Jack Herer's CCHH 2012 Initiative: www.youthfederation.com/cchhi2012.html

[Matt Rize]

Ernst - welcome bro. Looks like you are way too real for IC... if you aren't helping them make money you aren't welcome, lol. Thanks for posting, your wacko far left ideology has every right to exist and is surely appreciated here. Peace

 

[Ernst]

Ernst - welcome bro. Looks like you are way too real for IC... if you aren't helping them make money you aren't welcome, lol. Thanks for posting, your wacko far left ideology has every right to exist and is surely appreciated here. Peace

ten let us lead by example.

How do we start a Non-Profit and collect those $20 a months?

Collect the money and the Initiative will come.

We need about 5000 people to donate $20 a month for signatures. In that time we should elect a board and gather a membership base.
In that membership we will hold an election for the Initiative we will support.

Sound good to you so far?

The point is I am not interested in being Cool on a Grow-Site.. been there done that over 10 years.

I am interested in having a greenhouse on private property where I breed cannabis in my retirement and perhaps trade/sell a few high grade pounds a year to friends.

It will have to be legal for me to have many plants to breed with properly and that is the difference between Prop-19's "Cultivation" and the Lefty "Horticulture."

People there is a big difference between Horticulture and cultivation. Horticulture is breeding plants and cultivations is preparing the soil and growing them. Horticulture = 99 plants Cultivation = 5x5

We need to gather the money and when we do we have the power!

So how do we start? Anyone?

IS all we want to do is post about things? Wait for Daddy Canna-Bucks to come and make it all better?

Do you think we can get the right laws on the ballot in 2012 if we the people gather the funds?

http://california2012.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=188
Laws governing the initiative process in California

 

[Dan Kone]

lol... but I have NOTHING to do with anything except for the classes I teach. I am not in Oakland either. All that has nothing to do with me.

Whatever, I blame you personally. Bring back cotton candy! It's all your fault!

 

[Dan Kone]

All these "what do we want" threads we are having and going to waste time in our isolated communities can be avoided with a look at the ONLY SUCCESSFUL legalization proposition to pass for our example to go by ; Prop 215.

Forget the attempt to establish market control and drug policy like Prop-19 circa 2010 did. Let it Swing left and liberally legalize for all including a Bill of medical rights!

Right now I have no place I can go to be around other cannabis people in Turlock and that will not change by writing laws that allow these people to keep discriminating.

Prop-19 thought that by pandering to these haters and offering Jim-Crow-Cannabis "Dry Counties" that if it passed , Oakland" would become the Canna-Mecca of California and to Hell with people in Turlock as long as Oakland was Pimp!

So who is with me in Swinging way left? Who will be among the 4167 to make monthly $20 donations for signature gathering and who of us wil stand up and draft the Next Initiative so we can get everyone up to speed over the coming 23 months?
It's not like we are thinking we can't get an initiative on the ballot, we did with prop-19, and we came close.. If we go liberal like prop-215 we will have a home run!

I really do like your enthusiasm and spirit, but you are making massive errors in logic.

Are we having a special vote where only people who smoke weed can vote or does everyone in Cali get a vote on this?

I'm very familiar with turlock. Go stop at one of the dairys there and ask someone how they feel about legalization. Then ask them if they'd like to tax and regulate cannabis in a way that generates tax dollars for their community and makes it harder for kids to get their hands on it?

Instead of making legalization a more polarizing issue than it already is, why not have a law that everyone can support? Why not have a law that quietly gives us more personal freedoms than prop 19 but still provides an economic benefit to the whole community?

 

[Ernst]

I really do like your enthusiasm and spirit, but you are making massive errors in logic.

Are we having a special vote where only people who smoke weed can vote or does everyone in Cali get a vote on this?

I'm very familiar with turlock. Go stop at one of the dairys there and ask someone how they feel about legalization. Then ask them if they'd like to tax and regulate cannabis in a way that generates tax dollars for their community and makes it harder for kids to get their hands on it?

Instead of making legalization a more polarizing issue than it already is, why not have a law that everyone can support? Why not have a law that quietly gives us more personal freedoms than prop 19 but still provides an economic benefit to the whole community?

