Koroz
Member
I actually changed it just now because I thought you had posted something you had not, everything else in my post is spot on so none of it gets changed.
Unlike you I can admit when I am wrong.
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Marijuana: California Tax and Regulate Cannabis 2010 Initiative Suspends Signature
I actually changed it just now because I thought you had posted something you had not, everything else in my post is spot on so none of it gets changed.
Unlike you I can admit when I am wrong.
J
JackTheGrower
For better or worse things will change in California.
i sure hope we can do clean up in 2012.. Would be nice to get the right kind of extremest laws in place I like .. Like allowing the citizen breed plants.
i sure hope we can do clean up in 2012.. Would be nice to get the right kind of extremest laws in place I like .. Like allowing the citizen breed plants.
It's one thing to be in favor of something, it's another thing getting there.
If this thread is indicative of the mentality among a significant % of CA cannabis users who vote it's likely that the status quo will be maintained. It really is strange to me that there are people who can look at the political landscape and declare that CA is ready to legalize with no restriction. We have at best 10% of the vote, and I say good luck getting the 18-25 year old cohort out to vote, which pares that number considerably. To get to 50%+1 we need to convince at least 5 times our numbers that some form of legalization is in the better interest of the State of California. To think that we can institute an extreme form of legalization in one fell swoop is folly. A significant % of the population still falls for the gateway theory claptrap. People have been propagandized for decades and people have this tendency to believe authority. Without compromise just isn't going to work, no matter how much you believe it the right thing, even no matter that it is the right thing. The entire thing is completely dependent upon people who are sitting on the fence. We've got to give them something on which to hang their hats if we're going to get their support. This is the entire design of the parts of TC2010 that people are bitching about so. I've got my fingers crossed that the extremist cohort in this movement are irrelevant. Reasonable people come to reasonable compromise about how to live with one another every day.
I must admit I don't understand why people that support an extreme agenda object so to being referred to as extremists. If you don't like being called an extremist, quit being one. Otherwise, you really should get used to it. BTW, character assassination is very much a neo-con trait, and seems to be the weapon of choice for the extremists that have posted their opinions above. Nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black there.
If this thread is indicative of the mentality among a significant % of CA cannabis users who vote it's likely that the status quo will be maintained. It really is strange to me that there are people who can look at the political landscape and declare that CA is ready to legalize with no restriction. We have at best 10% of the vote, and I say good luck getting the 18-25 year old cohort out to vote, which pares that number considerably. To get to 50%+1 we need to convince at least 5 times our numbers that some form of legalization is in the better interest of the State of California. To think that we can institute an extreme form of legalization in one fell swoop is folly. A significant % of the population still falls for the gateway theory claptrap. People have been propagandized for decades and people have this tendency to believe authority. Without compromise just isn't going to work, no matter how much you believe it the right thing, even no matter that it is the right thing. The entire thing is completely dependent upon people who are sitting on the fence. We've got to give them something on which to hang their hats if we're going to get their support. This is the entire design of the parts of TC2010 that people are bitching about so. I've got my fingers crossed that the extremist cohort in this movement are irrelevant. Reasonable people come to reasonable compromise about how to live with one another every day.
I must admit I don't understand why people that support an extreme agenda object so to being referred to as extremists. If you don't like being called an extremist, quit being one. Otherwise, you really should get used to it. BTW, character assassination is very much a neo-con trait, and seems to be the weapon of choice for the extremists that have posted their opinions above. Nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black there.
You are the pot in this instance Pyth. I guess it depends on one's definition of an extremist. Why don't you ask the rest here if they agree that the opinions above are extremist. IMO they are just differing opinions that get under your skin.
You still have not fully opposed Koroz's post, have directed into another course of discussion, opposed nothing but offered political views and ideology, and yourself have, like always, resorted to character assassination with your pathetic immature name calling.
