Legalize MJ ! Really? No I mean REALLY?

[dagnabit]

Disagree???? You have not understood my original intend from the beginning.

You disagree that my original posts just disclosed that with MJ going mainstream there will be processes and regulations that most herein do not comprehend?

A very self serving coverup to your BS posts.

No one wants anyone to go to jail for use of MJ. You used that angle for many of your posts. Now you say that you prefer the intense regulation that will come with the mainstreaming of MJ, while if you read my original posts, I was only pointing out to many folks who probably don't deal with the government on a daily basis as I do, these forthcoming regulations are ball busters.

Keep dancing. You've been doing nothing but trolling on a subject (government regulations) you know little about but insist on posting out of context to demonstrate your ignorance.

im sorry for disproving all of your bullshit premises so far..

just a few posts ago i reposter YOUR op and demonstrated in subsequent reposts how every word i have said is in direct correlation thereto.
you have so far assumed quite a few things as facts that you have not been able to demonstrate so far (mostly about me and my private information)
you have failed to recognize the correlation between federal regulation and federal scheduling.

sorry you cant set aside your ego and realize that thousands of people will not be arrested every year if and when federal regulation becomes a reality.

sorry you just cant seem to think multidimensionality ive never suffered from being that short sighted so i have a problem empathizing.

here is an idea....we continue this discussion with no more ad hominem of any sort as it does not serve to elevate the discourse?

i think we are very close to agreement just a few sticking points and a little ego separate us

 

[Anti]

I believe this is what grapeman is trying to put out there. You will be required to follow rules and subject to safety inspections. No matter what agency will govern cannabis.

Yes. if you wish to grow it legally you will need to comply with the laws that govern cannabis (once such laws exist). However, if you are currently growing illegally and your argument against legalization is that it will be regulated... I have a solution:

#1 Continue to grow illegally.

#2 Enjoy the lower-profile that marijuana crimes enjoy once there's no federal impetus to incarcerate marijuana growers in the name of the war on drugs.

The biggest question in this thread seems to be: Is rules and regulations as bad as imprisonment for possession, violence associated with cannabis, and the amount of money we lose to drug cartels that fund terrorists?

How about this for a question: If you are running a larger-than-your-closet operation NOW and you want to continue to run a larger-than-your-closet operation in the future... why would you care whether the closet-operations became legal?

If you're currently breaking the current laws and operating off the radar, why would you care if they attempted to regulate on-radar growers? If things as they are are working out for you just fine, what would change about your situation if things were legal?

Still haven't had anyone even ATTEMPT to answer this one.

 

[Anti]

Its not about recording, it is about killing diversity and enforcing a record to follow which is thrash which is for us to grow off of...

Right now they are enforcing the "record" that anyone walking down the street with herb can be arrested, booked, prosecuted, fined, jailed, have their property seized, etc.

If they want to stop enforcing that "record" and start enforcing that anyone who wants to grow marijuana for profit must follow the same sorts of regulations that tomato growers must follow, the same sorts of regulations that toy makers must follow, I say... get to that shit NOW.

And to those who think this is all just horribly unfair, here's a thought (for the 9th time):

Keep doing it illegally. Just give me the option to do it legally. I'll abide by the regulations and feel glad about it.

What if I said you can only grow with chemical nutrients containing high amounts of sulfur and ammonium, hypothetical of course but damn well near the realities

Then you could flout the law (exactly as you are doing now if you grow at all). What would change for you? (here comes the inevitable, "Nuh uh, I have a med card." Do a google search for growers and distributors who still got jailed or their property seized even while operating a "legal" dispensary or collective under medical rules.) If you're willing to grow now illegally then you should just shrug your shoulders to whatever legislation they propose and continue to do whatever you want illegally.

Arguing that making it legal is bad because then you have to follow the rules is retarded at best.

 

[grapeman]

gm, is that if mj becomes legal, or are you going to capture the state mmj market.

just wondering if you have run numbers on what your monthly ozs
would be?

Yea, we've toyed with the numbers - but it's really just an answer to dingbat. Although this jump to growing MJ has been discussed once the laws allow, and growers with money and infrastructure will jump into the void. Monthly oz's is not the way we look at it. It would monthly lbs. or not at all.

I just got tired of his whining about it not happening NOW, which we all know and concede. the OP was what to look for in the future (which dingbat has no clue about). Big ag has an eye on this already and already copes with the BS that is government regulation.

