J
JackTheGrower
I'm working the CCI to the end!
I will have to live with myself.. I can live with myself supporting CCI
I will have to live with myself.. I can live with myself supporting CCI
Square footage is not an issue to voters at all. Prisoner release, on the other hand, is a third rail issue and should be avoided. It was a HUGE tactical mistake to even include this. But to publicize it? No and hell no.
"Amnesty Now" is a Political Mistake
This is a BIG problem guys. There are a lot of potential voters that this SCARES. Many -- and certainly most of those who are naturally hostile to legalization, are hang 'em high Law and Order types. And they don't like prisoners. AT ALL. They do not see themselves, their family members, or people who look and act like their neighbours, friends, family and co-workers as being the types of people who they imagine are prisoners. Instead, they think of prisoners as scummy, greasy drug dealers who belong exactly where they are (even if the people who are, in fact, prisoners are people who ARE just like their neighbours, friends and family).
Many voters don't see these prisoners as being worthy of much sympathy. They are not persuadable on this issue. It makes it WORSE for those in favor of legalization, not easier. That's one of the biggest problems with the CCI and why it over-reaches.
I'm not saying, personally, that it's an unreasonable law or a bad idea in and of itself. That's NOT what I am saying, okay? But I am saying there are a LOT of voters who will be put off by this -- far more who will vote against it for this feature than who will ever vote for it because of the amnesty component being present in the CCI. Its inclusion in the CCI is a noble and potentially tragic mistake, imo.
A "Noble Defeat" is Still a Defeat!
A morally principled and consistent initiative that loses may be a noble defeat.... but it is still a defeat. Moral consistency is not as wise as a less far-reaching initiative that puts legalization on the table on a going forward basis, recognizing that after voters get used to it, amnesty and pardons for those imprisoned will come later when it is not nearly as controversial.
It's like asking the woman to have your kids for you at the same time as you are asking her out for a first date. It may be an honest declaration of your true intentions - but it's not very smart, is it?
Those who would support legalization for other reasons are probably going to continue to vote for an initiative that contains amnesty - just as they will vote for one that does not. The number of persuadable voters who are on the fence who will tip over to support the initiative because it grants amnesty are exceedingly low, if not approaching ZERO.
The opposite is not true. There are a LARGE number of persuadable voters whose fears can be preyed upon to vote against it because they will be made to fear that " the street corners and parks where their kids play are going to be overrun with a deluge of drug dealers let out of prison by these loony hippies, all at once”.
The Right Wing Exploits Fear and Prejudice - It's What they Do Best
Racial fears are easily exploited by the right wing -- it is one of their main tactics of securing and retaining public office for decades and it will continue to be for decades to come. I'm sorry if the sound of that is harsh to hear - but it's true just the same.
Amnesty is far and away the main problem with the CCI. It over-reaches on the amnesty issue and provides opponents with an easily exploitable weakness to sow fear, prejudice and suspicion and permits them to divide and conquer. It's why the CCI is a FAR worse bet than Lee's initiative to the average voter.
This may be a bitter pill to swallow, especially if you have been in prison, are in prison, or have friends and family that are or were. And even if you're none of those things, as a grower, you have a perspective on the law which probably includes having considered yourself as one of the people who could have been in prison - or might yet be put there someday. It's a valuable and critically different perspective of how you look at the law that most people just don't share at all, ok? You need to appreciate that difference for what it is.
I would argue that securing the main benefits of legalization on a going-forward basis with an initiative that actually wins (2/3rds of a loaf) is far better than being principled and consistent -- losing the battle for your noble consistency -- and getting nothing at all because of over-reaching for the whole loaf. That's just tilting at windmills for no damn good reason.
Get the 2/3rds of the loaf first, get people normalized and comfortable with the idea on a going forward basis -- and then go for the balance of the remaining loaf later when it is an easier fight to win. It's just a "one-point conversion" after the touchdown five years or so after legalization takes effect. Too easy. But to push for it now? It's sheer folly.
Early Release will follow Legalization
Moreover, practically speaking, given the budget issues facing California, early prisoner release will happen anyways. Cali is going to have to let prisoners out on early release as there is no money to keep them in prison and prisoner priorities must be set as a fiscal and political reality.
Once you have secured legalization of marijuana, it makes it FAR easier for the governor and legislators to point to those prisoners convicted of what is no longer treated as a moral crime for early release programs conferred upon prisons/parole administrators by the State. Then, as a matter of setting priorities, it becomes a no-brainer. You turn what was a political controversy into a freebie: a no-brainer path of least resistance.
