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

[SKUNK420]

so stand with every leo?

ill take the naacp over the dea any day

Assume all you want even though I gave my reason on why I'll vote no. Instead of reading and understanding what I said you proceed to say "so stand with every leo". It interesting how you put it like that.
You stand with the NAACP? Well all the communists and marxists groups were standing with SEIU and NAACP, ALF-CIO and 300+ groups. So can I now make the same dumb assumption?

 

[dagnabit]

Assume all you want even though I gave my reason on why I'll vote no. Instead of reading and understanding what I said you proceed to say "so stand with every leo". It interesting how you put it like that.
You stand with the NAACP? Well all the communists and marxists groups were standing with SEIU and NAACP, ALF-CIO and 300+ groups. So can I now make the same dumb assumption?

your the one who said you were voting no based on which groups endorsed the prop.

i just applied the flawed logic to all of the groups that oppose it.

you know when the ball player hits a homer he thanks the lord but when he strikes out?

same logic applied here if the unions support of 19 is your causation for a negative vote as alluded to in this statement

I will now fight Prop 19 to the death because of the union supoport of Prop 19.

 

[binaryfission]

...does anyone know of an American ever busted and fined for smoking Cuban cigars?.....and if so is it an 'infraction' too?

 

[Neo 420]

Is this the same 1960/1970 commie bullshit again? Divide divide and divide.....

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

your the one who said you were voting no based on which groups endorsed the prop.

i just applied the flawed logic to all of the groups that oppose it.

you know when the ball player hits a homer he thanks the lord but when he strikes out?

same logic applied here if the unions support of 19 is your causation for a negative vote as alluded to in this statement

there's no reasoning with skunk. some people are here to learn the pros and cons of 19..... but most of them are here to lie, misguide, fear monger and exaggerate the truth.

 

[binaryfission]

Assume all you want even though I gave my reason on why I'll vote no. Instead of reading and understanding what I said you proceed to say "so stand with every leo". It interesting how you put it like that.
You stand with the NAACP? Well all the communists and marxists groups were standing with SEIU and NAACP, ALF-CIO and 300+ groups. So can I now make the same dumb assumption?

okay okay. we got it that you hate socialists and commies and marxists.

SO..... whats your view point on money? you use it? Police and fire service? Ambulance?

Please, if you're going to make the socialist/communist/marxist play, do it with some finesse; Don't come out and cry about symptoms without addressing the real issue. Money, and specifically the U.S. dollar, is one of the most regulated items in the world. It is the bankers cabal saying, "Give us some and we'll provide for you." This is anything but free or laissez-faire or capitalistic. Central banking is everything you don't want from the "social/marx/commun-ists" with none of the social goals. No upside. Just theft of our money.
If you're not in favor of capitalism what is you viable alternative? Anarchy?
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but don't you think it is a little misguided? Is stockpiling kleenex the best way to fight the flu?

Peace Out.

 

[zen_trikester]

I will now fight Prop 19 to the death because of the union supoport of Prop 19.
You have your view and I have mine.
I see ( my opinion)the involvement of the unions and current politicians as a group of people who are setting themselves a place in politics.

I think unions are the devil... I hate them and that is probably the biggest reason I don't consider myself a democrat. I still want weed to be legal though...

I am not going to repeat the same mistake of the past on this on Prop 19.

The big mistake was in the 30's when pot was demonized. Pharma corporations are now getting closer to extracting the medical benefits from MJ (in their mind anyways) and governments are coming up with new lies that demonize proper growing techniques and quality breeding. I just don't see it getting any better for MJ than it is now if this prop fails. The more progress we make as growers and the more inundated personal grows are within the society, the harder they are going to push and cheat and lie. With the exception of commercial growers anybody who is anybody in the Cannabis scene is backing this... Normal, MPP, LEAP, the Jack Herer family, and the list goes on and on. All the major organizations, even those who pushed for other props are backing this because they see it as a stepping stone if it passes and a piano dropped from 10 stories up onto our heads if it fails. But as you say, we all need to make our own choices on this matter.


