing, yes, then it will only serve those who put the proper effort into it. But if you are active in your community and work to make prop19 serve the people, then it will. 



GanjaAL said:


> If you want to grow and smoke... get a rec as it sure offers more freedom and protection than prop19!


Prop 19 has no effect on your 215 rec. With or without prop19 you'll be able to keep doing what you're doing. Prop19 just offers the cities and counties of California a potential higher level of freedom. The only catch is, if you want that higher level of freedom, you're going to have to go out and take it for yourself. No one is going to do it for you. Prop 19 just gives you the ability to do that.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 30, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> and with that, i'm voting NO.


Yeah, keep posting that over and over again. Real clever.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 30, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Yeah, keep posting that over and over again. Real clever.


and you points aren't redundant? 

once again, you're calling the kettle black.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 30, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> and you points aren't redundant?
> .


Only when you continue to spread the same misinformation over and over again. But your posts are nothing more than blatant dishonest propaganda.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 30, 2010)

chef*bob said:


> hey Dan, IM VOTING NO AND YOUR A FOOL
> 
> Ive been working hard to do a small part in making sure this bill doesnt pass, informing every medical grower i know personally about the bill. all of them are against it. all of them are now in their own process of doing the same. i can confidently say ive gather hundreds of No votes. it doesnt take any propaganda,fear mongering..what ever. all you have to do is inform people and get them thinking about it. i have not met a single individual growing under prop 215 who is for prop19. the scary thing is how few growers\stoners even know about the bill, my fear is that come Nov, these people who arent educated in the details will vote yes simply because its there.
> 
> GanjaAL,tokinpod,bricked are the truth.


It's not just medical cannabis people we should be talking to, but the recreational smokers as well. Prop 19 is a danger for anyone younger than 21 and anyone with kids. If law enforcement and local government have demonstrated anything, it's their moral objection to our presence as a community and their abject willingness to misinterpret law and outright falsify evidence in their efforts to eradicate us. For anyone and everyone that smokes, you need to be aware of your real rights under the law.

Point everyone you know to this link: http://www.canorml.org/laws/calmjlaws.html
or print it out and hand it to folks. They should know how to protect themselves. We activists have fought hard for what we got and while it's not perfect, we HAVE reduced the number of people incarcerated for simple possession and/or cultivation for personal consumption. Those are facts. Local municipalities don't need Prop 19 to enable cannabis industry regulation and engage in fee collection. Oakland just proved that. Prop 19 is the iconic example of the ultimate scam job. They want to sell you the rights you already have, tax you for "now having them", and tell you exactly how you are allowed to exercise those rights. Capitalism hasn't worked so far and the capitalists keep wanting us to try it their way.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 30, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Only when you continue to spread the same misinformation over and over again. But your posts are nothing more than blatant dishonest propaganda.


----------



## chef*bob (Jul 31, 2010)

good points tokinpod, theres alot of ground to cover as far as demographics of people who arent aware of the bill. what else can we do?


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 31, 2010)

chef*bob said:


> good points tokinpod, theres alot of ground to cover as far as demographics of people who arent aware of the bill. what else can we do?


Same thing we do every night, Pinky.....

errr, sorry. Too many cartoons. We do what we've been doing. Get others to spread the word, too. Pass that link along. Print out copies and keep them with you. Anytime it comes up in conversation, whip that puppy out and inform, inform, INFORM! 

Most of all, never let the proponents get to you. We're often accused of misinformation, lying, selfishness and greed. Remember to let it slide and stick to the facts. We're safer now as a community than we would be under Prop 19. Dan used the old adage "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." For once he gives good advice, except the bird in hand is what we have now and Prop 19 isn't just a bush. It's a frickin' brier patch. Keep on keepin' on, brother bob...

 in anticipation of flames.


----------



## profit714 (Jul 31, 2010)

i live in cali and am a patient and would really like to see it legal but the ones who write and will profit from it do not care about it.if it is loved you know when you smoke it.right?i knew this law would be written bad.i have been in many debates over subject.
5x5 feet that would mean if i use say a 6x8 foot but only use 5x5 would it be illegal.rarely does only on oz come from harvest. say a 30 gram dry weight is what i get i go to jail right?if a cop walk up with a minor while i smoke in my house, i would be consuming in the presence of a minor.i would then go to jail.
this law is built to make money.greed by the writers not the love of the plant.if a monopoly does arise(witch the law states)due to only a select few prices will go up and a new or what is in place now will just take over due the 'shops' could charge upwards of 70 an eighth and people need to go to these "specialty" shops in order to stay supplied.
i have to say that 215 is written well and i think is written to last.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jul 31, 2010)

profit714 said:


> i live in cali and am a patient and would really like to see it legal but the ones who write and will profit from it do not care about it.if it is loved you know when you smoke it.right?i knew this law would be written bad.i have been in many debates over this.
> 5x5 feet that would mean if i use say a 6x8 foot would be illegal.rarely does only on oz come from harvest. say a 30 gram dry weight is what i get i go to jail right?if a cop walk up with a minor i would be consuming in the presence of a minor.i would then go to jail.
> this law is built to make money.greed by the writers now the love of the plant.if a monopoly does arise(witch the law states)due to only a select few prices will go up and a new or what is in place now will just take over due the 'shops' could charge upwards of 70 an eighth and people need to go to these "specialty" shops in order to stay supplied.
> i have to say that 215 is written well and i think is written to last.


Yeah, they should let you smoke up a 4 year old on school grounds the nazi bastards!!!


----------



## The Zapper (Jul 31, 2010)

I assume most on this site are farmers, to some degree. Good farmers know that patience is key. This prop is no good. We all love MJ, so why would we want to whore her out to corporate douche bags? Let's deny this prop. and wait to pass something that shows her the respect MJ deserves. No on 19!!!


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 31, 2010)

NLXSK1 said:


> Yeah, they should let you smoke up a 4 year old on school grounds the nazi bastards!!!


when you have to make up stuff like this, it is a sign of desperation.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jul 31, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> when you have to make up stuff like this, it is a sign of desperation.


 
Make up what? It was to prove a point...

There are only 22,000 active posters on RIU and we cant even agree on how the best way to grow a plant is... Yet somehow, after this bill is defeated you somehow seem to think they will actually come up with a bill that millions of Californians love and nobody has a problem with...

You dont like it because it is 21 and older, you dont like it because you can only legally carry an ounce, etc... You are never going to love any marijuana legislation created in California. There will never be a perfect bill created. It cannot happen due to the simple cause and effect of money and lobbiests... 

So lets get back down to reality. What is your end game? What is your strategy beyond voting no on this bill?


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 31, 2010)

NLXSK1 said:


> Make up what? It was to prove a point...
> 
> There are only 22,000 active posters on RIU and we cant even agree on how the best way to grow a plant is... Yet somehow, after this bill is defeated you somehow seem to think they will actually come up with a bill that millions of Californians love and nobody has a problem with...
> 
> ...



i what? 



"my end game"? am i supposed to have one?

there will still be a cause if this doesn't pass. you all said you've been fighting for forever. why would you stop if this fails? to those who vote yes and watch it not pass, what is "your" end game? since your counting on this bill for EVERYTHING. remember, it's this or nothing. so what do YOU do when it fails?


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jul 31, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i what?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am not going to *do* anything, I dont live in CA...

My point to you is that there is not going to be a perfect bill and less than 0 chance of a perfect one created under the CA legislature. If you voted yes then you could work towards getting the onerous parts of the law changed instead of waiting for a year or 3 to get something back on the ballot.

I will be voting yes for medical marijuana in AZ and supporting the cause of legalization there.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 31, 2010)

i never asked for perfection.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jul 31, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i never asked for perfection.


Change is scary...


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 31, 2010)

NLXSK1 said:


> Change is scary...


i have no idea what that is supposed to mean.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jul 31, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i have no idea what that is supposed to mean.


What I mean is that given the current two choices. ER: keeping the marijuana laws the status quo where someone can be arrested and charged for a joint is preferrable to you than the uncertainty and change that the repeal of at least most of the anti-marijuana laws would bring.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Jul 31, 2010)

NLXSK1 said:


> What I mean is that given the current two choices. ER: keeping the marijuana laws the status quo where someone can be arrested and charged for a joint is preferrable to you than the uncertainty and change that the repeal of at least most of the anti-marijuana laws would bring.


Seriously, if you don't live here, please don't try and tell everyone "how it is" here. Your misinformed opinion is really of no relevance since you don't live in California and cannabis regulations, medical and otherwise, is largely determined by each state. I'm sorry you live in Nazi-zona. I have a brother-in-law who just moved there (people do crazy shit for love), and I worry about him all the time. The facts are that no one gets arrested for "just one joint". California marijuana laws have come a long way in the 20 years since I've joined the fight and that's in addition to the progress that was made before I was old enough to join the scene. Also, there's no uncertainty that change will be made and progress gained. We've gained much in 20 years that other states should look to emulate. We've reduced the number of non-violent drug offenders who go to jail. That's fact. 

I appreciate that you support the medical initiative in your state. But that really gives no relevance to your opinions about what Californians should do. As I've reiterated to others also out-of-state, work on your own state. Don't base anything on what any other state does. Your legalization efforts should reflect the values and views of your state.

Also, it's E.G. or e.g., as in example given. Not ER. Our public education system really is a travesty.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jul 31, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Seriously, if you don't live here, please don't try and tell everyone "how it is" here. Your misinformed opinion is really of no relevance since you don't live in California and cannabis regulations, medical and otherwise, is largely determined by each state. I'm sorry you live in Nazi-zona. I have a brother-in-law who just moved there (people do crazy shit for love), and I worry about him all the time. The facts are that no one gets arrested for "just one joint". California marijuana laws have come a long way in the 20 years since I've joined the fight and that's in addition to the progress that was made before I was old enough to join the scene. Also, there's no uncertainty that change will be made and progress gained. We've gained much in 20 years that other states should look to emulate. We've reduced the number of non-violent drug offenders who go to jail. That's fact.
> 
> I appreciate that you support the medical initiative in your state. But that really gives no relevance to your opinions about what Californians should do. As I've reiterated to others also out-of-state, work on your own state. Don't base anything on what any other state does. Your legalization efforts should reflect the values and views of your state.
> 
> Also, it's E.G. or e.g., as in example given. Not ER. Our public education system really is a travesty.


I would venture to say that I have read your MMJ bill and am more informed than many on this site whether they be in California or not. 

Is it legal for a regular citizen to be in posession of a joint in California legally? Just because the cops do not enforce the laws does not mean that they are not there.

Thanks for the english lesson... so helpful on the internet...


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 31, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Seriously, if you don't live here, please don't try and tell everyone "how it is" here. Your misinformed opinion is really of no relevance since you don't live in California and cannabis regulations, medical and otherwise, is largely determined by each state. I'm sorry you live in Nazi-zona. I have a brother-in-law who just moved there (people do crazy shit for love), and I worry about him all the time. The facts are that no one gets arrested for "just one joint". California marijuana laws have come a long way in the 20 years since I've joined the fight and that's in addition to the progress that was made before I was old enough to join the scene. Also, there's no uncertainty that change will be made and progress gained. We've gained much in 20 years that other states should look to emulate. We've reduced the number of non-violent drug offenders who go to jail. That's fact.
> 
> I appreciate that you support the medical initiative in your state. But that really gives no relevance to your opinions about what Californians should do. As I've reiterated to others also out-of-state, work on your own state. Don't base anything on what any other state does. Your legalization efforts should reflect the values and views of your state.
> 
> Also, it's E.G. or e.g., as in example given. Not ER. Our public education system really is a travesty.


While you are correct, no one is going to jail for a joint (unless they are on parole/probation/in drug court or something similar. ), it's a free country, he can express his opinion.


----------



## Dan Kone (Jul 31, 2010)

NLXSK1 said:


> I would venture to say that I have read your MMJ bill and am more informed than many on this site whether they be in California or not.
> 
> Is it legal for a regular citizen to be in posession of a joint in California legally? Just because the cops do not enforce the laws does not mean that they are not there.


No, it's not legal. But it's pretty rare that someone goes to jail for a joint. The only circumstances where I've heard of that happening are when someone was on probation/parole/in drug court. 

How ever it's a myth that you can't go to jail for less than an ounce. If that ounce is all in one bag you're safe. But if say you have two grams in different bags (like having two strains you want to keep separate), under current California law that can be considered intent to sell. You're average cop won't even enforce that though, only a world class asshole is going to hit you with a charge for that, but it does happen on occasion. 



NLXSK1 said:


> Thanks for the english lesson... so helpful on the internet...


The internets is serious business.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jul 31, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> The internets is serious business.


I also dont use apostrophes and misuse ellipses (sp)... I am waiting for them to kick down my door any day now!!


----------



## The Potologist (Jul 31, 2010)

I personally think that ANY step towards regulation is better than sitting in Prohibition at the end of the day. I think progress has to start somewhere. If this whole idea turns out to be a bad choice, we can reverse it. However, as things stand now, with the cost of the "war on drugs" and the violence in Mexico...I think moving away from Prohibition is a start, and certianly better than dwelling in the utter failures of Prohibition. Fundamentally, if voting NO on Prop then i WOULD BELIVE, you are FOR Prohibition. The vote is really simple...Prohibition Vs. Regulation & Legalization ( although, to my understanding...Legalization is some blur )...Personally, I think that those who still wish against Prop 19 are ultimately siding with Prohibition, probably have not suffered enough consequences of Prohibition.

P.S....And slightly off topic. This is a cannabis/stoner forum. WE ARE MOSTLY STONERS HERE...so to be picky and or rude on using proper "english" or pronuciation is just rubbish. Lets talk weed, pot, cannabis and all the stuff that goes with it. If I, or anyone else, wants to learn proper english...I am fairly sure they know the steps needed to learn it.  

Peace, Love, and Happiness


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 31, 2010)

NLXSK1 said:


> What I mean is that given the current two choices. ER: keeping the marijuana laws the status quo where someone can be arrested and charged for a joint is preferrable to you than the uncertainty and change that the repeal of at least most of the anti-marijuana laws would bring.


you will not be arrested for a joint in california. you will be given a 100 dollar TICKET. if that. 

anymore BS i can clear up for you?


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jul 31, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you will not be arrested for a joint in california. you will be given a 100 dollar TICKET. if that.
> 
> anymore BS i can clear up for you?


 
How did Arnold Swarzeneggar get elected....




TWICE?!?!?!!???


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 31, 2010)

NLXSK1 said:


> How did Arnold Swarzeneggar get elected....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


he is a movie star and he ran in califonia. how could he lose?


----------



## 10jed (Jul 31, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you will not be arrested for a joint in california. you will be given a 100 dollar TICKET. if that.
> 
> anymore BS i can clear up for you?


 OK, so people who go to jail, go for over an OZ right? How do said leo officers find that OZ plus on the person? Is is because of a joint? or a baggie in their pocket? Is it the smell of weed? With prop 19 they have no legal cause to search you for any of that. How is that not offering more protection than current? Can't they arrest you even if you are 215 compliant? Isn't 215 just a defense? Granted they don't mess with most people but they can. If a leo wants to hassle you this is a legal way for them to search you or your home or whatever. Prop 19 takes that power away from them. It even goes so far as to say specifically that they can't touch you so if the feds want to start busting people who are compliant with prop 19 the local police are bound by law to not be a part of it.

Smoking around a minor... I mean really, are they installing cameras in your home? Is it a hassle to smoke in a room that your kids aren't in. do you ever get off your couch? If you are disabled is it that hard to ask your child to leave the room while you light up? Who the hell would ever know if they didn't? They don't want people lighting up around kids because of second hand smoke, and/or encouraging kids to smoke. Don't hang out at the playground with your bong and you are good to go! Regardless though, prop 19 doesn't call out any penalties for smoking in front of a minor or at a public place, this was never legal before, it just states specifically that prop 19 doesn't add this legality. Same as it is now.

Carrying more than an ounce. OK, if you are carrying more than an ounce it is logical that you have intent to sell. Certainly some very ill people use more than that in a day or two but that is a rare medical need. This is common sense that carrying more than a zip means you are selling and that is something that prop 19 is designed to protect from. That is what most of the people voting on this or any other bill want, to take the pot sales off the street! If you are going on a trip and are a heavy medical user put some in your suitcase and unless you rear end a cop and then call him an asshole, who the hell is going to search your car? They don't have probable cause because under prop 19 pot is legal. And for clarification, prop 19 specifically says there is no limit to what you can have in your home. As much as you can grow you can keep at your home you just can't go driving around with it all! Regardless, this bill specifically states that prop 19 does not take away the rights of medical users, so you medical guys don't have to worry a bit! That part is tucked in there a bit but it is there. You have to read all the healthcode references to see how that is affected. this is a cut and paste that explaines it better than I can:

**
Section 11357 of the California Health and Safety Code is the section that relates to possession limitations and penalties. Prop 215/SB420 (Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7-.9) are specifically excluded from the limitations of 11357. Prop 19 limits the application and enforcement of 11357 by establishing the 1 oz. legal limit on possessing, processing, sharing or transporting. *HERE'S THE KEY:* Prop215/SB420 are not subject to 11357 AND they were excluded from the purposes of Prop 19, therefore 215 patients are not impacted by the 1 oz. limit. Prop 19 even goes as far as to state that local governments have the power (within the framework set forth by Prop 19) to tax, regulate, oversee and control how and how much may be bought and sold, EXCEPT that they can't touch 215/SB420 limitations (or lack thereof)
**

As for the 18-20 crowd, there is nothing in the bill that states they can get arrested. There is no penalty listed for anyone in that age bracket possessing. There is no reason to think that they will get any more than the current $100 misdemeanor. It 
DOES say however that they cannot work at a place that sells or grows, and it does impose a large penalty for anyone over 18 who sells to a minor and anyone over 21 who sells to someone under 21. There is no additional possession penalty for being that 18-21 yr old!!!


Now, for the bs you can clear up. How does anyone other than an 18-20 yr old who wants to work in the industry, a person who is selling illegally, or a person who is an illegal commercial grower afraid to go legit, find fault with this prop?

Jed


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 1, 2010)

i use at least 2 ounces when i make butter.


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i use at least 2 ounces when i make butter.


And you have a 215 so you'll still be able to do that.


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 1, 2010)

10jed said:


> Now, for the bs you can clear up. How does anyone other than an 18-20 yr old who wants to work in the industry, a person who is selling illegally, or a person who is an illegal commercial grower afraid to go legit, find fault with this prop?
> 
> Jed


I'd like to hear the answer to that.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 1, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> And you have a 215 so you'll still be able to do that.


let's assume i didn't. 

i use at least 2 ounces when i make butter. common sense just went out the window


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> let's assume i didn't.


Then you couldn't have two ounces now either, so nothing would change in that situation. Unless of course after prop 19 passes and you live in a city/county that allows for more than an ounce.


----------



## lightningkid (Aug 1, 2010)

I learned a lot about prop 19 on http://stop19.com/ten-reasons-to-vote-no/ 

The info on this site is pretty interesting. I read enough to vote no in november.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 1, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Then you couldn't have two ounces now either, so nothing would change in that situation. Unless of course after prop 19 passes and you live in a city/county that allows for more than an ounce.


then why would i vote yes for something that wouldn't help me?


----------



## 10jed (Aug 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> let's assume i didn't.
> 
> i use at least 2 ounces when i make butter. common sense just went out the window


Do you make butter in your car? you can have a hundred pounds at home. Just pull it out of the jar!


----------



## 10jed (Aug 1, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Then you couldn't have two ounces now either, so nothing would change in that situation. Unless of course after prop 19 passes and you live in a city/county that allows for more than an ounce.


Dan, there is no limit to what you can have. the only limit is what you can leave the house with. they just don't want the street dealers. That is all that is about. Has nothing to do with how much you can have at home. Certainly if you had 50lbs they would question how you managed that out of a 5x5 garden, but they would need probable cause to walk through the door so how would they know?

Jed


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 1, 2010)

10jed said:


> Do you make butter in your car? you can have a hundred pounds at home. Just pull it out of the jar!


where do you come up with this stuff?


----------



## 10jed (Aug 1, 2010)

lightningkid said:


> I learned a lot about prop 19 on http://stop19.com/ten-reasons-to-vote-no/
> 
> The info on this site is pretty interesting. I read enough to vote no in november.


wow man. you should read the prop! This is all lies and conjecture. It looks like it was written by a 5th grader, and not one of those smart ones on tv!



> 1. *Proposition 19 isn&#8217;t really legalization.* It only allows possession of up to one ounce of cannabis. Under current California law, an ounce or less of pot isn&#8217;t an arrestable offense. And soon this amount will be a simple civil infraction. Prop 19 doesn&#8217;t make any improvements to decriminalization or prop 215.


you can have as much as you want at home you just cant travel with more than an oz. No jobsite wizz quizes. No card needed so no giving your name to anybody as a grower and asking the feds to stop by. No using smell, smoke, a joint, a bong by your open window as cause to search you, your car, or your house. I could go on and on.







> 2. *Prop 19 creates several new cannabis related crimes* with extremely severe penalties. Don&#8217; t mistakenly pass a joint to a 17 year old, you will be looking at 7 years in state prison, seriously.


same as beer. Is it really so difficult?




> 3. *Prop 19 is solely designed to allow large scale cannabis production* by politically connected corporations. Oakland has already granted a license to the Prop 19 Cartel.


that has noting to do with prop 19. big business has big money and that is what got this bill out there. Oakland has made the deal with the devil but that has nothing to do with other communities. Prop 19 is designed to allow the legal use, manufacture, sale, and purchase of Marijuana in order to provide money for the state, access to quality product, bathe California in the BILLONS of cannabusiness tourist dollars, take the black market out of the picture, and keep people who are simple users out of jail




> 4. Most legal experts agree that *Prop 19 is poorly written* and will leave police and judges to enforce it at their discretion. For example, consuming cannabis would be illegal in the same "space" as a minor. Police and judges are free to interoperate the word "space" to mean the same room, house, or entire apartment complex.


So in a state where they don't give a shit now if you smoke a little grass they are going to start doing random hose check to make sure daddy went to the backyard before he lit up. Then because it went from the room you are in to the entire house, to the apartment building you are in it must now mean the whole state... that's a really big space! That is what they will do for sure!




> 5. There is *no need to rush into a law that will be difficult to change*. There are better full legalization laws, including one set to be on the ballot in 2012.


Yup, all we need is another millionaire to back it. One who doesn't care if he gets anything out of the deal, but would prefer to have people selling pot to whomever because it is just a plant that god made and nobody can tell us what to do with a plant. 





> 6. *Prop 19 will lead to the walmartization of the cannabis industry.* And unfortunately, this will result in* lower quality and fixed prices*. Limited competition and government control will allow large scale growers to determine prices and dictate quality standards (or lack thereof).


If the weed sucks nobody will buy legally. If the prices are to high nobody will buy legally. There is a flourishing illegal market now, so they will need to do something to defeat that and it won't be jacking up prices and only allowing shitty weed.




> 7. Local governments will control the taxation, production, and distribution on cannabis. This is a touchy political issue; most local politicians won&#8217;t risk a backlash by allowing dispensaries in their city. This means *many people will have to travel long distances or break the law to purchase cannabis.*


Or you could grow your own. I think the fear of the taxation is more about them wanting to much, not them wanting nothing. If someplace really doesn't want a peice of the pie just buy like you are now. You are legal to posses, and there is no such thing as "marked buds" They have no way of knowing where you got it if they don't see the transaction. Regardless of what any community says anyone anywhere in the state can grow in a minimum of25 sq ft, have as much at home as they can grow, have up to an ounce on them at any time, gift up to an ounce, and can smoke.



> 8. *Prop 19 will supersede prop 215*, adversely affecting medial cannabis users by dictating grow size, possession amount, patient to patient sales, and location of use.


this is not true at all. 215 is unaffected by this prop.




> 9. *Unbiased cannabis activists do NOT support Prop 19*. This includes the late Jack Herer and the co-author of prop 215, Dennis Peron.


gotta wonder why though don't you? It isn't from anything here! Jack always envisioned a pot utopia where pot was treated like a garden vegetable. It would be nice but that boat sailed in the 30's when it was labeled a demon weed and people believed it. Pretty cool to see that stigma put to rest with the first possible attempt to legalize it in 80 years, huh?




> 10. The federal government has decided to not prosecute medical cannabis users. This will not be the case if Prop 19 passes. Many people believe that *the passage of Prop 19 will bring an aggressive response from the feds*, perhaps putting medical users at risk of losing access to medicine.


 Well if that happens they are on their own. Prop 19 specifically states that local law can't do shit to people who follow the law. If the government retaliates against this on a scale big enough to do any damage we will have a civil war on our hands. They aren't that stupid.


----------



## 10jed (Aug 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> where do you come up with this stuff?


I just read boss


> Section 3: Lawful Activities Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, commencing with section 11300 is added to read: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to: (i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual&#8217;s personal consumption, and not for sale. (ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands. *(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.*


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 1, 2010)

10jed said:


> I just read boss



from your own quote, ......




Section 3: Lawful Activities Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, commencing with section 11300 is added to read: 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. (ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands. *(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.*


----------



## 10jed (Aug 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> from your own quote, ......
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yes... on your person. on the premisis you can have however much you can grow.

Jed


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 1, 2010)

10jed said:


> yes... on your person. on the premisis you can have however much you can grow.
> 
> Jed


where does it say that?

to "posses" is to "posses". whether it be here or there.


----------



## 10jed (Aug 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> where does it say that?
> 
> to "posses" is to "posses". whether it be here or there.


nope. You are trying to read it like common english. "personally possess" means have on you. "possess on the premisis where grown" is the house where you grow, the shed on the subdivided out-lot out back where you can run your second grow, the neighbors basement who was a nice non-smoker and is letting you lease a 5x5 patch of his land... You can lease land to have a new grow space, and those with bigger lots may even be able to break off a parcel. All they are doing is trying to keep the dealers off the street. This is very reasonable verbiage! If the possession of over an ounce thing wasn't in there, nobody except dealers and growers would ever vote for this thing. It is painfully obvious to most anybody that more than a zip means you are trying to sell it. But if you want to hook up you buddy, just bring him a zip! NBD, because you can share if you want to!

Jed


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 1, 2010)

10jed said:


> nope. You are trying to read it like common english. "personally possess" means have on you. "possess on the premisis where grown" is the house where you grow, the shed on the subdivided out-lot out back where you can run your second grow, the neighbors basement who was a nice non-smoker and is letting you lease a 5x5 patch of his land... You can lease land to have a new grow space, and those with bigger lots may even be able to break off a parcel. All they are doing is trying to keep the dealers off the street. This is very reasonable verbiage! If the possession of over an ounce thing wasn't in there, nobody except dealers and growers would ever vote for this thing. It is painfully obvious to most anybody that more than a zip means you are trying to sell it. But if you want to hook up you buddy, just bring him a zip! NBD, because you can share if you want to!
> 
> Jed



i love how people keep saying "more than an ounce and you are a dealer".

pretty moronic statement. just goes to show the intelligence on the YES side.


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i love how people keep saying "more than an ounce and you are a dealer".
> 
> pretty moronic statement. just goes to show the intelligence on the YES side.


With all due respect , both sides have considerable amounts of moronic statues. Voting NO against OUR BELOVED HERB...is a NON-STARTER  Or at least it should be. Any progression AWAY from PROHIBITION is a start. It is absolutely ignorrant ( not implying anybody is) to continue to dwell in the abject and utter failures of Prohibition. Regardless of laws being enforced or not, at the end of the day, our harmless little plant is still on the black list where IT DOES NOT BELONG, IMO  The movement is to FREE a plant that should be FREE. Lets achieve that goal first, then work out the road bumps along the way. I believe Prop 19 is A START...We are human beings who can work out the rusty spots once we get the plant free from those who support Prohibition  

Bottom line...VOTING NO SUPPORTS PROHIBITION...there is no in between or two ways around it. It is what it is. If you vote no, you are supporting Prohibition. Unless you have not suffered enough consequences of Prohibition(I know I have), then say No  
Peace, Love, and Happiness


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 1, 2010)

The Potologist said:


> With all due respect , both sides have considerable amounts of moronic statues. Voting NO against OUR BELOVED HERB...is a NON-STARTER  Or at least it should be. Any progression AWAY from PROHIBITION is a start. It is absolutely ignorrant ( not implying anybody is) to continue to dwell in the abject and utter failures of Prohibition. Regardless of laws being enforced or not, at the end of the day, our harmless little plant is still on the black list where IT DOES NOT BELONG, IMO  The movement is to FREE a plant that should be FREE. Lets achieve that goal first, then work out the road bumps along the way. I believe Prop 19 is A START...We are human beings who can work out the rusty spots once we get the plant free from those who support Prohibition
> 
> Bottom line...VOTING NO SUPPORTS PROHIBITION...there is no in between or two ways around it. It is what it is. If you vote no, you are supporting Prohibition. Unless you have not suffered enough consequences of Prohibition(I know I have), then say No
> Peace, Love, and Happiness



i do not believe prop 19 is the proper bill. 

it's cool that we can disagree.


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i do not believe prop 19 is the proper bill.
> 
> it's cool that we can disagree.


Brotha I can not agree with you more  Prop 19 IS FAR FROM THE RIGHT BILL....but its a start. I just cant find myself to support the hypocracies of loving my herb but voting to keep it in prohibition. Its just seems illogical. It seems very defeating to support the people who want to lock "smokers and growers" alike up  I would much rather it NOT BE Prohibited ( regardless of how jacked up bill 19 is) ....I always believed me and you can have a civilized debate  Bongs to you~

Peace, Love, and Happiness


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 1, 2010)

scenario -


you are unemployed. you are offered a job shoveling rotten kittens into a meat grinder for minimum wage. do you take it?


hey, at least it's a job.


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> scenario -
> 
> 
> you are unemployed. you are offered a job shoveling rotten kittens into a meat grinder for minimum wage. do you take it?
> ...



AHAHAHA...Gotta love it  Im gonna go with the Nirvana clause and believe its okay to eat fish because they dont have any feelings  Rationally speaking, I am sure most would. But I am still trying to link what you are suggestting...does this have a conection to prop 19? Are you trying to compare voting yes to shoveling rotten kittens into a meat grinder for minimum wage? lol...tad confused...working on 99 rips this morning LMAo...j/k...anyways...could ya give me a little clarification...OH if YOU ARE OFFERING ME this position...I would be honored to work along side you as Professional Kitten Grinders...I have heard its a high demaning job


----------



## GanjaAL (Aug 1, 2010)

Sorry but tell me again how the same people who are for prohibition that you are giving the power too, are going to raise the limits????? 

Wishfull thinking.


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 1, 2010)

GanjaAL said:


> Sorry but tell me again how the same people who are for prohibition that you are giving the power too, are going to raise the limits?????
> 
> Wishfull thinking.


We are not giving the power to them. THEY ALREADY HAVE IT ALL. With Some form of legalization and regulation WE TAKE SOME POWER BACK. We get to WORK THIS ISSUE OUT! We get 
out of Prohibition. Voting Against Prop 19 ....Gonna keep things status quo  Until it passes or fails...its all wishful thinking!


----------



## NLXSK1 (Aug 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> scenario -
> you are unemployed. you are offered a job shoveling rotten kittens into a meat grinder for minimum wage. do you take it?
> hey, at least it's a job.





fdd2blk said:


> when you have to make up stuff like this, it is a sign of desperation.



Yeah... I thought I heard that one somewhere before ;]


----------



## 10jed (Aug 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i love how people keep saying "more than an ounce and you are a dealer".
> 
> pretty moronic statement. just goes to show the intelligence on the YES side.


Help me understand your point fdd! I understand that there are med users who go through more than that in a day, but that is not the norm. I understand that maybe some people would like to go buy an ounce each of multiple varieties from the pot shop, but you will have to make a couple of trips or take a risk. Pretty small inconvenience for legality, no? When would you need to carry over an ounce, and can you not see how the average person who will be voting on this bill would think an ounce on your person is far more than reasonable? It is like liqueur stores not being able to sell liqueur after a certain time at night. They do that so people who are drunk off their asses already don' make another trip for more booze. the law isn't there to fuck with people who work 3rd shift!

Give me reasons other than purchasing convenience or rare medical need that would require a person to carry more than an ounce? Then tell me ways that leo would find it using probable cause under prop 19. I'm not being confrontational here, I just want to understand how the opposition is thinking this is such a big deal. 

Jed


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 1, 2010)

NLXSK1 said:


> Yeah... I thought I heard that one somewhere before ;]


you do understand what a "scenario" is don't you? 

whereas, on the other hand, some people would have you believe there really is a kitten shoveling job.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 1, 2010)

10jed said:


> Help me understand your point fdd! I understand that there are med users who go through more than that in a day, but that is not the norm. I understand that maybe some people would like to go buy an ounce each of multiple varieties from the pot shop, but you will have to make a couple of trips or take a risk. Pretty small inconvenience for legality, no? When would you need to carry over an ounce, and can you not see how the average person who will be voting on this bill would think an ounce on your person is far more than reasonable? It is like liqueur stores not being able to sell liqueur after a certain time at night. They do that so people who are drunk off their asses already don' make another trip for more booze. the law isn't there to fuck with people who work 3rd shift!
> 
> Give me reasons other than purchasing convenience or rare medical need that would require a person to carry more than an ounce? Then tell me ways that leo would find it using probable cause under prop 19. I'm not being confrontational here, I just want to understand how the opposition is thinking this is such a big deal.
> 
> Jed


i use 2 ounces to make butter. i use 50 grams when i make honey oil, that's what it takes to fill my extractor. 

i want a good explanation to the reasoning behind ANY limit. they don't limit my beer purchases.

if i smell like booze, cops will fuck with me. 

they always have in the past anyways. regardless if i was driving or not. the smell of alcohol is probable cause and alcohol IS legal.


----------



## 10jed (Aug 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i use 2 ounces to make butter. i use 50 grams when i make honey oil, that's what it takes to fill my extractor.
> 
> i want a good explanation to the reasoning behind ANY limit. they don't limit my beer purchases.


You aren't helping me understand fdd! You can make your 2 oz butter and your 50 gram honey oil at home. What does that have to do with you carrying around more than an ounce? Reasoning for limit is to prevent street dealing.

Jed


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 1, 2010)

10jed said:


> You aren't helping me understand fdd! You can make your 2 oz butter and your 50 gram honey oil at home. What does that have to do with you carrying around more than an ounce?
> 
> Jed


you are not allowed to posses more than an ounce. 

don't try to convince me of the magic closet rule either. that is BS. you are only allowed AN OUNCE. whether you are at home or across town. 

you just asked me to tell you when i'd need more than an ounce. so i did. what don't you get? you said ANYONE needing more is a dealer. you're wrong.


----------



## 10jed (Aug 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you are not allowed to posses more than an ounce.
> 
> don't try to convince me of the magic closet rule either. that is BS. you are only allowed AN OUNCE. whether you are at home or across town.
> 
> you just asked me to tell you when i'd need more than an ounce. so i did. what don't you get? you said ANYONE needing more is a dealer. you're wrong.


That is not true! It clearly says that you can keep whatever you grow legally in the place that you grow it! You just can't carry it on your person. It clearly says that fdd. and if you still can't compute that part  just pretend you can, and then tell me when you would need to leave your house with more than an ounce. 

Jed


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 1, 2010)

10jed said:


> That is not true! It clearly says that you can keep whatever you grow legally in the place that you grow it! You just can't carry it on your person. It clearly says that fdd. and if you still can't compute that part  just pretend you can, and then tell me when you would need to leave your house with more than an ounce.
> 
> Jed


no, it does not. 

tell me the reason for the limits in the first place. why the 5 x 5 limit? why the one ounce limit? explain that first. then i'll tell you, AGAIN, why i need to exceed it.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 1, 2010)

to grow and dry is to "process". it clearly says you can only "process" one ounce. you do that at home. the same home you aren't allowed to smoke in if anyone under 21 is there.

i'm not as easily fooled.


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> no, it does not.
> 
> tell me the reason for the limits in the first place. why the 5 x 5 limit? why the one ounce limit? explain that first. then i'll tell you, AGAIN, why i need to exceed it.


Me again buddy  I agree with you...the "limitations" set forth in Prop 19 are just ignorrant. I think most people can find a need or reason to exceed said limit. I believe richard agrees with the size limitations is because anything over 1000watts of juice "generally" creates an elevated risk of fire hazards. HOWEVER, that is no reason to set such small limits. HOWEVER, even with the limitations...its not a reason to vote against Prop 19 bud. Its a start, like I said. Even with a Medical Permit we should still stay focused on getting our sacred herb FREE  We can always work out the road bumbs with admendments to the bill. Amendments are more cost effective than just siding with prohibition.  BTW, great views, opinions and debates today brotha! I appreciate were your mind is at 

Peace, Love, and Happiness


----------



## skate4theherb (Aug 1, 2010)

what does it mader about the grow space,if you already grow illegal. and the same goes for the 1oz?
wouldnt be better that they just take your plants away,then you losing your plants and going to jail?


----------



## 10jed (Aug 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> no, it does not.
> 
> tell me the reason for the limits in the first place. why the 5 x 5 limit? why the one ounce limit? explain that first. then i'll tell you, AGAIN, why i need to exceed it.


Man, they just don't want illegal sales. Shit fdd I have seen your threads, and your how-to's and I think we both know that if you wanted to you could pull a pound out of a shoebox grow! The garden size limits are to maintain personal consumption only. A monkey could pull a pound out of a 5x5 grow and the average consumer uses about a 1/2 of that in a year. 5x5 is enough for the bulk of smokers (that function in society) to grow whatever they need. An ounce on your person is more than enough for most people to travel with. Most people buy an eighth at a time or a quarter. An ounce is a reasonable deterrent to separate personal use from intent to sell.



fdd2blk said:


> to grow and dry is to "process". it clearly says you can only "process" one ounce. you do that at home. the same home you aren't allowed to smoke in if anyone under 21 is there.
> 
> i'm not as easily fooled.


I agree that the word process shouldn't be in (i), but regardless it corrects itself in (iii) where it says you can process and possess whatever you legally grow. That may add confusion but it doesn't change what is written. It is very clear in (iii) even if it is cloudy in (i).

As for smoking in front of people under 21, it specifically says smoke and it says space. It doesn't say you can't vape, or eat edibles, or use tinctures. That is there to protect people from second hand smoke, and that is reasonable. Space does not imply an entire house any more than it implies a whole city. Just go to the other room or ask your kid to go, or vape or eat your 2 oz brownies. Problem solved! Do you really smoke in front of your kids now? Do you currently have legal protection from that? The prop says it isn't LEGAL to do so but it doesn't say there is any penalty for it. How would anyone ever even know if you did? That statement about "space" doen't even say in your home. I'm sure that is part of the intent but they had to clarify that people under 21 are prohibited in any place that it is legal to smoke. This is again perfectly reasonable.

So, now why do you need to leave your home with more than an ounce?

Jed


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 1, 2010)

skate4theherb said:


> what does it mader about the grow space,if you already grow illegal. and the same goes for the 1oz?
> wouldnt be better that they just take your plants away,then you losing your plants and going to jail?


Hence why ANY form of regulation and legalization is better than prohibition( A lose-lose scenario) Prop 19 ( a Win-Possibly Lose scenario). 

Again, remember the MESSAGE we are sending to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT if Prop 19 fails. We SUPPORT Prohibition. We are OKAY with the Mexican mafia. We DONT WANT NOR NEED regualtion and Legalization. If we REINFORCE the DEA's MOTTO of Regulation and Legalization being a " NON-STARTER" WE ARE MAKING THEIR JOBS SOOOO MUCH EASIER


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 1, 2010)

skate4theherb said:


> what does it mader about the grow space,if you already grow illegal. and the same goes for the 1oz?
> wouldnt be better that they just take your plants away,then you losing your plants and going to jail?


you will still go to jail.


----------



## skate4theherb (Aug 1, 2010)

right on man..i feel the same way about prop 19.why would be deny the chance to show people that weed, Ganja,herb what ever you want to call it.IS NOT THE DEVILS HERB.THEY SHOULD FEAR IT.

PEACE LOVE AND GREEN BUD!


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you will still go to jail.


I believe under the infrigment that you exceed said limit...depending on how much you do go over...I am sure you could face jail...But that is so far fetched. If you are say 10,000 plants over the limit than I agree that person should learn to live within the laws of civilization. Its a start fdd....its not going to be perfect. Even the ones responsible for Prop 19 agree its not perfect, but its our start 

Slightly off topic, IF I WAS A FATHER...I would not encourage my underage child to smoke cannabis until he conforms to the laws of civilization. I would encourage cannabis over booze...but not until he/her is of legal age. There is no need to ruin your life my starting a criminal record for underage smoking or drinking. Moreso, AS ADULTS, we SHOULD NEVER smoke with anyone under the age of 18 regardless if its legal or not. Its just not what I would THINK we as ADULTS want are kids around


----------



## skate4theherb (Aug 1, 2010)

I couldnt see how they would still take you to jail?


----------



## skate4theherb (Aug 1, 2010)

I agree with that.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 1, 2010)

skate4theherb said:


> I couldnt see how they would still take you to jail?


because you would be exceeding the limits that you set on yourself by voting yes.


----------



## lightningkid (Aug 1, 2010)

10jed said:


> That is not true! It clearly says that you can keep whatever you grow legally in the place that you grow it!


My friend, with all due respect, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. If prop 19 does say that, it certainly is NOT clear; thus leaving it open to interpretation by LEOs and judges. 