I call that playing it smart.
Leading Trump:
Legalization Defeats Organized Crime
You want to persuade the most voters? Push the one aspect of legalization that the prohibitionists have no answer for: Organized Crime. That's the prohibitionists' biggest weakness - it is their "third rail". Exploit it.
There are essentially no persuadable voters, on either side of this issue, who support organized crime. When legalization is presented as a means of busting up organized crime by taking away their business in a sure-to-succeed manner which the Cartels are powerless to stop? You can get a very large number of racially, culturally, religiously, and financially diverse people all agreeing on legalization.
They will all agree on legalization, even when those same people greatly disagree on the health risks/benefits of MJ or whether people should ever actually use it or not. You can turn someone who hates dope and the people who use it, into a person who nevertheless supports legalization for law and order reasons as a guided-missile, knock-out-attack on the Cartels.
That is a significant political weapon. Use it. Every single time you can. Use it.
This is the most popular effect of legalization, so it's the one that should be pushed for the hardest. The most important aspect of the Organized Crime angle is that there really is no contrary argument to it. Even the right wing doesn't have an "oh yeah, but what about...." answer to this feature of legalization. Not only is it morally and politically attractive, it has, to use the well-worn cynical phrase, the additional benefit of actually being true.
Please, watch media interviews/talking head debates on this aspect of legalization carefully. When the topic comes up on a pro/contra talking-head debate - watch and see how those in support of Prohibition steer away from discussing this benefit of legalization head-on. They avoid doing so like it was the plague. That's because they have no answer to it. All they can do is downplay it and give it as little exposure in the media as they can. It's a "third rail" argument for the Prohibitionists. You watch and see how quickly they try and steer it back to "the kids". Mention breaking the back of organized crime, and they will try and spin that discussion to be about "sending the wrong message to the kids" and "getting Johnny the 8 year old high" as fast as the Prohibitionist spin-doctor can manage.
Don't let them do it; bring the argument back to the Cartels, every damn time. Pursue it like you're a pit-bull whose jaws are locked on the prey: never let the Cartels issue go. Shake it, bite it, tear at it, and then shake it some more. It's the strongest argument there is and there is no counter for it -- other than distraction and attempting to change the topic.
Capitalize on political strengths and exploit political weakness. Leading with your chin -- particularly when it's a "glass jaw" issue like amnesty? It may be principled and morally consistent: but it's political folly, nonetheless.
Great post, fatigues. I agree with you 99.9% The one thing I disagree with is that Lee's initiative is better than nothing. I think nothing would be better than what Lee offers. Once special interests are entrenched, it's next to impossible to get rid of them.
The amnesty issue is a very valid one, for two reasons. I can picture in my mind the anti commercials showing gang bangers getting out of prison if the initiative passes. However, there's an even more salient problem. California initiatives are only allowed to address one issue. Several initiatives in the last 20-30 years have been overturned by the courts because they were deemed to deal with more than one issue.
PC
The amnesty issue is a very valid one, for two reasons. I can picture in my mind the anti commercials showing gang bangers getting out of prison if the initiative passes. However, there's an even more salient problem. California initiatives are only allowed to address one issue. Several initiatives in the last 20-30 years have been overturned by the courts because they were deemed to deal with more than one issue.
PC
J
JackTheGrower
Square foot not an issue?
No jail a third rail?
Do you really want change?
I believe someone is promoting Oaksterdam's initiative with the afraid hat on.
if it's legal we can deal with how our communities handle gardens.
The key here is to make it legal to start.
if Oaksterdam's initiative gets on the books CANNABIS IS STILL ILLEGAL!
How do I reach you?
Jack
No jail a third rail?
Do you really want change?
I believe someone is promoting Oaksterdam's initiative with the afraid hat on.
if it's legal we can deal with how our communities handle gardens.
The key here is to make it legal to start.
if Oaksterdam's initiative gets on the books CANNABIS IS STILL ILLEGAL!
How do I reach you?
Jack
Square footage is not an issue to voters at all. Prisoner release, on the other hand, is a third rail issue and should be avoided. It was a HUGE tactical mistake to even include this. But to publicize it? No and hell no.
