BigBudBill
Member
THANK YOU JED!!!!!!!!!!
Notice the smooth logic and absence of fear mongering in that article?
ICMAG Administration endorses The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010
- Thread starter JJScorpio
- Start date
- Status
THANK YOU JED!!!!!!!!!!
Notice the smooth logic and absence of fear mongering in that article?
Nice article. This sentence really struck me......
" these anti-19 folks have joined forces with the people whose indifference and outright hostility have resulted in, and continue to result in, the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of thousands of medical marijuana patients."
" these anti-19 folks have joined forces with the people whose indifference and outright hostility have resulted in, and continue to result in, the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of thousands of medical marijuana patients."
Great article. Definitely goes to alleviating some of my concerns about the language of 19.
But the OP's editorialization is more of the same silliness that has kept this thread from having a five-star rating.
"Get real people. Do you really think the Marijuana Policy Project, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Drug Policy Alliance, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition would stand idly by, let alone support, an initiative that will undo the millions of dollars and the thousands of hours of staff time they have invested in establishing, protecting and defending the medical marijuana laws that many of themt helped put on the books in the first place?"
I don't trust ANYBODY's opinion about ANYTHING without substantive arguments made in its favor. Until this article, many arguments have been made against 19 on the basis of its language. The article posted is just that.
So the "get real people" part added by the OP of the article is completely unappreciated by people involved in intellectual discourse. The only people who "get real" in the manner prescribed are sheep. Granted, this may account for 75-85% of the electorate, but I personally find it offensive. (mildly... i'm not challenging you to a pistol duel over it.)
I don't formulate my opinion because any given acronym opposes or supports it... I crunch the arguments as they are made and make up my own mind.
Thanks for the article. Excellent contribution to the thread and possible the piece of analysis that gets me off the fence. Next time, leave the counter-intellectual editorializing at home.
And JJ: I am less impressed with the emotionally charged, propagandistic part you quote than I am with the well-constructed arguments specifically targeting earlier anti- arguments about the language of the bill. One is useful and the other is... CNN.
note: before anybody else gets bent up about this post, remember, the original poster I am talking about is the High Times Blogger... wait no... its an open letter from a nameless random "Prop 19 supporter"...
But the OP's editorialization is more of the same silliness that has kept this thread from having a five-star rating.
"Get real people. Do you really think the Marijuana Policy Project, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Drug Policy Alliance, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition would stand idly by, let alone support, an initiative that will undo the millions of dollars and the thousands of hours of staff time they have invested in establishing, protecting and defending the medical marijuana laws that many of themt helped put on the books in the first place?"
I don't trust ANYBODY's opinion about ANYTHING without substantive arguments made in its favor. Until this article, many arguments have been made against 19 on the basis of its language. The article posted is just that.
So the "get real people" part added by the OP of the article is completely unappreciated by people involved in intellectual discourse. The only people who "get real" in the manner prescribed are sheep. Granted, this may account for 75-85% of the electorate, but I personally find it offensive. (mildly... i'm not challenging you to a pistol duel over it.)
I don't formulate my opinion because any given acronym opposes or supports it... I crunch the arguments as they are made and make up my own mind.
Thanks for the article. Excellent contribution to the thread and possible the piece of analysis that gets me off the fence. Next time, leave the counter-intellectual editorializing at home.
And JJ: I am less impressed with the emotionally charged, propagandistic part you quote than I am with the well-constructed arguments specifically targeting earlier anti- arguments about the language of the bill. One is useful and the other is... CNN.
note: before anybody else gets bent up about this post, remember, the original poster I am talking about is the High Times Blogger... wait no... its an open letter from a nameless random "Prop 19 supporter"...
Last edited:
It wasn't meant to put anyone down.
What got me about the comment was how we can all like this plant but yet be on completely different sides of the issue. And I don't consider that sentence to be "propagandistic" as you claim. Based on the content of this thread alone I think it's more than true. And that's the part that gets me....
I'm sorry you see my comment that way.....
What got me about the comment was how we can all like this plant but yet be on completely different sides of the issue. And I don't consider that sentence to be "propagandistic" as you claim. Based on the content of this thread alone I think it's more than true. And that's the part that gets me....
I'm sorry you see my comment that way.....
What I mean by propagandistic is that its language is meant to have an emotional effect rather than an intellectual one. Not meant by you, but the author of the quote. I can do without such things in my arguments. They waste time an headspace.
All I am saying is its a great article. But I don't agree its great for the language you quoted.
Why are you sorry? Because our opinions are different? If I were sorry every time I disagreed with you I'd be a sorry son of a b.
