Prop 19

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by Tarrell

Sorry, but that's not quite correct. While it's true some federal laws are enforced only by a federal agency (only the IRS enforces federal tax laws, only the FCC enforces radio and TV station broadcasts, etc.), state and local police officers do enforce federal laws all the time. Bank robbery is a federal crime but if a bank in any state is robbed the local police respond and have the authority to arrest the bank robbers. Can you imagine what would happen if FBI agents showed up and were told that the criminals were there with the police but they had no authority to enforce federal laws by arresting them so they let them go? Kidnapping is a federal crime but state and local police respond to that crime as well. I know you may think, "But these are only because we have laws on California's books too." But not all states have these laws on their books and they are still enforced at the local level. This has been the basis for Arizona's cracking down on illegal immigrants, they are enforcing federal laws in place.

so why doesn't LAPD raid the thousand dispensaries in los angeles?

[bb4_96]

Originally Posted by ViciousCesar!

i hate to break it to you but people who wanna smoke, are already smoking.

Haha really? I've already said my piece about people following their own rules.

Originally Posted by ViciousCesar!

it's not gonna be some huge invisible border being torn down. sure there'll be a few new people who will want to try it out. but that's why we need to stop thinking of marijuana as such a 'useless drug' and educate people on it's actual benefits and proper usage...

So nothing is going to happen? Legalization and then business as usual? Few hiccups? If you think wider availability isn't going to lead to wider misuse education or not then you are a little daft to the nature of human beings.

Originally Posted by ViciousCesar!

you also say we don't have enough money to support legalization. but do we really have enough money to keep it illegal

Do we have enough money to keep murder illegal? Speeding? You gonna repeal everthing you can't enforce? Wanna open up the borders too? We fail miserably at regulating that as well.

Originally Posted by ViciousCesar!

if you don't wanna risk losing your ____ priveledges, then don't smoke marijuana before performing ____ priveledges. it's as simple as that

Like I said above. I'm not worried about hypothetical "you" I'm worried about any other random jackass that decides it is a great idea, or ok to do.

Originally Posted by ViciousCesar!

and again with the hypothetical 'what if big business takes over cannabis', sure everybody who enjoys tasty potent clean buds is just gonna say fuck it and start smoking marlboro brand right?

So you're saying there is some huge fundamental difference between all people who use tobacco substance vs. people who use pot? I just don't see alot of people with tobacco plants in their grow room/backyard. Why would there be when there are cheap quality alternatives readily available. The opportunity cost of forgone productivity is too great to spend time growing something you can buy cheaply enough. There will always be connoisseurs as you propose and they may be a majority now but they will dwindle. It's the same as any marketable product.

Originally Posted by ViciousCesar!

the only people who will consider buying that stuff will be the people who are smoking low quality cartel grown dirt weed. but then that would be money taken away from criminal organizations and that would be bad, right.

I'm for legalization. It was the first line in my post. Obviously some cartels will lose some money, that fact has been beaten to death. That fact is the smokers saving grace. I'm tired of hearing it. Drug cartels fit an economic model and what they lose in pot they'll make up in every other service they provide. There will always be a demand for organized crime.

Originally Posted by ViciousCesar!

but since we fear what the tobacco industry will do to cannabis, we should keep going after the smoker instead of going after the guy that we think will try to poison it's consumers.

Word this differently. I don't get it. I think you should only go after the smoker if he's breaking the law. If not leave him well enough alone imho.

Can anybody post up a counter figure for the temperature of burning pot, i hunter forever and only got 1300deg?

[240sx123$]

Originally Posted by BustedS13

so why doesn't LAPD raid the thousand dispensaries in los angeles?

Because we voted in Obama, who said he'd stop raids on medical patients. Under the Bush regime, they did exactly that- raided dispensaries and the homes of medical marijuana patients. Edit, disregard. Thought we were talkin bout the feds.

Prop 19 is going to pass, and the feds are gonna shut it down. I can almost guarantee it.

