California Cannabis VOTER INITIATIVE 2010

[Babbabud]

Lame Law Enforcement

Lame Law Enforcement

Not sure what your referring to what you say "got it on", sex or weed...

I am all for legalization and if any progress is made big or small then great. That said I`m still going to play devils advocate and find the holes to exploit. I`d like to think I am impartial since none of this will affect me personally.

I think you need to address the serious problems up front and a provide responsible solutions.

Either I ask the questions now or the opposition will later.

They are so lame... if i have pot in a drawer in my bedroom and there are children in the house i could be arrested for felony child endangerment. They search the same house and find oxycontin in the med cabinet,next to the toothbrushs, and do nothing. How stoophead can they be.

 

[headimonster]

this initiative is too vague, it says nothing about limits or the tax.....and on top of it if it goes legal dont you think all the Sacramento Valley farmers are just gonna hop right on and crush the "little guy"

 

[Tony Aroma]

and on top of it if it goes legal dont you think all the Sacramento Valley farmers are just gonna hop right on and crush the "little guy"

How would it be any different than say the beer market. You've got your Anheuser Busch and you've got your small microbreweries. Something for every taste and price point. That's what's so great about a legal, free market -- the consumer decides, not the government or anyone else.

 

[JackTheGrower]

this initiative is too vague, it says nothing about limits or the tax.....and on top of it if it goes legal dont you think all the Sacramento Valley farmers are just gonna hop right on and crush the "little guy"

Do you think there will be a market for "Fine Cannabis" that even the little guy can survive in?

That's where I was thinking it leveled out..

What do you think?

As for the "Marlboro effect" I'm sure we will see BrandX on the shelf..

Perhaps standard brands wouldn't be such a bad thing?
If I know BrandX is a mild smoke every time then I may function better then if I am up and down on strength?

As a medical person I found knowing the smoke and how much to use helped make it more a medicine than an intoxicant.

Maybe Standard brands would give the consumer some control. Especially the novice toker.. The rest of us will be down at "JackTheGrower's" Fine Cannabis Shoppe and Coffee house hooking up with the best of the best!


I don't know does that sound reasonable as a scenario?

Jack

 

[JackTheGrower]

They are so lame... if i have pot in a drawer in my bedroom and there are children in the house i could be arrested for felony child endangerment. They search the same house and find Oxycontin in the med cabinet,next to the toothbrushs, and do nothing. How stoophead can they be.

lame with destructive consequences. I agree the hype is far worse then the reality of cannabis.

The real victory is getting past the stigma! Hopefully in 20 years Cannabis will be such a non issue .. Except for us.. We will still be sharing on how to grow the best!

 

[JackTheGrower]

How would it be any different than say the beer market. You've got your Anheuser Busch and you've got your small microbreweries. Something for every taste and price point. That's what's so great about a legal, free market -- the consumer decides, not the government or anyone else.

Also all the food stuffs.. Stores will be selling local baked goods and specialty drinks.

I tended to buy my Space cake where the space cake was excellent not just to get the effect.

Also the establishment can decide what products to carry as well!

Such as serving or selling free trade coffee so it's about community too.

 

[JWH-018]

Just from a practical perspective, arguing for putting heavy import taxes or isolation policies on cannabis is a waste of time. First off, to allow any (legal) imports, the US government would have to legalize as ICE/DHS protection at the california border is federal. And mexico would have to commercially legalize as well. Second, even if all that happened those policies probably wouldn't hold up under NAFTA or the WTO. I'm not saying I agree (or disagree) with them, but they are a fact of life.

Legalizing at the state level first will end up being one of the better aspects for smaller growers. It'll give local operations the ability to develop their businesses and brands long before they end up having to deal with national or international competition.

 

[Hydro-Soil]

I don't think that's what this initiative would do (could do) at all.

Companies drug test in order to be insured (from national insurers) and the companies calim if they allowed you to test positive this would be a violation of fed law and since their insurers are national they say they fall under fed law, not just sate law.

So you're saying there's an opening for a solely California based insurer that deals with medical cannabis patients? I'm sure it's more complicated than that but I can see the advantages to being a 420 friendly company and being able to get insurance for your company/employees is very important.

 

[Pythagllio]

No, no, no, insurance companies don't require urine testing. They do however give a stiff discount on rates if you join in the witch hunt.

 

[JackTheGrower]

I don't know what is true but wouldn't any company that wants to do business in California have to accept California laws?

I mean it's a free country so you can decide not to do business in the worlds 6th largest economy.

Might not be smart tho!

Well well well I vote for single payer anyway! Wouldn't that be a kick if we get a single payer and legalized cannabis...

 

[Pythagllio]

Sure, as long as Federal law doesn't supercede.

Just an example, not squarely on point:
http://www.uwstout.edu/aod/policies/FederalDrug-FreeWorkplaceAct.htm

 

[JackTheGrower]

Sure, as long as Federal law doesn't supercede.

Just an example, not squarely on point:
http://www.uwstout.edu/aod/policies/FederalDrug-FreeWorkplaceAct.htm

We can continue to fight.. I can't help seeing all the people of this planet as cattle and that is an unpleasant thought.

Oh hey.. There is some "Soylent Green" left in the fridge.. LOL!

 

[kill-9]

I signed up as a volunteer, gave 'em my address and told them to send many forms and packages. We'll see what happens.

