ICMAG Administration endorses The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

[mullray]

room size limit argument not good. now commercial grower not legal in any size room but he do not want it legal. it like commercial grower just want to keep price high for profit and look for anything wrong with law to make fake argument.

It's pretty clear there are greedy commercial growers on this thread trying to do their best to come up with flawed arguments to not support Prop 19. The only argument they haven't tabled is that it'll cut into their capitalist bottom line. So on the one hand they're using the capitalist attack while being capitalists under attack by falling prices that will only fall more with prop 19. I guess if I was DEA I'd also be here arguing against prop 19 so maybe that's worth filing in deconstructing what makes sense and what doesn't. All I've heard from those arguing against Prop 19 is self interested selfish corpo capitalist agendas thinly disguised as anti establishment rhetoric. Vote yes to prop 19 or vote yes to the continuation of prohibition.... That simple!

 

[ArcticBlast]

anyone have a link to the text of this bill or whatever? i'd like to read it and find out what the hell you guys have been talking about

ArcticBlast

 

[hotmellons]

in hawaii sell to tourist for 20 dolar gram. not a full gram. were ever there tourist that price. commercial grow just sell to tourist

 

[nomaad]

These poor countries and their governments had no-where else to get a loan from so they had to comply or go broke.....

Gypsy:

I think you assessment of how the IMF (and the World Bank, run, under Bush by uberhawk Paul Wolfawitz) operate is a bit idealistic. They do not lend money to countries to keep them from going broke, feed the populations, educate them, heal them. They lend countries money so that huge western engineering companies can come in and build highways, dams and other infrastructure projects that the country does not need (especially not before the staving are fed and the sick are healed- strangely, the IMF dollars build woefully few schools and hospitals)...

There is an effect of enriching a certain class within these countries, but IMF money rarely trickles down to the masses.

And here is the kicker: these countries become more "broke" by IMF loans because the economies of these countries is not increased to the point of being able to handle the crippling interest they now must pay to the IMF and World Bank. The SINGLE BIGGEST PROBLEM facing developing countries is the massive interest the now have to pay to the IMF/WB.

When interest alone (forget about paying back the principal) can reach 80-90% of a country's GDP, you start running into way worse problems than the IMF.

The way this money lending scheme is set up is almost exactly like the way the mafia lends out money. You're lucky if you can keep up with "the vig." Usually, the borrower winds up giving away the store.

My point here actually has nothing to do with the legalization of cannabis. I'm just trying to clarify that the IMF is bad news to begin with. The stipulations about cannabis are the least of the worries concerning those who do business with the IMF.

These countries should not be doing business with the mob and certainly not building bridges and highways before the country even has a developed industry that might use them to gain better economic status.

It has been proven (and honored by the Nobel committee with a prize in economics) that hand to hand micro-loans, directly to people in need is hundreds of times more efficient at raising the quality of life in developing countries as massive IMF loans, with horrendous conditions and crippling interest made to generally corrupt governments.

We should be as passionate about abolishing the IMF and World Bank as we are about ending marijuana prohibition.

 

[JJScorpio]

anyone have a link to the text of this bill or whatever? i'd like to read it and find out what the hell you guys have been talking about

ArcticBlast

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=182592

 

[hotmellons]

usa have many way to control other country. money first than restrict trade and pressure other country to restrict trade, then military come if money not work

 

[THE PABLOS]

you guys are such extremist nutballs!

go fight your generic unrealistic war on taxation on your own time, the rest of the world understands that things sold on the market are always taxed and regulated.

wtf is with this notion that MJ will be the posterchild issue for your extremist views on taxes, the point of this bill is more than taxing and regulating, dont like it, grow your own stuff in your room at home and let the rest of the general population use weed without getting their balls busted. it's inevitable if we want any form of legalization.

mooching off the med system is stupid. end it.

No...it's an invitation to government to take over the home market...which will eventually include making home grows illicit....to meet their goals. I really do not think general public ( let alone the Christian Right ) wants to see dope plants being grown in many of its back yards. There will be discontent....and they will ask the government to step in and make them go away....that will be LEOs entry. More arrest....more jail.....this will not go away.

You could argue then...."well go indoors".....yet the cheap cost of commercially grown product will not make it cost effective. You will end up with their product.

Maybe a pessimistic view on my part. I've learned that in situations of importance...like this one....it is better to look at what can go wrong....rather than thinking all will be well and be amended later.

As Californians will have to be on the front line (in now time).....and dealing with these potential losses to what we already have (as in...we have a med mar system that is already in battled with ? marks).....I'll stick to looking at worse case scenarios. All other states (and countries I guess) will years later....get the manicured version of the legalization product....after using us as guinea pigs to test the waters.

