Vote YES or NO on Prop 19

[raphenilweed]

WOw LONG THREAD. Not going to read all of it just saying my 2cents.

Prop 19 isn't the right answer. Doesn't outline cultivation and I don't think cities and counties will either. The law enforcement isn't going to stop and what I can't have 20 acres and grow 1 single plant or smoke at home if I have children?
There is probably a lot of logical vote no arguments/opinions but the primary mainstream vote no is just complete propaganda. I will be voting yes on 19 because marijuana is not dangerous, it is not addictive or a gateway drug. It is a useful plant for many applications. It should not be controlled by a offshoot of the judiciary branch of government that has no oversite or anyone with 1 ounce of intelligence working for them.

 

[kmk420kali]

my point.. THIS TYPE OF HOT BUTTON ISSUE GOES TOWARDS THE "NO" VOTE.. THATS ALL. NOW TALK ALL UR SHIT CUZ I DONT CARE,Im well off with my kids taken care of. I own my company so its up to me how productive I want to be. That is none of your buisness. Why not stay on point here? Or is having a reasonable debate not possible here because you react like children when someone comes in here and post what you might not like to hear?

This is like no other "Hot Button" issue ever--
Many, many ppl support Cannabis...but have to act like they don't, in order to further their Career..etc--
I think that this issue will bring out younger Voters, and many of the older, closet smokers will vote Yes...once in the privacy of the voting booth--
We will see soon--

 

[WasntMe]

Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Who is the we that wrote that post with you?

just me and my 5 other schizophrenic personalities .... how about u?

 

[TruthOrLie]

Steve Cooley on nightly news running for office in CA is against Prop 19.

Why?

He says, for one, prop 19 will give a civil right to marijuana users to be high at work.

 

[Chronic Future]

most old folks are aginst 19, they have been brain washed by bullshit like reffer madness but my parents dont blaze and there all for it .It's like this man pass or fail it dont make a diffrence to me I'll still be growing and blazing the chronic I'll just have to renew my medi lic lol. these m.a.d.d. and oppisition people are full of shit talking about it endangers public safety you know what endangers everbody out here ? all the dumb assholes texting going down the freeway but they wont start no bills to end that shit its all about the allmighty dollar oh yeah I dont place much stock in those polls I know alot of peeps who a for 19 and they dont use computers damn near the whole city in V-town lol. peace

 

[Chronic Future]

I find it a bit odd mxrider4 that all your posts are only in this thread and that they seem quite contradictory ....

....are you some other entity on the site, but wish to remain anonymous so not using your other handle for some reason by using a sock-puppet handle?

this dude is just like a paid basher on a stock market board
they get paid to post a bunch of bullshit to sway people there way you can tell from the way he posts .

 

[Oldstonerguy]

How many people here were even alive the last time Ca had marijuana legalization on the ballot?

If you don't vote for this now, it could be 40 more years before you get to vote on it again.

Vote Yes in Nov. and let the process evolve.

This is it.

 

[zenoonez]

How many people here were even alive the last time Ca had marijuana legalization on the ballot?

If you don't vote for this now, it could be 40 more years before you get to vote on it again.

Vote Yes in Nov. and let the process evolve.

This is it.

Or whenever someone puts up the cash to put it on the ballot? Propositions are voted on in every election dude, doesn't mean this is the last one.

 

[Oldstonerguy]

Or whenever someone puts up the cash to put it on the ballot? Propositions are voted on in every election dude, doesn't mean this is the last one.

It won't be the last one if it fails but it will likely take many years before it will get another test. A failure at the polls will just embolden prohibitionists. They are already trying their best to ban medical marijuana and Cooley looks to be elected AG. That won't be good for medical marijuana either as he's on a crusade to stop it.

It's far easier to pass this now and let it evolve rather than hope for something else sometime in the future.

2012 won't be better. Republicans and Tea Party voters will take those elections after 4 years of record unemployment and the worst recession of our lifetimes. Chances get worse not better.

Don't be fooled, this is the chance we have, don't blow it, or we all lose.

I'm voting Yes.

