Is PROP 19 Really Good for 215 patients or are we being TRICKED??

TokinPodPilot said:

Your ignorance is still not sufficient argument to vote in bad legislation. Nice try, though. There is nothing to trust about Tricky Dick Lee.

Click to expand...

how is what i said ignorant? id like to you show how. jus saying so isnt proving anyone wrong. what i wrote is the truth. the tons of lawyers at norml confirm these facts. i dont wanna look up the case # but medical amounts are set by doctors not a law and once 19 passes it will force 215 to have real real individual limits and restrictions to specific medical needs instead of bullshitting to the state so you can carry

and what is so bad about dick lee? hes been providing quality herbs to the bay area for quite a while now and seeing how he has many MANY assets in the unregulated medical mj field. why the fuck should he be starting over and pay out the ass from a law he put the work into passing? it doesnt many any lick of sense from a logical standing. i know he has investments in factories to start producing when 19 passes, but that doesnt mean his medical assets will be going away, that wud be retarded from a capitalist perspective. and if you say the medical business will be effected the way its implied by you people, why the hell is he throwing away all those good assets?

currently i believe maybe one out of 500+ counties has proposed taxing the 25sq ft personal grow spot, a subject which has yet to be decided if its constitutional at all to tax that personal property. the bill itself is in no way perfect, nobody is saying that. but its needs to pass so it can be ammended to be something very reasonable. it only looks bad to apeal to the conservitive and non-smoking demographics. if something like the jack herer initiative was on the ballot it wouldnt have nearly the amount of support 19 does.

its sad to see the greedyness of my fellow stoners. we will not be losing any rights in the slightest, in fact we will be gaining quite a few
carry an ounce- smell of pot no longer probable cause for search, this itself makes it worth it really. because currently even with a 215 they will take it and make you prove something in court, but even then you wont get ur weed back
grow on 25sq ft - different counties can fuck with this, but yet to be decided if its constitutional
HASH BARS - there will be specific businesses that will allow for smoking of thc on grounds, so basically hash bars

and as ive said, previous cases setting precedents that doctors set carry amounts for pharmaceuticals protect your rights as a 215 patient. so any argument against is moot. maybe if you people have something reasonable to say people might listen

Id vote for prop 20 next year if it supported local interest and the tax would be local not funneled out of county. I don't like the law as it stands. Gives power to wealthy folks.
The tax is fine but the regulate is not. Id like to just

LEGALIZE IT instead.

@mikhail: Wow.... just wow. I'm pretty sure I can't really respond to that without appearing insulting aside from, sorry... brain still works. I don't need other people's opinions to judge something I can read and assess for myself. As far as what proof of your ignorance... your post kinda makes the point for me. Thank you for the talking points.

@Jay: Exactly. Education of the public at large is truly key for the moment. People need to be made aware of the rights they already have under existing legislation. Things are not perfect, but there is far more protection under existing law for both medical and recreational. The law as it stands sucks for recreational sales, but not use. One just needs to be aware of one's rights and exercise them as a lawful resident of California.

TokinPodPilot said:

Just because you don't feel the need to use your brain is, once again, no reason for any of the rest of us to stop using ours. As someone who's been involved both directly and peripherally with the "legal precedents" you keep referring to, I can easily see how this ambiguously worded proposition can and would be abused by commercial/government entities. No amount of your "because I said so" argumentation is going to counter that experience.

Click to expand...

i dont deny that this can be abused, but believe it or not ur medical rights are still protected and limited to what the doctor tells you. now if those case files i read were false im sorry. but the issue of medical carry and restrictions has been addressed and is secure, from what i can understand

mikhail chalecki said:

i dont deny that this can be abused, but believe it or not ur medical rights are still protected and limited to what the doctor tells you. now if those case files i read were false im sorry. but the issue of medical carry and restrictions has been addressed and is secure, from what i can understand

Click to expand...

The bold bit is the part that's in question. Thank you for playing.

TokinPodPilot said:

The bold bit is the part that's in question. Thank you for playing.

Click to expand...

and i hear that. but from what ive read, cases involving limits to medicine and quite a few lawyer testimonies, i cant see any reasons why you shouldnt be able to protect your current rights given to you by that piece of paper you have to pay for. unless you have cancer, glaucoma, ms, turrets or something i honestly think 215 cards shouldnt be given in the first place, everyone just takes the current system for granted. regardless of that i firmly believe that the rights of 215 are protected and cant be restricted unless ordered by a doctor, something the pharmaceutical companies and distributors have already fought to set those precedents.

mikhail chalecki said:

and i hear that. but from what ive read, cases involving limits to medicine and quite a few lawyer testimonies, i cant see any reasons why you shouldnt be able to protect your current rights given to you by that piece of paper you have to pay for. unless you have cancer, glaucoma, ms, turrets or something i honestly think 215 cards shouldnt be given in the first place, everyone just takes the current system for granted. regardless of that i firmly believe that the rights of 215 are protected and cant be restricted unless ordered by a doctor, something the pharmaceutical companies and distributors have already fought to set those precedents.

