War breaks out within the marijuana legalization movement

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

If this conversation were taking place a year from now, you might have a valid point. Right now the debate is about which initiative would be better, and which one should make it to the ballot. You seem to be incapable of making that distinction.

The process in California is that an initiative is proposed, then signatures are gathered. If enough valid signatures are gathered, the initiative is placed on the ballot. We are in the signature gathering stage, which is entirely different from the "get out the vote" stage. Now is the time for this kind of discussion. Once the initiative(s) make it to the ballot, then it's a whole different ball game. Right now you are just wasting a lot of bluster on issues that don't even exist.

PC

Why not 20 iniatives. why not 100? we should all get behind one. if a few thugs in oakland want to run they own. let them fail. we all need to back the CCI initative. plain+simple. anything else and we are eliminating our chances of having it passed by the majority.

 

[PharmaCan]

Why not 20 iniatives. why not 100? we should all get behind one. if a few thugs in oakland want to run they own. let them fail. we all need to back the CCI initative. plain+simple. anything else and we are eliminating our chances of having it passed by the majority.

Intelligently discussing the pros and cons of both initiatives and demonstrating why CCI is better than TC2010 could go a long way in helping that initiative make it to the ballot and get passed.

PC

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Gosh, Herb, maybe we should start a thread on IC Mag where everyone can discuss your idea and air their differences; you know, where people can debate the pros and cons of both initiatives.

Oh wait, that's what this thread is doing, isn't it.

The thing is, you look at this debate from the standpoint of a bully. Everyone better agree with you or else. Well, that isn't going to happen. However, intelligently discussing the pros and cons of both initiatives and demonstrating why CCI is better than TC2010 could go a long way in helping that initiative make it to the ballot and get passed.

PC

I give up. let cannabis stay illegal. im tired of this argument. you can all live in fucking la la land. its obvious to me that many of you would rather fight amongst yourselfs than unite for something important. so im done wasting my time and energy.

 

[PharmaCan]

sad but true...the wording of legislation is so tedious...but posting the initiative and giving a bunch of stoners line item veto isn't going to work either.

I copied that from another thread - this one needs a little comic relief.

PC

 

[bass ackwards]

If an initiative gathers enough signatures for ballot approval? That would be the perfect opportunity to see if, indeed, now is the time to raise money on an Obama internet style grass-roots basis.

That is my hope. That the CCI initiative does so. However I am not going to wait for it to reach the ballot. I intend to support the work necessary for it to reach the ballot. That is just my personal view,I am not suggesting others should do likewise. However if it makes the ballot we as a community would be wise to offer our support.
As I said earlier I do not live in California so there is no direct benefit for me should this pass,but it would be the first victory in a battle which would begin nationwide. This battle needs to be engaged and California is ready to lead and I for one am willing to follow.

Respect bass

 

[Pythagllio]

Says the poster with the ASA emblem for his Avatar.

How about instead of being a smart ass, you recognize that some people just don't have the same views as you, that doesn't make them close minded it just makes them have differing opinions.

I would argue its more close minded of you to call people extremists and tell them they are not in reality just because they don't think what you do is the "correct" way of thinking.

OMG, he supports ASA! He must be some kind of dastard!

I disagree that you're blindness is 'just a differing opinion. Do those that still believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old aren't blind? Yeah, it's just a 'different opinion'. If your 'differing opinion' is that you can get your agenda passed without the support of voters with whom you disagree, please explain how you're going to do so. In the alternative, perhaps you believe that the number of voters who support your agenda is hidden from view. Keep in mind that the last surveys show 15 million past month 'users', with fully half of them under age 25, not a group know for going to the polls, especially in an 'off' election year. Even if we go with CaNORML's estimate of 3 million CA cannabis consumers, assume, that they will all vote and do so as a blok (ROFLMAO) you're only approaching 30% support for your agenda, and that's an absurdly optimistic projection. You still have to figure out a way to get 20% + 1 of the voters to actually vote in favor of your position. You haven't even been successful in talking a significant number of the likely voters in the cohort of cannabis users that supporting your agenda is right. It is people like yourself that is keeping this entire movement stuck in the mud. The good news for the movement is that a lot of us have woken up as we've gotten older, and realize that we have to live with other people, and that means that there's going to be compromise needed in order to achieve our goal. We're also gathering together resources to fight the battle in the manner it needs to be fought, and that is inside the system, not standing outside of it.

