Dennis Peron Arraigned For Child Porn & Drugs

[Hydrosun]

BHT, these guys are having their Alpo dog chow for dinner everyday, and then are given the chance to have some hamburger meat for a change, but they don't want it cause it isn't fillet mignon! People need to get some perspective forreal

You know who needs to get some perspective? It is the guy who thinks that anyone GIVES "the chance" to have...

No person controls my life or yours I hope.

I ACKNOWLEDGE your right to OVERGROW 100% of your land, but I in no way GIVE you that right. You OWN that RIGHT because you OWN the land.

 

[Noobian]

When I say given the chance I mean how often does a legalization initiative come up for a vote? What every 10-20 years or so? So yeah Prop 19 was GIVEN to you to make your choice to vote one way or the other. Everyone was given the chance to vote on it. As for you owning your land, you're right, you do own it if you possess the deed, but you do not make the laws that govern that land, that is our government's job. The government in some fashion creates, enacts, and enforces laws, not land owners. And as far as I know, all Federal, state, and county laws say recreational cannabis growing/selling/using is illegal. But as long as people are still "free" to eat their Alpo that's what really matters right?

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

No I am going by the holes that I would poke in it if it were me trying to arrest people under it. Intention is one thing, what happens in a courtroom is a totally different thing. The letter of the law is what matters not what someone who wrote the prop says. You think a judge is going to call the props writers for every case brought before him involving the prop? NO its what is passed into law on that paper and if you think the legal system works in any other way than that you are sadly mistaken. Judges jobs are to interpret the laws written not to wring their hands and ask the writers what they intended. If they intended a meaning thats what they wrote and if they didn't then it is error on their part.

You don't need to sit and smoke in front of your kids. I am not making a categorical claim that you have to. I am simply saying that you can sit in front of your kid and pop vicodin or lorcet or smoke a cigar or a cigarette all day and the law doesn't have anything to say about it. It shouldn't have anything to say about people smoking pot or vaping in front of their kids either. I am arguing for less government intrusion into our lives and more of the freedoms that we have so willfully given up.

As to your argument that it is all moot. You can keep making that bullshit claim all you want but the fact is that marijuana should be legal. Completely unadulterated and free legal. If it is legal for it to be used recreationally then why the limit on garden size? As to your other questions, textile mill- sure, distillery- sure given that doing so doesn't negatively impact your neighbors in that you are making too much noise or are creating a health risk or any other normal concerns for health and happiness.

And furthermore to your backhanded insinuation that we are too uneducated to read it for ourselves and decide, screw you and your arrogant self righteous ass. We can read just fine and the fact is that not everyone liked what they read or how they could see DAs manipulating a poorly written proposition to restrict our rights and imprison more people under the guise of a "legal" system.

A textile mill that doesn't make any noise? A distillery that doesn't dispense foul smelling odors? What kind of la-la-land are you living in? If your waiting for a no-regulation, no-tax, do-anything-you-want legalization you will be waiting the rest of your life. Currently, many people are pushing for child abuse and negligence for smoking tobacco in front of your children (which it should be).

Popping pills or drinking booze around children does not expose them to intoxicants like marijuana and tobacco does, but i'd also reccomend that you not openly do it in front of your kids as it is setting a poor example. I also have a hard time beleiving that any self-respecting adult would campaign to smoke weed in front of their kids. If thats what your waiting for, again, you will be waiting the rest of your life. You have to compromise on some issues until people become more accustomed to marijuana in our society, because as it is, marijuana still holds a huge social stigma.

I’m always amused by folks criticizing Prop 19 for being too vague, when Prop 215 was one of the most vaguely-worded initiatives ever passed by the people of California. Fourteen years later it is still unclear whether dispensary sales outside of collective participation is legal under Prop 215 and SB 420.

While I understand the need of medical marijuana patients who may be parents to be able to medicate when their kids are around, I’m flustered by adults criticizing legalization on the grounds they might not be able to toke up around kids.

If you’re suffering from Lou Gehrig’s disease, sitting in your wheelchair medicating on the patio while your kids play soccer next door, I seriously doubt anybody will want to prosecute that, especially since under Prop 19, there would be no probable cause for a cop to investigate that pot smell wafting up from your back yard.

