The "OFFICIAL" cast your VOTE on PROP 19 thread

[coopdevillan]

Im from Colorado and right in the mix of shit being legal out here. FUCK it being legal. It'sonly getting more and more bullshit.Hell there gonna be putting cameras in weed shop grow ops so they don't get stiffed on there money. Hell I even heard there gonna possibly do some finger print system.

Im pro quo for weed but this letting the system get there hands on OUR system is crap. I say our system cuz us as a shunned people created this "market".

I guess Im on the fence with it.

 

[jesus of Cannabis]

I voted yes to see what would happen to Cali. before it comes to Michigan.

 

[twostarhotel]

we need real leagalization not this bill, we need another bill by the people for the people not for the mobsters who want control. but check this article out i was at the store the other day and they were talking about how arnold just decriminalized to where as of oct 1st possession of up to an ounce of marijuana punishable by a fine of no more than $100, and eliminates the possibility of arrest or a criminal record. so id rather popular opinion and more spreading the good news of herb, push for further decriminalizing

 

[twostarhotel]

California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's signing of a bill which decriminalizes possession of small amounts of marijuana may represent a watershed moment in popular opinion on the drug nationwide. The new legislation, passed by the state's lawmakers, will make possession of up to an ounce of marijuana punishable by a fine of no more than $100, and eliminates the possibility of arrest or a criminal record.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) Thursday signed into law a bill that decriminalizes the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana. The bill reduces simple possession from a misdemeanor to an infraction.
SB 1449 ill take it over prop 19
link http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5859720/californias_move_to_decriminalize_marijuana.html

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2010/oct/01/california_governor_signs_mariju

 

[UncleBuck]

we need real leagalization not this bill, we need another bill by the people for the people not for the mobsters who want control. but check this article out i was at the store the other day and they were talking about how arnold just decriminalized to where as of oct 1st possession of up to an ounce of marijuana punishable by a fine of no more than $100, and eliminates the possibility of arrest or a criminal record. so id rather popular opinion and more spreading the good news of herb, push for further decriminalizing

please tell me, what is the fine (currently) for cultivating marijuana in a 25 sq ft area?

 

[twostarhotel]

please tell me, what is the fine (currently) for cultivating marijuana in a 25 sq ft area?

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4525

Possession of 28.5 grams or less of marijuana is not an arrestable offense. As long as the offender can provide sufficient identification and promises to appear in court, the officer will not arrest the offender. Upon conviction of the misdemeanor charge the offender is subject to a fine of $100. Possession of greater than 28.5 grams is punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $500.

Proposition 36
The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act passed by 61% in 2000​

Possession of 28.5 grams or less of marijuana on school grounds when the school is open is punishable by up to 10 days in jail and a $500 fine. Possession of greater than 28.5 grams or more of marijuana in a school zone is punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $500.
The cultivation or processing of any amount of marijuana is punishable by up to sixteen months in state prison. There is an exception to the cultivation prohibition for patients or patients’ caregivers who possess or cultivate for personal use by the patient upon approval of a physician.
The laws regarding possession and cultivation of marijuana do not apply to patients or patients’ primary caregivers who possess or cultivate marijuana for the personal medical use of the patient, upon the recommendation or approval of a physician.
Selling marijuana in any amount is punishable by 2 – 4 years in the state prison. Giving away less than 28.5 grams is a misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine of up to $100.
Sale of marijuana to a minor is punishable by 3 – 5 years in prison.
For anyone under the age of 21 convicted of any of the above offenses, the state may suspend the offender’s driver’s license for up to one year.
Possession of paraphernalia is a civil fine of $200-$300 for the first offense and goes up to $5,000-$6,000 for a fifth or subsequent violation within a five-year periood.
A breakdown of CA county and local medical marijuana guidelines is available here: http://www.safeaccessnow.net/countyguidelines.htm.

 

[UncleBuck]

The cultivation or processing of any amount of marijuana is punishable by up to sixteen months in state prison.

i know a way to change that this november

 

[TokinPodPilot]

I know a way to change that now. It's called get a recommendation. And it allows one to grow as much as one determines their needs to be, not how much the city is willing to allow, IF they decide to make any allowance at all.

 

[UncleBuck]

I know a way to change that now. It's called get a recommendation. And it allows one to grow as much as one determines their needs to be, not how much the city is willing to allow, IF they decide to make any allowance at all.

what if you only want to use cannabis recreationally? you don't get a recommendation in that case.

but suppose you are not morally opposed to lying and dishonesty and elect to game the system.....recommendations aren't free. you need to spend your time and money every year to get one. i guess your position is that you should be forced to pay an annual entry fee to enjoy cannabis.

and if a city decides not to allow any cultivation at all for recreational purposes, you will still retain your rights to cultivate for medical purposes. nice scrae attempt, though

 

[Scuba]

what if you only want to use cannabis recreationally? you don't get a recommendation in that case.

but suppose you are not morally opposed to lying and dishonesty and elect to game the system.....recommendations aren't free. you need to spend your time and money every year to get one. i guess your position is that you should be forced to pay an annual entry fee to enjoy cannabis.

and if a city decides not to allow any cultivation at all for recreational purposes, you will still retain your rights to cultivate for medical purposes. nice scrae attempt, though

quite wishfull thinking that everything runs on honesty. ahhhh... the bliss

 

[UncleBuck]

quite wishfull thinking that everything runs on honesty. ahhhh... the bliss

please show me where i said or hinted at any belief that 'everything runs on honesty'. please do.

all i said was that some people prefer not to lie. they see dishonesty as a poor trait for a human to possess and stay away from the practice. i guess honest people are not allowed to smoke cannabis unless they have a qualifying condition.

but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth. you should probably put your foot in your mouth right about now.

