Legalize Marijuana Will Be on CA Ballot

[Unsane]

I think the margin is still too thin to pass. Both sides will be well funded, but at the end of the day, more old people show up to vote than young people and that skews results. Old people don't like pot smoking hippies. I think 2012 is the year, tie it to the presidential election.

Now, old people are the pot smoking hippies!

This initiative is designed to put big dispensaries in control of the market. It's not a fair intiative it is designed to benefit people like Richard Lee not your everyday pot smoker. It's not a true legalization bill. I'll be voting against it. I liked Peron's initiative too bad he doesn't have the 1.3million to push his initiative like Lee does from his supposed non profit dispensaries that have monopolized the East bay scene.

The initiative benefits every Californian, except for the Prison Guards Union.

How can you claim that the initiative is not designed for the everyday smoker when it will allow anyone 21 years and older to possess 1 oz of cannabis without criminal penalties? Isn't this an improvement over our current Prohibition regime? Also, note that the 1 oz. limit is a floor, which means that local governments can raise the the possession limits.

Even if you are right, and big "dispensaries" do end up controlling the market, so what? At least it will allow cannabis to be actually sold legally...

I don't know what you mean by "true legalization" but I take it to mean that you wanted more far reaching reforms. I feel the same way, but I also know that passing this initiative will be a huge step forward and will give us a solid foundation for more far-reaching reform efforts.

Passing this initiative will be a decisive victory for the Drug Reform Movement. As a result, it will be a significant defeat for the Drug War supporters.

By voting for this initiative you are not only helping our State, but taking a stand nationally and internationally against those who think one should be locked up for growing and smoking the cannabis plant.

 

[medicalgreen]

this is so obviously a scam... COME ON!!


i wonder what Jack Herer, one of the founders of the legalization movement, thinks about this initiative? oh yah, he fuckin hates it.

How do you know he hates it?
How can you claim that?

 

[Grendelkhan]

This is all fine and well but at the end of the day it would have to be at the Federal level or it will not fly. I don't see that going happen until you have more than 50% of the states with medical first and the states are making money off of it. Once there's more than 50% of the states making cash from the medical side of it then the feds, like the whores they are, will want a piece of the pie. Then we will see federal laws about it. If we pass this law in Cali it will be held up in court and in court it will lose. Basically the end results will be the same. More and more people will work to control it and its distribution. First it will be the limiting of the clubs, then the fees to run a grow setup, then the annual fees to run said setup, then the county taxxes, the fees to the police for the operation, fees to the fire department, etc, etc. Oh and don't forget to throw in there that if you a felon you can't do it at all. Good times.
Gkhan.

 

[meduser180056]

Jack Herer already came out against this initiative. Peron and Jack had the real initiative, but it's not gonna make it on the ballot.

Don't forget the Feds have threatened to withhold federal money from the state if any legalization passes and is put into effect. California can't afford that right now.

 

[medicalgreen]

This is all fine and well but at the end of the day it would have to be at the Federal level or it will not fly. I don't see that going happen until you have more than 50% of the states with medical first and the states are making money off of it. Once there's more than 50% of the states making cash from the medical side of it then the feds, like the whores they are, will want a piece of the pie. Then we will see federal laws about it. If we pass this law in Cali it will be held up in court and in court it will lose. Basically the end results will be the same. More and more people will work to control it and its distribution. First it will be the limiting of the clubs, then the fees to run a grow setup, then the annual fees to run said setup, then the county taxxes, the fees to the police for the operation, fees to the fire department, etc, etc. Oh and don't forget to throw in there that if you a felon you can't do it at all. Good times.
Gkhan.

Not necessarily. You can own a moonshine still and make your own all day long if you want. You used to need a permit that cost $250 but now it's waived because of all the people making moonshine for their cars. "Alcohol is a gas" revolution.

You have always been able to make your own moonshine tax free, as far as I know.

 

[medicalgreen]

Jack Herer already came out against this initiative. Peron and Jack had the real initiative, but it's not gonna make it on the ballot.

Don't forget the Feds have threatened to withhold federal money from the state if any legalization passes and is put into effect. California can't afford that right now.

I'm not challenging you on this, but do you know when and where Jack came out against this? I'm curious.
Sources?

 

[Hammerhead]

We cant make everybody happy someone somewhere wont like whats in any initiative. Im voting yes and you can bet that there will be many more in 2012 to vote on. I dont want to see anymore pople going to jail.

 

[OCkushKing]

Of coarse Large growers are not going to like this, they will face competition, who likes that! Anyway, i don' care if the northern cali giants go under!! they made there money, re invest if you have issues!

 

[hbstoner]

We cant make everybody happy someone somewhere wont like whats in any initiative. Im voting yes and you can bet that there will be many more in 2012 to vote on. I dont want to see anymore pople going to jail.

Clearly you didnt read this bill if your voting for it cause you dont want anyone to go to jail.. In this bill if you have a 20 year old girlfriend and you are 21. Then you pass her a joint, you have broken the law and could get a fine up to $1,000 or 6 months in jail. So if voting for legalization to keep people out of jail is your stance, then you should not be for this bill.