 

[dagnabit]

Yea, we've toyed with the numbers - but it's really just an answer to dingbat. Although this jump to growing MJ has been discussed once the laws allow, and growers with money and infrastructure will jump into the void. Monthly oz's is not the way we look at it. It would monthly lbs. or not at all.

I just got tired of his whining about it not happening NOW, which we all know and concede. the OP was what to look for in the future (which dingbat has no clue about). Big ag has an eye on this already and already copes with the BS that is government regulation.

I do so love a pet name!!!

and look how clever you are you used the same letters!!!
It's like hims made hims own wittle wetared anagram.






Ok I've seen enough obfuscation from you.
In this conversation I have NEVER said that federal regulation was happening "now" or even soon. If you think our point of contention was ever a question of when then I implore you to repost the quote that led you to that misunderstanding!
My contention is and always has been is the regulation you warn is an uninted consequence is in reality a happy bennifit!
As to time frame I've ALWAYS figured 10years before the Feds reclassify.

As for the continued ad hominem..... Sad really

 

[grapeman]

you seem to have partly answered your own question, that was the link i was going to post
i was posing more of a question, not a 'i am an expert and this is the answer' post, 1% is my made up number
what i saw was the number of inspectors, 7000 or so for the entire county, they are not going to be able to inspect that much stuff, so 1% was thrown out there
now there are state inspectors that follow USDA guidelines, what degree of inspection they do is a bit less clear, likely varies from state to state
i have no issue with your point on what is practical, and that legalization may result in an increase in regulations
i simply wanted a clarification on where the 95% number came from, it just didn't seem right to me

To answer your question. Produce is inspected by lot. A representative sample from each lot (or load that arrives at a facility) is inspected. It is removed from the pallet and set on the inspection table. The inspector checks for size, sugar, cleanliness and other things. Or, for some crops, you can elect to have an inspector full time in the field to inspect as harvested. Ready to eat products (bagged lettuce etc.) is subject to fuller more rigorous inspections.

The produce that comes in from overseas or mexico is also inspected, but at a much smaller sampling ratio (our fucking government in action, wherein they inspect less where they need to inspect more).

All costs of inspection are paid by the farmer or producer. I speak for calif only.

 

[grapeman]

im sorry for disproving all of your bullshit premises so far..

just a few posts ago i reposter YOUR op and demonstrated in subsequent reposts how every word i have said is in direct correlation thereto.
you have so far assumed quite a few things as facts that you have not been able to demonstrate so far (mostly about me and my private information)
you have failed to recognize the correlation between federal regulation and federal scheduling.

sorry you cant set aside your ego and realize that thousands of people will not be arrested every year if and when federal regulation becomes a reality.

sorry you just cant seem to think multidimensionality ive never suffered from being that short sighted so i have a problem empathizing.

here is an idea....we continue this discussion with no more ad hominem of any sort as it does not serve to elevate the discourse?

i think we are very close to agreement just a few sticking points and a little ego separate us

So where do we disagree?

 

[grapeman]

Yes. if you wish to grow it legally you will need to comply with the laws that govern cannabis (once such laws exist). However, if you are currently growing illegally and your argument against legalization is that it will be regulated... I have a solution:

#1 Continue to grow illegally.

#2 Enjoy the lower-profile that marijuana crimes enjoy once there's no federal impetus to incarcerate marijuana growers in the name of the war on drugs.



How about this for a question: If you are running a larger-than-your-closet operation NOW and you want to continue to run a larger-than-your-closet operation in the future... why would you care whether the closet-operations became legal?

If you're currently breaking the current laws and operating off the radar, why would you care if they attempted to regulate on-radar growers? If things as they are are working out for you just fine, what would change about your situation if things were legal?

Still haven't had anyone even ATTEMPT to answer this one.

Some will continue to grow illegally. The number depends on how rigid the regulations are.

 

[dagnabit]

So where do we disagree?

if im understanding correctly...

you believe that the regulation at a federal level is a negative.

i believe it it a positive.

that is our point of contention.(unless i am mistaken)
there may also be some disagreement as to whether the feds will reclassify marijuana before they regulate.(although i cant see how there is any contention there...

 

[Anti]

the OP was what to look for in the future (which dingbat has no clue about).

Are you referring to yourself in the third-person again? How Bob Dole of you.

 

[Anti]

Some will continue to grow illegally. The number depends on how rigid the regulations are.

So why not fuck the cute girl at the bar even though she has a little cellulite on the back of her thighs? She still looks way better than the ugly cow you're already taking home!