What is clear in prop 19 is that someone may "Personally *possess*, *process*, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individuals personal consumption, and not for sale."

(Legal definition of possess: "v. to own, have title to, occupy, physically hold or have under exclusive control.")

"Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants* lawfully cultivated* ..." This does NOT say "...in unlimited quantity..." If that is what they wanted, that is what they should have said.* Section a(i) dictates the legal amount of cannabis that may be processed, one ounce or less. *

I'm not saying that Prop 19 does limit the amount in the home, I'm just pointing out the ambiguity. One outcome of prop 19 is GUARANTEED, it will be widely interpreted by the courts and will make bad case law. Which if you ask any lawyer, is bad for all of us.


----------



## sm0keyrich510 (Aug 1, 2010)

EmptyWords said:


> very good read. i am not from cali but i have been getting annoyed hearing people talk about voting yes in November and not having a clue what they are voting on. The sad thing is the majority of voters will never see this article or even get facts about this law and just vote yes because all they want is legalized marijuana. They will soon find out that it was not what they thought and the law cannot be reversed and they have no one to blame but themselves, but they will though, and they will complain etc but if they didnt take the time to understand the law then they have nothing to complain about because they are the lazy idiots that made this law pass. I hope this law does not pass and maybe one day see a "real" legalization law go into effect but it will take a long time. Thanks for posting this article. +rep


thanks for coming over to the darkside...it seems anywhere you bring this up (internet or even real life) and anyone who smokes marijuana will jump down your throat and call you stupid when infact they have no clue what prop 19 really means...and that just drives me nuts...especially when DO point all the negatives out they mostly say, "well at least i can have some weed"...seriously...thats the basic response i get...its always, "so...it wont effect me" type thinking...

to top it all off i dont wanna see all the people that made the calfornia marijuana industry what it is today forgotten or kicked to the curb. 

Thats kind of a slap in the face...and i don't mean those who grow illegally or sell their marijuana illegally...im talking all the independent growers who supplied the pot clubs (as well as the people directly). 

the way the law is written it will just be abused by the state/gov (milking it for all the taxes/fees it can), big business (for the $$$...not your health/safety), and illegal dealers out of state who could possibly come to caifornia...get marijuana LEGALLY and for a LOT cheaper than they would be able to get it where they are from & take it back to flip it for a profit...promoting more criminal activity in other states (especially those that border california). bad idea. but b4 i get too carried away i just wanna say good post and thanks for the +rep


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> because you would be exceeding the limits that you set on yourself by voting yes.


Just FOLLOW THE LAWS of Civilization AND YOU WOULDNT Brotha! Voting No Support the Mexican Mafia...

ID MUCH rather take a chance of being "over the limit" then letting those fuckmouths in the Mexican Mafia Kill another loved one over MY beloved CANNABIS!!


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 1, 2010)

Voting Against Prop 19 means : 
voting against the safest and most defenseless medicine on the planet earth

voting against the millions of lives ruined by [URL="https://www.rollitup.org/"]marijuana[/URL] prohibition everyday

voting against the movement which we worked so hard for 70 years

voting against the CHANCE that you wont make as much money when all likelyhood you will make more and be safer - effectively voting against yourself.

voting against the truth that all [URL="https://www.rollitup.org/"]marijuana[/URL] use is medicinal and safe

voting against THE PEOPLE

Voting for hypocracies that marijuana shouldnt be legal cause its a medicine and that no human has the right to use it for recreation

Voting against the herb and telling the Government that you believe in prohibition, you are okay with being a suppressed victim of prohibition. That the mexican mafia is okay. That the black market is where you like to get your drugs. That you dont care about the laws?

Seriously, lets set ones own selfish desire aside. Even those who are responsible for Prop 19 agree that it is not perfect, but its our start. There is absolutely NO REASON TO VOTE AGAINST IT. IF YOU DO, YOU SUPPORT :

Prohibition ( kinda odd/hypocritical to be a prohibitionist but consume cannabis)
DONT SUPPORT MEDICAL marijuana ( supporting against Prop 19 means you WANT PROHIBITION...which includes Medical or not)

THE DEA ( they believe regulation or legalization is a "Non-Starter". Prop 19 is our start. Either you are with Prop 19 or with the Dea and the whole "non-starting" ideologies)

The Mexican Mafia ( or any illegal growers) They REALLY dont want any regulation or legalization. 

You Also are telling the Government that ITS OKAY TO BE A VICTIM OF PROHIBITION. I guess some people have not suffered enough consequences of Prohibition. Moreso, Nothing like an invitation to suppress the people and its plant!!

THIS IS SO SO SAD. We are a Cannabis Forum!!!! TO say you are against Prop 19 is just tragically ignorrant. ( I say that with no disprespect to ANYONE).


Laslty, we are a reformed society. We have more amendments than any other country. We start with Prop 19 and amend it from there. The Pros and Cons are way to obvious and clear here. Personally...if prop 19 fails.....shame shame shame on us! We have our chance...if you consume cannabis or believe that A PLANT HAS A RIGHT TO BE FREE AND NOT SUPRESSED, or have had enough of being a victim of prohibition, or dont want the mexican mafia around anymore, or want to grow your own medicine or get it from some other place other than the black market ...Than do the RIGHT FUCKING THING...HIT THE YES BUTTON COME NOVEMBER!!!

AS things stand right now...The Government has FULL CONTROL. They have TOLD US NO WE WONT regulate and legalize.( DEA's MOTTO IS CANNABIS LEGALIZATION/REGULATION IS A NON-STARTER). When WE SHARE THE POWER, WE HAVE A SAY...Until then....Dont bitch, whine, cry because its illegal. Moreso....Make sure to hit yourself REAL FUCKING HARD...RIGHT IN THE BACK OF YOUR OWN HEAD...IF you vote NO and get caught up in a pinch....bet you will wish for Prop 19 then!!!

Voting Against SHOULD BE NON OPTIONAL!!! IF YOU DO, GO JOIN THE CRIMINALS IN THE MEXICAN MAFIA>>>THATS WHO YOU ARE SUPPORTING IF YOU VOTE AGAINST IT. THERE IS NO TWO WAYS AROUND THAT FACT!!!!!

Lets do this People! Prop 19 is not perfect, but its our chance to send a very clean message to the Federal Government. Dont be selfish, do THE RIGHT THING...VOTE FOR PROP 19 in November!!!

Peace, Love, and Happiness ​


----------



## skate4theherb (Aug 1, 2010)

im so glad that there is some else out there who feels the same way.
thank you


----------



## 10jed (Aug 1, 2010)

lightningkid said:


> My friend, with all due respect, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. If prop 19 does say that, it certainly is NOT clear; thus leaving it open to interpretation by LEOs and judges.
> 
> What is clear in prop 19 is that someone may "Personally *possess*, *process*, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individuals personal consumption, and not for sale."
> 
> ...


Yes there are 3 defintions of possess in your dictionary quote. The last is to personally posses.

You didn't finish the sentence in your prop quote... 



> 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.





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


a(iii) references specifically a(ii) and not a(i). a(iii) is the last word on the issue in the prop and so that is what the prop states. Since a(ii) doesn't impose any plant or size restrictions, there are none and since it says you can keep on premisis what you legally grow per a(ii), you have no limits other than footprint.. If you guys are really honestly concerned about that one point ask a lawyer about it. That is how it works. I will confirm that with my lawyer but I know what it means. If I am wrong I will post it here for all to see. If I am right I will post it here and you guys can keep kicking the dead horse.

Jed


----------



## lightningkid (Aug 1, 2010)

The Potologist said:


> Voting Against Prop 19 means :
> There is absolutely NO REASON TO VOTE AGAINST IT.
> THIS IS SO SO SAD. We are a Cannabis Forum!!!! TO say you are against Prop 19 is just tragically ignorrant. ( I say that with no disprespect to ANYONE).​


I respect your passion, but saying there is no reason to vote against it is tragically ignorant. Many respected pot activists don't support it. Many legal experts who are PRO LEGALIZATION also don's support it. It IS possible to do more harm than good by passing a vague law that was written to appease the masses and favor the special interests. I keep hearing "It's a step in the right direction." This statement shows a complete lack of understanding of the law and how bad laws are used by the police to take advantage of citizens. It will NOT be easy to undo the harm that might be caused by prop 19. IMO, Californians enjoy unprecedented access to weed, both legal and illegal. And the state will soon make 1 oz or less a simple civil violation with a $100 fine. When you throw in the flexibility that prop 215 provides, I say we can WAIT for full legalization. Just my .02


----------



## lightningkid (Aug 1, 2010)

10jed said:


> Yes there are 3 defintions of possess in your dictionary quote. The last is to personally posses.
> 
> You didn't finish the sentence in your prop quote...
> 
> ...


Jed, You missed the point of my post. I'm simply saying that it will be liberally interpreted by LE and judges. << THAT is how it works. I'm sure your lawyer will be happy to explain how ambiguous laws are put into practice by police and judges.


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 1, 2010)

lightningkid said:


> I respect your passion, but saying there is no reason to vote against it is tragically ignorant. Many respected pot activists don't support it. Many legal experts who are PRO LEGALIZATION also don's support it. It IS possible to do more harm than good by passing a vague law that was written to appease the masses and favor the special interests. I keep hearing "It's a step in the right direction." This statement shows a complete lack of understanding of the law and how bad laws are used by the police to take advantage of citizens. It will NOT be easy to undo the harm that might be caused by prop 19. IMO, Californians enjoy unprecedented access to weed, both legal and illegal. And the state will soon make 1 oz or less a simple civil violation with a $100 fine. When you throw in the flexibility that prop 215 provides, I say we can WAIT for full legalization. Just my .02


SO SUPPORTING THE MEXICAN MAFIA IS SMARTER THAN SAYING YES TO PROP 19....NOW THAT MY FRIEND IS TRAGICALLY IGNORRANT. ITS NOT A PASSION EITHER!!! THERE IS POSSIBLE harm in VOITING YES...BUT WE ALREADY NO THE HARM OF SAYING NO!!!! VOTING NO DOES NOT OUTWEIGHT!!! WE HAVE NO CONTROL NOW, WHEN WE CAN HAVE A SAY...Police and other LEO cant bend the RULES LIKE THEY DO NOW....AGAIN...U VOTE NO...GO GET A JOB WITH THE MEXICAN MAFIA>..You fit in real well there with that mindset...with no disrespect!!! If you were'nt to take as much time out to point out what u think I said is false or "ignorrant" you would be alot better off in realizing just what YOU ARE SUPPORTING BY VOTING NO!!! Dont be SELFISH, Please dont ruin this for those who have had enough of being a VICTIM!!! I can understand those that dont care cause it doesnt effect them, BUT ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!! THERE IS NO REASON TO CONTINUE TO CREATE VICTIMS and TO CONTINUE TO KEEP THIS PLANT PROHIBITED please get over your selfish desire to have a "perfect or better" law...THERE IS'NT ONE!!! As things stand now...You dont have a say, and anything u do with cannabis is AGAINST THE LAW according to FEDERAL LAW, WHICH TRIUMPS EVERYTHING. SURE OBAMA MAY NOT ATTACK MEDICAL MARIJUANA...But maybe the NEXT ONE WILL IF PROP 19 FAILS!!!

Siding with the leamma that a " 100$ fine is Okay" shows no care about the plant and its RIGHT TO BE FREE. Humans SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY a CRIMINAL fee to have a PLANT THAT SHOULD BE FREE"....WHILE U WAIT...Just imagine the CHILDREN ....THE WOMEN, THE HUSBANDS, THE DADS, THE MOTHERS, THE GRANDPARENTS....Who are VICTIMS OF PROHIBITION....GO TELL THEM TO "WAIT" for a more Sensable "law"....Please PEOPLE ARE DYING...being EXECUTED AS WE SPEAK....CHILDREN.....I SAY THAT AGAIN....CHILDREN CANT WAIT !!!!! 

Voting NO is TRAGICALLY IGNORRANT AND COMPLETELY SELFISH! Until You FEEL THE REAL RAFT OF PROHIBITION YOU MAY NEVER GET IT!


----------



## 10jed (Aug 1, 2010)

lightningkid said:


> Jed, You missed the point of my post. I'm simply saying that it will be liberally interpreted by LE and judges. << THAT is how it works. I'm sure your lawyer will be happy to explain how ambiguous laws are put into practice by police and judges.


I will look at it with an open mind and see what his take is on it. I agree that word shouldn't be there, but at this point I contend that it is irrelevant because of a(iii). I'll report back either way.

Jed


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 1, 2010)

lightningkid said:


> I respect your passion, but saying there is no reason to vote against it is tragically ignorant. Many respected pot activists don't support it. Many legal experts who are PRO LEGALIZATION also don's support it. It IS possible to do more harm than good by passing a vague law that was written to appease the masses and favor the special interests.


That was one of the main arguments against prop 215. People claimed it was vague and police would abuse it. You know what? They were right. It was vague and police did/do abuse it. Should we have voted against prop 215 for the same reasons?



lightningkid said:


> I keep hearing "It's a step in the right direction." This statement shows a complete lack of understanding of the law and how bad laws are used by the police to take advantage of citizens.


You've posted links to several blogs that were filled with outright lies and claimed they were informative. You really shouldn't be telling others that because they support prop 19 they don't understand the law.

And again, do you think prop 215 is a bad law and should be removed because it was written in a way that allowed police to abuse it?



lightningkid said:


> IMO, Californians enjoy unprecedented access to weed, both legal and illegal. And the state will soon make 1 oz or less a simple civil violation with a $100 fine. When you throw in the flexibility that prop 215 provides, I say we can WAIT for full legalization. Just my .02


Wait to stop an injustice we can end now? No thank you. We should seize the moment and take opportunities as they come, not throw them away because of fear of what the police might do. Under any circumstances police will fight the end of prohibition. If you wait for a time when that won't happen, then you'll be waiting forever. 

Carpe diem.


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 1, 2010)

With or without Prop 19 POLICE AND LEO ARE STILL GOING TO TWIST AND BEND AND ABUSE THE LAW...Thats apart of their job. Thats called "Job-Security" A measure by which they continue to secure their own job with the force. They dig and poke and prode at laws ...so WHY SUPPORT THE POLICE by voting against Prop 19. My biggest and most sickening fact is this. Voting against PROP 19 Means you CONDONE and SUPPORT INNOCENT CHILDREN BEING KILLED OVER A PLANT( CANNABIS). That.....is something NO ONE WHO CALLS THEMSELF A MAN OR WOMEN SHOULD BE APART OF!!! IF YOU THINK CHILDREN CAN "WAIT" FOR A BETTER MEASURE THEN GET OFF THIS PLANET, YOUR KIND IS NOT WELCOMED HERE. THESE ARE OUR CHILDREN. WE HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT THEM. VOTING AGAINST PROP 19 IS NOT PROTECTING OUT CHILDREN!!!!
Peace, Love, and Happiness


----------



## lightningkid (Aug 1, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> You've posted links to several blogs that were filled with outright lies and claimed they were informative. You really shouldn't be telling others that because they support prop 19 they don't understand the law.


That's not what I said. And despite a few inaccuracies or "lies," those blogs contain legitimate facts that many people don't know about. (Really they both seem to be mostly speculation about what will happen if Prop 19 is passed.)

I'm not following your logic about prop 215. Shouldn't we learn from the mistakes of 215, not repeat them?


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 1, 2010)

The Potologist said:


> With or without Prop 19 POLICE AND LEO ARE STILL GOING TO TWIST AND BEND AND ABUSE THE LAW...Thats apart of their job. Thats called "Job-Security" A measure by which they continue to secure their own job with the force. They dig and poke and prode at laws ...so WHY SUPPORT THE POLICE by voting against Prop 19. My biggest and most sickening fact is this. Voting against PROP 19 Means you CONDONE and SUPPORT INNOCENT CHILDREN BEING KILLED OVER A PLANT( CANNABIS). That.....is something NO ONE WHO CALLS THEMSELF A MAN OR WOMEN SHOULD BE APART OF!!! IF YOU THINK CHILDREN CAN "WAIT" FOR A BETTER MEASURE THEN GET OFF THIS PLANET, YOUR KIND IS NOT WELCOMED HERE. THESE ARE OUR CHILDREN. WE HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT THEM. VOTING AGAINST PROP 19 IS NOT PROTECTING OUT CHILDREN!!!!
> Peace, Love, and Happiness


The fact that the prop 19 people need to lie and try and scare people to get them to vote against it makes me very suspicious of their real motivations. When they aren't making stuff up, they are claiming we shouldn't vote for prop19 because the police don't like it and might abuse it? Really? Of course the cops don't want to end prohibition. But there is a good reason cops don't write the laws. 

The idea that we should vote against prop 19 because the cops don't like it and they might act out is baffling to me. Don't be intimidated by what the cops might do, vote yes.


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 1, 2010)

lightningkid said:


> That's not what I said. And despite a few inaccuracies or "lies," those blogs contain legitimate facts that many people don't know about. (Really they both seem to be mostly speculation about what will happen if Prop 19 is passed.)
> 
> I'm not following your logic about prop 215. Shouldn't we learn from the mistakes of 215, not repeat them?


Prop 215 has alot of percs and some bad sides...However, as children are dying and being executed....u tell me ...u think we got time to write the perfect bill...think we got time to make sure we are not making another mistake. If it is, we can amend it and fix it from there. until then.....KIDS...INNOCENT CHILDREN BRO...COME ON MAN....I KNOW U HAVE A HEART BRO....This really doesnt have to do with Cannabis...It has to do with the EFFECTS OF PROHIBITION!!!

Peace, Love, and Happiness


----------



## lightningkid (Aug 1, 2010)

The Potologist said:


> My biggest and most sickening fact is this. Voting against PROP 19 Means you CONDONE and SUPPORT INNOCENT CHILDREN BEING KILLED OVER A PLANT( CANNABIS). That.....is something NO ONE WHO CALLS THEMSELF A MAN OR WOMEN SHOULD BE APART OF!!!


WTF are you talking about? Seriously, you need to get a grip (and perhaps psychotherapy). That is by far the most ignorant, inflammatory, and flat out dumb statement I've read in this debate. You aren't doing your side any favors saying things like that. I can see I am wasting my time even typing this response. Have a nice day.


----------



## Keenly2 (Aug 1, 2010)

im still gonna vote yes. your not going to change my opinion


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 1, 2010)

lightningkid said:


> That's not what I said.


ok, you said;



> I keep hearing "It's a step in the right direction." This statement shows a complete lack of understanding of the law


So yes, that's pretty much what you said. You're claiming supporters of prop 19 don't understand the law. What I said was accurate.



lightningkid said:


> And despite a few inaccuracies or "lies," those blogs contain legitimate facts that many people don't know about. (Really they both seem to be mostly speculation about what will happen if Prop 19 is passed.)


I went through those lists, they contained more misinformation than facts. Only one out of the 10 points the list brought up contained a solid fact. That was a relatively minor point that will solve it self in the courts once it's passed. 

On the other hand several points were outright lies. And I'll ask you again, why do opponents of prop 19 need to outright lie to convince people not to vote for it? If prop 19 is so bad, why can't they oppose it simply by using the truth? Don't you wonder what their motivations really are if they want prop 19 to fail so badly that they are willing to spread misinformation to convince people?



lightningkid said:


> I'm not following your logic about prop 215. Shouldn't we learn from the mistakes of 215, not repeat them?


Ok. Well you claimed we should vote against prop 19 because it's vague in a way that opens itself up to potential abuse by police. Prop 215 is written in a way that is vague and is abused by police. Do you think we should never have voted for prop 215 because of this? 

If you think prop 215 is a good thing despite the fact that it is abused by police, then that is not a good reason to vote against prop 19 for those same reasons.


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 1, 2010)

lightningkid said:


> WTF are you talking about? Seriously, you need to get a grip (and perhaps psychotherapy). That is by far the most ignorant, inflammatory, and flat out dumb statement I've read in this debate. You aren't doing your side any favors saying things like that. I can see I am wasting my time even typing this response. Have a nice day.


While I don't think you support killing children obviously, you are supporting the continuation of prohibition. Do you really think it's a good idea to support prohibition out of fear of what cops might do if we end it?


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 1, 2010)

lightningkid said:


> WTF are you talking about? Seriously, you need to get a grip (and perhaps psychotherapy). That is by far the most ignorant, inflammatory, and flat out dumb statement I've read in this debate. You aren't doing your side any favors saying things like that. I can see I am wasting my time even typing this response. Have a nice day.


WE Can tell you give two shit less about kids. ...CANT FACE THE FACTS CAN YA...ITS SICKENING AND IT SHOULD BE. YOU DONT WANT TO HEAR THE FACT THAT VOTING NO AGAINST PROP 19 CONDONES THAT...I NEED TO GET A GRIP... RIP YOUR OWN FACE OFF...YOUR JUST AS BAD AS A PHEDOPHILE! Its funny how so many people consider you ignorrant ( btw u spelled it wrong) and flat out dumb...see...I have supporters behind me with Prop 19....what u got besides child porn? Fuck outta here...like I said...vote no...support kids being slain do what u want to do...we can all tell u aint got a heart....hey thanks for letting me know Im ignorrant...coming from you though....RIGHHHHTTTT  Take a hike...The NAME IS POTOLOGIST FOR A REASON!!!! Do WHAT I DO AND THAN TALK YOUR SHIT BEHIND YOUR SCREEN....

NOBODY BELIEVES YOUR LIES...YOU KNOW IT, VOTING NO SUPPORTS INNOCENT BLOODSHED( IT IS WHAT IT IS)...ESPECIALLY CHILDREN....LET THAT SINK IN ....THINK ABOUT THAT SHIT REALLLY DEEP....THEN REEVALUATE YOUR STANCE WITH PROP 19


----------



## lightningkid (Aug 1, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> While I don't think you support killing children obviously, you are supporting the continuation of prohibition. Do you really think it's a good idea to support prohibition out of fear of what cops might do if we end it?


Listen, I am not trying to convince anyone to vote no. I'm just sharing my concerns. And I am not worried about the police! I am worried about anti-pot judges using the vagueness of prop 19 to create case law that is bad for us. Maybe it's because everyone I know here in CA enjoys unlimited access to legal weed that I am in no hurry to pass what I consider a bad law. Either way, I have said my peace. If you think prop 19 is good, vote yes. If not, vote no. All I want is for everyone to do their due diligence before voting. Peace!


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 1, 2010)

lightningkid said:


> Listen, I am not trying to convince anyone to vote no. I'm just sharing my concerns. And I am not worried about the police! I am worried about anti-pot judges using the vagueness of prop 19 to create case law that is bad for us. Maybe it's because everyone I know here in CA enjoys unlimited access to legal weed that I am in no hurry to pass what I consider a bad law. Either way, I have said my peace. If you think prop 19 is good, vote yes. If not, vote no. All I want is for everyone to do their due diligence before voting. Peace!


Much better  Disregard above rampage....you made me not like you for a second....Good way to put it with much more respect. nobody is going to respect you unless you give it likewise. Just please consider that you are doing more harm in the short term than you are good...We have innocent people who are sick of being a victim and cant wait for all the smart people to make a better or perfect bill...

Peace, Love, and Happiness


----------



## lightningkid (Aug 1, 2010)

The Potologist said:


> WE Can tell you give two shit less about kids. ...CANT FACE THE FACTS CAN YA...ITS SICKENING AND IT SHOULD BE. YOU DONT WANT TO HEAR THE FACT THAT VOTING NO AGAINST PROP 19 CONDONES THAT...I NEED TO GET A GRIP... RIP YOUR OWN FACE OFF...YOUR JUST AS BAD AS A PHEDOPHILE! Its funny how so many people consider you ignorrant ( btw u spelled it wrong) and flat out dumb...see...I have supporters behind me with Prop 19....what u got besides child porn? Fuck outta here...like I said...vote no...support kids being slain do what u want to do...we can all tell u aint got a heart....hey thanks for letting me know Im ignorrant...coming from you though....RIGHHHHTTTT  Take a hike...The NAME IS POTOLOGIST FOR A REASON!!!! Do WHAT I DO AND THAN TALK YOUR SHIT BEHIND YOUR SCREEN....
> 
> NOBODY BELIEVES YOUR LIES...YOU KNOW IT, VOTING NO SUPPORTS INNOCENT BLOODSHED...ESPECIALLY CHILDREN....LET THAT SINK IN ....THINK ABOUT THAT SHIT REALLLY DEEP....THEN REEVALUATE YOUR STANCE WITH PROP 19



Dude you seriously made me LOL. Thanks for that. You sure know how to win a debate, call people who don't agree with you child molesters! LOL!! And no, you spelled ignorant incorrectly.


----------



## skate4theherb (Aug 1, 2010)

do you think you need to have more then an 1oz on you?


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 1, 2010)

lightningkid said:


> Listen, I am not trying to convince anyone to vote no. I'm just sharing my concerns.


Fair enough. But it does sound like you've let some of these blogs which are largely based on misinformation pursued your opinion. 

To paraphrase Noam Chomsky: When ever someone states something boldly and confidently the first thing you should ask yourself is, "well is that really true?". Then verify it for yourself.

That is sound advice that you should apply to what those blogs say as well as what me or anyone else tells you about prop 19. That is why when refuting those blogs I used direct quotes from prop 19 and gave you the section numbers so you could see it for yourself.



lightningkid said:


> And I am not worried about the police! I am worried about anti-pot judges using the vagueness of prop 19 to create case law that is bad for us. Maybe it's because everyone I know here in CA enjoys unlimited access to legal weed that I am in no hurry to pass what I consider a bad law.


Just because a law has flaws, don't mean it's a bad law. "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." While this law doesn't outright end prohibition it does allow us more freedom as well as opening up the door to end prohibition city by city and county by county. Any law that does that can't be considered a bad law. 



lightningkid said:


> Either way, I have said my peace. If you think prop 19 is good, vote yes. If not, vote no. All I want is for everyone to do their due diligence before voting. Peace!


I couldn't agree more. But it doesn't seem like you're following your own advice. You are encouraging people to read blogs filled with misinformation that you obviously haven't verified yourself.


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 1, 2010)

lightningkid said:


> Dude you seriously made me LOL. Thanks for that. You sure know how to win a debate, call people who don't agree with you child molesters! LOL!! And no, you spelled ignorant incorrectly.


LOL, well i am glad to see that we can CIVILLY disagree. I just think I have the better side of this fire....Its selfish brotha to deny prop 19 for the innocent bloodshed out there. AS things stand now, we have no say in regulation/legalization...with prop we can start my man. We can stop the innocent victims of prohibition and most importantly we can stop the bloodshed. I think to be selfish out of concern that someone might find a case law loop hole or that LEo is going to use and abuse it is just a non-starter...less we forget that with Prop 19 we have a say now. We have a place to stand up and make a difference.  Thanks for a great debate  It certianly did get heated, but when u have as much time , money, heart, and effort into it....You may as well  

Peace, love, and Happiness


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Aug 1, 2010)

lightningkid said:


> WTF are you talking about? Seriously, you need to get a grip (and perhaps psychotherapy). That is by far the most ignorant, inflammatory, and flat out dumb statement I've read in this debate. You aren't doing your side any favors saying things like that. I can see I am wasting my time even typing this response. Have a nice day.


Exactly. Just let the flames slide to the side. If anything the lengths that proponents of this bill are willing to go to force voter opinion just goes to show the desperation of their campaign. Don't let the trolls get you down, just stick with the facts and reach out to anyone and everyone you can about this initiative. The proponents (cartel lackeys, if you will ) will call you names and infer all sorts of nasty things about you. They'll call you a drug dealer, and greedy and selfish and... well, you get the idea. Don't let it get you down and don't let them under your skin. None of them are worth that aggravation.


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 1, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Exactly. Just let the flames slide to the side. If anything the lengths that proponents of this bill are willing to go to force voter opinion just goes to show the desperation of their campaign. Don't let the trolls get you down, just stick with the facts and reach out to anyone and everyone you can about this initiative. The proponents (cartel lackeys, if you will ) will call you names and infer all sorts of nasty things about you. They'll call you a drug dealer, and greedy and selfish and... well, you get the idea. Don't let it get you down and don't let them under your skin. None of them are worth that aggravation.


FYI, CANT FORCE ANYONE TO VOTE...Let alone for or against it. Its not that those who are for it are going to call names...but its just a nasty bloodshed...We need to end Prohibition. It has to start somewhere and time is not on our side. Especially the innocent bloodshed side. I think until most have lost a loved on to the Mexican Mafia and Prohibition...I think they may stay against Prop 19...but please realize...nobody is forcing anyone to do anything...at the end of the day, we all still have free will do to as we wish...selfish or not 

I think to say a initiative is desperate that is trying to stop innocent bloodshed is just completely useless in the context. Desperate or not, it has SOOO many great benefits to it, its hard to deny them. The opportunity to stop innocent bloodshed, IMO, should be atop that list. To claim the initiative is desperate means that innocent bloodshed victims and family have no reason to stop said bloodshed. 
Peace, Love, and Happiness


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 1, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> When they aren't making stuff up, ........





The Potologist said:


> ...However, as children are dying and being executed....



bawahahhahahahahhahaha


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> bawahahhahahahahhahaha


Yeah, I agree, that's pretty for out there. I know prohibition is bad, but I really don't think prop 19 passing is going to stop the execution of children.


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> bawahahhahahahahhahaha


Come on brotha...You cant deny it...Fdd you know I have nothing but love and respect but come on man..your killin me here...It is what it is brotha!!! You cant deny the Innocent Bloodshed over Prohibition...you cant, its fact man...not thesis or theory but fact brotha..I think it is something to cry over...innocent children dying...its not a joke in my eyes.

When The Mexician Mafia has no place to send there illegal herb...its stops bloodshed.. Just google it man MEXICAN MAFIA BLOODSHED...Average age of victim is 14...14!!!! Think about that.....thats sickening...sure its not going to stop over night...but cali starts..most states are waiting to follow into repeal which will end said mafia  

Peace, love, and happiness


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 1, 2010)

The Potologist said:


> Come on brotha...You cant deny it...Fdd you know I have nothing but love and respect but come on man..your killin me here...It is what it is brotha!!! You cant deny the Innocent Bloodshed over Prohibition...you cant, its fact man...not thesis or theory but fact brotha..I think it is something to cry over...innocent children dying...its not a joke in my eyes.
> 
> Peace, love, and happiness


why are you calling me "brotha"?


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> why are you calling me "brotha"?


dammmnnn ...sorry fdd! No need to get off topic here...Ill call you whatever the hell ya want...u budged in and put your JOKE out there...thats not to funny...consider BROTHA A nice thing  I am sure with comments like THAT, you would be called OTHERWISE IN REALITY or SOCIETY


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 1, 2010)

The Potologist said:


> Come on brotha...You cant deny it...Fdd you know I have nothing but love and respect but come on man..your killin me here...It is what it is brotha!!! You cant deny the Innocent Bloodshed over Prohibition...you cant, its fact man...not thesis or theory but fact brotha..I think it is something to cry over...innocent children dying...its not a joke in my eyes.
> 
> Peace, love, and happiness


Sure, prohibition causes bloodshed. But if you come on here and imply that people who vote against prop 19 want children to be executed people aren't going to take that seriously. It's very easy to refute prohibitionists in a less extreme way. I don't think anyone on here actually wants children to be executed. 

I mean, I agree that prohibition has had horrible consequences and should be ended, but people don't usually respond well to such extreme rhetoric.


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 1, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Sure, prohibition causes bloodshed. But if you come on here and imply that people who vote against prop 19 want children to be executed people aren't going to take that seriously. It's very easy to refute prohibitionists in a less extreme way. I don't think anyone on here actually wants children to be executed.


I agree with you 100% HOWEVER, its needs to be SHOWN the NEXUS ( connection) between prohibition being promoted by shooting down Prop 19. It is what it is. Voting against has reprocussions. To many people think that voting is an innocent act when its not. There are reprocussions...that being continued innocent bloodshed ...specifically 14 year old kids...thats the average age of mafia victims in mexico

Peace, Love, and happiness


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 1, 2010)

The Potologist said:


> I agree with you 100% HOWEVER, its needs to be SHOWN the NEXUS ( connection) between prohibition being promoted by shooting down Prop 19. It is what it is. Voting against has reprocussions. To many people think that voting is an innocent act when its not. There are reprocussions...that being continued innocent bloodshed ...specifically 14 year old kids...thats the average age of mafia victims in mexico
> 
> Peace, Love, and happiness


fuck mexico. 

hehehehe


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> fuck mexico.
> 
> hehehehe


Really?..... Mexicans are people too.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 1, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Really?..... Mexicans are people too.


 "hehehehehe "


----------



## lightningkid (Aug 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> fuck mexico.
> 
> hehehehe


Hahahaha.. I think you've got the right approach there.


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 1, 2010)

Although I am hoping you are not serious, and are seriously stoned. ...You have to be playin right...come on fdd ( I mean brotha lol)...I know thats not u. You have compassion...I know u dont let racism lead your way...Mexico is great place, for many thing...Its just fucked up cause of Prohibition

JUST FOR YOU FDD...FUCK AMERICA...HELL YEAH


----------



## skate4theherb (Aug 1, 2010)

thats right they are... how about this FUCK THE BLACK MARKET!!!!
FOR ALL THE POOR NON VIOLENT PEOPLE WHO FILL UP OUR JAILS AND PRISON.
FUCK ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO MAKE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THE POT SMOKERS OF THIS GREAT STATE.

Dirty [email protected]#*ing Hippies Were Right!
[video=youtube;iKEZoY-TMG4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKEZoY-TMG4[/video]
IF YOU THINK THAT THIS VIDEO DOES NOT MAKE SINCE FOR THIS TOPIC.MAYBE YOU NEED TO RE-THINK,WHAT YOUR FIGHTING FOR!


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 1, 2010)

The Potologist said:


> Although I am hoping you are not serious, and are seriously stoned. ...You have to be playin right...come on fdd ( I mean brotha lol)...I know thats not u. You have compassion...I know u dont let racism lead your way...Mexico is great place, for many thing...*Its just fucked up cause of Prohibition*



hahahhahaha, CJ is this you? you sly dog, you.


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> hahahhahaha, CJ is this you? you sly dog, you.


AHAHAH I honestly have no clue who CJ is WINK WINK WINK ...


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 1, 2010)

skate4theherb said:


> thats right they are... how about this FUCK THE BLACK MARKET!!!!
> FOR ALL THE POOR NON VIOLENT PEOPLE WHO FILL UP OUR JAILS AND PRISON.
> FUCK ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO MAKE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THE POT SMOKERS OF THIS GREAT STATE.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for the video...Awesome points in there....WAR AMERICAS SOLUTION TO EVERYTHING....We dont like it/them FUCK IT< TO WAR WE GO BOYS AND GIRLS


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> hahahhahaha, cj is this you? You sly dog, you.


ahhhhh two hitting jerk off>...u skipped me...give me that bong silly goose


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 1, 2010)

lightningkid said:


> Hahahaha.. I think you've got the right approach there.


Alright....I like ya lightningkid...and I appreciate the debate...but....racism....nope thats not a good approach. I think we are both people of reason...and that is a perfect example of a NON STARTER...to hate one countries people makes no sense. Im just going to take it as you were jokin around with FDD 

Peace, Love, and Happiness


----------



## dtp5150 (Aug 2, 2010)

Vote legal, california


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 3, 2010)

If that is the case, I just hope all marijuana users alike are ready for the hills of laughter the Government is going to get out of this. " Who else to fuck up its chance other than stoners"...wonderful messages to the Government. To show the POT STATE not wanting to "regulate and legalize" through Prop 19 must mean that they agree with the US Government that 
this plant has no right to be free. I am firm on saying that the Government is not going to see this as a failure of Prop 19. Who else other than stoner to fuck this up....Crazy people, crazy.

Once we can get past our own selfish thought that we all have the right political views, and our own selfish agendas, only then will this plant have ANY chance at being free...I am totally disgusted at the fact that cannabis users can't get around a glass wall and save this plant when we have the chance. In my opinion, Prop 19 is NOT about regulation, or taxation, or decriminalization ...but about a plants call to humans to be free. To have the social restraints lifted off of the plant....BUT if it makes you free smarter, or more american...or like a political genius....do what you need and vote no.....​


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 3, 2010)

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


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 3, 2010)

Sabotage .....+.....hypocritical............= ??????????????????????????


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 3, 2010)

" Freaks here in this hopeless fucking hole we CALL LA, THE ONLY WAY TO FIX IT IS TO FLUSH IT ALL AWAY...ANY FUCKING TIME, ANY FUCKING DAY" [video=youtube;uCEeAn6_QJo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCEeAn6_QJo[/video]


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 3, 2010)

don't you have some babies to save? or are you to busy multi posting?


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 3, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> don't you have some babies to save? or are you to busy multi posting?


TO busy voting no fdd....Aint got time to help out the cannabis community at large cause of my own selfish desires and needs.... ( perhaps one can not make it so obvious things are a getting under ya skin) .......is it the....T.....R......U.....T.....H.....or FICTION???hmmm...Just saddened to see you so vigilantly selfish on voting no...Its not about just you here, its about cannabis being free, about the community of cannabis users....not about ones inability to not grow XYZ in a XYZ space....

Peace, Love, and Happiness


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 3, 2010)

The Potologist said:


> TO busy voting no fdd....Aint got time to help out the cannabis community at large cause of my own selfish desires and needs.... ( perhaps one can not make it so obvious things are a getting under ya skin) .......is it the....T.....R......U.....T.....H.....or FICTION???hmmm...Just saddened to see you so vigilantly selfish on voting no...Its not about just you here, its about cannabis being free, about the community of cannabis users....not about ones inability to not grow XYZ in a XYZ space....
> 
> Peace, Love, and Happiness


He's already admitted that the real reason he's against prop 19 is because Richard Lee burned him personally. Since he doesn't like Richard Lee, he thinks the rest of us should continue living under prohibition as long as he gets to see Richard Lee fail. It's pretty selfish.


----------



## Bnasty2337 (Aug 3, 2010)

Thanks man!! You just saved one yes vote. I'm born and raised in CA, I was going to vote yes. And like someone said I didn't read the bill. Thank u for getting the word out I'm a Paitent and I grow. We need growing to be unrestricted or there will be problems. We need a real bill, that covers all aspects of marijuana/hemp. Including letting the victims of the prohibition free or reevaluate there cases. DONT VOTE YES ON PROP 19.... if u have not looked into it yourself. If you smoke or grow now u are going to be shooting yourself in the foot with a yes vote!! 
Thia is not our only option, there will be a better prop just give it time.


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 3, 2010)

Bnasty2337 said:


> Thanks man!! You just saved one yes vote. I'm born and raised in CA, I was going to vote yes. And like someone said I didn't read the bill. Thank u for getting the word out I'm a Paitent and I grow. We need growing to be unrestricted or there will be problems. We need a real bill, that covers all aspects of marijuana/hemp. Including letting the victims of the prohibition free or reevaluate there cases. DONT VOTE YES ON PROP 19.... if u have not looked into it yourself. If you smoke or grow now u are going to be shooting yourself in the foot with a yes vote!!
> Thia is not our only option, there will be a better prop just give it time.


prop 19 doesn't effect medical growing at all. It's only about recreational cannabis.


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 3, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> prop 19 doesn't effect medical growing at all. It's only about recreational cannabis.


Well I personally think it will effect the ENTIRE cannabis community. Sure the laws are not directed at medical users, however I am sure everyone will be effected by Prop 19. Its a huge bill, and its a huge progression in the right direction to free a plant that has a right to be free. I think with Prop 19 passing this nation will repeal federal classification.

Off subject, to let a man in a WHEELCHAIR get you down to where you vote AGAINST THE HERB YOU LOVE, CONSUME, and MAKE MONEY OFF OF IS BEYOND HYPOCRITICAL. I have known Richard for way to long...He wouldnt fuck over a rabbit...so if HE DID... that say something about that person, IMO. Moreso, to say this is about Richard Lees Agenda to make more money...you our sadly mistaken. HES LOST MONEY...doing Prop 19...and its not money he has any interest in getting back in both short and long term stances. If it makes you sleep better knowing you voted no...then I hope you snore like a dragon. Cause in the end....YOUR ONE VOTE....IS NO MEANS FOR "PAYBACK" to a man in a wheel chair!!

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


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 3, 2010)

Bnasty2337 said:


> Thanks man!! You just saved one yes vote. I'm born and raised in CA, I was going to vote yes. And like someone said I didn't read the bill. Thank u for getting the word out I'm a Paitent and I grow. We need growing to be unrestricted or there will be problems. We need a real bill, that covers all aspects of marijuana/hemp. Including letting the victims of the prohibition free or reevaluate there cases. DONT VOTE YES ON PROP 19.... if u have not looked into it yourself. If you smoke or grow now u are going to be shooting yourself in the foot with a yes vote!!
> Thia is not our only option, there will be a better prop just give it time.


Any chance you dont feel like a hypocrite voting against the precious herb you love, consume, and perhaps make profit off of?? Able to sleep with the raging Mexican mafia and the gangbanging they do?( perhaps you are not effected by them eh?)....Perhaps some may assume that because we have waited over 70 years, the PLANT can wait longer...Dont think there is a NEED NOW to liberate this plant? Ive had my hands in Prop 19 from near the start...I did more than just read it  Its not about ONE PERSON, and HIS MEDICAL NEED....Its about so many other things other than yourSELF(ish) desires, agendas, and needs. Its about the plant, about its devoted and loyal followers and consumers. About the cannabis community at large...

