ICMAG Administration endorses The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

[subrob]

while i am kinda on a roll....here is some more food for thought(which ive posted before)
--i have been involved in these discussions for 20 years....twenty fukn long years...i have seen, WITHOUT QUESTION, more momentum in the last 24 months, then in the last twenty years. A 'no' vote equals disrespecting EVERY SINGLE SOUL WHO HAS FOUGHT PROHIBITION for the last 5 decades...people who fought without the protection of medical...and the people in other states who still are...now that, boys and girls, is hippie balls(shout out to all those not in the 14 states who are hangin em out there)---and DONT start spouting that crap about "this has nothing to do with people outside of cali", cuz thats is the STUPIDEST fukn argument...scratch that...stupidest fuckin train of thought i have ever fukn heard...im willing to bet many of the no's (who are not making thier nut off the "medical" scene) are either too young to remember what life was like twenty years ago, or were too young to pay attention...if you are under the age of...say...30...dont fukn think, just push the yes button...you prob dont have the experience, the context, to understand how momentous this is...and im not doggin people under thirty, not at all, but it is truly, truly, something to consider........please...

 

[vta]

LEO Argues Prop 19

watch this video

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

CNN NEWS: S.A.F.E.R. debates Anti-19 Alcohol Lobbyist

CNN NEWS: S.A.F.E.R. debates Anti-19 Alcohol Lobbyist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYrt-t_Dzg4

Mason Tvert isn't the best public speaker. But he fucking destroys his opponent....

 

[vta]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYrt-t_Dzg4

Mason Tvert isn't the best public speaker. But he fucking destroys his opponent....

Tvert is great...That reporter also lit up the Anti dude...people are getting it's more of a 'common sense' kind of thing.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Tvert is great...That reporter also lit up the Anti dude...people are getting it's more of a 'common sense' kind of thing.

I know ... its weird to see journalists acting like journalists. I love how he remarked to the public safety first rep that all his arguments against marijuana could be made against alcohol. Boomshakalaka!!!!

 

[zen_trikester]

....people, remember this and remember it well...in ten years PROP19 WONT EVEN FUCKING MATTER...if it passes...two three years from now, the scene, the situation, the laws, the climate, the politics, everything will be different then it is right now, and 5 years after that, it will be drastically changed again.
--I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO VOTE FOR THE WAY CANNABIS SHOULD BE HANDLED...IM ASKING YOU, EVERY ONE OF YOU, TO ACCEPT THE REALITY THAT THINGS DONT CHANGE OVERNIGHT, NOT W ONE VOTE, NOT W 6...IT IS GOING TO TAKE TIME...AND THE TIME TO START IS RIGHT NOW, RIGHT HERE IN CALI..

Quoted and bolded brother. More true words have not yet been said in this thread. The whole post was quality but this part really hit home for me and I hope that people will read this and see the wisdom in your words. +R

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYrt-t_Dzg4

Mason Tvert isn't the best public speaker. But he fucking destroys his opponent....

yeah, and it was nice to see the anchor actually using logic. I think cnn may just be hip to the cheeb.

LEO Argues Prop 19

watch this video

Wow... Cooter and Jack were making better arguments than those 'tards. How dumb do they think people are? "We get calls for domestic substance abuse calls all the time... granted it's mostly alcohol but there are other substances too. Now what if those other substances are legal?" I literally laughed at that one. Other substances! yeah... pot made me beat my wife! Maybe pot made me beat off instead of fucking my wife. Well, according to Afroman anyways!

The more the anti's go after this prop the more they are tipping the scales toward yes.

Jed

 

[dagnabit]

Quoted and bolded brother. More true words have not yet been said in this thread. The whole post was quality but this part really hit home for me and I hope that people will read this and see the wisdom in your words. +R



yeah, and it was nice to see the anchor actually using logic. I think cnn may just be hip to the cheeb.




Wow... Cooter and Jack were making better arguments than those 'tards. How dumb do they think people are? "We get calls for domestic substance abuse calls all the time... granted it's mostly alcohol but there are other substances too. Now what if those other substances are legal?" I literally laughed at that one. Other substances! yeah... pot made me beat my wife! Maybe pot made me beat off instead of fucking my wife. Well, according to Afroman anyways!

The more the anti's go after this prop the more they are tipping the scales toward yes.

Jed

i might smak that ho for bogartin the bowl...but if 19 passes we would have plenty...


vote yes for 19 end domestic violence!!!!!

 

[vta]

Radical Russ over at the Norml Stash Blog has been putting the Anti's in their place {so to speak}. check out this thread i posted...he makes some great points....ALL points that have been brought up here FWIW..

