Vote YES or NO on Prop 19

[SCF]

And what's the other?



Where does it say how it is decided between the two?

i just think you're little confused.

Basically. If we the people vote this in. It can not be changed, unless we the people vote to Amend the Bill. Legislative can ask us to change it. In a special election, or a regular election on ANOTHER VOTE. Which in then would have to either be passed by the Governor, or not signed, or Vetoed. In which, if we vote on it. It CAN NOT BE VITO by the Governor.


We vote yes. We win. Less Government, More people. If the Legislative decide to push a BILL like this. it wont be as liberal... as our pass has shown us through Congress, and the house of representatives. Where every year, they got shot down by votes. And they were no where as liberal as prop 19.


Legislative is either Congress, House of Representatives, or Supreme Court, and of course our president.


after this year. The house of Representatives will be ran by Republican Party if im correct... Which means nothing is going to pass through them for another 2 to 4 years....

Congress, well thats a whole other issue. No one is going to commit political suicide trying to get marijuana legal.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

What are you, judge, jury, and executioner?

I was unaware of this invalidity you're referring to.

If you think it's bullshit, it's true.

If I'm thinking it could be bullshit, I'm wrong.

Your logic is flawless.

I just dont understand why your against 19. It seems you have a new reason your against 19 every single time we disprove your last reason.

I feel like opposing 19 is a 12 step program and your on step 12. After you guys spew your ludacris fear mongering lies and they get disproven you all play the victim. Like us pro19ers are here for no reason but to bully you.

I just want to know why your really against this...it seems the best argument you can make is based on what MIGHT happend. Thats called speculation my friend and even if you ARE right, what is so wrong with 25 sqft ? Anyone with a minimal amount of knowledge would be able to produce enough cannabis to supply themselfs for self consumption. Many people have shown it is easy enough to produce at least a pound in a 5x5 every 3 months. Thats more than 1oz per week, more than enough for most mj users.

But it seems like you anti19ers only want to vote for a legalization that will allow you to grow and sell as much marijuana as you want without any taxes, regulations or liscening. Marijuana will never be legalized without these things, so if thats what your holding out for in 2012, we should all simply ignore anything you have to say. Because your either delusional or deceitful in trying to sway voters from voting for 19 in favor of some non-exsistant proposition that MIGHT be introduce by SOMEONE.....

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Representitives?!?!

They've never steered us wrong against our will.



I think we should reserve some power from the bastards.

You can't just give the reins to someone who has never driven the wagon.

BHT I'd like to see you disprove speculation. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either I have possibly valid points or you've not disproven my fears.

 

[SCF]

i just think you're little confused.

Basically. If we the people vote this in. It can not be changed, unless we the people vote to Amend the Bill. Legislative can ask us to change it. In a special election, or a regular election on ANOTHER VOTE. Which in then would have to either be passed by the Governor, or not signed, or Vetoed. In which, if we vote on it. It CAN NOT BE VITO by the Governor.


We vote yes. We win. Less Government, More people. If the Legislative decide to push a BILL like this. it wont be as liberal... as our pass has shown us through Congress, and the house of representatives. Where every year, they got shot down by votes. And they were no where as liberal as prop 19.


Legislative is either Congress, House of Representatives, or Supreme Court, and of course our president.


after this year. The house of Representatives will be ran by Republican Party if im correct... Which means nothing is going to pass through them for another 2 to 4 years....

Congress, well thats a whole other issue. No one is going to commit political suicide trying to get marijuana legal.

and a little further into it. Here is a list of stuff that TRIED to go through Congress, and The House Of Representatives, But FAILED!!!!

and this was just this year.....



http://www.mpp.org/legislation/medical-marijuana-in-congress.html

Marijuana Policy in Congress
2009 was a breakthrough year on the federal level. In 2010, we hope to build on our success and continue pushing marijuana policy reform forward. Please visit MPP's action center and take action on new issues in the 111th Congress.

MPP's federal goals for 2010 are to:
Introduce groundbreaking legislation to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol
Monitor Department of Justice compliance with the new non-interference policy regarding state medical marijuana laws
Work with the Obama administration to facilitate medical marijuana research
Hold a hearing on the Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act
Eliminate funding for the drug czar's wasteful anti-marijuana ad campaign
Recent Legislation
There are four important pieces of legislation currently under consideration in Congress:

H.R. 2943: The Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act

H.R. 2943 would eliminate federal criminal penalties for possession of up to three and a half ounces of marijuana, as well as the not-for-profit transfer of one ounce of marijuana.