I was under the impression you were East Coast. I am a native New Yorker. I might have assumed you had a thicker skin when it comes to opinions. That's what I get for making assumptions.
This thread is about a specific argument, but for me, it has come to be about whether or not we at ICM are capable of having a good argument. I try to take my lumps and eat my piles of shit when it comes down to it and thus raise the quality of my own arguments... So this is how I handle the thread. When I have time, I read it and try to post my honest ideas and opinions of the arguments being made, without emotion or reactionary posting to the best of my ability. When I am wrong about something, or my opinion has changed, I try to own it fast and move on. Period. I'm not sorry for my opinion (old ones or new ones) and would hope you'd not be sorry about yours.
All I am saying is its a great article. But I don't agree its great for the language you quoted.
Why are you sorry? Because our opinions are different? If I were sorry every time I disagreed with you I'd be a sorry son of a b.
I was under the impression you were East Coast. I am a native New Yorker. I might have assumed you had a thicker skin when it comes to opinions. That's what I get for making assumptions.
This thread is about a specific argument, but for me, it has come to be about whether or not we at ICM are capable of having a good argument. I try to take my lumps and eat my piles of shit when it comes down to it and thus raise the quality of my own arguments... So this is how I handle the thread. When I have time, I read it and try to post my honest ideas and opinions of the arguments being made, without emotion or reactionary posting to the best of my ability. When I am wrong about something, or my opinion has changed, I try to own it fast and move on. Period. I'm not sorry for my opinion (old ones or new ones) and would hope you'd not be sorry about yours.
When this all started, I was against 19 for several reasons...the biggest being that I just KNEW that "They" would find some slip-up in wording...and fuck with 215--
At the time, I did not understand about the above quote--
This practice is used just for that very reason...so slimy Lawyers cannot find a loop-hole in the wording of a Law...and use it against the INTENTION of said Law--
Vote Yes ppl...
B
blancorasta
This is HUGE!
This is HUGE!
[/quote]
PROP. 19 ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE A LOT OF MARIJUANA
As an attorney called upon to defend patients and non-patients in marijuana cases, I cannot tell you how beneficial and how much freedom Section 11300 subdivision A (3) of Prop.19 will be to cannabis users. Read it!
Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of ANY harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.
Section (i) limits possession to one ounce OUT OF YOUR HOUSE. Section (iii) permits people 21 and over to have within their residence or single parcel ALL the cannabis which one grew in their 25 sq. foot parcel, including what you grew this year, what you grew last year and EVERY SINGLE 25 SQ. FT. HARVEST YOU EVER HAD ON THAT SINGLE PARCEL. This covers as many cycles of indoor and/or outdoor grown cannabis as a person can produce as long as each grow was no more than 25 square feet and done in succession.
Clearly section 11300(a) (i) limits personal possession and consumption to one ounce OUT OF YOUR HOME while section11300(a) (iii) is what you are allowed to have AT YOUR RESIDENCE if that is where your 25 sq. ft. garden is located. That this is the case is established by another rule of statutory construction, i.e. the specific controls the general. Here (iii) is the specific statute with respect to what you can have AT YOUR RESIDENCE ONLY or in the words of subdivision (iii) "on the premises where grown".
The one ounce limitation only applies when you leave your house, not wherever it is you grow your 25 foot plot. I can picture being able to easily defend a person with 200 pounds who is not even medical.
Under Prop. 19 you can only travel with one ounce, but if you are a patient you can still enjoy the protections of the CUA and MMP and can safely travel with eight ounces, or whatever your doctor permits you to have or the needs of your collective, as allowed by the CUA and the MMP. YOUR SUPPLY PROBLEMS CAUSED BY PARANOID CULTIVATION LAWS AND POLICIES THAT AT TIMES LIMIT YOUR PERSONAL CULTIVATION PROJECTS ARE SOLVED BY PROP. 19.
Prop. 19 creates a marijuana sanctuary IN YOUR HOME ONLY. Prop. 19 allows you to have AT YOUR HOME ONLY ALL OF THE PROCEEDS of every successive 25 sq. foot plot. However, Prop 19 only allows you TO REMOVE IT FROM YOUR HOME one ounce at a time if you are a recreational user.
For patients this is not the case because Prop. 19 exempts them from the one ounce out of home restriction. As stated above, if you are a patient then you can take out of your house up to eight ounces, or whatever your doctor permits you to have or the needs of your collective.
Both medical patients and recreational users should note that Section 11300(a) (i) allows you to "share" up to an ounce which tells me that you can furnish as many one ounces to as many friends as you wish, thus if you have a party with 50 people you could give away 50 ounces. [/quote]
ok im now a firm yes... as long as it truely does exempt 215 and 420. this means that the pound limits for mmj patients and collective's would only be relevant when transporting and not growing, processing, or posessing. Right? and i believe that those that arn't just skilless greedy folks should be able to see this is a good enough reason among itself to vote yes, not to mention alot of other positives.
peace
This is HUGE!
