Senator Barbara Boxer Opposes Legalizing Marijuana in California

[igrowone]

Compromise, guys, compromise. Most U.S. laws and even many state laws are all about compromise. Those laws aren't about what we WANT. They're about what the government wants. So we can hope that we will be able to push a bill that is all FOR us and not half and half against us, but that will probably not be in your (or my) lifetime.
This bill won't change anything for me. I'll still probably grow as much as I want under the radar. Sheesh, I do it now anyways. It's just a little step forward, but it's a step in the right direction.

the sweet voice of sanity, i knew you were out there
hoping enough of you show up on vote day

 

[bombadil.360]

That is just absolutely untrue. I have a 5X5 grow area, and I can crank out 20-30 ounces every 3 months. One run is enough to keep me in smoke for a year, easily.
5X5 Is a good sized area. You can get 30 one gallon pots, or 12-16 3 gallon pots. Those 3 gallon pots produce 2-3 ounces each. So you are way off base in your calculations.

baby-smokers cannot set the standards.

enough said.

Peace and Smoke

 

[Bazarocka]

VOTE the B-atch out of office.

 

[Tony Aroma]

How much should Markcastle have to pay the state of CA each year for growing weed?

Should he have to pay them $2.5k for a licence and $800 for every lb of weed he grows?

Once if ever that debate is concluded we should discuss who is going to collect the money from Mr. Markcastle.

I could be wrong, but I believe the license and taxes only apply if you sell commercially. What you grow for yourself is not taxed, and you will not need a license.

And as far as the 5x5 plot or whatever limits they might impose, do you really think that will be enforced the way things are now? If everybody's growing it, the cops won't bother busting down everybody's doors and taking a tape measure to their plots just to find the 1 in 100 (or 1000) who is in violation of the limits. At least I don't think so.

I think it will eventually end up sort of like the way beer is now. There are a few big companies that mass-produce their product. There's also a pretty big microbrewery industry for the connoisseurs. And people can and do brew their own beer. Only those selling beer are taxed, licensed, and regulated. Ever hear of an individual getting busted for exceeding the limit of beer they can brew in their own home (yes there is a limit)?

IMO, regardless of the taxes, fees, corporate involvement, etc., legal is always better than illegal. While it may not be perfect, the CA initiative, if passed, would be a HUGE step in the right direction. Let's get it legal first, then quibble about the details. The important thing is to stop locking people up for growing and consuming a plant. The rest will fall into place once the legal, regulated system works itself out. Which would you prefer (assuming we live in an imperfect world): your freedoms being infringed by future taxes and regulation, or your freedoms being infringed by getting put in jail? Remember, we do in fact live in an imperfect world where compromise is almost always necessary to get things done.

 

[RetroGrow]

baby-smokers cannot set the standards.

enough said.

Peace and Smoke

So 8 ounces a month is not enough for you?
That's 2 ounces a week, way more than enough for anyone unless you are smoking schwag. Takes only one or two hits to get ripped if the herb is the kind.

 

[bombadil.360]

So 8 ounces a month is not enough for you?
That's 2 ounces a week, way more than enough for anyone unless you are smoking schwag. Takes only one or two hits to get ripped if the herb is the kind.

refer to post number 74 by Sam the Skunkman:

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=166484&page=5

be good

 

[Spl1fftast1ck]

Sir,

This is a proposed huge change in marijuana laws and regulations, hiding a huge theft of Markcastle's freedoms because he is a California grower for 40+ years.

He expressed concerns because if he keeps doing what he has been doing peacefully for 40+ years; this law makes a greater felon of him and imposes more draconian punishment than the current scheme to crush his freedoms.

Why would anyone want to sit silent on this issue.

An $800 a lb tax would really make the CA summer outdoor harvest crazy.

If we really want to be part of the above ground community, don't you think taxation of our activities should be the first item of debate?

How much should Markcastle have to pay the state of CA each year for growing weed?

Should he have to pay them $2.5k for a licence and $800 for every lb of weed he grows?

Once if ever that debate is concluded we should discuss who is going to collect the money from Mr. Markcastle.

Then we would have to get into the really scary stuff.

What about the leaves he uses to make bubble hash or butter; how much do we make him pay?

What about the hash or butter he just made; how much do we make him pay?

What about the brownies he just made; how much do we make him pay?

What about the fact that he has been a peaceful productive member of his and our loving community for 40 years; how much do we make him pay?

