Why I'm voting NO on prop. 19

[Sure Shot]

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

Read it again. Maybe a little slower, or look for the red words.

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.

 

[delta9tetra]

Of course. The medicinal angle was just a way to get things moving towards legalization. I self-medicate as much as the rest of them, but for those of us without cancer, aids, ms, etc., we would like to have the same rights. Cannabis has a powerful medicating effect, but it is also used for other reasons. Like spiritual enlightenment, recreational fun having, etc.

 

[nathenking]

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

How, because you said it... They NEED MONEY... Hence they will have a motive to do this... especially if its something like 2-5000 dollars a year for tax man... Think hard on that....

 

[veggiegardener]

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

Vote NO on 19.

 

[veggiegardener]

Read it again. Maybe a little slower, or look for the red words.

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.

DO YOU SEE ANYTHING ABOUT AREA?

You are kinda stupid or are attempting to side step the facts.

Which is it?

 

[veggiegardener]

Read it again. Maybe a little slower, or look for the red words.

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.

BTW, the limits you mention were overturned by the California Supreme Court, a year ago.

Don't know much, do you?

 

[veggiegardener]

Of course. The medicinal angle was just a way to get things moving towards legalization. I self-medicate as much as the rest of them, but for those of us without cancer, aids, ms, etc., we would like to have the same rights. Cannabis has a powerful medicating effect, but it is also used for other reasons. Like spiritual enlightenment, recreational fun having, etc.

A sore back or insomnia will get you a recommendation, if you're over 18.

Most pot docs know that Law enforcement is the greatest threat to a young person's well being.

 

[Dan Kone]

I read that list before posting it. Strange bedfellows?

Maybe, but remember those folks haven't read any farther than you have.

Did you watch the video of the Lady lawyer? Letitia is her first name, and she's done the in depth research, as I have. I spent a big part of today talking to friends who have shown up on lists, supporting 19.

She's an anonymous person on youtube who may be a lawyer. You have no idea how much research she's done. And I know you haven't done any research besides reading a couple blogs. So please quit making shit up.

 

[Sure Shot]

DO YOU SEE ANYTHING ABOUT AREA?

You are kinda stupid or are attempting to side step the facts.

Which is it?

Ooh more insults, I must be winning.
I see the Supreme Court upholding the will of the people, tax dollars at work.
Growing area was not an issue in this case, so you won't find it.
What you do find, is the word quantity or quantities.
This was the issue of the case fore-mentioned.
And it is clear the court system is not going to impose further restrictions against the will of the people.
Nothing in this new proposition is worded against medical cultivation.
Therefore, it could not be misconstrued by the court that the will of the people has changed towards medical cultivation.
So the court would literally refuse to hear or dismiss charges of such manner swiftly.

BTW, the limits you mention were overturned by the California Supreme Court, a year ago.

Don't know much, do you?

Actually, I started a thread on this back in Jan.
California Supreme Court: State’s Marijuana Possession Limits Are A Floor!

 

[veggiegardener]

I guess our difference is that I don't trust our justice system, and you do.

I think you'll end up very unhappy, if it passes.

I won't know who "won" until November.

I'm simply refuting(quite effectively, I might add) your shot in the dark denials of this glaring hole.

Did you watch the link with the lady lawyer?

She's not anonymous. Call me a liar and I'll post the link, if you aren't capable of finding it.

 

[Dan Kone]

Did you watch the link with the lady lawyer?

She's not anonymous. Call me a liar and I'll post the link, if you aren't capable of finding it.

If she's not anonymous why do you call her "the lady lawyer"? lol. Is that her name. You claim she's done extensive research. How do you know that? You know who has done extensive research? Dennis Peron's lawyer, J. David Nick. He's the original medical marijuana lawyer in California. How come what he says is pretty much the opposite of everything you're saying? Maybe his 18 years working California marijuana cases just don't match up the "extensive research" done by you and "the lady lawyer". lol

I know this has been posted before, but maybe you should read what he has to say, you know, for the sake of your "extensive research". Or do you only do extensive research on random bloggers and anonymous youtube posters who agree with you?

http://sanjosecannabis.org/2010/09/11/open-letter-from-j-david-nick-re-yes-on-prop-19/

 

[Dan Kone]

I guess our difference is that I don't trust our justice system, and you do.

