Vote NO to legalize cannabis....Or else

[Jhhnn]

I think the idea that the war is over when there are still ridiculous regulations keeping a lot of people down for no reason other than to maintain control and power is why a lot of people view these legalization efforts as a blessing in disguise.

I think, rightfully, those who are more fiercely opposed to some of these legalization efforts realize that there will be a hell of a lot more complacency on an issue that really demands so much more. The ability to get high is probably closer to the bottom of the list in terms of important things this plant is capable of offering us.

There will be many people who hold your opinion. I think it's a dangerous position to take given the potential this plant offers us - medicine, production of goods and services as well as energy.

It is so useful that it actually poses a threat to the very power structure that exists (and is largely responsible for prohibition and many other immoral acts against humanity) - which is highly monopolized. Much of this power stems from scarcity of resources (see: Oil), monopolized industry (always with government help) and the financial system. A big part of this equation could be removed were cannabis completely legal for all to use as they saw fit and to grow as they saw it.

The plant is capable of providing the energy we need, the materials we need and the medicine (and even food although I find it tastes awful) that keeps us going. All from your own backyard.

Which is why we also legalized industrial hemp.

Perhaps you didn't know that.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

Which is why we also legalized industrial hemp.

Perhaps you didn't know that.

Washington did not. And in Canada it's legal, but with massive strings attached. IE: You can only buy the seeds from a single source (the government) you cannot produce your own, they are overpriced and you are required to pay for a rather expensive license every year as well. Thereby effectively suppressing it as a viable market option in many instances.

 

[shaggyballs]

Washington did not. And in Canada it's legal, but with massive strings attached. IE: You can only buy the seeds from a single source (the government) you cannot produce your own, they are overpriced and you are required to pay for a rather expensive license every year as well. Thereby effectively suppressing it as a viable market option in many instances.

This sound really familiar??????????
It will be like this everywhere soon.....Except the dome of CO.
Now that is what I call legal....NOT!

 

[the gnome]

This sound really familiar??????????
It will be like this everywhere soon.....Except the dome of CO.
Now that is what I call legal....NOT!

not quite sure your logic is 100% on that 1 shags,
the dome of Co is under the dome of Washington DC
as was made clear to the 87yr old soon to be very homeless woman

btw
can budtwangs sooper dooper OG smell penetrate Jhhnn's dome of CO

 

[budtang]

can budtwangs sooper dooper OG smell penetrate Jhhnn's dome of CO

With all the shitty weed out there it wouldn't take much for it to get noticed. lulz

Even barnyard's mid-grade would penetrate that dome.

 

[Jhhnn]

The whole Jhhnn vs bentom thing never really works out for Jhhnn.
Am I the only one who see it this way?

I also feel Jhhnn picks the subjects he thinks he can win and sticks to them, usually avoiding the tough subjects and dismissing them as phantom facts with no evidence to make it believable.

Thats the way I see it.

YOU????

So dishonest. The woman in Dolores has no conflict with state authorities but rather with petty local tyrants masquerading behind federal law.

It's just a landlord/ tenant dispute. Under your libertopian principles, does a landlord have the right to disallow cannabis use on his property via lease agreement?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

I think you're dodging quite desperately, invoking a sort of false equivalency. Being involved in a traffic accident is fucked up. Obviously, it's more fucked up if you end up paralyzed than if you walk away. Deciding which is better is obviously foolish, right?

And if legalization via citizen initiative isn't legalization by the people for the people, what possibly could be?

This sound really familiar??????????
It will be like this everywhere soon.....Except the dome of CO.
Now that is what I call legal....NOT!

I'm kinda starting to enjoy this. It's amusing.

As you say, there are some tough subjects, mostly tough for you. That's apparent in the way you avoid direct questions, slide back into the same faith based paranoid projections.

That's what happens when you begin from false premises, hold onto them for dear life. It invokes a complex psychological process known as Denial. It's all about emotional satisfaction rather than truth seeking, about achieving certainty where none is available. Substitute belief for fact & any emotionally satisfying conclusion is possible. Add a bit of persecution complex to dial it in really tight.

Go back, read your opening post. You still believe every bit of it, even though facts to the contrary have been presented in abundance. It's what you want to believe, and that's that. The rest is just flailing around in an attempt to justify the irrational.

 

[bentom187]

does a landlord have the right to disallow cannabis use on his property via lease agreement?