[240sx123$]

Originally Posted by bb4_96

Can anybody post up a counter figure for the temperature of burning pot, i hunter forever and only got 1300deg?

1300 degrees?! Lol where did you get that?!

THC vaporizes between 365-420 degrees, and the actual bud will ignite around 420+.

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by bb4_96

Can anybody post up a counter figure for the temperature of burning pot, i hunter forever and only got 1300deg?

come on man.

Bong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[kingkilburn]

Originally Posted by Tarrell

Sorry, but that's not quite correct. While it's true some federal laws are enforced only by a federal agency (only the IRS enforces federal tax laws, only the FCC enforces radio and TV station broadcasts, etc.), state and local police officers do enforce federal laws all the time. Bank robbery is a federal crime but if a bank in any state is robbed the local police respond and have the authority to arrest the bank robbers. Can you imagine what would happen if FBI agents showed up and were told that the criminals were there with the police but they had no authority to enforce federal laws by arresting them so they let them go? Kidnapping is a federal crime but state and local police respond to that crime as well. I know you may think, "But these are only because we have laws on California's books too." But not all states have these laws on their books and they are still enforced at the local level. This has been the basis for Arizona's cracking down on illegal immigrants, they are enforcing federal laws in place.

The local police detaining you and waiting for the feds to arrive is miles away from the locals arresting you for federal infractions.

[ViciousCesar!]

Originally Posted by bb4_96

Haha really? I've already said my piece about people following their own rules.

So nothing is going to happen? Legalization and then business as usual? Few hiccups? If you think wider availability isn't going to lead to wider misuse education or not then you are a little daft to the nature of human beings.

Originally Posted by bb4_96

Like I said above. I'm not worried about hypothetical "you" I'm worried about any other random jackass that decides it is a great idea, or ok to do.

there will ALWAYS be random jackasses in all facet of life no matter what, bro. but that doesn't mean we should criminalize the other 99.9% for the irresponsible decisions of that .1%. for example, we have a bunch of dumb kids driving our streets around in 240s crashing into shit and endangering lives, does that mean we should all lose our rights to drive a 240?

And i do strongly feel that educating people on marijuana will help keep a lot of the first time/uninformed users from getting in position that they might not be ready for.

Originally Posted by bb4_96

Do we have enough money to keep murder illegal? Speeding? You gonna repeal everthing you can't enforce? Wanna open up the borders too? We fail miserably at regulating that as well.

maybe i'm misunderstanding something, but i fail to see where you are coming from here. i just don't see how you can compare taking a life/endangering lives to smoking a plant that puts you in a pacified state that should never have been illegal in the first place.

Originally Posted by bb4_96

So you're saying there is some huge fundamental difference between all people who use tobacco substance vs. people who use pot? I just don't see alot of people with tobacco plants in their grow room/backyard. Why would there be when there are cheap quality alternatives readily available. The opportunity cost of forgone productivity is too great to spend time growing something you can buy cheaply enough. There will always be connoisseurs as you propose and they may be a majority now but they will dwindle. It's the same as any marketable product.

you know there's already a cheaper alternative. you can get 9-12 grams of stress (dirt weed) for the same price you would pay to get 1 gram of quality bud. the only people smoking the dirt weed are 17 high school kids. but you don't have to take my word for it. ask marijuana smokers yourself if they are gonna give up quality for few extra bucks.

Originally Posted by bb4_96

I'm for legalization. It was the first line in my post. Obviously some cartels will lose some money, that fact has been beaten to death. That fact is the smokers saving grace. I'm tired of hearing it. Drug cartels fit an economic model and what they lose in pot they'll make up in every other service they provide. There will always be a demand for organized crime.

of course they have other means of income and they aren't just gonna go away. but at least their funding won't be coming from money that could be going back into our own economy.