How to debate Anti-Prop 19 Stoners Against Legalization

 

[CrazyCooter]

Wow... Cooter and Jack were making better arguments than those 'tards.

Jed

Does this mean I can join the discussion again?

BHT,

you never answered my question.

How do you solve a problem using the same political/economic system that created it?

And thank you for spending your Saturday evening on these boards fighting for the cause. Nobody else seems to have the dedication you do.

 

[dagnabit]

How do you solve a problem using the same political/economic system that created it?

so you advocate demolishing the framework of our entire system of governance in order to accomplish your version of marijuana legalization?
what system do you advocate to replace our constitutional republic?
you have expressed a disdain for voting...some form of totalitarian dictatorship is more to your liking perhaps?

 

[binaryfission]

Does this mean I can join the discussion again?

you never answered my question.

You never answered mine in public or private. Its the same as dagnabit's;

WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATE SYSTEM and HOW DO WE IMPLEMENT IT?


bold and caps for easy reading... in cased you missed it.

 

[CrazyCooter]

Answering questions with questions

Answering questions with questions

so you advocate demolishing the framework of our entire system of governance in order to accomplish your version of marijuana legalization?
what system do you advocate to replace our constitutional republic?
you have expressed a disdain for voting...some form of totalitarian dictatorship is more to your liking perhaps?

Thank you for answering my question with three questions. I suppose I should answer yours with nine.

"so you advocate demolishing the framework of our entire system of governance in order to accomplish your version of marijuana legalization?"

Where did I advocate this? How did you jump to this conclusion? Is this prop your version of legalization?

"what system do you advocate to replace our constitutional republic?"

Can you define constitutional republic? Does the definition match what you see all around you? Was it a "constitutional republic" that outlawed cannabis and put people in jail for using it?

"you have expressed a disdain for voting...some form of totalitarian dictatorship is more to your liking perhaps?"

Is it a disdain for voting or the results of our political system? Why must it be "totalitarian dictatorship" instead of "constitutional republic?" Is it your programming that makes the alternative to "constitutional republic" a "totalitarian dictatorship?"

 

[JJScorpio]

Does this mean I can join the discussion again?

BHT,

you never answered my question.

How do you solve a problem using the same political/economic system that created it?

And thank you for spending your Saturday evening on these boards fighting for the cause. Nobody else seems to have the dedication you do.

I'm curious also in what type of Government you think we should be.....

 

[dagnabit]

Thank you for answering my question with three questions. I suppose I should answer yours with nine.

"so you advocate demolishing the framework of our entire system of governance in order to accomplish your version of marijuana legalization?"

Where did I advocate this? How did you jump to this conclusion? Is this prop your version of legalization?

"what system do you advocate to replace our constitutional republic?"

Can you define constitutional republic? Does the definition match what you see all around you? Was it a "constitutional republic" that outlawed cannabis and put people in jail for using it?

"you have expressed a disdain for voting...some form of totalitarian dictatorship is more to your liking perhaps?"

Is it a disdain for voting or the results of our political system? Why must it be "totalitarian dictatorship" instead of "constitutional republic?" Is it your programming that makes the alternative to "constitutional republic" a "totalitarian dictatorship?"

i see..you dont understand the subtle art of implication..
my answer was implied in my questions. but i see you need it expressed monosyllabicly.
question

Originally Posted by CrazyCooter

How do you solve a problem using the same political/economic system that created it?

by putting aside your angst and apathy and operating within the system(read:vote)

there is an answer to your question directly...
one more time for clarification

Originally Posted by CrazyCooter

How do you solve a problem using the same political/economic system that created it?

vote

now do you care to answer my questions as directly as i have yours or will you choose to rant on and not address them.

I.do you advocate demolishing the framework of our entire system of governance?
you will notice i changed the question s there was a partially impliedanswer in your previous response

 

[zen_trikester]

Does this mean I can join the discussion again?

Go nuts man... I mean, if you find pleasure in getting pushed around and made to look like an idiot then feel free to join in. There is absolutely nothing left other than the "I gots mine" argument, the "it's just a plant and should be a free-for-all" argument, and the various refer madness/D.A.R.E. arguments. Take your pick.

jed

 

[dagnabit]

"it's just a plant and should be a free-for-all" argument,

jed

i get sooo sick of that one..

i tried smoking a banana peel once funny thing..didnt have the same effect...

but there are those that advocate strange things....

 

[sac beh]

Sorry if this was already posted here, I haven't been following the thread for a couple days.

California Pot Initiative Opposed By Beer Industry
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/this-buds-not-for-you-bee_n_732901.html

I'm happy that Sierra Nevada disassociated itself from this campaign

 

[binaryfission]

I think this is particularly relevant with all the "we can make a difference" aka. "have hope for change" aka "give people hope and they will try to change" feelings circulating.

