2012 Legalization Effort Starts

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

The war is already on GL Guerilla.

oh mmm, you're so dramatic, the war never starts never stops, just is.

It's how we win it that will define the future.
Nobody's doubting it should be legal... but how it is legalized can change the face of cannabis forever.
If someone opposes a certain bill, but is still in favor of releasing prisoners and abolishing prohibition, are they still selfishly starting a civil war?

The devil, as they say, is in the details. 19 details were no good. Let's hope for better wording this next time around. It's a process people, Rome wasn't built overnight. When OU instructors vote against 19 you know it's no good. No one should break a law by smoking around their kids. That part has to die with 19.

PS Nobody needs to "get their asses busted". That attitude will get you nowhere.

agreed.
Im pretty sure I came to CA so my ass would not get busted, double meaning intended.

@whoever said you can't grow good outdoor on the east coast is tripping. cannabis genetics are diverse. there is something for everywhere. BUT cali can mass produce the any/all genetics with high quality due to great soil/water/sun/climate. The terroir can't be beat here. Our milk, cheese, wine, greens, mushrooms, cannabis... world class level.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

I took issue with more than a few points regarding 19 but was told (repeatedly and endlessly) I was either greedy or fearmongering.

I hope that any points of discussion can be dealt with in a more rounded manner, should they arise.

You are preaching to the choir Thom.

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

I took issue with more than a few points regarding 19 but was told (repeatedly and endlessly) I was either greedy or fearmongering.

I hope that any points of discussion can be dealt with in a more rounded manner, should they arise.

You are preaching to the choir Thom.

I could tell. That's why I picked to respond to you, I knew you wouldn't get all trolly. There were some serious issues with 19, beyond the commercial cannabis aspect. We need to lay these out, so we can 8/6 them the next time around. The folks drafting the Jack H 2012 initiative have asked me to bring these issues to light, so they can re-evaluate the actual specifics.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

I like the sound of that.

 

[MadBuddhaAbuser]

As far as the East Coast and growing outdoors....sorry, ya'll just don't have the weather for it-- If you did, more would be growing--

Im going to have to call bullshit on that one man. and let me follow that up by saying I generally agree with most of what you say, and I remember you being a cool member here since I found this place after og shutdown. You have done some awesome shit. so respect for that and glad you're still around. K++ But seriously, the weather is just fine. This plant really pretty much could grow itself anywhere if you keep an eye on it.

Ooops, looks like somebody shut you the fuck up, lol..... After reading your other posts I'm surprised you lasted this long....

me too.

 

[DaPurps]

Growing on the East Coast outdoor is not related to the weather conditions.

I'm pretty sure it has to do with the fact we go directly to jail for it.

 

[MadBuddhaAbuser]

Growing on the East Coast outdoor is not related to the weather conditions.

I'm pretty sure it has to do with the fact we go directly to jail for it.

yeah there's always that little minor thing......

 

[dagnabit]

There were some serious issues with 19, beyond the commercial cannabis aspect. We need to lay these out, so we can 8/6 them the next time around. The folks drafting the Jack H 2012 initiative have asked me to bring these issues to light, so they can re-evaluate the actual specifics.

please enumerate them here?
i found not a single argument for continued prohibition compelling enough to vote no on 19.
maybe you could tell me why every person should not be allowed a small personal grow without a doctors note?
what "serious issues" would cause anyone to think emboldening the prohibitionists/tee totalers with the victory would be better than taking the step?
do you really think a less restrictive bill has a shot?

 

[dagnabit]

Colorado is going to have 2, maybe more, proposals for 2012.
I already know I am not voting for the B-Teams prop.
http://www.legalize2012.com/committees.html
If you can't figure out why, then public schools failed you.

Just gotta wait and see what the A-Team comes up with.

there is not one link to actual text of proposed legislation anywhere on that site...
and according to them they have not even drafted it yet.
how can you be against something that is not even proposed yet?
or are you against the persons involved?
thats a bit myopic...

 

[mean mr.mustard]

please enumerate them here?
i found not a single argument for continued prohibition compelling enough to vote no on 19.
maybe you could tell me why every person should not be allowed a small personal grow without a doctors note?
what "serious issues" would cause anyone to think emboldening the prohibitionists/tee totalers with the victory would be better than taking the step?
do you really think a less restrictive bill has a shot?

They've been enumerated... don't act like you had no idea.

Everyone tires of hearing your translation of "No on 19" into "I am a prohibitionist"

There is so much gray area your blanketing bullshit is trite.

Maybe people aren't really saying that people shouldn't be allowed a small personal grow...

Maybe people aren't trying to act as local law enforcement...

Maybe you could recognize that.

 

[vta]

i don't know who you are talking to with your 13th post rant, but no one here is against the federal legalization of cannabis. prop 19 was a specific list of taxes and regulations for the state of CA, let's not confuse the two. legalize does not equal tax/regulate. with that said i support the taxation and regulation of medicinal cannabis within CA, but that is a very different issue. i also support the decrim of adult recreational use within the state, but not blindly.

maybe his 13th post...but he has been here just as long as you...your 200something posts don't make you any greater, wiser or more trustworthy. just saying. Everyone's voice matters.

