TacoSusio
Member
It's not a state law, it's a liability issue.
Selling back to clubs?
- Thread starter Bulldog11
- Start date
It's not a state law, it's a liability issue.
In the UK they now place security on dumpsters outside Marks & Spencers (high class) food stores... shame on them! Just to stop freegans free eating on them! Basically they make waste and guard it...! As criminal as not allowing medi. users acess to plants!
BTW... I dont doubt on all those Medi. Outlets that are doing a good thing,,, there's probably lots of them that are
BTW... I dont doubt on all those Medi. Outlets that are doing a good thing,,, there's probably lots of them that are
Hypothesis : If every commercial garden currently growing under prop 215 and selling to medi. clubs gave just their trim-waste to 'Medi. Clubs' ,, then perhaps genuine medi. users would have access to more cannabinoids then they medicinally require,,, so the flowers could be sold to the folk that enjoy smoking flowers
peace n love all
I agree with you 1000% !!! But the way in which we give charity is not so black and white. We should all be giving freely of our time, or our produce when we have it. The better we do, the more we should give. Whether its directly giving your concentrates to patients who cannot afford it, or working a few hours a week at a shelter, or a hospice... One thing the major religions have right, is that charity and good works should be an organized part of everyone's lives. Until capitalism comes crashing down, charity is a solid way to mitigate its societal damage. But it only works if all who can, do. (back to anarchism: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need)
*shudder*
You need to go back and read your history son. Try running through "Atlas Shrugged" as well. You talk as if you totally believe what you're typing and it makes me feel sick.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Never a more perfect line of propaganda has ever been conceived by thieves. If you don't want man to succeed, implement something like that statement implies.
Empower the people to reach their potential and there will be excess for all. Enslave man to 'supply the needs of his fellow man' and you will get nothing but greed and thievery.
G33k Speak
Member
The problem with socialism, is that eventually, you run out of other people's money to spend.
perhaps you don't value your time and effort, or that of others- but I intend to be compensated for my labor.
If growing tomatoes were against the federal law then I am sure I would stand up for my right to privacy regardless of what the AG department had to say about it. I don't see the AG department going after people who sell tomatoes at the Farmers Market. Nor do I think they have a place in regulating closed circle economic systems. What I mean is that if I brew beer at home the govt has no business in my trading that for my neighbor's butter from his dairy farm.
Driving is only a privilege because we allow it to be such, because we didn't fight for it to be a right. To be perfectly honest, I would support private companies taking over road building if it allowed me the allodial rights to my vehicle and allowed me to be free from registering my vehicle and asking the government to allow me to drive my own car. Your fifth amendment rights do extend to any interaction with a government official. Furthermore, you should not have to ask the state for the right to do something with your own vehicle. And as funny as you think your quip about Ted Kaczynski is, some of the western states have their ideas correct about rights. I especially like the Texan allowance of allodial title although I think Nevada does also allow for allodial title but I am not positive about that.
Spoken like a true Galtian
the axiom doesn't have to be taken to its absolute. but when everybody does some charity to offset their gains from capitalism, its is a much nicer world to live in. So each should do charity according to his ability to provide for those with special needs who lack the ability to cover them. Even Reagan era unrestericted capitalists beleieved in a "trickling down" from my swollen pockets to those beneath me in the marketplace, and eventually to the lowest amongst us.
I have read my history... quite deeply and extremely critically. i think you drew a distinction, but Atlas Shrugged is not history. Its a novel... and its an interesting portrayal of a dystopian USA... and it makes some good points. In my reading of history, I stumbled over a little ditty called The Wealth of Nations... in its entirety... not just the beginning that is distributed to US business students that leaves out the part where Adam Smith points out that while capitalism will cause great progress and innovation, it will also make people as stupid and ignorant as a human could possibly be. There are equally cogent criticisms in Marx and Bakunin that that warn against perils to be found in socialism. There is plenty of good scholarship on both sides, but if you are talking about the version of history taught in the classrooms of the USA, this is not where you are going to find it.
