Friends say they are against legalization

[krunchbubble]

everyone who thinks that the current California legalization bill is going to make it so that you can grow fields and fields, fill your backyard up and not worry about anything, walk down the street smoking weed, is dead wrong.

this initiative is a step backwards. but people see and hear legalization and think, yeah my dreams came true! it simply is not the case. maybe in the future a better initiative will come up, but everyone is so hell bent on this one, you may be screwing yourselves.

read the initiative carefully. your only allowed to grow in a 25 sq ft area and only possession of an ounce is legal. hmmm, most current medical laws allow more then this, right? whats up with that?.....

Richard lee is making sure that patients cant sustain themselves, growing in a 25 sq ft area. and that conveniently, you can go to one of his clubs to purchase your meds, thanks to his club monopolization......

 

[Zeinth]

no way..

no way..

it wont be legal soon...even if the votes made it so..

the system thrives off all the arrests..the system..825,000 arrests last year?

aaahhh...the attourneys...the judges..the officers..the prisons..the cheap labor slaving away..

While we talk...the U.S. goverment patients cannabis uses.....LOL.


Opinion: US Government Holds Patent For Medical Marijuana, Shows Hipocrisy




On the one hand, United States federal government officials have consistently denied that marijuana has any medical benefits. On the other, the government actually holds patents for the medical use of the plant.

Just check out US Patent 6630507 titled "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants" which is assigned to The United States of America, as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services.
The patent claims that "Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma

and so..so many more..see there not done with this cash cow...and will exploit this plant till every unknown property is controlled..taxed..regulated..


so..ya..make the cash..oops..compassion..sure.

 

[SpasticGramps]

This Richard Lee guy sound like a real douche.

 

[Blue Dot]

This Richard Lee guy sound like a real douche.

You're just now coming to this conclusion?

 

[ourcee]

everyone who thinks that the current California legalization bill is going to make it so that you can grow fields and fields, fill your backyard up and not worry about anything, walk down the street smoking weed, is dead wrong.

I totally agree, current "legalization" proposals are all tightly regulated and controlled processes that have no intention of "legalizing" but rather putting influence/control/money into the hands of a select few.



when I can plant a seed and harvest my crop however I see fit in whatever amounts I see fit, no strings attached, then you've got legalization.

 

[guest5703]

damn dude....theres like 6 pages of shit I dont feel like reading now...lol

 

[SicKSKills]

well as nice as it would be, its a pipe dream to think the fed government will ever legalize mj... has been and always be part of the underground even in pseudo-legal med states....

 

[Pythagllio]

Because nobody goes to jail and nobody gets taxed?

Oh, you didn't mean decriminalization, you meant fantasy land. My bad.

 

[9Lives]

It's OK to snitch on growers who say NO! Have a taste of your own medicine..

(has to be the real deal tho..Like any other agricultural crop)

 

[Hazelnuts]

everyone who thinks that the current California legalization bill is going to make it so that you can grow fields and fields, fill your backyard up and not worry about anything, walk down the street smoking weed, is dead wrong.

this initiative is a step backwards. but people see and hear legalization and think, yeah my dreams came true! it simply is not the case. maybe in the future a better initiative will come up, but everyone is so hell bent on this one, you may be screwing yourselves.

read the initiative carefully. your only allowed to grow in a 25 sq ft area and only possession of an ounce is legal. hmmm, most current medical laws allow more then this, right? whats up with that?.....

Richard lee is making sure that patients cant sustain themselves, growing in a 25 sq ft area. and that conveniently, you can go to one of his clubs to purchase your meds, thanks to his club monopolization......

I'm not sure if the proposition wouldn't leave prop. 215 intact... If it wouldn't, then the whole thing is bullshit for sure, and yeah I agree an oz per person isn't exactly legalization... But what about the other initiative (and AB390), are those any better? And I think Oregon has a bill or proposition up for vote in the times to come, too, but I've never seen its exact text either... Would be nice to know more about all those things, cause it really seems like Lee's proposition is a pile of steaming shit

 

[Pythagllio]

TC2010 does not amend or repeal Prop 215.