Jed

 

[SCF]

Years ago I watched this movie called 'Pumping Iron' starring Arnold Schwarzenegger.....and watched him toke on a spliff after a workout.....whilst quite obviously enjoying the effects....back then in the 70's consuming cannabis was very illegal in California....

Now Arnold is making exactly what he was doing (back in the 70's) an 'infraction' penalizing it with a $100 fine......whilst not endorsing Prop 19 that if passed would make what he was doing in the 70's completely legal......because quite obviously he was toking recreationaly......since he was Mr Universe and didn't seem to me to be using cannabis medicinally ......oh the hypocrisy of politics.....

More recently I have seen Arnie toking on what are probably/look like Cuban cigars that I believe are also illegal in the USA, since the USA has had an embargo on Cuban goods for years...

Cuban cigars are illegal in the United States, except for pre-embargo cigars which are very rare and extremely expensive. If U.S. citizens attempt to buy, own or bring any Cuban cigars into the U.S., they may be subject to fines and other penalties, depending on the particular circumstances.

Cuban Cigars Are Illegal at Home and Abroad
Technically, although an American citizen cannot even purchase or smoke a Cuban cigar while traveling abroad, there may not be any practical way to enforce the restriction. That being said, a cigar smoker who ever wanted to try a Cuban cigar may want to take the chance while traveling in other countries. Canada and Mexico are not very far from many American cities, and those who are planning a Caribbean cruise will find Cuban cigars for sale on many of the islands.

...does anyone know of an American ever busted and fined for smoking Cuban cigars?.....and if so is it an 'infraction' too?

I'll be back for an Ounce of OG Kush!!

LOL for u GN


And in response to the Cuban Cigars.

It is illegal for U.S. persons to buy, sell, trade, give away, or otherwise engage in (or offer to engage in) transactions involving illegally-imported Cuban cigars. The penalties for doing so include, in addition to confiscation of the cigars, civil fines of up to $50,000 per violation and, in appropriate cases, criminal prosecution which may result in imprisonment.

"We recognise that the prohibitions that apply to Cuban cigars may deprive many consumers of a sought-after product. However, these prohibitions apply to all goods of Cuban origin and are an important element of the comprehensive program of economic sanctions against the Cuban government which have been in place since 1963.These sanctions have had the full support of the past seven Administrations and were further tightened by President Clinton in August 1994."

Still have doubts? Here's one of the specific regulations governing the importation of Cuban products. Trading with Enemy Act, 50 USC App5(b)
The Cuban Asset Control Regulation
Code of Federal Regulations, section 515.101 et seq. vol. 19
"The purchase, importation, transportation or otherwise dealing with merchandise outside the US if that merchandise is: (1) of Cuban origin; (2) is or has been located in or transported through Cuba; (3) is made or derived in whole or in part from articles which are the growth, produce, or manufacture of Cuba, is illegal and punishable by a fine of not more than $50,000 or imprisonment of not more than 10 years."

"A transaction between a US citizen within the US and his agent, home office, branch, or correspondent outside the US is prohibited as if he made the transaction. Gifts of Cuban origin, whether acquired by US citizens abroad or brought into the US by another to be given as a gift within the US is prohibited unless liscensed by the Office of Foreign Assests Control at the US Department of the Treasury."

"The Cuban Assets Control Regulations of the US Treasury Department require that persons subject to US jurisdiction be liscensed to engage in any transaction related to travel to, from, through, and within Cuba. Liscenses are *not* granted for business and tourism. This restriction includes travel to and from Cuba through a third party (such as Canada or Mexico, for example)."

"The Treasury Department will consider liscenses on a case-by-case basis."

