To PASS, or NOT, or not YET!!!

[Professor Puff.n.Tuff]

Well since you started rambling I will start here - no sense in wasting my time yet...

1. Your point of view is very PERSONAL as you put it - Growing a plant or two, wtf?!?! - maybe this is fine for your consumption and many others but what about the many others that need more than this can produce? Why are we sacrificing some of our current rights in order to tax it - because the government want their CUT...

2. Again your PERSONAL care in regards to taxes would not be kind to me and thousands of others. We would not be aloud to grow the quantity we need under this bill and would end up with us paying dearly for it in taxes. We would be constantly going to get another sack with the limit on finished product, or make four trips in one day for a months worth supply - maybe you can deliver it to me free and pay the taxes on it - what county you in?

3. A lot of people are happy now - more people CAN be happy if they choose to by getting a prescription - Not everyone will be happy, just as not everyone is happy now. Doesnt mean you should get your way and end up with me paying for it financially.

Let me know what you think about these and I will refresh my memory and read the rest of the link that dude put up. But I already saw some flaws in it too.

I clearly see your concern with "big boys" taking over, which is likely to happen (and we really have no control over that). But all I personally care about is being able to grow a plant or two for personal consumption, without the alphabet boys knocking on my door. Without any legal concerns for that matter. Let the states get the tax revenue, as long as everyone is happy imo

 

[Professor Puff.n.Tuff]

The AM is nearing its end dude...

I have come up on some extra time though...

I will start with the link that one guy posted on the previous page.

1. Holy FUCK - Under the “arguments in favor” – “The California Legislative Analyst's Office analysis says state and local governments could realize additional revenues from sales taxes generated by commercial producers of marijuana”

1. 1. This proves my theory, and has only been an assumed theory until I read this, This bill is not intended for the people to grow and produce their own herb and def not for any patients they may be helping. All those people will end up paying tremendous taxes and ultimately higher prices because of this.
   2. Realize additional revenues = “get” (realize) “more” (additional) “of the peoples money” (revenues)

1. Under the same section – “The state could also realize additional income tax revenues from the production and sale of marijuana. In addition, local governments could realize additional revenue from various types of taxes, benefit assessments, and fees on marijuana. The actual level of revenues generated would depend upon the rate of such levies and how the measure changed the consumption and sales price of marijuana.”

1. 1. This means that they have no intention on letting you grow more than they have to.
   2. Who are the commercial growers? Is this already established? Maybe the tobacco companies that have a lot of resources in a similar industry?
   3. Etc. I don’t know what to say. Could go on for ever.

This whole statement I have copied and pasted from this bill gives me all the reason plus some to not vote “yes”. The - plus some- is refereeing to taking the time to reply.

This is the chain of events that WILL occur if it is legalized the way it is written.

1. I would have to downsize my crop – requiring some new equipment.
2. I would only be able to grow 25 square feet making it near impossible to provide for myself, I need about an ounce a week
   1. This would lead to me paying much more for my herb than I do now.
3. With the 1 ounce limit of product, I would be going to re-up constantly
   1. The consequences of not abiding by this NEW limit would put ME in jail. 3. a. is for all the people that state “we will be able to free all the harmless potheads” ultimately you will be putting others in jail – just for different reasons.
4. The commercialization of the industry can only lead to worse quality and higher taxes. This ends up with pretty much all the money in the states pockets. Why you may ask - cause we couldn’t handle our money to begin with now they want to commercial weed and tax it to fix the budget crisis – pretty convenient if you’re the state.

Ask yourselfs – Why are we giving up rights we have already obtained?

Give me a response to these concerns and we can further our discussion.

 

[Professor Puff.n.Tuff]

RIU put all the 1. in there. I copied and pasted from a word doc, it was easier to write and reference stuff with the word program open...

 

[thetick1959]

Uhmmmmm,,,,, Pass it now ?

 

[Keenly2]

Uhmmmmm,,,,, Pass it now ?

hear hear!

 

[ImTheFireMan]

i'm with the professor on this

 

[ImTheFireMan]

unless someone can convince me otherwise.

