Friends say they are against legalization

[Koroz]

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.

Part #1- You are a "Self proclaimed troll" until you heard DC was going medicinal and then all the sudden you change your "title" to DC OG. In previous posts you neg rep people and then laugh about it saying that is how you roll, that people by now should know you are a troll. So... if you call yourself a "troll" and you act like a "troll", I would guess that you are nothing more then a troll. Get it?

As for your next rambling, not sure where I said you were, or weren't from California. Not sure this even has anything to do with the current conversation? I call Fatigues out all the time for it, but that is because he tries to tell us how the Cannabis Culture is in California by what he reads in the news media, I call him out because he has no idea what it is like to live in any of the MAJORITY of Californian districts where the local government fights hand and fist to prevent medicinal use.

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:

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?

The point I was making is that as a citizen of this great united states you have the right to vote. By voting for TC2010 you are throwing away that right, you are giving the local politicians POWER to ignore the vote of the people. Could you imagine if Prop 215 had this same provision in it? Holy shit! Our movement wouldn't be anywhere NEAR where it is today.

People like the city of San Diego try hard, REAL hard to fight prop 215, but because the language was written in a way they have NO LEGAL FOOTING they can't do shit but waste tax payer dollars and keep on going back to appeal the previous decision trying to get a judge on their side. With TC2010 they don't have to!!! It's already built into the language. I know @ 49 years old, and with some of your posts you are smart enough to know the truth, you aren't a dumb man, but I might argue that you are a bit blinded by a little gift of 5x5 growing and ignoring the very real dangers created by this bill.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

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

LOL

You bother beefing up passing legislation for legalization and regulation, yet you think it's more difficult or even fantasy to pass legislation for decriminilization.

I don't support giving them enough rope to hang us, or enough loopholes to screw us through.

Keep it simple and just drop the punishment and persecution.

It has to come from somewhere, sure. They just don't have to have their dirty hands in my jar.

 

[Blue Dot]

People like the city of San Diego try hard, REAL hard to fight prop 215, but because the language was written in a way they have NO LEGAL FOOTING they can't do shit but waste tax payer dollars and keep on going back to appeal the previous decision trying to get a judge on their side. With TC2010 they don't have to!!! It's already built into the language. I know @ 49 years old, and with some of your posts you are smart enough to know the truth, you aren't a dumb man, but I might argue that you are a bit blinded by a little gift of 5x5 growing and ignoring the very real dangers created by this bill.

What does pyth care. He abandoned this state for greener pastures.

He's not loyal to cali or to 215 so what does he care if Richard Lee fuk's it up for everyone here?

 

[Pantalicious]

GO GREEN OR GO HOME.

 

[Pythagllio]

Yeah guys, good luck with implementing that extremist agenda. Fortunately, you're also an extreme minority. You wouldn't even be a worry if it weren't going to be so close. I have my fingers crossed and hope that you end up as irrelevant as your positions deserve to be. But I guess idiots like you never learn. Hand the election to GW Bush because you want to vote for Ralph friggin' Nader, sheesh.

Oh right again BD, I don't care about progress of the movement, or the my dear friends that still live in CA, or the message that the failure of TC2010 sends... It's just amazing how you think everyone arrives at their opinions from some ulterior motive. Do you honestly think that reasonable people couldn't possibly look at the same facts and come to a different conclusion than you without such an agenda? I mean, it must be an everyday occurrence in your life, do you really think that you're the only person in the world pure as the driven snow? Oh yeah, right, you're the guy that accused The Corral's and WAMM of being profiteers. http://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=2886576&postcount=7

Support TC2010. It is progress, it is realistic, it is not a 'step back'. It's failure could well stop the fast paced progress. It is shooting yourself in the foot to support it's failure.

 

[Koroz]

Yeah guys, good luck with implementing that extremist agenda. Fortunately, you're also an extreme minority. You wouldn't even be a worry if it weren't going to be so close. I have my fingers crossed and hope that you end up as irrelevant as your positions deserve to be. But I guess idiots like you never learn. Hand the election to GW Bush because you want to vote for Ralph friggin' Nader, sheesh.