"Amnesty Now" is a Political Mistake
This is a BIG problem guys. There are a lot of potential voters that this SCARES. Many -- and certainly most of those who are naturally hostile to legalization, are hang 'em high Law and Order types. And they don't like prisoners. AT ALL. They do not see themselves, their family members, or people who look and act like their neighbours, friends, family and co-workers as being the types of people who they imagine are prisoners. Instead, they think of prisoners as scummy, greasy drug dealers who belong exactly where they are (even if the people who are, in fact, prisoners are people who ARE just like their neighbours, friends and family).
Many voters don't see these prisoners as being worthy of much sympathy. They are not persuadable on this issue. It makes it WORSE for those in favor of legalization, not easier. That's one of the biggest problems with the CCI and why it over-reaches.
I'm not saying, personally, that it's an unreasonable law or a bad idea in and of itself. That's NOT what I am saying, okay? But I am saying there are a LOT of voters who will be put off by this -- far more who will vote against it for this feature than who will ever vote for it because of the amnesty component being present in the CCI. Its inclusion in the CCI is a noble and potentially tragic mistake, imo.
A "Noble Defeat" is Still a Defeat!
A morally principled and consistent initiative that loses may be a noble defeat.... but it is still a defeat. Moral consistency is not as wise as a less far-reaching initiative that puts legalization on the table on a going forward basis, recognizing that after voters get used to it, amnesty and pardons for those imprisoned will come later when it is not nearly as controversial.
It's like asking the woman to have your kids for you at the same time as you are asking her out for a first date. It may be an honest declaration of your true intentions - but it's not very smart, is it?
Those who would support legalization for other reasons are probably going to continue to vote for an initiative that contains amnesty - just as they will vote for one that does not. The number of persuadable voters who are on the fence who will tip over to support the initiative because it grants amnesty are exceedingly low, if not approaching ZERO.
The opposite is not true. There are a LARGE number of persuadable voters whose fears can be preyed upon to vote against it because they will be made to fear that " the street corners and parks where their kids play are going to be overrun with a deluge of drug dealers let out of prison by these loony hippies, all at once”.
The Right Wing Exploits Fear and Prejudice - It's What they Do Best
Racial fears are easily exploited by the right wing -- it is one of their main tactics of securing and retaining public office for decades and it will continue to be for decades to come. I'm sorry if the sound of that is harsh to hear - but it's true just the same.
Amnesty is far and away the main problem with the CCI. It over-reaches on the amnesty issue and provides opponents with an easily exploitable weakness to sow fear, prejudice and suspicion and permits them to divide and conquer. It's why the CCI is a FAR worse bet than Lee's initiative to the average voter.
This may be a bitter pill to swallow, especially if you have been in prison, are in prison, or have friends and family that are or were. And even if you're none of those things, as a grower, you have a perspective on the law which probably includes having considered yourself as one of the people who could have been in prison - or might yet be put there someday. It's a valuable and critically different perspective of how you look at the law that most people just don't share at all, ok? You need to appreciate that difference for what it is.
I would argue that securing the main benefits of legalization on a going-forward basis with an initiative that actually wins (2/3rds of a loaf) is far better than being principled and consistent -- losing the battle for your noble consistency -- and getting nothing at all because of over-reaching for the whole loaf. That's just tilting at windmills for no damn good reason.
Get the 2/3rds of the loaf first, get people normalized and comfortable with the idea on a going forward basis -- and then go for the balance of the remaining loaf later when it is an easier fight to win. It's just a "one-point conversion" after the touchdown five years or so after legalization takes effect. Too easy. But to push for it now? It's sheer folly.
Early Release will follow Legalization
Moreover, practically speaking, given the budget issues facing California, early prisoner release will happen anyways. Cali is going to have to let prisoners out on early release as there is no money to keep them in prison and prisoner priorities must be set as a fiscal and political reality.
Once you have secured legalization of marijuana, it makes it FAR easier for the governor and legislators to point to those prisoners convicted of what is no longer treated as a moral crime for early release programs conferred upon prisons/parole administrators by the State. Then, as a matter of setting priorities, it becomes a no-brainer. You turn what was a political controversy into a freebie: a no-brainer path of least resistance.
I call that playing it smart.
Leading Trump:
Legalization Defeats Organized Crime
You want to persuade the most voters? Push the one aspect of legalization that the prohibitionists have no answer for: Organized Crime. That's the prohibitionists' biggest weakness - it is their "third rail". Exploit it.