Originally Posted by bb4_96

Word this differently. I don't get it.

people keep bringing up that they fear that the tobacco companies will implant themselves into the cannabis industry and start adding poisonous/addictive additives to marijuana. and, instead of anybody saying 'hey, fuck marlboro/camel. they're gonna kill their customers' and going after them, they'd rather just keep wasting tax dollars enforcing laws/policies that were based on lies to begin with.

Originally Posted by bb4_96

I think you should only go after the smoker if he's breaking the law. If not leave him well enough alone imho.

agreed here.

[J3123MY]

Kingkilburn. your blog seems unsure of itself...

"In conclusion, these results provide evidence for the DNA damaging potential of cannabis [marijuana] smoke, implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development,"

Tarrel, what you say is true too. But sometimes you really have to do things little by little. Going straight to legalization of the United States without steps, such as mmj and 19, seems quite difficult / borderline impossible.

Originally Posted by bb4_96

I think its half a conservative and half mixed bag reasons why the nation is against it. Alot of very liberal people are against it. Financially pot isn't a very wise hobby, plenty of jobs still random drug test, alot of people have tried it and don't like the sensation, i know several people who work to much to take time out for it, there is a large group of elitists who like to place themselves above substance use and associated stigmatism, and there is people who can't stand the loss of productivity associated(I've never witnessed anyone do anything truly productive why high). people who dislike the negative effects it has on their athletic performance. I think I've heard just as many valid reasons for people to dislike as to support.

I don't think coservatives are the biggest issue. I think the biggest hurdle of this bill will be convincing recession time working class people that legalizing a relatively expensive liesure time drug is a worthy agenda. When some people are losing there jobs/homes/cars/lives they really don't want to hear about what others can afford to do in their leisure time.

wtf? lol....please stop.

lol. troll?


I don't know about this proposition. Voting time is coming up and I am leaning toward no due to the fact that I am a medical marijuana patient and the proposition does not really separate recreational from medical, which will cause pretty much medical to fall under recreational and take away many of the rights that prop 215 gave me.

It doesn't make sense that a proposition that is trying to make something legal and keep people out of jail adds so many new laws and rules to put people in prison/jail.

I am really curious to see whether this passes or not. I wonder how things will change in California if it does. I hope its for the better.

[ViciousCesar!]

Originally Posted by J3123MY

It doesn't make sense that a proposition that is trying to make something legal and keep people out of jail adds so many new laws and rules to put people in prison/jail.

like what?

Originally Posted by J3123MY

take away many of the rights that prop 215 gave me.

this one too, please.

[S14DB]

Originally Posted by ViciousCesar!

like what?



this one too, please.

He's in the 18-21 crowd.

[ViciousCesar!]

Originally Posted by S14DB

He's in the 18-21 crowd.

if he has his medicinal marijuana card, prop 19 won't take away his rights to purchase, consume or grow marijuana.

[J3123MY]

If you read the proposition, It makes buying from a grower illegal. It makes smoking a "space" with a minor illegal punishable with prison time. and a lot of other laws and regulations that mmj will have to follow due to the failure to differentiate between mmj and recreational use.

It doesn't take away my rights, but it adds new laws to it that I do believe I have to follow.

I cannot grow as much. I am allowed 6 plants and if I become a caretaker, I Can grow 6 plants for each person I am a caretaker for. Now I Only get a 5x5.

Its really small stuff. Basically, why would I vote for something that adds limits and laws to something I pretty much already have?

[stinky_180]

Originally Posted by jdhariwal

It should NOT be legalized! People love it because its illegal. It gives them a sort of excitement, "oh shit, this is illegal and i dont give a fuck!". if you legalize it, people will eventually stop smoking it, and I can guarantee that within a year, their will be some new drug thats hella hyped that everyone is doing. If cigarettes were illegal, I'm pretty sure thats what everybody would be doing. Plus, how are the hard working people on the street supossed to make money!? They work day and night to supply us with the best ganga on the street! AMERICANS WILL LOSE JOBS! NO ON PROP 19!

your pretty dumb foo...

so i guess no one would be drinking beer/alcohol if this was true.. you sir are an idiot.