When an initiative is vague, one has to go to the purposes and intents to determine what the wording means. ”Space”, literally defined, is “the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur.” Minors are present in space, therefore Prop 19 makes all pot smoking anywhere in the universe illegal, right? Of course not, because the purpose of Prop 19 is to legalize most adult use of cannabis, not eliminate it. So how far would cops and courts go in defining “space” and “present”?

Let’s check Prop 19′s Ballot Summary:
Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old.

And the Purposes:
Regulate cannabis like we do alcohol: Allow adults to possess and consume small amounts of cannabis.
Implement a legal regulatory framework to better police and prevent access to and consumption of cannabis by minors in California.

And the Intents:
This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement … relating to possession on school grounds … relating to minors … relating to contributing to the delinquency of a minor…

Since the Purposes tell us we’re treating it like alcohol, what are the “space” rules for alcohol? In bars, taverns, casinos, and restaurants where alcohol is served, either minors aren’t allowed in the building or they are limited to where they can be (like, in the restaurant but not the bar). At an outdoor festival, often there is a “beer garden” where minors can’t get in and adults wear a wristband.

Since the Purposes tell us we’re trying to keep kids from getting access to and consuming cannabis, it seems to me that “space” would have to be defined as a reasonable proximity to the cannabis that might allow access by minors.

Since the Intents tell us we’re not trying to allow adults to contribute to the delinquency of a minor, it seems to me that a minor would have to be “present” in your “space” within reasonable distance that you could contribute to their delinquency.

So the notion that “space” is going to mean the soccer field next door to your patio seems a stretch, as does the notion presented by another anti Prop 19 site claiming it could be the same apartment building.

But could it mean the same room or same house? Probably the same room. Maybe the same house. So you might have to go to your bedroom or out on the patio to smoke your joint if you have kids. That slight inconvenience, which most non-Prop 215 pot smokers are already doing (guess what, most of us don’t like to smoke pot in front of kids) is why you would support keeping 80% of California’s cannabis consumers subject to a misdemeanor?

We also have to address the reality of policing. How exactly are the cops going to bust you if you’re sitting in your living room chiefing a joint in the presence of your kids? Remember, after Prop 19, the sight and smell of marijuana, cannabis plants, and paraphernalia are no longer probable cause for a search and investigation.

 

[Hydrosun]

you're right, you do own it if you possess the deed, but you do not make the laws that govern that land, that is our government's job. The government in some fashion creates, enacts, and enforces laws, not land owners. And as far as I know, all Federal, state, and county laws say recreational cannabis growing/selling/using is illegal. But as long as people are still "free" to eat their Alpo that's what really matters right?

If you have the deed or not you own the land if you have a superior claim to all others.

If you are making ANY of your mtg payments or not, then you have greater claim than 100% of the rest of the populace.

If your land is foreclosed or transfered by other legal means then you no longer OWN it.

Now as to your UNFOUNDED assertion that a gvt creates laws that governs that land; you have not established the constitutional law foundation to make that claim. And in point of fact the US Constitution offers LIMITED powers to the government. What you do on your land is your business. If you need a thread to debate this so be it; however time after time decade after decade restrictions on PERSONAL LIBERTIES have been declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

It used to be illegal to be a Jew. Just because something is the LAW doesn't make it moral.

 

[Hydrosun]

Popping pills or drinking booze around children does not expose them to intoxicants like marijuana and tobacco does, but i'd also reccomend that you not openly do it in front of your kids as it is setting a poor example.

How does smoking cigs expose to INTOXICANTS? I've heard of VALID medical studies linking SECOND HAND CIG SMOKE to CANCER; however I've NEVER seen the second hand MJ INTOXICATION / CANCER study. Also I've never seen the 2nd hand INTOXICATION of nicotine, again it is cool lung cancer only.

Can you please show us SECOND HAND MJ INTOXICATION or CANCER for primary or secondary MJ exposure?

 

[Noobian]

The government doesn't create the laws? Who does then? What you do on your own land is your business but if what you're doing is conflicting with the prevailing laws of the land, then you are a criminal and you will get no sympathy from our system. I never said because something is the law it's moral, quite the opposite actually, but that's the way it works.

