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

[Sam_Skunkman]

I have a couple comments--
First, let me say, I am against this Initiative, I think it is poorly written and will bite us in the ass--
That being said....I will vote Yes on it...only because it is the only game in town right now--
I do not think prices will go down much, because the only reason this has a chance in Hell...is because of the huge revenue it will produce...everyone sees how much ppl will pay for it, and I don't see prices dropping all of a sudden--
I do think it is wrong to say that anybody who is against this is only against it because of greed...there are many reasons to be for or against something...and there are great points on both sides of the coin--

I suspect many growers who oppose Tc2010 are more worried about their pocketbook then their 800,000 plus brothers arrested each year. I could be wrong and I know that is not the reason for every grower that opposes Tc2010, but I think that if Tc2010 loses by a few hundred thousand votes or less then growers who opposed it may have made the difference.
Weird to think of the coalition that some growers will join fighting Tc2010, Cops, DEA, Narcs, Prison Guards, NIDA staff, Prohibitionists, DARE, Coalition for a Drug-Free California, California Narcotics Officers Association, California Police Chiefs Association. Anyone that thinks helping these bastards defeat Tc2010 is a good thing, maybe needs to rethink their opinion.

-SamS

 

[MarquisBlack]

I think a common misconception in this issue is the assumption that if it is legal, ie no one goes to jail, prices will plummet. If we decriminalize and at the same time forbid corporations from producing cannabis and selling it commercially, leaving it up to people to grow their own, would this not be a reasonable compromise? Sure prices might go down a little, but at the same time the number of customers would go up at the local level.

I raise an eyebrow when I hear people advocating big business in it's attempted take-over of Cannabis-legalization.

 

[subrob]

plus...what about all of the ppl that are in jail now for marijuana offenses? .

im not sure, im no legal scholar, but has there ever been a case in this country where people were granted pardons retro actively when a law was changed or passes? im not being argumentative in the slightest...im just curious...is this a matter of constitutional law?

 

[Tommy Trichome]

Why?

It would take a couple hour conversation to clearly get across why I am against it.. as Stonedstoner has said, we need Dennis to write the intiative!

 

[subrob]

If we decriminalize and at the same time forbid corporations from producing cannabis and selling it commercially, leaving it up to people to grow their own, would this not be a reasonable compromise?

I raise an eyebrow when I hear people advocating big business in it's attempted take-over of Cannabis-legalization.

i dont think that would work...would that not be discrimination? im sure lawyers for big business would have quite a number of things to say about that...and unfortunately, i think they would be correct.
...as far as big business taking over....folks, i really dont think anything can be done about this...ask our wheat farmers(ours being the american wheat farmer, not cali's) is this not the nature of a capitalistic society? wait, that sounds too broad....in america, shit dont change unless the big boys get paid. it sucks. its ironic. and it will never change.
...i feel for the farmers in nor cal who are going to have to change thier way of life. i have friends and family who will be affected by this, i have friends and family who are against this. but they understand where my point of view is coming from and agree w it in principle. it just dont work for them so they will do thier best to get it voted down.

...i bet big pharma, ollie north, james baker, ashcroft, ronald reagan and the georges think this is a horrible idea....oh yeah, and northern cali pot growers....lifes an ironic cruel little bitch aint she?

 

[stonedstoner]

there are communties in northern cali who's economy is pretty much purely based on cannabis...what happens to these places after legalization? what happens to these places after big business takes over?

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

It would take a couple hour conversation to clearly get across why I am against it.. as Stonedstoner has said, we need Dennis to write the intiative!

Voting no screws the whole country. California leads the nation in progressive pot laws, and everyone follows in there foot steps. If you vote yes other states like CO, and OR are sure to follow.

VOTE YES. dont be greedy

 

[subrob]

there are communties in northern cali who's economy is pretty much purely based on cannabis...what happens to these places after legalization? what happens to these places after big business takes over?

most likely the same thing that happens to people and places all over this country. and has happened to farmers, in particular, of most agriculture in this country. they will have to work within the industry, or one of the cottage industries that will arise from legal cannabis. it sucks, but its the price we pay. dont think i dont feel for everyone affected...the nor cal growing community are people i respect, with ideals and a way of life i cherish....but people are going to jail every day in this country, and change has to start immediately. And this movement has been following californias lead for decades, regardless of any comments by anyone to the contrary...time to start change is now.

