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

[Mad Farmer 1620]

Bottom line is if it doesn't passes the Feds will view this as the general public does not want marijuana legal in our state! If it does pass we will have a better chance that the feds will reduce marijuana form it's schedule 1 status seeing it has majority support of the people... If it does pass... Let's be honest, everyones worried about the taxing... That's the real issue at steak... Oh no, I'm not going to get my 42 per bow... Oh no what do I do now... No ones coming to take your kids for smoking a joint, and honestly y are u smoking weed infront of your kids anyway??? I can understand if you live in a trailor park this may be how u were raised and how u are raising your kids but for the rest of us, we don't smoke weed infront of our kids nor would I want my kids to be doing the same thing I am doing...

 

[Backward_Z]

Bottom line is if it doesn't passes (sic) the Feds will view this as the general public does not want marijuana legal in our state! If it does pass we will have a better chance that the feds will reduce marijuana form (sic) it's schedule 1 status seeing it has majority support of the people...

What benefit does prop 19 have for Californians and more specifically, medical marijuana patients (as many forum goers here probably are)? What actual benefit are we drawing from 19 other than the entirely symbolic victory you perceive happening if it passes?

It's like the actual text of the bill doesn't matter as long as CNN calls it legalization.

I can understand if you live in a trailor (sic) park this may be how u (sic) were raised and how u (sic) are raising your kids but for the rest of us, we don't smoke weed infront (sic) of our kids nor would I want my kids to be doing the same thing I am doing...

This kind of insult has no place in this discussion. I don't have kids, but if I did I'd think I wouldn't smoke around my four year old but I'd like to think I could be honest with my sixteen year old. In the eyes of this law, there's no difference between them.

 

[Mad Farmer 1620]

What benefit does prop 19 have for Californians and more specifically, medical marijuana patients (as many forum goers here probably are)? What actual benefit are we drawing from 19 other than the entirely symbolic victory you perceive happening if it passes?

It's like the actual text of the bill doesn't matter as long as CNN calls it legalization.



This kind of insult has no place in this discussion. I don't have kids, but if I did I'd think I wouldn't smoke around my four year old but I'd like to think I could be honest with my sixteen year old. In the eyes of this law, there's no difference between them.

Don't be so sensitve Backward Z, I didn't mean to hit ur soft spot! Look, u vote what u wana vote and not like it's gonna make a huge difference I'll vote what I want to vote! That's why it's America, freedom of speech and freedom to vote whatever the fuck I want!

 

[Backward_Z]

can we get this troll banned, again?

.

 

[Mad Farmer 1620]

I'm over this whole damn site... I have never experienced such negative tention just by clicking on my keyboard. Honestly, and I may be wrong but I would say about 90% of the people on this whole site act like a bunch of bickering winnie little bitches. Everyone acts like they know everything when in reality they don't know shit about shit, so I'm done... U guys can bicker and gossip ur whole lives away! I'm gone....

 

[Mad Farmer 1620]

U should get banned bacward Z! What the fuck is a bacward Z anyway??? Go ahead ban me!!! I'm a troll a big fat troll trolling around just tollin under a bridge trollin and strollin eatin canned beans under my bridge cuz I'm a troll! :rastadancing:

 

[Mad Farmer 1620]

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.

LMAO, Hey Motherlode, y don't u do yourself a favor and put ur name where ur mouth is and put it on ur chin!!! Eat a bowl of Deez!!!

 

[amstercal]

MF--No one said they smoked in front of their kids. In fact, everyone who talks about actually having kids around says they smoke in separate rooms and most, like me, say it's when their kids are asleep.
You say really inflammatory things like accusing people of being from trailer parks and then call them sensitive for saying we don't need those kinds of insults.
Are rude comments only acceptable if they come from your keyboard?
And how many times do people have to repeat to you their reasons, which have NOTHING to do with the taxes? See my post (#39) if you need a refresher.
And the comment to motherlode is hi-freaking-larious because it's complete gibberish. What are you trying to say? Put a motherlode on his chin?
Hey, motherlode, if you start growing the motherlode on your chin, please let us know how. :-) chin buds. I like it.

 

[Seamaiden]

I'm going to challenge this paradigm of "Oh! We mustn't consume cannabis in front of the children!" I disagree with the idea, not if the goal is for cannabis consumption to be normalized and accepted by the majority of society.

Rather like polygamy (been watching Sister Wives), but that's another thing entirely.