There are essentially no persuadable voters, on either side of this issue, who support organized crime. When legalization is presented as a means of busting up organized crime by taking away their business in a sure-to-succeed manner which the Cartels are powerless to stop? You can get a very large number of racially, culturally, religiously, and financially diverse people all agreeing on legalization.
They will all agree on legalization, even when those same people greatly disagree on the health risks/benefits of MJ or whether people should ever actually use it or not. You can turn someone who hates dope and the people who use it, into a person who nevertheless supports legalization for law and order reasons as a guided-missile, knock-out-attack on the Cartels.
That is a significant political weapon. Use it. Every single time you can. Use it.
This is the most popular effect of legalization, so it's the one that should be pushed for the hardest. The most important aspect of the Organized Crime angle is that there really is no contrary argument to it. Even the right wing doesn't have an "oh yeah, but what about...." answer to this feature of legalization. Not only is it morally and politically attractive, it has, to use the well-worn cynical phrase, the additional benefit of actually being true.
Please, watch media interviews/talking head debates on this aspect of legalization carefully. When the topic comes up on a pro/contra talking-head debate - watch and see how those in support of Prohibition steer away from discussing this benefit of legalization head-on. They avoid doing so like it was the plague. That's because they have no answer to it. All they can do is downplay it and give it as little exposure in the media as they can. It's a "third rail" argument for the Prohibitionists. You watch and see how quickly they try and steer it back to "the kids". Mention breaking the back of organized crime, and they will try and spin that discussion to be about "sending the wrong message to the kids" and "getting Johnny the 8 year old high" as fast as the Prohibitionist spin-doctor can manage.
Don't let them do it; bring the argument back to the Cartels, every damn time. Pursue it like you're a pit-bull whose jaws are locked on the prey: never let the Cartels issue go. Shake it, bite it, tear at it, and then shake it some more. It's the strongest argument there is and there is no counter for it -- other than distraction and attempting to change the topic.
Capitalize on political strengths and exploit political weakness. Leading with your chin -- particularly when it's a "glass jaw" issue like amnesty? It may be principled and morally consistent: but it's political folly, nonetheless.
J
JackTheGrower
If we do not legalize we will still lose our jobs, our children can be taken away from us by the state, health insurance can be taken away in the middle of illness legally, you may lose your place to live.
I understand how a person can say Oaksterdam is a reasonable initiative, I started out on the Oaksterdam team but, anything short of legalization is NOT Legalization!
I don't want to go to prison for cannabis.. So why would I want to support Oaksterdam's goal to keep it illegal while massive profits are made from the folks who cannot grow in their homes because their landlord said no.
How can we sell our selves short? How can we cannabis people say we don't deserve freedom?
if we don't stand up for ourselves Lee won't..
So please tell me why anything but true legalization is the right move?
Serious we are trying to re-legalize.. Go back before the crazy reefer madness started and start over.
If we allow the current laws to be modified then it is still illegal..We must repeal the laws that make it illegal.
In our communities can adopt ordinances to regulate and I am all for that!!! But let us start from the position that it is legal.
Oaksterdam doesn't make it legal.
Can anyone prove me wrong?
I understand how a person can say Oaksterdam is a reasonable initiative, I started out on the Oaksterdam team but, anything short of legalization is NOT Legalization!
I don't want to go to prison for cannabis.. So why would I want to support Oaksterdam's goal to keep it illegal while massive profits are made from the folks who cannot grow in their homes because their landlord said no.
How can we sell our selves short? How can we cannabis people say we don't deserve freedom?
if we don't stand up for ourselves Lee won't..
So please tell me why anything but true legalization is the right move?
Serious we are trying to re-legalize.. Go back before the crazy reefer madness started and start over.
If we allow the current laws to be modified then it is still illegal..We must repeal the laws that make it illegal.
In our communities can adopt ordinances to regulate and I am all for that!!! But let us start from the position that it is legal.
Oaksterdam doesn't make it legal.
Can anyone prove me wrong?
To the actual voters? No. It isn't. If you are unable to see that, nothing else you say will ever have any credibility.
On a going forward basis, no jail is an easy sale. That's the essence of both initiatives.
On a retrospective basis, amnesty would let out thousands of prisoners all at once. Because of that provision, swing voters on the topic can be easily persuaded that support for the initiative would be the equivalent of letting gang bangers and members of the Cartels back out on to the street. If opponents of the initiative succeed in that positioning, defeat for the initiative is very likely.