We already have a law everyone can support Prop-215 and they still won't.
At the Dairies or the jobs. hence the Medical Bill of rights is needed and you know that short of a law nothing will stop these anti-medical-cannabis people from discriminating. You know that.

We all know that it is very easy for kids to get weed now. We also know that people 18 and older smoke weed so no need to make those adults illegal under the Canna-law. Look at Amsterdam it's 16+

The Vote on what version of the Initiatives we will support with the monies gathered by the 5000 @ #20 a month for 12 months not a vote on the initiative.
If we have 10,000 doing $20 a month for 6 months or 20,000 at $20 a month for 3 months or 40,000 @ $20 a month for 1.5 months we could have it sooner rather than later

Don't you think those who gave the money should have a vote in what initiative they support?

That way we will have competition on the initiative process.

We also need funds for Legal reviews and advertisements. We will have to have qualified legal people to do the legal works I understand.

So can we work it out?

If it has these 5 things i am interested

1. 18+
2. Medical Bill of rights
3. 99 plants per person
4. Central regulatory not nearly 600 jurisdictions
5. legal private sales from Ca residents to CA residents

Is that what you approve of?

 

[Ernst]

Let me ask this..

Why does Cannabis Freedom have to make someone money?

Also we can never legalize for all in California until medical people have true Legalization.
Jobs are part of that struggle!

 

[Matt Rize]

Whatever, I blame you personally. Bring back cotton candy! It's all your fault!

I'll mention it next time I'm down there... next year somtime... doh

 

[Matt Rize]

Let me ask this..

Why does Cannabis Freedom have to make someone money?

Also we can never legalize for all in California until medical people have true Legalization.
Jobs are part of that struggle!

let's get real for half a second and admit that money makes the world go round. legislation doesn't get passed unless it is funded and this money has to come from somewhere. the growers aren't putting it up, half of them prefer to profit off of prohibition, the status quo jerks. you expect lee and soros to fund this next round? i think they will both wait (lee cause he's shot the wad on 19 and soros cause sore ass from 19).

so its all about the money because you and i can go door to door all day and not reach the TV crowd. "where's the money lebowski?"

 

[Dan Kone]

We already have a law everyone can support Prop-215 and they still won't.

At the Dairies or the jobs.

I happen to know quite a few people on the Turlock dairies, sure a lot of them are bible thumpers who will never support it, but a lot of them don't care about legalization either way and will vote support it if they feel it benefits the community, other they will vote against it.

We all know that it is very easy for kids to get weed now. We also know that people 18 and older smoke weed so no need to make those adults illegal under the Canna-law. Look at Amsterdam it's 16+

Well the problem with allowing 18 year olds to posses/buy it is that there are a lot of 18 year olds in public highschools. Any legalization effort for those 18+ will get crucified in the media for that reason. I don't see any problem with it being 19+ though. No strong argument against that. No reason it has to be either 18 or 21.

Don't you think those who gave the money should have a vote in what initiative they support?

We are still talking about a law that effects everyone in California, not just the people who are contributing. It's pretty easy to come up with a law that all cannabis consumers would support. Gaining the support of the majority of Californian's is another story.

I'm not saying it needs to be "more right wing", it's not about that. It's needs to be well thought out. There is no reason we couldn't have a law passed that was more liberal than prop 19 but still benefits the community.

You have to get passed thinking about what is right and wrong and start thinking about what in reality moves us forward. The whole "no tax, no zoning!" part of it is absurd. You just alienated half the state with that. We need those votes for it to pass.

If it has these 5 things i am interested

1. 18+
2. Medical Bill of rights
3. 99 plants per person
4. Central regulatory not nearly 600 jurisdictions
5. legal private sales from Ca residents to CA residents

See, you just fucked up there. You just proposed legalizing drug dealing. Do you really think people are going to go for that?

You also just took all power away from communities and made it legal for highschool kids to have bud.

Under your proposed law the mexican mafia can open a grow house next to a day care center and start selling bud out of their house. Do you really think people will support that?

