What's up dagnabit?!
The article clearly states it’s “almost impossible” to pass this bill.
The attempt is no surprise. So what’s with all the exaggerated claims - hyperbole?
I imagine most of us are already growers, and will continue to do so regardless. I don’t get all the negativity. As of now, it’s premature and unfounded.
Oh Geez, go stand on a box on the corner with this shit - you're just looking for anything to twist into your personal hate matrix.
Move on People, nothing here outside of btf's private paranoia...
I agree
it hasn't even passed yet and their crying their eyes out
Pretty strange times when a grower warning of government actions keeping us down is ridiculed and villified.
Problem is stupid politions trying to bait and switch. Is that somehow confusing?
Its the same plant no matter who grows it. Coorperate grows should not have no more right than anyone. Period.
Do you not get it?
Maybe? Maybe not? Are you offering me a free lifetime supply of killer sativas grown in living soil if I lose my right to grow?
I have no hate matrix. I have and will show no respect for anyone that thinks some people can grow, posess or sell this plan different than someone else.
Just the tone of your responses make me think you probably will be someone who profits off taking my rights away.
No respect. Not a fucking drop.
Umm, that’s not how it works. We the people made this happen. With a ballot proposal. Therefore there’s no bait and switch on the part of politicians. The attempt is just an example of some holdover dolts of the Reefer Madness mindset.
What are these rights you speak of losing? You grow now. December 6 the proposal becomes law.
What is your reasoning behind trying to make this not seem like a potential problem?
Hale v Henkel 201 U.S. 43 said:The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a citizen. He is enttled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it mat tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land long anticedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights.
Could be a potential problem, I suppose. But in what way? Just trying to understand why someone who already grows sees any of it as an obstacle. Will you not continue to do as you do, regardless?
I want to grow legally. Did I studder?
I also want to be able to support my family with it. Without fear of law enforcement. I see no reason any law should exist preventimg that.
The way it is regulated is a license costs so much that effectively no one is allowed to sell their product. The law will push to make it impossible for you to sell or share if not grow. This board is a small subset of people. We are arguing with each other but we are the same community. Meaning we are the biggest "dope smokers" probably, educated ones. If my friends family neighbours and I are unable to afford $10k licenses then we cannot legally grow more than 3-4 or distribute or conduct any business. If you are a person who sees this as an opportunity - in other words sure I may be able to afford $10k for a license to be able to grow more and sell if I want. But the problem is you just handed over $10k in taxes up front for nothing. Nobody wants poisoned weed grown in a moldy basement. However, the simple act of charging for a license, that is an act against freedom. Capitalists seem to rationalize treading on human civil rights. Paying into a system only contributes to making you and/or those around you poor. This barrier to entry has a domino effect, politicians have a term trickle down, this is trickle up economics. If the average Joe were to buy a license that would make them poor for the year. So now, following the law that has been laid out, the farmer gives all of their hard earned money up front to someone else which the farmer could have spent elsewhere to their own benefit. This removes the rights of the farmer. What proportion of growers would be willing to grow 5 or 10 or 20 plants who are unable to afford a license and who do not wish to grow 100 or 2000 plants? Too large of a separation, in other words no free or $50 licenses. The idea of being rich, and that making you above, better than others, crabs in a bucket, pay uncle sam to get ahead of your neighbour.