Why put that weapon in the opponent's hands? Total third rail; a clear error in political judgment.
Untempered idealism is giving the opponents of legalization a weapon to prevent the initiative from passing. Why? Especially when the reward is so minor compared to the risk?
This is noble idealism at work. It is principled, moral and consistent -- but it is politically defective by design. It is naive and demonstrates extremely poor political judgement, imo.
Par for the course when it comes to grass-root ballot initiatives. While that makes it something to be expected; that doesn't make it wise.
Most certainly. Point is, we both ask different follow up questions to that. You ask: which proposal would I rather have win, whereas I ask, which proposal is the most likely to win?
I suspect we won't agree on this no matter how much either of us writes - but to attack the motives and sincerity of the other is just knee-twitching that increases the likelihood of overall defeat. Let's not do that.
I believe I write in a rational, logical manner, setting out the arguments, pro and con, as clearly as I can.
It is clear that you are not persuadable on this stuff Jack. You're an idealist, not a realist. That's just fine. But don't confuse your own personal agenda with those of the broad mass of voters. They are not the same.
I'm not saying your opinions are wrong and I'm not saying your preferences are wrong, either.
I'm saying your political judgement is not well served by your political idealism. There is a difference Jack.
No Jack. The key is to win. You won't be making anything legal if you lose.
That's why it was unwise to adopt a strategy that by its very design delivers a powerful political weapon into the hands of the movement's opponents. Amnesty does that, and it does so unnecessarily. The same thing could be achieved with less risk and more certainty of victory at the cost of a few years more delay. Not even that long, given that budgetary concerns which will mandate prisoner releases which will be dealt with in the wake after the initiative passes, makes prisoner release possible without any political risk.
If the so-called Oaskterdam initiative wins, anyone in California will be able to both grow and possess marijuana for personal use without criminal legal sanction by the state. That is not illegal; that is, to the contrary, the very essence of the legalization of marijuana.
It would be a victory of historic significance which will change the way California, the Unites States generally, and the entire industrialized world thinks and deals with the topic of marijuana. It is the keystone to the end of prohibition and is an essential victory upon which all else will flow.
By characterizing such a clear victory as "continued illegality" and declaring it the equivalent of defeat, you are distorting the truth and making irrational calls upon peoples' baser emotions.
There is a point where idealism strays in to intellectual dishonesty. Saying that if Lee's intiative wins, "marijuana is still illegal" is plainly dishonest.
I can assure you that nobody in the media - or the supporters of Prohibition - will think that. Nobody in the marijuana movement outside of California will perceive it as anything less than a remarkable democratic achievement that formally legalizes and enshrines the personal use of marijuana in the state of California, and empowers the legislature to govern and regulate its commercial production, distribution and sale.
None of which will actually happen until the ensuing crisis with the Federal government is resolved in any event. Given that must be so, your impatiance is not even rewarded with a faster result.
To what end Jack? To what end?
You can start by appealing to logic and demonstrating sound political judgement, instead of appeals focussed only upon what would be The. Most. Ideal. Marijuana. Initiative. Evar.
From where I sit, the best initiative is the one that stands the highest chance of actually winning 50% plus 1 California voters.... most of who tend to skew far older as a demographic than younger, and tend to be more influenced by conservative cautions than by progressive dreams, all other things being equal.
You clearly use a very different method of evaluating "what's the best" than I do.
I agree with you on that statement myself that it's a non issue to the voters. Since thats the case why even put a limit there? To the sheep it doesn't matter but to those who are actually knowledgeable and directly affected by the initiative it's a huge issue.
Prop 215 already provides immunity from jail/prison/fine's. With far less paperwork than would be required under Richard Lee's initiative.
Calculated risk I suppose. To garner more votes. To be genuine and honest. Those are good reasons for them to include it.
Richard Lee's proposal does the same exact thing. Even far worse if passed and next to impossible to fix.
They won't have to free anyone if there is a new flow of revenue into the states coffers.
Unless you grow a 61"X"61 canopy. Damn I hope my plant doesn't get too big. It is not the essence of legalization. It's the bane to it and very much like the original legislation at the federal level to criminalize it.
It is already legal...
We already did that with prop 215, SB 420 took care of the rest. Lee's initiative is two steps backwards. It empowers county board of stupidvisors to keep marijuana illegal. And why the fuck should we pass something here for the perceptions of outsiders? If it's not perfect it's still wrong.