Also..19 did not define ANY taxation...not sure where you got that from.

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

please enumerate them here?

If you actually want to discuss we can. But from my position it seems you just want to scold.

i found not a single argument for continued prohibition compelling enough to vote no on 19.

Well, that may be from your perspective. And that is not real life thinking. The real question: is the totality of arguments against 19 compelling enough to vote no?

maybe you could tell me why every person should not be allowed a small personal grow without a doctors note?

Now you are confusing this simple idea with the actual legislation that was prop 19. Again, not real life thinking.

what "serious issues" would cause anyone to think emboldening the prohibitionists/tee totalers with the victory would be better than taking the step?

Uhh... you do know growers don't really vote? I don't see how anyone was emboldened by a moron like dragonfly speaking out against 19. You are placing blame where it does not belong.

do you really think a less restrictive bill has a shot?

YES, it will take time. CA is headed in one direction.

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

Also..19 did not define ANY taxation...not sure where you got that from.

uh... the proposition title, and text. lol
prop 19 was specifically designed to tax, regulate, and control cannabis in CA (see actual prop title). 19 was designed to be anti-homegrower.

Many think 19's failure to specify taxation, leaving it open to counties and cities, was it's downfall.

From http://yeson19.com/about , 2nd objective of 19:

Proposition 19 was carefully written, in order to:...
Give state and local governments the ability to tax the sale of cannabis for adult consumption

Now since I never said 19 defined the taxation of cannabis, I will assume you are either confused or trolling. Please knock that off. 19 is dead. I don't want to argue about it with butt-hurt out-of-staters who refuse to acknowledge what 19 was about in it's totality. 19 was way over reaching, and legislated more than a 5x5 and recreational pot. This is political legislation, there will always be compromise. Money and tax is what this is all about... not freedom and rights, not recreational smokers. Lee is against home growers and any legislation that he puts out will be as well. He told me that himself recently, followed by "i am a businessman, not a grower".

 

[JJScorpio]

I believe this is what it's going to take for the prop to pass.

I can grow as much as I want. No taxes.

I can sell as much as I want. No taxes.

No Government involvement.

I can smoke anywhere and with anyone.

Am I close? Because these were everyones biggest gripes......

Edit.... I forgot to add

No one with the last name Lee is allowed any permits.

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

I believe this is what it's going to take for the prop to pass.
I can grow as much as I want. No taxes.
I can sell as much as I want. No taxes.
No Government involvement.
I can smoke anywhere and with anyone.
Am I close? Because these were everyones biggest gripes......
Edit.... I forgot to add
No one with the last name Lee is allowed any permits.

lmao JJ! But it's big business that everyone wants out, Lee too, don't get me wrong. Many would rather die than give up thier gardens so Lee ect can grow herb for the patients.

But in reality, to get something to pass, the legalization folks will have to abandon the grower and pander to the squares. Growers don't vote. Many within our community are anti-legislation. They don't think it can improve for growers based on our success with the current system.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

My guess is you won't know what it takes until it passes.

Many were quick to assure me that no bill would pass that had any retroactive actions... citing it never happened before, and using that as good reasoning for why it won't.

Using that kind of reasoning I'd have to say that it will never be legalized... seeing as how it never happened before.

When the reality of it never really being freed like many would like finally sets in, people are going to question why they are "legalizing" cannabis.

 

[LayedBack]

I honestly can't even believe that they're people in this wonderful community who want to see marijuana stay illegal. And the only argument seems to be about their grubby little hands making less money.

Well maybe you should stroll on over to the East Coast and see how we live.

People dieing of cancer who can't have medicine, can't even die with a little relief.

I have chronic pain, and I have to live in a state of fear for me using a plant that helps me live my life without wanting to off myself every day.

What about all the poor people going to jail every day over this plant? The lives RUINED. No more cozy jobs, families without a father. Living in a cage like an ANIMAL.


Who in the hell do people think they are, thinking they can make a PLANT that grows from the EARTH illegal?

I'm tired of the BS.

LEGALIZE IT

Hell for that matter, legalize mushrooms, mescaline cacti, and the opium poppy while we're at it. Plants are plants are plants are plants. Why is humanity so fucked up?

PS - I'm sorry I'm not usually so rude but some of you people are living in the Twilight Zone. To the rest, keep on keeping on.

 

[vta]

Now since I never said 19 defined the taxation of cannabis, I will assume you are either confused or trolling. Please knock that off.

no you said "prop 19 was a specific list of taxes" to which I disagreed, that is all

 

[JJScorpio]

I'm not sure who told you that growers don't vote....

If this site alone were any indication, not only did many growers vote no, but they also did their best to encourage others to vote no....

The people I know in Cali all told me the growers were pushing the no vote. They even started sites encouraguing the no vote..... So you're information regarding growers not voting is incorrect.....

lmao JJ! But it's big business that everyone wants out, Lee too, don't get me wrong. Many would rather die than give up thier gardens so Lee ect can grow herb for the patients.