 

[subrob]

i think everyone who has seen any threads on this subject knows how i feel. i wont rehash.....

i guess maybe this statement wasnt exactly true.....

 

[vta]

even dennis peron the author of prop 215 is against this initiative.

DP is a good man for what he did for MMJ. However this is a totally separate subject. This is about recreational use of cannabis. Someone else said let him write the law....why? Makes absolutely no sense to me. 2 totally different subjects.

richard lee is a dick...it's even in his name, dick lee

What did Lee do to you? Why is he a Dick? Don't just spew regurgitated gossip either....please tell us why you hate him. In fact I can show you a list of things the guy has done for the MMJ movement. What have you done? How many times have you spoke to politicians about cannabis? I'm not bashing you stonedstoner...my comments are directed towards the 'anti Lee' mentality. I just don't see how this guy is soo evil.

we need to work for a better bill for 2012. two years is not a long time to wait. we need to have a better leader.

Please tell me who is going to do this. Who is going to give over a million dollars of their own money? I don't see ANYONE else stepping up to the plate.

Do you realize the president this law would make?? It has worldwide meaning. Just think of the thousands of news articles that will be written. Just think.

we need to elect someone like dennis peron to write the initiative. he wrote prop 215 and that was so loosely worded that anyone who wants to get access to medical marijuana can, which is fucking awesome.

If you knew DP you would know that if he had another crack at it, he would make 215 stricter. Besides, he has medical cannabis intentions and this is about recreational cannabis.

 

[stonedstoner]

well maybe after i make millions off of the illegality of weed like dick lee has, then i would talk to politicians and spend a million on trying to pass an initiative...but if this initiative passes, i won't be able to do that.

 

[subrob]

if this initiative passes...the change it will bring about will allow many to make millions eventually, and thousands of peeps will live off of the industry(but not make millions)...but more importantly, it will help initiate change that will keep people out of prison, and get our government to quit wasting billions of dollars on enforcement and persecution and warehousing of canna offenders.
...and if you made millions, would you then be a 'dick' also?

 

[bluekush]

I see what both sides are saying and I'm not sure who I agree with but I don't think its fair to call them greedy growers you gotta remember for some its there job and it maybe a family bussiness. if someone walked in your work and said we are gonna pass a bill that cuts your income in half but they try to convince you its for the good of the state are you be like oh gee golly gosh let me sign right now or are you gonna till them to get bent its easy to tell others to do something when you don't half to give up anything, I'm not sure which way I'm gonna vote come november still have research and people to talk to but if I had to guess on this passing I would say it wouldn't based on all the polls I. see because the stoner community seems divided but the people who are aganist cannabis are all standing together maybe we should have thought of a bill that wasw fair for both sides so we could all get along. but all I hear from the cons is that it a horrible bill and the people that are for it keep saying it not a perfect bill but pass it anyways not really any postives I can see atm

 

[subrob]

I see what both sides are saying and I'm not sure who I agree with but I don't think its fair to call them greedy growers you gotta remember for some its there job and it maybe a family bussiness. if someone walked in your work and said we are gonna pass a bill that cuts your income in half but they try to convince you its for the good of the state are you be like oh gee golly gosh let me sign right now or are you gonna till them to get bent.....

...a valid point....if someone walked in to where i work and said this bill is gonna cut your profits in half, but its most probably gonna lead to positive change that will keep people out of jail, keep families from being broken up, make billions of dollars in the long run for the residents of the country, save billions of dollars in tax payer dollars etc....i HOPE i would say golly gosh sign me up. but i cant say that for sure. no one can until they are put in that position. but it is a right and moral fight we are fighting and the repercussions go far beyond families in northern cali. legalization of cannabis in ONE SINGLE STATE is going to change the scope and direction of this issue WORLD WIDE...dont forget it is called a war on drugs. maybe we (the victimized community) havent been viewing it as a war, but the kevlar clad leo's and the pocket lining politicians who cower behind them certainly consider it one. the hundreds of thousands of people who have been victimized and incarcerated in this country certainly do also....people are going to have to sacrifice for the greater good. im in a position where i wont have to sacrifice in order for this change to begin, so take what i say with a grain of salt, but not a single person on any of these threads, on either side of this debate has taken issue w the overall argument i have been pushing. and that is because before a few short years ago(relatively speaking) we didnt have nearly this many people making nearly this much money nearly as, errr, 'safely' as they are making it now. this is a very difficult debate on the internet as you will rarely know the agenda of the person who is opposing your view. maybe Sam is only starting this thread because he wants it legal so he can make a million dollars. ok. so what? maybe i actually own a dispensary in socal raking in a hundred grand a month, talking bout 'im only here to help the sick'...or maybe i just think its wrong this plant is illegal and im old and i dont wanna wait ANOTHER 25 years to see this fight be over...you think i believe richard lee has pure motives for pushing this? i could give a fuck. hes pushing it. and he has pushed it further than anyone else i know. so i support what he is doing.

