I want to try that Homer Simpson ganja!!!
puff puff. Eeear.
D'oh!
I want to try that Homer Simpson ganja!!!
puff puff. Eeear.
D'oh!
You cannot undo the damage and carnage that prohibition has unmercilessly caused. The only comparable events in human history are the Spanish Inquisition and the massacres in Germany, Russia and Laos.
The MSM and governments perpetuate the propaganda concerning cannabis.
The only way to realize a normal environment concerning cannabis will be the constant and determined efforts of intelligent people. These efforts must be directed at education and realization that the actions of government and business have created a human tragedy.
The people involved in this scam must be recognized for who they really are and for the human suffering they have created.
We must expose the lies and greedy intentions of these criminals. Oh yeah, you heard that right. Those that created and perpetuate prohibition are the real criminals, not the user of cannabis. Let's get that straight right now!
So does anyone think we will get a better bill on the table if this one passes, or is this one just going to be amended? (in your opinion)
I just hope we can keep in mind that this is a "catch 22" for medical and recreational smokers. If its legal, than that could discredit the efforts of the medical movement and legal patients. Also, we must remember that cigarettes are legal and controlled by "big tobacco," not to mention all the toxic shit they add to cigarettes. Does anyone think that "big cannabis" would be any different..? I mean, if they get bugs, do you think they care what they put on the plants to kill the bugs and what we end up smoking? Marlboro "Greens" won't be found in my stash!
Imagine if all drugs were legal. What would all the gangs of LA do? How would they make money? Would turf wars continue?
Would Lee Baca have a job left todo?
Well I dont agree. I dont think feds will follow California that quickly. Other states may start proposing legalization in this next decade but you can be sure the US federal government is not going to legalize cannabis before the other states. This will not happen in the next decade.Yes, if prop 19 passes.
What are you even talking about? Did you read what I wrote? We dont give aid to all countries, but we give aid to a lot. Our restrictions with that aid is you cannot sell/import/grow drugs. The other countries, our federal government influences through UN and other foreign policies. As long as federal government is banning cannabis, a good fraction if not the majority will continue to ban it as well.World doesn't like the two faced United States already. If prop 19 passes, this is going to give the world a lot of leg to stand on.
I'm not talking about the Jack Hearer prop. First off, if this doesn't pass, Richard Lee will know why and he will get it to pass next year. Second, there may or may not be severe competition next ballot. I know of someone with lots of money that is considering a new prop all because of Richard Lee. He hated prop19 so much and Richard Lee for the crap he is trying to pull, it inspired him to consider this. Just depends on how prop19 turns out in November.I believe it's completely irrational to wait for another prop. If you are talking about this "better, future prop in 2012", I believe you are talking about the Jack Hearer prop. Do you know that one has been trying to make it on the ballot for about 30 years? Why would it make it on the ballot in 2012?
Spoken like someone who is in the Marijuana business. Am I correct?
Thanks for your contribution to this debate.
Absolutely not fact, it is conjecture. You realize nobody will ever take you seriously with this kind of stupid lie right?
Jed
Well I dont agree. I dont think feds will follow California that quickly. Other states may start proposing legalization in this next decade but you can be sure the US federal government is not going to legalize cannabis before the other states. This will not happen in the next decade.
The Obama administration's public hesitation towards marijuana legalization is not only understandable but, considering the impact of the current economic legislation and programs the administration is endorsing, the most pragmatic and efficient route for the moment. Legalization and decriminalization advocates should focus efforts on state-wide legalization, not nation-wide. If states are challenged in lawsuits, than the Supreme Court will be forced to rule on whether legislation criminalizing marijuana should be struck down. This is preferable to the executive putting forward a proposal to legalize marijuana from the top down. When Obama tells the country that marijuana legalization is not the path he chooses for America, he means to say that the path must first be drawn by us.
Several respected people at The Standford Progressive disagree with you. Take a look: https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=190720
Basically, some believe the only way to nation wide, is through Prop's like Prop19. Look at this:
Prop 19 could end up in the Supreme Court. Which from there could strike down and end prohibition nation wide. This is a VERY possible outcome.
Well I dont agree. I dont think feds will follow California that quickly. Other states may start proposing legalization in this next decade but you can be sure the US federal government is not going to legalize cannabis before the other states. This will not happen in the next decade.
Jed do you really see Obama losing in '12 and the Republicans taking control of Congress in November.Who do you see the republicans backing in 2012 Romney,Huckaby,Jeb Bush.The worst thing I see happening is losing the Senate.I feel the majority of prop 19 voters would not vote for Whitman,Dennis or Fiorina.
I don't know Rick... Obama hung his hat, and our $$$ on the obamacare thing and something like 20 states are fighting it. I haven't looked at public opinion polls recently but I can't imagine things are looking up for him. I doubt I will ever vote republican or democratic again. I am so adamantly against 2-party politics these days that I think I will just be voting for independents from here on out. Unfortunately, most people see that as a wasted vote and since those people either feel the need to "pick the winner" or the lesser of only 2 evils, I don't see a lot of people on my coattails with that one. Here at IC more share that thought pattern than most places I'm sure. I really don't know what will happen but I can imagine that Obama is sweating right now. In reference to what I said above, I don't think it is smart to take the chance when there is something that is this good right now. Note I didn't say perfect, but I do really think this is a very good compromise and thus actually doable when you think about the varied opinions throughout.
