NO! On Prop 19

desert dude · Oct 25, 2010

"She's another that sees random testing as the only corporate response to Prop 19."

She is seriously in trouble in that case because Prop 19 precludes random drug testing, at least as it currently exists. Current testing identifies metabolites, not THC, and does not establish impairment or intoxication. Most large companies already do random drug testing because they are forced to do so by the fed under the "drug free workplace" law, so if she manages 20,000 employees she is awfully late to the game if her company does not already do random drug testing.

fdd2blk · Oct 25, 2010

Serapis said:
I know that "Seriously Ill Californians" is a quote taken directly out of 215.... In fact, it could be argued that many medical cards do not fall under seriously ill conditions. Here is the entire section...

" To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where the medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief. "

There are two qualifiers there, the first one being seriously ill Californians... The second one is ILLNESS, not "ailment" as you have quoted. An allergy is an ailment, as is sleep disorders. They are not illnesses, as defined by the AMA.

I'm only pointing this out to all of the 215 card members that are considering a no vote on 19. 215 does not cover ailments or discomforts. It was a compassionate use law that was intended to allow seriously and gravely ill patients access to Marijuana. What it has become today, is simply because of abuse. The text of the statute has not changed.

So, I apologize Fdd2, I disagree that 215 clearly says "any ailment" as you claim. It does not. I really do know how to read and I have a 4.0 GPA after 4 semesters in my pursuit of a bachelor degree. You keep taking pot shots at me, like "You really should le4arn what this means", when you are the one clearly in the wrong. You are misinterpreting a law, which is worded in a specific way, and you have insrerted other words or changed meanings to make it fit what you like.

I could just as easily say that you really should learn what seriously ill or illness means, but I won't stoop to that level

read your own quote, really S-L-O-W this time.

ailments, illness; splitting hairs.

the state of california issues cards to everyone who applies. they recognize any ailment. the DR's recognize it. the cops recognize it. seems the only people who have an issue with any of it is those who are to scared to visit a DR. nobody else is complaining.

Serapis · Oct 25, 2010

ent931 said:
ppl that vote no on this bill must very conservative not only could this help us non medical states change our ways pot would become dirt cheap cause our reps. in our state have said that if pot was to be sold it would have to be sold at 60 dollars an ounce which to me doesnt sound bad at all for chronic which btw our state produces the second most marijuana in the country after cali

That is a pipe dream. You might be able to allocate commercially grown weed for that price if cities such as Oakland have their way, but you are not going to get the good dank for $60 an oz from an experienced grower, regardless. Pricing is the furthest from anyone's mind regarding 19, except for those that currently profit from growing marijuana.

mr.swishas&herb · Oct 25, 2010

desert dude said:
"She's another that sees random testing as the only corporate response to Prop 19."

She is seriously in trouble in that case because Prop 19 precludes random drug testing, at least as it currently exists. Current testing identifies metabolites, not THC, and does not establish impairment or intoxication. Most large companies already do random drug testing because they are forced to do so by the fed under the "drug free workplace" law, so if she manages 20,000 employees she is awfully late to the game if her company does not already do random drug testing.

good point...also i had to submit to a drug test to work at fucking sears in NY so i highly doubt that Prop 19 is the cause of drug testing lmao...just sounds like a joke saying it, i do believe it could increase the random drug testing however...but the key to solving this issue is removing the incorrect label of marijuana being classified as a class 1 drug with no medicinal uses whatsoever...how could a portion of the country have it legalized for medicinal use whereas our federal government still sees absolutely no use for it?! national government has too much power and we need to get the uses of marijuana penetrated through their skulls in order to liberate everyone in the U.S. from being a political target while poking smot...

my .02

fdd2blk · Oct 25, 2010

i ate to many cookies, i feel "ill".

mr.swishas&herb · Oct 25, 2010

fdd2blk said:
i ate to many cookies, i feel "ill".

tummy ache?

fdd2blk · Oct 25, 2010

mr.swishas&herb said:
tummy ache?

i need a cure to what "ails" me.

veggiegardener · Oct 25, 2010

Serapis said:
You can't say that random testing would be a result of 19 passing. Random testing and required testing are prevalent TODAY. It should be nobody's business what we do on our time off. Imagine the outrage if a piss test were devloped to determine alcohol abuse within the last 60 or 90 days. People would be livid, yet they tolerate drug tests....

That was my argument when manditory testing first appeared. My employers told me that Insurance companies offered steep premium reductions if testing was enacted and threatened to withdraw coverage without testing.

I'm repeating what people in the position to make these decisions are telling me. They're dead serious.

Both the individuals I've mentioned HATE the idea, but, as corporate managers, they MUST consider their respective company's welfare, first.

"Legalizing" Cannabis will make dirty pee tests far more common(if you pro 19 types are correct).

Random testing is the only way to reduce employee consumption.

