Which Version of Legalization Do You Prefer? Please Read Propositions And Then Vote!

Which legalization proposition do you prefer?

  • Proposition A

    Votes: 8 44.4%
  • Proposition B

    Votes: 10 55.6%

  • Total voters
    18

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Please read both proposals and then vote on which one you prefer. Comments, criticism, discussion, suggested improvements, and your own proposals are welcome in this thread.

--------------Proposition A-------------

1) In order to simplify the issue of cannabis in California for the voter and to attract the largest number of yes voters I propose a common sense approach.

2) Since two efforts have been voted down that contained commerce language I propose that the efforts to legalize be divided into 3 or more separate efforts so that we can win one or more efforts in 2012.

3) Focus on getting personal cannabis legalization rights for the people first.

4) The first thing then is to legalize cannabis for the non-commercial use by the citizens of California.

5) That would include employment protections such as the right to not be fired for consuming cannabis as well as banning employers and potential employers from testing for cannabis use.

6) Horticulture rights for citizens, including the right to grow and breed as much cannabis and hemp as they feel necessary for their non-commercial use.

7)Legalizing non-commercial private trading between citizens.

8.) Apply these rights to cannabis to everyone including medical. I don't see why medical people cannot gain ground too.

9) This will create an atmosphere in the State of California which will allow a transition for our communities and law enforcement.

10) I have stated that over sight is necessary and that a system of permits for people pursuing cannabis horticulture which can generate revenue for the State. I have stated that a central authority is better than 600 jurisdictions so I am in favor of that if in it's existence all citizens enjoy equal rights to the peaceful and lawful use of cannabis and it's related activities such as horticulture all up and down the State.

------------Proposition B-------------

1) This is for the purposes of legalization the recreational use of cannabis. Medical laws are excluded from these regulations. Nothing supersedes a doctor's orders.

2) Allow all citizens of California to posses and grow cannabis for personal consumption. Legalize a grow area of 100sq ft, and possession of up to 8lbs at your home. Legalize possession of up to 1lb on your person.

3) Allow citizens of California 19 years old and up to have safe access to acquire, cultivate, and possess cannabis. Legalize dispensaries operating as a collective or cooperative either for profit or not-for-profit. Collectives and cooperatives may operate as store front dispensaries, delivery services, bakeries/cafes, or farmers markets but are not necessarily limited to those uses. Collectives are limited to one commercial location. No one may have a controlling share in more than one collective.

4) If your personal grow exceeds your personal requirements you may put it up for sale on consignment at the collective of your choice. (for legal purposes, it must be consignment sales so you're not operating an unlicensed business.)

5) Legalize and permit commercial growing. Permits will be granted through the state in a process similar to forming corporation where everyone can access them. Permit costs will remain below $5000. Commercial growing will be limited to 2k square feet per grow. One person can not hold more than one permit nor have a controlling share in multiple companies holding more than one permit.

6) Outlaw the taxation of medical cannabis. Tax recreational sales of cannabis at 9%. No further taxation through congress is permitted without an additional ballot measure where 2/3 of Callifornians agree to the tax.

7) All revenue created by the recreational cannabis tax will go directly to the local schools in that collective's county. Counties that do not allow or take measures to prevent collectives from opening will not receive tax revenue from cannabis. Counties that encourage collectives receive the greatest benefits.

8.) State and local government employees including law enforcement are prohibited from cooperating or sharing information with federal police in cannabis related cases
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
The reasoning for proposition B

Under this set of rules Californians would be allowed to possess, cultivate, purchase, and consume cannabis legally.

A tax rate is set because if you do not, congress will do it for you and their tax will be much worse.

Commercial sales/cultivation is addressed because if you do not do it through a voter initiative, Richard Lee types will lobby congress to set the rules for you. They will attempt to set up monopolies. By addressing it in a voter initiative congress can't over rule that. Another voter initiative would be required to change the rules. Under the system I proposed pot walmart type chains would be illegal. Massive scale farming would be illegal. The purpose of this is to set up an environment where citizens can open their own businesses and do well, but no cannabis billionaires or Phillip Morris type corporations can dominate the market. This will create a lot more middle class/upper middle class jobs where people can make a decent living.

The tax is an incentive for non-smokers. A reason for them to support legalization. The taxes will be distributed locally, not state wide so Californian communities will benefit more by accepting and encouraging legalization. Not only is it a reason for non-smokers to vote for legalization, but it is a reason for them to support local collectives in their area.

It is fair, it doesn't leave anyone out in the cold, and it is realistic enough so where the majority of Californians could support it. It is not an ideal law. It is just one everyone can be content with and still have a legitimate chance of passing.

I just got that feeling that I'm leaving out major parts of what I had in mind be I can't seem to remember what they are. Oh well, you get the idea
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
I am Ernst Berg and that is my real name. This false person Dan Kone Dank One has not met the minimum requirements of friendship and has gone ahead with out me to present this thread.

Please email [email protected] for a confirmation of a human being and well dank one Dan kone? Hasn;t been a friend at all. You decide who this is.
 

DelSlow

Well-Known Member
Hmmm, I like both. A seems to be more of a free-for-all, and while I would vote for it, I don't think anti weed people would. B is the best of both worlds I believe. While I don't think you should be limited to the amount of weed you can have, I doubt anyone needs more than 8 pounds for personal. I like the no tax on medical, and the low tax of 9% for recreational. Gives the anti crowd an incentive to vote since the money would go to schools and such.