 

[zenoonez]

Listen, the laws you make are the laws you make. I understand Cali is about to fight one hell of a legal war over this if Cooley gets elected. I promise however that he will cost the state millions if not billions because of his crusade and that it will only strengthen the position of the current laws. Just because we can pass a law doesn't mean that we should. It is a poorly written law to begin with. Just because the country is swinging doesn't mean we should pass laws that are poorly written. Politics has a short lifespan, one which forgets that the republicans and their trickle down economics don't work. We will all learn these lessons over and over again. But rather than get this into politics we shall agree to disagree no?

 

[Herborizer]

Listen, the laws you make are the laws you make. I understand Cali is about to fight one hell of a legal war over this if Cooley gets elected. I promise however that he will cost the state millions if not billions because of his crusade and that it will only strengthen the position of the current laws. Just because we can pass a law doesn't mean that we should. It is a poorly written law to begin with. Just because the country is swinging doesn't mean we should pass laws that are poorly written. Politics has a short lifespan, one which forgets that the republicans and their trickle down economics don't work. We will all learn these lessons over and over again. But rather than get this into politics we shall agree to disagree no?

Whats poorly written about it? I don't think it's poorly written at all. It was carefully written so that the Feds couldn't sue the state and overturn it.

 

[Herborizer]

Whats poorly written about it? I don't think it's poorly written at all. It was carefully written so that the Feds couldn't sue the state and overturn it.

Here is why the Feds won't stop prop 19 in court. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/25/what-the-feds-can-do-if-calif-legalizes-marijuana.html

Constitutional-law experts say California has no obligation to have the same criminal laws as the federal government, so Holder’s Justice Department can forget any lawsuit compelling the state to make marijuana use a crime. “Arguably a state could decriminalize murder” and the federal government could not force it to do otherwise, says Ruthann Robinson, a constitutional-law professor at the City University of New York. On the legalization question, then, Holder’s hands are tied.

 

[BigBudBill]

Here is why the Feds won't stop prop 19 in court. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/25/what-the-feds-can-do-if-calif-legalizes-marijuana.html

Bingo!
Holder is just blowing impotent smoke up voter's asses. Fuck Holder! Bring it.

 

[vta]

Welcome To Potopia, California


cannabis California -- When it comes to legalizing pot, it's easy to imagine the kind of radical scenarios Californians are conjuring in their heads. Perhaps they own a business, and worry about high-as-a-kite employees stumbling into work—submitting psychedelic Power Point presentations to drowsy bosses. Maybe they're parents, wondering how their kids will react when they come home from school to find mom and dad sprawled out on the couch, surrounded by cookie crumbs. Or perhaps they're entrepreneurs, their eyes bulging over the idea of commercializing pot for good: imagining billboards, popup bars, and everything in between.

The predictable scenes from a legalized California, should voters pass Proposition 19 on Nov. 2, are seemingly endless, and they've managed to strike fear (and excitement) in the hearts of many. But the reality is that California became a kind of pot utopia years ago—complete with clubs that sell it, cities who tax it, and tourists who hit the Pacific Coast Highway in search of the Golden State's best bud. Prop 19 would make California a trailblazer, legally. But would it really change that much about the culture?

In government terms, Prop 19 would shield Californians who have up to an ounce in their posession from prosecution—assuming they're 21. It would allow adults who want to grow the stuff to do so, in the privacy of their homes, on up to 25 square feet of land. Local governments could then decide to sanction commercial production (if they so choose), and tax its sale—using the funds for things like libraries, parks, or schools. But if approved, the measure also would put California head to head with the federal government, where marijuana remains illegal (and Attorney General Eric Holder has vowed to "vigorously" enforce its ban). Opponents wonder how it could possibly work to have each of California's 478 cities implement separate taxation policies, and question whether legalization would cause usage rates to hit the roof. Supporters push back with stats about American dependence on Mexican drug cartels, and the $300 million California might save if it cut back on prosecuting low-level marijuana offenders each year.

These are important legal (and financial) questions. But for anyone who's been to California recently, it's easy to forget that recreational marijuana isn't permitted there already. In 1996, California became the first of 14 states to sanction medical pot use; getting the state-issued ID card that allows access to medical marijuana may cost you, but it requires little more than convincing a doctor you have cramps. California is now home to thousands of pot dispensaries operating both legally and illegally, as well as a number of cities where pot sales are being taxed—and even a marijuana university.

