https://www.rollitup.org/california-patients/370795-im-voting-yes.html
i think i should of posted it originally here instead of in the CA section.
i think i should of posted it originally here instead of in the CA section.
Yes On 19 Here's Why!
- Thread starter vradd
- Start date
- Status
veggiegardener
Well-Known Member
Vote NO on Prop 19.
It is bad for everybody.
It is bad for everybody.
veggiegardener
Well-Known Member
You need to read. I've explained the flaws in detail in several threads.
If you really give a shit, look them up.
If not, there's nothing I can do.
Go ahead and jump off that bridge.(Voting "yes" on 19 is a self destructive act for anyone who likes smoking pot.)
If you really give a shit, look them up.
If not, there's nothing I can do.
Go ahead and jump off that bridge.(Voting "yes" on 19 is a self destructive act for anyone who likes smoking pot.)
veggiegardener
Well-Known Member
Precisely.
My wife is a huge consumer. Myself and two others only consume about half of what she does, together.
I currently am completely legal, with the blessings of our local law enforcement. They know where I live. They know how much I grow. They know where it goes. They've even talked to our doctors.
Prop 19 would suddenly reduce my grow by 92%.
Do the math.
Hidden behind all they other issues is the impact on co-ops like mine. This a push to force medical users to buy from clubs/pot stores/dispensaries.
An eighth a week isn't too bad.
My wife uses about three ounces a week.
Can you lend me $1000 a week to cover my shortage?
but the proposition doesnt state ANYTHING over medicinal usage. and u were called out on it in your thread. what does having blessings from leo's do? your legal as far as they are concerned your nothing to worry about. so saying that means nothing. and u want to talk math once again... how does your crop get reduced? it DOES NOT specifically say anything like that in the text. your just assuming it.
now heres my questions so if they are too personal u dont have to answer but it would clear a lot of things before i personally start assuming lol.
-if your wife consumes 3oz a week, by which method is she going through all of it? because if shes smoking it by open flame then wheres the health concerns of inhaling 3oz of plant material?
if shes using a vape then theirs no way shes going through that much, if she is i still find that hard to believe.
-if your growing such quality bud as you claim then why the need for her to have 3oz a week? if shes medicating enough to get the effects that shes required, then technically she should'nt need so many doses?
where are you getting the idea this is a push for getting medical users to buy from clubs?
as is with the system these clubs are taking advantage of patients with current costs. so whos really winning?
and lend you 1k a week to cover shortage? shortage to that weed your growing and possibly marketing? even if you lowballed your prices between those 3ppl a wee,k seems like a lot of weight being moved somewhere for you to get those figures.
i think your getting it wrong, or maybe i am. but this law seems to 'allow' a chance for weed to be legal with certain discrepancies. the state will ultimately leave it up to the county's to "regulate and tax" it. which how laws should be anyways. if you want to charge a rahrah over your rights, then vote yes and take the arguement to your local officials when they try to over tax it.
this measure is just the foot in the door, which is what we need to continue the movement. things can change they always do. hell how many times has being in gay been banned already?
now heres my questions so if they are too personal u dont have to answer but it would clear a lot of things before i personally start assuming lol.
-if your wife consumes 3oz a week, by which method is she going through all of it? because if shes smoking it by open flame then wheres the health concerns of inhaling 3oz of plant material?
if shes using a vape then theirs no way shes going through that much, if she is i still find that hard to believe.
-if your growing such quality bud as you claim then why the need for her to have 3oz a week? if shes medicating enough to get the effects that shes required, then technically she should'nt need so many doses?
where are you getting the idea this is a push for getting medical users to buy from clubs?
as is with the system these clubs are taking advantage of patients with current costs. so whos really winning?
and lend you 1k a week to cover shortage? shortage to that weed your growing and possibly marketing? even if you lowballed your prices between those 3ppl a wee,k seems like a lot of weight being moved somewhere for you to get those figures.
i think your getting it wrong, or maybe i am. but this law seems to 'allow' a chance for weed to be legal with certain discrepancies. the state will ultimately leave it up to the county's to "regulate and tax" it. which how laws should be anyways. if you want to charge a rahrah over your rights, then vote yes and take the arguement to your local officials when they try to over tax it.
this measure is just the foot in the door, which is what we need to continue the movement. things can change they always do. hell how many times has being in gay been banned already?
