The Dan Kone Thread of Legalizing For Us All.

Ernst

Well-Known Member
I cant tell you how much good weed I saw go shitty at dispensaries because people cant cure correctly...
Yes indeed. It's repugnant to be offered bud for Bank and it's not even cured 8 months.
Once it's legal and anyone can garden then we will see that the shops can't sell just any bud they get.

I'm sure you and I will have no problem with a Sunday cup of Coffee and a really excellent weed at the local coffee house.
 

BudMcLovin

Active Member
I take it then you believe California is willing to vote yes for Cannabis Commerce in 2012? If so why if you don't mind.
I think Americans are smart enough to know weed isn’t as dangerous as LSD or even alcohol and when presented with a reasonable solution to the war on drugs they would play ball. We are a country governed by the center and that center has a lot different outlook on things than 30 or 40 years ago. Just don't let any burnouts promote it publicly. :bigjoint:
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Ok. Against my better judgement I will indulge you for a bit.

As some of you know Dan and i have been debating the reality of True legalization with out commerce for 2012 in the style of prop 215
The "legalization" you favor addresses commerce too, just in a different way.

Dan has been shy to write down his vision of what our freedom should look like and I thought I would nudge my debate-mate Dan.
That's a fair point. I will outline what I think the next legalization bill should look like.

But I'm not your debate-mate. To be that you'd have to address specifics. You just ignore substance and pronounce anyone who disagrees with you as anti-legalization and greedy. That's not debating. That's broken record style stupidity.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
I think Americans are smart enough to know weed isn’t as dangerous as LSD or even alcohol and when presented with a reasonable solution to the war on drugs they would play ball. We are a country governed by the center and that center has a lot different outlook on things than 30 or 40 years ago. Just don't let any burnouts promote it publicly. :bigjoint:
Try my shoes on. I live in a city that resides in the County I was born in that is right on the line between Northern California and Southern California. In fact I can walk to Southern California from here and have for exercise.

This is a city where the East side of town is predominantly old homes and idyllic tree lined streets with 1950's street lamps that require speciality yellow light bulbs.

On the West side the housing is more modest with simple homes and a lack of idyllic tree lined and yellow 1950's street light effects and much smaller yards and much more lower real estate value communities.

Now I am on the tracks which divide East from West we get the Good Samaritan food wagon here since this is the very low income area of town.

Anyway. Why would these people, both East and West, want cannabis shops?
The East Siders see all the rest of the town as lower class than their neighbourhoods and that is because it really is and the West Side have organized dealing.
In a strange situation the Rich don't want legalization because the undesirable class of folks will have wealth and may even bring more liberals into this area and the West siders don't want the business to go away. There is a price they get for drugs and all you can grow means the price will drop so no legalization.

So how do we do it? I'd say we grant horticulture rights, private trade rights and use rights to everyone and skip the commerce but what would you suggest?
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Ok. Against my better judgement I will indulge you for a bit.


The "legalization" you favor addresses commerce too, just in a different way.


That's a fair point. I will outline what I think the next legalization bill should look like.

But I'm not your debate-mate. To be that you'd have to address specifics. You just ignore substance and pronounce anyone who disagrees with you as anti-legalization and greedy. That's not debating. That's broken record style stupidity.
The Ruiner loves me and I love him.. What? you don't love me?
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Here's what I support. I support this because it's a good start. It's something all the people of California could get behind, not just a select group with their own interests at heart. It's based off of what has been successful, and what we need to get proper support. Most important, it's practical and reasonable. I will just do an outline, not full legal wording so simpletons such as Ernest can understand it.

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, 99plants, 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 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. 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 feet per grow. One person can not hold more than one permit nor be involved in a company or 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.

--------------------------------------------------

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.

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.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Now Ernest, your turn. Let's see what you support. I indulged you, it's only fair you do what you asked of me.
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
wow, ernst started another thread in the politics section? :shock: :sleep:



this thread borderlines on a "personal attack".
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
wow, ernst started another thread in the politics section? :shock: :sleep:



this thread borderlines on a "personal attack".
I'll try to tone it down a bit and refrain from such attacks, hopefully Ernest can do the same.

The whole premise of this might be a bit cheap, but he does have a fair point. I've criticized his ideas on legalization a lot, it's only fair that I post what I think legalization should look like.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
wow, ernst started another thread in the politics section? :shock: :sleep:




this thread borderlines on a "personal attack".
Gosh you are not up to date on how it came to be. Not surprising.

Why are you concerned? Do you love Dan? Brotherly Love that is, naturally. That's all I'm on about.
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
Gosh you are not up to date on how it came to be. Not surprising.

Why are you concerned? Do you love Dan? Brotherly Love that is naturally. That's all I'm on about.
um, i'm a mod. modding. :dunce:

i don't care. that's why it's still open. figured you'd come back with such a reply though. gonna address dan now. thanks.
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
I'll try to tone it down a bit and refrain from such attacks, hopefully Ernest can do the same.

The whole premise of this might be a bit cheap, but he does have a fair point. I've criticized his ideas on legalization a lot, it's only fair that I post what I think legalization should look like.
thank you sir. i figured there was some "history" behind this all so i let it ride. knowing you i knew you'd take it with a grain of salt. my post was meant as a "friend jab" more then anything. i'm glad YOU got it. ;)
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
thank you sir. i figured there was some "history" behind this all so i let it ride. knowing you i knew you'd take it with a grain of salt. my post was meant as a "friend jab" more then anything. i'm glad YOU got it. ;)
Modding done right IMO. Thanks for bringing up the problem before shutting down the thread.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Nothing needs to be legalized, we don't need to ask permission to engage in behavior that harms no one. All they need to do is stop classifying it as illegal. Ever notice there is no big book at the clerk of courts office of Legal things you can do? Everything is legal until it isn't.
 

Michael Sparks

Active Member
Great thread! I too have similar ideas and concepts.
Alas there is a backward system and who is to say there won't be debate upon registering for home growing, the conspirators will have a field day but who is to blame them we have all seen news stories, also youtube videos, where some known government agencies come in and break the law we are told to abide by. I see this as a great plan but who is going to make it stick? when the law is broken by the law who stops them?
 

HarryCarey

Well-Known Member
Dan, I like your ideas, involves more incentive than regulation... the way it should be for everything IMO...Also nice that tax money would be kept locally, i do believe this could garner some support from the people we need it from :clap:
 
Top