You really think I'm a nut? I just don't think this Bill is going to open the right doors....and may well close others.

 

[JackTheGrower]

There are some things everyone should understand about Prop 19.

First this is not Legalization this is Decriminalization and is subject to Legislative repeal at any time and for any reason.

Second this does not give rights to individuals to Grow Cannabis it allows Cannabis to be grown on a single property under the control of the Property owner and this is subject to Zoning ordnances because Prop 19 specifically grants the rights to local Governments to do so.

Third and I can't believe no one has noticed, there is a 25 sq ft rule but plants grow in three dimensions. It is possible that a county could enact an ordnance that plants can be no taller than a foot.

Fourth If you rent your landlord can tell you no.
If there are more than one Adult in the house you can only have ONE 25 sq garden.

This is not Freedom from my point of view.

Be aware that we are already to the point of political power to actually Legalize here and that voting on a true legalization Initiative such as Jack Herer's Initiative is Very Doable in 2012.

We do not have to accept the first deal we are offered. Negotiate.
Choose wisely. The Quick jump to Industry may not be what California Cannabis Culture needs.

Imagine a Free Cannabis State. A State where People are allowed to grow and not just property owners.

I don't like Prop 19.

 

[nomaad]

What is pretty obvious as you go through this thread is that the biggest detractors are all commercial growers themselves. Someone who has 20 10' plants in their back yard shoukd really have the wherewithal to save up the 200k for the new growing license. You can NOT assume an anti-commercialization with any amount of credibility with that standpoint. 20 big plants like that... gotta be better than 30 #s there. If you are supplying @ $20 a sack (what can be assumed from your "compassionate" rates) that 2 month harvest would net you 30*$3.2k = $90k 6 times a year... anyone housing $300k a year is 100% commercial. I wish my back yard could be a goldmine too.

The problem many people see is not the cost of the license, but the limitation of the amount of licenses granted. In Oakland, the four permits granted were granted to the most politically connected growers in the city. $211K is nothing to them.

on the second part in bold: your math is way off. First of all, anybody growing those 20x10' plants in their yard spends the entire year working and prepping for that single grow. So lets call it 40lbs a year. Growers of this scale are LUCKY to get more than $2500/lb. I have never heard of a grower of this scale or bigger selling 20-sacks...

so now we are talking about $100,000 once a year. Minus operating costs. Rent and utilities alone brings the profit down to $80K. Start figuring in the rest of the costs and we're talking about much more modest incomes than your post suggests. Not to mention the fact that the "2 month" harvest in your calculations is really a 6 month harvest. With light deprivation techniques and an expensive greenhouse, you could also pull down 2 or three more MUCH smaller harvests. There is only one summer time.

Even if you double the yield the numbers just are not nearly as sexy as you'd like to believe.

I'm just barely going to vote for this thing, BUT those who are gung-ho about it should start using more cogent cost and profit analysis to back up their arguments. Generally, trhe numbers being flung about could be shot down by my 6 year old.

 

[gaiusmarius]

Gypsy:

I think you assessment of how the IMF (and the World Bank, run, under Bush by uberhawk Paul Wolfawitz) operate is a bit idealistic. They do not lend money to countries to keep them from going broke, feed the populations, educate them, heal them. They lend countries money so that huge western engineering companies can come in and build highways, dams and other infrastructure projects that the country does not need (especially not before the staving are fed and the sick are healed- strangely, the IMF dollars build woefully few schools and hospitals)...

There is an effect of enriching a certain class within these countries, but IMF money rarely trickles down to the masses.

And here is the kicker: these countries become more "broke" by IMF loans because the economies of these countries is not increased to the point of being able to handle the crippling interest they now must pay to the IMF and World Bank. The SINGLE BIGGEST PROBLEM facing developing countries is the massive interest the now have to pay to the IMF/WB.

When interest alone (forget about paying back the principal) can reach 80-90% of a country's GDP, you start running into way worse problems than the IMF.

The way this money lending scheme is set up is almost exactly like the way the mafia lends out money. You're lucky if you can keep up with "the vig." Usually, the borrower winds up giving away the store.

My point here actually has nothing to do with the legalization of cannabis. I'm just trying to clarify that the IMF is bad news to begin with. The stipulations about cannabis are the least of the worries concerning those who do business with the IMF.

These countries should not be doing business with the mob and certainly not building bridges and highways before the country even has a developed industry that might use them to gain better economic status.

It has been proven (and honored by the Nobel committee with a prize in economics) that hand to hand micro-loans, directly to people in need is hundreds of times more efficient at raising the quality of life in developing countries as massive IMF loans, with horrendous conditions and crippling interest made to generally corrupt governments.