"Restrictions on personal liberties have been declared unconstitutional" ROFL ok ok sure thing buddy. I will tell that to the cop the next time I decide to text and drive or distill my own liquor haha. You are living in the land of theory and "should be's" I'm talking about what IS and the way it WORKS NOW, which are two very different things

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

How does smoking cigs expose to INTOXICANTS? I've heard of VALID medical studies linking SECOND HAND CIG SMOKE to CANCER; however I've NEVER seen the second hand MJ INTOXICATION / CANCER study. Also I've never seen the 2nd hand INTOXICATION of nicotine, again it is cool lung cancer only.

Can you please show us SECOND HAND MJ INTOXICATION or CANCER for primary or secondary MJ exposure?

They are still being exposed to intoxicants rather it is cancer causing or not. Find me one doctor that will tell you its healthy to ingest an combustible substance. Furthermore, why would you want or need to introduce any substance to your children? Do you all live in a studio apartment with no bathroom with your children and have no other available space to consume marijuana that isnt directly in front of your kids exposing them to your habit?

 

[Noobian]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government has the power to restrict people from taking drugs, but here we are seventy something years later and it's still going on. If people actually cared about what is in the Constitution we would be a very different (and I say less powerful) country. Part of what makes us so great is the ability to adapt our laws either for the good or the bad, and THAT is very much in line with what our Forefathers envisioned for us. For some reason people don't mind their government restricting their rights in certain areas as long as it gives them a sense of safety, maybe we need to stop raising our sons and daughters to be such pussies and stand up for some things and we can start to make some positive changes!

 

[!!!]

Meth is a EVIL drug. It should be scheduled 1 drug. Not 2 where it can be prescribed by a doctor!!!!!!

SCF

meth isn't that bad and should remain schedule 2. I can't think of any drug that's damaging (when not abused) except maybe alcohol and benzos which cause brain damage in the smallest amounts, and I'm not so sure about the toxicity of the latter.

Anyway, you shouldn't smoke tobacco in front of your kids:
Home exposure to tobacco carcinogens high in children of smokers
http://calorielab.com/labnotes/2010...idence-of-tobacco-carcinogens-in-their-urine/

and Cannabis smoke isn't too bad, but there are 2 things that even AFTER legalization, will continue to believed by the masses:
Cannabis smoke causes cancer
One cannot drive stoned

and I don't think any bill that tries to enlighten people on these 2 issues will ever get passed.

How would they enforce the no-smoking-with-your-kids issue anyway? They probably won't.

There will DEFINITELY be a limit on how much you can grow on ANY bill that has a chance of getting passed. You're allowed 100 gallons of beer/wine per year I believe. The 5x5 restriction is more than adequate for 90% of indoor growers, but is ridiculous outdoors and is pretty limited for breeders. Though again, I doubt police will bother enforcing this. Do they enforce the 100 gallon rule on alcohol? No.

prop 19 had problems but I doubt the public is EVER going to instead pass a law that allows you to grow an unlimited supply and blow smoke rings in your children's face.

If you have kids, a vaporizers is a worthwhile investment.

 

[Noobian]

Dennis Peron like many in this community has some baggage, but he still should not be prosecuted for cannabis at all. That other stuff I have no comment on, but they need to leave the MJ out of it

 

[zenoonez]

A textile mill that doesn't make any noise? A distillery that doesn't dispense foul smelling odors? What kind of la-la-land are you living in? If your waiting for a no-regulation, no-tax, do-anything-you-want legalization you will be waiting the rest of your life. Currently, many people are pushing for child abuse and negligence for smoking tobacco in front of your children (which it should be).

Yea and power plants that don't spew mercury into the air... I know "la-la-land." If there is significant enough will there will be a way created. That being said I am all for reasonable land use meaning that if your house is next door to someone else's you have to abide by their desires as well and if your actions impair their pursuit of happiness or quality of life then your actions must be moderated. What I am not in favor of is people arbitrarily saying what you can do with your land when something is perfectly legal and not adversely affecting your neighbors. What if you don't have any neighbors? Does it still make sense to restrict something legal to only a 5X5 area? No. It doesn't. As to tobacco use in front of children I am not sure I am in favor of that but regardless there has been no compelling science done to suggest that marijuana is harmful like cigarettes are so again I don't see any reason why you should be prevented from smoking with your children in the space.