 

[Scuba]

please show me where i said or hinted at any belief that 'everything runs on honesty'. please do.

all i said was that some people prefer not to lie. they see dishonesty as a poor trait for a human to possess and stay away from the practice. i guess honest people are not allowed to smoke cannabis unless they have a qualifying condition.

but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth. you should probably put your foot in your mouth right about now.

quite hostile aren't we? you need to go smoke your weed that you got "honestly"
I never put words in your mouth

 

[TokinPodPilot]

what if you only want to use cannabis recreationally? you don't get a recommendation in that case.

Thankfully, legal precedent doesn't support your limited view of medical applicability. Your moral qualms about the semantics of "medicinal use" are not really valid when it comes to interpretation of the law.

but suppose you are not morally opposed to lying and dishonesty and elect to game the system.....recommendations aren't free. you need to spend your time and money every year to get one. i guess your position is that you should be forced to pay an annual entry fee to enjoy cannabis.

You're assumption that I or anyone else is required to lie to gain a recommendation is about as laughable as your assumptions that the system is being abused. It's also laughable that you'll balk at the prospect of a single annual charge to gain legal protections, but are so willing to entertain any number of ambiguous taxes and fees, in addition to criminalizing a segment of society that is currently moderately protected under law.

and if a city decides not to allow any cultivation at all for recreational purposes, you will still retain your rights to cultivate for medical purposes. nice scrae attempt, though

So why allow them the authority to make that determination in the first place. Recreational use is medicinal use. It's really not a hard concept to understand. We take vacations for mental and physical well-being. We recreate to have fun and improve our overall health. The only one using scare tactics here is you. I'm the one promoting the removal of existing law (decriminalization efforts like SB 1449), not adding more laws and regulation, which is all that Prop. 19 does.

 

[Scuba]

Thankfully, legal precedent doesn't support your limited view of medical applicability. Your moral qualms about the semantics of "medicinal use" are not really valid when it comes to interpretation of the law.



You're assumption that I or anyone else is required to lie to gain a recommendation is about as laughable as your assumptions that the system is being abused. It's also laughable that you'll balk at the prospect of a single annual charge to gain legal protections, but are so willing to entertain any number of ambiguous taxes and fees, in addition to criminalizing a segment of society that is currently moderately protected under law.



So why allow them the authority to make that determination in the first place. Recreational use is medicinal use. It's really not a hard concept to understand. We take vacations for mental and physical well-being. We recreate to have fun and improve our overall health. The only one using scare tactics here is you. I'm the one promoting the removal of existing law (decriminalization efforts like SB 1449), not adding more laws and regulation, which is all that Prop. 19 does.

*clap*clap*clap*

 

[twostarhotel]

without drugs music and art wouldnt be as good either. i like the way some european countries treat it, countries like switzerland who treat problem addicts as a health problem instead of criminals

 

[Scuba]

without drugs music and art wouldnt be as good either. i like the way some european countries treat it, countries like switzerland who treat problem addicts as a health problem instead of criminals

it's a way better way to look at it. Addiction is a medical health problem, they need to have their internal chemicals balanced and sometimes they're not strong enough to do it on their own.

 

[UncleBuck]

what if you only want to use cannabis recreationally? you don't get a recommendation in that case.

but suppose you are not morally opposed to lying and dishonesty and elect to game the system.....recommendations aren't free. you need to spend your time and money every year to get one. i guess your position is that you should be forced to pay an annual entry fee to enjoy cannabis.

and if a city decides not to allow any cultivation at all for recreational purposes, you will still retain your rights to cultivate for medical purposes. nice scare attempt, though

quite wishfull thinking that everything runs on honesty. ahhhh... the bliss

I never put words in your mouth

show me where i said or even hinted that 'everything runs on honesty'.

i had the courtesy to even include my original post that you responded to.

put your money where your mouth is, genius.

 

[UncleBuck]

You're assumption that I or anyone else is required to lie to gain a recommendation is about as laughable as your assumptions that the system is being abused.

bwahahahahahahahahah....BULLSHIT!

i say this as someone who lied to get a card in my state, a clear abuse of the system.

if someone does not have a medical and wants to use marijuana, they must LIE to get a rec and pay a lot of money and spend a lot of time to get the legal protections that come along with it. plain and simple. and most people don't like to lie.

btw, it's "your" not "you're". a third grader would know that.

Recreational use is medicinal use.

another instance where i say ... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...bullshit!

what medical benefit do i derive from smoking a joint and giggling at the TV, or people like yourself pushing such laughable talking points on the interwebz?

if anything, smoking detracts from my relaxation by making me more paranoid. this is a situation that would not exist were it legalized along the lines of prop 19.

keep grasping at silly straws.

 

[twostarhotel]

alot of people do lie, but i think that most doctors are open to the idea that cannabis can be used for almost any mental and physical need. the only abuse would be within the current status quo, but the status quo hasnt been updated in the main stream sense that this is a unique plant with many uses. the common citizen, if they knew about this plant and how awesome it was, if people really studied this plant and all its mysteries. with prop 19 the feds will have more incentives to raid ops, because they wont have the same medicinal protections.

 

[UncleBuck]

alot of people do lie, but i think that most doctors are open to the idea that cannabis can be used for almost any mental and physical need.

if that is true, then why not let everyone freely grow it as allowed by prop 19? why force people to spend their time and money every year to get a fancy card that says so?

with prop 19 the feds will have more incentives to raid ops, because they wont have the same medicinal protections.

which ops? because medical ops will still have all the same protections they currently enjoy, it says so in the purposes section, points 7 and 8. recreational ops, perhaps? well, that is your speculation against my speculation. i would rather move forward and see who is right rather than keep with prohibition and let neither of us see who is right.