And 99 plants? Why? That sounds like a big number to people who don't have a clue about cannabis growing. Why not have a sq ft limit instead? I can grow +300 plants in 3 4x8 trays doing SOG lolipops or I could SCROG out 36 plants getting close to the same yield. Why is gained by having a plant limit at all? Why not a sq ft limit instead? People who don't understand growing have no clue about SQ FT limits, 100 sq ft doesn't sound like a lot of room to the average non-grower, but people can make a living off of that space pretty easily and no one will object to 100sq ft in the same way they object to 99 plants. Even 500sq ft will get a more favorable reaction from the general public than a meaningless 99 plant limit.

There is zero chance that passes. Why would someone waste money on supporting a ballot measure that has no chance of passing? Having it sound good to growers/smokers just isn't good enough.

Is that what you approve of?

Of course I do and so does everyone else here. If the California state election was limited to people on this forum it would do great. But where is the broad appeal to the majority of Californians? Why are they going to support that?

Do you really think a housewife in Modesto will vote for that? Now if you add in a tax that goes directly to her kid's school you might get her vote.

You have to consider how you are going to get the majority of Californian's to vote yes. If you don't do that everything else you are doing is meaningless because it will never become law.

 

[Matt Rize]

COMPROMISE is the key to politics. Uncompromising legislation has been and will be passed. But compromised legislation stands the test of time.

99 plants and 8 lbs. GTFO if you need 99 plants and 8 lbs. Might as well be 99 pounds to the common person. Its silly and defeats us before we begin.

a 10x10 indoors can produce 25 lbs a year easy. After expenses are recovered we are talking about 20 pounds. If you and your family needs more than 20 pounds of herb to smoke a year... then you have problems that herb can't cure.

 

[Dan Kone]

let's get real for half a second and admit that money makes the world go round. legislation doesn't get passed unless it is funded and this money has to come from somewhere. the growers aren't putting it up, half of them prefer to profit off of prohibition, the status quo jerks. you expect lee and soros to fund this next round? i think they will both wait (lee cause he's broke and soros cause sore ass from 19).

so its all about the money because you and i can go door to door all day and not reach the TV crowd. "where's the money lebowski?"

The funny thing about this is that it doesn't have to be about either personal freedoms or money. It can be about both successfully.

What stops us from passing a law that gives us ridiculously large person limits + legalizing for profit dispensaries and tax them to providing economic benefits to the community and bring in financial support of those businesses? Nothing!

 

[Dan Kone]

99 plants and 8 lbs. GTFO if you need 99 plants and 8 lbs. Might as well be 99 pounds to the common person. Its silly and defeats us before we begin.

a 10x10 indoors can produce 25 lbs a year easy. After expenses are recovered we are talking about 20 pounds. If you and your family needs more than 20 pounds of herb to smoke a year... then you have problems that herb can't cure.

When talking about anything more than 50sq ft we are basically talking about legalizing small time weed dealing. Anyone who can't make a modest living off of 100sq ft while having plenty of personal smoke is doing it wrong.

I'm perfectly fine with that, but let's at least do it in a way where the average person doesn't catch on. 99 plants just sounds like a lot to people who don't know any better. SQ FT limits are meaningless to anyone who's not a grower. Why not have a large sq ft limit instead of something that sounds bad to the public?

 

[Matt Rize]

what do think the public (term used loosely to define enough voters to pass something) would find acceptable?

I know taxation and regulation will be there. It has to be. Its all about the benjamins. Plus, herb gets you high. Concentrates can be IMO drug form MMj due to potency. Why would 95% THC BHO not be a drug? Don't get me wrong, we need medicine like this. But saying it should be let loose on the public without restrictions is insane.

As for the age thing. I suggest 19. Only really left-behind high school kids ( ) will be able to legally smoke, and they probably smoke already.

We will have to tax the dispensary vendors, and the dispensaries (as we currently do but probably more, which means 50+ dollar 1/8 are here to stay). We will have to get our gardens inspected, and this I totally agree with. All of our products will get quality control tests at some point, which I also agree with. This will actually be part of the reason prices won't fall. Regulation ain't cheap people. Systems of gov't are expensive and wasteful and the taxation of Cannabis will be no different.