Popping pills or drinking booze around children does not expose them to intoxicants like marijuana and tobacco does, but i'd also reccomend that you not openly do it in front of your kids as it is setting a poor example. I also have a hard time beleiving that any self-respecting adult would campaign to smoke weed in front of their kids. If thats what your waiting for, again, you will be waiting the rest of your life. You have to compromise on some issues until people become more accustomed to marijuana in our society, because as it is, marijuana still holds a huge social stigma.

If the intoxicant is not harmful I don't see a compelling reason why it should be a punishable offense. Furthermore, I am not campaigning to be able to smoke your 10 year old out. However, I don't see a problem with a 16 year old smoking pot and much less even an 18 year old. What I am saying that the prop was poorly written in this regard. That it opens the door to DAs with poor judgment to prosecute good people for no other reason than that the letter of the law says they can.

I’m always amused by folks criticizing Prop 19 for being too vague, when Prop 215 was one of the most vaguely-worded initiatives ever passed by the people of California. Fourteen years later it is still unclear whether dispensary sales outside of collective participation is legal under Prop 215 and SB 420.

Wait did you just make my argument for me? If 215 had been more closely worded and explained in the actual proposition California's legal war wouldn't have needed to have taken place and we wouldn't still be seeing people getting busted while they were "legal."

While I understand the need of medical marijuana patients who may be parents to be able to medicate when their kids are around, I’m flustered by adults criticizing legalization on the grounds they might not be able to toke up around kids.

If you’re suffering from Lou Gehrig’s disease, sitting in your wheelchair medicating on the patio while your kids play soccer next door, I seriously doubt anybody will want to prosecute that, especially since under Prop 19, there would be no probable cause for a cop to investigate that pot smell wafting up from your back yard.

Patients are arrested and raided every day and you know that man. Is it smart for the DAs to pursue it? No but you can look back at the history under 215 and see that DAs aren't always that smart.

A textile mill that doesn't make any noise? A distillery that doesn't dispense foul smelling odors? What kind of la-la-land are you living in? If your waiting for a no-regulation, no-tax, do-anything-you-want legalization you will be waiting the rest of your life. Currently, many people are pushing for child abuse and negligence for smoking tobacco in front of your children (which it should be).

Yea and power plants that don't spew mercury into the air... I know "la-la-land." If there is significant enough will there will be a way created. That being said I am all for reasonable land use meaning that if your house is next door to someone else's you have to abide by their desires as well and if your actions impair their pursuit of happiness or quality of life then your actions must be moderated. What I am not in favor of is people arbitrarily saying what you can do with your land when something is perfectly legal and not adversely affecting your neighbors. What if you don't have any neighbors? Does it still make sense to restrict something legal to only a 5X5 area? No. It doesn't. As to tobacco use in front of children I am not sure I am in favor of that but regardless there has been no compelling science done to suggest that marijuana is harmful like cigarettes are so again I don't see any reason why you should be prevented from smoking with your children in the space.

Popping pills or drinking booze around children does not expose them to intoxicants like marijuana and tobacco does, but i'd also reccomend that you not openly do it in front of your kids as it is setting a poor example. I also have a hard time beleiving that any self-respecting adult would campaign to smoke weed in front of their kids. If thats what your waiting for, again, you will be waiting the rest of your life. You have to compromise on some issues until people become more accustomed to marijuana in our society, because as it is, marijuana still holds a huge social stigma.

If the intoxicant is not harmful I don't see a compelling reason why it should be a punishable offense. Furthermore, I am not campaigning to be able to smoke your 10 year old out. However, I don't see a problem with a 16 year old smoking pot and much less even an 18 year old. What I am saying that the prop was poorly written in this regard. That it opens the door to DAs with poor judgment to prosecute good people for no other reason than that the letter of the law says they can.

I’m always amused by folks criticizing Prop 19 for being too vague, when Prop 215 was one of the most vaguely-worded initiatives ever passed by the people of California. Fourteen years later it is still unclear whether dispensary sales outside of collective participation is legal under Prop 215 and SB 420.

Wait did you just make my argument for me? If 215 had been more closely worded and explained in the actual proposition California's legal war wouldn't have needed to have taken place and we wouldn't still be seeing people getting busted while they were "legal."

When an initiative is vague, one has to go to the purposes and intents to determine what the wording means. ”Space”, literally defined, is “the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur.” Minors are present in space, therefore Prop 19 makes all pot smoking anywhere in the universe illegal, right? Of course not, because the purpose of Prop 19 is to legalize most adult use of cannabis, not eliminate it. So how far would cops and courts go in defining “space” and “present”?