H.R. 2835: The Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act

H.R. 2835 would reschedule marijuana, allowing doctors nationwide to prescribe it to patients in need. It would also create protections in federal law for states that wish to protect medical marijuana patients.

H.R. 3939: The Truth In Trials Act

Congressman Sam Farr’s Truth In Trials Act would protect state-sanctioned medical marijuana patients and providers from charges in federal court.

The National Criminal Justice Act of 2009

Introduced by Senator Jim Webb, the National Criminal Justice Act of 2009 would create a commission to study the rising prison population and make recommendations on reforming America's criminal justice system.

Visit MPP's action center and take action on new issues in the 111th Congress.

 

[kmk420kali]

So basically the possibility exists that we don't get to vote on anything.

I still don't see why anyone would put it on the ballot when they could just sit in a conference room munching tax dollars instead of spending them on a vote by the people.

When it comes to Legislation...do you think, if 19 passes...that these Politicians...who are voted in by us.. are going to not think about this??
If 19 doesn't pass...that will reinforce the feeling that supporting Legalization is Political Suicide--
If it passes...they might realize that not supporting it is--

 

[rives]

MMM, your simply not going to change the existing legislative process over the legalization of pot! These are the rules that we work within if we want legality. If not....well, that's what we've had for a hell of a long time.

 

[rives]

When it comes to Legislation...do you think, if 19 passes...that these Politicians...who are voted in by us.. are going to not think about this??
If 19 doesn't pass...that will reinforce the feeling that supporting Legalization is Political Suicide--
If it passes...they might realize that not supporting it is--

Hey, maybe we could get the NRA on the cannabis bandwagon! They've kicked a bunch of those folks into submission.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

So this is as good as it's going to get even though it sucks in more than a few places?

 

[vta]

IF CALIFORNIA LEGALIZES MARIJUANA, HOW WILL OBAMA REACT?

California will vote in a few weeks on Proposition 19, which would ( if it passes ) effectively legalize the recreational use of marijuana in the state. Chances of it passing seem to be growing, if you'll excuse the metaphor, like a weed. Right now, the poll numbers for Proposition 19 are better than the numbers for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown or Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer against their respective Republican opponents, for instance.

Meaning California could become a "test case" state in challenging federal laws on the matter.

But what would this mean, practically? Well, a lot of it hinges on how President Barack Obama reacts.

Which is impossible to say right now, but at least we can examine the possibilities, now that California legalizing marijuana seems to have moved from the "pipe dream" category ( sorry about that, I couldn't resist ) to a very real political possibility, if the polling trend continues.

The polling on Proposition 19 still does fluctuate, but appears to be getting better on average.

Eight of the last nine polls have shown Yes on Prop. 19 with a 4-11 point lead ( average lead: 7.1 percent ). The best of these is less than a week old, and showed a 52-41 split.

In four of these, Yes on Prop. 19 scored at 50 percent or better.

Now, this doesn't mean passage is a sure thing, at this point.

Seasoned supporters of state propositions don't really begin to breathe easily until the polling for the proposition hits 55 percent or better ( which is usually seen as pretty much unbeatable ). The highest poll yet in favor of Prop. 19 has been 53 percent, in comparison. And, although probably an aberration, the most recent poll showed a stunningly different story with Prop. 19 losing 43-53. Measuring it against the other polling, though, this Ipsos poll is likely an outlier.

Polling on the proposition is in itself questionable, for the simple reason that after 100 years of the "Drug War," most citizens may have problems answering questions about drugs honestly when an absolute stranger calls them up and asks them. But, overall, the polling is much better than it was even a few months ago, and the movement seems to be towards the Yes side. The battle's far from won, but it is looking more and more winnable, to put it another way.

If California does go ahead and legalize marijuana, the entire Proposition 19 campaign could bear some very interesting offspring, as soon as 2012. Even the staid Wall Street Journal just pointed out the fact that a whole bunch of Democratic strategists are watching this race very, very closely.

This is because it could become a dandy "hot button" issue on the Left, in much the same way that banning gay marriage has been a successful political tool on the Right. These hot buttons on both sides energize the base of the party and increase voter turnout among some normally-apathetic groups.

