Why are some of you Californians so selfish?

[ChronJohn]

ESCO what about this line in the initiative:

No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.

So if you come to work fucked up and can't do your job right or start missing work cuz you're high all the time then they can fire you for use but other than that they can't discriminate against you cuz of your use, just like drinking a margarita on saturday night has no bearing on your employment status monday morning.

 

[ESCOknows]

yeah i read that like 100 times...i still dont really know what all that shit means..it dosent say anything about a drug test.. i mean i kind of understand it, i would understand it even more if it was written in layman's terms instead of fucking legislative code.. i still dont see where it says that if i test positive i still get the job..
i dont get why they just cant say it...actually i know why because its probably not what they mean, if you test postive i bet you WONT get the job.... maybe if your already employed and you get caught in a random test it might save you from getting fired ,maybe who knows?? im sure its full of loop holes, thats why they write it like that.. employers i bet still get the right to deny you because it isnt your RIGHT to have the job... shit what if you have/apply for government jobs??.. i dont know, i guess i dont really care if it passes or not , im not gonna vote yes or no .

 

[ChronJohn]

They can't discriminate against you for using that's written as plain as day, and testing positive would be an indicator that you're using so they can't discriminate against you ya dig? If it's a Federal job tho you're fucked. In that respect, nothing gained nothing lost. But I don't see what you have to lose by voting yes.

 

[ESCOknows]

yeah i get that part ,and thats how we interpret it .. i catch your drift.... but i just dont see it happening... my medical rec doesnt even get me by a drug test , and its signed by a doctor.. i just dont see it happening .. fuck i hope it does .

i have no doubt that this shit is gonna pass ,with or without my vote , but if it doesnt im not gonna throw a stink .. i just think we could set the bar a little higher thats all... im still up in the air i guess.. i mean theres other shit i dont like about it also.. ounce limit?? age limit?? .

 

[subrob]

esco...waddup bro? hey man, my two cents...please vote yes, lets get it legalized then go to work getting the shit straight...sooo much easier from the inside...we need every vote...

 

[medmaker420]

esco...waddup bro? hey man, my two cents...please vote yes, lets get it legalized then go to work getting the shit straight...sooo much easier from the inside...we need every vote...

1000000% agree

My thoughts about were more of a, don't wait around for other states and or countries to make it happen in your home town. It always takes that local effort and FOR SURE ever vote counts.

In my area we are pushing hard for more eyes to be open when it comes to personal freedom in general versus simple legalization. When I go door to door for instance when I start with "how are you doing today, do you mind if I talk to you for a minute about the legalization of marijuana" people are damn stand off-ish BUT when I start with a "what are your thoughts on personal rights and freedoms" it is amazing the rights that people are interested in.

So for instance,

many in my area are pro gun rights as am I, many start with that one so I offer up a correlation between the rights that ONE person might find needed compared to another person. In the end each person should have the freedom to choose either way and we need every vote FOR personal rights and freedoms even with stuff that you are specifically not interested in.

Most 60 yr old men for instance love the gun rights speech and I simply put it as, right now we are fighting for marijuana rights but in that same reasoning we also will always fight for the right to own and CARRY guns as well.

Its not a specific issue to issue thing but rather a rights versus oppression issue which needs to be fixed.

Here in my area we chose to do open carry days. In our area we can do so and have ammo on us HOWEVER unloaded. Now I know this isn't the best way to carry BUT it was more for the point versus the need to use it.

We need to USE each and every right that we have fought for whether on battle fields or at the ballot boxes even if we personally could care less for them. To someone else that right is VERY important and should be looked at as such.

my opinion of course

 

[ESCOknows]

not much sub just chillin sober as fuck .... ya you guessed it ..... drug test .... 52 days clean ,im back on 420 though..you get my pm .. picked up some of that afghan kush yesterday this batch smells really og like , ill post up some pics in the SD thread its just wait'n to get burn'd.

to me, this shit is like trying to read japanese.... i understand most of it but this line bugs me for some reason ,"that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected. " to mean that means .. the right your employer already has to deny your ass if you use marijuana will not be affected by this law.. meaning to me they can still turn your ass down if they choose to test for marijuana cause they already think it effects job performance.. thats why they drug test you now, isnt it??

i dont know i just have this drug test hair up my ass casue i was clean for 42 days and i still didnt pass one ... its just so vague in areas ... but we all know that the rich fucks will get richer off this, thats the only for sure thing i see..

im sure ill see the light before nov .. i just need to get back to smoke'n so i can feel normal again.i need my weed.

