Vote NO to legalize cannabis....Or else

[simple green]

I suggest you recheck your references sir!

Before it was amended ,Income tax was unconstitutional.
It was amended to help recover from the war.
Even then it was supposed to be temporary.

Why did we break away from england?
Something about taxes if I remember correctly..No???


Again I state find the real facts for yourselves.
We are told Betsy Ross sewed the first flag of the USA????
But is this true????

Holy crap you simplify complex history into a two panel cartoon to serve your opinion.

First off, an Amendment is the least disputed way of making something that wasn't constitutional constitutional. (Others being a changed Supreme Court or slowly changing customs like expanded Federal power with an expanded interpretation of the Commerce Clause and Nec/Prop Clause)...The founders made the Amendment Process especially difficult so that Amendments weren't passed haphazardly....
And it was supposed to be temporary???? BS


Yeah taxes had something to do with independence. It had to do with the fact that the colonists had to pay taxes but weren't able to choose representatives that had a vote in Parliament, and that cause was exacerbated by various actions/reactions of the King, King's Army and Patriot colonists of the time. How can you simplify a real complex history like this and expect to be given any credibility?

As someone already pointed out, a simple glance at the Constitution will prove that your reasoning for the 16th Amendment is wrong.

And i don't care if it was Betsy Ross of Mary Pinker-whatever her name was....

SO much incorrect with your facts that it discredits your whole point of view...and you tell others to check facts? I think you're beyond help.

 

[bentom187]

The sovereign citizen movement is Libertopian delusion at its finest.

First off, Chisolm vs Georgia never was about what proponents claim it was about, at all-
Facts of the Case

In 1777, the Executive Council of Georgia authorized the purchase of needed supplies from a South Carolina businessman. After receiving the supplies, Georgia did not deliver payments as promised. After the merchant's death, the executor of his estate, Alexander Chisholm, took the case to court in an attempt to collect from the state. Georgia maintained that it was a sovereign state not subject to the authority of the federal courts.
Question

Was the state of Georgia subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the federal government?
Conclusion

In a 4-to-1 decision, the justices held that "the people of the United States" intended to bind the states by the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the national government. The Court held that supreme or sovereign power was retained by citizens themselves, not by the "artificial person" of the State of Georgia. The Constitution made clear that controversies between individual states and citizens of other states were under the jurisdiction of federal courts. State conduct was subject to judicial review.


http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1793/1793_0

It affirmed supremacy of the federal judiciary.

The rest of it is pure fantasy as well, based on tedious arguments that the 16th amendment wasn't properly ratified & yada, yada, yada.

Playing that game is a great way to get bitch slapped into federal prison like a lot of others who tried to play it-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement

Anybody begging for martyrdom is welcome to go for it. You will be obliged.

Its was about sovereigns of one state acting through their representative/s to sue another state and its sovereign's.

The Court held that supreme or sovereign power was retained by citizens themselves, not by the "artificial person" of the State of Georgia.

or any other state.

The Constitution made clear that controversies between individual states and citizens of other states were under the jurisdiction of federal courts.

State conduct was subject to judicial review.

Jurisdiction agreed to in the constitution is not supremacy. (pre-1860's) It also has no effect to what Chief Justice john Jay stated about every individual citizen being their own sovereign.

 

[ElusiveQuark]

Jhhnn and other CO citizens - what is the story with your governor? He seems to be out of step w the Rocky Mountain way.

 

[monsoon]

^^^^He drank the fracking fluid^^^^^

 

[Jhhnn]

Jhhnn and other CO citizens - what is the story with your governor? He seems to be out of step w the Rocky Mountain way.

He never favored A64. OTOH, called upon to implement it, he has done so in a straightforward fashion. He's not trying to torpedo it. As a "responsible politician" he has to make the right noises.

It's a job he wishes he didn't have, an image he never wanted for CO. In many respects, his message about strong regulation & attitudes among teens serves the cause rather well, at least for the time being. We're in the process of revealing the truth, actually discovering it in many ways, so he's careful not to get ahead of the facts as the story unfolds.

Like a lot of people, he's not really sure that this will work well but he's not one to deny the facts either. He's persuadable, which is what we're doing, building a database of honest experience, just doing our usual laid back thing in the process. We're winning people over. Even if some never see it as a good thing, we're earning the respect it takes for them to not see it as a bad thing, either.