Personally, I dont like to tell myself this whole thing can wait. There have been way to many victims of prohibition...70 YEARS worth of Victims...So maybe, you can explain to THEM, as to why you are voting NO...I know thats far fetched, but ...just imagine that YOU HAVE NO CHOICE, but to explain your NO vote to each and every victim of prohibition .....Food for though ...However, even in the event that one could, I am pretty sure they dont want to hear it.

Peace, Love, and Happiness


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 3, 2010)

The Potologist said:


> Well I personally think it will effect the ENTIRE cannabis community.


Yes, you are correct. I should have been more clear. What I meant to say is prop 19 won't inhibit your ability to grow or posses medical cannabis.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 3, 2010)

The Potologist said:


> TO busy voting no fdd....Aint got time to help out the cannabis community at large cause of my own selfish desires and needs.... ( perhaps one can not make it so obvious things are a getting under ya skin) .......is it the....T.....R......U.....T.....H.....or FICTION???hmmm...Just saddened to see you so vigilantly selfish on voting no...Its not about just you here, its about cannabis being free, about the community of cannabis users....not about ones inability to not grow XYZ in a XYZ space....
> 
> Peace, Love, and Happiness


no it is not about me at all. i am medical and will NOT be effected in *any* way. that is why i am voting no.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 3, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> He's already admitted that the real reason he's against prop 19 is because Richard Lee burned him personally. Since he doesn't like Richard Lee, he thinks the rest of us should continue living under prohibition as long as he gets to see Richard Lee fail. It's pretty selfish.


i clearly said that was only *ONE* of the reasons. if you look around i have stated 20 others as well. you can't seem to rebut any of those though.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 3, 2010)

The Potologist said:


> Well I personally think it will effect the ENTIRE cannabis community. Sure the laws are not directed at medical users, however I am sure everyone will be effected by Prop 19. Its a huge bill, and its a huge progression in the right direction to free a plant that has a right to be free. I think with Prop 19 passing this nation will repeal federal classification.
> 
> Off subject, to let a man in a WHEELCHAIR get you down to where you vote AGAINST THE HERB YOU LOVE, CONSUME, and MAKE MONEY OFF OF IS BEYOND HYPOCRITICAL. I have known Richard for way to long...He wouldnt fuck over a rabbit...so if HE DID... that say something about that person, IMO. Moreso, to say this is about Richard Lees Agenda to make more money...you our sadly mistaken. HES LOST MONEY...doing Prop 19...and its not money he has any interest in getting back in both short and long term stances. If it makes you sleep better knowing you voted no...then I hope you snore like a dragon. Cause in the end....YOUR ONE VOTE....IS NO MEANS FOR "PAYBACK" to a man in a wheel chair!!
> 
> I AM THE POTOLOGIST, AND I APPROVE OF PROP 19! VOTE YES IN NOVEMBER!



OH MY GOD. did you just throw out a sympathy plea? for richard lee? 



hahahhahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahah


simply PATHETIC.


----------



## 10jed (Aug 3, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> no it is not about me at all. i am medical and will NOT be effected in *any* way. that is why i am voting no.


sooo... it's not about you, and it wont affect you, so you aren't going to support it. How is that not being about you? If it weren't about you you would support what is best for the masses, no?

Jed


----------



## MediMary (Aug 3, 2010)

http://stop19.com/
the official stop prop 19 website, sorry if someone already posted the link. 
peace n


----------



## NLXSK1 (Aug 3, 2010)

It is everyone in CA's right to vote how they want to.

I dont think anyone is going to convince FDD or any of the other anti-prop 19 people to vote yes.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 3, 2010)

10jed said:


> sooo... it's not about you, and it wont affect you, so you aren't going to support it. How is that not being about you? If it weren't about you you would support what is best for the masses, no?
> 
> Jed


if i believed it was best i would vote yes. you telling me it's best doesn't make it so.


----------



## brickedup417 (Aug 3, 2010)

it dosent matter anymore most mmj patients have seen this for what it really is bull$hit, and are voting no.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Aug 4, 2010)

brickedup417 said:


> it dosent matter anymore most mmj patients have seen this for what it really is bull$hit, and are voting no.


Umm... Prop 19 has nothing to do with MMJ...


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 4, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> no it is not about me at all. i am medical and will NOT be effected in *any* way. that is why i am voting no.


This greatly remind me of " Genny Lite Logic"...Complete drunken stupor of rubbish. Awesome logic...I guess low expectations warrant low results...Can totally understand why your happy with yourself..However, I have no need to be as sabotaging as you


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 4, 2010)

The Potologist said:


> This greatly remind me of " Genny Lite Logic"...Complete drunken stupor of rubbish. Awesome logic...I guess low expectations warrant low results...Can totally understand why your happy with yourself..However, I have no need to be as sabotaging as you


your personal attacks need to stop now. 

thank you.


----------



## The Potologist (Aug 4, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> your personal attacks need to stop now.
> 
> thank you.


No problem...consider it equal. One attack for another. I guess its only permittable coming from a moderator....I never once asked you to stop the e-thug tactics of name calling and such...Its cool though...I see how it all works.....considered it lost within time  Sad to see we cant even civilly disagree.....?????


----------



## skate4theherb (Aug 4, 2010)

one of the best songs ever!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## skate4theherb (Aug 4, 2010)

[video=youtube;kSF63aVwcoY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSF63aVwcoY[/video]
MAYBE WE SHOULD ALL TRY TO LIVE THIS WAY...LET THE GREED OUT OF OUR HEART!!! FILL IT BACK UP WITH LOVE!! (YES IM A HIPPIE AT HEART!)


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 7, 2010)

brickedup417 said:


> it dosent matter anymore most mmj patients have seen this for what it really is bull$hit, and are voting no.


Actually, not true. Most support it. There is just a vocal minority strongly opposing it.


----------



## 10jed (Aug 7, 2010)

10jed said:


> I will look at it with an open mind and see what his take is on it. I agree that word shouldn't be there, but at this point I contend that it is irrelevant because of a(iii). I'll report back either way.
> 
> Jed


For the record, my lawyer wants $200 for an opinon and I don't have the scratch. I kinda thought he would hook me up but I gues not. Maybe someone else can get it done though.




Dan Kone said:


> Actually, not true. Most support it. There is just a vocal minority strongly opposing it.


Word on the street is that Dennis Peron, the original author of 215, is now supporting Prop19.

Jed


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 7, 2010)

10jed said:


> Word on the street is that Dennis Peron, the original author of 215, is now supporting Prop19.
> 
> Jed


What? Really? That seems really odd to me. Last time I saw him he was VERY pissed at Rich Lee. But that was a while ago. If you find any info on this please let me know. Although he's probably not being very talkative right now considering that he just got raided.


----------



## AbsoluteChron (Aug 11, 2010)

I personally feel like the medical movement is preferable to outright legalization. I want quality cannabis that was grown by someone that intends on smoking it themselves, not a commercial grow operation working for the highest profit margin. I do not want to see marijuana become a commodity. I really appreciate the nuances of different strains and grow qualities. I hope I never see the day when there are packs of Marlboro joints at my local 7Eleven.


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 11, 2010)

AbsoluteChron said:


> I really appreciate the nuances of different strains and grow qualities. I hope I never see the day when there are packs of Marlboro joints at my local 7Eleven.


What makes you think it will be that way? Strains are one of the most marketable qualities of cannabis. Corporate types love that. If anything, there will be more strains.


----------



## Penni Walli (Aug 14, 2010)

im voting yes on prop 19, of course its about big buissness getting wealthy and greed, but so what ??? every single thing in this world is regulated by big buissness and u expect weed not to be ? the only people not supporting this Prop are people intending to sell weed, which i dont blame you, your competition will be against big buisness and the cost to obtain a license to sell is very high. Im just a smoker, so prop 19 benefits me, i cant complain at lower prices and i cant complain that i can finally smoke in peace w/o looking behind my back. You guys have a hippie dream that will never come true, but at least this is moving in the right steps for smokers, maybe not dealers, but smokers yes.


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 14, 2010)

Penni Walli said:


> the only people not supporting this Prop are people intending to sell weed, which i dont blame you, your competition will be against big buisness and the cost to obtain a license to sell is very high


If prop 19 passes I'm intending to sell weed legally, and I support prop 19. I welcome competition from big business because I believe I can put out a superior product. Sure, it won't be in the same quantities that they can, but as long as someone can put out a superior product there will always be a market for that.


----------



## Penni Walli (Aug 14, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> If prop 19 passes I'm intending to sell weed legally, and I support prop 19. I welcome competition from big business because I believe I can put out a superior product. Sure, it won't be in the same quantities that they can, but as long as someone can put out a superior product there will always be a market for that.


yup i agree with what your saying, and if prop 19 passes i will support mom and pop shops over big business any day, and i think true herb smokers who have a taste for delicacies will always buy through mom and pop shops too.


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 14, 2010)

Penni Walli said:


> yup i agree with what your saying, and if prop 19 passes i will support mom and pop shops over big business any day, and i think true herb smokers who have a taste for delicacies will always buy through mom and pop shops too.


That's exactly why people shouldn't fear phillip Morris or Richard Lee doing massive scale corporate grows. If you see their mass produced schwagg or bomb locally grow shit you'd probably rather have the locally grown shit. As long as it's a better product, even if it is more expensive people will buy it. I've spend a lot of time in dispensaries and I know for a fact that most people who go into those places prefer quality over low price.


----------



## Maui Waui (Aug 15, 2010)

sm0keyrich510 said:


> as stated in that article this is all just a magic trick...i really believe so...they just tossed out a $39 per oz figure to get the smokers excited and trick them into voting (they probably assumed no one would actually read prop 19 if they knew voting yes means its legal)...it states that its illegal to purchase from anyone who is NOT licensed to grow it...and the penalty for getting caught 18-20 with possession of less than an oz is greater than it is now...from a $100 fine to $1000...


Thats not true, the fine you are talking about is purchasing cannabis for minors and the penalty for doing so will be increased from a 100$ fine to 1000$ fine in order to make sure people under the age of 18 cant posses it.


----------



## wowzerz (Aug 22, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> That's exactly why people shouldn't fear phillip Morris or Richard Lee doing massive scale corporate grows. If you see their mass produced schwagg or bomb locally grow shit you'd probably rather have the locally grown shit. As long as it's a better product, even if it is more expensive people will buy it. I've spend a lot of time in dispensaries and I know for a fact that most people who go into those places prefer quality over low price.


 The only problem here is that (Under this new law) mom and pop grows (over 25 square feet, or 5x5) would be ILLEGAL unless they had a commercial license, provided by your city/county IF they decide to give them out.

If they do, they will probably follow Oaklands model and issue very few (Oakland is going to issue 4) and charge a LOT (Oakland is going to charge $30k PER YEAR to have a license) 
So what does this mean? Under this law, BIG BUISNESS will be the ONLY ones growing(commercially) from here on out. No more small business providing medicine. You can produce for your self only, and again has to be 25 square feet or smaller.
So good old Richard Lee was doing all us pot users a favor donating over a mil of his money? Its looking to be more of an investment. What a joke.


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 22, 2010)

wowzerz said:


> The only problem here is that (Under this new law) mom and pop grows (over 25 square feet, or 5x5) would be ILLEGAL unless they had a commercial license, provided by your city/county IF they decide to give them out.


Or you have your 215. That doesn't change.



wowzerz said:


> If they do, they will probably follow Oaklands model and issue very few (Oakland is going to issue 4) and charge a LOT (Oakland is going to charge $30k PER YEAR to have a license)
> So what does this mean? Under this law, BIG BUISNESS will be the ONLY ones growing(commercially) from here on out. No more small business providing medicine. You can produce for your self only, and again has to be 25 square feet or smaller.
> So good old Richard Lee was doing all us pot users a favor donating over a mil of his money? Its looking to be more of an investment. What a joke.


I've already talked to my county board of supervisors and they've already said they will not do anything like what is going on in Oakland. They are only going to let mom and pop operations go. So no, what you said is all speculation. Not every city/county will be like Oakland.


----------



## wowzerz (Aug 22, 2010)

In regards to possecion and amounts you can grow this bill WILL superseed prop 215
"Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.[17] In spite of the fact that the tax cannabis Web site says otherwise, the only medical marijuana exemptions that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative actually makes are with regard to possession, consumption and purchase limits, which only ensure that patients would still be allowed to buy medicine at dispensaries. The word &#8220;cultivate&#8221; is conspicuously absent. Whereas today a person with a doctor&#8217;s recommendation has the right to grow up to an unlimited number of plants, the initiative would drastically reduce that number to whatever can fit in a 5&#8217;x5&#8217; footprint (around 3-6 plants&#8212;per property, not per person). This will force many patients to resort to buying instead of growing their own medicine, because of the inconvenience caused by producing multiple grows a year rather than growing a year&#8217;s supply of medicine at one time, as many patients currently do outdoors. And growing indoors&#8212;which typically requires special grow lights, an increase in hydro use, and a lot of time and attention&#8212;is a comparatively expensive endeavor."

Which means I can NOT(with or without a Drs Recomendation) grow more then a 5x5 (25 square foot) area.
And if I do, patient or not, I will be going to jail.

And the only way around this? No problem, just go get a license from your city/county.
ANY city county that does give these out, will charge money for them. There will be NO way around this.

Oakland is one of the most progressive city when it comes to pot, look at their model. 30k!!!! PER YEAR!!!!!!

I beleive that this law is written to eradicate small business from the pot industry.


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 22, 2010)

wowzerz said:


> In regards to possecion and amounts you can grow this bill WILL superseed prop 215


Show me where in prop19 it says that. If it doesn't specifically state it, then your claim is not true. 

Prop 19 is about recreational use, not medical use.



> Which means I can NOT(with or without a Drs Recomendation) grow more then a 5x5 (25 square foot) area.
> And if I do, patient or not, I will be going to jail.


No it doesn't. What you quoted was not law, it is just the opinion of a misinformed blogger.


----------



## wowzerz (Aug 22, 2010)

> *Q: Could Proposition 19 affect medical cannabis growers?*
> 
> *A:* Yes, by providing legal permits to gardens, Proposition *19* *will* also make possible the first legal commercial growing, once cannabis cultivation is regulated and permitted by either local governments or the state





> *Q: Will Proposition 19 attract big business and cut out the little guys, and the cottage industry they have worked so hard to create?*
> 
> *A: *Proposition *19* *will* actually give local groups an equal opportunity to obtain licenses and/or permits for the sale and cultivation of *medical* cannabis, adult cannabis, and hemp. Local groups can work with local governments to help determine regulations and licensing for cultivation and sales. Proposition *19* is also significant in that it allows for personal cultivation by adults.


Let me first say that this is quoted from the google cache link:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HOO4sF3PwJQJ:www.taxcannabis.org/page/content/faq+will+prop+19+affect+medical+growers%3F&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a


They have since taken it down but you can see it through google. This is quoted from www.taxcannabis.org so its straight from the horses mouth.

" by providing legal permits to gardens"
"give local groups an equal opportunity to obtain licenses and/or permits for the sale and cultivation of *medical* cannabis"

you see that? Do you think there will be a separate (and much much cheaper) "commercial medical permit" 
I Doubt It
It says right there "equal opportunity to obtain licenses" And I bet the $30k per year fees are just as "equal opportunity"

So yes, medical patients also have the same opportunity to try and obtain a license, but you are going to pay $30k a year just like the next guy.
These guys have you so mystified with "legalizing" This is not legalization, this is one mans attempt at turning his millions into billions. And creating a market where small business is completely pushed out of it.


----------



## wowzerz (Aug 24, 2010)

Bump- to keep this discussion going.


----------



## wowzerz (Aug 24, 2010)

hmmmmmm......


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 25, 2010)

wowzerz said:


> So yes, medical patients also have the same opportunity to try and obtain a license, but you are going to pay $30k a year just like the next guy.
> These guys have you so mystified with "legalizing" This is not legalization, this is one mans attempt at turning his millions into billions. And creating a market where small business is completely pushed out of it.


No where does prop 19 mention a $30k per year fee.


----------



## Weedoozie (Aug 25, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> No where does prop 19 mention a $30k per year fee.


You're right, though no where on it is it mentioned. How much do you think they'll be charging for it?


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 25, 2010)

of course it's not mentioned. 

it will be implemented though.

*TAX* and regulate.

it's what the prop is all about.


----------



## wowzerz (Aug 25, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> No where does prop 19 mention a $30k per year fee.


 Of course it doesn't mention that. That is what Oakland will be charging per year for their permit fees. Its just an example. Do you think your city/county will say" well Oakland charges too much, I want to do my people a favor, and I don't want to make too much tax revenue from it, here is your permit for $50 a year" YEAH RIGHT!!!


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 25, 2010)

Weedoozie said:


> You're right, though no where on it is it mentioned. How much do you think they'll be charging for it?


That'll depend on the city/county. My county will be much more about having a solid and safe business plan. They are more concerned with the money generated staying local than getting a fee. I think many places will be more interested in the potential jobs/economic stimulus it's creating. Sure, it might be $30k in some places, but it'll also be a few hundred dollars in other areas. It all depends on your local representation.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 25, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> That'll depend on the city/county. My county will be much more about having a solid and safe business plan. They are more concerned with the money generated staying local than getting a fee. I think many places will be more interested in the potential jobs/economic stimulus it's creating. Sure, it might be $30k in some places, but it'll also be a few hundred dollars in other areas. It all depends on your local representation.


where will it be a few hundred dollars? nowhere in prop 19 does it say "a few hundred dollars".


----------



## ford442 (Aug 25, 2010)

i think that it would be problematic to have that wide a gap in fees between counties - i'll guess that we have a more uniform fee in rural areas of slightly less than urban districts like Oakland, but close to that $30K figure.. no county will want to make itself THE county to grow or sell i predict.. i could be wrong though..


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 25, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> where will it be a few hundred dollars? nowhere in prop 19 does it say "a few hundred dollars".


I was speculating. No where does it say a few hundred dollars nor does it say 30k dollars.


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 25, 2010)

ford442 said:


> i think that it would be problematic to have that wide a gap in fees between counties - i'll guess that we have a more uniform fee in rural areas of slightly less than urban districts like Oakland, but close to that $30K figure.. no county will want to make itself THE county to grow or sell i predict.. i could be wrong though..


I'm not so sure. The economic activity it creates could be very appealing to some counties especially in northern California. There are thousands of people in northern California making a living off of cannabis currently and not paying any income tax. Just getting these people legal and paying taxes might be much more beneficial than having a probative fee. Think about how much tax money Humboldt county would collect if all the growers/trimmers/sellers all paid income tax. That would far outweigh the benefit of having some huge license fee.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 25, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> I'm not so sure. The economic activity it creates could be very appealing to some counties especially in northern California. There are thousands of people in northern California making a living off of cannabis currently and not paying any income tax. Just getting these people legal and paying taxes might be much more beneficial than having a probative fee. Think about how much tax money Humboldt county would collect if all the growers/trimmers/sellers all paid income tax. That would far outweigh the benefit of having some huge license fee.


those people are medical growers who shouldn't be affected by prop 19.


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 25, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> those people are medical growers who shouldn't be affected by prop 19.


Yeah, every grower in humboldt county is a medical grower. of course....

There are no large scale outdoor grows there either right?


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 25, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Yeah, every grower in humboldt county is a medical grower. of course....
> 
> There are no large scale outdoor grows there either right?


i'm pretty sure they all have their paperwork in order. it would be silly not to. and if they don't they are growing illegally. and if they are growing illegally now, what makes you think they will run out and pay taxes. 



*most* of "those people" you speak of are medical growers who won't be affected by prop 19. 

next.


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 25, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i'm pretty sure they all have their paperwork in order.



lol. You're so full of shit. I can't speak for everyone in humboldt county but I do know many many people up there who are way beyond any medical limits. 



fdd2blk said:


> it would be silly not to. and if they don't they are growing illegally. and if they are growing illegally now, what makes you think they will run out and pay taxes.


They are growing illegally because there is no way to legally grow on the that scale. Give them an option to do it legally and many would jump at the chance. They aren't growing illegally specifically to avoid taxes. They aren't paying taxes because in order to do so they'd be admitting to a felony.

I'm not saying they want to pay taxes, but give them the chance to grow as much as they want with no fear of the cops and many of them will take paying taxes as an expectable trade off. 



> most of "those people" you speak of are medical growers who won't be affected by prop 19.


lol. no they aren't. Some of them have medical cards but your telling me all those greenhouses and 20 light grow houses are about "medicine"? lol. bullshit. They are growing weed to make money. Nothing wrong with that, but to pretend it's all part of prop 215 is a bunch of crap and you know it.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 25, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> lol. You're so full of shit. I can't speak for everyone in humboldt county but I do know many many people up there who are way beyond any medical limits.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


regardless of why they are growing, they still went and spent 125 dollars at the dr. and got a card. why is this so hard to accept? 

if they are already growing as much as they want now, why would they run out to pay taxes? 

none of your points make any sense.


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 25, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> regardless of why they are growing, they still went and spent 125 dollars at the dr. and got a card. why is this so hard to accept?


ummm. Ok. That's not hard at all to accept. Good for them. But don't tell me they are running greenhouses full of plants because of their insomnia. If you're doing large scale outdoor crops of more than one thowie indoors, you're growing to make money. It's that simple. 



> if they are already growing as much as they want now, why would they run out to pay taxes?


In exchange for being able to grow as much as they want legally without running the risk of being sent to prison and having their property seized. It's a fair trade. 



> none of your points make any sense.


I'm making a hell of a lot more sense than you. You just tried to claim that most of the weed being grown in Humboldt is all medicinal growing. That's pretty laughable to anyone who's spent time there.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 25, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> ummm. Ok. That's not hard at all to accept. Good for them. But don't tell me they are running greenhouses full of plants because of their insomnia. If you're doing large scale outdoor crops of more than one thowie indoors, you're growing to make money. It's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



no, i said the PEOPLE growing it had medical *paperwork*. it was you who came up with rest. 

the people up north, are doing just fine right now.


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 25, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> no, i said the PEOPLE growing it had medical *paperwork*. it was you who came up with rest.





> those people are medical growers who shouldn't be affected by prop 19.





> most of "those people" you speak of are medical growers who won't be affected by prop 19.


lol. fail



> the people up north, are doing just fine right now.


Of course. Why would the "I gots mine" crowd want anything to change? They are making tons of money off it being illegal.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 26, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> lol. fail
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. Why would the "I gots mine" crowd want anything to change? They are making tons of money off it being illegal.


"medical growers", as in "those who have paperwork". it was you who spewed "insomnia", outta nowhere. 

and it's cool you finally get it. those up north have NO desire to pay taxes. hence why most are voting NO. 


most everything you post is speculation. it's funny you try to tell me what i know and live daily. you try to debate what i know as the truth. it's silly i even reply to you. i'm really bored.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 26, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> I'm not so sure. The economic activity it creates could be very appealing to some counties especially in northern California. There are thousands of people in northern California making a living off of cannabis currently and not paying any income tax. Just getting these people legal and paying taxes might be much more beneficial than having a probative fee. Think about how much tax money Humboldt county would collect if all the growers/trimmers/sellers all paid income tax. That would far outweigh the benefit of having some huge license fee.





most of those growers are growing with 215 paperwork. they are already "legal". they will not be affected by prop 19. they will have no reason to voluntarily pay taxes. unless it is later implemented upon them. which prop 19 clearly states won't happen. right?

try to stay focused this time.


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 26, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> and it's cool you finally get it. those up north have NO desire to pay taxes. hence why most are voting NO.


No. Most people up there are voting no because they are making huge profits off of it being illegal. 



> it's funny you try to tell me what i know and live daily.


Not exactly. I just think you're being dishonest/speaking in half truths most of the time when it comes to prop19. I think you actually do know that what I'm saying is right, you're just indifferent to the truth. You hate Richard Lee so therefor you have to complain about every part of prop 19 and never admit that it has any benefits at all, regardless of if those complains have any basis in reality or not. It's not that you don't know if what you're saying is right or wrong, you just don't care about that. You just want it to fail because you don't like Richard Lee. It's very transparent.


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 26, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> most of those growers are growing with 215 paperwork. they are already "legal".


Lol. There is no piece of paperwork that makes it legal to grow massive greenhouses full of plants or rent a house out and put up 20 lights. There is nothing legal about that at all. I don't care if someone has their paperwork or not, that is not legal medical growing.



> they will not be affected by prop 19. they will have no reason to voluntarily pay taxes. unless it is later implemented upon them. which prop 19 clearly states won't happen. right?
> 
> try to stay focused this time.


lol. dude. just because you have 215 paperwork doesn't make it legal to grow as much bud as you want and sell it. And don't try and claim they are all selling it to the clubs. I'm up there enough to know that's total bullshit. Most of the clubs up there are just fronts anyways. No one goes to them.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 26, 2010)

for the 100th time, i have a lot more reason then my dislike for richard lee to vote no. it's the only thing you can point out though. i understand why.


----------



## Dan Kone (Aug 26, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> for the 100th time, i have a lot more reason then my dislike for richard lee to vote no. it's the only thing you can point out though. i understand why.


so you say. It sounds a lot more like you decided you didn't like prop19, then came up with the reasons why you didn't like it later.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 26, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> so you say. It sounds a lot more like you decided you didn't like prop19, then came up with the reasons why you didn't like it later.



yeah, you caught me.


----------



## Weedoozie (Aug 26, 2010)

Is there a limit on the amount of medicine a patient can have now, other than the 6 mature plants or 12 immature plants and 8 oz (growing, or in their possession, or on their property)?


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 26, 2010)

Weedoozie said:


> Is there a limit on the amount of medicine a patient can have now, other than the 6 mature plants or 12 immature plants and 8 oz (growing, or in their possession, or on their property)?


limits were declared unconstitutional by the state supreme court. you are allowed whatever you can PROVE you need. up to 99 plants, then the feds kick your door in.


----------



## Weedoozie (Aug 26, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> limits were declared unconstitutional by the state supreme court. you are allowed whatever you can PROVE you need. up to 99 plants, then the feds kick your door in.


That was the last I heard but I thought they might have changed it, good to know though, thank you fdd2blk!


----------



## wowzerz (Sep 7, 2010)

http://budtrader.com/rancho-cordova-weed-tax/
and
http://blogs.sacbee.com/weed-wars/2010/08/rancho-cordova-readies-measure-to-tax-marijuana-cultivators.html

Another city jumping on the "tax and regulate" bandwagon.
Rancho Cordova will be a "Personal Cultivation Tax" of..............Wait.......Get this............ 

$600 PER SQUARE FOOT! Up to 25 square foot.
.
So an average Joe, who wants to grow some green at home can set up his cute little 5x5 garden, and pay ONLY $15k per year (this is NOT a one time fee, this is an annual tax)
.
Tell me again how most city's will not be charging fees like Oakland? City's and county's all over CA are hard up for money right now.
It doesn't matter to these law makers that the PEOPLE of CA are hard up for money right now as well.
This is a Bill created by and for big business, and says "fuck you" to all the PEOPLE.


----------



## Weedoozie (Sep 7, 2010)

It is beginning...


----------



## dtRepeat (Sep 7, 2010)

read the link, got about a 1/4 the way through and i didnt want to read anymore. i dont know how well this is going to work for my state, but im voting no. there are too many holes in it and too many ways to get burned. Californians can get better than this.

my question, and indeed i havent gotten a real soild answer yet, is if we vote yes and "legalize it" with all these BS guidelines, cant we just go back later and express our problems over it, rather than just say no and risk not being given another chance? Im not saying this is something im worried about, i just want to see what people say on the matter.


----------



## Weedoozie (Sep 7, 2010)

I think we can change it once its made law if enough people agree...


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 7, 2010)

wowzerz said:


> http://budtrader.com/rancho-cordova-weed-tax/
> and
> http://blogs.sacbee.com/weed-wars/2010/08/rancho-cordova-readies-measure-to-tax-marijuana-cultivators.html
> 
> ...


this is all proof that prop 19 is irrelevant when it comes to taxing cannabis.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 7, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> this is all proof that prop 19 is irrelevant when it comes to taxing cannabis.



what?


*August 5, 2010*

Rancho Cordova readies measure to tax marijuana cultivators

Voters in Rancho Cordova will decide in November whether to tax residents who grow their own pot.
The city measure, put on the Nov. 2 ballot by the City Council this week, would impose taxes on all local residential cultivation* if California voters approve Proposition 19 to legalize recreational use.*




Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/weed-wars/2010/08/rancho-cordova-readies-measure-to-tax-marijuana-cultivators.html#ixzz0ytKF29Op





it's DIRECTLY relevant. 


​


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 7, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> what?
> 
> 
> *August 5, 2010*
> ...




Those taxes go into effect reguardless of prop 19 passes or not. This is from the article you are citing as an example:



> But the city's proposed "Personal Cannabis Cultivation Tax" also makes no distinction between medical and recreational cultivation. So the tax would kick in for anyone currently cultivating for personal medical use -- whether Prop 19 passes or not.


Fail. Santa Clara is taxing dispensaries right now without prop 19 as well. The idea that cities/counties somehow need permission from prop 19 to tax cannabis is pretty lol.​


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 7, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Those taxes go into effect reguardless of prop 19 passes or not. This is from the article you are citing as an example:
> 
> 
> 
> Fail. Santa Clara is taxing dispensaries right now without prop 19 as well. The idea that cities/counties somehow need permission from prop 19 to tax cannabis is pretty lol.



no one said they needed permission. you are veering.

the article i read clearly says "*IF* prop 19 passes". that makes it *relevant*. sorry if you can't see that or stay focused long enough to understand the simple point i was making.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 7, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> no one said they needed permission. you are veering.
> 
> the article i read clearly says "*IF* prop 19 passes". that makes it *relevant*. sorry if you can't see that or stay focused long enough to understand the simple point i was making.


No, I'm not veering, you're spinning. The article says the tax will kick in regardless of if prop 19 passes or not. It's not prop 19 creating this tax.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 7, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> No, I'm not veering, you're spinning. The article says the tax will kick in regardless of if prop 19 passes or not. It's not prop 19 creating this tax.


i guess that word "IF" is a hallucination to me. sorry for the misunderstanding.

carry on.


----------



## sicks string samurai (Sep 8, 2010)

I would not vote No, or Yes. Simply because I'll stay smoking regardless of laws. We've done it for half a decade, why change it now?


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 8, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i guess that word "IF" is a hallucination to me. sorry for the misunderstanding.
> 
> carry on.


I guess "regardless of if prop 19 passes or not" is a hallucination to me. sorry for the misunderstanding.


----------



## 1gamma45 (Sep 8, 2010)

Hey guys I dont wana be the one to piss anyone cornflakes but I have to point this cause it seems to be the common thred missing from all these Vote no on Prop 19 posts.

You all know you live in the U.S. right? You do all know that the U.S. is run by big buisness? That being said how much of hit were you expecting them to take? I understand and 100% support Jack and his idea of that it "should be" However lets all be up front and honest. This is the closest the U.S. has ever come to making it legal. And frankly its as close as the U.S. Government will let us get I fear. To vote no on this you will be cuting your own throat. I do not feel you will get this chance again anytime soon and to not grab this oppertunity and make the best of it is foolish.


Is it the perfect plan no. But its all you got. I would suggest getting the Prop 19 in place then working on fixing its issue reather then say F the whole thing. 

I truely belive that the only way any "free person" in the U.S. will be truely free is to have the people step up and take it all back just like in 1776. Seeing as that not likely to happen maybe we shouldnt look a gift horse in the mouth.


Thanks all.


----------



## Weedoozie (Sep 8, 2010)

1gamma45 said:


> Hey guys I dont wana be the one to piss anyone cornflakes but I have to point this cause it seems to be the common thred missing from all these Vote no on Prop 19 posts.
> 
> You all know you live in the U.S. right? You do all know that the U.S. is run by big buisness? That being said how much of hit were you expecting them to take? I understand and 100% support Jack and his idea of that it "should be" However lets all be up front and honest. This is the closest the U.S. has ever come to making it legal. And frankly its as close as the U.S. Government will let us get I fear. To vote no on this you will be cuting your own throat. I do not feel you will get this chance again anytime soon and to not grab this oppertunity and make the best of it is foolish.
> 
> ...


It could happen...we just need to get the ball rolling and stop being the lazy stereotypes every one makes stoners' out to be. Although, I personally cannot decide which would be more difficult: try to fix this prop19 law if it passes or F the whole thing and make another? It seems like a LOT of money was spent to get it on the ballot in the first place. I'm not sure anyone would do that unless they were making some sort of profit off of it which is exactly the case for Richard Lee. So what do we think...anyone else here a millionaire willing to invest $$$ to get a better prop out there? Will some one please stand up?

If no one does, I guess you're right, this is the only option in the foreseeable future...


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 8, 2010)

Weedoozie said:


> It could happen...we just need to get the ball rolling and stop being the lazy stereotypes every one makes stoners' out to be. Although, I personally cannot decide which would be more difficult: try to fix this prop19 law if it passes or F the whole thing and make another? It seems like a LOT of money was spent to get it on the ballot in the first place. I'm not sure anyone would do that unless they were making some sort of profit off of it which is exactly the case for Richard Lee. So what do we think...anyone else here a millionaire willing to invest $$$ to get a better prop out there? Will some one please stand up?
> 
> If no one does, I guess you're right, this is the only option in the foreseeable future...


That is correct. We are taking about spending millions of dollars here. No one is willing to spend the kind of money it takes to end prohibition unless they see a personal financial benefit out of it. And most (not all, but most) of the not lazy stoners support prop 19 because with some hard work, they can make prop 19 work for them in a major way.


----------



## dtRepeat (Sep 8, 2010)

does anyone else think we could change things later if we first pass prop 19 and then start to ask for revisions? i dunno who would back us on it but it would be interesting to explore this option, in my opinion.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 8, 2010)

dtRepeat said:


> does anyone else think we could change things later if we first pass prop 19 and then start to ask for revisions? i dunno who would back us on it but it would be interesting to explore this option, in my opinion.


Yes. Prop 19 is all about incremental change. Change usually comes in steps, not all at once.


----------



## Weedoozie (Sep 9, 2010)

Hey y'all, check this out:
http://yeson19.com/node/97
They have a section in their FAQ for Medical Cannabis Patients FAQ which answers many of the questions patients and advocates for patients have been bringing up in regards to changing laws

Now we have to find out if they are misleading us with wrong information...I hope not.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 11, 2010)

The problem I have with Prop19 is that you can only buy from a licesned dispensary.... I think that is just putting all the power in few hands when we have all the power in all the hands now... And for what, just an ounce... A ounce of MJ doesnt put you in jail now, so why not keep your ounce you got now, and wait on a better written law... We have already waited 50 years, whats another 2 or 4 or 6... Better to do it right the first time then trying to fix a shitty law...


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 11, 2010)

Prop 19 is the best thing to come down the pike that I've seen in 71 years! I'm NOT worried about "who's got the power" or "oh woo hoo"
"I can't buy more than an ounce at a time". No by God, WHEN this thing passes, *I* will continue to grow excellent smoke for myself, and 
*NOT *be a fucking criminal anymore. CASE BLOODY *CLOSED!*..............BB


----------



## nathenking (Sep 11, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> Prop 19 is the best thing to come down the pike that I've seen in 71 years! I'm NOT worried about "who's got the power" or "oh woo hoo"
> "I can't buy more than an ounce at a time". No by God, WHEN this thing passes, *I* will continue to grow excellent smoke for myself, and
> *NOT *be a fucking criminal anymore. CASE BLOODY *CLOSED!*..............BB


Your not a criminal... You are if you grow MJ in South Dakota, Wyoming etc... They will take your kids, your house and throw you in jail for having lets say 4 plants... 
What would happen to you if you were to get caught in California? Im not writing this in a deragatory way either, Im just wondering what would happen if you were to get caught???


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 11, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Your not a criminal... You are if you grow MJ in South Dakota, Wyoming etc... They will take your kids, your house and throw you in jail for having lets say 4 plants...
> What would happen to you if you were to get caught in California? Im not writing this in a deragatory way either, Im just wondering what would happen if you were to get caught???


Well, funny you should ask. In 1992, I was busted in Amador county, CA, for 5 plants under lights in a garage, for this I received 17 months of "State" time. I was initially processed through San Quentin State Prison and eventually finished my sentence and was paroled out of Folsom State Prison, in 1994. I was 54 years old at the time and it "blew up my life" completely! I have since moved to a LESS uptight county AND continue to grow. 
And YES, I'm still a criminal. You see, I NEVER bought into the Medical MJ thing and refuse to play the "Dr. says it's OK" game, so my little annual 10/12 plant patio grow is completely "illegal" by current standards.
Good luck & good grow.......BB


----------



## nathenking (Sep 11, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> Well, funny you should ask. In 1992, I was busted in Amador county, CA, for 5 plants under lights in a garage, for this I received 17 months of "State" time. I was initially processed through San Quentin State Prison and eventually finished my sentence and was paroled out of Folsom State Prison, in 1994. I was 54 years old at the time and it "blew up my life" completely! I have since moved to a LESS uptight county AND continue to grow.
> And YES, I'm still a criminal. You see, I NEVER bought into the Medical MJ thing and refuse to play the "Dr. says it's OK" game, so my little annual 10/12 plant patio grow is completely "illegal" by current standards.
> Good luck & good grow.......BB


Heard you loud and clear... Would you still go to prison in 2010 for the same crime in 92'???


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 11, 2010)

The sword of Damocles STILL hangs. November 2, IT GOES AWAY.........BB


----------



## nathenking (Sep 11, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> The sword of Damocles STILL hangs. November 2, IT GOES AWAY.........BB


What happens if the federal government repeals it, and cuts california off from all federal funds until the abolish the law??? Thats what obama will do so he can win the next election, god knows that none of the bible belt states will vote for him if he lets it fly over there...


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 11, 2010)

My take is a little different. I strongly believe that CA is going to be the "National tipping point", once we do this thing, the other States will become "dominoes". I believe there will be a shift in federal policy, and allow the States to legislate Cannabis as the people see fit.
And I'm Sure the feds will be GLAD to get out of the "Marijuana" business, considering the incredible resistance to their wasted and costly efforts ..........BB


----------



## nathenking (Sep 11, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> My take is a little different. I strongly believe that CA is going to be the "National tipping point", once we do this thing, the other States will become "dominoes". I believe there will be a shift in federal policy, and allow the States to legislate Cannabis as the people see fit.
> And I'm Sure the feds will be GLAD to get out of the "Marijuana" business, considering the incredible resistance to their wasted and costly efforts ..........BB


I also think that CA will be a tipping point... But I believe that this law will pigeon hole CA when WA MT and OR see the mistakes that CA make and improve on them, so then everybody will go to those states because they will be able to buy more than an ounce, and they will be able to buy it from non-corporate affiliated people... So the demand will go down for CA mj and there for hurt the economy... The reason I say pigeon hole is that once this prop goes into effect, it will be very hard to change it... hence the one ounce limit will be here for a while... and that isnt good for the overall full legalization of MJ... if anything it will just put MJ into another prohibition where the rich people will make the laws that benefit them and not us... 

As to the feds the war on MJ is what us blue collar folks call job security, and thats what they want... im not to sure they are gonna be happy about these huge indoor warehouse commercial grows, if they want to go raid them and seize all there assets and property they will... they will do that because that is money for them... and it is also federal law... and that wont change anytime soon...


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 12, 2010)

nathenking said:


> The problem I have with Prop19 is that you can only buy from a licesned dispensary.... I think that is just putting all the power in few hands when we have all the power in all the hands now... And for what, just an ounce... A ounce of MJ doesnt put you in jail now, so why not keep your ounce you got now, and wait on a better written law... We have already waited 50 years, whats another 2 or 4 or 6... Better to do it right the first time then trying to fix a shitty law...


Don't you have to buy from a licensed dispensary now? You didn't think they were going to make it legal to just stand on a street corner and sell weed did you? What guarantee do you have that there will be a better law on the ballot in 2, 4, or 6 years? As far as I'm aware of this is the first time legalization has been on the ballot in my lifetime. I'm wouldn't be too happy about waiting for legalization for that long again just because a few people don't like all the details. What if it takes 20 years and then when it on the ballot we end up with a worse ballot measure?


----------



## jfa916 (Sep 12, 2010)

vote yes plz


----------



## nathenking (Sep 12, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Don't you have to buy from a licensed dispensary now? You didn't think they were going to make it legal to just stand on a street corner and sell weed did you? What guarantee do you have that there will be a better law on the ballot in 2, 4, or 6 years? As far as I'm aware of this is the first time legalization has been on the ballot in my lifetime. I'm wouldn't be too happy about waiting for legalization for that long again just because a few people don't like all the details. What if it takes 20 years and then when it on the ballot we end up with a worse ballot measure?


Like I said before, its a ounce... I dont get put in jail when I get caught with it...(im not a card holder) It doesnt bother me know... On the other hand, ive been popped with 60 lbs in utah before, now that is going to jail... So the one ounce limit thing doenst mean anything to me... I dont go to jail for a ounce now, i dont go to jail for ounce after nov. 2... what changes? What changes is that big corporations enter into the MJ business... I dont want that... 