 

[ReelBusy1]

Make it personal why dont you ...
This thin skinned kidd is over 40 and was born into cannabis
day in to day out 40+ and still counting
respect is due to all Elders in the cannabis where ever they may come from.... i dont mean me or my pops .. learn some
dont you wonder where a lot of the cannabis you smoke today came from?

The just of what im saying is ----->>> Hasty Decisions lead to POOR RESULTS INT THE LONG RUN!

if your so righteous and want to display you supreme cannabis activist knowledge IQ.. i would think you would be smart enough to look at the long term results from hasty decisions....

Now is not the time for prop 19
i dont wana deal with a bunch of stoned drivers around LA anyways LOL the drive bad enough here already
so some MMj Special interest group came cash in..

Sensitive arent we LOL

PS ...congrats on your new born .. explains why every post you make have a comment about kidds in it one way or a another

If not now, when?

You sure have a "happy slave" mentality.
Why should you have your freedom when you get free room and board right?

There are already lots of MMJ special interests making money off our biz.
This prop opens it up for everyone.

 

[Mister Postman]

Shit I'd trade the 8yrs in a 6x8 I face here, for my freedom and a 5x5! I sure as hell hope if this prop 19 is a success for Cali other states follow.

A $50, a headache, and an out of state drivers license is all it took to buy/smoke legally while I was in Cali. Paradise compared to where I live now where cancer and opiate addiction is forced to go hand in hand

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

I drive the LA freeways all the time and if the drivers aren't smoking joints they're sniffing coke. I've bern hit 3 times on the 405 while puffing kush and not 1 time was I the one at fault. Shit if I didn't smoke on 405 I probably would be driving people off the road as I got bad case of road rage and there are so many shit drivers. When I'm high I just crank the a/c,, roll up the tinted windows, bump some sugar minnott (RIP) and just cruise. No irritation, no lane jumping, no stressing on traffic, just perfect meditated driving. Thank god for driving high....

 

[Bulldog11]

Another view on Prop 19, take note

Another view on Prop 19, take note

Not sure if I know how to post this properly. Here goes nothing.

http://sjcbc.org/2010/09/11/an-open-letter-on-prop-19/

I will try to copy and paste, if somebody can follow the link and do a better job than me please do.

For my support of Prop. 19, I have been subject to the scorn, approbation and the most demoralizing denunciations imaginable by a group of medical marijuana patients exhibiting what can only be termed “medical reefer madness.”

With the best of intentions based on a poorly researched legal analysis, 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.

Their never-ending harangues that Prop. 215 will go into the trash can of history if Prop. 19 is passed is causing medical marijuana patients extreme anxiety and leading them to question their support of this historic and critical piece of reform legislation. Graphically describing the horrors that will descend like a plague of locusts on unsuspecting medical marijuana patients if Prop. 19 passes, the anti-19 cabal insinuates that we are being duped by unscrupulous and untrustworthy people like Chris Conrad, Judge Jim Gray, Dale Gerringer, Dr. Frank Lucido, State Senator Mark Leno, Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, Jeff Jones, Mark Emery and hundreds of others. To see a list of all their claimed enemies of medical marijuana patients, go to: www.taxcannabis2010.org/node/13

To reveal the fallacy of their arguments and to stop stressing patients, I asked my friend, and frankly the friend of every medical marijuana patient in the state of California, J. David Nick, to weigh in on the controversy.

For 18 years, David Nick has successfully litigated a cornucopia of issues regarding cannabis and the applicable laws in both trial and appellate courts. He has not confined his practice to marijuana law, but also litigates cases involving constitutional rights and criminal procedure.

David Nick has never lost a jury trial in a state marijuana case including many precedent setting trials involving some of the most revered figures in the medical marijuana movement such as Brownie Mary, Dennis Peron (Nick has been Peron’s sole attorney since 1994) and Steve Kubby.

One of Nick’s early defenses of Peron’s medical marijuana activism resulted in the first appellate court decision affirming that marijuana can be sold. Kubby’s case was the first large quantity (200 plants) case to be won on the argument that Kubby’s serious ailments necessitated his use of cannabis to keep him alive.