 

[ReelBusy1]

Here's what I'm going to do.

I'm going to vote yes and keep doing what I do

with the same low profile Fight Club rules adhered to as always until I see a pack of Ganja Joints for sale in the 7/.11.

 

[justalilrowdy]

Like I have said many times.. in the grand scheme of things its the best thing we can do for ourselves and our planet. Screw the price of marijuana.. if it drops to almost nothing so be it. It will never lose its medicinal value to the people who know it is the best medicine we have on our planet. It will never lose its value for what it can do to heal our ailing planet. It is the tree of life.

 

[ChronJohn]

.

 

[Frozenguy]

Selfish? Learn something bro..

BTW this bill to "legalize cannabis" would create potential criminals out of 18-21 year olds and subject them to up to seven years in jail.. for a non violent cannabis crime. Seven years!

Yeah, legalization.. right.

I bet you haven't even read it word for word.

And did you know to amend this legislation woud require 50% MORE votes then was required to get the bill on the ballot?! It's easier to get the bill on the ballot then it is to change it.

And I dont care about the whole world. Go march Washington or your states representatives like we did and maybe you can get medical laws too.

The bill sucks and aims to further Richard Lees profits. It has major potential to centralize sales mainly in Oakland, which will suck. The world and nation will FLOCK to the bay area/ California to smoke and drive up the coast. It has major potential screw up California.

And btw, this will NOT help California's financial problem, that is a fact (pretty much).

You do not give alcohol to an alcoholic in hopes to cure him/her.

With that said, I will probably find myself voting yes for this bill ONLY because it strengthens medical cannabis laws.

Other then that it sucks.

Cant even smoke outside.

Oh and your 25sqft limit INCLUDES HARVESTED/CUT/DRYING PLANTS.


I love how people in other states are yelling at us to vote yes. It has nothing to do with you.

 

[torealforthcbay]

Selfish? Learn something bro..

BTW this bill to "legalize cannabis" would create potential criminals out of 18-21 year olds and subject them to up to seven years in jail.. for a non violent cannabis crime. Seven years!

Yeah, legalization.. right.

I bet you haven't even read it word for word.

And did you know to amend this legislation woud require 50% MORE votes then was required to get the bill on the ballot?! It's easier to get the bill on the ballot then it is to change it.

And I dont care about the whole world. Go march Washington or your states representatives like we did and maybe you can get medical laws too.

The bill sucks and aims to further Richard Lees profits. It WILL centralize sales mainly in Oakland, which will suck. The world and nation will FLOCK to the bay area/ California to smoke and drive up the coast. It has major potential screw up California.

And btw, this will NOT help California's financial problem, that is a fact (pretty much).

You do not give alcohol to an alcoholic in hopes to cure him/her.

With that said, I will probably find myself voting yes for this bill ONLY because it strengthens medical cannabis laws.

Other then that it sucks.

Cant even smoke outside.

Oh and your 25sqft limit INCLUDES HARVESTED/CUT/DRYING PLANTS.


I love how people in other states are yelling at us to vote yes. It has nothing to do with you.

its just sad really. instead of just picking you post apart sentence by sentence, ill just ask 1 question.

how the fuck can you suggest that it will centralize production in oakland? you cant just pull your "pretty much" facts out of the air without proof dude. ive read this bill, and never once does it say anything about who or where bud will be cultivated. get your facts straight! or your rumors, whatever. what the bill says, the bill means dude. your interpretations are redick! and your logic is worse!

