CA SMOKERS. PASS PROP 19! LEGALIZE WEED NOVEMBER 2nd!

Bnasty2337

Well-Known Member
I'm born and raised in California!!! If you don't live hear don't try and sway the vote! VOTE NO ON PROP 19!!!!!!!!!!! It's a big bisness play for control of Californias marijuana industry! Don't let big bisness take our rights that we have fought hard for. This bill is sold as legalization but it's more restrictive than our laws now!! Don't be fooled. If your from California vote no! There are other bills that will cover all aspects and not restrict us more than our present laws. Don't let this pass or we will be fighting for ten years trying to repeal it. I can't stress it enuf vote no cal. Don't let your rights be taken.
 

lowryder666

Active Member
I'm born and raised in California!!! If you don't live hear don't try and sway the vote! VOTE NO ON PROP 19!!!!!!!!!!! It's a big bisness play for control of Californias marijuana industry! Don't let big bisness take our rights that we have fought hard for. This bill is sold as legalization but it's more restrictive than our laws now!! Don't be fooled. If your from California vote no! There are other bills that will cover all aspects and not restrict us more than our present laws. Don't let this pass or we will be fighting for ten years trying to repeal it. I can't stress it enuf vote no cal. Don't let your rights be taken.
Screw you!!! This is important for the rest of the world too. Guess your too stupid to figure that one out!
 

colonuggs

Well-Known Member
Screw you!!! This is important for the rest of the world too. Guess your too stupid to figure that one out!
Haha...its all about a broke ass state trying to come up with ways to make money.... how is this going to help people starving in Africa? or help the Iranian poeple or Iraqies..It wont

It took the financial downfall of our country to get marijuana out of prohabition (soon it will be)...kind of like in the great depression...alcohol became legal and taxed...helped the country out of the great depression ....that along with a war:smile:

In the end...its all about $$$.... Weed should have never been made illegal in the first place


Oakland's pot dreams could burst

By Cecily Burt
Oakland Tribune
Posted: 08/01/2010 12:01:00 AM PDT
Updated: 08/02/2010 10:44:55 AM PDT




OAKLAND — Oakland rushed last week to raise medical cannabis business taxes and to be the first city in the nation to legitimize industrial-sized pot production. The cash-starved city is hoping to reap millions of dollars in tax revenues from medical cannabis businesses while positioning itself to capitalize on the explosion of recreational pot sales should state voters go that way in November.

But is it just a pipe dream? No one really knows whether Oakland will find that pot of gold in the cannabis industry. Growers and dispensaries are making money, to be sure, and the city wants its share. But competition, legal risks and the unknown economic effects from potential legalization make the sure bet anything but.

California voters in 1996 overwhelmingly passed Proposition 215, the so-called Compassionate Use Act, which decriminalized medicinal use of marijuana. Dispensaries popped up almost overnight, supplied by a cottage industry of growers selling pounds of pot for $2,500 to $3,500, tax-free. Retail prices are double that, but not enough to stop the flood of patients willing to spend more than $300 an ounce for high-grade marijuana.

The estimated value of California's pot crop is $13.8 billion, according to an analysis for California NORML, a nonprofit organization devoted to marijuana reform. About 3 million people in the state use marijuana, medical and recreational, and consume an estimated 1 million pounds a year.

Oakland's four medical marijuana dispensaries do their share, supplying patients with 6,000 pounds of pot worth $28 million last year. The city is asking voters to raise business taxes on medical marijuana sales to 5 percent, a rate that dispensaries, patients and small growers warn will drive them out of Oakland and into neighboring communities with lower tax rates or no taxes at all.

The four new industrial-sized farms the city plans to license in January should do well, given the growing demand for medical marijuana across the state. But the ventures are not without risk. State law allows medical marijuana cultivation by collectives of patients and caregivers, with no profiteering.

Although the Obama administration has pledged a hands-off approach to honor states' laws, several experts warn that the federal government may not be able to ignore commercial-sized growing and manufacturing plants, which are not allowed under current state law.