I'm not sure why the extremists take such offense at being called extremists. It is objectively demonstrable that your position is an extreme position. I doubt that Abbie Hoffman ever minded being called an extremist. He was a damn fool IMO, but at least he was proud of himself. No my friend, you are not an extremist because you disagree with me. You are an extremist because you have an extreme opinion.

 

[Koroz]

OMG, he supports ASA! He must be some kind of dastard!

I'm not sure why the extremists take such offense at being called extremists. It is objectively demonstrable that your position is an extreme position. I doubt that Abbie Hoffman ever minded being called an extremist. He was a damn fool IMO, but at least he was proud of himself. No my friend, you are not an extremist because you disagree with me. You are an extremist because you have an extreme opinion.

Yes, because disagreeing with an initative that basically keeps prohibition alive and well in a lot of California Counties, because Tax Canna 2010 gives the local government the right to decide with out a vote of its constituents to ignore the taxation and sales of Cannabis.

This in effect, as I have explained before puts a burden on its local voters with out giving them the right to vote, even if they had voted to legalize Cannabis in the state voting polls.

Do you see why this is bad? If not you are flipping crazy, or ignorant, but either way you calling me an extremist, close minded and the other things you have said in this post about people who take my side of the debate doesn't make your opinion look any better. It makes you look petty and simple.

And as I said before, no, those people who are going to vote NO to Cannabis legalization are not going to Vote YES to Tax Canna 2010 because it allows these counties the right with impunity to keep prohibition going. It won't change their vote for either initiative.

So why then do you choose to back a group who A) was pushing for stronger controls (asa) in the Sacramento market for Medical Cannabis, and B) pushing for an initiative that would keep prohibition alive in Cannabis unfriendly area's. Do you have an agenda that you aren't telling us?

 

[Unsane]

I don't understand the naysayers.

They tell us to wait for 2012. "Just wait for auspicious winds," they say. "It will come in 2012. Just wait."

They fail to see however that politics is more than just waiting for opportunities: it also about creating political opportunities and occasions for change.

The naysayers perform their calculations and do their polling. They analyze, through their social scientific lens, the political landscape. From this perspective, people are no longer human actors. In a grotesque way, people become numbers and objects behaving according to statistical laws.

This is a myopic and dangerous perspective. Donning this social scientific lens, the naysayers fail to see the humanity in the objects of their study. As a result, they ignore the reality that people are not billiard balls. People are people. We are human, and this humanity is what precisely the naysayers fail to see. Humans are collaborative political actors. Political viewpoints are not set in stone; rather, speech and rhetoric have the power to change them. This is the nature of politics. And surely, this is the nature of being human.

Why are we afraid to challenge the rhetoric of the Prohibitionists? Are not the facts on our side? True, you say, Truth and Justice are on our side but the Prohibitionists are the manipulators par excellence of the Truth and the Factual. Well, indeed they are, but this does not make them omnipotent. We can expose their lies and win over our felllow Americans by our own rhetoric. We can't do this however if we don't even try.

We can, like the naysayers, relinquish our agency and fret over percentages and numbers. Or we can affirm our agency--our political nature--and organize and agitate for our political ends.

We can also wait and wait for more favorable winds like desperate sailors, pining and hoping that someday, somehow we get out of these Doldrums. Or, we can rally our spirits and, with our own hands, row towards favorable winds.

Bottom line: we can either wait for our opportunity or we can create the opportunity ourselves by organizing, agitating, and acting together for political change.