The people who criticize this TC2010 as a 'step backward' need some lessons in critical thinking and logical argument.

 

[Koroz]

TC2010 does not amend or repeal Prop 215.

The people who criticize this TC2010 as a 'step backward' need some lessons in critical thinking and logical argument.

yea we need to think logical, you know, accept that our local governments can with out a vote of the people who voted in TC2010 can then just say sorry! We don't want the tax and you can't buy it or sell it in our district and it doesn't matter what you want!

real logical.

 

[Pythagllio]

The lack of logic is self apparent that some think it's a 'step backward'. When I was in 3rd grade I learned that 25>0.

It is illogical to presume that we need not compromise in order to further our agenda. We just don't have the numbers, and the votes that will put us over the top come from people with certain concerns that need to be addressed.

It is argumentum ad hominem to worry about Richard Lee's motives, and illogical to demand that any proposal come from someone as pure as the driven snow.

It is illogical to presume that our interests can be furthered by volunteers only. In the end if you want real change, it's going to come incrementally, and money talks, bullshit walks.

Like universal health care, cannabis legalization is never going to be implemented if we demand that reality conform to what we want. Had the Clintons been willing to compromise in 1993, the framework would have been laid and significant improvements would have been made. Instead, they took an all or none approach and the result is that we're basically starting over from scratch 16 years later, which puts us way behind where we would have been with a rational, incrementalist approach to overcoming those whose agenda is opposed to ours. I invite you to read http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/libertarians-need-to-rethink-support-for-drug-legalization/ to remind yourself of the mindset of those who oppose us, and would certainly entertain any ideas you have for wiping out these idiots. But reality is these people exist, and their mindset is ensconced in a large enough percentage of the population that we have to have a realistic plan to deal with the inevitable propaganda blitz that will come around in late September 2010. The allowance for local governments to regulate, even forbid the commercial production and sales of cannabis will allow enough people that are sitting on the fence to vote for us, because they don't care if the idiots in Oakland/San Francisco want to ruin their own cities with 'pothead zombies'. The restriction to 25 sq feet while small, is adequate. Not enough? Go get your medical rec. It's untrue on its face that P215 is going to be 'amended' by TC2010.

Perhaps you don't think that people like the lady that wrote that nonsense I linked are powerful enough to keep us down for years to come, forcing us to eventually sit down and compromise in a decade or more, when we could have a decade of legalization in a 'test market' and the ability to show the actual results, and refute the nonsense arguments of our enemies. I think this lack of understanding of reality is where your critical thinking skills need to be improved.

Pass TC2010. The restrictions will not persist, and it is a step forward.

 

[Norkali]

Whatever mayne...the cream will rise to the top either way; and the money will follow. My main goal in growing was to be able to stop paying somebody else for my smoke, or at least stop paying crazy prices for top-shelf dank, and legalization will do nothing to inhibit that goal for me.

I think we all need to stop and ask that question before we judge the idea of legalization; why did you start growing? Was your answer like mine? Why not legalize then? For the people who depend on it to put to put food on their table....well fuck man, I guess the people are changing their minds' and you just have to adapt, the plus is that you will be legit now - AND you have the leg-up in experience, consulting business anybody?

Pyth,

-Norkali

 

[CaptainTrips]

Well Id say I agree with your friend on one level. On another level, the "right" thing is legalization... that is total legalization, no weight limits, no taxes for personal grows. Since that is not going to happen anytime soon, TC2010 I think might actually those who make money, because it makes things more acceptable legally, but does not legalize sales so you still have your black market sales/prices...

 

[Pythagllio]

You'll also have non cannabis people setting up 25 sq ft areas in their homes instead of taking a part time job waiting tables or delivering pizzas when times are tough. Some of them will even get it right. Other non consumers may be willing to rent 25 sq ft grow areas to people. But god forbid that anyone just in it for the money contribute to an increase in supply?