By Tim Johnson | McClatchy Newspapers

MEXICO CITY — A debate about legalizing marijuana and possibly other drugs — once a taboo suggestion — is percolating in Mexico, a nation exhausted by runaway violence and a deadly drug war.

The debate is only likely to grow more animated if Californians approve an initiative on Nov. 2 to legalize marijuana for recreational use in their state.

Mexicans are keeping a close eye on the vote, seeing it as a bellwether.

"If they vote 'yes' to approve the full legalization of marijuana, I think it will have a radical impact in Mexico," said Jorge Hernandez Tinajero, a political scientist at the National Autonomous University.

Discussion about legalization flew onto the agenda last month, the outcome of President Felipe Calderon's pressing need to win more public support for waging war against criminal organizations profiting hugely from drug trafficking.

As he held a series of open forums with politicians and civic leaders about faltering security, Calderon suddenly found himself amid a groundswell of suggestions that legalization — which he described as "absurd" — should be considered.

Among those throwing their weight behind legalization was former President Vicente Fox, a member of Calderon's own conservative National Action Party.

"We should consider legalizing the production, distribution and sale of drugs," Fox wrote on his blog during the series of forums. "Legalizing in this sense does not mean that drugs are good or don't hurt those who consume. Rather, we have to see it as a strategy to strike and break the economic structure that allows the mafias to generate huge profits in their business."

Calderon immediately said Mexico couldn't act on its own to legalize.

"If drugs are not legalized in the world, or if drugs are not legalized at least in the United States, this is simply absurd, because the price of drugs is not determined in Mexico. The price of drugs is determined by consumers in Los Angeles, or in New York, or in Chicago or Texas," he said.

Such public debate would have been largely unthinkable a few years ago. Since Calderon came to office in late 2006, however, a national gloom has descended on Mexico from unending cartel violence and a death toll topping 28,000. The grim mood has provided fertile ground for public figures who think that legalization would undercut the power of the drug cartels.

Among them are business tycoons such as billionaire Ricardo Salinas Pliego, who controls broadcaster TV Azteca, and retailer Grupo Elektra.

With his own pro-legalization statement, Fox aligned with another former president, Ernesto Zedillo, who suggested last year that prohibition isn't working.

Still, several analysts said debate about legalization — coming most strongly from the political left — was an attempt to needle Calderon as much as an exploration of whether legalization is feasible.

Edgardo Buscaglia, an expert on Mexico's criminal syndicates, said Mexico's government is too weak to legalize and regulate narcotics and marijuana.

"You need to have regulatory capacity in place," he said. "Mexico does not even have the capacity to regulate its pharmaceutical products."

Without a better framework, any move to take away penalties for narcotics would "amount to a subsidy to drug organizations," he said, as prices and demand remain buoyant for illegal narcotics in the U.S. and other countries.

Legislators in August 2009 quietly decriminalized the possession of less than 5 grams of marijuana, the equivalent of about four joints. Tiny amounts of cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, LSD, and methamphetamine also are no longer subject to criminal penalties.

Further measures have been blocked, however, such as one before two committees of the Chamber of Deputies to permit the use of marijuana for medical purposes, as 14 U.S. states allow. Others have been put before the Senate, the legislative assembly of Mexico City and before a local congress in the state of Mexico.

Hernandez Tinajero said he thinks that Mexican society may not be ready for such moves, but that the California initiative on marijuana would impel debate further.

"Whatever the result may be, it will have a positive impact on Mexico," he said, and give way to a "a far more serious discussion."

Experts said they can't fully weigh arguments about the impact that legalization of marijuana in California might have on this country of 111 million, or whether steps toward legalization here would weaken drug syndicates.

That's because so little is known publicly about the revenue streams of cartels, the extent of production of marijuana, crystal meth and heroin, and the range of revenue from other criminal enterprises.

Counternarcotics officials say several Mexican cartels, particularly the Familia Michoacana, are deeply involved in marijuana production and sales in California.

Alex Kreit, an expert on drug law at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, said the fallout from Proposition 19, whichever way voters lean, might not be immediate.

Opinion polls show a near toss-up over whether voters will approve or reject it.

If the initiative passes, it would have an impact only in localities that take steps to permit the cultivation, distribution and sale of marijuana, he said.

"If this passes, it doesn't mean that all of a sudden that people who are growing marijuana in large amounts are going to be doing so legally," he said.

If the initiative loses by a large margin, Kreit said, it could "be the death knell" for legalization. If it goes the other way, it could "start to create a feeling of inevitability" in the U.S. and Mexico toward the legalization of marijuana.

