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
I suppose this is where you tell me "that is all nonsense. people voted against cannabis business twice what they want is horticulture freedom".

Just save it for someone more gullible Ernest. Everyone has heard you repeat that enough. No one is buying it. People know why they voted for or against prop 19 and that wasn't the reason.

Although I have relearned one thing here. Never wrestle a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
I am thinking about everyone with Horticulture. With full horticulture rights we all get freedom.
We will not be free until we have rights to cannabis firmly grounded in the law.
Great! No one is arguing against the freedom to grow. What we are saying is that it's better to have a cannabis law that we can all agree on rather than one that will divide us.

You have to think about more than just yourself here. Just because YOU want something doesn't mean that everyone else should bend to your will, forget about what they want, and blindly support you.

It isn't My horticulture so get off that horse. It's the rights of Man I am championing.
Really? Then how come you keep insulting everyone who disagrees with you rather than listening to the will of the people?

We should never make laws against the reasonable use of the plants of this world.
To Legalize means accepting that people garden and breed and that utilization of space is relative to activity.
Excellent. We are all in agreement there.

What I don't understand is why you need to grow 500 pounds for "personal consumption". I mean, damn. Really? That isn't fooling anyone. If you want to grow 500 pounds that's fine with me, just admit it's a business and act like everyone else running a business. It's not that hard. You can make a business in an afternoon.

There is a difference between Commercial and non-commercial so the argument is keep Limits on commerce and leave the people alone.
No one is disagreeing with that either. That's why limits are necessary. The reason to have limits isn't to crack down on people's freedom to grow for personal consumption. It's to separate people growing for personal consumption from people running a business out of their home. What you're advocating allows for people to run businesses out of their homes without even forming a business let alone paying taxes.

Ironic isn't it that almost never will the Cannabis people of all web sites want cannabis truly legal.
So everyone who doesn't support your very specific type of legalization supports prohibition? lulz

And that "People in the world are suffering so shut up" is absolute bull shit.
wow.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
I'm folding my hand in the poker game with you.

I am unsure of a thing so I will err on the side of compassion.

Good luck with things and notice I will not argue with you more.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
I'm folding my hand in the poker game with you.

I am unsure of a thing so I will err on the side of compassion.

Good luck with things and notice I will not argue with you more.
Good. I was kinda starting to feel guilty like I was beating up a retarded kid or something.
 

DelSlow

Well-Known Member
*sigh*

I don't know what to say Ernst, I really don't. You will never see me against legalization. I am all for it. I don't sell, I don't grow enough to sell. It's just for me. All of this commerce talk, look, maybe people did vote against commerce, I don't know. You are very passionate about your views and I can respect that. Not trying to step on anyone's toes. All I can do at this point is wish you the best of luck with your proposition/getting signatures. Who knows, you may be right. Maybe people will legalize for the people in 2012. I really hope you're right :leaf:
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
*sigh*

I don't know what to say Ernst, I really don't. You will never see me against legalization. I am all for it. I don't sell, I don't grow enough to sell. It's just for me. All of this commerce talk, look, maybe people did vote against commerce, I don't know. You are very passionate about your views and I can respect that. Not trying to step on anyone's toes. All I can do at this point is wish you the best of luck with your proposition/getting signatures. Who knows, you may be right. Maybe people will legalize for the people in 2012. I really hope you're right :leaf:
Yeah I usually have good sense on the direction of the political winds.

We didn't have a choice in 2010. There were those of us who disagreed with the Lee group and I spoke at one meeting that we should have waited for 2012 but that is the past.

Maybe it is a mater of tweeking what prop 19 was or maybe not. However, since I posses such abundant energy and conviction of the heart I believe I can start ringing that bell now just in case I am needed in 2014 if, as I suspect with the new prop 19 group, that it is more about lining up for Soros money than actually legalizing.

Okay.. I stand relieved.
 