JoesphStalin
Member
vote
NO!!!!
NO!!!!
veggiegardener
Well-Known Member
Read the other threads.
I'm not going to repeat it all again.
My post regarding my motives says it all. I know what I'm talking about, believe it or not.
I also have a talent for spotting bull shit.
It amounts to following the money.
If you want to cast an informed vote, read everything you can.
If you don't have the time, vote no.
You'll be glad you did.
(The above three lines were written by a great author. R A Heinlein. The quote is rough, but carries his meaning.)
I'm not going to repeat it all again.
My post regarding my motives says it all. I know what I'm talking about, believe it or not.
I also have a talent for spotting bull shit.
It amounts to following the money.
If you want to cast an informed vote, read everything you can.
If you don't have the time, vote no.
You'll be glad you did.
(The above three lines were written by a great author. R A Heinlein. The quote is rough, but carries his meaning.)
tc1
Well-Known Member
When Prop 19 passes and people stop going to jail for marijuana ... when marijuana is everywhere and an abundant commodity ... when it costs a fraction of what it does today ... and when all the stigmas are lifted and people treat it the same as alcohol ...
don't sit here and pretend like you were collecting signatures and fighting for it to pass.
Remind yourself every time you light a joint while freely looking at the cops outside your window that you fought tooth and nail to prevent it from all happening.
Remember that you were an enemy of the legalization movement and a friend to prohibition.
Stop sending good hardworking people to jail simply because they choose marijuana over other recreational activities.
Vote YES on Prop 19!
don't sit here and pretend like you were collecting signatures and fighting for it to pass.
Remind yourself every time you light a joint while freely looking at the cops outside your window that you fought tooth and nail to prevent it from all happening.
Remember that you were an enemy of the legalization movement and a friend to prohibition.
Stop sending good hardworking people to jail simply because they choose marijuana over other recreational activities.
Vote YES on Prop 19!
well ive read your other posts and i still cant come to the conclusion how your giving 3oz of combustible vegetation a week and claiming that is a healthier alternative. 3oz for one person just seems like you'd be so heavily sedated it would defeat the purpose. mathematically i cant put a finger on it. thats like half an oz a day. holy cow! im not denying u know your stuff but when you say u dont want it legal so YOU can grow and you admit your wife alone is in the 3oz/week mark and you finish saying that if it becomes legal you'd like that thousand dollars cash to cover what you'd be losing....
it just all doesnt sound right ya know?
it just all doesnt sound right ya know?
veggiegardener
Well-Known Member
Based on experience, I don't believe there will be any reduction in arrests, just the charges(half a square foot too much in cultivation, or one roach over the legal household limit of one ounce. 28.35 grams).
veggiegardener
Well-Known Member
tc1
Well-Known Member
When Prop 19 passes you, your wife, and any other adult you know will be able to purchase marijuana at lower costs than ANY other medication. You'll still be able to grow your own as well.
Stop complaining and crying to everyone that they should keep throwing people in jail for marijuana just because it doesn't fit YOUR needs.
How selfish.
Stop complaining and crying to everyone that they should keep throwing people in jail for marijuana just because it doesn't fit YOUR needs.
How selfish.
veggiegardener
Well-Known Member
TokinPodPilot
Well-Known Member
True. Now, counterpoint... when have you ever known law enforcement or government agencies to correctly interpret law. And it's the way that they've tended to exert that interpretive authority in the past and even currently that makes the ambiguous wording of the bill so potentially dangerous. And if I can see it, as an activist, you can be assured that the powers that be see it, too. Plus the places where the bill aren't so ambiguous and are rather specific are equally worrying. I won't argue the children present clause because that's a pretty subjective thing, but the clause suddenly excluding the 18-20 crowd is just disturbing. Given the staggering rate at which the sub-21 year-old crowd is able to acquire and consume alcohol in blatant disregard for existing law, I fail to see how adding more things for them to break the law about is a good thing. One other specific that is pretty bothersome is the authority that is granted to local government to decide policy. The verbiage seems very much to support that ultimate decision authority sits with the local government agency (typically the city council or county board of supervisors) without any provisions for the community to challenge the decision because their decision is authorized by voter-initiative legislation. These may just be assumptions, but they are reasonable assumptions of actions that are squarely in line with the precedents that the entities in question have demonstrated repeatedly over several decades and continue to exhibit. Each side can throw out all the crazy numbers they want, the facts on the field are that the majority of local government agencies are NOT on our side and that Prop. 19 has provisions that can be far too easily abused by those same "hostile" entities.