It's been estimated that 400,000 Californians smoke pot legally each year—and another 2 million do so illegally. In a new national NEWSWEEK poll, almost half of respondents said they'd support a measure similar to Prop 19 in their own state, and 57 percent said they oppose the federal government's right to prosecute legal marijuana users in California.

Critics may be right when they say statewide implementation of a legalization measure could be murky. As Sen. Dianne Feinstein has put it, it would make for a "jumbled, legal nightmare." But the truth is that marijuana cultivation and distribution are already "tightly woven into [California's] economy," as the Los Angeles Times has written—part of a $14 billion industry that's already grown in homes, and even national parks. "People are no longer outraged by the idea of legalization," as former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown recently put it. "And, truth be told, there is just too much money to be made [from it]."

It's impossible to predict how much Prop 19 could really change things, but perhaps the best test case would be the city of Oakland. There, commercial pot production has been taxed since 2005, sold among four licensed dispensaries operating downtown. But crime hasn't gone up in Oakland as a result; there aren't glassy-eyed potheads asleep on benches around every bend. In fact, regulation has done something of the opposite: licensed "coffee shops" have lured new business to the area, and the $2 million in taxes that's expected to come in this year, according to the city's tax administrator, will go toward things like filling potholes, renovating parks, and funding recreation centers. "The reality," says Richard Lee, a local entrepreneur (and Prop 19's primary sponsor), "is [that] we're creating jobs, improving the city, filling empty store spaces, and when people come down here to Oakland, they can see that."

Come Tuesday, it may be precisely that kind of economic lure that has the biggest impact on California voters. But when it comes to the cultural impact, it seems pot may have already gone mainstream. "This is a new world," Robert MacCoun, a professor of law and public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, tells NEWSWEEK. "If you'd have asked me four years ago whether we'd be having this debate today, I can't say I would have predicted it." It may indeed be a new world, but it could also look an awful lot like the current one.

Source: Newsweek (US)
Author: Jessica Bennett

 

[vta]

Marketing Marijuana


cannabis California -- When it comes to marketing marijuana, there are already foreseeable roadblocks -- not the least of which is whether it becomes legal in California after November's election. Funding, community acceptance and regulation are all unknown factors at this point. But, that hasn't stopped people like Liz Davidson from leading marketing efforts to create a “Humboldt Brand” for marijuana.

Organic, sustainable, grown-in-the-sun are the ideals she is marketing through the not-for-profit Tea House Collective. It's a cooperative based out of Berkeley that educates medical marijuana patients -- currently 500 of them -- about where their marijuana comes from.

The collective was formed after public discussions called “What's After Pot?” were held in Southern Humboldt in March. Branding of marijuana was a constant topic of discussion. Davidson said she started organizing the collective in April, it was incorporated in June, and the certification process was developed over the summer. She publicly introduced the collective at the International Cannabis and Hemp Expo in the San Francisco Bay Area in late September.

Davidson has taken 20 small-scale Humboldt County growers through an organic and sustainable certification process.

Marijuana is currently illegal in California -- unless you have a doctor's prescription for medical use in the form of a 215 card. If passed, a ballot for the Nov. 2 election would allow adults 21 years of age and older to legally possess one ounce of marijuana and grow plants on a five-by-five plot.
Local governments would have the ability to tax and regulate them.

Davidson said she would consider using her model for commercial marijuana if it were legalized.

”Broader legalization will change things, but it's impossible to tell how or when or if it will be challenged,” she said. “We're doing what we're doing right now, and we'll adapt to circumstances.”

Davidson called the marijuana grown by the collective's Southern Humboldt growers as “hand crafted” and “artisanal.”

Already in Humboldt County, there is a group of businesses marketing their goods as “hand crafted” and “artisanal” -- ranging from beer, wine, cheeses, jewelry and other crafts -- with the “Humboldt” name. It's called Humboldt Made, and it is managed by the Humboldt County Office of Economic Development.

Jacqueline Debets, Economic Development coordinator for the county, has managed the Humboldt Made project on behalf of the specialty agriculture industry, and wrote grants to fund it.

When asked if the Humboldt Made project would consider including marijuana in its marketing plan in the future, she said it is not an easy answer.