 

[Professor Puff.n.Tuff]

Thank you sir for taking the time to logically think about this.

i'm with the professor on this

 

[Professor Puff.n.Tuff]

Sorry I let my emotions get the best of me.

Why dont you take the time to address some of the concerns I stated in my previous posts.

Uhmmmmm,,,,, Pass it now ?

 

[Professor Puff.n.Tuff]

You should answer some questions too. ; )

hear hear!

 

[Professor Puff.n.Tuff]

I have been wanting someone to address the concerns mentioned also, but no one really takes the time or something - some have posted educational information in regards to the bill, but they still dont address specific concerns the bill will impose on some individuals.

unless someone can convince me otherwise.

 

[sm0keyrich510]

it shouldnt be passed yet. at least not in california. what the state/gov is giving us vs. what prop 215 gives us makes it not even fair.

you go from 6mature/12 immature plants and 8 oz bud minimum for all cardholders in california to 1 oz bud and 5x5 grow space...

in my opinion we lose out by legalizing it. we can possess and grow less...if its gonna be "legal" then why are we limited? i will tell you why...so the gov/state/big business can make all the $ and fuck us...and charge us $50 tax per ounce....thats bullshit.

and everyone says, "oh weed will be dirt cheap etc. etc. etc." well its not gonna be $50 for an oz as they are already saying they wanna charge you $50 in tax for an oz and im quite sure if the tax per oz is $50 then the cost is gonna be higher anyway.

they cannot sell marijuana for cheaper than what it costs to make (and a decent profit margin of coursE) so all these idiots that run around thinking $50 oz's are in their future are insane. its not gonna be that damn cheap...and its not gonna be cheaper certainly than the cost to produce the marijuana otherwise it wouldnt be a business and not worth their time to legalize and rape us on the taxes/fees.

thats why you can only possess a certain amount (1oz) and you cant grow more than in a 5x5 space. why do you think that is? so no 1 can threaten the big business/gov/state as it is now. right now currently the prop 215 cardholders run the marijuana trade...not the state/gov. they get some money out of the clubs but all the independent growers and users avoid letting the gov get a piece...thats why its gonna be on the ballot...because they want the $...and they wanna take it from us!

 

[ImTheFireMan]

it shouldnt be passed yet. at least not in california. what the state/gov is giving us vs. what prop 215 gives us makes it not even fair.

you go from 6mature/12 immature plants and 8 oz bud minimum for all cardholders in california to 1 oz bud and 5x5 grow space...

in my opinion we lose out by legalizing it. we can possess and grow less...if its gonna be "legal" then why are we limited? i will tell you why...so the gov/state/big business can make all the $ and fuck us...and charge us $50 tax per ounce....thats bullshit.

and everyone says, "oh weed will be dirt cheap etc. etc. etc." well its not gonna be $50 for an oz as they are already saying they wanna charge you $50 in tax for an oz and im quite sure if the tax per oz is $50 then the cost is gonna be higher anyway.

they cannot sell marijuana for cheaper than what it costs to make (and a decent profit margin of coursE) so all these idiots that run around thinking $50 oz's are in their future are insane. its not gonna be that damn cheap...and its not gonna be cheaper certainly than the cost to produce the marijuana otherwise it wouldnt be a business and not worth their time to legalize and rape us on the taxes/fees.

thats why you can only possess a certain amount (1oz) and you cant grow more than in a 5x5 space. why do you think that is? so no 1 can threaten the big business/gov/state as it is now. right now currently the prop 215 cardholders run the marijuana trade...not the state/gov. they get some money out of the clubs but all the independent growers and users avoid letting the gov get a piece...thats why its gonna be on the ballot...because they want the $...and they wanna take it from us!

its to my understanding that 215 would still be in effect.
if you are a cardholder the the rules and guidelines remain the same.

the reason i am voting no tho, is because there is 3 other propositions besides this one that are all better.
the only reason this one is making it on the ballot is because ONE MAN(richard lee)
is using his money(1.xmillion) made by the sales of marijuana to back this bill which he wrote.
it seems like he wrote it so that only his club or designated clubs make the money.
with the grow space you get and the amount you are allowed to posses(if you are not a card holder)
is designed to have you buy from the club at some point.


its just one mans greed making himself more money.
which is cool, i'm not hating on his business ethic for tryin to get the jump on cornering the marijuana market.
but it just seems like too much of a take over.

i'm voting no and waiting for another prop to come along.

weed is already legal here anyways.
if its not broken, dont fix it.