No. It's pretty damn simple actually. You either have your own motivations for supporting prohibition, or you've been tricked/scared into supporting prohibition by people who have their own financial motivations to do so.

You are siding with the DEA against cannabis legalization and supporting prohibition. Do you understand how absurd that is?

 

[SB Garlic]

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...

Thats great but its irrelevant to that fact that once mj is legal more farms will be growing it, and supply will go up. Also more people will grow their own in their backyard or house. The current prices will go down, stop trying to argue this.

 

[Sure Shot]

DO YOU SEE ANYTHING ABOUT AREA?

You are kinda stupid or are attempting to side step the facts.

Which is it?

I guess our difference is that I don't trust our justice system, and you do.

I think you'll end up very unhappy, if it passes.

I won't know who "won" until November.

I'm simply refuting(quite effectively, I might add) your shot in the dark denials of this glaring hole.

Did you watch the link with the lady lawyer?

She's not anonymous. Call me a liar and I'll post the link, if you aren't capable of finding it.

You are absolutely right, veggiegardener. I will be negatively effected substantially.
Just when I started to feel comfortable, too.

But, this is not about me necessarily.
It's more about the next me.
It's about the huge culture that is blatantly present.
It's about unjust laws.

As far as trusting the judicial system;
I have very mixed feelings over our legal systems, as I believe do most.
I've been through juvenile institutions, county jails, and state penitentiaries.
No one should suffer a day in jail for supplementing their endocannabinoid system.

 

[nathenking]

A sore back or insomnia will get you a recommendation, if you're over 18.

Most pot docs know that Law enforcement is the greatest threat to a young person's well being.

no doubt, get your med card... then you can have 8 ozs and grow as much as you want..

 

[nathenking]

If she's not anonymous why do you call her "the lady lawyer"? lol. Is that her name. You claim she's done extensive research. How do you know that? You know who has done extensive research? Dennis Peron's lawyer, J. David Nick. He's the original medical marijuana lawyer in California. How come what he says is pretty much the opposite of everything you're saying? Maybe his 18 years working California marijuana cases just don't match up the "extensive research" done by you and "the lady lawyer". lol

I know this has been posted before, but maybe you should read what he has to say, you know, for the sake of your "extensive research". Or do you only do extensive research on random bloggers and anonymous youtube posters who agree with you?

http://sanjosecannabis.org/2010/09/11/open-letter-from-j-david-nick-re-yes-on-prop-19/

He says that shit because he has a motive... What? I dont know, but that is what it is... Probably more business for him defending "legal" people that get busted with a pound or something... just my opinion... who knows?

 

[nathenking]

Thats great but its irrelevant to that fact that once mj is legal more farms will be growing it, and supply will go up. Also more people will grow their own in their backyard or house. The current prices will go down, stop trying to argue this.

You dont know if it will go up or down... Either do I... That is the only fact...

 

[vertise]

i see theres alot of greedy people out there. The big thing is that it is a step foward in the right direction. It seems as though alot of people want a law that says grow as much marijuana as you want sell it how you want and forget paying taxes on it. Alot of people prob would not mind a completely legit 100 percent state legal grow simply by paying taxes on their grow. As in I personally would not mind spending 1,000 dollars a year for a permit to grow knowing that i am completely ok legaly. If you do end up selling your product they can simply collect taxes on income made. Also i think that a majority of people will not grow there own product. The casual user will simply buy it in a store. This is where the main tax income for the state will be made via marijuana.

 

[nathenking]

i see theres alot of greedy people out there. The big thing is that it is a step foward in the right direction. It seems as though alot of people want a law that says grow as much marijuana as you want sell it how you want and forget paying taxes on it. Alot of people prob would not mind a completely legit 100 percent state legal grow simply by paying taxes on their grow. As in I personally would not mind spending 1,000 dollars a year for a permit to grow knowing that i am completely ok legaly. If you do end up selling your product they can simply collect taxes on income made. Also i think that a majority of people will not grow there own product. The casual user will simply buy it in a store. This is where the main tax income for the state will be made via marijuana.

it already is grown as mush as people want, sold as they want to and they dont pay taxes... all this so you can have a ounce???

 

[vertise]

Also alot of people here seem to forget that marijuana is illegal, tech you med license means jack shit. Federal laws always supercede state laws.