Oh right again BD, I don't care about progress of the movement, or the my dear friends that still live in CA, or the message that the failure of TC2010 sends... It's just amazing how you think everyone arrives at their opinions from some ulterior motive. Do you honestly think that reasonable people couldn't possibly look at the same facts and come to a different conclusion than you without such an agenda? I mean, it must be an everyday occurrence in your life, do you really think that you're the only person in the world pure as the driven snow? Oh yeah, right, you're the guy that accused The Corral's and WAMM of being profiteers. http://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=2886576&postcount=7

Support TC2010. It is progress, it is realistic, it is not a 'step back'. It's failure could well stop the fast paced progress. It is shooting yourself in the foot to support it's failure.

How many times has this same guy talked shit about how bad he hates California, and the people who live there? How many times have we heard he is a self proclaimed troll? Now that DC passes a Medicinal law he is all the sudden "DC OG"..

Damn man, pick a shtick and stay with it! At least BD is dependable in his views. BTW, stop deflecting, ignoring my posts and answer my questions. You won't because you can't! I hope your fake ass is in DC already because California needs less sheeple and more free thinkers. You fit in much better in DC where you can be led along with a string and carrot.

Please answer this though:

my problem as with many others is he (Richard) 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.

Do you think that if Prop215 had the same language in it that TC2010 did, that we would have the progress we have now? Do you really think that those counties like the ones Ive lived in above, are going to just all the sudden turn over and allow sales and taxation of Cannabis? Do you think people like my parents who are against legalization, would vote no against a legalization initiative that gave them the CHOICE to vote in their community instead of just having the local 4-5 board of sups vote with out their input? (here is a hint, no they already said they will vote no on tc2010 because it doesn't give them the option to vote no locally to legalization because they think cali is going to pass it on a state level.)

My guess is you will just make up some of your standard bullshit posts about extremism, Ralph nader voters (who I didn't vote for btw), or some of your other deflection attempts at the real meat and potatoes of the discussion we are having instead of actually talking about the situation head on... so please, troll, troll on!

 

[ShantiSadhu]

It seems you need to make new friends who are thinking on the same level you are.

Amen!

I guess that's why I don't have any friends. LOL!
​

 

[Pythagllio]

How many times has this same guy talked shit about how bad he hates California, and the people who live there? How many times have we heard he is a self proclaimed troll? Now that DC passes a Medicinal law he is all the sudden "DC OG"..

Ad hominems are all you have, no logic whatever. Again, quit with the lies about 'self proclaimed troll'. I put that up because a couple of idiots like yourself called me a troll because I disagreed with them. Yeah, if your definition of a 'troll' is someone with whom you disagree then yeah, I fit the bill, because your position is illogical and just not thought trough with any reasonable critical thinking.

All of a sudden DC OG? I planted my first plants in DC in 1978. I think that qualifies me as an 'original grower'. IMO you'll be hard pressed to find anyone else that has as much experience as I have growing in the DC Metro region.

I hate CA because it's littered with extremists like yourself, and the entire state is circling the drain as a result. But yet another red herring, just like your idiotic arguments that fatigues can't have an opinion because he doesn't live in CA. Reality is he has a keener understanding of the political process in CA and makes a heckuva lot more sense than you with your emotion laden tirades.

Damn man, pick a shtick and stay with it! At least BD is dependable in his views. BTW, stop deflecting, ignoring my posts and answer my questions. You won't because you can't! I hope your fake ass is in DC already because California needs less sheeple and more free thinkers. You fit in much better in DC where you can be led along with a string and carrot.

....and more ad hominems. What a great argument to support your agenda! All of a sudden now I'm inconsistent? I mean, that's bullshit on its face. C'mon man, how about trying to stick with some facts, instead of spinning lies from whole cloth?

Please answer this though:

my problem as with many others is he (Richard) 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.

Do you think that if Prop215 had the same language in it that TC2010 did, that we would have the progress we have now? Do you really think that those counties like the ones Ive lived in above, are going to just all the sudden turn over and allow sales and taxation of Cannabis? Do you think people like my parents who are against legalization, would vote no against a legalization initiative that gave them the CHOICE to vote in their community instead of just having the local 4-5 board of sups vote with out their input? (here is a hint, no they already said they will vote no on tc2010 because it doesn't give them the option to vote no locally to legalization because they think cali is going to pass it on a state level.)

I've answered this question time and again. Please scroll back up if you missed it the first time. But congratulations on yet another pile of irrelevant ad hominems. It really is all you have to back your unworkable, extremist position.

My guess is you will just make up some of your standard bullshit posts about extremism, Ralph nader voters (who I didn't vote for btw), or some of your other deflection attempts at the real meat and potatoes of the discussion we are having instead of actually talking about the situation head on... so please, troll, troll on!

