Here's why CA NORML says vote YES on Prop 215!!!

[Illmind]

Hb you seem like a cool cat what's good bro? Yeah they are gonna have a special pot task force that sits in your living room making sure you don't smoke weed with children around LOL. And they will be checking your growroom weekly to make sure you don't exceed 5x5 cmon. Get serious only thing that is gonna happen is they are gonna possibly study it enough to lower it from a schedule 1 narcotic which it has no business being there and give the police something to do besides harrasing stupid stoners who already think it's legal. All those 19 reasons are a laugh, "I'm voting no because I wanna be able to smoke in front o my infant and not be looked down on by society" lol. Cmon you can't be serious. That should be labeled 19 reasons why you should laugh at 19 reasons. Was probably written by some stoner stoned as hell like I'm gonna flip the prop 19 into a 19 reasons thing!! Whatever gets your attention. Cute lil play on the 19. All of which make me laugh. The police even say it would be nice for them to be able to put all those mj arrests to bed and save them all this paper work over a small offense when they could be actually baggin criminals. As I said earlier u can either jump on a bandwagon or actually get a copy of it and take it to a lawyer and have them give it to you raw, or you can just believe everything you read on the internet. Uhm also majoriy of the dispensaries are gonna be closing or to be closed by Jan 2011. And I expect the stores if prop 19 passes to be heaven on earth with tons of selection FDA approved all additives on the bottle well controlled product at a nice price sounds terrible. Oh by the way Ciara the R&B singer is a hermaphrodite ;)

 

[amstercal]

I don't at all mind if you don't read what I wrote. I'm a chick. I wrote it because we express or we explode. :-) It would have been a lot shorter if I really cared whether people read it.
I do completely mind people who haven't read the actual bill telling other people they're voting yes for no reason that actually relates to the wording of the bill. Just because it's marijuana legislation doesn't mean it's good for mj users.
I have read the bill itself. I just figured since there are people too lazy to read the actual bill, the summary might be easier for you.

Illmind--if you're trying to imply I would smoke in front of my kid, those are fighting words. Statements like that are exactly the reason why this legislation is so bad. When you're a parent (as you obviously are not, or at least not one who has custody of his kids), people are always evaluating your parenting. A woman the other day told me 7:00 was too late to feed my kid dinner. People put you under a microscope. Do you not think I already have some members of society looking down on me because I smoke MJ and have a kid? I assure you I do. It has already come up and I can take the heat of people looking down on me. I refuse to vote for something that has the power to take my kid away from me. Again, obviously you are not a parent.

 

[Seamaiden]

So, you guys really don't think that people could lose their children if the issue of their use of cannabis in the same home as them? Really?

I vote no because it makes criminals out of anybody under 21 who gets caught with pot - can you say mandatory jail time.

Under prop 19 if your in your house, and you have kids (or in my case my grand daughter is over) and you take a bong hit (even while the kids are asleep) then your a criminal.

BINGO! That right there. I'm a criminal.

leaving the local govt to decide if they will allow you to grow and then they can decide how much they want to charge (TAX) you for the privilege of growing a PLANT - FUCK THAT!

Where I am, local LE would like to pretend 215 doesn't exist. But for some reason people seem to think that even though it's happening *now* with 215-related stuff, it's not going to happen once 19 passes. Because once 19 passes apparently something magical is going to happen.
:fixed:

 

[v0ssman]

does anyone else feel like projecting? :big_boss:

 

[hbstoner]

So, you guys really don't think that people could lose their children if the issue of their use of cannabis in the same home as them? Really?

So how is that different from now with 215? Im pretty sure that if child services was called because you were hot boxing your house with cigs + booze cans laying all over your house (or pot), while you had kids in it, they would be trying to take your kids away..

Same thing with myth #2 in that article. If i give a beer to someone thats 20, I face the same penalties as stated in prop 19.. should we keep beer illegal because 20 year olds are not allowed to drink too?

 

[v0ssman]

its different because the child services dont take away kids from their parents only after finding out they consume alcohol in the same home; Painting a picture of a bad parent being the only one at risk is completely incoherent to whats being discussed. All medical patients with children are at risk if prop 19 passes

 

[hbstoner]

its different because the child services dont take away kids from their parents only after finding out they consume alcohol in the same home; Painting a picture of a bad parent being the only one at risk is completely incoherent to whats being discussed. All medical patients with children are at risk if prop 19 passes

I dont think drinking a beer around your kid is the same thing as smoking tabacco while they are in the same room... that is unless the beer is spilling out of your cup and into your kids mouth. In both cases im pretty sure you can make a case of child abuse depending on the situation. Britney spears ring any bells?

 

[v0ssman]

I dont see your point; The bill doesnt say anything about kids having to be in the same room for it to be considered child abuse.

 

[Illmind]

Lol, you funny girl. And yes child services will take your child if you have open containers, cigarettes, and any other harmful stuff lying around. They call it an unfit enviroment.

