Why I'm voting NO on prop. 19

[veggiegardener]

again has nothing to do with the inactive. lol thats great, and yes i bring my pops into it.
hes a doctor and berkly medical center, and knows the loop holes in 19. and there not what your saying.
iv backed up everything i have to say. as for yourself, no. nothing, just shit talking.
And you know it. so again youll reply with some ignerant ass remark, and ill be right ok.
i dont care that my spelling is not up to par. I care about this prop passing. with or without
your lies. Dont worry about my grammer buddy, worry about yourself, and your lies you have to spread.
cause i know the REAL truth on this prop. iv read the bill, i know my rights and i know the truth.
so spread your lies, cause no one cares. YOUR WRONG and you know it. lol im done with this. remember you won

LOL!

I know that hospital. I really doubt your dad works there.

Read the above, or if you can't have your dad do it.

If he does, he'll change his mind(if he is a doctor).

 

[veggiegardener]

By the way, your Dad probably won't be thrilled that you mentioned his work place(f he is a doctor).

 

[Sure Shot]

OK, smart guy, pick them apart. Show me where I'm protected from Prop 19.

LOL!
What a waste of forum space.
You want me to find something in all that ridiculous cut and paste job?
You posted many codes that have no relevance to this argument, weird.

But I will post something of relevance.
In fact here is what they call legal precedent.

The People v. Patrick K. Kelly

In it’s 53-page decision, the Court unanimously ruled that the state’s guidelines, enacted in 2004, should not preclude patients from receiving legal protections in court if they possess cannabis in quantities above those recommended under state law (six mature or twelve immature plants and/or eight ounces) or county law.

In short, the Court affirmed that the state’s guidelines in no way override the sweeping legal protections provided under Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. As long as a patient possess quantities of cannabis that are “related to meet his or her current medical needs,” then they are legally protected under state law — regardless of whether or not these quantities are in accordance with state-imposed or locally-imposed guidelines.
In a separate legal issue before the Court, justices further ruled that provisions enacted by the Legislature allowing for counties to establish a voluntary identification system for legally recognized patients did not infringe upon the intent of the 1996 voter-approved initiative.
So precisely what does this decision mean for California patients and providers? Aaron Smith provides an excellent summation here. The bottom line: patients in California have a legal right to possess and use marijuana in the way that is in best accordance with their medical treatment, as decided by the patient and his or her doctor — not by state or local legislators.


Source:NORML

 

[fdd2blk]

LOL!
What a waste of forum space.
You want me to find something in all that ridiculous cut and paste job?
You posted many codes that have no relevance to this argument, weird.

But I will post something of relevance.
In fact here is what they call legal precedent.

The People v. Patrick K. Kelly

In it’s 53-page decision, the Court unanimously ruled that the state’s guidelines, enacted in 2004, should not preclude patients from receiving legal protections in court if they possess cannabis in quantities above those recommended under state law (six mature or twelve immature plants and/or eight ounces) or county law.

In short, the Court affirmed that the state’s guidelines in no way override the sweeping legal protections provided under Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. As long as a patient possess quantities of cannabis that are “related to meet his or her current medical needs,” then they are legally protected under state law — regardless of whether or not these quantities are in accordance with state-imposed or locally-imposed guidelines.
In a separate legal issue before the Court, justices further ruled that provisions enacted by the Legislature allowing for counties to establish a voluntary identification system for legally recognized patients did not infringe upon the intent of the 1996 voter-approved initiative.
So precisely what does this decision mean for California patients and providers? Aaron Smith provides an excellent summation here. The bottom line: patients in California have a legal right to possess and use marijuana in the way that is in best accordance with their medical treatment, as decided by the patient and his or her doctor — not by state or local legislators.


Source:NORML

until otherwise changed by THE VOTERS. this is why the states guidelines didn't hold. they weren't voted in by the people. prop 19 sets LIMITS that are being voted in by the people.

i get it.

