Vote YES or NO on Prop 19

[mean mr.mustard]

Yes, I do agree that there are things about 19 that don't go far enough...but I do not think they are worthy of a "No" Vote--

I agree with that.

Dude...enough with the melodramatics

I suppose I'm just sad that all my points lacked merit.

 

[rives]

See, I actually have read every word......

Whining -

So you're just going to repeat this, even though it's not true.... over and over again?

I guess it will be fact eventually.

I think it's pretty sad that there is the absolutist attitude here.

Nobody really bothers to respect any opinion that doesn't match theirs.

There's roundabout high fives whenever someone gets insulted and belittled for having such an opinion.

That's all this thread is.

It's just shouting GREED! louder.

That does the trick.

I just reread it all... I suggest doing the same.

Even though it's not true it's uttered repeatedly.

There were multiple attempts made to get people to stop parroting this fact.

They got drowned out.

Don't try to discuss anything.

This is a thread to participate in only if you haven't really read it ALL.

If you have you'd realize that making any other point towards explaning why it's not just simply GREED would get buried in LALALALALAI'MNOTLISTENINGLALALALA. And that really irritates you.

I really wanted to discuss things but THIS ISN'T THE THREAD.

Trust me.

Whining and Insulting -

If anybody actually read the posts I've made, you wouldn't say that I never brought up any good points.

Deranged -

So what about taking the first seventy years of taxes and putting it to our good, instead of handing it directly to the same structure that has screwed us royally?

Representitives?!?!

They've never steered us wrong against our will.



I think we should reserve some power from the bastards.

Demeaning -

PS Thank you for quoting half a page all over again.

I'm not suprised you are trying to justify it.

I can tell you haven't read the thread.

I think that the attitude I was referring to has blinded your judgement.

You need to look outside of your state for a minute to realize what I'm saying.

If you read the thread, you did so with your bias assumed.

Reread it if you have the inclination... it might even enlighten you as to what I was really saying.

Defamatory -

Well isn't that antagonistic.

Shame on you.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Do you really want me to search all of BHT's BS that he slung?

 

[kmk420kali]

Do you really want me to search all of BHT's BS that he slung?

No, we want you to explain in plain English why you think this should go on, at this point...beyond a "Yes or No" situation--
There is plenty of time to argue details...let's just get our foot in the door now--
It is getting down to the wire now...we need to get this passed...then I will be more than happy to go into what I think should be...I just think that it would cloud the issue at this time--

 

[mean mr.mustard]

See, I actually have read every word......

Some people look beyond money... because we don't make any off of selling grass.

I see a bad bill that does nothing for the imprisoned nonoffenders.

Why cast your vote for something that you don't agree with?

What is the point of this thread?

It's gone beyond discussion... now you're just trying to convince people of what you think is right.

That's truly absurd in my eyes.

The idea behind a democracy is to vote FOR WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT.

I don't see how giving people Walmart weed and saying it did some good is going to get us anywhere but down.

Why on Earth would you want to hand the only people we've never agreed with the wheel of our ship.

My favorite fallback for the Pro group is "Well even if Prop 19 passes then things will be the same if you choose to do it that way."

That's never the case and you know it. THE LAW IS BEING CHANGED... when was the last time you agreed totally with legislators?!?!?!



Just for the record:
NOT EVERYONE IS SAYING NO BECAUSE OF MONEY

Some people are worried that you're doing more harm than good.

No amount of repetition will remedy this.

Who is "they"?

This should be written by "us".

I could say that there is certainly division among "us" so "they" should like that.

I'd rather be united for "us" rather than hand "them" "us".

"of the people, by the people, for the people"... ring any bells anyone?

You haven't seen any of the posts that say "if we vote no on this, we'll never see it on the ballot again" "a 'no' vote means that we don't want pot legalized" or anything like them?

Don't vote for poorly written legislation... plain and simple.

I agree we need to keep the movement going... and NOT hand it to the same people who imprison us while they misrepresent our desires.

If you hand the reins over, don't be suprised when the dog bites you.

I've never agreed with the government's official stance on cannabis.

I don't want to give them a dime... or any more prisoners.