That was prop 215 bro.
Supporting something for the sake of it winning and being on the winning side is the same reason why we have such crappy politicians now. Vote for the winner has been proven to be a failure, and a weakness in democracy.
Fatigues - Here I thought you adjusted your thinking earlier but it turns out you are still a shill for Mr. Lee as evidenced by the fact that, while you are happy to argue against the CCI, not on the basis of the initiative itself, but on possible adverse advertising against it, you have nothing but praise for the oaksterdam initiative.
Your insistence that we should pass oaksterdam now and fix it later is really quite facetious. Anyone who has lived in California for any amount of time knows full well that our legislature acts only in the interests of special interests, not the people.
If oaksterdam makes it onto the ballot, even if it is the only initiative on the ballot, I, for one, will not only vote against but I'll also contribute to the campaign against it. Better to try again in 2012 than to be saddled forever with that piece of self-serving bullshit.
PC
Your insistence that we should pass oaksterdam now and fix it later is really quite facetious. Anyone who has lived in California for any amount of time knows full well that our legislature acts only in the interests of special interests, not the people.
If oaksterdam makes it onto the ballot, even if it is the only initiative on the ballot, I, for one, will not only vote against but I'll also contribute to the campaign against it. Better to try again in 2012 than to be saddled forever with that piece of self-serving bullshit.
PC
R
Red Swan
Doesn't it basically make it so that instead of people growing their meds for FREE, the dispesaries will be the only ones allowed to sell? It makes it illegal to grow.
I'm saddened by Oaksterdam... very much...
My wife and I have been liberated from pharmaceuticals by growing our own.
Sounds like profiteering to me.
I'm saddened by Oaksterdam... very much...
My wife and I have been liberated from pharmaceuticals by growing our own.
Sounds like profiteering to me.
I am going to say this as mildly as possible--
It won't work--
It won't work to have Oaksterdam invoking it's monetarily motivated agenda to our Peace related talks--
Two different levels going on--
StarGatherer
Member
Tax the business not the plant itself.Dont use the laws to make it exclusive for the profiteers.Thats like giving Monsanto the licensing rights to all natural grown vegetables.Can you imagine having to pay to grow your own food?
Maybe my first post was a bit naive and unsupported. I appreciate the thrust of most of your arguments, really the angle that needs to be worked is going to very drastically depending on who you're trying to convince.
There are a few different ways I think Amnesty can help the cause. I'm actually from California (the conservative part... south O.C.). We passed prop. 36, I think a lot of Californians are just tired of putting people in jail.
All that being said I think the majority of voters are going to be in for a penny in for a pound; if they're for it, they'll vote for both, if they're not they'll vote no on both.
I agree that the anti-crime/cartel argument is great. It plays to both sides, left, right and the middle.
I know some right-wingers who are against gay marriage but for legalization, while I think that all those for gay marriage will vote for legalization too (If they get out enough people to win their issue then I think we're golden).
I think it's going to be a politically interesting couple years coming up... and I think our side can possibly be helped by the increase in turn out, and the anti-fed sentiments that are floating around (I'm getting some of the craziest things forwarded to me by people I normally think of as rational).
J
JackTheGrower
Idealism.. Alright.. I dream of freedom to breed plants in areas larger than 5' x 5'
That Oaksterdam's Initiative forbids a person to practice proper horticulture is not legalization to me.
That we can substitute that point for the theoretical "voters don't care or Non-issue" is clever speak.
I am out there with the people and I know they do not understand decriminalization vs legalization for the most part but, we do. To me that is why it is important to not sell them short with Oaksterdam's Initiative.
With Oaksterdam's initiative one must have the approval of a land owner to even grow in that 25 sq ft space how is that legalization?
That reminds me of reading about voting rights.. At first it was White Property owners only.
So why is permission of a land owner so important to Oaksterdam? Would it be that Oaksterdam believes the people around them need their land lords to manage their cannabis freedom for them?
So it's true, I can't buy into the land lord thing or the five by five. If a private citizen is denied the right to practice proper horticulture of plants but corporations are not denied that, then we are being made slaves to corporate rule and are moving toward fascism in my opinion.
That Cannabis will be a vehicle for fascist agenda is mind blowing to me.
And no I do not call allowing people a tiny piece of garden space if their land lord approves legalization..
I live in a hateful of cannabis county. Hateful towards cannabis people. We can't stop the hate of Cannabis people with anything less than full legalization in my opinion.
