Yeah vote no and see where that gets you. But of course they'll offer a better deal.
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
ICMAG Administration endorses The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010
- Thread starter JJScorpio
- Start date
- Status
Yeah vote no and see where that gets you. But of course they'll offer a better deal.
the most important point you make is that this discussion is not meant for this venue. happy to continue it elsewhere.
binaryfission
Member
the bill was written as it were to keep rivals from fighting it. People have been talking about this bill as law since the beginning of the year. I can;t find the quote but Sam CLyburn said in February no one was putting up the money to stop it. This is because of the way the legislation is written. Politics is about compromise.
wrong felons can vote. http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=83ad3398e2b13768f804ad8026d0bf1b
exactly, the war on drugs in the governments unregulated taxation of us. WE need to regulate them. This bill does that, by allowing for local municipalities to fine tune the bill. Oakland is going forward with it own "version" of the bill, as is berkely, and some other NorCal areas.
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
C'MON MAN.Lastly, think about the effects of Prop 215 and other initiatives. Measure Z in Oakland or Seattle making marijuana interdiction the lowest priority for police. Think about the law suits that will be fought over this new bill and what further victories we will have. This bill will have far more wide reaching implications, in California, than most people can imagine.
How long will it be before Nevada wants in on that Tax Money?? High people don't typically fight, yell, piss in public, or puke on themselves with the frequency of drinkers.
How long before someone in Colorado wants to have a "Warehouse-o-Weed" and they stick their neck out?
This bill is going to snowball and press our movement forward into the next century.
gr8fulbud
Member
Lead, follow, or get out of the way!
Lead, follow, or get out of the way!
Back in the day (1972) many of us thought the time was ripe and tacked stickers to this effect on our VW busses, our backpacks, our foreheads or whereever:
Lead, follow, or get out of the way!
Back in the day (1972) many of us thought the time was ripe and tacked stickers to this effect on our VW busses, our backpacks, our foreheads or whereever:
CMI YES!
California Marijuana Initiative
California Marijuana Initiative
We listened to this kind of stuff and thought we were on the verge of a victory :
But Noooooooooo...along came the Ronald Raygun era and the dream popped like a bubble.
Thirty-eight fucking years later...I don't live in Cali anymore but I still believe that as California goes so goes the country and if the dominoes continue to fall, including flawed legislation leading to Walmartization of marijuana or whatever, that we'll get to where most of us want to go...full legalization. Watered-down health care bill, financial reform with no teeth, the lack of a climate change bill and energy legislation have all been at least exposed to national scrutiny in the past two years. Steps in the right direction but still needs major tweaking. Don't care if you're left or right, people going to jail for a weed sucks...that's the God damn bottom line!
God I wish it was vote day today, the suspense is killing me.
with regard to the main subject of this thread, i have to admit that the more i think about it, the more i see that this is better then nothing. as has been mentioned, this shouldn't make things worse for the average person, it will actually make things much better for anyone who is just into growing to puff, while nothing will change for those that are growing to sell, they are illegal or legal now and will still be after the new law. as long as it's true about no changes for the med community. for some reason i'm still distrustful of this actual bill, but i can sure see the yes point of view much better then i could a few months back. people being against it like Jack Herer and the author of prop 215, made me think it was a trick law, like the patriot act. give some thing a good name and half the battle is won...
but looking at the bigger picture and how a win would be perceived all over the planet, has made me think again. this could indeed be like the snowball that turns into an avalanche of legalization legislation all over.
as was also said, once the law is passed one can start working to make it better from a much stronger position then before such a thing is passed.
but looking at the bigger picture and how a win would be perceived all over the planet, has made me think again. this could indeed be like the snowball that turns into an avalanche of legalization legislation all over.
as was also said, once the law is passed one can start working to make it better from a much stronger position then before such a thing is passed.
gr8fulbud
Member
J
JackTheGrower
I see you registered in Feb 2010.
If you think that you are wondering, many of us have been debating this since 2008 / 2009
I started out not understanding the difference between Legalization and Decriminalization.
So I feel I have been part of every major thread and every discussion on the subject and that has me very tired. i was daydreaming about changing my Avatar after November but not until the vote.
Did you see the CaliforniaCannabisInitiative.org ? I gathered signatures for that. It was not funded.
Well it's still a long way to November but shorter by the day.
I thought your reply was seriously humorous.
Hang in there.. Get a Vote Buddy..
I don't like 19 either. But socially and politically mature decisions aren't about what we like, right?
Last edited:
So very sad. You are ranting at a group of people who have been growing and smoking weed for decades. So while the rest of the world understands that "things sold on the market are ALWAYS taxed and regulated" we thick skulled individuals DON'T believe you because for DECADES we have been buying and smoking WITHOUT government help.
Even if your regulation is "inevitable" it is not necessary as this community has been using this plant for decades with no ill effects. Who's war is UNREALISTIC the guy who wants to be left alone to grow as he has for decades OR the MOOCHERS and LOOTERS that now proclaim the right to regulate him after decades of espousing how evil he and his crops were?