Of course there will be a giant underground of growers that hide out, and just get in where we fit in, as we currently do under 215.

50 sq. ft. ? , 2000 watts (a number ASA uses for safe wattage MMj), no plant limits, possesion limits to 5 pounds (because i could smoke max 5 lbs )

 

[Ernst]

let's get real for half a second and admit that money makes the world go round. legislation doesn't get passed unless it is funded and this money has to come from somewhere. the growers aren't putting it up, half of them prefer to profit off of prohibition, the status quo jerks. you expect lee and soros to fund this next round? i think they will both wait (lee cause he's shot the wad on 19 and soros cause sore ass from 19).

so its all about the money because you and i can go door to door all day and not reach the TV crowd. "where's the money lebowski?"

Do you know that if 40,000 donate $30 dollars we have the money for the signature gathering?

We would only need 40,000 of the 3,000,000 plus that voted Yes on Prop 19

We can try to find the point of difference between you and I or we can find the common ground.

We can organize from door to door, public website to public web site, friend to friend to gather the first $1.2 Million

It is true that advertisement is important but nothing gets done until we have the signatures and we will not have the signatures until we have an Initiative.

I am running California2012.org for just that. For us to come together and draft the next initiative.
All are welcome. The main thing we did not get with prop-19 circa 2010 was a consensus of our Canna-people. We never discussed things on a State level. We can change that this time. We should be dedicated to State level conference with the goal of drafting a public cannabis legalization initiative. I will hope that all walks of California people will participate.
We can stay with our canna-centric loyalties or we all can find common ground.
I have paid for the hosting for a year and the program is running. Part of us getting together is neutral location for all. I am not making monies off the site nor controlling what is said outside of the Mandatory introduction post and the no Violence rule.

Canna-Rights are for Canna-People they have little to do with non-canna people right? Unless we are interested in maintaining discrimination because the real war is one of race and economic control.

So what is your suggestion for all of us unifying?

I am ready to consider your point of view on how we move forward.

 

[Matt Rize]

So what is your suggestion for all of us unifying?

I am ready to consider your point of view on how we move forward.

Unifying rebels (I mean that is what we are) is a herculean task. It's going to take time. IMO 6 years soonest. So I'm on relax mode, but I did start this thread to get the conversation started. What you are preaching brother, a far left ideology surrounding the herb, I can't fully support.

I support a tax and regulate model that takes into account commercial cannabis's right to exist, yet sets in place market regulations that heavily favors the small farmers herb markets, the boutiques and literally farmers markets. (ie tax commercial megafarms and big business). the more small businesses CA can get out of this the better (for political reasons, and fuck jobs, we dont need jobs for big bizness we need our own bizness), and the prices can stay just where they are for non-commercial herbs. Commercial herb should be cheap, and poor people should be able to smoke american grown schwag.

There has to be an obvious safe guard for the MMj folks.

There has to be commercial and small farm hemp. And we have to think about open pollination for MMj. Thats a tricky issue. Our genetic diversity is our strength, medicinally speaking.

There has to be limits. Serious limits. On production and transport, but honestly it is the sales that people will focus on. I don't know how to work that out. There has to be a statewide tax of X% and then a provision to allow counties/cities to tax on top of that... up to 60 dollar 1/8ths...

I would even accept increased charges for illegal transport and crossing state lines if we could free up CA. that's about all i will concede though in terms of our current rights.

We have to find the common ground on this issue. Which is money for the state: taxes and reduced prohibition costs. Reduced bigotry: "minoritiy" american disproportionately imprisoned. Hemp: the green choice for CA agriculture. CA pride: we grow the best of everything. Canna-tourism: we now take credit cards.

im watching cops. they bust some kids for a joint. the girl gets a misdemeanor for tobacco. they threaten the guy with felony endangering a child... this shit makes me sick. i dont care if we get a 5x5 or 10 plants. It has to stop.