Some will accuse me of ignoring the Machiavellian nature of politics. I answer that I do not. I am only pointing out the dangers and faults of viewing politics as a purely strategic, means-ends endeavor. There is a place for strategy, maneuvering, and analysis. But there is also a place for rhetoric, persuasion, and collaborative political action.

Nows the time to act. Prohibition will not end, unless we do.

This is why I ignore the naysayers and actively support the CCI. I hope you will join me and other activists in doing the same.

 

[Pythagllio]

Yes, because disagreeing with an initative that basically keeps prohibition alive and well in a lot of California Counties, because Tax Canna 2010 gives the local government the right to decide with out a vote of its constituents to ignore the taxation and sales of Cannabis.

This in effect, as I have explained before puts a burden on its local voters with out giving them the right to vote, even if they had voted to legalize Cannabis in the state voting polls.

If your cause is so righteous, why do you feel such a need to blatantly lie about the effects of TC2010? The above quoted text is not true, it's a twisted and perverted reading of what's there.

Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older
.
.
.
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.
(iv) Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection.
http://taxcannabis2010.org/initiative.php

Even in the counties that don't allow commercial commerce people will still be able to possess and cultivate. Did you miss the part where it takes a major bite out of building 'probable cause'? How many busts start with the officer saying 'I noticed the smell of (burning or fresh) merryjewanna? After TC2010, the judge says 'so what?'

The fact of the matter is that the commercial restrictions in the prop and the excise tax people are so up in arms against are a moot point until and unless the Feds legalize, so you're picking on points in the law that won't matter a fucking teeny tiny bit for at least a decade. But the parts I quoted and bolded will go into effect immediately for all Californians, regardless of what the locals want.

Do you see why this is bad? If not you are flipping crazy, or ignorant, but either way you calling me an extremist, close minded and the other things you have said in this post about people who take my side of the debate doesn't make your opinion look any better. It makes you look petty and simple.

I apologize for hurting your itty bitty feelings by making an honest observation of fact. If I'm mistaken, point out where you're not an extremist. You can't do it, because your position is extreme, and worse, it's dishonest. Yeah right, it's better to maintain the status quo than to improve it. I must be crazy to want to see some realistic relief, and to start the dominoes falling instead of demanding something that just isn't realistically possible. If that's crazy and/or ignorant you got me, I guess I am. But gosh, it is amusing to see someone who objects to being 'called names' regardless that those names are factuallly descriptive call someone else 'crazy' and 'ignorant'. Hypocrisy in action, but that's to be expected from extremists such as yourself.

 

[PharmaCan]

(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.

So what happens if I have 2 ounces, or two pounds? Let's say I grow my little 25 sq.ft. patch and get four pounds, what am I supposed do, throw away 63 ounces and keep one?

TC2010 is a piece-of-shit law that we are better off without!!!!

Anyone who says, "Oh, let's just pass the law and worry about fixing the bad parts later is either ignorant, stupid or lying. That simply isn't the way things work in California.

PC

 

[fatigues]

A recent article comparing and contrasting the various initiatives underway describes the CCI in this fashion:

Another voter ballot initiative, put forth by Omar Figueroa, a lawyer who specializes in marijuana cases, is very different than Lee’s or Ammiano’s proposals. Figueroa’s initiative would remove all state penalties related to marijuana, effective retroactively. This could release those currently serving a sentence in California for a marijuana-related crime. Figueroa was working with Lee on the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act until he split off over disagreements of whether to take on state law and created his own initiative.

As I predicted, even the alternative media has latched onto the issue of retroactive amnesty and mass prisoner release immediately. That's before the Republicans and the Forces of Darkness have even come out swinging about the initiative -- as they are certain to do.

I don't dispute that getting the CCI passed would be a bolder and a more complete marijuana legalization ballot initiative. I don't dispute that those who are pro-Marijuana in California would be better off if the CCI was passed, as compared to TC2010. No argument on that issue at all.