Yes. But if there is a libertarian president then it would not be a issue federally because there would be no war on drugs and the federal government has no business stipulating the rules for ingesting substances for individuals. so your proposal is not addressing the entire issue.

If there were a libertarian president there would not be subsidized housing, at the most the states would choose if they wanted to do that.

So in dealing with a private owner he has the right to stipulate all the demands of leasing out his property beforehand. You can agree or go to a pot friendly owner whom would obviously have an incentive to allow it in a pot friendly state. He would have an advantage over someone who does not allow it,by catering to a specific demographic of people who desire to live amongst likeminded people.

 

[armedoldhippy]

Yes. But if there is a libertarian president then it would not be a issue federally because there would be no war on drugs and the federal government has no business stipulating the rules for ingesting substances for individuals. so your proposal is not addressing the entire issue.

If there were a libertarian president there would not be subsidized housing, at the most the states would choose if they wanted to do that.

So in dealing with a private owner he has the right to stipulate all the demands of leasing out his property beforehand. You can agree or go to a pot friendly owner whom would obviously have an incentive to allow it in a pot friendly state. He would have an advantage over someone who does not allow it,by catering to a specific demographic of people who desire to live amongst likeminded people.

when i was looking at rooms/houses for rent in Oregon/Washington, i saw plenty of places for rent where they spelled out "must be 420 friendly". that is a wave that will catch on, and work in both directions. until everyone is educated, we will grow apart as a nation, the divide will get bigger until most of the dinosaurs/morons die off. the feds will eventually fall in line, unless they surprise me and lead for a change...

 

[bentom187]

when i was looking at rooms/houses for rent in Oregon/Washington, i saw plenty of places for rent where they spelled out "must be 420 friendly". that is a wave that will catch on, and work in both directions. until everyone is educated, we will grow apart as a nation, the divide will get bigger until most of the dinosaurs/morons die off. the feds will eventually fall in line, unless they surprise me and lead for a change...

I can see it becoming very profitable being an owner of those types of communities when the federal government gets out of the business of dictating human behavior.

 

[shaggyballs]

not quite sure your logic is 100% on that 1 shags,
the dome of Co is under the dome of Washington DC
as was made clear to the 87yr old soon to be very homeless woman

btw
can budtwangs sooper dooper OG smell penetrate Jhhnn's dome of CO

I keep reiterating the dome over CO.,..... due to the fact Jhhnn has stated it is impenetrable!
Other than by the vote of the CO. people (very naive in my opinion)

I agree DC has the power to crush Jhhnn's dome at anytime!
I have said this repeatedly and he still remains firm that CO. is completely untouchable.
I try to show him of the atrocities taking place in other states like mine,but I never make any headway!
He just says sorry you did not get your pony!
Not very sympathetic (I feel) As far as who has better what???
You know you can grow the highest quality anywhere if you go about it correctly!

Jhhnn I feel, your dome is collapsible although I hope it does not happen!
You are a very smart guy, I can tell!
That is why it drives me nuts, to see you as a closed minded individual.

Shag

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes. But if there is a libertarian president then it would not be a issue federally because there would be no war on drugs and the federal government has no business stipulating the rules for ingesting substances for individuals. so your proposal is not addressing the entire issue.

If there were a libertarian president there would not be subsidized housing, at the most the states would choose if they wanted to do that.

So in dealing with a private owner he has the right to stipulate all the demands of leasing out his property beforehand. You can agree or go to a pot friendly owner whom would obviously have an incentive to allow it in a pot friendly state. He would have an advantage over someone who does not allow it,by catering to a specific demographic of people who desire to live amongst likeminded people.

In other words, landlords have that right regardless of federal law, correct? Which make CO legalization the bad guy, I'm sure, because we can't change federal law or the lease agreement the woman signed when she moved in.

Meaning that the rest of what you offer is just blather in obfuscation. In Libertopia, of course, landlords would be able to discriminate on the basis of whatever they pleased- race, sex, sexual orientation, children, blowjobs, whatever. Business owners, too.

 

[armedoldhippy]

Business owners, too.

if you live in a "right to work" state like i do, your employer already has those rights. they can fire you because they don't like the way you comb your hair, brand car you drive, who you vote for, or no reason at all, just because they damn well feel like it! THIS is why Tennessee is ranked among the "most friendly states to do business in". this is ALSO why i am trying to find work somewhere else & move. i don't want my children to have to live under someone elses thumb their whole life like i have...