Click to expand...

so again, you want us to be blind sheep, and go with your 'belief'

so again, fuck that.

and they can write it better next time.

mikhail chalecki said:

and i hear that. but from what ive read, cases involving limits to medicine and quite a few lawyer testimonies, i cant see any reasons why you shouldnt be able to protect your current rights given to you by that piece of paper you have to pay for. unless you have cancer, glaucoma, ms, turrets or something i honestly think 215 cards shouldnt be given in the first place, everyone just takes the current system for granted. regardless of that i firmly believe that the rights of 215 are protected and cant be restricted unless ordered by a doctor, something the pharmaceutical companies and distributors have already fought to set those precedents.

Click to expand...

Well, if you read it, it must be true. This would explain your erroneous interpretation of Prop. 215's statute of applicability, usage and it's backing. Once again... thank you for making my point. Please continue.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/big-tobacco-will-not-take-over-pot-in-california

made by NORML who are lobbying for 19 so it is indeed bias

they provide the links laws and good points to support the protection of your medical rights and the distinction of those and recreational users. i know ive said it, but the two laws will be two distinct systems one simply cannot effect the other unless its says so, which it does not in any way. the reason 19 doesnt mention medical use is because its making the distinction between the two terms

its not like 215 will simply go away, and if cops try to screw you, get a lawyer.... and please vote yes, jobs are ready and needed

mikhail chalecki said:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/big-tobacco-will-not-take-over-pot-in-california

made by NORML who are lobbying for 19 so it is indeed bias

they provide the links laws and good points to support the protection of your medical rights and the distinction of those and recreational users. i know ive said it, but the two laws will be two distinct systems one simply cannot effect the other unless its says so, which it does not in any way. the reason 19 doesnt mention medical use is because its making the distinction between the two terms

Click to expand...

http://www.canorml.org/laws/calmjlaws.html

Made by California NORML with California-specific legal interpretation of possession and cultivation thresholds. These are guidelines established by years of legal precedents and further legislation, such as Prop. 36. In addition, as someone who has stood his day in court to defend his right to cultivate and possess cannabis without a recommendation, I know for a fact what can or can't be defended in court and/or supported by legal precedent. But, I'm sure you'll find something else to read and tell you what to think.

mikhail chalecki said:

its not like 215 will simply go away, and if cops try to screw you, get a lawyer.... and please vote yes, jobs are ready and needed

Click to expand...

I wasn't arguing whether 19 would or would not affect 215 patients. I said you grossly misunderstand the intent, applicability and backing of Prop. 215. The fact that you can't even comprehend the basic language of 215 correctly, I won't bother to argue your "interpretation" of the text of 19. You'd best be served to follow the first part of your own advice, the second part is just supposition and personal opinion. I'd ask you to stick to facts, but....

ill have to disagree, my opinions havent been formed by these forums, ive been reading the laws myself and spent lots of time looking through cases that support the claims so i know what im voting on. i trust my sources because they are the laws and thats it

No skin off my nose... still voting no.

Rule #1. ANYTIME the GOVERNMENT says they want to 'help you' in any way, shape or form...RUN. RUN as fast as you can away. They help themselves, nobody else.
Rule# 2. Read Rule #1. Again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU7PjZwvlwE

he makes some decent points

mikhail chalecki said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU7PjZwvlwE

he makes some decent points

Click to expand...

Not even 30 seconds in, he's deflecting the fact that he WAS reading from a pro-Prop 19 site on an early "broadcast". It's astounding what some people will let themselves be influenced by. Carry on, comrade lemming.

TokinPodPilot said:

Not even 30 seconds in, he's deflecting the fact that he WAS reading from a pro-Prop 19 site on an early "broadcast". It's astounding what some people will let themselves be influenced by. Carry on, comrade lemming.

Click to expand...

man you're dedicated you should go on a traveling tour to convince california how prop 19 is bad!


lol j/k kinda.

I appreciate the thought. I'd rather that more people take my example and stand up themselves. Thanks, though!

i just said a few good points. hes clearly reading the actual thing