That said, for those who think the CCI does not over-reach in how it deals with prisoner amnesty, you need a severe reality check. The presence of the retroactive amnesty provisions in the CCI results in a fundamentally politically defective ballot initiative which is higly unlikely to succeed at the polls.

Wake up guys. I'm not at all disputing about what the law should be, or what would be best. I am pointing out that some law is better than no law. And as drafted, "no law" is where CCI is headed politically. This is a defeat waiting to happen.

The Republican Right Wing is simply going to have a field day with the amnesty proposal. It makes defeat of this initiative, assuming it can even get enough signatures for certification, very likely.

 

[Pistil_Party09]

I don't dispute that getting the CCI passed would be a bolder and a more complete marijuana legalization ballot initiative. I don't dispute that those who are pro-Marijuana in California would be better off if the CCI was passed, as compared to TC2010. No argument on that issue at all.

CCI is much better but like fatigues said, im a realist, not an extremist.

 

[Koroz]

If your cause is so righteous, why do you feel such a need to blatantly lie about the effects of TC2010? The above quoted text is not true, it's a twisted and perverted reading of what's there.


Even in the counties that don't allow commercial commerce people will still be able to possess and cultivate. Did you miss the part where it takes a major bite out of building 'probable cause'? How many busts start with the officer saying 'I noticed the smell of (burning or fresh) merryjewanna? After TC2010, the judge says 'so what?'

The fact of the matter is that the commercial restrictions in the prop and the excise tax people are so up in arms against are a moot point until and unless the Feds legalize, so you're picking on points in the law that won't matter a fucking teeny tiny bit for at least a decade. But the parts I quoted and bolded will go into effect immediately for all Californians, regardless of what the locals want.



I apologize for hurting your itty bitty feelings by making an honest observation of fact. If I'm mistaken, point out where you're not an extremist. You can't do it, because your position is extreme, and worse, it's dishonest. Yeah right, it's better to maintain the status quo than to improve it. I must be crazy to want to see some realistic relief, and to start the dominoes falling instead of demanding something that just isn't realistically possible. If that's crazy and/or ignorant you got me, I guess I am. But gosh, it is amusing to see someone who objects to being 'called names' regardless that those names are factuallly descriptive call someone else 'crazy' and 'ignorant'. Hypocrisy in action, but that's to be expected from extremists such as yourself.

once again everything you say means about jack all. You are trying to pass an initiative that allows local government to go AGAINST the will of the people who voted in the state.

So now, considering that the MAJORITY of people in Counties like San Diego, are RENTERS and NOT home owners they do NOT have the right to grow their own with out the legal consent of their landlords. How many f'n landlords do you know are going to say "Oh sure! Grow in my house/apartment for your personal consumption I won't mind!"

Which means the majority of people in counties who VOTED YES for Tax Canna 2010 will still be FORCED to buy it illegally. This is continued prohibition. Not everyone has the money for gas, time or ability to drive to places like Oakland who will allow purchasing of an ounce or more, every time they want to "refill" their stash.

Hence, as I said before "continued prohibition".

 

[Koroz]

A recent article comparing and contrasting the various initiatives underway describes the CCI in this fashion:

As I predicted, even the alternative media has latched onto the issue of retroactive amnesty and mass prisoner release immediately. That's before the Republicans and the Forces of Darkness have even come out swinging about the initiative -- as they are certain to do.

I don't dispute that getting the CCI passed would be a bolder and a more complete marijuana legalization ballot initiative. I don't dispute that those who are pro-Marijuana in California would be better off if the CCI was passed, as compared to TC2010. No argument on that issue at all.

That said, for those who think the CCI does not over-reach in how it deals with prisoner amnesty, you need a severe reality check. The presence of the retroactive amnesty provisions in the CCI results in a fundamentally politically defective ballot initiative which is higly unlikely to succeed at the polls.

Wake up guys. I'm not at all disputing about what the law should be, or what would be best. I am pointing out that some law is better than no law. And as drafted, "no law" is where CCI is headed politically. This is a defeat waiting to happen.