 

[Frozenguy]

its just sad really. instead of just picking you post apart sentence by sentence, ill just ask 1 question.

how the fuck can you suggest that it will centralize production in oakland? you cant just pull your "pretty much" facts out of the air without proof dude. ive read this bill, and never once does it say anything about who or where bud will be cultivated. get your facts straight! or your rumors, whatever. what the bill says, the bill means dude. your interpretations are redick! and your logic is worse!

Get my facts straight? Bro you're so naive it isn't funny. Go read it, and I mean read it. Not scan it like you did before. I read it over 20 times word for word.
All I said was true, and my logic was not absolute, merely potential.

Counties retain the right to prohibit sales without the vote of the citizens from that community.

A lot of counties/cities have already expressed their views on cannabis sales as being negative. Not all, but many.

And I never said oakland will be the only place, just that I see it being the main hub. (which is not the basis of my argument, but a negative point of the bill.)

Dont say I'm "redik" or spreading rumors.

And I like how you quoted my whole thing, to talk negatively (and ignorantly) about one of my topics (a topic that wasn't even part of my main argument).

I dare you to challenge the other ones. Go for it.


EDIT: ok, I see I used uppercase and said will when talking about centralizing sales mainly in Oakland. I missed that when I proof read it and it came out a little more absolute then I meant it to be. I edited it.

 

[Frozenguy]

BTW

I want cannabis legalized, the right way. And I welcome competition (as in I dont fear a loss in potential profit if I ever go commercial again because I will again produce a product that people will beg me for, regardless of what walmart sells theirs for.)

In reality, I feel legalization will allow me to fetch even a higher price as the market is flooded with medium quality bud at best.


BTW: 1000 posts!

 

[ChronJohn]

.

 

[Hammerhead]

I did see someone say it is not legal in Alaska here is the Law.


Possession of one ounce or less of marijuana in the privacy of the home is legal. The status of possessing an amount between one ounce and four ounces is unclear, pending clarification by the courts. Possession of 4 ounces or more of marijuana is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $50,000

 

[Frozenguy]

Frozenguy: first, congrats on 1000 posts. Second, I see that you're taking issue with the part about 3, 5, and 7 years in prison for selling to a minor under 14 years old. Two points: 1) that is already the law in CA. It's nothing new. 2) is it really that much of an issue that if someone gets 3 chances to stop selling to middle schoolers, they get 7 years the 3rd time around? I mean come on man. That's a little bit on the ridiculous side, we're never going to be taken seriously if we're advocating lighter sentences for selling to middle schoolers. Okay now for a dissection:

Wrong. Well, half wrong maybe.

Further:

So not only can the legislature make this initiative less restrictive, but local governments can as well.

Well that sounds rather selfish

How so? Last time I checked LA had "more dispensaries than starbucks" (altho I am aware that they are cracking down) and Oakland has... what, 4? So how does that make them poised to take over the Cali market?
And I love how in one sentence you say

Immediately followed by

So people bringing in billions of tourist dollars is NOT going to help Cali's financial problem? I fail to see the logic.

You lost me.

Awesome. First sensible thing I saw in that post.

I see that, but I also posed a question about this to the TaxCannabis2010 team and posted it in another thread I'll repost their answer here for you.


And I hope you don't think I'm personally attacking you or anything. But you said "I dare you to challenge the other ones" so I did. I look forward to your responses.

Oakland only has 4 clubs? right...

And yeah, the clubs in southern California have been getting major flack, not so much up here.

And I noticed your questions to the team members, but they are talking about harvested bud, not harvested plants. there is a difference.

(iv) In determining whether an amount of cannabis is or is not in excess of the amounts permitted by this Act, the following shall apply:

(b) living and harvested cannabis plants shall be assessed by square footage, not by weight in determining the amounts set forth in section 11300(a);

And ya, seven years to someone who is 18-20 years old for a non violent cannabis crime is ridiculous. If parents would step up and let their children draw from a central source of strength (home and family) then more kids would turn their backs to drug dealers. Put responsibility where it should be. Seven years is too long, especially when there is not one injured party. (relatively speaking)

Most of my post was sensible, just because you dont agree doesn't mean it isnt.