 

[Ernst]

I happen to know quite a few people on the Turlock dairies, sure a lot of them are bible thumpers who will never support it, but a lot of them don't care about legalization either way and will vote support it if they feel it benefits the community, other they will vote against it.



Well the problem with allowing 18 year olds to posses/buy it is that there are a lot of 18 year olds in public highschools. Any legalization effort for those 18+ will get crucified in the media for that reason. I don't see any problem with it being 19+ though. No strong argument against that. No reason it has to be either 18 or 21.



We are still talking about a law that effects everyone in California, not just the people who are contributing. It's pretty easy to come up with a law that all cannabis consumers would support. Gaining the support of the majority of Californian's is another story.

I'm not saying it needs to be "more right wing", it's not about that. It's needs to be well thought out. There is no reason we couldn't have a law passed that was more liberal than prop 19 but still benefits the community.

You have to get passed thinking about what is right and wrong and start thinking about what in reality moves us forward. The whole "no tax, no zoning!" part of it is absurd. You just alienated half the state with that. We need those votes for it to pass.



See, you just fucked up there. You just proposed legalizing drug dealing. Do you really think people are going to go for that?

You also just took all power away from communities and made it legal for highschool kids to have bud.

Under your proposed law the mexican mafia can open a grow house next to a day care center and start selling bud out of their house. Do you really think people will support that?

And 99 plants? Why? That sounds like a big number to people who don't have a clue about cannabis growing. Why not have a sq ft limit instead? I can grow +300 plants in 3 4x8 trays doing SOG lolipops or I could SCROG out 36 plants getting close to the same yield. Why is gained by having a plant limit at all? Why not a sq ft limit instead? People who don't understand growing have no clue about SQ FT limits, 100 sq ft doesn't sound like a lot of room to the average non-grower, but people can make a living off of that space pretty easily and no one will object to 100sq ft in the same way they object to 99 plants. Even 500sq ft will get a more favorable reaction from the general public than a meaningless 99 plant limit.

There is zero chance that passes. Why would someone waste money on supporting a ballot measure that has no chance of passing? Having it sound good to growers/smokers just isn't good enough.



Of course I do and so does everyone else here. If the California state election was limited to people on this forum it would do great. But where is the broad appeal to the majority of Californians? Why are they going to support that?

Do you really think a housewife in Modesto will vote for that? Now if you add in a tax that goes directly to her kid's school you might get her vote.

You have to consider how you are going to get the majority of Californian's to vote yes. If you don't do that everything else you are doing is meaningless because it will never become law.

This is being divided into too many points so I will be brief and answer in order.

1. Great on understanding what people who live here face. No so great that you have nothing to offer to help them. I don't see any support for those who struggle in that reply.

2. As far as I know you can't be 60 and have weed on School grounds or in school zones. I fail to see the foundation of suggesting that cannabis never is on school with 18 or younger. So I don't see what to do with this counter point.

3. The idea of donors voting is one those willing to send in even a dollar are rewarded and those who sit on the fence and wait for things to happen while taking no chances or risking anything are present in our Canna-Community because they are in our social-communities. Simple it's a suggestion to reward those freedom fighters and not gifting to those who do nothing or wait until it profits them to take something like expecting a vote when they have done none of the work. What can be done and it is free is to be a part of the movement. That reward is what you see me getting right now. I am being rewarded for fighting for canna-freedom for you by your kind and supportive comments.

4. No i did not say drug dealing is legal. Any commercial sales is a different class. I am saying that if I have friends who want to have my cannabis I can legally sell it to them like I can sell a used car. if they are contracting me to grow for them that is commercial from what i under stand. If I have a pound and you want a quarter pound and you say to me I will give you a half pound of the XYZ strain for a quarter pound of your ABC cannabis or even say I will pay you $100 for that quarter pound and this is a private transaction that this type of "Drug Dealing" is not the same as getting a pound and retailing it in public. I will break this one into paragraphs.
99 Plants is a federal Line in the Sand. if I have anything to say I would word the language 99 or more but anyone who knows about Eddy Lapp knows they lost freedom and wealth for growing more than 99 even though all the plants had Medical people associated with the counts. So 99 is a line in the sand in regards to Federal.