[/quote]
PROP. 19 ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE A LOT OF MARIJUANA
As an attorney called upon to defend patients and non-patients in marijuana cases, I cannot tell you how beneficial and how much freedom Section 11300 subdivision A (3) of Prop.19 will be to cannabis users. Read it!
Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of ANY harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.
Section (i) limits possession to one ounce OUT OF YOUR HOUSE. Section (iii) permits people 21 and over to have within their residence or single parcel ALL the cannabis which one grew in their 25 sq. foot parcel, including what you grew this year, what you grew last year and EVERY SINGLE 25 SQ. FT. HARVEST YOU EVER HAD ON THAT SINGLE PARCEL. This covers as many cycles of indoor and/or outdoor grown cannabis as a person can produce as long as each grow was no more than 25 square feet and done in succession.
Clearly section 11300(a) (i) limits personal possession and consumption to one ounce OUT OF YOUR HOME while section11300(a) (iii) is what you are allowed to have AT YOUR RESIDENCE if that is where your 25 sq. ft. garden is located. That this is the case is established by another rule of statutory construction, i.e. the specific controls the general. Here (iii) is the specific statute with respect to what you can have AT YOUR RESIDENCE ONLY or in the words of subdivision (iii) "on the premises where grown".
The one ounce limitation only applies when you leave your house, not wherever it is you grow your 25 foot plot. I can picture being able to easily defend a person with 200 pounds who is not even medical.
Under Prop. 19 you can only travel with one ounce, but if you are a patient you can still enjoy the protections of the CUA and MMP and can safely travel with eight ounces, or whatever your doctor permits you to have or the needs of your collective, as allowed by the CUA and the MMP. YOUR SUPPLY PROBLEMS CAUSED BY PARANOID CULTIVATION LAWS AND POLICIES THAT AT TIMES LIMIT YOUR PERSONAL CULTIVATION PROJECTS ARE SOLVED BY PROP. 19.
Prop. 19 creates a marijuana sanctuary IN YOUR HOME ONLY. Prop. 19 allows you to have AT YOUR HOME ONLY ALL OF THE PROCEEDS of every successive 25 sq. foot plot. However, Prop 19 only allows you TO REMOVE IT FROM YOUR HOME one ounce at a time if you are a recreational user.
For patients this is not the case because Prop. 19 exempts them from the one ounce out of home restriction. As stated above, if you are a patient then you can take out of your house up to eight ounces, or whatever your doctor permits you to have or the needs of your collective.
Both medical patients and recreational users should note that Section 11300(a) (i) allows you to "share" up to an ounce which tells me that you can furnish as many one ounces to as many friends as you wish, thus if you have a party with 50 people you could give away 50 ounces. [/quote]
ok im now a firm yes... as long as it truely does exempt 215 and 420. this means that the pound limits for mmj patients and collective's would only be relevant when transporting and not growing, processing, or posessing. Right? and i believe that those that arn't just skilless greedy folks should be able to see this is a good enough reason among itself to vote yes, not to mention alot of other positives.
peace
binaryfission
Member
more yes votes!!! yeah.
Fortunatly its not the herb, I know people who have never done a drug in their life that are stockpiling pallets of ammunition and canned food for when the NWO takes over and poisons us with micro organisms designed to thin the population down to 10 million in USA.....
You gotta be a good fucking shot to get the micro-organism thingies!! I don't even want to think about skinnin' 'em!!
What I mean by propagandistic is that its language is meant to have an emotional effect rather than an intellectual one. Not meant by you, but the author of the quote. I can do without such things in my arguments. They waste time an headspace.
All I am saying is its a great article. But I don't agree its great for the language you quoted.
Why are you sorry? Because our opinions are different? If I were sorry every time I disagreed with you I'd be a sorry son of a b.
I was under the impression you were East Coast. I am a native New Yorker. I might have assumed you had a thicker skin when it comes to opinions. That's what I get for making assumptions.
This thread is about a specific argument, but for me, it has come to be about whether or not we at ICM are capable of having a good argument. I try to take my lumps and eat my piles of shit when it comes down to it and thus raise the quality of my own arguments... So this is how I handle the thread. When I have time, I read it and try to post my honest ideas and opinions of the arguments being made, without emotion or reactionary posting to the best of my ability. When I am wrong about something, or my opinion has changed, I try to own it fast and move on. Period. I'm not sorry for my opinion (old ones or new ones) and would hope you'd not be sorry about yours.
