Prop 19

[bb4_96]

I think all laws ought to be more harshly enforced not just drug ones. I think what people do with their bodies becomes by business when my tax dollars go to pay for the effects. Pot isn't deadly like other drugs but it is a carcinogen so it is not harmless.

It seems like the nation is pulling itself apart at the seems. Those who still push towards progress/advancement and those who fixate on recreation to the point of using mind altering substances. And of course those in between. I don't think I'd mind drug use so much if people could balance it with life. I'm not against drugs themselves I'm against the results on peoples lives from misuse.

[upsdude]

Originally Posted by TougeLove

do you guys understand how crowded cali would get if pot was legal!?

we're already overpopulated due to immigration (both legal and illegal)

[mau5trap]

vote no on prop 19 this coming November.

Stoners Against the Prop. 19 Tax Cannabis Initiative: WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE PROP. 19: 19 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW

read this too my friend and pass it on.

[BustedS13]

i can only assume everybody saying "vote no" is just trying to preserve counterculture and/or is growing for profit.

edit: hell, the link above is a thread on a weed-farming forum. and then there's this excerpt from the first line: "18 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW "

ha ha ha.

[mau5trap]

the first post on that forum is from this blog.
Stoners Against the Prop. 19 Tax Cannabis Initiative: WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE PROP. 19: 19 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW
FYI, marijuana is already "LEGAL" in California. This bill is just adding more restrictions and new laws against marijuana.

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by mau5trap

FYI, marijuana is already "LEGAL" in California. This bill is just adding more restrictions and new laws against marijuana.

medical marijuana, for the most part, is a ridiculous facade, and is nothing like actual legalization.

[ViciousCesar!]

i don't smoke with kids, i don't grow my own, i don't sell recommendations, i don't make profits from a 'non-profit' dispensary and i am not a criminal. so I'm all for prop 19.

[ronmcdon]

why is a 'ridicoulous facade'?
ppl who use it for recreation or medical means get by fine.
ppl who legitamately need it for medical reasons get what they want.

wouldn't call it LEGAL either.
recreational use isn't technically legal as per state laws (as I understand it),
it's just that there are a lot of loopholes & lack of enforcement that make it readily available.
In practical terms, it's already readily available but that's not the same thing as bieng legal.
Hell if prop 19 passes, it's still ILLEGAL as per federal law.

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by ronmcdon

why is a 'ridicoulous facade'?
ppl who use it for recreation or medical means get by fine.

you shouldn't have to make false claims to a doctor to get a piece of paper that says you can buy pot. you should be able to walk into a store, present your license, and walk out smiling.

ppl who legitamately need it for medical reasons get what they want.

yup.

wouldn't call it LEGAL either.
recreational use isn't technically legal as per state laws (as I understand it),
it's just that there are a lot of loopholes & lack of enforcement that make it readily available.
In practical terms, it's already readily available but that's not the same thing as bieng legal.
Hell if prop 19 passes, it's still ILLEGAL as per federal law.

right, but nothing's going to change without taking steps in the right direction. this is a big one.

see bold. i think you and i are at a stalemate at this point.

[ViciousCesar!]

Originally Posted by BustedS13

nothing's going to change without taking steps in the right direction. this is a big one.

This.

it's time we end the 63 years of prohibition. nothing is gonna change over night, but we have the opportunity to step up and get the ball rolling.

[mau5trap]

No It's Not! Just because it is a "BIG" step forward doesn't mean it is a good one...This "BIG" step looks like a step off a cliff....There is no need to rush into a law that will be difficult to change. There are better full legalization laws, including one set to be on the ballot in 2012.

[ViciousCesar!]

Originally Posted by mau5trap

No It's Not! Just because it is a "BIG" step forward doesn't mean it is a good one...This "BIG" step looks like a step off a cliff....There is no need to rush into a law that will be difficult to change. There are better full legalization laws, including one set to be on the ballot in 2012.

you talking about the Jack Herer initiative? that one would be much much better. but do you honestly think that we'll be able to pull in all the people who don't smoke without giving them something in return?

[kingkilburn]

Your giving them back all the time and money wasted on corrections and law enforcement.

[ronmcdon]

I like the Jack Herer proposition A LOT more!!
essentially the regulation will be akin to wine laws.

everyone arrested for non-violent marijuana charges will be released from prison and have their related criminal background deleted.
(think of all the $$$ saved, and the freeing up of prison/jail space).

It's far less nazi than prop 19, without the all crazy jail time penalties.

Jack Herer - Initiative

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

Your giving them back all the time and money wasted on corrections and law enforcement.

On principle alone, I agree 100% with you there!
However, prop 19 has a good deal of opposition as is.
CA is still a relatively conservative state when it comes to legalizing.
I too have my doubts about the Jack Herer intiative passing, as much as I love it.