 

[amstercal]

So although the fumes from the beer aren't going into the kids' mouths or anything, there's still no danger? What about 5 beers? What about 10?
And that's just it... you'd have to MAKE A CASE for child abuse. CPS doesn't take your kids away because you did meth... they'd have to prove you were doing it etc which would require a drug test, which they couldn't force you to take unless you were already on probation or had broken some other law. They couldn't just say, we think you do meth, so take our drug test. However, if smoking in the same "closed space" (what a ridiculously ambiguous term) as my kid is against the law and some neighbor claims to smell it while my kid's home, then they have the power to compel me to drug test or lose my kid.
It's all about breaking the law or putting the kid in danger and prop 19 ensures smoking parents are guilty of both.

 

[amstercal]

I have a friend who counsels innercity kids. She has to call CPS a couple of times a month to report parents. They will NOT take your kids just for open containers. Parents are "unfit" environments are "unsafe."

And the "funny girl" comment is awfully condescending coming from someone who cares who Ciara is. :-)

 

[growermike666]

I'll bet there is one thing Rich Lee and James Wheaton did NOT count on or calculate when the schemingly wrote Prop 19. And that's the turning of the community or at least enough of a percentage of us to lose them the election. They got their curtain dropped early on. They were unable to slip this one by without exposure.

Thanks to people like Dennis Peron who turned his back on millions of dollars to oppose this. Yeah I guess one can still say that's selfish, but how much weight does that "label" really carry?

It's badly written horrible legislation, it's a scam. I know this and anybody who's read it knows this.
There have been marijuana scholars and expert attorney's who have confirmed this. It all leads to 1 conclusion. Don't let it pass. It's bad for people. It's not about the money. It's about people. It's about taking people's liberties and stripping them of their rights.
Prop 19 is no legalization act, nor is it an act of liberty, nor is it an act of freedom or compassion. It is a bill solely based on revenue and at the expenditure of freedom.

Too many are being led like sheep to the slaughter, this "trojan horse" as it's been called is a fake and a fraud, the "wolf" has been exposed. Some of the greatest marijuana freedom activists of all time vindictively oppose this. It's a slap in the face to "legalization". How dare anyone call it legalization? Its the opposite. It's being sold as legalization thats all. It's wise to vote no. Wisdom is made right by all her actions. Keep your freedom and your liberty, it's too valuable to sacrifice for a label.

 

[j wizzle]

But I'm open if any no voter wants to actually make a good factual point as to why the no vote is better I'd love to see it.


Might as well keep it real you wanna keep milking 215 into the ground ;)

right there....i dont want prop 19 and all its restrictions (like allowing cities to decide if its legal or not) to affect anything gained from prop 215

if you arent from cali, then i understand why you think prop 19 is a good thing. its bullshit thats going to bring the feds into out perfect little bubble we have right now.


i dont want to be harassed cuz my grow is more than a 5x5 place. ill pay my $100 doc rec (its cheaper than that too) and my $160 state card fee and grow the way ive been growing.


i like the grey area we are in and i want to keep it that way. i dont want to go to jail because i decided to blaze at my house while my children are present....

 

[Seamaiden]

So how is that different from now with 215? Im pretty sure that if child services was called because you were hot boxing your house with cigs + booze cans laying all over your house (or pot), while you had kids in it, they would be trying to take your kids away..

You're "pretty sure"? Based upon what factual knowledge, exactly? And while you're at it, show me where in 215 there is language that says that if I smoke in the same house (not just room, anywhere in the building, and mine is 2400'sq) as my grandchild she can be removed from our care by the state. You can't because it's not there. No, if your home is filled with cigarette smoke and beer cans, your kids are likely not going to be taken for that, and you're likely not even going to be investigated for that.

Beat your kids and leave 'em with bruises and cuts, you'll be investigated, but the kids won't be taken away.

But weed? I can guarantee you that it happens and Prop 19 attaches jail time to that. Give it another try, hit us with facts instead of just what you think, please.

Same thing with myth #2 in that article. If i give a beer to someone thats 20, I face the same penalties as stated in prop 19.. should we keep beer illegal because 20 year olds are not allowed to drink too?

That is a portion of the language of the proposition I have no issue with. So, what's the myth? Where are you headed with it?

Lol, you funny girl. And yes child services will take your child if you have open containers, cigarettes, and any other harmful stuff lying around. They call it an unfit enviroment.

Open beers and ciggies, really? Cite a case. You've added "other harmful stuff". What other harmful stuff? Kitchen knives? Glasses? Lamps that use electricity? How about the cords of window shades?

What other "harmful stuff" are you alluding to?

No, the state will not interfere unless there are certain behaviors and street drugs present. Tobacco and alcohol alone are not enough. It would require egregious neglect or abuse by the parents for the state to interfere. Marijuana is still considered a street drug, that's why the language outlining jail time if there is *any* consumption on the same premises as children is there in the proposition.

I'm just curious, hbstoner and Illmind, how much experience with the state and children do you have? Because you both seem to be so firm in your convictions and, based upon your statements, I have to surmise you have no experience in this particular arena (having the state involved in issues of child abuse/neglect). I don't think you understand how, normally, the situation has to be pretty dire before the state will take any sort of action. Nor do I think you understand how right NOW people are being kept from their kids simply for being involved with pot, whether it be consumption or manufacture (growing), right here in California. I happen to know someone personally who can only have supervised visits with her kids, and she cannot initiate contact with them, not because she was ever abusive, but because she works for growers and her ex-husband uses the laws, state and local, for all they're worth.

