SAD, SAD day for Central Cali

[subrob]

do people avoid taking shots at my moral arguments cuz they just dont like me? because they dont want me to tell em thier female relatives perform sexual acts for money? or maybe because........................my stance was/is correct.
just in case anyone forgot: IF YOU VOTED NO YOU CAN SUCK A ____!

 

[titoon29]

I've been following the news since the no vote, trying to understand the different aspects of the proposition, and I must say it is not easy for a external viewer, meaning european...

I think that, if Cali had passed the 19, it could have broken some news in Europe, but it didn't. But, this is only theoretical^^


On the other way, I am impressed how the fight for the 19, no or yes, has made growers get more into "politics"!
I think that if you all keep on the fight, being active, and probably all of you have the same goal, to free the weed, then you'll all win !

The more people get involved, whether it starts with "just" a proposition on weed, could make people realize that they have actually a lot more power to change the things by voting and getting involved in protests/politics.

Keep up the good work Cali growers, it can happen sooner than expected !

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

The only concept I was putting forward was making sure we weren't shooting ourselves in the foot.

Now I'm supposed to think that defining hemp as an intoxicant and subject to huge tax, although it's an industrial application, is a nonissue?!

I'm hearing "Just step back while the nonidiots handle this."

And it sounds like "We don't care if we fuck it up, we're fixing it."

NO. What were saying is lets take care of the BIGGER problem, then once marijuana is legalized people will no longer equate hemp with marijuana (as they do now...). You ever seen the looks people give when they are asked to sign a pro-hemp iniative? Most people think HEMP IS MARIJUANA. If marijuana is no longer illegal then people wont give a shit about hemp laws and you hemp activists will be able to make much more progress. Nobody is going to believe that a plant that is produced for fiber,fuel,food,etc... should be subject to same tax brackets as recreational marijuana is... come on mustard, i know we dont agree on...well pretty much everything, but i KNOW your not this dense.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Article 6. Marijuana


11310. For purposes of this article, "marijuana" and "cannabis"
are interchangeable terms that mean all parts of the plant Cannabis
sativa L., whether growing or not; the resin extracted from any part
of the plant; concentrated cannabis; edible products containing the
above; and every active compound, manufacture, derivative, or
preparation of the plant or resin.

 

[Madrus Rose]

DA warns Oakland's marijuana grow law could land City Council in jail

DA warns Oakland's marijuana grow law could land City Council in jail

DA warns Oakland's marijuana grow law could land City Council in jail

By Paul T. Rosynsky
Oakland Tribune
Posted: 12/17/2010 05:51:44 PM PST
Updated: 12/18/2010 06:25:42 AM PST
http://www.insidebayarea.com/crime-courts/ci_16887562

OAKLAND -- Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley entered the fray over the city's new law regulating large-scale commercial marijuana grow operations this week, warning that the law is probably illegal and could land city officials in jail.

In a letter to Mayor-elect Jean Quan, which was also delivered to members of the City Council, O'Malley cautioned that the city's attempt to tax and regulate grow operations for medical marijuana would most likely be considered illegal under state law and result in prosecution by her office.

"The Alameda County District Attorney's office makes the point that enactment of this ordinance does not provide a defense "... To any criminal charge," O'Malley wrote. "In other words, notwithstanding pronouncements by city officials or the enactment of the ordinance, the prosecuting agency in Alameda County is not providing any assurances that activities authorized by the ordinance, but not authorized under state law or federal law, are permissible."


more...

 

[kmk420kali]

Article 6. Marijuana


11310. For purposes of this article, "marijuana" and "cannabis"
are interchangeable terms that mean all parts of the plant Cannabis
sativa L., whether growing or not; the resin extracted from any part
of the plant; concentrated cannabis; edible products containing the
above; and every active compound, manufacture, derivative, or
preparation of the plant or resin.

I believe the way they differentiated by using the words "hemp or non-active cannabis", clearly shows the Intent was to keep them separate--

 

[mean mr.mustard]

I believe the way they differentiated by using the words "hemp or non-active cannabis", clearly shows the Intent was to keep them separate--

So you read that part differently than I?

If wishes were horses beggars would ride.

I don't think the definition included the intent unless it was to define hemp as marijuana. I tend to think it would say "except hemp" if it was intending to keep them separate.

 

[subrob]

VOTE NO FOR CANNA LEGALIZATION TIL THEY RELEASE ALL THE HEMP PRISONERS WORLDWIDE! WOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

[VirginHarvester]

Only reason they pick on MJ is that they can. You don't see them concerned with serious matters like alcohol and over prescribing from physicians right? Yes, these people have serious moral issues.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

VOTE NO FOR CANNA LEGALIZATION TIL THEY RELEASE ALL THE HEMP PRISONERS WORLDWIDE! WOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOO

I'm thankful to be taken so seriously.