[mau5trap]

Ten Reasons to Vote No « Vote No on Prop 19

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by mau5trap

Ten Reasons to Vote No « Vote No on Prop 19

the system got you brah.

[ViciousCesar!]

Originally Posted by mau5trap

Ten Reasons to Vote No « Vote No on Prop 19

okay...

1. Proposition 19 isn’t really legalization. It only allows possession of up to one ounce of cannabis. Under current California law, an ounce or less of pot isn’t an arrestable offense. And soon this amount will be a simple civil infraction. Prop 19 doesn’t make any improvements to decriminalization or prop 215.

we may not always get arrested. but we do still get charged with possession. my buddy just got caught up for some stuff and so they attached 'possession of marijuana'. now he's gonna get added fines, community service, substance abuse classes and another blemish on his record. doesn't sound to me like things are anywhere near where I would like to see them.

2. Prop 19 creates several new cannabis related crimes with extremely severe penalties. Don’t pass a joint to a 17 year old, you will be looking at a max of 7 years in state prison, seriously.

from prop 19:
(c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense.

$1000 fine and six months in jail is the same as providing alcohol to minors. but who wants to smoke with 17 year olds anyways?

3. Prop 19 is solely designed to allow large scale cannabis production by politically connected corporations. Oakland has already started the process to license a Prop 19 Cartel mega-grow.

they can set up shop all they want. it doesn't mean we'll be forced to buy their product. like everything else in our economy, if you don't feel a commodity is up to par. you always have the option to go to their competitors.

4. Most legal experts agree that Prop 19 is poorly written and will leave police and judges to enforce it at their discretion. For example, consuming cannabis would be illegal in the same "space" as a minor. Police and judges are free to interpret the word "space" to mean the same room, house, or entire apartment complex.

once again. i don't see any appeal in smoking with minors and why people think this is such an issue. is there some sort of sub culture that puts smoking with/around kids on such a pedestal?

5. There is no need to rush into a law that will be difficult to change. There are better full legalization laws, including one set to be on the ballot in 2012.

some polls show we can barely get 50% of californians to agree on legalization with the promise of potential tax revenue in a deficit ridden economy. good luck getting them behind us when they won't have anything to gain.

6. Prop 19 will lead to the walmartization of the cannabis industry. And unfortunately, this will result in lower quality and fixed prices. Limited competition and government control will allow large scale growers to determine prices and dictate quality standards (or lack thereof).

see #3 and do you honestly think that the culture we have created, which loves quality buds and is always in hunt for a more potent strain, will just vanish into thin air because a competitor joins the fray?

7. Local governments will control the taxation, production, and distribution of cannabis. This is a touchy political issue; most local politicians won’t risk a backlash by allowing dispensaries in their city. This means many people will have to travel long distances or break the law to purchase cannabis.

it's gonna depend on each city/town to determine if they will take advantage of the potential revenue. if they don't, dispensaries will remain as the are today and you will still have that option if you don't feel like driving. but once you have your herb, nobody will be able to fuck with you for it, regardless of where you obtained.

8. Prop 19 will likely supersede prop 215, adversely affecting medical cannabis users by dictating grow size, possession amount, patient to patient sales, and location of use.

from Prop 19:
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.

*California Health & Safety Code #11362.5 = prop 215

9. Unbiased cannabis activists do NOT support Prop 19. This includes the late Jack Herer and the co-author of prop 215, Dennis Peron (see his video here).

illegal growers, profit dispensaries, some greedy doctors, people who contribute to minors and facist don't support prop 19. Herer and Peron are against it because they are already onto the next level and i wish we could all be there. but the sad truth is that the general public isn't ready for it.

10. The federal government has decided to not prosecute medical cannabis users. This will not be the case if Prop 19 passes. Many people believe that the passage of Prop 19 will bring an aggressive response from the feds, perhaps putting medical users at risk of losing access to medicine.

this is purely speculation and pessimistic propaganda. but if these people think that a proposition that gives cities to power to tax and 'control' cannabis, and puts 'adults' in jail for contributing to minors is gonna be under heavy attacks by the government. what do you think would happen if the proposed 2012 marijuana initiative passed? or is using the 2012 initiative an excuse to go against prop 19, put out there by people who have no real motivation in seeing marijuana completely legalized anyways?

[mau5trap]

Originally Posted by ViciousCesar!

okay...



we may not always get arrested. but we do still get charged with possession. my buddy just got caught up for some stuff and so they attached 'possession of marijuana'. now he's gonna get added fines, community service, substance abuse classes and another blemish on his record. doesn't sound to me like things are anywhere near where I would like to see them.

did your friend have a 215 card? was he legally allowed to carry weed with him?