Fuck Richard lee and fuck this bill. With sb420 thrown out by the suprume court, im more then happy to wait for a full legalization bill with no jail time.

 

[Hammerhead]

I have read it and I still will vote for it. If you dont like it dont vote for it. It's my right to vote for wait I want not what you want.

If your 21 and hand you 20 year old girlfriend a drink you will go to jail. I see nothing wrong with being 21 to use cannabis.

 

[hbstoner]

I have read it and I still will vote for it. If you dont like it dont vote for it. It's my right to vote for wait I want not what youy want

Never said it wasnt your right to do what you want... what I said is your reasons for voting it are false. If you really are tired of seeing people go to jail then wait for another bill and dont be the predictable stoner that richard lee is hoping on to get this bil passed for his profits.

 

[Hammerhead]

Having an age requirement is a good thing in my opinion. What ever my reason for voting is are mine to make whether you feel there false or not.

 

[tedlarrrge]

Yes its true!!! no place like home!!

 

[vta]

Don't forget the Feds have threatened to withhold federal money from the state if any legalization passes and is put into effect. California can't afford that right now.

Got a link? That is news to me....that someone in the government came out and said they would withhold money from Cali if THIS passes.

Why would anybody here{IC} be against a law that makes up to an ounce legal???? The only reason I can see is if they make money off it being illegal, otherwise it doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Unsane]

Why would anybody here{IC} be against a law that makes up to an ounce legal???? The only reason I can see is if they make money off it being illegal, otherwise it doesn't make sense to me.

The rumor is that Humboldt growers are against this. Understandable, given that it might threaten the underground cannabis economy.

 

[B. Friendly]

interesting, tagged.
Hope it goes well for you guys, best of luck.

 

[RetroGrow]

It's a step in the right direction.
It will spread, and the prohibition laws will be abolished.
That's what we've been waiting for, some of us much longer than others. I could care less about the local politics or which growers will make the most money. It's the beginning of the end of prohibition.

 

[ChronJohn]

How do you know he hates it?
How can you claim that?

he had a fuckin heart attack while ranting about it. Nothing says "passion and hatred" like having a heart attack during a speech.

"Not a fuckin dime in taxes" was, I believe, his quote


I agree that 21 age limit is kind of bullshit, and one of the things that turned me off about the bill. At 18 I can own a firearm but not a few plants?? I can kill myself with cancer but I can't ingest a cancer-curing substance?? Backwards as fuck.

BUT I am not selfish, I know that people over 21 smoke too and they want their freedom. You can always amend it later. I gave a pretty good explanation about the limits and also put forward some questions on page 1 and everyone seemed to skip right by and ignore it but there's some important stuff regarding the plant and dried weight possession limits (or, "threshold", as the initiative describes it) So give it a good reading and let me know what ya'll think.

 

[hippie_lettuce]

Hey ChronJohn I gave your post on the first page a second, more thorough read () and I agree, I was confused with that stipulation, too. You can easily harvest more than an ounce off of a 5x5 space, even a space smaller than that. I think that perhaps the Supreme Court of Ca will reject that and say that the possession limitations, just like the plant limitations on patients, were not right. One can only hope! But at least if this bill goes through we can make changes to it later on. It is more difficult to create a bill that is TOTALLY perfect and then not have it pass. Actually all bills are kinda crazy and contradictory at some point or another.

 

[ChronJohn]

Well the only reason the Cali Supreme Court struck down those limits was because the legislature was attempting to amend a Constitutional amendment, which is illegal. In this case, it's the amendment itself which is setting the limit (or threshold) so the courts would have nothing to say about it. There are a couple other lines in the bill which further confuse the matter by saying that "living and harvested plants will be assessed by square footage, not by weight". So at what point does a harvested plant become part of your one oz possession limit? I mean, in reality these are probably very trivial questions because there aren't going to be daily inspections or anything like that. But if you have an issue arise at your house (which one can never predict) and the police come to find you have 4 QP sized plants hanging up in your closet, and you got other plants growing and some dried buds lying around, are they actually going to try and cause a ruckus about it? Like I said, I just want to fully understand the law so that even when it's legal I'm still not a criminal. I'm one who likes to push things to the max and find every little loophole, in an effort to show how absurd things really are, while still staying legit.. that's just how I am. But in this case, I'd rather not go back to prison or pay a high fine for doing what I perceived to be 100% legal.

I agree tho, it's best to support what we have going for us right now, while the hype and media and all that are on our side. When this initiative was up against other, superior initiatives I talked a lot of shit about it. But since this is all we have going for us, and I've also read into it even further and found some things that definitely alleviate my concerns a little (such as the ability for local governments to increase the one oz limit and 5x5 grow area if they want), why waste a chance at making history? As you said, we can change it later if we absolutely need to (although Constitutional amendments are a bitch to change, if we can do it once we can do it again right??).