”Branding, indeed protecting and defining the Humboldt Grown brand for marijuana, is an important step and shouldn't be oversimplified,” Debets said in an e-mail. “How it's connected to the Humboldt Made brand is a good question. The product board of businesses governing Humboldt Made will look at it.”

She said the marijuana industry needs to take critical steps, such as setting up quality testing, product liability insurance, as well as certification and laws to license growers.

She said she sees the Humboldt Growers Association taking the lead as an emerging trade association for the marijuana industry.

Joey Burger, president of the Humboldt Growers Association, said the Southern Humboldt-based group was formed in July to be a voice for marijuana growers in the community. It has a five-member board and a five-member advisory board.

He said that growers may have to pave their own way as business owners and start their own “Humboldt” brand, whether through an organization or as individuals.

”Branding is absolutely necessary, especially to keep people outside the community from capitalizing on Humboldt's decades of hard work and reputation,” Burger said. “It's important now if it's medical cannabis and even more important with legal cannabis.”

Some growers have already stepped out into branding their marijuana products and have found success in it.

A local marijuana grower, who wished to be anonymous due to legal concerns, said he has been growing marijuana for 14 years and started his own branding techniques two years ago.

He said he has been successful developing logos for different strains, as well as branding “the story” of Humboldt and its growing culture. He said he shares information and photos of his farm with medical marijuana patients, and users like feeling like they are a part of his story.

”People love learning about the story of Humboldt's sustainable cultivation and natural beauty, why we love to live here and our love for the plant,” he said. “Now patients know my product, they know the quality -- that it's grown outdoors and there are ethics attached to it.”

While growers are ready to embrace the business of marijuana, the community still has room to grow, acceptance wise, said Mark Lovelace, Humboldt County's 3rd District supervisor.

Lovelace said he has been encouraging groups like Humboldt Made, business owners and the community to start preparing for the fact that marijuana could be legalized in the near future.

However, any project involving marijuana would not be eligible for public funding, leaving a road block in many potential partnerships in the community.

Lovelace said there will have to be some acceptance on the part of the whole community to market marijuana successfully.

”There's a cultural acceptance curve between recognizing it's a part of our economy to actively embracing it, promoting it and celebrating it as part of our economy,” he said.

”Is the community as a whole, beyond the industry itself, determined they're ready to have the name of the place they live attached to this industry?' Lovelace asked. “It involves everybody, not just those in the industry.”

Lovelace pointed out that Humboldt Made supports breweries and wineries despite the fact that 77 years ago, both were illegal under Prohibition.

He said he hopes it won't take that long to come to terms with capitalizing on the marijuana market.

On the other side of it, Lovelace said he can see that if projects like Humboldt Made incorporated marijuana businesses into their marketing strategies, the two could possibly hurt each other more than help each other.

”When someone sees Humboldt Creamery milk, they could think, 'Does that have pot in it?' I wouldn't be surprised if people went that far,” Lovelace said. “I think we need to be cognizant of that.”

He said there needs to be a positive outlook to it, and the more people talk about it with legislators and local governments, the better.

Burger said Southern Humboldt is already a step ahead in acceptance, embracing marijuana and the money it brings into the community.

He said Northern Humboldt, and the rest of California for that matter, need to look at legalization as an opportunity for new revenue and jobs. Burger and the Humboldt Growers Association are continuing to work with Lovelace and other local officials on how to move forward with marijuana marketing -- medical and commercial, if it becomes legal.

Lovelace said he wants to move forward with legalization, but doesn't have a position on Proposition 19 since he believes it is incomplete. The Board of Supervisors announced Tuesday that as a group, they support Proposition 19. Supervisor Jimmy Smith abstained from the vote. If legalization doesn't happen this time around, Lovelace said, he's convinced it will come up again on the 2012 election ballot.

Source: Times-Standard (Eureka, CA)
Author: Ashley Bailey, The Times-Standard

 

[beta]

Law professors from across America write an open letter to California voters to express their support for Proposition 19.

Here is their letter:

To the Voters of California:

As law professors at many law schools who focus on various areas of legal scholarship, we write this open letter to encourage a wholesale rethinking of marijuana policy in this country, and to endorse the Tax and Control Cannabis 2010 initiative—Proposition 19—that will be voted on in November in California.