 

[sharon1]

Wow, there is certainly a lot of food for thought here. I must admit that I haven't taken the time before now to dig into this proposal.

I can honestly see both sides of the argument, and both have very good points.

However, overall I still think I'm voting yes and here's why.

There is much more than merely recreational pot smoking when it comes to making this plant more accessable to the general public and to commercial growers.
We should take into consideration all the other uses for this plant available to us. We can't do that now....the way it stands, we still can't grow and produce enough of this plant anywhere, to see other products it provides become more available.
There are dozens of other uses for cannabis....and hemp. Hemp as you know, is also illegal in this country, (falls into the same catagory basically, even tho it has almost no THC) and it's expensive to import here to make things from it. Don't you think that's why we don't see much more use of it's fiber for clothing, paper, ect?
Don't you think we can maybe put a tiny dent in the reduction of our forests as we rely less on wood for those things? Save some old growth, perhaps?

As far as the arguments about what happens if a minor gets busted (it being tougher penalties if this passes)...ugh....we deal with that all the time with alcohol.

The one exception to my being comfortable with that is the fact that I must agree with Godfrey, the first few seasons of this is going to give the press one helluva heyday when the first few teens....hell even adults....abuse any law whilst under the influence of THC. They are going to be watching every criminal study with a magnifying glass and they'll be throwing up statistic charts right and left, and none of it will likely make any of us look glamorus.

But reason must prevail. I just don't see or agree with those who would believe there's potential to make more potsmokers fill our jails. Those who are there now for it will likely be released, so long as mj was their only infraction.

So far, yes is still winning with my convictions.

 

[ImTheFireMan]

But reason must prevail. I just don't see or agree with those who would believe there's potential to make more potsmokers fill our jails. Those who are there now for it will likely be released, so long as mj was their only infraction.

So far, yes is still winning with my convictions.

you make a good point, but it will do nothing for the ones who are there now for only weed related charges.

 

[chewystuart]

Professor puff is on the right track. It is legal good get ur medical card, duh. Everyone that is on board with legalize, make sure u read the bill. If ur not familiar with the way the government handles things just know that politicians are selfish and not lookin out for our best interest. so if they were to legalized pot, it wouldn't be they way may think. for example cigarettes. Cigarettes are legal but very few people actually enjoy smoking them cause they tax the hell out of it and tell you when and where u can smoke. remember when it was legal to smoke cigarettes at the bar or on the beach? remember when there were smoking sections at restaurants? not now a days because they continue to regulate tobacco. every year or so they raise the taxes or make laws regarding tobacoo more strict. believe me, if the governement finds that they are not making enough money off of pot, they will make it so that they do. so they my make a law allowing us to grow our own pot, but as soon as they realize they can't put a bar code on ur pot......regulate regulate regulate regulate until pot comes on a patch that u stick to ur arm and all the growing is done by state employees or the feds.

 

[chewystuart]

The AM is nearing its end dude...

I have come up on some extra time though...

I will start with the link that one guy posted on the previous page.

1. Holy FUCK - Under the “arguments in favor” – “The California Legislative Analyst's Office analysis says state and local governments could realize additional revenues from sales taxes generated by commercial producers of marijuana”

1. 1. This proves my theory, and has only been an assumed theory until I read this, This bill is not intended for the people to grow and produce their own herb and def not for any patients they may be helping. All those people will end up paying tremendous taxes and ultimately higher prices because of this.
   2. Realize additional revenues = “get” (realize) “more” (additional) “of the peoples money” (revenues)

1. Under the same section – “The state could also realize additional income tax revenues from the production and sale of marijuana. In addition, local governments could realize additional revenue from various types of taxes, benefit assessments, and fees on marijuana. The actual level of revenues generated would depend upon the rate of such levies and how the measure changed the consumption and sales price of marijuana.”