 

[bluekush]

...a valid point....if someone walked in to where i work and said this bill is gonna cut your profits in half, but its most probably gonna lead to positive change that will keep people out of jail, keep families from being broken up, make billions of dollars in the long run for the residents of the country, save billions of dollars in tax payer dollars etc....i HOPE i would say golly gosh sign me up. but i cant say that for sure. no one can until they are put in that position. but it is a right and moral fight we are fighting and the repercussions go far beyond families in northern cali. legalization of cannabis in ONE SINGLE STATE is going to change the scope and direction of this issue WORLD WIDE...dont forget it is called a war on drugs. maybe we (the victimized community) havent been viewing it as a war, but the kevlar clad leo's and the pocket lining politicians who cower behind them certainly consider it one. the hundreds of thousands of people who have been victimized and incarcerated in this country certainly do also....people are going to have to sacrifice for the greater good. im in a position where i wont have to sacrifice in order for this change to begin, so take what i say with a grain of salt, but not a single person on any of these threads, on either side of this debate has taken issue w the overall argument i have been pushing. and that is because before a few short years ago(relatively speaking) we didnt have nearly this many people making nearly this much money nearly as, errr, 'safely' as they are making it now. this is a very difficult debate on the internet as you will rarely know the agenda of the person who is opposing your view. maybe Sam is only starting this thread because he wants it legal so he can make a million dollars. ok. so what? maybe i actually own a dispensary in socal raking in a hundred grand a month, talking bout 'im only here to help the sick'...or maybe i just think its wrong this plant is illegal and im old and i dont wanna wait ANOTHER 25 years to see this fight be over...you think i believe richard lee has pure motives for pushing this? i could give a fuck. hes pushing it. and he has pushed it further than anyone else i know. so i support what he is doing.

finally a post from someone with some helpful insight not just agree with me or fuck you. I agree with you the movement is bigger than northern ca but this bill was rushed and I dont see the need for it, if you dont follow the guidelines you will be in trouble no different than breaking prop 215 , I would have like to see something in there to help people that are in jail that dont deserve to be there now I know it cant be perfect but I would rather deal with the devil I know than the one I dont and I just see too much gray area in the bill to truely pick a side right now but we still have sometime before nov but 215 works for me so for me to want to change it im gonna half to see some good not just we can always fix it later answer.

Peace Blue

 

[vta]

SPENDING HIGH IN BID TO LEGALIZE MARIJUANA IN CALIFORNIA

Win or lose, the marijuana legalization measure on November's ballot proves one thing: The pot industry has arrived in California politics.

Oakland's most prominent purveyor of medical cannabis has almost single-handedly financed the Tax Cannabis 2010 campaign -- a once-unthinkable occurrence. Election experts say it's a sign that the pot industry has reached a rarefied political pinnacle: Pot can afford to buy its way into voter-approved legitimacy.

Just as PG&E spent $46.4 million to push Proposition 16 and Mercury Insurance spent $15.9 million to push Proposition 17 to further their own interests this spring, so too is Oaksterdam University in Oakland shelling out millions to invest in its own economic future.

And Oaksterdam's owner, Richard Lee, could arguably make a mint if the measure passes.

Sure, the June primary's two corporate-backed measures failed. This one might, too: Early polling shows voter support is soft at best.

But legalized or not, marijuana, long an underground, counterculture province, is taking its place in California's political and business establishment alongside "The Man" -- traditional corporate interests such as power utilities and insurance companies.

For his part, Lee agrees, though he doesn't embrace being "The Man."

"When we started the campaign, we did want to make this a legitimate political issue and I think we've succeeded already, win or lose," he said.

He and his measure's supporters have done so by framing it not just as drug legalization but as an issue of civil rights, by claiming hypocrisy in the legality and rampant advertising of alcohol; of economics, by arguing that a booming, legal cannabis industry could create much-needed jobs; and of public policy, in that law enforcement costs would plummet while local governments could reap a windfall of new tax revenue.