The way this thinking goes is: California's youth may surprise everyone and buck the general trend for any midterm election ( where young voters mostly skip voting ), and vote in droves precisely because a pet issue of theirs is on the ballot.

This means it may behoove Democrats to put marijuana legalization initiatives on state ballots in order to drive up turnout in 2012, and beyond. Democratic politicians, however, are going to be a lot more reluctant to join this bandwagon, but one assumes they'll certainly be thankful for the benefits of a bigger Democratic turnout.

Both Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer are officially against Proposition 19, but I bet in private they're thanking their lucky stars that it made the ballot this year.

"Yes on 19" spokesman Tom Angell, when contacted about this possibility, was optimistic about the prospect of Democrats having a change of heart politically, if Proposition 19 wins in November: "The pervasive political thought among Democrats is that supporting marijuana reform is politically dangerous -- but eventually they'll realize that supporting such reform means that they won't be punished at the polls as a result, but that they may in fact be rewarded." Angell is currently "on loan" to the Yes on 19 group, and is normally Media Director for a group which has endorsed Proposition 19, "Law Enforcement Against Prohibition" ( or L.E.A.P. ), which is made up of current and former police officers, judges, and others from the law enforcement field.

Turning back to my main point, though, let's just assume for the sake of argument that Proposition 19 passes on Election Day California ( which, for those of you on the East Coast, will happen three hours later than you expect it to... ). Glassfuls of bubbles will be raised across the state in victory salutes; although these won't be the traditional Dom Perignon champagne served in Waterford flutes, but rather glass bongs bubbling merrily away. Marijuana legalization is approved by the voters 54-46, and everyone lives happily ever after, right?

Well, no. Marijuana is still quite illegal under federal law. And federal law always trumps state law. At least, unless the United States Supreme Court rules against the federal law or Congress decides to change it. So what would the passage of Proposition 19 actually mean for Californians?

It depends.

It all depends on President Barack Obama, at least for now. Because Obama has a number of choices open to him as to how the federal government is going to react to this development. And it's impossible to say exactly what form this reaction would take. But we can at least outline the possibilities, at this point.

From worst to best, here's how I see these possible options:

Crack Down / Escalate

Obama could instruct his Justice Department to crack down unmercifully. This includes both the "Law" and "Order" parts of the Justice Department, to borrow a television metaphor.

Federal agents ( such as, but not limited to, the D.E.A. and the F.B.I., just for starters ) could be mobilized and the feds could start busting everyone in sight for blatantly violating the federal Controlled Substances Act ( with a Schedule I narcotic, no less ), and the federal prosecutors could start jamming these cases through with a passion.

Remember, even though President Obama admits he smoked a little weed in his own day, he has been consistently against any and all hints of legalization. In fact, it was one of the first Lefty issues he not only dismissed, but actually ridiculed ( Obama was forced to address the issue because it wildly outpolled all other questions for his first "online town hall" meeting, very early in his term, and he turned the whole thing into a joke ).

This is probably pretty far-fetched, though, I have to admit.

Such an overreaction would require an immense amount of manpower and court time, and likely wind up being pretty futile in the end. But you never know. This could also be an option later on, after Obama leaves office, but we'll get to that in a bit.

Make Some Examples

The second route the Obama administration could take is to "make an example" of a few people.

Crack the whip on some high-profile arrests and court cases, but leave the low-level stuff alone.

This could go a number of different directions, depending on which scapegoats the feds choose to go after.

The Obama team has, for instance, said that they will not target medical marijuana shops that "are legal under state law" but will continue to bust those that fall afoul of the law ( mostly by not checking the paperwork of who they sell to ). Which they indeed have continued to do.

But that kind of all goes out the window if it's legal for everyone. Assumably, the Obama people would refrain from sending in thousands of new D.E.A. agents to the state, but also go after some big-time busts, just to make a legal point.

Which leads us to the next option.

Fight It Out in the Courts

Whether the Obama folks use a test case via a big bust, or they just sue the state directly, this battle may get fought out in the court system. Which doesn't exactly bode well for Proposition 19, for the exact same reason Obama is suing Arizona over their recent immigration law -- federal law always trumps state law. Unless California can convince the Supremes that there is a constitutional right to smoke pot, which should be seen as somewhat of a longshot, at least in the legal realm.

Blackmail the State

This one may come from Congress, but it may also get Obama's support ( again, Obama himself is on record as being against legalization ). Congress could cut off a whole bunch of money for the state of California. This would not be limited to "funds to fight the Drug War," most likely.