My uncle moved up to humboldt after he got back from vietnam... He is what we call an original... If this law is to pass and big warehouse grows insue... He will be out of a job, wont be able to make his land payments and who knows what will happen... This goes for the whole community up here, as well as trinity, medno, shasta, del norte... It puts alot of good people that have been fighting the good fight for decades out... And for what, oh yeah, a OUNCE... Its a joke... I can buy a 100 liters of vodka today, but I can only have a ounce of MJ, I can buy a truck load of cigs but only have a ounce of MJ... Yeah right... Legal... its alot easier to rewrite and then pass a law then it is to change it when it goes into effect... Who is to say that after we pass this law the federal government wont come in and say o.k. but it has to stay this way... I dont like speculation... In 5 years if I can only carry an ounce, then this is a failure period. The funny thing about all this is that it is at 50/50 right now, but there are alot of people up north, and all over the state with MMJ that will show up and vote NO, this is what we call the swing vote, and dont be surprised if it doesnt get passed man... Seriously...

Plus, you have to be a registerd voter, alot of people that would vote yes from the ages of 18-24 arent even registerd... So they cant vote either... Plus republicans are gonna show up in huge numbers this midterm, add that together with the MMJ people, the people that already grow and the people that are the real activists and you have a closer race than you would like... Hence your on these boards all the time trying to tear down what people want to do... Ive seen more people go from a yes vote to a no vote in the last 3 months then the other way around... People are not gonna jump at the first bone thrown to them... either way to each his own... but I say this to you... I dont go to jail when I get caught even with qp now, so what is the real difference man... 5x5 area, well everybody that grows to any appreciable level already blows past those limits, so what changes... 

I know I cant change your mine Dan, but ive changed hundreds all ready and will continue...And there is alot of people like me doing the same thing. It only takes about 15 minutes of pointing out legitimante points to people for them to realize it...


----------



## EmpireApple420 (Sep 12, 2010)

Thanks man for posting this article because i was one of the ignorant people on prop 19 but now would defiantly vote no if i lived in cali.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 12, 2010)

EmpireApple420 said:


> Thanks man for posting this article because i was one of the ignorant people on prop 19 but now would defiantly vote no if i lived in cali.


exactly... it doesnt take a brilliant person to vote yes, it takes a ignorant person...


----------



## sicks string samurai (Sep 12, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Like I said before, its a ounce... I dont get put in jail when I get caught with it...(im not a card holder) It doesnt bother me know... On the other hand, ive been popped with 60 lbs in utah before, now that is going to jail... So the one ounce limit thing doenst mean anything to me... I dont go to jail for a ounce now, i dont go to jail for ounce after nov. 2... what changes? What changes is that big corporations enter into the MJ business... I dont want that...
> 
> My uncle moved up to humboldt after he got back from vietnam... He is what we call an original... If this law is to pass and big warehouse grows insue... He will be out of a job, wont be able to make his land payments and who knows what will happen... This goes for the whole community up here, as well as trinity, medno, shasta, del norte... It puts alot of good people that have been fighting the good fight for decades out... And for what, oh yeah, a OUNCE... Its a joke... I can buy a 100 liters of vodka today, but I can only have a ounce of MJ, I can buy a truck load of cigs but only have a ounce of MJ... Yeah right... Legal... its alot easier to rewrite and then pass a law then it is to change it when it goes into effect... Who is to say that after we pass this law the federal government wont come in and say o.k. but it has to stay this way... I dont like speculation... In 5 years if I can only carry an ounce, then this is a failure period. The funny thing about all this is that it is at 50/50 right now, but there are alot of people up north, and all over the state with MMJ that will show up and vote NO, this is what we call the swing vote, and dont be surprised if it doesnt get passed man... Seriously...
> 
> ...


Well fucking said bro. I whole-heartedly agree with what you said. The irony here is dumbfounding. Pot growers, and smokers of all different flavors, and standing up, and saying NO to something great. Turns out, this PROP. 19 is a bad idea, all around. I habitually smoke marijuana to relieve stress. I will continue to do so, whether the shit is Legal or not. We've done it that way for that past 50 years... So my 2 cents is this, Vote NO On Proposition 19. 

And I don't even live in Cali. I just support the people!


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 12, 2010)

EmpireApple420 said:


> Thanks man for posting this article because i was one of the ignorant people on prop 19 but now would defiantly vote no if i lived in cali.


Then I'M Damned glad YOU don't live here! As a matter of fact, I wish ALL you clowns from "OUT OF STATE", would mind your OWN fucking business! Instead of coming in here and running your mouths, MAKE something happen on YOUR OWN TURF!
BTW EA420, You are STILL ignorant if you buy into all the anti-19 bullshit!.............BB


----------



## nathenking (Sep 12, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> Then I'M Damned glad YOU don't live here! As a matter of fact, I wish ALL you clowns from "OUT OF STATE", would mind your OWN fucking business! Instead of coming in here and running your mouths, MAKE something happen on YOUR OWN TURF!
> BTW EA420, You are STILL ignorant if you buy into all the anti-19 bullshit!.............BB


Good thing there is freedom of speech... I dont understand why you need to get so upset... If you are so sure that Prop 19 will pass why waste your time??? 
BTW, my uncle lives in 707 and stands to lose his land & his job (growing)... He is the one that got me so upset on the matter, and guess what hes been growing since 72', and if doesnt think its a good idea and jack H didnt think it was a good idea... Im Positively SURE it isnt... Go slit your own neck with your ONE ounce of weed... WOW that sure is revolutionary what you guys are doing out there!!!! Its a joke everywhere else man... seriously it is...


----------



## Weedoozie (Sep 12, 2010)

Does anyone else think the pot warehouses will not be able to cover the demand of MJ if the prop passes?


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 12, 2010)

Weedoozie said:


> Does anyone else think the pot warehouses will not be able to cover the demand of MJ if the prop passes?


If, money is to be made, the "market" will ALWAYS surpass the demand for those who will NEED "warehouse" pot.
And, if you don't like what's on the shelf of your local "pot-shop", there would almost always be a friend who has sweet little grow and willing to "share".
It still seems that some "hidden" agenda needs to surface from the "naysayers", because the specious arguments presented here are getting a little ridiculous!....BB


----------



## Weedoozie (Sep 12, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> If, money is to be made, the "market" will ALWAYS surpass the demand for those who will NEED "warehouse" pot.
> And, if you don't like what's on the shelf of your local "pot-shop", there would almost always be a friend who has sweet little grow and willing to "share".
> It still seems that some "hidden" agenda needs to surface from the "naysayers", because the specious arguments presented here are getting a little ridiculous!....BB



I'm on the fence about this whole issue still. I've been on both sides, considering all arguments presented and read through the whole bill. From what I can tell, the prop is poorly worded and vague in regards to MMJ patients. The FAQ on the yeson19 website has a section about MMJ patients and how the prop will affect them if it does pass but I have a strong suspicion that they are manipulating the words in order to pull a fast one to reach their goals of cornering the MJ market. Then again, I could be mistaken and making up conspiracy theories...but the wording of the prop really leaves a bitter taste in my mouth...


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 12, 2010)

everybody here who lives in cali is already growing and/or smoking pot. the worst thing that will happen if this prop does NOT pass is, nothing will change. 


VOTE NO.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 12, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> everybody here who lives in cali is already growing and/or smoking pot. the worst thing that will happen if this prop does NOT pass is, nothing will change.
> 
> 
> VOTE NO.


Exactly, nothing changes...


----------



## brickedup417 (Sep 12, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> everybody here who lives in cali is already growing and/or smoking pot. the worst thing that will happen if this prop does NOT pass is, nothing will change.
> 
> 
> VOTE NO.


exactly.... im voteing no


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 12, 2010)

And That just might be the "hidden agenda" that I've sensed from the "Naysayers". 

"Nothing will change"! Hmmmm.....I guess some folks REALLY like the status quo.......appearently the "current state of cannabis affairs" in CA, is in some way, advantageous, and maybe profitable. Well, if my pocketbook was threatened by prop 19, I surely would be voting no.
However this not the case. For me, "Nothing will change" means I will continue to be a criminal under current state law. I am not a "Medical Marijuana Patient".
I refuse to play the Hypocrite, I consume cannabis because I thoroughly enjoy getting "high", and NOT because it's "medicine",
wink wink, nudge nudge!
I realize my little "rant" (however truthful, it's still rant), isn't going to change any of your minds. So I'll leave you with this: 

There at least 75 votes YES, here in my Senior Mobile Park, and that pretty much covers the Naysayers on this site.

I'm thinking that a few of you may have underestimated the "Grey Vote". Yeah, we're grandmas bakin' cookies and grandpas full of b/s advice, but a whole big bunch of us smoked back in the day, and STILL DO!

* SEE YA AT THE POLLS!*


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 12, 2010)

nathenking said:


> My uncle moved up to humboldt after he got back from vietnam... He is what we call an original... If this law is to pass and big warehouse grows insue... He will be out of a job, wont be able to make his land payments and who knows what will happen...


What would stop him from just starting up his own company and growing legally? 



> This goes for the whole community up here, as well as trinity, medno, shasta, del norte... It puts alot of good people that have been fighting the good fight for decades out...


I'm in Arcata right now. I know people are pissed about it up here. But I don't think it's going to do that at all. If you grow good bud, someone will always want to buy it. All these people up here are against it, but if I ask anyone what their plan is if it does pass all I get are blank stairs. No one is even thinking about that up here. As far as I'm concerned if people aren't willing to prepare, that's on them.

I have no sympathy for people who are too lazy to form a legal business. You can do that in an afternoon. Regardless of if people are for or against prop 19 they should should be prepared.

You don't really think that Northern California is just going to stop growing weed do you? There will still be weed grown. They will still need people who know how to grow it, trim it, make hash, oils, edibles, etc. None of that is going to change.



> And for what, oh yeah, a OUNCE... Its a joke...


I honestly could care less about the possession part. I never carry more than half an ounce with me anyways unless I'm headed to drop some off at a dispensary.



> I can buy a 100 liters of vodka today, but I can only have a ounce of MJ, I can buy a truck load of cigs but only have a ounce of MJ... Yeah right...


How often does anyone really walk around with more than an ounce for any reason other than to sell?



> Plus, you have to be a registerd voter, alot of people that would vote yes from the ages of 18-24 arent even registerd... So they cant vote either...


Polling samples are taken from registered voters. That polling suggests it will pass.


> Plus republicans are gonna show up in huge numbers this midterm, add that together with the MMJ people,


And prop 19 could get a lot of democratic voters to the polls so we might not end up with fascists like Whitman and Fiorina. That's a good thing right?



> Hence your on these boards all the time trying to tear down what people want to do...


I'm not tearing down what people want to do. People want to pass prop 19. Lots of people have put serious effort into it. Anti-prop 19 people are the ones trying to tear that down with no real plan of their own besides the idea that if we keep waiting someone else will just eventually hand us legalization and it will be perfect. In my opinion, that's a load of crap.

I'm on here so much because I'm supposed to be trimming and this is my way of procrastinating. I've been trimming 10-15 or more hours per day. Some times I need breaks. If I go out and do something fun, it's not likely I'll go back to trimming. 



> 5x5 area, well everybody that grows to any appreciable level already blows past those limits, so what changes...


Why would they stop? They are either growing illegally in which case it's irrelevant what a new law says or they are medical growers in which case it's irrelevant what a limit set by a law about recreational cannabis growing. And the supreme court of California agrees with me on that. 



> I know I cant change your mine Dan, but ive changed hundreds all ready and will continue...And there is alot of people like me doing the same thing. It only takes about 15 minutes of pointing out legitimante points to people for them to realize it...


Well if you're going around telling them that prop 19 sets a $50 per ounce tax and that all permits are going to cost $200k, then you're changing their minds by feeding them misinformation. 

I have no problem with you trying to change peoples minds and expressing your opinion. All I ask of you is that you think about all the things you don't like about prop 19. Then go read prop 19 and look for those things in the proposed law to make sure that what you are saying is true. 

peace


----------



## skate4theherb (Sep 12, 2010)

[video=youtube;nJhBWaNPV3w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJhBWaNPV3w[/video]

HELLO EVERYONE,
I HAVE START A GROUP ON YOUTUBE TO GET PEOPLE TO COME TOGETHER.IF YOU DO NOT USE YOUTUBE SIGN UP JUST TO JOIN.IF YOU CHOOSE TO PUT VIDEO'S UP GREAT OR TO HELP THE FIGHT.
GROUP LINK>( http://www.youtube.com/group/GROWERSUNITE )<

THERE IS A BIG ISSUE GOING ON IN THE GANJA WORLD,MORE AND MORE EVERYDAY PIMP'S,THUG,MONEY HUNGRY, GREEDY PEOPLE ARE TAKING OVER ARE WORLD.WE ARE THE ONCE WHO SPEND HOUR IN OUR GARDEN GROWING GANJA.WE LOVE OUR PLANTS,MOST OF US ARE MARRIED TO OUR GARDEN.ONCE IT LEAVE ARE GARDEN,WE FOR SOME REASON HAND IT OVER TO PEOPLE,WHO USE TO FUND THEIR WAR'S,MAY IT BE GANGS,DRUG CARTEL,OR THE DEA.WE NEED TO TAKE WHATS REALLY ARE TO CONTROL!
THERE ARE WAYS THAT AS GROWERS WE CAN DO IT


----------



## nathenking (Sep 12, 2010)

skate4theherb said:


> [video=youtube;nJhBWaNPV3w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJhBWaNPV3w[/video]
> 
> HELLO EVERYONE,
> I HAVE START A GROUP ON YOUTUBE TO GET PEOPLE TO COME TOGETHER.IF YOU DO NOT USE YOUTUBE SIGN UP JUST TO JOIN.IF YOU CHOOSE TO PUT VIDEO'S UP GREAT OR TO HELP THE FIGHT.
> ...


She just laid it down... She deciphers laws for a living, and just gave it to all of us straight... THINK before you VOTE!!!


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 12, 2010)

WTF was that? OMG, Now the Naysayers have brought up the BIG guns!!!



ROFLMAO!​


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 12, 2010)

Well, OK, I've settled down now...but, Man what a great laugh......
So Ms Leticia has had HER say, Now from a REAL attorney:

*mmj attorney breaks down prop 19 and explains how it effects patients* 
got this email from lanny last night and thought I would share it with the community 

Quote:
For my support of Prop. 19, I have been subject to the scorn, approbation and the most demoralizing denunciations imaginable by a group of medical marijuana patients exhibiting what can only be termed medical reefer madness.

With the best of intentions based on a poorly researched legal analysis, these anti-19 folks have joined forces with the people whose indifference and outright hostility have resulted in, and continue to result in, the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of thousands of medical marijuana patients.

Their never-ending harangues that Prop. 215 will go into the trash can of history if Prop. 19 is passed is causing medical marijuana patients extreme anxiety and leading them to question their support of this historic and critical piece of reform legislation. Graphically describing the horrors that will descend like a plague of locusts on unsuspecting medical marijuana patients if Prop. 19 passes, the anti-19 cabal insinuates that we are being duped by unscrupulous and untrustworthy people like Chris Conrad, Judge Jim Gray, Dale Gerringer, Dr. Frank Lucido, State Senator Mark Leno, Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, Jeff Jones, Mark Emery and hundreds of others. To see a list of all their claimed enemies of medical marijuana patients, go to: Endorsements | yeson19.com

To reveal the fallacy of their arguments and to stop stressing patients, I asked my friend, and frankly the friend of every medical marijuana patient in the state of California, J. David Nick, to weigh in on the controversy.

For 18 years, David Nick has successfully litigated a cornucopia of issues regarding cannabis and the applicable laws in both trial and appellate courts. He has not confined his practice to marijuana law, but also litigates cases involving constitutional rights and criminal procedure.

David Nick has never lost a jury trial in a state marijuana case including many precedent setting trials involving some of the most revered figures in the medical marijuana movement such as Brownie Mary, Dennis Peron (Nick has been Perons sole attorney since 1994) and Steve Kubby.

One of Nicks early defenses of Perons medical marijuana activism resulted in the first appellate court decision affirming that marijuana can be sold. Kubbys case was the first large quantity (200 plants) case to be won on the argument that Kubbys serious ailments necessitated his use of cannabis to keep him alive.

A recent case of interest to patients is the Strauss case, involving a farm in Mendocino County that cultivated marijuana exclusively for a collective in Los Angeles. Nick succeeded in getting a hung jury followed by outright dismissal of all charges involving 250 pounds of processed marijuana, 200 large marijuana plants and $1.5 million in several bank accounts - not exactly consistent with the idea of small collectives with everybody planting, harvesting, trimming and singing Kumbaya.

He is currently representing collectives in Palm Springs, Riverside and Los Angeles in preemptive lawsuits asserting the rights of collectives to provide medicine to their members without undue interference from local government officials.

Nick does not confine his practice to marijuana law, but is involved in significant federal criminal litigation.

His litigation has established the right not to be searched by sniffing dogs without probable cause. This is in contract to car searches where police can search you car for no reason at all.

His litigation has lead to policies requiring police to not draw weapons in a marijuana search unless they have information that the person being apprehended is dangerous.

He has successfully litigated jury trials utilizing a necessity for life defense in order to uphold the operation of needle exchange programs.

As far as I am concerned, these experiences qualify him to provide an opinion about Prop. 19 superior to those I have read from the sky-is-falling alarmists

Here is Mr. Nicks analysis of the effects of Prop. 19 on medical marijuana patients. I will have a few more choice words for you to peruse at the conclusion of Mr. Nicks thoughtful, rational, reasoned, and accurate analysis. 

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Its that simple.

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).

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.

PROP. 19 ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE A LOT OF MARIJUANA

As an attorney called upon to defend patients and non-patients in marijuana cases, I cannot tell you how beneficial and how much freedom Section 11300 subdivision A (3) of Prop.19 will be to cannabis users. Read it!

Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individuals personal consumption, and not for sale.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of ANY harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.

Section (i) limits possession to one ounce OUT OF YOUR HOUSE. Section (iii) permits people 21 and over to have within their residence or single parcel ALL the cannabis which one grew in their 25 sq. foot parcel, including what you grew this year, what you grew last year and EVERY SINGLE 25 SQ. FT. HARVEST YOU EVER HAD ON THAT SINGLE PARCEL. This covers as many cycles of indoor and/or outdoor grown cannabis as a person can produce as long as each grow was no more than 25 square feet and done in succession.

Clearly section 11300(a) (i) limits personal possession and consumption to one ounce OUT OF YOUR HOME while section11300(a) (iii) is what you are allowed to have AT YOUR RESIDENCE if that is where your 25 sq. ft. garden is located. That this is the case is established by another rule of statutory construction, i.e. the specific controls the general. Here (iii) is the specific statute with respect to what you can have AT YOUR RESIDENCE ONLY or in the words of subdivision (iii) "on the premises where grown".

The one ounce limitation only applies when you leave your house, not wherever it is you grow your 25 foot plot. I can picture being able to easily defend a person with 200 pounds who is not even medical.

Under Prop. 19 you can only travel with one ounce, but if you are a patient you can still enjoy the protections of the CUA and MMP and can safely travel with eight ounces, or whatever your doctor permits you to have or the needs of your collective, as allowed by the CUA and the MMP. YOUR SUPPLY PROBLEMS CAUSED BY PARANOID CULTIVATION LAWS AND POLICIES THAT AT TIMES LIMIT YOUR PERSONAL CULTIVATION PROJECTS ARE SOLVED BY PROP. 19.

Prop. 19 creates a marijuana sanctuary IN YOUR HOME ONLY. Prop. 19 allows you to have AT YOUR HOME ONLY ALL OF THE PROCEEDS of every successive 25 sq. foot plot. However, Prop 19 only allows you TO REMOVE IT FROM YOUR HOME one ounce at a time if you are a recreational user.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

So can everyone please VOTE YES ON 19.

Sincerely,

J. DavNick Attorney-at-Law 


And thank you very much Sir.


For the rest of ya, SEE YA AT THE POLLS!


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 12, 2010)

Weedoozie said:


> No need to be a prick...


DON'T try to ease your embarassment by calling me a PRICK! Sir.


----------



## Weedoozie (Sep 12, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> DON'T try to ease your embarassment by calling me a PRICK! Sir.


I'm not embarrassed and I am not a male.

Also, what the lawyer you quoted does not mention is that even though patients have to right to obtain the medicine they need, they would still have to pay for it and what of those patients who cannot afford the price of the high quality medicine the commercial cannabis market would have for supply? And the argument that the price of marijuana will go down if Prop 19 passes is absurd.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 12, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> DON'T try to ease your embarassment by calling me a PRICK! Sir.


you are being a little belligerent. maybe if you used bigger text you would feel like you're getting somewhere.


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 13, 2010)

Weedoozie said:


> I'm not embarrassed and I am not a male.
> 
> Also, what the lawyer you quoted does not mention is that even though patients have to right to obtain the medicine they need, they would still have to pay for it and what of those patients who cannot afford the price of the high quality medicine the commercial cannabis market would have for supply? And the argument that the price of marijuana will go down if Prop 19 passes is absurd.


So sorry MS, I guess the language made me think I was dealing with a male!

And there we go again, "they would still have to pay for it"...... Really? Does that mean they get it "free" NOW? 

"and what of those patients who cannot afford the *price *of the high quality medicine the *commercial* *cannabis market would have for supply".*
Would you please explain the "clairvoyance" that allows YOU to see into the future and KNOW the price of pot after prop 19.

There will be 2, YES!, 2 ways to buy cannabis after 19.
1. *Continue* to deal with your local Med/Mar dispensary, and pay the same as you are now. Why should the prices suddenly skyrocket for medical patients, in the Medical Marijuana arena?

2. *Recreational* cannabis will be sold at regulated outlets, (same as alcohol and tobacco). This is totally separate and distinct from the medical scene.
The prices there? Who knows! (well, maybe you do, since you seem to "see" the future). But it would be irrelevant to "medical" users. Dispensaries and co-op's are not touched by prop 19!

So it would seem that "medical" users could use either source, whereas "recreational" users would be precluded from medical dispensaries.
And so it goes.........................BB


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 13, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you are being a little belligerent. maybe if you used bigger text you would feel like you're getting somewhere.


Nice dodge OFF subject! Soooo....typical of you!


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 13, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> Nice dodge OFF subject! Soooo....typical of you!


i said smoking and growing, you dodged off into sales. 

say what?




you skipped a post.


----------



## Weedoozie (Sep 13, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> So sorry MS, I guess the language made me think I was dealing with a male!


you know what they say about assumptions



Burger Boss said:


> And there we go again, "they would still have to pay for it"...... Really? Does that mean they get it "free" NOW?
> 
> "and what of those patients who cannot afford the *price *of the high quality medicine the *commercial* *cannabis market would have for supply".*
> Would you please explain the "clairvoyance" that allows YOU to see into the future and KNOW the price of pot after prop 19.


Actually, the better dispensaries, co-ops, and collectives have programs to get medicine to the patients in need who cannot afford it on their own; using money from patients who donate or money from percentages of sale of medicine to other patients who can afford it.

It is my educated guess, not clairvoyance. Also, it was discussed on this thread a while back: the price will not be going down as the whole point of this is to make money so why would the commercial industry lower the price when the majority of their customers are already used to paying the higher prices as well as to cover all the costs that would accumulate through taxes and business over the grow operations? It doesn't make sense for profits of the companies who will be cultivating the commercial supply.



Burger Boss said:


> There will be 2, YES!, 2 ways to buy cannabis after 19.
> 1. *Continue* to deal with your local Med/Mar dispensary, and pay the same as you are now. Why should the prices suddenly skyrocket for medical patients, in the Medical Marijuana arena?
> 
> 2. *Recreational* cannabis will be sold at regulated outlets, (same as alcohol and tobacco). This is totally separate and distinct from the medical scene.
> ...


The prices would likely not skyrocket but they would probably be affected in some growing way. Whether that be from the enormous demand for cannabis after the passing of prop 19, or from the limitation of grows for personal consumption. It is unclear.

Everyone is still going to want good smoke, will the commercial industry be able to meet that demand? From my point of view, I don't think so.


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 13, 2010)

You still want to "Lump" MEDICAL & RECREATIONAL into the same arena. IF you can't see the difference, then good luck with that.


----------



## Weedoozie (Sep 13, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> You still want to "Lump" MEDICAL & RECREATIONAL into the same arena. IF you can't see the difference, then good luck with that.


The difference does not matter in taxes.
This is from Letitia's website and it's all relevant:

"I&#8217;m a medical marijuana patient and I&#8217;ve been an attorney with a 20-year-plus background in research and analysis from a neutral perspective. Here&#8217;s some information on just one of the many wicked consequences of Prop. 19, if it passes.l
Prop. 19 Allows Cities to Collect Taxes from Anyone
Growing Marijuana Only for Personal Use
(It Also Allows Big Fines for Violating Onerous Local
Cultivation Regulations that Cities Can and Will
Adopt, If Prop. 19 Passes) 
Imagine, if you will, that you have grown, in the small 5 foot by 5 foot by 5 foot by 5 foot square the single outdoor marijuana plant you are now allowed to grow under your city&#8217;s newly adopted marijuana ordinance. (Or the two indoor plants you&#8217;re allowed.) (See footnote 1.)
You, like the Little Red Hen of fairytale fame, have done all the work involved and paid all the expenses associated with such horticulture: you&#8217;ve paid the property taxes on your &#8220;farm,&#8221; you&#8217;ve paid for the water, electricity, equipment, amendments, seeds/plants, etc., you&#8217;ve provided all the labor. So, would you expect to have to pay a local tax, too, when you did this all yourself and didn&#8217;t buy your marijuana? Of course not.
But guess what? Under Richard Lee&#8217;s Brave New World of &#8220;legalized marijuana&#8221; (what a misnomer!) you will now be subjected to a tax on your own efforts and use of your own property. No kidding. Here&#8217;s why.
Proposition 19, if it passes, specifically allows local governments to tax marijuana to not only offset any costs associated with marijuana regulation but to raise revenue. Section 3 of Prop. 19 adds section 11301 to the Health and Safety Code. Section 11301, &#8220;Commercial Regulations and Controls, &#8220; specifically provides that &#8220;Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit, or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following: . . . (k) Appropriate taxes or fees pursuant to Section 11302.&#8221; 
What&#8217;s an &#8220;appropriate fee?&#8221; Prop. 19 doesn&#8217;t set any limits on either the kind of or rate of, local taxes. In fact, it actually lists a wide variety of taxes, all of which will become fair methods of taxing marijuana users and growers if Prop. 19 passes. See, also in Section 3 of Prop. 19, the proposed addition of Health & Safety Code section 11302, &#8220;Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees.&#8221; 
Under section 11302, which will become the law if Prop. 19 passes, cities will be able to adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts to impose &#8220;appropriate&#8221; &#8220;general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees,&#8221; in order to &#8220;permit the local government to raise revenue.&#8221; Remember, a tax to raise revenue has no limit on its rate unless a limit is imposed by law, since it is unrelated to any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity. Prop. 19 is silent as to any limit on tax rates related to marijuana-related taxes. So, arguably your local government could decide to apply a tax to your possession of a marijuana plant at a rate of, for example, $200 per plant. Isn&#8216;t that nice? (See footnote 2.)
Two hundred dollars per plant? Outrageous? There are limits on tax rates, right? There must be some limit to prevent a $200 per plant tax, right? (It would have been nice if Prop. 19 had specifically limited the amount of taxes on marijuana, but it didn&#8217;t, did it?) The answer: You did read footnote 2, didn&#8217;t you? Start saving your money to pay either outrageous taxes or to litigate the tax issue if you want to grow your own 1 or 2 plants.)
And even if this analysis is wrong, the taxation issue is still going to be a matter of interpretation &#8212; which, of course, cities will interpret as broadly as possible, leaving local gardeners to engage in litigation to try to get a less broad interpretation. Will it be worth it to try to fight local taxes, or will people give up and buy their cannabis from, for example &#8212; tah-dah &#8212; Richard Lee?
To facilitate this discussion on taxation, here are some basic concepts. While a tax that is designed to offset costs associated with the activity being taxed is, necessarily, limited in nature, a tax designed to raise revenue is not so limited. In other words, if it costs a city $10 per parcel to provide street lighting, and if a state law limits cities to recovering the costs of providing such services, then a tax to pay for street lighting cannot be higher than needed to cover that $10 per parcel cost. On the other hand, if a state law allows cities to tax to raise revenue, and the state law has no limits on the tax rate, no such limit applies.
Notably, Section C of Prop. 19 states that it is intended to limit the application of certain laws related to all activities involving marijuana, e.g., local laws relating to possession, transportation, cultivation, consumption, and sale of cannabis. Equally notably, it does not state any intent to limit laws related to taxation. Therefore, there does not appear to be any limit on either the rate or nature of the taxes which a municipality can apply to marijuana. (See footnote 2 again.)
And what if the tax rate, or its method of institution (by the vote of a city council rather than of the local voters) is arguably illegal? Will Richard Lee come to your aid and fund the legal challenge to such taxes in each and every city that adopts them? Probably not. That means, in every little city, only the pro-marijuana activists will be left to mount the legal challenges to such taxes as applied to &#8220;non-commercial&#8220; home gardeners, leaving Mr. Lee free to make money in an ever-expanding &#8220;commercial cannabis industry&#8220; (a direct quote from Prop. 19., Section (2)(B)(11) and Section (5)(b)).
Now, why would Richard Lee have set up the consequences of Prop. 19 to make growing your own marijuana so prohibitively expensive? Hmmmm. Thinking, thinking, thinking . . . . Maybe because it will make the cost of buying marijuana from the tightly controlled &#8220;commercial cannabis industry&#8221; (in which Richard&#8217;s warehouses will play a prominent part, no doubt) look like a more reasonable alternative, especially when one factors into the cost of growing your own such additional costs, as, e.g., having to put up a separate area, a tiny locked, fenced area within an already secure backyard, to keep your own children away from your one outdoor pot plant? (See footnote 3.)
Could anyone who is supposedly a marijuana activist be evil enough to set this scheme up? Could be! Or maybe just selfish or greedy enough would be a kinder way to put it.
If you think these un-discussed-by-Richard-Lee tax consequences of Prop. 19 are bad, wait until you get the next missive about the un-discussed-by-Richard-Lee criminal and civil enforcement penalties, as well as the administrative search warrants this nice initiative will open up, if Prop. 19 passes. A small taste of what&#8217;s to come: if your single outdoor plant dares extend its trembling branches outside the 5 by 5 by 5 by 5 foot square you&#8217;re allowed under Prop. 19, it becomes, under the Rancho Cordova ordinance (and all the copy-cat ordinances that will follow) a PUBLIC NUISANCE.
In the City of Riverside, for example, you can be fined $1,000 (that&#8217;s one thousand dollars) a DAY for every day you maintain a public nuisance. And these ordinances will create multiple public nuisance possibilities: the failure to securely and separately fence off your single cannabis plant if your three-year-old as any access to the backyard, or a cannabis pen that is not at least 10 feet away from every boundary fence, will be public nuisances subject to daily fines of as much as $1,000.
Can you SEE where this is going? Local governments and police will be DELIGHTED to look for such violations &#8212; it&#8217;s a great way to not only make revenue, but to punish potheads, and to essentially destroy any private, non-commercial cultivation. Don&#8217;t forget the prescient words of Justice John Marshall in the Supreme Court case of McCulloch v. Maryland:
&#8220;An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.&#8221;
Is Richard Lee a Machiavellian kind of guy or what!?!? 
FOOTNOTE 1
The City of Rancho Cordova just adopted a municipal ordinance that specifies that one plant may be grown outdoors and two may be grown indoors., using the 5 by 5 by 5 by 5 foot plot as the basis for the numeric limitation.
This same ordinance also has some onerous additional regulations &#8212; which Prop. 19 allows cities to apply to cultivation! &#8212; and, even better, states that the cultivator of either indoor or outdoor plants must, in addition to complying with these other requirements, pay the City&#8217;s tax on cannabis! The amount of tax/tax rate isn&#8217;t stated in the ordinance, but it could be quite high (see rest of this mini-analysis).
Just as local cities have been copying each other on ordinances banning collectives, no doubt they&#8217;ll copy this kind of ordinance, too. See the ordinance at
http://www.cityofranchocordova.org/index.aspx?recordid=2378&page=351
FOOTNOTE 2
There is a constitutional limitation on certain kinds of taxes, but whether these limitations apply to all the kinds of taxes cities could place on marijuana-related activities is up for interpretation. Arguably, however, any existing limitations would not apply, because Prop. 19, if it passes, will add Health & welfare section 11301, which provides that, &#8220;Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law,&#8221; cities may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit, or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following: (k) Appropriate taxes or fees pursuant to Section 11302.&#8221;
In other words, even if there is an existing state law that limits taxes by requiring voter approval, or that limits taxes by requiring them to be only so much as is needed to confer some specific benefit, those existing laws will not apply to restrict cities&#8217; rights to impose a marijuana-related tax.
The pro-Prop. 19 crowd will probably try to confound wavering voters by pointing to Prop. 218. Don&#8217;t be fooled. Prop. 218 won&#8217;t stop these potential municipal taxes if Prop. 19 passes. Here&#8217;s why.
On November 5, 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218, an initiative designed to give taxpayers the right to approve or reject local governments&#8217; tax increases and special assessments on property, since Proposition 218 (sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association) was intended to close existing loopholes under Proposition 13 and Proposition 62 which had let local governments create real property-related assessments, fees and charges. A tax per plant would not be a tax on real property, since it could be applied to plants being grown by tenants (assuming landlords even give tenants permission to grow &#8212; a highly unlikely scenario &#8212; more on that in another missive) as well as property owners.
Proposition 218, among other things (1) requires majority voter approval for all local general taxes and two-thirds&#8217; voter approval for all local special taxes, (2) applies to all local governments, including charter cities, and (3) defines a special tax as any tax imposed for specific purposes, even if placed into a general fund, and limits assessments to pay for specific purposes to the specific benefits conferred on each parcel of real property. A specific purpose would be, for example, street lighting. However, don&#8217;t forget that Prop. 19 gives cities the right to impose marijuana-related local taxes &#8220;Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law.&#8221; Prop. 19 will supersede Prop. 218 when it comes to marijuana-related taxation.
And, even without that &#8220;Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law,&#8221; provision, a tax on growing your own marijuana is not a tax imposed for a specific purpose, like to pay for street lighting. It&#8217;s also not a tax to be used to fund a specific program, the court-adopted definition of a special tax. It&#8217;s a tax to raise revenue.
Confused? Prop. 19, if it passes, will no doubt result in years of multiple lawsuits, city by city, related to local governments&#8217; rights to impose various fees and taxes, whether voter approval is needed to impose the fee or tax, and whether a simple majority or two-thirds vote is necessary.
Want to read more about the quagmire of local taxation issues? (Yeah, sure!) See http://www.caltax.org/MEMBER/digest/feb97/feb97-3.htm. 
FOOTNOTE 3
Cities can regulate all activities related to marijuana. Thus, the City of Rancho Cordova&#8217;s new ordinance provides that anyone cultivating marijuana in their Prop. 19-allowed 5 foot by 5 foot by 5 foot by 5 foot &#8220;farm&#8221; must make sure that their plant is secured from minors.
&#8220;Minors&#8221; doesn&#8217;t just mean the neighborhood teens: it means your own children, too. So a plant accessible to your own kids in the backyard must now be separately fenced and secured. (And it must be at least 10 feet away from all fences &#8212; so to grow legally, you&#8217;ll now also have to have a lovely, chain-link-fenced cubicle in the middle of your yard if you have anyone under the age of 21 who has access to your backyard.)"


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 13, 2010)

No fiddy, THIS asshole doesn't need to see your medical records, your problems are very apparent.
And NO, I don't need "bigger" text "to feel I'm getting somewhere", at 71 the large text DOES help, and I'm WHERE I want to be.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 13, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> No fiddy, THIS asshole doesn't need to see your medical records, your problems are very apparent.
> And NO, I don't need "bigger" text "to feel I'm getting somewhere", at 71 the large text DOES help, and I'm WHERE I want to be.




hahahhahahaha, you sure told me. 

"fiddy", that's a new one.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 13, 2010)

nathenking said:


> She just laid it down... She deciphers laws for a living, and just gave it to all of us straight... THINK before you VOTE!!!


If she's really a MMJ lawyer, then why doesn't she know about the Kelly decision? The Kelly decision makes it illegal for prop 19 to impose a limit on a medical grow that a doctor says you need. If taxing crops is unconstitutional as she says, why would she be worried about prop 19 taxing crops? A judge will just throw it out. 

The only thing I got out of that video is that the law on the ballot in Rancho Cordova might be unconstitutional. I think she's got a good point there. 

Another thing I don't understand is why anyone who wants to make a profit off of cannabis legally is demonized. Why do we need to protect those who currently profit off of cannabis, but anyone who wants to do it legally is looked at as the enemy? I'm not saying you are doing that or anything. It's just a general sentiment going around.

I want to legally be able to make a profit off of growing/selling cannabis. Why does that make me a bad person?


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 13, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Another thing I don't understand is why anyone who wants to make a profit off of cannabis legally is demonized. Why do we need to protect those who currently profit off of cannabis, but anyone who wants to do it legally is looked at as the enemy? I'm not saying you are doing that or anything. It's just a general sentiment going around.
> 
> I want to legally be able to make a profit off of growing/selling cannabis. Why does that make me a bad person?


Interesting hypocrisy there. You've been more than willing to demonize those who are able to make a moderate income under the current system and lump them in with the greedy illegal drug cartels, but you want to feel legitimized by handing it over to corporate cartels. There are thousands of legitimate growers who make a moderate living from their craft. Many of these are also the very same that will end up in jail for taking the chance to supply recreational users, either knowingly or unknowingly. And therein, lies a major difference. Many of the current growers are just seeking to make a living. You've just admitted your motive is profit.

And for your profit, you're willing to sacrifice a fair number of people. For the sake of your profit, you're willing to vote in bad legislation that includes unreasonable exclusions and does nothing for those already incarcerated unfairly. For the sake of your immediate profit, you're willing give local governments legislated tools to apply blanket cannabis use and growing regulations under the wrongful impression that legal remediation is easy, swift or, even in the end, fair. For the sake of your profit, you demonize those who make a living growing currently while seeking to be legitimized to do the same. Your greed would be bad enough, but things you are willing to let be for the sake of your own pocketbook is what makes me dislike you the most.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 13, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Interesting hypocrisy there. You've been more than willing to demonize those who are able to make a moderate income under the current system and lump them in with the greedy illegal drug cartels, but you want to feel legitimized by handing it over to corporate cartels.


This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why is everyone who is profiting under the current system just trying to make a "moderate income", but those who want to sell legally comparable to the drug cartels?

Do you honestly believe people aren't getting filthy rich off of the current system? Really? You think all the bud flowing in California is done by a bunch of grandmothers growing 5 plants in their closet? 

I'm part of the current system, and I can tell you for a fact, it's producing quite a few millionaires.

Why is anyone who wants to start a legal business a bad person, but everyone who doesn't needs protection. Does that make me some corporate cartel member? What have I ever done that makes me worthy of being compared to the drug cartels?

The drug cartels really do kill people, force people into slavery, kidnap, etc. Why are you comparing me to them for simply wanting to start my own business? 



> There are thousands of legitimate growers who make a moderate living from their craft.


Count me as one of them. So what?



> Many of these are also the very same that will end up in jail for taking the chance to supply recreational users, either knowingly or unknowingly. And therein, lies a major difference. Many of the current growers are just seeking to make a living. You've just admitted your motive is profit.


So making a living is different than receiving a profit? Do other growers currently pay their rent and bills in hugs or something? I thought they were getting paid just like me.

Every vendor has profit as one of their motives. There aren't any vendors I know of who spend all their time and money to produce pounds and then give it all away. They get paid. But calling that profit instead of "compensation or donation" makes me a bad person? 



> And for your profit, you're willing to sacrifice a fair number of people. For the sake of your profit, you're willing to vote in bad legislation that includes unreasonable exclusions and does nothing for those already incarcerated unfairly.


WTF are you talking about? I'm not voting to keep them in jail. You think voting against prop 19 magically makes them go free? Don't put that on me. I didn't start prohibition, I don't support it. 

I don't get paid for keeping them in jail. I didn't make the law that put them in jail. I didn't vote for any law that put them in jail. I didn't arrest them. I didn't sit on their jury. So how the hell are you blaming that on me?



> For the sake of your immediate profit, you're willing give local governments legislated tools to apply blanket cannabis use and growing regulations under the wrongful impression that legal remediation is easy, swift or, even in the end, fair.


Prop 19 gives local governments the power to end prohibition. Sure, not every local government will do that. But because not all local governments will take that option is not a reason to take that option away from EVERY local government. That's absurd.



> For the sake of your profit, you demonize those who make a living growing currently while seeking to be legitimized to do the same.


I'm demonizing myself? Really? How so? 



> Your greed would be bad enough, but things you are willing to let be for the sake of your own pocketbook is what makes me dislike you the most.


I love how I'm the greedy one for wanting to make a legal profit off of selling cannabis, but you characterize those who are profiting off of cannabis now are all saints. lol

Anyone who grows now is not doing it to make a profit, they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart. But if you want to make a profit legally, then you're a horrible person!

All I can say is thank you for proving my point. This is precisely what I'm talking about.