And while we're at it, since y'all are so convinced this will lead to more openness in communities, wanna come on out to my little county and convince them to remove the outright ban on dispensaries? Would you like to talk to them about how they should, at the very least, be allowing a cooperative or collective model? Come on, wouldja? You make such convincing arguments and we could really use the help up here.

 

[Seamaiden]

I know I've kinda been going on and on about Oakland, but seriously, if people knew the level and degree of malfeasance and how it began under Jerry Brown's tenure as mayor, how they force people out of their homes and businesses (just ask the NIMBY people who run Burning Man, my sister has had many convo's with them on the subject), then they would probably want to burn City Hall down. They would *never* support anything that came out of Oakland again, either.

But folks here are, understandably, focused on pot. My world, however, revolves around much more than weed.

 

[Backward_Z]

How many times have you given a kid under 21 a beer? How many times have you bummed a smoke to a kid that might not have been old enough? Are you in prison for doing so?

I think it's hilarious in a sort of soul-crushing way when yes-on-19'ers in the same breath as advocating the merits of the bill also advocate breaking it. "Yeah man, let's pass this better law so we can break it, too!" What?!

Yeah they are gonna have a special pot task force that sits in your living room making sure you don't smoke weed with children around LOL. And they will be checking your growroom weekly to make sure you don't exceed 5x5 cmon.

Same sentiments. Is there a special pot task force that sits around farmers' living rooms making sure their grows don't exceed their recommended limits? No? But people still go to jail for that very reason? FUNNY. (like funny strange not funny ha-ha)

What's the point in fighting to get a new law passed if you already intend to break it?

As I said earlier u can either jump on a bandwagon or actually get a copy of it and take it to a lawyer and have them give it to you raw, or you can just believe everything you read on the internet.

It would appear that with one exeception, all practicing Californian cannabis lawyers who have come out with public positions are leaning towards "No" positions.

 

[motherlode]

great fucking post backward z!

Id like to point out thats its no coincidence that Rickard Lee took down the Oaksterdam forums site right before he released the final version of the proposition. There was a mutiny with the organization and he didn't want his own employees voicing their concerns and distaste for his prop on a website he was paying for.

 

[Backward_Z]

There was a mutiny with the organization and he didn't want his own employees voicing their concerns and distaste for his prop on a website he was paying for.

This is similar to how I understand the whole NORML endorsement thing is rolling. According to Jennifer Soares, and I can't remember this exactly and I'll try to find the post on Reddit with the names and details, but she said that after the top brass at NORML announced their "Yes" position, any public commentary against 19 by NORML affiliated lawyers was passive-aggressively reprimanded by NORML leadership. Something about a lawyer saying, "Well, I'm a little concerned about X and Y," followed by NORML brass posting a Twitter to the effect of, "It's too bad some of our members aren't throwing their full support behind our legalization effort."

I think what I'm saying here is to not trust the analyses coming out of NORML, either. Most of them are written by "Radical" Russ Belville who is most decidedly not a lawyer.

But yeah, there's quite a bit of this "pulling rank" going on in cannabis organizations regarding prop 19.

I also find it telling that the majority of "yes" analyses don't suggest the reader go read the bill themselves whereas nearly all "no" analyses do.

 

[Backward_Z]

I don't know if this was the post I remembered, but it's a summary version.

I spoke with Bill Panzer personally and was on a legal panel with him at INTCHE. He was very very vocal about being against Prop 19. I was part of and privy to conversations with NORML's Russ Bellville and Dale Gieringer. Russ told me he is publicly vocal about Prop 19 but has also told me he has his issues with Prop 19. He also said that issue was anything but "settled" and that NORML had made its "executive decision to support Prop 19", so all NORML members were required to support Prop 19 unconditionally in public, even if they think it has flaws. Dan Murphy has posted a letter from national NORML on facebook that chastised a NORML leader for "testifying against a legalization bill." So it is pretty clear that anyone in NORML is going to support the "executive decision" made by the national Board of Directors to support Prop 19, no matter what they actually think.

I, on the other hand, am free to speak my mind and will continue doing so despite other people's failure to address their issues with Prop 19 publicly. If the people at NORML are going to put on a front and pretend to be all out happy when they know Prop 19 is flawed, then someone has to speak publicly about the flaws. I have no problem with that being me.

There might have been another post with more detail--looking for it ATM.

edit: This must have been it.

 

[amstercal]

Totally agreed Backward Z. There's definitely some mass "yes" brainwashing going on all over the internet. I know people will take exception to my use of the word "brainwashing," but that's what I call it when people haven't taken the time to go to the source and at least try to form their own opinion.

I haven't seen anyone one solid argument for it. They're all saying it will be good for other states and whatnot. Has anyone seen a post that actually argues the merits of the bill and its ability to protect CALIFORNIANS? If so, please point me to it, really I'd like to hear where these people are coming from.