Bottom line is if it doesn't passes the Feds will view this as the general public does not want marijuana legal in our state! If it does pass we will have a better chance that the feds will reduce marijuana form it's schedule 1 status seeing it has majority support of the people... If it does pass... Let's be honest, everyones worried about the taxing... That's the real issue at steak... Oh no, I'm not going to get my 42 per bow... Oh no what do I do now... No ones coming to take your kids for smoking a joint, and honestly y are u smoking weed infront of your kids anyway??? I can understand if you live in a trailor park this may be how u were raised and how u are raising your kids but for the rest of us, we don't smoke weed infront of our kids nor would I want my kids to be doing the same thing I am doing...

And there it is, you passing judgment upon someone because they might consume cannabis in the presence of a child. I don't hotbox my home, I don't drink, in fact I'm a teetotaler, I don't get baked and I never let my own behavior get out of control. But judgment passes upon *me* because I use the pipe if I should use it in the presence of a child?

In that ONE post you have revealed all of your true prejudices, as well as very nicely demonstrating what I've been saying about the folly of trying to make what is still viewed as a street drug something that only resembles legal on the surface.

You yourself still view it as a street drug and something that the precious children must be shielded from. Do you teach your kids about sex, or do you shield them from that, too? Let 'em learn it on the schoolyard, yeah?

You belie the truth of your own views in that one post.

I don't have kids, but if I did I'd think I wouldn't smoke around my four year old but I'd like to think I could be honest with my sixteen year old. In the eyes of this law, there's no difference between them.

I do have kids, now young adults (oldest son grows), and I already went through hiding everything from them and it meant not a thing. I have changed my stance and feel it should be treated like drinking wine at the table with dinner, an after work beer, cigarettes, and sex--it's something adults do, not children. End of story. Merely being in the presence of these substances, even while being consumed, is not inherently bad, evil, neglectful or abusive, with the highly notable exception of smoking tobacco, especially in enclosed spaces, cigarettes to be precise (I haven't seen the same numbers associated with pipe tobacco or cigar use and childhood illnesses as I have with ciggies).

I asked a rather pointed question, same one I've been asking of the Yes Crowd, about defining legalization. It has yet to be answered.

I have also continually pointed out how I am still battling in my county to have some sort of dispensary model, as have others, to no avail. No answer to that from the Yes Crowd, no acknowledgement even! One huge county, San Diego, is known for their work against this model that is outlined in the proposition and for which our own state attorney general has given good operating guidelines for, so that district attorneys have a legal compass. Has that been addressed by the Yes Crowd?

Nope.

 

[Backward_Z]

Seamaiden -- I would love to live in a world where marijuana use is looked upon as being as or more benign as a beer after work but we're not there yet. I offered my comment as more of a compromise than an absolute. I would think it tormenting to have to keep one's daily habits a secret from their kids.

And BTW, Mad Farmer 1620 ain't gonna reply to your comment. He done got banned.

 

[Darth Fader]

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?

exhibit A - you believe kids will be taken away.

... 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.

Neither does it say that in Prop 19. Quit makin' shit up. You're lying and fear-mongering. But go ahead and show me where it says that if you can ... but you can't because it's not there. Nice try.
Exhibit B (lying and fear-mongering)

Wait, here's some more LYING and fear-mongering. You have no integrity. Way to go.
Exhibit C:

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.

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.

Go ahead, cite the EXACT LANGUAGE that says that. You can't because it's not there (to quote you a second time).

And here, (Exhibit D) you convolute and undermine your own argument by stating that what Prop 19 will create (in you imagination), in fact, ALREADY EXISTS! Brilliant!!!

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.

Seamaiden, it's time for you to take a long f-ing nap, because you're completely full of shit.

FEDERAL LAW TRUMPS STATE LAW. PERIOD.

You don't know what you're talking about. PERIOD.
There is no hierarchy, they are separate systems. PERIOD. Also, please refer to the 10th Amendment for you own edification of what the framers intended.

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

cite the section of Prop 19 that imposes mandatory jail time on minors. You can't. Doesn't exist. Another LIE

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.

You know what would be cool? If you guys actually read the thing. Again, this is bullcrap that you've made up through your own interpretation. It simply does not say that. But again, I extend the invitation for you to quote where it says that. Besides, you're already a criminal for doing that. 215 gives you a special exception IF you have a rec, which 9 out of 10 smoker don't.

Arguing with people in support of something you refuse to read for yourself is definitely trolling.

You were saying? (smiles)

That's called a beatdown. :mooning

 

[Backward_Z]

exhibit A - you believe kids will be taken away.