Any half way initiative like Oaksterdam doesn't help the people in the places like Stanislaus county.
That's all I have on the subject.. CCI looks like the right Initiative.
BTW have you all noticed the ads for AB390? Someone is spending money to get that one out there too.
That Oaksterdam's Initiative forbids a person to practice proper horticulture is not legalization to me.
That we can substitute that point for the theoretical "voters don't care or Non-issue" is clever speak.
I am out there with the people and I know they do not understand decriminalization vs legalization for the most part but, we do. To me that is why it is important to not sell them short with Oaksterdam's Initiative.
With Oaksterdam's initiative one must have the approval of a land owner to even grow in that 25 sq ft space how is that legalization?
That reminds me of reading about voting rights.. At first it was White Property owners only.
So why is permission of a land owner so important to Oaksterdam? Would it be that Oaksterdam believes the people around them need their land lords to manage their cannabis freedom for them?
So it's true, I can't buy into the land lord thing or the five by five. If a private citizen is denied the right to practice proper horticulture of plants but corporations are not denied that, then we are being made slaves to corporate rule and are moving toward fascism in my opinion.
That Cannabis will be a vehicle for fascist agenda is mind blowing to me.
And no I do not call allowing people a tiny piece of garden space if their land lord approves legalization..
I live in a hateful of cannabis county. Hateful towards cannabis people. We can't stop the hate of Cannabis people with anything less than full legalization in my opinion.
Any half way initiative like Oaksterdam doesn't help the people in the places like Stanislaus county.
That's all I have on the subject.. CCI looks like the right Initiative.
BTW have you all noticed the ads for AB390? Someone is spending money to get that one out there too.
Last edited:
J
JackTheGrower
Braveheart quote..
Where would we be if we made a deal with the British?
J
JackTheGrower
More on the breeding of plants.
More on the breeding of plants.
Can't help myself..
On the breeding issue.. We all like the modern varieties of Cannabis..
That I assume we all can agree on.
Well those that are cannabis people..
Are we really ready to sign off on letting only business breed our future strains or save land-race or other genetics?
If we can't, as private citizens, breed new strains or better yet save genetics for the future peoples then that is very much a crime against humanity.
We must separate our transient societal issues with cannabis from the rights of human beings to grow plants. It's been less than 80 years since we make it a crime. We have this confusion and turmoil because of making it a crime.
If it's legal it should be legal to properly practice horticulture with cannabis as a private citizen.
That is where I draw the line calling an Initiative a legalization initiative.
Edit: You know we are failing to talk about Hemp. That's the other side of the coin.
More on the breeding of plants.
Can't help myself..
On the breeding issue.. We all like the modern varieties of Cannabis..
That I assume we all can agree on.
Well those that are cannabis people..
Are we really ready to sign off on letting only business breed our future strains or save land-race or other genetics?
If we can't, as private citizens, breed new strains or better yet save genetics for the future peoples then that is very much a crime against humanity.
We must separate our transient societal issues with cannabis from the rights of human beings to grow plants. It's been less than 80 years since we make it a crime. We have this confusion and turmoil because of making it a crime.
If it's legal it should be legal to properly practice horticulture with cannabis as a private citizen.
That is where I draw the line calling an Initiative a legalization initiative.
Edit: You know we are failing to talk about Hemp. That's the other side of the coin.
J
JackTheGrower
Get Tired of me: Please..
Get Tired of me: Please..
let's talk business.. Okay so maybe I am looking so anti-business that you say.. Damn you JTG.. Cool
Alright let's talk about the person who wants to make it in business.. let's call them a willing-to-work-hard who is wanting to develop a unique marketable strain to start a business with; or, entrepreneur.
This person is wanting to rise to middle-class by the way of his "God-Given" Talents with cannabis. Do we stop this inventiveness? Do we stop the lower classes from getting a break and having access to cannabis in order to have a "start-up business?"
Is Oaksterdam's Initiative a major move on the market? Is it meant to stop small business>? I Include private citizens in that..
Get Tired of me: Please..
let's talk business.. Okay so maybe I am looking so anti-business that you say.. Damn you JTG.. Cool
Alright let's talk about the person who wants to make it in business.. let's call them a willing-to-work-hard who is wanting to develop a unique marketable strain to start a business with; or, entrepreneur.