You don't get to vote on reality. It is what it is. If the position that all cannabis should be legal and untaxed, and that all persons convicted of any cannabis related offense aren't extremist, perhaps you could describe to me what qualifies as extreme in your mind. Perhaps passing laws which require cannabis consumption by all adults is what's extreme in your mind? I don't know, myself 'without compromise or consideration of other people's needs' sure qualifies in my mind.
That just goes to show if you want to get signatures, all you have to do is put up $1,000,000 and pay off a bunch cats to go hustle those names....
That's it baby. Money talk and bullshit walks. Gotta throw a little grease on the machine make it run. I'm not really qualified to comment on the substance of the initiative. I'm just glad to see legalization marching through so easily (in special interest policy terms). Rightly f'ing so.
Unsane
Member
We mustn't let the Perfect be the enemy of the Good.
Although the initiative may be imperfect, it is a step in the right direction because it legalizes the use, cultivation, and sale of cannabis.
While certain counties such as San Diego may prohibit the sale of cannabis through zoning laws, you will still be allowed to grow it, possess it, and use it.
The legalization regime the initiative establishes is, in all respects, better than the prohibition regime we have now.
I will be voting for the initiative, and I hope you do to.
Although the initiative may be imperfect, it is a step in the right direction because it legalizes the use, cultivation, and sale of cannabis.
While certain counties such as San Diego may prohibit the sale of cannabis through zoning laws, you will still be allowed to grow it, possess it, and use it.
The legalization regime the initiative establishes is, in all respects, better than the prohibition regime we have now.
I will be voting for the initiative, and I hope you do to.
B
Blue Dot
Dude, you realize that will mean the 8th largest city in the US will have no mmj dispensaries don't you?
Of course it's acceptable to you, you don't F'ing live here.
Unread Today, 03:55 AM
Blue Dot
This message is hidden because Blue Dot is on your ignore list
Damn dude... You're STILL posting in this thread?
Blue Dot
This message is hidden because Blue Dot is on your ignore list
Damn dude... You're STILL posting in this thread?
Koroz
Member
Voting to remove convictions on people who should have never been in jail in the first place. No, is not extremism. It is protecting the people from a tyrannical government.
I also do not believe all Cannabis should be untaxed, but I do believe it should be legal in places where the local PEOPLE have voted to make it so, not the government.
To me, extremism in this case is more the fact that you want to give the government the power to decide against the will of the people, to keep a law from being put into action with out a vote from those same people on a local level.
Extremism is the fact that you want to stifle competition, you want to muzzle the voice of reason just so that YOU can push through legalization for your own agenda instead of the agenda for the rest of the citizens in our state. You want to oppress a group of people so that you have freedoms they won't because the law put in front of you doesn't affect the area you live.
That is extremist. Again, you fit the bill of exactly what my Signature talks about "For most people the concept of liberty only applies to that which does not offend them." the only difference I would make is to change offend to "affect" in your case.
Extremism is simply relative to general attitudes. Yes, expecting normal, everyday folk to support amnesty for those convicted under the law is extreme. Now, you claim it isn't. In order to support that silliness, please explain a more extreme position?
Perhaps you're dictionary only defines the word as applying to people or positions that you don't like?
Ok, it seems that your definition of the word is as described above. My position is very middle of the road. Understanding that there are people with concerns that need to be addressed in order to get their support is the antithesis of an extreme position. Compromise can never be extreme, and if you think that insisting that it does makes you anything but a blistering idiot, you have my pity.
The rest of your diatribe against me is simply false, it does not represent my position, and is nothing but a fantasy in your head. But that's par for the course for an extremist such as yourself. Rather than speak to the issues, you attack me personally. Whatever dude, good luck with your fantasy land analysis. Why, you might gain as much as 3% support for your agenda among likely voters! Yeah, you're gonna change the laws real quick with your agenda, lolol.
But really, it's all a moot point. Money talks, bullshit walks. When you've got money to back up your bullshit give me a call. In the meantime there are people with resources working to make real changes.
Perhaps you're dictionary only defines the word as applying to people or positions that you don't like?