If I was whipped repeatedly for seventy years and all of a sudden it stopped, I'd still find the fucker responsible and whip him for seventy years.

I would most certainly not say "Ok, thanks!", give them fifty bucks, and walk away.

We've given the government billions of dollars and millions of prisoners... what have we gotten from them?!

 

[SCF]

No, we want you to explain in plain English why you think this should go on, at this point...beyond a "Yes or No" situation--
There is plenty of time to argue details...let's just get our foot in the door now--
It is getting down to the wire now...we need to get this passed...then I will be more than happy to go into what I think should be...I just think that it would cloud the issue at this time--

its beyond that. MMM this bill is to legalize Industrial hemp. it says it in plain English. You stated, that if this bill legalized hemp, then you would support it. So i already assumed you are supporting prop 19?

I mean Legal hemp, this is what Jack Herer was fighting for, The Emperor wears no cloths. For sure this is one of a major leading factor for me.

 

[rives]

MMM -

BHT appears to have two modes - vociferous attack and pretty damn reasonable. You on the other hand, go through a variety of responses from reasonable to unreasonable, from pleading to lecturing, from attacking to playing the pity card. My point about your reaction being funny was because you think you are being slammed for opposing 19 (sort of...sometimes...). As a mostly casual observer, I think that the YES crowd reactions are aimed at your reactions.

 

[vta]

New Study Says Legalizing Marijuana Will Hurt Drug Cartels

by Scott Morgan

RAND is known for publishing speculative analysis that appears to be aimed at undermining marijuana reform, but this passage from their latest study is pretty strong:

We believe that legalizing marijuana in California would effectively eliminate Mexican DTOs’ revenues from supplying Mexican-grown marijuana to the California market. As we elaborate in this chapter, even with taxes, legally produced marijuana would likely cost no more than would illegal marijuana from Mexico and would cost less than half as much per unit of THC (Kilmer, Caulkins, Pacula, et al., 2010). Thus, the needs of the California market would be supplied by the new legal industry. While, in theory, some DTO employees might choose to work in the legal marijuana industry, they would not be able to generate unusual profits, nor be able to draw on talents that are particular to a criminal organization.

That's a powerful argument for regulating and taxing the industry, unfortunately RAND didn't exactly emphasize this finding in their press release. By focusing instead on the obvious fact that cartels would continue to generate substantial revenue from other markets and other drugs, RAND was able to generate headlines like these:

Legalizing marijuana in California would not curtail Mexican drug organizations, study says – Los Angeles Times

Study: Legalizing Pot Won't Hinder Mexican Cartels – New York Times

Study: Calif. Pot Measure May Not Hurt Drug Cartels - NPR

This is how the media describes a report stating that Prop 19 would "effectively eliminate" drug cartels' marijuana profits in California. It's yet another definitive example in the long history of media outlets missing the point by failing to actually read the marijuana research they're reporting on. This confusion couldn't have come at a worse time, although the timing is hardly coincidental.

In a few short weeks, we'll find out whether coordinated attacks like these are enough to derail Prop 19, which has generally been polling well despite no shortage of rabid opposition from the usual prohibitionist peanut gallery of police, politicians, and the press. Despite this week's high-profile attempt to refute one of our lead talking points, it will be up to the voters to decide, and the measure's impact on drug trafficking is only one dimension of the issue among many. Moreover, it's also possible that increased focus on the drug trafficking issue could end up amplifying our argument in spite of the media spin.

Only a few weeks remain, and one thing you can count on is the growing desperation of our opposition and the inevitable mindless appeals to fear and paranoia that they're certain to deploy. We are entering the late stages of the most significant marijuana legalization debate in modern history, and we'll soon learn what sort of malicious nonsense remains in their arsenal. Enemies of reform have always been known more for stubbornness than creativity, so I'm not expecting to hear anything new, but we'd be foolish not to expect their very worst.

 

[SCF]

go Scott Morgan! That last paragraph, phenomenal writing!!!

 

[mean mr.mustard]

If you're planning on taxing cannabis, you should vote for a bill that includes the release of unjustly imprisoned offenders.

I don't see a lot of foresight in a bill that should say much more than it does.