Neither does it say that in Prop 19. Quit makin' shit up. You're lying and fear-mongering. But go ahead and show me where it says that if you can ... but you can't because it's not there. Nice try.

Go ahead, cite the EXACT LANGUAGE that says that. You can't because it's not there (to quote you a second time).

(c) “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis:

...

(iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.

And here, (Exhibit D) you convolute and undermine your own argument by stating that what Prop 19 will create (in you imagination), in fact, ALREADY EXISTS! Brilliant!!!

And if it gets no better/worse under 19, then why support it?

Seamaiden, it's time for you to take a long f-ing nap, because you're completely full of shit.

Completely unnecessary. Let's keep it civil.

cite the section of Prop 19 that imposes mandatory jail time on minors. You can't. Doesn't exist. Another LIE

You're halfway correct about this. 19 doesn't make it a crime for minors to have pot--but it DOES make it a crime to furnish minors with pot and it makes it a crime for minors to grow their own. Under 215, as long as you had a rec, even if you were a minor, all of the above is fair game.

So if you're a MMJ patient and a minor, 19 could mean you can't get your medicine anymore and anybody who tries to help you is risking their freedom.

That's called a beatdown. :mooning

No it's not. It's called a childish tirade. You're holding everybody else in the argument to a standard which you clearly do not hold yourself to and for lack of good arguments, you resort to insults and slander. Why don't you take it to r/trees?

 

[Cannabear]

Darth Fader must be one of Richard Lee's fluffers.

(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish,
administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment
in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.
(c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to
furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years
of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be
fined up to $1,000 for each offense.
(d) In addition to the penalties above, any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to perform
any act pursuant to Section 11301, who while so licensed, permitted or authorized, negligently
furnishes, administers, gives or sells, or offers to furnish, administer, give or sell, any marijuana to any
person younger than 21 years of age shall not be permitted to own, operate, be employed by, assist or
enter any licensed premises authorized under Section 11301 for a period of one year.

 

[Cannabear]

"furnishing" could be having pot in the house, with children present. its a vague word, and can legally be interpreted in a number of ways


let me tell ya man, your a real standup guy by calling a wonderful lady names. Seamaiden doesnt deserve your ignorant ass comments. take it elsewhere and go fluff mr. lee some more.

 

[Illmind]

Still awaiting a real reason why to vote no. Stop beating a dead horse. Some of us don't have that kind of time to waste. I'm sure that's gonna be the new number one priority of the law to make sure minors aren't around second hand weed smoke. Damn you people can't be serious. Either that or you smoke wet all day long. Backward Z your post saying all but one lawyer is voting no is ridiculous. Firstly they don't tell you how to vote they simply answer questions and explain the prop to the client. Would you care to drop some names and credentials? Or are you gonna gimme a link to some more internet propaganda? For the consultation it was 575$ and they got two from two different firms to make sure that it was properly interpreted. This not being able to smoke around minors is hilarious, this is the best arguement you could bring to the table yet you are probably breaking more severe laws everyday already. Looks like cannabear is gonna have to stop selling pot to children. And furnishing is used the same in alchohol law. And Richard Lee has done more for MMJ Patients and the community with his left nut then you will do in 100 of your lifetimes. I see your no vote is a hater vote. I can see how badly u wish you were him. And I'm sure she's great, even got a cute name like amstercal.

 

[Backward_Z]

Still awaiting a real reason why to vote no.

Then don't. Vote yes. We're just explaining why we're skeptical of the bill. I don't care about how people vote--I'd much rather they just think for themselves before trusting random analyses on the internet.

I'm sure that's gonna be the new number one priority of the law to make sure minors aren't around second hand weed smoke.

What law IS a number one priority to prevent? Because as I understand it, law enforcement is TERRIBLE at preventing crimes--all they can do is enforce the law AFTER they happen. What happens if your neighbor/coworker/estranged friend/jilted lover/business competitor/what have you is pissed at you over some trivial drama and they call the cops, saying that you abuse your kids and when the cops come they find roaches in an ash tray in the living room? Under prop 19, that's a crime. Without 19, if you're a MMJ patient, you're in the clear.

Backward Z your post saying all but one lawyer is voting no is ridiculous. Firstly they don't tell you how to vote they simply answer questions and explain the prop to the client. Would you care to drop some names and credentials?

What, you don't know how to Google?

arguement you could bring to the table yet you are probably breaking more severe laws everyday already. Can you say hipocrit?

Yeah, but most of those laws I didn't get to vote on. This one I do. Can you spell hypocrite?