[ViciousCesar!]

Originally Posted by mau5trap

did your friend have a 215 card? was he legally allowed to carry weed with him?

he doesn't. hence, why i used him as an example.

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by mau5trap

did your friend have a 215 card? was he legally allowed to carry weed with him?

why should everyone be required to pay for a hundred dollar doctor visit where you have to lie about your condition, for something that is less harmful than tobacco or alcohol?

[mau5trap]

so you don't get caught up.

[bb4_96]

Originally Posted by ViciousCesar!

but who wants to smoke with 17 year olds anyways?

Other 17 year olds?

This thread sucks... No matter what they do with regards to legalization if the laws put into effect aren't well enforced it's going to be a cluster fuck. Incidents while intoxicated will be fucking rampant without moderate to heavy enforcement much like DUI(alcohol) is currently. Not just driving incidents but any situtation where a person's reaction time jeopardizes others well being.

^ I have a story for above. An individual I know decided that driving while under the influence of marijuana doesn't impair judgement or reaction time. While driving one evening having smoked within half an hour the individual began tailgating an unmarked car without realizing(judgement). Cop sped up and so did xyz. Cop sped up more, so did xyz. Cop paced xyz for 2 miles at 90mph(judgement). Cop began to slow down to try to pull over xyz and was rear ended by xyz(reaction time). xyz got off with $1k in fines and a year of NA meetings. xyz still has a liscense and still openly and braggingly advocates driving while high.

I say legalize on a federal level because people are going to do whatever the hell they want anyway, but please stiffen penalties and enforcement to promote responsible use. When people atart losing their driving rights for life after an accident while dui the bullshit will stop... One way or another.

[mau5trap]

^^ that sounds like a made up story about xyz.
sounds like he was on some other shit.

[CleanAndLegit]

people who say know to prop 19 are people who wanna keep "making" money off of selling pot
and are trying to convince people to vote know by pointing out the downs
obviousfingly its not gonna be freakin perfect
anyway im voting yess sirrr!
no downsides if your not doing something in the sense of "bad"

[ronmcdon]

Originally Posted by CleanAndLegit

people who say know to prop 19 are people who wanna keep "making" money off of selling pot
and are trying to convince people to vote know by pointing out the downs
obviousfingly its not gonna be freakin perfect
anyway im voting yess sirrr!
no downsides if your not doing something in the sense of "bad"

you obviously haven't been reading.
btw - that 'know' pun was a little lame, esp given the irony.

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by mau5trap

so you don't get caught up.

get caught up in what? addiction? it's not an addictive substance. by that logic everyone should go to the doctor for alcohol and tobacco prescriptions.

Originally Posted by bb4_96

Other 17 year olds?

yeah, and 17 year olds want to drink and smoke cigs with each other, too, but that's also illegal.

[ViciousCesar!]

Originally Posted by bb4_96

Other 17 year olds?

lol. You might want to re-read what I was respondeing to.

[bb4_96]

^lol jk. True though. 17yo will be smoking illegally just like they drink now.

[ViciousCesar!]

yeah, that's very likely. but in it could also potentially save lives if they stopped drinking and started smoking.

[Tarrell]

I am against Proposition 19 for one, and only one, reason: No state in the United States has the right to ignore federally mandated laws in place. While I agree that marijuana laws should be repealed, California has a duty and responsibility, as a state in the U.S., to uphold and enforce Federally-inacted laws presently in place, including the laws that make it a crime to possess, use, sell, trade, and/or cultivate marijuana. To me, what Prop 19 really says is, "If passed, the California State Government, as well as the state's counties and cities, is choosing to ignore federal law." I do believe we should repeal the anti-marijuana laws and allow responsible people to use it if they choose. But it is my firm belief that we must start at the FEDERAL level,by writing to our Congress Representatives, Senators, and the President, to repeal the federal laws in place that make marijuana illegal. Once federal pot laws are repealed, the states should have the right to make it illegal in their respective states, or repeal the laws themselves. If any person, business, or any "lower" government entity is free to disregard "higher" government laws in place, and to just "pick and choose" which laws they will enforce or ignore, then the entire system breaks down, and laws themselves would have no real meaning. For example, say Los Angeles County decides it will no longer enforce the state's drinking and driving laws. California would no doubt "cry foul" and insist LA County uphold the state's inacted laws, and the state government would be correct, insisting that "as a county within California's borders, it has a duty and responsibility to uphold the state's anti-drinking and driving laws." By the same token, California, and it's counties and cities have the same duty to uphold United States federal laws. Again, I agree we should repeal the anti-pot laws, but it must start at the federal level first. For this reason alone, Proposition 19 should be removed from the ballot, until the federal anti-pot laws are repealed first.