I disagree that it has zero chance in that I point to the simplicity of Prop 215. My thoughts are that the people will understand a simpler model of legalizing that clearly reflects empowering people rather than Canna-Business.
It is arguable that Prop-19 was really a new form of prohibition on the common canna-citizen and while allowing a 5x5 garden was legalizing making that garden dependent on the relationship to a piece of property actually created a form of prohibition rather than legalization when we consider that citizens traditionally have had the right to breed and practice proper horticulture with the crops we can raise. A limit on property ownership or approval for one class of citizen over Citizen Horticulturists actually was an act of market control and price protectionist mechanics from a Librarian oriented Oakland group.

So Keep it Simple. Spell out the rights everyone has clearly. Assign the Tax to a central State regularity commission. Pass a Bill of rights for Medical people so they are not discriminated in hiring or employment and housing and we will have a good start.
if we wait for the already established Canna-Business people to start another initiative that still doesn't protect folks, still doesn't keep our 18+ canna-brothers and Canna-sistes out of jail especially if they are dark skinned and still doesn't stop injustice like Rancho Cordova with the $27,000 a year tax on a 5x5 medical Garden per year then we are again faced with an initiative that more than likely, like prop-19, will not pass.
I for one will have no problem voting no this next time on anything that helps millionaires and keeps me nearly homeless.

I cannot defend an Initiative that isn't written yet. I assume you understand I am ringing the Bell to gather the flock to make it possible to write, fund and promote an Initiative for all of us by all of us in 2012. That I am taking the time and money to host California2012.org to facilitate that.
Do you have a site? Do you have an initiative?
What do you do? Are you willing to come help?
Donate? Car wash?

Let me know I am all for action after all the jaw-jacking that was done over prop-19 are we all ready to keep moving or will we buy into the phoney concept that we are starting now from a cold start like prop 19?
We are grateful for Prop-19, AB 390 and we still have AB 2254 in the wings but today is a new day in a new age!

It will take our community to send out the call to do nothing because someone will come along when they are ready and they you can vote again.
If we sent out the message sit on your hands until Daddy Canna-Bucks comes along we are missing the point of the Voter Initiative.

We need to listen to our community and gather our people and make sure this next try is the true will of the people and not the will of canna-Industry like we suspected Prop-19 and Oakland in general as championing.

You ask why so anti-business. I am not anti-Business I believe the market will stabilize and be natural and does not need a prop-19 market regulatory starting point to make it succeed. The act of growing excellent cannabis and bulk cannabis will always have a place in a State where demand is high.
I , Myself, will want to try new things as well as grab some pie and coffee at the local shops even if i grow my own.
The Market is going to be just fine. Let the people grow and they will find out that it is much easier to buy some that to invest that much time to grow some.
I'll point to the alcohol industry or the tobacco industry as examples of why Cannabis industry doesn't need to resort of some sort of prohibition like Prop-19 did with property and garden size. Folks are more interested in what the want now rather than brewing beer or distillation of spirits. It will be the same for Cannabis. Folks will want some and can buy it rather than having to learn how to brew , distil or grow by investing many months and experience in equipment and daily work.

Some may say that I don't care about our Black Market peoiple who are living on the income from sales under high prices they get for cannabis. I can't take credit for making it illegal, they can't take credit for making it illegal but we both have the chance to make it legal. It's about if you care for the rest of us or not.
This last point is the one I think they will understand and we all should.

If the initiative is simple enough, grants rights to people and protects us all to trade between Ca Residents I believe only the most greedy will say no.
Maybe the market will fidget but until the whole world is an exporter of fine cannabis California will not suffer except by jail or bad law and both.

Prop-215 knew to keep it simple so that people know what the truth is without ads.
Do things for the canna-people like new medical protections and new rules on housing and work rights for the whole state and yes that will make the haters unhappy.
But most of the Canna-Haters want prop 215 to be gone with. I can show you a group that is well funded with the aim to repeal prop 215



------------------------------------

So I am for these 5 things.