----------



## BluffinCali (Sep 13, 2010)

In time I believe that sort of stereotype should go away for the most part, I mean we dont look at the budweiser delivery truck driver as a large scale drug dealer, even though in reality hes delivering drugs all day long. The more and more I hear is just confirming my original thought about prop 19 and that basically is while the general idea of legalization is great, its just wrapped up in a crafty, strict regulations and possible outrageous random taxes from county to county and city to city, lets wait until we have the correct legislation included in a bill that does not look to pose such un-constitutional restrictions on growing a plant, there is a basic lack of common sense among the politicians and those who are the extreme lobbyist for the bill, both public and private. Ive been legaly growing for years and I keep hearing "oh it wont effect medicinal growers at all" thats a bunch of BS and Im not talking about more competetion to sell your product, but the local and state taxes that will be involved and who knows what a certain county/city might try and do and get away with it. Of course personally Im just fine with the way it is right now, especially after the Kelly decision, Im also all for full legalization 100%, but not at the expense of giving up rights I already have, thats just ridiculous, IM VOTING NO


----------



## tip top toker (Sep 13, 2010)

Make your minds up, do you want a free legal plant, or do you want to make money of it? You can't really have both wihtout then making it illegal for anyone with more capital and dreams than you to open up shop.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 13, 2010)

tip top toker said:


> Make your minds up, do you want a free legal plant, or do you want to make money of it? You can't really have both wihtout then making it illegal for anyone with more capital and dreams than you to open up shop.


Why is it bad to require everyone who's making a profit off of it to open a legal shop? Is that really too much to ask? 

How do you have a free and legal plant without people making a profit off of it? If it's legal, then it's legal to sell right?


----------



## tip top toker (Sep 13, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Why is it bad to require everyone who's making a profit off of it to open a legal shop? Is that really too much to ask?
> 
> How do you have a free and legal plant without people making a profit off of it? If it's legal, then it's legal to sell right?


And if it's legal to sell, then the situation is no different, you have just lost your profit margin due to legalisation, because there is nearly always someone with more money and ambition than yourself.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 13, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why is everyone who is profiting under the current system just trying to make a "moderate income", but those who want to sell legally comparable to the drug cartels?


 Way to fail at reading. You were associated with corporate cartels. Those would be legitimized corporations that use legislation to create centralized supply and market systems. That's more middlemen between the grower and the client. No thanks. There are much better and more reasonable ways to achieve legitimacy and that's what I'll continue to fight and lobby for.



Dan Kone said:


> Do you honestly believe people aren't getting filthy rich off of the current system? Really? You think all the bud flowing in California is done by a bunch of grandmothers growing 5 plants in their closet?


Here's another key difference. My problem is that the existing system has too many middlemen and intermediaries between the growers and the clients, much like current agricultural policy, which is creating inflated prices and unfair profiteering on behalf of people who are resellers. Your problem is that you aren't the one making the huge profits. Plus this ultra-simplistic and horrendously erroneous single source supply reasoning you enjoy using is just pathetic. Depending on which segment of the cannabis industry you want to talk about the sources of the bud "flowing" in California are varied and diverse and yes, a lot of it is coming from questionable operations usually of fairly significant size. And there's also been an insurgence of small and medium scale growers which have positively influenced the price and supply of cannabis on the medical side. 



Dan Kone said:


> I'm part of the current system, and I can tell you for a fact, it's producing quite a few millionaires.


 Indeed. So, there's a bunch of douches already, what's one more, eh? Classic Dan Kone.



Dan Kone said:


> Why is anyone who wants to start a legal business a bad person, but everyone who doesn't needs protection. Does that make me some corporate cartel member? What have I ever done that makes me worthy of being compared to the drug cartels?
> 
> The drug cartels really do kill people, force people into slavery, kidnap, etc. Why are you comparing me to them for simply wanting to start my own business?


Once again, Danny-boy.... you're an aspiring corporate douche, not the drug cartel type. That's the type you like to call us anti-19er's. You should make a cheat sheet or something so you can keep the two straight. Or maybe a chalkboard. Flesh out that Glenn Beck motif you have going.



Dan Kone said:


> Count me as one of them. So what?


 Can't do that. I said legitimate. You're seeking legitimization with this crap law, so that clearly implies that you don't consider your current enterprises as legitimate.



Dan Kone said:


> So making a living is different than receiving a profit? Do other growers currently pay their rent and bills in hugs or something? I thought they were getting paid just like me.


Much as you often like to aver that one has no need to have more than one ounce or a garden larger than 5' x 5', then I say to you that there is no reason that you can't make a reasonable living from the system as it stands. Exactly how much do you need to satisfy your greed? 



Dan Kone said:


> Every vendor has profit as one of their motives. There aren't any vendors I know of who spend all their time and money to produce pounds and then give it all away. They get paid. But calling that profit instead of "compensation or donation" makes me a bad person?


If you can't tell the difference between reasonable compensation and profiteering, then I'm truly sorry for you. The world must seem like a pretty bleak place.



Dan Kone said:


> WTF are you talking about? I'm not voting to keep them in jail. You think voting against prop 19 magically makes them go free? Don't put that on me. I didn't start prohibition, I don't support it.
> 
> I don't get paid for keeping them in jail. I didn't make the law that put them in jail. I didn't vote for any law that put them in jail. I didn't arrest them. I didn't sit on their jury. So how the hell are you blaming that on me?


Yes, you are very good at proclaiming what isn't your fault. The question is, what have you done. I know what I've done. I've lobbied and gathered signatures for both Prop 215 and Prop 36. I've gone to court both as a defendant and as a witness. I have sat on their juries and stood up to law enforcement on behalf of others. These same people who are the people I provide for, are the people I fight for. I have no need or desire to profit off them. But, enough about me... you're still right. It's not your fault that thousands and thousands are in jail for non-violent drug possession. You didn't put them there. Of course, you're still willing to let them sit there so long as you can make some money in the meanwhile... I'm sure you'll get back to them soon.



Dan Kone said:


> Prop 19 gives local governments the power to end prohibition. Sure, not every local government will do that. But because not all local governments will take that option is not a reason to take that option away from EVERY local government. That's absurd.


As you're fond of pointing out, they have those options and abilities now. Oakland and Rancho Codorva being prime examples. But keep pretending that the last 80 some-odd years of fighting local and state entities didn't happen. Keep pretending that Prop 19 some how makes the same entities that are trying hard to control or prohibit access suddenly reasonable and open to the presence of the cannabis industry. 



Dan Kone said:


> I'm demonizing myself? Really? How so?


By inferring that growers are currently not legitimate. There's nothing wrong with what I do and how I conduct my affairs. I'm sorry you can't seem to find the same satisfaction from yours, but I'm still not in favor of poor legislation just to ease your conscience.



Dan Kone said:


> I love how I'm the greedy one for wanting to make a legal profit off of selling cannabis, but you characterize those who are profiting off of cannabis now are all saints. lol


 Once again, the true difference is your motivation. I'm being compensated for my time efforts to provide someone with a quality product at a rate we've negotiated as fair. Your seeking to engage in profiteering which is the logical result of the regulated retail model that Prop 19 establishes. 



Dan Kone said:


> Anyone who grows now is not doing it to make a profit, they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart. But if you want to make a profit legally, then you're a horrible person!


 Of course not. I wouldn't expect that there would be a lot of us small and medium types that try to run an honest operation. What with federal persecution and all. Which Prop 19 does nothing to prevent. It's not just that you want to be legitimized by law to profit off people, it's that you have such a need to profit. Greed sucks, plain and simple.



Dan Kone said:


> All I can say is thank you for proving my point. This is precisely what I'm talking about.


Yes, I'm sure you've done your requisite mental gymnastics to think so. I will say this much... I was kinda bummed that the Daily Show isn't on Sundays since I get a laugh out of watching what clips Jon decides to show from FOX! or Glenn Beck. If nothing else, your posting serves much the same function in a pinch.


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 13, 2010)

Weedoozie said:


> You're right, though no where on it is it mentioned.* How much do you think they'll be charging for it?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Yeah...Golly Gee....Let's JUST SPECULATE on that one, (then we can put our assumption's out AS *FACT *in some post down the road)!
> My God, will this lunacy ever end? It seems every "Naysayer" comes here with their OWN cute little mix of fact & fiction.
> Some ARE interesting reads, BUT, "all together now", *FICTION!*


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 13, 2010)

it's all fiction, until it goes thru the courts. 

any volunteers.


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 13, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> it's all fiction, until it goes thru the courts.
> 
> any volunteers.


What fiction will be going to court?

And volunteers for WHAT?

C'mon Fiddy, you really need to flesh these "Bon Mots" out a little.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 13, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> What fiction will be going to court?
> 
> And volunteers for WHAT?
> 
> C'mon Fiddy, you really need to flesh these "Bon Mots" out a little.



the prop is unclearly written.

people will be arrested because of the wording.

it will takes the judges of the california courts to make sense of it all.




if you stopped trying to find a way to insult me, and actually paid attention to what i'm trying to say, you just might get it.


----------



## 10jed (Sep 13, 2010)

Awesome find BB. Any chance of you posting a link to the source? I will google but just in case... Finally a view from one of the most prolific MMJ lawers in the country! He is an undeniable advocate to growers and users. You just can't deny that can you? 

As an asside, to all of those who would rather wait for a better prop. Now is the time to start researching the actions of Monsanto and GW pharm. They are in the process (have been for years actually) of attempting to pull the medical bennefits from MJ without the high. Have we all heard of Sativex? It is the big pharma positioning that really has me worried here. The MMJ community may not survive the technological advances that the science community is making. It is more important than ever that we solidify a NON MEDICAL legality to MJ, before we don't have the opportunity anymore. Don't bank on another prop. This one slipped past the pharma corps and the DEA I would NOT bank on another getting past them without a LOT of opposition. Especially one that gives growers more rights. Not too may people other than growers are ever going to vote for a prop that allows for amounts that could be considered commercial in production and distribution of MJ without regulations. If you don't see that then maybe you should put down the pipe for a few weeks and clear out your mind! Prop 19 is not perfect for anybody but it is an acceptable compromise to the majority. That is all we will ever get since there are multiple sectors of society that will be voting. The best part about this prop is that it CAN pass where a gross incorporation of what current growers want will not ever pass through the non-growing community.

Jed



Burger Boss said:


> Well, OK, I've settled down now...but, Man what a great laugh......
> So Ms Leticia has had HER say, Now from a REAL attorney:
> 
> *mmj attorney breaks down prop 19 and explains how it effects patients*
> ...


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 13, 2010)

Hey 10jed, thanks for your take on this most important matter.
If you google: J. David Nick, you will get a lot of info on this fine man.
LOL, I found him while investigating "Letitia E. Pepper", one of the "Naysayers".
I found HER to be completely unqualified to make any substantive statements relative to prop 19.
I would give ANYTHING to see a debate between J.D. Nick and L.E. Pepper!............BB


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 13, 2010)

tip top toker said:


> And if it's legal to sell, then the situation is no different, you have just lost your profit margin due to legalisation, because there is nearly always someone with more money and ambition than yourself.


Cannabis sales isn't all about price. It's all about product quality. If you can provide a top product at a reasonable price, it'll sell. If that means it sells for half the price and people would have to sell twice as much for the same profit, I'm ok with that.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 13, 2010)

> Your problem is that you aren't the one making the huge profits.


That's not a problem for me. I don't have any kids or major expenses. I'm quite happy being a small business owner.



> Indeed. So, there's a bunch of douches already, what's one more, eh? Classic Dan Kone.


Why is everyone making a profit off of cannabis a douche? Every grower and dispensary owner is a douche? 

What if I profit off of something else, am I still a douche then? Are all business owners in America a douche? Is your local baker a douche if his business makes a profit? grow the fuck up.



> That's the type you like to call us anti-19er's.


I haven't called you anything. You're the only one doing that here.



> Exactly how much do you need to satisfy your greed?


Why am I greedy for wanting to have a legal business, but those who make high profits off of cannabis being illegal are being "compassionate"? That's a load of crap. 



> If you can't tell the difference between reasonable compensation and profiteering, then I'm truly sorry for you. The world must seem like a pretty bleak place.


Profiteering is what is going on now. There is over 1000% markup on cannabis currently from the time it's grow to the time it is sold in a dispensary. Yeah, that's real compassionate. lol. And I'm evil and greedy for wanting to put an end to that system. 



> It's not your fault that thousands and thousands are in jail for non-violent drug possession. You didn't put them there. Of course, you're still willing to let them sit there so long as you can make some money in the meanwhile... I'm sure you'll get back to them soon.


Again. Voting for prop 19 isn't a vote to keep them in jail. That's a bunch of bullshit.





> Once again, the true difference is your motivation. I'm being compensated for my time efforts to provide someone with a quality product at a rate we've negotiated as fair. Your seeking to engage in profiteering which is the logical result of the regulated retail model that Prop 19 establishes.


lol. What a bunch of crap. Just because you refer to your profits as compensation doesn't make it any different. You clearly just want to keep prohibition because of your own greed. You're making so much money off of prohibition being in place you're just afraid prohibition will interfere with *your profits. *

Prop 19 doesn't establish profiteering. Profiteering is what you're doing now. You just support prohibition because you're afraid other people can provide a superior product at a lower price.

Just because you use the word compensation instead of profit doesn't make you morally superior. You make the profits you make because of prohibition. Prohibition is the reason for $400 ounces and $60 8ths. You support that system only because you're the one profiting off of it.

But go ahead, keep talking down to me for wanting to put an end to this systematic price gouging. Say whatever you have to say to keep raking in that cash. lol. hypocrite.


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 13, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> the prop is unclearly written.
> 
> people will be arrested because of the wording.
> 
> ...


 
Prop 19 is written just fine, it's SOME people's personal interpretations that NEED to be cleared up.

INSULT the _formerly_, self-proclaimed "RULER of the UNIVERSE? 
Now why on earth would a "belligerent", "asshole", who "needs large text to feel I'm getting somewhere" like ME, 
"TRY" to find ways to insult YOU?

Look fdd, you and I are diametrically opposed on this issue, you're not changing and sure as hell, neither am I.
The dialog between us is ugly and personal, and will serve NO positive purpose to the issue at hand.
On November 2, OUR votes will cancel each other, and that is case closed for OUR direct input.
You should continue to try to convince _others_ of the rightness of your position and I will do the same for my position.
Good luck & good grow.......BB


----------



## stingmenot (Sep 13, 2010)

I believe that the defeat of 19 will help the opponents of the existing system in california continue to limit dispensaries and access to dispensaries. If you don't feel the groundswell of conservative political sentiment in america you may be spending too much time in the garden. Laws can be repealed or amended.


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 13, 2010)

theres really not much to say beyond "you cant please all of the people all of the time". those of us voting yes see it as a STEP in the right direction TOWARDS ending prohibition. not one person has claimed this to be a stop-gap or end-all-be-all or even a great bill. its merely an attempt at progress. its still far better than what is currently in place for non mmj patients.

you may not like it because it hurts your business.... sorry for you, why do i need to suffer for you? both are selfish mindsets and should be put aside. take a step back and ponder , if you can, just a few of the implications this has statewide... nationwide... globally... its going to effect far more than the few of you who selfishly hold out because "its not good enough for you".


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 13, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> Prop 19 is written just fine, it's SOME people's personal interpretations that NEED to be cleared up.
> 
> INSULT the _formerly_, self-proclaimed "RULER of the UNIVERSE?
> Now why on earth would a "belligerent", "asshole", who "needs large text to feel I'm getting somewhere" like ME,
> ...



wooooo hooooooo!!!!!!!

i win.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 13, 2010)

Teeaytchsee said:


> theres really not much to say beyond "you cant please all of the people all of the time". those of us voting yes see it as a STEP in the right direction TOWARDS ending prohibition. not one person has claimed this to be a stop-gap or end-all-be-all or even a great bill. its merely an attempt at progress. its still far better than what is currently in place for non mmj patients.
> 
> you may not like it because it hurts your business.... sorry for you, why do i need to suffer for you? both are selfish mindsets and should be put aside. take a step back and ponder , if you can, just a few of the implications this has statewide... nationwide... globally... its going to effect far more than the few of you who selfishly hold out because "its not good enough for you".


who are you talking to?


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 13, 2010)

sorry that was a generalized statement after reading through the thread... is it out of context?


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 13, 2010)

Teeaytchsee said:


> sorry that was a generalized statement after reading through the thread... is it out of context?


not at all, i was just wondering.


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 13, 2010)

i apologize if it seemed like an attack on anyone in particular, just a desire to push people to look beyond themselves and seek out more information than opinions and others translations.


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 13, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> wooooo hooooooo!!!!!!!
> 
> i win.


And THAT attitude speaks VOLUMES to the mindset of one of the "Esteemed" R.I.U. moderators!
Way to go fiddy, right on track, I expected NOTHING less from YOU!....BB


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 13, 2010)

Teeaytchsee said:


> sorry that was a generalized statement after reading through the thread... is it out of context?


Forget about it Tee, SOME folks get REAL touchy when you elude to a "profit motive" as the source of their Nay saying, LOL.
Good luck & good grow.......BB


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 13, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> And THAT attitude speaks VOLUMES to the mindset of one of the "Esteemed" R.I.U. moderators!
> Way to go fiddy, right on track, I expected NOTHING less from YOU!....BB


you're still replying?


----------



## nathenking (Sep 13, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you're still replying?


No kidding???


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 13, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> That's not a problem for me. I don't have any kids or major expenses. I'm quite happy being a small business owner.


And yet you lobby for a system to increase your profits. Nice consistency.



Dan Kone said:


> Why is everyone making a profit off of cannabis a douche? Every grower and dispensary owner is a douche?


Way to fail at reading again. Your perpensity for allness statements is truly frightening. You honestly think that growers or dispensary owners can be characterized by blanket statements? I'd say it's sad that someone has to explain why profiteering is a bad thing to you, but frankly, I can't really say I expect better from you. 



Dan Kone said:


> What if I profit off of something else, am I still a douche then? Are all business owners in America a douche? Is your local baker a douche if his business makes a profit? grow the fuck up.


Yes, Danny-boy... profiteering is bad regardless of the product, service or goods being exchanged. This whole "everyone else is doing it" mantra you have going is pretty indicative that I'm not the one who needs to grow up here, lad.



Dan Kone said:


> I haven't called you anything. You're the only one doing that here.


Quite frankly, I can't be arsed to do a search to look up appropriate links to prove the shenanigans of that statement, but whatever. I'll pretend that it's true. You may (or may not) have refrain from overtly calling myself or anyone else "names". But you've had no problems with making inferences and all sorts of blanket statements regarding the character and intent of those who oppose this proposition.



Dan Kone said:


> Why am I greedy for wanting to have a legal business, but those who make high profits off of cannabis being illegal are being "compassionate"? That's a load of crap.


And there we go with the "legal" and "legitimate" business again. For someone who claims to be in the current industry, you sure don't have a very positive view of your current enterprise. Once again, yes... there are douche-types that are in the industry that take advantage of people. The proposition doesn't remove them, just sets the bar for them to be douches legitimately. 



Dan Kone said:


> Profiteering is what is going on now. There is over 1000% markup on cannabis currently from the time it's grow to the time it is sold in a dispensary. Yeah, that's real compassionate. lol. And I'm evil and greedy for wanting to put an end to that system.


No, for wanting to replace it with the same profiteering and gouging but under a retail model. Yes, there's a shit load of markup because there's far too many middlemen between growers and clients. Prop. 19 is nothing but middlemen and fees to be added between growers and clients. And once again, just because you and everyone *you* know are dishonorable enough to apply egregious overhead and profit margins doesn't mean that no one else is capable of doing better. I personally know that the people I take care of and provide for are treated fairly. Prop. 19 does nothing and says nothing to put an end to ANY of the unjust profiteering at all. 



Dan Kone said:


> Again. Voting for prop 19 isn't a vote to keep them in jail. That's a bunch of bullshit.


I didn't say it was a vote to keep them in jail. But, it does leave them there while you get to set up your legitimate business and profit. And that's the point, Danny-boy... try and follow it this time. No one is saying you put them there or even want to leave them there. What I am saying is that you are primarily concerned with your profit line at the expense of those that this proposition excludes and forgets. The only bullshit here is how easily placated your conscience is by the prospect of making money without having to worry about becoming one of those languishing away.



Dan Kone said:


> lol. What a bunch of crap. Just because you refer to your profits as compensation doesn't make it any different. You clearly just want to keep prohibition because of your own greed. You're making so much money off of prohibition being in place you're just afraid prohibition will interfere with *your profits. *


Nice inference. Of course, like much of the crap you spout, it's completely erroneous. In fact, like others have mentioned, I stand to make a fair amount of profit should Prop. 19 pass. Your desperation to prove that anyone who opposes you is as bad or worse than you are is just sad. I have no concerns with my finances and am quite content with the moderate life I live, but it's quite clear that you are willing to expand your profits no matter the consequences.



Dan Kone said:


> Prop 19 doesn't establish profiteering. Profiteering is what you're doing now. You just support prohibition because you're afraid other people can provide a superior product at a lower price.


Ohnoes! You found me outs... I can't makes da bomb herbs. Seriously... this is just pathetic. But, then again, context counts for everything and I must consider the source. But, the personal attacks in lieu of effective argument are still just sad pathetic dodges. You're right, Prop. 19 doesn't establish profiteering. It legitimizes it. 



Dan Kone said:


> Just because you use the word compensation instead of profit doesn't make you morally superior. You make the profits you make because of prohibition. Prohibition is the reason for $400 ounces and $60 8ths. You support that system only because you're the one profiting off of it.


OK, sure. If that makes you feel better, then why not. I know it's a crock of shit, so it's no skin off my nose. If you really can't tell the difference between profiteering and reasonable compensation, then that's your problem. But keep pulling stupid, useless numbers out of your arse and pretending to care about anything else but your profits. I still think you need a chalkboard to go with the whole act. Maybe a banner in your signature from Goldline.



Dan Kone said:


> But go ahead, keep talking down to me for wanting to put an end to this systematic price gouging. Say whatever you have to say to keep raking in that cash. lol. hypocrite.


Yes, you are quite hypocritical. Keep blathering on about how much you hate the price gouging out one side of your face, while bemoaning your desire to make more profits out the other.


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 13, 2010)

Of course I reply! Are YOU so fucking "full of yourself" that you would think otherwise? You think "woooo hooo.....I win" would reduce me to tears, run away, never to heard from again? What a colossal piece of work you are! I'm here and plan to watch and contribute to this thread as long as possible. 
Now, if I have violated some "unwritten" R.I.U. site rule that states: Thou shalt not "ruffle" the fiddys feathers, on pain of banishment, then truly I'm lost. On the other hand, it would be OK too. Let the entire forum see you as the "fairminded, even handed", 
moderator that you are. So, unless and until I get "disappeared", I'm right here, waiting, watching, and ready to post against any and all BS lies, distortions, and self-serving mis truths regarding prop 19....BB

And to your "Lackey", YES....*NO kidding!!!*


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 13, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> Of course I reply! Are YOU so fucking "full of yourself" that you would think otherwise? You think "woooo hooo.....I win" would reduce me to tears, run away, never to heard from again? What a colossal piece of work you are! I'm here and plan to watch and contribute to this thread as long as possible.
> Now, if I have violated some "unwritten" R.I.U. site rule that states: Thou shalt not "ruffle" the fiddys feathers, on pain of banishment, then truly I'm lost. On the other hand, it would be OK too. Let the entire forum see you as the "fairminded, even handed",
> moderator that you are. So, unless and until I get "disappeared", I'm right here, waiting, watching, and ready to post against any and all BS lies, distortions, and self-serving mis truths regarding prop 19....BB
> 
> And to your "Lackey", YES....*NO kidding!!!*


you would have thought that by now you would have figured out i am simply bored with all this and trying to get a rise out of you.

i win again.


----------



## BluffinCali (Sep 13, 2010)

Can someone just explain how it will effect current medicinal growers, will we be confined to the 5x5 area the same as others not under a doctors recommendation? Will the cities or counties be able to charge excessive taxes on personal medical grows? I would really like legalization but I need to know for sure how it will effect the medical community, I keep hearing that we would be exempt from these taxes and medicinal growers have nothing to worry about, but then I hear the opposite, does anyone actually no for sure. My biggest issue is easily the 5x5 area deal, if that applies to medical grows then Im for sure against this bill, if the medicinal rights I have under prop 215 wont be affected and I will be able to grow what I do now, which is purely for my own use, then Im all for the bill, but I need to know how and if it will restrict the rights I already have under prop 215, no sense in giving rights I already have. My hope is the existing medical patients will be exempt from the restricted growing area, and that will just be the law for the guy who grows purely for recreational use or selling his small crop.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 13, 2010)

BluffinCali said:


> Can someone just explain how it will effect current medicinal growers, will we be confined to the 5x5 area the same as others not under a doctors recommendation? Will the cities or counties be able to charge excessive taxes on personal medical grows? I would really like legalization but I need to know for sure how it will effect the medical community, I keep hearing that we would be exempt from these taxes and medicinal growers have nothing to worry about, but then I hear the opposite, does anyone actually no for sure. My biggest issue is easily the 5x5 area deal, if that applies to medical grows then Im for sure against this bill, if the medicinal rights I have under prop 215 wont be affected and I will be able to grow what I do now, which is purely for my own use, then Im all for the bill, but I need to know how and if it will restrict the rights I already have under prop 215, no sense in giving rights I already have. My hope is the existing medical patients will be exempt from the restricted growing area, and that will just be the law for the guy who grows purely for recreational use or selling his small crop.


19 will and already has opened the doors to make it ok to tax the shit out of everything pot related.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 13, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Yes, Danny-boy... profiteering is bad regardless of the product, service or goods being exchanged. This whole "everyone else is doing it" mantra you have going is pretty indicative that I'm not the one who needs to grow up here, lad.


lol. Ok then. Making a profit is bad no matter what. Every business owner in America is evil. I guess that makes me a terrible person. Yeah, this country would be such a better place if no one had a job. 

But I guess since you call your profits "compensation" that makes you just a little bit better than everyone else. good for you.


----------



## stingmenot (Sep 13, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> 19 will and already has opened the doors to make it ok to tax the shit out of everything pot related.


and a majority saying no to marijuana in november may well open the door to more and more restrictions on medical marijuana. we have a card now but we have to renew it and that is where the current system we all appreciate could be amended. a conservative backlash is already out there screaming they are taking back america. do you think they are unaware of how easy it is to get and renew a card?


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 13, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> lol. Ok then. Making a profit is bad no matter what. Every business owner in America is evil.


Way to miss the point again, Danny-boy. It's fairly obvious that you can't make the difference between for-profit and reasonable compensation. I won't bother you with the intricacies of the direct correlations that those diametrically opposite market models have on the production systems they inherently invoke. Since you can't seem to pay attention to more than a few years of history and legal precedent, I fully realize the futility of such an endeavor. 



Dan Kone said:


> I guess that makes me a terrible person.


No, we went over that, too. Your willingness to ignore the lack of legislation for those already imprisoned and to exclude a segment of the population without just cause is despicable. The fact that your primary motivation is to gain a profit-bearing business makes you terrible.



Dan Kone said:


> Yeah, this country would be such a better place if no one had a job.


Sweet... belief in the trickle-down theory of economics. How very 80's of you. Of course, now that I think about it, the number of times you've repeatedly told people that they don't need more than an ounce or a garden larger than 5'x5' is very reminiscent of Reagan's anti-drug campaign speeches admonishing pot-smokers to be "the generation without a crutch". 



Dan Kone said:


> But I guess since you call your profits "compensation" that makes you just a little bit better than everyone else. good for you.


And you always make the assumption of profits on my behalf. I don't profit off anyone I have dealings with. But, then again, I deal directly with my clients and rarely deal with middlemen. And yes, it does make me a better person for dealing fairly and not trying to profit off of people. I wouldn't say it makes me better than everyone else, but at least I can say this isn't about profit for me no matter how much you want to believe that it is.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 13, 2010)

stingmenot said:


> and a majority saying no to marijuana in november may well open the door to more and more restrictions on medical marijuana. we have a card now but we have to renew it and that is where the current system we all appreciate could be amended. a conservative backlash is already out there screaming they are taking back america. do you think they are unaware of how easy it is to get and renew a card?


Nice baseless supposition there. If 19 isn't voted in, nothing changes. But, good try. I was afraid we'd go a whole page without some truly empty fear-mongering rhetoric. That's like an episode of Springer without a fight... what would be the point.


----------



## BluffinCali (Sep 13, 2010)

Will prop19 make existing medicinal growers adhere to the 5x5 growing space? Anyone who knows at all about growing outdoors will know that one decent size plant will easily exceed those dimensions, even for indoor growers thats just a tiny little area. That is my main concern, but the idea of these unspecified taxes that can be imposed by cities/counties could simply be outrageous in order to limit the people who could afford to pay. Already in the county Im from up north, Tehama county, passed a deal that people who owned over 160acres could grow the state limit of 99plants outdoors, but anyone who had 20acres or less could only grow 6 plants per property, not per liscense but property, just goes to show that growing isnt really the issue, it more they want certain(wealthier) people to be able to grow huge amounts, all this has occured after the kelly decision and they freaked thinking smaller growers were all going to go balls out with huge gardens, we are allowed to grow/possess any amount that we can prove is for personal medical use as the law stands now after the kelly decision. Im not one who has scoured through prop19 but just from what Ive heard there just too many unknown variables that could come back to screw people, and I understand the argument that regardless its a step in the right direction, while legalization is a great step, not when it includes giving unregulated power to individual counties/cities...maybe Im not understanding things correctly but what if the county wanted $1000-$2000 tax for an outdoor garden to be cultivated, I just dont know what all could happen. I STILL WANT TO KNOW IF PROP19 WILL AFFECT EXISTING MEDICAL PATIENTS AS FAR AS LIMITTING MY GROWING SPACE OR UN-JUSTIFIED TAXES?


----------



## stingmenot (Sep 13, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Nice baseless supposition there. If 19 isn't voted in, nothing changes. But, good try. I was afraid we'd go a whole page without some truly empty fear-mongering rhetoric. That's like an episode of Springer without a fight... what would be the point.


a bit has changed in my conservative county already. First there were dispensaries, now there none. People have talked about southern california and the increasing restrictions there. Do you think that a new crop of conservative politicians that have a statewide mandate on marijuana will leave easy access to medical cards alone. I am speculating but so are you.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 13, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Nice baseless supposition there. If 19 isn't voted in, nothing changes. But, good try. I was afraid we'd go a whole page without some truly empty fear-mongering rhetoric. That's like an episode of Springer without a fight... what would be the point.


The Jerry beads? Nevermind most of those chicks are nasty anyway.


----------



## The Ruiner (Sep 13, 2010)

BluffinCali said:


> Will prop19 make existing medicinal growers adhere to the 5x5 growing space? Anyone who knows at all about growing outdoors will know that one decent size plant will easily exceed those dimensions, even for indoor growers thats just a tiny little area. That is my main concern, but the idea of these unspecified taxes that can be imposed by cities/counties could simply be outrageous in order to limit the people who could afford to pay. Already in the county Im from up north, Tehama county, passed a deal that people who owned over 160acres could grow the state limit of 99plants outdoors, but anyone who had 20acres or less could only grow 6 plants per property, not per liscense but property, just goes to show that growing isnt really the issue, it more they want certain(wealthier) people to be able to grow huge amounts, all this has occured after the kelly decision and they freaked thinking smaller growers were all going to go balls out with huge gardens, we are allowed to grow/possess any amount that we can prove is for personal medical use as the law stands now after the kelly decision. Im not one who has scoured through prop19 but just from what Ive heard there just too many unknown variables that could come back to screw people, and I understand the argument that regardless its a step in the right direction, while legalization is a great step, not when it includes giving unregulated power to individual counties/cities...maybe Im not understanding things correctly but what if the county wanted $1000-$2000 tax for an outdoor garden to be cultivated, I just dont know what all could happen. I STILL WANT TO KNOW IF PROP19 WILL AFFECT EXISTING MEDICAL PATIENTS AS FAR AS LIMITTING MY GROWING SPACE OR UN-JUSTIFIED TAXES?


No one can answer that definitively.... if that tells you anything.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 13, 2010)

stingmenot said:


> a bit has changed in my conservative county already. First there were dispensaries, now there none. People have talked about southern california and the increasing restrictions there. Do you think that a new crop of conservative politicians that have a statewide mandate on marijuana will leave easy access to medical cards alone. I am speculating but so are you.


And so you want to vote in legislation with a built in Ban-hammer. The difference is my speculation is back by almost 2 decades of fighting and lobbying and a clear understanding of what politicians, city councils and law enforcement agencies can and cannot get away with. But seriously, if you want to continue with the "sky-is-falling" theme, go right ahead. I'm sorry that the dispensaries have disappeared from your locality. Question is, what are you doing about it?


----------



## stingmenot (Sep 13, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> And so you want to vote in legislation with a built in Ban-hammer. The difference is my speculation is back by almost 2 decades of fighting and lobbying and a clear understanding of what politicians, city councils and law enforcement agencies can and cannot get away with. But seriously, if you want to continue with the "sky-is-falling" theme, go right ahead. I'm sorry that the dispensaries have disappeared from your locality. Question is, what are you doing about it?


I'm voting yes on 19 so that non medical users have some rights.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 13, 2010)

stingmenot said:


> I'm voting yes on 19 so that non medical users have some rights.


Whatever helps you sleep at night. Since you can't be buggered to understand the rights you already have, it's easy to see why you're so eager to toss them away. I imagine that if I lived in the uber narco-paranoid world you seem to... oh wait. I have from time to time. Difference being that we fought to get what we now have, whereas you just can't seem to be arsed or simply haven't the resolve for a fight.


----------



## stingmenot (Sep 13, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> And so you want to vote in legislation with a built in Ban-hammer. The difference is my speculation is back by almost 2 decades of fighting and lobbying and a clear understanding of what politicians, city councils and law enforcement agencies can and cannot get away with. But seriously, if you want to continue with the "sky-is-falling" theme, go right ahead. I'm sorry that the dispensaries have disappeared from your locality. Question is, what are you doing about it?


I'm sure local lobbying is important and i commend you for it. But it didn't work in oakland or much of southern california or more than a few counties throughout the state. Back in 1996 when 56% of californians voted for prop 215 everything changed.


----------



## stingmenot (Sep 13, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Whatever helps you sleep at night. Since you can't be buggered to understand the rights you already have, it's easy to see why you're so eager to toss them away. I imagine that if I lived in the uber narco-paranoid world you seem to... oh wait. I have from time to time. Difference being that we fought to get what we now have, whereas you just can't seem to be arsed or simply haven't the resolve for a fight.


Right, if marijuana is legalized i toss my rights away. With your kind of logic you probably fight quite a bit.


----------



## BluffinCali (Sep 13, 2010)

The Ruiner said:


> No one can answer that definitively.... if that tells you anything.


\
Yeah thats kind of what I figured, obvioulsy I want full legalizatoin just as much as anyone, although Im already a medical patient I truely believe that marijuana is one of the safest drugs around, caffeine is much more addictive than thc and other cannabanoids. I just have a problem with a bill thats supposed to be about legalization and the taxes and regulations that would come with it, but like you said nobody can give a clear answer as to how it will affect the thousands of existing medicinal growers. I would love for the prop to apply to recreational use and growing and to have the medicinal side of things be completely seperate and basicly the same regulations we already have. It pains me to say but everyday I want to vote no more than I did the previous day and my vote has nothing to do with greed but rather the uncertainty of what the bill will allow our local governments the power to do. So any pro-prop19 people out there that would like to educate me on how it will affect current medical patients/growers please do so. Peace!


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 13, 2010)

stingmenot said:


> I'm sure local lobbying is important and i commend you for it. But it didn't work in oakland or much of southern california or more than a few counties throughout the state. Back in 1996 when 56% of californians voted for prop 215 everything changed.


Way to fail at history. Far more has happened since Prop 215, including the passage of Prop 36 and even further legislation to reduce the severity of simple possession charges. Once again, your ignorance and lack of effort is still not a good reason for bad legislation that you hope will compensate for your inability to do anything for yourself. As someone who backed and worked on Prop. 215 and Prop. 36, has stood trial, served as witness and on juries regarding cannabis possession cases, I am fully aware of the implications of the various ambiguities in Prop. 19 and how they can and will most likely play out in the long term given the context of the political climate into which we are about to enter. But, at least you aren't Dan Kone. Capitulation in the face of adversity is far more acceptable than his profit-driven motives. Not in any way more respectable, but understandable.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 13, 2010)

BluffinCali said:


> \
> Yeah thats kind of what I figured, obvioulsy I want full legalizatoin just as much as anyone, although Im already a medical patient I truely believe that marijuana is one of the safest drugs around, caffeine is much more addictive than thc and other cannabanoids. I just have a problem with a bill thats supposed to be about legalization and the taxes and regulations that would come with it, but like you said nobody can give a clear answer as to how it will affect the thousands of existing medicinal growers. I would love for the prop to apply to recreational use and growing and to have the medicinal side of things be completely seperate and basicly the same regulations we already have. It pains me to say but everyday I want to vote no more than I did the previous day and my vote has nothing to do with greed but rather the uncertainty of what the bill will allow our local governments the power to do. So any pro-prop19 people out there that would like to educate me on how it will affect current medical patients/growers please do so. Peace!


Anyone who is Pro-19 is likely to tell you that there will be no effect on the medical cannabis industry. It's a key talking point for them since anything less would be unacceptable. Of course, for that to be true, two things would have to be true. Local government and law enforcement will not seek to misinterpret the ambiguous wording of the law and that they are likely to choose the option to tax and regulate a retail cannabis industry instead of outright banning it whatsoever while simultaneously respecting the rights of existing medical cannabis patients and growers. 

After 18 years of lobbying and fighting local, state and federal authorities, I can honestly say that you have to be smoking some damn good shit if you think that's likely outcome of 19's passage.


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 13, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Nice baseless supposition there. If 19 isn't voted in, nothing changes. But, good try. I was afraid we'd go a whole page without some truly empty fear-mongering rhetoric. That's like an episode of Springer without a fight... what would be the point.


Funny you should bring up "baseless suppositions", because ALL of your rhetoric puts you on 73rd floor of an empty elevator shaft!
See ya at the polls........BB


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 13, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> Funny you should bring up "baseless suppositions", because ALL of your rhetoric puts you on 73rd floor of an empty elevator shaft!
> See ya at the polls........BB


Excellent... and now the forum equivalent of "angry poo-flinging monkey". I don't really see the threat in being at the top of an empty elevator shaft since only daft types would fall in. I do find it interesting that you find that to be threatening.


----------



## stingmenot (Sep 13, 2010)

BluffinCali said:


> \
> Yeah thats kind of what I figured, obvioulsy I want full legalizatoin just as much as anyone, although Im already a medical patient I truely believe that marijuana is one of the safest drugs around, caffeine is much more addictive than thc and other cannabanoids. I just have a problem with a bill thats supposed to be about legalization and the taxes and regulations that would come with it, but like you said nobody can give a clear answer as to how it will affect the thousands of existing medicinal growers. I would love for the prop to apply to recreational use and growing and to have the medicinal side of things be completely seperate and basicly the same regulations we already have. It pains me to say but everyday I want to vote no more than I did the previous day and my vote has nothing to do with greed but rather the uncertainty of what the bill will allow our local governments the power to do. So any pro-prop19 people out there that would like to educate me on how it will affect current medical patients/growers please do so. Peace!


http://stash.norml.org/californias-prop-19-a-word-for-word-analysis


----------



## stingmenot (Sep 13, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Way to fail at history. Far more has happened since Prop 215, including the passage of Prop 36 and even further legislation to reduce the severity of simple possession charges. Once again, your ignorance and lack of effort is still not a good reason for bad legislation that you hope will compensate for your inability to do anything for yourself. As someone who backed and worked on Prop. 215 and Prop. 36, has stood trial, served as witness and on juries regarding cannabis possession cases, I am fully aware of the implications of the various ambiguities in Prop. 19 and how they can and will most likely play out in the long term given the context of the political climate into which we are about to enter. But, at least you aren't Dan Kone. Capitulation in the face of adversity is far more acceptable than his profit-driven motives. Not in any way more respectable, but understandable.


Did you lobby your local politicians to get prop 36 passed or did we 61% of voters pass it?


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 13, 2010)

stingmenot said:


> Did you lobby your local politicians to get prop 36 passed or did we 61% of voters pass it?


I helped to gather signatures to put it on the ballot and participated in the follow-up awareness campaigns to help bring about it's passage. I'm sorry if the political process is confusing to you, but at least I've done the foot work to help get things where they are. But keep up with the smear campaign.


----------



## stingmenot (Sep 13, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> I helped to gather signatures to put it on the ballot and participated in the follow-up awareness campaigns to help bring about it's passage. I'm sorry if the political process is confusing to you, but at least I've done the foot work to help get things where they are. But keep up with the smear campaign.


I have said that your work and the work of many others is commendable but without a statewide vote what really happens? The smearing seems to be coming from you.


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 13, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Excellent... and now the forum equivalent of "angry poo-flinging monkey". I don't really see the threat in being at the top of an empty elevator shaft since only daft types would fall in. I do find it interesting that you find that to be threatening.


Sorry Kiddo, your rhetoric ONLY puts you, as I said, on the *73rd floor, *not the top, and there "ain't shit" under your feet,
(LOL, well, maybe a little "monkey poo"), and it's a loooooong way down! See ya at the polls....BB


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 13, 2010)

stingmenot said:


> I have said that your work and the work of many others is commendable but without a statewide vote what really happens? The smearing seems to be coming from you.


