Vote NO !! and here is why!!

[NinjaBoy666]

The poster of "in a perfect world" said it best. Here's my two cents...
This proposition is so very, very lenient. It's so open that the broad spectrum of activities it seeks to make legal are my on;y concern as to it's strengtha and passability. Why vote "no"? you shouldn't! imperfect as it might be (which I don't think it is) it is such a huge foot in the door should it become law. I would be happy to simply be able to smoke legally without fear of incarceration or a fine. I am a productive, intelligent member of society who is unable to contribute in any meaningful way, or advance in careers because we frown on something as silly as catching a buzz that's safer than alcohol.
It's bad when even in the presence of a silver bullet to kill the beast of prohibition we squabble amongst ourselves when once we all united under a common cause; freedom from tyranny and intolerance toward pot smokers. The OP as well as a few anti-prop19 'Heads present their arguments such as a three year old might fuss about a toy. They want it their way or no way, full freedom without any safegaurds or oversight. This is exactly the behavior which gives weight to the anti-mj side of the argument. Drug-free america and conservatives (Some conservatives) seek to color pro-pot activists as insane hippies who can't organize or show responsibility. This proposition covers most of the gray areas and wags a finger at irresponsible use.
Not only does the measure grant us many freedoms but it will help to knock down the stigma surrounding cannabis as a whole. In this country of public opinion, we still have groups like Narcotics Anonymous who consider cannabis a substance as destructive as cocaine or methamphetamines. We don't consider how much of a boogeyman the word "drug" has become. America in general has been jumping at it's own shadow for years and this proposition will be the first blow in destroying the notion that we have to be so uptight about people not being sober 100% of the time. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd like to be taken seriously just like that big exec sitting across the room who lives at the bottom of a bottle of Jack Daniels (more, actually).
Vote "yes". Please.

 

[whiteflour]

You know. It could arguably be said that tobacco and marijuana are the safest of all smoked products, and that's why they threw it out the door in 1990. They had already sucessfully proven that heroine and cocaine were "addictive" in freebase form. Nicotine had not. Everyone that has a tried the patch agrees it's not the same. You often get sick and just go back to smoking.

Why? Because you're addicted to smoking. It's a habituating. If I don't have a bunch of tobacco I just smoke more pot. Well that's a waste since pot medicates me, and quite annoying since there is more tar. But, I can get on a plane for 6 hours and not smoke a cigarette. I'm not all spazzed out. I can do the same with weed. I know plenty of people that have quit both COLD turkey, and most agree unless You want to quit. You won't. As well I know plenty of people that only smoke occassionly.

If tobacco is really so bad. Why do I live so long? And if marijuana is so bad? Why don't I go preform normal addictive behaviour for "drugs"? How long can one take tylenol before kidney failure? How long was Viagra on the market before people went BLIND?

Big pharmaceutical knows they can't do anything with MJ or Nicotine. They've failed miserably with both, and both have been freebased since the 70's. Exactly the same time "smoking" became demonized.


Agriculture was King in this Country. Cotton. Tobacco. Hemp. It's needs to be made King again.

 

[NinjaBoy666]

one other thing...
I am ALL for the radical, fists raised, no compromises views on legalization. Bad news im afraid, that's not how it works. The fed isn't going to simply back down and admit defeat, nor will they compromise in their quest for absolute control. The Gov't will NEVER admit they are wrong. This is the first step, not the last and we have to get behind it and get in line. This country isn't going to simply bow down because we're angry or tired. It's gonna put the pressure on us until we give up. We can't take power from them (yet) all we CAN do is tell them how they can apply that power. One step at a time...

 

[NinjaBoy666]

I think hemp could kill this bill. seriously, it has so many uses that more people are shaking in their boots over it than somebody getting stoned off cannabis. The hemp thing may be pushing it a bit.

 

[Scuba]

I think hemp could kill this bill. seriously, it has so many uses that more people are shaking in their boots over it than somebody getting stoned off cannabis. The hemp thing may be pushing it a bit.

dude you need to read the prop 19 bill, it talks about states have the right to decide if they want to make HEMP products be it edibles, and textiles.