 

[budtang]

Cali's wake up call is coming. Gonna be interesting to see how the "top shelf" fares there when the small guys are cut off from supplying the market like happened here in 2010. Guaranteed the talk/dick swinging seen here time and time again will change when that happens. Yup.

good luck all

That won't happen because the motivation behind that law in Colorado is to control the population through limiting the number of available jobs in the cannabis industry. Which, would motivate people not to migrate to the state. In California, where there aren't enough jobs to go around due to severe overpopulation, the last thing they would do is eliminate jobs by restricting residential operations that allow people to make a steady, taxed income. Doing so would eliminate jobs in the last state that needs jobs eliminated. People are motivated to stay away from Cali just because of the high cost of living there combined with scarcity of jobs.

There is logic to the law in Colorado in that respect. Massive population increases would cause environmental damage to the land and there isn't as much available land to populate because of the mountains. It's just not working at all, because people will relocate to Colorado regardless just for the legal weed alone and damage will be done to the environment to accommodate the higher population.

You might as well tax all the weed these new immigrants will be growing and selling out of their homes so you can pay for the damage done.

 

[shaggyballs]

Holy crap you simplify complex history into a two panel cartoon to serve your opinion.

Hey man if schoolhouse rock can do it so can I! LOL

First off, an Amendment is the least disputed way of making something that wasn't constitutional constitutional. (Others being a changed Supreme Court or slowly changing customs like expanded Federal power with an expanded interpretation of the Commerce Clause and Nec/Prop Clause)...The founders made the Amendment Process especially difficult so that Amendments weren't passed haphazardly....
And it was supposed to be temporary???? BS
This is truth(get the facts)


Yeah taxes had something to do with independence. It had to do with the fact that the colonists had to pay taxes but weren't able to choose representatives that had a vote in Parliament, and that cause was exacerbated by various actions/reactions of the King, King's Army and Patriot colonists of the time.
If your facts are from a school history book I would look elsewhere
How can you simplify a real complex history like this and expect to be given any credibility?

Did everyone here really want a full blown (off topic) history lesson?

Personal attacks are for people who don't have the facts to make their point valid!

As someone already pointed out, a simple glance at the Constitution will prove that your reasoning for the 16th Amendment is wrong.
Ok then,What was the real reason for starting an income tax??(why did the people agree?)

And i don't care if it was Betsy Ross of Mary Pinker-whatever her name was....
This was just to point out many people believe lies....cause that is what they were taught.

SO much incorrect with your facts that it discredits your whole point of view...and you tell others to check facts? I think you're beyond help.

This you say but where are your facts??

To dispute a statement properly you must form a apposing argument with facts to back it up.(otherwise it is just hot air)...No?

 

[monsoon]

Gonna hope for the Cali peeps that they don't see such changes. However, it will be interesting to see how the State of (Cali)Fornication sees it. Only a fraction of the growers out there are paying taxes on their sales from those residential grows. Some are... but as many or more simply aren't. CO saw huge amounts of revenue changing hands in the MMJ dispensary realm before there were ANY regs/licensing in place...so what we got was a knee jerk rather than a well-planned out scenario. Suck...er...I mean...such is life.

But you are correct. The State and the people here never set this up to be a magnet for business....most of it has just happened because we are first. (IMO) At some point..as more states join in... the rapid growth here will slow...or crash....just as it did in the MMJ industry when we went from thousands of dispensaries to hundreds of dispensaries statewide and >everyone< tried to cash in. (same thing happened with the hydro stores. Where'd they all go? LOL)

Either way, I'm glad I don't need to fuck with any of it.

 

[budtang]

(IMO) At some point..as more states join in... the rapid growth here will slow...or crash....just as it did in the MMJ industry when we went from thousands of dispensaries to hundreds of dispensaries statewide and >everyone< tried to cash in. (same thing happened with the hydro stores. Where'd they all go? LOL)
.

Dispensaries decreased in number because laws changed limiting the number of storefronts. Not because growth crashed.

 

[simple green]

This you say but where are your facts??

To dispute a statement properly you must form a apposing argument with facts to back it up.(otherwise it is just hot air)...No?

Where have you backed up your BS, more than to call yours facts?

Pot calling the kettle black here...

It's great they allow people like you on the internet...really...

 

[Jhhnn]

Your assumptions about space & population in CO are totally inaccurate, Budtang. We have enormous open spaces that are not mountainous. Water rather than space inhibits development in some areas. We do have our nativists, a def minority, but population control had nothing to do with our reasons or methods.