Again, the cops just arrest people and let the courts deal with it under the guidance they are given by DAs. DAs prosecute any and all cases they think they can win or serve their goals. Judges are at the mercy of the laws on the books and previous legal precedent.

Let’s check Prop 19′s Ballot Summary:
Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old.

And the Purposes:
Regulate cannabis like we do alcohol: Allow adults to possess and consume small amounts of cannabis.
Implement a legal regulatory framework to better police and prevent access to and consumption of cannabis by minors in California.

And the Intents:
This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement … relating to possession on school grounds … relating to minors … relating to contributing to the delinquency of a minor…

Since the Purposes tell us we’re treating it like alcohol, what are the “space” rules for alcohol? In bars, taverns, casinos, and restaurants where alcohol is served, either minors aren’t allowed in the building or they are limited to where they can be (like, in the restaurant but not the bar). At an outdoor festival, often there is a “beer garden” where minors can’t get in and adults wear a wristband.

Since the Purposes tell us we’re trying to keep kids from getting access to and consuming cannabis, it seems to me that “space” would have to be defined as a reasonable proximity to the cannabis that might allow access by minors.

Since the Intents tell us we’re not trying to allow adults to contribute to the delinquency of a minor, it seems to me that a minor would have to be “present” in your “space” within reasonable distance that you could contribute to their delinquency.

So the notion that “space” is going to mean the soccer field next door to your patio seems a stretch, as does the notion presented by another anti Prop 19 site claiming it could be the same apartment building.

But could it mean the same room or same house? Probably the same room. Maybe the same house. So you might have to go to your bedroom or out on the patio to smoke your joint if you have kids. That slight inconvenience, which most non-Prop 215 pot smokers are already doing (guess what, most of us don’t like to smoke pot in front of kids) is why you would support keeping 80% of California’s cannabis consumers subject to a misdemeanor?

We also have to address the reality of policing. How exactly are the cops going to bust you if you’re sitting in your living room chiefing a joint in the presence of your kids? Remember, after Prop 19, the sight and smell of marijuana, cannabis plants, and paraphernalia are no longer probable cause for a search and investigation.

Again, it is up to the DA to determine his interpretation of the law, to argue for that interpretation of the law and for the judges to decide whether his interpretation is correct or not. This is the legal negotiation of laws, it happens in our courts every day and it is how 215 has gotten to the point it has, by negotiation between opposite ideologies within the legal system. Whether a judge takes into account something not written in the ballot itself is up to the litigators involved and his own interpretation of his job ie his interpretation of jurisprudence.

 

[SCF]

They are still being exposed to intoxicants rather it is cancer causing or not. Find me one doctor that will tell you its healthy to ingest an combustible substance. Furthermore, why would you want or need to introduce any substance to your children? Do you all live in a studio apartment with no bathroom with your children and have no other available space to consume marijuana that isnt directly in front of your kids exposing them to your habit?

My habit, happens to be my medication, and i have no problem, EXPOSING and educating MY kids, the way I want too. And i strongly believe marijuana is a medicine, then i will be damned if i'm gonna hide like a criminal in my own home. But smoking in the same room as the kids with no ventilation.. no no in my book as well.

SCF

Again, it is up to the DA to determine his interpretation of the law, to argue for that interpretation of the law and for the judges to decide whether his interpretation is correct or not. This is the legal negotiation of laws, it happens in our courts every day and it is how 215 has gotten to the point it has, by negotiation between opposite ideologies within the legal system. Whether a judge takes into account something not written in the ballot itself is up to the litigators involved and his own interpretation of his job ie his interpretation of jurisprudence.

I think its the governments fault of why 215 is so screwed up. not the prop itself. I think its simple, plain, and easy to follow. but we have one missing ingredient. The federal compliance.