(How many folks do you know who drink on the job? Cannabis will have similar numbers.)

fdd2blk · Oct 25, 2010

fdd2blk said:
you still can't accept the fact that you do NOT have to be "seriously ill". prop 215 CLEARLY says "any ailment". you really should learn what this means.

my mistkae. i'll correct it for clarity.

prop 215 CLEARLY says "any illness". you really should learn what this means.

there. now you should get it. :")

mr.swishas&herb · Oct 25, 2010

veggiegardener said:
That was my argument when manditory testing first appeared. My employers told me that Insurance companies offered steep premium reductions if testing was enacted and threatened to withdraw coverage without testing.

I'm repeating what people in the position to make these decisions are telling me. They're dead serious.

Both the individuals I've mentioned HATE the idea, but, as corporate managers, they MUST consider their respective company's welfare, first.

"Legalizing" Cannabis will make dirty pee tests far more common(if you pro 19 types are correct).

Random testing is the only way to reduce employee consumption.

(How many folks do you know who drink on the job? Cannabis will have similar numbers.)

marijuana numbers should be 2x as high unless they are doctors...i do my job much better high as opposed to sober...and then alcohol? a CNS depressant...comparing apples and oranges imo

Serapis · Oct 25, 2010

fdd2blk said:
read your own quote, really S-L-O-W this time.

ailments, illness; splitting hairs.

the state of california issues cards to everyone who applies. they recognize any ailment. the DR's recognize it. the cops recognize it. seems the only people who have an issue wi9th any of it is those who are to scared to visit a DR. nobody else is complaining.

It's not splitting hairs, we are talking about the wording of written law. An ailment and an illness are two different things. It is not ambiguous, as you make it out to be.

The last time you and I got into this, you pulled a shit load of rep points from me. You claimed I was disrespectful. Now I look at your posts and see that you have no basis to back up your own opinion, other than a misinterpretation of the word illness, and your staunch defense of abuse under 215.

You know as well as anyone else that 215 is widely abused. 19 would easily take care of that. Your suggestion that anyone can go get a card is just encouraging further abuse of a compassionate use law. That abuse could cause other states to give pause in their consideration of use laws. In fact, the Florida AG has used California as an example of why he will fight compassionate use laws in Florida.

Vote yes on 19! Not every smoker is ill.....

MR.HEADY · Oct 25, 2010

Please if you are in cali VOTE YES some of us arent lucky enough to have such liberal politicians . We need the momentum to boil over to us on the bastard east coast.. Praise god and beer. But damn the demon weed is their attitudes in the southeast. It is time here for it to becomae at least mediacl legal. So do be dick go and vote yes . END THE PROHIBITION NOW GO DO YOUR PART SOLDIER

Serapis · Oct 25, 2010

mr.swishas&herb said:
good point...also i had to submit to a drug test to work at fucking sears in NY so i highly doubt that Prop 19 is the cause of drug testing lmao...just sounds like a joke saying it, i do believe it could increase the random drug testing however...but the key to solving this issue is removing the incorrect label of marijuana being classified as a class 1 drug with no medicinal uses whatsoever...how could a portion of the country have it legalized for medicinal use whereas our federal government still sees absolutely no use for it?! national government has too much power and we need to get the uses of marijuana penetrated through their skulls in order to liberate everyone in the U.S. from being a political target while poking smot...

my .02

Just to add to your shock..... The Department of Health and Human Services was awarded a patent in 1999 for it's studies on medical marijuana use. Many government scientists and doctors signed on to the patent application, claiming marijuana was indeed shown to have medicinal value. So not only can you question why the states all have differing laws regarding MJ, but ask yourself how one arm of the government recognizes the benefits of MJ and the other arm prosecutes use of it.

fdd2blk · Oct 25, 2010

Serapis said:
It's not splitting hairs, we are talking about the wording of written law. An ailment and an illness are two different things. It is not ambiguous, as you make it out to be.

The last time you and I got into this, you pulled a shit load of rep points from me. You claimed I was disrespectful. Now I look at your posts and see that you have no basis to back up your own opinion, other than a misinterpretation of the word illness, and your staunch defense of abuse under 215.

You know as well as anyone else that 215 is widely abused. 19 would easily take care of that. Your suggestion that anyone can go get a card is just encouraging further abuse of a compassionate use law. That abuse could cause other states to give pause in their consideration of use laws. In fact, the Florida AG has used California as an example of why he will fight compassionate use laws in Florida.