If you find out you don't like fucking her as much, the cow will always take you back.

 

[MarquisBlack]

Are you referring to yourself in the third-person again? How Bob Dole of you.

Uhmm.. He was reffering to the "Original Post" not the "Original Poster"..

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

So why not fuck the cute girl at the bar even though she has a little cellulite on the back of her thighs? She still looks way better than the ugly cow you're already taking home!

If you find out you don't like fucking her as much, the cow will always take you back.

nice comparison lol

 

[Anti]

Uhmm.. He was reffering to the "Original Post" not the "Original Poster"..

Uhmm... that's not what I was talking about. Read it again. It's slightly subtler.

 

[grapeman]

if im understanding correctly...

you believe that the regulation at a federal level is a negative.

i believe it it a positive.

that is our point of contention.(unless i am mistaken)
there may also be some disagreement as to whether the feds will reclassify marijuana before they regulate.(although i cant see how there is any contention there...

I am a libertarian. I pretty much have distain for any central authority setting rules. I believe the marketplace will resolve all over time.

But, I understand and abide by all federal, state and local laws in my business. This thread was was started as a "heads up" for folks who think the government is their friend.

In this type of business, is neither the friend to the producer or the consumer IMO. But that's irrelevant really to the thread. Increased regulation to those who produce for others to consume will be forthcoming.

sorta of funny really as I've smoked since the '60's and never had a problem. If we didn't like something we either didn't buy it or never bought it again. But regulation is coming none the less as it becomes legalized in some manner and shape.

 

[dagnabit]

I am a libertarian. I pretty much have distain for any central authority setting rules. I believe the marketplace will resolve all over time.

But, I understand and abide by all federal, state and local laws in my business. This thread was was started as a "heads up" for folks who think the government is their friend.

In this type of business, is neither the friend to the producer or the consumer IMO. But that's irrelevant really to the thread. Increased regulation to those who produce for others to consume will be forthcoming.

sorta of funny really as I've smoked since the '60's and never had a problem. If we didn't like something we either didn't buy it or never bought it again. But regulation is coming none the less as it becomes legalized in some manner and shape.

and 90% (a rectal statistic) will (as far as they know) not even be effected.
those who want to run big commercial grow ops will feel the effects of the regulations....
the average schlub will head down to his local shithole dispensary with his med rec and continue to abuse the med system.
now when federal regulation becomes a reality...joe schmoe will go buy his nasty little ganja light 100's from phillip morris...

i dont drink hennesy i only drink Martel cordon bleu. henny is $90.00 a bottle cheaper but tastes like shit..meaning there will always be those who will not buy trash grown with ammonium nitrate and malithaion... i dont buy produce made with the types of crap you described in the OP nor would i buy marijuana grown that way.


as for libertarianism....

i voted for bob in hopes that he would die and wayne would be president...but that was me not being a realist.

 

[Thundurkel]

Shit we got a tough one to fight now since the NAACP has stepped in for legalization pulling the "race card" which is bullshit to me cuz I see JUST AS MANY gangster ass black dudes as I do skater guys like myself so I don't see black folks getting fucked with over weed that big a deal now. If you don't want to have problems get a card it's pretty simple...

 

[dagnabit]

Shit we got a tough one to fight now since the NAACP has stepped in for legalization pulling the "race card" which is bullshit to me cuz I see JUST AS MANY gangster ass black dudes as I do skater guys like myself so I don't see black folks getting fucked with over weed that big a deal now. If you don't want to have problems get a card it's pretty simple...

why would you even want to "fight"

dont you have a med card? why does tc2010 matter to you?

 

[binaryfission]

Shit we got a tough one to fight now since the NAACP has stepped in for legalization pulling the "race card" which is bullshit to me cuz I see JUST AS MANY gangster ass black dudes as I do skater guys like myself so I don't see black folks getting fucked with over weed that big a deal now. If you don't want to have problems get a card it's pretty simple...

do you know anything about why prohibition was started?

stop acting like your anecdotal evidence means anything in this case. Black and brown folks are locked up more than whites for non violent crimes.

this isn't debatable. Tons of scientific evidence.

i respect what you do but, you are speaking out of ignorance.

also, Keith Stroup and Chris Conrad both seem to think Jack would be in favor of this bill. Dennis Perron as well. i heard them both say so at the Medical Cup.

 

[Hammerhead]

LOL great stuff guys