Good job to both of you for taking the time to write these out. Start collecting signatures so you can get these on the ballot :leaf:
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Do you support freedom for individual citizens or just a corporate share in the economic production, distribution and "Retail" of cannabis produce? Shall the individual citizen be afforded equal production as per cubic foot they have title or rent of?

Do you believe that all of California has to accept the economic opportunities afforded by these new freedoms proposed to all citizens equally in the state of California or are you in favor of limited rights to commerce as defined by jurisdictional politics and economic tariffs otherwise known as taxes?

Oh I am high trust me.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Do you believe that all of California has to accept the economic opportunities afforded by these new freedoms proposed to all citizens equally in the state of California or are you in favor of limited rights to commerce as defined by jurisdictional politics and economic tariffs otherwise known as taxes?
You act like economic opportunities are a bad thing. With the way proposal B is set up, it provides thousands of small economic opportunities rather than a few big ones for monopolistic corporations. I'm not sure how you think that is a negative. Lots of legal middle class cannabis jobs = winning!
 

deprave

New Member
I pick prop A because it ensures marijuana stay in the hands of the people in particular poor people, Marijuana feeds the poor and hungry across the entire world and if Capitalism gets ahold of it or gets any rights as far as taxation I feel it could be very bad, I would vote for #2 because it does allow sale by people however I still feel we could be taken advantage of and that it would be exploited, either way that is part of the reason marijuana remains illegal its because they can't control it no matter what they do, they cant take money from the people......

"They can't make money from this plant you see, because its free, it grows naturally" -Human Revolution

I just want to say I would vote for either A or B given the chance but I would prefer something like A - I would like to see #8 from prop B in prop A
 

Shadeslay

Active Member
In an ideal world I would pick option A, so I voted A. But in current environment I would choose option B, because it would have a better chance of passing.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
You act like economic opportunities are a bad thing. With the way proposal B is set up, it provides thousands of small economic opportunities rather than a few big ones for monopolistic corporations. I'm not sure how you think that is a negative. Lots of legal middle class cannabis jobs = winning!
I act like you are a false person.

False person Phoney!
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Dan Kone

So who every you are under that digital burqa who are you going to plagiarize today?
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
One last thing.

The main argument as been the fact that California has voted initiatives down that contain commerce language ( allowing retail ) twice with propositions 19 I & II and voted for proposition 215 which has no commerce ( sales ) in it.
California voters trend to vote NO on sales and commercial activities with cannabis.

Who ever Dan Kone is has ignored this and is living in la la land that a Third initiative that contains Commerce will magically pass because it has all the "nice" things commence people want.

It is time to take a safe first step for the people this time..

Ask yourself do we need to carry the weight of all the issues just to get legal this time> Can we not vote for the people this time since California votes NO Business each and Every time!

So that is the real debate. You are not being informed that voting for commerce again is more than likely to fail and you and I the people will lose a turn while those who are making millions still make millions.

What will it be for 2012 A Gamble or a Safe simple for the people first bet?

That is what Dan Kone refuses to debate and that is why he made a poll containing other people's views and is calling it his own.
 

Boonierat

Well-Known Member
So far you have been the only one that has spoken up for this viewpoint without changes. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see A go in! I just don't think it is feasible And would you stop with the false person bullshit? It is getting really lame. Talking about la la land, I think you are floating in eternal psyche-ward land.
 

Boonierat

Well-Known Member
After 40 years of prohibition, how could you even begin to think that full legalization without any form of money going up the chain would pass?
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
It's an initiative you vote on. California has voted twice against business. Why would California now vote yes?

Give me an example why a third business initiative will pass?

I'm point out that wishing for it in one hand and shitting the people in the other so some can make money is really wrong and California votes NO on it every time.

California wants freedom not more bills! Let the people grow, use, breed and privately non-commercial trade cannabis with each other. IT's called Cannabis freedom and it passed the vote in 1996..

It's Winner for the people Loser times two for business..

Which do you think will win in 2012 based on the history of voting?

Isn't it better to gain a little than to lose again in 2012?
Or are we that greedy and dumb?
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
So far you have been the only one that has spoken up for this viewpoint without changes. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see A go in! I just don't think it is feasible And would you stop with the false person bullshit? It is getting really lame. Talking about la la land, I think you are floating in eternal psyche-ward land.
Perhaps but I am the one fighting for cannabis freedom for you out in the open and in real time..

That has to be disturbing to those who promote a digital burqa freedom fighter style.

I care about what happens in California over cannabis freedom. That is why I am making such an effort.

Too bad more of us are not so brave as I. Look at your self and see what i mean.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
I pick prop A because it ensures marijuana stay in the hands of the people in particular poor people, Marijuana feeds the poor and hungry across the entire world and if Capitalism gets ahold of it or gets any rights as far as taxation I feel it could be very bad, I would vote for #2 because it does allow sale by people however I still feel we could be taken advantage of and that it would be exploited, either way that is part of the reason marijuana remains illegal its because they can't control it no matter what they do, they cant take money from the people......
I definitely see where you're coming from, but think about this. If we don't pass commercial cannabis law in a ballot initiative, then congress will certainly do it for us. If we allow congress to do it for us, then the corporate lobbyists will write cannabis commercial law. Philip Morris and Richard Lee types will gain monopolies over cannabis trade all over California.

Basically, by not addressing cannabis sales, that does not mean we won't have cannabis sales, it just means corporate America gets to decide what that law will be and that's not good for any one. Congress can not over rule a ballot measure.

Commerce is like a force of nature. You can't stop it by ignoring it. Wouldn't you rather have the people write that law rather than corporate America?
 
Top