A recent case of interest to patients is the Strauss case, involving a farm in Mendocino County that cultivated marijuana exclusively for a collective in Los Angeles. Nick succeeded in getting a hung jury followed by outright dismissal of all charges involving 250 pounds of processed marijuana, 200 large marijuana plants and $1.5 million in several bank accounts – not exactly consistent with the idea of small collectives with everybody planting, harvesting, trimming and singing Kumbaya.

He is currently representing collectives in Palm Springs, Riverside and Los Angeles in preemptive lawsuits asserting the rights of collectives to provide medicine to their members without undue interference from local government officials.

Nick does not confine his practice to marijuana law, but is involved in significant federal criminal litigation.

His litigation has established the right not to be searched by sniffing dogs without probable cause. This is in contract to car searches where police can search you car for no reason at all.

His litigation has lead to policies requiring police to not draw weapons in a marijuana search unless they have information that the person being apprehended is dangerous.

He has successfully litigated jury trials utilizing a necessity for life defense in order to uphold the operation of needle exchange programs.

As far as I am concerned, these experiences qualify him to provide an opinion about Prop. 19 superior to those I have read from the “sky-is-falling” alarmists

Here is Mr. Nick’s analysis of the effects of Prop. 19 on medical marijuana patients.

- Lanny Swerdlow, RN, LNC
Subject: AN OPEN LETTER ON PROPOSITION 19
From: J. David Nick. Attorney-at-Law
PROP. 19 IS THE BEST THING TO HAPPEN TO MMJ PATIENTS SINCE PROP. 215

Anyone who claims that Proposition 19 will restrict or eliminate rights under the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) or the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) is simply wrong. If anything, Proposition 19 will permit individuals to grow and possess much more than ever before with patients, coops and collectives still receiving the same protections they are entitled to under the CUA and MMP.
Here is why.

The legal arguments claiming the “sky will fall” if Prop. 19 passes are based on the fallacious conclusion that the Initiative invalidates the CUA and MMP. This baseless fear stems from a flawed legal analysis which focuses on just about every portion of Prop. 19 EXCEPT the relevant portions. This flawed legal analysis is driven by an incorrect understanding 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.

This rule is so controlling that a court is required to ignore the literal language of a legislative statute if it conflicts with the purpose of the legislation. By example I call attention to the appellate court case of Bell v. DMV. In this precedent setting case, the court ruled that a statute must be interpreted to apply to civil proceedings even though the statute they were interpreting stated it applied only to “criminal” proceedings. The court’s interpretation of the statute was consistent with the purposes of the legislation and the limitation to criminal cases in the statute itself was not.
PROP. 19 PROVIDES ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS TO PATIENTS FROM THE ACTIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

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.”

Prop. 19 makes it perfectly clear that the Initiative does NOT give municipalities any control over how medical marijuana patients obtain their medicine or how much they can possess and cultivate as the purpose of the legislation was to exempt the CUA and the MMP from local government reach. Whatever control municipalities have over patients and collectives is limited by the CUA and the MMP, not by Prop. 19.

To further reduce everyone’s understandable anxiety over allowing municipalities to unduly control collectives, I direct everyone’s attention to the last statute of the MMP, 11362.83, which reads. “Nothing in this article shall prevent a city or other local governing body from adopting and enforcing laws CONSISTENT with this article.”