Prop 215 and Prop 36 were both voter statewide voter initiatives. And from those plenty happened. "I commend your work, but it didn't do anything" is pretty insulting, frankly. The very fact that you get a misdemeanor instead of a felony conviction was massive progress. The progress of SB 1449 will be even better once passed into law. But, of course, according to your limited view nothing has happened.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 14, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> Sorry Kiddo, your rhetoric ONLY puts you, as I said, on the *73rd floor, *not the top, and there "ain't shit" under your feet,
> (LOL, well, maybe a little "monkey poo"), and it's a loooooong way down! See ya at the polls....BB


Really? If that's what you need to get by, lad... whatever. I personally don't feel the need to imagine death scenarios for anyone, but whatever makes you feel better about yourself. I don't need to wait for the polls. Either way, I get my pot and my clients are still safe from massive price gouging.


----------



## stingmenot (Sep 14, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Prop 215 and Prop 36 were both voter statewide voter initiatives. And from those plenty happened. "I commend your work, but it didn't do anything" is pretty insulting, frankly. The very fact that you get a misdemeanor instead of a felony conviction was massive progress. The progress of SB 1449 will be even better once passed into law. But, of course, according to your limited view nothing has happened.


I do realize that props 215, 36 and 19 are statewide initiatives and that was my point. Lobbying locally is great and commendable but until a majority statewide say yes not much happens.
How far do you think SB 1449 would get if 36 hadn't passed?


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 14, 2010)

stingmenot said:


> I do realize that props 215, 36 and 19 are statewide initiatives and that was my point. Lobbying locally is great and commendable but until a majority statewide say yes not much happens.
> How far do you think SB 1449 would get if 36 hadn't passed?


Just wow. No wonder you feel exploited. Why is it that every Pro-19er so far sounds like a dyed-in-the-wool graduate of the Glenn Beck school? Did you all get a coupon or something?


----------



## stingmenot (Sep 14, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Just wow. No wonder you feel exploited. Why is it that every Pro-19er so far sounds like a dyed-in-the-wool graduate of the Glenn Beck school? Did you all get a coupon or something?


Hey man i don't really know what you are talking about there. I abhor glenn beck and fear the conservative movement a bit. Keep up the good work, we will just have to see what happens in november and beyond.


----------



## BluffinCali (Sep 14, 2010)

Well according to a large portion of the bill that was translated by people from NORML, prop19 would not supercede the rights that prop215 has already given us, which to my understanding means that medical users would not be subject to the restricted growing area of 5x5, not sure whether or not the individual garden taxes would apply to medical grows, although thats not a big concern of mine as long as the tax is reasonable and not designed to indirectly make it too expensive for the normal, average medicinal grower. Right now in my outdoor medical garden I have single plants that are easily 8x8 if not 10x10 area, so that whole 5x5 deal is just ridiculous to me. So as of now Im not 100% voting no, more like 80/20 for now, I just want legalization without interfering with the rights and regualtions I already have, so anyone with some more comforting info about prop19 not messing with medical gardens, or even if its just your interpretation of what will happen with medical growers, trust me I know this bill has all positives for people without recommendations, but Im pretty sure thats not close to the case when it comes to people who are already growing legally and purely for personal use. This is a very important issue and its weird to think Im leaning towards voting no to marijuana legalization but even most of my friends in the medical community have the same thoughts and worries I do, I literally need one of those yellow books "Understanding Prop19 for Medical Users for Dummies", thats what I need, some black and white facts that explain exactly what is going to happen if we pass the bill into law.


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 14, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Really? If that's what you need to get by, lad... whatever. I personally don't feel the need to imagine death scenarios for anyone, but whatever makes you feel better about yourself. I don't need to wait for the polls. Either way, I get my pot and my clients are still safe from massive price gouging.


Holly Horse shit! you are the GRIM one .........no death scenario here.....it's called a metaphor for a long fall.
Jeezzzz.....I don't want anybody dead. But maybe it's your obsession with money that makes you think like that.
Of course thats just the opinion of a "poo-flinging-monkey", who will................ SEE YA AT THE POLLS!


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 14, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> Holly Horse shit! you are the GRIM one .........no death scenario here.....it's called a metaphor for a long fall.
> Jeezzzz.....I don't want anybody dead. But maybe it's your obsession with money that makes you think like that.
> Of course thats just the opinion of a "poo-flinging-monkey", who will................ SEE YA AT THE POLLS!


Excellent. Backtracking and deflection. Text book Beckisms. Please continue.


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 14, 2010)

BluffinCali said:


> Well according to a large portion of the bill that was translated by people from NORML, prop19 would not supercede the rights that prop215 has already given us, which to my understanding means that medical users would not be subject to the restricted growing area of 5x5, not sure whether or not the individual garden taxes would apply to medical grows, although thats not a big concern of mine as long as the tax is reasonable and not designed to indirectly make it too expensive for the normal, average medicinal grower. Right now in my outdoor medical garden I have single plants that are easily 8x8 if not 10x10 area, so that whole 5x5 deal is just ridiculous to me. So as of now Im not 100% voting no, more like 80/20 for now, I just want legalization without interfering with the rights and regualtions I already have, so anyone with some more comforting info about prop19 not messing with medical gardens, or even if its just your interpretation of what will happen with medical growers, trust me I know this bill has all positives for people without recommendations, but Im pretty sure thats not close to the case when it comes to people who are already growing legally and purely for personal use. This is a very important issue and its weird to think Im leaning towards voting no to marijuana legalization but even most of my friends in the medical community have the same thoughts and worries I do, I literally need one of those yellow books "Understanding Prop19 for Medical Users for Dummies", thats what I need, some black and white facts that explain exactly what is going to happen if we pass the bill into law.


Hey Bluffin', please check this out:> http://sanjosecannabis.org/2010/09/11/open-letter-from-j-david-nick-re-yes-on-prop-19/
This attorney has done fine work for countless MM patients, and it was posted by one of the best MM dispensaries in Santa Clara County. I'm thinking they wouldn't do this if prop 19 was going to harm the MM side in any way. So please, you've heard all this 
specious bs being "spewed" in here by disingenuous individuals with personal axes to grind; take a second and check it out.
Good luck & good grow.......BB


----------



## nathenking (Sep 14, 2010)

For all you guys that are gonna vote yes... Have you seen zeitgeist (federal reserve)??? If you haven't you should google it on watch it on Utube, it will take 30 minutes and you will get a understanding of what really happens... This doesnt directly pertain to this situation, it just shows that things arent what they seem, even with something so little as Prop 19... Check it out if you have time... i promise you it will be worth it... Wether this bill passes or not, there are alot bigger problems, and this video brings them out...


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 14, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Way to miss the point again, Danny-boy. It's fairly obvious that you can't make the difference between for-profit and reasonable compensation. I won't bother you with the intricacies of the direct correlations that those diametrically opposite market models have on the production systems they inherently invoke. Since you can't seem to pay attention to more than a few years of history and legal precedent, I fully realize the futility of such an endeavor.


Please, speak slowly. As the founder of my own mutual benefit non-profit corporation I have no clue what the difference is!

Just fyi - The difference between a for profit business and not for profit has absolutely nothing to do with levels of compensation. Ironically you usually end up having to pay yourself more money in a non-profit business.

The difference is in a non-profit you call the profit a surplus. And that number has to equal zero by the end of the fiscal year. You do that by increasing salaries, adding consultant fees, etc. You can make just as much money and charge the same prices under the non-profit model. 

So saying that non-profit businesses are all doing it for charitable purposes and not making much money but for profit business are charging more and making more money is 100% bullshit. 

At this point you should probably just stfu. You clearly have no clue what you're talking about here. If you want to continue debating this with me I'll own your ass. Just some friendly advice...



> No, we went over that, too. Your willingness to ignore the lack of legislation for those already imprisoned and to exclude a segment of the population without just cause is despicable. The fact that your primary motivation is to gain a profit-bearing business makes you terrible.


You still haven't explained why you think I'm responsible for keeping those people in prison. I'm finding that accusation terribly amusing, so please, do tell.



> Sweet... belief in the trickle-down theory of economics. How very 80's of you.


lol. Seriously dude. You should probably avoid big boy topics like business and economics with me. It won't end well for you. 

And in case you were wondering. No, not a republican. I think Reaganomics is all bullshit. I'm a huge FDR fan and believe in the Keynesian economic theories. I think personal income tax breaks for the rich is the absolutely worst way to stimulate the economy. The best way is food stamps and increasing welfare. 

Trying to characterize me as some fascist republican is pretty lol. 



> Of course, now that I think about it, the number of times you've repeatedly told people that they don't need more than an ounce


That's not what I said. I said no one needs to walk around with more than an ounce unless they are selling. I've also said I have no objections with people selling illegally. I see absolutely nothing wrong with doing that and I've never said otherwise. The only illegal dealers I have a problem with are the drug cartels/gang bangers. The only reason I have a problem with them is because of the violence. Not a big fan of killing people over bud.




> And you always make the assumption of profits on my behalf. I don't profit off anyone I have dealings with. But, then again, I deal directly with my clients and rarely deal with middlemen.


lol. I know. You don't make a profit, you get currency donated to you for you time and energy spent growing it. I've been a medical vendor for years, I know the drill...

Call it a profit, surplus, donation, compensation, or whatever you want. Regardless of the language used your still getting cash in exchange for bud. It's all the same, you just like to bullshit. 



> And yes, it does make me a better person for dealing fairly and not trying to profit off of people.


lol. Too bad the profits made from legal for profit bud would likely be much lower than the "compensation" you receive due to increased competition and lowered risk.

How many legal products have over a 1000% markup on them? I love how everyone charges this huge markup, but it's all good as long as it's called compensation and not profit. Even if the markup is lower, if it's called a profit, then you're a bad person.

Such hypocritical bullshit. I love it. Teach someone to substitute some words around and all of a sudden they are better than everyone else.


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 14, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Excellent. Backtracking and deflection. Text book Beckisms. Please continue.


ROFLMAO......what the fuck are you smoking dude? Back tracking?? you mean the "monkey-poo"? I'm sorry, I thought you liked that, it certainly originated in YOUR head! But, OK, we wont go THERE anymore..........I must admit to ignorance on the "Text book Beckisms", the only Beck I'm familiar with is Jeff Beck, a legendary musician, but not given to any "Beckisms" that I'm aware of.
I have no reason to "continue" with YOU, your mindset is obviously locked tighter than a nun's legs.
But I will "continue" to monitor this thread very closely until November 2, or it dies!...........See ya at the Polls!


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 14, 2010)

Looks like I touched a nerve with Dan Beck. I swear, you and the rest of your pro-19 cronies are easy as hell to bait into spewing the same ole talking points. Of course I think and perceive you like a dirty capitalist conserv-a-puke. That's how you paint yourself. You keep screaming compassion out one side of your face and justify your profiteering on medical patients out of the other. Keep with your crazy numbers and wild assumptions. You do Tricky Dick Lee proud.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 14, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Looks like I touched a nerve with Dan Beck. I swear, you and the rest of your pro-19 cronies are easy as hell to bait into spewing the same ole talking points. Of course I think and perceive you like a dirty capitalist conserv-a-puke. That's how you paint yourself. You keep screaming compassion out one side of your face and justify your profiteering on medical patients out of the other. Keep with your crazy numbers and wild assumptions. You do Tricky Dick Lee proud.


lol. Clearly you didn't understand my post. I used small words so you could follow it along. I guess next time I'll dumb it down a little bit more for you. 

And yes, registered democrat since I was 18. Not a republican. Never voted for a republican in my life. 

You obviously don't understand what the word profiteering means. Making a profit is not the same thing as profiteering. Having a for profit business does not have anything to do with the price of goods. You can markup products just as high in a non-profit as you can in a for profit business. 

I repeat, for profit does *not* mean higher prices than non-profit. Only those who have no idea about how a business works would think such a thing. You should probably stick to topics where you know what you're talking about. You're sounding like a fool.


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 14, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Looks like I touched a nerve with Dan Beck. I swear, you and the rest of your pro-19 cronies are easy as hell to bait into spewing the same ole talking points. Of course I think and perceive you like a dirty capitalist conserv-a-puke. That's how you paint yourself. You keep screaming compassion out one side of your face and justify your profiteering on medical patients out of the other. Keep with your crazy numbers and wild assumptions. You do Tricky Dick Lee proud.


OMG! I KNEW this was coming....YOU have come COMPLETELY UNHINDGED.........I HONEST to god don't know ANY Dan Beck, so my nerves are unscathed. AND you have gotten your "Hate/Spew" targets mixed up! I'm NOT a medical patient, I wont buy into THAT hypocracy. And I DON'T sell cannabis to anyone. I have MY little 12/16 plant annual patio grow for ME. I do "compassionatly", GIVE some 
to family members, but in no way, shape or form do I have "medical patients" to "profiteer" on.
Kindly pull your head out of your ass and get your "hate targets" straight, you fucking moron YOU!
And, oh yes....................See ya at the Polls!


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 14, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> lol. Clearly you didn't understand my post. I used small words so you could follow it along. I guess next time I'll dumb it down a little bit more for you.
> 
> And yes, registered democrat since I was 18. Not a republican. Never voted for a republican in my life.
> 
> ...


Yes, Danny... we all know you are a democrat. It's amusing that you think that is better, but hey, everyone has to have their delusions. Whatever makes you feel better, lad. 

You can regurgitate all the economics crap you want to justify your hunt for more profit. You assert that you have a successful mutual-benefit coop. How much more do you need? Since you're so assured that no one should need more than an ounce at any given time nor ever need more than a 5'x5' garden, then I say that there's plenty of opportunity for reasonable compensation in the current market. Anyone else who needs more is just greedy. I could care less what I sound like to you... just getting you to respond and demonstrate your true intent in supporting Prop. 19 is good enough for me.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 14, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Yes, Danny... we all know you are a democrat. It's amusing that you think that is better, but hey, everyone has to have their delusions. Whatever makes you feel better, lad.
> 
> You can regurgitate all the economics crap you want to justify your hunt for more profit. You assert that you have a successful mutual-benefit coop. How much more do you need? Since you're so assured that no one should need more than an ounce at any given time nor ever need more than a 5'x5' garden, then I say that there's plenty of opportunity for reasonable compensation in the current market. Anyone else who needs more is just greedy. I could care less what I sound like to you... just getting you to respond and demonstrate your true intent in supporting Prop. 19 is good enough for me.


 you just totally lost the game. best part is, you probably don't even know it.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 14, 2010)

Yes, you are quite the master of the internets. I have no possible way to lose, kiddo. If Prop. 19 doesn't pass, I still have my pot and so do those who I provide for. If Prop. 19 passes, I still get my pot and so do those I provide for. Nothing changes for me. Seems to me, you have a lot vested in Prop. 19 passing. Prop. 19 in no way threatens my livelihood, since it doesn't depend on cannabis sales.


----------



## Dave Hemp (Sep 14, 2010)

*Please read this:*

For 18 years, David Nick has successfully litigated a cornucopia of issues regarding cannabis and the applicable laws in both trial and appellate courts. He has not confined his practice to marijuana law, but also litigates cases involving constitutional rights and criminal procedure.

David Nick has never lost a jury trial in a state marijuana case including many precedent setting trials involving some of the most revered figures in the medical marijuana movement such as Brownie Mary, Dennis Peron (Nick has been Peron&#8217;s sole attorney since 1994) and Steve Kubby.

One of Nick&#8217;s early defenses of Peron&#8217;s medical marijuana activism resulted in the first appellate court decision affirming that marijuana can be sold. Kubby&#8217;s case was the first large quantity (200 plants) case to be won on the argument that Kubby&#8217;s serious ailments necessitated his use of cannabis to keep him alive.

A recent case of interest to patients is the Strauss case, involving a farm in Mendocino County that cultivated marijuana exclusively for a collective in Los Angeles. Nick succeeded in getting a hung jury followed by outright dismissal of all charges involving 250 pounds of processed marijuana, 200 large marijuana plants and $1.5 million in several bank accounts &#8211; not exactly consistent with the idea of small collectives with everybody planting, harvesting, trimming and singing Kumbaya.

He is currently representing collectives in Palm Springs, Riverside, Los Angeles and San Jose in preemptive lawsuits asserting the rights of collectives to provide medicine to their members without undue interference from local government officials.

Nick does not confine his practice to marijuana law, but is involved in significant federal criminal litigation.

His litigation has established the right not to be searched by sniffing dogs without probable cause. This is in contract to car searches where police can search you car for no reason at all.

His litigation has lead to policies requiring police to not draw weapons in a marijuana search unless they have information that the person being apprehended is dangerous.

He has successfully litigated jury trials utilizing a necessity for life defense in order to uphold the operation of needle exchange programs.

As far as I am concerned, these experiences qualify him to provide an opinion about Prop. 19 superior to those I have read from the &#8220;sky-is-falling&#8221; alarmists

Here is Mr. Nick&#8217;s analysis of the effects of Prop. 19 on medical marijuana patients.



> *Subject: AN OPEN LETTER ON PROPOSITION 19
> From: J. David Nick. Attorney-at-Law*
> 
> *PROP. 19 IS THE BEST THING TO HAPPEN TO MMJ PATIENTS SINCE PROP. 215*
> ...


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 14, 2010)

Well done Dave! This is the 3rd time this "gem of Truth" has shown up on this thread. And that's not a problem because maybe 1 or 2 Naysayers might finally get "it"!
If nothing else, LOL, it sure seems to be a "thread stopper"! It sort of "drains" their ammunition and leaves them speechless.
So, for the good folks who would support fairness, honesty, and prop 19, Good luck & good grow.
And for the clowns with their "undies in a knot" and realize their cash cow goes away after November 2, I have a small supply of
"Black Capsules", that I will gladly share. (See! I AM a compassionate person!).......BB
Oh yeah..........................See ya at the Polls!


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

look lets get one thing strait first and formost im not trying to disresrect anyone. this is my point of view. i want just as bad to have legal bud in the state i just dont think that prop 19 is the right way to do it. also im not talking about growers and there profits im talking about small companies that depend on todays maket wich will be destroyed buy big marijuana corporations. i know full well that there is larg scale marijuana ops exist in cali but they dont go down to to local head shop to buy a quart of nutrient or 12 plastic pot or a hydro set up. they buy bulk from big manufactering companies.also why is there such harsh restritions on how much people can grow at there own homes, because "they"(big marijuana) dont want competition.it says that a person can grow at a private residents in a 25 squared foot area. theres no specification on how many people at the resedent can grow,in othere words i live with 4 othere people all over the age of 21 and this prop does not garantee all of use individual 25 square foot plots. insted it sugguest that each household use a 25 foot plot regardless of the number of people in the house hold that use marijuana. this again is to prevent compitition with corporations what will try and monopolize the industy.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

ever wounder why it illegal to grow tabacco in almost every state,ever heard of "BIG tabacco" they made it that way.
how long before "BIG [URL="https://www.rollitup.org/"][URL="https://www.rollitup.org/"]marijuana[/URL][/URL]" lobbies for the samething. remember that they will sell it for a profit so if you grow your own they make no mony.


----------



## Weedoozie (Sep 15, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> look lets get one thing strait first and formost im not trying to disresrect anyone. this is my point of view. i want just as bad to have legal bud in the state i just dont think that prop 19 is the right way to do it. also im not talking about growers and there profits im talking about small companies that depend on todays maket wich will be destroyed buy big marijuana corporations. i know full well that there is larg scale marijuana ops exist in cali but they dont go down to to local head shop to buy a quart of nutrient or 12 plastic pot or a hydro set up. they buy bulk from big manufactering companies.also why is there such harsh restritions on how much people can grow at there own homes, because "they"(big marijuana) dont want competition.it says that a person can grow at a private residents in a 25 squared foot area. theres no specification on how many people at the resedent can grow,in othere words i live with 4 othere people all over the age of 21 and this prop does not garantee all of use individual 25 square foot plots. insted it sugguest that each household use a 25 foot plot regardless of the number of people in the house hold that use marijuana. this again is to prevent compitition with corporations what will try and monopolize the industy.


I'm pretty sure I read in the bill that the 25 feet squared plot is per property, not per individual, which is another reason for me why this is not the best prop


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

california needs to take a duth approach at it.

*The regulations*

The Dutch have divided drugs into two groups, depending on their influence on human health &#8211; *soft drugs* and *hard drugs*. Hard drugs as cocaine, LSD, morphine, heroin are forbidden in the Netherlands as in any other country. 
Soft drugs as *cannabis* in all its forms (marijuana, hashish, hash oil) and hallucinogenic mushrooms (so called magic mushrooms or paddos &#8211; from Dutch: paddestoel - mushroom) are legal under condition of so called &#8220;*personal use*&#8221;. As a result smoking of cannabis even in public, is not prosecuted as well as selling it although technically illegal under still valid Opium Act (dating from 1919, cannabis added as drug in 1950), is widely *tolerated* provided that it happens in a limited, controlled way (in a coffee shop, small portions, 5 grams maximum transaction, not many portions on stock, sale only to adults, no minors on the premises, no advertisement of drugs, the local municipality did not give the order to close the coffee shop).


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

im not saying world for world but this is a better model then prop 19


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 15, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> *ever wounder why it illegal to grow tabacco in almost every state*,ever heard of "BIG tabacco" they made it that way.
> how long before "BIG [URL="https://www.rollitup.org/"][URL="https://www.rollitup.org/"]marijuana[/URL][/URL]" lobbies for the samething. remember that they will sell it for a profit so if you grow your own they make no mony.


No my uninformed friend, I have never pondered that question because it's NOT true.
You are obviously another silly anti-19, nay saying wank!
Come to a thread and spew total BS, shame on you.
And this is why:>

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/135166?ref=W_Ask&utm_source=Ask


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

you dont have to get mad just cause im going to vote NO!
prop 19 is flud to its core.
yeah i was wrong about growing tabacco to an extent("As a result of federal legislation in late 2005, restrictions ... are no longer in effect.")and i take that back its something I heard from a friend that isnt true anymore.

5x5 would be great per person but not per household like prop 19 suggest.
i live with 4 othere people that smoke that 5 people so we each get 1x1 area.
we only get to legalize bud onces so lets make sure it right. the legislation is fluded it all about a bunch of rich people that got rich over years of selling bud illegaly trying to get even richer "walmartization of marijuana" aka big marijuana.there just taking advanyage of our broke ass state saying "tax revanue" wich means money for polititions aka big gverment


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

lear the truth watch this!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/v/nJhBWaNPV3w&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGWSdrU31B0


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 15, 2010)

Wrong again....I'm not "mad just cause" YOU'RE "going to vote NO!", I'm MAD *because *another uniformed Naysayer tries to slip BS into a post as fact! And THEN does some qualified mea culpa, and blames HIS ignorance of his "friend"! Yeah, that does kind of piss me off.
Why you ask? Because if I didn't catch THAT BS in it's inception, it would have become one more anti-19 _FACT _for their smoke-screen arsenal.
OK?, and wrong again, a 5x5 would *not* be "great" for even for one person. A standard had to be set, standards change in the face of overwhelming noncompliance, kind of like cannabis prohibition for example. When 19 passes, there would easily be 100,000 personal, "5x5 restricted grows going on. 
Now, do you really envision an army of cannabis code enforcers, armed with their little tape measures and calculators sniffing around TRYING to LOCATE the grows that are _open to view,_ _outside_? 
And they couldn't touch a grow inside your house without legal, probable cause. So just don't get your undies in a bunch over the "5x5".
I wont attempt to comment on the rest of your post, because it was pretty incomprehensible, sort of a big ol' bag of rich demons and "aka" monsters, just not sure what that was.
Look needy, maybe just keep on doing whatever your cultivation scene is now, and after November 2, you WILL keep on keeping on,
they really aren't out to get YOU........BB


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

have you even read this prop?

http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html
heres more of the truth.
bottom line is im voting no and evry one i know who votes is voting no. there is more than one way to legalize bud.
and prop 19 is not the way to do it.
right now i grow bud for free if prop 19 passes ill have to pay taxes to grow even if only for my personal use.
prop 19 is no good


----------



## tip top toker (Sep 15, 2010)

I find it highly amusing that people are voting no, because it's not the right way to get legal weed, yet you are all refusing to allow anything to harm precious prop 215, yet that is no different, it is a scam method of obtaining weed because it was the best method to have some vague form of legal weed. It;s a federal offence, how is that not a fucked up proposition?


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

think if there were a prop like 215 but without the medical recomendation.....now that the kind of prop i would vote for


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

california needs to take a duth approach at it.

*The regulations*

The Dutch have divided drugs into two groups, depending on their influence on human health &#8211; *soft drugs* and *hard drugs*. Hard drugs as cocaine, LSD, morphine, heroin are forbidden in the Netherlands as in any other country. 
Soft drugs as *cannabis* in all its forms (marijuana, hashish, hash oil) and hallucinogenic mushrooms (so called magic mushrooms or paddos &#8211; from Dutch: paddestoel - mushroom) are legal under condition of so called &#8220;*personal use*&#8221;. As a result smoking of cannabis even in public, is not prosecuted as well as selling it although technically illegal under still valid Opium Act (dating from 1919, cannabis added as drug in 1950), is widely *tolerated* provided that it happens in a limited, controlled way (in a coffee shop, small portions, 5 grams maximum transaction, not many portions on stock, sale only to adults, no minors on the premises, no advertisement of drugs, the local municipality did not give the order to close the coffee shop).


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> california needs to take a duth approach at it.
> 
> *The regulations*
> 
> ...


Exactly... They get by without big business and tax, why cant we... Oh yeah, because we have clones that hear/see the word "LEGALIZE" and they jump like a fresh 18 year old... This is the same reason this country and state is in such a shit hole at the moment... Nobody really thinks about shit logically... IT WONT BE LEGAL.... IT WILL BE A OUNCE... REWRITE the law to better suit our purposes... ITs not rocket surgery...


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

damn strait


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

Voters in Rancho Cordova will decide in November whether to tax residents who grow their own pot.
The city measure, put on the Nov. 2 ballot by the City Council this week, would impose taxes on all local residential cultivation if California voters approve Proposition 19 to legalize recreational use.
But the city&#8217;s proposed &#8220;Personal Cannabis Cultivation Tax&#8221; also makes no distinction between medical and recreational cultivation, Peter Hecht writes in &#8220;Weed Wars.&#8221; So the tax would kick in for anyone currently cultivating for personal medical use &#8212; whether Prop. 19 passes or not
If passed by local voters, the taxation measure in the Sacramento County city would make at-home cultivation a much more expensive endeavor.

The Rancho Cordova measure would impose a $600 annual tax per square foot of indoor cultivation of 25 square feet of [URL="https://www.rollitup.org/"]marijuana[/URL] or less and a $900 per square foot tax if the indoor growing area is more than 25 square feet.

The city tax would cost a local indoor grower $6,000 a year on 10 square feet of pot plants and $15,000 for 25 square feet. Outdoor growers, who would be billed at a lower rate, would pay a $1,200 residential tax for 25 square feet of [URL="https://www.rollitup.org/"]marijuana[/URL] plants.
If Proposition 19 passes, it would allow California adults over 21 to cultivate in a 25-square foot residential space. Medical growers often exceed those limits by cultivating with other pot patients

http://calpotnews.com/government/bal...ordova-ballot/ 

these taxes brought to you buy prop19


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

tip top toker said:


> I find it highly amusing that people are voting no, because it's not the right way to get legal weed, yet you are all refusing to allow anything to harm precious prop 215, yet that is no different, it is a scam method of obtaining weed because it was the best method to have some vague form of legal weed. It;s a federal offence, how is that not a fucked up proposition?


Everybody I know is voting NO as well... Its what we call having a standard and not taking what they give us... Just the thought that they could write this shitty bill and think it will pass insults me and my friends/family... Just another bullshit political move in a corrupt country... YAY LEGALIZE IT... Its a joke...


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> you just totally lost the game. best part is, you probably don't even know it.


Its not a game, its a vote, that is where the winners and losers are produced... You make alot of good points dan, but the prop is still wrote like shit and leaves way to much up to imagination... You will never be able to fix that because you didnt write it...


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> look lets get one thing strait first and formost im not trying to disresrect anyone. this is my point of view. i want just as bad to have legal bud in the state i just dont think that prop 19 is the right way to do it. also im not talking about growers and there profits im talking about small companies that depend on todays maket wich will be destroyed buy big marijuana corporations. i know full well that there is larg scale marijuana ops exist in cali but they dont go down to to local head shop to buy a quart of nutrient or 12 plastic pot or a hydro set up. they buy bulk from big manufactering companies.also why is there such harsh restritions on how much people can grow at there own homes, because "they"(big marijuana) dont want competition.it says that a person can grow at a private residents in a 25 squared foot area. theres no specification on how many people at the resedent can grow,in othere words i live with 4 othere people all over the age of 21 and this prop does not garantee all of use individual 25 square foot plots. insted it sugguest that each household use a 25 foot plot regardless of the number of people in the house hold that use marijuana. this again is to prevent compitition with corporations what will try and monopolize the industy.


Exactly... But nobody sees it... They are gonna give this beautiful plant over to them without a fight, well with a fight... I dont know a single person that is gonna vote yes... Actually I do... Its a bunch of 18-20 year olds that are like WOOHOO LEGALIZE IT... They sound so ridiculous... But after I take 15 minutes to explain just a few key points, there grins turn to frowns and they realize that is a bullshit bill...


----------



## tip top toker (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Everybody I know is voting NO as well... Its what we call having a standard and not taking what they give us... Just the thought that they could write this shitty bill and think it will pass insults me and my friends/family... Just another bullshit political move in a corrupt country... YAY LEGALIZE IT... Its a joke...


You kind of missed the point. What standard did you fight for when they said that medical patients could only grow X plants, could only posesss X amount of bud, could only do it with a doctors recomendation, could only do it in their home state, could still get arrested and taken to court and have your plants taken. What standards were set when you decided they could screw you over that badly just for some "medicine"?

You have a go at 19 for not being completely what the smoker wants, yet 215 was no different, and you are all in love with the thing and would cry to heaven if it went away.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

prop 19 destroys prop215


----------



## tip top toker (Sep 15, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> prop 19 destroys prop215


No it doesn't, read the thing..


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

tip top toker said:


> You kind of missed the point. What standard did you fight for when they said that medical patients could only grow X plants, could only posesss X amount of bud, could only do it with a doctors recomendation, could only do it in their home state, could still get arrested and taken to court and have your plants taken. What standards were set when you decided they could screw you over that badly just for some "medicine"?
> 
> You have a go at 19 for not being completely what the smoker wants, yet 215 was no different, and you are all in love with the thing and would cry to heaven if it went away.


We learned our lesson from 215 man... Thats why you write the thing righti in the first place... Then all the bullshit fighting over plant numbers/area and arrests can be dodged.. We learned our lesson from 215, hence we dont want to write something that will take a decade to ammend it... Why not write it right for 2012??? it may be 2 years away but could save 8 years of BS arests and arguments...


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

yeap!!!!!!


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 15, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> prop 19 destroys prop215


Please _try _to explain how that works.......you saying it certainly doesn't make it so......c'mon genius, put it out there......give it your best shot....
Explain exactly *HOW* Prop 19 "destroys" 215......And NO cheating....SHOW US the wording in _19, _that "destroys" 215......And NOT "what my friend says, (you've _already_ laid YOUR ignorance off on a "friend" once, it wont fly again!).

So let us have it....._"Prop 19 will destroy prop 215 because of this wording, ______________________________"._
Real easy, just fill in the blank..........

This should be good!


----------



## stingmenot (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Exactly... But nobody sees it... They are gonna give this beautiful plant over to them without a fight, well with a fight... I dont know a single person that is gonna vote yes... Actually I do... Its a bunch of 18-20 year olds that are like WOOHOO LEGALIZE IT... They sound so ridiculous... But after I take 15 minutes to explain just a few key points, there grins turn to frowns and they realize that is a bullshit bill...


The anti- 19 ad campaigns have already began, maybe you have seen some. You agree with them but for way different reasons, right? But you tout how you and all your friends and whoever you can convince will vote no. So be it. Join them. Now picture these same ads in the next election cycle with something like this tacked on the end, Prop 215, a scam to semi-legalize marijuana for thousands who have obtained cards through a system that has been corrupted beyond the intent of the law. The majority of Californians rejected marijuana in November 2010, now help us rid our cities, towns and neighborhoods of this dangerous drug.
Or worse yet, a bill proposed in the state legislature that seeks to amend 215 to end the "corruption". One created by those who feel they have a mandate from the majority of californians who have proved with prop 19 that they don't want widespread marijuana use.


----------



## Keenly2 (Sep 15, 2010)

all the naysayers have still failed to convince me


----------



## tip top toker (Sep 15, 2010)

Here;s a question then. How would you all vote if there was no MMJ and all cannabis you smoked was illegal under state and federal law?


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Exactly... But nobody sees it... They are gonna give this beautiful plant over to them without a fight, well with a fight... I dont know a single person that is gonna vote yes... Actually I do... Its a bunch of 18-20 year olds that are like WOOHOO LEGALIZE IT... They sound so ridiculous... But after I take 15 minutes to explain just a few key points, there grins turn to frowns and they realize that is a bullshit bill...


Gee Nate, I wish I WAS 18/20 again, LOL, But sadly for me, that was a long time ago. 

Let's try this: Here is an "esteemed" spokeswoman for the Naysayers: http://www.blogger.com/profile/09591176724291871970

And this is a spokesman for prop 19: http://sjcbc.org/2010/09/11/an-open-letter-on-prop-19/

Now, who ya gonna believe??......"Dragonfly De La Luz", a self promoting "media" star or J. David Nick, some dumb attorney who's spent half his life DEFENDING marijuana cases, (and VERY sucessfuly IMA!).

ROFLMAO


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

tip top toker said:


> Here;s a question then. How would you all vote if there was no MMJ and all cannabis you smoked was illegal under state and federal law?


I would vote NO, Im a constitutionalist, not a capalist... There should be no limit on plant numbers, area possesion... etc...


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

stingmenot said:


> The anti- 19 ad campaigns have already began, maybe you have seen some. You agree with them but for way different reasons, right? But you tout how you and all your friends and whoever you can convince will vote no. So be it. Join them. Now picture these same ads in the next election cycle with something like this tacked on the end, Prop 215, a scam to semi-legalize marijuana for thousands who have obtained cards through a system that has been corrupted beyond the intent of the law. The majority of Californians rejected marijuana in November 2010, now help us rid our cities, towns and neighborhoods of this dangerous drug.
> Or worse yet, a bill proposed in the state legislature that seeks to amend 215 to end the "corruption". One created by those who feel they have a mandate from the majority of californians who have proved with prop 19 that they don't want widespread marijuana use.


Speculation.... Imagine this Imagine that... Speculation doesnt mean anything... The only thing you can hang your hat on is Money... And The POWER OF AMERICAN GREED... That is what this BILL is about... Controlling so they can make money... Im not down for contorlling so some rich beuracrat can have another vacation house... Rich get Richer and we stay the same...


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> Gee Nate, I wish I WAS 18/20 again, LOL, But sadly for me, that was a long time ago.
> 
> Let's try this: Here is an "esteemed" spokeswoman for the Naysayers: http://www.blogger.com/profile/09591176724291871970
> 
> ...


Thats apples and oranges bro... Try comparing drangon to some uptight conservative that doesnt smoke MJ... That is more relative... She is not a esteemed attorney, just a regular person who cares...


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 15, 2010)

USA -- Marijuana users are an extremely diverse group. Whether it be medical or recreational use, they can be found in almost every demographic imaginable in America. As such, there are a wide variety of opinions on how marijuana should be treated by society at large, as well as how to achieve such goals. This shouldn't be surprising, and there is always room for debate on what the best models and methods for reform should be. Recently, however, a disturbing trend has emerged. 

It appears that there is a growing contingent of marijuana users and people associated with the industry, both legal and illicit, who are actively fighting against efforts to make marijuana legal for all adults. There are several arguments being thrown around to defend the status quo of marijuana prohibition. Some of those arguments are well intentioned but shortsighted. Some are downright malicious. The one commonality they have is their divisive effect on the movement at a time when unity is crucial to finally end the government's war on marijuana users.

A common complaint is that, in a regulated marijuana market, big corporations will push out small businesses. This is an understandable fear, especially to someone who has spent his or her life, and risked imprisonment and persecution, trying to run a marijuana-related business. These people surely do not want to see a culture and industry that they love taken over by corporate interests and diluted. But corporations already control marijuana.

They are the cartels that heavily influence the market and bring death to our borders and our inner cities. They are the prison-builders that lobby for harsher sentencing so they can keep the cells full and the cash flowing. They are the pharmaceutical companies that stonewall cannabinoid research so they can keep pushing expensive pills.

Of course some big businesses are going to see opportunity in a newly legal and regulated marijuana market and will try to take advantage of it. And surely some of their practices will be detestable. Marijuana consumers have a right to choose, though. Big businesses cannot "ruin marijuana" any more than Coors has ruined beer. As with alcohol, with its thriving microbrew industry, there will inevitably be a large market for higher-quality, locally grown marijuana.

Another popular attack against potential reforms is that they do not go far enough. There are many people who feel very strongly about securing certain protections, whether they be the right to grow at home, amnesty for marijuana prisoners, personal possession limits, and so on. The most vocal among them feel so strongly that they would rather see a decent bill fail than pass without their inclusion.

While we can sit around dreaming about what the country would be like with "perfect" marijuana laws, the political reality is that we cannot get anywhere near there without taking incremental steps. We are fighting against more than seventy years of lies and propaganda, as well as entrenched corporate and government interests. By building on small victories, we can more easily pass improved laws and overturn bad portions of otherwise good laws. We cannot build on zero victories. While we sit around arguing about minor concessions and principles, people are going to jail or dying. We cannot afford to wait for the rest of the country to come around to the way of thinking of the more radical among us, even if we might agree with them.

 The worst obstructionist arguments come from people who are doing just fine under prohibition. They come from the growers and dealers, who stand to lose a little bit of the tremendous amount of money they make in the illegal market. They come from the guys that think marijuana is only "cool" if it is unregulated, and don't want to lose their status. They come from the young adults who simply do not care if it is legal or not, because they are going to do it anyway.

Never mind that their lifestyles come at the expense of others' freedom! In all seriousness, if you want to be a cool, wealthy outlaw, here is some advice: develop a personality, and buy a motorcycle. The rest of us are sick of living our lives on the lam for you. If you cannot support marijuana reform because of such selfish reasoning, please remove yourself from the debate.

The time has never been better for making real progress in marijuana reform. As we propose new changes and laws, everyone should get a chance to voice their opinions or concerns. When we have a chance to pass improved marijuana laws, however, we need to present a united front. As long as someone can be arrested for marijuana in the United States, we need to support each other -- even if we, as individuals, do not get exactly what we want. For registered voters in California, this means coming out to the polls on November 2 to vote yes on Proposition 19.

Note: It appears that there is a growing contingent of marijuana users and people associated with the industry who are fighting against efforts to make it legal for all adults.

Source: AlterNet (US)
Author: Morgan Fox 
Published: September 15, 2010
Copyright: 2010 Independent Media Institute
Contact: [email protected] 
Website: http://www.alternet.org/
URL: http://alternet.org/story/148189/
CannabisNews -- Cannabis Archives
http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 15, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> If Prop. 19 doesn't pass, I still have my pot and so do those who I provide for. If Prop. 19 passes, I still get my pot and so do those I provide for.


First true thing you've said.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

Teeaytchsee said:


> USA -- Marijuana users are an extremely diverse group. Whether it be medical or recreational use, they can be found in almost every demographic imaginable in America. As such, there are a wide variety of opinions on how marijuana should be treated by society at large, as well as how to achieve such goals. This shouldn't be surprising, and there is always room for debate on what the best models and methods for reform should be. Recently, however, a disturbing trend has emerged.
> 
> It appears that there is a growing contingent of marijuana users and people associated with the industry, both legal and illicit, who are actively fighting against efforts to make marijuana legal for all adults. There are several arguments being thrown around to defend the status quo of marijuana prohibition. Some of those arguments are well intentioned but shortsighted. Some are downright malicious. The one commonality they have is their divisive effect on the movement at a time when unity is crucial to finally end the government's war on marijuana users.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> We learned our lesson from 215 man... Thats why you write the thing righti in the first place... Then all the bullshit fighting over plant numbers/area and arrests can be dodged.. We learned our lesson from 215, hence we dont want to write something that will take a decade to ammend it...


Some things are worth a decades long fight. I think prop 215 proved it was.



> Why not write it right for 2012???


I'll write a way better law than prop 19 that allows people to grow and possess all the bud they want, bans taxes, etc. All you have to do is give me 2 million dollars to get it on the ballot and another million dollars for advertisement. Deal?

People can write whatever they want, unless it has a few million dollars backing it up then it won't make the ballot. There is no guarantee and it's not even likely that any legalization prop would have the funding required in 2012. Seems like waiting for something that will never happen to me.


----------



## stingmenot (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Speculation.... Imagine this Imagine that... Speculation doesnt mean anything... The only thing you can hang your hat on is Money... And The POWER OF AMERICAN GREED... That is what this BILL is about... Controlling so they can make money... Im not down for contorlling so some rich beuracrat can have another vacation house... Rich get Richer and we stay the same...


It is speculation and fear (on my part) but all your talk about capitulation to big business, infringement on your rights granted by 215, the future price of pot are speculation as well. The people at Norml seem to disagree with you on your speculations. I chose their legal opinion over yours. About money, are you afraid your customers will buy from big business or grow their own?