But in reality, to get something to pass, the legalization folks will have to abandon the grower and pander to the squares. Growers don't vote. Many within our community are anti-legislation. They don't think it can improve for growers based on our success with the current system.

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

I'm not sure who told you that growers don't vote....

If this site alone were any indication, not only did many growers vote no, but they also did their best to encourage others to vote no....

The people I know in Cali all told me the growers were pushing the no vote. They even started sites encouraguing the no vote..... So you're information regarding growers not voting is incorrect.....

Hey, I suppose we can agree to disagree because there is so data on "grower voting habits". BUT I assure you that those saying they will vote no, barely voted. If they did, if was a few loud mouths, the folks you battle on the daily. 19 failed because other demographics voted no. You know this. I'll dig up the data. Looks like Republicans and older people are to blame, if you feel the need to place blame. Looks like the anti-drug folks came out in force against 19. I'm citing my claims below.

Polls taken in California last year and earlier this year found a majority of the state’s voters favored the legalization of marijuana.


But that wasn’t the way things worked out on Election Day.

Proposition 19 lost with 54 percent voting “no” and 46 percent voting “yes.” California is still counting votes, but as of late last week the vote totals were 4,156,418 in favor of legalization and 4,864,612 against.

So why did it lose? Well, for some of the same reasons that turn up whenever any controversial proposal is on the ballot, for starters.

First, when it comes to ballot proposals generally, the tendency is to vote no. When voters are uncertain about what a ballot measure will do — and they often are — they usually conclude that the safest course of action is to maintain the status quo by voting no.

Second, voters rarely decide how they are going to vote on initiatives on the weight of the evidence. A single weak argument against an initiative can trump several strong arguments in favor of it.

Third, as a result of the foregoing, ballot initiatives that have organized opposition — and Prop 19 did — are almost always at risk of losing. And if their supporters do not answer the opponents swiftly and aggressively, well, they almost always do lose.

Beyond that, who voted “no” and why did they do so? And for that matter who were the people who voted “yes”?

Exit polls taken in California on Election Day certainly contain that data, but so far I haven’t been able to find a complete demographic breakdown on the Web. (The exception is how Californians voted on Prop 19 by age.)

However, a national poll on marijuana legalization done by the Gallup organization in early October may shed some light on the question.

Gallup found that nationally 46 percent of those polled favored legalizing marijuana, while 50 percent wanted to keep it illegal. Four percent were undecided. If you treat the undecideds as “no” votes, Gallup’s result exactly matches the actual vote on Prop 19.

Gallup did break down its results by major demographic groups. And in the one case where exit poll demographic data was available — the vote on Prop 19 by age group — Gallup’s results and the actual vote very closely match.

Gallup found that 61 percent of those aged 18 to 29 favored legalizing marijuana. Prop 19 exit polling found that 59 percent of 18- to 29-year-old voters voted “yes.” The correlation between Gallup’s national results and Prop 19 exit polling is equally close for all other age groups.

So chances are Gallup’s national demographic findings aren’t all that different from the Prop 19 voter profile.



Why would the Woodstock generation be disinclined to support legalization?

Gallup found that the three groups showing the strongest support for legalization were liberals (72 percent in favor), 18- to 29-year-olds (61 percent), and Democrats (58 percent). The three groups in which Gallup found the least support were Republicans (29 percent), conservatives (30 percent), and those aged 65 years or older (32 percent).

No surprises here. Gallup also found that those in the middle of the political spectrum were split: 49 percent of independents and 51 percent of moderates favored legalization. So were those in the middle of the age spectrum: 49 percent of 30- to 49-year-olds favored legalizing pot.

Again, not particularly surprising. Gallup’s demographic breakdown produced two highly interesting results, however. The first was the figure for Boomers. Gallup found that among those aged 50 to 64, support for legalization was 43 percent. The 50 to 64 age group consists entirely of Boomers. The generation that made pot America’s favorite illegal drug doesn’t muster a majority for legalizing it. That’s important.

(Prop 19 exit polling found California Boomers — voters aged 45 to 64 in this case — voted against Prop 19 by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent. And they constituted 45 percent of the vote.)

The second interesting result was the breakdown by sex. Only 41 percent of women favored legalization. The comparable figure for men was 51 percent.

Why would women be less inclined to favor legalization than men? Concern about the effect of the greater availability of pot on children and on family stability, essentially the same reasons women supported prohibition a century ago, probably.

And why would the Woodstock generation be disinclined to support legalization? Well, 50 percent of Boomers are women, and a large proportion of Boomers, women and men, still have teenagers in the house or 20-somethings in college — in other words, kids at the age that worry you sick, especially when the subject of drugs comes up.

Who killed Prop 19? Bet it was parents.

Prop 19 backers have already said they intend to try again in two years. At least two groups want to try legalization initiatives in Colorado.

If those efforts are to have any chance of success, the first order of business for legalization proponents should be to start addressing the concerns of women and Boomer parents over legalization. Starting now. Not 30 days before the election.

We’ll talk more about this next time.

Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com