That is a concern expressed by Oakland Councilmember Nancy Nadel, who sees pros and cons in the plan and worries about excluding small growers. "I was willing to go along with some large growers, but is this an invitation to federal attention? It puts a lot of product in one space, so if there is a fire, or theft, or mold, you could impact the availability of product to the patients," Nadel said.

New tax revenue

Still, it's easy to see why the City Council majority backs the concept of large indoor farms. Regulating medical marijuana production in modern facilities located in industrial areas should ensure a reliable, consistent supply of high-grade marijuana. It conceivably should cut down on the hundreds of dangerous, illegal grow houses spread around Oakland, especially if the huge growers can offer lower wholesale prices. It also makes it easier for the city to track the money.

Perhaps the most convincing argument arrived in a report commissioned by Jeff Wilcox, a retired contractor who first approached city leaders about the commercial grow idea. His proposal for a 100,000-square-foot AgraMed cultivation facility would produce 21,000 pounds of pot with a wholesale value of $60 million. That translates into $3 million in new tax revenue for the city and 300 to 400 jobs for Bay Area residents — from just one business.

That's on top of the revenue the city will get from its four dispensaries. If sales remain static, the city stands to gain another $1.4 million.
Dale Gieringer, director of California NORML, says Oakland is smart to get ahead of the curve, and it could gain millions in new tax revenue if the city's sales and production estimates pan out. But setting too high of a tax rate could backfire initially, and he thinks that establishing the large-scale production facilities will be neither quick nor problem-free.

"I think there is a risk here on jumping ahead on this tax on medical marijuana," Gieringer said. "San Francisco doesn't have a tax. At 5 percent, this gives other places an advantage. Oakland could be in danger of killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Patients will not go to Oakland if they can go to San Francisco and get it cheaper."

Oakland might have been the first to realize the revenue benefits of taxing medical marijuana businesses, but several other economically strapped municipalities are following its lead. San Jose, Richmond and others are scrambling to place similar tax measures on the November ballot. Berkeley is asking voters to raise cannabis tax rates as well as allow up to six commercial cultivation facilities.

Oakland's four proposed cultivation permits are intended for medicinal production only — for now. The proposal also lays the framework should Proposition 19 pass in November, legalizing recreational use of pot for adults 21 and older. The city is asking voters in November to set the business tax rate for recreational sales at a whopping 10 percent.
But will it be a bonanza or bust?

Legalized pot

According to a RAND Corp. study released this month, legalization could boost the number of pot smokers and drive down the pretax price of an ounce of pot by as much as 80 percent. The authors warn that it potentially could fuel problems with smuggling as dealers from other states rush to buy low-cost cannabis in California.

"Legalization would drive the price so low that even if taxes are high, marijuana coming from California would still be cheaper than a lot of places in the country," said Beau Kilmer, lead author of the study and co-director of the Drug Policy Research Center. "If dealers come here to buy several pounds, pay the taxes and then smuggle it out, they would still make money."

Even with hefty state or local taxes added on, consumers likely would pay hundreds of dollars less than they do now. That's good news for patients who rely on the herb to ease their pain, control their nausea or boost their appetite, but it could put a huge dent in the amount of tax revenue the city collects from its medical marijuana dispensaries.

If the wholesale price of medical marijuana drops to $800 a pound, a scenario Wilcox said could happen, the city's cut would drop to $1.35 million.
"Right now there's an 85 percent profit margin (enjoyed by the growers and dispensaries), and that's too high, in my opinion," Wilcox said. "If you can grow for $400 and sell it $800 wholesale, people will be doing just hunky-dory."

Oakland Councilmember Desley Brooks said she's not pinning all her expectations on legalization, especially when there is plenty of revenue to be had from the medical cannabis industry.

"There's a lot of money in that industry and not a lot of regulation," she said. Kilmer said his work focused on what might happen if marijuana were legalized in California. The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act 2010 ballot initiative would allow people 21 and older to possess, grow or transport small amounts of pot for personal use. Cities and counties could choose whether to regulate and tax the commercial cultivation and sales of marijuana or to keep such activities illegal.