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 15, 2010)

Teeaytchsee said:


> Some of those arguments are well intentioned but shortsighted. Some are downright malicious. The one commonality they have is their divisive effect on the movement at a time when unity is crucial to finally end the government's war on marijuana users.[/COLOR]





nathenking said:


> The Cartels are now corporations.... YEAH RIGHT... Guess what, the majority of Mexischwagg goes to places other than cali.... Cali has some of if not the best weed in the world... aint nobody buying and smoking that shit... It all goes to the midwest and the south... Its everywhere in those areas... I cant even find schwagg... all chronic... Those cartels will be fighting over the territory whether MJ is legal or illegal... its much more than just MJ,
> All of asudden the violence stops because we can have a ounce.... LMAO... It wont stop, they will fight over there remaining profit probably harder than what they do now... So its not crazy to consider that violence will remain the same or even go up... maybe... its all speculation, just like its speculation to say that the violence will go down...


there's no point re-stating whats already been said so ill simply refer you back to https://www.rollitup.org/politics/353347-official-cast-your-vote-prop.html for more info stated clearly, concisely, and without (much or intended) bias. educate yourself plz and stop being "short-sighted or malicious". we've taken the time to listen to what you have to say and found evidence against your claims. show the same respect and take the time to listen to the side you are debating against.


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Thats apples and oranges bro... Try comparing dragon to some uptight conservative that doesnt smoke MJ... That is more relative... She is not a esteemed attorney, just a regular person who cares...


"Apples & Oranges", NOT! Nate. They both take strong positions on the issue at hand, I fail to see that as irrelevant.
You seem to be saying that we should listen to the "Dragonfly", because "she's a regular person who cares", and blow off the attorney who understands the wording of 19, and has been totally involved in defending, MM rights for years.
Yeah, you're right, HE'S obviously the bad guy who doesn't care.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

stingmenot said:


> It is speculation and fear (on my part) but all your talk about capitulation to big business, infringement on your rights granted by 215, the future price of pot are speculation as well. The people at Norml seem to disagree with you on your speculations. I chose their legal opinion over yours. About money, are you afraid your customers will buy from big business or grow their own?


No Im not afraid about my customers, because they are my friends... Im all about spreading wealth around... With this law, that means that more all ready rich folk will be making more money and hurting the lil guy... Just like family farms man... Where the hell did they go... Oh yeah, big business... the very entitiy that runs the nation... Im anticorporation no matter which way its being proposed... It used to be that the small business owner had a few employees... The business owner pulled in 100K and his employees pulled in half of that... That is main street.... Now you have wallstreet, which the owner/owners pulling in millions and the workers still at 50K... Get rich off of others hard work... Im not down with that... Hence I hook up my friends cheap
so they can make money...


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> "Apples & Oranges", NOT! Nate. They both take strong positions on the issue at hand, I fail to see that as irrelevant.
> You seem to be saying that we should listen to the "Dragonfly", because "she's a regular person who cares", and blow off the attorney who understands the wording of 19, and has been totally involved in defending, MM rights for years.
> Yeah, you're right, HE'S obviously the bad guy who doesn't care.


Im saying that you should compare lawyers to lawyers, and regular people to regular people is all.... You know what I mean...


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

stingmenot said:


> It is speculation and fear (on my part) but all your talk about capitulation to big business, infringement on your rights granted by 215, the future price of pot are speculation as well. The people at Norml seem to disagree with you on your speculations. I chose their legal opinion over yours. About money, are you afraid your customers will buy from big business or grow their own?


All speculation... I do agree sir... That is all this is... We have all read the law, now we speculate on what will happen and who will be affected... No one here nows that, so we keep doing this exercise of futility... It is good tho, we all have our opinions and we all share them with respect... That is a very positive thing IMO... Wether this law passes or not, we will all be fine... There are much bigger issues in this country and world, and especially the state of CA that we really should be disgusing, but we are like the rest of america... We get tunnel vision and dont realize that things continue to get worse for us and our children no matter what we do...


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 15, 2010)

its interesting how so many of the opponents of the bill pick and choose what they hear/read rather than looking at the bigger picture as a whole. ohnoes the rich get richer! you do know what country this is right? define capitalism. define commodity. define corporation. define change. define selfish inconsideration. define ignorance. define naivety. define gullibility. define hypocrisy.

"Of course some big businesses are going to see opportunity in a newly legal and regulated marijuana market and will try to take advantage of it. And surely some of their practices will be detestable. marijuana consumers have a right to choose, though. Big businesses cannot "ruin marijuana" any more than Coors has ruined beer. As with alcohol, with its thriving microbrew industry, there will inevitably be a large market for higher-quality, locally grown marijuana."


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

Teeaytchsee said:


> its interesting how so many of the opponents of the bill pick and choose what they hear/read rather than looking at the bigger picture as a whole. ohnoes the rich get richer! you do know what country this is right? define capitalism. define commodity. define corporation. define change. define selfish inconsideration. define ignorance. define naivety. define gullibility. define hypocrisy.
> 
> "Of course some big businesses are going to see opportunity in a newly legal and regulated marijuana market and will try to take advantage of it. And surely some of their practices will be detestable. marijuana consumers have a right to choose, though. Big businesses cannot "ruin marijuana" any more than Coors has ruined beer. As with alcohol, with its thriving microbrew industry, there will inevitably be a large market for higher-quality, locally grown marijuana."


Define DEBT... That is the only thing the THIS COUNTRY makes anymore bro... We are in debt up to our ears... ten percent of america is owned by saudia arabia... China has a vast amount of our bonds and they wont buy anymore... This debt comes from big business and banks... To much money in one location or businesses hand makes us all vulnarable...

To much capitalism reverts back to communism... All the power and money migrates to a few peoples hands, just like in communism... Rockefellar, Rothchilds, Morgans... These families have been around for hundreds of years and still have the majority of the money... 90 percent of americas population controls 10 percent of its wealth, and vice versa... This is all from CAPITALISM.... Im not down with that as well bro.... There are so many deeper issues that revolve around just this one... That is what im trying to get out... Its not all about the WEED with me... Its all about the GREED... im doing fine, I own my house, have a education, a healthy daughter and a beautiful fiance... all at the age of 27... Not to be bragadoicious but I do not rely on MJ being legal or illegal for me to make it in this world... But I do have a problem with vultures swooping in and making a shit ton of money just because they have money....


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 15, 2010)

Teeaytchsee said:


> USA -- Marijuana users are an extremely diverse group. Whether it be medical or recreational use, they can be found in almost every demographic imaginable in America. As such, there are a wide variety of opinions on how marijuana should be treated by society at large, as well as how to achieve such goals. This shouldn't be surprising, and there is always room for debate on what the best models and methods for reform should be. Recently, however, a disturbing trend has emerged.
> 
> It appears that there is a growing contingent of marijuana users and people associated with the industry, both legal and illicit, who are actively fighting against efforts to make marijuana legal for all adults. There are several arguments being thrown around to defend the status quo of marijuana prohibition. Some of those arguments are well intentioned but shortsighted. Some are downright malicious. The one commonality they have is their divisive effect on the movement at a time when unity is crucial to finally end the government's war on marijuana users.
> 
> ...


KUDOS THC! I wish *I* had found this one, a clear, concise, on-point post. Morgan Fox surely has the intelligence and insight to lay the facts on the table. +rep for YOU!....BB


----------



## Keenly2 (Sep 15, 2010)

like i said, im voting yes because its a step UP from where i am right

21 year old male with no 215

so for me it goes from jail for posses, to no jail, and to top it all off i can grow without having to hide that shit from the neighbors / police


i can throw a pot leaf sticker on my car and not have to worry about cops claiming they have probably cause because i decorated my car


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Speculation.... Imagine this Imagine that... Speculation doesnt mean anything... The only thing you can hang your hat on is Money... And The POWER OF AMERICAN GREED... That is what this BILL is about...


To a large extent, that is what the current system is about too. Greed goes where ever money is. People are getting rich now. People are doing large scale grows now. None of this is anything new. Prop 19 is a big step towards ending prohibition. Why miss out on that? Because different people are going to get rich? That seems like a pretty petty and trivial reason to vote for keeping prohibition the way it is.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Thats apples and oranges bro... Try comparing drangon to some uptight conservative that doesnt smoke MJ... That is more relative... She is not a esteemed attorney, just a regular person who cares...


She might be a nice person or whatever, but when it comes to a legal interpretation do you really want to believe a blogger over the original prop 215 lawyer? That "conservative" has done more for medical cannabis than just about anyone else.


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Define DEBT... That is the only thing the THIS COUNTRY makes anymore bro... We are in debt up to our ears... ten percent of america is owned by saudia arabia... China has a vast amount of our bonds and they wont buy anymore... This debt comes from big business and banks... To much money in one location or businesses hand makes us all vulnarable...


This prop has an intention of bringing in so much money to the state that would otherwise go to illegal sources from non-medical smokers. ease up on the paranoia. you being afraid of big business is not any reason we should have to wait for legalization.



> To much capitalism reverts back to communism... All the power and money migrates to a few peoples hands, just like in communism... Rockefellar, Rothchilds, Morgans... These families have been around for hundreds of years and still have the majority of the money... 90 percent of americas population controls 10 percent of its wealth, and vice versa... This is all from CAPITALISM.... Im not down with that as well bro.... There are so many deeper issues that revolve around just this one... That is what im trying to get out... Its not all about the WEED with me... Its all about the GREED... im doing fine, I own my house, have a education, a healthy daughter and a beautiful fiance... all at the age of 27... Not to be bragadoicious but I do not rely on MJ being legal or illegal for me to make it in this world... But I do have a problem with vultures swooping in and making a shit ton of money just because they have money....


you cant honestly believe a measure to legalize is a hark back to the cold war ruskies or nazi germany can you? really? thats one hell of a leap. capitalism is going to continue you really just need to get used to it like it or not. however it has nothing to do with prop 19 allowing wal-mart to dish out dime bags for the price of a rotisserie chicken.

tell ya what click the link back i mentioned a few posts ago and just read the last post from Peron's attorney. it IS about the weed. making it available to the general populace. maybe i think mmj shouldnt be allowed? why waste it on sick people? stop being so narrow-minded. if you grow illegally you run the risk of losing everything or more (e.g. the article of the elderly man who recently lost a large portion of his land because of a MJ conviction 30 years prior). why would you choose that when this is so clearly in favor of reduced prohibition? im not you, i dont want to have to risk my family, friends, or livelihood over it. "im not down with THAT bro".

p.s. it would be easier to take you seriously if you stopped saying "bro" after every "point" you are trying to make.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> To a large extent, that is what the current system is about too. Greed goes where ever money is. People are getting rich now. People are doing large scale grows now. None of this is anything new. Prop 19 is a big step towards ending prohibition. Why miss out on that? Because different people are going to get rich? That seems like a pretty petty and trivial reason to vote for keeping prohibition the way it is.


It is petty... but that is what it has come to... The rich (no matter what industry) just want more and more for themselves... I dont want that attitude or way of life to infect MJ... But that is another point... I also think you should be able to grow as much or posses as much as you want... this is another form of corporate slavery man... you know this... arent you sick of it yet???


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Im saying that you should compare lawyers to lawyers, and regular people to regular people is all.... *You know what I mean...*



I know exactly what you "mean" Nate, "please don't confuse me with the facts, don't blind me with the truth, I would prefer to spew unfounded rhetoric and outright lies to further my cause".


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> She might be a nice person or whatever, but when it comes to a legal interpretation do you really want to believe a blogger over the original prop 215 lawyer? That "conservative" has done more for medical cannabis than just about anyone else.


I wasnt sayin the lawyer was a conservative... I was saying compare lawyers to lawyers...


----------



## stingmenot (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> All speculation... I do agree sir... That is all this is... We have all read the law, now we speculate on what will happen and who will be affected... No one here nows that, so we keep doing this exercise of futility... It is good tho, we all have our opinions and we all share them with respect... That is a very positive thing IMO... Wether this law passes or not, we will all be fine... There are much bigger issues in this country and world, and especially the state of CA that we really should be disgusing, but we are like the rest of america... We get tunnel vision and dont realize that things continue to get worse for us and our children no matter what we do...


Agreed nathanking and well said. I can live with this prop passing or failing. Seven (or is it eight) billion people on the planet that all want to get more and more. It just can't happen. I have always liked the peacefulness. the connected to life feelings i get from weed. I'm not afraid of a simple, unwealthy life for me and my children. I am afraid of a world that is afraid. A world that can't stop fighting.


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> It is petty... but that is what it has come to... The rich (no matter what industry) just want more and more for themselves... I dont want that attitude or way of life to infect MJ... But that is another point... I also think you should be able to grow as much or posses as much as you want... this is another form of corporate slavery man... you know this... arent you sick of it yet???


voting no will do nothing to change societies views on money. nor will you ever see any commodity publicly sold/distributed without limitations and taxation.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> [/B]
> I know exactly what you "mean" Nate, "please don't confuse me with the facts, don't blind me with the truth, I would prefer to spew unfounded rhetoric and outright lies to further my cause".


I can tell your over the age of 60 man... stand offish and resentfull.. Congrats Man your comparison of those two people was arbitrarry, it makes no sense... There are plenty of lawyers that think this law sucks, you should compare lawyer statments to lawyer statements... That is what we call relativity...


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

Teeaytchsee said:


> voting no will do nothing to change societies views on money. nor will you ever see any commodity publicly sold/distributed without limitations and taxation.


exactly, so why not keep it underground and to the 30 million people that smoke it regularly, why invite in those pricks so they can get rich??? Just so you dont go to jail??? You dont go to jail for a ounce of MJ in cali right now...


----------



## Keenly2 (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> You dont go to jail for a ounce of MJ in cali right now...




this is such ignorance

sure you dont go to jail, but you do get fined, and a court date.... and your shit gets taken...

sure lets just leave it the way it is, its FINE right? 

move along, nothing to see here but some one who will say anything to defend his position, even if it makes him look bad


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

stingmenot said:


> Agreed nathanking and well said. I can live with this prop passing or failing. Seven (or is it eight) billion people on the planet that all want to get more and more. It just can't happen. I have always liked the peacefulness. the connected to life feelings i get from weed. I'm not afraid of a simple, unwealthy life for me and my children. I am afraid of a world that is afraid. A world that can't stop fighting.


Thanks man... i dont need much, just what I have now... I dont need govt' and corporations in my MJ now, I want the laws to be written so that the people that make there living of growing can continue that and not get pushed out by some money hungry guy (R Lee)... its thas simple... support your local farmers people...


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> exactly, so why not keep it underground and to the 30 million people that smoke it regularly, why invite in those pricks so they can get rich??? Just so you dont go to jail??? You dont go to jail for a ounce of MJ in cali right now...


i dont want to be arrested want to be arrested simply because a hippy is afraid of reality.

think beyond CA sir.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

Keenly2 said:


> this is such ignorance
> 
> sure you dont go to jail, but you do get fined, and a court date.... and your shit gets taken...
> 
> ...


i got popped with 60 elbows in utah bro... so a ounce to me is rather pathetic to get your panties in a bunch about... The funny thing is that I can garentee that I have done more for the movement then you will ever know... 
What im trying to say is re write the bill better, so I dont go to jail for having a pound, or they dont take it.... Same issue you have right now, but more expensive...


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> I can tell your over the age of 60 man... stand offish and resentfull.. Congrats Man your comparison of those two people was arbitrarry, it makes no sense... There are plenty of lawyers that think this law sucks, you should compare lawyer statments to lawyer statements... That is what we call relativity...


more wild assumptions? you really wanna use that term after what youve recently posted?

*ar·bi·trar·y*

&#8194; <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/A06/A0640700" target="_blank"><img src="http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif" border="0" alt="arbitrary pronunciation" /></a>&#8194;/&#712;&#593;r




b&#618;&#716;tr&#603;r




i/  Show Spelled [ahr-bi-trer-ee]  Show IPA adjective, noun, plural -trar·ies. 
&#8211;adjective 1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision. 

2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute. 

3. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government. 

4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment. 

5. Mathematics . undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

Teeaytchsee said:


> i dont want to be arrested want to be arrested simply because a hippy is afraid of reality.
> 
> think beyond CA sir.


I do, hence if this law gets in and doesnt change, no other state will let us carry/grow more... Then what???


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> i got popped with 60 elbows in utah bro... so a ounce to me is rather pathetic to get your panties in a bunch about... The funny thing is that I can garentee that I have done more for the movement then you will ever know...
> What im trying to say is re write the bill better, so I dont go to jail for having a pound, or they dont take it.... Same issue you have right now, but more expensive...


operative words here "TO YOU". think past yourself.


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> I do, hence if this law gets in and doesnt change, no other state will let us carry/grow more... Then what???


first im going to link the post spelling out the prop for you since you obviously failed to click the link. then im going to hunt down the post of exactly why its 1 ounce limit proposed for CA currently.

brb...


----------



## Keenly2 (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> i got popped with 60 elbows in utah bro... so a ounce to me is rather pathetic to get your panties in a bunch about... The funny thing is that I can garentee that I have done more for the movement then you will ever know...
> What im trying to say is re write the bill better, so I dont go to jail for having a pound, or they dont take it.... Same issue you have right now, but more expensive...



so everything you just said pretty much has nothing to do with what I said...

is this how your trying to counter my argument? with a story of what you did and a "you dont know me" defense?

void


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 15, 2010)

Just read this


Below is an open leter I received from a Prop 19 supporter. It's long but certainly worth the read:

For my support of Prop. 19, I have been subject to the scorn, approbation and the most demoralizing denunciations imaginable by a group of medical marijuana patients exhibiting what can only be termed &#8220;medical reefer madness.&#8221;

With the best of intentions based on a poorly researched legal analysis, these anti-19 folks have joined forces with the people whose indifference and outright hostility have resulted in, and continue to result in, the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of thousands of medical marijuana patients.

Their never-ending harangues that Prop. 215 will go into the trash can of history if Prop. 19 is passed is causing medical marijuana patients extreme anxiety and leading them to question their support of this historic and critical piece of reform legislation. Graphically describing the horrors that will descend like a plague of locusts on unsuspecting medical marijuana patients if Prop. 19 passes, the anti-19 cabal insinuates that we are being duped by unscrupulous and untrustworthy people like Chris Conrad, Judge Jim Gray, Dale Gerringer, Dr. Frank Lucido, State Senator Mark Leno, Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, Jeff Jones, Mark Emery and hundreds of others. To see a list of all their claimed enemies of medical marijuana patients, go to: www.taxcannabis2010.org/node/13

To reveal the fallacy of their arguments and to stop stressing patients, I asked my friend, and frankly the friend of every medical marijuana patient in the state of California, J. David Nick, to weigh in on the controversy.

For 18 years, David Nick has successfully litigated a cornucopia of issues regarding cannabis and the applicable laws in both trial and appellate courts. He has not confined his practice to marijuana law, but also litigates cases involving constitutional rights and criminal procedure.

David Nick has never lost a jury trial in a state marijuana case including many precedent setting trials involving some of the most revered figures in the medical marijuana movement such as Brownie Mary, Dennis Peron (Nick has been Peron&#8217;s sole attorney since 1994) and Steve Kubby.

One of Nick&#8217;s early defenses of Peron&#8217;s medical marijuana activism resulted in the first appellate court decision affirming that marijuana can be sold. Kubby&#8217;s case was the first large quantity (200 plants) case to be won on the argument that Kubby&#8217;s serious ailments necessitated his use of cannabis to keep him alive.

A recent case of interest to patients is the Strauss case, involving a farm in Mendocino County that cultivated marijuana exclusively for a collective in Los Angeles. Nick succeeded in getting a hung jury followed by outright dismissal of all charges involving 250 pounds of processed marijuana, 200 large marijuana plants and $1.5 million in several bank accounts - not exactly consistent with the idea of small collectives with everybody planting, harvesting, trimming and singing Kumbaya.

He is currently representing collectives in Palm Springs, Riverside and Los Angeles in preemptive lawsuits asserting the rights of collectives to provide medicine to their members without undue interference from local government officials.

Nick does not confine his practice to marijuana law, but is involved in significant federal criminal litigation.

His litigation has established the right not to be searched by sniffing dogs without probable cause. This is in contract to car searches where police can search you car for no reason at all.

His litigation has lead to policies requiring police to not draw weapons in a marijuana search unless they have information that the person being apprehended is dangerous.

He has successfully litigated jury trials utilizing a necessity for life defense in order to uphold the operation of needle exchange programs.

As far as I am concerned, these experiences qualify him to provide an opinion about Prop. 19 superior to those I have read from the &#8220;sky-is-falling&#8221; alarmists

Here is Mr. Nick&#8217;s analysis of the effects of Prop. 19 on medical marijuana patients. I will have a few more choice words for you to peruse at the conclusion of Mr. Nick&#8217;s thoughtful, rational, reasoned, and accurate analysis.

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

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.

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.

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.

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&#8217;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.

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.&#8221;

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&#8217;s understandable anxiety over allowing municipalities to unduly control collectives, I direct everyone&#8217;s attention to the last statute of the MMP, 11362.83, which reads. &#8220;Nothing in this article shall prevent a city or other local governing body from adopting and enforcing laws CONSISTENT with this article.&#8221;

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.&#8221;

PROP. 19 PROTECTS PATIENTS PERSONAL AND COLLECTIVE CULTIVATIONS

Further protecting patients from local law enforcement actions, Section 11303 states that &#8221;no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact SEIZE or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is LAWFULLY CULTIVATED.&#8221; If you are a patient, you may &#8220;lawfully cultivate&#8221; as much marijuana as medically necessary and Prop. 19 protects that right. If you are cultivating for a collective, you may &#8220;lawfully cultivate&#8221; as much marijuana as your collective allows you to and Prop. 19 protects that right. Unfortunately, many law enforcement officials refuse to recognize the rights provided under the MMP for collectives to &#8220;lawfully cultivate&#8221; and sell marijuana. Prop. 19 reinforces those rights and makes it even more difficult for law enforcement to bust a collective or collective grower.

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.

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&#8217;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 &#8220;attempt to&#8221; 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 &#8220;lawfully cultivated&#8221; California cannabis.

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.

It&#8217;s that simple.

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 &#8220;Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.&#8221; 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&#8217;s recommendation to treat simple medical conditions will be coming to an end in those communities which allow Prop. 19 &#8220;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).

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.

PROP. 19 ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE A LOT OF marijuana

As an attorney called upon to defend patients and non-patients in marijuana cases, I cannot tell you how beneficial and how much freedom Section 11300 subdivision A (3) of Prop.19 will be to cannabis users. Read it!

Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual&#8217;s personal consumption, and not for sale.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of ANY harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.

Section (i) limits possession to one ounce OUT OF YOUR HOUSE. Section (iii) permits people 21 and over to have within their residence or single parcel ALL the cannabis which one grew in their 25 sq. foot parcel, including what you grew this year, what you grew last year and EVERY SINGLE 25 SQ. FT. HARVEST YOU EVER HAD ON THAT SINGLE PARCEL. This covers as many cycles of indoor and/or outdoor grown cannabis as a person can produce as long as each grow was no more than 25 square feet and done in succession.

Clearly section 11300(a) (i) limits personal possession and consumption to one ounce OUT OF YOUR HOME while section11300(a) (iii) is what you are allowed to have AT YOUR RESIDENCE if that is where your 25 sq. ft. garden is located. That this is the case is established by another rule of statutory construction, i.e. the specific controls the general. Here (iii) is the specific statute with respect to what you can have AT YOUR RESIDENCE ONLY or in the words of subdivision (iii) "on the premises where grown".

The one ounce limitation only applies when you leave your house, not wherever it is you grow your 25 foot plot. I can picture being able to easily defend a person with 200 pounds who is not even medical.

Under Prop. 19 you can only travel with one ounce, but if you are a patient you can still enjoy the protections of the CUA and MMP and can safely travel with eight ounces, or whatever your doctor permits you to have or the needs of your collective, as allowed by the CUA and the MMP. YOUR SUPPLY PROBLEMS CAUSED BY PARANOID CULTIVATION LAWS AND POLICIES THAT AT TIMES LIMIT YOUR PERSONAL CULTIVATION PROJECTS ARE SOLVED BY PROP. 19.

Prop. 19 creates a marijuana sanctuary IN YOUR HOME ONLY. Prop. 19 allows you to have AT YOUR HOME ONLY ALL OF THE PROCEEDS of every successive 25 sq. foot plot. However, Prop 19 only allows you TO REMOVE IT FROM YOUR HOME one ounce at a time if you are a recreational user.

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.

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.

UNDERSTANDING &#8220;NOTWITHSTANDING&#8221;

As for the argument that the various &#8220;Notwithstanding&#8221; 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 &#8220;notwithstanding,&#8221; you cannot be referring to statues that have been expressly excluded.

Claiming there is some doubt as to what &#8220;notwithstanding&#8221; 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, &#8220;notwithstanding&#8221; 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.

The word &#8220;notwithstanding&#8221; 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 &#8220;notwithstanding&#8221; 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.

For example, a law making skipping in front of a school illegal would be overturned by a law which says &#8220;notwithstanding other laws, skipping is legal.&#8221; If the word &#8220;notwithstanding&#8221; 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

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.

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 &#8220;implicit&#8221; 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.

The word &#8220;notwithstanding&#8221; is simply a legal necessity to repeal the various statutes that prohibit the conduct that prop. 19 now permits.

So can everyone please VOTE YES ON 19.

Sincerely,

J. David Nick
Attorney-at-Law

There you have it in plain simple English &#8211; patients have everything to gain and nothing to lose with the passage of Prop. 19 You can believe who you want, but ask yourself, who would you want defending you in court? J. David Nick or your choice of any or all of the authors of the anti-19 screeds?

Get real people. Do you really think the marijuana Policy Project, National Organization for the Reform of marijuana Laws, Drug Policy Alliance, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition would stand idly by, let alone support, an initiative that will undo the millions of dollars and the thousands of hours of staff time they have invested in establishing, protecting and defending the medical marijuana laws that many of themt helped put on the books in the first place?

Americans for Safe Access has chosen to stay neutral on the issue because they see themselves as strictly a medical marijuana organization and Prop. 19 is about the recreational use of marijuana, not medical. Do you think ASA would take a neutral position on Prop. 19 if they thought it would undermine Prop. 215?

The only people who will profit from the undermining of Prop. 19 are narco-cops, bail bondsmen, prison guards, Mexican drug cartels, greedy growers, profit-making collectives and old dogs that can&#8217;t learn a new trick.

Those medical marijuana advocates who have chosen to dedicate their existence to defeating Prop. 19, could actually do something of benefit for the medical marijuana community if they would expend their negative energy defeating Steve Cooley, the Republican candidate for California Attorney General.

Unlike Prop. 19, this man is a real threat to medical marijuana patients. As the District Attorney for Los Angeles, he has claimed collectives have no right to sell marijuana and that collectives must be small groups where everybody gets their hands in the soil. He has spent literally millions of taxpayer dollars pursuing medical marijuana patients and providers and if elected Attorney General will probably rescind AG Jerry Brown&#8217;s guidelines thereby making every collective in California that operates a storefront or delivery service illegal.

Unfortunately, the money is on him to win the AG race and if he is elected, you better hope Prop. 19 passes so he will be so busy trying to undo 19 that he won&#8217;t have time to screw patients.

Don&#8217;t just vote YES on 19, work with us to pass this historic initiative that will help, not hurt patients, bring compassion and common sense to marijuana law and deliver a decisive, maybe fatal blow to the war on drugs.

Lanny Swerdlow, RN, LNC


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 15, 2010)

*California* 

*Share This Page *          
   decriminalized   medical   hemp  Details About this report​








*





Incarceration *​ *





Fine*​ *Possession* 28.5 g or less misdemeanor none $100 More than 28.5 g misdemeanor 6 months $500 28.5 g or less on school grounds while school open (over 18 yers old) misdemeanor 10 days $500 More than 28.5 g on school grounds while school open (over 18 yers old) misdemeanor 6 months $500 *Cultivation* Any amount (exception for patients or caregivers) felony 16 - 36 months none




*Sale* Gift of less than 28.5 g misdemeanor none $100 Any amount felony 2 - 4 years​ none 28.5 g or less by a minor misdemeanor none $250 Any amount to a minor over 14 years old felony 3 - 5 years none Any amount to a minor under 14 years old (includes offering, inducing, distributing, or employing) felony 3 - 7 years​ none *Miscellaneous* (paraphernalia, license suspensions, drug tax stamps, etc...) Any conviction of minor under 21 causes driver's license suspension for 1 year. *Details* ​ Possession of 28.5 grams or less of marijuana is not an arrestable offense. As long as the offender can provide sufficient identification and promises to appear in court, the officer will not arrest the offender. Upon conviction of the misdemeanor charge the offender is subject to a fine of $100. Possession of greater than 28.5 grams is punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $500.
*Proposition 36*
The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act passed by 61% in 2000​ Possession of 28.5 grams or less of marijuana on school grounds when the school is open is punishable by up to 10 days in jail and a $500 fine. Possession of greater than 28.5 grams or more of marijuana in a school zone is punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $500.
The cultivation or processing of any amount of marijuana is punishable by up to sixteen months in state prison. There is an exception to the cultivation prohibition for patients or patients&#8217; caregivers who possess or cultivate for personal use by the patient upon approval of a physician.
The laws regarding possession and cultivation of marijuana do not apply to patients or patients&#8217; primary caregivers who possess or cultivate marijuana for the personal medical use of the patient, upon the recommendation or approval of a physician.
Selling marijuana in any amount is punishable by 2 &#8211; 4 years in the state prison. Giving away less than 28.5 grams is a misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine of up to $100.
Sale of marijuana to a minor is punishable by 3 &#8211; 5 years in prison. 
For anyone under the age of 21 convicted of any of the above offenses, the state may suspend the offender&#8217;s driver&#8217;s license for up to one year.
Possession of paraphernalia is a civil fine of $200-$300 for the first offense and goes up to $5,000-$6,000 for a fifth or subsequent violation within a five-year periood.
A breakdown of CA county and local medical marijuana guidelines is available here: http://www.safeaccessnow.net/countyguidelines.htm.





*Decriminalization:* The state has decriminalized marijuana to some degree. Typically, decriminalization means no prison time or criminal record for first-time possession of a small amount for personal consumption. The conduct is treated like a minor traffic violation.





*Medical marijuana:* This state has medical marijuana laws enacted. Modern research suggests that cannabis is a valuable aid in the treatment of a wide range of clinical applications. These include pain relief, nausea, spasticity, glaucoma, and movement disorders. marijuana is also a powerful appetite stimulant and emerging research suggests that marijuana's medicinal properties may protect the body against some types of malignant tumors, and are neuroprotective. For more information see NORML's Medical Marijuana section.





*Hemp:* This state has an active hemp industry or has authorized research. Hemp is a distinct variety of the plant species _cannabis sativa L._ that contains minimal (less than 1%) amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. Various parts of the plant can be utilized in the making of textiles, paper, paints, clothing, plastics, cosmetics, foodstuffs, insulation, animal feed, and other products. For more information see NORML's Industrial Use section.
Also see Federal Laws 


this is current CA law as posted directly from the NORML's website and taken from the DEA. keep in mind as said time and again and seems to being ignored by your arguments, porp 19 will in NO WAY effect mmj users in compliance with prop 215b.

lets say for a moment you are not an mmj patient. you are just a regular schmo like myself. that one ounce (of any type/quality/style/smell/taste/potency/etc) is merely an on-hand limitation. now look at the current law. without an mmj card you have 1 ounce... $100 fine a date in court and (though according to this wording not typically, but definately possible) a blemished record to haunt you if youd ever like to go back to school, get a government job, work with children. etc. to us non-mmj 1 ounce attained legally and without fear is a HUGE amount of progress.

if it is still unclear please reword it in a way the rest of us can understand, after so many attempts to answer your question and you saying its all wrong perhaps you should reflect on your question and your motivation. you are hoping to hear something along the lines of "so the government can keep you chained maaan. the maaan just wants to hold you down dude!"? please clarify and continue.

and for instance you have your gorgeous time consuming grows, but you dont have an mmj card...

"The cultivation or processing of any amount of marijuana is punishable by up to sixteen months in state prison. There is an exception to the cultivation prohibition for patients or patients&#8217; caregivers who possess or cultivate for personal use by the patient upon approval of a physician."

this is up to date and concrete. can you still not see our side of it?

-this is a direct copy im not going to bother cleaning it up-


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

Teeaytchsee said:


> operative words here "TO YOU". think past yourself.


I do, all my friends and family feel the same way...


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> *It is petty... but that is what it has come to... *The rich (no matter what industry) just want more and more for themselves... I dont want that attitude or way of life to infect MJ... But that is another point... I also think you should be able to grow as much or posses as much as you want... this is another form of corporate slavery man... you know this... arent you sick of it yet???


YOU agree that it IS petty! So stop right there. "but that is what it has come to", is YOUR take. 

The money, the "attitude", etc has *already *"infected" MJ, and has done so ever since the "illegality" of cannabis began over 70 years ago. Do you believe that by defeating 19, it would all go away?
Despite the BS spread so liberally in this forum, Prop 19 will begin to remedy some of this


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

Keenly2 said:


> so everything you just said pretty much has nothing to do with what I said...
> 
> is this how your trying to counter my argument? with a story of what you did and a "you dont know me" defense?
> 
> void


Im not countering anything man... Your gonna vote your way im gonna vote mine... That is the way it is... That is are argument right there... We have just been having a dialogue man... not an actual argument with repercussions like in court...


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> It is petty... but that is what it has come to... The rich (no matter what industry) just want more and more for themselves... I dont want that attitude or way of life to infect MJ... But that is another point... I also think you should be able to grow as much or posses as much as you want... this is another form of corporate slavery man... you know this... arent you sick of it yet???


You don't think people are getting rich off of the current system? People will get rich off of cannabis regardless of it it's legal or illegal. There is too much money in it for that not to happen. The only difference is it is different people getting rich. Who cares who it is getting rich if this helps bring an end to prohibition?

I don't understand why choosing which group of people will get is more important than trying to bring an end to prohibition. People get rich either way. Does it really matter who?


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 15, 2010)

lastly this is the current wording on the proposition. when you go to get a guide from city hall for the upcoming election this is what it says. theres no bias here only facts.

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/text-proposed-laws.pdf


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 15, 2010)

you speak too much and listen too little. why argue with a deaf wall? Nathen perhaps you should educate yourself farther than this website forum.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 15, 2010)

Teeaytchsee said:


> you speak too much and listen too little. why argue with a deaf wall? Nathen perhaps you should educate yourself farther than this website forum.


In his defense he seems like a pretty good guy, he's generally a great poster, and I believe he's speaking from from an honest place unlike many other anti-prop 19 people.

I just don't think he has a proper perspective on this issue. I could care less who ends up getting rich. If a few millionaires are made by ending prohibition, that's fine by me.


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 15, 2010)

thank you for the rep. much appreciated. good smoking all. rest assured many are being educated as the debate rolls on. currently proponents hold the majority. hurray...for now.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> YOU agree that it IS petty! So stop right there. "but that is what it has come to", is YOUR take.
> 
> The money, the "attitude", etc has *already *"infected" MJ, and has done so ever since the "illegality" of cannabis began over 70 years ago. Do you believe that by defeating 19, it would all go away?
> Despite the BS spread so liberally in this forum, Prop 19 will begin to remedy some of this


Not the Prop 19, the way greed is rewarded BB, try to follow along please...


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 15, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> In his defense he seems like a pretty good guy, he's generally a great poster, and I believe he's speaking from from an honest place unlike many other anti-prop 19 people.
> 
> I just don't think he has a proper perspective on this issue. I could care less who ends up getting rich. If a few millionaires are made by ending prohibition, that's fine by me.


dont get me wrong i do not think he is a bad guy. just decidedly ignorant and arguing points that make little sense and only seem to effect him and his small community of "free everything or die trying" friends. im simply frustrated that so many are so opinionated, but wont hear both sides of the argument.

hell ive laid it all out flat for him to read right here without searching (minus the voters guide pdf) and he hasnt bothered to read it. im sure he will pick something out of it that out of context wont sound right and rave how its "wrongwrongwong!". 

:sigh: such is life


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 15, 2010)

Teeaytchsee said:


> dont get me wrong i do not think he is a bad guy. just decidedly ignorant and arguing points that make little sense and only seem to effect him and his small community of "free everything or die trying" friends.


Yeah, I agree. The all or nothing mentality does more harm than good. Incremental change is often the most effective kind. Rome wasn't built in a day...


----------



## stingmenot (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Thanks man... i dont need much, just what I have now... I dont need govt' and corporations in my MJ now, I want the laws to be written so that the people that make there living of growing can continue that and not get pushed out by some money hungry guy (R Lee)... its thas simple... support your local farmers people...


You're welcome. I have supported you all for many years, but you have always charged me too much, because you could. i once traded a five pound bucket of honey to a friend grower for a half ounce ( of excellent weed). I have a fresh card now and don't need you all anymore. I wonder how many are out there like me, and will vote for this just to be done with sellers.



.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

Teeaytchsee said:


> dont get me wrong i do not think he is a bad guy. just decidedly ignorant and arguing points that make little sense and only seem to effect him and his small community of "free everything or die trying" friends. im simply frustrated that so many are so opinionated, but wont hear both sides of the argument.
> 
> hell ive laid it all out flat for him to read right here without searching (minus the voters guide pdf) and he hasnt bothered to read it. im sure he will pick something out of it that out of context wont sound right and rave how its "wrongwrongwong!".
> 
> :sigh: such is life


Good discussion guys... I dont have anything against any of you guys... It is what it is.... There is one great thing we can agree on, it is very nice to be able to express our thoughts the way we want and have it done in a respectable manner... Take care fellas...


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Good discussion guys... I dont have anything against any of you guys... It is what it is.... There is one great thing we can agree on, it is very nice to be able to express our thoughts the way we want and have it done in a respectable manner... Take care fellas...


agreed. take care nathen. no offense intended, but i do hope you are proven wrong and it proves to benefit us all.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

Teeaytchsee said:


> agreed. take care nathen. no offense intended, but i do hope you are proven wrong and it proves to benefit us all.


I hope so as well brudda...


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Good discussion guys... I dont have anything against any of you guys... It is what it is.... There is one great thing we can agree on, it is very nice to be able to express our thoughts the way we want and have it done in a respectable manner... Take care fellas...


definitely. well said

peace


----------



## Keenly2 (Sep 15, 2010)

it would be a lot less bitter if we were all in the same room smoking a blunt

something i have always wanted to do, smoke with some RUIers


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> I can tell your over the age of 60 man... stand offish and resentfull.. Congrats Man your comparison of those two people was arbitrarry, it makes no sense... There are plenty of lawyers that think this law sucks, you should compare lawyer statments to lawyer statements... That is what we call relativity...


Oh damn....You nailed me! 71 to be exact!
However......"STAND OFFISH"?.....LOL, I would think that my passion for this cause would demonstrate quite the opposite, I go after BS and lies with gusto! Nope, no "stand offishness" here. 
And resentful? GUILTY!........I resent clowns with personal/undisclosed agenda trying to ruin something that an awful lot of good folks have been waiting for. 
YOUR convoluted logic that it's NOT fair to compare two "declared spokespeople" on opposite sides of this issue, is pretty specious.
MS Dragonfly PUT HERSELF out there, ignorantly spewing crap, without any basis in fact, (kind of like some players in HERE!).
HER lack of any real credentials or credibility isn't MY problem, It's hers and YOURS!
It's a perfectly fair comparison, BOTH have taken VERY public stands on this issue. It's NOT my fault you've got the know-nothing lightweight and my guy has the history and credentials to speak the truth.
Let's try this: I am going to be posting names and links to supporters of 19, YOU post those that are against.
I'm thinking the two lists, side by side, might open a few eyes and minds. 
Are YOU up for that Nate?


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

Im done with it old timer... One thing Ive learned from my uncle and my dad... Its pointless to try and change an old mans mind... You have a better luck getting into fort knox... Tell you what.... Just keep rambling on and on and we will act like what you say means something or is relevant... That should help man... You have been rather rude through out alot of your posts so in reality, i dont care for your opinion, the way you deliver it and just your general perspective on how to treat people... Good luck with the Prop thing man, it seems like its all you got fella...


----------



## stingmenot (Sep 15, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> Oh damn....You nailed me! 71 to be exact!
> However......"STAND OFFISH"?.....LOL, I would think that my passion for this cause would demonstrate quite the opposite, I go after BS and lies with gusto! Nope, no "stand offishness" here.
> And resentful? GUILTY!........I resent clowns with personal/undisclosed agenda trying to ruin something that an awful lot of good folks have been waiting for.
> YOUR convoluted logic that it's NOT fair to compare two "declared spokespeople" on opposite sides of this issue, is pretty specious.
> ...


