California may legalize in 2010!

[Blue Dot]

If you read my posts on this in the other threads you'll notice that I mentioned the name Richard Lee.

Sorry, but after that interview with him on Marijuana Inc. I just got a bad vibe from him.

You know, the scoundrel vibe.

Then I find he's the author of this bill.

The first thing that popped into my head was, why if he is running such a successful and lucrative dispensary in oakland would he want to propose a law that essentially would create competition for him, to the point that the competition would eventually drive him outta biz?

Then it dawned on me, he's not creating competion, he's ELIMINATING it with this initiative.

 

[JackTheGrower]

Hey Pay_Attention

It's a draft.. Drafts can change.. It should change; So show up at the next meeting like the rest of us and lets do this right.


I admit I've been trying to see it from both sides an i appreciate all the criterion. Each and every reply has aided me in reaching a conclusion.
The one thing we need to do is get active with it. Posting our opinions and then not actually doing anything is asinine.


I've settled on a demand for no limits on individual horticulture. I'm fine with one ounce on the person outside the house but, that 5x5 isn't going to work.
Keeping all the produce of our gardens is cool..

Bring your friend.

Feel free to come right on up and introduce yourself on July 16th in Oakland..


Anyone who cannot attend there is a website TaxCannabis2010.org.. Please take the time to get involved.


Jack

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

hey Pay Attention one question... can you prove that Richard Lee is the author of the current draft proposed by taxcannabis2010?

 

[Silver Bullet]

Your rant is longer than the bill itself. Just highlight the specific parts of the bill you're talking about. Christ.

medical growers get less $$ is what I understand from the gist of your rant. But overall it still sounds like a step in the right direction.

Seriously man, the bill has sections such as a), b), c) you should really use that framework to explain what the hell you are talking about.

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

well there is section 3 which basically hands over unlimited powers to local governments in order to tax and regulate cannabis. Thats the part about eliminating competition.

 

[JackTheGrower]

25 sp ft would keep me happy

First off I appreciate all the replies because it helps me learn.

The 25 sq ft is useful vs no sq ft.

It's nearly impossible to practice proper horticulture with Cannabis if we are only allowed 25 sq ft.

I agree that 25 Sq Ft is enough for a few containers of a few kinds in the garden. What it doesn't allow the individual to actually grow out crosses and breed them back to parents and such..

Good to read your post.


Jack

 

[Pay_Attention]

Well you lost me when you started kicking ASA.

I guess that was unfair. I don't have a beef with what they do; It's fair they have their priorities and sacred cows.

 

[Pay_Attention]

Funny you couldn't be bothered to read it but managed to pick out the only thing to attack me with, huh? You missed #1 created a "legalization" initiative that's intentionally so restrictive that it will force nearly everyone to the only legal option given - pay him money (or another dispensary). The point of the other parts is wow, he intentionally fucks everyone but him == bad law warning. Oh and the 4 bullet points at the top summarize it. If you don't give a shit and won't read it why bother to post and be a dick to me?

 

[Koroz]

Funny you couldn't be bothered to read it but managed to pick out the only thing to attack me with, huh? You missed #1 created a "legalization" initiative that's intentionally so restrictive that it will force nearly everyone to the only legal option given - pay him money (or another dispensary). The point of the other parts is wow, he intentionally fucks everyone but him == bad law warning. Oh and the 4 bullet points at the top summarize it. If you don't give a shit and won't read it why bother to post and be a dick to me?

6 total posts, all in this topic. Just joined. Out of curiosity and no I am not insinuating anything but I do have the natural curiosity here....

Why was this site the one you chose to come out of the woodwork to post about this bill and not the actual homepage to discuss the bill and get some possible clarifications on it?

Have you attended any of the meetings? (I haven't, I am just asking if you have out of curiosity because you seem very worried about the bill)

I think honestly, your questions and assumptions are a bit paranoid to the extreme in some points but I like that, why? Because if its presented as a question to the actual site where the draft is being discussed it might spark discussions that bring the truth (or not) to the front.

I will be honest, I am one of those people who believe that a bill to legalize even with some problems is a better choice then no bill at all at this point. The option to stay illegal is always there, and we need to get our foot in teh door and show the country that legalizing won't ruin the lives of our countrymen.

