Why do you need to beg for the right to use cannabis. Im not going to beg for my right, because I don't have to, its not up to them if we do or don't smoke, so why ask them in the in the first place.
beg?
voting is telling not begging....
Why do you need to beg for the right to use cannabis. Im not going to beg for my right, because I don't have to, its not up to them if we do or don't smoke, so why ask them in the in the first place.
A:what provisions must be in a bill for you to support(eg. retroactive pardons)
B:what provisions would be non starters(eg. possession limits)
for me
A:taxation and zoning must remain local rather than state
B:any banning of concentrates
there are more for each but these are examples
beg?
voting is telling not begging....
Is your point that we shouldn't push for legislation at all? That's a hard position to argue.
beg?
voting is telling not begging....
I think his true point is he a freeman and has no need to ask to breath, eat, drink, or smoke weed.
No smoking and growing is telling not begging. Voting is a circle jerk of AARP members.
A concept that should be easy to comprehend...You aren't putting words in my mouth if I was the one saying them.
Gosh mmm, you think retroactive pardons are possible? I don't see that as something the voters will support. Agreed on increased penalties, new offenses, harsher penalties, and HEMP.I've told you repeatedly that a lack of retroactive pardons, increased penalties, new offenses, harsher penalties, and including hemp in the circle jerk were all reasons I didn't support 19.
I voted for 19, and find myself arguing for the truth more often than 'for' or 'against'. All these out of staters wet themselves at the possibility CA might do something to make their state come around. No one wanted to talk about the affects on CA.I wasn't against it really... I just never found any answers to quell my concerns... just a very stern assertion that they had been issued many times. That combined with a horribly "Final Solution"esque rush to the finish line convinced me SOMEONE needed to point out some serious flaws.
fully agree in theory, then the criminal justice system enters the scenario and our status as "freeman" are not really something we own, just something we hold on to as long as we don't get caught.
I voted for 19, and find myself arguing for the truth more often than 'for' or 'against'. All these out of staters wet themselves at the possibility CA might do something to make their state come around. No one wanted to talk about the affects on CA.
fine with me..
non voters tend to be those most vocal about voting no...
so the effect they have at the end of the day is negligible
not gonna take the time to explain representative government to you.FYI this WA proposed legislation has nothing to do with a public vote and similarly the criminal statutes enacted to violate our rights sprang to life without a public vote.
19 didnt fail because of the details. its because the majority of voters cast their vote out of ethics or emotion and not of fact or reality. Unfortunatly, it came at a time when all these fucking nutjob teabaggers and republicans were in full anti-obama frenzy and would have voted for anyone whos name was attached to an (R) prefix. I think we will see a much different outcome if obama can continue his gain in popularity and the republicans fail to find a candidate that will energize their party...
So it has been for almost every human ever born, however if we can't first be free in our own mind, we will never be free in the eyes of our neighbors or the tyrants that govern.
I would think that pardons would empty some cells... isn't that on CA's priority list?
My point is simple... if it's legal, then it should have never been illegal... actions should reflect such.
19 didnt fail because of the details. its because the majority of voters cast their vote out of ethics or emotion and not of fact or reality. Unfortunatly, it came at a time when all these fucking nutjob teabaggers and republicans were in full anti-obama frenzy and would have voted for anyone whos name was attached to an (R) prefix. I think we will see a much different outcome if obama can continue his gain in popularity and the republicans fail to find a candidate that will energize their party...
i think (no matter what happens legislatively) this will be addressed in courtsI would think that pardons would empty some cells... isn't that on CA's priority list?
My point is simple... if it's legal, then it should have never been illegal... actions should reflect such.