Frivolous. Thats about the only word I can use to describe this debacle. Which seems to be a common trait among the anti-19 crowd. You all make your argument. Then when it is denounced. Another argument comes. Then when that is denounced ANOTHER argument. It seems that there is no real desire for any of these other than you want to see 19 fail any way possible. Once you can no longer grasp at any straws for a new argument you all become the victim. Oh poor me. Oh me oh my. You pro-19ers are such big meany jerks, that I WOULD have voted yes, but since you didnt lick my asshole clean im now voting no.
Well you know what? Go fucking vote no. I dont give a shit. Because 19 will be a LANDSLIDE victory with or without you. So go ahead. Grasp your straw like the drunk ugly girl at the bar. Play the victim like a christian watchdog. Its all futile. In the end 19 will pass and it will be a monumental moment for cannabis legalization, rather you like it or not.
-BhT
I think Nomaad is leaning to the Yes-- He might have got misinterpreted--
J
JackTheGrower
J
JackTheGrower
Frivolous. Thats about the only word I can use to describe this debacle. Which seems to be a common trait among the anti-19 crowd. You all make your argument. Then when it is denounced. Another argument comes. Then when that is denounced ANOTHER argument. It seems that there is no real desire for any of these other than you want to see 19 fail any way possible. Once you can no longer grasp at any straws for a new argument you all become the victim. Oh poor me. Oh me oh my. You pro-19ers are such big meany jerks, that I WOULD have voted yes, but since you didnt lick my asshole clean im now voting no.
Well you know what? Go fucking vote no. I dont give a shit. Because 19 will be a LANDSLIDE victory with or without you. So go ahead. Grasp your straw like the drunk ugly girl at the bar. Play the victim like a christian watchdog. Its all futile. In the end 19 will pass and it will be a monumental moment for cannabis legalization, rather you like it or not.
-BhT
Look people why is it that this Site lets you get away with insulting people at every turn?
What happened to the Moderators doing their jobs?
I for one do not like this members acts.
I am complaining on the violence this member is allowed to get away with.
Would you stop? The Hate has to stop.
violence?
are you serious?
no one has insulted your person we have debunked your continued LIES.
to call your ignorant bullshit ignorant bullshit is not insulting you.
remarks concerning the size of your penis or disparaging remarks about your parents maybe some doubt cast upon your personal hygene...those would be insults.
suggesting you give yourself a drano enema could be construed as violence.
but continually being a condescending asshole(an incorrect prick convinced he is enlightened is afterall the worst kind) then playing the victim when proven wrong...
bitch move pal
pot meet kettle i think you will get along famously!
Jack, you are one twisted puppy. Let me quote you from the thread about the asian grower who shot and killed the ripper that was leaving the grow location -
I think that you have your priorities, your perceptions, and your panties seriously awry.
J
JackTheGrower
There we go again.. I ware panties..
Please post the link to the thread for everyone to read the whole thing.
It's only fair for the truth to be known.
I dont sneak around what I believe and I sure as hell won't be crying to mods about what a lying manipulative piece of shit you are....even if you want to report me for speaking my mind and my "violence" or whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. But if I hurt your little feelings with my opinion and lack of sugercoating, I really could care less. But you'll get what you want. Playing the victim as always Jack. I guess what I'm trying to say is go fuck yourself.
-BhT
Last edited:
J
JackTheGrower
Jack I don't need to insult you to lower your value at icmag. You do a pretty good job of doing it to yourself.
-BhT
All Right I will talk it out.
You guys are not covering the bandwidth and think controlling things is the Wrong way to go.
You guys are not picking up on the subtle contributions being made and and yet claim to be so wonderfully brilliant by the acts of insulting others and it is causing a few to leave.
I myself put my erasing my account in your hands right now..
Say go and I have no problem going.
Say stay and stop the shit.
I don't think JJ has it in him actually and I do miss Skip.
Do you actually think the intellectual Bar of an On-line Magazine is served with your "Fuk You" posts?
Alright I am acting odd for you but isn't that reason to wake the better man in you rather than trying to impress the folks that idolize an abuser type?
I have read so many posts of hate and belittlement lead by you and no positive "I love you Man" posts. I miss that part of ICmag
Where does a Man get a chance to say "hey man" when you seem to be leading the Juvenal empowerment campaign?
Alright..
So guys ... Do you , does anyone now running the "site" actually know how to run an ON-Line Magazine or is the whole site just Bull-Shit?
So hey.. I'm not perfect and I have admitted as much not long ago.
So what is it for ICmag.. will it grow or is it in Decay?
Enought with I'm so crazy... We all know it so be done with that.
Last edited:
- Status