1. 1. This means that they have no intention on letting you grow more than they have to.
   2. Who are the commercial growers? Is this already established? Maybe the tobacco companies that have a lot of resources in a similar industry?
   3. Etc. I don’t know what to say. Could go on for ever.

This whole statement I have copied and pasted from this bill gives me all the reason plus some to not vote “yes”. The - plus some- is refereeing to taking the time to reply.

This is the chain of events that WILL occur if it is legalized the way it is written.

1. I would have to downsize my crop – requiring some new equipment.
2. I would only be able to grow 25 square feet making it near impossible to provide for myself, I need about an ounce a week
   1. This would lead to me paying much more for my herb than I do now.
3. With the 1 ounce limit of product, I would be going to re-up constantly
   1. The consequences of not abiding by this NEW limit would put ME in jail. 3. a. is for all the people that state “we will be able to free all the harmless potheads” ultimately you will be putting others in jail – just for different reasons.
4. The commercialization of the industry can only lead to worse quality and higher taxes. This ends up with pretty much all the money in the states pockets. Why you may ask - cause we couldn’t handle our money to begin with now they want to commercial weed and tax it to fix the budget crisis – pretty convenient if you’re the state.

Ask yourselfs – Why are we giving up rights we have already obtained?

Give me a response to these concerns and we can further our discussion.

perfectly put!!! why are we giving up rights we have already.......this is not legalization, its more strict regulation! its already legal!

 

[sharon1]

Here's another quandry.....

Does anyone know just HOW this law will work when it comes to driving under the influence of THC?
For example, they can test for alcohol concentration in our bloodstreams in many ways. Here in CA., if you're over a certain limit of concentration, .08

What criteria do they have in place for thc? Do they have a legal limit that can be be detirmined with a preliminary street test?
Or will they be dragging people with red-eye or a roach in their ashtray to the station and hold you until a blood test reveals your "safe"?

I am a 50yo white female...I don't draw suspiscion...(sorry...can't schpel this am.)...I had a dui many many years ago, but cops don't hassle me.
I have never had a cop suspect I was smoking weed....and indeed, I didn't smoke it for over 20 years.

I'd just like to know how this would be handled should this law pass.

ugh...forgot to add...
My worry stems from the fact that I hear THC takes a loooooooooong time to flush out of one's system.
If I smoke a good bowl or several the night before...I don't wake up stoned at all. Maybe I get pulled over driving the next morning and the cop sees I have red eyes from getting up way early.
They suspect pot, and they decide to test me.
I'd be perfectly sober, but the evidence remains in my bloodstream from the night before.

I dunno if I'm making any sense here....I'm just clueless on matters of legality.

 

[sm0keyrich510]

thats very interesting news here...i wasnt aware prop 215 would still exist and allow more to be grown/possessed then by just living in california WITHOUT a prop215...

its still unfair that those who wrote this bill are really just flat out fooling many of those voting yes for its legalization. i dont think people understand what they could be loosing...and how easy a prop 215 is.

i would like to know how they plan on leaving it @ 25 sq ft of grow space and 1 oz dried bud...thats never going to equal out...a 25 sq ft grow space w/ an hps would be well over an ounce. what is to be done with the excess or are you immediately in trouble? must the marijuana thats over 1 oz be destroyed not to face criminal charges?

some people will be in for a rude awakening.

i think you can be for voting yes of marijuana's legalization and still be a bad guy in the situation if you know what i mean.

i just dont think everyone is/has/will be properly informed of the consequences as far as legalizing it goes...

 

[ImTheFireMan]

ya everyone i've been talking with that says its a no brainer to vote yes, the first thing i ask, "have you read the proposed bill in its entirety?" and almost everyone answer "i haven't read one word of it"

so then it turns into an hour long discussion.
i try not to be biased and i tell them word word as much as i can remember of things on the bill, and its funny watching peoples faces get enlightened, especially when you know they did it on their own.

but i agree....

not everyone is aware/educated about the matter at hand.
people just hear the word legalize and they are for it.