Boonierat

Well-Known Member
Your winds are the only ones blowing westward in this case my friend. G'luck, I hope you find others to support your cause.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Your winds are the only ones blowing westward in this case my friend. G'luck, I hope you find others to support your cause.
My Jim Crow Cannabis campaign worked rather well.

Leno introduced the Medical Rights bill. I'd like to think letters to the editors and posting all up and down the State had an impact.

Do any of you do a damn thing?

I'll guess that is a big fat no.

http://www.mjbusinessreport.com/wires/article.cfm?id=wzxviadcvtdjxsh

Patients' Rights Bill Clears Calif. Senate Committee
Posted April 06, 2011 10:29AM PST​
California workers who use medical marijuana at home received support from the state's Senate Judiciary Committee, which voted 3-2 yesterday in favor of a bill to protect patients from workplace discrimination.
Senate Bill 129, introduced by Democratic Sen. Mark Leno of San Francisco, would establish a patient's right to work while still prohibiting on-the-job impairment.
"When Californians approved the compassionate use of cannabis, they never intended for it to apply only to unemployed people," Leno said in a statement. "With unemployment at record-high rates, we should be doing everything we can to keep productive and responsible members of the workforce in their jobs."
Currently, employees can be fired for testing positive for marijuana. Under the bill, on-the-job impairment would replace cannabis metabolites in urine as the primary cause for dismissal.
A previous version of the bill passed both chambers in 2008, but then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it. This year, dire budget negotiations consume the attention of the Legislature, and little is expected to be done until June.
Americans for Safe Access spokesman Kris Hermes said the medical marijuana lobbying group is hopeful for SB 129 passage, but "we're not sure that it will be an easy journey."
So wtf... I rock. And you? Thought so.

I was posting using the phrase Jim Crow Cannabis before Cannabis Culture wrote their article but I'm cool with the proper article they published.
Just google "jim crow cannabis" and you can also cross reference that and my name for more links.

It really sucks to have to fight both the No people and the luke-warm yes people.

Are we there yet?
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Isn't it a bit queer that cannabis people are against full legalization?

Anyway since I am a bit frisky today.. I point out that the actual score for "For the people" is like 50 to 6 and that poll was done without the drama and first.

Don't mistake me leaving an inferior alone for surrender.

To think black market people are the majority of California voters is insane.
 

Boonierat

Well-Known Member
I think your poll was full of shit, sooo...

And once again, you have no idea what anyone else has done or is doing. You would just rather state that we aren't as if it is fact, even though you have no idea. Much like anything you say now that I think about it...
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
I think your poll was full of shit, sooo...

And once again, you have no idea what anyone else has done or is doing. You would just rather state that we aren't as if it is fact, even though you have no idea. Much like anything you say now that I think about it...

Now you have to show proof or you are the asshole..

Tag you are it.
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
Okay what solution do you suggest if not to call these people out. I'm listening.
I don't think that being combative and insulting is the best way to go about anything do you? I think most of us would love to see your version of legalization work. Problem is that it leaves too many questions unanswered and would NEVER work, so people think "Why waste time with something that has ZERO chance of passing?" Believe it or not, everybody has their own motives for wanting it legal or to keep it illegal. You might be able to change a few minds with what you're proposing but there is no possibility of anything like it getting voted in. I'm sorry Ernst. I like you, but I think you are missing the point of what the people who disagree with YOUR version of legalization are saying. We all would love to see big business get handed a big fat "fuck you" but it's not likely to happen since big business is already positioning themselves to profit if legalization ever does happen. Cannabis will not go from a Schedule I narcotic to absolutely unregulated in ANY market, even California. I realize what you are saying and in principle I kind of agree with you, but Cannabis (as much as I love this plant) isn't like roses or zinnias. It's not lettuce or carrots. It's an intoxicant and whether we like it or not, it does make some people act like idiots. You and I know that the morons are in the minority but you know the old saying "a few bad apples spoils the whole bunch.":sad:
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
You miss understand.
Dude Prop 19 failed!