Party politics have been so prolific in the past few years that more people will be wanting what I want (abolishment of the 2 parties), but it will have to get worse before it gets better I think. As for Congress it will be a changing of the guard most likely as it often is. Blue team has been fumbling a lot lately and the red team just may get first and 10 come November. Not that that is bad... it is just the same with a different jersey. Sorry about the football metaphor... I'm stressing over my fantasy team right now!!!
Jed
Several respected people at The Standford Progressive disagree with you. Take a look: https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=190720
Basically, some believe the only way to nation wide, is through Prop's like Prop19. Look at this:
Prop 19 could end up in the Supreme Court. Which from there could strike down and end prohibition nation wide. This is a VERY possible outcome.
I agree.. And there is still pressure on the feds. We just won Kelley, and the feds said medical growers are free under state law, which for California is currently "unlimited" for anyone over the age of 18 that wants it. And I dont remember seeing any clauses about smoking outside on your property or when minors are home. I haven't seen a lawsuit from the feds yet; but they're pissed.complete federal legalization is the goal, but there are other worthwhile steps that aren't full legalization
there is activity in the congressional halls, slow and uncertain, but activity none the less
rescheduling is a possibility, some degree of federal decriminalization is a possibility
and as mentioned, the courts could play a hand here
but vote down 19, there is less pressure for federal change
if there is no pressure on the federal government, it will not change, that you can take to the bank so to speak
Frozenguy,
SO much is going to be changing between now and 2012 from a governmental standpoint. the biggest of which is Obama will likely be gone and in current elections we are probably looking at a Republican leaning house and maybe even the senate. Right now we have a pro-MMJ President. Not outwardly so of course, but the first in US history that has said OK to letting anything slide. The feds could have campaigned against this but they didn't. Pharma, cotton, and alcohol could too but they didn't. So you think they may be praying for this to fail so they can better prepare for battle the next time around? What if we end up with a conservative president in two years who tries to drop the axe on all of this AND MMJ? Wouldn't 2 years of legalization in the system make it harder for a new president to come in and muck it all up?
What about the prop itself? I don't know what magic words you are waiting for, but are they the magic words that the 60% or so of non-using Californians are waiting for? Maybe you want a bigger garden, which in the eyes of the non-users makes it easy for you to sell on the streets. Are you wanting more than an ounce carry limit? Non-users see this as intent to sell.
This prop is about compromise and it gives many people some sort of benefit... it gives money to the state, promotes tourism, and provides jobs. It deals a big blow to gangs and cartels, and cuts down on violence. It allows every Californian the right to posses, use, and cultivate... The ultimate "overgrow the government" move. It provides protection from random urine tests at work. It removes a huge burden from our legal system and jails. It will promote safer product and lower likelihood of child use through regulation. It allows for hemp production. All the while MMJ is unaffected. These benefits touch lots of peoples lives. I'm not sure what you would change but I see this as a very balanced proposal that suites the masses even if it doesn't suit the growers completely or appeal to the hippie pipe dream we should have been living 50 years ago.
With the federal government turning tide and the huge blow a no on this prop would be to the movement in general, I think it is very unlikely that Cali will get another shot at this in the near future. ESPECIALLY if they try to make it a more liberal prop the next time around since the bulk of the no voters are prohibitionist who don't use.
I think I see where you are coming from, but there is a lot more to it than Richard Lee writing a check and everyone skipping to the ballot box. If the next prop does make it to the ballot, and if it is less liberal than this prop, you can bet that many smokers will vote on whatever it is just to have something, and if it gets that far it may pass but will be less than what we are looking at now. If it is more liberal than this, you can bet the conservatives will be up in arms and they will do whatever it takes to win over those on the fence. Right now I see this as the smokers like yourself who will be the swing vote toward no and a victory for the prohibitionists. Well... I think it is going to pass regardless of no-vote smokers, but if not I see that as it's demise.
If you are pinning huge pot factories and taxed/regulated medical grows to 19, don't be a fool. those things are going to be pushed regardless and will only be more prevalent over the next two years if this doesn't pass since Cali is looking for a way to better control things.
Jed
No worries friend I'm good with the rep... rep doesn't matter anyways. I'm pretty sure I don't get any free beans when I hit 1000 or anything!PS: On post #213, one of zen's, I hit "no i dont find it helpful" but didn't mean to so disregard that; I missed the multiquote button.
I don't want to argue with you. I know now that I cannot change your mind or any others.
I had formulated a quick response that was intellectual and rational... but I decided it would be a waste of my time.
You win. Good luck and may you reap what you sow... the good and the bad. All of you have successfully driven me from this conversation, go on repeating to each other the same stuff and believing the same thing. Your opinions are not moving...
Originally Posted by Mr Celsius
Unfortunately the "NO" side really doesn't have legal precedent to our concerns.
Please cite legal precedent to my concerns (i'm not going to debate these topics, i just want legal facts to counter them):
I believe Mexican cartels will have more availability to production resources for export into the rest of the country.
I believe that there will be a few large producers of the majority of marijuana in california. IE walmart for weed. This is not a greed base, I have a background in agriculture and there are major concerns to large ag-business.
The taxation will not be the miracle cure for californias debt. I feel that most want to pass this law for this reason and have overlooked important user rights.
Please cite precedent and I'll stfu. I don't think you can. Its speculation, hence a debate.