Since collectives are expressly allowed, local ordinances banning them are not consistent with the MMP. Health and Safety Code Section 11362.83, which limits municipalities ability to ban coops or overly restrict them, is unaffected by Prop. 19 as it expressly states in Sections 2B (7 & 8) that the laws created by Prop. 19 must be followed “EXCEPT as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.”
PROP. 19 PROTECTS PATIENTS PERSONAL AND COLLECTIVE CULTIVATIONS

Further protecting patients from local law enforcement actions, Section 11303 states that “no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact SEIZE or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is LAWFULLY CULTIVATED.” If you are a patient, you may “lawfully cultivate” as much marijuana as medically necessary and Prop. 19 protects that right. If you are cultivating for a collective, you may “lawfully cultivate” as much marijuana as your collective allows you to and Prop. 19 protects that right. Unfortunately, many law enforcement officials refuse to recognize the rights provided under the MMP for collectives to “lawfully cultivate” and sell marijuana. Prop. 19 reinforces those rights and makes it even more difficult for law enforcement to bust a collective or collective grower.
IT WILL KEEP POLICE FROM COOPERATING WITH THE FEDS

As you can see from the above paragraph, the statutory scheme Prop. 19 creates expressly forbids law enforcement from seizing lawfully cultivated cannabis.

Prop. 19 will create an insurmountable barrier for local law enforcement which is still bent on depriving you of your rights through the despicable device of using federal law enforcement officers.
Here’s why.

Federal drug enforcement is nearly 100 percent dependent on the ability to use local law enforcement. They do not have the manpower to operate without it. Prop. 19 in no uncertain terms tells local law enforcement that they cannot even “attempt to” seize cannabis. If Prop. 19 passes, California will actually have a law on the books that expressly forbids local police from cooperating with the feds in the seizure of any “lawfully cultivated” California cannabis.
PROP. 19 DOES NOT LIMIT PATIENTS RIGHTS UNDER THE CUA & MMP

The nail in the coffin for those arguing against Prop. 19 is found in Section 2C (1). This is the only section which discusses which other laws the acts is “intended to limit” and nowhere in this section is the CUA or the MMP listed. If the purpose of Prop. 19 was “to limit” the application and enforcement of the CUA and MMP, those laws would have been listed along with all the other laws that are listed in Section 2C (1). Since the CUA and MMP were not listed, then Prop. 19 does not “limit” the CUA and MMP.

It’s that simple.
PROP. 19 MAKES IT EASIER FOR PATIENTS TO OBTAIN THEIR MEDICINE

Section 2B (6) states that one of the purposes of Prop. 19 is to “Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.” This section is one of the many reasons Prop. 19 is very good for patients. If Prop. 19 passes, the days of having to go through the hassle of getting a doctor’s recommendation to treat simple medical conditions will be coming to an end in those communities which allow Prop. 19 “stores” to exist. When you need an aspirin you do not have to go to a doctor and then to the health department and then to Walgreens – YOU JUST GO TO WALGREENS (the founder of which, Mr. Walgreen, became rich during prohibition by selling “medical” alcohol to patients who had obtained a prescription for alcohol from their doctor).

In those communities which are stubborn and will not allow Prop 19 “stores,” patients will still have the protections of the CUA and MMP and the statutory right to form coops and collectives. Prop. 19 specifically recognizes that these rights are not invalidated and does nothing to limit the ability of patients to cultivate or form collectives or coops.
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.

UNDERSTANDING “NOTWITHSTANDING”

As for the argument that the various “Notwithstanding” clauses invalidate the CUA and MMP, I reiterate, that in section 2C (1) where Prop. 19 expressly states which statues are being altered, the CUA and MMP are not listed. Therefore, when you use the word “notwithstanding,” you cannot be referring to statues that have been expressly excluded.

Claiming there is some doubt as to what “notwithstanding” means or refers to requires at most that we reach back to the purpose of the legislation in order to give it proper meaning. Whatever interpretation you give it, “notwithstanding” cannot be in conflict with Sections 2 B (7 & 8) which exempt patients covered under the CUA and MMP from any actions taken by municipalities to regulate the non-medical use of cannabis.

The word “notwithstanding” is used when reversing prior legislation and has traditionally been interpreted by prior case law to be a word employed for the purpose of allowing conduct that had previously been forbidden by other statutes. If the word “notwithstanding” was not used in Prop. 19, municipalities would be able to claim that there is still a prohibition on their participation in the licensing and regulating of this activity.