California is in a lot of trouble and most of you have no clue about what is truely going on here. Our legislators have gone wild. Giving them more money will help cover their current red budget, but it will go into the red again. They're spendaholics, thus the alcoholic analogy. It will not help california for the long run, it will just allow them to go into the red on a higher budget and get us into even bigger heaps of trouble.

The tourism will probably be good for outlying parts of the state, but it will forever change the bay area.

The money for the small businesses will be great, but the state will not truely benefit from this. We will just go into the red again with current methods.

And a lot (quite possibly most) counties didn't change their medical limits even when requested by the citizens of the community.


And I'm 90% sure that the 25 sqft limit is PER HOUSE, not per person.
So goodluck coordinating your grows with roommates.

 

[torealforthcbay]

Get my facts straight? Bro you're so naive it isn't funny. Go read it, and I mean read it. Not scan it like you did before. I read it over 20 times word for word.
All I said was true, and my logic was not absolute, merely potential.

Counties retain the right to prohibit sales without the vote of the citizens from that community.

A lot of counties/cities have already expressed their views on cannabis sales as being negative. Not all, but many.

And I never said oakland will be the only place, just that I see it being the main hub. (which is not the basis of my argument, but a negative point of the bill.)

Dont say I'm "redik" or spreading rumors.

And I like how you quoted my whole thing, to talk negatively (and ignorantly) about one of my topics (a topic that wasn't even part of my main argument).

I dare you to challenge the other ones. Go for it.


EDIT: ok, I see I used uppercase and said will when talking about centralizing sales mainly in Oakland. I missed that when I proof read it and it came out a little more absolute then I meant it to be. I edited it.

if you were wondering what i meant when i said "pick your post apart sentence by sentence" well chronjon did exactly what i was to stoned this morning to take the time to do.

thanks brother!

 

[Frozenguy]

if you were wondering what i meant when i said "pick your post apart sentence by sentence" well chronjon did exactly what i was to stoned this morning to take the time to do.

thanks brother!

lol whatever bro.

 

[torealforthcbay]

Oakland only has 4 clubs? right...

And yeah, the clubs in southern California have been getting major flack, not so much up here.

And I noticed your questions to the team members, but they are talking about harvested bud, not harvested plants. there is a difference.

(iv) In determining whether an amount of cannabis is or is not in excess of the amounts permitted by this Act, the following shall apply:

(b) living and harvested cannabis plants shall be assessed by square footage, not by weight in determining the amounts set forth in section 11300(a);

And ya, seven years to someone who is 18-20 years old for a non violent cannabis crime is ridiculous. If parents would step up and let their children draw from a central source of strength (home and family) then more kids would turn their backs to drug dealers. Put responsibility where it should be. Seven years is too long, especially when there is not one injured party. (relatively speaking)

Most of my post was sensible, just because you dont agree doesn't mean it isnt.

California is in a lot of trouble and most of you have no clue about what is truely going on here. Our legislators have gone wild. Giving them more money will help cover their current red budget, but it will go into the red again. They're spendaholics, thus the alcoholic analogy. It will not help california for the long run, it will just allow them to go into the red on a higher budget and get us into even bigger heaps of trouble.

The tourism will probably be good for outlying parts of the state, but it will forever change the bay area.

The money for the small businesses will be great, but the state will not truely benefit from this. We will just go into the red again with current methods.

And a lot (quite possibly most) counties didn't change their medical limits even when requested by the citizens of the community.


And I'm 90% sure that the 25 sqft limit is PER HOUSE, not per person.
So goodluck coordinating your grows with roommates.

how many rooms are you gonna fill with herb if you have roommates living in em? any real man should have his own place. and dont forget your talking about for pesonal recreational use only. if your growing for medi you can grow as much as you want. and you cant put it solely on this bill to fix calis budget crises. it is a spending problem. here and everywhere else, except maybe texas. this bill will bring much needed revenue to local communities big time just in the local commerce of herb.