 

[vta]

zenoonez I respect your opinion mainly because you are able to some what articulate your point...shows a level of intelligence. That said...step back for a second and just change your view...for comparison sake. I bet most peeps on IC, including BHT, think there really shouldn't be any restrictions on cannabis. In fact I would bet all of us at one time or another has dreamed about total legalization and the social acceptance of cannabis. Some of us here are very active in trying to make that dream a reality. Talking to people and groups, writing government leaders, attending rally's and in the media. If you were to talk with these people, would be talking with some of the most educated on the subject. They would tell you that although that dream has a very real chance of materializing, it will not happen overnight. You will have a real hard time finding one that thinks it could happen overnight...with one new law. That kind of logic turns that dream into a fantasy. The majority of voters...do not smoke pot. And they never tried it either. They know what they have been told and what they have seen. You can break that down to them being told it's the Devil's weed along with watching Up in Smoke. They also believe it's the gateway drug. However, most voters also think that it's not as bad as the gov has said. The attitudes are changing. That is because the old crowd is the voter base and as they die off the younger ones take their place. Well the current blue hairs out there were subjected to the most anti cannabis propaganda of all generations. see below...

Brainwashed voters is what the gov wanted and its what they have. I don't know about you...but I don't want to wait another 20 years for all those crazy drivers to die off. I want change now...real change. I want the popo to leave us stoners alone. As restrictive as you may feel 19 was, it wasn't. 19 was a start....just a start for Christ's sake. It almost passed and if it had, the whole ball game would of changed. Any adult could legally carry around cannabis...with absolutely no hassle or wrong doing. It would of deleted the felony for growing cannabis....making it totally legal. It also would of made 215 better off. Finally MMJ clubs could be MMJ clubs. The world was watching this prop...I have posted many articles from around the world here on IC. South American leaders meet to discuss 19....about cannabis and the American drug laws they must follow. After all, in 61 good old Anslinger made the UN expand US drug policy to all nations, thus making cannabis illegal world wide.

19 was big news. It would of made California, California's economy is the largest of any state in the US, and is the eighth largest economy in the world the home to the most liberal cannabis laws in the world.

That said...you have an issue with 19 not going far enough. You want more. 19 simply did not authorize smoking around kids....it didn't create ANY new law with that respect. Your not thinking about think correctly. Remember the blue hairs from earlier? Imagine the Anti 19 camps ammo if 19 CREATED a new law authorizing the use around children. Yeah...that would fly. I am stunned when people throw this argument out there. You see...your late to this. This has been debated a hundred times already.

19 was a shot at legalization. Like any prop, in order for it to pass it needs to appease the voters. The majority of whom, do not smoke cannabis. One of the big things that helped was the taxing and regulating of it. You see, that is way we control something, to take it away from organized crime. I want to be able to go down to where I buy my beer and buy some bud. I want to make sure that bud was regulated...it was grown at a KNOWN facility that undergoes health inspections and such. Dream to reality...not fantasy. If I have 10 acres...I can't just start growing tobacco all over it. Same thing with other crops. 25 square feet is plenty for the average grower...PLENTY. Need more? No problem...pay a $100 and get a fuking card. It's not that hard. And it's not that big of a deal...not at all...just a lame excuse!

Remember, people prosper when they think of others. In this case..all our cannabis brothers that suffer from unjust laws the world over. 19 was big...it would of brought change.



19 was just a step. An opening of the door.

 

[Block2TheFuture]

Funny how people jumped all over peron's analysis of 19 and acted like he was some saint. Peron is a fucking tweeker who lets young homeless homosexual men live with him in exchange for meth fueled gay sex. I cant believe anyone takes this guy seriously. He is a total piece of shit.

Peron is most definitely a shady character, but as long as pot is part of the deal nobody around here seems to investigate anything past the surface.

 

[zenoonez]

vta I totally understand what you are saying and I sympathize with you. I was debating this before the vote on 19 I just don't like it when people make it out like anyone who didn't like 19 is some baby killing nazi who deserves to go to jail for disagreeing with signing rights away that we haven't even gotten back yet. My point is that in California a prop can only be changed by another prop or it being unconstitutional so if a prop passes it needs to be a good one because it isn't just going to be modified at some whim.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

vta I totally understand what you are saying and I sympathize with you. I was debating this before the vote on 19 I just don't like it when people make it out like anyone who didn't like 19 is some baby killing nazi who deserves to go to jail for disagreeing with signing rights away that we haven't even gotten back yet. My point is that in California a prop can only be changed by another prop or it being unconstitutional so if a prop passes it needs to be a good one because it isn't just going to be modified at some whim.

I didnt compare you to baby killing nazis. I compared you to those spoiled little girls on that MTV show "my super sweet 16" where they throw a hissy-fit because insted of getting the black bmw 760i they got a silver e-class mercedes benz.