Ok, it seems that your definition of the word is as described above. My position is very middle of the road. Understanding that there are people with concerns that need to be addressed in order to get their support is the antithesis of an extreme position. Compromise can never be extreme, and if you think that insisting that it does makes you anything but a blistering idiot, you have my pity.
The rest of your diatribe against me is simply false, it does not represent my position, and is nothing but a fantasy in your head. But that's par for the course for an extremist such as yourself. Rather than speak to the issues, you attack me personally. Whatever dude, good luck with your fantasy land analysis. Why, you might gain as much as 3% support for your agenda among likely voters! Yeah, you're gonna change the laws real quick with your agenda, lolol.
But really, it's all a moot point. Money talks, bullshit walks. When you've got money to back up your bullshit give me a call. In the meantime there are people with resources working to make real changes.
Koroz
Member
Real changes? That is where you and I differ, I don't consider TC2010 to be "real" changes, I consider it a step in the wrong direction. You seem to only focus on problems that further your agenda.
With the history of our Government/Media do you really honestly believe they are going to focus on the money made in California where this bill is accepted by the local government? Places like Oakland aren't going to get airtime...
It will be places like San Diego with the typical Media spin, saying shit like "See! Legalization doesn't bring in any tax money, they only grow it in California counties!" They aren't going to focus on the decreased crime in area's like Oakland, instead they will focus on places where selling and buying are still illegal, again like San Diego and will show headlines of "in the face of legalization, crime rates rise in California!"
Why do you think after 40+ years of negative press, bullshit yellow journalism and cover ups all the sudden when TC2010 passes it will all stop and the road will be paved with golden dreams of flowing Cannabis. Truth is, it won't. Instead we will give them the same ammunition you are bitching and moaning about with CCI/Jack Herer initiatives. At least with those two we would have had our brothers, sisters, fathers etc out of jail instead of sitting there wasting our tax dollars. We would have had freedom from persecution in ALL counties not just ones that pick and choose their freedoms.
But again, stick your head in the sand and keep telling yourself "any" form of legalization is better then what we have now.. and when you find out that all this initiative is going to do is push the true legalization movement back while making those like Richard Lee rich beyond dreams come back here and finally admit you were a bit close minded. We all know that won't happen though, you don't have it in you to actually admit when you might be wrong.
How you can say this with a straight face boggles the mind. I ask that you explain it.
Disagreeing with a ballot proposition that, you believe, will exclude your particular conservatively-minded municpality is completely understandable from a standpoint of your self-interest. I get that part.
But how you can leap from that point to conclude it is a "step in the wrong direction" seems to me an exercise in deliberate self-delusion -- unless you are a Prohibitionist.
And from everything you have said, you are clearly not a Prohibitionist. So how do you arrive at this "wrong direction" conclusion?
If "his agenda" means "overall progress for the movement as a whole", then your statement appears correct. Do you posit it to be something else?
So just exactly how is it that TC2010 could possibly set the "true legalization" movement back?
How do you reach that conclusion on a logical basis?
Explain this please.
There are many challenges expected. That's why the number of signatures collected is targeted to exceed the number actually needed by a huge factor.
Collected now - 650,000
Collected by end of signature collection - approx. 700,000
Number actually needed - 433,971
That 270,000 excess is there to ensure that the number required is comfortably exceeded beyond any doubt.
Man, I look at those numbers and how quick they got them and I can see this really going down. I'm not one to count the money till I have it in hand, but that's some pretty exciting stuff.
It takes money to put the signature gatherers on the ground. It's as simple as that.
Enthusiastic volunteers are always necessary for any political movement or election to succeed. It cannot be done without them.
But it is not realistically possible to win when that's all you have, either. You need both.
The democratic process is dependent upon money. As Obama proved, you can gather vast amounts of it from individual donors, to the point where Big Money Donations can't compete with huge grass roots money. That's just simple arithmetic in the internet age.
But in either case, winning requires money.