Here we go with some more ad hominems! Again, it is only the weak minded that think that someone with whom he disagrees is a troll. You do understand that under your definition of that word that you also qualify as a troll, because you disagree with me. I call your position extremist because it is, on its face.

Now if you want to get into the actual definition of the word 'troll', I think it's people that post ad hominem arguments, refuse to acknowledge that questions asked have been answered, present extremist opinions as if they were reasonable or thought through, etc.

It was the idiots in FL that bought GW Bush the election. It doesn't matter what you voted as Gore took CA handily. It was the extremist 'reasoning' practically identical to yours they used to justify taking the election from Al Gore, which is the same as your mindset. Oh sure, only those that agree with you are capable of independent thought. Those of us who don't march in lockstep to your extremist agenda just must be sheeple? LOL, I always thought it was those that marched in lockstep that fit that definition.

You know, whether TC2010 passes or not, Richard Lee will still be a multi-millionaire when he wakes up the day after the vote, and will continue to add to his wealth. To use his financial position as 'reasoning' one way or the other is short sighted and illogical. Just more ad hominem arguments, from the master of ad hominems himself.

You must spread some Reputation around before [deducting] it [from] Koroz again.

 

[Koroz]

Thanks for proving my point, deflecting the questions and focusing on everything else in the post. You can't answer the questions because you know the answers will go against everything you are saying. You are a troll because you post inflammatory, irrelevant shit (example calling people expressing their views as extremists) to try and get a reaction, that my friend is the base definition of an internet troll, i.e. you.

No it is NOT extremism to think that people want the right to vote on what happens in their communities.

No it is NOT extremism to put the power back into the hands of the people instead of 4-5 council members.

It is NOT extremism to think one person is willing to screw a whole state to increase his empire.

But please, like I said, go back to DC because at least there as you admitted yourself you won't have to deal with open minded free thinkers, you can continue to think the government knows whats best for you instead of fighting for your rights to decide what happens in your district.

Ill post the questions again so you have one more chance to prove me wrong and actually answer them (we already know you won't). More importantly the one that is bold font is the most important:

Do you think that if Prop215 had the same language in it that TC2010 did, that we would have the progress we have now? Do you really think that those counties like the ones Ive lived in above, are going to just all the sudden turn over and allow sales and taxation of Cannabis? Do you think people like my parents who are against legalization, would vote no against a legalization initiative that gave them the CHOICE to vote in their community instead of just having the local 4-5 board of sups vote with out their input? (here is a hint, no they already said they will vote no on tc2010 because it doesn't give them the option to vote no locally to legalization because they think cali is going to pass it on a state level.)

 

[stc9357]

Koroz I believe your view to be extremist and agree with most of what Pythagllio said. In order for this movement to reach the ultimate goal of legalization we will have to take small steps with progressive legislation. I think it's very small-minded to think that the majority would support your measures or outright legalization right now imagine the shock from non-cannabis users. Every step in the right direction is a good one I just wish everybody could see that most of all Californians who have nothing to complain about if they looked at the rest of the nation especially the "south."

 

[Koroz]

Koroz I believe your view to be extremist and agree with most of what Pythagllio said. In order for this movement to reach the ultimate goal of legalization we will have to take small steps with progressive legislation. I think it's very small-minded to think that the majority would support your measures or outright legalization right now imagine the shock from non-cannabis users. Every step in the right direction is a good one I just wish everybody could see that most of all Californians who have nothing to complain about if they looked at the rest of the nation especially the "south."

Did you bother reading any of my posts? The ONLY part I want changed is instead of allowing the local 4-5 BOARD MEMBERS from deciding on if they will allow TC2010 in their area, they give the vote to the people. I don't want out right forced legalization, I don't want unlimited growth in any place people choose, I don't want an unlimited amount of pot per person. I want the people who voted on the initiative the right to decide locally how its implemented, not 4-5 government officials.

If this is extremism holy christ what has our country come to. I mean do you really believe its extreme to give the people the right to vote on laws that affect them and their communities? And with posters like you and Pyth, it is no wonder we are now in a position where our government runs our lives because people like you two will pass anything that tramples on your rights if its worded in pretty language. It's a sad day indeed when the people are willing to throw down the god given right to vote just so they can puff on an ounce of pot with out a 100 dollar fine.