For example, a law making skipping in front of a school illegal would be overturned by a law which says “notwithstanding other laws, skipping is legal.” If the word “notwithstanding” was not there, then skipping in front of a school would still be illegal even though skipping itself would be legal at any other location.

The rationale behind this rule emanates or comes from another rule of statutory construction which is that existing laws cannot be repealed by inference and instead must be EXPRESSLY repealed. A court cannot find that a law, such as the CUA or MMP, was changed by “implication.” In other words, it cannot repeal a law by ruling that another law implied that it should.

Although Sections 2B (7 & 8) gives cities control over the non-medical distribution of cannabis, that in no way allows a court to repeal or even change the CUA and MMP by ruling that it was “implicit” in Prop. 19 that they do so. It is contrary to any rational understanding of statutory construction to infer that since Prop. 19 gives cities control over the distribution of non-medical marijuana, that it also gives cities the right to control the medical distribution of cannabis beyond what the CUA and MMP allows.

The word “notwithstanding” is simply a legal necessity to repeal the various statutes that prohibit the conduct that prop. 19 now permits.
So can everyone please VOTE YES ON 19.

 

[vta]

I drive the LA freeways all the time and if the drivers aren't smoking joints they're sniffing coke. I've bern hit 3 times on the 405 while puffing kush and not 1 time was I the one at fault. Shit if I didn't smoke on 405 I probably would be driving people off the road as I got bad case of road rage and there are so many shit drivers. When I'm high I just crank the a/c,, roll up the tinted windows, bump some sugar minnott (RIP) and just cruise. No irritation, no lane jumping, no stressing on traffic, just perfect meditated driving. Thank god for driving high....

Pretty much ditto but switch out the 405 for the 101. Oh and this week I've been jamming Dehumanizer

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Pretty much ditto but switch out the 405 for the 101. Oh and this week I've been jamming Dehumanizer

yeh 101 is shit too. Pretty much traffic 24/7

 

[TruthOrLie]

driving and smoking = cool.

driving and edibles = not so cool.

 

[binaryfission]

from an article Posted by Neo 420 in another thread.
http://progressive.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/article.php?article_id=339

The Obama administration's public hesitation towards marijuana legalization is not only understandable but, considering the impact of the current economic legislation and programs the administration is endorsing, the most pragmatic and efficient route for the moment. Legalization and decriminalization advocates should focus efforts on state-wide legalization, not nation-wide. If states are challenged in lawsuits, than the Supreme Court will be forced to rule on whether legislation criminalizing marijuana should be struck down. This is preferable to the executive putting forward a proposal to legalize marijuana from the top down. When Obama tells the country that marijuana legalization is not the path he chooses for America, he means to say that the path must first be drawn by us.

 

[vta]

CA Pot Legalization Wouldn't Trump Federal Law


cannabis CA -- Even if Californians vote next month to legalize marijuana, possession of the drug will still be a criminal offense under federal law, which trumps state law almost every time under the U.S. Constitution.

But crackdowns on users and small-scale growers could decrease if Californians pass Proposition 19, the ballot measure proposing to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes.

In a statement, a Justice Department spokesman said it was "premature to speculate on what steps we would take" in the event California passes the measure, but that it will continue "to focus its enforcement resources on significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, in all states."

Legal experts say that while large-scale sellers might be of interest to federal authorities, others are unlikely to be a priority.

"Is the government going to put hundreds more DEA agents in northern California to go after cannabis growers?" asked Mark Kleiman, a professor of public policy at the University of California, Los Angeles. "It might, but if there's no state-level enforcement, California would still be the safest place to grow pot."

The federal government could try to use federal tax law to crack down on sale and distribution of marijuana. It might choose that avenue if it decides the California ballot measure runs afoul of international treaties signed by the U.S. that attempt to control the drug trade. That isn't clear.