18+
Private trade
State level regularity
99 plants per person not 5x5 per property if you have permission
bill or rights for medical people

Why do we want to pass this? Because non-medical people are flooding a medical program and if it passes a majority of people want the right to grow 99 plants that are not medical. Private trade brings all our Canna-Brothers and Canna-Sisters to vote yes unless they are nuts. letting the State have oversight and not places like Rancho Cordova is better for our Medical People. We also need to reverse the obvious Jim-Crow-Cannabis laws that have been enacted up and down the state means those who use medicinally have no fear of pee tests nor loosing housing because we unofficially enforce Canna-Segregation while we ignore it's existence in debate.!


I think I typed enough.

Are you in or out? Are you a fence sitter just tossing rocks?

 

[Matt Rize]

2. As far as I know you can't be 60 and have weed on School grounds or in school zones. I fail to see the foundation of suggesting that cannabis never is on school with 18 or younger. So I don't see what to do with this counter point.

I havn't read your whole post but wanted to point out that.... Drug free school zones only apply to illegal drugs. so a legal grow in a school zone is okay. an illegal grow in a school zone is double bad

 

[Matt Rize]

Are you in or out? Are you a fence sitter just tossing rocks?

I hope that was a joke. These guys are serious and dedicated for the cause. Some of us, possibly the younger folk, who have barely had time to shine, are not so rushed to force legislation through. We want decrim too. We don't have faith in 30,000 with 30 bucks or whatever that stat was. It takes more money than you are admitting. I suggest you take it down a notch bro, some of us smoke hash all day and garden at night. We don't want to fight.

I cannot defend an Initiative that isn't written yet. I assume you understand I am ringing the Bell to gather the flock to make it possible to write, fund and promote an Initiative for all of us by all of us in 2012. That I am taking the time and money to host California2012.org to facilitate that.
Do you have a site? Do you have an initiative?
What do you do? Are you willing to come help?
Donate? Car wash

What do you think we are here doing? Let me publicly thank you on behalf of everyone for your efforts and contributions. We all have our outlets. We all push our ideals, some of us just do it a little less intense.

Some of us find the jackH 2012 to be a "pipe dream" and, THAT IS WHY I STARTED THIS THREAD. The intention was to take this jackH 2012 and improve it, make some well thought out (thats what we do here) compromises to bring in more voters. This attitude is not needed, we are on the same side. The reality of a tax/regulate model is not that long in existence. Why are you so now-or-never-and-effU?
Peace

 

[Ernst]

I happen to know quite a few people on the Turlock dairies, sure a lot of them are bible thumpers who will never support it, but a lot of them don't care about legalization either way and will vote support it if they feel it benefits the community, other they will vote against it.



Well the problem with allowing 18 year olds to posses/buy it is that there are a lot of 18 year olds in public highschools. Any legalization effort for those 18+ will get crucified in the media for that reason. I don't see any problem with it being 19+ though. No strong argument against that. No reason it has to be either 18 or 21.



We are still talking about a law that effects everyone in California, not just the people who are contributing. It's pretty easy to come up with a law that all cannabis consumers would support. Gaining the support of the majority of Californian's is another story.

I'm not saying it needs to be "more right wing", it's not about that. It's needs to be well thought out. There is no reason we couldn't have a law passed that was more liberal than prop 19 but still benefits the community.

You have to get passed thinking about what is right and wrong and start thinking about what in reality moves us forward. The whole "no tax, no zoning!" part of it is absurd. You just alienated half the state with that. We need those votes for it to pass.



See, you just fucked up there. You just proposed legalizing drug dealing. Do you really think people are going to go for that?

You also just took all power away from communities and made it legal for highschool kids to have bud.

Under your proposed law the mexican mafia can open a grow house next to a day care center and start selling bud out of their house. Do you really think people will support that?

And 99 plants? Why? That sounds like a big number to people who don't have a clue about cannabis growing. Why not have a sq ft limit instead? I can grow +300 plants in 3 4x8 trays doing SOG lolipops or I could SCROG out 36 plants getting close to the same yield. Why is gained by having a plant limit at all? Why not a sq ft limit instead? People who don't understand growing have no clue about SQ FT limits, 100 sq ft doesn't sound like a lot of room to the average non-grower, but people can make a living off of that space pretty easily and no one will object to 100sq ft in the same way they object to 99 plants. Even 500sq ft will get a more favorable reaction from the general public than a meaningless 99 plant limit.