 

[Pythagllio]

blah, blah, blah, and more of the same.

I did answer your question about the voting. Claiming that I haven't done so above is either a bald faced lie or a sign of mental incompetence on your part. It is wholly irrelevant. Federal law hasn't changed, isn't likely to for years. You're complaining about something that isn't going to happen. Even if the law had your precious voting in it it wouldn't happen.

Sure let's stay stuck in the mud by prioritizing form over substance.

BTW, which counties regularly hold votes on which laws to implement? IME the traditional way is to elect the city/county council, and have them vote on the laws. It's called representative democracy. I'm not sure why you think local cannabis laws should be treated any differently. But then we're back to this thing about Federal law, and how it's a friggin' moot point.

 

[Koroz]

I did answer your question about the voting. Claiming that I haven't done so above is either a bald faced lie or a sign of mental incompetence on your part. It is wholly irrelevant. Federal law hasn't changed, isn't likely to for years. You're complaining about something that isn't going to happen. Even if the law had your precious voting in it it wouldn't happen.

Sure let's stay stuck in the mud by prioritizing form over substance.

BTW, which counties regularly hold votes on which laws to implement? IME the traditional way is to elect the city/county council, and have them vote on the laws. It's called representative democracy. I'm not sure why you think local cannabis laws should be treated any differently. But then we're back to this thing about Federal law, and how it's a friggin' moot point.

Federal law hasn't changed on the stance of Medicinal Marijuana either, yet prop 215 and subsequent sb420 seem to be doing fine, Not to mention in most states where Medicinal laws have been passed it seems medicinal use is flourishing now care to explain to me how exactly that matters, I mean according to you since Federal Scheduling says Medical Marijuana is a lie and the states have no right to allow its use then its a moot point to even pass the laws?

Again, ill ask because you have NOT answered my question. If Prop215 had the same verbiage as TC2010, giving the local governments the right with out a vote of the people to disallow medicinal use of Cannabis, would we have the same progression in the movement as we do now?

And I hate to tell you, we ARE voting on state laws to allow Legalization, wtf are you talking about? The difference is the language in TC2010 then AFTER the people vote, allows local governments who do not agree with the STATE VOTE to then decide they don't want to allow sales or taxation and ban it, then decide if those laws are broken if they want to add SUBSEQUENT charges on top of what is already on the books. I mean jesus, I know you admitted it took you until the 3rd grade to know what >25 was, but you can't be this dense to get the point at WHY this initiative is bad news.

 

[heyheyhey]

This bill wouldn't be so bad if that was the only problem. If my county didn't want people to to sell marijuana fine. Ill just grow my own. but wait, I cant because there is a one ounce limit....

I don't ever want to purchase marijuana ever again. I like being self suffiecent. But how can I be self sufficient with a one ounce limit? Who can have a grow under one ounce? That wouldn't last me a week.

Therefore, my only options would be to go to a county who had legal sales and buy from them.

If this is the case, then its definitely a step in the wrong direction.

We need a bill to protect the home growers. Not limit the home growers.

 

[_Dude]

I think I'm a pretty good barometer of the type who's in it for the cash. I haven't even smoked in months. I don't even want to smoke. I'll might keep a zip or two for myself, I might not. I haven't even given it much thought, so probably not.

And I am very much in favor of the legal status quo.

If decriminalization means the corporate types would keep their fat, greedy, connected fingers way the fuck away from my pie, then that would be okay by me. That's all that really matters to me. I want to keep the respectable fucks, the suits, out of the game.

 

[armedoldhippy]

"a friend with weed, is a friend indeed"...unless he only wants to sell it to you, & doesn't want you to be able to grow your own. then he is a money-grubbing selfish bastard with no concern except for his own damn wallet. in other words...no, those will do just fine, methinks.

 

[_Dude]

I could turn around and say something like that too, make it all personal and shit. My friend isn't my friend anymore he's a pot-grubbing selfish bastard with no concern except his own stash and doesn't care how I make a living.

 

[armedoldhippy]

its cool if you make your living that way. its NOT cool to demand that you have a monopoly. that makes you a capitalist tool. get used to it.

 

[_Dude]

I don't demand shit. I'm just saying what I want, and what's in my interests. I don't see the need to get all personal about it. But I do still think it's dumb to think legalization doesn't mean the end of making good money as an independent grower.

It would be good for smokers, good for suits, not good for independent growers. If I was a smoker or a suit, I might feel different.