 

[SB Garlic]

Unfortunately that lawyer didn't point out the discrepancy between Prop 215 and prop 19.

Something I haven't mentioned was my previous support of this bill, UNTIL I heard about the 25 sq. ft. limit, and did the reading to clarify it.

You don't seem to understand I WANTED to support 19.

I can't because it hurts the sick and dying, while young gangstas burn all they can afford.

Truly sick people can't afford Cannabis, now.

Truly sick people can't afford quality medication in the current situation because of these high prices. Imagine if u couldn't grow and had to buy ur wife the 12 grams she uses daily. You would go broke. Once cannabis is legal prices go down because risk goes down.

 

[fdd2blk]

Truly sick people can't afford quality medication in the current situation because of these high prices. Imagine if u couldn't grow and had to buy ur wife the 12 grams she uses daily. You would go broke. Once cannabis is legal prices go down because risk goes down.

prices will go UP because they are going to TAX it.

 

[Sure Shot]

until otherwise changed by THE VOTERS. this is why the states guidelines didn't hold. they weren't voted in by the people. prop 19 sets LIMITS that are being voted in by the people.

i get it.

The state guidelines did hold actually.
They were reaffirmed by the Supreme Court thats all.
This was substantial because prior to this, it was always held as hazy what would happen.
This is because the written language of the bill gave no limit only a bare minimum.
Which many misconstrued to be a limit.

 

[fdd2blk]

The state guidelines did hold actually.
They were reaffirmed by the Supreme Court thats all.
This was substantial because prior to this, it was always held as hazy what would happen.
This is because the written language of the bill gave no limit only a bare minimum.
Which many misconstrued to be a limit.

from what i understood , the state couldn't over rule what was voted in by the people. which is why the prop should concern us all. it CAN'T be changed later. just like 215 can't be changed.

i could be wrong.





Dear everyone in california:

you could be smoking ALL the pot you want, TODAY. you could come over here, grab a pound, drive home and get pulled over by CHP and then told to "have a nice day". simple pick up the phone, ... http://www.sfadvertiser.com/categories/medical-marijuana

tell the govern to get bent.

or fold for a few days worth of commercial.

 

[SB Garlic]

prices will go UP because they are going to TAX it.

Prices drop when more people grow, it's that simple.

 

[Sure Shot]

If they both can't be changed, then they both stand as they should. Right?

 

[SB Garlic]

prices will go UP because they are going to TAX it.

And I bet prices went up on liquor when prohibition ended because of taxes...

 

[fdd2blk]

Prices drop when more people grow, it's that simple.

just ignore the word "tax" and it will go away.

they are going to TAX your grow. grower joe is NOT going to cover it for you.

 

[fdd2blk]

And I bet prices went up on liquor when prohibition ended because of taxes...

how long has medical been around? HUGE amounts of pot, everywhere in california. the price is holding strong. it's not going to change. the state wants this prop because they are broke. they NEED to make money off of pot. has anyone been paying attention?

 

[N!pples]

they are going to TAX your grow. grower joe is NOT going to cover it for you.

This one got out of control lol, Vote yes for weeds sake! We need the freakin tax money horribly... How do you propose they are going to find and tax everyone’s private 5x5 grow?? There will be 30 on every block! Impossible! It will be taxed when you buy it or sell it, that’s the price.. Fuckin awesome!!!! I'm sure more people are going to be happy with this Prop than not so become sheep along with us?!?! Dorks!

VOTE YES on 19

 

[veggiegardener]

LOL!
What a waste of forum space.
You want me to find something in all that ridiculous cut and paste job?
You posted many codes that have no relevance to this argument, weird.

But I will post something of relevance.
In fact here is what they call legal precedent.

The People v. Patrick K. Kelly

In it’s 53-page decision, the Court unanimously ruled that the state’s guidelines, enacted in 2004, should not preclude patients from receiving legal protections in court if they possess cannabis in quantities above those recommended under state law (six mature or twelve immature plants and/or eight ounces) or county law.

