CALIFORNIA VOTERS ONLY--SHOULD CANNABIS BE LEGALIZED AND TAXED AND REGULATED?

[vta]

LOL. The way the law is today if i pass a joint to my 20 year old friend the most i can get is a 100 buck fine! If this BILL passes i would get 6 years in jail and $1000 fine. Do you understand now!...LOL
.

So you compare the least penalty for current and the most penalty for post 19?

regardless...the amount of people arrested under prop19 (your minors) could never compare to the amount of people being arrested now, you know, the ones that will not be subject to arrest after 19 passes.

I'm pretty stoned right now and writing funny today...let me know if you need it spelled out any clearer and I'll post up some nice fuzzy graphs and such for ya.

 

[SmilinBob]

You know what. Vote no.. I hope it don't pass. Because I'm now 100% sure that if California legalizes marijuana they are going to fuck it up. As impossible as that sounds I believe people like traveiso can make it happen. Keep it illegal. Let another state with more sensible adults debate legalization. Maybe they won't drag in comments like my 20 year old friends like to get high too. What a waste of time.

 

[vta]

This is what happens when you buy city council members, you can convince them to grant you a legal monopoly of the medical and recreational cannabis market by outlawing personal medical gardens

Well I don't see where they get this. Where does this ordnance say that people can't grow their own medical cannabis? That would conflict with State law.

 

[vta]

Maybe they won't drag in comments like my 20 year old friends like to get high too. What a waste of time.

 

[Hammerhead]

IM GOING TO VOTE MY YES AND MOVE ON. These debates are going no where. It's not possable for the young stoners to discuse with the older stoners. They are all knowing and think we are stupid. I have had enough of the insults.

 

[ocean_grown]

Nobody is going to jail in Cali over one pot plant.. The arguments in this thread are getting silly on both sides. If you want to know why I am against this bill go back and read my posts, I'm done with this banter. I can only pray that there are responsible voters out there who will see that the word "legalization" is not worth the price they ask us to pay in Prop 19.

Peace.

 

[vta]

Nobody is going to jail in Cali over one pot plant..

Cultivation of any amount of marijuana is a felony under Health and Safety Code 11358. People who grow for personal use are eligible for diversion under Penal Code 1000 so long as there is no evidence of intent to sell. There are no fixed plant number limits to personal use cultivation.

Been there done that. Diversion is formal probation with piss tests. You still have a conviction on your record. Your still fuked for most good jobs that do background checks...but hey its no problem right

Also, usually LEO isn't there for your 1 plant, so that means there is something else going on...multiple charges can get you stuck in the poky for sure.

California officers arrested 61,375 people on marijuana charges in 2003 and 74,024 in 2007, an average increase of more than 5 percent per year. Eighty percent of the arrests in 2007 were for marijuana possession

Marijuana possession arrests have serious consequences. They create permanent "drug arrest" records that can be easily found on the Internet by employers, landlords, schools, credit agencies, licensing boards, and banks.


read this and then tell me to keep it the way we have it now. This is from Washington but you'll get the idea.
http://www.aclu-wa.org/library_files/BeckettandHerbert.pdf

Or if that's too much reading and you would prefer a cartoon, then this might fill you in on whats going on to Cannabis users.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYkG5-RYMJ8&feature=player_embedded

 

[mSeTxOiNcEaRn]

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i821_initiative_09-0024_amdt_1-s.pdf



The name is enough for me to vote No.


No is the way to go!

Yeah if youre too too ignorant to vote no on a bill based on the title alone. No is the way to go if you agree with "i dont give a fuck about the rest of the country"

Someone call Chris Hansen on Travieso, dude stay away from my kids ahaha j/p....

You main points are about not being able to smoke with minors and those under 21, really? Thats the core of your reasoning for voting no? You cant do it in public now anyway? Why the hell are you so damned conserned?

 

[Travieso]

Glad this BILL wont pass! Almost everyone i talked to is voting no!. Everyone sees the flaws in this BILL. Well almost everyone!...LOL

VOTE NO ON PROP 19!

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

Well I don't see where they get this. Where does this ordnance say that people can't grow their own medical cannabis? That would conflict with State law.

thankyou vta.

(the caps are for emphasis, not anger. I am not yelling )
THIS IS NOT TRUE. STOP MAKING SHIT UP Travieso. THIS BILL DOES NOT EFFECT PROPOSITION 215. there is no reason for making stuff up.

WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS ACTING LIKE DONALD RUMSFELD OF THE BLACK MARKET GROWERS. (little joke)

(not a joke)
VOTING NO WILL ENSURE FURTHER RESTRICTION OF POT RIGHTS IN CALI. THE GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE IT AS THE BIGGEST SIGN THAT IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WILL HAVE VOTED IT DOWN.

YOU WILL FUCK IT UP FOR YOUR STATE AND THE WHOLE COUNTRY IF YOU VOTE NO.

 

[subrob]

ok...im starting to get fuckin annoyed again....lets tackle this from a different angle.....here is what i am seeing here....not a debate that has caused division between "the greedy growers" vs the "non greedy"...there are wise, compassionate, good peeps on both sides of the issue here...i dont think i need to point out that there are fucking morons on both sides and one or two people that are just plain ass embarassing...(and yes, im fully aware i could be one of them...but i dont really give a fuck)...think of it as the following two camps: those who see the cannabis movement in the larger picture to include all people in all states...and those who look at this as a california only issue....obviously i find myself in the former....and i dont necc think it is wrong to be in the latter, but it sure doesnt fit the ideal that SOME of the 'no' proponets seem to stand behind.
---Traviseo-you are certainly no longer helping your cause. you are just sounding like a child and its been long enough since you have said anything of substance on the issue(if ever, i cant remember) that i think you may actually start convincing people to vote yes. believe me, i understand how funny being an asshole just for the sake of being an asshole is, and i appreciate the effort...but youve over talked your sale..if i was opposed to this prop and was actively trying to persuade people to my side, i would be begging you to stop talking...just thought you would like to know...i know i would...
actually, i take that back...the post you made at 208 pm was very interesting. glad you posted it...my bad...but you still sound like a dick. and yes, maybe some of the people arguing w you do too, but they are on my side so they get a pass! haha
----hey neo! easy on the ageist rhetoric man! haha...im in my 40s and still hang w a few friends in thier early twenties!!! but according to my ex girlfriends its because im at a maturity level of your typical 18 year old!

 

[subrob]

put these comments in a seperate post cuz i didnt want my immature name calling in previous post to detract from the seriousness of my next questions and/or points...
---i wanna talk about the argument that everyone should just get thier medical card. this is not meant to be decisive at all. it is a concern of mine. does anyone else feel the backlash building from this concept?does anyone worry the perception of people "hiding" behind medical status maybe harms the medical cause and possibly arms anti mmj proponets? could this perception that is starting to build hurt the recreational legalization movement?GONNA SAVE US ALL SOME TIME AND BANDWIDTH AND SAY YES, I UNDERSTAND ALL CANNABIS USE COULD BE CONSIDERED MEDICAL---dont need 10 posters pointing this out... again, i am not trying to use this as a platform to sway votes, its a subject worthy of its own thread...but it does tie in to the debate in that every decision, every strategy, every initiative...everything we do as a community has repurcussions in some respect to the 'war' on the 'cannabis war'. perfect example is what happened with the mobile medical rec bus in what? montana right? the medical registry went from a couple thousand to forty thousand or something like that?(props to those peeps by the way, though im sure someone somewhere in montana made some cash!) all of a sudden, there were news stories about all the people "abusing" the system...ripple effects...rippled to news outlets in the other med states...we have a certain perspective on it...imagine the states that are filled with anti mmj people...imagine what they think when they hear things like that...everything affects everything from here on out...we are not percieved as a bunch of deadheads and drop outs anymore...we have status and have to keep advancing...we as a community are not used to having to deal with things like this as we have made so much progress so fast, WE dont even have a handle on our own power.....ok..i guess i kinda did turn it into trying to sway people...sorry...another sleepless night on meds...sick as hell...so since i already turned it into another pro19 post...let me point out:
---if you are still undecided, understand where the people you are listening to are coming from...do they currently make a living from the cannabis industry and fear the possibility of losing that living and having to do something else? if so, there is no dishonor in that...but do you want to be someone pushing forward with the war being waged on us, all of us? or are you going to buy into the side that says: "i dont care about the issue beyond how it affects me" or "i dont think its fair that we have to pay taxes" or "jack didnt think we should have to pay taxes"(thank you to whoever it was that pointed out jacks stance on taxes in general)
----every day i wonder if im pushing the right side. i dont like the bill. i worry that the other guys are right. but in the end it comes down to doing whats right. we are getting a lil lax right now...a lil spoiled...i am not willing to wait for"the next one" i say sack the fuck up, jump in and lets kick some ass...i have ultimate faith in the members of this community, from both sides of the aisle, to unite against the people who will try to hold us down.