Do I think its far fetched to believe that the backers of this bill are doing so in a way to push business out? Sure, that could really be a possible situation, but the reality is we have no way to know for sure if it is or not. If we are this worried about it then I think there should be a collection taken to hire a lawyer to actually read the bill and give us real input on what it means for the population of California, because although I respect your "opinions" I don't take them for fact.

This isn't meant in a flame, or in anyway meant to discredit your opinions on the bill just giving you feedback from an out of state person who has "skimmed" the bill and read a few posts on the homepage and don't feel as paranoid as you do on it at this time (but that can always change =P ). Does anyone know what NORML/MPP have said about it? I haven't seen anything in my alerts or off the top of my head that I can think of.

 

[Blue Dot]

This is bullshit.

Just because Richard Lee knows oakland will permit sales, I sure hope he doesn't expect to use the force of the population of CA just to get MJ legal in his neck of the woods.
An iniative either hurts or benefits everyone in the state equally, otherwise it's a bad initiative.

__________________

 

[Pay_Attention]

Sorry I guess I missed the two questions at first.

Freedom Fighter - I think so: "“We think the tides have turned,” said Richard Lee, the executive director of Oaksterdam University, a major medical marijuana dispensary and advocacy group in Oakland, and a founder of TaxCannabis2010.org, sponsor of the initiative." - NORML, also the chronicle, and he's the only name I can find that for a leader of the org. Or do you mean somone else might have physically written it?

And jack those are fair points, but I only put the pieces together today. I'd be willing to go if I could get a sense that it's not just intentionally self serving. But hasn't the one ounce only + can't share more than one ounce etc. been in every draft? I'm not trying to be difficult but it'd be silly to go and make a fuss if it's a key part of it for him.

 

[Koroz]

Hey Blue I have a short and easy question. I know the answer for me would be a resounding yes, and I think I already know what your answer will be yet I am very curious by nature and want to ask:

If his bill passed, and 40% of the counties in California decided to legalize behind Oakland, and 60% of them didn't, do you feel that would be a victory that is worth the loss of statewide legalization for now compared to what we have in Cali at this time?

 

[Blue Dot]

If his bill passed, and 40% of the counties in California decided to legalize behind Oakland, and 60% of them didn't, do you feel that would be a victory that is worth the loss of statewide legalization for now compared to what we have in Cali at this time?

To quote Jason Robards character son in the 1971 film Johnny Got His Gun, (clip from Metallica's One video):

"What is Democracy?"

 

[Pay_Attention]

Ok, 6 posts this thread. Yup, I signed up an alt to post this. Why? I agree it was pussyish, but I do business in oakland sometimes and like I said It's not something one can prove per se; I wanted to hear some other reactions to it before I decided how to proceed. I've never had any issue with him before this so i'm not filled with hate though obv you don't know. But it really got to me the idea that someone that's arguably a positive figure in the community would try to use the issue to push through pretty much the opposite.

In the end I guess most people don't agree, don't care or think I'm an idiot so it probably wasn't a bad choice.

As far as why I didn't post there. Well I initially read the thread here that was semi-negative, then read their forum and compared bills and came back here. Honestly I really don't think they'd be receptive to that kind of post or sweeping changes? There's a 7 page thread on there suggesting changed wording - and if I'm not mistaken nobody working on the draft has responded in it, and I don't think any of the the edits they suggested have gone in. And they have mostly been far more conservative.

I guess it comes down to if you think they are trying to make a good bill for california or for them. I think the evidence is very strong, especially the 1st two so I went with warning here instead of trying to suggest major edits there.

Could be I'm crazy - but have you read it? Do you think it looks kosher?

 

[Koroz]

To quote Jason Robards character son in the 1971 film Johnny Got His Gun, (clip from Metallica's One video):

"What is Democracy?"

Democracy is a form of government in which the right to govern is vested in the citizens of a country or a state and exercised through a majority rule.

But that doesn't answer the question I asked you. I am not looking for a debate, I am curious what you think. Democracy would be achieved when the people of California vote yes or no on the bill, and the freedom to move from one county that does, or doesn't stand behind the bill's right for legalization in their county.

I am still curious, if you have the right to be legal in 40% of the state with out having to lie about a med rec (and assuming all the med rec rules stay the same or improve) do you think that is better then having 0% legalization statewide?

 

[Blue Dot]

Democracy is a form of government in which the right to govern is vested in the citizens of a country or a state and exercised through a majority rule.

But that doesn't answer the question I asked you.