What about the fact that Enron and corropt officials cost Californians BILLIONS and now electricity is $.36kw (3x more than most western states); how much do we make him pay?

Now if Mr. Markcastle after 40 years of being a great peaceful producer doesn't declare 100% of his trash leaves, butter, hash, brownies, honey oil, bud and PERSONAL CONSUMPTION; how many years shall we throw him in the box?

After thinking about these questions I am very fearful for Mr. Markcastle, because the state is either going to encumber a huge percentage of his production or they are going to ruin his life with the INJUSTICE system and correctional facilities (RE-EDUCATION CAMPS).

I hope you're there to kick into his and other ICmagers defense fund, an $800 a lb tax is huge incentive for CA to track down Mr. Markcastle and our brothers.

Peace,

Brother,

I sense the anxiety & passion all at once in your post. You have brought to light a few issues that I am now confused on, because I have heard a different expression/version of the proposed law. Before continuing a further debate (i am assuming that you are opposed to this up coming bill) I will do some research into the accuracy of what you have stated and the other versions I have heard. Until then, thank you for your perspective.

That being said, my stance is still valid. Most of us on these boards are firm believers in what we are doing, and despite what laws are passed we will continue to do what we are doing. One way another. As we are doing now. By letting elected officials know exactly how we feel about the issue at least we are adding one more voice to the Legalization movement.

I guess your point is (correct me if I am wrong) this is the wrong bill to obtain legalization with? If that is the case why not contact the elected officials that represent us and let them know "hey dipshit, you got the right idea but your executing all wrong"?

Have Norml, ASA, MAPS or any of the others chimed in? If the bill would cause that much harm to the people making donations, shouldn't the pressure also be on those groups/lobbyist to represent our concerns.

as you said

peace

 

[Spl1fftast1ck]

I could be wrong, but I believe the license and taxes only apply if you sell commercially. What you grow for yourself is not taxed, and you will not need a license.

And as far as the 5x5 plot or whatever limits they might impose, do you really think that will be enforced the way things are now? If everybody's growing it, the cops won't bother busting down everybody's doors and taking a tape measure to their plots just to find the 1 in 100 (or 1000) who is in violation of the limits. At least I don't think so.

I think it will eventually end up sort of like the way beer is now. There are a few big companies that mass-produce their product. There's also a pretty big microbrewery industry for the connoisseurs. And people can and do brew their own beer. Only those selling beer are taxed, licensed, and regulated. Ever hear of an individual getting busted for exceeding the limit of beer they can brew in their own home (yes there is a limit)?

IMO, regardless of the taxes, fees, corporate involvement, etc., legal is always better than illegal. While it may not be perfect, the CA initiative, if passed, would be a HUGE step in the right direction. Let's get it legal first, then quibble about the details. The important thing is to stop locking people up for growing and consuming a plant. The rest will fall into place once the legal, regulated system works itself out. Which would you prefer (assuming we live in an imperfect world): your freedoms being infringed by future taxes and regulation, or your freedoms being infringed by getting put in jail? Remember, we do in fact live in an imperfect world where compromise is almost always necessary to get things done.

Well put Tony. This is also what I have heard, Medical Laws would still supersede this proposed bill. Which is why I was saying that most of us would be unaffected.
I think he may have been misinformed though, either that or both you and I have been given crap and need to shove it back where it came from.

 

[RetroGrow]

And as far as the 5x5 plot or whatever limits they might impose, do you really think that will be enforced the way things are now? If everybody's growing it, the cops won't bother busting down everybody's doors and taking a tape measure to their plots just to find the 1 in 100 (or 1000) who is in violation of the limits. At least I don't think so.

That's what I've been saying all along. Once it's "legalized" in any sense, the dam will be broken. News goes out to the rest of the world: "Legalization".
Imagine the headlines in the Drudgereport.
People around the country and world are not going to concern themselves with the details.
They are just going to hear "legal", as in "not illegal". Change will set in. People with narrow minds will begin to accept it, and other states/countries will follow suit.
The police are not going to go around checking people's gardens. it won't be worth their time, as everyone will be doing it. Too many gardens to monitor. Once the negative stigma is crushed, it will be open season. It will eventually be totally decriminalized.

 

[RetroGrow]

I am not saying people should be limited. You can smoke as much as you want. I have been smoking over 40 years, and I get ripped on a couple hits. I only smoke after work, or on the weekends. On weekends, I will smoke a joint in the afternoon, and get through about half of it. Then, at night, I smoke more, sometimes hash or oil, sometimes vaping herb. Either way, I am blitzed and hung over the next day. I just don't see how people can smoke an ounce or a half ounce a day. Not saying they shouldn't, just that for me, it's unnecessary.