"The impacts of legalization on medical marijuana is unknown," Kilmer said. "But it will be interesting to see what happens in Oakland because it's unclear what the feds will do" about the commercial growers.

Mark Kleiman, a UCLA professor of public policy who has written extensively on the topic, believes cities such as Oakland that are hoping to cash in on medical marijuana, and legalization if it happens, should try to see through the dollar signs to the possible pitfalls.

"Yes, (Oakland is) in for a big letdown," he said. "Competition among growers and among jurisdictions would drive legal prices through the floor, leaving California with a large (illegal) export trade to the rest of the country and not much revenue. The feds wouldn't hold still for it and would crack down."

BALLOT INITIATIVES
Oakland: 5 percent tax on medical cannabis dispensaries and cultivation facilities, 10 percent for recreational production and sales.
Berkeley: 2.5 percent for medical marijuana,
10 percent recreational. Sacramento: 4 percent medical marijuana, 10 percent recreational.
Richmond: 5 percent medical marijuana,
5 percent recreational. San Jose: 10 percent medical marijuana.*
Long beach: 5 percent medical marijuana, 10 percent recreational.
Stockton: 2.5 percent medical marijuana, 10 percent recreational
* Proposed
 

lowryder666

Active Member
Haha...its all about a broke ass state trying to come up with ways to make money.... how is this going to help people starving in Africa? or help the Iranian poeple or Iraqies..It wont

It took the financial downfall of our country to get marijuana out of prohabition (soon it will be)...kind of like in the great depression...alcohol became legal and taxed...helped the country out of the great depression ....that along with a war:smile:

In the end...its all about $$$.... Weed should have never been made illegal in the first place

I meant help the rest of the world in terms of their own legalisation battles with their own governments (not world problems in general - duh). If prop 19 passes (and I hope it does) then the feds will back down - they'll have no choice. So it will eventually be legalised across the whole of the US. It may take a couple of more years but it will happen. When it does the governments around the rest of the world will then find it more difficult [impossible] to 'fob off' their respective legalisation movements. So.... yeah fuck you "small business' growers who want to vote no for their own selfish reasons and fuck it up for the global legalisation effort.

I have to say that I do sympathise with the "Walmarting' that could happen but how about taking one for the team here?
 

Crypnotic

Active Member
All I can say is that I think its very sad that chance to legalize marijuana could be defeated not by conservative but by potsmokers. That is just sad. I can hear Jack Herer rolling in his grave now.

Greed seems to be the main issue for those who oppose it. What the hell ever happen to "marijuana is evil"? At least that came from others that didn't understand the substance.

So passing the medical marijuana law was good, that put a nickel in your pocket, but legalizing it is bad because that might take a penny out of yours? So marijuana isn't evil anymore, it's "I got it and dont want anyone else to have it because that might cost me a penny"? This is classic case of a "house niggar". He thinks he's better than the rest of the nigga's because the man lets him sleep inside the mansion, and now he thinks he too owns the house. Lets get this straight: you dont own the house, you shine man shoes and take out his garbage.

Taxes: you dont want to pay taxes but you want to drive on the road. House niggar says "I dont pay taxes, the master pays the taxes". Guess what, if you own a car (first you have to have the right to own one) then you have to pay taxes to build and maintain the road. Its that simple. Or just keep being a house niggar driving the mans car. Let me clear: this doesn't you make better than the man, this makes you his niggar. He pays taxes on you, like his car, his house, and his pig in the barn.

Competition: sure there going to be the "Bud Light" beers of marijauna. I mean the end of prohibition sure did fuck up the wine industry in California. I mean, with all the cheap beer being available who the hell would shell out more money for a bottle of wine. Nobody give a shit about tast, varity in flavors, or the alchole content of wine. Shit man, they got cheap beer. Besides, everyone knows that California has the worst growing climate in the US and even if you can sell across state lines, who the hell would buy that bottle of piss. Let me be clear: you will have a market to sell your bud. That same way the organic farmer sells his vegies to Whole Foods

Tourism: um anyone one ever take a trip to Amsterdam to smoke weed? Hmm . . . can anyone say multi billion dollar boost to the California economy. But who needs jobs, or more money in this economy, certainly not the house niggar, he got a job and bed to sleep in, even if he doesn't own the mattress.