A64 pulled together a lot of different interests & made certain compromises so that the vast majority of users are now legal & so that we could create legal & not too hard to regulate retail supply channels, from seed to smoke. We are keenly aware that export of large wholesale quantities of marijuana is not compatible with federal guidelines, so we try to make sure that retail growers aren't tempted to do that. We have MMJ, retail MJ & personal growing operating side by side as entirely separate & distinct means of supply. Unlike WA, we allowed MMJ providers to convert some product to retail product in the beginning, gave them first crack at licensing, still have separate inventories for MMJ & retail MJ in the same sales outlets. The rules are still changing, with licensing now opened up & retailers allowed to just be retailers Oct 1.

 

[shaggyballs]

Where have you backed up your BS, more than to call yours facts?
All my facts are on the first page!
I never said I had all the answers!

I simply state that one must find the real truth for himself not take my word or the the word of others.

This I have stated many times in this post.
Have you read it or are you here just to harass me?

Pot calling the kettle black here...

It's great they allow people like you on the internet

Another personal attack....Hmm
Is this thread about me... no!....then lets not make it about me.
Please end the personal attacks.
Let us try to stick to the subject if we can.

All I am suggesting is a well informed public!!!!!
And you folks are finding fault in that????
What is up with that??
What you believe is true and what is really true may be distinctly different!

That is it in a nutshell(nothing more)
You have the FREEDOM to believe what you want to....but this does not make it truth.

 

[shaggyballs]

Anyway back on topic.

Alaska

Although there is strong support to vote for the legalization of recreational marijuana in the Last Frontier state this November, there also exists strong opposition. Big Marijuana Big Mistake, otherwise known as Vote No. on 2, is a grassroots coalition dedicated to keeping marijuana illegal in Alaska. The coalition argues that the ballot measure would industrialize and commercialize not only marijuana, but also concentrates and edibles, which are more potent and have caused deaths in Colorado. In addition to health consequences, Big Marijuana Big Mistake is concerned that recreational marijuana would be heavily commercialized by giant, out-of-state corporations that would change the landscape of local communities with mass marketing, advertising and storefront properties. It would not be individual farmers and business entrepreneurs who would reap the rewards of recreational marijuana legalization, but these corporate entities. Meanwhile, the task force assigned to regulation of recreational marijuana would actually cost the state more than the current law enforcement.

 

[SirStynkalot]

He never favored A64. OTOH, called upon to implement it, he has done so in a straightforward fashion. He's not trying to torpedo it. As a "responsible politician" he has to make the right noises.

It's a job he wishes he didn't have, an image he never wanted for CO. In many respects, his message about strong regulation & attitudes among teens serves the cause rather well, at least for the time being. We're in the process of revealing the truth, actually discovering it in many ways, so he's careful not to get ahead of the facts as the story unfolds.

Like a lot of people, he's not really sure that this will work well but he's not one to deny the facts either. He's persuadable, which is what we're doing, building a database of honest experience, just doing our usual laid back thing in the process. We're winning people over. Even if some never see it as a good thing, we're earning the respect it takes for them to not see it as a bad thing, either.

I thought he did try to torpedo it? Challenged it in court and caused a ton of delays in new ops getting opened?

 

[Jhhnn]

I thought he did try to torpedo it? Challenged it in court and caused a ton of delays in new ops getting opened?

Not at all-

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/GovHickenlooper/CBON/1251634887823

Notice the date.

Delays were from the legislature & municipalities dithering until the last minute.

 

[ElusiveQuark]

Not at all-

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/GovHickenlooper/CBON/1251634887823

Notice the date.

Delays were from the legislature & municipalities dithering until the last minute.

I hear your appreciation for Hickenhooper's difficult position of implementing important legislation of which he is not a fan. However, he does disparage cannabis in a very open way and does not appear to be as openminded as you suggest. See e.g. http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2012/09/john_hickenlooper_amendment_64_marijuana.php. This article quotes him as saying "amendment 64 has the potential to increase the number of children using drugs and keep Colorado from being the healthiest state in the country." He also says he would never use pot even if he was alone in the woods. These statements are not intended to help the cause. He is clearly anti-pot. His statements show that he blows with the wind given his open support for Fracking in CO, his former ownership of taverns and his previous use of pot. He failed to file suit when it was shown that oil companies injected millions of gallons of diesel into CO soil despite their pledge not to do so. He is a puppet. Jhhnn, so you seem to be an advocate for big business and government. And someone who also grows dope. Is that a fair assessment?