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by J3123MY

If you read the proposition, It makes buying from a grower illegal. It makes smoking a "space" with a minor illegal punishable with prison time. and a lot of other laws and regulations that mmj will have to follow due to the failure to differentiate between mmj and recreational use.

It doesn't take away my rights, but it adds new laws to it that I do believe I have to follow.

I cannot grow as much. I am allowed 6 plants and if I become a caretaker, I Can grow 6 plants for each person I am a caretaker for. Now I Only get a 5x5.

Its really small stuff. Basically, why would I vote for something that adds limits and laws to something I pretty much already have?

Prop 19 does not supersede prop 215. It even references prop 215, so it CAN'T. please stop spreading misinformation.

[J3123MY]

Prop 19 is called Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.

no mention of recreation or medicinal marijuana in the title.

I looked over it again, and this proposition barely mentions or references anything on medical marijuana, and when it does, it is not quite clear. The only place I see it mention it is in section 2 part B #6.

Busted, please prove me wrong and post up the part in the proposition that is clear that 215 is not superseded by 19. If you prove this to me, I will lean toward voting yes.

It seems like the prop 19 didn't clarify how 215 is effected enough, since there are many different information being passed around.

[J3123MY]

fuck my laptop died and I have to put all this shit back in.

Ok, so I had a bit of confusion. Section 11362.5 is prop 215. However, it is basically only mentioned three times in the proposition.

6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.
7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

So you are right, busted, It appears that prop 19 does not affect how much a medical patient can grow.

However, this is the only mention of prop 215. It appears that medical patients will have to abide by the rest of prop 19 rules, since they don't mention anything on Section 11362.5 and prop 215 and the difference between medical marijuana and recreational marijuana in the rest of the proposition.

And since you didn't bold this, busted, I assume you knew this.

So in a way, prop 19 does supersede 215.

There is a grayish area on whether or not it will be legal for a medical marijuana patient to purchase marijuana from a medical marijuana caretaker.

Alright I'm done reading this shit. I got a a microbiology and virology midterm and a tae kwon do tournament next week.

funny link: http://www.noonproposition19.com/

[ViciousCesar!]

i quoted all that stuff on page 2, btw...

[J3123MY]

lol. your green font is hard to read, had to post it up again, you know, for the color blind.

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by J3123MY

lol. your green font is hard to read, had to post it up again, you know, for the color blind.

yeah, thanks for clearing that up for us, professor.

[J3123MY]

No problem, student. You will learn a lot from my lectures. lol.

Busted, are you even in cali?

[ViciousCesar!]

yeah, it wasn't the best choice in color. but it felt right given the theme. lol

[ViciousCesar!]

Originally Posted by J3123MY

funny link: No On Proposition 19

lol... but we don't want this scaring anyone off so i'll post a rebuttal.

Doesn't marijuana cause a lot of automobile accidents?

Not really. The marijuana using public has the same or
lower rate of automobile accidents as the general public.
Studies of marijuana smoking while driving showed that it
does affect reaction time, but not nearly as much as
alcohol. Also, those who drive `stoned' have been shown to
be less foolish on the road (they demonstrate `increased
risk aversion'.) Recent studies have emphasized that
alcohol is the major problem on our highways, and that
illicit drugs do not even come close to being as dangerous.

As funny as it may seem, you may be safer driving `stoned',
as long as you aren't `totally blasted' and seeing things --
but few users are irresponsible enough to drive in this
state of mind, anyway. Still, many people have reported
making mistakes while driving because they were stoned.