 

[Koroz]

The lack of logic is self apparent that some think it's a 'step backward'. When I was in 3rd grade I learned that 25>0.

It is illogical to presume that we need not compromise in order to further our agenda. We just don't have the numbers, and the votes that will put us over the top come from people with certain concerns that need to be addressed.

I would argue that it is more illogical to think that those same people who would vote yes because they allow local governments to ignore the tax and sales of Cannabis, would vote NO because it gave them MORE power to vote in their own communities to decide if they want the initiative passed.

Most of the people you claim are so "illogical" are only asking that verbiage be added to the initiative which puts the power back into the hands of the local constituents, and not into 4-5 city council members.

It is argumentum ad hominem to worry about Richard Lee's motives, and illogical to demand that any proposal come from someone as pure as the driven snow.

It is illogical to presume that our interests can be furthered by volunteers only. In the end if you want real change, it's going to come incrementally, and money talks, bullshit walks.

I am not sure where you think that I, or a lot of the more vocal (but sane) members of this forum who oppose TC2010 do so because we think Richard Lee might make money. Like I really care if Richard makes money or not, my problem as with many others is he KNOWS the locals of a lot of these places like San Diego, Butte, Shasta, Tehema, etc would vote yes to the sales, but the local conservative council members won't regardless of what the people want. I am against him making money by oppressing those who voted his initiative into law because he took the power out of their hands even after they vote yes state wide.

I also don't think that the initiative of ANY group will pass with out some money behind it, again, that isn't the argument here and it seems you have gone off into lala land where you have this preconceived notion of what people think, then ignore the whole post of what they say and proceed to make up shit as if it actually has substance. The bottom line is, regardless if Richard makes money or not, the PEOPLE still need to be the ones who decide.
What is the power behind the people, if we allow initiatives passed by the people, to be overturned and ignored by the few in power?

Like universal health care, cannabis legalization is never going to be implemented if we demand that reality conform to what we want. Had the Clintons been willing to compromise in 1993, the framework would have been laid and significant improvements would have been made. Instead, they took an all or none approach and the result is that we're basically starting over from scratch 16 years later, which puts us way behind where we would have been with a rational, incrementalist approach to overcoming those whose agenda is opposed to ours. I invite you to read http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/libertarians-need-to-rethink-support-for-drug-legalization/ to remind yourself of the mindset of those who oppose us, and would certainly entertain any ideas you have for wiping out these idiots. But reality is these people exist, and their mindset is ensconced in a large enough percentage of the population that we have to have a realistic plan to deal with the inevitable propaganda blitz that will come around in late September 2010. The allowance for local governments to regulate, even forbid the commercial production and sales of cannabis will allow enough people that are sitting on the fence to vote for us, because they don't care if the idiots in Oakland/San Francisco want to ruin their own cities with 'pothead zombies'. The restriction to 25 sq feet while small, is adequate. Not enough? Go get your medical rec. It's untrue on its face that P215 is going to be 'amended' by TC2010.

Perhaps you don't think that people like the lady that wrote that nonsense I linked are powerful enough to keep us down for years to come, forcing us to eventually sit down and compromise in a decade or more, when we could have a decade of legalization in a 'test market' and the ability to show the actual results, and refute the nonsense arguments of our enemies.

I think this lack of understanding of reality is where your critical thinking skills need to be improved.

Says the 45+ (I'm guessing because you said you were in high school in 75) who comes on here to "troll" and "incite" fights like a 12 year old. The reality is, most people WANT the power to decide what happens in their own districts. It is that simple. By the people for the people, not By the people for the people unless 4 council members decide other wise.

Quit throwing away your rights just because you have a pipe dream of having an ounce of pot with out the 100 dollar fine.

 

[Dr. Smokepuma]

I would argue that it is more illogical to think that those same people who would vote yes because they allow local governments to ignore the tax and sales of Cannabis, would vote NO because it gave them MORE power to vote in their own communities to decide if they want the initiative passed.