For decades, our country has pursued a wasteful and ineffective policy of marijuana prohibition. As with alcohol prohibition, this approach has failed to control marijuana, and left its trade in the hands of an unregulated and increasingly violent black market. At the same time, marijuana prohibition has clogged California’s courts alone with tens of thousands of non-violent marijuana offenders each year. Yet marijuana remains as available as ever, with teens reporting that it is easier for them to buy than alcohol across the country.

Proposition 19 would remove criminal penalties for private use and cultivation of small amounts of marijuana by adults and allow California localities to adopt—if they choose—measures to regulate commerce in marijuana. Passage of Proposition 19 would be an important next step toward adopting an approach more grounded in reason, for California and beyond.

Our communities would be better served if the criminal justice resources we currently spend to investigate, arrest, and prosecute people for marijuana offenses each year were redirected toward addressing unsolved violent crimes. In short, the present policy is causing more harm than good, and is eroding respect for the law.

Moreover, we are deeply troubled by the consistent and dramatic reports of disproportionate enforcement of marijuana laws against young people of color. Marijuana laws were forged in racism, and have been demonstrated to be inconsistently and unfairly applied since their inception. These are independent reasons for their repeal.

Especially in the current economic climate, we must evaluate the efficacy of expensive government programs and make responsible decisions about the use of state resources. We find the present policies toward marijuana to be bankrupt, and urge their rethinking.

This country has an example of a path from prohibition. Alcohol is subject to a regulatory framework that is far safer in every respect than the days of Al Capone. Just like the State of New York did when it rolled back Prohibition 10 years before the nation as a whole, California should show leadership and restore respect for the law by enacting the Tax and Control Cannabis 2010 initiative this November.

Sincerely,

Jonathan H. Adler, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Cleveland, Ohio

Ty Alper, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, Berkeley, CA

Hadar Aviram, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA

W. David Ball, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Randy Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC

Tom W. Bell, Chapman Law School, Orange, CA

Steve Berenson, Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA

Eric Berger, University of Nebraska, College of Law, Lincoln, NE

Douglas A. Berman, Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

David E. Bernstein, George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, VA

Ash Bhagwat, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA

Richard Boldt, University of Maryland School of Law, Baltimore, MD

Connor Bridges, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Cleveland, Ohio

Pamela Bridgewater, American University Washington College of Law, Washington, DC

Christopher Bryant, University of Cincinnati College of Law, Cincinnati, Ohio

Sande Buhai, Loyola University School of Law, Los Angeles, CA

Paul Butler,George Washington University Law School, Washington, DC

Erwin Chemerinsky, University of California, Irvine, CA

Gabriel J. Chin, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, Tucson, AZ

Marjorie Cohn, Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA

Mary Culbert, Loyola University School of Law, Los Angeles, CA

Angela J. Davis, Washington College of Law, American University, Washington, DC

Alan M. Dershowitz, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA

J. Herbie DiFonzo, Hofstra Law School, Hempstead, NY

Steven Duke, Yale Law School, New Haven, CT

Elizabeth Price Foley, Florida International University College of Law, Miami, FL

Eric M. Freedman, Hofstra Law School, Hempstead, NY

David Friedman, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Mary Ellen Gale, Whittier Law School, Costa Mesa, CA

Pratheepan Gulasekaram, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Casey William Hardison, University of Idaho School of Law, Moscow, ID

Bill Ong Hing, University of San Francisco School of Law, San Francisco, CA

Paige Kaneb, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Madeline June Kass, Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA

Alice Kaswan, University of San Francisco School of Law, San
Francisco, CA

Alex Kreit, Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA

Ellen Kreitzberg, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

David Levine, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA

Jerry Lopez, UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, CA

Elizabeth Loftus, University of California, Irvine, CA

Erik Luna, Washington and Lee University School of Law,
Lexington, VA

Michael Madow, Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, NY

Leigh Maddox, University of Maryland, School of Law, Baltimore, MD

Charles Marvin, Georgia State University College of Law, Atlanta, GA

Lawrence C. Marshall, Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA

David N. Mayer, Capital University Law School, Columbus, OH

Tracy L. McGaugh, Touro Law Center, Central Islip, NY

Andrew P. Morriss, University of Alabama, School of Law, Tuscaloosa, AL

Christopher Newman, George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, VA