We should be as passionate about abolishing the IMF and World Bank as we are about ending marijuana prohibition.

brilliant post, the imf and the world bank are about buying of a countries officials with massive loans and making said officials agree to shit that's totally against their own national interests. the money disappears and does no good for 99% of the population, but now all the national resources are in hock for ever to foreign banks and corporations.

if you research this subject you will quickly see that this is just the modern way to exploit the third world, in guise of humanitarianism and saving the planet.

 

[Tom Hill]

It's a pleasure to see the Administration of this site come forward on this issue. I am a California native and long time Nor/Cal grower and mark me down for a fat YES on prop 19 come November. Great to see my peers in guys like Humboldtlocal have come forward as well.

For those worried about us poor (I can't rub two nickles together currently for eg lol) Nor/Cal growers and what will happen to us if this passes, don't be. The old-timers are a crafty bunch as a whole and always will be.

There are exceptions and I can appreciate their stance, but,,, It seems to be mostly unimaginative newcomers who are worried about making their nut coming out against this. To those of you who are thinking of voting no,,, just look who you are officially aligning yourselves with, and wise-up. -T

 

[nomaad]

Third and I can't believe no one has noticed, there is a 25 sq ft rule but plants grow in three dimensions. It is possible that a county could enact an ordnance that plants can be no taller than a foot.

not sure about 19, but I know that some county ordinances that set a square footage limit (Sonoma, for example) are talking about square footage of canopy. So... no multiple tiers, etc.

 

[ArcticBlast]

wow i wish something like this would get passed in my state..

anyone against this needs a reality check! you've been in california too long! come to my state and see what its like for the rest of us

ArcticBlast

 

[nomaad]

It's a pleasure to see the Administration of this site come forward on this issue. I am a California native and long time Nor/Cal grower and mark me down for a fat YES on prop 19 come November. Great to see my peers in guys like Humboldt Local have come forward as well.

For those worried about us poor (I can't rub two nickles together currently for eg) Nor/Cal growers and what will happen to us if this passes, don't be. The old-timers are a crafty bunch as a whole and always will be.

I hope some of us newbs are as crafty. I think I'll be able to make a living in whatever environment I find myself. But I just can't call my yes vote a "fat" one. I have many reservations about the bill, but consider its passage to be progress in a macro sense.

 

[mullray]

Gypsy:

I think you assessment of how the IMF (and the World Bank, run, under Bush by uberhawk Paul Wolfawitz) operate is a bit idealistic. They do not lend money to countries to keep them from going broke, feed the populations, educate them, heal them. They lend countries money so that huge western engineering companies can come in and build highways, dams and other infrastructure projects that the country does not need (especially not before the staving are fed and the sick are healed- strangely, the IMF dollars build woefully few schools and hospitals)...

There is an effect of enriching a certain class within these countries, but IMF money rarely trickles down to the masses.

And here is the kicker: these countries become more "broke" by IMF loans because the economies of these countries is not increased to the point of being able to handle the crippling interest they now must pay to the IMF and World Bank. The SINGLE BIGGEST PROBLEM facing developing countries is the massive interest the now have to pay to the IMF/WB.

When interest alone (forget about paying back the principal) can reach 80-90% of a country's GDP, you start running into way worse problems than the IMF.

The way this money lending scheme is set up is almost exactly like the way the mafia lends out money. You're lucky if you can keep up with "the vig." Usually, the borrower winds up giving away the store.

My point here actually has nothing to do with the legalization of cannabis. I'm just trying to clarify that the IMF is bad news to begin with. The stipulations about cannabis are the least of the worries concerning those who do business with the IMF.

These countries should not be doing business with the mob and certainly not building bridges and highways before the country even has a developed industry that might use them to gain better economic status.

It has been proven (and honored by the Nobel committee with a prize in economics) that hand to hand micro-loans, directly to people in need is hundreds of times more efficient at raising the quality of life in developing countries as massive IMF loans, with horrendous conditions and crippling interest made to generally corrupt governments.

We should be as passionate about abolishing the IMF and World Bank as we are about ending marijuana prohibition.

Yep the IMF sucks. Funny though how when you're actually on the ground in developing nations (I've been visiting SE Asia for over 20 years ) you see just how far these countries have come with the help of the IMF and other help (namely the Chinese business interests in these countries).

Here's a few links to the IMF - your paranoid spin, comparing them to the mob, isn't supported at all by the way they operate.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/G-7+to+waive+all+official+loans+to+poor+nations-a054973522

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N21114702.htm

http://www.innercitypress.com/imf1conditionspak081009.html

Scan around you'll find plenty of more good info on how the IMF waive loans or apply flexible terms to the loans. Now ask yourself what the mob would do if you couldn't pay them back 10K you borrowed.