There are those who think that marijuana is a major problem
on the streets, because of a newspaper article or news story
which they have seen which said a large number of people who
were killed in driving accidents tested postive for
marijuana use. For various reasons, these studies are not
reliable:

o Some studies use drug tests which can only tell
whether a person has used marijuana in the last
month.

o Some studies were done near colleges or other areas
where drinking, marijuana use, and accidents are all
very high, and they did not correct for age or
alcohol use.

o In many of the studies there were more stoned drivers
killed -- but it was not their fault, and when the
police ``culpability scores'' were factored in
marijuana was not to blame for the accidents.

NHTSA statistical study pub. 1992, data pending

NHTSA Amsterdam study pub. 1994, data pending

Australian statistical survey pub 1993, data pending

taken from:
Hemp / Cannabis / Marijuana FAQ

[lainardisboss]

i love weed, although i dont smoke it anymore.

anyways. i would say no to this 19 only reason why is, if it was legal..... some doctor is gonna go do my heart transplant and its his 1st time workin high off the new legal shit and he fucks up im dead. wtf. thats my imagination but other than that i love the herbals

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by lainardisboss

i love weed, although i dont smoke it anymore.

anyways. i would say no to this 19 only reason why is, if it was legal..... some doctor is gonna go do my heart transplant and its his 1st time workin high off the new legal shit and he fucks up im dead. wtf. thats my imagination but other than that i love the herbals

thank you for your contribution.

[Tarrell]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

The local police detaining you and waiting for the feds to arrive is miles away from the locals arresting you for federal infractions.

Think so? Just check out this link:

L.A. Sheriff Will Enforce Federal Pot Laws if Prop 19 Passes | Ron Paul 2012 | Campaign for Liberty at the Daily Paul

The first article is of a comment by Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca stating that even if Prop 19 passes, his department will still, and I quote, "UPHOLD FEDERAL LAWS. PROP 19 WILL FAIL, EVEN IF IT PASSES..." Now that does not mean I agree with Sheriff Baca, or if I even believe him, he may just be throwing an "anti prop. 19" scare tactic. And just to see the hypocracy, other post-comments on that same web page call Sheriff Baca a "dictator" for "disregarding California laws if Prop. 19 passes...", even though if Prop. 19 passes that's exactly what the state of California is doing in regard to the federal anti-pot laws.

[Tarrell]

Originally Posted by BustedS13

so why doesn't LAPD raid the thousand dispensaries in los angeles?

I honestly have to say that you make a very interesting point. The only conclusion I can come up with on that one is, because Prop. 215 is about medical marijuana priscription use only, and that it's "politically incorrect" to raid dispenseries intended for presumed medical use. To the LAPD, it's probably seen as the same as "holding back insulin to a diabetic." But "recreational use" of marijuana just doesn't hold the same "sympathetic clout" to the LAPD. If you have any other theories on that one I'd love to hear your opinion.

[bb4_96]

Originally Posted by ViciousCesar!

there will ALWAYS be random jackasses in all facet of life no matter what, bro. but that doesn't mean we should criminalize the other 99.9% for the irresponsible decisions of that .1%.

My main thing is there needs to be enforcement prepared for any new legislation. You can't stop the few without some penalties.

Originally Posted by ViciousCesar!

And i do strongly feel that educating people on marijuana will help keep a lot of the first time/uninformed users from getting in position that they might not be ready for.

Agreed

Originally Posted by ViciousCesar!

maybe i'm misunderstanding something, but i fail to see where you are coming from here. i just don't see how you can compare taking a life/endangering lives to smoking a plant that puts you in a pacified state that should never have been illegal in the first place.

Not life endangering aspect itself but the principal that laws need to be upheld regardless of funding. In response to can wee afford to keep it illegal.

Originally Posted by ViciousCesar!

you know there's already a cheaper alternative. you can get 9-12 grams of stress (dirt weed) for the same price you would pay to get 1 gram of quality bud. the only people smoking the dirt weed are 17 high school kids. but you don't have to take my word for it. ask marijuana smokers yourself if they are gonna give up quality for few extra bucks.