Aside from the book-study of history, I have lived extensively in other countries. Some of them are rich, have extremely high standards of living, practice more regulated capitalism AND have socialized medicine and higher education and better care for the weakest and least able in their society. Just as much medical progress, longer life-expectancy, lower infant mortality, and better scores on just about all the indicators that judge the quality of care... and all for free... even for illegal immigrants. I wonder how they do it. I even lived in a developing country that has managed (not without ongoing struggle) to implement socialized medicine in an otherwise capitalist environment... this country has one of the highest levels of satisfaction with life in the world and life expectancy, infant mortality rate and other indicators on par with the united states. I wonder how they do it.
To advocate for pure, unrestricted capitalism is just as insane as to do so for complete and total socialism. There are elements of both systems that are valid and should be included in whatever progressive economic system comes along to save us all.
Tea parties. LOL. Grow up America. We have accomplished much for a new nation. But before we get too stupid (as A. Smith, Sainted Prophet of all things capitalist warned) its time for a serious change.
Flame away, tea-baggers.
I have read my history... quite deeply and extremely critically. i think you drew a distinction, but Atlas Shrugged is not history. Its a novel... and its an interesting portrayal of a dystopian USA... and it makes some good points. In my reading of history, I stumbled over a little ditty called The Wealth of Nations... in its entirety... not just the beginning that is distributed to US business students that leaves out the part where Adam Smith points out that while capitalism will cause great progress and innovation, it will also make people as stupid and ignorant as a human could possibly be. There are equally cogent criticisms in Marx and Bakunin that that warn against perils to be found in socialism. There is plenty of good scholarship on both sides, but if you are talking about the version of history taught in the classrooms of the USA, this is not where you are going to find it.
Aside from the book-study of history, I have lived extensively in other countries. Some of them are rich, have extremely high standards of living, practice more regulated capitalism AND have socialized medicine and higher education and better care for the weakest and least able in their society. Just as much medical progress, longer life-expectancy, lower infant mortality, and better scores on just about all the indicators that judge the quality of care... and all for free... even for illegal immigrants. I wonder how they do it. I even lived in a developing country that has managed (not without ongoing struggle) to implement socialized medicine in an otherwise capitalist environment... this country has one of the highest levels of satisfaction with life in the world and life expectancy, infant mortality rate and other indicators on par with the united states. I wonder how they do it.
To advocate for pure, unrestricted capitalism is just as insane as to do so for complete and total socialism. There are elements of both systems that are valid and should be included in whatever progressive economic system comes along to save us all.
Tea parties. LOL. Grow up America. We have accomplished much for a new nation. But before we get too stupid (as A. Smith, Sainted Prophet of all things capitalist warned) its time for a serious change.
Flame away, tea-baggers.
My qualm is the idea that everyone should do it. If you want to donate your product then by all means do it. If you want to help fund a children's hospital, do it. But I draw the line where people are telling each other what they should do or shouldn't do. You own your product, it is up to you to do with it what you want. You do not own my product therefore you should have no say in what I do with it. Now, if you are trying to convince me that I should do something, then by all means, use reason and logic and perhaps I will concede that it is a good idea and I will agree to do it. When I am compelled however, by means other than logic, reason, and my own measure of the situation, I find it hard to enjoy such an act of compassion even if it is a good thing. I think this stems from the pride in ownership and production. What I mean is that when you produce something yourself, you feel a sense of accomplishment and pride in the product that you have created. For someone to then say that you must give that product away for free violates that sense of ownership. Of course people can say what they like and perhaps some people do give things away for free but for people to assert that they should be compelled to do so or that they must do it to be good people or some other such nonsense is just that, nonsense.
That is a valid qualm, but its a fallacious argument in that, as I see it, nobody said you HAVE to do anything. Its a moral argument, not a political or economic one.