Too funny.
But to each, his own.

 

[JackTheGrower]

Limits serve only to keep cannabis a crime and that makes it profitable.

Remember the already established Cannabis market system is a functional market system that includes law enforcement and related industries in the profit loop.

If any one reading this believes Cannabis is simply illegal and that is the end of that well, I have news for you; It's a huge industry with many many millions of dollars flowing to the current members of that market system including LEO.
It's a lot of money few want to give up to allow Liberty for the Citizen.

Decriminalization is an attempt to add new legal players to an already established market system and Legalization is an attempt to change the market system.

We do not see major efforts to Legalize do we...

Think Legalization in 2012.. Make it happen..

 

[the_red_bull]

It has nothing to do with money coming to her and everything to do with her being a high profile Senator that can have a future career outside of the California Senate.

 

[hkush]

Good for her. But on the issue of state legislation, she's just one of millions of voters. The state is already defying the laws she has jurisdiction over.

 

[bombadil.360]

It has nothing to do with money coming to her and everything to do with her being a high profile Senator that can have a future career outside of the California Senate.

that doesn't make sense...

she can still have a future career if she decides to support the ending of the black market, since this would be what is good for the people; therefore, what is good for the people is good for her political career, that is how it works, right?

 

[the_red_bull]

that doesn't make sense...

she can still have a future career if she decides to support the ending of the black market, since this would be what is good for the people; therefore, what is good for the people is good for her political career, that is how it works, right?

Politics isn't like every other job, sometimes it's just about what people percieve you said or did. But her future career depends more on who might pick her up and their views on the issue. Politically it's safer for her to support the status quo.

 

[bombadil.360]

Politics isn't like every other job, sometimes it's just about what people percieve you said or did. But her future career depends more on who might pick her up and their views on the issue. Politically it's safer for her to support the status quo.

so she supports the status quo because it is them who pay her, and it is they who in turn support the current damaging black-market, and you say she is not on a pay-roll to keep the black-market in place?

 

[the_red_bull]

so she supports the status quo because it is them who pay her, and it is they who in turn support the current damaging black-market, and you say she is not on a pay-roll to keep the black-market in place?

No. Supporting change can be harmful politically. Keeping things the same more often than not doesn't damage a persons career. It's all fine if she supports the bill and is later picked up by a pro-marijuana candidate for higher office, but if an anti-marijuana candidate considers her it would take her out of the running.

 

[bombadil.360]

No. Supporting change can be harmful politically. Keeping things the same more often than not doesn't damage a persons career. It's all fine if she supports the bill and is later picked up by a pro-marijuana candidate for higher office, but if an anti-marijuana candidate considers her it would take her out of the running.

yeah, I get that... but why is she so concerned about her pay-checks more than the well-being of the people? that is what she is there to do, to look after the rights of the people, not to fret about where her next pay-check will come from.

at least that is how it is supposed to work...

but we all know it does not work that way...

what works is that whomever pays her, then she does the bidding of those who give her the money.

so again, we are back at the start.

later.

be good.

 

[the_red_bull]

yeah, I get that... but why is she so concerned about her pay-checks more than the well-being of the people? that is what she is there to do, to look after the rights of the people, not to fret about where her next pay-check will come from.

at least that is how it is supposed to work...

but we all know it does not work that way...

what works is that whomever pays her, then she does the bidding of those who give her the money.

so again, we are back at the start.

later.

be good.

Dude, that's just what it is. You should be glad to have someone around that would say this but, if I were elected President (or whatever lower office), I'd promise people to solve their problems. I'd address thier concerns and say in an eloquent and feasable way what I'd do to serve them, and then if I were elected, I would sit on my hands and blame other people. If you are elected to solve a problem, and you solve it, there's no job security. At the level they're on it isn't even about the money, their income comes from a lot of other sources (granted senators pull about 150K), but it's more about the control over the system and contacts.

 

[Yes4Prop215]

yeah, I get that... but why is she so concerned about her pay-checks more than the well-being of the people? .

.

hahaha...thats the nature of politicians!! since when did they reaaaly care about the people, its all about the money and the fees they charge for appearences and speeches.

fuck politicians....wish we could hang them alll in the streets like the french revolution