The Republican Right Wing is simply going to have a field day with the amnesty proposal. It makes defeat of this initiative, assuming it can even get enough signatures for certification, very likely.

This is why you shouldn't be commenting on things in California.

California is a blue state, the majority of voters in this state are liberal or independent/Libertarian. There for, as long as we stick together and pushed CCI it WOULD pass. But because people like you, who don't even live here continue to pass on crap about the state you have no clue on (like the climate of voters in the state) we will split the vote and neither is going to pass.

Grats!

 

[PharmaCan]

This contention that CCI will be squashed because of the amnesty provision is a specious argument that ignores the reality of certain facts in play here in California. To begin with, CCI calls for a marijuana amnesty, not a violent crimes amnesty. Anyone in prison for violence in connection with marijuana would stay right where they are because the initiative has no provisions for amnesty for violent crimes.

Another factor is that the State of California is currently saddled with a federal order to reduce its prison population by 40,000 prisoners. I think it is safe to say that most Californians would rather see the release of pot smokers and dealers as a preferable alternative to the release of child molesters, bank robbers and rapists. One thing you can be sure of is that the supporters of CCI will certainly use this as a talking point during the campaign.

The initiative process in California is seen by the vast majority of Californians as a way of taking the legislative process into our own hands when the legislature fails to honor the will of the people. I think the CCI naysayers should give the people of California credit for a little more intelligence than they are. There's also the fact that California has a really bad budget crisis right now and many people who are ambivalent about mj could see that as a reason to vote in favor of CCI.

Those people who are pronouncing CCI DOA because of the amnesty provision really have nothing other than their own opinions to substantiate their belief. There are no opinion polls or anything else of a factual nature to back their opinions and repeatedly sounding the death knell of CCI on the basis of the amnesty provision is nothing more than bluster.

Wake up guys. I'm not at all disputing about what the law should be, or what would be best. I am pointing out that some law is better than no law. And as drafted, "no law" is where CCI is headed politically. This is a defeat waiting to happen.

The Republican Right Wing is simply going to have a field day with the amnesty proposal. It makes defeat of this initiative, assuming it can even get enough signatures for certification, very likely.

Well, yes you are disputing what would be best - repeatedly! Your contention that some law would be better than no law is pure hogwash! If you want to pass a bad law, try running it up the flagpole in your state and see how it plays. Meanwhile, you have no business pontificating about laws that will never affect you!

And what do you think the Republican Right Wing and other assorted drug warriors are going to do if TC2010 qualifies, roll over and play dead? You shills just love the straw-man approach, don't you!

PC

 

[johnnyla]

cool. i'll vote for the most libertarian law. this will probably be the last time i vote for anything political ever again.

 

[Unsane]

Another factor is that the State of California is currently saddled with a federal order to reduce its prison population by 40,000 prisoners. I think it is safe to say that most Californians would rather see the release of pot smokers and dealers as a preferable alternative to the release of child molesters, bank robbers and rapists. One thing you can be sure of is that the supporters of CCI will certainly use this as a talking point during the campaign.

Keep in mind that Prop. 5 failed in 2008.

But, I do agree with you that the amnesty clause in the CCI does not automatically make it "politically defective." To win over voters, we should remind them how much money would be saved by releasing non-violent pot smokers and dealers.

 

[JackTheGrower]

True.. I also wish to point out what I feel is the major benefit of CCI and that is the right of private citizens to actually breed many different strains at once.

No way can you do that with Oaksterdam without getting arrested.

If we fail to see we are selling out to Corporations with Oaksterdam Then we have been taken IMO.. Living beings should have the right to grow food and medicine freely.

 

[Moldy Dreads]

Poor Jack, dude is seeing what greed does to the herb....

 

[JackTheGrower]

Poor Jack, dude is seeing what greed does to the herb....

CCi is in danger people.. California people need to understand we are the people and unfunded.

If we don't get the signatures you won't have a choice..