 

[Jhhnn]

if you live in a "right to work" state like i do, your employer already has those rights. they can fire you because they don't like the way you comb your hair, brand car you drive, who you vote for, or no reason at all, just because they damn well feel like it! THIS is why Tennessee is ranked among the "most friendly states to do business in". this is ALSO why i am trying to find work somewhere else & move. i don't want my children to have to live under someone elses thumb their whole life like i have...

I was talking about "Whites Only", something that was very popular in some parts of the country, probably your state, too. You know probably better than I do that racism isn't dead at all- it's just hiding under a rock.

 

[budtang]

It's funny how the ONLY breeder on these threads to come forward and speak in defense of this system is suspected of being a DEA informant working with corporations to isolate, control, and obtain legal patents on cannabis genetics. HMMMMMMMMMM. What's even more amusing is that I pointed out how these laws will effect cannabis breeding and allow corporations to monopolize cannabis genetics. Low and behold....who shows up?????? The guy suspected of working with corporations doing just that. Can you say, SHADY?

 

[bentom187]

In other words, landlords have that right regardless of federal law, correct? Which make CO legalization the bad guy, I'm sure, because we can't change federal law or the lease agreement the woman signed when she moved in.

Meaning that the rest of what you offer is just blather in obfuscation. In Libertopia, of course, landlords would be able to discriminate on the basis of whatever they pleased- race, sex, sexual orientation, children, blowjobs, whatever. Business owners, too.

Yes. It's THEIR property not yours. You may choose to live there as a tenant or move in somewhere else where they accept it. The contract was agreed upon, if you thought it was an important issue when you move in then you ask prior to the agreement. Common sense.

Also changing contracts after they are signed would invalidate it. I could not enter a business transaction stipulated in a contract with you in which I give you X amount of money for 1 bushel of apples then cross out 1 bushel and replace it with the entire apple orchard.

We respect people and their property absolutely. There are economic reasons like I stated before why ,especially today, it would be economically stupid to promote your business as one that discriminates against anyone.


It would also be stupid if you think a black owner should serve the KKK in his diner, his safety is at stake. Or perhaps MS13 gang members in any place of business they are clearly a danger to you or your customers. You should have the right to choose who you do business with since YOU OWN THE PLACE completely.
The alternative is to be forced to do business with them.
The same principal holds true on a individual level.

When its open to see that a business or individual discriminates they are easier to avoid and denounce on a voluntary basis by not making it advantageous to be one by denying them business. Then there will be less of them.


I have stated why legalization will fall to regulatory capture on a state and federal basis.
If you think its good ,great.

So its clear 1. when you own something it means you own it absolutely and choose what to do with it. 2. You own yourself and choose voluntarily where to live and who to give your money to.

A problem you may have in understanding this, is you are not seeing the problems with telling people what to do and who to conduct business with by force or coercion. You are a authoritarian.

If you find that to be immoral and would not like that done to you then welcome to the other side.

 

[Jhhnn]

You merely assert the tyranny of great wealth, bentom, the divine right of ownership.

Obviously, that's a little deeper than you'd care to look.

 

[bentom187]

You merely assert the tyranny of great wealth, bentom, the divine right of ownership.

Obviously, that's a little deeper than you'd care to look.

Divine wealth LOL You mean you own what you work for ? That's not tyranny. That's actually your right and it is moral to keep what you earn because it's stuff you rightly acquired voluntarily. If you are proposing you take from people what belongs to them ,then that is theft and it does not matter the degree in which it is done. There is nothing that entitles you to other peoples property. Charity is 100% A-ok , you may ask for help if you need it.

I am starting to worry about you jhhnn.

 

[Jhhnn]

Divine wealth LOL You mean you own what you work for ? That's not tyranny. That's actually your right and it is moral to keep what you earn because it's stuff you rightly acquired voluntarily. If you are proposing you take from people what belongs to them ,then that is theft and it does not matter the degree in which it is done. There is nothing that entitles you to other peoples property. Charity is 100% A-ok , you may ask for help if you need it.

I am starting to worry about you jhhnn.

I suppose you support a 100% inheritance tax, too, seeing as how that's not earned at all. Probably not.

 

[bentom187]

Taxes are theft jhhnn. I do not support taxes period. No one is entitled to your money.

 

[Jhhnn]

Taxes are theft jhhnn. I do not support taxes period. No one is entitled to your money.

Taxes are sacrifice for the common good, a common feature of modern civilization. Clearly, libertopians seek all the benefits w/o the responsibility.

Not to mention that money is impossible w/o govt.