 

[kmk420kali]

So you read that part differently than I?

If wishes were horses beggars would ride.

I don't think the definition included the intent unless it was to define hemp as marijuana. I tend to think it would say "except hemp" if it was intending to keep them separate.

Bro, they excluded Hemp from Prop 19, when they added subsection (c) under "Amendments"--
Intent is everything-- It is very clear the Purpose & Intent of 19, was to address Cannabis for Recreational use-- Hemp does not get you high, and there is much evidence to prove that-- They are separate entities...that is why it was not directly addressed in 19--
You are kinda reaching for something that isn't there--

 

[mean mr.mustard]

They included it in when they defined marijuana... am I not being clear on that point?

As for the amendment clause it refers to "laws to authorize the production of hemp or non-active cannabis for horticultural and industrial purposes."

So let's say 19 passed hypothetically...

In your opinion would we be able to grow hemp in our 5x5?

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Fuck hemp. Give me Egyptian cotton anyday. And I never heard a peep from mustard about hemp while arguing about 19. Just something for him to cling on to justify his side...

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Fuck hemp. Give me Egyptian cotton anyday. And I never heard a peep from mustard about hemp while arguing about 19. Just something for him to cling on to justify his side...

You never heard a peep from me at all ever.... it's obvious.

I said plenty.

You weren't listening.

I first addressed it on page 110 if you want to go look.

Just search in the thread for "hemp".

I don't really feel the need to justify my side to people who say "Fuck hemp."

 

[rives]

You have an interesting list of prerequisites in order to support legalization, Mustard. Let's see - free prisoners incarcerated for cannabis-related crimes, free hemp, umm... there has to be something else...... perhaps something for illegal immigrants or ? We can call it the Marijuana Omnibus Act of 2052.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

How about drop the hemp out of the definition, and never address it in any recreational bill?

It'd be seemingly fitting to also include the release of cannabis prisoners, but even more importantly, no increased penalties or new laws to put them back in again.

You can call it whatever you like, but I'd refer to it as actual legalization.

What does your bill look like?

Exactly like Prop 19?

 

[rives]

Actually, I thought that 19 provided for more cannabis-related freedoms than I would have ever dared to hope for in my lifetime.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

I think a lot of people thought so too...

I suppose I just hope more than some.

Are you the type of person who wouldn't care if hemp was hindered as long as you could grow in a 5x5?

I saw a few points that could snowball and that is a big one.

 

[rives]

I don't agree with your apparent interpretation of how 19 dealt with hemp. It appeared to me that 19 specifically excluded dealing with hemp by setting it aside for future amendments to deal with. Perhaps your interpretation is correct for the period of time between the implementation of 19 and the amendment being pushed through, but it would have been a slam dunk to amend it if 19 had passed.

 

[kmk420kali]

How about drop the hemp out of the definition, and never address it in any recreational bill?

You are simply not getting it.....Weed we smoke, and Hemp...belong to the same family of plant...Cannabis Sativa-- They specifically added Hemp in the Amendments, which separates it from the Purpose and Intent of the Prop--
It was a GOOD thing...not at all what you are saying-- You do not understand how "Purpose and Intent" of a Prop works...that is EVERYTHING!! Seriously, go look it up...there is a lot about it, and it is somewhat complicated-- If a Justice reviews a Law...they don't even read the "History" (Everything after Purpose and Intent)...unless there is a conflict--

It'd be seemingly fitting to also include the release of cannabis prisoners, but even more importantly, no increased penalties or new laws to put them back in again.

There is no way that will happen arbitrarily...it would be totally cost prohibitive...but i when Legalization does pass...each person can petition the Courts individually if they want to, and I'm sure with Prison Overcrowding what it is, they will release any that fall within the parameters of the Law--
As far as nothing added for smoking with Minors...that again will never happen-- You have to get enough votes to pass something, and you will not get that with a Prop like you want--

You can call it whatever you like, but I'd refer to it as actual legalization.

What does your bill look like?

Exactly like Prop 19?

Prop 19 not passing had nothing to do with the No voting growers and Dealers (Not enough to matter)...it didn't pass because it was not restrictive enough-- Once again...if you can't convince the General Voters to vote for it, it will not work--
I don't mean to go on this Prop 19 thing again, but dude...you have some ideas that yeah...we would all love to see happen, but in Reality...it won't happen all at once, no matter what you try and put up for Vote--