Initiatives that contain commerce language such a s 8 pounds fail!

Just because a minority want commerce language doesn't mean we have to carry commerce language again.

But lets talk about this thread.


This thread was supposed to be a joint effort between me and whoever Dan Cone is.
I agreeded to be a part but in the end My words were used and I had no input on the poll format nor did we ever work together. In short he fucked me over and turned what was to be a poll into a contest.
I you don't believe me start at the beginning.

Let me ask you this what part of Horticulture rights for the people stops commerce?


That is where it is at.
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
You miss understand.
Dude Prop 19 failed!

Initiatives that contain commerce language such a s 8 pounds fail!

Just because a minority want commerce language doesn't mean we have to carry commerce language again.

But lets talk about this thread.


This thread was supposed to be a joint effort between me and whoever Dan Cone is.
I agreeded to be a part but in the end My words were used and I had no input on the poll format nor did we ever work together. In short he fucked me over and turned what was to be a poll into a contest.
I you don't believe me start at the beginning.

Let me ask you this what part of Horticulture rights for the people stops commerce?


That is where it is at.
Look man, I'm not going to get in the middle of whatever you and Dan Kone have going on. I simply am not interested in that drama. I really don't care all that much about the commerce part of it, but MANY people do care about it so it needs to be addressed. If it's not in the language of the proposal then there will be confusion. Hell, there is usually confusion anyways! lol! I realize prop 19 failed. I also know that it was a piece of shit proposal that seemed more focused on setting up pot "Wal-Marts" than decriminalizing anything. Just because prop 19 failed doesn't mean that people are against commerce or business or whatever you are alleging. They do seem to be against shitty propositions that will automatically create a playing field tilted heavily in the favor of certain "special interests". Yes Ernst, we all want to be free to consume whatever the hell we want whenever the hell we want. It's not that way with alcohol or tobacco so why will cannabis be any different? There are numerous special interests that have to be considered, not to mention the public at large. If you don't placate them all in some way you will meet heavy resistance from the group you've left out. Many of these groups are better funded and better organized than you or I will ever be. I think most people view this endeavor of yours as at least a bit quixotic. Most people pick their battles. Perhaps you should re-evaluate your motives.bongsmilie
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Initiatives that contain commerce language such a s 8 pounds fail!
That's an interesting statement considering one has never been on the ballot and in the polling here it's doing quite well. No one except you has objected to it.

Just because a minority want commerce language doesn't mean we have to carry commerce language again.
How come that minority appears to be out numbering the majority?

You are THE ONLY PERSON who's objecting to commerce language. If your opinion represents the majority then why do you appear to be the only person with that that opinion? Where is the backlash against what I proposed? Except for you, no one has made a single negative comment about it. If you'd bother listening to what people want and considering the actual opinions of the majority instead of just insulting everyone who makes a comment that does anything but praise you, then you might learn something.

You can insult me all you want, I probably have that coming to me. But you're now insulting people who are just telling you the truth. These people don't hate you. They aren't out to get you. Instead of turning on everyone maybe it's a good idea to listen to them. You claim to be representing the majority here, but how can you be when you start attacking everyone for having ideas other than your own.

Legalization isn't about me or you. It's about considering what the people want and balancing that against what would liking have a chance of being successful. You'd be doing yourself a big favor if you listened to that.