If his bill passed, and 40% of the counties in California decided to legalize behind Oakland, and 60% of them didn't,

There's your answer.

 

[Pay_Attention]

If his bill passed, and 40% of the counties in California decided to legalize behind Oakland, and 60% of them didn't, do you feel that would be a victory that is worth the loss of statewide legalization for now compared to what we have in Cali at this time?

I know you didn't ask me - but if I read you right you're saying that if 40% of california enacted that bill as written you'd consider it a victory? ie you'd vote for it right now?

I'm not trolling at all here either answer is valid. But is that a based on business issues or because it'd be positive for an individual?

 

[Koroz]

Ok, 6 posts this thread. Yup, I signed up an alt to post this. Why? I agree it was pussyish, but I do business in oakland sometimes and like I said It's not something one can prove per se; I wanted to hear some other reactions to it before I decided how to proceed.

acceptable answer, which is why I asked. Thanks for answering it.

In the end I guess most people don't agree, don't care or think I'm an idiot so it probably wasn't a bad choice.

I don't think you are an idiot by any means. I will be honest, I do question to myself that you might be a person who makes a substantial living on keeping Cannabis illegal so I have concerns that your "concerns" are more personal then for the benefit of California. I will say this though, you did get me to think about something I hadn't thought of yet and I am more interested now to read more carefully into what is being presented to us.

As far as why I didn't post there. Well I initially read the thread here that was semi-negative, then read their forum and compared bills and came back here. Honestly I really don't think they'd be receptive to that kind of post or sweeping changes? There's a 7 page thread on there suggesting changed wording - and if I'm not mistaken nobody working on the draft has responded in it, and I don't think any of the the edits they suggested have gone in. And they have mostly been far more conservative.

Understood, but I was asking more if you posted there so I could see a link and maybe see what the reaction of that "crowd" was compared to the reactions so far you have gotten here.

I guess it comes down to if you think they are trying to make a good bill for california or for them. I think the evidence is very strong, especially the 1st two so I went with warning here instead of trying to suggest major edits there.

I will say this. Even if it benefits them, more so then the rest of California I feel honestly that they will be prevented from pushing other vendors out of Oakland for one major reason, we have very tight laws about Monopolies. The other thing ill be honest and upfront with you about is, I think in my honest opinion that as long as they don't fuck with the med users - having a bill that would legalize a portion of California counties and not others (at the choice of the local voters) would be light years better for the overall movement then having no legalization at all.

Could be I'm crazy - but have you read it? Do you think it looks kosher?

I skimmed it, honestly I didn't spend much time reading over a lot of it because I am not in California and for legal reasons wouldn't be moving back there for some time. But I do have a vested interested in legalization happening there because I think it will domino to other states. I will thank you for bringing your opinion up either way because what it did do, was make me aware of the possibility of it happening the way you speak of and will cause me to actually re-read it with a fine tooth comb.

My responses in red so it was easier to follow each part I am responding to.

 

[Koroz]

There's your answer.

I think you misunderstand what Democracy is.

Democracy is about giving the people the VOTE to change, and the Majority of the vote would be what decides not the government itself. If this bill gave the California Majority the right to vote in their own counties for legalization or not, and the majority passed it but certain counties had county wide votes that chose to not legalize it do you think that means democracy failed? San Diego in my opinion is anti democracy, because they failed to follow the will of the people. But this bill as I understand it would allow certain counties to hold "VOTES" to decide if they would legalize it, not give the power to the government. Was I mistaken about that? If so then the question I presented is pointless.

I guess that is where you and I don't see eye to eye.

 

[Blue Dot]

I think you misunderstand what Democracy is.

Democracy is about giving the people the VOTE to change, and the Majority of the vote would be what decides not the government itself. If this bill gave the California Majority the right to vote in their own counties for legalization or not, and the majority passed it but certain counties had county wide votes that chose to not legalize it do you think that means democracy failed? San Diego in my opinion is anti democracy, because they failed to follow the will of the people. But this bill as I understand it would allow certain counties to hold "VOTES" to decide if they would legalize it, not give the power to the government. Was I mistaken about that? If so then the question I presented is pointless.

I guess that is where you and I don't see eye to eye.

The problem is this initative has wording that would allow for counties to veto parts of it.

Why not just re-word the bill to eliminate the counties input altogether?

Word it so that, like 215, it applies equally to the entire state, meaning each and every county.

Seems simple enough.