Why I'm voting NO on prop. 19

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
There were a lot of slap-dick piece of shit people on both ends. You have people, like Dan Kone, who totally exploited 215, made shit tons of money, and now want to protect their standing by endorsing the restrictive posturing of 19 under the banner of "legalization..." In reality, it's making sure that small growers can't compete and the big guys at the top stay there.
 
420God

420God

Well-Known Member
The Ruiner said:
There were a lot of slap-dick piece of shit people on both ends. You have people, like Dan Kone, who totally exploited 215, made shit tons of money, and now want to protect their standing by endorsing the restrictive posturing of 19 under the banner of "legalization..." In reality, it's making sure that small growers can't compete and the big guys at the top stay there.
Click to expand...
Once it goes legal do you really think they will give a shit who's growing it? You just won't be able to make money off it.
 
Dan Kone

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
veggiegardener said:
Are you saying that there is language that protects the SIZE of medical grows?
Click to expand...
I'm saying prop 19 provides an exemption from the regulations of prop 19. It says the regulations of prop 215 and sb 420 will stay in place if prop 19 is passed.

Show me.
Click to expand...
no problem. from prop 19 text:

Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
Click to expand...
That is a clear exemption for medical patients.
 
Dan Kone

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
The Ruiner said:


"Myth #10: Medical marijuana patients would be exempt from the initiative.
Fact: This is not exactly true. While amendments were made ostensibly to prevent the initiative from affecting current medical marijuana law, a careful reading of the initiative reveals that this is not, in fact, the case. Certain medical marijuana laws are exempt from the prohibitions the initiative would enact, while others are glaringly absent.

Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.[17] In spite of the fact that the tax cannabis Web site says otherwise, the only medical marijuana exemptions that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative actually makes are with regard to possession, consumption and purchase limits, which only ensure that patients would still be allowed to buy medicine at dispensaries. The word “cultivate” is conspicuously absent. Whereas today a person with a doctor’s recommendation has the right to grow up to an unlimited number of plants, the initiative would drastically reduce that number to whatever can fit in a 5’x5’ footprint (around 3-6 plants—per property, not per person)"

This was taken from the blog in my signature....
Click to expand...
And tell me, why should people believe some random blog over the actual text of prop 19? This blog says the word cultivate is absent. But that is a lie. I've quoted exactly where prop 19 has a cultivation exemption.

Anyone who wants to can see it's a lie in the text of prop 19. What I don't understand is why you would want to continue spreading this lie after I've already proven it to be a lie.

If prop 19 is so bad why do you have to lie to oppose it?
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
Dan Kone said:
no problem. from prop 19 text:



That is a clear exemption for medical patients.
Click to expand...
ACtually, thats not quite right, because it clearly exempts CULTIVATION from the EXEMPTIONS. It only says "bought and sold" not cultivated. Nice try though.
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
Dan Kone said:
And tell me, why should people believe some random blog over the actual text of prop 19? This blog says the word cultivate is absent. But that is a lie. I've quoted exactly where prop 19 has a cultivation exemption.

Anyone who wants to can see it's a lie in the text of prop 19. What I don't understand is why you would want to continue spreading this lie after I've already proven it to be a lie.

If prop 19 is so bad why do you have to lie to oppose it?
Click to expand...
See the footnote? You went to college right?
 
chusett

chusett

Well-Known Member
IMO if u grow for personal use.. then with a smaller OP, it doesnt really “hijack” anything from u.. and if ur an avtual commercial growery.. the big fish.. then u'd have proper licensing. As mentioned, i cant fully disagree that this is a target on the smaller growers ..
some times in life we all wanna hv our cake and eat one too! Many small growers who do grow just a few plants in their den to deal with aches and pains are going to lose bcuz small/mediium growers want to side with anti activists?
Yall talk alot bout competition and monopoly.. sorry pal but thats American capitalism.. it dont just apply to weed..
Bottom line, dont get twisted.. im a smoker n grower... but i understand change isnt overnite. Of course the govt wants to regulate.. do they EVER not regulate anythin involvin money? B ut at least if im being objective.. then 19 is still a victory for all MJ users, maybe not so much for entrepeneurs..
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city's limits remain illegal, but that the city's citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

Where exactly is the word cultivate grouped with those two?
 
Dan Kone

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
The Ruiner said:
They already have....which I believe has been at the behest of domestic weed mafia, to make the passage of 19 seem that much more urgent. I say this because I have read numerous articles interviewing large dispensary owners that were basically pleading with the city to shut down the other collectives/dispensaries, and susequent investigations into dispensaries suppliers done by local authorities.
Click to expand...
This is true. It happens all the time. It's shady as fuck. Dispensary owners call the city on other dispensaries for even minor zoning infractions in an attempt to get them shut down on a regular basis.