We've been kept in a corner forever... nothing about that will change with this bill.

We need to be saying "If you want your taxes, let us out of jail."

I'm pretty sure this was all I was saying.

The rest of it was suprised defense to my own brethren.

Sorry.

The shock wore off.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

its beyond that. MMM this bill is to legalize Industrial hemp. it says it in plain English. You stated, that if this bill legalized hemp, then you would support it. So i already assumed you are supporting prop 19?

I mean Legal hemp, this is what Jack Herer was fighting for, The Emperor wears no cloths. For sure this is one of a major leading factor for me.

I'm not sure I ever got an answer to this.

Okay.

I found it.

Down at the bottom... under ammendments...

It is listed as a "permitted ammendment".

That leads me to believe that although the word is in the text of the bill, it is left out purposefully.

I'm suprised that hemp wasn't adopted into legislation before medical.

It would seem that most nonusers would allow hemp before anybody smokes anything.

 

[rives]

I'm not sure I ever got an answer to this.

Well, I don't see a question in there anywhere to answer, but after going back and looking at the wording again I don't think 19 does legalize hemp - it simply states that an amendment in that direction would be allowable (in the spirit of 19).

Section 5: Amendment

Pursuant to Article 2, section 10(c) of the California Constitution, this Act may be amended either by a subsequent measure submitted to a vote of the People at a statewide election; or by statute validly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, but only to further the purposes of the Act. Such permitted amendments include but are not limited to:..........

(c) Laws to authorize the production of hemp or non-active cannabis for horticultural and industrial purposes.

 

[SCF]

Well, I don't see a question in there anywhere to answer, but after going back and looking at the wording again I don't think 19 does legalize hemp - it simply states that an amendment in that direction would be allowable (in the spirit of 19).

Section 5: Amendment

Pursuant to Article 2, section 10(c) of the California Constitution, this Act may be amended either by a subsequent measure submitted to a vote of the People at a statewide election; or by statute validly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, but only to further the purposes of the Act. Such permitted amendments include but are not limited to:..........

(c) Laws to authorize the production of hemp or non-active cannabis for horticultural and industrial purposes.

ya you are right. If 19 passes, IMHO we would see either a Hemp Bill voted by the people in 2011, or a Amendment within a year of industrial hemp. As a lot of people have been waiting for the green light. Since its been illegal for god knows how many decades to even study it.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Damn, I'm starting to feel like a celebrity around IC Mag!!!

 

[Herborizer]

ya you are right. If 19 passes, IMHO we would see either a Hemp Bill voted by the people in 2011, or a Amendment within a year of industrial hemp. As a lot of people have been waiting for the green light. Since its been illegal for god knows how many decades to even study it.

By March, tops...

 

[dagnabit]

musty..
all of those points you made were easily dismissed using a little thing called logic.

it all boils down to your selectively applied "morals". you only apply your indignation to 19. those prisoners were not released at the passing of 215(you dont think there are no unjustly imprisoned patients in there)yet i dont see you in here fighting to get 215 repealed?

moral flexibility....not an admirable virtue...

 

[BigBudBill]

I'm pretty sure this was all I was saying.

The rest of it was suprised defense to my own brethren.

Sorry.

The shock wore off.

Cant make a one size fits all bill for people who are incarcerated. Each case is different and needs to be reviewed. Prisoners will be able to petition for release. If they are not guilty under current(post 19 passing) then the judge may release them.

 

[BigBudBill]

Double Post.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

musty..
all of those points you made were easily dismissed using a little thing called logic.

it all boils down to your selectively applied "morals". you only apply your indignation to 19. those prisoners were not released at the passing of 215(you dont think there are no unjustly imprisoned patients in there)yet i dont see you in here fighting to get 215 repealed?

moral flexibility....not an admirable virtue...

If you're such a big fan of logic, I would think you'd have realized that repealing 215 isn't a step forward.

My "morals" seem to displease you. All apologies.

BigBudBill - I realize this. I doubt many are in there for a 24 sq ft grow.

 

[dagnabit]

My "morals" seem to displease you. All apologies.

just the flexibility thereof..
To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor.
if your objections are your true objections....