I can go on but I wont. Look this will improve your position not hurt it. And as important, it will help the rest of the US in leagalizing it as well (this is part of your market as well).
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
I meant help the rest of the world in terms of their own legalisation battles with their own governments (not world problems in general - duh). If prop 19 passes (and I hope it does) then the feds will back down - they'll have no choice. So it will eventually be legalised across the whole of the US. It may take a couple of more years but it will happen. When it does the governments around the rest of the world will then find it more difficult [impossible] to 'fob off' their respective legalisation movements. So.... yeah fuck you "small business' growers who want to vote no for their own selfish reasons and fuck it up for the global legalisation effort.

I have to say that I do sympathise with the "Walmarting' that could happen but how about taking one for the team here?


Feds Looking into Oakland Pot Law

Local officials field calls from the Drug Enforcement Administration


Updated version
The Drug Enforcement Administration contacted Oakland officials last week requesting information about a controversial ordinance to permit large-scale marijuana production in the city, according to aides to both the City Council and city manager.
The calls are the first indication that the federal government is closely monitoring Oakland’s efforts to position itself as a hub for marijuana commerce. The new ordinance, which was passed by City Council on July 20, allows permits for four marijuana factories capable of producing hundreds of pounds of the drug each year.
A November ballot measure, Proposition 19, will allow state voters to decide whether to legalize marijuana for recreational use. However, marijuana remains illegal under federal law, raising questions of whether the DEA will step in if Oakland attempts to significantly expand production.
A DEA official confirmed the calls were made.
DEA spokesman Rusty Payne said, “I will say this: We are certainly going to be very, very interested in any large-scale marijuana cultivation that’s going on."



According to a memo released by City Council member Nancy Nadel, the Oakland city attorney’s office has expressed concern about the legality of the pot cultivation ordinance. A representative from the city attorney’s office declined to discuss the matter, citing attorney-client privilege. However, the city attorney’s signature was conspicuously absent from the ordinance. His staff typically signs off on city regulations after reviewing their legality.
If the plan is perceived by the feds as too far out-of-step with established state medical marijuana practices, it could trigger enforcement. But so far, federal agencies have declined to say what they will do when Oakland’s pot cultivation plants go online in January of next year.
Aides who said they were contacted by the DEA last Friday said agency officials appeared to be seeking information about the new ordinance but gave little indication of what they intended to do with it.
Arturo Sanchez, who oversees the city’s medical marijuana regulations, said he spoke to two DEA officials.
“My take on the conversation was that it was very positive,” said Sanchez, who recalled that the agents wanted to know when the facilities would open and asked for a copy of the ordinance. “I told them we wanted to make sure we have great regulation and are as above board as we can be.”
Ada Chan, a policy analyst for City Council member Rebecca Kaplan, also fielded a call from the DEA. Chan said that she explained the intention of the permits was to “get the cultivation out of residential areas” and reduce crime and electrical fires at illicit pot operations.
“I told him we’d send him over our stuff,” said Chan, “and any feedback they have would be appreciated.”
 

1gamma45

Active Member
Why vote 'yes'??? It's already legal to possess a pound with a doctors approval...voting yes lowers the possession amount and reduces your growing area from 64 square feet to 25..it also brings government and big corporations into the fold, thus limiting our control...a very bad idea in my eyes.


I lot of peopel are suffering cause they dont trust the Gov. We all know weed is not bad. we all know weed will help people and Country. More importaintly why ask why. And guess what big corps are already in it. what about the guy tring to turn Oakland into Amsterdamn shit he owns like 1/3 of the city already and a chain of stores to buy the MMJ.

If there was no line in there about being able to grow your own. I would be a little worried. But lets all be honest here if this passes people aint going to be blowing all thier loot on weed most will gorw thier own.
 