This thread was supposed to be a joint effort between me and whoever Dan Cone is.
No, Ernest. This isn't about people, this is about ideas. I've learned quite a bit about what people want from this thread, have you?
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Look man, I'm not going to get in the middle of whatever you and Dan Kone have going on. I simply am not interested in that drama. I really don't care all that much about the commerce part of it, but MANY people do care about it so it needs to be addressed. If it's not in the language of the proposal then there will be confusion. Hell, there is usually confusion anyways! lol! I realize prop 19 failed. I also know that it was a piece of shit proposal that seemed more focused on setting up pot "Wal-Marts" than decriminalizing anything. Just because prop 19 failed doesn't mean that people are against commerce or business or whatever you are alleging. They do seem to be against shitty propositions that will automatically create a playing field tilted heavily in the favor of certain "special interests". Yes Ernst, we all want to be free to consume whatever the hell we want whenever the hell we want. It's not that way with alcohol or tobacco so why will cannabis be any different? There are numerous special interests that have to be considered, not to mention the public at large. If you don't placate them all in some way you will meet heavy resistance from the group you've left out. Many of these groups are better funded and better organized than you or I will ever be. I think most people view this endeavor of yours as at least a bit quixotic. Most people pick their battles. Perhaps you should re-evaluate your motives.bongsmilie

There reason it is going to be different is because we are going to define it. Are you that dense?

Look you are the middle between Dan and I ?? Don't see that either?


The black market is a minority.

What I am saying is that twice these commerce language has failed.
Let us split up the initiatives.

The only places I find people against rights for the people are these grow sites.

I found out from prop 19 that the growers who hang out are the minority voter count.

Y'all remember how the growers all nutted up in October~November and NPR aired Dragon Fly and not the growers like you?

That is because when it all comes down you guys have been breaking the law.. No one has sympathy for you who make the money and we especially didn't vote sympathetically for the black market grower in 2010 either.

What ever.. I'm getting what I need from my time here..

Now if any one can show me how No voters will switch in 2012 when Obama has lost his identity as a liberal meaning voter turnout will be more conservative in 2012 and no Republican or democrat will be supporting any legalization Don't you all want to join together and pass something?
If that is rights for people first are you all quality people willing to fight for what is possible not what is profitable?

Split the issues up so we don't vote everything down. Give the people more choices than a binary yes or no on an all in one initiative.

This is good for me.. Is it good for you?

And Damn it the people are not special interests.

Horticulture is not agriculture. Horticulture rights are not a special interest it is the fundamental right to grow food fibre and medicine.

Special interest is the idea that people can stay home and make a big salary growing a pound of two of a plant.
In reality and after any legalization passes the price per pound will drop to perhaps less that $500 a pound and you all will be competing with Mexico produce.

The only reason you have even the prices you have now is because of the dispensaries. you let people have any grow rights and the market falls. That is a no-brainer. So arguing to keep people illegal in some form to some how control the market for just one class of grower is idiotic... LOL
When any one can grow some they will grow a lot.
Lower the risk and more people will take chances and that means more supply. More supply means lower prices..
Might as well let it hit the floor and then let us look at commerce.

I don't get it I don't read any counter argument on this site that proves why we should gamble another election cycle away.

But, I have to admit that I think there are enough stupid people who will support another all in one initiative.
It isn't like we won't have it all it is that we have to do things separately.

So I care.. I am popping the pie in the sky cannabis grower's bubble.. The end of high prices for cannabis is coming with any legalization. We saw it with prop 19.
I had people trying to move ounces of purp here and not getting $125 and it was a nice smoke from the sample I was given but hey every one has good smoke.

And another laughable things is that some how it will be constitutional to block big box cannabis stores... Ha!
Like every jurisdiction in California is going to be sure all the Mom and Pop's get protection when the Big Box will bring in more revenue and offer the jurisdiction more control over their cannabis community.

I'll put money on the liberals will have a low turn out in 2012 from the direction Obama is going.
Then what? We lose because of commerce language and what go through what we are doing in 2013?
Will I be arguing for a separation of rights for people and Commerce and will I again be told it is the wrong way to go in 2014 because just because COMMERCE LANGUAGE WAS VOTED DOWN THREE TIMES doesn't mean it will be voted down a fourth?
Maybe enough people will die by then to change the demographics.

I am not telling anyone they can't have what they want I am stating that splitting it up will allow us to gain some ground.

Why not get something this time?
Why risk it all again for the special interest small grower.
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
There reason it is going to be different is because we are going to define it. Are you that dense?