 

[fyahfohigha]

From a medical perspective I like how things are. Quality is up, anyone who has a card said, "later" a long time ago to street stuff when there are $50 caps, a a wide variety for patients. We already have sales tax, the BOE, and even the federal government is making the community pay their taxes. If people want to "legalize it" I say keep the medical limits, make a "therapy/spiritual (or what ever, Recreational...)" card charge double for the card, tax ex. $25 med/$50 rec. @ ex. $100 for med./$200 rec. a card. Allow the same rules and limits of Prop. 215 and SB420, and apply half the limits for personal use, no growing ability. Keep clubs to distribute, allow for clubs to open doors to coffee style bars for card holding individuals (like a 21+ year old going to a bar), establish a sales tax, and keep growers paying their taxes as is to the BOE, and Federal. Allow growers to be only physician approved individuals (to promote quality) who have participated in an Oaksterdam style class (that would even create an educational aspect to the industry). Driving, keep it sealed, in the trunk. If it's out, DUI, simple (establish some studies to determine legal blood content levels for impairment. and we will go from there, if need be. All other laws apply. I vote expunge all priors with completion of a drug screening, informational class. A little legal fine touches and I think we could work this out. What do you guys think?

educate, operate, MEDICATE*

 

[JackTheGrower]

I signed up as a volunteer, gave 'em my address and told them to send many forms and packages. We'll see what happens.

Me too..

There is a volunteers social group if you want to join..

 

[JackTheGrower]

From a medical perspective I like how things are. Quality is up, anyone who has a card said, "later" a long time ago to street stuff when there are $50 caps, a a wide variety for patients. We already have sales tax, the BOE, and even the federal government is making the community pay their taxes. If people want to "legalize it" I say keep the medical limits, make a "therapy/spiritual (or what ever, Recreational...)" card charge double for the card, tax ex. $25 med/$50 rec. @ ex. $100 for med./$200 rec. a card. Allow the same rules and limits of Prop. 215 and SB420, and apply half the limits for personal use, no growing ability. Keep clubs to distribute, allow for clubs to open doors to coffee style bars for card holding individuals (like a 21+ year old going to a bar), establish a sales tax, and keep growers paying their taxes as is to the BOE, and Federal. Allow growers to be only physician approved individuals (to promote quality) who have participated in an Oaksterdam style class (that would even create an educational aspect to the industry). Driving, keep it sealed, in the trunk. If it's out, DUI, simple (establish some studies to determine legal blood content levels for impairment. and we will go from there, if need be. All other laws apply. I vote expunge all priors with completion of a drug screening, informational class. A little legal fine touches and I think we could work this out. What do you guys think?

educate, operate, MEDICATE*

http://californiacannabisinitiative.org/

It's filed so have a read.. What do You think about it? The other is in draft 14 but still limits 25 square foot of growing space per piece of property and not per person.
I gave up on limits and now support legalization

The other initiative is also a thread here so have a read!

 

[Unsane]

From what I understand the movement is split into two camps: one side actively supporting the initiative and the other, while supporting the initiative in principle, not actively supporting it.

Cannabis reform organizations, such as ASA and NORML, represent the latter side. They argue that the initiative is premature and that, in the end, it will fail, setting back the cannabis legalization movement. In their view, it is better to wait until at least 2012, at which point there will be more support and a stronger grassroots organization.

However, the active supporters of the initiative argue that we have California "in the bag" so speak. In support of this claim, they cite a poll showing that 57% of Californians support legalization. Additionally, they argue that the timing of the initiative is actually very good because of all the media attention the issue has gotten lately.

What does this mean for the movement? Well, any internal schism isn't a good thing, but I don't think its the end of the world.

I don't agree with the cannabis reform organizations that a failed initiative will "set back" the movement. If anything, it will galvanize the movement to push back even harder in 2012.

And, most importantly, if the reform organizations' argument is that they need to build a grassroots organization for 2012, then wouldn't organizing for a 2010 initiative actually be highly instrumental to that end? Nonetheless, even if this is not the case, I thought NORML and ASA already had a "grassroots" organization. Isn't the point of their organizations to actually use their resources to help the cause cannabis reform?

In my opinion, NORML and ASA are being disingenuous.

The stage is set, and the spotlight is on us. Yet, NORML and ASA shy away. Is this stage fright?

Here we are at a watershed moment. We, as a movement, should be devoting all our energies and resources to winning this game-changing battle.

To victory, the PEOPLE forge ahead. The ORGANIZATIONS, the ones with the MONEY, however, retreat.

Why?

One cannot but ask if there are ulterior motives. Do they have something to lose when cannabis is legalized? Do they prefer the medical regime over a legal regime? Are they miffed because Richard Lee stole their spotlight?

Please, someone tell me.

 

[JackTheGrower]

Opportunity.. Yes..

My Take is if each piece of property is allowed 25 Sq Ft that is the size of one Tent like they use in oaksterdam school. I believe that is the inspiration.

What they fail to see is that they also clone and veg outside of that tent anyway,


Here is where I have a real bitch.. All through the history of Mankind growing crops people have saved seeds and cultivated plants.
We cannabis people are doing the same trying to save Land Races and other useful strains!

o Horticulture is not just for business and no one can practice seed saving or heirloom variety grows in 25 sq ft let alone creating new strains!

I'm reading the Cannabis breeders bible atm and I see that real genetic selection are best with large populations! How do I grow 1000 plants in 25 sq ft!

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

with a 25 square foot hydro hut that is 6 feet tall I can get like 4 pounds no problem (with a fatty indica that is), but there is no way I could breed or save genetics in that space. I need at least 500 square ft to do a decent breeding project, and that is still considered small to me. I'd like to grow a lot of plants and find the best specimens.

 

[Vespatian]

25 sf per property is ridiculously and suspiciously low.