There is zero chance that passes. Why would someone waste money on supporting a ballot measure that has no chance of passing? Having it sound good to growers/smokers just isn't good enough.



Of course I do and so does everyone else here. If the California state election was limited to people on this forum it would do great. But where is the broad appeal to the majority of Californians? Why are they going to support that?

Do you really think a housewife in Modesto will vote for that? Now if you add in a tax that goes directly to her kid's school you might get her vote.

You have to consider how you are going to get the majority of Californian's to vote yes. If you don't do that everything else you are doing is meaningless because it will never become law.

When talking about anything more than 50sq ft we are basically talking about legalizing small time weed dealing. Anyone who can't make a modest living off of 100sq ft while having plenty of personal smoke is doing it wrong.

I'm perfectly fine with that, but let's at least do it in a way where the average person doesn't catch on. 99 plants just sounds like a lot to people who don't know any better. SQ FT limits are meaningless to anyone who's not a grower. Why not have a large sq ft limit instead of something that sounds bad to the public?

We have a just fine Weed-dealing situation now and everyone in California is just fine with it.
So why not make it non-criminal for CA people to trade with CA people.. It's the only way to get Humboldt and others to vote yes.
If this is still not clear enough perhaps you can explain what will make our black market people vote yes on the next initiative?

The difference here is that to trade large quantities every year and get dependable prices and crop insurance you will have to have a business licence.
Anyone who expects to sell a few ten pound trees needs to hand that off to a middle man most of the time.

The deal is that if you are making a living growing 99 ten pound plants you are not going unnoticed. if that crop disappears it had better have a paper-trail if you want to avoid tax issues and property seizures.

There is a natural limit to any "private enterprise." If I make wicker chairs for example. I can open my garage as a show room and sell a few to people who drive by that more than likely will be neighbours. If I have a dozen craftsmen building chairs and shipping them all over the state it's obvious I am not practicing a private exchange.
It is the same for cannabis in that 99 ten pound trees is not a yard sale sort of grow!
It's really that simple.

What we are doing is actually Legalizing for the people. No Phoney 5x5/property liberty

Like I have said let us forget the complex issues and keep it simple like prop 215 the voters will be able to determine what it does for themselves.

 

[Ernst]

I hope that was a joke. These guys are serious and dedicated for the cause. Some of us, possibly the younger folk, who have barely had time to shine, are not so rushed to force legislation through. We want decrim too. We don't have faith in 30,000 with 30 bucks or whatever that stat was. It takes more money than you are admitting. I suggest you take it down a notch bro, some of us smoke hash all day and garden at night. We don't want to fight.



What do you think we are here doing? Let me publicly thank you on behalf of everyone for your efforts and contributions. We all have our outlets. We all push our ideals, some of us just do it a little less intense.

Some of us find the jackH 2012 to be a "pipe dream" and, THAT IS WHY I STARTED THIS THREAD. The intention was to take this jackH 2012 and improve it, make some well thought out (thats what we do here) compromises to bring in more voters. This attitude is not needed, we are on the same side. The reality of a tax/regulate model is not that long in existence. Why are you so now-or-never-and-effU?
Peace

I'm battle hardened is all.

I have been in the trenches since 2008 and the war is not over.. Expect a little Sargent gruff but not violence.

We do have some concepts in our community that can stand some re-evaluating such as "it will never pass if it dose not compromise.." We did all that with Prop 19 .. I was there at a meeting, I heard myself.. "Trust us and this we have the data.."
LOL we know where that went.
Passion is an important part and well as high spirits.. Moral is a dangerous thing for the enemy to have and we are the enemy of the No people.

Again Prop 215 passed because it was simple and for the people. The next Initiative will pass if it is simple to understand and is for the people I am willing to champion.

So hey.. Better we get organized now rather than wait for Daddy Canna-Bucks.

I'm all in.. Deal the cards...