Look you are the middle between Dan and I ?? Don't see that either?


The black market is a minority.

What I am saying is that twice these commerce language has failed.
Let us split up the initiatives.

The only places I find people against rights for the people are these grow sites.

I found out from prop 19 that the growers who hang out are the minority voter count.

Y'all remember how the growers all nutted up in October~November and NPR aired Dragon Fly and not the growers like you?

That is because when it all comes down you guys have been breaking the law.. No one has sympathy for you who make the money and we especially didn't vote sympathetically for the black market grower in 2010 either.

What ever.. I'm getting what I need from my time here..

Now if any one can show me how No voters will switch in 2012 when Obama has lost his identity as a liberal meaning voter turnout will be more conservative in 2012 and no Republican or democrat will be supporting any legalization Don't you all want to join together and pass something?
If that is rights for people first are you all quality people willing to fight for what is possible not what is profitable?

Split the issues up so we don't vote everything down. Give the people more choices than a binary yes or no on an all in one initiative.

This is good for me.. Is it good for you?

And Damn it the people are not special interests.

Horticulture is not agriculture. Horticulture rights are not a special interest it is the fundamental right to grow food fibre and medicine.

Special interest is the idea that people can stay home and make a big salary growing a pound of two of a plant.
In reality and after any legalization passes the price per pound will drop to perhaps less that $500 a pound and you all will be competing with Mexico produce.

The only reason you have even the prices you have now is because of the dispensaries. you let people have any grow rights and the market falls. That is a no-brainer. So arguing to keep people illegal in some form to some how control the market for just one class of grower is idiotic... LOL
When any one can grow some they will grow a lot.
Lower the risk and more people will take chances and that means more supply. More supply means lower prices..
Might as well let it hit the floor and then let us look at commerce.

I don't get it I don't read any counter argument on this site that proves why we should gamble another election cycle away.

But, I have to admit that I think there are enough stupid people who will support another all in one initiative.
It isn't like we won't have it all it is that we have to do things separately.

So I care.. I am popping the pie in the sky cannabis grower's bubble.. The end of high prices for cannabis is coming with any legalization. We saw it with prop 19.
I had people trying to move ounces of purp here and not getting $125 and it was a nice smoke from the sample I was given but hey every one has good smoke.

And another laughable things is that some how it will be constitutional to block big box cannabis stores... Ha!
Like every jurisdiction in California is going to be sure all the Mom and Pop's get protection when the Big Box will bring in more revenue and offer the jurisdiction more control over their cannabis community.

I'll put money on the liberals will have a low turn out in 2012 from the direction Obama is going.
Then what? We lose because of commerce language and what go through what we are doing in 2013?
Will I be arguing for a separation of rights for people and Commerce and will I again be told it is the wrong way to go in 2014 because just because COMMERCE LANGUAGE WAS VOTED DOWN THREE TIMES doesn't mean it will be voted down a fourth?
Maybe enough people will die by then to change the demographics.

I am not telling anyone they can't have what they want I am stating that splitting it up will allow us to gain some ground.

Why not get something this time?
Wow! That was quite a post. I'll be honest, I didn't read the entire thing. I got to this part "Are you that dense?" and didn't continue on. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You are not helping your position by attacking anyone who disagrees with YOUR vision of legalization. I said I wasn't getting in the middle of yours and Dan's little drama and I stand by that. I have no idea what little beefs you've got going on with him but I have gathered from reading yours and his back and forths that you are pissed because he started a poll without your input? Would that be correct? I'm not interested dude! You go ahead and keep attacking people. I can see the change in the tone of your posts in the short time you've been posting in politics. They've gone from friendly, but a little scatterbrained, to downright insulting and angry. You make all these assumptions about me and other members here and frankly I find it insulting. What kind of "grower" do you think I am, 'cause let me tell you something partner, you don't know squat about me. I'm done discussing this matter with you. Good luck with your "efforts".:finger:
 
Top