I'm not veggie, but I can offer a few reasonable arguments from a semi-objective perspective. As semi-objective as one who is against 19 could be.
Getting caught up in the numbers game is just a propaganda ploy on both sides. The fact is that there are plenty of valid and real reasons that someone could need far more cannabis than one would expect or believe. Some people are only able to assume cannabis through tincture or balms or edibles, and everyone has a different titration threshold. The real point here is why the limit? Under current legislation, there is mention of 1 ounce as being the threshold at which personal consumption can be assumed as opposed to intent to sell. But, that's not to say that you can't have more than an ounce. The caveat is, obviously, that if you have more than an ounce then you'll need a court appearance to prove "personal consumption". But an ounce or less now is a $100 fine, if you are caught. No jail time, no detainment. You might have to do the cannabis equivalent of traffic school to drop the charges from your record, but it's really no worse than traffic school. Essentially, the rights that 19 grants, we already have with greater freedom now.
Once again, these number games don't really amount to much. They're about as useful as political polling. There are plenty of people with conditions that require them to medicate more than any of us, or perhaps they're having to overcome a certain amount of tolerance. If someone is using cannabis for pain-management, I can't really see them wanting to discontinue medicating long enough to give their system time to de-acclimate. Again, personal titration is far too subjective to be making any judgments on anyone's usage requirements.
Well, since the inception of Prop 215, patients who didn't grow or know a grower well enough, had to go somewhere for their meds. The rather haphazard and risky nature of the system made it seem necessary to put buffers between growers and patients. Prop. 19 doesn't do anything to address that problems specifically. It just makes provisions for permitted entities to take up the place as the new middlemen of the recreational circle. Effective legislation would put patients/clients in closer or more direct contact with growers. Pretending that Prop. 19 will allow for this requires complete ignorance of the last 80 years of commercial industrialization.
I'm sorry... this seems a bit hypocritical to me. This proposition is dripping profits for "permitted" entities. Profit margins potentially in the millions for large-scale producers even. But you want to begrudge the small/medium grower who is direct marketing to patients and/or clubs. Keep in mind that the grower is the low-end in the medical supply system. If there's anyone's profit margins to be questioned, it's the middle men. I know that, personally, I've had to search around a bit to find clubs that don't charge ridiculous prices over what they've paid. Nothing in 19 fixes or addresses these problems.
Since 19 will grant local government the authority to decide policy without the need for voter approval or input, anyone stuck in a "dry" region will have little legal recourse. City council/County Supervisors will say that Prop. 19 grants them the authority to decide and that's that. The problem is that Prop 19 is ambiguous in favor of local government over the populace. Prop. 215 was purposely ambiguous in favor of patients/the public which is why it's been a damn hard fight for prohibitionists to gain inroads into restricting medical cannabis.
Our foot has been in the door for more than 20 years now. The movement is progressing all the time. We're waiting on the Governator to sign legislation to reduce simple possession from a misdemeanor to an infraction. It's never a good idea to vote in badly-worded legislation that has any potential to harm our community as a whole. Sure, there are risks in things as they are, but we have many legal options to protect us today. It just requires that you know what your rights are as a citizen of California and be willing to stand up and fight for them when LEO and city hall come to take them from you.
tc1
Well-Known Member
And your constant name calling and ignorant statements only further my point that people should take ANYTHING you say with a grain of salt and understand that you're using lies and half-truths to spin your propaganda.