Most of the people you claim are so "illogical" are only asking that verbiage be added to the initiative which puts the power back into the hands of the local constituents, and not into 4-5 city council members.



I am not sure where you think that I, or a lot of the more vocal (but sane) members of this forum who oppose TC2010 do so because we think Richard Lee might make money. Like I really care if Richard makes money or not, my problem as with many others is he KNOWS the locals of a lot of these places like San Diego, Butte, Shasta, Tehema, etc would vote yes to the sales, but the local conservative council members won't regardless of what the people want. I am against him making money by oppressing those who voted his initiative into law because he took the power out of their hands even after they vote yes state wide.

I also don't think that the initiative of ANY group will pass with out some money behind it, again, that isn't the argument here and it seems you have gone off into lala land where you have this preconceived notion of what people think, then ignore the whole post of what they say and proceed to make up shit as if it actually has substance. The bottom line is, regardless if Richard makes money or not, the PEOPLE still need to be the ones who decide.
What is the power behind the people, if we allow initiatives passed by the people, to be overturned and ignored by the few in power?






Says the 45+ (I'm guessing because you said you were in high school in 75) who comes on here to "troll" and "incite" fights like a 12 year old. The reality is, most people WANT the power to decide what happens in their own districts. It is that simple. By the people for the people, not By the people for the people unless 4 council members decide other wise.

Quit throwing away your rights just because you have a pipe dream of having an ounce of pot with out the 100 dollar fine.

spot on spot on...lol
that last line is a mastercard moment...

 

[JackTheGrower]

It's a bitter pill to swallow not to get one's wishes for Cannabis.

However, we still can get something done in 2012!

If we cannot get folks to get out and volunteer to gather signatures in 2011-2012 to actually do the "Clean up" of what issues remain then maybe the best thing to do is vote no, call the Guvanator and tell him to veto Ab390 and lets keep the same old struggle a while longer.


The struggle is getting easier so the worst is behind us unless they implement martial law and shoot cannabis people.

Edit:

Just what would a California where we didn't decriminalize look like after this year?

A lot greener over all I would assume!

 

[Pythagllio]

...Says the 45+ (I'm guessing because you said you were in high school in 75) who comes on here to "troll" and "incite" fights like a 12 year old. The reality is, most people WANT the power to decide what happens in their own districts. It is that simple. By the people for the people, not By the people for the people unless 4 council members decide other wise.

Quit throwing away your rights just because you have a pipe dream of having an ounce of pot with out the 100 dollar fine.

I see that having a different point of view is still 'trolling' and 'inciting fights' to some. Are you really sure which of us has the 12 year old's attitude? Wow, now you even missed attacking me with the irrelevancy that I don't live in CA and therefore couldn't possibly understand. I can't imagine that it would matter that I'm only 4 days a non-Californian to such irrelevant ad hominem arguments. Yes, I'm 49, been observing human nature for more than a couple of decades, and have a much better understanding of the realities of our political system because of it.

I'm not the one 'throwing away rights' because you're mistaken if you think you have such rights to throw away. Perhaps you think that these local politicians would just roll over if the law was passed as you envision, I have my doubts. You still don't acknowledge that Federal law won't change, and seem to think that the City and County councils will roll over if the people vote for something. Do you think they won't try to use zoning laws, or any other trick in the book against us? Hmm, can't even get them to implement an ID card system without a fight to SCOTUS, but they won't fight if we try to shove this down their throats? Here's another news story for your consideration, while remembering that it's been 13 years since P215 passed:

SHERIFF WILL FILE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST MEDICAL MARIJUANA SHOP

<snip>An ordinance enacted by the Tulare County Board of Supervisors effective Dec. 10 requires medical marijuana shops in unincorporated areas to comply with federal laws -- which say medical marijuana is illegal.<snip>
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v09/n1145/a13.html?999

Oh, one other question, where in CA is growing a 5x5 grow going to be a $100 fine, where I'm willing to 'throw away' rights that don't exist to throw away in the first place?