Burger Boss i agree with your yes vote but keenly2 in the post above yours and nathenkings post below yours have the right attitude for this community of people we belong to. I have no doubt we would share a good time together given the chance. These no on 19 people are just trying to protect the what they have. I've posted my worries about the long term result of a no on marijuana mandate but the next day result of a no would be good for thousands of growers. The next day result for passage would be good for hundred of thousand maybe millions of marijuana users here in california. If that happens i think growers of quality pot, like nathanking probably is and like many others posting here likely are, they will be fine. If it passes, cultivate your market. Quality always gets the best price.
'


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

Voters in Rancho Cordova will decide in November whether to tax residents who grow their own pot.The city measure, put on the Nov. 2 ballot by the City Council this week, would impose taxes on all local residential cultivation if California voters approve Proposition 19 to legalize recreational use.But the citys proposed Personal Cannabis Cultivation Tax also makes no distinction between medical and recreational cultivation, Peter Hecht writes in Weed Wars. So the tax would kick in for anyone currently cultivating for personal medical use  whether Prop. 19 passes or notIf passed by local voters, the taxation measure in the Sacramento County city would make at-home cultivation a much more expensive endeavor. The Rancho Cordova measure would impose a $600 annual tax per square foot of indoor cultivation of 25 square feet of marijuana or less and a $900 per square foot tax if the indoor growing area is more than 25 square feet.The city tax would cost a local indoor grower $6,000 a year on 10 square feet of pot plants and $15,000 for 25 square feet. Outdoor growers, who would be billed at a lower rate, would pay a $1,200 residential tax for 25 square feet of marijuana plants.If Proposition 19 passes, it would allow California adults over 21 to cultivate in a 25-square foot residential space. Medical growers often exceed those limits by cultivating with other potpatients. http://calpotnews.com/government/bal...ordovaballot/ these taxes brought to you buy prop19 and this is for everyone even prop215 people.this is why prop19 sucks there no limitations on the goverment capabilicies of every resteriction on the average joe.who the fuck want to get taxed to grow mj even if your not selling it. its bswe the people of ca. can only legalize mj once, then thats it.and prop 19 is the wores peace of legislative cap ive ever seen in my life.are people that desperate to smoke mj with government opproval.give me a fucking brake and get a life and build some fucking standers for fucks sake.</p>


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 15, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Im done with it old timer... One thing Ive learned from my uncle and my dad... Its pointless to try and change an old mans mind... You have a better luck getting into fort knox... Tell you what.... Just keep rambling on and on and we will act like what you say means something or is relevant... That should help man... You have been rather rude through out alot of your posts so in reality, i dont care for your opinion, the way you deliver it and just your general perspective on how to treat people... Good luck with the Prop thing man, it seems like its all you got fella...


Well.....with belittlement, condescending attitude, and a pathetic attack on my age; you will now withdraw?
OK, that's cool. One less clown to answer, and that works for me. 
Yes, for sure I can be "one rude ol' MoFu", when presented with unbendable ignorance and/or perceived ingenuousness.
I wish I had the ability to be cool and collected like Dan, and some of the other good folks who have posted here, but alas,
the reality is I'm a "front line person who takes no prisoners". And until my "acid tongue" gets me disappeared out of here, we all live with it.
So, with that said, and prop 19 not withstanding, I sincerely wish: Good luck & good grow to ALL.......BB

BTW: NEEDY?....still waiting for "how 19 destroys 215"........you opened that can of worms, please deal with it, ty....BB


----------



## Weedoozie (Sep 15, 2010)

Can't we just talk about the facts and our interpretations of the unclear parts of the proposition without getting so emotional?

There is absolutely no need to name-call any one, it will not help your argument.


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 15, 2010)

Weedoozie said:


> Can't we just talk about the facts and our interpretations of the unclear parts of the proposition without getting so emotional?
> 
> There is absolutely no need to name-call any one, it will not help your argument.


Very well put! I've just taken my meds and am in reasonably civil mode right now,.....let's chat!........BB


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

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.

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.

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.


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 15, 2010)

underplay said:


> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.


LOL, Hi there Underplay, good post, very hard to miss the point, in spite of the "overplay", (pun intended), three times _could_ be the charm! Good luck & good grow.......BB


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

besides the name, were els in the props literature dose it say legal or legalization.It doesnt..all it take about is taxes and regulations.Becuase thats all it does. This bill was not made to leaglize mj the only reason it in the title is to get people exited.this bill is designed to sipmly charge people outrageous taxes to smoke and grow weed. WHY DO WE NEED GOVERNMET APPROVAL


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> besides the name, were els in the props literature dose it say legal or legalization.It doesnt..all it take about is taxes and regulations.Becuase thats all it does. This bill was not made to leaglize mj the only reason it in the title is to get people exited.this bill is designed to sipmly charge people outrageous taxes to smoke and grow weed. WHY DO WE NEED GOVERNMET APPROVAL





BL0TT0 said:


> Taken from wiki
> 
> According to the State of California analysis, the bill will have the following effects.[6]
> *[edit] Legalization of personal marijuana-related activities*
> ...


Thats called legalization.

Nowhere in the bill does it state you have to pay taxes to grow or smoke your own, thats only if you want to sell it.


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 15, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> besides the name, were els in the props literature dose it say legal or legalization.It doesnt..all it take about is taxes and regulations.Becuase thats all it does. This bill was not made to leaglize mj the only reason it in the title is to get people exited.this bill is designed to sipmly charge people outrageous taxes to smoke and grow weed. WHY DO WE NEED GOVERNMET APPROVAL


That would be because the "word" legal or legalization isn't in the prop. I'm obviously not a lawyer, but I believe it is the "regulations" of the thing that makes it "legal" or "illegal". I've never seen a law that "pronounced" something to be "legal". If the "regulations" in a prop state you MAY do something, then it's legal, however, if the "regulations" say you MAY NOT do something, then it's "illegal".
LOL, as I saw in another thread: "It's NOT rocket surgery".........BB


----------



## nathenking (Sep 15, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> besides the name, were els in the props literature dose it say legal or legalization.It doesnt..all it take about is taxes and regulations.Becuase thats all it does. This bill was not made to leaglize mj the only reason it in the title is to get people exited.this bill is designed to sipmly charge people outrageous taxes to smoke and grow weed. WHY DO WE NEED GOVERNMET APPROVAL


Very good point... It is all about the Tax and Control, they figure, since we cant control it, lets get these guys to bite on some ill written bill and make money... thats all this is... 
THey cant control it guys... Its everywhere in CA, its the weed capital of USA... They havent been able to control it, so if they cant beat they join them... But for what cost...


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

>
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.[/QUOTE]....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................to make things clear: prop. 19 alows for the taxation of growing mj.so if you grow weed for personal or medicinal reasons you will be taxed even if you dont sell it.and yes this includes prop215 paitent.so in other words prop215 people will still be able to grow there on weed to medicate but they will have to pay a very hefty tax.BUT IT COMPLETELY TAX FREE NOW!!!!


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

Thats completely incorrect, no where does it say you have to pay taxes for your own consumption. Only if you want to sell and commercialize. Your spreading dis info


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 15, 2010)

underplay said:


> Thats completely incorrect, no where does it say you have to pay taxes for your own consumption. Only if you want to sell and commercialize. Your spreading dis info


forget about it under, he hasn't even figured out MY post #475 above............BB


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

It leaves it to local government and does not protect people who grow for personal or medical use against taxation............................................................................................................................................. THIS IS CALIFORNIAS MODEL CITY ON THE SUBJECT.......................................The Rancho Cordova measure would impose a $600 annual tax per square foot of indoor cultivation of 25 square feet of marijuana or less and a $900 per square foot tax if the indoor growing area is more than 25 square feet.The city tax would cost a local indoor grower $6,000 a year on 10 square feet of pot plants and $15,000 for 25 square feet. Outdoor growers, who would be billed at a lower rate, would pay a $1,200 residential tax for 25 square feet of marijuana plants.If Proposition 19 passes, it would allow California adults over 21 to cultivate in a 25-square foot residential space. Medical growers often exceed those limits by cultivating with other potpatients. ...........................................................................................................................................................................these taxes brought to you buy prop19 and this is for everyone even prop215 people.this is why prop19 sucks there no limitations on the goverment capabilicies of every resteriction on the average joe.who the fuck want to get taxed to grow mj even if your not selling it. its bswe the people of ca. can only legalize mj once, then thats it.and prop 19 is the wores peace of legislative cap ive ever seen in my life.are people that desperate to smoke mj with government opproval.give me a fucking brake and get a life and build some fucking standers for fucks sake http://calpotnews.com/government/bal...ordovaballot/</p>


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

Sounds like your going to lose alot of money once prop 19 is passed Needofweed. Better start preparing your business and lowering your prices before competition beats you to it.

How about, $5/gram, or......$1/gram once the taxes are lowered below $50 an ounce.


----------



## Weedoozie (Sep 15, 2010)

underplay said:


> $1/gram


that'll be the day...


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

Weedoozie said:


> that'll be the day...


If prop 19 passes, i can GUARANTEE you within 2 years it will be down to atleast $5/gram. Medical grade.


----------



## Weedoozie (Sep 15, 2010)

underplay said:


> If prop 19 passes, i can GUARANTEE you within 2 years it will be down that low. Medical grade.


For real? What about the inevitable male pollen in the air as a result of all the new growers?


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

Well, the way i see it, the people growing outdoors are going to lose out. Once it passes people will be going for the best quality, the outdoor growers are gonna have crappy quality compared to the businesses in large warehouses.

So the pollination theory wont effect quality only more plants growing outside.

$10 a gram is an extremely high price, we only pay that much because its illegal. That price is going to skyrocket DOWN.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 15, 2010)

wtf are you trying to say i dont sell weedbut i do have a 215 card ill be damed if ill pay taxes if im not makeing any mony on it wtf are disabled people that grow there own (CAUSE IT THE DAMN CHEAPEST WAY) under 215 but cant work going to do.it will never be that cheap and if is it will be crap you just buying in to the hype about cheap weed( ITS A LIE,THEY WANT MONEY)


----------



## underplay (Sep 15, 2010)

Ok, let me take that back, Needofweed has a small point. $1 is unpractical until the taxes get lowered below $50. But $5 a gram isnt over exaggerating in 2 years.

Once the taxes are lowered the price will drop from $5 to whatever, in proportion to the taxes.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 15, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> besides the name, were els in the props literature dose it say legal or legalization.It doesnt../QUOTE]
> 
> I don't care if prop 19 is called the unicorns and fascism law. Names of ballot measures usually have little to do with the practical application of the law.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 15, 2010)

underplay said:


> Well, the way i see it, the people growing outdoors are going to lose out. Once it passes people will be going for the best quality, the outdoor growers are gonna have crappy quality compared to the businesses in large warehouses.


More specifically, the rich NorCal massive scale outdoor growers. They will by far be the biggest losers of prop 19. But yeah, all outdoor will be harder to get rid of.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 16, 2010)

say you got about 5.5 million people in cali that smoke weed...OKnow say each person smoke 2 grams a day.OK2x5.5million=11 million grams adayOKnow 11million X one year (365)=4.015 billion grams a year.OKnow divided that buy one kilo(1000 grams)..4.015 billion\1000=4,015,000 kilos a yearOKbut right now a huge percent of someker are prop215 paitent wich grow and smoke there own weed for cheap.but if 19 passes it will be cheaper for them to buy it due to outrages taxes on non profit growers and that floods the market with huge demand wich will raise prices to posibly never befor seen prices.this leaves a huge market for illegal sellers and yes even cartells wich will still grow illegal taxe free cheap weed.it will take an huge amount of square feet,electricity,wate,nutriens,and man power to provide for this demand and weed prices will drop maybe 20-60 dollors an oz. at the most.


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 16, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> say you got about 5.5 million people in cali that smoke weed...OKnow say each person smoke 2 grams a day.OK2x5.5million=11 million grams adayOKnow 11million X one year (365)=4.015 billion grams a year.OKnow divided that buy one kilo(1000 grams)..4.015 billion\1000=4,015,000 kilos a yearOKbut right now a huge percent of someker are prop215 paitent wich grow and smoke there own weed for cheap.but if 19 passes it will be cheaper for them to buy it due to outrages taxes on non profit growers and that floods the market with huge demand wich will raise prices to posibly never befor seen prices.this leaves a huge market for illegal sellers and yes even cartells wich will still grow illegal taxe free cheap weed.it will take an huge amount of square feet,electricity,wate,nutriens,and man power to provide for this demand and weed prices will drop maybe 20-60 dollors an oz. at the most.


delusional. your "theories" have already been debunked. read farther back in this thread and a few others. following along at cannabisnews.com and NORML's website. learn the facts and read the measure. your initial complaint that preceded this nonsense was about a city ordinance which is in not controlled by prop 19. if you dont like that then speak to your city council or get out there and tell your neighbors how absurd that taxation is. prop 19 does in fact NOT state any mandatory taxation on personal propagation.

as far as prices go its all speculation, but simple market research will show there will be a a wide ranging flux in prices before settling. prices will likely settle at a much lower price (even taxed) than it is now simple because of the legality. store owners will compete and you have every right to say "your prices are too high im going to buy somewhere else". 

these naysayers are getting ridiculous. for fucks sake get off your mildly retarded high horse and go read for a change.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 16, 2010)

your right it does not state any mandatory taxation on personal propagationbut it does not protect against it either it leaves it open to the local government.all bullshit aside my main argument is that this bill is poorly writen and leaves to much up for debate and imagination.I think this forum is proof of that. I would rather kill this prop and wait to see if the ones that come after it will be better.And there will be more in 2012 election and i would rather wait. because once its passed it passed for good so my trying to get something better than this poor poor propbecause yes i got some staders. this prop will effect every one forever.!


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 16, 2010)

again incorrect. read the voter's guide here: http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf...posed-laws.pdf. 

if it is still unclear to you then read the translation previously posted by Peron's lawyer for simple explanation.

your short-sighted idea to kill the prop and wait for better is simply foolish and hurtful to the rest of the cannabis community (also previously stated). im tired of hearing unfounded nonsense from people too lazy or prideful to read. your fears based on nothing should not halt progression.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 16, 2010)

Teeaytchsee said:


> again incorrect. read the voter's guide here: http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf...posed-laws.pdf.
> 
> if it is still unclear to you then read the translation previously posted by Peron's lawyer for simple explanation.
> 
> your short-sighted idea to kill the prop and wait for better is simply foolish and hurtful to the rest of the cannabis community (also previously stated). im tired of hearing unfounded nonsense from people too lazy or prideful to read. your fears based on nothing should not halt progression.


Well, where we are coming from we think you have short-sighted ideas with long term consequences brudda... Its a difference of opinion... To each his own...


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 16, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> your right it does not state any mandatory taxation on personal propagation


You know what else it doesn't state? Any mandatory taxation of cannabis of any kind. Prop 19 does not tax cannabis.


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 16, 2010)

Since words fail to get through to you good folks, let's try _pictures & sound:_

Perhaps start here:> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM2zIJlFD0Y&feature=related

Some Police Chiefs:> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Src8o_3z3GA&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Here's the NAACP:> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IarU6Ub3YM&feature=related

LOL, I can't STAND
this bitch, but here's
Sarah Palen:> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k4zTAe7TGw

So check 'em out guys, you may be surprised!..........BB


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 16, 2010)

Well the response is sure nuff' "underwhelming", LOL. But what the heck, here's a few MORE!:

Ann Coulter with Cheech & Chong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRXR_pk_MVA&p=9A8A972296847948&playnext=1&index=1

Here's an MD's opinion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LkCcmd5it4&feature=related

"Sum of Change" has a point 
of view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEvQPyqWIPQ

And finally, the "anti" point
of view, (great arguments here!): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIbUf13GStQ&feature=related

That should keep you busy for a while........BB


----------



## nathenking (Sep 16, 2010)

Wow BB, you sure can regurgitate other peoples opinions like a champ...


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 16, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Wow BB, you sure can regurgitate other peoples opinions like a champ...


So sorry for your take, I realize you can't help it Nate, that's OK. Gee, "regurgitating" the opinions of Dr.'s, Police Chief's, the Conservatives, National organizations, Well Known commentators, and Labor Unions was a pretty lame thing for me to try!
So, from now on I'll just make up shit as I go along. That seems the be the "tried & true" method of the Naysayers anyway.
Good luck & good grow, and *SEE YA AT THE POLLS!*.......BB


----------



## nathenking (Sep 16, 2010)

Its still regurgitation my man... Heres a link for this, heres a link for that... oh and a link for this... WOW!!!! Great Job!!! You still dont get the fact that people are gonna feel the way they feel and are gonna vote the way they vote.... Im not trying to change anybodies minds on this thread... Are you??


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Sep 16, 2010)

Of course they are. Regardless of what the polls say or don't say, the fact is that ANY cannabis-related legislation will typically require almost near solidarity among medical and recreational smokers and well as a healthy dose of support from the non-smoking public to achieve the majority a voter initiative needs to pass.

And to all those who keep calling medical cannabis a scam, fraud or whatever, the fact is that Prop 215 is purposely ambiguous in it's applicability. Medical cannabis is for *anyone* that derives *any* benefit to life and/or quality of life from cannabis use. This was an important part of the discussions that went into the drafting of Prop. 215.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 16, 2010)

http://www.420magazine.com/forums/ca...-in-California
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/07...-in-California
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/m...prop-19-polls/


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

what i dont understand is, why anyone 18-20 years of age that can legaly grow smoke and posses mj under prop215 would vote for prop19 wich state very clearly that you must be 21 or older.
and people say 19 does not effect 215 .... bullshit


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

prop19 is a peace of crap prop.
i smoke grow and buy legaly right now tax free.
in other words heres prop19 in a nutshell........government says give me as much money as i want and ill let you smoke grow and buy restricted amount of weed , and people say ok heres my wallet


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 17, 2010)

underplay said:


> If prop 19 passes, i can GUARANTEE you within 2 years it will be down to atleast $5/gram. Medical grade.



+ tax.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 17, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> Of course they are. Regardless of what the polls say or don't say, the fact is that ANY cannabis-related legislation will typically require almost near solidarity among medical and recreational smokers and well as a healthy dose of support from the non-smoking public to achieve the majority a voter initiative needs to pass.


And we have that. Almost all polling data says we've got the votes. There is near solidarity amongst smokers in Cali. Log on to facebook and you'll see 173k people subscribed to the yes on 19 page. Look on the stoners against prop 19 page. 476 people. We have the support. The opposition to prop 19 in the cannabis community is a very tiny but very vocal minority.



> And to all those who keep calling medical cannabis a scam, fraud or whatever, the fact is that Prop 215 is purposely ambiguous in it's applicability. Medical cannabis is for *anyone* that derives *any* benefit to life and/or quality of life from cannabis use. This was an important part of the discussions that went into the drafting of Prop. 215.


Prop 215 is fantastic. I don't think many people disagree with that. It's the idea that only prop 215 patients are the ones who deserve legal protection makes me sick.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

*Rancho Cordova* is asking voters to make the city the first in California to approve a *tax* on home-grown pot for personal use.
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/29/2990210/rancho-cordova-asking-voters-to.html



brought to you buy prop 19
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/29/2990210/rancho-cordova-asking-voters-to.html


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

A look at Oakland's *marijuana* price, *tax*, sales, and production *...*

http://palmspringsbum.org/blog/2010/08/a-look-at-oaklands-marijuana-price-tax-sales-and-production/comment-page-1/


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 17, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Well, where we are coming from we think you have short-sighted ideas with long term consequences brudda... Its a difference of opinion... To each his own...


its more than a difference of opinion when factual information is displayed and ignored on one side and not one of you opponents have given any legitimate sources. you are kidding yourself if you think your random fear based on hearsay is a worthwhile argument. give us something to go off. give us the information like we present to you and read the damn info that is presented before stating an argument against it. you can THINK whatever you want, don't state it as fact without something...ANYTHING... backing it up.


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 17, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Its still regurgitation my man... Heres a link for this, heres a link for that... oh and a link for this... WOW!!!! Great Job!!! You still dont get the fact that people are gonna feel the way they feel and are gonna vote the way they vote.... Im not trying to change anybodies minds on this thread... Are you??


hence the purpose of a debate...

this is getting tiresome. you don't listen, assume everything we present is "opinion" no matter the source, and carry on with your same tired ignorant rant. i didn't dislike you, but im starting to. euthanize the stupid, let freedom reign on those that can yank their heads out of their asses long enough to get educated.


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 17, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> what i dont understand is, why anyone 18-20 years of age that can legaly grow smoke and posses mj under prop215 would vote for prop19 wich state very clearly that you must be 21 or older.
> and people say 19 does not effect 215 .... bullshit


you dont understand it because you failed to read. IF THEY NOW HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO SMOKE, NO MATTER THEIR AGE, UNDER 215 THAT WILL NOT BE TAKEN AWAY OR CHANGED IN ANY WAY BY PROP 19. read dammit read!
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf...posed-laws.pdf


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 17, 2010)

to save our lazy naysayers some time...

.
.
.
7. Ensure, if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city&#8217;s limits remain illegal, but that the city&#8217;s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, *except as permitted under Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9 of the Health and Safety Code.*

8. Ensure, if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, *except as permitted under Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9 of the Health and Safety Code*.
.
.
.


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 17, 2010)

crying about taxation is childish and not worth an educated response. good luck to you.


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 17, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> *Rancho Cordova* is asking voters to make the city the first in California to approve a *tax* on home-grown pot for personal use.
> http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/29/2990210/rancho-cordova-asking-voters-to.html
> 
> 
> ...


And after reading the sacbee article, I see that the thrust of the proposed tax is toward *PERSONAL USE, NOT MEDICAL!*
If you are unable to separate personal, recreational use from medical use, don't worry, PROP 19 DOES!
LOL, and as if such an outrageously over the top tax could be imposed anyway!
Uhhh......keep trying Needy, it just gets funnier each time.
AND BTW: "prop 19 destroys 215 because of these words *in* the proposition:.............................................................".
Still waiting for that.....BB


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

look man im voting no. its not my fualt you hate the "drug dealers" that suppply you now bet you didnt hate them before prop19.sorry you would rather buy your weed at a gass station.
and if u got your 215 card and are paying 60 an eighth thats your choice.
i got my 215 card because i get headachs for $60.you dont need aids or be dying to get your card.
you just need the want to live a better, more comfortable life.
i grow my own weed and buy it inbeetween harvest of other growers for no more than $120 an once for top grade medical of course.

Oh yeah and i pay zero none 0 taxes not 1.8 not 0.8 not 0.1 nothing.


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 17, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> look man im voting no. its not my fualt you hate the "drug dealers" that suppply you now bet you didnt hate them before prop19.sorry you would rather buy your weed at a gass station.


If you think prop 19 allows for the sale of bud at gas stations then you clearly don't know what you're talking about. 

If you think we should vote to keep prohibition so we can protect the profits of drug dealers then you're either insanely selfish or just insane.

I've got no problem with drug dealers (assuming they aren't gangbangers or others who bring guns/violence into the weed business). But if you think people should vote against ending prohibition to help protect their profits you are either a very selfish dealer or there is a screw loose in your head. 



> and if u got your 215 card and are paying 60 an eighth thats your choice.
> i got my 215 card because i get headachs for $60.you dont need aids or be dying to get your card.
> you just need the want to live a better, more comfortable life.
> i grow my own weed and buy it inbeetween harvest of other growers for no more than $120 an once for top grade medical of course


What about all the casual smokers who don't smoke enough or don't have any ailments so they don't need a 215 card? Why are you more worthy then them of legal protection?


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

first off quit putting words in my mouth.
im not saying i want to "protect the profits of drug dealers" iall im saying is i bet he/she was your friend before prop19
now people that have been buying weed of these drug dealers are all for saying fuck off for all the years you supplied me with what i wanted.

Plus you dont need an "ailments" for 215 card, like l said i got mine for headaches not mirgrains just you average headache.
All you need is $60 and the want to live a better more comfortable life.
then you get all the benefits of prop 215. 

what we need is a prop that take the necessary dr. recommendation out of 215 then that would be great .


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 17, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> look man im voting no. its not my fualt you hate the "drug dealers" that suppply you now bet you didnt hate them before prop19.sorry you would rather buy your weed at a gass station.
> and if u got your 215 card and are paying 60 an eighth thats your choice.
> i got my 215 card because i get headachs for $60.you dont need aids or be dying to get your card.
> you just need the want to live a better, more comfortable life.
> ...


Well, that little rant was just amazing! 
I DON'T buy cannabis - I DON'T sell cannabis - I DON'T "_HATE" _anybody!
I point out that you were WRONG in your understanding of the sacbee article and you reply with another personal attack, and continue the rant with "gass" stations, 215 cards, $60 eighths, _YOUR _headaches, and most interestingly, your inability to grow enough smoke for yourself, to last season to season.
*AND *.........."Prop 19 desroys 215 because these words appear in the proposition:......................................................".

I am STILL WAITING!


----------



## Weedoozie (Sep 17, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> Plus you dont need an "ailments" for 215 card, like l said i got mine for headaches not mirgrains just you average headache.
> All you need is $60 and the want to live a better more comfortable life.
> then you get all the benefits of prop 215.
> 
> what we need is a prop that take the necessary dr. recommendation out of 215 then that would be great .


 This is not necessarily true. Those cards that are $60 are worrisome to me as I see those as being less legitimate than the state issued cards. A friend of mine in LA got a card for "headaches"--just headaches--at one of those $60 card giving places and was still busted by the LAPD after the fact and the cops were trying to prove that his card wasn't valid because it wasn't state issued. They cut it in half like it was a fake ID. He was so pissed he wanted to sue them but the lawyer he could afford said he didn't have a case and that he should just drop it while they're not pressing charges against him. That was a messed up situation. I, on the other hand, am safe with my state issued card 

Also, anyone with a card paying $60 for an 1/8 is being ripped off.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> And after reading the sacbee article, I see that the thrust of the proposed tax is toward *PERSONAL USE, NOT MEDICAL!*
> If you are unable to separate personal, recreational use from medical use, don't worry, PROP 19 DOES!
> LOL, and as if such an outrageously over the top tax could be imposed anyway!
> Uhhh......keep trying Needy, it just gets funnier each time.
> ...


what? did you skip this part?

The tax, which makes no distinction between medical and recreational cultivation, would cost a resident $15,000 a year if he or she cultivates pot in a 5-foot-by-5-foot growing space indoors​ 
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/29/2990210/rancho-cordova-asking-voters-to.html#ixzz0zpq1qJ8T​


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

this shit is happening it not funny


----------



## nathenking (Sep 17, 2010)

so they ripped up his card and werent pressing charges??? Sounds like a hassel...lol... And you guys need to VOTE YES because people are getting fake cards ripped up and not charges pressed... That says alot to me... why not wait until 2012 for a better prop??? People arent gettin fucked with now, so what is the big hurry? I could understand if you lived in wyoming or georgia or something were they would actually arrest you for that, but nobody is getting arrested, so why rush this bill thru????


----------



## Weedoozie (Sep 17, 2010)

nathenking said:


> so they ripped up his card and werent pressing charges??? Sounds like a hassel...lol... And you guys need to VOTE YES because people are getting fake cards ripped up and not charges pressed... That says alot to me... why not wait until 2012 for a better prop??? People arent gettin fucked with now, so what is the big hurry? I could understand if you lived in wyoming or georgia or something were they would actually arrest you for that, but nobody is getting arrested, so why rush this bill thru????


Well, this is also not necessarily true. The people who do not have medical cards are being put into prison or have already been put into prison on the 3 strikes law which includes getting busted on 3 separate accounts of possession or intent to sell. I think we can all agree that the current situation is not the best but this prop is also not ideal. Although it is the only prop we're going to see on the ballot for a while as it took 1.3 million dollars of Richard Lee's investment for his future business to get it there in the first place...

Personally, I would love to contribute $ to help get a better prop out there for 2012 but the chances are not high that everyone can cooperate and procure a better prop as well as get it on the ballot in that time. Unless there are some incredibly committed people out there...


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

my card is not state issued and it allows to posses 2 pounds of mj.
when i first got it me and a friend (has same card i do and recomended me the dr.) were driving to the coats and we were pulled over buy a CHP for tinted windows. I had about 2 1/2 oz. and my buddy had a little more than me.CHP seen our weed, seen our cards and gave me a fix-it ticket for my widows.


----------



## Weedoozie (Sep 17, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> my card is not state issued and it allows to posses 2 pounds of mj.
> when i first got it me and a friend (has same card i do and recomended me the dr.) were driving to the coats and we were pulled over buy a CHP for tinted windows. I had about 2 1/2 oz. and my buddy had a little more than me.CHP seen our weed, seen our cards and gave me a fix-it ticket for my widows.


You got lucky man, I guess the LAPD just suck more than the rest of the peace officers


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

and that same friend im mentioned was visited buy our county sheriff for his 20 plant grow in his back yard but they left cause it was legal with his card.

like i said what cali needs is a prop that just takes the necessary card or dr. recommendation out of prop215.


----------



## Needofweed (Sep 17, 2010)

prop19 is a peace of crap prop.
i smoke grow and buy legaly right now tax free.
in other words heres prop19 in a nutshell........government says give me as much money as i want and ill let you smoke grow and buy restricted amount of weed , and people say ok heres my wallet


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 17, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> look man im voting no. its not my fualt you hate the "drug dealers" that suppply you now bet you didnt hate them before prop19.sorry you would rather buy your weed at a gass station.
> and if u got your 215 card and are paying 60 an eighth thats your choice.
> i got my 215 card because i get headachs for $60.you dont need aids or be dying to get your card.
> you just need the want to live a better, more comfortable life.
> ...


this is an inherently moronic response...

"im voting no because im voting no. your logic and reason wont change me from voting no for no reason!"

...unbelievable...


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 17, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> what? did you skip this part?
> 
> The tax, which makes no distinction between medical and recreational cultivation, would cost a resident $15,000 a year if he or she cultivates pot in a 5-foot-by-5-foot growing space indoors​
> Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/29/2990210/rancho-cordova-asking-voters-to.html#ixzz0zpq1qJ8T​


you are STILL only referring to city ordinance that has nothing to do with prop 19. petition your city council, mayor, and neighbors for that issue. christ! i didnt think anyone could be so absurdly daft and void of intellect, you've proven that they in fact can. so ill say thank YOU sir for opening my eyes wider.


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 17, 2010)

nathenking said:


> so they ripped up his card and werent pressing charges??? Sounds like a hassel...lol... And you guys need to VOTE YES because people are getting fake cards ripped up and not charges pressed... That says alot to me... why not wait until 2012 for a better prop??? People arent gettin fucked with now, so what is the big hurry? I could understand if you lived in wyoming or georgia or something were they would actually arrest you for that, but nobody is getting arrested, so why rush this bill thru????


really? more proof you failed to read what was posted. such limited thoughts from such small minded people.


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 17, 2010)

Weedoozie said:


> Well, this is also not necessarily true. The people who do not have medical cards are being put into prison or have already been put into prison on the 3 strikes law which includes getting busted on 3 separate accounts of possession or intent to sell. I think we can all agree that the current situation is not the best but this prop is also not ideal. Although it is the only prop we're going to see on the ballot for a while as it took 1.3 million dollars of Richard Lee's investment for his future business to get it there in the first place...
> 
> Personally, I would love to contribute $ to help get a better prop out there for 2012 but the chances are not high that everyone can cooperate and procure a better prop as well as get it on the ballot in that time. Unless there are some incredibly committed people out there...


well said. try to keep that composure, i know mine is slipping pretty quickly with these people walking through life with blinders on oblivious to realities even when presented right in front of them. irritating...

p.s. im unsure how to do the multi-quote thing so sorry for multiple posts


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 17, 2010)

Needofweed said:


> prop19 is a peace of crap prop.
> i smoke grow and buy legaly right now tax free.
> in other words heres prop19 in a nutshell........government says give me as much money as i want and ill let you smoke grow and buy restricted amount of weed , and people say ok heres my wallet


you are only fooling yourself.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 17, 2010)

Teeaytchsee said:


> you are only fooling yourself.


Not really... He is intouch with the line he has drawn for him self... I respect that... Its kinda like a personal code thing bro... You either have one or you dont...


----------



## Dan Kone (Sep 18, 2010)

> Needofweed said:
> 
> 
> > first off quit putting words in my mouth.
> ...


----------



## GaZtehgrower (Sep 18, 2010)

Ah I read the title of this thread and I was like... "Are you crazy?!" After reading further I was surprised how proposition 19 cheats people into thinking it will be good and everything will end in a happy ending. Well no I thought it was too good to be true and yes it was too good to be true, the rich get richer and the poor stay that way. The government will not follow the humanitarian road.. They will make it worse. Vote NO! (Unless in the future walking down the street will be breaking the law) It is truly ridiculous how it came to this... Truly vexed


----------



## nathenking (Sep 18, 2010)

GaZtehgrower said:


> Ah I read the title of this thread and I was like... "Are you crazy?!" After reading further I was surprised how proposition 19 cheats people into thinking it will be good and everything will end in a happy ending. Well no I thought it was too good to be true and yes it was too good to be true, the rich get richer and the poor stay that way. The government will not follow the humanitarian road.. They will make it worse. Vote NO! (Unless in the future walking down the street will be breaking the law) It is truly ridiculous how it came to this... Truly vexed


Exactly.... THEY WILL MAKE IT WORSE... Its that simple... Anything the gov't touches turns into shit... This prop 19 wont be any different people...


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 18, 2010)

GaZtehgrower said:


> Ah I read the title of this thread and I was like... "Are you crazy?!" After reading further I was surprised how proposition 19 cheats people into thinking it will be good and everything will end in a happy ending. Well no I thought it was too good to be true and yes it was too good to be true, the rich get richer and the poor stay that way. The government will not follow the humanitarian road.. They will make it worse. Vote NO! (Unless in the future walking down the street will be breaking the law) It is truly ridiculous how it came to this... Truly vexed


sure... sure...

and WHAT if ANYTHING brought you to that? people are going to fucking make money any possible way they can even if it is at the expense of others. what species of retarded monkey do you have to be to halt progression and stand in the way of a step towards ending prohibition simply because some cops that are assholes won t change immediately and people stand to make some money? norly it CANT be the weed thats melted your brain. im curious... when exactly did what you THINK become the guideline we all should live by? hmm? srsly? head... in... ass...


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 18, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Exactly.... THEY WILL MAKE IT WORSE... Its that simple... Anything the gov't touches turns into shit... This prop 19 wont be any different people...


paranoia paranoia everybody's coming to get you! :knock knock: thats the cope man! hide! DAMN THE MAN BRAH!


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 18, 2010)

when i realized you werent listening to rational thought is when i lost all respect for you. you are a base moron and (though it may be unintentional) you are working to perpetuate a highly flawed system and by your ignorance attempting to ruin our first REAL chance towards legalization. something that, believe it or not, will have an effect nationwide as well as through canada, mexica, germany, switzerland, etc. that are all closely watching us and several of them are taking cues from us.

until you can come up with real evidence to support your claims kindly shut your fucking pie hole. ty

hell at least needy tried by citing proposed city ordinance. sure its not a good argument since it has nothing to do directly with the topic at hand, but its one that we can actually discuss.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 18, 2010)

what's with all the insults?


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 18, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> what's with all the insults?


if the arguments are going to be based on nothing than why should the opposed side be the only ones mud-slinging? they refuse to listen to thought out and supported information and instead vomit up the same base-less arguments over and over. so yes im done with the nice nice. if you want to have an adult conversation im all for it, but if nothing gets through its equivalent to throwing sand on a playground. so ill throw it back till we can get back to the point.

like them im expressing how i "feel" and what i "think" and it has nothing to do with the argument. you of all people should realize im more than willing to bite back.

i want to continue this debate in a mature and civil fashion using knowledge and research to support claims, but when its ignored whats the point?

you are right though personal attacks need to stop (on both sides). the point is made, i think.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 18, 2010)

Teeaytchsee said:


> paranoia paranoia everybody's coming to get you! :knock knock: thats the cope man! hide! DAMN THE MAN BRAH!


Patriot Act man... That shit was wack.... If you trust the gov't you might be a red neck...lol 9-11, the war on terror, weapons of mass destruction... The recount in florida... I dont know what world you live in... These are just from the last 9 years brother...


----------



## nathenking (Sep 18, 2010)

Teeaytchsee said:


> when i realized you werent listening to rational thought is when i lost all respect for you. you are a base moron and (though it may be unintentional) you are working to perpetuate a highly flawed system and by your ignorance attempting to ruin our first REAL chance towards legalization. something that, believe it or not, will have an effect nationwide as well as through canada, mexica, germany, switzerland, etc. that are all closely watching us and several of them are taking cues from us.
> 
> until you can come up with real evidence to support your claims kindly shut your fucking pie hole. ty
> 
> hell at least needy tried by citing proposed city ordinance. sure its not a good argument since it has nothing to do directly with the topic at hand, but its one that we can actually discuss.


Sounds like your feathers are ruffled there bro... If it is such a great law and everybody is gonna vote YES, why are you taking it so personal??? There are way huger problems in this country that you should take personal... But you choose this one... Why??? How about Wall street??? the top 25 hedgefund investors all made a billion dollars last year... In 09', which was a really shitty year for business... Thats just one of a million things that is fucked in this country... How about putting some of your enthusiasm towards something like that as well as this bill??? DOnt be a CLONE man...


----------



## nathenking (Sep 18, 2010)

Teeaytchsee said:


> if the arguments are going to be based on nothing than why should the opposed side be the only ones mud-slinging? they refuse to listen to thought out and supported information and instead vomit up the same base-less arguments over and over. so yes im done with the nice nice. if you want to have an adult conversation im all for it, but if nothing gets through its equivalent to throwing sand on a playground. so ill throw it back till we can get back to the point.
> 
> like them im expressing how i "feel" and what i "think" and it has nothing to do with the argument. you of all people should realize im more than willing to bite back.
> 
> ...


All we have to go on is a shittily written bill man... Everything else is speculation... So dont get so upset brudda... puff one


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 18, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Patriot Act man... That shit was wack.... If you trust the gov't you might be a red neck...lol 9-11, the war on terror, weapons of mass destruction... The recount in florida... I dont know what world you live in... These are just from the last 9 years brother...


there's a large gap between trusting and paranoia. trading one extreme for another isnt a good idea. what i do trust is what ive researched. try it.


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 18, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Sounds like your feathers are ruffled there bro... If it is such a great law and everybody is gonna vote YES, why are you taking it so personal??? There are way huger problems in this country that you should take personal... But you choose this one... Why??? How about Wall street??? the top 25 hedgefund investors all made a billion dollars last year... In 09', which was a really shitty year for business... Thats just one of a million things that is fucked in this country... How about putting some of your enthusiasm towards something like that as well as this bill??? DOnt be a CLONE man...


"i attack you personally and dont understand why you take it personal"... think before speaking. and no i do not get mad at people with the ability to make money making money. they wouldnt be in business if they didnt. stop being an ignorant hippy and ill work on not being a clone.. lol @ clone

in my honest opinion the biggest problem in this country (as evidenced here) is poor education and a lack of initiative to learn. how much do you know about whats going on outside california? outside the usa? outside north america?


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 18, 2010)

nathenking said:


> All we have to go on is a shittily written bill man... Everything else is speculation... So dont get so upset brudda... puff one


no you have tons of evidence presented to you including multiple clarifications to the bill as well as a direct link to the voters guide itself with very clear wording. you choosing to ignore it doesnt mean its not there.


----------



## nathenking (Sep 18, 2010)

like I said... all the research in the world wont tell you the future bro... Ive read the bill, and Ive heard all the speculation from both sides.... Other than the bill, the rest is just what people think... Ive read the bill, I dont trust it... Im voting NO... That is my vote... Im entitled to it... There is a better way... That is what I believe... That is what alot of people believe... You would think for the FIRST time that we get a chance at legalizing everybody would be down for it... But there not... That just goes to show how crappy this bill is man... Otherwise I would vote for it, and all my friends and family would to... but it is not good, so we are not voting for it... Its that simple man...


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 18, 2010)

nathenking said:


> All we have to go on is a shittily written bill man... Everything else is speculation... So dont get so upset brudda... puff one


What we REALLY have is a "shittily" UNDERSTOOD bill "man".....I DON'T "speculate", I READ and comprehend! 
Maybe You try that, "bro/Brah/Brudda".


----------



## Teeaytchsee (Sep 18, 2010)

nathenking said:


> like I said... all the research in the world wont tell you the future bro... Ive read the bill, and Ive heard all the speculation from both sides.... Other than the bill, the rest is just what people think... Ive read the bill, I dont trust it... Im voting NO... That is my vote... Im entitled to it... There is a better way... That is what I believe... That is what alot of people believe... You would think for the FIRST time that we get a chance at legalizing everybody would be down for it... But there not... That just goes to show how crappy this bill is man... Otherwise I would vote for it, and all my friends and family would to... but it is not good, so we are not voting for it... Its that simple man...


thats where you are wrong. research shows trends and commonalities which themselves in fact DO give a basis for prediction. yes you are entitled to whatever vote you like, but what makes you think you have the right to dissuade others or even speak in an argument without getting educated on the subject first? there sure as hell IS a better way and not one person has argued against that. this however is the way we have RIGHT NOW and it is a much needed first step towards national normalcy, changing social stigma, and eventually removing prohibition. it really is that simple if you take the time to research.


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 18, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> what's with all the insults?


Yeah Fiddy......This "beligerent", "asshole" was wondering the same thing!.............BB


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 18, 2010)

Burger Boss said:


> Yeah Fiddy......This "beligerent", "asshole" was wondering the same thing!.............BB


just can't let anything go, can you? i think it was a reply to your insult and it was meant as sarcasm. i'm aware of the difference. it's why i'm the mod.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 18, 2010)

now i remember. i called you an "asshole" because you mocked my medical condition. you are what you are. which is belligerent. as your continued name calling proves. 

it's faded, not fiddy. anything else is simply a show of your ignorance. 

good day, sir. 


maybe if i put ....... "FDD" here i'll be cool.


----------



## Burger Boss (Sep 18, 2010)

OK Maude, from now on All of MY "perceived insults", will in reality be, "Sarcasm".
Thanks for setting me straight....BB


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 18, 2010)

thread closed due to insults.


----------