There are all sorts of things in the federal budget which could be used to make California pay a serious price for legalizing marijuana. This sort of congressional "blackmail" happens all the time, I should point out, and was the mechanism used in the 1980s ( with highway funding ) to force all the states to raise their drinking age to 21. Again, though, this would likely come from Congress itself, rather than the White House.

Do Nothing

There's a long history of standing back and letting states be the "laboratories of democracy" in situations like this, which Obama could indeed take. Call it the laissez-faire option.

Or, if you prefer non-French terminology, call it the free market option.

This option would consist of sitting back, and then waiting to see what happens. Obama could tell the Justice Department to only enforce the federal marijuana laws in 49 states, since California has shown it wants to try something new. There is lots of precedent for doing so, most notably up in Oregon, where they have an assisted-suicide law. This law was passed by Oregon residents, and at first the feds were very heavy-handed and threatened doctors with the loss of their D.E.A. approval to write prescriptions, but has since calmed down ( since Obama took office, at least ) into the feds "looking the other way." Civilization in Oregon has not noticeably collapsed in the meantime.

This would be the best thing Californians are likely to hope for from Obama. If Obama came out and gave a speech on "the will of the voters" and all of that sort of thing, and then announced a new "hands off CA" policy, then we would have a little laboratory-of-democracy experiment which could be very instructive to the rest of the country.

I have no idea what the chances of this outcome happening are, though, I freely admit.

Jump on the Bandwagon

And I have to put this last one as just as unlikely as the first one. President Obama could see the error of his ways, not only announce his "hands off CA" federal policy, but also become an advocate for full legalization of marijuana nationwide.

As I said, I really don't expect or even hope for this to happen, because it seems so farfetched, but I mention it here for completeness' sake.

Those are the options as I see them. Which path the federal government takes ( assuming, once again, that Proposition 19 passes ) is largely if not entirely up to Barack Obama. Now, I'm positive that Barack Obama knows at the center of his being that locking people up for possessing marijuana is not the brightest idea America has ever come up with. I don't think anyone's ever asked him point-blank: "How would your life be different today if you were busted with an ounce of pot and sent to jail for a few months, back when you smoked it?" But maybe he should reflect on that question before he decides what to do. As Tom Angell from "Yes on 19" put it when I spoke to him, "If the president wants to further demoralize his base, stepping in and overturning the will of the voters of California on marijuana reform would be a great way to do that."

What path Obama chooses will be important.

Because we are assured of at least two more years of a Democrat running the White House ( and possibly six ). And even two years is long enough for the dust to settle politically in the state.

Proposition 19 allows individual local governments to decide what they're going to do on the issue ( whether they'll allow liquor stores to start selling packs of joints, for example ). There will be many discussions at the local level on how to proceed, and towns and counties will take diverse paths, leading to experimentation with how best to implement the law. Two years of this will allow people in the state to get comfortable with the idea on a statewide basis, while still keeping local control of the implementation. Six years would allow the issue to fade completely into the background, and for the battle to move on to other states elsewhere in the country ( especially if California reaps a bonanza of tax dollars as a result ).

But at some point there's going to be a Republican in the White House. And things could get a whole lot nastier on the whole state/federal front lines of this battle as a result.

Which is why it is so important to see how Obama's going to handle it now. If Obama starts in with a heavy hand, it's going to make it a lot easier for a Republican president to later ramp up a federal crackdown.

If Obama gives the California experiment legal room to succeed or fail on its own merits, then it'll be a lot easier to make the argument later: "it's working, leave us alone."

Politically, at least in today's conventional wisdom, Democrats are terrified to support any commonsense drug policy change, for the most part. This comes from 30 years of being demonized by the Republicans as being "soft on crime," so it's understandable ( but not really excusable ) for Democratic politicians to be timid in this area. No statewide Democratic candidate in California has come out in favor of Proposition 19. In fact, not only have they all come out against it, but Senator Dianne Feinstein ( who isn't even running this time around ) is co-chair of the "No on 19" effort.

This is going to be a political movement where ( to paraphrase the old bumpersticker ) the people are going to have to lead, and the political leaders will reluctantly follow, eventually.