In short, the Court affirmed that the state’s guidelines in no way override the sweeping legal protections provided under Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. As long as a patient possess quantities of cannabis that are “related to meet his or her current medical needs,” then they are legally protected under state law — regardless of whether or not these quantities are in accordance with state-imposed or locally-imposed guidelines.
In a separate legal issue before the Court, justices further ruled that provisions enacted by the Legislature allowing for counties to establish a voluntary identification system for legally recognized patients did not infringe upon the intent of the 1996 voter-approved initiative.
So precisely what does this decision mean for California patients and providers? Aaron Smith provides an excellent summation here. The bottom line: patients in California have a legal right to possess and use marijuana in the way that is in best accordance with their medical treatment, as decided by the patient and his or her doctor — not by state or local legislators.


Source:NORML

That's the entire relevant text. Did you read it, dick head?

Ridiculous to ignore my points. If you don't read it, you are irrelevant.

If I'd left anything out, you'd say I was "cherry picking".

You're in over your head.

 

[veggiegardener]

LOL!
What a waste of forum space.
You want me to find something in all that ridiculous cut and paste job?
You posted many codes that have no relevance to this argument, weird.

But I will post something of relevance.
In fact here is what they call legal precedent.

The People v. Patrick K. Kelly

In it’s 53-page decision, the Court unanimously ruled that the state’s guidelines, enacted in 2004, should not preclude patients from receiving legal protections in court if they possess cannabis in quantities above those recommended under state law (six mature or twelve immature plants and/or eight ounces) or county law.

In short, the Court affirmed that the state’s guidelines in no way override the sweeping legal protections provided under Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. As long as a patient possess quantities of cannabis that are “related to meet his or her current medical needs,” then they are legally protected under state law — regardless of whether or not these quantities are in accordance with state-imposed or locally-imposed guidelines.
In a separate legal issue before the Court, justices further ruled that provisions enacted by the Legislature allowing for counties to establish a voluntary identification system for legally recognized patients did not infringe upon the intent of the 1996 voter-approved initiative.
So precisely what does this decision mean for California patients and providers? Aaron Smith provides an excellent summation here. The bottom line: patients in California have a legal right to possess and use marijuana in the way that is in best accordance with their medical treatment, as decided by the patient and his or her doctor — not by state or local legislators.


Source:NORML

Again, you don't present anything relating to cultivation, which IS the issue that brought about this thread.

 

[veggiegardener]

until otherwise changed by THE VOTERS. this is why the states guidelines didn't hold. they weren't voted in by the people. prop 19 sets LIMITS that are being voted in by the people.

i get it.

You and I may have our differences, but thanks for joining the discussion!

 

[veggiegardener]

If they both can't be changed, then they both stand as they should. Right?

The whole point is that Prop 215 DID NOT discuss grow area limits.

If 19 passes, the 25 sq.ft. limit will apply to EVERYBODY.

Do YOU understand?

I use roughly 300 sq. ft.

That means it would take 12 people growing at my level of skill to replace my grow.

The medical supply of pot will be drastically reduced.

 

[nathenking]

how long has medical been around? HUGE amounts of pot, everywhere in california. the price is holding strong. it's not going to change. the state wants this prop because they are broke. they NEED to make money off of pot. has anyone been paying attention?

Exactly... But nobody sees it... The price of MJ will not go down... Best case scenario is that it stays the same... Everybody growing pot in CA is already growing pot... Ya there may be a few people that join in after the vote but not enough for a price drop... Plus its hard to grow killer dank ass buds, otherwise that is all we would have around everywhere and they would be cheap... But that is not the case...

 

[nathenking]

Prices drop when more people grow, it's that simple.

Yeah right, more people grow in Humbodlt, Medno and trinity, but do prices drop, no... there is a certain equilibrium that has been reached and it will not change...