Did I mention that you must give charity? I don't even think that Doc Leaf mentioned forcing anybody to do anything or mandating such action... he just mentioned that it should be common practice. I don't have time to reead thru all his posts, so if I am wrong, I apologize. I certainly don't advocate forcing anybody to do anything. From each according to his ability means that each of us must help as we feel we are able. Those who have the ability yet refuse, are well within their rights, but nontheless a douchebag. That last part is how I feel about that kind of person... it doesn't imply that I think they should go to jail. Unless their actions are criminal... which is the case in many of the bigger capitalist grabs of the last 200 years.
Christianity, Judaism and Islam advocate a similar paradigm of charity. Does that make those religions socialist?
For the record, I am an anarcho-syndicalist... living in a capitalist world. I guess that makes me something like a libertarian, but not quite.
Did I mention that you must give charity? I don't even think that Doc Leaf mentioned forcing anybody to do anything or mandating such action... he just mentioned that it should be common practice. I don't have time to reead thru all his posts, so if I am wrong, I apologize. I certainly don't advocate forcing anybody to do anything. From each according to his ability means that each of us must help as we feel we are able. Those who have the ability yet refuse, are well within their rights, but nontheless a douchebag. That last part is how I feel about that kind of person... it doesn't imply that I think they should go to jail. Unless their actions are criminal... which is the case in many of the bigger capitalist grabs of the last 200 years.
Christianity, Judaism and Islam advocate a similar paradigm of charity. Does that make those religions socialist?
For the record, I am an anarcho-syndicalist... living in a capitalist world. I guess that makes me something like a libertarian, but not quite.
What's a Genuine med user?
Someone who has a doctor tell them what they already know, that cannabis helps with whatever their issue is? As far as I can tell, EVERYONE needs to use cannabis in some form or another, at some point in their life. We're all cannabis patients being deprived of our meds.
The guys that signed the declaration of independence and the Constitution?? They F'n grew cannabis and smoked it themselves. THEY figured it was a given right and would be appalled a what's been going on.
You are absolutely right, there isn't a cannabis tax which takes 10% of what you produce and gives it to someone else. My qualm is with people speaking from some mighty plane of their own existence about how others should follow the path they had traveled and give their work away. We all travel our own paths through life and find fulfillment in different ways. Again, if you want to give things away for free that is your right. However, if I choose not to give my product away for free that is my choice. Furthermore, I think it is unreasonable to think that someone who doesn't give away the product of their labor is a douchebag. What if you were a diamond miner? Should you give away diamonds? I find no moral imperative to give the product of my work away. I volunteer, I donate from time to time, mostly my time, my work, and my skill. I do this for no other reason than that it makes my life more fulfilled. I do not and will not give away my products. They are mine. I own them. I sell them. I think the problem that we are discussing here is a philosophical one that works its way into these arguments because of semantics mostly. One person tells the other that they are morally corrupt because they don't give away what they grow.
Again, I didn't say a diamond miner should give away diamonds. but if his life is comfortable he should contribute to the comfort of others who could use a hand. otherwise, in my personal opinion he is a douchebag.
as far as I am concerned, charity is charity. volunteering your time to read to the blind is the same thing as donating your trim to patients in need. I make absolutely no distinction.
if you do nothing for those less fortunate (and luck plays a huge part in these economics), you are just as big a loser as the lazy garbage who scam their way into mutiple welfare checks and have never worked a day in their lives. neither has a place in a working society. the rub is, that both of these classes will always exist. (Unless we start lining them up against the wall and shooting them in the name of the revolution.) And we who are neither cannot be the pawns of one, while hating the other, to further the needs of the first. Dig? LOL. If I have to, I'll ellaborate on that last bit.
as far as I am concerned, charity is charity. volunteering your time to read to the blind is the same thing as donating your trim to patients in need. I make absolutely no distinction.
if you do nothing for those less fortunate (and luck plays a huge part in these economics), you are just as big a loser as the lazy garbage who scam their way into mutiple welfare checks and have never worked a day in their lives. neither has a place in a working society. the rub is, that both of these classes will always exist. (Unless we start lining them up against the wall and shooting them in the name of the revolution.) And we who are neither cannot be the pawns of one, while hating the other, to further the needs of the first. Dig? LOL. If I have to, I'll ellaborate on that last bit.
funny. i have said the same thing before. I am really bothered by those who would like to say who is and who is not a "real med user"... pisses me off. Only met a few people who did not benefit from the use of cannabis in some way or another.