But maybe, just maybe, if Proposition 19 passes and California doesn't descend immediately into anarchy as a direct result, and if Democrats see that they held a governorship and a Senate seat that they could easily have lost, and if the offspring of Prop. 19 starts appearing on ballot initiatives in other states in the near future... maybe the Democrats will start to see marijuana legalization in a different light. I could see a day not too long in the future where Democrats are actively promoting legalization state laws in an effort to boost their own popularity among the ranks of voters ( especially young voters ), because it is smart politics to do so.


Source: Huffington Post (US Web)
Author: Chris Weigant

 

[rives]

So this is as good as it's going to get even though it sucks in more than a few places?

Jesus, where do you keep coming up with this crap? We just outlined the change process, you know about ABX6 9, and what about all of the bills coming in 2012?

 

[SCF]

So this is as good as it's going to get even though it sucks in more than a few places?

basically... its a start, first one in 90 plus years.... and a good one at that considering they are letting us grow. which i NEVER thought they would allow on a bill....

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Representitives?!?!

They've never steered us wrong against our will.



I think we should reserve some power from the bastards.

You can't just give the reins to someone who has never driven the wagon.

BHT I'd like to see you disprove speculation. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either I have possibly valid points or you've not disproven my fears.

How are we giving power to these people? They have no power to restrict anything prop19 gives us. All they can do is RAISE the limits.

Assemblymember Tom Ammiano has already shown that the state wants to see less restrictive regulations than what 19 has proposed. So all this bullshit about how were giving the reigns to these representives to make 19 worst is completly false and lacking of all truth or common sense.

As far as disproving all your crazy rants and speculation all I can say is if I told you there was a flying spaghetti monster, would you believe it simply because it can't be disproven?

All your bogus lies and speculation leads me to believe you have a motive to stifle legalization that you have decided not to share with us...

 

[mean mr.mustard]

basically... its a start, first one in 90 plus years.... and a good one at that considering they are letting us grow. which i NEVER thought they would allow on a bill....

I guess I can buy that.

Whoever the child is dancing unhelpful post points whenever I post something needs to grow the fuck up.

That simply is a shining example of how to act like a desperate debater lost for words.

I pity all of us.

 

[SCF]

I guess I can buy that.

Whoever the child is dancing unhelpful post points whenever I post something needs to grow the fuck up.

That simply is a shining example of how to act like a desperate debater lost for words.

I pity all of us.

Ignore what bothers you, and look into what intrigues you.

And dont pitty us, unless we loose. Because at that point, I, and many other people, will have loss faith in human kind...

But doesn't mean i wont get right back up. AND KEEP FIGHTING!!!!

 

[mean mr.mustard]

All your bogus lies and speculation leads me to believe you have a motive to stifle legalization that you have decided not to share with us...

Believe it or not, I find this post one of your most openminded.

I don't want to see us run pell mell over a cliff.

That's all.

I'm really a greedy cop though.... remember?

 

[SCF]

Believe it or not, I find this post one of your most openminded.

I don't want to see us run pell mell over a cliff.

That's all.

I'm really a greedy cop though.... remember?

I dont believe that to be true that ur a greedy cop. and when i was younger i may have thought differently than now.

I think you are kinda like me. Its too good to be true type of person.

Or there has to be something hidden behind it.

But being a Medical Patient, from a medical state. If it doesn't affect Medical Marijuana. And doesn't make the Current laws worse. Than what do we have to loose?

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Believe it or not, I find this post one of your most openminded.

I don't want to see us run pell mell over a cliff.

That's all.

I'm really a greedy cop though.... remember?

I dont know WHAT you are, thats why I keep asking these questions of you because I have yet to understand why you are so strongly opposed of marijuana legalization while frequenting a marijuana enthusiast forum....

 

[vta]

Lessons Learned From Al Capone



If you support keeping marijuana illegal you are supporting terrorism. In 1919, the United States Constitution was amended to outlaw alcohol. The unintended consequence was the rise to power of organized crime. Today we face the same threat from Mexican narco-terrorists that control the trafficking of marijuana in the United States. According to a 2008 Justice Department threat assessment, "Mexican drug trafficking organizations represent the greatest organized crime threat to the United States." But a solution is at hand. The Tax Cannabis 2010 organization has put an initiative on the ballot for this November that will legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana in California.