We SHOULD be happy that someone was willing to step up and drop a few million to progress marijuana laws. If the 2012 prop was so sure to pass, why couldnt we pass 19 and work on a prop that would allow more leniancy?

Like VTA said, the prohibition of marijuana has been ingrained into the older generation. Its going to take alot of time and work to go from reefer-madness to social acceptance. So dont expect the next prop to give you every wish and whim you feel you deserve. Its compromise, cooperation and patience to get to the level we feel legalization needs to be at...

 

[SCF]

I didnt compare you to baby killing nazis. I compared you to those spoiled little girls on that MTV show "my super sweet 16" where they throw a hissy-fit because insted of getting the black bmw 760i they got a silver e-class mercedes benz.

We SHOULD be happy that someone was willing to step up and drop a few million to progress marijuana laws. If the 2012 prop was so sure to pass, why couldnt we pass 19 and work on a prop that would allow more leniancy?

Like VTA said, the prohibition of marijuana has been ingrained into the older generation. Its going to take alot of time and work to go from reefer-madness to social acceptance. So dont expect the next prop to give you every wish and whim you feel you deserve. Its compromise, cooperation and patience to get to the level we feel legalization needs to be at...

LMAO sorry i about spit out my drink reading your first paragraph. Well said.

This generation gap, im in the middle, between the ones who seen weed go from legal to illegal, to those who know nothing but Medicla cannabis, and its basically is legal ( in california and other medical states.) to those in between, who only lived a Illegal life, with marijuana.

I like the MTV analogy LOL.

 

[Hydrosun]

They are still being exposed to intoxicants rather it is cancer causing or not. Find me one doctor that will tell you its healthy to ingest an combustible substance. Furthermore, why would you want or need to introduce any substance to your children? Do you all live in a studio apartment with no bathroom with your children and have no other available space to consume marijuana that isnt directly in front of your kids exposing them to your habit?

Why would a man ever show effection to his wife in front of his kids?

How could he expose them to human male carnal / romantic feelings?

Why would you ever allow a black through the front door where your kids live? Why expose them to lower races?

Why would you ever allow a gay person around your kids, after all like blacks they are defective in gods / society's eyes (thankfully not so true anymore)?

Why would you ever expose your children to a chiristian church, jewish temple, mosluem mosk, or mormon silly center? Isn't exposing children to this type of NONSENSE BRAINWASHING worse then them seeing their father, mother, uncle, or cousin smoking a J.

Why would ANYONE on a weed sight give 2 SHITS about second hand MJ smoke around ANYONE; IF it is perfectly legal to have HIGHLY CANCEROUS 2nd hand cig smoke around?

But maybe the real question should be: WHY THE FUCK DO YOU CARE WHAT YOUR NEIGHBORS DO IN FRONT OF THEIR CHILDREN?

Why do you feel you have ANY say on how OTHERS raise THEIR children?

I'm in the habit of a lot of things, smoking weed, wearing jeans, drinking diet coke, eating not so healthy, abstaining from ALL religion. Which of these habits should YOUR police protect MY children from?

Do I now have to use a bicycle helmet as to NOT expose my children to my preferred helmet free bike riding?

Does this community still believe in personal liberties?



PS. To answer your questions. Individuals may choose to EXPOSE their children to MJ because they don't like how the fucking government and the rest of society lie and demonize MJ and they BELIEVE hiding from their kids because of the IMMORAL laws of others is COWARDLY and an abdication of their parenteral obligation to help their children see the REAL world (not just the white washed BS spewed by public schools and other brainwashing campaigns).

 

[subrob]

BHT holding it down brother! these people who voted no should be held responsible for thier views..the ones who actively campaigned against it...well..those scumbags will get thiers in the end...i obviously cant help you out, i dont have the patience to deal w people like that...greedy or stupid...dems da choices..either way...fuck em...keep it going bro...

 

[zenoonez]

BHT holding it down brother! these people who voted no should be held responsible for thier views..the ones who actively campaigned against it...well..those scumbags will get thiers in the end...i obviously cant help you out, i dont have the patience to deal w people like that...greedy or stupid...dems da choices..either way...fuck em...keep it going bro...

Oh yes hold people who don't agree with you "responsible" for having their own opinions. Thats respectable.