There is no MED SYSTEM, there is just another large group of smokers enjoying weed. Mooching is stupid and immoral, but my understanding is people PAY for the weed they smoke. This proposal adds NEW criminal penalties on growers and smokers and should be rejected by this community.
I am right there with ya bro--
I will be voting yes, but I keep getting sucked into these debates, from ppl saying that any No vote is only because of greed, and nothing else--
There are good points on both sides of this...but the only thing I see as a point that will keep ppl from going to jail, (since nobody is going to jail now for simple possession of under an oz, or a small grow) is the provision that you can have an unlimited amount in your home-- Altho even that one, is subject to LEO trying to set you up as a Dealer--
No disrespect intended to anyone, no matter what their stance on this is....we are all individuals, and have our own reasons for the things we do/think--
Peace to all my ICMag Fam!!
I agree with your stance on Prop 19, but if you don't own the property it is not yours to grow on. Buy your own land or rent from a better landlord. The property owner and not the government has the legal and moral authority to determine how HIS property is used.
Non owners growing on public lands isn't working out so well for the government
So very sad. You are ranting at a group of people who have been growing and smoking weed for decades. So while the rest of the world understands that "things sold on the market are ALWAYS taxed and regulated" we thick skulled individuals DON'T believe you because for DECADES we have been buying and smoking WITHOUT government help.
Even if your regulation is "inevitable" it is not necessary as this community has been using this plant for decades with no ill effects. Who's war is UNREALISTIC the guy who wants to be left alone to grow as he has for decades OR the MOOCHERS and LOOTERS that now proclaim the right to regulate him after decades of espousing how evil he and his crops were?
There is no MED SYSTEM, there is just another large group of smokers enjoying weed. Mooching is stupid and immoral, but my understanding is people PAY for the weed they smoke. This proposal adds NEW criminal penalties on growers and smokers and should be rejected by this community.
Do us a favor and substantiate what you're saying here with hard fact because I'm sick of hearing this repetition of fear mongering where those making these claims fail to substantiate them when questioned. Med laws have so much gray its' laughable. You're saying Prop 19 is more gray?
"we thick skulled individuals DON'T believe you because for DECADES we have been buying and smoking WITHOUT government help." Yes the taxes we have been paying have been incredible. The most expensive ounce of a plant you'll ever buy. Large legal grows will drive down the price and that my friend is your real problem. Hey and besides the taxes we pay to a bunch of greedy green capitalists we get our arses busted and thrown in jail; we get treated like substandard citizens and sacked from jobs for testing positive. Legalization (Prop 19) means this ends ---- period.
I agree with your stance on Prop 19, but if you don't own the property it is not yours to grow on. Buy your own land or rent from a better landlord. The property owner and not the government has the legal and moral authority to determine how HIS property is used.
Non owners growing on public lands isn't working out so well for the government
If I understand Jack's post correctly, I am pretty sure that what he's talking about here is that he would prefer a law that granted human beings the right to grow the plant, and not just property owners the right to grow on their land.... in the wording of the law.
Property owners already have the right to decide who grows what on their land. This would never supersede that, but the language of the law does not specifically grant an individual human being the right to grow cannabis. This go into the column of issues I have against 19 for sure and bears further examination.
2
2Lazy
Nomaad:
Prop 19:
Have you even read the bill???
This is incorrect
Prop 19:
Have you even read the bill???
2Lazy...I will help you out here, with the rest of the quote you are editing--
miltonchitlin
Member
Another word on Jack and Prop. 19 from Chris ConradPosted by Mickey Martin on July 25th, 2010
I love Chris Conrad for his dedication to this cause, his always spot-on insight and his ability to see both sides of an argument and make sense on any number of valid topics. Below is a letter from him regarding Jack Herer and his evolving opinion. God Bless you, jack. Obviously you are missed greatly….
Dear colleagues,
To go by the credo, “What would Jack do?” you must understand that Jack evolved and over time changed his positions on many things. He was against something until he was for it, but somehow he got credit for the very thing he had previously opposed. Here are just a few examples:
Jack told his first wife that if she ever brought marijuana into his house he would leave her and get a divorce. Now he’s characterized as the patron saint of marijuana activists.
Jack didn’t want to revise and publish the Emperor Wears No Clothes in 1990, he wanted to do a book about sex, language and religion. Now, the Emperor is called “the Bible of the hemp movement.”
Jack may have been a tax resistor, but this is the Cannabis movement not the anti-tax movement, and when we (I was co-author) wrote the original California Hemp Initiative in 1990, it provided for an excise tax. Jack insisted in 1990 that pot should be legal for people aged 18, but by 1994 we set it at 21.
Jack vehemently argued against forming the Hemp Industries Association. He likened it to the DEA and called us traitors for passing its bylaws. But he loved getting free hemp products from HIA member businesses and when we sued DEA and saved hemp foods, Jack was quite happy.