But they'd not have had the forum to make these arguments in earnest had Lee not shelled $1.41 million of his own money to put the measure on November's ballot.

"If you have enough money, you can qualify almost anything on the ballot," said Bob Stern, president of the nonprofit, nonpartisan Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles. That goes for marijuana just like any other industry.

"Clearly it's going to be the most controversial and interesting measure on the ballot, it'll be the measure most people will be talking about, so he's clearly achieved that -- it will be front and center in the debate," Stern said. "I think it'll increase voter turnout, both on the libertarian and the liberal sides."

San Jose State political science professor Larry Gerston agreed.

"You see an opportunity and you take it," Gerston said. "I can't fault these people for being enterprising capitalists in a market that is virtually unregulated. They're pretty smart.

"These guys will have lobbyists; they're already building trade associations. It's all part and parcel of a burgeoning industry."

Some might say Lee stands to make a lot of money, more so if the measure passes. He has built a business infrastructure that includes a medical marijuana dispensary, a grow operation and a center that teaches others how to grow, all of which would put him at the forefront of recreational cannabis horticulture, sales and marketing as soon as it's legal. Even if it doesn't pass, the campaign is drawing attention to Oaksterdam University and its related businesses.

Lee said he doesn't see it that way.

"It's also a big risk, it's putting a big target on me, not to mention all the money that's being lost," he said. "And I see it as making it possible to have more competition."

Signs of the industry's political mainstreaming abound. Oakland last year became the first U.S. city to tax medical cannabis proceeds -- a tax masterminded by Lee.

"My goodness, that was a stroke of brilliance," Gerston said, in terms of legitimizing and mainstreaming the industry.

Last month, workers at Oakland cannabis businesses including Lee's joined the Retail, Statewide Agriculture, Food Processing and Community Patient Care Union, UFCW Local 5. Some now wonder whether union slate mailers this fall will urge a yes vote on the Tax Cannabis measure.

On the national scene, 14 states and the District of Columbia have adopted medical marijuana laws; bills are pending in other states, and voters in Arizona and South Dakota will see such ballot measures in November, as California and possibly Nevada vote on recreational legalization measures. And politicians on either side of the aisle -- including Oakland mayoral candidate and former state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, a Democrat, and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, a Republican -- endorse Lee's measure.

In fact, about a month after Perata's endorsement, Lee's S.K. Seymour LLC gave $10,000 to Perata's committee for a tobacco-tax measure. Coincidence, or a classic you-scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours political moment?

Of the $1.41 million Lee put into his own measure, almost $990,000 went to Masterton & Wright, a Bolinas firm that gathers petition signatures for ballot measures.

But the campaign also is paying top-shelf pros such as spokesman Dan Newman, who also works for Democratic lieutenant governor nominee Gavin Newsom's campaign and for the "Level the Playing Field" independent-expenditure committee waging war on Republican gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman. Blue State Digital, a Washington, D.C.-based firm with past clients including the Obama for America presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the AFL-CIO, designed the measure's Web site. And Chris Lehane, a renowned political communications strategist dubbed a "master of disaster" for his spin work in the Clinton White House and campaigns, is doing work for the campaign free of charge.

"It's a serious campaign, it's gone beyond working on the fringes," said assistant professor Corey Cook, director of the University of San Francisco's Leo T. McCarthy Center for Public Service and the Common Good.

It will be an uphill battle. Of three polls released last month, only the campaign's own showed more than 50 percent support, and even then by only a small margin. Any California political observer would say that's a tough place from which to start.

Lee said the campaign is using focus groups in order to target undecided voters and mobilize new voters, but he's done paying the bills.

"My main part was getting the language written," he said, "and then getting the petitions to get it on the ballot, and then to turn it over to the professionals to get it passed."

Yet an e-mailed fundraising plea raised $50,000 in April, he said. "We hope to raise $10 million, $10 each from a million people," Lee said, acknowledging that's not much for a California ballot measure but arguing a little will go a long way on the issue. "Our numbers go way up when we explain the issues and the measure in depth."

Cook agreed: "$10 million is nothing in California," he said -- especially given the rise in advertising rates likely to accompany record spending in 2010's gubernatorial and senatorial elections. "But I would kind of be surprised, given a lot of other things going on in the state, if there's a lot of money pumped in on the 'no' side."