 

[Travieso]

ok...im starting to get fuckin annoyed again....lets tackle this from a different angle.....here is what i am seeing here....not a debate that has caused division between "the greedy growers" vs the "non greedy"...there are wise, compassionate, good peeps on both sides of the issue here...i dont think i need to point out that there are fucking morons on both sides and one or two people that are just plain ass embarassing...(and yes, im fully aware i could be one of them...but i dont really give a fuck)...think of it as the following two camps: those who see the cannabis movement in the larger picture to include all people in all states...and those who look at this as a california only issue....obviously i find myself in the former....and i dont necc think it is wrong to be in the latter, but it sure doesnt fit the ideal that SOME of the 'no' proponets seem to stand behind.
---Traviseo-you are certainly no longer helping your cause. you are just sounding like a child and its been long enough since you have said anything of substance on the issue(if ever, i cant remember) that i think you may actually start convincing people to vote yes. believe me, i understand how funny being an asshole just for the sake of being an asshole is, and i appreciate the effort...but youve over talked your sale..if i was opposed to this prop and was actively trying to persuade people to my side, i would be begging you to stop talking...just thought you would like to know...i know i would...
actually, i take that back...the post you made at 208 pm was very interesting. glad you posted it...my bad...but you still sound like a dick. and yes, maybe some of the people arguing w you do too, but they are on my side so they get a pass! haha
----hey neo! easy on the ageist rhetoric man! haha...im in my 40s and still hang w a few friends in thier early twenties!!! but according to my ex girlfriends its because im at a maturity level of your typical 18 year old!

Subrob. I can care less what you think or say about me. Who do you think you are?. Someone special?. I think not! Your a nobody so stop pretending to be somebody. LOL. I side with Jack Herrer and Dennis Peron on this issue. YES, The Pioneers in the Cannabis movement. And who are you again?. Just some nobody that thinks he's special on the internet!. LOL!

VOTE NO ON PROP 19

 

[Travieso]

TC 2010 has a couple of controversial provisions that are of concern to California NORML. First, it would disallow marijuana smoking in "any space where minors are present" - a restriction unparalleled for any other drug, including tobacco, which is known to be far more harmful. Not only would this ban parents from smoking in the presence of their own children, but it could well leave them without any legal place to smoke, since the initiative also bans smoking in public or "a public place. By the same token, cops could cite pot smokers at any concert, dinner or event where kids under 21 were present. Violations would be punishable by the current $100 misdemeanor fine.
Secondly, TC 2010 would substantially increase existing penalties for adults giving marijuana to youths aged 18-21. TC 2010 would make it an offense punishable by $1,000 and six months for anyone 21 or over to give or share marijuana with someone aged 18-20, This offense is currently a minor misdemeanor punishable by a maximum $100 fine. So, a 21-year-old could be arrested for sharing a joint with his 20-year old friend, something that isn't presently the case.
Although the legislature would theoretically be able to change these provisions, it is highly doubtful they would do so given voters' approval of TC 2010. Should TC 2010 pass, California NORML would strongly support an initiative to repeal these provisions.

VOTE NO ON PROP 19

 

[dagnabit]

TC 2010 has a couple of controversial provisions that are of concern to California NORML. First, it would disallow marijuana smoking in "any space where minors are present" - a restriction unparalleled for any other drug, including tobacco, which is known to be far more harmful. Not only would this ban parents from smoking in the presence of their own children, but it could well leave them without any legal place to smoke, since the initiative also bans smoking in public or "a public place. By the same token, cops could cite pot smokers at any concert, dinner or event where kids under 21 were present. Violations would be punishable by the current $100 misdemeanor fine.
Secondly, TC 2010 would substantially increase existing penalties for adults giving marijuana to youths aged 18-21. TC 2010 would make it an offense punishable by $1,000 and six months for anyone 21 or over to give or share marijuana with someone aged 18-20, This offense is currently a minor misdemeanor punishable by a maximum $100 fine. So, a 21-year-old could be arrested for sharing a joint with his 20-year old friend, something that isn't presently the case.
Although the legislature would theoretically be able to change these provisions, it is highly doubtful they would do so given voters' approval of TC 2010. Should TC 2010 pass, California NORML would strongly support an initiative to repeal these provisions.