IGMcorp

Member
this prop does nothing to the medical marijuana patients. you can still get a recomendation for the higher numbers in plants and be able to carry more than an ounce on you. Prop 19 is just for all the people that don't have a medical conditions and just want to get high.
 

hillbillybuds

Active Member
I have been growing my own weed for 32 years and have never made a dime off of it and I never will, as I am old school and think it should be free to all people. And I think anyone that grows it and sells it is part of the reason it is still illegal. After reading more about the nov. law Cal. has coming up for vote I guess I would not vote for it also. I did not know it was just to tax it. Everyone should just grow their own and say Fuck the goverment!!!! Thats what I do. Butt, I know most people just want to make a $ off of it. There are alot of people here that grow some good plants and I know they talk a good game about FREE THE WEED but they run right down to sell their shit to the stores. It will never ever be free to grow ( not in the next 1000's years ) because 99% of you want to make a $ off of it. If you were a true grower and pot head you would grow it and give it away not sell it.

And thank you FDD for the web site it a good one.
 

Penni Walli

Member
It's always the medical heads that are not for prop 19, nothing is going to change for you guys. You'll still be able to grow the amount you have been growing. The government understands you have a medical ailment and require more weed then the regular joe, so if u got a medical card the only change is probably that your going to be getting sacks at a cheaper price. you greedy med heads need to stop thinking bout your selves and let us smoke like a chimney too :)
 

hobo jack

Member
people want to end prohibition then people complain about taxes :finger:, your never going to acheive one without the other all commodities will be taxed in correspondence to how mush the population wants it.

and why do large scale growers complain (not including medical) what your doing now is illegal what you'll be doing after prop 19 is still going to be illegal so it doesn't really impact you. Unless you deal of course, your greedy arses don't want to lose your customers.

I don't really know mush about the medical laws, but my guess would have been that prop 19 doesn't effect the medical laws that means what ever you are doing legally now should still be covered by the medical laws after prop 19 passes?

why do people want to keep this business underground financing drug cartels :evil:.

and just think about the general message it would send out to the goverment 'we the people think cannabis should be legal for all to consume, not just med patients'
 

ftpstrangr

Active Member
"Unless you deal of course, your greedy arses don't want to lose your customers."
"and just think about the general message it would send out to the goverment 'we the people think cannabis should be legal for all to consume, not just med patients'"

People don't seem to understand that its not about greedy stoners. Its about the sloppy way the prop was written and about the license requirements that malevolently effect the means of distribution. I do want pot legalized. But Maybe the people who are saying no, like me, are the ones who actually read the bill. Here's one of many informative posts about it. http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot....-2010-tax.html

RIP Jack Herer
 

cannabis420420

Well-Known Member
Why vote 'yes'??? It's already legal to possess a pound with a doctors approval...voting yes lowers the possession amount and reduces your growing area from 64 square feet to 25..it also brings government and big corporations into the fold, thus limiting our control...a very bad idea in my eyes.
agreed :) its legal enough
 

nickfury510

Well-Known Member
"Unless you deal of course, your greedy arses don't want to lose your customers."
"and just think about the general message it would send out to the goverment 'we the people think cannabis should be legal for all to consume, not just med patients'"

People don't seem to understand that its not about greedy stoners. Its about the sloppy way the prop was written and about the license requirements that malevolently effect the means of distribution. I do want pot legalized. But Maybe the people who are saying no, like me, are the ones who actually read the bill. Here's one of many informative posts about it. http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot....-2010-tax.html

RIP Jack Herer
bingo....people dont understand this is taxation ...NOT legalization. this new bill will give the government more influence over the herb than there is now.
 

Penni Walli

Member
it's pretty clear medical people and dealers don't want to pass this prop. For the medical heads there saying '' oh its already legal for us, we can do it all already, lets keep it this way and keep big business out ''
And for Dealers its pretty obvious '' i don't want to go up against big business and more competition ''
And for some one like my self who doesn't fit into any of the above category who just wants to enjoy a blunt while i'm fishing on a sunday afternoon without having to worry about prosecution ? I'm going to vote yes on prop 19.
 
Top