This person is wanting to rise to middle-class by the way of his "God-Given" Talents with cannabis. Do we stop this inventiveness? Do we stop the lower classes from getting a break and having access to cannabis in order to have a "start-up business?"
Is Oaksterdam's Initiative a major move on the market? Is it meant to stop small business>? I Include private citizens in that..
Koroz
Member
Of course it is a major move to monopolize the market. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at the writing on the wall. Why else would you put in the proposal for it to be left up to the local government to decide if they want to penalize Cannabis users, and then allows the local government to apply new laws and penalties for the sale or purchasing of Cannabis.
They know Oakland is OK with it, why? Look at Oaksterdam already. They know since in their initiative they will allow the transportation of small amounts from county to county, and making places with nazi governments like San Diego a black hole for Cannabis users they will drive those sales north.
Why put that in the initiative at all? Do they think that will actually help this pass over the one from CCI that removes prior convictions and doesn't allow the local governments to override state law? The local people who are against Cannabis, at least in my circle of family, friends and ex-coworkers haven't been changing their minds because they think they might get to live in a Cannabis free county, they have changed their minds because they are tired of paying taxes putting people in jail for something that a lot of them now realize is safer then alcohol.
Every single person I know in California wants legalization with taxation, they don't want to keep funneling non violent drug offenders in private cattle farms known as privatized jail systems.
Jack.... None of that is a reason to legalize MJ.... We could decrim MJ and have the same thing.... If you took that argument to the people it would be a joke.
Jack wake up, its not about you and your greed to grow as many plants as you can. People care more about being able to generate tax dollars through legalization, hence why you see legalize and tax as the pro-argument all the time. I don`t here the MPP out there trying to preserve "proper horticulture" as a valid argument. And I doubt there is a "land-race" of non-existant MJ in the USA.
Honestly that sounds like something Glenn Beck would throw out there.
Spoken like a true corporate lobbyist who understands that the sheep (us) won`t know whats hitting them....
By allowing corporations to get their greasy hands on the money from the legalization and sale of marijuana off the backs of hard working people like ourselves. 80 years of fighting and donating to the cause all so RJ Reynolds or Marlboro and step in and take all the money.
No I`m not saying that, I`m saying that Spyker or Pagari are so insignificant because of Ford being so big that I have never heard of them or seen them. Just like your MJ grow business will be so insignificant that we will never hear or see it also.
I`d like to know how many people on this forum smoke over priced designer cigarettes, Drink Don P., or eat at fine dining restaurants? Who`s really going to be buying your 200-300-400 dollar ounces when they can pick up Shantibaba lights from Marlboro for 5 bucks a pack.
I`m sure the breeders wouldn`t sell out also and go work for the companies for huge amounts of money right.
Lemme guess the (corporate) breeders wouldn`t install terminator genetics so that the seeds produced will not grow right.... They would never do that with garden veggies....
Oh the humanity Jack, veggies who`s seeds are sterile, they would never do that to protect their strains from competitors....
Too Late they do it with tomatoes and everything else....
I would rather enjoy watching cannabis pull the world out of the hole. Grow the shit out of it, sell the shit out of it, and tax the shit out of it. And let the 'evil' marijuana be the savior for awhile. haha
Im not buying any weed, I know that. Although it will be inexpensive to buy when it becomes just another 'product' in the scheme of things.
Im not buying any weed, I know that. Although it will be inexpensive to buy when it becomes just another 'product' in the scheme of things.
Koroz
Member
I don't drink 500 dollar alcohol, but I drink local brews only.
Sorry but there isn't two extremes, the mass produced and the super expensive in life. There is a lot of middle ground, higher quality products to choose from in different goods that aren't mass produced, but at the same time aren't designer boutique goods.
For example Veggies. Farmers market where I go to buy mine and they taste a lot fresher, and are a better quality then store bought. Sure, its a bit more expensive sometimes, but we aren't talking Champagne expensive here... you pay for what you get.
Not everything is as cut and dry as you are trying to make it appear maxxim.
Sorry but there isn't two extremes, the mass produced and the super expensive in life. There is a lot of middle ground, higher quality products to choose from in different goods that aren't mass produced, but at the same time aren't designer boutique goods.
For example Veggies. Farmers market where I go to buy mine and they taste a lot fresher, and are a better quality then store bought. Sure, its a bit more expensive sometimes, but we aren't talking Champagne expensive here... you pay for what you get.
Not everything is as cut and dry as you are trying to make it appear maxxim.