VOTE NO ON PROP 19

when this bill states clearly
" This Act is intended to limit the application and enforcement of state and local laws relating to possession, transportation, cultivation, consumption and sale of cannabis"

maybe you prohibitionists dont understand how laws work?
this is the VERY MOST IMPORTANT piece of language in any bill.
it is a statement of intent and scope.
this statement of intent is very clear.existing law is the base this bill is designed to LIMIT THE APPLICATION AND ENFORCEMENTof existing law.
the word limit is the most important word in this whole bill. if that one word were changed to "expand" all your fears would be founded.
but the word is limit.
do you know what limit means?

 

[SmilinBob]

it would disallow marijuana smoking in "any space where minors are present" - a restriction unparalleled for any other drug, including tobacco, which is known to be far more harmful. Not only would this ban parents from smoking in the presence of their own children

Anyone that smokes around there children are selfish, and has no care for their children's health. All these things you keep posting are minuscule cons compared to the cons of the illegality of marijuana.

I side with Jack Herrer and Dennis Peron on this issue. YES, The Pioneers in the Cannabis movement. And who are you again?.

You don't have to agree with either of these gentleman 100% to be grateful for what they have done. Just because we don't side with them 100% on every issue doesn't make us unworthy.

Yes, they were pioneers in the cannabis movement. That doesn't give you the right to downplay people here to help you prove your points. Your methods are childish, and should leave you embarrassed. Don't tell anyone here how to act, because I've sure nearly everyone here, at least judging from there maturity level, have done way more than you to help get marijuana laws changed in their states. What have you done? You run around here spouting off moot points that are minor compared to the huge problems the black market and marijuana's illegality causes.

 

[Travieso]

when this bill states clearly
" This Act is intended to limit the application and enforcement of state and local laws relating to possession, transportation, cultivation, consumption and sale of cannabis"

maybe you prohibitionists dont understand how laws work?
this is the VERY MOST IMPORTANT piece of language in any bill.
it is a statement of intent and scope.
this statement of intent is very clear.existing law is the base this bill is designed to LIMIT THE APPLICATION AND ENFORCEMENTof existing law.
the word limit is the most important word in this whole bill. if that one word were changed to "expand" all your fears would be founded.
but the word is limit.
do you know what limit means?

This is exactly what the BILL states. Do you understand what this means. Theres no way around this. Get it yet?

(c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense. (d) In addition to the penalties above, any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to perform any act pursuant to Section 11301, who while so licensed, permitted or authorized, negligently furnishes, administers, gives or sells, or offers to furnish, administer, give or sell, any marijuana to any person younger than 21 years of age shall not be permitted to own, operate, be employed by, assist or enter any licensed premises authorized under Section 11301 for a period of one year.

 

[Travieso]

Anyone that smokes around there children are selfish, and has no care for their children's health. All these things you keep posting are minuscule cons compared to the cons of the illegality of marijuana.

Smilin Boob, You keep saying children. I dont consider my 20 year old friend a child. He has a good paying full time job, a 2 year old daughter and has his own place. He supports himself, his girlfriend, and his daughter. He is far from a child. Nice try though!

 

[ReelBusy1]

Nobody is going to jail in Cali over one pot plant.. The arguments in this thread are getting silly on both sides. If you want to know why I am against this bill go back and read my posts, I'm done with this banter. I can only pray that there are responsible voters out there who will see that the word "legalization" is not worth the price they ask us to pay in Prop 19.

Peace.

The price we pay today is too much.
Prop 19 is the first step to fixing it.

 

[SmilinBob]

Smilin Boob, You keep saying children. I dont consider my 20 year old friend a child. He has a good paying full time job, a 2 year old daughter and has his own place. He supports himself, his girlfriend, and his daughter. He is far from a child. Nice try though!

I'm sure that piece of the bill is targeted toward actual children. I am really stunned at your selfishness.

Could you please tell us all here how these points you keep mentioning are worse than the current illegality of marijuana?