BTW - I agree the IMF have nothing to do with this debate.

 

[nomaad]

Can't argue with owing more than half of the country's GDP in interest. Instead of breaking your legs, they own your vote at the UN. One way or another, predatory lending results in loss of sovereignty.

I'll read the articles you link to.

 

[poking smot]

There are some things everyone should understand about Prop 19.

First this is not Legalization this is Decriminalization and is subject to Legislative repeal at any time and for any reason.

Second this does not give rights to individuals to Grow Cannabis it allows Cannabis to be grown on a single property under the control of the Property owner and this is subject to Zoning ordnances because Prop 19 specifically grants the rights to local Governments to do so.

Third and I can't believe no one has noticed, there is a 25 sq ft rule but plants grow in three dimensions. It is possible that a county could enact an ordnance that plants can be no taller than a foot.

Fourth If you rent your landlord can tell you no.
If there are more than one Adult in the house you can only have ONE 25 sq garden.

This is not Freedom from my point of view.

Be aware that we are already to the point of political power to actually Legalize here and that voting on a true legalization Initiative such as Jack Herer's Initiative is Very Doable in 2012.

We do not have to accept the first deal we are offered. Negotiate.
Choose wisely. The Quick jump to Industry may not be what California Cannabis Culture needs.

Imagine a Free Cannabis State. A State where People are allowed to grow and not just property owners.

I don't like Prop 19.

I like your thinking.

 

[mullray]

Can't argue with owing more than half of the country's GDP in interest. Instead of breaking your legs, they own your vote at the UN. One way or another, predatory lending results in loss of sovereignty.

I'll read the articles you link to.

Yeah but Nomad when you're a Hmong kid who digs up US B52 bombs for $20USD of scrap metal the IMF are looking pretty good. It's all very well and good for us spoiled westerners to judge the IMF but last time I checked Hmong kids weren't getting blown up at nearly the rates they were trying to defuse US bombs with hammers and chisels and then burning out the fuel (2 stages of death - if the detonator doesn't blow the fuel may). Northern Lao now has roads and people in Cambodia, Lao, and Vietnam are far better off. Sure, there's corruption and a lot of the money is pilfered by corrupt governments but the IMF aren't to blame for this. Anyway again - the IMF have nothing to do with Prop 19 and my guess is they wouldn't support it.

 

[JJScorpio]

It's a pleasure to see the Administration of this site come forward on this issue. I am a California native and long time Nor/Cal grower and mark me down for a fat YES on prop 19 come November. Great to see my peers in guys like Humboldtlocal have come forward as well.

For those worried about us poor (I can't rub two nickles together currently for eg lol) Nor/Cal growers and what will happen to us if this passes, don't be. The old-timers are a crafty bunch as a whole and always will be.

There are exceptions and I can appreciate their stance, but,,, It seems to be mostly unimaginative newcomers who are worried about making their nut coming out against this. To those of you who are thinking of voting no,,, just look who you are officially aligning yourselves with, and wise-up. -T

Thx for chiming in Tom. I've been curious to what your stance was. I guess I shouldn't have been.....

 

[nomaad]

Yeah. As I thought.

Both the articles about Haiti and Pakistan reveal the IMF's public relations efforts. Nothing more. On the one hand, showing compassion to Haiti is expected since the disaster. Haiti can't repay it's debt anyway... so its a no brainer. In regard to Pakistan, ANYTHING the US can do their to keep from losing control of the country's military dictatorship is being done.

I'd be more convinced that there was something to your point if you were to provide me with detailed analysis of where IMF money is spent and what is lost to these nations because of the debt and interest burdens incurred. Two of three articles were puff peices. I am still analyzing the third.

Scan around you'll find plenty of more good info on how the IMF waive loans or apply flexible terms to the loans. Now ask yourself what the mob would do if you couldn't pay them back 10K you borrowed.

Granted, I may have applied a bit too much hyperbole in comparing the IMF to the mafia, but only a bit. The IMF uses these negotiations to manipulate, often as political leverage in the UN. Look at some of the insignificant countries who have helped pass resolutions for recent wars and block resolutions that might censure (for example) Israeli demolition of Palestinian homes, and THEN look into the state of their international debt.

I have read extensively about IMF and World Bank practices over the last 12 years. Books, studies, defenses. The light reading you suggest in no way convinces me to change my opinion. And a good argument always has that potential with me. My mind and heart are open to 180s when the evidence is there.