"I almost view it as similar to the gay marriage issue. People's views are changing very quickly," Kreit said.

Hernandez Tinajero said any shift in U.S. public opinion would ripple south.

"The basic equation is this: If the United States is changing, why can't we change as well?" he asked.

 

[sac beh]

Prop 19 Would Help -- Not Hurt -- Medical Marijuana Patients

Are they misinformed or deliberately lying? I don't know anymore.

A group of medical marijuana dispensaries organized as the California Cannabis Association has come out against Prop 19, California's "Tax and Regulate Cannabis" initiative to legalize marijuana.

The coalition claims that Prop 19's provisions giving local jurisdictions the power to regulate cannabis sales, including the right to choose whether to allow commercial or other outlets, would enable them to prohibit the sale of medical marijuana to patients, something that under California they currently can't do. In the words of Cascade Wellness Center head Amir Daliri, quoted in the Associated Press, "The people who would be most affected are the sick, the elderly - patients who cannot grow their own and cannot travel to pick up a prescription."

The claim is completely false. As attorney J. David Nick explained in a widely disseminated legal analysis exhorting people to get on board and support the initiative, section 2B of the Prop 19 text explicitly guards against that:

Section 2B presents the controlling and relevant purposes for understanding what Prop. 19 can and cannot do. This section EXPRESSLY excludes the reach of Prop. 19 from the CUA and MMP. Sections 2B (7 & 8) specifically state that the purpose of this initiative is to give municipalities total and complete control over the commercial sales of marijuana "EXCEPT as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9."

Even without that protection, Nick further explains, it would be virtually impossible for the courts to interpret Prop 19 as allowing cities or counties to gut the state medical marijuana law, because of the rules of statutory construction:

Although extrinsic materials (such as legislative committee memos or voter pamphlet arguments) may not be resorted to when the legislative language is clear, courts may never ignore the purpose of the legislation. Every interpretation a court gives a statute must be consistent with the purpose of the legislation. This is why statutes have long "preambles" which explicitly state the purposes of the legislation.

Unfortunately, the press has largely given the group a pass. In the press mentions I could find of the story, LA Weekly, Capital Public Radio, KTVU and the aforementioned AP piece, campaign spokeswoman Dale Sky Jones is quoted making the opposite claim, that the initiative actually would clarify and improve protections for medical marijuana patients. But that important information appears toward the end of the articles, and the casual reader is left with the impression simply that different activists are saying different things, not necessarily knowing what to believe. I think the media professionals covering this should have taken the extra few moments needed to glance at the initiative text, or better yet spoken with a qualified attorney or legal analyst about it. They then could have verified that the campaign quotes were right and the opposition's wrong, and reflected that in their reporting.

Fortunately, only some medical marijuana people are so shortsighted as to oppose this historic and important measure. Harborside Health Center in Oakland, and the Berkeley Patients Group are among the top quality groups lending their support to Prop 19. But it's still worth asking, why are some other medical marijuana providers opposing it?

Famed Canadian Marc Emery, from his US prison cell offered the obvious explanation: money. I've been charitable about this in saying that there's a little more to it than that. The medical marijuana providers have by and large created a good and wholesome environment, bringing dollars in for sure, but providing high-quality, compassionate services for their clientele. They've risked a lot to do it -- Daliri's center is among those to suffer raids on their operations -- and they don't want to see the world they've brought into being fall into nothingness in the face of the hugely increased competition that legalization of marijuana for anyone will surely bring. I happen to think that legalization will bring more opportunities for everyone in the industry, including the current medical marijuana providers, but I could be wrong. Maybe they will be put out of business.

But that's not a reason to allow the continued mass law enforcement campaigns against marijuana users and sellers to continue -- more than 61,000 people were arrested for marijuana possession in California in 2009 alone. And these people were smart enough to start and maintain successful businesses, therefore they're smart enough to accurately understand the Prop 19 legislation, if they want to, so I say enough is enough. Whether they are doing it deliberately, or out of deliberate ignorance, they should stop spreading misinformation about Prop 19. Shame on the California Cannabis Association. And YES on PROP 19!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-borden/prop-19-would-help-not-hu_b_735846.html

 

[OhGee Kush]

Man I read a good bit of this thread and the opposing people have not a single good fact or reason to vote no... Aside from the fact that they are lazy no good fucks who live off bleeding money from sick people... They just worried they gonna have to get a fuckin job and their so called elite clones will be phazed out by real dank... That's a fact.. No voters are future homeless... I'll send you some canned goods if you vote yes... Gotta love how they say big business is gonna take over, ya that's life small time douches... Sharks eat smaller fish...