First off let me say I understand completely that you are not directing your comments at me directly as I am not directing them at you directly, this is a discussion between two adults about a touchy subject. I understand your belief that those who are able should help those less fortunate. I agree in fact. However, I don't share your judgment upon them if they refuse to. I am a person who believes in as much freedom as we may possibly have and part of that freedom for me is the deconstruction of the cult of personality. While I do personally believe that community service is a good idea and that those who take part in it will be enriched by the service, I also believe that others may disagree with me for a number of valid reasons. I don't think this difference of opinion should be something that elicits my righteous indignation. As to your equating those who don't choose to help others to those who willfully commit fraud, I don't equate the two and never could. One person is committing a crime and a moral sin in my opinion. The other is exercising his right not to help others. As far as I am concerned, the way our tax system and society works today contributes to people not helping others simply because our country has made it compulsory to do so. I have run into people time after time who did not deserve the work I had come to volunteer and as such, I refused to do it. My simple rule is that I only help people who help themselves. Oh and please do elaborate.
Shame on you for throwing it out there unqualified and out of context. The way you used it puts a vote in favor of blindly following it. Thanks for the views as they're quite well spoken. You'll find that when you delve deeper into the causes for 'success' you'll find large groups of people that are like minded about a sensible solution to an issue. As for statistics, they're only what you make of them and I should know.
Change we may be in need of but the current path of the U.S. is not it.
OK... I'll concede the point that I am too hard on those that don't do their share to help and that equating them to capitalist criminals (how to define these is a whole other debate) is unfair. i'm prone to blowing hard sometimes.
However, I'm not letting them off the hook completely. In terms of their usefulness in a "progressive society" (obviously, one of my own imagining), I give them about the same value as the guy who can, but doesn't work and lives off the charity of others. I find both morally reprehensible.
While I am not defending the US Tax code, I disagree with your opinion. If the majority of our taxes were not spent on imperialist military exploits and paying off the interest on the national deficit to the fed, we would pay much less and be able to do much more with it. I wouldn't have a problem if all my taxes went to social programs that worked, quality education and european-quality health care. With what is left over after the pentagon and debt service budgets, its impossible to have any kind of quality in the latter categories i mentioned. So, I agree with you that I'm sick of paying taxes that are misspent, but I wonder how the middle class would feel about their taxes if they went to those "quality of life" things first, resulting in working, viable institutions that are there for us all.
OK... I for one am ready to end this hijack. I thank you for the mature discourse, but suggest we take it, if needed to its own thread. If you want to get in last licks, I won't be offended.
However, I'm not letting them off the hook completely. In terms of their usefulness in a "progressive society" (obviously, one of my own imagining), I give them about the same value as the guy who can, but doesn't work and lives off the charity of others. I find both morally reprehensible.
While I am not defending the US Tax code, I disagree with your opinion. If the majority of our taxes were not spent on imperialist military exploits and paying off the interest on the national deficit to the fed, we would pay much less and be able to do much more with it. I wouldn't have a problem if all my taxes went to social programs that worked, quality education and european-quality health care. With what is left over after the pentagon and debt service budgets, its impossible to have any kind of quality in the latter categories i mentioned. So, I agree with you that I'm sick of paying taxes that are misspent, but I wonder how the middle class would feel about their taxes if they went to those "quality of life" things first, resulting in working, viable institutions that are there for us all.
OK... I for one am ready to end this hijack. I thank you for the mature discourse, but suggest we take it, if needed to its own thread. If you want to get in last licks, I won't be offended.
has it ever been?