Pretty sad that someone who waves the "compassion for medical marijuana patients" flag resorts to name calling and acting like an infant. You need to grow up and show compassion to ALL people ... not just your wife.
Prop 19 isn't about veggie's wife .. sorry. It's about the greater good. It's about ending the WAR ON PEOPLE who choose to use marijuana.
End of Story
veggiegardener
Well-Known Member
Thanks for responding to a bunch of garbage.
Vradd:
First of all let me say "Fuck You".
My wife got cancer at age 24. She was "cured" and she then gave birth to three children.
A week after the birth of our third child, she was diagnosed again.
A little cutting and other treatments again gave her time.
Three years later she had a hysterectomy to remove a third cancer.
At that time she was smoking at what would be considered a normal amount. About a 1/8 oz/day.
A couple years passed, during which she was taking medications for Fibromyalgia, and several other problems.
The meds nearly killed her liver, and did cause her to lose her gall bladder.
Her Specialist had her try every possible pain medication before suggesting Marinol, because she was aware that my wife did smoke Cannabis.
When it became obvious that Marinol was effective, the doctor chose to write her a recommendation.
She is not a "pot doc", but is on the list of 100 best California physicians.
She'd make(and has offered) the best possible witness a patient could ask for.
And then the Portuguese study of THC's effect on tumors was published.
Anyway, my wife dramatically increased her consumption over a period of years, topping out about ten years ago at her current rate.
She uses edibles and smokes a lot of bowls each day. Her stash box looks an awful lot like(and is) a walk in closet.
Although she suffers some respiratory irritation, she is cancer free.
I could go into the strains I grow, which have above average CBD and THCV levels.
Pearls before swine.
So, you think I sell, and are offended?
There's nothing I can say that will change the mind of someone who won't accept that I am being honest regarding what I do, and why.
Judge if you like, but don't believe for a second you are qualified to do so.
veggiegardener
Well-Known Member
Incidentally, she hasn't been stoned in nearly two decades. The body adjusts. Medicating at "saturation" levels does that. Once she stops smoking, the pain can be excruciating.
Regarding $1000 a week, if prop 19 passes, I would be forced to visit a club four times a week. I was in a club last week. Their mids were $350/oz. Top shelf was $400.
I use arithmetic. What do you use?
Regarding $1000 a week, if prop 19 passes, I would be forced to visit a club four times a week. I was in a club last week. Their mids were $350/oz. Top shelf was $400.
I use arithmetic. What do you use?
tc1
Well-Known Member
Yes ... because saying "Fuck You" to someone trying to understand your point of view is going to get you anywhere.
You are being a selfish, obtuse, and mean spirited anonymous internet poster. No one wishes ill on your wife and I hope marijuana enriches her life and health to the fullest.
You can't grasp your head around the idea that Prop 19 will not supersede Prop 215.
This idea that it's a political ploy or "trick" to ruin medical marijuana is BOGUS. Maybe you should ask yourself why you're on the same side with politicians who were/are AGAINST MEDICAL MARIJUANA. Why oh why would they be saying Vote NO on Prop 19 if the motives behind it are to ruin medical marijuana. The very thing they are against? Makes no sense unless you're the type who runs around with a tinfoil hat so the aliens and CIA won't read your mind.
Your behavior on this board is well below the maturity level of someone your age. A little less name calling and explicit behavior ... and a little more than a crumb of substance would go a long way.
You are being a selfish, obtuse, and mean spirited anonymous internet poster. No one wishes ill on your wife and I hope marijuana enriches her life and health to the fullest.
You can't grasp your head around the idea that Prop 19 will not supersede Prop 215.
This idea that it's a political ploy or "trick" to ruin medical marijuana is BOGUS. Maybe you should ask yourself why you're on the same side with politicians who were/are AGAINST MEDICAL MARIJUANA. Why oh why would they be saying Vote NO on Prop 19 if the motives behind it are to ruin medical marijuana. The very thing they are against? Makes no sense unless you're the type who runs around with a tinfoil hat so the aliens and CIA won't read your mind.
Your behavior on this board is well below the maturity level of someone your age. A little less name calling and explicit behavior ... and a little more than a crumb of substance would go a long way.
- Status