Vote yes on 19! Not every smoker is ill.....

it was MY mistake in wording. i meant ILLNESS, and it changes nothing.

you can get prescribed pot for ANY illness.

you will distract from this fact so you don't have to admit it. you always do.

there are NO requirements to be prescribed mmj. you do NOT need to be dying. you can have a headache and get a card. the prop clearly state ANY ILLNESS.

you got it yet?

mr.swishas&herb · Oct 25, 2010

MR.HEADY said:
Please if you are in cali VOTE YES some of us arent lucky enough to have such liberal politicians . We need the momentum to boil over to us on the bastard east coast.. Praise god and beer. But damn the demon weed is their attitudes in the southeast. It is time here for it to becomae at least mediacl legal. So do be dick go and vote yes . END THE PROHIBITION NOW GO DO YOUR PART SOLDIER

love the passion but you have to push your congressmen, not californians to vote yes...the entire country already sees cali as the pot head state and most states did not respect their prop 215 movement, therefore they are definitely going to oppose prop 19 and view the west coast in an even more scornful manner, we should win over individual states until we can push for an amendment in the white house...or have obama get a pair and push for a national legalization bill to get on the floor

and in regards to Serapis' comment:

that is quite intriguing to hear that...I strongly believe that the lobbyist who pay the congressmen's bills have a lot of money tied up in prescription drugs that would be intensely hurt by the legalization of MJ (one of the many reasons i believe that the government has been ignoring the research and the proof that they demanded, ever since nixon's goons proved mj was the most dangerous drug ever because it fucked up monkeys who were given little to no oxygen in order to pump columbian bud into their lungs

too many personal priorities tossed in the mix to make clear cut/logical decisions

fdd2blk · Oct 25, 2010

Serapis said:
It's not splitting hairs, we are talking about the wording of written law. An ailment and an illness are two different things. It is not ambiguous, as you make it out to be.

The last time you and I got into this, you pulled a shit load of rep points from me. You claimed I was disrespectful. Now I look at your posts and see that you have no basis to back up your own opinion, other than a misinterpretation of the word illness, and your staunch defense of abuse under 215.

You know as well as anyone else that 215 is widely abused. 19 would easily take care of that. Your suggestion that anyone can go get a card is just encouraging further abuse of a compassionate use law. That abuse could cause other states to give pause in their consideration of use laws. In fact, the Florida AG has used California as an example of why he will fight compassionate use laws in Florida.

Vote yes on 19! Not every smoker is ill.....

how is 215 "abused"? i never could understand this. "abused" according to WHO? all i hear is opinions of people against 215 saying this. the state isn't saying it. the cops aren't saying it. the courts aren't saying it. who exactly, other than you, is saying this?

the courts drop charges if you are 215, for any reason.
cops let you drive away if you are 215, for any reason.
dr's prescribe you mmj, for any reason.

i don't see the "abuse".

the law says "any illness". sounds legit to me.

Serapis · Oct 25, 2010

fdd2blk said:
it was MY mistake in wording. i meant ILLNESS, and it changes nothing.

you can get prescribed pot for ANY illness.

you will distract from this fact so you don't have to admit it. you always do.

there are NO requirements to be prescribed mmj. you do NOT need to be dying. you can have a headache and get a card. the prop clearly state ANY ILLNESS.

you got it yet?

So it is your opinion that anyone in California can get a card for any ailment or illness that they wish? How is that a part of a compassionate use law? Why were the words "Seriously Ill Californian's" inserted into the wording? You are correct in your assumption that the law covers ANY ILLNESS, as defined today. That was not the INTENT of the law, and do not be surprised if 215 card carrying users ever come under audit. 215 is widely abused. That is a known fact. Because of it, other states that might consider compassion laws are watching a bit more closely now.

Like it or not, California is the 4th largest economy in the world. The number one crop is marijuana. The rest of the country tends to follow California. It is absurd to think that users of the drug will vote no and cite 215 as the reason.

Serapis · Oct 25, 2010

fdd2blk said:
how is 215 "abused"? i never could understand this. "abused" according to WHO? all i hear is opinions of people against 215 saying this. the state isn't saying it. the cops aren't saying it. the courts aren't saying it. who exactly, other than you, is saying this?

the courts drop charges if you are 215, for any reason.
cops let you drive away if you are 215, for any reason.
dr's prescribe you mmj, for any reason.

i don't see the "abuse".

the law says "any illness". sounds legit to me.

end of discussion..... you can continue to cite 215 in defense of your stance against 19, however the two are not even related.

Vote YES on 19, because not every smoker is ill.....

fdd2blk · Oct 25, 2010

Serapis said:
So it is your opinion that anyone in California can get a card for any ailment or illness that they wish? How is that a part of a compassionate use law? Why were the words "Seriously Ill Californian's" inserted into the wording? You are correct in your assumption that the law covers ANY ILLNESS, as defined today. That was not the INTENT of the law, and do not be surprised if 215 card carrying users ever come under audit. 215 is widely abused. That is a known fact. Because of it, other states that might consider compassion laws are watching a bit more closely now.

Like it or not, California is the 4th largest economy in the world. The number one crop is marijuana. The rest of the country tends to follow California. It is absurd to think that users of the drug will vote no and cite 215 as the reason.

it is not my "opinion" or "assumption", it is CLEARLY WRITTEN into the law.

and dude, that WAS the intent of the law, that is WHY it was put in there. :wall:

fdd2blk · Oct 25, 2010

Serapis said:
end of discussion..... you can continue to cite 215 in defense of your stance against 19, however the two are not even related.

Vote YES on 19, because not every smoker is ill.....

i'm not citing it in defense, i'm trying to help you understand it so you too can grow all you want or need.

NO! On Prop 19

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member