Another potential problem for federal officials: Legalization in California might make marijuana more available throughout the country, potentially undermining state laws elsewhere. That would put federal authorities "in an incredibly tough spot," said Gerald Uelmen, a professor of criminal law at Santa Clara University.

Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Author: Ashby Jones

 

[Lazyman]

Latest poll shows Prop 19 losing 53-43%

Latest poll shows Prop 19 losing 53-43%

Apparently the Democrats are mostly for it, but damn near ALL of the Republicans are vehemently against it.

It was said months ago that without support figures in the mid-sixties, most measures won't pass. I guess we'll find out in a few weeks!

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6945VJ20101005

By Peter Henderson
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Hopes that California will become the first state in the nation to legalize marijuana appear to be turning into a pipe dream.
Voters plan to oppose a measure on the November 2 ballot to legalize marijuana use by 53 percent to 43 percent, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Tuesday that showed a big change of sentiment from June.
Liberally inclined and financially troubled, California was the first state to flout federal law and legalize marijuana for medical use, and a Reuters/Ipsos poll in June showed voters nearly evenly divided on the measure to legalize sales and recreational use, known as Proposition 19.
Marijuana use has taken off like a weed in California since voters in 1996 approved the drug for medical use. Doctors in markets including Oakland and Los Angeles are in price wars to provide medical referrals, which have fallen below $100, and Oakland in particular is setting up rules for the creation and taxation of marijuana-growing facilities.
The idea of taxing recreational marijuana draws a lot of attention.
"They should tax the hell out of it and send the money directly to the schools," said Deborah Wynn, 56, a jobless student aiming to work in the medical industry.
WIDESPREAD SCEPTICISM
But California is not as liberal as its reputation: enthusiasm for legalization in Los Angeles and San Francisco is offset by more conservative views in other parts of the state.
And while Democrats support marijuana legalization and outnumber Republicans in the state, Republicans are more consistent in their opposition. Democrats support legalization 54 percent to 45 percent, but Republicans are against it more than two to one, at or 66 percent to 30 percent.
Independents are nearly evenly divided.
Skepticism about legalization runs the gamut from those fearing it will not bring in the hoped-for hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in taxes to those who see marijuana as a real danger.
Michael Smith, a 20-year-old student at Long Beach City College who plans to become a nurse, said marijuana had been a gateway drug for friends who continued to ecstasy and Xanax, an anti-anxiety drug.
"I had two friends who were faded on marijuana and Xannies and flipped their truck on the 605 South," he said, referring to the nearby San Gabriel River Freeway. Both died.
Proposition 19 would allow recreational use of marijuana by adults and regulation of sales and cultivation by local governments, creating a potential hothouse of regulatory experimentation.
Marijuana use already is practically legal in California.
For those unable to obtain a medical referral, the criminal penalty for possession of less than an ounce (28 grams), was reduced last month from a misdemeanor to an "offense," essentially leaving the offender without a criminal record.
The top penalty remains a $100 fine.
"In this time of drastic budget cuts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement, and the courts cannot afford to expend limited resources prosecuting a crime that carries the same punishment as a traffic ticket," Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger wrote, as he signed the bill, despite his declared opposition to decriminalizing recreational marijuana use.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

That's the ONLY way it can be done. No president can ever come out in favor of mj (at least no while IN office, right Billy Clinton???....prick). The onlyvway we will get mj nationwide or at the very least Feds off our back is a states right issue challenged in the supreme court ...,

 

[Ben Tokin]

The only way cannabis will be legalized is when intelligent people expose the prohibition of cannabis for what it actually is. It's a fraudulent collusion of business interests and paid off politicians. The true facts about cannabis are available to everyone who wants to see them.

What is needed is large groups of people demonstrating every week to denounce the idiotic prohibition in every state capitol until they engage in a serious and factual public debate. We need people who are serious about it and have the balls to stand up to the greedy politians and special interests and call their fucking bluff!