A "Public Safety First" coalition with members such as the California Police Chiefs Association, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the California Bus Association already is speaking out against Lee's measure, yet none of these groups has deep pockets.

Meanwhile, Tax Cannabis 2010 is building people power: Its Facebook page is "liked" by more than 95,000 people. For context, Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jerry Brown has about 26,000 and Republican gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman has close to 28,000.

"Three times as many contributions and three times as many votes, and you're in good shape," Cook observed, noting Facebook support doesn't necessarily translate to either. The committee won't report its finances again until early August.

Yet Tax Cannabis 2010 might have advantages that last month's corporate-funded measures lacked, Cook said.

PG&E and Mercury Insurance tried to educate the public for the first time about problems that, to many, seemed like no problem at all, while this measure addresses an issue that has been talked about for decades. "There's an idea that its time has come," Cook said.

"Part of it is the aging of the California electorate," he added, noting a baby boomer generation now in its 50s and 60s that in many cases did and still does smoke marijuana. "That is the establishment now."

And while efforts to legalize marijuana always could have been framed as a revenue-raising effort, there's no better time to make that pitch than in the midst of a national recession and state fiscal crisis.

"This was a solution in search of a problem, but now there's a problem that matches it," Cook said, adding Lee and the measure's supporters "would be crazy not to be taking advantage of the political opportunity that's in front of them."

 

[CrazyCooter]

Why not get rid of the old bad laws instead of creating new ones? We need to get rid of the bad legislation. Not write more laws to change the too many laws we already have. Lets repeal the laws that criminalized it in the first place? Oh yeah, not good for corporate America. Too bad that corporate america takes a dump on me daily and does nothing more than tell me how wonderful their shit smells. Is there anything better smelling shit than the stuff that corporations produce? Everyone should be able to grow and carry as many plants as they want to.
Get rid of the bad laws and nobody gets arrested. We don't need to write piss poor laws to make up for the shitty ones written years ago.

 

[stonedstoner]

if this initiative passes...the change it will bring about will allow many to make millions eventually, and thousands of peeps will live off of the industry(but not make millions)...but more importantly, it will help initiate change that will keep people out of prison, and get our government to quit wasting billions of dollars on enforcement and persecution and warehousing of canna offenders.
...and if you made millions, would you then be a 'dick' also?

i would only be a dick if i wrote a shitty initiative that only allowed ppl to grow 25 sq ft. of space while i was trying to get a commercial license to grow huge quantities. i had nothing against dick lee until after i read the initiative he wrote and found out that he will be one of the few oakland city sanctioned commercial growers. and also he fired dennis peron from oaksterdam university after dennis said that he was not down with the taxation of cannabis.


and to whoever said that dennis peron wishes that prop 215 was stricter....i doubt that...he doesn't say that in this youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLpHwDJDR-s ....infact he is proud of the fact that it is so loosely worded.

and i don't mean any disrespect to anyone. i'm just trying to express my view.

 

[Voodoo]

I want to pose a question to everyone who disagrees with the bill:

Is the 25 square feet rule really going to stop you?


Lets be real here. We're all pushing plant limits with our clones, cuts, special projects, etc. Some states don't even have limits as the plant is TOTALLY ILLEGAL - yet people still grow marijuana.

So, do you really think 25 square feet will even matter?

I'll tell you what I'm planning if this becomes legal: Im going to plant 4 thai variants and pre veg them to 3 feet tall at the far corners of my *clearly marked* outdoor marijuana garden. Im going to plant them at that height around feb 1st. Im going to leave them totally untopped. Not only is it fully legal (according to the law of the 5x5 growing area) but it would also yield on a scale I've never seen.

How long will it be till growers start doing the same thing, but LSTing the plants over a 200 sqft area? Id say about 2 months.

So again, not that I'm encouraging breaking the law, but everyone I know speeds...

 

[CrazyCooter]

25 square feet is not legalization. Grow as much as you want, wherever you want, whenever you want. That is legalization.

I can already grow in 100 square feet legally. This bill will corporatize mmj, not legalize it.
Do you really want monsanto producing your seeds and genetically modifying cannabis? Is the food you buy at the grocery store pest, pesticide, and disease free?

I agree that there are a lot of growers who do not want to compete with big business and lose money. But come on, when does big business give us what we want. Keep it in the hands of the people and repeal the old laws.

Legalize, don't corporatize!