 

[JointOperation]

just remember.. a lot of people want to believe that everything they were told and taught is true.. and the government isn't just watching us.. but watching out for our well being.. which is just BULLSHIT.. the government only helps the rich.. fucks the poor... and snuffed out the middle class.....

u think there ever going to pass laws that actually HELP THE PEOPLE.?? nope.. just big corporations and big pharma.. and the paper industry and the clothing industry.. its not going to change .. its going to get more retarded.. like alcohol. when they say something is legal.. BUT.... that's the ball and chain aspect.. if we give u the right to smoke it and use it.. we take away the right to grow it.. why? because.. if everyone grows there own .. and smokes there own.. then no1 makes money off of it !!!..

but what they don't get is.. if people grow there own and smoke there own.. then those people will be able to spend the money they were spending on marijuana.. could be put into a different part of the economy.. and help the economy.. but instead.. they want to fuck u in every hole u have.. and then take it out of your ass and put it in your mouth.. its disrespectful . and a disgrace.. to a country that is supposed to be about the PEOPLE. not the GOVERNMENT.

 

[monsoon]

Dispensaries decreased in number because laws changed limiting the number of storefronts. Not because growth crashed.

Which law was that, budtang? Not sure how it worked in your part of the state...but in my town we went from 6 dispensaries to 3....and from one hydro store to 6...then back down to 1..or 2..if that one Johnny-come-lately clown is still there hangin on. Haven't checked. Either way...no law changed here...there just wasn't a need for 6 ballers and their expensive hay.

Even so...8 more licenses have been issued here. One guy who got one own the Subway shop and an insurance biz and is easily 65-70...and has never grown pot. It's just a starry-eyed, money-making possibility/business thing for him....which is sad....for all of us. Without a love for the plant....nothing good is gonna happen, IMO.

Again...glad I don't have to buy their crap pot.

 

[budtang]

Which law was that, budtang? Not sure how it worked in your part of the state...but in my town we went from 6 dispensaries to 3....and from one hydro store to 6...then back down to 1..or 2..if that one Johnny-come-lately clown is still there hangin on. Haven't checked. Either way...no law changed here...there just wasn't a need for 6 ballers and their expensive hay.

Even so...8 more licenses have been issued here. One guy who got one own the Subway shop and an insurance biz and is easily 65-70...and has never grown pot. It's just a starry-eyed, money-making possibility/business thing for him....which is sad....for all of us. Without a love for the plant....nothing good is gonna happen, IMO.

Again...glad I don't have to buy their crap pot.

I thought the number of dispensaries in LA decreased from 1,000 to 100 for legal reasons. Yea, a quick google search showed that there is a cap. Are you aware of this? It had absolutely nothing to do with a lack of demand as you're claiming.

What do you care if the Subway shop owner opens a pot shop? I don't get what your problem is with that guy. He could've grown for years for all you know and genuinely loves the plant. If he produces a good product he'll be successful and if not he'll be forced to get out of the business. What point are you trying to make here? Why is that "sad for all of us?" Are you serious? You're being a little too dramatic here.

I don't think it's sad at all that a system exist for a person to try making money from cannabis. What is wrong with you? Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to open dispensaries? That's the only message I'm getting.

 

[monsoon]

Dunno about LA. I'm talking about towns in the mountains in Colorado...and Colorado in general. Folks here have seen dispensaries pop up and disappear in large numbers...and I don't know anyone at this point in time who was a skilled grower who is >still< doing the licensing/retail thing. Most got burned/burned out/taken advantage of when the medical thing was exploding in the first green rush in 2009.

I could care less who gets the licenses...I/none of my close friends will ever be customers in such shops....I was just pointing out how it has changed from folks who got high (cared about their product cus they smoked it too) and grew and took risks to the basic "let's get rich on this new business venture" clowns of today who are jumping in with both feet because they have the $$ to do so. FWIW, I've known this person for 30 years and he doesn't smoke pot and has NEVER supported pot in the past.

The dispensaries have changed the scene. Pot is very expensive again for those stuck in such a rut/who can't/won't grow...for whatever reason....or who don't have connections elsewhere for whatever reasons. Fans of high-priced pot and corporate control (you?) are in heaven. LOL.

the drama is caused by the folks posting about CO who don't live in CO to know what they are talking about. That's the message I keep getting.

be well