Also the majority of bans on new dispensaries in cities/counties come from the lobbying of people who already own dispensaries. I've seen it happen. I've been to city counsel meetings where the city counsel bans new dispensaries based on the "studies" and recommendation of dispensary owner lawyers. It's not even some shady back room deal. This shit happens right out in the open where anyone who cares can see it happen.
 
chusett

chusett

Well-Known Member
The Ruiner said:
See the footnote? You went to college right?
Click to expand...
i hv to admit a Blog is not fact..footnote or not

And lastly i wanted to mention.. sure maybe 25 ft is a bit tight but from my experience in life.. with NO regulation on space at all just results in a lot of unprofessional small time operation with folks tryin to “ gold rush” the commodity
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
chusett said:
IMO if u grow for personal use.. then with a smaller OP, it doesnt really “hijack” anything from u.. and if ur an avtual commercial growery.. the big fish.. then u'd have proper licensing. As mentioned, i cant fully disagree that this is a target on the smaller growers ..
some times in life we all wanna hv our cake and eat one too! Many small growers who do grow just a few plants in their den to deal with aches and pains are going to lose bcuz small/mediium growers want to side with anti activists?
Yall talk alot bout competition and monopoly.. sorry pal but thats American capitalism.. it dont just apply to weed..
Bottom line, dont get twisted.. im a smoker n grower... but i understand change isnt overnite. Of course the govt wants to regulate.. do they EVER not regulate anythin involvin money? B ut at least if im being objective.. then 19 is still a victory for all MJ users, maybe not so much for entrepeneurs..
Click to expand...
I can't stand behind an initiative that is so restrictive to start with. And if you need pot for ailments, get a card - its not hard, and doesnt cost much (mine was $50/year) Even thinking about how much further they could take regulations after 19 makes me VERY worried about my right to cultivate as a patient at all. I don't grow for money, I grow because I am an avid gardener of all things, but am stuck in LA. I love MJ, so I got my script and have done my business legitimately. I have nothing to lose with 19, nothing. I even do my grow in basically a 5x5 anyway, but I don't want to be restricted from expanding because ill-informed voters decided to strip me of my right to do so.
 
Dan Kone

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
The Ruiner said:
ACtually, thats not quite right, because it clearly exempts CULTIVATION from the EXEMPTIONS. It only says "bought and sold" not cultivated. Nice try though.
Click to expand...
fail. Read the whole ballot measure. Not just what that dishonest blog tells you to read. The very next paragraph adds cultivation as an exemption. That blog is intentionally misleading.

from prop 19:

Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
Click to expand...
don't believe me, look at it for yourself. This quote comes from section b-8 http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Text_of_Proposition_19,_the_%22Regulate,_Control_and_Tax_Cannabis_Act_of_2010%22_(California)

You've been lied to by people with their own dishonest motivations.
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
Dan Kone said:
This is true. It happens all the time. It's shady as fuck. Dispensary owners call the city on other dispensaries for even minor zoning infractions in an attempt to get them shut down on a regular basis.

Also the majority of bans on new dispensaries in cities/counties come from the lobbying of people who already own dispensaries. I've seen it happen. I've been to city counsel meetings where the city counsel bans new dispensaries based on the "studies" and recommendation of dispensary owner lawyers. It's not even some shady back room deal. This shit happens right out in the open where anyone who cares can see it happen.
Click to expand...
I know, this is how the dispensary I did exclusive business with for a year went out of business. They werent really making that much money, the dudes were just trying to make a modest living doing honest business.
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
Dan Kone said:
fail. Read the whole ballot measure. Not just what that dishonest blog tells you to read. The very next paragraph adds cultivation as an exemption. That blog is intentionally misleading.

from prop 1

don't believe me, look at it for yourself. This quote comes from section b-8 http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Text_of_Proposition_19,_the_%22Regulate,_Control_and_Tax_Cannabis_Act_of_2010%22_(California)

You've been lied to by people with their own dishonest motivations.
Click to expand...

thats the same point dude, BOUGHT AND SOLD.... it does not lend CULTIVATION that exemption....notice in both cases it is absent.
 
Dan Kone

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
The Ruiner said:
See the footnote? You went to college right?
Click to expand...
The footnote outright lies and I can prove it! And yes I did.

the footnote says:

cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized. (This section provides no exemptions for medical marijuana law.)
Click to expand...
but prop 19 actually says:

cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
Click to expand...
Do you see how it replaces the words "except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections..." with the words "(This section provides no exemptions for medical marijuana law.)"?

That isn't just misleading or an accidental oversight. That is an outright lie. It claims prop 19 says exactly the opposite of what it actually says.

Why are you continuing to quote a blog that is outright lying? It takes 10 seconds to verify this information for yourself. Maybe next time you should try that before you pass on a lie.
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
Because its not lying...read the two paragraphs, it leaves cultivation absent in both instances! I am looking at it right now, that is not a lie. That is what it says....

  1. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city's limits remain illegal, but that the city's citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
  2. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
 
S

stingmenot

Member
The success of 19 shows the state and the nation that the majority here prefers marijuana be legalized. The failure of 19 is sure encourage efforts to truly restrict medicinal access to weed.
Local politics is another matter.
 
Dan Kone

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
The Ruiner said:
thats the same point dude, BOUGHT AND SOLD.... it does not lend CULTIVATION that exemption....notice in both cases it is absent.
Click to expand...
oh come on. that's bs and you know it.

It says ,AND bought and sold. bought and sold is part of a list of things that local cities and counties can control expect in medical cases. Also on that list is cultivation. Read it closely.

Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
Click to expand...
Cultivation and "except as permitted under health and safety sections".... are all part of the same sentence. This clearly means that cultivation is part of the exemption.
 
Dan Kone

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
The Ruiner said:
I know, this is how the dispensary I did exclusive business with for a year went out of business. They werent really making that much money, the dudes were just trying to make a modest living doing honest business.
Click to expand...
A dispensary I was doing business with was getting fined $1000 dollars per day on a zoning violation. The complaint that lead to these fines was made by another dispensary owner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top