 

[NinjaBoy666]

i did read it. I just think that our friendly neighborhood textile industry gets a whiff of cheaper fabrics etc. we're gonna have even more anti 19 lobbying. it's called fear of competition.

 

[Scuba]

i did read it. I just think that our friendly neighborhood textile industry gets a whiff of cheaper fabrics etc. we're gonna have even more anti 19 lobbying. it's called fear of competition.

Hemp will become an abundant source of fabrics, which would lower prices on all hemp made products. It WOULD take away from some of the leather and animal fur production. But i don't wouldn't mind that happening.

 

[whiteflour]

I think hemp could kill this bill. seriously, it has so many uses that more people are shaking in their boots over it than somebody getting stoned off cannabis. The hemp thing may be pushing it a bit.

North Carolina has been trying to legalize hemp since to tobacco buyout. It keeps getting blocked by pharmaceutical interests lobbying that kids will be stealing pot for "drugs". You can rest your bottom dollar they'll be controlling the thc content.

They did everything they could try and make it look the tobacco companies were altering nicotine levels. They were not. They were trying to lower "tar". Of course a plant is going to have higher "concentration" of nicotine if the tar proportion is reduced. Numbers are all subjective. You have to look at both sides or you'll get played every time.

 

[purplekitty7772008]

I'm voting no.

They should take cannabis out of the legal system completely.
Here is an excerpt from a blog that explains it well enough for me.

I notice people continue to talk about “legalities” which apply only to legal fictions such as corporations and trusts. I also hear, “It’s the law”, yet, no one has ever shown me any alleged “law”. I’ve seen codes, rules, regulations, statutes, ordinances, by-laws, constitutions, acts, bills, legislation, policies, and treaties, none of which applies to men and women, but I’ve never seen any law.” I suppose that is because no law can exist without the consent of the people and no one could ever agree to any of the nonsense they try to pass off as “law”. My favourite is when I hear people say that they want marijuana “legalized”. It is already “legalized” as it is under the jurisdiction of the statutes, codes, acts, etc. because it has been named. What these people really want is to get the plant, known as cannabis, OUT from under that jurisdiction. So they want it DE-legalized. The way to do that is to quit acknowledging NAMES! Again, there is nothing wrong with a man growing, possessing, smoking a plant created by God, as man has dominion over all the earth and every living thing upon the earth. But, as soon as one puts a “name” to either the man or the plant, he has just “legalized” it.

 

[Scuba]

I'm voting no.

They should take cannabis out of the legal system completely.
Here is an excerpt from a blog that explains it well enough for me.

I notice people continue to talk about “legalities” which apply only to legal fictions such as corporations and trusts. I also hear, “It’s the law”, yet, no one has ever shown me any alleged “law”. I’ve seen codes, rules, regulations, statutes, ordinances, by-laws, constitutions, acts, bills, legislation, policies, and treaties, none of which applies to men and women, but I’ve never seen any law.” I suppose that is because no law can exist without the consent of the people and no one could ever agree to any of the nonsense they try to pass off as “law”. My favourite is when I hear people say that they want marijuana “legalized”. It is already “legalized” as it is under the jurisdiction of the statutes, codes, acts, etc. because it has been named. What these people really want is to get the plant, known as cannabis, OUT from under that jurisdiction. So they want it DE-legalized. The way to do that is to quit acknowledging NAMES! Again, there is nothing wrong with a man growing, possessing, smoking a plant created by God, as man has dominion over all the earth and every living thing upon the earth. But, as soon as one puts a “name” to either the man or the plant, he has just “legalized” it.

*clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap*

 

[SgtAwesomePants]

lol
let me explain again...
im sure most stores that sell the weed to me will charge tax, probably all of them. i guess there may be a few that dont, but thats besides the point.

if im at a weed dealers house, and he sells me an ounce. then he happens to get raided at that moment(for scenario purposes). since they cant do anything to me for possesion of the ounce, they COULD take me in for not paying tax. im not saying they will, but with higher purchases/deals, they just might. its happened MANY times in the past. thats how they put people in prison when they cant really charge them with anything.

I thought you could only but from someone who is permitted or authorized to sell.

 

[Scuba]

I thought you could only but from someone who is permitted or authorized to sell.

true, other from buying from a club would be from a local Co-op and have them grow your prescription for you.