Initially Jack deeply hated Prop 215. He literally stumped up and down the state cursing out hemp activists who backed it. He screamed at us, called us traitors for working on medical use, and claimed that Dennnis Peron was secretly against legalization. When 215 was filed, Jack filed the California Hemp Initiative (CHI) on the 1996 ballot to block it. and changed the name to “California Hemp _and Health_ Initiative” so people signing it would think they had signed Prop 215, to mess with the signature count. When I called him on it, he said he was trying to keep Prop 215 off the ballot because, among other things, “people will stop working for legalization and we’ll be stuck with medical forever. No hemp, no legalization; that will be the end.” Later he circulated the CCU petitions for pay, then before the election came to support it completely. Now some people actually credit Jack for ‘passing Prop 215.’
Jack vociferously opposed Senate Bill 420, but he loved the dispensaries it allowed to open.
If the movement had done what Jack first said to do, we would not have made the major political gains of the last 20 years, because he espoused ‘all or nothing.’ Jack knew how to come around, but first he had to cuss everyone out. So of course he railed against TaxCannabis 2010. That was what Jack did.
The pattern is clear, though. Jack would never support the HIA, then he did. He would never support Prop 215, then he did. He opposed SB420, then he loved its results. He said he would never support Prop 19, but were it not for his heart attack, by now Jack would have come around to back it.
Jack would never, ever walk into a voting booth and vote to keep prohibition as it is.
He would see the writing on the wall once the Secretary of State said Prop 19 qualified for the ballot. He would have complained, he would demand that we pass CHI in 2012, but Jack would hold his nose and vote yes. The problem is thatJack Herer died before he came to support Prop 19, otherwise he would tell you so himself. Do we let his death mean the death of legal marijuana? I say no.
So let’s do what Jack really would have ended up doing, and give TaxCannabis unwavering support. We can later improve on Prop 19 — but not unless we pass it first. Support and vote “Yes on Prop 19.”
– Chris Conrad, editor and designer of the 1990 Emperor Wears No Clothes, friend of Jack Herer
I love Chris Conrad for his dedication to this cause, his always spot-on insight and his ability to see both sides of an argument and make sense on any number of valid topics. Below is a letter from him regarding Jack Herer and his evolving opinion. God Bless you, jack. Obviously you are missed greatly….
Dear colleagues,
To go by the credo, “What would Jack do?” you must understand that Jack evolved and over time changed his positions on many things. He was against something until he was for it, but somehow he got credit for the very thing he had previously opposed. Here are just a few examples:
Jack told his first wife that if she ever brought marijuana into his house he would leave her and get a divorce. Now he’s characterized as the patron saint of marijuana activists.
Jack didn’t want to revise and publish the Emperor Wears No Clothes in 1990, he wanted to do a book about sex, language and religion. Now, the Emperor is called “the Bible of the hemp movement.”
Jack may have been a tax resistor, but this is the Cannabis movement not the anti-tax movement, and when we (I was co-author) wrote the original California Hemp Initiative in 1990, it provided for an excise tax. Jack insisted in 1990 that pot should be legal for people aged 18, but by 1994 we set it at 21.
Jack vehemently argued against forming the Hemp Industries Association. He likened it to the DEA and called us traitors for passing its bylaws. But he loved getting free hemp products from HIA member businesses and when we sued DEA and saved hemp foods, Jack was quite happy.
Initially Jack deeply hated Prop 215. He literally stumped up and down the state cursing out hemp activists who backed it. He screamed at us, called us traitors for working on medical use, and claimed that Dennnis Peron was secretly against legalization. When 215 was filed, Jack filed the California Hemp Initiative (CHI) on the 1996 ballot to block it. and changed the name to “California Hemp _and Health_ Initiative” so people signing it would think they had signed Prop 215, to mess with the signature count. When I called him on it, he said he was trying to keep Prop 215 off the ballot because, among other things, “people will stop working for legalization and we’ll be stuck with medical forever. No hemp, no legalization; that will be the end.” Later he circulated the CCU petitions for pay, then before the election came to support it completely. Now some people actually credit Jack for ‘passing Prop 215.’
Jack vociferously opposed Senate Bill 420, but he loved the dispensaries it allowed to open.
If the movement had done what Jack first said to do, we would not have made the major political gains of the last 20 years, because he espoused ‘all or nothing.’ Jack knew how to come around, but first he had to cuss everyone out. So of course he railed against TaxCannabis 2010. That was what Jack did.
The pattern is clear, though. Jack would never support the HIA, then he did. He would never support Prop 215, then he did. He opposed SB420, then he loved its results. He said he would never support Prop 19, but were it not for his heart attack, by now Jack would have come around to back it.
Jack would never, ever walk into a voting booth and vote to keep prohibition as it is.
He would see the writing on the wall once the Secretary of State said Prop 19 qualified for the ballot. He would have complained, he would demand that we pass CHI in 2012, but Jack would hold his nose and vote yes. The problem is thatJack Herer died before he came to support Prop 19, otherwise he would tell you so himself. Do we let his death mean the death of legal marijuana? I say no.
So let’s do what Jack really would have ended up doing, and give TaxCannabis unwavering support. We can later improve on Prop 19 — but not unless we pass it first. Support and vote “Yes on Prop 19.”
– Chris Conrad, editor and designer of the 1990 Emperor Wears No Clothes, friend of Jack Herer
I think this is how a lot of us here feel....we are just not going to do it "quietly"-- lol
- Status