Trying to charge Al Capone for alcohol production, drug smuggling and distribution proved impossible, and in the end they sent him to jail on tax evasion. Like the drug dealers of today, Al Capone bribed elected officials, colluded with bankers and everyone else in the food chain. No matter how much money we spent to fight organized crime, the dealers prevailed and grew stronger. Our local police do not have a chance when the full military power of the United States is in Afghanistan today, and they are not able to stop the heroin production from growing to 93 percent of the world's crops. Those drugs pay for the terrorists to attack us.

Finally Americans decided to pass the 21st Amendment to the Constitution that repealed the prohibition of alcohol. In one quick move the dealers were out of business. At the same time the federal, state and local governments all taxed the production, sales and distribution of alcohol.

We face the same challenge today. The people that profit from keeping marijuana illegal have worked hard to keep it illegal. The Mexican drug cartels do not want legal marijuana in the United States for obvious reasons. The Mexican narco-terrorists use that money to destroy the lives of the good people of Mexico and force them to flee to our country every day. What people don't realize is that the American Medical Association is on the side of the drug dealers, and fights hard to keep it illegal as well. The reason is simple, the AMA and the narco-terrorists together control the entire North American drug trade. If you don't believe the AMA is in it for the money, ask yourself why the Food and Drug Administration has done no study to date on the medical use of marijuana.

Without conducting a study of their own, the FDA's position contradicts the favorable 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine, a part of the National Academy of Sciences, our nation's most prestigious scientific advisory agency. "Unfortunately, this is yet another example of the FDA making pronouncements that seem to be driven more by ideology than by science," said Dr. Jerry Avorn, a medical professor at Harvard Medical School.

A close friend had a fight with cancer and the doctors prescribed about $9,000 per month of highly addictive pills to manage the pain. That person tried marijuana and found it worked better and was far less expensive. Marijuana has many benefits that the AMA really does not want you to know since they can prescribe you a great number of expensive, highly addictive alternatives that make them a great deal of profit. If you think the AMA has your best interests in mind, ask yourself how many diseases have been cured in the last 20 years? How many addicts do they create by giving you the only legal way to "manage" your ailment with a lifetime of profitable drugs? Cures are not very profitable.

I hear many argue that marijuana is a gateway drug while alcohol is not. Alcohol can cause people to beat their spouse and drive their car into a bus full of children. In contrast, Marijuana causes people to stay home, eat food and sit on the couch. The only gateway to addictive drugs is created by forcing people to deal with drug dealers that also sell addictive drugs. The medical marijuana shops do not sell hard drugs and have proven to be easy to tax, regulate and control.

The proposed law is well written and to the point. The proposed law states: "Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against operating a vehicle while impaired." This leaves marijuana in the hands of the same people that can buy a bottle of scotch. In the Netherlands, which legalized marijuana, the number is half that of American users as a percentage of population.

Like any good Republican, I always look to raise revenue from fair sources and encourage more effective ways to fight crime. The people of Santa Monica and their neighbors on the Westside have led the charge to fight the evil narco-terrorists with the medical marijuana movement. The people of Santa Monica had the sense to pass a law that made personal marijuana use the police department's lowest priority. Since we did that, the police were able to focus on real crime and real criminals. The 21st Amendment method of legalizing a controlled substance has proven to work. Let's do the smart thing and stop the Mexican narco-terrorists once and for all by taking away their main source of revenue and have more money for the schools.


Source: Santa Monica Daily Press (CA)
Author: David Alsabery

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Ignore what bothers you, and look into what intrigues you.

And dont pitty us, unless we loose. Because at that point, I, and many other people, will have loss faith in human kind...

But doesn't mean i wont get right back up. AND KEEP FIGHTING!!!!

My faith is already slipping.

I took shelter in my community of good hearted potheads.

I realized it isn't necessarily such a welcoming bunch anymore.

If I was more narrowly minded, and perhaps rabidly driven I would have felt at home again.

I'm not a victim.

I'm a crime in and of myself.

If I wouldn't have said anything I could have just seen all the smiling Californian faces lining up at the polls and worried about sheep to the slaughter.

Instead I opened my mouth. Now I worry about ever doing it again.

 

[kmk420kali]

I don't want to see us run pell mell over a cliff.

There are several hundred pages of this topic here--
Many of us have spent many hours researching, and learning...backing up with links to pertinent legal discussion , and Case Law--
I just spent a full fucking day learning about Legislative Intent!!
Do you honestly think we are running "Pell Mell"??
We understand your concerns...and have done a pretty thorough job of backing up everything said with hard fact--
Still...the No's can't do that!!