And speaking of hypocrisy, you didn't even bother to refute my comment about your advocating breaking 19 once it passes. But I agree, your position is pretty indefensible.

Still awaiting a real reason why to vote no.

And I'm still awaiting a real reason to vote yes.

 

[amstercal]

Illmind & DF: The excerpt below is taken from Cornell University Law School's website. Do they qualify under your rules about no internet propaganda? I just used them because their synopsis was clear for those who don't do legal jargon. Sate and federal are not separate; that's why federal agents were still going after medical patients after 215 passed before Obama told them not to, because what they were doing is still illegal federally. I realize the below is a gross oversimplification of the conflicts between state and federal law, but as far as marijuana is concerned, how 215 has played out tells me everything I need to know.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause
Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.
Explanation: Provision under Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, providing that federal law is superior to and overrides state law when they conflict.

Since various people actually pulled the sections of prop 19 you disputed out and pasted them for you, are you now satisfied that it wasn't just propaganda?

And outside of your totally insulting seamaiden who hasn't ever talked to you that way, oh and accusing cannabear and the rest of us of committing crimes, who are you beating down? Me? I assure you that is not the case. I was laughing my ass off though.

I personally am not breaking ANY state laws. I am very careful because of my child. I totally agree with you though that my screen name is lame. My husband set it up for me and I didn't care enough to change it. Maybe because my real name is so interesting. :-)

What's funny is you've said all that and are angry enough, not to dispute the arguments, just the people here personally. You haven't cited one single piece of law/proposition/anything that's factual. Why is this something that requires name calling for you? I don't at all agree with your opinion, but I don't have a problem with you personally (other than your insulting the good people here) and still think I have it in me to change your mind. :-)

 

[Darth Fader]

(c) “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis:
...
(iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.

Very good, you've proven my point. NOWHERE HERE does it define "space" as an entire house NOR state that you will have your children taken away as a penalty.

NOWHERE does it state that minors will go to prison.

THANK YOU for helping to clarify this.

And if it gets no better/worse under 19, then why support it?

Read carefully. Her IMAGINED penalties are no better/worse.

Completely unnecessary. Let's keep it civil.

IMO it IS completely necessary at this point. I am sick and tired of all the accusations that people for Prop 19 haven't read it, when clearly I am not the one making up crap out of the ether. Pot, Kettle, black.

You're halfway correct about this. 19 doesn't make it a crime for minors to have pot--but it DOES make it a crime to furnish minors with pot and it makes it a crime for minors to grow their own. Under 215, as long as you had a rec, even if you were a minor, all of the above is fair game.

Wrong. There's nothing "half-correct about it. My statement was/is 100% correct - There is NO language that imposes mandatory jail time on minors. PERIOD. To insinuate so is a gross misrepresentation. I'm going to insist at this point that all you "no on Prop 19" people actually read Prop 19 instead of just (hypocritically) telling everyone else to.

Please note, I'm not the one making shit up. You'd be well advised to take your criticism to those lacking honesty and integrity. You can argue any side you want - I don't care, but if you're dishonest, then I'm calling you out.

 

[Darth Fader]

NORML. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION of RICH MARIJUANA LAWYERS.

That's all we need to know about you, mr. TinfoilHat.

Darth Fader must be one of Richard Lee's fluffers.

That's called "projection" boy, google it. P.S. u r a douchebag.

(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish,
administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment
in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.
(c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to
furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years
of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be
fined up to $1,000 for each offense.
(d) In addition to the penalties above, any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to perform
any act pursuant to Section 11301, who while so licensed, permitted or authorized, negligently
furnishes, administers, gives or sells, or offers to furnish, administer, give or sell, any marijuana to any
person younger than 21 years of age shall not be permitted to own, operate, be employed by, assist or
enter any licensed premises authorized under Section 11301 for a period of one year.

So you learned how to copy/paste. That's great, very nice. Maybe you can work on the reading comprehension bit now. Again, show me where it says you're kids will be taken away or where minors will go to prison.

 

[hbstoner]

Is it just me or are these prop 19 haters starting to sound like shows on fox news? Tons of statements meant to fear people without any actual fact behind them.. calling people that are voting yes "Richard Lee's fluffers". Repeating the same shit, "read the bill" over and over like they are the only ones that have read it. Have fun voting no, cause right now its looking like its going to pass. :rasta2:

edit, also.. anyone bashing norml clearly dosent know a thing about their past. They have been sticking up for assholes like you since before you were born, and theres a pretty good chance you would not be smoking medical pot in california today without them.