Why would they give up quality? Big business isn't stoopid. They are more than likely going manufacture the best of the best quality as well as ditch weed in any form you care to purchase it. There will be more variety than baskin robbins. And they are going to do it cheaper than your dealer. Nobody's going to give up quality but big business is going to dominate the product in no time.

Originally Posted by ViciousCesar!

people keep bringing up that they fear that the tobacco companies will implant themselves into the cannabis industry and start adding poisonous/addictive additives to marijuana. and, instead of anybody saying 'hey, fuck marlboro/camel. they're gonna kill their customers' and going after them, they'd rather just keep wasting tax dollars enforcing laws/policies that were based on lies to begin with.

Tobacco companies will take a piece of that industry because they have the bank to buy into it. And once there in all the rat poison and other awful chemicals that make their way onto the tobacco leaves will also make their way onto to pot plants. There is a boat load of people fighting tobacco companies and they haven't shut down because they supply a product in heavy demand. By legalizing pot you are only going to give the tobacco companies new life because they can make the cancer free studies that have already been conducted. By legalizing pot they are only going to grow larger. You can't stop tobacco companies until you kill the demand. Solve human genetic predisposition to use substances and they'll have to close up shop.

[ViciousCesar!]

Originally Posted by bb4_96

My main thing is there needs to be enforcement prepared for any new legislation. You can't stop the few without some penalties.

of course go after the bad apples (blitzed drivers) all you want. but it's cheaper and more effective to after the few. than it is to go after all of them.

Originally Posted by bb4_96

Not life endangering aspect itself but the principal that laws need to be upheld regardless of funding. In response to can wee afford to keep it illegal.

anti-marijuana laws were founded on fiction. even if we lived in a flourishing economy, i would still say we need to get rid of them.

Originally Posted by bb4_96

Why would they give up quality? Big business isn't stoopid. They are more than likely going manufacture the best of the best quality as well as ditch weed in any form you care to purchase it. There will be more variety than baskin robbins. And they are going to do it cheaper than your dealer. Nobody's going to give up quality but big business is going to dominate the product in no time.

Tobacco companies will take a piece of that industry because they have the bank to buy into it. And once there in all the rat poison and other awful chemicals that make their way onto the tobacco leaves will also make their way onto to pot plants. There is a boat load of people fighting tobacco companies and they haven't shut down because they supply a product in heavy demand. By legalizing pot you are only going to give the tobacco companies new life because they can make the cancer free studies that have already been conducted. By legalizing pot they are only going to grow larger. You can't stop tobacco companies until you kill the demand. Solve human genetic predisposition to use substances and they'll have to close up shop.

the tobacco companies aren't coming into the marijuana business. because if they were, it'd all ready be legal. in fact, the obama administration's just sent us (Californians) a letter saying that we better not approve prop 19 OR ELSE, lol. i don't think they'd be saying that to us if their buddies at big tobacco were looking forward to legalization.

[bb4_96]

Originally Posted by ViciousCesar!

the tobacco companies aren't coming into the marijuana business. because if they were, it'd all ready be legal. in fact, the obama administration's just sent us (Californians) a letter saying that we better not approve prop 19 OR ELSE, lol. i don't think they'd be saying that to us if their buddies at big tobacco were looking forward to legalization.

I still can't agree. I think where there is a buck to be made the tobacco guys will find it. If not another huge conglomerate will emerge with similar tactics. You can knock tobacco companies on moral grounds all you like but they have a hell of a business model thus far.

[S14DB]

Originally Posted by bb4_96

I still can't agree. I think where there is a buck to be made the tobacco guys will find it. If not another huge conglomerate will emerge with similar tactics. You can knock tobacco companies on moral grounds all you like but they have a hell of a business model thus far.

Philip Morris sponsored the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act to ban Cloves. They bought Sampoerna in 2005 to try to prevent direct imports to the US. But, grey market imports continued. This led up to the 2009 bill.

Kretek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If they saw cloves as a threat to ban in rather then embrace it. I can only think that they see marijuana the same way.