Michelle Oberman, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Tamara R. Piety, University of Tulsa College of Law, Tulsa, OK

Ascanio Piomelli, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA

David G. Post, Beasley School of Law, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA

William Quigley, Loyola University School of Law, New Orleans, LA

Jenny Roberts, Washington College of Law, American University, Washington, DC

David Rocklin, University of Oregon School of Law, Eugene, OR

Cesare Romano, Loyola University School of Law, Los Angeles, CA

Margaret Russell, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Barbara Stark, Hofstra Law School, Hempstead, NY

Barry C. Scheck, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, New York, NY

Steven Semeraro, Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA

Steven Shatz, University of San Francisco School of Law, San Francisco, CA

Jonathan Simon, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, Berkeley, CA

Eric S. Sirulnik, George Washington University Law School, Washington, DC

David Sloss, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Abbe Smith, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC

Ilya Somin, George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, VA

Clyde Spillenger, UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, CA

Edward Steinman, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Mark Strasser, Capital University Law School, Columbus, OH

Robert N. Strassfeld, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Cleveland, Ohio

Nadine Strossen, New York Law School, New York, NY

Gerald F. Uelmen, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Alexander Volokh, Emory Law School, Atlanta, GA

Keith Wingate, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA

Eric Wright, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Richard W. Wright, Illinois Institute of Technology, Kent College of Law, Chicago, IL

 

[mean mr.mustard]

The Fed's don't have to stop it in court, though if it came down to it, I'm sure they could.

They just have to keep raiding places to pay their bills and keep us from paying ours.

I don't see it stopping.

I'm confused as to who believes that the raids will dry up in a couple of weeks when they've never stopped.

 

[BigBudBill]

I know it's a bit different in SoCal, but the only raids up here are for clubs that are not legit. Or have guns...or other drugs....or are planting on public lands.....or stealing power.

 

[Herborizer]

The Fed's don't have to stop it in court, though if it came down to it, I'm sure they could.

They just have to keep raiding places to pay their bills and keep us from paying ours.

I don't see it stopping.

I'm confused as to who believes that the raids will dry up in a couple of weeks when they've never stopped.

For sure they won't dry up. I don't think anyone is clueless and thinks raids will end overnight.

Though, when the local & state officers are not allowed to help the Feds on investigating Marijuana offenses (federal offenses), it will essentially cut the arms off the octopus of the DEA. So I imagine that there may be a steep incline in DEA busts shortly after Prop 19 passes to make a point. Then a rapid decline once they can't keep up with it (lack of resources).

Though, you have to consider the ramification of stigma once Prop 19 passes. Over time, people will see their friends and families ingest Cannabis. They will see that they didn't turn into lazy losers overnight. Also, I foresee brave doctors and scientists performing studies that substantiate the Pro-Cannabis movement. Lack of social problems coupled with strong scientific study should breakdown the so-called Berlin wall our Governments have created for Cannabis.

I personally feel that our Governments are panicking. I have a strong feeling that once some of the lies have been uncovered, that the people will be IRATE. They will demand an investigation. I have a strong feeling that an in-depth investigation will reveal that many people in our government has known for a long time that Cannabis is not harmful. I have a feeling, several people that were in power will be going to jail.

Isn't it interesting when more than a handful of ex-DEA Csar's come forward and write a letter to our president to urge a lawsuit? How about how many of them have been flying around the country giving press conferences to promote prohibition. Who pays for this? This stuff isn't cheap. To me, it seems like they have something to hide and need to keep it hidden at all costs.

 

[BigBudBill]

The Fed's don't have to stop it in court, though if it came down to it, I'm sure they could.

They just have to keep raiding places to pay their bills and keep us from paying ours.

I don't see it stopping.

I'm confused as to who believes that the raids will dry up in a couple of weeks when they've never stopped.

What happened to the ruling against J. Jones? I thought that would put an end to dispensaries period. It didn't.
The more they raid, the more opened up. Why is that? We now have more than 1000 clubs open in this state and plenty more in other states as well. How will they justify raiding patients dispensaries in a state that has elected to legalize rec use?